Suppose we're the dumbest players in the universe by confiding that the very first pattern happening at MR and BYB will very soon produce an AS/AS parallel pattern.
Of course we'll cut off from the play the situations where the first sequence occurring at either line will be a S event. And maybe we'll fictionally wait that some levels of AS/S apparition will come out before betting.
Yes, some conflicting events negate a possible betting but we know that some converging events (dictating to wager the same side) will enlarge our probability of success.   

I'd guess we won't lose a lot of money...

as.

For simplicity let's consider just the very first pattern happening at each shoe dealt by the AS/S format displayed in my pages then registering the back-to-back shoe results.
We track just the Main Road.

We'll see that those first patterns will converge more and more towards the expected AS/S 3:1 ratio.
Mathematically we could concede the concept that long unlikely S patterns will take the lead by occurring consecutively, that is that the permutation issue will get us harsh times to define what's more likely to happen (A patterns).
   
In practice and since the very first pattern is completely randomly distributed, such S consecutive patterns aren't so probable to show up at multiple shoes, at least they'll get a conditional probability to come out by different levels.

So level 0 is any S pattern not happening at all, that is an AS pattern.

Level 1 is any S pattern happening being NOT followed by another S pattern (that is a S-A situation);

Level 2 is any S pattern happening two times in a row and followed by an AS pattern (S-S-A situation);

Level 3 is any S pattern happening three times in a row and followed by an AS pattern (S-S-S-A).

Levels beyond the 3 level aren't considered as they are so unlikely to show up, anyway they collect a loss at all 4 above classes.

On the same token we could register the various first patterns happening at each shoe in the AS format.

Level 0 is the absence of an AS pattern, that is a S pattern occurrence.

Level 1 is an AS pattern not followed by another AS pattern (AS-S).

Level 2 is an AS pattern coming out twice (AS-AS) not followed by a third AS pattern (that is an AS-AS-S sequence)

Level 3 is an AS pattern coming out three times in a row (AS-AS-AS) and not being followed by a fourth AS pattern.
So any AS-AS-AS-S sequence is a 3 level event and after this level we'll stop the level registration.

 
The important thing to know is that each level is working independently from the AS/S cumulative ratio, otherwise an unlikely long S sequence will make all levels to lose and the same happens at AS long successions where all S levels will lose.

Obviously greater is the S level considered and higher will be the probability of success, anyway considered by "ranges" of the same level.
On the other end, lower is the AS level considered and higher will be the probability of success, again considered by ranges of the same level.

Therefore our fictional players move by different levels of deviations where the winning probability is statistically shifted at our favor (mostly as we'll wait some deviations to fill diverse levels before we real betting).

Mathematically it sounds as another form of a fallacy, easily negated by evidence.

oOoOo

Now suppose we want to compare the very first pattern happening at Main Road with the same very first pattern occurring at ByB sequence.
Discarding some "conflicting events" where one line dictates to bet X and the other line the opposite Y, we want to assess how many first Main Road (MR) and BYB patterns produce a S/S simultaneous situation.

Actually while comparing MR and BYB first patterns and discarding conflicting events, we'll expect to get 4 different situations getting a different speed even though and generally speaking MR is faster than BYB road.

1- AS/AS

2- AS/S

3- S/AS

4- S/S

Naturally AS/AS events are more likely than other possibilities and S/S events are the least likely to happen.
Then it comes the S/AS pattern and finally the AS/S sequence.
Again each class should be assessed by how many times the same level of apparition comes out.

If you'd run those four possible successions infinitely and admitting some conflicting events to be discarded from our play, any wagering made towards AS patterns will be an EV+ play as symmetrical situations happening at both lines are less likely to happen anyway by a lower degree than the expected 3:1 ratio.

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.

Suppose our random walk will dictate to bet that a S pattern will come out as isolated (so followed by an A pattern) and we choose to consider just the very first S pattern occurring per every shoe dealt.

