Baccarat is a dynamic probability game where each hand is somewhat related to the past and when it seems it doesn't is because too many (unlikely) coincidental results happen and we've seen that just one hand could transform a more likely line into an unexpected one.
Obviously and since we can't rely upon a verified math advantage, our action must be approximated by considering more likely situations (ranges) and the asym/sym tool is one of the best to assess more probable ranges happening along the course of a shoe.

Suppose we have devised the asym/sym nature of some patterns of interest and a shoe went as (W= first winning attempt and L= anything else):

L-L-W-L-L-W-W-W-L-W-L-W-L

Even if W<L, we find bettable spots where things are suppsoed to change. Notice that W isolated events are 3:1 than W clusters, yet isolated L events are equal to L clustered events. Finally no L streak went past than two.

Another shoe:

W-W-L-L-L-L-W-W-W-W-L-W-W-W-W-W-L-L-L

Now W>L (11: yet the above propensity to get short L clusters went down the drain.
So what seemed to fail at the previous shoe (W clusters, short L sequences) now becomes a kind of opposite world.

A third shoe:

W-L-W-L-W-W-W-W-W-L-W-W-L-L-L-L

W/L is 9:7, W clusters come out by the same amount than W isolated events, isolated L events/clustered L events ratio is 3:1.

More shoes:

W-L-W-L-W-W-L-W-W-W-W-L-W-L

L-L-W-W-L-L-W-L-L-L

W-L-L-W-W-L-W-W-W-L-W-W

W-W-W-W-W-L-W-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-L

L-W-W-W-L-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-W-L-W-W

W-L-L-W-W-L-L-L-W-W-W-L-L-W-L-L-L

W-L-W-L-L-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L

L-W-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-L-L

W-L-L-W-W-L-W-L-L-L-W-L-W-L-L-W

L-L-L-W-L-W-W-L-L-L

W-L-W-L-W-W-W-W-W-L-W-W-L-W-L

W-L-L-W-W-W-W-W-L-L-L-L-L-L-W

L-L-W-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-W-W-L

W-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-W-W-L-W-L

W-W-W-W-L-W-W-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-W-L-L

L-L-W-L-W-L-L-W-L-W-L-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-W-L-L

W-W-L-L-W-W-L-W-L-W-W-L-L-W

W-W-L-L-W-W-W-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L (11.037)


Now pretend to get fictional various players registering conseutive losses at different W/L patterns, for example:

a- First player will bet toward W clusters, getting W isolated events as enemy;

b- Second player will bet toward L clusters, getting L isolated events as enemy.

Greater will be the negative deviations before betting (especially when coming out at both players' action) higher will be our edge as a moderate/strong deviation is kind of insensitive of the possible negative permutations.
Remember the the best way to get an edge without risking our bankroll is by flat betting.

That's just the first winning attempt, next week we'll see about the second winning (or recovering) step.

as.

BTW, best luck to Michael Mizrachi, WSOP Main Event finalist and aiming for the prestigious bracelet and $10 millions first prize.

as. 

First winning attempt

If we use two bets towards the asymmetrical formation of certain events, we'll see that it won't so easy to win the first step several times in a row.
The problem is magnified at the very first attempt of any shoe, up to the point that we consider it just a pure gambling spot, so no getting us any possible edge.
Things begin to change when we've collected a fair number of 1st attempts vs anything else situations as average statistical distributions help us to define whether 1st spots should be more likely or not to show up.

As always our attention should be directed toward those 1st attempt shapes (isolated or clustered) and naturally being particularly focused about their absence.
In a word about their range of apparition per every shoe dealt.

Since the bac production is asymmetrical by any means, we'll expect asymmetrical shapes even at the infinite pattern considerations we could register.
It's very unlikely but we could find ourselves to face a shoe completely empty of first winning attempts (meaning that patterns are either a mix of asymmetrical events at the second step or symmetrical).

more later

as.

Hi KFB, welcome back! 

*I will elaborate more later on some of his triggers. He tracked several triggers/ like me felt "gaps between" events are important to track(e.g. The event gaps' contraction and expansion.)

Yes, please, it would be quite interesting!

