That's an interesting list, never heard of "bilking" at bac tables.

as.

Hi whatswhats!

About your question:
Let's take the casino's counterpart: does it make any difference if any player will bet 1 hour long for 24 days or 24 hours straight just once?

Mathematically it doesn't make any difference but in practical terms it's more likely that each player will lose more money by playing for 24h straight than by 24 separate 1 hour sessions as at short sessions players will try to preserve more their winnings (for example by not raising too much their bets, lowering the profit goal, betting few hands).
Of course such a consideration doesn't stand if a player will always and invariably play a rigid scheme (as a robot as you sayed): results will be in line with the tested strategy.

Variance is in direct relationship of the number of hands played (or observed) and not about time fragments, so as players we can easily expect many 1 hour losing sessions in a row and maybe a 24 hour session could be a terrific winning session not comparable with many 1 hour winning sessions.

So as long as we play with a verified long term advantage, we'll expect to win money regardless of the time sessions (and actual short term results) so the more we play and the more we win (in the exact same way casinos are confident to separate money from their customers' pockets). Hence the attitude of not raising our bets or preserving temporary profits or lowering profits now become an additional negative factor for us, providing a proper bankroll. Of course betting few hands remain the core of the advantage (or a good tool to lose less if we play without an edge).

oOoOo

Finding a possible edge

In order to find out a possible edge we reckon some factors are particularly important (decisive):

1) Data must come out from the same source (the one we'll play at)

2) The number of shoes examined

3) SD values of a possible propensity

4) Falsifying hypothesis around any corner


Data must come out from the same source

The idea that every baccarat distribution is equivalent to each other is totally wrong; Yes, itlr B and P will approach more and more the 50.68%/49.32% ratio but that's not sufficient to say that different productions are so randomly placed (or whimsically biased) to be unbeatable.
Some bac results will show up by a "biased" probability at one production but not at another one and vice versa.
As mentioned several times here, we should be focused about "ranges of apparition" applied to the same production.

Could a given production be voluntarily manipulated to get a possible propensity to stop (or even inverted)?
Not likely but possible.
Our countermeasure of betting very few hands and tracking the results under our lens will help us (factors #3 and #4) to discard a possible too frequent strong deviation(s) from a natural variance impact.


The number of shoes examined

At gambling games there are no precise answers to state how many trials we need to get some valuable conclusions for the simple reason that it's almost impossible to run innumerable propositions under the same conditions.
Yet at baccarat univocal or steady status of something won't stand for long, otherwise high stakes players would clean up many premises worldwide.

Therefore it's "incredibly" probable that what worked in the past won't happen in the next future (Alrelax quote) so in some sense we don't need very large samples to assess a possible propensity and anyway we're destined to bet a miniscule amount of the "infinite" world (quoting  Alrelax again) where very long term values cannot provide a substantial edge.

In a word and for the considerations made above, a propensity should work at "limited" ranges of intervention where no natural variance could destroy it.
Obviously if such a propensity exists (and it does) it'll be slight distributed as miracles cannot happen.
In conclusion, just hundreds of shoes dealt could tell us whether a possible propensity affects the results, especially (that's our "model control") everything else will be somewhat balanced.

SD values of a possible propensity

Those values should be assessed by a negative standpoint: so we are interested about how many negative situations a given strategy infinitely run at the same situation will show up.
It's true that a propensity must come out more clustered than isolated, yet and since the game remains a general  EV- proposition, we confide more in the probability that things will change soon after some (low) levels of negative apparition.
So if we have ascertained that A>B, volatility will be lower while betting that B will be followed by A than by constantly wagering that A predominates.
When a B-B pattern comes out things are more confusing, despite being shifted towards one side again.

Falsifying hypothesis around any corner

Average card distributions themselves provide some short/medium/long term propensities, carefully measured and controlled by rigid statistical standards, yet every serious bac player should be aware that casinos are not there to lose money.
So whenever we suspect something doesn't run "properly", we've considered (among others) some factors to look for before betting.
Number of naturals and number of ties, for example. The lower, the better.
Then the number of standing points (6s, 7s) losing vs a drawing hand. Again, the lower, the better.

Whenever you suspect the card distribution seems to be too much unfairly deviated, stick to the 1-2 vs 3 general plan or, even better, do not bet anything.
Especially when cards are shuffled by a machine.

as.

Whatswhats wrote:

For me isn't just the bet selection or the money management so not just where and how much to bet, but also the entire PLAN to follow.

