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.
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)
8) 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.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 03, 2017, 10:59:52 PM
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.
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/
Al feel free to elaborate the above post thanks!
as.
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.
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.
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,
Quote from: alrelax on October 09, 2017, 12:16:08 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: alrelax on October 09, 2017, 01:02:29 AM
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.
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. :))
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 09, 2017, 01:26:10 AM
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
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
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
Because 'As' leans to/likes 'BBP', giving the benefit of the doubt and wagering only the 2nd 'B' after the 1st winning 'B; will win 12 times and lose 4 times in the above shoe I posted.
Wagering 1 'B' after a winning player will realize 7 wins and 9 losses on that shoe as well.
To me--the mechanical wager--is the same as anything else, it can win and it can lose. Depending on the shoe---it might prevail more and likewise--it just might lose a greater amount of times also.
But, to me--it almost stops the player from realizing something the shoe creates very frequently, such as something real strong that suddenly comes on as I have mentioned before as well.
Roversi.
Of course we can set up a "only banker" strategy. The problem is the extreme variance related to any "one side betting".
Since the game is an almost coin flip succession imo we should define better the actual picture by adding the slight less likely counterpart (Player).
We could even wager PBB (it's the same) but not BPB as this 3-hand fragment doesn't include a B streak (yes, successions of BPB-BPB-BPB constitute a B streak but not now)
The purpose to adopt the BBP betting plan is not to catch endless winning sequences but to allow the random flow to enter into a mechanical no brainer plan.
I couldn't care less if the actual shoe is producing a lot of consecutive PPB sequences (just to respond to another member). I simply don't chase consecutive negative patterns.
Surely itlr for every PPB pattern there will be a higher amount of BBP counterparts.
We can even write a perfect losing shoe as PPB, PPB, BPB, PPB, PPB, BBB, PPB, PPB, PPB, PPB....
That is: - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - + + - - - - - - - - - - - - -
30 hands, 3 W and 27 L. It's a 4.89 sr deviation.
If we cut off the very first hand, now the shoe will show as:
PBP, PBB, PBP, PBP, PBB, BBP, PBP, PBP, PBP, PB....
That is: - + + - + - - + + - + + - + - + + + - + + - + + - + + - +
29 hands, 18 W and 11 L.
Look at the number of doubles: they are equal on both scenarios (actually first sequence contains 9 vs 8 because of a supplemental hand).
We see that the removal of just one hand has affected a lot of the actual outcomes.
Let's see if the shoe is particularly "strong" on one side.
If Banker strong, no problem no matter how is the point we start to register our 3-hand patterns.
As we'll get a lot of consecutive winning hands anyway.
Now a Player strong shoe portion as:
PPP, PBB, PPP, PPP, PPB, PPP, BPP, PPB, PPP, PPB, PPP, PBP (Venetian, 02/22/2016)
- - + - + - - - + - - + - - - - - + + - + - - - - - + - - - - - + - + +
One would wonder how many bets could be won just betting P side.
However and since such kind of shoes are not the rule (otherwise everyone would be easily wealthy), I'd think the opposite way.
My chart suggests that after a + sign the most likely hand is a - sign. Notice that there are no consecutive ++ patterns.
Moreover a winning sequence must start with a winning hand and no matter how you dissect this shoe there are very few of them.
Again, we can't humanly interfere with a random process and we can't be good by simply following patterns either.
The truth may be right in the middle.
You have seen that just a single hand had completely changed the outcomes, yet the hands succession was identical.
The easiest way to win at this game without any expertise (if it exists) is by hoping to catch long streaks, strong dominances or HUMANLY detectable patterns. Those are only fallacies as the game is just a random machine with ups and downs.
Unfortunately statistics tell us that after 4-5 shoes almost every player is down. But not down by a mere 1.2% or so cut.
If our strategic plan would dictate to be ahead after 4-5 shoes played, nobody would wager a lot of bets. And such 4-5 shoes could be considered as one session or as 4-5 distinct dayly or monthly sessions.
Think about the probability to be ahead after 50, 100 or more sessions.
as.
.
As the shoe progresses on, I deduce down some of my wagering decisions based on the following:
Frequent (continuously experiencing)
Probable (will occur frequently)
Occasional (will occur several times, possibly)
Remote (unlikely, but can reasonably be expected at times)
Improbable (unlikely to occur but possible)
Eliminated (incapable of occurrence, eliminated)
Nothing is the rule as to what is or what is not going to happen.
IMO, the best players can adapt to whatever the shoe is producing and presenting.
Quote from: alrelax on October 09, 2017, 10:49:29 PM
Nothing is the rule as to what is or what is not going to happen.
IMO, the best players can adapt to whatever the shoe is producing and presenting.
Good.
Nonetheless 99.99% of bac players will play in this way and still they'll go broke because they don't add in their strategy a mechanical approach or willing to adopt a wise experienced strategy (what you do, Al).
