new pm for you asym! good idea probably

Full baccarat table with the following 9 players:

Tim Walz.  Says out loud, "This casino is depriving us of our rights!"

Jacob Frey.  Says out loud, "We have rights! This is targeted operations!"

Letita James.  Says out loud, "This shoe inconsistency is totally unacceptable."

Gavin Newsom.  Says out loud, "Can someone pass me some hair gel and a comb."  Then he says, "This game is total redderict to the absolute maximum."

Bernie Sanders.  Says out loud, "You guys should all donate part of your bank roll to me before you lose it all.  We will just call it a political donation (While he is winking his eye) and I will document it for you."

Kamala Harris. As the shoe first opens, she stands and screams out while raising both of her arms, "I am the first African American woman to play baccarat."  She is wearing a 1970s style blue Jean jacket with a large embroidered back graphic of a fist and the words, "Muslim Power Rules!"

Elon Musk.  Says out loud, "With all of your wagering decisions I clearly understand the need for Artificial Intelligence and satellites to support the delivery of smart info, there are just so many considerably low IQ people."

Andrew Dice Clay.  Says out loud as he placed a table max wager, "Go ahead, marry her. Don't marry her, man. How do you know where she's been? Huh! How do you know she's not the biggest tocking whore to ever walk this tocking town, man? I went with this one girl, she was such a tocking tramp, I had to double park my dick on her behind and wait an hour to get in. It's unfuckingbelievable, I'm telling ya."

AsymBacGuy.  He has been winning about 9 out of 10 hands he wagered.  Most all others have exhausted their buy-ins and additional buy-ins multiple times.  AsymBacGuy finally gets up and says out loud, "What a bunch of friggen Jerks, now I understand the need for insane asylums and human lethal injections."

@alrelax,
          whether you play every hand or you pause resume (start/end) by any methodology, getting such sessions are not just possible but inevitable in the long run. My question is, are you prepared for such harshness or you only wish not to face one? Parlays do not win for you, in the long run.

max bet =987 is simply non playable in normal casinos on EC bets. what kind of resetting your ar talking about?

By applying a 0.75% general probability to win at a sure asymmetrically card distribution and slight asym results game (B math propensity) we are taking into account a "biased" W/L 3:1 ratio.
We know that the B propensity won't get us any advantage whatever taken whereas the asym card distribution will.

Then quite frequently a part of results will come out "coincidentally" and confounding the picture, nevertheless following a long term more likely distribution that becomes "certainty" with the increasing number of shoes dealt.

So the "expected" general 3:1 ratio becomes more than a virtual value whether considered within few shoes where we expect more deviations than "balanced" events, of course the problem is always to estimate (approximating at best) which deviated line will be predominant over the other one (that is disappointing the 3:1 ratio).

Possible answers addressed to solve this problem.

1) The unlikelihood such 3:1 ratio will stand for long

2) The minimum requisites to get an event coming out by a more likely shape

3) The actual deviations happening at the shoe we're playing at (exploiting deviations)

4) The RTM effect working at multiple shoe distributions.


1) Any exact 3 W streak vs 3+ W streaks will be so balanced in its apparition that waiting for a fictional 2:0 or 3:0 ratio will get us a future edge, of course by betting that a 3 streak will become a 4 streak or longer streak.

2) If the W/L ratio is 3:1, we just need a W event to come out clustered once and again waiting for a 0:2 or 0:3 W event NOT showing up clustered is a good way to look for a possible advantage.

3) Nowadays cards are so whimsically (and possibly unrandomly) distributed that strong deviations come out around any corner so giving a fk about expected probabilities.
I don't recall how many times we have collected additional important profits by following the Alrelax statement: "when it's there it's there".
Do not put a limit about a positive steady deviation happening. Most of the times cards aren't properly shuffled so affecting general (short term) probabilities.
On the same line whenever results are strongly deviating from the norm, do not continue to bet the "norm", stay put (or, at the very least, bet that the improbable stays improbable).

4) Unless you have verified that after very long trials same deeply selected events will provide more wins than losses after vig, the RTM factor will make worthless any unidirectional mechanical plan in a way or another.

as.

To explain a bit more how I think, but influenced by you as well, let me repost one of my other posts with pictures to back it up. 

To explain the table picture I took.  The $1,000 to the left and the wager of $600 + out on the table are from my buy-in risk capital.  At least $2,000 off to the right is out of play and locked up.  That is win money from a few hands before I shot the picture. 

The $550 bet on the B with a $50 dragon bonus.  Both wagers won as you see, I snapped the picture for you guys as soon as they were paid and the dealer scooping up the hand to discard. 

The $50 dragon paid 1:1 because B won with a natural.  That $50 will replace the $50 I lost on the P dragon bonus.  I netted $465 off the $550 B win, deduct $85 for the top 4 side wagers that were already taken off the felt. 

My MMM is to parlay that B win twice, so I have $2,500 additionally to lock up ($465/930/1,860) and another $1,250 added to my ammunition to continue wagering, even if no side wagers hit, etc.  That my friends, is my single most powerful and profitable advantage, my 1 + 2. 

