Still waiting to see those shoes Al!
Thanks.

as.

Sorry Lungyeh, I've cleared some of my inappropriate posts, I have nothing against MBS in Singapore or any other casino in the world for that matter.

Back to your question.

Baccarat tables offering continuos shuffling are a totally different beast.

Of course when proper conditions are met, any card game is beatable by definition.
If outcomes are provided by a CSM, the issue is more complicated as any hand is a new hand springing from a fresh deck. Maybe certain card tracking techniques could work.
I suggest to search the CSM topic at Black Jack forums.

Anyway and even though the card removal effect is zero, CSMs still work physically.
We need to collect a lot of CSM data acting on the same deck and then filtering the results by a multiparameter factor. Then to analyze if a kind of substantial unrandomness shows up after a given succession of cards (specific ranks).

My guess is that CSM decks are either totally unbeatable or, less less likely, wonderfully beatable (that is more beatable than normal live shoes).

For sure many bac players like to touch (say destroy) the cards so I do not expect much success from CSM tables.

as.

Quote from: Albalaha on October 22, 2019, 05:17:44 AM
That is the dilemma. You can not win without huge risk if you play all over and triggers suck good opportunities. Rather make a framework for all over play with strategic stop losses.

Exactly.


as.

Quote from: Albalaha on October 21, 2019, 05:57:10 AM
Winning by flat betting is something that I reached somewhere closer but could never conclude as final and playable. If you have a bet that even doesn't win flat but lessens the house edge by half or more, in the long run by clear simulations, it can be the best HG possible with my inputs.

You give me a better bet than all, I give you the best MM approach possible for the long run.

Right now, my MM is almost immune from 99.9% cases and I have even beaten the worst recorded in roulette and baccarat with it, although after a long fight, which is obvious. I do stress upon playing within a reasonable table limit and chips limit too. I believe that merely increasing or decreasing bet is not a way to a correct money management.

Interesting.

Actually in order to minimize the risk of crossing long fights, I think I'm losing some profitable opportunities.


as.

So it seems that baccarat can be beaten by a strict mechanical bet selection, the name of this wonderful site.....
At least it's what my multiple years tests say that I've completed yesterday.

Probably some people play an EV+ game by using other tools, the main being long term experience, I just prefer to do things scientifically as much as possible. 

Summarizing.

Certain (rare) baccarat hands give the player a sure edge, meaning that the same situation repeatedly bet and bet and bet by the same amount will provide a very interesting edge (not bighornsh.it edges as "perfect pc play" or stuff like that) .

Since I'm not a baby in the wood when talking about baccarat, I can only attribute this success to the partial unrandomness of the shufflings.
That is I'm strongly convinced that randomness working into a math negative edge game cannot be beaten, especially by a flat betting strategy, the cardinal feature to know if we're doing good or not.

Cards are arranged to give certain outcomes, it's impossible to guess which side will be favorite to win, but either the distribution of outcomes and the expected values could help us to know whether there's a shuffling very close to randomness or anything else.
To emphasize the importance of this topic, say that "Casino War" game it's 100% beatable whether any card is dealt without any further shuffle and offered with a proper deck penetration, And in the real world you'll never find conditions like that.

Of course Casino War is a perfect symmetrical game, meaning that no other asymmetrical factors will intervene in the process.
Obviously players can only bet their side, that is just one side.

Baccarat is not a perfect high card game, as occasionally (8.4% of the times) one side takes the third card according to the rules and mathematically advantaging it.
Therefore we have two different basic random walks working on the same shoe: the symmetrical probability and the asymmetrical probability.
To say the truth a third probability will show up, the tie probability that slightly tend to disrupt some more likely situations. Especially when a large amount of shoes is utilized.

The tie interference provides quite a burden as tie probability is hugely endorsed whenever 6 cards are used to resolve one hand.

More later

as. 

Glad to hear your comments.
I've got many of the same conclusions you've posted.

Just yesterday I've finished my multiple years study directed to reach the ambitious task of winning by flat betting and by utilizing a strict mechanical betting plan.

Now I'm wondering what we can do by using progressions knowing that you are the Master in that field.

as.

Ok, yet we know that the more we bet even money propositions, larger will be the gap between W and L, of course nothing prevent us to be in the positive side coincidentally.

Moreover at least at the time I'm writing, no one financial plan has ever demonstrated to control a 50/50 probability model, unless a very diluted multilayered progression plan is conceived.
Let alone whether a taxed coin flip propositon is in order.

I mean that stop loss or stop winning plans have demonstrated no advantages to any other random betting plan, unless we have reasons to think that random walks are limited in some way.

What I'm asking is if you are always confident to bet into a possible perfect random model, in the sense that not knowing the actual conditions I'd be more prone to wager toward a "deviated" world than hoping to get a kind of balancement.

Thanks.

as. 


   

Any method can't work whether we are going to consider each shoe dealt as perfect randomly shuffled.
It's our interest to know that itlr unrandom shuffled shoes will tend to produce "random" results, that is that short term deviations are attributed to the simple variance's action.
It should be our duty to catch the situations where this unrandomness will take place most.
Never globally, always in relationship to the actual shoe we're observing/playing.

