Fortune 7s at hands: 3-4-5-21-35-50

3 back-to-back Fortunes.  Never saw this before.  I have seen plenty of back-to-back F7s, but never more than 2.  Saw a few triple Fortune 7s in a banker streak separated by regular banker wins and I have posted those here in the past.

Hand 3:  Player 6/4 flops a 6. Banker 10/F flops a 7.

Hand 4:  Player 2/2 flops a 6. Banker 5/A flops an Ace.

Hand 5:  Player 8/7 flops a 7. Banker 9/5 flops a 3.

Note:  My theory about 0-1-2-3 low or no ties is PREVALENT and extremely factual here as well in the first 50 hands!

Second picture is how I would do the Sections.

CHECK OUT THE VERY NEXT SHOE.

Next shoe, same table.  Almost an exact opposite of the one above with 41 Bankers, 30 Players, 8 Ties and 6 Fortune 7s. This one had 41 Players, 30 Bankers, 6 Ties  and 2 Fortune 7s. 

Second picture is marked up for Sections if anyone is interested. 

Play enough bac and you will see anything and everything.  Seriously! 

And here's s another one from that night, and although I shot the picture with 10-9-10, the next hand was a players win. 

So it was a 10-10-10, which I never saw something like that in the first 30 hands. 

Like I say, play enough and you will see it all.  Huge influx on people's decision making influences and experiences, etc.

Dilemma.  Wager for it and it doesn't happen.  Don't wager for it and it happens.  Again and again and again.

Thx for post and pics.

I agree it (High F7 shoe) was certainly atypical. I must say you do seem to receive shoes with more F7s at your cas(vs my casinos). Maybe they have an atypical shuffling procedure?? I have one casino that seems to have more shoes with 2x2 streaks. Anybody have thoughts or theories on this??

re: F7
I typically only wager F7 when I am pressed up and at a critical junction in my progression. (i.e., If I lose this next wager my buyin is crippled). So, I will often wager for the F7(either to win my wager amount or at least the amount of my money still in that wager).

I track some things that suggest when an F7 is more available in the residual shoe. I may only wager F7 2-3 times per shoe(or zero).

*I once saw nine consecutive shoes at one casino with zero F7s(Not consecutive shoes just consecutive shoes I played).

Q: alrelax how did u play this high F7 shoe?



Thanks again

True, 'atypical' it is not.  But with bac many various presentments are not atypical but they certainly do arrive.  If something that is not atypical is being presented and I win 20 or so times with a couple or few atypical presentments during the course of a shoe, while all or most of the other people are wagering for what should be winning rather than the atypical hand, am I wrong for stacking it up and winning handsomely? 

Reference F7s:

I have witnessed a total of 7 consecutive shoes at the same table having ZERO F7s.  Normally it is no where  near that amount.  One or two shoes without an F7 is nothing rare at all.  As well, a good string of F7s with 1-2-3 is also nothing rare at all. 

I have witnessed a total of 9 F7s in one shoe a few years back, that is rare and the most I ever witnessed. 

Guess we can classify F7s like the side bet on the 5 Treasures bac game with the 777s tie bet.  Where the same wager covers both the P and the B having a 2 card 7 tie for a 50:1 payout as well as both the P and the B having a 3 card 7 tie for the beautiful 200:1 payout.  The 777s both the 2 and 3 card versions are presented quite frequently some shoes, like 5-7 times and yet other shoes 1 or 2 times if that. 

I have said for a very long time reference F7s total number in a shoe.  1-2 or 3 occur the most.  4 and 5 happen better than rare occurrences but far less than 1-2-3 times a shoe.  Concerning possibilities IMO.  If 1-2 are extremely early on, a great possibility for a 3rd.  If the 3rd occurs before half way, then a possibility exists for 4-5. 

Reference a viable F7 count.  I researched counting and presentments as a clue to an up coming F7 and IMO, there are none.  Again, IMO those that believe there are viable counts to gain advantages are mislead.  Why do I say that, because there will be just as many if not more of the same counts that WILL NOT PRODUCE the anticipated F7 that is supposed to appear, etc.  I spent countless hours with 8 decks of cards and set them up in every way, shape and form; with no real count that worked and proved an upcoming F7 or tie was coming.  With the random cut and varying burn card, it is impossible to produce a trigger that is north of 50%.  Period.

Funds set aside for F7 wagering.  I like 2 tactics  myself.  1). Hit a sizable win extremely early on and set aside my win as the F7 risk capital money.  So to me, it's on the casino.  Yes, it was my win money and I could have pocketed it, etc., but I choose to win more on the casino's dime and with a clearer head, less stress and far less or zero emotions if the wager(s) lose.  2). Buy in with a certain amount set aside for the sole purpose of F7 and/or other side bets.  To me, that is risk capital.

Quote from: KungFuBac on November 24, 2023, 03:14:42 PMThx for post and pics.



