+ Register

[klw]

AsymBacGuy -- Really interesting thread and I appreciate all the information and time taken to pass this all on to us.

Cheers.

[AsymBacGuy]

Thanks klw! I appreciate your words and the time you spend here reading my section!

Imo at baccarat there's no such a thing as quitting when ahead or behind, setting up a goal (in either W or L way) or stuff like that.
Our plan must get an edge in the long term by assessing the game features both in theory and, more importantly, in practice.

I can't give a lesser damn whether we're (temporarily) behind after playing 3 or 4 shoes, such thing happens, albeit rarely (it doesn't happen to those forums' geniuses claiming that they win multiple units at every shoe dealt).

Each W/L pattern will come out with the same probability, so we should focus our attention about their distribution shoe per shoe. Not every shoe is featuring exploitable situations, as everything depends about how symmetrically or asymmetrically are placed the cards at every shoe dealt.
It's true that many results come from 'whimsical' spots, but those will show up with the same profitable or unprofitable probability: after all what it's math advantaged remains advantaged.

Best example to make is by assessing the 1-2 (or 2-1) and 1-3 (or 3-1) BP flows coming out at a given shoe (unb plan #1).
There are strong reasons why we had discarded 2-3 spots from our play as they act accordingly to the statistical tools already touched here.

Most of the times such situations tend to come out clustered in a way or another and this is not mainly caused by the 0.75 probability to happen.
Not given precise values are going to get a steady advantage (unless our progression is utilized) as this edge depends about how symmetrically or asymmetrically are placed the cards on the actual shoe we're playing at.
In addition and even though we have assigned them the same 3+ value for simplicity, not all 3+ streaks are equal either in quantity and in quality.

as.

[AsymBacGuy]

Look at this shoe (1=singles, 2=doubles and 3=3+ streaks)

br: 2,1,1,2,1,1,3,3,1,2,3,1,3,3,2,3,2,3,2,2,2,1,1,3,1,2,2,2,2,2,3,1,1,3,2,1,1

ubp #1: W,W,W,W,L,W,W,L,L,W,W,L,W,L,W,L,W,W,W,W,L,L,W.  w=15, (+15) AND L=8 (-24)

byb: 1,3,1,1,1,1,3,3,1,3,3,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,3,1,1,1,1,3,3,3,1,1,2,1,1,2

ubp #1: w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,l,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,l,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,l,w,w,w.

w= 35 (+35) l= 3 (-9)

sr: 3,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,2,2,3,1,3,1,2,3,1,1,2,3,3,3,2,3

ubp #1: l,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,l,w,w,l,l,w,l,l.   w=18 (+18) l= 6 (-18)

cr: 3,3,1,1,2,1,3,1,3,1,3,2,3,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,3,3,1,2,1,2,1,3,3,3,2,3,1

ubp #1: w,l,w,l,w,w,w,w,l,w,w,w,l,w,w,l,w,w,l,w,w,w,l,w,w,w,l.  w=19 (+19)  l=8 (-24)

Say we are a team formed by 4 persons (each betting ubp#1 at one of the four roads).
For simplicity we ignore the vig.

At the end of the shoe:

br player loses 9 units = -9

byb player wins 26 units = +26

sr player breaks even = 0

cr player loses 5 units = -5

In total our team won 26-14 units, that is a +12 profit (before vig).

There are one million of post hoc considerations to be made, say we're just focusing about the W isolated spots (IS) and W clusters (CL).

br:  CL, CL, CL, IS, IS, CL

byb: CL, CL, CL, CL

sr: CL, CL, IS

cr: IS, IS, CL, CL, CL, CL, CL, CL.

In total 16 W Clusters and 5 Isolated Ws.

Now the reverse situation about losses, that is the number of L isolated spots and L clusters.

br: IS, CL, IS, IS, IS, CL

byb: IS, IS, IS

sr: IS, IS, CL, CL

cr: IS, IS, IS, IS, IS, IS, IS.

In total 16 Isolated L spots and 4 L clusters.

If our team would like to bet toward W clusters and L isolated spots we'll get 16+16 winning spots (+32) and (5+4) losing spots (-27). That is a +5 unit profit (minus vig)

Notice that the original 'full betting' plan produced two losing players (br and cr players), one breaking even (sr player) and one strong winner (byb player).

The clustered/isolated sub plan formed br player losing 4 units, byb player winning 7 units, sr player losing 5 units and cr player winning 7 units. That is a cumulative +5 unit profit.

