+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

Not surprisingly, the only way one player could temporarily win at any EV- game is getting positive streaks of certain lenght or getting a given outcome within very short intervals (in this case by using a limited progression).

In the long run we are all casinos' contributors.

Since there's no way to predict the future BP outcomes after having seen the past, we want to act objectively first then applying a kind of subjective action.
That is the exact opposite action most players try to do: to act subjectively after the objective results came out in the effort to guess more right than not.

Say we set up a strict mechanical plan dictating to bet B-B-P for every triplets of hands we will encounter. We'll take into account what a B-B-P-B-B-P-B-B-P....strategic plan will work in term of W/L hands.

Why I have chosen to wager the B-B-P sequence no matter what?

Easy answer: itlr the 8 possible patterns for sequences of three hands are more likely if they contains at least two B hands. Of course we could get "more likely" sequences not belonging to the B-B-P category as P-B-B or B-P-B.
Moreover B streaks are more likely than B singles so adopting this betting pace sooner or later we'll catch the patterns where this simple situation will exist.

Notice that applying the BBP general strategic plan, in the P-B-B or B-P-B scenarios we'll get at least one winning hand (respectively the second hand and the first hand).

To cut a long story short, we see that streaks equal or longer than 3 cannot give us any loss per every 3-bet sequence.

The only pattern capable to get three consecutive losses is the P-P-B pattern catched right on the start. I mean that a P-P-P-B pattern would give us a winning hand on the last betting B-B-P set.

Of course for every winning pattern there is a losing pattern and we know it is P-P-B or better sayed B/P-P-B.

But we don't want to get more winning patterns than losing ones (even if they are entitled to, vig apart), indeed we want to try to assess the situations when an expected situation will come out more often than not.

Every bac player knows that's quite difficult to be ahead after 4-5 shoes played, so we should infer that after 4-5 shoes a sort of balancement is going to come out.
Especialliy if this is due by mathematical reasons where B>P.

Back to the B-B-P pattern mechanically played.

The worst scenario this pattern would cross will be the P-P-B pattern precisely taken on the very first spot.
Nothing could prevent to get many consecutive P-P-B losing patterns and they surely will show up.
We are betting B-B-P and many P-P-B consecutive patterns are coming out. Actually itlr P doubles are predominant than P 3+s. So nothing wrong with it.
On the other end, B singles are slightly less prevalent than B streaks but long succession of B singles could easily happen.

Anyway the P doubles/B singles consecutive presentation must stop in some way, either by the production of a B streak or by a P 3+ streak/P single appearance.

Now the distribution issue comes out.

Consecutive shoes capable to produce many P-P-B patterns crossing our B-B-P mechaincal  betting plan are not so frequent and actually itlr cannot be prevalent than the whole counterpart.

So we must deduce that the "unlikely" pattern must come out never or isolated on most occasions, and very rarely in clusters.

We can safely assume that itlr its production is slightly lower than 1/8, but when high positive deviations had happened in the immediate past, the probability to encounter negative clustered patterns is somewhat raised.

Notice that the best scenario to get using the B-B-P betting plan will be a B-B-P-B-B-P.... sequence that is a somewhat unlikely pattern.
And actually we do not want to win several consecutive bets, we do want to limit the losing occurences.

Next time we'll consider this strategy on real shoes. 

as. 

 




   

























 




   





 










       


 






 





 

[AsymBacGuy]

Now let's consider the 8 possible outcomes of any 3-hand pattern regarding the mechanical B-B-P betting plan:
For "probability of success" I refer to any sequence capable to produce at least one win. 

1) B-B-B. Such sequence is one of the second best, meaning that the probability of success is 100% but it gets just an overall +1 profit (minus vig).

2) B-B-P. The best sequence to get, the probability of success is 100% and the profit is the best we can hope for (+3 minus vig)

3) B-P-B.  The probability of success (PoS) is 100% but it leads to a negative overall profit (-1 plus vig)

4) B-P-P.Again the PoS is 100% still it is one of the second best patterns to get (+1 minus vig)

5) P-P-P. PoS of 100%, overall profit -1 unit (no vig)

6) P-B-P. PoS of 100%, overall profit +1 (minus vig)

7) P-B-B. PoS of 100%, overall profit -1 (minus vig)

P-P-B PoS = zero, no profit.

For every 3-hand sequence the PoS is 87.5% proportionally splitted into three different steps of any single 3-hand sequence.

Actually the PoS is higher than 87.5% as patterns #1, #2, #3 and #7 will happen slightly more often than what a 50/50 game suggests.

As you can notice, the purpose to introduce a single P on any 3-hand sequence is oriented to reduce the negative variance.

