+ Register

[Blue_Angel]

Good idea about the "crossroads" patterns! 
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. 

[AsymBacGuy]

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

Good idea about the "crossroads" patterns! 
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

[Blue_Angel]

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.

[alrelax]

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.

[Blue_Angel]

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...

[alrelax]

Aren't all Asians really 'Chinese'??  At least that is what I thought.  Are there are other countries besides China in Asia??

[alrelax]

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. 

[Blue_Angel]

Some shoes are indeed exceptional, like my Italian crocodile leather boots! 

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.

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

[Blue_Angel]

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.