For one moment say we want to make a living at this game.
We choose to exploit the doubles/all other superior streaks ratio happening at some random walks.

Mathematically itlr doubles= superior streaks, but this thing happens just when we'd consider B/P consecutive hands.

More important is what we'll expect by ANY shoe dealt in terms of doubles/superior streaks ratio.

Statistical data had taught us that most part of shoes will provide a doubles/superior streaks ratio shifted toward the right side. Meaning that at most part of shoes superior streaks will overcome the number of doubles.

Obviously an inferior part of shoes must provide a decent number of doubles as they must catch up such a natural imbalancement.

When a shifted asymmetrical ratio is working (here is superior streaks vs doubles), we'll expect more clustered shoes getting a final negative total than positive ones, the same about getting isolated losing shoes or two consecutive losing shoes.
The only important feature to properly take care of is WHEN and how much clustered doubles won't make room to get a superior streaks balancement. And this feature is in direct relationship of how many hands were dealt so far in the actual shoe.

Of course a professional player is not interested about how much a propensity will show up or being balanced by precise numbers, just content to know that a given shoe will more likely produce a doubles/superior streaks ratio shifted toward the right side.

Theorically the best mathematical move is to wager the previous deficit by adding one unit as it's sufficient to get any kind of superior streaks/doubles unbalancement getting at least one favourable step to erase any deficit. Then we'll restart the process, either by continuing to bet the same shoe or (better) to wait for another one.
This is a concept already discussed here.

Yet there are many tools to lower the betting amounts, lacking the precision of progressive schemes but being very welcome in practice. We'll talk about them next week. 

Example.
Data are extracted by Aria casino (LV) real live shoes (machine shuffling).
Final + or - values are the reflex of the doubles/superior streaks ratio, so any positive total is a shoe getting more doubles than superior streaks and vice versa:

01) +7
02) -3
03) -2
04) -5
05) +4
06) -1
07) -4
08) +4
09) -3
10) -2
11) -4
12) -2
13) even
14) -1
15) -3
16) +1
17) -3
18) even
19) even
20) -2
21) -5
22) -2
23) +4
24) +2
25) -1
26) even
26) +3
27) -4
28) -3
29) -3
30) -5
31) even
32) -4
33) -5
34) +1
35) +1
36) -1
37) -4
38) -6
39) -3
40) -2
41) +1
42) even
43) -2
44) -1
45) +5
46) even
47) -3
48) -5
49) -7
50) even
51) -1
52) +3
53) -1
54) +3
55) -3

In this insignificant small sample I do not want to emphasize the overall negative value (that is there are more superior streaks than doubles), just to point out that positive shoes are not coming out around any corner; then permutation issue is an additional factor to work for.

I mean that even though a shoe would end up as positive (unwanted doubles propensity overcoming superior streaks), an initial favourable situation (starting W) or any W/L sequence capable to get at least one step of advantage (LWW, LLWWW, LWLWW, etc) will erase any deficit.

To say the truth, those "even" situations are not going in our favor as the vig will impact our economical results.
In the remaining cases and given the relatively low number of fightings, vig will just reduce our wins.

A safest and wiser approach would be to raise the standard bet by percentages (10%, 20% or more) after any positive (so unfavourable) or negative (favorite) shoe.

Then adding a situational clustered/isolated factor as we do not want that some rare shoes full of doubles will pose a serious threat upon our plan.
A thing we'll consider next week.

as.

About streaks our random walk(s) provide interesting statistical features helping to devise a less than a hyper selection strategy.

For example, consider doubles.

Per any shoe dealt, doubles number should be equal to any superior streaks number, meaning that itlr the number of shoes of doubles/other streaks ratio will be equally distributed.
In the sense that at the end of each shoe the probability to get more doubles than other streaks (or vice versa) will be symmetrically placed.

Actually this isn't true, as itrl there are more shoes presenting superior streaks than doubles.
Obviously shoes presenting final ratios shifted toward doubles tend to get greater than average final totals just to try to balance a more probable superior streaks propensity happening for every shoe dealt.

More later

as.

Hi KFB!
A very good reading as always..I'm looking forward for more stories..

as.

The average shoe is a mix of various patterns, the common denominator is that two linked events (whatever taken) are more likely to come out clustered than isolated, then but only then the expected less likely opposed event should come out more isolated than clustered.

At the same time  less likely events (as 2 or 3 numbers) whenever they show up clustered they are entitled to make more room at lower classes (0 and 1) being clustered at least one time.

