BetSelection.cc
Highlighted => AsymBacGuy => Topic started by: AsymBacGuy on June 28, 2019, 09:10:24 pm

Gambling experts as well as casino's supervisors are really laughing when they read all the bighornshit we're writing about baccarat on the net.
Not mentioning the miriad of magical system sellers that for just $49.99 promise us millionaire profits.
As long as we can't (or we do not want to) demonstrate a verifiable math edge we are just fooling ourselves and the world.
That means that all efforts made to find exploitable ways to beat the house are totally worthless, confirmed by the huge profits casinos make by offering bac tables.
Probably the best player ever known in the history of baccarat was Akio Kashiwagi, a japanese real estate guru who put in some trouble mr D. Trump who gladly accepted very huge bets from him at one of his AC property.
It's ascertained Kashiwagi adopted a kind of trend following strategy by wagering a kind of flat betting approach. That is he knew very well that in order to beat a game, tax apart, one must get more winning hands than losing ones.
Furthermore, by flat betting he knew he was going to lose around 1% at worst.
Naturally Trump took advice from the best math gambling expert of the time who suggested to let him play as long as possible in order to get the negative edge fully working against him.
And actually this thing happened even though Kashiwagi (that was shot dead shortly afterwards) was still ahead in the process.
Of course even if Kashiwagi played a quite huge amount of hands but not enough to constitute a "long term" scenario by any means, we must give him some credit that his strategy was good.
To get a clearer example of what Kashiwagi did, try to flat bet 60/70 shoes and let us know how many bets you are winning or losing. Knowing that he wagered a large amount of hands dealt, the answer will be very likely placed on the negative side.
Therefore a question #1 arises: does a sophisticated trend following strategy lower in some way the math negative edge?
Was K. playing a kind of trend following strategy mixed with something else?
I have chosen to mention A.K. as it's my firm belief that in order to win one must spot more W than L situations as no progression could get the best of it when L<W, especially when wagering a lot of hands per shoe.
Truth to be told, I do not think that a strict trend following strategy could get the best of it, but I tend not to disregard such possibility at least in order to lower the negative edge.
More to come.
as.

Indeed Kashiwagi was a brilliant player but he didn't fit to the "pros" category.
Undoubtedly around the globe there are few people who make a living by playing baccarat and they like to go unnoticed for obviuos reasons.
They are not there for gambling but to win. And not to win astronomical sums but to win. Consistently.
It's funny (euphemism) that such people wager very few spots or at least using a large spread on certain hands giving to the house the illusion of action.
Many do not care a bit about comps, they pretend not to know what a player's card is.
They do not want their play to be registered.
Despite of what many could think, casinos do not like baccarat winners and generally speaking they adopt an old statement telling that any player being ahead after playing 80 hours isn't welcome as in some way he/she surpassed the "math" test.
Well, baccarat is an unbeatable game but we never know. We (casinos) expect to win and we do want to win. Period.
The common trait of those players is they wager very few hands, almost always quitting the table after getting relatively small profits and, most importantly, they don't like to chase losses.
In the sense that after two or three losses in a row they tend to lose interest to that shoe.
It's like they are playing a kind of blackjack card counting strategy. Selecting the spots to bet, look at the outcome and keep the results whatever they are.
That is a complete different approach made by most bac players worldwide.
Now let's take the casino's part.
We know that some successful bj $20$80 spread bet counters are going to be barred, what about the possibility that bac can be beaten by bets of $400, $500 or more?
After all so far every math expert says such thing isn't possible. Actually only side bets can be beaten mathematically.
That's the worst assumption they can make as their only hope to win money at bac tables remains upon the probability that most bac players like to gamble, that is betting a lot of hands and trying to guess the unguessable. Or that the game can be beaten by progressions.
Remember that if any side bet is beatable, BP bets are more beatable. It's only up to us.
as.

Indeed baccarat can be beat in the long run. This is what I have been waiting to hear. Many spend a life time trying to find strategies to beat every shoe and guess every single hand. Once can actually win without any strategy as long as they have a good approach.
One can randomly guess and use random size bets. Leave when one is up and recover when down. It takes great discipline. Key is a huge bankroll and reasonable win expectation.

Indeed baccarat can be beat in the long run. This is what I have been waiting to hear. Many spend a life time trying to find strategies to beat every shoe and guess every single hand. Once can actually win without any strategy as long as they have a good approach.
One can randomly guess and use random size bets. Leave when one is up and recover when down. It takes great discipline. Key is a huge bankroll and reasonable win expectation.
Actually it's quite likely the few who make a living at this game adopt this strategy as any serious player knows that it's literally impossible to beat every single shoe or hand. I mean that even getting a verified math advantage of 2% one is going to endure inevitable harsh losing sessions.
Anyway the conclusive word would come whenever we find a long term edge by flat betting and obviously this conclusion must be strictly intended as a randomness defect.
There are no other ways to get an edge if we are playing a perfect "random" math negative game.
I got the confidence that around 80% of total live shoes are not properly shuffled or that they present intrinsic card distribution flaws, it's up to us to find how and when those features could help us.
Good post Babu.
as.

The theory according to which we should beat this wondeful silly game is quite simple:
even though the negative math edge remains constant, the probability of success on certain spots will be higher than expected.
This supposedly raised probability is caused by many factors:
 bad shuffles
 actual asym/sym hands ratio
 asym hands outcomes
 nature of winning points
 strong points winning or losing
 key cards producing or not a winning hand
 actual finite distribution related to the expected long term distribution
 other
In some way this theory aims to take advantage of the past in order to partially estimate the future.
Easy to see that generally speaking the more was the past assessed, better will be the chances to guess the future.
After all we need to guess right just very few spots.
as.

The partial unrandomness of the shoe is the main reason why we could beat this game itlr.
Such conclusion may be deduced empirically or by strict scientific methods, of course most players use the first approach as it takes a quite long work to demonstrate scientifically that any single LIVE shoe isn't true randomly generated.
Since the definition of real randomness is a complex and very debated subject and 312 or 416 cards working into an asymmetrical physical finite model cannot be properly shuffled by any means, we know for sure that most of our bets are placed into a non perfect random world.
A pretty exhaustive proof comes from putting in motion dozens of "random walks" applied to the same outcomes springing from the same shoe and then repeating the process for the next shoes.
Therefore what we tend to classify as a "normal deviation" happening into a single shoe is instead a unrandom product working at various degrees.
It's quite surprisingly that some successful players I know can ascertain that by just watching at what is happening, still the common denominator (without exception) is that they play very few hands.
People who make a living at games want to wager upon the probability that something isn't going to happen and not that distant probabilities come in their favor.
We see that the goal to make a tiny profit per a given series of shoes isn't a so appealing task to most bac players.
That's why they are entitled to lose forever and fortunately this is the reason why the game is still alive.
as.

Any of the table games can have a tiny profit more often than a larger one. Of course, 'tiny' and 'larger' or both subjective to whatever amount each player is dealing with. But for comparison, say buying in with $1,000.00 playing with $25.00/$50.00 wagers would be relatively easier to walk away quickly with a $50.00 or even a $100.00 win than it would be to walk away with a $2,500.00 or a $3,000.00 win wagering the same amounts.
Of course as you mentioned, problems arise when the players repeatably wager for additional wins consistently using whatever method of wagering they are subscribing to, etc.
The larger the wins, the larger the wagering unitsusually lead most players to attempting the continued win or additional wins within a relatively short period of time after the initial session wins. Easy to talk about here, harder to realize when you are table side and engaged in wagering as Lungyeh pointed out previously.

You are absolutely correct.
The main problem is that we can't expect to get consistent profits from a negative edge game, let alone huge profits.
What we can do is trying to exploit the game's flaws and, fortunately, there are many of them.
Math needs some time to fully take its power, we should act in the same way by opposite reasons.
as.

One thing for sure.
The probability to win itlr playing a random EV game (even if taking into account that bac is a finite and card dependent propositon) is zero.
There's no way to "read randomness", maybe to grasp some hints about the partial unrandomness of the game.
Only unrandomness, when properly assessed, could enlarge the probablity of success on certain spots.
And the best way to estimate such possible unrandomness is to study several different random walks applied to the main outcomes.
as.

One of the best tool to confirm or deny that this game is really beatable is to put on one side a real live bettor and on the other one a mechanical player who places the bets in a perfect randomly fashion (for example wagering B if the previous first card hand was red or P if it was black).
Of course the first player will get a slight less disadvantage if he happen to bet only Banker side but we know this isn't the strategy to win itlr. So we assume that even the first player will proportionally place his bets 50/50.
Mathematicians, experts, etc, will say there will be no difference in the final outcomes of both players. That means that both players build two different random walks getting the same long term disadvantage.
Therefore the only way to suppose a possible edge of player #1 is to study the hands distribution, trying to grasp hints of the previous outcomes in order to guess future hands by a better than 50/50 ratio.
In a word, player #1 tries to partially transform a random game into a unrandom game, a luxury denied to player #2 who must "passively" place his bets.
Now say that besides his own plan, the first player can take into account what happens to player #2.
Considering each shoe, most of the times player #2 outcomes will flow with relatively low pattern deviations, in few situations player #2 will find himself into a strong positive or negative territory.
as.

I know that eminent experts as M. Shakleford, E. Jacobsen, J. May are laughing at me when I'm presenting those ideas, but I can assure you by 1 trillion certainty that this fkng game can be beat on B/P hands with an astounding positive edge.
Simply put, they do not know what to look for.
as.

@Asymbacguy,
If you can play with any logic that can be told and made to understand to others too, it can be tested, programmed and played mechanically too. If you play with any gifted capacity of precognition that you are unable to transfer to others, it can neither be transferred nor anybody else can imitate ever. So, let us all know in which way, you "think" it is beatable?

Gentlemen,
I think the keyword,
"be patient and wait for the probabilities to work..."
Thus a pro will wait, or play flat bet..virtually, til harsh losing or "harsh winning ", happened, that against the math holy HE....say, 5, 6, 7, or 10% winning or losing...
and then bet the reversed, faithfully for that harsh to succumbed to the holy math house edge

@Asymbacguy,
If you can play with any logic that can be told and made to understand to others too, it can be tested, programmed and played mechanically too. If you play with any gifted capacity of precognition that you are unable to transfer to others, it can neither be transferred nor anybody else can imitate ever. So, let us all know in which way, you "think" it is beatable?
The logic is pretty simple but quite complicated to be put in practice.
And unfortunately I can't read randomness, the only one capable to do that is gizmotron.
No one mechanical system can work into an EV game unless is capable to pass all the "unfortunate" situations that could come along after thousands and thousands of trials.
Nonetheless we know for sure that a large part of different random walks will be winners at the end of the shoe.
We do not know how much they will be winners but they surely will.
On the other end and for obvious reasons, on average a larger random walks part is going to lose no matter what.
Have to run. later.
as.

Only people featuring two neurons but no neurotrasmitter could think to beat a EV random game (Junketamine King is the first on the list).
Especially if such people keep thinking that every single baccarat decision will be a random 50/50 proposition.
That's why one of the best tools we could use is to put in action several random walks working by different parameters, this in order to really ascertain if the outcomes' distribution is really random or not.
It's mathematicallly certain that only unrandom distributions working into a EV game can be beaten itlr.
And it's funny to see that some (rare) brilliant players have realized that empirically just by long term observations.
as.

Randomness definition is a quite complicated issue, many think that flipping a fair coin is a valid example of randomness but it isn't.
The real problem gamblers have to face is to ascertain whether the outcomes are simple products of a random unbeatable generation or if they are affected in some way by unrandom features.
Of course and that's where the problem stands, itlr different unrandom generations tend to converge forming random results. So we can easily think that a long succession of different baccarat results will fall no distant from the expected values.
And this conclusion is totally correct.
Moreover, it's a total waste of time to think to beat a so called perfect random software production (baccarat buster, etc) or, even worse, to test a given method into a succession of live outcomes coming out from different sources.
For obvious reasons, a possible unrandomness should be always assessed in a situation where a large number of constant parameters is fulfilled.
The final decisive role is played by key cards distribution and nothing else.
And since any card counting tool isn't going to give us any help, we must put in action several r.w. that must reflect such distribution, even though being approximated.
In conclusion, baccarat is beatable if we can estimate at a decent value that the shoe we're playing is affected by some unrandomness, otherwise we are losing money.
as.

"The real problem gamblers have to face is to ascertain whether the outcomes are simple products of a random unbeatable generation or if they are affected in some way by unrandom features."
Absolutely!

In few days I'll try to explain how a possible unrandomness could be the key to beat this game.
If you think that baccarat could be beaten you are reading the right pages.
as.

Instead of thinking about outcomes we should focus about cards distribution.
Do not forget that a large portion of hands will be resolved by the first four cards dealt alternatively.
For example, if we could bet about getting at least a natural point on either side this game wouldn't exist as a large part of hands will be determined right after the first cards are dealt.
We do not know which side will be kissed by such natural but we know that more than 1/3 of the time this event will happen.
Notice that when a natural will land, the game is a perfect coin flip proposition, meaning that there's no point to bet Banker. That is we're betting a zero negative edge game either on Player bets and on Banker bets at EZ tables.
Of course naturals are more likely when formed by a ten8 or ten9 combination than by the other card possibilities and 8s and 9s favor Banker only when dealt as fifth card (asym hands).
Therefore when we think that the next four cards will contain at least one of the possible 64 8s/9s, we know that it's more likely to get a natural.
Now, each of the all possible 64 cards rank will be distributed asymmetrically and the more such asymmetricity will be present better is the probability to assess their impact over the next outcomes.
And aces, 2s or 3s, for example, will involve a larger less impact than other key cards because they are going to produce more drawing hands than standing hands.
No way itlr a drawing hand will be favorite to win, especially at Player side.
But as players we are forced to work into an infinite succession of finite distributions.
After long tests made on live shoes compared to pc generated shoes, we've found that the more the key ranks are asymmetrically distributed, better are the chances to guess which side will be favorite to win on very few spots.
It's like as a given pattern should be more due than expected and obviously such thing cannot happen per every shoe dealt.
Thus the main problem is concentrated to spot the shoes which are really playable and neglect those which aren't.
And the fortune of casinos is that 99.99% of bac players want to guess every shoe dealt no fkng matter what.
as.

Itlr key cards are dealt asymmetrically by any means.
Itlr drawing hands and standing/naturals points are dealt asymmetrically by any means.
Itlr any four card point higher than the opposite four card point is going to win by a nearly 2:1 ratio and, of course, is dealt asymmetrically.
Itlr any third card helping or not the Player side is dealt asymmetrically and the same is true about the sixth card.
Besides the original increasing order made manually, per any deck different ranks are dealt asymmetrically.
Baccarat is a game of constant asymmetricity working at different values.
as.

Nice Asym!
Please continue.

Hi Dilon, thanks! ;)
Let's take the shoe as a succession of fresh decks, the card distribution is A,2,3,4,5....K
We'll deal the cards in a baccarat game.
First hand: Player A, 3 Banker 2,4 drawing card is 5. Player wins by 9 over B 6.
Second hand: Player 6, 8 Banker 7, 9. drawing card is a 10. Banker wins with a 6.
Third hand: Player J, K Banker Q, A. Drawing cards are 2 and 3. Banker wins with 4 vs P 2.
Fourth hand: Player 4, 6 Banker 5, 7. drawing cards are 8 and 9. Player wins with 8 vs 1.
Fifth hand: Player 10, Q banker J, K. Drawing cards are A and 2. Banker wins with 2 vs 1.
Sixth hand: Player 3,5 Banker 4,6. Player wins by a natural 8.
Seventh hand: 7, 9 Banker 8, 10 Banker wins with a natural 8.
Eight hand: Player J, K Banker QA Drawing cards are 2 and 3. Banker wins with 4 vs 2.
After this hand the process repeats infinitely up to the end of the shoe.
Let's see what happened in those eight hands:
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
We see that only hand #2 produced an asymmetrical hand and such probability is way larger than expected (12.5% vs the real 8.4%).
The increasing rank order of the deck of course helps the side acting last (Banker) but it's more interesting to notice what an homogeneous rank distribution (13/13) will act in terms of outcomes even though the cards are not featuring a perfect increasing order.
as.

Bro, I really tried to comprehend your approach over the years but truth be told, it?s intellectually beyond me.
From your examples given, in real life could you predict what card sequences will take place in the subsequent hand and then bet accordingly?
Please forgive me ignorance. Stay blessed, you and yours

Hi dear Lungyeh.
Imo and according to my studies there are only two kind of favourable card distributions for the players:
 an astounding homogeneously rank distribution or
 a heavy key cards distribution shifting to one side.
Notice that I'm not talking about real outcomes as itsr (in the short run) they could take whimsical shapes.
Thus I'm focusing about ranks and key cards.
Everything falling in between will act in house's favor itlr, no matter if we are lucky, geniuses or whatever.
Now, it's virtually impossible to physically put ranks and key cards for long not belonging to one of those two categories, a thing that only a software can do.
Fortunately at the time I'm writing CSM and manually shuffled shoes can't refrain to produce favourable card distributions, especially CSM as when the same deck is "biased" it remains biased for at least 23 more shoes.
Of course that doesn't mean that the same deck is going to produce the same outcomes' lines.
At high stakes rooms where each deck is fresh, house will get a higher advantage over the players and it's not a coincidence that some serious players want to bet very few hands or not at all if things are not fitting their plan.
We can bet everything we have on our name that it's quite easy to spot the players who make a living at this game: they perfectly adhere to the black jack rule where no midentry is allowed as they'll join the table from the start.
as.

Dr B. Kaiser magistrally stated in his book that
people who make their living at numbers are always more comfortable dealing with the high likelihood of something's not happening than the slim chance of a rare event's occurring
In some sense, rarity works for casinos as give the players the illusion to beat the game (bac players like to bet toward long homogenous situations) and common events work for serious and patient players unless rarity come out.
Therefore in order to consistently win we must restrict the rarity appearance trying to take advantage of the most likely situations.
And only an accurate card distribution study could help us to define better the issue.
as.

I know at least a dozen of players making a living at this game and the common trait is they make very few bets. Some of them know a 0.1% of what me and you know about the game, yet they are long term winners.
Mathematically this move is sound. Since the game remains EV, the probability to be ahead of something will be higher when betting very few hands, say that the best move is to wager everything only one time.
If in this precise instant every bac player in the world will wager Banker, casinos will lose money as B>P even though Banker is payed less than 1:1.
After this hypothetical hand, casinos will win money no matter what.
Obviously if casinos will lose money, players will get something of it.
And altogether obvious is the fact that the more we stay and play the better we are liked by casinos.
Ask the casinos if they would like to fade ten $20.000 wagers made on ten different occasions or if they'd like more ten $20k hands made on the same session.
Mathematically it doesn't change their expectation. In practical terms this simple different approach means a lot.
More on that later.
as.

I know at least a dozen of players making a living at this game and the common trait is they make very few bets. Some of them know a 0.1% of what me and you know about the game, yet they are long term winners. (Anything is possible, simpler is easier. However, as you and most other know, I have written extensively about the casinos, the psych, the downfalls, the players mind frames and control, etc., etc. Lots of things come into play and yet, very few of us realize what actually influence us in making decisions at the table. One of the easiest and most successful betting selections in Bac is 3 and out. Waiting for that 3rd repeat B or P and wagering for the cut. If a person has a decent bank roll, he can snatch up so many 3 or even 4 and outs, than probably anything else, IMO at the Bac table. But of course the person must be prepared to do a negative Marty for one or two or three or four additional bets. Coming up across a 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 repeating B or P streak is usually not the case in every shoe. Agreed? However it does happen and if a person proceeds to do a negative Marty against same, it is easily a wipe out and hard and long to make up the loss. Each of us play different and each of us have different experiences and thoughts on the game.)
Mathematically this move is sound. Since the game remains EV, the probability to be ahead of something will be higher when betting very few hands, say that the best move is to wager everything only one time. (Yes fewer is better for the base win and a win of chips for a person to feel good about and play off of, but all that depends once again, on frame of mind, control, expectations and overall psych of the player. Again, so much comes into play and contributes to the persons thought process, not just the bet selection. We are all or at least most of us, influenced by numerous things at the table. Easy to talk about here, harder at the table to apply it all and walk with small or initial winnings.)
If in this precise instant every bac player in the world will wager Banker, casinos will lose money as B>P even though Banker is payed less than 1:1. ( What do you mean paid less? Are you referring to 5% commission? If you are, not very hard to find an EZ Bac, or other commission free game any longer in most all casinos in the USA. Some do not have that but across the street or down the street does.)
After this hypothetical hand, casinos will win money no matter what. (Depends on how long and how intense and what the persons goals are in playing. The player (if this is what you are referring to) that plays relentlessly for the pot of gold each and every time, will lose far greater than what he will win if he plays long hours, every day, day in and day out, IMO. There might be a very trivial few that can survive long hours at a casino each and every day, and win or at least break even on a long tern and a consistent everyday basis. Again, IMO.)
Obviously if casinos will lose money, players will get something of it. (Please see the attached link. Of course some will come on here and other boards, coping and pasting detailed defenses to what I am about to post, but no one knows the financial position of the players. Some might have lost far greater than those wins and yet others, might be ahead of the game. It depends on a persons wagering amounts and time played in comparison to your wins and losses. Unfortunately for most all players, I DID NOT SAY ALL, I said most all, will wager larger and harder once they begin to lose a session and that is their downfall. As well, the have almost zero management skills as to current and instant win money they happened to capitalize on).
LINK>>> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/20170728/wynnresortsmacaucasinobooksstaggeringblackswangamblingloss
And altogether obvious is the fact that the more we stay and play the better we are liked by casinos. (Yes, and that is the huge suck in and hold for most players, especially their first several years of playing.)
Ask the casinos if they would like to fade ten $20.000 wagers made on ten different occasions or if they'd like more ten $20k hands made on the same session. (It does not matter to the casino. They account for it by the table min. Most places, I SAID MOST, so people do not challenge, the average table min for a $20k wager is going to be $300 to $500. Some casino properties might be different, but the average goes, $25/$50 to $5,000, $100 to $10k, $200 to $15k, $300/$500 to $20k/$25k off the street no front money table limits. There are some properties that might vary, but that is the average).
Mathematically it doesn't change their expectation. In practical terms this simple different approach means a lot.
as.

Thanks for your inputs Al, I need time to respond.
Generally speaking, by now I'm only attending HS rooms where players like to follow any kind of pattern, mostly "human" WL patterns. That is they care more about the various players' destiny than what the display shows.
And it's not a coincidence that every long term winner won't place any money on side bets.
In some way I tend to disagree with that.
as.

Pro players take fully advantage from the "time" factor. The same thing why the house is getting enormous profits: time.
Itlr favourable situations to the player will arise no matter the math disadvantage, say that after four resolved hands (no ties), if we put in action 16 players wagering 16 different patterns we know for sure that two of them will get respectively a 4hand winning or losing streak, the remaining players will get at least one winning or losing hand.
Of course that's based on the law of averages that in practical terms never apply to any game, otherwise casinos wouldn't exist. But it's just a matter of time and values will correspond more and more to such proportions.
In a sense, bac pro players wouldn't give a damned fk about the math disadvantage as they know very well that house cannot hope to get the perfect opposite situations capable to destroy every player's selection for long.
For long.
The same for the player's expectation. For long.
Now we should set up our plan in two ways. Either we want to fight with the house by betting that outcomes will come out more deviated than expected (and naturally we'll privilege the deviated side) or that things will more or less come out according to their probability.
To assess what to bet, meaning which lines will be more likely or not (in terms of probability of success) we have put in action 100 different random walks working on each shoe emphasizing what we named a "limited random walk" category. And time plays a huge role, especially when limited by a finite card distribution.
Differently to the random walk concept described in P. Griffin book, for example, at baccarat any random walk will be hugely affected by a finite card distribution and by the asymmetrical force acting here and there on the shoe.
We may infer that most part of random walks are not following a perfect 50/50 proposition not only because on average one side gets a 15.86% advantage on 8.6% portion of total hands, but as finite card ranks are whimsically placed along the same shoe and not favoring deeply one side or another.
That's why a simple card counting strategy won't get the player any substantial help, even though is made by a sophisticated software.
In fact, a simple card counting strategy is just a form of one simple random walk getting deep deviations and almost always no valuable predictivity.
To say the truth, the so called "baccarat perfect strategy" presented in some books is just bighornshi.t and not only because it will make insignificant profits.
We better adopt a silly "follow the lucky or contrast the unlucky" betting strategy (when it seems to be applicable) as at least it will involve more than one random walk.
The partial unrandomness of the shoe, a well known factor by almost every pro player, remains the main factor why this game may be beatable itlr.
At baccarat there are no hunches or superstition or supernatural forces working, cards are there and the fact that some players seem to guess right or wrong for long must be interpreted just as a natural product of a random walk.
I mean that time remains a huge factor to try to get an advantage, but if cards are perfectly or almost perfectly shuffled we are wasting money and that's why I stress about the importance to not play some shoes or to wager very few hands per shoe.
as.

Thus the main problem is concentrated to spot the shoes which are really playable and neglect those which aren't.
Hi Asymbacguy,
I am walkingman this is my first post in this forum, I would like to share my style of play ot everybody hopefully i can contribute my experience excuse on my english im not good at it. Here how I play
My MM is mild fibonacci and mild Marti and sometime 1112222233333 I got it from GG forum.
BS : DBL ZZ/ fixed Template BBP , My prime BS 4 trigger bets
Sample of my one trigger bets is the three opposite then bet same same opposite then use three separate bank progression each of the trigger pattern, have a small goal . and the most important don't stay one table once you win a bet move to other table. four trigger bets will never be equal in appearance so other may loss but the remaining is your profit. I strictly play short time If get my 10 units goal in 2 shoe it will be bye bye. as frankie said I do it in my way ( from ITS MY LIFE BY BON JOVI) My favorite rock band. Believe this is a very good method to play
Walking man

Welcome and thanks for sharing.
In the short run every method seems to be good mostly as players try to raise the probability of success in every way (progressions, bet selection widely intended, following or not trends or lucky/unlucky players, etc) but itlr every attempt will be of no avail to consistently win.
We need more than that.
For example we have been playing successfully "for long" a very simple method: we simply bet that a new Banker hand was followed by another single Banker hand (that is betting B after PB) utilizing a 124 progression.
Anytime this progression failed (meaning that a cluster of three or more B singles appeared) and whenever a new B streak trigger came out, we raised our standard unit to 2, now wagering 248, then 4816 and so on until the deficit was proportionally and slowly recovered step by step.
Even if it could sound as silly, this system has a math foundation as itlr PBB>PBP, B streaks are more likely than B singles, isolated B singles are more likely than clustered B singles and so on.
In a word and even taking into account the vig burden, the probability to be ahead of something along the way is close to 100%.
Notice that patterns as BPPPPBPPPBPPBPBP....will produce "just" three losses as the betting is stopped until a new B streak comes out.
If you test your data you'll see that a twostep martingale failing won't come out so often and of course you need a kind of balancement to get a consistent long term profit.
The main problem to overcome is to get a decent distribution of winning and losing shoes, nonetheless is just a matter of time to recover any deficit.
But if you look more carefully to those shoes producing a lot of B singles clusters and few B streaks you'll see a kind of clustercluster effect.
The reason is because such shoes will present few asymmetrical hands, asymmetrical hands went "wrong" for B side, B drawing hands were more predominant than standing hands, fifth card was mostly belonging to the 3,4,5,6,7 category.
Easy to notice that itlr a perfect world would contain a minor whole amount of such situations.
On average asym hands impact on the whole shoe is 8.4%, on asym hands B gets a 15.86% advantage, B drawing hands are inferior to B standing hands, fifth card is more likely to be a not 3,4,5,6,7 rank category (1:1.6 ratio).
Moreover any two card point higher than the opposite side is going to win about 2/3 of the times.
Similarly to what happens in other games, we should think baccarat as a game of ranges and not in term of exact outcomes.
That's why the shuffling issue is of utmost importance as it's one trillion impossible to guess right into a random distribution.
In some way a proper shuffle judgement is even a better indicator than edge sorting as we want to beat the game legally and, more importantly, we want to be payed after our winning sessions (with all due respect to the baccarat queen Cheung Yin Sun).
as.

Thanks,
Most player is will for play like for entertainment, I will try to win in short time as much as possible im using DBL ZZ 1/16 /BBP 1/8 fixed with trigger if lost then I will bet 4 times add some parlay it will easy to recover of my base bet using DBL ZZ I play to win in sequence not every decision . with small goal once my bankroll achieved comes from Casino tray that is the time I will attacked using my time and another strategy hitting them in & out navigating for more triggers aiming for small goal . I have to be patience of my for triggers / strategy using 4 level of money management. 75 % comes from patience and discipline to defeat baccarat only to 25 % on how much and how bet we selection in the table. that is i found out in practice. We cannot use math in practice to play baccarat since it is random I strictly play to 2 shoes as much as possible to in order to fight with equal mental strength of the dealer so to execute my strategy .
Walkingman

I have been playing for long period B after PB(looking for double B) or B after BP (looking for single P),that are the two more frequent decisions.
Bad results!
I didn't find any difference between these two attacks and playing B all the time.
Why a difference should exist?

For example we have been playing successfully "for long" a very simple method: we simply bet that a new Banker hand was followed by another single Banker hand (that is betting B after PB) utilizing a 124 progression.
Anytime this progression failed (meaning that a cluster of three or more B singles appeared) and whenever a new B streak trigger came out, we raised our standard unit to 2, now wagering 248, then 4816 and so on until the deficit was proportionally and slowly recovered step by step.
Interesting but did you ever simulate this way of playing? Banker is not a good bet for martingale. 5% commission works worst on the banker with martingale. If we lose 124, i.e 7 units, with 2 units we have fair chances of recovery but if we get many successive losses or more successive series losses than wins, bet could go dangerous. These two vital aspects should not be forgotten.

Albalaha,you are right as far as a martingale of several terms is concerned.
According with my experience a three terms martingale is acceptable,also for recovery

Interesting but did you ever simulate this way of playing? Banker is not a good bet for martingale. 5% commission works worst on the banker with martingale. If we lose 124, i.e 7 units, with 2 units we have fair chances of recovery but if we get many successive losses or more successive series losses than wins, bet could go dangerous. These two vital aspects should not be forgotten.
Of course we have simulated this approach and the flaw was just about the verb "simulate".
As long as we do not play or test our method on live shoes we are not doing us a favor.
And as you can easily deduce, we didn't play every single shoe dealt.
Improper shuffles will cut off a lot of possible combinations, naturally we must focus about the asymmetrical hands pace forming the Banker advantage.
For example, the main target to get the best asym hand is a Banker 5 point and there are only two ways to form a 5 point: 5ten value card and, less likely, 4A, 32.
That is we need a fair amount of 5s falling on the first two B cards.
Then among the best asym hands, there is the Banker 4 point. Here to build this point Banker gets a 4ten value card and 3A and 22 possibilities. Notice that 32 hasn't the same probability than 22.
In a sense we should get a kind of help if along with many other factors we want to track 5s and 4s falling here or there on the first two initial cards.
Historically 4s and 5s were considered as Player helping cards but they really are only when they are distributed as fifth card when the hand dictates the P side to draw. Naturally a 4 or a 5 as sixth card remains a good card even for the Banker.
Anyway you are correct that the 5% vig may worsen any multilayered progression, yet Banker is always working by a 1.24% long term probability mathematical advantage.
Imo the key is just to estimate the range of spots when B is REALLY more likely than P or, at a lesser degree, the range of spots when P is working by an almost perfect 50/50 untaxed and fair proposition (knowing that as long as no asym hand can be formed, some card distributions will help this side with a better 50/50 ratio).
Nonetheless I'm 100% sure that there's no way to control any shoe dealt, no matter how many random walks working for us we want to put in action.
as.

I have been playing for long period B after PB(looking for double B) or B after BP (looking for single P),that are the two more frequent decisions.
Bad results!
I didn't find any difference between these two attacks and playing B all the time.
Why a difference should exist?
Hi roversi!
The probability of the so called "more likely outcomes" is strongly related to the actual card distribution. Not every shoe is playable.
In order to get a strong advantage, we need to play only badly shuffled shoes.
Recently we've set up a marvelous $500$20.000 spread betting action at a high end casino acting as pure drunk clowns and where a mate was previously treated really bad and looking for revenge.
Ask how things went after a 13hour playing session.
as.

No matter how smart we are and how deeply we have studied the game, if we consider bac outcomes as pure random propositions we know that after playing 2/3 of the total hands of each shoe, after 5 shoes dealt the probability to be ahead of something is very small.
Up to the point that whenever a player is ahead of something (without having wagered any side bet) only two things happened: either he was getting a positive variance or, more likely, he was betting EV+ spots by a proper spread betting.
Since there's no way to overcome a negative edge working into a random game by a spread betting strategy, we must infer that acute players make some "low" bets just for the illusion of action, let's say only for comp purposes.
In a word, if baccarat is beatable is because itlr we will get the best of it by a flat betting strategy.
That is some spots are slightly more likely than others.
And, again, this thing is only possible whether cards are not properly shuffled.
Discard the random world and ride the situations when a kind of unrandom world happens.
Sometimes this could be done coincidentally.
We prefer to do it scientifically.
as.

When are you sure that you are facing a bad shuffling?
During the shoe?During the shuffling itself?
It's depends on the permanence or on the lazy croupier?

Asymbac, is there a target amount that one wins and then stops? Say if one goes in with 5,000 what would be the recommended bet amount per hand and the recommended target win amount before you stop? For you.
Thanks.

Asymbac, is there a target amount that one wins and then stops? Say if one goes in with 5,000 what would be the recommended bet amount per hand and the recommended target win amount before you stop? For you.
Thanks.
Hi Lungyeh!
No way we should set up a winning goal whenever a shoe is astoundingly playable.
Our rule is to keep betting and betting, stop comes after we'll lose two or three (in the latter case whether we've won a lot) hands in a row.
If I had to put in play a $5000 bankroll, I'd make $400 or $500 standard wagers, i want to guess right by risking 1012 units or so. Of course my betting is extremely diluted and shoedepending.
Extremely favourable shoes are not coming around the corner, but they are still quite likely.
In our over selected random walks multiparameter action (very difficult to put in action without the use of an illegal device that, btw, we never used), we have assessed that strong favourable shoes are coming out at a 1:3 ratio.
In the real world I assess that such ratio is lowered to 1:4.
In conclusion I'd say that it's not what we want to win per every session played but just how will be the probability to cross those strong favourable shoes.
as.

Roversi, I'll try to respond to you later.
as.

When are you sure that you are facing a bad shuffling?
During the shoe?During the shuffling itself?
It's depends on the permanence or on the lazy croupier?
Almost every shoe dealt is bad shuffled, unfortunately this feature won't get the player any help in many instances.
Thus it's not how bad is shuffled an entire shoe that matters, instead it's how bad a shoe is shuffled in some portions of the deck.
Itlr bac outcomes are strictly related to the actual distribution of key cards, falling here or there yet forming some more or less likely sequences.
Obviously nothing is more likely than the counterpart unless a strong unrandomness went in place (of course this may happen even into a perfect random environment coincidentally).
At any rate, the shuffling moves made by a live dealer or a CSM working on the same deck will produce the best opportunities to catch the situations where unrandomness will reign.
Notice that 100% of the CSM decks are dealt alternatively (meaning that two different entire decks are shuffled each time).
Of course where a CSM isn't working, it's virtually impossible that a live dealer will shuffle the cards in a perfect random fashion.
At HS tables (where most money is collected by casinos), decks are presented preshuffled and slight manually shuffled after, therefore the situation is more unclear.
Should players fear a close to a perfect random shuffle?
No way.
Unless cards are arranged by a software, perfect randomness will get no place into an 8deck shoe.
The casinos' fortune is because players want to win too much in the wrong place or to win per every shoe dealt, an impossible task by any means.
That means that whether we're properly selecting the playable shoes and the favourable spots, baccarat is 1 trillion percent beatable scientifically by a close to 0% probability error.
Just as decks are not perfectly shuffled.
as.

Any method can't work whether we are going to consider each shoe dealt as perfect randomly shuffled.
It's our interest to know that itlr unrandom shuffled shoes will tend to produce "random" results, that is that short term deviations are attributed to the simple variance's action.
It should be our duty to catch the situations where this unrandomness will take place most.
Never globally, always in relationship to the actual shoe we're observing/playing.
It's 100% certain that players making a living at this game won't bet the first hands of a shoe and never enter the game without having observed the cards pace.
I mean they are not focused about outcomes but about cards falling and actual situations.
Key cards, obviously.
And of course drawing and standing and third card nature situations (say successions).
More on that later.
as.

So it seems that baccarat can be beaten by a strict mechanical bet selection, the name of this wonderful site..... :thumbsup:
At least it's what my multiple years tests say that I've completed yesterday.
Probably some people play an EV+ game by using other tools, the main being long term experience, I just prefer to do things scientifically as much as possible.
Summarizing.
Certain (rare) baccarat hands give the player a sure edge, meaning that the same situation repeatedly bet and bet and bet by the same amount will provide a very interesting edge (not bighornsh.it edges as "perfect pc play" or stuff like that) .
Since I'm not a baby in the wood when talking about baccarat, I can only attribute this success to the partial unrandomness of the shufflings.
That is I'm strongly convinced that randomness working into a math negative edge game cannot be beaten, especially by a flat betting strategy, the cardinal feature to know if we're doing good or not.
Cards are arranged to give certain outcomes, it's impossible to guess which side will be favorite to win, but either the distribution of outcomes and the expected values could help us to know whether there's a shuffling very close to randomness or anything else.
To emphasize the importance of this topic, say that "Casino War" game it's 100% beatable whether any card is dealt without any further shuffle and offered with a proper deck penetration, And in the real world you'll never find conditions like that.
Of course Casino War is a perfect symmetrical game, meaning that no other asymmetrical factors will intervene in the process.
Obviously players can only bet their side, that is just one side.
Baccarat is not a perfect high card game, as occasionally (8.4% of the times) one side takes the third card according to the rules and mathematically advantaging it.
Therefore we have two different basic random walks working on the same shoe: the symmetrical probability and the asymmetrical probability.
To say the truth a third probability will show up, the tie probability that slightly tend to disrupt some more likely situations. Especially when a large amount of shoes is utilized.
The tie interference provides quite a burden as tie probability is hugely endorsed whenever 6 cards are used to resolve one hand.
More later
as.

Asymbac, in this Marina Bay Sands casino in Singapore, they have 2 Baccarat tables where after every hand, the cards are put back into the shuffling machine to be reshuffled and dealt again. There is no break, no end of shoe or change of card. Customers do not get to touch the cards. The dealer opens the cards and handle the cards. They change the whole 6 decks after say &10 hours and the process repeats itself.
Is this a better chance to win?

Sorry Lungyeh, I've cleared some of my inappropriate posts, I have nothing against MBS in Singapore or any other casino in the world for that matter.
Back to your question.
Baccarat tables offering continuos shuffling are a totally different beast.
Of course when proper conditions are met, any card game is beatable by definition.
If outcomes are provided by a CSM, the issue is more complicated as any hand is a new hand springing from a fresh deck. Maybe certain card tracking techniques could work.
I suggest to search the CSM topic at Black Jack forums.
Anyway and even though the card removal effect is zero, CSMs still work physically.
We need to collect a lot of CSM data acting on the same deck and then filtering the results by a multiparameter factor. Then to analyze if a kind of substantial unrandomness shows up after a given succession of cards (specific ranks).
My guess is that CSM decks are either totally unbeatable or, less less likely, wonderfully beatable (that is more beatable than normal live shoes).
For sure many bac players like to touch (say destroy) the cards so I do not expect much success from CSM tables.
as.

I've contacted a couple of peers confirming that CSM shuffled shoes are unbeatable.
Therefore the new thread title is "why bac could be beatable itlr PROVIDING CARDS ARE PLAYED UP TO THE END OF THE SHOE"
as.

In all my experiences, shoes doesn't matter. One must know how to play in good, bad and worst cases as randomness will throw all to us. We can't get a "better than all" bet with any way to pick our bet.

Sure you can and if you convince yourself otherwise you will miss all the great opportunities. Shoes you are able to capitalize on for many reasons you will lose out on it's as simple as that. The one main problem as what was brought out already is that people convince themselves that those same opportunities will always repeat themselves when they will not.

In all my experiences, shoes doesn't matter. One must know how to play in good, bad and worst cases as randomness will throw all to us. We can't get a "better than all" bet with any way to pick our bet.
It depends about what we want to assign to the randomness definition.
The fact that most of bac players think that any shoe is randomly produced doesn't mean that it is really randomly formed.
Or, even worse, that some more likely situations (B streaks vs B singles, etc) are more due in humanly considered intervals.
Randomness takes a primary importance in relation to probability calculus as probability needs pure random propositions to be properly assessed.
Itlr unrandom events will dilute more and more up to the point where infinite unrandom results will converge to supposedly random results.
Therefore imo there's no way we can't limit pure randomness, instead we should find the spots where the unrandomness takes a so huge impact that the negative math edge we have to face is overcome within short terms.
Key word is "collective", a term coined by the best randomness expert of all times.
as.

Attempts made to try to read randomness are totally futile, better to spot the situations where unrandomness could take a substantial role.
And to get a better idea of what a shoe is producing we must think in term of ranges of probability.
Mathematically our best move to get ahead of something into a supposedly random world is to bet everything we want to risk just on one hand. We are still playing an EV game, of course.
Any move different from that will be the casino's fortune.
Even if the game isn't perfect randomly produced, best action to take is still trying to get an edge within very short terms and by wagering huge into over selected spots. We want the math to be on our side. Always.
If I'd say that certain rare spots are offering a 70% winning probability nobody would be interested to know how and when those spots can come out. No bac player is willing to register several shoes then betting a hand that yet gets a 30% probability of losing.
Mostly those rare EV+ spots comes out from a possible RTM effect but we know that whether the game is random it's impossible or very very unlikely to transform an EV game into a profitable game.
I'm deadly sure that certain acute players are playing a kind of game close or equal to a zero negative edge just by wagering very few spots. Technically is to bet P when an asymmetrical hand is huge unlikely, maybe hoping that the actual card distribution favors P side as an additional tool.
Or, most likely, betting a restrict number of B hands knowing that the asym feature will be more likely than expected.
Probability gambling is a game of streaks intended in a wide way, of course we want to play games (baccarat) where each event will be slightly affected by previous situations, especially when we have reasons to think that cards are not properly shuffled.
as.

According to our tests, one of the best tool we can use to know whether a deck is properly shuffled or not is about the "natural" back to back probability.
And of course about the asym probability.
Even though a substantial error occurs for variance issues (less likely card combinations producing the same effect), this is one of the best tool to get a better idea of what's coming out.
as.

Consider this simple method.
Our plan is to detect when a natural point will come out, no matter which side will be kissed by such natural.
The probability any natural will come out is 34.1%, a slight higher than a dozen will show up at roulette.
Without any doubt, when a natural comes out a symmetrical hand will be formed, meaning that betting banker is a fool option.
At some extent, any natural apparition translates into an idi.ot choice (when wagering B) and a fair situation when wagering P.
Since a 34.1% probability is way higher than a 8.4% probability, we know that a back to back probability is quite more likely even though half considered (as we can't bet both sides).
Naturally there are many levels where a natural could come out, a back to back probability is a zero gap, a natural followed by another different hand is a 1gap probability and so on.
Differently to roulette, the overall natural probability per any shoe is more restricted as we can't cancel 8s and 9s and zero value cards from the deck.
Especially whether 8s and 9s should be more ore less concentrated on some portions of the deck.
Naturally a perfect 8s/9s pace is out of order for obvious reasons and we still have to fight other less likely card combinations forming a natural.
Same about asym hands.
What we really want when betting Banker is the asym hand production and nothing else.
Everything different from that is a long term EV move, unless our B bets are able to catch a better than 8.4% probability.
Coincidentally such probability is nearly half of the probability to get a natural on either side.
Instead of guessing which side will win, we should try to focus about those two probabilities, as they are the most likely to produce the actual outcomes. Itlr.
as.

Walkingman, could you elaborate more on your dbl ZZ and others you mentioned,,,Thanks Mark

A collective is a long term registration of events getting the same attributes and regardless of the spots of the succession we've chosen to register, we'll expect to get constant probability values.
In some way this is the perfect form to detect real randomness as we derive the probability after the events have really happened into the same supposedly independent world.
I mean that without knowledge we suppose the model we are playing into is random but more often than not it isn't.
Obviously baccarat must be considered as an infinite succession of finite games as each shoe will feature dynamic probabilities either for card distribution issues and for the rules.
Nonetheless, it's widely ascertained by mathematicians and gambling experts that no matter which spots we want to bet along every shoe, itlr our results will follow the same WL percentages, our old 1.06% 1.24% negative values.
That is they assume that every shoe dealt is a form of a collective, at least in the baccarat sense.
And actually they are completely right, providing shoes offered to players are randomly shuffled.
Therefore and taking for grant that no one taxed random world can be beaten by any means itlr, if one is capable to devise spots constantly shifting to one side or, more likely, getting very small deviations, well this is an absolute confirmation that most shoes are not randomly shuffled.
Thus in order to achieve this, two conditions must be fulfilled to get profitable opportunities:
 not every shoe is playable
 a proper place selection must be used
If every shoe would be playable and knowing that some high stakes players are pretty smart, baccarat wouldn't exist.
Remember that casinos get less value money from certain HS players than from common lowmid stakes bettors as the former population bet with an edge rarely exceeding the 1.06/1.24% negative edge (huge comps, rebates, flat betting strategy, etc).
Baccarat exists as players want to bet every shoe and most part or all of hands dealt.
Interesting to notice that we must add a subjective probability theory to a strict frequency probability line.
It remains to assess which shoes may be profitable or at least less disadvanteged to the players.
First condition fulfilled, the place selection topic is, imo, of paramount and decisive importance.
Outcomes place selection is the direct scientific proof that baccarat shoes are not pure collectives as they involve a probability statistically significant different than what we've been taught for years.
And the only possible answer is that shoes aren't properly shuffled (or, less likely, that baccarat is a vulnerable game).
as.

To get a better idea of how baccarat really works, I introduce my concept of "random walk".
A player whimsically betting here or there, following trends, following lucky or unlucky players, playing drunk or perfectly sober, wagering by the influence of Alprazolam or THC or whatever, constitutes a random walk.
The same about big road and the four derived roads, now being mechanically ordered.
Naturally even a player wagering only one hand per every 2, 5 or 100 shoes is a random walk.
A random walk is just an infinite sequence of W and L successions having almost (as B bets >P bets) the same probability to show up.
For example, if the shoe provides really random outcomes, W/L dispositions follow the old 50/50 rule dictating that the probability to win (or lose) four hands in a row is 1/16 (6.25%) and so on.
But such probability is real only when the shoe is producing random outcomes in the sense that no matter which spot of the shoe we start to bet those outcomes will be unaffected by previous events (place selection).
Naturally and in absence of informations, we have no means to detect whether the first four hands dealt of a new shoe are really randomly placed or not.
In any other scenario, if we think the future four hands will give us a sensible better 6.25% WL ratio in either direction we'll get an edge. Same about lower or higher probability circumstances.
Imo, the more we wait for favourable dependent and allegedly unrandom situations, the better will be our results, providing we proper classify the playable shoes.
It's easier than what you think.
Tomorrow I'll talk about what I improperly name as "limited" random walks.
as.

The best baccarat player in the world is not the person who is capable to win the larger amount of units but whoever keeps his/her losses very close to the negative edge value (say an average 1.15% of total money wagered on BP hands).
At the end of the year we should try to recollect how money we have bet and how much we have lost at tables. If the sum is around 1.15% of the money bet we are really in good shape.
That is the number of W should be almost equal to the number of L, only vig caused our debacle.
Unfortunately it's quite likely we had lost more than that, maybe we have added some side bets here and there or that we have used a bad money management. Of course no MM could provide us a winning method thus we should accept the idea that the game cannot be beaten other than by a proper bet selection.
Imo there are only two ways to get a winning bet selection working itlr:
 flat betting strategy where number of W exceeds the number of L and the vig impact
 short multilayered progressions oriented to get a key W or Ws happening on restricted sequences considered as profitable
Alas, those strategies cannot win when applied at random EV games. And for that matter they can't win at EV=0 games either.
Many baccarat books or, worse, internet system sellers, keep stressing us about the importance to "quit when ahead". They want to teach us how to win and then they put in emphasis such silly phrase.
If I'm winning and I have to quit to preserve my bucks, why not starting to play a kind of an opposite strategy?
And when do I know I should quit because I've reached the apex of my winnings?
Gambling is a game of streaks, at baccarat say a game of "gaps" between two opposite situations that not necessarily must be B or P hands.
It's just the natural streak appearance that destroy every system. Providing the game is randomly placed.
Then our task should be directed to spot situations where a lesser number of streaks should be more probable than normal thus increasing the likelihood to get a more expected outcome. And it can't be that unless a kind of unrandomness or super complex dependency is acting.
But even if you take for grant that bac shoes are not randomly formed, you can't forget that we're speaking about an edge quite high but limited to very few spots and not to every shoe dealt.
Let's make an example of one of many singular random walks we could put in action fictionally and oriented to disprove the concept that bac shoes are collectives.
Say we want to set up a short "road" where we'll classify outcomes as A or B depending whether after a winning natural point happening on a given side the two next hands bet on the same side are producing at least one win. If we win in two attempts we mark 1, otherwise we mark 2.
Thus our trigger to start or follow up the classification is the winning natural happening on either side.
Example: B9 winning point, we'll bet two times B; if we win we mark 1 otherwise we mark 2.
Whenever naturals do not show up or by gaps higher than 2 we do not mark anything.
In reality this is an irregular random walk in the sense that twostep betting action will get an obvious nearly 75% EXPECTED probability to win whether a kind of progression is applied.
And naturally it's not about the general more likelihood to get 1 or 2, just the distribution of such 1s and 2s. That is that that 75% value is more or less deviated toward one side.
No matter how whimisically are the actual results, this new 1/2 line most of the times won't follow the natural probability distribution, especially from a place selection point of view.
Not everytime but most of the times.
as.

