Summary

A(p)= 0.75% and B(p)= 0.25%, where (p)=math probability

A utopian world would produce successions as AAABAAABAAABAAAB....

Actually the vast majority of bac successions won't provide such distributions for long other than by a kind of unlikely strong "coincidence probability", so we'll expect that the vast part of shoes dealt will diverge (in a way or another) from such "utopian" pace.

Notice that differently than other perfect random independent successions (e.g. EC roulette outcomes) such  world will be somewhat "biased" at the start for the sure undeniable asymmetrical card distribution and for the bac rules favoring B side.
Of course we do not know which A or B side of the events will be favored at the various portions of the shoes and by how much.

Suppose A= searched (W) spots and B= unfavourable (L) spots

A succession as AABAABAABAAB...would be altogether beatable despite of performing a strong shifted transitory probability privileging B side. In fact now A=0.666% (instead of 0.75%) and B=0.333% (instead of 0.25%).
Who cares? AA still remains the best option to make a singled A bet.

At the same time at such two different scenarios, B events remain isolated so it's a child joke to  get them coming out as isolated and not clustered.
Unfortunately and by those precise ratios (3:1) the first "utopian" succession won't happen for long, yet the second one (2:1) is way more likely to succeed as it'll be mathematically more likely to get any kind of A cluster than an A cluster surpassing the AA cutoff.

Obviously any A cluster surpassing the AA cutoff point will get us a win and for the reasons already traced, we're entitled to get some superior AAA patterns than precise AAAB patterns.

But who knows?
It's better to secure a win after any A(A) situations than hoping to get a kind of sky's the limit AAA...sequence where a single loss will wipe out three wins.

In a word, a s.t.upid plan oriented to get A clusters of any kind will suffer the least impact of negative variance.

On the other side, B events should come out more isolated than clustered but someway they must catch up (balance) the possible more likely math propensity to get LONG A clusters (a thing will see in the next post). Thus coming out more clustered than isolated.

Again, a utopian world would be to face long successions of B isolated spots, then two B clustered  spots.
But since the model is strongly asymmetrical, we can't rely upon precise values so we might add the factor of any A situations intertwined by any single B event. So we are not interested to bet toward A when B keep showing up.

In practice and considering a given random walk or multiple common random walks, our large live shoes sample had shown us that A probability to come out clustered doesn't remain constant after two A events coming out as isolated. That is after a couple of A isolated spots, AA will overwhelm the 0.75/0.25 probability ratio so getting profitable values well greater than 0.75.

Obviously some could argue why a BBBBA...succession won't get valuable A bettable spots than a B..AB...AB...A...sequence where now A is way more likely than B.

The answer is that the greater two initial cards point is 2:1 math favored to win the final hand, but it's sufficient to get one hand going wrong to alter the more likely A/B pace and when results keep staying to one side of the operations, we'd better wait for two "fictional" A losses not displaying a more likely course of action.

I've already sayed that (no matter how's the random walk utilized) long streaks are the mixed product of 1) unlikely "long" consecutive greater two initial cards points and 2) math two initial card underdog points getting a favourable third(s) card impact.

Basically and at least after having studied our large live shoes sample, we've found out that the more likely two initial greater point will get a two value pace, so we dared to reach the conclusion that at baccarat doubles are the more likely results for this reason.

Of course a large part of outcomes will disrupt such allegedly propensity, that's why we had to implement a so called "multiple variables" factor in our plan.

as. 

Winning spots

There are three different ways to catch a W spot:

1- Hoping it'll come out as a "starting" spot

2- Considering it to stop a L pattern of given lenght

3- Considering it to come out again after a W spot (W cluster)

From a math point of view, such list doesn't make any sense as the W probability will remain 0.75 indipendently of what we're trying to dissect.

Actually (and fortunately) things doesn't correspond to those raw probabilities for each W scenario happening.
In fact even the first starting scenario mainly based upon "luck", itlr will form detectable W distributions needing quite time to be correctly grasped, many times by letting go those natural L clustered events to show up.