Globally the player who contributed most to our team was byb player, cr player won slightly, sr lost 5 units and br got a tremendous -13 unit loss.

Let's take another shoe.

br: 1,3,2,3,1,1,2,1,3,1,1,3,2,1,1,1,1,1,3,2,1,2,1,2,1,3,1,1,1,3,1,3

ubp#1: L,W,L,W,L,W,W,W,L,W,W,W,W,L,L,W,W,W,W,L,W,W,W,W,W,W   W=19 (+19)  L=7 (-21)

byb: 1,3,1,1,1,1,3,1,3,3,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,3,1,3,1,1,3,3,2,2,1,2,3

ubp#1: w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,l,w,w,w,w,w,l,w,w,w,w,w,l,w,l.   w=19  (+19)  l=4 (-12) 

sr: 2,2,3,2,1,3,1,1,2,1,3,3,1,3,3,3,1,3,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,3.

ubp#1: l,w,w,l,w,l,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,w,l,w,l  w=15 (+15)  l=4 (-12)

cr: 1,1,3,1,1,1,1,3,2,3,3,1,2,2,1,3,3,2,3,3,2,1,2,2,1,1,1

ubp#1: w,w,w,w,w,l,l,w,w,l,w,l,w,w,w,w,w.   w=13  (+13)  l=4 (4 (-12)

So let's see if our team survived this shoe and who contributed most to save the joint:

br player kept losing (we should discard him/her from the team as being too unlucky  ) : -2 units

byb player won 7 units (+7)

sr player won 3 units (+3)

cr player won 1 unit (+1)

Overall our team won 9 units (before vig).

Let's see again the sub IS/CL plan, first in W then in L spots (reversely taken of course).

Wins:

br player: IS, IS, CL, CL, CL, CL

byb player: Cl, CL, CL, IS

sr player: CL, IS, CL, IS

cr player: CL, CL, IS, CL

Losses:

br player: IS, IS, IS, IS, CL, IS

byb player: IS, IS, IS

sr player: IS, IS, IS, IS

cr player: CL, IS, IS

Globally we got 26 wins (12+14) and 8 losses (6+2) that is a +26 - 24 = +2 unit profit (before vig)

In this second shoe original plan made three winners and just one loser whereas the sub plan made two breaking even players, one winning 3 units and one losing 1 unit.

Some comments.

It's evident that in those two shoes the first (original) plan got us more gross profits than the sub plan (+21 vs +7).
Quite interesting is the fact that sub plan got 1/3 of the original plan profits.

Anyway we shouldn't forget the vig burden, especially if we have to play a kind of mini progression.

Moreover variance is always around the corner and it's not that easy to set up a plan like this.
I mean that many situations might easily dictate to bet opposite sides to get a given searched result and the trick, already investigated, to wait for multiple roads to converge toward an expected spot has shown to be of no value.
Naturally 'conflicting' bettable sides are less likely to happen when adopting the sub plan proposed here.

Another possible trick that may come to mind is to select the player seemingly performing best, abandoning (at least for some betting spots) the losing or 'limping' players.
But this is an equivalent move as adopting a simple trend following strategy: we do not know when to enter and when to quit, maybe jumping from one player to another without a statistical reason to do that.

Finally, yes, some shoes are unplayable as they do not give the proper room to get a fair amount of pattern situations. Among the worst shoes to play our strategies at there are those producing a lot of ties, so when we suspect the actual shoe will be 'tie' rich we'll simply stand up or starting to bet them. 

as.

[klw]

Wow !

Great Post AsymBacGuy.

Enough homework for a long time.

Cheers.

[AsymBacGuy]

Thanks klw!!!
Yes...a lot of stuff.....

Take care!

as.

[AsymBacGuy]

Shortly  I'll provide some numbers, without them we're not going anywhere.

as.

[KungFuBac]

AsymBacGuy: ..."...Finally, yes, some shoes are unplayable as they do not give the proper room to get a fair amount of pattern situations. Among the worst shoes to play our strategies at there are those producing a lot of ties, so when we suspect the actual shoe will be 'tie' rich we'll simply stand up or starting to bet them.    ..."

     LIKE BUTTON 

[alrelax]

Had one the other night.  Just about all singles, doubles and triples.  Then two bankers streaks of a 9 and a 7 bankers.  Just about everyone was wagering heavy each and every time on the players side. 

[AsymBacGuy]

To better understand how things work at baccarat let's say we set up three different players wagering (fictionally) for us: we simply register their results in term of Ws and Ls distribution. Shoe per shoe.

