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. 

[Whatswhats]

Hi asym, how are you?
Can I ask you a question for your opinion? But also to everyother that is reading this.

For you play 24/24h (example) have the same result to play 1 hour at day for 24 days?

No calculating emotion, etc etc.. imagine that we are robot.

Also with random walk etc that can be infinite, play 24h straight or 1h for 24 days. Will have same results or we will have more variance with 24h straight?
(obviously with the same MM/STRATEGIES in both the case)

Hope I explain well what I was meaning thanks!

[AsymBacGuy]

Hi whatswhats!

About your question:
Let's take the casino's counterpart: does it make any difference if any player will bet 1 hour long for 24 days or 24 hours straight just once?

Mathematically it doesn't make any difference but in practical terms it's more likely that each player will lose more money by playing for 24h straight than by 24 separate 1 hour sessions as at short sessions players will try to preserve more their winnings (for example by not raising too much their bets, lowering the profit goal, betting few hands).
Of course such a consideration doesn't stand if a player will always and invariably play a rigid scheme (as a robot as you sayed): results will be in line with the tested strategy.

Variance is in direct relationship of the number of hands played (or observed) and not about time fragments, so as players we can easily expect many 1 hour losing sessions in a row and maybe a 24 hour session could be a terrific winning session not comparable with many 1 hour winning sessions.

So as long as we play with a verified long term advantage, we'll expect to win money regardless of the time sessions (and actual short term results) so the more we play and the more we win (in the exact same way casinos are confident to separate money from their customers' pockets). Hence the attitude of not raising our bets or preserving temporary profits or lowering profits now become an additional negative factor for us, providing a proper bankroll. Of course betting few hands remain the core of the advantage (or a good tool to lose less if we play without an edge).

oOoOo

Finding a possible edge

In order to find out a possible edge we reckon some factors are particularly important (decisive):

1) Data must come out from the same source (the one we'll play at)

2) The number of shoes examined

3) SD values of a possible propensity

4) Falsifying hypothesis around any corner


Data must come out from the same source

The idea that every baccarat distribution is equivalent to each other is totally wrong; Yes, itlr B and P will approach more and more the 50.68%/49.32% ratio but that's not sufficient to say that different productions are so randomly placed (or whimsically biased) to be unbeatable.
Some bac results will show up by a "biased" probability at one production but not at another one and vice versa.
As mentioned several times here, we should be focused about "ranges of apparition" applied to the same production.

Could a given production be voluntarily manipulated to get a possible propensity to stop (or even inverted)?
Not likely but possible.
Our countermeasure of betting very few hands and tracking the results under our lens will help us (factors #3 and #4) to discard a possible too frequent strong deviation(s) from a natural variance impact.


The number of shoes examined

At gambling games there are no precise answers to state how many trials we need to get some valuable conclusions for the simple reason that it's almost impossible to run innumerable propositions under the same conditions.
Yet at baccarat univocal or steady status of something won't stand for long, otherwise high stakes players would clean up many premises worldwide.

Therefore it's "incredibly" probable that what worked in the past won't happen in the next future (Alrelax quote) so in some sense we don't need very large samples to assess a possible propensity and anyway we're destined to bet a miniscule amount of the "infinite" world (quoting  Alrelax again) where very long term values cannot provide a substantial edge.

In a word and for the considerations made above, a propensity should work at "limited" ranges of intervention where no natural variance could destroy it.
Obviously if such a propensity exists (and it does) it'll be slight distributed as miracles cannot happen.
In conclusion, just hundreds of shoes dealt could tell us whether a possible propensity affects the results, especially (that's our "model control") everything else will be somewhat balanced.

SD values of a possible propensity

Those values should be assessed by a negative standpoint: so we are interested about how many negative situations a given strategy infinitely run at the same situation will show up.
It's true that a propensity must come out more clustered than isolated, yet and since the game remains a general  EV- proposition, we confide more in the probability that things will change soon after some (low) levels of negative apparition.
So if we have ascertained that A>B, volatility will be lower while betting that B will be followed by A than by constantly wagering that A predominates.
When a B-B pattern comes out things are more confusing, despite being shifted towards one side again.

Falsifying hypothesis around any corner

Average card distributions themselves provide some short/medium/long term propensities, carefully measured and controlled by rigid statistical standards, yet every serious bac player should be aware that casinos are not there to lose money.
So whenever we suspect something doesn't run "properly", we've considered (among others) some factors to look for before betting.
Number of naturals and number of ties, for example. The lower, the better.
Then the number of standing points (6s, 7s) losing vs a drawing hand. Again, the lower, the better.

Whenever you suspect the card distribution seems to be too much unfairly deviated, stick to the 1-2 vs 3 general plan or, even better, do not bet anything.
Especially when cards are shuffled by a machine.

as.

[alrelax]

In answering the member's question, Asym said the following:

"Mathematically it doesn't make any difference but in practical terms it's more likely that each player will lose more money by playing for 24h straight than by 24 separate 1 hour sessions as at short sessions players will try to preserve more their winnings (for example by not raising too much their bets, lowering the profit goal, betting few hands).  Of course such a consideration doesn't stand if a player will always and invariably play a rigid scheme (as a robot as you sayed): results will be in line with the tested strategy." 

Yes correct in most cases.  IMO and experience, long term ANYTHING wagered in mechanical form will nearly 100% of the time lose.  Mathematics is irrelevant at the bac table playing a bac shoe.  The order of presentments can not be decided with any accuracy whatsoever.  Sure, there are great advantaged spots and clumps to be wagered upon within sections of a shoe, but those DO NOT REPEAT THEMSELVES after they occur.  Simple and done.

And in addition Asym said: "In a word and for the considerations made above, a propensity should work at "limited" ranges of intervention where no natural variance could destroy it.  Obviously if such a propensity exists (and it does) it'll be slight distributed as miracles cannot happen.  In conclusion, just hundreds of shoes dealt could tell us whether a possible propensity affects the results, especially (that's our "model control") everything else will be somewhat balanced."

Absolutely.  "Limited" ranges of advantaged wagers are totally possible.  But those IMO will be selected by a conscious player, non-mechanical and sporadically.  And where I disagree with Asym is flat-betting.  I do not flat-bet when my "it is there advantaged wagers are winning", I begin my banging it out pattern of parlay wagering.  I do not care what happened in a prior shoe of play, I do not care about what might happen in future shoes of play if I continue my session, etc., etc.  I only care about what I am sitting in front of and wagering at the instant and real time.  Period.

Clustered and Isolation will always be present in 99.99.9% or higher of all shoes played.  Always, Always, Always.  Equalization is the heaviest and most advantaged event a conscious and open minded player can recognize.  But, problem is the change up appears without any sort of regulation and schedule.  It has to or the game would not be there.