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.

It's impossible to track all the various card and pattern situations happening per every shoe dealt without an electronic (illegal) device and it's altogether obvious that there's no point to demonstrate publicly that such device could really help us to beat the game.

Actually many people utilize softwares to beat online games, mostly at poker sites in order to ascertain opponent moves by % ranges then putting those infos into the software which will tell them what would be the best approach to make.

So would it be a viable option to use a software to beat online baccarat games?

Probably it is, yet we strongly prefer to play live games for several reasons:

- Generally speaking at gambling we do not trust anyone, sometimes even if we can keep a visual direct approach of what is happening (so including some live action).

- Online games provide too short betting intervals between hands, a factor further aggravated by occasional disconnections.

- Our very diluted betting strategy suffers a lot when sites authomatically disconnect a player from the play, thus forcing us to rejoin the site with a sensible waste of time (and not witnessed hands dealt).
Of course betting every hand with a way lower standard unit will erase the problem but raising casinos' heat.

- Many hands are missing from the display. They happened but not registered. 

-Online it's more difficult to play huge sums and to collect them in brief time. We hate to lose serious money in minutes/hours but to collect winnings in days (or weeks).

- It's a sure fact that "too winning" players are banned from almost every site; frankly the 'trick' to set up new or multiple accounts (or other ploys) is annoying.

- Other

In summary it's way better to lose a fair part of our EV by choosing to bet live games than online games.
It's what we name as an approximated way to consider things.

Later

as.

Note: 2CIP must be intended as the "higher" 2CIP falling at one side (H2CIP), obviuosly this is a symmetrical (but slight dependent) probability.

But clustered or isolated H2CIP situations are more affected by the actual card distribution, subtly privileging the opposite side which won the last hand.

Again, check your shoes and let me know how many "long" streaks come out from a homogeneous H2CIP situation.
Very few, most part of long streaks need to win "unfavorite" hands ("lucky" third card impact) even though is certain that a fair portion of the shifts (short streaks or any) between sides is caused by the same effect.
 
See you later

as.
   

By now my "horses" seem to do quite well...

Back to baccarat.

The "average shoe distribution" relies upon the consecutiveness (range) of higher two-card initial points falling (or not) at the same side (B or P) as any two-card initial point (2CIP) is strongly favorite to win the final outcome.

Whenever 2CIPs follow an average probability to show up (meaning deviations are quite restricted, so well controllable) AND final results tend to follow such math advantage, it's a child's joke to get an edge over the house.

Problems rise up when the math advantaged side will succumb to the third(s) card impact too many times in a a row or by percentages going too distant from a general 2:1 shifted ratio.
In this instance the actual shoe becomes as "unplayable" as we have reasons to think that an average card distribution won't happen at this shoe or that is too whimsical to be exploited other than by luck.

And we know that "luck favors prepared minds" only if we're able to restrict its impact by verified (so more probable) limits, surpassed them we're not interested to chase anything.

Remember that playing with an edge means to spot a slight greater amount of 2CIP situations than average and not guessing the winning final hand no matter what.

In fact guessing the winning final hand is in direct relationship of how many MORE times we were able to spot a 2CIP situation than average, letting the third(s) card impact to get their job.

Whenever the third(s) card seems to alter too much in expected frequency an already math shifted situation, we should simply say to the house "let your hands flow, I won't bet a dime on this improbable succession".

In some way the bet selection issue is restricted by approximating at best the probability ranges of 2CIP events.

And those 2CIP events aren't so whimsically placed than one could think of, actually they are arranged by more likely ranges.
Then a strong factor altering the final results is made by the third(s) card impact, but most of the times what was math favorite to win remains favorite to produce the final winning hand, even if some harsh variance acts along the way.

4/13 of total rank cards are neutral (zero value) cards, if we add Aces to the neutral cards we know that 38.46% of the deck is most likely irrelevant to the final result, so the main bet selection should be oriented to prolong or stop an already 2CIP math shifted situation.

The decisive factor to take care of is that inferior 2CIP events winning the final hand by getting a value of third card are restarting the normal flow of 2CIP, no matter what were the univocal results happening at a same side.

It's 1 billion % certain that the vast majority of long streaks apparition do not come out from long sequences of 2CIP situations, but by taking advantage of the third card impact.
Normally such situations being underdog to alter the final results, yet they could entice long streaks formation.

as.

Thanks for your comments KFB and Al!

Recently we have built a possible useful "simple" answer to know whether a shoe will be playable (so profitable) or not (where the profitability seems to be denied by the actual card distribution), we'll see it later.

