An entire shoe producing all B-P chops (even discounting ties) is impossible to believe.
Even admitting 30 ties, the probability to get 50 BP chopped hands represents a more than 7 sr deviation, that is the same probability to get a 50 hands streak.

In the history of roulette and baccarat there are no records of such values. 
(roulette records known= 42 blacks and 41 chopping hands)

If this should be true, it's an additional proof that baccarat tends to get the opposite outcome of the last happened. As bac streaks of 50 never happened.

as. 

All the best!!!

as.

A randomly picked up shoe:

PPB, PBP, BBB, PBB, PBP, PPB, BPP, BBB, BPB, BPP, BPP, PBB, PPP, PPB, PPP, BPP, BPB, PPB, PPP, PPB, BBP, PPB, PPP, BPB, PB.

PPB - - -
PBP - + +
BBB + + -
PBB - + -
PBP - + +
PPB - - -
BPP + - +
BBB + + -
BPB + - -
BPP + - +
BPP + - +
PBB - + -
PPP - - +
PPB - - -
PPP - - +
BPP + - +
BPB + - -
PPB - - -
PPP - - +
PPB - - -
BBP + + +
PPB - - -
PPP - - +
BPB + - -
PB - +

- - - - + + + + - - + -  - + + - - - + - + + - + - + - - - + - - - - - + - - - - - + - - - + + + - - - - - + + - - - +

as.

 

It's my opinion too, Al.

We can't control a random flow but we might guess if the actual flow tends to produce more +1 steps or more -1 steps.
After that we should trying to study the distribution of such steps: they can come in clusters or isolated.
Unfortunately most players want to get clusters as soon as possible because this strategy seems to be the easiest way to win (and it is, but only apparently).

The more we are dissecting the game into distinct classes, the better should be our vision about what is really happening.
This, imo, first means to bet very few hands.

The problem is that most players want to guess the unguessable too many times, namely that after a Banker the next hand should be another Banker or a cutting Player and so on.

We can't do that, we can only hope for this.

Back to the simple BBP pattern.

It's easy to notice that this 3-hand pattern is too hugely shifted toward Banker, yet itlr it'll be more probable than other counterparts as PPB or PBP and some others.

A more balanced fictional betting scheme would dictate to wager a pattern like BPBBP or PBPBB or many seven-hand Banker one-hand dominating patterns. And so on.
But the more we are mechanically playing a scheme trying to adapt to the expected and worse will be the probabilities to catch the actual flow of the game.

That's the difference between a mere coin flip succession and baccarat.

There we have no hints about the actual line presenting, especially knowing that every flip is perfectly independent from the previous one; here we know that the game is asymmetrical and finite and with the old propensity anyone reading my pages knows.

More importantly is that we can't take hints from any single shoe dealt, meaining that many times we do not want to wager a dime.

as.

For a moment let's forget the BBP pattern indicator.

Say we want to be a mechanical machine that wagers B one time after any B isolated appearance.
I mean betting B just one time after PB pattern.

We'll lose one unit anytime a single B will come out and we'll win one unit anytime a B streak of any lenght will form.

Adopting an endless progression we know we'll be ahead of the game as it's mathematically certain that itlr PBB>PBP.

This is one of the simpliest tricks to take advantage of the B>P feature as it reduces the variance.
Long P streaks don't affect much our strategy even though long single B streaks won't get us huge winnings too.
But we should remember that any single bet is EV- .

Trying to discard a lot of possible winnings or losing hands will reduce variance, mostly on the negative side as any hand is EV-.

If you test such simple strategy (betting B after PB pattern) on a good bac simulator you'll notice that you'll get an ever growing bankroll if you have instructed the software to apply a martingale.
Differently to a simple B looking for strategy, the variance will be quite lowered. I mean spots where you'll lose 15-16 or more hands in a row looking for any B hand are less common if you adopt the PBB strategy.

However that's not a valid tool to reduce variance effiicently.
Some shoes will feature 14-15 or more consecutive B singles prompting unbearable betting amounts.

