Quote from: alrelax on June 06, 2022, 12:07:31 AM
So many live for these types of shoes, then when they do appear just about the entire table is in real-life denial and wagering for the opposite side to match or just a continuous wagering for the so called, cut.  By the way, the last three natural bankers in the second run back to back, were all natural 9s over players natural 8s.  Which fueled the furious wagering on players. 

[attachimg=1]

Yep, but how many times such shoes are going to happen?

At every HS in the world this shoe means a very huge dent at casinos' pockets.

And we know that HS players are very welcome at every premise.

So I would infer that such shoes are not so likely to happen.

as.

They do not happen 'all the time'.  Correct.

But they do happen.  Same as with a series of 13-17 continuous chops, or a series of 8-12 doubles, etc.  Or a section with players or bankers where there are 5-7 winning hands of say player, then a chop or two or three and 7 or so more players.  Then a few chops or doubles then the same thing with bankers as what came out with the players.  Whereas you only lose your last wager after making 5-8 winning bets.  In the groove with following a strong section or a strong shoe.   

It does happen. 

And by the way, when I say 'strong' that means what you see in the bankers streak above, or a good section of chop chops, doubles or triples.  Also a good solid section with 1s-2s-3s-3s-2s-1s, etc.  Weak is a couple chops, a 3 iar, a chop, a double or two and a mini steak of say 6.  Meaning whatever you are following does not appear or appears once or twice out of 6 or 7 wagers.

People will argue, but you can't win with a weak shoe, unless you are wagering blindly a very small amount of hands, as well as wagering large on those trivial amount of bets. 

Ok Al, that's a different story.

So a 'weak shoe' is anything that do not belong at any point of it to a strong or moderate polarized side, right?

When we do have reasons to think that a shoe will be 'weak' or 'strong'?

as.     

To myself and the others I regularly play with, a weak section/shoe is a combination of hands that cannot be followed. 

A strong section/shoe I are hands that can be followed.

The total amount of each type of hands, do not have to result in streak type of incidents. 

Section by section you can clearly see if it is weak or strong. 

Hi All,

I responded in reply577:

I agree 100%. The main issue is we never know how many(3iar+) in that specific shoe, though we do know as each 3iar+ presents there is now one-less 3iar+ in the shoe. IOW the finiteness of Bac does present us with a limiting-type profile on most patterns. Just my thoughts/opinion.


ABG responded in reply 580:


Good points.
I'll give you the strategy of a couple of bac pros I know, maybe it could help:

They selectively bet that a double or a given series of doubles won't make or will do make a 3+ streak and vice versa for 3+s streaks.
Naturally they give more emphasis when the searched outcome will be a Banker wager.
And they bet huge. Really huge.

Either a double or a 3+ streak will make a cluster or not, but if everything would follow a kind of 'sky's the limit' clustering effect baccarat wouldn't exist at all.

It's like we're taking the casinos' part: we hope 'following patterns' players  sooner or later will be wrong and as players we do bet that in selected circumstances the 'wrong' works in our favor.

Hi ABG--Thx for your responses and addendum ideas. IMO Your bac pro comrades likely win more $ than they lose by "selectively bet that a double or a given series of doubles won't make or will do make a 3+ streak and vice versa for 3+s streaks.[/b]".

My thoughts:
Likely lucrative for them especially if they  select other simultaneous criteria to enhance their position, which Im confident they do. For example, in their case where they are wagering for current outcomes will change, I would think observing the beginning of said pattern near the end of a section (so their keyhole wager is entered when that section is also ending, could prove beneficial vs lets say at the very beginning of the first section.

I would also prefer low ties vs many ties, & even more important if Ties show up at the very exact keyhole spot.  Personally I find ties weaken my confidence when they show at that keyhole wager spot/decision spot. E.G., (BBPPBB T) or even more when we see (BBPPBB T T T) , then I would likely just think: abort abort abort , and wait for another perceived hotspot.

Personally,  in the example with  your bac pro friends,  I would prefer a two-layer wagering regime vs a single wager and would do some type of simple negpro (e.g., 1.0 U, if lost then 2.75U,...so wager  $100 the event won't continue & if lost then immediately wager $275 on the very next decision won't continue,...etc.). STOP, and accept the result,  so IOW don't chase it.

I don't seek out keyhole spots as u mention above though i do see the merits of pursuing a very select few spots(not necessarily just this spot).

I like to refer to these type of cluster groups (i.e., 2s & 3s as u mention above or whatever this shoe is showing as a cluster group), as shelves --meaning we look at board and there is a shelf and all we see is a shelf with everything turning at or near the same level.
I do frequently try to snipe a single win  as part of a pos progression(though wagering the right-now current event will continue so if cutting wager for cutting/ if continuing wager for continuance. Which in this case meaning this cluster-group will turn at 2 or 3 one more time, so in my case I would want to snipe one out of the middle and not wait for it to approach expiration).

