Quote from: alrelax on April 26, 2017, 12:14:02 PM
You agreeing with me???  Wow!

Onward, BUT & HOWEVER, there are other 'areas' that the player must employ along with this, (a few) Money Management, Positive Progressions, Plateau Recognizing, Clear Mind, Guts, etc., etc. 

It really does take a well-rounded, experienced person to prevail at this game.  The viability and the extreme winning/losing makes it demand the things I have mentioned here and in my postings.

Peace.

Al, I agree with many of your ideas and you have just named very important topics.

I continue

As Alrelax brilliantly stated, the game will produce such deviated outcomes that often we have to think whether B side is really favored over P side or conversely if P side really exists.

In order to consistently win or try to win itlr, we need to control the variance, both positive or negative.

We do not want to guess every hand, let alone at a pace of two-three or even more hands.

Think about it: casino personnel want us to bet each hand and not just for the mathematical advantage they get.
They want us to get off our comfortable zone, they want us to lose our perception of money's value.
That's why worldwide baccarat tables get a 15-16% cut of the total money wagered and not the 1% of so they are entitled to.
Actually this percentage would be even higher if players' bankroll were endlessly replenished per every session.

Remember that from a mathematical point of view the best bet we can make per every session is to bet the whole bankroll on Banker side as we are 1.36% favored to win.
No matter if the previous outcomes where a long string of Bankers or a 15 Player streak.

From this best bet we can only go uphill as multiple bets enlarge the probability either to lose and to lose our "control" of our money.
But of course we know that we'll have to go uphill.

Again remember the times when you have got early winnings but you failed to quit ending up as losers or heavy losers.

That doesn't mean that quitting the day is the best way to win, just that after a first loss it's more likely to lose again than to recover the loss.

I bet Banker one time and I lose. If bet Banker again and I win. In total I've lost 5% of my money. So a perfect equilibrium between P and B won't get us any fair return.

That means that an equal number of B and P outcomes won't get us any help other than losing money (of course I'm discarding the possibility to bet P twice as it's a more disadvantaged situation).

We see that betting two hands in a row IN ANY ORDER and discarding ties we'll get 4 possibilities:

BB
BP
PB
PP

From what I've sayed so far it's easy to notice that the only outcome providing a MORE LIKELY profit is BB pattern.
BP and PB get a 5% overall deficit; PP will get a fantastic no-taxed profit but, alas, it's the least likely of the four.

More precisely and in terms of probability the 4 patterns will place themselves as:

BB>PB>BP>PP

This is what I boldly call the "Asym Fundamental Law of Baccarat".

There is no way this Law will be disappointed itlr.

But the last word is the most important: itlr.

Notice that a BB pattern could repeat itself without the intervention of any P result: think about a long B streak...BBBBBBBBBBB, that is 9 BB patterns in a row...
Naturally the same happens whenever a P streak will form several repeating "unlikely" PP patterns.

Both are two extremely deviated situations either in positive or negative way.

However a long BPBPBPBPB or PBPBPBPBP equivalent pattern is simultaneously more likely and less likely.
That is when we look at a BP pattern we have a less likely situation and when we look at a PB pattern we observe a more likely situation.

This is a classic pseudo equilibrium situation further endorsed by the proven fact that baccarat outcomes are very very slightly oriented toward the opposite last hand.

So generally speaking, strings of singles are supposed to be more probable than strings of streaks.

However we cannot forget that B side is always favored albeit in a whimsical way.

If the third card rule doesn't work, we are pretty sure that itlr we'll get a slight higher amount of singles than streaks.

Every bac shoe, whatever complex it will be, fits the above Fundamental Law at different degrees.

Since we are professionals not wanting to fall into too deviated situations (as, differently to black jack, here our EV will be always negative) we must set up minimum requirements either in W or L way. Hence betting toward the B streaks formation and P singles formation with a lot of stop betting (stop win and stop loss) in order to reduce variance.

So we do not want to look for consecutive outcomes producing a lot of wins or losses, we want to set up a more or less diluted betting model capable to adhere at most to the expected values.

