Another brilliant comment made by one who had shown us here an endless piles of Benjamins.

The challenge with the house is asymmetrical from the start, but don't make such battle as "too much asymmetrical", meaning that we don't want to risk a lot in order to win a little.

Let casinos fear we're risking a finite X bankroll to win a virtually infinite amount of money and not luring us to stop the action after having collected a miserable profit.

Defending the bankroll is of utmost importance but "to win the tournament" sooner or later we must put in jeopardy a fair or a large part of the money won whether the proper conditions are met.
I say 'fair or large' as most of the times we're moving around tiny profits. 

Let Steve Wynn keep thinking that "the only way to win at a casino is to own one": he doesn't know and obviously he couldn't care less about how much money we've extracted from his Wynn and Encore premises.

BTW I suggest the reading of Bill Walters freshly released book: "Gambler: Secrets from a life at risk".
You won't be disappointed.

as.

Average algorithm's betting frequency

Since one or more same specific patterns might be good or bad in relationship of 'when' we're classifying them, our algorithm makes the best efforts to 'align' them around the more probable average card distribution giving a lesser bighorn.sh.it about single hands, thus considering the process as a 'whole'.

Obviously such process will produce asymmetrical results, meaning that itlr (but even in the intermediate terms and in the vast majority of short terms) a slight greater amount of positive scenarios will overcome the negative counterpart so getting us an edge.

Hold on.

Mathematicians and gambling experts will say to you that every single hand is burdened by the negative HE no matter how's sophisticated our strategy.
But they've made the fatal error of considering baccarat productions as a kind of an independent undetectable world comparable to a coin flip succession, giving an obvious less negative role to the B side math propensity.

The average situations where B side is really advantaged and by how much were only presented by a keen baccarat expert and not by a mathematician considering them worthless.

The algorithm was and is proven to be wiser than those math pundits as it does consider an optimal play extracted after thousands and thousands of live shoes dealt, not after rattlesnake.s.h.it simulations made with some softwares.

At the end the algorithm considers B=P, because it's more important to be right at a series of probable hands belonging to a stereotypical world than to catch the improbable 'astoundingly' right situations (with a fair degree of error) at very few occasions.

Betting frequency per shoe

1) The worst risk/reward ratio (EV+, but getting huge volatility) considers an average amount of 15 bets per shoe. It's not the mere outcomes issue that matters, just the permutations issue.
With this ratio the algorithm tries to get all wins.

Yet, by adopting this average 15 bets per shoe ratio, we'll deadly sure to encounter very soon an all winning sequence at the same shoe, obviously by backing-up the first losing step (when it happens, that is almost a slight less than half of the times occurrence).
Say that winning 8-9 consecutive two-layered bets per shoe is the ideal world we should aim for.

2) Permutations issue.
Positive situations are more likely to come out clustered and losing sequences isolated, yet long positive situations might be intertwined by clustered (albeit short) losing successions and so on.
This is one of the main situation to look for clustered positive spots, regardless of their lenght.

3) Clustered positive sequences

They are more likely to show up than the isolated counterpart, yet any isolated winning spot will be more likely to be followed by a clustered positive succession of any lenght up that waiting one or a couple of consecutive isolated winning spots constitutes the best trigger to aim for.
More often than not, 'long' isolated winning sequences are interwined by isolated losing spots.

4) Isolated positive spots followed by clustered losing situations

It's the only very bad situation to take into account unless we properly consider the #3 point.
On average they happen less than one time out of 5 shoes dealt, in the meanwhile the more likely occurences that gave us a profit totally or partially cover such unfortunate but inevitable occurences.

The beauty of the algorithm action is that it's virtually impossible to get a back-to-back sequence of such kind happening at the same shoe.
A thing that it's relatively frequent at BR, BYB, SR and CR by applying a corresponding bet selection.

5) Isolated losing sequences

Completely unplayable unless intertwined by consecutive isolated positive spots.
It's the proof that the algorithm is not taking advantage of positive patterns caught by chance as  losing spots tend to be more clustered than following a natural 'probability of success' line, what really happens at the common roads.

See you in a couple of days.

as.

Winning spots are not extracted from 'creative' strategies just coming out of probabilities


Each shoe distribution is not affected by past shoes distributions as the probabilities we're looking for are determined by the constant 'average card distribution'.
The algorithm simply takes care of the most likely distribution lines every shoe must take along the way.

The interesting part of the algorithm action is that same patterns could be positive or negative in relationship of its actual rhythm and of course this rhythm is mechanically scheduled and based upon the average shoe.
In a word, this algorithm works toward a kind of 'results alignment' that must happen at various levels of probability and not toward precise patterns that are always considered as 'good' or as 'bad'.

