Hi KFB!

Thanks for your post, I really appreciate the HOT/NOT consideration. From this I'll try to expose our ideas.

Whatever the betting selection and patterns considered (random walks), itlr the NOT will overwhelm the HOT in frequency and not, of course, by a valuable proportional quantity.

There's no difference whether we're playing towards the NOT or the HOT, both are destined to get more probable short patterns than long patterns, then what happened by a huge/moderate density sooner or later will reverse in opposite probability.

The "sooner or later" instead of raw values could be better estimated by the "isolated/clustering" effect acting per every pattern examined.

A NOT shows up only when two things happen:

a) that pattern didn't show up once so far;

b) a previous pattern stopped its apparition.

A HOT shows up simply when a same pattern or more patterns we've decided to gather will continue to come out.

In addition, we know that each shoe is asymmetrically placed, meaning that clusters of something are slight more probable than everything else and now even an isolated/isolated pattern will get the same value of a clustering or clustering/clustering effect.

Theorically the best plan to adopt is to utilize two or three different random walks and wagering toward an isolated/clustering and clustering/clustering situation by progressively betting, better if we'd start the action after waiting some isolated/clustering situations.
If the random walks used get a different rhythm and besides some rare colliding situations, our probability to win is restricted into astronomical low sd values.   

Obviously and knowing that we're using a 0.75 probability, we are aware that isolated successions must show up, it's just a matter of conditional permutations issue.

The CFS and the asymmetrical patterns formation are just the icing on the cake.

Such effects are more than sufficient to erase and invert the HE by a simple FB scheme.

Here's an example extracted from our real shoes data.
 
We'll examine double and triple (exact 3) streaks as opposed to superior streaks (4 and higher).
C= cluster (at least two or more 2-3 streaks before a superior streak happens), I= isolated (a double or a triple streak came out intertwined by two superior streaks).

Each shoe features a first line (the common BR, and a second line being our main random walk)

For simplicity here we do not take care of additional factors.

C-C-C
C-C-C-C

C-C
C

C-C
I-I-C

I-C-C
C-C-I

C
C-C-C

C
I-C-C

C-C-C
C-C-C

C-C
C-C

C-I-I
C-C-C

C-C-C-C
I-C-C-C

C-I-C
I-C

C-C-C
I-C

C-C
I-I-C

I-C
C

C-C
C-C-I-C

I-C-C
I-C

C-C
I-I-C-C

C-C
I-C

I-C-C
C-C

C-I-C
C

C-C-C-I
C-C-I-C

I-I-C-C
I-C

C-C-I-C
C-C

I-C-I
C

C-C-C
C-C

C
C-C

C-C
C-C-C

I-C-C-C
C-C-C

I-C-C
C-C

C-C-C
C-C-C-C

C-I-C
I-C-C

C-C
C-C

I-C-C
C-C-C

C
C

C-I-C
I-C-I-C

C-I-I-C
I-C-I-I-C

C-C-C
I-I-C

C-C
I-C

I-C-C
C-C-I

I-C-C
C-C-C-C

I-C-C
I-C-I-C

I-C-C
C-C-I

C-C-I
C-I-C

C-C-C
C-C-C

C-C
C-I-C

I-C
C-C-C

C
I-C-I-C

I-C
C-I-C

C-C
I-I-C-C

C-C-C
C-C

C-C-C-I
C-C-C

C-C
C-C

C-C
C-I-I-I

C-I-C
C-C

I-I-C
C-C-C-I

C-I-C
C-C-C

C-C-I
I-C

C-C-I
C-C-C

C-C-C
I-C

C-I-C
C-C-C

C-C-C
C-C

C-C
I-C-C-I

C-I-I
C-I-C

I-I-C-C
C-C-C-C

C-C-I-C
C-I-C-C

C-I-C-I
C-C

C-C-C-I
C-I-C

I-I-C
C-C-C

C
C-C

C-C-C
C-C

C-C-C
C-I

C-I-C-C
C

I-I-C
C-C

I-C
C-C

C-C-C
C-C-C

C-C-C
C-C-C

C-C
C

I-C
C-C

C-C-C
I-I-I-C-C

C-C-C
I-I-C

C-C
C-C-I

I-C-C
C-C-C

I-I-C-C
C-C

C-C-I-I
I-I-C

C-C
C-C

I-C
C-C

C-I-C
C-C

I-C-C
C-C-C-C

I-C-C-C
C-C

C
I-C-C

C-C
C-I-C

C-C-I-C
C-C-C

C-C
I-I-C-C (6950)

Besides, notice the relationship between the two rows of any shoe, then the fact that a single C (not being so infrequent) means an entire shoe getting all doubles and triples.

