Quote from: Whatswhats on October 29, 2025, 06:28:47 PMhi asym, I write better things then just " share a strategy .. "

I know you do

as.

Whatswhats wrote:

Why didn't explain a single strategy from a to z?

Because, I'm sorry, there's no point to share detailed and specific actions in a public forum, let alone to provide scientifical studies why players could play baccarat with a sure edge over the house.
Well, the cost is 8 M bucks so we're sure it will remain a sort of secret forever.


As always KFB made brilliant comments deserving a deep study to get a proper value from them.

If you can approximate at best the actual conditions and variables 'ranges' happening at the table you're playing at, you can be sure that baccarat is a 100% beatable game as your bets will get a better than 51.3% (B bets) or 50.1% (P bets) cutoffs capable to get you a sure indeniable edge.

See you around and thanks for your interest at reading my pages.

as.

Wow, a lot of good comments needing some time to respond.

@KFB:  B bets are average 15.86% math advantaged nearly 11.62% of the times,

Yep, you're right:  the correct version is:

B bets are average 15.86% math advantaged nearly 8.6% of the times

Don't know why this 11.62% came from....

I'll be back later

as.

Hi whatswhats!

You wrote:

XXXX
XXXO
XXOX
XXOO SYM
XOOO
XOOX
XOXO SYM
XOXX

Even the pattern XOOX (in bold) is symmetrical as you correctly classified the X000 pattern counterpart as asymmetrical.

Let's summarize a bit.

Gamblers' fallacies rely upon the wrong subjective perception that things must take more probable lines by something "more due" after the opposite situations got a kind of deviation and/or about an erroneous assessment of randomness.

Baccarat is not a perfect random game, let alone a perfect symmetrical proposition per every hand dealt.
Then there's a slight dependency between hands as the model is finite (cards are burnt without replacement).
Therefore one teaching us that baccarat is a complete random "lottery" game is just an ignorant, no matter his/her math/stats degrees.

In the process of ascertaining what is more likely to happen (B>P is a mere worthless bighornsh.i.t), that is what ranges are more probable to be produced, we've found out that asymmetry takes a paramount role in the patterns formation with a warning: Once symmetry seems to overcome in absolute values or quality factors (S clusters vs isolated S and/or A isolated events vs more probable A clusters) we know that the card distribution is somewhat 'biased' so mostly unplayable.

In some way it's like facing a model where B/P or A/B or X/0 or whatever else are strongly and perfect balanced at every small section considered. Empirically but with the support of practice, we've found that this is not the case. And whenever such relatively unlikely scenario happens, we simply stay put, not betting a dime. Or, at the very least, to make asymmetry NOT happening at the first step of the two betting attempts.

You wrote:

The probability that multiple player together will get SSS and not SSA is lower? 

If you're utilizing a 0.75% winning probability, you'll get a hard time to cross a SSS or larger S cluster even for a single player.
Let's figure out how's probable to get two (or more) players crossing through a symmetry lasting 6 (SSS) or more hands.
So, yes, SS>SSS or at least sd values are well restricted up to the point that even strong progressive plans will get the best of it (but only as they will win by flat betting anyway).

as.

I wouldn't make fictional players to bet every hand as too many "unwanted limits" will be reached too easily and we know that we should consider many hands as not influential to the entire picture.

IMO there are no valuable plans to get a kind of possible edge by wagering (or fictionally wagering) all hands because we are forced to rely upon "more likely ranges" where our real task should be directed to approximate at best those ranges apparition and lenght (more probable values).

For example a WWWWLLLLL sequence is asymmetrical (4W 5L) but it presented as symmetrical well before the final asymmetry had shown up.
Long symmetrical patterns as well as one side long streaks happen but most of the times are the by product of hands produced by "weird" card distributions that are the heaven of gamblers, that is generally affected by too volatility and low frequency to be properly exploited.

Things change whenever each fictional player chase a distinct "more likely" target (e.g. isolated doubles or two clustered doubles) as it's very unlikely that card distributions will privilege "for long" a same results' succession, especially if we take care of the innumerable random walks we can set up from the original BP sequence.

In that there's a subtle but paramount difference between the 'expected' and the "actual" (what the shoe is producing) as the asymmetry must be considered as the lack of balancement widely intended.
In our opinion diluting an already selected betting plan splitted into several random walks will enlarge our probability to win up to the point that we'll get an edge over the house.

Hope to be of some help.

More later

as. 

Thanks!

It is interesting what you are asking and of course even the WL registry will be asymmetrical placed.

I'll answer you in 3-4 days.

Take care!

as.

