Hi Al, sorry I had to cancel my last post, too detailed for my colleagues taste....

I report the last part of it.


Baccarat players lose by a 5% degree for HE and the remaining 95% comes from bad betting attitude (playing too many hands, bad bet selection, improper fluctuations assessment, etc).

Betting toward a more likely scenario is a good idea when actual things seem to be restricted within 'more likely' ranges. Otherwise it's a very bad mistake as unlikely events tend to come out either clustered or very diluted.

Good plans work in the long run, therefore they can't be successful at every situation encountered.

The fact that it's very very difficult to win 3 or 4 shoes in a row means that things change in way or another, otherwise casinos would be out of business.

as.

Sorry again, hope you'll post your shoes very soon, thanks!

as

Hi AsymBacGuy

Im finding this thread informative /helpful.


ASB:

"...More generally speaking, any single baccarat shoe will present one or more 'jackpots' spots at various degrees, meaning that univocal patterns are going to show up for 'long' or at least one more time than the opposite situation.
So we must split a shoe into 'confusing' sections mixed by a fkng easy detectable world.  ..."

     This whole paragraph is worded very well.  I really like the following:
any single baccarat shoe will present one or more 'jackpots' spots at various degrees, meaning that univocal patterns are going to show up for 'long' or at least one more time than the opposite situation.
     
     I especially like  that thought  if the "jackpot event" and the likelihood that it (JE) presents one more time--

Im also of the opinion if the JE  presented for  the first time in the earlier stages (or early part of that particular subsection of the shoe),  versus latter stages , then the propensity to reappear is slightly greater.
Just an opinion as i haven't verified that across millions of shoes or sims. Although it seems we often see that previously observed formation or pattern beginning to show again and it simply runs out of time(or the shoe finishes with alot of ties,...etc.).


Continued Success To All,

Thanks KFB, again you've made good opinions.

About 'jackpots' (JE)

Differently to other games, baccarat presents an infinite variety of 'JE' where the 'starting event' of each class can come out or not, yet it's impossibile not to have at least a 'back to back' same result; sometimes an event will grow up to the 'jackpot' (all results are belonging to the same class or classes), other times a given event will be followed by a counter event several times, but even here we got a kind of 'hopping jackpot'.

Even though this seems an 'exoteric' way to consider things, everything derives by long samples considered by our old statistical tools that at baccarat work particularly well.

In fact jackpots can come out mainly when cards are so badly shuffled that 'incidental' events must come out in our favor despite of their unlikelihood.
No one math advantaged situation can last for long and for the entire lenght of the shoe, so even though we were to know which two initial cards are higher, we'll be destined to lose some hands.

Therefore and generally speaking, lesser is the number of hands wagered, higher will be the probability to profitably catch that 'bias' without the interference of variance.

More on that later

as. 

We may safely consider the 'baccarat problem' into the average probability to get two-card higher initial points as this is, by far, the main math feature affecting the final results.

How many fkng times two-card higher initial points are presenting clustered or isolated?
Surely not following a mere 50/50 independent proposition, this being typical of roulette outcomes or every other independent proposition.

Unfortunately, most bac players think baccarat as a game of outcomes and not about situations.

In addition, most of the times  long profitable spots cannot come out clustered for long, unless those 'incidental' spots that are supposed to break a flow tend to prolong a trend.

Say that three hands went 'normally' at B side, meaning that math propensity acting at those 2-card initial points went as expected (for simplicity we consider both sym and asym hands).
Now the fourth hand was as:

B (3-2)
P (7-J)

Banker draws and wins by catching a 3.

Is this hand forecasting a possible long Banker streak?

No way.

The 'flow' was interrupted by a more likely math advantaged hand, thus we should interpret this hand as a kind of new 0-point 'trigger' even though it seemed to prolong a given univocal pattern.

Now you should ask about those 'long' B or P streaks happening along the way.

Most of the times such streaks are coming out by breaking math features (or following or not them at asym hands) as the probability to get long sequences of two-card higher points at the same side is really low.
The same about getting many asym hands coming out in a row or shortly sequenced.

