Quote from: KungFuBac on Today at 02:40:56 AMGood post AsymBacGuy

Personally I find #2 easier to discern vs #1 or #3:

"2- Considering it to stop a L pattern of given lenght"


Continued Success,

  Thanks!
Of course I knew you "chose" the most reliable point to look for.

as.

Summary

A(p)= 0.75% and B(p)= 0.25%, where (p)=math probability

A utopian world would produce successions as AAABAAABAAABAAAB....

Actually the vast majority of bac successions won't provide such distributions for long other than by a kind of unlikely strong "coincidence probability", so we'll expect that the vast part of shoes dealt will diverge (in a way or another) from such "utopian" pace.

Notice that differently than other perfect random independent successions (e.g. EC roulette outcomes) such  world will be somewhat "biased" at the start for the sure undeniable asymmetrical card distribution and for the bac rules favoring B side.
Of course we do not know which A or B side of the events will be favored at the various portions of the shoes and by how much.

Suppose A= searched (W) spots and B= unfavourable (L) spots

A succession as AABAABAABAAB...would be altogether beatable despite of performing a strong shifted transitory probability privileging B side. In fact now A=0.666% (instead of 0.75%) and B=0.333% (instead of 0.25%).
Who cares? AA still remains the best option to make a singled A bet.

At the same time at such two different scenarios, B events remain isolated so it's a child joke to  get them coming out as isolated and not clustered.
Unfortunately and by those precise ratios (3:1) the first "utopian" succession won't happen for long, yet the second one (2:1) is way more likely to succeed as it'll be mathematically more likely to get any kind of A cluster than an A cluster surpassing the AA cutoff.

Obviously any A cluster surpassing the AA cutoff point will get us a win and for the reasons already traced, we're entitled to get some superior AAA patterns than precise AAAB patterns.

But who knows?
It's better to secure a win after any A(A) situations than hoping to get a kind of sky's the limit AAA...sequence where a single loss will wipe out three wins.

In a word, a s.t.upid plan oriented to get A clusters of any kind will suffer the least impact of negative variance.

On the other side, B events should come out more isolated than clustered but someway they must catch up (balance) the possible more likely math propensity to get LONG A clusters (a thing will see in the next post). Thus coming out more clustered than isolated.

Again, a utopian world would be to face long successions of B isolated spots, then two B clustered  spots.
But since the model is strongly asymmetrical, we can't rely upon precise values so we might add the factor of any A situations intertwined by any single B event. So we are not interested to bet toward A when B keep showing up.

In practice and considering a given random walk or multiple common random walks, our large live shoes sample had shown us that A probability to come out clustered doesn't remain constant after two A events coming out as isolated. That is after a couple of A isolated spots, AA will overwhelm the 0.75/0.25 probability ratio so getting profitable values well greater than 0.75.

Obviously some could argue why a BBBBA...succession won't get valuable A bettable spots than a B..AB...AB...A...sequence where now A is way more likely than B.

The answer is that the greater two initial cards point is 2:1 math favored to win the final hand, but it's sufficient to get one hand going wrong to alter the more likely A/B pace and when results keep staying to one side of the operations, we'd better wait for two "fictional" A losses not displaying a more likely course of action.

I've already sayed that (no matter how's the random walk utilized) long streaks are the mixed product of 1) unlikely "long" consecutive greater two initial cards points and 2) math two initial card underdog points getting a favourable third(s) card impact.

Basically and at least after having studied our large live shoes sample, we've found out that the more likely two initial greater point will get a two value pace, so we dared to reach the conclusion that at baccarat doubles are the more likely results for this reason.

Of course a large part of outcomes will disrupt such allegedly propensity, that's why we had to implement a so called "multiple variables" factor in our plan.

as. 

Good post AsymBacGuy

Personally I find #2 easier to discern vs #1 or #3:

"2- Considering it to stop a L pattern of given lenght"



Continued Success,

Hi 8OR9, Asym, et al.

Yes we must avoid these type of casinos if at all possible. I realize some folks that are near the (Ante Casinos) may not have the time to travel to other destinations. However, I think most players would have a greater prob of winning long term if they just played fewer sessions and drove to other "Non-Ante" casino markets.

     All that needs to happen is one corp cas chain (MGM,Caesars,...etc) to place a casino in these indian-casino markets. Capitalism is almost always good for the consumer. That is why I can go into a Walmart and purchase a half gallon of premium Orange Juice for $3.50 and select from 20 different brands. Competition is good at the grocery store as well as in the casino market. Casinos gouging their patrons with an Ante is usury/criminal IMO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re:000 roulette

Asym: "I'd add to the list playing at double or triple (ouch) zeroes roulettes, or at baccarat betting the Tiger pair (HE= 30%) "

    I agree with you.
    There are actually a couple of the aforementioned "AnteChargingCasinos" that have a (single zero) roulette wheel along with the traditional 00. it's a well kept secret amongst the rouletters and surprisingly the casinos don't even advertise this "0" table.


