Thanks KFB and Adulay!!
Just finished a very long session , about 14 straight hours.

See you later

as.

Out of curiosity next shoes are:

S,R,S,R,R,S,R,S,S,R,S,S,R,S,R,S,S,R,S

(+ - + - - - +) (+ - + + - + -) + + - +

Win and Win.

S,S,S,S,R,S,S,R,R,R,S,R,R,R,R,S

(+ + + + - + +) - - - -

Win, maybe the - - - - streak could 'easily' come out at the very start of this shoe.
Nevertheless the W/L ratio is still 6/5.

R,S,R,R,S,R,S,R,R,S,S,S,R,S,R,R,R

(- + - - - + -) (- + + - + - -)

First sequence is a -3 unit loss, next sequence provides a W at third hand.
Let's assume the second streak wasn't in action, so our next bet will be 4.

S,S,R,S,R,S,R,R,R,R,S,R,S,R

(+ + - + - + -) - - + -

A W.
But since W=5 and L=6 and considering another 4 unit loss (so we're behind of 7 units) let's see what happens at a new 8 unit bet:

S,S,R,S,S,S,R,S,R,R,S,S,R,R,R,S,S,R,R

(+ + - + + + -) (+ - - + - - +) - -

A steady W at the first sequence, another W at the second one even if the WL ratio is 3/4.

as.

More shoes taken randomly from our live bac samples:

S,R,R,S,R,R,R,S,S,R,S,R,S,S,R,S,S,R,S

(+ - - - - + +) (- + - + + - +) + - +

First 7-hand sequence: ok, easy 'lucky' W, yet we couldn't be any worse than losing just 1 unit.
Second sequence got a W at 5th hand)

S,R,R,S,S,R,S,S,R,S,R,S,S,R,S,R,S,R

(+ - - + + - +) (+ - + - + + -) + - + -

No 'lucky' spots here: both 7-hand sequences got a 4/3 WL ratio. So two Ws and at the very first betting spot.

R,S,R,R,R,R,S,S,S,S,R,R,S,S,R,S,S,R

(- + - - + + +) - + - + + -

A W at the 7th hand

S,R,S,R,R,S,R,S,R,S,R,R,R,R,S,S,S,S,S,S,R

(+ - + - - - +) (- + - - + + +) + + -

Again a fortunate win in a -1 overall permutations scenario. Second sequence got a W at the very end of it)

S,S,S,S,S,R,S,S,S,S,S,S,S,S,S,R,S,S,R,S,R,R

(+ + + + + - +) (+ + + + + + +) (+ - + + - + -) -

Easy wins

R,S,S,R,R,S,R,R,R,R,R,R,R,S,R,R,S,S

(- + + - - - -) - - +

Again we were 'lucky' as the -++ sequence got us winners but let's consider the more probable scenario where we have a -3 unit loss, so we'll raise our next bet to 4.

R,S,S,R,R,S,S,S,R,S,S,S,S,R,R,R,R

(- + + - - + +) (- + + + + - -)

First sequence is a winning one no matter the permutations. The same about the second one.

R,S,R,R,R,S,R,S,S,R,R,R,S,S,R

(- + - - - + +) - - + -

A -1 unit loss, so let's raise our new bet to 2 units.

S,R,R,S,R,S,R,S,S,S,S,S,R,R,R,S,S,S,R,S

(+ - - - + - +) (+ + + + - - +) + - +

A prompt W despite of the unfavourable WL ratio, second sequence is a piece of cake.

R,S,R,S,S,R,S,R,S,R,R,R,S,R,R,R,R,R,R,R,R

A pretty bad sequence as S=6 and R=15.

(- + - + + - +) - + - - - -

We win at hand #5.
Notice that such bad sequence produced 5 Ws and 8 Ls. So a gap of 9 (S6 and R15) actually got us just a -3 unit loss.

See you next week

as.

Say we set up a progressive plan by wagering towards P singles vs P streaks by adopting the 7-step  progression method already discussed.

Once a new P hand comes out, we'll wager Banker by FB just one time (hoping a P single will show up) and we'll do that for 7 consecutive hands.
At the end of such 7 betting hands, results can only be those (vig ignored for simplicity):

+7 (all bets were winning P singles)
+5
+3
+1
-1
-3
-5
-7 (all bets were losing P streaks)

Without any shadow of doubt, itlr +7>-7, +5>-5, +3>-3 and +1>-1.
Of course vig will erase and invert such favourable propensity in terms of units won, yet those ratios stand yesterday, now, tomorrow and forever.

