According to our tests, one of the best tool we can use to know whether a deck is properly shuffled or not is about the "natural" back to back probability.
And of course about the asym probability.

Even though a substantial error occurs for variance issues (less likely card combinations producing the same effect), this is one of the best tool to get a better idea of what's coming out.

as.

I agree, but those tools help the player to lose less and not to win.

To consistently win we have to play a game where we'll get more winning hands than losing hands. Imo, no MM could get the best of it unless it's actioned into an unrandom (beatable) game.


as. 

Quote from: alrelax on November 02, 2019, 11:42:22 PM
So yes, the answer is probably in the middle.  But I still say one has to have an absolute clear mind without desiring or wagering for a scheduled wager on a continous and steady betting cycle of any type.

True and that's why I've found very profitable to get rid of some shoes and to play very few hands. It happened too many times I've lost control of the situation.

as.

Attempts made to try to read randomness are totally futile, better to spot the situations where unrandomness could take a substantial role.
And to get a better idea of what a shoe is producing we must think in term of ranges of probability.

Mathematically our best move to get ahead of something into a supposedly random world is to bet everything we want to risk just on one hand. We are still playing an EV- game, of course.
Any move different from that will be the casino's fortune. 

Even if the game isn't perfect randomly produced, best action to take is still trying to get an edge within very short terms and by wagering huge into over selected spots. We want the math to be on our side. Always.

If I'd say that certain rare spots are offering a 70% winning probability nobody would be interested to know how and when those spots can come out. No bac player is willing to register several shoes then betting a hand that yet gets a 30% probability of losing.
Mostly those rare EV+ spots comes out from a possible RTM effect but we know that whether the game is random it's impossible or very very unlikely to transform an EV- game into a profitable game.

I'm deadly sure that certain acute players are playing a kind of game close or equal to a zero negative edge just by wagering very few spots. Technically is to bet P when an asymmetrical hand is huge unlikely, maybe hoping that the actual card distribution favors P side as an additional tool.
Or, most likely, betting a restrict number of B hands knowing that the asym feature will be more likely than expected.

Probability gambling is a game of streaks intended in a wide way, of course we want to play games (baccarat) where each event will be slightly affected by previous situations, especially when we have reasons to think that cards are not properly shuffled.

as.

I agree that riding the positive univocal situations will get the wise player huge profits but how many shoes like the one you've depicted are going to come out on average?

I mean that a betting plan too much oriented to get the unlikely is like playing a kind of lottery.

Of course the answer remains in the middle.

as.

Quote from: Albalaha on October 30, 2019, 09:35:50 AM
In all my experiences, shoes doesn't matter. One must know how to play in good, bad and worst cases as randomness will throw all to us. We can't get a "better than all" bet with any way to pick our bet.

It depends about what we want to assign to the randomness definition.
The fact that most of bac players think that any shoe is randomly produced doesn't mean that it is really randomly formed.
Or, even worse, that some more likely situations (B streaks vs B singles, etc) are more due in humanly considered intervals. 

Randomness takes a primary importance in relation to probability calculus as probability needs pure random propositions to be properly assessed.

Itlr unrandom events will dilute more and more up to the point where infinite unrandom results will converge to supposedly random results.

Therefore imo there's no way we can't limit pure randomness, instead we should find the spots where the unrandomness takes a so huge impact that the negative math edge we have to face is overcome within short terms.

Key word is "collective", a term coined by the best randomness expert of all times.

as.

I've contacted a couple of peers confirming that CSM shuffled shoes are unbeatable.

Therefore the new thread title is "why bac could be beatable itlr PROVIDING CARDS ARE PLAYED UP TO THE END OF THE SHOE"

as.

Still waiting to see those shoes Al!
Thanks.

as.

Sorry Lungyeh, I've cleared some of my inappropriate posts, I have nothing against MBS in Singapore or any other casino in the world for that matter.

Back to your question.

Baccarat tables offering continuos shuffling are a totally different beast.

Of course when proper conditions are met, any card game is beatable by definition.
If outcomes are provided by a CSM, the issue is more complicated as any hand is a new hand springing from a fresh deck. Maybe certain card tracking techniques could work.
I suggest to search the CSM topic at Black Jack forums.

Anyway and even though the card removal effect is zero, CSMs still work physically.
We need to collect a lot of CSM data acting on the same deck and then filtering the results by a multiparameter factor. Then to analyze if a kind of substantial unrandomness shows up after a given succession of cards (specific ranks).

My guess is that CSM decks are either totally unbeatable or, less less likely, wonderfully beatable (that is more beatable than normal live shoes).

