By studying the baccarat betting frequency in relationship of the average card distribution, we have found that there's an optimal way to classify things, in a word that a given registration will make very predictable so affected by a very low level of variance the various results.

It's a kind of a new derived road but involving an asymmetrical albeit mechanical process where the registration pace varies.

Naturally a sort of binomial game will feature innumerable situations that sooner or later must strongly deviate toward one side of the action and of course this d.r. is affected by a fair degree of inaccuracy.

Yet it's the only strategic line that lured us to adopt a progression for the aforementioned variance reasons.

See you next week

as.

as:
"...In a word, when we win 'too much' after one shoe or few shoes dealt, it's because we benefited from the chance and not for being smart.
 

And no one ploy in the world could prevent to get, sooner or later, a perfect symmetrical losing situation of the same density, moreover aggravated by the HE...."

I agree. Its this "tightness" in Bac that makes it a superior game to other even-chance games. Plus we may receive that winning situation first (regardless of ones skill or lack of).


Continued Success,

Quote from: KungFuBac on July 19, 2023, 05:05:29 AM
I agree. Its this "tightness" in Bac that makes it a superior game to other even-chance games. Plus we may receive that winning situation first (regardless of ones skill or lack of).

Hi KFB!

That's the point.

At some extent baccarat works as poker does.

Loose players can only lose.

Loose-aggressive players lose itlr but may endure long winning streaks (illusion of winning)

Tight players control the game trying to get the math at their side but they could be prey of the best players.

Tight-aggressive players tend to get the best of it as they wait for the best opportunities and at the same time applying a lot of pressure, generally unwelcomed by the opponents.

Then there's the important 'first' scenario to look for...

Ways to combat:

"...In a word, when we win 'too much' after one shoe or few shoes dealt, it's because we benefited from the chance and not for being smart.

And no one ploy in the world could prevent to get, sooner or later, a perfect symmetrical losing situation of the same density, moreover aggravated by the HE...."


Key Point:  Wins are put into and divided into the 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd protocol.  Then your bankroll is governed by its beginning as well as one of the 1/3rds.  The other two 1/3rds should not used for gaming. 

The governance doing that equals advantage. 

But one must win.  Winning is extremely subjective and individualistic but the handling of money/wins is the downfall that sucks most all in to the negative.  IMO.

Quote from: alrelax on July 24, 2023, 11:38:15 AMBut one must win.  Winning is extremely subjective and individualistic but the handling of money/wins is the downfall that sucks most all in to the negative.  IMO.

Very good sentence!

After a small number of hands played, winning is relatively easy. The problem is to keep those wins and quitting while ahead is the worst suggestion ever made in the history of gambling.
On the other hand, if we start losing quitting is not the answer and the worst strategy is to keep playing without 'stand-by' interruptions.

At baccarat positive and negative situations come out asymmetrically, so there are reasons to keep playing or to preserve profits at positive situations and there are more reasons to stop our action at negative situations that must be restricted at most.

The over alternating WL sequences are the least likely to happen so it's not that difficult to spot when a given W or L line will start to change then indicating when to bet and when to wait.

as. 

Average card distribution (again)

Randomly shuffled shoes present many interesting features.
One of the most intriguing feature is to observe the initial two-card point sequences average lenght.

We know that the side having the higher two-card point will be strongly favorite to win and obviously such propensity is affected by a fair impact of variance on the final result.

Moreover the B drawing rules and the third card impact will make things harsher.

Finally, many hands provide a 'tie' initial point different from 9, 8, 7 and 6 adding more randomness on the final outcomes.

But at the end the player capable to spot more 'higher' two-card initial points than average will get a sure advantage and this task could only be estimated by the average lenght of 'shifting' situations, that is the number of runs.

More later

as.

Let's summarize

Card combinations make more probable two-card runs of specific lenght up to the point that an average number of 'runs' will come out in relationship of how many runs had previously happened so far. 
Therefore B or P side could benefit of this paramount alternating factor by a quite detectable way, that's the main reason why baccarat streaks are shorter than coin flip or EC propositions.

The third card impact and the asymmetrical rule favoring Banker are just 'incidents' coming out along the way but itlr there's no stronger advantage than 'guessing' the side having the higher two-card initial point.

Actually runs of initial two-card points constitute 'limited random walks' getting values quite distant to a mere coin flip proposition.

Thus whereas it's impossible to estimate the specific lenght of two-card points sequences, it's particularly important to know how much a given sequence will stop (or prolong) on average, regardless of the final outcome.

The higher two-card initial point factor is so strong that in order to get a long term advantage on average we need to guess it just one time over three attempts.

as.

Thanks AsymBacGuy--Good points.


"...But at the end the player capable to spot more 'higher' two-card initial points than average will get a sure advantage and this task could only be estimated by the average lenght of 'shifting' situations, that is the number of runs...."

Can you clarify (or give an example) as I'm not clear on what you're saying.

Thanks in advance,

Hi KFB!

Say that higher initial two-card points (HI2CP) cannot univocally fall for long at a given side, in fact most of the times longer BP streaks at either side need the third card favourable intervention.
When a HI2CP line changes side but the B/P result isn't consistent with the initial propensity, we should restart the process as now the underdog side (that won the last hand) is slight more likely to get a HI2CP of some lenght.
The process is hugely amplified when the Banker side had the luxury to get an asymmetrical hand that went 'wrong' for B.

Example.

