Hi Kfb!
See you in a couple of days!

as.

Hi KFB!

Stup.id gambling experts think that baccarat is only beatable via edge sorting (a virtual technique) or card counting the side bets.
Bighorn.sh.it.

As long as a finite number of cards is shuffled into a playable shoe and cards are getting a different substantial value over the outcomes, some sure indeniable favourable spots are arising for the acute player.

Back to your questions.

Differently to many other outcomes, the probability mentioned above is well restricted into valuable 'variance' terms.
And more often than not everything is in direct relationship about how good or bad are shuffled the cards.

Say asymbacguy bet toward singles and doubles after a virtual win came out. He will play toward getting any kind of 1/2 clustered event.
He will lose whenever a 3+ streak will come out after any single 1 or 2 event shows up, that is a 3-1-3 or 3-2-3 situation.

Asymbacgirl will bet toward getting the exact opposite situation, that is hoping to get a 3-1-3 or 3-2-3 event at some point.

The difference is that asymbacguy, albeit being entitled to get more winning streaks than losing streaks, must bet two times to be right whereas asymbacgirl can wait to get 'key' spots to wager, that is she'll be 50% wrong or 50% right. 

Notice that consecutive 3+ streaks doesn't hurt either player.

Itlr, there's a probability that asymbacguy will get ALL winnings at a given shoe and a probability that asymbacgirl won't get ANY win.
Notice that both scenarios are mutually exclusive, meaning that whenever asymbacguy will get ALL winnings asymbacgirl won't get any win but at the same time she could get a lower amount of losing hands (as singles coming out after a 3+ streak won't entioce any action for her).

It's like that for once girls are somewhat more likely to win as it's more unlikely to get back-to-back ALL asymbacguy winnings for a couple of shoes dealt than getting two consecutive shoes not forming at least one spot to get asymbacgirl to win and with a way lower effort.

The reason stands about the relative unlikelihood to get a given number of 3+ streaks so much deviating from the average  by a abnormal deficit value than getting short-gapped 3+s streaks making asymbacgirl to win at least once in the most circumstances.
It's like that after a 3+ streak and a single or double appearance, any next double will make more likely to get a 3+ streak than another double. Obviously at percentages way different than what a 50/50 independent proposition dictates.

In practice.

Shoes not producing at least one 3+/1-2/3+ pattern are quite rare to happen, if not think about how many winnings in a row you would accumulate by wagering singles and doubles after either one of those events will show up after a 3+ streak.
And such opportunity cannot stand for long.

So assign a value about the probability to get a 3+/1-2/3+ pattern vs the specular 3+/1-2/2 pattern; most of the times you'll be right just once per shoe, so I would make a progressive plan about this simple opportunity.

Playing constantly toward such opportunities in a back-to-back way along any shoe dealt needs a strong bankroll, anyway the results will be slowly yet invariably shifted at your side, after all it's the same issue Alrelax stressed about here:

- when things seem to go in your favor, do not be shy to ride the positive wave. Sh.it happens in clusters the same way heaven happens in clusters.

Ties interfering with the actual play

It's true that after a tie and more often than not things tend to alter a given flow of the game, yet this attack seems to be quite insensitive to that, so I would recommend to consider a tie just as a 'neutral' event.

Conclusion.

A random walk playing to get a 3+/1-2/3+ streak is not going to get huge negative variance, especially if we'd search just one of this opportunity to happen per shoe.
Baccarat 'rule' is to get many 'unbalanced' outcomes than balanced ones.

It's sufficent to check your shoes and see how many times such opportunity won't happen back-to-back.

as.

Here's the attack made on real live shoes randomly taken:

LLWL
LW
LLWLWW
LWW
WLWL
WW
LW
WWWL
WWWW
L

WWWWL
WW
WLL
WLLWW
WLW
LL
WL
WW
WWW
WLLWL

WLWWL
WW
WLLL
WWLW
W
WW
LLLW
LLWW
WW
LLL

Total W= 55
Total L= 39

A fluke for sure, so test your shoes to disprove such findings.

as.

