+ Register

[ADulay]

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

[alrelax]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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.

[Lungyeh]

How does VDW and VDW2 works?

[alrelax]

Trying to get the 2 cards posted, problems with transferring from phone to email to download.  Stand by.

[alrelax]

[attachimg=1]

[AsymBacGuy]

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.


   

   









     



 


 





 

   



   

 



 



















 














   

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

[alrelax]

Distribution and Probability are always, always subjective and unknown. 

'Diminishing Probability' as discussed is a pathway to success or neutrality most times.