You described very well the "statistical limit" concept but as long as the production is independent and therefore symmetrically shaped, no strategy will be able to shift a 50/50 probability in our favor no matter how deep a deviation will happen before starting to bet.

This topic was studied nearly one century ago by Marigny de Grilleau whose strategy was to wait for a 3 sigma before betting with the aim of winning just one (large) unit by flat betting.
Several years later, this MdG strategy was deeply investigated by testing real roulette outcomes and simulated pc spins but with no avail at both cases.

Correction surely will act but always in proportional terms (percentages) related to the number of hands dealt so needing a lot of time to show up, so making worthless any bet selection.

Anyway the main problem is not related to the A/B deviations but by the 0 impact that cannot be overcome by any bet selection or progressive schemes no matter how sophisticated are conceived.

At baccarat things are way easier as any deviation won't stand for long (strong correction), at least by considering the same shape of apparition of any pattern at back to back finite and dependent shoes.  If not, all bac player aiming for constant deviations of some kind will clean up every casino in the world and we know that's not the case.

To support our hypothesis let's take the back to back bac doubles distribution.  We want to bet that any double won't be followed by another double just one time (so letting go the multiple double clusters greater than two).

The double/double vs double/anything else ratio is 1:3, we'll wait for a situation where this ratio is moderately/heavily shifted towards the left (the strongest, the better), then starting to bet in order to get an isolated double apparition or isolated double sequence (isolated double correction).

That's one of the most "balanced" propositions we've found out in our long term trials.

as.

Maybe you are opening a new world about this game, no jokes.

Yes, getting a clear and focused mind is very important in every field, but successful gamblers made their fortune by exploting an advantage most people do not have.

Now the question specifically related to baccarat is:

Could a player find the situations where B bets will get at least a 51.3% probability to win and/or where P bets will get at least a 50.1% probability to win?
That's the basic undisputable form of advantage that must be measured after collecting several session results.

If no valuable triggers exist (I disagree on that, but that's not the point here) that means that some players show the ability to guess more right than wrong by a value capable to erase and invert the HE.

I'm aware some studies made at mere coin flip propositions guessing have shown that some people got a winning percentage above than 50% and those studies were driven by serious professors evaluating significant statistical data.
We know that when the HE=0 things might naturally take incredible long positive (or negative) lines, so what when we have to guess at a -1.06%/-1.24% negative edge proposition?
Now is a clear focused and prepared mind capable to spot the events where the HE will go down the drain?

I don't have the answer but Alrelax words seem to give us a positive reply, we ought not to forget that he played for real an astounding amount of shoes.
For that matter a couple of high end casinos floormen gave me a similar response when asked if they'd think some players have "more feeling" for the game than the rest.

So could a clear, focused, prepared and experienced mind be able to approximate at best when some spots are better than others?

as.

Good thread.

Al wrote: The bottom line is, while you cannot totally control what is happening, or about to happen in front of you, you must control yourself by the way you respond to what is happening or just happened.

That's a very good rule of thumb and our general answer, when in doubt, is to bet very few hands.
Obviously there are many specific guidelines to follow as well that more or less are framed in the "hoping for the best but expecting the worst" picture.
This seems to collide with the #2 point (The habit of your inner resistance) but it doesn't if one has verified a long term edge that must be adapted to the actual outcomes.
Laboratory tests are made by a way greater speed than live shoe results and this leads us to do a lot of mistakes at real tables, especially when we're losing.

Then:
1). The Habit of Expecting Things to be a Certain Way

As you sayed, this point is very subjective.
We'd guess that at least 95% of bac players hope for limitless positive deviations, 4.99% "wrongly" confide about 1-step long term math/statistical data (B>P, B/P average ratio, etc) but only the remaining 0.001% (an optimistic percentage, I know) are really able to understand and more importantly exploit the intricacies of the game.
"Expected things" need a moderate/huge hands volume to be exploited, providing one had carefully tested and measured why his/her edge comes from.

2-The Habit of Your Inner Resistance

Not a surprise knowing that 100% of keen bac players have lost their a$$es at the tables.
The game is conceived to make the players to lose no matter how smart or st.u.p.id or aggressive or cautious they are.
If a coin flip proposition (No HE) cannot guarantee a player to be ahead after X hands, let's imagine what happens after several trials of betting when the ROI is constantly 0.9894:1 or 0.9876:1.
In a word, this factor is important to be "ignored" after having assessed to play with a verified long term edge, even though we all know that most "no edge" players are particularly prone to raise their bets while losing and being particulary prudent while winning (an asymmetrical detrimental attitude).

3). The Habit of Focusing Only on What Is/Was Wrong

This is a very important factor to be constantly aware of.
When things are not going to our favor, we should evaluate what are the probabilities that future patterns will fit (or not) our plan and now our brain must be particularly focused about NOT losing more hands than promptly recovering the actual losing status.
It's here that most money is lost by the intervention of what we call as "compounding error" even if the first hands were lost by natural variance.

as.

By applying a 0.75% general probability to win at a sure asymmetrically card distribution and slight asym results game (B math propensity) we are taking into account a "biased" W/L 3:1 ratio.
We know that the B propensity won't get us any advantage whatever taken whereas the asym card distribution will.

Then quite frequently a part of results will come out "coincidentally" and confounding the picture, nevertheless following a long term more likely distribution that becomes "certainty" with the increasing number of shoes dealt.

So the "expected" general 3:1 ratio becomes more than a virtual value whether considered within few shoes where we expect more deviations than "balanced" events, of course the problem is always to estimate (approximating at best) which deviated line will be predominant over the other one (that is disappointing the 3:1 ratio).

