1

**Baccarat Forum / Re: Absolute Fantastic Shoe SERIOUSLY READABLE!**

« **on:**

**Yesterday**at 03:28:46 pm »

Very nice description, I like it!

as

as

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

Very nice description, I like it!

as

as

2

Asymmetricity is not in the eye of the beholder, it's just a pure objective fact not needing supernatural powers to be detected but some calculations.

as.

as.

3

I repeat, the only way to know if we're betting the right side ITLR is by assessing how many times our selection got math favorite spots in form of higher two card initial points.

We shouldn't care a damn whether in the actual shoe played our 7s are losing to higher points, itlr we'll win.

In some sense we could transform actual results into two first card situations. Itlr no way a 2 initial point is going to win more times than an opposing 3 point and so on.

As explained here many times, baccarat results are the direct reflex of math situations. Not everytime a math advantaged spot will form a win, but to get a long term edge we have to bet those math advantaged spots anyway, otherwise we're destined to lose.

The more we're winning those unfavorite math spots, higher will be the probability to lose subsequent bets.

We can't control the real outcomes, more likely we can make a fair estimation larger than 50% about the side which will be kissed by a higher 2-card point.

as.

We shouldn't care a damn whether in the actual shoe played our 7s are losing to higher points, itlr we'll win.

In some sense we could transform actual results into two first card situations. Itlr no way a 2 initial point is going to win more times than an opposing 3 point and so on.

As explained here many times, baccarat results are the direct reflex of math situations. Not everytime a math advantaged spot will form a win, but to get a long term edge we have to bet those math advantaged spots anyway, otherwise we're destined to lose.

The more we're winning those unfavorite math spots, higher will be the probability to lose subsequent bets.

We can't control the real outcomes, more likely we can make a fair estimation larger than 50% about the side which will be kissed by a higher 2-card point.

as.

4

What about a MM which SEEMS to get a primary role over a proper bet selection?

First, there are bet selections getting us a long term edge (albeit small), thus we know to be on the right side of the betting options.

They do not come up around the corner, we need certain moderate deviations to be exploited and of course the main reason why we get an edge is because unrandom portions of the shoe are more likely than we think.

Second, most of our bets made by utilizing a MM along with a weak BS will get a negative EV, it could happen that by coincidence we catch one or several key EV+ hands. But itlr we are going uphill.

Surely a simple MM will raise the probability of success but almost always wil lfollow the negative values we expect to get.

Of course a MM enlarge our profits only whenever we know our betting spots are getting a positive EV.

Third, there's no way in the universe to play profitably an EV- game when we think it's randomly placed.

It's a pure contradiction in terms.

About bet selection.

I stress again about the importance of asym/sym concept widely taken.

We can't give a fkng fk about what math experts keep to state, they make their assumptions about a perfect complete randomness of the outcomes.

No way itlr a 50.68/49.32 dynamic probability will get the same probability to show up per every hand dealt.

The fact that casinos will get huge profits from baccarat tables doesn't mean that every single bac player is a fkng loser.

Per every shoe dealt, cards are arranged in a more or less asymmetrical fashion. Think about 8s and 9s falling here or there. Even if 8s and 9s are equally distributed, second card of each side will prompt more or less likely winning results.

Same about third card values, now more important as they tend to confirm or deny a possible light/moderate/strong asymmetricity either by numbers or by rules.

More on that later.

as.

First, there are bet selections getting us a long term edge (albeit small), thus we know to be on the right side of the betting options.

They do not come up around the corner, we need certain moderate deviations to be exploited and of course the main reason why we get an edge is because unrandom portions of the shoe are more likely than we think.

Second, most of our bets made by utilizing a MM along with a weak BS will get a negative EV, it could happen that by coincidence we catch one or several key EV+ hands. But itlr we are going uphill.

Surely a simple MM will raise the probability of success but almost always wil lfollow the negative values we expect to get.

Of course a MM enlarge our profits only whenever we know our betting spots are getting a positive EV.