Finally there's no way that the I/C ratio will stand strongly deviated toward the left for long as being slightly oriented toward the right side.

as.

In order to win we must let go a lot of hands.

Even by selecting at most our betting spots, we'll 100% have to endure harsh negative situations as it's the normal flow of the game.

We can't control most aspects of the variance even by playing with an advantage.

Best example to provide is a virtual game where Banker is payed 1:1 at all situations, so giving us a 1.36% math advantage.
It's very likely that despite of this edge, many players (say most players) will crash sooner or later whenever Player loaded consecutive shoes will happen.

Baccarat shoes are exploitable by rigid and measurable values extracted by the average card distribution of any shoe dealt. Only a software can do that, yet we can do a lot by approximating what the actual shoe is doing in relationship of what an average shoe looks like.

If something would be consistent for long without a careful assessment, the game wouldn't exist.

Say that players quit the table as winners just by "accident" and as losers by "rule".

More later

as.

Most part of long term successful players (there aren't many, of course) treat baccarat as a game filled of huge uncertainty. No news.

The most important consequence, verified by long term data, is that very few hands are able to erase and invert the HE.

Obviously in the short term and due to the almost 50/50 nature of the game, one could be ahead for several sessions thinking to be a kind of genius or, simply, because he/she was kissed by luck.

Basically long term successful players play baccarat as a relatively "finite" infinite situations, meaning that each shoe (the finite part) will represent infinitely by the same general features displayed after having dissected a large amount of data.

Thus they don't hope for, they just "fear" that the devised betting spot won't belong to the more likely category assessed by running the same situation the more they could.

In any EV- game, the paramount goal remains to preserve the bankroll and not trying to be ahead at all costs, therefore all intermediate winning/losing situations must get the least deviations.

After all and after a fair amount of shoes played, baccarat might concede us just a tiny amount of possible EV+ hands that shouldn't be wasted by betting too many hands.

The idea that every hand is EV- as math dictates so is a total fkng bigh.ornsh.it, it's just a matter of time and proper betting selection to disprove that.


Consider the previous post about 2-3 streaks.
Suppose we have some fictional players betting for us: all of them will wager toward C-C vs a C-I pattern.

Player #1 whenever a C shows up will wager toward another C then stops.

Player #2 whenever a C-I-C shows up will wager toward another C then stops.

Player #3 whenever a x-I-I shows up will wager toward a C then stops.

Results (before vig for simplicity).

Player #1: +41 units (assuming C=+1 and I=-3)

Player #2: -11 units

Player #3: +8 units. 

In this example it seems that Player #1 got the best results, Player #3 did fare fairly and Player #2 was the losing one.
Actually we shouldn't care which player got the best results, itlr cumulatively all three players got us a profit.


I'll make another example about asymmetrical/symmetrical results considered by our random walk C/I patterns. Here's asymmetrical patterns distribution:

C-C-I-C

C-I

I-C-I-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-I

C-I-C

C-C

C-C-C

I-C

C-I-I-C

C

I-I-C-I

I-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C

C-I-C-I-C

C-C

C

C-C-I-C-C

C-C-I

I-I-C-C

I-I-I-C

C-C

I-C-C-C

I-C

C-C-I

C-C

C-C-I

C-I-C-I

C-C-C

C-C-C

I-C-C-I-C-C

C-C

C-C

I-C-C-C

C-C-C

C-I-C

I-C-C-C

C-C

C-C-C

C-C

C-C-I

C-C-C-I

I-C-I-C-I

C-C

C-I-C

C-I-C-C

C-C

C-C-C-C

I-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C-I-C

C-C

C-I-C-C

C-C-C

C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C-C

I-C-C

C-C-I

C-C-C

C-I-C

I-I-C-C

I-C-I-C

C-I

C-C-C

C-C

C-C-I

I-C-C

C-C-I-I

I-C-C-I

C-C-C

I-C-C

C-C-I-C

I-C-C-I-C

I-I-I-I

C-C

C-C-C-I

C-C

I-C-C

I-C

C-C

C-I-I-C-C

C-I-C-I

C

C-C-C

C-C-C

C-C

C-C-C

C-C-I-C

C-C-I-C-C

C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C

I-C-C

I-C-C

C-C-C-C

C-C-I-I

C-C-C

C-C

I-I-C

C-C-C

I-C-I

I-C-C

C-C

I-C-C

C-I-I-I-I-C

C-I-I-C

C-C-C

C-I-C

I-C-I-I-C

C-C-I-C

C-C

C-I-C-C-C

C-I-C-C

I-C-I-I-C

I-I-I-C

C-I-C

C-C-I

C

I-C-I-C

C-I-I-C

I-C-C

I-C-C-C-I

I-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C

C-C

C-C

I-C

C-C-C-C

C

C-C

C-C-C

I-C-C-I-I

C-C-C

C-C

I-C-I-C-C

C-C-I-C

C-C-C

C-C-C-C

C-C-C-C

C-C-C-I

I-I-C-I-C-C

I-C-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-I

C-C-C

C-C-I-C

C-C-C

C-I-C

C-C-C-I

C-C

Player#1 betting C-C vs C-I = +20

Player#2 betting C after C-I-C = -2

Player#3: betting C after x-I-I = -1

We could even insert a fourth Player betting toward C after a single I: = +10

Now symmetrical spots (C= clustered and I=isolated)

I-I-I-C

I

I-I-C-I

C-I

C-I

C-I

I-C

C-I

I-I

I-I-I-I

C-I-I

I-C

I-C

I-I-I

I-C

C-I-C-I

I

C-I-I-I

I-I-I

I-I-I-C

I-I-I-I-C

I-C

I-I-I-I

I-I-C

C-C-I

I-C

I-I-I

I-I-I-I-C

I-I

I-C

C-I-I-I-I

I

I-I

I-C-I

C-C

C-I

I-I-I-I-C

I-I

I-I

I-C

I-I

I-I-C-I

I-C-I-I-C

C

I-C

I-I-I-

I

C-I-I

C-I-C

I-I-I

I-C-I-I

C-I

I-I-I-I-C

I-I-C
I-I

I-I

I-I-I-C

C-I-C

I-I-C

I-I

I-I-C

C-I-I

C-C-I

C

I-I

I-C-I

C-I-C

I-I-I

I-I-I-C

C-I-C-I

I-I-
I-I

I-I-C

I-I-I

I-I-C-I

I-C-I-I

I

I-I-I-I

I

I-I

I

I-I

I-I-I-I

I-C-C-C

C

I-I

I-C

I

I-I-I

I-C-I

I-I-I-I-C

I

I-C-I-I

I-I

I-C-I

I-I

I-I-C

I-I-I-I

I-I

I-I-C

I-C

I-I-C

C-I-C

I-I

I

I-I-C

I-C-I-I-I

I-I-I

C-I

I-C

I-I-I-I

I-I-C-I

C

I-I-I-I

I-I-I

C-I-I-I

I-C-I

I-I

I-I-C

I

I-I-C

I-I-C

I-I

I-I-I-I

C-C

I-I

I-C

C-C

C

I-C

C

I-I-C

C

I

I-I

I-C-I-I-I

C-I

C

I-I-I-C-I

I-I-I-C

I-I

I-C-I

I-I-I

I

C-C

I-C-I-I-I-I

C-I-C-I

I-I

I-I-C

I-I

I-I-I

I-I

C-I

C-C-I

C-C

The average symmetrical patterns distribution explains why bac players keep losing and at the same time why casinos keep collecting huge profits by exploiting one of the numerous human flaws regarding gambling.

The HE is just an addendum, it's not the main cause why this game seems to be so unbeatable.

Moreover we could deeply investigate how long any symmetrical "C" will more likely last on average, now the advantage will be high as heaven.

See you in a couple of days.

as.

When we study a game we want to find possible flaws capable to build a long term winning plan, that is dissecting every aspect of it.

In essence, there are two main targets to look for:

1- some patterns exhibit a long term one-sided slight propensity capable to erase/invert the HE

2- W/L ranges of some attacks move by sd values lower than expected.

The best #1 example not needing any study is the B>P math propensity (which of course doesn't erase/invert nothing), so B bets are better than P bets.
Unfortunately, in reality B bets are "less worse" than P bets and sometimes that's not even true (no commission tables with B being payed half when winning by a 6).

Trying to forecast a more likely B apparition than expected based upon precedent patterns is a worthless effort. Verified one million of times.

