Summarizing the streaks topic (singles ignored) from a back-to-back point of view:

From one part doubles can only produce S (back-to-back doubles) or I values (from I-1 = triples or I-2 = 4s streaks or I-3= 5/5+ streaks), and on the other end 5/5+ streaks reproduce the same specular situation ranging from S (back-to-back 5/5+ streaks) to D-1 (4s streaks) or D-2 (triples) or D-3 (doubles).

Every other streak class (that is triples and 4s) can only be followed either by a S event (same streak) or by a two-step D or I scenario.

But since the I value belonging to any streak class is somewhat more restricted than the more likely D counterpart (considering as neutral any S clustered apparition), any attack made on such streak "clusters" will get us an edge.

It's like that any streak not belonging to the 5/5+ class, will more likely move around a S or one-step D situation, especially if we'd want to adopt a multilayered betting scheme capable to start (or stop) the action whenever at previous streak appearance the increasing values (I) seemed to deviate for too long the expected values.

In a couple of days I'll present you the most extremely bad situations we had to cross through.
Many times accepting serenely a temporary inevitable loss.

as. 

Hi Asym

"...especially if [bWe want to adopt a multilayered betting scheme[/b] capable to start (or stop) the action whenever at previous streak appearance the increasing values (I) seemed to deviate for too long the expected values.
.."


Q: What is your preferred multi-layered betting scheme (e.g., 1-1, 1-2, 124, 137, other...etc) ?


Thx in advance,

Hi KFB!!

Say we have at our disposal three different players betting (or fictionally betting) for us.

Step1 player (SP1), Step2 player (SP2) and Step3 player (SP3).

SP1 is the loosest of the three, he tries to get streak classes clustered around any corner by adopting a same two betting scheme (1-1.2 or 1-1.5 or even 1-2).
He doesn't care about losing more than the 3:1 cutoff (losing) ratio, he keep betting when a new low streak class shows up.

SP2 is the medium player starting the action (fictionally or for real) whenever the sd results reach the 2 negative value.
His bets are made by a 3-3.6 or 3-4.5 or even 3-6 'schedule' and again he keep wagering the same sums without any consideration about the current bankroll status. 

SP3 is the tightest player, considering to bet only whenever the sd approaches or surpasses the 3 value.
His bets are 9-10.8 or 9-13.5 or even 9-18.

Since it's virtually impossible not to get inferior streak classes to be clustered once or not clustered for "long" (obviously by adopting proper random walks), this player tend to act very rarely and anyway by a wonderful positive expectancy.
So there's no need to further escalate the multistep players action.

It's true that along the way the HE will consistently reduce the profits by the vig impact, but the probability of success slowly go up by a density well erasing and inverting it.

Moreover, we should understand that the second term of any given two-step wager is set up just as a mere "back-up" plan, that is a kind of challenge that the enemy (5/5+ streaks) won't come out right after two attempts made looking for two specific streak classes.
In a sense, that means that the most focus we should put on is about the first term of any betting schedule, giving the second term the possibility to recoup the first failed attempt (vig considered, that's why we have to raise the previous bet whether lost).

Statistical tools making this plan to work

1) 5/5+ streaks are well defined in their range of apparition along any shoe dealt.
Our two random walks provide ranges between zero to 7 apparitions where zero is about 100 times more likely than 7.
Even 6 apparitions are very very unlikely to happen.

2) An unlikely high number of 5/5+ streaks will deny the formation of inferior streak classes so not making any issue about the clustering effect we're looking for.
This factor gets more amplitude if we'd wait for two inferior and different streak classes to show up before thinking to play them by a clustered fashion.   

3) It's a corollary of the above point: An unlikely high number of 5/5+ streaks will more likely show up clustered (back to back, that is no inferior streaks capable to form a 'trigger' came out). In this instance we won't dream to bet a dime, fictionally or for real.

4) Any 5/5+ streak appearance at the first portion of the shoe is a relative sign that more 5/5+ streaks are coming next: this a very complicated issue related to the average card distribution.
The same about a possible back-to-back 5/5+ cluster.
So do not play towards "balanced" or more likely scenarios when 'enemies' seemed to come out strong.   

5) Two similar but slight different random walks will get very diverse streak distributions, meaning that even whether casinos perfectly know what we're doing they couldn't arrange the cards to get more long streaks than due. 
Fortunately we've devised such random walks making the least possible number of "colliding events", that is hands where we can't know at which random walk streak classes we're looking for may come out or not.
Of course when in doubt we won't risk a cent. 

as.

