Quote from: KungFuBac on June 24, 2024, 02:10:41 AMAsymBacGuy 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,

I really like you. 

Well, I'm pretty sure that nobody will be so happy to face our bets (mine, yours and Al ones, not mentioning if we're all playing and pooling our money together) as, sayed loud and clear, such people won't get any single fkng chance to win a dime from us (despite of the HE).

In the remote circumstance 2+2=5 "I know everything about games" owners (mr sklansky and relatives first) and some same site posters or any other "expert" is willing to challenge us, let us know how much money you want to put at stake.

We'll invite such "expert" people to bring at their side any MIT professor or world class statistician or mathematician they'd like.

Actually we can safely assume that 100% of math and stats experts do not a fkng nothing about how baccarat really works.

See you in a couple of days.

as.
 

Quote from: KungFuBac on June 24, 2024, 02:58:42 AMHi 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

Yes.

Say a 4/4+ streak happened.
You want to dispute that the following streak won't be another 4/4+streak, thus betting towards doubles and triples (of course singles do not matter).

In number terms a 4 will be more likely (yet slightly) followed by a 2 or a 3 streak.

Anyway such slight propensity will work whether intertwined streaks happened in relationship of how many hands were dealt, in the sense that if a 4/4+ streak was followed by a long sequence of singles, inferior streaks probability tends to be substantially diminished.

No matter what, 4/4+ streaks are strongly balanced in their apparition with another 4/4+ streak OR any 2 or 3 streak.
Of course when a 4/4+ streak cluster happens we do not have reasons to stop such (slightly but expected) unlikely situation. Even if we know that 4/4+ streaks vs 2/3 streaks are more likely to come out isolated than clustered more than once.

Other than after a mere general streaks probability, itlr 4/4+ streaks MUST be balanced by a correspondent 2/3 streaks counterpart.
After any 4/4+ streak apparition, by betting progressively towards a 2 or 3 streak appareance vs another 4/4+ situation you'll get a kind of moderate statistical egde.
Naturally and as already sayed, we need some streak to show up before thinking to play this plan.

That's the beauty of this game, where everything seems to be conditionally dependent in relationship of what happened so far.
A thing you and Al know very well. 

as.

Thx Asym for promt reply.
Ill respond more later in the week as Im headed to the office(cas)*.

*A funny note. A couple weeks ago I drove my wifes' vehicle which I seldom do. My first casino for the day was one that I don't play at much but meet other players there sometimes and carpool. If I do play there it is typically my last stop for that days circuit as it is one of the closest to my house.

Anyway, I had entered the address into the cars' navigation system as I seldom traveled to it directly from my home plus I wanted to avoid peak traffic roads as it is a moderately large city. As I entered into the parking lot at approx 805am the navigation systems' female voice stated: "You have reached the parking lot of your work place",  lol.


Hope u all have a good week,

A numeric sequence is said to be statistically random when it contains no recognizable patterns or regularities; sequences such as the results of an ideal dice roll or the digits of π exhibit statistical randomness.[1]
Statistical randomness does not necessarily imply "true" randomness, i.e., objective unpredictability. Pseudorandomness is sufficient for many uses, such as statistics, hence the name statistical randomness.
Global randomness and local randomness are different. Most philosophical conceptions of randomness are global—because they are based on the idea that "in the long run" a sequence looks truly random, even if certain sub-sequences would not look random. In a "truly" random sequence of numbers of sufficient length, for example, it is probable there would be long sequences of nothing but repeating numbers, though on the whole the sequence might be random. Local randomness refers to the idea that there can be minimum sequence lengths in which random distributions are approximated. Long stretches of the same numbers, even those generated by "truly" random processes, would diminish the "local randomness" of a sample (it might only be locally random for sequences of 10,000 numbers; taking sequences of less than 1,000 might not appear random at all, for example).
A sequence exhibiting a pattern is not thereby proved not statistically random. According to principles of Ramsey theory, sufficiently large objects must necessarily contain a given substructure ("complete disorder is impossible").

REASON I POSTED THAT:  "In a "truly" random sequence of numbers of sufficient length, for example, it is probable there would be long sequences of nothing but repeating numbers, though on the whole the sequence might be random."

Interesting post, Al!

From our part we have postulated that bac successions aren't really random because we consistently win by flat betting and everybody knows that it's impossible to win itlr by betting random EV- successions.
Actually we have even theorized that even perfect random sequences (e.g. SHFL shuffling machines) might be beatable, say more beatable than manually shuffled shoes or preordered shuffled shoes.

