YOU SAID:

"a) Taking for grant that bac shoes are really randomly offered;

b) It's the corollary of the above point, that is considering baccarat as any other gambling game where the 'whole' findings (infinite shoes) matter instead of focusing about 'single shoe' dependent features and properties."

And, what you said above, is probably 2 of the biggest mistakes most all make.  First, one assumes and believes that all the forthcoming presentments are truly random (and without reason) from the shoe. 

And, second that most all will be continuously (CONTINUOUSLY) running their findings together as a constant play rather than a finite or sectioned event.

Think about it, really sit down and give it thought.  Personally, I certainly stopped the all too famous and popular, "well so and so happened, so now such and such must occur", etc., etc., wager justification rants at the table.  Except maybe, when it is at those +10 and at or near that +20 count. Other than that, I am most certainly wagering for what is being presented rather than wagering for those dream full whole findings to come out and match up with math/stats/results and so on.

Very true, yet imo there's a difference between 'trying to adhere at most at the actual shoe' and 'trying to adhere at most at the actual shoe kwowing the more likely patterns ranges'.

One of the best advices you gave us Al is that while crossing a winning situation, people tend to get confidence 'too late' in the process instead of 'pushing' sooner.
I've found this attitude to be a strong mistake as more often than not positive things become less and less probable.
Of course negative situations appear to come out endlessly, so there's no point to press anything just watching.

Later the data I was talking about yesterday.
 

as. 

Sorry I have some issues to display the data, hope to fix the problem very soon.

as.

Stop talking about theory, let's put in practice all the bigh.orn.s.h.it I've stressed you so long here.

Taking an idea from another forum's member, I'll make fictional bets in real time at live outcomes.

Sessions will be made following casinoscores.com/lightning-baccarat site.

We pretend to get a $1.000.000 bankroll by wagering $10.000 unit bets, maximum bet will be $30.000 . Reason to consider a 3x standard bet is because I do not want to make an endless series of NB (no bets).
Bets will be written under the 1 or 1. form, so for example a $15.000 bet at Banker side will be a  B1.5

Games are assumed as normal commission games (5% vig).
vig will be acconuted at the end of each session .

Bets will be placed as:

B = Banker bet
P = Player bet
NB = No bet

I'll make my best efforts to spot the next bet ASAP and to write down the actual W or L result.

Despite that, I've recently experienced a very bad connection on that site, so whenever this thing happens I'll simply report this.

For simplicity time considered will be GMT.

Each session will be displayed by a fresh thread on my section (365FB and the number) 

Let's play!

as.

Unfortunately it's very difficult to follow casinoscores as many results are missing from the displays and there's no interruption between shoes.
The only way to collect outcomes is to write down them from the streaming, but even this sometimes doesn't work.

So end of the 'experiment'.

as.

b]Gaps[/b]

It's obvious that the game could be beatable by qualities and quantity qualities and not by mere quantities.
A quality (I consider the term in a wide sense) needs more linked factors to show up, so the field of randomness should be somewhat restricted especially when it's not a real randomness.
 
Let's make an example.

Assume we're using a sky's the limit progression wagering that the very first pattern of any shoe dealt won't be a 3+ streak (a streak longer than 2).
So hoping that the first pattern will be a single or a double.

I take randomly 10 shoes from my datasets and see what happens.

L, W, L, W, W, W, L, W, W, L.

If we use a 1-2 progression for any step progressively raising the bet after a two-step loss (1-2, 4-8, 16-32, 64-128, etc), this sample would be a winning one featuring just single losses between wins. Despite of the total W/L ratio by flat betting accounts to -6 units (vig ignored for simplicity) as W=6 (x1) and L=4 (x3).

Arrange this WL succession into all possible permutations and it could happen, albeit quite unlikely, that the sequence will look as L,L,L,L,W,W,W,W,W,W.
Now our progression would be as 1-2 (L), 4-8 (L), 16-32 (L) and 64-128 (L), that is 255 units spent to win just one miserable unit.
We needed a 256-512 progressive unit plan to recover all the previous losses (but vig could lower that ratio).

So far we may infer that playing singles/doubles vs 3+ streaks at a preordered point could be a very dangerous BS plan, actually it is even at any other point of the shoe considered.

Another observation we can make at the original succession is that after a L every next outcome will be a W.
On the other hand betting W after a W provides just one loss being followed by two wins.

