Remember the limited sections and shoes that any kind of situation can be present, or you will NOT be able to identify such and be able to wager on same.  Steal the situation with every ounce of energy and motivation you can physically present and then revert when it is over.

I can't agree with you enough. 

as.

That's a good list indeed.
Probably casinos would win much less if every player will follow religiously those guidelines.

You have to learn that the shoe you are gambling at, has no dependency or connection to any statistical or other tangible or intangible research or thought, anywhere, anyplace, any way, shape or form


I agree with this statement only because you used the word "gambling".

as. 

Quote from: roversi13 on October 10, 2019, 09:27:43 AM
When are you sure that you are facing a bad shuffling?
During the shoe?During the shuffling itself?
It's depends on the permanence or on the lazy croupier?

Almost every shoe dealt is bad shuffled, unfortunately this feature won't get the player any help in many instances.
Thus it's not how bad is shuffled an entire shoe that matters, instead it's how bad a shoe is shuffled in some portions of the deck.

Itlr bac outcomes are strictly related to the actual distribution of key cards, falling here or there yet forming some more or less likely sequences.
Obviously nothing is more likely than the counterpart unless a strong unrandomness went in place (of course this may happen even into a perfect random environment coincidentally).

At any rate, the shuffling moves made by a live dealer or a CSM working on the same deck will produce the best opportunities to catch the situations where unrandomness will reign.
Notice that 100% of the CSM decks are dealt alternatively (meaning that two different entire decks are shuffled each time).
Of course where a CSM isn't working, it's virtually impossible that a live dealer will shuffle the cards in a perfect random fashion.

At HS tables (where most money is collected by casinos), decks are presented pre-shuffled and slight manually shuffled after, therefore the situation is more unclear.
Should players fear a close to a perfect random shuffle?
No way.
Unless cards are arranged by a software, perfect randomness will get no place into an 8-deck shoe.
The casinos' fortune is because players want to win too much in the wrong place or to win per every shoe dealt, an impossible task by any means.

That means that whether we're properly selecting the playable shoes and the favourable spots,  baccarat is 1 trillion percent beatable scientifically by a close to 0% probability error.

Just as decks are not perfectly shuffled.

as.

Roversi, I'll try to respond to you later.

as.

Quote from: Lungyeh on October 10, 2019, 07:20:04 PM
Asymbac, is there a target amount that one wins and then stops? Say if one goes in with 5,000 what would be the recommended bet amount per hand and the recommended target win amount before you stop? For you.

Thanks.

Hi Lungyeh!

No way we should set up a winning goal whenever a shoe is astoundingly playable.
Our rule is to keep betting and betting, stop comes after we'll lose two or three (in the latter case whether we've won a lot) hands in a row.

If I had to put in play a $5000 bankroll, I'd make $400 or $500 standard wagers, i want to guess right by risking 10-12 units or so. Of course my betting is extremely diluted and shoe-depending.
   
Extremely favourable shoes are not coming around the corner, but they are still quite likely.
In our over selected random walks multiparameter action (very difficult to put in action without the use of an illegal device that, btw, we never used), we have assessed that strong favourable shoes are coming out at a 1:3 ratio. 
In the real world I assess that such ratio is lowered to 1:4.

In conclusion I'd say that it's not what we want to win per every session played but just how will be the probability to cross those strong favourable shoes.

as.

No matter how smart we are and how deeply we have studied the game, if we consider bac outcomes as pure random propositions we know that after playing 2/3 of the total hands of each shoe, after 5 shoes dealt the probability to be ahead of something is very small.
Up to the point that whenever a player is ahead of something (without having wagered any side bet) only two things happened: either he was getting a positive variance or, more likely, he was betting EV+ spots by a proper spread betting.

Since there's no way to overcome a negative edge working into a random game by a spread betting strategy, we must infer that acute players make some "low" bets just for the illusion of action, let's say only for comp purposes.

In a word, if baccarat is beatable is because itlr we will get the  best of it by a flat betting strategy.
That is some spots are slightly more likely than others.

And, again, this thing is only possible whether cards are not properly shuffled.

Discard the random world and ride the situations when a kind of unrandom world happens.
Sometimes this could be done coincidentally.
We prefer to do it scientifically.

as. 

Quote from: roversi13 on October 02, 2019, 05:55:24 AM
I have been playing for long period B after PB(looking for double B) or B after BP (looking for single P),that are the two more frequent decisions.
Bad results!
I didn't find any difference between these two attacks and playing B all the time.
Why a difference should exist?

