Quote from: alrelax on December 03, 2025, 12:25:09 AM"It is often our thinking that hurts us. There is no reason to imprison yourself at the table! Do not think outside the box, ever. Think like there is no box at all".  —Alrelax

I agree.

as.

Along the course of any shoe dealt, more deeply univocal patterns had shown up and less likely will be the probability to get a proper number of clustered counterbalancing situations, especially whether we take as triggers the complex patterns.
That's why is so important, in our opinion, to consider clustered "unwanted" patterns to flow in order to avoid the "clustered-clustered" event(s) intertwined by isolated searched situations.

Suppose we have at our disposal an infinite bankroll and progressively betting (even by a careful multilayered scheme) to get a side to win after a given number of losses whatever assessed.
We're not going anywhere as sooner or later a B/P or whatever random walk utilized will get an insormountable long losing streak capable to wipe out our bankroll (as there are betting limits).
Things change when we take care of the asymmetrical/symmetrical feature, maybe enlarged by how many A or S clustered/isolated events had come out.

Say we want to bet toward a symmetrical pattern to be isolated (that is not followed by another S pattern).
Even by adopting steadily this strategy (that is by hoping that any S event will show up as isolated) and assuming we are flat betting, we're not going to lose a lot of money.
Let's take a further step, that is waiting that a couple of S events came out in a row, so wagering toward S-S clustered events being followed by an asymmetrical pattern.
Odds are that we'll lose even less money itlr.
Symmetrical situations superior than that are not considered as they're very unlikely to happen and, more importantly, are not giving us an edge.

In a word, the theory applied to a baccarat random distribution (and verified beyond any doubt) tells us that S events must come out as isolated by low-moderate levels of deviation and the same about S-S events (so followed by an A pattern).
It's not that A>S at all costs, just that the random distribution will make very low or low deviation values about the S isolated or S-S isolated patterns.
Now a progressive multilayered plan will get the best of the model even if it cannot be riskless.

Yet we know that a possible EV+ plan must be the by product of a W/L ratio shifted towards the left and capable to get at least the famous winning probability of 51.3% at B bets and 50.1% at P bets.
Now we want to be more precise in our betting, so it's not sufficient to get any S event to start the betting.

So we're evaluating things by a further step, that is how many isolated S events (ASA) will be followed by another S isolated events(ASA...SA) or when they are followed by a S cluster (ASA...SS..); the same about a superior class of S events class that is ASSA...SA vs ASSA...SSSA...).

It's now that the ACTUAL distribution counts, as it's demonstrated that SS events coming out within the initial-intermediate portions of the shoe will make more probable a further S cluster and viceversa.
So it's slight more probable to get S isolated clusters when no clustered S happened so far and whenever S clusters happened the isolated S probability is slight diminished.

Next, again, I'll discuss the importance of properly assessing the doubles appearance consecutiveness, a kind of no brainer tool to get the best of the game.

as.

Whereas it's possible to arrange the cards in order to reduce (or increase..adv effect) the probability of certain side bets, thinking that casinos do this voluntarily is ridiculous.
Even worse are the complaints of some players claiming that current shoes "do not contain consistent patterns" or "enough Bankers".

The problem is about math probabilities of resolving hands that in turn will affect the "average" actual patterns compared with a control model (random.org).

After all, the more a distribution is biased the better will be our predictions, providing to have collected a fair number of data.
Thus in some sense we should get rid of the "average shoe" definition belonging to a pure random model and so priviliging a strategy toward quite deviated (albeit not univocal) situations considered as a bit "abnormal".

An example is when "too many shoes" won't get streaks longer than three or four or, conversely, when many (too many) long streaks happen in the same shoe (doubles absence).
Another important feature to look for is when the B/P number is too balanced for many steps, meaning that the B/P ratio move around very small or small steps.

Then there are more intricate (and important) features regarding the asymmetry and symmetry getting sd values quite different than random models.

Obviously 'less is more', so betting very few hands and considering "complex" patterns having a relative diluted general probability to show up will amplify a lot our correct prediction.
When in doubt we're not compelled to bet anything as the game is set up to make us losers per every bet placed.

Probably a strategy working at pure random models and getting low deviations must be changed into a simple "ON/OFF" strategy featuring more univocal W or L sequences.

More later

as.

"There are no valuable patterns to exploit at baccarat"

That's the mathematicians mantra denying any possible edge and strictly speaking they're right.
Providing any card distribution to be really random and not simply "undetectable" from a results point of view.
And, frankly, there are more and more serious players who have found out that the word "random" linked to all "baccarat shoes" sounds at least as an hasty statement.

Baccarat results (then patterns) are the by product of randomness and bac rules, more specifically are a condensation of the probability that any hand starts with a given two-card point as opposed to another two-card point linked with the QUALITY of the two cards nature.
Then there's the impact of the third card(s) where in a tiny percentage of hands will be decided by bac rules mathematically favoring B side.

All those features move around more likely values (ranges) and it's now that we might insert the "more detectable" concept.

Obviously to reach this conclusion we had to compare thousands and thousands of shoes shuffled in different ways at different casinos and, alas, not every shoe production belongs to the same homogeneous category that for theoretical purposes we had to consider as "random".

There are many very interesting studies made by Prof. Persi Diaconis about the card shuffling randomness, I'd suggest to read them.

Anyway and knowing that a so called "perfect randomness" can only come out by atmospheric noise variations and radioactive decay processes, we preferred to take as a "random" control what the random.org site displays after having instructed it to shuffle 416 cards (8 decks), then arranging the distribution within bac results (and patterns).

At those random.org distributions you'll see that your standing 7 point won't be easily beat five or six times in a row by an opposite drawing hand (W/L odds are 6.5:1, 6.5:1, 6.5:1, etc) perhaps by the same "miracle" cards drawn. Things that regularly happen at actual live distributions.

as.

I'll be back to write very soon...

as.

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.