Let's say we are machines wagering against another machine.
The game seems to be a coin flip succession but we know that itlr B>P by every simple or complex BP distribution.
We know that a coin flip succession cannot be beaten by any means.
I repeat it: any coin flip succession cannot be beaten by any means.
If baccarat might be beaten it's because it isn't a coin flip succession.
I repeat it: if baccarat might be beaten it's because it isn't a coin flip succession.
B is more prevalent than P as B includes hands where it has a mathematical advantage due to the rules. It happens just 8.6% of the times.
So B won't be advantaged 100% of the times, neither 50% of the times, neither 20% of the times.
Moreover B won't be 100% advantaged on such 8.6% total hands. Just by a 15.6% percentage.
Simple deduction: regularly wagering B side won't get us any control of the game as there's a lot of variance.
In order to win we need to control the variance.
Hence we need a further hint: distribution and frequency of B related patterns and P related patterns.
Simplest next step is considering B and P patterns in term of B streaks (more prevalent than B singles) and P singles (more prevalent than P streaks).
So a B streak of 2 banker hands in a row will be considered as a B streak of 25 or 30.
The same about P singles: a P single will be considered as a succession of 10-15 or 20 P singles in a row.
In a word, any B streak and/or any P single will be our new simplest targets to look for.
We do not want to guess MANY hands. We do want to guess the least possible amount of hands favoring the construction of the simplest patterns: B streaks and P singles.
Since the random world won't accomplish our simple task everytime, besides the first stop win (the production of just one B streak and/or just one P single) we need to put a stop loss during our endeavour.
We don't want to lose many bets looking for B streaks and P singles when a shoe continues to produce the counterparts. But we need to accept the fact that many positive outcomes will be disregarded by not betting as we cannot know when and how much they will materialize.
The most deviated situations we could expect to are single shoes not presenting one B streak (impossible feature) and no one P single (very very very very unlikely situation, still a possible situation).
The probability to get two consecutive shoes not featuring such situations (no B streaks and no P singles) is not existent.
So we know that no one shoe will form only B singles and that no two consecutive shoes will rule out at least one P single apparition.
Of course we could easily get a shoe forming 10 B singles, one B streak and another 10 or more B singles and many other distributions strongly deviating the "natural" outcomes.
And naturally a couple of long P streaks happening on a single shoe will reduce the probability to get P singles as those streaks are reducing the situations to get them.
In a word, we don't know when and how many B streaks and/or P singles will take place, even if we put at minimum our goal.
To reduce the variance we need a further step.
B streaks clusters (consecutive B streaks of two or more) are more likely than single B streaks (B streaks preceded and followed by one or more B singles) and the same is true about P singles (P singles clusters are more likely than P singles interpoled by two or more P streaks).
If we hadn't to pay the 5% vig, a general plan wagering those patterns will get more B streaks clusters than the counterparts and the same it's true about P singles clusters vs the opposite situation.
Actually if we hadn't to pay the 5% vig, we'll get a sure advantage simply betting B side everytime but here the variance will be very high, so high that we could be behind after 10k or even 20k resolved bets.
So I'm enhancing the issue that in some selected situations the most likely event will be slight more "likely" in relationship of what happened in the past per every shoe.
If anyone is interested about this topic I will continue.
as.
A side note: the fact that anything can happen anytime and anyhow is simply ridiculous, especially if someone keeps stating that you have to quit after a win.
Thus, if you have to quit after a given win the probability to lose will be higher than expected?
That's perfect, it means that the future distributions will be more negative than positive no matter what you'll play, so the reverse thought will be true.
Unfortunately the odds will remain the same, either if you have won or if you have lost.
And odds dictate that B streaks and P singles will be more frequent than B singles and P streaks per every shoe, per a couple of shoes and forever and ever.
as.
AsymBacGuy... I will agree that you cannot beat the game by trying to "out guess" the shoe.
So everyone needs to invent or come up with a betting system that does not involve them trying to "out guess" the shoe.
I have a betting system that beats the game and there is no guessing involved. I gave it to Ted. (ask him if you don't believe me)
But do I want everyone in the country using it? No of course not!
After glancing quickly thru your two posts I'm still trying to figure out what your point is that you are trying to get at.
There is an advantage and I call it 'Diminishing probability' and once you unravel what happened to a certain tune the pending changes will normally happen a greater amount of times by far than not. Which is a definitive control on the variance, at least the way I deduce down the depletion of what happened in most shoes.
Quote from: Patience777 on April 25, 2017, 12:16:59 AM
AsymBacGuy... I will agree that you cannot beat the game by trying to "out guess" the shoe.
So everyone needs to invent or come up with a betting system that does not involve them trying to "out guess" the shoe.
I have a betting system that beats the game and there is no guessing involved. I gave it to Ted. (ask him if you don't believe me)
But do I want everyone in the country using it? No of course not!
After glancing quickly thru your two posts I'm still trying to figure out what your point is that you are trying to get at.
Yes, Patience has given his system to me. Thank you Patience.
Quote from: Ted009 on April 25, 2017, 01:30:09 AM
Yes, Patience has given his system to me. Thank you Patience.
You are welcome Ted.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 24, 2017, 11:13:01 PM
Let's say we are machines wagering against another machine.
The game seems to be a coin flip succession but we know that itlr B>P by every simple or complex BP distribution.
We know that a coin flip succession cannot be beaten by any means.
I repeat it: any coin flip succession cannot be beaten by any means.
If baccarat might be beaten it's because it isn't a coin flip succession.
I repeat it: if baccarat might be beaten it's because it isn't a coin flip succession.
B is more prevalent than P as B includes hands where it has a mathematical advantage due to the rules. It happens just 8.6% of the times.
So B won't be advantaged 100% of the times, neither 50% of the times, neither 20% of the times.
Moreover B won't be 100% advantaged on such 8.6% total hands. Just by a 15.6% percentage.
