Anyway here some Big Road shoes really played: (A=asym pattern, S=sym pattern)
E= easy shoe, M=moderate shoe, T= tough shoe

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-A-S-S (E)

A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S (E)

S-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A  (E)

S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-S (E)

S-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-S-S (E)

A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-S-A-A  (E)

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S (E)

A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A (E)

A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A (E)

S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-S-A-A-S  (E)

S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A  (E)

A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A  (E)

A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-S  (M)

A-S-S-A-S-S-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-S-S-A-S  (M)

A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S (E)

A-S-A-A-S-A-S-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A (E/M)

A-A-S-S-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-S-A (T)

A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S-A (E/M)

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-S (E)

S-S-S-S-S-A-S-A-S-A-A* (T)

S-S-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-S (E)

S-A-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S (E/M)

A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A (E)

A-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A (E)

*: a very rare back-to-back 5 S sequence

as.

CFS is made by + and - signs where + is any step moving toward the right (horizontal line) and - any step stalling (vertical lines).

So any + sign is any side shift and any - sign correspond to the same side happening again once or more times.
From a pattern point of view the only "long" +-+-+-... events are consecutive doubles, so we may consider them as the perfect form of CFS symmetry, everything else will accelerate or slow down the columns filling speed (CFS).

Considering  8 resolved BP hands, the fastest, the slowest and the most neutral speeds are: 

BPBPBPBP = +++++++
PBPBPBPB = +++++++

BBBBBBBB = -------
PPPPPPPP = -------

BBPPBBPP = -+-+-+-
PPBBPPBB = -+-+-+-

Those are just 6 out of the possible 128 patterns (first hand is the signal) coming out from any 8 resolved hand series.
In some sense they are "extremes" at either way.
Furthermore a kind of symmetrical movement acting for 7 or more consecutive steps can only come out from a 3,5 doubles consecutive appearance (2/128 probability).

Since an 8-deck shoe on average will form around 75 resolved hands, we know that we're facing close  to ten 7-hand situations.

Of course we do not want to consider doubles as "enemies", actually we are relatively more worried about long consecutive doubles successions that should be interpreted as a steady symmetrical (unwanted) distribution.

For example, a BPPBPPBPP (+-++-++-) sequence is an asymmetrical succession albeit showing two doubles).

On the other hand, we can't rule out long consecutive doubles successions (7, 8 or more doubles coming in a row) more likely to show up (even if very rarely) at some shuffling productions.

I've stated one millions of times here that at baccarat a kind of overalternating movement is the less likely to happen among others: the average consecutive doubles distribution could be a good start to investigate how a bac shoe really develops.

So it's not about HOW LONG a same sign (+ or -) will stand but about approximating at best WHEN either + or - clusters will show up by "categories" (clusters of one, clusters of two, etc).

After all consecutive doubles do not come out around any corner and anyway there are some tricks to partially get rid of them by following some derived random walks.

See you tomorrow.

as.

Positional relationship between two derived roads

Consider the Big Eye Boy (BEB) and the Small Road (SR) successions taken column by column.
The pace starts as asymmetrical as SR needs more hands to initiate its sequence.
Then the density of the streaks happening at each succession will alter the positional paces, so it could happen that one road is quite prolonged and the other one is slow to fill the respective columns.
What we are interested at are the patterns showing up at the same column number.

more later

as.

Now the "battle" is not by guessing what happens next, just about comparing the two patterns considered in a specific position after running two different paced successions (BYB and SR, in our example).

This "trick" allow us to emphatize at most the natural asymmetrical features of the game, a thing that for sure will give us an edge.

After all the CFS cannot be homogeneous for long at two different sub sequences originated by a diverse pace (anyway not getting the common unbeatable binomial fluctuations), a kind of important proof that RVM and M. Von Smoluchoswki ideas are particularly effective in order to help us to define the baccarat problem.

Carefully studying two sub successions originated by the same sequence and getting a different pace will give us plenty of opportunities to take advantage and to restrict at most the biased limited values of relative frequency.

Of course natural and "coincidental" low level symmetrical patterns may happen for relatively "long" time, no matter which random walks we decide to utilize, yet the probability of success reamins higher than expected.

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy.

re: "...Overall we could accept the idea that asym=sym, yet we should be more interested about how many sym events will shift into asym events or vice versa and, more importantly, at which level of asymmetry or symmetry. Per every shoe played.  ..."

Qs: Lets say you have tracked intra-shoe streams of info and concluded the next "spot" is a + bet. So you have concluded the current Sym patterns will change to Asym.
     So my Q is do you give more credibility to a "spot" if that very next potentially winning spot would be in row one (per tote board layout)  vs lets say that spot would be at say row four or six, eight, or whatever Non-One row,..etc. ??

Thx as always,

Hi KFB!!

The most emphasis should always be put at row #1

as.

Thank you for your work on this asymmetric/symmetric baccarat strategy. As I continue to apply and study it, I'd greatly appreciate your insights on a few key points:

Do you have a defined probability model for pattern transitions—particularly from asymmetric to symmetric (A→S) or symmetric to asymmetric (S→A)?
For example, is a 0.75 probability for A→S transitions a reasonable estimate?

Given that the same P/B sequence can sometimes generate multiple A/B outcomes, what specific rule or method do you use to assign A or B in those ambiguous cases?

When identifying a potential betting spot, does the row position on the tote board (e.g., first row vs. deeper rows) affect your confidence or decision-making?
If so, how do you weigh that spatial factor?