1) Strict mechanical approach = broke
2) Instinct, feelings, following patterns strategy = broke
1) + 2) ?
Two losing strategies contemporarily applied to the same game could mathematically lead to a winning approach (Parrondo, for example)
as.
Here is the answer.
Take everything you do that wins and everything I do that wins, we leave out everything we do that loses and we play at the mirage, c.p., p,h., then we go to a few places like pala, pechenga and agua cliante. Then we will celebrate our 100% win. Lol!.
Kind of a side note, but kind of fits in also.
Hurricanes here in the USA. You know we have not had a single US major hurricane strike as of July 31st, 2017 in 4,300 days! That is 11.7 (approx.) years! Huge number.
Then: Harvey on August 17th, 2017. Then: Irma on August 30th, 2017. Then: Nate: on October 9th, 2017. All within a few weeks of each other. Huge odds against.
My point is, clusters and events that will happen without rhythm, rhyme or reasoning are always close by. Without set patterns and mechanical repeating, etc., and therein lies the problem for so many.
Anyone that said prior to July 31st, 2017, say in 2011 or 2013 or 2015, there will be three major hurricanes a within a couple of weeks of each other in 2017. We would have cocked our heads at him, rolled our eyes and laughed, no?
So when we are at the baccarat table, and there is 50 hands played out of 1's and 2's and an occasional 3 or so, 2 ties and no fortunes or pandas present. Everyone is winning and losing as quickly as they won. Half the player's heads are down in their hands for support. Super quite table. And then Alrealx--Glen sees a 4 repeater with a strong vision that a real strong cluster of streaks are coming because of various factors and he slaps the table, throws out a table max wager for the 5th repeater to happen and it happens. Don't be surprised when everyone perks up and continually wagers for the 'cut' and Glen stays on the streaks and wins and wins. Then as the kicker, the streak made say 12 repeats and then 'cut'. Glen rode the next streak that formed side-by-side all the way down to match the first one and just about everyone lost once again, continually wagering for their 'cut' instead of going with the shoe.
Only difference between this scenario and the hurricane prediction one is, no one really cocks their head to the side and laughs at all of the players that just lost all their money. Those players are generally starring at the score board and looking dumbfounded to the max. Glen is coloring up his chips, while the rest of them are pointing to the score board and citing every single natural before the two streaks of 12 cut to the opposite side and how there was never a repeat over 3 hands, etc. As Glen leaves the table the rest of the players are engaged in conversation as to how the streak came about after a natural and did not cut. Then as Glen is passing by the table returning from the cashier's cage, the players were talking about how the second side-by-side streak came about and also failed to cut back to the opposite side.
Hi Alrelax,
I using a positive progression , betting on streaks . My progression is betting 1-2-2-4-3-6 and so on. I usually revert back to 1 unit after winning on the 8 unit bet if my overall winnings is still below +10. I usually buy in 20 units and played for 40 units profit to end the session. I always drop to betting 1 unit at any loss. The best thing betting on streaks is that u can take advantage of the situation and pump up your winnings in short time. Like what i have encountered a crazy good shoe in MBS couple months back where the single shoe is having only 67 singles straight. I agreed the best betting selection is following trends and with a careful money management strategy, you can surely win most of the times.
Cheers,
SK
Quote from: spartakookie on October 12, 2017, 02:39:29 AM
Hi Alrelax,
I using a positive progression , betting on streaks . My progression is betting 1-2-2-4-3-6 and so on. I usually revert back to 1 unit after winning on the 8 unit bet if my overall winnings is still below +10. I usually buy in 20 units and played for 40 units profit to end the session. I always drop to betting 1 unit at any loss. The best thing betting on streaks is that u can take advantage of the situation and pump up your winnings in short time. Like what i have encountered a crazy good shoe in MBS couple months back where the single shoe is having only 67 singles straight. I agreed the best betting selection is following trends and with a careful money management strategy, you can surely win most of the times.
Cheers,
SK
Absolutely. Also what you are comfortable with matters, IMO.
Here is one from the other night:
PP-BBBBTBBB-P-B-PBBBTB-P-BBBBBT-P-BB-P-B-PPP-B-P-BBBB-PP-BB-PTP-B-PPP-BBT-PPTPPPTPPPTT-BTB-P-BB-PT-BBTBTB-PP-B-P
Quote from: alrelax on October 12, 2017, 08:13:53 PM
Here is one from the other night:
PP-BBBBTBBB-P-B-PBBBTB-P-BBBBBT-P-BB-P-B-PPP-B-P-BBBB-PP-BB-PTP-B-PPP-BBT-PPTPPPTPPPTT-BTB-P-BB-PT-BBTBTB-PP-B-P
Discounting ties and adopting a BBP mechanical pattern, we'll get:
PPB ---
BBB ++-
BBB ++-
PBP -++
BBB ++-
BPB +--
BBB ++-
BPB +--
BPB +--
PPP --+
BPB +--
BBB ++-
PBB -+-
BPP +-+
BPP +-+
BBP +++
PPP --+
PPP --+
PBB -+-
PBB -+-
PBB -+-
BPP +-+
BPP +-+
- - - + + - + + - - + + + + - + - - + + - + - - + - - - - + + - - + + - - + - + - + + - + + + + - - + - - + - + - - + - - + - + - + + - +.
