Is this a real losing hand? LOL

Hi KFB and thanks for your posts.

I think that regardless of the random walk utilized (even though some r.w.'s are way better than others), the best approach to take is to know how much ON AVERAGE the different patterns will impact over the shoes. In some way it's an approximation of the card distribution probabilities and to do that we have to assign a specific number to the several pattern categories (and we know they are only three).

On the other end, to get a long term advantage we have to find solid proofs that (++) vs (+-) sequences must get a better than 0.75/0.25 expected ratio or other intricate and more unlikely +/-
strings.

As already sayed here, if a positive streak will reach the 24-30 value but the negative streak counterpart will be 6 or 7 long (18 or 21 unit losses), we know to play with a (diluted) edge.

By far the best situation to make a huge bet is whenever a given random walk will get a couple of consecutive losing spots (a thing quite rare to happen), then wagering toward a + (in two consecutive times).
If this two layered wager is lost we have to wait for another opportunity.

More later

as.

The statistical isolating/clustered feature already taken in consideration to condense the original outcomes in + and - signs could be applied even at those short sub successions.

Thus if we bet toward + after a first + appearance or toward + after a single -, only a sequence as +-- or --+- will get us losers two times in a row; and of course longer than this successions will prolong such losing streak as +--+- or --+--.

Given the shortness of derived patterns, it's obvious that a single pair of - signs happening in a shoe means that the shoe won't be a final winning shoe.
Since winning shoes are more frequent than losing ones, in some sense is like that the actual card distribution must be particularly full of + signs at the very start of it to get an advantage. 

So let's see how many signs of the sub succession we'll get in the first position of every shoe dealt:
The answer is that we'll collect 44 units (before vig), always considering W as +1 and L as -3.
The longest consecutive losing spot happening at the very first sub sequence was four in a row, the longest winning sequences were 20, 17 and 13 in a row.

as. 

In the above 183 shoes examined, it's interesting to notice that before vig (ignored for simplicity) we got 91 winning shoes, 73 losing shoes and 19 shoes were a push.

At the end and by accounting only the + and - impact we collected a small profit but considering that "push" shoes are anyway losing shoes (for the vig), basically everything broke even.

From another point of view, we might consider the most catastrophic W/L shoes succession, that is all losing shoes coming in a row, a thing impossible to happen but that cannot be discarded.

In reality the most long losing shoe sequence was six in a row and two times 4 losing shoes in a row.

On the other end, the longest winning shoe sequence was seven and six in a row.

We know very well that such W/L consecutive streaks do not mean nothing, it's just a permutation issue.
For example, after the first 70 shoes dealt, we got a +78 unit peak that slowly balanced towards the losing side.
That's why we need a quality factor to be utilized tending to give the most limited fluctuations.

More later

as.

Hi KFB, very good points!

My guess is that by introducing those side bets, casinos have transformed a kind of coin flip low edge game into a more appealing constant chase right on those "unlikely" bets that could guarantee huge returns.
Especially when players are losing, so mathematically aggravating the losses.

It's not a coincidence that Vegas HS rooms do not offer EZ tables where the vast majority of bets is payed 1:1, probably knowing that it'll be very unlikely that tourists are willing to bet the F-7 wager as being too rare to happen.
In any instance at EZ tables the HE is 1.01%/1.24% and 7.6%, whereas at Tiger/Lucky 6 tables (very common at HS rooms) HE is 1.46%/1.24% and 14% plus.
 
So no commission tables somewhat lure the Banker action backed up by some kind of side bet action, but in both cases (EZ and T/L6) what remains the best side to wager (generally speaking) now becomes the most burdened betting option, surely worse than the unchanged Player 1.24% HE.

It has to be sayed that differently to F-7 bets, Tiger bets are easily controllable by card counting, moreover featuring a decent average distribution among the shoes dealt.

Anyway we think that the best tables to risk our money at are normal commission games, even knowing to concede a 0.05% worse edge at B bets.

as.

Without the use of a software and by approximating at best the various patterns happening itlr, one of the infallible approach to get an edge is by wagering toward triples and 4s streaks by adopting a specific random walk.
Providing to use the old clustering/isolated effect taking care of a very unlikely symmetrical results distribution (results distribution and not card distribution).