If after 7 bets made we'll be ahead by FB, we collect the winnings and restart a new 7-hand cycle.
If we are in the losing territory, we'll set up our new betting unit by adding one unit to the previous deficit and so on.

Example.

First 7-hand cycle: only 2 P singles and 5 P streaks = -3

For the next 7-hand succession we'll place a 4 unit bet stopping the play until we erased the previous deficit but letting the 7-hands going into completion without betting.
We know that the math probability to win is always 93/35, so strongly shifted at our favor.
Anyway say that despite the math, also the second 7-betting sequence will get us a -3 final deficit, so now we're behind 3 units (first 7-hand sequence) plus 12 units (the actual sequence).
So our new standard unit will be 16 units.
And so on.

In the example posted, we got just 4 P singles and 10 P streaks but arranged in negative (for us) permutations.

The favourable three-fold propensity cannot be disregarded for long, the problem is that we have to employ a large progressive bankroll to 'cover' the negative natural variance.

So we may use the 'clustering/isolated' effect to try to reduce variance (and disboursement), hence we'll bet toward a P single: a) at the start of the shoe, b) after a previous P single came out and c)after a previous (single) P streak came out.
Now long P singles are always good, P streaks followed by a P single are good and of course clustered P streaks will get us a way lesser damage than stubbornly wagering against them.

Let's take shoes randomly from our datasets.
S= P single and R= P streaks (runs)

1- S,R,S,S,S,S,S,R,S,S,R,R,R,S,R,R,S,S,S,R

(+ - + + + + +) (- + + - - - -) + + -

First 7-hand sequence got a W, second 7-hand sequence got a W (-++).


2- S,S,R,S,R,S,R,S,R,R,S,S,R,R,R,S,R,S,R

(+ + - + - + -) (+ - - + - - -) + -

Two W.

3- S,S,R,S,R,S,R,S,S,R,S,R,S,S,S,S

(+ + - + - + -) (+ + + - + + +) +

Two W

4- R,R,S,S,S,R,R,R,R,R,S,R,S,S,S,S,R,S

(- - + + - - -) (+ + + - +)....

First sequence got -3 L and the second one a W.

5- S,R,S,R,R,S,S,R,R,S,S,S,S,S,R,R,S,R,R

(+ - + - - + -) (- + + + + - -) -

W and W.

6- R,R,S,S,S,S,R,R,R,R,S,R,S,R,R,S,S,S

(- - + + + - -) - + - - + +

Despite of having 4 losses and 3 wins we'll collect a win at the first 7-hand sequence.

7- S,R,R,R,R,R,R,S,S,S,S,S,R,R,R,S,S,S,S,S

(+ - - + + + +) - + + + +

A W.

8- R,R,R,S,R,R,R,S,S,S,R,S,S,S,R

(- - - - + + -) + + + -

Finally a -3 L.
Now we have to raise our standard unit (so our new bet will be 4)

9- R,S,S,S,R,R,R,R,S,S,R,S,R,R,R

(- + + + - - +) - + - -

A W, so we go back to our 1 unit.

A note: arrange the + and - signs in the most bad sequence and in the worst scenario you won't be behind more than 1 bet.

10- R,R,S,R,R,R,R,R,S,S,S,R,R,R,S,R,S,S,R

(- - + - - + +) - - - + + -

It's a -1 unit L, so new bet will be 2 units.

11- R,R,S,R,S,S,S,S,S,R,R,R,R,S,S,R

(- - - + + + +) + - - + -

A W. So going back to the initial unit.

12- S,R,S,S,S,R,S,R,S,R,S,R,S,R,S,R,R,R,R

(+ - + + + - +) (- + - + - + -) + - - 

A W at the first 7-hand sequence and a -1 L at the second one.
So we'll raise our bet at 2 units for the next series.

13- S,R,R,R,S,R,S,S,R,S,S,S,S,S,R,S,R,R,S,S

(+ - - - + + -) (+ + + + + - +) - - +

A W at the first 7-hand sequence (even by accounting the worst permutation the final loss would be just -1 unit); second sequence is just a piece of cake and recovering easily the first sequence loss.

14- R,R,S,R,R,S,S,S,S,R,S,R,S,R,S,S,S,R,S,S.

(- - - - + + +) (- + - + - + +) + - + +

First sequence is a -1 L; second sequence bet by a 2 unit was a winner just at the final 7th hand.

15- S,R,S,R,R,R,S,S,S,S,R,S,R,S,R,S,S,S,R,S,S

(+ - + - - + +) (+ - + - + - +) + + - + +

W and W. At both sequences there was no way to lose a dime as + > -, so no 'bad' permutations couldn't come out along.