The third point seems to be quite straightforward but it is not, we reckon being the #1 reason why most players fail.

The second point needs a lot of time to provide real bettable spots, but by far will provide those sure strong EV+ situations completely denied by math (but not by statistics).
Remember that we do not want to win 100% of those relative rare allegedly EV+ spots, we'll always expect negative variance putting us into a harsh emotional status.

Yet, whenever a verified situation launched "infinite" times won't provide proportional math values, well we'd think to be in a very good shape to exploit an advantage.

More later

as.

Winning patterns and losing patterns

Think deeply about this: If you want to be ahead of something (other than by short term luck) you need to get a pattern winning at least two times in a row or to come out at a selected spot after a given sequence of losses (being one, two, three or more).

Technically that means to spot a kind of homogeneous (albeit short...that is just two events) step movement towards the winning side or to stop a given losing sequence by one step back, so an alternating W/L succession could come out at our favor too, even if the asymmetrical 0.75/0.25 probability will cause more units lost at L sequences than winning units at W sequences.

The natural W sequences being more probable than two steps just add more fuel at our plan. But in order to avoid the fkng negative variance, it's better to play our main bets towards W sequences being clustered just one time or, at a lesser extent, to limit L sequences to show up as isolated (singled) and not hoping to get long W spots around any corner.

Nonetheless we'll see that waiting patiently (meaning to assess some shoes dealt) some specific losing lenght successions to show up, our edge over the house will be astronomical.

Basically at the first degree of operations our algos work about those simple situations: (cl=clustered and isol=isolated)

W(cl) > W(isol) (main tool)

L(isol) > L(cl) (secondary tool)

So a valid random walk to be reliable must get:

W(cl) + L(isol) > W(isol) + L(cl)

There's no way that itlr such proportion will be disregarded for long as a 0.75 probability overwhelms the 0.25 counterpart, even if we use the most vulgar bet selection.

Yet, some quite rare consecutive shoes will pose a threat about that, forcing us to choose which of the two elements (Wcl or Iisol) will get the best probability to confirm the above main assumption.

That's the secondary level of algos "thought".

Given for granted that (albeit being relative rare) consecutive W(isol) plus L(cl) sequences are very harmful, algos are somewhat "forced" to choose which element will be more silent at the remaining portion of the shoe and of course they set up a higher level of both W clustering effect and L isolated effect.

Thus now the W clustering effect comes out as effective just after TWO fictional winning spots, the L sequences by now remain "undepictable" as long as they won't concede room to the more likely W clustered sequences.

Therefore given a 0.75/0.25 W/L probability, whenever a relative unlikely WLL sequence happens, algos remain still until a two clustered W event will show up.
Actually they couldn't suggest any bet whether the actual W/L count is in the positive or if the actual shoe was already played for the most part.

After all, if a given "more likely flow" should happen at most part of shoes, some shoes must somewhat balance such slight propensity, a sure sign not to bet a dime.

See you next week.

as.

Patterns exploitation

I've stressed one million times that there are no ways to beat the game by using progressions (unless the method provides a FB advantage) or simply by thinking we are able to get more wins than losses by a magic mental power.
Or that after P or PP or PPP or PPPP the best bet to make is wagering B. This is total worthless rattlesnake.sh.it tested and tested and tested and getting (obvious) negative results itlr.
 
What we should be really interested about is the application of some random walks that have demonstrated, beyond any shadow of doubt, that move a lot (say well more than math expected) around the 0 neutral value.
It happens that some r.w's are very slight shifted towards one side of the operations, a thing that can only improve our results.

Technically is just putting ourselves to decide what to do after a specific pattern (of given  quality and given quantity) will show up infinite times and then registering the W/L step movements getting far or getting close to the 0 neutral value. Or, naturally, featuring very slow or slow step movements in a way or another.