In reality no one long term winning player wants to inform the enemy about the details by which this game could be beaten. Casinos prosper about the ignorance of their bettors and not only about their fkng math edge.
And truth to be told, baccarat is still alive as the vast majority of asian players rely on luck about their bets destiny, say the persistence of certain trends showing up along the way.
I can't rule out the possibility that other researchers had scientifically theorized the unrandomness of baccarat, yet if we keep thinking the game as a randomly produced game we're going to nowhere.
Probably we'll get better odds to cross a turtle roaming on the Mohave desert than trying to win a game we think to be randomly placed.
Actually and even taking for grant that the game is really random (a horrendous mistake), we can build certain betting lines that will minimize the variance factor working into an asymmetrical proposition.
Next post will be about those methods.
as.

Excellent. I have actually started an outline and I've identified no less than 10 advantages that I have used successfully, at times, over the past years .
More on that at a later date thanks for putting in the input.

Excellent. I have actually started an outline and I've identified no less than 10 advantages that I have used successfully, at times, over the past years .
More on that at a later date thanks for putting in the input.
Thanks Al!
I'll wait further comments from you about that.
as.

I will post a short outline under the topic, Wagers and Intricacies thread.

Imo bac is beatable as the "general" probability doesn't correspond to the "actual" probability.
According to the general probability, itlr each spot will follow a 50.68%/49.32% BP probability, thus no one betting method could find spots where 50.68/49.32 ratio will be higher (or lower) than expected. In a word that the statistical deviations will follow such values, practically meaning that the model we are playing into is randomly placed and very very very very slight dependent at most.
Actually efforts made to find profitable spots were made ONLY by math procedures.
Easy to see such procedures contain a big mistake as they were tested on pc generated shoes where randomness supposedly prevails.
Moreover, they couldn't take into account the probability of success of certain events considered by ranges, as they kept for grant that whenever A>B any other subsequent situation will follow a costant asymmetrical line and it's not the case at baccarat as a single 8 or 9 falling on one side will dictate mostly the outcome.
as.

Its Christmas so some free time.
2 guys representing the polar opposite of the types of baccarat players.
One is a trend breaker. Lets call him James. If he sees 3xB, he bets for a P to come next. Even when there is a break away where previous results only show maximum of 2xB. Or after a cluster of say 2,3,5,3,4 B and P group, there comes the alternate BPB... (in Chinese parlance dingdong), he will next bet B predicting the alternates will come to an end. If the result is a P, hence BPBP he will next bet P predicting the alternating results will come to an end.
Peter is the polar opposite. When there is a break as in the 3xB, he will continue betting B predicting it will be the start of a ?dragon? run.
Likewise when the alternates (dingdong) comes into play, he will bet for the alternate dingdong to continue.
Most players are either one of the other. Occasionally there comes along someone like Glen who has the guile to be flexible and bend with the wind and not break. Otherwise there is a propensity to be at least, more one type of player then the other. Watching also for trends to follow or break in the small charts ie big eye, small road, cockroach or bead plate.
No matter. Here is where I differ in my stance from Asymbac who states that good betselection is more important then money management in ensuring one wins at the casino.
I believe that money management is the decisive matter. You see, if one is a trend player or anti trend player or anything in between, on every visit (lets not even talk long term), there will be many occasions when the trend player will be winning and many occasions when games are more random, that he would be losing. Similarly, there will be occasions when the anti trend player will be winning and occasions of dragon runs or other discernible patterns, when the anti trend guy is put to the sword.
Whatever your playing style, there would be occasions when it becomes so clear to you what to bet next and you win! But there are also occasions that whatever you bet or is clear to you yet you lose. You lose when you bet Banker amd player has one point and you draw a third card to end up with baccarat or zero points. Or you bet Player draws a third card to give you 8 points and Banker draws a third card to end up with 9 points. This is Baccarat! 🙄
So the decisive criteria to walk away a winner is to find a formula to walk away when you are winning and starting to lose back. Stop and go home. Because to my observation, certainly every gamer will surely be winning at a certain point during the casino visit. I don't know about those two players who talk about making 2 wins and going back. that's another ball game altogether. But what's so difficult about winning 2 times in a visit ? 🙄
Glen has some suggestions. For me, if you win > 70% of your buy in money and you lose back 30% stop. If you did not touch the lose back of 30%, you may continue. This is really a useful guideline. Discipline you to be careful and not make wild bets while ahead.
EASIER SAID THEN DONE

I am going to make some comments to your reply here Lungyeh.
I don't want to cluster Asyms thread, so I'm going to post it in my section called Wagering and Intricacies. I'll work on it now.
You have some of what I posted correct and you got some of it wrong, I'll explain in that section.

But what's so difficult about winning 2 times in a visit ?
Thanks Lung for your reply, among your interesting points I highlighted this passage.
It's so difficult to win in two visits in a row as people treat baccarat as a kind of lottery where each ticket they are buying offers (slight) unfair odds.
A lot of dingdong? Hit the jackpot. A lot of singles and doubles or consecutive streaks? Another jackpot.
Strong imbalances between B and P? Again it's a jackpot as well as every kind of repetitive patterns.
Now, are there reasons to think that along the way we'll hit such lotteries more often than not?
Yes, such (small) jackpots come out with a decent frequency but not enough to balance and invert the constant house edge. No matter how sophisticated is our progression plan or MM.
Sayed that, I'm not ruling out the possibility that some acute players tend to get a clearer picture of the whole situation without the knowledge of possible randomness defects or whatever could alter an unbeatable random model. Still the common trait of such players is to play very few hands.
We ought to remember that without math advantages, it's impossible to beat any EV game whether considered randomly distributed.
Therefore our only option to beat it is to consider and study why, when and how could be unramdomly placed.
No luck intervenes on our side.
as.

We've been taught for years that B probability is 50.68% and P=49.32% but probably just a couple of persons explained mathematically by combinatorial analysis why those percentages were obtained.
A shortcut would be to consider a very long sample of observations and, voila', those percentages tend to coincide with those values.
Therefore theory and practice meet.
But it's interesting to notice that such probabilities are the reflex of dynamic probabilities since B probability varies with big jumps from 50% to 57.93%, values that P side must accept passively.
Moreover the game is, yes, intended as partially dependent anyway at a degree not substantially altering the features of a perfect independent world happening at a fair roulette, for example.
Finally and fortunately nobody investigated seriously whether certain outcomes come from a real random production, an essential requisite to make unbeatable a slight taxed game offered at casinos.
Actually and by utilizing a very strict definition of randomness, no one live shoe is randomly produced even though for practical purposes not every shoe will be playable (at least by the"human" possibilities tested so far).
That's because is very difficult (not to say impossible) to arrange cards in a way that certain events cannot be perfectly independent to others and, of course, the word we must take care most of is dispersion.
The fact that after 10.000 BP resolved hands dealt on average 5068 are banker outcomes and 4932 are player results doesn't necessarily mean that every possible distribution will follow the dispersion values known regarding other propositions.
Neither should be considered an insurmountable obstacle the tiny tax applied at baccarat.
As previously sayed in my posts, it could be that what I label as "random defects" are just instrinsic flaws of the game not investigated by so called baccarat experts, mainly oriented by nature to find math advantages (card counting techniques).
At any rate we think that dispersion values cannot be practically limited when apllied at a random situation even if the game is asymmetrically governed and acting under slight dependent processes. Thus a kind of unrandomness must act in some way.
For a moment let's say the first initial collection of BP results appears as really random. Therefore unbeatable. No problem with that.
That is per every class of W situations we'll get a proportional class of L events with huge degrees of variance.
In order to confirm that outcomes are random, we'll make certain sub collections derived from the primitive simple BP succession every bac player in the universe relies upon.
If the first collection is really random then every each sub collection must be random, otherwise it's negated the perfect randomness condition.
For example, say we build our personal derived road, that is a random walk in such a way:
Anytime a winning natural point comes out on a given side, we'll register the outcome of the next hand as I (identical) or O (opposite) in relation to the side which previously won by the natural point.
Therefore per each shoe we'll get a I and O succession having an average 34.2% probability to appear, meaning that on average such new road will get around 26 decisions.
No surprises, the average number of I and O after this new collection will be as expected but what differs on most part of shoes dealt is the distribution of patterns that could alter on our favor the probability of success.
It's astounding to see that shoes coming from the same shuffle procedures acting on the same shoe will provide the best opportunities to grasp a possible unrandom world that, I repeat, shouldn't be considered other than from a strict dispersion point of view.
as.

Baccarat is one of the purest form of gambling, no wonder it has acquired an increasing popularity over the years.
After all players must guess a preordered succession of events and getting the luxury to choose what, when and how much to bet.
No one other gambling game provide such features.
But to be consistent winners we must assess by the greatest possible precision what's our real probability to win or lose.
Since a baccarat shoe is composed by a finite number of cards where many of them are "key cards" we should estimate what are the real probabilities to get an event or the opposite.
We all know that B probability to win on each spot is either 50% or 57.93%, whereas P probability to win remains at 50% (actually some card distributions favor P side more than that).
Itlr, that is after having mixed several outcomes (maybe springing form different sources) the average BP probability comes closer and closer to the 50.68/49.32 ratio.
A total different issue regards the probability of success (POS), that is the probability to win after a given succession of bets.
Whereas the probability to win or lose on each side remains constant and mostly unguessable, shoes present a variety of POS that equals to 1, that is the certainty that at least one searched event will appear.
Of course the possible unfortunate counterpart is zero, that is that the event searched won't appear at least one time in our shoe or after a short sequences of consecutive shoes.
Easy examples where POS=1 (probability equals to certainty) are:
 shoes producing at least three streaks
 shoes producing at least one P or B double (unless long streaks happened on either side)
 shoes producing at least one asymmetrical formation along the way
and so on
Of course such strong features generally won't be of practical use without the use of an impossible progression, unless being mildly moderated and multilayered conceived (Albalaha could instruct us about this).
Forgetting the single shoe probability which could be easily affected by a kind of so called "randomness", POS may be endorsed by waiting the appearance of huge unlikely situations.
The more we wait for the "unlikely" events, greater will be our POS.
A thing that cannot work at other independent models as roulette, for example.
Say we are putting outcomes vertically in a grid made of columns of 10 spots each (a 10hand bead plate not considering ties). Now we want to form a new registration of I and O results regarding the left position of the new outcome.
At the eyes of the experienced player it will appear very soon that such new random walk isn't affected by a an indipendent and unguessable model, as a place selection procedure will demonstrate that most shoes won't follow a 50.68/49.32 ratio by any means.
Some spots are slight more likely than others, some ranges of apparition are more likely than others.
as.

Imo there are no other ways to beat the game unless we have proved that bac is working by more or less unrandom standards.
Of course we can't rule out the possibility that an "usual" unrandom world sometimes could take the resemblance of an unbeatable random model, that's why we prefer to discard shoes not fitting our plan at the start instead of trying to get a kind of "more likely world" in the subsequent portions of the shoe.
More on that later.
as.

Since I can't touch the SM machines topic, let's compare baccarat with roulette.
At roulette every spin will provide symmetrical probabilities, since the probability of each number or groups of numbers remains the same (1/37, 2/37, etc).
Say the whole model we are playing into is symmetrical by any means.
At baccarat every BP hand will be formed by two distinct and very different probabilities: 50%/50% and 57.93%/42.07%. Those different probabilities alone makes baccarat an asymmetrical game.
Of course every fkng shoe dealt will present different values of such asymmetricity, either in terms of numbers and, more importantly, in term of distributions.
Everybody reading my pages (btw, thanks to you) knows that the asymmetrical 57.93/42.07% value should come out on average 8.4% of the total hands dealt.
A probability value very similar to betting 3 numbers at a single zero roulette (8.1%).
Every player having a decent familiarity of both roulette and baccarat would expect that a similar probability (3 numbers vs asym hand) will produce similar dispersion values taken on the same 75 hands sample.
It seems this is not the case.
Easy to argue that a shoe formed by a finite number of cards burnt hand after hand is quite different from a so called perfect symmetrical world happening at roulette.
More importantly is to notice that when a 3 numbers group hit at roulette the winning probability is 100%, whereas at baccarat we are still fighting with a well lower 15.86% edge.
On the other hand, every other spin not hitting our 3 numbers provides a 100% losing event whereas at baccarat we still get a "fair" 50% (taxed) probability to win.
Itlr, a perfect math plan should be oriented either to bet P trying to escape the 42.07% unfavourable winning probability or, it's way better, to catch the 57.93% winning probability when betting B.
In truth a wonderful virtual player capable to always bet P without crossing one time a single asym hand will get very tiny profits (p=50%, yet certain card distributions happening on symmetrical situations help the Player side thus enlarging a bit the P probability). But there's a more excellent player, that is whoever is capable to bet B as he/she assessed that an asym hand will come out more likely within a more restricted range than what math dictates.
Some very experienced players (Alrelax and Sputnik surely belong to this list) have raised the ability to catch or abandon the situations where B or P winning probability ranges are more or less restricted than what the old 50.68/49.32 ratio dictates.
But the common denominator we have to put in first place is that shoes are not randomly shuffled (say it's physically impossible to arrange cards by so called perfect random models).
There are many ways to detect this, I prefer to choose a strict objective betting placement following the best "randomness" definition ever made by some statistics experts.
as.

Well first of all , thank you AsymBacGuy and Alrelax for all those generous and insigthful post .
I like the idea of getting an edge by knowing , finding unrandom shoes ( bad shuffling ).
With roulette, the only way i found to make big wins is by following hot numbers with a positive progression . Hot numbers could come up by pure luck or by some bias ( unrandom) , dealer signature or something physical affecting the wheel .
The challenge is that the bias will not be there for very long usually :)

Thank You!
The challenge is that the bias will not be there for very long usually :)
Exactly.
The same about baccarat and this is the very point I'm trying to make over the years.
At baccarat it's quite easy to confuse strong "easy to detect" patterns (as long streaks, long B or P single/double successions, etc) with a statistical bias that must provide unrandom successions ascertained by tools as place selection and probabiliity after events, for example. Successions not happening around the corner, of course.
as.

There are different approaches to play baccarat, surely people writing here is loaded with experience and guided through the help of very long term observations.
The masters of a so called situational strategy are Alrelax and Lungyeh, me and Sputnik preferring a more objective approach. Then comes Albalaha that loves to take a strict math method capable to overcome the most unfavourable situations every nearly 50/50 proposition will form along the way.
Collecting all those different thinking lines, we could assume that baccarat is an infinite production of steady or mixed events happening at various degrees.
The common denominator is we do not want to force probabilities unless we have reasons to think that at some point/s A>B.
By adopting several different place selection collections, we suddendly notice that the so called undetectable random model isn't so undetectable as expected.
And the more we are waiting for a given event, higher will be the probability to get a searched event, even knowing that the winning probability won't never be 1.
A thing possible only as shoes are not randomly shuffled.
Next advanced strategy thoughts about my unb plan #2.
as.

To understand my point first we need to assign a specific role to the word "probability".
It doesn't exist probability calculus over a given sample of data without the involvement of a "proper" randomness factor.
Probability can only be ascertained by assessing the limited values of relative frequency made over long samples of the same collective and, more importantly, of "infinite" sub collectives derived from the collective mother.
And real randomness can only be verified by statistical tools as place selection and not by classical probability formulas that consider each scenario as equally placed or corresponding to simple long term ratios involving too general features (B>P is the best known).
At least if we want to beat the game itlr.
No wonders, we can't have a single possibility to beat a random EV game, that is a game where the winning probability is insensitive to place selection. Meaning that no matter which spot we choose to play on many subcollectives our EV will be always negative. Even if our bets will be always placed on "more likely" B side. Such difference will be limited to a mere less 0.18% disadvantage and we do need a lot more to win itlr.
Only the shoes affected by a fair degree of unrandomness could be beaten itlr. By a degree very very close to 100%.
My unb plan #2 is one of the simplest examples of that.
We build three different collectives (supposedly being three distinct random walks) derived by the consecutiveness of B doubles.
Rw #1 will fictionally bet after a single B double not getting another B double (that is betting just two times and then stopping until a new situation will arise), rw #2 will fictionally bet after two B doubles had appeared and the same about r.w. #3.
Our challenge is to assess whether such B double clusters itlr will stop or prolong at percentages different to the classical expected values (in a way or another).
Since we have been told that no matter which spot we decide to bet our EV will be always negative (with all the related consequences about dispersion values), we want to verify such thing.
We register how many consecutive W or L we will get from each of those three distinct betting plans, of course when r.w. #1 will steadily win plans #2 and #3 will get no entry or mostly very few entries.
As our derived plans must consider a precise trigger (any B double up to 4 consecutive doubles considered as a losing overall situation), many shoes won't be playable for a "lack of space", meaning that we can easily wait a high percentage of the shoe played before getting a B double trigger.
And it could happen that a 4+ B double consecutive recurrence will be placed at the start of the shoe, meaning that all our r.w.'s will be losers (anyway just at one step each).
Hence we are forced to work at various degrees among two opposite situations, the lack of triggers from one part and the "unlikely" situation from the other one.
Let's run a "random" 10 live shoes sample taken from my data (I used the actual time) and see what happens.
The number after any shoe indicates the number of B consecutive doubles. *=a losing hand not forming a resolved hand according to my plan):
1) 1, 2
2) 1, 1, 1, *
3) 1, 1
4) 2, 1
5) 1, 1, 1, 2, 1
6) 2, 1, 1, 1
7) 1, 1, 1, 1
8) 1, 1, *
9) 1, 1, 1, 1, 2
10) 1, 2, 1, 1
Another sample taken randomly:
11) 1
12) 1, 3, 2, 1
13) 1, 1, 1, 1
14) 2, 2
15) 1, 1, 2, 1, 1
16) 1, 1, *
17) 5, 1, 1
18) 3, 1
19) 1, 2, 1, 1
20) 1, 1, 3, *
again more 10 shoes
21) 1, 1
22) 3, 2
23) 2, 1, 2
24) 1, 1, 1
25) 1, 3, 1
26) 1, 1
27) 1, 1
28) 1, 2
29) 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
30) 1, 2, 1.
more ten live shoes
31) 1, 1, 1
32) 1, 1, 1, 3, 2
33) 1, 1
34) 1, 1
35) 1, 1, 1, 1
36) 2, 1, 2, 1, 1
37) 1, 3, 2, 1
38) 1, 1
39) 1, 1, 1, 2, 2*
40) 1, 1
Try to run your LIVE shoes and you'll see that those values will more or less correspond to such results (providing to assign a proper 1, 2 or 3 value to your distinct r.w.'s)
Even if you think that such results will be manipulated in some way (and you can bet that they are not as you are well aware I'm not selling anything) we may assume that such "easy to detect" outcomes are the result of many opposite forces acting along the way per each shoe:
1 propensity to get more B3+ than B2 after a B2 outcome
2 very very slight propensity to get the opposite result already happened
3 the possible unrandomness of the game
Now, the #1 factor is mathematically ascertained not needing further explanations.
#2 factor is either confirmed by simple statistical issues and by mr Shackleford authority.
#3 third factor was deeply studied by myself confirming without a doubt the shoes are not collectives, that is they are definitely not randomly placed.
Naturally there are more precise and accurate random walks oriented to disprove the common assumption that at baccarat anything is possible at any time.
A total complete bighornsh.it by any means.
as.

Here are 34 real live shoes recently dealt at one HS Vegas room (not involving a SM machine):
 1, 1, 2
 1, 1
 1, 1, 1, 1
 1, 2, 1, 1
 3, 2, 1
 3, 1, 1, 5, 1
 2, 2, 1
 
 1, 1, 1, 1
 1, 1, 1
 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 4
 2, 2, 2
 1, 3, 1
 2, 1
 1, 1, 2, 2
 3, 3
 1, 1
 2, 1, 1, 3
 1, 3, 1, 1
 2, 1
 1, 1
 1, 2, 1
 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
 1, 2, 1
 2, 1 ,1
 1, 1, 1, *
 1, 4, 1, 1
 1
 1, 1
 1, 1, 1, 2
 1, 1, 1
 1, 3, 1
 1, 1, *
 2, 1, 1, 1, 1
Notice that, for example, the second position being the effect of "so called" whimsically and random results, formed outcomes of: 1,1,1,2,2,1,2,0,1,1,1,2,3,1,1,3,1,1,3,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,4,0,1,1,1,3,1,1.
First position formed those results:
1,1,1,1,3,3,2,0,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,3,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2.
Now tell me how the fck one can lose by a selected betting strategy applied on those patterns.
And for obvious reasons I have presented one of the stu.pi.dest r.w. that could work on such game.
as.

We see that no matter what are the actual results according to the game rules, any single shoe formed by a finite card distribution and dealt almost entirely will be somewhat biased (from a strict probability calculus point of view).
We just need to know how to take advantage of such bias recurring per every shoe dealt.
Of course if baccarat still exists is because the bias either is very limited or not always detectable by the common forms of registrations made by ridicolously simple mechanical processes.
The more we are complicating our registrations, better is the probability to disprove that baccarat is a random game.
In reality some simple events happening at baccarat are affected by certain very low dispersion values that when properly selected are offering a player's edge easily surpassing a possible 1015% negative edge established by the house.
Quality events like the naturals apparition on either side, for example.
Unfortunately no casino is so stupi.d to offer such side bets, they want us to enlarge the uncertainty by forcing us to guess the exact winning hand.
Now, if a 34.2% probability presents low dispersion values, why to bother about a well higher 49.32% or 50.68% winning probability?
Indeed there's a big difference when betting low dispersion values at an almost 1:2 winning probability compared to an almost coin flip probability where dispersion values are considered as undetectable.
Quality happening on former situation must be converted into a quality feature on the latter events.
The B doubles succession is one of the simplest strategy to adopt with the important caveat that differently to naturals either side apparition, many shoes are not fitting the requisites to get a proper quality factor for a lack of space or obvious intrinsic features not neceessarily related to key cards fall.
as.

In the way presented so far, we see that at baccarat we do not need complicated math formulas to prove or disprove randomness. A simple place selection method forming a miriad of subcollectives will make the job.
Leave to the experts and casinos the idea that bac shoes are randomly produced or, conversely, that a possible unrandomness will be recognizable by the formation of repetitive patterns or stuff like that.
Baccarat could be solved (or not) first by the negation or confirmation of the strictest definition of randomness ever made and then and only then by the probability calculus applied on such random or unrandom environment.
Probably one of the reasons why bac is considered a random game happens as BP limiting values of relative frequency itlr will conform to a 50.68/49.32 steady proposition.
Thus every shoe will be eligible to be included in the registrations and that each playable spot will provide given probability values no matter what.
Bighornsh.it by any means.
First, BP probability values vary a lot by the actual shoe composition and actual card situations not regarding a so called general or so "equally likely scenario", secondly many BP "higher level" outcomes will surely provide lower dispersion values, third and more importantly, place selection issue will form infinite subcollectives not fitting the above expected BP dispersion values, especially whether involving a "same" or "opposite" result at given spots happening at certain shoes.
Consider my plan #2.
That is about the restricted probability to get multiple BB consecutive scenarios at various degrees.
We may think that after any given BB situation the most likely pattern will be BBB and not BBP by a better 0.18% long term degree.
Rattlesnake.sh.it.
Tomorrow the fundamental steps to restrict the variance.
as.

Hi Asymbac,
in regards of this post on randomness, what is the best table to choose from?
A. The cards are being shuffled by hand by being all spread on the table first?
B. The cards are being shuffled by hand , pile by pile whit ease ,grace and skills 8) ?
C. Shuffled master machines ?
D. Woo site simulations results ? Or RNG ?
I am looking to play shoes where the early presentments will be significatives for a good portion of the remainder of the shoe . :whistle:
At first, i have been playing around with your unb plan no2 using Woo sites simulations results and got some good results ! But let's not forget that every lost =3 ...
Since, i have been looking at live data from two different kind of shuffling technics and they just don't look the same as RNG ones !! Lol
This is telling me that the way it is shuffled is of a great importance .

Hi Fran!
Randomness is a quite intricate topic and baccarat wasn't resolved so far as "experts" made a fatal mistake considering bac shoes as randomly produced.
Actually the very few players making a living at this game know very well this bac vulnerability.
No matter the game involved, any shoe formed by multiple decks provide "unrandom" situations as key cards could be more or less concentrated in some portions of the shoe.
Itlr such key card distribution will dictate the results, say their weight on the whole picture, thus the probability of success of certain bets.
At bac we have the luxury to decide what, when and how much to bet. Not mentioning the fact that bac shoes are dealt almost entirely.
In some sense we should know that most of the times some event/s must happen at least one time or, it's the same concept, that certain situations are very very unlikely to happen even considering every single shoe dealt.
About your specific question, let's say that any physical shuffling procedure will provide some valuable unrandom spots to bet into, practically it's just a matter of space. Say of available betting space. And of course we should expect very few occasions to bet profitably.
By any means SM machines working on the same shoe provide the best opportunities for the player. Obviously I do not want to go into details, keep "experts" and casinos thinking that such shoes are randomly placed. Overall those tables provide huge profits for the house as many players like to wager the innumerable side bets offered (without trying to use the proper card counting techniques).
I do not know how Woo shoes are produced, I guess they are not springing from a real physical source. Thus they do not mean nothing to me. Even if my unb plan #2 had provided good results to you.
The same about RNG shoes.
I am looking to play shoes where the early presentments will be significatives for a good portion of the remainder of the shoe .
It depends about the portion of the shoe you have considered and about the quality of the hands dealt so far.
Say it's virtually impossible to miss a winning hand unless a proper betting space is available to you.
as.

Starting to consider baccarat from the strictest definitions of randomness it's the way to go.
When playing you do not want to only adhere to those fkng roads displayed on the screen.
They are springing from too simple situations very vulnerable to our main enemy: variance. Even whether unrandomly produced.
That's because after some mechanical given conditions are met, they consider each hand as eligible to be registered no matter what.
It's obvious the more hands we are collecting per any given shoe higher will be the variance and this strongly relates to some insensitivity to place selection and probability after events features.
I mean that we have to discard from our registrations many resolved hands pretending as they haven't happened at all.
It's just this fact that makes beatable this wonderful game.
as.

Thank's a lot Asymbac for those complete replies . What i meant by ,
I am looking to play shoes where the early presentments will be significatives for a good portion of the remainder of the shoe .
I read a post from Alrelax some time ago and can not find it back for the moment and as a hint , he was stating that if at the beginning of a shoe , there is a streak of players or bankers , we could then find some very good spots to play the side of the streak.
The way it starts could stay this way for a while until a major turning point or even for the whole shoe?
I am probably losing my time but i am working on a betting bet selection strategy where i need singles and at worst doubles . Then i have a stop loss plan for shoes with lots of streaks .
Sometimes, if i am alone at the table ( i need cards to play ,lol) , i will stop and reverse when there is a triple showing shooting for a streak of 7 using the 1+4 side parlay wager of Alrelax :) . This bet need to be successful one out of 15 to break even ... I don't have statistics or lots of experience but i think it should succeed one out of two shoes on average .

In a random game, past doesn't tell your future. It can not say that if a pattern seems to work, it will continue or end right there. At max, you may get a good guess on sequential probabilities. For example, if a run of 15 bankers has just happened which ended by a player, there may not be another stretch of 15 bankers just there. It is not impossible to happen but most unlikely. All other guesses are just guesses without even slightest degree of accuracy.
By the way, I do not intend to disrupt a discussion with my inputs which may look off topic to you. I just want to let you understand that working on betselection will not yield you anything. I have been doing extensive researches on random games like roulette and baccarat and have analysed several millions outcomes in thousands of ways in past 1415 years. In the beginning, I was as naive as a routine gambler. I wasted thousands of hours working to find the best bet, strangely, there is none.
If you want to earn from a random game, only way is devise your own money management considering all kinds of variance you may get. With that all games with slight house edge will be beatable, not just baccarat.

From a guy with so many years of experience, your input is more than welcome!
I do agree with you , '' in a random game, past doesn't tell your future '' .
I will not play RNG bac games or even try to figure out presentments occurring.
That's why i find Alrelax and Asymbac post so interesting .
They are playing a game where randomness is questionnable.

On a related note, I know I touch on many subjects and many intricacies of real live brickandmortar casino baccarat play.
I do not believe in trying to define card order or the meaning of Randomness and how to literally beat it. I don't believe anyone ever will and I don't believe it's possible to do any type of mechanical or scheduled wagering with successful results with consistent play.
In summation to this quick note, I believe in identifying and recognizing and wagering when something is there that is powerful and presenting itself while capitalizing on it with positive progressions with my money management methods involving win money.

How to win at roulette, baccarat, sports betting etc etc ( negative expectation games )
1. You will always lose more bets than you will win. Sorry about that.
2. You have to win more on your winning bets than you lose on your losing bets to show a profit.
3. Set a maximum, conservative unit loss per bac shoe or predetermined number of roulette spins or predetermined number of sports bets and set a planned unit profit per bac shoe or predetermined number of roulette spins or predetermined number of sports bets ......such as 30 roulette spins or 30 sports bets
For example, assume you will lose a max of 8 units a baccarat shoe or
predetermined number of roulette spins or predetermined sports bets.....then assume a worst case of losing 4 of those shoes or predetermined number of roulette spins or predetermined sports bets in a row so that you lose 32 units ( 8 units x 4 =32 ) A losing run of 4 sequences in a row will eventually happen ...sorry about that.
You can use 5 instead of 4 to be really conservative. Also those losing sequences do not have to be in a row, they can also be a net loss of 4 or 5 sequences over a large number or sequences such as WLLWWWLLLLLWLLL = net loss of 5 sequences.=loss of 40 units ( 5 sequences x 8 unit lost per sequence =40 units lost )
Now assume your profit objective is 4 units a baccarat shoe or over a
predetermined number of bac shoes or predetermined roulette spins or
pedetermined sports bets.
Then raise your bet size to 2 units which will give you an 8 unit profit and in 4 bac shoes or 4 predetermined sequences of spins or 4 predetermined sequences of sports bets an you should be even ( 8 x 4 units = 32 units)
You lost 32 bets and won 16 bets so you only won 16/48 bets = 33 % of your bets but you broke even by winning more on your winning bets than you lost on your losing bets.
However, over a long series of bac shoes or roulette spins or sport bets where it takes a long time to break even, the 33% number will increase to more than 33%
( in my example, you won the next 4 sequences in a row...which rarely happens.......)
For example, a sequence WLLLWWLLWLLWLL gives you a net loss of 4 sequences and lose 32 units ..then raise your bets to 2 units a bet and then you get a sequence of LLWWWLLWWWLWWW so you get a net win of 4 sequences at 8 units a bet so you won 4 x 8 =32 units and you broke even
You have to set a predetermined number of roulette spins or sports bets since there is no "shoe" in roulette or sports betting since the number of roulette spins and sports bet go on towards infinity.
In baccarat a sequence is the same as a shoe.

I use sequence of 5 . I took the idea from gr8player ( he use 7 i think) from his ''en ville '' negative progression .
When a sequence is negative, 0 win5loss , 1 win4loss, 2 win3loss then i triple for the next one . If a loss again then i quit playing that shoe or i do revert to one unit betting until another winning sequence .
What i am looking for is a bet selection that produce short streak of losses and of course i have to sacrifice long streak of wins as well .

What i am looking for is a bet selection that produce short streak of losses and of course i have to sacrifice long streak of wins as well .
Perfect.
And this is going to happen only and only whether outcomes are springing from a unrandom source.
Since you can take for grant that live bac shoes are not randomly produced, it remains to define how, when and how much such unrandomness work on the shoes dealt from a practical point of view.
After all we are not talking about gas kinetic or Brownian movement theories, just a stu.pi.d finite 416 card arrangement following specific rules that produce A or B results.
At baccarat the A/B probability varies a lot after some multistep conditions were met or not along each shoe, thus simple linear assessments won't go but to nowhere.
The same about certain "balancement" strategies that, imo, are worthless.
To do that we have to put in action several different random walks NOT registering each hand, thus trying to negate the concept that each bac hand will be equally likely (or following the natural slight asymmetricity) at every single step of the shoe dealt. This being a complete fkng nonsense made by mathematicians or some "gambling experts" that know about baccarat what I know about astrophsyics. That is zero.
By putting in action several random walks working into a sure unrandom enviroment, some spots will provide an edge well superior to any precise edge sorting techinque.
And differently than "I know the first card nature", we'll be surely get payed.
as.

Imo and according to a couple of serious players the best situation to aim for is to win just one unit per shoe. Say per every playable shoe.
Hence there are no "good" or "bad" shoes, just shoes that may or not offer enough "room" to get the searched situations.
"Room" doesn't necessarily means the number of hands dealt so far. There are many of additional factors involved I don't want to discuss here.
Actually in some cardrooms shoes are still shuffled manually, say quickly and badly shuffled thus we could think to get multiple wins per each shoe, but I do not suggest to apply this strategy as bac remains a game full of traps (unless a huge betting spread is utilized after the profit was secured).
I know it's not that appealing to set up a mere +1 profit per shoe (especially knowing that not every shoe is eligible to be played), but think that we join bac tables just to win getting an astounding high probability of success and not to gamble.
Moreover we see that the "luck" factor will be placed in the remotest corner; after having assessed that a given shoe is playable, we do know that a certain event must happen at least once.
A thing confirmed by the fact that itlr profitable spots will produce points mathematically favorite at the start, meaning that no matter which side we've got to bet, itlr the side we wagered got the highest twocard value by values very different to a random environment.
Again you can measure the validity of your system/method/approach by simply controlling the percentages of the twocard highest point happening on the wagered side.
If itlr such values tend to be equal, alas the method can't work. It's just a mere kind of taxed unbeatable coin flip proposition.
as.

@alrelax,
I do not believe in trying to define card order or the meaning of Randomness and how to literally beat it. I don't believe anyone ever will and I don't believe it's possible to do any type of mechanical or scheduled wagering with successful results with consistent play.
Well, I agree with your first sentence but not with second. Actually, people did not witness any mechanical strategy so far that beats the house edge and variance both together but it is not impossible either. Until when an aeroplane was devised and successfully flew with man inside the machine, it was considered a dream only. Many people tried even silly things to do the same but all failed. Now, we not just go to continent to continent flying, we are reaching even Mars. I will not proclaim that I have done something like that recently but I am close to that. It is pretty doable.

A supposedly random environment having the same attributes (collective) produces a miriad of subcollectives that should confirm or not that the original source was produced really randomly.
Of course we need a lot of samples to assess that as many subcollectives are formed by diluted outcomes that may present a short term positive (or negative) variance wrongly fooling or discouraging us.
The best watchdog of randomness is the statistical concept of dispersion, being the sd the most common one.
In a word, opposite results whatever taken should follow the distribution laws of the theorical probability of each result, in our example that itlr resolved results are pB=0.5068 and pP=0.4932.
We know that there's no fkng way such values are really working per each hand dealt or per every shoe dealt, being the result of two different finite 50/50 or 57.93/42.07 ratios.
A supposedly random environment having the same attributes (collective) produces a miriad of subcollectives that should confirm or not that the original source was produced really randomly.
Of course we need a lot of samples to assess that as many subcollectives are formed by diluted outcomes that may present a short term positive (or negative) variance wrongly fooling or discouraging us.
The best watchdog of randomness is the statistical concept of dispersion, being the sd the most common one.
In a word, opposite results whatever taken should follow the distribution laws of the theorical probability of each result, in our example that itlr resolved results are pB=0.5068 and pP=0.4932.
Actually we know that there's no fkng way such probability values are really working per each hand dealt or per every shoe dealt, being the result of two different finite 50/50 or 57.93/42.07 ratios.
The fact that long term values tend to more and more approach such values doesn't necessarily mean each shoe dealt is randomly placed. In reality an astounding amount of two fighting results are not getting the sd values expected for a mere theorical probability. What we need to set up a long term unbeatable plan.
as.

Imo and according to a couple of serious players the best situation to aim for is to win just one unit per shoe. Say per every playable shoe.
Hence there are no "good" or "bad" shoes, just shoes that may or not offer enough "room" to get the searched situations.
"Room" doesn't necessarily means the number of hands dealt so far. There are many of additional factors involved I don't want to discuss here.
Actually in some cardrooms shoes are still shuffled manually, say quickly and badly shuffled thus we could think to get multiple wins per each shoe, but I do not suggest to apply this strategy as bac remains a game full of traps (unless a huge betting spread is utilized after the profit was secured).
I know it's not that appealing to set up a mere +1 profit per shoe (especially knowing that not every shoe is eligible to be played), but think that we join bac tables just to win getting an astounding high probability of success and not to gamble.
Moreover we see that the "luck" factor will be placed in the remotest corner; after having assessed that a given shoe is playable, we do know that a certain event must happen at least once.
A thing confirmed by the fact that itlr profitable spots will produce points mathematically favorite at the start, meaning that no matter which side we've got to bet, itlr the side we wagered got the highest twocard value by values very different to a random environment.
Again you can measure the validity of your system/method/approach by simply controlling the percentages of the twocard highest point happening on the wagered side.
If itlr such values tend to be equal, alas the method can't work. It's just a mere kind of taxed unbeatable coin flip proposition.
as.
You write so many things that are spot on. To those people that play mostly 'online' I would say they will tend to be less agreeable. And, like yourself, I rather not get into discussions as to the technicality of the online gambler versus the brick and motor live casino gambler. Two different sets of everything, IMO!
Things will work and the same things will not work, in the same shoe or the following shoe or 3 or 5 shoes later or switching tables, etc.
As I have been attempting to express, define and bring out the type of play I am involved in at B&M casinos, it is not always easy to write about. Yes, some things are left out and other things I write about are drug out. I do not know anyway to make all happy any longer here.
A great example was the other night at the casino. The shoe was a classic gold mine waiting to be picked. IMO, years ago the casino would have got smacked and I mean big time, like hundreds of thousands of dollars would have went flying out of the dealers rack. But today the highest majority of the people do not play the way they used to, like pre2005'ish lets say. Rarely these days is the casino hurt. Almost every hand it is pick up $3,000 or $4,000 and pay out $800 or $1,500. Or pick up $8,000 and pay out $3,000 or pick up $1,000 and pay out $150. You get the drift.
Playing for the CUT, meaning the opposite or playing for something to happen, will almost with the highest majority of the times, grind the player right down with his buy in. If you are playing for a one unit win and that is it, that is very easily done with time, willpower and nothing else to do. (I will repeat myself, I have a full time business, I have other things I do, I have family, I do not go to a casinohang all day or all night and spend countless hours each and every day on the gaming floors). Nothing wrong, I just do not do that. With that said, I was at the casino the other night. The shoe was a few ones and twos the way it started, then 2 rows of Players side wins the first one 8 Players repeating than one Banker then one Player then one Banker then another 9 Players repeating themselves once again.
I watched in amazement how every single person on that table except for one, wagered and kept wagering for the Bankers side to win. Tens of thousand of dollars were lost to the casino. I am telling you, the newer style of baccarat is in the casinos favor, tailored by the casino and most of its dealers, the set ups and the aura in general. Couple those things with the higher internet know it all, AAlpha male persona, etc., and the casino is a happy camper as the saying goes.
Then after the two rows of Players side wins, there was a section of 1s, 2s and 3s. Then the Bankers side wins almost replicated those Players side repeating wins to a T. Except they were stronger and with more naturals and a lot of 7s over 6s, and 4s and 5s for the Bankers first two cards and the Players 3rd card killing the Players side each time. Of course while all that was going on, almost everyone once again refused to follow but rather went on a wagering war siding with the Players side instead of what was being produced and presented, the Bankers side. It equaled right out. The balance of the winning hands equaled out and it does more times than not. Then it just bounced back and forth until the end of the shoe for the following 20 hands or so.
No matter what the shoe was producing, almost everyone was only wagering for the CUT, if it was repeating they were all convinced the next hand would go to the opposite side. If it did CUT, they were then convinced the shoe would produce a repeat and it never did, at least 8 or 9 times out of every 10 hands.
I am just amazed at the typical players mentality these days. And it is not in one market here, it is the same from region to region. Sure there are some places that occasionally play the way most of us did prior to 2005 or for sure 2000. But I would have to say it is a complete opposite turn around, more and more in the casinos favor for numerous reasons, some of which I have outlined and wrote about in the past.

I remember one occasion where I was railbirding a couple of asian players at an off Strip casino.
Knowing the minimum limit was $10, they got a hell of bankroll something like $20.000 or more.
They used a violent martingale like 141025 and of course they started to accumulate chips.
It seemed they used a weird selection the like of wagering alternatively for the repeat and for the cut.
I stayed there and of course they lost their composure (and they money) after having crossed an "unlikely" losing streak of ten hands.
Curiously in each hand they've lost but one they got the best twocard hand, third and fourth cards made the disaster.
Ask those players about the importance to start with the best twocard hand, :))
as.

That is the way they generally play at The Palace Station as well as the Gold Coast Casino. Those two that is the Asian's normal way they play 24/7. Other places have people that do the same as you described, but those two come to mind more than anywhere else in Vegas.
Comes to mind a few guys from one of the casinos I have been going to the past several months. I think they appeared with the beginning of the 20192020 college school year. So put it back around Sept/October. 3 Korean kids in college, foreign exchange students in some professional course at a grad school, either for medical/doctor or legal/law. Their parents/family have money no doubt. One can tell just by their clothes, super nice designer clothes. Their buyin can always be a round up of cash from their peers, the way it was always done on the east coast with the Asian, particular the Chinese in the larger restaurants with 75 to 300 employees or so, pooling their cash together and designating one or two people to head to Atlantic City to play it out. But these 3 Koreans are not doing that, because no one is ever watching them.
Anyway, they only play the CUT or 1 or 2 repeats, that is it. Consistently, always. They been here for about 4 months now, playing about 4 or 5 times a week. They win, they lose of course. They are close to table max bettors more than 50% of the time they are wagering. They do not wager every hand and they play a few shoes at most. However, what does stick out is their remarks, their reactions and their physically gestures.
You know they read about the game on the internet and/or YouTube. Probably they also were told about it from other peers of theirs. Combine the two and their inexperience and gullibility, and that leads to, lets experiment with mom and dads cash, at least that is my summation anyway.
Say they are on the Bank with a two card 6 and the Players side has a 1 or 2 or a 3. You can see their facial gestures and smiles if you look at them without that 3rd card coming out for the Players side. 9 times out of 10, they are raising their hands and pausing to high five each other, counting on a monkey or a card coming out to allow them to win of course. Then the card comes out that brings the Players side up to a 7 or 8 or a 9 and if you just glance at their faces, you would observe a smile immediately turning to a frown or their lips silently saying, "F**k that S**t", etc., etc. Repeatedly.
Or say they were on the Players side and the player had a 2 card 7 and the Bankers side had two monkeys or a total of 0. Then the 3rd card for the Bankers side comes out and it is an 8 or a 9. Yes, this does not happen every time, but when it is happening and continues to happen, an experienced bac player knows to back off and not to martingale or employ anything of the likes.
The other night repeatedly, the Players side would have a 2 card 0 or a total of 1 or 2 and the Bankers side would have a two card total of 0. If they were on the Players side they would pull something to reduce them to 0 or stay at the two card total of 1 maybe. Then the Bankers side would pull a real low card, every time, but just enough to beat the Players by say one or two. Then they switch to the Bankers side and then exact same thing began to happen. Once again, their faces and their gestures are comical. Maybe one day they will learn, it is not over until it is over. They can not be over 21 or 22, so maybe they have a total of a year experience or so?
Another night they did pretty well. This is not a high dollar casino, just a $5,000.00 or so table max. But they were up probably $40,000 to $50,000 or so. Then they ran into a section of 1520 hands where almost every hand is only a 2 card draw. Each side having 6 or better. Like I said, this went on for like a solid 1520 hands, which in our B&M casinos, means a solid 3045 minuets of time. Whenever they had a 7, the other side had a Natural 8. If they had a Natural 8 the other side had the same or even a Natural 9.
Watching their faces and their super obvious frustration, produced their extremely noticeable unbelievability. IMO, one knows they obtained their gaming instructions and references from some system or some YouTube $99.00 something another, etc.

That's why a multiple multilevel random walks distribution will help us to restrict the variance at the lowest limits.
Whenever different random walks would elicit to bet the same side, we know our probability of success will get astounding values, a strong undeniable proof that shoes are not randomly produced or that a kind of detectable dependency works on most part of shoes dealt.
Technically it's what we call a "convergence of probability", a term coined several years ago by a roulette expert.
Theorically at any independent or very slight dependent proposition, any random walk (no matter how many r.w.'s we want to launch simultaneously) each spot we decide to bet will get the expected deviations considered at a kind of 50/50 game, say at a 0.5068/0.4932 p values.
Practically things go in a different way, as many spots MUST happen within a restricted range of hands dealt.
All depends on how we want to classify outcomes, and you know the worst tool we can utilize is by considering hands as B or P simple successions.
Actually casinos offer those st.u.p.id roads displayed on the screen as they know very well they are totally worthless.
Even considering those 5 different derived roads as 5 random walks, no way a convergence of probability may happen as they are taking into account EACH resolved hand (3 roads) or real BPT results (remaining 2 roads).
Remember, I'm here to disprove the real randomness of shoes dealt or the general undetectable slight dependency, it's not a coincidence that my plans get rid of many hands that tend to confuse the whole picture.
Say that after certain conditions are met, we could set up a simpler unb plan #3, one which could wager against the multiple formations of 3+ streaks on both sides.
It's not the final solution to beat this game, nonetheless it's a good start.
as.

What's what I name as a multilevel random walk?
It's a mechanical preordered betting scheme made by building one of the several subcollectives derived from the original BP succession. Not necessarily considering each outcome of the original succession.
As long as the attributes to build such subcollectives remain constant, we know that a supposedly random source must produce the same features on every new collective we had built. Regardless of place selection and probability after events features that definitely will confirm or not the real randomness of the sample.
Next week more about the construction of such r.w.
as.

Sometimes, ok most times, when I read Asymbacguy posts, I feel myself reading a scientific journal or a chemistry reference book because I am totally lost.
Kudos to your scientific and mathematical approach to the game. I posted before some news about a group mathematically making hundreds of millions from horse betting. So I suppose it can be done also for baccarat or roulette.
I wish I have the mathematical inclination .....

[/fontImo and according to a couple of serious players the best situation to aim for is to win just one unit per shoe. Say per every playable shoe.
If your unit size is 5000$ and you get that win 4 times a week x 50 weeks ... I would be more than happy and then forget about gambling .

Thanks Lungyeh, I hope to give you very soon a direct demonstration of what I'm talking about.
@Fran7738, you took the point.
I guess many casinos know that bac is beatable, the game is still alive as most players like to gamble.
At the winning rate you've suggested the probability of success is very very very close to 1.
as.

Before going into details of what a multilevel random walk is, let me know how the fkng fk you can lose by MM assessing three simple different onestep r.w.'s working on B double consecutiveness considered at the levels #1, #2 and #3. Where #1 and #2 scenarios take an astounding primary role.
Even if casinos know such B doubles detectable distribution, thus maybe voluntarly fixing outcomes to get a lot of consecutive B doubles, we can easily build many other r.w.'s collecting results by undetectable ways, mainly by coding results as I or O results thus negating a random distribution.
as.

[/fontImo and according to a couple of serious players the best situation to aim for is to win just one unit per shoe. Say per every playable shoe.
If your unit size is 5000$ and you get that win 4 times a week x 50 weeks ... I would be more than happy and then forget about gambling .
You would need a huge bankroll and I would estimate between $300,000 to $400,000 of disposable income that you can draw down on because you would have periods of 20 to 30 attempts or presentments that will fail.
Anything is possible in the game of Baccarat but if you're going to consecutively wager and have a stop loss of three, four or five units you are going to have a drawdown at least 30 units before you start to even make anything back.

Putting things in a simple way, bac is beatable itlr as it's made by continuous asymmetrical propositions, most of them not easily detectable by common standards.
We are here to (partially) demonstrate that such constant asymmetricity (rules, card distribution, key cards concentration/dilution, finiteness of the shoe) will be endorsed by the paramount inference of unrandomness.
More practically speaking, profitable spots arise from a strict scientifical convergence of probability measure where different r.w.'s dictate or not to wager the same B/P result being the reflex of a I/O situation.
as.

Suppose we want to classify BP outcomes assigning 1 to any B result and 2 to any P result.
Thus a sequence as BPBBBPPBPBP becomes 12111221212
Now let's add the number on the left with the adjacent number placed on the right in a way to build another subsequence.
In our example, we'll get 3322343333
The number of "runs", that is situations where a number stays at the same level are transformed from 7 in the original sequence to 5 in the new one.
Before continuing let's see what happens on strong streaky BP situations as
BBBBBPPPBBPPPPPPPBBBBBBPPPPP =
1111122211222222211111122222
then
222234432344444432222234444
here the number of runs is 6 on the original sequence and 11 on the new one.
or a "choppy" sequence as
BPBPBPPBPBBPBPBPBPPBPBPB
121212212112121212212121 =
3333343332333333343333
Number of runs shifts from 21 to 7.
Let's try to fictionally build a shoe getting many runs on our new sequence.
Easy to do, we need many different sums coming in fast succession.
Example:
BPPBBPPBBPPBBPPBBPPBB =
12211221122112211 (runs= 9)
3432343234323432 (runs= 16)
Nothing special so far, it's just another way to consider the hands distribution taken from a simple B/P point of view. A wrong point of view. But...
as.

