Numbers and human guesses

Casinos make a lot of money by letting players to guess hands using this simple strategic plan:

1) a given pattern will prolong (P);

2) a given pattern will stop (S).

Of course there are innumerable patterns to look for, think about big road and derived roads where a kind of homogeneous pattern (especially when considering a 0.75 or higher probability) will surely show up along the shoe's lenght.

Anyway we have strong reasons to think that itlr P=S even though some P patterns are more likely to come out for the asymmetrical nature of the game privileging Banker.
But this feature on average will impact the results by just one more B hand per shoe.

Anyway, the key factor to look for is that P or S patterns are the direct corollary of the actual card distribution.

For that matter, the vast majority of shoes dealt are not producing a B/P ratio shifted toward B by just one step, it's just a kind of abnormality.
So we may infer that more complicated patterns will make even more unlikely to get a final +1 W/L ratio on such patterns, mainly as we do not know precisely which side will be really favored to show up or not.

Thus different patterns move around four different probabilities considered at the simplest 2-pattern step: P+P, P+S, S+S and S+P.

In some way 'humans', that is the vast majority of bac players, like to progressively stop a P pattern or to constantly wager toward P+P or S+P patterns.

It's like that they concede to the house a 'natural' S+S pattern, getting a 25% probability to happen.

Moreover any P+P step will get some values to look for, meaning that certain cutoff points are more likely to happen itlr and the same is about S+P patterns.

This is a very important concept, as it's the main tool to put math in relationship of the actual card distribution.

Most bac players hope that P+P > P+S or, even worse, that S+P > S+S or that P+S should be less probable than P+P.
Or, worst of worst, that S+S must magically shift into S+P very soon.

Of course P+P, P+S, S+P and S+S are perfectly balanced in their apparition itlr, but in no way perfectly distributed along any shoe dealt.

More on that in a couple of days.

as.

Hi ABG.
"...After all baccarat is a game of clusters, educated guesses based upon long term tests or actual situations or, best, all of the three.   ..."

     I like the wording in the above statement.
Do you have favorite clusters you like to watch for in anticipatory mode and then bet for continuance(or against)?

Thx in advance,

Hi KFB!

Yes, consecutive probability patterns is one of the options to look for.

Examples are singles and doubles vs triples or doubles and triples vs 3+s and so on.
It may happen the clustering effect will be denied by singled appearances (of course we'll wait our trigger to show up before betting or fictionally betting). But sooner or later (very soon) probability makes things to follow more likely scenarios.

Naturally each shoe is a world apart, best shoes to attack are those converging a general probability to happen along with an 'actual' probability to happen.
It's impossible to get a 'clustered' event unless that event shows up very soon in the shoe, so hoping it will form 'multiple' opportunities to become clustered.

Maybe clusters of streaks of 3s and 4s considered at derived roads seem to get the lowest variance.

as. 

The more we play the more we'll win

This statement strongly collides with what most baccarat players have read about this game.

So worst counter statement sounds as 'quit when you are ahead', the perfect quote instructing us we just need a positive variance to end up as (temporary) winners.

Those geniuses do not tell you what to do when losing, probably they'll teach you to try to recover your losses up to a point (actual bankroll), then, well, tomorrow will be another day.

Consider that a shoe is a finite card distribution having its peaks of 'homogeneous' patterns and 'heterogeneous' patterns.
Most players hope to get long homogeneous situations (HO) because they can't find a way to beat heterogeneous sequences (HE).

On the other end, some players often adopting a progressive plan, like to get HE patterns as things must change in a way or another.

Obviously both categories are destined to lose as HO = HE with their variance values.

Think of a shoe forming long sequences of HE or HO, differently taken they constitute a harsh obstacle to deal with.

For that matter, no HE or HO betting line is superior than the other, it's just how many clustered sequences will show up, up to some cutoff points we've decided to classify them.
Actually and besides some situations, there are no specific cutoff points to look for otherwise the game wouldn't exist. 

