The three d.r.'s extracted from the above shoe look as:

bye: 1,3,2,1,3,1,1,1,(2)

sr: 1,1,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1

cr: 3,2,1,1,3

In term of gaps:

BYe
1s/anything else: 2, 1, 0, 0,

2s vs 3s: (1)..

3s vs 2s: 1

sr

1s/anything else: 0,2,0,0,2,0,0

2s vs 3s: 0,0,0

3s vs 2s: n.a.

cr

1s vs anything else: 0, (1)

2s vs 3s: (1)

3s vs 2s: 1

Regardless of how we are dissecting the results, some situations are more  'uniformly' distributed than expected even by assuming a perfect random distribution that by no fk means exists in the real world.

Sunday we'll see this last topic.

as.

 "Regardless of how we are dissecting the results, some situations are more  'uniformly' distributed than expected even by assuming a perfect random distribution that by no fk means exists in the real world.".

Of course and what most all players tend to forget or ignore.

Believe the two following things for great advantage.

Exists in SECTIONS.

And, might not.

Hi AsymBacGuy

Thx for answering my question from (reply #399) above.






Continued Success To All,

In the gambling world, it's quite funny to see that poker or black jack are considered 'skill games' and baccarat a game for 'stup.id' people.

Poker is a game of imperfect informations by nature, featuring an astounding level of variance.
And such variance could last for long up to the point that many top poker players went broke along their career.
Of course best poker players are definitely ahead itlr but not by a degree most people think of. As serious money can be won (or lost) by challenging people getting fair skills at the start.
And every win will be decurted by the rake or by the tournament entry fee.

Black jack is a math advantaged game for the counting player, yet EV+ situations are showing up by very low frequencies (12-15% on average) and the edge is so relatively small that staying on the negative side for weeks or months won't be a unlikely circumstance.
Not mentioning that whenever we raise our bet, we could get some heat from casinos, even if we're raising our $20 standard bet to $60. Maybe by coincidence as we're not counting a fkng sh.it. LOL.

Baccarat is a completely different world.

Recently math gurus (of my behind) keep stating that every B/P bet will be EV- as Thorp or other gambling experts had not found evidences that one hand should be more likely than the counterpart besides some very low and insignficant math features.

Summarizing their findings, one side shouldn't be more probable than the other one by values capable to erase/invert the HE unless some very rare strong rank card distributions happen, giving a fkng sh.it about the real randomness of the sample and of course not giving the proper role about other statistical issues.

Actually we know that:

- most shoes aren't randomly shuffled;

- most of the times the non randomness will elicit the formation of more likely results;

- there's a dependency between back to back outcomes, privileging a clustering effect as key cards cannot be distributed proportionally along any shoe unless voluntarily placed.
That is most of the outcomes considered by different random walks are sensitive to what happened in the same shoe, getting limiting values of relative frequency more restricted than what a pure random world dictates.

At baccarat we should pretend to get a coin flip proposition but in reality it is not.
Especially if we're not compelled to bet every outcome.

as. 

AsymBacGuy--

I like how you worded this.

My difficulty is how to apply this "clustering and limiting affect" most efficiently, that is, during its earliest occurrence and not ex post facto .


"...- there's a dependency between back to back outcomes, privileging a clustering effect as key cards cannot be distributed proportionally along any shoe unless voluntarily placed.
That is most of the outcomes considered by different random walks are sensitive to what happened in the same shoe, getting limiting values of relative frequency more restricted than what a pure random world dictates. ..."


Continued Success,

Hi KFB!

I strongly think that at baccarat we shouldn't bet toward precise outcomes but toward 'propensities' of different nature happening at each shoe dealt.

At the start we know 416 cards of 10 different ranks are shuffled in order to produce math situations favoring one side or the other one by different degrees and dynamic yet card dependent frequency.

To state that along one shoe a given card concentration or dilution (no matter how strong is) will help one side is a total mere and worthless bighornsh.it.

Instead we should assume that along every shoe a natural key card concentration/dilution will help to form certain more likely patterns of different nature at some portions of it that most of the times aren't corresponding to a specific dominating side.
A feature hugely strengthened by a non random shuffle that at baccarat it's normal.

In one way or another and when considering different random walks taken at different spots, the actual card distribution will make more probable some events than the opposites as we're continuously changing the triggers by quantity and quality.
Up to the point that when adopting a super selected betting strategy some shoes are unplayable.


Spotting and taking advantage of 'propensities'

Even considering the four main roads displayed on the screen, a given BP succession will form different and apparent colliding situations:

Say the actual first part of the shoe reads as (btw the second to last shoe we've played yesterday)

B
PPP
BB
P
BBB
PP
B
P
BB
PPPPPPP
B
P
B
PP
B
PPP
B

a fkng undetectable big road shoe.

byb:

b
r
bbb
r
b
r
bb
r
bb
r
b
rrrr
bb
rr
bbbb
r
b

sr:

bbb
r
bbbbbbbbb
rrrrr
bbb
r
bb
rr
bb

cr:

rrrrrrr
b
rr
b
rrrrr
b
r
bbbb
r
b
r
b

Even though this shoe's portion could be interpreted as a partial 'good' shoe when considering sr and at some extent the cr (and a quite horrible big road besides the P 7-streak), this BP succession provides powerful insights at all four roads.