Notice that a flat betting strategy oriented to get streaks on any side will get a +6 profit, yet this apparently "full streaks oriented shoe" provides a number of + and - streaks vs the number of + and - singles shifted toward singles (21 vs 20).
Such ratio itlr cannot be other than oriented to an equal or singles shifted way no matter how outcomes will come along the way as things must include an equalizing factor.
as.
For a moment let's forget the BBP pattern indicator.
Say we want to be a mechanical machine that wagers B one time after any B isolated appearance.
I mean betting B just one time after PB pattern.
We'll lose one unit anytime a single B will come out and we'll win one unit anytime a B streak of any lenght will form.
Adopting an endless progression we know we'll be ahead of the game as it's mathematically certain that itlr PBB>PBP.
This is one of the simpliest tricks to take advantage of the B>P feature as it reduces the variance.
Long P streaks don't affect much our strategy even though long single B streaks won't get us huge winnings too.
But we should remember that any single bet is EV- .
Trying to discard a lot of possible winnings or losing hands will reduce variance, mostly on the negative side as any hand is EV-.
If you test such simple strategy (betting B after PB pattern) on a good bac simulator you'll notice that you'll get an ever growing bankroll if you have instructed the software to apply a martingale.
Differently to a simple B looking for strategy, the variance will be quite lowered. I mean spots where you'll lose 15-16 or more hands in a row looking for any B hand are less common if you adopt the PBB strategy.
However that's not a valid tool to reduce variance effiicently.
Some shoes will feature 14-15 or more consecutive B singles prompting unbearable betting amounts.
Nonetheless the best spot to look for "most likely events" is one.
After the #1 cutoff, everything could happen.
So when #1 hasn't reverted to zero, we better quit the betting.
Zero is the value of a consecutive most likely pattern, 1 is the second more probable outcome (losing gap =1).
Check how many shoes you want, you'll see that cutoff #1 is the main feature any shoe will provide (or not) the most likely expected sequences.
It won't be zero, as the game is always a sort of coin flip succession.
I mean that any single shoe may present expected situations more often than not right from the starting-intermediate parts of it.
This shouldn't elicit a "not more likely events" strategy (for example betting P after many P hands had come out) as we know the point #1 was surpassed but we don't know if the actual deviated value would reach higher unexpected values or coming back to the expected.
In order to get a clear picture of what is going to happen, we need to set up a fictional rigid plan capable to register how many #1 points have been reached.
Zero points mean a transitory deviation and cutoff points >1 mean a deviation either.
But on one side they are expected and on the other one they aren't due up to a point.
If you think, most bac players will try to catch zero value points but imo the real target should be #1 point. That is a WLW situation.
Those patterns could come out in clusters, isolated or never at all.
If something appeared in clusters at the start-intermediate portions of the shoe, odds dictate that a balancing effect on the subsequent parts of the shoe will be less likely to happen.
But we shouldn't forget that what we are going to register are events belonging to category #1.
Zero and >#1 events that already happened in a given shoe shoudn't entice an action directed to get the third #1 counterpart as what never happened is less likely to happen within short intervals (the given shoe).
Therefore we are betting two thirds of the possible outcomes, trying to get the less represented event more silent than we can.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 14, 2017, 03:29:27 AM
For a moment let's forget the BBP pattern indicator.
Say we want to be a mechanical machine that wagers B one time after any B isolated appearance.
I mean betting B just one time after PB pattern.
We'll lose one unit anytime a single B will come out and we'll win one unit anytime a B streak of any lenght will form.
Adopting an endless progression we know we'll be ahead of the game as it's mathematically certain that itlr PBB>PBP.
This is one of the simpliest tricks to take advantage of the B>P feature as it reduces the variance.
Long P streaks don't affect much our strategy even though long single B streaks won't get us huge winnings too.
But we should remember that any single bet is EV- .
Trying to discard a lot of possible winnings or losing hands will reduce variance, mostly on the negative side as any hand is EV-.
If you test such simple strategy (betting B after PB pattern) on a good bac simulator you'll notice that you'll get an ever growing bankroll if you have instructed the software to apply a martingale.
Differently to a simple B looking for strategy, the variance will be quite lowered. I mean spots where you'll lose 15-16 or more hands in a row looking for any B hand are less common if you adopt the PBB strategy.
However that's not a valid tool to reduce variance effiicently.
Some shoes will feature 14-15 or more consecutive B singles prompting unbearable betting amounts.
