When we study a game we want to find possible flaws capable to build a long term winning plan, that is dissecting every aspect of it.

In essence, there are two main targets to look for:

1- some patterns exhibit a long term one-sided slight propensity capable to erase/invert the HE

2- W/L ranges of some attacks move by sd values lower than expected.

The best #1 example not needing any study is the B>P math propensity (which of course doesn't erase/invert nothing), so B bets are better than P bets.
Unfortunately, in reality B bets are "less worse" than P bets and sometimes that's not even true (no commission tables with B being payed half when winning by a 6).

Trying to forecast a more likely B apparition than expected based upon precedent patterns is a worthless effort. Verified one million of times.

The B propensity is mostly based upon the B4 and B5 initial points meeting a P drawing hand and those situations aren't going to come out so frequently. Meaning that the majority of B bets are just a waste of money (even though less money is wasted than at P bets).

Therefore if some patterns are long term more likely than others and capable to erase/invert the HE, they must also incorporate P hands.

That should be the effect of the average key cards impact and in turn of the average shoe shuffling.

Most "random" results show up when 6 cards are utilized to form a final hand, "curiously" the same situation where a tie is way more probable to come out.

It's like that situations needing 6 cards to form a hand tend to disrupt a more normal flow of the game, that is a kind of "restricted" ranges apparition.
In some way and after one or more 6 card hands, we could even think to restart the deviation values, being quite limited by definition.

Moreover even the asymmetrical/symmetrical patterns are affected by this, so more likely sinking into the undetectable ocean.

There are infinite ways to ascertain the asymmetrical hands/patterns distribution, one of the easiest is to look what happens at back to back columns.
Obviously we have reasons to limit the field of intervention by stopping the registration when a symmetrical pattern happened twice then waiting for a different pattern to show up.
Again, each pattern is considered by a 0.75 probability.

Here's some examples (A=asymmetrical pattern, S=symmetrical pattern)

S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A  (easy shoe)

S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A  (medium shoe)

A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S  (difficult shoe)

A-A-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-S-A-S   (difficult shoe)

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A  (medium shoe)

A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S  (difficult shoe)

S-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-A   (difficult)

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A (easy)

S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-S  (medium)

as.

Most part of long term successful players (there aren't many, of course) treat baccarat as a game filled of huge uncertainty. No news.

The most important consequence, verified by long term data, is that very few hands are able to erase and invert the HE.

Obviously in the short term and due to the almost 50/50 nature of the game, one could be ahead for several sessions thinking to be a kind of genius or, simply, because he/she was kissed by luck.

Basically long term successful players play baccarat as a relatively "finite" infinite situations, meaning that each shoe (the finite part) will represent infinitely by the same general features displayed after having dissected a large amount of data.

Thus they don't hope for, they just "fear" that the devised betting spot won't belong to the more likely category assessed by running the same situation the more they could.

In any EV- game, the paramount goal remains to preserve the bankroll and not trying to be ahead at all costs, therefore all intermediate winning/losing situations must get the least deviations.

After all and after a fair amount of shoes played, baccarat might concede us just a tiny amount of possible EV+ hands that shouldn't be wasted by betting too many hands.

The idea that every hand is EV- as math dictates so is a total fkng bigh.ornsh.it, it's just a matter of time and proper betting selection to disprove that.


Consider the previous post about 2-3 streaks.
Suppose we have some fictional players betting for us: all of them will wager toward C-C vs a C-I pattern.

Player #1 whenever a C shows up will wager toward another C then stops.

Player #2 whenever a C-I-C shows up will wager toward another C then stops.

Player #3 whenever a x-I-I shows up will wager toward a C then stops.

Results (before vig for simplicity).

Player #1: +41 units (assuming C=+1 and I=-3)

Player #2: -11 units

Player #3: +8 units. 

In this example it seems that Player #1 got the best results, Player #3 did fare fairly and Player #2 was the losing one.
Actually we shouldn't care which player got the best results, itlr cumulatively all three players got us a profit.