Those new derived subsequences are not forming random successions as 2 cannot go to 4 and 4 cannot go to 2 without crossing the 3 step.
Moreover no matter how whimsical is the original BP succession, any shoe will produce a given number of 23 / 32 or 34 / 43 steps.
Notice that we shouldn't give a damned fk about the lenght of same level values, let alone the exact or approximated final number of runs. We instead should focus about the actual probability to get one or a couple of runs on different portions of the shoe.
If the original succession is perfectly randomly placed, the subsequent derived collectives cannot give us profitable betting spots as in order to get an advantage we must put in action certain random walks anyway.
I mean that a perfect random original sequence cannot form low dispersion values on derived situations no matter how sophisticated they are intended, what we really need to set up an unbeatable plan.
as.

Next why some random walks applied to baccarat are better than others. The decisive tool to destroy this fkng beautiful game.
as.

We've seen that every shoe in the universe can be considered just as a 234 sequence of runs.
In my example I've chosen to consider the simple hand to hand registration, meaning that every resolved hand will be eligible to be listed.
Moreover hands are considered by a simple B=1 and P=2 registration.
Now say we do not want to simply assign the 1 value to B and 2 value to P, instead 1 to an identical situation and 2 to an opposite situation taken at a given mechanically preordered pace.
If the results succession will be really randomly placed, we know this tool won't affect the dispersion values. Technically speaking, we want to disprove the common knowledge that any mechanical preordered plan will be insensitive to every place selection strategy. The only way to prove this game is beatable.
There are infinite ways to set up random walks trying to disprove a perfect randomness, being the runs distribution the common denominator.
Any bac hand/pattern distribution is a complex result made of three finite different forces acting along a slight dependent model:
1 asymmetricity favoring B side
2 very slight propensity to get the opposite result just happened
3 key cards distribution (low cards should be considered as key cards as 8s/9s)
Taking those three factors together some r.w.'s are more inclined to provide a higher number of runs.
as.

Making things in a more complicated way, we could set up many different r.w.'s utillizing a pace different than 1.
After all the general law of independence of the results should work no matter how deep we want to classify the outcomes, right?
Thus a BPBBPPBPBBBBBBPBPPPPBPBBPPB succession could be
121122121111112122221211221 (1 pace) or
11211112221121 (2 pace) or
111111222 (3 pace)
Again summing the two adjacent numbers from left to right we'll get:
1 pace) 33234333222223334443332343 (runs: 12)
2 pace) 2332223443233 (runs: eight)
3 pace) 22222344 (runs: 3)
Skipping certain outcomes provides a better evaluation of the place selection impact, that is the main factor by which certain subsequences must be considered as collectives or not.
And naturally in this example the best indicator is the number of runs.
We should convert what others call "stop loss" or stop wins" cutoff points with the simple number of runs, especially if we want to disprove a real randomness.
Without boring to test many shoes, it's intuitive that a kind of asymmetrical force is acting along the way on the vast majority of shoes dealt, our task should be directed to spot the shoes where such asym force will be more likely to act on certain points.
Now let's sat we want to follow two opposite players, one player A wishing to parlay his bet up to 5 steps toward a new same number situation (being 2, 3 or 4) and the other one B wishing to make a progressive plan toward not getting same number clusters (up to 5 steps).
Player A will win anytime 5 or more consecutive homogeneous situations will show up (22..33..44.. 33, etc) and player B will win anytime a given number won't be clustered up to 5 times.
From a math point of view both players will get the same results getting different W/L frequencies.
In the practice things go quite differently.
as.

Summarizing:
 no way you can find a long term profitable betting plan without speculating that outcomes are not perfectly randomly placed as random bac outcomes are unbeatable by a 1 billion degree.
 to ascertain outcomes are not properly random produced only place selection and probability after events tools can help you by strict scientifically accurate assessments. Some bac productions are better than others, meaning they involve a higher unrandomness factor.
 best way to take an advantage without suffering the variance impact is by looking just for one unit profit per a given amount of hands.
 no matter how's your strategy and which side you choose to bet, each set of two consecutive wagers must get a way higher 75% probability to win. Considering as Banker side as a steady advantaged option is one of the biggest mistake to make. Asym hands favoviring Banker don't come out so often, especially whether consecutively taken.
 the game cannot be altered or predicted by human considerations, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
as.

Summarizing:
 no way you can find a long term profitable betting plan without speculating that outcomes are not perfectly randomly placed as random bac outcomes are unbeatable by a 1 billion degree.
 to ascertain outcomes are not properly random produced only place selection and probability after events tools can help you by strict scientifically accurate assessments. Some bac productions are better than others, meaning they involve a higher unrandomness factor.
 best way to take an advantage without suffering the variance impact is by looking just for one unit profit per a given amount of hands.
 no matter how's your strategy and which side you choose to bet, each set of two consecutive wagers must get a way higher 75% probability to win. Considering as Banker side as a steady advantaged option is one of the biggest mistake to make. Asym hands favoviring Banker don't come out so often, especially whether consecutively taken.
 the game cannot be altered or predicted by human considerations, otherwise it wouldn't exist.
as.
Explaining certain finds are difficult. Great writing.
Add my Sections & Turning Points and a player can start capitalize!
And so many baccarat players forget about that 5th card coming out that more often favors the players side rather than the bankers. Especially with something that's foreseeable within a section.
Such as when the players have zero or even a 1, so often players pull that big card meaning a six, seven or eight and it puts the bankers out of the game for that hand or the players have that three, four, five or six and the players pull that small card again it puts the bankers out of the game for that hand. And it happens repeatedly within a section like three or four players to one Banker, four or five players to one or two bankers then another one or two or three players to one banker and then three or four players to one or two bankers and then a little mini run comes out of 5, 6, 7, 8 players to one or two Bankers before it straightens out.
And it's so easy to capitalize on all those players versus waiting for the bank to get strong. At least in my opinion, you know what I'm talking about.

Dear friend, I'm just looking forward to play with you and Lung (and maybe few others), I mean serious money I know three of us get.
Let's wait this fkng Covid19 stuff stops.
as.

Oh yeah, don't forget some of the other things I wrote and one of the most important is 0, 1, 2, 3 ties and how things seem to stay the same no matter if it's players or ones and twos or whatever, but I find that holds true more so towards strong players or chopping rather than Banker's clumping together, reference the low amounts of ties such as what's in these two shoes in the link.
https://betselection.cc/wageringintricacies/heavyplayerbetwhatisbeingpresented/

Ties are a complicated issue as any method must get rid of those "unresolved BP hands".
Yet they exist consuming space and cards.
In addition ties are way more likely when 6 cards are utilized to form a hand.
I fear that shoes containing a lot of ties perhaps are less manageable when using a "fixed" plan, but it would take a lot of time to ascertain their real impact over the different registrations I've discussed here.
Surely after a tie future real BP probabilities change, very slightly maybe still they change.
It should be interesting to study how many cards are utilized per each shoe in relationship of the r.w.'s applied, for example.
Notoriously most likely winning hands are formed by only 4 cards then by 5 cards. When more cards are utilized to produce a hand a sort of dilution effect may come out.
Anyway I firmly believe that any valuable method, system or approach when dictating to bet B or P that side must contain a mathematical advantaged situation on the first two cards dealt.
Therefore if I passed 70 minutes to wait for a profitable situation and I'm betting Player, I want Player to show a standing or natural point and not a K4 catching a third card 4 vs a Banker standing 7.
Of course we could win a hand as underdog (or losing it as huge favorite), I'd prefer to lose it being favorite.
as.

Now suppose that in order to build our new sequences, instead of considering normal BP results we use the blue and red spots of the three displayed derived roads (big eye boy, small road and cockroach road).
Again we decide to assign the 1 value to red spots and 2 to blue spots.
Then we sum the two adjacent numbers from left to right.
Do have those new sequences the same features belonging to the sequences derived by the original BP succession?
as.

Moreover could we connect in some way the three derived roads in order to get a unique distribution (r.w.) where dispersion values are way lower than expected?
Obviously knowing that only when all roads dictate to bet the same side such new r.w. exists and, more importantly, is bettable.
as.

When all 3 roads predicting the same outcome supported by a definitive ?highway? on the Pearl chart, you can be sure its coming out the opposite. Pearl is the vertical presentation of 6 lines down. ?Highway? means across the horizontal line, all are the same for eg on the 3rd horizontal row across say 4 columns its all Banker so on the 5 th column the highway concept is expecting also a Banker. If this is supporter by all the 3 roads pointing to a banker, I would refrain from betting Banker or maybe minimise my bet as the whole table would be pouring on to Banker.
Its not schadenfreude to see a Player win in such a case but it happens too often. If it is so certain, the casinos would be taken to the cleaners. Just some reading. You of course, are free to disagree.
Stay blessed. First time playing online as Malaysia is locked down and the only casino here, Genting is closed. Online is with live dealers and 5 tables. Interesting. Like the stadium concept

Can I please interject here and just give my opinion?
That is, it is beatable, but it can also beat you.
The highest majority, not all but the highest majority of all players will not capitalize on the opportunities that are being presented by the shoe and then when they do they are so convinced that's how they can beat it
Then the Dominos fall for the rest of the shoe or the following shoe, if you get what I mean.

Hi Lungyeh.
It's very very very likely players won't build long term profitable random walks (that is r.w.'s getting very low variance) by simply assembling the outcomes of the three derived roads I'm referring to (beb, sr and cockroach r).
And considering bead plate (placing outcomes in columns of 6 hands each) doesn't make the job. Dispersion values applied to such mechanical road are adhering to expected situations, that is to an unbeatable world.
Imo to get a long term profitable plan we must get rid of many unnecessary hands, those tending to surpass certain cutoff values that can easily hurt our strategy.
And from a strict statistical point of view, profitable situations won't arise so often. This because a supposedly unrandom world (the only one cause that make us long term winners) wil be quite diluted.
Imo the only way to beat baccarat is by considering strong asymmetrical random walks applied to a slight asymmetrical model as baccarat is.
For example, the situation where "infinite" PBB patterns show up in succession is one of the simplest event we should look for.
No matter how many P hands come between a PBB pattern and a new single B hand, we know that our plan starts after a precise situation happened. That is a sort of compromise between the most math probability to get another B and the very very slight propensity to get the opposite hand (P).
Vast majority of card distributions will place asymmetrical results on this plan, not necessarily strong favoring one event or the other one.
Of course it could "easily" happen on some shoes that the same asym situation will go on and on, meaning that our asymmetrical strategy will be canceled by an unlikely card distribution transforming a steady asym world into a seemingly symmetrical model.
Later some thoughts about derived roads.
as.

The highest majority, not all but the highest majority of all players will not capitalize on the opportunities that are being presented by the shoe and then when they do they are so convinced that's how they can beat it
True, yet they do not realize that profitable opportunities won't come out around the corner.
That's why casinos entice players to bet every hand dealt, a sure recipe for disaster.
as.

Think that no way a card distrbution working into an asymmetrical model can get symmetrical results for long and at various degrees. So in some sense and in order to build a long term plan we are compelled to wager towards asymmetricity. Unrandomness enforces such asymmetricity.
Statistically speaking, it's just the number of runs (whatever intended) that confirm or not the randomness of our sample.
Since you can take for granted that live shoes aren't random produced, we are forced to evaluate the number and the probability to get asym results per every shoe dealt.
We know that card distributions can produce infinite results, yet the probability to get something is endorsed by restricting outcomes that tend to go beyond given points and we know that the best way to limit the results is by classifying them into 1, 2 and 3 situations.
Transforming into math such probabilites, we know that 1=50%, 2=25% and 3=25%.
Of course when wagering B side 1 probability is lower than 2 and, at at a lesser degree, 3>2 and the oppposite is true about P side.
Nonetheless and from a strict bet selection point of view, such asym values won't get much of a difference.
Best example is by considering my up #2, spots where we'll win first by hoping for a B single as it's lowering the general B>P propensity as itlr previous BB trigger must involve a kind of already wornout asymmetrical force (providing BBB gaps are close). Whether such asym math force hadn't acted yet, probability to get another B hand after a BB pattern is generally endorsed.
For the same reasons any 3 event will be followed or not by another 3 event and the general probability will be always 0.25%. Yet the actual probability is quite lowered or raised in some shoes and dependent on which random walks we choose to follow.
as.

Think that no way a card distrbution working into an asymmetrical model can get symmetrical results for long and at various degrees. So in some sense and in order to build a long term plan we are compelled to wager towards asymmetricity. Unrandomness enforces such asymmetricity.
Statistically speaking, it's just the number of runs (whatever intended) that confirm or not the randomness of our sample.
Since you can take for granted that live shoes aren't random produced, we are forced to evaluate the number and the probability to get asym results per every shoe dealt.
We know that card distributions can produce infinite results, yet the probability to get something is endorsed by restricting outcomes that tend to go beyond given points and we know that the best way to limit the results is by classifying them into 1, 2 and 3 situations.
Transforming into math such probabilites, we know that 1=50%, 2=25% and 3=25%.
Of course when wagering B side 1 probability is lower than 2 and, at at a lesser degree, 3>2 and the oppposite is true about P side.
Nonetheless and from a strict bet selection point of view, such asym values won't get much of a difference.
Best example is by considering my up #2, spots where we'll win first by hoping for a B single as it's lowering the general B>P propensity as itlr previous BB trigger must involve a kind of already wornout asymmetrical force (providing BBB gaps are close). Whether such asym math force hadn't acted yet, probability to get another B hand after a BB pattern is generally endorsed.
For the same reasons any 3 event will be followed or not by another 3 event and the general probability will be always 0.25%. Yet the actual probability is quite lowered or raised in some shoes and dependent on which random walks we choose to follow.
as.
In some baccarat forums i have read that gamblers with a very good success used such strategy  in random.org get a random number from 0 to 1 list and, using 0 as banker and 1 as player, were betting in baccarat. What you can say about such a method where bets are predetermined ?

Difficult to answer without getting enough informations.
I think a predetermined plan must be set up simply by precise arithmetically solutions related to actual situations. Without those we're not going anywhere, imo.
Say I want to bet Player two times at resolved hands #35 and #36 after hands #1 and #23 have all shown Banker.
General probability will dictate that my probability of success will be 0.4932 x 0.4932, that is I'll lose both bets 25.68% of the times.
But if such hands will not involve an asym situation math favoring B side, the probability to lose is no higher than 25% and probably some card distributions favoring P side are lowering such percentage, hence my two consecutive bets will be EV+.
Is this predetermined plan going to get me an advantage? Of course it isn't.
Maybe those trigger hands were not involving an asymmetrical situation, thus slight enlarging the probablity to get one right on my selected bets, thus lowering my p.o.s. And vice versa.
Taken the problem by another perspective I could argue that the probability to get all Bankers on hands #1, #23, #35 and #36 is quite lowered as I'm considering distant outcomes.
Thinking this way I could build infinite random walks just to see whether my many 4 handpatterns will confirm or not the general probability to happen.
But it's only the quality factor on the triggers chosen that makes the difference and not a relationship between two very different models not considering the "how".
as.

Imo it's only the connection of various patterns happening along any shoe that can make this game beatable.
Connection means the relationship working among different situations (r.w.'s) that show up along any shoe.
In this way we are not betting toward getting a steady state for long, instead to get a given state change after certain states not belonging to our multiple r.w.'s plan had occurred.
Nothing wrong to "ride" homogeneuos or shifted patterns, providing we have a solid reason to do that.
For example, if many asymmetrical hands provided only Player hands (thus inverting a sure general math advantage favoring B) future hands will be more likely to be symmetrically placed, hence any P bet payed 1:1 will be better than any B bet payed 0.95:1.
The argument by which future hands will be more likely placed on B side as "it is more due" is ridiculous. Any missed math opportunity having a low frequency of apparition is a missed opportunity for B side, period.
But we know that such situations arise by a quite low frequency thus we need more frequent occasions to put our money at risk.
Any shoe that baccarat's gods can provide is formed by multiple pattern steps, name them as runs, homogeneous patterns or whatever.
Now casinos will make their business by knowing that itlr our plans will get a lesser amount of homogeneous (easily detectable) patterns than any other situation. Moreover and from a strict math point of view every our bet is EV, thus we'll surely go broke.
Sometimes shoes will provide easy betting situations (long runs, long chops, strong predominance, etc) and that's the main strategy 99.9% of bac players rely upon.
Unfortunately this is a short term favourable occurence.
More interesting is the fact that no matter what will be the future results distribution, some random walks will get an advantage or, better sayed, that some r.w.'s do not dictate to bet anything unless certain conditions are met. Some conditions are easily detcetable and others are more intricated.
If this way of thinking would be flawed, dispersion values wouldn't be affected by such kind of selection.
To get a practical example, think about how many 12 and 13 situations or BB consecutive doubles are coming or not after a given amount of hands dealt.
as.

I have posted pics of shoes with what i call, Sections. And exactly what you said here: "Sometimes shoes will provide easy betting situations (long runs, long chops, strong predominance, etc) and that's the main strategy 99.9% of bac players rely upon. Unfortunately this is a short term favourable occurence.", is spot on!
With the keywords being, sometimes and short term.

Exactly and it's not a coincidence that I've started this thread mentioning Kashiwagi and not only because he was one of the biggest high stakes bac player ever.
as.

Start thinking that any bac shoe dealt is asymmetrically placed as cards cannot be symmetrically placed along any single shoe, moreover as bac rules are not symmetrically intended.
It's up to us to spot the situations where such asymmetricity gets a valuable strenght capable to invert the fkng house edge. And to be consistent long term winners we need just few spots to be ahead.
It's intuitive that such asymmetricity cannot last for long or, better sayed, that this asym factor works at different degrees per any shoe dealt.
Notice that I'm not talking about Banker advantage, to get such advantage we need precise situations to appear as P drawing and B getting a 3,4,5 or 6 initial point.
Whenever a given asym level is surpassed (whatever intended), no one prediction is possible as the asym strenght will be "randomly" placed more often than not.
That's why is important to play shoes where asym levels won't reach huge values at the start.
as.

as...thanks for your information and perspective. Certainly is more than just interesting....I've read and reread your posts and not sure I understand all of it, but I was able to use the asymmetrical "hand" in a few live sessions before things shut down...and was pretty successful with it.. in your post above, you refer to asymmetrical shoes...is there a larger asymmetrical picture we should be looking for or tracking in addition the just the individual hands ? Again, appreciate your posts and looking forward to learning more. Thanks again...

Hi Rick and thanks!
I know the suggestions I'm disorderly posting cannot give the reader precise betting guidelines, it's made on purpose.
Yep, you took one of the fundamental points to beat bac.
Instead of wagering hoping for this or that or, even worse, to play general probabilities, we should focus to understand the asymmetrical level of the actual shoe.
To do that we need to put into action several r.w.'s, setting up the actual relative probability compared to the general 0.5068/0.4932 proposition.
If the dispersion values taken from a place selection point of view remain unchanged, baccarat is not beatable.
In a sense, we do not want to simply bet toward asymmetricity but instead toward certain different levels of asymmetricity that are present per each shoe dealt.
And of course the most favourable situation to look for is 1.
I'll write more on that in few days.
Cheers!
as.

A deck of cards shuffled decently is asymmetrical by definition.
Let's shuffle numerous times a simple 52 cards deck and register how many times three or four same suit cards are coming out consecutively. Of course after something had happened (say many spades were turned out), the future probability to get those consecutive suited cards on diamonds, clubs and hearts is enlarged in some way.
But no one would be so naive to think that after any single diamonds, clubs or hearts card coming out the future probability will be always enlarged or at least included within playable terms (assuming the game is EV).
We could easily get a lot of decks with a low spades impact producing many D,C and H consecutive sequences not belonging to the 3 or 4 same suit occurence we are looking for.
Of course one could think that a possible strategic plan may be oriented NOT to get long same suit sequences up to a point and naturally based upon the partial aknowledge of the removed cards nature as we've seen about the spades example.
And one could think that same suit cards on next decks may be "clumped" in some way as a physically perfect shuffle doesn't exist at all.
At baccarat things work differently as removed cards cannot sensibly affect future outcomes, yet baccarat is an asymmetrical proposition at the start and at every single point even without the natural asymmetrical cards impact.
Anyway the asymasym value is so high that it's impossible any single deck dealt in the universe will be symmetrically placed as, simply put, symmetricity at baccarat cannot exist.
Now the problem is to spot the situations where a constant asymmetrical proposition made on two different levels (bac rules and card distribution) will reach very low dispersion values as something is "more due" no matter what.
Suppose casinos know the B doubles vulnerability and start arranging shoes to produce a lot of consecutive B doubles.
Who cares?
The B double plan is just one random walk, for example many B doubles will entice the probability to get many 12 B situations and we need just one to be ahead.
Casinos will arrange shoes to get a lot of B doubles and B 3+ streaks without any B single trigger thus destroying one half of my ub #1? Perfect, the vast majority of baccarat players will wager to follow the consecutive B streaks line.
Since almost no one bac shoe won't present at least one B single, we know that either plan #1 or #2 will get at least one win, more often (say everytime) multiple wins.
More on that tomorrow.
as.

The "alignment" curiosity
Suppose we want to arrange cards forming a shoe which provides all Banker or Player hands.
For simplicity we use just one deck.
One of the numerous card distribution producing all banker hands (and no ties) is:
A, A, K, 5, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, K, 4, 10, 3, 9, 6, Q, J, 7, 5, 8, 5, 8, 5, 8, J, 10, 9, 7, A, Q, A, 6, 6, 4, 10, 4, J, 9, J, 2, 10, K, 4, K, 3, 8, Q, Q, 7, 9. (6,7 left as they can't produce a hand)
Such sequence provides 11 straight Banker hands and no tie:
B B B B B B B B B B B
Now let's remove from the play the first card (A) from the play and see what happens:
P P T B B B B B B B
Or the first two cards (A, A):
B B T B B B B B B B
Finally the first three cards (A, A, K):
P B T B B B B B B B
We see that results are not much affected by burning one, two o three cards and such thing happens with a lot of decks. In a sense we could deduce that this card distribution is Banker polarized; it's just a matter of time that results will be aligned with the original untouched sequence.
Even when multiple decks are utilized or no substantial card clumping is present (as 23 and 58 in the example), things go quite in the same way, at least on the vast majority of the shoes dealt.
as.

isn't that because as the number of cards are taken away or used, there will come a time when it coincides with the intended pattern.
Mmm. Its food for thought.

View Profile Personal Message (Online)
(No subject)
? Sent to: AsymBacGuy on: April 29, 2020, 04:08:40 pm ?ReplyQuoteDelete
as....With regard to your last 2 posts, are you indicating that polarized (or strong side) sections of the shoe may be determined by a trigger of some sort, i.e. card values, or asym hands or lack of asym hands ) as opposed to a visual pattern that one side is starting to occur more frequently than the other ? Thanks

Hi Rickk!
Obviously patterns are the direct product of either math and card distribution.
To be consistent winners on long terms we need both.
For example there's no point to bet Banker if we have reasons to think that no asym hands will come out shortly or, it's the same, that many previous asym hands got the Player side winning.
We can't get a shoe featuring 20 or zero asym hands, anyway naturals and standing points must show up at a value well exceeding 1/3 of the total hands dealt. Those situations are the math advantaged hands, even though a favorite standing 7 will lose to a natural 8 or to a miracle 6 falling to the opposite underdog 2 point.
How much those "unfortunate" (or mistakenly considered "lucky") events will impact over the long run? I guess at a lesser degree than what the most likely course is going to take along the way.
Therefore a valuable betting method must be set up onto two different levels: math advantaged situations or card distributions so polarized that even the Player side may be slight advantaged.
We see that it's more difficult to spot or concentrate real Banker advantaged situations as the asym general probability is 8.4%, whereas Player side can be underdog just on those asym hands.
Of course Player side never get the astounding math advantage of 15.86% working on its asym hands, even knowing that the asym impact is a well finite factor.
Example.
We set up a mechanical plan dictating to bet one time Player side after any asym hand was produced. If a couple of asym hands were formed we'll stop the betting (that is we are trying to isolate asym math advantaged hands)
On average we'll bet 6 or 7 times, we will be hugely underdog only when consecutive asym hands will be formed. In the remaining cases we are at least playing a 0.5 no negative edge game (as linear card counting is a bighornshit).
Naturally itlr we'll expect to get the same asymsym and asymasym ratios, yet the asym/total hands dealt ratio is quite restricted.
And altogether naturally is that post asym hands situations are 50% dealt but one side is payed 0.95:1 and the other one 1:1.
Our new random walk wagering 6 or 7 hands per shoe is moving around two very different probabilities: the first probability is to get or not get another strong math advantaged situation favoring B, second probability is surely set up around the 0.5 value. It's the simplest example of 'probability after events' feature.
Think that we can take into account what happens after two or more hands after an asym hand happened or after a couple of consecutive asym hands, thus building infinite random walks.
Now it's the actual card distribution that plays the decisive role as symmetricity cannot exist at all at baccarat.
The idea to restrict the succession of outcomes within simple categories working under specific circumstances tries to approximate at best the actual card distribution.
Imo and according to our long term data, 12, 13 and B2B1/B3 are among the best indicators of the actual card distribution.
as.

A) 12
12 is the state where key cards are arranged quite proportionally along a given section of the shoe.
It's impossible or very very very very unlikely that a common B/P registration of such state can last for the entire shoe or most part of the shoe. A luxury offered by utlizing other form of random walks.
Obviously itlr 12 works better on P side than on B side.
Not surprisingly when the 12 state seem to be silent at the start of the shoe, the remaning portions of the shoe more often than not contain short 12 states. Naturally all depends about how good or bad are shuffled the cards.
B) 13
13 state is less likely to provide very long patterns and that's quite curious as given 1 as a costant, 2 should be equal to 3. Moreover 3 consumes more space than 2s thus increasing the probability to get an entire shoe or most part of it featuring this 13 state.
In some way we could infer that a proportional key cards thirdlevel arrangement on both sides is more unlikely, unless B keep forming 3s and P shows up in singles. Or, of course, that few 3s are interleft with many singles. But this being the case, we should just focus our betting on singles without risking the second bet.
C) 23
This state is like betting toward getting consecutive streaks, period.
In reality many shoes produce long consecutive streaks of any lenght, of course if I've omitted this state in my plans there's a reason. And the main reason is variance.
Differently to the above states, this onelevel state cannot get a backup plan: either we win or we lose. And imo and according to my data there's no valid selection to try to get a kind of advantage as we can only hope that cards are clustered in one way and just one time each.
Imo the value of such state should be indirectly taken. More often than not long 23 situations endorse the subsequent probability of A and B states.
D) B2/B1B3
This state starts its course after a precise condition will be met, that is a B double apparition.
Itlr any B double is the product of an asymmetrical value, even at a slight degree.
That is a small percentage of every B double is asymmetrically placed differently to what happens at Player side where such force must act oppositely.
Now we want to challenge the actual card distribution to get within a couple of hands either a quite proportional key cards distribution (Player side apparition) or, whether our previous attempt failed, a relatively shifted key cards distribution or asym situation favoring the same winning side (Banker).
In a word we're challenging the shoe to form another "same" situation just happened on that B side. And we can do this two times (betting after two B consecutive doubles), three times and so on.
In normal conditions and naturally itlr, this plan doesn't guarantee us a profit (and the same is true about the other plans) but the dispersion values calculated upon this plan are well lower than what we have been taught for years, that is that no matter which spot we select to bet into, probabilties will remain the same.
Actually tests made on LIVE shoes suggest that B doubles quality and B doubles consecutiveness produced at the start of a shoe can be a valuable trigger to evaluate the probability to get or not more B doubles.
Next time we'll see "albalaha way" how to manage real live unfortunate shoes that seem to disrupt those plans.
as.

Please forgive my honest 2 cent opinion here. I want to say it as honestly as I am allowed to say it here
To win baccarat consistently or to make a living in playing baccarat, there are many many factors associated with it. Yes, discipline, patience, tutelage of the game, determination and the will, sufficiently allotted bankroll and bet selection along with the right progression is a must. For me after 17 years of learning and playing the game with real money, the most important factor in winning the game consistently is bet selection and progression. They must be equally utilized.
Know when to walk out and when to walk in.
No amount of computer testing and or practice based on the theoretical approaches will be accomplished without hands on at the table playing with your hard earned money. I don?t want any new potential or prospect players to think that it is a piece of cake to make a living playing baccarat or to win the money consistently. There is no holy grail period.
Please read, learn and practice with real money at the table. Win or lose, strive to improve it from there.
My playing approaches are random vs random based on mathematical equations on progression. I set up my winning target and stop loss per session. Am I winning all the time, hell no. I win consistently and more than I lose, yes!
Please stay well and safe. I wish you, my fellow players, all the best..
Alrelax: please be kind to close my user account. You are welcome to communicate with me by other means because you my contact information.
Best regards,
Ted

So very very very true to the millionth power, past the School of Hard Knocks over the Wild Blue Yonder and past all the other agonizing metaphors, that exist in the world of Baccarat I quote the following:
"Know when to walk out and when to walk in.
No amount of computer testing and or practice based on the theoretical approaches will be accomplished without hands on at the table playing with your hard earned money. I don't want any new potential or prospect players to think that it is a piece of cake to make a living playing baccarat or to win the money consistently. There is no holy grail period.
Please read, learn and practice with real money at the table. Win or lose, strive to improve it from there."

Thanks for your contributes, but I'm afraid people want to know precisely the situations when to ride in and when to jump out of the shoe they're playing at.
Baccarat could be a form of both art and science, I still prefer the latter form as most players do not have the proper experience to learn the "when" and the "how" as Al or others can do.
If B2/B1B3 plan could get us possible valuable hints to consider bac outcomes, in order to spot some long term features let's take the asym counterpart, that is the P2/P1P3 opposite situation.
Again let's extract 10 shoes randomly from a live shoes data.
1) 211221
2) 111
3) 2111
4) 1
5) 12
6) 111
7) 113*
8) 111
9) 111
10) 112321
Obviously we could infer that P consecutive doubles must show up by higher percentages than B doubles. After all B2<B3 and P2>P3 itlr.
True, but at the same time P1>P2, so now we get two exact opposite forces acting after each P double apparition. Knowing of course that P2>P3 so lowering the probability of success of second bets made on such P plan.
It's the same conclusion made on B doubles: from one part something is "generally" more likely (B3>B2) and something will be "actually" more likely (B1>B2+), now considering Player side respectively reversed by P1>P2 (general) and P3>P2 (actual) values.
It's not a coincidence that we need a couple of "homogeneous" outcomes happening at the same side to be considered as triggers.
Itlr BB is an asymmetrical situation as well as is a PP pattern.
But a perfect symmetrical card distribution cannot happen by any means, especially whether bac rules dictate otherwise. Even though this kind of asymmetricity seem to produce "symmetrical" results, we should know that it's impossible to get perfect sym outcomes for long, for the simple reason that at baccarat nothing is symmetrical or at least that a mistakenly sym perceived world cannot last for long.
as.

More P2/P1P3 results randomly taken:
111
31121*
12111
1211
11
11
121
1111
111
1
3
111
213
2121
111*
1122
1113
111212
22
111
322
1
1121
1112
111
1221
11
2111
1211
111
12
21
111
24
1111
2111
111
2111
121
1111
1111
Now only a real id.iot could lose at those different B/P situations that MUST happen along each shoe.
Especially at 8deck shoes.
as.

Is B plan better than P or vice versa?
What about a plan considering both strategies simultaneously as a whole?
What about other strategies linked to those different oneside situations?
Let's start with the both sides plan, that is always wagering toward getting a B1/B3 or P1/P3 after a B2 or P2 trigger up to some levels.
Obviously we'll get many losses when many BB or PP doubles are coming consecutively, a kind of costant symmetrical situation but acting asymmetrically after one single hand is dealt, for each single hand considered itlr has a Bp=0.5068 and Pp=0.4932.
We shouldn't give a fk whether a given BBPPBBPPBBPP pattern (or when many other B/P doubles patterns provide more consecutive doubles) will be only formed by symmetrical situations, itlr and on average per every 12 resolved hands one asymmetrical hand favoring B side must happen (for simplicity here I omit the asym hand apparition producing a tie). And we know that many B favored hands can easily make the Player side winning.
Moreover unless a third card is exactly a zero value card, asym hands involve various degrees of B advantage, sometimes even unfavorite math situations as when Banker gets an initial 4 point and the third card is an Ace (slight negative EV as B should draw and not standing).
Baccarat is a game governed by asymmetrical states for rules and card distribution and when certain asymmetrical situations tend to produce symmetrical secondlevel (or higher) states we might endure some harsh times.
If by various causes, the asymmetricity will be so balanced along the vast or even the entire portion of the shoe, we're not going anywhere, thus imo not every shoe is playable.
A strong predominance of one side could be a kind of an extreme asymmetrical state being so simple to be detected. Unfortunately vast majority of shoes dealt do not belong to such category and moderate/light predominances are assessed after such state happened.
In addition, a simple B or P predominance is just a back to back unidirectional issue, mostly taken without considering the actual conditions that favored one side for long.
Thus we shouldn't bet on how long the asymmetricity works but about when it's more likely to produce given results on the side chosen.
as.

Let's see what happens on those 20 live shoes taken randomly:
B plan: 11 P plan: 212
B plan: 21 P plan: 111
B plan: 112 P plan: 21
B plan: 111 P plan: 11122
B plan: 11111 P plan 21
B plan: 111 P plan 2
B plan: 112 P plan: 1
B plan: 11211 P plan: 21
B plan: 12 P plan: 2211
B plan: 12 P plan: 111
B plan: 222 P plan: no triggers
B plan: 11 P plan: 122
B plan: 22 P plan: 1111
B plan: 31 P plan: 111
B plan: 121 P plan: 2121
B plan: 1113 P plan: 222
B plan: 11 P plan: 12
B plan: 111 P plan: 112
B plan: 311 P plan: 11
B plan: 11112 P plan: 12211
Fortunate shoes?
Probably not, as 1=76; 2=34 and 3=3
Since any 2 or 3 (or higher) occurence causes a 3 unit deficit providing a 12 mini progression made toward the 1 appearance and 1 just means +1, we'll get (before tax) 76 unit wins and 103 unit losses for a net loss of 27 units.
More interesting is that in this sample betting not to get 3 after 2 means 34 units of profits vs a 9 (3x3) unit loss. That is (before tax) a 25 units profit.
Does this ridiculously small sample suggesting that betting 2 after 2 vs 3+ will provide an advantage whereas the 1 vs 2+ proposition is a long term losing bet?
No way, naturally.
Those short term frequencies just suggest that the asymmetricity overall acted lightly at 1level degree and very well at 2level degree.
Indeed we could face shoes getting very different values of asymmetricity, anyway we are pretty sure that smaller classes will overwhelm superior values, all depending upon how good or bad are shuffled the cards.
Of course and regardless of the asymmetricity value acting on the actual shoe, by both place selection and probability after events tools use, many random walks can be built getting ridiculously (now on the positive side) low dispersion values.
as.

More shoes:
B: 1 P: 1111
B: 1123 P: 1111
B: 141 P: 13
B: 1111 P: 311
B: 11312 P: 111
B: 1111 P: 111
B: 11222* P: 12*
B: 11112 P: 11311
B: no triggers P: 12*
B: 11 P: 3*
B: 11 P: 1311
B: 1 P: 13
B: 212 P: 1411
B: 12* P: 12*
B: 11 P: 141
B: 2111 P: 111
B: 111 P: 11111
B: 111 P: no triggers
B: 121 P: 11
B: 11111 P: 1112
Total 1=91 2=15 3+=11
Now betting 1 vs 2+= +13 before tax; 2 vs 3+= 18
Now asymmetricity considered the way discussed so far went right on the first level.
as.

In reality the above P plan doesn't get the same variance features happening on the same B plan.
Even if shoes presented above were randomly taken, P side formed too many 1 or 2 situations than expected as itlr a lot of 3, 4 or higher numbers will be produced, especially whether consecutively considered. That's why my ub #2 didn't consider P side.
Let's try to give a formal answer to this.
If in order to set up our future betting plan we take BB and PP as symmetrical triggers we are making a mistake at the start.
Itlr every BB pattern is already a natural asymmetrical situation as math tend to shift the probability to B side after any given value that now we set after a single fresh B apparition.
On the other hand, itlr PP is already an artificial asymmetrical pattern as in some sense was slightly fighting against the math.
Therefore BB and PP patterns cannot be considered triggers springing up from the same probability. Actually most of the times are, but not itlr.
No matter what happens in between (just to simplify the things here), any new fresh B situation must fight with a new probability after any previous BB pattern had formed.
If we decide to always wager toward a B streak after any BB pattern previous production, we are simply implying that the asym value must act again just on this limited section of the shoe or, that whether the asym didn't act on the previous BB pattern, now it's more likely to work.
In addition, itlr the BB trigger involves a certain degree of "exhaustion" of asym force as the next hand is P.
That's why we could infer that itlr any fresh B appearance next to another exact BB pattern will be somewhat restricted to produce another B streak, thus orienting us to bet one time P side.
Whether this bet went wrong, we are challenging the actual card distribution to give another precise BB pattern, that is missing our plan two times (or more) in a row.
The PP counterpart is easier to be considered as an actual "artificial" asym strenght already worked. Thus after PP itlr the more likely outcome will be a P single and not a P 3+ streak whether the first bet failed (meaning a PP occurence). Thus lowering a lot the winning probability of our second attempt.
Overall and itlr the B2/B1 strenght will be more powerful than the P2/P3 strenght of course considering that both bets are mathematically facing the same 1:1 payment.
Player side must be attacked by other weapons.
as.

Player side is more difficult to be assessed despite of its slight lesser probability to appear.
When betting P side we are simply wagering that key cards must be shifted toward this side at various degrees and in the meantime that no asymmetrical B favoring situation will arise.
Since we know that almost every shoe isn't immune to such asym probability, we could infer that is virtually impossible to wager Player getting a steady 0.5 winning probability fairly payed (1:1).
In a sense when betting Player we are hoping about two orders of things:
a no asym hand will take place at the time of our betting
b key cards are shifted toward Player side
Oppositely thinking, we could reckon that B side is really advantaged only when an asym hand will come out within a restricted range of hands as the key cards shift is anyway burdened by a 5% vigorish.
Now let's think about the probability where our plan will get all positive Player betting situations upon a given shoe. Say this is our gold standard.
1 wagering toward getting all P singles.
2 wagering toward getting all P doubles
3 wagering toward getting all P 3+ streaks
4 any mix of the above situations
No need to test many shoes, almost no one single situation belonging to #1, #2 and #3 category will provide all winnings.
Then in order to increase such probability even at the risk of losing more money, we try to couple two different scenarios.
12: well, this situation may happen, mostly when many P doubles are formed or when P singles are interpolated by long B streaks.
13: situation less likely than the previous one, yet it could happen.
23: no way an 8deck shoe is likely to show all P streaks, of course here the winning/losing probability remains confined at 0.5 at best.
If we aim to get all wins on our bets obviously we must rely upon the probability that things are going right just at the start.
Therefore plans 12 and 13 are more likely to provide this kind of jackpot, either as they involve a 0.75% or so probability to win and as 23 plan isn't going to form winnings at the whole played shoe.
Naturally such jackpot is just an ideal situation thus forcing us to build our betting plan upon lower degree probabilities. Yet some quality factors endorse the probability to get or not the expected long winning streak we should aim for.
Moreover those 12 and 13 plans are just considered by a mere B/P pattern random walk point of view.
That is not properly considering the actual conditions where those results were formed.
A thing discussed next
as.

The decisive tool to test any B/P system is by considering the limiting values of relative frequency of EVERY possible shoe's pattern, thus covering how it fares through every possible card distribution.
The ploy to restrict the outcomes into three classes will help us a lot for two reasons.
First, baccarat features the very slight propensity to produce the opposite result already happened;
Secondly, after the 3 level is reached we may consider all 3+ superior classes the same as 3s.
Since it may appear so easy to simply bet toward shorter patterns as singles and doubles, we should focus our interest about those 3s distribution.
3s and 3+s are by definition asymmetrical situations even if a given 3+ is composed by a BBBBBB sequence or PPPP pattern as they get or not a given probability of taking advantage (B side) or shifting (P side) the asym force determined by the rules.
Of course pure 3s (streaks of just three B/P hands) are more likely to be the product of sym situations as the overall asym probability is confined to 8.6% over the total hands dealt. The longer any streak is forming higher will be the probability to cross an asym situation as virtually (and practically) no shoe is producing all symmetrical events.
And we know that not all asym hands will form a B decision, of course.
It could easily happen that asym hands may come out within shorter BP patterns, for example after a single B result or after a single P hand or after a couple of the same situations.
Thus, for example, betting itlr toward P singles and P doubles just mean to hope that the asym force will happen right on those spots as the mere symmetrical force cannot be of any help other than for short term variance issues.
Itlr, our profit can only and only come out just when the sum of our Player bets were placed on sym hands payed 1:1 and when our Banker bets were getting a quite higher than 8.6/91.4 ratio.
Naturally those P bets must involve more than a strenght of sym value, mostly in form of more likely card distribution, whereas B bets generally rely upon a selected endorsed math probability.
Back to the "everything is possible" shoe production.
We could think the bac shoe situation as a continuous 123 succession, knowing that homogeneous 1 or 2 or 3 situations aren't going to happen. But two situations out of three are more likely to happen along the entire lenght of the shoe and we know we had to discard 23 situations unless happening at B side (with the additional help of B2/B1 apparition).
We are so sure about that that a multilayered progression made on B doubles consecutiveness will cross very soon a certain "jackpot" situation, the same but at a lower degree when considering two or more consecutive wins when applied to the 1/2 and 1/3 method.
as.

Examples taken from Wynn and Gold Coast live shoes data.
12 and 13 plans joined with B2/B1B3 attacks made on the entire shoe regardless of asym/sym quality assessment.
+ +    + + + + + + +  + + +  + +  + +   + + + + + + + 
B2/B1B3:    +  
+ + + + + + +  +  + + +   + + 
B2/B1B3: +  + +
+ + +  +  +  + + + + +  +  + + + +  + +  + +  + 
B2/B1B3: +  + + + +
 + +  +    + + + + + + + + +  + +  + + + + + 
B2/B1B3:  +  + + +
 + + + + + + + + + +   +  + + + + + +   + + +  +  *
B2/B1B3:   + + +
+ +  + + +  +  + + + + + + +  + + + + +  + + + + + 
B2/B1B3: + + +
+ + +  + + + +  + + + + + + + + +   +   + + + + + + + +
B2/B1B3: + +    + +  +
+ + + + + + +  + +  + + + + + + + + + + + + + +  + +  + + + + +  + + 
B2/B1B3:  +  + +
Not surprisingly in the first shoe presented most asym hands went "wrong" for B side despite of the math advantage.
as.

Let's consider our old three different states where every pattern in the universe will belong to.
Generally speaking, the less will be the number of states occurring at a given shoe, better will be the probability to get long winning streaks as a single state or, more likely, a couple of states may be present for long without the "intrusive" effect of the unwelcome third one.
On the other end, we've seen that another strategy relies just upon the opposite thought, that is that certain spots must change their shape in a way or another.
Let's start to examine the theorically "perfect" situations capable to get the highest number of states change happening along any shoe.
When three different states are involved, only six possibilities getting ALL change states come around :
An "endless" succession of 123123123.... or 132132132... or 213213213... or
231231231... or 312312312... or 321321321....
Everything in between gets at least one "winning" situation, that is the third state must be silent for more than the 3step steady pace featured on the above six patterns.
Notice that all six patterns came out by a 1/3 singles/streaks ratio instead of the more natural 1/1 ratio, meaning that those patterns are "biased" at the start.
Yet we are not interested about the numbers but about the pace.
In a sense we're trying to put in relationship those 6 different "biased" (hence asymmetrical) patterns with the actual natural asymmetrical production, not assigning a precise value to any side or value (as in no way itlr B1=P1, B2=P2 and B3=P3, not mentioning that in the overwhelming majority of times the "3" category inglobes very different patterns).
Even though many "natural" big road or derived roads registrations may offer some profitable opportunities, we need to set up more intricated random walks applied to the actual results' production.
as.

A couple of examples taken randomly.
Original shoe results: 21212211213213313131111112231222111
123) +,+,+,,,+,,+,+,,+,+,,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,,+,+,+,+,+,,+,,+
132) +,+,+,,,+,,+,+,,+,+,,+,,,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,,,+,+,+,+,+,,+,,+
213) ,,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,+,+,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,,+,,+,+,+,
231) ,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,,+,+,,+,+,,,+,+,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+
312) +,,,+,+,,+,,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,,,+,+,,+,+,+,,,,,+,+,+,+,
321) +,+,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,,+,,+,+,,+,,+,,+,+,+,,,+,+
Second shoe: 11131233211213233121131313112331113121
123) ,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,,+,+,,,,+,+,+,,+,+,+,+
132) ,+,+,+,+,,+,,,+,+,,,,,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,,+,,+,++,+,+,,,+,+,+
213) +,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,,+,+,,,+,+,+,+,+,,+,,+,+,+,+,,
231) +,+,,+,+,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,,,,+,,+,,,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,,+,+,+,+,+,
312) +,,+,,,,,+,,+,,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,,+,,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,,+,+,+,+,+,
321) +,+,,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,,+,+,,,+,+,+,+,,+,,+,,+,,+,+,,+,+
Even though original shoes were presented by the stupi.dest way of registration (big road) and that many  signs are getting us a 3 unit loss and nearly half of + signs are getting us an inferior +1 payment, some +/ situations are more "due" than others.
Notice that unb plan #1 worked wonderfully on first shoe but quite tremendously bad on the second one.
First shoe presented 21 states change and second shoe 27 states change.
1step level unb plan #2 results got respectively a LWWW and WW events.
as.

Another live shoe taken from the now defunct Lucky Dragon casino:
1213212121322222113111111123211111112231123
123) ,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,,+,+,+,,+,,+,+,,+,+,+,,,,+,+,+
132) ,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,,,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,,+,,+,+,+,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,+
213) +,+,+,+,+,+,,,+,+,+,+,,+,+,,,+,+,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,,+,,+,,+,,+,+
231) +,+,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,,+,,+,+,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,,+,+,,,+,+,+,+,+,+
312) +,+,+,+,+,+,+,,,+,+,,+,+,,+,,+,,,+,+,,+,+,,,,+,+,+,,+,+,,+,+,+,+,+,,,
321) +,,,,,,+,+,+,+,+,+,+,,+,+,+,,,+,,+,+,,+,+,+,,,,+,+,,+,+,,+,,+,+,+,+,

In the last shoe notice how would fare a cumulative strategy applied simultaneously to every 6 possible "highest state" number pattern:
1.   + + + +
2.  + + + + 
3. + + +  + 
4. + + + + + 
5.  + + + + 
6. + + +  + 
7. + +  + + +
8. + +  +  +
9. +  + +  +
10. +  + + + +
11. +  + + + +
12. +  + +  +
13. + +   + +
14.  + + + + 
15. +  + +  +
16. + +   + +
17. + +  +  +
18. + + +  + 
19. + + + +  
20. + +  +  +
21. + + +  +
22.   + + + +
23. +   +  +
24. + + + +  
25.   + + + 
26. + + + +  
27. +  + +  
28. + + + +  
29.  + + + + 
30. + + +  + 
31.   + + + +
32. + +  + + +
33. + + +   
34.   + + + +
35. + +  + + +
36. + + +   
37. + +   + +
38.  +  + + 
39.  + + + + +
40.    + + +

as...really lost here on what you are recording when you are charting shoes...any chance you could drop back a few steps and maybe take the first shoe you charted and explain a little more about what the numbers represent, i.e. numbers of a particular event, where they developed in the shoe, or anything that might explain it a little more ?...sorry if it's obvious..just not getting it here...Rick

At the top of page 10, you show P2/P1P3 results. Does each number represent a P2P1 (2 events) and/or a P2P3 ?
A 1 would be the 2 event combination occurred a single time ? And a 2 would be it occurred two times in a row ?

Hi Rickk.
Numbers register how many P2 doubles come out after an initial P2 "trigger": if P2 is limited by an immediate P1 or P3 the number registered will be 1.
If a couple of P2 patterns come around consecutively, we'll write 2. If three P2 patterns show up we'll write 3 and so on.
Example.
BPPBBBPBPPBBPPBBBBBPBPBBPPBPPBBPPBPPBPPPBPPBBBPPPPB according to the P2/P1P3 r.w is:
1242
In the same sequence the B2/B1B3 r.w. is read as:
111
as.

Thank you...

You are welcome! :)
Obviously the level of asymmetricity (generally intended) of each shoe dealt is strictly related to the actual card distribution. Same shoes dealt and shuffled poorly tend to mantain the same level of asymmetricity but very often detected by different patterns' shapes. That's why we need several r.w.'s operating for us.
Since 12, 13 and B2/B1B3 and P2/P1P3 cover all the most frequent possibilities at various degrees, we might get a more precise idea about how "asymmetrically" cards are distributed along the actual shoe. Or, better sayed, which spots are more likely to be asymmetrically distributed.
Any 2hand attack features a theorical winning probability of 0.75 on symmetrical hands and various different probabilities when one of two asymmetrical hands come along.
For example, if our plan dictates to wager P side two times and two asym hands come out, the P winning probability is restricted to about 0.6645.
In the same example, just one asym hand coming out on our two P betting attempts shifts the P winning probability to about 0.71.
Naturally asym hands don't come out around the corner, therefore many "more likely Banker outcomes" should be assessed by the actual quality/quantity pattern distribution. We do not want to bet a side being unnecessarily payed 0.95:1, especially when the actual distribution seems to privilege the symmetrical hands formation.
as.

