Asym from post 1408

"...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...."


     The probability of hands being determined by just two cards, without drawing a fifth or sixth card, has been noted. Currently, and unfortunately, mid-hand wagering is not permitted. I think one potential bonus bet that would be wagered upon by many bonus bettors is one that would allow players to wager on the total number of cards revealed in the next hand. I would be interested (but only if the payout was close to probability).
My consideration has also been given to how the game might change if casinos permitted players to view each side's first card before placing additional bets. Predicting the first card may be more straightforward than estimating the value of subsequent cards such as the fifth or sixth, as those draws are functions of the initial card and the recipient side.

*Side Note.
     A couple years ago on one occasion at a table, a dealer mistakenly began to draw an extra card from the shoe, partially revealing it. Several players noticed what appeared to be an eight; we immediately indicated "No draw." The dealer consulted the pit boss regarding the error, who then asked if any players had seen the card. The players indicated they had not by nodding their heads left to right in unison, lol.  We then subsequently wagered for P in the next hand. The pit boss observed the situation without objection, then after the hand just looked at us and shook his head/ smiled.  We increased our wagers by approximately 2x base bet. LOL. I had a passing thought of pushing my stacks all in which would have been the optimum move. However, I didn't want to abuse the situation.


"...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...."

     An additional consideration relevant to the previous paragraph—and reflecting topics discussed by AsymBacGuy over the years—is that it may be possible to gain a slight edge by anticipating the outcome of the next hand, specifically the upcoming sequence of 4, 5, or 6 cards being wagered. From the standpoint of whether the Player is likely to draw a third card, this prediction is obviously influenced by the composition of the remaining total card pool. Therefore, as players, we are effectively forecasting the order in which the next group of 4, 5, or 6 cards will appear. The only certainty is that the next four cards will be dealt with in the following sequence: PBPB.

     
Mr. AsymBacGuy continues:

"...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. ..."


     Q1    Asym how are you computing this "advantaged nearly 11.62%" in the above paragraph? Thx in advance.

"...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.

    Q2   Asym  do you track >=2 consecutive shoes waiting for even stronger negative situations vs expectation for that specific event?

     I've considered whether tracking 5-6 consecutive shoes to spot extreme limits would be useful. On busy days, I might play for 8-12 hours over 4-7 shoes of 6-deck EZ Bac. Tracking every card is tedious, so I monitor only a few specific card values per shoe. A team could potentially watch for high EV+ opportunities, but I usually focus on playing the shoe in front of me. I find it helpful to stay in "anticipatory mode" watching for certain events to materialize. While rare events—like those with a probability of 9/16 per shoe (i.e, Improbable to show in any single shoe)—are unlikely in any single shoe, however, their Variance can still cause unpredictable streaks (or droughts). This is just my personal perspective and approach.


"...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)...."

     I concur with Asym. The interpretation of traditional doubles—often referred to as "terrible twos"—can offer valuable insights, particularly in doubles scenarios such as BBPP. Personally, I prefer to consider any occurrence of doubles as "terrific twos." The deductive reasoning used to assess the increasing improbabilities associated with doubles can equally be applied to other patterns. Many of these "other" patterns result from factors present at this critical juncture (i.e., Doubles), including historical outcomes.
     It is my opinion that one of the primary advantages for players is to base their wagering strategies on the averages and limits typically produced by an average shoe. Occasionally, there will indeed be outlier shoes that defy most statistical norms; however, these too are subject to certain boundaries. It is advisable to cease wagering against such anomaly-outlier shoes and exercise patience rather than attempting to capitalize on significant deviations. By the time it becomes evident that a shoe is intent on surpassing all odds, it may already be approaching its extreme statistical limits, for example, exceeding 2.5-3 standard deviations for a specific event.

*Side Note
I just returned from nine-day trip last week to a larger market. I prefer this market for its higher table max bets, eight-deck shoes, and multiple shoe options at each casino. etc. One session I played a shoe that begin with B26 P12. Several players, including kfb, increased their bets and experienced massive wins.

However, three participants in the early-B run lost all their most-recent winnings by betting against the streak near the B26-12 stage. The shoe continued running to approximately B38-14 before showing a slight shift toward Player in the latter stages. Two players (including that kfb fellow) avoided losses by reducing wager size and slowly decreasing larger pressed bets around the B26-12 point. The Banker side had produced multiple streaks exceeding six wins, including one streak of ten and another of seven consecutive wins. It was amazing as near this B26-12 scenario the three of the  (big-win-give-wins-back) players in unison said to each other: "You think P? Yeah lets go P", ...etc.
IMO it is best if we watch for a Turning of Events to actually start and then go with the Turn, if one so desire.
     