Simple deduction: regularly wagering B side won't get us any control of the game as there's a lot of variance.
In order to win we need to control the variance.
Hence we need a further hint: distribution and frequency of B related patterns and P related patterns.
Simplest next step is considering B and P patterns in term of B streaks (more prevalent than B singles) and P singles (more prevalent than P streaks).
So a B streak of 2 banker hands in a row will be considered as a B streak of 25 or 30.
The same about P singles: a P single will be considered as a succession of 10-15 or 20 P singles in a row.
In a word, any B streak and/or any P single will be our new simplest targets to look for.
We do not want to guess MANY hands. We do want to guess the least possible amount of hands favoring the construction of the simplest patterns: B streaks and P singles.
Since the random world won't accomplish our simple task everytime, besides the first stop win (the production of just one B streak and/or just one P single) we need to put a stop loss during our endeavour.
We don't want to lose many bets looking for B streaks and P singles when a shoe continues to produce the counterparts. But we need to accept the fact that many positive outcomes will be disregarded by not betting as we cannot know when and how much they will materialize.
The most deviated situations we could expect to are single shoes not presenting one B streak (impossible feature) and no one P single (very very very very unlikely situation, still a possible situation).
The probability to get two consecutive shoes not featuring such situations (no B streaks and no P singles) is not existent.
So we know that no one shoe will form only B singles and that no two consecutive shoes will rule out at least one P single apparition.
Of course we could easily get a shoe forming 10 B singles, one B streak and another 10 or more B singles and many other distributions strongly deviating the "natural" outcomes.
And naturally a couple of long P streaks happening on a single shoe will reduce the probability to get P singles as those streaks are reducing the situations to get them.
In a word, we don't know when and how many B streaks and/or P singles will take place, even if we put at minimum our goal.
To reduce the variance we need a further step.
B streaks clusters (consecutive B streaks of two or more) are more likely than single B streaks (B streaks preceded and followed by one or more B singles) and the same is true about P singles (P singles clusters are more likely than P singles interpoled by two or more P streaks).
If we hadn't to pay the 5% vig, a general plan wagering those patterns will get more B streaks clusters than the counterparts and the same it's true about P singles clusters vs the opposite situation.
Actually if we hadn't to pay the 5% vig, we'll get a sure advantage simply betting B side everytime but here the variance will be very high, so high that we could be behind after 10k or even 20k resolved bets.
So I'm enhancing the issue that in some selected situations the most likely event will be slight more "likely" in relationship of what happened in the past per every shoe.
If anyone is interested about this topic I will continue.
as.
Asymbacguy's approach makes sense and is practical. I used his at the table while I was overseas. I won more than I lost. This was combined with how the shoe was performing according to Arelax's guidances.
I am no way an expert on this game. I am just a regular player who tries to absorb and learn from all the good folks here. Experiences (over 14 years) at the table have taught me well. Baccarat is not a one size-fit all game. I must be mindful of the table, the bad vibes or the dealer's attitude, etc. If I don't feel like playing at that particular table, I move to another one.
I am a proactive player. I am open to all the teachings and guidances. You all have been so nice and helpful to me whenever I have questions or want to learn new things. I am forever grateful to those good men who always helped me. Thank you all.
Just got back from the casino...
Using my system I have won for the 29th straight time and the casino is starting to watch me very closely.
It is a good thing my average win is only $90 or the casino would send their henchmen out after me. LOL
Tonight was real easy money as Player was dominating the table.
Player was up 31 to 17 before the table got streaky.
When the table got streaky I left and came home.
I don't even bet on Banker anymore. It is a 5% trap. :)
If the table is choppy my system will eat these Baccarat Pits alive! Cheers! :)
Quote from: Patience777 on April 25, 2017, 09:25:04 AM
Just got back from the casino...
Using my system I have won for the 29th straight time and the casino is starting to watch me very closely.
It is a good thing my average win is only $90 or the casino would send their henchmen out after me. LOL
(quote)
I thought your system was secret?
Aren't you scared they will ban you from playing because you won 29 straight times at 90.00 per session??
I gave my system to Ted only so far and he might have given it to a few people also. (no bigee)
Of course I'm worried that someday they will bar me.
If I go into my casino everyday and fleece them out of $90 like I'm trying to earn a living...
Within six months I will be a gone! (I believe)
But for right now...
The casinos' A$$ is grass and I'm the Lawn Mower! LOL
That's a saying I learned at the Texas Hold'em tables.
Cheers to everyone and remember to Hit and Run! :)
Quote from: Patience777 on April 25, 2017, 11:02:29 AM
I gave my system to Ted only so far and he might have given it to a few people also. (no bigee)
Of course I'm worried that someday they will bar me.
If I go into my casino everyday and fleece them out of $90 like I'm trying to earn a living...
Within six months I will be a gone! (I believe)
But for right now...
The casinos' A$$ is grass and I'm the Lawn Mower! LOL
That's a saying I learned at the Texas Hold'em tables.
Cheers to everyone and remember to Hit and Run! :)
[/quot
No, I have not given your system to anyone. I will not give it to anyone either.
Asymbacguy
your post is perfect and very professional.
I'm afraid that only a few members have a Baccarat background and/or a basic education for following your interesting posts and statements.
You have developped a very well known theory,illustrated for the first time in 1930 by Marigny de Grilleau.
His book(sold out) cost 2000/3000 $,when it was available.
His theories,elaborated without a computer support(1930),have been confirmed in the last years,but......
Marigny theories was roulette oriented,a perfect symmetrical and unbeatable game.
All tests ,even the most recent tests(years 2010/1023),failed at roulette.
Marygny was wrong to use them at this casino game.
I'm convinced,like you,that they could be valid at Baccarat(B>P)
I spent a lot of time looking for asymmetrical hands (15% advantage for B) counting cards or at the end of each shoe if not occurred once yet.
Nothing to do!..
