08 Show Posts - AsymBacGuy


Please login or register.

Show Posts

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.

Topics - AsymBacGuy

Pages: [1] 2 3 Next
AsymBacGuy / Why bac could be beatable itlr
« on: June 28, 2019, 09:10:24 pm »
Gambling experts as well as casino's supervisors are really laughing when they read all the bighornshit we're writing about baccarat on the net.
Not mentioning the miriad of magical system sellers that for just $49.99 promise us millionaire profits.

As long as we can't (or we do not want to) demonstrate a verifiable math edge we are just fooling ourselves and the world.

That means that all efforts made to find exploitable ways to beat the house are totally worthless, confirmed by the huge profits casinos make by offering bac tables.
Probably the best player ever known in the history of baccarat was Akio Kashiwagi, a japanese real estate guru who put in some trouble mr D. Trump who gladly accepted very huge bets from him at one of his AC property.
It's ascertained Kashiwagi adopted a kind of trend following strategy by wagering a kind of flat betting approach. That is he knew very well that in order to beat a game, tax apart, one must get more winning hands than losing ones.
Furthermore, by flat betting he knew he was going to lose around 1% at worst.
Naturally Trump took advice from the best math gambling expert of the time who suggested to let him play as long as possible in order to get the negative edge fully working against him.

And actually this thing happened even though Kashiwagi (that was shot dead shortly afterwards) was still ahead in the process.

Of course even if Kashiwagi played a quite huge amount of hands but not enough to constitute a "long term" scenario by any means, we must give him some credit that his strategy was good.

To get a clearer example of what Kashiwagi did, try to flat bet 60/70 shoes and let us know how many bets you are winning or losing. Knowing that he wagered a large amount of hands dealt, the answer will be very likely placed on the negative side.

Therefore a question #1 arises: does a sophisticated trend following strategy lower in some way the math negative edge?
Was K. playing a kind of trend following strategy mixed with something else?

I have chosen to mention A.K. as it's my firm belief that in order to win one must spot more W than L situations as no progression could get the best of it when L<W, especially when wagering a lot of hands per shoe.

Truth to be told, I do not think that a strict trend following strategy could get the best of it, but I tend not to disregard such possibility at least in order to lower the negative edge.

More to come.









AsymBacGuy / Baccarat experts: a test for you
« on: June 20, 2019, 01:10:37 am »
An easy test to assess how a bac player really knows about baccarat.

1) What's the probability to get a natural 8 vs a natural 9 in every position per every shoe dealt?

2) What's the Banker's advantage when Banker shows a 4 giving a third card 9 to the Player?

3) What's the average number of 3+ streaks on Player side in a 8-deck shoe when an average 12 cards are cut from the play?

4) How many asymmetrical hands are going to show up per 70 resolved hands dealt?

5) Disregarding other key cards, what's the average EV on F-7 bets (dragon bonus) when after 30 hands dealt no 7 had shown?

6)  What's the average probability to get a back to back "standing" Player (6,7,8 or 9 point) hand?

7) How the Player disadvantage is calculated?

8) What's the probability Banker wins when showing a 5 and giving a third card 3 to the Player?

9) What's the probability a Player two-card 7 point showing will win?

10)  What's the probability to get a back to back winning natural hand on either side?



AsymBacGuy / Baccarat TIES catching
« on: June 16, 2018, 12:09:58 am »
A bac player betting TIES is considered the worst player in the universe, right?
After all such player is wagering with a more than -14% negative edge.

Nonetheless, ties must come out at an average rate of 1 tie over 10.52 hands (9.5%) and they are payed just 8 to 1.

Therefore itlr wagering every hand will produce a more than -14% return on the money wagered.
And, for that matter, no one progression in the world could overcome such negative ratio.


Now let's consider a large amount of shoes accounting the average amount of ties per every shoe. No surprises, It's still 9.5%.

But let's take the average distribution of ties per every distinct portion of any shoe and things will change.

Say that we would only bet the tie after 50 or more hands are dealt and just up to a couple of  ties had shown up.
Now we are reducing our negative edge as shoes not displaying more than 2 ties after 50 hands are more likely to produce ties on subsequent hands on the same shoe.

But wait.

Ties are more likely to come out if many cards are employed to form B and P hands.
I mean that ties are more likely to come out if 6 or, at a very lesser degree, 5 cards are employed to form hands.
Of course 4 cards may form ties, but at a very lower degree.

Thus the more likely occurence to get multiple ties is proportionally formed by 6, 5 or 4 cards in descending order.

The result is that we'll get more back to back ties or ties interspersed by a better 9.5% ratio whenever hands are formed by a huge amount of cards.

Since a tie is a mathematical effect event, we know that card distribution is a decisive matter to get those ties, meaning that we'll get more ties anytime few naturals are coming out as they are totally denying the use of a third or fourth card.