Obviously the 'positive' attempts of alignment are slight greater than the 'negative' attempts and that's where the edge comes from.

The beauty of this plan, besides of its verified edge, is that the algorithm starts its classification action by the very beginning of the shoe where some cards are 'randomly' burnt before the results start flowing.
Thus even if the casinos know what the algorithm is really looking for, it's virtually impossible for them to deal results not belonging to the 'more likely' probability aspects for long.

Another important aspect involves the possibility to set up the algorithm among different risk/reward categories so dictating the bet selection frequency and, less important, the betting amounts utilized.

See you later

as.

Hi KFB, thanks for your reply!

I'm a firm believer that much of our war with the casino is won by what the bettor is doing between wager #1 and wager #2. For we shall see the same length of Ws(and Ls) streaks, regardless of the size of our bet.

I can't agree more on that! 

as.

Get rid of your gambling attitude before thinking to play baccarat successfully

Whereas at poker an educated gambling attitude may transform a good player into a great player, at baccarat gambling must be completely tossed through the toilet with no exceptions.
We've lost a lot of money before realizing that and best baccarat players we know did the same thing.

The edge exists but under normal circumstances will be quite small. Sometimes the edge merges with the normal positive distribution, so luring us to bet too many hands or to improperly increase a lot the betting amount.
Think that when the edge suffers the negative variance, the natural negative distribution might add up then making a stronger impact over our results.

For example, when we'd unwisely think to suddendly double our standard bet, we should understand that never ever our edge will be doubled.
Differently than black jack where our edge is mathematically ascertained (and proportionally related to the actual count), at baccarat we are just approximating our winning probability by statistical features needing some time to show up.

The algorithm cannot give a lesser damn about how 'we're feeling lucky', the way was devised just suggests optimal (imperfect) choices considered after having tested large LIVE samples.
It hopes for the best but expecting the worst and itlr (but even at short/intermediate terms) best < worst for the HE.

IMO best MM to exploit a small edge is to selectively wager huge amounts at very few spots (a kind of 'Bold strategy') or to slowly increase moderate amounts by tiny percentages at supposedly more likely positive occurences (KFB made brilliant examples about that).
And Alrelax pointed out that it's wiser to 'press' the bets at the earlier stages of a positive pattern. 

Algorithm takes care of what should be the most likely B/P occurence, the risk/award ratio is up to us.

See you next week, I'll present you how's the algorithm betting frequency per shoe.

as.

Positive outcomes propensity

Everybody knows that since B>P, itlr there will be patterns containing more B than P, of course this math propensity doesn't help us too much.
 
Since our algorithm dictates to wager B and P sides by the same frequency, it means that it was built by putting together some 'conflicting' features having a slight different weight in relationship of the actual patterns distribution. Of course privileging the most likely general 'average card distribution'.

In fact, in order to beat any game we must get a slight but constant propensity to get this or that capable to bear the variance burden and naturally to erase and invert the HE.

A slight positive propensity remains a slight propensity, verified in frequency but volatile in rhythm presentation, especially if the shoe doesn't seem to belong to the 'average' category.

But we were particularly happy to observe that the negative situations featured a constant propensity to come out clustered at some levels (thus more clustered than expected), so the problem was:

a) are those negative spots a sign of an 'unplayable' shoe (shoe deviating too much from the average distribution?)

b) are those clustered negative situations making more room to subsequent positive patterns?
And if this is the case, when to restart the betting?

After having tested several thousands of shoes the answer was to take the 'caution side', so instructing the algorithm to stop its action for that particular shoe.

So when things seem to fall into the positive side from the start the probability to get ALL winnings is not 1 but sooner or later will be 1.

On the other end and since the algorithm finds a fair amount of all wins shoes, even a single negative spot coming out at the start or close to it will break this expectancy for an inevitable 'RTM' effect.

It's obvious that all the intermediate processes itlr will get us a slight profit but since the rule at this game is to lose and to navigate the uncertainty ocean, we should aim to get the minimum profit goal all of the time, even if after a strong negative period things suddendly go to our favor.

Casinos take countermeasures

You won't believe me, but after getting an endless series of profitable sessions (where other players at the table made huge bets by following us), one casino started to reshuffle manually the already machine shuffled shoes.
They even tried to see if we were using some edge sorting technique (LOL) as two shoes were used alternatively and cards are allowed to be peeked by players.
We were just lucky to get a higher than average amount of 'all wins' shoes, that's it.

For some (natural) reasons such shuffled/reshuffled shoes provided us a cumulative small loss and the procedure is still utilized at this casino (inevitably lowering their profits).

