It makes sense.

I do not know about how ties may have an impact over the whole picture.

Anyway and without using a precise card counting, a lot of naturals in the past shoe should endorse the probability to get F-7s in the next hands of the shoe.

Naturals cover a very large section of the total outcomes (more than 1/3, on average) and most of the time are formed by an 8 and/or a 9 accompanied by a zero value card.
I mean that a lot of naturals produced by many 7s (7-2) or 4-5 or 6-3 won't affect the F-7 overall probability, actually such situations tend to reduce such probability as 7s, 6s, 5s, 4s and 3s are important cards for the F-7 appearance.

Moreover the observation that a rare event tend to come out in clusters or never at all is well placed, imo, and confirmed by some theories.

I witnessed shoes starting with 2-3 F-7 hands then ending up with 4 or even 5-6 more F-7s.

In some way I would say that it's best to bet on repeats than wagering on what didn't happen so far.

After all players are forced to hope to get positive clusters of some nature.
It's up to us to decide when a positive cluster will be more likely to happen. And we do know that such thing won't happen everytime. 

as.   












 



 

Quote from: roversi13 on August 26, 2017, 12:15:47 PM
Very interesting,as usual.
I'm afraid that as/s ratio in not a parameter good enough if calculated in simply 3 or 4 shoes.
At least hundreds shoes are necessary for trusting in the as/s ratio.
If so, it's impossible to deal with that unless you bet once a quarter.....

I prefer your theory on cluster of 1s and 2s at P

Hi roversi and thanks.

Clusters of P1-2 are just the reflex of the as/s ratio acting along a wide number of shoes.

The important thing to remember, imo, is that a general probability must collide with a specific probability to try to get an advantage from.

Surely, long sequences of P1-2 clusters will happen more often than not when a lot of asymmetrical hands had taken place in the previous hands of the same shoe. Up to a point, of course.

I'll be back on the issue next week.

as.




 









 






     































 













 

Simplyfing, betting B when the as/s ratio will be higher than expected will reduce, erase or invert the house edge mathematically.

On the other end, every P bet made when the as/s ratio will be low or very low than expected, will reduce or cancel or even invert (for some rare card distributions issues) the house edge.

Change your attitude.
Everytime we bet B and we'll catch one asym hand more than one time over 11.62 attempts, we'are either getting money or reducing/erasing the house edge.

Everytime we bet P and we rarely or very rarely cross (or nothing at all) an asymmetrical hand we're giving a fkn nothing to the casino. In rare occasions sometimes we are even getting a P advantage, all due to a current card distribution.

Good, but how to spot the situations where the as/s ratio will be more likely shifted in one direction?

We'll talk about it tomorrow.

as.















   





   








 











 

     

Good. So what? Which hands are we going to bet?

First, let's consider the game as a long infinite succession of coin flips, splitted into finite sequences (shoes).
There's no way we can beat a coin flip game, but we know that baccarat P wagers are perfectly payed 1:1, thus the house edge on such bets is zero.
The interesting fact is that some card distributions will favor P side (shoe fragments particularly rich of low cards, lack of 8s and 9s, etc) so in such situations over than being fairly payed, we could even be advantaged.

Banker side is advantaged only when an asymmetrical hand will take place, that is when it has an initial point of 3,4,5 or 6 with P drawing. If some card distributions tend to help B side but no asymmetrical hand will form, we are playing a coin flip game with the important caveat we'll be payed 0.95:1 in case we'll win the hand.

Easy to see that following trends strategies, instinct related approaches couldn't help us in any way.

Therefore from a strict EV point of view, the first part of a perfect theorically strategic plan is to place our bets on P side when we think no asymmetrical hand will be present on the next decision.
In the long run we won't win a dime, but we won't lose a dime either.

The second part of a perfect theorically strategic plan is trying to catch an asymmetrical hand by a higher 8.6%/91.4% ratio. Here we are wagering Banker, naturally.
if our B bets will cross a better 8.6% ratio we are reducing/erasing/inverting the house edge.

P singles are > P streaks, P doubles > P 3s as itlr the next hand after P or PP is an asymmetrical hand.

The same about B singles < B doubles, etc.

Any single BP outcome means nothing and doesn't affect the future, instead we should focus about the nature of the hands and not about their actual outcome.

Itlr every shoe will get the same probabilities to form asym or sym hands, so in some sense now the past may help us to define the future as a 8.6% probability will get some features. 
Think about positional issues, consecutive patterns and so on.

as.



   





 
 

 




 


 



 



 
     



     

B hand is payed 0.95:1 and P hand is payed 1:1; ties ignored, BP frequency is  50.68/49.32.

Everytime we'll win a bet placed on B side not performing an asymmetrical hand we are i.diots.

