Unbelievable!

as.

Good question.

At high stakes live rooms with few active players and knowing that you are entitled to get huge comps, you are supposed to bet a lot of hands. Bad situation unless you bet the minimum for most hands and plenty for (supposedly) key hands.

At normal rooms, at least in Vegas (RIo, Gold Coast, Palace Station, etc) nobody is going to kick you off because you rarely bet.

Notice that in Europe almost always you can bet whatever and whenever you want even as a standing player.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on April 09, 2018, 01:00:01 AM
Thanks for finally reading it!  I will answer in detail as i am getting ready to leave Minneapolis and now it is icy and snowing on the interstate.  But i have stuff to add.  Tomorrow.

When it is there, it will come out.  When it is not, it won't.  But the most powerful thing in bac is playing with the shoe instead of trying to change it.

Hi Al!
Snow? I told you several times to move to South Nevada or, better yet, to South Arizona. Nonetheless you keep living on the ugly side of US. Good universities there, but very bad weather tough.
Of course I'm joking, still I'm trying to get you on the right side of US. :-)

as. 

Thanks Al, that's an excellent summary.

Yet numbers can help an acute bac player a lot.

Say we have a mechanical player betting toward P singles and/or P doubles just in clusters of 2+.

He's not wagering after a 3+ P appearance, just after a P1-P2 two pattern appearance in any order and class.
Hence he is losing whenever any P1-P2 will show up in clusters of just two.
Like as P1-P1-P3 or P1-P2-P3 or P2-P2-P3 and so on.
Good.

Probability dictates that P1-P2 patterns (in any order of two) will overcome the P3 losing counterparts.
Of course the vig will be a problem, transrforming this strategic plan into a losing one itlr. 

Good again.

Since P1-P2 patterns of two are less likely than superior patterns, we know that we'll expect to get at least one P1-P2 pattern of three within a couple of shoes to say the least.

I mean that it's nearly impossible to not getting a P1-P2 pattern of at least three within a couple of shoes. Try to check this and let me know.
Somewhere any P3 streak must be interpoled by a P1-P2 pattern of at least three.

Thus anytime we are waiting the more we can this fantastic P1-P2 clustered of at least 3 pattern/rest ratio diverted to the opposite more likely direction, we are getting the best of it at least from a probability of success point of view.

Morevoer, per any 8-deck shoe on average there is a 4.3 number of 3+ P streaks. Those which are cutting at some point our winning probabilities.
But to be losers, they must come out just after a P1-P2 sequence of just two had shown and this occurence will present more likely isolated than in clusters. 

Think as a robot capable to increasingly betting toward 3+ P1-P2 patterns after zero or one same favourable situation occurred or after a single unfavourable situation happened, then stopping the betting if losing.
You can't cross a negative multiple situation.

as.






   




   

Quote from: Sputnik on March 03, 2018, 07:53:54 AM
Hi AS i use each side by it self so maybe i was not clear at that point.
And i also think variance or amount of attempts increase to catch to many different bias state with to many options.

For me is just amazing finding different states that can unfold and i will list them for others to see:
Note that 3 stands for series of three or higher.

First state: 1s & 2s = 12112112121111211121
Second state: 1s & 3s = 113111313133113111
Third state: 2s & 3s = 33232223222323223322
Fourth state: 1s & 2s & 3s = 321231123132213

I am proud over my self to distinct this common bias with baccarat shoes and making this observations, much better then NOR that i read about at BTC.

Cheers

Hi Sputnik!
How do you play the fourth state where all 3 patterns come out?

as.

Quote from: alrelax on March 01, 2018, 05:39:40 PM



We have both written about this stuff.

Exactly. :-)

as.

Quote from: wannawin on March 01, 2018, 05:55:40 PM
I also notice that people who play with more numbers than even chances have a confidence because they have the advantage of the probabilities in the next hand. Is this really justified??

Yes.

Itlr, even a perfect 50/50 non taxable proposition is unbeatable by definition.
Since the EV remains the same no  matter how many numbers we decide to wager, knowing that we always get a limited bankroll as opposed to house's money, we'll better choose to utilize p higher than 50% unless we have reasons to think that few numbers are more likely to occur.
No edge = better opportunities to be ahead having a p>50%.

as.