Nonetheless the best spot to look for "most likely events" is one.
After the #1 cutoff, everything could happen.
So when #1 hasn't reverted to zero, we better quit the betting.
Zero is the value of a consecutive most likely pattern, 1 is the second more probable outcome (losing gap =1).

Check how many shoes you want, you'll see that cutoff #1 is the main feature any shoe will provide (or not) the most likely expected sequences.
It won't be zero, as the game is always a sort of coin flip succession.

I mean that any single shoe may present expected situations more often than not right from the starting-intermediate parts of it.

This shouldn't elicit a "not more likely events" strategy (for example betting P after many P hands had come out) as we know the point #1 was surpassed but we don't know if the actual deviated value would reach higher unexpected values or coming back to the expected.

In order to get a clear picture of what is going to happen, we need to set up a fictional rigid plan capable to register how many #1 points have been reached.

Zero points mean a transitory deviation and cutoff points >1 mean a deviation either.
But on one side they are expected and on the other one they aren't due up to a point.

If you think, most bac players will try to catch zero value points but imo the real target should be #1 point. That is a WLW situation.

Those patterns could come out in clusters, isolated or never at all.

If something appeared in clusters at the start-intermediate portions of the shoe, odds dictate that a balancing effect on the subsequent parts of the shoe will be less likely to happen.
But we shouldn't forget that what we are going to register are events belonging to category #1.

Zero and >#1 events that already happened in a given shoe shoudn't entice an action directed to get the third #1 counterpart as what never happened is less likely to happen within short intervals (the given shoe).

Therefore we are betting two thirds of the possible outcomes, trying to get the less represented event more silent than we can.

as.



 
















 








 














 

 

Quote from: alrelax on October 12, 2017, 08:13:53 PM
Here is one from the other night:

PP-BBBBTBBB-P-B-PBBBTB-P-BBBBBT-P-BB-P-B-PPP-B-P-BBBB-PP-BB-PTP-B-PPP-BBT-PPTPPPTPPPTT-BTB-P-BB-PT-BBTBTB-PP-B-P

Discounting ties and adopting a BBP mechanical pattern, we'll get:

PPB ---
BBB ++-
BBB ++-
PBP -++
BBB ++-
BPB +--
BBB ++-
BPB +--
BPB +--
PPP --+
BPB +--
BBB ++-
PBB -+-
BPP +-+
BPP +-+
BBP +++
PPP --+
PPP --+
PBB -+-
PBB -+-
PBB -+-
BPP +-+
BPP +-+

- - - + + - + + - - + + + + - + - - + + - + - - + - -  - - + + - - + + - - + - + - + + - + + + + - - + - - + - + - - + - - + - + - + + - +.


Notice that a flat betting strategy oriented to get streaks on any side will get a +6 profit, yet this apparently "full streaks oriented shoe" provides a  number of + and - streaks vs the number of + and - singles shifted toward singles (21 vs 20).

Such ratio itlr cannot be other than oriented to an equal or singles shifted way no matter how outcomes will come along the way as things must include an equalizing factor.

as.










 

Quote from: wannawin on October 10, 2017, 06:45:32 AM

the possible advantage is to use a progression that covers the variance. please see  bold quote: "The variance is reduced compared to betting only on red". it would be the winning hit of the century.

You told me that any 6 numbers group analsys is the same no matter how the numbers are taken, so it's difficult to accept the idea that "warm, hot, cold, ap" attributes could help us for a possible variance reduction.

I fear it can't be the winning hit of the century, this topic was deeply studied several years ago by one of the best roulette researchers, Charles Van Bockstaele.

as. 






   

Quote from: alrelax on October 09, 2017, 10:49:29 PM
Nothing is the rule as to what is or what is not going to happen.

IMO, the best players can adapt to whatever the shoe is producing and presenting.

Good.
Nonetheless 99.99% of bac players will play in this way and still they'll go broke because they don't add in their strategy a mechanical approach or willing to adopt a wise experienced strategy (what you do, Al).

1) Strict mechanical approach = broke

2) Instinct, feelings, following patterns strategy = broke

1) + 2) ?

Two losing strategies contemporarily applied to the same game could mathematically lead to a winning approach (Parrondo, for example)

as. 