Possible answers addressed to solve this problem.

1) The unlikelihood such 3:1 ratio will stand for long

2) The minimum requisites to get an event coming out by a more likely shape

3) The actual deviations happening at the shoe we're playing at (exploiting deviations)

4) The RTM effect working at multiple shoe distributions.


1) Any exact 3 W streak vs 3+ W streaks will be so balanced in its apparition that waiting for a fictional 2:0 or 3:0 ratio will get us a future edge, of course by betting that a 3 streak will become a 4 streak or longer streak.

2) If the W/L ratio is 3:1, we just need a W event to come out clustered once and again waiting for a 0:2 or 0:3 W event NOT showing up clustered is a good way to look for a possible advantage.

3) Nowadays cards are so whimsically (and possibly unrandomly) distributed that strong deviations come out around any corner so giving a fk about expected probabilities.
I don't recall how many times we have collected additional important profits by following the Alrelax statement: "when it's there it's there".
Do not put a limit about a positive steady deviation happening. Most of the times cards aren't properly shuffled so affecting general (short term) probabilities.
On the same line whenever results are strongly deviating from the norm, do not continue to bet the "norm", stay put (or, at the very least, bet that the improbable stays improbable).

4) Unless you have verified that after very long trials same deeply selected events will provide more wins than losses after vig, the RTM factor will make worthless any unidirectional mechanical plan in a way or another.

as.

Quote from: Whatswhats on March 09, 2026, 10:48:25 AMASYM, I didn't understand well why you got the sequence of W/L , example why first is WL while other just W?

The plan is to make clustered 1 and 2 vs 3s (horizontally or, as in this example, vertically), so only singled 1 or singled 2 are a L, any 1-2 cluster (1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2) is a W.

For example a 1-2-2-1-2-1-1-2-2 sequence is just a W, 1-3-1-3-2-1-1 sequence is L-L-W, etc

What we should be interested about is not how many consecutive Ls or Ws we'll get along the way but the "waiting time" of the patterns.

Notice that a 3-3-3-3 or 3-3 or 3-3-3 sequence doesn't provide any classification (no W no L) as in order to have something clustered (1-2) we need one element to come out.

Then you can classify how many 1-2 clusters greater than two show up so now the "singled" losing event is a double appearance and true clusters are 1-2 successions longer than two.
Example: 2-1-3-1-1-3-3-1-2-3 that under the simple cluster classification is a W-W-W sequence now becomes a L-L-L succession; In the same way, a 3-1-3-3-2-3-1-3 sequence forming a L-L-L under the simple cluster classification now becomes a worthless registration as no 1-2 category got at least one cluster.

We ought to remember that at baccarat the "overalternating" movement is the less likely to happen so when we play the 1/2 vs 3 plan we are betting that the 3:1 ratio won't stand for long at either side of the deviation.

More later

as.

Thanks for your valuable comments.

Both replies focus about the importance of concentrating our action when things seem to go in our favor and/or when expected values are more likely to show up.

Casinos will make their enormous bac profits by exploiting the uncertainty but this will get limits of intervention capable to erase/invert the HE.
Only the "time" factor will help us to define such limits but at the same time long term data assessments (or long term experience) will direct us to play the right spots where the uncertainty is underdog to come out so favoring more likely situations to show up.

Example.

Probability that any shoe will present at least a 1-2 succession in any order (1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2) longer than one (enemies: 1-3, 2-3) is 100%, so it's just a matter of time to spot the shoe fragments where a 1 or 2 will be followed by at least another 1 or 2 before a 3 happens.
More importantly is assessing back to back shoes where precise pattern positions are less likely to form same back to back situations (ranges) for "long".

Here some shoes (just the first 14 patterns are displayed for simplicity):

1-1-1-1-3-2-3-1-2-1-3-1-2-3
2-1-1-1-2-3-2-1-1-3-3-2-1-3
3-3-1-2-3-1-3-3-2-2-3-2-2-1
1-1-3-1-3-2-3-1-1-1-2-2-1-3
3-3-3-3-3-1-3-2-1-1-1-1-1-1
3-2-1-1-1-3-3-1-2-1-1-1-2-3

So far how many 1-2 patterns longer than one are VERTICALLY showing up per each of the 14 columns? W= win and L=loss

01) WL
02) WL
03) W
04) W
05) L
06) LW
07) L
08) WW
09) W
10) LW
11) W
12) W
13) W
14) LL

Now, if you have to make some "guesses" about the next W/L patterns belonging to the simple 1/2 lenght what will you expect to get?

1-2-1-3-2-3-1-1-1-1-1-2-3-1
2-1-3-3-1-1-1-3-1-1-3-2-1-2
2-1-3-3-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-3-2-1
2-1-3-1-2-2-3-1-2-1-1-2-3-2
2-2-1-3-1-1-1-3-2-1-3-3-3-3
3-3-2-3-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-3-2-1

Again considering vertically those outcomes we'll get:

01) W
02) W
03) LW
04) L
05) W
06) W
07) WW
08) LW
09) W
10) W
11) LW
12) WL
13) W
14) W

There are infinite statistical considerations to be made, for example that the only column providing ALL 1-2 patterns is just the column #9.
On the other end, all columns getting a loss (L) on the first six shoes dealt (#5, #6, #7, #10 and #14) got a W on the next six shoes dealt.
(L happening at columns #1, #2 and #14 after the first shoes sequence didn't get a second result to be compared at the second shoes succession).

We mean that "limits" should be evaluated not only by the simple single shoes' texture but even by the back-to-back shoes sequence (vertical shape) that cannot provide harsh deviations for more than one column in most cases.

as.   

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.