Good post AsymBacGuy

Personally I find #2 easier to discern vs #1 or #3:

"2- Considering it to stop a L pattern of given lenght"



Continued Success,

Summary

A(p)= 0.75% and B(p)= 0.25%, where (p)=math probability

A utopian world would produce successions as AAABAAABAAABAAAB....

Actually the vast majority of bac successions won't provide such distributions for long other than by a kind of unlikely strong "coincidence probability", so we'll expect that the vast part of shoes dealt will diverge (in a way or another) from such "utopian" pace.

Notice that differently than other perfect random independent successions (e.g. EC roulette outcomes) such  world will be somewhat "biased" at the start for the sure undeniable asymmetrical card distribution and for the bac rules favoring B side.
Of course we do not know which A or B side of the events will be favored at the various portions of the shoes and by how much.

Suppose A= searched (W) spots and B= unfavourable (L) spots

A succession as AABAABAABAAB...would be altogether beatable despite of performing a strong shifted transitory probability privileging B side. In fact now A=0.666% (instead of 0.75%) and B=0.333% (instead of 0.25%).
Who cares? AA still remains the best option to make a singled A bet.

At the same time at such two different scenarios, B events remain isolated so it's a child joke to  get them coming out as isolated and not clustered.
Unfortunately and by those precise ratios (3:1) the first "utopian" succession won't happen for long, yet the second one (2:1) is way more likely to succeed as it'll be mathematically more likely to get any kind of A cluster than an A cluster surpassing the AA cutoff.

Obviously any A cluster surpassing the AA cutoff point will get us a win and for the reasons already traced, we're entitled to get some superior AAA patterns than precise AAAB patterns.

But who knows?
It's better to secure a win after any A(A) situations than hoping to get a kind of sky's the limit AAA...sequence where a single loss will wipe out three wins.

In a word, a s.t.upid plan oriented to get A clusters of any kind will suffer the least impact of negative variance.

On the other side, B events should come out more isolated than clustered but someway they must catch up (balance) the possible more likely math propensity to get LONG A clusters (a thing will see in the next post). Thus coming out more clustered than isolated.

Again, a utopian world would be to face long successions of B isolated spots, then two B clustered  spots.
But since the model is strongly asymmetrical, we can't rely upon precise values so we might add the factor of any A situations intertwined by any single B event. So we are not interested to bet toward A when B keep showing up.

In practice and considering a given random walk or multiple common random walks, our large live shoes sample had shown us that A probability to come out clustered doesn't remain constant after two A events coming out as isolated. That is after a couple of A isolated spots, AA will overwhelm the 0.75/0.25 probability ratio so getting profitable values well greater than 0.75.

Obviously some could argue why a BBBBA...succession won't get valuable A bettable spots than a B..AB...AB...A...sequence where now A is way more likely than B.

The answer is that the greater two initial cards point is 2:1 math favored to win the final hand, but it's sufficient to get one hand going wrong to alter the more likely A/B pace and when results keep staying to one side of the operations, we'd better wait for two "fictional" A losses not displaying a more likely course of action.

I've already sayed that (no matter how's the random walk utilized) long streaks are the mixed product of 1) unlikely "long" consecutive greater two initial cards points and 2) math two initial card underdog points getting a favourable third(s) card impact.

Basically and at least after having studied our large live shoes sample, we've found out that the more likely two initial greater point will get a two value pace, so we dared to reach the conclusion that at baccarat doubles are the more likely results for this reason.

Of course a large part of outcomes will disrupt such allegedly propensity, that's why we had to implement a so called "multiple variables" factor in our plan.

as. 

Quote from: KungFuBac on June 03, 2024, 02:40:56 AMGood post AsymBacGuy

Personally I find #2 easier to discern vs #1 or #3:

"2- Considering it to stop a L pattern of given lenght"


Continued Success,

  Thanks!
Of course I knew you "chose" the most reliable point to look for.

as.

QuoteWinning spots

There are three different ways to catch a W spot:

1- Hoping it'll come out as a "starting" spot

2- Considering it to stop a L pattern of given lenght

3- Considering it to come out again after a W spot (W cluster)

From a math point of view, such list doesn't make any sense as the W probability will remain 0.75 indipendently of what we're trying to dissect.

