Hi AsymBacGuy
Asyms statement in post#1113 above:

"..The main problem of EZ tables is that a diluted hyper selective strategy cannot afford to get a "push" on F-7 Banker winning spots, thus enticing us to bet the F-7 side bet burdened by a bad 7.6% HE (even though such bet covering the main bet should be 1/40).  ..."

I could not have stated it better.
Many years ago shen I first started my Bac journey I wrote down all the drawing rules for bac "line-by-line". Then I wrote down all the bonus bets( line-by-line) and what formations were needed to form said winning wagers. I wondered how the inventor came up with these new bonus bets for this new layout. I wondered if some formations were more complex than others. Also, how did the inventor convince the casinos this was a superior layout for THEM(I think most know how they(Cas) were convinced).

How did the "more probable" events affect the now "less probable" events. Also, vice versa,...etc.
Then I unraveled each bonus bet and asked myself: Why would the casino offer such bets.
More importantly I pondered: When these bonus bets were MORE probable what exactly MUST be less probable??Also, vice versa.
?Did the probability of the aforementioned bonus bets have any effect on the traditionally offered wagers(B or P or T) probabilities.?
? Did the probability of all events remain static throughout a shoe or did certain events temporarily alter probability for seemingly unrelated events.

I know the above exercise may seem overly simplistic and elementary. However, it offered some insight as to when certain events (&wagers) were to be put on sabbatical(At least temporarily).

Good luck to all,

Hi KFB, very good points!

My guess is that by introducing those side bets, casinos have transformed a kind of coin flip low edge game into a more appealing constant chase right on those "unlikely" bets that could guarantee huge returns.
Especially when players are losing, so mathematically aggravating the losses.

It's not a coincidence that Vegas HS rooms do not offer EZ tables where the vast majority of bets is payed 1:1, probably knowing that it'll be very unlikely that tourists are willing to bet the F-7 wager as being too rare to happen.
In any instance at EZ tables the HE is 1.01%/1.24% and 7.6%, whereas at Tiger/Lucky 6 tables (very common at HS rooms) HE is 1.46%/1.24% and 14% plus.
 
So no commission tables somewhat lure the Banker action backed up by some kind of side bet action, but in both cases (EZ and T/L6) what remains the best side to wager (generally speaking) now becomes the most burdened betting option, surely worse than the unchanged Player 1.24% HE.

It has to be sayed that differently to F-7 bets, Tiger bets are easily controllable by card counting, moreover featuring a decent average distribution among the shoes dealt.

Anyway we think that the best tables to risk our money at are normal commission games, even knowing to concede a 0.05% worse edge at B bets.

as.

In the above 183 shoes examined, it's interesting to notice that before vig (ignored for simplicity) we got 91 winning shoes, 73 losing shoes and 19 shoes were a push.

At the end and by accounting only the + and - impact we collected a small profit but considering that "push" shoes are anyway losing shoes (for the vig), basically everything broke even.

From another point of view, we might consider the most catastrophic W/L shoes succession, that is all losing shoes coming in a row, a thing impossible to happen but that cannot be discarded.

In reality the most long losing shoe sequence was six in a row and two times 4 losing shoes in a row.

On the other end, the longest winning shoe sequence was seven and six in a row.

We know very well that such W/L consecutive streaks do not mean nothing, it's just a permutation issue.
For example, after the first 70 shoes dealt, we got a +78 unit peak that slowly balanced towards the losing side.
That's why we need a quality factor to be utilized tending to give the most limited fluctuations.

More later

as.

The statistical isolating/clustered feature already taken in consideration to condense the original outcomes in + and - signs could be applied even at those short sub successions.

Thus if we bet toward + after a first + appearance or toward + after a single -, only a sequence as +-- or --+- will get us losers two times in a row; and of course longer than this successions will prolong such losing streak as +--+- or --+--.

Given the shortness of derived patterns, it's obvious that a single pair of - signs happening in a shoe means that the shoe won't be a final winning shoe.
Since winning shoes are more frequent than losing ones, in some sense is like that the actual card distribution must be particularly full of + signs at the very start of it to get an advantage. 