"Of course when in doubt we won't risk a cent".


You are being facetious, right?

Or is that your rock solid m.o.? 

Quote from: alrelax on February 28, 2024, 05:04:49 AM"Of course when in doubt we won't risk a cent".


You are being facetious, right?

Or is that your rock solid m.o.? 

Almost always r.w. 1 takes the lead over r.w. 2 but it could happen that that shoe is more consistent with streaks limited by r.w. 2.
Now if at a given hand r.w.1 dictates to bet Banker but r.w. 2 dictates to bet Player, we simply don't bet.

Taken the issue from a general point of view, yes, we are always in doubt...it's the nature of the game

as. 

Later I'll try to discuss some points about progressive plans.

as. 

First, if A<B (that is we're betting an A math disadvantaged proportion) we're supposed not to go anywhere yesterday, now and in the future.
Yet, at baccarat A/B successions are more dependent that many would think about, schematically we could split such successions into three different categories:

1) Slight/moderate fluctuations at either side;

2) Strong fluctations at A side (positive);

3) Strong fluctuations at B side (negative).

Obviously itlr 1 > 2 and 3 and of course 2 < 3.
The proportional damage of 3 will overwhelm the advantage of 2, but 1 category still includes the vast majority of situations, meaning that they are easily controllable by a progressive betting scheme.

In some way, both strong positive and negative situations (2 and 3) should be avoided by putting the most emphasis to the more likely "intermediate" world.

Obviously a more likely world cannot get rid of a basic statistical assumption that a given propensity must come out more clustered than isolated, thus setting up a kind of negative pattern "boundaries" (stop) along the way.
Such boundaries are naturally counterbalancing a more likely flow, but differently than this one, are way more finite in their apparition as at baccarat key cards cannot disappear from a shoe especially if we'd consider the model as an infinite (!) multistep battle between two sides.

To be worthwhile a progressive plan shouldn't be oriented to get a positive outcome around any corner, just focused to classify the possible negative boundaries permutations happening along any shoe dealt, always privileging the lower classes of apparition by a clustered fashion.

We know very well that very often possible "more likely" scenarios will come out intertwined by less likely boundaries patterns but this thing cannot last for long, so the boundaries problem shifts to the different levels of profitable patterns probability, ranging (for example) from singles to 4 streaks.
Or, it's the same concept, from single isolated sequences to two or three single runs.

Pretend to take the casino's part

Casinos do not give a fk about their math edge (besides side bets), they rely upon more likely pattern distributions belonging to the 1) class, considered "undetectable" by most.
After all, bac players like to hope for strong deviated scenarios constituting the lesser amount of total hands dealt.

Technically casinos must concede some room to such strong deviating opportunities, knowing very well that things will change sooner or later toward a more likely "mixed" distribution.

Well, it's the same thing we should aim for.

Some examples of our progressive plans

Say we want to evaluate the 5th row EMPTY RANGES happening per every shoe dealt.
Ignoring singles and doubles, 3s and 4s streaks will make some empty areas and since 5/5+ streaks are well defined in their average apparition, we'll expect some 3rd and 4th rows to be empty at least two times, obviously this is the same thing that wagering toward clustered 3s and 4s streaks.
The plan has a so high probability of success that we can also add to our wagering options even doubles.

The same about singles successions: 3rd or 4th columns not giving room to any row formation (always considering the clustering effect) are quite rare to happen, giving plenty of room to the more likely 1 or 2 step singles formation.

Obviously some random walks will make those scenarios way more likely to happen, anyway at the end what seems to limit (or not) outcomes' distribution gets an esponential probability to succeed.

It's like that either the actual distribution will form a more likely number of streaks or that such streaks will belong to low classes being clustered.

as. 

It's important to say that algorithms are particularly sensitive not only about the specific streaks formation but also about their relative position in the actual shoe dealt as they were instructed to suggest the best move after having implemented thousands and thousands of real shoes.

The clustering (or isolated or no showing up) effect is just one parameter (even though being the most important) they would look for.

See you later

as.

Before thinking to adopt a progressive multilayered betting scheme we should understand some basic statistical tools applied to long term live shoes data.
Differently than black jack, we reached the conclusion that at baccarat we do not need millions of shoes data, few dozens of thousands are more than sufficent to realize the ranges of intervention of our plan.

