Notice that in this shoe succession the total  I/C results = -15 (before vig) but it's not rocket science to get an advantage at those sequences.

as.

At baccarat we've seen that the fear of missing something "good" is always inferior to the fear of getting rid of something "bad", so it's more important to shift losing situations than exploiting the entirety of profitable opportunities.

This problem, verified at an unimaginable number of real shoes dealt under different circumstances, has shown us that losing situations and short winning situations are both slight more detectable than long winning situations unless those W patterns reach relative values that the best course of action to take is riding them until they'll stop. Yet this last strategy sounds more as a gambling plan (so affected by huge variance) but anyway getting some merits.

Example #1 (1 and 2 vs 3/3+ streaks)

Arrange the cards whatever you like but 1/2 clustered patterns will show up at least two or more times per shoe, not to mention what happens at the infinite random walks we decide to consider.
More importantly is the fact that 1/2 isolated patterns long term distribution considered by back-to-back events will slight disregard the expected 3:1 ratio so making more probable 1/2 clustered patterns than isolated patterns showing up clustered for longer than two.

Nonetheless, we know that 1/2 sequences could last up to 22-25 or more patterns not crossing any 3/3+ streak.

But most of the times 1/2 patterns are coming out as clustered at least for 2 (under general probability values), 3 (exact general probability values) or longer (over general probability values).
Naturally the actual number of long 3/3+ streaks and/or the number of ties will affect the 1/2 clusters along with other actual card features.

Anyway, there's a virtual certainty that 1/2 clusters of any lenght will come out, especially after fictional losing situations.

Example #2 (doubles consecutiveness)

This is a more intricate situation as doubles are the most likely outcomes at baccarat.
I mean that consecutive doubles will make more probable the efficacy seen above of the 1/2 being clustered, yet a strong number of isolated doubles will come out along the way in the form of clusters (isolated double/isolated double).
Even here, isolated doubles followed by clustered doubles are taking a different probability line than what the general probability dictates.

Again and knowing that now we're taking care of just one of the possible three patterns of interest, it's the actual quality distribution to help us for taking the best course of action.

Just to give an example here some real shoes about the doubles I or C distribution (we discarded from the registration the first 20 hands dealt):

C-I-I-I-I-I

I-I-I-I-I-I

I-I-I-I-I

C-C-I-I-I-I-I

I-C-I

I-I-I-C-C-I

I-C-C-I-I

I-C-I-I-C

I-I-I-I-I-I

I-I-I-I-I

C-C-I-C

I-C-I-C

I-I-I-C

I-C-I

I-I-I

I-I-I-I-I

C-I-I-I-I-C-I

C-I-I-I-C-I

I-I-I-C-C

I-I-C

I-I-I-C-C

I-C-I

C-C-I-I-I-I-I-I

I-C-I-I-C

C-I-I-I

I-I-I

I-I-I-I

I-I-I-C

I

C-I-I-C

C-C-I-I-I

I-I-C-C-C

I-I-C-C-I-I-C

C-I-I-C

I-I-I-I-I-I

I-I-I-I

I-I-I-I-I-C-I

C-C-I-I-I

C-I-I-C-I-C-I-I

Even though C=-3 and I=+1, this brief sample should give the idea that the chaotic "unguessable" bac world is less undetectable than what most experts or people think of, naturally not taking outcomes as mere arithmetic sequences.

as. 

Obviously those long univocal situations putting casinos into a passive mood aren't coming out around the corner as the vast majority of patterns are difficult to be grasped; technically meaning that we'll have hard times to win more than two maybe three bets in a row at best, so winning situations diluted into a more likely losing ocean.

Capitalizing on those relatively rare univocal situations could be an option as well as setting up a strong defensive attitude oriented to "limit" the losing patterns impact.
And of course a mix of the two strategies that unfortunately players like to shift too frequently towards the first "easy" plan.

The mistake of "hoping" is always worse than the mistake of "estimating probabilities" because our bets must always fight vs the HE.

After all casinos will substantially lose when consecutive bets are placed on easy patterns or easy situations and the same is true for players keep wagering back to back difficult patterns and difficult situations not going to be resolved within short times.

While casinos can't prevent players to wager the univocal situations standing for long (so eliciting a consecutive positive wagering), players have the important option to discontinue the betting when difficult chaotic patterns show up and the latter situation is more probable to come out along the shoes dealt.