Third, there's no way in the universe to play profitably an EV- game when we think it's randomly placed.

It's a pure contradiction in terms.

About bet selection.

I stress again about the importance of asym/sym concept widely taken.

We can't give a fkng fk about what math experts keep to state, they make their assumptions about a perfect complete randomness of the outcomes.

No way itlr a 50.68/49.32 dynamic probability will get the same probability to show up per every hand dealt.

The fact that casinos will get huge profits from baccarat tables doesn't mean that every single bac player is a fkng loser.

Per every shoe dealt, cards are arranged in a more or less asymmetrical fashion. Think about 8s and 9s falling here or there. Even if 8s and 9s are equally distributed, second card of each side will prompt more or less likely winning results.

Same about third card values, now more important as they tend to confirm or deny a possible light/moderate/strong asymmetricity either by numbers or by rules.

More on that later.

as.

5

Don't forget guys it's very easy to armchair quarterback the right decisions after you see the whole board all written or typed out. It's not that easy at the table in a live game with real money.

Holy words!

as.

6

That's interesting!

This is the classic shoe where, even considering it under a simple lens, it would be impossible to lose.

1- Consistent P patterns, mostly as singles

2- No 3+ P streaks, just one 3 P streak

3- unb plan #2: win win

4- unb plan #1: easy spots to look for

5- long B streak (11)

6- derived roads forming consistent random walks

Hope Al will put his comments about his personal strategy

as.

This is the classic shoe where, even considering it under a simple lens, it would be impossible to lose.

1- Consistent P patterns, mostly as singles

2- No 3+ P streaks, just one 3 P streak

3- unb plan #2: win win

4- unb plan #1: easy spots to look for

5- long B streak (11)

6- derived roads forming consistent random walks

Hope Al will put his comments about his personal strategy

as.

7

We should print in our mind there's no fkng way to beat this game itlr unless a defect of randomness at various degrees is working.

Sometimes it could happen that a normal distribution could be interpreted as a kind of unrandomness, mostly as some patterns seem to get a uniform shape.

That's now that we must consider along with quantity factors the more important quality factors.

I repeat, we can't expect to be long term winners whenever our bets aren't getting the first two card advantage itlr.

That's why progressions can't be of any help unless our bets succession will get a strong math edge itlr. That is unless our bet selection will get an edge by a simple flat betting.

If the improper shuffle parameter seems to be of paramount importance, think about how many times this factor will act along the shoes by percentages.

Do you think that every shoe dealt is affected by a decisive degree of unrandomness?

No tocking way.

Many times shoes are properly shuffled, meaning that randomness is accomplished. In those situations there's no fkng way to beat the game.

Random production equals to random betting that equals to a math negative proposition.

Think about those shoes where standing P points are losing to higher Banker points.

This specific random walk is strong asymmetrical as P 6s and 7s points are strong favorite itlr.

Nonetheless in our short term sample they have lost.

More interestingly is whenever the third card strongly helps (or not) several times P side, no matter which is the B point. Sometimes we have chosen the right side, meaning B side shows a higher point, especially if the hand is a pure asymmetrical hand by the rules.

In any case, this is another random walk.

In both cases quality doesn't correspond to quantity, that is math is temporariliy disregared by the actual card distribution.

People who have won such hands will think to be geniuses or lucky, actually they are either stup.id or stupi.d in either scenarios.

There's no one possibility in the world to be a long term bac winner whether our bets aren't getting the right math side of the proposition, either by crossing the higher initial 4-card point or, a lot better, by getting a higher asym hands percentage than expected while wagering Banker.

No matter the actual outcomes.

Up to the point where some shoes which went mathematically wrong for long cannot be of any future betting value.

as.

Sometimes it could happen that a normal distribution could be interpreted as a kind of unrandomness, mostly as some patterns seem to get a uniform shape.

That's now that we must consider along with quantity factors the more important quality factors.

I repeat, we can't expect to be long term winners whenever our bets aren't getting the first two card advantage itlr.