I like these "shelves" even more if both sides are reaching this shelf and turning as well as other same-length events are turning too. Its really tempting to think I can grab several, though experience has shown I do better to snipe one win, set my wager aside,  and wait for a fresh shelf for this or other cluster group, and then re enter that pressed-up wager.



Continued Success To ALL,

Thanks Al and KFB!
I appreciated your replies.

Ties: As many times already written here, shoes particularly rich of ties do favor just one possible (not recommended) action. That is betting ties.
There's a mathematical answer about that: ties are well more likely to show up when 6 cards are utilized to form a hand and six cards could only enhance the volatility of outcomes.

Two-layer wagering regime: excellent point.
Test how many times in a row a 0.75 (or so) probability will be wrong along any shoe dealt. Of course and for reasons abundantly traced in my section the most emphasis must be put on the very first bet out of two.

Instruct shoes to get singled (not clustered) streaks of certain lenght (two different adjacent class streaks not getting a cluster of any lenght) for long and you'll see that it's very difficult to lose, especially if you have waited to fictionally miss one or two 2-wager steps.

Long streaks are more likely coming out from a poor shuffling, yet at the same time HS rooms particularly fear long streaks as they tend to let players winning many hands without guessing a fkng nothing.

There's no a precise streaks pattern to be followed, it all depends about the actual texture of the shoe.
Obviosuly 2-3 and 3-4 streaks are the more likely to be traced, naturally do not forget about the average 3+ streaks number happening along every shoe.

If this average 3+ streaks number is 9.5 per shoe, you may safely assume you'll cross more shoes getting stronger deviated sd values at the deficit side than at the surplus side.
Hence, for example, it's way more probable to get a shoe showing up to four or five 3+ streaks (-5.5 and -4.5) than a shoe forming the same symmetrical fourteen or fifteen  3+ streaks counterpart (+4.5 and +5.5).

Thus just a 2-3 streaks plan is going to get a valuable edge over the house, itlr. Of course strongly favoring the doubles appearance than 3s (being good anyway) or 3+s 'enemies.

To face such plan, house can only hope to get many 'singled' streaks situations in a row taken from a double-level shelf (I like KFB word) and the probability to not get such clustered spots is very low.

Moreover, acute buddies know that a math two-card situation can be sometimes disappointed, so 'unnaturally' prolonging a given streak or series of streaks. So it's like they kind of putting brakes on their plan.

Then, but this is a direct corollary of what sayed above, unlikely very long streaks tend to destroy this plan either by lack of proper room to get lower streaks appearance and by other reasons I won't discuss here.

as. 

Run whatever number of shoes you wish (providing they are coming from a live source), you'll see that 2-3 clustered streaks (for example) are moving around more likely cutoff spots getting a very low variance. Especially if 'unfavourable' streaks are formed by unnatural two-card result situations.

It's like this fkng random walk could get the 'sky's the limit' approach without sweating that your QQ or AK all-in will win at a so called 'coin flip' challenges taken at either side.

But there's a strong interest to let people think that poker is an intelligent game whereas baccarat is just for stu.pi.d gamblers. Maybe by selling poker books instructing you how to get an Ace or a King when going all-in with A-K or avoiding those cards when going all-in with Q-Q.

Actually you'll make at least a 10-fold more money to play this approach than joining poker tournaments even as 'top notch' player.

Next week we'll meekly see how to get the best of it by exploiting card distributions, after all 'sky's the limit' world just belongs to poker players where only winnings are magnified without any mention of the actual losses (buy-ins).
Thinking in the same way we all bac players would be millionaire winners.

as.

[quote author=AsymBacGuy link=topic=10695.msg70202#msg70202 date=1654653375


Thinking in the same way we all bac players would be millionaire winners.

as.



You care to know why there will never be countless millionaire winners at baccarat?

Because, the majority and I mean the highest of the highest majority, wager/play too long when they do win and fail to wager sizable amounts, giving back all or most of their winnings and eventually their buy ins.  And, when they lose they continue with the fiercest vengeance to continue buying in until their entire bankroll is depleted.

Both scenarios are redundantly committed, time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time. 

Hi all,

ABG in his reply above:
"...Hence, for example, it's way more probable to get a shoe showing up to four or five 3+ streaks (-5.5 and -4.5) than a shoe forming the same symmetrical fourteen or fifteen  3+ streaks counterpart (+4.5 and +5.5)...."

     that's a good example and perfect way to illustrate the limiting profile of Bac for this and other similar-length patterns.