Yes I agree, but at the end the entire plan must be conceived to place more EV+ bets than we can and that can only come out from a valid bet selection.
That means that to win itlr we need to collect more wins than losses (after vig) being our EV totally insensitive to the betting amount.
 
Easier sayed than done, of course.


oOoOo

Random biased shoes and unrandom biased shoes.

Basically all shoes dealt present a "bias" due to a natural (random) asymmetry, then with the introduction of shuffling machines many shoes dealt are affected by a bias we have classified as "unrandom".

The difference between natural random biased shoes and unrandom biased shoes is that the former category will generally get lower deviations of expected asym patterns, so making a preordered plan more enticing than the latter class where it seems that very strong deviations are easier to come out around any corner by a weird strong asymmetry or strong (unlikely) symmetry.

Paradoxically and without touching intricated issues, unrandom shoes will get better probabilities to cross winning (or losing) clusters by simple strategies than by exploiting asymmetry at random shoes; asymmetry being the paramount factor why we should get a long term advantage.

Our conclusions came out from comparing the same amount of real random shuffled shoes with machine shuffled shoes by assessing several factors as the back to back patterns shape, the naturals back to back distribution, the asymmetrical hands results, etc.

Whereas the asymmetry at real randomly shuffled shoes seems to be homogeneously distributed, at machine shuffled shoes asymmetry or symmetry become harshly oriented toward one side per every shoe dealt, at least from a proportional 3:1 ratio point of view.

Obviously the asymmetry/symmetry concept is strictly related to the specific succession we want to take care of.
Make your experiments and you'll see what I'm talking about.

as. 

Here we go.

If we think some shoes are affected by a kind of bias, then a possible MM could have some merit so lowering or even inverting the long term math percentages.

In reality ALL shoes are affected by a bias but it's impossible to track all the factors merging towards it.
And even though we're able to spot the bias, we never know for sure how long it will last unless we had run the same situations for many many trials (so getting us more precise sd values).

Therefore the bias isn't a potential factor shifting the results at some points but is an actual one, yet we have few legitimate means to spot it in the infinite world of random walks.

On the other end, there's a controversial thought about setting up a plan on "no biased" successions applied to the common bac successions registered.
It seems that now we're playing a "random" (so unbeatable) game but we're just taking a kind of "losing" part that can become a winning one.
More later

as.

The only way to theorize a possible baccarat vulnerability relies about a "bias" affecting the successions, meaning that each result is not perfect independent and so randomly placed than what we think (or instructed to think of); of course and most of the times such a bias cannot reach values capable to erase and invert the HE, otherwise it would be too easy to beat the game.

Therefore and according to our experience and long term data, it's virtually impossible to get an edge by wagering many hands per shoe as the volatile bias (even though properly assessed) must always fight with the constant math HE overcoming a possible statistical advantage.

Needless to say and we are 100% certain about that, a verified edge must show up by getting more wins than losses and the only way to ascertain this is by running a same situation infinitely and collecting the results (vig included).

Actually and in the absence of a winning propensity, even well balanced result situations will make the job but at the cost of waiting for some fictional negative deviations to happen. That means to observe several hands (shoes) before betting, a thing that it's quite difficult to put into practice.

Another important tool to take of is that more "easy" and rapid wins we got and greater will be the probability to get the same and some more amount of easy losses and nobody cannot get advantage of such positive strong propensity without suffering the inevitable negative counterpart, no matter how good some youtube or internet geniuses keep claiming. Unless quitting the game while ahead, of course.

That means that a possible edge will be always and inviariably placed by slight values and diluted along the course of the shoes dealt.

Summarizing, let's say that:

- baccarat is anything but a gambling game;

- playing baccarat for a living and getting fun at the same time is impossible;

- winning big at a single session or at few sessions almost always is a sure sign of future disaster or, in presence of a verifed edge, a sign of a more likely impending negative deviation;

- the rule is to lose, lose and lose. 99.99% of bac players are sure losers and probably a better estimate is that 99.999% players fit the loser requisite.

- only the players who have verified that after 5k or 10k of shoes examined the W/L ratio of their plan is shifted towards the left (by values capable to erase/invert the HE) can think of beating the house, otherwise they just fool themselves or, worse, others.

- money lost is forever lost. Without a verified and carefully measured edge, any future session will make us as sure losers, no one human instinct or strong positive variances will prevent us to separate our money towards casinos' pockets.

as.

