+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

B hand is payed 0.95:1 and P hand is payed 1:1; ties ignored, BP frequency is  50.68/49.32.

Everytime we'll win a bet placed on B side not performing an asymmetrical hand we are i.diots.

Everytime we'll win a bet placed on P side not performing an asymmetrical hand we are geniuses.

Everytime we'll lose a bet placed on B side performing an asymmetrical hand we are unlucky geniuses.

Everytime we'll lose a bet placed on P side performing an asymmetrical hand we are i.diots who deserved it.

Two scenarios complete the picture: winning a B hand where an asymmetrical hand will take place (we're geniuses) and winning a bet placed on P side where an asymmetrical hand had taken place (super lucky i.diots).

Itlr the number of the above six scenarios will dictate that our global negative edge is included from 1.06% to 1.24%.

Now, instead of guessing which fkn next hand will come out, try to register how many times we got super geniuses, super idiots, lucky or unlucky at different degrees.
Everything related to the general probability of happening.

For example, winning three consecutive bets on P side where no asymmetrical hand had taken place means we have shifted the asymmetrical probability where we are hugely underdog.
We can bet our behind that the next three P consecutive bets will perform an increased probability to cross an asymmetrical hand.

The same about after having won three consecutive B hands: if they were three symmetrical hands, we can bet our behind that the next three B bet situations will be more likely to encounter at least one asymmetrical hand. Of course we can lose that asymmetrical hand or not crossing it at all, but itlr we cannot be wrong.

Whenever we think the asymmetrical factor is exhausted no matter which the actual results had been, more often than not the game will show up as a mere coin flip proposition. Here one hand is payed 0.95:1 and the other one 1:1.

On the contrary, if we think the aymmetrical factor is "due",  we know that getting payed 0.95:1 will be just a minor damage, as the overall mathematical advantage will erase this "short" payement.

Discounting ties, we know that perfect symmetrical hands will happen 91.6% of the time, the rest is about asymmetrical hands where B side is hugely favored (15.6% edge).

If we'd regularly bet P side and no one asymmetrical hand will take place, we know we're going to play a perfect zero edge game.
Conversely, if we are going to bet the situations where we think the asymmetrical factor is somewhat "due" (more than its general probability of happening), thus betting the B chance, we know to approach an EV+ game.

We must put ourselves into the position not to be super geniuses or super stupid.s for long.
Knowing that a pefect 50/50 proposition is unbeatable, especially whether one side is payed 0.95:1. 

as.




     







   




   

   

   

 

   

[AsymBacGuy]

Good. So what? Which hands are we going to bet?

First, let's consider the game as a long infinite succession of coin flips, splitted into finite sequences (shoes).
There's no way we can beat a coin flip game, but we know that baccarat P wagers are perfectly payed 1:1, thus the house edge on such bets is zero.
The interesting fact is that some card distributions will favor P side (shoe fragments particularly rich of low cards, lack of 8s and 9s, etc) so in such situations over than being fairly payed, we could even be advantaged.

Banker side is advantaged only when an asymmetrical hand will take place, that is when it has an initial point of 3,4,5 or 6 with P drawing. If some card distributions tend to help B side but no asymmetrical hand will form, we are playing a coin flip game with the important caveat we'll be payed 0.95:1 in case we'll win the hand.

Easy to see that following trends strategies, instinct related approaches couldn't help us in any way.

Therefore from a strict EV point of view, the first part of a perfect theorically strategic plan is to place our bets on P side when we think no asymmetrical hand will be present on the next decision.
In the long run we won't win a dime, but we won't lose a dime either.

The second part of a perfect theorically strategic plan is trying to catch an asymmetrical hand by a higher 8.6%/91.4% ratio. Here we are wagering Banker, naturally.
if our B bets will cross a better 8.6% ratio we are reducing/erasing/inverting the house edge.

P singles are > P streaks, P doubles > P 3s as itlr the next hand after P or PP is an asymmetrical hand.

The same about B singles < B doubles, etc.

Any single BP outcome means nothing and doesn't affect the future, instead we should focus about the nature of the hands and not about their actual outcome.

Itlr every shoe will get the same probabilities to form asym or sym hands, so in some sense now the past may help us to define the future as a 8.6% probability will get some features. 
Think about positional issues, consecutive patterns and so on.

as.



   





 
 

 




 


 



 



 
     



     

[AsymBacGuy]

Simplyfing, betting B when the as/s ratio will be higher than expected will reduce, erase or invert the house edge mathematically.

On the other end, every P bet made when the as/s ratio will be low or very low than expected, will reduce or cancel or even invert (for some rare card distributions issues) the house edge.

Change your attitude.
Everytime we bet B and we'll catch one asym hand more than one time over 11.62 attempts, we'are either getting money or reducing/erasing the house edge.

Everytime we bet P and we rarely or very rarely cross (or nothing at all) an asymmetrical hand we're giving a fkn nothing to the casino. In rare occasions sometimes we are even getting a P advantage, all due to a current card distribution.

Good, but how to spot the situations where the as/s ratio will be more likely shifted in one direction?

We'll talk about it tomorrow.

as.















   





   








 











 

     

[roversi13]

Very interesting,as usual.
I'm afraid that as/s ratio in not a parameter good enough if calculated in simply 3 or 4 shoes.
At least hundreds shoes are necessary for trusting in the as/s ratio.
If so, it's impossible to deal with that unless you bet once a quarter.....

I prefer your theory on cluster of 1s and 2s at P

[AsymBacGuy]

Very interesting,as usual.
I'm afraid that as/s ratio in not a parameter good enough if calculated in simply 3 or 4 shoes.
At least hundreds shoes are necessary for trusting in the as/s ratio.
If so, it's impossible to deal with that unless you bet once a quarter.....

I prefer your theory on cluster of 1s and 2s at P

Hi roversi and thanks.

Clusters of P1-2 are just the reflex of the as/s ratio acting along a wide number of shoes.

The important thing to remember, imo, is that a general probability must collide with a specific probability to try to get an advantage from.

Surely, long sequences of P1-2 clusters will happen more often than not when a lot of asymmetrical hands had taken place in the previous hands of the same shoe. Up to a point, of course.

I'll be back on the issue next week.

as.