Hi AsymBacGuy

Asym above in post #1344 in response to my post.

"...I like the term "Event gaps' contraction and expansion"

It could be someway intended as the Alrelax "sections" or my "ranges".
..."

He (The Tie Bettor) uses a scaled-score tracking method for assessing the current Face Card Vs Cards remaining ratio(Basically card removal affect on current potential for a T). As well as a couple other ratios related to Ties(We both perceive that 7s and cards that can form 7s are beneficial to understand), as well as the gaps(distance between said events).  Distance between meaning hands between certain events(This what I meant about contraction /expansion). Like most any event at Bac we will see its (SD) reach an apex and then back again. Similar to the ebb and flow of the tides,..etc.

He (like me) perceives that Events want to occur in clumps. I seldom wager for Ties(unless sitting with him) and he nudges me. Then I would be likely to wager it for several times in a row and then stop( Win or Lose).

Although, I do track what all-things-sevens are doing. I seldom wager "for" a Fortune7(3c7 B win), however, I do like to side step a 3c7 B win  if I think a wager on B is favorable at that particular moment.

Continued Success,

Event gaps are a signaling trigger to a certain point depending on the way they are interpreted.  A quick $20k on a lower limit table was realized here, but if that was in Vegas or a higher dollar table, I could have easily realized into the 6 figures.

Event gaps can and will be tricky.  They can lead advantaged players to much larger wins and as well, lead any type of player to losses. 

Hi KFB and Al, thanks!

I've recently witnessed three consecutive ties in a row getting a 0 point (6-5-9, J-2-8; six zero value cards, K-3-7 10-6-4) a kind of super unlikely event.
I know that somewhere there's the option to bet a 0 tie...just wondering how much money could be won here.

I agree about the importance of events "clumping", honestly I still don't see reasons to bet ties no matter how card ranks are diluted or concentrated in the playable deck but maybe I'm wrong.
   
Yes, a deck particularly rich of even cards make more probable the tie apparition (John May) but real valuable opportunities are so rare that we better take more "imperfect" approaches.

Finally, yes rare shoes are so asymmetrically distributed that even the simple BP predominance will take the lead over every other sophisticated or not strategy.
Shoes as the one provided by Al with a proper multiple players action are the only ones capable to literally empty the dealer's tray.

as.

If I recall the shoe I posted above with 47B and 16P, most made some decent profit/wins with the first 2 bankers streaks, but most did not or wagered players more so than bankers on the latter out of control super dominant bankers from the 13 iar streak and on.  Most kept saying, it has to be players, players has to make a come back, players coming out, etc., etc. 

As I always say, do not wager for what you desire.  Wager with what is happening.  Not always easy, but at times it is if you have a frame of mind and thought process, that is clear and non frustrated.

Well sayed.

If we're losing our mind is imperfectly oriented to chase "more normal situations" happening in a row to get our money back, instead we should be more focused not to lose more bucks.

The same when we're winning, the world seems to be positively shifted to our favor, but most of the times it takes just two-three wrong hands to give back most of our profit and resetting the mind is not an easy task.

Casinos are totally insensitive of emotional issues, unfortunately players do.

OoOoO

The asymmetrical/symmetrical nature of the productions give us valuable hints to estimate when and how much, on average, winning or losing events (streaks) show up or stand.

I dare to say that once we've run and registered thousands of shoes, it's virtually impossible to lose a lot or, on the other part, to easily get "sky's the limit" sessions.

We made an experiment by running 20 different random walks applied to the original BP sequence and not surprisingly the asymmetrical nature of most patterns overwhelmed (by values capable to invert the HE) the symmetrical counterpart.

Obviously it's not that easy to find out which random walk gets the best asym features, let alone to build such 20 different r.w. lines in practice, yet we've reached the conclusion that it's way better to bet toward asymmetry than symmetry, especially and foremost when different patterns show up.

Another interesting aspect to take care of is that per every shoe dealt in the same circumstances, asymmetrical or symmetrical patterns stop their homogeneous lenght of apparition by more probable values, especially at a couple of random walks utilized.

