Mark T. is right.

Besides the fact that BBPPBBPP is one of the less likely outcomes the game will produce, per every "flow" caught profitably you'ìl have the same amount of negative "counter flow" happening.

Actually and providing some adjustments there's one piece of truth on this statement "But it will be good to have something similar earlier"

as. 

Quote from: Donkeyskillz on June 07, 2016, 12:18:34 AM
It was a comment from a pit boss that he had never saw a shoe that never had a tie in it

LOL

as.

A good post with good replies.

Imo it's quite easy to assess if we have found a kind of edge putting at work a given system.

First we need a decent sample and we can even manipulate it, for example reversing the EC apparitions. This ploy is very important at baccarat where chances are not equally probable.

Secondly W must come out more streaky than singled and the opposite about the L part. (Obviously the same concept applies on any streak or single class depending on which W or L side we are considering)

Third, if we use a progression, winning spots taken on a given X level must be unproportionally more prevalent than superior X+1 winning spots.

In reality any gambling game seen from the house side point of view itlr will follow those guidelines, so we should be in good shape knowing to have gotten the perfect or almost perfect opposite statistical situation.

as.





   

Quote from: MarkTeruya on June 05, 2016, 12:03:36 AM
It's impossible to predict when a side is going to win, regardless of card tracking, symmetrical hand counts / ratios or otherwise.

One could track Bank naturals v's bank wins via 5th card and gain a fair expectation that a 4 card card natural Bank is due, yet still not know precisely when it is going to happen until after the event, which makes it all superfluous.

I resurrect this, because it's always been hovering in the back of my mind, sitting at a table tracking / counting the Bank asymmetrical v's symmetrical hands, even knowing a shoe is rich in 8's and 9's, the punter still doesn't know the precise moment to bet, therefore unworkable.

I've played many a shoe where at the on-set (10~15 hands) you simply can't hope to get paid out unless your betting side has a  score of 8 or 9.  Every winning hand has a score or 8 or 9 and only after say 15 hands you start seeing sides winning via Barbecue, 1-Baccarat, 5-4 etc.   

In those circumstances were a shoe maybe rich in 8's and 9's (how rich is rich?), balanced ratio between Player and Banker wins, many 4th and 5th card draws.  Natural Bank is due!! When do you "go all in" on the Bank, answer is you can't.

The figures may be true in your first post, but so what, when you tracking criteria is 100% you can't hammer the Bank, too bad so sad if you do and the Player suddenly decides to go on even a 4 streak. Or do you wait until your criteria is met and wait for a 4P streak, lot of work required here, asymmetrical hand count, tracking of 8's and 9's and a 4P streak, then go all in, correct?     

Thanks for your interest in my post.
You made some good points on that.

Mathematically speaking and talking about BP hands there are no other valuable tools to guess what will be the more likely hand WITHIN A GIVEN BUNCH OF HANDS.
I know it's a difficult task to accomplish.

As you correctly sayed, first step is registering the AS/S ratio. We know that per any shoe the most probable range of AS hands will be limited within the 4-14 value.
Then we know that nearly one third of total hands on average will be formed by naturals negating any AS situation.
Starting our betting solely relying upon those percentages won't get the job, of course.
We need, imo, a relatively deviated and unexpected situation as a fair P streak occurence.
Now we have to think back evaluating how many AS hands had taken place so far.

The more this P streak came out on the initial portions of the shoe, the less will be our future degree of precision.

Moreover, some AS hands will unexpectedly favor the P side, still the only real shifting situation had come out.

I mean that after a 4 P streak and after having registered zero AS hands on the first, let's say, 20-25 hands, the probability to get B on subsequent hands is higher.

If many AS hands had taken place or whether some AS hands favored the P side (mostly because they did work to build up such relatively long P streaks), the P 4 streak starting betting point loses a lot of its possible value.

Actually long P streaks do contain one or more AS hands favoring this P side.
Of course the same it's true about relatively long B streaks, now obviously the AS factor went in the expected way.

AS parameter is just an added factor increasing our expectation to get A rather than B.
We want to pay a tax on our B winning bets having a reason and not by coincidence.

Besides the naturals, another possible important point to consider is about how many and how 6 or 7 points had fallen on the P chance.