Even if I know that to control of the variance is a tough task(or impossible?)i'm convinced that your path is the good one,even if it's time consuming,boring and very often disappointing.
Personnally I observe much more than 1 or 2 shoes ,even if they generate the good conditions for betting:i need at least 5/6 shoes for placing the first bet.
I use a soft negative progression.
I have also tried to bet when a specific unfrequent trigger occurred:it's useless.
I have studied and played a lot an approach based on "arcsine theory"(micro-deviations in a short number of hands):so far the more solid one for me
Your solution is the best and I hope you can further develop your approach.
Asymbacguy, please continue with this topic. I find it most interesting. You have made your theory clearer for me to understand. It would be much appreciated if you would elaborate more. Thank you so very much for sharing.
Thanks for your replies guys.
And thanks roversi, I know you are on the few who really knows what I'm talking about.
See you soon
as.
Quote from: alrelax on April 25, 2017, 12:53:01 AM
There is an advantage and I call it 'Diminishing probability' and once you unravel what happened to a certain tune the pending changes will normally happen a greater amount of times by far than not. Which is a definitive control on the variance, at least the way I deduce down the depletion of what happened in most shoes.
+1
as
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 26, 2017, 10:17:27 AM
+1
as
You agreeing with me??? Wow!
Onward, BUT & HOWEVER, there are other 'areas' that the player must employ along with this, (a few) Money Management, Positive Progressions, Plateau Recognizing, Clear Mind, Guts, etc., etc.
It really does take a well-rounded, experienced person to prevail at this game. The viability and the extreme winning/losing makes it demand the things I have mentioned here and in my postings.
Peace.
Quote from: alrelax on April 26, 2017, 12:14:02 PM
You agreeing with me??? Wow!
Onward, BUT & HOWEVER, there are other 'areas' that the player must employ along with this, (a few) Money Management, Positive Progressions, Plateau Recognizing, Clear Mind, Guts, etc., etc.
It really does take a well-rounded, experienced person to prevail at this game. The viability and the extreme winning/losing makes it demand the things I have mentioned here and in my postings.
Peace.
Al, I agree with many of your ideas and you have just named very important topics.
I continue
As Alrelax brilliantly stated, the game will produce such deviated outcomes that often we have to think whether B side is really favored over P side or conversely if P side really exists.
In order to consistently win or try to win itlr, we need to control the variance, both positive or negative.
We do not want to guess every hand, let alone at a pace of two-three or even more hands.
Think about it: casino personnel want us to bet each hand and not just for the mathematical advantage they get.
They want us to get off our comfortable zone, they want us to lose our perception of money's value.
That's why worldwide baccarat tables get a 15-16% cut of the total money wagered and not the 1% of so they are entitled to.
Actually this percentage would be even higher if players' bankroll were endlessly replenished per every session.
Remember that from a mathematical point of view the best bet we can make per every session is to bet the whole bankroll on Banker side as we are 1.36% favored to win.
No matter if the previous outcomes where a long string of Bankers or a 15 Player streak.
From this best bet we can only go uphill as multiple bets enlarge the probability either to lose and to lose our "control" of our money.
But of course we know that we'll have to go uphill.
Again remember the times when you have got early winnings but you failed to quit ending up as losers or heavy losers.
That doesn't mean that quitting the day is the best way to win, just that after a first loss it's more likely to lose again than to recover the loss.
I bet Banker one time and I lose. If bet Banker again and I win. In total I've lost 5% of my money. So a perfect equilibrium between P and B won't get us any fair return.
That means that an equal number of B and P outcomes won't get us any help other than losing money (of course I'm discarding the possibility to bet P twice as it's a more disadvantaged situation).
We see that betting two hands in a row IN ANY ORDER and discarding ties we'll get 4 possibilities:
BB
BP
PB
PP
From what I've sayed so far it's easy to notice that the only outcome providing a MORE LIKELY profit is BB pattern.
BP and PB get a 5% overall deficit; PP will get a fantastic no-taxed profit but, alas, it's the least likely of the four.
More precisely and in terms of probability the 4 patterns will place themselves as:
BB>PB>BP>PP
This is what I boldly call the "Asym Fundamental Law of Baccarat".
There is no way this Law will be disappointed itlr.
But the last word is the most important: itlr.
Notice that a BB pattern could repeat itself without the intervention of any P result: think about a long B streak...BBBBBBBBBBB, that is 9 BB patterns in a row...
Naturally the same happens whenever a P streak will form several repeating "unlikely" PP patterns.
Both are two extremely deviated situations either in positive or negative way.
However a long BPBPBPBPB or PBPBPBPBP equivalent pattern is simultaneously more likely and less likely.
That is when we look at a BP pattern we have a less likely situation and when we look at a PB pattern we observe a more likely situation.
This is a classic pseudo equilibrium situation further endorsed by the proven fact that baccarat outcomes are very very slightly oriented toward the opposite last hand.
So generally speaking, strings of singles are supposed to be more probable than strings of streaks.
However we cannot forget that B side is always favored albeit in a whimsical way.
If the third card rule doesn't work, we are pretty sure that itlr we'll get a slight higher amount of singles than streaks.
Every bac shoe, whatever complex it will be, fits the above Fundamental Law at different degrees.
Since we are professionals not wanting to fall into too deviated situations (as, differently to black jack, here our EV will be always negative) we must set up minimum requirements either in W or L way. Hence betting toward the B streaks formation and P singles formation with a lot of stop betting (stop win and stop loss) in order to reduce variance.
So we do not want to look for consecutive outcomes producing a lot of wins or losses, we want to set up a more or less diluted betting model capable to adhere at most to the expected values.
Probability laws come in handy for us.
Actually itlr we'll get more clusters of BB interpoled by P results than isolated BB patterns. I mean that itlr BB..PBB.. or BB..PPBB.. will be more likely than BB..PBP... or BB..PPBP...
The same about P singles.
Of course some shoes will produce many isolated BB and/or many isolated P singles.