By this perspective now we have a new plan to consider whether ties are more likely to come out or not.
Actually some shoes are providing a lot of 5 or 6 cards situations to form any resolved hand, so enlarging the probability to get ties.
Other shoes do not provide such feature, meaning that the vast majority of hands are formed by 4 or 5 cards at most.

The practical effect may be taken by several angles:

- for example, a deck full of 8s and 9s and plenty of 10 value cards are not good to bet ties for obvious reasons.

- to get a 5 or 6 cards hand, we need the Player side to draw first, then the banker to stay or draw, possibly to draw anyway.

- the most likely occurence to get a back to back tie or to get a tie by a higher probability than expected is whenever the first tie hand was formed by 6 cards. Conversely, any 6 card hand not producing a tie must be considered as a kind of "missed" probability.
The same when an asymmetrical hand favored the player and not the banker.

- itlr, baccarat hands are formed by a constant number of cards, thus we shouldn't care less about which side will win, just the probability to get such ties.

In a word, whenever we think the future hand will be formed by 5 or, well better, 6 cards, we'll get a meaningful edge to bet ties.









AsymBacGuy / Baccarat unbeatable plan #2
« on: May 04, 2018, 01:11:51 am »
It's about Banker doubles distribution.

B doubles are fighting between B 3+ streaks and B singles.

Test your shoes and let me know how many times a B doubles will be followed by another B double streak or anything else.

No wonder, most of the time any B double will be followed by a pattern different to another B double streak up to a 4 level.

I mean that after a B double had come out,  the more likely scenario on subsequent B hand will be to get a B 3+ streak or a B single at different degrees.

We could classify such B doubles in such a way:

1- B double followed by another B double;

2- a couple of consecutive B doubles followed by another B double;

3- a triple of consecutive B doubles followed by another B double.

In a word, each class of B double situation will get a more likely different B double situation than expected and the more we are going deeply in the process the better will be our results.

Say we set up three fictional players betting toward NOT having another B double after a B double appearance by a 1-2 wager progression.

Number #1 player will lose whenever after a B double another B double will come out.

Number #2 player will lose whenever after a couple of B doubles a third B double will come out;

Number #3 player will lose whenever after a triple B double a fourth B double will come out.

Test your shoes and you'll notice that 4+ B doubles in a row will come out very very rarely.
It's up to us to determine how deep will be our loss.

The probability to get multiple B doubles in a row is inversely proportional to the number of B consecutive doubles.

Thus, a profitable and less risky plan is to bet after having waited that two or three B doubles had come out in a row.

Nonetheless, many shoes are presenting a single B double appearance.

Again, after a given deviation was reached, the probability to get something different than a B double is endorsed.

We want to set up a limit, that is a very unlikely 4+ consecutive B doubles appearance. After such limit was reached, we do not want to bet a dime.
As a 7 or more B doubles appearance could easily destroy our previous more likely profits.

Notice that per every class of distributions, a clustering effect will be in order, no matter what.
I mean that it will more likely to get single B double situations if a single B double situation had come out and the same happens for superior levels.

Moreover, B doubles are more likely to come out in clusters whenever few B singles had come out in the previous fragments of the shoe and vice versa.

Alrelax is right. What didn't happen so far is less likely to show up as a finite shoe is always a card dependent proposition and vice versa.

Actually and after millions of shoe tested,  the number of situations when consecutive B doubles are followed by single or 2-in a row B doubles are out numbered by the same opposite events.

What didn't happen could happen but what did happen could more easily happen again. Providing a careful classification of what we are registering.











AsymBacGuy / Baccarat unbeatable plan #1
« on: April 27, 2018, 01:14:45 am »
Dedicated to soxfan. :-)

We want to bet toward P singles and P doubles vs P 3+s by a multilayered progression.

Betting requisites.

We'll bet a 1-2 unit progression whenever a P single or a P double had come out, in order to get at least a two P 1-2 clustered succession in any order. After winning the first (single) or second (double) event, we stop the betting waiting for another 1 or 2 P situation and going over and over. Meaning we have to wait a 3+ appearance cutting the pattern.

In a word, we'll lose anytime the shoe will present situations as 2-3 or 1-3. Anything different from that (as 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2), will go in our favor.

The average number of 3+ streaks on P side is 4.5, so we are quite favored to get many 1-2 or 2-1 profitable patterns, moreover we won't bet a dime after a 3+ streak. That is consecutive P 3+s streaks won't harm us.

The probability to look at consecutive 1 or 2 single situations is so low that you'll need a lot of work to find them.

Multilayered progression.

Since we are not stu.pid, meaning that the very unlikely can come out anytime, we 'll set up our initial bet as 5-10 (at $10 limit is $50-$100).
Anytime we'll win we stay at the same level for two times, then we'll go down at the 4-8 level and so on, up to the 1-2 level.
Anytime we lose we'll raise our bet by 20%, so a 5-10 losing bet will followed by a 6-12 bet (at $10 limit, it's a $60-$120 bet)
Again, after a win at a given limit we stay at that level for two times globally (once more), then we go to the immediate lower limit.
And so on.

