Quote from: Blue_Angel on October 03, 2017, 09:41:48 PM
So how does this 0.29% (1.35-1.06) or (1.35-1.24) 0.11% difference is being translated in actual play?
Such difference is insignificant for the players, but for the casinos is important because the total wagers from all players are creating big money action, that's why receiving 1% from 1,000 is different story from receiving the same percentage from 100,000 gross.

Besides that's the casino's edge, not the player's, what good is the finite cards when the same cards do the same for both sides, you could also bet both sides, so what difference does it make to count cards?
You cannot use card counting as on Blackjack, I'd accept your claim if it wasn't for Baccarat.

Hi BA!
We extensively wrote about the bac player's advantage play right here, Dr Eliot Jacobsen book could help many people to think that baccarat can be beaten mathematically.

as.



   

Not surprisingly, the only way one player could temporarily win at any EV- game is getting positive streaks of certain lenght or getting a given outcome within very short intervals (in this case by using a limited progression).

In the long run we are all casinos' contributors.

Since there's no way to predict the future BP outcomes after having seen the past, we want to act objectively first then applying a kind of subjective action.
That is the exact opposite action most players try to do: to act subjectively after the objective results came out in the effort to guess more right than not.

Say we set up a strict mechanical plan dictating to bet B-B-P for every triplets of hands we will encounter. We'll take into account what a B-B-P-B-B-P-B-B-P....strategic plan will work in term of W/L hands.

Why I have chosen to wager the B-B-P sequence no matter what?

Easy answer: itlr the 8 possible patterns for sequences of three hands are more likely if they contains at least two B hands. Of course we could get "more likely" sequences not belonging to the B-B-P category as P-B-B or B-P-B.
Moreover B streaks are more likely than B singles so adopting this betting pace sooner or later we'll catch the patterns where this simple situation will exist.

Notice that applying the BBP general strategic plan, in the P-B-B or B-P-B scenarios we'll get at least one winning hand (respectively the second hand and the first hand).

To cut a long story short, we see that streaks equal or longer than 3 cannot give us any loss per every 3-bet sequence.

The only pattern capable to get three consecutive losses is the P-P-B pattern catched right on the start. I mean that a P-P-P-B pattern would give us a winning hand on the last betting B-B-P set.

Of course for every winning pattern there is a losing pattern and we know it is P-P-B or better sayed B/P-P-B.

But we don't want to get more winning patterns than losing ones (even if they are entitled to, vig apart), indeed we want to try to assess the situations when an expected situation will come out more often than not.

Every bac player knows that's quite difficult to be ahead after 4-5 shoes played, so we should infer that after 4-5 shoes a sort of balancement is going to come out.
Especialliy if this is due by mathematical reasons where B>P.

Back to the B-B-P pattern mechanically played.

The worst scenario this pattern would cross will be the P-P-B pattern precisely taken on the very first spot.
Nothing could prevent to get many consecutive P-P-B losing patterns and they surely will show up.
We are betting B-B-P and many P-P-B consecutive patterns are coming out. Actually itlr P doubles are predominant than P 3+s. So nothing wrong with it.
On the other end, B singles are slightly less prevalent than B streaks but long succession of B singles could easily happen.

Anyway the P doubles/B singles consecutive presentation must stop in some way, either by the production of a B streak or by a P 3+ streak/P single appearance.

Now the distribution issue comes out.

Consecutive shoes capable to produce many P-P-B patterns crossing our B-B-P mechaincal  betting plan are not so frequent and actually itlr cannot be prevalent than the whole counterpart.

So we must deduce that the "unlikely" pattern must come out never or isolated on most occasions, and very rarely in clusters.

We can safely assume that itlr its production is slightly lower than 1/8, but when high positive deviations had happened in the immediate past, the probability to encounter negative clustered patterns is somewhat raised.

Notice that the best scenario to get using the B-B-P betting plan will be a B-B-P-B-B-P.... sequence that is a somewhat unlikely pattern.
And actually we do not want to win several consecutive bets, we do want to limit the losing occurences.

Next time we'll consider this strategy on real shoes. 

as. 

 




   

























 




   





 










       


 






 





 

Quote from: alrelax on October 03, 2017, 09:12:58 PM
"At baccarat definetely such player's edge exists."

And, it is all within the player.  The player can have the means to control the edge with his own psych and vision, when and if--he can recognize the edge.

Yes Al, but it's not all in the player. Most of it, surely.
If anybody is willing to count the 7-F bets, he's going to get a sure indeniable edge.

It takes a lot of patience but itlr he/she will be a sure winner.

About the no mathematcial edge I'm going to post a new thread.

as.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on October 01, 2017, 04:46:34 PM

A small part of roulette contains the whole Baccarat game, Black and Red for example instead of Banker and Player, not to mention about the 2 extra EC pairs (Even/Odd, High/Low).
Besides there is also the ''le partage" rule which you receive back half of a lost wager due to 0, that's lower HE than Baccarat.

