Thx AsymBacGuy for responding to my Q above.

________________________________________
Asym in another post above:

"...I reckon that 99% of the bac players try to follow trends, hoping that something will prolong until one unfortunate event will stop a possible winning streak.

Let me know how many 5/5+ streaks come out on average at every given shoe dealt.
I guess they are showing up by a nearly 2/32 probability, the remaining situations belong to a 30/32 intermediate world.

Obviously a very experienced player is capable to grasp the subtle spots where things would come out clustered or not, it's a very difficult task to achieve and that's why 99.9% of bac players donate their money at the tables...."

Well said.


My preference is to wager a Positive Progression against a negative-probability events' continuance.


Continued Success,

Thanks Al and KFB for your replies!!!

Professionals

It's very likely that in recent times there are more professionals at baccarat than at black jack and, for that matter, bac pros are taking an advantage at least 10 times fold than poker players as vig and tournament fees do not account for a mere 1% or so HE, being way more than that.

Consider that bj players must bet each hand, fearing to get casino's heat while raising the wagers (if card counters). In addition actual rules make bj tables much less profitable than in the past.

On the other end, poker is particularly sensitive of volatility being either the important need to face inferior skilled players and to endure a natural negative variance that can last for long.

At baccarat we can't rely upon a math edge or taking advantage of possible inferior skilled poker players, we are just forced to deal with dynamic probabilities. Whenever we wish, with the amount we wish knowing that casinos consider bac players as pure donators.

Pros get their profits after having ascertained that not every couple of considered fighting events will follow a binomial independent (unbeatable) probability.
So an infinite sequence of bets made at a given event apparition must be superior than the counterpart at levels capable to invert the HE.

The deeper we're investigating the factors conditioning an A vs B event apparition, greater will be our probability of success, so transforming a supposedly random world into a kind of unrandom and more detectable world.

Think that shoe's results include several "simple" and "complex" steps:

-Simple steps are B and P apparitions classified by singles and streaks and streaks lenght.
It's the main tool the vast majority of players use.   

-A further classification consider how many times singles and streaks come out clustered or isolated.

- Then we should assign a value about the clustering class: clusters of one, clusters of two, etc.

- Building some sub successions where some clusters are slight more likely than counterparts as the shoe card distribution can't be uniformly shaped so enticing a general more probable line.

- Comparing such general "more probable" lines with the actual shoe we're playing at, favoring a kind of asymmetrical transitory probability getting at least a +1 step.

If a proper rhythm of considering outcomes is assessed, some values will be slight more likely to happen than counterparts and that's where our edge comes from.

That has nothing to share with the B general propensity and its related pattern situations.
What we need is to approximate at best the actual card distribution getting some spots more likely to show up than others.

See you next week.

as.

IMO, the single most important item that will bring advantages to pro bac play is a real M.M.M.  It will help curb emotions and frustrations that will build upon losses and add a defense to fallacy that will also set in upon winning.  But the player has to adhere to his method which isn't always easy.

I have written about M.M.M.'s in detail.  I know having one has helped me extensively.

Thanks Al for your advice!
Actually I do not know much about MM as most of our bets are adhering to a flat betting scheme.

On the other end it's very likely that some pros do not adopt a FB approach, maybe increasing their bets (so risking an X bankroll fraction) at spots considered profitable.

As you sayed, for sure bac pros have learnt the attitude to be (almost) totally insensitive to the natural harsh losing sequences they're entitled to face sooner or later.
Easier sayed than done.

as.

Algorithms action

Our algos move around two distinct probabilities:

a) what should happen on average and by which more likely ranges;

b) what is really happening at the actual shoe dealt.

If all of the time a>b, well the game wouldn't exist and if b>a it wouldn't be offered either.

Thus per every shoe dealt we have to approximate the different weight of such distinct factors and, no surprise, most of the times a=b or close to it.

Obviously the a=b scenarios are the best to look for and will correspond to an "average card distribution", the main parameter algos aim at.

Algos won't look for strong deviations at either positive or negative side of the operation, they prefer a more likely steady flow of the outcomes, albeit limited at different (so less easily detectable) rhythms of classification.

Yes, card distributions are considered undetectable, everything happens anytime and anywhere but always by a specific level of probability.
And as long as shoes (and cards) are dealt, such probability values will converge more and more to the a) point.

Shoe card distribution

Besides of the important specific shuffle production factor slightly affecting the 'average card distribution' I do not want to discuss here, each shoe dealt will follow or not certain "more likely" "back-to-back" patterns getting different but limited values.

Technically some "random walks" (that is two opposite fighting scenarios) are more limited in their apparition than what a binomial or slight asymmetrical bac model dictates.
That's where algos' edge comes from.

Remember that while playing a binomial game (even if taxed) streaks of something are the real enemy to get rid of.
Obviously no specific streaks classes are chasable better than others even though and generally speaking shorter streaks are more likely to form clustered patterns than isolated patterns.
Especially whether we take into account two or more streaks classes.

