Baccarat can't be beaten mathematically but by exploiting results by a frequentist statistical approach.
And one of the possible tool to utilize is to set up a kind of "boundary" plan getting room to more likely patterns of different levels.
The 5/5+ streaks distribution is just an example (see later).

Thus we can't rely upon certainty but upon probabilities and such probabilities become so overwhelming  vs randomness (or supposedly randomness) to assure us an edge.
Providing to wait for given situations to show up as we have verified that after a given event the subsequent event or class of events won't be proportionally shaped differently to what general probability laws dictate.

More hands we want to 'guess' greater will be the probability to fall directly into the random unbeatable world as the strong negative deviations will cause us a way greater damage than the symmetrical marked positive situations for the general EV- impact.

Streaks lenght and distribution

We've seen that per every shoe dealt long streaks (in our example 5/5+ streaks) are not coming out around any corner, but surely they will sooner or later show up by deviated values at either side (ranging from 0 to 4 or more).
Naturally some rare shoes make room to such long streaks without (plenty of singles and no inferior streaks) or intertwined by few inferior streaks coming out isolated.

In the former scenario and for the 'clustering' factor we always should get the advantage from, we won't bet a dime and in the latter case the consecutiveness of such isolated inferior streaks patterns will make a huge role in determining our edge.

Therefore if we assume as C= clustered inferior streaks and as I=isolated inferior streaks we know that itlr C=I.

Things change whenever we'd consider more complex distributions where the simplest is the back to back I occurence per any shoe dealt.

So after C or I anything could happen and the same after C-C, yet after I-I the most probable situation to face is to get a C and not another I. Obviously everything always related to the actual probability of success.
That is another I showing up after I-I sequence will be less proportionally probable than facing a I-I-C sequence.

In poorer words, we need quite of time to wait for such situations (I-I), but whenever they'll come out we can get an indeniable sure edge.
BTW, a propensity working at other similar pattern situations.

There are a couple of principal reasons to explain such streaks (and other patterns) propensity:

a) the general factor causing baccarat streaks to be shorter than at a perfect 50/50 proposition;

b) the finiteness of long streaks distribution, especially after coming out by a consecutive fashion.

In some way a kind of "conditional probability" is supposed to work, meaning that the room to get inferior streaks clustered at least one time is somewhat amplified after two "failed" attempts (that is after two consecutive isolated inferior streak classes happening).

It doesn't matter if our betting class is composed by 2s and 3s or 3s and 4s or even 2s and 4s.
Itlr I-I-C > I-I-I by values greater than the 3:1 cutoff ratio.

See you next week

as.

The number of 5/5+ streaks list provided above wasn't presented 'randomly': those numbers come from the same shoe shuffled by a machine and by an exact back-to-back order.

There are infinite ways to dissect such numbers presentation, one of the simplest (from a practical way of thought) is the probability to get consecutive shoes NOT getting 0, 1 or 2 'long' streaks:
at this very small sample we got a five and a four consecutive 3/4 streaks number per shoe.
The average probability (at least for this sample and taking care of a precise random walk action) any shoe provides 3 or more long streaks is around 18.3%.

So it's like losing 5 or 4 preflop all-ins in a row having AA vs any inferior pocket pair at NL hold'em.

What I mean is that at baccarat a supposedly propensity must always be taken very cautiously, even if considered by entire shoes.
It's obvious that consecutive "above average long streaks number" shoes do not deny a possible advantage but surely will make relative harsh times to deal with.
Moreover we have strong reasons to think that machines do not produce perfect random outcomes working for a same already distributed shoe, especially whether a sophisticated random walk will be able to pick up some "bias".

More later

as.

PI is a social crypto backed with over 50 million users to start from, before it get launched for open trading. It is doing with gradually creating an ecosystem before launching it for masses, that makes it unique. Early birds will bnefit most as happened with all stable coins. Its halving will make it rare day by day, so one can plunge in this easiest to mine by mobile times.
          I predicted very accurately about bitcoin halving  and a new all time high that is proposed to happen in 1-2 months from now years back. I make a prediction about Pi too. It is here to stay with a concept that can make it stronger than ethereum if not bitcoin, within five years from now. I missed the boat of bitcoin in early days, denying its potential. Pi is a bet, where we have nothing to lose if we enter it now. Get a crypto without spending a penny and join a team of over 50 millions supporters worldwide.