Finally, when the number of L is inferior than the number of W at a 10-shoe sample, at least one WW clustered event will mathematically happen.

Anyway by wagering this exact first pattern situation, we're playing a quantity.

Go on and see at the same original succession what's the second pattern coming out after the first one whatever it is, always in terms of W=single/double and L=3+ streak.

L, W, W, W, W, W, W, L, W, W.

Now our progressive plan no matter the possible permutations involved remains good as no back to back L came out.
Moreover the L singled outcome trigger remains good and just the first and second pattern produced two L in a row.

By flat betting (1-2) this second pattern we got a +2 units, so we are still behind 4 units (after vig).

Let's take another 10-shoes sample and see what happens.
First pattern:

W, W, L, W, W, L, W, W, W, L.

By FB (1-2) it's a -2 units loss.
The single L trigger stands and the same about WW clusters.

Notice that overall we got -6, +2, -2 so we're still behind 6 units.
Obviously by adopting the sky's the limit approach so far we did't get any bust.

See the second pattern of this second 10-shoes sample:

W, W, L, W, L, W, W, W, W, W.

Again +2 units by FB, single L trigger remains solid, W clusters quite good.
No matter the permutations.

Maybe someone could see that the second patterns are more likely to produce a W succession after a L one (and perhaps vice versa) but that's not the point.

Let's see about a third 10-shoe sample taken randomly.

W, W, W, W, W, W, L, W, W, W.

Easy game, huh?  Not really. 
The total count by flat betting is +6, so erasing the previous deficit (again before vig).
Notice we are considering 30 shoes.
But a single spot we didn't have to put in action our pogressive plan.   

Second pattern

W, W, W, L, W, W, W, L, W, W.

+2 by FB, just two spots needed a first-step progressive plan.

Fourth 10-shoe sample (again taken randomly).

L, L, W, W, L, W, L, W, W, W.

Same considerations about the first 10-shoe sample, but here we got a LL sequence.
By FB our total account for this sample is -6.

Second pattern

W, W, L, W, L, W, W, W, W, W.

'Randomness' is so capricious, again a W/L 8/2 ratio (+2 by FB).

Fifth sample.

W, W, W, W, W, W, W, W, W, W.

Wow, no 3+ streaks at the very start of any shoe.

Second pattern

W, W, L, L, W, W, L, L, L, W.

It seems we can't stay ahead by FB for long, -9 units by FB and the L singled trigger seems to not working.
Fortunately W clusters keep winning but it's a coincidence as 5 L and 5 W could easily distribute to get multiple singled W situations.

Sixth sample

W, L, L, W, W, L, W, L, W, W.

FB = -6 units
Now we have two W clusters and two singled W situations.

Second pattern:

L, L, W, W, W, L, L, W, W, W.

FB= -6 units.
No L singled situations and two W clusters.

If we'd think that betting towards singles/doubles vs 3+ streaks could get a kind of direct advantage, well it seems it's not the case.
So far our progressive plan got the best of it as only one time we had to utilize the fourth level of the progression, but we know that some different permutations would make us to lose our entire bankroll (either for bankroll finitess and for the maximum limits).

Are there other tools coming at our help to mitigate a negative variance or to raise our probability of success?

Let's consider now the back to back result (first pattern and second pattern) per each shoe dealt.
Again W= single or double and L= 3+ streak

Now the picture looks as

1) LL, WW, LW, WW, WW, WW, LW, WL, WW, LW

2) WW, WW, LL, WW, WL, LW, WW, WW, WW, LW

3) WW, WW, WW, WL, WW, WW, LW, WL, WW, WW

4) LW, LW, WL, WW, LL, WW, LW, WW, WW, WW

5) WW, WW, WL, WL, WW, WW, WL, WL, WL, WW

6) WL, LL, LW, WW, WW, LL, WL, LW, WW, WW.

Now the L clusters are well more defined in their distribution, more likely roaming around a 0 point.
On the other end and despite a slight than average apparition, W clusters distribute more clustered than isolated (of course after having considered the 3:1 probability ratio).

as.

Seventh sample taken randomly (10-shoes data considered as first and second pattern):

WW, WW, WW, WL, WW, WL, WW, WW, WW, LL.

Eight sample:

WW, LW, LW, WW, WW, LW, WW, LW, WW, LW.