In fact, 3 and 4 streaks must more likely come out as clustered or isolating a superior (5/5+) streak.
Therefore 5/5+ streaks situations once had surpassed the isolated cutoff point (so showing up clustered between 3 or 4 streaks) aren't chasable anymore.

Of course when putting into an infinite fight 3 and 4 streaks vs 5/5+ streaks, singles and doubles will become as ininfluent (neutral).

Here's a live sample where our random walk was following the above supposedly propensity.
3 and 4 streaks were played until a loss (5/5+ streak) or played just one time after a 5/5+ streak. The process restarts after a 3 or 4 streak happening.
Obviously a + sign is a +1 unit and any - sign is a -3 unit.
Notice the sd values.

- + + +

+ + + + + + + +

- + + + + + +

+ - + + -

+ + -

- +

+ + + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + + + -

+ + + +

- + + + + + -

+ + - -

+ + + + + + +

+ + + - -

+ + +

+ + + - +

+ + + + -

+ + - -

+ + + - +

+ + + + + -

+ + + + + + +

- +

+ + + + + -

+ - + + +

+ - + + + +

+ + + + - -

- -

+ + -

+ + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + +

+ + + + + -

+ + + + + +

+ + + + + +

+ + + + + -

+ + + - + + +

- + + + -

- + + +

- + + + + + + (-1)

+ + - + - +

+ + - + -

+ - - + -

+ - + + + (-1)

+ + + +

- + -

-

+ + + + + +

+ - +

- -

+ + + -

- -

+ - (-1)

+ + - + +

+ + + -

- + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + -

+ + - + + +

+ + + + +

+ + +

+ + + -

+ + + + +

+ + + + - + +

+ + + + + + +

+ + - + + +

- + + + +

+ + + + + +

- + + +

+ + - +

+ + + + +

+ - - -

- + - -

+ + + - +

+ +

+ + + + -

+ + - + +

- + -

+ + +

- + + + -

+ - + + +

- + + + + +

- + + - - +

- + - + +

+ + - + + +

- + + -

+ + + + +

- + + + +

+ + - + + + (-1)

+ + + +

- - + + + + +

- + - -

+ + - + + + +

+ + + + + (-1)

+ + + - + + +

+ - + - -

+ - + +

+ -

+ - -

+ + +

+ + + -

- - (-1)

+ + -

+ + + (-1)

+ + + + +

+ + + + + -

+ + + -

+ + + + -

- +

+ + - -

+ + + + + +

- + + + + + +

+ + -

-

+ - + +

+ - + + -

- + + -

+ + + + + -

+ + + - -

+ + - +

+ + + - -

+ + + + - +

+ + + + + - + + +

+ - + +

- - + +

+ + + - + (-1)

- -

+ + + + - -

+ + - -

+ + +

+ - - + + -

+ + + + + +

- + + + +

- + - -

+ + + + +

- - +

- -

+ - +

+ + + - + +

+ + + - + +

- + - -

+ + + + - +

+ + - -

+ + - -

+ - + +

+ + + - -

- + - +  - + +

+ + + - (-1)

+ - -

+ + + + + + -

+ + + - + + +

+ + + - + + +

- + + + -

+ + + + +

+ + + (-1)

+ + + + +

- + + +

+ + + + + +

- + +

+ - + - +

+ - - +

+ + + + (-1)

+ + + + +

- + + + + +

- + - +

- + - + - + +

+ + + + + + -

+ - + - +

- + + -

+ + + + + + -

+ + + + + + -

+ - + + + + + (-1)

- + + +

- + +

+ + + - +

+ + + + +

+ + + + - + + + +

- + + - -

+ + - -

+ + - + + + (sh. 61.260)

Such +/- distributions speak for themselves.
You know very well I'm not selling anything here, just trying to say that this game could be beatable by exploiting its flaws, that is by negating the beloved "coin flip" nature stated by experts of our a$$.

Are we wrong? Good, casinos have plenty of money to challenge us. LOL

as.

Thanks for the explanation Al!!

