Thanks for your replies Al and KFB!

Of course when an opportunity comes around, well we should try to exploit it, even if we have chosen to set up our plan in order to win  every single session we play (that is an average profit per a given number of shoes played). That means to let it go (without wagering) some long profitable situations.

Without any doubt and by playing a lot of hands, the number of profitable/unprofitable situations stays way below of the 1/1 ratio and actually it should remain unfavourable even when we bet five, two or one hand per shoe or just one hand per every ten shoes dealt.

Whereas the former part of the comment above relies upon common sense and experience (and math), the second part rely upon math, that is by assuming a total randomness and independence of the outcomes being always EV-, a thing completely disappointed by our studies.

In fact there's no one shoe composition in the world getting multiple random walks applied to the same succession getting "more likely" steps be silent for long or not forming sequences of a certain lenght.

As long as a shoe is formed by finite decks and cards are burnt after each hand resolved, things must take one direction or another by measurable values.

See you later

as.

"Whereas the former part of the comment above relies upon common sense and experience (and math), the second part rely upon math, that is by assuming a total randomness and independence of the outcomes being always EV-, a thing completely disappointed by our studies."

Please define the comment you are referring to.  Thanks. 

Hi Al!

Here is:

Without any doubt and by playing a lot of hands, the number of profitable/unprofitable situations stays way below of the 1/1 ratio and actually it should remain unfavourable even when we bet five, two or one hand per shoe or just one hand per every ten shoes dealt.

I'll try to elaborate such concept.

Math teaches us that any bet is EV- no matter what, so no human influence (or fkng mechanical models or progressions) can invert it and this is a utterly indisputable statement.
Whenever you bet 1 to get a 0.9894 or 0.98.76 return, you're losing money itlr, period.

Of course math assumes that bettable successions are randomly and indipendently produced.

Baccarat literature has never investigated whether bac successions are really random, neither about how the "dependency" factor could be measured as both parameters were simply ascertained as 1) a sure feature (all shoes are randomly produced) and 2) any new hand is completely disjointed from previous hands.

Since black jack was found to be a beatable game (well before E. Thorp published his book), "experts" tried to apply the same math features at baccarat, obviously with no avail.

Whereas bj successions can get a lesser fk about a possible unrandomness, so focused about the current high cards/low cards ratio, at baccarat ALL successions were and are considered randomly produced.
Actually a kind of baccarat dependency was spotted, but acting by insignificant values.

So under the eyes of gambling experts baccarat remains a random EV- game.

This is a 1 billion false statement, such people didn't know the best definition of randomness ever made, let alone how much a finite slight dependent model will act by transforming it into a unrandom sequence.

Casinos do not know a fkng nothing about this, they just collect the profits as people keep playing the game without really knowing what to look for.

Therefore people willing to open the door about the bac vulnerability are considered just as clowns, unless they'd bet huge sums and being consistently more right than wrong.
Now math laws as well as mathematician assumptions start to be debatable, to say the least.

Let the house getting its math edge, we'd get the best of it no matter what.

as.

AsymBacGuy above:

"...Baccarat literature has never investigated whether bac successions are really random, neither about how the "dependency" factor could be measured as both parameters were simply ascertained as 1) a sure feature (all shoes are randomly produced) and 2) any new hand is completely disjointed from previous hands...."

I agree. Most Bac literature(i.e., book authors) as well as system sellers and such simply repeat what previous literature/book authors/system sellers and such, have parroted for decades.



"...So under the eyes of gambling experts baccarat remains a random EV- game.

This is a 1 billion false statement, such people didn't know the best definition of randomness ever made, let alone how much a finite slight dependent model will act by transforming it into a unrandom sequence...."

The word random or randomness, in casino games is often used very loosely by most, at least IMO. I too have likely been guilty of using in its most generic/broad form. 

Random doesn't  mean scattered evenly.

Which is how I perceive many use (or misuse) it.

Thanks KFB for your post.

Please can you elaborate your interesting Random doesn't  mean scattered evenly passage?
Thank you!

Anyway I think that a succession should be taken as really random (so not depicting any "valuable" pattern along the way, that is a unbeatable sequence) when the limiting values of relative frequency remain costant no matter the points of the succession considered.