Ninth sample:

WW, WW, WW, WW, LW, LW, LW, WW, LW.

Tenth sample:

WW, LW, WW, WW, WW, WW, WW, WW, WW, WW

11th sample

WW, LW, WW, WW, LW, WW, LL, LW, WW, WW.

12th sample:

WW, LW, WW, WW, LW, WW, LW, WW, WW, WL.

13th sample:

WW, WW, LL, WW, LW, LW, LW, LW, WW, WW.

14th sample:

WW, WW, LW, WW, WW, LW, LW, WW, WW, LW.

15th sample:

WL, LW, WW, WL, WW, WW, LL, LW, WW, LW.

16th sample:

WW, LW, WL, LL, WW, WW, WW, WW, WW, WL.

17th sample:

WW, LW, WW, LW, WW, WW, WW, WL, WW, WL.

18th sample:

WW, WL, LL, WW, LW, WW, WW, WW, WL, WW

19th sample:

WL, WL, WW, WW, WW, LL, WW, LW, WW, WW.

20th sample:

WW, WW, WL, WW, WW, LW, WW, LW, LW, WW.

I can run my datasets forever or any other reliable bac source and things won't change.
Maybe some harsh variance could come out along the way but itlr everything must be placed accordingly to that statistical appearance.

In this 140 shoes sample we got:
- 47 W clusters;
- 11 W singles;
-  7 L clusters;
- 41 L singles.

But that's just a start, there are more powerful tools to take advantage of.

as.

Thx for the intel/ theories above in post #785. Several good applications.

Can you elaborate a little more on the following:

"...On the other end and despite a slight than average apparition, W clusters distribute more clustered than isolated (of course after having considered the 3:1 probability ratio)...."


Asym:

"...It's obvious that the game could be beatable by qualities and quantity qualities and not by mere quantities...."



tongue twister 

Hi KFB and thanks!

IMO a long term winning bac player should put the house to hope for something slight unlikely to happen and not vice versa.

Betting B or P alone makes the house's expectations as it's a close to a 50/50 unbeatable proposition (Kerrich coin flip data, for example), furthermore aggravated by a negative edge.

Raising the probability of success at greater than 50% values might get us more predictable situations not just for a mere (and fruitless) math condition but because baccarat is a multiple asymmetrical game.

Therefore it doesn't make any substantial difference if I'm betting B after B or after P as any single hand seems to have no valuable dependent informations to take advantage from.

Now say you'll bet that a given column won't produce a 3/3+ streak, so the W/L proposition is 3:1 as after having lost the first bet (not being a single) in order to get a profit you'll raise (double) the second bet toward a double.
It's a math affair: on average and assuming a perfect coin flip game, one triple will come out after 3 single/double apparitions of any kind and distribution.

So according to the above posts, let's pretend to set up a progressive multilayered plan that the very first pattern of any shoe won't be a 3/3+ streak.
3 streak = L and single/double = W

Itlr and without any doubt W clusters will be slight superior than W isolated, the only (relative) issue is about the vig.
The same but by a lesser degree of confidence level about each class of Ls, more isolated than clustered, more doubled than tripled, etc.

Nevertheless this is just a 'quantity' point of view, very susceptible to the negative variance.
Sooner or later and still considering 10-shoes samples, it will happen that ALL 10 shoes will form a 3 streak at the very beginning of it (first column).
A very very unlikely scenario but surely it will happen.

Now let's consider the second column in relationship of what happened at the very first one:
Simplifying a lot, how many 3s will follow another 3 streak that came out as first pattern?
And how many single/double patterns will follow a single/double pattern previously showing up at the first column?
Now the variance is way more restricted as it's somewhat negated by several steps the 'hopping' verified baccarat propensity. In some way that's a quality factor.
Here the probability to encounter 3/3 patterns at both first and second columns of each shoe is almost zero. Assume is 0.