We'll talk about them next time.
as.
Because BB is more frequent than BP and PB more frequent than PP,betting B after a single B or after a single P (one bet and stop!) should give a very small advantage to the player.
I used to play like that but it didn't work
I had better result betting for streaks of singles(B or P).
I followed a strange theory of a famous mathematician and gambler.
He said that because singles are equivalent to all strings of 2,3,4 and more,but in "more" there are also strings of 100,200... that you'll never see in your gambling life,singles occur a bit more than strings of 2 and more,because singles have to compensate string of 100,200,......too!
I hope that my english is clear enough
......."In order to consistently win or try to win itlr, we need to control the variance, both positive or negative.
We do not want to guess every hand, let alone at a pace of two-three or even more hands.
Think about it: casino personnel want us to bet each hand and not just for the mathematical advantage they get.
They want us to get off our comfortable zone, they want us to lose our perception of money's value.
That's why worldwide baccarat tables get a 15-16% cut of the total money wagered and not the 1% of so they are entitled to.
Actually this percentage would be even higher if players' bankroll were endlessly replenished per every session.
Remember that from a mathematical point of view the best bet we can make per every session is to bet the whole bankroll on Banker side as we are 1.36% favored to win.
No matter if the previous outcomes where a long string of Bankers or a 15 Player streak.
From this best bet we can only go uphill as multiple bets enlarge the probability either to lose and to lose our "control" of our money.
But of course we know that we'll have to go uphill.
Again remember the times when you have got early winnings but you failed to quit ending up as losers or heavy losers.
That doesn't mean that quitting the day is the best way to win, just that after a first loss it's more likely to lose again than to recover the loss."..............
The above was from Asym's post.
Yes, You-I-Anyone does not know. And probably the most important and number 1 is to be conscious of whether you are in a positive or a negative 'section' of the shoe.
Next, it is imperative to have a Clear Mind-Be Conscious of Sections and Turning Points-and DO NOT convince yourself you can recover and prevail easily because you really have no control over that and the highest majority gets sucked in to the point of no return, each and every time they play.
The key I found to constant 'win holdings' as Asym addresses briefly is to actually have a system to hold and divide your winnings, do not--I repeat--DO NOT stack your chips in front of you. Hell with the 'for show', for gloating, for feeling good, for showing off is the only reason you do it. It serves no good purposes and the only thing stacking your win chips do, is allow you to wager larger and harder and have the false perception you will smack the casino. In other words, 'believing you are the lawn mower and their A** is grass'. I follow religiously my 1/3rd system, whether I am playing in the Midwest with a thousand or two buy-in at several hundred a hand or in Vegas with tens of thousands buy-in and thousands a hand.
My 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd system takes care of my back and it works and no one can take my winnings back--any casino, any amount, period. It works.
Positive progression only, why??? Because negative progression will contribute to a worse mind-frame for you and huge frustration and aggravation levels. Period.
Positive progression and constantly divide up 100% of the sum realized from any progressions if you win, taking out and dividing up every few wagers. That way you give yourself added positive momentum without sacrificing your buy-in in front of you.
What do I mean?? Say I won 2 progressions of 'whatever'. Personally, I would take that win from those progressions and put 1/3rd in my pocket for untouchable money. Put 1/3rd in my extra buy-in (if I lose my current buy-in and still want to continue playing extra buy-in) and 1/3rd into my current buy-in stack in front of me on the table.
It works and it will benefit you. You have to realize there is and will be those positive and negative uphill's and downhill's throughout the session. You can't change those, the only thing you can do is play without pressure and maintain yourself. You also want to protect the money you won, if you did. Or, you will give it all back.
About stats as Asym touched on also. IMO, throw them out the door. Doesn't matter about the 1% HA on Banker or whatever, doesn't matter one bit about any other stat over 10,000 or 100,000 shoes for the shoe you are playing in front of you. You can run all the stats with the BB's and BP and PB and all that and how the B will prevail after most, IT WILL NOT WORK for you more than a shoe or two out of so many. Anything that you think hits over 50% of the time (mechanically, every shoe, consistently, etc.) is not reality, it will not happen. If you are going to play one or two wagers every month or so, with 1 shoe, fine, do it. But not on any kind of consistent playing.
As far as losing and focusing on recovering the loss. IMO, one of the most DANGEROUS and destructive things you can do is playing negative progressions and focusing on recovering your loss to get even. No matter if it is the instant buy-in on the current shoe or previous losses you are hell-bent on making up as you sit down. You will add fuel on the fire to self-destruct. Don't believe me, do it and keep doing it, you will see.
Strong is strong and weak is weak. That is one of the biggest things players fail to recognize!!! Doesn't matter if it is streaks/runs or doubles or single chop-chop or 1's, 2's and 3's. Those and others are strong. If it is weak it is weak. Weak does not refer to only 'not making streaks/runs', weak is no correlation to anything. Then the second biggest mistake is what I referred to in the following, players having no believe or knowledge of:
There is an advantage and I call it 'Diminishing probability' and once you unravel what happened to a certain tune the pending changes will normally happen a greater amount of times by far than not. Which is a definitive control on the variance, at least the way I deduce down the depletion of what happened in most shoes.
And the way players get sucked in, is that they continue to follow the stupid score board the casino installed at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars! What is the mistake? The mistake is made for those continually wagering for the continuance of the streak or other 'matching' streaks or any certain 'point value' numbers to cut or something about the tie cutting or sticking, or an extra few dots added to one of the roads because the display says, 'such and such'. Sure at times it does follow itself. But then the 'diminishing probability' sets in and you missed it. Not because you are literally unintelligent or unskilled, but because you got sucked in and you were unconscious of what was actually happening.
That is why I said above; Next, it is imperative to have a Clear Mind-Be Conscious of Sections and Turning Points-and Do not convince yourself you can recover and prevail easily because you really have no control over that and the highest majority gets sucked in to the point of no return, each and every time they play.