Tomorrow I'll discuss nonsense topics as "quit when you are ahead", "secure a profit", and the more intriguing "stop win or stop loss", all "human factors" that cannot alter in our favor the natural flow of the game.
as.

Tomorrow I'll discuss nonsense topics as "quit when you are ahead", "secure a profit", and the more intriguing "stop win or stop loss", all "human factors" that cannot alter in our favor the natural flow of the game.
as.
Only a strategy meant for long run works that can cater to the worst and the best alike. "Quit when ahead" or "stop loss or stop win" could only be a strategy for ending a day's game and nothing else. It does not make you a winner, in any manner. Do remember, you can not predict what will happen in your next session.

Exactly Alba! :thumbsup:
"Secure a profit"
If we think to get an edge at a given game and conditions are favourable, we should stay and play regardless of the actual economical situation.
As Albalaha sayed, it's only the long run which counts and itlr everything will come out, thus to secure a profit means "I know I'll surely lose, better to get the illusion to be ahead of something now".
Instead a proper formulation should be: favourable conditions are met, the more I play the more I'll win. Period.
"Quit when you are ahead"
Same bigornsh.it as above.
Our play cannot be splitted into sessions, it's just an infinite series of bets where the cumulative number of times we are ahead (by a W/L ratio) is equal to the cumulative number of times we are behind, all aggravated by the fact that bets are unfair payed in a way or another.
In some sense and oppositely thinking, the specular statement should be "do not quit when behind", a statement particularly liked by casinos.
"Stop win" and "Stop loss"
It depends about what we are considering.
Each class of Ws and Ls follow a general probability and an actual probability. For example I've presented random walks having a general probability to produce all wins for the entire lenght of the shoe, hence lowering the value of a stop win strategy.
On the other hand, some shoes will form many back to back losses that make a future winning streak less probable (mainly for a lack of space).
The actual probability, imo, should be considered either by a simple pattern point of view and, more importantly, by certain quality factors prompting the hands formation.
In no way we could think to hope for a preordered amount of W units either per each shoe or per a series of shoes as we do not know how things will develop and the same is true about Ls situations.
Knowing that the actual shoe has a probability different from zero to produce all winnings represents a good start.
Conversely, cards distributions forming unlikely "losing" situations at the start (albeit due for obvious reasons regarding variance) are not going to produce specular winning counterparts.
It's like stating that key cards clumped toward one side at the beginning are symmetrically clumped toward the opposite side thereafter.
Of course people making a living at numbers like to wager toward the unlikelihood that something won't happen, thus betting toward slight or intermediate more likely situations.
And more often than not the initialmid sections of the actual shoe are offering us good hints.
as.

To get the idea that at baccarat things are constantly moving around clumps of key cards each time removed from the deck and then affecting or not the next results, let's shuffle an 8deck shoe then taking out randomly, say 40 consecutive cards, and see what are the real outcomes coming out infinitely from this 40 cards sample.
Since our sample is randomly/randomly taken and on average we'll get about 7 hands (in form of B, P and T hands) we shouldn't expect to get other than a random pattern (ties ignored for simplicity) belonging to one of the possible 128 distributions. Of course patterns containing more B decisions will overcome the same P counterpart, as sooner or later this finite card distribution will produce some asym hands at various degrees. And we all know the overall general probability to get an asym hand is 8.6%.
Since it's impossible to know which side will be more favored to win unless cards will form one or more asymmetrical hands, we could think to operate about the unlikelihood that long symmetrical patterns will happen along the way by the simplest form of symmetrical card distribution tools acting (or not) at various degrees.
Considering my above example, any 8deck shoe is formed by at least nine 40cards situations, each belonging to a given real asym/sym ratio and/or real sym/sym ratio, all producing each 7 different patterns.
In some sense there's no one single possibility in the world that homogeneous quality outcomes are going to produce the same quality back to back ratios occurred within consecutive portions of the deck.
More on that later.
as.

"Points" of interest
What is the long term distribution of Banker and Player final points?
Contrary to what many could think, only two categories of points will get the same probability to appear on both sides.
And of course those two are natural 8s and natural 9s. Every other point category will feature a different probability whether we are considering Banker or Player.
Another form to think about asymmetricity.
Hence the only situations where final points get a real symmetrical probability occur with naturals. Not even 6s and 7s will get a symmetrical probability (for obvious reasons).
That's why the Dragon bonus side bet involves a quite different house edge depending upon the side we choose to bet (by far the house edge is a lot lower on P side bets).
The slightest difference between same point B and P probabilities comes with "3" and "7" points. Then about non natural 8s and 9s, 0, 1 and 2 points.
Then "6" points.
Greatest gap in probability exists with 4s and 5s. (Obviously)
On average a deck will form around 19% of naturals on either side, thus around 4/5 of the total hands dealt are following a more or less pronounced asymmetricity.
Naturally we are not talking about more likely B or P outcomes, just about long term final points probability.
Of course the higher the point the better is the probability to win, yet itlr those point gaps are constantly moving around fixed probabilities, each point fighting with a general and an actual shoe probability.
Taken from another point of view, we should see that if 4s and 5s are the more gapped final points (5.4%) then a kind of Banker advantage is more concentrated right on those exact B final points. And we know this being absolutely correct as most asym B edge comes from standing 4s and 5s.
Well, standing. And not all 4s and 5s stand after Player draws.
Not mentioning that some 4s must stand when a third card ace id dealt to the Player, a slight negative edge situation.
And 4s and 5s cannot come infinitely.
The third more pronounced gap situation between same points is about point 6, now favoring Player side and accounting to around 1.1%.
That is that we'll get more P 6 final points than B 6 final points and of course a 6 point is long term favorite to win.
Cumulatively and regarding final points distribution, B 4s, B 5s and P 6s get a nearly 6.6% general asymmetrical probability to appear that we should compare to the actual shoe situations.
as.

If baccarat is a constant asymmetrical game, first we should focus our attention about real symmetrical probabilities.
More specifically about the lenght of those sym probabilities.
A perfect world dictates that whether a baccarat shoe won't produce asym B favored hands, a constant Player wagering will get at least a zero negative edge against the house.
Oppositely, ONLY a higher than 8.6:91.4 asym/sym hands ratio will lower, erase or invert the house edge on B wagers.
On average, an asym hand will come out about one time over 11.62 hands. To simplify say we'll get one asym hand out of 12 hands and some of them are producing a tie hand.
We also know that a 8.6% probability, differently to other gambling games, cannot be silent per every shoe dealt (that is within a 7580 hands sample).
Therefore we might imply that no matter how whimsically is the actual card distribution, sooner or later probabilities will change from 0.5/0.5 to 0.5793/0.4203.
In a sense, now we are not interested about how things seem to develop but about will be the probability to cross either 0.5/0.5 or 0.5793/0.4203 events.
That is how much and how many times those two different probabilities change in our actual shoe.
But there's a third important factor to be examined.
That is how asym hands went as more than four out of ten times a shifted math probability favoring B side will be "disregarded".
Now we could consider any shoe as a finite world made by many subsequences of sym/asym hands; on their part asym hands will form further sequences of W/L patterns.
as.

But there's a third important factor to be examined.
That is how asym hands went as more than four out of ten times a shifted math probability favoring B side will be "disregarded".
Any chance you could explain that a little further? Are you saying to be aware that the favored B side after an asym hand may may not be happening and to make an adjustment?

Neglecting ties for simplicity, any possible hand will get those true percentages for the player:
Betting B at any asym hand: +0.95 x 57.93%  1 x 42.07 = + 12.96%
Betting P at any asym hand 1 x 42.07  1 x 57.93% =  15.86%
Betting B at any sym hand: +0.95 x 50%  1 x 50% =  2.5%
Betting P at any sym hand +1 x 50%  1 x 50% = 0%
Therefore itlr we can only hope to be ahead by catching a higher percentage of asym hands than expected when betting Banker and a higher than expected amount of sym hands when betting Player. The remaining events are just belonging to strong or very strong negative propositions.
Obviously there's no one method in the world that could hope to be long term winner whenever the cumulative sums of those four situations will produce the expected negative amount.
It's just a work about detecting when an asym hand will show up more likely within a restricted range of hands, at the same time trying to get rid of those sym hands going to B side as itlr the number of sym B hands will be equal to the number of P sym hands but very differently payed.
For example, say we bet Banker and a simple BBBB pattern shows up with no asym hands coming out.
Itlr we are losing more money than if we were wagering Player side thus losing all four bets.
An apparent "good" situation just becomes a strong losing event.
Conversely a Banker steady wagering on the same BBBB pattern including just one asym hand will get us a long term profit.
Back to your question.
The asym Banker advantage is an average long term value made by all possible standing/drawing situations after a third card is dealt to the Player and Banker can decide what to do in relation of its point (3,4,5 and 6 initial points).
We know that most edge comes from standing 5s, then standing 4s, then standing 3s.
6s drawing after a 6 or 7 is dealt to the Player just lower the disadvantage, it's not a true advantage.
I mean that the asym power on asym hands could be more or less concentrated, always depending upon how is the card distribution on the actual shoe.
Thinking this way we may assign a specific role to any asym hand occurred, not only in the form of initial point but in terms of actual result.
Now let's compare the general probability with the actual probability: 8.6% asym occurence getting a 15.86% B advantage with what really happen at the shoe we're playing at.
Former value is more stable than second one as it's more likely to get P drawing situations as opposed to 3,4,5,6 B points. Actually almost no one single shoe will form no asym hands.
Yet the average 15.86% B edge on those asym hands is more whimsically placed, being the reflex of which B point is dealt when P draws. Not mentioning that the main destiny of asym hands is focused about just one card, that is the third card.
as.

And look at that board, that I put a picture up of the players. I believe this is what Asym is talking about and I've seen more of this than a banker's equivalent. Yes I see runs and streaks and clumps for Banker over the Decades of playing, but as an overall majority there's more of something like this and more clumps for players and easier to follow for player because of that third card than anything else IMO.
https://betselection.cc/wageringintricacies/215amonthewaytothecasino/
And I've said it many times, I love the players in the first section or first two sections of the shoe and this is very easy to clean house if you're not teaming up or listening to other people on their Banker drive and how they only wager for banker. Or how they only want a banker streak and few believe players coming out. Enough said, take a look at this picture, I believe this supports what Asym says?
https://betselection.cc/wageringintricacies/greatbacshoeplayerscleanedoutthedealersrack!/

Actually in the vast majority of the times, strong Player shoes feature many asym hands that went "wrong" for B side.
It's like betting a less likely situation knowing that events favoring the opposite B side are not coming out as the shifting power was somewhat over.
as.

The absolute certainty to play baccarat with an edge is by knowing precisely on which side a key card will fall. We know that and we know that this thing isn't possible.
Next it comes the more intricate field of "statistical approximations", that is how things could more likely develop according to both general specific guidelines and actual observations.
It's true that without any math edge we are generally going to nowhere, but it is altogether true that when a given method itlr is getting lower sd values than expected we are at least taking a less worse approach.
More deeply we want to go in the process, higher will be the probability to win up to the point where the negative HE will be inverted to our favor.
Meaning that no "unfortunate" back to back sequences could destroy our plan if we have carefully assessed what I name the "asym factor" (ASF) working for each shoe dealt.
Higher is the ASF value, higher is our probability of success.
Bac outcomes are the direct product of:
 asym hands apparition favoring B side mathematically, getting a finite frequency over a single shoe;
 key cards finite distribution falling here and there;
 very slight propensity to get the opposite result just happened;
 actual result of asym hands;
 actual result of sym hands;
 third card impact on outcomes.
Say each one of those factors are more or less unbalanced in the shoe we're playing at.
Of course most strenght should be assigned to the asym hand apparition as any B4 or B5 (and at a lesser degree any B3) facing a P drawing situation is hugely favorite to win.
Next comes the key cards falling, nobody wants to face a first card 8 or 9 when wagering Banker and vice versa.
Then the old very slight propensity to get streaks ending up.
It's a sure fkng statistical finding that at baccarat streaks are shorter than at any other same probability independent propositions results (try to compare REAL bac shoes with 50.68/49.32 mere probability decisions)
The actual result of asym hands is an issue understimated by many.
Once a math situation went wrong for the favorite side, betting Banker next means to hope that another asym hand will come out.
I'm not suggesting that when an asym hand produced a Player result, the best bet is wagering Player. Just that the possible asym math force was quite consumed.
The actual result of sym hands is probably one of the most important factors to be examined.
Itlr and no matter what is the actual result, we are way less disadvantaged whether each same class of selective bets are made upon hands getting sym decisions when betting P than B. Obviously.
Finally there's third card nature, more or less unbalanced to produce favourable or not situations to Player side.
Surely 4s are the best cards to be dealt to a drawing P side, then 5s and so on.
Notice that there's a subtle line between a third card 8 or 9 being more detrimental than not to P side, but at the same time hugely beneficial when Banker shows a natural point negating P to draw and getting those key cards as first card.
To simplify a lot, best random walk to follow is that one that had shown a huge degree of asymmetricity whatever intended, either from a mere quantity point of view and, more importantly, from a quality point of view.
Our goal should be oriented to get ALL winning situations at the shoe we're playing at and naturally we can't win every hand when wagering each hand dealt or most hands dealt.
Therefore we must find the best random walks getting such feature in the shoe we're playing at and, of course, to get all winnings we must start with a win.
as.

Look at this shoe (ties ignored).
BPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBP
BPBP BP PBPBPB B P P B BP
P BP P B P
P P B
P P B
P B
P
P
P
In this shoe there were 12 asym hands (well above average) whom one produced a tie.
Quite curiously Banker got more naturals than Player.
This shoe produced ALL winning hands in the five hands played (for that matter we didn't bet a single hand on the Player ninehand streak and on the Banker sixhand streak).
as.

as...Need some help understanding your scorecard....Assuming the above is a regular horizontal scorecard and the first row is the heading (BPBPBP....), why are there some blank columns in between some of the events ? and.. your explanation of the results is understood in your description in writing, but on the card there is no indication showing your results...i.e. which hands were asym, which were bet/won, which were naturals, etc...appears that the misalignment is a typing issue, but what should we be looking for in this scorecard ? Rick

Asym, I fixed the card, it should be correct now, let me know if it is not.
As far as the blank spaces between the events, a lot of people score the shoe on a horizontal going to the right. If it makes banker, it's one spot and if it cuts to the player the next spot would be to the right, it would be player. If it makes player three more times, players would be under that second player going down 3 spots, so it will be a total of four players. If it doesn't make a repeat it would be blank and it would move to the next spot to the right.
Same way the Big Road does on the scoreboard, the same way. A lot of people do not do or vertical, they do the actual Big Road on the scorecard and make their own notes on it. So the bottom line is the blank spaces just means that it did not make a repeat Banker or Player underneath the first Banker/Player.

Alrelax...what you've described is pretty standard..maybe it's my screen, but what I was referring to are the blank "columns"...in the first 10 "event columns" there are 2 blank, 1 B, 1 P, 1 B, 1 P, then 4 blank..Big Road does not have blank or empty columns between events..just wondering if that is a typo or if it meant something..

Must be your screen, I don't see any empty columns, it's an exact copy of a Big Road.

Ok...as mentioned in my first post on this issue, I was assuming that the first "row" on Asym's post was the "heading" of a scorecard (or Big Road) of a shoe...it apparently is the first actual "result" of an event..apologize for the confusion......
..

Now back to the more important issue, what are we looking for in terms of asym hands, naturals, hands bet/won, etc. ? ...the post is showing B/P hand results, but not indicating where or when any of these other occurrences took place...

My bad.
Thanks Al and sorry Rickk and everyone.
After posting the shoe everything appeared correct on my screen.
Let's try again with a simpler form:
B
P
BB
PP
BB
PP
B
P
B
P
B
P
BB
PPPPPPPPP
B
P
B
P
B
PP
BB
PP
BBB
PPP
BB
P
B
P
B
PP
B
P
B
PPPPP
B
P
BB
P
BBBBBB
PPP
as.

Mathematically our long term EV is in direct relationship between asym and sym betting ranges.
For example, say a portion of the shoe presents eight straight sym hands and the actual outcomes of those sym hands are producing an eight Banker streak.
If we were betting Banker each hand belonging to this streak we may think to be lucky or geniuses. Actually we are severely losing money.
On the other hand, the same sym 8hand pattern could form a Player streak of the same lenght and now a steady Player betting cannot get us other than a zero negative edge at least.
Since the probability to get one of the possible 256 different BP patterns on those sym situations remains the same, it's quite obvious that there's no point to bet Banker at any of those eight sym hands.
Thus the Banker side should be wagered just about the probability to form or not an asym hand among a very restricted range of hands.
This one is the only wise math approach working itlr as the math advantage must overcome the negative HE.
We should remember again that most asym hands edge comes from 5s and 4s Banker initial points and, at a lesser degree. from 3s.
Think that many Banker 5s and 4s initial points will cross standing/natural Player situations, therefore transforming potential shifted events (that is asym hands) into mere symmetrical circumstances.
In some way we could infer that the probability to form a 4 or 5 Banker initial point is somewhat dependent about the previous situations and we should always be focused about the mere asym/sym probability.
Let's say that as long as no 4 or 5 (and, at a lesser degree a 3 point) Banker initial point will be formed, we are betting a close to zero negative edge game when wagering P side.
In any case, we want to add a further parameter, that is how asym hands went in our shoe.
Say we know for sure that the actual shoe is presenting such sequence (S= symmetrical hands and N= non symmetrical hands):
SSSSNSNSSSSNNSSSSSSNSSSSSSSNSSSSSSSSSSSSSNSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSNSSSSSSSSSSSS
The are no other perfect plays than wagering Banker at hands #5, #7, #12, #13, #20, #28, #42, #64.
For now we cannot care less about the real BP outcomes, after all the winning probability of such sequence is a long math proposition of 0.5 (S) and 0.5793 (N) events.
Quite likely not every N spot will form a Banker hand, not mentioning that at S spots everything will be possible.
Now let's compare the same deck N or S situations with the new distribution.
Of course the probability to get the exact N or S distribution will be zero and, by an obvious higher degree, the same results.
Nonetheless, the clustering N or S effect will seem to remain the same as cards tend not to be properly shuffled.
It's like playing a game where we might be very very slight favored or hugely favored at various degrees, totally getting rid of the potential situation to find ourselves facing the exact counterparts.
as.

Think about math percentages first.
If we would bet Banker side five hands long then getting at least one asym hand, we're getting a long term advantage.
If by taking advantage of other bac features we want to wager Player side, we want all sym hands to be formed, meaning we're not losijg a dime itlr.
Asym hands that went "wrong" for B side just endorse the probability to get sym hands on the very next outcome as the probability to get back to back asym hands is distant. We surely do not want to wager a side being payed 0.95:1 than 1:1.
By the same way of thinking, a B natural is going to produce a way lesser impact than the same P natural.
Next time we'll consider naturals.
as.

"If we would bet Banker side five hands long then getting at least one asym hand, we're getting a long term advantage.
If by taking advantage of other bac features we want to wager Player side, we want all sym hands to be formed, meaning we're not losijg a dime itlr."
as, could you provide an explanation to help understand what this means ?...thanks in advance

Hi Rickk!
We can't hope to be long term winners without getting a positive EV, no matter how is taken.
Globally we know that our EV is negative, being slight negative (0.18 is the difference) by constantly wagering Banker side.
Math speaking, there are only two situations to bet favourably itlr:
 catching more asym hands than expected while wagering B side;
 NOT catching asym hands while wagering P side.
Example.
An infinite run of six hands are dealt (consecutively or not, it doesn't matter) and we want to see what's our EV depending upon which side we would like to bet.
If all those six hands are symmetrical, we know that itlr we'll win half of them regardless of the side we choose to bet.
Thus the EV is:
Banker bets: (0.95 x 0.5) x 3  (1 x 0.5) x 3 = 1.425  1.5 = 0.075
Player bets: (1 x 0.5) x 3  (1 x 0.5) x 3 = 0
That means that betting a $100 unit we'll get on average a $296.25 return on our money when betting Banker and a $300 return while wagering Player side.
Same proportions could be extracted regarding eight hands or ten hands or about hands of any lenght.
When a single asym hand comes out, things abruptly shift toward Banker side, altering hugely the normal EV flow just for that very hand.
Now the asym hand EV on Banker bets is 0.95 x 0.5793  1 x 0.4207 = 0.1296
Do the math and you'll see that itlr an invincible betting plan could be oriented to spot the situations when an asym hand apparition is more likely within a more restricted than expected range or, at a way lesser degree, that a given shoe sequence is more likely to produce more natural sym events. In the former case we will of course privilege B side, in the latter the P choice.
Naturally the 0.5 (sym) and 0.5793 (B/P asym) probability values are just general values, yet the payment remains the same (B=0.95:1 and P=1:1), that is hugely shifted toward one side.
And we know that not all asym hands will get the 0.5793 probability, it's just a cumulative math situation.
Most asym hands power comes from Banker 5 points facing a P drawing hand, then Banker 4 points facing a P drawing hand and at a way lesser degree B 3 points facing a P drawing hand.
6 B points dealing a 6 or a 7 third card to P side are just lowering the negative egde.
Of course all standingnatural/standingnatural situations (belonging to the sym spots category) itlr will advantage Player side as first they are payed 1:1 instead of 0.95:1, then any Banker 6 point facing any standing Player situation must stand prompting a sure negative math proposition.
Tomorrow we'll see how to consider outcomes in terms of asym/sym actual distribution.
as.

At this point it should be clear that our long term results are in direct relationship between the different EVs working on those two very diverse situations.
Many craps players like to place odds at pass lines or don't pass lines after the point is established. Normally the HE is never zero, say very close to zero but never zero.
At baccarat we've seen that as long as no asym hands will be formed, wagering Player side is a way better option than betting Banker as the payment is 1:1 and not 0.95:1.
That means that on symmetrical hands virtually no card distributions could alter significantly the Banker negative EV.
Reasoning in this way we could build a result plan just on the very first four cards dealt.
As long as Player draws and Banker do not show a 5, 4 or a 3, we are really in good shape when betting Player.
Conversely, this is the exact situation we want to look for when wagering Banker.
Going to less likely situations, we see that any standing/natural situation can only advantage Player side itlr, even if in that shoe any Player 7 point will lose everytime to a Banker natural.
No asym hand = no Banker party!
What's the real probability to get the Player drawing/ Banker 5,4 or 3 initial point situation?
It's 7.72%
Meaning that 87.05% of the times our Banker bets are long term losers.
And of course that 12.95% of the times are huge long term winners.
It could happen that some shoes are so badly shuffled that the asym formation would be more or less likely in many portions of the shoe, we can take into account the consecutiveness of the asym apparition, the quality of asym situations etc.
Say you want to split the shoe into 6hands betting portions (bet for real or fictionally). At a 8deck shoe you'll get around 12 situations (ties ignored).
It's impossible that every situation will be symmetrically placed, thus some portions must involve a B advantage (asym apparition).
Nevertheless most portions are symmetrically placed getting a very different EV depending upon which side we like to bet.
It could happen that one or more asym hands will show up within every single portion of this shoe (thus making profitable a B wagering), but I guess it's more likely we'll hit a slot jackpot.
More likely and knowing that the asym hand apparition probability is around 8%, some portions will be asym hands free.
The average probability is that a slight lesser amount of such portions will be symmetrically placed. Actually a balanced occurence of asym hands cannot get a steady pace for obvious reasons, so we could infer that more than one asym hands might show up in one or more portions. Therefore lowering (or increasing) the probability on subsequent portions.
Not giving a damn about the actual results, we know that the shoe is producing an average amount of pure sym or asym/sym portions.
Portions formed by all sym hands cannot elicit other than a Player betting. On the contrary, portions containing one or possibly more asym hands will elicit a Banker wagering.
Combined with the very slight propensity to get the opposite result, asym hand quality and actual outcome, general asymmetricity of card distributions and some other features regarding specific random walks, it's not that difficult to spot the situations where our EV will be neutral or hugely shifted toward one side or another.
as.

Had some questions with regard to the portion of this post listed below....
"Reasoning in this way we could build a result plan just on the very first four cards dealt.
As long as Player draws and Banker do not show a 5, 4 or a 3, we are really in good shape when betting Player.
Conversely, this is the exact situation we want to look for when wagering Banker.
Going to less likely situations, we see that any standing/natural situation can only advantage Player side itlr, even if in that shoe any Player 7 point will lose everytime to a Banker natural."
1) with regard to the Banker side total after a Player draw...assuming you didn't include 6 for better percentage results ?...and should Banker total be only 2 card total or is 3 card acceptable ? or does 3 card Banker not make it asymmetrical ?
2) Does "the very first four cards dealt" refer to the first four cards of the shoe ?
3) With regard to "any standing/natural situation" favoring player... a natural on either side, favors player ? and if a natural occurs on each side (same hand) that would favor Player also ?
4) Also one last question not related to this post, but may have been addressed elsewhere on the forum, how do you handle a Player 2 card total / Banker 3 card total ??
As always, thank you...

Hi Rickk!
1) Most Banker asymmetrical strenght comes from standing 4s and 5s (and at a way lesser degree from standing 3s). In those instances when Banker must draw after knowing the third card dealt to Player, the hand becomes symmetrical.
Banker initial 6s are, along with pure sym situations, the points you really do not want to get when betting Banker as the hand becomes asymmetrical only when a third card 6 or 7 is dealt to the Player. And in this instance the B disadvantage is just lowered.
If itlr you'll know for sure that one side will get a 6 initial point (symmetrical probability) but you don't know which side gets this point, would you prefer to wager P or B?
2) Nope.
First four cards I'm referring to are extracted from every new hand situation.
Say we want to build up two simple random walks according to the actual shoe distribution in terms of initial four card points.
Itlr the side kissed by a higher 4card initial point will be favored to win.
Of course there's no debate that a 6 or 7 (or natural) P initial point will get the best of it itlr. As the same equally probable counterpart is not going to get the same edge for obvious reasons.
The problem arises when Player is forced to draw (05 points) and Banker shows a 3,4 or 5 initial point that makes the above assumption worthless.
But we know the general probability that such thing will happen.
There are times when Player crosses situations where the higher initial point will belong to asymmetrical propositions and others when the asym B force is denied at the start.
Moreover a kind of third random walk could be put in action anytime higher initial points will win or lose depending upon the actual nature of third (or fourth) card.
This being the natural reflex (at various degrees) of the actual card distribution that must deny a perfect balanced distribution.
3) By any means any standing/natural situation (being equally probable) will favor Player side wagering.
For that matter, try to observe how happy are casinos' acute floormen working at HS tables when clueless players are jumping in joy after winning a Banker bet by a natural. Those players do not know that they are losing a huge amount of money itlr.
4) Overall any 2 card Player point vs 3card Banker point is hugely favorite to win itlr.
as.

Let's summarize which points we really want to get while wagering B or P side.
Remember that four card initial points on both sides are perfect equally likely.
A) When wagering Player side, of course we want to get a standing/natural point.
It doesn't matter if our P 6 point will lose to a higher point (B7 or B natural or any higher 3card B drawing situation).
Itlr any P standing situation will make this bet EV+.
On the other end, the same standing/natural points not belonging to any asym situation falling on B side will make any B bet EV.
Thus, regardless of the actual result, those symmetrical and specular situations will be hugely favourable when betting one side and of great detrimental when wagering the other one.
B) We bet Player and Player must draw.
Quite bad news as now we have to escape the probability that Banker gets a 3, 4 or 5 initial point.
In the remaining cases, Player can't be disadvantaged, actually it's slightly advantaged in the P5B4 situation.
Of course in the 012 specular B/P drawing points, highest point will be favored to win itlr, but in the same long run such probability will be equally distributed.
C) We bet Banker and Player must draw.
Unless our B point is 5, 4 or 3 we're losing money itlr.
It's quite funny to watch at those players jumping in joy whenever their Banker bets are won by a natural or standing point.
Actually they are losing a lot of money.
D) Both sides must draw (no third card rule can affect the outcomes).
A perfect symmetrical scenario where the winning side is payed 0.95:1 and the other one 1:1.
Long term baccarat results are just the cumulative sum of mathematical propositions.
There are no ways to humanly guess a fkng nothing unless we take care of the above math situations.
Hence when wagering Player or Banker side we ought to estimate the actual probability to get:
 a standing/natural point on P side when wagering Player;
 the exact situation to cross a Player drawing hand facing a Banker 5, 4 or 3 point when betting Banker.
Since the former scenario is affected by huge volatility and of course not involving a math edge, mostly we should focus our attention about the latter scenario, being profitable by ranges and not by precise situations.
It's a sure fact that people making a living by playing baccarat are those capable to catch the situations when their P bets are crossing more standing/natural points on Player side than expected and/or when their B bets are getting a higher ratio of P drawing/B 3,4 or 5 points than expected.
The rest belongs to the Imagination song: "Just an illusion"
as.

At baccarat we should play probabilities and there are general probabilities and actual probabilities.
No doubt at bac key cards are 9s, 8s and 7s.
Itlr and per every shoe dealt the side getting most of those key cards at positions #1#3 and/or #2#4 will get a sure advantage.
Actually 9s, 8s and 7s falling at P side will get a higher EV impact than the same cards falling at B side.
Those cards are not the cards you want to see when instructing the dealer to show "just one card" on the opposite side.
There are many other ways to form 9, 8 or 7 initial points but itlr the 9zero value card, 8zero value card and 7zero value card are overwhelming the rest.
It could happen that the side getting most part of 7s, 8s and 9s will lose to the counterpart. Besides the less likely situations where those cards forming an exact 7, 8 or 9 point will lose to higher points, those cards could combine themselves with very low cards producing "worthless" points. Think about 73, 82, 9A, 92, etc..
Such probability is symmetrical.
Of course per each shoe dealt those cards cannot be equally distributed on both sides. The fact that those key cards could combine with low cards getting very low points shouldn't affect the main concept that the higher the card falling on a given side, the better the probability to win.
Altogether naturally is to generally think that key cards cannot fall endlessly on one side.
It's like considering those key cards as a kind of "wild cards": they may hugely, moderately, slightly or not at all help "our" hand.
In some way, outcomes are the direct reflex of those endless (but finite as considered per every shoe dealt) propositions.
Most of the times such key cards will enhance the production of short symmetrical outcomes, it's only when the actual key card distribution tend to strongly privilege one side that B or P will take a substantial advantage over the other one.
And of course there's the rare asymmetrical impact working (or not) for B favored hands.
I mean that itlr third or fourth card happenings will affect outcomes way lesser than what initial points will do, as the initial point gap situation involves an increased 7% advantage over asymmetrical hands.
as.

Say we want to transform the game into mere symmetrical successions where asymmetrical hands do not form B results, thus considering them as a bonus when betting Banker and a kind of losing zero at roulette when betting Player.
Naturally the asym hand apparition remains a bonus (+15.86%) on B bets and a same negative happening on P wagers.
Thus it's not a sure win or loss on either sides.
Surely our long term results will be affected by the number of times we crossed an asym hand when betting B, and at the same time by the number of times we met an asym situation when betting P.
Itlr and in absence of a valuable bet selection the AS/S ratio will approach more and more to the expected 8.6/91.4 ratio. Therefore we are losing.
And the EV gap between a long term betting made on B instead of P is 0.18%.
Therefore there are only two options to win or to lower/cancel the HE:
a getting an higher asym/sym hands ratio than expected capable to invert the HE when wagering Banker;
b wagering Player only on symmetrical situations.
Then what might help us to define the terms of the problem?
Average asym hand distribution, for example.
Players are too focused about the actual outcome, maybe in the effort to follow an unguessable succession.
When betting Banker we must hope that no matter how are consecutively placed our bets an asym hand must come out within a shorter gap than expected.
Otherwise we're losing money, a lot of money I mean, even if the actual pattern is a symmetrical BBBBBBBBPBBBB succession (for that matter even a single asym hand happening on this sequence is a long term money loser when regularly betting banker)
Gaps between more frequent symmetrical hands and rare asymmetrical spots.
Asymasym hand apparition hugely favors the B side and actually some shoes will present many asym hands distributed in couples (or more).
In reality. more often than not asym hands come out in single apparitions (for obvious reasons) or clustered at some portion of the shoe.
We ought to remember that natural/standing points on Player side totally deny the asym hand happening and some Player drawing points crossing an asym hand are actually favorite to win (think about a P5B4 drawing situation).
On the other end, it's sure as hell that at least a couple of asym hands will come out per every shoe played. Meaning that sooner or later a constant Player betting virtually getting an EV not lower than zero, will cross those unfavourable spots where our P bet is worthless.
Symmetrical spots
Sym spots hugely favor Player side for several reasons:
 first, we're playing no worse than a fair game as bets will be payed 1:1;
 secondly, as long as no asym hand will be formed, key cards will land equally on both sides;
 third, the 7/6 symmetrical standing point situation is unequally payed regarding which side we bet.
The idea is that baccarat should be considered not just in terms of patterns but in term of ranges (gaps) helping one side at various degrees or at worst not damaging the other one.
Sometimes (just for practical purposes) the most likely pattern distribution tend to correspond to those ranges.
Knowing that most outcomes are in direct relationship of sym hands results, we should focus our attention about the actual probability and distribution to get higher initial fourcard points as this is the main tool that shift the results.
A thing that we'll discuss tomorrow.
as.

It's intuitive to think that itlr chopping lines showing at most likely degrees (singles and doubles) are the direct reflex of a low imbalance of key cards.
Therefore long streaks must come out whenever a strong imbalance of key cards come out.
Nonetheless key cards are finitely placed as they are burnt from the play. Say they must be more or less concentrated along the deck.
It's true that strong points could be made by "normal" cards as a combination of 3 and 6 or 4 and 4 could do, for example. And of course many results will be dictated by "weird" situations as a 4 getting a 4 vs a standing 6 etc.
But those spots are just belonging to the short term deviations category.
Say we want that our strategy is set up in order to only bet Player side, thus trying to get a kind of advantage.
There are three steps to look for.
1 we want a higher initial point
2 we want a standing point
3 we do not want to cross an asym hand.
Anytime we get a higher initial point and regardless of the quality of the hand, we're hugely favorite to win.
Naturally key cards distribution play a great role on that. In a sense we want the shoe to get a low imbalance of key cards on the portions of shoe we chose to wager.
A standing point (6s, 7s and naturals) come out at P side with a 38% probability and of course any P standing point is favorite to win.
Such 38% probability could be more or less concentrated along the various portions of the shoe.
Finally, any P drawing situation (a close to 50/50 probability) is susceptible of crossing a 3,4,5 or 6 B point, therefore being strong unfavorite (at various degrees) to win unless the initial point is higher.
Mathematically speaking it's like playing a coin flip game, a kind of 38/62 ratio and a reversed 62/38 ratio considered at different steps.
Remember that at any 8deck shoe symmetrical initial points will come out at those percentages:
0 = 14.74%
1 = 9.49%
2 = 9.45%
3 = 9.49%
4 = 9.45%
5 = 9.49%
6 = 9.45%
7 = 9.49%
8 = 9.45%
9 = 9.49%
as.

At baccarat we can't consider any single outcome as a valid outcome in our registration unless if following normal math percentages.
For example, say the pattern is BBPP
Here we must consider first whether BB is coming from mere sym propositions, meaning that B in both cases wasn't advantaged by the rules.
Secondly we must assess whether PP didn't cross an unfavourable asym hand getting the best of it by starting underdog.
Most of the time BBPP pattern is the product of sym propositions as the asym strenght will act by the old 8.6/91.4 ratio.
Not everytime.
On the same line and more practically speaking, after a single P we should know that betting Banker means to hope that Banker will cross an asym hand more likely than not. Otherwise we're losing money.
The same after a single B apparition.
That means that there's no value to detect sym situations unless our strategy will dictate to bet Player or, reversely taken, that while wagering Banker we hadn't estimate that an asym hand is coming around shortly.
Again about key cards.
Definitely 8s and 9s will favor the side where those cards fall on. The probability those cards will fall into the first four positions is perfectly equal.
But whenever the third card is an 8 or a 9, Player side is unfavorite to get a valid point to win.
It's like 8s and 9s are symmetrically placed unless the 5th position is involved. The impact itlr is much greater about fifth positions than sixth positions as some part of 6th cards are not allowed to show up for the rules.
It could happen that Player gets some winning hands by the help of such key cards falling at 5th position (aka Player gets 0 and/or 1 initial point). But if we run infinite times this situation we'll lose.
The reversed situation is less likely to happen as some B initial points won't elicit a draw.
Therefore many seemingly equal patterns aren't equal by any means.
There's no doubt that long term results are the direct reflex of math percentages and those math percentages are the direct reflex of initial points and third card points actual situations.
Say most 7s and 8s have fallen on initial two card B side and we can't care less about actual outcomes.
Do you really expect that on the following hands the remaining 7s and 8s are more likely to fall on P side?
Same about third cards.
Third cards, while whimsically placed as they could intervene in the hand or not, are following a more or less attitude to help or not P side; in some way they constitute a supplemental random walk no matter which will be the real result.
Actually best playable shoes are those which seem to conform at most to normal math propositions and according to bac features already known here; those which aren't must be abandoned at the first opportunity.
as.

Say we want to build new "roads" originating by the simple B/P results succession.
For example, we classify outcomes as S (same) or O (opposite) according to a preordered pace, e.g. 4. We register our new result in relationship of what happened four hands back.
Since this new road is single paced, every outcome will be recorded but the first four results.
BBBPBPPBBPBPBPPP.. becomes
S
OOO
SS
OO
SS
O
S...
This new sequence isn't directly affected by the asymmetrical BP probability as our S/O signs distribution do not correspond to a B or P result.
Simply put, it's very hard to precisely deduce from S/O distributions what really happened on those shoes in terms of BP outcomes.
Of course the probability to be right or wrong is 50/50 and only long samples might help us to assign the proper BP results to our S/O registrations.
Now we are working into one of the simplest world of place selection.
Of course some BP patterns are going to produce (or not) homogeneous S/O situations:
BPBPBPBPBP = SSSSSS
BBPPBBPPBB = SSSSSS
BBBBPPPPBB = OOOOOO
BPBPPBPBBP = OOOOOO
Taken from the simplest definition of symmetricity, those are balanced outcomes as the number of Bs is equal to the number of Ps (except of the third pattern shortened for simplicity)
Actually it could happen that even strong unbalanced sequences as BBPBBBPBBB... (or the opposite counterpart) or long B or P streaks (longer than 9) will produce a SSSSSS pattern.
Now the question is whether this new S/O sequence alone could help us to define the features of the shoe we are playing/observing.
as.

The answer is yes, providing one can look properly at what must happen, may happen or cannot happen (in this last instance it's better to say very very very unlikely to happen).
Now our SOS (save our 'Bac' souls) road is one of the most reliable source to rely upon when we're trying to detect every shoe in the universe.
Of course a long term profitable strategy should be focused about what must happen, what may happen being just a kind of jackpot, and at the same time trying to avoid at all costs what very very very rarely could happen.
According to our data and results, the probability that some "key" events will appear or not on a given shoe are in relationship to the previous outcomes and quality features.
This helps us to avoid to play at shoes that do not seem to fit our requisites.
Again, there's nothing to guess and nothing to follow just playing the probabilities.
Under normal circumstances we do not want to hope for jackpots or force the unlikely not to happen.
The very few people making a living I know place large bets rarely or quite rarely. They win insignificant number of bets per shoe played (not to mention per shoes observed) but with an astounding regularity.
We should copy them.
as.

The casinos fortune is not made upon the math edge but about players.
They even might offer a zero HE baccarat game where both sides draw or stand in the same way (no third card rule) and winning bets are payed 1:1. They would still make a lot of money.
Thus before playing we should ask to ourselves what should be our edge.
Imo here are some of the principal wrong thoughts:
1 "I'm capable to read randomness"
Well, if this is the case I better present my ideas and my scientifical findings to MIT or NASA. I'll make more money than sitting at a baccarat table.
A better statement would be "I think that in my field I can spot some objective situations where supposedly randomness seems to be pseudo randomness or unrandomness at various degrees".
Scientifically speaking that means to provide strict measurements of my assertion made on long trials.
2 "My money management can overcome the negative HE itlr"
From a conceptual point of view, this is a worse statement than the previous one.
Whereas a possible randomness reader could get some possible hints to take advantage from (of course under the form of occasional non randomness), there's no one possibility in the world that a MM strategy could overcome a random negative edge game itlr.
3 "I'm trying to win more on positive situations and losing less on negative ones"
That's another bighornshit.
Positive and negative situations will equal itlr and without a careful assessment of the events where sd values are way more restricted than expected, there's no way to know how and when
I'll get positive or negative events.
4 "My profit goal is X bets per single shoe or per Y shoes played .
It's like we want to subdue randomness or even partial unrandomness in the way we humanly set up previously.
This is not only an impossible task but a math heresy.
Now let's try to get the best of it by considering the above assertions.
1 If I've found to be a randomness expert I should know that a possible unrandomness is an occasional finding and anyway it should not be exploited for long.
Generally my ROI is 0.9894 and 0.9876 when I win and 1 when I lose.
Therefore before betting I either would prefer to get just one profit unit under favourable circumstances or to hope that a given random walk gets an interesting probability to get all winnings in the entire shoe.
Playing every hand or most hands or half (or 1/3) of the deck cannot accomplish this task.
2 Getting an edge means to win by flat betting by 1 trillion of accuracy.
No flat betting win = no party.
Notice that a flat betting strategy may involve several small adjustments in the betting process, anyway itlr the sum of the same level bets must be superior to a random wagering.
3 The general probability to win or lose a single hand remains the same, what changes is the actual probability to win after some quantity and quality events happened so far in the shoe.
As I sayed many times in my pages, what happened in the past must be properly registered other than from a strict B/P or R/B or S/O point of view.
4 We know very well that it's quite difficult to be ahead after 3 or 4 played shoes other than by benefiting from the luck factor. Let alone to be ahead per every shoe played.
Actually it's very very unlikely to be ahead of something whether we're flat betting randomly five sections formed by 4 or 5 consecutive shoes, no matter how many bets we're putting into the felt.
I mean that it's virtually impossible to get consecutive profitable shoes by flat betting no matter how's diluted our wagering.
We must discard some shoes from our play.
See you tomorrow
as.

In response to the above post.
Number 1 Top Section: Spoton.
Number 2 Top Section: Money management if used with a method that is good, will allow additional wins to come without jeopardizing your Buy In or Reserve Money in front of you. However the method must be able to take advantage of opportunity and you must stop when the opportunity is finished. If not, false positives and false hopes will wipe you out each and every time.
Money Management does not overcome anything, it only regulates you if you apply it correctly and can strictly adhere to it. IMO, not always easy to do at a live table. It can be done but it is very difficult.
Number 3 Top Section: Positive situations as you say, I say 'presentments of opportunity'. You are correct. However they are not equal. Positive ones in my opinion will always be less than that of the negative ones.
Number 4 Top Section: This is most people's downfall for not winning what opportunity does present itself when they play. They restrict themselves with false positives and false hopes, and those become huge burdens forbidding the catch of any flow with any kind of sizable wins as it is happening.
Number 1 Bottom Section: I would personally never flat bet and bet continuously, it is sheer suicide if you're playing shoe after shoe even for say three shoes unless you get extremely lucky and have something going strictly in your favor. But that won't be for more than one session most likely. With that said, what I would stress is that 1/3 figure to be a strict 20 to 25 hands maximum.
Number 4 Bottom Section: Spot on. One or two shoes or possibly a third shoe is probably a session maximum, if the person won anything sizable on shoe #1 and #2 or lost on shoe #1 and recouped and won on shoe #2. Seldom into the 4th shoe or more. In reality, in the casino that is. After shoe #3 going into #4 it is going to be extremely hard to be unbiased, adhere to money management, not be emotionaleither positive or negative emotions and if you did win your greed level will rise very quickly and immensely. Most players do not even realize the burden that they have on them once they start winning and winning sizeable amounts. They become so emotional and so egotistical, bulletproof and greedy, that they cannot see straight and are almost guaranteed to give it back, give up all their buy in money as well as any additional reserve money they have on them every time.

Thanks for your interesting reply Al!
Regardless of the method one likes to use, I see a common trait between my thoughts and your words: the probability to win doesn't come around any corner, we ought to select possible profitable spots within the realm of chaotic disorder.
Thinking in this way we can assume that per every three shoes played, one could be good, the second neutral and the third quite bad (in any order, of course).
Since, as Al correctly sayed, good is inferior to bad for the negative edge, after having won we must expect to lose everything back and naturally there are no guarantees that after bad a balanced good is going to come out shortly.
It could happen that two, three or even more consecutive shoes produced all good situations, yet the probability this thing happens is very low.
At the same token, it could happen that two, three or more shoes will form bad events and it's now that the catastrophe is coming.
We can't give the casino the luxury to know that we are going to bet every shoe dealt (or most part of them).
That's the downfall of every mechanical method presented or sold everywhere.
A method is set up in order to win no matter what, maybe stuffed with worthless stop win or stop loss techniques.
We can't interfere with probabilities, they are just there and it's up to us to estimate what's more likely now.
as.

Thanks for your interesting reply Al!
Regardless of the method one likes to use, I see a common trait between my thoughts and your words: the probability to win doesn't come around any corner, we ought to select possible profitable spots within the realm of chaotic disorder.
Thinking in this way we can assume that per every three shoes played, one could be good, the second neutral and the third quite bad (in any order, of course).
Since, as Al correctly sayed, good is inferior to bad for the negative edge, after having won we must expect to lose everything back and naturally there are no guarantees that after bad a balanced good is going to come out shortly.
Well yes and no. And that is why mechanical and scheduled wagering systems will never excel to the point where they are repetitively making money. But with a proper, positive and concrete Money Management Method the player will excel if he wins. Like I have always said your buyin amounts will be your risk capital and has to be. If you can capture and capitalize on the presentments that are positive and do appear, you will make a good amount of money. But that will not happen in every session. That is why your wins have to far surpass your buyin volume amounts rather than a mere two, three or four units of profit, the way most people are claiming these days on the internet gambling forums.
It could happen that two, three or even more consecutive shoes produced all good situations, yet the probability this thing happens is very low. You are exactly spot on, right at 100%. It would be extremely a rare session where shoe after shoe for several shoes all produced good situations repetitively so.
At the same token, it could happen that two, three or more shoes will form bad events and it's now that the catastrophe is coming. I believe most of us spot more bad then good even after it happens. And we tend to remember bad more so then good, unless we won a considerable amount of money on the good. Maybe because if we missed the good, we plain messed up?
We can't give the casino the luxury to know that we are going to bet every shoe dealt (or most part of them).
That's the downfall of every mechanical method presented or sold everywhere.
A method is set up in order to win no matter what, maybe stuffed with worthless stop win or stop loss techniques.
We can't interfere with probabilities, they are just there and it's up to us to estimate what's more likely now. You raised a point and it's a point of view. However I believe my point of view is to catch it while it's happening and not estimate what's more likely to happen.
as.

Thanks Al!
I fear that most of your points rely upon your long experience very few baccarat players have...
Simulated shoes are not real shoes and simulated outcomes are not real outcomes, especially if one considers red or blue dots simply as red or blue dots...
Hands cutting or prolonging a pattern
Baccarat is not roulette where a red number has the identical probability to appear than two of the "losing" or "winning" contiguous black numbers and vice versa.
Say the shoe produced the PPP pattern.
Most of the times this situation comes from mere symmetrical hands getting the same probability to appear.
Sometimes (and you should know how much are those probabilities), PPP pattern comes from one asym hand not favoring B side and two sym hands; rarely two asym hands didn't favor B side and very very rarely all three asym hands went to P side despite the math disadvantage.
Anyway let's assume this PPP pattern was formed by an unknown asym/sym ratio.
Now we decide to bet Banker because:
 generally speaking, Banker is a less disadvantaged hand
 itlr P3>P3+
 there is always the very slight propensity to get the opposite hand just formed.
At various degrees, all those points derive from sensible math and stats features, thus there's no doubt that itlr we'll get more B hands than P hands.
In the hand in question, Player shows a zero point and Banker a 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.
In a word, we are slight, moderate or strong favorite to win the hand.
The third card is an 8, therefore we'll lose the hand, despite of the initial general and actual advantage.
Next two hands are two P hands, hence the actual pattern is PPPPPP instead of a more likely (in our example) PPPBPP pattern.
From a strict math and ROI point of view, our Banker bet was really right just whether Banker had shown a 3, 4 or 5 initial point. Actually the best situation was to get a Banker 5 point followed by a 4 and then by a 3.
Since the probability to get 3,4 or 5 is more than 3/2 placed than having Banker to show 6 or 7, we know that this bet was EV+.
But more importantly is to see that that PPPPPP pattern didn't follow a more likely scenario as a strong shifted situation hasn't happened.
Notice that among the Banker options, I've discounted a natural as it involves an unnecessary 0.95:1 payement.
I mean that itlr we'll be in way better shape when trying to cut a banker streak by estimating that a natural (or standing point) is coming at P side than vice versa.
Even if is totally true that a sensible strategy could get the best of it by splitting the outcomes in 1s, 2s and 3s, is altogether true that long streaks must be properly classified as quite unlikely to show up by mere symmetrical propositions.
Very often quality overcomes quantity.
as.

