A good post with good replies.

Imo it's quite easy to assess if we have found a kind of edge putting at work a given system.

First we need a decent sample and we can even manipulate it, for example reversing the EC apparitions. This ploy is very important at baccarat where chances are not equally probable.

Secondly W must come out more streaky than singled and the opposite about the L part. (Obviously the same concept applies on any streak or single class depending on which W or L side we are considering)

Third, if we use a progression, winning spots taken on a given X level must be unproportionally more prevalent than superior X+1 winning spots.

In reality any gambling game seen from the house side point of view itlr will follow those guidelines, so we should be in good shape knowing to have gotten the perfect or almost perfect opposite statistical situation.

as.





   

Quote from: MarkTeruya on June 05, 2016, 12:03:36 AM
It's impossible to predict when a side is going to win, regardless of card tracking, symmetrical hand counts / ratios or otherwise.

One could track Bank naturals v's bank wins via 5th card and gain a fair expectation that a 4 card card natural Bank is due, yet still not know precisely when it is going to happen until after the event, which makes it all superfluous.

I resurrect this, because it's always been hovering in the back of my mind, sitting at a table tracking / counting the Bank asymmetrical v's symmetrical hands, even knowing a shoe is rich in 8's and 9's, the punter still doesn't know the precise moment to bet, therefore unworkable.

I've played many a shoe where at the on-set (10~15 hands) you simply can't hope to get paid out unless your betting side has a  score of 8 or 9.  Every winning hand has a score or 8 or 9 and only after say 15 hands you start seeing sides winning via Barbecue, 1-Baccarat, 5-4 etc.   

In those circumstances were a shoe maybe rich in 8's and 9's (how rich is rich?), balanced ratio between Player and Banker wins, many 4th and 5th card draws.  Natural Bank is due!! When do you "go all in" on the Bank, answer is you can't.

The figures may be true in your first post, but so what, when you tracking criteria is 100% you can't hammer the Bank, too bad so sad if you do and the Player suddenly decides to go on even a 4 streak. Or do you wait until your criteria is met and wait for a 4P streak, lot of work required here, asymmetrical hand count, tracking of 8's and 9's and a 4P streak, then go all in, correct?     

Thanks for your interest in my post.
You made some good points on that.

Mathematically speaking and talking about BP hands there are no other valuable tools to guess what will be the more likely hand WITHIN A GIVEN BUNCH OF HANDS.
I know it's a difficult task to accomplish.

As you correctly sayed, first step is registering the AS/S ratio. We know that per any shoe the most probable range of AS hands will be limited within the 4-14 value.
Then we know that nearly one third of total hands on average will be formed by naturals negating any AS situation.
Starting our betting solely relying upon those percentages won't get the job, of course.
We need, imo, a relatively deviated and unexpected situation as a fair P streak occurence.
Now we have to think back evaluating how many AS hands had taken place so far.

The more this P streak came out on the initial portions of the shoe, the less will be our future degree of precision.

Moreover, some AS hands will unexpectedly favor the P side, still the only real shifting situation had come out.

I mean that after a 4 P streak and after having registered zero AS hands on the first, let's say, 20-25 hands, the probability to get B on subsequent hands is higher.

If many AS hands had taken place or whether some AS hands favored the P side (mostly because they did work to build up such relatively long P streaks), the P 4 streak starting betting point loses a lot of its possible value.

Actually long P streaks do contain one or more AS hands favoring this P side.
Of course the same it's true about relatively long B streaks, now obviously the AS factor went in the expected way.

AS parameter is just an added factor increasing our expectation to get A rather than B.
We want to pay a tax on our B winning bets having a reason and not by coincidence.

Besides the naturals, another possible important point to consider is about how many and how 6 or 7 points had fallen on the P chance.

P 6,7,8 or 9 point negates from the start any possible B advantage. Then we are more favorite than even money to get a P drawing hand crossing a B standing hand (any B standing hand is favorite to win itlr as it adds to naturals and 6s,7s even 3s, 4s and 5s).

Itlr long B streaks are more likely than not composed by AS hands; on the other part long P streaks are more likely than not formed by one or more AS hands.

B or P streaks springing from perfectly 50/50 situations are not good starting betting points, imo. Unless a huge AS/S ratio was shifted to the right before a given P streak had taken place.

as.




 













   

Quote from: soxfan on May 31, 2016, 12:18:17 AM
With m y current 13 step parlay progression I'm buckin up against a 95% win rate. So, I get clipped for 500 unit in progressions bust out every 100 shoe, so I can win well and regular by capturing just 10 units profits on the 95 winning shoe and I average better than that, hey hey.