 

I understand what you meant, Al! 

I'm not advocating a general cut betting plan, actually a 1-3 plan means to bet toward 3s after a 2.
Maybe you never watched me playing, if I'm winning after getting those favourable 3s (not mentioning that I do not utilize this plan alone) and the 3s are 5s, 6s or longer streaks I'll ride them frantically.
Of course I need a 3 apperance to think that a streak could last, I need some previous clustered 3s outcomes and many other situational events that cannot be easily expressed.

You know very well what i'm talking about: following "drivers" who seem to not lose a single hand, shoes containing back to back ties with no end, observing the opportunites of one side  constantly showing 0,1 or 2 initial points, one side always getting a picture as third card and so on.

I'm sure you can add more on that 

as.






   

Hi Sputnik!

I guess you are considering the 4 states continuosly without regard of the two distinct sides.
In such instance even the third state that I totally discard from my options may get some long winning sequences.
The pros betting 2/3s are that a breaking single produces just one unit loss.
The cons of using this approach are that the variance impact is much higher than by using two distinct sides.

cheers

as.   

Hi Al!
I fear that I've badly expressed the concept about "3s": I name 3s as any streak of 3 and higher.

@sputnik. I know. Actually it's since my first apparition here that I've mentioned the same concept in my defunct "dispositions and distributions" topic. :-)

as. 

Examples. I've just run 10 shoes and let's see what happened (first 5 shoes).

Pretend we are really playing on those shoes, say in a couple of sessions.

shoe #1:

B side: 2,2,2,1,1,1,1,3,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,3,1,3,1,1,1,2,3.
P side: 1,2,1,1,3,1,1,1,3,2,2,1,3,1,2,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,3,1.

AS march applied:
B side + + + - + + - + + + + - + + + + + - -
P side + + - + + + + - - + - + + + + + + + - +

B side: + clustered, 4; + isolated 0; - isolated , 3; - clustered 1.
P side: +clustered, 3; + isolated, 1; - isolated, 3; - clustered, 1.

shoe #2

B side: 1,3,3,2,2,3,1,2,1,1,2,1,3,2,1.
P side: 1,1,3,1,1,1,3,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,1.

That is:

B side: + - - + + + - -
P side: + + + + + + - + + -

B side: + clustered 1; + isolated 1; - isolated 0; - clustered 1.
P side: + clustered 2; + isolated 0; - clustered 0; - isolated 1.

shoe #3

B side: 3,3,2,2,3,1,1,1,2,2,3,2,3,3,1,1,2,1,1,3.
P side: 2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,3,3,1,3,3,1,1,3,3,1.

B side: + + - + - + - + + -
P side: + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + +

B side: + clustered, 2; + isolated 2; - isolated 2; - clustered 0.
P side: +clustered 2; + isolated 0; - clustered 0; - isolated 1.

shoe #4

B side: 3,1,1,1,3,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,2,2.
P side: 1,1,3,3,2,1,2,3,1,3,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,2.

B side: + + + - + + + + + + + + + + +
P side: + - + - + + - + + + + +

B side: + clustered 2; + isolated 0; - isolated 1; - clustered 0
P side: + clustered 2; + isolated 2; - isolated 3; - clustered 0.

shoe #5

B side: 3,1,3,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1.
P side: 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,2,2,3,2,1,1,1.

B side: + - + + + + + + + + + +
P side: + + + + + - - + + + + + + - + +

B side: + clustered: 1; + isolated 1; - isolated 1; - clustered 0.
P side: + clustered 3; + isolated 0; - isolated 1; - clustered 1.

as.

Quote from: Bac2Bac on February 26, 2018, 04:47:13 PM
Hi AsymBacGuy,
     Would you explain how you got the + and - for banker and player.
      Please continue to elaborate on this most intriguing topic.
      I've been waiting so long to learn the valuable lessons that you have to offer.
      I truly appreciate your vast knowledge.

You are too kind, thanks a lot!

Per every shoe think and register what happens on red (B) and blue (P) sides in terms of 1,2 and 3s.
A vertical registration (for example at Gold Coast casino in Vegas some displays use it) would be a better tool than the common horizontal display registration.
Whenever the last outcomes are 1,2 or 2-1, 1-3 or 3-1 you'll start the fictional or real betting hoping that the third outcome (3 on 1-2 and 2-1 betting; 2 on 1-3 and 3-1 betting) will remain silent as long as possible.