Not surprisingly casinos want us to bet every hand or almost every hand and not only for obvious math reasons but because they well know how whimsical (so uncontrollable) are distributed the bac results, especially when losing players try to get the money back by increasing their wagers.

There are many pattern examples showing that, see you later

as.

Wynn Casinos and Resorts and their weak security systems falls prey to hackers.

https://www.securityweek.com/wynn-resorts-says-21000-employees-affected-by-shinyhunters-hack/

Sky was on fire this morning, not one doubt about it!

Considering things from the other side (casino) could probably help to determinate what would be the best course of action.

When casinos will (temporary) lose a lot of money?
When strong univocal deviations will happen within short times (basically long streaks or strong B/P predominances) or when some high payout side bets are coming out frequently.
Actually casinos are relatively worried about BP bets and not about the side bets as they know that it'll take a lot of more time to take back the money lost at BP bets than at side bets.

Obviously I'm talking about HS players action as casinos fear that winning players won't come back to lose at their premises.

The casinos advantages are hard to be challenged yet it's not so infrequent to read casinos experiencing one or even a couple of losing months per year.
That's a big difference with other gambling games where no losing months were accounted despite of getting a theorical lower HE (black jack).

More later

as.

My gaming partners and myself adopted these:

* Black is Black.

* Nothing from Nothing Leaves Nothing.

* You Can't Change What is Going to Happen.

Quote from: KungFuBac on April 06, 2026, 04:22:28 AMHi Asym and thx.
Can you elaborate a little more on the following:

"...Yet, "long" isolated W situations are way more probable to be intertwined by isolated Ls, so in essence the only real losing sequence is anything like as WLLWLL...

Notice that by falsifying the best randomness definition ever made in the history of probability field (RVM) and according to MvS studies, bac successions are affected by a kind of unrandomness (or instrinsic defects of a finite dependent bac card distributions) capable to get a full value of what is more likely to happen (W clusters and/or L isolated situations) as opposed to what could virtually happen at a 0.5068/0.4932 dynamically proposition...."

Thx in advance,

Hi KFB!
I'll try to make my point.

A shoe is formed by 416 cards making innumerable card combinations but in essence the vast majority of pattern successions belong to restrict classes where something must happen within limited terms.
Practically randomness is less "chaotic" than what could appear.

We don't want to be so precise in our guesses, just considering the game as "probability ranges" where something that happened may come out as clustered or as isolated, there are no other options.
Of course the word "clustered" means that the opposite pattern was absent for a given amount of time (minimum gap=1) and "isolated" means that both opposite patterns happened in two consecutive trials (that's not the number of hands because this depends on the probability of success we wanted to use).

Since we can build infinite random walks from the original irreplaceable BP sequence, sub successions will take the same shape and a correspondent relationship among them even if a same (negative) shoe will be dealt infinitely.
This fact is capable to overcome the permutations issue where strong negative back-to-back shoes will destroy every strategy in the world. Or, even worse, when strong positive consecutive shoes will give the players the illusion of having found out a valid system.

Once we implement the "quality" factor and not the "quantity" one, baccarat successions will get similar features so it's not about "how" but about "when".

Naturally since we can't exploit a math advantage in the strict sense, all this process belongs to "approximate" at best what is going to happen with what should (must) happen. And lesser situations we'll try to approximate better will be our control of the game.

Therefore W clusters and L isolated events must happen and generally speaking the most worrisome pattern is when an isolated W will be followed by a clustered L (WLL..WLL..)

In reality we've seen that our plan is a bit too oriented to avoid losses than trying to ride the winning streaks for the reason that we flat bet and we hate to get (temporary) losing sessions.
We're working on that.

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on April 06, 2026, 05:22:51 AMThanks for elaborate explanation for how you play.


?Did I understand you correctly that you also wager for "BOTH" P and B on each hand as well?

Thx in advance.

Reference your last inquiry.  I only wager one base bet (main wager NOT SIDE), meaning base wager of bankers or players.  But all or most of the side bets for P and B. 

I have done extremely well with the shoes I play. 

Here is another shoe from last week, large amounts of winning side bets as well.

Many winning side bets including a beautiful 3 card 7-7 with $50.00 on it for 200:1 payout.  4 Panda 8s and another 3 Fortune 7s.  Numerous others.

Once again, love that equalization in the last quarter, my huge advantage very few believe in or play.