It was just a kind of joke, we know mathematicians can't beat the game and neither players using an empirical approach. Probably the answer is in the middle.

I won't give specific answers to my questions as nobody is interested on numbers. Just personal comments.

Question #1: it's very very rare to get three consecutive shoes without at least one natural 8/9 showing, especially if 8s and 9s are quite live in the actual portion of the deck. Since such side bet is payed 50:1 we have plenty of room to set up a progressive profitable betting.

#2: when we are on Banker showing 4 and the third card is a 9, of course we are in a very good shape unless player's initial cards shows zero. A missed bonus as the probability player has zero is 1:3.77 (5 is ignored as it forms a tie hand).
An excellent wasted probability that we won't find around the corner. If we were on Player we have no reasons to jump.

#3: the average number of player's 3+ streaks is, imo, one of the best tool to take advantage from. Remember that sh.it or fantastic situations tend to come out in clusters.

#4: oh well, everybody reading my pages should teach me about this. Say we'll get at least 3 asym hands per shoe and it's very very unlikely to get more than 14. Do not fall in the trap to bet banker when the asym force went away.

#5: when 7s are particularly live at a EZ baccarat table, the best move is to bet player and the F-7 bet. You don't want to pay the banker's vig when a symmetrical hand is more likely to show up and to get a F-7 with live 7s, banker must get zero as initial point that is a non advantaged asym situation.

#6: Mathematically is relatively low but any Player standing point is favorite to win itlr. And do not forget the clustering effect: Glen wrote an interesting thread about this.

#7: player gets a 42.07% probability to win just about 8.4% of the total hands dealt. Not that easy to get consecutive dog situations like that.

#8: it's quite easy to lose (or win depending on which side we were betting) even 12 or more hands in a row in such B favorite situation. Sometimes it seems that P helping 3s are concentrated on the possible player's third card. Again a kind of clustering effect.
Notice that when the P third card is a 3 only a B 5 or B 6 point are standing (asym situations).   

#9: it's a pretty good spot to bet P side and getting a 7 as we'll lose immediately just 19% of the situations (B naturals). Moreover Banker must stand on its 6s when facing a P standing; actually it should draw to get a better probability not to lose (a sort of mistake made by bac inventors, probably set up in order to limit the B advantage). In the remaining possibilities Banker can beat us only catching two cards out of all 13 probabilities.

#10: the probability to get a natural on either side is 34.2%, yet per every shoe dealt card distribution issues tend to deny a perfect balancement of such occurences.
A careful assessment of the consecutiveness of naturals falling on one side or the other one may help to spot the actual "card distribution" advantaged side. Especially when cards are not properly shuffled (that is almost always).

It would be a honor for me to work with you Lungyeh as well as with many other members here.


as.

An easy test to assess how a bac player really knows about baccarat.

1) What's the probability to get a natural 8 vs a natural 9 in every position per every shoe dealt?

2) What's the Banker's advantage when Banker shows a 4 giving a third card 9 to the Player?

3) What's the average number of 3+ streaks on Player side in a 8-deck shoe when an average 12 cards are cut from the play?

4) How many asymmetrical hands are going to show up per 70 resolved hands dealt?

5) Disregarding other key cards, what's the average EV on F-7 bets (dragon bonus) when after 30 hands dealt no 7 had shown?

6)  What's the average probability to get a back to back "standing" Player (6,7,8 or 9 point) hand?

7) How the Player disadvantage is calculated?

What's the probability Banker wins when showing a 5 and giving a third card 3 to the Player?

9) What's the probability a Player two-card 7 point showing will win?

10)  What's the probability to get a back to back winning natural hand on either side?

as.



     

Probably a "baccarat is solved" site would entice more members to join it but you should charge them in the order of thousands.

And of course such members will want to experience real live proofs that such thing is possible.

No short term negative variance is allowed, btw. :-)

as. 

 

Hi and thanks for your replies!

@roversi.