So let's see how many signs of the sub succession we'll get in the first position of every shoe dealt:
The answer is that we'll collect 44 units (before vig), always considering W as +1 and L as -3.
The longest consecutive losing spot happening at the very first sub sequence was four in a row, the longest winning sequences were 20, 17 and 13 in a row.

as. 

Hi AsymBacGuy

Asym above in post#1126:

"...My guess is that by introducing those side bets, casinos have transformed a kind of coin flip low edge game into a more appealing constant chase right on those "unlikely" bets that could guarantee huge returns.
Especially when players are losing, so mathematically aggravating the losses.

It's not a coincidence that Vegas HS rooms do not offer EZ tables where the vast majority of bets is payed 1:1, probably knowing that it'll be very unlikely that tourists are willing to bet the F-7 wager as being too rare to happen.
In any instance at EZ tables the HE is 1.01%/1.24% and 7.6%, whereas at Tiger/Lucky 6 tables (very common at HS rooms) HE is 1.46%/1.24% and 14% plus...."



]by introducing those side bets, casinos have transformed a kind of coin flip low edge game into a more appealing constant chase right on those "unlikely" bets that could guarantee huge returns.
[/b]
    Its my opinion the casinos' main MO is to induce hedging(Not just in Bac). In most all games this is detrimental to the players success. At least I am not aware of any "long-term" advantage from hedging(Maybe short-term buyin preservation I guess). Yet I see players every day at the Bac tables doing so on most of their bets.

Other than sports betting(Arbitrage potential) any type of hedging or partial hedging is not recommended. But even in sports betting if one can consistently pick an EV+ wager to utilize with the arbitrage. Then one would be better off to simply wager on that EV+ bet.




Continued Success,

Hi AsymBacGuy. re: post#1128 above:

"...Thus if we bet toward + after a first + appearance or toward + after a single -, only a sequence as +-- or --+- will get us losers two times in a row; and of course longer than this successions will prolong such losing streak as +--+- or --+--...."

    As a side note: I think its also advantageous to only make "two swipes" against an events' continuance. IMO it is a SBS(Superior Bac Strategy) for one to limit how many times we chase something. We obviously want the "two swipes" to have the laws of probability on our side(at least theoretically).

I prefer a trigger-to-stop(TTS) be set at two steps. My preference is to make the two attempts slightly different(e.g., $240,250; or in other words X, X._") as I don't see any benefit to wagering the exact same $ on any two consecutive wagers.
Regardless if pospro or negpro or winning or losing. A slight difference can help offset the H.E.(or enhance ours), yet won't significantly add to ones buyin volatility.

and:


"...Given the shortness of derived patterns, it's obvious that a single pair of - signs happening in a shoe means that the shoe won't be a final winning shoe.
Since winning shoes are more frequent than losing ones, in some sense is like that the actual card distribution must be particularly full of + signs at the very start of it to get an advantage. .."

    I like the BOLD above,

Continued Success

Hi KFB and thanks for your posts.

I think that regardless of the random walk utilized (even though some r.w.'s are way better than others), the best approach to take is to know how much ON AVERAGE the different patterns will impact over the shoes. In some way it's an approximation of the card distribution probabilities and to do that we have to assign a specific number to the several pattern categories (and we know they are only three).

On the other end, to get a long term advantage we have to find solid proofs that (++) vs (+-) sequences must get a better than 0.75/0.25 expected ratio or other intricate and more unlikely +/-
strings.

As already sayed here, if a positive streak will reach the 24-30 value but the negative streak counterpart will be 6 or 7 long (18 or 21 unit losses), we know to play with a (diluted) edge.

By far the best situation to make a huge bet is whenever a given random walk will get a couple of consecutive losing spots (a thing quite rare to happen), then wagering toward a + (in two consecutive times).
If this two layered wager is lost we have to wait for another opportunity.

More later

as.

Let casinos think that everything can happen anytime, let casinos think that everytime we'll place a bet a perfect opposite situation could easily happen for long.

This is a complete fkng ignorant statement endorsed by losing mathematicians.

Actually they are right whether we play every fkng hand dealt as randomness can't be controlled by mechanical plans or by human guesses.
Well, randomness can't be controlled anyway, that's why bac shoes can be beaten by exploiting unrandom features.

