Of course it's complicated.

After all we're talking about the possibility to regularly beat an EV- game.

Maybe we'll be able to set up a BS baccarat team, we never know...

as. 

Quote from: alrelax on May 24, 2016, 10:35:54 PM
That's exactly correct.  The same one in a shoe, might not repeat it self for hundreds or thousands of shoes.  Then again, it might repeat itself for many spots the very next shoe.  Play it one way and the next time the same trend or bias comes around, you have to play it completely the opposite for part of it and then the same and then entirely different to continue successfully with it.  Extremely hard to do, almost impossible.  That is why, the fewer and the least wagers, pump up the value, is so important crucial.

Now we really talk the same language.

But remove the phrase "almost impossible", replacing it with "the odds we can't succeed in that are remote". :-)

My word that very soon baccarat pits won't be so glad to accept us as players. Especially high stakes players like you.

as.

   

Bayes, you are one of the few giving prestige on this site. 

as. 

Al, your comments are appropriate.

Anyway I was hoping to hear from a roulette player that at gambling games equilibrium (being false or real) simply doesn't exist.

First hand is a deviation by definition, BB BP PB or PP aren't equilibriums and so on...

Gambling games are characterized just by deviations. There's no one single pattern producing an equilibrium. No one, even though most players consider as a deviation any "simple" pattern coming out.

The problem is trying to get a kind of advantage from this assumption.

And imo this task can be done only by filtering and filtering and filtering the shoe outcomes as any random world is limited, especially taking into account multiple situations where we can easily toss the unfavourable events privileging the best ones.

as.   

Any baccarat system is based upon the probability to get A or B and if you have read my posts you know there are several ways to classify a given event as A or B.

Generally speaking, an A/B word is composed by deviations and equilibriums. The last situation could be classified into two different categories: real equilibriums and "false" equilibriums.
False equilibriums must be intended as those situations where the gap between two opposite events tend to "stall", meaning they are not gaining a sensible deviation toward one side or another despite the A/B gap is different to zero (ok, mathematically it's 1).

The deviation side is easier to evaluate: anytime A or B chance will deviate, we just have to take into account HOW MUCH or, preferably, HOW it deviates.

UNLESS THE GAME IS MATHEMATICALLY OR BY OTHER REASONS SHIFTED TOWARD ONE SIDE, the flow and the gap of these three different features itlr will tend to be equal to zero.

Notice that itlr we are certain that EC will be more or less deviated toward one side as the real equilibrium will be a kind of utopistic goal.
Nonetheless, regularly betting toward deviations without a sensible reason must be considered as a sort of "pushing the luck" strategy as such deviations (in a direction or another) are just the by product of the natural flow of the outcomes, meaning that the opposite false or real equilibrium situations are due. 

Actually a world mainly composed by real equilibriums and/or limited deviations will be a perfect world to set up a simple progression.
On the other part, regularly betting toward deviations doesn't get the job as we cannot know at which degree and at which frequency (unless from a theorical point of view) such deviations will take place.

It's true that regularly betting toward real or false equilibriums without a reason doesn't make the job either as we could easily get multiple deviations intended as real deviations (going farther from a zero gap) or false deviations (partial RTM effect from a perfect zero gap) even more difficult to properly assess.

Therefore a so called "perfect" strategy cannot solely rely upon deviations or equilibriums without knowing how many times and how much a given opposite statistical situation had occurred.

Instead, we should place our confidence to get more reliable results about the EMPIRICAL probability to get favourable outcomes after having known that some expected results are due. As they must due by mathematics and common probability.

Talking about practice, let's say we want to set up a slow multilayered strategy based on the increased probability to get more P 4s than P 4+s (more Player 4 streaks than Player superior streaks).

Good, we know that itlr we'll get by 1 trillion certainty more P 4s than P 4+s, so we cannot be wrong.
Not a vulgar finding as roulette can't give us such certainty.
True, the vig itlr will cancel the validity of such finding, still we know that in this scenario A>B.

Technically and mathematically we know we will be more right than wrong whenever after a P 4 streak a Banker hand will show up by an expected or better probability to show an asymmetrical hand, a hand where B side is mathematically favorite.
Whenever after a P 4 streak the next hand will be symmetrical (50/50) placed, we know our confidence about getting a B hand will go to the toilet.

Since we know that the mathematical probability to get an asym hand after a P 4 streak is around 1/11, we know we'll be wrong 10 times over 11. No matter how we think to be genius to guess what will be the next hand, especially if we won the hand on a symmetrical spot (it's just luck!).

Nevertheless itlr we'll get the same amount of deviations, real equilibriums and false equilibriums occurring between P 4s and P 4+s. Still we have the luxury to know that real equilibriums are just utopistic or short term findings as there are no REAL equilibriums on those opposite events itlr.