I like the term "Event gaps' contraction and expansion"

It could be someway intended as the Alrelax "sections" or my "ranges".

as.

Note: if RNG shuffling machine productions will make more probable long S patterns than average, we might think to bet toward S than A after a S happened, at least at the very first step of the 2-level betting.

Nothing wrong with that, but by doing so we're somewhat denying what really get us an advantage over the house, that is that A patterns are "more due" at many shoe's spots.
After all and most of the times A patterns will rely upon the asymmetrical distribution of the cards (and so of the outcomes) thus privileging the many "predominant" situations each shoe will present.

This will transfer the problem not about the real asymmetry or symmetry of the pattern (needing two consecutive hands to be ascertained), just about the winning probability of the first attempt vs anything else.
A topic we'll see in a couple of days.

as.

S and A patterns

Paradoxically at baccarat we find ourselves in a way better shape whenever itlr some patterns will slight privilege the side we are not interested to bet (S) as the A counterpart is more entitled to happen somewhere at various levels.
Providing to properly consider the S clustering effect that happened previously in the shoe.

That means that a real randomly shuffled shoe will present a slight greater number of S isolated events than S clusters (capable to erase and invert the HE), so making as profitable a stu.pi.d wagering plan oriented to bet A after any isolated S.

Casinos are not there to concede the players any possible edge, thus the use of shuffling machines instructed to deal RNG distributions that are not random by definition.
Now the S isolated propensity will go down the drain so basically the problem will be transformed about WHEN S events will shift into more probable A patterns.
After all the vast majority of bac players cannot give a damn about the importance of selectively wagering toward asymmetry than symmetry.

In fact real random binomial propositions are characterized by a fair degree of asymmetry, making more and more improbable (by increasing the number of trials) to get the same amount of specific different patterns roaming or crossing around the 0 neutral point. Especially when back to back considered.

Furthermore, it's theorically unlikely to get many consecutive S patterns when finite parameters are involved and when an asymmetrical results game (as baccarat) is considered, unless (but partially) while unrandomly distributed.

In our opinion RNG distributions had demonstrated to deal a greater than average amount of S clustered patterns or, worse, to get abnormal S/A shoe gaps privileging the left S side.
That is the game seems to "stall" too many times than expected by a real random production.

Most of the times RNG productions tend to shift S patterns toward A patterns after a 1-level clustered S-S situation, yet the general probability to get long S consecutive lines (greater than 1-level) seems to be nearly 5-fold more probable at RNG productions than at a real random model. So telling us that the shoe featuring "too many S patterns" is just a BS shoe. That is completely unplayable.

Probably the S/A patterns ratio is one of the easiest indicators to ascertain whether we're facing a real random model or a kind of bighorn.stuff production where a natural asymmetry is denied by a weird card distribution.

See you in a couple of days.

as.

Hi Al, thanks for your valuable points.
Again, you are a very experienced and acute player so having built a kind of "instinct" when things (various patterns) should prolong or stop or not coming at all.
A virtue most bac players don't have and probably won't get in the near future.

So from my part I'm trying to present ideas where replicability and strict measurement of results may constitute the main factors to look for, at the same time instructing readers not to consider every production belonging to the same homogeneous category.

After years of reaserch and deep study of the game we've found that when a 312 or 416 card ranks are disordedly mixed to produce bac outcomes the best tool to rely upon is the symmetrical or asymmetrical nature of them.
Especially and foremost when a same source of production is involved.

More later

as.

BTW, assume that softwares can set up more "weird" volatile outcomes at the Big Road than at the other derived roads as the vast majority of bac players tend to follow Big Road than other derived random walks.

When serious money is involved (and at baccarat that's the case) we have learnt not to trust anyone or anything, besides some Vegas high end casinos.

Any initial two-card point is supposed to win a fair amount of hands and following normal sd values in accordance to the points gap.
Whenever the underdog side keep winning interminable hands, we are pretty sure to face a unrandom game and not a natural variance situation.
The same when too many hands are resolved by 6 cards.

So do not consider any card distribution a "fair card distribution", especially when cards come out shuffled from nowhere and then reshuffled by a machine before being dealt.
Randomness is a very complicated issue not being accomplished by such a kind of action.