That's why progressions can't be of any help unless our bets succession will get a strong math edge itlr. That is unless our bet selection will get an edge by a simple flat betting.

If the improper shuffle parameter seems to be of paramount importance, think about how many times this factor will act along the shoes by percentages.

Do you think that every shoe dealt is affected by a decisive degree of unrandomness?

No tocking way.

Many times shoes are properly shuffled, meaning that randomness is accomplished. In those situations there's no fkng way to beat the game.

Random production equals to random betting that equals to a math negative proposition.

Think about those shoes where standing P points are losing to higher Banker points.

This specific random walk is strong asymmetrical as P 6s and 7s points are strong favorite itlr.

Nonetheless in our short term sample they have lost.

More interestingly is whenever the third card strongly helps (or not) several times P side, no matter which is the B point. Sometimes we have chosen the right side, meaning B side shows a higher point, especially if the hand is a pure asymmetrical hand by the rules.

In any case, this is another random walk.

In both cases quality doesn't correspond to quantity, that is math is temporariliy disregared by the actual card distribution.

People who have won such hands will think to be geniuses or lucky, actually they are either stup.id or stupi.d in either scenarios.

There's no one possibility in the world to be a long term bac winner whether our bets aren't getting the right math side of the proposition, either by crossing the higher initial 4-card point or, a lot better, by getting a higher asym hands percentage than expected while wagering Banker.

No matter the actual outcomes.

Up to the point where some shoes which went mathematically wrong for long cannot be of any future betting value.

as.

8

I'm deadly sure many bac players are long term winners, it's people who most of the times go unnoticed.

They smile at other players when an improbable long winning streak is giving them a lot of money, yet they do not bet a fkng dime.

But at the same time they never be caught in the specular losing streak, still smiling.

as.

They smile at other players when an improbable long winning streak is giving them a lot of money, yet they do not bet a fkng dime.

But at the same time they never be caught in the specular losing streak, still smiling.

as.

9

Thanks Al!

I fear that most of your points rely upon your long experience very few baccarat players have...

Simulated shoes are not real shoes and simulated outcomes are not real outcomes, especially if one considers red or blue dots simply as red or blue dots...

**Hands cutting or prolonging a pattern**

Baccarat is not roulette where a red number has the identical probability to appear than two of the "losing" or "winning" contiguous black numbers and vice versa.

Say the shoe produced the PPP pattern.

Most of the times this situation comes from mere symmetrical hands getting the same probability to appear.

Sometimes (and you should know how much are those probabilities), PPP pattern comes from one asym hand not favoring B side and two sym hands; rarely two asym hands didn't favor B side and very very rarely all three asym hands went to P side despite the math disadvantage.

Anyway let's assume this PPP pattern was formed by an unknown asym/sym ratio.

Now we decide to bet Banker because:

- generally speaking, Banker is a less disadvantaged hand

- itlr P3>P3+

- there is always the very slight propensity to get the opposite hand just formed.

At various degrees, all those points derive from sensible math and stats features, thus there's no doubt that itlr we'll get more B hands than P hands.

In the hand in question, Player shows a zero point and Banker a 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.

In a word, we are slight, moderate or strong favorite to win the hand.

The third card is an 8, therefore we'll lose the hand, despite of the initial general and actual advantage.

Next two hands are two P hands, hence the actual pattern is PPPPPP instead of a more likely (in our example) PPPBPP pattern.

From a strict math and ROI point of view, our Banker bet was really right just whether Banker had shown a 3, 4 or 5 initial point. Actually the best situation was to get a Banker 5 point followed by a 4 and then by a 3.

Since the probability to get 3,4 or 5 is more than 3/2 placed than having Banker to show 6 or 7, we know that this bet was EV+.

But more importantly is to see that that PPPPPP pattern didn't follow a more likely scenario as a strong shifted situation hasn't happened.

Notice that among the Banker options, I've discounted a natural as it involves an unnecessary 0.95:1 payement.

