Hi KFB!

I think that at gambling games more imperfect informations a player will get higher will be the probability to lose.
At baccarat everything seems to be so "volatile" that players' efforts to look for predictable results are worthless. Imo, this is not the case.

Baccarat results move around two distinct fields of probability:

- the math probability to get B advantaged over the P side;

- the average card distribution probability eliciting patterns of some lenght. That's the main factor we should be interested to assess.

Itlr, the vast majority of patterns could be restricted into precise lenght situations up to the point that we can consider B=P.
After all, an 8-deck shoe will present, on average, just one more B hand than P hand. Thus enlarging a possible B streak at one spot or shifting the P sequences at one spot.

Obviously CSMs deny a sequential probability of some kind and even though we can assess the BP distribution by multiple derived roads, the lack of dependence factor will invalidate the power of the average card distribution issue.

For that matter, many high end casinos know very well the baccarat vulnerability, they'll simply hope that players like to get huge winnings within too short intervals or liking to wager the insourmountable negative edge apllied to side bets.

[b]Simple back to back outcomes and complex back to back outcomes

It's the key to win itlr.

An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win.

The clustering effect will form situations of different lenght, anyway we are interested about back to back W or L spots.
We know there's a general probability to get singles and doubles, the probability to get losses in such sequences is specularly placed as we shouldn't consider as B and P as opposite results.
Anyway, all streaks surpassing the 3 cutoff point are going to our favor as they'll produce opposite situations from a A/B point of view.

as.

Thx AsymBacGuy--good thread/ post.

Your sentence:
"... An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win.  ..."

Can you clarify the phrase in bold? or give an example. thx



Continued Success,

Quote from: KungFuBac on June 23, 2021, 06:09:07 AM
Thx AsymBacGuy--good thread/ post.

Your sentence:
"... An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win.  ..."

Can you clarify the phrase in bold? or give an example. thx



Continued Success,

"For that matter, many high end casinos know very well the baccarat vulnerability, they'll simply hope that players like to get huge winnings within too short intervals or liking to wager the insourmountable negative edge apllied to side bets.

Simple back to back outcomes and complex back to back outcomes"



My Response:

I've tried to detail it out and show pictures of it and mark up scoring boards repetitively. What I entitled and discussed; SECTIONS WITHIN SECTIONS. Small sections can be extremely profitable however, it will play with our minds and we (generally) attempt/try to keep following and not cash out or go back to a neutral position, which we MUST do to be extremely profitable.

It all boils down to, our frame-of-mind.

ALRELAX

Thx Alrelax--good points.






Continued Success,

Besides other topics, Alrelax is deadly right about the importance of ties affecting the BP distribution or, generally speaking, our plan.

Recently I've crossed a really weird live shoe (a manually shuffled fresh shoe):

first card is a 5, thus five cards were burnt. First hand is Player, second hand is Banker

1)  3-6  K-9  TIE

2)  3-T (3) Q-6  TIE

3) 8-T   K-8   TIE

4) 5-2   4-J (3)  TIE

5) A-9 (9)  K-Q (9)  TIE

6) 4-5   Q-9   TIE

7) 2-2 (6)   4-K (6) TIE  That's amazing....a complicated way to get the seventh tie in a row when a simple third zero value card could have made the job.

2-A (2)  8-7   TIE

9) T-2 (  4-3  Banker wins, end of the ties streak.

In summary this shoe presented 8 ties in a row at the very start of it; just two over eight tie hands employed six cards (the more likely situation to get a tie); at hand #7 people at the table went crazy.

Ties are one of the worst betting opportunity at baccarat, yet jackpots happen.
And in reality few people have made serious money at this shoe.

In my tests I've run hundreds of thousands of pc simulated shoes and this thing never happened at the very start of the shoe, just a couple of times 8+ ties came out but in different positions. And of course my live shoe data consider a significant smaller percentage of shoes.

I mean that if sh.it happens, well, jackpots must happen, especially at a game where we have reasons to think that each 'spin' cannot be perfectly independent from the previous one.

Math goes right down the toilet whenever each distribution isn't perfect randomly shaped.
That is nearly 100% of the times.

as.   