Hi KFB!!

Thanks for posting your experience and for your compliments.

Yep, single Ps and/or double PPs can last for quite long time, probably this is the best basic "clustering" effect to look for. Providing to be patient and being capable to discard the inevitable "isolated" P s/d sequences coming out at many shoes, a virtue not so commonly represented  among bac players 

as.

Now with this simple classification we can consider EVERY POSSIBLE PATTERN HAPPENING per any shoe dealt, going from  an all 5/5+ streak shoe (#1 scenario) to an all single hands shoe (#2 scenario).

Considering the worst (or best) case scenarios is the way to instruct our algos to do their job even at the most possible deviated situations.

Of course in our humanly miserable terms, we won't expect to cross such deviations as the almost totality of shoes dealt will present way lower levels of deviations and under our way of thought the only objective obstacle to be overcome is the 5/5+ streaks "density" happening per shoe: better sayed, the room those unlikely streaks will concede to more likely inferior patterns.

Such 5/5+ streaks density varies in direct relationship of the actual outcomes' source and we already know that whenever a shuffling machine is utilized, a significant LOWER amount of those streaks will show up (at least by using our random walks).

Anyway and no matter the source, it's unlikely to get many 5/5+ streaks per shoe (otherwise and knowing the bac players propensity to bet towards streaks than towards any other pattern, HS rooms would not exist), say they move within a range going from 0 (no such streaks) to very low numbers.

In addition, we have shifted to our favor the clustering 5/5+ streaks effect as they do not give room to inferior (possible bettable) patterns being clustered at least one time as what didn't happen cannot come out clustered (and neither as isolated).

Actually the permutation factor makes a decisive role about our long term results as it tends to confuse the "density" issue with the distribution issue. 

Following data show how many 5/5+ streaks happen per shoe by adopting our main random walk
(some final patterns are undefinied in their lenght). This small sample tends to reproduce what could happen after thousands and thousands of shoes dealt.
Since our random walks start and stop their action after some hands are registered or discarded at the starting/final portions of each shoe, such numbers reflect lesser numbers than by registering every outcome at a 8-deck shoe: 

1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
3
4
1
0
1
1
3
0
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
3
1
0
1
4
1
1
2
0
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
1
3
0
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
1
3
3
2
4
1
2
1
3
0
1
0
1
0
2
3
2
0
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
0
3
1
2
0
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
0
3
0
2
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
2
2
3
0
0
2
2
1
4
3
3
3
0
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
3
0
1
2
2
1
0
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
4
3
3
2
1
2
2
0
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
2
1
0
1

Totals

0 = 33

1 = 79

2 = 61

3/4 = 38

So out of 211 shoes dealt, the most probable situation belonging to the 5/5+ streaks is to expect just one such streak (37.44%), next comes the situation to face two 5/5+ streaks (28.9%).
Then there are the most deviated situations (0 and 3/4 streaks) globally accounting for 33.64%.

If we'd get rid of the 0 streaks scenario (15.33%), one and two streaks vs 3/4 streaks account for a 140/38 probability, that is a 3,68:1 ratio instead of an expected 3:1 ratio.

Numbers we should be interested about.

as.

Thank you AsymBacGuy for not only your prompt response but also for such detail. Posts like this are beneficial.

Re: 2iar. A couple weeks ago I played a rare shoe that produced 14 consecutive P 2iars (e.g., yPPyyPPyyy,..etc). Meaning 14 consecutive PP turned to B. There were a couple of single "P" columns within this fourteen 2iar streaks but no PP went PPP.

After the 14-streak ended PP then went PPP and PPPT as its longest streak. But never produced a PPPP.
B was mostly typical in each column following the PP producing a mix of 1-4 Bs immediately following every PP. Several other strong events were showing too but they didn't have the 100% strike rate for going against the PP. Shoe had 5 Ties.

I did very well as I caught 12 of the 14 PP turns to B. I pressed aggressively through the 7th-8th win (Which was approximately the 8-9th "PP" turn). I was at (Tmax and Tmax+) on the 6th,7th,8th W. I then regressed back to my (base unit +15$) and reduced by -$5 on each succeeding W until the end.