Comments

This 'basic' plan relies upon several distinct math and statistical features:

- RVM definition of randomness;

- Marian V. Smoluchoswki 'probability after effects' studies;

- The baccarat very slight general propensity to get the opposite result already happened;

- Marigny De Grilleau works;

- The math solid assumption that B>P.

- Other issues considered worthless (fortunately) I don't want to discuss here for obvious reasons.

as.

8- He survived cancer

Doyle was and remains the best Ambassador of Poker, a true legend!

I agree with 8OR9: a gentleman who deserves a great movie!!!

RIP Doyle!

as.   

Welcome back Giz!!

as.

1- Itlr any event or series of events getting a greater than 50% probability to appear will more likely arrange in clusters.
Obviously such propensity is related with the probability value, so betting B after a B is a too tiny value to set up a plan upon, so affected by a huge level of variance.

2- On the other end, the less likely event or series of events show the obvious general propensity to come out isolated, yet they are way more affected by volatility than the above 'clusters' propensity as in some way they must catch up the 'normal' clustering effect.
After having studied large live shoes datasets we have reached the conclusion that it's better to 'chase' clusters than hoping to get 'less likely' isolated situations.

3- A considerable part of L isolated spots come out clustered after single (so not clustered) W events, so the succession looks as WLWLWL...

4- At baccarat the least possible effort to raise the winning probability from 0.5 to higher levels is to bet two hands in a row by 'chasing' a given outcome (0.75).

5- There are reasons to think that betting towards singles and doubles in terms of overall clustered or isolated successions is the simplest way to set up a plan.

6- It's not a coincidence that in my above posts I've focused the attention about the very two starting events that seemingly appear to get the highest impact of 'randomness'.

7- Progressions cannot erase or invert the HE, but if a slight propensity goes toward one side of action, it's just a matter of time to get the profits we aimed for.

Progressive plan.

Since we have to wager two times in order to get a profit but a progressive plan is in action (so lowering and diluting the disbursement will take a primary role), we set up the simplest scenario: wagering 1 and, in case of loss, 1. Both bets account for just one overall bet, so when we win at singles we profit 1, when we win at doubles we'll break even and when we lose both steps (a 3 streak appearance) we'll lose 2. (Vig is ignored here for simplicity).

We'll split our betting action within 7 distinct frames and per each frame we'll flat betting until we'll get a profit.
If a loss come out after betting all 7 two-step events, we'll raise the next standard bet by adding one unit to the temporary deficit and we'll bet this amount for 7 hands long until we'll get a profit. And so on. 
If a profit will come out BEFORE the 7-event frame ends up, we have to wait the 7-event termination, then restarting the betting with the standard unit.

Per every 7-event (two-step) frame we'll bet, out of 128 possible patterns (permutations) we have 93 positive winning patterns and only 35 losing patterns (0.7265% W probability) and this ratio will happen for every 'new' 7-event frame considered.

Example.

Following the W clusters and L isolated spots by betting toward singles/doubles at the very two initial shoe events (and considering them as a endless sequence), we'll lose 2 units whenever we'll encounter a L (3 streak), then winning 1 unit if the W is a single and breaking even if the W is a double.

The worst scenario per every 7-event (two-step) result is to lose ALL spots in the form of W isolated situations and L clustered situations, so the sequence will look as WLLWLLWLLWL where L could be longer than LL but we can't care less.
In such very unlikely instance our deficit will be -14 units so for the next 7-event frame we'll have to bet 15 units.

Of course losing 14 hands in a row is possible but it's a very very unlikely scenario, after all the problem relies upon the 'positional' W distribution in terms of clusters and L distribution in terms of isolated patterns, already more likely by intrinsic factors.

It's true that when things are going wrong, we need to employ a large bankroll, but eventually and unless very very unlikely permutations come out so negating our advantages, we'll know to come out ahead.

Summary

Things might change when we try to be ahead even after a first loss was made to chase a single. So also doubles constitute a win.

Anyway here's a kind of guideline:

Flat betting 7 times (by one or multiple slight progressive steps) the distribution of more likely probability events: at the end if you'll be ahead stay at the same unit amount for another 7 times. And so on.
Whenever you'll collect a loss (it can be just -1, -3, -5 or -7 units) for the next 7-event frame raise the betting amount by adding 1 unit (or more than that considering vig) to the actual deficit and so on.
Do not forget to let it go until the 7 events completion before betting again when ahead or to increase the bet while losing until seven hands are completed.