Thus any PPP or PPPP or PPPPP... patterns will form at least one winning hand no matter what.

On the other side, the BB pattern is more likely than the BP pattern so any BB or BBB or BBBB or BBBBB... patterns will produce at least one or more consecutive winning hands.

The PoS is related about the probability to get at least one winning hand per every 3-hand pattern dealt.

Again the B-B-P mehcanical strategy in terms of PoS will lose only whenever a P-P-B pattern will show up precisely on the very first spot.

Odds dictate that most of the time such pattern will show up isolated or in clusters of two.

After that cutoff point we simply should quit the attack.

Of course the PoS implies the use of a 1-2-4 progression but we'll see that we don't need to utilize the full progression as a careful regsitration of what happened so far might help us to spot the situations where the most likely situation should come out more often than not.

Now I run 10 pc generated shoes and I randomly choose the #3 shoe from the list.

Here's the shoe (ties ignored):

PBPPBBPPPPBBBPPBBPPBPBBBBBBBBPBBPBPPBBPBBPPBPBPBBBPBPPBPPBBPPPBPPBPPPPPPPBP.

Splitting into 3-hand patterns we will get:

PBP  -++
PBB  -+-
PPP  --+
PBB  -+-
BPP  +-+
BBP  +++
PBP  -++
BBB ++-
BBB ++-
BBP +++
BBP +++
BPP +-+
BBP +++
BBP +++
PBP -++
BPB +--
BBP +++
BPP +-+
BPP +-+
BBP +++
PPB ---
PPB ---
PPP --+
PPP --+
PBP.-++

-++-+---+-+-+-++++-++++-++-+++++++-+++++++-+++--++++-++-++++--------+--+-++.

Luck favored this attack as BBP were well higher than PPB but notice the distribution of single + and clustered + as well as single - and clustered -.

Interesting to notice that P doubles were 8 and P 3+s were only 3.

A new shoe is:

PPBBPPPPBPBBBBBBPPBPPBBPPPBPPBBPPBBPPPBPBBBPPPPBBPPBBBPBPPBPBPPPPPBBBPPPPPP

Again we split the outcomes in tranches of 3:


PPB  ---
BPP  +-+
PPB  ---
PBB -+-
BBB ++-
BPP +-+
BPP +-+
BBP +++
PPB ---
PPB ---
BPP +-+
BBP +++
PPB ---
PBB -+-
BPP +-+
PPB ---
BPP +-+
BBB ++-
PBP -++
PBP -++
BPP +-+
PPP --+
BBB ++-
PPP --+
PPP --+

---+-+----+-++-+-++-++++------+-++++----+-+-+---+-+++--++-+++-+--+++---+--+

This shoe wasn't so lucky as PPB>BBP, anyway we got some hints about the distribution of WL signs.

More on this next week.

as.




















   







 




 

 

[alrelax]

Every bac player knows that's quite difficult to be ahead after 4-5 shoes played, so we should infer that after 4-5 shoes a sort of balancement is going to come out.
 

as. 

EXACTLY, so correct!  Actually I have found a little bit less.  For myself it is usually ideal at 2 to 3.  4 is pushing it in a session! 

There are many factors involved and I have found the largest amount of them is the players attention, vision, greed, ability to focus and the ability to define, understand and abide by the other factors that come into play as well.  A good baccarat player can only follow, go against, and pull consistent wins for so long.  And it is not shoe after shoe after shoe after shoe.

[alrelax]

To coincide and possibly compliment what 'As' posted herein:

Randomness and bias—produces coincidences and that is where the highest majority of all baccarat players go astray.  Coincidences can be exploited as if they were predictable, even though they are mathematically NEVER predictable.  And that my friend is the casino's greatest friend and the players worst nightmare.

Open your mind and forget mathematical strategy and computer analysis.  It really does not apply to the few shoes you will be playing at the casino.

http://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/randomness-equality-bias-in-real-life-casino-play/

[AsymBacGuy]

Al feel free to elaborate the above post thanks!

as.

[alrelax]

The way I play and have learned how to play more effectively is, to really attempt to merge myself into the shoe and wager for what have talked about in posts, what the shoe is presenting. 

But that is a bit more entailed with a bit of what the shoe has presented in the way of substantial events/sections/clusters and point values/reductions of numerous hands, etc.  It has to do with more, when it comes out--I want to be on it and on it big time.  Yes, easier said than accomplished at times.  But that is the point of the buy-in risk.  I do not play for 3 or 4 units and than stop.  I am playing for double or better the buy-in, almost every time I gamble. 