Nonetheless the best spot to look for "most likely events" is one.
After the #1 cutoff, everything could happen.
So when #1 hasn't reverted to zero, we better quit the betting.
Zero is the value of a consecutive most likely pattern, 1 is the second more probable outcome (losing gap =1).
Check how many shoes you want, you'll see that cutoff #1 is the main feature any shoe will provide (or not) the most likely expected sequences.
It won't be zero, as the game is always a sort of coin flip succession.
I mean that any single shoe may present expected situations more often than not right from the starting-intermediate parts of it.
This shouldn't elicit a "not more likely events" strategy (for example betting P after many P hands had come out) as we know the point #1 was surpassed but we don't know if the actual deviated value would reach higher unexpected values or coming back to the expected.
In order to get a clear picture of what is going to happen, we need to set up a fictional rigid plan capable to register how many #1 points have been reached.
Zero points mean a transitory deviation and cutoff points >1 mean a deviation either.
But on one side they are expected and on the other one they aren't due up to a point.
If you think, most bac players will try to catch zero value points but imo the real target should be #1 point. That is a WLW situation.
Those patterns could come out in clusters, isolated or never at all.
If something appeared in clusters at the start-intermediate portions of the shoe, odds dictate that a balancing effect on the subsequent parts of the shoe will be less likely to happen.
But we shouldn't forget that what we are going to register are events belonging to category #1.
Zero and >#1 events that already happened in a given shoe shoudn't entice an action directed to get the third #1 counterpart as what never happened is less likely to happen within short intervals (the given shoe).
Therefore we are betting two thirds of the possible outcomes, trying to get the less represented event more silent than we can.
as.
After the #1 cutoff, everything could happen.
So when #1 hasn't reverted to zero, we better quit the betting. And that my friend is where the highest majority of all players will get sucked in and cannot follow what they so graciously planned out.......IMO.
Great shoe. Following random flow based on what comes out. Playing repeaters.
BBB
BBB W
PBP
BBB
BPB
BBB W
BPB
BPB W
PPP
BPB
BBB
PBB
BPP L
BPP W
BBP
PPP
PPP W
PBB
PBB W
PBB
BPP
BPP W
It's my opinion too, Al.
We can't control a random flow but we might guess if the actual flow tends to produce more +1 steps or more -1 steps.
After that we should trying to study the distribution of such steps: they can come in clusters or isolated.
Unfortunately most players want to get clusters as soon as possible because this strategy seems to be the easiest way to win (and it is, but only apparently).
The more we are dissecting the game into distinct classes, the better should be our vision about what is really happening.
This, imo, first means to bet very few hands.
The problem is that most players want to guess the unguessable too many times, namely that after a Banker the next hand should be another Banker or a cutting Player and so on.
We can't do that, we can only hope for this.
Back to the simple BBP pattern.
It's easy to notice that this 3-hand pattern is too hugely shifted toward Banker, yet itlr it'll be more probable than other counterparts as PPB or PBP and some others.
A more balanced fictional betting scheme would dictate to wager a pattern like BPBBP or PBPBB or many seven-hand Banker one-hand dominating patterns. And so on.
But the more we are mechanically playing a scheme trying to adapt to the expected and worse will be the probabilities to catch the actual flow of the game.
That's the difference between a mere coin flip succession and baccarat.
There we have no hints about the actual line presenting, especially knowing that every flip is perfectly independent from the previous one; here we know that the game is asymmetrical and finite and with the old propensity anyone reading my pages knows.
More importantly is that we can't take hints from any single shoe dealt, meaining that many times we do not want to wager a dime.
as.
A randomly picked up shoe:
PPB, PBP, BBB, PBB, PBP, PPB, BPP, BBB, BPB, BPP, BPP, PBB, PPP, PPB, PPP, BPP, BPB, PPB, PPP, PPB, BBP, PPB, PPP, BPB, PB.
PPB - - -
PBP - + +
BBB + + -
PBB - + -
PBP - + +
PPB - - -
BPP + - +
BBB + + -
BPB + - -
BPP + - +
BPP + - +
PBB - + -
PPP - - +
PPB - - -
PPP - - +
BPP + - +
BPB + - -
PPB - - -
PPP - - +
PPB - - -
BBP + + +
PPB - - -
PPP - - +
BPB + - -
PB - +
- - - - + + + + - - + - - + + - - - + - + + - + - + - - - + - - - - - + - - - - - + - - - + + + - - - - - + + - - - +
as.
Tougher shoe. Still following random flow.
PPB
PBP
BBB
PBB L
PBP W
PPB
BPP
BBB
BPB L
BPP W
BPP
PBB
PPP
PPB L
PPP W
BPP
BPB L
PPB
PPP L
PPB W
BBP
PPB
PPP L
BPB
PB L
Yep there's still the LW pattern to follow...
What's your selection?
Playing against the 8 unique patterns in a row. After a win start over.