Probability laws come in handy for us.

Actually itlr we'll get more clusters of BB interpoled by P results than isolated BB patterns. I mean that itlr BB..PBB.. or BB..PPBB.. will be more likely than BB..PBP... or BB..PPBP...

The same about P singles.

Of course some shoes will produce many isolated BB and/or many isolated P singles.

We'll talk about them next time.

as. 














 






 
 

   























 






   

 

   

Quote from: alrelax on April 25, 2017, 12:53:01 AM
There is an advantage and I call it 'Diminishing probability' and once you unravel what happened to a certain tune the pending changes will normally happen a greater amount of times by far than not. Which is a definitive control on the variance, at least the way I deduce down the depletion of what happened in most shoes.

+1

as

Thanks for your replies guys.

And thanks roversi, I know you are on the few who really knows what I'm talking about.

See you soon

as.

A side note: the fact that anything can happen anytime and anyhow is simply ridiculous, especially if someone keeps stating that you have to quit after a win.

Thus, if you have to quit after a given win the probability to lose will be higher than expected?

That's perfect, it means that the future distributions will be more negative than positive no matter what you'll play, so the reverse thought will be true.

Unfortunately the odds will remain the same, either if you have won or if you have lost.

And odds dictate that B streaks and P singles will be more frequent than B singles and P streaks per every shoe, per a couple of shoes and forever and ever.

as. 

Let's say we are machines wagering against another machine.

The game seems to be a coin flip succession but we know that itlr B>P by every simple or complex BP distribution.

We know that a coin flip succession cannot be beaten by any means.

I repeat it: any coin flip succession cannot be beaten by any means.

If baccarat might be beaten it's because it isn't a coin flip succession.

I repeat it: if baccarat might be beaten it's because it isn't a coin flip succession.

B is more prevalent than P as B includes hands where it has a mathematical advantage due to the rules. It happens just 8.6% of the times.

So B won't be advantaged 100% of the times, neither 50% of the times, neither 20% of the times.
Moreover B won't be 100% advantaged on such 8.6% total hands. Just by a 15.6% percentage.

Simple deduction: regularly wagering B side won't get us any control of the game as there's a lot of variance.

In order to win we need to control the variance.

Hence we need a further hint: distribution and frequency of B related patterns and P related patterns.

Simplest next step is considering B and P patterns in term of B streaks (more prevalent than B singles) and P singles (more prevalent than P streaks).

So a B streak of 2 banker hands in a row will be considered as a B streak of 25 or 30.

The same about P singles: a P single will be considered as a succession of 10-15 or 20 P singles in a row.

In a word, any B streak and/or any P single will be our new simplest targets to look for.

We do not want to guess MANY hands. We do want to guess the least possible amount of hands favoring the construction of the simplest patterns: B streaks and P singles.

Since the random world won't accomplish our simple task everytime, besides the first stop win (the production of just one B streak and/or just one P single) we need to put a stop loss during our endeavour.
We don't want to lose many bets looking for B streaks and P singles when a shoe continues to produce the counterparts. But we need to accept the fact that many positive outcomes will be disregarded by not betting as we cannot know when and how much they will materialize.

The most deviated situations we could expect to are single shoes not presenting one B streak (impossible feature) and no one P single (very very very very unlikely situation, still a possible situation).

The probability to get two consecutive shoes not featuring such situations (no B streaks and no P singles) is not existent.

So we know that no one shoe will form only B singles and that no two consecutive shoes will rule out at least one P single apparition.

Of course we could easily get a shoe forming 10 B singles, one B streak and another 10 or more B singles and many other distributions strongly deviating the "natural" outcomes.
And naturally a couple of long P streaks happening on a single shoe will reduce the probability to get P singles as those streaks are reducing the situations to get them.

In a word, we don't know when and how many B streaks and/or P singles will take place, even if we put at minimum our goal.

To reduce the variance we need a further step.

