As you said, "mainly as many casinos won't allow bets higher than $20.000".

For serious play, it is worth going to, Rivers Casino in Des Plaines, Illinois has between 24-30 baccarat tables and the majority are at $10.00 minimum with a max at $100,000.00. 

Excellent list above ABG.

re: List (a--g) and I agree wholeheartedly with most of them.

"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."
     IMO we need to win at least 12x our avg buyin every once in a while, not necessarily in a single shoe but across several shoes(meaning 1 buyin generates >=12x said buyin, prior to buyin dying),  as -Variance and the natural volatility is always present /grinding us down. I'm not saying shoot-for-the-moon every shoe or session, however, when it is there we must pounce.

"b) defend your fkng bankroll at all costs, avoiding the most part of st.u.pid coin flip confrontations"
     I agree for the most part, however, my personal opinion may differ some on this. IMO we must defend our bankroll--Yes. However, there is a fine line between defending our bankroll, and squeezing it so hard we don't allow ourselves to really go for it(When the opportunity presents), all because we are too stingy and not willing to risk said Buyin. Yes, we will have a higher shoe win percentage, however, we may also have a smaller ROI.

     This is an area I erred in when I first started gambling. Yes I had a win % >=90% by shoe. However, there were shoes I should have made >= 3-5x my buyin, easily.
One shoe I still kick myself as it only had 1(one) 3iar (ppp), the whole shoe. That ppp was near the end. So no BBB or 3iar Opp the whole shoe , with may ties. I was "guarding" my buyin (I think was $2K) by wagering ($30-40-50, down to $30) betting for B streaks. A predetermined JackArse plan I probably read in a book by some famous/expert gambler--I mean author.
I try not to think about it much as I would need to undergo therapy,lol.


thx again abg,

Hi KFB!

Thanks for your words and thanks for your inputs!

Yesterday norwegian Espen Jorstad won the WSOP Main Event collecting $10 millions.
(BTW, before canceling it, someone could remember I've made a post by 'guessing' that the eventual Main event WSOP winner or runner-up would be a EU player, I've guessed right and winning some money on it).
The prestigious title from Germany went to Norway.

In an hypothetical game where a given amount of starting money can be bet by an 'all-in' and limitless procedure and by facing a kind of infinite coin flip propositions, a player would transform a $10.000 initial investment into a 1000x $10.000.000 (and more) prize by winning 10 hands in a row (1:1024 odds).

Naturally it would be a utter nonsense to compare a poker tournament having 8663 entrants with this hypothetical game, nevertheless at both scenarios the final winner would be labeled as 'particularly lucky' (and definitely skilled).
Not mentioning that maybe 70% or more percentage of WSOP Main Event entrants have no one single probability to win it. The famous 'dead money' poker pros would rely upon in order to increase their EV.   

What I wish to emphasize is the role of 'time' on both games, as WSOP Main Event winner will be awarded after 8 days of play    (each day lasting about 10 hours or so), whereas at the game prospected a super lucky person could win $10m right at the start or within a very limited amount of time. Actually we know this can't be done as this game doesn't exist in reality, mostly because no one casino in the world would accept wagers superior than maybe $500.000.

Another difference is that at poker tournaments after around 80%/90% players pool has been eliminated, every surviving player will be ITM (in the money); so freerolling for the entire enchilada by getting a small, moderate or huge profit for their initial investment.

Now, let's consider a real game where we could set up a kind of 'poker tournament philosophy', so trying to get the most value of our buy-in (tiny fraction of our bankroll). It's baccarat.

1) We could set up our goal (that is our 'first prize') by hoping that our buy-in will be transformed into 5x, 10x, 15x, 20x or more factor, always considering the possibility to quit the tourney whenever we want.
But we ought to remember that poker players making real money aim to get the final three prizes, so finishing ITM doesn't make the job.

2) It's impossible to win a poker tourney in the early-intermediate stages of it and it's very unlikely to win at baccarat the above best prizes within too short played sessions.

3) Poker tournaments make the 'surviving mood' one of the primary  tools to aim for.. At baccarat this thing is way more important as profitable patterns need some time to show up. But, differently than  poker, they'll come out.

4) At baccarat we don't have to post blinds and ante, we can 'fold' whenever we want without losing a dime, that is not playing a hand until we wish.
Moreover there are no progressive blind limits, forcing us to play or push some hands unnecessarily.