I see no reason why would someone select Baccarat from all available casino table games. 

Blue, here you are wrong...sorry.

First, baccarat is a card dependent and finite game; at roulette every spin is totally independent from the previous ones.

You can't compare two total different situations (roulette EC with B/P hands).
For example, itlr the number of B/P singles and B/P streaks will get different values than roulette EC, all due to both the asymmetry and the finiteness of the shoes.

EC = 50/50,  B/P = 50.68/49.32.

Finally the roulette partager rule will provide a 1.35% house edge, whereas the house edge at baccarat is 1.06% on Banker bets and 1.24% on Player bets. Both values lower than EC bets.

Moreover the EZ baccarat tables will feature a lower house edge on every Banker bet, being 1.01%.

Sayed that, there's no notice in the history of roulette that a player could get a favourable edge other than utilizing illegal electronic devices or by taking advantage of biased wheels.

At baccarat definetely such player's edge exists.

The fact that some players can get some profits by playing roulette doesn't change the negative mathematical edge unless such players are able to demonstrate this mathematically.

Hence it's better to play baccarat than roulette unless proven otherwise.

as.

 



   





   

 

Quote from: alrelax on September 26, 2017, 03:48:21 AM

We do it in person,  in the flesh.  Prove it and walk with the money,  simple!!!

Exactly Al.

I'm publicly offer $20.000 to any system seller capable to show me why his/her system should work besides what is already published or acknowledged or, most importantly, written here.

For that matter I count that me and Al could raise the offer to $60.000-$70.000, but I suggest to any foolproof system claimer to be really sure about his system.

I guess we won't get any offer, isn't it Al? :-)

as.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 26, 2017, 04:20:22 AM
By reading this someone could assume that you are speaking about EC bets exclusively, that principle is not valid for other kind of bets.

Exactly and you know well I wasn't talking about EC bets :-)

Hope to meet you in Vegas for a dinner. Or, most likely, in Montecarlo ;-)

as.

I guess that people capable to pay $50.000 or more for a not working system would come back to the seller with a couple of really bad guys. No need to prove that mathematically.

For that matter it should be done even for smaller sums.

as.   

   

Unfortunately negative situations are longer and more frequent than positive situations.

So in order to reduce negative situations, imo the best tool to utilize  is stopping them right at the start.
From an economic point of view, after any loss the most likely scenario will be another loss.
The same after two conseuctive losses and so on.

Without going into statistical details, imo the magic number to look for is 1 and only 1.
1 may go to 2 or going back to zero.
On the losing side 1 will go more often to 2 whereas on the winning side 1 will go to zero more often than not.

Of course whenever the actual state is zero, we'll get more losing 1s than winning 1s.

Everything up to some points as a random walk deprived from a shifting factor (negative edge) must follow some statistical (still unbeatable) guidelines.

Good news are that after having reached different cutoff 1 points, certain machines cannot forget to go forward or back in somewhat predictable fashions as their basic random process dictates this.

At the eyes machine, the negative edge remains the same, but it's not our probability of success.

Nonetheless and given the general huge disadvantage, our strategy should be oriented to minimize the losses forever and ever. 
At the risk to lose the rare situations where we could have missed a lot of consecutive winning hands.

as.

 

   


 


   








 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 25, 2017, 07:06:37 AM

Therefore we have to adapt a flexible strategy in order to adjust to the ever changing stream of events.
The game could be one or two way street, we've to live with both situations in order to come out on top.

Again another great post from Blue Angel.

And I personally like the quoted part of it.

"Flexibility" is what a roulette strategy should aim for, the problem arises when we want to assess the terms of intervention of such flexibility.
We can't predict if the actual rain will stop in minutes or hours or days. But we could better estimate how many different rainy days will stop in a given amount of minutes, hours or days.   


'Inversion' is a strategy that looks at problems in reverse, to minimise the negatives instead of maximising the positives'

Excellent strategy. I'll write my personal comments later.

as.

Hi Blue!

Thanks for your sincere reply.

Imo the main mistake about roulette is trying to build a strategy working on every wheel.
It's true that itlr every fair wheel of the world will produce real or apparent random results according to the probability values. Nobody could argue this.
And of course nobody could say that the long term random world might be limited by our actions, no matter how are sophisticated.

Imo the key words to partially take hints from the above statements are "itlr" and "long term".

And of course there's always the "random" concept to deal with.

We might conclusively say that every wheel of the universe is unbeatable on long term, providing every single spin is really random. That is perfectlky independent from the previous one/s.

Therefore the confusing parameters are two: the long term and the perfect independence of every spin.

