I wish to hear your comments about this simple situation a friend of mine asked me.

Let's suppose you really need $500 just playing baccarat (no other extra money earnings allowed) having our last $5000 bankroll and 3 days to play (24/7).

The tables minimum limit is $25.

We know that the best mathematical expectancy of being ahead of $500 will be the choice of betting $525 on Banker side right on our first bet, but we rule out such possibility from the options.

Which one or more than one of the following factors would you attribute the most importance to reach the goal?

- Table selection (shoe general texture, hand made shuffling vs machine shuffling, speed of the game, etc)

- "Small" standard bet strategy trying to control the disbursement and hoping to get a multiple winning outcome soon or later. 

- "Moderate" standard bet strategy trying to control the variance and to shorten the EV- game periods.

- "High" standard bet strategy oriented to reduce the EV- impact hoping for the best in short intervals.   

- Money management (parlays and negative aggressive martingales included)

- Preordered subjective betting selection (no use of possible objective long term winning findings)

- Trend following strategy

- "Lucky" players following strategy

- Other


I'd like to know your opinions not forgetting that the scenario will be all about the absolute urgency to win $500 not affording to lose your last $5000 bankroll.

as.   























 

Awesome shoe indeed.

as.

Quote from: tdx on July 23, 2015, 12:25:01 AM
I advise everyone to make their own garbage shoe and test any method on that shoe first before doing any other testing.

Also if you are manually checking a method and flat betting , a quick way to figure banker comm is to add up all winning bets in a shoe and divide by 2. Then miltiply result by .05 ( assuming banker will win half of all winning bets)

( if you win 20 hands in a shoe assume banker will win half which is 10, so multiple 10 by .05 =1/2 unit banker comm on the shoe.}

Its just an approximation but it should come close over many shoes. 

If you are using a progression then you obviously can't use this.....and if you are using a computer, then of course the softeware  can calculate the banker comm to the penny.

Just did 3 more rewal casino shoes on the bac matrix and ...not so good.

Lost 5 units on one shoe, lost 2 on another shoe and break even on the third shoe.

Never got to the magic number of 4 unit win on any shoe. ( premature ejaculation on all 3 shoes )

I quote.

It's literally impossible to get an average one unit profit per shoe, let alone higher amounts...

Moreover, we have to register our B winning bets as they should get a higher 9.4 % mathematical expectation after tax.

On the P side the task is quite simple. We must overcome a -1.24% edge over the long run.

Any method capable to lower such disadvantages itlr is a real good one, but there aren't too many.

In the short-intermediate run many methods can overcome such ratios (all due to the standard deviation topic) giving us the illusion to have found the holy grail.

If a holy grail system exists, it will be very very diluted, putting us at a very high risk to be subdued by the variance.

as. 








   

It would be easier to look for a five consecutive series of singles-doubles on P side capable to erase any previous losses by a given progression, expecially when the "enemy" hadn't show up in the initial sequences of the shoe.
And expecially when some observed shoes hadn't provide a 4+ fictional consecutive winnings on a given sample of shoes.

The same could be applied on B side, now hoping for a B streaks' sequence in a given amount of shoes.

;-)

as.








 

Can't think about a better reply.

as. 

Quote from: Jimske on July 07, 2015, 03:29:08 PM

You're right - shoes like that doesn't come often.  So if the shoe was reversed you would say what?  and win what?

Deviated shoes like this don't come often anyway the "general" texture is followed.
Thus if the shoe was reversed I wouldn't have won but one spot.

as.
   

Quote from: ezmark on July 07, 2015, 03:01:20 AM
This a shoe I played today.

BB  P  BBBB  P  B  PP  B  P  B  P  B  PP  BBBB  P  BBB  PP  BBBBB  PP  BB  P  B  P  BB  PP  B  P  BBBB  PP  B  P  BB  PP  BBBBBBBB  P

Even if this example is not belonging to the "average" category, this shoe does confirm what I talked about.

