Definitely 8s and 9s produce the vast majority of total decisions, either in form of natural hands (34.2%) and by a lesser degree when the third card rule will take place.

We know very well that naturals have the same probability on each side, but when a natural is dealt on B side and we are betting this chance we'll have to pay a 5% tax on a perfect symmetrical situation.
Of course, the remaining 65.8% hands will show a slight mathematical propensity to get more B hands than P hands, so our efforts should be oriented to possibly select the times where such propensity will have a higher or a lower impact than what mathematics dictates and capable to erase or hopefully invert the house edge.

Naturally mathematicians will say us that everything is possible, so there's no point to select some favourable betting spots, as they simply won't exist.
That's ok.

Anyway, baccarat is both a finite card game and a dependent card game so besides the very first hand, any next decision will be very sligthly whatever they want affected by the cards removed from the deck.
Morevover and even if some scenarios will be mathematically possible, we won't look at many situations where, for example, a given hand will be formed by four 8s, four 9s or by any four same value cards different from a zero value card.

At baccarat we're 100% sure that 64 8s and 9s will be present into a 416 deck.
We know that such 15.38% portion of the deck cannot fail to land at least on one of the four first four spots on any chance for long periods.
Whenever an 8 or a 9 will fall on the first four cards, most likely they'll produce a natural hand as the deck is almost always proportionally rich of zero value cards.

Admitting that everything is possible, it means that soon or later it could be possible to get a shoe where no "simple" natural hands (9s or 9s accompanied by a zero value card) will take place.
No way.

As weird as it could appear, it seems that the study of the ratio of 8s and 9s/total cards left in  the deck in relationship of the number of the cards left in the shoe (true count), the previous scarcity of those cards in two posiitions of one chance and the previous card combinations' nature involving one of those key cards, could help us to get an edge or at least to get a valid control on the future results.

In a word, we're playing to get more naturals on one side. Every incidental positive outcome will be very welcome, expecially if for some strange and lucky reasons it will not follow the 50.68/49.32 ratio itlr. 

as.





   









 









































   












   

   

 

Quote from: tdx on August 23, 2015, 12:05:41 AM
Here is how you can predict if the Player will get an 8 or 9 on the first card.......and let you  win millions playing baccarat

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/04/sorting-out-the-law-behind-phil-ivey-s-edge-sorting-debacle-18054.htm

Yeah, it remains to be really payed such millions 

as.

Perfect.

as.

Knowing the value of just one card in the exact position (from 1 to 6) could get us a mathematical edge in most cases, we might set up a betting plan.
The largest edges will come out when:

- the first card is a 9 dealt to the Player (21.528%)
- the second card is a 9 dealt to the Banker (20.641%)
- the fifth card is a 4 dealt to the Player (18.316%)
- the first card is an 8 dealt to the Player (17.294%)
- the second card is an 8 dealt to the Banker (16.493%)
- the sixth card is a 5 dealt to the Banker (14.514%)
- the sixth card is a 6 dealt to the Banker (14.424%)

Thus if we were able to get such aknowledge, we'll easily destroy the game itlr.

Unfortunately we cannot benefit of those situations.

Since we are stubbornly oriented to beat the game we want to try whether the statistical approach might help us.
After all baccarat is a finite and dependent process game.

To simplify the process, we'll register the times when a 9 or an 8 is dealt as first card to the Player side and the times when the fifth card is a 4, those situations having the highest ROI on P side.
There are many reasons to just consider the P side.

It's easy to notice that the very first card dealt will have a higher impact on every bac hand than every other position as many hands will end up after just 4 cards have been dealt. Surely the second same value card dealt on the other side will show a more or less impact similar to the first card, but most of the times we'll have to pay an unnecessary 5% vig on our winning wagers.

In a word, a very deviated situation where 9s, 8s will not fall in the first spot and 4s will not fall in the 5th spot, should entice a RTM effect where next P hands will show a slight player's edge.

Of course, there's an additional issue to consider: how many 9s, 8s and 4s are really live in the left deck.

We cannot hope to get a 4 falling into the 5th spot if many 4s were removed from the deck in the right or more likely "wrong" spots.

The same about the most likely cards capable to end up right now a bac decision: 8s and 9s.