If you decide to apply a 1-2 betting progression (for example $20 on the first bet and, if lost, $40 on the second bet) you'll sign a + sign. Otherwise (both bets are lost) you'll write a - sign.
Naturally a + sign means a +1 unit (minus the vig if appliable) and a - sign means -3 units.

Unfortunately this approach get rids of some uniformed single outcome situations that can't be the signal of any fictional or real betting.
For example a "good looking" shoe as a starting 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 sequence happening on P side won't elicit any betting.
Good news are that those sequences are not accounted only if they started at the very beginning of the shoe. In every other shoe position they are very very good.

At the same token, a sequence like 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2 isn't so good to start the 1-2 betting as a kind of "singles consumption" happened at the very start of the shoe and the same is even more true if the initial sequence was 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-1.
Actually sequences like those are more likely to produce instant losses than wins (that is a 3 appearance on both examples).

Contrary to popular belief, with some experience you'll get a better idea of how things work most likely itlr, but never in terms of numbers but in terms of distribution and probability fo success expectation.

And in reality the probability to get a shoe only formed by P singles and P doubles is quite lowered if the initial sequences were those as depicted above.

Another common misconception is to consider "good shoes" and "bad shoes".
Good shoes being something like (on any B P side): 1-2-1-1-2-1-2-2-1-1-1-2 (+ + + + + + + + + +) or 1-2-1-3-2-1-3-3-2-3-1-2-3 (+ - - - + - - -).

Applying the march without any additional hint, in  the former shoe will get a +10 units (minus the vig) and in the latter a -16 units loss).
Those shoes are just the effect of the same probability working per every single shoe but not surprisingly you'll get more #1 shoes on P side and #2 shoes on B side than opposite situations.

Since we don't want to join a baccarat table to guess every hand or most part of every hands, we must restrict our field of intervention at the cost to miss some favourable opportunities.
Notice that in the example #1 our task was quite easy: we followed the 1-2 more expected P flow.  In the latter example, a high mix of 1,2 and 3s came along the way so we weren't in the position to guess a fkn nothing (except if that sequence was on B side so wanting to generally bet toward B streaks).

Trying to get many easy As march winning shoes is just a silly move as we must expect a nearly proportional amount of losing shoes, thus we have to classify by this march standards a very large number of shoes and this is done in terms of simple  + and - sign successions.

So any single shoe must be transformed into a + - succession on both sides no matter how were the actual 1,2 and 3 results.

After doing this we should remember the mathematical implications of such endeavour.

For every 2-step progression involved, the probability to win is about 75% and 25% is the remaining probability to lose.
Thus itlr we'll expect to get a lot more W clusters than W isolated events and the same about having more L isolated situations than L clustered situations.
Going up we'll get more WWW situations than WW situations than WWW events and more LLW situations than LLL events. And so on but we do not need to go so deeply.
From a mathematical point of view and knowing that we are taking into account 8 different two event patterns (1-2, 2-1, 1-3 and 3-1 on two sides), the spots where some W clustered situations would be more likely to show up clustered along the way shouldn't be a concept so difficult to grasp.

as.

Yep, those marches are just more controlled approaches to "feel" the random flow of any shoe without having to guess the unguessable.

Think about this.
It's sure as hell that sooner or later one shoe will provide only P singles and P doubles, meaning we'll win every 1-step or 2-step bets. This is the best scenario we could get then going down to just one, two or three "interfering" third unwelcome outcomes.
On B side we'll be retired after watching the same whole 1-2 occurence.
At a lower degree even only singles and triples may form the B or P side and notice that here we are not paying any vig on nearly half of the total bets (B singles and P triples).

Actually and generally speaking, the 1-3 uniform shoe situation will be more likely than the 1-2 counterpart for obvious reasons: 3s need more space to distribute themselves, that is a minor number of total hands per shoe.

Additionally we see that our "perfect" target to aim for must start with two thirds of the possible three outcomes, in the sense that what started fine will have some probability to end fine whereas multiple heterogeneous results will lead but to uncertainty.

