Why bac could be beatable itlr

[alrelax]

The above considerations might suggest what we name as "The right/wrong bettors strategy" knowing that baccarat is formed by an half part of frustration and an half part of patience. Obviously both factors being not perfectly balanced along any shoe we're destined to face.

More later.

as. 

Oh absolutely!  Just this morning I was discussing this very same topic with my regular playing peers!!!

So very very true. But for most players it is much larger than 'half' part frustration.  It really is.

[AsymBacGuy]

That's interesting, Al!

Since we're dealing with an astounding amount of uncertainty, the "frustration" part could bring us to be disjointed from what actually happens compared with what "should" happen and the last part belongs to "patience".

Patterns are there to be somewhat balanced, so the "right or wrong bettor" concept is related about how good or how bad a given strategy performs at the actual distribution.
Betting too many hands is the sure recipe for disaster as it tends to deny the "patience" impact so leading more to the frustration field where we are totally confused to know what to do.

It's reasonable to think that recreational players like to build a "sky's the limit" strategy by hoping that many univocal deviations will last for long and sometimes they succeed in their efforts. But not by long term values capable to erase and invert the HE, otherwise the game wouldn't exist.

After all is not the HE making players to lose a lot of money but the amount of "wrong" decisions aggravated by the standard bet increase right in the "frustration" fields that invariably happen along the way.
Conversely, most players are shy to wager (or possibly press the wagers) when things seem to be more oriented to go in their favor, a thing symmetrically shaped (before vig) with the frustration field where it seems we can't guess a single hand or a couple of hands for long periods.

Examples.

In the vast majority of the times S patterns are showing up as isolated or two clustered, obviously itlr S clustered patterns can come out up to 4 or 5 or more times in a row. And we don't want such rare situations to wipe out our previous profits albeit the fear of facing them is legitimate.
Obviously the most probable situation to encounter is S isolated events being clustered and technically this is one of the most reliable tool to rely upon especially after having faced S isolated events being intertwined by S clusters.
Notice that S clustered clusters (SS.../SS...) are not making any harm on us as we're not wanting to chase a more probable situation (S isolated events coming out as clustered) when things seem to dictate otherwise.

On the other end, A patterns are supposed to mathematically produce more A clusters (A-A-...) than A isolated events (A-S) and in the vast majority of the times A isolated patterns coming out in a row for "long" ranges come out when S isolated patterns show up as clustered. (SASASAS...)

Now if S events are naturally capable to get shorter than expected 1:3 situations, we know that A events being favored by a 3:1 probability to come out will get, sooner or later (patience factor), patterns longer than 3 and this constitutes a big edge over the house that cannot "control" infinite random walks producing exact A patterns 3 long for extended periods.

Same considerations could be made for other simpler pattern classifications and taken by other various angles.

Is this a new example of the innumerable forms of the gambler's fallacy?

No fkng way.

As long as cards aren't symmetrically distributed and results can be arranged into different random walks, the "uncertainty world" is not belonging to winning players.

as.

[KungFuBac]

Hi Asym and thx.
Can you elaborate a little more on the following:

"...Yet, "long" isolated W situations are way more probable to be intertwined by isolated Ls, so in essence the only real losing sequence is anything like as WLLWLL...

Notice that by falsifying the best randomness definition ever made in the history of probability field (RVM) and according to MvS studies, bac successions are affected by a kind of unrandomness (or instrinsic defects of a finite dependent bac card distributions) capable to get a full value of what is more likely to happen (W clusters and/or L isolated situations) as opposed to what could virtually happen at a 0.5068/0.4932 dynamically proposition...."


Thx in advance,

[KungFuBac]

Thanks for elaborate explanation for how you play.



alrelax:

"... side bets wagered, but both sides (P and B side bets) and pretty much consistently.

The following sides the shoe produced:

4th hand was a beautiful 3 card 9-9 Tie for Heavenly 9s, 75:1

4 Panda 8s
3 Fortune 7s
8 3 card 9s for Heavenly 9s
1 3 card 9-9 tie Heavenly 9 75:1
4 3 card 9-0 dragon bonuses 30:1
2 fortune 7 back-to-back
2 panda 8s back-to-back

At least 10 wins by 7 points for dragon bonuses
At least 8 wins by 8 points for dragon bonuses
   ..."


Great shoe indeed.
42 Wins on Bonus Bets alone. I would think that is a bit of an outlier. Of course one would have to be betting for them on every hand (to catch all of them). Im guessing you caught all of them.

?Did I understand you correctly that you also wager for "BOTH" P and B on each hand as well?

Thx in advance.

[alrelax]

Thanks for elaborate explanation for how you play.


?Did I understand you correctly that you also wager for "BOTH" P and B on each hand as well?

Thx in advance.

Reference your last inquiry.  I only wager one base side, meaning base wager of bankers or players.  But BOTH side bets of P/B. 

I have done extremely well with the shoes I play. 

Here is another shoe from last week, large amounts of winning side bets as well.

Many winning side bets including a beautiful 3 card 7-7 with $50.00 on it for 200:1 payout.  4 Panda 8s and another 3 Fortune 7s.  Numerous others.

Once again, love that equalization in the last quarter, my huge advantage very few believe in or play.