" 2. KLW   I hope Ladbrokes is using a live dealer and not using an RNG........if it's an RNG, I wouldn't even think about playing there. "


Yes 8OR9 , live dealer only.

Cheers.

Without any doubt statistical signicance is the best tool to try to beat BP results.
So we must ask ourselves 'how large should be the testing sample to know if a strategy is really good?"

The larger=the better of course, then we must compute the average betting frequency per shoe and the actual source of outcomes.

Simply put, we have to test until natural strong 'negative' deviations will happen (as heavy positive fluctuations are more expected) in relationship of the number of bets considered and then evaluating their impact on our strategy.

After all if we've chosen to set up our main plan on 'averages', we should be ready to face any strong negative unlikely deviation the course of action will produce along the way. And those unfortunate situations will come out proportionally with the number of shoes tested.
Trivial considerations, I know.

For example, say we have found a method capable to survive after a 4 sigma negative situation (e.g. losing 16 hands in a row or other situations like that).
More or less it's like facing a negative 16 B or P streak that will put a harsh or fatal dent to our bankroll.
At a 50/50 proposition and discounting neutral ties, odds that we'll face this event are 1:65.536.

So, on average, assuming to play nearly 65 resolved hands per shoe, we need 1000 shoes to face this possibility.

At the same token, by betting just 6.5 average hands per shoe we'll need more than 10.000 shoes to get a 4 sigma.

Hence we shouldn't fool ourselves by thinking that a 'diluted' betting plan alone will get better odds unless a proper proportional amount of shoes were tested. (Of course betting by a 10 times less frequency leads to a minor vig impact). 
This trick was (and is) currently used by 'magic system sellers' that (and I'm taking into account the 'fair' part of them) had tested an insignicant amount of shoes when related to the actual betting frequency.
Even worse are the people keep thinking and claiming that simple key trigger mechanical situations happening on average 1 or 2 times per shoe will get 'em a long term profit.
Now they'd need at least a 32.500 or 65.000 shoe sample to verify their claimings.

And we know the importance to ONLY register real phisically shuffled shoes, better whether considered under the more homogeneously factors we can think about.
So it's very very unlikely that a player or a team of players will possede such a large sample, so such claimings will directly go into the toilet.

But now let's say that after a fair amount of tested shoes in relationship of a shoe's average bet frequency, per every strong negative deviation happening (where we can't do anything) we'll get an unproportional amount of strong positive deviations, that is a number higher than 1.
If this number is substantially higher than 1, we might overcome the HE even knowing that our general math expectancy will be negative but our actual probability of success will go beyond the expected values.

And this possible feature must show up unproportionally at each class of favourable or unfavourable streaks lenght.

For example: say that after 1000 hands placed and assuming to bet a 50/50 percentage of BP hands, we've set up a strategy where our profitable winning rate must be at least 50.7%.
Thus we need to win at least 507 hands, so losing hands account as 493.
It's a 1.4% cutoff edge, the minimum value to beat the HE when considering a 50/50 BP percentage average betting frequency.

Now let's dissect such values in terms of patterns.

Step #1

W singles must be lower than W clusters of any lenght;

L singles must be superior than L streaks of any lenght.

Step #2

W doubles must be inferior than superior winning streaks;

L doubles must be superior than superior losing streaks.

Step #3

W 3+ streaks must be superior than triple W streaks;

L triple streaks must be superior than 3+ losing streaks.

And so on.

Each class fights constantly against the opposite counterpart, so itlr a powerful strategy must get every class to outnumber the same opposite class by an ascending line.

It's the average card distribution that beats the house.

as.

Think that any shoe dealt in the universe will be affected by a kind of sure 'asymmetrical' bias as key cards cannot be proportionally distributed along any shoe.

The 'average' card distribution will help us to define what will be the more likely patterns that can't avoid to suffer natural short term negative fluctuations, but surely getting a long term profitability.

For example and neglecting a key flat betting strategy, set your random walk at an X more probable event (unb plan #1, #2 or code). Do not give a fkn fk about short term deviations. Dayly sessions are losers stuff.

Martingale your setted event by a progressive betting up you'll erase any previous deficit.
At any loss you'll stay at the same level, at any win you'll raise your bet.

Since we know that a chopping WL long scenario is less likely to happen than streaky negative or positive situations, a simple progressive plan will get the best of it as we won't raise our wagers unless a W came out and whenever a L shows up we'll stay at the same level.