Of course at baccarat we have to deal with 'space', meaning that after a long or predominant HE or HO successions, the balancement power may be lowered by several factors acting along that shoe.

It's a proven fact that changing the side of operations (either at HE or HO way) will get the best probability of success.
Of course intrdoucing the concept that many times our best move is to not bet at all.

More later

as.

Baccarat is an infinite sequence of dependent and asymmetrical propositions (key cards, asym card distribution and intrinsic asym B/P probability) where just one factor is constant, that is the last one, nonetheless being affected by the first two factors.

So no one single hand is purely belonging to a coin flip proposition, let alone about a 'model' moving around a long term 50.68/49.32 expected probability.

Baccarat hands move around strong shifted math propositions, so everytime we'll bet a side we should know we'll be hugely right or hugely wrong, regardless of how 'whimsically' the final results are formed.

Say A is the probability to win at HO patterns and B the probability to win at HE patterns.

Of course itlr (so after having registered a fair amount of samples), A=B, but every shoe is a world apart for the dependent and asymmetrical card distribution features.

In fact, every shoe dealt will feature a A>B and B>A probability getting different values not belonging to a coin flip (unbeatable) model and neither to a 0.5068/0.4932 (unbeatable) probability.

Things go toward HO or HE sides in the same way as a edge sorting technique will get a math edge over the house.

The difference is that a 'statistical' edge sorting technique must take into account the important 'conditional probability' happening along any shoe dealt and naturally completely disjointed from a precise card rank.

Example.

There are several ways to lose hoping that a HO or HE sequence will stop, yet there are several ways to get this succession to last for at least one more hand.
The difference is that in the former scenario we'll progressively bet to get a miserable one winning hand, whereas in the latter case we need just one winning hand to get a kind of freeroll over the house.

But notice: I was referring about HO or HE successions and not just HO situations the vast majority of players will look for.

It could happen that HO and HE will be distributed by a kind of 'hopping' scheme, but again prolonging the 'hopping attitude' will put ourselves in the position to freerolling after the first hand won.

In reality, a WL hopping situation is the least likely to happen at baccarat and the proof is to adopt  a D'Alambert progression that will make us losers very soon.

as.

Hi all,
Hi AsymBacGuy/thx for essays above. In post #679 u say the following:

"... So no one single hand is purely belonging to a coin flip proposition, let alone about a 'model' moving around a long term 50.68/49.32 expected probability.

Baccarat hands move around strong shifted math propositions, so everytime we'll bet a side we should know we'll be hugely right or hugely wrong, regardless of how 'whimsically' the final results are formed. ..."

So no one single hand is purely belonging to a coin flip proposition,
    I agree 100%

let alone about a 'model' moving around a long term 50.68/49.32 expected probability.

    My opinion differs a little on this part as I perceive the decisions that have a P OR B winner and loser declared (Not a Tie) do indeed converge toward a ratio very close(though not exact to this), ITLR. That is, after only a few hundred decisions we can see a convergence. Though I will also state this convergence can change directions and flow outward again prior to converging again back toward expectation, so some of our views can depend on when we looked at the data(i.e. After 1000, 15000, 1000000 , et al decisions,..etc).

I see where alot of posters, data crunchers,  et al make generalized statements like:

Lets just ignore ties because we arent betting them anyway,....etc.

I like to view Ties as events too(and they are), as they have their own probability, and since we all agree each shoe will have a finite number of decisions, the overall Variance of P and B are indeed affected by the number of Ties(low or high Ties). So this contributes to my next thought. I've wondered if this tendency by some to ignore Ties when looking at large collections of data (or the Non consistent language we use when discussing the overall 50-50 ratio of P/B where some may assume the reader isn't considering Ties), is why many perceive the sole PorB decisions as always being near 50/50 ratio, thus we see a perception of many that think:
It doesn't matter how one bets as its just a "coin flip" or "fiftyfifty" anyway.
Yes, no?? What say you.