Statistical issues

Shi.t happens either isolated (more likely) or in bleeding clusters (very less likely), thus after a 3-1-3 or 3-2-3 consecutive pattern appearance I suggest you to not bet a dime until a new fictional 1-2 winning pattern had come out. Many times this means to wait the next shoe.

Notice that more likely than not, an early P 3+ streak apperance will followed by many 3+ streaks than what the opposite situation will do.
Especially whether such 3+ streak is immediately followed by another identical 3+ streak. 

Notice that if you wait some fictional losses, your win rate will be enlarged even more.

AsymBacGuy / Asymbacguy march
« on: February 26, 2018, 01:56:55 am »
This is my original bac approach I want to present here (it was related to my defunct "dispositions and distributions" post.
As I sayed in the baccarat section, I have robbed the word "march" from Sputnik.
With the proper adjustments and experience it can fail.   

Denominations and key attacks

Singles are 1, doubles are 2, triples or longer streaks are 3.

Since singles are forming the most part of all baccarat outcomes, our main bet will be toward singles (1).
Doubles (2) and triples (3) are acting just a "recovering" second step situation. Anyone could assign a specific betting role to those 2 and 3 situations.

We'll only bet (or consider a bet) whenever the last two out of three possible outcomes are 1-2, 2-1, 1-3 or 3-1 in any order and distribution, meaning that 2-3 and 3-2 situatiuons will either not start the betting or stop the betting.

Splitting the 1,2 and 3 outcomes into two separate columns.

Of course the two separate columns I'm referring to are the Banker and Player columns.
Thus we'll get two separate 1-2 and 1-3 different marches, each of one starting the actual or fictional betting whenever the last two outcomes present 1-2, 2-1 or 1-3 or 3-1 outcomes.

Mathematical expectancy

From a mere mathematical and statistical point of view, we know that the 1-2 and 2-1 betting plan itlr will get better results on Player side; conversely a 1-3 and 3-1 betting plan will get the best of it on Banker side.
Actually there's no a better betting plan made on Player side other than 1-2 or 2-1 and, truth to be told, the better Banker plan is toward getting anytime streaks (2-3 or 3-2).

Yet our main issue isn't just focused to always get the most likely events, but to get the events having the lower variance impact.
And since baccarat card distributions are always slight privileging the "chopping mood", I think it's wiser to include singles on our long term betting plan even on B side.



That is, 2,1,1,3,1,2,2,1,1,3 on B side and 1,3,1,1,1,3,1,2,1 on P side.

Since we are actually or fictionally betting 1-2 or 1-3 situations on both side by a two step progression, we'll get:

Banker: + - + - + + +  -
Player: + + + + + - - +

Of course our winning probability is determined by the chance to get at least one of the two outcomes out of possible threes by an average 75% ratio and we know that we'll get higher 75% ratios on P side betting 1-2 events and 1-3 events on B side.

But we can't care less about those long term ratios as we want to restrict their variance by adding some "unlikely events" (singles on B side and triples on P side) that could help us to get the best of it even when those unlikely shoes coming up along the way.

Detecting the possible actual shoe flow

After testing millions of shoes, we can state that there are many shoes presenting all 1-3 B side situations and at a higher degree many 1-2 P side situations. And of course, an all 1-3 or 1-2 patterns shoe must show up at the very start of it.
I mean that what was not presenting at the start of the shoe it will be less probable on the subsequent fragments of it as randomness will most likely act by clusters, especially on finite samples.

Long term probability

For example, betting after 1-2 or 1-3 events got two or more consecutive losses on any side, will reduce the average probability to get subsequent losses as now the W/L ratio can't be lower than 75%, actually it will be a lot lower than that on average.

If our strategic plan dictates to bet whenever we'll get two losses in a row on any side tripling up our original bet after a two-step loss, we can't experience any failure.


Baccarat Forum / Easy way to feel the random flow
« on: October 03, 2017, 10:59:52 pm »
Not surprisingly, the only way one player could temporarily win at any EV- game is getting positive streaks of certain lenght or getting a given outcome within very short intervals (in this case by using a limited progression).

In the long run we are all casinos' contributors.

Since there's no way to predict the future BP outcomes after having seen the past, we want to act objectively first then applying a kind of subjective action.
That is the exact opposite action most players try to do: to act subjectively after the objective results came out in the effort to guess more right than not.

Say we set up a strict mechanical plan dictating to bet B-B-P for every triplets of hands we will encounter. We'll take into account what a B-B-P-B-B-P-B-B-P....strategic plan will work in term of W/L hands.

Why I have chosen to wager the B-B-P sequence no matter what?

