Thx ABG--Several gold nuggets in your posts above.

"...  Consecutive 3 streaks do not interest us as being affected by a huge variance..."


My somewhat related thought:


     When I see an exact: 3iar with 0 ties in the string (e.g.,PPP or BBB), I perk up on that next column (theorizing that it is more likely to go 2iar or 4 iar vs not exactly 3iar again. Of course as most will agree we also should consider that it has to go through 2iar to make it to 3iar and through 2iar/3iar to potentially make it to 4iar. So several stopgates in there to prevent it from going 4iar and or 4iar+.
Possibly a wagering opportunity in there.

re: 3iar columns repeating exactly for several columns without a 2iar or 4iar:
Just my way of thinking ITLR as I view most all things bac as being a game of cycles, rotating, cyclical, asymmetrical...etc  vs a game of symmetry. Though it will often appear on the tote board to always be attempting this evening-out summary, and converging toward this "evening out", it never does exactly. Nor does it have to for us to still view as an even-chance game that is one of the most fair games in the casino.

Just an opinion.

Thx again ABG for all your time/posts.

Continued Success,

Hi KFB and thanks of your inputs, I appreciated them a lot!

Think, just my opinion, that a 'something' clustered more likely situation is going to get a way less variance than an isolated 'something' less likely  situation because 'rare events come out in clusters and then they disappear for long'.

Considering outcomes as singles, doubles and 3+s, itlr the most volatility happens at doubles just as they are the more likely occurrence itlr.
At the same time and taking into account that the vast majority of shoes are poorly shuffled, we'd bet toward NOT getting many 1-gap double spots, especially at the wonderful 6-deck shoes where things tend to be fairly polarized.

After all, itlr we'll get a more consistent 3s number rounding the average value than doubles number.
Moreover and considering baccarat as a game full of relatively short streaks, even shoe sections rich of doubles will make many winning points (anyway there are cutoff values , so in a way or another there's very little room to get our bets losing.

Next week I'll try to summarize such different strategies, anyway the keywords are 'gaps' or 'ranges'.

as.

Hi all,
Good post.

ABG:
"...Considering outcomes as singles, doubles and 3+s, itlr the most volatility happens at doubles just as they are the more likely occurrence itlr...."

re: and 3+s
     For clarification when u write in your posts: 3+s (Do you mean >=3 such as 3,4,5,6,...etc.  OR do you mean 4,5,6,....etc  )??


re: itlr the most volatility happens at doubles just as they are the more likely occurrence itlr...."

[/color]

     Personally I perceive my hit rate  is lowest in a group of doubles (especially if Ties interspersed). Mainly due to not being able to determine if my decision making was lucid or did I just get lucky and lock on to a 2-2-2-2 early. Which implies I was just fortunate to randomly guess insync with what was randomly occurring at this particular part of shoe. 

Sometimes I feel it is analogous to driving while blindfolded, or maybe driving down a two-way road while straddling the middle yellow line. One can sense we are indeed still on the road but also recognize we are possibly about to hit something. However, one doesn't know if we are going to hit the left ditch, right ditch, or oncoming traffic,....etc. Either way I know the current path can't last much longer, yet Im hesitant to detour. 

Thx again abg.


Continued Success To All,

KFB, you are so good in considering things that casinos do not want to get us playing together, let alone by a 3-way team with Al.

3+= any triple streak, so 3, 4 or superior streaks lenght belong to this category.

Mathematicians consider bac outcomes as a endless succession of EV- spots, so assuming that every bet will be EV- no matter what. 
This is a strong fkng unbelievable sh.it as EV+ or EV- spots move around dynamical probabilities coming out from the actual card distribution getting well determined sd limits per shoe.
If such math experts would have studied RVM and M.v. Smoluchowski works, and of course they didn't, they would reach at different conclusions and hopefully they haven't.