Another samples

LLW
LLL
WWWWL
LWW
WLL
WWWL
LWWLW
WLLLL
WWW
LL

W= 18 L=18

WLWWLL
WLWLW
WL
WWL
LWL
WLWW
WWWW
WLLW
LW
WLL

W=21 L= 15

LLW
WWL
WLL
WL
W
WLWLL
LLLL
WW
LL
WLLWW

W= 13  L= 17

Thx ABG

"...The difference is that asymbacguy, albeit being entitled to get more winning streaks than losing streaks, must bet two times to be right whereas asymbacgirl can wait to get 'key' spots to wager, that is she'll be 50% wrong or 50% right. ..."


"...Notice that both scenarios are mutually exclusive, meaning that whenever asymbacguy will get ALL winnings asymbacgirl won't get any win but at the same time she could get a lower amount of losing hands (as singles coming out after a 3+ streak won't entioce any action for her)...."

"...It's like that for once girls are somewhat more likely to win as it's more unlikely to get back-to-back ALL asymbacguy winnings for a couple of shoes dealt than getting two consecutive shoes not forming at least one spot to get asymbacgirl to win and with a way lower effort...."
__________________________________________________________________________________

Well stated and I think the concepts in blue are often overlooked as to how important it is to get a win with as little effort(funds) as possible being spent. Obviously it is optimum when we get that W on the first wager(attempt).

IOW, how can we get a Net Win with the greatest efficiency. Meaning : Fewest wagers or the least monies risked.

I really like your examples above/thx.


Cheers,

Ref the first wins, wins with least risks, winning first wagers, etc, etc.

You guys are correct and I know I have written about it extensively. 

Here is a piece I wrote previously:

"What I do see, more in the Midwest than elsewhere on a consistent nature is the 'playing for the cut'.  Never changes.  Last night there was a couple shoes in a row at a $25.00 to $3,000.00 Macau/Midi table.  For Example, strong first half and stronger second half--4 solid runs of both bankers and players.  2 runs of 10 and 12 Bankers and 2 runs of 7 and 8 Players.  Followed by solid 2's and 3's of each between the runs.  A strong shoe, no doubt, no arguing. Put a bunch of the old school players at that same shoe and guaranteed the dealer's chip rack would have been minus all the lavender and orange, all of it.

Lots of money flowing into the table, everyone losing.  Like HunchBacShrimp pointed out, every repeating banker or player, the people are wagering for the 'cut'.  And to boot, which I believe from the past years of play, when the shoe is strong--it is strong, no changing it.  When it is weak, it is weak.  (A weak shoe is the time to wager heavily on the cut, again-IMO and opinions of many old school players)  Sorry the game does not change.  The game is and was always the same.

What I mean by 'strong' is say on the repeating banks, the player shows 8 and the banker returns a 9.  The player returns a 7 and the Banker returns 5 and pulls a 3 or 4.  Every hand the players has a fairly high value hand but gets beat and then the same on the player repeats, etc.   Repeatedly, not once or twice or three times out of 20 but like 16 to 18 times.  That is a classic 'strong' shoe.

The way I learned to play was to go with the shoe.  No matter what it was doing, weak, strong-whatever.  Yes and a capital YES!  The shoe can change the opposite way at anytime."

Ref the last sentence, meaning you are wagering for what you want the shoe to do, not for what the shoe is actually presenting.  And one wins by wagering on what the shoe will present,   Once you understand that, your pathway to profits will be easier. 

Hi all,

AsymBacGuy:

Another samples

LLW
LLL
WWWWL
LWW
WLL
WWWL
LWWLW
WLLLL
WWW
LL

W= 18 L=18



C'MON MAN!

"We will need the expertise of forum veteran Albalaha just to interpret that data."     

Thanks KFB and thanks Al!

KFB:
my samples considered the 3/1-2/3 attack and each W spot is +1 (minus vig when applicable) and L= -1
1-2 trigger is any single or double happening after a 3+ streak.

Almost impossible to get a multilayered progression to lose as it's virtually impossible that any card distribution won't get at least one 'strong' shifted situation to happen very shortly.

There are 96 'key cards' to fall here or there along with 128 zero-value cards. The remaining card combinations are just flowing without 'strong' math reasons to produce a winning hand at either side, itlr such part of outcomes will equal.
Imo we must spot such 'key cards imbalances' and not trying to win at the way more likely 'remaining' whimsical situations. 