The most part of 2.5 and 3 sr deviations taken are going to get a higher RTM effect than the propensity to reach larger deviations, expecially if we are properly considering the card removal effect per any shoe.

In this perspective, we aren't playing to get some P or B winning hands, we are betting that a given card (or better a bunch of such cards) will have to fall in a given spot after a very large absence and after having assessed that such key cards are very live per any live deck. (So many shoes won't provide any hint).

as.



       
















 










 










 









   



 

 



     

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on August 04, 2015, 01:29:42 AM
I can see of no viable way to pre order the cards to confound a table of bettors. Unless they all bet the same exact way together.

I can see pre ordering the cards to counter 1 bettor, but you are taking a risk he/she doesn't change their bet selection.
It would have to be done on a hand by hand basis from the shoe, and that tactic doesn't involve special shuffling.

I can't imagine there is any benefit in waiting for an abundance of low or high cards to either bet P or B. The change in the house edge is infinitesimal. I can't see bettors losing more than usual just because the house edge on any bet approaches 0.00. A 50/50 game still means you win and lose half your bets. Plus variance is still alive and kicking.

How could one recognize an artificial surplus of P doubles over a natural occurrence of P doubles? How would the artificial thwart the bettor any more successfully than a natural occurrence? You certainly can't keep this imbalance going, or you form a pattern, and people will catch it, bet it and win it.

Besides, regardless of which side wins some things remain the same. Combined singles vs runs for instance. If B is suppressed and P is doubling more often, together one compensates for the other. I just don't see any pre order shuffle being strategic for the casino.

HBS

I quote.

Only very strong mix card imbalances could produce a sensible edge over one chance, my above post was just a theoretical thought. 

Anyway I think that the most part of the heavy betting players don't like too much the P side and high bettors whose action produces the most part of casinos profits by far prefer to play in the high stakes rooms where every deck is hand made shuffled.


as.





   

I don't think casinos want to cheat at baccarat, anyway...

Maybe one of the best tool to alter the nature of the game by some preordered shufflings will be to enhance the likelihood to produce P hands.

Common sense dictates to prefer B side being 0.18% less disadvantaged itlr. Thus many players will be disoriented when P chance continues to be favorite over the counterpart. Moreover many players adopt a RTM strategy partially worthless whenever some card distributions favoring the less likely outcome will be continuously dealt.

Considering neutral the zero value cards accounting a 30.76% of the total deck, a card distribution clustered into bunches of very high cards and very low cards should raise the probability to get P hands and/or to lower the B advantage.

Whenever the deck is rich of very high cards, the natural points and standing points number will be increased and the asymmetrical factor favoring B side will be lowered.
So even if we win a hand on B side we'll pay an unnecessary 5% tax.

In a word, whenever the deck is particularly rich of very high cards the third card rule will lose much of its 8.6% long term effect.

The same thing happens whenever the deck is rich of very small cards.
We know that very small cards most likely will prompt a P third card hit, but now the deck rich of very small cards will enhance the probability to improve the P point making the B side to forcely stand in some occasions with many losing points.

Surely an actual "naturals" ratio well higher than the expected 34.2% percentage should suggest to bet P side because we are quite lowering the asymmetrical factor, thus we're trying to get closer to a perfect 50/50 proposition where we don't have to pay any tax.

The same should be true when the deck is rich of small cards as the likelihood to have either symmetrical spots and situations where the B standing will be hopeless is raised.

Imo, other preordered shufflings as very chopping shoes or very streaky shoes should help most players.


as.   






   




   



 

 

Quote from: tdx on August 02, 2015, 01:50:18 AM

The only real way an auto shuffler in a live casino can screw a customer in baccarat is to somehow rig the deck so there are no long Player or Banker runs.

Actually this would be an heavenly scenario for many players. ;-)

as. 

HBS, nope I don't like to bet toward a L after a WWWW pattern.

In many instances I prefer to wait the appearance of several WWWL sequences before betting then wagering for another W.
If the opposite scenario had appeared (many WWWW patterns) I shift to assess the ratio between 4WIAR and 4+WIAR. And so on.

