Since at baccarat a player can virtually bet up to $500k or more per hand, casinos want to be sure that shoes offered won't present any detectable bias, so they rely upon the best random shufflings.
Technically it's not the BP results' distribution that matters (with all the infinite derived roads) but the rank card distribution.

Good news is that there's a relationship between BP results and rank card distribution, now I'm adding a new factor that is the B/P hands gap.

Smaller is the B/P hands gap (especially if BP deviations seem to be "too much" restrained along the course of a shoe) and higher will be the probability to get "undetectable" patterns because such productions tend to get "too many" overalternating events that do not correspond with natural coin flip distributions.
Obviously I'm not referring to long chopping lines or short streaks, just a "weird" propensity to not producing a more natural deviation belonging to a binomial proposition.

On the other end, rare shoes will produce a higher than expected number of B or P deviations, so in some sense what lacks in such productions is the "average" distribution.

If we split the possible patterns into 1) an overalternating mood (OA), 2) moderate or strong deviations (MSD) and 3) average deviations (AD), we'll see that the most part of shoes will belong to the 1+2 category rather than the more exploitable 3 category typical of more common random shoes.

What classifies gambling games is the absolute uncertainty about the next outcomes, yet a decent number of statistical deviations must happen and of course main part of OA and MSD belong to the extremes of the spectrum.

A kind of symmetrical or asymmetrical plan is hugely affected by such propensity as low deviations make more probable to encounter S patterns than A patterns, that's why itlr S>A.

So when too many hands seem to be 6-card resolved, think that the symmetry will be predominant (after all ties come out way more often when 6 cards are used) and the same when the BP ratio seems to get very low deviations along the shoe's course.

Nothing wrong by taking the S side when proper conditions are met, yet the asymmetry will reign supreme especially when S patterns had shown up too often than expected at previous shoes.

Clustered symmetrical patterns

Clustered symmetrical patterns (that is S-S or S-S-S and so on) happening at a shoe make more probable the formation of another symmetrical pattern at the same shoe, the reason beyond that won't be discussed here.

More specifically, different productions are more or less probable to deal S patterns of some level where of course the main class happening will be 1 (single S) or 2 (double S).

Almost always when clustered S events happen, there's more room to get an A pattern clustered at any level (A-A or A-A-A, etc) as rank cards cannot be arranged to constantly get symmetrical situations for long (statistically impossible when 3 or more different random walks are considered).

After all it's a lot more probable that occasional HS players (those who can seriously hurt casinos) will bet toward symmetrical patterns than asymmetrical ones. And such players look for the Big Road, giving a damn about what certain bac scholars try to say.

Taken from another point of view, the line (random walk) getting many A and singled or no S will take the lead over the other ones, sometimes two or rarely three different lines will present clustered S, a sure sign that that shoe isn't playable.

That's one of the precious tools we're looking for:

Once a S clustered pattern had shown up at two different lines (random walks) so far, that shoe is considered as partially unplayable unless our data suggests that a given specific S cluster is more likely to be interrupted by an A event.

Keypoint is that we do not want to guess interminable winning hands, just restricting at most the unfavourable S patterns as the rule at baccarat is to lose and lose and not to win.


When a shoe is weirdly dealing too many S hands, do not try to alter the flow and let it go without betting (don't make the mistake to chase S patterns and let alone A situations).

Next week we'll see the exact percentages of S/A ratios in relationship of the actual production.

as.

In his must read post ("wagering smart"), Alrelax written this:

* Because you can only win a smaller amount of wagers in any session unless it is a rare session.

That's one more reason to consider every session as totally independent from the previous ones.
Or more precisely that the "very good" is quite rare to happen and of course that the most likely expectation we'll get is to lose (in absence of a carefully conceived plan).

We've seen one million of times that the "session" concept doesn't exist, unless for actual conditions we suspect to be "too random" or "not random".