I'll make another example about asymmetrical/symmetrical results considered by our random walk C/I patterns. Here's asymmetrical patterns distribution:

C-C-I-C

C-I

I-C-I-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-I

C-I-C

C-C

C-C-C

I-C

C-I-I-C

C

I-I-C-I

I-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C

C-I-C-I-C

C-C

C

C-C-I-C-C

C-C-I

I-I-C-C

I-I-I-C

C-C

I-C-C-C

I-C

C-C-I

C-C

C-C-I

C-I-C-I

C-C-C

C-C-C

I-C-C-I-C-C

C-C

C-C

I-C-C-C

C-C-C

C-I-C

I-C-C-C

C-C

C-C-C

C-C

C-C-I

C-C-C-I

I-C-I-C-I

C-C

C-I-C

C-I-C-C

C-C

C-C-C-C

I-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C-I-C

C-C

C-I-C-C

C-C-C

C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C-C

I-C-C

C-C-I

C-C-C

C-I-C

I-I-C-C

I-C-I-C

C-I

C-C-C

C-C

C-C-I

I-C-C

C-C-I-I

I-C-C-I

C-C-C

I-C-C

C-C-I-C

I-C-C-I-C

I-I-I-I

C-C

C-C-C-I

C-C

I-C-C

I-C

C-C

C-I-I-C-C

C-I-C-I

C

C-C-C

C-C-C

C-C

C-C-C

C-C-I-C

C-C-I-C-C

C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C

I-C-C

I-C-C

C-C-C-C

C-C-I-I

C-C-C

C-C

I-I-C

C-C-C

I-C-I

I-C-C

C-C

I-C-C

C-I-I-I-I-C

C-I-I-C

C-C-C

C-I-C

I-C-I-I-C

C-C-I-C

C-C

C-I-C-C-C

C-I-C-C

I-C-I-I-C

I-I-I-C

C-I-C

C-C-I

C

I-C-I-C

C-I-I-C

I-C-C

I-C-C-C-I

I-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-C

C-C

C-C

I-C

C-C-C-C

C

C-C

C-C-C

I-C-C-I-I

C-C-C

C-C

I-C-I-C-C

C-C-I-C

C-C-C

C-C-C-C

C-C-C-C

C-C-C-I

I-I-C-I-C-C

I-C-C-C

C-C-C

C-C-I

C-C-C

C-C-I-C

C-C-C

C-I-C

C-C-C-I

C-C

Player#1 betting C-C vs C-I = +20

Player#2 betting C after C-I-C = -2

Player#3: betting C after x-I-I = -1

We could even insert a fourth Player betting toward C after a single I: = +10

Now symmetrical spots (C= clustered and I=isolated)

I-I-I-C

I

I-I-C-I

C-I

C-I

C-I

I-C

C-I

I-I

I-I-I-I

C-I-I

I-C

I-C

I-I-I

I-C

C-I-C-I

I

C-I-I-I

I-I-I

I-I-I-C

I-I-I-I-C

I-C

I-I-I-I

I-I-C

C-C-I

I-C

I-I-I

I-I-I-I-C

I-I

I-C

C-I-I-I-I

I

I-I

I-C-I

C-C

C-I

I-I-I-I-C

I-I

I-I

I-C

I-I

I-I-C-I

I-C-I-I-C

C

I-C

I-I-I-

I

C-I-I

C-I-C

I-I-I

I-C-I-I

C-I

I-I-I-I-C

I-I-C
I-I

I-I

I-I-I-C

C-I-C

I-I-C

I-I

I-I-C

C-I-I

C-C-I

C

I-I

I-C-I

C-I-C

I-I-I

I-I-I-C

C-I-C-I

I-I-
I-I

I-I-C

I-I-I

I-I-C-I

I-C-I-I

I

I-I-I-I

I

I-I

I

I-I

I-I-I-I

I-C-C-C

C

I-I

I-C

I

I-I-I

I-C-I

I-I-I-I-C

I

I-C-I-I

I-I

I-C-I

I-I

I-I-C

I-I-I-I

I-I

I-I-C

I-C

I-I-C

C-I-C

I-I

I

I-I-C

I-C-I-I-I

I-I-I

C-I

I-C

I-I-I-I

I-I-C-I

C

I-I-I-I

I-I-I

C-I-I-I

I-C-I

I-I

I-I-C

I

I-I-C

I-I-C

I-I

I-I-I-I

C-C

I-I

I-C

C-C

C

I-C

C

I-I-C

C

I

I-I

I-C-I-I-I

C-I

C

I-I-I-C-I

I-I-I-C

I-I

I-C-I

I-I-I

I

C-C

I-C-I-I-I-I

C-I-C-I

I-I

I-I-C

I-I

I-I-I

I-I

C-I

C-C-I

C-C

The average symmetrical patterns distribution explains why bac players keep losing and at the same time why casinos keep collecting huge profits by exploiting one of the numerous human flaws regarding gambling.

