+ Register

[mahatma]

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.

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)?

[AsymBacGuy]

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.       

[AsymBacGuy]

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.

[mahatma]

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?

[AsymBacGuy]

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.   


 













     



     

[mahatma]

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???

[AsymBacGuy]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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     



 





     




































   

[roversi13]

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

[AsymBacGuy]

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.