Actually (and fortunately) things doesn't correspond to those raw probabilities for each W scenario happening.
In fact even the first starting scenario mainly based upon "luck", itlr will form detectable W distributions needing quite time to be correctly grasped, many times by letting go those natural L clustered events to show up.

The third point seems to be quite straightforward but it is not, we reckon being the #1 reason why most players fail.

The second point needs a lot of time to provide real bettable spots, but by far will provide those sure strong EV+ situations completely denied by math (but not by statistics).
Remember that we do not want to win 100% of those relative rare allegedly EV+ spots, we'll always expect negative variance putting us into a harsh emotional status.

Yet, whenever a verified situation launched "infinite" times won't provide proportional math values, well we'd think to be in a very good shape to exploit an advantage.

More later

as.

1 & 3 go together for myself and I have profited nicely and smoothly with clear insight because of both of them merged at a live table.

You have touched upon a detailed post I have been working on!

Minor/Major problem with your 1-2-3 and catching a winning spot are many.

HOWEVER, 1–Single spot is easier, than 2-3-4-5, etc., I agree,  but the confidence and profitability is usually not available with just 1-ONE-a single wager here and there sporadically for numerous reasoning. 

But, and a huge "however" with detectable distributions remain with numerous wagers are needed for a good advantaged chance at profitability in a live game of baccarat. 

To myself, your 1 & 3 combined to a nice opportunity at times and those times it does, when I am on it, I progress heavy and fast and then pull down continual winnings. 

My reasoning is because change happens and will happen no matter what it is.  And when it does, it is a "FOLLOW ME" flag and reward.  Doesn't matter if it was supposed to produce what was presented or not. 

That's the beauty of baccarat!

Two of the best bac scholars (Al and KFB) have chosen two different options (1 and 3 or 2).

Let's see what we had implemented in our algos to "solve" the puzzle.

Live players action

First, most of the live action worldwide is made by hoping that something will prolong several times in a row, think about tourists and the vast majority of gamblers.
Nothing wrong with it, providing to maintain low or very low the betting pace as long as W "homogeneous" clusters are correctly assessed by a general statistical point of view.

So for example, it's quite difficult to face a shoe NOT forming singles/doubles sequences for less than 4 spots. But at the same time it's quite difficult to cross shoes not forming a 2 or 3 s/d sequence. (Not mentioning those isolated s/d spots). 
Since any 3/3+ pattern will make us a -3 unit loser, after a win or a couple of wins we should be worried to concede the previous profits to the house.

Technically we need at least a 4 s/d sequence to gain a profit and of course not every succession will accomplish this.

On the other end, odds that a s/d sequence will reach the 6 or 7 or superior value are quite good.
Yet, it's not so probable to get such sequences more than one time per any shoe dealt.

Simplyfing, the W clustering effect of decent lenght will be somewhat limited to one time per shoe.
Or, it's the same concept, that s/d sequences surpassing the 3:1 cutoff value normally are not overwhelming the 3:1 overall profitability, meaning that most s/d successions won't provide back-to-back (consecutive) numbers greater than 3.

More later

as.

The main tool algos are interested upon is not the probability to win a lot of times or to hit several "freerolling situations" (that is patterns reaching or best surpassing the 3:1 ratio), but to restrict at most the natural negative variance where the "model" seems to be too unpredictable (or deviating too much from the "norm" at the unprofitable side).

Check your shoes data whatever you want, eventually you'll see that when a proper random walk is working the vast majority of shoes dealt will produce from one to three 5/5+ streaks, so you should find betting ways to get the best of it at those more probable circumstances.

Then when things seems to be too deviated at "unexpected" side of the operations, algos will raise  the betting parameters by waiting, for example, two or three fictional wins up to the point where they are not interested to make any bet for that shoe.

In summary, W long clusters should be "gambled" just in very few situations and anyway always by not jeopardizing a previous profit or in order to recover promptly an actual loss, thus this is the exact opposite way recreational players like to do.

Remember that assigning a 0.75 W probability, W clusters are real winning clusters only when they surpass the 3:1 W/L cutoff point, or 2:1 or 1:1 or worse W/L ratios should be considered as natural losing spots we can't do anything about. (Actually we've seen that any W cluster--as WWL sequence---might be good but not "so good").

So consider any  WWL sequence as a kind of "backup" plan.