Avoid to play while facing consecutive shoes where many two card combinations hadn't taken place once (best spots to take care of are standing 6s and standing 7s in their combinations) or when 8s and 9s seem to come out "too much 1/6.5 ratio balanced".

More simply, stay put when a larger than expected amount of polarized hands will come out.

as.

The asymmetrical/symmetrical (A/S) strategy rely upon the difficulty (or, better sayed, the predictability) that more often than not S will concede a fair room to A, always considered by the probability that two consecutive different patterns happen.

So assuming that singles are 1, doubles are 2 and 3/3+ streaks are 3, the strategy focus about the probability that 1-1, 2-2 and 3-3 won't come out so clustered to deny a more likely heterogeneous distribution, with the important caveat that 1-1-1... constitute a form of asymmetry (therefore x-1-1-x is a symmetrical pattern).
The asymmetry is a simple natural by product of the asymmetrical key card arrangement.

Our data suggest that different long symmetrical pattern clusters are produced by either unsound math situations happening for long (fkng variance) or by a RNG software instructing cards to be dealt by a unrandom factor.

Whenever we'd think to face a RNG software, best strategic line to adopt will be to raise our standard requisites by waiting that S will show up two times in a row (so enticing us to selectively wagering toward A after S-S) or to bet according to the general rules I've written above.

Thus 1-1 should be considered as a symmetrical pattern, whereas 1-1-1 or longer 1 clusters are asymmetrical patterns.

2-2 is a symmetrical pattern, 2-2-2 or longer patterns remain symmetrically shaped.

3-3 is a symmetrical pattern, 3-3-3 or longer patterns remain symmetrically shaped.     

1-2 or 2-1, 1-3 or 3-1, 2-3 or 3-2 are all asymmetrical patterns. Of course at such categories  the aforementioned 1-1-1(...) class will be added.

Example.

The shoe went as

2-1-1-1-3-3-1-1-1-3-3-1-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-2-3-3-3-1-2-3-1-1-2-3

A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A

One more shoe:

2-1-1-1-1-2-1-2-3-2-1-3-1-2-1-1-2-3-1-2-1-1-3-1-1-1-2-2-1

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S

A less likely shoe

3-1-1-1-1-3-3-1-1-3-3-1-1-2-3-1-1-1-1-2-1-2-2-3-2-1-2-2

A-A-S-S-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S

Another one:

1-3-1-3-1-3-3-3-2-2-3-3-2-2-1-3-3-2-2-2-1-3-2

A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S-S-A-S-S-A-A

Then this shoe:

3-3-2-2-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-3-3-2-2-1-1-3-1-3-2-1-3-2-1-1-2-3-1-1

S-S-A-S-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-(-1)

We see that there are no ways to rely upon a costant A>S probability, actually I've sayed that S tend to get a slight major impact over the A patterns (assuming a p= 0.75%).
On the other end, empirical rules I've suggested to follow in my previous posts will make consecutive losses very unlikely to happen, especially if before betting we'll wait some fictional losses to happen.

Finally and at least if you are trying to make a living at this game you shouldn't forget to consider some shoes as totally unplayable; technically that means to avoid tie rich shoes, shoes where strong math advantaged hands went wrong too many times in a row or featuring an unexpected huge ratio, or more simply when S clusters and/or A isolated patterns will go beyond the 2 level.

We're so sure about that that only unrandom sequences can't be beatable by any means other than by a simple short term luck factor.
So be more cautious about risking your precious money at those RNG successions.

as.

It's likely that the global warming effect will make things worse and worse...
Are there many reasons to visit one of the hottest places in the world during the summer?

Then Vegas prices keep rising...a Gordon Ramsey hamburger starts at $29, the few buffets still alive cost around $50 or more, the suggested minimum tip on the bills raised from 15% to 18% and so on.

There are no free parking at any Strip hotel/casino, I guess that there's no point to pay for parking the vehicle at premises where you are supposed to drop serious money at them.

Not surprised that off Strip casinos are experiencing a better action (free parking, lower food and beverage prices, best promotions in town, better payouts at slot machines, etc)

Gamblers and visitors in general want to get a proper value after the money spent in Vegas (as it  was in the past), especially knowing that by now casinos and many forms of entertainment abound everywhere.

as.

