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.

Quote from: alrelax on February 09, 2018, 10:20:03 PM
The best thing about bac is, 'if you can control yourself', you don't have to bet to stay in the game.......................

+1

as.

If you are referring about roulette my best advice is to test your strategy separately onto different specific single generators.
No one general strategy can work on every wheel of the universe, otherwise roulettes would have taken off from the gambling world.

The more the factors involved are uniform, at least taken by a theorical point of view, the best will be your estimate on how good your system will fare on long terms.

Imo, random world works on multiple levels:

level 1 is whenever a "more likely event" (having a p>50%) will occur at the same or almost the same occurence dictated by general probability laws with a low impact of variance.

level 2 comes out whenever a more likely event presents a moderate impact of variance.

level 3 is when the variance is so high and frequent that it will easily counter act any strategy.

A perfect scenario will be to get a lot of  #1 level results and some level #2 outcomes with no or few #3 levels.

Since we cannot rid of those unfavourable #3 high varaince situations, we must find ways to restrict their impact over our strategy.

Say we have a plan to win whenever every level #1 and #2 will come out along the way with no #3 level situations.
We'll be millionaires.

Unfortunately certain unlikely level #3 situations will come out along the way.
Chasing them is a big mistake.
Level #3 events will erase every profit coming from #1 and #2 situations.

So we are forced to stop our betting anytime a situation #1 and #2 is surpassed.

Therefore we must classify many results taken from the same wheel in order to get a picture of #1, #2 and #3 events impact.

The more #1 and #2 events any wheel will present over the long run, the best will be our results.

As long as results are taken from the same parameters involved in the same wheel, things cannot change.
Of course humans hugely interfere with such process so let's guess which wheels I'm referring to.

A profitable wheel is any wheel capable to produce an unproportional higher amount of #1 and #2 situations as opposed to #3 events.
Such #3 situations will happen anyway but at a lower degree.

So getting a list of which wheels are producing the best #1-#2 vs #3 ratio is the best tool to get an edge.

Just to make an example, the Caesar's Palace IB automated wheel (placed in proximity to the Omnia nightclub) perfectly fits such requisites.

as.

That's awesome!
Nice to see you here again guys!

As.

Interesting points.

Imo the problem should be set in a simplier way:

1- About 1/3 of the total hands is decided by naturals.

2- Player side standing/natural points will 100% deny the Banker advantage.

3- Whenever Player draws, odds dictates that Banker is advantaged.

About #1 we can't do anything other than hoping that the side which got more naturals won't be balanced by an equal number of naturals on the other side.
Sometimes naturals tend to come out alternatively, so we should act accordingly.

If we see that Player side will draw more often not (more than half of the expected time), we better choose the Banker side to bet into. Player drawing streaks will be slightly more likely than single Player drawing situations.

Anytime we are wagering Banker when Player draws, we're getting a sure advantage itlr.

In a nutshell, anytime we are guessing that Player side won't get a 6,7,8 or 9 initial point, we will get an advantage betting the Banker side.
And the opposite is true: when wagering Player side, we are hoping to get a 6,7,8 or 9 point.

Every other intermediate situation will confuse the whole picture.

as.



 



 

   

An entire shoe producing all B-P chops (even discounting ties) is impossible to believe.
Even admitting 30 ties, the probability to get 50 BP chopped hands represents a more than 7 sr deviation, that is the same probability to get a 50 hands streak.

In the history of roulette and baccarat there are no records of such values. 
(roulette records known= 42 blacks and 41 chopping hands)

If this should be true, it's an additional proof that baccarat tends to get the opposite outcome of the last happened. As bac streaks of 50 never happened.

as. 

All the best!!!

as.

Quote from: wannawin on October 10, 2017, 06:45:32 AM

the possible advantage is to use a progression that covers the variance. please see  bold quote: "The variance is reduced compared to betting only on red". it would be the winning hit of the century.

You told me that any 6 numbers group analsys is the same no matter how the numbers are taken, so it's difficult to accept the idea that "warm, hot, cold, ap" attributes could help us for a possible variance reduction.

I fear it can't be the winning hit of the century, this topic was deeply studied several years ago by one of the best roulette researchers, Charles Van Bockstaele.

as.