Probably with my over selected BS tested on millions of shoes, your win rate will be close to 99.999999999%. 

as.

Even though it could appear as a really weird subject, even some "subjective" situations might help us to find what should be our best course of action.

Naturally everything is based upon some objective mathematical and statistical issues where the subjective factor is just an indicator. So we must be very confident about the reliability of this subjective indicator. The pro of this type of "registration" is that a human guy could have experienced long positive or negative situations, meaning he/she carefully played a fair amount of shoes.

Let's say a guy/girl seated next to us is telling that his/her plan is to wager only toward the appearance of P doubles vs superior P streaks adopting a given MM. Unfortunately he experienced a 25 or something consecutive losing streak, that is he got 25 2+ P streaks with no one P double. I can assure you that this is just a sort of science fiction finding, anyway... 

First thought should be that in some way this guy knows some basic long term statistical features. We don't want to go deep in the process of assessing how he wants to get the best of it by this finding or if he carefully registered the 2/2+ P streaks ratio (and many other issues related to that).

If we believe in what he says, we know that he experienced a very long negative (for his strategy) sequence, a 5 sr deviation.

Since we're patiently waiting some other triggers dictated by our personal plan, we want to try to take advantage of this subjective deviation.

Hence our new temporary trigger will be shifted to any situation getting any BPP sequence, as now we know that our new "buddy" will be theorically more entitled to get more P doubles than P superior streaks.

It's interesting to notice that a random world cannot be affected by a subjective situation, in a word that the future actual shoe outcomes we are playing in cannot be influenced by a human.

At the same time and taking for granted what the buddy he's talking to us, the probability this player will get higher deviations on this very shoe (and even more on next shoes) will be very very slim.

Nevertheless, nothing can prevent this actual shoe to produce a slight predominance of P 2+ streaks, but the probability to get a 2/2+ P streaks ratio highly deviated to the right are almost non existent.

Now If we want to take as our new trigger such individual probability interfering with an objective probability, what will be our best course of action?

And what if this player leaves the table after one or two losing bets?

Does the probability to get more P doubles than P superior streaks be objectively influenced now or over the next shoes by an individual registration?

as.

This is not a post about bet selection, even though at baccarat there are better BS than others as some events are long term mathematically shifted.
So for example and generally speaking wagering to break P 4s is a better selection than wagering to break ANY 4s and the worst option is a plan intended to break B 4s.
This because itlr B4<B4+ and P4>P4+.

In reality, the intermediate situation (wagering to break any 4s) may give us interesting statistical features as globally taken the 4s class will go more likely back and forward around the zero (equilibrium) point (at the same time giving a theorical lower probability to get strong one side deviations). That is a perfect situation to set up a very diluted progression.

The above statement is a sort of paradox, as many times we'll be forced to bet the mathematical disadvantaged chance (breaking B 4s), but globally taken such strategy will give us a slight lesser impact of variance as now we're wagering to not get two simultaneous opposite relatively high deviated situations for long time.

Imo the idea to include some breaking streaks strategy in our plan is well placed at baccarat for several reasons.

I want to mention only one here.

Let's take the casino war game, a st.upid game where the highest card between players and house will win (unfortunately giving the house a pretty high edge for the same card value rule).

Unfold several times a multi deck shoe, register the simple A or B outcomes (ignoring ties) and itlr you'll see that some events will be more likely than others.

Good, so why casino war game cannot be easily beaten?

There are several reasons for that: we have to play every single hand, the house edge is quite high, we can get a precise situation only playing heads-up with the house, but foremost we don't have the opportunity to bet the house side (obstacle overcome in some way by a large spread betting). Then now casinos are using continuous shuffling machines or cutting large portions of the deck.
Still the basic principle remain the same.

At baccarat things are more complicated as there are four different class of ranks having the same value (10s and pictures) and not only any side is getting a point adding two cards value but there's even a third card intervening with some structured rules advantaging B side.

The overall effect made by those particular features will produce a kind of slight specular baccarat situation than the casino war game produces.

Back to the progression topic.

No one progression can control the game (no matter how high is the bankroll utilized compared to the table limits offered) whenever we start the progression at a zero level.
Not even a so called flat betting winning strategy unless it was proven to get an astounding high edge on player's favor (we all know there's no way to do that).

What we can do, imo, is setting up a rigid plan on multiple economically connected situations where either multiple strong deviated and unexpected events had taken place within short periods of time and/or some multiple expected situations had stalled around the zero point within too large periods of time.

We see that there's no a precise direction to be followed: either wagering toward multiple expected deviations and/or waiting the appearance of multiple unexpected events roaming around the zero point for long time.

In a word, we shouldn't want to get mere single RTM or single deviation effects as any random world can't be controlled by those features.