Everytime we'll win a bet placed on P side not performing an asymmetrical hand we are geniuses.

Everytime we'll lose a bet placed on B side performing an asymmetrical hand we are unlucky geniuses.

Everytime we'll lose a bet placed on P side performing an asymmetrical hand we are i.diots who deserved it.

Two scenarios complete the picture: winning a B hand where an asymmetrical hand will take place (we're geniuses) and winning a bet placed on P side where an asymmetrical hand had taken place (super lucky i.diots).

Itlr the number of the above six scenarios will dictate that our global negative edge is included from 1.06% to 1.24%.

Now, instead of guessing which fkn next hand will come out, try to register how many times we got super geniuses, super idiots, lucky or unlucky at different degrees.
Everything related to the general probability of happening.

For example, winning three consecutive bets on P side where no asymmetrical hand had taken place means we have shifted the asymmetrical probability where we are hugely underdog.
We can bet our behind that the next three P consecutive bets will perform an increased probability to cross an asymmetrical hand.

The same about after having won three consecutive B hands: if they were three symmetrical hands, we can bet our behind that the next three B bet situations will be more likely to encounter at least one asymmetrical hand. Of course we can lose that asymmetrical hand or not crossing it at all, but itlr we cannot be wrong.

Whenever we think the asymmetrical factor is exhausted no matter which the actual results had been, more often than not the game will show up as a mere coin flip proposition. Here one hand is payed 0.95:1 and the other one 1:1.

On the contrary, if we think the aymmetrical factor is "due",  we know that getting payed 0.95:1 will be just a minor damage, as the overall mathematical advantage will erase this "short" payement.

Discounting ties, we know that perfect symmetrical hands will happen 91.6% of the time, the rest is about asymmetrical hands where B side is hugely favored (15.6% edge).

If we'd regularly bet P side and no one asymmetrical hand will take place, we know we're going to play a perfect zero edge game.
Conversely, if we are going to bet the situations where we think the asymmetrical factor is somewhat "due" (more than its general probability of happening), thus betting the B chance, we know to approach an EV+ game.

We must put ourselves into the position not to be super geniuses or super stupid.s for long.
Knowing that a pefect 50/50 proposition is unbeatable, especially whether one side is payed 0.95:1. 

as.




     







   




   

   

   

 

   

Even getting a sure mathematical advantage, there's no way one system could get the best of it on dayly basis.

That's a total absurdity, either from a common sense point of view and mathematically.

Even having an astounding mathematical edge of 6-7% (counting dragon and panda bets, for example) one player can suffer periods of losing weeks.

Anybody claiming otherwise is fooling you with 1 billion % certainty.

as.

BTW, anyone wanting to sell a system or a book must first explain the reader how the random walk works.

Then discussing the absorbing probabilities, the probability of success after x trials, the risk of ruin, the expected standard deviation values of the method adopted and so on.

If the seller isn't going to touch those scientific issues, tell the writer or the seller to reassess his/her work.

Nobody will. As they don't know what you are talking about. 

as.   


 

Izak is the best clown in the baccarat town.

I got for free his systems and they are a total b.ullshit.
I refrain to post here such systems because other that not working at all, they would be an offense to common intelligence.

I've read more insightful ideas from gr8player, Sputnik, RolexWatch, Bally and some others here.
For free.

Don't feed the unintelligent. Instead, before purchasing anything, ask him how's the advantage of Banker when it has 5 point vs a player 4 point.
He doesn't know the answer as he doesn't know anything at all.

as. 

 

Hey, try to be more respectful with Glen who knows one million times more than the average player.

He likes to write a lot, maybe too much. So what?

Al gave us excellent scientific contributes (the study about card shufflers randomness, for example) and he never stated he is regularly beating the game where others keep stating the contrary with no consistent proof. Obviously.

In his posts he didn't explain how to consistently win, but he carefully explained how to lose less, how to control the emotions, how to think that every bet we'll make is EV-, how to try to ride the rare positive waves any player will encounter along the way.

If you would be a guest of Al at any high end Vegas resort you'll be treated as a king.
I strongly doubt that anyone here could make the same arrangement he's able to set up. Such treatment is reserved to people betting thousands not $10.

From my part your posts are always very welcome, Al. And they should be for everyone. 

Lung, thanks for your kind words.

as.



 

















 

Quote from: alrelax on August 02, 2017, 12:08:56 AM
Asym, reference the  clusters..and other similar things......."steal the situation' and pounce in it.

Of course, but there's an important difference about a 50/50 game and roulette dozens.
On 50/50 games, if A comes out B is zero and vice versa.