Modal value at attack #1, singles vs streaks

By applying a 0.75% probability of success (that is looking for a win within a couple of attempts) and discarding a subtantial portion of initial (foremost) and ending hands, the most frequent number of bettable spots per shoe (considered as a win or a loss) is 8.

Since a two-step continuous wager is working and thinking by average values, we reckon to bet around 12 times per shoe (isolated singles and two singles in a row).

Worst situations are whenever we won't win a single two-step hand, that is when the shoe will present ALL single clusters superior than 2.
Knowing the modal value, on average the worst event we'll expect it'll be to get 16 losing bets in a row.
But since the shoe is finite and by applying a "clustering" factor, such scenario could be easily discarded, mostly as distributions wholly negating a more likely 1-2 single steps almost always cannot reach the 8 modal value (stopping well before).

In any instance, shoes NOT presenting at least one winning spot are showing up around 1% of the times. In the almost all cases the number of bettable spots (and disregarding the important clustering effect) is 5 or 6.

On the other end, shoes presenting ALL one-step and two-step single situations account for a nearly 10% of total shoes dealt.

Therefore after 100 shoes dealt and ignoring the vig for simplicity, at such most deviated situations on average we'll expect to win 4 units (1-1.5 progression) or 8 units (1-2 progression) ten times and to lose from 12.5 units (1-1.5 progression) to 18 units (1-2 progression) one time.

In a word and after 100 shoes dealt, most possible deviated outcomes at either side will get a 40 units profit (by adopting a 1-1.5 progression) to 80 units profit (1-2 progression) or a 12.5 units loss (1-1.5 progression) or 18 units loss (1-2 progression).

Then it remains to assess the most likely intermediate situations where one or more positive (most likely) or negative (less likely) event will affect the overall ratios.

Positive situations (that is isolated or two-step singles) will account a nearly 77% probability (expected value = 75%), the remaining 3-step sequences are equally distributed betweeen 3s or superior than 3s steps.

That's where our edge comes from.

Results are always shifted to our favor, it's just a matter of time that things will take a more likely profitable course of action.
It's a slow process capable to get rid either of the negative variance and of the permutations issue, both factors easily manageable by a simple clustering way of considering things.

Next week I'll give you the details about the average clustering streaks distribution.

as.

I don't know your personal hard core betting numbers, just what you write.

But I will tell you my worst shoes, where as I lost by the end of the shoe I would average, that I wagered around 25 times. 

The shoes that I won, I would average, that I wagered around 40 times. 

Bear in mind, I am not satisfied with a one, two or a few unit win by any means.  Likewise, my buy-in is only a small percentage of my bank roll funds and as I have written, is pure risk capital with not much of a stop loss.

What I have found, that suits me best, is attempting in the most aggressive way to get into my M.M.M. stage. And be able to implement my 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd strategy, thus allowing my wagering to be strictly governed by my wins and losses effecting only a portion of my win money.

But I will tell you my worst shoes, where as I lost by the end of the shoe I would average, that I wagered around 25 times.
The shoes that I won, I would average, that I wagered around 40 times.

Definitely this is an interesting thing to think about.
Obviously you should compare how many units you've lost at those 25 hands bet shoes and how many units you have won by wagering 40 times.

In some way we could reduce the 25 and 40 hands by, say a 5 factor, thus getting us 5 bet hands at losing shoes and 8 bet hands at winning ones.

as.

Attack #2: singles/doubles clusters vs 3/3+ streaks

This attack studies the average probability to get singles/doubles clusters, meaning we need to get one "fictional" winning hand (that is a single or a double) in order that a s/d pattern will be classified as an "isolated" outcome (1) or a "clustered" outcome (any number superior than 1).

Thus consecutive 3/3+ streaks won't be classified as they're not conceding room to any single/double clustering effect.

Our long term live shoes data had taught us that on average shoes NOT presenting any isolated single/double (s/d) cluster show up by a 27.77% probability, so more than 3/4 of the total shoes dealt will include at least one isolated s/d sequence.
It's a quite obvious situation as we'd start to bet after a fictional winning situation happened.

Things are going to re-adjust when we consider the overall number of 1s (isolated s/d patterns) to opposing triples, now itlr the s/d value vs the 3/3+ value tend to remain constant.

Let's summarize.