Yes, at Palms casino all tables are EZ baccarat tables (HE at B bets= 1.01%, the best). It's a nice premise to play baccarat giving players plenty of promotions. No many tourists playing baccarat there, the casino is crowded by locals.

About your friend..well good job...
Now after this fortunate session he has at his disposal 5.5 bankrolls to lose before breaking even.(Or, of course, to win more).
Nothing wrong to push winning sequences where the house can only hope to get that winning succession to stop once.
Then as we know very well it's all about to protect the money won by lowering the betting frequency and the betting amounts: "quitting the table as winner" move is not giving any long term advantage.

as.

QuoteThere is also "Off The Street", (no front money) $25 min to $100k (yes $100,000.00) max outside the Chicago area.  And it is mostly EZ. 

Please elaborate it. Thanks!

as.

Streaks

Let's assume for simplicity that each shoe dealt will contain 80 resolved hands (ties ignored). On average we'll get:

a) 20 singles
b) 20 streaks

Of those 20 streaks, half will be doubles (10) and half will be 3/3+ streaks (10).
Again of those 3/3+ streaks half (5) will be 3s streaks and half (5) will be superior 3s streaks.
Then of that 5 streaks belonging to the 4/4+ category, half (2.5) will be precise 4s streaks and half (2.5) will be superior 4s streaks.
And so on.

So per every shoe dealt we'll expect two or three streaks equal or superior than 5.

This assumption relies upon a constant perfect symmetry working per each hand dealt, but we know that at baccarat such symmetry will be disregarded by "forces" belonging to different sources:

1- bac rules mathematically favoring B side (constant)

2- greater two-card initial points limited ranges (actual)

3- factors capable to stop (3a) or prolong (3b) an already univocal succession (actual streak ranges)

For sure the most decisive factors in the streaks formation happening per every shoe dealt is 2 and 3.

Obviously the most powerful force comes out when 1, 2 and 3b merge together, thus enticing us to bet B. Nonetheless this situation happens quite rarely.

Yet we know that point 2 remains the most important as the side getting the higher two initial cards will get a close to 2:1 probability to win the final hand.
In other words, in order to spot the side getting the greater 2CIP we THEORICALLY need to be right just a bit more than one time in two attempts.
Unfortunately things aren't so easy in practice, as huge 2CIPs could easily succumb to higher points (even for long) and of course such math propensity relies upon an average zero value cards distribution having an important (neutral) role about third card(s)' impact.

Then (thanks to Alrelax points) there's the 3 factor, that is the actual third(s) card impact that very often will erase and invert an already point 2 propensity. Or, to enforce it (but now we are not really interested about it as we've already chosen the 'right' spot).
 
Streaks lenght are just the by product of those three factors converging together.

Since the baccarat model is asymmetrical by any means, we should approximate at best how many times a H2CIP will stand at the same side, then what are the actual ranges of the 3 factor knowing that, generally speaking, 3a>3b up to some cutoff points and only finally by considering that B streaks will be anyway longer than P streaks.

Considerations about odd and even slots or final points are too complicated to be evaluated without an electronic (ILLEGAL) device, so we must rely upon those three factors.

Three factors: Ideal world and mistakes

1- If B>P by a manageable pattern exploitation, the game wouldn't exist, so negating a kind of ideal world. 
In reality it's a sure fact that at commission games casinos particularly like Banker bettors than Player bettors. Not mentioning those id.iots constantly wagering B at no commission Tiger/Lucky6 tables where the HE is 1.46% and not 1.06%.

2- H2CIP feature a lot of variance as a sort of 35% expected and average losing probability will come out more often than many would think, providing of course to guess right the side getting that H2CIP by percentages slightly higher than 2:1.
But now the ideal world exists, that is to get all spotted H2CIP winning.
Again the main mistake is to force an event not appearing so far to show up soon. A sre recipe for disaster. 

3- Most of the times third(s) card favors the already higher point, here the ideal points would be when the third(s) card always make a ZERO impact over the final outcome or to repeatedly help the same underdog side.
Whenever the card distribution seems to be so polarized to help consecutively the underdog side, we'd better forget the 2 factor.
Conversely, more emphasis must be given to the side not being sensibly affected for long by the third card impact.
   

as.