5) At baccarat we could set up many 'back-up' plays impossible to make at poker tournaments (allowed at some cash games).
I mean that after having lost a hand, we could make the same bet maybe enlarged at the very next hand or next trigger we've decided to take as 'good'.

6) To eventually win a lot of money, we must be willing to put a large part or the entire part of our stake at risk at the possible favorite opportunties, maybe by betting a two-step 1/3 then 2/3 wager.
It's a sound math move as a 0.75% probability cannot be silent for long and of course casinos are more worried about an i.di.ot betting huge few times then by facing 'wise' players betting light-moderate sums for long.

7) At baccarat we can't bluff to win, yet baccarat patterns must take a more likely line sooner or later.
It's just a matter of time (time!) that 0.75% probability events will produce univocal steady lines.

Baccarat is the second best game to play in a casino, having the least unfavourable negative edge. Featuring the luxury to bet the side we wish anytime we wish.

Next how to play a given bankroll as a poker tournament buy-in.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on July 13, 2022, 01:17:28 AM
As you said, "mainly as many casinos won't allow bets higher than $20.000".

For serious play, it is worth going to, Rivers Casino in Des Plaines, Illinois has between 24-30 baccarat tables and the majority are at $10.00 minimum with a max at $100,000.00.

Good to know, those are very good limits!!!!
Thanks Al!

as. 

Thx ABG

"6) To eventually win a lot of money, we must be willing to put a large part or the entire part of our stake at risk at the possible favorite opportunities, maybe by betting a two-step 1/3 then 2/3 wager.
It's a sound math move as a 0.75% probability cannot be silent for long and of course casinos are more worried about an i.di.ot betting huge few times then by facing 'wise' players betting light-moderate sums for long.

7) At baccarat we can't bluff to win, yet baccarat patterns must take a more likely line sooner or later.
It's just a matter of time (time!) that 0.75% probability events will produce univocal steady lines.

Baccarat is the second best game to play in a casino, having the least unfavourable negative edge. Featuring the luxury to bet the side we wish anytime we wish.

Next how to play a given bankroll as a poker tournament buy-in.
..."



It's a sound math move as a 0.75% probability cannot be silent for long and of course casinos are more worried about an i.di.ot betting huge few times then by facing 'wise' players betting light-moderate sums for long.

     I agree

More later on this/look forward to next installment.


Continued Success,

Playing baccarat as a poker tournament


Principal target to aim for is that, generally speaking, a poker tournament needs many hours to be finished so no 'quit when you're ahead' nonsense will take place, meaning that as long as your buy-in isn't depleted you still have a chance to win it.
Hence at baccarat you must 'survive' at a given number of shoes (poker hands), hoping to bet huge at those relatively rare possible favourable opportunities coming around, at the same time folding (no betting) or wagering little when you are in doubt.
Not forgetting that nearly 90% of poker tourney players will be eliminated before getting ITM and losing their entire buy-in. 

Second important issue, imo, is that in the vast majority of the times poker players aren't obviously entitled to win many back-to-back hands, whereas at baccarat such consecutive winning hands are more likely to happen, especially and foremost when utilizing a 0.75% general probability.
This is the main factor to focus upon, as given a 'large' part of shoes played, the losing 0.25% part will take its role sooner or later.
That means to 'fold' (no betting) many hands belonging to a possible winning pattern that afterwards(!) we've found as a missed opportunity.

In poorer words, we can't set up too many 'all-in' spots within restricted terms even though they are double-step conceived as 'sh.i.t' is around every corner.

Third, at baccarat we can confide that 'good patterns' or 'bad patterns' will come out clustered and very rarely by a kind of 'hopping' long sequences.

Poker hands and baccarat patterns

Differently than poker, at baccarat we should evaluate our options by a simple level of thought: either the next hand (or two next hands) belong to a given pattern or not.
Assuming the 'two next hands' variable, either we'll be slightly right or terribly wrong.

When taking a 0.75% probability, we should know how many times on average objective patterns will come out per shoe, so possibly enlarging the probability to win some 'all-in' two-step spots.
Such bac patterns move by two different succession lines, the horizontal line (consecutive quality) and the vertical line (consecutive lenght).
Both more likely producing 'clustered' successions surpassing the least minimum amount to look for, that is 1.