Look, of course I have got a statistical significance about what I'm talking about.
Anytime you are playing a shoe getting a strong P predominance at the start, you are getting a lower probability on certain subsequent "more expected" events as the room to get them is more limited albeit slightly.
It's not to be forgotten that asymmetrical force is very often nullified (inversed) in P predominant shoes, thus B is sailing mainly on a 50/50 proposition. 

@bally

You are right, yet in positive counts a bj counter could bet two or more spots thus enlarging the probability to get a natural or a doubling hand.
A luxury we can't have at baccarat, being an on/off single game.

@alrelax

The situations you depicted are quite unlikely being too much left or right deviated from the center of the bell curve, I generally prefer to let them go without betting even if I'd have won a lot wagering on them.
Of course, what I need when I encounter such deviated situations is to be at least one hand ahead as the rest is just a winning streak unless a WL event occures (break even or close to it).
Therefore when in doubt I tend to follow things, even though they are unlikely.

Nonetheless, my records show that I have made more money wagering shoes more adapting to my approach at the start then trying to get a "reverse line" albeit more expected (theoretically).

Naturally, if I think that shoes are not properly shuffled and outcomes tend to get a kind of univocal line I'll ride 'em, partially forgetting my primary plan.

I do not care to be right or wrong, I do care to win.

as.



   

 

Some shoes are unplayable

You've heard this statement many times from me.
I will try to illustrate my point.

Say the worst driver in the universe is 300 feet behind the finish line and Lewis Hamilton is half a mile behind.
Who would bet Hamilton as winner?
Of course the probability to get Hamilton as winner isn't zero but very close to it.

Translating this into baccarat, per any single shoe it's really really unlikely not to get at least one  3+ banker streak and/or at least one P single and many other "expected" situations.
Nonetheless since any shoe is a finite space, we know that the more we're going through it without finding what we're looking for, higher will be the probabilities to get such unlikely situations.
Even if we finally find a single or a couple of expected situations, the failed previous attempts will pose a serious or letal threat to our bankroll.

When the limited space is more and more consumed and things went in the wrong direction, we risk to place worthless bets.

Good.
What about abandoning our strategic plan and starting to bet what it seem to be predominant?

Wrong choice, imo.

First, quitting our plan trying to get positive outcomes while denying (even temporarily) our studies is a mistake.
If we have ascertained that A>B, A remains favorite period.

Think when you are at a virtual blackjack table getting a positive count of +18 where dealer keep getting 20, 21 and naturals and you are allowed to wager the dealer's side. Are you really interested to wager the dealer's side?
If the answer is yes you should quit gambling immediately.

Second.

If things should go everytime as expected or almost as expected, gambling games wouldn't exist at all.
Even the math advantaged houses rely upon a long term edge.
And even if it would appear contradictory to what I've been sayed so far, sometimes the house hopes that a given shoe will finish ASAP.
Therefore, what not happened so far, especially whether is more "due", is likely to not present for the subsequent portions of the shoe.
More "due" could be interpreted as a kind of balancement, a strong unexpected predominance or a too huge expected predominance.

Third.

Are we willing to guess a random world per every single fkng shoe dealt just because we think that we are able to possede the instincts to do that?
If so, contact NASA or MIT and you'll get more substantial rewards than playing this silly game.

Fourth.

Any single choice we make forms the large picture. More choices = more mistakes. It's a human feature and it has a general value.
It's a proven fact that bad choices will endorse more bad choices and good choices (even made by mistake) will more likely lead to good choices.
In a sense either good and bad choices will distribute more by runs than by singles.
And to get good choices in a row we must first get an initial good choice.

Thus if the shoe we are facing isn't going toward our plan, tell the casino to fk off, that is not to play a dime.
Remember that baccarat outcomes are already preordered and nothing will change their pace.

Final note

If a bac player have found betting lines capable to get a long term edge,  this edge will be quite limited hence susceptible to great fluctuations. That's why we should think about the large picture and not about the stupi.d single shoe we're playing at.

as. 