Our ideas supported by tests made on very large live shoe samples rely upon strong scientifical findings, so you can be assured that itlr and after some variables had happened, a X event vs a Y event will come out by a larger probability than expected and, more importantly, capable to erase and invert the HE. At the very least capable to get very low sd values where a simple multilayered progression would get the best of it. Itlr.

We are so sure about that that we can present our findings at MIT or whatever the fk College of Math Experts one wish to call.
As we're talking about gambling bighornsh.it, we must put at stake some serious money. So let's see how many 'geniuses' are willing to prove that we're telling rattlesnakesh.it by risking a lot of money to prove they are right by getting math on their side.

The challenge is open to everyone so sure about math, providing:

- the sample must come out by a verified live shoes sample;

- we can choose the spots to wager at;

- we can choose the amount to bet;

-at least five or more bets must made per every shoe dealt (including ties);

-we can bet any side bet anytime we want;

- final results are registered only when at least a 1000 shoe LIVE sample was dealt.
(A factor privilenging math geniuses as the probability to be coincidentally ahead at a EV- game by betting at least 5000 spots is very very close to 0).

No kidding, we are really waiting for a such challenge.
Otherwise just shut the fk up, keeping to try to sell poker books.

as.

The highest majority, and I am talking about the extreme upper 90 percentile of the so called forum experts (actually drama specialists) preach off the cuff using their own secret formulas without any real results.  Guess their work was accomplished on the WoV or other similar free baccarat games.  Then once in awhile one surfaces writing numerous books such as Stephen Tabone, entering the forums with an 'A-Alpha' demeanor, coupled with endorsements by dozens of sock puppets (same exact IP addresses confirmed), etc.  Oh well, BTW don't forget the ultra combative experts that also contradict everything anyone basically posts while claiming they conquered the game of bac wagering sums as high as $15.00 and $25.00 a hand.  The kicker to it all is, when one posts real pictures at real tables with real score boards and real chips, they are accused of lying. 

Later, tme to watch All In The Family on TV.

LOL, Al, so true what you've written! 

From one part there are 'magical system sellers' that instead of betting thousands and thousands not giving a fk about selling few bucks systems or books swear they're right without providing any distant possible reason why they should, on the other end there are stubborn math geniuses that do not know a fk nothing about baccarat, yet considering any bet or series of bets a EV- proposition, no matter what.

Does a person want to get a carefully detailed scientifical approach to beat baccarat itlr?
Good, it's on sale at $5 millions.
Way better to extract some ideas presented in this site, doing some work and getting it for free.

as.

Anything and everything can happen in a shoe of baccarat. Nothing much duplicates itself all the time (but when it does that is the time to bet heavy and hard until it stops), but then on the other hand occasionally it does. One thing for sure, nothing will ever have a trigger and be declared a winning hand every time (or well over 50% in every shoe), in real baccarat, the way the highest amount of new forum members are so in search of. 

Ok, I know what you mean, but at baccarat the 'everything can happen' must be quite different than 'everything can happen' at roulette, for example.
Otherwise we are talking about the 'reading randomness' myth and we know the probability to win at an independent and taxed game is absolutely 0.

It's good to look for 'sky's the limit' situations only as we have ascertained that bac rules and features in certain circumstances (say, sections) will make more probable such things than a 50/50 perfect game. Otherwise we're simply gambling.

Am I wrong?

as.

IMO and that of some very very experienced bac players, all recognize and attempt to focus on Sections with their Turning Points.  Wagering heavy, large and consistently on whatever is winning (any pattern/trends/presentments that you can identify and side with) is the absolute key in the game of baccarat. The skill comes about in advance mode for a player when he cuts down or stops wagering after repetitious wins within the Section before or immediately after it's Turning Point. Do not get attached or believe what just happened, has to or will happen again. And that's where a lot of us including myself gets sucked in occasionally. If you do, you will certainly give back your winnings and seriously hurt your buy in and/or your bank roll. 