The power of such strategy is that in any instance three different strategic plans will simultaneously get strong negative deviations on all lines.

And, btw, in any instance you'll get your bankroll crushed as a symmetrical losing world cannot happen for long at any single plan.

More on that tomorrow.

as.   

Streaks as a realiable source of asymmetry

The asymmetrical card distribution feature could be exploited by advancing one step further, that is by considering only the streaks of certain lenght.
More precisely by forming 'classes' of streaks of specific lenght.

We well know that per each class of streak we'll get an equal amount of superior streaks, therefore two classes of streaks will fight against another one by a general 0.75 probability.

Say we want to examine 3,4 and 5+ streaks (from now we name them 5). (Of course there are reasons to choose such categories). 

Shoe example #1.  Streaks are: 5, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3.

3 vs superior streaks = 6/3

4 vs sup streaks= 1/2

Since we won't know when a given class of streaks will outnumber a proportional 'homogeneous' distribution, let's try to consider all possible 3-4-5 combinations.

3-4= LWWWLWWWW

3-5= WWLWWWWWW

4-5= WLWLWLLLL

Naturally to try to spot the 'heterogeneous' streak (and more importantly its average impact over the actual distribution) we can always adopt the unb plan #1 guidelines.

Shoe #2. Streaks are: 3, 3, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 5.

3-4= WWLWWWWLL

3-5= WWWLLWLWW

4-5= LLWWWLWWW

Shoe #3. Streaks are: 4, 3, 5, 3, 5, 4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 5.

3-4= WWLWLWLWWWL

3-5= LWWWWLWWWLW

4-5= WLWLWWWLLWW

Shoe #4. Streaks are: 3, 3, 5, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5.

3-4= WWLWWWWWL

3-5= WWWLWWLWW

4-5= LLWWLLWLW

Of course and besides of the last part of shoe #1, I have omitted to present shoe examples producing long homogeneous streaks of same lenght as 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 3. And they are quite often to happen.
I've already named them as 'jackpots' for obvious reasons.
Now:

3-4= WWWWWWLWWW

3-5= WWWWWWWWWW

4-5= LLLLLLWLLL


Notice and obviously that there are no tricks involved about WL percentages, in fact:

shoe #1

3-4= +1
3-5= +5
4-5= -15   

shoe #2

3-4= -3
3-5= -3
4-5= -3   

shoe #3

3-4= -5
3-5= -1
4-5= -5   

shoe #4

3-4= +1
3-5= +1
4-5= -11   

Finally the last 'homogeneous' shoe:

3-4= +6
3-5= +10
4-5= -26   

If we were playing with a team formed by three different players each betting its class (3-4), (3-5) and
(4-5), we eventually got a -48 unit loss (plus vig), a loss accumulated only by the 4-5 player.

Do not be led to think that player wagering the longer streaks (4,5) will be destined to lose heavily most of the time as many shoes will present a lot of 4 streaks with few or no 3s and sometimes shoes are particularly rich of long streaks (5).

Again we are jumping back to the same old concept that it's not possible to beat the game by a strict mechanical betting unless we're considering a kind of 'biased' card distribution happening along any shoe dealt negating a perfect random unbeatable world.
And few spots are really worthwhile to be wagered at.

Therefore there will be 'math' probabilities to get B after A and there are statistical and actual probabilities to get B after A as at baccarat no hand is completely independent from the previous one, especially whether we have reasons to think the actual shoe is not perfect randomly shuffled.

Always realizing that such slight propensity will act under insignficant variance values just at very selected spots.

as. 

Convergence in probability

No need to Wikipedia this concept that we can simply summarise into this passage:

"Stochastic convergence" formalizes the idea that a sequence of essentially random or unpredictable events can sometimes be expected to settle into a pattern.


Change the words 'essentially random or unpredictable events' with 'mostly unrandom events and quite predictable events' and 'sometimes' with 'more often than not' and you'll get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

There are no scientifical proofs showing that physically made baccarat successions are really randomly produced as they can't pass both the important 'place selection' and 'probability after events' features confirming the perfect random nature of results.
After all anyone thinking that baccarat produces random sequences infinitely should risk his/her money at other games.

So the vast majority of baccarat successions are made by limited probabilities oriented to produce more likely dynamic outcomes, of course at degrees well surpassing the fkng math negative edge.

But to get a substantial edge over the house we need our different limited random walks to converge into the same betting spot.