That doesn't mean our strategy should be focused to stubbornly hoping for more expected outcomes, just to properly assess the "deviations-real equilibriums-false equilibriums" situations happened in the past as at baccarat they will have a slight different degree of showing up.

The more one or more features had deviated from the norm in regard of their expected probability, the better will be our results. Especially taking into account several multiple AB situations, knowing that at baccarat when certain A events will be heavily present some different and related counter B situations will be less proportionally present.

as. 
       









   

Quote from: Sputnik on May 19, 2016, 04:34:02 PM
Thank you AS i like this methodology very much.

Cheers

Thank You!

You already know that I'm strongly convinced that some serious roulette players have a sort of advantage over other gamblers.
To be honest I continue to think that roulette is an unbeatable game, at least under normal circumstances.
But the efforts made by certain roulette researchers are, imo, far more interesting than what I've read so far about other games (bj excluded, of course).

Why?

Because serious roulette players will start their observations having solid mathematical and statistical basis: they know very well how the events will be placed, the limits when the deviations most likely will be included and so on.

More importantly, a strict bunch of roulette players focus their study about the only possible tool one could get to beat EV- games: the concentration/dllution effect of the events, a mere statistical issue.

And roulette, a multiple simultaneous result machine, might offer plenty of opportunities to grasp some hints about the above effect.

So, yes, roulette is an unbeatable game, yet I'm waiting to hear from mathematicians why after a X-Y-Z EC event, the most likely result taken from a class of two opposite events being X-Y-Z (the same result) and the perfect opposite Z-X-Y will be invariably shifted toward the former.

Ok, zero tax will erase the possible validity of such finding, not mentioning the fact that after a given 3 EC event the most likely result overall considered will be a -1 or +1 result.

Why the hell in a single zero wheel and itlr a sequence like 26-3-26-3 will be less likely than 13-13-11-13? 

as.






     

 



   
 

XXVV, thanks for your interesting contribute here.

I'm working to find out how you select the bets.

as

Quote from: Albalaha on May 19, 2016, 01:40:29 AM
What is so special about this finding? You just bet 3 fixed ECs constantly and simulate 3-4 samples of the same length i.e. 1,500,000. You will almost find the similar results without betting all the three ECs of the last number.

Is this finding giving you any edge?
Can you win flat bet this way?
Can this way of picking bets get you immune from bad stretches of losses?

I think all the answers will go in negative, being honest.
     Betselection doesn't make the difference, your MM strategy does.

Of course the edge will be so small that cannot overcome the zero tax unless we utilize a super multilayered slow progression.

Yep, differently to baccarat I can't win by flat betting here as I can't restrict the variance.

Mmmhhh, if it's so easy to find opposite events giving an infinite one-shifted gap at roulette be free to give me other examples capable to surpass a 1.500.000 test.

It takes a couple or so of NY minutes to find out if they would exist.

But I already know the answer. Still I'm very glad to be wrong. ;-)

as. 

   

Moreover, at baccarat we know that certain deviations/equlibrium ratios are infinitely shifting toward one side so we can't rely upon the sole probability to get some ratios breaking even itlr.
We know they will be shifted toward one side with 1 trillion accuracy.

We shouldn't want to guess the value or the probability of getting deviations as we cannot have any hint about this; we want to take advantage of the fact that D/E ratios of many events will be either equal or shifted toward the left side.

Therefore limiting the variance and at the same time trying to get more precision about the nature of the future hands dealt.

as. 

   

A random world itlr is composed by the same number of deviations and (pseudo)equilibriums.
Of course we know that globally taken, the deviations will get a kind of advantage over the equilibriums, yet we cannot know when and at which degree such deviations will take place.

Yes, the more we play the more will be unlikely to reach an equlibrium point, but only if we consider the equilibrium point as a X=Y spot, meaning two opposite events reaching a zero gap point.

In setting up our strategy we cannot forget that we shoudln't care care less about the value of deviations, just focus about the number of Deviations/Equilibrium spots as itlr and even on shortest terms such values are less influenced by variance.   

as.

Even though roulette is a perfect independent results' game, there are some interesting long term features that could be easily tested by everyone.
The strategy  was conducted over 1.500.000 real spins (single zero).

I mean some events are more likely than others. Unfortunately zero tax and some other practical features will lower a lot the value of such aknowledge.

The trigger we are looking for is really simple: we take note of the last number produced then we bet all the 3 EC belonging to this number. And this procedure is made per every last number sorted out.

For example number 33 sorted out, next spin we want to bet black, odd and high.

Obviously such betting will get 4 different outcomes (zero ignored):

- winning all 3 EC (sorting of 29,31,33,35): +3

- winning just one unit (sorting of 11,13,15,17,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28): +1

- losing just one unit (sorting of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,20,30,32,34,36): -1

- losing all 3 EC (sorting of 12,14,16,18): -3

Well, in the long run the number of spots winning all 3 bets are greater than the number of spots losing all 3 bets and it will increase the more the hands are played.