BTW (off topic): In around 5 minutes the Day 8 of The WSOP Main Event will start. There are 18 players left (10.112 entrants), among them there are a couple of poker players I admire the most:

Kristen Foxen (Canada) and Niklas Astedt (Sweden) that have demonstrated to play a wonderful brilliant poker.
Good luck to both, hope to see you at the Final Table!

as.

Yeah, you are right Al. What I meant is the importance to patiently wait instead of forcing probabilities.

as.

Hi KFB!!

We play a 0.75% general probability of success in its innumerable forms (simpler patterns being as singles and doubles vs 3/3+ streaks, predominant two patterns vs a currently silent pattern, etc), but only "complex" patterns will get us an astounding "control" over the outcomes.

Example of a "complex" pattern by taking into account doubles and 3/3+ streaks:

A double followed by a 3/3+ streak is an isolated double, a double followed by another double is a clustered double pattern.

2-3/3+ = isolated pattern

2-2 = clustered pattern (1-step) 2-2-2 (2-step), etc

Itlr the number of isolated patterns MUST be 1/4 of the total scenarios, meaning that we'll expect clustered doubles 3/4 of the times.

At the same time those isolated patterns must catch up a more likely doubles clustered distribution completely disjointed from mere numbers. The Is/Cl ratio always stands at 1:3.

I mean that a 2-3-xxxx-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 sequence remains a strong unlikely ratio shifted towards isolated patterns and not towards clustered patterns. Is=1 and Cl=1.
Therefore after this sequence we'll expect more 2s clustered than isolated 2s, even though the current 2/3 ratio is 9/1.
Of course we can't know about the precise lenght of those clustered events, just about that they must catch up a "quality" factor.
The same tool applies to the isolated events whenever the Is/Cl ratio is strongly or moderately shifted towards the right clustered side. (Meaning that now we'll expect more isolated events than clustered events).

Ideal successions and close-to-ideal successions

Assuming pA= 0.75 ans pB= 0.25 applied to any fighting A/B events, the ideal succession to be exploited will be:

AAABAAABAAABAAABAAAB...

Other close-to-ideal successions are:

AAxBAAxBAAxBAAxB... or

ABAABABABAxBABAA.. where the B element remains as isolated.
Notice that in this last example the A/B ratio is 9/6 so diverging from the expected probability being 11.25/4.75, yet we have tools to restrict the B range by quality issues, at least up to when this propensity will stops.

At real dealt shoes where we have doubts about a so called "perfect randomness" working at, the density of A/B outcomes will make a decisive role to what we're thinking to bet on.
For sure we know that cards are asymmetrically dealt, that is patterns must be affected by a kind of asymmetry working at various stages.

I mean that per every shoe dealt, values not reaching and/or surpassing a 3:1 A/B ratio are the norm.

Most bac players like to adopt a kind of "sky's the limit" approach, on the other end casinos rely upon the sure probability that sooner or later things will change. (HE is a way minor tool why casinos will collect their profits, side bets apart).

On our part we know that things will change (or stand) by more probable values (ranges), pressing positive or negative situations are just for losers.

as.

Hi KFB! Thanks!

I was talking about A and B patterns and not just of B and P hands.
Once an A or B pattern shows up as "clustered" (AA or BB), there is a slight (subtle) probability that next pattern will be another A or B (AAA or BBB) than AAB or BBA, meaning that "doubled patterns" vs any other pattern will be less frequent than the counterpart.

Of course BB or PP aren't considered doubled patterns here.

The interesting thing to notice is that long term data have universally taught us that BB and PP (common doubles) are the most prevalent events among every other scenario. (So appearing to be the opposite situation seen above)
Therefore we we amplify the number of hands constituting a pattern, things seem (actually do) to take the opposite direction of long term distribution. (doubles<longer streaks)

I'll give more details tomorrow.

as.

Ranges of pattern apparition

Say we split the possible multi-hand patterns into A and B categories.

The FIRST STEP involves just two possibilities:

1) A or B will come out as clustered (AA.. or BB...)

2) A or B will come out as isolated (AB or BA)

Since shoes are formed by a sure asymmetrical card distribution, itlr it'll be more likely that one element (A or B) will remain silent for a unknown time frame.
On the other end, whenever A or B patterns will show up by a perfect 0.5 rhythm, we know we are facing an alternating sequence favoring the A and B isolated outcomes.

Obviously there are no rigid rules to be applied in order to predict an A or B clustered vs isolated appearance, but at the same time no human mind could guess when a clustered scenario will happen or stop or when an isolated scenario will stand or stop.

A thing verified by our long term data told us that A and B patterns will distribute along any shoe dealt by different levels of probability:

1- A or B coming out as clustered one time (e.g. AAB and BBA > than AB and BA)

2- A or B coming out as isolated one time (e.g. ABAA and BABB > ABAB... and BABA...)