Quote from: KungFuBac on June 23, 2021, 06:09:07 AM
Thx AsymBacGuy--good thread/ post.

Your sentence:
"... An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win.  ..."

Can you clarify the phrase in bold? or give an example. thx

Continued Success,

Hi KFB!

Say our method is tested on 70.000 live bac shoes.

The probability to be ahead by randomly selecting just one or more BP betting spots per shoe is very close to zero, even if we are acting after knowing the exact BP distributions happening at this 70k shoes data.
Ok, maybe 12+ P streaks are going to get a B hand more often than not (vig considered) but the ROI still remains negative. Not mentioning that the hands observed/EV ratio will be constantly shifted toward the left side. No matter how deep we'll start the betting.

I mean no general rare BP triggers coming up along the way are valuable itlr as the actual shoe card distribution will make a decisive role about it.
Shoe per shoe.

Variance

When we transform a 'random' BP succession into multiple AB unrandom sequences, the variance will be way more restricted than expected. For good peace of mathematicians.

It happens that BP successions are way more affected by volatility than AB sequences, as B or P are going to get a place just by the simple nature ot the actual outcome, whereas an AB model must take into account a back to back probability made on multiple situations before getting a place.

I mean that itlr it's way more likely to get multiple detectable AB situations than simple BP successions as the former category cannot give a damn about the asymmetrical outcomes nature acting just one time over an average number of 11.62 attempts. Sd values will help us.

Summarazing.

- all shoes dealt are affected by a sure asymmetrical card distribution acting by some values;

- the fact that B>P should be considered as an irrelevant factor as AB streaks are way more detectable than BP streaks.

- the probability to get a given AB pattern is at least 1.5 times higher than the BP probability to get the same pattern, providing to get rid of the unplayable shoes.

as.

And summarizing in layman's terms/actual brick and mortar casino players results, the drawdown will kill most players buy-ins and/or bankrolls before their opportunities are presented for those 'spots' you so technically define in the above post.

Please do not take it the wrong way, I'm not criticizing your writing and your comments, I'm just making an observation to stress the drawdown, the patience required, the frame of mind and everything else that is mandatory in trying to catch all of this, which I've learned over the years.

However as I talked about and write about there are opportunities and entrance points that I repeatedly remind everybody of, called SECTIONS WITHIN SECTIONS and the key to really profiting and preserving your bankroll and minimizing risk with your buy ins, is being extremely conscious and remaining neutral in your frame-of--mind when you are playing. Not easy to do, not at all.

Thx for replies AsymBacGuy and Alrelax.




continued success,

Hi AsymBacGuy

Thx for replies/comments.

"...
the fact that B>P should be considered as an irrelevant factor as AB streaks are way more detectable than BP streaks.

- the probability to get a given AB pattern is at least 1.5 times higher than the BP probability to get the same pattern, .."


Can u give an example as I am not following your logic in the statement above. Is there an example for how this could actually be applied in real time within a shoe. Thx in advance for clarification,kfb

Quote from: alrelax on June 28, 2021, 01:55:08 AM

Please do not take it the wrong way, I'm not criticizing your writing and your comments, I'm just making an observation to stress the drawdown, the patience required, the frame of mind and everything else that is mandatory in trying to catch all of this, which I've learned over the years.

I do not, Al and I never did.
I take your observations very seriously, after all what you say it's very effective at the tables.

I just want to reiterate the idea that baccarat can get the player a sure indeniable edge by a strict scientifical point of view.

To beat baccarat nobody is totally wrong or totally right, thus we better put different ideas together (imo).

as.

Hi KFB!

The BP model is biased at the start for two different reasons.

1- B is more likely than P just on rare occasions, I mean it's not steadily more probable than P as the overall B/P probability is assessed on the very long term, many times mixing up different sources of data and/or considering pc simulated shoes.

2- any live bac shoe dealt in the universe is affected by a kind of non randomness.

#1: I've provided here and for the first time publicly (for free) the math values why and by which degree B>P.

