?So do you view the remainder of the shoe as: There is now one less "two-card five scenario" available for B ??
"OR"  other viewpoints for the remainder of shoe re:  that "B two-card five scenario"

Hi KFB!

Yes, the number of asymmetrical hands favoring B is finite, so whenever one or more asym hands came out it's like that in the remainder of the shoe we're playing a closer coin flip proposition.
After all, when the number of asym hands is quite depleted and banker wins with naturals or standing points or points different than 3,4 or 5 (and the most powerful points for B are 5 and then 4), by wagering Player we're not losing anything or little.

This fact is particularly important at 'Lucky 6' tables where the HE is greater at B bets right  at the start.

More later

as. 

Notice that I'm not suggesting a mere 'antistreak' strategy, just to focus about the situations when something is proven to be slight more likely to happen by considering the average card distribution.

For example, the majority of long chopping lines aren't produced by a HI2CP 'hopping' distribution, somewhere the third card(s) had made a substantial role in forming such sequence.
The same about long streaks, especially at P side.

That's why most of the hands dealt aren't playable as they either do not reach the profitable cutoff values or after having reached that points sometimes they continue to abnormally deviate from the norm, a thing we shouldn't give a damn.

as.

Hi KFB!

Say that higher initial two-card points (HI2CP) cannot univocally fall for long at a given side, in fact most of the times longer BP streaks at either side need the third card favourable intervention.
When a HI2CP line changes side but the B/P result isn't consistent with the initial propensity, we should restart the process as now the underdog side (that won the last hand) is slight more likely to get a HI2CP of some lenght.
The process is hugely amplified when the Banker side had the luxury to get an asymmetrical hand that went 'wrong' for B.

Example.

Suppose that we have reasons to think that HI2CP sequences will get a shifting peak after 2/3 hands dealt (two card ties ignored).
If no third card(s) impact had altered the initial math propensity, that 'peak value' remains valuable to be followed so betting the opposite side is still a fair move.
Oppositely, any third card(s) impact altering the initial math propensity should be considered as a second-level condition erasing the process, thus needing at least 2 or 3 more hands (if fitting the requisites) to evaluate such HI2CP average distribution lines.

I mean that 'guessing' the side getting the HI2CP is the irreplaceable tool to get a long term edge as math could be disregarded in short situations (maybe by chasing some actual trends) but never ever in the long term.

Unfortunately guessing right the HI2CP spots (a perfect guessed spot provides an average 30% edge, then the probability decreases and obviously many points can't be detected) can endure harsh variance situations.
You can't do nothing when your B 5 point will succumb vs a 3 P point catching a 3 third card, or when your P 7 point will lose to a B 3 point drawing a 5 as third card.

Whenever you bet a given side you want to get the higher 2-card initial point within a restricted betting range, the rest (the actual result) belongs to recreational losing players.

as.

Let's summarize

Card combinations make more probable two-card runs of specific lenght up to the point that an average number of 'runs' will come out in relationship of how many runs had previously happened so far. 
Therefore B or P side could benefit of this paramount alternating factor by a quite detectable way, that's the main reason why baccarat streaks are shorter than coin flip or EC propositions.

The third card impact and the asymmetrical rule favoring Banker are just 'incidents' coming out along the way but itlr there's no stronger advantage than 'guessing' the side having the higher two-card initial point.

Actually runs of initial two-card points constitute 'limited random walks' getting values quite distant to a mere coin flip proposition.

Thus whereas it's impossible to estimate the specific lenght of two-card points sequences, it's particularly important to know how much a given sequence will stop (or prolong) on average, regardless of the final outcome.

The higher two-card initial point factor is so strong that in order to get a long term advantage on average we need to guess it just one time over three attempts.

as.

Average card distribution (again)

Randomly shuffled shoes present many interesting features.
One of the most intriguing feature is to observe the initial two-card point sequences average lenght.

We know that the side having the higher two-card point will be strongly favorite to win and obviously such propensity is affected by a fair impact of variance on the final result.

Moreover the B drawing rules and the third card impact will make things harsher.

Finally, many hands provide a 'tie' initial point different from 9, 8, 7 and 6 adding more randomness on the final outcomes.

But at the end the player capable to spot more 'higher' two-card initial points than average will get a sure advantage and this task could only be estimated by the average lenght of 'shifting' situations, that is the number of runs.

More later

as.

Quote from: alrelax on July 24, 2023, 11:38:15 AMBut one must win.  Winning is extremely subjective and individualistic but the handling of money/wins is the downfall that sucks most all in to the negative.  IMO.

Very good sentence!

After a small number of hands played, winning is relatively easy. The problem is to keep those wins and quitting while ahead is the worst suggestion ever made in the history of gambling.
On the other hand, if we start losing quitting is not the answer and the worst strategy is to keep playing without 'stand-by' interruptions.

At baccarat positive and negative situations come out asymmetrically, so there are reasons to keep playing or to preserve profits at positive situations and there are more reasons to stop our action at negative situations that must be restricted at most.

The over alternating WL sequences are the least likely to happen so it's not that difficult to spot when a given W or L line will start to change then indicating when to bet and when to wait.

as. 

Quote from: KungFuBac on July 19, 2023, 05:05:29 AM
I agree. Its this "tightness" in Bac that makes it a superior game to other even-chance games. Plus we may receive that winning situation first (regardless of ones skill or lack of).

Hi KFB!

That's the point.

At some extent baccarat works as poker does.

Loose players can only lose.

Loose-aggressive players lose itlr but may endure long winning streaks (illusion of winning)

Tight players control the game trying to get the math at their side but they could be prey of the best players.