The HE is just an addendum, it's not the main cause why this game seems to be so unbeatable.

Moreover we could deeply investigate how long any symmetrical "C" will more likely last on average, now the advantage will be high as heaven.

See you in a couple of days.

as.

In order to win we must let go a lot of hands.

Even by selecting at most our betting spots, we'll 100% have to endure harsh negative situations as it's the normal flow of the game.

We can't control most aspects of the variance even by playing with an advantage.

Best example to provide is a virtual game where Banker is payed 1:1 at all situations, so giving us a 1.36% math advantage.
It's very likely that despite of this edge, many players (say most players) will crash sooner or later whenever Player loaded consecutive shoes will happen.

Baccarat shoes are exploitable by rigid and measurable values extracted by the average card distribution of any shoe dealt. Only a software can do that, yet we can do a lot by approximating what the actual shoe is doing in relationship of what an average shoe looks like.

If something would be consistent for long without a careful assessment, the game wouldn't exist.

Say that players quit the table as winners just by "accident" and as losers by "rule".

More later

as.

Hi KFB!

Thanks for your post, I really appreciate the HOT/NOT consideration. From this I'll try to expose our ideas.

Whatever the betting selection and patterns considered (random walks), itlr the NOT will overwhelm the HOT in frequency and not, of course, by a valuable proportional quantity.

There's no difference whether we're playing towards the NOT or the HOT, both are destined to get more probable short patterns than long patterns, then what happened by a huge/moderate density sooner or later will reverse in opposite probability.

The "sooner or later" instead of raw values could be better estimated by the "isolated/clustering" effect acting per every pattern examined.

A NOT shows up only when two things happen:

a) that pattern didn't show up once so far;

b) a previous pattern stopped its apparition.

A HOT shows up simply when a same pattern or more patterns we've decided to gather will continue to come out.

In addition, we know that each shoe is asymmetrically placed, meaning that clusters of something are slight more probable than everything else and now even an isolated/isolated pattern will get the same value of a clustering or clustering/clustering effect.

Theorically the best plan to adopt is to utilize two or three different random walks and wagering toward an isolated/clustering and clustering/clustering situation by progressively betting, better if we'd start the action after waiting some isolated/clustering situations.
If the random walks used get a different rhythm and besides some rare colliding situations, our probability to win is restricted into astronomical low sd values.   

Obviously and knowing that we're using a 0.75 probability, we are aware that isolated successions must show up, it's just a matter of conditional permutations issue.

The CFS and the asymmetrical patterns formation are just the icing on the cake.

Such effects are more than sufficient to erase and invert the HE by a simple FB scheme.

Here's an example extracted from our real shoes data.
 
We'll examine double and triple (exact 3) streaks as opposed to superior streaks (4 and higher).
C= cluster (at least two or more 2-3 streaks before a superior streak happens), I= isolated (a double or a triple streak came out intertwined by two superior streaks).

Each shoe features a first line (the common BR, and a second line being our main random walk)

For simplicity here we do not take care of additional factors.