No need to stop the betting after getting a given win (or loss), if things are properly accounted the probability to be more wrong than right is close to zero.

What I try to say is that this shoe part was a classical example of strong 'propensity' not giving a damn about the math negative edge or easy 'trend following' strategy as there was not anything to follow besides the third b streak at sr and maybe the very first r streak happening at cr.
Big road P 7-streak coudln't be source of many winnings in a row for obvious reasons.

as.

Propensities are the natural way of arranging things

Anytime a 6 or 8-deck shoe is shuffled and ready to be played, we know for sure that rank cards are not proportionally distributed.
Some portions of the actual shoe will be poor or rich of key cards, cards that most of the times affect the results.
Since results can be registered by infinite ways (different paces of registrations by quantity and quality), we know that there's no a univocal line to be formed, just a math propensity to produce this or that.

Math can be disregarded several times per shoe (think how many times your standing 7 will lose to a natural or a fkng 3-card opposite point), yet what is mathematically more likely remains more likely to produce a given winning result.

What stays in the middle (the most part of outcomes) constitutes the player's hell and casino's heaven.

In some way we could assume that each shoe will surely present at least a couple of moderate/strong card propensities, naturally not deriving from real results but from key card distributions, hence math favored situations.

Naturally we players may easily confuse real results with math propensities as too much 'result oriented'.

Let's make some examples.

Per every shoe played the probability NOT to get at least one 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2 (single-single, single-double, double-single or double-double) pattern at the big road and common derived roads is ZERO.
For that matter the probability NOT to get at least a back to back 3+ spot at all big road and derived roads considered at the same shoe is NOT ZERO.

The reason is not about the general 0.75 average probability those patterns will show up, just because long 3+ streaks will consume a lot of space along with not resolved hands (ties) both cutting off at various degrees the single-double probability.

And we know the average number of 3+ streaks happening at every shoe dealt, thus estimating how many times and how long the opposite 1-2 patterns will come out.

It's like that the 'random world' we must face is way more predictable than expected.

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy

Thx/ many good points in above post.

re:
"...Propensities are the natural way of arranging things

Anytime a 6 or 8-deck shoe is shuffled and ready to be played, we know for sure that rank cards are not proportionally distributed.
Some portions of the actual shoe will be poor or rich of key cards, cards that most of the times affect the results..."


     Q1. What is your preferred method for tracking events on your scorecard. E.G., Do you track every card, just key cards such as 789, only side outcome total by hand,...etc, none of the above, other?



Thx/continued success,

Hi KFB!

From a general point of view, best predictable patterns come out with chopping lines and streaks of moderate/huge lenght, naturally both are coming out more probably when key cards are strongly balanced between two sides for long or hugely unbalanced at one side.
The remanining world, albeit being the most part, belongs to the 'confusing' field of more whimsical outcomes that might stop or prolong those basic patterns.

It's like that a shoe is composed by undetectable sections (that is whenever key cards are diluted) and more detectable portions where key cards are clustered in some way, that is forming the above more predictable lines.

No need to track key cards precisely, an experienced player get an idea when 'neutral' and key cards are more likely to show up, in addition as he/she takes care about HOW previous hands went.
Notice that naturals (and standing points) are constituing a way large part of total outcomes.

Hands produced by 6 cards are the highest form of 'randomness', then hands formed by 5 cards and finally formed by 4 cards (standing points at either side and naturals on one or two sides)

So, imo, besides the total key cards ratio happening at given points of the shoe, the number of key cards falling at 6 cards and 5 cards hands is another helping tool.

If we'd dissect numerous long 'chopping lines' of a given shoe, we'll see that most of the times key cards are quite balanced on either side, in some way telling us that they're quite concentrated.

The same about long streaks: strong key card falling at the same side, maybe asym hands that went right for B side during a B streak, or conversely at P side, asym hands that went wrong so prolonging a P streak.

What seems to be undetectable actually it isn't. At least not by the degree casinos collect their profits.

Patterns are a good way to think of things, better if we assign to them a 'card feature' even whether approximated.

Finally, there's always the old scientifically proved 'very slight propensity' to get the opposite result already happened. A natural reflex of key cards that cannot disappear from the shoe.

More on that later

as.

At baccarat propensities are around any corner, up to the point that we think it's virtually impossible to be losers at this game for long.

Due to its finiteness and asymmetrical rank card distribution (along with other features several times considered here) any single shoe is a world apart.

You already know that my unb plan #1 will rarely cross 3 or more losing spots in a row, after all the probability to win is 0.75% per every two bets placed.

To show how weird is this game compared to expected probabilities, let's consider now another betting plan.

This time we take care of columns' outcomes (horizontal registration) registered in term of 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s.