Tight-aggressive players tend to get the best of it as they wait for the best opportunities and at the same time applying a lot of pressure, generally unwelcomed by the opponents.

Then there's the important 'first' scenario to look for...

By studying the baccarat betting frequency in relationship of the average card distribution, we have found that there's an optimal way to classify things, in a word that a given registration will make very predictable so affected by a very low level of variance the various results.

It's a kind of a new derived road but involving an asymmetrical albeit mechanical process where the registration pace varies.

Naturally a sort of binomial game will feature innumerable situations that sooner or later must strongly deviate toward one side of the action and of course this d.r. is affected by a fair degree of inaccuracy.

Yet it's the only strategic line that lured us to adopt a progression for the aforementioned variance reasons.

See you next week

as.

Very nice KF Karas! :-)

I particularly like your 60 betting increment and "not trying to precisely guessing the turning point".

Take care!

as. 

In trying to spot favourable patterns there's an optimal betting frequency based on math assumptions.
So 'waiting times' are related to the probability that some patterns will occur along the way of any single shoe.

Obviously we're talking about crossing the highest possible level of probability after a given waiting time occurred and not arguing on secondary pattern features, for example the lenght and the precise shape of it.

After all, baccarat players are wrongly focused to get something 'good' happening for quite long time whereas their primary task should be oriented to encounter a first appearance of a favourable  situation by relying upon math and statistical findings (as B/P outcomes are not mere coin flip results).

I mean that it's a waste of money to try to make a 'better choice' around any corner of the shoe as the 'better choice' is simply determined by math. Shoe per shoe, that is a serial probability dictated by math percentages.

Too many choices make the casino's fortune by increasing the volatility factor and the HE impact, it's a sure fact that recreational players quit the tables as winners by coincidence and not by a proper assessment of the bac results.

In a word, when we win 'too much' after one shoe or few shoes dealt, it's because we benefited from the chance and not for being smart.
And no one ploy in the world could prevent to get, sooner or later, a perfect symmetrical losing situation of the same density, moreover aggravated by the HE.
Therefore if we have been raising too much the BF, even while betting at seemingly endless winning spots, we're not doing us a favor.

See you tomorrow

as.

Betting frequency

It's an overlooked topic but probably one of the most powerful weapon that could transform a donator into a serial winner.


See you later

as.

Al, it's a good thread indeed.
Personally I think that the'3-5 sections' per shoe is a too restricted (or too wide) range to consider but it could give the idea about how 'normally' bac things may develop.

as. 

Hi KFB!
We're looking forward to hear your report! 

as. 

At baccarat complexity is represented by numerous factors working together but at the end we just care about the destiny of our bet.

We know that some patterns are slight (or very slight) more likely to appear first than others, when not we may be interested to assess if they'd come out as 'second' (one losing step); in the event we missed both the first and the second attempt, we could reach the conclusion that the actual  'environment' doesn't fit the requisites making something 'more probable'.

In a word, we try to restrict and at the same time taking the best of the complexity by challenging a kind of binomial 'random' world to make 'too few' opposite environments along any shoe dealt.
Obviously when an environment had surpassed the empirical two step cutoff, we need a kind of 'signal' to stop (when profitable) or to restart (when unprofitable) the betting.

Recreational players and the vast majority of bac players hope that few environments appear for long in the same shoe or, worse, that the silence environment 'must' show up sooner or later and they try to force probabilities by increasing their bets.

Casinos confide upon the exact opposite thing: on average too many different (so short) enviroments are expected to show up making the baccarat outcomes a very volatile so unbeatable production.

That has almost nothing to share with the common notion to determine randomness by the number of runs.
But patterns runs are not the same as simple hands runs for a different complexity factor working, especially whenever we consider the clustering feature and back to back shoes.

It's of our interest to keep 'experts' to state that patterns runs will distribute with the same features than hands runs or that there are no valid points of intervention along any shoe dealt or series of shoes dealt.

More later

as.

Talking about a possible EV+ without precise math findings is just saying that a Ferrari runs slower than a Jeep Wrangler, but actually it's the environment that makes the difference.

I guess nobody will pick up a Ferrari 812 Superfast to drive through a rough desert road and only a fool would choose a Wrangler to compete with the same Ferrari in a long flat asphalted road.

So it's not the car which makes the difference but the environment does.

If the enviroment, equally splitted in rough and flat situations, is supposed to be 'random' produced, no car choice will get us a kind of 'profit' unless short rough segments are overcome by the Ferrari and/or short flat segments make a minor speeding impact for the Wrangler.

The 'illusion' of controlling randomness by raising the POS (probability of success) may be worthless but it surely increases the 'complexity' feature.

Therefore if a A=B proposition is unbeatable, a Ax(A1+A2)=Bx(B1+B2) proposition could remain 'less' unbeatable, as the number of outliers is someway restricted, so more likely roaming around the 0 origin point.

At the same token, if both Ax and Bx present a slight restricted number of deviations, Ax/Ax clusters and Bx/Bx clusters must take the same properties but now by a greater level of 'complexity' than the previous step, and it's reasonable to think that the more complexity is involved greater will be our POS (whether carefully assessed).

Yet we have reasons to think that the productions are not perfect randomly offered, so more likely taking a kind of biased one sided 'undetectable' direction.

Obviously if something is 'biased' it'll more likely produce clustered events than isolated events, so we do not need a lot of time to realize the most (even transitory) line any shoe will take.
We've seen that a long 'alternating' events course is the least likely to happen, providing a decent level of patterns 'complexity' factor.

Of course the BPBPBP succession (and many alike) cannot belong to the 'alternating' category as lacking of the 'complexity' factor.

See u next week.

as.