Start with a general consideration that any WL sequence will get an average number of shifts (W changes to L and L changes to W).
In our example (where the BP real betting options were "concentrated" into the W/L form) we got 12 shifts within a 24 WL outcomes succession.
Moreover out of 12 shifts, 8 were included within the 1 or 2 step ranges (that is 2/3 of the times a univocal W or L sequence will stop after one or two W or L).

This simple consideration (of course completely worthless at independent models) will help us to define the expected average number of consecutive wins or losses: once such a homogeneous W or L pattern had surpassed the level 2 (two consecutive wins or two consecutive losses) we are relatively not interested to chase the W or L side anymore, so waiting for a new shift to happen. 

It's particularly important to understand that the number of shifts roam around average values but consecutive W or L successions could take strong deviated lines, so denying the aforementioned average shifts number.
That means that sometimes the "expected" will make more room to the "actual", so we've chosen to either let the shoe without betting or, maybe, to ride it by a kind of "reversal" fashion.

Since we have theorized that symmetry (at least under our empirical guidelines) tends to succumb to asymmetry as more often than not is a by product of "coincidental" events, once a symmetrical pattern had come out clustered more than twice (that is producing a LLLL or longer sequence), we'll have reasons to consider such shoe as a kind of "abnormal" shoe. That is not fitting the average requisites, so considering it as unplayable or worth to be chased by an opposite line of thought as long as no wins towards the asymmetry show up.

So in some sense, most part of asymmetrical patterns will show up either heavily clustered or not happening at all (or quite dispersed in limited ranges of apparition), so conceding a greater than average probability that asymmetry will be denied right at the first level of consideration.

See you in a couple of days.

as.

Somewhere in one of these Roulette areas is a discussion about stadium type roulette using a live wheel but wagering on individual terminals that you sit down to.   I can't find it so I'll start this thread here.

The "common" complaint is that the wheel is rigged because it knows who the large bettor is and tends to cause that player to lose due to some sort of electronic skullduggery and manipulation of the wheel, ball, air and all sorts of things.

Well, the other day I was the previously mentioned "big bettor" at the table and evidently nobody threw the switch to make my larger wagers lose.  I was the big guy about 85% of the time with the normal wagers and every now and then a larger wager was called for.

They all won. 

When I hit my target for the day I cashed out, took my voucher and left.  Two of the guys who were also on the table asked why I was leaving after continuing to win.   

Told them it was time for lunch.  The casino has a Deli to die for with a corned beef sandwich to make New Youk wish they could be there.

Anyway, it was a very good testing session and I picked up another small idea to help things along.

Live play is always a good crucible for serious testing.  Can't cheat or fudge the results when you've got real money out there, right?

AD

It's a sin to let a "very good" shoe go without exploiting it by making several wagers, but it's a real disaster stubbornly trying to "catch" a very good (or just good) shoe around any corner, so totally disregarding the probabilities.

Taking care of quantities, "Bad" not only is specular (notice, not symmetrical) to "good" but getting unexpected deviated situations even at the more controllable quality features.
That's why strict mechanical systems cannot have a single chance to win for long unless the plan is carefully adapted to what we're facing in relationship of what we're supposed to get.
This translates into a kind of "human work" at the shoe we're playing at as we cannot use algorithms to define the issue.

W/L random walk

Suppose we want to utilize a diluted betting plan (few bets wagered per shoe) and then registering our W and L outcomes in a line.
Does this "personal new road" help us to approximate at best our prediction on future W/L patterns?

Impossible task at an independent model and according to gambling experts it's impossible either at baccarat.

In reality we disagree with gambling experts as baccarat provides many nice spots (that is where the raw "actual" corresponds to the "expected range") by levels capable to reach or better surpass the famous 51.3% winning probability at B bets and the 50.1% winning probability at P bets.
Overall that means to play with an advantage.

Suppose our betting plan provided such W/L line on this shoe: (Not always W and L are real wagers, just outcomes based on the AS/S approach):

L-W-W-W-L-W-L-W-L-L-L-W-L-W-W-L-L-L-L-W-W-W-L-L

W=11 and L=13, so W predominance cannot help us in this shoe.

Are there possible REAL betting plans capable to offer us a possible valid bet selection (that is quitting the shoe with a profit?)

More later

as.

IMO at baccarat it's not about how many "good things" happen, but how to limit the "bad things" impact; only players capable to correctly estimate the bad things impact could think to make a living (or prospering) at this game.

Flat betting is the paramount source to understand whether we're really utilizing an EV+ bet selection or not, most of the times progressive plans only dilute the problem and never resolving it.

We've seen that "quantities" need very large samples to find a kind of propensity, so they are affected by huge variance being positive or negative.

Pros hate variance, pros like numbers, pros like more likely situations.
 
