"I think every game can be beaten"

Richard Munchkin (professional gambler, author of "Gambling Wizards")

as.



 

Today is 06/13/2023 so I'll randomly take from my datasets the 6th and 13th 'event' of each shoe of the 2023-2032 ten shoes sample.

1)  WL
2)  WW
3)  LW
4)  WW
5)  WW
6)  LW
7)  WW
  WW
9)  LW
10) WW

So the sequence is: WLWWLWWWWWLWWWWWLWWW, that is a -++++++++ sequence (too good, probably!)

Let's take of the same sample the 5th and 12th 'event' (one event back):

1)  WL
2)  LW
3)  LW
4)  LW
5)  WW
6)  LW
7)  WW
  LW
9)  WW
10) LL

So the sequence is WLLWLWLWWWLWWWLWWWLL = ---+-++++++-

Now the 7th and 14th events (one event forward):

1)  WL
2)  WW
3)  WW
4)  WW
5)  WW
6)  LW
7)  WW
  WL
9)  WL
10) WL

So it's WLWWWWWWWWLWWWWLWLWL that is a -+++++-+- succession

Not a recent good run at final W clusters, so we'll take the 2033-2042 shoes sample just at the original 6th and 13th spots (that already got us a steady profitable succession, so somewhat fearing a kind of 'balanced' negative factor)

1)  WL
2)  WL
3)  WW
4)  WW
5)  WW
6)  WW
7)  WW
  WW
9)  WW
10) WW

It's a WLWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW sequence. That is a  -+-++ sequence
Notice that W isolated came out four times consecutively isolated (considering the previous sample). It's a very very unlikely scenario yet balanced by the L isolated patterns. 
In addition, by just playing towards W clusters we'll waste the opportunity to win at the interminable final W succession. But itlr by hoping to get the minimum level of W cluster we'll save a lot of money.

Again let's see what happens at this new shoes sample by spotting 5th and 12th 'event'.

1)  WW
2)  LW
3)  LW
4)  LW
5)  WW
6)  WW
7)  LL
  WL
9)  LL
10) WW

So it's a WWLWLWLWWWWWLLWLLLWW = ++-+-++---+.

Now the 7th and 14th events spots:

1)  LL
2)  WW
3)  LW
4)  LL
5)  WW
6)  WW
7)  LW
  WL
9)  WW
10) LW

It's a LLWWLWLLWWWWLWWLWWLW succession = -++--++++++.

'Fortunately' such results cannot be labeled as suspicious as L>W and in one occasion (first 6th/13th sample) Ws were distributed in the worst possible way (according to the plan we're talking about).

But there are still many issues to take care of regarding the probability of success.

as.

Baccarat random walk(s)

Let's consider the 0.75% A probability vs the 0.25% B probability. It's a 'so called' symmetrical probability as itlr A=B, yet the A and B distributions are asymmetrically shaped in the vast majority of the times.

Take a 4 'event' sequence of W (p=0.75) and L (p=0.25) that could only form such patterns:

WWWW
WWWL
WWLW
WWLL
WLWW
WLWL
WLLW
WLLL

LLLL
LLLW
LLWL
LLWW
LWLL
LWLW
LWWL
LWWW

Of course 3/4 of the times we'll get the first eight patterns starting with a W and just 1/4 of the remaining times eight patterns starting with a L.

It's interesting to notice that by betting toward W clusters and L isolated events and adopting a 1-2 mini progression (vig ignored for simplicity) we'll get:

+4
+1
+2
-2
-1
-5
-6
That is a overall -7 unit loss

-3
-3
-6
-2
-5
-1
+2
+2
That is a cumulative -14 unit loss

This is a very difficult concept to grasp as obviously those 16 patterns get a quite different probability to happen, strongly shifted towards W rich patterns.
In an ideal world where the W/L ratio is 3:1, out of the possible scenarios (albeit getting a very different probability to appear) just WWWL, WWLW, WLWW and LWWW patterns will follow precisely the above 3:1 ratio. Yet among the four possibilities, the WLWW sequence will get us a -2 loss (-3 and +1).
The remaining three cases are: WWWL (+1), WWLW (+2) and LWWW (+2).