 

Well placed thought but...
Why choosing to bet sixlines?

Sixlines are numbers practically grouped on the layout without any relationship on what a strict physical process produces.

If we think that a half wheel betting selection will come out in handy more often than not (in terms of possible variance reduction) we better choose straight up numbers.

A new EC could include the 6 hottest, 6 coldest and 6 close to average probability numbers (or 19 numbers taken as a perfect 50/50 EC on double zero wheels) but we know that such state will change continuosly.
To get a sort of variance reduction we need that the probability that warm numbers will suddendly become hot is quite low or restricted within acceptable terms.

as.










 



 

     

 

Roversi.

Of course we can set up a "only banker" strategy. The problem is the extreme variance related to any "one side betting".

Since the game is an almost coin flip succession imo we should define better the actual picture by adding the slight less likely counterpart (Player).

We could even wager PBB (it's the same) but not BPB as this 3-hand fragment doesn't include a B streak (yes, successions of BPB-BPB-BPB constitute a B streak but not now)

The purpose to adopt the BBP betting plan is not to catch endless winning sequences but to allow the random flow to enter into a mechanical no brainer plan.

I couldn't care less if the actual shoe is producing a lot of consecutive PPB sequences (just to respond to another member). I simply don't chase consecutive negative patterns.
Surely itlr for every PPB pattern there will be a higher amount of BBP counterparts.

We can even write a perfect losing shoe as PPB, PPB, BPB, PPB, PPB, BBB, PPB, PPB, PPB, PPB....

That is: - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - + + - - - - - - - - - - - - -

30 hands, 3 W and 27 L. It's a 4.89 sr deviation.

If we cut off the very first hand, now the shoe will show as:

PBP, PBB, PBP, PBP, PBB, BBP, PBP, PBP, PBP, PB....

That is: - + + - + - - + + - + + - + - + + + - + + - + + - + + - +

29 hands, 18 W and 11 L.

Look at the number of doubles: they are equal on both scenarios (actually first sequence contains 9 vs 8 because of a supplemental hand).

We see that the removal of just one hand has affected a lot of the actual outcomes.

Let's see if the shoe is particularly "strong" on one side.

If Banker strong, no problem no matter how is the point we start to register our 3-hand patterns.
As we'll get a lot of consecutive winning hands anyway.

Now a Player strong shoe portion as:

PPP, PBB, PPP, PPP, PPB, PPP, BPP, PPB, PPP, PPB, PPP, PBP (Venetian, 02/22/2016)

- - + - + - - - + - - + - - - - - + + - + - - - - - + - - - - - + - + +

One would wonder how many bets could be won just betting P side.

However and since such kind of shoes are not the rule (otherwise everyone would be easily wealthy), I'd think the opposite way.
My chart suggests that after a + sign the most likely hand is a - sign. Notice that there are no consecutive ++ patterns.
Moreover a winning sequence must start with a winning hand and no matter how you dissect this shoe there are very few of them.

Again, we can't humanly interfere with a random process and we can't be good by simply following patterns either.
The truth may be right in the middle.

You have seen that just a single hand had completely changed the outcomes, yet the hands succession was identical.

The easiest way to win at this game without any expertise (if it exists) is by hoping to catch long streaks, strong dominances or HUMANLY detectable patterns. Those are only fallacies as the game is just a random machine with ups and downs.
Unfortunately statistics tell us that after 4-5 shoes almost every player is down. But not down by a mere 1.2% or so cut.

If our strategic plan would dictate to be ahead after 4-5 shoes played, nobody would wager a lot of bets. And such 4-5 shoes could be considered as one session or as 4-5 distinct dayly or monthly sessions.

Think about the probability to be ahead after 50, 100 or more sessions.

as. 

 










 



   











.





     

Quote from: alrelax on October 09, 2017, 01:02:29 AM
They do come, not frequent but they do,  more frequent happens with 8 to 11 times.  I was using it as an example. 