As far as the 'what we believe to be favored', it might turn out--but then again, it might not most of the times, or-sadly none of the times. That is when most players will get on the uphill--seemingly to self destruct in whatever they do--they can't get anything right. The biggest reason, the frustration and the aggravation levels set in and that clouds their minds. Maybe that will explain the saying that is said so many times at the baccarat table, "(F***) I didn't see it, why I couldn't I see that", as they pick up and slam down their stack of chips.
The game is more than wagering on a B after a couple of these and single one of those, etc. The game is more than wagering every hand for the cut/opposite to prevail. The game is more than any pre-conceived bet-placement method because they all work and then equally or greater--those same ones will fail.
There is my 2 cents for a Thursday morning, I will go to the casino tonight and live what I write about once again. And how do I do it? I do it by employing and paying attention to 'Sections and Turning Points'; The 'Diminishing Probability' when it presents itself; apply my 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd money management systems to wins; stick to 'Positive Progressions' only; and try my '1 + 4 Parlay Side-Ways' wager a few times.
Somehow this thread reminds me of "Patterns of the patterns" by the great bacc learning....
Quote from: Garfield on April 27, 2017, 04:40:45 PM
Somehow this thread reminds me of "Patterns of the patterns" by the great bacc learning....
Patterns are there and not there at times, but they are part of the positive and the negative which could send you on the uphill climb to recoup or the downhill slide to the cashier's cage to get those 'banded' stacks of 100's.
Quote from: alrelax on April 27, 2017, 04:44:03 PM
Patterns are there and not there at times, but they are part of the positive and the negative which could send you on the uphill climb to recoup or the downhill slide to the cashier's cage to get those 'banded' stacks of 100's.
Well no downhill for me...
Bought 3 methods of "sure-win" and i've prepared enough bankroll...
time to milk the casino...
See you at the top....
Quote from: Garfield on April 27, 2017, 04:50:50 PM
Well no downhill for me...
Bought 3 methods of "sure-win" and i've prepared enough bankroll...
time to milk the casino...
See you at the top....
Why milk them? Why not sharpen the lawn mower blades and make their rear-ends grass?? O:-)
Quote from: alrelax on April 27, 2017, 04:52:53 PM
Why milk them? Why not sharpen the lawn mower blades and make their rear-ends grass?? O:-)
I like the feel in my hand...it's relaxing, you know...try it... :applause:
Besides, I only use lawn mower to kill zombies...It's the ultimate weapon... :nod:
Asym
Along the same lines, IMO, did you see this thread I wrote before:?
http://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/randomness-equality-bias-in-real-life-casino-play/
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on April 26, 2017, 10:16:57 AM
Thanks for your replies guys.
And thanks roversi, I know you are on the few who really knows what I'm talking about.
See you soon
as.
How can I buy yer book, hey hey?
Thanks for your replies Al!
I continue.
"Everything is possible anytime" like winning or more likely losing 20 sessions in a row, or, for that matter winning or losing 20 consecutive bets.
To get a more realistic situation, say we want to consider just 5 sessions or 5 consecutive bets.
The probability to win ALL 5 consecutive bets NO MATTER WHAT THE FKNG SIDE we choose to bet are 1 in 32 that is a 3.125% probability.
The probability to win ALL 5 sessions wagering multiple bets each time is well lower than 3.125% as any bet is EV- so a number of bets higher than 5 will get a higher negative expectation.
Actually at baccarat the probability to win or lose is slightly different than a perfect coin flip proposition because of B>P.
Thus wagering toward BBBBB is best whereas betting toward PPPPP is worst. The same about every other situation among the 32 possible patterns, meaning that itlr BPBPB > PBPBP or BBPPB>PPBBP and so on.
Notice that in terms of ROI (return of investment) the difference between betting B or P is just a mere 0.18%, hence the importance to consider the probability of success as this last gets a quite higher percentage.
Obviously not every shoe will accomplish our hopes: many shoes are P strong or, even worse, many shoes are "too much" B loaded giving us the illusion to be in fair shape. In a word: variance.
We see that to control the variance and to reduce the overall negative impact, we need to discard a lot of hands for two important reasons:
a) the more hands we observe/register, the higher will be the probability to fall into the expected values we like to have along the way.
b) betting few hands means to pay a minor tax.
Everyone could make this simple experiment: assess the B/P ratio after one shoe, after 3 shoes, after 10 shoes and after 30 shoes.
Almost never after just one shoe you'll get the famous 50.68/49.32 ratio. More shoes considered and higher will be the probability to get closer to such ratio by 100% certainty.
Even knowing this, are we going to bet B after a B/P unbalancement favoring P side or keeping betting B after a B/P ratio favoring the B side?
No way. B and P ratios perform a too high short-intermediate term volatility to get an advantage from.
Notice that in every EV- game of the universe, the only tool a player could hope for is the short term positive variance.
Or that the game in question provides some "restrained situations" that a short term progression might control the outcomes giving us a long term profit, a strategy that resembles at most to a flat betting strategy.
This last assumption is the only tool we can have to try to win at baccarat., imo.
But we need to control the variance though.
We know that the shortest patterns providing more likely outcomes are B streaks of any lenght and P isolated singles, at least now we are trying to control the variance since we are wagering B after a B apparition and B after a P single apparition.
Everything beyond or below that is too complex or too variance oriented.
We are more likely to get a BB pattern than a BBBBBBB pattern or to get an isolated P single than 7 P clustered singles.
Yes, along with many unlikely negative patterns we're trying to get rid of, at the same time we are forced to disregard many unlikely positive consecutive patterns.
Why?
At this point of the discussion the answer should be obvious, otherwise--please--change thread. :-)
Imo, a constant asymmetrical distribution is best studied by either a general approach and a specific approach.
A general approach is knowing that BB>BP, for example.
The specific approach involves a more careful registration, for example registering what really happened at column positions #6 or #24 of any shoe.
