+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

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.







 




   



     




















 

[roversi13]

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!

[AsymBacGuy]

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.
































 





   

       






   
   

[Tomla]

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....

[AsymBacGuy]

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.






   

[Tomla]

did they bet the same amount the next attempt after after a failed attack?

[roversi13]

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??

[Sputnik]

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:

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.

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.

[roversi13]

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!

[Sputnik]

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 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.

[Sputnik]

Did one more test with 1000 trails, because i want to see how variance and fluctation effect this way of playing.

[Sputnik]

 Test once more and this time you got fluctation and variance the first 600 trails Before the singles start to Catch up.

[AsymBacGuy]

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.     

[Sputnik]

I got a bad session and did not get a negative spike down - it hovering around even - that is pretty good.





https://youtu.be/npT9fJtLyPg

[AsymBacGuy]

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.