Hi Asym.
I like the way you state that:

"...There are several ways to classify an asymmetrical or symmetrical pattern, just to make things simpler say that every streak followed by a single or every single followed by a streak is a first step asymmetrical pattern.
Whenever a homogeneous pattern happens as a single/single or a streak/streak situation, we'll wait  until a new different pattern will happen. ..."


More on this later,

Hi KFB, thanks!!

Before thinking to play baccarat with an advantage, let's see the main reasons why we aren't supposed to accomplish that task.

1) Per each bet placed, we'll wager 1 unit to get an inferior than 1 economical return being in form of many kind of commissions at winning B bets and a general underdog probability at P bets.
It's the old math HE, obviously working whether the result distributions are really randomly arranged.

2) The vast majority of players think that a kind of progressive plan will make the job, in reality such "ploy" will increase the casinos' profits as those players are relying upon the mere LW patterns (in any permutation) coming out along the way.
Actually if they would know when things start to change, they should just wait for such spots without consuming money at previous worthless losing situations.

3) More hands are wagered and less precise will be the winning targets as most of the times anything can happen anytime.

Summarizing the worst baccarat player in the universe is anyone thinking that results are randomly distributed, making some fancy "progressive" betting plans and wagering a lot of hands.
Such player will get a 0 probability to win itlr.

Conversely, a possible long term winner must rely upon the partial "unrandomness" of the results, wagering by a strict flat betting scheme and betting very few hands.

What the baccarat literature "teaches" us:

a) Best bet to make is always the Banker bet (rattlesnake.stuff)

b) Any new hand is a completely independent hand from the previous one(s) (bighorn.stuff)

c) No matter when we'll decide to bet, each resolved bet (no tie) will get an average 50.68% or 49.32% probability to show up (strongest desert tortoise sh.i.t)

Actually the game cannot be perfect randomly distributed by definition, as for any hand dealt key cards and game rules cannot form a complete independence in forming patterns.
We're deadly sure about that, meaning that after some conditions are met some patterns are way more likely than others and that's where our edge comes from.

We have already seen that a single result "going wrong" can shift more likely short patterns into a longer one, that's the unlikely situations where amateurs look for.
Of course it happens that many patterns "naturally" evolving in long patterns are getting an opposite and math unlikely help toward short patterns, yet itlr short univocal patterns will overwhelm the longest ones.

Casinos prosper about our intrinsic inability to know what should happen about columns patterns and not about row patterns as most players rely upon rows lenght and not about columns quality.

No matter how's the specific random walk considered, any pattern is more likely to move around a 1 or 2 step.

as.

Single/few hands vs the whole picture

Suppose we want to consider patterns by the number of resolved hands (no ties) forming them.

Let's start with two-hand (A or B) patterns:

AA, BB, AB and BA.

Here the probability to cross a homogeneous pattern (AA and BB) vs a heteregeneous pattern (AB and BA) is 50%.

Three-hands patterns:

AAA, AAB, ABA, ABB, BBB, BBA, BAB, BAA.

Now homogeneous results (AAA and BBB) constitute 2/8 (25%) of the possible outcomes.


Four hands patterns:

AAAA, AAAB, AABA, AABB, ABAB, ABAA, ABBB, ABBA
BBBB, BBBA, BBAB, BBAA, BABA, BABB, BAAA, BAAB.

Now there are only two homogeneous patterns (AAAA and BBBB) vs 14 heterogeneous patterns. It's a 12.5% probability.

And so on.

Sooner or later every pattern will more or less coming out by the expected probability, yet per each shoe dealt such probability will be somewhat "biased", meaning that homogeneous and heterogeneous patterns will be more probably distributed by a kind of clustering effect.

Whenever such clustering effect acts at heterogeneous patterns, we'll get an easy job as an opposite side must come out at different levels: we might let some hands go before betting (for example privileging the exact value patterns already happened) or trying to "force" the model by betting two or three times in a row to get the searched outcome.

On the other end, homogeneous patterns being the less probable situation to face tend to consume "space", meaning that they somewhat decrease the probability to get the heterogeneous counterpart.

Cutting to the chase this complicated issue and knowing that cards are asymmetrically distributed along any shoe dealt, say that homogeneous patterns are surely (but slightly) more probable to be followed by a heterogeneous pattern, yet the process consume "space".
At the end and since we are forced to "approximate" at best the more probable patterns, say that a  homogeneous pattern showing up somewhat reduces the probability to cross multiple heterogeneous situations.

This thing could be better ascertained whenever we'll consider the common derived roads. Only very long (and unlikely) BP streaks will deny the heterogeneous patterns formation.

Another way of considering shoes is by assigning a progressive number to every consecutive same pattern (singles or streaks): itlr final total values will be restricted into well defined ranges and, more importantly, we'll see how's the probability an intermediate value will fit the average value or not.

Baccarat shoes are not a balanced mix of something, something is biased at the start.

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy. Thx for another great essay.

re:"...2) The vast majority of players think that a kind of progressive plan will make the job, in reality such "ploy" will increase the casinos' profits as those players are relying upon the mere LW patterns (in any permutation) coming out along the way.
Actually if they would know when things start to change, they should just wait for such spots without consuming money at previous worthless losing situations...."

