From a theorical point of view, there's nothing wrong betting toward the streaks' breaking, as a finite card composition itlr is slightly more likely to produce the opposite hand just occurred (in a high card game whatever intended).
That's true considering a perfect 50/50 game, where any side has a perfect 50/50 expectancy per any hand played.
Unfortunately, or better sayed, luckily, baccarat has a third card rule (TCR) working.
Now in real baccarat, TCR not only enhance this effect on one side but even revert it on the other one in many occasions (not in every occasion after long statistical studies!).
From a theorical point of view and according to our data, after a no TCR bac game the best move is to bet against the last outcome as this strategy will get us a very very very slight edge and not a zero edge game.
Naturally, the more we wait to get some selected dispositions, the better will be our results since a finite deck will more likely produce the opposite hand just occurred in some proportional fashion.
Simplifying, in the long run we'll get more 5s streaks than 5+s streaks than mere singles/streaks. Expecially in some portions of the shoe after some events had occurred.
Itlr, the way a card composition deck is placed is to get more opposite last hand results than what a 50/50 proposition will dictate.
That's an effect of card removal and finite force of random intervention.
Now let's consider the TCR.
We know that TCR will act an average of about one time over ten hands (ok, it's slight less for the good peace of one real expert of this game, 8.4% is the answer) and we don't know its real frequency per actual shoe.
We surely know that whenever an AS spot (springing a TCR effect) will be formed, banker will be mathematically advantaged by a 15.86% edge (this is 100% accurate).
And we also know that a streak of some lenght is a theorical abnormality of the normal flow of the game, expecially whether such streak is Player placed.
Now, what's our best prediction about having a "return to normality" status?
Let me guess.
Maybe after a P streak of some lenght having shown one or more asymmetrical hands unexpectly going to the Player side?
Or maybe trying to get a P hand after a B streak which has shown NO asymmetrical hands?
Oops, in both the circumstances there were no AS hands working or, worse yet, if such AS hands had formed they unexpectedly went to the P side.
Hence we are playing an almost perfect 50/50 game coping with the obnoxious thing we have to pay a 5% tax if we'll get lucky to win during a B symmetrical hand.
Am I saying that not every streak is equal from a forming point of view?
Am I saying that itlr a 5 P symmetrical hands streak is slight different from a 5 P streak where one or more AS hand unexpectedly went on P side?
And what about the likelihood that such selected events itlr will repeatedly go on the same side?
as.
Very interesting
The problem is that you can't know when a TCR is going to arrive.
I saw shoes without 1 TCR,or shoes with 14 TCR.
It's true that waiting for a streak of at least 5 P twice in a shoe,better if some TCRs favorable to P, I'd bet B until the end of the shoe.
But it's not a scientific approach and in addition the probability of 5 P is only 1 time in a shoe(6 decks)....
No problem if boring,but too empirical!
Quote from: roversi13 on May 02, 2015, 08:38:45 AM
Very interesting
The problem is that you can't know when a TCR is going to arrive.
I saw shoes without 1 TCR,or shoes with 14 TCR.
It's true that waiting for a streak of at least 5 P twice in a shoe,better if some TCRs favorable to P, I'd bet B until the end of the shoe.
But it's not a scientific approach and in addition the probability of 5 P is only 1 time in a shoe(6 decks)....
No problem if boring,but too empirical!
Hi roversi13.
Honestly I cannot recall a single shoe not showing at least 3 or 4 asymmetrical hands, remember that for example B3- Pdraws is an as hand (a very feeble one though).
We know that a significant part of the total hands are made by naturals, so 8s and 9s play a huge role in more than 1/3 of the outcomes (no asymmetricity possible). That's the biggest issue.
Scientifically B and P streaks will produce long term well known results.
Of course, higher is their theorical appearance, higher will be their gap against the less likely counterparts but, alas, higher will be the variance endured putting at risk our bankroll and nerves (obviously and generally speaking, if we talk about streaks we'll have to adopt a MM procedure).
Surely we want a method shifted toward the most likely outcomes but limited in some human intervals of apparition and variance involved.