I mean that itlr we'll be in way better shape when trying to cut a banker streak by estimating that a natural (or standing point) is coming at P side than vice versa.

Even if is totally true that a sensible strategy could get the best of it by splitting the outcomes in 1s, 2s and 3s, is altogether true that long streaks must be properly classified as quite unlikely to show up by mere symmetrical propositions.

Very often quality overcomes quantity.

as.

I fear that most of your points rely upon your long experience very few baccarat players have...

Simulated shoes are not real shoes and simulated outcomes are not real outcomes, especially if one considers red or blue dots simply as red or blue dots...

Baccarat is not roulette where a red number has the identical probability to appear than two of the "losing" or "winning" contiguous black numbers and vice versa.

Say the shoe produced the PPP pattern.

Most of the times this situation comes from mere symmetrical hands getting the same probability to appear.

Sometimes (and you should know how much are those probabilities), PPP pattern comes from one asym hand not favoring B side and two sym hands; rarely two asym hands didn't favor B side and very very rarely all three asym hands went to P side despite the math disadvantage.

Anyway let's assume this PPP pattern was formed by an unknown asym/sym ratio.

Now we decide to bet Banker because:

- generally speaking, Banker is a less disadvantaged hand

- itlr P3>P3+

- there is always the very slight propensity to get the opposite hand just formed.

At various degrees, all those points derive from sensible math and stats features, thus there's no doubt that itlr we'll get more B hands than P hands.

In the hand in question, Player shows a zero point and Banker a 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.

In a word, we are slight, moderate or strong favorite to win the hand.

The third card is an 8, therefore we'll lose the hand, despite of the initial general and actual advantage.

Next two hands are two P hands, hence the actual pattern is PPPPPP instead of a more likely (in our example) PPPBPP pattern.

From a strict math and ROI point of view, our Banker bet was really right just whether Banker had shown a 3, 4 or 5 initial point. Actually the best situation was to get a Banker 5 point followed by a 4 and then by a 3.

Since the probability to get 3,4 or 5 is more than 3/2 placed than having Banker to show 6 or 7, we know that this bet was EV+.

But more importantly is to see that that PPPPPP pattern didn't follow a more likely scenario as a strong shifted situation hasn't happened.

Notice that among the Banker options, I've discounted a natural as it involves an unnecessary 0.95:1 payement.

I mean that itlr we'll be in way better shape when trying to cut a banker streak by estimating that a natural (or standing point) is coming at P side than vice versa.

Even if is totally true that a sensible strategy could get the best of it by splitting the outcomes in 1s, 2s and 3s, is altogether true that long streaks must be properly classified as quite unlikely to show up by mere symmetrical propositions.

Very often quality overcomes quantity.

as.

10

Thanks for your interesting reply Al!

Regardless of the method one likes to use, I see a common trait between my thoughts and your words: the probability to win doesn't come around any corner, we ought to select possible profitable spots within the realm of chaotic disorder.

Thinking in this way we can assume that per every three shoes played, one could be good, the second neutral and the third quite bad (in any order, of course).

Since, as Al correctly sayed, good is inferior to bad for the negative edge, after having won we must expect to lose everything back and naturally there are no guarantees that after bad a balanced good is going to come out shortly.

It could happen that two, three or even more consecutive shoes produced all good situations, yet the probability this thing happens is very low.

At the same token, it could happen that two, three or more shoes will form bad events and it's now that the catastrophe is coming.

We can't give the casino the luxury to know that we are going to bet every shoe dealt (or most part of them).

That's the downfall of every mechanical method presented or sold everywhere.

A method is set up in order to win no matter what, maybe stuffed with worthless stop win or stop loss techniques.

We can't interfere with probabilities, they are just there and it's up to us to estimate what's more likely now.

as.

Regardless of the method one likes to use, I see a common trait between my thoughts and your words: the probability to win doesn't come around any corner, we ought to select possible profitable spots within the realm of chaotic disorder.

