+ Register

[alrelax]

I have had numerous dealers the past year or so tell me, which I have also noticed but never really focused on, that when the Player side starts to repeatedly win with a total of a 6 or 7, no matter if a 3rd card is pulled for that or not, back off or wager only the Player side for some time.

I have not studied that scenario enough to voice any real details, like how many has to prevail first before it kicks in that the Players side will repeatedly prevail, etc.

Anyone notice anything in relation to this?

[AsymBacGuy]

Yes, but mainly if the first Player cards are a 6-zero value card or 7-zero.
When P has a 6 or 7  two card points is entitled to win most of the times. Actually P streaks are mainly made by naturals and those standing points.
Such points are dog to come out but not so much and they must come out. Often clustered.
Besides that, any 6 or 7 removed from the deck is a good option to negate the banker advantage on the next hand as a 6 or 7 falling into P side is quite more important than whether falling on the other one (as it's unnecessarily taxed).

Thinking that 6s or 7s may come out balanced on either side in the same shoe and accompanied by a picture is difficult to accept, confirmed by long term trials.

If we consider the third card option, we might think in the same way. Whenever a third card is particoularly and consistently good for the Player, we may infer that actual card distribution won't be so balanced in short times.
I mean that anything different from a 9,8,A,2 itlr is good for P side no matter what .

Of course the same happens on the other side, but this time a 8 or 9 could be of great damage as banker stands on any hand different from 0,1,2.

as. 



   
   

[alrelax]

Yes, but mainly if the first Player cards are a 6-zero value card or 7-zero.  (I have noticed over the years, without really analyzing it, a much greater amount of Player winning clusters such as, PPPP B PPP B PPPP BB PPPP B PPPPPPP then back to a more consistent B and P results or slightly greater B's, etc.  But Player domination by all means.  And for some strange reason, I see it occur more in the first half of the shoe, rather than the second half??  Just last week, there was a shoe Player dominant the first half, 28 Players, 1 Tie and 10 Banks.  Then immediately 7 Bankers come out together with a F-7 following a N9 and the shoe winds up 39 P's and 35 B's.  (They all started to win on the Players side and chased that second half because in their minds it was supposed to stick the whole shoe, LOL).  Anyway, here was the shoe, unfortunately I did not record the point totals.  I also have noticed, 0-1-2 ties produce these kind of things/results whether for the P's or the B's rather than normal to heavy ties already out.  In my time at the tables anyways.)

P B PPPP B PPPP BB P B PPPP B PPP B T PPPPP BB P B PPPPP B F-7 BBBBB P BB P BBBBTTBBBTTB

P BBT PP BBB P B PPTP B PP B

When P has a 6 or 7  two card points is entitled to win most of the times. Actually P streaks are mainly made by naturals and those standing points. (I have noticed it both way, with the 2 card totals of 6 or 7 coming out or with a 6/7 or a total of 6 or 7 for the third card, etc.  But again, not enough solid focus on just that.  I will start to pay more attention to it as it occurs in the future.  I do not agree with the 'mainly naturals for the players streaks, however, I have seen many of the Player win cluster producing a 3 rd card that bring them up consistently and repeatedly to an 8 or a 9 for a much more repetitive time than the Banker side usually does.)

Such points are dog to come out but not so much and they must come out. Often clustered. (Clustered is the way I outlined in the shoe above, not streaking.  Just so we are on the same terminology.)

Besides that, any 6 or 7 removed from the deck is a good option to negate the banker advantage on the next hand as a 6 or 7 falling into P side is quite more important than whether falling on the other one (as it's unnecessarily taxed).  (A good amount or a fair amount of the time, yes.  Again, not sure or even close to definitive on the numbers of that statement.)

Thinking that 6s or 7s may come out balanced on either side in the same shoe and accompanied by a picture is difficult to accept, confirmed by long term trials.   (At times yes and at times no.  In small/smaller clusters often.  But certainly a low/lower occurrence.)

If we consider the third card option, we might think in the same way. Whenever a third card is particoularly and consistently good for the Player, we may infer that actual card distribution won't be so balanced in short times.

I mean that anything different from a 9,8,A,2 itlr is good for P side no matter what .

Of course the same happens on the other side, but this time a 8 or 9 could be of great damage as banker stands on any hand different from 0,1,2.   (3 through 5 Banker has to draw under certain circumstances depending on the players 3rd card and of course the Banker only draws on a 2 card total of 6 if the Player's 3rd card is a 6 or a 7.  Is that what you meant?  I interpreted what you said, was that the Banker stands on everything except a 0-1 or a 2?)

as. 
   