So far I've described the tools to look for such clustered events, best no-brainer approach is to adopt my unb plan #1 taken as a whole or splitted into two B and P different lines.
The same about derived roads.

Unb plan #1 relies on the normal probability some singles must happen, but even though the streaks/singles ratio seems to be hugely shifted toward the left, some consecutive lenght streaks (say doubles and 3s or 3s and 4s) must come out clustered at some point.

Not mentioning the already described tool to think baccarat shoes as number successions.

Finally consider that a 0.75% probability will get rare consecutive isolated winnings greater than 2, so we have plenty of room to set up our 'all-in' two-step moves, especially when previous winning clusters were quite long.

Baccarat is a game of psoitive and negative clusters, period.

as.

Thx for post abg.

RE: "So far I've described the tools to look for such clustered events, best no-brainer approach is to adopt my unb plan #1 taken as a whole or splitted into two B and P different lines.
The same about derived roads...."

This phrase and specifically the part in bold is not clear. I know u have written numerous times about unb#1. However, Im not clear what u mean :~~  "split into two B and P differnt lines."

You might also give a specific example of how u play(meaning wager)  unb#1,  as a refresher for us.
/thx in advance.

Hi KFB!

Unb plan #1 relies upon the probability to get a fair singles vs streaks ratio along with a kind of asymmetrical streaks distribution considered within the doubles/3+ streaks range.

Simplifying, we'll set up a two events vs one strategy, where one event remains as a steady winner (singles) at the same time confiding that specific streaks (doubles or 3+ streaks) will come out clustered at least for 1 point along the way.

So if singles=1, doubles=2 and 3+s=3, we'll bet that the 1-2 or 1-3 two events will last at least one time, thus we're discarding the 2-3 or 3-2 sequences that must be attacked by another point of view.
In a word, before betting we'll wait for two such 1-2 or 1-3 events to come out at least one time, 'hoping' they'll prolong by two different levels: singles and/or the same streak (2 or 3+) happened so far.

When the number of singles is roaming around averages or slightly below averages and unless a long singles streak happened right at the start of the shoe, the number of 1 - (2-3) permutations makes this plan invincible as a possible '2/3+ streaks' hopping needs a kind of 'perfect unlikely' pace to show up. 
Naturally whenever the singles/streaks ratio happen to be moderated or strongly shifted toward the left, winning is a joke.

The opposite situations, that is shoes rich of streaks and poor of singles makes this plan less straightforward as now we ought to transfer the distribution problem from horizontal to vertical.

Of course I'm just talking about a simple 'Big Road' result succession, there's another B or P events registration taken separately (not mentioning derived roads, again splitted withing red and blue spots and so on) 

Examples.

Aria casino shoe, september 2019.

Big Road (first hand is P)
3-1-1-2-1-1-1-3-3-1-3-1-1-2-3-1-1-3-2-1-2-1-1-2-1-1-3-1-1-3-2-1-3-2-1-2

Unb plan #1 (1-2 and 1-3):

+ - + + + - + + + + + - - + + - + + + + + + - + + + - - - +

Now let's consider my unb plan #1 splitted into two different B and P registrations.

P= 3-1-1-1-3-3-1-3-1-2-2-1-1-3-1-2-3-1

B= 1-2-1-3-1-1-2-1-3-1-1-2-1-1-3-1-2-2

Unb plan #1 applied to those two different P and B registrations (lines):

P= + + + + + + + - + + + - + - -

B= + - + + - + - + + - + + - + - +

Now I'm asking: is that shoe forming whimsical positive spots denying the natural math impact over the outcomes?
No fkng way, eventually every line got all cumulative negative amounts (plus vig).
Nonetheless, I'm certain that most acute bac players will get the best of it by selectively betting some spots.

One more shoe, now a streaks rich shoe.

Aria casino shoe, september 2019

First hand is B.

Big Road
1-2-1-2-1-3-1-2-1-3-1-3-1-3-2-1-1-2-3-3-3-3-3-2-1-3-1-3-1-2-3-...

Unb plan #1:

+ + + - + - + - + + + - + + - - + + + - -

B= + - + + + + + + +

P= - -

Notice that streaky shoes make less likely to happen symmetrical long lines at B and P lines taken from a unb plan #1 point of view.
In this shoe we had just one option to take, that is by folding most of the hands, thus betting very few spots or nothing at all.