Easy answer: itlr the 8 possible patterns for sequences of three hands are more likely if they contains at least two B hands. Of course we could get "more likely" sequences not belonging to the B-B-P category as P-B-B or B-P-B.
Moreover B streaks are more likely than B singles so adopting this betting pace sooner or later we'll catch the patterns where this simple situation will exist.

Notice that applying the BBP general strategic plan, in the P-B-B or B-P-B scenarios we'll get at least one winning hand (respectively the second hand and the first hand).

To cut a long story short, we see that streaks equal or longer than 3 cannot give us any loss per every 3-bet sequence.

The only pattern capable to get three consecutive losses is the P-P-B pattern catched right on the start. I mean that a P-P-P-B pattern would give us a winning hand on the last betting B-B-P set.

Of course for every winning pattern there is a losing pattern and we know it is P-P-B or better sayed B/P-P-B.

But we don't want to get more winning patterns than losing ones (even if they are entitled to, vig apart), indeed we want to try to assess the situations when an expected situation will come out more often than not.

Every bac player knows that's quite difficult to be ahead after 4-5 shoes played, so we should infer that after 4-5 shoes a sort of balancement is going to come out.
Especialliy if this is due by mathematical reasons where B>P.

Back to the B-B-P pattern mechanically played.

The worst scenario this pattern would cross will be the P-P-B pattern precisely taken on the very first spot.
Nothing could prevent to get many consecutive P-P-B losing patterns and they surely will show up.
We are betting B-B-P and many P-P-B consecutive patterns are coming out. Actually itlr P doubles are predominant than P 3+s. So nothing wrong with it.
On the other end, B singles are slightly less prevalent than B streaks but long succession of B singles could easily happen.

Anyway the P doubles/B singles consecutive presentation must stop in some way, either by the production of a B streak or by a P 3+ streak/P single appearance.

Now the distribution issue comes out.

Consecutive shoes capable to produce many P-P-B patterns crossing our B-B-P mechaincal  betting plan are not so frequent and actually itlr cannot be prevalent than the whole counterpart.

So we must deduce that the "unlikely" pattern must come out never or isolated on most occasions, and very rarely in clusters.

We can safely assume that itlr its production is slightly lower than 1/8, but when high positive deviations had happened in the immediate past, the probability to encounter negative clustered patterns is somewhat raised.

Notice that the best scenario to get using the B-B-P betting plan will be a B-B-P-B-B-P.... sequence that is a somewhat unlikely pattern.
And actually we do not want to win several consecutive bets, we do want to limit the losing occurences.

Next time we'll consider this strategy on real shoes. 






















Baccarat Forum / The only way to beat BP baccarat hands
« on: August 23, 2017, 01:31:56 am »
B hand is payed 0.95:1 and P hand is payed 1:1; ties ignored, BP frequency is  50.68/49.32.

Everytime we'll win a bet placed on B side not performing an asymmetrical hand we are i.diots.

Everytime we'll win a bet placed on P side not performing an asymmetrical hand we are geniuses.

Everytime we'll lose a bet placed on B side performing an asymmetrical hand we are unlucky geniuses.

Everytime we'll lose a bet placed on P side performing an asymmetrical hand we are i.diots who deserved it.

Two scenarios complete the picture: winning a B hand where an asymmetrical hand will take place (we're geniuses) and winning a bet placed on P side where an asymmetrical hand had taken place (super lucky i.diots).

Itlr the number of the above six scenarios will dictate that our global negative edge is included from 1.06% to 1.24%.

Now, instead of guessing which fkn next hand will come out, try to register how many times we got super geniuses, super idiots, lucky or unlucky at different degrees.
Everything related to the general probability of happening.

For example, winning three consecutive bets on P side where no asymmetrical hand had taken place means we have shifted the asymmetrical probability where we are hugely underdog.
We can bet our behind that the next three P consecutive bets will perform an increased probability to cross an asymmetrical hand.

The same about after having won three consecutive B hands: if they were three symmetrical hands, we can bet our behind that the next three B bet situations will be more likely to encounter at least one asymmetrical hand. Of course we can lose that asymmetrical hand or not crossing it at all, but itlr we cannot be wrong.

Whenever we think the asymmetrical factor is exhausted no matter which the actual results had been, more often than not the game will show up as a mere coin flip proposition. Here one hand is payed 0.95:1 and the other one 1:1.

On the contrary, if we think the aymmetrical factor is "due",  we know that getting payed 0.95:1 will be just a minor damage, as the overall mathematical advantage will erase this "short" payement.

Discounting ties, we know that perfect symmetrical hands will happen 91.6% of the time, the rest is about asymmetrical hands where B side is hugely favored (15.6% edge).

If we'd regularly bet P side and no one asymmetrical hand will take place, we know we're going to play a perfect zero edge game.
Conversely, if we are going to bet the situations where we think the asymmetrical factor is somewhat "due" (more than its general probability of happening), thus betting the B chance, we know to approach an EV+ game.