There are many ways to consider the factors influencing the actual patterns. A horizontal way of thinking the results (columns) is an answer as long with a kind of opposite vertical registration (rows).
Then the actual asym/sym hands finite ratio is another factor to consider.
Not mentioning how many high-key cards are live into the deck.
Finally, ties are surely another parameter to look for as shoes particularly rich of ties tend to deny 'normal' statistical deviations as any tie happened seems to 'erase' or lower any back to back expected probability.

To set up a long term winning strategy no need to take care of all those factors, maybe you have to do that whether flat betting maximum limits.
Actually a fair edge comes out whenever an isolated/clustered scenario converging into the same spot must take place at some points of most part of the shoes, as an already asymmetrical math proposition will be enforced by the important asymmetrical card distribution. Happening at unrandom shuffled shoes.

as.

I have said this many times........

"deny 'normal' statistical deviations as any tie happened seems to 'erase' or lower any back to back expected probability."

Low ties 0-1-2-3 when there are plenty of hands out, tend to produce nice clumps of whatever.  Meaning, the presentations will basically follow something relatively easy to follow.  Higher amounts of ties say 5-6 and up, tend to produce much harder to follow presentations, etc.

Quote from: alrelax on February 22, 2022, 05:03:43 AM

Low ties 0-1-2-3 when there are plenty of hands out, tend to produce nice clumps of whatever.  Meaning, the presentations will basically follow something relatively easy to follow.  Higher amounts of ties say 5-6 and up, tend to produce much harder to follow presentations, etc.

Nice to hear from you this again, a further confirmation about that.

Shoes particularly rich of ties should fit the 'unplayable' shoes category.
We got even a theory about that.

Ties are more likely to show up when 6 cards are used to form a hand, that is where the most random world will take its place. As no key cards are more probably affecting the results at the start. 

So whenever ties seem to come out by a larger probability than expected, do not bet BP lines and get the fk out of that shoe very soon.

as.

Next week we'll see how some bet selections do not follow a perfect random walk movement, meaning that some BS steps move back and forward around a 0 point in the almost totality of possibilities.
One of the recipes to win itlr.

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy. Thx for your posts.

In reply#529 above you state the following:


"... To set up a long term winning strategy no need to take care of all those factors, maybe you have to do that whether flat betting maximum limits.
Actually a fair edge comes out whenever an isolated/clustered scenario converging into the same spot must take place at some points of most part of the shoes, as an already asymmetrical math proposition will be enforced by the important asymmetrical card distribution. Happening at unrandom shuffled shoes.  ..."

AS--Please clarify or maybe give a specific example for the sentences in bold as I want to make sure Im understanding you 100%.

Thank you,kfb

Hi KFB!

You've anticipated the exact point I would discuss about spotting light movements about a 0 point.

Say you consider two random walks applied at two streaks categories where each category includes a common first step winning class, then both class will diverge about the second step winning spot.
For example, one random walk is formed by 3-4 streaks and the second one is formed by 3-4+ streaks.

General probability dictates that we'll get an equal number of first step winning spot than second step winning spots, now splitted proportionally between those two opposite classes.
Of course to be true the general probability must take into account a kind of independent and random production acting at such precise streaks formation, meaning that everything will be equally probable so getting the normal sd values applied to a binomial independent probability. That is a unbeatable proposition.

We know bac streaks are not following a binomial probability by any means, either for math features (B>P) and for actual card distribution issues (a very slight propensity to get the opposite outcome already happened). An important decisive additional factor (never investigated so far) is that live shoes are not so randomly shuffled thus improving or not a general probability belonging to the former two fetaures.
Vulgarly sayed, math unidirectional propensity to get streaks of certain lenght will go directly into the toilet whether in the actual shoe the remaining two issues tend to overcome it.

In the attempt to try to exploit such features and to prove the dynamical unrandomness of the results, we could build a new random walk contemplating both different streaks 'lines' now studying the relative sd values.

To cut a long story short, the probability to get a common winning pattern happening at both random walks is moving around very low sd values once we'll take into account the xWW succession at one part and the WLW succession on the other one.
So dictating to bet toward the same outcome, that is toward a first step result.

Say streaks >2 at a given shoe show (a Aria, LV real shoe), btw it's a strong polarized shoe, not a 'easy winning shoe', as:

4, 10, 3, 6, 4, 4, 4, 5.

3-4 class will get W, L, W, L, W, W, W, L.
3-5 class will get L, W, W, W, L, L,  L, W.