Continued Success To All,

Note in the following link below:

Pg. 3 NOTE the significant drop in Hold% for Bac starting in 2004.? Any thoughts as to why the hold % dropped from approx 18%--21% from 1992--2003, then a huge drop to mostly 11-12% from 2004--2023.
* My thinking was that maybe the increase in EZ Bac tables vs the old-school "Big Table". I don't know as just thinking out loud. There has to be some major change in the game for that to occur. Maybe just variance??

Any thoughts or theories??


NevadaTablesHold%


Thanks/credit to the UNLV Center For Gaming Research

Winning spots

There are three different ways to catch a W spot:

1- Hoping it'll come out as a "starting" spot

2- Considering it to stop a L pattern of given lenght

3- Considering it to come out again after a W spot (W cluster)

From a math point of view, such list doesn't make any sense as the W probability will remain 0.75 indipendently of what we're trying to dissect.

Actually (and fortunately) things doesn't correspond to those raw probabilities for each W scenario happening.
In fact even the first starting scenario mainly based upon "luck", itlr will form detectable W distributions needing quite time to be correctly grasped, many times by letting go those natural L clustered events to show up.

The third point seems to be quite straightforward but it is not, we reckon being the #1 reason why most players fail.

The second point needs a lot of time to provide real bettable spots, but by far will provide those sure strong EV+ situations completely denied by math (but not by statistics).
Remember that we do not want to win 100% of those relative rare allegedly EV+ spots, we'll always expect negative variance putting us into a harsh emotional status.

Yet, whenever a verified situation launched "infinite" times won't provide proportional math values, well we'd think to be in a very good shape to exploit an advantage.

More later

as.

Thanks for the explanation KFB!

I concur with 8OR9.

I'd add to the list playing at double or triple (ouch) zeroes roulettes, or at baccarat betting the Tiger pair (HE= 30%) and many other bigornsh.it side bets where players are simply pushing their money to the dealer's tray.

as. 

In my humble opinion. anyone who plays baccarat where the is an ante or some other fee is in the same category as someone who plays blackjack which pays 6 to 5 instead of 3 to 2 for a blackjack......not the smartest decision you will make that day.

Hi AsymBacGuy.

Asym:
"...Never heard of "ante" while playing baccarat.
Actually what does that mean
?.."

A little background.

Indian(i.e., tribe, native american) casinos in the USA. They are in about 28-30 states. I would say most are in the Midwest in states like (Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma,..etc) or West coast (California, Arizona,..etc). Many of these tribes have various pacts with the respective states on how they will pay the state a % of gambling revenue on Class III games(e.g., Table games such as Bac, roulette, craps, blackjack,...etc).

This ante or "Fee" is paid by the casino after collecting from the player on each hand dealt, wheel spun, dice come out,..etc). The casino often uses euphemisms to make things seem less bad (ante instead of fee or charge or tax). A common ante is .50c for a wager up to $99, and a $1 for a wager $100--999, $2 at $999--2000, $3 > $2000. Some just charge $1 regardless if at a table min of $10 or $1000.

Some of the better managed casinos often pay this (to the state) for the player or may have "No-Ante" days which are often during the week: Sun--thurs, or Mon,Tues,Thurs, M-Fri noon,...etc. If the casino pays it for the player then the dealer tracks the wagers with lammers on each hand, wheel spin, comeout roll in craps,...etc. This is how the casino knows how much they will pay the state.

Some casinos also have rules like: All hi-limit table games (usually $25 min or $50min) are ante free every day.
Each casino can set these rules as they like. 

*So obviously the smaller player is facing a much higher obstacle than just the house edge(e.g., .50c on a $15 wager). But even if paying $1 on a $100 wager one faces an additional hurdle as these "fees" on every single wager can easily add up to >=$30--60 every session.

**In my opinion there is also an additional issue that is often over looked. That is the fact this "fee" is paid Up Front--Win or "lose".

I simply choose to play at casinos that pay the ante for the player/only play during the week when the casino doesn't charge a ante or play at hi-limit tables.

KungFuBac is most certainly anti antes.


Continued Success,

Thanks for sharing KFB!

Never heard of "ante" while playing baccarat.
Actually what does that mean
?
Thanks, hope you keep posting



as.