Baccarat hands move around strong shifted math propositions, so everytime we'll bet a side we should know we'll be hugely right or hugely wrong,
    ABG , when you say hugely right or wrong do you mean say 44%,53% or 57%(which is indeed huge), or do you mean something much larger(or smaller)??


Thanks in advance to all replies,

Hi AS -- How would you group your HO and HE patterns or am I overthinking this ?

Hi KFB!

Yes, ITLR B and P will approach more and more to the 0.5068 and 0.4932 expected probability, nevertheless such feature belongs to a perfect random model that is not going to happen at most shoes dealt.
Besides natural variance happening at real random models (so getting precise sd values), we ought to understand that bac shoes are not performing random requisites by any means.
Of course and since the 'unrandom' strenght cannot be precisely assessed shoe per shoe by simple B and P measures, it's obvious that itlr the unrandom world + unrandom unrandom = random world.

Alrelax is absolutely right on that, getting the least s.h.it on long term results:

Say A is the statistical or math propensity to overcome the B opposite situation.
If the production is really random, A>B by a 1.36% gap forever and ever (considering the math B advantage).

Actually A>B only whether bac productions are really random. Since we can discard such probability, our new situation to face will be: A=B*k, where k almost always is a number different than 1, so per every shoe dealt either A is more likely to happen (k<1) than B or less likely to show up (k>1).

Practically speaking, our watchdog cannot be the sd parameter but the actual card distribution privileging some patterns than others, especially when we are able to split the entire shoe into distinct sections.

Thus there's a potential A>B plan to look for and a more important actual A>B*k situation to take advantage from.
Obviously 'k' cannot be perfect balanced along the way as shoes are not randomly produced.

Ties.

You are 1 million % correct, imo.
For the most part, bac results are formed by 4 or 5 card propositions and ties are mathematically way more likely to show up when 6 cards are employed to form hands.
It's in those 6-card instances that the 'gambling' factor will take its highest role as most of the times one side won't be so 'hugely' favored to win (for math and for bac rules) than the counterpart.

To beat this game we must 'catch up' the actual more likely card ditribution and ties tend to 'stop' patterns happening so far (number of cards employed to form hands is the answer).
I agree that playing a 'ignoring ties' strategy is a big mistake to make.

A corollary is that shoes forming a lot of 6-card results (no matter how many ties are showing up) will get us harsher situations to look for.

as.

QuoteHi AS -- How would you group your HO and HE patterns or am I overthinking this ?

Hi klw!

Think that at most occurences, either playing toward HO or HE very soon will get a harsh stop getting more likely deviated values at each side. (I've stressed that the HO/HE or W/L situation is the less likely option to confide at).

Casinos hope we do like a unidirectional way of thinking the game, knowing that such stops will SURELY happen along the way.

Hence, for each shoe played, there are an average number of HO and HE patterns: think that HO pattern players are going to be crushed a bit more than HE pattern players, PROVIDING the latter category is capable to find out the situations where HO patterns are more likely to stop.

Most professional bac players would bet toward HE spots, knowing that the 'sky's the limit' attitude is just for losers.
On the other end, some acute players know to stop the betting after given cutoff points are reached by HE patterns. That is not chasing 'miracles' as they do not need them.

as.

Thanks Asymbacguy

I like your paragraph:
"...To beat this game we must 'catch up' the actual more likely card ditribution and ties tend to 'stop' patterns happening so far (number of cards employed to form hands is the answer).
I agree that playing a 'ignoring ties' strategy is a big mistake to make.

A corollary is that shoes forming a lot of 6-card results (no matter how many ties are showing up) will get us harsher situations to look for.
...."

as--Do you utilize any method to try and help guess how many cards(4,5,or 6) are more or less likely to show in next hand.

Thx,

QuoteThanks Asymbacguy

I like your paragraph:
"...To beat this game we must 'catch up' the actual more likely card ditribution and ties tend to 'stop' patterns happening so far (number of cards employed to form hands is the answer).
I agree that playing a 'ignoring ties' strategy is a big mistake to make.