B streaks clusters (consecutive B streaks of two or more) are more likely than single B streaks (B streaks preceded and followed by one or more B singles) and the same is true about P singles (P singles clusters are more likely than P singles interpoled by two or more P streaks).

If we hadn't to pay the 5% vig, a general plan wagering those patterns will get more B streaks clusters than the counterparts and the same it's true about P singles clusters vs the opposite situation.

Actually if we hadn't to pay the 5% vig, we'll get a sure advantage simply betting B side everytime but here the variance will be very high, so high that we could be behind after 10k or even 20k resolved bets.

So I'm enhancing the issue that in some selected situations the most likely event will be slight more "likely" in relationship of what happened in the past per every shoe.

If anyone is interested about this topic I will continue.

as. 



 





















   


 













   

Quote from: caddy on April 04, 2017, 11:26:48 PM
asymbacguy,

What exactly does your book cover??

Hi caddy!
I wrote something about it under my blog on this site.

Basically I stress on the importance that the only option we can take advantage of is the asymmetrical nature of the game.
In a word that baccarat hands seem to be an infinite coin flip succession but they really aren't.

My strategy doesn't imply the idea to get something happening but that certain less likely situations cannot last for long.
This, imo, can only be done by overselecting the betting situations and putting in action a very limited progression.

The bac outcomes are just the byproduct of a finite card distribution and when cards are depleted from the shoe the future results will be affected in some way.
Thus not every shoe will fit the requisites to bet.

I've found that in terms of variance the best triggers are Banker streaks of any lenght, Banker doubles and Player 3+ streaks.
Always taking into account HOW those streaks happened as a Banker two hand streak involving one asymmetrical hand and one symmetrical hand is totally different to the same Banker streak involving two AS hands or, more likely, two symmetrical hands.
The same about B doubles and P 3+ streaks.

Cheers

as. 

 



 


 

Quote from: Ted009 on April 03, 2017, 02:14:59 AM
Thank you AS. I sincerely thank you for all your help. I want to read your book. Can you please make an exception to sell one book outside Vegas?
Regards,
Ted

Hi Ted!

I have to ask Vic if we could make an arrangement about offering the book right on this site.
At least I'll be insulted by people who I know. 

as.

Quote from: Ted009 on March 29, 2017, 02:53:30 AM
Hi As,

Thank you for your advice. I would love to learn how to count the side bet.
Alrelax has written numerous times about how he plays the game. I think his playing styles make perfect sense.

I just think it is suicidal to play the game like a robot. Like last night the gentleman sitting next to me and he caught a good streak of players run. He made quite a few large units and when the shoe turned against him, he lost it all. I only made 6 units the whole session and my unit is $15 lol

To possibly win at this game you have to build a strict mechanical attitude.
I mean to know to control the variance without thinking that an human factor can alter the random flow of the game.

About the side bets vulnerability I'd strongly suggest the "Advanced advantage play" book by E. Jacobsen. You'll get a mathematical advantage.

For a BP betting strategy albeit never leading to a strict mathematical advantage, I've written a book on the subject.
It's available only in Vegas.

as. 

   

Quote from: Ted009 on March 28, 2017, 08:01:07 PM
Yes, it is for entertainment for sure unless you are yearning to be a pro. My intention is to be a pro on this game. Can I do it? Only time will tell.
I would love to hear from all the pros about how they are doing it every day.

Hi Ted!

The only way to be a pro at this game is counting the side bets. Period.

Surely there are players doing well at this game betting B and P but nothing even close to be pros.....quoting an 80s song...it's just an illusion

as.

Baccarat is for entertainment only.
It's up to us not to transform an entertainment into a nightmare.

Trying to consistently win at baccarat is another matter.

as. 

As I've already sayed, this is one of the most powerful strategies to be employed at bac tables.

If you dissect the bac outcomes just on three events (singles, doubles, 3+s) you are doing yourself a favor.

You do not want to guess the unguessable every time and no matter what, just to predict some limited sections of the shoe where two events out of three will come out at different degrees and by a degree higher than 75%.

Notice that we are sure that itlr such 75% will be not confirmed by any means, depending on which side we are registering.

as.