In summary, the W clustering/L isolated strategy applied to sequences following the exact W/L 3:1 expected ratio will provide us 3 units of profit (minus vig).

Let's see what happens at the patterns where the number of W/L is 2:2.

Those patterns are: WWLL (+1, -3 = -2), WLWL (-3, +1, = -2) , WLLW (-3, -3 = -6), LLWW (-3, +1 = -2), LWLW (+1, -3, +1 = -1), LWWL (+1, +1 = +2).
Overall it's a -11 unit deficit but besides of the WLLW pattern, losses are restricted within the -2 limit.

Then there are the W/L 1:3 sequences and they are: WLLL (-6), LLLW (-3), LWLL (-2).
Again only WLL(L) sequence got us a -6 deficit.

Finally the homogeneous W or L patterns where WWWW (+1) and LLLL (-3).


Splitting outcomes in four 'events' categories was just an example, we have learnt that an asymmetrical (and unrandom) system remains asymmetrical independently of the precise spot chosen to be bet or considered.
For example, if the previous shoe had dealt a L in the examined spot, odds remain to make more probable a W than another L and the same is true about a single W towards getting another W (so forming a W cluster).

In the endless 'random' sequences we'll have to face, the W/L 3:1 patterns must take the more probable platykurtic curve where we are strongly favorite to win.
Of course there are harsh negative outliers and they are: WLLW and WLLL sequence; no other patterns 'rich' of L can get us a stronger damage, that is going too far from our expected more likely scenario.
Fortunately such bad situations ar quite 'balanced' by 'occasional' W coming out independently of the shoe we're playing at as 75 is always more likely than 25.

See u next week for a an interesting strategy I've recently been aware of.

as.

Remember that whenever we properly place a 'time' factor, 'unlikely very very bad' successions cannot happen by any means, at least up to the point where shoes won't voluntarily be set to form ALL 3s or a huge predominance of 3s all of the time.
But being this the case, 'tourists' and very high stakes players (who give a lesser fk of what we're talking in this site) will destroy the game in a millisecond.

as.

Anytime and anyhow you'll classify the outcomes (and you know the results to look for), the majority of W/L permutations will be produced as easy readable patterns.
In another way of thought, many patterns are supposed to come out first than others.

Obviously whenever the W/L ratio is roaming around the expected probability values, very few 'bad' permutations could come out along.
Nonetheless, a good exercise to master, IMO, is represented to always think about such bad permutations, that is what we would have done while facing on those scenarios.

Then, sure as hell, 'unlikely' situations are supposed to show up heavily (W=L, L>W at various levels), so clustered or intertwined with isolated 'more likely' W events despite of their 'low' probability to happen and we know this is a perfect natural thing.
Now the 'permutations' issue is reversed: Most part of permutations are negative, yet a smaller portion could be easily overcome by the statistical features discussed above.

Now the good or bad 'coincidental' permutations make a substantial role over our long term outcomes as what happened to be 'coincidentally' good or bad will transform into opposite lines as itlr W=L, even though by increasing the number of shoes played, W is slightly polarized toward the left side.

as. 

Quote from: alrelax on June 11, 2023, 07:54:16 PMAnd what exactly is, embracing and hugging the perfect whatever? 

Let's refresh our visually enticed desires as well as our physically required wagered bets.  And that is, wagering on the winning hands, no matter what or how they happen to come about, what events are created by those as well as how long those events last and our ability to acknowledge those events have diminished.

Just a refresher.

+1

as.

Winning and losing is a constant asymmetrical process made of multiple endless micro variations of the system

Despite of knowing that some rare bets will be slight EV+, in the remaining cases and considering a fair number of shoes dealt, there's no way to get 'a lot' of more W hands than L hands and neither to get a kind of 'balanced' W/L scenarios unless the 'time' factor will be inserted in our plan.
Obviously the issue is true even at the opposite way, that is we'll never get a lot of L hands than W hands (providing the same fair amount of shoes dealt).

Therefore itlr W=L, but more often than not micro variations make W>L and L>W just temporarily.