This procedure needs some time to be exploited and it's not a coincidence that many casinos will entice players to bet every hand where the random world assumes the maximum peak and where the math casino's edge will take its full value. And of course patterns need some hands to be formed.

Then a pattern must always be classified by its quality and average range of apparition per shoe, a thing tending to limit further the "unknown" world Al was correctly talking about.

See you later

as.

Thanks Al, very welcome thoughts from yours.

You wrote:

Bac shoes produce unknowns.  Period.  The trick is to identify something to follow or stick with whatever it is you can profit by.  As far as the sticking with a grind, boy—to me that is tough.

100% true.
But to beat the unknowns we must rely upon "knows", surely sticking with what the shoe is presenting could be a decent rule to follow. But it's not sufficient, IMO. At least for the vast majority of bac players that do not have your experience to know when to stop and when to follow through. Let alone when starting the betting.
Maybe it's the "sections" concept you've stressed along in your posts.

as.

Q) Why we should get more wins than losses, the only condition to be ahead itlr?

A) Because we use various forms of a conditional probability dictated by asymmetry (widely intended); In practice that means to try to discard the most number of supposedly expected losing spots, even at the cost to miss some or (rarely) many winning hands.

The heat to find profitable opportunities around any corner is the #1 reason why casinos collect so much money from bac tables.

Betting few or very few hands is the key to success.

Some shoes are unplayable.

The game is not truly random as experts keep stating (fortunately) especially when some forms of shuffling are utilized.
And paradoxically when shuffling manufactures try to produce hyper random shoes, things go even better.

We'll see this in a couple of days.

as.

Are you serious Al?
Did you really want to shut down this wonderful site?
I still have to read a lot of posts made in the past by people who I'd consider among the best gambling scholars, you first.

Yep, we do not need a forum with magic systems, garbage sellers or threads soaked by fights and verbal abuse.
Thanks for your harsh work Al!

I know for sure these pages are read by people managing baccarat pits, super high stakes players, even a couple of poker pros having each multiple WSOP bracelets at their wrist.
Of course they are not interested to interact, but they like to read. 

I agree about Albalaha ideas, particularly I like this passage

This is not just a forum but a big compilation of years of our combined wisdom and experiences. Do not spoil this.

PS: when the forum is off for maintenance you should find another backup way to gather.

Thanks Al!

as.

Whenever we choose to utilize a 75% probability to succeed, we know to get more clustered 75% spots than 75% isolated spots and vice versa while taking into account the opposite 25% probability.

Notice that such asymmetrical probability is always made by two layered bets, so for example it's not the same to bet twice at baccarat than to wager 27 numbers out of 36 numbers at roulette (zero/es ignored), even if the probability of success stands at 75% at both cases.

After all the game moves around more likely asymmetrical movements and less likely symmetrical lines, so we need to find out an asymmetrical random walk capable to catch more asymmetry than (virtual) symmetry.

Without getting our mind and algos blogging, best way to take is to consider a given 25% probability pattern as an "enemy" by different weights belonging to a) a general probability and b) an actual probability.
Everything classified by different sub-classes of probability:

FIRST STEP

1- a 25% probability should come out by more isolated patterns than clustered patterns.

2- a 75% probability should come out by more clustered patterns than isolated patterns.

SECOND STEP

3- a 25% probability coming out clustered should more likely stop after one cluster. 

4- a 75% probability should come out clustered after having shown up isolated one time.

THIRD STEP

5- a 25% probability coming out clustered two times in a row should more likely stop after two clusters.

6- a 75% probability should come out clustered after having shown up isolated two times in a row.

No need to go further and of course no need to bet a fkng dime before some deviated situations happened or while "chasing" more likely events standing for long, where 'long' just means any situation surpassing a single cutoff cluster.

See you tomorrow

as.

Spotting EV+ bets in the realm of EV- world.