Suppose we are just taking care of consecutive doubles, so our trigger will be any fresh double.

Any new double could come out just in two different quality classes:

a) isolated, so not followed by another double

b) clustered, that is followed by another double

Class b) is in turn splitted by b1, b2, b3, etc. clustered patterns in relationship of how many consecutive doubles come out: b1 category means one doubles cluster, b2 two doubles cluster and so on.

Say our strategic plan is set up by generally wagering that a) > b) or that b1) > b2+).
There are no substantial differences about those triggers, mainly because when a given pattern had shown up it'll remain slight more probable than the counterpart to come out in the remaining portion of the shoe.

In our opinion and according to our results, every category tends to get low or very low variance values AND following a kind of clustering effect easy to be ascertained at a) events but more complicated to be grasped at b) situations where the "clustering effect" could mean a higher than average presentation for the reason that b) is 1:3 underdog to show up (that is b class has a general slight more propensity than average to come out again at the same shoe).

Simplyfing, we want to challenge the baccarat model not to provide consecutive doubles and when this thing happens we want to restrict the consecutiveness factor to just 1 (b1).
Everytime the b1 value is surpassed, we are not interested anymore to know the next results, so waiting for the next shoe to be dealt.

Notice that such doubles consecutiveness feature works at every random walk imagined (sub successions) as a mechanical method employed to build successions is affected by the paramount asymmetry anyway.

At baccarat most of the times doubles symmetrical patterns coming out in a row are just accidental results and not natural situations, so when they seem to be "too clustered" we have to put the brakes on and wait for the next shoe.

as.

Thanks KFB, I'll look forward for your valuable inputs and comments.

KFB is a true grinder (I'm referring to another post), he knows very well that to get a possible edge of any kind we need to suffer, to fight, to wait and wait and wait for favourable circumstances and those are not coming out for magical coincidences but because they are "due" for statistical reasons.

Therefore "more likely patterns" or "average distributions/deviations" or the RTM effect showing up after moderate/strong deviations must be properly evaluated by a fair number of shoes dealt.
Even though the rule dictates we are betting 1 to get 0.9894 (B) or 1 to get 0.9876 (P), we shouldn't forget that such unfair propositions are unevenly distributed and it's about this volatile but constant asymmetry that we should focus our attention at.

More later

as. 

Player's edge

Anytime we place a bet we need to risk our money by a reason, that is to hope that our wager will get at least a 51.3% winning probability at B bets or a 50.1% probability at P bets.
There are no shortcuts on that, anything different than that will transform us as sure losers.

Question #1.

How many possible advantaged betting situations are going to show up, on average, per any shoe dealt?

Answer: Very few, sometimes none at all.
Therefore more bets we place, esponential lower will be the probability to win itlr.
The reason is because there surely are advantaged situations to be bet but they tend to be diluted by the constant negative HE that in a way or another we have to overcome.

Question #2.

Are really existing EV+ bets at baccarat?

Answer: 100% positive.

Most hands are hugely shifted towards one side or another, think about the higher two-card point scenarios that in turn are in strict relationship about the average card distribution.
Of course we'll get more hands privileging the final win at B side than at P side, yet such situations move around more likely ranges, considered as "undetectable" by math experts.

Maybe in the shoe we're playing at or at the two consecutive shoes we're facing a given situation will get us a couple of losing spots. No worries, itlr we'll get a robust edge to rely upon.
On the same token, a couple of more probable consecutive wins should be handled by a kind of caution, meaning that the third bettable spot could be avoided so preserving the actual profit.

Question #3.

How much is our edge at EV+ bets?

Say that most of the times and by considering BP hands as equal outcomes, our placed bets will take a 52/48 probability to win, so getting a -1.3% negative ROI at B bets and a +4% ROI at P bets.
Since B bets are average 15.86% math advantaged nearly 11.62% of the times, we know that even B bets are EV+ (on average) at the spots we decided to wager.

Nonetheless, a super selected strategy waiting for some strong negative deviations to happen at back-to-back shoes will enlarge such values up to 60/40 or more, meaning that our bets will get up to a 3:2 probability to win.

I've written many examples about that, the easiest is by considering consecutive BP doubles, the patterns' stereotype of symmetry.
Test your shoes and check out how many back-to-back consecutive doubles came out in the form of 0 (no consecutive doubles), 1 (one consecutive double), 2 (two consecutive doubles) or 3 (three or more consecutive doubles).

Then pretend to make a betting action after any distinct category had shown up once or two times in a row.
I'd guess you'll prefer to bet against clustered single categories...

as.

Ok, now I understand better what you're referring about any player's "Tier/Plateau".

as.