Anybody here knows how's easy to be ahead after few hands played and how is difficult to be ahead after 3, 4 or more shoes played.
The HE has almost no impact on such probabilities, actually casinos rely a lot more on the players   inaptitude to realize when the bac coin is unlikely 'biased' toward HHHHH than HTHHT patterns (just to utilize the above example).

The idea to try to reverse a L sequence into a W one is very hard to exploit and is always subjected to a high level of variance.
After all it's the strategy employed by the most part of bac players trying to get the best of it around any corner of the shoe.

See u later

as.

Ok, thanks Al for your answer (I particularly like this passage: "but if it comes you embrace it and hug the perfect whatever")

as. 

Thanks KFB!

Finite/ Order

I find the concepts of the two words in bold very important for how we should view the overall outcomes. Its good for us to understand the finiteness(I call it approaching limits) of outcomes. Just as importantly the order( If an outcome occurs First), yet the total outcomes may still be near even. The order of events are very important.

I agree.

The 'order of events' is why we could beat this game as it's the principle of pure randomnness put at stake.

Besides of the minimal HE, casinos collect huge sums of money by relying upon the probability that players cannot win at random successions, meaning that everything is always possible by undetectable levels.

But the more we're restricting the field of operations greater will be the probability to get various random walks following a 'more probable' limited world.
The HTHHT vs HHHHH 'battle' coming out first is just an example and here we're talking about a perfect independent and random proposition.

That's why a very limited amount of wagers might greatly help us to define the issue as the 'order of events' must follow more probable lines.

In fact the average card distribution makes more probable some order of events, especially whether we're considering multiple results lines.
It's like the baccarat coin is somewhat biased, anyway not conceding us but a slight edge that must be grasped by statistical issues.

So if after 3000 hands played we haven't crossed a single 10 consecutive losing streak, we could be either on a fluke or be up on something.
After 10.000 of played hands, the same scenario could be named either a miracle or a sort of HG.

as.

Thx Al, please elaborate this concept

5). Do not fight the perfect, which will squash most of all your chances to win the larger sums of money.

Thanks in advance

as.

Guessing and playing the probabilities

IMO at baccarat there's nothing to guess or hope for, just making ourselves in the best position to grasp the probability spots where a so called 'independent' and finite world should produce more likely situations acting at various levels of probability.

Obviously in some way such statement must negate the perfect 'independence' of the outcomes, yet we've seen that even at coin flip successions where itlr A=B, some A patterns are more probable to come out first than some B patterns.

An easy corollary of that is that B 'slower' patterns sooner or later MUST come out clustered in order to catch up their 'temporary' more normal deficit.
We do not know the precise situations when this thing will happen but we do know that it will surely happen.

A good rule of thumb not to be ever forgotten is that the more we're trying to 'guess' or 'hope for' greater is the probability that our money will fall into casino's pockets, as no matter how smart we're or sophisticated is our plan, every single bet is still math EV-.
So we need a quite strong 'probability' plan capable to lower, erase or invert the constant unfair payement we're facing at every bet we'll place.

In poorer words, educated 'probability' possibly working at our favor cannot be increased by a simple MM plan as it must be measured first by a strict FB approach.
And this FB edge comes out by over selecting the bettable spots that must overpass the 'normal' and the more likely negative levels of variance.

It's the same opposite assumption taken by casinos that would get 'miserable' profits by only exploiting their 1.25% or so math edge, instead constantly focused to let winning players to get the invariable losing streaks they're entitled to suffer if they're hopelessly guessing hands around any corner.

That's why a minimum profitable effect (MPE) applied to some events will put the casinos to hope for very unlikely clustered scenarios before getting our money.
If we've measured that MPE events > anything else, we're playing with a robust edge.

as.

Thanks for the contribute 8OR9!!!

Vegas, among other things, is specialized to test the humanhood ignorance, so I'm not surprised to watch at people wagering at three zeroes wheels.
Compared to them, black jack players betting at 6:5 instead of 3:2 look as 'geniuses'.