Imo the key word to work on is "multiple".

Multiple events can't stall or deviate forever and ever but at the same time we cannot know when and how much such events will get their expected probability to "balance" the previous features in a way or another.

Therefore, imo, if we don't want to wait some rare favourable flat betting circumstances to bet, we must be prepared to set up a low and multilayered progression starting at a point different from zero. In a way or another (RTM or expected deviation), of course.

And the word "multiple" cannot act other than improving our expectation.

as.

Of course it's complicated.

After all we're talking about the possibility to regularly beat an EV- game.

Maybe we'll be able to set up a BS baccarat team, we never know...

as. 

Quote from: alrelax on May 24, 2016, 10:35:54 PM
That's exactly correct.  The same one in a shoe, might not repeat it self for hundreds or thousands of shoes.  Then again, it might repeat itself for many spots the very next shoe.  Play it one way and the next time the same trend or bias comes around, you have to play it completely the opposite for part of it and then the same and then entirely different to continue successfully with it.  Extremely hard to do, almost impossible.  That is why, the fewer and the least wagers, pump up the value, is so important crucial.

Now we really talk the same language.

But remove the phrase "almost impossible", replacing it with "the odds we can't succeed in that are remote". :-)

My word that very soon baccarat pits won't be so glad to accept us as players. Especially high stakes players like you.

as.

   

Bayes, you are one of the few giving prestige on this site. 

as. 

Al, your comments are appropriate.

Anyway I was hoping to hear from a roulette player that at gambling games equilibrium (being false or real) simply doesn't exist.

First hand is a deviation by definition, BB BP PB or PP aren't equilibriums and so on...

Gambling games are characterized just by deviations. There's no one single pattern producing an equilibrium. No one, even though most players consider as a deviation any "simple" pattern coming out.

The problem is trying to get a kind of advantage from this assumption.

And imo this task can be done only by filtering and filtering and filtering the shoe outcomes as any random world is limited, especially taking into account multiple situations where we can easily toss the unfavourable events privileging the best ones.

as.   

Any baccarat system is based upon the probability to get A or B and if you have read my posts you know there are several ways to classify a given event as A or B.

Generally speaking, an A/B word is composed by deviations and equilibriums. The last situation could be classified into two different categories: real equilibriums and "false" equilibriums.
False equilibriums must be intended as those situations where the gap between two opposite events tend to "stall", meaning they are not gaining a sensible deviation toward one side or another despite the A/B gap is different to zero (ok, mathematically it's 1).

The deviation side is easier to evaluate: anytime A or B chance will deviate, we just have to take into account HOW MUCH or, preferably, HOW it deviates.

UNLESS THE GAME IS MATHEMATICALLY OR BY OTHER REASONS SHIFTED TOWARD ONE SIDE, the flow and the gap of these three different features itlr will tend to be equal to zero.

Notice that itlr we are certain that EC will be more or less deviated toward one side as the real equilibrium will be a kind of utopistic goal.
Nonetheless, regularly betting toward deviations without a sensible reason must be considered as a sort of "pushing the luck" strategy as such deviations (in a direction or another) are just the by product of the natural flow of the outcomes, meaning that the opposite false or real equilibrium situations are due. 

Actually a world mainly composed by real equilibriums and/or limited deviations will be a perfect world to set up a simple progression.
On the other part, regularly betting toward deviations doesn't get the job as we cannot know at which degree and at which frequency (unless from a theorical point of view) such deviations will take place.

It's true that regularly betting toward real or false equilibriums without a reason doesn't make the job either as we could easily get multiple deviations intended as real deviations (going farther from a zero gap) or false deviations (partial RTM effect from a perfect zero gap) even more difficult to properly assess.

Therefore a so called "perfect" strategy cannot solely rely upon deviations or equilibriums without knowing how many times and how much a given opposite statistical situation had occurred.

Instead, we should place our confidence to get more reliable results about the EMPIRICAL probability to get favourable outcomes after having known that some expected results are due. As they must due by mathematics and common probability.

Talking about practice, let's say we want to set up a slow multilayered strategy based on the increased probability to get more P 4s than P 4+s (more Player 4 streaks than Player superior streaks).

Good, we know that itlr we'll get by 1 trillion certainty more P 4s than P 4+s, so we cannot be wrong.
Not a vulgar finding as roulette can't give us such certainty.
True, the vig itlr will cancel the validity of such finding, still we know that in this scenario A>B.

Technically and mathematically we know we will be more right than wrong whenever after a P 4 streak a Banker hand will show up by an expected or better probability to show an asymmetrical hand, a hand where B side is mathematically favorite.
Whenever after a P 4 streak the next hand will be symmetrical (50/50) placed, we know our confidence about getting a B hand will go to the toilet.