Consider this 10-shoe sample taken randomly
W= single or double and L= 3 streak

WL
LL
WW
WW
WW
WL
WW
WW
WL
WW

Put these outcomes into a horizontal succession:

WLLLWWWWWWWLWWWWWLWW 

Another 10-shoe sample:

WW
WL
WW
WW
WW
LW
WW
LL
LW
WW

The horizontal succession is: WWWLWWWWWWLWWWLLLWWW

Another 10-shoe sample:

WW
LW
WW
LW
WW
WW
LW
WW
LW
WW

Horizontal succession is WWLWWWLWWWWWLWWWLWWW

Comments

At baccarat there's no point to 'chase' losses, only betting towards winning clusters at the same time never forgetting that we need just the number 1 to be ahead (hoping for more than 1 is just gambling). The same 1 number could be utilized at L situations but knowing it will get a greater variance's impact.

In order to reduce variance, results must be someway restricted within 'ranges'.

It's impossible to beat baccarat if we're considering it a kind of coin flip game.

After all at a perfect random coin flip game and no matter how much we raise the probability of success, itlr W clusters = W isolated and L isolated = L clusters.
It's wise to work out at things disputing this and not trying to beat it mathematically as it can't be possible by any means.

as.

Notice that at baccarat we do not want to guess this or that hand, but putting the house to 'hope' we won't be right each time we'll bet towards more likely situations to happen framed into a W/L scheme.

Test your shoes and let me know how many times a first and second column results arranged at a horizontal succession will produce quite different conditions I've depicted above.

as.

Another sample:

WL
LL
WL
WW
LL
LW
WL
LW
WW
LW

A quite harsh 10-shoe sample, a lot of 3 streaks...notice those back to back 3 streaks at two shoes.

Horizontal line: WLLLWLWWLLLWWLLWWWLW

L= -30 AND W= 10,  that's a strong deviation toward negative territory
Despite that we have tools to find situations to make our bets more likely to win.

An additional 10-shoe sample:

LW
WW
LW
WW
WW
LW
WW
WW
LL
WW

Hor line: LWWWLWWWWWLWWWWWLLWW

One more:

WW
LL
WW
WW
WW
WW
LW
WW
LL
LL

Horiz line: WWLLWWWWWWWWLWWWLLLL

L= -21 W= +13

Still we find ways to win, actually so far the shoes samples taken randomly cumulatively produced a L>W ratio, yet we can easily win.

as.

Thanks Asym for your prompt response.

I like your way of thinking.

"...IMO a long term winning bac player should put the house to hope for something slight unlikely to happen and not vice versa..."


Continued Success,

Thanks KFB!

It's a proven fact that people making a living at gambling bet towards things more likely to happen and not by chasing unlikely positive situations.

For example, the single/double category can stand 18-23 hands without getting a single loss, the triple counterpart needs 6 or 7 consecutive wins to balance the equation.

Now we all know that such unlikely triple long streak will happen sooner or later, in the meanwhile we have reasons to expect that a more than average opposite category will form a profitable ratio.

So there's no way to avoid sh.it, just to lower its verified (un)proportional impact over the long term outcomes.

I can show you at least 5 or 6 different betting attacks getting a sure indeniable advantage over the house (obviously by FB), yet a lot of variance must be endured putting at risk our composure.
Therefore we know that this game is beatable, the problem is to set up a plan directed to realize the proper 'frequency' about how and when the advantage will more likely show up.

House can only hope to deal 'random' successions where each bet is burdened by a math edge and to 'raise' the randomness it will allow a 'cut' and employing a burn procedure dictated by the first card nature.
We have already seen in my pages that the 'burn' technique won't change the patterns distribution, let alone the 'cut'. It's just a matter of time that patterns will come out by their more likely propensity. Yesterday, now, tomorrow and forever.

This kind of effect is amplified whenever we consider back to back shoes, more specifically when we compare or put in relationship same positional outcomes of each shoe, so forming new successions.

Cards arrangements might noticeably affect one shoe or maybe two shoes so enticing the formation of strongly deviated results at either side, yet math and game's propensities can't be neglected for long but we need a sort of 'complex' patterns evaluation to ascertain that.
And to get a valuable patterns evaluation we need many hands (and shoes) to be dealt.

Not coincidentally last examples involved just the first and second pattern dealt of each shoe then making a 'positional' back to back succession by a W and L shape.

The SD vs T approach is a very basic strategy, yet it could get the idea of what I'm talking about.

So more real shoes taken randomly will come out, as you well know I'm not selling anything.

as.

First 10-shoe sample:

LW
WL
WW
WL
WW
WW
WL
WW
WW
WW

LWWLWWWLWWWWWLWWWWWW

Ok, easy job, hope for harsher situations..