Certainly, one of my better shoes for the month/ I don't recall ever seeing this many (14) consec PP turning to B.


Thx again,

Please make sure you have throughly read #24. 

How You Lose—Why You Lose

With all the beliefs and subscriptions as to easy money—'sure fire winning'—'I can beat the game'—and numerous other ones, there seems to be widespread disagreement amongst the factual raw data of gambling with games that are either fair or extremely low house advantage.  Baccarat falls into that description of being a fairly low house advantage.  However, it is all dependent upon how the player is attempting to wager, mostly with time and length played and actual number of hands.  All the rest of the game beliefs, strategies, illusions, perceptions, influences and player frame-of-minds are subjective and individual to each player.

Hi KFB!

It's the first option you described.

More simply for any 'cluster' (value 1) I mean any single-single or double-double or single-double or double-single situations. 

On the other side, isolated s/d events are just two: single-triple (3/3+) and double-triple (3/3+).

The remaining possibility is to cross a triple-triple pattern without any single or double intertwined, a situation we are not interested about.

A further pattern plan is to consider the singles as neutral, so now the s/d plan shifts into 2/3 streaks plan having 4/4+ streaks as "enemies" (boundaries).

Again we can only have four 'cluster' possibilities: 2/2, 2/3, 3/2 and 3/3.
And just two isolated sequences: 2/4-4+ and 3/4-4+

Even here back to back 4/4+ streaks do not account.

The final pattern "analysis" made on a clustering/isolated basis is extracted by comparing triples (exact triples) and 4s (exact 4 streaks) vs 4+ streaks (that is streaks long 5 hands or more).
Now either singles and doubles are considered as irrelevant.
Same "rules": 3/3, 3/4, 4/3 and 4/4 are clusters and 3/4+ and 4/4+ are isolated patterns.

We can safely stop our streak analysis by setting up a cutoff limit when any streak longer than 4 happens, that is this is the maximum boundary where inferior pattern ranges are more likely to act.

Now we can examine the most deviated situations any shoe might form after trillions and trillions of trials.

1) A shoe entirely formed by 5/5+ streaks: no bet

2) A shoe entirely formed by singles: the s/d plan works

3) A shoe mostly formed by 5/5+ streaks: a relative big obstacle to the above plans.

Obviously it's a lot more likely to get a #3 possibility than a virtual all 5/5+ streaks shoe (#1) or a virtual all singles shoe (#2), but you can test your shoes (even by common random walks) and you'll see that the average 5/5+ streaks distribution is well defined by more probable numbers that very often account for a 0 value than for numbers superior than the expected probability to happen.

More later

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on March 16, 2024, 03:31:27 AMI seldom see 3 F7s in a single shoe. One casino I frequent dealt nine consecutive shoes(accross several days) that had (0) F7s.


Cheers,

Last night one shoe had 5 Fortune 7s and the very next shoe had ZERO!

Hi Alb. Interesting proposition. This is probably an excellent time to introduce any /everything crypto related. Since the Bitcoin euphoria doesn't appear to be declining at present 3/16/24. Good luck with it.

As a side note, I also think one has to be cautious in clumping "ALL" cryptos together like it has something to do with Bitcoin. I am guilty myself in calling or referring to cryptos as bitcoin. It reminds me of the name recognition for the soft drink Coke(Coca Cola). Most all soda-type drinks have always benefitted by association. Bitcoin certainly benefits from being the first crypto to the party(And always will,IMO).

Most are not connected in any way, shape, or form to bitcoin. Many have been created as a joke amongst friends. Many of these crypto originators have even made these exact statements from the beginning, yet have received millions of dollars from investors (e.g., Doge,Shibu,...etc). Most cryptos originators are simply playing upon Mans innate desire to gamble and take risks, with proposed potential to get rich quick. Thesis by KungFuBac.

 I noticed that not only are hedge funds and financial industry now pushing out crypto ETFs, but now (Grayscale I think) is proposing a "Mini" crypto ETF as an additional derivative. Of course, anyone investing in these ETFs and or "Mini" ETFs own absolutely (0) Bitcoins.


Best of luck to all crypto investors.