In our opinion, unrandomness can be exploited by a proper assessment of positive and negative lenght sequences, most of the times being the by product of a general greater probability but very often shifting too much from expected values to get an advantage from as one or two hands not forming a math more likely final outcome could easily change a more likely flow into a strong unwanted deviated situation.

Say (p)A = 0.75 and (p)B = 0.25  (p)= general probability considered in two betting steps.

Once A do not show up after two expected attempts, B event must be considered in its average consecutive apparition.
Obviously probability to get A after B will be 3:1 placed, so itlr the situations to get BA vs BB are 3:1 placed.
No shifted events to rely upon, the model seems to be randomly distributed.

Naturally, the only obstacle to overcome this "balanced" situation by a kind of progressive multilayered betting plan will be the "permutation" issue, meaning that long negative B sequences coming out in a row must not put in jeopardy our bankroll.

Anyway, let's display the four more likely A/B situations:

1) AA > AB

2) ABA > ABB

3) BA > BB

4) BBA > BBB

Notice that despite of the asymmetrical A/B probability, the first element is symmetrically placed (A or B).

There's no fkng possibility in the world that itlr AA < AB, in a word that A won't come out clustered for long or at the very least coming out more times clustered than isolated.

The second scenario (B coming as isolated as opposed as clustered) is more debatable as long more likely A sequences must be somewhat balanced by either a B short-gapped or consecutive B situations.
The same about the third situation.

Then the BBA vs BBB scenario will make things so polarized that baccarat becomes the best game to get an edge from as there's no way that the BBB sequence will overcome the BBA sequence.

To summarize:

a) betting A after an A is a break even option

b) betting toward A after a single B is a break even option

c) betting toward A after a single B is a break even option

d) betting toward A after a couple of BB is a strong EV+ move.

Since we know that the casinos' aim is to provide the most astounding heterogenous quality for every shoe dealt, we think to be in a wonderful shape to exploit a low deviation level of the a, b and c features, at the same time taking the best of it by exploiting the d) propensity that no one voluntarily card distribution can't disappoint.

as. 

Hi Asym.Good points.

On the following:
"...d) betting toward A after a couple of BB is a strong EV+ move...."

Do u mean after every BB bet for "A".

"OR"

Do u mean after a couple or more BB setups fail to go "A", THEN you wager the next BB to go "A"  ??


Thx in advance,

Hi KFB and thanks!!

Say we have an A/B succession, pA=0.75 and pB=0.25.

For example AABABAAAAABABB(?)

Now it's time to bet toward A as itlr BBA>BBB by a ratio superior than the expected 0.75/0.25 (3:1). We know we have to bet two times in the sense that we need to catch just one win within a two betting range.
If both bets will fail we let the BBB pattern go, so waiting for another fresh BB to show up. And so on.

You could argue that a BBB sequence should be even more shifted toward an A, so enticing to prolong the A betting at the same pattern.
Our data do not suggest to keep betting and for practical reasons waiting the BBB trigger to show up before wagering is a waste of time.

There's a statistical reason beyond that.
Gambling and baccarat in particular is a game of streaks; some streaks are more likely than others to show up clustered or to break UP TO A POINT, once this is surpassed we're navigating in the more undetectable ocean.

It's obvious that baccarat streaks are the by product of the higher two-card initial points, first. Such probability moves around more likely ranges.
Then there's the third(s) card impact making a more decisive role at Player bets as sometimes Banker doesn't need to draw so standing as math favorite. Anyway those situations constitute a minuscule part of the total outcomes (asym hands).

Thanks to one of Alrelax's post we have investigated deeply how many times and how much a third card could continuously favor (or not) the Player side and this is another range to take care of.

Naturally it's impossible to guess when a math advantaged hand will show up, yet it's possible to estimate the math advantaged more likely ranges, this is a good start.

On the other end, third card(s) make an important role. Most of the times being ininfluent, other times completely altering a math propensity.
Again ranges of intervention might help us.
I guess that a B7 or B6 vs a Pzero sooner or later will succumb to a 8 or 9 third card draw. And vice versa.

Unfortunately and despite of knowing very well that to get a long term edge we need a kind of math  advantage whatever taken, even a part of unsound unlikely spots must be won in order to collect an interesting profit. Otherwise the edge will be too diluted to be profitably exploited.

More later.

as.