Quote from: Baelog on October 16, 2017, 02:51:08 AM
Playing against the 8 unique patterns in a row. After a win start over.
I might be misunderstanding? A player can always choose to play against events that happened or yet to happen, however--IMO, playing like that consistently will pretty much sink you and drain your bank roll faster than most other things. The key word there is, 'consistently'
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 16, 2017, 12:04:47 AM
But the more we are mechanically playing a scheme trying to adapt to the expected and worse will be the probabilities to catch the actual flow of the game.
as.
Another key phrase and key area for players to research, try and get an advantage from.
I have written about this area and I call it, "Shoe Presentments".
Leave all the statistics and all the history aside, clear your mind, clear your vision, forget the past, forget the previous sessions wins as well as losses, reset and refresh yourself. Those things have helped me tremendously.
On the betting progression, you say 1 2 4. Why not 1-2 -1 -2 if losing, then 1-2-4 if winning. Just a thought.
John
Quote from: bacply on October 16, 2017, 05:35:40 PM
On the betting progression, you say 1 2 4. Why not 1-2 -1 -2 if losing, then 1-2-4 if winning. Just a thought.
John
Not sounding rude or wise, but whatever you are most comfortable with.
For myself, I have found 1-3-2-6 gives myself the most comfort. I also do flat bet and parlay once or twice, no matter if winning or losing. I seldom go past those (2 times) consecutively, unless I am into a '1 + 4 Side Parlay wager', but that for myself, is normally coinciding with another wager anyway.
This is how the BBP mechanical scheme fares on the last shoe presented:
- - - - + + + + - - + - - + + - - - + - + + - + - + - - - + - - - - - + - - - - - + - - - + + + - - - - - + + - - - +
We see that in distribution terms we'll have: (R=runs or streaks and S=single)
R R R S R R R S S R S S S S R S R S R S R R R R R
With this "trick" we have restricted the amount of decisions from 74 hands to just 25.
If we want to restrict further the decisions we may choose to simply bet toward a streak of R or S one time and toward a single apparition of R or S.
Now we have: streak (RRR), single (S), streak (RRR), streak (SS), single, streak, single, single, single, single, single, single, streak.
That is a mere amount of 13 decisions.
Going even deeply and reasoning with the same streak/single principle, we could think the shoe as:
single (one streak), single (one single), streak (two streaks), single (one single), single (one streak), streak (many singles). That is just 6 decisions.
The "asym" concentration effect will transform this shoe in a pattern of just 6 decisions.
I mean that every single shoe will form one of the possible 64 dispositions of any mix of 6 decisions.
Of course not every shoe will produce exactly 6 decisions but almost surely it will form at least 5-6 multilayered singles and streaks patterns having a given probability to appear.
It's now that we could discover some long term propensities of the game without spending a lot of money and at the same time reducing at most the variance.
Back to the random flow of the actual shoe.
As Al correctly pointed out, any single shoe presents "turning points", spots where some previous patterns stop to exist giving place to other numerous patterns difficult to be chased.
If we are whimsically adopting a multi pattern strategy (dominating sides, singles, doubles, streaks, etc) directed to bet a lot of hands we are destined to fall in the realm of uncertainty even though in the shortest terms we could have the best of it.
But here we are playing a concentrate (or better a concentrate of the concentrate) of a mechanical strategy, meaning that we can only decide when a given single/streak pattern should come out or not.
as.
Here's the second shoe presented:
R R S R R R S S R R S S R S R R R R R S S S S R S R R S R S S S R S R S S S S R S
that is
R S R R R R S S R R S S R S S R S S S R S
finally
S S R R R R S R S R S
as.
A huge B shifted shoe:
BBB
PBP
PBB
BPB
BBP
PPB
BBB
PBP
PPB
BPB
PBB
PBP
BPB
PBB
PBB
BBP
BBB
BBB
BBB
BPB
PBB
BPB
BPP
P
+ + - - + + - + - + + + - - - + + - - + + - - - + - - - + - - + + + - + - + - - + - + + + + + - + + - + + - + - - - + - + - - + - + -
R R R S S S R R R R R R S R S R R S S S S R S S R S R S R S S R S S S R S S S
secondly
R R R S S S R R S R S S S S S R S R S R
finally
R R R S S R S S S S
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 16, 2017, 10:30:12 PM
This is how the BBP mechanical scheme fares on the last shoe presented:
As Al correctly pointed out, any single shoe presents "turning points", spots where some previous patterns stop to exist giving place to other numerous patterns difficult to be chased.
If we are whimsically adopting a multi pattern strategy (dominating sides, singles, doubles, streaks, etc) directed to bet a lot of hands we are destined to fall in the realm of uncertainty even though in the shortest terms we could have the best of it.
as.
Once I discovered what I define as, "Sections and Turning Points", I drastically increased my advantages if (and only if) my mind was clear and my vision unfocused on certain events and all that as I have written about regarding this.