In all cases the decisive point to focus about is the relationship between hands, the most important tool being the concentration/dilution of key cards as this factor impacts over the patterns formation (quality and lenght).

416 or 312 cards will be asymmetrically arranged along the shoe, so derived patterns must be somewhat asymmetrically shaped too.
Obviously and most of the times such asymmetry cannot last for long, other times the asymmetry seems to provide symmetrical results (naturally or more likely by coincidental causes), yet the asymmetry reigns supreme as the main force.

Each pattern or classes of patterns will fight against an opposite scenario, whenever something didn't happen so far, well, we simply assume it doesn't exist.

See you later

as.

"Each pattern or classes of patterns will fight against an opposite scenario, whenever something didn't happen so far, well, we simply assume it doesn't exist."

It doesn't exist, until it exists.  That is the smartest anyone can play the game, IMO and with extensive experience I state that.

And, RNG and computer generated trials, are not the same because they are usually, if not always set with a true 50/50.  And the real shoe of bac does not generate a true 50/50. 

Good paragraph Asym,

"..."Each pattern or classes of patterns will fight against an opposite scenario, whenever something didn't happen so far, well, we simply assume it doesn't exist."


Similar logic seems to apply with roulette as well(i.e., An individual # is longlost# and then appears for first time,...etc.).


Continued Success,

"Every plan has an inherent degree of risk. But risk is the price you pay for opportunity".

 A.J. Cooper played by Tom Selleck

Thanks guys!!

At baccarat there is no such a thing as "balanced" patterns lasting for long, even "overalternating" A/B patterns are a form of unbalanced scenarios.
Thus virtually only slight alternating patterns could pose a threat to our plan.

As already sayed one millions of times here, simple B and P hands or B/P doubles, etc are patterns too much affected by volatility, we need more complicated patterns to rely upon.
In fact more hands are needed to form a pattern, less likely is the probability that just one hand or a couple of hands will disrupt the normal asymmetrical flow.

And less hands we want to "guess" greater will be the probability of success, unless the actual distribution seems to be so deviated that we could think to "freerolling" with casino's money.
Unfortunately this situation happens quite rarely.

The real problems any bac player will face aren't related to WHEN a given pattern will happen but HOW LONG given patterns that had already shown up will present.
It's an approximation of course, but since we are taking care of multiple different patterns, we know that things must take a more likely line, that's why we play with an edge.

Obviously cards do not give a lesser fk about our current W/L status, this is one of the best tools making casinos' fortune as 99% of players want to get even in too short terms.
Or, it's the same concept, winning too much in the same short terms.

More later

as.

"At baccarat there is no such a thing as "balanced" patterns lasting for long, even "overalternating" A/B patterns are a form of unbalanced scenarios.
Thus virtually only slight alternating patterns could pose a threat to our plan." 

Why look for long, a small section producing those balanced or unbalanced pattens are a gravy train of beautiful wins, quickly.

"As already sayed one millions of times here, simple B and P hands or B/P doubles, etc are patterns too much affected by volatility, we need more complicated patterns to rely upon." 

Personally, I learned and attempt not to rely upon anything from that shoe.

"In fact more hands are needed to form a pattern, less likely is the probability that just one hand or a couple of hands will disrupt the normal asymmetrical flow."

True, but (and a long long thought here, forming a pattern and looking for it is like fishing in a spot of a lake where there might be plenty of fish based on previous experiences, but the time you go right there and drop your line with confidence, nothing!  How long do you stay?

"And less hands we want to "guess" greater will be the probability of success, unless the actual distribution seems to be so deviated that we could think to "freerolling" with casino's money." 

Are you referring to what I do and explained with 1 Base win and 2 more, then using the profits to feel less frustration and emotion, etc.?


"The real problems any bac player will face aren't related to WHEN a given pattern will happen but HOW LONG given patterns that had already shown up will present." 

True, but as I explained many times, you have to be on it, rather than waiting for it to establish and seek additional of the same once it is burning itself out.


"Obviously cards do not give a lesser fk about our current W/L status, this is one of the best tools making casinos' fortune as 99% of players want to get even in too short terms." 

True, hence the brightly cool colored scoreboard for all the 'expert' bac players to point to and continually follow because the board shows, 'so and so'!

"Or, it's the same concept, winning too much in the same short terms."

And that is why a person should engage in my #1 defensive tool, my 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd MMM.

Why look for long, a small section producing those balanced or unbalanced pattens are a gravy train of beautiful wins, quickly.

Of course, but they could be even a train of lousy losses.