1 Side Heavy Building 3rd Card (Repetitive)
1 Side Extreme Reduction 3rd Card (Repetitive)

As already sayed some time ago, those couple of factors originally described by Alrelax are particularly interesting to be assessed actually (the present shoe) but either in their long term volume distribution.

Providing a careful assessment, they are so powerful that we can even accept to bet the underdog side (the lower two card initial point) or the opposite of the favorite side (the higher two card initial point) as 3rd card(s) will make many "repetitive" lines disregarding common math values for "quite" long or at least for some "math unsound" situations.

as.

Thanks for your understanding and no need to apologize my friend.

I agree with your "100% winning strategy" making many players to lose anyway.
The simplest example is facing a completely no commission game where B is math favorite to win by a 1.36% margin on any resolved bet. By the 80s the Sahara casino in Vegas made such an attempt but after a month it had to revert to a normal commission game as a large crowd of acute players merged in that casino to play a sure EV+ proposition.
Nonetheless in the meanwhile many players got busted by not being capable to bear the invariable negative deviations such a small edge will provide at the underdog P side.

So why should we be so confident that baccarat is beatable knowing that every bet will be an EV- proposition?

There are many possible answers getting rid of the "fallacy" concept so loved by mathematicians and gambling experts.

- Bac successions are coming out from a "biased" coin working by the supposedly random infinite card distributions but sooner or later producing a fair exploitable number of "opposite" results considered at the same spots of distribution, shoe per shoe.
A privilege a common coin flip cannot get by any means.
In poorer words, the RTM factor will work way better than at a perfect 50/50 independent proposition.

-Any shoe is a world apart.
Quite often a shoe seems to like to surpass common values in a way or another (by not fitting expected values or by fitting them by astounding levels) so forcing us to act accordingly and the word "accordingly" most of the times calls for placing very few bets or none at all. At other slight less likely situations, the attitude to ride a univocal wave until a single loss happens is a viable tool to put the casino into a passive mood but always knowing that securing some bets is way better than gambling for further wins.
That's especially important whenever we doubt about the real randomness of the outcomes, a factor particularly debatable nowadayws where cards are not shuffled under our direct vision.

- Bac BP successions produce an infinite number of sub sequences almost always getting different patterns and different back-to-back patterns happening simultaneously at the same spot (row or column) per every shoe dealt, that's an important tool to take care of.
Let the house "hoping" that at the same spot considered, different random walks set up by a different pace will get the same exact value for "long" per some shoes dealt and you'll get the idea.

- The asymmetry/symmetry tool will take the lead over any other statistical factor as rank cards are 100% asymmetrically distributed along any shoe dealt, so steady symmetrical patterns are just the by product of coincidental situations (just one hand result will form a symmetrical pattern instead of a more likely asymmetrical one).
Moreover there are no better indicators to exploit than asymmetrical and symmetrical patterns to stop or prolong at some point of the sequence by given levels, all the variance in the world considered.
That's our "fallacy" edge. LOL.

as.

Sorry whatwswhats, for some reasons I was forced to erase your reply and the original post of mine.
Mates I play with do not tolerate anymore too detailed informations about our possible strategies.

Basically we think that considering the game under the asym/sym profile is one of the few opportunities to get a possible edge, a thing that it seems you have already investigated in the past.

More later

as. 

Out of curiosity I report a weird strategy employed by a player following this random walk:
Anytime the first card dealt of each new hand is a red card and the next hand is a Banker she signs a W on her score card, otherwise she writes a L.
The same procedure is utilized whenever the first card is a black card so prompting the next hand to be Player (W) or a L when the opposite side wins.

According to her "theory" such simple registration will make easier to spot the W/L patterns lenght and shapes.
Since she always bet purple chips ($500) and betting very rarely, we were particularly interested to see her strategy that after many polite askings was revealed to us.

An AS/S study applied to this weird rw is under investigation.

More later

as.

@Alrelax:

As far as "sessions", again I found that each 'time' I play, once or twice a week on the average, each time is a session.  That allows me to seclude and focus more on what is happening. 

That's a good, a very good concept of "session". 

@whatswhats:

I understand and appreciate some points you have written, yet the volatility could be only reduced by a valid bet selection and not by manipulating the betting amounts.
If you win consistently and I believe you do is because you would win anyway by flat betting.


as.
 

