1- The higher two card initial points are overall strongly math favorite to win the final hand

Obviously we want our side to get a 9, 8, 7 and a 6, yet any side getting a superior two card point vs the opposite side will win a lot more hands than what a 50/50 proposition will dictate.

Thus any 2 point vs any zero point or any 3 point vs any 2 point will win by a percentage way superior than 50/50.
The reason is because about 30% of the shoe is "neutral", that is formed by zero value cards (third card/s) not changing the first situation.

Of course many first two card situations present the same point (especially a zero point at both sides), so the third cards impact will decide the final hand's destiny.

Moreover, some card distributions keep privileging one side (especially the Player side that is entitled to draw more third cards than Banker) so kind of disrupting a math propensity for long.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of card distributions will make more probable some greater two card initial points ranges, the reason why an average final amount of columns will be filled no matter how are whimsically distributed the cards.

Even though it's impossible to know when a high two card point (6, 7 or even an will succumb to an even greater point (at the first or after two stages), a part of those math underdog situations will come out at our favor, but this is a transitory unwanted spot that itlr will make us losers and not winners.

I mean that ranges must be assessed either from a general point of view (general distribution and average speed acting toward the right end of the display) and by actual situations that most of the times aren't showing up by symmetrical paces.

More later

as.

Let's consider two extremes almost never happening, it's the starting point to go down in the patterns evaluation.

a) A shoe not producing any doubles;

b) A shoe not producing any 3/3+ streaks.


a) No doubles in a shoe means that we'll never ever cross more than one singled + or - sign in a row. 
That is we'll only encounter +-- or -++ situations.

b) No 3/3+ streaks happening in a shoe means that the - sign will come out as isolated all of the time.
In fact we need at least a 3 streak to get a - - succession.
At the same time it's easy to infer that at those distributions the overalternating +/- movement is increased in probability as soon or later two or more doubles will come out in a row.

No surprises!
Those shoes are the heaven for any sensible bac player for obvious reasons: what seems to be absent should be considered as non existent, yet the optimal play would be to bet after a single + or - sign in the a) scenario (+- or -+) and to bet after the - apparition in the b) situation.
At both those situations our probability to win is 100%.

Therefore and as long as no doubles or no 3/3+ streaks happen and in the betting spots examined, our probability to win is 100%.

Unfortunately (lol) at the remaining shoe distributions, doubles and 3/3+ streaks will mix and show up whimsically by different paces and by different quantities.

It's now that we have to make an "educated guess" of what are the more likely ranges of doubles/superior streaks in terms of distribution (not quantity) per any shoe dealt.

For example there are no many overalternating situations (consecutive doubles) happening along any shoe dealt, the same about clustered + signs formed by several long chopping lines or consistent - sign clusters (long streaks).
On the same line, the + or - shape will dictate our future action.
More informations we have at our disposal at a given point of the shoe, better will be our precision in approximating what should show up next.

Anyway when strong clusters seem to come out conseutively we think that there are only two options to follow: a)waiting or b)betting until the cluster ends up.
In the latter option we need just one more hand to win, then we might (almost) freerolling or collecting the profit.
Yet only first class players are capable to get a sort of long term advantage by playing "extremes".

Next time I'll present you some real shoes played. Step by step.

as.

I've canceled a couple of my recent posts because they were too intricated to be grasped.

The concept is that any result distribution move toward the right by different speeds.
Obviously more singles and the speed will be higher, more streaks and the speed will slow down in relationship of how long are such streaks.

Obviously there's an average speed as we know that every shoe dealt will end up by filling way more likely  ranges (number of columns).

"Turbo" sequences at either side of the process (very high speed, very low speed) happens but naturally they are rare to happen.
Moreover an interesting feature of baccarat subsequences is that it's quite rare to get same step speeds at two or more "derived roads".

A possible registration of the patterns could be to put a + sign anytime the side shifts (B->P or P->B) and a - sign when the same side happens again.

We are not interested to assess the +/- final number, let alone to chase a specific sign, just about their form of presentation along any shoe.

For example a shoe sequence as BPPPBBPBPBBBPPPPP is

+ - - + - + + + - - + - - - -

To cut a long story short and just to provide an example, the only overalternating +/-/+/-/+...pattern comes out when consecutive doubles come out.