Second 10-shoe sample

WW
WL
WW
LL
LW
WW
LW
LW
LW
WW

WWWLWWLLLWWWLWLWLWW

A less unwelcome succession than the previous one, yet if we have no reasons to chase the LLL sequence there're some spots to bet on.

Third sample

WW
WW
WW
WW
LL
WW
WW
WW
LW
WW

WWWWWWWWLLWWWWWWLWWW

Good successions

Fourth sample

WW
LW
WW
LW
LL
WL
WW
WW
WW
WL

WWLWWWLWLLWLWWWWWWWWL

Bad sequence at hands #9, #10 and #12. 

Fifth sample

WW
LW
LL
WW
WW
WL
LW
WW
WW
WW

WWLWLLWWWWWLLWWWWWWW

Two losing situations in a row (events #5 and #6)

Sixth sample

WW
WL
WL
LW
LL
WL
LW
WW
WW
WW

WWWLWLLWLLWLLWWWWWWW

Here we go!
Finally a very bad succession came out.
W clusters got 3 losing spots in a row and out of 4 L sequences, just one L came out isolated.
A mechanical plan betting toward W clusters and L isolated spots got 6 consecutive losing situations, that is 12 losing hands in a row.
What we can do here? Nothing!
Just accepting the losses and go forward.

Seventh sample

WW
WW
LW
LW
LW
WW
LL
WW
WL
LW

WWWWLWLWLWWWLLWWWLLW

Now no more than one losing spot (between W clusters and isolated L).

Eight sample

LW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WL
WW
WW

LWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWW

Good sequence.

Ninth sample

WW
WL
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
LL
WW
WW

WWWLWWWWWWWWWWLLWWWW

Not a bad sequence

Tenth sample

WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
LW
WL
WW
WW

WWWWWWWWWWWWLWWLWWWW

Another good sequence.

Since the sixth sample went so bad let's see what happens next:

Eleventh sample

LW
WW
WW
LW
WW
WW
WL
WL
WW
WW

LWWWWWLWWWWWWLWLWWWW

Not a bad sequence either

Twelfth sample

WW
LW
WW
LL
WL
WW
WL
WW
LW
WW

WWLWWWLLWLWWWLWWLWWW

No bad

Thirteenth sample

WW
WW
LW
WW
WL
WW
LW
LL
WW
WW

WWWWLWWWWLWWLWLLWWWW

Things seem to arrange themselves into a more 'normal' fashion

Fourteenth sample

WL
WW
LW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WL

WLWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWL

Again not too bad

Fifteenth sample

WW
WW
WW
LL
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW

WWWWWWLLWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Not bad

Sixteenth sample

WW
LL
WW
WW
WL
WW
WW
WW
LW
WW

WWLLWWWWWLWWWWWWLWWW

Not bad

Seventeenth sample

WW
LW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
LW
WW

WWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWW

Another good succession

Eighteenth sample

LW
WW
WW
WW
WW
LL
WW
WL
WL
WW

LWWWWWWWWWLLWWWLWLWW

No more than one losing spot in a row

Twentieth sample

WL
LW
WL
LW
WL
LL
WW
WW
LW
WW

WLLWWLLWWLLLWWWWLWWW

Two consecutive losing spots in a row.

Comments

- Betting towards W clusters got us a +12 profit before vig;

- As already sayed L isolated situations are more affected by volatility;

- Starting to bet after having reached a fictional negative W clusters / W isolated ratio is a good way to forecasting more probable results;

- The S/D vs T simple ratio corresponds to a leptokurtic distribution; itlr only distribution issues could shift the results toward one profitable side.
Obviously the reason is because at baccarat doubles are the most likely outcome and triples (3/3+s) are less likely to happen for the well known slight propensity to get the opposite side to win.

-Despite of an expected 0.75% (S/D) vs 0.25% (T) probability, S/D streaks are way longer and more frequent than the  T counterpart (proportionally considered), so we'll have longer SD streaks than T streaks and that's one kind of advantage we can exploit while playing baccarat.

- Sh.it happens and no progressive plan could erase it, we just have to wait the more likely course of statistical probabilities.

as.

In a couple of days I'll show you how a math progressive approach will get the best of the game, for once it's a only Banker betting method needing very very unlikely sequences to fail.
Actually it's just a matter of money...

as.