Among the two players particularly liking the B side, one who collected astounding winnings in nearly 4 years eventually went "broke" (meaning he lost two times his enormous bankroll) by crossing a very very very unlikely 5.1 sigma deviation (basically it's like facing a 28-29 P consecutive streak and similar B/P strong deviated situations).
Nevertheless and considering that this player was able to bear huge negative sigma values and anyway knowing he's abundantly ahead by thousands of bucks, we still consider him as a kind of excellent baccarat player.
A good additional note about this player is that he bet around 1/4 of total hands dealt.

The other B aficionado one is a very patient player roaming at multiple tables and waiting that the first 10 hands occurring per every shoe dealt will produce a P/B 8:2 or greater gap, then progressively wagering the B side until getting a profit.
This is a more risky strategy (in the sense that it's unlikely to bear strong sigma deviations) but involving a lot of wins before an inevitable losing sequence will happen.

The remaining players seem to bet that an average amount of streaks must happen at every road considered, no matter the side.
For example, we'd guess that their strategy is based upon a kind of one side predominance that is more due after many multiple "balanced" situations.
We took this concept in the same way we consider the asymmetrical/symmetrical pattern distributions getting some limits in their appearance.

OoOoO

Most of the times players will try to exploit just two situations:

- symmetrical patterns;

- moderate/strong predominance of one side over the other one.

Besides the constant HE they're getting advantage from, casinos are forced to take the opposite part: that is confiding that patterns are more likely to come out asymmetrically shaped (so more undetectable) or that a fair predominance won't take place for long (again orienting towards a sort of long term undetectability).

We see that a low or moderate predominance will make more probable symmetrical patterns to happen and moderate/strong predominances will provide asymmetrical patterns.
So when we bet toward symmetrical patterns we are just playing the opposite situation casinos will aim for.
Conversely, strong predominances are a natural occurrence that casinos cannot do anything to prolong, unless hoping that such a predominance will stop sooner than later.

A possible edge comes out from estimating how much syncronized asymmetrical or symmetrical patterns show up at different roads at the same pattern positions, a thing we'll discuss in a couple of days.

as.

Interesting bankroll managements, yet we personally don't consider the word "session" simply because by flat betting all of the time we take the game as a kind of "infinite" proposition that cannot be splitted by how many shoes or hands we play at a given day other than by a long term winning probabilities schedule.

Anyway the fact that a given entire bankroll cannot be wasted within multiple "sessions" should be interpreted as a possible sign of an EV+ strategy.

as.

Hi whatswhats, it's me to thank you for sharing your ideas that many will appreciate here.

Besides people writing here, I personally know at least four pro players seriously getting profits from this game in years; three of them are asians.
When I've asked "how can you overcome the EV-?", all of them responded with a "betting very few hands, no side bets". Not precise insights but simple answers I tend to agree with.
Another question was: "do you think that setting up an only Banker wagers plan is the best way to exploit the game?"
Two of them answered for a sure "yes", the remaining two disagreed.   

More later

as.

Thanks for your detailed and interesting replies.

Maybe the common denominator is patience/discipline and efforts made to reduce volatility,  things that converge by playing very few hands.

The only way, IMO, to reduce volatility is by considering opposed selected events roaming the most around the 0 point.
Mathematically this kind of reasoning is a pure fallacy as everything happens anywhere and anyhow and odds just follow the math probabilities (all bets are EV-).

But in reality some situations are more likely to get restricted variance values than others, so the points of intervention matter.
Then any shoe is a world apart, many times not fitting the long term values we are expecting so we shouldn't chase the unchasable especially within a single shoe or a couple of shoes.
In fact and after extensive studies made upon different SINGLE shoe productions we've got the conclusion that baccarat predominantly is a game of clusters but (from a strict EV+ point of view) it's almost impossible to realize which events will take the clustering or silent line. And of course the lenght of such clusters that most of the time we take care of only when they are strongly negative.

Back to the A/B events roaming around the 0 point.
That is not a cut and dried recipe for long term success, but it's a good starting point to base our strategy.

Basically the hands we'll win are balanced by an almost same number of losing hands, so we have to discard from our betting more losing hands than we can, especially if losing hands seem to be clustered.
The opposite situation (apparent clusters of winning hands) is more intricate to be assessed as we don't know how many bets we'll win consecutively, a thing particularly important when our plan is devised by two-bets ranges.

More later

as.

Good description of the game indeed.

Especially about the "camaraderie" topic...

as.