Since we're talking about s/d clusters, we shouldn't be interested about HOW LONG such s/d patterns will last, we'd just bet toward the least profitable s/d cluster happening and this is a 2 value (that is a single and/or double back to back pattern) after one single or double event had shown up.
In a word, just isolated s/d events represent our "enemy", so we should be interested about how many isolated patterns will come in a row per any shoe dealt.

Surprise!!

Proportional outcomes become one side shifted when we start to consider the average distribution of such isolated enemies by a consecutive distribution point of view.
A thing negated by mathematicians or "experts of our a$$" losers.

In fact whether proper random walks are in action, double consecutive isolated events are nearly 87% favorite NOT to produce superior isolated situations, meaning they are way more likely to stop there.
That means that at super selected situations we'll get a nearly 24% edge (before vig) over the house.

In numbers the average probability to benefit of such wonderful edge is one time per every 4.3 shoes dealt.

Even though such EV+ pots are quite diluted and anyway splitted within two consecutive bets (directed to deny the 3/3+ apparition), you should start to consider casinos as your free ATM machine.

That's just the third row (s/d vs superior streaks) of considering outcome ranges, next we'll see the fourth row.

as.

QuoteBut I will tell you my worst shoes, where as I lost by the end of the shoe I would average, that I wagered around 25 times.
The shoes that I won, I would average, that I wagered around 40 times.

Definitely this is an interesting thing to think about.
Obviously you should compare how many units you've lost at those 25 hands bet shoes and how many units you have won by wagering 40 times.

In some way we could reduce the 25 and 40 hands by, say a 5 factor, thus getting us 5 bet hands at losing shoes and 8 bet hands at winning ones.

as.

Asym,  I will wager a greater amount of hands when I am winning,  some are pos progression wagers and others might be just the win money at risk once again.  But I almost never do what so many claim, the 1-2 or 3 and stop win for a shoe. 

When I am losing, I am looking for the recouping trend and a winning recovery possibility.  If you do not play, you cannot win.  No matter what the visual/stay out until you see virtual wins, etc., if you don't have money up on the table in play, you cannot win.  True you cannot lose also, but your loss will not be recovered either. A wicked catch-22.

And I do have absolutely great, large wins after a period of losses in a shoe.  Let's just say at times, it was a 'warm up' period before the end of the 3rd quarter.

Thanks Al!

Definitely and as long as the favourable conditions are met, the stop win or stop loss concept shouldn't be implemented in any EV+ attack as either we have verified to accumulate more Ws than Ls at those spots or we're just fooling ourselves.
At the risk of enduring some harsh and inevitable variance periods.

Fourth row

Deeper we're going down the rows, greater will be the probability to encounter wide empty ranges between the "boundaries" that now are 4s streaks or streaks superior than 4.
Even here consecutive 4th rows are not considered as what we should interested about is the clustering or isolated effect of lower pattern classes (singles, doubles and triples).

To restrict the field of intervention at 4th or superior rows, we may transform the s/d vs 3s plan into a double/triple vs 4s plan, so considering ininfluent the singles distribution.
Therefore we'll take care of the 2 and 3 streaks coming out clustered or isolated between two 4/4+ streaks. (Actually at the starting portion of the shoe we don't need any 4s streak to limit the 2/3 ranges).
As long as one or more double or one or more exact triple or a mix of the two shows up before crossing a 4/4+ streak, we'll get a number specifying a range and of course 1=isolated range, 2= a couple of doubles and or triples, etc.

For example a distribution as 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2 becomes 6/4

or a distribution as 2, 3, 7, 4, 3, 2, 4, 7, 4, 3, 2 becomes 2/2/2

That's the old streak clustering effect I was talking about in my previous posts.

Since the above shoes were randomly taken but too much "good" oriented, here's a voluntarily picked up 'bad' shoe forming 'less detectable' isolated ranges:

2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 6, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2 that is a 1/2/1/1/6 sequence.

I've stated one million of times here that itlr the proportional impact of such numbers will get a 0 sum (before vig), thus there're no math tricks involved.

Progressively betting 1-2 (for example) and ignoring vig for simplicity will get:

1 = -3,
2 = -1,
3 = break even
4 = +1
5 = +2
6 = +3
and so on

Hence the first shoe produced a 6(+3) and 4 (+1) situation, second shoe 2 (-1), 2 (-1), 2 (-1) and the last one 1 (-3), 2 (-1), 1 (-3), 1 (-3), 6 (+3)

Overall a -6 units situation.