SIDE NOTE:  I have looked at countless 3 card outcomes, whereas, the Player draws a 3rd card and the Banker does not, the Banker draws a 3rd card also.  I do believe there is an equal amount of cards that can hurt the Banker with the 3rd card Player draw when the Banker does not (DOES NOT) draw a 3rd card as well.  Likewise, I do believe there is an equal amount of cards that work the opposite way with the Banker drawing the sole 3rd card if the Player has at least a 6 point value on its first two cards pulled. 

Likewise once again, hurts each side with the 3rd card pulled, depending on what the first 2 totaled to be for each side. 

IMO, we notice these things when it clusters like the above show with one of the sides clearly dominating for an extended period of time, like 1/2 or 1/3 the shoe. 

Food for thought.

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

Hi Alrelax, and AS,
both of you are experienced and had play thousands of shoes...
And I read that they say that bac. ....very  STREAKY .

Are streaks of 5, 6, 7, or more always happen in every shoes,
or had both of you ever experienced that  a streak, less than 5,
NEVER  HAPPENED
in a shoe.

thanks

[alrelax]

Hi Alrelax, and AS,
both of you are experienced and had play thousands of shoes...
And I read that they say that bac. ....very  STREAKY .

Are streaks of 5, 6, 7, or more always happen in every shoes,
or had both of you ever experienced that  a streak, less than 5,
NEVER  HAPPENED
in a shoe.

thanks

Absolutely 100%.  I have 7 shoes from 2 sessions I will post later today or tonight.  But yes, I have seen countless shoes without anything over a 4 repeat. 

1's and 2's will always happen.  3's are generally always there as well, so you can count on that.  4's and 5's usually do happen, but it is not rare if they do not happen for a few shoes.  If the table ran all night, say with 8 shoes being played, I would be very surprised if more than 2 shoes did not have numerous 4's and 5's.  But it is nothing to be totally floored at, by NOT seeing a 4 or a 5 repeat of B's or P's within 1 shoe.  Also, I have seen countless shoes with only one 4 or one 5 repeat (B or P) and everything else 1's, 2's and 3's.

Here is my saying: 1's, 2's and 3's will happen.  4's and 5's are common but might not appear every single shoe.  6's and 7's are not rare and also happen very frequently.  8's to 12's will happen and probably once or twice out of many shoes.  13's and above become rare and/or infrequent. 

Let me clarify this a bit, I said:  " 4's and 5's usually do happen, but it is not rare if they do not happen for a few shoes."  Within one shoe.  I would be very surprised, not floored, but surprised if that carried over to the following shoe at the same table as well.  But could of course.  I don't think I have ever seen more than 2 shoes consecutively at the same table with nothing over a 3 repeat. 

Just remember, no rhyme or reason or mandated outcome has to come out within a shoe or two or three. 

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

Thank you so much, Alrelax.!
appreciate them.

thus we can safely bet that streaks of three=100% must happen in every shoe!

and could devise a strategy to take advantage of this 100% happening...

streaks of 4&5, are risky,
streaks of 6 and more too risky....


another important question, in your thousands of shoes experience.
How many streak of 3, hit in a single shoes,....averages, and rarest, you ever seen?

thanks.

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

Hi Alrelax,

ppp=streaks
bbb=streaks


pbpbpb =aka chops,
also a streaks, which always happen...
is it impossible that pbpbpb never hit in a single shoe?

the shortest and longest , in your casino days?

[AsymBacGuy]

@alrelax: ty for your detailed answer.
Yes, I meant just what you supposed: banker can stand on a lot of initial points besides 0,1 or 2.

@beat-the-wheel:
the average number of 3+ streaks per every shoe is around 9.
Of course the median and mode values are inferior for obvious issues.

as.   

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

Thanks AS, for your reply.

thus if we RISKED, that MIGHT  averages nine ,
streaks of three,..in a shoe...

how could we devise a strategy around this averages?

OVERSIMPLIFIED EXAMPLE

Banker hit,
bet B will goes to three-streaks....but..
Player hit....lose...-2u
bet P will goes three streaks...then
Player...hit...parlay

[AsymBacGuy]

Hi BTW!

Transform your betting plan into a guessing of when Player side won't get a drawing hand.
Most of the time you'll get a drawing hand and even if could be winning you are a long term loser.

Your new aim is to guess when player will get a standing or natural point, both situations overwhelmed favorite to win. Itlr.

Therefore build a new 2 columns chart having S on left part and D on right part. Write the results (not the actual winning results) on such columns.
Do this per every shoe played.
Forget what really happens and forget what happens on Banker side.