Basically we should be more interested about assessing what's the actual shoes production we're playing at instead of thinking that a general plan will get the best of it no matter what.

Casinos are not there to give the players easy solutions about beating baccarat and claiming that natural variance will make things unpredictable for long is a complete bighorn.sh.it statement.

Therefore most shoes are playable as long as the asymmetrical factor seems to be predominant or at least when the symmetrical counterpart is well restrained in its appearance.
When clustered symmetrical patterns tend to come out at the initial/intermediate portions of the shoe, we could safely assume that that shoe isn't playable.

Of course the cut card could provide valuable asymmetrical hands at the same fragments of any shoe dealt, so conceding the room for the unwanted S counterpart in the final portions of it.
Yet huge clumps of Symmetrical patterns are more likely to come out when..."they managed to really come out" as just one hand or few hands might transform a long sequence of As patterns into a back-to-back symmetrical patterns succession.

That means that symmetrical patterns surpassing the 1 (isolated) or 2 (1-step cluster) levels are more probable to provide more clustered sym patterns as the force slightly shifting patterns toward the asymmetry will be "consumed" by coincidental factors not belonging to a more likely distribution.

Summary

If most hands would be arranged by a kind of long symmetrical patterns distribution, the game wouldn't exist as the vast majority of players will rely upon a "human ability" of detecting outcomes by too much simple standards.
Surely this thing happens but not by degrees capable to overcome all other patterns formation and for sure not capable to erase/invert the HE.

Besides the obvious math edge and the bad attitude of many players, casinos rely upon a more probable "chaotic" world and the key word of such world is "asymmetry".
Thus they do not fear symmetry as they know it won't stand for long, collecting profits after the many more probable "undetectable" asym patterns naturally coming out along the way.

Baccarat card distributions are more likely to provide asymmetrical patterns of some lenght or getting symmetrical patterns to stop at more probable points.
This feature is strictly related to the actual shuffling procedure: RTM softwares instructing the machine to deal unrandom sequences will make less reliable the "average shoe" concept.
Yet RTM productions are so polarized that most of the times a searched outcome might be silent for longer frames than expected but then a more natural flow will be more entitled to show up than average. An additional reason to bet very few hands.

Assume that most part of symmetrical patterns are coming out coincidentally and not for natural reasons.
I mean that itlr random productions will more likely distribute by low levels of symmetry and moderate/high levels of asymmetry.
Unrandom productions could easily provide a larger than naturally expected back to back consecutive symmetrical patterns, but they someway must stop so conceding more room to asym situations.

Clustered symmetrical patterns of 3 or more most of the times are the by product of hands that had weirdly produced an unexpected symmetrical pattern whereas a more natural asymmetrical pattern was due.
The conclusion is that whenever a shoe shows symmetrical patterns longer than 2 or whenever the A/S patterns ratio is too much shifted toward the right S side, let the recreational players and tourists to make their betting. You are in a 100% better shape to stand up and drink something waiting for the next shoe.

See you in a couple of days.

as.

At gambling and in games in general asymmetrical results tend to be the norm and for that matter even the real life presents infinite situations where AS sequences predominate.
Itlr events are expected to equalize, providing the same conditions and parameters to run by the same force.

For example a poker tournament is the epitome of asymmetry.
No matter how long is conceived a tournament (the longest are some WSOP events), cards cannot be dealt by symmetrical standards thus some players will be kissed by more lucky hands than others (especially when certain inevitable key spots arise), otherwise the best poker players would win every tournament.
No doubt that itlr best skilled players will account more wins than the rest of the field and that's another important (decisive) form of asymmetry.

For sure cards dealt at a given poker tournament are an actual form of asymmetry and the different skills among participants are a potential form of asymmetry.

Differently than poker tournaments and just regarding the first factor, baccarat is a huge  democratic game as cards are dealt without favoring some players, so in some sense everybody's action is the cause of his/her own destiny.

Obviously the poker comparison was made to emphasize the second factor, uncontested at poker (itlr more skilled players will overcome less skilled players by a 100% level) but more debatable at baccarat.

