Ok with your points Al.

But we ought to remember that the probability that properly dissected patterns happened in the previous shoe will repeat in the same position and in the next shoe are virtually zero. Let's safely say zero point zero.
This is a good starting point, imo.

as.





   

Quote from: Sputnik on October 06, 2018, 01:08:14 PM
AssymBacGuy I have a method based upon this principals, it dictates to wait for two doubles to hit, then bet for 3+ for the next three coming doubles.
So you betting against five doubles to show in a row without hitting a 3+.

Now I want to grasp your method and fully understand your concept.
You say that we should use a 1-2 progression, what do you mean by that, should we wait for two doubles to hit before attacking against four in a row or do you mean we should start after one fictive double and bet against three doubles not becoming 3+.

Cheers

Hi Sputnik!

Think as any single shoe as a matter of "space". Yoiu won't necessarily know which side will be winning next. Who cares?
We only need to "guess"  the lenght of W/L spaces.
What not happened so far could present next at various degrees of probability, depending how and how much such deviations had valued in the past.
Therefore, if we want to adopt a 1-2 progression we need to know that a larger quantity than 50% must be winning on the very first step of the progression. I mean the second bet is just a back-up.
Of course, adopting a 1-2 progression will put the house at a math disadvantage as itlr 75% is larger than 25%.
Trying to get more profitable winning opportunities (for example adopting a 1-2-4 progression) will put us at a logarithmic larger risk as now we're betting after two consecutive losses. And it's more difficult to get back 7 units than 3 units.

The average probability to get certain patterns is always the same, but notice that whenever a given pattern had come out it tends to repeat in the same shoe more often than not.

In a perfect world, 3+s should come out by a 1/3 cadence, a thing that almost always never happens.
Yet card distributions favoring 3+s at the start of the shoe are more likely to produce certain patterns not just by quality but by quantity.

The consecutiveness of patterns wasn't studied in detail by anyone and all "bac experts" forgot to assess the general probability to consider any single shoe as a distinct entity from the whole. As every single shoe is a finite and card dependent shoe.

I mean that some previous dispositions could tell us what's the future more likely distribution any shoe will take.

Thus there's no one single and univocal trigger plan to follow.

as.

Let's go back with my idea on baccarat.

Step #1.
To be ahead of the game we have to get more wins than losses. Easier to say than done. But any bac player should remember this.
We do not need to be rocket scientists to do that: itlr betting Banker and its related distributions will provide more W than L. Period.
The obvious problem is that any W won't be counterbalanced by the L weight but only FROM AN ECONOMICAL POINT OF VIEW.
Therefore we must operate either in form to raise the  general W probability or, more likely,  to restrict at most the W appearance within the shortest periods of betting.

Step #2

Math gurus and fkn bac pseudo experts abounding on internet will teach us that every bac bet is EV-

This is a total bullsh.it statement.
It could be true whether any resolved hand is totally independent from the previous one and, of course, if the game isn't finite (that is determined by a finite deck). 

For example, we know that sooner or later a 4 Player streak formed by no asymmetrical hands is a perfect EV=0 disposition (actually it could have a EV+ due to card distribution). We know that such P streak isn't the product of 0.4932 x 0.4932 x 0.4932 x 0.4932 probability.
The same is about a Banker 4 streak not forming one or more symmetrical hands in between.
In this case the probability is just 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5.
Various streaks at either side will come out at different times but itlr the number of different mix of as/s hands tend to be correspondent to the expected values.

Step #3

The most important thing in order to take advantage of what I've written so far is restricting at most our probability of success per each series of bets we wish to place.
In a given infinite succession of pseudo coin flips, trying to win one unit in two consecutive attempts by a kind of progressive wagering must invert to our favor the general 75% probability.
At baccarat this 75% W probability may come out or not, it's our duty to select the spots where such probability could be higher or lower.
Thus it's not about how we'll raise our bets.

Why 2 consecutive wagers are better than 2+ wagers or a succession of single bets followed by a kind of progression on next bets?

Easy answer.   
Variance acts by steps. Our bets must be winning on the very first bet or the second one. The rest will sink into the uncontrollable variance ocean. And such ocean may present several consecutive deep holes we can easily fall into.
Restarting to bet will be covered later about step #5. 

Step #4

416 cards can arrange in numerous ways, yet it's more likely that what happened first won't be perfectly balanced by the next outcomes of the same shoe as the previous card distribution must affect subsequent card dispositions (not results).

Step #5

Besides strict statistical issues, everything comes in handy to ascertain what's the best course to take: if a given negative pattern had come out, odds are it will represent again on the same shoe.
Predominance, cards issues, overall other players' outcomes, turning points, Alrelax wrote a lot of interesting and valuable  topics about this.

A final note, a kind of gift: study the shoes where the very first pattern is a 3+ streak on any side (especially on B side). You'll find valuable spots to bet into the subsequent hands by a 99.9% accuracy.

as.

Hi Sputnik!

I'll answer tomorrow extensively to your interesting questions.

Cheers

as.

Ok, thanks for the explanation.

Actually I'm playing a very conservative strategy: 80% of the time 1 unit, in the remaining 20% bets are raised from 50% to 100% (maximum is always 2 bets).

More rarely I employ aggressive strategies when I want to bet very few spots where the supposedly probability to win a series of progressive wagers is very close to 100%.

I do not apply anymore long strategic plans as sooner or later they'll easily sink into the variance ocean.

What about you?
as.   





 

Quote from: Sputnik on September 27, 2018, 03:11:48 PM
AsumBacGuy I want to say thank you for a nice topic.
Wondering if you could give a concrete example of the staking plan.

There are so many variations!

Cheers

Thank you.

What do you mean as "staking plan".
Thanks.

as.