It's true that the unlikely 3-3-3-3-3 sequence (or that P side formed all streaks and just one single) would have made many recreational players as winners, yet do not forget the word 'unlikely'.
People making a living about numbers rely upon more probable events to show up and not chasing 'miracles'.

For that matter even this shoe constitutes a wonderful opportunity to win several hands in a row, providing what to look for, now by a 'more likely propensity' to happen, already traced in my thread.
 
Good news is that whenever the 'horizontal' way seems to fail, the 'vertical' one takes a decisive long term role.
Simplyfing, streaky shoes that tend to deny a steady 'horizontal' unb plan #1 advantage, will distribute by very low variance lines, meaning that some streaks cutoff points won't follow the (unbeatable) expected values.

Back to this 'streaky' shoe.

Let's analyze more deeply the streaks nature at Big Road (number displayed is the streak exact lenght):

2, 2, 3, 2, 6, 5, 3, 2, 2, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4.

If you've read my previous posts you promptly see that no hopping situation will last for long (if any), so only an id.io.t may miss what is more likely to happen at some point of the shoe.

To get a better idea of what I'm talking about, let's consider another streaky real shoe, now considering just exact streak values:

4, 4, 4, 2, 5, 2, 6, 3, 3, 3, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 4, 3.

Notice the different cutoff points making 'clustered streak events', anyway even this shoe would be hugely beatable by other tools, so let's provide the complete shoe's texture (now streaks are considered under the 2 or 3 simplyfied form):

First hand is P.

1, 3, 1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 3, (2)

Unb plan #1:

+ + + + - - + - - + + - - + + + + + + (-1)

Unb plan at P side:

- + - + + -

Unb plan at B side:

+ + + + + + + + + + (-1)

In some way we got plenty of room to spot two-step 'all-in' situations without having to wait for 'premium' poker hands.

Just out of curiosity let's see how this shoe perfroms at three derived roads (unb plan à1 dsplayed with + and - signs):

byb:

1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1.

- - + + + - + + + + + - + - + - - + + + + + - +

sr:

1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1.

+ - + + + - + - + + - + - + + + + + + + - - + +

cr:

1, 2, 1, 3, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, ,2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, (2)

+ - + - + + + - + + + + + + - + (-1)

Splitting the derived roads results into blue (B) and red (R) spots:

byb:

B= 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3, 2, 1

unb plan #1: + + + - + + + + + - + + + -

R= 2, 2. 3. 1. 2. 1. 1. 3. 2. 3. 2. 1. 1. 1. 2. 2. 1.

unb plan #1: - + + - - + + + + +

sr:

B= 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1

unb plan #1: + - - + + + + + + + + +

R= 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 1

unb plan #1: - + + - - 

cr:

B= 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, (2)

unb plan #1: + + + + + + - (-1)

R= 2, 3, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2.

unb plan #1: + + + + - + -

Finally all three derived roads considered by a succession of r and b spots:

byb:

1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 2, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 1, 1.

Unb plan #1:

- - + + + - + + + + + - + - + - - + + + + + - +

sr:

1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 3, 2, 3, 1, 1, 1.

unb plan #1:

+ - + + + - + - + + - + - + + + + + + + - - + +

cr:

1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2 (2)

unb plan #1:

+ - + + - + + + - + + + + + + - + (-1)

oOoOo

At baccarat there are no 'imperfect informations' to look for, meaning we do not need to overthink a fkng nothing.
We can't bluff of course, but we can't be bluffed either.

Therefore no game theory applies at baccarat, we're just playing a taxed game where at some points some events are more likely to appear than others.

As long as a 312 or 416 cards shoe is ready to be played and cards utilized are burnt from the play, a given number of asymmetrical patterns will take place, either for bac rules and, more importantly, for the actual card distribution.
Ignorant people (math experts first) when talking about baccarat directly fall into the Dunning-Kruger effect category.
The more they think to know about baccarat, greater it's their incompetence on the subject.

Good for us.

as.

Thx AsymBacGuy
I appreciate the elaborate details and refresher on unb1. Several nuggets in your essay.

I like this approach: "... Simplifying, we'll set up a two events vs one strategy, where one event remains as a steady winner (singles) at the same time confiding that specific streaks (doubles or 3+ streaks) will come out clustered at least for 1 point along the way.   ...."