We must put ourselves into the position not to be super geniuses or super stupid.s for long.
Knowing that a pefect 50/50 proposition is unbeatable, especially whether one side is payed 0.95:1. 











Baccarat Forum / How to beat baccarat itlr
« on: June 22, 2017, 01:02:51 am »
How to beat baccarat itlr?

First, card counting the side bets. It gets you a mathematical advantage. 

Then there is the complicate world of B/P bets.

There is no way to consistently beat the game by following patterns or following lucky players or betting the opposite of unlucky players.
It's what the total amount of players will do and they are losers.

Remember that it's very hard to be ahead after two consecutive shoes and a lot harder to be ahead after 4 or more consecutive shoes. No matter how is sophisticated your strategy.

What we can do is betting the probabilities.

We do not want to hope for, we must rely upon probabilities.

For example after a P-P apparition, probabilties dictate that the most likely occurence will be a P single or a P double. Period.

Or that after an asymmetrical hand favoring (or actually not) Banker, next most likely hand will be a symmetrical hand that is a hand which is payed 1:1 on one side and 0.95:1 on the other one.

Or that after many high cards have been discarded, P side will be slightly favored especially if a lot of 8s and 9s were already drawn from the shoe.

Or that P standing or natural points are less likely than P drawing points, a necessary situation to get the B advantage.

Or that B streaks are more due if there's a lack of asymmetrical hands on the previous hands occurred.

Or that the most likely outcome at baccarat is getting chops and short streaks.

Or that P 3+ streaks are less followed by another P 3+ streak.

And many other situations will be more likely than others itlr.
Do those features regularly get the player an advantage?


There's the variance and variance will enlarge itself the more we are playing. So huge that very often after 3-4 shoes we cannot devise how to get a winning hand.
Worse yet if we got consecutive long winning series giving us the illusion to be genius.

Wait some unlikely situations to come up, odds are that your future bets will be more right than wrong. Especially if such unlikely situations got a sd > 3.

It takes a lot patience, it takes to absorb the assumption that the game is a very long game eventually balancing the outcomes. 
Up to the point that we won't be in the position to bet a dime after 5-6 or 10 or more shoes.

In a word a thing no any bac player in the world wants to accept.

So such players keep losing and losing and losing.












AsymBacGuy / Roulette
« on: May 31, 2017, 11:31:23 pm »
Since when I've joined this awesome site I've been stressing that roulette is a perfectly unbeatable game.
Nevertheless I've found very interesting topics made by some members here, actually imo some of the best ideas about baccarat came from roulette aficionados.

Anyway how could a player erase and invert a -5.26% (or 2.70%) negative edge?

The advent of authomatic wheels (aw from now) made me change my long term opinion.

To blatantly put it, the possible edge a player may have on such wheels is a lot more manageable than what a well lower negative edge game as baccarat could provide.

I mean aw can be beaten and I'm not joking at all.


Any gambling game favoring the casino relies upon the winning premises about its randomness (along with the math edge). The more the game is random the better are the chances the casino will get its long term mathematical edge. At least in theory.

Thus any player cannot get any advantage from a perfect random game as this one will amplify at most the negative math edge.

On the contrary, a quite unrandom model might endorse the player's winning probabilities, providing an accurate and proper player's detection of such unrandomness features.

Good news are we don't have to bother about the supposedly randomness or unrandomness of the game. Meaning that even a so called perfect random game could be beaten beacuse it will raise the equiprobability of the outcomes.

My statement is that perfect random games may be easily beaten as long successions of pc generated bac shoes or long successions of perfect random roulette spins.

That should be true as here a new outcome will be perfectly made independent than the previous one. A thing that could only happen with pc generated outcomes.
And, more importantly, at "controlled" degrees as pc's are stupid by definition.

Real world vs pc generated world

A real world is composed by many subjective and objective variables as a human factor will interfere with the whole process.
The more the objective features will act over the whole process, the better will be the probabilities to get random outcomes and the only sure way to get a more objective impact is knowing that a pc is releasing the outcomes.
A software isn't affected at all by emotional issues, actual issues, sweat, spinning effects or whatsoever that characterizes a human.
It will act according to a more or less pre-ordered plan set up by humans but such parameters will be constant along the way as a pc is stupid. Especially whether the production will act in the same environment.

More importantly we should infer that a pc generation will be instructed to get more random results than what a non software generation could make, that is a better equiprobability of the outcomes.

And more specifically, a software is less likely to produce the exact outcome of the previous situation as it will never choose the same previous landing spot/next ball velocity parameter, taking for grant a constant rotor speed and a constant ball launching time.

Of course there are more issues related to a software generation that I do not want to discuss here for obvious reasons.















Baccarat Forum / Asymbacguy basic approach
« on: April 24, 2017, 11:13:01 pm »
Let's say we are machines wagering against another machine.

