Perfect, BA!

That's another aspect of what I was talking about.

My patterns are just the best (imo) way (and more are coming) to get the best of it providing a careful assessment of what happened in the past.

Actually take any pattern you want, the more shoes you play/observe, better is the probability to get a kind of balancement ratio, especially if some patterns are more likely than  others.

Say we have a fictional player betting toward B singles and B 3s after any B double appearance.
That is we do not want to get one or more consecutive B doubles in a row.

This player is going to cross a 25% unfavorite/75% favorite ratio no matter what.
Actually there will be more B 3s than B singles after a B doubles, yet a card finite deck must act in some way in either direction.

Such player will get a finite number of isolated B doubles and a finite number of 2-in-a-row or superior B doubles. And so on.
Since the expected ratio is always 3:1, we know that itlr isolated B doubles will be almost equal to superior clustered B doubles.

Easy to see that splitting the outcomes into precise patterns will help us to restrict the variance.

For somewhat "weird" reasons, B doubles are going to distribute more balanced than other balancements.

The same for a fictional player betting toward two B doubles in a row vs the superior counterparts.

The process is more controllable up to 3 B doubles in a row vs the superior counterparts.

Since the overall slight baccarat propensity is to get opposite outcomes than previous ones, our 1-level, 2-level and 3-level fictional players are going to get more balanced results than expected.

In a word, we are trying to control the randomness as we are taking into account precise results itlr.
In fact, every single pattern (whatever considered) will fight against the same opposite situation up to a point where a given deviation MUST come back.
So there are no positive or negative patterns, just ratios.

Of course a 3:1 general probability might come out in clusters or isolated and the same happens (now in long term reversed situations) for the counterparts.

Since sooner or later unfavorite patterns must come out clustered to balance the more likely situations happening along the way, we know that our best strategy will be to hope to get such unfavorite pattarns being either isolated or not coming at all (up to a point).

Thus, our fictional players might start the betting process after having resistered that a given number of unfavorite events had come out, possibly by long clusters or in long alternating forms.

Try to test your shoes.
You start the $10 betting after a 4-5 opposite situation ratio had come out per each level of patterns, tripling the standard bet everytime you have lost the attempt.
If you triple up your wagers everytime after every single pattern had gotten a 4 or 5 to zero ratio, you are not going to encounter long negative situations by any means.

If you use the blue angel approach, your resistance to unfavorite situations will last a lot more.

Actually a possible martingaling tripling approach versus a superior 3-in-a-row B doubles approach after a 4-5 deviation had occurred  cannot cross any failure, providing you'll have the patience to wait. Guaranteed.

as. 







 

@blueangel. Hi!

Actually my super hyper over selected betting plan dictates to consider a single shoe just as a single leaf of a branch, the tree begins to form after 20-30 or more shoes and the forest is just the product of many many trees.

I'm not presenting magical patterns to chase, I've found such patterns as the best tools to greatly increse the probability of success that can't be anything else than the mathematical reflexes of what can happen or not happen per certain range of shoes.

I'm not guessing or chasing anything as I know very well the standard deviation values of those patterns, whether they'll come out isolated, in clusters, in clusters of isolated events or in clustered clusters. Everything per each single level of statistical apparition.

To explain the idea in clearer words, I'm betting from zero to 1 spot per single shoe. Always if my strict conditions are met.

In the 50.68/49.32 infinite process something is going to happen more likely than not even though our mathematical expectation will be negative no matter what.

as.

Quote from: Jimske on April 28, 2018, 03:54:44 PM
Looks good Assym.  One reason, as you point out, is the common occurrences of 1's and 2's - representing 50% of decisions.  By my way of thinking it is good to have a benchmark, a starting plan.  That way there is structure, something that can be explained.  You recognize there needs to be adjustments, fictional bets, MM, whatever.

Nope, P 1s and 2s represent more than 75% of total decisions.
In a perfect simmetrical model, 1s and 2s on each side are 75% of the total outcomes.

as.

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.

as.     

   











   

       

Thanks for the huge interest on this humble post.

Believe me, the stupi.d strategy presented here (and more are coming) will get the best of it itlr with 1 million accuracy.

Say you put in action a player betting toward P 1s and 2s in any order toward getting at least a two pattern sequence and such player is eager to get a profit no matter what, so progressively increasing the bet forever and ever.
Like a 1-2, 4-8, 16-32, 64-128, 256-512 betting plan....

To lose (that is to not cross at least a favorite situation in 5 consecutive attempts) we need to test a lot of shoes.

Sooner or later such unfavourable and very unlikely situation will happen, destroying our previous profits.

Good.

But remember that per every class of 3:1 single losing situation, a more likely proportional winning situation will happen along the way.

We are acting with probabilities on our side, despite what mathematics dictates.

Actually, the number of two P 1s-2s  clusters will overcome the number of opposite situations.

Utilizing a more sensibile approach set up in order to reduce variance, say that the number of 1-2 P clusters will overcome the number of P superior classes. It's a sure long term finding. 

