« on: August 29, 2020, 09:26:16 pm »
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.