It's 100% certain that players making a living at this game won't bet the first hands of a shoe and never enter the game without having observed the cards pace.
I mean they are not focused about outcomes but about cards falling and actual situations.
Key cards, obviously.
And of course drawing and standing and third card nature situations (say successions).

More on that later.

as.

Remember the limited sections and shoes that any kind of situation can be present, or you will NOT be able to identify such and be able to wager on same.  Steal the situation with every ounce of energy and motivation you can physically present and then revert when it is over.

I can't agree with you enough. 

as.

That's a good list indeed.
Probably casinos would win much less if every player will follow religiously those guidelines.

You have to learn that the shoe you are gambling at, has no dependency or connection to any statistical or other tangible or intangible research or thought, anywhere, anyplace, any way, shape or form


I agree with this statement only because you used the word "gambling".

as. 

Quote from: roversi13 on October 10, 2019, 09:27:43 AM
When are you sure that you are facing a bad shuffling?
During the shoe?During the shuffling itself?
It's depends on the permanence or on the lazy croupier?

Almost every shoe dealt is bad shuffled, unfortunately this feature won't get the player any help in many instances.
Thus it's not how bad is shuffled an entire shoe that matters, instead it's how bad a shoe is shuffled in some portions of the deck.

Itlr bac outcomes are strictly related to the actual distribution of key cards, falling here or there yet forming some more or less likely sequences.
Obviously nothing is more likely than the counterpart unless a strong unrandomness went in place (of course this may happen even into a perfect random environment coincidentally).

At any rate, the shuffling moves made by a live dealer or a CSM working on the same deck will produce the best opportunities to catch the situations where unrandomness will reign.
Notice that 100% of the CSM decks are dealt alternatively (meaning that two different entire decks are shuffled each time).
Of course where a CSM isn't working, it's virtually impossible that a live dealer will shuffle the cards in a perfect random fashion.

At HS tables (where most money is collected by casinos), decks are presented pre-shuffled and slight manually shuffled after, therefore the situation is more unclear.
Should players fear a close to a perfect random shuffle?
No way.
Unless cards are arranged by a software, perfect randomness will get no place into an 8-deck shoe.
The casinos' fortune is because players want to win too much in the wrong place or to win per every shoe dealt, an impossible task by any means.

That means that whether we're properly selecting the playable shoes and the favourable spots,  baccarat is 1 trillion percent beatable scientifically by a close to 0% probability error.

Just as decks are not perfectly shuffled.

as.

Roversi, I'll try to respond to you later.

as.

Quote from: Lungyeh on October 10, 2019, 07:20:04 PM
Asymbac, is there a target amount that one wins and then stops? Say if one goes in with 5,000 what would be the recommended bet amount per hand and the recommended target win amount before you stop? For you.

Thanks.

Hi Lungyeh!

No way we should set up a winning goal whenever a shoe is astoundingly playable.
Our rule is to keep betting and betting, stop comes after we'll lose two or three (in the latter case whether we've won a lot) hands in a row.

If I had to put in play a $5000 bankroll, I'd make $400 or $500 standard wagers, i want to guess right by risking 10-12 units or so. Of course my betting is extremely diluted and shoe-depending.
   
Extremely favourable shoes are not coming around the corner, but they are still quite likely.
In our over selected random walks multiparameter action (very difficult to put in action without the use of an illegal device that, btw, we never used), we have assessed that strong favourable shoes are coming out at a 1:3 ratio. 
In the real world I assess that such ratio is lowered to 1:4.

In conclusion I'd say that it's not what we want to win per every session played but just how will be the probability to cross those strong favourable shoes.

as.

No matter how smart we are and how deeply we have studied the game, if we consider bac outcomes as pure random propositions we know that after playing 2/3 of the total hands of each shoe, after 5 shoes dealt the probability to be ahead of something is very small.
Up to the point that whenever a player is ahead of something (without having wagered any side bet) only two things happened: either he was getting a positive variance or, more likely, he was betting EV+ spots by a proper spread betting.

Since there's no way to overcome a negative edge working into a random game by a spread betting strategy, we must infer that acute players make some "low" bets just for the illusion of action, let's say only for comp purposes.

In a word, if baccarat is beatable is because itlr we will get the  best of it by a flat betting strategy.
That is some spots are slightly more likely than others.

And, again, this thing is only possible whether cards are not properly shuffled.

Discard the random world and ride the situations when a kind of unrandom world happens.
Sometimes this could be done coincidentally.
We prefer to do it scientifically.

as. 

Quote from: roversi13 on October 02, 2019, 05:55:24 AM
I have been playing for long period B after PB(looking for double B) or B after BP (looking for single P),that are the two more frequent decisions.
Bad results!
I didn't find any difference between these two attacks and playing B all the time.
Why a difference should exist?

Hi roversi!

The probability of the so called "more likely outcomes" is strongly related to the actual card distribution. Not every shoe is playable.
In order to get a strong advantage, we need to play only badly shuffled shoes.

Recently we've set up a marvelous $500-$20.000 spread betting action at a high end casino acting as pure drunk clowns and where a mate was previously treated really bad and looking for revenge.
Ask how things went after a 13-hour playing session.

as.