 

So Al you are asking if after a fortune 7 hit the probability to get banker the next hand is somewhat increased.

The probability to get a fortune 7 is 1 to 43.4 against; about 25% of those fortune 7s are composed by 0-0-7 (0=zero value cards) and, at a very far inferior degree 0-2-5 or 2-0-5.

Since we are betting after a very selective situation, we could argue that itlr that 7 caught by banker to hit the fortune 7 slightly reduces the probability to fall into the P side on the very next hand. And a 7 is a quite good Player first card.
Additonally, most of the time a fortune 7 is the product of a symmetrical hand (the exceptions are when B has a 6 and the third card is a 6 or 7). That means that the probability to get on the next hand an asymmetrical hand (favoring the banker) is slightly enlarged.

Of course anything could happen as card combinations are almost endless but the condition of betting in such rare circumstance again again and again might very slightly increase the probability to get another Banker hand.

Once I've read somewhere that everytime the banker stands after giving to P side an 8 or a 9 as third card (no matter the result), the probability that itlr the next hand will be Banker is slightly increased. This seems to be true.

as.


   





 



 

Thanks Bally.

And thanks for your interesting contribute!

as.

Quote from: 21 Aces on March 11, 2017, 01:09:21 AM
Cite cases for baccarat specifically not games like black jack, etc.

Case #1 was a 30-35 y.o. asian guy regularly playing at a well know eu casino. His bets ran from 1000 euros to the max 4000. He started to play there from april-may 2013 until he got banned about one year later. He presented his ID at the desk (in eu every player must show a valid ID to enter in a casino) just to be told he was no longer welcome there.
It seems he won about 250.000-300.000 euros in the process.
He bet rarely and only the Banker side with a sort of 1-2-4 progression. People at his table started to bet in the same way, maybe this was the reason he got kicked out.

Case #2 is more interesting. Again an asian guy accompanied by his girlfriend/wife and wagering only the final portion of the shoe mostly at Austrian casinos. What i know he was the owner of a high end chinese restaurant in Vienna. It seems he kept winning and winning and winning by using a heavy progression (good news for soxfan!) on certain final portions of the shoe. He bet either Banker and Player.
Despite of his tipping generosity he played until he was banned from every Austrian casino (Austrian casinos are a company).

Differently to US casino policy regarding black jack, in Europe when you are banned you can't enter the casino no matter what games you will play. Some exceptions stand in Russia.

There are more notable cases besides baccarat and black jack about people getting barred for "too much winning" honestly.
The best and very famous example concerns a Spanish family who literally destroyed Madrid casino (and other premises around the globe) playing roulette.
The family acting as a team and getting an advantage from supposedly biased wheels won for several years until they were banned. They won about 4 million euros. 

Around the mid 80s, a couple of German players joined an Italian casino winning in just one month the equivalent of $750.000 (of that time).
They used a kind of visual ballistic strategy, wagering nearly half of the wheel (17-19 numbers) after the ball had made 5-6 spins and instructing the employee to give the rotor the lower velocity he could without being summoned by the pit boss.
On average they were right 8 times over 10.
Albeit their tips were enormous, eventually they got banned. A further investigation made by the casino supervisors found that those two guys were not welcome in half of all european casinos.

We see that the mathematical edge alone can't prevent casinos to lose money even "in the long run". And when they realize they can't have an edge upon certain players they use the ban countermeasure.

as. 









 


   
 


   

   






   

Quote from: brokerny on March 10, 2017, 09:37:05 PM
Aces, you don't believe what Asym said actually happened or can happen? it does make alot of sense. winning at max or near max limit for a streak of a year, i would have kicked them out much earlier than a whole year. if these guys were smart, they should have took their games to macau or the US.

Yep, why lying on this?

Simply put casinos worldwide have the right to refuse the action of anybody and without giving any reason and I can provide many more examples of players who got banned without cheating.

And many gambling experts are banned from playing just because they are experts, even if they haven't really wagered a cent on the tables.

as.