Since singles and doubles are the more likely occurences at baccarat, it's like that 'streaky' rich shoes are neglecting a math propensity acting at various degrees.

That's why I strongly recommend to stop the pattern classification within 1s, 2s and 3s classes.

Test your shoes and register how many two-card higher initial points will happen at the same side and how is the 'incidental' strenght acting along any shoe.
Independently of the actual results.

as.

Thx AsymBacGuy

Can you please clarify this last sentence in BOLD:

"...In addition, most of the times  long profitable spots cannot come out clustered for long, unless those 'incidental' spots that are supposed to break a flow tend to prolong a trend.

Say that three hands went 'normally' at B side, meaning that math propensity acting at those 2-card initial points went as expected (for simplicity we consider both sym and asym hands).
Now the fourth hand was as:

B (3-2)
P (7-J)

Banker draws and wins by catching a 3.

Is this hand forecasting a possible long Banker streak?

No way.

The 'flow' was interrupted by a more likely math advantaged hand, thus we should interpret this hand as a kind of new 0-point 'trigger' even though it seemed to prolong a given univocal pattern...."


Thx in advance,

Hi KFB!

Bac results are mainly made by 50/50 math situations, the third card is just an 'interference' that will follow the same math expectations.
It's the third card that makes things confused or math shifted toward one side (for the rules).

If baccarat would be a mere higher 'two-initial' point proposition, the game wouldn't exist as too easily beatable.

Therefore there are two different levels to consider outcomes: one is the higher two-card point distribution and the other one is the actual results (distribution).
Of course we do not win nothing while betting the math advantaged 2-card side when the final result is opposite, nevertheless some math disadvantaged hands will come out at our favor but by a way lesser degree of appearance (not only itlr but even at short-intermediate runs).
So our plan must rely upon those math advantaged situations to succeed, at the same time giving a 'dynamic' value about those rarer spots disregarding math.
   

Cards can be shuffled by infinite ways, yet there are more likely statistical distributions happening along the way as each card has a different impact over the outcomes.
Hence 2-card initial points are following a more likely distribution made of some steps and cutoff points, naturally not happening at every shoe dealt.

Example.

Consider long streaks (say higher than 5) happening at either side.
Most of the times such streaks are neglecting a math advantage/disadvantage or acting within very restricted limits about their potential winning probability.
Think about one side getting a 6 or a 7 and the other one showing a natural and so on.
Or whenever a PPPP sequence will be prolonged (or formed) by an asymmetrical hand favoring B that went wrong so producing a PPPPP pattern.

At B side, natural 2-card math advantaged spots will mix (or not) with a finite number of asymmetrical hands favoring the same Banker side, whenever the math edge goes right we'll get a long B streak.

But in both cases such scenarios must be considered as 'erasing' spots of the natural math 2-card propensity to get this or that.

That is that 1,2,3,4... levels of statistical propensity to get 2-card higher initial points must be assessed by disregarding actual results.

I'll give you more examples later

as.

Forget math issues, I'll try to simplify our strategical thoughts.

In our opinion easiest plan to put in action is by taking into account BR and byb roads as they are 'mutually exclusive' at 'finite' degrees, meaning that no matter how things are developing, the vast majority of the times they'll reach detectable values.

For example, a sequence as

BB
P
BB
P
BBBB
PP
B
P
B
PPP...

provides two patterns of four 1-2 sequences and at byb road the situation looks as:

bbbbb
rr
b
r
bb
rr
b
r...

A six 1-2 straight sequence.

This sequence is going to get a statistical advantage no matter when we'll decide to wager.

Now let's take a more intricated sequence as

BBB
PPPPPPP
B
PP
BB
P
BB
P
B
P
BB
P...

at byb road the sequence looks as

rr
b
rrr
bbbb
rr
bbbb
rr
bb...