W long clustered sequences vs L long clustered sequences and W isolated clustered events

We've seen that some random walks working by a 0.75% probability of success itlr will form longer W successions than a proportional amount of L successions. (W=+1 and L=-3).
We've found out that the gap, albeit being rare to cross through, will provide us a strong statistical advantage.

Cutting to the chase the issue, rare situations on both sides of the operation will proportionally privilege our 0.75% probability and not the 0.25% counterpart.
Such propensity slightly decreases in relationship of the W pattern lenght up to the point where even W isolated events will be more restricted in their back-to-back apparition than what math dictates.

In fact, after any couple of isolated W events the most probable outcome will be WW and not WL by percentages well surpassing the general probability (0.75%), getting winning percentages ranging from 78% to 80%.
That means that in those (relatively rare) situations our edge (before vig) will get values up to  20%.

This is just one example of the #2 point discussed above.

See you next week

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 05, 2024, 02:28:08 AMIn summary, W long clusters should be "gambled" just in very few situations and anyway always by not jeopardizing a previous profit or in order to recover promptly an actual loss, thus this is the exact opposite way recreational players like to do."

(The above needs to be seriously ingrained by 'real' players)

AND:

(I have found that my "Just One More" is a subjective way to pick out IAR events brewing to happen.  And remember, it also might be other events besides IAR.)



as.

KungFuBac likes this:

"We've seen that some random walks working by a 0.75% probability of success itlr will form longer W successions than a proportional amount of L successions. (W=+1 and L=-3).
We've found out that the gap, albeit being rare to cross through, will provide us a strong statistical advantage."

"Bad" shoes predominance

Suppose the casino knows perfectly what we're doing, that is exploiting the "average" shoe texture thus starting to offer "strong opposite deviated" shoes for long.

Differently to what many could think of, it's quite easy to arrange the cards in order to form a kind of "distant than average" shoe composition, shoes where the cut or the initial cards burnt in relationship of the value of the very first card cannot alter anything other than few patterns.

It's just an hypothetical consideration, almost every live casino in the world acts by perfect legal standards.
But for example, think about a machine malfunction (shoes not being entirely shuffled) or other manually shuffling issues.

We'll expect "average" but we keep facing an unfavourable "deviated world".

Now we need to find the best compliance to the shoe(s) we're facing, meaning that one or a couple of favourable triggers coming out after a world of disaster do not necessarily mean to start the betting. And of course at most circumstances trying to get the best of it by exploiting a unlikely negative deviation to prolong represents a thing our algos are not interested about.

It's true that at the most part of shoes algos will spot a slight greater amount of positive situations than negative spots, yet around a 2%-6% percentage of total shoes dealt will pose a real threat for us, so wiping out most or all of the previous profits we had accumulated.
So even a careful detailed clusters and isolated pattern evaluation could be of no avail for our plan.

Technically those shoes are just a natural occurence destroying any mechanical method ever invented and, on the other end, not easily controllable by a simple human adaptation.

More later

as.

The primary tool why this game could be beatable itlr is because any shoe distribution is "biased" at the start, that is a strong asymmetrical force will always and constantly act as a decisive factor between the math issues and the actual (asymmetrical) distribution.

Of course per each shoe dealt such force will work by different quantities and (more importantly) qualities that for practical reasons we had to condense in the pattern formation and distribution.

Simplifying, what didn't happen so far in the actual shoe is considered as "not existent" by our algos, providing a proper room of apparition was left in relationship of the number of hands dealt.

An event not happening so far cannot be classified as "isolated" or "clustered", the secondary main tool why we should win at this game.
Best example to provide is any streak not belonging to a specific class and we already know that we can safely assume that streaks could be restricted within 2, 3, 4 or 5/5+ classes.

Therefore any FOUR streaks sequence happening (streak cutoff= two hand in a row) is more likely to form a kind of clustered succession among 2/3, 3/4, 2/4 classes than any 2/5, 3/5 or 4/5 event.
Obviously it'll happen that ALL consecutive streaks are belonging to the 5/5+ category or that any 2, 3 or 4 streak will be intertwined by a 5/5+ streak.

In some way and even if one doesn't know the exact pace our algos work on, probability to get all different streaks after four streaks happened is quite low.
No matter what and since we do not know the exact "asymmetrical" factor strenght actually working, when 4 different numbers are coming around, it's 100% certain that at least one streak 2,3 or 4 cluster must happen.