For sure many bac players like to touch (say destroy) the cards so I do not expect much success from CSM tables.

as.

Quote from: Albalaha on October 22, 2019, 05:17:44 AM
That is the dilemma. You can not win without huge risk if you play all over and triggers suck good opportunities. Rather make a framework for all over play with strategic stop losses.

Exactly.


as.

Quote from: Albalaha on October 21, 2019, 05:57:10 AM
Winning by flat betting is something that I reached somewhere closer but could never conclude as final and playable. If you have a bet that even doesn't win flat but lessens the house edge by half or more, in the long run by clear simulations, it can be the best HG possible with my inputs.

You give me a better bet than all, I give you the best MM approach possible for the long run.

Right now, my MM is almost immune from 99.9% cases and I have even beaten the worst recorded in roulette and baccarat with it, although after a long fight, which is obvious. I do stress upon playing within a reasonable table limit and chips limit too. I believe that merely increasing or decreasing bet is not a way to a correct money management.

Interesting.

Actually in order to minimize the risk of crossing long fights, I think I'm losing some profitable opportunities.


as.

So it seems that baccarat can be beaten by a strict mechanical bet selection, the name of this wonderful site.....
At least it's what my multiple years tests say that I've completed yesterday.

Probably some people play an EV+ game by using other tools, the main being long term experience, I just prefer to do things scientifically as much as possible. 

Summarizing.

Certain (rare) baccarat hands give the player a sure edge, meaning that the same situation repeatedly bet and bet and bet by the same amount will provide a very interesting edge (not bighornsh.it edges as "perfect pc play" or stuff like that) .

Since I'm not a baby in the wood when talking about baccarat, I can only attribute this success to the partial unrandomness of the shufflings.
That is I'm strongly convinced that randomness working into a math negative edge game cannot be beaten, especially by a flat betting strategy, the cardinal feature to know if we're doing good or not.

Cards are arranged to give certain outcomes, it's impossible to guess which side will be favorite to win, but either the distribution of outcomes and the expected values could help us to know whether there's a shuffling very close to randomness or anything else.
To emphasize the importance of this topic, say that "Casino War" game it's 100% beatable whether any card is dealt without any further shuffle and offered with a proper deck penetration, And in the real world you'll never find conditions like that.

Of course Casino War is a perfect symmetrical game, meaning that no other asymmetrical factors will intervene in the process.
Obviously players can only bet their side, that is just one side.

Baccarat is not a perfect high card game, as occasionally (8.4% of the times) one side takes the third card according to the rules and mathematically advantaging it.
Therefore we have two different basic random walks working on the same shoe: the symmetrical probability and the asymmetrical probability.
To say the truth a third probability will show up, the tie probability that slightly tend to disrupt some more likely situations. Especially when a large amount of shoes is utilized.

The tie interference provides quite a burden as tie probability is hugely endorsed whenever 6 cards are used to resolve one hand.

More later

as. 

Glad to hear your comments.
I've got many of the same conclusions you've posted.

Just yesterday I've finished my multiple years study directed to reach the ambitious task of winning by flat betting and by utilizing a strict mechanical betting plan.

Now I'm wondering what we can do by using progressions knowing that you are the Master in that field.

as.

Ok, yet we know that the more we bet even money propositions, larger will be the gap between W and L, of course nothing prevent us to be in the positive side coincidentally.

Moreover at least at the time I'm writing, no one financial plan has ever demonstrated to control a 50/50 probability model, unless a very diluted multilayered progression plan is conceived.
Let alone whether a taxed coin flip propositon is in order.

I mean that stop loss or stop winning plans have demonstrated no advantages to any other random betting plan, unless we have reasons to think that random walks are limited in some way.

What I'm asking is if you are always confident to bet into a possible perfect random model, in the sense that not knowing the actual conditions I'd be more prone to wager toward a "deviated" world than hoping to get a kind of balancement.

Thanks.

as. 


   

Any method can't work whether we are going to consider each shoe dealt as perfect randomly shuffled.
It's our interest to know that itlr unrandom shuffled shoes will tend to produce "random" results, that is that short term deviations are attributed to the simple variance's action.
It should be our duty to catch the situations where this unrandomness will take place most.
Never globally, always in relationship to the actual shoe we're observing/playing.

It's 100% certain that players making a living at this game won't bet the first hands of a shoe and never enter the game without having observed the cards pace.
I mean they are not focused about outcomes but about cards falling and actual situations.
Key cards, obviously.
And of course drawing and standing and third card nature situations (say successions).

More on that later.

as.