Quote"but one side is payed 1:1 and the other one 0.95:1."

Are all tables commissioned in Europe? 

Most all the tables I play on, even those with $10,000 and up max wagering, are non commission Banker side these days.

I do not know about European premises other than Montecarlo casino and yes, it's a 5% B commission there.

Yes, when one would think that a natural will come out, "no commission tables" spread among US are the best, EZ tables first (notoriously featuring the lowest HE).

The main problem of EZ tables is that a diluted hyper selective strategy cannot afford to get a "push" on F-7 Banker winning spots, thus enticing us to bet the F-7 side bet burdened by a bad 7.6% HE (even though such bet covering the main bet should be 1/40).

For what we know, no one HS Vegas room seems to offer EZ tables (for obvious reasons).

as.

KFB wrote:

Q wouldn't this favor P as P would prefer NOT to draw a third card since then B may be allowed to exercise its option(i.e., to draw or not to draw). E.G. lets say there are more 8/9 cards remaining and we see BPB_ , wager P??.

Yep, when the deck is particularly full of 8s and 9s (true count, of course) the probability either side will get a natural is beyond the average 34.2%, but one side is payed 1:1 and the other one 0.95:1.
Whereas is virtually impossible to spot the asymmetrical hands favoring Banker (8.6% vs all other hands), we have means to valuably approximate a nearly 4 fold more likely probability of naturals, even though half of them will fall into the losing B side.

More generally speaking, the baccarat model is built around odd (1st and 3rd) and even (2nd and 4th) card slots that dynamically change their pace in relationship of how many cards were utilized at the previous hand.
First card and third card = P
Second card and fourth card = B

So when 5 cards are used to resolve a hand, next hand restarts (inverting) the process; on the contrary 4 and 6 cards used to resolve a hand will make constant the odd/even card fall with no pace changements.
That doesn't mean we'll be able to spot easily the final winning hand, just to work about more likely ranges, the same thing studied at other games.   

Then at baccarat also the odd or even FINAL point matters, always considered by ranges.
Differently to what many think about, odd and even final numbers do not get the same probability to win and this fact affects the average streaks lenght probability and the related isolated/clustering factor happening per any shoe dealt.

as.

Be prepared to risk a large part or most or ALL of your bankroll at some spots, after all is the same thing "acute" smart poker players must do to win a WSOP NL hold'em tournament.

as. 

Say that you're at least 100 fold more likely to win $10 millions by starting with a $10.000 bankroll than hoping to win the WSOP Main Event bullsh.it.

as.   

Stay tuned because you'll get a better idea of what we're really relying upon, shoe per shoe.

You'll see that Alrelax and KFB ideas take an additional important role about our strategy, after all we are three players wagering serious money at the tables.

as.

 

There are few ways to consistently win and many ways to lose without any sensible probability to get even itlr (so losing more and more and more).

First, baccarat remains a strong EV- game featuring few EV+ spots along the way (experts never confirmed the EV+ spots appearance other than by a ridicolously low profitable edge extracted by card counting). Those "experts" are wrong experts.

Second, the only way to get an advantage is by spotting the (rare) situations where a given A pattern will more likely prolong or stop, a probability that "experts" consider as "symmetrical", that is not shifted toward a more probable outcome.
Another strong desert tortoise sh.it. 

As long as a given range of columns will be filled no matter how are distributed the outcomes, we know to be in a very good shape, even by not knowing precisely the "shifting points" intervening among columns (columns lenght).

Obviously streaky shoes are shortening the average columns lenght and chopping shoes are enlarging the columns number, yet the average columns number range remains quite restricted.

Actually some random walks "challenge" the model to provide LONG symmetrical (say homogeneous) situations, after all each shoe provides a sure asymmetrical card distribution better ascertained by registration paces different than consecutive B/P simple results.

Derived roads might be a possible answer but there are way better ways (random walks) capable to extract value by a sure asymmetrical card distribution forming streaks of more probable lenght and distribution shapes.

In a couple of days I'll present the distribution and relative weight of specific streaks lenght registered at a large live shoes sample by utilizing our main random walk, anybody could get his/her conclusions.

as.