So the question is: does it exist a "skill factor" at baccarat capable to get the best of the innumerable sequences every player must face along the course of his/her action?

If we were to take a possible positive answer, a good start would be to take for grant that most successions are the by product of a slight asymmetrical force affecting the results, the same way poker tourneys are expected to deal asymmetrical situations.
And when they are not and differently than poker tournaments where we have to put blinds and antes and passively accepting the asymmetry, at bac we can choose to stay away from the betting without losing a dime.

More later

as.   

It's very important to understand that bills are payed by hard work and baccarat makes no exception.

So we better approach the game by realizing that we have to fight with the aim of not losing instead of winning.

It's so hard to win at baccarat itlr that u tube abounds of "new geniuses in town" swearing that for just $50 or $500 you'll break down the house, not mentioning those i.d.iots wagering huge sums and telling us that they are ahead after months of play.

as.

Baccarat is a game of "ranges" that we may consider through infinite different random walks derived from the original BP sequence.

Since all bets are conceived as EV-, we might study how long and how's likely that a given searched situation will happen or not by a decent level of probability capable to erase or possibly inverting at our favor the HE.

So for the purpose of what we're talking about, we'll focus about the probability to encounter S or A patterns considered by their average distribution in terms of isolated or clustered patterns.
Our task is to demonstrate that S and A patterns will show up by a more "detectable" fashion than a pure random (or unrandom) chaotic world would dictate.

Since there's no a long term advantage to linearly betting S or A, we have either to "choose" the situations where A is more likely to show up again or to spot the events where S is more likely to make room to A patterns as in both cases A is the norm and S a kind of "incidental" event.

It's 100% impossible to win by betting all hands or most hands at any shoe dealt, unless you'll utilize a huge betting variation between EV- hands and the rare EV+ spots coming out along the way.

Math experts teach us that every bet is EV- no matter what, a total bighorn.sh.it.
For sure and while wagering a lot of hands, a possible EV+ situation will be diluted by the enormous natural impact of EV- situations.

It's not a coincidence that casinos will lure you into betting a lot of hands, thus enlarging at most their math edge and at the same time giving you the most confused picture of what is going on.

The perfect countermeasure to adopt is to join tables where the minimum wager is at least 10 times lower than your standard bet or, even better, to bet whenever you want.

Fortunately casinos are more worried about a black jack player suddendly raising his $20 bet than when a baccarat player wagering zero or the $1000 minimum bet all of a sudden will place a $10.000 or huger bet and then quitting after winning it.

Reasonably casinos think that a bj player could try to exploit a math edge whereas the bac player cannot spot situations to be more right than wrong by definition.

OoOoO

Suppose we're setting up a couple of players wagering a kind of sky's the limit approach, one wagering toward A-A (clustered A of any lenght) and the other one wagering toward A after a single  S.
Say that to enlarge a possible probability of success, we'll start to bet after a kind of negative deviation happening.
Since we're not i.diots, when a RNG production (unramdom) is in order we'll wait negative deviations (S events) to be clustered one time (S-S). That makes our S-S-A and A-A betting spots to get unmissable profitable opportunities.   

In the other scenarios (so when we'd think the production will be  random), S-A will slightly but constantly overwhelm the S-S counterpart, so  now the A clusters make a minor impact over the overall predictability.

as.

Regarding the symmetry/asymmetry how many first losing attempts come out per every shoe played?
More precisely how many patterns will deny a slight more probable asymmetry at the very first step considered along any shoe dealt?

A better question would be how much "gapped" are those first step asymmetrical patterns on average, a thing that could help us to define better the ranges of intervention.

Catching LONG consecutive first winning spots are more a matter of luck (intended as short term positive variance, of course) than a matter of skills, everything else belongs to a kind of an infinite educated guess about how an average shoe is more likely to show up.

That's especially true when RNG productions will arrange cards by somewhat denying a kind of "clumping" factor, a factor that generally speaking will either make more likely a line or the opposite line to be predominant or to be silent for interesting portions of the shoe.
A distribution typical of a true random movement, and we know beyond any doubt that RNG productions are not random distributions.

More later

as.