The game seems to be a coin flip succession but we know that itlr B>P by every simple or complex BP distribution.

We know that a coin flip succession cannot be beaten by any means.

I repeat it: any coin flip succession cannot be beaten by any means.

If baccarat might be beaten it's because it isn't a coin flip succession.

I repeat it: if baccarat might be beaten it's because it isn't a coin flip succession.

B is more prevalent than P as B includes hands where it has a mathematical advantage due to the rules. It happens just 8.6% of the times.

So B won't be advantaged 100% of the times, neither 50% of the times, neither 20% of the times.
Moreover B won't be 100% advantaged on such 8.6% total hands. Just by a 15.6% percentage.

Simple deduction: regularly wagering B side won't get us any control of the game as there's a lot of variance.

In order to win we need to control the variance.

Hence we need a further hint: distribution and frequency of B related patterns and P related patterns.

Simplest next step is considering B and P patterns in term of B streaks (more prevalent than B singles) and P singles (more prevalent than P streaks).

So a B streak of 2 banker hands in a row will be considered as a B streak of 25 or 30.

The same about P singles: a P single will be considered as a succession of 10-15 or 20 P singles in a row.

In a word, any B streak and/or any P single will be our new simplest targets to look for.

We do not want to guess MANY hands. We do want to guess the least possible amount of hands favoring the construction of the simplest patterns: B streaks and P singles.

Since the random world won't accomplish our simple task everytime, besides the first stop win (the production of just one B streak and/or just one P single) we need to put a stop loss during our endeavour.
We don't want to lose many bets looking for B streaks and P singles when a shoe continues to produce the counterparts. But we need to accept the fact that many positive outcomes will be disregarded by not betting as we cannot know when and how much they will materialize.

The most deviated situations we could expect to are single shoes not presenting one B streak (impossible feature) and no one P single (very very very very unlikely situation, still a possible situation).

The probability to get two consecutive shoes not featuring such situations (no B streaks and no P singles) is not existent.

So we know that no one shoe will form only B singles and that no two consecutive shoes will rule out at least one P single apparition.

Of course we could easily get a shoe forming 10 B singles, one B streak and another 10 or more B singles and many other distributions strongly deviating the "natural" outcomes.
And naturally a couple of long P streaks happening on a single shoe will reduce the probability to get P singles as those streaks are reducing the situations to get them.

In a word, we don't know when and how many B streaks and/or P singles will take place, even if we put at minimum our goal.

To reduce the variance we need a further step.

B streaks clusters (consecutive B streaks of two or more) are more likely than single B streaks (B streaks preceded and followed by one or more B singles) and the same is true about P singles (P singles clusters are more likely than P singles interpoled by two or more P streaks).

If we hadn't to pay the 5% vig, a general plan wagering those patterns will get more B streaks clusters than the counterparts and the same it's true about P singles clusters vs the opposite situation.

Actually if we hadn't to pay the 5% vig, we'll get a sure advantage simply betting B side everytime but here the variance will be very high, so high that we could be behind after 10k or even 20k resolved bets.

So I'm enhancing the issue that in some selected situations the most likely event will be slight more "likely" in relationship of what happened in the past per every shoe.

If anyone is interested about this topic I will continue.

















AsymBacGuy / Asymbac method: key triggers at baccarat
« on: November 11, 2016, 03:13:58 am »
Taken from a BP point of view, baccarat is a beatable game by any means because it's an asymmetrical game. Meaning that itlr something is going to happen more often than not.
Not everytime, never by a steady state. But we know it will.

Two main mathematical conditions will affect the long term outcomes:

1) the asymmetrical factor favoring the B side, mostly when it collects a 4 or 5 two card point;

2) the very slight propensity to get the opposite of the last result, this due to a finite card composition interacting with the bac rules.

Both are two undeniable aspects of the game and I'll challenge any expert of the world to prove otherwise.

Then there is the finite card composition that in some way will limit the random world (mostly because there's no enough room to get a balancement of previous events).

We also know that per every bet wagered we have to overcome a 1.06%/1.24% negative edge but we shouldn't care less as some people have found methods to get en edge at roulette having a 2.70% or 5.26% negative edge.

Of course any random game, no matter how much is asymmetrical, will produce fluctuations statistically known as standard deviation.
In a word, we cannot control or getting the best of it from a random game betting every hand, it's literally impossible even for untaxed situations.

The real holy grail is trying to devise a method capable to win by flat betting. This means to be able to erase the house tax first, then to be able to get more winning situations than losing ones.
Meaning we can control the outcomes.
It could be done but only after very long trackings and after some unexpected situations had occurred.
An astounding method capable to get an almost perfect balancement between two opposite events is good either, because the use of a simple progression will get a good control of the outcomes.   

Disregarding the FB possibility, we should rely upon more likely situations capable to get very low sd values.

After long years of studying and testing baccarat, I devised three principal triggers and a so called systematic plan of action that has nothing to share with the aforementioned triggers.