Let's take the P streaks of 4s and 5s, for example.
We wait a P4 streak then we'll bet B two times by a simple 1-2 progression just hoping to get 4s or 5s.
In a perfect 50/50 proposition, itlr our probability to win one unit after each P4 streak will be 75% vs 25% of losing 3 bets.
At baccarat itlr our winning probability is higher, placed at about 75.8% vs 24.2%.
Naturally such edge will be erased and inverted by the tax on B wins.
That happens when we'll wager after
every P4 spot.
If we consider P 2s and 3s or 3s and 4s vs the exact counterparts we'll get even better winning propositions but we have to deal more with the aforementioned problems.
On the B side there's no point to break the streaks of some lenght as any class of B streak is slight less likely than the superior counterpart (up to a point).
In reality the idea to break the B streaks isn't so bad for two reasons: one is the paradox of what just sayed, the slight subtle force steadily shifting the outcomes on the opposite side of the last hand, the other one is that any winning bet won't pay any tax.
Summarizing the two different B/P scenarios, it's slight better to bet breaking P streaks than B streaks not for a strict economic point of view, but because there's a minor impact of the variance.
Imo, in order to enhance our winning probability we should work on three points.
1- The nature of the streaks occurred (number and the results of asym hands occurred in those streaks).
2- The number of naturals occurred.
3- The distribution of such streaks per shoe.
After having studied a lot of shoes, I observed -not surprisingly- that many P streaks of some lenght contained some asymmetrical hands shifted on P favor. Since the asym hands formation cannot last forever and ever, now we know that betting B in the subsequent hands means to mostly wager symmetrical hands with the burden to have to pay a tax if our B bet will be a winner.
To get a clearer idea, if a P4 streak I'm going to bet against was composed by a couple of subsequent as hands, I won't bet B. Getting three as hands in a row isn't so easy, let alone getting three as hands in 6 hands.
That's why in my defunct post I talked about the danger to put too much faith in the banker side after an initial P streaks rich shoe.
Naturals tend to cancel the asymmetricity of the game and mostly they are a reflex of 8s and 9s remaining in the deck. There are 64 8s and 9s into a deck.
In a word, the best thing to look at when we peel the cards having a Player bet is to get a natural. We are glad to look at a natural at banker side too, but we are somewhat disturbed to have to pay 5% for the privilege.
Distribution of the streaks of some lenght per any shoe is another topic I like.
Most likely events occurs either clustered or "chopped". Less likely events won't either appear at all or one time or in rapid successions, then disappearing for long time.
Stupid assumption? Maybe. But it works.
At craps, try to study the field outcomes registered per any single shooter and let me know.
Now the topic I wanted to present.
Rarely I'm interested about the others players at my table, but those two vietnamese guys were really doing good, betting large amounts on very few spots and guessing right most of the time. For a moment I thought one of them was our RW member as they always bet toward breaking some streaks with a well studied scheme.
The funny thing it was they weren't interested to peel the cards, leaving the job to the other "same bet" bettors wagering well lesser amounts. If nobody had the same side they bet into, they sayed the dealer a loud "open".
One guy kept the registration of the outcomes by a very complicated scheme, the other one was doing the betting.
For what I've caught, they bet toward breaking a given streak after a 4 Player streak apperance with a mere 1-1-2.5 progression, then if a 7 P streak appeared they abandoned the betting.
The same thing they did whenever on banker side it formed a 5 streak. Same progression, more or less.
I was intrigued by the fact that they quit the betting if their three step scheme had failed.
But I was more stunned that they don't bet every streak I thought worth of it. It seemed they bet a portion of the streaks I thought they were wagering.
When they left the table as consistent winners, I tried to make an approach saying "you're among the best players I've ever seen".
No answer. No smile. They quit as I've sayed to them they were a couple of morons.
as.
it is pretty much a given that you can go against a 4p or 5 b a capped amount of times , they used 3 attempts I use 2 and I use a penthouse
11223344....... you will eventually clear it out and win....
Quote from: Tomla on May 03, 2015, 01:02:19 AM
it is pretty much a given that you can go against a 4p or 5 b a capped amount of times , they used 3 attempts I use 2 and I use a penthouse
11223344....... you will eventually clear it out and win....