Anyway as long as any number hadn't show up so far, we simply consider it as not existent. But this a difficult topic to insert in our plan.

Thus say our enemy is a 1 apparition vs a 0 and 2/3 event.

Itlr 1-1 are equal than 1-x, yet 1-1-x are more probable than 1-1-1

Nonetheless, clustered 1s are well definied in their apparition, meaning that isolated 1s are not getting sd values typical of a coin flip model.

I mean that clustered 1s are not overcoming the 1s isolated counterpart for long.

The same about isolated 0s vs clustered 0s.

as.

Say we assign a number range (0,1,2,3) to patterns having an asymmetrical or symmetrical probability to show up.

Thus

0 = 1,2,3

1 = 2,3

2 = 3

Since we want to falsify the hypothesis that 0 vs 1,2,3 or 1 vs 2,3 or 2 vs 3 propositions will get the same unbeatable sd values typical of an independent coin flip model, we are transforming the shoes into number successions then studying the number sequences.

So for example:

How much is the longest gap between two 0? Or, it's the same thing, how much is the longest gap between two numbers different than 0?
Or between two 1 or two 2/3 classes?
And what about 2 vs 3?
What are the more likely gaps of such propositions?

More interesting is the evaluation of how many times a given number will be followed by the same number or by a different number, of course taking care of the corresponding probability.
So 0/0 = 0/1,2,3;  but 1/1, 2/2 or 3/3 are 3:1 underdog to show up.

Besides of the 0/0 scenario, once a number will be followed by the same number we're not interested to know what will happen most, thus waiting for a new number to show up.
There are important exceptions about this statement, we'll see them later.

See you later

as.

We're deadly sure to play baccarat with an advantage but to reach this conclusion we had to dispute some common concepts made by experts denying any possible edge over the house.

a) Cards have no memory

Sure, but standing/naturals and drawing hands move around more likely ranges. The same about the important asymmetrical hands favoring the Banker. And those situations might be easily transformed into numbers.
Thus one hand means nothing, two-three hands could mean nothing, but ten hands most of the times mean more than one could imagine.
We need time to figure out how much a deviation will more likely stand up or stop. Yet basically casinos hope things will take a heterogeneous so more undetectable shape, in a word they try to take advantage of the "time" factor by two features:
- by playing a lot of hands the player has a zero probability to be more right than wrong for long;
- time dramatically increases the casinos' math edge, especially when players try to guess this or that without a solid foundation of how things really work at baccarat.
Translation: we need to understand how an "average shoe" looks like. Casinos win a lot of money not for the tiny HE, but because they get the full value of those undepictable "average" shoes where everything seems to stand too shortly to be exploited.

b) Hands are randomly distributed

This is the classic conclusion of those ignorant "I do know everything about baccarat and gambling" experts.

To say that each hand will more or less whimsically and eventually win is not the same that stating that winning/losing hands successions are forming W and L more likely (so detectable) ranges.

In fact, a baccarat random world implies sd values typical of a close coin flip game, then whether the perfect randomness should really act, every point considered of the rw succession must get the same results expected from a CF independent model. It's the simplified RVM definition of randomness.

This randomness definition can only happen at roulette where each spin is totally independent from the previous one(s) at every succession's point considered.

At baccarat each step will make a change (albeit being small) in the future probability considered by an expected long term probability and an actual probability.
It's a conditional probability acting at various levels, most of the times following the average shoe texture mentioned above.

c) Patterns are worthless

There are patterns and patterns.

Humanly perceived patterns are just constituting a minuscule part of all bac succession features.
In reality any B/P succession is the source of infinite A/B sub successions, the common displayed "roads" are just 4 or 5 different "pace/geometrical" shapes of the original sequence.

Stating that ALL patterns are worthless means to have investigated the thousands of sub succession possibilities, that is applying as a rule the same "fresh" probability to any new event coming out.
We're sure nobody investigated more than 20 or 30 different random walks before making any kind of statement.

Next time we'll see how our algos manage numbers by a fictional progressive scheme that sometimes will reach the real betting parameter.

as.

Hi Al, you answered to my questions in your last post. 

as.

Schematically we could assign a number value to any pattern happening along any shoe dealt; for some reasons we decided to cut off from the registration a fixed percentage of starting patterns considered as neutral.