In a word, we are betting that P 3+ streaks are more likely to come out quite dispersed or at least with a pace different from 1 to the rest (where the rest is every possible situation, that is any combination of 1s and 2s superior than one).

Notice that consecutive 3+ P patterns aren't going to produce us any harm as we are not starting any betting.

Generally speaking, we do not want to bet toward what it didn't happen so far, as 2 level must come out after a 1 and not after a zero.

The more the actual shoe tend to produce zero o 1 situations, higher will be the propensity to not bet a single dime.

Remember that surely the more likely happens in clusters, but at the same time sh.it happens in clusters and a single shoe is just a minuscule part of the whole picture.

as. 

Quote from: Albalaha on April 27, 2018, 02:59:03 AM
Things are not that simple. Simulate a randomly picked big data of baccarat outcomes to know the real picture. If you can not do so manually, get it coded. Making statements of "unbeatable" is no child's play.

Yep. 

Of course without a math edge, nothing is "unbeatable".
Still this method is far better and simpler than the myriad of miracle systems sold everywhere.   

Moreover it was tested over thousands and thousands of simulated shoes, stuff that we are not certain is going to come out on real tables.

as.

Another good rule of thumb is to classify how previous 3+ P streaks had come out, if they come out by winning asymmetrical hands favoring the banker we should wait more favourable situations.

A betting variation is to stay at the same level when losing and raising the bet (by 20% or so) after a win, maybe for 4-5 times in a row.

Moreover I suggest to use this approach in a EZ bac table, where the HE is lower and for huge sums wagered we can bet the fortune 7-bet.

as.     

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.

Quote from: alrelax on March 01, 2018, 05:39:40 PM



We have both written about this stuff.

Exactly. :-)

as.

Quote from: wannawin on March 01, 2018, 05:55:40 PM
I also notice that people who play with more numbers than even chances have a confidence because they have the advantage of the probabilities in the next hand. Is this really justified??

Yes.

Itlr, even a perfect 50/50 non taxable proposition is unbeatable by definition.
Since the EV remains the same no  matter how many numbers we decide to wager, knowing that we always get a limited bankroll as opposed to house's money, we'll better choose to utilize p higher than 50% unless we have reasons to think that few numbers are more likely to occur.
No edge = better opportunities to be ahead having a p>50%.

as.




 

I understand what you meant, Al! 

I'm not advocating a general cut betting plan, actually a 1-3 plan means to bet toward 3s after a 2.
Maybe you never watched me playing, if I'm winning after getting those favourable 3s (not mentioning that I do not utilize this plan alone) and the 3s are 5s, 6s or longer streaks I'll ride them frantically.
Of course I need a 3 apperance to think that a streak could last, I need some previous clustered 3s outcomes and many other situational events that cannot be easily expressed.

You know very well what i'm talking about: following "drivers" who seem to not lose a single hand, shoes containing back to back ties with no end, observing the opportunites of one side  constantly showing 0,1 or 2 initial points, one side always getting a picture as third card and so on.

I'm sure you can add more on that 

as.






   

Hi Al!
I fear that I've badly expressed the concept about "3s": I name 3s as any streak of 3 and higher.

@sputnik. I know. Actually it's since my first apparition here that I've mentioned the same concept in my defunct "dispositions and distributions" topic. :-)

as. 

Examples. I've just run 10 shoes and let's see what happened (first 5 shoes).

Pretend we are really playing on those shoes, say in a couple of sessions.

shoe #1:

B side: 2,2,2,1,1,1,1,3,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,3,1,3,1,1,1,2,3.
P side: 1,2,1,1,3,1,1,1,3,2,2,1,3,1,2,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,3,1.

AS march applied:
B side + + + - + + - + + + + - + + + + + - -
P side + + - + + + + - - + - + + + + + + + - +

B side: + clustered, 4; + isolated 0; - isolated , 3; - clustered 1.
P side: +clustered, 3; + isolated, 1; - isolated, 3; - clustered, 1.

shoe #2

B side: 1,3,3,2,2,3,1,2,1,1,2,1,3,2,1.
P side: 1,1,3,1,1,1,3,1,1,2,2,2,3,3,1.

That is:

B side: + - - + + + - -
P side: + + + + + + - + + -

B side: + clustered 1; + isolated 1; - isolated 0; - clustered 1.
P side: + clustered 2; + isolated 0; - clustered 0; - isolated 1.

shoe #3

B side: 3,3,2,2,3,1,1,1,2,2,3,2,3,3,1,1,2,1,1,3.
P side: 2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,3,3,1,3,3,1,1,3,3,1.

B side: + + - + - + - + + -
P side: + + + + + + + - + + + + + + + + +

B side: + clustered, 2; + isolated 2; - isolated 2; - clustered 0.
P side: +clustered 2; + isolated 0; - clustered 0; - isolated 1.

shoe #4

B side: 3,1,1,1,3,2,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,2,2.
P side: 1,1,3,3,2,1,2,3,1,3,1,2,1,1,1,2,1,2.

