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. 






   

Well placed thought but...
Why choosing to bet sixlines?

Sixlines are numbers practically grouped on the layout without any relationship on what a strict physical process produces.

If we think that a half wheel betting selection will come out in handy more often than not (in terms of possible variance reduction) we better choose straight up numbers.

A new EC could include the 6 hottest, 6 coldest and 6 close to average probability numbers (or 19 numbers taken as a perfect 50/50 EC on double zero wheels) but we know that such state will change continuosly.
To get a sort of variance reduction we need that the probability that warm numbers will suddendly become hot is quite low or restricted within acceptable terms.

as.










 



 

     

 

Quote from: alrelax on September 26, 2017, 03:48:21 AM

We do it in person,  in the flesh.  Prove it and walk with the money,  simple!!!

Exactly Al.

I'm publicly offer $20.000 to any system seller capable to show me why his/her system should work besides what is already published or acknowledged or, most importantly, written here.

For that matter I count that me and Al could raise the offer to $60.000-$70.000, but I suggest to any foolproof system claimer to be really sure about his system.

I guess we won't get any offer, isn't it Al? :-)

as.

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 26, 2017, 04:20:22 AM
By reading this someone could assume that you are speaking about EC bets exclusively, that principle is not valid for other kind of bets.

Exactly and you know well I wasn't talking about EC bets :-)

Hope to meet you in Vegas for a dinner. Or, most likely, in Montecarlo ;-)

as.

I guess that people capable to pay $50.000 or more for a not working system would come back to the seller with a couple of really bad guys. No need to prove that mathematically.

For that matter it should be done even for smaller sums.

as.   

   

Unfortunately negative situations are longer and more frequent than positive situations.

So in order to reduce negative situations, imo the best tool to utilize  is stopping them right at the start.
From an economic point of view, after any loss the most likely scenario will be another loss.
The same after two conseuctive losses and so on.

Without going into statistical details, imo the magic number to look for is 1 and only 1.
1 may go to 2 or going back to zero.
On the losing side 1 will go more often to 2 whereas on the winning side 1 will go to zero more often than not.

Of course whenever the actual state is zero, we'll get more losing 1s than winning 1s.

Everything up to some points as a random walk deprived from a shifting factor (negative edge) must follow some statistical (still unbeatable) guidelines.

Good news are that after having reached different cutoff 1 points, certain machines cannot forget to go forward or back in somewhat predictable fashions as their basic random process dictates this.

At the eyes machine, the negative edge remains the same, but it's not our probability of success.

Nonetheless and given the general huge disadvantage, our strategy should be oriented to minimize the losses forever and ever. 
At the risk to lose the rare situations where we could have missed a lot of consecutive winning hands.

as.

 

   


 


   








 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on September 25, 2017, 07:06:37 AM

Therefore we have to adapt a flexible strategy in order to adjust to the ever changing stream of events.
The game could be one or two way street, we've to live with both situations in order to come out on top.

Again another great post from Blue Angel.

And I personally like the quoted part of it.

"Flexibility" is what a roulette strategy should aim for, the problem arises when we want to assess the terms of intervention of such flexibility.
We can't predict if the actual rain will stop in minutes or hours or days. But we could better estimate how many different rainy days will stop in a given amount of minutes, hours or days.   


'Inversion' is a strategy that looks at problems in reverse, to minimise the negatives instead of maximising the positives'

Excellent strategy. I'll write my personal comments later.

as.

Hi Blue!

Thanks for your sincere reply.

Imo the main mistake about roulette is trying to build a strategy working on every wheel.
It's true that itlr every fair wheel of the world will produce real or apparent random results according to the probability values. Nobody could argue this.
And of course nobody could say that the long term random world might be limited by our actions, no matter how are sophisticated.

Imo the key words to partially take hints from the above statements are "itlr" and "long term".

And of course there's always the "random" concept to deal with.

We might conclusively say that every wheel of the universe is unbeatable on long term, providing every single spin is really random. That is perfectlky independent from the previous one/s.

Therefore the confusing parameters are two: the long term and the perfect independence of every spin.

Besides their average profits, casinos feel safe when long term outcomes are deeply studied by chi square tests, sd values, etc.
They really don't give a s.hit about the perfect random nature of every single spin.

Actually no one single spin is really random, think about the employee who launches the ball in proximity of the last number occurred or the probability a given software would release the ball at a given spot and at a given velocity.

Unpredictability doesn't necessarily mean a total randomness of the process and more importantly a total unpredictability can only spring up from a perfect randomness.

Hence it's not a blasphemy to state that every roulette player is used to deal with a biased randomness in a way or another.

More practically speaking, a possible winning strategy may only derive from a careful observation of the limited  supposedly unrandom short term values acting in a specific wheel.

The ball may land here or there, after a given amount of spins may land here or there once or more times, after another given amount of times MUST land there.
Not everytime but more often than not. That's what we should take care of, imo.
Always depending aboput the actual wheel we are taking care of.

as.