Yes, I believe you Tom.
Besides their streaks selection, I found interesting that they wagered two times to get a profit (first and third bet) leaving the second betting term a slight loser (the vig on P bets).
Any losing fragment would cost them 4.5 units.
So it sounds they found a bet selection capable to get a W/L ratio higher than 4.5/1 after tax.
I like what i grasped from their method because they stopped the betting after three subsequent bets, having the patience to wait the next supposedely favourable circumstance.
Not everyone is able to do this.
as.
did they bet the same amount the next attempt after after a failed attack?
As far as vietnamise guys are concerned,playing for breaking streaks,but not all streaks,maybe they played only B,for instance,only if B has occurred more than P since the beginning of the shoe(vice versa for P).It's the principle of the Hong Kong method.
I agree with your statement about most likely events occuring in clusters or chops.
An old french mathematicians/scientist explained that 50 years ago.
Your feeling is supported by mathematical or statistic theories.
Another theory very well known in trigonometry(the arcsin law - see google) explains why in 20 decisions,for instance,exactly 10 B and 10 P have only 17,5% probabilities to occur.
Many players try to exploit this rule at Baccarat,and it works....in certain conditions.
For sure Baccarat can be beaten only through statistic and geometry,streaks,cluster of streaks and so on
The number of "naturals" an AS are interesting things,but IMHO not determinant for a winning strategy.
You make conclusions about them only AFTER they occurred...too late!
In the past I've known an old player that played ,not exactly the opposite of the last decision as you said ,but only SINGLES(after PPPB he bets P,in order to have an isolated B)
His theory was:
singles are the double of 2s,that are the double of 3s,that are the double of 4s.......etc
Then the streaks of 50s,are the double of the streaks of 51.....the streaks of 125 are the double of streaks of 126 and so on.
But a player won't never see streaks of 50,51,125,126 or more etc....
It means that singles have a small advantage for compensating very very long streaks that exist,theoretically,but you'll never see.
So a player will see much more singles in his "player life",so play them.
Strange theory??
Quote from: roversi13 on May 03, 2015, 09:33:16 AM
As far as vietnamise guys are concerned,playing for breaking streaks,but not all streaks,maybe they played only B,for instance,only if B has occurred more than P since the beginning of the shoe(vice versa for P).It's the principle of the Hong Kong method.
I agree with your statement about most likely events occuring in clusters or chops.
An old french mathematicians/scientist explained that 50 years ago.
Your feeling is supported by mathematical or statistic theories.
Another theory very well known in trigonometry(the arcsin law - see google) explains why in 20 decisions,for instance,exactly 10 B and 10 P have only 17,5% probabilities to occur.
Many players try to exploit this rule at Baccarat,and it works....in certain conditions.
For sure Baccarat can be beaten only through statistic and geometry,streaks,cluster of streaks and so on
The number of "naturals" an AS are interesting things,but IMHO not determinant for a winning strategy.
You make conclusions about them only AFTER they occurred...too late!
In the past I've known an old player that played ,not exactly the opposite of the last decision as you said ,but only SINGLES(after PPPB he bets P,in order to have an isolated B)
His theory was:
singles are the double of 2s,that are the double of 3s,that are the double of 4s.......etc
Then the streaks of 50s,are the double of the streaks of 51.....the streaks of 125 are the double of streaks of 126 and so on.
But a player won't never see streaks of 50,51,125,126 or more etc....
It means that singles have a small advantage for compensating very very long streaks that exist,theoretically,but you'll never see.
So a player will see much more singles in his "player life",so play them.
Strange theory??
I like your post very much and would like to show you a quote from Wiki regarding this:
QuoteAnother theory very well known in trigonometry(the arcsin law - see google) explains why in 20 decisions,for instance,exactly 10 B and 10 P have only 17,5% probabilities to occur.
Many players try to exploit this rule at Baccarat,and it works....in certain conditions.