And btw, the lesser the amount of decks utilized to form a shoe greater will be the probability to catch those 'imbalances' by a proper 'key card' propensity assessment.
That's why in Vegas and in Asian casinos 8 decks are utilized instead of the EU 6 decks.

In some way it's the same concept why casinos have cut off single deck black jack.
At bj, math is the king and at baccarat statistical distribution is the queen (but think at chess, queen has more moves to make than king).
So if at a single-deck bj game all aces are removed very early and all 5s are live, we could easily tell the casino 'go fk yourselve). But we have to bet anyway, so taking the worst of it.

However at baccarat a low level of predominance may or not may stand for long, yet we know which more likely ranges such low levels will take and of course a relative counterpart predominance must happen sooner or later. Always taking into account how many hands were dealt and how many hands are left to be dealt.
With the luxury to take the direction we wish and whenever we want, differently to bj.

Al is perfectly right on that: if a given line seems to stand for long let's ride it, otherwise stay away.
Maybe it's a seemingly more 'gambling ' approach than waiting for less likely favourable spots to show up but getting its value anyway.

We should remember that baccarat is a dependent card game not in terms of which side should be more entitled to win but about the more likely winning ranges dictated by the actual more or less unbalanced card distribution

Let's consider another wonderful approach to get the best of it, that is the already mentioned 'clustered streaks' factor.
Now taken from an 'opposite' way of thought, that is that predominant sitautions must stop when they reach a given deviated value.

Theory: streaks of a certain lenght are more likely made by predominant one-sided events that reach detectable ranges. In a word, when key cards are naturally consumed, a more natural hopping situation will take place, so making long whimsical streaks less likely to happen.
Always by a clustered fashion considered at given levels as shoes are unlikely to provide events getting huge 'non clustered' situations.
This theory was demonstrated to be so powerful in practice that it's probable you'll lose interest in playing this game anymore for a lack of 'suspence'.

Set up your 'random walk' on streaks of certain two-level lenght (2-3, 3-4, 4-5) and make them to show up by a clustered fashion vs an isolated fashion.
Test a lot of live shoes and you'll see that in specific situations the general probability to win (75% as you'll bet two spots to get a cluster) will raise up to 85%, a wonderful 20% edge minus commission (when applicable).

Moreover a fair number of shoes are so polarized that the opposite unfortunate event won't happen for long, so making the 'breaking down the house' more a reality than a dream.

Remember that math can work just on perfect random and independent propositions, and we have strong reasons (verified by practice) that baccarat results are affected by a kind of unrandom factor accompanied by a natural asymmetrical card distribution enticing the formation of some patterns than others.
Itlr.
In the long fkng run.

as.

Thx --excellent post/ glad u provided examples.

From ABG reply above:

"....my samples considered the 3/1-2/3 attack and each W spot is +1 (minus vig when applicable) and L= -1
1-2 trigger is any single or double happening after a 3+ streak.

Almost impossible to get a multilayered progression to lose as it's virtually impossible that any card distribution won't get at least one 'strong' shifted situation to happen very shortly.

There are 96 'key cards' to fall here or there along with 128 zero-value cards. The remaining card combinations are just flowing without 'strong' math reasons to produce a winning hand at either side, itlr such part of outcomes will equal.
Imo we must spot such 'key cards imbalances' and not trying to win at the way more likely 'remaining' whimsical situations.

And btw, the lesser the amount of decks utilized to form a shoe greater will be the probability to catch those 'imbalances' by a proper 'key card' propensity assessment.
That's why in Vegas and in Asian casinos 8 decks are utilized instead of the EU 6 decks. ..."

Q1: (In blue above):
"impossible that any card distribution won't get at least one 'strong' shifted situation to happen very shortly."

     Do you mean in any one full shoe, or say within 3 spots,  5 spots? 8 spots? Other?
I do agree with your thesis above. Im just wondering what has been your experience with the upper end extreme u typically observe. In your opinion what are the merits for: Choosing to do a slow negpro or steep negpro til u catch a W, or no negpro=Flat, or Pospro, when pursuing this keyhole spot for the W?