Thanks Al!
I fear that most of your points rely upon your long experience very few baccarat players have...
Simulated shoes are not real shoes and simulated outcomes are not real outcomes, especially if one considers red or blue dots simply as red or blue dots...
Very often quality overcomes quantity.
as.
Belief in Something. Influenced. Visual Factors.
Here, let me spell something out. If you believe something even if not scientific, mathematical or historically discovered, proven and absolutely correct, is it wrong? What I mean is, can you have something you do that is correct and proper for yourself in your situation or circumstances? And have that work positive for you and for what purpose you created it or found it?
Reality will supersede in factual results. Always will, it must. Does not matter what you are doing, the factual results will cancel, accept or discount whatever you introduce along the way, at the end. Do we agree?
Problem is, almost all of us do not really think at the table when we are playing baccarat. We really do not. We get sucked in and we get sucked in big time. Sure, you can read this and shrug your shoulders and say, Glen you do, I do not. But hey, we both know that is wrong.
Just about all of us have two ways to play this game. One is in our heads, on paper, on the computer and everywhere else except the live brick and mortar event itself. The other, is the brick and mortar event. Lots of things happen when we get to the casino. And the sad part of it all, they happen without any of us doing anything. We are oblivious to them and we chase everything and pursue every avenue except ourselves to control, govern and take charge of ourselves in the proper way at the casino. Again, shrug your shoulders and say I have no idea what I am talking about, but I do and I do 100 percent for about 98 to 99 percent of everyone.
Most of what really does happen at a casino is the person is influenced from the effects of the visual factors. The visual factors present themselves in varying ways to the different people there. The influencing manipulates in varying stages and degrees as well. But the bottom line is, it happens, and it happens repeatedly throughout the session(s) to the people. Because the people are in a situation, they believe they belong in, are comfortable in and will prevail, their understanding of that same situation is not being addressed or understood. And that is where the problem lies and develops and preys upon the people that gamble at the game of baccarat.
The Most Dangerous Thing at Baccarat.
What is the most dangerous thing, the most powerful thing and the thing that causes wrongful beliefs, dangerous influences and life changing factors within hours? It is money. The same as it does in businesses and families. Just in those two it takes a much longer time to come to fruition.
I will never forget a guy back in Atlantic City, New Jersey. It was at Bally's Grand casino property. I remember this guy to this day vividly clear and this was back around the very early 1990's. He was in a lightcolored blue blazer with dress pants and a dark yellow dress shirt. He was gambling, I did not know him. Somehow, we made eye contact. I was a few seats away at a big baccarat table, the kind with the 2 sides with 7 players to each side and the 3 dealers in the middle of the table. He kept pulling out envelope after envelope of cash from his inside pocket of his jacket when he would lose whatever he had in front of him. Not small money but not anything record breaking for a larger casino anyway. I think the envelopes had like $5,000.00 or so in each one. He is burning through them steady. A couple of hours pass, and he looks over at me and says, I can not believe how much I spent already, this is my life savings I am gambling with. A while goes by and he says almost the same thing again. His face is turning cold and hard looking. He is stiff. After another bit of time he pulls out an envelope and tells me, this is my last bit of cash, if I lose this, I am broke, financially ruined within one day. I really could not say anything at the time, I never realized how gambling effected people back then. You must realize at that time I was in the New York City adult business as well as the restaurant business in Midtown Manhattan and cash was never a problem and everyone, I gambled with was business owners that gave a new meaning to the words, liquid assets. But this guy, I will never forget. Of course, within say 30 minutes or so, he loses the buy in of his last envelope. He looks at me and I look at him. He has this blank stare on his face, real deep and dark. Real sad looking. He just sits there looking at the table and the floor, alternating between the two. I do not know how much he burned through, but I would say it was between $100,000.00 and $200,000.00 judging by the envelopes I saw him go through after he caught my attention. I will never forget that gentlemen. The conviction he had, the seriousness, the methodical buy ins, etc., etc., and so on.

"I fear that most of your points rely upon your long experience very few baccarat players have..."
Facts are interpreted differently by each of us in a game like Baccarat, dependent upon each of our own experiences.
In my own opinion it's all based around that, and that is a start for the way each of us will wager and what each of our session Visions might be.

Here's one more for you that kind of goes with everything that you're talking about. After all these years of play I remember this one guy at the baccarat tables in Atlantic City back in the 1990s, winning more overall than I ever seen anybody win on a regular basis. He would always buy in with right at $10,000 and get $1,000 of it in green and the rest in black and purple chips.
He was the absolute most patient, nonemotional, laid back player that had the ability to sit there very patiently, make a bunch of table minimum bets just to keep the floor people happy and wager, maybe two or three times extremely heavy per shoe. He would play probably no more than two shoes possibly three and then leave. He won the highest majority of all of his large bets. Thinking back I can remember about the only three times he would wager heavy.
1) Wager on the cut back after a decent streak to whatever the streak was;
2) Wager post tie on the player side, depending on the first few/prior hands after ties, if those did go and cut to the players side;
3) Wager once or twice on a section that started a true chopchop, alternating from Banker to Player.
Never did any Martingales, never did any progressions, never chased anything, never got any type of greed to get sucked in whatsoever.
But what was amazing to this day, are the amount of hands he really came to wager and how he did it.

I'm deadly sure many bac players are long term winners, it's people who most of the times go unnoticed.
They smile at other players when an improbable long winning streak is giving them a lot of money, yet they do not bet a fkng dime.
But at the same time they never be caught in the specular losing streak, still smiling.
as.

We should print in our mind there's no fkng way to beat this game itlr unless a defect of randomness at various degrees is working.
Sometimes it could happen that a normal distribution could be interpreted as a kind of unrandomness, mostly as some patterns seem to get a uniform shape.
That's now that we must consider along with quantity factors the more important quality factors.
I repeat, we can't expect to be long term winners whenever our bets aren't getting the first two card advantage itlr.
That's why progressions can't be of any help unless our bets succession will get a strong math edge itlr. That is unless our bet selection will get an edge by a simple flat betting.
If the improper shuffle parameter seems to be of paramount importance, think about how many times this factor will act along the shoes by percentages.
Do you think that every shoe dealt is affected by a decisive degree of unrandomness?
No tocking way.
Many times shoes are properly shuffled, meaning that randomness is accomplished. In those situations there's no fkng way to beat the game.
Random production equals to random betting that equals to a math negative proposition.
Think about those shoes where standing P points are losing to higher Banker points.
This specific random walk is strong asymmetrical as P 6s and 7s points are strong favorite itlr.
Nonetheless in our short term sample they have lost.
More interestingly is whenever the third card strongly helps (or not) several times P side, no matter which is the B point. Sometimes we have chosen the right side, meaning B side shows a higher point, especially if the hand is a pure asymmetrical hand by the rules.
In any case, this is another random walk.
In both cases quality doesn't correspond to quantity, that is math is temporariliy disregared by the actual card distribution.
People who have won such hands will think to be geniuses or lucky, actually they are either stup.id or stupi.d in either scenarios.
There's no one possibility in the world to be a long term bac winner whether our bets aren't getting the right math side of the proposition, either by crossing the higher initial 4card point or, a lot better, by getting a higher asym hands percentage than expected while wagering Banker.
No matter the actual outcomes.
Up to the point where some shoes which went mathematically wrong for long cannot be of any future betting value.
as.

What about a MM which SEEMS to get a primary role over a proper bet selection?
First, there are bet selections getting us a long term edge (albeit small), thus we know to be on the right side of the betting options.
They do not come up around the corner, we need certain moderate deviations to be exploited and of course the main reason why we get an edge is because unrandom portions of the shoe are more likely than we think.
Second, most of our bets made by utilizing a MM along with a weak BS will get a negative EV, it could happen that by coincidence we catch one or several key EV+ hands. But itlr we are going uphill.
Surely a simple MM will raise the probability of success but almost always wil lfollow the negative values we expect to get.
Of course a MM enlarge our profits only whenever we know our betting spots are getting a positive EV.
Third, there's no way in the universe to play profitably an EV game when we think it's randomly placed.
It's a pure contradiction in terms.
About bet selection.
I stress again about the importance of asym/sym concept widely taken.
We can't give a fkng fk about what math experts keep to state, they make their assumptions about a perfect complete randomness of the outcomes.
No way itlr a 50.68/49.32 dynamic probability will get the same probability to show up per every hand dealt.
The fact that casinos will get huge profits from baccarat tables doesn't mean that every single bac player is a fkng loser.
Per every shoe dealt, cards are arranged in a more or less asymmetrical fashion. Think about 8s and 9s falling here or there. Even if 8s and 9s are equally distributed, second card of each side will prompt more or less likely winning results.
Same about third card values, now more important as they tend to confirm or deny a possible light/moderate/strong asymmetricity either by numbers or by rules.
More on that later.
as.

I repeat, the only way to know if we're betting the right side ITLR is by assessing how many times our selection got math favorite spots in form of higher two card initial points.
We shouldn't care a damn whether in the actual shoe played our 7s are losing to higher points, itlr we'll win.
In some sense we could transform actual results into two first card situations. Itlr no way a 2 initial point is going to win more times than an opposing 3 point and so on.
As explained here many times, baccarat results are the direct reflex of math situations. Not everytime a math advantaged spot will form a win, but to get a long term edge we have to bet those math advantaged spots anyway, otherwise we're destined to lose.
The more we're winning those unfavorite math spots, higher will be the probability to lose subsequent bets.
We can't control the real outcomes, more likely we can make a fair estimation larger than 50% about the side which will be kissed by a higher 2card point.
as.

Asymmetricity is not in the eye of the beholder, it's just a pure objective fact not needing supernatural powers to be detected but some calculations.
as.

We can't control the real outcomes, more likely we can make a fair estimation larger than 50% about the side which will be kissed by a higher 2card point.
as.
Can you please comment because this is exactly your last sentence what happened the other night and this shoe was an astronomical shoe but if you bet with your feeling or what you wanted you would have lost money.!
https://betselection.cc/baccaratforum/absolutefantasticshoeseriouslyreadable!/msg68849/#msg68849

Can you please comment because this is exactly your last sentence what happened the other night and this shoe was an astronomical shoe but if you bet with your feeling or what you wanted you would have lost money.!
https://betselection.cc/baccaratforum/absolutefantasticshoeseriouslyreadable!/msg68849/#msg68849
No comment on it..... ^^
as.

So after years of studying this game, I've devised the random walk capable to spot the situations where an astounding high probability of crossing a possible unrandom production at given shoes will happen, that is the necessary tool to get an edge over the casino.
For practical reasons I had to converge multiple limited random walks into an univocal line, knowing that the mere asym hands factor will be too much diluted with the more powerful sym strenght.
Of course this lack of precision will affect more the short term variance but not the overall probability of getting key cards or not at given spots.
In a word, every shoe dealt in the universe must follow some more likely key cards distributions up to the point that short term outcomes are just small interferences over the long term plan.
To do that I had to compare multiple random walks reaching some values of limiting value of relative frequency converging into a single line that will get the "on" or "off" input according to certain actual results.
Whenever such values are not getting a signficant point or, on the other side, are passing certain points, the betting line won't dictate any bet.
Naturally such points are empirically placed for simplicity, probably there are more precise assessments of this random walk run.
The important thing is that any bet made following this random walk is EV+.
as.

The actual procedure I discovered to get a long term flat betting winning strategy was mainly built upon R. Von Mises and M. von Smoluchoswki works made on different fields than gambling (of course).
The method is on sale for $3.500.000, so basically isn't for sale.
Let casinos think that math will guarantee them a long term profit no matter what, it's our interest to keep this statement true as long as possible.
At the same token, I admire people who made and still make their best efforts to contradict math experts statements that stubbornly think that at baccarat every proposition is EV no matter what.
This last is a complete absolute total tocking no brainer bighornshit, a thing that only ignorant people could keep stating.
We're ready to challenge for real money those fkng "experts" claiming that every bet will be EV no matter what, providing data will come from a real source and not from pc simulated shoes that supposedly bring a so called "perfect randomness".
Curiously most people claiming that bac is an unbeatable game couldn't provide a proper amount of REAL shoes data showing that every bet selection is worthless, just focusing about Phil Ivey's edge soprting strategy who won a lot but collected nothing.
as.

One of the worst approach one could make, imo, is considering bac outcomes in terms of simple B/P successions.
The game is too much affected by volatility to get hints from them.
Consider this simple BP sequence:
BBBBBBBBB
At hand #5 Player got a 7 initial point and Banker got a 2.
Banker pulled out a 6 and won the hand.
From another point of view and regardless of the previous four Banker wins quality, itlr the more likely scenario in this precise cards situation will be to form a BBBBP sequence.
Thus itlr our 9hand Banker streak becomes a BBBBPBBBB sequence.
The fact that two or three cards combine to form the highest result shouldn't divert us from the notion that baccarat is a high card game.
Naturally two low cards (as 44 for example) could produce a very high result but iltr the number of 8s formed by 44 and 53 are way less likely than a simple 8zero.
And of course the probability to get those low cards situation prompting an 8 is perfectly symmetrical.
Itlr, patterns are just the reflex of math probabilities that cannot be the product of simple linear card countings other than for very very small insignificant values (Jacobsen et al).
Since we cannot solve the bac problem mathematically, we have to dispute the real randomness of the outcomes, or better sayed, the actual probability to get a more or less shifted card distribution forming results at various degrees at the shoe we're playing at.
We know that a card distribution, no matter how whimsically placed, will get some limits of relative frequency, hence the model is dependant and finite.
A thing better evaluated by a place selection and probability after events tools that have nothing to do with simple B and P outcomes widely intended.
as.

To win at baccarat IN THE LONG RUN we need an advantage, a real advantage I mean.
Betting few spots alone, quitting when ahead or after a given loss, trying to not increase the wagers in negative situations (or increasing them in positive spots), betting any B/P situation alone whatever intended, any MM procedure don't make the job.
And any player wishing to play baccarat seriously must throw away the idea that baccarat is a succession of either 50/50 propositions or 50.68/49.32 still situations.
Those situations are unbeatable by any means.
See J.E. Kerrich experiments for reference and he was talking about a fair coin flip toss, so let's think about the long term results when instead of being payed 1:1 we are getting 0.9876 or 0.9894 return on our money per every coin flip.
Therefore we are forced to transfer the problem from dry math to a probability point of view. But at the same time probability world cannot be estimated without some math fundamentals.
Example.
We all know that at hold'em poker the odds that each player will get pocket Aces on the first two cards are 1:221.
Such odds are calculated by considering all possible two card combinations with the precise possibility to get one of the twelve AA combinations.
Now suppose that in the 9handed holde'm table we're playing at we are in seat #7 and we have reasons to think that an Ace will be more probable to fall into the first 34 cards dealt.
Is still 1:221 our probability to be dealt AA?
Of course it's not.
Even considering the high variance happening at poker tables for either objective and more important subjective features, we could deduce that in that hand we are not generally favorite to win.
Even though the example is very distantly related to baccarat, we may infer that key cards determining itlr the most likely course of the result could be more or less concentrated in some portions of the shoe; with the important difference that at baccarat we get the luxury to know where (and options are just two) and how much a given key card had helped or not and by which degree the side it fell on.
Now we're not playing trends or general probabilities, we are going to wager spots where the probability to get a valuable key card falling at a given side is endorsed by some statistical features.
More on that later.
as.

Say we want to split our baccarat betting life into endless fourwager spots, anytime registering our W/L ratio by a simple flat betting strategy.
It doesn't matter whether we're betting those four spots consecutively or diluted at various degrees. Let alone which bet selection we would like to use.
Forgetting for now the game asymmetricity, the probability to win or lose all those spots is 1/16 (6.25%), the probability to win at least one wager over four attempts is 15/16 (93.75%).
Easy.
Now say we want to register what happens (by a mere FB placement) after a given notbet outcome (W or L) had appeared.
The possible results are:
WWWW: +3
WWWL: +1
WWLW: +1
WWLL: 1
WLWW: +1
WLWL: 1
WLLW: 1
WLLL: 3
LLLL: 3
LLLW: 1
LLWL: 1
LLWW: +1
LWLL: 1
LWLW: +1
LWWL: +1
LWWW: +3
Of course the total sum is zero, anyway the symmetrical W/L situations among the 16 possible outcomes are just six (WWLL, WLWL, WLLW, LLWW, LWLW and LWWL).
Math teachs us that no matter which spot we'll decide to bet, any W/L pattern will get the same probability to appear. More specifically that at baccarat every spot wagered will get, itlr, a 50.68/49.32 probability to happen.
In reality the actual card distribution could endorse or not the probability to get, per every fourspots wagered, a symmetrical or asymmetrical situation.
Actually the above considerations reflect a perfect symmetrical 50/50 production, but baccarat is a slight asymmetrical game as itlr B>P.
It may happen that along the shoe we're playing at the slight asymmetricity will endorse a "fictional" simmetricity or, on the other end, increasing a natural asymmetricity.
How can we do to "solve" the problem?
as.

Instead of thinking as baccarat as a BP outcomes game, we should consider the average probability to get a shoe composition prompting certain degrees of math advantaged situations.
Thinking this way we cannot give a fkng damn about short term results that only give the players false illusions or harsh disappointments.
It's a kind of edge sorting technique obtained by statistical tools and randomness considerations.
Itlr, results are the product of math advantaged situations making hopping lines of various lenght from one side to another.
We can't guess any single decision or many decisions, let alone the situations whether the inferior twocard point will win as unfavorite. But we could estimate, according to the actual shoe we're playing at, how many times a given side will be kissed by a math advantaged twocard situation.
Actually per every hand played there's no greater advantage than estimating which side will get the highest twocard point.
At a lesser degree (nearly a 7% inferior edge before vig) comes the asymmetrical situation when betting Banker.
Alas, at least from a strict long term advantage point of view and without other tools, a simple B/P flow "study" cannot help us in decipher what is more likely to happen in the shoe dealt as a percentage of results is strongly affected by short term variance negating math (apparently).
We need more.
One of the first answers that could come into our mind is that outcomes are not so randomly placed. But we need to possess solid definitions of randomness to state that. And simple B/P succession assessments do not make the job by any means.
The second answer is about the average key card distribution forming more likely results for given lenghts.
In any case, we need a solid strict scientifical proof that our method will get results way different to the expected values, either by disputing a real randomness of the game and/or by confirming a possible "average" key cards distribution theory.
It's a sure undeniable fact that without a strict flat betting strategy getting a long term edge, any baccarat player sooner or later will lose everything put at stake.
Next time I'll post our results about real shoes played at high stakes rooms.
as.

Okay...this is interesting....please proceed AsymBacGuy....

Thanks Garfield!
Say we wish to use a method dictating to bet that the first streak on either side must be a double instead of a 3+ streak (or vice versa).
Such streak of unknown lenght must come out after a BB or PP pattern. Then we bet respectively P or B whether our method privileges doubles or B and P if we like 3+ streaks.
Of course the wisest move will be to bet B after BB and B after PP, but that's not the issue I'm referring to.
Nevertheless, we could insert one more parameter, that is WHEN this BB or PP happens in our shoe. Technically speaking, how many singles had shown before a BB or PP pattern comes out.
Long term data show that the first portions of the shoe are the most "randomly" placed, that is that our random walk will get more unfavourable results than in the subsequent portions of the shoe. Of course unfavourable must be interpreted as "random world".
Random world is defined by actual card clumping getting certain mathematically favorite situations, itlr we can't hope to win with a 3 P initial point vs a 6 B initial point even though in our shoe the fifth card is a 4 or a 5.
Since we have an expected probabilty that a 75hand shoe will produce some patterns, we should compare our actual results to those expected values.
For example, we all know that the general probability applied to a 80hand sequence dictates to get 1/4 of singles and 1/4 of streaks, of those streaks half will be doubles and half will be 3+ streaks and so on.
But those values are true only when a perfect independent model is working, more importantly in the real world such values are affected by either the actual asym strenght and by key card clumping.
Since a perfect random world MUST BE insensible to place selection and probability after events tools, we must find the situations to dispute those common statements.
In simple words, whenever certain strong or moderate streak of homogeneous patterns came on the first part of the shoe we're playing at, next outcomes are affected in some way forming (by a linkage of events registration) more likely outcomes in the subsequent parts of the shoe.
Of course B/P events are just the bricks, we need walls to ascertain what's more likely to happen.
Next some shoes we have played.
as.

Before posting real shoes, I stress again about the importance that in the real world two card initial points distribution is a lot different than the same distribution coming from a continuously shuffled source.
BP distribution is the most random situation we can rely upon, we need to build a random walk considering what happened in the past at a given pace and in various spots. Sometimes we can't get any hint as our r.w. is producing results too much deviating from the "norm".
And people making a living at numbers will bet about the probability that something is more likely to happen and not about some distant probabilities forming a sort of jackpot.
For example, the probability to lose a certain series of twostep wagers per every shoe dealt in the universe is zero. Not 0.000001 but zero.
Of course we can't afford to lose two, three or more losing situations, hence we need to spot the situations where the W part is more likely than due vs the L part.
Our edge comes from long samples and not by a fake control of short term outcomes, the fuel of amateur players.
Forget real results, itlr the side getting the two card higher initial point is favorite to win by an astounding edge.
But if we consider every single outcome in the normal way we're destined to fail.
By registering outcomes by either a place selection and probability after events points of view we'll get a more precise picture of how much the shoe we're playing at is affected by a strong or light key card distribution dispersed in the various portions of it.
That is we should set up a cutoff point about those whimsical spots that seem to deny the math.
If baccarat would be played without the third card impact and even accepting a reasonable vig over the wins on both sides, well it wouldn't exist.
as.

Glad to be back again...
If we consider outcomes as a mere succession of BP hands of given lenghts, we're missing important random walk features as any single result is affected by math probabilities acting within too long terms, giving the actual dispersion a too much weight over the entire model.
Therefore we shouldn't focus our attention about how much a given side will be more probable than the other one, instead about how long certain more likely events are silent.
And those "gaps" or conversely considered positive "runs", must be estimated about a general probability and an actual probability made on each shoe played/observed. And without any doubt a linkage of events is one of the best tool to use.
Even though itsr (in the short run) it may appear as an identical world to fight against.
Imo best option is to build a preordered betting scheme capable to win all the spots we decided to wager for the entire lenght of the shoe by a simple flat betting approach or, best, by a double betting model.
Of course we know that we can't guess neither any single hand nor half of hands dealt, Or, for that matter, the slight majority of hands wagered when the hands' number is too high.
For example, say we want to utilize a betting scheme applied to BP outcomes made toward getting one B or P single at any stage.
Well, itlr some very rare shoes will form all B/P streaks with no single in between, but you can bet everything you get on your name that the common three derived roads (beb, sr and cr) won't get this feature no matter how whimsical is the actual card distribution.
At baccarat when we register what happens after a given result had come out at a given pace, we are challenging the supposedly random world to really work randomly forever and ever.
Technically speaking, we are challenging a supposedly random world to act regardless of place selection and probability after events tools.
Those tools scientifically prove or disprove a real randomness of the results (and/or a complete independent production) thus whenever we consistently find that the model we're studying is going to form dispersion values way more restricted than expected, we get a good feeling.
Tomorrow I'l post real shoes we have played at different locations.
as.

I start with one of the shoes I would classify as unplayable but mates didn't want to wait or change table, mostly for the appealing 9 Banker streak showing at column #6.
Quite likely many members here would find this shoe as a good shoe.
P
BB
PPP
B
P
BBBBBBBBB
PP
BBBB
P
B
PPP
BBB
P
BBB
PP
BBBBBB
P
BB
PPPP
B
PPPPP
BB
P
B
PP
BBBBBB
P
BB
Applying my ub plan #1 on both sides: LWWLWWWWWLLLWLWWLL
at Banker side: LWWWWWLWWLL
at Player side: WLWLWLWLWWLW
ub plan #2: WWW (all bets won at the very first attempt as B doubles were followed by a single each time)
Since before vig any L= 3 and W= +1, we see that no ub #1 derived road provided a profit by flat betting.
Things went better by betting for W clusters at ub #1 Banker side and by isolating L at ub #1 Player side.
Nevertheless in the entire shoe the number of Ws is too low than Ls, thus imo there's no point to guess bets into a "losing" shoe.
Needless to say that the longest Banker streaks (especially the 9streak, of course) have shown many unfavorite initial points ending up as winners.
Moreover all other r.w.'s I'm used to playing finished the shoe as losers (except the aforementioned ub #2).
This shoe, at least by the way I'm considering things, is relatively rare among the real shoes world.
Once we have known this shoe texture (lol), probably the best course of action to get all winnings would be to adopt a simple two times betting toward a Banker streak of any lenght forming a WWWWWWWWWW sequence (with 6 winning bets on the first 1unit attempt and 4 wins on the second 2unit one).
Practically speaking that the shoe never produced two or more consecutive Banker singles.
And this scenario happens with a too low frequency to be exploitable (at least in terms of 810/14 consecutive wins.)
Next I'll present a shoe producing all wins.
as.
Modify message

Here's a couple of shoes producing all wins.
B
PPPPP
BBB
PP
BBB
P
BBBBB
PPP
BBB
P
B
PPPP
B
P
B
P
BBB
PPP
BBBBBB
P
BBB
P
BBBB
PPP
B
P
BB
P
BB
P
BBBBB
P
Again, ub#1 both sides: WLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWL
ub#1 on Banker side: WWWWWWWWWWWLWL
ub#1 on Player side: WWWWWWWWWW
ub#2: LW
Easy shoe, isn't it?
Here we can bet blindly and odds are that we can't lose, mainly for the relative absence of doubles.
The actual r.w. played got eight straight wins.
The second shoe is less polarized and more intriguing yet forming all wins (again eight wins):
P
B
PP
BBBB
PP
BB
P
B
PP
B
P
B
PPP
BBB
P
BB
PPP
BBB
PPPPPPP
B
P
BB
P
BB
P
B
P
BBBBBB
P
BB
P
BB
P
BB
PPPPP
B
ub#1 both sides: LWWWWWLWWLLWLWWWWWLWLWWWWL (6 units before tax)
ub#1 Banker side: LWWLLLWWLL (14 units before tax)
ub#1 Player side: WWWWLWWWWWWWWWWW (+12 units before tax)
ub#2: WWLWLL
Now differently than the previous shoe we don't have univocal winning lines on all "roads", actually the overall plan will provide a cumulative loss. And trying to only bet the positive Player side sequence is worthless itlr (imo).
This is the classical example where place selection and probability after events tools enlarge our expectation to win many hands consecutively.
To clarify a bit, I've inserted my ub plans just to show that in any case there's a kind of relationship between those roads and the actual r.w. utilized.
In the next post I'll show which bets I really wagered, even on the first "bad" (unplayable) shoe that provided a fictional profit but just by coincidence, meaning that itlr betting on a bad shoe (good shuffling) can only produce a loss.
And of course there are all those 'more likely' shoes that constitute the most likely scenario we have to face (or not).
as.

We can beat this game itlr if we have the strict scientifical proof made by rigid measurements that this thing is possible.
We can't rely upon "elastic" methods or, even worse, about raising the bets because we had lost a given amount of bets.
If any fkng method can't win by flat betting, well it only means we're playing an EV game.
If a given MM approach would be able to beat this game, it means that along the way some bets are more likely than others, therefore why not to wait to cross this situation before wagering?
In a word, every silly bet we want to place on the felt MUST get a positive expectancy, surely susceptible to variance, but capable to get a positive long term ROI. Otherwise we're doomed to failure.
Technically speaking it means that every single Banker bet must get at least a long term 51.3% winning probability and every single Player bet at least a long term 50.1% winning probability.
It's not that difficult to assess those values after having tested your shoes.
Back to the main issue.
Baccarat probabilities are not comparable to either Brownian motion or gas kinetic probabilities, as the former involve a kind of dependent probability, say it's a linkage events' probability.
Easy task to find "more likely events" as B streaks vs B singles or P singles vs P streaks, unfortunately those patterns are way lesser distributed than what a favourable player's payment dictates.
Therefore in some way the "actual" must not correspond to the "expected", meaning that not every single A/B distribution will follow the same expected lines.
Practically speaking, per every shoe dealt we need to concentrate the results either in order to lower the variance and to get a fully value of place selection and probability after events tools.
Place selection is the only sure valuable tool to know we're facing a real random world.
Thus and according to this rule, no matter which spots we decide to wager or classify, we ought to think that the BP probabilities will be always 0.5068 and 49.32 on any spot bet.
A total bighornshit.
As long as key cards were depleted from the shoe and according to the past features, only a perfect real random shuffle won't get hints to know where next key cards are distributed for long.
Simply put, a shoe can't get a valuable room to get the "place selection" validity confirming a total perfect randomness of the outcomes.
Thus we know to fight a partial unrandomness of the distribution and fortunately long term data show that some steps are "more likely" than others after the vig.
as.

Quoting Ben Mezrich on his "Busting Vega$" book: "Sometimes you had to close your eyes, forget the appearances, and just trust the numbers".
I'd meekly suggest to change the word "sometimes" with an "always" word.
Even though at baccarat numbers are not so precisely depicted than at bj, we know that after a given number appeared within certain terms, the future probability will be affected in some way.
As the probability to get the "more expected" calculated by our tools will be proportionally lowered or raised.
Say that while playing bj the low/high cards ratio will be negative or neutral for the player after half of the deck was dealt, what's the probability to get a profitable positive count on the remaining portion of the shoe?
At baccarat we have some choices to know that per every shoe dealt, negative cannot be always followed by a proportional amount of positive, but that in some situations positive can last for the entire shoe.
Thus positive at the start could build a whole positive situation and negative can only hope to recoup some losses along the way but at a proportional lower degree then what the former event had done in the past. And vice versa but we shouldn't forget that every bet we'll place will be math unfavorite.
Casinos make their huge profits hoping that either players won't properly exploit all winning shoes and at the same time knowing that players experiencing harsh losing situations won't get immediate positive situations at the same shoe played.
The math advantage doens't hurt casinos for sure, but at HS rooms whenever a shoe is dealt casinos like to front players that want to guess hands no matter what.
as.

Sorry to ask Asym...
1. What's #ub ?
Thx

Garfield...thinking that ub would be his unbeatable plans., but not sure that those are part of his ultimate plan. Actually I was kind of understanding his writings, as I think you were, in several posts back, but these recent posts have lost me again.
Asym...it "seems" like you explain what needs to happen to beat the game, but not how to do it. Guessing this is done for a reason, but it's pretty frustrating.

as....you mention in another thread that some of your best baccarat ideas came from roulette aficionados. Any chance you could share some of those strategies or possibly compare the two games, if you think that would maybe help us understand your baccarat methodology ? Just looking for a way to help us understand your writings a little (maybe more than a little) better.

as....you mention in another thread that some of your best baccarat ideas came from roulette aficionados. Any chance you could share some of those strategies or possibly compare the two games, if you think that would maybe help us understand your baccarat methodology ? Just looking for a way to help us understand your writings a little (maybe more than a little) better.
Hi Rickk! Yep thanks to answering Garfield question, ub=my plans #1 (splitted in three categories) and #2.
Some roulette researchers seem to have an edge over most pure baccarat scholars, they want to fight independent successions trying to spot any possible randomness defect.
Of course this thing is very difficult, say almost impossible both theorically and practically. Nonetheless some ideas are quite interesting and sometimes may be applied even to baccarat productions, now not being independently formed.
Personally I think the best simplest and only way to attack modern wheels is by approaching certain IB automated roulettes where the software production seem to be decently predictable, especially if we can place the bets after having assessed the rotor velocity of each spin.
Cons are that the HE at those roulettes is too high (2.7%/5.26%) to overcome and, more importantly, that you can wager relatively small amounts of money. Then there are further considerations I do not want to discuss here.
The common idea, imo, is that both roulette and baccarat productions are affected by a fair transitory asymmetricity, lasting for given periods of time. But at baccarat we can find way better conditions to state and prove that the asymmetricity belongs to a more limited (hence predictable) world than expected for many reasons.
Finiteness of the shoe and key cards distribution with all shuffling implications make a huge and decisive role on that, again two simple examples:
 at baccarat symmetrical streaks are shorter than at roulette, meaning that whenever the third card rule doesn't intervene on the hand's outcome, we'll expect a way lesser amount of long streaks than at other 50/50 independent sources.
For example, at baccarat we need a larger amount of hands dealt to cross a pure symmetrical 7hand streak that at roulette shows up with a 2/128 odds proposition (zero/s ignored).
 at baccarat probabilities are calculated only by considering math combinations working into a perfect random distribution.
A statement surely true in the long run by mixing everything regardless and naturally taking for grant all perfet random productions coming up from a software.
Really? No way.
Let's take the math asymmetrical probability favoring Banker, it's 8.6%.
And now take the single zero roulette probability to get a series of three given numbers showing up after a 7580 spins run. It's 8.1%, so almost correspondent.
Are those "almost same probability" dispersion values equally placed?
They should, but they don't.
Good news.
Now we know that a given percentage of hands math favoring Banker will feature lower dispersion values than what any other pure independent game will do.
Even though we'd want to admit that every baccarat production we have to face is perfect randomly formed.
Ok, there's always the whimsical card fall favoring one side or the other one at the start (two initial cards).
Good, at which point the most likely situation can come out consecutively? And what if we want to consider results at different paces and quantities? And is hands quality an important factor before betting?
as.

The idea I've implemented in my strategies is pretty simple in theory and quite difficult to put into practice without having mastered some notions about probability studies made in the past.
1.
At baccarat and per every shoe dealt, streaks are the direct reflex of key cards concentration or dilution that tend to produce more likely outcomes.
The key cards concentration/dilution ratio is a finite value, once a key card is either burnt or alive it must affect the probability to get more likely outcomes on either side, for now we do not know which side.
2.
Games of binomial chances work according to a probability world that no matter how dissected will form runs of certain lenght. (For now we neglect that one side is more likely than the other one).
Runs are calculated by the number of shifts from A to B.
A perfect random 50/50 game will produce the same number of runs expected mathematically.
Even though our beloved game is affected by a slight probability's asymmetricity, we can consider as a "affordable error" an actual ROI difference of 0.18% existing by the B or P wagering.
Example: a BBBPBPPBPBBBPBPPPBB succession is formed by 11 runs, that is 11 B/P shifts.
3.
Itlr actual results surely adapt to math expected values as they mix it up.
Think about black jack. Without a spread betting procedure utilized when a positive card counting arises (I'm not talking about some sophisticated key card spotting techinques), it's impossible to beat the HE.
Even considering the best favourable deck penetrations, the best card counter in the world cannot spot in total more than 1314% profitable decks.
4.
At bj, key cards are onesided exploitable, meaning that some cards are favoring players and others favor the house. And of course we must bet just one side per every hand.
At baccarat we can't get a math advantage but we can serenely "wonging" at the utmost degree.
That is we can choose when and how much money we want to risk, letting the house to think that no matter how are selected our bets our EV will be always negative.
5.
Every shoe dealt in the universe must get a more or less key cards concentration or dilution along the way.
Say we want to classify as key cards all 7s, 8s and 9s. It's a 96/416 percentage, that is a 23% dynamic probabiity.
Zero value cards add up to a 30.76% dynamic probability, but there are no other card combinations prompting more likely events for long.
Greater is key cards concentration within small portions of the shoe, better will be the probability to get shifting outcomes (runs). Meaning that whenever many key cards are concentrated within strict terms, higher will be the probability to get shorter univocal streaks, hence a larger amount of runs.
For the same reasons, a deck's portion particularly poor of key cards will form longer streaks, say a more undetectable world.
6.
The final strategy should be shaped about the probability to get, per every shoe dealt, a key card distribution strongly or moderate concentrated into some portions of it. Thus favoring a greater amount of runs of certain lenght.
And do not forget that at any EV game, player's edge comes very diluted and not constantly placed. The comparison with bj is straightforwardon on that.
7.
No matter how we want to register outcomes, itlr there's a strict relationship about key cards falling and actual results, that is about the number of runs acting per every shoe dealt.
After all in order to win itlr we have to falsify the hypothesis that every single result is randomly placed and that our actual results are not following dispersion values dictated by mathematics.
Simply put, that the average key cards distribution won't get those dispersion values belonging to an unbeatable bell curve.
as.

For a moment let's forget all "complicated" issues regarding a profitable bet selection so focusing more about a MM.
Consider this MM plan (already invented, btw).
We split our play into endless portions of 5 resolved hands wagered by flat betting, stopping the action whenever we have reached out a +1 profit (before tax); if we didn't manage to get a profit after those five hands bet (consecutively or not) we take the loss in units then calculating the future bet working on 5 next hands by increasing the loss by one unit up to the point where we'll cover all previous losses and getting a +1 profit (minus vig).
This plan is unbeatable mathematically as the probability to win one unit per every 5hand betting cluster is 68.75%.
Naturally the practice collides with the theory as without a proper BS plan, we need a huge bankroll to cover all the possible negative fluctuations, sooner or later surpassing the table limits.
Each 5hand betting cluster will get 32 possible WL combinations, all specular in term of WL numbers, but since we have chosen to stop the betting after one unit profit, now we have some combinations starting with a L working for us (namely LLWWW, LWLWW, LWWLL, LWWWL, LWWWW and LWWLW).
Therefore the probability to win one unit profit (better sayed a W>L onestep situation) per each 5hand cluster is 22/32, that is a 68.75% winning probability.
Example.
After 5hands bet by flat betting, the overall total would be positive right at the start 50% of the times (16 patterns start with a W) and six times over 16 whenever a L starts the pattern (the aforementioned WL patterns).
Of course the general probability to win or lose a given amount of hands is symmetrical, anyway the fact we're looking for just one unit profit tends to unbalance the ratio in some way. At the risk of the bet increase.
I've chosen to display the 5hand clusters as I know that many bac players won't like to flat bet clusters of 7hands, 9hands or greater amount of odd hands.
Actually more hands we're considering for each cluster and better and more precise will be the probability to know we're working in the "right" field. Providing a proper BS is utilized.
And of course the bet increase is the decisive tool to understand whether we're randomly betting or getting the best of it by a possible edge either coming out from a bad shuffling or by bac features.
Back to the numbers.
According to this plan, the worst scenarios we are forced to face is whenever after each 5 hands bet, our total result will be 5 or 3.
That is in order to get the 68.75% edge, we must increase the future bet to 6 units or 4 units.
Naturally odds this scenario will take place are 6:32 (18.75%).
The overall remaining losing part of every 5hand sample accounts for the other 12.5% percentage prompting just one losing hand.
Meaning that whenever we're losing, odds we'll get more than one losing hand per every 5hands wagering are exactly 2:1.
Most experienced bac players aren't going to lose 10 hand in a row, meaning that this MM plan won't enlarge the bets by 6:1 and then 31:1 ratio standard.
That's the key point of a profitable betting.
I do not know long term winning players betting more than the double of their standard bet.
Thus restricting the bac probabilities into a 12 step category.
They are right, as a similar 50/50 game must be solved right at the start. Either something follows or it doesn't.
as.

Back to the real shoes issue.
Bellagio, HS room. $1000$20.000 table.
The shoe went as:
B
PP
BB
PPPPP
B
PP
BB
PPPP
BB
PP
BB
PP
B
PP
B
P
BBBB
PPPP
BBBB
P
BB
P
B
P
B
PPPP
B
P
BB
PP
BBBBBB
PPP
BB
There were four players seated at this table and at the end everyone was hugely winning, despite of several bets made on opposite sides.
Big road provided long univocal patterns (think about consecutive streaks) anyway one player got almost all winnings by following derived roads.
Another player won almost every hand on the BBBBPPPPBBBB pattern.
I was quite surprised that a player wagered $10.000 (his average bet being $5000) on Banker side after the 4 Player streak (in bold) happened.
A possible explanation comes from a derived roads study.
For the record he turned up a 9 over a drawing P hand.
Ub plans:
#1 both sides: ++++++++++++
#1 B side: ++++++++++
#1 P side: ++++++
ub #2: ++++
actual random walk: ++++++++++++++++++
as.

Another shoe, now from MGM HS room.
B
PP
B
PP
B
PP
B
PPP
BB
B
P
BB
PPPP
BBB
P
BB
B
P
B
P
BBB
PP
BBB
P
BBB
PP
B
P
B
PPPPPP
BB
PPPP
BBB
PP
BB
P
PP
B
P
ub #1 plan both sides: ++++++++++++++++
ub #1 plan B side: +++++++
ub #1 plan P side: +++++++++
ub #2 plan: +++++
actual random walk: +++++++
as.

Bellagio, HS room. $100$20.000
P
B
P
B
BBBB
PPPP
BB
PP
BB
P
BB
P
BBBBB
P
B
P
BB
PPPPPPPP
B
P
B
PPPPPPPPP
BBBBB
PPPPPP
BB
B
P
B
PP
BBB
ub plan #1 both sides: ++++++++++++++
ub plan #1 B side: ++++
ub plan #1 P side: +++++++
ub plan #2: +++
actual random walk: +++++++++++
as.

Another MGM HS room shoe:
P
B
P
BBB
P
BBB
PP
B
P
BB
P
B
PP
B
P
BB
PP
BB
PP
BB
PP
BBBB
PP
BB
PPPP
B
P
BBBBB
PPPPP
B
PPP
BB
P
B
P
BB
PPPP
BBB
ub plan #1 both sides: ++++++++++++++++++++++++
ub plan #1 B side: +++++++++
ub plan #1 P side: +++++++++++++
ub plan #2: +++++
actual random walk: ++++++++++++++++
as.

Gold Coast casino.
BBB
PPP
B
PP
BB
PP
BBBB
P
BBBBBB
PPP
B
PP
BBB
PP
B
P
BBBB
PP
BBB
PP
BB
P
B
PP
BBBB
P
BB
PP
B
P
B
PPP
B
P
B
P
B
ub plan #1 both sides: +++++++++++++++++
ub plan #1 B side: ++++++++
ub plan #1 P side: +++++++++
ub plan #2: +++
actual random walk: +++++++++++++
as.

Palms casino, $25$5000.
PPPP
B
P
BBBBBBB
P
BB
P
BBBB
P
B
PPPP
B
P
BBB
P
BBB
PP
B
PP
B
PPP
B
PPPP
BBBB
PPPPPPP
BB
PP
B
P
BBBBBBBB
PPPPP
ub plan #1 both sides: +++++++++++++++++++
ub plan #1 B side: +++++++
ub plan #1 P side: ++++++++
ub plan #2: ++
actual random walk: ++++++++++
as.

The plans applied to the above shoes show that in the long run the final total of bets (units) won or lost will be almost always approaching the zero value, burdened by the vig.
We can't disrupt the math action, we can only take advantage of statistical features happening or not at different degrees shoe after shoe.
Of course we do not know when and how long things might come in our favor, yet some card distributions are more likely than others, meaning that certain patterns are more likely than others.
In other words, patterns may be so hugely card endorsed that we could win 8 or more bets for the entire lenght of the shoe without having a single loss and by a probability way greater than math expected.
Notice that getting an aim to win 812 bets in a row without a single loss needs to reduce the actual results by a 1:10 ratio. In reality less than that as many hands are formed by "neutral" ties.
Considering for simplicity BP outcomes as mere 50/50 propositions, math will teach us that we'll win 8 bets in a row by a 1/64 probability (1.56%).
If a method applied to a large sample data provides ratios higher than that we are in very good shape. (Of course the same reasoning applies to lower classes of WL probability values).
From a strict probability point of view that means that baccarat must be solved by disproving a perfect random shoe formation acting here and there with all the related falsifications of the hypothesis.
Certain shoes are more well shuffled than others, anyway it's not how deep or how light shoes are shuffled (unless consecutively dealt), what it counts is about how key cards are more concentrated or diluted along a given shoe. Better sayed, the portions where such features will more likely take place.
Biased shoe.
In the 80s some black jack scholars raised the issue that not everytime a positive count will get the player a math edge over the house, thus enlarging a possible "card clumping" problem.
Simply put, not everytime a shoe supposedly rich of high cards will get the player an edge as those favourable high cards might remain silent in the unplayable portion of the shoe.
Recent studies tried to disprove scientifically this suspicion, nonetheless and knowing the actual bj rules adopted by casinos, the original theory seems to take a more sensible impact.
At baccarat this "clumping card" theory is well more interesting for several reasons and by different points of views:
 besides Montecarlo casino where more than two decks are discarded from the play (8deck shoes), almost every live casino in the world will deal the shoe for the most entirety of it.
Actually whenever the first card is not a picture or zero value card, most part of the shoe is dealt at different degrees by cutting off very few cards.
 at baccarat we can bet any side we wish at any moment we wish and by any amount we wish.
 at baccarat previous patterns belonging to certain random walks are decisive to know whether the future outcomes will get a more or less key card dilution/concentration as some numbers must follow finite sequences having a given probability to show up.
 at baccarat the key card concentration/dilution problem could be assessed by the times (gaps) some favorite precise twocard points will get a real win or a loss, meaning that favorite twocard points distribution must be registered up to given cutoff points. After those cutoff points are surpassed, we ought to consider that cards are shuffled to get too whimsical results to be properly exploited.
Every baccarat shoe dealt is an endless proposition of twostep math oriented results getting certain gaps of appearance.
First step involves the higher twocard point, this is the main step.
Say the third card impact will be just an accident.
If the third card won't intervene, the probability to get a higher point will be symmetrical, but a finite card distribution will put some limits on it. Depending about how much cards were properly shuffled.
I mean that without the third card intervention and baccarat rules, only an idi.o.t couldn't find a way to beat the game.
Especially if we want to disprove a perfect "so called" ndependent random source of outcomes.
as.

At baccarat we have endless options to consider binomial propositions, Big Road is by far the most commonly used for wagering, then there are the four derived roads (BP, BEB, SR and CR).
No matter how deep we want to dissect outcomes, math experts teach us that after considering the slight asymmetricity, A=B forever and ever.
In reality A=B with all related statistical implications if the propositions are randomly placed at any shoe dealt.
More precisely, if we bet A at any given stage of the shoe, itlr A or B must follow the old 0.5068/0.4932 ratio. An unbeatable ratio, btw.
This kind of thought is failed by several reasons.
 we can't mix results coming from different shoes as the random postulate cannot be working at any shoe dealt. Actually randomness doesn't work for most shoes dealt.
 at baccarat there's no one single hand getting the 0.5068/0.4932 probability to appear (ties considered neutral).
 pc simulated shoes differ from real live shoes.
 players must rely upon successions of short term situations, the long run apply to very large long term data that easily confuse unrandomness with pseudo randomness, that last one more likely approaching the "expected" values.
 at baccarat place selection feature totally denies the perfect randomness of the outcomes.
 at baccarat probability after events feature totally denies the perfect randomness of the outcomes.
 the number and lenght of "runs" (a run is the number of the shifting attitude of changing the winning side) is quite different than what 50/50 or a 0.5068/0.4932 ratios dictate, thus proving the unrandomness of the outcomes.
Actually I can't swear that the partial and unconstant unrandomness will play the decisive role on that, maybe baccarat is vulnerable by its own characteristics, but I'd tend to be very cautious to state this last assumption.
Next time I'll post some ideas about how to build up a winning random walk.
as.

Although baccarat provides innumerable card situations, math advantaged spots falling here and there are surely going to win itlr (now "itlr" is way more widely intended as commonly considered).
By far the largest impact cards will make over the actual results are coming from 7s, 8s and 9s.
There are many card combinations forming final winning hands not involving those cards (or working partially), nevertheless whenever we are going to peak at our cards we better aim to get one of those cards, instead of hoping that our 4 will be followed by another 4 or a 5.
This card class constitutes 23% of total cards dealt and it's more or less concentrated along the shoe with a "memory" as key cards are burnt from the play.
Differently to black jack where the final count of "good" or "bad" cards must be zero (penetration considered), meaning that only few portions of the shoe might be favourable for the player ('good card' concentration after a strong 'good card' dilution), at baccarat there are no good or bad cards for the player, just probabilities to get key cards concentrated or diluted along various portions of the shoe.
Naturally at baccarat we have the advantage to bet any side we wish anytime we want and the disadvantage to not know which side will be kissed by such a possible key cards impact.
Notice that I haven't mentioned "how much we want" as a long term winning plan must win by flat betting.
Anyway if we are here is because we are trying to prove that a key card concentration/dilution approximation acting along any shoe will play a huge role over our winning probability as many times some actual patterns will be more detectable than others.
It's natural to think that conditions not fitting a perfect random world are more likely to produce winning situations (when properly considered), as "perfect" key cards distributions can easily produce too many undetectable patterns.
If the key card distribution would be always close to the expected 23% ratio, well no betting plan could get the best of it.
Fortunately no one single live shoe dealt in the universe will get such constant ratio.
It's interesting to say that some very unlikely BP patterns will get no hint to be attacked, but certain derived AB situation will at some point.
Obviously we'd prefer to place bets when a derived AB situation MUST come out clustered, thus lowering the probability to catch a losing spot.
Math speaking experts say that every bet will make is EV no matter what.
That's our fortune.
Tomorrow more AB hints.
as.