In a word and considering 1st winning attempts, each shoe is way less likely to produce long (greater than 3) AS patterns followed by the same or greater S counterpart and vice versa.
Meaning that each first attempt vs everything else will get a kind of further "asymmetrical probability" between wins and losses.

That give us a strong long term advantage, even if it's complicated to be ascertained and adding to the features already discussed.

Suppose to get a string of first winning attempts equal or greater than 3, our data suggest it'll be more probable to get subsequent losing patterns inferior than 3, so negating a further "so called" symmetry between second level patterns. Of course by levels superior than expected math values.

See you next week

as. 

Frankly, I can't see how one could lose a lot by taking care of the asym/sym feature traced here.

Maybe asymmetry stalls (meaning it could be quite undetectable for some shoes) but more shoes are played (or observed) higher will be its detectability considered by frames.

Present me some shoes where you got the perception that asymmetry would succumb to symmetry.
We'll take care of the possible bettable spots together.

as. 

Gambling, especially in a game such as baccarat is a mixture of experience, knowledge, emotions and frustrations (for the experienced player probably more so, "I should have done such and such instead of so and so", etc.  For the new and less experienced player, just the loss of money or his opposition to the other players at the table. 

IMO when the player applies his experience, knowledge and a rock solid Money Management Method with a complete clear frame of mind, he is advantaged over the casino and can take large profits from certain shoes.

 

Post #1351 above. Great B run(s).

Good W for you. Was that a recent win at your local casino??




Continued Success,

Hi Asym
re: Your thoughts above in post #1352

"...

I've recently witnessed three consecutive ties in a row getting a 0 point (6-5-9, J-2-8; six zero value cards, K-3-7 10-6-4) a kind of super unlikely event.
I know that somewhere there's the option to bet a 0 tie...just wondering how much money could be won here.

I agree about the importance of events "clumping", honestly I still don't see reasons to bet ties no matter how card ranks are diluted or concentrated in the playable deck but maybe I'm wrong..."

re: The Tie Bettor I mentioned above.
    I agree with you/ though he seems to wager for Ties with success. My thinking is the same efforts would produce a greater Net return if one would focus the same energy on lower H.E. bets.

He does a slow series of wagers following a slight Neg Progression, He said what happens is that often at the higher tier levels he will hit several winners within a short gap distance between (cluster). He then drops the tier level (even if he is not Net +) at that stage,...etc until in positive territory.
He utilizes a very large bank roll to wager ratio/ doesn't mind using it. He stated once that Tier 13 was the most extreme level reached before + again. I do not know the number of wagers in each tier and what the % is between tiers.



Continued Success,

Quote from: KungFuBac on July 24, 2025, 04:15:57 PMPost #1351 above. Great B run(s).

Good W for you. Was that a recent win at your local casino??




Continued Success,

Yes local casino.  From approximately end of 2023. 

Alrelax wrote:

IMO when the player applies his experience, knowledge and a rock solid Money Management Method with a complete clear frame of mind, he is advantaged over the casino and can take large profits from certain shoes.


Exactly! I would add at the end of your passage: ...at the same time putting maximum efforts to stay away from betting when things seem not to go in our way.

KFB wrote:

He does (the Tie bettor) a slow series of wagers following a slight Neg Progression, He said what happens is that often at the higher tier levels he will hit several winners within a short gap distance between (cluster). He then drops the tier level (even if he is not Net +) at that stage,...etc until in positive territory.
He utilizes a very large bank roll to wager ratio/ doesn't mind using it. He stated once that Tier 13 was the most extreme level reached before + again. I do not know the number of wagers in each tier and what the % is between tiers.

If this player attracted your attention he deserves some credit.

IMO the problem is about "triggers" that I find more consistent by attacking the Tiger bet (for example) as here we have a valuable impact of 6s first and then of 8s/9s. Despite Tiger bet(s) involve a superior HE than ties.

Thus by wagering ties we're compelled to consider the results in form of mere "Tie" or "No tie" despite the Tie general probability to occur is almost double than the Tiger bet.