Besides the total singles/doubles texture of P side, providing the least valid bet selection B chance has shown an expected  streak predominance on every spot but one.

No bad.

as.


   

Actually many players (me first in the past) are cheap on their winning streaks and aggressive on their losing ones.

Conceptually it doesn't change a bit on the different strategy outcomes with the exception that being cheap on winning streaks tend to alter the W/L future ratio whenever the obvious losing patterns will take place.

Moreover, playing parlays will better define the W/L situation as now we are focused just on a single L coming out, virtually not putting a limit to the winning patterns.
Conversely, a given "high to the sky" losing sequence will broke every bankroll.

Finally, acute players know that at some point some long and very long winning sequences will take place, while less oriented players consider long losing patterns as "very unfortunate" events.

Obviously long winning sequences are more likely to happen after a series of many short winning patterns, so betting every hand trying to get multiple W patterns everytime won't make the point.

To give a more practical example, we know that considering an average of a ten shoes sample we'll expect to have at least a couple of shoes predominantly showing B streaks; conversely, at P side the almost total singles/doubles situation will arise even more frequently.

as.







   

gr8player, I agree with many of your concepts and thanks for replying.

Nevertheless, I'm sure you have grasped that the baccarat world will provide some more likely events to happen, a thing you denied in a recent post.
Or, better sayed, that the game's outcomes are limited in some way otherwise you would have found the holy grail to beat other 50/50 games, as roulette. A game, imo, being totally unbeatable by any means.

Actually no P&D efforts could get the best of it at roulette, so I've got to deduce that your bac strategy relies on something else.

I think that for one reason or another you got the same conclusions I made. ;-)

Stay well

as.

 

Of course any of the 3 triggers suggested will show a negative long term outcome.

But the idea to quit a losing shoe and to bet some P spots is not wrong, imho.

Imo, there's no long term winning method not wagering some P spots.
That's because many consecutive shoes will form a P predominance and after all the game is all about getting the opposite of last result.
Providing we'll encounter some possible profitable situations.

Some card distributions will surely favorite the P side, no matter what mathematics dictates.

Knowing that B side eventually will be favorite don't help us, as more than 9 times over 10 we'll get a perfect coin flip spot at best.

as.

gr8player, if you state that nothing is "more likely" how a possible "bias" might be working for us?

If nothing is more likely than something else, everything will be proportionally placed and betting toward the normal deviations or, on the other hand, betting toward a RTM effect should be a useless task.

In a (almost) binomial system, after one W I'll expect to have the same amount of W and L; after a couple of W, I'll expect to have the same amount of W and L. And so on.

So I've to deduce that in your opinion such perfect binomial system is limited in some way.

Can you illuminate me on this?

as.   

Again this is one of the most interesting post.


Personally I don't like to base my betting after a cumulative series of fictional losses as any shoe is a distinct part of the whole baccarat world. In that sense I'm with gr8player and many others thought.

Adopting the same betting plan, any shoe will produce some WL patterns along the way.
For example we might target the WLL sequence as our enemy and with some selections there aren't many consecutive WLL patterns per any single shoe.
That means to wait a fictional W then betting two times hoping not to get two losses.
How many times are we expecting to get the WLL sequence per any shoe?
Imo, the difference between targeting a WLL sequence instead of a given LLL sequence is that a most likely outcome should come out in a couple of spots even in form of clustered W or in isolated single L.  Expecially if my search of W is built up onto a multilayered betting plan (to get that W I'm not looking for just one pattern).

Despite this, variance will pose a big threat on our plan expecially on some very deviated and unusual shoes (very rich P shoes, for example).

Again approaching this line, we'll expect to have more isolated WLL sequences than clustered WLL sequences, so we might wait the WLL occurence to better define our selection.

Unfortunately, some shoes will keep to mantain an unusual distribution from the start to the end and nothing can prevent to be in the unlucky situation to get consecutive unusual shoes.

Anyway, the vast majority of shoes will produce a given number of W/L patterns of some lenght and there exist certain spots where we could guess right more often than not (slightly).