We're talking the same language, then.

I prefer to set up things by more specific issues, you by a 'sections/turning points' feature but the overall product is the same.

A) sections

Patterns belonging to any class or multiple classes belonging to the same category.
They could be singles, streaks in various shapes of appearance: isolated, clustered, isolated by a 2 factor, clustered by a 2 factor, isolated/clustered by factors >2, predominances, unb plan #1 or #2, etc.

B) turning points

Everything that stops a given section considered under specific parameters.

Itlr A=B. So theorically no points of intervention could be spotted to erase/invert the HE.

Since bac shoes are affected by a huge asymmetry of some kind, we may infer that A and B occurences are more asymmetrically placed along any shoe. Thus in the vast majority of the times, a given 'room' space is going to show up, obviously restricted by very long streaks that tend to consume 'space'.

If we're restricting the field of operations, so assigning the same class to those long streaks, we'll get a better picture of how many sections are going to happen, at the same time neglecting a possible 'unlikely' strong predominance factor that might be a 'section' by itself.

IMO, the problem is that many players want to get too many 'sections' to happen, many times considering B successions (turning points) as A sections.

According to my statistical findings and knowing what the few pro bac players do, A sections must be chased very few times per shoe, and the same is true about B spots.
So such players are not interested about HOW LONG a section will happen but about WHEN a section will show up, so trying to restrict at most the B turning points feature.

Naturally there are no strict SURE guidelines to know when a B succession will shift to A, everything relies upon the statistical probability.
At the same time and considering a higher than 0.5 probability to show up, average values per shoe won't be so easily disappointed for long.

The simplest measurable way to consider A sections and B turning points is to take into account 3+ streaks (any 3 or greater lenght streak).
Now A sections are made of singles and doubles and B turning points are made of 3+s.
Even waiting that a first single or double will show up before trying to get a A section (so getting rid of rare back to back long 3+s consecutive streaks), in the vast majority of the times A sections won't happen clustered after a 3+ streak, so B turning points are going to be somewhat clustered (in relationship of their probability to happen).
Good thing is that in the vast majority of the times, such 1-gapped 3+s spots are rarely surpassing the 2 value. So making a fair room to get more likely A sections.

The same is true about doubles. No doubles successions are A sections and 1-gapped doubles sequences are B turning points.
The difference is that we will expect a higher amount of 1-gapped doubles than 3+s, nonetheless the variance values are quite different.
Meaning that we'll get a well greater probability of success to bet that A sections made of singles and doubles will happen (as the 3+s value is more likely roaming around averages) than to cross through the same doubles counterpart.

As you correctly state, we can't know what will happen at a given shoe.

So let's set up this strategy, having two different fictional players bettng for us.

First player gets his/her enemy at 1-gapped 3+s, so playing toward A sections made of singles and doubles greater than 1.
We know that on average he will get at least one losing spot per shoe.

Second player gets his/her enemy at 1-gapped doubles, so playing toward A sections made of singles and 3+s greater than 1.
We know that on average he will get a whimsical amount of losing spots (going from 0 to 4-5).

The only probability to get BOTH attacks losing for consecutive spots is whenever a precise hands succession is like as:

2-3-2-3... or 3-2-3-2...

In those scenarios we'll lose 4 bets and for that matter such successions are quite rare to happen, meaning that 1-gapped doubles and 3+s paced sequences are not so likely to happen.
Even if they happen, we know that such state is going to transform very soon into more likely A patterns, after all in a 4-pattern succession probability not to get at least one single is 1/16.

Now compare such 0.25 x 0.25 spot probability to lose with the overwhelming probability to get a more comfortable 0.75 x 0.75 probability and make such attacks to run on very long samples.
Maybe by utilizing a multilayered progression scheme either at positive side and/or at negative side.

Of course always taking into account that the more probable step to look for is 1 and clustered 1s, so we can't give a lesser damn about those very unlikely 2-3-2-3 or 3-2-3-2 occurences coming out clustered and surpassing the 1 cutoff point.

as.