Suppose that we have reasons to think that HI2CP sequences will get a shifting peak after 2/3 hands dealt (two card ties ignored).
If no third card(s) impact had altered the initial math propensity, that 'peak value' remains valuable to be followed so betting the opposite side is still a fair move.
Oppositely, any third card(s) impact altering the initial math propensity should be considered as a second-level condition erasing the process, thus needing at least 2 or 3 more hands (if fitting the requisites) to evaluate such HI2CP average distribution lines.

I mean that 'guessing' the side getting the HI2CP is the irreplaceable tool to get a long term edge as math could be disregarded in short situations (maybe by chasing some actual trends) but never ever in the long term.

Unfortunately guessing right the HI2CP spots (a perfect guessed spot provides an average 30% edge, then the probability decreases and obviously many points can't be detected) can endure harsh variance situations.
You can't do nothing when your B 5 point will succumb vs a 3 P point catching a 3 third card, or when your P 7 point will lose to a B 3 point drawing a 5 as third card.

Whenever you bet a given side you want to get the higher 2-card initial point within a restricted betting range, the rest (the actual result) belongs to recreational losing players.

as.

Notice that I'm not suggesting a mere 'antistreak' strategy, just to focus about the situations when something is proven to be slight more likely to happen by considering the average card distribution.

For example, the majority of long chopping lines aren't produced by a HI2CP 'hopping' distribution, somewhere the third card(s) had made a substantial role in forming such sequence.
The same about long streaks, especially at P side.

That's why most of the hands dealt aren't playable as they either do not reach the profitable cutoff values or after having reached that points sometimes they continue to abnormally deviate from the norm, a thing we shouldn't give a damn.

as.

Thx Asym for answering my question above in post#847. That makes sense.

Also, you mentioned: "...You can't do nothing when your B 5 point will succumb vs a 3 P point catching a 3 third card, or when your P 7 point will lose to a B 3 point drawing a 5 as third card.  ..."

My Q: Do you have any thoughts when B wins with one of its key favored hands: Drawing a two-card five/ choosing to not draw that third card, and getting the W.

    ?So do you view the remainder of the shoe as: There is now one less "two-card five scenario" available for B ?? 
"OR"  other viewpoints for the remainder of shoe re:  that "B two-card five scenario"


Thx in advance,kfb

?So do you view the remainder of the shoe as: There is now one less "two-card five scenario" available for B ??
"OR"  other viewpoints for the remainder of shoe re:  that "B two-card five scenario"

Hi KFB!

Yes, the number of asymmetrical hands favoring B is finite, so whenever one or more asym hands came out it's like that in the remainder of the shoe we're playing a closer coin flip proposition.
After all, when the number of asym hands is quite depleted and banker wins with naturals or standing points or points different than 3,4 or 5 (and the most powerful points for B are 5 and then 4), by wagering Player we're not losing anything or little.

This fact is particularly important at 'Lucky 6' tables where the HE is greater at B bets right  at the start.

More later

as. 

Worst and best scenario

Coming soon

as.

You have built your best betting plan that in a way or another must endure the variance, so you should know what will be the 'best scenario' and, more importantly, the 'worst scenario' to face along the way.

It doesn't take to test millions of shoes, actually just a couple of thousands are sufficient to realize the average probability of those opposite scenarios happening.

Best scenario

Best scenario constitutes the positive outlier we should aim for, it's a kind of endless winning spots the actual shoe is producing.
Obviously we can't expect to win 75 straight hands, let alone more than 50% of total hands whether the betting range per shoe is large.
Thus the best scenario probability is inversely proportional to the number of hands played and directly proportional to the general probability of success.

So we know that 'tricks' oriented to get the least number of hands played per shoe and a fair probability of success utilized will both enhance the overall winning process.

More importantly, when the average betting frequency is quite low and the probability of success is greater than 50%, 'best scenario' shoes will surely happen by defined long term probabilities.
Now we have reasons to set up a positive progressive betting plan as sooner or later such scenario will happen.
Of course, shorter is the positive streak we should aim for, higher will be our winning probability and lighter is the positive progression greater will be the probability to be ahead even if the winning streak fails at some point before the end of the shoe.

Worst scenario

Even the best betting methodology ever invented sooner or later will fall into strong negative variance. It's the negative outlier where we can't do anything about that.

Good news is that a proper strategy makes worst scenario asymmetrically shaped with best scenario, meaning is slight less likely to happen.
Naturally HE is a constant burden casinos will profit from.

So the decisive paramount difference is that a valid long term strategy needs to encounter a slight longer positive succession than a proportional losing succession but this task can only be achieved by a proper 'clustering effect' evaluation, the same why HTHHT sequence = HHHHH sequence in frequency but different in rhythm of presentation.

Permutations and 'enemies density'

When the probability of success is >50% and the W/L ratio moves around expected values, there's an ideal more likely distribution (forming the best scenario) and intermediate situations where 'enemies' could come out clustered for quite long but conceding at some point(s) more room to the 'more likely' patterns.
So the permutations issue cannot give us any damage.

The problem arises when the slight less likely 'enemies density' strongly surpasses the normal ratios.
We'll see that in a couple of days.

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy. Perfectly worded.

...So we know that 'tricks' oriented to get the least number of hands played per shoe and a fair probability of success utilized will both enhance the overall winning process.

...More importantly, when the average betting frequency is quite low and the probability of success is greater than 50%, 'best scenario' shoes will surely happen by defined long term probabilities.
Now we have reasons to set up a positive progressive betting plan as sooner or later such scenario will happen.


...Of course, shorter is the positive streak we should aim for, higher will be our winning probability and lighter is the positive progression greater will be the probability to be ahead even if the winning streak fails at some point before the end of the shoe.