Q: alrelax how did u play this high F7 shoe?



Thanks again

KFB,

Unfortunately I did not play that shoe, as I came in during the last 5 or so hands.

Without a doubt I would have hit everyone as I am always F7 heavy the first 10-16 hands of the shoe. 

But.......I missed it. 

Good read.

I like the following:

"...Funds set aside for F7 wagering.  I like 2 tactics  myself.  1). Hit a sizable win extremely early on and set aside my win as the F7 risk capital money.  So to me, it's on the casino.  Yes, it was my win money and I could have pocketed it, etc., but I choose to win more on the casino's dime and with a clearer head, less stress and far less or zero emotions if the wager(s) lose.  2). Buy in with a certain amount set aside for the sole purpose of F7 and/or other side bets.  To me, that is risk capital.
...."

    The Variance is obviously so great on this wager (1:44.xx) with only a 40:1 payout. Yet, one should view Variance as a friend(or at least as a frienemy). Just as we should endorse Variance on the base bets too(B/P).

What makes the F7 wager so difficult is that lets say a player is feeling lucky and thinks they can select one winner in forty attempts. So lets take 40 x $1 and wager it forty tries on the F7. If we received favor and do indeed hit one winner. We have won $1. Lets say we get extremely crazy lucky and hit two F7 in the forty tries. We have won $42. Reminder it's a (1:44.xx) bet.

However , with such high Variance we could go hundreds(even a thousand) of hands without seeing one single F7 winner.

Now, on a more positive note:
We may hit that first F7 on our very first try. Then we would have 39 more tries. Maybe like the shoe referenced above (6 F7s) type of Variance may show. Maybe we are in sync with several F7s and may hit them at the front end of our tries. This is where a solid money management system is critical. Most players would just start wagering larger/larger and splattering bets everywhere with hedges galore. The casino absolutely loves for us to hedge a high HA wager with one or more additional HA wagers where we can NOT win all but can indeed lose all on one outcome.

The 3C7s are always in each shoe. However, they may not always appear when /where we want (maybe it shows on the Player). That P8 bettor probably notices as they thought they had a winner as that third card was a 3 instead of a 4. The F7 bettor notices as they just saw their would-be F7 winner swept away on a tie.
Sometimes they do indeed show on B but get tied by P (with a 3-card 7), which is still a NOTwinner for the F7 bettor. 2-card 7s are also in abundance per shoe and often steal key cards from the 3c7 hand.
Many players don't pay attention or care and simply don't notice unless they show as a 3c7 winner for B.

Re: Counting for side bets like the F7, P8 , et al.

"Reference a viable F7 count.  I researched counting and presentments as a clue to an up coming F7 and IMO, there are none.  Again, IMO those that believe there are viable counts to gain advantages are mislead.  Why do I say that, because there will be just as many if not more of the same counts that WILL NOT PRODUCE the anticipated F7 that is supposed to appear, etc. ..."

    My opinion differs a little. I think card counting coupled with other intuition/deduction can indeed assist us with hitting more F7s vs the alternative: Relying solely on Variance (and hope).

One's objective with a counting method should be to wager more tries when the probability of (F7 requisite cards) ratio to remaining cards is favorable. This moment will be short lived and likely only occur a few times in any one shoe. In other words, our objective should be to:  "miss more of the misses" vs trying to hit more F7s. We are more likely to see exactly (0) or exactly (1) vs >=2 F7s, in any one shoe.

So, in my opinion we should be trying to hit say 1 in 37 attempts (reminder that expected is 1:44.xx),  vs finding more F7s. So, wager fewer wagers vs wagering every hand hoping to ride Variance.

The problem with counting is that even though we may improve our hit rate slightly it may not be enough to surpass the HA(7.67% I "think"). I would assume most counting systems utilize some type of card extraction and card retention as a ratio to remaining cards in the shoe. That alone is not likely to solve the puzzle in my opinion.

As mentioned above the burn/cut certainly make a precise count difficult. Though I agree this issue adds to our task. I also believe it is still doable. In other words, I would prefer one burn card vs ten burn cards/ I would prefer zero cut cards. Since that is not possible, we must accept that feature.

So, let's say we have a cut and burn cards=18. Though we can't know which cards are included we can approximate. We can approximate the 18 cards in the burn/cut will have the same proportion of key cards as any 18 randomly selected consecutive cards immediately following. In latter stages of shoe we may even be able to know exactly which cards were NOT included in the burn/cut total of 18. Plus, these 18 cards included in the burn/cut could just as easily improve our probability of receiving an F7 winner.

Plus, as an addendum benefit to tracking/counting side wagers is that anything that increases the probability of a certain wager winning must also make something else "less probable", and vice versa. Due to the finiteness and approaching of limits starting from the first card removed.

Plus, tracking/counting can't hurt.

More later on this topic



Continued success,