In terms of probability, this procedure should be solved by Markov transition matrices, to simplify the issue let's say that the expected probability to fail is 1:654.

Actually and at least in the terms prospected here (where itlr the bet selection makes a slight but significant role) the Black Swan (I like the Alrelax definition of a very bad situation showing up) will come out with odds close to 1:810 so getting the player a huge advantage over the house.

See u next week.

as.

Such method relies upon three different math and statistical propensities having the principal effort to put in the least corner the negative variance.

as.

In a couple of days I'll show you how a math progressive approach will get the best of the game, for once it's a only Banker betting method needing very very unlikely sequences to fail.
Actually it's just a matter of money...

as.

First 10-shoe sample:

LW
WL
WW
WL
WW
WW
WL
WW
WW
WW

LWWLWWWLWWWWWLWWWWWW

Ok, easy job, hope for harsher situations..

Second 10-shoe sample

WW
WL
WW
LL
LW
WW
LW
LW
LW
WW

WWWLWWLLLWWWLWLWLWW

A less unwelcome succession than the previous one, yet if we have no reasons to chase the LLL sequence there're some spots to bet on.

Third sample

WW
WW
WW
WW
LL
WW
WW
WW
LW
WW

WWWWWWWWLLWWWWWWLWWW

Good successions

Fourth sample

WW
LW
WW
LW
LL
WL
WW
WW
WW
WL

WWLWWWLWLLWLWWWWWWWWL

Bad sequence at hands #9, #10 and #12. 

Fifth sample

WW
LW
LL
WW
WW
WL
LW
WW
WW
WW

WWLWLLWWWWWLLWWWWWWW

Two losing situations in a row (events #5 and #6)

Sixth sample

WW
WL
WL
LW
LL
WL
LW
WW
WW
WW

WWWLWLLWLLWLLWWWWWWW

Here we go!
Finally a very bad succession came out.
W clusters got 3 losing spots in a row and out of 4 L sequences, just one L came out isolated.
A mechanical plan betting toward W clusters and L isolated spots got 6 consecutive losing situations, that is 12 losing hands in a row.
What we can do here? Nothing!
Just accepting the losses and go forward.

Seventh sample

WW
WW
LW
LW
LW
WW
LL
WW
WL
LW

WWWWLWLWLWWWLLWWWLLW

Now no more than one losing spot (between W clusters and isolated L).

Eight sample

LW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WL
WW
WW

LWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWWW

Good sequence.

Ninth sample

WW
WL
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
LL
WW
WW

WWWLWWWWWWWWWWLLWWWW

Not a bad sequence

Tenth sample

WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
LW
WL
WW
WW

WWWWWWWWWWWWLWWLWWWW

Another good sequence.

Since the sixth sample went so bad let's see what happens next:

Eleventh sample

LW
WW
WW
LW
WW
WW
WL
WL
WW
WW

LWWWWWLWWWWWWLWLWWWW

Not a bad sequence either

Twelfth sample

WW
LW
WW
LL
WL
WW
WL
WW
LW
WW

WWLWWWLLWLWWWLWWLWWW

No bad

Thirteenth sample

WW
WW
LW
WW
WL
WW
LW
LL
WW
WW

WWWWLWWWWLWWLWLLWWWW

Things seem to arrange themselves into a more 'normal' fashion

Fourteenth sample

WL
WW
LW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WL

WLWWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWL

Again not too bad

Fifteenth sample

WW
WW
WW
LL
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW

WWWWWWLLWWWWWWWWWWWWW

Not bad

Sixteenth sample

WW
LL
WW
WW
WL
WW
WW
WW
LW
WW

WWLLWWWWWLWWWWWWLWWW

Not bad

Seventeenth sample

WW
LW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
LW
WW

WWLWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWW

Another good succession

Eighteenth sample

LW
WW
WW
WW
WW
LL
WW
WL
WL
WW

LWWWWWWWWWLLWWWLWLWW

No more than one losing spot in a row

Twentieth sample

WL
LW
WL
LW
WL
LL
WW
WW
LW
WW

WLLWWLLWWLLLWWWWLWWW

Two consecutive losing spots in a row.

Comments

- Betting towards W clusters got us a +12 profit before vig;

- As already sayed L isolated situations are more affected by volatility;

- Starting to bet after having reached a fictional negative W clusters / W isolated ratio is a good way to forecasting more probable results;

- The S/D vs T simple ratio corresponds to a leptokurtic distribution; itlr only distribution issues could shift the results toward one profitable side.
Obviously the reason is because at baccarat doubles are the most likely outcome and triples (3/3+s) are less likely to happen for the well known slight propensity to get the opposite side to win.