On the other end and just for these last mathematical considerations, it should be more probable (sooner or later) to encounter tie gaps lower than 1:9.5 intertwined by larger "no tie" ranges that naturally must create the conditions to get more ties than expected once a new tie shows up.

It someway reminds me one paper made by D Brooks about Probability in decline (2010) after having analyzed a Spencer-Brown old study (1957).
Conclusions of Brooks work were that at gambling no help could be extracted by those considerations, yet and as always we never know.


Later we'll see how much "disturbing variables" will affect our long term profits.

as.   

"Good luck!"

Probably "good luck" are the most used words in Vegas casinos, obviously they don't mean nothing as there's no amount of luck capable to erase and let alone invert the HE.
Their real meaning would sound as "Thanks for joining the table, we love your money so much, try to lose it ASAP".

L. Pasteur stated that "luck favors prepared minds" but actually at baccarat luck favors nothing more than 1% of what we do itlr.

Winning and losing is a delicate process surely shifted toward the right L side for the HE impact but never related to "luck".
Once we've run thousands and thousands of shoes considered in their different productions and collected the data, we know that "good" or "bad" will whimsically alternate but itlr some distribution lines will show up more likely than others, so it's just the "permutation issue" that matters and we better make our plan more insensitive of the permutation factor than we can.

So when a distribution seems to get a kind of permutation not fitting the "average" parameters at some points, we better stop to bet toward what we're expected to face, let the hands go and wait for another shoe to be dealt.

By using a 0.75 probability and taking care of 4 hands dealt (ties ignored), the more probable expected scenarios are just these:

1- WWWL
2- WWLW
3- WLWW
4- LWWW

We see that all L events are isolated and just one possible sequence will get an isolated W (#3) anyway followed by a W cluster. All four sequences will produce a W cluster.

Now let's lower the W/L 3:1 ratio by increasing by one step the number of L events (2:2 W/L ratio):

1a) WWLL
2a) WLWL
3a) LWLW
4a) LLWW


Now the possible distributions  are going to get three L isolated events and two L clusters (3:2) and two W clusters as opposed to three W isolated events (2:3).
 
Those eight different situations are covering the vast majority of 0.75 p W/L patterns.

If the game would provide only such situations winning would be a piece of cake.

Thus let's raise by one step the number of L events always considered in terms of 4 hands dealt ranges.

1b) WLLL
2b) LLWL
3b) LWLL
4b) LLLW

Here there are no W clusters and just one L events is isolated (#3b); L clusters are 2:1 underdog to make L doubles (2b vs 1b and 4b).

Finally there are the most deviated W/L situations strongly shifted toward the W side for the way superior proportional probability to happen, that is WWWW and LLLL.

If you'd run infinite times such 4-hands scenarios, you'll see that 1 and 1a patterns will overwhelm the remaining possible situations with an important caveat that not only all 0.75 probability events will get the same distribution as some random walks will make more probable to encounter "unexpected" L back to back events after an unexpected L streak (equal or greater than 2) came out previously.

Asymmetrical and symmetrical patterns distribution along any shoe dealt

Process of dealing asymmetrical patterns is a sure fact but it's a finite and limited process.
Virtually we're expecting to face an astounding portion of asymmetrical situations, yet a fair number of patterns (more probable by coincidental factors) are going to produce symmetrical patterns.

Once the actual shoe we're playing at a symmetrical pattern had shown up by values not fitting the two more likely categories (1 and 1a), we better consider the "asymmetry" more as a potential wasted opportunity than a powerful winning opportunity. Now the symmetry constitutes a kind of "threat" especially if we try to limit it by common values (zero or one).

For that matter, RNG "instructed" shoes (shuffling machines) are particularly able to destroy this (unbeatable) plan, so dealing patterns featuring the most unlikely symmetrical deviations ever conceived by math.

Being this the case, do not bet a dime once a double or triple consecutive symmetrical pattern happened.
Let the shoe ends up and tell the house to GF.

Do not make the mistake to chase the symmetry when only a fool could lose by exploiting the asymmetry.

as.