But the other night I saw something that does haporen quite often,  Half the shoe just as you describe,  then as everyone is continuing with their 100% belief in the 1s and 2s, etc, then the perfect 5 bankers followed by 5 players,  lots of cash lost wagering against that change and then a single cut to checkpoints side and 4 times 2 each of banks and players and then a single bank,  then 6 players followed by 6 bankers with 2 fortune 7s within.  Everyone gave back all their win money and continually bought in several times losing tens of thousands of dollars, 

I am not against what you say entirely. But I am more for wagering with shoe presentment, 

There is many factors that weigh and at times lean heavily what the shoe might do,  that us what I alert for and look for. Not necessarily wager every time for,

Ok.
If I correctly extrapolated from your post the sequence you experienced was: BBB BBP PPP PBB PPB BPP BPP PPP PBB BBB B

Then:

BBB ++-
BBP +++
PPP --+
PBB -+-
PPB ---
BPP +-+
BPP +-+
PPP --+
PBB -+-
BBB ++-
B +

++-
+++
--+
-+-
---
-+-
++-
+--
+-+
-++
-+

How many --- cumulative sequences have I got? One. -8 units.

First BBP betting step:
++----+++--

Second BBP betting spot:

++-+-++--++

Third BBP betting spot:

-++-----++

The distribution of such WL (+-) spots should give hints even though the sample is ridicously small...

as.






   

Quote from: alrelax on October 09, 2017, 12:16:08 AM
I agree to a point,  I do agree that a sequence can prevail, however I also believe and I know those same opportunities can and do produce losing wagers.  If a player does not play that way he will miss and forgo all the easy pickings certain shoes do present. Such as, 15 chop chops. Or a 15 banker streak immediately followed by a 15 unit player streak.  Etc., and so on,

Naturally.
But what are the odds that such things will happen?

A 15 B streak followed by a 15 P streak isn't going to happen, actually it never happened after millions of shoes I've tested.
A more likely 15 chop-chop sequence cannot produce a sequential winning hand by using a BBP pattern strategy but it will never get 3 losing hands in a row either.

A BBP pattern, no matter what it will happen, cannot be a loser for long time. In a way or another.

as. 



     

Good points Al. Thanks.

Back to a kind of mechanical/actual strategy capable to catch the random flow more often than not.

The B-B-P mechanical plan is, imo, an objective tool capable to get at least on winner on most occasions other than when the strategy is synchronically adapted to a P-P-B sequence.

Nevertheless, the situations where the perfect losing sequences will arise could be somewhat predicted whenever they never happened so far, shoe per shoe.
Or whenever they happened so frequently.

The BBP betting sequence cannot lose as long as every three hand sequence will show at least one B hand and/or one P hand.
Actually a PPB sequence would llead to three losses in a row everytime it shows up synchronically with our betting plan.
Odds are that such synchronicity will come out less often than what a 1/8 probability dictates.

Why?

First, baccarat performs a very slight propensity to get the opposite outcome of the last event occurred.

Second, itlr the most likely event is a B hand as it has a 50.68% probability to happen.

Third, if a given event is more likely to happen so the consecutive belonging dispositions will be more likely to happen, and the most likely disposition is a B after a B apparition.

Fourth, whenever a B more likely situation tends to be silent (mostly because of the symmetrical feautures or because of the retard of asymmetrical factor), the opposite outcome must show up in some way, at least considered by a 3-hand fragment.

But more importantly is the fact that every fkn single step used in the 3-hand sequence won't never ever reach the sd values belonging to a perfect 50/50 game. No way this is going to happen or at least I say that such probability is very very very low to happen.
If this shouldn't be true many HS players would be quit the tables ahead after 5,10 or more sessions played. 

Therefore, I'd suggest that any single 3-hand BBP step will produce some values that must be balanced in some way.

We shouldn't want to guess the next hands, we should want to estimate the probability the next hand will fall in our precise plan.

I add that Al comments made some sense to me even if they divert to my main (very diluted betting) strategy.

If we are joining the table with a $100, $500 or $20.000 bankroll, our aim should be oriented to  double or almost double our bankroll and not to get a few bets profit.
We do not want to risk a lot of money to win little.

In some way casinos must fear or dislike us, otherwise we are dead.

as.






















   











     

   



































   






 



   













 









 

















     

Al feel free to elaborate the above post thanks!

as.

