Al, again I agree.

If I've played a winning strong chopped shoe, I won't think that the next shoe will be more streaky than chopped or half-half or whatever.

Still I have to register how many wins I got on that winning shoe and how I got them.

I can even agree that going "counter stream" rarely is a good option but it depends on what we're looking for.
I don't want to go counter stream but many times I prefer to sit out hoping for possible better opportunities.

It's wrong to go against some flows as much as stubbornly trying to find trends at any occasion.

as.

Of course, Al!

Any shoe is a single entity totally disjointed from the previous or the future ones.

Otherwise my methods would rely mostly on progressions and they don't.

Baccarat results are randomly formed but there is a common guideline produced by three incontrovertible features:

- some hands are mathematically shifted toward one side;

- the deck is a finite deck (card dependent process);

- the very slight propensity to produce the opposite of the last result.

So baccarat isn't an independent unguessable 50/50 game by any means.

That doesn't mean baccarat is easily beatable.
That doesn't mean that those features will properly act everytime no matter what.

In reality, yes, we could play even not keeping scores, but some basic registrations must be made.

as. 

   

   

Nice signature RG :-)

as.

Quote from: alrelax on May 10, 2016, 10:20:07 PM
Yes, true.  And I would be lying if I said that I never did follow or go against another player as well!  I have, usually for a time or two or three.  To go with a player, I normally do it out of camaraderie when we are all winning or at least a few of us.  I don't count on either going with or against as a proper strategy in so many words.  I do it out of boredom or fun, not spite or desperation.  It is a poor 'road' as it is really not based on anything.  IMO.

What cracks me up at the table is many actually belief that it is a predictor and the cards will follow their thoughts in relation to this.

I agree and sometimes I do the same.

as.

Sorry Al, but you can't be more wrong.

Read "advanced advantage play" by E. Jacobsen and maybe you'll change your opinion.
Almost half of the book is devoted to baccarat and Jacobsen isn't an i.diot like me, he's a mathematics professor expert in gambling.

About the importance to score keeping BP hands, well you have to wait the i.diot book. If you wish, of course. 

as. 

Good read, Al!

Anyway following lucky or unlucky players is just another "derived road" no worse than what the display is showing.
Sometimes could even be a better indicator of what could happen as heavy losers want to break even very rapidly, often forgetting that they won more hands than lost but just in the "unfortunate" reverse distribution.
Moreover, everyone here knows that the odds to broke even in short time after a huge loss are particularly unfavourable.
However they aren't if our goal after such huge (fictional) loss is to win just a couple of units.

as.   

   

Perfect.

Now let's suppose your friend is again you, meaning that you put in action two players: you #1 and the bigger one #2.

But you as you #1 do want to play just a fictional game, as you know you'll be a sure loser.
So you put your bets at a minimum level, taking the illusion to be a short term winner when you'll win but to be a zero loser when you won't.

Whenever you think you'll give back your wins and you know such moment will come along, your big friend #2 will start the betting as the probability to win should be increased.

So there's no point to put in action player #1 from the start as you know he will lose. Even if in the short run he will win something.   

Yes, even player #2 can lose, but by a less supposedly disadvantaged degree.

Good.

Let's suppose even the player #2 will lose and it will happen as variance can reach high values.
What can we do?

Of course we put in play a possible player #3 who lost zero on previous situations and on TWO DIFFERENT PLAYERS' LEVELS.

Naturally, player #1 and player #2 might have won something that this player #3 missed, but who cares as we know that those players will lose anyway in the long run at different degrees?

I mean player #3, even if playing very few bets, has a well higher degree of success especially whether players #1 and #2 were wagering a low betting strategy.

Will this player #3 lose? Of course, he will.
But by a very very low percentage than what the previous players have registered so far.

So a player #4 or #5 or #6 might take the action for us.

We can't win mathematically, but at the same time we know that mathematically (or better statistically) things must come out as expected.

And the more we're waiting our different degree players have lost the better will be our results.

Up to the point where we can make a living at this game.

as. 























 

How did they play in the past with classical charting?

No better no worse than us.

But we have to take into account that old authors considered only roulette outcomes.

I'm sure that whether some old authors would deeply study baccarat now, they might have better results than what they got at roulette (but not because baccarat is a less disadvantaged game than roulette).

Why? Because at baccarat almost every situation is slightly polarized by mathematical reasons.

At roulette a double is a double and is proportionally equal to a 3+ or perfectly probable than a single.
At baccarat no way this is true.

Imo it's not important how we register the results, it's important what we're looking for or what we're fearing most.