C-C-C
C-C-C-C

C-C
C

C-C
I-I-C

I-C-C
C-C-I

C
C-C-C

C
I-C-C

C-C-C
C-C-C

C-C
C-C

C-I-I
C-C-C

C-C-C-C
I-C-C-C

C-I-C
I-C

C-C-C
I-C

C-C
I-I-C

I-C
C

C-C
C-C-I-C

I-C-C
I-C

C-C
I-I-C-C

C-C
I-C

I-C-C
C-C

C-I-C
C

C-C-C-I
C-C-I-C

I-I-C-C
I-C

C-C-I-C
C-C

I-C-I
C

C-C-C
C-C

C
C-C

C-C
C-C-C

I-C-C-C
C-C-C

I-C-C
C-C

C-C-C
C-C-C-C

C-I-C
I-C-C

C-C
C-C

I-C-C
C-C-C

C
C

C-I-C
I-C-I-C

C-I-I-C
I-C-I-I-C

C-C-C
I-I-C

C-C
I-C

I-C-C
C-C-I

I-C-C
C-C-C-C

I-C-C
I-C-I-C

I-C-C
C-C-I

C-C-I
C-I-C

C-C-C
C-C-C

C-C
C-I-C

I-C
C-C-C

C
I-C-I-C

I-C
C-I-C

C-C
I-I-C-C

C-C-C
C-C

C-C-C-I
C-C-C

C-C
C-C

C-C
C-I-I-I

C-I-C
C-C

I-I-C
C-C-C-I

C-I-C
C-C-C

C-C-I
I-C

C-C-I
C-C-C

C-C-C
I-C

C-I-C
C-C-C

C-C-C
C-C

C-C
I-C-C-I

C-I-I
C-I-C

I-I-C-C
C-C-C-C

C-C-I-C
C-I-C-C

C-I-C-I
C-C

C-C-C-I
C-I-C

I-I-C
C-C-C

C
C-C

C-C-C
C-C

C-C-C
C-I

C-I-C-C
C

I-I-C
C-C

I-C
C-C

C-C-C
C-C-C

C-C-C
C-C-C

C-C
C

I-C
C-C

C-C-C
I-I-I-C-C

C-C-C
I-I-C

C-C
C-C-I

I-C-C
C-C-C

I-I-C-C
C-C

C-C-I-I
I-I-C

C-C
C-C

I-C
C-C

C-I-C
C-C

I-C-C
C-C-C-C

I-C-C-C
C-C

C
I-C-C

C-C
C-I-C

C-C-I-C
C-C-C

C-C
I-I-C-C (6950)

Besides, notice the relationship between the two rows of any shoe, then the fact that a single C (not being so infrequent) means an entire shoe getting all doubles and triples.

Finally there's no way that the I/C ratio will stand strongly deviated toward the left for long as being slightly oriented toward the right side.

as.

The Alrelax story is a classic, unfortunately I've seen that many times but only at private clubs.

About baccarat tables, I agree with KFB.
Almost always the atmosphere is serene, thanks to the predominance of asian players more focused about "luck" and about patterns than willing to be involved in public altercations.

The female dealer was right: unfortunately in some premises whales and HS players are allowed to do almost anything.
Not at high end Vegas casinos for sure.

as.

Let's make the same classification about 3/3+ streaks (only BR is displayed).

1= isolated 3/3+ streak, 2= two consecutive 3/3+ streaks, 3= more than two consecutive 3/3+ streaks

1) 1-1-1-1-1-2-(2)

2) 2-3

3) 1-1-1-1-1

4) 2-1-1-2

5) 1-1-1-1-1-1

6) 1-1-1-2-1

7) 1-1-1-2-2

1-1-1-1-1-1

9) 1-1-1-2

10) 1-1-2-1-1-1

11) 1-1-1-1-1

12) 1-2-1-1

13) 1-1-1-1

14) 2-3-1

15) 1-1-1-1-2-1

16) 1-2-1-1-1

17) 1-1-1-3-2

18) 1-3-1-1-1-2-1

19) 1-1-2-1-1-1

20) 1-2-1-1-1-1

21) 2-1-1-1-(2)

22) 1-1-1-1

23) 1-1-6-1

24) 1-1-1-1

25) 1-1-1-1

26) 1-2-1-(2)

27) 1-1-1-1-1

28) 1-1-1-1-2

29) 1-2

30) 1-2-2-1

31) 2-1-1-1-1-2-1

32) 1-1-3-1-2

33) 1-4-4-1

34) 1-1-3-1

35) 2-1-1-2-1-1

36) 1-1-2-1

37) 1-1-1-1

38) 1-3-1-1-1-1

39) 1-1-1-3-2

40) 1-2-1-3-2

41) 1-1-1-1-1-1

42) 2-1-1-1-2

43) 1-1-1-1-1-1

44) 1-1-1-2

45) 2-2-1-1

46) 1-1-1-3-1-1

47) 1-1-2-1

48) 1-1-1-1-1-1

49) 3-1-1-2

50) 2-1-1-1-1-3-1-(-1)

51) 2-3-1-1

52) 1-1-1-2-1-1

53) 2-5-1

54) 1-1-2-3

55) 2-1-2-1

56) 1-1-1(-1)