In fact casinos' profits come out from:

-HE
-negative variance (NV) for the players

players profits could only comeout from:

-positive variance (PV)

Since NV=PV and the HE works only for the house, NV+HE > PV yesterday, now and in the future.

The only tool we could exploit at our advantage is to someway restrain the NV by taking care of the actual "random" conditions and this can't be done by stopping an attack after one or two losses or by modifying the betting amount but to  register and classify several results springing from the allegedly same production and to adhere at most at the actual situation we're dealing with.

More later about S/A ratios.

as.

For obvious reasons concepts examined here are quite simplified. 

Every soul knows that RNG provides pseudo random successions as they need an initial "starting seed" to properly work.
Real random RNG sequences are generated via atmospheric noise and frankly we can safely rule out their role at baccarat productions.

So whenever cards are arranged by a RNG software, we know that the subsequent card distribution will be pseudo random, so virtually presenting a kind of bias.
It's not an easy task to detect when and how a supposedly more likely situation should be entitled to come out, so we could start to study how different sub successions would perform on average at those pseudo RNG sequences.

In our opinion one of the tools that would help us most is the detectability to  spot "more likely" A or S patterns as key cards or math advantaged two-card situations cannot be symmetrically or asymmetrically distributed for long unless for short term variance issues.

Here a brief list of RNG shoes coming out from the same source (as always A=+1 and S= -3)

1) A=13, S=5

2) A=19, S=5

3) A=16, S=4

4) A=11, S=6

5) A=12, S=5

6) A=12, S=5

7) A=22, S=4

A=12, S=5

9) A=13, S=6

10) A=6, S=5

11) A=13, S=5

12) A=13, S=6

13) A=18, S=4

14) A=10, S=6

15) A=13, S=2

16) A=5, S=3

17) A=9, S=6

18) A=11, S=6

19) A=17, S=3

20) A=20, S=2

21) A=13, S=5

22) A=18, S=3

23) A=13, S=5

24) A=18, S=5

25) A=16, S=4

26) A=19, S=3

27) A=16, S=3

28) A=11, S=5

29) A=14, S=4

30) A=6, S=5

31) A=16, S=8

32) A=9, S=7

33) A=17, S=2

Total number of A= 451, S= 154 (x3= 462)

As sayed above, the S events will slightly overcome the A events counterpart, anyway the A/S model is well balanced (as expected).

Now let's see HOW those S patterns had shown up:

-75 times as isolated (singled)

-29 times as clustered (two or more times in a row)

About those 29 times S patterns came out:

20 times they came out double clustered and 7 times clustered by a more than two level (2 S patterns haven't limited for coming at the end of the shoe)

Now about the A patterns:

- 97 times as clustered

- 25 times as isolated.

Even though this sample is insignificantly small, we see that RNG software productions will differ from other form of shufflings where a kind of "clumping card factor" works more extensively, so privileging the A events.

Nonetheless, when we deal with pure numbers (no matter how random or unrandom placed) we're getting a very strong advantage, providing to carefully selecting the spots we'll we wager at.

RNG productions tend not to elicit any S isolated situation, maybe to make a multilayered progressive scheme at S-S vs S-S-S-...patterns that will be surprisingly balanced along the course of the shoes encountered.

On the other end and due to a kind of "unnatural" S clustering effect, RNG productions will make way more probable to cross A clustered patterns of any lenght, especially when one or two A isolated situations came out.

Even knowing this, there's no possibility to set up a RNG software capable to get rid of the A clustering effect happening at the infinite random walks we can build from the original BP succession.

Summarizing:

When finite RNG sequences are taken as a form of randomness, more probable situations are spottable along the way.
In fact, RNG successions are totally incapable to fit the RVM definition of randomness and without any effort to prove otherwise, RNG can't provide real random productions by definition.

Actually we can't give a lesser fk about complicated statistical/math formulas swearing that what we have to deal with is a constant perfect random model.

Perfect randomness doesn't exist and for that matter even the "probability" concept doesn't exist.

See you in a couple of days.

as.