#2: math values work only at real random propositions, yet we can assume that such randomness doesn't affect most part of live shoes dealt.
But we need more advanced tools to ascertain a possible non randomness, namely getting rid of simple B/P successions.

Several years ago Ed Thorp devised a card counting scheme assigning a value to Banker's positive cards and Player's positive cards.
After a cutoff point was reached (needing many many hands to show up on average), Thorp demonstrated that a side was more likely than the other one and, surprise, only the Player's side got a small positive edge over the house (0.33% or so). Banker side remained negative no matter what.

More recent studies (always apllied to pc simulations) have shown the in very rare occasions some shoe distributions could get the Banker the 51.3% cutoff probability capable to erase and invert the negative HE. Unfortunately being so much restricted that it's considered as worthless.

Everybody here knows that a card counting technique cannot be a viable option to overcome the negative BP edge.
But at least we may conclude that baccarat is not made by independent successions and that even though B>P, one study showed that the only profitable situation to be ahead of the game is by waiting a strong deficit of Player positive cards.

Another eminent gambling expert, James Grosjean, stated that "the game is symmetric so that are no cards that massively favor one bet or the other".

Actually and knowing the average asymmetrical key cards impact acting at every live shoe dealt we should transform the above statement into "the game is so symmetrical that asymmetrical spots will tend to get more probable cutoff values than expected".
And of course B/P values tend to be way less predictable than A/B models.

B/P classifications must consider a BP distribution acting at every hand dealt without any previous consideration, yet A/B models could start the registration after precise situations had arised (or not).

I mean that the more hands we must classify to get a A/B result, higher will be the probability to get A after B or B after A.

Consider this shoe sequence:

PPPPP
BB
P
BBBBB
P
B
BB
PPP
BBB
PPPP
...
as a

A
B
A
B
AA
BBB
A
B
A
BBB
A
BB
A
BB
A
B
A
B
A
B
succession.

We transformed the BP sequence into a AB succession by a  simple mechanical way.

Are we more favored to detect the AB sequence than the BP original sequence?

What about very long term situations?

as. 

Hint: streaks of any lenght are going to our favor no matter what and for that matter most part of chopping situations or short patterns will go to our favor too.
It's a strict math based evaluation plan challenging sym spots vs asym spots.

as. 

Thx AsymBacGuy

I appreciate the explanations/example.

I like your #two sentence:

"...#2: math values work only at real random propositions, yet we can assume that such randomness doesn't affect most part of live shoes dealt. ..."


Continued Success,

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on July 04, 2021, 11:07:01 PM
Hint: streaks of any lenght are going to our favor no matter what and for that matter most part of chopping situations or short patterns will go to our favor too.
It's a strict math based evaluation plan challenging sym spots vs asym spots.

as.

Certain things will happen and will not happen, no matter what. 

If its being presented, wager on it.  If not, don't  wager on it. 

There is a huge difference in what I am saying versus trying to change the presentments. 

Alrelax

Quote from: alrelax on July 06, 2021, 02:18:26 PM
Certain things will happen and will not happen, no matter what. 

If its being presented, wager on it.  If not, don't  wager on it. 

There is a huge difference in what I am saying versus trying to change the presentments. 

Alrelax

Sure, but everything comes out by a degree of probability.

If every member here will bet toward the 3+ BP streaks probability on the next shoe dealt at Wynn casino right now, he knows he/she'll get an average 8.6 number of 3+ BP streaks probability.
This value is extracted not by considering Wynn shoes shuffled in precise circumstances, but by considering well shuffled shoes.
Of course there are additional features to take into account, the number of cards cut off from the play or the coincidental very long streak appearance, for example.

I guess that the probability that a player will get zero-1-2-3 or 13 or more 3+ BP streaks on that shoe is insignificantly low.
Up to the point that we can assign to those probabilites an almost zero value.

Of course I'll be in better shape to predict how many 3+ streaks will come out on average after a given shoe sample was registered.

Anyway let's suppose casinos want to voluntarily restrict or enlarge whimsically this value in order to confuse players' plans.
That's a worthless move.

As long as BP results are transformed into AB outcomes, the hands predictability remains ridiculously high.

as.