Besides their average profits, casinos feel safe when long term outcomes are deeply studied by chi square tests, sd values, etc.
They really don't give a s.hit about the perfect random nature of every single spin.

Actually no one single spin is really random, think about the employee who launches the ball in proximity of the last number occurred or the probability a given software would release the ball at a given spot and at a given velocity.

Unpredictability doesn't necessarily mean a total randomness of the process and more importantly a total unpredictability can only spring up from a perfect randomness.

Hence it's not a blasphemy to state that every roulette player is used to deal with a biased randomness in a way or another.

More practically speaking, a possible winning strategy may only derive from a careful observation of the limited  supposedly unrandom short term values acting in a specific wheel.

The ball may land here or there, after a given amount of spins may land here or there once or more times, after another given amount of times MUST land there.
Not everytime but more often than not. That's what we should take care of, imo.
Always depending aboput the actual wheel we are taking care of.

as.

















   














 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 15, 2017, 08:42:13 PM
ABG

Random=Balance??
This is a common misconception which could lead to catastrophic results.
The very notion of HE is based on the assumption that everything will occur equally in some vague and distant future, this is quite an assumption to say the least...future is not set in stone, if you get my point.

Very good point, an RNG, no matter if true or pseudo, will never be a wheel or a deck.
There is subtle difference which is difficult to prove and even if someone would step forward to do so without any motivation for personal gain, he/she could face the disbelief of others.
Just a hint, if you look into results separately in small chunks such as 1 or 2 at a time you would realize no difference, but when the total grows the subtle difference becomes observable when you know what to look for.
RNG's are just softwares, they don't confine to physical conditions and attributes which a wheel and a ball do.

Hi BA.

Nope. The supposedly raised equiprobability, imo, doesn't fit to the "random balance" concept you've mentioned.
The random world remains a random world, thus the long term balance effect cannot be exploited in practice. We must work on short term results.

The problem is we don't have any valid tool to ascertain whether the roulette results are really random or not. Again, imo unpredictability doesn't mean perfect randomness and vice versa.


RNG's are just softwares, they don't confine to physical conditions and attributes which a wheel and a ball do.

Exactly. Therefore whenever a fair software is going to act we should assign to the whole picture a higher randomizing effect than what humans might do.
From one part a higher random effect should guarantee the house the best value of the mathematical edge.
On the other end, the randomizing effect may present some "flaws" just because it wants to be and to appear as really random.

Depending on which events you want to register, the best way to assess what is going to happen is putting a relationship between what really happens and what the probability expected values dictate.

As Gizmotron brilliantly stated many times here, there are many different kind of transitory states.
Imo some states perfectly correspond of even collide with the expected probability values and of course they are the predominant part. Other states more or less strongly diverge from them, but we know they will happen. When? We cannot know the exact shifting points when such different states will mix and it would be a great mistake trying "to force" to get a "due" state.
Nonetheless the random flow of the game must shift from one state to another at some point.

Computers are stu.pids by definition, so imo they are programmed to get more uniform states, at least at the eyes of an alert player.
Of course there are always the physical features to overcome, but in many wheels those problems are quite limited.

as.










 









 
   



   

 





 

Excellent reply!

As.

If anyone thinks to become a decent term winning player, first I strongly suggest to study the actual machine you are risking your money.

Humans are unpredictable, physical issues are predictable just by the use of illegal devices.
So we can consider the last ones as unpredictable factors too.
Unpredictability adding to unpredictability means total randomness, that is we cannot win by any means.
Wait, actually a random world generated by really random features may easily be overcome. Try to test your method on a random.org generation and tell me.

Thus we are forced to put a relationship between real randomness and unpredictability. It's not the same thing even if the statistical books instruct you to think this.
We might lose in an unrandom generation because we cannot grasp the hints why a possible unrandomness works.
At the same time we could win as the system produces perfect random results enhancing the equiprobability of the total possible outcomes.

The problem is we have no tools to really assess if the generation observed is really random or not.
Thus we are sailing in the universe of uncertainty where sooner or later we'll sink.   

Fortunately we know that softwares are quite predictable as they are stup.id. They act like a really random.org production with the important difference that when adapted at gambling scenes, they must work by many finite parameters.
That is a negation of perfect randomness.

Such unperfect randomness must be assessed within "short" intervals of production as itlr everything will be uniformed and diluted and so corresponding to the expected values.

For example, we won't get all 38 numbers appearing within 76 consecutive spins, but this probability varies in relationship of the specific wheel considered as every single spin is the by product of a defined and limited process.

I mean that every section of 76 spins recordered will get an average number of silent numbers becoming more or less probable after a cutoff point is reached or not. Providing a careful observation of the actual wheel behaviour after a given amount of spins.


as.











