Since when I've joined this awesome site I've been stressing that roulette is a perfectly unbeatable game.
Nevertheless I've found very interesting topics made by some members here, actually imo some of the best ideas about baccarat came from roulette aficionados.

Anyway how could a player erase and invert a -5.26% (or 2.70%) negative edge?

The advent of authomatic wheels (aw from now) made me change my long term opinion.

To blatantly put it, the possible edge a player may have on such wheels is a lot more manageable than what a well lower negative edge game as baccarat could provide.

I mean aw can be beaten and I'm not joking at all.

Preface.

Any gambling game favoring the casino relies upon the winning premises about its randomness (along with the math edge). The more the game is random the better are the chances the casino will get its long term mathematical edge. At least in theory.

Thus any player cannot get any advantage from a perfect random game as this one will amplify at most the negative math edge.

On the contrary, a quite unrandom model might endorse the player's winning probabilities, providing an accurate and proper player's detection of such unrandomness features.

Good news are we don't have to bother about the supposedly randomness or unrandomness of the game. Meaning that even a so called perfect random game could be beaten beacuse it will raise the equiprobability of the outcomes.

My statement is that perfect random games may be easily beaten as long successions of pc generated bac shoes or long successions of perfect random roulette spins.

That should be true as here a new outcome will be perfectly made independent than the previous one. A thing that could only happen with pc generated outcomes.
And, more importantly, at "controlled" degrees as pc's are stupid by definition.

Real world vs pc generated world

A real world is composed by many subjective and objective variables as a human factor will interfere with the whole process.
The more the objective features will act over the whole process, the better will be the probabilities to get random outcomes and the only sure way to get a more objective impact is knowing that a pc is releasing the outcomes.
A software isn't affected at all by emotional issues, actual issues, sweat, spinning effects or whatsoever that characterizes a human.
It will act according to a more or less pre-ordered plan set up by humans but such parameters will be constant along the way as a pc is stupid. Especially whether the production will act in the same environment.

More importantly we should infer that a pc generation will be instructed to get more random results than what a non software generation could make, that is a better equiprobability of the outcomes.

And more specifically, a software is less likely to produce the exact outcome of the previous situation as it will never choose the same previous landing spot/next ball velocity parameter, taking for grant a constant rotor speed and a constant ball launching time.

Of course there are more issues related to a software generation that I do not want to discuss here for obvious reasons.

as. 








   


 

 

 
 







 



   





 



   





   

 

Quote from: ADulay on February 28, 2017, 09:55:45 PM
Wow!  BMW makes cars, too!  That's great.

AD

ahahahhh, right! 

LOL. You are right. 

Anyway, I really like your joining on the moderator's group.

And you still owe me that Benihana dinner in Vegas 

as.

Quote from: alrelax on February 28, 2017, 02:14:41 PM
Scratch the Cognac, you owe me a BMW, any model, 2016 or newer.  Thanks. 

Good choice Al.
I'd suggest a BMW i8, fantastic line and an unbelievable gas saver.

as.

Quote from: ludo8400 on January 27, 2017, 09:35:50 AM
I make on the Casino 100 units per session. Air Roulette
ludo8400

100 units per session?

Quite impressive.

Let us know what your following results will be.

as. 

There's a general theorical problem when betting a "sleepers" oriented strategy: you'll never know whether the given results are real fluctuations or produced by a biased wheel.
In the doubt I'd prefer to either not to bet at all or to wager what happened instead of what it didn't happen so far.
Moreover, a sleeping numbers cluster could easily contain one or more number to sleep several hundreds of spins. And just for normal statistical reasons. So I'm betting maybe 16 or 17 numbers vs a larger pool than a 18/37 ratio dictates.
Of course a smaller numbers ratio could get an empirical slight higher probability to appear and it seems you have found such situations to be more probable than not. 

 
as. 

Hi!

As you well know, the fact that 12 silent numbers can be sleeping for a lot more than normal dozens or columns do is just a reflex of the innumerable possible combinations forming clusters of 12 numbers.
The table layout has only six possible combinations of such possibilities.

I recordered a sleeping dozen created by 12 silent numbers that remained silent for 92 spins (I tried your same methodology several years ago taking a Marigny De Grilleau suggestion).

Don't know about 18 numbers, I think you can expect to get them silent for 50 or more spins.

More interesting is the study of the exact position of dozens or, better, lines (6 numbers) coming along the way in order to build a dynamic new even chance.
You'll have to wait the situations when the positions in the last three spins are different, then betting the remaining three positions. This is your trigger.
Since you won't bet when positions are repeating, you are excluding a large part of the random world and at the same time you'll be more confident that sooner or later at least one of the three remaining positions you bet will be filled.
In a word, you shift the problem from "what" (line) to "when" (position) and "how" (actual distribution).

Cheers
   
as.




   





   

Congratulations Al!

I always liked the tone you used to counter back members' different opinions.

Now stop to talk about trends value     Just teasing....

Happy New year!

as.

Happy New Year to everyone, hoping you'll get a lot of naturals when betting P side and a lot of asymmetrical hands when betting B hand!

as. 

To make less confusion it might be better to classify DS as letters: A (1-6), B (7-12), C(13-18) etc...

Stay well

as.

Quote from: Ted009 on November 15, 2016, 10:49:26 PM
Please help how you get the  DS 135, 163 etc.
Thank you

You simpiy have to collect three different DS in three consecutive spins.