In response to Alrelax's points.

The win pattern might not appear as you outlined (3W:1L) with frequency and/or consistently, longer W's can and do appear with 1/2 L's stuck in between.  IMO, to 'look for' a standard in W's is not to a persons best interest.


Exactly and that's what I tried to outline.
By using a 0.75% probability, the 'ideal' world would be WWWLWWWLWWWL...etc, so a kind of this pattern happening constitutes an "abnormality"; hence natural variance/defects of randomness will more likely get successions disregarding such 3:1 ratio.
W situations will be more probable arranged by a W clustered effect different than 3 (2 or 4+) whereas L events tend to keep showing up by an isolated quality feature at random productions.
When in doubt about the randomness acting at the shoe we're playing at, privilege the W clustered way.

"So we can sit serenely at the table knowing that "natural" probabilities will make way more likely to get W clustered and/or L isolated."

Way too many variables and individualistic wagering personalities come into play to generalize this, IMO.

True, IMO the paramount variable to get hints from is our perception about how is randomly shuffled the shoe we're playing at.
With the recent use of SM machines we have zero certainty that cards are arranged by random requisites.

The problem with "expected results" IMO, is that, we never know what will be presented in the small amount of presentments we are gambling at, rather than sitting in front of a computer screen running tens of thousands of simulated hands, etc.  Once you begin classifying as - and +, the frustration for losses as well as the artificial momentums for wins, will usually be detrimental to most all in countless ways when a scheduled protocol is followed for wagering.  NOTE: IMO.

Again this reasonable assumptions tend to be worth whether the shoe isn't randomly shuffled. And it happens very often, so good point.

"Truth to be told, it's quite unlikely that a WLL..WLL...situation happens, especially if we take care of the asym/sym feature of the results."

It happens to me all the time.


No way. Probably I haven't clarified enough that I was talking about a 0.75 probability where WLL..WLL.. sequences are very unlikely to happen. Or that I wasn't so good to present what are asymmetrical patterns vs symmetrical patterns.

"More Due" is extremely profitable as well as detrimental.  Extremely psychological decision making subject.  Wagering decisions are the interpretation that occurs as a result of a combination of several factors usually. The mind (yours and mine) has an automatic tendency to interpret an experience (previous hands of the shoe) or series of experiences (past in relationship to now from other shoes). Attempt to consciously analyze the data from within the experience you are wagering upon at the table is extremely difficult, that is if you are analyzing based upon what the casino desires you to—-the past several hands, etc.  It may seem to you that your mind is simply trying to figure out the experience, but actually it is screening for evidence to support the decision you are clinging to. HOWEVER, what you were clinging to and what the presentments coming out of the shoe will be, are two entirely different events. That is why you need to realize what the shoe is presenting and leave all of your feelings, desires and statistics out of your wagering decision making process. I give the disclaimer IMO.  But my opinion is based upon decades of actual playing experience.

One million true and I know what you mean.
Since we can't use a pc at the tables this statement is of paramount importance.

as.

Again, I'll be back later

as.

I'll be back later on this interesting thread

as.

Restricting the field of variance

Suppose we adopt a 0.75% probability of success: A perfect ideal balanced model will get us a 3:1 probability to win.
In the real world a succession as WWWLWWWLWWWL...is not going to show up so frequently (actually it's very unlikely to happen), yet it remains the "standard" to look for.
When W is consistent, W streaks are longer than 3; when W is limping, W streaks tend to be shorter than 3.
Whenever L is strong, W suffers from this so showing up isolated or, worse, not coming out at all.

On the other end, L is more likely to come out isolated than clustered or at least two-clustered.

Therefore cumulatively the least probable scenario is to get W isolated and L clustered.

So we can sit serenely at the table knowing that "natural" probabilities will make way more likely to get W clustered and/or L isolated.
Anyway whenever such of a feature will be disregarded for one or two times in a row, the future probability to get the "expected" will be so enlarged that our probability of success will be as high as 85% or more (instead of the expected 75%). It's just a matter of time that things must line up with the expected results.

To speed up the process of waiting for such of profitable situations, we could exploit many sub successions (derived roads, etc) getting that deviation.

Truth to be told, it's quite unlikely that a WLL..WLL...situation happens, especially if we take care of the asym/sym feature of the results.
So luring us not to wait therefore betting something "more due" no matter what.

Notice that LL or LLL... sequences won't get us any further damage at the cost that W clusters longer than 2 won't be exploited for the "fear" of crossing a 3:1 losing spot.

The easiest example I could provide is considering singles/doubles vs triples (3/3+) distribution.

as. 

Good thread indeed.

as.