If we think the shoe as a possible way to get all winnings, we'll have a better idea when to start or not and to stop or not the wagering.
Of course a shoe is 75-80 hands long, so we must focus on the fragments of it where one outcome could be silent for long.

Sputnik pointed put this quite well.
Baccarat isn't roulette where each spin is independent from the previous one, at baccarat cards are removed from the deck and there's a finite number of hands per every shoe.

Therefore stuff could last for long in the same way that favourable "biases" could last for the entire shoe.
The main mistake of the vast majority of bac players is trying to get the best of it wagering the stuff that keep appearing on the same shoe or, even worse, to raise the bets on subsequent shoes hoping that things have a higher probability to come out on their way.

No way.

Good shoes and terrible shoes can come out consecutively and that's the main reason why 99% of bac players go broke in very short intervals of time.

More on this on my section.

as. 









   



   



   

This is my original bac approach I want to present here (it was related to my defunct "dispositions and distributions" post.
As I sayed in the baccarat section, I have robbed the word "march" from Sputnik.
With the proper adjustments and experience it can fail.   

Denominations and key attacks

Singles are 1, doubles are 2, triples or longer streaks are 3.

Since singles are forming the most part of all baccarat outcomes, our main bet will be toward singles (1).
Doubles (2) and triples (3) are acting just a "recovering" second step situation. Anyone could assign a specific betting role to those 2 and 3 situations.

We'll only bet (or consider a bet) whenever the last two out of three possible outcomes are 1-2, 2-1, 1-3 or 3-1 in any order and distribution, meaning that 2-3 and 3-2 situatiuons will either not start the betting or stop the betting.

Splitting the 1,2 and 3 outcomes into two separate columns.

Of course the two separate columns I'm referring to are the Banker and Player columns.
Thus we'll get two separate 1-2 and 1-3 different marches, each of one starting the actual or fictional betting whenever the last two outcomes present 1-2, 2-1 or 1-3 or 3-1 outcomes.

Mathematical expectancy

From a mere mathematical and statistical point of view, we know that the 1-2 and 2-1 betting plan itlr will get better results on Player side; conversely a 1-3 and 3-1 betting plan will get the best of it on Banker side.
Actually there's no a better betting plan made on Player side other than 1-2 or 2-1 and, truth to be told, the better Banker plan is toward getting anytime streaks (2-3 or 3-2).

Yet our main issue isn't just focused to always get the most likely events, but to get the events having the lower variance impact.
And since baccarat card distributions are always slight privileging the "chopping mood", I think it's wiser to include singles on our long term betting plan even on B side.

Example

Our shoe portion will be as BBPBPPPPBPBBBPBPBBPPPPPPBBPBPPBPBBB

That is, 2,1,1,3,1,2,2,1,1,3 on B side and 1,3,1,1,1,3,1,2,1 on P side.

Since we are actually or fictionally betting 1-2 or 1-3 situations on both side by a two step progression, we'll get:

Banker: + - + - + + +  -
and
Player: + + + + + - - +

Of course our winning probability is determined by the chance to get at least one of the two outcomes out of possible threes by an average 75% ratio and we know that we'll get higher 75% ratios on P side betting 1-2 events and 1-3 events on B side.

But we can't care less about those long term ratios as we want to restrict their variance by adding some "unlikely events" (singles on B side and triples on P side) that could help us to get the best of it even when those unlikely shoes coming up along the way.

Detecting the possible actual shoe flow

After testing millions of shoes, we can state that there are many shoes presenting all 1-3 B side situations and at a higher degree many 1-2 P side situations. And of course, an all 1-3 or 1-2 patterns shoe must show up at the very start of it.
I mean that what was not presenting at the start of the shoe it will be less probable on the subsequent fragments of it as randomness will most likely act by clusters, especially on finite samples.

Long term probability

For example, betting after 1-2 or 1-3 events got two or more consecutive losses on any side, will reduce the average probability to get subsequent losses as now the W/L ratio can't be lower than 75%, actually it will be a lot lower than that on average.

If our strategic plan dictates to bet whenever we'll get two losses in a row on any side tripling up our original bet after a two-step loss, we can't experience any failure.


as.

I beg your pardon if I'll use your word "march" in my new blog post. 

as.