Now we have a nine 1-2 straight sequence at BR and a two 1-2 sequence at byb.
In another way of considering results, first registration is affected by a very low degree of 'shifting' strenght (few 3s, many singles and doubles) and the byb presents just one single and all streaks of some lenght.

We know that an average card distribution tend to get opposite BR and BYB patterns unless long consecutive BP streaks come out and for sure itlr such streaks are affected by a mathematical and/or statistical 'bias'.

Take this very unlikely shoe's portion (yet it's a real shoe dealt at Encore casino, LV):

BBBBB
PPPP
BBBBBBBBBBBBB
PPP
BBBB
PP
BBB
PPPPPPP
BB
PPPPP
B

No one 1-2 patterns happened, just 10 consecutive streaks.

Byb looks as

rrr
b
rrr
b
rrrrrrrr
b
rr
b
rr
bb
r
b
r
bb
rr
b
rrr
b
r
b
r
b
rr
b...

From a 1-2 pattern point of view we got 1,1,11, 6,... situations. So in a way or another a kind of 'steady' situation to be exploited happened.

Now let's take a BR sequence not getting many 1-2 sequences:

BBBBBB
P
BBBB
P
BBB
P
BB
PPP
B
PPPP
BBB
P
BB...

At BR 1-2 sequences got 1,1,2,1,(-1) appearance (six 3+ streaks in twelve columns, not a likely scenario to happen)

Byb got:

bb
rr
bbb
r
bbbb
r
bbbb
rr
b
rr
bbb...

Now the 1-2 probability is 2,1,1,3.

Now let's compare the BR 1,1,2,1 (-1) sequence with the Byb 2,1, 1, 3 sequence.

Are there many BR patterns following for long the same positional Byb patterns when taking into account the simple 1-2 (single-double) plan?

Even in the worst scenarios they simply can't. And the main problem is about avoiding colliding events.

Consider this shoe's portion (just two singles and eight streaks):

BBB
P
BBBBBB
PP
BBBB
P
BB
PPPPP
BB
PPPPPPP

that is a 1,1,2  (single-double) pattern.

At byb road we'll get:

1, 6, 8.

If the game is random and hand by hand independently placed, 1s at BR (or vice versa) should be followed by 1s at BYB by a 25% probability (as superior than 1s spots take the remaining 75% part), but it's not the case.

More simply speaking, most of the times when 1-2 patterns tend to be silent for long at either BR or BYB roads, the other sequence will get plenty of valuable positive sequences up to the point that we can't be interested about the precise spot to wager at.

After all, it's very very very unlikely to get many contemporary positional 1s at both BR and BYB, we need to manually arrange cards in order to get that.

Even if 1s tend to unlikely take the same position at both roads, well 3+ streaks are not coming around so often and when they are they tend to show up clustered thus giving more room to 1-2 patterns.

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy and thx for your prompt reply. I will respond back in a couple days as I will need to review your last couple essays. I "think" I understand what you are saying, though Im not 100% clear on the application process in real time.

For example in the following paragraph (in part):

"...At B side, natural 2-card math advantaged spots will mix (or not) with a finite number of asymmetrical hands favoring the same Banker side, whenever the math edge goes right we'll get a long B streak.

But in both cases such scenarios must be considered as 'erasing' spots of the natural math 2-card propensity to get this or that.

That is that 1,2,3,4... levels of statistical propensity to get 2-card higher initial points must be assessed by disregarding actual results. ..."[/b]

     I will review some of your posts just prior to this one  before I ask questions as u may have already elaborated on this ,
Thx kfb

Hi KFB!!

Say we have a method that on average dictates to bet 15 times per shoe (playable shoe)
Even adopting a multilayered progression we need a substantial amount of winning situations and those cannot come out other than by crossing more two-card math advantaged situations than third card 'miracles'.
When it happens that our wins derive too much from such 'miracle' spots, we know that in the near future we'll pay dearly this 'privilege'.

Obviously a 'random' betting will get a balanced number of third card winning or losing spots disregarding the math advantaged side.
But a solid approach must get a slight superior number of math advantaged hands to succeed as it's way more likely to win starting as favorite than underdog.

