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.

As professor emeritus of statistics at University of Cambridge D. Spiegelhalter stated in his book, random is often "clumpy", so lacking of "regularity".
 

Hence whenever things seem to be "too regular" for long (multiple shoes), we should raise our suspicions that the production isn't random.

Obviously we might think that a kind of "regular model" could be easily beaten but it's not the case at baccarat.

A coin flip study found that per every 20 tosses, there's a 78% probability of getting at least a 4 streak.
And the probability of getting streaks not superior than two (a double streak) is just 2%.

Now I'm figuring out what you are thinking about the last finding: "Hey, at baccarat there are a lot of sequences producing singles/doubles for many hands, we can't believe of that 2% percentage".
And actually bac hands are not coin flip successions.

Remember that among all patterns, at baccarat doubles are the most likely occurence, then there's always the "random" factor to be examined at both coin flip and bac productions.

Then "clumpy" could be interpreted as the dynamic propensity of getting things either more slight concentrated than diluted by an exact or near expected probability to appear.
And at baccarat doubles (for their high probability to appear) could be easily come out clustered (that is by a back-to-back fashion).

Therefore symmetry and asymmetry could be viable tools not to simply ascertain what's more probable to come out next, but to make an estimate about the effective randomness of the production.

As sayed numerous times here, paradoxically we are in better shape to guess "more due situations" when the production is supposed to be either perfectly random or affected by a huge unrandom bias then in the other miriad of intermediate possibilities.

Moreover at baccarat random clumpiness gets an average probability to appear in terms of quantity and frequency and when such values tend to be disregarded for long we can safely conclude that we're dealing with pseudorandomness othan with supposedly "normal fluctuations" dictated by a pure randomness.

More later

as.

The last passage of my previous post is:

...we can safely conclude that we're dealing with pseudorandomness rather than with supposedly "normal fluctuations" dictated by a pure randomness.

OoOoO

Knowing that long term data extracted by the same production will approach more and more to the B=50.68% and P=49.32% winning percentages doesn't necessarily mean that we're dealing with a perfect random world.
It's the common mistake almost every expert will conclude after being asked whether baccarat could be a beatable game.

Those conclusions are biased as:

A- They assume for certain that ALL bac productions are perfectly random;
B- They take for granted that every single spot coming out along the course of each shoe will present the same independent features.

Actually once we have approximated at best the real random or not random nature of the shoe we're playing at, bac productions will form huge or moderate "jumps" in winning probability even though  the majority of hands dealt are EV-.


#A point cannot be resolved by taking care of the final results, it needs more complicated issues to be evaluated as there are various "imperfect" form of shufflings employed to deal bac shoes.

#B point had found solid evidences (according to RVM and M.v.Smoluchoswki works) that various situations aren't so randomly placed, so making more probable the apparition of some patterns than others.

Both points rely upon the average probability of the S or A patterns distribution at the infinite random walks we can build from the original BP sequence.
Such probability could be estimated by "levels of apparition" (1, 2) in relationship of the actual production we're dealing with.
Since the shoe is a finite S/A proposition, we have plenty of opportunities to detect how much and foremost when things are more likely to change (OR NOT).


Professor Spiegelhalter wrote that "Most random number generators are entirely deterministic and contain no randomness at all".

So it could happen that at the casino you're playing at, a RNG software connected in the shuffling machine will distribute cards by NON RANDOM parameters.

Therefore treat every shoe dealt with a lot of caution, it's like betting a negative count shoe at black jack.

Good news is that at "no random" RNG productions, things tend to be more clustered than isolated, meaning that the "bad" tends to come out more clustered than average but giving more room to "good" clustered events.

When in doubt and whenever "unnatural" symmetrical patterns come out consecutively in quantity and especially in quantity, consider that shoe as unplayable.
Unfortunately at most RNG productions S>A, as cards are not clumped but distributed by a "number scheme" not fitting the random requisites.

Never ever change your betting scheme, play for A and never for S.
Itlr you'll make a lot of money.

as.

A possible strategy applied to shuffle machines allegedly using a RNG software:

1) Bet A after A one time and bet A after S-S one time.

2) Be careful when two or more derived roads will get plenty of S situations.
In fact and more often than not a real random model will deny simultaneous S clusters happening at more than one random walk.

3) Tie rich shoes should be treated with a lot of caution. The same about shoes resolving hands by utilizing 6 cards.

4) More S patterns had come out in the initial/intermediate portions of the shoe and lesser will be the probability to encounter LONG A events.

5) Register how many consecutive times you have lost (for real or fictionally) by chasing an A pattern.

6) Nothing wrong by gambling for long A clustered patterns (lower than standard unit), yet at RNG productions they are relatively rarer than at other form of shufflings.

7) A progressive multilayered plan betting toward A-A (one time) and toward A after crossing S-S cannot lose by any means.
I mean there's no natural negative variance capable to overcome such propensities, especially if we'll wait for a kind of negative deviation to happen.

It's possible that knowing this, the RNG is instructed to deal a lesser number of A clusters and a superior number of S isolated events. So mimicking a real random model.
In this instance, privilege the A event to be bet after one or two isolated A patterns happened.

9) To get a strong advantage we need to win more hands at the first betting attempt than at the second one. So meaning that what we're really looking for is a "first bet" winning cluster.
Therefore consecutive wins at the second betting attempts should be considered as a kind of "backup" plan

as.