If you can open you mind and unclutter it from your past wins and losses and how those incurred, you will be better off. Easier said than done!
A fair P shifted shoe:
PBP
BPP
BPB
PPB
PPP
PBP
BBP
PBP
PPP
BPB
BBP
BPP
BPP
PPB
BBP
BPB
PPP
PPP
PPP
PBP
BPP
PPP
PPB
BBP
- + + + - + + - - - - - - - + - + + + + + - + + - - + + - - + + + + - + + - + - - - + + + + - - - - + - - + - - + - + + + - + - - + - + - + + +
S R S R R S S R S R R R R R S R S S R R R S R S R S S R S S R S S S S R
second
S S S R R S S R S S R R S S S S R S R
finally
R R R S R R R S S
as.
Quote from: alrelax on October 16, 2017, 10:53:43 PM
Once I discovered what I define as, "Sections and Turning Points", I drastically increased my advantages if (and only if) my mind was clear and my vision unfocused on certain events and all that as I have written about regarding this.
If you can open you mind and unclutter it from your past wins and losses and how those incurred, you will be better off. Easier said than done!
Yes, a clear mind drastically helps players. Unfortunately the gambling environment and human emotions turn the logic section off from the brain.
as.
After having concentrated at different degrees any single shoe in R and S signs, we have to consider the long term impact (consecutive shoes) acting over our strategy.
If we want to consider shoes only as succession of six initial third degree R/S patterns, we'll know that per every shoe dealt there will be 64 possible patterns, equally probable.
And, for example, if no one shoe will show an all R or S streak pattern we know that a 6-step progression cannot lose.
Taken by another way of thinking, we could say that a R or S sign will surely appear in a 6-hand succession.
Unfortunately this cannot be accomplished 100% of the times, otherwise the game would be easily beaten itlr.
Therefore we should study the probability of success when a R or S event should be more likely to appear in some portion of the shoe, that is the exact positions where R or S should come out more often than not.
Now we have a linear (horizontal) R/S succession and a "vertical" (shoe after shoe) R/S succession.
Since we're mechanically concentring outcomes at deep degrees, in a sense we're betting that at least two shoes in a row won't produce the exact situation previously happened. At best we are betting that the losing 1/64 expected ratio will be lower than that (1/66, 1/70, etc).
As sayed, we may bet horizontally (linear shoe successions) or vertically (exact position studied per many shoes).
After having tested millions of shoes I can say that the probability to cross both horizontally and vertically exact R/S situations and no R or S situations appearing on two consecutive shoes is zero if at least 6 R/S patterns were produced.
This means that by using this subdivision, the probability to get an unfavourable 12 hand situation on two consecutive shoes is zero. (of course it can't be zero for the law of probability).
Yes, from a practical point of view nobody is going to risk 4096 units to win just one unit (12-step progression) and anyway it can't be done knowing the min-max limits allowed at bac tables.
Hence we might decide to only bet the Banker hands dictating a given winning hand, meaning we're throwing off any situation where a possible winning hand should be placed on Player side.
Now our strategic plan is multilayered concentrated: first as any single shoe will be seen at our eyes as a simple 6-hand R/S pattern; secondly knowing that the situations when a Player hand would get us a profit will be slightly lower than the expected counterpart; third, that an ever equaling factor is going to act no matter what.
Long winning streaks are just a temporary finding most players are looking for.
Imo we better take as target the situations when a due outcome must come out within an acceptable interval of time.
as.
Good idea about the "crossroads" patterns! :thumbsup:
If we write down decisions in 6 rows by 6 columns our "matrix" would reveal the optimum points for betting.
But except the horizontal rows and the vertical columns there are the diagonal lines.
On the conjunction of these 3 you should seek for the decision which will fulfil 3 different but connected parameters;
1) Lead = opposite from the last
2) Follow = same as last
3) Or get out of the way = don't bet
In other words when the next result would complete 1 chop for horizontal row or vertical column and 1 series/streak of 2 for the other then that's a bet.
It doesn't matter if the chop/change or series/streak of 2 are at vertical or horizontal, all it matters is to get the specific combination.
PS I like your signature too, of course certain individuals are determined to reach further than the majority and eventually it does make the difference. ;)
Here's another shoe full of streaks.
