Hi RouletteDevil

"If anyone out there who still uses this forum, anyone playing the Nolley Molly on the dozens? "

Personally I do not play the nolley molley/ play very little roulette. However, there are a lot of good posts/discussions on the forum.
A poster Gizmotron (aka gizmo) studied roulette for decades and posted many good essays here(maybe on other forums too but not sure). I do not fully grasp 100% of his methodology. However, I play Bac with a professional poker player that has found a lot of success from gizmos writings(He plays roulette about 20% of his table time).

The past few years have been very lucrative for him @ roulette. He reads on this forum though I am not aware of his posting on this forum. I will try to coax him into posting his thoughts on gizmos' methods. Maybe other rouletters will add some thoughts about gizmo et al systems.



Best of luck to you

I find the part in bold very interesting:Baccarat hold was 26.7% versus 16.4% in the prior year...

Baccarat offering wagers with a H.E. at approx 1.15% yet a hold of 26.7%.


 Nevada/Las Vegas first quarter
"...For the Las Vegas Strip, table game hold was 18.9% versus 14.8% the prior year. Baccarat hold was 26.7% versus 16.4% in the prior year..."



https://cdcgaming.com/wall-street-bets-vegas-strip-room-rates-golden-entertainment-penn-entertainment-nevada-las-vegas-first-quarter/

Hi Asym

"...So less is more, by any means. Meaning that lower is the amount of our bets better will be our "precision" of being more right than wrong. At the cost of missing some profitable situations that anyway itlr will save us a lot of money...."

     I concur. This is one of most important attributes a successful player can posses(i.e., selecting or shopping for the best value bet).
I observe many players approaching the game like someone entering a shopping mall on payday. They buy a lot of merchandise(bets) that are not priced at a good value.

One should look at baccarat wagers just like shopping. Sometimes the wager is worth more than what we pay for it and sometimes wagers are selling for a price greater than their value. Optimally we should shop to pay $48 for a $52 dollar wager. Sometimes there are even better deals. However, often there may only be a half dozen or so good deals per shoe.

Cheers,

At baccarat itlr the asymmetrical propensity will be slight superior than the symmetrical one, yet many shoes could produce long situations of sym patterns posing a real threat to any not carefully conceived plan. Remember that the HE is always burdening us.

So less is more, by any means. Meaning that lower is the amount of our bets better will be our "precision" of being more right than wrong. At the cost of missing some profitable situations that anyway itlr will save us a lot of money.

Suppose the core (discarding some initial and final hands) of the shoe A/B patterns went as: (AS=asymmetrical pattern= +1 and S=symmetrical pattern= -3), Big Road considered.

AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-S-AS-AS-S-AS-AS-S-S-AS-S-S-S-AS

At the end this is a strong Symmetrical shoe as AS=12 (=+12) and S=7 (=-21). Total -9.
Yet AS clusters (3) are equal to AS isolated events (1); S patterns came out as isolated two times and double clustered one time (S-S) and only one time clustered more than two times in a row (S-S-S).

Another shoe:

AS-AS-S-AS-AS-AS-S-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS

AS= 12 (+12), S= 2 (-6).

Here this shoe haven't balanced the previous one (-9), now (+6) but at this shoe there are no "unexpected" distributions capable to be harmful to our plan.
AS= always clustered and S= always isolated.

Another shoe:

AS-AS-AS-S-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-S-AS-S-(-1)

AS=13, S=3 plus -1 that is a total of +3.

Moreveor even here AS clusters are 3 and AS isolated events (at the end of the shoe) are just 1.

Let's see what happens by respectively running our random walk getting a different pace than the Big road succession.

shoe #1: AS-AS-S-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-S (AS=13, S=2) that is +13 and -6

shoe #2: AS-S-AS-AS-S-S-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-S-AS (AS=9, S=4) that is +9 and -12

shoe #3: AS-AS-AS-AS-S-AS-S-AS-AS-AS-AS-AS-(-1) (AS=10, S=2 plus -1) that is +10 and -7

Even though after having collected thousands and thousands of real live shoes data we've managed to set up the best performing random walk catching the most likely average card distribution, we'll see that, generally speaking, the least patterns to look for are those forming symmetrical patterns for long. Providing to assign the "asymmetrical/symmetrical" feature up to a point.

So to simplify the issue, symmetrical spots are:

1) ABAB or BABA

2) AABBA or BBAAB

3) AAA(...)-BBB(...) or BBB(...)-AAA(...)

Then, asymmetrical spots are:

1) ABB or BAA

2) ABAA or BABB

3) AABA or BBAB

4) AAA(...)BA or BBB(...)AB

5) AAA(...)BBA or BBB(...)AAB

Obviously a deep selected betting plan must take into account how many times any first or second level of asymmetry came out in a row or not, a thing we'll take care very soon.

as.

You're fine LP and thanks for your interest.

This thread is made upon ideas, findings and a very deep interest about this complicated game where we didn't take anything as granted.
Therefore our strategies are mainly based upon statistical findings applied to volatile productions very often improperly labeled as "randomly distributed".