Remember, the more we play the more we lose but we'll lose a lot more than the 1% or so we are entitled to.
So we shouldn't be classified as insane persons if we state that the more we wait some circumstances to happen, the best will be our probabilities to win.
Not the certainty to win, but the probability to win. Better sayed it's the probability of success I'm talking about.
How sweet would be if we were to know that after a 1-4 loss range we'll surely win...
More specifically, we don't want to guess what will be the most likely future hand, we want to bet that an unlikely situation won't appear for a given series of hands and per a long series of equal attempts.
Example.
We know that on column #6 of an horizontal display the probability to look at a red (B) or blue (P) spot is almost equal.
But we also know that if the first spot on that column is red, itlr the probability to get a red streak of any lenght is slightly higher than the probability to get a single red spot.
The opposite is true if the first spot is blue, meaning that the most likely situation will be a "jump" over the column #7.
The interesting fact is that such column #6 is the byproduct of the past hands nature involving a lot of parameters as the nature of first hand or subsequent hands, the quality of patterns previously formed and so on (for the sake of the registration, ties are considered neutral even on the displays).
Naturally it could be a B or P, so we are already half selecting the outcomes.
Then we could assess what were the actual results of this precise column of the past shoes.
B or P singles? B or P doubles? B or P 3+s ?
I mean that differently to a single shoe distribution, there are many advantages to register the results of any selected column as the random world is restrained in some way.
as.
Let's take randomly the column #6 of the shoes presented by bally on his post ("5 shoes a day"):
01- B streak
02- B single
03- P single
04- B single
05- P streak
06- B streak
07- B single
08- P single
09- P single
10- P single
11- P single
12- B single
13- B streak
14- P single
15- P streak
16- P streak
17- B streak
18- B single
19- P single
20- P streak
21- P single
22- B single
23) B single
24) B streak
25) B single
26) B single
27) P streak
28) P streak
29) B streak
30) B streak
Even if the sample is ridicously small, can we spot some hints to reduce variance?
as.
Forget the single column registration, a too complex and diluted task to follow.
Taking my idea just mentioned in one of Al post, say we want to lose instead to win.
A perfect action would be to heavy martingaling against a streak, expecially if it's a Banker streak.
Sooner or later we know we'll go broke but we do not know when.
In the meantime, we are "unfortunately" accumulating some small wins which add to our bankroll.
So we are trying to get the worst of it by simultaneously wagering towards B singles and P streaks.
Alas, the probability to encounter such long "positive" (losing) situations are quite unlikely.
I mean that the probability to watch at a B single-P streak loaded shoe is inferior to the probability to get the opposite situation.
Not convinced?
Ok.
Run your registered shoes or observe the actual played shoes and let me know how many shoes in term of percentages show 3-4 B singles in a row or 3-4 P streaks in a row.
Hey, someone keeps saying that tests don't help us, every shoe is a new shoe. Maybe we'll get consecutive shoes featuring a lot of P consecutive streaks or shoes containing a lot of long B singles runs.
True, but what's the overall probability to get those kind of shoes?
And, are we really going to get the likely outcomes no matter what when everything seems to go in the opposite direction?
The finiteness of every single shoe could help us.
According to my "Fundamental Law of baccarat" we'll expect to get more clusters of more likely patterns and more isolated less likely patterns and vice versa.
Therefore you can bet everything you get on your name that itlr BB....BB will be more likely than BB...BP or that BPB...BPB will be more likely than BPP....BPP.
Itlr=in the long run.
Ouch, we do play a very small percentage of this "long run", yet we know that after 4 or 5 consecutive shoes played (considering a bet frequency equal or superior than 75-80%) the probability to be ahead is quite small.
That means that more often than not something "changes", even if we think to be "trend following geniuses".
Now we take into account the important feature about the finiteness of every shoe.
Since we do want to reduce variance, we know that clusters of more likely events will come out if they have a sufficient room to form. That is after half or 3/4 of the shoe clusters of more likely events have a minor space to produce into. For example think about the impact of a P streak of 7 or more in this half of 1/4 of the remaining shoe.
Actually and most of the times, long streaks on any side and at different degrees will alter the natural flow of the game in the remaining parts of the shoe.
So not every shoe is equally probable to get "more likely patterns" (as B streaks and/or P singles or P doubles) depending upon the nature of the previous patterns displayed.
The are two kind of conditions producing this fact: the room available to get some patterns and the asymmetricity impact and the results depending from it.
In the short-intermediate terms there are no certainties, just probabilities.
Even an unintelligent could occasionally wins an important poker tournament, it's very very unlikely that two idiots will win two important poker tournaments in a row.
Thus a wise theorical mechanical strategy (considering win/lose stops) dictating to regularly wager B streaks and/or P singles and P doubles will be good most of the times but it'll surely cross some harsh times capable to destroy our entire plan.
And more often than not, the probability to come back to the expected ratios is the consequence of the past outcomes of the actual shoe.
You know that per every shoe on average there are four 3+ P streaks, meaning that wagering towards P singles and P doubles will get just four losses.
Conversely, a strategic plan betting P singles and P doubles will form more clusters than isolated situations, but when an isolated situation will come out by cluster (even of just two) the opportunity to wager towards clusters of singles/doubles decays.
Again it's more likely to get an above than average number of 3+ P streaks if they happened in the first portion of the shoe (the ratio is nearly one streak per every 18-20 hands).
The same about B streaks.
An initial cluster of B singles followed by a single B streak and another cluster of B singles suggest that most of the time that shoe isn't good to accomplish the expected ratios.
A good rule of thumb is to assess how long were the B singles clusters, as any B apparition not followed by another B decision for long will diminish the probability to get B streaks clusters.
After all we know that sooner or later an all or almost all B streaks shoe of any lenght will form and the same about a shoe containing just P singles and P doubles with zero or just one 3+ streak. With many intermediate but proportional situations acting along the way.