Hi roversi!

The probability of the so called "more likely outcomes" is strongly related to the actual card distribution. Not every shoe is playable.
In order to get a strong advantage, we need to play only badly shuffled shoes.

Recently we've set up a marvelous $500-$20.000 spread betting action at a high end casino acting as pure drunk clowns and where a mate was previously treated really bad and looking for revenge.
Ask how things went after a 13-hour playing session.

as.

Quote from: Albalaha on October 02, 2019, 02:28:12 PM
Interesting but did you ever simulate this way of playing? Banker is not a good bet for martingale. 5% commission works worst on the banker with martingale. If we lose 1-2-4, i.e 7 units, with 2 units we have fair chances of recovery but if we get many successive losses or more successive series losses than wins, bet could go dangerous. These two vital aspects should not be forgotten.

Of course we have simulated this approach and the flaw was just about the verb "simulate".
As long as we do not play or test our method on live shoes we are not doing us a favor.
And as you can easily deduce, we didn't play every single shoe dealt.

Improper shuffles will cut off a lot of possible combinations, naturally we must focus about the asymmetrical hands pace forming the Banker advantage.
For example, the main target to get the best asym hand is a Banker 5 point and there are only two ways to form a 5 point: 5-ten value card and, less likely, 4-A, 3-2.
That is we need a fair amount of 5s falling on the first two B cards.
Then among the best asym hands, there is the Banker 4 point. Here to build this point Banker gets a 4-ten value card and 3-A and 2-2 possibilities. Notice that 3-2 hasn't the same probability than 2-2.
In a sense we should get a kind of help if along with many other factors we want to track 5s and 4s falling here or there on the first two initial cards.
Historically 4s and 5s were considered as Player helping cards but they really are only when they are distributed as fifth card when the hand dictates the P side to draw. Naturally a 4 or a 5 as sixth card remains a good card even for the Banker.   

Anyway you are correct that the 5% vig may worsen any multilayered progression, yet Banker is always working by a 1.24% long term probability mathematical advantage.
Imo the key is just to estimate the range of spots when B is REALLY more likely than P or, at a lesser degree, the range of spots when P is working by an almost perfect 50/50 untaxed and fair proposition (knowing that as long as no asym hand can be formed, some card distributions will help this side with a better 50/50 ratio).

Nonetheless I'm 100% sure that there's no way to control any shoe dealt, no matter how many random walks working for us we want to put in action.

as. 

I do not understand.

What happened?

as.

Quote from: alrelax on September 28, 2019, 07:17:03 PM

Still look forward to the day we actually sit at a table of Bac together and bang it out. 

Yeah, so people will see how much money we will put "at risk" at the table. 

as.

Welcome and thanks for sharing.

In the short run every method seems to be good mostly as players try to raise the probability of success in every way (progressions, bet selection widely intended, following or not trends or lucky/unlucky players, etc) but itlr every attempt will be of no avail to consistently win.
We need more than that.

For example we have been playing successfully "for long" a very simple method: we simply bet that a new Banker hand was followed by another single Banker hand (that is betting B after PB) utilizing a 1-2-4 progression.
Anytime this progression failed (meaning that a cluster of three or more B singles appeared) and whenever a new B streak trigger came out, we raised our standard unit to 2, now wagering 2-4-8, then 4-8-16 and so on until the deficit was proportionally and slowly recovered step by step.

Even if it could sound as silly, this system has a math foundation as itlr PBB>PBP, B streaks are more likely than B singles, isolated B singles are more likely than clustered B singles and so on.

In a word and even taking into account the vig burden, the probability to be ahead of something along the way is close to 100%.

Notice that patterns as BPPPPBPPPBPPBPBP....will produce "just" three losses as the betting is stopped until a new B streak comes out.
If you test your data you'll see that a two-step martingale failing won't come out so often and of course you need a kind of balancement to get a consistent long term profit.

The main problem to overcome is to get a decent distribution of winning and losing shoes, nonetheless is just a matter of time to recover any deficit.

But if you look more carefully to those shoes producing a lot of B singles clusters and few B streaks you'll see a kind of cluster-cluster effect.
The reason is because such shoes will present few asymmetrical hands, asymmetrical hands went "wrong" for B side, B drawing hands were more predominant than standing hands, fifth card was mostly belonging to the 3,4,5,6,7 category.
Easy to notice that itlr a perfect world would contain a minor whole amount of such situations.