As gr8players sayed, and forgetting a possible edge on some situations (and it does exist though very diluted), we must let some "losing" patterns go without betting. At the risk to miss some more winning opportunities. Of course, itlr the "missed"opportunites won't be counterbalanced by the situations where we'll get more winnings than losses, and this is assumption is 100% accurate without the benefit of some sort of edge.

Taking the concept to the extreme, I mean that after our very first bet we are either in optimal shape or in the sure descending route to the point of no return. Slightly, very diluted trip, still having a sure outcome.

as. 








 





     













 

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 29, 2015, 06:33:45 AM
The original post stated the need to win $500 using a $5k BR, there was no mention of a time limit,

Hi RW.

Yes I limited the endeavour in 3 playing days on 24/7 working tables.

Anyway there's nothing wrong in your comment.

as.



 

Singles, doubles, triples, etc doesn't always work like anything else. you can't just go to a casino and blindly play that. If you do, well i know you are a loser and will continue to do so.

Yep, they don't always work like anything else, they most likely work differently to anything else. Expecially on some situations.


as.

HBS, you explained very well your game philosophy.
It seems that your strategy is similar to many gr8player ideas.

I noticed that you focus your play mainly on the B/P gaps either in form of deviations or taking advantage of a possible RTM effect. Have you ever tried to consider other events such as singles, doubles, triples, 4+ and so on?
I've found that variance is better restrained on some losing patterns, the downside is to wait several hands/shoes to get the possible favourable betting situations.

ezmark

I knew it ;-)

Actually itlr we'll have a slight higher amount of choppy shoes than streaky shoes, expecially on 8-deck shoes.
Thus imo the problem is when we want to get a streaky shoe keep streaking or to transform a streaky shoe into a mostly choppy shoe.
Of course there are many choppy shoes going streaky but the number of choppy shoes being mostly choppy till the end is slightly higher.

If we consider any side as a distinct entity the effect is fairly amplified on one side and slightly inverted on the other one.   

as.
 

 
     



     

   

   

Thanks ezmark and HBS.

Ezmark

So I think you prefer to follow a most chopping selected shoe than trying to get what it didn't happen in the past, right?


HBS

In your well detailed and much appreciated answer (as always) you stated to prefer getting a possible advantage on RTM effect betting small wagers.
Are there some situations when you decide to play toward a deviation not being a counterbalancement of previous events?

Finally, do you extend a RTM philosophy in a "cumulative" fashion, that is do you try to play toward the equlibrium over some very deviated situations happened in the previous shoe/s?


In this specific question, soxfan would prefer to place standard bets of 1/5 of the total amount aimed by a whatever positive progression style. This strategy should raise the probability to get ahead of $500 without having to risk too much in order to preserve the $5k bankroll. 

Of course we all know very well that from a strict mathematical point of view there is a correct answer (or at least certain better options), but as the game is unbeatable anyone has the right to choose his/her own way of action.


Further opinions are very welcome, of course.


as. 

   




   

 
       

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 25, 2015, 11:45:21 AM
  So when did prior results start having significance regarding those cards that are sitting inside the shoe and waiting to be drawn?  What level of awareness / understanding do the cards have, in that, nothing thus far has gone over two, so they must stay this way? 

In fact if you pick a table which nothing thus far has gone over two, I would say it is more than likely, the shoe will probably change.

Here is a tip for ya, the game is random, prior hands, patterns, trends have no significance whatsoever against what is basically a "coin-flip".

Ok.
But if you had to scratch those $500 among the options which one or more than one would you use?
I guess you answer "other". ;-)

as.

 

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on July 25, 2015, 02:48:29 AM
Basically you are asking the question for yourself.  Because you would have been able (by your own claims) been able to assist your friend, rather than posing the question like it has come from a third person.

Nope, the third part request is 100% genuine, he knows my strategy/ideas pretty well and for the most part he doesn't like 'em.
If you don't believe me, np. Pretend I'm the one to ask.

as.

 

Quote from: soxfan on July 25, 2015, 02:18:09 AM
You never stated the table max. But, with 5ks bankroll seeking to capture 500$ I would use the positive progression style with 100$ base bets, and should be easy to capture that 500$ profits, hey hey.

You are right, the table max is $5000.

Thanks for your answer.

as.