+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

We know that the vast majority of bac players like to following trends and surely such aficionados are well represented here.

We also know that the scientific counterpart world fully denies the possibility to get the best of it by a trend following (TF) strategy. In reality such scientific world denies every other opportunity to win on the long term (besides the old issue of card counting the side bets and stuff related to that), so we can argue that adopting a TF strategy won't do any worse than utilizing every other method.

Let's see first and generally speaking what could be the pros and cons of TF strategy.

Pros:

- Undoubtedly if we are able to find a valuable trend, we'll lose just one bet being every other possibility a winning one but the first wrong attempt and the losing end of the trend.

So a player must spot a trigger he/she thinks as a valuable one, he/she keep playing it until the opposite scenario will come out and then he/she must restart to find another valuable trigger spot.

- Choosing to bet toward some deviations tends to support the idea that equilibrium is a kind of exception in the chance outcomes, expecially considering a finite card dependent game like baccarat.

Therefore a player using a TF strategy wants to take advantage of the many deviations the game will provide.

- Deeply thinking and elaborating the above issue, there's no a single possibility to get an equilibrium over the bac outcomes, providing a careful assessment of those results (more on this later).

Cons.

- It's quite difficult to know from the start which direction will take place a given pattern, trend or outcomes' line along the way.

- No matter how good we are able to spot some possible valuable trends, we must accept the idea that everything will be almost always perfectly and proportionally placed with the opposite situations.

General considerations

"Ok", will say the TF lovers: "itlr we surely know to be long term losers, but we will be pleased to try to be winners on short human terms of intervention, as we don't care a bit about what will happen thereafter".

So it seems that the most important factor any TF lover would focus on will be the actual results over a forcefully restricted amount of played shoes.

Furthermore, some acute players will try to get the best of it adopting a TF strategy filtered by certain very long statistical shifted evidences.

Practical considerations

From a strict mathematical point of view and assuming one unit wagering, each TF strategy attempt will produce:

- 1 unit win if after every selected trigger we'll be right then we quit the betting.

- 1 unit loss after every selected trigger starting point of betting is a losing one (wrong trigger).

- an almost break even result (vig impact) if after any successful bet we'll lose the second one (WL pattern). 

- a temporary 1 unit profit (before vig) if we'll get a WLW sequence.

- a break even situation if we'll get a WLWL situation.

- many situations where W exceed L in a short amount of hands whereas many losing patterns are erased just from the first attempt, as we won't go any further after having missed the first favourable opportunity. 

Easy to notice that every TF strategy to be successful must have a higher amount of winning than losing bets right on the first wager.
The remaining winning combinations are definitely going uphill, either for variance and negative edge issues.

So for practical purposes any TF strategy should be directed to get a winning hand right after the trigger recognition.

Trying to force the WL ratio by a MM procedure whenever we didn't do any good after the trigger showing imo doesn't represent the best viable tool of options. Unless our TF precognition will be more restricted than what the game suggests.

Imo the main collateral effect every TF strategy will produce is about the frequency of such so called profitable bets.

Most players want to spot too many triggers, many of them trying to guess profitable triggers per every hand showing by a direct or reverse way of thinking.

What about letting go some fictional profitable triggers which went wrong or, even better, some statistically unexpected patterns that have shown up "too much"?

And what about a multiple trend and multi layered TF registration possibly capable to lower the variance and to enhance the probability to win?

It's the same thing I've found about a couple of precise patterns coming out more often than not and acting on quite long terms, still a very carefully multiple trend registration might lead to the same results.

as.   

[AsymBacGuy]

There are only four ways to get the best of it utilizing a TF strategy or, for that matter, any other winning strategy:

1- getting more W than L on the first trigger betting spots = flat betting winning strategy capable to invert the vig.

2- getting more W than L on an odd amount of wagers, knowing that after the first missed spot everything will become more and more logarithmical difficult.

3- hoping to spot the longer W streaks that the game will invariably provide, at the same time avoiding the shorter ones after a careful diversification of betting amount whether the former hadn't provide a long term positive expectation.

4- choosing the spots where the variance is more limited than usual so any decent MM could contain the game fluctuations.

Imo, 1 is the best point to focus on, then it's the point #2.
Point 3 is more difficult to assess as it's more diluted along the way.
Point 4 is the byproduct of the first two issues.

as. 


   



   

[AsymBacGuy]

An example of a real bac sequence.

BBBPBPPBBPBPPP

We want to find a trend.

B/P ratio = 7/7  = 1

singles/streaks = 4/4 = 1

doubles/3+s = 2/2 = 1

FTL strategy = -1

OTL strategy = 0

third FTL strategy = 0

fourth FTL stragey = 0

horizontal patterns by a two factor: 3-1-1-2-2-1-1-3 =   1s= 4, 2s= 2, 3s= 2 perfectly fitting the law of averages since 1 is twice more likely than 2s and 3s.

vertical patterns by a two step factor: BB, BP, BP, PB, BP, BP, PP.
BB =1, PP=1, BP=4  PB =1

vertical lines by a three step factor: BBB, BBP, BPB, PBP, BPP, PPB, PBB, BBP, BPB, PBP, BPP, PPP.
BBB = 1, BBP = 2, BPB = 2, BPP = 2; PPP = 1, PPB = 0, PBP = 2, PBB = 1.