Here I'll mention the three triggers.

A) The distribution of Banker streaks (that is when a B is followed by another B without regard about the streak's lenght)

B) The distribution of Banker doubles.

C) The distribution of Player 3+ streaks vs counterparts.

Someone will be surprised that in my list I haven't included P singles and P doubles and there's a reason for that I don't want to elaborate.

A) Itlr Banker streaks are more prevalent than B singles counterpart but we all know that many shoes will produce many B singles. So we have to limit the B singles impact in some way. And it's statistics which will give us some help.
Any shoe is a finite and dependent production, so more often than not a strong deviated situation in either way will be NOT compensated by the remaining of the shoe.
The question is: how I'll know that a more likely event will be really more likely or somewhat silent? To answer the question we'll have to devise a method capable to get rid of the unfavorite outcomes (B singles) and trying to get the best of the expected situations (B streaks).
More importantly, we should know the B streaks/B singles ratio knowing the finite nature of the deck and acting accordingly.   

B) Banker doubles are a wonder. They are forced into a struggle between forming a more likely longer streak and the propensity to get the opposite of the last result, that is a B double.
The answer should be quite easy. From one part we have a mathematical diluted edge to get a longer streak and from the other one we have a statistical long term finding. We'd better wait to get a B double and see what happens next.     

C) Player 3+ streaks (a P streak of any 3 lenght or longer) are both the easiest and safest way to approach a method and also the most dangerous ones.
We shouldn't forget that most of the time (91.4%) the BP outcomes are perfectly symmetrical, so without the asymmetrical factor acting in some way (and we should know the previous actual result of such asymmetrical hands) BBB+ is perfectly probable than PPP+, so transforming the game into a perfect unbeatable situation.
Nonetheless, any P 3+ streak and any distribution related to that itlr will have to overcome TWO CONVERGENT opposite factors favoring the production of different outcomes: the asymmetricity and the slight propensity to get the opposite of the last result.

No news, right? Banker is still the best bet or, better sayed, the less negative bet.
This is true most of the times but not always true, as wagering toward the B singles apparition in some circumstances will provide many favourable spots to bet into. Especially knowing the finite card composition of any deck.

You can bet whatever you get that at baccarat there are no other more controllable situations than the three depicted above.

B streaks, B doubles and P 3+ streaks distributions are by far the best triggers to set up a strategy on because without any doubt they are particularly balanced in their appareance and distribution.


AsymBacGuy / Roulette: a sure long term finding
« on: May 18, 2016, 10:31:33 pm »
Even though roulette is a perfect independent results' game, there are some interesting long term features that could be easily tested by everyone.
The strategy  was conducted over 1.500.000 real spins (single zero).

I mean some events are more likely than others. Unfortunately zero tax and some other practical features will lower a lot the value of such aknowledge.

The trigger we are looking for is really simple: we take note of the last number produced then we bet all the 3 EC belonging to this number. And this procedure is made per every last number sorted out.

For example number 33 sorted out, next spin we want to bet black, odd and high.

Obviously such betting will get 4 different outcomes (zero ignored):

- winning all 3 EC (sorting of 29,31,33,35): +3

- winning just one unit (sorting of 11,13,15,17,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28): +1

- losing just one unit (sorting of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,20,30,32,34,36): -1

- losing all 3 EC (sorting of 12,14,16,18): -3

Well, in the long run the number of spots winning all 3 bets are greater than the number of spots losing all 3 bets and it will increase the more the hands are played.

Of course to try getting the best of it from this finding needs also to take into account the spots where we'll either win or lose 1 unit.

Despite of what many may think, there are no better numbers or worse numbers to spot as triggers.

True, red-odd-low numbers or black-even-high numbers should have the theorical best probability to match the same EC on the next spin but this wasn't the case, at least on our quite long sample.

In a word and transferring the plan on the statistical field, we'll expect to have more single total different EC outcomes than streaks of different EC outcomes, more double different EC outcomes than 2+ streaks of different EC outcomes and so on. And the reverse is also true regarding the same EC situations (more streaks than single, more 2+ than doubles, etc).

The variance and the weight of zero could be quite high, yet the final result will be sure.









AsymBacGuy / A progression that can't lose
« on: May 11, 2016, 11:19:31 pm »
We know that any progression will get the best of it whenever a zero equilibrium point will be reached within a fair amount of trials. Of course some progressions could do even better, that is getting the player a profit even when the W/L ratio is shifted toward the right.
Notice that the well known D'Alambert progression will win 1 unit after the equilibrium is reached but not everytime as everything depends about the DISTRIBUTION of W and L.

Here I'm talking about the almost absolute impossibility to lose our entire bankroll and this is a total different thing than stating that we will win easily. Nonetheless knowing that we won't lose in the longest possible runs isn't a vulgar accomplishment.