Q2:(From In Red above) . 
"And btw, the lesser the amount of decks utilized to form a shoe greater will be the probability to catch those 'imbalances' by a proper 'key card' propensity assessment.
That's why in Vegas and in Asian casinos 8 decks are utilized instead of the EU 6 decks...."

I play at mostly Indian casinos in the (Midwest,USA) and it seems many utilize a 6-deck shoe  vs 8-deck shoe. I've asked WHY and no one can give a reason. Often, the reply is "I don't know that's just how we get them,...etc, OR that's what we are told to use,...etc." 
Regardless if factory shuffled or in-house shuffle.

Besides your above reasoning are there other reasons u perceive casinos would choose a 6-deck shoe vs 8-deck??
re: Streaks (same side, chop, other). What's  your opinion on :How does a 6-D vs 8-D shoe affect length of streaks?


Thx Again,kfb

Surely a perceived edge is diluted the more decks a casino uses.

If I understand the latest it would be the following. There has to be three or more repetitive winning hands and then you're looking at the cut. If it makes one or two on the cut, then the following would have to cut again and your trigger would be on the third spot to be a repetitive hand.

Example.

BBBB
P or PP
BB —- >>>>(this spot) <<<< Is the hand to wager on.



So Asym, on a score card laid horizontally or the main road, it would look like the picture below.  You are referring to the spot to wager where I put the X, CORRECT?

[attachimg=1]

Am I correct?

Hi klw

"...Surely a perceived edge is diluted the more decks a casino uses. ..."

I agree as IMO "our" edge is diluted (or their edge is enhanced) with the additional decks utilized by casino. Especially to the B wager.


Thx for post /Continued Success,

"impossible that any card distribution won't get at least one 'strong' shifted situation to happen very shortly."

    Do you mean in any one full shoe, or say within 3 spots,  5 spots? 8 spots? Other?
I do agree with your thesis above. Im just wondering what has been your experience with the upper end extreme u typically observe. In your opinion what are the merits for: Choosing to do a slow negpro or steep negpro til u catch a W, or no negpro=Flat, or Pospro, when pursuing this keyhole spot for the W?

HI KFB!!

With some experience and after having collected a large sample of live data, you'll see how much average 'concentrated' shifted situations will happen in relationship of the actual shoe.
At most situations, you do not need to spot them by quantity (long streaks of something) just by quality.
Pros I know do not bet that something must happen for long, instead that clusters of anything move and stop within 'more likely terms' surpassed whom they are not interested to bet 'em anymore.
For example, the 3/1-2/3 specific pattern obviously won't show up per every shoe dealt, even though the number of 3s is higher than average (as more 3s are showing up, more back-to-back 3s are going to happen, so enlarging the room for 1/2 clusters greater than 1).
Since the 'enemy' counterpart of 3/1-2/3 specific trigger is 3/1-2/2, we know some shoes will produce a 'long clusters of the latter pattern, making worthless or at least quite risky to set up a negpro on such shoes.
In some way, we should do a lot better to wait that a 'shorter' amount than average of 3s will be followed by the non bettable 3/1-2/1 pattern at some levels, then wagering when that final 1 becomes a 2 so enticing a 3 streak formation.
Notice that we could act in the same way by wagering doubles, but those patterns are more affected by volatility as they are more likely to happen (or not, when cards are so clumped to produce just singles or 3s).
The avg 3s rate per shoe is 8.75, so a possible negpro must take into account either this value and, more importantly, how many 'losing' patterns (3/1-2/2) had happened so far. (Along with other features I don't want to discuss here).

About 6-deck shoes vs 8-deck shoes

When facing 6-deck shoes, best variables to look for is whether shoes are manually shuffled and if very few cards are cut off from the play.
If those two parameters are fulfilled, it's virtually impossible to lose ITLR as patterns will be more consistent than at the 8-deck counterpart.
Meaning that many univocal patterns (and there are many 'clusters' to look for) will stand longer than at 8-deck shoes.
Now the 'quantity' takes a primary role about 'quality'.