It's clear that the first situation comes because a streak involves two or more hands so not leaving the proper room to produce singles.
And the same is true about P streaks loaded situations.
Next time I'll talk about naturals, standing points and asymmetricity.
as.
Instead of talking about naturals or asymmetricity, I wish to talk about streaks and singles.
The long term has no value regarding statistics? Ok. But we know that itlr we lose.
Actually everyone here was taught by experience that the "long run losing probability" could be named as a huge probability to lose what previously earned (and some more) just in 3-4 or 5 consecutive shoes played. This is not exactly "long term".
Very few people are ahead after betting with a decent frequency 4-5 shoes and Alrelax in his posts made many good general examples about that.
From my part I want to emphasize the role of statistics on such unfortunate outcomes by a mathematical and statistical point of view.
Mathematically itlr we are going to lose 1.25% or so of our total bets, so a high stakes player wagering $10.000 each hand and betting 50 hands per shoe, after 4 shoes played is destined to sacrifice $25.000 at the end of the session.
Thinking that a $10.000 bet player gets any kind of "comps" from the casino, a two and one quarter standard bet loss after any 4-shoe session could be considered as a "direct" payment of the amenities received.
In a word, casinos base their hopes to win millions not only on their mathematical advantage but hoping the high stakes player sooner or later will lose the composure.
Interesting to notice that a flat betting strategy cannot alter the player's composure by any means. The amount he will lose will be always the same as mathematically expected.
And casinos are not willing to build luxury baccarat rooms and to offer high end treatments to people who are entitled to lose 1.25% of the money wagered.
They want a lot more of that.
Going to the technical aspect, let's assume that any 8-deck shoe is composed on average by 80 resolved hands (ties ignored).
Do not understimate the word "on average". On average is more difficult to win two bets in a row than just one bet. On average it's well more difficult to be ahead after two shoes than after one shoe played. In any scenario we could rely upon just one 25% probability: WW having WL, LW and LL as counterparts.
It's silly to think that a human factor could alter those percentages.
Back to our 80 hands shoe.
On average and assuming a coin flip proposition (and we know here it isn't) any shoe will produce 10 streaks of any lenght and 10 singles on any side.
Of course we could get shoes containing ALL streaks on B side or P side, but no one shoe will contain ALL B singles or ALL P singles.
The vulgar reason of that is because a single is just a one hand proposition whereas streaks must include two or more consecutive hands of the same nature. That is streaks "exhaust" some room to get other patterns as every single shoe is finite.
Obviously longer streaks consume more space that per every shoe reduces the apparition of certain other patterns.
Going further, any streak of any side comes out by isolated apparitions (between two singles) or by clustered apparitions (consecutive streaks).
The same about singles.
No wonder, itlr the number of isolated apparitions will be equal to the number of clustered apparitions. But as we have seen, the "itlr concept" is more restrained than what we can think of.
This is true for a true 50/50 game and we know baccarat isn't.
Therefore itlr we'll get more clustered B streaks than isolated B streaks and vice versa for B singles. And more clustered P singles than isolated P singles and vice versa for P streaks.
Theory doesn't always fits to the real, right?
Here's a real shoe (Venetian LV, 03/21/2015), ties ignored.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
P
This very unlikely shoe (a sort of heaven for trend followers) displayed two isolated B streaks and two clustered B singles, along with two isolated P singles and three clustered P streaks.
BB= 26, BP 12; PB 12, PP=20.
B=39 P=33.
B streaks=2, B singles=11; P singles= 3, P streaks= 10.
Besides the BB pattern getting a +14 gap and the B/p gap featuring +6, any other long term statistical situation went against the expected long term outcomes. So a player trying to control the variance basing the strategy upon long term streaks/singles distributions will get but losses. Actually heavy losses.
Besides the fact that this shoe texture is very very rare (and you won't believe me but this table was almost empty and a guy went broke wagering against the initial B streak), one "I want to control the variance wagering most likely events...B clustered streaks and P clustered singles" got a total five loss (-2 and -3), instead of getting a 16 unit loss (-9 and -7) if he would decide to bet toward ANY B streak formation and ANY P single apparition).
I think this real shoe condenses at most value the points I want to enlight.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 04, 2017, 10:41:06 PM
Besides the BB pattern getting a +14 gap and the B/p gap featuring +6, any other long term statistical situation went against the expected long term outcomes. So a player trying to control the variance basing the strategy upon long term streaks/singles distributions will get but losses. Actually heavy losses.
Besides the fact that this shoe texture is very very rare (and you won't believe me but this table was almost empty and a guy went broke wagering against the initial B streak), one "I want to control the variance wagering most likely events...B clustered streaks and P clustered singles" got a total five loss (-2 and -3), instead of getting a 16 unit loss (-9 and -7) if he would decide to bet toward ANY B streak formation and ANY P single apparition).
as.
With all the people who have PM'ed me about VDW, I find it hard to believe that nobody has bothered to play and post their results.
When somebody posts a live shoe. ANY live shoe you should be jumping all over it to see if your play works out with others. Isn't that why you've filled up my PM box?
That shoe is a perfect example of what VDW is looking for. Periods of very slow losses or holding level and bursts of streaks to pull away.
VDW/2 pulled in an amazing +50 to finish but like Asym said, this shoe is not your typical wagering event.
AD
Bar any emergency calls in the next 2 hours, I am going to the casino tonight. I will post a few live shoes tomorrow that happened. I seldom keep any cards, but I will tonight.
Quote from: alrelax on May 04, 2017, 11:52:38 PM
Bar any emergency calls in the next 2 hours, I am going to the casino tonight. I will post a few live shoes tomorrow that happened. I seldom keep any cards, but I will tonight.
That's good. :-)
I'd bet you won't get any shoe NOT producing at least 8 B streaks or at least 7 P single.
It could happen, of course, but the probability will be small.
as.