Best bac players in the world play a A/B game.
More specifically they play baccarat by taking advantage of runs and gaps.
They do not follow anything, they don't like Banker as being more favorite to win.
They bet very few hands.
And, of course, they bet rarely but wagering huge amounts.
Probability world is made upon runs and gaps, I mean the number of BP shifts. Ouch, AB shifts.
Everything depends about how we want to consider opposite results.
Consider this 18hand shoe portion:
B
PPPP
BB
PPP
B
PPPPP
BB
7 runs, 2 singles, 1 double, 3 3+s singles/streaks ratio 2:5
Big eye boy road:
A
BB
A
B
A
B
AAA
BBB
A
B
10 runs, 7 singles, 1 double, 2 3+s singles/streaks ratio 6:3
Small road:
AA
BB
AA
BB
A
B
AA
7 runs, 2 singles, 4 doubles, zero 3+s. singles/streaks ratio 2:5
Cockroach road:
A
B
AA
B
A
BB
A
B
8 runs, 5 singles, 2 doubles, zero 3+s. singles/streaks ratio 5.2
In summary the overall singles/streaks ratio is 15:15
The overall doubles/3+s ratio is 11:5
Now this second 18hand shoe portion:
B
P
BB
P
B
P
B
P
BBB
P
BBBBB
11 runs, 8 singles, 1 double and 2 3+s. singles/streaks ratio 8:3
Big eye boy road:
A
BBB
AAAA
B
A
BBB
AAA
7 runs, 3 singles, zero doubles, 4 3+s. singles/streaks ratio 3:4
Small Road
BB
A
B
AAA
B
A
B
AAA
B
A
10 runs, 6 singles, 1 double, 2 3+s. singles/streaks ratio 6:3
Cockroach road
AA
B
AA
B
A
B
A
B
AAA
9 runs, 6 singles, 2 doubles and 1 3+s. singles/streaks ratio 6:3
Overall the singles/streaks ratio is 23:13.
The doubles/3+s ratio is 16:12
Both shoes portions came from a moderate/strong key card concentration, even though they formed quite different BP results.
Of course I've posted the most common derived roads any bac player is familiar of and the fact that some AB patterns are cumulatively superior than counterparts was just a coincidence.
Moreover any B or P result could form opposite patterns on different roads (a single from one part and a streak from another one, etc).
We can put in action more random walks, for example OBL, A=same, B=opposite:
first shoe
A
BB
AAAA
B
A
B
A
BBB
AA
second shoe
B
AA
BBBBB
A
B
A
B
A
BBB
As long as long streaks are not coming in short intervals and as long as "symmetrical patterns" are not coming out consecutively any betting plan has its merit. And odds are that they do not itlr.
Btw, those are the precise situations recreational players are looking for. And I do not know a single recreational player being ahead of the game.
as.

What would you think after facing this shoe fragment?
BBBB
PPPPPP
BBB
PPPP
BBB
PPPPP
BBBBBBB
There's only a sensible answer: Here probabilities are that key cards were hugely concentrated alternatively on either side.
This sequence is very very unlikely to happen and, of course, is one of the rare situations recreational players like to cross: betting the last outcome, that's it.
Now let's consider the three derived roads:
Big eye boy:
AAA
B
A
B
AA
B
AA
BB
AA
B
AA
B
A
B
AAAA
B
A
Small road:
AA
B
AAA
B
AAAAAA
BB
AA
B
AAA
Cockroach road:
AAAAAA
B
AA
B
A
B
AAA
B
AA
Things seem to change a lot as the cumulative singles/streaks ratio appearing on d.r's is very different than the big road original sequence.
Nonetheless, from a strict mathematical point of view, such sequence is among the most likely ones whenever key cards are hugely concentrated on a given shoe portion.
Just to complete the picture about the most simple strategy options anybody is aware of, I'll add the OBL random walk:
AA
BB
AAAA
BB
A
BB
AA
BB
A
BB
AAA
BB
AAAAA
Again, we can see huge differences between this OBL r.w. and the original big road sequence.
In some way we could think that the above big road sequence is well predictable by either recreational players and by pro players. Of course by taking advantage of different features (BP steps considered by different lenghts).
And we may conclude that shoe portions particularly rich of key cards are more detectable than the common supposedly random world we're entitled to face.
Naturally when we have seen that key cards are more concentrated on some portions, odds are that we'll expect to get more dispersed key card falling on subsequent parts of the shoe, meaning we'll get a more volatile (then undetectable) world.
Mathematically speaking, the probability to detect a twocard higher point falling on either side will be lower whenever the deck is poor of key cards.
And we must know that to get a long winning plan we'll have to get a larger amount of twocard higher initial points than expected as this is the only long term tool to realize we're really getting an edge over the house.
I'd suggest to consider a baccarat shoe in the same way bj players think about a playable or unplayable shoe.
At baccarat we do not get unidirectional player's card distributions, just probabilities to get A or B and we know that A or B must considered in terms of gaps.
This AB feature is in direct relationship of the key cards concentration/dilution ratio acting at different degrees along any shoe.
Differently than bj, we are absolutely certain that some betting lines will get all winnings per every shoe dealt at a degree well higher than what expected values dictate.
Btw, there's no fkng way in the universe to beat any EV game by strategies capable to be effective other than by adopting a strict flat betting method.
People claiming otherwise are just pure fkng clowns.
as.

After that first strong section I would look for 1s and 2s and then 1s and 3s being careful not to get sucked in on the 2s, the doubles. Maybe look for a section, long section of chops and 1s and 3s and then a long and strong Player streak out of nowhere.

Al, your answer could be a reasonable one, anyway long term data suggest that deck portions particularly poor of key cards seem to endorse the volatility of the outcomes as more cards are employed in the construction of a hand higher will be the probability to fall into an "undetectable" world.
A partial proof comes from the fact that ties are well more likely whenever six cards are employed to form a hand.
And of course the probability that a hand will be resolved by six cards will be higher when the deck is poor of key cards.
as.

Since at baccarat we can't use mathematics directly (besides side bets card counting ), we must use statistics to extract hidden informations from large datasets.
Thus we are not interested to estimate what could happen most by considering common BP values, instead we should focus our attention on multiple different random walks that tell us what's really more probable after a given outcome or series of outcomes had come out.
A/B spots I mean.
Simply put, we should consider a baccarat shoe in the same way bj counters approach the decks.
At bac we can't get the luxury to know that high cards and aces favor the players and low cards favor the dealer, but here (along with many other advantages) we have the advantage to estimate the probability to get several states of key card concentration/dilution acting at various degrees by some finite values.
This feature fully reflects the patterns formation, hence we are not compelled to track key cards as patterns formation will make the job we're looking for.
Summarizing, to be deadly sure we'll get the right side of the proposition (EV+ play) itlr we must get at least a 51.3% winning percentage on our Banker bets and at least a 50.1% winning percentage on our Player bets.
Every bac player knows that such values tend to be quickly disregarded. Unless a proper bet selection is working.
as.

Playing with an edge means that we want to falsify the theory that no matter how and when we decide to bet the dispersion values are following all the time the numbers derived from common probability.
To do that we've set up multiple betting lines within the "coin flip" A/B scheme but well knowing that the results cannot come from an independent source, moreover affected by the rules asymmetricity.
Naturally the general B/P probability varies a lot depending upon the sections of the shoe where key cards are more or less concentrated.
It's literally impossible that every single hand will follow the 50.68/49.32 probability as there are no card distributions eliciting such exact probability.
Taken from a different point of view, we could even object about the perfect random nature of the outcomes as the place selection and probability after events tools will get different values than expected, thus disproving the perfect randomness.
We could assume that along any shoe the real probability will act at various steps depending upon the key cards distribution. And not by privileging one side, just certain patterns formation.
Efforts made in the past by eminent researchers were oriented to find spots where one side would have been more probable than the other one adopting a "black jack style" approach. Fruitless efforts we know.
In reality baccarat must be solved statistically, that is by taking advantage of the many intricate issues only very few players know.
It can be done, believe me.
In the endless process of studying deeply this game I have to thank:
 Richard Von Mises works, an eminent mathematician who publicized, imho, the strongest definition of randomness.
 Marian Smoluchowski works, a physics professor.
 Semyon Dukach inspiring ideas, one of the most famous member of the black jack MIT team that destroyed Vegas and many other casinos.
 Akio Kashiwagi, probably the best baccarat player in the world of all times.
 Glen "Alrelax", the only one person in the world besides my team colleagues I would risk my money with.
As long as outcomes are not coming out from either a perfect independent and/or a perfect random source, we know we'll get an edge.
as.

Winning just one unit per each shoe played
One unit win and not per every shoe dealt...it might sound as a ridiculous goal no bac player would be interested to get.
However the more we are deviating from this basic achievement, higher and faster will be the probability to lose our money.
We can't hope to win an inferior amount than one unit, that is being ahead of just one hand (before vig).
But we've seen that simple progressions may find profits on precise LW points, so transferring the problem about the probability that, besides immediate wins, after a single losing spot the next hand should more likely get a win instead of another loss.
The fact that we're restricting the range of one unit wins within single shoes played relies about the supposedly (ascertained) probability that the statistical irregular strenght coming up on our favor collides with the sure mathematical steady force acting all the times.
Meaning that for practical reasons, on average the statistical strenght takes its greatest value on very few spots.
Of course betting a lot of spots with a huge betting spread entices the idea we're there to gamble, in the meanwhile collecting valuable comps.
But I assure you that most bac pros I know do not give a fk about comps, thus exclusively betting the spots they'd thought to be profitable.
We know that to be really profitable itlr Banker bets must get at least a 51.3% probability to get us an edge, Player's bets need a probability equal or higher than 50.1%.
Combine those probabilities in any B/P betting range you wish, at the end you must get a proper percentage capable to invert the HE. Otherwise you're just fooling yourselves and making casinos' fortune.
Interestingly, long term random walks data show that in given spots it's way easier to find the spots where Player side will be neutral or favorite to win than to cross the opposite situation, even though general rules make Banker more favorite to win regardless.
It's like assigning certain given variable cutoff values to the probability that Banker will be more likely than Player, naturally taking into account the general 8.6% asym probability distribution and the actual BP distribution prompting different random walks.
I can't see any answer other than the actual key card distribution, knowing that when given portions of the shoe show a strong or moderate key card balancement, outcomes will be more fkng affected by a huge "undetectable" volatility.
Sometimes the key card balancement will be so hugely represented that no valuable betting spots could arise.
Odds are that whenever key cards are strongly balanced on the initial/intermediate parts of the shoe, subsequent portions of it will be less affected by a kind of key card concentration factor that tend to come in our favor.
From casinos part are there ways to forcefully balance the key card distribution along any shoe dealt?
Who cares, we got means to take notice of that and of course I'm not talking about this here.
Next post will be about the decisive importance to discard many outcomes we're not interested to insert in our registration.
as.

Our datasets show that best edge comes from a random walks registration/actual BP results ratio set up at 0.56.
That is on average our random walks must register a slight superior amount than half of the actual BP decisions coming out.
A quite interesting percentage I don't want to discuss here, anyway now we know that the supposedly random world and/or the very slight dependent world we are compelled to face is proven to be more restricted than we think, just by getting rid of nearly half of the unnecessary BP outcomes.
Our new derived collective extracted from nearly 56% of the total BP resolved hands should follow the common probability laws but it happens it's not the case.
Some spots are more likely than others, more importantly dispersion values are well more restricted than expected, meaning that the silliest progression ever invented will get the best of it by any means.
If our aim is to get just one large (maximum limit) unit profit per every new collective formed, our edge will be so huge that we will bored to play baccarat anymore by a lack of suspence.
In our experiments, we've tried to raise (or reduce) the already substantial edge by discarding a larger (smaller) amount of hands but with no avail.
It's like that the 0.56% cutting hand percentage is the best number to look for.
Next I'll post real betting situations.
Sadly I fear it's more likely to beat baccarat than to destroy this fkng virus.
as.

Btw, special thanks and Merry Christmas to all readers of my section.
as.

Building several registrations by cutting off a nearly half part of the BP decisions has proven to be particularly effective in reducing dispersion values. Thus disproving the common concept that no matter which spots we decide to bet the probability to win or lose remains the same.
When we put two A/B opposite situations to fight against, we'll expect to get the same WL gaps distribution.
For example, after a given A/B four hand sample, the probability to get AAAA or BBBB will be 2/16.
Of course putting to fight mere B and P decisions on the same 4hand sample will get, itlr, different distributions as B>P, but we know that such slight discrepancy won't do the job as being too much affected by volatility.
More precisely, we can't guess the spots where an asymmetrical hand will take place, because it needs a lot of favourable circumstances to appear. Moreover, we can't build a profitable betting plan onto a 8.6% whimsical probability.
Our hypothesis was built on the idea that certain portions of the deck are more affected by the slight asymmetrical nature of the game and, more importantly, by the finite key card distribution any shoe dealt provides.
And only a kind of "coin flip" A/B plan applied to several registrations could do the best to find out if we were right or wrong, as we had assigned the A=B variable.
The above AAAA or BBBB (or ABAB or BBAA for that matter) possible patterns springing out from a 4hand sample after our new "hand cutting off" will become: (* symbol stands for a hand not belonging to our registration)
A*A**AA or
**B*BB***B or
A**B*B**A or
*B*A**AA
and so on for every of the possible 16 patterns any 4hand will be formed.
Now we should expect that itlr A*A**AA = AAAA, **B*BB***B = BBBB, A**B*B**A = ABBA (lol) and *B*A**AA = BAAA.
In a word that every * symbol won't intefere with the AB general probability to show up.
And this is not going to happen. At least when given cutoff points are considered.
And actually whenever none or few * symbols build a given pattern, higher will be the probability to fall into the unwanted "random" world.
According to our results, most of the time there are only one or two spots per playable shoe to make a substantial EV+ bet. Thus bet the maximum limit allowed at that table, period.
Nevertheless and considering the casino comps and the gambling attitude of most HS bac players (not mentioning the camouflage approach, we never know), the probability to get all winning hands per playable shoe is well greater than expected after vig.
If we think we are crossing a kind of profitable shoe, along with our main wager plan we should even consider a meek "side bet" to start with, parlaying it until the end of the shoe as the probability to get all winnings will be well proportionally higher than expected.
Probably this last assumption is one of the best accomplishment one should look for, getting a given set of all winning hands per shoe.
Playable shoe, I mean.
as.

So did I once engage in betting and our mentor taught me that it is necessary to take into account not only the probability, since it is not only about mathematics. There was an important coin aspect that I cite almost every time there is a debate about distance profit. An excellent analogy. The probability of falling out of one of the sides of the perfect coin is 50% = 0.5 or 1/2, which means that, on average, each side should fall out once out of two throws. But in fact, you can flip a coin ten times, and all ten  it will come up, for example, tails. This nuance is called variance, and it is it that often misleads many players. I tested this theory at ............./ and was practically convinced of the opposite, the probability value means the frequency with which this event will occur in an infinite number of attempts. The fewer tests, the more (in percentage terms) the actual result may deviate from the mathematical expectation. This is variance.

Excellent point, at least in the way I got it.
Probability can only be precisely ascertained by collecting from large datasets the limiting values of relative frequency of the events we're interested to classify.
Moreover to prove the complete randomness and to deny possible exploitable defects of the game, such classifications must be totally insensitive to place selection and probability after events tools.
And fortunately this is not going to happen, for good peace of the many stating that, for example, no matter when we start or stop our betting the probability to get a B double (ties ignored) will be 0.5068 x 0.5068 or that a PPPP pattern probability is totally insensitive of the previous hands quality taken at diverse ways.
Average values corresponding to math general probabilities itlr do not mean a fkng nothing to me as they are mixing here with there, up with down, that is just considering back to back results.
Baccarat is the prototype of a dynamic probabilities model, an ever changing proposition that should be investigated by comparing the actual dependent and dynamic probability model with a coin flip "control" model. Shoe per shoe.
This help us to define when the asymmetrical feature will make a greater, neutral or lesser impact over certain outcomes than expected, or vice versa when the simple key card distribution will prompt at valuable degrees more likely patterns on the mere prevalent "coin flip" general attitude.
as.

Gambling results are made of gaps, that is the number of intervals between a given event appearance and the opposing counterpart.
At baccarat BP probabilities are more or less corresponding to a A/B binomial model.
Over a given sample of outcomes, higher is the number of gaps greater will be the probability to detect the apparition of one of both sides.
Thus it's way more likely to "be right" within a restrict progressive betting range on a 26hand sequence like this:
AABABBBABABBAABAAABABBAABA than on a same 26hand sequence as AAAABBBAABAABBBBABBAAAABBB
In the former example we got 16 gaps, in the latter the gaps number is 10.
Actually a simple flat betting procedure dictating to wager the same side happened last will produce (before vig) a 7 units and a +7 units.
In reality those two different sequences, whether compared to a virtual independent 50/50 model, formed patterns quite different than expected.
The former sequence is made of 9 singles, 5 doubles and 2 triples (average 50/50 probability being respectively 6.5, 3.25, 1.625)
The second sequence is made of 2 singles, 3 doubles, 1 triple and 3 streaks superior than 3.
(the final BBB sequence cannot be registered so far to any class other than a superior pattern than a double).
Of course the probability to get streaks superior than triples on a 26hand sample is 0.8125.
Card speaking and thinking about average values, this means that in the former sequence key cards were more likely equally distributed on both sides and that in the latter sequence a strong key card imbalance went out for "long".
Many out of "key card" parameters will form the real BP results and all related AB outcomes (think about asymmetrical hand scenarios), but itlr and sure as hell, most gap numbers will be sensitive by the actual dynamic key card distribution prompting a great, average, light or neutral impact over the results.
Of course there's a natural relationship between gaps and streaks lenght that goes well beyond a mere 50/50 probability or a general whimsical asymmetrical strenght.
A thing we'll see shortly.
as.

Example.
A strict selected streaks approach could help us to define how things really work at baccarat even though we're considering simple B/P results.
That is considering mere B/P big road streaks happening at each shoe dealt.
Hypothesis
Knowing the ascertained math asymmetrical BP general probability, BP streaks distribution coming from real shuffled shoes are not following everytime dispersion values typical of a still 0.5068/0.4932 probability model.
Simply put, that the probability to get B or P at different spots taken will be different than the expected unbeatable values, meaning that some spots could be EV+ for the player.
A possible cause of such an effect should rely upon the finite key card impact acting along any shoe.
Method (material isn't discussed here for obvious reasons)
We've set up precise parameters to try to disprove our hypothesis.
After any streak of given lenght has appeared on any shoe, we wanted to test the "back to back" same streak lenght probability acting along any shoe, a supposedly almost 50/50 probability as B>P, albeit this last being a very volatile probability.
Therefore, we assumed B=P, assigning a greater value to the actual key card distribution.
Hence we've classified streaks among the more likely situations happening along any shoe that is restricting them within three different classes: doubles, triples, and 4hand streaks.
"Back to back" means that whether no given class appeared so far, no one classification could be made.
In a word, that if a given streak apparition not happened so far, in our eyes that streak class wouldn't exist in the shoe we're facing at.
This help us to reduce the general probability related to the actual probability.
Any real streak of given lenght up to any 4hand streak (this value is set up only for practical reasons) will proportionally fight with an equal or superior lenght streak, but it's way more probable than expected that some streaks of given short lenght will get at least a single win on relatively "short" sequences of hands dealt.
Tomorrow a post about how this simple plan will get the best of it by any means.
as.

Have we come to a definitely conclusion yet or is it still in the making. If the answer is yes, it would be nice to see it put in action. All these advance talks have killed many brain cells.

Babu thanks for your reply.
Yep, there's a lot of confusing stuff in this thread, but there's also a common trait working on.
Imo, in order to find possible baccarat flaws one of the best approach we could make is to compare real baccarat results with a "control" model derived by a coin flip model. Shoe per shoe.
We know that bac results are "biased" by either the slight asymmetricity and slight card dependency, but differently to coin flip propositions bac real probabilities are moving around a more confused world as the actual key card distribution will make a major role about the long term outcomes.
Everybody quite familiar with both baccarat and roulette knows that baccarat streaks tend to be shorter than roulette streaks.
Indeed at baccarat there's a very very slight propensity to get the opposite result already happened.
But that's not the point, the important feature to investigate upon is that a part of seemingly same streaks lenght are formed by different quality factors.
And on most part of the shoes, the "quality factor" cannot last for long as deeply influenced by the asymmetrical nature of the game favoring B and the actual key card distribution.
Even without considering the real quality nature of hands, itlr back to back hands taken at different pace will form different probability lines.
That's why itlr common derived roads will form more long clustered doubles on Beb and SR or clustered longer streaks on Cockroach road than Big Road registration.
For example, you need at least a 3 x sample to get a consecutive ten double sequence at Big Road than at Beb or SR.
The same concept applies to Cockroach road regarding longer streaks probability.
That doesn't mean to set up a method about simply mining doubles on Beb and SR or mining long streaks at Cockroach road.
Anyway, derived roads inventors were real geniuses (probably involuntarily) to set up the foundamentals of a long term winning plan as there are only two Big Road conditions making univocal results on all three derived roads: long singles sequences and long streaks.
Both quite unlikely.
Remember, we do not want to win many spots per shoe, let alone one spot per every shoe dealt. Just one.
as.

There are no wrong or right methods to beat (or not) this game itlr, there are only methods that do work.
Meaning that our method after a decent number of trials had to get profits by flat betting.
It's quite easy to confuse the steady probability of success with the dynamic long term WL probability typical of baccarat.
Itlr (and even in most short run situations) probability of success line tends to get the zero value, whereas WL dynamic probability must get an ascending line formed by "infinite" positive or negative short segments where positive segments are either longer or more frequent than the negative conterparts.
Probability of success is symmetrically placed no matter how deeply we've built our progression plan. No way a strict math progression without a valid bet selection could get the best of it for long. Itlr positive fragments will be equal in lenght and frequency as the negative counterparts, even though we know that B>P. Actually the B>P factor is quite volatile and restricted to rare situations (we well know this).
To beat this game itlr we need to find the unsteady situations where our plan might discard the potential B/P plan variance, exchanging it with the more regular A/B registration made on several steps.
Card speaking, it's like we are challenging the system to provide univocal math advantaged spots acting for long and at different degrees instead of a natural more likely balanced key card falling.
Our datasets show that dissecting the shoe into an average number of 4 or 5 key situations will make the highest player's edge. Yet remember that not every shoe is playable.
If any bet is insensitive to past decisions, why the hell a given flat betting plan will get a slow but steady positive ascending line?
as.

As you said, "There are no wrong or right methods to beat (or not) this game itlr, there are only methods that do work".
Exactly! So true.
I remember talking to a very experienced longtime dealer at a large casino not long ago and he primarily deals Baccarat fulltime 6 days a week. So naturally he is dealing the cards a lot more than each of us is playing the game. And he really summed it up and I've said some of it before in the past.
Which is what wins on one shoe will lose on the very next shoe or what wins in the current shoe will lose consistently for the following shoes. What wins in the first half of the shoe will lose every single time in the second half of the shoe. What wins within 10 hands will lose within the next ten hands and to everybody's surprise will win again for another 10 hands and then will lose again for the subsequent ten hands.
And then he goes on to talk about dealers. Somebody has winning sessions with one dealer repetitively that same person will have losing sessions with eventually and blame the dealer for it, all the while other people are winning with the same dealer, that person was losing with.
And then he went on to casinos, citing how some players swear up and down that they can win at one casino when they cannot win at another casino. Then he went on to days of the week, where players will swear up and down they can win on certain days of the week as well as certain times of the day or the night and lose at other times. He cited a lot more examples but you get the point.
As you said, "Our datasets show that dissecting the shoe into an average number of 4 or 5 key situations will make the highest player's edge. Yet remember that not every shoe is playable". And I have posted extensively about Sections. I have found that proper use of Sections to be an advantage many times.
There is most certainly winning and losing times and I've talked about that in my own posts referencing such things as Sections and Plateaus.
No matter how a person links the wins and the losses to the numbers, the cards, to people playing, the dealers, the casinos, the time of day or night, the color of his chips, the seat number, or any one of another 20 or 30 factors the bottom line will always be the same. And that is something will be related to wins for short sections of time, but will not consistently hold true shoe after shoe, day after day, month after month, from casino to casino. And that is 100% fact.

https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=10793.0
Helping to Define Presentments, Models & Bet Selection Wagering, PART 1
Helping to Define Presentments, Models & BetSelection Wagering, PART 2
Models are nice because they are finite. Simple. A model is tangible in so many words. And yes, that model might have worked, but still, there is no way to define how large and how long anyone needs to sustain himself at a gaming table until that model kicks in and hopefully performs in the same length, shape and longevity as it did on the model that was discovered by its author, etc. And more times than not, if not all, there will be periods of thousands and thousands of hands presented until those models do present themselves for an unknown and in no way guaranteed length of stay, let alone arrival.

As sayed several times here, we want to play baccarat with you Al, it's very very likely our hyper selected betting plan will correspond to your methodology taken at different degrees.
Few bac players reached the experience level to ascertain what is worth to bet and what it isn't, that's why we need a strong measurement of our possible edge to verify this game is really beatable. Or not.
There are general and specific means to lower, nullify or invert the house edge.
General means to lower the casino's edge
Reducing at most our betting rate is not only the best tool to lose less money but to define at most what the fk we're really going to accomplish.
If it's literally impossible to define a betting model capable to win at a fair coin flip proposition, let's think about what are our probabilities to win at a EV kind of coin flip model.
Zero.
Naturally and to give the casinos the idea we're pure losers we can adopt a spread betting range wagering one standard unit per every hand dealt and betting 3, 4 or 5 x bet in the selected profitable spots.
They do not care a bit about it, every our bet will be EV. At their eyes.
Of course casinos are simultaneously thrilled and worried about those rare maximum limit bets as the actual bet or next bets cannot be more wrong than the math negative edge applied (after comps and/or rebates).
I mean that no 5k or 20k bet can cross a real 1.06%/1.24% negative edge as some lost money is given back to the player no matter what.
Conclusively, bac players that are proportionally losing less money are maximum limit bettors, at
the same time constituting a real threat over casino's pockets as the edge remains quite small.
Ask any supervisor casino you want whether he/she would be really enthusiastic about facing an occasional univocal and rare 90K euros bet coming from three different players.
They should have been happy but actually they didn't. Especially after the outcome.
Specific means to invert the house edge
Arrange the cards in the fkng way you want. You can put all same rank cards consecutively or alternatively or whatever you'd like, a most likely distribution or most likely arrangement will come along the way providing previous results are considered by a strict scheme.
A kind of profitable clustering effect will come out along the way by a stastical sensitivity and specificiity rounding 100%.
And we need just one clustering step to be ahead.
as.

Clustering effect
Baccarat is a game of clusters of different lenght and thickness.
And of course at baccarat there are no real symmetrical situations: for example, a 9 falling on the first two Player cards doesn't get the same power than a 9 falling on the two first Banker cards.
The probability to get that 9 falling on either side is equal but the effects are not symmetrical.
This concept could be applied to many other key card ranks, 8s and 7s of course but even 5s and 4s follow the same principle.
Any shoe dealt is formed by different "states" that eventually equal the rank number but the situations forming outcomes and player's ROI start asymmetrically, stay asymmetrically and end up asymmetrically.
The main reason conditioning the outcomes itlr regards the key card distribution getting different powers depending upon the side cards will fall at.
Most of the times key cards determine those outcomes. Not every time but most of the time.
When the outcomes seem to be too whimsically produced (see next post), it means that the shoe is not playable (that is unprofitable). We name that as "a very low clustered shoe".
Baccarat outcomes are not B or P results. Yes, we need a B or P to show up in order to register our random walk lines as there are no other betting options.
In reality baccarat is a game of states and not an endless B/P sequence.
We've seen that there are tools to derive unrandom successions from a primitive random sequence, our task should be focused to assess when one or more unrandom successions will take just one step forward toward the clustering world.
To maximize the reward risk ratio, per each shoe played looking for just one step is more than enough to battle versus a sure EV math game.
By far and without any doubt, our EV will be greater and affected by the most ridiculously low variance when we'll try to find out just one profitable state per every playable shoe.
This means to discard a lot of unplayable situations and naturally to possibly witness "all winning" shoes without betting a dime.
It's not a coincidence that those rare long term winning players after winning or losing their "key hands" simply quit the table.
Deciding to be ahead of more than one step per playable shoe is a sure risky move to put in jeopardy the actual edge we get over the casinos.
On average clustered states are slight more likely than expected and that is mainly due to an imperfect shuffling.
Consider baccarat in the same way as black jack works for card counters even though by totally different reasons.
At bj profitable card counting situations cannot last for long. The same happens at baccarat.
We want to play by concentrating at most our edge, challenging the bac system to show its flaws within very few spots.
as.

Btw, I highly suggest you to read this book:
Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts by Annie Duke
as.

Key hands are very deceiving and until fully understood by the person playing and how he interprets what will help him or what might hurt him, it will continue to be a very deceiving advantage that is probably one of the strongest advantages the player can obtain to favor himself. However, each person must figure out how to interpret what can and cannot be interpreted in comparison to the instant presentments.
Prior to all the scoreboards being installed which was in the late 90s right around 2000 the highest majority of the players did keep score on a manual scorecard of course but there was a much higher ratio of playing for what was being presented rather than the highest concentration on what has happened in the shoe because of the scoreboard being right there and everyone pointing to it and most everyone basing their decisions on what has happened rather than what is happening. It is much harder for the new baccarat player to concentrate on the actual presentments rather than the constantly illuminated scoreboard with the many different sections of it being visually overwhelming.
In my opinion the scoreboards are used improperly by the highest majority of the players at the tables.

Prior to all the scoreboards being installed which was in the late 90s right around 2000 the highest majority of the players did keep score on a manual scorecard of course but there was a much higher ratio of playing for what was being presented rather than the highest concentration on what has happened in the shoe because of the scoreboard being right there and everyone pointing to it and most everyone basing their decisions on what has happened rather than what is happening. It is much harder for the new baccarat player to concentrate on the actual presentments rather than the constantly illuminated scoreboard with the many different sections of it being visually overwhelming.
In my opinion the scoreboards are used improperly by the highest majority of the players at the tables.
True, yet the derived road inventors had made the first primordial attempt to use the important probability after events tool, one of the two statistical parameters that could get us a real edge.
Of course most players make a bad use of those roads, trying to win an endless number of hands around any corner by hoping that "trends" must remain univocal for long.
In a word, they just gamble.
I agree with you that just one type of registration will make things simpler for many experienced players, especially for those capable to promptly recognize that some shoes cannot be played at all.
Now baccarat becomes more an art than a science, but imo we must find ways to scientifically prove the game is beatable by every person in the world.
as.

Let's compare baccarat with two casino games that have demonstrated to get players an edge.
First game is black jack.
How the hell bj was considered a beatable game?
By running millions of pc shoes to test whether high card and aces concentration (theory) really goes to player's advantage by a hi/lo card counting.
The theory was verified by practice. Bj is a math beatable game by card counting (providing a valuable penetration, etc).
Second game is craps.
Some shooters after having practiced for long at home think to be "dice controllers", meaning that they can throw the dice unrandomly thus producing profitable situations. For example, lowering the "sevens" rate or enhancing the 6 appearance on either cubes. That is to transform a random model into a wanted unrandom model.
To test the possible "unrandom" profitability such players would run thousands of throws, that means to study the limiting values of relative frequency that must deviate from common math expectancy applied to random outcomes.
If after a given amount of trials (of course the greater the better) the "sevens" percentage was lower than expected and/or the "6" appearance was greater than expected, those players might think to get an edge at different degrees (this not necessarily capable to invert the house edge in their favor) and now we talk about "statistical significance" (again restricted within certain levels).
Now theory can't be 100% ascertained by practice for two reasons: first, there's always a tiny probability to have registered unrandom results by coincidence; secondly, the dice throws sample is way more restricted than bj numbers.
Nonetheless, those dice controllers can't give a lesser damn about millions of throws proving or not their confidence to beat craps. They just collect the money won or accept the losses, assigning the possible temporary failure to a umproper technique due to several disparate causes.
Imo baccarat stays in the middle of those two extremes.
From one part certain very rare math distributions will favor B or P, but we know this feature isn't exploitable.
Yet, itlr key cards will affect the real outcomes not in the way studied so far (one side should be mathematically more likely than the other one) but in term of gaps probability intervening between two different situations not belonging to B and P.
From the other part, we must challenge the "baccarat model" to always provide perfect randomly situations regardless of when we decide to bet, a thing scientifically proven to be wrong at least in the live shoes dealt sample that any human can collect.
Now it's the dealer or the SM to really make the desired unrandom world we want to get.
In fact it's virtually impossible that at an 8deck shoe a human or a physical shuffle machine will be able to arrange key cards proportionally for the entire lenght of the shoe, our datasets strongly state otherwise.
Again the probability after events tool will get us the decisive factor to beat baccarat.
Without any doubt.
Tomorrow we'll see why.
as.

A baccarat shoe is formed by a finite amount of twocard 'states', that is high card situations math favoring remarkably the side where the highest point will fall at.
By far this is the main factor directing the final outcomes.
Some twocard points will be equal on either side, so the outcome is based upon the third and/or fourth card quality, of course according to the bac rules of asymmetricity favoring B.
And naturally many different twocard points need the third/fourth card intervention to address the results.
Even though the third (and/or fourth) card whimsically invert the initial math advantage, itlr and also in the shortest runs the side getting the highest point will be a sure winner.
We do not know which side will be kissed by such highest twocard point, but we can estimate how long a side should be more likely than the other because we can't erase key cards from the shoe or hoping that the side we didn't bet get a key card combined with a low card.
Anyway this feature cannot be assessed by the mere B/P distributions as a dynamic probability, typical of baccarat, can't be validly estimated actual result by actual result as too severely affected by variance.
We need advanced techinques to really ascertain the states movements working at the shoe we're playing at.
Simply put, we need to build a scheme where the states changements must follow more likely lines at the same time getting very low degrees of variance.
Most of the times they do, other times they don't but just for a lack of space factor along with other statistical issues.
The states changements reliability can be so high that playing at shoes very bad shuffled we can even afford to set up plans oriented to get multiple winnings per shoe by adopting a kind of "sky's the limit" attitude.
How to get the full value of probability after events at baccarat
Regardless of the techniques utilized, itlr BP results will form the same number of AB opposite situations.
Therefore A=B.
We see that no side will be advantaged in term of A or B quantities, even though an acute and very experienced player could get the best of it by exploiting some actual A or B deviations.
Now we take a step further.
We want to discard some A or B events according to a precise plan. If the game is perfect randomly dealt and/or perfect flawless at any spot, the resulting registration shouldn't be affected by any means, and actually itlr A=B yet.
It remains to assess the very important AB distribution that should be insensitive to our place selection artifice that must confirm the randomness. That is increment steps of A or B.
A simple combinatorial analysis show that whenever some spots are not included in our chosen data, some patterns are more likely than others. That is we can get a sure edge over the house.
I mean a great edge, not that miserable bj card counting edge.
The reason why discarding hands from our data is proven to produce a sure unrandom world is given by the difficulty to arrange key cards proportionally along any shoe dealt.
Hint: we must use a plan capable to discard the greatest number of more likely BP events.
Notice I mentioned BP events and not AB events.
as.

Let's compare baccarat with two casino games that have demonstrated to get players an edge.
From one part certain very rare math distributions will favor B or P, but we know this feature isn't exploitable.
Yet, itlr key cards will affect the real outcomes not in the way studied so far (one side should be mathematically more likely than the other one) but in term of gaps probability intervening between two different situations not belonging to B and P.
as.
Asym,
It is exploitable as long as it is happening.
The confusion, frustration and of course the disbelief comes to players when they attempt situation after situation after situation.
But it is definitely exploitable. Small sections, sometimes and no rhyme or reasons in so many words as to when those do appear.

A baccarat shoe is formed by a finite amount of twocard 'states', that is high card situations math favoring remarkably the side where the highest point will fall at.
Now we take a step further.
We want to discard some A or B events according to a precise plan. If the game is perfect randomly dealt and/or perfect flawless at any spot, the resulting registration shouldn't be affected by any means, and actually itlr A=B yet.
It remains to assess the very important AB distribution that should be insensitive to our place selection artifice that must confirm the randomness. That is increment steps of A or B.
A simple combinatorial analysis show that whenever some spots are not included in our chosen data, some patterns are more likely than others. That is we can get a sure edge over the house.
I mean a great edge, not that miserable bj card counting edge.
as.
Asym,
And that is exactly correct, a GREAT EDGE over the house and on your side.
However, almost all players will outdo themselves as this is only possible to achieve when in a certain mind frame.
There are several different distributions of the cards that can be defined. But the problem arises most all the time as not holding any pattern or trend whatsoever to follow with or against. So win one, lose one or win a few and lose a few, etc.
Players believe they can affect the registrations of the winning or losing hands into their winning wagers. But in reality they cannot. The players fuel their own downfall because they believe themselves and their new magical powers they convince themselves they founded at the table. So, when someone is able to define what caused him to win and that just plays and plays upon themselves until they really do believe they have finally founded the Holy Grail, etc., etc. even experienced players repeat that exact same scenario, session after session after session after session. They will not admit it, but an outside person can spot it if you truly take the time to look around the table and watch.
There are several, probably 4 or 5 registrations (if we are talking the same things) that come about and they are so opposite of each other and so impossible to blanketly predict or expect, etc., a player cannot wager systematically hand after hand, section after section, wager using all of them together and come out ahead.

Definitely true what you have posted Al, but in the process of getting an edge we must discard some shoes from the play as no section or no portion of some single shoes will get the room and/or the possibility to get valuable card combinations to bet into.
For example, when almost every 8 and 9 had shown and no longer available, next outcomes will be affected by a huge degree of volatility, say a huge degree of randomness.
No 8 or 9 available = more hands will involve the use of six cards, the highest degree of randomness.
And it's not a coincidence that ties are well more likely when hands got to use six cards.
It could happen that very talented players might get the best of it by ascertaining valuably those rare deviated shoes, we prefer to bet toward the remaining more predominant part of shoes where an event A is a long term favorite over the counterpart B.
After vig, of course.
as.

Imo, it's of paramount importance to know that the baccarat model can be beaten ONLY in selected circumstances capable to enhance the probability to get a more likely card distribution.
We can't beat every shoe dealt and let alone we can't think that those deviated shoes will get us a greater amount of wins than the more likely losing counterparts.
Either we discard from our play the more likely world or we discard those very deviated shoes.
I guess we'll do better by adopting the latter line.
Btw: since this fkng covid19 won't get away so fast, we're ready to set up an online team to teach the world how things really work at baccarat so anyone can see for free how to win at this game.
Without utilizing those ridicolous idi.o.t fkng utube videos.
as.

Comparing our live shoes dataset with either pc simulated shoes and deeply shuffled manually shoes, we've seen that the former category differs from the latter by two specular probabilities:
 the probability to get long streaks (it was demonstrated to be greater at live shoes)
 the probability to get long "chopping" patterns (it was demonstrated to be lower at live shoes)
That doesn't mean that live shoes tend to produce more streaks than singles, just that our significance statistical tools informed us that after some cutoff points were surpassed, live shoes need a lesser amount of hands to form, say, an 8 streak or conversely a greater amount of hands to produce an 8 chopping pattern.
Given the relative mediocrity of our live shoes sample compared to the endless pc simulated and self manual shuffled shoes samples, we were interested to find whether such peculiarity would be present in every live casino shoe registration.
And we were impressed to get an affirmative answer. (Even more when other scholars have found the same feature).
In essence, many live shoes are affected by a bias acting at various degrees and we think the reason belongs to the difficulty to shuffle key cards in a proper randomly fashion.
Of course not every live shoe is shuffled badly and there's always the probability that a biased shoe will produce seemingly "random" results.
Since live shoes tend to produce a proportional lesser amount of long chopping lines and a greater amount of long streaks than expected, we might set up a betting plan that doesn't involve the short chopping situations and the streaks that surpass a given lenght.
Now we are playing at a restricted field, from one part getting rid of many short single sequences and from the other one by considering streaks after x and up to y.
Nonetheless, only a derived AB plan could further restrict the variance as it gets rid of many unpolarized situations enhancing the uncertainty.
as.

Given the astounding asymmetrical and finite features working at baccarat, the only possibility to lose is whenever the card distribution remains so hugely polarized for long that no betting plan could get the edge we're looking for.
Curiously those last are the bread and butter situations that recreational players are looking for: a kind of endless jackpots, in the meanwhile trying to survive into the most likely nonjackpot successions.
Actually I have nothing against it: in some casinos, cards are so badly shuffled that peddling a long streak gets a way larger probability than expected.
Such casinos use a same shoe that is manually shuffled very quickly only by halves.
The problem is that most casinos where some serious money might be wagered at, apply more deep "independent" shuffles.
Anyway and without any shadow of doubt, real advantage players know that the average probability to get a given event along certain portions of the shoe is well greater than expected.
Not a serious threat for casinos as the remaining 99.9% of players (quite probably more than that) will be eager to get their money separated from them.
That means that per every shoe you'll decide to play at, the more you want to be right higher will be the probability to be wrong.
Especially if you'd force the probability to be right by adopting a betting progression without a proper and very diluted bet selection.
Low and high asymmetrical distributions can't get us any edge, our edge comes out from more likely moderate asymmetrical distributions.
The 'low' world could be easily get rid of by starting our registration after a given deviation had started to appear.
The 'high' world must be restricted by trying to put a stop by wagering a very limited amount of bets up to a point.
Think that in order to get an edge itlr, we must prove that after adopting a given discontinued registration (limited random walks), there will be a finite number of either increments or decrements not corresponding to the expected values.
as.

THis is a quite long post, please read carefully not reaching quick conclusions.
Let's talk about a specific bac method derived from an old craps interesting system very few people know about.
Craps system
The system works against the probability that four consecutive craps players will make 4 or more passes each (pass=wins on the pass line bet).
Whenever each player reaches the four pass level, we are not interested anymore on what happens next about this shooter, we'll wait the next shooter.
Thus we'll place our bets only on the don't pass line.
When such thing will happen we'll lose our entire bankroll.
The betting multilayered progression is:
$10, $20, $40, $80
$20, $40, $80, $160
$30, $60, $120, $240
$40, $80, $160, $320
Total bankroll at risk = $1500
Anytime we lose a bet we'll step forward the next progressive amount, when we win a bet at any level we'll go back to the first original progressive line ($10, $20, etc)
To lose the entire bankroll we need a 16consecutive losing sequence, and this thing surely will happen but at a very very low degree of probability.
In any case, even when this nasty thing happens, we could be in the positive field as it's likely we have accumulated many wins on the more likely positive situations.
Comments
You can notice that wins made on a given level will cancel just the previous same level losing bets.
For example, after getting 6 losing hands in a row followed by a win ($80 bet on second level), we are still behind $130 that in a way or another must be recovered by the first level progression.
Actually only the first level progression will make us pure winners, subsequent levels diminish the deficit just by small loss percentages.
Per each level we're proportionally win $10, or recover from the overall losing situation respectively $20 (second level), $30 (third level) and $40 (final level).
It's a long waiting process as it could take several rolls to produce either a single win or a single loss. Not mentioning that placing progressive don't pass bets will arise other players hostility.
Who gives a fk about other players, but prolonging too much our betting frequency is a bigger issue.
Moreover, it's quite difficult to accept the idea that after a $450 loss (two full progressions that went wrong) the system dictates to wager just $30 (first step of the third progression level).
Believe it or not, the probability such system will bring us in the positive side are quite interesting, even though we know that sooner or later s.hit will happen. (but even in this scenario we could be winners).
Finally it's obvious to state that craps is just made by endless independent random successions.
Therefore, odds to lose our entire bankroll are nearly 1 : 65.536.
Modeling this system to baccarat
Good news are that baccarat isn't an independent and random game, moreover is a finite card game.
Bad news are that each bet isn't following precise probability percentages, as a strong dynamic probability could affect the outcomes in either a positive or a negative way.
And of course the irregular asymmetrical BP probability and the constant asymmetrical payment will make a huge role along the way.
Nonetheless, I see a common important trait between our strategies and this craps method inventor: when considering gambling games, after a cutoff point is surpassed and incorporated into a finite field, we shouldn't be interested anymore to register the results.
In addition, notice the important parameter assumed by the craps expert: he or she didn't want to challenge a single player getting a 16passes streak in some way, he preferred to split his/her strategy by spreading it on consecutive different limited random sources.
In a nutshell, the probability a single craps shooter will get a 16pass streak is higher than the probability that four distinct consecutive shooters will get 4 passes each.
Scientifically speaking this craps method inventor indirectly doubted about the place selection and probability after events tools confirming or not the perfect randomness of the results.
Back to baccarat.
We have to choose the procedures to transfer at baccarat those craps ideas.
First, we should define any single craps shooter as a first B or P appearance.
Any new shooter won't act as long as a new BP shift come out (an exception is about the very first B or P result).
Therefore we need a 5 same streak apperance happening on either side to lose our first level progression. (First hand is just a nonbet signal to classify a new player)
Say the first hand is B. Now we'll play against a B streak of 5+, stopping if a 5streak happened.
The same about P. And so on.
In a word, we're challenging every shoe dealt to produce back to back 5+ streaks happening consecutively and we need four consecutive 5+ B/P streaks to lose our entire bankroll.
Notice that at craps each seveningout shooter will make a end of his/her winning streak, now at baccarat we'd classify as a new shooter the next BP shift.
Even though we're classifying mere BP results (and you well know there are greater better random walk lines to wager into) the probability to get four or more 5+ B or P consecutive streaks is almost not existent.
Now we know that the losing bankroll probability won't happen at humanly considered ranges.
But wait.
In order to get an edge, we need that first level progression will get more wins than expected. In poorer word that streaks are cumulatively not reaching the 5+ degree level.
Not mentioning that every B result is burdened by a 5% vig.
If a simple B/P consecutive winning streak pattern should be affected by a lack of proper randomness and/or affected by the bac rules, is any distinct back to back B or P succession following more detectable patterns?
A thing we'll consider on the next post.
as.

1326 and then if successful, use 4 or 6 units out of the 12 win and adhere to the 1/31/31/3rd I have discussed. Or, use a 246 in the beginning and then devote 4 or 6 units out of the win and pull down subsequent wins, etc.

That's my 1k post on this wonderful site, congratulations to this forum upgrade.
@Al: 1326 betting approach is useful as long as we are sure we can get an edge by flat betting, thus it's just a profit scheme enhancer (more WW situations than WL spots, etc)
Win frequency
Most part of money won by casinos derives from an improper W/L assessment and not for the math advantage we must endure.
Take the 16step betting scheme I was talking about above.
Say that after 8 bets that went wrong (that is a $450 deficit) the plan dictates our next bet will be $30.
Basically we're betting only the 6.66% percentage of what we're losing.
Now tell me whether a $450 losing player will place just a fkng $30 wager.
Actually that's the wisest move he/she can take (as long as we know to play with an advantage).
First, a huge deficit must be compensated slowly as the probability to get a quick kind of symmetrical WL ratio is very low, secondly risking too much money in order to get a fast recover will expose us to the fatal risk of losing our entire bankroll.
When our random walkswhatever running reach some extremes, the probability to get a "balanced" or more likely status is generally small and quite diluted.
To get a vulgar example of this, think about how many times we'll face a BBBBBBBB sequence (we'd bet P every hand causing us eight losses) suddendly followed by a specular PPPPPPPP or PPPPPPP pattern (again we always bet P).
Yes, it could happen, the same way slots can give you a kind of little jackpot.
Actually, all baccarat systems rely upon the probability that things must change in player's favor with no regards about the important time factor (number of shoes dealt, or better sayed, number of hands really wagered).
Let me present a real example of this.
Several years ago, a bunch of japanese players joined one of the Vegas HS baccarat room, they managed to fill all the table seats.
A leader instructed all his peers to bet the same side he had chosen to wager and btw all bet were made at the maximum limit.
Things went out that a couple of consecutive shoes produced a very strong Player predominance, at the end casino lost the like of $1.4 millions.
Such players kept playing baccarat for the next few days of their trip, and not surprisingly they'd lost some of the money won, anyway they quit Vegas as huge overall winners.
The question is about how many days this casino had managed to recover such a loss: many.
Despite of the sure math advantage, the casino needed several days to recover that loss and we are talking about players getting a win by playing the strongest uphill percentages.
Back to the 4 step x 4 step betting sequence.
At baccarat and differently to craps, when utilizing a proper bet selection the probability to be wrong 16 times in a row is not existent at all, and I'm not referring to the probability to cross a 16 streak in various shapes.
The main probability to get wins is about the first 4step wagering, subsequent steps will just proportionally raise the probability to recover previous losses.
And we can safely assume that even adopting a "risky" progressive approach, the probability to lose our 150 unit bankroll is almost zero.
I'll prove this on my next post.
as.

Congrats AsymBacGuy on your 1000 post above. :applause:
This is a good thread /subtopic and I like the analogy with the outcomes profile in craps. I think you will agree there are many similarities when comparing craps to bac. A couple huge differences too(as u point out one above re: dependence)
I look forward to your next post in the series.