This shoe is a beautiful sexy LOW TIES, 0-1-2-3 ties, it was right at half way through when I snapped the below picture and ONLY 1 TIE!!! My clue, my ez money honey.  Call me crazy but hey, it works the highest majority of times for me.

The point where I took the picture, I already won 2 Panda 8s, 3 Fortune 7s, 2 three card 9-0s (wagering bankers plus dragon bonus), netting me greater than $8,000.

There were lots of dragon bonuses on both sides as well.  Bankers had several three card 8s with players having 0 or 1.  Both sides had over 25 dragon bonuses paying out between 2:1 and 10:1 consistently. The shoe ended with 5 Fortune 7s and 4 Panda 8s total.  Besides all the other positive side bets and dragon bonuses paying off.

When it's there, it is there.  You cannot stop it or change it.  The highest amount of all players will say, "it can't/shouldn't happen again" or something similar.  All you can do is wager to win on it.  Period. Simple.

And I love the old saying, "It is what it is".  I revised it a tad bit, "When it's there, it is there".  I don't care how it got there, I just want to be on it. 

You know Asym, like I say; When it's there, it is there.  You cannot stop it or change it.  The highest amount of all players will say, "it can't/shouldn't happen again" or something similar.  All you can do is wager to win on it.  Period. Simple.

Sure there are rationalized out patterns, trends and triggers we all attempt to find when we play.  They work and they don't work.

However and I emphasize HOWEVER, when something is appearing, it is there.  And frankly, honestly, I do not give a rats behind how it came about!  Because if you do, you will most likely miss great ez-peasy money wins.  A win or wins repeatedly, are wins.  I want the cash buddy, not the pat on the back or the fist bump for pointing at the scoreboard and saying it has to produce 'such and such' because of 'so and so' and be correct.  I want to throw larger sums of chips out there, parlay and win. 

I don't care how and why a clump of 16 appeared when it should not have.  Actually, I already know why.  Because those great 'out of the norm' opportunities I win large on, are simply the variances that are positioned past the 1s, 2s and 3s that occur most frequently.

But the bottom line is, I want to turn my buy-in into several times its original amount.  And I want to do it as quickly and if it happens to be off-the-wall, that's just fine. 

Quote from: Whatswhats on March 09, 2026, 10:48:25 AMASYM, I didn't understand well why you got the sequence of W/L , example why first is WL while other just W?

The plan is to make clustered 1 and 2 vs 3s (horizontally or, as in this example, vertically), so only singled 1 or singled 2 are a L, any 1-2 cluster (1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2) is a W.

For example a 1-2-2-1-2-1-1-2-2 sequence is just a W, 1-3-1-3-2-1-1 sequence is L-L-W, etc

What we should be interested about is not how many consecutive Ls or Ws we'll get along the way but the "waiting time" of the patterns.

Notice that a 3-3-3-3 or 3-3 or 3-3-3 sequence doesn't provide any classification (no W no L) as in order to have something clustered (1-2) we need one element to come out.

Then you can classify how many 1-2 clusters greater than two show up so now the "singled" losing event is a double appearance and true clusters are 1-2 successions longer than two.
Example: 2-1-3-1-1-3-3-1-2-3 that under the simple cluster classification is a W-W-W sequence now becomes a L-L-L succession; In the same way, a 3-1-3-3-2-3-1-3 sequence forming a L-L-L under the simple cluster classification now becomes a worthless registration as no 1-2 category got at least one cluster.

We ought to remember that at baccarat the "overalternating" movement is the less likely to happen so when we play the 1/2 vs 3 plan we are betting that the 3:1 ratio won't stand for long at either side of the deviation.

More later

as.

Kungfubac wrote: "The main issue from wagering too small is one can't "move the needle" (i.e., bankroll). Yes one may delay busting a buyin with this dinking/donking."

This is past North of correct!  At times I have witnessed the so called "good" players do the same.  And IMO and Experience, it throws the table off balance.  IMO, it is far better just to sit out hands rather than the dinking b.s.! 

Look at the ultra strong Banker clump I posted in a thread recently and you will see others NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE of ez-peasy money.  I say ultra strong bankers because of the 7 naturals straight and a 3 card 9-0, prior to additional bankers continuing.  They are wagering table min!  Ludicrous.

Here is the picture below.  16 strong Bankers clump with 3 beautiful side wagers won, Fortune 7, and two 3 card bankers 9 to players 0.  They are continually wagering table min of $25 and I am doing $550, $1,100 and $2,200 wagers several times throughout it.  Some I did drop down on the second parlay.  But an easy $10-$15k profit at a low stakes table. 

What most all fail to realize and play consciously with is; Baccarat is very easy to win, but it is also very easy to lose as well.  There are 3 habits that we all are affected by and I am writing a detailed article about them.  I will post it shortly in my blog.

ASYM, I didn't understand well why you got the sequence of W/L , example why first is WL while other just W?