57) 2-2-2

58) 1-1-1-2-2

59) 4-1-1

60) 2-1-1-2

61) 1-2-2-1

62) 1-1-1-1-1

63) 2-1-1-1-1-1-1

64) 1-1-5-1

65) 1-2

66) 1-1-4-1-1-1

67) 1-1-3-1

68) 1-1-1-1

69) 1-1-1-2

70) 1-2-1-1-1-1-3

71) 1-1-1-1-2-3

72) 2-2-1-1-2-1

73) 1-2-1-1

74) 3-1

75) 2-1-1-1

76) 1-1-2-1-1

77) 1-1-1-1-1

78) 1-2-2-1-2

79) 1-1-1-1-1-1-2

80) 1-1-1-1-1-1

81) 1-1-1-2

82) 1-2-1-1

83) 2-1-1-1-1-1

84) 1-3-1-1-1-1

85) 2-2-2-2-1-1

86) 2-2-1-2

87) 1-1-2-3

88) 1-1-1-1-1-1

89) 1-1-1-1-(2)

90) 1-3-1-1

91) 1-2-1-1-1

92) 1-1-1-1-1

93) 1-1-1-1-1-1

94) 1-2-1-1-1

95) 1-1-1-3-1

96) 1-1-2-1

97) 2-1-2-1

98) 1-1-1-1

99) 1-1-1

100) 2-1-1-1-1-2

101) 2-1-1-1-1

102) 2-1-1-1-2

103) 1-1-4-1-2

104) 2-1-1-3-1

105) 2-1-1

106) 1-1-3-3

107) 1-1-1-1-1

108) 1-2-1-1-1-1

109) 2-2-1-1-1

110) 1-1-2-1-1-(2)

111) 1-1-1-1-1

112) 1-1-2

113) 2-1-1-1-3

114) 1-2-1

115) 2-1-1-1

116) 1-1-1-1-1

117) 1-2-1-1-1-2

118) 1-2-1

119) 1-1-1-2-1

120) 1-1-2-1-3

121) 1-1-1-1-3

122) 4-1-1-1-2

123) 1-1-1-1-1-1-1

124) 1-1-1-5

125) 1-2-1-1-1-1-1-2

126) 1-1-1-1-1-1-2

as.

Itlr it's impossible to be more right than wrong even at a fair no taxed coin flip game, let alone when we're dealing with baccarat hands (providing we'd consider them as independent and as 50/50 shaped).

On the same token itlr it's impossible to get profits by solely betting Banker by utilizing even the most sophisticated and diluted betting plan ever conceived.

Basically we have to work about the most likely card distributions, confiding that the same situation running infinitely will get a slight greater number of X hands than Y hands.
And the key word is asymmetry.

Regardless of the random walk utilized (BR, Byb, SR, CR, etc) not each shoe is destined to get more asymmetrical spots than symmetrical ones.
Moreover there are several ways to label a back to back pattern as "asymmetrical" or "symmetrical".

For example say we're considering doubles coming out back to back (a nearly 0.25% probability).
Once they did come out consecutively (symmetrically), we're not interested to know how long is this doubles cluster. We'll move on on the next one fresh double appearance.
Obviously such a thing cannot proportionally appear at ALL derived sub sequences for long, I mean odds are that it will be more probable to get a single or a 3/3+ streak after that.

The same thing happens for 3/3+ streaks, always focusing about the "isolated/clustered" quality of appearance. By different levels of clustering effect when applicable.

If it seems I'm talking about math nonsense, let's classify on your shoes how many times a 3/3+ streak had come out clustered more than two times in a row (intertwined by a different inferior pattern) or whether a 3/3+ streak showing up as tripled or more represent the same tripled/higher clustered scenario in the same conditions.

Thus TTTx < TTx

The TTx vs TTT scenario works in the same way and at a lesser degree the Tx vs TT scenario as well.

Now about doubles, being way more probable than T (3/3+ streaks).

Here's a brief classification about doubles distribution at BR (that is consecutive doubles appearance):

1= no consecutive doubles; 2= consecutive doubles; 3,4= three or more consecutive doubles.