Since we know that the mathematical probability to get an asym hand after a P 4 streak is around 1/11, we know we'll be wrong 10 times over 11. No matter how we think to be genius to guess what will be the next hand, especially if we won the hand on a symmetrical spot (it's just luck!).

Nevertheless itlr we'll get the same amount of deviations, real equilibriums and false equilibriums occurring between P 4s and P 4+s. Still we have the luxury to know that real equilibriums are just utopistic or short term findings as there are no REAL equilibriums on those opposite events itlr.

That doesn't mean our strategy should be focused to stubbornly hoping for more expected outcomes, just to properly assess the "deviations-real equilibriums-false equilibriums" situations happened in the past as at baccarat they will have a slight different degree of showing up.

The more one or more features had deviated from the norm in regard of their expected probability, the better will be our results. Especially taking into account several multiple AB situations, knowing that at baccarat when certain A events will be heavily present some different and related counter B situations will be less proportionally present.

as. 
       









   

Quote from: Sputnik on May 19, 2016, 04:34:02 PM
Thank you AS i like this methodology very much.

Cheers

Thank You!

You already know that I'm strongly convinced that some serious roulette players have a sort of advantage over other gamblers.
To be honest I continue to think that roulette is an unbeatable game, at least under normal circumstances.
But the efforts made by certain roulette researchers are, imo, far more interesting than what I've read so far about other games (bj excluded, of course).

Why?

Because serious roulette players will start their observations having solid mathematical and statistical basis: they know very well how the events will be placed, the limits when the deviations most likely will be included and so on.

More importantly, a strict bunch of roulette players focus their study about the only possible tool one could get to beat EV- games: the concentration/dllution effect of the events, a mere statistical issue.

And roulette, a multiple simultaneous result machine, might offer plenty of opportunities to grasp some hints about the above effect.

So, yes, roulette is an unbeatable game, yet I'm waiting to hear from mathematicians why after a X-Y-Z EC event, the most likely result taken from a class of two opposite events being X-Y-Z (the same result) and the perfect opposite Z-X-Y will be invariably shifted toward the former.

Ok, zero tax will erase the possible validity of such finding, not mentioning the fact that after a given 3 EC event the most likely result overall considered will be a -1 or +1 result.

Why the hell in a single zero wheel and itlr a sequence like 26-3-26-3 will be less likely than 13-13-11-13? 

as.






     

 



   
 

XXVV, thanks for your interesting contribute here.

I'm working to find out how you select the bets.

as

Quote from: Albalaha on May 19, 2016, 01:40:29 AM
What is so special about this finding? You just bet 3 fixed ECs constantly and simulate 3-4 samples of the same length i.e. 1,500,000. You will almost find the similar results without betting all the three ECs of the last number.

Is this finding giving you any edge?
Can you win flat bet this way?
Can this way of picking bets get you immune from bad stretches of losses?

I think all the answers will go in negative, being honest.
     Betselection doesn't make the difference, your MM strategy does.

Of course the edge will be so small that cannot overcome the zero tax unless we utilize a super multilayered slow progression.

Yep, differently to baccarat I can't win by flat betting here as I can't restrict the variance.

Mmmhhh, if it's so easy to find opposite events giving an infinite one-shifted gap at roulette be free to give me other examples capable to surpass a 1.500.000 test.

It takes a couple or so of NY minutes to find out if they would exist.

But I already know the answer. Still I'm very glad to be wrong. ;-)

as. 

   

Moreover, at baccarat we know that certain deviations/equlibrium ratios are infinitely shifting toward one side so we can't rely upon the sole probability to get some ratios breaking even itlr.
We know they will be shifted toward one side with 1 trillion accuracy.

We shouldn't want to guess the value or the probability of getting deviations as we cannot have any hint about this; we want to take advantage of the fact that D/E ratios of many events will be either equal or shifted toward the left side.

Therefore limiting the variance and at the same time trying to get more precision about the nature of the future hands dealt.

as. 

   

A random world itlr is composed by the same number of deviations and (pseudo)equilibriums.
Of course we know that globally taken, the deviations will get a kind of advantage over the equilibriums, yet we cannot know when and at which degree such deviations will take place.

Yes, the more we play the more will be unlikely to reach an equlibrium point, but only if we consider the equilibrium point as a X=Y spot, meaning two opposite events reaching a zero gap point.

In setting up our strategy we cannot forget that we shoudln't care care less about the value of deviations, just focus about the number of Deviations/Equilibrium spots as itlr and even on shortest terms such values are less influenced by variance.   

as.