Now let's consider the 8 possible outcomes of any 3-hand pattern regarding the mechanical B-B-P betting plan:
For "probability of success" I refer to any sequence capable to produce at least one win. 

1) B-B-B. Such sequence is one of the second best, meaning that the probability of success is 100% but it gets just an overall +1 profit (minus vig).

2) B-B-P. The best sequence to get, the probability of success is 100% and the profit is the best we can hope for (+3 minus vig)

3) B-P-B.  The probability of success (PoS) is 100% but it leads to a negative overall profit (-1 plus vig)

4) B-P-P.Again the PoS is 100% still it is one of the second best patterns to get (+1 minus vig)

5) P-P-P. PoS of 100%, overall profit -1 unit (no vig)

6) P-B-P. PoS of 100%, overall profit +1 (minus vig)

7) P-B-B. PoS of 100%, overall profit -1 (minus vig)

P-P-B PoS = zero, no profit.

For every 3-hand sequence the PoS is 87.5% proportionally splitted into three different steps of any single 3-hand sequence.

Actually the PoS is higher than 87.5% as patterns #1, #2, #3 and #7 will happen slightly more often than what a 50/50 game suggests.

As you can notice, the purpose to introduce a single P on any 3-hand sequence is oriented to reduce the negative variance.

Thus any PPP or PPPP or PPPPP... patterns will form at least one winning hand no matter what.

On the other side, the BB pattern is more likely than the BP pattern so any BB or BBB or BBBB or BBBBB... patterns will produce at least one or more consecutive winning hands.

The PoS is related about the probability to get at least one winning hand per every 3-hand pattern dealt.

Again the B-B-P mehcanical strategy in terms of PoS will lose only whenever a P-P-B pattern will show up precisely on the very first spot.

Odds dictate that most of the time such pattern will show up isolated or in clusters of two.

After that cutoff point we simply should quit the attack.

Of course the PoS implies the use of a 1-2-4 progression but we'll see that we don't need to utilize the full progression as a careful regsitration of what happened so far might help us to spot the situations where the most likely situation should come out more often than not.

Now I run 10 pc generated shoes and I randomly choose the #3 shoe from the list.

Here's the shoe (ties ignored):

PBPPBBPPPPBBBPPBBPPBPBBBBBBBBPBBPBPPBBPBBPPBPBPBBBPBPPBPPBBPPPBPPBPPPPPPPBP.

Splitting into 3-hand patterns we will get:

PBP  -++
PBB  -+-
PPP  --+
PBB  -+-
BPP  +-+
BBP  +++
PBP  -++
BBB ++-
BBB ++-
BBP +++
BBP +++
BPP +-+
BBP +++
BBP +++
PBP -++
BPB +--
BBP +++
BPP +-+
BPP +-+
BBP +++
PPB ---
PPB ---
PPP --+
PPP --+
PBP.-++

-++-+---+-+-+-++++-++++-++-+++++++-+++++++-+++--++++-++-++++--------+--+-++.

Luck favored this attack as BBP were well higher than PPB but notice the distribution of single + and clustered + as well as single - and clustered -.

Interesting to notice that P doubles were 8 and P 3+s were only 3.

A new shoe is:

PPBBPPPPBPBBBBBBPPBPPBBPPPBPPBBPPBBPPPBPBBBPPPPBBPPBBBPBPPBPBPPPPPBBBPPPPPP

Again we split the outcomes in tranches of 3:


PPB  ---
BPP  +-+
PPB  ---
PBB -+-
BBB ++-
BPP +-+
BPP +-+
BBP +++
PPB ---
PPB ---
BPP +-+
BBP +++
PPB ---
PBB -+-
BPP +-+
PPB ---
BPP +-+
BBB ++-
PBP -++
PBP -++
BPP +-+
PPP --+
BBB ++-
PPP --+
PPP --+

---+-+----+-++-+-++-++++------+-++++----+-+-+---+-+++--++-+++-+--+++---+--+

This shoe wasn't so lucky as PPB>BBP, anyway we got some hints about the distribution of WL signs.

More on this next week.

as.