Obviously each possible pattern ITLR will get the proportional values expected by math, yet we should be more interested about WHEN and HOW MUCH different points of the sequence will make room to some detectable patterns.
In this way baccarat is definitely a unrandom game.

This way of considering bac outcomes get rid of most part of "averages", focusing more about actual patterns probability of coming out "out of blue" or actual patterns more likely lenght.

To get a better idea of that, suppose a casino voluntarily or coincidentally provide two or more consecutive shoes not belonging to averages, so taking a unidirectional unexpected line for long.
In relationship of the actual method we're using, such situation could be either a heaven or a hell and to make a living at this game we ought to know that heaven and hell are two extremes we should try to avoid at all costs.

More later

as.

As you said; "Obviously each possible pattern ITLR will get the proportional values expected by math, yet we should be more interested about WHEN and HOW MUCH different points of the sequence will make room to some detectable patterns."

And there are plenty of shoes and countless sections of shoes that will and do give way to the different points of 'everything'.

When I used to research bac statistics a while back, the stats were generally a compilation 500,000 or 1,000,000 shoes.  At least the more serious ones, not the forum writer doing a few hundred shoes here and there, etc. 

500k shoes is about 40 Million hands and 1M shoes is about 80 Million hands played out. 

Just for sake of giggles, if you are wagering because of statistics, think about how many shoes/hands/events are in between all those "ITLR" numbers, etc. 

Lots of people playing cannot capitalize handsomely on streaks, extended chop chop, extended doubles or countless other events because of the drummed in belief of, "it can't or shouldn't happen" so they wager continuously for the cut and then when the cut comes, they go for the IAR, etc.  Or, they stop wagering all together.

People should think and think hard at the table and realize that the hands within a shoe (or 2 or 3 or 4, etc.,) at the bac table, are not regulated to fall within the statistical results published and found by the so called 'experts'.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Google "wheather randomness" and the first words are those:

If a physical system is sufficiently complex then it also will exhibit randomness.

Well, baccarat is everything other than a complex model as outcomes are the by product of innumerable card combinations but merging toward more likely patterns formation.

That is running several times the same situation, results will be surely shifted towards one side by different levels that are in partial relationship about how things went so far in the actual shoe.

It's the "partial" relationship factor we should focus upon but not forgetting that itlr some events are more probable than others.

I've already sayed that by setting up a "approximate algorithms" plan, the probability to lose is virtually zero.
And just for the reasons you've illustrated in your post above.

Differently than most part of human minds, algos realize quickly how many "profitable" patterns should come out per each shoe dealt, especially after many hands are dealt.
Of course the word "profitable" assumes a relative weight, but whenever things seem to be unclear the best option to make, by far, is not to bet.

Anything can happen no matter what?
Sure, but by limited standards.

Say we want to pick up randomly three numbers from 1 to 28, then checking the pattern corresponding to the column number of any shoe we have collected.
To simplify the problem, say our "enemy" will be a 5/5+ long streak, singles are considered as neutral, so "enemies" must fight vs 2, 3 and 4 streaks.

For example numbers picked up are #3, #11 and #22.
What's the pattern happening at those column numbers?

Odds are that at most circumstances no 5/5+ streak happened, even if it's way likely such columns were filled by neutral singles.

Whenever two or three streaks of any nature really happened at those randomly picked up spots, we should consider if any kind of "more probable" clustering effect should be working, first by considering 2/3 long streaks, then 3/4 long streaks and finally by a 2/4 long streaks distribution.
A less interesting scenario is to see which streak followed a possible 5/5+ streak happening in the first position or in the second position if the 3 picked up numbers corresponded to three streaks.

Repeat the process infinitely and you'll see that it's way more probable to get 2/3 and 3/4 streak clustered than any other scenario, even knowing that many times you are not in the position to bet anything (for streaks not happening at least twice within the 3 columns range).

I understand that this is a sort of intricate example, but it should get the idea that bac results are not perfect randomly distributed even we had implemented at the start a random factor.

as. 

If baccarat shouldn't be a so complex model, the most ambitious goal would be to approximate at best the actual patterns distributions of EVERY shoe dealt.

I'm not joking, as long as the quality of streaks (and singles) is somewhat limited, the first/intermediate portions of the shoe should give us slight hints capable to erase and invert the HE in our favor.
And of course one of the most important thing to assess is the shuffling procedure employed at that particular casino you're playing at.