Thinking in this way we can assume that per every three shoes played, one could be good, the second neutral and the third quite bad (in any order, of course).

Since, as Al correctly sayed, good is inferior to bad for the negative edge, after having won we must expect to lose everything back and naturally there are no guarantees that after bad a balanced good is going to come out shortly.

It could happen that two, three or even more consecutive shoes produced all good situations, yet the probability this thing happens is very low.

At the same token, it could happen that two, three or more shoes will form bad events and it's now that the catastrophe is coming.

We can't give the casino the luxury to know that we are going to bet every shoe dealt (or most part of them).

That's the downfall of every mechanical method presented or sold everywhere.

A method is set up in order to win no matter what, maybe stuffed with worthless stop win or stop loss techniques.

We can't interfere with probabilities, they are just there and it's up to us to estimate what's more likely now.

as.

11

The casinos fortune is not made upon the math edge but about players.

They even might offer a zero HE baccarat game where both sides draw or stand in the same way (no third card rule) and winning bets are payed 1:1. They would still make a lot of money.

Thus before playing we should ask to ourselves what should be our edge.

Imo here are some of the principal wrong thoughts:

1- "I'm capable to read randomness"

Well, if this is the case I better present my ideas and my scientifical findings to MIT or NASA. I'll make more money than sitting at a baccarat table.

A better statement would be "I think that in my field I can spot some objective situations where supposedly randomness seems to be pseudo randomness or unrandomness at various degrees".

Scientifically speaking that means to provide strict measurements of my assertion made on long trials.

2- "My money management can overcome the negative HE itlr"

From a conceptual point of view, this is a worse statement than the previous one.

Whereas a possible randomness reader could get some possible hints to take advantage from (of course under the form of occasional non randomness), there's no one possibility in the world that a MM strategy could overcome a random negative edge game itlr.

3- "I'm trying to win more on positive situations and losing less on negative ones"

That's another bighornshit.

Positive and negative situations will equal itlr and without a careful assessment of the events where sd values are way more restricted than expected, there's no way to know how and when

I'll get positive or negative events.

4- "My profit goal is X bets per single shoe or per Y shoes played .

It's like we want to subdue randomness or even partial unrandomness in the way we humanly set up previously.

This is not only an impossible task but a math heresy.

Now let's try to get the best of it by considering the above assertions.

1- If I've found to be a randomness expert I should know that a possible unrandomness is an occasional finding and anyway it should not be exploited for long.

Generally my ROI is 0.9894 and 0.9876 when I win and 1 when I lose.

Therefore before betting I either would prefer to get just one profit unit under favourable circumstances or to hope that a given random walk gets an interesting probability to get all winnings in the entire shoe.

Playing every hand or most hands or half (or 1/3) of the deck cannot accomplish this task.

2- Getting an edge means to win by flat betting by 1 trillion of accuracy.

No flat betting win = no party.

Notice that a flat betting strategy may involve several small adjustments in the betting process, anyway itlr the sum of the same level bets must be superior to a random wagering.

3- The general probability to win or lose a single hand remains the same, what changes is the actual probability to win after some quantity and quality events happened so far in the shoe.

As I sayed many times in my pages, what happened in the past must be properly registered other than from a strict B/P or R/B or S/O point of view.

4- We know very well that it's quite difficult to be ahead after 3 or 4 played shoes other than by benefiting from the luck factor. Let alone to be ahead per every shoe played.

Actually it's very very unlikely to be ahead of something whether we're flat betting randomly five sections formed by 4 or 5 consecutive shoes, no matter how many bets we're putting into the felt.

I mean that it's virtually impossible to get consecutive profitable shoes by flat betting no matter how's diluted our wagering.

We must discard some shoes from our play.

See you tomorrow

as.

They even might offer a zero HE baccarat game where both sides draw or stand in the same way (no third card rule) and winning bets are payed 1:1. They would still make a lot of money.

Thus before playing we should ask to ourselves what should be our edge.

