"The safest way to double your money is to fold it over once and put it in your pocket."

—Unknown

Quote from: alrelax on December 03, 2025, 12:25:09 AM"It is often our thinking that hurts us. There is no reason to imprison yourself at the table! Do not think outside the box, ever. Think like there is no box at all".  —Alrelax

I agree.

as.

Along the course of any shoe dealt, more deeply univocal patterns had shown up and less likely will be the probability to get a proper number of clustered counterbalancing situations, especially whether we take as triggers the complex patterns.
That's why is so important, in our opinion, to consider clustered "unwanted" patterns to flow in order to avoid the "clustered-clustered" event(s) intertwined by isolated searched situations.

Suppose we have at our disposal an infinite bankroll and progressively betting (even by a careful multilayered scheme) to get a side to win after a given number of losses whatever assessed.
We're not going anywhere as sooner or later a B/P or whatever random walk utilized will get an insormountable long losing streak capable to wipe out our bankroll (as there are betting limits).
Things change when we take care of the asymmetrical/symmetrical feature, maybe enlarged by how many A or S clustered/isolated events had come out.

Say we want to bet toward a symmetrical pattern to be isolated (that is not followed by another S pattern).
Even by adopting steadily this strategy (that is by hoping that any S event will show up as isolated) and assuming we are flat betting, we're not going to lose a lot of money.
Let's take a further step, that is waiting that a couple of S events came out in a row, so wagering toward S-S clustered events being followed by an asymmetrical pattern.
Odds are that we'll lose even less money itlr.
Symmetrical situations superior than that are not considered as they're very unlikely to happen and, more importantly, are not giving us an edge.

In a word, the theory applied to a baccarat random distribution (and verified beyond any doubt) tells us that S events must come out as isolated by low-moderate levels of deviation and the same about S-S events (so followed by an A pattern).
It's not that A>S at all costs, just that the random distribution will make very low or low deviation values about the S isolated or S-S isolated patterns.
Now a progressive multilayered plan will get the best of the model even if it cannot be riskless.

Yet we know that a possible EV+ plan must be the by product of a W/L ratio shifted towards the left and capable to get at least the famous winning probability of 51.3% at B bets and 50.1% at P bets.
Now we want to be more precise in our betting, so it's not sufficient to get any S event to start the betting.

So we're evaluating things by a further step, that is how many isolated S events (ASA) will be followed by another S isolated events(ASA...SA) or when they are followed by a S cluster (ASA...SS..); the same about a superior class of S events class that is ASSA...SA vs ASSA...SSSA...).

It's now that the ACTUAL distribution counts, as it's demonstrated that SS events coming out within the initial-intermediate portions of the shoe will make more probable a further S cluster and viceversa.
So it's slight more probable to get S isolated clusters when no clustered S happened so far and whenever S clusters happened the isolated S probability is slight diminished.

Next, again, I'll discuss the importance of properly assessing the doubles appearance consecutiveness, a kind of no brainer tool to get the best of the game.

as.

"It is often our thinking that hurts us. There is no reason to imprison yourself at the table! Do not think outside the box, ever. Think like there is no box at all".  —Alrelax

Whereas it's possible to arrange the cards in order to reduce (or increase..adv effect) the probability of certain side bets, thinking that casinos do this voluntarily is ridiculous.
Even worse are the complaints of some players claiming that current shoes "do not contain consistent patterns" or "enough Bankers".

The problem is about math probabilities of resolving hands that in turn will affect the "average" actual patterns compared with a control model (random.org).

After all, the more a distribution is biased the better will be our predictions, providing to have collected a fair number of data.
Thus in some sense we should get rid of the "average shoe" definition belonging to a pure random model and so priviliging a strategy toward quite deviated (albeit not univocal) situations considered as a bit "abnormal".

An example is when "too many shoes" won't get streaks longer than three or four or, conversely, when many (too many) long streaks happen in the same shoe (doubles absence).
Another important feature to look for is when the B/P number is too balanced for many steps, meaning that the B/P ratio move around very small or small steps.

Then there are more intricate (and important) features regarding the asymmetry and symmetry getting sd values quite different than random models.

Obviously 'less is more', so betting very few hands and considering "complex" patterns having a relative diluted general probability to show up will amplify a lot our correct prediction.
When in doubt we're not compelled to bet anything as the game is set up to make us losers per every bet placed.

Probably a strategy working at pure random models and getting low deviations must be changed into a simple "ON/OFF" strategy featuring more univocal W or L sequences.

More later

as.

Yes anything and everything happens at the baccarat table! From the cards presenting unbelievable patterns, to the dealers off-the-wall attitudes and responses, to the floor personnel's supervisor lackadaisical actions or super strict compliance, to the people playing of all races and bank-rolls, to those watching the game with their out loud inquisitive comments, juggled with all kinds of emotions and responses.