Theorically, a supposedly system capable to get more W than L will distribute more single L than clustered L, more 2 L than >2 L, more 3 L than >3 L and so on.
But for some statistical and obviuos reasons, it's very difficult in the short-intermediate term to get every single ratio shifted toward the left. I mean that we might easily have more clustered L than single L and at the same time getting a large amount of double L than superior (2+) L sequences. And some other mix.



as.















 







   



 

Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on June 26, 2015, 04:30:56 AM
This is like the 3rd or 4th time out of 5 trips I've walked up on a shoe with Player winning by 10 or more. This shoe was 1/3 complete before I got there. Player 44 to Banker 35.

P
B
PPPPPPP 7P I wasn't around for, saved me a 5u bet as I would have bet it went to 8
B
PPPPP
PPP
BBBBBB
PPPPP
B
PP
B
PPP
BB
P
BB
PP
BBBB
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
BBBBB
PP
B
P
B
PPP
BBBBBB
PPPPP

I like to bet P to avoid commission loss, but bet exactly opposite of last week thinking that surely I'd run into a B dom shoe. My bet was for P to single and for B to repeat.

+24u by decision 34 of the following shoe which was once again led by P 20 and B 14

Something wrong went on your shoe texture. :-)

as.

Nice replies.

Imo, FB is just the start to set up a possible long term winning method.
Variance will be very high and, imo, a FB method expecially whether not mathematically based (being an impossible task, we know) will cross many unfortunate situations no matter how we'll be patient and disciplined.

If a FB method will have the best of it, it means that our winning sequences will be proportionally longer than the losing ones; so our W sequences in a row will be higher than our W isolated sequences. The same for 3W in a row will be higher than 2W in a row. And so on.
Same about our losing patterns taken in a reverse thought.
It should be a good idea to register such situations. 

To reduce the variance's impact, I'd prefer to bet after a given L sequence and I don't care if I have to wait many hands to bet.

I'm not there to be comped, I don't give a f about a Bacchanal buffet or a free "O" show or a luxury Costantine suite accomodation (expecially if I'm living in Vegas).

The more we select our betting opportunities, the better will be our results.

And we're so happy that casinos won't think that baccarat is a beatable game. LOL.



as.   


 

Quote from: Jimske on June 22, 2015, 04:06:05 PM
Still having trouble wrapping my head around this, John.  Lots of players say this.  Okay there seems to be a correlation but cause and effect?  I'd like to understand the reason less bets increase our odds of winning.

Doesn't the answer have to be that some condition exists that produces more wins than another condition?

J

The answer should be that baccarat won't produce perfect 50/50 outcomes, expecially on some "complex" derived situations.
We are mostly playing an almost 50/50 game, so the more we are betting the higher will be the probability to sink into the "random" world, a world where we cannot have any valuable hint besides the obvious short term positive variance.

Of course, limiting our betting without having properly assessed what happened in the previous spots won't make the job.
For example, always betting the 5th, 14th or 45th hand hoping to get a RTM effect or something like that.

Many shoes aren't going to produce the most expected results and I'm not going to try to stop such course, let alone trying to follow this unexpected line. I simply abandon to bet.

Such shoes, imo, are counterbalancing the ones giving the "edge" on some more expected distributions.

Giving a vulgar example, it won't exist in the history of baccarat a shoe forming a series of only  streaks. You won't find one. (at roulette you'll get many 70 hands sequence producing only streaks on certain 50/50 chances)
However, you'll get many shoes not showing a 3+ streak, expecially on P side. (a very very rare finding at roulette).
And so on about more intricated dispositions.

We shouldn't forget that at baccarat there are some key cards erasing or at least lowering the asym factor and that the game is mainly operated by a slight zigzag factor (due to card distribution).
Imo, we should let the time to have such factors operating at a degree capable to either invert the house edge or at least to get very controlled opposite scenarios. That means reducing a lot our betting, imo.

If for example we could find a -5/0/+5 steady gap, we virtually cannot lose.   

as.