I have to forcely consider a $100 standard unit bet and the total bankroll is $6600 (66 units).
For simplicity we won't take into account the commission when applied.
Remember that our goal is to reach at a given point a zero equilibrium point, meaning we want to get the W/L ratio = zero.
Later more on that.

Columns are: L deviations, betting amount in $, financial exposure, gain after the equilibrium will be reached

0  $100           100   -
1  $100 + $10 210 10
2  $100 + $20 330 30
3  $100 + $30 460 60
4  $100 + $40 600 100
5  $100 + $50 750 150
6  $100 + $60 910 210
7  $100 + $70 1080 280
8  $100 + $80 1260 360
9  $100 + $90 1450 450
10 $100 + $100 1650 550
11 $200 + $10 1860 660
12 $200 + $20 2080 780
13 $200 + $30 2300 780
14 $200 + $30 2430 910
15 $200 + $30 2760 910
16 $200 + $30 2990 910
17 $200 + $40 3130 1050
18 $200 + $40 3370 1050
19 $200 + $40 3610 1050
20 $200 + $40 3850 1050
21 $200 + $50 4100 1200
22 $200 + $50 4350 1200
23 $200 + $50 4600 1200
24 $200 + $50 4850 1200
25 $200 + $50 5100 1200
26 $200 + $60 5360 1360
27 $200 + $60 5620 1360
28 $200 + $60 5880 1360
29 $200 + $60 6140 1360
30 $200 + $60 6400 1360
31 $200 + $60 6600 1360

We see that to lose our entire bankroll we need either a 5.56 sr negative deviation (like looking at 31 negative hands in a row, a 31 streak) or, most likely, a W/L gap of 31.

Every roulette player knows that a gap between even chances could easily reach and surpass the W/L amount (btw a 31 streak is a very very very rare finding also at this game) but at baccarat we have a lot of ploys to find two opposite events that cannot reach the 31 negative (or less likely positive)value by any fkn means.
Especially if we want to prolong the progression by another 10 or so steps. 

So we know that adopting this slow progression we can't lose or, better sayed, that the probability to lose is really very very low, let's say almost impossible.

And, wonder of wonders, with proper adjustments we may use it betting only the Player side, hence knowing that we won't pay a bit of commission.

In a word, we can even regularly bet the unfavourable side knowing that we can't lose itlr.

A further example why we have to play slowly and with a lot of patience.








Baccarat Forum / Getting an edge and game control
« on: April 26, 2016, 10:02:26 pm »
Getting an edge and controlling the game are two distinct features to consider in order to constantly win at baccarat.

Let's say casinos go crazy reducing the Banker commission from 5% to 1%, so offering a long term profitable game for players wagering Banker.
Now we get a tiny mathematical edge so we'll expect to make some money itlr. And many players will.

Yet even in this fantastic and utopistic game we know we'll have to endure hard times, that is the strong Player dominated shoes appearance.

In a word, if now the commission on B winning bets is 1% (meaning our B bets will be EV+) does our actual strategy be affected in some way?

We know to get a mathematical edge, so we're just concerned about the "game control".

In reality the game control topic isn't so important as we realize that a stup.id flat betting strategy will get the best of it no matter what. But only in the long run. And knowing that positive and negative situations will be mixed along the way: variance.

Therefore in a such hypothetical EV+ game, even knowing to be eventual FB winners, we want to set up a plan capable to "control" the variance and there are only two obvious ways to do that: bet selection and MM.

Now the questions:

- can we improve our results (that is trying to reduce variance) utlizing a possible valid bet selection?

- can we improve our results (that is trying to reduce variance) utilizing a MM plan?

- what about both?

I mean, are there some additional tools to guess what will be the more likely course of action of the outcomes besides the fact that any B bet is slightly EV+?

Do take a role the various trending strategies, the B/P gap issues or many others features the game will provide?
Is a careful planned MM capable to be ok even on the very strong negative circumstances?

It's easy to ascertain the validity of the above strategies. We test a large sample of shoes registering if a planned strategy will overcome such obstacles.

Remember we are there to make a living at baccarat, not just to have fun.

I'm wondering if in this new game some of us will bet the mathematically unfavored Player side for some reasons.

I'm wondering which kind of MM progression experts will use here.

Ok, we know such game will never show up in a casino so we want to transfer the problem into the real game.
Actually the game isn't changed so much, the only difference is we have to pay an additional 4% on Banker winning bets.
I don't think bac players from being long term winners on the hypothetical situation depicted above will become heavy losers because of this added 4%.

Imo, to pretend to think the game as having a positive expectation on Banker bets (with many issues related to that) will improve a lot our results.

We know to encounter hard times even having a positive expectation, still some statistical features might help us to better "control" the game.

The same statistical features might help us to lower, erase or even invert a mathematical negative edge actually happening at real games.

As long as B>P, imo baccarat is a beatable game. Not mathematically of course.






Pages: [1] 2 3 Next