In fact BBPPBBPPBB...is

- + - + - + - + -

On the other end and as already sayed above, long + or - homogeneous sequences show up at branded chopping lines (+ sign) or at long streaks (- sign).

Every other more probable pattern is entitled to form short + or - sequences getting different shapes (isolated or clustered).

The interesting part of everything is that those shapes are sensitive either of the actual lenght of the shoe they are happening and about how the previous shapes went so far.

More later

as. 

Absolutely right, short term is the way to go but always adding in our strategy a kind of "long term" factor as we know well that strong deviations do not come out so often.

as.

Hi KFB!
If you play 7-9h hours per day it means you are a fine player and of course I know you are!

Wrong side wagered and you have won? Good!
A win is a win!

as.

Baccarat is made by infinite "same fighting situations" where two different forces will dictate the final results:

a) Itlr every "battle" will end up "equally" or almost equally (no strong propensities will happen);

b) In the short/intermediate term, the asymmetrical nature of the deck will make more probable (at least at some spots) some one sided results.
And as Alrelax correctly pointed out, there are no privileged patterns to rely upon, yet we have to consider some pattern ranges in order to set up our plan.

Then there are no progressions capable to overcome a negative edge, yet KFB presented valuable ideas to maximize profits based upon the concept that asymmetrical successions must stop or prolong with a level of probability different than 50/50.

Moreover and I'm assuming a full responsability of what I'm saying, baccarat is a game where the past will influence the future.

Since we can't rely upon a math edge, at baccarat we are compelled to approximate at best the possible distributions.
And in fact the vast majority of shoes roam around "average" distributions, shoes where most of the time casinos will get the best of it as bac players tend to play toward "extremes".
Obviously there's nothing wrong to play toward extremes, alas extremes cannot overcome every other situation happening at a baccarat table.

More simply, "extremes" become interesting just whenever they'll surpass the 3 value: we need a consecutive same pattern to think that an extreme (2) might come out, then we'll win the next deviations step (3). From this point on we need a further winning step (4) to profit because if we lose the fourth step we'll break even (before vig).

Let's transfer the concept on chopping sequences, B/P streaks or BP consecutive streaks and you'll see how's difficult to surpass the 3 value.

It's true that sequences reaching the 3 value could be played up to that point, so not risking more money in order to get superior winning successions.
A wise move by any means.

Why?

Assuming we chase an univocal pattern to prolong after it came out twice (say we consider a double apparition as a trigger) we'll get: (Y=another apparition and N= pattern stops).
For simplicity we ignore the vig.

(YY)N = -1 unit

(YY)YN = break even

(YY)YYN = +1 unit

(YY)YYYN = +2 unit

(YY)YYYYN = +3 unit

(YY)YYYYYN = +4 unit

(YY)YYYYYYN = +5 unit

and so on...

To summarize we need at least a four long consecutive homogeneous pattern to get a tiny +1 profit, situations not happening around any corner.
By lowering the homogeneous pattern expectations, we might get a +1 profit just at the more likely YYYN successions and even in this case we're not entitled to get many situations of such kind.

On the other end, starting to bet toward a univocal long sequence after a single Y makes things worse as it'll negate the M.V. Smoluchowksi (and other authors) ideas  our plans are based about.

Now if it's difficult to get many profitable situations of such a kind per any shoe dealt, are there more affordable ways to get the best of bac successions intended as patterns?   

I have to thank you for your interest in reading this thread, reaching 300k views is a very good accomplishment.

If you remotely think that baccarat could be beatable, well you are in the right site.

Next time I'll present you the basics about how our algos move at the worst profitable sequences the game provides: BP successions.

as.

Hi KFB!
Yep, I'll present some examples later.

By now I wish to introduce the "betting again the same side after losing the first one (BASS)" concept.
The BASS concept has nothing to share with common BP patterns (doubles, streaks, etc) or other strategies based upon mechanical triggers, it's just an additional tool we should take care of whenever we decide to selectively betting a random walk suggesting a side that lost at the first attempt.