3 to 5 Sections with Turning Points in all shoes.  Sections are the amount of hands. Turning Points are the beginning and end of Sections. As a mean average, 15-25 hands within a Section.

It's a given, not a choice or a desired marking point.

Thx ABG /alrelax

Excellent  discussion/i will submit a couple followup thoughts/Q later tonight.



Continued Success,

Hi all/ hope my fellow Americans had a great July 4th celebration for Independence Day. USA-USA-USA 

Good discussion alrelax and ABG

ABG: "... Mathematicians consider bac outcomes as a endless succession of EV- spots, so assuming that every bet will be EV- no matter what.
This is a strong fkng unbelievable sh.it as EV+ or EV- spots move around dynamical probabilities coming out from the actual card distribution getting well determined sd limits per shoe.  ..."


Alrelax: "...Wagering heavy, large and consistently on whatever is winning (any pattern/trends/presentments that you can identify and side with) is the absolute key in the game of baccarat.    ..."

Both of your comments remind me of a statement I read on the forum a year or so back. I "think" it was forum veteran Gizmotron. Although he had many good thoughts on roulette, bac, et al even-chance wagers, the following statement is something I keep in the back of my mind as I start every new bac shoe.

To Paraphrase.  "Always bet on the best trend."

that's it. Very simplistic.

However, IMO hugely important as we will frequently see /interpret at least two trends occurring greater than expectation. Choose the BEST trend that is happening right now and follow it til it ends. Then STOP and start looking for a different one that may now become the new BEST trend.

An example I saw yesterday. This was at the very beginning of the shoe. Typically I start every shoe by waiting on the shoe to show the first outcome, the other side, then show the initial side once again, prior to considering my first wager. I may watch many more outcomes but I at least wait for the above.

The shoe started:

BT P B PP B PPP B P B P B PP   . At first glance we could easily see a couple wagering opportunities.

I considered betting for another P Win on the next P column following the PPP. However, the BEST trend thus far was B1 followed by a P once and wait for another B, and wager P for once, wait for a B,...etc.  The above pattern then continued on with BPBPBP and then it ended .  So see a B wager P once had a streak of nine(9iar). I was fortunate and picked up seven  of the nine hits.

Simply by following the BEST trend.

As I think most of u will agree: Sometimes there will also be times when there is no Best trend and only good/better trends. Im always cautious when no BEST(strong) trend has shown because if Im  too eager to wager its easy to  interpret that good or better trend as a BEST when it was really mediocre but because the shoe has been so non eventful we may erroneously perceive any trend as being bet worthy. 




Continued Success,

Hi KFB!
Good thoughts and thanks for your examples made at real situations.

According to the scientifical paper I've provided some posts above, the only way to win at this game is to catch a kind of pattern more likely to occur at the actual shoe we're playing at.

Best but much volatile and 'brainless' approach is to hope that a given streak or series of streaks will prolong by a 'sky's the limit' feature; since at baccarat long streaks are uncommon we should discard this plan from our opportunities, after all 99% of players will mostly rely upon such rare occurence, sometimes not getting the guts to bet until the streak/s will end up.

Then there's the wide panorama of more likely occurences forming the vast majority of situations every bac player should face to cross a possible valuable pattern.

To better clarify such important issue, say we consider patterns as 1-step or 2-step W or L situations, we've seen that raising the probability from 0.5 to greater values will get a sensible impact over our long term results.

It's like we're trying to get the best of it by comparing actual statistical happenings considered in various forms as opposed as the constant math probability working for casinos.

Column key spots and row key spots


Along any shoe dealt there will be times where a kind of predominance must take a role in prolonging or stopping a column or a row. 
Math can't do anything about that, so if we're hoping that some additional rows should come out and after having examined the average lenght of previous streaks, we'll bet that back-to-back spots slowing down the natural row flow are less likely to come out.