Like the $20,000.00 plus I won on about 20-25 hand section the other week. I posted the picture of the board on the table.  The one where it was all 1's and 2's and an occasional 3 repeat with every single natural cutting to the opposite side up to hand 45 or so.  Then BOOM!  It happened with the 6 players and the 13 Bankers with the 3 F-7's in the streak.  Right there is a perfect example, everyone was continually wagering for what the shoe had done. 

Shoes change, there are clear sections and turning points.  Those sections and turning points are usually identifiable by the players if you have a clear enough vision and do not get influenced by the other prevailing factors at the table 

Following sequences work and likewise, they do not work as well.  The same with almost everything in this game.  That is the point.  It works and you win, then the same thing causes you to lose.  No rhyme or reason at times and other times, spot on, easy pickings.  But those easy pickings turn into ugly losses because  of the way most players think. 

How many times do I witness players wagering for the 'cut' and I mean the continual cut?  WOW, so many.  Then when it is all chop-chop, banker-player like 12 to 16 times, almost all of them lose because  they are still wagering for the 'cut' which would be the repeat.  The average player believes strongly in going against what the shoe is doing all the time.  And that is not the way to play this game, not at all. 

It is easy to catch a double chop or two or three, a few chop-chop alternating B's and P's. It is easy to catch one streak here and there.  But the trick and the bank roll builder and saver, is being able to continually do it, and that is the hard part.   I have spelled it out with the vision, the clear mind, the frame-of-mind, the psych, the 1/3rd-1/3rd-1/3rd money management system, all that stuff, etc., etc.  It is not the ability to set a wager based on a mechanical pre-selected thought wagering system and be able to continually win using the same thing shoe after shoe after shoe after shoe.  It will never ever happen, never.  It cannot. Each and every one that wrote books and systems, they fail and they fail big time and are combated by only excuses, 'you gambled too much' or 'you applied it wrong' or 'you abused it and didn't not understand it', etc.  That is because  there is no mechanical system that can prevail in the game of baccarat, time after time.  Once again, the same wager you win with will be the exact same one you lose with.  The winning is brought on by the player that is able to apply numerous peripheral and ancillary informational items that will allow him the vision to be fully conscious and realize what is going on with the shoe and what might or might not happen.  And even then, you will not win or win big every time.   Not by the player that is attempting to get each shoe and each hand to convert to his system or his way of thinking.

[AsymBacGuy]

Good points Al. Thanks.

Back to a kind of mechanical/actual strategy capable to catch the random flow more often than not.

The B-B-P mechanical plan is, imo, an objective tool capable to get at least on winner on most occasions other than when the strategy is synchronically adapted to a P-P-B sequence.

Nevertheless, the situations where the perfect losing sequences will arise could be somewhat predicted whenever they never happened so far, shoe per shoe.
Or whenever they happened so frequently.

The BBP betting sequence cannot lose as long as every three hand sequence will show at least one B hand and/or one P hand.
Actually a PPB sequence would llead to three losses in a row everytime it shows up synchronically with our betting plan.
Odds are that such synchronicity will come out less often than what a 1/8 probability dictates.

Why?

First, baccarat performs a very slight propensity to get the opposite outcome of the last event occurred.

Second, itlr the most likely event is a B hand as it has a 50.68% probability to happen.

Third, if a given event is more likely to happen so the consecutive belonging dispositions will be more likely to happen, and the most likely disposition is a B after a B apparition.

Fourth, whenever a B more likely situation tends to be silent (mostly because of the symmetrical feautures or because of the retard of asymmetrical factor), the opposite outcome must show up in some way, at least considered by a 3-hand fragment.

But more importantly is the fact that every fkn single step used in the 3-hand sequence won't never ever reach the sd values belonging to a perfect 50/50 game. No way this is going to happen or at least I say that such probability is very very very low to happen.
If this shouldn't be true many HS players would be quit the tables ahead after 5,10 or more sessions played. 

Therefore, I'd suggest that any single 3-hand BBP step will produce some values that must be balanced in some way.

We shouldn't want to guess the next hands, we should want to estimate the probability the next hand will fall in our precise plan.

I add that Al comments made some sense to me even if they divert to my main (very diluted betting) strategy.

If we are joining the table with a $100, $500 or $20.000 bankroll, our aim should be oriented to  double or almost double our bankroll and not to get a few bets profit.
We do not want to risk a lot of money to win little.

In some way casinos must fear or dislike us, otherwise we are dead.

as.






















   











     

   



































   






 



   













 









 

















     

[alrelax]

I agree to a point,  I do agree that a sequence can prevail, however I also believe and I know those same opportunities can and do produce losing wagers.  If a player does not play that way he will miss and forgo all the easy pickings certain shoes do present. Such as, 15 chop chops. Or a 15 banker streak immediately followed by a 15 unit player streak.  Etc., and so on,

[AsymBacGuy]

I agree to a point,  I do agree that a sequence can prevail, however I also believe and I know those same opportunities can and do produce losing wagers.  If a player does not play that way he will miss and forgo all the easy pickings certain shoes do present. Such as, 15 chop chops. Or a 15 banker streak immediately followed by a 15 unit player streak.  Etc., and so on,

Naturally.
But what are the odds that such things will happen?