A corollary is that shoes forming a lot of 6-card results (no matter how many ties are showing up) will get us harsher situations to look for.
...."

as--Do you utilize any method to try and help guess how many cards(4,5,or 6) are more or less likely to show in next hand.

Thx,

My 2 cents ref ties is, not to ignore as well, but I cannot agree they stop patterns or trends.  I have to say a toss up and interpretation either way by individuals.  Just look at my thread with B&M shoes posted. 

I have had just as many help and encourage a side to continue as cut. 

Ref: " knowing that the 'sky's the limit' attitude is just for losers."

While it's happening, wagers like gangbusters and the cut down and try/wait for another red carpet.

Problem being, most all players wait too long to start wagering or parlaying and as well, keep going way way too long once it's done.

Those are the two largest downfalls, IMO.

Hi all,

alrelax in reply #685:

"...My 2 cents ref ties is, not to ignore as well, but I cannot agree they stop patterns or trends.  I have to say a toss up and interpretation either way by individuals.  Just look at my thread with B&M shoes posted.

I have had just as many help and encourage a side to continue as cut. ..."


re: Ties. Personally, I view them as diluting the strength of what is presenting. Typically, and with no other better intel I treat them as place holders to whatever pattern is recently presenting. For example, if a T shows in the current string as: PBPBT (I would view the T as a continuance of what is happening "P slot" and would wager for B). I will also look at most recent 2-3 Ties just before this event and see if the pattern turned or continued and wager for whatever has been occurring.

Another T method I utilize (and have not confirmed if it is beneficial) is to look at how the two sides approached the Tie and wager on the increasing totals side. For example, let's say Bs recent hand totals were 8,7,6 and Ps recent hand totals were 4,5,6. Then I would wager for P after the T because it was "increasing" as it approached the T.

I would estimate that my success rate is probably near expectation.

Continued Success,

QuoteHi all,

alrelax in reply #685:

"...My 2 cents ref ties is, not to ignore as well, but I cannot agree they stop patterns or trends.  I have to say a toss up and interpretation either way by individuals.  Just look at my thread with B&M shoes posted.

I have had just as many help and encourage a side to continue as cut. ..."


re: Ties. Personally, I view them as diluting the strength of what is presenting. Typically, and with no other better intel I treat them as place holders to whatever pattern is recently presenting. For example, if a T shows in the current string as: PBPBT (I would view the T as a continuance of what is happening "P slot" and would wager for B). I will also look at most recent 2-3 Ties just before this event and see if the pattern turned or continued and wager for whatever has been occurring.

Another T method I utilize (and have not confirmed if it is beneficial) is to look at how the two sides approached the Tie and wager on the increasing totals side. For example, let's say Bs recent hand totals were 8,7,6 and Ps recent hand totals were 4,5,6. Then I would wager for P after the T because it was "increasing" as it approached the T.

I would estimate that my success rate is probably near expectation.

Continued Success,

Thinking............Thinking back—I have to bring forward that often a tie designates a struggling side for whatever reason.  However, and a huge however, is that a Tie will allow one additional same side continuing win.  I find this more often true with the larger point value Ties, 7s-8s & 9s than others. 

I do agree with the previous same (same) shoe, what happened after the previous ties came out analogy, etc. 

as--Do you utilize any method to try and help guess how many cards(4,5,or 6) are more or less likely to show in next hand.


Hi KFB!

Think about probability clusters, it's quite unlikely to get a back to back 6-card hand, then it's even more unlikely to get a two cluster of 6-card hands. And so on.
Itlr 6-card hands are way more likely to come out as 'singled' patterns.

In addition, 6-card hands deny the Banker advantage unless the third card is a 6 or a 7 and B has a 6 two-card point.

Shoes rich of 6-card hands are more difficult to be detected as key cards distribution do not make their more likely job.

Of course it remains to assess which side will be more likely kissed by a math favored 2-card point.   

Take care!

as.