The fact that at baccarat there's no math edge to be exploited doesn't mean nothing.
Relying on a statistical advantage needs a careful "quality factor" assessment as quality patterns are a lot more detectable than quantity patterns (that obviously aren't detectable at all).

Whenever the patterns quality tend to strongly deviate from the more likely distributions, we better stay put or, maybe, to ride such deviation for fewer spots than when more probable successions show up.

The best way to separate money from our pockets is hoping to get the most probable ranges when situations dictate otherwise and even worse is keep wagering a shoe where things seem to go too much "unnatural".

Do not fall into the trap of thinking that every production is randomly distributed and belonging to the same category.
RNG productions aren't random by any means.
So do not play at them or act accordingly, that is by hyper selecting the playable shoes that obviously must be classified by an actual propensity to deal "more probable" or "hugely probable" patterns that happened by coincidence and not by natural variance.

Generally speaking, unrandom shoes will make a slight greater number of S-S patterns than random shoes, meaning that if you'll have the patience to wait for a S-S sequence the next probable outcome will neglect the 1:3 expected ratio so making proportionally more probable an A pattern than another S pattern.
(S-S-A > S-S-S)
And curiously this feature tend to reproduce itself at many derived roads.
It's like that a symmetrical RESULTS distribution propensity springing from an unrandom source tend to privilege the symmetry at most derived roads whatever considered.

Finally we know that not every RNG software acts in the same way; some productions will elicit a larger unusual number of S-S-S patterns than expected by a random distribution, obviously at the detriment of lower S-S classes.

Anyway, when consecutive S patterns seem to show up too often regardless of their lenght, avoid to play that shoe in terms of asymmetry.
Or, wait for their relative appearance (S-S or S-S-S) and start to bet toward A, a wise move to play with an edge.   

as.

You wrote ......"happen with too much frequency than expected for many shoes."

Yes, understood.  But that is why a player can not rely on bac stats for mechanical wager placements.


Exactly.
Once a mechanical plan should work (and of course it can't without implementing actual shoe results with expected average results), cards could be shuffled to get inimaginable volatile results we can't do anything about but guessing.

IMO to win at baccarat we need to approximate at best the average pattern formation and lenght and not guessing or hoping for.
Once the normal deviations seem to be surpassed on the "wrong side" we have two different approaches to  follow:

a- trying to follow such deviations (up to a point), that is in a sense playing to "lose"

b- quit betting for that shoe and wait for the next one.

More later

as.

You wrote ......"happen with too much frequency than expected for many shoes."

Yes, understood.  But that is why a player can not rely on bac stats for mechanical wager placements. 

Those stats, as I said before are usually derived from 1,000,000 shoes/80,000,000 hands.  Those stats have all kinds of deviations within those results.  Long and short presentments of everything imaginable. 

Random fashion, coincidental and Unrandomness are all part of the game.  One or two or all three, throughout most shoes.

The bottom line is, you cannot condense the stats down to 3 or 4 or 7 shoes that comprise your session. Which a lot of people think you can but unfortunately you cannot. 

Thanks KFB for your interest!

Every math/stats/gambling expert will teach us that no matter how we dissect baccarat outcomes every hand will be dealt by a probability close to 50/50.
That's ok, but at baccarat probabilites are dynamically supposed to deal most hands by hugely shifted situations, think about the first card being an 8 or a 9 (or a 7) or the probability that an asymmetrical hand will take place (B>P) and so on.
Of course we can't have the means to perfectly spot the situations where one side is more likely to show up, so we have just to approximate at best our betting options.
In our opinion (and according to our results), some parameters tend to help us in defining such a matter.

General parameters

a) Any tie happening at a shoe acts as a sort of "resetting" hand, meaning that what was supposed to be more likely all of a sudden is neutralized by this tie.
More ties are showing up at the shoe we're playing at and less precise will be our wagering plan, unless the previous pattern was so robust to keep going that we can "risk" the same bet for the "after tie" next hand.
Therefore most of the times a tie means that we'll have to wait the next hand result before betting again.

Notice that RNG productions are slightly more likely to form rich ties shoes, obviously in any way capable to erase and invert the strong HE.

b) The number of naturals

We know that naturals account for slightly more than 1/3 of the total outcomes (ties included).
Whenever the naturals/every other hand ratio seems to be too strongly shifted toward the left (too many naturals) or the right (too few naturals), we have reasons to think that in the vast majority of the times the production doesn't fit the random requisites as natural variance considered at real random models is limited within more probable deviated ranges per each shoe dealt.

c) The number of 6 cards utilized to form a final hand

When many hands are resolved by 6 cards we are playing a "gambling game" where theorically P side gets more reasons to be bet than average.
Obviously 6-card hands remains the prototype of gambling no matter which side we'll wager, think that 6-card hands coming out consecutively are not so probable at real random models, yet RNG productions (for example) will form several back to back 6-card hand patterns.

d) Third card impact (5-card hands)

Standing points vs drawing points are hugely favorite to win or tie (4.33:1 or 6.5:1), curiously some productions are "too much" privileging the right side, meaning that miracle cards happen with too much frequency than expected for many shoes.
Naturally and to get long term expected values, some shoes are not going to give any help once for the drawing hands, all in complete "random" fashion that in reality is a strong form of unrandomness.

