Thanks for your replies!!

Even if we use some 'limited' random walks that itlr will define better the issue, and this thing can be accomplished because an 'average card distribution' exists, many "way beyond than average" shoes pose a real threat at our plan when too deviated negative successions come out.
Of course shoes not fitting for long to the average category could also be strongly positive for our plan, but they are (as the negative counterpart) relatively rare to happen.

In some way we should find two out of three situations to win: average distribution and strong positive distribution and putting them in (slight) asymmetrically and proportional relationship with strong negative distribution that will wipe out our profits or, worse, our bankroll.

We've found out that a kind of approximation algorithm could be the best way to deal with bac productions as results are not following a perfect 50/50 distribution and even if they seem to be, they tend to distribute asymmetrically shaped in rhythm (see Nickerson, Konold, etc studies).

Quite interestingly the algorithm will suggest us (whether proper situations are encountered) to bet B and P by an equal frequency, putting at the same level the general math propensity with the actual distribution.

More later

as.

P.S: the more the so called gambling math experts keep stating baccarat is unbeatable, deeper we analyzed the processes why baccarat is beatable.

It's a public criticism toward 'smart' people who make a lot of bucks by selling poker tournament books where surviving 'coin flips' seems to be a necessary intelligent move to win.

cao ni ma

as. 

Hi Al!!

IMO, general probability (GP) accounts for what I'm expected to cross after having registered a fair large sample of data. Not millions of useless shoes data as in practice I'm moving around more 'humanly' terms (as you correctly stressed many times here).

The actual probability (AP) is how things are developing in the actual shoe dealt, but someway I have to compare the GP with those results as the shoe I'm looking at may easily belongs to the 'outlier' category I can't do anything about.

We know that just one hand could transform a double-single-double sequence into a 5 streak, thus breaking our single-double plan.
It's true that the reverse situation might happen, that is a 'natural 5 streak' breaking into singles and doubles. But itlr the former scenario is slight more likely to happen than the latter for card distribution issues.

What I'm trying to say is that unless we got a large experience to exploit 'actual shoes strongly deviating from our plan' we better constantly take one side of the things and that means to wait and approximate at best the GP/AP results ratio, the higher the better.

In fact, when the GP/AP tends to be low or very low, we have no reasons to chase a 'more likely course of action', we should consider that shoe as 'unplayable'. The same as bj players do when the count is negative.

To do that we have to employ simple distribution issues that have no guarantee of infallibility but increase our winning probability without falling too much into the negative outliers field.

Best strategy to employ is to chase what we name as 'minimum profit goal', situations where 'more likely events' are entitled to come out clustered at least by 1 step.
More intricated is the situation where a negative event will be played as 'isolated' as being affected by huge volatility.

Therefore negative situations can't be compensated by long positive events unless the actual shoe belongs to the 'average' category.

So not chasing the positive when the negative seems to come out endlessly (or the positive is too weak to be exploited) it's a good start.

It remains to assess what to do when the positive streaks are naturally shaped to produce long sequences.
Now the minimum profit goal (MPG), fabricated to get the lower possible impact of variance, seems to be a too tiny aim to target so a light positive progression made with casino's money makes things more spicy (and profitable).

If the MPG should be chased by flat betting large bets, possible (and likely) positive long sequences after that bet must start with a smaller initial bet (usually 1/4 of the large bet so to secure a profit even in the most unfortunate scenario) then increasing the amount by some percentages.
Considering a 0.75 general probability to happen, we need just a slight better than 3:1 W/L ratio to play with casino's money and very often such streaks exceed the 8-10 lenght.
But never ever consider such positive streaks as a kind of 'recovery plan' on the previous losses accumulated at the main bet: they are just a bonus, a kind of jackpot.

After having read KFB, Alrelax and gizmotron posts, we have devised an algorithm capable to spot with a very good level of precision the distribution of the more likely occurences every shoe will present (by comparing GP and AP).

Of course all this is just bighorn.sh.it, baccarat is a unbeatable game by any means. 

as.

Hi KFB, I'm a careful reader of your posts too 

Why we should win at baccarat EV- game

The fact that our B bets are unfair payed and P bets involve a slight less than 50% probability to appear are not the main reasons why baccarat players make casinos' fortune.
As long as the results don't reach the negative outlier line, there are dozens of betting schemes (several of them invented more than a century ago) capable to erase the HE by progressive betting.

Unfortunately those strong negative situations will surely happen destroying every progression ever invented.
Not necessarily a "strong negative situation" is a endless streak of losses; there are many systems working toward a back to back series of wins (for example just two) or 'positional' progressive wagering as the system I've proposed here (7 series).

The natural element of binomial successions is just to provide 'unguessable sequences', especially  if we're trying to guess this or that per every hand dealt.

In this way we are forced to work about the bet selection, considered worthless by mathematicians but not by some acute bac players.
IMO, there's nothing to guess or hope for, just to understand that some events (positive or negative according to the specific plan we have adopted) must happen at different levels of probability.
Greater is the level of probability to encounter some happenings, higher will be the probability of winning and greater is the intervention field higher will be the level of confidence to get some patterns and not others.

Of course when we talk about 'probability' we're not talking about certainty, so even the best plan in the world could suffer an inevitable crash, the like every airplane in the world isn't 100% sure to land safely.

General probability and actual probability

See you later

as.

You have built your best betting plan that in a way or another must endure the variance, so you should know what will be the 'best scenario' and, more importantly, the 'worst scenario' to face along the way.

It doesn't take to test millions of shoes, actually just a couple of thousands are sufficient to realize the average probability of those opposite scenarios happening.

Best scenario

Best scenario constitutes the positive outlier we should aim for, it's a kind of endless winning spots the actual shoe is producing.
Obviously we can't expect to win 75 straight hands, let alone more than 50% of total hands whether the betting range per shoe is large.
Thus the best scenario probability is inversely proportional to the number of hands played and directly proportional to the general probability of success.

So we know that 'tricks' oriented to get the least number of hands played per shoe and a fair probability of success utilized will both enhance the overall winning process.

More importantly, when the average betting frequency is quite low and the probability of success is greater than 50%, 'best scenario' shoes will surely happen by defined long term probabilities.
Now we have reasons to set up a positive progressive betting plan as sooner or later such scenario will happen.
Of course, shorter is the positive streak we should aim for, higher will be our winning probability and lighter is the positive progression greater will be the probability to be ahead even if the winning streak fails at some point before the end of the shoe.

Worst scenario

Even the best betting methodology ever invented sooner or later will fall into strong negative variance. It's the negative outlier where we can't do anything about that.

Good news is that a proper strategy makes worst scenario asymmetrically shaped with best scenario, meaning is slight less likely to happen.
Naturally HE is a constant burden casinos will profit from.

So the decisive paramount difference is that a valid long term strategy needs to encounter a slight longer positive succession than a proportional losing succession but this task can only be achieved by a proper 'clustering effect' evaluation, the same why HTHHT sequence = HHHHH sequence in frequency but different in rhythm of presentation.

Permutations and 'enemies density'

When the probability of success is >50% and the W/L ratio moves around expected values, there's an ideal more likely distribution (forming the best scenario) and intermediate situations where 'enemies' could come out clustered for quite long but conceding at some point(s) more room to the 'more likely' patterns.
So the permutations issue cannot give us any damage.

The problem arises when the slight less likely 'enemies density' strongly surpasses the normal ratios.
We'll see that in a couple of days.

as.

Worst and best scenario

Coming soon

as.

?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.