Definitely when we're betting 1 to get a 0.9894 or 0.9876 return we are not doing ourselves a favor and that's what happens at the vast majority of bettable spots we'll infinitely encounter along the way.
So, yes, baccarat provides some (albeit relatively rare) EV+ spots even whether not intended by a mathematical point of view.
Thus in some sense such EV+ spots cannot exist either for casinos and for gambling "experts". But they do for some acute players.

The simplified answer of this finding belongs to the 'range' and 'ranges' concept.

A range is any pattern belonging to the same category (or categories) having a lenght different than 0.
So when a X pattern remains silent no X range is coming out, then the opposite Y pattern will increase its lenght by one unity and so forth.

Baccarat is not roulette where a careful study of ranges is of no avail for us as each spin is completely independent from the previous one.
I mean that baccarat shoes are way way more likely to produce situations we have labeled as "codes", that is pattern successions transformed into numbers more likely to be detected not by precise numbers but by ranges.

Such codes derive from very very large LIVE samples (splitted into actual shuffling source categories), so in some sense we know what to expect as 'best' or as 'worst'.
And of course what we're really interested to bet at is the more likely 'average' world.

Anyway, the actual shoe production will make a more or less substantial role to what should be more expected (so enforcing a general way of betting) or to start the action of a new factor neglecting a more likely pattern as it simply didn't show up for a large portion of the actual shoe.

Obviously itlr most profits come out when general and actual tend to correspond or to pass positive values, yet most losses are avoided whenever an actual patterns flow do not correspond to the expected. Many times instructing us not to bet a dime at that shoe.

More later.

as.

Thank you KFB!

Good points as Always..

IMO, registering multiple bets made by ranges is one of the keys to have success at this game.

as.

The core of the problem is not hoping to get a 0.75 A probability standing for long or arranged within too easily detectable terms vs a 0.25 B probability, but trying to approximate the more likely movements happening along any shoe dealt after having ascertained that the bac model is asymmetrical.

A perfect world would consist of endless sequences of AAABAAABAAAB...
In this case the A/B sums will be 0 (before vig) as expected. Yet the less acute player in the world would win a lot of money at this succession.

A nearly perfect world would consist of all A clustered events of different lenght (e.g any AAB sequence would be good), and/or B isolated events (ABAABABAAAABA..etc)
Notice that in both examples the expected equal sum won't be 0 as the B altered pace impact produces negative totals.

Actually most part of shoes dealt will present longer or shorter A sequences than expected by average values (that is 3) and of course B events will pose a real threat when they tend to come out clustered than isolated.

Since the game is surely asymmetrically distributed, the vast majority of the times any single shoe will produce A/B ratios not belonging to a 3:1 ratio, and more often than not the final sum    will diverge by 2 or greater positive or negative values.
Naturally such values are in direct relationship of the number of hands dealt so far, so just to speak, we can't expect heavy balancements after a strong deviation especially if we'd get rid of many hands not belonging to the 1,2 and 3 category.   

More importantly, we should know that a fair portion of shoes dealt will take a homogeneous direction or a heavily shifted direction from the start to the end of the shoe, providing to place a moderate amount of bets. It's when A>>>B or B>>>A
In this instance we have reasons to keep betting the clustered scenario but knowing that it'll be slight more likely to get long A clustered sequences than proportional long B clustered sequences.

So when B predominates, it's better not to bet a dime.

At the other vast majority of occurences, a good rule of thumb would be to place a bet towards A events coming out clustered at least one time, knowing that a strong profitable long term spot will be to wait two isolated A events to show up then starting to wager.

Such probability (along with many correspondent others) will raise esponentially after one, two or more failed attempts, so enticing the use of a progressive plan for people not wanting to wait and having at their disposal a proper bankroll.

Naturally a plan like this works as it wins by a mere flat betting scheme too, maybe encountering some harsh variance times but getting the best of it itlr.

Say that at most situations it's like playing an average 54/46 proposition long term game whatever the side wagered.

as. 