Personally, I learned and attempt not to rely upon anything from that shoe.

I understand but I think we should learn something from the past, especially after losing sessions.

We well know that almost every bac player in the world is a sure loser, so every bac player should wonder why he/she can't win.

We could enlist innumerable factors, probably those are the most important, IMO:

1) Thinking that bac could be beatable by progressions. It's funny to see how many people keep promoting and talking about complete worthless progressions that have ZERO probability to succeed itlr.

2) Greed. Baccarat is a survival game, in some way it acts like black jack.
Due to the negative HE, we're certain to encounter more patterns getting a cumulative loss than a cumulative win. After all casinos were built for this.

3) The absolute lack of understanding that itlr either a fixed approach or a "luck/actual way" to place the bets cannot work.
Say we have to "surprise" the patterns by finding changes in our strategy.
In this task the past experiences, whereas properly assessed, help us a lot.

More later

as.

Ranges of pattern apparition

Say we split the possible multi-hand patterns into A and B categories.

The FIRST STEP involves just two possibilities:

1) A or B will come out as clustered (AA.. or BB...)

2) A or B will come out as isolated (AB or BA)

Since shoes are formed by a sure asymmetrical card distribution, itlr it'll be more likely that one element (A or B) will remain silent for a unknown time frame.
On the other end, whenever A or B patterns will show up by a perfect 0.5 rhythm, we know we are facing an alternating sequence favoring the A and B isolated outcomes.

Obviously there are no rigid rules to be applied in order to predict an A or B clustered vs isolated appearance, but at the same time no human mind could guess when a clustered scenario will happen or stop or when an isolated scenario will stand or stop.

A thing verified by our long term data told us that A and B patterns will distribute along any shoe dealt by different levels of probability:

1- A or B coming out as clustered one time (e.g. AAB and BBA > than AB and BA)

2- A or B coming out as isolated one time (e.g. ABAA and BABB > ABAB... and BABA...)

3a- A or B coming out as clustered more than one time (AAA > AAB and BBB > BBA)

3b- A or B coming out as isolated more than one time (ABAB... and BABA...)

4 A and B coming out clustered/clustered and isolated/isolated...etc (AA...BB..AB...BA)

5- A and B coming out as isolated/clustered/isolated/clustered...etc (ABAABBABAABB...)

Notice that #1, #2 and #3a scenarios will be kind of unbalanced and accounting the minimum possible number of hands forming that pattern, whereas #3b, #4 and #5 situations are symmetrically shaped in quantity but needing a way greater number of hands dealt.

This way of splitting the possible shoe fragments distribution into different levels of probability will help us to predict by a sensible degree what will be the more likely next A/B quality (clustered or isolated) sequence.

as.

Hi Asym. Good article.

"...3a- A or B coming out as clustered more than one time (AAA > AAB and BBB > BBA)..."

So to clarify are u saying that: PPP has a greater prob of showing >1 time vs PPB prob of showing >1 time in any one shoe.

"OR"

Are u saying PPP will show more often on average vs PPB ??

Maybe Im not clear(or wrong) as I thought PPB showed more often vs PPP (In part because it "ppb" could be part of a longer more complex string).


Please explain further. Thx in advance kfb

Hi KFB! Thanks!

I was talking about A and B patterns and not just of B and P hands.
Once an A or B pattern shows up as "clustered" (AA or BB), there is a slight (subtle) probability that next pattern will be another A or B (AAA or BBB) than AAB or BBA, meaning that "doubled patterns" vs any other pattern will be less frequent than the counterpart.

Of course BB or PP aren't considered doubled patterns here.

The interesting thing to notice is that long term data have universally taught us that BB and PP (common doubles) are the most prevalent events among every other scenario. (So appearing to be the opposite situation seen above)
Therefore we we amplify the number of hands constituting a pattern, things seem (actually do) to take the opposite direction of long term distribution. (doubles<longer streaks)

I'll give more details tomorrow.

as.

Thanks Asym for explaining further. As always I appreciate your time.

"...Therefore we we amplify the number of hands constituting a pattern, things seem (actually do) to take the opposite direction of long term distribution. (doubles<longer streaks)..."


Do you look at longer-handed patterns being more predictive or able to project with a greater hit rate. If so what is the optimal pattern length for better accuracy predicting that very next outcome.

For example: When comparing consecutive-hand patterns  of 3,5,7. Lets say PPBx, PPBPPx, PPBPPBPx (The pattern I chose for example isn't significant, just trying to clarify what Im asking).

?? Which length or other lengths do you focus on as being more superior?

Thx again.