Quote from: Johno-Egalite on May 29, 2019, 08:58:44 PM
IMO there exists superior opportunities if you wait and monitor multiple tables. 

Yes, yes, yes and yes!!!

as.

Actually Junket King aka Johno, this is a good post.

When playing a strict mechanical game (and it could mean to bet every hand or only one-two hands per 2-3 shoes) any serious player should know the sd values, the different points of success, in a word the probability to be ahead or behind because such player had tested a lot of different shoes without having to bet a dime on them.
If we think the game in term of pattern ranges of probability, imo, we can't be so wrong, surely not beyond the math disadvantage.

as.

 


   

That line was obviosuly a sarcastic note about how is easy to distrust other's ideas and works putting atop of it the old fkng math issue saying that bac cannot be beaten.

Maybe it could.

as. 

 

Nice posts Al.

Now expect some people telling you that such bets have an astoundingly EV negative itlr, or that those long streaks happen very rarely. :-)

If the game isn't beatable mathematically or statistically (and of course it is) this thread should demonstrate that some betting lines may cause the house to get a bit of discomfort, albeit temporary.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on May 24, 2019, 01:46:04 PM
I am hurting today, about 1 and a half hour sleep.  What a session, what a great session.  And I did this last night because of the great email I got from AsymB, thank you buddy!  Those few sentences sent me out with the song I love in my mind, Burning Down the House.

Greeeaaat job buddy!! 

I like that song too...

Now do not try to give the money back. :-)

Soon it'll come a day when casinos will be forced to treat baccarat as black jack as every single bet they are offering is 100% beatable.


as. 










 

Thanks Al.
We're speaking the same language even though is taken by different angles.

There's no fkng way that playing into a random taxed model we'll be more right than wrong by instinct or by following trends or by mechanical placements unless we assess carefully what's happening, what's happened so far and what is slightly more likely to happen.
Moreover, we should know what's our real goal per every session played. We can't hope to win every session and we can't break even after an harsh losing session.
Are casinos going to win every fkng day or week? No way.   

The certainty of a given outcome can only be extracted by the proper use of time or by utilizing other tools (defect of randomness for example).

Example.

We know that the probability to get a big road shoe without any B or P single or streak or double or 3+ streak is close to zero.
But if we consider the common three additional derived roads is absolutely zero. ZERO. Mathematically.

Going down to some of less likely outcomes and testing a lot of real shoes, we'll see that what happened so far tends to represent it in the same shoe and, at a lesser degree, what not happened so far gets a slightly increased probability to appear.
The process is endorsed by a supposedly flaw of randomness.

The problem is when to start to bet and when to stop it.

It should be an idiocy to stop the betting when crossing a winning streak, but the exact counterpart (stopping to bet when losing) will provide huger benefits.

Casinos want us to gamble, playing every hand or betting side bets.
Therefore we should disappoint their hopes, so betting very few hands (or betting small every hand and wagering 10x or more on key hands).

It's very likely that a team formed by me, Al, Sputnik, roversi, Bally and some others will crush every casino in the world by the simple concept of convergence of probability taken by different angles.
To get a decent profit we must join $1000 or $2000 min tables, let casinos think we're stupi.d gamblers.

Our goal will be to be banned in the casino we're playing at.

Our motto is

put your fkng math edge in your behind

as.

Thanks for your inputs and replies.

Look how awesome is to know that one specific situation is going to happen (or not) per a given class of shoes dealt.
But the specific situation must be firmly set up in mind BEFORE playing and adjusted accordingly to what the shoe produces but always in terms of "playable" or "not playable" shoe. 

In order to do that we need to take advantage or, even better, to build several random walks endorsing the probability to look for the searched situation.

Playing by instinct or by experience may be valuable random walks but too much affected by emotional and actual factors. More importantly playing instinctively leads to bet too many hands.