Surely an horizontal registration will get us more hints about the average final lenght of the actual shoe along with some positional issues (what happens in a precise column per every shoe played), whereas a vertical registration will help us to better assess the various patterns' number and distribution.

Imo the random world must be classified and the more we are precise in such task and the better will be our results.

as.



 







 



   

Quote from: alrelax on May 05, 2016, 12:10:01 AM
My little, almost 4 year old--learned a new couple of words the other day, 'gobblie-goo'.

Then after I read your response, I asked him, Player only or Banker?  And he went, "Player maybe, but Banker maybe also daddy"....................LOL, and the same thing in less than 13 paragraphs!

A natural!

as.

It's a proven fact that whenever a player is in doubt he prefers to bet Banker and he's right as he will be 0.18% less disadvantaged.

Let's consider the problem from a mathematical aspect so we can't be wrong.

ANY HAND NOT PRODUCING AN ASYMMETRICAL HAND IS A PERFECT 50/50 PROPOSITION.
(Asym baccarat law #1)

Therefore betting Banker in those situations will be a HUGE MISTAKE and betting Player will be a SENSIBLE OPTION.
Actually wagering B we are payed 0.95:1 for a 50/50 situation.


ANY HAND PRODUCING AN ASYMMETRICAL HAND IS HUGELY SHIFTED TOWARD BANKER SIDE.
(Asym baccarat law #2)

Therefore betting Player in those situations will be a TREMENDOUS MISTAKE as well as wagering Banker is a WONDERFUL OPTION.
Actually wagering P our winning probability will be just 42.07%.

So from a mathematical point of view, our baccarat betting will be the mix of huge mistakes and sensible options along with tremendous mistakes and wonderful options.

Getting a winning natural point anytime we'll wager Banker is a st.upid bet, even if we think to be genius as well as winning our P bet because our 4 P point got a deuce or a three to overcome the Banker 5 standing point.

Extrapolating, any player wagering Player side is a sort of genius on two different levels:

-  his hand isn't drawing (perfect!, he will be favorite to win itlr);

- his hand is drawing but also Banker side must draw no matter what (ok, I'm glad to play a perfect no house edge situation).

On the other side, any player wagering Banker is a sort of genius on two different levels:

- Player hand is drawing (good!, I surpassed the first obstacle);

- his Banker hand has a 3,4,5 or 6 point (excellent situation!).

Mathematically, the rest is only a confusing and long term losing world, even if we were able to win a P hand on an asym hand or to win a B hand getting a 7, 8 or 9.

It's definitely true that itlr those features will balance toward the average mathematical expectancy, so our only possible option to get the best of it is trying to assess the most likely distribution of such features coming per any single shoe.

The only indisputable way to prove that a given system can win (or reducing the house edge) itlr is to demonstrate that Player bets are getting a well better than 1/11 probability to be 50/50 placed or, better, that Banker bets will get a better than 1/11 probability to cross aysmmmetrical huge shifted B hands.
No way to think to control the outcomes without taking into account the mathematical features of the game.

Truth to be told, we know that everything will be possible anywhere and anytime, yet we know that prolonging too much a winning session could only lead to disaster. More often than not.
Imo, we should act just in the opposite way and it takes time to do that.   

as.   

 


 


















 


















     

Quote from: roversi13 on May 03, 2016, 07:59:15 AM
The best is,once again to use the principle of arcsine law.
It states that the equilibrium between B and P occurs  for sure or at the beginning of the shoe(within x hands) or at the end of the universe....
Low probability,but possible that it occurs between the beginning of the shoe and the end of universe.
In other words if in x hands there is a given unbalance between B and P ,the unbalance continues for y hands.
Of course x, y and the necessary unbalance have been calculated very carefully and some clear demonstrations exist about validity of this theory.
I use this rule betting only B:it means that I bet 0/5 hands max per shoe
Progression very conservative,rigid stopwin or ...ruine( average once a year,100 casino visits)
Impossible to make your living,but to have a positive balance every year is possible.
Of course that's my opinion and experience.
Of course I know some rich professional players with unbeatable systems,at least it's what they say

This arcsine law principle is interesting but I guess it's not so easily appliable at the tables.

I like your choice to only bet very rarely.

Yeah, besides being mathematically impossible, making a living at baccarat is really hard with no guarantees to succeed. But finishing in the positive field after one year of playing is a very good accomplishment. 

Maybe there are some baccarat professionals around the globe but it doesn't exist an unbeatable system.

as.