PPB
PBP
PBB
BBB
BBB
PPB
PBB
PPP
BBB
PPP
PBB
BPP
PPB
BBB
BPP
PBB
BBB
BBP
PBP
BBB
PBB
PBB
PBP
PPB
- - - - + + - + - + + - + + - - - - - + - - - + + + - - - + - + - + - + - - - + + - + - + - + - + + - + + + - + + - + + + + - - + - - + - - + + - - -
R R S S S R S R R S R R R S S S S S S S R R S S S S S S S R S R S R S R R S R S R R R
2) R R S S R S R R R R S S S S S S R S S S R
3) R R S S R R S R
And here a shoe full of singles:
BPP
PBB
BBB
PBB
PBP
BBP
BPB
PBP
BPB
PPP
BPP
PBB
BPB
PBB
PBP
PBP
BBP
BPP
BPB
PBP
BPP
PPP
PPB
PB
+ - + - + - + + - - + - - + + + + + + - - - + + + - - - - + + - + - + - + - - - + - - + + - + + + + + + - + + - - - + + + - + - - + - - - - +
S S S S S S R R S R R R R R R S S S S S S R S R R S R S R R R S S R S R
2) R R S R R S S R S S S R R S S
3) R S R R S R R R
We see that no matter what a player chose to bet and no matter how the shoe is developing, things must change in a way or another as there is no a single shoe in the universe which could produce a strong deviation if we split the outcomes in such a way.
This happens because R could become S and S could be interpreted as R.
If we chose to regularly take a given side (R or S) in any registration, we see that we can encounter long winning streaks and long losing streaks but always up to a point.
For example the first shoe natural classification was:
R R S S S R S R R S R R R S S S S S S S R R S S S S S S S R S R S R S R R S R S R R R
Despite the fact that S=24 and R=19, the number of S streaks was 3 and the number of S singles was 7.
On the other side, R presented 6 streaks and 5 singles.
The second shoe first classification was:
S S S S S S R R S R R R R R R S S S S S S R S R R S R S R R R S S R S R
S=19 and R=17
S streaks are 3 and S singles are 5
R streaks are 4 and R singles are 3.
Is something coming up in your mind?
as.
Quote from: Blue_Angel on October 23, 2017, 06:04:55 AM
Good idea about the "crossroads" patterns! :thumbsup:
If we write down decisions in 6 rows by 6 columns our "matrix" would reveal the optimum points for betting.
But except the horizontal rows and the vertical columns there are the diagonal lines.
On the conjunction of these 3 you should seek for the decision which will fulfil 3 different but connected parameters;
1) Lead = opposite from the last
2) Follow = same as last
3) Or get out of the way = don't bet
In other words when the next result would complete 1 chop for horizontal row or vertical column and 1 series/streak of 2 for the other then that's a bet.
It doesn't matter if the chop/change or series/streak of 2 are at vertical or horizontal, all it matters is to get the specific combination.
PS I like your signature too, of course certain individuals are determined to reach further than the majority and eventually it does make the difference. ;)
Thanks BA! ;-)
Not sure to have fully understood your interesting post.
Can you elaborate? Thanks!
as
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 23, 2017, 07:20:07 AM
Thanks BA! ;-)
Not sure to have fully understood your interesting post.
Can you elaborate? Thanks!
as
Example}
P B P B P P
B B B B B B
B B P P B B
B P B B P B
P P B P B P
B B B P B P
Loss
Win
When 2 different decisions meet, one from horizontal row and another from vertical column then bet for the same as last for the horizontal and opposite of the last for the vertical.
When there is already a streak of 2 or more for the horizontal then bet opposite and same as last for the vertical.
Do not write the ties, just ignore them.
Betting the same or opposite as last will always, always in the long run get you to the same exact place at the end off the rainbow, every time collectively.
Quote from: alrelax on October 23, 2017, 09:41:26 AM
Betting the same or opposite as last will always, always in the long run get you to the same exact place at the end off the rainbow, every time collectively.
You could also toss a coin in order to decide, Head for Banker and Tail for Player.
I remember when I was playing Blackjack at Casino De La Vale, near the Italian Alps, I was wondering at the 2nd floor, where the table games are located, carefully estimating my opponent by looking, not on results, but his face!
I looked at a middle forties man with dark fair goatee and hair, suddenly has hit me;
"I cannot be more unlucky than this guy!"
I sat down and the dealer rolled his sleeves up, I was the only person at the table, while the game begun to unfold I was stacking piles of chips in front of me, from the left to the right each pile had 1 chip more than the previous.
From the corner of my right eye I saw a pit boss and a floor manager looking over my shoulders and discussing silently, suddenly a bunch of Asian origin tourists came to the table, I was doing well and news get around fast...
A charming Chinese (?) girl at her early thirties sat next to me, after a few hands I told her:
"why don't you take advantage of the special bet for Blackjack?"
She did so immediately and won 18 times her special bet, she looked at me and said:
"how did you know?!", while chuckling hilariously.
I've draw a generous portion of smoke and replied: "I didn't", while blowing my Cohiba cigar at her face.
Players kept following my hands as the dealer changed and things took slowly but steadily the downturn, I thought:
"Time to shake my Submariner while rolling the dice at the Craps table", but this is another story...
Aren't all Asians really 'Chinese'?? At least that is what I thought. Are there are other countries besides China in Asia??
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on October 23, 2017, 07:04:49 AM
Here's another shoe full of streaks.
We see that no matter what a player chose to bet and no matter how the shoe is developing, things must change in a way or another as there is no a single shoe in the universe which could produce a strong deviation if we split the outcomes in such a way.