Imo here are some of the principal wrong thoughts:

1- "I'm capable to read randomness"

Well, if this is the case I better present my ideas and my scientifical findings to MIT or NASA. I'll make more money than sitting at a baccarat table.

A better statement would be "I think that in my field I can spot some objective situations where supposedly randomness seems to be pseudo randomness or unrandomness at various degrees".

Scientifically speaking that means to provide strict measurements of my assertion made on long trials.

2- "My money management can overcome the negative HE itlr"

From a conceptual point of view, this is a worse statement than the previous one.

Whereas a possible randomness reader could get some possible hints to take advantage from (of course under the form of occasional non randomness), there's no one possibility in the world that a MM strategy could overcome a random negative edge game itlr.

3- "I'm trying to win more on positive situations and losing less on negative ones"

That's another bighornshit.

Positive and negative situations will equal itlr and without a careful assessment of the events where sd values are way more restricted than expected, there's no way to know how and when

I'll get positive or negative events.

4- "My profit goal is X bets per single shoe or per Y shoes played .

It's like we want to subdue randomness or even partial unrandomness in the way we humanly set up previously.

This is not only an impossible task but a math heresy.

Now let's try to get the best of it by considering the above assertions.

1- If I've found to be a randomness expert I should know that a possible unrandomness is an occasional finding and anyway it should not be exploited for long.

Generally my ROI is 0.9894 and 0.9876 when I win and 1 when I lose.

Therefore before betting I either would prefer to get just one profit unit under favourable circumstances or to hope that a given random walk gets an interesting probability to get all winnings in the entire shoe.

Playing every hand or most hands or half (or 1/3) of the deck cannot accomplish this task.

2- Getting an edge means to win by flat betting by 1 trillion of accuracy.

No flat betting win = no party.

Notice that a flat betting strategy may involve several small adjustments in the betting process, anyway itlr the sum of the same level bets must be superior to a random wagering.

3- The general probability to win or lose a single hand remains the same, what changes is the actual probability to win after some quantity and quality events happened so far in the shoe.

As I sayed many times in my pages, what happened in the past must be properly registered other than from a strict B/P or R/B or S/O point of view.

4- We know very well that it's quite difficult to be ahead after 3 or 4 played shoes other than by benefiting from the luck factor. Let alone to be ahead per every shoe played.

Actually it's very very unlikely to be ahead of something whether we're flat betting randomly five sections formed by 4 or 5 consecutive shoes, no matter how many bets we're putting into the felt.

I mean that it's virtually impossible to get consecutive profitable shoes by flat betting no matter how's diluted our wagering.

We must discard some shoes from our play.

See you tomorrow

as.

12

The answer is yes, providing one can look properly at what must happen, may happen or cannot happen (in this last instance it's better to say very very very unlikely to happen).

Now our SOS (save our 'Bac' souls) road is one of the most reliable source to rely upon when we're trying to detect every shoe in the universe.

Of course a long term profitable strategy should be focused about what must happen, what may happen being just a kind of jackpot, and at the same time trying to avoid at all costs what very very very rarely could happen.

According to our data and results, the probability that some "key" events will appear or not on a given shoe are in relationship to the previous outcomes and quality features.

This helps us to avoid to play at shoes that do not seem to fit our requisites.

Again, there's nothing to guess and nothing to follow just playing the probabilities.

Under normal circumstances we do not want to hope for jackpots or force the unlikely not to happen.

The very few people making a living I know place large bets rarely or quite rarely. They win insignificant number of bets per shoe played (not to mention per shoes observed) but with an astounding regularity.

We should copy them.

as.

Now our SOS (save our 'Bac' souls) road is one of the most reliable source to rely upon when we're trying to detect every shoe in the universe.

Of course a long term profitable strategy should be focused about what must happen, what may happen being just a kind of jackpot, and at the same time trying to avoid at all costs what very very very rarely could happen.

According to our data and results, the probability that some "key" events will appear or not on a given shoe are in relationship to the previous outcomes and quality features.