It's now that the already mentioned 'code' strategy (if properly evaluated) will get the best of it by its various 'number' steps distribution.
Different code values move around the probability to be clustered or not, at the same time a perfect balanced code distribution is out of order. So some numbers must present clustered, especially if we merge two or more numbers together.

as.

Quote from: klw on June 23, 2022, 06:50:15 AM
Surely a perceived edge is diluted the more decks a casino uses.

Exactly.

If a finite number of 'key' cards move around a more limited field, odds that 'no key cards' distribution segments will whimsically affect the real outcomes will be way restricted than when using a larger field (more decks).

as.

Quote from: alrelax on June 23, 2022, 08:28:58 PM
If I understand the latest it would be the following. There has to be three or more repetitive winning hands and then you're looking at the cut. If it makes one or two on the cut, then the following would have to cut again and your trigger would be on the third spot to be a repetitive hand.

Example.

BBBB
P or PP
BB —- >>>>(this spot) <<<< Is the hand to wager on.



So Asym, on a score card laid horizontally or the main road, it would look like the picture below.  You are referring to the spot to wager where I put the X, CORRECT?

[attachimg=1]

Am I correct?

Yeah Al, you are perfectly correct.

Let math experts to say otherwise: 'it could happen that after a 3 streak and a 1/2 pattern, everytime a precise double instead of a 3s streak will show up clustered for long'.
My answer: 'Really, you fkng dumbas.ses?'

Second more polite answer:

-There's an average number of 3s happening at every shoe dealt in the fk universe. So if the number of 3s are going to get a  lower value than average, it means that more singles and doubles clusters must happen. But only half of the times we'll find reasons to bet the above trigger.
On the other end, if a greater than avg number of 3s streaks is going to happen, it means that 3s are more likely coming out consecutively clustered and we won't bet a dime on that.

- Any card distribution (even whether manually and voluntarily placed knowing our strategies) will get a hard time to form 3s streaks followed by a single/double than by another double for long not fitting a kind of 'clustered' streaks pattern (collateral strategy).
In the meanwhile, 'non acute' players (99.9% of bac players at least) will bet toward streaks no matter what or to get a steady single/double line of some kind.

- Quite likely a possible 'losing' distribution is whenever 3s streaks are going to happen by a 1:2 improbable long occurence (average value is 1:3), that is when after a 3 streak a couple of 1/2 events show up making the above trigger as loser.
Anyway just a double is going to make us losers. Not mentioning that a 'clustered single/double player will be winning at all those spots.

- The more probable occurence of such trigger is 1 and not 0. At most situations, no need to chase unlikely trigger situations higher than 1 unless you've registered that too many '1' won't' be balanced by higher values.
Notice that a fair amount of times a single or a double happening at the start of the shoe won't be 1/2 clustered, so followed by a 3 streak, and again a 1 gap pattern happened.

Practical guidelines

if you like to set up a single/double strategy getting 3s limit 'walls' (so stopping or starting to bet up to get a single or a double happening), you know you'll get an avg amount of winning streaks vs losing streaks per shoe.
Of course it's way more likely to get a 1/2 line prolonging whenever a 3 streak will be followed by a single than by a double.
Consecutive 3 streaks do not interest us as being affected by a huge variance.
And obviously more likely (p=0.75) patterns will come out clustered and not singled or, at worst, as singled losers than multiple losers.
Nevertheless, this strategy will face the probability that most shoes are going to get at least one losing spot along the way (that is our beloved 3/1-2/3 trigger).

So we must choose to hope that something weird (albeit being 'natural') won't show up or that a relative unlikely scenario will come out sooner or later.

So let's go back to theory.

Differently than doubles, 3s are more consistent in their appearance (lower sd values): so itlr strong deviated values are more likely to affect doubles than 3s.
It's true that in rare cirucmstances such feature will be disappointed, yet if we'd make as a first condition to bet a 3 streak happening followed by a double (second condition), variance will be efficiently limited.

Now we get a random walk having its peaks of winning and losing hands distributed very differently than a possible 50/50 independent game and not necessarily taking into account the math edge favoring B side.

Instead of verifying such claim but following the scientifical method, let's try to falsify this hypothesis, for example setting up the same random walk now applied at doubles or whatever pattern you'd like to use.

as.