Quote from: Albalaha on March 04, 2026, 12:10:52 PMI came across a benchmark session where every oldschool progression fails to perform. Check if you do have anything better:  LLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLLLLWWLLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLLLWLLLWLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLLLLLLLLLLWWWWLLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLLLWLLLWLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLLLLWWWWWWWWLLLLLLLLLLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLLLLWLLWLLWLLWLLWLLLLLLLLWWWWLLLLLLLLWWWWLLLLLLLLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLWLW

Quote from: Albalaha on March 05, 2026, 08:28:03 AMAny predefined way of playing could encounter such challenging outcomes. Do u have any MM that remains either winning or losing least(lesser than flat betting), if you encounter such wins and losses? This LW session acid tests any MM approach.

I test it With a simple Fibonacci
-> 1 RIGHT on a Loss
-> 2 LEFT on a Win

The total balance at the end will be -7 with a base bet of 1.

Max bet was like 987 and max drawdown -2583

All this without reset on profit the bet amount so all bet are continuesly.

With resetting the bet amount it will be in profit.

Then I have other MM that can beat this string of W/L with less max drawdown and bankroll.

Pro Basketball Hall of Famer Chauncey Billups, former NBA guard Damon Jones and nearly three dozen co-defendants will stand trial beginning Nov. 2, a federal judge said Wednesday.

https://www.espn.com/NBA/story/_/id/48103259/trial-date-set-chauncey-billups-others-rigged-poker-case

I respect what you are saying.  However, without seeing an actual scoreboard I get lost in W's and L's. 

I have done extremely well with parlay wagering (pos progression) but I do not employ it every wagering opportunity I encounter.

Possibly you are referring to every hand wagering in a mechanical style, I don't know?

In answering the member's question, Asym said the following:

"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." 

Yes correct in most cases.  IMO and experience, long term ANYTHING wagered in mechanical form will nearly 100% of the time lose.  Mathematics is irrelevant at the bac table playing a bac shoe.  The order of presentments can not be decided with any accuracy whatsoever.  Sure, there are great advantaged spots and clumps to be wagered upon within sections of a shoe, but those DO NOT REPEAT THEMSELVES after they occur.  Simple and done.

And in addition Asym said: "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."

Absolutely.  "Limited" ranges of advantaged wagers are totally possible.  But those IMO will be selected by a conscious player, non-mechanical and sporadically.  And where I disagree with Asym is flat-betting.  I do not flat-bet when my "it is there advantaged wagers are winning", I begin my banging it out pattern of parlay wagering.  I do not care what happened in a prior shoe of play, I do not care about what might happen in future shoes of play if I continue my session, etc., etc.  I only care about what I am sitting in front of and wagering at the instant and real time.  Period.

Clustered and Isolation will always be present in 99.99.9% or higher of all shoes played.  Always, Always, Always.  Equalization is the heaviest and most advantaged event a conscious and open minded player can recognize.  But, problem is the change up appears without any sort of regulation and schedule.  It has to or the game would not be there.

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.

There are a few saying and phrases that are commonly used at the table, that I read on other internet locations that are usually mistaken.

"Checks Play". Normally used to alert pit that a larger unusual variance in bet amount was just placed.

"Bilking".  Used in joking around about cheating. Usually casino taking players money or sometimes the opposite.

"Player Takes".  Dealers knowingly can tell player has more than table maximum and generally asked for or dealer doesn't want to break down the wagered amount. But the person will only get paid the table max if wager was won and will be returned excess chips if that wager was lost.

"In Play Betting". Meaning placing an additional bet while an event is actually happening, during a hand. At bac never allowed.

"Cold Table". Very subjective term. The highest majority of people are repetitively losing. Of course it won't always stay like that and you will hear that depending on how many people were playing and how many people lost over a certain amount of time. Never anything set as to any amount of time that determines when a table is or was cold.

"Hot Table". Very subjective term. The highest majority of people are repetitively winning.  Of course it won't always stay like that and you will hear that depending on how many people were playing and how many people won over a certain amount of time. Never anything set as to any amount of time that determines when a table is or was hot.

You can Google just about anything now. It's been that way for a number of years, but not really during the good old days of infamous big table bac.

You know, sit down and think about it. You cannot download
bac experience. You cannot download bac failure. You cannot download bac struggling. You will get opinions and twisted definitions or explanations from either inexperienced and possibly a few experienced players.  Most people will not be able the decipher between wrong and right, disadvantage and advantages.  But you cannot download them and be able to absorb them into your body.

The real learning my friends is called, Blood, Sweat and Tears!

Yes, you can't learn from the Internet, Googling, Wiki, etc. But the real experience, gut feelings, knowing what how and why certain events almost always occur, and so much more, you can only build up from once again, actual experience.