Congrats AsymBacGuy on your 1000 post above. :applause:
This is a good thread /subtopic and I like the analogy with the outcomes profile in craps. I think you will agree there are many similarities when comparing craps to bac. A couple huge differences too(as u point out one above re: dependence)
I look forward to your next post in the series.
Thanks KFB! :)
Yep, besides the dependency factor, I totally agree that craps and baccarat tend to work by similarities.
When a craps shooter bet the pass line he/she has 2:1 odds to win (http://immediately) as there are 6 ways to form a winning seven and 2 ways to form an eleven (8 winning ways); a sudden loss comes from rolling a deuce (1 way), a three (2 ways) and a twelve (1 way) totaling 4 ways to lose. 2:1.
The casino's ploy to reduce a sure math edge for the don't pass bettor derives from transforming a losing twelve for the pass bettor to a push.
After this very first roll not producing a sudden win or loss, the pass line bettor is underdog to win as in relationship of the number established his/her odds to win are 5:6 (six or eight), 4:6 (five and nine) and 3:6 (four and ten).
Thus basically there are two distinct asymmetrical probabilities to get outcomes on either pass or don't pass sides: a sudden win getting 2:1 (pass line) and 3:8 odds (don't pass line); after that the don't pass line is hugely favorite to win at various degrees.
In essence, the above mentioned multilayered betting scheme relies upon the difficulty to first roll sevens and elevens in series greater than 4 per each consecutive shooter.
Of course it could happen that such 7s/11s will be mixed with number repeaters, anyway it's very very very very unlikely to get four consecutive players winning 16 rolls in a row without showing at least one or a couple of immediate 7/11 wins.
At baccarat from one part math propositions are more intricated to grasp, from the other one there are additional factors that might orient our bet selection.
We know that "sudden win or loss" are determined more likely by the fall of strongest key cards (8s and 9s) on the initial two initial cards of a given side, then the side getting the higher two initial card point is hugely favorite to win the hand.
Of course such probabilities are symmetrical (thus undetectable) but the finiteness of the shoe and the key card liveness or shortage along with simple statistical features will help us to define how much such factors are going to produce valuable deviations from the expected line.
As there's no way a perfect key card balancement is going to act along any shoe dealt (even though many not key card situations can produce strong deviated spots), we can infer that most part of random walks are not going to form back to back outcomes totally insensitive to the previous card distribution.
Simply put, the vast majority of shoes dealt are surely affected by a kind of finite dependency deviating from the expected values.
Tomorrow practical examples about that.
as.

Thx Asymbac
Your statement above:
"...As there's no way a perfect key card balancement is going to act along any shoe dealt (even though many not key card situations can produce strong deviated spots), we can infer that most part of random walks are not going to form back to back outcomes totally insensitive to the previous card distribution..."
In the following example: How is your decision tree designed? In other words what trumps all the thoughts/ideas running through your mind if you were required to wager the very next hand following: P:89 B:44 Bwins; P:98 B:35 Bwins. So obviously P is getting the cards it wants, yet B is winning with the cards it wants/needs. What say you?
I know there could be dozens of things to consider. Im asking what would typically be at the top of your list that would over rule all the lower level considerations on the decision tree.
Thx in advance,

Hi KFB!!
I like very much your "decision tree" words.
First, let's consider your example.
Obviously a banker bettor would be very happy to win those hands and conversely a player bettor quite disappointed.
Nonetheless itlr such specific spots are EV for Banker bettors and EV+ for Player bettors.
As a standing 7 on P side is favorite to win (and payed 1:1) whereas a winning natural on B side is payed 0.95:1.
If you were to know exactly the first card of the next hand, which side would have you bet?
I guess Player's.
And naturally whenever an asymmetrical hand do not come out within a range validly surpassing the math expectancy, no Banker bet is EV+.
Since we can't know how cards are distributed but we surely know the average card distribution impact, definitely some ranges of distribution will be slight more likely than others.
The more we're going deeply in the process of classifying the actual results, better will be the long term profitability.
Let's take a very simple approach made on big road.
We'll bet toward getting at least one of the 11, 12, 21 patterns at Banker side, thus our play won't be affected by the vig as our bets will be placed only at Player side.
Anytime a 1 or 2 comes out at B side, we'll bet toward those three patterns. We'll stop the bet until we'll get one unit profit per shoe by utilizing a steady 12 progression.
Of course itlr we'll be in the negative as B>P then B1 < B2 < B3+.
That's ok.
But how many times we'll get two or more consecutive set of losses without getting at least one winning pattern we're looking for?
as.

Thx AsymBacGuy for your elaborate response.
This is good: "And naturally whenever an asymmetrical hand do not come out within a range validly surpassing the math expectancy, no Banker bet is EV+."
"...We'll bet toward getting at least one of the 11, 12, 21 patterns at Banker side, thus our play won't be affected by the vig as our bets will be placed only at Player side.
Anytime a 1 or 2 comes out at B side, we'll bet toward those three patterns. We'll stop the bet until we'll get one unit profit per shoe by utilizing a steady 12 progression.
. .."
Can you clarify re: stop the bet until one unit of profit per shoe...etc.
Thx
All The Best,

Thank you KFB!!
Any baccarat player needs to find the spots where his/her bets are EV+ as the idea to restrict the negative expectancy by utilizing some kind of progressions or balancement factors are completely wrong both theoretically and practically.
I could be the best disciplined person in the world but a EV bet remains a EV bet.
We can't do anything about that mathematically, yet we can do a lot statistically.
Along any BP finite succession, whatever considered, some spots are EV+ at the Banker side and some spots are EV+ at Player side.
This way of thinking totally contrasts with the common concept that every bet is EV no matter what.
At baccarat, 91.4% of the outcomes are simply following a coin flip probability, just 8.6% of the results are Banker oriented.
Those coin flip situations mainly rely upon the key card distribution, they are not perfect independent spots, yet one side is payed 1:1 and the other one 0.95:1.
Thus a slight dependent coin flip probability tends to provide many "limited" random walks (as key cards are limited both in number and distribution) where a given event is more likely than the counterpart.
Just on 91.6% of the results, of course.
The remaining 8.6% of the outcomes hugely favor Banker side, providing a neutral card distribution, meaning that third cards must belong to a "random" world where each rank is equally probable.
Really?
No fkng way.
A baccarat shoe is formed by a sure asymmetrical rank card distribution, we can't estimate precisely which cards will help a side or not, but we can get a clearer picture whenever we'll consider many kind of back to back probabilities as the asymmetrical features will dilute more and more up to the point where a reversed strenght will take place.
Even though it could happen to disregard the fact that one side is math advantaged over the other one.
Tomorrow about the B singledouble attack.
as.

So our goal is to get one of these precise B patterns: 11, 12, 21 and 22.
Of course we start the betting when a 1 or a 2 happen.
Since we utilize a mini progression as 12 or 100150 or 100120, etc. to be ahead of something we need to win right at the first attempt; if we lose this very first attenpt, odds are strongly shifted toward NOT getting any kind of profit as the average number of the searched patterns is four.
(for example, after a L we can only break even with a subsequent WWW sequence)
Nonetheless, we can choose to make our first bet right on the second searched pattern when the first pattern produced a loss, that is betting to get a LW situation.
Since itlr the overall number of L outweigh the number of W (in term of units won/lost), we could test large datasets to see what's the most likely losing pattern distribution.
After all, Banker 3+s are more likely because asym hands come out in finite numbers, mostly clustered.
Hence we do not want to fall into the trap of looking for a positive pattern whenever the first two patterns are LL or risking to cross an unfavourable WL spot.
This is not a stop loss or stop win concept, just a cumulative study on what are our best chances to win at EV propositions.
After all we can't win less than one unit (or a portion of it) and since we're flat betting we do not want to chase losses when the actual shoe had shown a "negative" propensity from the start. (As we need at least a triple number of W to balance a single L)
On average and choosing to adopt a super selected strategy (waiting shoes forming a first L), we are going to bet nearly 25% of the total shoes dealt.
Moreover, not every shoe will form a four (or greater) WL pattern, some of them stops at two and three (and sometimes only one W or L situation arises).
Why such strategy should enhance our probability to win?
Like other binomial games, most part of bac results are formed by singles and doubles, In three hands dealt, only two patterns over eight form triples (odds 2:8.), the remaining part includes singles and doubles.
Bac rules from one part raise the probability to form 3+s (Banker) and the opposite is true at Player side favoring singles and doubles.
Anyway, this math propensity comes out just one time over 11,62 hands dealt and sometimes it will shift the results very slightly. Not mentioning that some card distributions favor Player side even in asym spots.
Many bac players tend to emphasize too much the less worse 0.18% Banker return, this simple strategy (along with some additional adjustments I do not want to discuss here) shows that we can concede the house the higher advantage; let the house hope everytime we'll make a rare bet an asym hand will come out precisely on that spot.
as.

Thx AsymBacGuy
Your last two posts have stimulated a couple thoughts/questions that I will follow up on within a couple days.
Im in the process of reading several of your back posts/threads (not all 1000 :nope: , yet) and may find some of the answers there.
All the best,

That's good KFB! :)
Think as baccarat as a game of a slight biased 12face tossing dice getting 6 B faces and 5 P faces where the remaining 1/12 side prompts the toss of a further hypothetical dice getting 7 B faces and 3 P faces.
If each onestep or twostep toss will be independent from the previous ones, no way a profitable strategy could be applied as the asymmetrical probability will come out proportionally as expected.
I mean that 11 out of 12 possible first dice toss outcomes are differently payed, one side getting 0.95:1 payment and the other one 1:1 payment.
It's just about that nearly 1:12 odds probability that things substantially change by math terms.
Thus Banker bettors will be hugely right just one time over 12 attempts and Player bettors will be hugely wrong just one time over the same 12 hands range.
In a sense Banker bettors are hugely right rarely and Player bettors are hugely wrong rarely.
At the same token, Banker winners are more likely id.iot 5% contributors, whereas Player bettors feel as idi.o.ts just one time over 12 bets.
The common suggestion dictating to wager B side in order to lower the HE is completely unsound as long as we decide to select at most our bets.
Following this "B always betting" strategy, we see most B bets are hugely unfavorite as the asym strenght happens rarely, mainly as they are not taking into account the whimsical finite key cards impact.
It's interesting to notice that a careful selected betting plan will get more profitable opportunities at Player side than at Banker side, meaning that a 1:1 payment will crush a supposedly 0.95:1 payment diluted at more likely expected math B spots.
Remember that we just need a 50.1% probability on our P bets to get a long term edge.
We shouldn't care less whether we could find ourselves in those rare 42.07%/57.93% disadvantaged asym spots, consider them as a kind of zero happening at roulette now getting a substantial degree of success.
After all it's only the key card distribution who cares itlr, isn't it?
as.

Without any doubt itlr we'll win because the side we have chosen to bet presents more twocard initial points higher than the opposite side.
Although it happens frequently that third card/s will invert this strong advantage, hoping to be ahead for long by guessing repeatedly that the unfavorite side will win is pure illusion.
For example, if we had bet Player getting 2K and Banker shows 3T, third card to the Player is a picture and Banker catches a 7 we win the hand but actually we have lost from the start.
Third card/s, besides the important asymmetrical hand factor, are just there for entertainment and to confuse things.
Naturally there are some equal twocard initial points that may need the third card draw, in these situations no one side is advantaged from the start (again besides the asym factor when working).
In the vast majority of the times any new hand dealt in form of two initial cards on each side will entice the formation of very different probabilities: cumulatively the higher twocard points will be almost 2:1 favorite to win the hand. It's like playing two dozens vs one dozen at roulette but by wagering just one unit and being payed 1:1 or 0.95:1 and not 0.5:1.
If we're here is because we are trying to dispute the randomness of the card distributions or any other bac feature that might get us a kind of an edge.
Surely we can't dispute math situations once they have appeared.
Hence a long term winning player is anyone capable to get a greater share of twocard initial points at the right side. Real outcomes are just a by product of such strong math propensity.
On the same token, we know that certain higher points will be so favorite to win up to the point they're eventually unbeatable (natural 9s) and going down with other high points.
It remains to define whether a supposedly random but surely finite card distribution will provide valuable betting spots by taking the problem by two different way of thoughts that actually constitute the same issue.
a average lenght of uniformed one side favorite segments;
b average number of gaps between favorite situations happening at the two opposite sides.
Obviously greater is the lenght of uniformed one side situations lower will be the number of gaps and vice versa.
Nonetheless we ought to remember that not everytime a favorite side is going to win the hand, but we have to accept this kind of error as any situation getting nearly 2:1 cumulative odds to win must eventually get a double number of wins than losses.
That means that we're allowed to get a fair amount of wrong "guessing" that we could easily reduce by selecting at most our action.
So a shoe is going to produce several "favorite initial two card states" at various degrees, try to register those situations regardless of the final outcomes.
To get precise registrations, deal the hands as bac rules dictate, nothing will change itlr.
Now in order to find out our possible long term edge we need a further adjustment, that is comparing what could happen more likely in relationship of what really happened in the past taken at different paces.
That's why RVM theories and Smoluchoswki studies help us to 'solve' baccarat.
Any random succession must provide independent results on every step of the original sequence and on every other possible subsequence derived from the original one, that is for each step whatever considered and for every random walk considered a x result will be proportionally equal to the expected probability.
Expected probability? Rattlesnakesh.i.t from the start.
as.

Thanks AsymBacGuy. Excellent last two posts/thread.
"Third card/s, besides the important asymmetrical hand factor, are just there for entertainment and to confuse things."
:nod:
"Any random succession must provide independent results on every step of the original sequence and on every other possible subsequence derived from the original one, that is for each step whatever considered and for every random walk considered a x result will be proportionally equal to the expected probability."
I like that sentence.
All the best,

Thanks again KFB!
There are several experiments to make, one of them is to compare the flow of twocard initial situations with the corresponding flow of actual final results.
From a strict math point of view each hand's winning probability is polarized at the start, only few hands will be affected by the third card/s impact, namely twocard situations being equal and both needing the third card (asym hand rules besides, of course).
Thus we should focus our attention about how many times higher twocard points on the same side will come out in a row on average.
The fact that many twocard higher points won't produce the math results we're looking for shouldn't bother us at all: as long as we are able to catch a superior than expected amount of those spots, itlr the probability to get more W than L is sure as hell.
I mean that we do not want to be right at single spots, just adopting a bet selection at spots where the probability to be right is cumulatively enlarged.
A necessary condition that cannot be applied at every shoe dealt.
In some way after having placed our bet at a given side, we should consider W and L just in terms of superior or inferior twocard point, regardless of the real outcome.
But it's about your second quoted "sentence" that baccarat is scientifically beatable.
A random succession cannot be beaten by any means, there's no fkng way to do it.
Successful long term bac players do not need luck, actually they hate it. And of course recreational players and "I know to win" claimers need it and like it.
The game is beatable as each possible betting spot does not correspond to the expected probability dictating that each hand is independently and randomly placed. (that is EV)
Simplifying, some portions of most part of the shoes (not every shoe) provides unrandom sequences at different levels. Not every unrandom sequence will get the player a profitable level.
This feature is more evident when considering multiple random walks running on the twocard higher point probability.
Normal players are focused about BP real outcomes, strong bac players do not give a fk about those results, they are willing to risk their money about the probability that something "favourable" is going to happen again or is going to shift. And those probabilties are restricted about finite numbers.
Tomorrow our "bac walker" example.
as.

Thx AsymBacGuy .
"...Tomorrow our "bac walker" example..."
Looking forward to the Bac Walker

Reference Points, Flow, 3rd Card, Etc., resulting in streaks.
More so in the first half of the shoe then the second half. And more so with the player side than the banker side. But don't take that for players side only, because it will happen to the banker side as well, just moreso with the player side.
Particularly the prelude will be extremely choppy or very much equal for a pretty large section. And then it will generally start out say that the player will have seven and the bank will have six or the player will have a natural or two and the banker lose by one maybe two points each time. Or it could be close, where say the player had 6 and the bank had 5 and pulled the face card or the player had 6 or 7 and the bank had 1 and pulled a 4 or a 5. And say it was making doubles or ones and twos. And then the player made a third hand which just literally should have lost and just squashed the bank, possibly say the player having a 1 and the bank had a 7 and the player pulled a 7 or 8 for its third card. And then the next hand on the player had zero on the first two cards and the banker had zero also. Players side pulls a 9 for its third card and the banker side pulls a face card for its third card. Then every hand after that for another 7, 8 or 9 is either a natural for the player or a very lowscoring first two cards and the bank had a decent hand with its first two cards and the player side surpassed it every time with unbelievable draws or even reducing the banker when the banker should have won the majority of times. With several of those draws where the bank could only lose by drawing 1 certain card, everything else wins or ties, etc. Like where the player had a 1 and the bank had a 2 and the player pulls a face card and the banker pulls an 8.
Happens so many times and yet even the experienced baccarat player seldom sides with this one when it is happening and only says, he can't believe it and the other side has to come on and this will not continue.

Yep, happens so many times but not most of the times. That's why IMO we should make an adjustment at every shoe dealt: is this shoe going to produce an average or higher/lower than average number of probability spots I'm looking for?
Say we have tested several shoes and the average shifting higher twocard point shows a median=3, that is 3 is the more likely shifting number between two sides (higher twocard points, not final results).
Thus we let go all inferior situations until we'll reach a shifting number of 3.
If the prevalent shifting number is 3 (median) we know that this value will come out more likely in clusters than isolated, there are no other ways around.
Therefore instead of stubbornly hoping that shifting spots will arrest at 3 regardless, we wait until an actual 3 had formed. Then when another shifting spot will reach the 3 value, we bet toward getting another 3.
If we lose we repeat the process, if we win we have to decide what's our goal that is if we want to risk additional money to get subsequent 3s.
Although spotting those shifting spots with a percentage >50% will get us a sure math long term advantage (especially at P side where we need at least 50.1% to win whereas we need at least 51.3% at B side) some problems arise.
The main problem comes out anytime we have made a bet and equal TCPs follow shifting values of 3. Here we are forced to gamble.
Secondly, twocard higher points are cumulatively strong math advantaged to form final winning results but they are susceptible to variance (as Al correctly pointed out in his post).
Third, some profitable opportunities may end up with a tie, thus slowing down further the process.
It's quite interesting to notice that "homogeneous" sources of shuffling (i.e. same shoes shuffled manually or shuffle master machines working at the same deck) tend to provide more constant and regular median values. It's what we name as a "fair or strong" propensity going far from a perfect randomness.
as.

Greetings Alrelax
on: March 15, 2021, 05:52:50 am »Insert Quote
"...More so in the first half of the shoe then the second half. And more so with the player side than the banker side. But don't take that for players side only, because it will happen to the banker side as well, just moreso with the player side.
Particularly the prelude will be extremely choppy or very much equal for a pretty large section..."
[/b]
In simplistic terms do you feel its partially because starting on the first draw(without knowing burn cards) and obviously unknown order, that all the GOOD cards for Player are still 100% avail in the shoe, only at this exact moment(GOOD meaning cards more likely to prevent P from drawing 3rd card)?? Coupled with the slight P advantage of having first dibs and said GOOD cards. Obviously after P draws , then B might make same proclamation depending on the card drawn by P. This very slight and briefly enjoyable stage for P immediately starts diminishing, though minutely, from the first card onward. Yes?
b]Particularly the prelude will be extremely choppy or very much equal for a pretty large section..."
[/b][/color]
Do you agree this prelude(chop/equal) is also often seen immediately after the streaks are observed. Yes? ??? ???
Thx as always.
All the best,

Hi AsymBacGuy
Your following sentence from (March 15, 2021, 11:43:38 pm) caused a pause.
"...it's quite interesting to notice that "homogeneous" sources of shuffling (i.e. same shoes shuffled manually or shuffle master machines working at the same deck) tend to provide more constant and regular median values. It's what we name as a "fair or strong" propensity going far from a perfect randomness..."
I've evaluated various shuffling methods for other variables. However, I have not considered the affect on Shift Median Values(SMV).
Good ideas/research AsymBacGuy
All the best,

Hi KFB!! :)
Without any shadow of doubt, itlr real results are the by product of key card impact, we could safely assume that bac results are following the general probability propensity to fall here or there and this probability is restricted within finite terms.
There are strong evidences that median values (when properly assessed) of some situations tend to more likely stop after certain values had been reached, despite of the common assumption that every situation will be independent or too slight dependent of the previous one/s.
It's like playing a game where a key card is more likely to fall at a given side, with no guarantees to get a positive outcome, just a greater than expected probability to fall there.
This propensity is more evident at manually shuffled same shoes or SMM shoes, where there's no fkng way to provide a proper random key card distribution.
Worst scenarios come out at HS rooms where any shoe is "fresh".
No worries, even those shoes are producing some exploitable median values, actually there's no way many random walks applied to the BP original sequence will get univocal results for long.
If such thing would happen and considering the average HS player's skills, casinos will go broke very soon.
Fortunately they do not.
as.

Anything can happen and everything will eventually happen. There is not a schedule of events that can be guaranteed in anyway whatsoever, contrary to what every mathematical wiz will claim.
The streak of 11 Bankers with 3 Fortune 7s + three 3 card nines over player side of 0's, that occurred after presentments of 15 singles and doubles; could easily have been a 10 Player streak with four Panda 8s and four 3 card nines over bankers side of 0's after 9 presentments of triple Bankers and triple Prayers as well. Or, how a series of 16 Players and Bankers chop chops will happen after a strong section or equally after ones, twos and threes that were presented in a section.
What I am trying to point out to those that still debate what actually happens will happen, verses it all has to have a schedule able to be figured out. It does not and nobody will make money at the game Baccarat if you sit down trying to figure out what's going to happen, rather than creating a special way that suits your frame of mind and your emotional status to use a progressive wagering bet, that is in your favor when a certain series of presentments are happening within a section of the shoe.

Al, I think yours are points coming from a very experienced player capable to place many bets and many different wagers per shoe.
Quite likely you are one of the best to extract serious money from those rare shoes that come along the way. And knowing when to start or stop the betting, not an easy task when many bets are in order.
That's why I would be glad to play with you.
Mine is a kind of opposite way to consider the game, I abandoned most side bets a long time ago focusing my attention about BP successions and derived sequences.
Annoyed to hear that baccarat is an unbeatable coin flip game, I devoted a lot of time trying to disprove this (wrong) assumption. Of course not only because a side is more likely than the other one time over 11.62 attempts on average.
Reasons why imo baccarat is a way less random and independent game than what most people think are known.
I'm dead sure others have found the same flaws, of course there's no point to illustrate precisely how to get the best of such flaws.
For that matter, I really do not understand why allegedly winning players like to talk about "discipline".
Either we get a verified edge or we don't, discipline doesn't turn an EV game into a profitable one.
Probability to win as disciplined players is the same as being undisciplined.
Discipline intended as a way to restrict the field of operation probably helps to lose less but surely doesn't help to win itlr.
I might be the most disciplined poker player on the planet yet I stand no chance to win itlr when playing Phil Ivey.
But if we know to play baccarat with an edge, per every hand played we can toss a dice telling us the amount to bet (from $100 to $600 for example), nothing will change itlr.
It's a whimsical form of flat betting, getting zero impact on long term results.
I see that some players have the experience to make the proper adjustments according to what the shoe is producing but to test whether they're actually doing right is almost impossible to prove. And anyway difficult to replicate.
Easier to track how given objective betting lines made under specific circumstances will get more wins than losses, that's now that we start to talk about the vulnerability of this game.
as.

To be clear, I do not concentrate solely on side Wagers but I do like them for certain percentage of my wagers. And when they're hitting, they are hitting and there's no quicker faster way to make some serious money than the side wagers at anywhere up to 200 to 1.

AsymBacGuy:
"...discipline doesn't turn an EV game into a profitable one.
Probability to win as disciplined players is the same as being undisciplined.
Discipline intended as a way to restrict the field of operation probably helps to lose less but surely doesn't help to win itlr..."
:thumbsup:

To be clear, I do not concentrate solely on side Wagers but I do like them for certain percentage of my wagers. And when they're hitting, they are hitting and there's no quicker faster way to make some serious money than the side wagers at anywhere up to 200 to 1.
I know.
Casinos can't refrain to deal shoes producing improbable things, actually they like them from one part but they hate them from the other one.
It's not a coincidence that almost every high stakes room in LV offer very few side bets at their tables: tie and pairs. And very few (or none) nocommission tables involving the F7.
(Only few HS serious people like to play at "Tiger" tables for obvious reasons...)
Casinos do not want to give high bettors the possibility, albeit remote, to recover losses or to get huge wins at few spots.
Despite that, even ties and pairs can seriously (temporarily) harm a casino.
I remember one occasion where a very HS player cleaned up all the "cranberries" ($25.000 denomination chips) present at the entire room. He was allowed to bet up to $80k at B or P and up to $30k at tie and pairs bets.
Magnificent potential house advantage? Sure. But...
This player not only won almost every B or P wagered on the third part of the shoe, he also managed to get a couple of "dreaming scenarios" as winning his P bet with a 44 vs a Banker QQ and winning a B bet getting 22 vs P showing JJA (total amount collected, $80k + $330k + $330k = $740k two times, minus $4k on the second hand due to commission); and anytime he would lose the B/P bet, he won a pair bet.
Naturally itlr such a player is destined to lose millions over millions, yet the house wasn't getting a pleasant time to find cranberries to pay him.
Just hoping he would have come back to play at their premise.
Now let's imagine what are the temporary wins a player like this may get at a nocommission table when a shoe produces four or five F7 spots payed 40:1. Say where the maximum bet allowed is 5k or 10k.
Very unlikely situations? Surely, but when they happen house must pay the customers.
as.

Back to the main topic.
Let's pretend as baccarat as a neutral EV game, either side will draw when getting a point from 0 to 5 getting a perfect equal probability to appear and no vig is applied.
Itlr, we'll expect to get the same number of wins than losses, right?
Technically speaking and whether the cards are properly random shuffled, now the game is a finite (312 or 416 cards are employed) and made by independent binomial successions.
The word "independent" must be intended as the previous card distribution can't get an impact toward getting a different than 50% expected probability on the next BP results.
That is any hand should be "new" the same way any roulette spin is perfect independent from the previous spin.
We could compare more precisely those two different games by pretending roulette wheels as "zero free", even though at baccarat a percentage of hands provide no B or P results.
It's obvious to think that as long as bac (or zerofree roulette) results are randomly and independently dealt, our EV will be zero.
Hence and in order to consider a possible positive edge we must work to find ways capable to dispute one or both of such two features: randomness and independence.
Roulette outcomes are disputable just on the perfect randomness being the independence factor irrelevant.
Baccarat outcomes can be assessed by both qualities: a perfect random shuffle acting at 6 or 8 decks is almost not existent, secondly the independence factor cannot be present whenever the probability to get key cards prompting more likely results cannot be equally balanced at the two sides per each shoe dealt.
More on that tomorrow
as.

At baccarat the probability to get something is partially dependent by the previous situations providing we've properly evaluated the cumulative effect already happened with the general probability.
More deeply we're investigating the process, higher will be our positive expectancy.
Think about 8s and 9s falling pace or valuable third card falling pace going to the Player side.
Naturally and obviously being forced to consider real outcomes, a lot of variance will act along the way.
So it may easily happen that our 9 will combine with an ace or a deuce on the first two cards and that a valuable 6 or 7 as third Player card will produce a worthless point.
Of course itlr such 9s or 6s and 7s as third P card are going to form valuable points.
Actually we shouldn't give a lesser fk about short term less likely situations, even knowing that they could go in our favor despite their "unlikelihood".
What we're really interested about is the estimation of the "paces" involved of such situations, at the same time trying to restrict them as a "whole" as no way 8s and 9s are falling equally on both sides and no way valuable P third cards are constantly falling as fifth card. With every other card situation falling in between.
We've seen that depending upon the random walk applied, the actual card impact over results assumes several different shapes up to the point where univocal albeit unlikely patterns will get the same picture at multiple r.w.'s.
it's about this probability that imo we should set up our strategy.
as.

Greetings AsymBacGuy
On pg 14 of this thread you stated:
"...Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
« Reply #205 on: October 14, 2020, 09:49:04 pm »
Quote
Instead of thinking as baccarat as a BP outcomes game, we should consider the average probability to get a shoe composition prompting certain degrees of math advantaged situations..."
?On average how many "math advantaged situations" do you typically find per shoe?
IOW what is the Mean and Mode # of wagers for you per shoe"on avg" ??
Thanks in advance,

Hi KFB!!
Each bac shoe presents several different multistep math probabilities.
Of course itlr what is math advantaged will overcome what it does not.
If those math advantaged situations will be proportionally placed or, even worse, whether we'd think they are, we're not going to anywhere.
We can beat baccarat consistently only whether math advantaged situations are not fitting to the common independent and random probability provided by the general probability.
The main factor (first step) directing results is the initial twocard point (ITCP): the side getting the higher point will cumulatively get nearly 2:1 odds to win the hand eventually.
A percentage of hands won't get such feature, getting an equal point at both sides.
No worries, itlr such hands will get an almost neutral impact over our results.
Normally card distributions will produce "more likely" back to back ITCPs, as the average key card distribution itlr will make a huge impact over the final twocard point results (not final results!).
It's true that key cards could easily combine with a second low or worthless card, anyway itlr it's way more likely to get a winning point whenever a key card had fallen on that side than to face the opposite situation.
Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees, meaning it's restricted within measurable (then exploitable) terms.
Thus and from a strict math point of view, whenever we find a better than 50% betting rate of ITCPs we'll get a sure undeniable edge over the house.
After all we just need a better than 50% statistical probability to be "probably" right getting after that a close to 0.65% mathematical probability to be surely right.
And this parameter is measurable.
Say we have found a "decline in probability" factor, meaning that ITCPs streaks are measurable and thus getting finite values well lower than what general probability dictates. (So it would be way more sensible to bet that something will stop than hoping the opposite situation will stand for long).
Now let's pretend casinos are aware of that, trying to voluntarily mix cards in order to get long clustered ITCPs not fitting a more likely natural course.
Really?
First, most HS players do not follow a given strategy, they just like to bet univocal betting lines and long ITCPs situations endorse such probability. Hence such shoes will get a greater damage for the casinos than normal distributed shoes.
Secondly, HS bac players and amateurs are more likely to be thrilled by third card impact than what serious players are, forgetting that what is underdog remains underdog.
Knowing that ITCPs pace is following precise lines, it's time to consider third card impact random walks.
as.

Run several shoes and register how many times ITCPs will come out in a row and by which degree.
No matter how many cards you'll burn after each hand (as from 0 to 2 additional cards are whimsically employed per each hand dealt in the real world), itlr some values will be more likely than others.
After spotting what's more likely to happen, don't give a fk about real results as itlr math advantaged situations must overcome the underdog counterpart.
Therefore we shuldn't be interested about REAL outcomes but just about the potential math power average distribution.
as.

Mathematical system to get a sure edge over the house
For a moment forget the importance to get an edge by flat betting, let's try to implement a MM capable to get the best of it without crossing the unfavourable circumstance to lose our entire bankroll.
We consider our action restricted within a virtually endless series of seven separated betting cycles, getting each a given amount of profit or loss units. Ties are considered neutral.
Every 7hand cycle step is made by betting the same amount (flat betting), meaning there are no bet increases before each cycle ended up.
Thus we start the first 7 cycle bet by wagering one unit by flat betting, at the end we'll get:
 7 units won (7 W and 0 L)
 5 units won (6 W and 1 L)
 3 units won (5 W and 2 L)
 1 unit won (4 W and 3 L)
 1 unit lost (4 L and 3 W)
 3 units lost (5 L and 2 W)
 5 units lost (6 L and 1 W)
 7 units lost (7 L and 0 W)
Naturally those W/L percentages are the same per every 7 hand betting cycle, regardeless of how much we bet (obviously)
If after the first 7 bets cycle we'll get a profit, we repeat the process by wagering the same initial amount and so on.
Whether we are losing from 1 to 7 bets (meaning we got more Ls than Ws at various degrees) we'll set up our new standard bet by adding one unit to the overall deficit.
For example, if we had lost 5 bets, our new bet will be 6 units employed in the new 7hand cycle until we'll get a one unit profit within the same 7 betting range.
If we have the misfortune to not be able to recover previous losses, for the next 7 hand cycle we'll add one unit to the new deficit.
Say after our first 5 L situation we bet 6 units getting another 3 L, thus we'll be behind of 5 units plus 6x3=18 units totalling a 23 units deficit. Thus now our new bet for the next 7 hand cycle will be 24 units.
And so on. Up to the point that we'll be sure to recover ALL previous losses and getting one unit profit.
Math aspects
Even though we could be the worst bac guessers in the universe, per every 7hand cycle bet our winning probability will be 72.66% as among the possible 128 WL patterns, 93 of them will be winners and just 35 losers (as we'd stop the betting after getting a W amount overcoming Ls).
Notice that differently to a common martingale, those bets are less susceptible to the negative variance and table limits, as they are assessed by 7hand same amount steps.
This system is so powerful and math wise that just 2 or 3 people playing as a team will get enormous profits, after all itlr a 72.66% probability cannot be wrong for long.
Anyway most players like to play on their own and it's easy to assume that this system could get the bets so high to make in jeopardy everyone's bankroll and peace of mind.
Therefore we want to introduce the "scale reduction" factor, an important strategic tool capable to control the variance and at the same time keeping the benefit of a math advantage.
as.

Hi AsymBacGuy
In your first post on 3/30 you state:
"...Normally card distributions will produce "more likely" back to back ITCPs, as the average key card distribution itlr will make a huge impact over the final twocard point results (not final results!).
It's true that key cards could easily combine with a second low or worthless card, anyway itlr it's way more likely to get a winning point whenever a key card had fallen on that side than to face the opposite situation.
Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees, meaning it's restricted within measurable (then exploitable) terms...."
To clarify: When you say "KEY CARDS" do you indeed mean 8/9 as in main cards to keep P from drawing. OR Do you mean key cards as in sidefavoring cards such as 6/4 that may or may not keep P from drawing? thx in advance .

AsymBacGuy: "...Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees..."
kfb:
Respectfully, my opinion differs on thisOR maybe Im just not understanding what youre saying. Can u elaborate a little more on this sentence.
Thx/ Continued Success,

Hi KFB!
As Key cards I'm referring to 9s, 8s, 7s and 6s.
.Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees..."
I mean that if many key cards are removed from the deck or not available for the moment, the average card distribution slight privileges ITCPs streaks of given lenght, even though card combinations are virtually "infinite".
It's a concept very difficult to be grasped by common players, way too focused about the actual outcome and not about the overall probability's plan.
Not mentioning that quite often key cards are interfering with this propensity, we have 4 classes of key cards and 5 classes of non key cards (zero value cards considered as neutral cards).
Btw, I'm interested to know your opinion about this, thanks in advance!
as.

as
"Say after our first 5 L situation we bet 6 units getting another 3 L, thus we'll be behind of 5 units plus 6x3=18 units totalling a 23 units deficit. Thus now our new bet for the next 7 hand cycle will be 24 units.
And so on. Up to the point that we'll be sure to recover ALL previous losses and getting one unit profit."
So in the first 7 hand sequence you have a 5 net L (6L1W) @ 1 unit bets = 5 unit Loss.
The next 7 hand sequence goes to 6 units per hand ? and with 3 net L (5L2W) = 18 unit loss?
Then the bets go to 24 units per hand for the next 7 hand sequence ?
Rick

Good Day AsymBacGuy
Thx for your reply to my followup question.
Asym:
Hi KFB!
As Key cards I'm referring to 9s, 8s, 7s and 6s.
.Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees..."
kfb initial followup question/statement:
kfb:
Respectfully, my opinion differs on thisOR maybe Im just not understanding what youre saying. Can u elaborate a
little more on this sentence.
Asym:Btw, I'm interested to know your opinion about this, thanks in advance!
as.
kfb
IMO the propensity to get higher ITCPs does NOT remain the same and does indeed change if no key cards (6,7,8,9) were
involved in the process.
My initial thought was that lets say : KCR=KeyCardRemaing = x, and Total Cards Remaining(TCR)=y , then our kcr/tcr
ratio at this given point in the shoe is lets say x/y. We don't know exactly the numerical value of x or y. However, the next
hands' cards are A,B,C,D. You/I are at the table together and had both just departed to the restroom and upon our return
asked the dealer: How many cards were dealt in that most recent hand? Four. We follow up with : Did cards A,B,C,or D
have a value of 6,7,8, or 9? Dealer: No.
Thus my aforementioned statement was that although we don't know the values for ABCD(ignore which side won or any
other implications),
we do know that our KCR/TCR=x/y ratio has changed from x/y to x/y4, and we also obviously can't be
100% certain of how many, if any, KCR remain(0,16,12...etc).
So my thinking is the propensity to get higher ITCPs does not remain the same and has indeed changed(albeit very
slightly). Obviously many other factors we could take into consideration but for simple illustrative purposes that is the gist
of my previous inquiry.
Continue Success,

Thanks KFB for your explanation.
I'll try to simplify the issue.
What are the original BP sequences capable to get long and univocal both original and derived outcomes per every shoe dealt?
Just two.
Long BP chops and long consecutive streaks, both being quite unlikely to happen.
We need just a single hand at various degrees not belonging to those patterns to get a long term edge and at the same time we'll fear that just that hand will be unlikely prolong an already unlikely pattern to get us losers.
Long term data show that the probability to get ITCPs or key cards falling at the same side for long are surpassed by the opposite probability.
The only reason that come off of our minds is that itlr both key cards and non key cards privilege a kind of chopping probability.
Thus imo it's not about how much the chopping propensity come out but about how many times it will come out per every shoe played.
@Rickk: I'll reply you tomorrow.
as.

Thx AsymBacGuy for elaboration.
What are the original BP sequences capable to get long and univocal both original and derived outcomes per every shoe dealt?
Just two.
Long BP chops and long consecutive streaks, both being quite unlikely to happen.
I agree. Yet that is what a majority of players are primarily waiting for in every shoe. IMO the tote board design contributes alot to this pursuit and anticipation. It would be interesting to see the change in betting patterns/habits if all of a sudden the design of the tote board changed from the Updown/LR layout that is currently utilized.
Thus imo it's not about how much the chopping propensity come out but about how many times it will come out per every shoe played.
Good statement.
Thx as always,

So in the first 7 hand sequence you have a 5 net L (6L1W) @ 1 unit bets = 5 unit Loss.
The next 7 hand sequence goes to 6 units per hand ? and with 3 net L (5L2W) = 18 unit loss?
Then the bets go to 24 units per hand for the next 7 hand sequence ?
Rick
Basically you flat bet 7 hands cycles, as long as you get a profit the betting unit remains 1.
Whether after flat betting 7 hands at the end you are behind of 1, 3, 5 or 7 units, you increase the bet on the next 7hand cycle by adding 1 unit to the previous deficit until you recover everything (so you stop to bet the entire cycle then restarting to bet 1 unit 7 times.
In the example, after the first cycle you are losing 5 bets, so on the next cycle you'll bet 6 units each hand until you recover the previous deficit.
Unluckily we got more losses than wins (5L and 2W) totalling 3 x 6 unit = 18 unit loss, so next bet will be (5 + 18 + 1 = 24 betting unit). Yes, we'll stay at this 24 unit level until we'll be ahead of just one hand capable to recover all the losses accumulated at every previous cycles.
And so on.
The beauty of this system is that you can win even at a percentage of losing cycles adding to your 50% a 22.66%.
In fact losing sequences as WLLLLLL or WLWLLLL or LLWWWLL and some others become winning sequences.
In the example we played 14 hands, getting 3 W and 11 L, not an awesome flat betting strategy (lol) but we know it could happen.
Let's imagine a very bad scenario.
First cycle (1 unit) = 7 L 0 W unit loss: 7; next bet 8 unit (7 + 1)
Second cycle (8 unit) = 6 L 1 W unit loss: 40; next bet 49 (8 + 40 + 1)
Third cycle (49 unit) = 6 L 1 W unit loss: 245; next bet 294 (8 + 40 + 245 + 1)
After having played 21 hands, we got 19 L and just 2 W (I discarded the lucky scenario where second and third cycles may get a W as first hand totally erasing the deficit). Our unit increased almost 300 times...
A 4.12 sigma is quite uncommon to cross but it may happen. Not mentioning that half bets are made on B side, thus we need to increase the bets by adding some units to cover the vig.
To reduce the progressive betting impact, we might start the real betting after any losing cycle or even after two consecutive losing cycles, for example.
It's quite interesting to notice that 3 players betting simultaneously the three derived roads in selective situations can't reach huge negative deviations as the possible deficit is spread between them.
Situations where all three roads provide simultaneously many univocal lines (yet assuming them as negative) are very rare, if not anybody would be millionaire very fast.
Take care!
as.

KFB and Rickk,
if you wish to expand your thoughts here you are very welcome! :thumbsup:
Have a nice day!
as.

Hi AsymBacGuy
Thx for clarifying RickK inquiry as I also had questions re: the levels above that 2nd tier if one is losing after the first tier.

I agree with your concluding comments on the 7tier method:
AsymBacGuy
Math aspects
Even though we could be the worst bac guessers in the universe, per every 7hand cycle bet our winning probability will be 72.66% as among the possible 128 WL patterns, 93 of them will be winners and just 35 losers (as we'd stop the betting after getting a W amount overcoming Ls).
Notice that differently to a common martingale, those bets are less susceptible to the negative variance and table limits, as they are assessed by 7hand same amount steps.
This system is so powerful and math wise that just 2 or 3 people playing as a team will get enormous profits, after all itlr a 72.66% probability cannot be wrong for long.
Anyway most players like to play on their own and it's easy to assume that this system could get the bets so high to make in jeopardy everyone's bankroll and peace of mind.
Therefore we want to introduce the "scale reduction" factor, an important strategic tool capable to control the variance and at the same time keeping the benefit of a math advantage.
_________________________________________________________
I guess it goes back to: What Is Ones Objective.
In other words how do we want to slice our buyin, how often can we tolerate losing buyin, how much do we want to earn as a f(x) of buyin, as a f(x) of bankroll,...etc.
Anyway most players like to play on their own and it's easy to assume that this system could get the bets so high to make in jeopardy everyone's bankroll and peace of mind.
I think we can expect a majority of Negpro methods will eventually escalate bets too high (reach Tmax, bust buyin,...etc) its just that this particular method seems to escalate immediately. However, at first glance I do agree it will handle most shoes by the 2nd or 3rd stage. So the abrupt increase in wager size will in all likelihood be less damaging to buyin than we would initially guess. My main reservation would be not knowing if that really bad (3.5SD) shoe was the very first one.
I like the beginning stages and the idea of 1/7ths at the initial level. However, it abruptly shifts from a low/slow curve to the trajectory of a rocket.
I've never played this method so just a quick thoughts/opinion. If I was required to do a similar Negpro my personal preference would be to add a few more tiers to that 7wager Level 1, and prior to the recouporthrow the towel in stage(s) .
How many Tiers? Levels? This is where it gets back to my initial sentence:
What Is Ones Objective.
Asym, do you play a similar approach. Do you have any data from others that have played it? ROI?
How would you improve it?
Many Thanks,
Its not how fast you win, its how well you win fast

Thanks KFB for your comments!
Only a team could approach the 7tier system in the original aggressive version having a "leader" instructing when to bet and sharing an enormous bankroll.
Such a team work very well at online sites where different result lines are put together in order to get supposedly "more likely" betting spots (by a pc software, of course).
Even tough bets can theorically (and practically) reach huge values, this system is mathematically sound as per every 7tier played the math probability to win is 72.66%.
I do not use this system as I'm a strict flat betting aficionado and HS live player (and mentor), anyway the 7tier concept is quite interesting as it doesn't take into account single results but successions of 7hand outcomes attacked by the same bet amount.
We know that itlr among the 128 possible WL patterns, each of them will present sooner or later, besides a "general" math probability to succeed it's just the relative frequency of every single WL pattern that cares.
There are several steps to assess whether we're doing good for a reason or by luck.
Best example is to estimate the most deviated 2/128 WL patterns, that is WWWWWWW and LLLLLLL patterns.
If after a given amount of shoes tested the former number will overcome the latter, we got a sure sign that the probability to be right is more significant than otherwise.
The same about less deviated patterns as those containing 6 W or L and specular 1 L or W and so on.
Obviously when considering an odd number of patterns, most winning situations come out after knowing the very first W or L result nature as there are more winning patterns starting with a W than the opposite situation.
If we'd think to get a long term winning system we should put a lot of emphasis about this very first bet.
Now say that we do not want to set up or belong to a team but trying to get the best of it by not risking a lot of money.
Whenever the 7tier system will dictate to bet a progressive X amount, we'll reduce it by a 5:1 scale.
Therefore after the first 7tier betting series, we'll get those scenarios:
1 unit loss= next betting amount 1
3 unit loss= next betting amount 1
 5 unit loss= nerxt betting amount 1.1
 7 unit loss = next betting amount 1.4
It's true that now a very first bet (and other profitable conditions) won't erase the deficit by just a +1 W step over a L counterpart at any degree considered, but it's altogether true that mathematically we'll need a way lesser amount of profitable patterns to get the same erasing deficit.
Say tonight we're not guessing a fkng nothing, thus getting 5 more losses at 1.4 betting amount level.
Overall we got 2 wins and 12 losses (7 L and 0 W at 1 unit level and 2 W and 5 L at 1.4 unit level).
Thus we are behind 7 units plus 1.4 x 3 units = 7 + 4.2 units = 11.2 units.
Next bet will be 11.2 : 0.5 = 2.24 unit.
We see that even after a very unlikely 2:12 WL ratio our next bet will be just set up at 2.24 unit.
Now we need just a lesser amount of WL patterns than math expected to erase the deficit (even adding up the vig impact to losses), actually a wise flat betting approach cannot reach strong LW deviations by any means.
Nonetheless, even a "I do not care about what the shoe is producing" strategy (not recommended) will get a proper math advnantage itlr.
as.

Good Morning Asym/thx
"...Only a team could approach the 7tier system in the original aggressive version having a "leader" instructing when to bet and sharing an enormous bankroll..."
Yes, we might could get a 3member team to agree on the benefits of diluting the effects of variance across our wagers/buyin. However, that same 3member team may not be as enthused when it came time to split the profits (33/33/33%). :)
Anyway, i get your point.
Asym: "...Obviously when considering an odd number of patterns, most winning situations come out after knowing the very first W or L result nature as there are more winning patterns starting with a W than the opposite situation..."
*Im not sure what you mean by this phrase.
Continued Success,

Thanks KFB for your comments!
Only a team could approach the 7tier system in the original aggressive version having a "leader" instructing when to bet and sharing an enormous bankroll.
Such a team work very well at online sites where different result lines are put together in order to get supposedly "more likely" betting spots (by a pc software, of course).
Even tough bets can theorically (and practically) reach huge values, this system is mathematically sound as per every 7tier played the math probability to win is 72.66%.
I do not use this system as I'm a strict flat betting aficionado and HS live player (and mentor), anyway the 7tier concept is quite interesting as it doesn't take into account single results but successions of 7hand outcomes attacked by the same bet amount.
We know that itlr among the 128 possible WL patterns, each of them will present sooner or later, besides a "general" math probability to succeed it's just the relative frequency of every single WL pattern that cares.
There are several steps to assess whether we're doing good for a reason or by luck.
Best example is to estimate the most deviated 2/128 WL patterns, that is WWWWWWW and LLLLLLL patterns.
If after a given amount of shoes tested the former number will overcome the latter, we got a sure sign that the probability to be right is more significant than otherwise.
The same about less deviated patterns as those containing 6 W or L and specular 1 L or W and so on.
Obviously when considering an odd number of patterns, most winning situations come out after knowing the very first W or L result nature as there are more winning patterns starting with a W than the opposite situation.
If we'd think to get a long term winning system we should put a lot of emphasis about this very first bet.
Now say that we do not want to set up or belong to a team but trying to get the best of it by not risking a lot of money.
Whenever the 7tier system will dictate to bet a progressive X amount, we'll reduce it by a 5:1 scale.
Therefore after the first 7tier betting series, we'll get those scenarios:
1 unit loss= next betting amount 1
3 unit loss= next betting amount 1
 5 unit loss= nerxt betting amount 1.1
 7 unit loss = next betting amount 1.4
It's true that now a very first bet (and other profitable conditions) won't erase the deficit by just a +1 W step over a L counterpart at any degree considered, but it's altogether true that mathematically we'll need a way lesser amount of profitable patterns to get the same erasing deficit.
Say tonight we're not guessing a fkng nothing, thus getting 5 more losses at 1.4 betting amount level.
Overall we got 2 wins and 12 losses (7 L and 0 W at 1 unit level and 2 W and 5 L at 1.4 unit level).
Thus we are behind 7 units plus 1.4 x 3 units = 7 + 4.2 units = 11.2 units.
Next bet will be 11.2 : 0.5 = 2.24 unit.
We see that even after a very unlikely 2:12 WL ratio our next bet will be just set up at 2.24 unit.
Now we need just a lesser amount of WL patterns than math expected to erase the deficit (even adding up the vig impact to losses), actually a wise flat betting approach cannot reach strong LW deviations by any means.
Nonetheless, even a "I do not care about what the shoe is producing" strategy (not recommended) will get a proper math advnantage itlr.
as.
Hello, AsymBacGuy!
You said you are strict flat betting. Give, please, an advice in which direction need to think to create a winning flat betting scheme. You are long term winning flat bettor, yes?

Asym: "...Obviously when considering an odd number of patterns, most winning situations come out after knowing the very first W or L result nature as there are more winning patterns starting with a W than the opposite situation..."
*Im not sure what you mean by this phrase.
Hi KFB!
You are right, I've badly expressed my point.
At 7tier betting cycles, the break even final result cannot happen, we'll get +1, +3, +5 and +7 and the specular losing counterpart.
Whenever a new 7tier cycle begins with a W, odds are more favourable to get a final result presenting more Ws than Ls. Meaning that this specific cycle itlr will produce a positive situation, an important issue to be considered when adopting this system or some strategies derivating from it.
Itlr and without a proper advantage, 7tier final cycles will end up equally between winning cycles and losing cycles.
It's intuitive to think that when a cycle starts with a L, we'll need a higher amount of Ws than Ls to finish a cycle as a winning one.
In some way this system focus about the probability to get a W at the very first hand of a new cycle.
If we're adopting a less aggressive procedure, this feature is even more important as at some time we need winning final cycles to quickly or slowly cancel the previous deficit.
I hope to have explained better the issue.
Take care
as.