Cards speaking we could summarise things in such way:

-When our method dictates to bet Player we just hope to get a 'standing' point (naturals and 7s and 6s), then a drawing hand with a superior two-card value than Banker, then a drawing hand crossing a 0, 1 or 2 Banker point (no asymmetrical hand). An exception of the asym B edge comes when P shows a 5 and B a 4.
Everything different from that is a long term losing proposition more often than not.

-When we bet Banker we need first a natural, then an asymmetrical hand, then a standing point. Everything different from that is a long term losing proposition more often than not (vig counts, sigh)

Since our plan must be adopted within range of hands and not single hands, we might add to our strategy a 'hand quality' feature.

This help us to stop or prolong a given patterns attack happening at a given shoe.

But more importantly is to understand that making a living at this game means to bet very few hands, accepting the temporary negative fluctuations without the urge to bet anything different than what we had devised.
Always knowing that unlikely stuff tends to come out clustered, especially if we got a sign after the first-intermediate portions of the shoe (as you correctly sayed KFB, imo).


After making some observations by following HS players bets, it's quite curious (yet confirming our theory) to have seen that WL result movements of each player rarely took a 'hopping' fashion: W and L streaks of any kind are more prevalent than WLW or LWL sequences.

So e.g. after placing four straight bets, each player seemed to have got a lesser amount of 2/16 occurences (WLWL and LWLW) than expected.
Probably this fact is due as 99.9% of HS players prefer to adopt a 'trend following' strategy that it's less probable to produce 'hopping' situations than polarized spots at either way.

I know at least a couple of serious players trying to get advantage of such 'math unsound' feature.
No need to follow other players though (even if a large players pool will amplify this possible effect): try to follow patterns in the way you want and register how many times you'll get W or L streaks and WL hopping situations.

After all if you realize that by following trends you'll get a fair amount of WLW or LWL fair long spots, you'll start to increase your second bet after a loss.
It's like that the human mind 'road' loves to avoid 'alternative' spots for long.

as.   

Next weekend we'll see how to get the best of it by exploiting card distribution flaws.

as.

Think more deeply about the 'WL probability' even by accounting the slight asymmetrical BP probability.

In the long run, math values teach us that there's no way to spot possible favourable outcomes as an EV- game remains an EV- proposition, so producing a cumulutive long term loss for the player.

So in order to possibly find a long term winning plan we're forced to dispute that each betting spot is EV-, and not by trying to bypass the EV- issue by adopting a betting progression that 'seems' to overcome it in short-intermediate runs.

Practically speaking, we must work toward a possibile betting scheme capable to lower the expected sd values (our wacthdog of variance).

In a sense, we shouldn't work about finding a constant winning betting scheme, just about a given plan that makes slower than expected movements around a 0 point.
It's now that a given progression (or a fictional registration making more likely movements to happen) will get its full power.

To ascertain this, we must consider the correlation between back to back outcomes assessed by several degrees of quantity and quality.

For example B/P successions are made of the 'simplest' form of situations: either one side wins or loses.
Derived roads are made by a 'quantity' superior degree of distribution: either one side wins or loses by a mechanical preordered scheme of different paces distribution.

A 'quality' distribution may be evaluated by assessing how many times an asymmmetrical hand comes out   (consecutively or not), how many times a third card helps the Player side or the Banker side, and so on.

It's like that we are trying to approximate the actual distribution with the 'general math laws' distribution by considering how many times and how long the actual shoe is following or disregarding math values.

Since the job will be quite difficult to precisely carry out in practice, we just take care of BP and derived patterns shape.

We ought to remember that a given A or B pattern will be more or less prevalent not only about its general probability to happen, but about the actual distribution/general probability ratio dynamic assessment.

To make a vulgar example, say a A political candidate was univocally favored to win by a 65% vs 35% edge over the B second one, but after 80% of the votes B was ahead of something.
Now would you make a bet that even the remanining 20% of the votes would privilege B candidate?
Or, better sayed, do you think there are better ways to consider such 20% remaining part of votes (for example in term of clustered and isolated spots)?