*Of course as we all will agree most shoes could still have that one long same-bet  or same-pattern repeating streak and many players will latch on to that in their minds eye and let that /only that dominate their decision making(especially if in front of shoe and a same-side streak).

Side Bar:
I find it interesting when a long same-side streak presents in the first couple of columns and all of a sudden other players from nearby shoes come running over salivating for that streak "just one more time" . Though if the same length streak of say tres presents: pppbbbppp, not as much hoopla.  If the same-side streak is really long such as 10-11 in a row even other players from other games will often come by, gawk, and point,  and make statements like: "I would have made about $400K" or "I would own the casino IF i had been here",...etc. Oh well, at least they are optimistic.


Continued Success,

Quote from: KungFuBac on June 08, 2022, 05:30:54 PM
Hi all,

ABG in his reply above:
"...Hence, for example, it's way more probable to get a shoe showing up to four or five 3+ streaks (-5.5 and -4.5) than a shoe forming the same symmetrical fourteen or fifteen  3+ streaks counterpart (+4.5 and +5.5)...."

     that's a good example and perfect way to illustrate the limiting profile of Bac for this and other similar-length patterns.

*Of course as we all will agree most shoes could still have that one long same-bet  or same-pattern repeating streak and many players will latch on to that in their minds eye and let that /only that dominate their decision making(especially if in front of shoe and a same-side streak).

Side Bar:
I find it interesting when a long same-side streak presents in the first couple of columns and all of a sudden other players from nearby shoes come running over salivating for that streak "just one more time" . Though if the same length streak of say tres presents: pppbbbppp, not as much hoopla.  If the same-side streak is really long such as 10-11 in a row even other players from other games will often come by, gawk, and point,  and make statements like: "I would have made about $400K" or "I would own the casino IF i had been here",...etc. Oh well, at least they are optimistic.


Continued Success,

Can just as easy profit very large with a strong 'chop chop' or doubles or triples and so on.  A streak of anything, does not have to be a banker or player run. 

i]A streak of anything, does not have to be a banker or player run. [/i]

This is one of the best quote ever made regarding baccarat.

Streak= any event happening back to back (at various lenghts)

No streak= any event NOT happening back to back (at various lenghts)

Strategy #1.
Betting to get streaks of something, probability to win at least once at every shoe is 100%.

Strategy #2
Betting to get NO streaks of something, probability to win at least once is <100%.

Obviously the words 'at least once' will take a way different impact whether the number of bets per shoe are 72 or 10, for example.

Say we want to consider 'doubles' gaps, that is events not belonging to 'double' category within the 1 gap and >1 gap (so consecutive doubles are not included in this classification as belonging to the 0 class).
Even if the number of doubles in the actual shoe is quite huge, we can't refrain the shoe to produce >1 gaps and at the same time back to back precise 1 gap cannot get values greatly deviating from an average number.

So and proportionally considering their greater probability to happen than 3+s streaks, itlr double/no double/double patterns (1-gap) are coming out by a slight lesser probability than 3+/no 3+/3+ patterns.
For an obvious reason as they are more likely to show up clustered (0-gapped) than interspersed by just one 'no double' event.

Another reason why it's quite difficult to spot a shoe not showing up at least one 3+/x/3+ pattern is because cards are strongly asymmetrically placed (and for general asymmetrical game features) thus endorsing at least a transitory 6/1 B/P or P/B ratio or a 6/2 B/P or P/B ratio happening along any shoe dealt.

No need to employ fkng virtual edge sorting techniques, any shoe dealt in the universe will make more probable to get at some point at least one 1-gap 3+ streak (any 3+ streak followed by a no 3+ streak then followed by another 3+ streak).
Some variance will act (some rare shoes won't show any pattern as this) so virtually waiting to get many 'losing' spots will only raise your EV.

On the other end, selectively betting towards not getting certain doubles gaps is one of the best way to bringing down the house as we're just comparing general probabilities to actual asymmetrical card distributions.

Doubles and 3+ streaks flows are just an example, Al names such 'streak' opportunities as playable 'sections' or unplayable 'sections', the important thing to realize is they do come out on the vast majority of shoes and of course they do stop at some point.

as.

Hi KFB!
You wrote:
I find it interesting when a long same-side streak presents in the first couple of columns and all of a sudden other players from nearby shoes come running over salivating for that streak "just one more time" . Though if the same length streak of say tres presents: pppbbbppp, not as much hoopla.  If the same-side streak is really long such as 10-11 in a row even other players from other games will often come by, gawk, and point,  and make statements like: "I would have made about $400K" or "I would own the casino IF i had been here",...etc. Oh well, at least they are optimistic.


Yep, you're right. 