B side: + + + - + + + + + + + + + + +
P side: + - + - + + - + + + + +

B side: + clustered 2; + isolated 0; - isolated 1; - clustered 0
P side: + clustered 2; + isolated 2; - isolated 3; - clustered 0.

shoe #5

B side: 3,1,3,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1.
P side: 2,1,1,1,1,1,1,3,1,2,1,2,1,2,2,2,3,2,1,1,1.

B side: + - + + + + + + + + + +
P side: + + + + + - - + + + + + + - + +

B side: + clustered: 1; + isolated 1; - isolated 1; - clustered 0.
P side: + clustered 3; + isolated 0; - isolated 1; - clustered 1.

as.

Quote from: Bac2Bac on February 26, 2018, 04:47:13 PM
Hi AsymBacGuy,
     Would you explain how you got the + and - for banker and player.
      Please continue to elaborate on this most intriguing topic.
      I've been waiting so long to learn the valuable lessons that you have to offer.
      I truly appreciate your vast knowledge.

You are too kind, thanks a lot!

Per every shoe think and register what happens on red (B) and blue (P) sides in terms of 1,2 and 3s.
A vertical registration (for example at Gold Coast casino in Vegas some displays use it) would be a better tool than the common horizontal display registration.
Whenever the last outcomes are 1,2 or 2-1, 1-3 or 3-1 you'll start the fictional or real betting hoping that the third outcome (3 on 1-2 and 2-1 betting; 2 on 1-3 and 3-1 betting) will remain silent as long as possible.

If you decide to apply a 1-2 betting progression (for example $20 on the first bet and, if lost, $40 on the second bet) you'll sign a + sign. Otherwise (both bets are lost) you'll write a - sign.
Naturally a + sign means a +1 unit (minus the vig if appliable) and a - sign means -3 units.

Unfortunately this approach get rids of some uniformed single outcome situations that can't be the signal of any fictional or real betting.
For example a "good looking" shoe as a starting 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 sequence happening on P side won't elicit any betting.
Good news are that those sequences are not accounted only if they started at the very beginning of the shoe. In every other shoe position they are very very good.

At the same token, a sequence like 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2 isn't so good to start the 1-2 betting as a kind of "singles consumption" happened at the very start of the shoe and the same is even more true if the initial sequence was 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-1.
Actually sequences like those are more likely to produce instant losses than wins (that is a 3 appearance on both examples).

Contrary to popular belief, with some experience you'll get a better idea of how things work most likely itlr, but never in terms of numbers but in terms of distribution and probability fo success expectation.

And in reality the probability to get a shoe only formed by P singles and P doubles is quite lowered if the initial sequences were those as depicted above.

Another common misconception is to consider "good shoes" and "bad shoes".
Good shoes being something like (on any B P side): 1-2-1-1-2-1-2-2-1-1-1-2 (+ + + + + + + + + +) or 1-2-1-3-2-1-3-3-2-3-1-2-3 (+ - - - + - - -).

Applying the march without any additional hint, in  the former shoe will get a +10 units (minus the vig) and in the latter a -16 units loss).
Those shoes are just the effect of the same probability working per every single shoe but not surprisingly you'll get more #1 shoes on P side and #2 shoes on B side than opposite situations.

Since we don't want to join a baccarat table to guess every hand or most part of every hands, we must restrict our field of intervention at the cost to miss some favourable opportunities.
Notice that in the example #1 our task was quite easy: we followed the 1-2 more expected P flow.  In the latter example, a high mix of 1,2 and 3s came along the way so we weren't in the position to guess a fkn nothing (except if that sequence was on B side so wanting to generally bet toward B streaks).

Trying to get many easy As march winning shoes is just a silly move as we must expect a nearly proportional amount of losing shoes, thus we have to classify by this march standards a very large number of shoes and this is done in terms of simple  + and - sign successions.

So any single shoe must be transformed into a + - succession on both sides no matter how were the actual 1,2 and 3 results.

After doing this we should remember the mathematical implications of such endeavour.

For every 2-step progression involved, the probability to win is about 75% and 25% is the remaining probability to lose.
Thus itlr we'll expect to get a lot more W clusters than W isolated events and the same about having more L isolated situations than L clustered situations.
Going up we'll get more WWW situations than WW situations than WWW events and more LLW situations than LLL events. And so on but we do not need to go so deeply.
From a mathematical point of view and knowing that we are taking into account 8 different two event patterns (1-2, 2-1, 1-3 and 3-1 on two sides), the spots where some W clustered situations would be more likely to show up clustered along the way shouldn't be a concept so difficult to grasp.

as.

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.

Example

Our shoe portion will be as BBPBPPPPBPBBBPBPBBPPPPPPBBPBPPBPBBB

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: + - + - + + +  -
and
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.


as.