    My opinion differs on the progression part(Posprogression is the path mi amigo). HOWEVER, the pos progression must be applied against "An increasing improbability", then set aside, then reinserted again later on. In other words, not inserted with the expectation for a single event to continuously repeat in perpetuum. Many players have unrealistic expectations for "same-event streaks". that's my opinion.

"...3) More hands are wagered and less precise will be the winning targets as most of the times anything can happen anytime.  ..."

    I concur 100%.



Continued Success To All.

"...3) More hands are wagered and less precise will be the winning targets as most of the times anything can happen anytime.  ..."

However, if you do not wager, you cannot win.  Of course you cannot lose as well.  A vicious Catch-22 big time.

I have seen people continuously wager for the same triggers and continuously lose and then those same people continuously win.  Likewise I have seen people not wager and talk about each hand while waiting out-would have won continuously.  Then when they attempt to jump in and wager, they can't win anything. 

IMO, of course.

Hi KFB!

You wrote:

My opinion differs on the progression part(Posprogression is the path mi amigo). HOWEVER, the pos progression must be applied against "An increasing improbability", then set aside, then reinserted again later on. In other words, not inserted with the expectation for a single event to continuously repeat in perpetuum. Many players have unrealistic expectations for "same-event streaks". that's my opinion.

I understand your point and I totally agree about the "increasing improbability" topic.
What I would think is that, generally speaking, a positive progression will concede to the house those (albeit relatively rare) overalternating WL sequences where any win is not properly balanced by the following loss, meaning that in any case in order to win we need some winning clusters to show up.

Since most bac movements, yes, distribute themselves by a slight number of homogeneous clusters than by an overalternating fashion, it could be a point to wait that some (slight improbable) overalternating situations had shown up, then betting toward deviations on either side of the "model". Up to a point, as you correctly sayed.
We continue to support the idea that if an advantage comes out, it must show up by a larger number of winning than losing situations, so the betting amount shouldn't be our main problem to take care of. But in any instance raising the bet where supposedly favourable conditions are coming out doesn't hurt us either. To say the least.

@Alrelax

You're right, yet casinos know by an absolute certainty that more bets are placed greater will be their profits, otherwise they won't get the players such luxurious comps or, even worse, a rebate on their losses.

Most high end casinos know very well the baccarat vulnerability, yet they keep relying on the "human" vulnerability this being proportionally related to the number of hands wagered.
Math is just an additional factor not the cause of it.

Success is not a goal, it's just a by-product

as.

Thx Asym for your response.

"...What I would think is that, generally speaking, a positive progression will concede to the house those (albeit relatively rare) overalternating WL sequences where any win is not properly balanced by the following loss, meaning that in any case in order to win we need some winning clusters to show up..."

    My advocacy for a posprogression is that we will see the same streaks regardless the amount of our wager(or if we are calling our wager a posprogression, Flat, or negpro).
I think most will agree we often go through a bac shoe with perpetual exchanges of streaks(e.g., WL WWLL LLWW LWLW WWWW LLLL,...ETC). Sometimes(not always) we may win FIRST (due to skill or luck). Then have the option to:Press to our win, regress to our win, set aside that wager for a perceived better entry, press higher,...etc all the while compounding our initial base unit.

As you mention we obviously must get some of our wins in clusters(i.e., winning events in-a-row). Which I think gives us an additional  opportunity vs only the option of winning more bet selections than losing

*I play sessions sometimes where I do not deserve to win(e.g., W=8 and L=11). Yet I may have been fortunate to put 3-4 Wins in-a-row in a posprogression, and still leave the shoe with a net profit.


Continued Success,

Hi KFB! Thanks for your interesting reply.

Can you elaborate this passage of yours?

Sometimes(not always) we may win FIRST (due to skill or luck). Then have the option to:Press to our win, regress to our win, set aside that wager for a perceived better entry, press higher,...etc all the while compounding our initial base unit.


Thanks in advance.

Take care.

as.

Hi Asym--I just responded to your Q but timed out. I may have to retype as I think my response is lost. More later

Hi Asym.
My response to your Q is below.

Asym: "...Can you elaborate this passage of yours?

Sometimes(not always) we may win FIRST (due to skill or luck). Then have the option to:Press to our win, regress to our win, set aside that wager for a perceived better entry, press higher,...etc all the while compounding our initial base unit...."

Sometimes(not always) we may win FIRST (due to skill or luck).

    Meaning sometimes we may win first in the cycles of Ws and Ls. Sometimes these Ws streak will happen irrespective of ones skill (or nonskill--luck). It is my belief it is extremely difficult to go very long without a 3IAR(in-a-row) W streak. Especially if one is not wagering for a same-event repeater.