Music. Some music fits in excellent for the bac table. Such as Stealers Wheel, 'Stuck in the middle with you', you know the song, that famous line so friggen perfect for the bac table  "Clowns to the left of me jokers to the right". And Pink Floyd's 'Money', you know that song too, "money it's a gas, grab that cash with both hands and make a stash". And the Dave Matthews Band, 'Burning down the house', you know that song also, "watch out you might get what your after, I'm an ordinary guy burning down the house ".  Oh yeah, let's not forget about KC and the Sunshine Band, 'That's the way I like it', so well-known, "That's the way uh-huh, uh-huh I like it, uh-huh, uh-huh I like it", the perfect repetitive lyrics for those wins after wins after wins, stacking up the chips! 

Dealers.  Although the shoe is either the real friend or the enemy of each person's session, there has to be a dealer to pull the cards and either swipe your chips away or pay you what you won. Dealers are usually the heartbeat of the game, some run a tight ship counting down the seconds until they smack the felt several times with the palm of their hand, signifying no more bets and yet others allow the players to run the schedule and how the game is actually played out. As well, certain dealers are all smiles and googly eyes, while others are as tight as a military drill sergeant on a Monday morning during basic training. When you become friends with a dealer as a regular player, you see a lot of the coldness suddenly goes away and then it becomes a much different game for many of us.

Floor Personnel.  From Floor Person to Pit Supervisor, to Floor Supervisor, to Table Games Managers, they all exist to keep law and order in the land of the unknown, the casino. While all the Floor Personnel of varying titles have basically the same goal, which is to run the games and take care of player's records and requests. The difference in personnel is there attire and their attitudes. From the, "do I really have to wear a tie and real shoes", to "I take extreme pride in my Sharp Dressed Man look". They stand there with their arms crossed, eyes locked on games, watching larger wagers and settling disputes while keeping the peace, they also stand there propped up against the podiums or a table waiting impatiently for their break time while either snickering at a dispute or laughing at the players fighting amongst themselves.

Players.  Some occupy seats with eye piercing thought, waiting for their prime trigger to wager a minimum table wager. Others wager thousands of dollars per hand with the precision of engaging in their grandma's secret cooking recipes. And of course, there is usually one or two standing behind all the seated players. They are usually passing their chips between their two hands making as much noise as possible by the clacking of their chips, up and down or back and forth. Those standing will usually wager quite infrequently, after several comments about why something should/has to happen and of course they place their wager right after pointing to that 'certain' something on the scoreboard. If their wager won, they usually once again point to whatever it was on the scoreboard that was an absolute certainty for an easy win. And if they lost the wager, they usually just go back to studying the scoreboard and not saying anything. Usually this happens more often than not.  Let's not forget about the newer player attempting to get a comp, that really doesn't have enough time or rating in to get some kind of small comp for a $20 or a $30 meal.  He is continually told that he needs additional play time.  Meanwhile he is risking well past the meal cost many times over. Never understood that but just to speed up the game I have witnessed a few times especially when a table was extremely hot, seeing a green chip or two tossed by other players to the person requesting the comp in order to get him to exit the game.

Watching The Game.  And finally those just watching the game.  Their out loud inquisitive comments such as how did two face cards lose to only a 5 and a 4?  Or how come the players do not draw additional cards? And at Midi/Macau games, why are the players totally vandalizing the cards?

"There are no valuable patterns to exploit at baccarat"

That's the mathematicians mantra denying any possible edge and strictly speaking they're right.
Providing any card distribution to be really random and not simply "undetectable" from a results point of view.
And, frankly, there are more and more serious players who have found out that the word "random" linked to all "baccarat shoes" sounds at least as an hasty statement.

Baccarat results (then patterns) are the by product of randomness and bac rules, more specifically are a condensation of the probability that any hand starts with a given two-card point as opposed to another two-card point linked with the QUALITY of the two cards nature.
Then there's the impact of the third card(s) where in a tiny percentage of hands will be decided by bac rules mathematically favoring B side.

All those features move around more likely values (ranges) and it's now that we might insert the "more detectable" concept.

Obviously to reach this conclusion we had to compare thousands and thousands of shoes shuffled in different ways at different casinos and, alas, not every shoe production belongs to the same homogeneous category that for theoretical purposes we had to consider as "random".

There are many very interesting studies made by Prof. Persi Diaconis about the card shuffling randomness, I'd suggest to read them.

Anyway and knowing that a so called "perfect randomness" can only come out by atmospheric noise variations and radioactive decay processes, we preferred to take as a "random" control what the random.org site displays after having instructed it to shuffle 416 cards (8 decks), then arranging the distribution within bac results (and patterns).

At those random.org distributions you'll see that your standing 7 point won't be easily beat five or six times in a row by an opposite drawing hand (W/L odds are 6.5:1, 6.5:1, 6.5:1, etc) perhaps by the same "miracle" cards drawn. Things that regularly happen at actual live distributions.

as.

Bump up after 5 years. 

Ok asym, thanks!