Asym continued:
"...
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...,..."


Thx AsymBacGuy for all your posts currently and through the years as I know it takes a lot of time /effort on your part.


May the wind always be at your back. kfb

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.

The WWWWLLLLL in my case if we use the 4 result for group. It's asym

Pratically

XXXX
XXXO
XXOX
XXOO SYM
XOOO
XOOX
XOXO SYM
XOXX

All the other are Asym,

Then obviously we can decide to give the Asym meaning to the 4 result production that mathematically are ""more rare"" to happen then the other.

My example is this that the X number of player bet every hand virtually and example after a SS / they bet for an A. One time if a player get SSS it will delete for that shoe.

The probability that multiple player together will get SSS and not SSA is lower?

Can also be a fallacy obviously, but I like your concept and style and i just try to make it "" in my version ""

But probably I'm telling not good things?

Anyway thanks again for all the info and waiting for news your post go further on this your method.

If you can explain example an entire or multiple plan to have a summary of this ASYM/SYM concept.

Obviously if you can't / don't want it's okay!

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. 

And another things, is that I personally don't use anymore B/P or W/L etc or explaining better I use them but in another way, I transform this in X/O with every first result is always X , so if I have the A/S strategy, using a group of 4

I will have
example BBPBPBBB

it will be
XXOX BBPB ASYM..
XOOO PBBB ASYM..

And so on.
probably then it didn't change any stats etc.. but it's a way that i use to play faster thinking less because i need to play like a robot following the rules and this help me..

Anyway waiting for you to answer to what i say also before this post.

Have a good weekend asymbacguy

Sports and gambling odds rigged.  Plain and simple.

The card-swindling technology NYC mafiosos allegedly used to cheat victims out of millions in a years-long poker scheme is readily available for sale online.

A simple Google search for "X-Ray poker table" quickly pulled up numerous companies producing devices that apparently employ the exact technology mobsters used in their sprawling con, which prosecutors unveiled in a federal indictment Thursday.

That included businesses selling tables indistinguishable from regular poker stations, but secretly rigged with LEDs that can see through the felt and read the suit and value of any generic playing card on the sneaky surface.

Associates of four of New York's infamous "five families" crime syndicates allegedly backed a multimillion-dollar poker con that used elaborate technology to cheat unsuspecting players — and brought rare, unappreciated light to the mob's shadowy operations, officials said.

Associates of the Bonanno, Gambino, Genovese and Lucchese crime families were named in a sweeping indictment that also ensnared Portland Trail Blazers coach Chauncey Billups, and one-time NBA journeyman Damon Jones, according to prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York.

Federal authorities didn't hesitate Thursday to pin the poker scam on La Cosa Nostra, showing that organized crime is still a modern law enforcement concern even after FBI operations in the 1980s and 1990s seemed to decimate the five families.

"The mafia ... it's still a thing," said Geoff Schumacher, vice president of exhibits and programs for the Mob Museum in Las Vegas.

The mob works best when the public knows less about the people involved, according to Schumacher, who called famed bosses like the late Dapper Don, John Gotti, an "aberration."

"They didn't want the general public to be well-versed in their business. The one guy who kind of defied that whole thing was John Gotti because he just believed that he was untouchable," Schumacher said.

A dozen mafia associates played a role in the poker scam, prosecutors said.

Ernest Aiello and Julius "Jay" Ziliani were linked to the Bonanno crime family.

Louis "Lou Ap" Apicella, Ammar "Flapper Poker" Awawdeh, John Gallo, Joseph Lanni, Nicholas Minucci, Angelo Ruggiero Jr. were associates of the Gambino crime family.

Matthew "The Wrestler" Daddino and Lee Fama were identified as associates of the Genovese crime family.

Seth Trustman was linked to the Lucchese crime family.

And Thomas "Juice" Gelardo was called an associate of the Bonanno crime family and later an associate of the Genovese crime family, according to the indictment.

Gambling "is an easy pinch" and bread-and-butter income source for the mob, the author and former Gambino mobster Louis Ferrante told NBC News.

"I wasn't at all surprised," Ferrante said. "Gambling has been a mafia mainstay for the last 100 years. With all the RICO indictments that put so many people away for the rest of their lives (in the 1980s and 90s), the mob has sort of scaled back and they stuck with loan sharking and gambling because if you get busted, as long as there's no violence involved, nobody's beat up or threatened, it's a slap on the wrist."