Then have the option to:Press to our win, regress to our win, set aside that wager for a perceived better entry, press higher,

    Meaning when we win first we have several options(Win first is broadly defined but generally means such as: Get ahead greater than ones base unit, get ahead greater than ones currently pressed up pospro wager/ that is greater than ones Mean wager(or base unit) or whatever a person has deemed a reasonable goal for that shoe or session,...etc.
IMO when we get ahead first we have several options not available to the casino. The casino plays like a robot as they can only match our next move. For example if we are doing a posprogression the casino must do a negative progression. Also, vice versa when a negpro player is chasing a losing streak as the casino is matching the negpros' wager with winnings they just received from the losing player. This robotic requirement by the casino is why they like a negpro player. The player is directly challenging a larger bankrolled opponent with less funds(as well as table limits). The casino looks at the negpro player like Mike Tyson did his opponents(i.e., like a tiger circling his cage saying: "bring it on".)
All the while the casino is nicking all players with a 1.06--1.24% H.E. regardless if W or L.

So it is my opinion one will do better financially in the long run by utilizing a pospro that not only can compound out a spinoff% Yield (Not to confused with Return) that is greater than the H.E. Yet also produce a higher Return. However, one cannot backoff once that pressed-up wager is growing exponentially.
If a player can typically win >=3IAR wagers on a reasonable number of base unit buyin(Say 20-35 units). Then it is my belief one should utilize a posprog vs Flatbet/Negpro wagering regimes.

*What I often see at the tables are players that will utilize a pospro until they get back to even. Then chicken out once the pressed-up wager starts really picking up steam(i.e., compounding) which is typically on that >= 3rd,4th,5th IAR win. Sometimes they will even regress or just be thankful to be back to even/ bring it all down.
Yet the same players will automatically and without hesitation chase a losing streak from hell with everything/every $ in front of them. All the while digging in their pocket for a couple more Benjamins for one final bet. It is my thesis we will all (me too) see almost the same streaks regardless of ones bet selection prowess(or lack of). Though an experienced and skilled player will put together streaks with just a very slightly greater length.


Just my opinion and I welcome counter thoughts.


Continued Success To All,

Hi KFB!
Thanks for your detailed answer, I appreciated it a lot.

So basically you mean that itlr LLL and WWW will show up by the same average quantity (of course it's correct); if each LLL sequence produces us a 1-1-1 loss (3 units plus the average 1.15% vig when applicable), we need to get a greater than 3.033 (at worst) profit per each WWW sequence showing up.

I'll be back later

as.

Here's the point.

Any "horizontal" random walk applied to an original BP succession (being itself a random walk) moves by a different speed toward the right side of the display.

The speed is not determined by a perfect binomial independent probability but, even though partially, by the key cards dilution/concentration factor.

Thus we cannot know precisely when key cards will land or privilege one side or the another one, what we can do is just approximating at best the A/B streaks "average" lenght or A/B "average" streaks/singles apparition.   

Since cards are asymmetrically arranged along any shoe dealt, we have reasons to think that patterns are more probable to come out as some way clustered than precisely arranged into a strong balanced fashion.
Of course the clustering factor is more likely to produce some ranges than others but whenever a given class of "less probable" patterns had shown up, we have to decide whether to chase the most probable situation or to give up.   

Unfortunately, baccarat results are made by many "incidents", that is by hands being math underdog at various levels from the start and eventually unlikely winning the decision.
Yet those situations aren't offering us any long term edge as they're perfectly 50/50 distributed.   

Say we think that the next hand will more likely be a Player hand.
We got a 7 and we'll lose to a Banker natural or another fancy Banker three card 8 or 9.
Actually we have won.

For the same reasons anytime we bet Banker, Player draws and we have a Banker 3 or higher initial point cumulatively we have won even if we lose the hand.

Short term variance could only help tourists and amateurs.

Casinos particularly like short term variance, this being the only tool to lure people keep playing this game.

On average, way more than 75% of total hands dealt are unguessable by any means. Anytime we'll wager an amount equal or greater than that we're destined to lose even if we utilize the most sophisticated algorithms ever invented.
Meaning that in that betting range we cannot approximate nothing at our favor.

as.

You said, "On average, way more than 75% of total hands dealt are unguessable by any means."

And yes, could be.  Might also be greater than 75%.  But, could be less than 75%, might be far less than 50% in a shoe or so. 

However, most players do not have the tenacity and the stuff hanging to really bang it out hard when something definable is there, being presented and happening, etc.  So, the casino doesn't care and understands what will happen with the common type of bac players 99-99.9% of the time.  They will lose, or win and give it back or win and leave and never reset, return and then give it all back and attempt to recoup with additional and repetitive buy-ins. 

That's true Al!

One of the most important lesson any bac player should learn is that the money lost previously is forever lost, period.

as.

I do not talk deducing down by theory and what should be.  I talk from experience.  Been there and done it.  Lost.  Won.  Gave back winnings.  Chased winnings gave back and lost additional.  Won and held it and eventually gave it all back.  And everything in between.  But, when I finally learned about and defined a solid MMM, I became an advantaged player when compounded with the other things we discuss. 


You said, "Thus we cannot know precisely when key cards will land or privilege one side or the another one, what we can do is just approximating at best the A/B streaks "average" lenght or A/B "average" streaks/singles apparition." 

And that is so true.  But, the player must know how to handle his wagering losing and winning hands during the course of the shoe and session.  And I have written plenty about that.