Player A will bet toward getting positive clusters (trend following, long streaks or long chops, my plans, AD, Banker wagering in possible profitable situations, etc)

Player B thinks player A is an id.iot and takes the right opposite route, that is betting that valuable patterns do not come out or that will break soon or toward short streaks, weak B distribution, my plans are sh.i.t, I like doubles, etc)

Player C (the passive one) takes a middle route by alternatively wagering that player A or B will respectively get very short winning or losing sequences set up at 1 level (chopping level). That is he bets that A and B will get more long WL chopping sequences than a proprotional amount of losing W or L streaks.

Obviously it's virtually impossible that at the end of each shoe all three players will be losers as a perfect balancement world is out of order (see later).
Maybe the negative EV will get a role on that, but it's not the main cause why casinos take a lot of money from bac players.

Nonetheless, the general probability to get player C as final winner is diminished as a perfect hopping mood between players A and B  is slight less likely to happen, otherwise a simple multilayered martingale applied to him would get easy and endless series of winnings (giving a fk about normal variance).
Anyway, even player C is entitled to get his share of wins and, guess what, they must come out clustered at some point. And naturally the losing counterpart (forming Pl A or Pl B clusters) must come out clustered too.

In this way no one single shoe is unplayable as something profitably clustered MUST come out at various degrees of quantity and quality (distribution).
It's important to understand that a 'cluster' is just a back to back scenario so WW or LL belongs to the same cluster category as a WWWWWWW or LLLLL situation.
And by the same way of thought any xWL or xLW spot is an isolated (chop) mood.

Fortunately for us at baccarat clustered events of different nature will prevail over isolated spots.
Tomorrow I'll provide some examples about it. 

as.

[AsymBacGuy]

Btw, there's a reason why a 'clustered' plan of action (at either W or L way) is more suitable than an 'isolated' one.
Whenever we're betting toward a given flow, odds that this flow will stop are inferior than odds that the flow will prolong.

For example, we'll surely face a shoe showing up 7 or 8 or more consecutive doubles (singles ignored) than a shoe producing 7 or 8 or more isolated double spots (that is gapped each time by a 3+ streak).

Anytime you won't get a feeling about what side to bet, consider Player C situation.
He is favorite to get more long losing spots than long winning spots as most of the times the BP texture won't get a WL hopping situation for long or not proportionally placed.

That means that in the majority of the times you are either destined to consecutively win or consecutively lose, giving the best of your fk about math percentages of being WL or LW balanced.

as. 

[AsymBacGuy]

Baccarat is a game producing constant clustered events in either way as the shoe distribution is affected by a huge degree of concentrated/diluted card factor.
Many times such clusters will act in the form of 'easy detectable' patterns, others are not.

The easiest detectable clustered forms come out from either long B or P (or r/b) streaks or long chops, then other 'next level' situations come around depending upon how many times we would want to challenge an 'isolated' form to show up.
After all even series of isolated spots constitute a cluster.

Since we have no valid reasons to think that every single shoe we're playing at is really randomly shuffled, we must be forced to consider every shoe as a single entity.

For example, the natural B propensity could go down in the toilet as well as the more likely predominance of P side to get long singles and doubles sequences.

Consider the most basic plan of all: singles and streaks.

Most of the times, sections full of clustered singles deny the probability to get streaks and vice versa.
Each clustered events will get a value different from zero unless a single-streak or streak-single situation o ccurs.
This last scenario could easily come out when sequences as BPPBPPPBPPBPPP or BBBBPBBPBBBBPBB show up. But even now we consider it as a cluster.
Notice that whenever a cluster of this last kind happens, the unfavorite side will get only singles otherwise we'll get a streak cluster ending up this clustered particular event.

Now say that we'll mechanically registering how many singles and streaks will come out assigning them a value:

0= single followed by a streak or streak followed by a single, zero clusters on either side;

1= two singles in a row or two streaks in a row

2= three singles in a row or three streaks in a row

3= four or more singles in a row or four or more streaks in a row

At the same time the single-streak or streak-single situation getting a 0 value at the above classification will get different values in relationship of how many back-to-back spots happened:

one 0 = just one single-streak or streak.single situation followed by a same single or streak cluster.

two 0= two single-streak-single or streak-single-streak situations followed by a same single/streak cluster

three 0=three or more single-streak-single-streak or streak-single-streak-single situations followed b a same single/streak cluster.