Under the clustered/isolated betting spots converging into the same results (3), we'll get only the third step winning situation (W-W), yet we'll manage to bet just 4 times to get a xLW or WW pattern on both lines.
So we've lost 3 times winning just one time, anyway the actual 3:superior streaks ratio was a unusually 7:1.
Eventually we've lost two units (plus vig when applicable).

Say a kind of specular opposite situation came out as (Bellagio, LV real shoe) as:

3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 3, 5, 3, 6, 4, 3

3,4: W, W, W, W, L, W, W, L, W, L, W, W
3,5: W, W, L, W, W, W, W, W, W, W, L, W.

Now we'll bet three spots (2nd, 9th, and 12th), all being winning spots.
The 3:superior streaks ratio now is a more likely 7:5 proposition, not balancing the previous 7:1 deficit.

Anyway and discounting vig, our random walk lost 2 units on that former very unlikely scenario and won 3 units on the latter yet proportionally unbalanced scenario as compared to the first one.

Cumulatively our new random walk found just 7 spots to bet at both shoes, eventually we have won 4 times and lost 3 times.
Notice that one shoe (first one) got a substantial abnormal deviation about the streaks appearance. More often than not, the 'first step' streak apparition will get its fair share of probability but do not confide too much about that as shi.t may easily happen for long.
Nonetheless this strategy will get you a sure fkng indeniable edge over the house, no matter how math 'experts' of my behind keep stating, after all they are managed to think about 'infinite' values where a random world will be in action and not about actual fkng real results.

as.

Multiplications of events

As early as 1926, the gambling expert Henry Chateau anticipated the important concept that no matter how we'd register the results and providing a random source of outcomes, any sub succession derived from the original one will get the same properties. He raised this issue in order to get more betting opportunities without waiting particular 'trigger' apparitions.

A similar concept was fully investigated years later by the eminent RVM math professor who posed the best basis ever of how to consider randomness.

Therefore, we could build infinite sub successions from the original one and nothing will change.
If the source of results will be random, the relative sd values will follow the common stats laws at every sub succession.

So we can write down on our paper only the odd/even results into two different lines, or just the outcomes by a 2 or 3 pace, or splitting the results into columns of 3, 4, 5 or even comparing a pre-ordered random registration to the actual outcomes.
If the source is random and any hand is independent from the previous one/s, the limiting values of relative frequencies will provide the same unbeatable situations.

At baccarat this perfect 'randomness' of the results seems not to work for reasons well known after having read these pages.

Taking for grant that symmetry is unbeatable and knowing for sure that asymmetry works for the most part of bac outcomes as cards cannot be equally distributed at each side, it remains to estimate the average probability that results will follow asymmetrical lines for some time and symmetrical lines for the other part.

Naturally asymmetrical lines follow both math features (B>P at 8.6% of the results) and actual card distribution features.
The first math factor is limited by its appearance as situations when B shows a 4 or a 5 (maximum asym math strenght) while P side is drawing are finite along any shoe dealt. Not mentioning that on asym hands B side will lose an average of 42.07% of the times no matter what.

On the other end, symmetrical hands are not so 'symmetrically' placed as many might think.
Long term data show us that independently of the side considered, a 'shifting' cutoff point (or points)  is/are constantly working making some results slight more likely than others.

Yet the important thing to take care of is that to be really profitable our method should pass every sub succession we wish to consider, meaning that a supposedly independent distribution will be more probable at every single sub succession whatever built.
This is one strong proof that results are not so randomly or independently distributed as a possible 'bias' is spread at different degrees along any shoe dealt.
Sometimes such bias is too weak to be exploited,  most of the times it will.

Again it's the 'clustering' feature that will help us to define the possible profitable situations.

as. 

......."distributed as a possible 'bias' is spread at different degrees along any shoe dealt.
Sometimes such bias is too weak to be exploited,  most of the times it will."

That is what you said in the above post. And that is so correct, it is so simple, the same as the alphabet starting with ABC and ending with XYZ.

And when the bias is strong, so many players get in the 'I can't believe it frame of mind' they sit there and wait it out or they wager heavily for the 'cut' that is another 8 or 10 or 15 hands away.   

The story goes on...

Thx Al!

After all 'biases' are just the sub product of card distributions that surely will produce innumerable combinations, but if patterns are examined into precise classes they form a way more restricted (detectable) world. Especially if multiple random walks converge into the same betting spots.
Not everytime but most of the times.

