+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

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]

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. 

[Patience777]

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. 

[alrelax]

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.

[Ted009]

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. 

[Patience777]

Yes, Patience has given his system to me. Thank you Patience.

You are welcome Ted.

[Ted009]

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.





























   


 













   

[Patience777]

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!

[alrelax]

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??

[Patience777]

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!

[Ted009]

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.

[roversi13]

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.

[Bac2Bac]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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