Of course to try getting the best of it from this finding needs also to take into account the spots where we'll either win or lose 1 unit.

Despite of what many may think, there are no better numbers or worse numbers to spot as triggers.

True, red-odd-low numbers or black-even-high numbers should have the theorical best probability to match the same EC on the next spin but this wasn't the case, at least on our quite long sample.

In a word and transferring the plan on the statistical field, we'll expect to have more single total different EC outcomes than streaks of different EC outcomes, more double different EC outcomes than 2+ streaks of different EC outcomes and so on. And the reverse is also true regarding the same EC situations (more streaks than single, more 2+ than doubles, etc).

The variance and the weight of zero could be quite high, yet the final result will be sure.

as.   

 

   














 

Good reply ezmark.

Anyway I add my thoughts...

As long as we don't have a mathematical edge, HG simply doesn't exist.
Nonetheless HG exists on many side bets by 1 trillion certainty.

Not wanting to counting cards, our only option will be trying to take advantage of some statistical features.

By any means baccarat statistical features aren't influenced by choices dictated by human mind.

Outcomes cannot care less if one, two or more players are actually losing or winning or whether we think Player side will be more likely on this shoe because the previous hands were P dominated or vice versa in a RTM sense.

Regarding BP hands, the only way to say "I discovered the HG!" is an empirical method capable to bet Banker only on the spots where the AS/S hands ratio will be increased toward the left. Even finding a method capable to wager Player side only on symmetrical hands will get a zero negative edge with the house.
It isn't an easy task, it takes a lot of time to do that with no guarantees to succeed (no mathematical edge, no party!).

Back to the statistical world more widely considered.

It's a proven fact that statistics cannot act other than following mathematical rules and we know that this last force at baccarat will unbalance the outcomes or, if you prefer, tend to balance certain events more rapidly than at what happens at a perfect 50/50 independent game.

as. 







 

 







   




   

Baccarat world moves from deviations and equilibrium points and we know that some events tend to be deviated infinitely whereas others won't, those last touching many many times the zero (equilibrium) cutoff.
Nonetheless we know that such features may easily disappoint this assumption, let's think about B/P gap favoring the right side, B singles overcoming B streaks and many other related issues.

Anyway we know that thanks to the bac features, the ranges of intervention of certain events will be more restrained than others by 100% accuracy.

Which movements should help us most in order to control the outcomes?

Of course those events touching more likely the zero point several times so that the progression presented can "cover" the slight expected deviations going toward a side or another.

We see that in such effort we don't want to classify a given event as good or bad, we want just to pick up the situations where some deviations are more likely to go back to an ideal zero point.

Let's call it a kind of "equilibrium" goal, but it really isn't as every event slightly going back and forward to a point different to zero will allow us to get a profit by a very slow MM.

So we know that even aiming to points different to zero we could find possible valid spots to start our betting.

In reality, most part of authoritative gambling experts of the past had stated that searching for deviations is the best tool to try to get the best of it.
A perfect opposite thought of what just discussed.

Since I'm not in the position of confuting such claimings, I'll take for grant this thought.
Better going toward deviations than hoping for a return to equilibrium.
Still the problem is posed about how much to look for deviations. In a word, when to stop the betting or, better, when to start the betting?

Good questions.

Yet we get answers.

Without a doubt, the probability to get deviations toward a given side and per any event considered will be increased after many equilibrium points will be crossed, and of course we know that we don't necessarily need to reach zero eq. points to win.

On the other hand, a lot of equilibrium points (widely considered) crossed must be considered as a deviation itself.

Then our strategic plan should be focused about deviations. Period.

Easy to say it, but what about the practice?

Actually there are no positive or negative deviations. There are deviations. Each deviation will get its peaks in a way or another. It's just a matter of time. 
Some deviations are more likely than others, nevertheless even an unexpected deviation (multiple clusters of B singles vs B streaks, for example) will reach high points. We can't do anything to prevent such occurence if we have chosen to bet toward B streaks. 
But we know that this unlikely occurence cannot last for long.

Imo, the probability to get simultaneous high deviations on multiple events (deviations also intended as many equilibrium spots reached) is so small to allow us to set up a profitable plan.

as.

   

Quote from: alrelax on May 16, 2016, 08:08:59 PM
As,

Hopefully the 'strict strategic plan' is better than the one NYC had on the morning on September 11th, 2001.

Sadly from the other part it worked very well....

as.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 16, 2016, 05:02:49 AM
A correct MM and a strict strategic plan will be ready to face such things and not get struck at such outputs that can arise at any point of time.

This.

as.