Now say that instead of playing an already selected streaks plan we want to bet ONE TIME towards any number different than 1:

1st shoe: +1, +1 (6/4)

2nd shoe: +1, +1, +1 (2/2/2)

3rd shoe: -3, +1, -3, -3, +1 (1/2/1/1/6)

Overall a -2 units loss, so reduced by one third.

Going deeply in the selected process of picking up bettable spots we might think to spot clusters of numbers different than 1 per any shoe (W, W, L) totaling a -1 unit loss or to exploit the opposite side of the medal, that is wagering NOT to get consecutive 1s by different levels (one time, two times, etc). In this three shoe unrandom example we got a -2 unit loss by betting after one single 1 spot and +1 unit win by betting after a couple of 1 consecutive spots.

It's out of question that under the more restricted ways of considering outcomes, the worst multilayered progressive plan ever invented would get the best of it by a 99,999% accuracy.
Way better if we'd find such rare spots where A>B, that is when we'll play the game having a EV+.

W/L permutations when W=L

A thoroughful study made on thousands and thousands of live shoes dealt had shown us that even if the W/L probability remains constant itlr (obviously according to the expected math probability that B and P will happen), outcome permutations are biased in their apparition by more detectable levels affected by the average card distribution.
A thing already demonstrated (but not having sensible practical reflexes) at mere coin flip tosses when "time" (that is when a given sequence should come out first as opposed as to another one) matters.

Math laws instruct us that there are no profitable spots to bet our money at a EV- game, statistical findings applied to baccarat teach us otherwise beyond any shadow of doubt.

I'll elaborate the issue next week, now I'm giving you some real shoes just considering the 2-3 streaks distribution.

as.

Numbers refer to double (2) or three (3) streaks, any streak superior than 3 is labeled as S.
Each row is a real dealt shoe when a fair portion of the final end was discarded from the registration.
Patterns are formed by our main mechanical random walk action.
Numbers in brackets at the end of each shoe are "undefined" streaks for a lack of more hands.

S,3,3,3,2,2,2,S,2,3,2,S,2,3,2,S,S,2

2,2,S,3,S,S,S,2,3,2,2,3,2,2,3,S,3

2,2,S,3,3,3,3,2,2,3,2,S,S,3,3,2,S

3,3,S,2,3,2,3,2,3,3,3,S,3,2,2,S,S,(3)

3,2,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,S,S,S,2

2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,2,3,2,2,S,2,2,3,3,2,S

S,3,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,S,S,S,S,2,3,2

S,2,3,2,2,3,3,2,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,S,S

3,S,3,S,2,3,S,2,3,2,3,2,S,S,2,S,(3)

S,3,2,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,S,2,3,(3)

2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,S,2,S,S

2,2,3,3,S,3,S,2,2,2,2,S,S,2,3,3,2,2,(3)

2,2,S,2,3,3,2,S,3,3,2,S,2,3,S,(3)

2,2,2,2,2,S,2,S,2,2,S,3,3,2

3,3,3,S,S,2,3,2,2,3,S,2,2,2

2,2,2,3,2,2,3,3,2,2,S,S,3,S,S

2.3.2.3.S.2.2.S.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.3.2

2.2.2.2.2.3.3.S.2.3.S.2.3.3.3.2.S

S,3,S,3,3,3,2,S,2,3,2,3,S,(3)

S,3,3,S,3,2,2,2,3,2,3,2,2,3,3,S,2

3,S,S,S,3,S,2,2,2,2,2,S

3,S,S,2,3,2,S,2,S,3,2,2,2,2,3,S,S,(3)

4,3,3,2,2,2,2,S,S,2,S,2,S,2,2,3,S

2,2,2,S,S,S,S,S,3,S,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,(3)

S,3,3,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,S,S,2,2

2,S,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,2

2,2,2,S,3,2,2,S,S,S,3,3,S,S,S

2,S,S,S,2,3,2,S,S,2,2,2,S,3,3,S,(3)

S,2,S,3,2,2,S,2,3,2,3,2,2,S,2,3,2

3,3,S,3,3,3,S,3,3,S,S,S,2

2,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,3,2,S,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,S

S,3,2,S,3,S,3,2,S,2,S,2,S,2,2

3,S,3,S,2,S,2,2,2,3,S,2,3,2,3,S

2,2,3,2,3,3,2,2,S,2,2,S (7310)

as.