Since at baccarat a player can virtually bet up to $500k or more per hand, casinos want to be sure that shoes offered won't present any detectable bias, so they rely upon the best random shufflings.
Technically it's not the BP results' distribution that matters (with all the infinite derived roads) but the rank card distribution.
Good news is that there's a relationship between BP results and rank card distribution, now I'm adding a new factor that is the B/P hands gap.
Smaller is the B/P hands gap (especially if BP deviations seem to be "too much" restrained along the course of a shoe) and higher will be the probability to get "undetectable" patterns because such productions tend to get "too many" overalternating events that do not correspond with natural coin flip distributions.
Obviously I'm not referring to long chopping lines or short streaks, just a "weird" propensity to not producing a more natural deviation belonging to a binomial proposition.
On the other end, rare shoes will produce a higher than expected number of B or P deviations, so in some sense what lacks in such productions is the "average" distribution.
If we split the possible patterns into 1) an overalternating mood (OA), 2) moderate or strong deviations (MSD) and 3) average deviations (AD), we'll see that the most part of shoes will belong to the 1+2 category rather than the more exploitable 3 category typical of more common random shoes.
What classifies gambling games is the absolute uncertainty about the next outcomes, yet a decent number of statistical deviations must happen and of course main part of OA and MSD belong to the extremes of the spectrum.
A kind of symmetrical or asymmetrical plan is hugely affected by such propensity as low deviations make more probable to encounter S patterns than A patterns, that's why itlr S>A.
So when too many hands seem to be 6-card resolved, think that the symmetry will be predominant (after all ties come out way more often when 6 cards are used) and the same when the BP ratio seems to get very low deviations along the shoe's course.
Nothing wrong by taking the S side when proper conditions are met, yet the asymmetry will reign supreme especially when S patterns had shown up too often than expected at previous shoes.
Clustered symmetrical patterns
Clustered symmetrical patterns (that is S-S or S-S-S and so on) happening at a shoe make more probable the formation of another symmetrical pattern at the same shoe, the reason beyond that won't be discussed here.
More specifically, different productions are more or less probable to deal S patterns of some level where of course the main class happening will be 1 (single S) or 2 (double S).
Almost always when clustered S events happen, there's more room to get an A pattern clustered at any level (A-A or A-A-A, etc) as rank cards cannot be arranged to constantly get symmetrical situations for long (statistically impossible when 3 or more different random walks are considered).
After all it's a lot more probable that occasional HS players (those who can seriously hurt casinos) will bet toward symmetrical patterns than asymmetrical ones. And such players look for the Big Road, giving a damn about what certain bac scholars try to say.
Taken from another point of view, the line (random walk) getting many A and singled or no S will take the lead over the other ones, sometimes two or rarely three different lines will present clustered S, a sure sign that that shoe isn't playable.
That's one of the precious tools we're looking for:
Once a S clustered pattern had shown up at two different lines (random walks) so far, that shoe is considered as partially unplayable unless our data suggests that a given specific S cluster is more likely to be interrupted by an A event.
Keypoint is that we do not want to guess interminable winning hands, just restricting at most the unfavourable S patterns as the rule at baccarat is to lose and lose and not to win.
When a shoe is weirdly dealing too many S hands, do not try to alter the flow and let it go without betting (don't make the mistake to chase S patterns and let alone A situations).
Next week we'll see the exact percentages of S/A ratios in relationship of the actual production.
as.
Technically it's not the BP results' distribution that matters (with all the infinite derived roads) but the rank card distribution.
Good news is that there's a relationship between BP results and rank card distribution, now I'm adding a new factor that is the B/P hands gap.
Smaller is the B/P hands gap (especially if BP deviations seem to be "too much" restrained along the course of a shoe) and higher will be the probability to get "undetectable" patterns because such productions tend to get "too many" overalternating events that do not correspond with natural coin flip distributions.
Obviously I'm not referring to long chopping lines or short streaks, just a "weird" propensity to not producing a more natural deviation belonging to a binomial proposition.
On the other end, rare shoes will produce a higher than expected number of B or P deviations, so in some sense what lacks in such productions is the "average" distribution.
If we split the possible patterns into 1) an overalternating mood (OA), 2) moderate or strong deviations (MSD) and 3) average deviations (AD), we'll see that the most part of shoes will belong to the 1+2 category rather than the more exploitable 3 category typical of more common random shoes.
What classifies gambling games is the absolute uncertainty about the next outcomes, yet a decent number of statistical deviations must happen and of course main part of OA and MSD belong to the extremes of the spectrum.
A kind of symmetrical or asymmetrical plan is hugely affected by such propensity as low deviations make more probable to encounter S patterns than A patterns, that's why itlr S>A.
So when too many hands seem to be 6-card resolved, think that the symmetry will be predominant (after all ties come out way more often when 6 cards are used) and the same when the BP ratio seems to get very low deviations along the shoe's course.
Nothing wrong by taking the S side when proper conditions are met, yet the asymmetry will reign supreme especially when S patterns had shown up too often than expected at previous shoes.
Clustered symmetrical patterns
Clustered symmetrical patterns (that is S-S or S-S-S and so on) happening at a shoe make more probable the formation of another symmetrical pattern at the same shoe, the reason beyond that won't be discussed here.
More specifically, different productions are more or less probable to deal S patterns of some level where of course the main class happening will be 1 (single S) or 2 (double S).
Almost always when clustered S events happen, there's more room to get an A pattern clustered at any level (A-A or A-A-A, etc) as rank cards cannot be arranged to constantly get symmetrical situations for long (statistically impossible when 3 or more different random walks are considered).
After all it's a lot more probable that occasional HS players (those who can seriously hurt casinos) will bet toward symmetrical patterns than asymmetrical ones. And such players look for the Big Road, giving a damn about what certain bac scholars try to say.
Taken from another point of view, the line (random walk) getting many A and singled or no S will take the lead over the other ones, sometimes two or rarely three different lines will present clustered S, a sure sign that that shoe isn't playable.
That's one of the precious tools we're looking for:
Once a S clustered pattern had shown up at two different lines (random walks) so far, that shoe is considered as partially unplayable unless our data suggests that a given specific S cluster is more likely to be interrupted by an A event.
Keypoint is that we do not want to guess interminable winning hands, just restricting at most the unfavourable S patterns as the rule at baccarat is to lose and lose and not to win.
When a shoe is weirdly dealing too many S hands, do not try to alter the flow and let it go without betting (don't make the mistake to chase S patterns and let alone A situations).
Next week we'll see the exact percentages of S/A ratios in relationship of the actual production.
as.