The main problem most part of bac players keep thinking is that such biases 'should' come out around every corner of the shoe.

Obviously we should remember that a 'bias' definition, at least by the terms discussed here, is just an event or multiple events getting a losing counterpart to be more silent than possible.
In other terms, that results will be more asymmetrical than symmetrical, of course in relationship of the proportional general probability to happen.

So imo there are two basic but opposite approaches to win.

a) betting large at very rare situations getting the least amount of variance (different random walks converging into the same betting line by very low sd values);

b) progressively positive wagering a relatively low amount hoping that sooner or later a single random walk 'bias' will get a fair amount of consecutive winnings, until we're satisfied of the actual shoe winnings or that the shoe is exhausted.

Imo only very experienced players could consider intermediate approaches, as those raise the casinos' expectation for the remaining part of bac bettors.

Our personal comments.

Approach (a) needs a vigorous patience for the rarity of betting opportunities, mainly as we need rare unlikely situations to show up at the start or intermediate portions of the shoe.
Naturally it's the best way to get the best of it. Not mentioning that a light negative progressive plan will accelerate the winning process.

Approach (b) needs a strong confidence about the probability that a single random walk will get its fair share of heavy 'biases', providing a finite number of betting spots (say >1 and up to 20, knowing what I'm referring to).
Moreover, more often than not such approach will put the player in behind for a quite long time.
A heafty pro of this approach is that now it's the casino fearing our large bets hoping that a stopping pattern will come out and not the opposite.

Of course there's a statistical answer about all this, we'll see it in a couple of days.

as. 

If we'd distribute real live baccarat outcomes into a x-axis and y-axis graphic we know that one side will asymmetrically diverge from the opposite one than a normal bell curve and this happens by the obvious asymmetrical probability as B>P.
So our curve will be more 'vertically' pronounced at B side than at P side.

This thing becomes more interesting when we consider BP sub successions as the common derived roads, for example.
Now red and blue spots examined per every d.r. line doesn't necessarily follow a pure asymmetrical probability as blue=red.

At the same token and for good peace of mathematicians, some bet selections are not equal and we might get a better idea about that by collecting real live shoes samples into a curve, thus showing (or not) that some variance values are unequally distributed along a large sample of shoes dealt.

If our bet selection neglects the math asymmetry, so unwisely assuming that B=P or confirming that red spots=blue spots, we infer that the actual card features will make a slight greater role about the total outcomes, at least in terms of variance.

We have already pointed out the importance to select 'random walks' roaming at most around a 0 point.

In probability theory and statistics we may find a possible answer to this into the 'kurtosis' concept.

Basically kurtosis investigates about the maximum frequency point of a statistical distribution. 
There are three different types of kurtosis curves:

a) Leptokurtic curve

Elements of the distribution are closely concentrated around the mean, variance is minimal.

b) Mesokurtic curve

Elements are spread around the mean in similar but not necessarily in the same way than Gaussian curve.

c) Platykurtic curve

It's a frequency curve showing a kind of flat shape; dispersion values diverging from the mean are quite high.

Obviously when playing baccarat we should be interested to apply a bet selection following just one curve as we know that here and only here the vast majority of results (whether a proper bet selection is applied) will be placed around the most frequent situations that unproportionally neglect general math values.
If some situations seem to deviate too much from the expected profitable line (and there are some cutoff points), we simply accept this and go forward on next sections of the actual shoe or waiting for next fresh shoes.

So if you'd think to get a long term profitable strategy, register your results into a graphic and whether your results will follow a kind of leptokurtic curve, you'll know to be up on something.
Providing to classify a quite large sample of real shoes, best if considered under the most homogeneous circumstances.

as. 

After having tested a large amount of live shoes, we have reached the conclusion that betting certain spots will provide a huge EV+, of course within the back-to-back probability terms that cannot happen constantly along any shoe dealt.

Say A= winning spot and B = losing spot and a, b and c will be 'equally' probable outcomes.

Most of the times A=B, yet in certain spots A (a+b) > B (c) or A (a+c) > B (b) by unproportional values erasing and inverting the HE.

In an independent and infinite model, we can't guess when A>B but at baccarat we could.

Especially whether we're considering different shapes of limited random walks belonging to the same back-to-back category.
That's because limited random walks don't fit the real randomness requisites by any means.

Deeper will be our bet selection higher will be our EV.

as.