This helps us to avoid to play at shoes that do not seem to fit our requisites.

Again, there's nothing to guess and nothing to follow just playing the probabilities.

Under normal circumstances we do not want to hope for jackpots or force the unlikely not to happen.

The very few people making a living I know place large bets rarely or quite rarely. They win insignificant number of bets per shoe played (not to mention per shoes observed) but with an astounding regularity.

We should copy them.

as.

13

Say we want to build new "roads" originating by the simple B/P results succession.

For example, we classify outcomes as S (same) or O (opposite) according to a preordered pace, e.g. 4. We register our new result in relationship of what happened four hands back.

Since this new road is single paced, every outcome will be recorded but the first four results.

BBBPBPPBBPBPBPPP.. becomes

S

OOO

SS

OO

SS

O

S...

This new sequence isn't*directly* affected by the asymmetrical BP probability as our S/O signs distribution do not correspond to a B or P result.

Simply put, it's very hard to precisely deduce from S/O distributions what really happened on those shoes in terms of BP outcomes.

Of course the probability to be right or wrong is 50/50 and only long samples might help us to assign the proper BP results to our S/O registrations.

Now we are working into one of the simplest world of place selection.

Of course some BP patterns are going to produce (or not) homogeneous S/O situations:

BPBPBPBPBP = SSSSSS

BBPPBBPPBB = SSSSSS

BBBBPPPPBB = OOOOOO

BPBPPBPBBP = OOOOOO

Taken from the simplest definition of symmetricity, those are balanced outcomes as the number of Bs is equal to the number of Ps (except of the third pattern shortened for simplicity)

Actually it could happen that even strong unbalanced sequences as BBPBBBPBBB... (or the opposite counterpart) or long B or P streaks (longer than 9) will produce a SSSSSS pattern.

Now the question is whether this new S/O sequence alone could help us to define the features of the shoe we are playing/observing.

as.

For example, we classify outcomes as S (same) or O (opposite) according to a preordered pace, e.g. 4. We register our new result in relationship of what happened four hands back.

Since this new road is single paced, every outcome will be recorded but the first four results.

BBBPBPPBBPBPBPPP.. becomes

S

OOO

SS

OO

SS

O

S...

This new sequence isn't

Simply put, it's very hard to precisely deduce from S/O distributions what really happened on those shoes in terms of BP outcomes.

Of course the probability to be right or wrong is 50/50 and only long samples might help us to assign the proper BP results to our S/O registrations.

Now we are working into one of the simplest world of place selection.

Of course some BP patterns are going to produce (or not) homogeneous S/O situations:

BPBPBPBPBP = SSSSSS

BBPPBBPPBB = SSSSSS

BBBBPPPPBB = OOOOOO

BPBPPBPBBP = OOOOOO

Taken from the simplest definition of symmetricity, those are balanced outcomes as the number of Bs is equal to the number of Ps (except of the third pattern shortened for simplicity)

Actually it could happen that even strong unbalanced sequences as BBPBBBPBBB... (or the opposite counterpart) or long B or P streaks (longer than 9) will produce a SSSSSS pattern.

Now the question is whether this new S/O sequence alone could help us to define the features of the shoe we are playing/observing.

as.

14

At baccarat we can't consider any single outcome as a valid outcome in our registration unless if following normal math percentages.

For example, say the pattern is BBPP

Here we must consider first whether BB is coming from mere sym propositions, meaning that B in both cases wasn't advantaged by the rules.

Secondly we must assess whether PP didn't cross an unfavourable asym hand getting the best of it by starting underdog.

Most of the time BBPP pattern is the product of sym propositions as the asym strenght will act by the old 8.6/91.4 ratio.

Not everytime.

On the same line and more practically speaking, after a single P we should know that betting Banker means to hope that Banker will cross an asym hand more likely than not. Otherwise we're losing money.

The same after a single B apparition.