At the same time, in the vast majority of the times, too rapid rows apparition will make more probable the 'stopping' streaks mood, always in terms of clustered or short-gapped spots.

In the vast majority of the times, those predominances move around more likely row clustered spots (codes) and same level or almost same level column situations taken at precise 'clustered' parameters.

I mean that considering both the row and the column issues by 'clustered forms' and taking into account probabilities higher than 0.5, maybe waiting for one or two fictional losing events to show up (so no need to employ a progression), the advantage a player will get over the house will be astoundingly high.

See you in a couple of days.

as. 

If you are selectively betting with a 0.75% general probability, you put casinos to hope to get many clustered 0.25% situations to occur, so you don't necessarily need to get long winning clusters, just to avoid losing unlikely clustered situations.
And the best way to get rid of those situations is to put an alarm bell whenever a losing spot of such kind will come out as sh.it happens clustered.

Greater is the room consumed within a shoe to get those unlikely scenarios and lower will be the subsequent probability to win.
And higher is the hope to get such winning streaks being quite or very long and greater will be the probability to throw into the toilet a previous profit.

With some caveats.

Think to pretend to play baccarat the like a major poker tournament works.
Nobody has ever won a major poker tourney by setting up multiple bluffs (that can't double the stack in any way), actually one had won it by winning many key coin flip situations, along with many underdog spots or wonderful unlikely card distributions.

Make your $5.000 bankroll to face many 0.75 probability spots by betting whatever you wish, knowing that at baccarat some long winning streaks must happen and at the same time not fearing that your QQ or KK will be opposed to a KK or AA hand.
For most poker players, the objective is to finish ITM so after getting, say, a $7500 bankroll you'll be quite happy no matter what. Think that almost 90% of the players will abandon the tables by losing their $5k buy-in.

Of course at poker after having reached the ITM boundary, everything will be a kind of freeroll with a fair shot to get the best prizes whereas at baccarat you can risk to lose the ITM goal.
Yet at baccarat we can quit the game whenever we want not waiting to be eliminated.

On the other end and assuming a first prize of $350.000, a second prize of $210.000 and a third prize of $130.000, a bac player could choose the spots to risk his/her money by distinct fractions, mainly as many casinos won't allow bets higher than $20.000.
I mean no key 'in/out' hands work out.

Think that a poker tournament of such kind will be spread along at least a 32-35 hours of play.

Moreover your $5000 bankroll will play by a 1.06%/1.24% disadvantage but poker tournaments must overcome a well higher negative percentage at the start.

Comments

a) play baccarat only when you hope to transform your bankroll (before finishing it) into at least a 10x or 20x or more accomplishment, providing a proper amount of time employed at the tables.

b) defend your fkng bankroll at all costs, avoiding the most part of st.u.pid coin flip confrontations

c) do not be shy to bet all your money (when allowed) in some selected appropriate situations. It's the same situation poker players will do everytime but unless they hold AA (220:1 odds), such players do not know how favorite they are. Most of the times they are flipping a coin for their tournament life.

d) consider that to multiply your bankroll you have to get the best of it at some math unfavorite situations more than once (for example winning a P wager having a 4 initial point vs a 7 B point and catching as third card a 4)

e) at baccarat no need to employ ICM poker strategies as blinds/bankroll cannot affect your play in any way.

f) be patient the same way poker players are. You can't hope to win with your 2-8 the same way valuable bac patterns are not coming out so frequently, especially after having lost two or more hands in a row.

g) let casinos to lose serious money and not playing by risking a huge bankroll to win a measly amount.

h) finally it's true that at baccarat some long winning situations could happen at the start of the session making a player a huge winner (a far difference with poker tourneys),  yet those are very rare occurences and being prepared to survive a lot of hands is, imo, the viable way to get the best of baccarat.

Next week I'll make some real examples about that.

as.