I'll inform you about our next sessions.

as.

Hi KFB!

Here's the shoe I was talking about at point #3 (ties omitted):

PP
BBBBBBBBBBB
PPPPPPPP
BBB
PP
BB
PP
BB
PPPPP
BB
PPP
BBBBBBB
PPP
BB
PP
BB
PPPPPPPPPPPPPP
BBB

(Shuffle Master Machine, two alternated shoes used)

as.

Hi KFB!

Probably Alrelax have collected the greatest amount of deep 'dominant shoes' where one side seemed to be ignored by the cards.

I remember those live shoes:

1) An entire shoe only forming singles and doubles (no 3 streaks at either side)

2) A 22 blue streak at Cockroach road

3) An entire shoe not forming any single (but featuring very long B/P streaks)

4) An unbelievable 3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2 sequence that made a huge winner the only player at the table

5) 4 ties in a row by the exact 8 natural point

as.

Thanks for your replies!!

Even if we use some 'limited' random walks that itlr will define better the issue, and this thing can be accomplished because an 'average card distribution' exists, many "way beyond than average" shoes pose a real threat at our plan when too deviated negative successions come out.
Of course shoes not fitting for long to the average category could also be strongly positive for our plan, but they are (as the negative counterpart) relatively rare to happen.

In some way we should find two out of three situations to win: average distribution and strong positive distribution and putting them in (slight) asymmetrically and proportional relationship with strong negative distribution that will wipe out our profits or, worse, our bankroll.

We've found out that a kind of approximation algorithm could be the best way to deal with bac productions as results are not following a perfect 50/50 distribution and even if they seem to be, they tend to distribute asymmetrically shaped in rhythm (see Nickerson, Konold, etc studies).

Quite interestingly the algorithm will suggest us (whether proper situations are encountered) to bet B and P by an equal frequency, putting at the same level the general math propensity with the actual distribution.

More later

as.

P.S: the more the so called gambling math experts keep stating baccarat is unbeatable, deeper we analyzed the processes why baccarat is beatable.

It's a public criticism toward 'smart' people who make a lot of bucks by selling poker tournament books where surviving 'coin flips' seems to be a necessary intelligent move to win.

cao ni ma

as. 

Hi Al!!

IMO, general probability (GP) accounts for what I'm expected to cross after having registered a fair large sample of data. Not millions of useless shoes data as in practice I'm moving around more 'humanly' terms (as you correctly stressed many times here).

The actual probability (AP) is how things are developing in the actual shoe dealt, but someway I have to compare the GP with those results as the shoe I'm looking at may easily belongs to the 'outlier' category I can't do anything about.

We know that just one hand could transform a double-single-double sequence into a 5 streak, thus breaking our single-double plan.
It's true that the reverse situation might happen, that is a 'natural 5 streak' breaking into singles and doubles. But itlr the former scenario is slight more likely to happen than the latter for card distribution issues.

What I'm trying to say is that unless we got a large experience to exploit 'actual shoes strongly deviating from our plan' we better constantly take one side of the things and that means to wait and approximate at best the GP/AP results ratio, the higher the better.

In fact, when the GP/AP tends to be low or very low, we have no reasons to chase a 'more likely course of action', we should consider that shoe as 'unplayable'. The same as bj players do when the count is negative.

To do that we have to employ simple distribution issues that have no guarantee of infallibility but increase our winning probability without falling too much into the negative outliers field.

Best strategy to employ is to chase what we name as 'minimum profit goal', situations where 'more likely events' are entitled to come out clustered at least by 1 step.
More intricated is the situation where a negative event will be played as 'isolated' as being affected by huge volatility.

Therefore negative situations can't be compensated by long positive events unless the actual shoe belongs to the 'average' category.

So not chasing the positive when the negative seems to come out endlessly (or the positive is too weak to be exploited) it's a good start.

It remains to assess what to do when the positive streaks are naturally shaped to produce long sequences.
Now the minimum profit goal (MPG), fabricated to get the lower possible impact of variance, seems to be a too tiny aim to target so a light positive progression made with casino's money makes things more spicy (and profitable).

If the MPG should be chased by flat betting large bets, possible (and likely) positive long sequences after that bet must start with a smaller initial bet (usually 1/4 of the large bet so to secure a profit even in the most unfortunate scenario) then increasing the amount by some percentages.
Considering a 0.75 general probability to happen, we need just a slight better than 3:1 W/L ratio to play with casino's money and very often such streaks exceed the 8-10 lenght.
But never ever consider such positive streaks as a kind of 'recovery plan' on the previous losses accumulated at the main bet: they are just a bonus, a kind of jackpot.