Also many Vegas baccarat tables raised their HE by offering 'Tiger' tables (a B hand winning by a 6 point is payed half the bet), so getting a 0.40% more edge on Banker winning bets.
A strong inversion after Dragon F-7 tables were introduced some years ago (lowering the B edge to almost 1%).
It's true that Tiger side bets are beatable via card counting, yet people continue to think that at those Tiger tables Banker is still the best bet to make, whereas it isn't by a 0.22% math worse edge.

Then try to estimate how's the 'fee' compared to the buy-in at incoming WSOP tournaments where best poker players are supposed to get the 'suckers' money: Before fee of course.
 
as. 

I had to cancel my last post as it was too confusing.

Obviously HTHHT (and every other heterogeneous patterns) will tend to come out first than HHHHH as any T result will make the HHHHH (and every other superior homogeneous pattern) to restart the process, even though itlr HTHHT=HHHHH that is patterns having a 0 sum.

We have seen that by betting the very first and second spot of any shoe towards singles or doubles  and arranging them in clusters could be the basis to set up a plan.
It's not important the actual 'lenght' of 1/2 vs 3+s or the lenght of the 'isolated' 3 streaks,  we should only be focused about the minimum 'clustering' effect that is 1.

Then any cluster of more probable events (1/2) coming out 'first' will be in turn and more often than not, followed by another cluster of the same class. (And again the value to look for is 1).
Deeper is the process of registering such events distribution and greater will be our probability of success.

Just in case and as a form of additional (but needing a very large bankroll) tool, we might adopt the progressive 7-cycle betting where per every sequence 93 out of the possible 128 patterns are winning and just 35 of them are losers.

Summary.

For simplicity let's continue to take care just of the first and second 'events' coming out per every shoe dealt.
Any single or double is a W and any 3 streak is a L.
Itlr W=L (actually and assuming singles as neutral at both sides, there's a very slight propensity to get more doubles than 3 streaks, so W>L...before vig of course) but things change in terms of distribution.

Since we need three Ws to 'balance' one L, we'll just wagering one time at WW vs WL and LW vs LL situations.

Anyway even those WW and LW situations will be distributed by clusters coming out first, so WW(L..)WW and LW/LW or LW(W)LW events are arranged by following their propensity.

It's true that this kind of 'cluster plan' won't exploit properly long W successions, but at the same time 'bad' very unlikely but possible situations as WLLLLLWLLWLLL (just three singles/doubles and ten 3 streaks distributed by this exact combination) will make a minor damage, that is 6 consecutive two-step losses instead of a cumulative -27 unit loss).
If we would adopt the 'second level' clustering effect, there are just 4 consecutive two-step losses (WLLx and the second WLL).

Remember that the average number of 3(+) streaks is 9.5 and of course even if such streaks are concentrated at the very first and second patterns of each shoe, many permutations won't make sensible damages.

Many might think that such approach will just dilute the problem not solving it. They are right, from a strict mathematical point of view, sooner or later very unlikely sequences will come out to destroy this plan, but it takes several thousands and thousands of shoes dealt to cross this unfortunate situation. (It could happen tomorrow, the like a 28-30 B hand streak may come out)
 
Sadly we have more important reasons to face as the Global Warming Effect is giving us very few years ahead.
We have hit by chance the 78% N2, 21% O2 and 0.04% CO2 atmosphere 'jackpot', but we did everything and continue to do everything to waste it.
 
as.

You have to judge decisions on a process, rather than an immediate outcome as a general rule, bar a few clear advantaged events occasionally that will present themselves from time to time.

Don't get me wrong, you can't totally ignore or push aside clear results/outcomes within a section of the shoe, that are so blatantly positive or negative that can be to your advantage, just use it to improve or change courses of action to your benefit.


+1

as.

KFB:

IMO this is key: Individual random events are, by definition, unpredictable, but if the probability distribution is known, the frequency of different outcomes over repeated events (or "trials") is predictable[

Or my preferred way of saying that last sentence:
"but if the probability distribution is known, the frequency of different outcomes over repeated events (or "trials") is SLIGHTLY MORE predictable VS RANDOMLY GUESSING[ "

Excellent.

Then if some 'complex' events display an EV+ attitude even better...

as.