Itlr not only we can't lose any money at such series of bets but actually we can improve our EV by waiting that a first S pattern went as clustered (S-S...), then wagering at the next shoe toward the first S coming out as isolated.
If you'd think that most of the times the common derived roads are mutually exclusive in producing S patterns, you'll see that "S isolated random walks" are getting a good level of prediction capable to erase and invert at our favor the HE.

This very first pattern betting placement is the only one enticing a kind of constant wagering being less affected by possible strong variance issues and the reasons why this should be true are beyond the scope of these writings.

Then the next patterns are more sensitive to the actual shoe distribution, mainly being a by product of the first pattern propensity.
Those are patterns we want to classify by a kind of RTM factor, so orienting us to wait for fictional losses to show up before wagering.
Moreover some shoes will deny a second S pattern, making the second S pattern trigger a more difficult spot to take care of.

Same thought could be applied at very first A isolated patterns vs A clustered patterns (privileging the clustering effect) anyway being affected by a slight greater volatility we do not want by any means.
So it seems we'll be in better shape by wagering that something less due will come out as isolated than confiding that a more likely probability will get its fair share of results because more probable events will more likely come out in the form of long clusters than by a constant clustered form.

Here a brief sample of Big Road (first row) and ByB Road (second row) first patterns in the form of S isolated and S clustered patterns after an initial S patterns occurred:

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-A

Whenever those patterns dictate to bet an opposite hand in order to get an A pattern, do not bet and wait for the next shoe (I'm talking about the very first S pattern).

Let's casinos hope that card distributions will make many first S patterns being clustered at each random walk we decide to consider (we can easily set up an infinite number of random walks  besides the common derived roads), in the meanwhile we to take the profits by exploiting a purest form of gambler's fallacy (LOL).

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.

Thanks whatswhats.
 
The plan is conceived to deny a simultaneously symmetrical situation happening at both the Big Road and the Big Eye Boy road right at the very first pattern coming out at each road or to get a A-A pattern at both lines.

For example say the first sequence is BBBBPBPPBBB (first pattern is A). The BR is A but the ByB road is S (brbbrb).
That's a loss.

The next shoe formed a BPPPBBBBP initial succession getting an A pattern at BR and an A pattern at ByB road. That's a win.

Next shoe went as BBBBBBBPPPBPP, so a S pattern showing up at BR but a A pattern coming out at ByB road (rrbbbbbb), that's a win.

Next shoe went as PBPBPBBBBBB, Byb is rrrrbrrrr, thus an A-A simultaneous A pattern at both lines. It's a win.

Then the next shoe: BPPPPPPPPBBBBBPBPB, ByB is brrrrrrbrrrr. Another A-A pattern situation. Another win.

Then a PPBPBBPBB shoe, ByB is brbbbbbbb, that is an A pattern happening at BR and an S event happening at ByB, it's a loss.

Then a PBPBPPPBPP shoe, ByB is rrrbrbbb, so a A-A pattern showing up at both sides. Again a win.

This shoe went as BPBBPBBBB..., ByB is rbbbbrr that is a S pattern (BR) followed by an A pattern at ByB. It's a win.

To cut a long story short, A or S first events happening at BR and ByB are obviously more likely to produce the same result (A) or to get an S followed by an A at the other road (most likely at ByB as this one starts its action after some hands are dealt at BR).
Such propensity is so worthwhile that whenever the first hand negating a S pattern should be placed at P side, the possible edge becomes more interesting.

Naturally S-S first BR and ByB patterns happen (or, more likely, A-S patterns) but they are strongly restricted in their appearance.
In fact to get a S-S pattern happening at both lines we need an exact proportional number of BP hands dealt coming out at a portion of the shoe (initial part) springing out from a total random source (the cut and the first card rank dictating how many cards are to be discarded from the play).

Actually the professional guy didn't take care about asymmetry or symmetry, just betting that parallel sub-sequences applied to the same BP succession won't get the same quality results at two or more lines.
Smart guy.

as.