Hello, AsymBacGuy!
You said you are strict flat betting. Give, please, an advice in which direction need to think to create a winning flat betting scheme. You are long term winning flat bettor, yes?
Hi argalim!!
The reasons why only a flat betting approach should get a long term advantage are quite simple to understand.
 any bet is supposed to be EV, thus no matter how deep we make progressive bets our EV will be negative.
For that matter, let experts to show me how to beat even a fair 50/50 game as a classic coin flip succession is.
 if progressive betting aficionados think that at certain points something must be more likely than the opposite situation, why not focusing the action about those (maybe rare) spots without risking money previously?
 EV or EV neutral games applied to a random source cannot be beaten itlr by any means.
Fortunately baccarat is not so randomly placed and/or so independently dealt as math 'experts' keep to say.
Now let's see the reasons why this game could be beatable by flat betting (for the good peace of mind of those who cannot think this is possibile):
 most part of shoes are not properly shuffled, meaning that key cards are more or less concentrated at some parts of the shoe way higher than what a perfect shuffling will do.
Whenever key cards are quite concentrated along some portions of the shoe, more likely outcomes come out even in term of whimsical actual results.
We play probabilities and not short term actual results.
 at real live baccarat shoes, the sym/asym (91.4/8.6) ratio produces sd values quite different than at a random and perfect independent model.
 no way each bac hand is dealt by the common 50.68/49.32 percentage (ties ignored). BP hands probability moves from 0.5/0.5 (sym hands) to 0.5793/0.4207 (average asym strenght hands), thus our bets will get either a neutral (and fair) EV or a strong positive or strong negative EV.
Of course such discrepancy definitely will happen more likely when key cards are more diluted than concentrated.
Practical issues
The probability to be right or wrong moves around the actual key cards distribution.
Very slight key card concentrations will make the game quite unbeatable, as hands are more likely to form whimsical results as few hands are strongly favorite at the start to win the final hand.
We do not need to classify key cards, itlr most shoes will form patterns eliciting more likely patterns, especially when considering outcomes at different paces.
For example, consider the three derived roads making an univocal red or blue outcome. Those are rare situations, mostly when long hopping lines or long consecutive streaks or back to back streaks happen.
Classify them and try to figure out how many times r or b streaks will stand or shift to the opposite situation per any shoe played and per each level considered.
as.

BTW, it seems that some so called "math experts" do not like to have people posting that bac could be beatable, labelling them as "spammers".
Let's see how this stuff evolves, it could happen I have some stories to tell about them. Specifically regarding Vegas/Henderson (NV) areas.
as.

Hi AsymBacGuy
I hope to have explained better the issue.
Yes, perfect, & as always thanks for elaboration.
Cheers,

Actual distributions of the outcomes
Imo winning by flat betting means that after long trials our strategy got more winning clusters than expected and not because the strategy tried to contain in some way the losing clusters' counterpart, even though the latter could be inferior in number.
Therefore our long samples should have provided us more W doubles than W singles, more W triples than W doubles, more W 4+ streaks than W triples and so on.
Despite that, it happens that baccarat outcomes whatever considered but filtered by a strategy dictating to bet very few hands per shoe and not per every shoe, will show two very different profitable peaks: the double W clusters opposed to single W spots and multiple long W clusters often prolonging up to the end of the (playable) shoe.
Now we should choose either about the larger probability and less affected by variance probability to get more W doubles (WW) than WL spots or to play a kind of "sky's the limit" approach hoping that sooner or later we will catch the shoe forming a univocal series of winning spots.
Of course as long as we've ascertained that the number of shoes getting this "all winning succession" feature will outclass the WL or L counterpart considered at various levels.
In other words, do we prefer to get more stable wins or to go for the all wins "jackpot"?
Or maybe a mix of two, thus lowering a lot the standard bet and making progressive bets after a first win was secured?
We see that in either scenarios we are not risking much money per each shoe played as after losing the first step we're not interested to prolong our action. That's why a sudden losing spot or losing stop needs several hands to form another possible profitable opportunity. Surely denying the "all winning situation" already depicted.
How many hands should we play per shoe to get the most of the above features?
Of course the "shoe presenting all winning spots" must be restricted within a relatively short bets amount, we've found out that on average one hand per every ten hands dealt are a good approximated ratio to look for.
That is 78 bets per playable shoe, of course this being an expression of average outcomes' distribution.
Naturally more often than not we need just one betting spot to be ahead when searching at a simple WW spot.
Losing spots coming out along the way (especially at the very first situation considered) reduce such ratio up to the point that we can simply get rid of that shoe without losing a dime.
Think that if a given strategy can get 78 consecutive wins after 7075 resolved hands, such strategy can't start with a L.
After all gambling world is made by streaks whatever considered.
Btw, when talking about baccarat do not trust so called "math experts" by any means, they do not know a fkng nothing about this game other than B and P long term probability.
Kashiwagi was stopped to play after a bad losing sequence but being in the positive field nonetheless, why stopping a super HS player knowing he was math entitled to lose huge sums?
Whenever huge sums are allowed to be wagered and smart players are betting, no casino is so sure about the math edge they're taking advantage of. Even after dozens and dozens of shoes played.
as.

Hi AsymBacGuy
Good post above.
I like this statement: "...Imo winning by flat betting means that after long trials our strategy got more winning clusters than expected and not because the strategy tried to contain in some way the losing clusters' counterpart, even though the latter could be inferior in number..."
AS: "...How many hands should we play per shoe to get the most of the above features?
Of course the "shoe presenting all winning spots" must be restricted within a relatively short bets amount, we've found out that on average one hand per every ten hands dealt are a good approximated ratio to look for.
That is 78 bets per playable shoe, of course this being an expression of average outcomes' distribution.
Naturally more often than not we need just one betting spot to be ahead when searching at a simple WW spot.
Losing spots coming out along the way (especially at the very first situation considered) reduce such ratio up to the point that we can simply get rid of that shoe without losing a dime..."[/b]
re: The Bold Part. I think I understand, however, could you give a specific example for the sentence in BOLD,
Thank you
Continued Success,

Hello KFB!
Generally speaking and assuming a low number of bets per shoe getting a diluted pace, each shoe presents more W streaks and L streaks than W/L or L/W alternate patterns.
If we decide to make 7 bets per shoe (by flat betting), every shoe starting with a L will produce more final losing shoes than winning shoes. And the same is oppositely true about shoes starting with a W.
In addition, it's obvious to notice that shoes starting with a L cannot produce all winning shoes as that L must be incorporated among our 7hand betting streak. That is we're totally erasing the probability to get one of the two peaks (albeit the all winning shoe is a relative distant probability).
Finally, discarding from the play those shoes starting with a L will enlarge the future probability to encounter all wins shoes.
as.

Thx AsymBacGuy for explaining in reply to my Q
"..if we decide to make 7 bets per shoe (by flat betting), every shoe starting with a L will produce more final losing shoes than winning shoes. And the same is oppositely true about shoes starting with a W.
In addition, it's obvious to notice that shoes starting with a L cannot produce all winning shoes as that L must be incorporated among our 7hand betting streak..."
kfb

Taking advantage of bac features
1 Most bac shoes are not perfect randomly shuffled.
2 Bac probabilities are suddendly moving from a kind of many 50/50 propositions to rare single strong shifted 57.93/49.07 situations (asym hands favoring B).
3 Key card average distribution favors a sort of "hopping" game, that is there's a general slight propensity to get the opposite outcome already happened.
4 Every shoe is a finite world apart, especially when taking into consideration the #1 point.
Let's see each of those points.
1.
Many times shoes are shuffled after a previous card distribution was made, yet it's very difficult to provide a strong new random card distribution.
It's quite interesting to notice that poor shuffled shoes tend to provide strong opposite patterns than what the previous one had provided. And we get at least 4 simple roads to assess this probability.
This feature is particularly reliable when Shuffle Master Machines are used and at online sites where more often than not shoes are ridiculously bad shuffled.
2.
There's no point to be hugely right for very few hands happening along the shoe whenever the payment is strongly shifted to the opposite site, unless we have reasons to do that.
I mean that every next hand will get a general 8.6% probability to get a 0.95:1 payment at one side and a 91.4% probability to get a 1:1 fair return at the other one.
Itlr and knowing the different payment between the two sides, symmetrical situations do not favor Banker so much as what the same sym situations can at Player side.
3.
Whenever an asym strenght won't act along the way (no matter what the actual result is but still considering it in term of patterns' lenght), the propensity to get the opposite side will get its full power.
Toss into the trash the asym hands and compare bac results with roulette results and you'll get the picture.
4.
Players who like to consider shoes as single entities are more likely to be long term winners.
Wait, I'm not endorsing the mere trend following idea, yet what did happen can show up consecutively or not but what didn't come out could be silent for the entire shoe.
A thing I'll discuss next time.
as.

Hi AsymBacGuyExcellent post as usual.
Re your following paragraph:
"...1.
Many times shoes are shuffled after a previous card distribution was made, yet it's very difficult to provide a strong new random card distribution.
It's quite interesting to notice that poor shuffled shoes tend to provide strong opposite patterns than what the previous one had provided. And we get at least 4 simple roads to assess this probability.
This feature is particularly reliable when Shuffle Master Machines are used and at online sites where more often than not shoes are ridiculously bad shuffled. ..."
Q with an example:
Lets say u approach the bac table for the first shoe of the morning. The dealer is hurriedly doing the pre game rituals to open the table and you hear the dealer say to the pit boss "wait, hold on i accidentally did a blackjack shuffle" and the pit boss responds "oh just Fxxx It , just get the game started, youre already 10 mins late."
I don't know but Im assuming the shuffler has a button one can push for Bac shuffle, BJ shuffle, Mississippi Stud shuffle, XYZ game shuffle,....etc. Again, I do not know.
AsymBacGuy, What type of outcomes would you wager for in that type of shoe? vs a typicallyshuffled Bac shoe???
Thanks in advance for your opinion.

Hi AsymBacGuy
re: your following statement from a previous post in this thread:
"...Technically speaking and whether the cards are properly random shuffled, now the game is a finite (312 or 416 cards are employed) and made by independent binomial successions...."
? Do you approach a sixdeck shoe different than an eightdeck ? How?
Any opinions on sameside streaks or chops comparison from a shoe length perspective?
When comparing the two shoes do you prefer one over the other for your mostcommonly utilized wagering approach?
Thx

Hi AsymBacGuyExcellent post as usual.
Re your following paragraph:
"...1.
Many times shoes are shuffled after a previous card distribution was made, yet it's very difficult to provide a strong new random card distribution.
It's quite interesting to notice that poor shuffled shoes tend to provide strong opposite patterns than what the previous one had provided. And we get at least 4 simple roads to assess this probability.
This feature is particularly reliable when Shuffle Master Machines are used and at online sites where more often than not shoes are ridiculously bad shuffled. ..."
Q with an example:
Lets say u approach the bac table for the first shoe of the morning. The dealer is hurriedly doing the pre game rituals to open the table and you hear the dealer say to the pit boss "wait, hold on i accidentally did a blackjack shuffle" and the pit boss responds "oh just Fxxx It , just get the game started, youre already 10 mins late."
I don't know but Im assuming the shuffler has a button one can push for Bac shuffle, BJ shuffle, Mississippi Stud shuffle, XYZ game shuffle,....etc. Again, I do not know.
AsymBacGuy, What type of outcomes would you wager for in that type of shoe? vs a typicallyshuffled Bac shoe???
Thanks in advance for your opinion.
Hi KFB and thanks!
Casinos have no interest to shuffle bac cards in a certain way, most money won or lost comes out from new fresh shoes offered at HS rooms where no previous information was allowed.
And vast majority of HS players like to play for clusters of repetitive outcomes, a thing very different to every other gambling game where some situations could be players' polarized by math issues.
Thus it's casinos' interest to make the outcomes more randomly as possible, a thing that from one part will enlarge the positive casino's EV and from the other one will make more guessable some pattern situations as long as consecutive shoes are coming out under the same shuffling circumstances.
Probability to get either A or B results is way more restricted and polarized than what a fkng biased coin flip dictates.
For good peace of fkng math losers that cannot see when A will be more likely than B and vice versa. Fk them.
as.

Hi AsymBacGuy
re: your following statement from a previous post in this thread:
"...Technically speaking and whether the cards are properly random shuffled, now the game is a finite (312 or 416 cards are employed) and made by independent binomial successions...."
? Do you approach a sixdeck shoe different than an eightdeck ? How?
Any opinions on sameside streaks or chops comparison from a shoe length perspective?
When comparing the two shoes do you prefer one over the other for your mostcommonly utilized wagering approach?
Thx
The lesser the amount of cards are involved in the process, higher will be the probability to get univocal patterns to bet into as the room to get a kind of balanced situations are going against the odds.
It's a sure fact that casinos using 6decks are getting inferior profits than casinos offering 8deck shoes.
A possible reason is because casinos using 6deck shoes offer fewer side bets than 8deck casinos.
Anyway, yes, I'm sure 6deck shoes are getting more profitable situations than 8deck shoes.
as.

Thx AsymBacGuy for your reply. I agree.
Continued Success,

Hi a.s.
I appreciate u offering an opinion on my thoughts/inquiry. I know my example didn't provide alot of info.
That event actually happened. It was a crazy shoe/session not only from the pregame ritual but the dealer was new and made two misdraws during the shoe,...etc. It was years ago at a cas in Nevada approx 40 mins off the strip.
"Lets say u approach the bac table for the first shoe of the morning. The dealer is hurriedly doing the pre game rituals to open the table and you hear the dealer say to the pit boss "wait, hold on i accidentally did a blackjack shuffle" and the pit boss responds "oh just Fxxx It , just get the game started, youre already 10 mins late."
Thx again,

Hi KBF!!
I have the absolute certainty that most live casinos don't have a single reason to deal bac shoes favoring them in some way other than knowing their constant math edge (at bj this thing is possible but very unlikely).
I wouldn't be so sure about certain online casinos.
For that matter casinos do not know how to arrange cards to make players to lose, even if they consult the best statistical experts on the planet.
Since most baccarat players like to following trends and knowing that all mechanical systems rely upon the probability that strong deviations must be compensated sooner or later, casinos cannot know how to arrange cards to neglect this or that situation.
More specifically, any simple BP succession could be splitted into infinite derived successions each of them getting different features that cannot be symmetrically placed per every succesion considered.
The coin is biased at the start of any single shoe, unfortunately we can't properly guess per every shoe dealt which side of the coin will be biased.
The fact that B side is math favorite to win itlr doesn't help us too much as it's strongly influenced by the actual card distribution.
The probability to get shoes producing a well below than average amount of asym hands is around any corner, thus any regular B wagering will get tremendous negative situations. After all when we lose we lose 1 and when we win we win 0.95.
Not mentioning how things really work at many other roads.
as.

Now let's put the craps system ideas into baccarat.
That craps system relies upon the distant probability to get four distinct consecutive players in a row to make each 4 or more passes.
Our progressive betting sounds as
$10204080
$204080160
$3060120240
$4080160320
Total $1500, that is 150 units.
Whenever we win we restart the $10 betting, whenever we lose we'll go toward the next betting step.
At craps this system is so solid that you'll need a lot of sessions to lose your entire 150 units bankroll. Odds are that in the process you'll be in the positive field in the vast majority of the times.
Say we want to assign at any single baccarat column a kind of new shooter, thus whenever a new column starts it's like this column impersonates a new shooter.
For example a BBBPBBBPPPBBPBPPPB sequence will endorse the action of 8 distinct shooters getting each 2 passes (as the first hand of the shoe is a neutral indicator), zero passes, 2 passes, 2 passes, 1 pass, zero passes, zero passes and 2 passes.
In this "fortunate" example we didn't get forward the first step betting line, thus we'll get all winnings.
Of course any 5+ streak will make us a firststep loser, thus thereafter we need a proper cumulative amount of not 5+hands to get an overall win.
Now we'll get singles, doubles, triples and 4streaks to get a winning situation, the only situation we'll lose is whenever a 4+ situation will come out.
In a word, we'll lose our entire bankroll when a shoe will produce four or more 5+ consecutive streaks, a thing that it'll surely happen but by which degree of probability?
Now say we do want to put in action just the players getting two wins in a row. After all doubles are the more likely results at baccarat, aren't they?
Then our new betting patterns are doubles, triples, 4streaks and 5streaks. At the price of missing singles opportunities, now we know that the probability to lose our entire bankroll is not existent at all other than from a theorical point of view.
Show me how many times you had crossed shoes producing four or more consecutive 6+ streaks. Answer: zero.
But we can make a further adjustment, that is to classify how many times different classes of winning/losing patterns had acted consecutively along the way.
We can't prevent shoes to produce consecutive 5+streaks, but this happening is a perfect negation either of the general asymmetrical card distribution and of the whinsical asym strenght favoring B side.
That's now that so called math experts must put their knowledge in their a.sses, even though they can easily opine that no matter what, our bets are getting a money return lower than 1.
Yep, but for their misfortune, when properly assessed the statistical advantage will be higher than what a math edge can do.
Is this mathematical big.hornsh.it?
Probably, but we're eager to get people facing our bets.
as.

That's now that so called math experts must put their knowledge in their a.sses, even though they can easily opine that no matter what, our bets are getting a money return lower than 1.
I DO NOT KNOW WHICH BOOK OF MATH SAYS SO. UNLESS WE ARE DESTINED TO LOSE EVERY HAND A PARTICULAR SUM OR WE KEEP BETTING FLAT 1 UNIT ALWAYS, HOUSE EDGE CAN NOT BEAT US DECISIVELY. When I simulated over 10 millions spins of roulette with Ophis with a progression based betting and beat that too, I understood the hollowness of such pseudo math claims.
Take the case of martingale and any played session in the world. It will beat each. Did martingale change math? No. Same goes with labby and fibbo. There is no answer of this with any so called math genius. Math can beat the randomness and house advantage both but table limit or bankroll will stop it this way (but math is math). I went ahead and did it mathematically (with a dash of logic) within playable bankroll and table spread. I will surely win, in the long run, even if I get 6SD negative variance, meanwhile.

I see and respect your points.
But think that casinos need the appearance of sd values well below than 5 or 6 sigma to pocket most or all of players's bankrolls.
At baccarat a proper bet selection cannot reach sigma values higher than 1.5 or maybe 2, as there's no fkng way that asymmetrical probabilities or so called pseudo symmetrical probabilities can reach those values for long when applied into a finite and card dependent model.
Every bac player should adapt Smoluchowski and RVM works into baccarat and he/she'll get an idea of what we're talking about.
Everytime we're considering as baccarat as a finite and card dependent asymmetrical succession (good start), there will be times where A will be more likely than B by a degree surpassing the fkng negative math edge as the asym factors eliciting a more likely world are getting a higher power than what the pseudo sym strenght could do in other constant symmetrical propositions.
No way baccarat is beatable by thinking that results are made by independent sym situations or, even worse, that one side should be constantly more probable than the other one no matter what.
If one had discovered a way to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, well it means he'll be able to get the same counterpart positive results by always wagering P side by a worse 0.18% long term profit.
I mean that anyone claiming to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, should get the same positive results by always wagering the P side, now decurted by a 0.18% lesser edge.
Do not tell us that 1.06% vs 1.24% becomes a decisive factor about how to get long term wins, as the huge factor to be overcome is 1%.
LOL.
Moreover, there's no one single fkng probability to be long term winner when playing every single shoe dealt by a 1 trillion % accuracy.
as.

No way baccarat is beatable by thinking that results are made by independent sym situations or, even worse, that one side should be constantly more probable than the other one no matter what.
Banker is always more probable(very marginally though) due to drawing rules. Do you doubt that?
If one had discovered a way to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, well it means he'll be able to get the same counterpart positive results by always wagering P side by a worse 0.18% long term profit.
I m not sure if I could understand your statement in red in the last statement of yours. How will one wager P side by a worse 0.18% long term profit? It seems you could not properly word your feelings here. We can't bet a loser bet and still win. Whatever we need to do is in the winner bet itself. Wagering B side is not advantageous enough as the edge it has over Player is negated by the house fees. Say one gets 51 wins on Banker in 100 trials(Ties ignored), he will still lose 0.55 chips, while Player will be at 2. If house fees is removed from Banker with the same drawing rules, playing Banker would be a sure shot way to win in the long run.
I mean that anyone claiming to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, should get the same positive results by always wagering the P side, now decurted by a 0.18% lesser edge.
Do not tell us that 1.06% vs 1.24% becomes a decisive factor about how to get long term wins, as the huge factor to be overcome is 1%.
Here I absolutely agree with you. There could be way to dodge the house edge on both Banker as well as Player alongwith momentary variance against us but that is where most of the Players get silenced.
I personally prefer betting Player and not at all concerned with the so called 0.18% disadvantage as in progressive betting, betting Banker has its own set of drawbacks.

Hi Alba!
Banker is always more probable(very marginally though) due to drawing rules. Do you doubt that?
Yes, I dispute the "always" word.
Large samples show that Banker could be easily behind to Player after several shoes dealt.
Now think what the vig impact causes on our Banker winning bets when the B/P ratio is too close or even lower than 50/50.
If any single shoe wil get on average just one more B hand than P hand, we see that not many patterns will be so much affected by the asymmetrical probability.
The only way to get a real advantage by always wagering Banker comes whenever the asym hands number will be quite higher than expected per any shoe played.
And the "magic" winning probability value to look for in this instance is 51.3% or higher.
Unfortunately we can't prevent many consecutive card distributions to NOT provide a asym/sym ratio higher than expected, so hoping constantly for a math oriented situation won't be a viable option to beat this game.
On the other end, card distributions favoring asymmetrical probabilities NOT belonging to math advantaged situations (but shifted by key card distribution issues) recur at every shoe played.
Half of them will dictate to bet B, but the remaining half induce us to bet P.
About your next thoughts.
The bac probability isn't a constant asym proposition, 50.68/49.2 BP probabilities are coming out by long term assessments, that is by considering each outcome as a valuable result to be classified.
But for good peace of many, this probability is affected by either card dependent and math finite features both denying a perfect and independent source of randomness (of course happening only when we want to mix pears with apples, that is considering each outcome as a valuable one to be registered).
It's scientifically proven that any live card distribution will be more or less affected by a kind of defected randomness as such distributions won't fit the place selection and probability after events requirements confirming that a sample is a real random sample.
Thus any single shoe must be considered as a world apart.
Of course a possible defect of randomness is more probable to be detected whenever a given pattern will show back to back same situations and at baccarat we get many different situations to look for.
as.

Alba, I agree with your Player's betting attitude.
First, most of our bets aren't entitled to cross an unfavourable asym hand favoring B; in some way a selected betting plan must avoid 78 math disadvantaged hands per shoe, on average.
After all, when betting P side, the probability to cross an unfavourable math hand is 8.6%.
Second, people who haven't played at HS rooms do not get the idea about how much the vig affects their bankroll, most of the times unnecessarily.
Third, many shoes provide card distributions giving a fk about the asym B hand advantage, meaning P will win anyway at those asym B favored hands. And in the meanwhile the finite asym hand probability (favoring B) will be consumed.
Fourth, it's way more likely to get shoes with lower than average percentage of asym hands than higher than average asym hand percentages.
Fifth, more than 1/3 of the total results will show a natural, but B naturals are payed 0.95:1 and P naturals are payed 1:1.
Sixth, the vast majority of bets made toward a kind of asymmetricity applied to many random walks will get a way more winning probability when P side is wagered.
Seventh, let's casinos think that P bettors are losers, they surely won't like so much a worse 0.18% disadvantage than B bettors.
Eighth, when a given random walk is going to form a more likely long term asymmetrical situation, we want to be payed 100% and not 95%.
as.

Asym,
While I can argue on many aspects but am sure about one thing. To lose with Player or even Banker bet (banker bet is not destined to get a net win either), in the long term house presupposes three things:
1. Flat betting will be done, which is bound to lose as you can not find any logic to get more wins than losses in Player, in the long run or way to offset house fees if you choose Banker.
2. Crazy progressions will lose even more and faster
and I firmly believe that both are set in stone. Only difference one can make is doing either of these two:
1. Somehow manage more wins than losses in number to offset the house edge and house fees and win flat bet;or
2. Somehow win more money and lose less despite more losses than wins(in numbers) and that too without any order.
I spent thousands of hours in trying both and personally experienced that I should strive in latter. If you can do something to better both or even in one, it is heavenly. Everything else is empty futile attempt. We can define and code and simulate all sane ideas whereby we can play manually and there is no room for guessing whether what we are thinking should work or not.

Hi Alba!
1. Flat betting will be done, which is bound to lose as you can not find any logic to get more wins than losses in Player, in the long run or way to offset house fees if you choose Banker.
That's absolutely true whether a static probability will act per each single outcome (roulette, for example), thus every outcome registered in infinite sub successions will invariably get the same values dictated by math.
However baccarat outcome probabilities belong to a dynamic world obviously affected by the actual card distribution forming infinite sub successions that are not fitting the math values they should get even after thousands and thousands of shoes dealt.
It's altogether natural to know that single shoe dynamic probabilities will increasingly merge toward the expected math values that in the state of art of baccarat were considered just in B/P terms. (side bets aside). That is by unbeatable terms.
2. Crazy progressions will lose even more and faster
and I firmly believe that both are set in stone. Only difference one can make is doing either of these two:
1. Somehow manage more wins than losses in number to offset the house edge and house fees and win flat bet;or
2. Somehow win more money and lose less despite more losses than wins(in numbers) and that too without any order.
Again, you are 100% correct.
If I'm playing a 50.68%/49.32% probability (where 50.68% is EV) knowing that no one hand wil fit this probability value but just itlr, I'm not doing myself a favor.
To get my progression to win I need to transform that 50.68% into a profitable 51.3% (at least) and that 49.32 into a 50.1 (at least).
Thus no one progression will get the best of it until such values will be reached itlr.
The idea and claims stating that a progressive plan may be in the positive field for long can be easily disproved by a sd study (and common sense).
By the early XX century an eminent roulette scholar tried to set up a plan by waiting that a 3 or higher sigma deviation would happen at one EC side, then starting the betting to get a kind of RTM effect, that is wagering the opposite side to get sooner or later at least a +1 situation (slight balancing the previous deviation).
Unfortunately many pc tests confirmed that betting the very first hand or the hands following a 3 sq deviation or higher deviation provide the same unbeatable random probabilities (48.65% at single zero wheels).
1. Somehow manage more wins than losses in number to offset the house edge and house fees and win flat bet;or
2. Somehow win more money and lose less despite more losses than wins(in numbers) and that too without any order.
Point 1 is the only sure way to win itlr, and even here we'll have to endure some harsh times to control the variance.
Point 2: yep, this should be a heavenly task negating some issues I've written so far.
Think what can do two players who have found out that the game is beatable by flat betting and the other one by getting a long term profit even when the W/L ratio is shifted toward the right. ^^
as.

Think what can do two players who have found out that the game is beatable by flat betting and the other one by getting a long term profit even when the W/L ratio is shifted toward the right.
Nope. Both can not work together as they are based upon altogether different premises. I consider baccarat to be absolutely random and absolutely unrelated with card points, hands number, dealer, dealt/burnt cards so far etc. If these considerations can work to help even slightly in predicting outcomes, we do not need an MM strategy, at all. If all these combined gives us even 1% edge against the house, we just need to keep betting the biggest unit fearlessly. With an edge, we will win from casino as easily as casino wins from us. Simple.
I must congratulate you for having an edge against the house in a "so called random" game. Momentary drawdowns should not deter you.

I think that in the complicated gambling world people raised their expertise in different fields, about managing worst drawdowns you seem to be very prepared.
And btw, anyone stating that random successions can be controlled in player's favor no matter what, should get more emphasis than those saying that a game is not so random thus potentially producing a player's edge.
So congratulations are for you.
It's a fact that baccarat scholars like to stay on their findings, without trying to get inputs from other players to possibly improve their strategy. And this is a pity, imo.
I still consider baccarat as a finite unrandom and multiple factor asymmetrical game; but those features on average will be very slight placed, and not happening valuably at every shoe dealt.
If a MM might get the best of it by wagering every shoe dealt, well chapeau!, yet I prefer to win by a strict flat betting procedure. That's all.
as.

Frequentist theory of probability
Frequentist probability or frequentism is an interpretation of probability; it defines an event's probability as the limit of its relative frequency in many trials. ...
Words already heard in my posts...
So, ties ignored, is B showing 50.68% of the times and P the remaining 49.32% itlr?
Who gives a sh.it?
Instead let's work on the definition of "event" and thus about its relative frequency.
After all an "event" could be interpreted as a single B or as a single P or as a 5 B or P streak or as a 10 chopping BP line or as any other red/blue succession showing up at derived roads.
I mean that whenever an event is considered by a multiple hand situation, the probability to get the same or opposite event will be slight affected according to the patterns (and quality features) already happened on that line.
In addition, multiple hand events considered shoe per shoe are not producing the same positional features as long as a restricted amount of hands constitute an "event".
Even though a "more likely" world sometimes can't be valuably assessed within a single shoe card distribution, consecutive shoes will enlarge this probability as it's impossible to think that a given card distribution will produce the same random walks for long. Especially whether our betting points (events distribution) are dynamically insensitive to a precise hands' number and position.
Every shoe as a number
Depending upon what events we'd like to register (the few the better, of course) every shoe dealt in the universe will get an "event number" transformed in digits.
Since we're classifying "events", the number 0 doesn't appear in our registrations, when a 10 or higher number will appear we'll sign it as a "X".
Even though the possible card combinations are almost infinite, an already slight propensity to get something at a single shoe must be endorsed by a back to back shoe assessment but not by considering outcomes as mere BP successions but as "events" having a dynamic probability to form.
We've already seen that a given BP succession is directly displayed within four additional forms (derived roads), of course the bead plate displaying ties should be discarded by any means.
Positionally speaking, if any event is already more likely than the counterpart, vertical 'hand insensitive' spots considered shoe per shoe will be even more likely or not, meaning that shoe single digit numbers will deviate from a supposedly perfect random world.
Acting this way we're discarding most of the strong unlikely deviated situations being the heaven for recreational players and the hell for serious long term winners. As they are constituting few spots along the shoe number formation.
Moreover an interesting study has found out that rare events tend to come out in clusters then declining in probability.
The authors of this study claimed that such findings wouldn't get an advantage over gambling games.
We disagree.
as.

Hi AsymBacGuy
Thx for the last couple of posts hereI like that you view bac through a dif lens than alot of players.
"..Positionally speaking, if any event is already more likely than the counterpart, vertical 'hand insensitive' spots considered shoe per shoe will be even more likely or not, meaning that shoe single digit numbers will deviate from a supposedly perfect random world..."
Q: Can u clarify or elaborate a little more on this sentence .
"..Moreover an interesting study has found out that rare events tend to come out in clusters then declining in probability.
The authors of this study claimed that such findings wouldn't get an advantage over gambling games...."
I agree with the first sentence re: clustering.
Im not sure(or don't have a strong opinion) on the second sentence. At first glance I guess it could, however, other factors to consider.
Q : Do you recall the link to these authors' study.
Thx in advance,kfb

Hi KFB and thanks!
The paper is "Probability in Decline" by Dean M. Brooks.
I've found that some general ideas contained here could be helpful at specific same deck shuffling situations.
Later about your first question.
as.

Normally baccarat players consider shoes' outcomes as consecutive successions. Imo it's not the only tool to find out a possible bias and/or to take advantage of game's flaws.
Events (especially 'complex' events needing many hands to form) are distributed asymmetrically along any shoe, yet their pace varies continuously as long as new shoes are dealt.
Thus enforcing or not a general probability to appear whenever a positional study is in order.
The easy objection one could make is that itlr each event will be distributed proportionally at every position of each shoe dealt, but this objection only stands whether every card distribution is perfect randomly produced. And this is not the case, especially when same decks are shuffled back to back.
Anyway, our watchdog remains the sd.
Probably transforming shoes into a mere 815 digit number (of events) and comparing those shoe per shoe numbers by a positional study should be the best tool to know which spots are more likely (or not) to show up.
The 815 number is just an indicative value posted for practical reasons, actually the more we are restricing our field of registrations higher will be our probability of success.
Let's make an example.
Say our first shoe is read as 21513123413 (a real shoe, btw).
Now we are facing the next shoe trying to get some hints before betting.
Since I have omitted the general probability why such numbers will form, we could think that an option might be to get the new shoe producing more different positional numbers than equal positional numbers (or vice versa if you knew the exact events general probability to happen).
Of course it's way more practical to bet that numbers will differ from simple values, for example numbers being equal or different than 1 or 2 at the same positions.
Anyway, the next same shoe shuffled by a CSM (the very next shoe was not considered as belonging to a diverse 8deck) produced a 422162113241 sequence.
1) 21513123413
2) 422162113241
There are infinite ways to consider such back to back outcomes, anyway we just consider 1s and 2s, that is the six numbers produced at the first shoe (positions #1, #2, #4, #6, #7 and #10) compared to the next shoe same positions.
pos 1: different number
pos 2: different "
pos 4: equal "
pos 6: different "
pos 7: different "
pos 10: different "
Naturally any 1 will need just one step to be different than another 1, whereas 2s need a twostep betting to get a different value than 2 (first step betting toward a 1, next step betting toward a 2+).
Another interesting effect to be aware of after having tested several live shoes shuffled in the same circumstances is that single shoe positions could endure homogeneous results for long, a kind of weird clustering effect of rare events. When such thing seems to happen, best way to take is to simply get rid of that position.
It's important to add that we aren't forced to bet each position by any means, a thing particularly valuable at HS rooms where each deck is a new one.
Finally, the 815 events per shoe range was just an example, we could select more deeply our bet selection at the price of waiting and waiting and waiting but in the meanwhile raising our probability of success.
as.

Finally back home.
Baccarat vulnerability
People making a living at this game know very well that baccarat could be beaten only at very few spots arising along most part of shoes but not along every shoe.
It's the same concept why bj is beatable, albeit taken from different perspectives. Math issues at bj, card distribution issues at baccarat.
A baccarat deck cannot refrain to produce more likely outcomes along the way, it's up to us to select what and when certain more likely outcomes should come out or not (and how long).
It's of paramount importance to understand that the vast majority of BP successions could be interpreted as different random walks getting diverse features of certain lenght.
Again the key word is symmetry, widely intended.
At baccarat cards cannot be distributed proportionally along every shoe, even though it could happen that unlikely whimsical results tend to produce "fake" symmetrical spots. Notice that the counter probability to get a hoped result by opposite issues will be specular itlr. So itlr weird unusual card distributions may be considered as neutral.
Along any shoe, the symmetry fights against the asymmetricity by various degrees and by various lenghts; to consider multiple sub successions will help us to better define their 'average' impact.
Since games must be accounted and measured by 'numbers', we should set up 'personal' limiting values of relative frequencies of both symmetry and asimmetricity acting at every shoe dealt.
For example (and assuming B=P for simplicity), a BBBBBBB sequence followed by a PPPPPP sequence is a sure asymmetrical situation, but we need 6 betting steps to find it out.
And a BBPPBBB sequence needs 4 betting steps to cross the same asym finding (this sequence forms two symmetrical spots and one asymmetrical spot).
Itlr numbers considered at various levels can't be wrong whenever the source (card distribution) is asymmetrical by definition.
See you next week
as.

Hi AsymBacGuy
"... People making a living at this game know very well that baccarat could be beaten only at very few spots arising along most part of shoes but not along every shoe.
It's the same concept why bj is beatable, albeit taken from different perspectives. Math issues at bj, card distribution issues at baccarat. ..."
:nod: Like Button

Hi KFB!
Let's suppose to face this shoe:
PP
B
PP
B
PPP
BBBBB
P
B
PPP
B
PP
B
P
BB
PP
BBB
PPP
BB
PPP
BB
P
B
PPPP
BBB
PP
BB
PP
B
PPPPPP
B
P
Total B=27
Total P=38
By just considering the mere B/P hands gap we could think as this shoe as being quite asymmetrical, actually it's one of the best example of strong symmetrical hands distribution.
It suffice to utilize a simple "hand converter" to see that most situations are distributed quite balanced along the way. Of course knowing what to look for.
So now our shoe becomes as
A
BBB
AAA
B
AA
B
A
BB
AAA
B
AAA
BBBB
AA
BB
A
BB
A
BB
AA
B
AA
BBBB
A
B
AA
B
AA
B
AA
BB
AA
BBB
A
B
A
B
AAA
Total A=33
Total B=32
In our new sequence, strictly math derived from the original BP succession, some properties have changed and here it's easier to see what to look for before betting.
From this example we could think that the 'symmetry' or 'asymmetricity' concept would be totally relative, depending about what we really want to classify and register.
Of course the average 8.6% probability to get math favorite B hands to win stands, but this probability is hugely influenced by the actual card distribution.
Notice that the probability that an entire shoe will get ALL Banker winning hands at every asymmetrical B math favorite spot is very very slim.
In some sense we should know that when betting P side rarely (and with some reason), the expected disadvantage could be easily more restricted than what the math general values dictate. After all, just one hand out of 11.62 hands dealt (or wagered) will be B favorite.
Being wrong at sym spots after wagering Player side is a far inferior mistake than winning the same sym spots at Banker side.
And of course we need to win very very few spots per shoe along the way.
Actually casinos like to face multiple bets by people preferring Banker side no matter what as they know that such B aficionados could more easily fall into the card distribution variance.
From the most part, a Player bet fears just two exact card situations:
 Player draws and Banker shows a 4 point (unless Player side gets a 5);
 Player draws and Banker shows a 5 point (the most B math advantaged spot).
At a way lesser degree of probability comes the Player drawing when Banker shows a 3 and third card is an 8.
There are no other card situations strongly favoring Banker side to be payed 0.95:1, thus we can easily assume that baccarat is a kind of coin flip game hugely depending upon the actual card distribution.
as.

One more shoe.
P
B
PPP
B
P
B
P
BB
PP
BBBBBBB
P
B
PP
BBBBB
P
B
PPPP
BBBBBBBB
P
B
PP
B
PPPP
BB
PP
B
PPP
Total B= 32
Total P= 28
New sequence built on the same features seen above will be:
AAA
B
AAAAAA
BB
AA
B
A
B
A
B
AAAA
BB
A
B
A
BBBB
A
B
AA
BBBB
A
B
AA
B
A
B
A
B
A
BBBB
AAA
B
A
BB
AA
BBBBB
Total A= 34
Total B= 34
Here a slight BP asimmetricity shifted toward B side produced a perfect balanced final A/B ratio. Getting more valuable spots to bet at.
Think that to beat infinite so called 'random' finite and slight dependent successions, we need to transform them into unrandom sequences getting limiting values of relative frequency not fitting the general probability numbers.
Btw, it's funny to see that some math experts like to label baccarat scholars as complete i.d.i.ots.
Really?
Collect your fkng money and face our bets, after all you'll have the math edge on your side.
As long as we can bet whenever we want or not along any shoe dealt, you can put your math edge right on your behind.
In a way or another, some baccarat players know better than you, you must accept this.
Are you going to rewrite statistical laws acting at a finite and card dependent live shufflle deck?
I guess you can't.
as.

Good posts AsymBacGuy. Thx for taking the time to elaborate with examples.
I agree with most everything u mention above re: bet selection and only betting in select spots.
I view most all shoes as offering us potential wagering spots. I also think shoes provide many +wagering spots. I think of these potential +spots in terms of:
Good, Better, and Best.
Its difficult at times for us to pass on the Good/Better spots and wait for the Best. However, the latter is certainly more lucrative/yields a better ROI.
Continued Success,

Good, Better, and Best.
Its difficult at times for us to pass on the Good/Better spots and wait for the Best. However, the latter is certainly more lucrative/yields a better ROI.
Perfect!
And we can bet everything we have on our name that long term winners wager only at the Best spots.
It's true that in some shoes Good and Better could last for long thus enticing us to bet a lot of hands, yet only the Best part yields the advantage we're looking for.
Regardless of how whimsical the card distribution seems to be, it will produce a succession whose properties remain the same.
It's just a matter of 'finite space' that the properties we're looking for will present or not in the actual shoe.
Curiously, but no so much, bad shuffled shoes are going to consume less room than good shuffled shoes as in the latter category the symmetry tend to reach 'perfect' thus unbeatable values.
It's a fact that the vast majority of each bac hand will yield a probability quite different than 50/50 or 50.68/49.32 as it strongly depends about the actual card distribution.
In a sense, when a player places his bet he should expect to be quite wrong or quite right, and not equally wrong or equally right.
The above math and commonly accepted values come off from fake 'collectives', that is large samples made on pc simulations not fitting decent conditions happening when we bet real money at real live tables.
And of course considering each step as perfect independently placed from the previous one/s, assuming that the probability to get this or that comes from the same perfect random source.
More technically speaking, that every single card distribution could come out at specific points to break a given strategic plan.
This is a total fkng rattlesnakesh.it.
First, we need a perfect random source to get so called "unbeatable" expected values and of course the vast majority of live shoes do not belong to this category.
Second, baccarat is not black jack where some card clumpings favor or not the player or the house, at the same time knowing the bj player must bet something at every hand dealt.
Third, a baccarat deck is almost entirely dealt, thus endorsing at various degrees the probability to get (or not) an expected situation.
Fourth, at baccarat we have many tools to estimate how much a given card distribution tends to surpass the 'average' card distribution, a parameter that can't disrespect for long certain values, unless very rare situations consume a lot of space.
The 'space' concept was so seriously taken by certain high end casinos that even though the only side bet offered at their tables are ties, 8deck shoes are played up to 5056 hands. Then they shuffle again.
Probably those casinos' customers (btw wagering maximum or close to max limits) seemed to be smarter than average, it's quite probable that sooner or later all premises offering baccarat tables will adhere to the same procedure.
Is baccarat a kind of bj game where some features will get the players an edge?
Ooh it can't. Math geniuses state otherwise.
Fortunately for us.
as.

Think that our claims consider all possible outcomes' successions and strictly measured, classified upon the same shuffling procedures made at the same deck.
Whenever a new deck is offered (HS rooms) we have accounted a general probability compared to the actual probability, so unless cards are precisely dealt by a software (and even if we suspect this fact, the post manual shuffling happening at every HS shoe dealt must neglect such possibility), the probability to get equal or opposite results at back to back shoes remains quite asymmetrically placed.
Btw, casinos have no interest to shuffle cards in a certain way to promote players to lose.
That's a total nonsense, it suffices to study the 4 derived roads directly displayed on the screen.
There's no one BP succession in the world to get all losing sequences on all four derived roads and even though they know our precise preferred personal random walk we like to use, they can't arrange cards to get multiple losing sequences at back to back shoes.
Casinos get their huge profits at bac tables about players' ignorance or fake statements and not only about the math edge.
Most players like to bet upon asymmetrical situations lasting for long, a kind of trending based action, unfortunately asymmetrical situations will proportionally mix with symmmetrical situations and unless those spots are math studied and properly classified and measured, the EV will be negative.
By a 1 trillion % degree.
The same about the Banker math propensity.
Banker bets are better than Player bets by getting a lesser than 0.18% ROI disadvantage.
Anyone who is used to play at HS rooms knows very well the commission weight, I mean that commissions add up at the end of the shoe, very often producing a total loss.
After all, our bets must erase or invert a more than 1% math edge, thus no help comes from lowering it by a st.upid 0.18% long term value.
It's more likely to get a better than 50% win rate at P bets than getting a 51.3% cutoff value to get B bets to be worthwhile as the asym strenght favoring B bets come out one time out of 11.62 hands on average.
But it's whenever we consider the BP sequence as A or B result successions that we can get a better idea that no one side is particularly shifted toward one side as the actual card distribution will make a huge role on that.
As long as A or B are different than B or P, well we're playing a winning game.
as.

Hi AsymBacGuy
re: "... The 'space' concept was so seriously taken by certain high end casinos that even though the only side bet offered at their tables are ties, 8deck shoes are played up to 5056 hands. Then they shuffle again. ..."
[/b]
Q: Do you know of houses that do this on a regular(daily) basis ?
Thx in advance,

Q: Do you know of houses that do this on a regular(daily) basis ?
Thx in advance,
[/quote]
Best example is the Salon Privés at Monte Carlo casino in the Principality of Monaco.
Needless to say, it's the most prestigious historical gambling premise in the planet to bet the money at.
In the summer season Salon Privés games (single zero roulette, bj and baccarat) are offered at a outdoor terrace directly overlooking the Mediterranean Sea.
Few players can get the admission to play at this room even though baccarat tables limits are as low as €100€30.000.
Notice that in Monte Carlo and in most european casinos, no free hands are dealt.
In Vegas, few casinos are worried about dealing the vast majority of the shoe and very often players instruct the dealer to stop the actual shoe in order to get a new one.
Of course whenever acute players had considered a shoe as a unplayable one, this stopping procedure will go to their benefit. But in the remaining and more likely occurences, acute players' interest is to get the shoe dealt up to the end.
To clarify things more and for one time taking the Jacobson's book direction to consider the two opposite parts (players side and casinos side) I would suggest:
Players side
 bet only at shoes were most part of the shoe are supposed to be dealt. Preferably when the first card is an ace, deuce, three or four, thus cutting off from the initial part of the shoe just one, two, three or four cards.
 avoid shoes where the red card is too 'light' placed, meaning that too many cards are cut off from the play.
 play at tables where you're not compelled to place a bet for whatever reason, that is tables where more than one person likes to bet every hand.
 play at manually shuffled shoes or Shuffle Master Machine same shoes dealt in alternating pace.
 for practical reasons serious money can't go unnoticed at Bac Theaters, so true HS rollers must bet at live tables. At live tables nobody gives a fk whether you'll place an occasional yellow or multiple yellow chip denomination, but at Bac Theaters you need to introduce several $100 bills to get a proper bankroll capable to bet the same amount or to endure the invariable losing situations. Not mentioning that the maximum betting limit at BTs is, in the most fortunate case, set up at $5000.
Moreover chips are money in distinct denominations, tickets cannot be splitted.
Casinos side
 only a pc software always starting from a perfect 'neutral' point where everything is equally probable to show up could provide real random results.
In the remaining cases, your card distributions will be affected by a kind of bias.
SMs acting at the same deck won't fit the random parameters, let alone manually shufflled shoes starting from precise card sequences.
 more hands are dealt and lesser are the decks utilized to form a shoe and higher will be the probability to face players capable to get hints from the actual card distribution.
It's not a coincidence that at Monte Carlo casino (where players can regularly bet 30.000 euros, that is $35.000 at this time, almost the double max limit allowed at Vegas casinos) shifted a 6deck shoe offer to a 8shoe offer cutting off from the play at least two decks.
 besides the above considerations, the only sure way to neglect a possibile (sure) player's advantage is by dealing bac hands by a CSM, that is by totally denying a possible back to back influence over the outcomes.
We'll see more deeply this issue in a couple of days.
as.

Hi AsymBacGuy
Good post. Thx for answering my question and the additional intel is thought provoking.
"...We'll see more deeply this issue in a couple of days. ..."
We look forward to the next edition.
kfb

Hi KFB!
I think that at gambling games more imperfect informations a player will get higher will be the probability to lose.
At baccarat everything seems to be so "volatile" that players' efforts to look for predictable results are worthless. Imo, this is not the case.
Baccarat results move around two distinct fields of probability:
 the math probability to get B advantaged over the P side;
 the average card distribution probability eliciting patterns of some lenght. That's the main factor we should be interested to assess.
Itlr, the vast majority of patterns could be restricted into precise lenght situations up to the point that we can consider B=P.
After all, an 8deck shoe will present, on average, just one more B hand than P hand. Thus enlarging a possible B streak at one spot or shifting the P sequences at one spot.
Obviously CSMs deny a sequential probability of some kind and even though we can assess the BP distribution by multiple derived roads, the lack of dependence factor will invalidate the power of the average card distribution issue.
For that matter, many high end casinos know very well the baccarat vulnerability, they'll simply hope that players like to get huge winnings within too short intervals or liking to wager the insourmountable negative edge apllied to side bets.
[b]Simple back to back outcomes and complex back to back outcomes
It's the key to win itlr.
An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win.
The clustering effect will form situations of different lenght, anyway we are interested about back to back W or L spots.
We know there's a general probability to get singles and doubles, the probability to get losses in such sequences is specularly placed as we shouldn't consider as B and P as opposite results.
Anyway, all streaks surpassing the 3 cutoff point are going to our favor as they'll produce opposite situations from a A/B point of view.
as.

Thx AsymBacGuygood thread/ post.
Your sentence:
"... An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win. ..."
Can you clarify the phrase in bold? or give an example. thx
Continued Success,

Thx AsymBacGuygood thread/ post.
Your sentence:
"... An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win. ..."
Can you clarify the phrase in bold? or give an example. thx
Continued Success,
"For that matter, many high end casinos know very well the baccarat vulnerability, they'll simply hope that players like to get huge winnings within too short intervals or liking to wager the insourmountable negative edge apllied to side bets.
Simple back to back outcomes and complex back to back outcomes"
My Response:
I've tried to detail it out and show pictures of it and mark up scoring boards repetitively. What I entitled and discussed; SECTIONS WITHIN SECTIONS. Small sections can be extremely profitable however, it will play with our minds and we (generally) attempt/try to keep following and not cash out or go back to a neutral position, which we MUST do to be extremely profitable.
It all boils down to, our frameofmind.
ALRELAX

Thx Alrelaxgood points.
Continued Success,