Neglecting many other possible registrations, wholly considered this 14 hands sequence had provided just one "strong" pattern over the ten accounted.

We also notice that just in one spot over the 14 considered, we got 1+ unit profit always providing to wager the most likely occurence happened.


as.   













 

[AsymBacGuy]

Of course further registrations of the above sequence will provide other deviated situations:
3s isolated vs 3s clustered, 3s vs 3+s, each providing a 2/0 ratio.

There's no way to get a perfect equilibrium over a shoe sequence. In a way or another.

So imo we better choose the multiple deviation spots oriented to get the same chance result, naturally chasing the mininum profit.
And such occurences are quite rare, because we cannot expect to be "too" right and to get a huge profit playing an EV game.   

as. 

[roversi13]

Very nice posts.
IMHO an interesting way of playing is to bet in favour of an unbalanced session.
In 100 hands,the most probable unbalance between P and B is 10(square root)
When the unbalance reaches 5,start playing in order to reach 10.
To reach 6 or 7 is enough for my style of playing and I play only B....
The same tactic in a lower number of spins(20 or even 50) doesn't work.

[Wewin2222]

Good Points...I would also add that it is important to understand the type of shoe you are playing. Some shoes will be very similar to shoes you've played in the past. I recently played at a casino that had a shoe that was very choppy so I made money betting on the chop. The very next shoe had very few singles or chop. It was full of Two's. Identify the type of shoe is very important.

Wewin2222

[AsymBacGuy]

Very nice posts.
IMHO an interesting way of playing is to bet in favour of an unbalanced session.
In 100 hands,the most probable unbalance between P and B is 10(square root)
When the unbalance reaches 5,start playing in order to reach 10.
To reach 6 or 7 is enough for my style of playing and I play only B....
The same tactic in a lower number of spins(20 or even 50) doesn't work.

Thanks.

Yeah, providing a decent amount of trials the probability to get the expected average deviation is slight higher on those situations getting closer to that value. Or at least it's less likely the silent situations will get that point before the already deviated counterparts.

Good Points...I would also add that it is important to understand the type of shoe you are playing. Some shoes will be very similar to shoes you've played in the past. I recently played at a casino that had a shoe that was very choppy so I made money betting on the chop. The very next shoe had very few singles or chop. It was full of Two's. Identify the type of shoe is very important.

Wewin2222

Thanks.

Nothing wrong with your words.
Still the proper detection of the exploitable unbalancements running per every single shoe is very difficult, not to say impossible.


Again we are back to the first TF attempt and to the class of each TF attempts tried within a single shoe.
So our first step, at least from testing purposes, should be to register how many W or L we've gotten on such first TF attempts. 

Mathematicians will be repeating to us that every attempt will be 50/50 placed no matter what.
Besides the fact that if I'm betting B side on every of those first attempts my average winning probability will be 50.68/49.32 and not 50/50, for a moment let's say is a steady 50/50.

I continue to stress about the importance of taking care of the very first bet as it's the most winnable one by any means.

Since we're just testing, we don't want to put any bet on the layout but only registering our best first attempts to get something by a whatever TF strategy.

In a word, we consider the game just as an infinite cluster of first wagers in the form of W and L.

After having be mentally crushed by some crazy asymb guy about the importance of wagering very few hands, let's say we want to play just 6 hands per shoe, that is an average of one time over 10 hands, giving some room to more hands just in case.
The BS is a sort of anyone personal TF strategy, strict or dynamic it doesn't matter.

We run the shoes and we register the outcomes in form of W or L. Any exceeding possible betting hand will be erased, as we want to register 6 W/L hands per shoe.

So we'll have:

WLLLLW
LWLWLL
LLLLLL
LWWWLL and so on...

After a decent amount of trials it won't be so difficult to see if our TF strategy had the best of it: over the possible 64 six-hand combinations and assuming a simple flat betting strategy (again, no FB winning strategy = no party, IMO), if we had had more than the average expected 32 first W combination we think to be in good shape. The same if the LWW starting combinations had outnumbered the LWL opposite patterns. Every other W combination or break even combination will get us going uphill.

In the other unfortunate scenario (having the same probability, will say the mathematicians) where we have registered more losing patterns than winning ones, only two possibilities are worth to be discussed:

a- the negative variance even if considered on fair long trials had caught us.

b- our TF strategy is a real sh.it.

Nevertheless this way of concentrating the results might be studied on several other angles.

For example, now we can evaluate the results shoe per shoe and by a very restricted amount of hands we're interested to bet (or observe).

Even utilizing the most unsuccessful TF strategy the bac world has ever known, we must accept the idea that we're playing a restricted amount of humanly chosen hands into a finite card dependent and asymmetrical game.
So we are betting an unrandomly conceived method into another partially unrandom system.