It is similiar to this:
"Regression toward the mean simply says that, following an extreme random event, the next random event is likely to be less extreme. In no sense does the future event "compensate for" or "even out" the previous event, though this is assumed in the gambler's fallacy (and variant law of averages). Similarly, the law of large numbers states that in the long term, the average will tend towards the expected value, but makes no statement about individual trials. For example, following a run of 10 heads on a flip of a fair coin (a rare, extreme event), regression to the mean states that the next run of heads will likely be less than 10, while the law of large numbers states that in the long term, this event will likely average out, and the average fraction of heads will tend to 1/2. By contrast, the gambler's fallacy incorrectly assumes that the coin is now "due" for a run of tails, to balance out."
So i would like to ask if you have more knowledge about this, what how players exploit this rule...
20 decisions,for instance,exactly 10 B and 10 P have only 17,5% probabilities to occur.
Many players try to exploit this rule at Baccarat,and it works....in certain conditions.
Sputnik
I know how some players try to exploit what I have mentioned,about 20 decisions
It's quite complicated to explain in a post.
Some points:
-huge bkr necessary(2000 units),low wins(no every session wins).This is typical of casino games having a negative EV!
-my example of 20 decisions(exactly 10 B and 10 P) is playable just for fun and... loss.You need at least 100 decisions and bet against "exactly 50 and 50."
-an algorithm has been created in order to determine the amount of next bet,different of course if previous bet was W or L(nothing to do with old D'Alembert system)
-you can't expect to win no more than 2 units per 100 decisions,win goal pre-determined by the algorithm
-at roulette it doesn't work(2,70% or 1,35% VIG,to high to overcome)
-at Baccarat it seems(?) that it works
-personnally I don't play that,but I play something based on the same theory (arcsin law),that in simple words says that perfect EQUILIBRIUM is sure in the long term,but not very likely,often impossible to see, in short term!
QuoteIn the past I've known an old player that played ,not exactly the opposite of the last decision as you said ,but only SINGLES(after PPPB he bets P,in order to have an isolated B)
His theory was:
singles are the double of 2s,that are the double of 3s,that are the double of 4s.......etc
Then the streaks of 50s,are the double of the streaks of 51.....the streaks of 125 are the double of streaks of 126 and so on.
But a player won't never see streaks of 50,51,125,126 or more etc....
It means that singles have a small advantage for compensating very very long streaks that exist,theoretically,but you'll never see.
So a player will see much more singles in his "player life",so play them.
Strange theory??
I test this and it looks good, but you can get serios variance and fluctation, so you might be at the table for more then 300 trails - i like it very much :-)
But i did not play both sides, as i try that Before, then variance and fluctation destroy you, so i use one dominant side.
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2F6hrwua.jpg&hash=995d5e1b71ded4255414b227b34a0d6efc167e04)
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi61.tinypic.com%2F1444f4l.jpg&hash=aa9e027fff717c86634a778e947d80325c932a91)
Did one more test with 1000 trails, because i want to see how variance and fluctation effect this way of playing.
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi59.tinypic.com%2Frm70jq.jpg&hash=60646db7d0093f156c7e2bc31f113e2b95c3ce0d)
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2Fj8kvug.jpg&hash=031ce6347670175a944a6d27268da2c5d72cdfc0)
Test once more and this time you got fluctation and variance the first 600 trails Before the singles start to Catch up.
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F11j9jrr.jpg&hash=f1a2731864d5ff9184c9607883131d8ff848e2f1)
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi59.tinypic.com%2F156pcfb.jpg&hash=832b62ced851cb3e454600517fc4a8f9b468a3e6)
No time to reply now, anyway at baccarat singles are the most likely outcome for two reasons I stressed about one year and a half. So, yes, imo it's one of the best starting points to set up a method.
The most important thing, though, is to understand that the word "singles" include several other events than the mere sequence BPB or PBP or BP or PB or whatever.
as.
I got a bad session and did not get a negative spike down - it hovering around even - that is pretty good.