Say we are running the above example 100 times at different worldwide locations, that is 100 favorite A candidates were 65% favorite to win over their opposite B candidates.
In this instance we're sure that at least half of the A candidates will win, again we should take care of the final results per every candidate after 80% of the votes. Are there spots to know if a A or B bet will be more likely to win?

Anybody could argue that political polls (assigning a 0.65/0.35 A/B probability) might easiliy be more wrong than math baccarat values, yet there are no ways to state that a 100 baccarat sample gets a greater or same degree of 'randomness' happening at the political polls, unless we've measured that future results are constantly independent at various levels of previous results.

Since this doesn't seem to be the case, we can conclude that results are somewhat sensitive about previous outcomes, the reason being about an actual card distribution making some patterns more likely than others at certain steps and after some situations happened.

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy--again , appreciate your willingness to elaborate as you do.

"...Since this doesn't seem to be the case, we can conclude that results are somewhat sensitive about previous outcomes, the reason being about an actual card distribution making some patterns more likely than others at certain steps and after some situations happened.."


Can you give us a couple examples of certain outcomes you most commonly track/ and the implications for wagering later in the shoe. So would you now be more inclined to look for (another of the same) event just observed or in some cases maybe (NOT another of the same)  event just observed???


Another Example: e.g., A somewhat similar topic/example you touched on in an essay a few days ago regarding consecutive same side winners by first-two-cards.  So in this question & for illustrative purposes lets say P just won three consec decisions and for this exercise lets say they won with  two-card Naturals /their totals presented as:

Player received (2-6=8, 3-5=8, 4-4=8) .
Disregarding what B received as all we know is B had totals <8 on its respective hands.

     Would you interpret the results  as P will likely be receiving fewer Naturals going forward because there are now (N-3) Naturals remaining in the shoe.
(OR)
Would you think wow Player must have the hot hand so I shall bet only P in the near future??? Other interpretations?
How would you apply the above info so that it would increase your probability of guessing with a greater accuracy in the remainder of shoe??

Thx in advance,kfb

Hi KFB!!

Can you give us a couple examples of certain outcomes you most commonly track/ and the implications for wagering later in the shoe. So would you now be more inclined to look for (another of the same) event just observed or in some cases maybe (NOT another of the same)  event just observed???


You can take as example my ub plan #1, so we are always betting toward the same patterns. What counts is the frequency of our actual wagers and, more importantly, their distribution shoe per shoe.
Hence if we wish to apply a flat betting scheme we must restrict at most our field of operations, looking for back to back positive outcomes surpassing the 1 cutoff (that is 1->2). In this instance we do not care about possible 2->3 or 3->4, etc superior situations, thus the losng spot is whenever 1->0 comes out.
Naturally and besides the trigger happening, in order to find possible profitable spots we make a lot of fictional betting, a thing denied by mathematicians.

Conversely, a kind of 'sky's the limit' approach must progressively bet more hands, but the spotting profitability 'concepts' remain the same, albeit being now more frequent.
That's the 'jackpots' occurence I was talking about in my previous posts.

For that matter, it's very likely that those rare pros are adopting an intermediate strategy, that is looking for rare triggers happening (or not) at one shoe, then adjusting future bets by a 'light' progression, name it a sort of 'enforced flat betting'.


Player received (2-6=8, 3-5=8, 4-4=8) .
Disregarding what B received as all we know is B had totals <8 on its respective hands.

     Would you interpret the results  as P will likely be receiving fewer Naturals going forward because there are now (N-3) Naturals remaining in the shoe.
(OR)
Would you think wow Player must have the hot hand so I shall bet only P in the near future??? Other interpretations?
How would you apply the above info so that it would increase your probability of guessing with a greater accuracy in the remainder of shoe??


It depends about the actual patterns distribution I'm interested at.