For example a shoe succession as:

BB
P
BBB
PPPP
B
P
BB
PP
B
PPP
B

becomes a 2,1,3,4,1,1,2,2,1,3 sequence

Next we'll build two opposite A and B chances getting different one-level and/or two-level winning results:

A chance wins whenever a single or an exact triple will come out (thus winning at 1 and 3 patterns);

B chance wins whenever a double or a 4+ streak will come out (thus winning at 2 and 4+ patterns).

So in the above sequence we'll get a B,A,A,B,A,A,B,B,A,A pattern.

Notice that B chance loses every single situation and will win just whenever a streak different to 3 will come out, A chance will win either after a single shows up or when the streak is limited to 3.

See what happens from a probability point of view:

A chance will win whenever a new column shows a single (0.5 or so probability)
or whenever a triple come out after a first losing bet (0.25 probability)

B chance will win whenever a new column shows a streak, but only doubles or 4+ streaks (0.5 + 0.25 probability) will be accounted as a win.

Therefore at A side long chopping lines (BPBPBP..) will be clustered winners the same as long single series getting many 3s along the way without doubles or 4+s.
On the other end, B side encounters long winning clusters only when doubles come in a row or when 4s come in a row or a mix of the two.

Now test your shoes and try to see if some patterns could be more likely than others in term of 'runs' or, better yet, whether previous patterns are 'forecasting' more often than not the following 'runs' situations.

as.

Thx AsymBacGuy
These last couple essays are two of your finest.

This is an area of my game Im trying to improve. In other words how to recognize a streak(or pattern) earlier so that I don't have to be as concerned about the length of said pattern.(*I think alrelax or gr8, maybe asymbac stated something to this effect years ago in a post).



In my efforts to improve early detection skills I often find myself combining a decision-making tree based on a probability model, combined within a biased-outcome model. All the while trying to also wager on a simple model of just betting on what the shoe is producing right now.  Sometime we may even win the decision yet not know definitively which model (if any) led us to the correct guess(at least for me).

For example, lets say a shoe presents an early string of (B PP B PP B PP). Each player at the table may be guessing right (or wrong), with all guessing in unison or maybe equally divided at 50-50. However, each player may be thinking or deducing or guessing using totally different logic, or maybe just haphazardly guessing .

*It would be interesting if each player at that table had the thoughts bubble circles floating above their heads for all to see.
Maybe we could look into each players head(Like the Mel Gibson movie: What women want where he can hear what women are thinking).


(B PP B PP B PP)

Player #1: "every B is holding at one so every time I see a B I shall bet P once and wait til i see another B"--damn Im smart and likely the worlds greatest bac player"

Player #2: "every PP is holding at two so everytime I see a PP I shall bet B once and wait til I see another PP"--damn Im smart and likely the worlds greatest bac player"

Player #3: "every B is turning and every PP is turning to a single B so I shall bet every hand by wagering B, followed by PP, then bet the same pattern to continue"--damn Im smart and likely the worlds greatest bac player"

Player #4: "I shall always bet opposite of B single, I see a B so I shall P, P, I'm 1-0 and up a unit and there is no way this pattern can continue, color up--damn Im smart and likely the worlds greatest bac player."

Player #5: "this dealer is smoking hot and I think she likes me, and since she is a perfect 10, and since all outcomes are always random I shall wager $10 on the F7,f7, --damn Im smart and likely the worlds greatest bac player." ....
......but I digress



What Im getting at is sometimes I look back on a multi-wager consecutive winning streak and realize much of my winnings came from simply identifying or some how getting on the streak early. Though Im not 100% sure if it was due to solid logic, lucid thinking, discernment, years of experience,  or did I just get lucky and right place at right time.


Continued Success,

Nice post, KFB!! 

as.

Really enjoying your posts AsymBacGuy -- I love your way of breaking down the sequences and applying the AB measurements.

You could also create other ways of measuring pattern appearances such as  C and D where is C is sequence of 1 and 4 or 4+ in length and D are sequences of 2 and 3 in length giving an approximate appearance percentage of 60/40 in favour of C.

We could then wait for an imbalance of say domination of C ( which will be mainly sequences of 1 ) and look to bet for D to correct the imbalance.

Of course as has been said many times anything can and will happen short term but longer term the appropriate balance will happen at some stage.

It's a question of recognising what is happening and being prepared to take advantage of it.

Cheers.

Hi AsymBacGuy -- Just started reading some of your other threads/posts . I came across this :-

" A) Itlr Banker streaks are more prevalent than B singles counterpart but we all know that many shoes will produce many B singles. "

This has surprised me and demonstrated that I have a lot to learn. I expected the distribution of sequences of an even chance game to be something like roulette which is :-

15 Sequences

     Sequence         Appearances

          1                        8
          2                        4
          3                        2
          4/4+                   1

Looking at what you have written above this is not true ?

If this is not true then my percentages in my last post will be off so apologies for that.

Can you correct me please ?

Cheers.

Thanks, I'll address your questions in a couple of days

as.