Any long B or P streak is considered 'post hoc', that is after it happened, so pretending a player would bet it at the start of it or after a couple of hands belonging to that streak.

Rattlesnakesh.i.t.

At baccarat people constantly confiding in long streaks or long homogeneous patterns are going to lose without exception.
Casinos' fortune is that such players constitute the large majority of bac bettors, even though some unlikely shoes will make casinos to lose a lot of money at HS tables.

Nothing wrong to occasionally ride a long streak, after all after 1000 or so resolved hands dealt a 10-streak must happen on average.
The same about a 16 or more 1-2 long pattern not showing a 3 event.

But being optimistic is a lot different thing than being realistic.

as.

Playing the 'short gapped' 3+ predominant streaks

This strategic plan is very powerful, especially when you have reasons to think that shoes are poorly shuffled.
Everything is based upon the verified probability that along the vast majority of shoes, there will be spots where key cards will be somewhat 'concentrated' to get a predominance of one side within a limited amount of hands.
Actually almost every bac player will be enticed to bet this propensity, yet there are some caveats to add.

There are just two 'triggers to follow:

a) BBB...PBB then betting B or PPP...BPP then betting P  (one time) and

b) BBB...PPBB then betting B or PPP...BBPP then betting P (one time)

Comments

1) This plan does get a strong advantage in terms of variance, meaning that it's quite difficult not to cross this situation for long. So a 'virtual losing strategy' along with any kind of progression will get the best of it by a wonderful positive probability.

2) We need that after the first 3+ streak (followed by a single or a double on the opposite side) an immediate 'double' come out, so nearly half of the possible situations won't belong to this plan (that is when a single come out).

3) It's recommended to look for the least amount of wins per shoe, that is 1.

4) This attack constitutes the 'enemy' of a simple single/double plan (betting toward 1s and 2s after a 'singled' 1/2 situation shows up); unfortunately such single/double plan tends to collide with the 'natural' probability that cards are one-sided clumped in some portions of the shoe. IOW (ty KFB) and without the help of additional factors, the 1/2 plan is affected by a greater volatility.

Take care

as.

Hi ABG--good post/thoughts below.
______________________________________

Playing the 'short gapped' 3+ predominant streaks

This strategic plan is very powerful, especially when you have reasons to think that shoes are poorly shuffled.
Everything is based upon the verified probability that along the vast majority of shoes, there will be spots where key cards will be somewhat 'concentrated' to get a predominance of one side within a limited amount of hands.
Actually almost every bac player will be enticed to bet this propensity, yet there are some caveats to add.

There are just two 'triggers to follow:

a) BBB...PBB then betting B or PPP...BPP then betting P  (one time) and

b) BBB...PPBB then betting B or PPP...BBPP then betting P (one time)

Comments

1) This plan does get a strong advantage in terms of variance, meaning that it's quite difficult not to cross this situation for long. So a 'virtual losing strategy' along with any kind of progression will get the best of it by a wonderful positive probability.

Q1: Do you continue your pursuit of a win across shoes? e.g., Lets say our wager in this keyhole spot fails twice in a shoe and we don't get our desired setup again. Do you continue with your negpro into the next shoe(3rd attempt) or do you start your negpro again?

Thx again,

Hi AsymBacGuy

I used your methodology above  yesterday(3 shoes). I will preface the results by saying I did not wait for the setup to fail once & then implement, as I "think" you have suggested  or at least insinuated in this or similar regimes.

I implemented as they presented. Results: Shoe #1: 2/3 winners, shoe #2:  0/1 winners, shoe #3: 1/1 winners.

Shoes #2 and #3 only presented the setup once. I didn't play shoe#3 to the end.

All wagers were on B. 

All of the shoes had established a shelf at mostly toward four iar for same-side streaks as well as Opps. Meaning things of 3 were going to 4 slightly more than not.
I also perceived that type of profile lending itself to this type of keyhole-spot wagering. Meaning the shoe had already displayed a desire to go >=3+ , thus far.
So far so good. 

Now this leads to my follow-up questions I should have asked you a few days ago but simply had not considered the following setup would be encountered. 

Q1: What are your thoughts when we get the desired set up (e.g., BBB PP BBT  )?
When we get that T do you abandon this setup and wait for the next setup down shoe? Do you wager one more try after the T? Would you be more inclined to wager after that  T if the first leg was 4iar vs 3iar, example  >=BBBB?

Q2: Similar example to above and lets say we won on our initial try, the next column continued with a PP, and turned and now the third B column in this 5-column setup has now presented BB? . Do you also wager again for this 3rd B column for B2 to also go B3? Example BBB PP BBB PP BB?    OR   is the 3rd B column NA in this regime?


Thx in advance,