Quote from: roversi13 on April 28, 2016, 05:57:15 AM
The only way for "controlling" and reduce the variance is the arcsine approach,at least at Baccarat.
No at roulette, having perfect symmetry.
I spoke already about that in the past, but it seems that no member followed this idea,even if Google can teach some principles (not all needed details,of course!)
Even if the control of the variance is difficult but possible,it's not easy at all, also to find a MM that works.
"Works" means:no huge BKR,no ten hours a day at the table,no very very low wins.
Personnally I tried to control the variance with statistics,agglomerations,cluster of agglomerations,figure of 1,2,3,cluster of intermittences,very big variance and so on but I must admit that I failed......like the most people writing on this Forum,apart may be Asym that has an important knowledge of Basics,a smart approach to the game and a huge creativity.

Thanks roversi, I can only exchange your compliments.

You are the only one here having a vast aknowledge of ancient gambling issues.

But I'm disappointed to hear that you failed as you worked just in the right direction.

The game is easy: you can have A or B and there are many ways to build and register many A and B situations.
Moreover A and B could be the result of sub-events and so on...

We're 100% certain that the totality of A/B different classes will produce different results depending on what we are considering. As the game is asymmetrical. But just 8.6% of the times. So it happens just 8.6 times over 100 hands dealt.

The more we want to restrain the A/B registration DILUTED field, the better will be our results.
By 1 trillion % certainty.

So you don't want to limit your variance by finding just what happens most likely; you should work on finding the situations where a given deviation will more likely go back (or forward) by statistical issues.

Test your shoes again and focus about the different probability to get certain A or B situations in different spots.
You won't be disappointed.

as.   

   













 

The best way to assess progressions value starts here:

https://imspirit.wordpress.com/tag/bet-selection/

Then we should try to find some hints to disprove the conclusions made on that post.

That is, do exist some spots/events/situations where the above conclusions might be wrong or at least not totally true?

Do we really think that a 5, 6, 12 or 20 term progression could get the best of the random world?

As long as any opposite event will be placed into the -25 LIAR and +25 WIAR range (of course I'm just limiting the random world to a 5 sr deviation and we know such limits will be surpassed) we cannot win by any progression.

An " opposite event" could be B/P hands or singles/streaks or doubles/2+s or any subjective strategy and so on.
Sooner or later we'll lose (or win) close to 25 hands in a row and many proportional situations like 10 LIAR followed by one win and another 10-12 or more LIAR.

The only way to get a kind of control over the outcomes itlr, IMO, is finding opposite events having a lesser variance and, more importantly, to start the betting at a point far different from a zero point where everything can happen.

Surely everything can happen even after having made some adjustments but the sum of our selected wagers TEND to get better results.
But it takes time to do that.

And the word "bet selection" must be intended not as the times we want to bet, instead the situations we've chosen not to bet.
There are no good or bad opportunities to bet, there are just some statistical features working on it.

A single B or P hand or a single shoe is just an infinitesimal trait of the whole picture.

as. 

   










 

Easy to see that the only way to win NOT having an edge is about controlling the game.

We can try to control the game either by a MM or by a bet selection that by itself will produce some low variance results.
Unfortunately no one MM ever invented can sustain the weight of the variance as well as no bet selection (generally speaking) can win itlr.

But certain features of the game help us to find those situations where variance is more restrained.
Now a MM could work with a well minor risk.

Naturally it's impossible to guess which direction will be taken by results if we start the betting at a "zero" starting point.
And at the same time, any MM starting at a zero point will invariably fail.

The more some events are deviating from the zero point, the better are the chances to get a balancement. And sometimes we need just one step of balancement to be winners.

So now the question is:

"are there some events that are more likely to go back and forth around the zero point and how many times per every class of hands dealt such events are supposed to cross the zero point?"

Obviously the problem is concentrated about the definition of "event". Or better sayed, about two opposite classes of events "fighting" each other.

Actually we need just couple of opposite events that for statistical reasons are more likely to repeatedly cross the zero point and this probability is proportionally enhanced in relationship of the actual distance from this point.

Especially whether two or more different events are simultaneously involved in the process.

as.



 








 

Quote from: roversi13 on April 27, 2016, 07:30:34 AM
If EV +:
-to make a living,flat bet at the max allowed.
Of course you need a huge Bkr to overcome variance,bur with EV + no problem to find the adequate bkr (bankers,friends,relatives,even pension funds or...Trump).
After 20000 hands you are SURE to be in big +

-as your example is concerned(meeting some members,3 days, 10 K$) you can play like usual,whatever MM or bet selection.You are not sure to win at the end of 3 days

Of course you r right but it's not so easy to make a living having a 0 point something advantage, bj counters getting 1-2% advantage know this very well.
Anyway differently to bj, at baccarat we can chose to bet whenever we want and this IMO could improve a lot our results.

My example was posted just for curiosity purposes, so I erase it.

as.