P 6,7,8 or 9 point negates from the start any possible B advantage. Then we are more favorite than even money to get a P drawing hand crossing a B standing hand (any B standing hand is favorite to win itlr as it adds to naturals and 6s,7s even 3s, 4s and 5s).

Itlr long B streaks are more likely than not composed by AS hands; on the other part long P streaks are more likely than not formed by one or more AS hands.

B or P streaks springing from perfectly 50/50 situations are not good starting betting points, imo. Unless a huge AS/S ratio was shifted to the right before a given P streak had taken place.

as.




 













   

Quote from: Drewm on June 06, 2016, 12:13:19 AM
Hey ... Lol that some deep thoughts.... I just want to know if there was one but I agree with you

The best man to ask something about making a living at this game here it's gr8player.

as.

Quote from: soxfan on June 05, 2016, 11:37:59 PM
I said it again and I'll say it before; they baccarats is a serious thing but most cats ain't serious. I personally know a coupla cats that maker their daily bread at the dice or baccarats table. But most cats ain't got the balls, bankrolls, discipline or desire to make the baccarats their fulltime gig, hey hey!

I agree, but it's not the mathematics alone which can transform us into winners.

as.   

Quote from: alrelax on June 03, 2016, 03:15:51 AM
I see many win, win repeatedly and when they do give it back or lose it is generally because they played too long that day/session, etc.  Yes, baccarat is beatable to a certain aspect, but not consistently and over the long term on a daily full time basis.  And, baccarat cannot be beat using a set of numbers that are used for every shoe, every day, every table, every casino----can't work to the positive, no way, sorry, does not exist.

Hi Al.

You mentioned many times the "daily" sessions.
I agree.
Even at bj while playing positive situations after counting cards we know we'll have losing days, weeks or months. 

And even the statement "playing too long" is quite interesting: now we know that after a given winning sequence or daily winning session we are more often than not destined to lose.
Why not taking as our starting betting point certain strong losing or winning sequences on either side?

After all many of us are there to win not to have fun.

as.



 

Hi!

Think about this: anyone wishing to make a living at baccarat knows it's a mathematical EV- game.

Therefore this player must know that every bet he/she will make will be EV-, no matter what.

Anyway, the game is somewhat limited NOT by human considerations instead by statistical features.

In a word we can't interfere with the mathematical world, we might just take advantage of some statistical features.

That's because whereas the mathematical world is infinite, statistical world is limited in some way (alas, no guarantees about this last assumption).

Imo, the "I wish to be or I'm a baccarat for a living" player must always remember what most likely can happen for one, two, ten or even twenty or more shoes.
Then it has to compare the gap about what is entitled to expect with what he observed/played on the real outcomes he witnessed.

If one thinks that at baccarat everything will be possible anytime and everywhere, he better change game for obvious reasons.
Worse yet if a person thinks to guess what will be more likely to happen following what the actual shoe has produced. It would be too easy...

In a word, a possible make a living player cannot hope to get the best of it by utilizing the same tool house uses to beat customers, that is mathematics.

He is forced to try to take advantage of some statistical features the game will provide along the way.

Now, after having properly assessed certain OBJECTIVE statistical features, the player may use the mathematics to try to get some help on his side, as anything can be possible but only from a theorical point of view.

If any player is telling you that he's a long term winner he must prove that either he's able to control the negative outcomes by the only mathematics (impossible task) or by statistical features (possible task after very selected situations had occurred).
Utilizing mathematics on those last occurences, imo, will improve a lot our results.

as. 



   




 







 











     

Quote from: Gizmotron on June 03, 2016, 02:17:36 AM
Actually Roulette is easier to beat than any 50/50 only table game. That is my opinion because the 2/1 bets are far more opportunistic in Roulette. There is a mathematical based phenomenon that exists inside the balance point of two to one events that are in your favor if you know how to exploit them. But that takes overcoming human nature, fallacies, ignorance, and magical beliefs, not to mention chemical phenomenon that diminishes the capacity to utilize the logic centers of your mind.

This comment makes much sense to me, nonetheless when playing 2 to 1 roulette situations you're forced to overcome a more than double house edge (2.70%).
Taking into account the pros and cons, imo, baccarat offers better opportunities to the player.

as.