3a- A or B coming out as clustered more than one time (AAA > AAB and BBB > BBA)

3b- A or B coming out as isolated more than one time (ABAB... and BABA...)

4 A and B coming out clustered/clustered and isolated/isolated...etc (AA...BB..AB...BA)

5- A and B coming out as isolated/clustered/isolated/clustered...etc (ABAABBABAABB...)

Notice that #1, #2 and #3a scenarios will be kind of unbalanced and accounting the minimum possible number of hands forming that pattern, whereas #3b, #4 and #5 situations are symmetrically shaped in quantity but needing a way greater number of hands dealt.

This way of splitting the possible shoe fragments distribution into different levels of probability will help us to predict by a sensible degree what will be the more likely next A/B quality (clustered or isolated) sequence.

as.

Why look for long, a small section producing those balanced or unbalanced pattens are a gravy train of beautiful wins, quickly.

Of course, but they could be even a train of lousy losses.

Personally, I learned and attempt not to rely upon anything from that shoe.

I understand but I think we should learn something from the past, especially after losing sessions.

We well know that almost every bac player in the world is a sure loser, so every bac player should wonder why he/she can't win.

We could enlist innumerable factors, probably those are the most important, IMO:

1) Thinking that bac could be beatable by progressions. It's funny to see how many people keep promoting and talking about complete worthless progressions that have ZERO probability to succeed itlr.

2) Greed. Baccarat is a survival game, in some way it acts like black jack.
Due to the negative HE, we're certain to encounter more patterns getting a cumulative loss than a cumulative win. After all casinos were built for this.

3) The absolute lack of understanding that itlr either a fixed approach or a "luck/actual way" to place the bets cannot work.
Say we have to "surprise" the patterns by finding changes in our strategy.
In this task the past experiences, whereas properly assessed, help us a lot.

More later

as.

Thanks guys!!

At baccarat there is no such a thing as "balanced" patterns lasting for long, even "overalternating" A/B patterns are a form of unbalanced scenarios.
Thus virtually only slight alternating patterns could pose a threat to our plan.

As already sayed one millions of times here, simple B and P hands or B/P doubles, etc are patterns too much affected by volatility, we need more complicated patterns to rely upon.
In fact more hands are needed to form a pattern, less likely is the probability that just one hand or a couple of hands will disrupt the normal asymmetrical flow.

And less hands we want to "guess" greater will be the probability of success, unless the actual distribution seems to be so deviated that we could think to "freerolling" with casino's money.
Unfortunately this situation happens quite rarely.

The real problems any bac player will face aren't related to WHEN a given pattern will happen but HOW LONG given patterns that had already shown up will present.
It's an approximation of course, but since we are taking care of multiple different patterns, we know that things must take a more likely line, that's why we play with an edge.

Obviously cards do not give a lesser fk about our current W/L status, this is one of the best tools making casinos' fortune as 99% of players want to get even in too short terms.
Or, it's the same concept, winning too much in the same short terms.

More later

as.

Interesting post, Al!

From our part we have postulated that bac successions aren't really random because we consistently win by flat betting and everybody knows that it's impossible to win itlr by betting random EV- successions.
Actually we have even theorized that even perfect random sequences (e.g. SHFL shuffling machines) might be beatable, say more beatable than manually shuffled shoes or preordered shuffled shoes.

In all cases the decisive point to focus about is the relationship between hands, the most important tool being the concentration/dilution of key cards as this factor impacts over the patterns formation (quality and lenght).

416 or 312 cards will be asymmetrically arranged along the shoe, so derived patterns must be somewhat asymmetrically shaped too.
Obviously and most of the times such asymmetry cannot last for long, other times the asymmetry seems to provide symmetrical results (naturally or more likely by coincidental causes), yet the asymmetry reigns supreme as the main force.

Each pattern or classes of patterns will fight against an opposite scenario, whenever something didn't happen so far, well, we simply assume it doesn't exist.

See you later

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on June 24, 2024, 02:58:42 AMHi Asym

On the following:

"..Long term data have taught us that per any shoe dealt by transforming adjacent complex patterns into numbers we'll get more likely totals than considering the game as a random model:..""

Do you mean coding certain pre-determined patterns(multiple outcomes) into a single numeral for comparison with other pre-determined patterns(multiple outcomes') coded numeral???

Can you give an example as Im not sure I understand what u are saying.


thx,kfb

Yes.

Say a 4/4+ streak happened.
You want to dispute that the following streak won't be another 4/4+streak, thus betting towards doubles and triples (of course singles do not matter).