Everything you've posted makes much sense to me.

But we know that only real live sessions are the proof of what we are talking about.

Anybody wanting to win money could PM me. We'll meet us in Vegas.
Anything for free.

as. 

Ok Glen.

First our plan is to assess how much an average shoe will conform to the actual shoe.
Such players are betting $5.000 or more per hand, thus they won't to be fooled.

Secondly but more importantly, is how the actual bets are conforming to a general flow of the game.
Now everything comes out in handy such as the general propensity to get good starting points at a given side, predominance of one side, cutoff points.

Moreover, we are carefully noticing what other players' results are. For example, univocal good or bad results are coming whether the shoe is not prodcuing simple patterns as long streaks or long univocal easily detectable patterns.

To simplify, display results are just one side of the issue. Cumulative players outcomes are another part of it.
Naturally very rarely display results are just correspondent to the sum of every single player distinct results as it's quite difficult to get "humanly" easily and long detectable patterns.

If poker is a game of imperfect informations, bac will be a lot more on that issue, but yet one side must win no matter what. Not forgetting that balancement is just a virtual accomplishment to get.

Example,

Say we think that next hand will be B and most players are betting B.
Now I want to assess if majority of side players are winners or losers.
Say most part of players are losers or heavy losers. I won't bet B, I won't bet anything.
I could be right or wrong but the overall probability is slightly oriented to get a loss.

Now say that the previous hand was a loss, we have no indications on which side to wager and most players bet one side. What to do?

Even if we could be trapped in the middle of a losing streak, I would follow the majority of players. Thet is players who  had lost the previous hand so probability to get a winning hand for them is slightly endorsed.

I mean that it's quite difficult to find spots where every player at the table is wrong or right, besides very rare situations when the shoe is very polarized.

Imo, our task should be to spot the situations where 0 goes to  1 or viceversa or at most where 1 goes to 2 or 2 to 1. The rest is pure randomness.

What do you think?

as.

 


 

 






 

I'm a strict objective statistical results lover but our bac earnings had gotten a huge increase by additionally adopting the suggestions you have posted here.
And I'm talking very seriously.

It's about 6 months I've chosen to mentor a couple of very high stakes players and so far we haven't experienced one single losing session.
To the point that in one occasion floormen stand behind us to ascertain we were not applying an edge sorting strategy.
LOL.

as.




 







 

Besides playing and playing,  the best way to get additional money is to mentor high stakes players and not asking miseries from common people. Otherwise the inventor should share ideas for free. Or write a book. Or simply shut up.
Another option involving celebrity would be to give a lecture at MIT, but more likely than not the listeners would laugh at him/her.

Therefore system sellers are 100% scammers by definition.

Giz provided interesting concepts here but the idea that randomness involving perfect independent events might be controlled is totally unacceptable.

To win at games we need to find spots where probability values change. And to do that we absolutely need finite dependent events, that is games of cards.

Roulette can only be beaten by defects of production (biased wheels or biased software).

as.   

Quote from: alrelax on September 06, 2018, 12:39:30 AM
When I was younger especially in Atlantic City and up in Connecticut had no idea what the casino hosts were doing in actuality. But they got that 4 hour minimum with those average bets for the room food beverage and incidentals for the higher line players and there's a reason why they do that!! 

But there's a lot more than that, they do. Of course we know all that now many years later but what they do is very good and they're very good at how they keep players there.

Yeah!

You kept stressing about the importance to play wisely and actually and without any doubt this site is the only one to provide meaningful insights about how to reduce the house edge, to say the least.


as. 

Quote from: alrelax on September 06, 2018, 12:07:57 AM
I have witnessed numerous people win hundreds of thousands of dollars in short periods of sections like 8 to 15 hands and I've seen those same people almost every one of them give it back over 1 to 4  shoes, because they couldn't repeat what they just did. 

I've seen it way too much!

Exactly.

You have to win very few to stay alive at this game, imo.

That's why casinos entice players to wager every hand.

as.

No need to think.

Average distributions will take care of it.

People who make a living at baccarat want to wager very few hands.

as.

Good points Al.

If I can't win mathematically, I want to get all the possible weapons to be at my side.
Statistics, actual outcomes, flow of the W/L players at the table, everything.

There's no fkn way that strong winning players are going to give back the entire amount won on the actual shoe because of the possibility they'll get the same amount of losing situations on the same shoe. Maybe they are wrong to set up their bets, not the percentage of W/L decisions. 
Not mentioning strong losing players.

At the same time  and conversely taken the concept, more often than not shoes containing multiple winning TIES or other winning side bets aren't going to give back the money won on the same shoe.

That is that shoes NOT forming multiple winning situations must discarded from our play.
At every negative edge game, we must hope to get solely one situation: winning clusters.

We do not want to chase a losing situation unless it would be strongly deviated to our side.
For example, after 60 or more hands and zero or just 1 TIE had happened, betting TIE would be a sensible option. We'll lose 20 or so bets in the effort at worst.

Same about ties not coming out consecutively or 1-hand gapped for 50-60 single tie hands.
In this instance, a progression can get the best of it despite the rarity of such target.
Notice that we are going to bet after an event searched had happened.

as. 

Moreover, a quite low probability is supposed to show up either very rarely or in clusters (meaning by lower gaps than what expected probability dictates, frequently by very strict gaps)

Almost never a  rare event is supposed to show up by the perfect general probability pace.

Do not forget that a rare event must catch up a possible deficit by getting a higher frequency on single shoes or conversely diluting a high past frequency registered on multiple shoes.

The expected EV is always the same (-14%) still the ACTUAL variance is very very high for obvious reasons.
Sooner or later some mathematical situations promting ties will arise, and there's no way that a given event will come out more often than not without showing up at least once.   

as.