Over an A, B and C system, if A or B or C come out, two outcomes out of three will be silent per every spin. Not to mention that the probability to be right or wrong won't be fifty fifty as it's obviosuly shifted toward the two dozen chosen or excluded.
There are not other possible betting situations to be taken.
Zero/s disregarded, you'll be right either 33.3% or 66.6% of the time or wrong for the same amounts.
The fact we're going to be payed less than expected shouldn't affect our strategy.

as.

   



   

Interesting points.

I wish to add my two cents in order to possibily improve our probablity of success.

We do not want to try to win at any cost, we are there trying NOT TO LOSE. It'd be a big accomplishment to achieve a not losing situation since we have to overcome a big -5.26% or 2.7% negative edge.

Thus we need to reduce at most our winning hopes. For every post mortem long winning situation we'll get a proportionally higher amount of losing situations without any exception.


We are entitled to lose, if we break even after any session we really are good players. If we quit as winners most of the time, we are formidable players.

We do not want to be chained to expected values only. Conversely we should notice carefully what the actual values are.
Imo the best play is to try to balance the expected values with the actual values, especially when actual values seem to correspond to expected values.

Since the past results won't affect the future ones, we can infer that an homogeneuously equilibrated world won't exist at all. or, better sayed, that such probability is very very low.

Definetely rare events come out in clusters than they will disappear, whereas most likely events come out in clusters and more probable than not they are interpolated with the less likely opposite events.
Up to a point where the first assumption takes its validity.

Since the world is random (or supposedly random)  there's no point to figure out the precise spot where things will shift toward a less likely events direction.

But the sum of such endeavours most of the time will.

as.
 





 



 

Yeah. This is one of the simplest way to play dozens.

We target the last two different dozens appeared then bet them hoping that the third will be silent as long as possible.

Of course it's like choosing to bet randomly two dozens out of three without assessing the silent one.

But acting in this way we have a general picture of what it's going to happen and by a decent bet selection and by a careful money management we might get good short-intermediate term results.

Say we put in our chart a minus sign (-) after a loss and a plus sign (+) after a win (zero/zeroes not included)

Most likely we'll get sequences as ++-+-++--+-+++++---++-++++-++++--+....

We can be sure as hell that itlr consecutive + will be double placed than single + and the same is  true about - signs, this time by an opposite fashion. same about ++ vs longer ++ sequences and so on.

If we pnly bet one time whenever any single + (preceded by one or more minus sign registered)  or whenever a single -  (preceded by one or more + sign registered) had come out we are going to reduce variance.
We are not altering the W/L percentages, but we'll have the same results than wagering every hand (yet paying a minor vig).

Easy to notice that sequences as -+- or +-- will be losers and -++ or +-+ will be winners.
Of course itlr the winners will be double placed than losers.

If we choose to simultenously wager those two features by a 1-3 progression (1-1 and 3-3 bets) we know we'll lose whenever every -+-- sequence will come out. Every other situation will be a winning one.

Notice that sequences as ++------ or +-+----------- (terrible ones for a continuos play) are winning ones. Because we are respectively get our win on the first spot in the first sequence and on the second one on the second sequence.

Again the only losing sequences by adopting the 1-3 progression are -+--

After having tested many many real spins I can assure you that the probability to get consecutive patterns not winning just one spot is very low.
I mean that -+-- consecutive patterns don't come out quite often. More realistically I'd say you need a lot of spins to encounter a situation where you'll find two consecutive losing patterns.

For that matter looking at three consecutive losing patterns in a row is a sort of a "lottery" finding.

Actually the theorical probability odds to get three losses in a row are 1:729  (zero discounted) but in the real world the overall losing probability is well lower as an homogeneous world is just an utopia.
Wonder if we choose to wait and wait and wait the appearance of one or better two such fictional situations. We can only raise our probability of success. 
Or trying to take advantage of many other possible profitable situations we should assess before betting.

Definetely the game is EV-, but only whether we consider any outcome equally probable anytime, everywhere and anyhow.

That's nonsense.

as. 


 













   

 











 
















   

EC= even chance bets (red/black, odd/even, etc)

Quote from: fmajluf1 on July 27, 2017, 10:47:59 PM

i think the best is to change to red and black on roulette to take no commission, at least playing online

Please tell me where there's no commission on EC bets.

Thanks.

as. 

That's a good question.

Personally I've found fair to get from 5% to 25% of my bankroll risked per any session.

Since I over select the times to put my wagers on the felt, I approximate an average overall percentage of 12-13%.
That means that I need to be right at least over 8- 8.5 times per every 10 session to be ahead itlr.

I do not never want to be rigid about my winning rate, rigidity and stubborness kill the cat and the player too.

If I would lose two table bankrolls in a row I'll quit to play.

It never happened so far. But sooner or later it will.

as.