In number terms a 4 will be more likely (yet slightly) followed by a 2 or a 3 streak.

Anyway such slight propensity will work whether intertwined streaks happened in relationship of how many hands were dealt, in the sense that if a 4/4+ streak was followed by a long sequence of singles, inferior streaks probability tends to be substantially diminished.

No matter what, 4/4+ streaks are strongly balanced in their apparition with another 4/4+ streak OR any 2 or 3 streak.
Of course when a 4/4+ streak cluster happens we do not have reasons to stop such (slightly but expected) unlikely situation. Even if we know that 4/4+ streaks vs 2/3 streaks are more likely to come out isolated than clustered more than once.

Other than after a mere general streaks probability, itlr 4/4+ streaks MUST be balanced by a correspondent 2/3 streaks counterpart.
After any 4/4+ streak apparition, by betting progressively towards a 2 or 3 streak appareance vs another 4/4+ situation you'll get a kind of moderate statistical egde.
Naturally and as already sayed, we need some streak to show up before thinking to play this plan.

That's the beauty of this game, where everything seems to be conditionally dependent in relationship of what happened so far.
A thing you and Al know very well. 

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on June 24, 2024, 02:10:41 AMAsymBacGuy in post #1073 above:

"...To beat baccarat we just need to implement and expand some ideas made by eminent mathematicians/statisticians of the past that didn't care too much (or anything) about gambling.

As you know after reading my pages, I'm referring to Richard Von Mises and Marian Von Smoluchoswki.

Actually we have found out that at baccarat some fragments of the shoe's succession cannot be labeled as "random" spots, the only issue to overcome was to evaluate whether such spots were able to reach the 51.3% or higher cutoff profitability at B bets and the 50.1% or greater cutoff profitability at P bets...."

Well stated Asym.
    I am familiar with some of the work by Smoluchowski, however, I've never studied much on Von Mises.
I think there are several areas of Mathematica that one can generalize to gambling(i.e., 50-50ish type wagers). It is my opinion that much of the underlying math of casino games is not the arithmetic we often use to analyze outcomes ex post facto. Nothing wrong with analyzing the outcomes as I do it too.

Speaking of mathematicians.
A couple of my favorite mathematicians: Blaise Pascal and Leonhard Euler(pronounced Oiler).
Of course Nik and Al contributed some decent studies too. 


Continued Success,

I really like you. 

Well, I'm pretty sure that nobody will be so happy to face our bets (mine, yours and Al ones, not mentioning if we're all playing and pooling our money together) as, sayed loud and clear, such people won't get any single fkng chance to win a dime from us (despite of the HE).

In the remote circumstance 2+2=5 "I know everything about games" owners (mr sklansky and relatives first) and some same site posters or any other "expert" is willing to challenge us, let us know how much money you want to put at stake.

We'll invite such "expert" people to bring at their side any MIT professor or world class statistician or mathematician they'd like.

Actually we can safely assume that 100% of math and stats experts do not a fkng nothing about how baccarat really works.

See you in a couple of days.

as.
 

Assuming a decent "complexity" of the patterns examined, any pattern will get this REAL probability of success:

A x k / HE

Where A = expected general probability of success, k = a variable considered by the approximated asymmetrical (ka) and symmetrical (ks) card distribution and HE= house edge.

Obviously A and HE factors remain constant, so it's only the k parameter strenght capable to possibly increase, lower, erase or invert the HE.
Normally k is considered irrelevant, meaning that mathematicians and "experts" take as granted that there are no ways to know (other than by luck) when ka>ks or ka<ks at a given shoe succession; that is the above equation changes into A/HE, a sure negative expectation.

At the same time, we know that k really makes a decisive impact on our results (that is getting an EV+) when B bets will reach at least the 51.3% winning probability and P bets the 50.1% cutoff winning probability point.

Wait.

It's fkng sure that besides some B propensity features, itlr ka=ks but in the other short/intermediate terms ka>ks or, less likely ks>ka.

It could happen that an alternating sequence of pattern singles and pattern clusters coming out at the same side greater than two is an asymmetrical sequence.
 
So the main problem to face is not WHEN complex patterns will come out asymmetrically shaped, just to assess HOW MUCH an asymmetrical sequence will stand, knowing that by coupling two different events of any kind the winning probability will be way more detectable.
The adjacent lenght streaks clustering effect is just one example of that.

Long term data have taught us that per any shoe dealt by transforming adjacent complex patterns into numbers we'll get more likely totals than considering the game as a random model: it's the main feature why we are virtually destined not to lose any dime itlr.

Insert to your random walk an element to get a given BP streak to stop and you'll get the answer.

as.