He added: "These guys could do a nickel maybe in the can, as opposed to doing 30, 40 years or life sentences."

Organized crime soldiers and associates are busted all the time but rarely make news, said Seth Zuckerman, New York criminal defense lawyer and former Brooklyn prosecutor.

"It's not what it used to be, but it definitely still exists," Zuckerman said. "In underground poker games and things like that, where you need protection, you need a source of cash, the mob still has its involvement."

With legal online gambling, users are required to put up all of the money before they place a bet but the crime families operate outside of the rules by acting as an intermediary, offering people the ability to place bets on credit.

"There's still a need for that," Zuckerman said. "There are people who want to bet on credit, which as you know with legalized operations, you really can't do. So that's part of the mob's territory."

Federal action against Billups and Jones spill into two separate indictments covering poker and insider sports betting information.

The alleged mafia members are only tied to the alleged poker scheme. But the mob does have a long history of involvement in sports betting and poker.

The most famous sports betting scandal in American history, when the 1919 Chicago White Sox threw the World Series, was allegedly engineered by gambler Arnold Rothstein, a mentor to early Genovese boss Charlie "Lucky" Luciano.

The Colombo crime family had alleged connections to NBA officials in the 1990s and early 2000s.

Even though sports betting is largely legal in most states, that still didn't stop several Gambino soldiers from taking illegal bets in New York, state prosecutors said last year in a 17-person indictment.

The Lucchese crime family had alleged ties to a racketeering, gambling and money laundering operation out of New Jersey poker rooms that was taken down early this year, officials said.
The New York City area's "five families" include the four mentioned in the indictment plus the Colombo crime family.

FBI Director Kash Patel said federal law enforcement had "entered and executed a system of justice against La Cosa Nostra to include the Bonanno, Gambino, Genovese and Lucchese crime families."

Old-fashioned mob muscle ensured victims paid up from their losses in rigged games, officials said.

"With respect to poker games held in the New York City area, members of the Bonanno, Gambino and Genovese Crime Families, used threats and intimidation to assure payments of debts" in games organized by defendants Awawdeh, Trustman, Zhen Hu and Robert Stroud, the indictment said.

All crime families involved "received proceeds" from the crooked games, the indictment said.

The mafia's alleged use of cutting-edge technology that included hidden cameras and X-rays shouldn't surprise anyone, Ferrante said, because a mob boss can reach out to experts as easily as anyone else.

"The mob moves with the technology," Ferrante said. "Don't think that some capo, 'Frankie nine fingers,' or 'Joe the butcher' is making these moves. They're getting some geek who knows technology and he's doing it for them."

And poker is no different from fuel, concrete and construction when it comes to wise guy involvement, according to Ferrante, the author of "Borgata: Clash of Titans: a History of the American Mafia."

"The mob only has multiple families involved when it becomes something like gasoline, when they're doing multimillions of dollars," Ferrante said. "Concrete, when they were pouring all the concrete in New York; the windows, when they were putting in all the new energy efficient windows in the 90s; that's (when) all the families get involved because it's so big and there's so much money involved that you can't, one family can't keep it to themselves. "

He added: "So when you see four (of the five crime) families involved, you know that this is a huge racket."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uNPqbO_z3ss

Thanks for your kind words!

If I can go a little further — imagine 10 or more player that bet EVERY HAND virtually, who uses a strategy where each hand can be chopped etc or bet in any way,(every player have different betting strategies) even randomly.

For every player, we keep a win/loss record, and we automatically track the results (A or S) of the previous four hands.

I've already built this system. Right now, I'm testing a strategy where I place a bet after an "A" following "SS," but I only include players for whom "SSS" never occurs — if it does, that player is excluded from the calculation.

(Obviously happen that multiple player have a possibility to bet so i choose what the majority say)

I also test variations like bet "A after a single A" or "A after AA."

Don't worry if it takes time to reply — I check this forum daily to read your posts and develop my own ideas based on your insights, which I truly admire.

If you have any ideas on how to improve the testing process, or theoretical approaches to betting based on these immediate statistics (generated through spreadsheet formulas), I'd really appreciate your thoughts.

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.

Hi asym, I read your post from years and years from this and other forums.

I want to ask you if possible a thinks about the asym/sym concept of S/A etc..

It's work also on not pure result of B/P but also on W/L ?

Meaning if we simulate a spreadsheet with 10 or more players that bet every hand and get W/L so like a B/P

Can we get an edge or a better way to bet?

Having multiple player that give us in the same shoes multiple S/A stats?

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.