Single shoe totals

It's interesting to notice that a moderate number of selected bets per shoe using the 0.75/0.25 probability of success won't form the classical bell curve results after several trials, instead tending to produce a slight concave upwards curvature around the 0 (neutral) value.
For simplicity we ignore the vig that of course will slowly shift the results towards the left (negative) part of the graphic.

Thus per every shoe played at the end of it most likely total outcomes will be either moderately or heavily shifted towards one side or the another one.
IMO it's an important factor we should be aware when we want to approximate at best when and/or how many times to chase a pattern or to simply let the hands go without our intervention.

More later

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on April 27, 2024, 02:26:05 AMThx AsymBacGuy. Good thread.

In Post #1033 above:
"...Think about sections containing 6, 7 or more consecutive streaks without no singles and the exact opposite scenario.
Those are natural "strong" deviations that must be balanced along the way, otherwise the game would be easily beatable.

Anyway such balancement most of the time doesn't act symmetrically as the transitory deficit will be overcome by low or moderate changes of direction, privileging opposite short patterns than long patterns...."

For me this "MODERATE CHANGE" being detected early on is the key to seeing it just a split second sooner. This is one of many reasons I prefer to play a shoe from the burn onward/ not after the shoe has started.
Its no different then if someone tells you their blood pressure is 120/80 or their pulse is 72. The values become more important once we learn this persons historical average, and how much it has changed, and in which direction.
Its all about the change.




Continued Success,

Hi KFB and thanks!

I can't agree more on that...

as.

Multiple triggers vs single trigger

If we are able to stay put (no betting) for a lot of hands, a single trigger can get us an interesting statistical advantage as it's just a matter of time (number of shoes dealt) that the asymmetrical model will produce the clustered more likely distributions we're expecting for.
Technically itlr the number of clustered events will be equal to the isolated events, but we know that there's a constant slight force orienting the results towards short "less likely" sequences than long "less likely" sequences.

Nevertheless, any more likely clustered event of any lenght must come out clustered-clustered than clustered-isolated, then more clustered-clustered-clustered than clustered-clustered-isolated and so on.
On the other end we've seen that some random walks applied to less likely events (0.25 probability) are more probable to stop than expected after two clustered situations, so enticing the probability to get a 0.75 probability event.

Anyway if a 0.25 probability must catch up a 0.75 probability, it means that rarer situations sooner or later must involve a strong clustered (albeit unlikely) factor capable to erase most part of 0.75 clusters.

But as already sayed here, even though a 0.25 probability could show up consecutively even 6 times in a row (L=18 units), the 0.75 proportional counterpart is entitled to come out by way superior consecutive sequences up to 31 or even 35 (when proper random walks are applied).

So the cumulative losses vs cumulative wins (vig considered) will be constantly shifted towards the winning side.

Anyway those are just kind of positive or negative "jackpots" needing a lot of time (and patience) to be exploited, some people making a living at this game know that multiple triggers considered will accelerate the bet selection process.

Say there are four main triggers to simultaneously look for (1- singles considered by one/two lenght, 2- streaks lenght considered by 2/3 or 3/4 classes, 3- consecutive single or consecutive streak scenario happening at either side, 4- betting two times the same side whether the first was a losing bet.

Even if the house knows our plan and willing to voluntarily arrange cards to make us to lose (obviously a thing than never happens at serious premises) we'll get:

1- Singles distribution are affected by the streaks density, poor streaky shoes will make more probable long chopping sequences; since we do not want other than a clustered (or clustered/clustered) one/two single successions, in this instance we won't find ourselves in the position to make many bets.

2- More is streaky the actual shoe and greater will be the probability to get 2/3 or 3/4 streak classes clustered as the respectively 4/5 streaks enemy or 5 streaks enemy will be well defined in their average apparition.

3- This factor is strictly dependent on the random walk utilized, that is it raises the probability to get either relatively longer single or streaky sequences than expected.