Whether is impossible to read randomness (providing each trial to be as perfectly independent from the previous one), we know that distributions sooner or later will take more likely distributions in relationship of the actual shuffling factor.

The problem of moderate/strong unrandomly shuffled shoes is that it's more difficult to spot an "average" key card distribution along with math advantaged hand ranges, in a sense high/low cards are more clumped than expected by running a true random model.

Of course if a given strategy works at perfect random or close to perfect random shoes, anything different than that (unrandom world prevails) might be attacked by a kind of opposite method. So maybe privileging more the SYMMETRICAL less likely feature.
But doing this we could find ourselves in the unwanted world of full uncertainty unless a same shoe is shuffled several times by the same biased procedure.

So players thinking that every shoe dealt in different circumstances will be distributed by the same random features actually commit a big mistake erasing a possible edge.

more later

as.

Try it, very good for double dozens

"I'll take not just one step, but two steps forward with the knowledge you've shared. However, your theory is quite challenging. I think it'll take some time to fully grasp and apply it to my betting strategy, probably because your level is very advanced. Even so, I truly appreciate the insights you've provided. I'll take some time to make them my own, and once I do, I'll follow up with any questions I have."

This version keeps the meaning intact while making it flow smoothly in American English. Let me know if you'd like any further tweaks! 😊

Believe me, you can't be wrong by properly exploting the asymmetry.

Say we want to adopt a multilayered progressive scheme.

We have three different fictional players betting for us.

#1 will constantly betting toward clustered asym spots up to a loss, then he'll wait for a new asym situation to restart the betting.

#2 will wait for a symmetrical spot to show up (sometimes it'll take quite a long time and that should give you the idea of what I'm talking about) then wagering toward one asym spot then stops its action letting #1 to restart the betting.
If he loses, #3 come in play.

#3 will wait for TWO asym spots to show up then wagering toward one asym spot then stops its action letting #1 to restart the betting.
If he loses, the action is stopped for every player (#1, #2 and #3) until a fresh asym spot shows up.
And so on.

After each player had lost three times in a row, we'll raise the bet for that specific player by a 10% or 20% amount knowing that the only harsh "enemy" spots making ALL three players to lose in a row are those forming one asym isolated spot followed by three (or more) symmetrical spots.

When such unlikely thing happens (all players losing) we have reasons to even double our standard bet then staying at this betting level until a full recover happened.

In fact asym-sym-sym-sym-...-asym situations coming out in a row are just an exception.

See you next week

as.

A personal test for bac randomness

Our group is made by frequentist probability lovers, in the sense that we like to collect data coming out from the same exact source and then building a probability theory.

Even the "same source" concept could be a volatile definition: think about shuffling machines operating at two alternate shoes lasting for a X time (number of shuffles per each shoe).
We've found important differences if the same shoe did undergo one or two shuffles or multiple shuffles.

Therefore if we want to exploit the "average" card distribution tool, we want to play at properly shuffled shoes.
Remember the comparison with black jack: low cards-neutral cards-high cards decks (in any LNH sequence) completely deny a card counter math advantage.
Of course such situation could easily happen for natural reasons, but we never know if it seem to appear for "too much" long.

At baccarat we've personally devised two valuable main tools to take care of in order to approximate whether a shoe is really randomly shuffled or not.

a) the math advantaged two-initial cards points losing "too many times" despite of their math propensity to win;

b) a higher than average ratio of hands resolved by 6 cards.

Of course those are the two main factors, there are other minor parameters to look for.

Realize that there's no way to win at baccarat itlr if our bets will get the inferior 2-card initial point as the number of drawouts will be underdog to get a long term edge.
Thus whenever the drawouts are coming out "too often", we theorized that that shoe was improperly shuffled. So unplayable.

Hands resolved by 6 cards is an additional factor to look for and is related to the high neutral card density (more than 30%) along with the 6s,7s,8s and 9s class (again more than 30%), then to  other less likely card combinations forming natural points as 5-4, 5-3, 4-4 or standing points as 5-A, 5-2, 4-3, 4-2 or 3-3.

Card distributions not forming those situations AT BOTH SIDES for long are relatively rare and when they're not (that is they are coming out too often) we could assume a kind of randomness bias.

Paradoxically it's better to move around a strong good or strong bad choice than navigating into a more undefined world where too many cards will dictate the actual result.
That's because an overalternating shifted world will be the least situation to happen.

as. 

IMO at baccarat the only reason why we could win is because of the more likely card distribution ranges.
The actual results do not necessarily be the by product of more likely card distribution ranges as (beyond the natural variance) there still exists the important factor regarding the shuffling more or less randomness.

Our data had taught us that a perfect randomness or a slight defect of randomness will go to our favor as best represents the "more likely card distribution" ranges.

Bad shuffled shoes need too much complicated algorithms to be resolved (approximated) and of course we never know how "bad" a shoe is shuffled and more importantly the more probable patterns to look for.

In poor words, we'll win a lot or lose a lot when shoes are badly shuffled with 0 impact of skills, whereas perfect random or near perfect random shoes will give us plenty of informations to draw on.

more later

as.