1) 1-1-1

2) 1-2-1-1

3) 2-1-1-1-1-1

4) 2-1-1-1

5) 1-1-1-1-3

6) 2-1-2-1-1-2

7) 1-2-2-2-2

1-1-1-2-2-(2)

9) 1-1-1-2-4-2

10) 1-1-1

11) 1-1-1-2-2

12) 1-1-1-1-1-1

13) 2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1

14) 2-1-1-1-1

15) 1-1-2-1-1-(2)

16) 1-1-1-1-2

17) 1-1-1

18) 1-1-2-1

19) 1-1-1-1

20) 2-2-1-1-2

21) 1-1-2-2-1-1-2-1

22) 1-1-1

23) 2-2-1-1-2

24) 1-1-3-1-1-1

25) 1-1-1-1-1

26) 1-3-2-1-3-1

27) 2-1-1-1-1-1

28) 5-2-1-1-1

29) 1-2-2-2-1

30) 1-1-1-(2)

31) 1-2-1-2-1

32) 2-3

33) 2-1-1-1-1-2

34) 2-1-1-1-1

35) 2-1-2-1-2-1

36) 2-1-1-1-1-2-1-1-1

37) 1-1-2-1-2-2

38) 2-1-1-1-1-1

39) 1-1-1

40) 1-3-1-1-1

41) 1-1-1-1

42) 1-1-2-2-1-1-1

43) 2-1-1-2-1-1-1

44) 1-1-1-1-1-2

45) 1-2-3

46) 1-1-1-1-1-1

47) 1-1-1-1-1

48) 1-1-1-1-1-1-(2)

49) 1-2-1-1

50) 1-1-1-2

51) 1-1-1

52) no doubles

53) 1-1-2

54) 2-1-1-3-1-1

55) 1-1-2-1-3-1-1

56) 2-2-1

57) 1-2-1-1-1

58) 1-1-1

59) 2-1

60) 1-1-1-1-2-2

61) 1-1-1-2-2-3

62) 2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1

63) 1-1-1-1-3-1-1

64) 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-(2)

65) 1-1-1-1-1

66) 1-1-1-2

67) 1-1-2-1-1-2

68) 1-1-1-2-1-4-1-1-1-1

69) 2-1-1-1-1-1

70) 1-1-1-1-1

71) 1-1-1-1

72) 1-1-1-1-1-1-1

73) 1-2-1

74) 1-2-1

75) 1-1-4

76) 1-1-1-1

77) 1-3-1-(2)

78) 1-1-2-1

79) 1-1-2-2-1-1

80) 1-1-1-(2)

81) 1-3-1-1-1-1

82) 1-1-1-2-1-3

83) 1-1-1-1-2

84) 2-1-1-1-1-1

85) 1-4-1-1-1-1-1-1

86) 1-1-1-1-1-(2)

87) 1-1-1-1-1-1-1

88) 1-1-1-1

89) 1-1-1-1-1

90) 1-1-1-2-1-1

91) 2-2-1

92) 1-1-2-1-1-2-1

93) 1-1-1-1-1-2

94) 2-1-1-2

95) 1-2-1-2

96) 3-2-2-(2)

97) 1-2-1-1

98) 1-2-2-2-1-(2)

99) 1-3-1-1-1-(2)

100) 1-2-1-2-2

101) 1-1-1-1

102) 1-4-2

103) 2-1-2-1-3

104) 1-1-1-1-1-1-1

105) 1-2-3-4

106) 2-1-1-2-1-2-1

107) 1-2-1

108) 1-1

109) 1-1-1-1

110) 1-1-2-1-1-1-1

111) 1-1-1-3-1

112) 1-1-1

113) 2-1-1

114) 1-3-1-2-1

115) 1-1-1-1-2-3

116) 1-3-3-2-2

117) 1-1-1

118) 1-1-1-1

119) 1-1-1

120) 2-1-3-1-2

121) 2-2-2-2-1-1-3

122) 1-3-1-1-2-1-1-2-1

123) 1-1-1-1-1

124) 1-2-2-1

125) 1-1-2-1 (SHOE #19240)

If anybody can't find a way to win at those numbers, well it's time to play black jack or worse games.

as.

Hi KFB!

ER (expected range) = The relative frequency of a given event (pattern) probability

For example, per each 3/3+ streak we'll expect three inferior patterns (singles and/or doubles in any sequence, that is three columns not featuring a triple streak) as the probability not to cross a 3/3+ streak in a couple of attempts is 0.75. ratio here is 3:1.

AR (actual range) = The actual distribution of a given pattern at some points of the shoe in relationship of the ER.

For example (S=single, D=double and T=3/3+ streak) a S/D/T/T/S/S/T/D/T/S/S/S/T  is 2:1, 0:1 (0), 2:1, 1:1, 3:1.