It's a registration of how many times we were wrong in choosing a given side and more importantly about how much the "backup" second bet have won or lost.

From a strict BP patterns point of view, there are no specific B/P lines to fear or to chase as the random walk (think about derived roads) most of the times is insensitive to that.
Technically and after having selected our betting spot, we're challenging the actual distribution to provide our chosen side losing two times in a row.

Not surprisingly, if we'd think to bet with a kind of advantage we need the first bet to win at least 51.3% of the times while wagering Banker and 50.1% while wagering Player.

Nonetheless, even the second bet and the second bet series (range) could be assessed by more likely terms getting us an additional advantage.

As long as we would consider a shoe just by 12-15 or 18 situations, the BASS line will get slight more probable lines so getting rid of the common "everything is 50/50" untrue statement.

Anyway, this factor cannot be the main tool to rely upon but for sure helping us to lose a lot less in the unfortunate situations we are destined to face. After all it's an additional random walk to take care about.

More later

as.

Patterns fight along different ranges of ACTUAL probability:

1) A given pattern will happen consecutively: a) YES, b) NO

a) YES (clustered): Now it could happen back to back one time, two times, three times, more than three times...

b) NO (isolated): Here there's only one shape happening: that is the pattern will be followed by an opposite pattern.

2) A given pattern hadn't happen so far; for the asymmetrical probability "rule", we assume that what didn't happen simply do not exist.
Whereas simple singles and streaks of any lenght MOST OF THE TIMES will not endure long silent events, it'll be way more probable to catch streaks (or chopping sequences) of a given lenght belonging to patterns already happened and not because they are "virtually" entitled to show up.
Anytime a kind of silent pattern had shown up, we go back to point #1. But as long as any pattern didn't happen our plan register a "NO".

Approximating the average patterns distribution

Obviously the best distributions to exploit are those making one or more patterns to be silent (S) for at least two steps: S(W)S(W). In any instance we will not lose a dime in the process and even if the silent event will happen at the very second step of the process we'll lose just the vig (if applicable).
Good news is that assuming 15/16 bettable patterns per shoe, on average just one shoe won't make room to patterns being silent for less than three steps.

On the other end, most patterns already happened move around a general 1-2 more likely rhythm, so temporarily negating the above point.
That is patterns will more likely stop after one or two consecutive steps.

Putting this concepts in practice

First, let casinos think that Y/N will move around undetectable patterns, we know that Y or N sequences not happening at least three times in a row (by getting rid of many starting hands) are nearly 1:15 or 1:16 underdog to show up for every entire shoe considered.

That means that most of the times the Y/N one/two sequences (NYN and NYYN OR YNY or YNNY) are entitled to come out clustered at least one time per every shoe dealt.

Forcing casinos to hope for the opposite scenarios

-If we selectively bet against something that didn't happen so far, we force casinos to hope that the silent pattern will show up just at the precise moment we'll bet it. Anything different than that will get us a profit.

-If we bet that patterns will more likely stop after one or two step of deviations, we force casinos to hope that every pattern will stand for long and this is the exact situation where 99.99% of bac (losing) players tend to do.

-In a way or another the vast majority of the times (15/16 or 16/17) we're supposed to get at least three consecutive and univocal pattern situations.

In a couple of days I'll provide some real examples.

as.

QuoteSo, not chasing anything, looking for most common situations.

 
"meaning that isolated superior streaks will be less likely than clustered superior streaks.-"

Is not in fact the opposite?


 

Nope, is not providing to put a kind of relationship with what should be more likely to happen with what is actually happening. So applying the "ranges" concept.

Itlr all asymmetrical distributions will converge more and more toward expected probability values, in the short-intermediate situations the single shoe distributions remain as asymmetrically placed by definition.

Anyway, even those asymmetrical shoe situations are slightly affected by long term findings, in the sense that it's impossible to get several patterns getting strong univocal deviations for the entire shoe unless, of course, the few long term more probable patterns keep staying predominant.

Again, it's the number of deviating steps that help us to define how much a given pattern will prolong or stop, best numbers to look for are 1 or 2, then we are not interested to chase anything or to hope for anything.

More later

as.