To do that, we need "complex" patterns to take as possible triggers because more hands are needed to form a pattern (let alone two consecutive patterns...etc) lesser will be the whimsical third card(s) impact over the results.

Since each shoe features an asymmetrical card distribution by any means, on average we'll expect more clustered patterns of any kind than "alternating" patterns, yet alternating patterns must show up sooner or later because they have to somewhat catch the most probable clustering propensity.
Thus betting is a delicate process directed to get the most at pattern clusters and the least damage at alternating patterns.
In reality even the "alternating" model is expected to provide unlikely "overalternating" sequences that could be bettable as well.
 
Curiously, people invited to write down "random" sequences at binomial games (e.g. coin flips) are more prone to provide (wrong) overalternating sequences.
And most part of baccarat players tend to reverse such propensity thought, thinking that the alternating mood is too much subordinate to several kind of clustering patterns.

More later

as.

Generally speaking, the main way to try to beat an EV- game is by disputing the perfect randomness of the outcomes.

At the same time it's particularly useful to know that baccarat productions are asymmetrical by definition, but such asymmetry could only be exploited by considering "complex" patterns. 

Thus there are no EASY detectable card compositions substantially favoring one side or the other one, B or P are just minuscule worthless pieces belonging to an entire picture.

UNRANDOMNESS + ASYMMETRY = DETECTABLE PATTERNS

It's a fortune that mathematicians and gambling experts keep stating that every bet we'll place is EV-.
It's a completely false assumption as they haven't properly investigated what "random" and "asymmetry" really means when applied to 416 (or 312) card combinations working at a finite asym game.

By 2015, Texas hold'em poker was solved by a computer program, a thing considered impossible up to that discovery.

To beat baccarat we just need to implement and expand some ideas made by eminent mathematicians/statisticians of the past that didn't care too much (or anything) about gambling.

As you know after reading my pages, I'm referring to Richard Von Mises and Marian Von Smoluchoswki.

Actually we have found out that at baccarat some fragments of the shoe's succession cannot be labeled as "random" spots, the only issue to overcome was to evaluate whether such spots were able to reach the 51.3% or higher cutoff profitability at B bets and the 50.1% or greater cutoff profitability at P bets.

Moreover our data have taught us that a complex pattern status is more or less susceptible to increase, stay or decrease its value in relationship of the number of hands dealt so far.
 
Cumulatively that means to play with a big verified advantage over the house.

Our algorithms rely just upon this.
And remember that the only way to asceratin a possible edge is by adopting a flat betting scheme. Any progression invented not relying upon an already verified EV+ is for losers. 

Finally, thanks for your interest of reading my pages and this wonderful site where our betting plan got formidable improvements by reading Alrelax and KFB posts.
And I really mean it.

as.

"As you know after reading my pages, I'm referring to Richard Von Mises and Marian Von Smoluchoswki."

Lol, I thought at first you were going to refer to Sputnik and Jimske, especially with their $15.00 and $50.00 flat bets, I'm just so jealous over.    Again, lol.

AsymBacGuy above in response to my post:

"...Please can you elaborate your interesting Random doesn't  mean scattered evenly passage?..."

Re: Random doesn't  mean scattered evenly

My statement (and belief) is that random outcomes are indeed scattered above and below the expected Mean. Though never evenly scattered.

In Bac I do not think we should expect them (i.e. Patterns) to be scattered evenly(e.g., think of a scatter plot).

Bac (unlike most games) has outcomes that want to approach Limits---->. This is obviously due in part to the limiting nature of the game(only 84 hands) and (Dealt cards are removed). Everything starts approaching limits from the very first hand. So because the race ends (lets say hands=miles) in 84miles then many times the trailing event(s) or patterns simply run out of distance. Therefore they(various patterns, events) didn't have enough time to even out or match the scatterplot from earlier in the shoe.

Lets say P builds a a lead of (+11) by hand 60. Due mostly from two runs of(PPPPPP B PPPPPP). Lets say that "IF" B does indeed close the gap some by hand 82 we should not expect to see the same dominant pattern(s). So lets say at the end of the shoe B now only trailed by (4). I do not think we should be in anticipatory mode from hand 60--82 thinking B will see the same scatter (BBBBBBB P BBBBBB). The results are seldom dispersed (or scattered) evenly. In fact from hand 60--82 I would have been slightly in anticipatory mode for B to indeed close the gap. However, I would have been leaning toward the "scatter" being NOT the pattern that gave P a +12 lead. Something more like (BBB P BBBB P BB ,...etc) as it tried to close the gap.