There are several ways to consider and trying to exploit those ratios either in form of actual distribution and of "more likely" values.

For example, a 0/0/0/0/0/0...distribution (only consecutive Ts) can rarely happen, long 1:1 ratios can't.

Obviously it's very unlikely to face a shoe not forming ratios surpassing the 3:1 value, considered as a kind of critical spot.

More later

as.

Yup.
Any single shoe won't concede the room to get everything more or less balanced or even appearing once, otherwise the game would be easily beatable.

That's why, imo, is so important to focus our attention about ranges splitted into expected ranges and actual ranges.

A note: doubles are streaks and two or more singles are considered as streaks as well.

as.

Yes Al, yes. 

Technically speaking a plan carefully considering the above two aspects is unbeatable as:

1) on average the columns filling speed cannot be too slow or too fast at most "sections";

2) for sure symmetrical patterns are going to be overwhelmed by asymmetrical situations being more probable than expected in relationshipo of an independent 50/50 proposition.

The fact that each bet is unfairly payed (B hands) or getting a slight unfavourable probability to show up (P hands) won't get us much hurt as itlr the average card distribution will be able to cancel/overcome such negative edge.

Example.

A streaky shoe is going to fill less columns than average, it means that key cards are somewhat clumped by an "unlikely" pace most likely forming unidirectional rhythms favoring streaks. Therefore slowing down the columns filling speed.
 
On the other end, long chopping lines favor the CFS as there's a strong force orienting the results to be prolonged at the right end of the shoe. Thus key cards are getting a 1 pace. 

Both such deviated events are the reflex of symmetrical situations being slight less likely than asymmetrical spots.

Now, pretend to play black jack and getting a negative count (symmetrical situations at baccarat), what are you going to do?

I guess you'll bet the minimum wager or, best, quit that table.

But at baccarat we have the wonderful option to stay away from betting as what came symmetrical most of the times remains proportionally symmetrical, unless we set up multiple random walks to rely upon, obviously directed to get back to back asymmetrical spots.

Ranges of asym/sym patterns
 
A pattern could be symmetrically placed one, two or more times.

Most bac players will hope to get a "more times" symmetrical pattern, unfortunately that's the less probable option happening.
In fact a slight stu.pi.d multilayered progression (see KFB ideas) made at getting asymmetrical spots after one or two symmetrical situations can't lose itlr.

Remember that streaks are the most important tool to set up a plan upon.
Remember that what happens after a given streak remains the most important tool to rely upon.

For example, it's impossible to get 3/3+ consecutive streaks happening at all four common roads (BR, Byb, SR and CR) and the same happens for every intermediate situation.
At baccarat the asymmetrical world slowly but constantly work toward asym patterns.

Once a pattern had shown up consecutively shaped (sym pattern), we're not interested to chase it.

Our edge comes out as a slight portion of the shoes will form univocal or most univocal asymmetrical patterns, as itlr the asym force will overwhelm the sym propensity, even if we are destined to endure some harsh negative situations.

See you in a couple of days.

as.

Keypoints:

a) average CFS

b) math expected and actual result asymmetrical/symmetrical patterns.

 

The best tool why casinos will make a lot of money from baccarat is because no constant patterns can be exploited: everything changes whimsically, very often ridiculizing the math values.

After all baccarat is just a game of trying to approximate at best the actual card distribution along with the related most likely (and important) sub products: real results.

The core problem of baccarat is that per any shoe dealt we want to be ahead (or worst, to be a lot ahead) about a kind of taxed coin flip situation.

It's impossible.

In our opinion the only way to erase and possibly invert the HE is by putting things into frames and trying to find reasons and collect data to prove otherwise.

More later

as.

Ready to rock.

See you soon

as.

Hi KFB!

Say from 3-5 up to 12-15 bet per shoe.

Currently we do not make any action at side bets, people playing with us hate them.

as.

QuoteAsym:

"...Arrange the cards into a shoe as whimisically as you wish and you'll notice that an overalternating 0/any different number distribution will be the less probable "movement".

In practical terms and without a proper training is quite difficult to spot such triggers and making the future bet (that's why algos should make the work for us), anyway the first player always relies upon doubles (or other specific patterns) being absent for given frames transformed into numbers...."

that's interesting.

Thanks KFB!

I guess you, Alrelax and me would constitute a formidable team. 
Hope to play together very soon!

as.