Example:
the shoe is:

P
B
PP
B
P
B
P
BBB
P
BBBB
P
BB
P
BBBB
PP
B
PP
B
P
BB
P
BB
PP
BBBBBB
PPP
B
P
B
P
B
PPP
B
PP
BBBB
PP
B
P
B
P
BB

Now in numbers the shoe looks like as:

1-0-3-0-0-0-0-0-0-1-0-0-1-0-0-3-3-0-2-3

Since we cannot have numbers different from 0,1,2 or 3 we could have a better picture of what the shoe is really producing.

In this shoe we got a higher than expected single-streak or vice versa spots ('0' values), anyway notice how short went '2' situations and cumulatively how many 0 and 1 situations happened versus superior numbers.
Moroever note the final portion of the shoe formed by a kind of 'concentrated' numbers different from zero.

Anyway we're restricting the field of operation by two tools: any streak is a streak no matter what, and the number 3 incorporates the more likely events after setting up a cutoff at four.

as.

[AsymBacGuy]

Another shoe (not displayed for simplicity):

0-0-0-1-3-1-0-1-1-1-1-1-0-1-2-0-0-0-1-(1)

Same amounts of situations of the previous shoe (that is 20, even if the last one is undefinied so far)
Notice that even in this shoe 2s went 'silent' and the shortage of 3s.

Next shoe is:

0-2-3-0-0-2-0-2-1-0-2-1-2-2-0-1

16 situations, more 2s than previous shoes, fewer 0s and 1s, just one 3.

Obviously there will be some (rare) shoes looking as 3-3-3-3-2-0-3-3-3-2-3-0-1-3-3 where we either want to stay away or to bet that something will be silent for long.

After all we can't get a 0 or 1 probability after effects value after a 3 and neither after a 2.

as.   

[AsymBacGuy]

Obviously there will be some (rare) shoes looking as 3-3-3-3-2-0-3-3-3-2-3-0-1-3-3

Really?

Actually this shoe transformed in numbers will be almost impossible to happen as too many hands are needed for surpassing the number of playable cards (even if all or most streaks are just doubles and singles stopping at four, we must discard from the registration the tie hands and cards burnt at the beginning and at the end of the shoe.

It's like we are applying a code to each shoe dealt. A kind of 'gathering factor' to any hand succession not getting precise qualities as 0,1,2 are the same in quantity but different in quality depending on what event happened and naturally 3 concentrates many high clustered events belonging to the same category.

We have many strategical options to act about these 'codes'.

For example, we could evaluate how many ascending, descending or same value steps will come out at the same position or back-to-back positions shoe per shoe. Will some numbers be more likely to appear after certain other numbers at the actual shoe?

Within a shoe could a 0 value comes out always isolated (if any) or it should show up clustered at some point of it?
What about other numbers?

Is a same source of outcomes (same deck shuffled) a real important feature to possibly exploit those codes?

Every baccarat player knows that things may stay univocal sometimes but even may change rapidly in a way or another, that's why imo we better concentrate at most our field of operations.

as.

[alrelax]

Reference the following four statements from the above post, caused me to post the following I had within my section.

Those four statements were:

" For example, we could evaluate how many ascending, descending or same value steps will come out at the same position or back-to-back positions shoe per shoe. Will some numbers be more likely to appear after certain other numbers at the actual shoe?

Within a shoe could a 0 value comes out always isolated (if any) or it should show up clustered at some point of it?
What about other numbers?

Is a same source of outcomes (same deck shuffled) a real important feature to possibly exploit those codes?

Every baccarat player knows that things may stay univocal sometimes but even may change rapidly in a way or another, that's why imo we better concentrate at most our field of operations."


Let me make it clear and state it right away.  Practical Knowledge is superior to theoretical gambling knowledge and as well, Practical Knowledge is incredibly important to any career and life in general.  Whether gambling, a non-related gambling career as well as life in general, all three of them, cannot and will not excel in Theoretical Knowledge only. 

With that said.  When it comes to the knowledge we all possess, use, govern ourselves, base decisions on and everything else related to those, there are different kinds and different ways.  On one side there is the theory way and on the other side, there is the practical application of that same side of theory.  There are distinct sides to each one, don't become confused with the oversimplification of the way so many attempt to streamline theoretical and reduce it to scheduled and reoccurring events.  That is salesmanship and intelligence modification that many fall prey to and become convinced of fallacy, lies, twisted truths, manipulated wishes, etc. 