Nor do I think we should expect the overall long-term outcomes' totals to always be even (20K outcomes: BlueDot=10K, RedDot=10K).

Furthermore, it is my opinion one is better off studying/monitoring gaps and distances between specific gaps, patterns, and events(& the Limits---->). Instead of always looking at the total score for the BlueDot vs the RedDot to even out or expecting patterns to be equally scattered. 



Continued Success,

Thanks for your response KFB!!

I 100% agree on everything you have written.

You wrote:

Furthermore, it is my opinion one is better off studying/monitoring gaps and distances between specific gaps, patterns, and events(& the Limits---->). Instead of always looking at the total score for the BlueDot vs the RedDot to even out or expecting patterns to be equally scattered.

That's the key to beat this game, especially if we are able to build innumerable subordinate random walks where one, two or more hands means nothing unless we can insert them in a way larger picture where values are restricted into detectable deviations.

as. 

AsymBacGuy in post #1073 above:

"...To beat baccarat we just need to implement and expand some ideas made by eminent mathematicians/statisticians of the past that didn't care too much (or anything) about gambling.

As you know after reading my pages, I'm referring to Richard Von Mises and Marian Von Smoluchoswki.

Actually we have found out that at baccarat some fragments of the shoe's succession cannot be labeled as "random" spots, the only issue to overcome was to evaluate whether such spots were able to reach the 51.3% or higher cutoff profitability at B bets and the 50.1% or greater cutoff profitability at P bets...."

Well stated Asym.
    I am familiar with some of the work by Smoluchowski, however, I've never studied much on Von Mises.
I think there are several areas of Mathematica that one can generalize to gambling(i.e., 50-50ish type wagers). It is my opinion that much of the underlying math of casino games is not the arithmetic we often use to analyze outcomes ex post facto. Nothing wrong with analyzing the outcomes as I do it too.

Speaking of mathematicians.
A couple of my favorite mathematicians: Blaise Pascal and Leonhard Euler(pronounced Oiler).
Of course Nik and Al contributed some decent studies too. 


Continued Success,

Assuming a decent "complexity" of the patterns examined, any pattern will get this REAL probability of success:

A x k / HE

Where A = expected general probability of success, k = a variable considered by the approximated asymmetrical (ka) and symmetrical (ks) card distribution and HE= house edge.

Obviously A and HE factors remain constant, so it's only the k parameter strenght capable to possibly increase, lower, erase or invert the HE.
Normally k is considered irrelevant, meaning that mathematicians and "experts" take as granted that there are no ways to know (other than by luck) when ka>ks or ka<ks at a given shoe succession; that is the above equation changes into A/HE, a sure negative expectation.

At the same time, we know that k really makes a decisive impact on our results (that is getting an EV+) when B bets will reach at least the 51.3% winning probability and P bets the 50.1% cutoff winning probability point.

Wait.

It's fkng sure that besides some B propensity features, itlr ka=ks but in the other short/intermediate terms ka>ks or, less likely ks>ka.

It could happen that an alternating sequence of pattern singles and pattern clusters coming out at the same side greater than two is an asymmetrical sequence.
 
So the main problem to face is not WHEN complex patterns will come out asymmetrically shaped, just to assess HOW MUCH an asymmetrical sequence will stand, knowing that by coupling two different events of any kind the winning probability will be way more detectable.
The adjacent lenght streaks clustering effect is just one example of that.

Long term data have taught us that per any shoe dealt by transforming adjacent complex patterns into numbers we'll get more likely totals than considering the game as a random model: it's the main feature why we are virtually destined not to lose any dime itlr.

Insert to your random walk an element to get a given BP streak to stop and you'll get the answer.

as.

Hi Asym

On the following:

"..Long term data have taught us that per any shoe dealt by transforming adjacent complex patterns into numbers we'll get more likely totals than considering the game as a random model:..""

Do you mean coding certain pre-determined patterns(multiple outcomes) into a single numeral for comparison with other pre-determined patterns(multiple outcomes') coded numeral???

Can you give an example as Im not sure I understand what u are saying.


thx,kfb