Each pattern gets a given number in relationship of its lenght considered in form of isolated single/streak appearance and clustered streak/single appearance.
Numbers move within the 0-3 range, meaning that 0 is no consecutiveness, 1 is one consecutive pattern, 2 is two consecutive patterns and 3 or 3+ clustered situations are always considered as 3.

Let's make an example, three real live shoes.

First shoe presented a 1-0-1-1-1-3-2-2-(1); the final total number was 11.

Second shoe went as 2-1-2-0-1-2-0-(1), that is a 9 final number.

Third shoe produced a 2-0-0-0-2-0-0-1-1-0-1-0-3-1-0 succession, a 11 final number.

But notice what happened right after any given number at this shoe sample.

0= 1, 1, (1), 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 3.

1= 0, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2.

2= 2, (1), 1, 0, 0, 0

3= 2, 1

Despite of the strong shifted ratio (0=7 and any number different than 0=17), 0-1 clusters seem to overcome the 0-1 isolated counterpart, yet there are important features to take of about what happens next after a 2 or 3 scenario.

More live shoes:

1-1-0-2-0-0-0-1-0-1-0-2-3-1

0= 2, 0, 0, 1, 2

1= 1, 0, 0, 0

2= 0, 3

3= 1


0-1-2-0-0-0-3-2-0-2-0-0-0-0-1-0-1

0= 1, 0, 0, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1.

1= 2, 0

2= 0, 0, 0

3= 2


2-2-2-0-1-1-0-2-1-0-0-(2)

0= 1, 2, 0, (2)

1= 1, 0, 0

2= 2, 2, 0, 1

3= not applicable

2-0-3-0-3-3-0-1

0= 3, 3, 1

1= NA

2= 0

3= 0, 3, 0

0-1-2-0-0-0-1-1-2-0-0-0-0-2-1

0= 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2

1= 2, 1, 2

2= 0, 0, 1

3= NA

1-2-0-3-0-1-3-0-(1)

0= 3, 1, (1)

1= 2, 3

2= 0

3= 0, 0

0-1-2-3-1-3-3

0= 1

1= 2, 3

2= 3

3= 1,3

3-0-0-1-0-1-1-0-2-2-3-0-0

0= 0, 1, 1, 2, 0

1= 0, 1, 0

2= 2, 3

3= 0

3-0-1-0-0-3-0-3-1-(2)

0= 1, 0, 3, 3

1= 0, (2)

2= na

3= 0, 0, 1

0-0-2-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-0-0-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-2

0= 0, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2

1= 0, 0, 0, 0

2= 0

3= NA

0-1-1-0-2-0-0-0-2-0-3-(1)

0= 1, 2, 0, 0, 2, 3

1= 1, 0

2= 0, 0

3= (1)

3-3-0-0-0-0-2-3-2-(1)

0= 0, 0, 0, 2

1= NA

2= 3-(1)

3= 3, 2

3-0-0-2-0-1-1-2-0-0-0-0-1

0= 0, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1.

1= 1, 2

2= 0, 0

3= NA

3-0-0-2-2-0-1-1-2-1-2-(1)

0= 0, 2, 1

1= 1, 2, 2

2= 2, 0, 1, (1)

3= 0

1-1-0-0-0-0-0-3-0-1-1-1-1-0-0-0-(2)

0= 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 1, 0, 0, (2)

1= 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0

2= NA

3= 0

0-0-3-1-0-1-3-1-0-1-0-0-1-3-0-(2)

0= 0, 3, 1, 1, 0, 1, (2)

1= 0, 3, 0, 0, 3

2= NA

3= 1, 1, 0

0-0-0-0-3-0-0-0-0-0-3-0-2-3

0= 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 2

1= NA

2= 3

3= 0, 0

2-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-3-0-0-0-0-0-3-1-0-1-(1)

0= 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 1

1= O, (1)

2= NA

3= 0, 1

0-1-0-1-1-0-0-0-1-0-1-0-0-1-3-0-0-0-0

0= 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0

1= 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 3

2= NA

3= 0

0-1-1-0-0-2-0-3-0-2-0

0=1, 0, 2, 3, 2

1= 1, 0

2= 0, 0

3= 0

1-0-1-0-1-2-0-0-3-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-(2)

0= 1, 1, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, (2)

