Why bac could be beatable itlr

[AsymBacGuy]

The long term money you'll win is a by product of the money you haven't lost

As banal as this statement could appear actually is one of the best recipes to consistently collect profits.

Suppose we have two systems to adopt:

a) The preferred system, that is one we particularly like for whatever reasons;

b) The perfect opposite system.

We know that besides some very rare circumstances (of course privileging the (a) method, I guess), both systems are losers itlr for the HE.

But after having tested hundreds and hundreds of shoes shuffled in the same fashion, we'll see that at both systems W and L streaks will show up or stop by a better than expected probability in relationship of how things went so far in the actual shoe.

Obviously it seems better to bet toward positive a) system streaks, yet those streaks are (almost) equally likely to show up while using the b) system so becoming losing streaks.

Cutting a long story short, in order to get long term wins we have to fictionally cut off an equal or almost equal number of losses (that is wins on the other system's side), but this procedure must be partially insensitive of the previous shoe(s) distribution.
The "ploy" not to expect something more due than average without assessing current patterns was set up by not ruling out the possibility (albeit very rare) that the same or correspondent card distribution will be dealt twice or more.
An heaven when things went good at our favor but a terrible and worse nightmare in the opposite scenario.

Therefore and simplyfing a lot, back to back a) or b) system "long" streaks are not coming out around the corner and even less likely are the situations where a kind of overalternating mood stands for "long".
Nothing new: for example run 6 coin flip hands and symmetrical quality patterns are just 4 possibilites (ABABAB, BABABA, AAABBB, BBBAAA) out of 64 possible results.
So 60 patterns are making asymmetry either from a quality (e.g. AABABB) or quantity (e.g. AAAABB) point of view.
 
In real baccarat terms, it's the distribution of back-to-back patterns that counts, in the sense that once a symmetrical pattern had shown up we have to wait for a pattern breaking the previous symmetry then assessing whether the symmetry will stand another time for the new different pattern or conceding room to a more probable asymmetrical one.

Utilizing a 0.75% probability oriented to get an asym pattern (and providing the action of proper random walks), you'll see that first and second winning attempts will come out clustered at least one time (so negating long isolated successions) by percentages getting astounding levels of probability (so profitable edge to exploit) as, again, asymmetry is the norm at baccarat.

An opposite less desirable system to utilize (so privileging the less likely symmetry) should be employed with caution once asymmetrical patterns seem to be silent in relationship of the number of hands dealt, especially when we suspect that the production wasn't randomly distributed.

as.

[AsymBacGuy]

The player's edge is the by product of a constant evaluation of how things are supposed to come out compared with how things really show up in the shoe we're playing at

Obviously by betting ALL hands dealt or ALMOST ALL hands dealt we're not getting a good approximation about how things are distributed along the way.
For the "huge" probability to win it'll happen that we are able to collect several wins with no sensible reason, yet for the HE we're certain to encounter more economical losses than economical wins even though the W/L ratio seems to be well balanced.

Therefore the point is if we let it go many "insignificant" hands we're able to get an edge, so negating a perfect independent probability no matter which spot we decide to wager.

Consider this example.

We know that by adopting a p=0.75%, A:S is 3:1, so anytime an A pattern come out it'll be 3 times more likely to show up clustered than isolated and vice versa (S isolated by a 3:1 probability).
That's a general probability to happen.

Suppose we steadily wager towards an A pattern vs a S pattern: it's just a gambling move.

Suppose we steadily wager towards an A pattern to be clustered one time (so betting after any new A pattern apparition): a bit less gambling move as AA>AS.

Now suppose to bet towards an A pattern to be clustered one time after one A pattern came out as isolated (ASA...)
It's a less gambling move.

Then say to bet towards an A pattern to be clustered one time after two A patterns came out as isolated (ASASA...)

Finally (just for the purpose of the explanation) pretend to bet towards an A pattern to be clustered one time after three A patterns came out as isolated (ASASASA...)

Of course at all examples S could be a single S or a multiple S.

Generally speaking the probability to cross AA after one, two or three isolated As is exponentially placed whereas common probabilites dictate a linear probability.

oOoOo

Somewhat more interesting is the general probability to get isolated S patterns.

If the card distribution is really random (according to random.org long term values) S isolated patterns will come out by a sort of steady frequency where super high rollers could bet up to $1 million or more per hand knowing to get an advantage capable to break down the house.

Unfortunately we do not know for sure if the actual production is really random distributed or not.
That's why any S clustered event happening at the shoe we're playing at needs a double-level assessment in the sense that once a SS pattern happened the SA>SS propensity supposedly acting at the next pattern will be someway lowered but generally endorsing the counterpart AA pattern clustering effect.

as. 

[AsymBacGuy]

By utilizing a 0.75 winning probability you'll get a better idea about "quality" distributions as what we should be really interested upon is, first, cutting loss streaks; then trying to exploit the "rarer" economical profitable streaks.
The 0.75 probability incorporate itself a minor number of decisions, thus restricting the single hands realm. This alone is doing us a favor.

Again, a given event is either coming out clustered or isolated and whenever it doesn't show up the opposite event will be clustered at least once by a 100% certainty. Naturally it's 3 times more likely to get a 0.75% p event to be clustered and a 0.25% event to be isolated than vice versa.

For example, if we're adopting a sky's the limit multilayered progression oriented to chase W clustered events and/or L isolated events, we're acting with an astounding high probability of success.
More specifically if the production is really random, the best move is by wagering for the isolated L appearance.

Then to get W clustered at least one time (WW)

Then to get W clustered at least two times (WWW).

Then to get W clustered at least three times (WWWW).

Each class will constantly fight vs superior classes, so (W)LW is opposed to (W)LL, WW is opposed to WL, WWW is opposed to WWL, WWWW is opposed to WWWL.

Obviously it's unlikely that ALL classes will be winning for the entire shoe, but we're virtually 100% certain that at least TWO searched classes will show up at any shoe dealt, so it's just a matter of (few) time that things must take a more probable route.

The LL pattern

LL (or LLL...) make a loser our primary attack and they seem to also have an overall negative effect over ALL other W clustered situations.
Next week I'll present our findings once any LL sequence had shown up in a shoe.

as.