This happens because R could become S and S could be interpreted as R.
as.
Briefly As. You are correct, but you are also wrong, 'wrong' just being a word of description NOT a label in this case!
You know sitting there playing baccarat, no matter where it is, a local $10.00/$2,000.00 Midwest casino table or a $300.00/$25,000.00 Vegas table, etc. No matter where, it will change---yes. There are exceptional shoes, normally let's say few and far in between. But when shoes are 'abnormal' and generating 20 spaces to the right of pure 'chop-chop' or say all of a sudden after numerous shoes of 1's, 2's and an occasional 3 or 4 repeater, then a 15 Banker streak runs out followed immediately by a 14-15 or a 16 repeater streak on the Player side. Etc., etc. Those are what makes more players lose than anything else. Interestingly, how a few years back almost all baccarat players (the total reverse of what it is today) would have caught, just about any and all streaks and lost their buy-in's and bank rolls on the irregular and non-repeating patterns pretty much as a solid norm. (non-repeating patterns include many other things besides just streaks--FYI).
And my point is and what most cannot recognize is their own ability to have that open mind that allows themselves to follow a shoe from the shoe's viewpoint rather than the viewpoint of 'what the player wants'. It is not really a matter of being strong--weak--matching--making up--setting precedent--following a previous shoe--meeting/matching statistical data--etc., etc., it is more of reality and throwing hands out there in non uniform protocol that is not written and published. But, IMO--the players interpret what is happening as a 'set protocol' and begin to wager with that as a basis.
As things go wrong for them, they find excuses to blame their wagering on and thus--they completely alleviate their own correction to help themselves.
Some shoes are indeed exceptional, like my Italian crocodile leather boots! :D
You should already knew by now what's going on. If you write down each and every decision per shoe then you know that this sequence will be 50% or more different in comparison with the sequence of the 2nd shoe, playing for the final 3rd shoe it will produce approximately 75% different sequence from the 1st...
It's called "mirroring effect", when a pattern ends a new begins and start going backwards, reversed and inverted.
Just remember to turn the 1st shoe's sequence up side down and then replace the original decision with its opposite result, keep your "artificial" sequence exactly the same for the 3rd shoe.
Bet flat 1 unit for the entire 1st shoe, 2 units for the 2nd and 3 units for the final 3rd.
You may find yourself having plenty of opportunities to quit with a net gain during those 3 shoes, but personally speaking, I wouldn't stop before -/+ 25 up to 40 units net.
During 1st choose only player or anything else you like, as long as you bet flat 1 unit could not do much harm.
Thanks Blue for the explanation, I think some asian players seem to adopt a similar row-columns scheme (don't know which is their BS).
And of course you made some good point Al.
The bac problem is always the same: is it wiser to try to catch the actual flows or conversely to try to see whether a rigid scheme will get the best of it sooner or later?
I think the answer could be in the middle.
The mirroring strategy presented by BA is interesting.
It's the same concept I'm talking about: things must change.
Since we know we will almost surely lose after 4-5 shoes played, why do not take advantage of such situation?
And imo we could even add some adjustments in order to raise our probability of success.
For example, I do not want to bet a dime on the 1st shoe. I instead prepare the plan for the next shoes wriiting down the opposite situations already occurred. It's easier when you use a vertical registration of the outcomes.
Now the fictional players are B and P exact positions, any of them knows that the longer they play the better will be the probabilities to fall into the 50.68/49.32 percentages.
Again the BPBPPP... sequence will produce + and - in relationship of what happened in our target.
We know that any single position will reach some deviation values but in the whole the B/P ratio will be closer and closer to 50.68/49.32.
I mean that no many spots will reach high deviation values, of course we do not know which are.
Now we get nearly 75 spots per shoe playing for us, mostly fictionally.
How many of those 75 spots will produce huge winning (repeating) or losing (opposite side) situations?
How many consecutive spots will be likely to be strongly ahead or strongly behind?
Of course nobody is forced to play the 2nd (or 3rd) shoe or to bet many hands. We should remember that sh.it happens in clusters and betting few hands enlarge the probability to bypass fkn situations.
Actually we could even set up our plan without waiting the 1st shoe apparition, we just need any previous shoe registered randomly taken.
Shoes are not affected by time or by a given location or whether they are consecutively considered.
as.
The point I try to make is that if 2 in a row has 25% and 3 in a row 12.5%, then the same goes for a much larger scale, as a matter of fact if we replace 3 hands with 3 shoes the deviations would be much milder.
In 3 hands could easily fit same side all the way, but try to make the same for 3 shoes, now you tell me!
We don't have to win most, not even half of the total bets, just half as much as our losses.
This is the effect of scaling the d'Alembert progression as well, from per bet/hand up to per shoe.
You have to take a panoramic view in order to realize how smaller could be your obstacles.