The B propensity is mostly based upon the B4 and B5 initial points meeting a P drawing hand and those situations aren't going to come out so frequently. Meaning that the majority of B bets are just a waste of money (even though less money is wasted than at P bets).

Therefore if some patterns are long term more likely than others and capable to erase/invert the HE, they must also incorporate P hands.

That should be the effect of the average key cards impact and in turn of the average shoe shuffling.

Most "random" results show up when 6 cards are utilized to form a final hand, "curiously" the same situation where a tie is way more probable to come out.

It's like that situations needing 6 cards to form a hand tend to disrupt a more normal flow of the game, that is a kind of "restricted" ranges apparition.
In some way and after one or more 6 card hands, we could even think to restart the deviation values, being quite limited by definition.

Moreover even the asymmetrical/symmetrical patterns are affected by this, so more likely sinking into the undetectable ocean.

There are infinite ways to ascertain the asymmetrical hands/patterns distribution, one of the easiest is to look what happens at back to back columns.
Obviously we have reasons to limit the field of intervention by stopping the registration when a symmetrical pattern happened twice then waiting for a different pattern to show up.
Again, each pattern is considered by a 0.75 probability.

Here's some examples (A=asymmetrical pattern, S=symmetrical pattern)

S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A  (easy shoe)

S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A  (medium shoe)

A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S  (difficult shoe)

A-A-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-S-A-S   (difficult shoe)

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A  (medium shoe)

A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S  (difficult shoe)

S-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-A   (difficult)

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A (easy)

S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-S  (medium)

as.

The above examples were built by registering one of the infinite sub successions we can extract from any BP sequence.

Suppose we want to run parallel sub successions, are the "vertical" A/S two or more sequences getting a complete undetectable random world?

More later

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy--another excellent post. I agree 100%(Especially the last sentence in bold below).

Asym above in post#1203:

"...The best #1 example not needing any study is the B>P math propensity (which of course doesn't erase/invert nothing), so B bets are better than P bets.
Unfortunately, in reality B bets are "less worse" than P bets and sometimes that's not even true (no commission tables with B being payed half when winning by a 6).

Trying to forecast a more likely B apparition than expected based upon precedent patterns is a worthless effort. Verified one million of times.

The B propensity is mostly based upon the B4 and B5 initial points meeting a P drawing hand and those situations aren't going to come out so frequently. Meaning that the majority of B bets are just a waste of money (even though less money is wasted than at P bets).

Therefore if some patterns are long term more likely than others and capable to erase/invert the HE, they must also incorporate P hands.
  ..."



Continued Success,

Thanks KFB, thanks!

After all, imo, we have to rely upon the "average card distribution" with its limits (and deviations) and not a general slight math propensity happening just 8.6% of the times.

9s, 8s, 7s and 6s as first or third cards will get the same symmetrical probability to show up as second or fourth cards.
The same about naturals (34.2% of total hands), hands that almost always will win right and then.
Yet at both scenarios the payment is way different.

Back to the A/S topic.

I'll present some real shoes by two different A/S successions, first is the common Big Road and the second one is our main random walk. A= 1, S= 3

A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A  (A/S = 18/15)
A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A (A/S = 17/9)

That's an easy shoe, quantities shifted toward the A side will make things easy.

A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S  (A/S = 12/12)
A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A  (A/S = 14/6)

Same as above.

A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-S-S-S-A-A (A/S = 13/24)
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S  (A/S = 14/6)

This shoe is more intricate as the first line is heavily shifted toward the S side, yet the second line remains deviated at the A side. 

A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S (A/S = 9/18)
A-S-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A (A/S = 6/12)

Ouch, symmetry (whatever intended) happens...both lines are strongly deviated toward the S side.

A-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A (A/S = 14/12)
S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S (A/S = 17/18)

Another shoe where the asymmetry seems to hide, not a too harmful shoe though.

S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A (A/S = 16/9)
A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S (A/S = 9/9)

In this shoe the global asymmetry, even by showing up just at the first line, returns to be predominant.

A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-S (A/S = 11/15)
A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A (A/S = 17/3)

Again here the asymmetry seems to be cumulatively inferior to the symmetry.

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A (A/S = 19/9)
A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-A (A/S = 15/12)

Fkng good again. Let's continue to try to catch sometimes really "bad".