A proficient random walk must falsify the hypothesis that each new hand will be totally independent from the previous ones.
The doubles vs superior streaks distribution is one of the best examples to provide.

The common denominator is that to be really profitable any random walk must show up more superior streaks than doubles, of course knowing that doubles must come out anyway.
So we must restrict them by a 0 (no apparition), 1 (an isolated double) or 2 (a couple of doubles).

Whenever doubles show up clustered three (or more times) in a row, we'll wait for another double coming out after a superior streak.
And so on.
Superior streaks need to be assessed by a back to back scenario, meaning that isolated superior streaks will be less likely than clustered superior streaks.

Among the four common roads (BR, byb, sr and cr) some roads are better than others in doing this.
It's this difference that counts, the element that helped us to devise what to look for.

as.

Hi AJ!

There are infinite ways to consider a coin flip succession: of course no matter how we operate, itlr everything will follow a 50/50 statistical probability. Thus no way to beat it, EV=0. If the game is taxed (what happens at every casino game), EV will be negative.

But at baccarat the card distribution is asymmetrical and finite, rules dictate that sometimes one side is more probable than the other one and the asymmetrical pace of key cards will affect a large part of the more likely patterns distribution.
That means (at least in our opinion) that bac successions (shoes) are "biased" at some points, so the idea that each new hand is completely independent from the previous one(s) is totally wrong.

Most hands are unguessable but not EVERY hand is unguessable. More precisely, many hand ranges MUST follow sooner or later a kind of propensity. A thing that we had discovered by running infinite random walks (mechanical betting) applied to the same shoe successions in order to dispute the common knowledge stating that baccarat results follow a kind of 50/50 INDEPENDENT proposition.
Our "main" random walk is the best practical way to get EV+ spots, well knowing that for sure there are better random walks to exploit (yet needing a lot more time to be used).

 
You observe the first pair of series of 2 Vs Larger Series, and the pair after that is what you consider to be, more often than not, different from the first pair formed?

Yes, this might be a relatively exploitable kind of propensity (at least from a sd values point of view), there are many others applied to the class of pairs belonging to the same category.

More later

as.

Let's consider the doubles/superior streaks patterns regarding the first and the second situation showing up per every shoe dealt. 2= double, 3=superior streak
Here's a brief real shoes sample. First sequence is the natural B/P succession, second succession is our main random walk:

01) 3-3; 3-2

02) 2-2; 3-2

03) 2-2; 3-2

04) 3-2; 2-3

05) 3-3; 3-2

06) 3-2; 2-3

07) 2-3; 2-3

08) 3-2; 3-2

09) 2-2; 3-2

10) 3-2; 2-3

11) 3-2; 3-3

12) 2-2; 3-2

13) 2-2; 2-3

14) 3-2; 2-3

15) 3-2; 2-2

16) 2-3; 2-2

17) 3-3; 2-3

18) 3-3; 3-2

19) 2-2; 2-3

20) 2-2; 2-2

21) 2-3; 2-2

22) 2-2; 2-2

23) 3-2; 3-2

24) 3-3; 2-2

25) 2-3; 3-2

26) 3-3; 2-3

27) 2-3; 3-2

28) 2-2; 3-3

29) 2-3; 3-2

30) 3-3; 3-2

31) 3-3; 3-2

32) 2-2; 2-3

33) 2-2; 2-3

34) 3-2; 3-3

35) 3-3; 3-2

36) 3-2; 2-3

37) 2-2; 3-2

38) 3-2; 2-2

39) 3-2; 2-3

40) 3-2; 3-2

41) 2-2; 3-2

42) 2-2; 3-2

43) 3-3; 2-2

44) 2-3; 3-2

45) 3-3; 3-2

46) 3-2; 2-3

47) 3-2; 3-2

48) 3-3; 2-3

49) 2-2; 2-3

50) 2-3; 2-3

51) 2-2; 3-2

52) 3-3; 3-3

53) 3-2; 3-2

54) 3-2; 3-2

55) 2-2; 3-3

56) 3-3; 3-2

57) 2-2; 2-3

58) 2-2; 2-3

59) 2-3; 2-3

60) 3-2; 3-3

61) 2-2; 2-2

62) 3-2; 2-2

63) 3-3; 3-2

64) 2-2; 2-3

65) 3-3; 3-3

66) 2-2; 3-3

67) 2-3; 3-2

68) 2-2; 2-3

69) 2-2; 3-3

70) 3-3; 3-3

71) 3-3; 3-3

72) 2-2; 3-3

73) 2-2; 3-3

74) 3-2; 3-3

75) 2-2; 3-3

76) 2-2; 3-2

77) 2-2; 3-2

78) 2-2; 2-2

79) 2-2; 3-2

80) 2-3; 3-2

81) 3-3; 2-3

82) 3-3; 3-3

83) 3-3; 2-3

84) 2-2; 2-3

85) 2-3; 3-3

86) 3-3; 3-3

87) 2-2; 2-2

88) 2-3; 3-2

89) 2-2; 3-3

90) 3-2; 3-2

91) 2-3; 2-2

92) 2-3; 3-3

93) 2-3; 3-3

94) 3-2; 2-3

95) 3-2; 2-3

96) 2-2; 3-3

97) 2-2; 2-2

98) 3-3; 3-3

99) 2-3; 3-2

100) 3-3; 2-2

101) 2-3; 2-3

102) 3-3; 2-2

103) 3-2; 3-2

104) 2-3; 2-3

105) 3-2; 2-2

106) 3-2; 3-3

107) 3-2; 2-3

108) 2-2; 3-2

109) 2-3; 2-3

110) 3-2; 2-3

111) 3-2; 3-2

112) 3-3; 3-3

113) 2-3; 2-3

114) 3-3; 2-3

115) 2-3; 3-2

116) 2-3; 3-3

117) 2-3; 3-2

Out of 117 couple of doublets, the first succession formed 63 homogeneous patterns (D-D or S-S) and 54 heterogeneous patterns (S-D or D-S); the second succession formed 43 homogeneous patterns and 74 heterogeneous patterns.

Overall there are 26 situations where BOTH doublets will get an homogeneous pattern (2-2, 2-2 or 3-3, 3-3), thus the remaining 91 events will present a heterogeneous pattern more probable at our random walk.

Obviously there's no a guaranteed rhythm to rely upon, but if a kind of propensity is entitled to show up it'll be by longer positive sequences than negative ones and of course by shorter negative events than expected by a "unguessable" proposition.

The concept could be applied to any BP sequence linked to the CR road or, at a lesser extent, to the small road.

As long as any new hand will not be supposed to provide a conflicting event among different roads, heterogeneous events will cumulatively (slightly) overwhelm the remaining possibilities.

as.

Limiting the field of operations is one of the key to try to beat this game.

Suppose you want to only consider doubles vs superior streaks so singles and 3+ streaks won't be included in our plan.

Is it a good move to hope that doubles or superior streaks simply considered will be distributed in such a controllable way that some unlikely successions won't knock out our plan sooner or later?

That's impossible.
We can't allow those natural (albeit unlikely) card distributions forming endless double or superior streaks successions capable to destroy our plan.
On the other end trying to stubbornly get the best of those unlikely univocal successions will make the casinos' fortune as they are too rare to be exploited.

Example.

Say we want to bet that the very first pattern of every shoe dealt will be a double OR a superior streak. It's not important the real nature of such streak, we want to check how many times a double or a superior streak will start the shoe distribution at any of the innumerable sub successions.
Since doubles=superior streaks and as math teaches us that no matter when we consider a 50/50 spot the probability remains the same, sooner or later we should encounter a 12-15 or greater homogeneous streaks distribution getting a 12/0, 15/0 or even 20/0 ratio.

Now let's consider what happens next after a starting double or a starting superior streak situation per every shoe dealt. That is we want to assess the very second streak nature limited within the "double/superior streak" category.
Our data suggest that the probability that the second streak will be completely independent from the previous one (so getting the common sd values applied to an independent 50/50 proposition) is not so unguessable as many experts keep stating.

More later

as.

Ok thanks!!!
It's an issue we agreed with KFB too.

as.

What's this (I mean the numbers)?

1-10 (Strong and Follow whatever is appearing)

11-16 (Stronger or Immediately turning weak and follow)

as.