Al, I wouldn't be so sure that someone somewhere has found some edge at baccarat or even at roulette.

Actually a person capable to demonstrate that roulette is beatable (without electronical devices or by taking advantage of some wheels' defects) will get the same prestige got by Albert Einstein since nobody in the past had succeeded in that.

At baccarat the task is easier, still very few will have some interest in hearing that. 

as.

Quote from: Nickmsi on June 01, 2016, 09:17:46 PM
Hi Mark . . .

"My definition of 'catch' is to win within a series of bets"

You are absolutely 100% correct.

as.

Quote from: soxfan on May 31, 2016, 12:18:17 AM
With m y current 13 step parlay progression I'm buckin up against a 95% win rate. So, I get clipped for 500 unit in progressions bust out every 100 shoe, so I can win well and regular by capturing just 10 units profits on the 95 winning shoe and I average better than that, hey hey.

Probably with my over selected BS tested on millions of shoes, your win rate will be close to 99.999999999%. 

as.

Even though it could appear as a really weird subject, even some "subjective" situations might help us to find what should be our best course of action.

Naturally everything is based upon some objective mathematical and statistical issues where the subjective factor is just an indicator. So we must be very confident about the reliability of this subjective indicator. The pro of this type of "registration" is that a human guy could have experienced long positive or negative situations, meaning he/she carefully played a fair amount of shoes.

Let's say a guy/girl seated next to us is telling that his/her plan is to wager only toward the appearance of P doubles vs superior P streaks adopting a given MM. Unfortunately he experienced a 25 or something consecutive losing streak, that is he got 25 2+ P streaks with no one P double. I can assure you that this is just a sort of science fiction finding, anyway... 

First thought should be that in some way this guy knows some basic long term statistical features. We don't want to go deep in the process of assessing how he wants to get the best of it by this finding or if he carefully registered the 2/2+ P streaks ratio (and many other issues related to that).

If we believe in what he says, we know that he experienced a very long negative (for his strategy) sequence, a 5 sr deviation.

Since we're patiently waiting some other triggers dictated by our personal plan, we want to try to take advantage of this subjective deviation.

Hence our new temporary trigger will be shifted to any situation getting any BPP sequence, as now we know that our new "buddy" will be theorically more entitled to get more P doubles than P superior streaks.

It's interesting to notice that a random world cannot be affected by a subjective situation, in a word that the future actual shoe outcomes we are playing in cannot be influenced by a human.

At the same time and taking for granted what the buddy he's talking to us, the probability this player will get higher deviations on this very shoe (and even more on next shoes) will be very very slim.

Nevertheless, nothing can prevent this actual shoe to produce a slight predominance of P 2+ streaks, but the probability to get a 2/2+ P streaks ratio highly deviated to the right are almost non existent.

Now If we want to take as our new trigger such individual probability interfering with an objective probability, what will be our best course of action?

And what if this player leaves the table after one or two losing bets?

Does the probability to get more P doubles than P superior streaks be objectively influenced now or over the next shoes by an individual registration?

as.

Tend to agree with some points discussed by 21aces.

Back to OP questions.

What's the best timing to place our bets?

My answer is: when the expected is more likely to either follow certain already formed expected situations or to balance some already formed unexpected situations.

We see that to do that we must define the words expected and unexpected, but if we think baccarat as a totally random game we cannot give to both issues any valid role.

Anyway the words expected and unexpected might be applied without utilizing complex considerations, just common sense.

Let's say me and you have played without any particular strategy one shoe ending up with a 60 units winning. Wow.

Now we have to decide if we want to play one more shoe or just quitting because of the fear to be more losers than winners.
I bet in the same circumstance most people tend to choose the quitting option. 

Wait. It's a random world, so nothing can prevent us to get another favourable shoe, hence getting us more winnings, maybe another 60 or more units profit.

Nonetheless a remote logic department of our brain is telling us that we better quit.

Unfortunately and admitting we didn't get there to have just fun in one single session, the fact we are leaving opposed to remaining to play doesn't change things a bit.
Next shoes will be burdened just by the 1.06%/1.24% tax...or there's something else we're fearing about?