On average asym hands impact on the whole shoe is 8.4%, on asym hands B gets a 15.86% advantage, B drawing hands are inferior to B standing hands, fifth card is more likely to be a not 3,4,5,6,7 rank category (1:1.6 ratio).
Moreover any two card point higher than the opposite side is going to win about 2/3 of the times.

Similarly to what happens in other games, we should think baccarat as a game of ranges and not in term of exact outcomes.
That's why the shuffling issue is of utmost importance as it's one trillion impossible to guess right into a random distribution. 

In some way a proper shuffle judgement is even a better indicator than edge sorting as we want to beat the game legally and, more importantly, we want to be payed after our winning sessions (with all due respect to the baccarat queen Cheung Yin Sun).

as. 

IMO you are wasting time, this sample is total bighornshit as it doesn't come from real shuffles.

as. 

Pro players take fully advantage from the "time" factor. The same thing why the house is getting enormous profits: time.
Itlr favourable situations to the player will arise no matter the math disadvantage, say that after four resolved hands (no ties), if we put in action 16 players wagering 16 different patterns we know for sure that two of them will get respectively a 4-hand winning or losing streak, the remaining players will get at least one winning or losing hand.

Of course that's based on the law of averages that in practical terms never apply to any game, otherwise casinos wouldn't exist. But it's just a matter of time and values will correspond more and more to such proportions.

In a sense, bac pro players wouldn't give a damned fk about the math disadvantage as they know very well that house cannot hope to get the perfect opposite situations capable to destroy every player's selection for long.
For long.

The same for the player's expectation. For long.

Now we should set up our plan in two ways. Either we want to fight with the house by betting that outcomes will come out more deviated than expected (and naturally we'll privilege the deviated side) or that things will more or less come out according to their probability.

To assess what to bet, meaning which lines will be more likely or not (in terms of probability of success) we have put in action 100 different random walks working on each shoe emphasizing what we named a "limited random walk" category. And time plays a huge role, especially when limited by a finite card distribution.

Differently to the random walk concept described in P. Griffin book, for example, at baccarat any random walk will be hugely affected by a finite card distribution and by the asymmetrical force acting here and there on the shoe.

We may infer that most part of random walks are not following a perfect 50/50 proposition not only because on average one side gets a 15.86% advantage on 8.6% portion of total hands, but as finite card ranks are whimsically placed along the same shoe and not favoring deeply one side or another.

That's why a simple card counting strategy won't get the player any substantial help, even though is made by a sophisticated software.

In fact, a simple card counting strategy is just a form of one simple random walk getting deep deviations and almost always no valuable predictivity.

To say the truth, the so called "baccarat perfect strategy" presented in some books is just bighornshi.t and not only because it will make insignificant profits.
We better adopt a silly "follow the lucky or contrast the unlucky" betting strategy (when it seems to be applicable) as at least it will involve more than one random walk.

The partial unrandomness of the shoe, a well known factor by almost every pro player, remains the main factor why this game may be beatable itlr.
At baccarat there are no hunches or superstition or supernatural forces working, cards are there and the fact that some players seem to guess right or wrong for long must be interpreted just as a natural product of a random walk.

I mean that time remains a huge factor to try to get an advantage, but if cards are perfectly or almost perfectly shuffled we are wasting money and that's why I stress about the importance to not play some shoes or to wager very few hands per shoe.   

as. 

Have no time to respond to all your comments, anyway very shortly:

1- The N 8/9 side bet will disappear very soon IMO as there are some teams attacking it and getting huge profits.

2- I do not understand what you meant.

3- You are correct.

4- You are correct.

5- The main condition where F-7 will come out more likely is when 8s and 9s are removed from the deck.

6- Nope, Player wins more hands having a standing 7 and not a standing 6 as any P standing point will not elicit the Banker to the correct drawing move when it has a 6.

9- Itlr my statement is perfectly true.

10- Absolutely agree with that.

as.     

Thanks for your inputs Al, I need time to respond.

Generally speaking, by now I'm only attending HS rooms where players like to follow any kind of pattern, mostly "human" WL patterns. That is they care more about the various players' destiny than what the display shows.

And it's not a coincidence that every long term winner won't place any money on side bets.
In some way I tend to disagree with that.

as.