+ Register

[alrelax]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

 










 



   











.





     

[alrelax]

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)

[alrelax]

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. 

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

 

[alrelax]

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!.

[alrelax]

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.

[spartakookie]

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

[alrelax]

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. 

[alrelax]

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

[AsymBacGuy]

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.










 

[AsymBacGuy]

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.



 
















 








 














 

 

[alrelax]

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.

[Baelog]

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

[AsymBacGuy]

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.