Five random walks are directly diplayed on the screen (big road, bead plate road, etc) but we could build infinite random walks even not based upon the B/P results (for example about the first and second card dealt).

For example, one of the artificial road one can easily add is the third to last hand registration.
We wait three resolved hands then the fourth hand will be classified going back three hands, then registering it into two separated columns (S=same, O=opposite).

for example:

BBPPPBPPBPPBBBB is

OOOSSSSSOOS

Of course there's no a direct value in registering the outcomes in such a way, it's just a ploy to raise the probability to cross the searched situation that could be delayed on other roads.

But the real value of registering multiple random walks simultaneously is whenever our plan dictates to get B or P on more than half of all random walks considered.

The reason is all about the difficulty to get a sudden inversion of probability's plan on many roads, at least on more than half of them.

In case our plan suggests all roads to get the same outcome in the same point (a relatively rare finding even adopting only 3 or 4 roads), our wager will get an astounding EV+.

Despite the wonderful profits such scheme will produce, I know there's a methodological issue to be solved: the presence of ties. At least theoretically.

Since we have to discount ties in our registrations (besides big road and bead plate) we know that results' distribution may be affected in some way.

In a word, shoes particularly rich of ties at the start should be avoided (along with the shoes not fitting other conditions we're looking for).

as. 

What should make "unbeatable" a given plan?

My answer: the certainty that a class of events must show up per any shoe at different degrees of presentation.
I'm not talking about a very very high probability that something is going to happen but the certainty that something happens.

Of course just knowing that something is 100% going to show up doesn't help us too much as we need to estimate when and how many times those events come out per any shoe.
In a word, we must build a proportion between searched events and number of attempts.
If we know that some shoes will provide just one searched event, we must restrict at most our attempts to spot this event as we're risking many to win one.
Conversely, knowing that some shoes will present many searched events, money utilized to spot those situations will be spent with a way higher probability to be right AT LEAST IN ONE SPOT. That is the minimum requirement of certainty we should look for. 

That is I do not want to win several bets within limited intervals of time with high degree of uncertainty but to win very little in safe conditions of certainty within relatively large amount of samples.

If such certainty would be ALWAYS limited in the space of 5-6 attempts per shoe, a simple martingale would solve the problem.
Unfortunately not every shoe will provide the room to make 5-6 attempts, in other words certainty becomes certainty only in selected circumstances.
And not by magical forces, just for a matter of space as any shoe is a finite separated dependent world.

See tomorrow

as.   









 

Quote from: Jimske on April 05, 2019, 05:16:32 PM
You are the scientist, mathematician and statistician analyst.  You been working on this for how many years?  Were even going to write  book about it.  What is it that you have to report after all this time?

J

I've been studying this game for 8 years long, I think the game is beatable only as decks are not properly shuffled.
My best accomplishment was and still is when I was contacted by a couple of high stakes players willing to be mentored by me and getting me a cut on their winnings. And, you know, it's a lot of money when people are wagering $5000 or more per hand.

My final conclusion is that the game can't be beaten mathematically or "humanly", the solution remains in the middle (virtus in medio stat)
Key words are time, space and asymmetry.

Time: you need time to get some searched probabilities happening. And of course time may work in casino's favor mathematically or in player's favor statistically. It's up to us to decide when and how. 

Space: baccarat is made by finite portions of probability. Many factors work in that. 

Asymmetry: a constant slight asymmetry works either by rules and/or by actual conditions (card distributions, outcomes' nature, etc).
For example, it's impossible (not only high unlikely) to get certain dispositions in the same position shoe per shoe.

as.

I'm looking at this post just now.

I like to work trying to adhere at most by a scientific approach, that is every observation/theory must produce measureable results. And, more importantly, every theory must be proved by falsification.
Did you measure your points?
Human thoughts, instinct or presentments even based on objective outcomes cannot be a valuable guide to get the best of it at baccarat unless they are carefully measured.

And of course the more heterogeneous are the parameters involved in a theory, larger should be the sample confirming such theory.

as.