"...When the number of singles is roaming around averages or slightly below averages and unless a long singles streak happened right at the start of the shoe, the number of 1 - (2-3) permutations makes this plan invincible as a possible '2/3+ streaks' hopping needs a kind of 'perfect unlikely' pace to show up...."


IMO even when the long singles streak shows at the start we often can get into anticipatory mode / still exploit. In other words by utilizing that as a signal as to what potentially could show next(meaning NOT singles). In my experience when we see anything to an extreme we should start looking for NOT that in the upcoming section or sections. I think most will agree its never guaranteed but the probability does indeed shift a little for events different than whatever the most recent extreme group of events.

Thx again ABG as a lot of good material above.

Thanks KFB!!!

Quote from: KungFuBac on July 25, 2022, 05:54:34 PM

IMO even when the long singles streak shows at the start we often can get into anticipatory mode / still exploit. In other words by utilizing that as a signal as to what potentially could show next(meaning NOT singles). In my experience when we see anything to an extreme we should start looking for NOT that in the upcoming section or sections. I think most will agree its never guaranteed but the probability does indeed shift a little for events different than whatever the most recent extreme group of events.

Very true, that's why a 'too long' ONE EVENT winning streak coming out at the start of the shoe could endanger the strategy at upcoming hands.
After all we need just one 'NO single' event anticipating any long singles streak and every hand will be a winner.

In fact, let's take a 8-long singles succession:

1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1  ?? (no two-events trigger)

2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1  (7 wins, 0 losses)

3-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 (7 wins, 0 losses)

Anyway we should realize (and as you know very well) that rare shoes keep producing 'extremes' for quite long time, in this strategy it means 'the nemesis' may remain silent for quite long time (jackpot shoes).
And of course even the 'favourable triggers' might stay just at the 'potential' side of probability (thus erasing any jackpot opportunity).

Since we have valid reasons to think that shoes are not so 'randomly' shuffled, when in doubt it's more advisable to bet toward a thing (or things) that happened or that haven't happened for a very restricted amount of time than looking for 'potential' probabilities.
Up to a point, of course.

as.

Winning and losing flows

Winning and losing successions move around precise general probabilities, that is anytime we're joining a table the probability to be 'right' or 'wrong' or 'no right no wrong' aren't placed symmetrically at each of those three scenarios.
In some sense we are destined to either win or lose, making the 'breaking even' the least scenario to happen.
We may get a better idea about that by considering a simple four-hand betting strategy that of course could be prolonged infinitely.

Within a four-hand betting, 5 patterns will get more Ws than Ls and they are (vig is ingnored for simplicity):

WWWW (+4)
WWWL (+2)
WWLW  (+2)
WLWW (+2)
LWWW (+2)

It's a 5/16 (31.25%) probability

The specular 5 losing patterns are:

LLLLL (-4)
LLLW  (-2)
LLWL (-2)
LWLL (-2)
WLLL (-2)

Again a 31.25% probability.

The remaining 6 patterns out of the possible 16 patterns, those making a 'break even' scenery are (neutral patterns):

WWLL (0)
WLWL  (0)
WLLW  (0)
LWWL  (0)
LLWW  (0)
LWLW  (0)

Therefore per every 4-hand sequence we'd attack, general probability to be ahead or behind vs breaking even is 62.5%/37.5% (odds 1.66:1).

In some way, if we were able to 'guess' whether any new 4-hand sequence will fall into the final W or L category, we might get a substantial edge over the house, at the same time knowing that a kind of back-up plan could act along the way (neutral patterns).

Moreover, we are not forced to bet all the four hands forming the final pattern and/or to bet the very first hand of the new pattern.
For example, if the first hand of the new pattern is L, we know there's only one possibility out of 8 to get a final winning pattern and 'backup' neutral patterns will be placed by a 3:5 ratio.
And the same features happen at patterns starting with a W when considering final losing patterns.

Anyway the fact that we may 'artificially' making neutral or even losing 4-hand sequences into winning ones (and vice versa) shouldn't shift the natural flow of the outcomes made of winning, losing or neutral occurences.