Thx Asym for your prompt reply to my Q above.

re:Your addendum comment in same post above:

 "...You could argue that a BBB sequence should be even more shifted toward an A, so enticing to prolong the A betting at the same pattern.
Our data do not suggest to keep betting and for practical reasons waiting the BBB trigger to show up before wagering is a waste of time...."

Q--What does your data suggest for a BBBB_ sequence ??
 
For example
PBBBB_ or
PPBBBB_ or
PPPBBBB_ or
PPPPBBBB_ 

? all the same or do u treat them differently?


Thank You,

1s and 2s to me are very dangerous, IMO.  However, and NOT double talking, I do well on doubles.  But repetitive and IAR doubles, not sporadic 1s/2s. 

You guys know my style by now, (I would think). I weigh in zero/low ties, any obvious repeating event like every natural cutting or every tie cutting, etc., my invention of One More, Equalization and so on. 

But most importantly and foremost, with clear mind, playing what is happening rather than what I desire or experienced in previous wins and all those types of things. 

All in all though, what wins will also lose (reference events). 

Limiting what you see to small Sections as I used to outline and totally being oblivious to Sections prior, is a huge advantage IMO. 

alrelax above:

"...1s and 2s to me are very dangerous, IMO.  However, and NOT double talking, I do well on doubles.  But repetitive and IAR doubles, not sporadic 1s/2s. ..."

I agree on getting in sync with 2x2s vs 1x2s on continuous outcomes. I tend to see that as well.

*Side story regarding 2x2s:

One casino I play has for over 5years(My keeping records) produced more of these continues 2x2 steaks(by # and length) vs expectation. By length I mean it starts with 2x2(e.g., ppbb, or vice versa).  I haven't compared it with (1x2s) or anything besides the number/length of 2x2s expected per shoe.

I just know this phenomenon continues to present(along with two other players) that have monitored/noticed as well after I showed them my data. I do not know why and though I've only played approximately 5K shoes here(so small sample) this coincidence continues to hold. Maybe its due in part to us "watching" for the 2x2 series and so maybe getting on earlier. I do not know.
 
Other possible explanations we considered was that maybe the "profile" for this particular casino is that maybe they buy the exact same pre-shuffled cards/ then do a very precise inhouse shuffle each time,..etc. I do not know. I acknowledge it is only an approx 5k sample size so maybe just coincidence. Maybe in time it will decrease back toward expectation.

Hopefully it continues. This is the main reason I play here as I favor all of my other casinos over this one(Poor ventilation, clothes always spell like smoke, older building, poor lighting,...etc).
However, until this 2x2 coincidence decreases I will continue to play /watch with anticipation for the dos y dos.


Continued Success,

QuoteThx Asym for your prompt reply to my Q above.

re:Your addendum comment in same post above:

 "...You could argue that a BBB sequence should be even more shifted toward an A, so enticing to prolong the A betting at the same pattern.
Our data do not suggest to keep betting and for practical reasons waiting the BBB trigger to show up before wagering is a waste of time...."

Q--What does your data suggest for a BBBB_ sequence ??
 
For example
PBBBB_ or
PPBBBB_ or
PPPBBBB_ or
PPPPBBBB_ 

? all the same or do u treat them differently?


Thank You,

Hi KFB!!!

B (0.25) fights againts A (0.75) pattern.

as.

 

In our opinion baccarat can be "solved" by assigning a number to the more likely patterns, so at the end by adding the various patterns' number happening along any shoe dealt, we'll get more probable final number ranges.

Of course for the natural permutation issue, we can't know precisely when low, moderate or huge numbers will show up, yet the final totals must fit within more probable ranges.
Good news is that back-to-back low or huge values must concede room to the opposite situations as the final value must be someway limited.

To provide a banal example, at a horizontal classic registration we know that a decent number of columns will be filled, but if we'd restrict the actual row's impact we either find situations when a row will fill a new column or when a column tend to negate a new column apparition.

Consecutive filled columns and chopping shoes tend to increase the final patterns number up to a point.

Casinos hope that players, in  a way or another, like to force such total ranges especially when players do not assign a cutoff value to the long univocal situations happening at both side of operations (shortening or prolonging the columns lenght), thus giving a lesser damn to what a final shoe will show up.

More in a couple of days.

as.