4- Betting two times the same side is particularly powerful when the first (losing) bet was made at Banker side and not involving the singles one/two distribution. This is the only exception bypassing random walks suggestions.
Notice that after one/two chopping sequences were surpassed, the most likely streak happening is coming out at B side. Anyway by betting the same side two times in a row at moderate/long chopping sequences (and at many other successions), the probability to win within a couple of attempts is 100%.

See you soon

as.

Normally anytime we choose to bet a side we hope to be more right than wrong, without giving the proper value to the numerous factors that might alter in our favor the hand's destiny.

Our algorithms act by a different and more sophisticated way: They collect the most number of actual shoe informations and they put them in relationship of a general probability ascertained after thousand and thousands of real shoes data.

It could happen that actual shoe results will substantially differ from "expected" outcomes, that's why we have increased the real betting parameters weight. After all it'll be way better to wait than hoping to be right at too confused situations.

Hoping for the best is the recreational players mantra, expecting the worst and playing the probabilities is the pros way to accumulate profits.

Let's see in a very simplified fashion what are our algos lines of operations.

1) Smaller is the number of bets made, greater will be the probability NOT to fall into the undetectable variance's realm.
It's not a coincidence that casinos want us to make a lot of bets, knowing very well that the probability to be right will esponentially decrease with the number of bets placed.

Notice that casinos will win a lot more money by exploiting players bad attitudes than by taking advantage of the HE, so mathematical issues take a minor role in that.

The math assumption why no matter how are diluted our bets the probability to win is always EV- belongs just to 2+2=5 losers.
Fortunately when a gambling game cannot be resolved by math it remains unbeatable.

2) Since the bac productions are asymmetrically produced whatever the reasons involved, selectively chasing the clustering effect of something will get more positive sequences in quantity and quality than expected by a perfect independent 50/50 proposition.
It's just a matter of time (and we should consider 'time' in a different way than casinos do).

3) Frequency and rhythm are both two decisive factors to take care of, actually casinos and mathematicians do care only about frequency not knowing a fk about rhythms of presentation.

4) Average sd values of certain pattern presentation and distribution.
If given random walks action applied to several thousands and thousands of shoes data provide 2.5 sigma negative deviation maximum levels, it means that the betting model is somewhat restrained in its negative fluctuations. On the other end the positive deviations counterpart had demonstrated to reach 3.5 or even 4 sigma values. A big edge, I guess.   

5) Raising the probability of success facilitates the clustering/isolated pattern distribution.

Anyone reading my pages knows that it's a good idea to rely upon a 0.75 probability distribution as being more detectable than a mere 50/50 or so probability.     
Actually there are times when a given losing bet entices the same losing side to be wagered again and situations when the simple random walks action suggests to bet a side independently of the previous hand's destiny.

Itlr the random walk action takes a primary role, yet when the first (losing) bet was made at Banker side, we have more reasons to bet again the Banker side for obvious reasons.
This is just the sole situation we might alter the random walk pace that we've instructed to consider outcomes as 50/50 placed.

6) More likely distributions

Whereas it's relatively likely to encounter consecutive clustered singles not belonging to the two category, it'll be slight less probable to encounter 2-3 or 3-4 lenght streaks not coming out clustered at least one time.

Exaggerating a bit and for the lovers of progressive plans, after two isolated 2-3 or 3-4 streak situations, a clustered 2-3 or 3-4 event will happen by degrees of probability well superior than what math dictates.

Of course the same progressive plan could be applied by a positive wagering "chasing" the clustered situations superior than two, relying upon the verified long term streaks propensity to form same or next to same lenght categories.

7) More likely events distribution

If we use a 0.75 probability to succeed, we'll get an expected W/L 3:1 ratio, but since any shoe is asymmetrically shaped such ratio will be disregarded several times along any shoe dealt. Say more often than not. 
Thus we should discard from our plan (in a way or another) those ideal average ratios as being less probable than what an asymmetrical distribution will be capable to do.

The list is not over yet.

See you in a couple of days.

as.