How were the five betting trigger patterns developed and tested?
Were they based on statistical simulations, real shoe analysis, or other forms of data modeling?

Beyond the five primary triggers, have you developed any secondary filters or conditions to avoid high-risk zones or long losing streaks?

Your guidance would be invaluable as I fine-tune the way I apply your system.

#   Trigger Pattern   PB Sequence Example   Trigger Recognition Point   Last Result   Final Recommended Bet
1   Zigzag 4 times in a row   P B P B P B P B   Confirmed through the 8th card   B   Bet B (repeat)
2   2-line repeat for 3 consecutive sets   P P B B P P   Confirmed through the 6th card   P   Bet B (opposite)
3   3-3-3 cross-streak for 3 sets   P P P B B B P P P   Confirmed through the 9th card   P   Bet B (opposite)
4   Zigzag 6 times in a row   P B P B P B P B P B P B   Confirmed through the 12th card   B   Bet P (opposite)
5   2-line repeat for 4 consecutive sets   P P B B P P B B P P B B P P B B   Confirmed through the 16th card   B   Bet P (opposite)


For example, is this the right way to do it?

Thx Asym for your reply in post #1295 above.




Cheers,

Lovepreaks: I'll give you a detailed answer ASAP.
Thanks for the patience!

as.

Important shoe production considerations are coming soon.

No fake randomness can beat us.

as.

A). You follow what the shoe is producing.

B). You play the 'cut' and wager what the shoe will eventually produce.

Anything else is adhering to psychic beliefs, IMO and decades of B&M play in high-limit rooms.

Please don't misunderstand my statement above. It is not meant in humor or to discredit any work done within this thread.

There are countless people that believe in a prediction of what the next hand will be based upon the previous cards or hands. However it only works until it doesn't work any longer. My statements are derived from over 40 years of baccarat play within casinos.

The only flaw in the prediction of upcoming hands is the 'pat on the back' which the highest percentile of the time, fuels additional wagers to follow such skilled knowledge one believes he processes, that all of the wagers previously won go back and the chase begins once again with the so called knowledge that doesn't continue producing winning hands.

Of course all other issues such as Money Management Methods, wager one unit and win then leave, and countless other ones are out there.  However, show me a gambler that can play one hand, win and leave and that person most likely went to his car and sat there and then went back into the casino calling it another session.  Or he switched casinos and continued his 'winning' streak.  On and on, etc. 

*Its great to see the forum back up and running.

Thanks AsymBacGuy

"...Important shoe production considerations are coming soon.

No fake randomness can beat us..."

I look forward to your future posts on this topic. Your posts are always a great read.



Continued Success To All,

Thanks Al and KFB for your replies!!

Are there different types of randomness while playing a baccarat shoe?

With the advent of optical reading internal devices (allegedly inserted within shuffle machines, for example), many scholars think that some card distributions are arranged by a RNG software instead of the "old" classical physical process.
Nothing weird or illegitimate of course, but whether this should be the case when playing a bac shoe of such kind we're playing a succession of numbers (card ranks) totally insensitive of the previous shoe distributions (including the "fresh new shoe").

For practical purposes and since we cannot know which kind of RN generators are utilized in the specific scenario, we simply should accept the fact that we're facing a RNG sequence and not physically shuffled cards.

As several times pointed out here, the "cut" and the "number of initial cards burnt in relation of the first card shown" are almost irrelevant in the whole distribution process.

If we would be forced to define at all costs such RNG distributions, we could dare to state that they somewhat relatively lack of the patterns consinstency, curiously the main factor where most bac players focus upon.
Then there are other more specific features we'll see in future posts.

Obviously whether homogeneous patterns seem to be latent, a sort of "anti-homogeneous pattern strategy" should be the best option to take and actually it is but only if we're able to set up two different limits of intervention: the first by deciding when to prolong the betting and the second when to stop it.
Notice that in our opinion itlr the starting point will be irrelevant unless we incorporate the asym/sym feature seen above.

Actually a RNG card distribution not being biased by a kind of "card clumping" factor typical of physically shuffled shoes should be more inclined to present symmetrical patterns than asymmetrical ones (at least as intended in this thread---see above), but in reality just the opposite is true.
More low-level symmetrical patterns are due at many portions of the shoe than at other forms of shuffling. Especially if we are able to exploit other random walks. 

More later

When you compare those two different plans (AS/S patterns vs anything else) applied to a RNG sequence, you'll see that an asymmetrical pattern MUST COME OUT and whenever it (temporarily) won't it's because some weird card distributions happened.

I mean that per every set of symmetrical options whatever intended, one side must be get a sort of discrepancy over the other one, maybe not now but surely by running the same proposition several times.

The stupi.d RNG makes more probable to get losing symmetrical patterns than average but at the same time will make more probable to get asymmetrical patterns to stop a symmetrical sequences.

It's like that the more we have lost (better fictionally) greater will be the actual probability of success as RNG is less likely prone to make strong AS/S deviations at either side.
And of course we better take the most likely course of operations, that is the AS process.

Suppose we are betting randomly the pattern #2, #5 , #8 and #15 of the Big Road. (two time pattern #15 hadn't come out):

S-S-A-A
A-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
S-S-S
A-A-S-A
S-A-S-A
A-A-A-S
A-A-A-S
A-S-A-A
S-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
A-A-A-S
A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A
A-A-A-S
S-A-S

What and when to bet at these successions?

as.