If spins are 33 (6), 14 (3) and 27 (5) you have DS 6-3-5.

If spins are 32, 12, 33, you need another spin to get the trigger as now you have 6-2-6 (no good). Next spin is 35: again no good as you have 2-6-6. So now you need two more spins (unless OP consider 6-6 as a single 6). 

as.







 

Quote from: alrelax on November 11, 2016, 02:59:35 PM

We really need to meet and talk, LOL..........................

Sure Al!!
You pick up the restaurant! 

as.

Quote from: alrelax on November 11, 2016, 01:37:08 PM
As,  A lot of this is subjective. 

Hi Al, probably I badly expressed the core of my method.

There's nothing subjective in my strategy. I'm not guessing anything or hoping for something.

It's a strict mechanical method based on the above three objective occurences and based upon very long statistical findings.

Obviously it takes some time to discover the triggers. And a lot of patience.

I'm not betting toward or against banker streaks or banker doubles or using an anti- P triples strategy.
I just want to get a fair amount of expected hands in selected spots without a large variance impact because statistics suggested this.
That's why a large percentage of any shoe is totally ininfluent for me (think about 2+ B streaks, P streaks longer than 3, singles and so on)

Anyway your comments are always interesting and very welcome.

as.   

Btw, you noticed that I always consider each side separately, imo the best way to try to control the baccarat random world.

as.

Taken from a BP point of view, baccarat is a beatable game by any means because it's an asymmetrical game. Meaning that itlr something is going to happen more often than not.
Not everytime, never by a steady state. But we know it will.

Two main mathematical conditions will affect the long term outcomes:

1) the asymmetrical factor favoring the B side, mostly when it collects a 4 or 5 two card point;

2) the very slight propensity to get the opposite of the last result, this due to a finite card composition interacting with the bac rules.

Both are two undeniable aspects of the game and I'll challenge any expert of the world to prove otherwise.

Then there is the finite card composition that in some way will limit the random world (mostly because there's no enough room to get a balancement of previous events).

We also know that per every bet wagered we have to overcome a 1.06%/1.24% negative edge but we shouldn't care less as some people have found methods to get en edge at roulette having a 2.70% or 5.26% negative edge.

Of course any random game, no matter how much is asymmetrical, will produce fluctuations statistically known as standard deviation.
In a word, we cannot control or getting the best of it from a random game betting every hand, it's literally impossible even for untaxed situations.

The real holy grail is trying to devise a method capable to win by flat betting. This means to be able to erase the house tax first, then to be able to get more winning situations than losing ones.
Meaning we can control the outcomes.
It could be done but only after very long trackings and after some unexpected situations had occurred.
An astounding method capable to get an almost perfect balancement between two opposite events is good either, because the use of a simple progression will get a good control of the outcomes.   

Disregarding the FB possibility, we should rely upon more likely situations capable to get very low sd values.

After long years of studying and testing baccarat, I devised three principal triggers and a so called systematic plan of action that has nothing to share with the aforementioned triggers.

Here I'll mention the three triggers.

A) The distribution of Banker streaks (that is when a B is followed by another B without regard about the streak's lenght)

B) The distribution of Banker doubles.

C) The distribution of Player 3+ streaks vs counterparts.

Someone will be surprised that in my list I haven't included P singles and P doubles and there's a reason for that I don't want to elaborate.

A) Itlr Banker streaks are more prevalent than B singles counterpart but we all know that many shoes will produce many B singles. So we have to limit the B singles impact in some way. And it's statistics which will give us some help.
Any shoe is a finite and dependent production, so more often than not a strong deviated situation in either way will be NOT compensated by the remaining of the shoe.
The question is: how I'll know that a more likely event will be really more likely or somewhat silent? To answer the question we'll have to devise a method capable to get rid of the unfavorite outcomes (B singles) and trying to get the best of the expected situations (B streaks).
More importantly, we should know the B streaks/B singles ratio knowing the finite nature of the deck and acting accordingly.   

B) Banker doubles are a wonder. They are forced into a struggle between forming a more likely longer streak and the propensity to get the opposite of the last result, that is a B double.
The answer should be quite easy. From one part we have a mathematical diluted edge to get a longer streak and from the other one we have a statistical long term finding. We'd better wait to get a B double and see what happens next.     

C) Player 3+ streaks (a P streak of any 3 lenght or longer) are both the easiest and safest way to approach a method and also the most dangerous ones.
We shouldn't forget that most of the time (91.4%) the BP outcomes are perfectly symmetrical, so without the asymmetrical factor acting in some way (and we should know the previous actual result of such asymmetrical hands) BBB+ is perfectly probable than PPP+, so transforming the game into a perfect unbeatable situation.
Nonetheless, any P 3+ streak and any distribution related to that itlr will have to overcome TWO CONVERGENT opposite factors favoring the production of different outcomes: the asymmetricity and the slight propensity to get the opposite of the last result.

No news, right? Banker is still the best bet or, better sayed, the less negative bet.
This is true most of the times but not always true, as wagering toward the B singles apparition in some circumstances will provide many favourable spots to bet into. Especially knowing the finite card composition of any deck.

You can bet whatever you get that at baccarat there are no other more controllable situations than the three depicted above.

B streaks, B doubles and P 3+ streaks distributions are by far the best triggers to set up a strategy on because without any doubt they are particularly balanced in their appareance and distribution.

as.