BTW, it seems that I'm not the only one to have discovered the aw flaws....

as. 

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.