Specific parameters

Even assigning the most power to the natural variance and coincidental variance to bac productions, symmetry remains underdog vs asymmetry yesterday, now and in the future.
We've found a strict relationship between the general parameters and the specific parameters, meaning that more general factors are acting at the actual shoe and stronger is the symmetry strenght over asymmetry.

On the other end, even the most unrandom shoe must provide room to the more likely asymmetrical patterns up to the point that an entire shoe will be asymmetrically placed along its entire course (a thing that happens very very rarely at random shoes).
More importantly is assessing what happens at the vast majority of unrandom shoes dealt: that is when symmetry concedes space to the asymmetry for whatever reasons (and vice versa).
Now we have to restrict the field of operations as the "clumping cards" factor doesn't intervene here, so the problem is more focused about the symmetrical different patterns succession.

In some way unrandom sequences are less detectable as a whole but way more detectable whenever some previous patterns happened at the shoe we're playing at. Thus we'll get a lesser number of profitable situations but involving a larger edge.

See you in a couple of days.

as.
 

Thanks Asym

I'll present some ideas about the importance of getting more convergent parameters than we can to orient our betting (or no betting) decision.

I look forward to the next post.

Good list. I concur with most.

1). Wagering against others that are winning with a verbal (at least loud enough to hear it) "He/They can't keep winning".

     I see this occasionally but typically the player doesn't say anything. They just wager quietly. It doesn't bother me personally if others choose to go against my selection. "If" I absolutely "Must" wager against the majority on a long streak(Because my logic suggests it's a very high EV+ placement), then I will. One of the reasons I'm hesitant to do so is that I also consider: "Well, since the majority have a different opinion" maybe they are seeing something different that I have not considered. This is when it is good to know the others at the table and simply ask them what /why they are making that selection,..etc.

 "IF" I still feel a need to go with my selection and at a MIDI table I will motion for dealer to turn the cards,..etc. Obviously, I don't celebrate if I win. I probably win about 50% of these situations.


2). "Excuse me, how is this game played".

     Just last week I sat down at a table (with my pre-made Bac Notebook/ tri-color ink pen), and recorded a few items prior to placing three bets(winning 3) across about 20 dealt hands. So I guess the player next to me assumed I was organized, older than him et al, and so must be experienced/more knowledgeable,..etc. Of course I could have just as quickly lost 3 bets in a row.

He asks me "what are you looking for"?
I state a couple things I had noted/ to be polite I then ask him what he likes to note. His response: "I don't know I just started studying the game yesterday." He later indicated a starting buy in of 1015 was now only $45 remaining (at a $50 min table).


6). Those people arguing with dealer or pit personnel about drawing 3rd cards.  Happens frequently with 2 card values of 4s and 5s for both sides or when banker has 3 and players 3rd card was 8, etc.  (Of course they are wrong and totally oblivious of the rules)


I see that occasionally. Often when B has a 2-card five total/ players don't understand the rules when P has drawn a third card (4-7).  Most seem to be aware of the 38special but a few object/try to start something.

    *Somewhat related:
 I recently placed a wager ($1440) on B and the dealer signaled for a Tie. A player on the other end ( had just busted a couple hands prior), and I guess decided to relax a couple mins before departing. He then signaled to the dealer they needed to draw a 3rd card. The dealer did and I lost. The player was correct as the dealer indeed should have drawn. The player received a "WTH" look from most of the others at the table although my wager was the only one affected. He appeared to feel horrible immediately afterward and said "Im sorry don't know what I was thinking". He immediately apologized again as he departed the pit.  I wasn't angry, though a little annoyed (as I correctly lost the wager). I felt for him. I played with him two days later/he was still apologizing. I assured him no big deal as I should have lost anyway,...etc. He seemed like a great guy and just wasn't paying attention/ stated what he was thinking before realizing the impact.,..etc.


4). Players convincing each other B/P because of some elaborate or complicated pattern they invented, etc.

     One can hear all kinds of "crackpot" ideas while at the Bacs table.



Continued Success To All,

The list below was updated 8/2/25. It appears that folks age 50+ can receive a few extra bonus offers.

Continued Success,


https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/shop/players-club-bonus-points/