Good description of the game indeed.

Especially about the "camaraderie" topic...

as. 

This finding (there are quite more of them) emphasizes the importance of studying shoes coming out from the same source and that around the globe there are very acute players trying to get a kind of an edge whatever intended as the person we've met during our sessions.

It's way more interesting to assess that this finding promotes an unsound math plan as all bets are placed at P side.

Shoes are coming out from the same shuffling machine brand, even if working at different casinos (!).

That's not the only finding promoting a kind of univocal betting placement, just one of the easiest.

Unfortunately (and probably this is a possible added value of it) a nearly half of the shoes dealt are unplayable at least for this specific attack. Then only one bet is suggested per every playable shoe.
Needless to say and since it's an unsound math strategy, it cannot work at other shoe productions.

More later.

as. 

Here additional real shoes coming out from the same source (3s are only considered at B side):

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

Total:

3-X = 114

3-3-X = 31

3-3-3-..= 10

We see that 3-X vs 3-3-.. sequences are still unfavorite to win (W=114, L= 41x3= 123) and 3-3-X vs 3-3-3.. events are almost equal (+1, 31 vs 30).

Nonetheless notice that 3-3-X sequences do not involve any vig as all bets are placed at P side.
Moreover, the 3-3-X/3-3-3-.. ratio is so balanced that we could even think of adopting a multilayered progressive plan without worrying about the vig.
Yes, the only substantial obstacle will be a permutation issue, so let's pretend to face an hypothetical unbelievable scenario to distribute all losing patterns consecutively or strongly clustered.
But when the "bad" is clustered and we know the proposition had demonstarted to be harshly balanced or shifted at one side, chances we'll cross a win or multiple wins are approaching the certainty.

Next week we'll see how to exploit at a maximum level the AS/S patterns feature.

as.

Quote from: Whatswhats on January 27, 2026, 11:55:51 PMOnline with 30 table, find pattern is faster

Probably it is, but maybe exploiting the derived roads distribution will make a similar job without internet issues, and we know there are plenty of them to overcome.

as.

@Alrelax: lol, I haven't deleted a single reply in years let's figure out if I'd delete one of yours..

The purpose of presenting this trigger was to give the idea that running the same situation for many times could present some non linear probability values as cards are finite, rules are fixed and a kind of "average" distribution will work providing the outcomes are really randomly produced.

@whatswhats:

Overall we got:

3-X= 103 times;

3-3-X = 41 times;

3-3-3 (or longer successions) = 10 times.

Since X is any pattern different than 3 (so 1 or 2) it's obvious that we have to assess an average probability to get or not to get another consecutive 3 and this needs a two-step betting.
The general odds of any 3 vs (1-2) are 1:3, since itlr B>P we shoudn't be surprised that 3-X will lose money against 3-3-...
In my example and assuming a 3:1 unit W/L ratio (before vig), 3-X won 103 times and lost 51 times (51 x 3= 153).
Clearly by wagering toward another 3 after a 3 happened (now by an inverse positive 1-2 progression) will get the best of it even though long streaks of 3-X can naturally show up along the course of the shoes dealt (that's why Alrelax pointed out his legitimate doubts about these findings).     

Then after a 3-3 succession came out things seem to change as betting toward 3-3-X got a kind of propensity to produce more 3-3-X patterns than 3-3-3-... patterns.
In fact 3-3-X patterns have shown up 41 times and 3-3-3-... patterns just 10 times (10x3=30).

Notice that I've presented the very first (or when applicable) the second or third B 3 streak happening per each shoe dealt, supposing those are more "randomly" placed results than others.

My conclusion is that a bac player should be interested about what happens most now AND itlr or, it's the same concept, that things could distribute by huge levels of volatility but always and invariably following more likely probability values.
And one of the best tools we should employ to get the best of the "actual" related to the "expected" is betting very few hands (for example think how's unlikely to wait for 3-3 to come out)

as.