But symplifing a lot, the best empirical factor to get an advantage from is that a 'more likely' streak not happening so far shouldn't be included in our betting operation. Regardless of its general propensity to show up.
That means that providing a proper results registration, streaks of low lenght actually happened and coupled together will get very low variance values.
Naturally along the shoe's course things change, meaning that quite often a long streak will erase a previous streak classes flow.

More later

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 24, 2023, 10:13:11 PMThanks Al for your advice!
Actually I do not know much about MM as most of our bets are adhering to a flat betting scheme.

On the other end it's very likely that some pros do not adopt a FB approach, maybe increasing their bets (so risking an X bankroll fraction) at spots considered profitable.

As you sayed, for sure bac pros have learnt the attitude to be (almost) totally insensitive to the natural harsh losing sequences they're entitled to face sooner or later.
Easier sayed than done.

as.

PLEASE:  Take a few minutes and read the following thread.

https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=11117.msg68512#msg68512

Thanks for the link!

Minutes? It takes hours to digest all those points 

as.

Baccarat sequences are made by a mix of random and unrandom events

Besides of specific shuffling considerations, any bac shoe in the universe will belong to a sort of "random/unrandom" (R/  U.R) model.
When the R/ your ratio surpasses an average value (R is too high), there's no way to beat the game: we could be just "lucky", the real thing casinos aim for.
On the other end, shoes affected by a "relatively rare" marked  U.R denominator are heaven, providing to know what to look for.

Think about a binomial independent model, dissect the sequences in every detail and let me know if you'd find a profitable pattern to exploit.
And in fact our algos lose and lose at those sequences: no surprise, randomness can't be beaten, period.

People (experts first) thinking that every bac hand is completely independent from the past occurrences are wrong.
Nonetheless, is not so easy to detect bac unrandomness, mainly because it shows up at different ways per every shoe dealt.

One of the most important thing to look for unrandomness is that it expresses subtly and surely by "complex" patterns.
And naturally we are always destined to ascertain the  U.R by approximating the situations where it should work.

We've found interesting similarities with sports betting: there are infinite variables shifting an outcome, yet nothing will happen for sure.

More later

as.

As you said:  "b) what is really happening at the actual shoe dealt."

And that is what can be so clear to one person, yet so fuzzy to another. 

Who we are to dispute the common notion that bac is an unbeatable game?

Answer: because we have managed to assign a code (albeit being imperfect) to each shoe dealt, a code capable to restrict the sd values typical of binomial models.
In poorer words, past hands make substantial variables to get advantage from.

What happened will be first considered by an asymmetrical or symmetrical fashion at different portions of the shoe, then added or substracted to what didn't happen.
Such operation will provide mathematical values (streaks specific lenght) where algos approximate at best the probability that a current state will change or stay and obviously we'll expect a slight greater number of restricted states in amplitude than superior (more deviated) situations.

If the above statement is true (and it will), it means that bac productions are anyway affected by a sort of unrandomness.

Since we consider outcomes under the lens of asym/sym situations, unrandomness doesn't get a univocal way to act, so increasing the probability to form a valuable and consistent amount of low lenght streaks (widely intended).

Proof is the code we'll assign at every bac shoe where some numbers will be slight more likely followed by a specific number or number classes.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on December 27, 2023, 03:04:55 AMAs you said:  "b) what is really happening at the actual shoe dealt."

And that is what can be so clear to one person, yet so fuzzy to another. 

Yep.
Following what happens at the actual shoe is paramount (IMO), definitely.

as. 
 

Hi all,

AsymBacGuy in post #939 above:

"...Who we are to dispute the common notion that bac is an unbeatable game?

Answer: because we have managed to assign a code (albeit being imperfect) to each shoe dealt, a code capable to restrict the sd values typical of binomial models.
In poorer words, past hands make substantial variables to get advantage from.  ...,"

b]a code capable to restrict the sd values typical of binomial models.[/b]

That sounds promising. Though I am not 100% clear how you are applying your algos I do like that it appears you are attacking streak length(s).Though I think it could only be at brief moments and potentially only a very very few wagers per shoe. Maybe I'm wrong and not considering whatever you are considering.

    I agree anything a player does to lower SD values is good for the player. Meaning fewer wagers is nearly always superior to more wagers. I can not imagine trying to beat bac wagering every hand.
One of the greatest advantages we have at bac is ones ability to choose when to wager as well as when we do NOT have to wager(meaning not required to have a bet to play).
 
*MEMO Reminder--Do NOT play Bac solo at casinos that refuse to offer free hands.

RE: Asyms' topic of reducing SD values/ number of bets with the selective application of Algos.
Pardon me Asym as I may get a little off topic in the following,



I perceive much of what the casino does(Must wager every hand, drawing rules, cut/burn, bonus bets,new superduper layout designs with additional bonus wager...etc) is designed to increase the number of wagers the players will bet(which increases these hedges,i.e., Pushes) where the player absolutely can not win all bets with one outcome (but we can lose all). That is, T or pushed events are not designed to help the player.