1= 0, 0, 2, 0

2= 0

3= 1

1-2-2-0-3-0-1-3-1-1

0= 3, 1

1= 2, 3, 1

2= 2,0

3= 0, 1

0-0-0-3-0-2-1-0-3-2-3

0= 0, 0, 3, 2, 3

1= 0

2= 1, 3

3= 0, 2

1-0-1-3-0-0-0-0-3-1-0-0-0-0-0-(1)

0= 1, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0, 0,(1)

1= 0, 3, 0

2= NA

3= 0, 1

1-0-3-2-0-3-1-0-3-0

0= 3, 3, 3

1= 0, 0

2= 0

3= 2, 1, 0

0-3-0-0-0-1-1-2-3

0= 3, 0, 0, 1

1= 1, 2

2= 3

3= 0

1-2-3-1-1-0-0-1-0-2-0-(1)

0= 0, 1, 2, (1)

1= 2, 1, 0, 0

2= 3, 0

3= 1

0-0-2-1-1-0-0-3-0-3

0= 0, 2, 0, 3, 3

1= 1, 0

2= 1

3= 0

1-3-0-1-2-0-0-1-0-1-(2)

0= 1, 0, 1, 1

1= 3, 2, 0, (2)

2= 0

3= 0

0-1-0-0-0-0-1-1-3-0-0-2-0-0-1

0= 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 2

1= 0, 1, 3

2= 0

3= 0

There are several ways to exploit such sub successions, think about how many "NA" spots happened, meaning that at an interesting part of shoes dealt one pattern hasn't the room to be properly assessed by a back-to-back scenario. As it simply didn't happen.

as.

Utilizing an approximated approach doesn't mean to navigate in the uncertainty ocean, everyday we approximate things outside of the gambling field and fortunately most choices we'll make are right. Or at least not being so bad.

Hoping for the best but expecting the worst is our mantra while playing baccarat, so the primary goal we should aim for remains to preserve our bankroll, trying to spot the situations when something should be "more due" by reasons unfortunately not strictly belonging to mathematics.

In the effort of trying to constantly beat this game, the average (entire) shoe composition represents what we should look for first.

"Extremes" rarely happening make the fortune of recreational players or of those very rare acute players capable to ride those unlikely situations; everything different than that will make the casinos' fortune or creating the basis where professionals will make money.

oOoOo

We know that long chopping shoes will eventually fill a huge number of shoe columns ignoring the 2nd row, yet at derived roads such columns filling is slow paced.
 
On the other end, streaky shoes will fill more rows than columns, ok it's a banal assumption.
Yet, derived roads are asymmetrically affected by either the SHAPE and DISTRIBUTION of such streaks. Meaning that some derived roads will stall on many columns and others will quickly abandon those columns.

And remember that we can build infinite derived roads besides the common byb, sr and cr.

More later

as.

Good read indeed.

I have some questions, see you tomorrow.

as.

Thanks KFB.

Any comment about your favorite players club/s?

Thanks

as.

In our opinion baccarat can be "solved" by assigning a number to the more likely patterns, so at the end by adding the various patterns' number happening along any shoe dealt, we'll get more probable final number ranges.

Of course for the natural permutation issue, we can't know precisely when low, moderate or huge numbers will show up, yet the final totals must fit within more probable ranges.
Good news is that back-to-back low or huge values must concede room to the opposite situations as the final value must be someway limited.

To provide a banal example, at a horizontal classic registration we know that a decent number of columns will be filled, but if we'd restrict the actual row's impact we either find situations when a row will fill a new column or when a column tend to negate a new column apparition.

Consecutive filled columns and chopping shoes tend to increase the final patterns number up to a point.

Casinos hope that players, in  a way or another, like to force such total ranges especially when players do not assign a cutoff value to the long univocal situations happening at both side of operations (shortening or prolonging the columns lenght), thus giving a lesser damn to what a final shoe will show up.

More in a couple of days.

as.

QuoteThx Asym for your prompt reply to my Q above.

re:Your addendum comment in same post above:

 "...You could argue that a BBB sequence should be even more shifted toward an A, so enticing to prolong the A betting at the same pattern.
Our data do not suggest to keep betting and for practical reasons waiting the BBB trigger to show up before wagering is a waste of time...."

Q--What does your data suggest for a BBBB_ sequence ??
 
For example
PBBBB_ or
PPBBBB_ or
PPPBBBB_ or
PPPPBBBB_ 

? all the same or do u treat them differently?


Thank You,

Hi KFB!!!

B (0.25) fights againts A (0.75) pattern.

as.

 

Hi KFB and thanks!!