A 15 B streak followed by a 15 P streak isn't going to happen, actually it never happened after millions of shoes I've tested.
A more likely 15 chop-chop sequence cannot produce a sequential winning hand by using a BBP pattern strategy but it will never get 3 losing hands in a row either.

A BBP pattern, no matter what it will happen, cannot be a loser for long time. In a way or another.

as. 



     

[alrelax]

They do come, not frequent but they do,  more frequent happens with 8 to 11 times.  I was using it as an example. 

But the other night I saw something that does haporen quite often,  Half the shoe just as you describe,  then as everyone is continuing with their 100% belief in the 1s and 2s, etc, then the perfect 5 bankers followed by 5 players,  lots of cash lost wagering against that change and then a single cut to the banker side and 4 times 2 each of banks and players and then a single bank,  then 6 players followed by 6 bankers with 2 fortune 7s within.  Everyone gave back all their win money and continually bought in several times losing tens of thousands of dollars, sad and a common occurrence. 

I am not against what you say entirely. But I am more for wagering with shoe presentment

There are many factors that weigh and at times lean heavily what the shoe might do,  that us what I alert for and look for.  Not necessarily wager every time for.

[AsymBacGuy]

They do come, not frequent but they do,  more frequent happens with 8 to 11 times.  I was using it as an example. 

But the other night I saw something that does haporen quite often,  Half the shoe just as you describe,  then as everyone is continuing with their 100% belief in the 1s and 2s, etc, then the perfect 5 bankers followed by 5 players,  lots of cash lost wagering against that change and then a single cut to checkpoints side and 4 times 2 each of banks and players and then a single bank,  then 6 players followed by 6 bankers with 2 fortune 7s within.  Everyone gave back all their win money and continually bought in several times losing tens of thousands of dollars, 

I am not against what you say entirely. But I am more for wagering with shoe presentment, 

There is many factors that weigh and at times lean heavily what the shoe might do,  that us what I alert for and look for. Not necessarily wager every time for,

Ok.
If I correctly extrapolated from your post the sequence you experienced was: BBB BBP PPP PBB PPB BPP BPP PPP PBB BBB B

Then:

BBB ++-
BBP +++
PPP --+
PBB -+-
PPB ---
BPP +-+
BPP +-+
PPP --+
PBB -+-
BBB ++-
B +

++-
+++
--+
-+-
---
-+-
++-
+--
+-+
-++
-+

How many --- cumulative sequences have I got? One. -8 units.

First BBP betting step:
++----+++--

Second BBP betting spot:

++-+-++--++

Third BBP betting spot:

-++-----++

The distribution of such WL (+-) spots should give hints even though the sample is ridicously small...

as.






   

[spartakookie]

Lol i just saw PPB appear 4 times in resort world singapore 15 mins ago.  Seq start from beginning of the shoes and BBP appear twice only. 

[alrelax]

Ok.
If I correctly extrapolated from your post the sequence you experienced was: BBB BBP PPP PBB PPB BPP BPP PPP PBB BBB B

This is what it is/was:  (and this is after the first half of the shoe that was weak/unclustered/1's and 2's and occasional 3, etc.


BBBBB-PPPTTPP-B-PP-BB-PP-BB-PP-B-PPPPPP-B-f7-BBBTf7-P

So in your view it should be:

BBB
BBP
PPP
PBP
PBB
PPB
BPP
PPP
PPB
BBB
BBP

[alrelax]

Here is one from the other day as well:

PPP-BB-P-BBT-PPPPT-BBB-P-BT-PP-BBTB-PPP-B-P-BBBBBBT-PP-BBB-P-B-PT-BBB-PPPPPT-BB-PP-B-PPTPT-B-PP-BBB-P-BBB-PTPPP-BB

So, you would view it as:

PPP
BBP
BBP
PPP
BBB
PBB
PPB
BBP
PPB
PBB
BBB
BPP
BBB
PBP
BBB
PPP
PPB
BPP
BPP
PBP
PBB
BPB
BBP
PPP
BB

[roversi13]

Asymbacguy

Your sequence (BBP) is the consequence of B>P
According to your theory also the other patterns you suggested in the past are related to B>P
Because of that(a truth) why not wagering B all the time?
Simpler,but non effective at all,as we know
Why your pattern should be stronger of betting always B?
Both come from the same theory