**Re:Bonus bet layouts, new variation of games,...etc: As an addendum thought I do believe there is one layout in recent years that actually could be exploited(or at least Less Bad). I don't have one in my market, and I won't mention on a public forum. Most of u know which version I'm suggesting.

As a side note, I believe the main benefit to Bac vs most dice games is the fact it is finite(meaning marbles are removed from the jar after every draw). Like Asym hints at above---there will always be brief moments in a finite shoe where the advantage(or disadvantage) has fluctuated from expectation.

But I digress. So back to Asyms Topic:


Q: Asym , re: Restricting SD. Do you mean applying something like Markov Chains and say after seeing three events IAR(in a row), you are then trying to predict the distance to absorption??? Not at all? Other?

*Re: Markov Chains.

Though applicable to some casino games. It's my opinion we have to be careful trying to generalize from say true 2-outcome games such as coin flips (no ties or pushes as every single event must be 0 or 1), vs games like Bac where every single event can be (0,1, or other). These "other" outcomes hurt the bac player.  IMO because it is favorable to the casino to increase Ties (or pushes). The more the better for the casino as we sometimes "lose a win". Furthermore, we not only lose a win we also have shorter streak length (Hypothesis by Kungfubac). I have often pondered how I could convince the casino to offer a bet on Ties with a rule that high card wins (or low card).


Any thoughts or counter arguments?


Thx in advance,

Nice thoughts KFB!!

I totally agree there's no way to beat the house by wagering a lot of hands unless we stay put for a way larger amount of hands dealt.

Besides the HE, it's practically impossible to guess many hands as possible 'triggers' float around steps sooner or later deviating 'too much' from the 0 value.
In such a model, perfect independent productions make no valuable points to be attacked.

At baccarat things are more restrained than what math dictates as each shoe is a world apart and deeply dependent to the actual card distribution.

Is this a "too general" statement to get a possible advantage from?

Bighorn.sh.it.

Anyone knowing the Smoluchowski's 'probability after effects' concept (not mentioning other statistical tools improving such idea) understands that an event or two (or more) events present sd values way lower than binomial independent models, providing to assign an "actual" code to each shoe distribution.

Of course such assumption needs to be stricly measured after testing large samples and we know that it's very important to consider productions under the same shuffling category.

Mathematically we have to dispute the common knowledge that after a given event the next event (or class of events) will get the same probability to appear.
Most of the times this is true, yet at a restricted part of possible outcomes, that's completely false.

Our studies have found out that alternating W/L flows are the least likely to happen or, better sayed, that are the least likely to stand for long, so privileging 'clusters' of something.
We do not know how much such clusters stand but we know they are more likely to happen, especially  when we raise the probability of success by betting two events vs an opposite event.

Suppose that we take care of a X event coming out 5 or more times in a row vs the same event showing up 3 or 4 times in a row.

General probability will say to us that 3 and 4 streak classes (p=0.75%) will be counterbalanced by 5+ streaks (p=0.25%).

From a math standpoint and assigning a 3 value to any 3 streak, 4 to any 4 streak and 5 to any streak equal or superior than 5, then considering back-to-back values we'll get such scenarios:

3-3 = 6
3-4 = 7
4-3 = 7
4-4 = 8
3-5 = 8
5-3 = 8
4-5 = 9
5-4 = 9
5-5 = 10

Each number will add to the next one so forming infinite (actually finite for that shoe) sums   performing pattern numbers slight more likely to happen. Especially after having ascertained that sums are sensitive to previous supposedly more probable situations, best if both two classes considered really happened at that shoe.

Obviously I'm not referring to the simple BP flow (and neither at common derived roads), as this effect is too restricted to be exploited (mostly as B>P so someway enhancing long B streaks).

as.

The KFB hypothesis about ties needs a further post to be discussed.
Anyway I agree with him.

as. 

"At baccarat things are more restrained than what math dictates as each shoe is a world apart and deeply dependent to the actual card distribution.

Is this a "too general" statement to get a possible advantage from?"


Math doesn't necessarily dictate the order.  Math might dictate an 'equalization' at times, but never the order and the 'presentment times' or not.

Another way to look at it is when math does apply, the presentments become schoolbook of sorts.  When math does not apply, the presentments are out of the norm. However, we can win hands following either way.  The only problem that becomes super pertinent, is your ability to side with both ways and capitalize on both.

Here, I have used this comparison many times.  The cop on the highway catching speeders in the morning.  For a week solid he will be at the same spot, same position everyday-exact time.  Then you don't see him there for weeks at a time. Then he is back and the next day you just 'knew' he would be there again, so you had the highway wide open-no cops back to that same spot.  Except for one problem, he decided to move to a different spot, the spot you were speeding at.

That is why (and the math junkies will cry foul) is playing every hand or a large majority of hands in every bac shoe you sit at, will probably take your buy-in most of the times, especially flat betting it out. 

IMO, one cannot play 'both sides' and win most of his wagers.