Why bac could be beatable itlr

[alrelax]

You said, "The only way to theorize a possible baccarat vulnerability relies about a "bias" affecting the successions, meaning that each result is not perfect independent and so randomly placed than what we think (or instructed to think of); of course and most of the times such a bias cannot reach values capable to erase and invert the HE, otherwise it would be too easy to beat the game."

PERFECTLY STATED!

Along the same lines, when it is there, it is there, just bang it out. No matter what it is. Whether it makes sense (in correlation to what should happen or not).  And that is why so many people lose.  Because they are too busy writing something on their scorecard or pointing to the scoreboard that makes no sense as to what is actually happening.

You said:  "....winning big at a single session or at few sessions almost always is a sure sign of future disaster or, in presence of a verifed edge, a sign of a more likely impending negative deviation;

Unless you engage in a rock solid MMM plan with Levels and Plateaus you believe in, that govern your post-winning play, etc.  I have written about and detailed out my MMM plan that is one of my largest proven advantages.

I have/numerous others have written about, future sessions played after big wins, are extremely tough to replicate and until we all realize that fact, those future sessions are seriously'Booby-trapped'. 

[AsymBacGuy]

Here we go.

If we think some shoes are affected by a kind of bias, then a possible MM could have some merit so lowering or even inverting the long term math percentages.

In reality ALL shoes are affected by a bias but it's impossible to track all the factors merging towards it.
And even though we're able to spot the bias, we never know for sure how long it will last unless we had run the same situations for many many trials (so getting us more precise sd values).

Therefore the bias isn't a potential factor shifting the results at some points but is an actual one, yet we have few legitimate means to spot it in the infinite world of random walks.

On the other end, there's a controversial thought about setting up a plan on "no biased" successions applied to the common bac successions registered.
It seems that now we're playing a "random" (so unbeatable) game but we're just taking a kind of "losing" part that can become a winning one.
More later

as.

[Whatswhats]

For me isn't just the bet selection or the money management so not just where and how much to bet, but also the entire PLAN to follow.

Because obviously losing sessions will arrive, so in my opinion and facts the game ""can be beat"" more with the plan that just with where and how much to bet.

Then the MM and STRATEGY is a way to make the plan easier most of time or almost trying to make it easier.

Sure that then the plan is the mix of mm / strategy and fixed rule / concept to follow in every session with a finale goal.

Ps. Who success in baccarat most of time use differente approach from eachother, exist group of people that have similar approach but then everyone have his personal methods/ways.

In my humble opinion seems that also if person X have a good plan/mm/strategies that work if someone will use his same things will have different result I don't know if is a mental fallacy but in my opinion is like that.

[AsymBacGuy]

Whatswhats wrote:

For me isn't just the bet selection or the money management so not just where and how much to bet, but also the entire PLAN to follow.

Yes I agree, but at the end the entire plan must be conceived to place more EV+ bets than we can and that can only come out from a valid bet selection.
That means that to win itlr we need to collect more wins than losses (after vig) being our EV totally insensitive to the betting amount.
 
Easier sayed than done, of course.


oOoOo

Random biased shoes and unrandom biased shoes.

Basically all shoes dealt present a "bias" due to a natural (random) asymmetry, then with the introduction of shuffling machines many shoes dealt are affected by a bias we have classified as "unrandom".

The difference between natural random biased shoes and unrandom biased shoes is that the former category will generally get lower deviations of expected asym patterns, so making a preordered plan more enticing than the latter class where it seems that very strong deviations are easier to come out around any corner by a weird strong asymmetry or strong (unlikely) symmetry.

Paradoxically and without touching intricated issues, unrandom shoes will get better probabilities to cross winning (or losing) clusters by simple strategies than by exploiting asymmetry at random shoes; asymmetry being the paramount factor why we should get a long term advantage.

Our conclusions came out from comparing the same amount of real random shuffled shoes with machine shuffled shoes by assessing several factors as the back to back patterns shape, the naturals back to back distribution, the asymmetrical hands results, etc.

Whereas the asymmetry at real randomly shuffled shoes seems to be homogeneously distributed, at machine shuffled shoes asymmetry or symmetry become harshly oriented toward one side per every shoe dealt, at least from a proportional 3:1 ratio point of view.

Obviously the asymmetry/symmetry concept is strictly related to the specific succession we want to take care of.
Make your experiments and you'll see what I'm talking about.

as.