Naturals have a great degree of appearance (34.2%) amongst all hands and 8s and 9s play a slight greater role than naturals formed by other two card combinations (134/118 at one deck).
In your example there are two conflicting situations: from one side P seems to be 'hot' and on the other end many low cards (favoring Player) came out.

Anyway P got a 3 streak, so we shouldn't be really interested about future immediate hands P related and definitely our main job is to find out the situations when something will either stop or prolong regardless of the transitory B or P predominance.
Always considering the simplest feature of close to coin flip distributions: within two attempts half of the times we'll broke even, in the remaining part we'll either lose or win.

as.

The average shoe card asymmetrical distribution

Even though card combinations are innumerable, more often than not and itlr back to back results will form more likely patterns of certain lenght.
Anyway this feature will mainly happen whenever cards are real randomly shuffled; without the doubt of being contradicted, a series of perfect random shuffled single shoes will present sure detectable spots to be exploited.
Unfortunately real baccarat shoes are made of 6 or 8 decks and, more importantly, they are not perfect randomly shuffled.

Try to tell casinos to deal baccarat with one deck shoes and they'll respond you 'no way', even if you're wagering thousands per hand.
We've tried this knowing the obvious negative answer.

Curiously math negative values working at single deck shoes or multiple deck shoes are more or less the same, yet casinos haven't offered once baccarat single deck shoes (or double deck shoes for that matter).

The main reason why baccarat is not offered by single deck shoes is not about their vulnerability (math remains the same) but about the side bets issue where casinos make huge sums of money, at the same time now being quite worried about a possible card counting scheme.

Now about the random or unrandom shuffle.

It's way more likely to randomly shuffle one deck than multiple decks, so with multiple decks in use it'll be  more difficult to get an 'average' impact of key cards.
On the other end, unrandom shuffles will make some portions of the shoe more likely to produce univocal patterns by a superior average lenght.
Meaning that differently to one deck shoes, multiple deck shoes are more affected by a kind of stronger propensity to get this or that within different portions of the shoe.
In some way we could deduce that at multiple shoes and more often than not we are strongly favorite to get this or that for long. See for reference what I've talked about hopping WL sequences.

A possible bringing down the house strategy

Since by any means shoes are surely asymmetrically placed by different issues, Ws and Ls are more likely placed by a polarized 'streaky' movement than by a 'hopping' WL distribution happening for long.
Notice that this is true no matter what the actual strategy is utilized, of course we've devised a strict mechanical placement to get the best of this feature.
That's particularly true whenever we compare mulitple random walks extracted by the same sequence, having each a cutoff point where things must change.

For example, let's consider thsi shoe's portion:

B
P
B
P
B
P
B
PPP
B
P
B
P
B
P
BBBB
P...

Betting toward B or P streaks will get a great amount of 'hopping situations', nonethless let's see what happens at derived roads:

byb:

rrrrrr
b
r
bb
rrrrr
b
rr
b

sr:

rrrrr
b
r
bb
rrrrr
b
rr
b

cr:

rrrr
b
r
b
rrrrrr
b
rr
b

At BR streaks got a 6 and 5 gaps, at byb streak gaps were 2, 1; at sr streak gaps were 2, 1; at cr streak gaps were 3,1.

Even in this pretty 'hopping' BP scenario we got five streak gaps superior than 1 and three streak gaps of 1.
More importantly, notice what happened about all derived roads gaps, promptly followed by short 'non streak' sequences.

as.

Now let's consider a totally fkng undetectable shoe's portion as:

BB
P
BBB
P
B
PP
B
P
BBBBB
PPPP
B...

Here BR streak gaps got a 1, 2, 2 gaps.

At byb:

bb
r
bb
r
bbb
r
b
rrr
b
rrr
b


at sr:

b
r
bbb
r
bb
rrr
bb
rr
b

at cr:

b
rr
b
rrr
b
rr
bb
rr
b

Byb streak gaps: 1, 1, 1

sr streak gaps: 2, 1

cr streak gaps: 1, 1, 1

See if you could devise a more likely pattern....

as.