Even when two unlikely 5/5+ streaks show up within a four streaks range, some inferior streak classes must come out clustered. Most of the times belonging to the 2/3 streaks category, then 2/4 category and finally to the 3/4 category.

In reality, such streak clustering effect might be diminished (or even erased) when a low streak/single ratio happens in relationship of the number of hands dealt so far, most of the times when long chopping lines come out consecutively.

After all, every pattern considered by a number will fight vs an equal or superior/lower number as we are taking into account a 0.75% general probability to succeed.

It's completely obvious that longer streaks will come out more isolated than clustered, and when they are not most of the times is because a shortage of streaks happened so far.

On the other end, when many streaks dominate the model, it's almost impossible to miss a clustering effect of some kind.

We have even set up a progressive mechanical betting after waiting that any 2 or any 3 streak will come out as isolated three or four times in a row.
Very rare situations to happen, it's like to wait a strong and favourable positive bj count.

The difference is that at baccarat we are not forced to bet a fkng dime, just let the house to confide about improbable events to happen for "long".

as.

"It's completely obvious that longer streaks will come out more isolated than clustered, and when they are not most of the times is because a shortage of streaks happened so far."

The above, as a norm.  But not as a guarantee of course.  And that is a reason so many didn't win anything on the shoe last week of 51B vs. 20P I posted.  And the 3 Bankers streaks were classically clustered/clumped.

https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=11733.msg72116;topicseen#msg72116

"The difference is that at baccarat we are not forced to bet a fkng dime, just let the house to confide about improbable events to happen for "long"."

Oh yeah!  But............On the flip side, if your not on it, you cannot win.

Yep, I was talking about unfavourable opposite events, I'd guess your shoe is a paramount example of a strong FAVOURABLE situation to get the best about. 

BTW, you can't imagine how many posts of yours have improved our betting model.

as. 

"Yep, I was talking about unfavourable opposite events, I'd guess your shoe is a paramount example of a strong FAVOURABLE situation to get the best about. 

BTW, you can't imagine how many posts of yours have improved our betting model."

Strong Favorable Situation.  Well.  Possibly, but that is an outta left field Bankers slam dunk, especially the latter part, 30 Bankers to a tiny 3 Players.  Only a few at the table really believed in the Bankers and most were wagering tiny bits of risk capital on Bankers and numerous others on the Players side to make its come back. 

Strong streaking and multiple streaks clumped together IMO is certainly not favorable, but does occasionally happen.

BUT, AS I DISCUSS WITH KUNGFUBAC, MY WAGERING STYLE WOULD BE TO QUICKLY HAVE POSITIVE RISK CAPITAL FROM A FEW WINS AND USE THAT TO WAGER, FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL STREES FREE, INTO SOMETHING THAT PAYS OFF HAND AFTER HAND (for a few hands) QUICKLY REALIZING MULTIPLE TIMES MY BUYIN AMOUNT.  Then apply my 1/3rd-1/3rd-1/3rd MMM to the win total at the end of the streaks or the shoe.

AsymBacGuy above:

"..."It's completely obvious that longer streaks will come out more isolated than clustered, and when they are not most of the times is because a shortage of streaks happened so far...."

    I concur.
I think we all agree the referenced shoe above was quite the anomaly. The most difficult obstacle for the players at that table will be to realize "when its over its over." The majority will very likely never see that shoe again. Though many will hunt for it, repeatedly.

QuoteAsymBacGuy above:

"..."It's completely obvious that longer streaks will come out more isolated than clustered, and when they are not most of the times is because a shortage of streaks happened so far...."

    I concur.
I think we all agree the referenced shoe above was quite the anomaly. The most difficult obstacle for the players at that table will be to realize "when its over its over." The majority will very likely never see that shoe again. Though many will hunt for it, repeatedly.

Absolutely!  And Absolutely Times a million reference those that will continuously wager for additional shoes to replicate what they just had.

What normally happens because most all have no MMM they stick to, is that all winnings and all their available risk capital goes right into the dealers rack in numerous subsequent shoes after those types of shoes. 

PLEASE NOTE:  I am writing from decades of experience in various areas of the country.  It is not a pitfall secluded to a certain small casino locale, that all types of players do not engage in a concrete MMM that will protect them and control them in multiple ways.