Actually our next session, being the next day, week, year or decade, will be influenced in some way by this profitable shoe.

Casinos try to tie players at the tables the more they can not only because of the tax, but as players will make many mistakes.

Let's say in that winning session we have bet $25 units, so getting a $1500 profit.

Let's say in our future playing session our total bets will total an amount of $10.000. Then the house tax of an average 1.25% will get the house a mathematical profit of "just" $125.

Therefore after having pocketed $1500, we're expecting to lose an average sum of $125, so after two sessions we'll get a $1375 profit anyway. Why fearing so much next sessions if every our future bet will get a decent 0.9894% or 0.9876% return? 

Most gambling failures happen not for tax issues but for the extreme speedness of the outcomes searched by players, either in form of positive deviations or, worse yet, in the form of some too fast recovering plans.

When we're ahead of just one single st.upid fkn unit no matter how was our strategy, we know that not only our next bets will be mathematically unfavored but that in some way we must give back that unit.
At a lesser degree for obvious mathematical reasons, we know that whenever we are one unit behind, we'll expect to get a sort of balancement on the winning side.

+1 and -1 is the base of the problem, the rest is just variance.

as. 

 

 

 























   

 

   

This is not a post about bet selection, even though at baccarat there are better BS than others as some events are long term mathematically shifted.
So for example and generally speaking wagering to break P 4s is a better selection than wagering to break ANY 4s and the worst option is a plan intended to break B 4s.
This because itlr B4<B4+ and P4>P4+.

In reality, the intermediate situation (wagering to break any 4s) may give us interesting statistical features as globally taken the 4s class will go more likely back and forward around the zero (equilibrium) point (at the same time giving a theorical lower probability to get strong one side deviations). That is a perfect situation to set up a very diluted progression.

The above statement is a sort of paradox, as many times we'll be forced to bet the mathematical disadvantaged chance (breaking B 4s), but globally taken such strategy will give us a slight lesser impact of variance as now we're wagering to not get two simultaneous opposite relatively high deviated situations for long time.

Imo the idea to include some breaking streaks strategy in our plan is well placed at baccarat for several reasons.

I want to mention only one here.

Let's take the casino war game, a st.upid game where the highest card between players and house will win (unfortunately giving the house a pretty high edge for the same card value rule).

Unfold several times a multi deck shoe, register the simple A or B outcomes (ignoring ties) and itlr you'll see that some events will be more likely than others.

Good, so why casino war game cannot be easily beaten?

There are several reasons for that: we have to play every single hand, the house edge is quite high, we can get a precise situation only playing heads-up with the house, but foremost we don't have the opportunity to bet the house side (obstacle overcome in some way by a large spread betting). Then now casinos are using continuous shuffling machines or cutting large portions of the deck.
Still the basic principle remain the same.

At baccarat things are more complicated as there are four different class of ranks having the same value (10s and pictures) and not only any side is getting a point adding two cards value but there's even a third card intervening with some structured rules advantaging B side.

The overall effect made by those particular features will produce a kind of slight specular baccarat situation than the casino war game produces.

Back to the progression topic.

No one progression can control the game (no matter how high is the bankroll utilized compared to the table limits offered) whenever we start the progression at a zero level.
Not even a so called flat betting winning strategy unless it was proven to get an astounding high edge on player's favor (we all know there's no way to do that).

What we can do, imo, is setting up a rigid plan on multiple economically connected situations where either multiple strong deviated and unexpected events had taken place within short periods of time and/or some multiple expected situations had stalled around the zero point within too large periods of time.

We see that there's no a precise direction to be followed: either wagering toward multiple expected deviations and/or waiting the appearance of multiple unexpected events roaming around the zero point for long time.

In a word, we shouldn't want to get mere single RTM or single deviation effects as any random world can't be controlled by those features.

Imo the key word to work on is "multiple".

Multiple events can't stall or deviate forever and ever but at the same time we cannot know when and how much such events will get their expected probability to "balance" the previous features in a way or another.

Therefore, imo, if we don't want to wait some rare favourable flat betting circumstances to bet, we must be prepared to set up a low and multilayered progression starting at a point different from zero. In a way or another (RTM or expected deviation), of course.

And the word "multiple" cannot act other than improving our expectation.

as.