After having read KFB, Alrelax and gizmotron posts, we have devised an algorithm capable to spot with a very good level of precision the distribution of the more likely occurences every shoe will present (by comparing GP and AP).

Of course all this is just bighorn.sh.it, baccarat is a unbeatable game by any means. 

as.

Hi KFB, I'm a careful reader of your posts too 

Why we should win at baccarat EV- game

The fact that our B bets are unfair payed and P bets involve a slight less than 50% probability to appear are not the main reasons why baccarat players make casinos' fortune.
As long as the results don't reach the negative outlier line, there are dozens of betting schemes (several of them invented more than a century ago) capable to erase the HE by progressive betting.

Unfortunately those strong negative situations will surely happen destroying every progression ever invented.
Not necessarily a "strong negative situation" is a endless streak of losses; there are many systems working toward a back to back series of wins (for example just two) or 'positional' progressive wagering as the system I've proposed here (7 series).

The natural element of binomial successions is just to provide 'unguessable sequences', especially  if we're trying to guess this or that per every hand dealt.

In this way we are forced to work about the bet selection, considered worthless by mathematicians but not by some acute bac players.
IMO, there's nothing to guess or hope for, just to understand that some events (positive or negative according to the specific plan we have adopted) must happen at different levels of probability.
Greater is the level of probability to encounter some happenings, higher will be the probability of winning and greater is the intervention field higher will be the level of confidence to get some patterns and not others.

Of course when we talk about 'probability' we're not talking about certainty, so even the best plan in the world could suffer an inevitable crash, the like every airplane in the world isn't 100% sure to land safely.

General probability and actual probability

See you later

as.

You have built your best betting plan that in a way or another must endure the variance, so you should know what will be the 'best scenario' and, more importantly, the 'worst scenario' to face along the way.

It doesn't take to test millions of shoes, actually just a couple of thousands are sufficient to realize the average probability of those opposite scenarios happening.

Best scenario

Best scenario constitutes the positive outlier we should aim for, it's a kind of endless winning spots the actual shoe is producing.
Obviously we can't expect to win 75 straight hands, let alone more than 50% of total hands whether the betting range per shoe is large.
Thus the best scenario probability is inversely proportional to the number of hands played and directly proportional to the general probability of success.

So we know that 'tricks' oriented to get the least number of hands played per shoe and a fair probability of success utilized will both enhance the overall winning process.

More importantly, when the average betting frequency is quite low and the probability of success is greater than 50%, 'best scenario' shoes will surely happen by defined long term probabilities.
Now we have reasons to set up a positive progressive betting plan as sooner or later such scenario will happen.
Of course, shorter is the positive streak we should aim for, higher will be our winning probability and lighter is the positive progression greater will be the probability to be ahead even if the winning streak fails at some point before the end of the shoe.

Worst scenario

Even the best betting methodology ever invented sooner or later will fall into strong negative variance. It's the negative outlier where we can't do anything about that.

Good news is that a proper strategy makes worst scenario asymmetrically shaped with best scenario, meaning is slight less likely to happen.
Naturally HE is a constant burden casinos will profit from.

So the decisive paramount difference is that a valid long term strategy needs to encounter a slight longer positive succession than a proportional losing succession but this task can only be achieved by a proper 'clustering effect' evaluation, the same why HTHHT sequence = HHHHH sequence in frequency but different in rhythm of presentation.

Permutations and 'enemies density'

When the probability of success is >50% and the W/L ratio moves around expected values, there's an ideal more likely distribution (forming the best scenario) and intermediate situations where 'enemies' could come out clustered for quite long but conceding at some point(s) more room to the 'more likely' patterns.
So the permutations issue cannot give us any damage.

The problem arises when the slight less likely 'enemies density' strongly surpasses the normal ratios.
We'll see that in a couple of days.

as.

Worst and best scenario

Coming soon

as.

?So do you view the remainder of the shoe as: There is now one less "two-card five scenario" available for B ??
"OR"  other viewpoints for the remainder of shoe re:  that "B two-card five scenario"

Hi KFB!

Yes, the number of asymmetrical hands favoring B is finite, so whenever one or more asym hands came out it's like that in the remainder of the shoe we're playing a closer coin flip proposition.
After all, when the number of asym hands is quite depleted and banker wins with naturals or standing points or points different than 3,4 or 5 (and the most powerful points for B are 5 and then 4), by wagering Player we're not losing anything or little.

This fact is particularly important at 'Lucky 6' tables where the HE is greater at B bets right  at the start.

More later

as.