So far I've considered perfect 50/50 propositions, thus we may apply the same concept to a greater probability and you know what I'm referring to.

oOoOo

It's the hands not played that make you a long term winner

Even the few very talented bac players liking to bet a huge amount of hands know that when the 'environment' changes they must put a stop at their betting.
After all, less bets made=less mistakes made and no progressive plan could erase or mitigate the general EV-, especially when things seem not going in their favor.

Back again to the 4-hand sequence results.

An 8-deck shoe provides around a 16 or 17 four-hand sequences each providing final winning, losing or neutral results no matter what's the strategy employed.
Obviously a steady betting Banker strategy will get more W patterns than a steady betting Player strategy could get, anyway the ROI difference is 0.18%.
Now let's take into account how the W, L or N sequences will be distributed per every shoe, not giving a fk whether a winning or losing sequence got a relatively rare +4 or -4 units win. I mean just the quality matters.

So a first degree of 'guessing' is made upon the probability to get W, L or N events coming out clustered or not and at which degree.  So being considered by a real final quality.
Example: W, L, L, N, L, N, W, N, L, L, N, N, W, L, N, W, L.

Putting things into a W/L  'gap' concept and considering N as 'not existent' we get: 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 1, 1.

Then we could make a 'more educated' guess by knowing the first hand of the new 4-hand pattern.
If it's a L, odds that the final pattern will be a W are 1:8. And N happenings are 3:5 underdog. 
The same about a final L pattern starting with a W.

A 0.75% probability will move around the same concept but by different tools we'll see next week.

as.

Hi As -- I really appreciate the information you present on here. The 4 hand approach is very interesting to me. I like this type of breakdown of the hands and am going through my hand history to see for myself.

Cheers.

Hi klw and thanks for your interest!

Itlr and just considering infinite and simple 4-hand sequences, the probability to get a final neutral result (W=2 and L=2) will be always underdog (unfavorite) vs a kind of light (+2) or strong (+4) unbalancement happening at either W or L side.
Of course we could easily face long series of WLLLWLLLWLLL or LWWWLWWWLWWW opposite situations making difficult to grasp the final outcome knowing the quality nature of the very first result, yet a kind of 'clustering effect' must work at baccarat as key cards (and/or 'miracle' cards) cannot be distributed proportionally along any shoe dealt.
Otherwise this simple plan could beat other games as roulette, for example, where each spin is completely independent and randomly ruled.

Raising the winning probability

Say we make an infinite series of 4-bets getting an overall winning probability of 0.75% by a 1-2 unit limited progression.
Now 'breaking even' 4-hand sequences are (vig ignored for simplicity):

WWWL (+1, +1, +1, -3) = 0

WWLW  (+1, +1, -3, +1) = 0

WLWW (+1, -3, +1, +1) = 0

LWWW  (-3, +1, +1, +1) = 0.

Any other possible W/L four-hand combination makes very different final scenarios ranging from the best possible scenario being WWWW (+4) to the very 'unfortunate' situation that is a LLLL spot (-12).
Naturally the LLLL spot is three times less probable than the WWWW pattern.

In some way we know that a mechanical 4-hand W/L pace will get more probable a W clustered situation to show up at some point and of course we can't get a W cluster if the very first hand is a L.
At the same time, without considering the actual 4-hand pace, we might fall into the mistake to take any single W or, worse, any single L as a valuable trigger to consider our options. If this should be the case, the game wouldn't exist at all.

In fact any shoe we're dealing with is made by 'expected W/L ratios' and 'actual W/L ratios', and we know that utilizing a 0.75% winning probability the general ratio to look for is 3:1.
Naturally the very first hand of any new 4-hand pattern coming out will make more or less probable to get a final neutral, winning or losing sequence more likely prolonging or stopping at any level.

It's like we are fairly advantaged to guess which 'clustered form' will more likely take place along the way.

In a couple of days we'll see why.

as.

" At the same time, without considering the actual 4-hand pace, we might fall into the mistake to take any single W or, worse, any single L as a valuable trigger to consider our options. If this should be the case, the game wouldn't exist at all."

Absolutely true.  I think I just touched on this a few minutes ago. 

https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=11429.msg70321;topicseen#msg70321

IMO, following any set protocol will possibly even you out if you win, however the loss factor will most likely  outweigh the profitability factor by large amounts.

Thanks.

Thank You Al!
Your post Is really good, tomorrow I'll try to make additional comments.
(Today we are too busy to destroy a fkng casino, no jokes)

as.