That means that there's no value to detect sym situations unless our strategy will dictate to bet Player or, reversely taken, that while wagering Banker we hadn't estimate that an asym hand is coming around shortly.

Again about key cards.

Definitely 8s and 9s will favor the side where those cards fall on. The probability those cards will fall into the first four positions is perfectly equal.

But whenever the third card is an 8 or a 9, Player side is unfavorite to get a valid point to win.

It's like 8s and 9s are symmetrically placed unless the 5th position is involved. The impact itlr is much greater about fifth positions than sixth positions as some part of 6th cards are not allowed to show up for the rules.

It could happen that Player gets some winning hands by the help of such key cards falling at 5th position (aka Player gets 0 and/or 1 initial point). But if we run infinite times this situation we'll lose.

The reversed situation is less likely to happen as some B initial points won't elicit a draw.

Therefore many seemingly equal patterns aren't equal by any means.

There's no doubt that long term results are the direct reflex of math percentages and those math percentages are the direct reflex of initial points and third card points actual situations.

Say most 7s and 8s have fallen on initial two card B side and we can't care less about actual outcomes.

Do you really expect that on the following hands the remaining 7s and 8s are more likely to fall on P side?

Same about third cards.

Third cards, while whimsically placed as they could intervene in the hand or not, are following a more or less attitude to help or not P side; in some way they constitute a supplemental random walk no matter which will be the real result.

Actually best playable shoes are those which seem to conform at most to normal math propositions and according to bac features already known here; those which aren't must be abandoned at the first opportunity.

as.

For example, say the pattern is BBPP

Here we must consider first whether BB is coming from mere sym propositions, meaning that B in both cases wasn't advantaged by the rules.

Secondly we must assess whether PP didn't cross an unfavourable asym hand getting the best of it by starting underdog.

Most of the time BBPP pattern is the product of sym propositions as the asym strenght will act by the old 8.6/91.4 ratio.

Not everytime.

On the same line and more practically speaking, after a single P we should know that betting Banker means to hope that Banker will cross an asym hand more likely than not. Otherwise we're losing money.

The same after a single B apparition.

That means that there's no value to detect sym situations unless our strategy will dictate to bet Player or, reversely taken, that while wagering Banker we hadn't estimate that an asym hand is coming around shortly.

Again about key cards.

Definitely 8s and 9s will favor the side where those cards fall on. The probability those cards will fall into the first four positions is perfectly equal.

But whenever the third card is an 8 or a 9, Player side is unfavorite to get a valid point to win.

It's like 8s and 9s are symmetrically placed unless the 5th position is involved. The impact itlr is much greater about fifth positions than sixth positions as some part of 6th cards are not allowed to show up for the rules.

It could happen that Player gets some winning hands by the help of such key cards falling at 5th position (aka Player gets 0 and/or 1 initial point). But if we run infinite times this situation we'll lose.

The reversed situation is less likely to happen as some B initial points won't elicit a draw.

Therefore many seemingly equal patterns aren't equal by any means.

There's no doubt that long term results are the direct reflex of math percentages and those math percentages are the direct reflex of initial points and third card points actual situations.

Say most 7s and 8s have fallen on initial two card B side and we can't care less about actual outcomes.

Do you really expect that on the following hands the remaining 7s and 8s are more likely to fall on P side?

Same about third cards.

Third cards, while whimsically placed as they could intervene in the hand or not, are following a more or less attitude to help or not P side; in some way they constitute a supplemental random walk no matter which will be the real result.

Actually best playable shoes are those which seem to conform at most to normal math propositions and according to bac features already known here; those which aren't must be abandoned at the first opportunity.

as.

15

LOL

Look at the covidiot posting "**Yeah, masks deprive your oxigen intake, which goes against federal regulation. Look it up**"

Actually the oxigen flowing in the brain of such a covidiot is chronically low even without wearing a mask.

as.

Look at the covidiot posting "

Actually the oxigen flowing in the brain of such a covidiot is chronically low even without wearing a mask.

as.