Say we have an A/B succession, pA=0.75 and pB=0.25.

For example AABABAAAAABABB(?)

Now it's time to bet toward A as itlr BBA>BBB by a ratio superior than the expected 0.75/0.25 (3:1). We know we have to bet two times in the sense that we need to catch just one win within a two betting range.
If both bets will fail we let the BBB pattern go, so waiting for another fresh BB to show up. And so on.

You could argue that a BBB sequence should be even more shifted toward an A, so enticing to prolong the A betting at the same pattern.
Our data do not suggest to keep betting and for practical reasons waiting the BBB trigger to show up before wagering is a waste of time.

There's a statistical reason beyond that.
Gambling and baccarat in particular is a game of streaks; some streaks are more likely than others to show up clustered or to break UP TO A POINT, once this is surpassed we're navigating in the more undetectable ocean.

It's obvious that baccarat streaks are the by product of the higher two-card initial points, first. Such probability moves around more likely ranges.
Then there's the third(s) card impact making a more decisive role at Player bets as sometimes Banker doesn't need to draw so standing as math favorite. Anyway those situations constitute a minuscule part of the total outcomes (asym hands).

Thanks to one of Alrelax's post we have investigated deeply how many times and how much a third card could continuously favor (or not) the Player side and this is another range to take care of.

Naturally it's impossible to guess when a math advantaged hand will show up, yet it's possible to estimate the math advantaged more likely ranges, this is a good start.

On the other end, third card(s) make an important role. Most of the times being ininfluent, other times completely altering a math propensity.
Again ranges of intervention might help us.
I guess that a B7 or B6 vs a Pzero sooner or later will succumb to a 8 or 9 third card draw. And vice versa.

Unfortunately and despite of knowing very well that to get a long term edge we need a kind of math  advantage whatever taken, even a part of unsound unlikely spots must be won in order to collect an interesting profit. Otherwise the edge will be too diluted to be profitably exploited.

More later.

as.

Let casinos think that everything can happen anytime, let casinos think that everytime we'll place a bet a perfect opposite situation could easily happen for long.

This is a complete fkng ignorant statement endorsed by losing mathematicians.

Actually they are right whether we play every fkng hand dealt as randomness can't be controlled by mechanical plans or by human guesses.
Well, randomness can't be controlled anyway, that's why bac shoes can be beaten by exploiting unrandom features.

In our opinion, unrandomness can be exploited by a proper assessment of positive and negative lenght sequences, most of the times being the by product of a general greater probability but very often shifting too much from expected values to get an advantage from as one or two hands not forming a math more likely final outcome could easily change a more likely flow into a strong unwanted deviated situation.

Say (p)A = 0.75 and (p)B = 0.25  (p)= general probability considered in two betting steps.

Once A do not show up after two expected attempts, B event must be considered in its average consecutive apparition.
Obviously probability to get A after B will be 3:1 placed, so itlr the situations to get BA vs BB are 3:1 placed.
No shifted events to rely upon, the model seems to be randomly distributed.

Naturally, the only obstacle to overcome this "balanced" situation by a kind of progressive multilayered betting plan will be the "permutation" issue, meaning that long negative B sequences coming out in a row must not put in jeopardy our bankroll.

Anyway, let's display the four more likely A/B situations:

1) AA > AB

2) ABA > ABB

3) BA > BB

4) BBA > BBB

Notice that despite of the asymmetrical A/B probability, the first element is symmetrically placed (A or B).

There's no fkng possibility in the world that itlr AA < AB, in a word that A won't come out clustered for long or at the very least coming out more times clustered than isolated.

The second scenario (B coming as isolated as opposed as clustered) is more debatable as long more likely A sequences must be somewhat balanced by either a B short-gapped or consecutive B situations.
The same about the third situation.

Then the BBA vs BBB scenario will make things so polarized that baccarat becomes the best game to get an edge from as there's no way that the BBB sequence will overcome the BBA sequence.

To summarize:

a) betting A after an A is a break even option

b) betting toward A after a single B is a break even option

c) betting toward A after a single B is a break even option

d) betting toward A after a couple of BB is a strong EV+ move.

Since we know that the casinos' aim is to provide the most astounding heterogenous quality for every shoe dealt, we think to be in a wonderful shape to exploit a low deviation level of the a, b and c features, at the same time taking the best of it by exploiting the d) propensity that no one voluntarily card distribution can't disappoint.

as.