 



 






 

   

Quote from: Albalaha on September 11, 2017, 03:55:07 AM
                                    Instead of saying that maths says that the game is unbeatable, one should say that no known math has so far worked to effectively and conclusively beat the game. House edge is there in blackjack too. That was conclusively beaten with card counting by Thorpe and everybody accepts that. Similarly, through bias analysis and advantage play people like Pelayo, Eudeamonic Pie did it. Some recent university level researches prove some sort of cloaking wheel and ball does help to determine where to bet with success. House edge wasn't different for them, yet they turned them down and won.
                               And if someone is smart enough to know that it can not be beaten and loss is inevitable, why the hell he is a member of a gambling community like this?

Good point.

Maths forks fully whenever any single outcome is equally probable and coincident to the expected probability values per each spin or hand.

Nobody can say for sure that those statements are fulfilled per each spin or per every hand.

Casinos analyze the randomness of their games by chi square tests or sd analysis made on large samples.
Nevertheless even when statistical findings are in line with the expected but they are losing consistent money, they start to investigate further.
When they don't find a reason why a game produces continuous losses, they simply remove that particular game or even bar the few players suspected to be winners.

Since there is no reason to ban people betting good money on huge mathematical disadvantaged games, we can infer that not everytime mathematics works. Even in the long run.

On the other end, why winning players should divulge precisely their strategies?

Thorp had a reason to do that as he made a lot of money selling his book.
Pelayo's family hadn't, because they accumulated millions by taking advantage of things they couldn't publicly explain.

After all players are st.upids. They can get an astounding 7% edge on EZ F-7 baccarat bets but almost nobody cares, preferring to develop strategies that cannot work in the past, now and in the future.

If I'd say that a specific generator could lead to an edge of 12% every 40 spins on average, nobody would listen to me. Betting one time over 40 hands? No party.

as. 










   

I didn't make any work about the probability of 7-Fs being most probable on the first fragments of the shoe but I trust you Al.
From now I'll pay more attention on this.

Surely the big payment on such bets make us either hugely wrong, sliightly wrong, slightly right or extremely right. Of course the line is shifted to the losing left side.

Since the average probablity to cross those bets is a bit less than two times per every shoe, we should act accordingly (besides the card counting procedure).
The vast majority of shoes will feature either zero or one F-7; the rest is a mix of two or more F-7 occurrences.
The long term balancing factor on those shoes not performing any or just one 7-F is represented by those shoes were this side bet came out three or more times per shoe.
Two 7-F coming out per every single shoe is a sort of a slight "abnormal" course of action.

From a mathematical point of view, anytime we'll get one F-7 per every 39 losing hands we'll get an advantage.
This situation isn't possible as on average and betting every hand, the F-7 happens one time over 45 hands.

Anyway a 1:45 probability event itlr must follow its general probability to happen, so itlr we'll get more shoes presenting two 7-F hands than those shoes showing just one hand or zero hands (and of course 3 or more 7-F hands).

We may consider the 7-F bet as a roulette single number, with the important difference that at baccarat every shoe is finite and card dependent.

A single roulette number could be silent for 500-600 (or more) spins, meaning that a F-7 bet, being less probable, could be silent for 9-10 consecutive shoes. 
Thus any strategy oriented to get one 7-F within a given range of hands is totally fruitless.

Nonetheless and differently to roulette, whenever a lot of 8s and 9s have been removed from the deck, the probability to get 7-Fs is raised.

Notice that whenever a lot of 8s and 9s are removed from the deck, the Player side is slighlty favored to happen.
Thus, imo, the best strategy to set up whenever a lot of 8s and 9s are removed from the deck is wagering the Player side and, if conditions dictate so, simultaneously put a small amount on 7-F bet.

Without going into details, we see that most of the time 8s/9s will either damage or unlikely hugely favor the P point or not enticing at all a possible F-7 hand.
No one 8 or 9 being dealt on B side could form a winning F-7 hand and more often than not, 8s and 9s do not entice a B drawing to a possible F-7.

Eliot Jacobsen tried to find a possible F-7 advantage from registering how many naturals had shown up in the past shoe, but he forgot to classify how those naturals had come out.

A possible winning strategy, though diluted and impèlemented by a progression, is about simultaneously betting P side and F-7 whenever a huge number of naturals had come out, providing those naturals were formed by 8s and 9s accompanied by a zero value card.

We must play P and F-7 anytime we think that small-medium cards along with 7s are particularly live in the remaining portion of the shoe as one situation (P win or F-7) must be more likely to happen than what the common probabilities dictate.

If you think well, wagering Banker whenever you think a 7-F will come out is a stu.pid move, as it implies the concept that B side must draw.

Itlr whenever B side must draw and we were betting Banker,  we're playing a perfect coin flip situation. A losing scenario by any means.

as.