How does VDW and VDW2 works?
Trying to get the 2 cards posted, problems with transferring from phone to email to download. Stand by.
[attachimg=1]
The main problem about EV- games is to know how much to win being aware that we have to lose anyway.
In reverse, casinos know they surely will win eventually but they don't know how much they will temporarily lose.
We see the problem is perfectly specular: we know we're losers but we still want to play trying to win, but how much?
Casinos know they will win but they must take into account they can lose during the process. How much?
In a sense, our winnings are just an accident along the way, otherwise baccarat games wouldn't exist at all.
Such accidents may come out always, in clusters, isolated or never at all.
Unfortunately the losing counterpart is economically unbalanced in casino's favor but the probability of success is always shifted in some directions.
Well, it's a diluted or very diluted probability of success but it really exists nevertheless.
Say there are 100 persons in a casino bac room having each $100 to wager just one time then quitting and never play again.
If every person will wager Banker (we discount a possible tie), the casino is getting the worst of it as the probability to win is 49.32% vs 50.68%.
That is casinos will collect $500, but it has to pay $9500.
Even if the ROI for each player isn't fair, that's a tremendous loss for the casino as those players won't bet a dime anymore.
And even if only one person will wager the total amount ($10.000) just one time, the probability of success is shifted toward the player meaning that casino will get the worst of it.
Those are the basics of a long term winning strategy.
That is trying to be in the advantaged situation in the least number of times as the economical return will be always shifted in casino's favor because after 20 such situations the house will cut from our wins one hand.
Therefore we need to win a superior amount of B hands than expected or to win a number of P hands superior to a 50/50 proposition.
If we'd be able to do this we can say we are getting the best of it, that is being consistent winners.
Most of the time the P side won't get any mathematical advantage as card compositions favoring Player are quite rare and they act for short fragments anyway.
Notice that we are not talking about 50/50 propositions' distribution, we are talking about a mathematical probability to get A than B.
Hence the assumption that some shoes are strongly P dominant won't make any sense from a mathematical point of view: they happen because they must happen. Of course there will be more B dominant shoes than P dominant shoes as baccarat isn't a coin flip proposition.
Naturals.
Anyone here knows the probability to get naturals on either side, say it's about 1/3 of the total possible outcomes.
Thus nearly one third of total hands per shoe are resolved right and then, meaning they are coin flip situations.
We do not want to know which side will get most naturals, we simply can't; we know that a constant 33.3% probability wil act along the way, we may consider it as the distribution of a single dozen or single column at roulette.
For example, the probability to get two consecutive naturals on either side is 1 to 2 against.
We could get a shoe containing a lot of consecutive naturals but itlr the shoes containing isolated naturals will overcome the number of shoes containing clustered naturals.
And when we think that consecutive naturals are exhausted or empirically less probable, we know that the subsequent hand might form an asymmetrical hand, that is when B side will be more likely.
Actually the first step to improve the probability to have an asymmetrical B favored hand is to discard the probability to get a natural or two or more consecutive naturals. Especially whether such natural hand will be on P side, even though getting it at B side will be a very welcome scenario but a long term economical disaster.
In a word, those fkng naturals are a disaster anyway:
-either they come out on P side, so transforming baccarat in an unbeatable coin flip proposition where no side is favored by card compositions or by the rules;
- or because they present on B side where we have to pay an unnecessary 5% vig.
Standing points
The second step to try to get more asym hands than expected is to assess the probability to get standing points on P side (6 or 7).
Now we want the P side to draw as any asymmetrical hand will feature first a Player drawing situation.
If you have read my blog you know those standing point percentages, after all there are only two standing situations adding to the P naturals probability. Overall on average the probability Player will draw is nearly 50%, but we have to discount from this percentage the naturals occurring on B side.
Notice that whenever Player is drawing, Banker having a "supposedly" drawing hand (points 3 to 5, and to some extent also the standing point 6) will either draw or stand getting a long term mathematical advantage or lowering a mathematical disadvantage.
We see that most of the time P side is drawing as the probability to get an initial point of 6, 7, 8 or 9 is lower than getting 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
And whenever a probability is lower than another one we know that itlr this will come out by isolated patterns than clustered patterns; isolated clusters of two than clusters superior of two and so on...
Hence we can bet our behind that itlr a natural and/or a 6 or 7 on P side (first and second step) will be followed by a P drawing hand forming a cluster than clusters of opposite situations.
Same considerations could be made on the other side at different degrees.
But wait.
A cluster is a cluster and it could last for the entire shoe. Or for some consecutive shoes, albeit this being a very unlikely occurence.
So what?
Do we really want to get the most likely per every shoe when we know that the unlikely has to come out in clusters sooner or later?
as.
Think baccarat as this:
1- Best bet to make is Banker. Wagering Player even when shoes seem to be P oriented is a stu.pid move as itlr you'll lose a 0.18% more.
2- Banker bet is best whenever:
a) P is drawing; whenever P is NOT drawing we are idio.ts even if P has a 6 and B has a 7 or a natural; the probability to get either points is the same but at B side we'll get a 0.95:1 payment.
b) P is drawing and B has a point different to 0, 1 and 2. No matter if P has a 5 and B has a 3 or a 4: itlr such situations will favor the B side.
We want to bet Banker when Player side is drawing.
I repeat it: we want to bet Banker side when we think Player side will draw.
We do not want to get naturals on either side, even being on our B winning side.
We win the hand but we'll lose money itlr.
Instead of trying to guess what will be the next hand let's focus about those probabilities:
- THE DISTRIBUTION PROBABILITY OF NATURALS (2 to 1);
- THE DRAWING PROBABILITY PLAYER SIDE DISTRIBUTION (50% discounting B naturals).
We need to find the situations where the first is lowered and to find the situations where the second is enhanced.
as.
Distribution and Probability are always, always subjective and unknown.
'Diminishing Probability' as discussed is a pathway to success or neutrality most times.