A personal test for bac randomness
Our group is made by frequentist probability lovers, in the sense that we like to collect data coming out from the same exact source and then building a probability theory.
Even the "same source" concept could be a volatile definition: think about shuffling machines operating at two alternate shoes lasting for a X time (number of shuffles per each shoe).
We've found important differences if the same shoe did undergo one or two shuffles or multiple shuffles.
Therefore if we want to exploit the "average" card distribution tool, we want to play at properly shuffled shoes.
Remember the comparison with black jack: low cards-neutral cards-high cards decks (in any LNH sequence) completely deny a card counter math advantage.
Of course such situation could easily happen for natural reasons, but we never know if it seem to appear for "too much" long.
At baccarat we've personally devised two valuable main tools to take care of in order to approximate whether a shoe is really randomly shuffled or not.
a) the math advantaged two-initial cards points losing "too many times" despite of their math propensity to win;
b) a higher than average ratio of hands resolved by 6 cards.
Of course those are the two main factors, there are other minor parameters to look for.
Realize that there's no way to win at baccarat itlr if our bets will get the inferior 2-card initial point as the number of drawouts will be underdog to get a long term edge.
Thus whenever the drawouts are coming out "too often", we theorized that that shoe was improperly shuffled. So unplayable.
Hands resolved by 6 cards is an additional factor to look for and is related to the high neutral card density (more than 30%) along with the 6s,7s,8s and 9s class (again more than 30%), then to other less likely card combinations forming natural points as 5-4, 5-3, 4-4 or standing points as 5-A, 5-2, 4-3, 4-2 or 3-3.
Card distributions not forming those situations AT BOTH SIDES for long are relatively rare and when they're not (that is they are coming out too often) we could assume a kind of randomness bias.
Paradoxically it's better to move around a strong good or strong bad choice than navigating into a more undefined world where too many cards will dictate the actual result.
That's because an overalternating shifted world will be the least situation to happen.
as.
Our group is made by frequentist probability lovers, in the sense that we like to collect data coming out from the same exact source and then building a probability theory.
Even the "same source" concept could be a volatile definition: think about shuffling machines operating at two alternate shoes lasting for a X time (number of shuffles per each shoe).
We've found important differences if the same shoe did undergo one or two shuffles or multiple shuffles.
Therefore if we want to exploit the "average" card distribution tool, we want to play at properly shuffled shoes.
Remember the comparison with black jack: low cards-neutral cards-high cards decks (in any LNH sequence) completely deny a card counter math advantage.
Of course such situation could easily happen for natural reasons, but we never know if it seem to appear for "too much" long.
At baccarat we've personally devised two valuable main tools to take care of in order to approximate whether a shoe is really randomly shuffled or not.
a) the math advantaged two-initial cards points losing "too many times" despite of their math propensity to win;
b) a higher than average ratio of hands resolved by 6 cards.
Of course those are the two main factors, there are other minor parameters to look for.
Realize that there's no way to win at baccarat itlr if our bets will get the inferior 2-card initial point as the number of drawouts will be underdog to get a long term edge.
Thus whenever the drawouts are coming out "too often", we theorized that that shoe was improperly shuffled. So unplayable.
Hands resolved by 6 cards is an additional factor to look for and is related to the high neutral card density (more than 30%) along with the 6s,7s,8s and 9s class (again more than 30%), then to other less likely card combinations forming natural points as 5-4, 5-3, 4-4 or standing points as 5-A, 5-2, 4-3, 4-2 or 3-3.
Card distributions not forming those situations AT BOTH SIDES for long are relatively rare and when they're not (that is they are coming out too often) we could assume a kind of randomness bias.
Paradoxically it's better to move around a strong good or strong bad choice than navigating into a more undefined world where too many cards will dictate the actual result.
That's because an overalternating shifted world will be the least situation to happen.
as.