Take care instead of what happened in the previous shoes at the same location.

Odds are that you'll get more isolated S than D and more D clusters than S clusters.
But the probability to get S or D is not so heavily shifted toward D and to get a kind of balancement along the way you must get some S streaks.
Of course when you think that a given S will be followed by a D bet banker, you can't be hugely wrong, actually you are slightly favorite.

as. 







   

[BEAT-THE-WHEEL]

 Hi AS,
with respect,

I read numerous time,
but my English not good, thus I can't really grasp what you wanna teach,


please make a long example,
will greatly appreciate them.
thanks in advance.

[Jimske]

Hi BTW!

Transform your betting plan into a guessing of when Player side won't get a drawing hand.
Most of the time you'll get a drawing hand and even if could be winning you are a long term loser.

Your new aim is to guess when player will get a standing or natural point, both situations overwhelmed favorite to win. Itlr.

Therefore build a new 2 columns chart having S on left part and D on right part. Write the results (not the actual winning results) on such columns.
Do this per every shoe played.
Forget what really happens and forget what happens on Banker side.

Take care instead of what happened in the previous shoes at the same location.

Odds are that you'll get more isolated S than D and more D clusters than S clusters.
But the probability to get S or D is not so heavily shifted toward D and to get a kind of balancement along the way you must get some S streaks.
Of course when you think that a given S will be followed by a D bet banker, you can't be hugely wrong, actually you are slightly favorite.

as.

"Take care instead of what happened in the previous shoes at the same location."  This bothers me.  I've done quite a bit of shuffle tracking back in my BJ days.  Okay, there's not a player cut in Baccarat anymore which would change the shoe order from one shoe to the next but . . .

Have you actually tracked live shoes by, say, half deck to see how the composition of low/high cards extended from one same color shoe to the next (1,3,5,7)?

How do you back up this claim?

[AsymBacGuy]

Hi AS,
with respect,

I read numerous time,
but my English not good, thus I can't really grasp what you wanna teach,


please make a long example,
will greatly appreciate them.
thanks in advance.

Think about this:

When you are betting the player side and player side is standing with 6,7,8 or 9 you'll win a lot of money; otherwise you are going to lose.

When you are betting the banker side and banker is drawing you are losing a lot of money.

Baccarat is a game where (among other secondary situations) P standing and B drawing are continuosly fighting.
Thus you cannot care less about P standing and B standing situations or P drawing and B drawing situations as they are almost always 50/50 placed.

The perfect bac plan is not trying to guess fkn trends or fkn winning situations, just to get a lot of standing P situations when betting P and a lot of standing B situations when betting B.

Those are what I name "fundamental baccarat laws".

Itlr, P hands are the result of P standing hands and B hands are the result of B standing hands.

Everything different from that is just a short term variance occurence.

as.
   

[AsymBacGuy]

"Take care instead of what happened in the previous shoes at the same location."  This bothers me.  I've done quite a bit of shuffle tracking back in my BJ days.  Okay, there's not a player cut in Baccarat anymore which would change the shoe order from one shoe to the next but . . .

Have you actually tracked live shoes by, say, half deck to see how the composition of low/high cards extended from one same color shoe to the next (1,3,5,7)?

How do you back up this claim?

Imo it's quite difficult to get a perfect shuffle of 8 decks either made manually or by CSM.
We know that even one single card burnt or changing position will alter entirely the BP results. Yet the probability to get a high card falling here or there remains, but we might think that per every shoe dealt the number of 8s and 9s (for example) won't be equal on either side.
The same about every other cards class.

It's not news that the game "war" (fundamentally a high card game) is perfectly beatable if any card is removed from the deck, no cards are burnt between hands and the deck is played almost entirely. And actually by now casinos use a CSM and burn a lot of cards (mainly for other reasons).

Baccarat is a more complex version of war but the principle remains the same and we can choose whenever we want which side to bet on.

The side having the two initial cards forming the higher point are largely favorite to win the hand.
Thus we have two opposite forces acting along the way: a natural very slight propensity to get a kind of "chopping" mood and the actual card distribution that tends to deny it as cards are clustered in some way by an imperfect shuffle (thus endorsing the streaks' formation).

Imo the trick is to ascertain when the first force overwhelme the second and vice versa. This could be done by the help of general probabilities and by the actual card distribution.

It's a kind of trend following not solely in terms of actual hands but in terms of cards falling here and there.

If we bet very few hands we could have a better picture of what is happening. 

as.

[Jimske]

I've always considered the problem being the order.  We may have a good idea of the composition  but the order makes the difference.