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi58.tinypic.com%2F2ymx4zb.jpg&hash=40a85f7174c80fde1e9a68f4ecfa3be68a5ce5b5)
(https://betselection.cc/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.tinypic.com%2F1z3rl3d.jpg&hash=0b8928865b7d90804271c33afa83e646a23aedc8)
https://youtu.be/npT9fJtLyPg
The idea you posted roversi is interesting but I don't think is practically exploitable.
Or, better sayed, we should know what the system creators wanted to bet (the simple chance no matter what? some patterns?)
Actually my idea is directed to have a sort of equilibrium on "short terms", expecially when such task is aimed to get the due more likely events.
For example, if I wait that 5+ P streaks have gotten a 4-5 points gap vs the 4s and 5s P streaks, I have a lot more confidence to get 4s and 5s P streaks on subsequent hands than if I'd bet without any previous registration. It takes a lot of time? Np. I'm there to win money not to have entertainment.
The same it applies on 4s and 5s consecutive B singles series.
Differently to roulette, we do know that 4s and 5s P streaks will be superior than 5+ P streaks the like 4s and 5s consecutive singles B streaks will have the best of it vs superior singles B streaks.
You talked about the almost impossibility to have streaks of 30, 40 or more.
Perfect.
We'll act over more likely events.
In a sense, we have to surpass the "law" to get the opposite event just occurred, then we cannot be wrong. Expecially when we work on P side.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 06, 2015, 10:35:09 PMif I wait that 5+ P streaks have gotten a 4-5 points gap vs the 4s and 5s P streaks, I have a lot more confidence to get 4s and 5s P streaks on subsequent hands than if I'd bet without any previous registration.
Is this your suggestion? Wait for a P+5 streak, a gap then when opportunity presents, bet P3 streak will go to 4?
What do you mean by 4-5 point gap (columns)?
Quote from: mahatma on May 07, 2015, 06:50:17 AM
Is this your suggestion? Wait for a P+5 streak, a gap then when opportunity presents, bet P3 streak will go to 4?
What do you mean by 4-5 point gap (columns)?
Hi mahatma.
Nope, I badly explained the concept.
If I get a lot of 5+ P streaks and the columns of 4s and 5s are empty or at big deficit (4-0, 5-1 or more) I'd bet breaking the P streaks when they'll reach column 4 (and 5 if I lose the previous bet).
It's very unlikely to have long successions of 5+ columns with few or no 4s and 5s columns.
So unlikely that the situation presented is quite rare to find.
Similar attacks might come out from B singles successions, but generally speaking P side will offer better spots to bet into.
as.
Quote from: Tomla on May 03, 2015, 04:35:11 AM
did they bet the same amount the next attempt after after a failed attack?
Sorry Tom, I forgot to answer you.
Yes. Don't know if they haven't encountered a certain degree of losing sequences where they might raise their bet, anyway per every sequence I witnessed they bet the same starting amount.
Being this the case, we should consider such strategy a sort of flat betting method.
Maybe they were just lucky.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 07, 2015, 09:27:50 AM
Hi mahatma.
Nope, I badly explained the concept.
If I get a lot of 5+ P streaks and the columns of 4s and 5s are empty or at big deficit (4-0, 5-1 or more) I'd bet breaking the P streaks when they'll reach column 4 (and 5 if I lose the previous bet).
It's very unlikely to have long successions of 5+ columns with few or no 4s and 5s columns.
So unlikely that the situation presented is quite rare to find.
Similar attacks might come out from B singles successions, but generally speaking P side will offer better spots to bet into.
as.
So what you say is, wait until P5+ streak, then next time around after P3 bet opposite for 2 bets?
Is this it?
Yes mahatma, more or less the concept is that.
We are 100% sure that itlr P3-P4 will proportionally surpass the P5+ streaks.
Nevertheless, if we transform ourselves into a betting mechanical machine everytime wagering to get 3s and/or 4s after three Player hands, we'll be caught by the variance.
So we must make some adjustments along the way.
Imo,
- The rarer is a given event, the more variance will be restrained adopting a proper method. Meaning that we can confide to get a winning hand very shortly.
- Rarer events tend to either come out zero or few times or by clusters; in the latter case more often than not their probability is greatly reduced.
Meaning that when a series of slight unlikely events will appear, the risk to get the expected right after such distribution might be diminished.