In a word and for example, the probability to get the exact same WL dispositions into two or more consecutive shoes is slightly different from the known assumption that everything will be proportionally placed.
We are playing the possible humanly conceived deviations into a multiple deviated system.

Naturally if we have ascertained that the sequences steadily got more W than L, we don't have to make any statistical arrangement.

The same procedure could be done on the second or third FT strategy attempts, knowing that now we are proportionally and logarithmically going uphill, unless we've considered the first attempt as a fictional one (so in a sense lowering the efficacy of our TF strategy).

Imo, even not getting a sure advantage of some more likely distributions, a decent and well diluted TF strategy could control the outcomes in some way.

as. 
















 























     





 







       













 













 

[Wewin2222]

Asymbacguy...IMHO and what I have observed, Baccarat is a game of identifying the shoe and playing what is happening. Ie if it's a choppy shoe then you can trust it and wager on it. If it's not chopping than you can wager against the singles. These are just examples of course but the point I am trying to make is Baccarat is not a game of math.

Why?

1) I would submit to you that they're many reasons but I will sum it up in my own experience. I see the same things happen over & over again, shoe after shoe.....Run, Chop, Two's ect.

2) I have seen nearly 40 Banks in a row with 3 or 4 Players mixed in with a couple of ties. Math would say that this is not possible in a game that's 50 / 50.

3) However this is not a coin flip game, it is a game of cards with rules involved. However I think I am successful at this game because I understand it inside and out and sometimes it's hard to put that in words because not everyone has the same experience to understand what you would like to tell them.

Wewin2222

[plolp]

An example of a real bac sequence.

BBBPBPPBBPBPPP


I noticed a trend of reverse symmetry

B
B
B
     P
B
     P
     P
__________axe
B
B
     P
B
     P
     P
     P

[Wewin2222]

Plolp- Good observation but how do you know when it is going to do a reverses sequence? You are absolutely correct because it is a reverse sequence but I would aquate this to how do you know when it's going to run or chop.

1) How often does this happen and when can I trust it.

Good observation however.

Wewin2222

[plolp]

The symmetry and reverse symmetry are strong trends to simple chances.
We can attack in a systematic way but also in a special way.

[plolp]

We can try to detect if the trend is symmetry whose axis is between prints or above.
The above example was a symmetry whose axis is between the results

[AsymBacGuy]

Asymbacguy...IMHO and what I have observed, Baccarat is a game of identifying the shoe and playing what is happening. Ie if it's a choppy shoe then you can trust it and wager on it. If it's not chopping than you can wager against the singles. These are just examples of course but the point I am trying to make is Baccarat is not a game of math.

Why?

1) I would submit to you that they're many reasons but I will sum it up in my own experience. I see the same things happen over & over again, shoe after shoe.....Run, Chop, Two's ect.

2) I have seen nearly 40 Banks in a row with 3 or 4 Players mixed in with a couple of ties. Math would say that this is not possible in a game that's 50 / 50.

3) However this is not a coin flip game, it is a game of cards with rules involved. However I think I am successful at this game because I understand it inside and out and sometimes it's hard to put that in words because not everyone has the same experience to understand what you would like to tell them.

Wewin2222

Hi wewin. Well if you state that baccarat isn't a math game you must provide the proofs confirming your assumption and if you are able to demonstrate it you'll be awarded the Fields medal along with a chair at MIT.

Probably you wanted to say that baccarat might be attacked by some statistical angles but this a totally another thing sailing into the empirical ocean world (btw, I'm a sailor of this last category).

About your points:

1) Your observation suggests the idea that along the way certain FUTURE patterns are recognizable in some way. Nothing wrong with it. They do are. But very rarely placed.

2) Math states the opposite thing you've sayed: everything will be possible itlr, not only 40 Bankers mixed with just 3-4 Players, but also 40 or 50 or more straight Bankers in a row. It's just a question of time.

3) I absolutely agree on that. But don't forget that imo and in the opinion of my very long trials either the card composition and the third card rule features always work within very diluted terms.

as.

   

   

[AsymBacGuy]

We can try to detect if the trend is symmetry whose axis is between prints or above.
The above example was a symmetry whose axis is between the results

Thanks for your contribute.

This post is all about sharing any trend following strategy or idea one is willing to expose. I just gave the prompt.

After all and as already stated by many, without getting an edge any TF strategy won't be worse than any other method and you never know whether a specific TF line could get some long term favourable results.

as. 

   

[Jimske]

2) I have seen nearly 40 Banks in a row with 3 or 4 Players mixed in with a couple of ties. Math would say that this is not possible in a game that's 50 / 50.

A lot of people think this way.  Ellis continually spoke of impossible odds against certain occurrences.  It may seem "impossible" for such rare occurrences but actually the opposite is true.  It would be impossible to NOT see such rare events within the realm of random numbers given an infinite number of trials.  Consider a single person winning certain lottery events multiple times.  Seemingly impossible.  It happens.