A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S (A/S = 9/15)
A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A (A/S = 16/9)

At the first line the proportional symmetry surely overwhelmed the counterpart, but the second line filled the gap.

S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A (A/S = 14/9)
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-S (A/S = 13/15)

Same scenario as the previous shoe, but now the A/S ratio was able to get a profit.

S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S (A/S = 13/9)
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S (A/S = 10/9)

No bad shoe, both lines converged toward the asymmetry.

A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A (A/S = 13/15)
S-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A (A/S = 9/15)

Finally, sigh, another two-sided symmetry oriented shoe.

A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S (A/S = 12/6)
A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-S-S (A/S = 10/12)

Here overall the asymmetry overwhelms the counterpart by 4 (before vig) steps.

S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A (A/S = 18/9)
A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S (A/S = 13/12)

Results speak for themselves.

A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S (A/S = 17/9)
A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-S-S (A/S = 8/15)

A kind of "balanced" shoe where one line will balance the other one.

A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S (A/S = 14/15)
A-S-A-S-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-S-A-A (A/S = 10/18)

A classic shoe where we can't do almost anything but accept the negative outcomes.

S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A (A/S = 14/6)
A-A-A-S-A-S-A-S-A-A-S-S (A/S = 7/15)

A perfect "balanced" shoe, so a slight negative shoe (for the vig).

A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A (A/S = 14/6)
A-A-S-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S (A/S = 10/15)

Asymmetry is shifted here by 3 steps (before vig)

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-S (A/S = 14/12)
A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-S-A (6/12)

An opposite situation as now the symmetry is 4 step ahead than asymmetry.

Overall in this small sample the raw asymmetry was 27 step ahead over the raw symmetry (before vig), but there are additional statistical tools to exploit this propensity in order to get the minimum vig impact.

as.

Most bac players try to spot symmetrical situations whereas itlr asymmetrical spots will slight overwhelm them in terms of quantity.

If the results would be decided by the first two initial cards without the intervention of the third card(s), well the game wouldn't exist at all. (Obviously I admit a kind of vig on each winning bet).

The reason is because the CFS more often than not will take not homogeneous sequences, getting the room to more likely successions.
This theory could be better ascertained whenever we run multiple sub successions derived by the BR: most lines take an asymmetrical way to distribute the A/B outcomes, in the sense that the symmetry represent a kind of incident.

Obviously a symmetrical world in relationship of its general expected probability to appear must "catch up" sooner or later and this thing can only be accomplished by coming out heavily clustered or strongly intertwined by few asymmetrical spots.
But such natural situations are not entitled to happen simultaneously at two or more sub sequences and when this unlikely scenario shows up, we've got to accept it and wait for the next spot.

More later

as.

Let's consider this real shoe at the common original and derived roads (BR, Byb, SR and CR); "arw" is our main random walk. All patterns are considered under the lens of A/S patterns.

BR: S, A, A, A, A, A, A, S, A, A, S, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, S, A, S
ByB:A, A, A, A, S, A, S, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A
SR: A, A, A, S, A, S, A, S, A, A, A, A, A
CR: A, A, S, S, A, A, S, A, A, A, A, A, A
acr:A, A, A, A, A, S, A, S, A, S, A, A, S, A, A

There are 78 spots to look for, 17 of them are S, the remaining are A.
Even by choosing randomly a betting spot at any line, we'll get 61 profitable spots and 17 losing situations (17 x 3 = 51). 

Another real shoe.

BR: S, S, S, A, A, S, A, S, S, S, A, A, A
ByB:A, A, A, S, A, S, A, A, S, A, A, S, A, S, A, S, A
SR: A, S, A, A, A, A, S, A, A, S, A, S
CR: A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, S, A, A, S, S
asr:A, A, A, S, S, A, A, A, A, A, A, A, A

There are 68 bettable spots, 22 of them are S (22x3=66) the rest is A.
Despite of the unlikely 21/6 S/A deviated scenario happening at BR, A events still predominate (a bit) over S events.

See you next week

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy.

In the above post u say: "...If the results would be decided by the first two initial cards without the intervention of the third card(s), well the game wouldn't exist at all. (Obviously I admit a kind of vig on each winning bet)...."

re: third card.
    Do you try to hypothesize if the next hand will include a third-card draw? Meaning the next hand will potentially have a total of 5 or 6 cards dealt(and then use that"3rd card potential", in your decision making for deciding which side u will wager??)

Thx