But there is a theoretical side to gambling and baccarat play that used in the correct context can certainly add ammunition and tool box knowledge to the holder.  Such as, 'why' things happen, 'how come' things happened, and countless techniques that could succeed or likewise, might very well fail.  But no theory and I stress, not a single one, can succeed over and over with continuous redundancy the way so many seek, attempt to sell or wish for.  That is the key to understand reality with this subject.

So what is theoretical knowledge good for?  IMO, it is good for building your context of all the subject involved within gambling as well as baccarat.  You should have the context in order to set you strategy or at least know, where and how to proceed within the game when you are involved in it.  You can use theory to accomplish that, learning from the experience, trails, efforts, writings of others mixed with your own interpretation of those into some kind of viable fuel that you can implement. 

If the theoretical end of it all leads you to a deeper and more thorough understanding as to the 'why' behind it all, then you are well on a great path to better success than the uninformed person would be. 

Now, the Practical Knowledge, is the tougher one.  The practical end of baccarat play has to come from the actual gambling itself.  There is no two ways about it.  You will gain the specific techniques that will become, for simplicity sake here, your tools of the trade.  Keep separate but conscious of, theory being the ideal end of it and/or the reasoning behind it all.  The practical end of it, being the outcome and the actual varying events without restriction or guidance to the theory end of it all.  Do not fall prey to the biggest common mistake by most gamblers, which is convincing yourself that the theory end of it has to happen in any certain order or timing.

Both are extremely important, but without each other, you won't survive.  Theory cannot always be present and theory might continually present itself in different and varying ways.  That is where your practical knowledge will take over and apply a more specific solution or decision to what you are faced with in the game of baccarat.  It is a game, it is not a puzzle to be solved, and there are not definitive solutions. 

You have to mix the theoretical side of it with the practical side of the same thing.  The goal you need to focus on, is getting both ends of the spectrum to meet the majority of the times.   

[AsymBacGuy]

You have to mix the theoretical side of it with the practical side of the same thing.  The goal you need to focus on, is getting both ends of the spectrum to meet the majority of the times.   

Yep.

That's why this game is so difficult to beat: most people try to be too 'theoretical' or too 'practical'.
More often than not theorists will get the best of it on long terms, practicals will get the best of it on short terms. Since it's not that easy to split 'long term' with 'short term' both will lose more often than not.

Even casinos collect their profits or (temporary) losses by this assumption/evidence:

"in theory we must win all the money a player will risk at the table, providing he/she will bet a lot of hands"

"in practice we (casinos) must hope shoes won't provide easy detectable patterns where high rollers playing a relative low amount of hands will bet at"

In essence, things will change whenever an appropriate amount of time is involved, playing each hand or many hands tend to restrict the time interval.

More importantly, some BS are more sensitive to what happened at the last shoe or last shoes, it's here that a possible player's edge comes out.

Let's consider the bac 'codes' I was talking about above.
Any number will be followed by another number (same, superior or inferior number), of course some numbers will be more likely than others.
I guess a 0-0 situation will be more likely than a 0-3 or 0-2 situation but any 0 will fight by an even 'supposed' probability against any number different from 0.
Moreover as long as a given number won't appear, we can't estimate a back-to-back number registration.

It could happen that at a given shoe a given number won't appear with different general degrees of probability.

Naturally 0 fights against any number different from 0 (1,2 or 3), 1 against any number different from 0 or 2 and 3 (a >1 and <1 category), 2 against 0,1 and 3 and finally 3 against 0,1,2).

Mathematically we'll get a 50/50 general probability to win if we play toward a 0 vs the remaining situations,
12.5% of winning probability to get a precise 1, 2 or 3 scenarios.

Naturally if we'd bet toward a higher than 0 scenario we'll confide about any of the 1, 2 or 3 possibilites and vice versa.

The number 1 appearance needs to get rid of the 0 situation first, then to stop right before getting 2 or 3 spots (0.75 winning probability)

The number 2 and number 3 situations are the most intricated to assess as they must shift three different steps each (0,1 and 3 for 2 patterns and 0,1 and 2 for 3 patterns). That is a 12.5% probability to get a back-to-back spot.
Obviously a sky's the limit progressive plan (or, better sayed, a multilayered progression plan) will get the best of it by wagering isolated 2s and/or 3s vs clustered same 2s or 3s spots.

It's quite interesting to see that 0/1 vs 2/3 and vice versa plans will get standard deviation values quite different than general probabilities depending upon what initial-intermediate actual results had come out along.

In addition, notice how many times a same back to back same number spot sequence happens at the next shoe played.

Statistical or mathematical bighorn.stuff?

Of course, do not disturb the fkng math gurus....

as.