Imo, both will help us to find a reliable way (according to my data) to "control" the game.
as.
Ok got it, another question.
Your trigger has appeared, you lose the first bet, I guess you take a 2nd bet? Would this be at the same amount or slight increase, if you lose twice, you wait for another trigger???
Quote from: mahatma on May 09, 2015, 10:14:57 PM
Ok got it, another question.
Your trigger has appeared, you lose the first bet, I guess you take a 2nd bet? Would this be at the same amount or slight increase, if you lose twice, you wait for another trigger???
Yes.
as.
I made some more tests about this topic and I found something interesting.
Imo, approaching a given new strategy we better study many angles of it, even though seemingly to be apparently worthless.
We have chosen to consider P streaks of 3s, 4s and 5+s.
Probability to get a given number of 3s, 4s, and 5+s P streaks per shoe
In about 80% of the total shoes, we'll get three, four, five or six streaks belonging to this category.
The most likely occurence is to get four streaks at a rate of about 25.3%. Three and five streaks show an almost same probability being about 21.2%.
Six streaks will come out nearly 12.5% of the times.
The remaining 20% is composed by:
- 11.6% of one and two streaks
- 7% of seven and eight streaks.
- 1.4% of zero or nine or more streaks and some "unregistered streaks" .
The unregistered streaks are those streaks that cannot be enlisted in any category because they happen at the end of the shoe, so they are not defined in their quality.
So we know that itlr four times over five, per any shoe we'll expect to get from three to six 3+ streaks.
Strategy plan
If we want to bet B two times (with any light mini-progression) after any three consecutive P in order to hopefully get 3s and 4s and stopping whether a 5s streak is produced, in the long run we'll have the certainty to have more winning bets than losing bets. 100% guaranteed.
Alas, we'll have to endure the heat of the variance. Moreover, more numerous our actual bets will be, the higher will be the tax rate we'll have to pay (always betting B means we are 100% sure to pay a 5% tax on our winning bets).
Since we are here to be long term winners and not to get some fun from playing, in some way we must select a valid way to catch the best spots to bet into.
So we want to study the impact of our chosen "enemy": the 5+s.
Probability to get 5+s P streaks per any shoe
About 44.4% of the total shoes will show just one P 5+ streak.
And at nearly 33.5% rate, we'll get zero P 5+ streaks.
Thus about 78% of the cases we know that a 5+ P streak will come out zero or one time.
Only 22% of the times we'll expect to get two and three or more 5+s streaks.
More precisely, we'll have three or more 5+s streaks just 5% of the times.
So we can safely assume that about 95% of the times any single f shoe will show zero, one or two 5+s P streaks.
Are those statistical assumptions of any help?
Let's go on.
Statistical features
In my opinion and in the opinion of my data, there's no way to control short term outcomes.
Even if a target point of 3 consecutive P might be a decent spot to start our betting, we all know that variance will tend to destroy everything. We don't want to bet such any single spot, because some shoes will produce many 5+s P streaks. Imo, no any very sophisticated MM would have the best of it.
Interestingly and not surprisingly (at least talking about 5s P streaks), less likely events have to come out isolated and not clustered. And considering an asymmetrical whimsical game like baccarat, some selected events don't want to be proportionally due as the mathematics will dictate.
as
Unluckily IMHO your statistical assumptions don' t help us.
You are right when you say: ...variance tend to destroy everything...
To fight against the variance is very complicated,even if you have a small mathematical advantage,that we don't have in Baccarat.
What you suggest could fit also at roulette:it's a no hope challenge.
Roulette:stop playing and studying(apart from Visual Ballistic)
Baccarat:only asymmetric hands,betting B can give an advantage in long term.
With your approach we could imagine to play B,when at the end of a shoe(last ten remaining hands) we have not seen one asymmetric hand.
Is that enough?
I have some doubts
Hi roversi.
Actually I'm not a keen fan of the breaking streaks strategy, many people are very competent about this topic as Rolex Watch member for example.
We never know if those two guys were just lucky or whether they had a reliable way to guess what streaks to break.
as.