-Despite of an expected 0.75% (S/D) vs 0.25% (T) probability, S/D streaks are way longer and more frequent than the  T counterpart (proportionally considered), so we'll have longer SD streaks than T streaks and that's one kind of advantage we can exploit while playing baccarat.

- Sh.it happens and no progressive plan could erase it, we just have to wait the more likely course of statistical probabilities.

as.

Thanks KFB!

It's a proven fact that people making a living at gambling bet towards things more likely to happen and not by chasing unlikely positive situations.

For example, the single/double category can stand 18-23 hands without getting a single loss, the triple counterpart needs 6 or 7 consecutive wins to balance the equation.

Now we all know that such unlikely triple long streak will happen sooner or later, in the meanwhile we have reasons to expect that a more than average opposite category will form a profitable ratio.

So there's no way to avoid sh.it, just to lower its verified (un)proportional impact over the long term outcomes.

I can show you at least 5 or 6 different betting attacks getting a sure indeniable advantage over the house (obviously by FB), yet a lot of variance must be endured putting at risk our composure.
Therefore we know that this game is beatable, the problem is to set up a plan directed to realize the proper 'frequency' about how and when the advantage will more likely show up.

House can only hope to deal 'random' successions where each bet is burdened by a math edge and to 'raise' the randomness it will allow a 'cut' and employing a burn procedure dictated by the first card nature.
We have already seen in my pages that the 'burn' technique won't change the patterns distribution, let alone the 'cut'. It's just a matter of time that patterns will come out by their more likely propensity. Yesterday, now, tomorrow and forever.

This kind of effect is amplified whenever we consider back to back shoes, more specifically when we compare or put in relationship same positional outcomes of each shoe, so forming new successions.

Cards arrangements might noticeably affect one shoe or maybe two shoes so enticing the formation of strongly deviated results at either side, yet math and game's propensities can't be neglected for long but we need a sort of 'complex' patterns evaluation to ascertain that.
And to get a valuable patterns evaluation we need many hands (and shoes) to be dealt.

Not coincidentally last examples involved just the first and second pattern dealt of each shoe then making a 'positional' back to back succession by a W and L shape.

The SD vs T approach is a very basic strategy, yet it could get the idea of what I'm talking about.

So more real shoes taken randomly will come out, as you well know I'm not selling anything.

as.

Nice report.
We all have fallen in such of a mistake.
 
Btw, I hate when dealers or, worse, floormen try to forecast hands especially when don't asked.
I wouldn't 'trust' nobody not having the same financial involvement we players get while betting this or that.

as.
 
   

Another sample:

WL
LL
WL
WW
LL
LW
WL
LW
WW
LW

A quite harsh 10-shoe sample, a lot of 3 streaks...notice those back to back 3 streaks at two shoes.

Horizontal line: WLLLWLWWLLLWWLLWWWLW

L= -30 AND W= 10,  that's a strong deviation toward negative territory
Despite that we have tools to find situations to make our bets more likely to win.

An additional 10-shoe sample:

LW
WW
LW
WW
WW
LW
WW
WW
LL
WW

Hor line: LWWWLWWWWWLWWWWWLLWW

One more:

WW
LL
WW
WW
WW
WW
LW
WW
LL
LL

Horiz line: WWLLWWWWWWWWLWWWLLLL

L= -21 W= +13

Still we find ways to win, actually so far the shoes samples taken randomly cumulatively produced a L>W ratio, yet we can easily win.

as.

Notice that at baccarat we do not want to guess this or that hand, but putting the house to 'hope' we won't be right each time we'll bet towards more likely situations to happen framed into a W/L scheme.

Test your shoes and let me know how many times a first and second column results arranged at a horizontal succession will produce quite different conditions I've depicted above.

as.

Hi KFB and thanks!

IMO a long term winning bac player should put the house to hope for something slight unlikely to happen and not vice versa.

Betting B or P alone makes the house's expectations as it's a close to a 50/50 unbeatable proposition (Kerrich coin flip data, for example), furthermore aggravated by a negative edge.

Raising the probability of success at greater than 50% values might get us more predictable situations not just for a mere (and fruitless) math condition but because baccarat is a multiple asymmetrical game.

Therefore it doesn't make any substantial difference if I'm betting B after B or after P as any single hand seems to have no valuable dependent informations to take advantage from.

Now say you'll bet that a given column won't produce a 3/3+ streak, so the W/L proposition is 3:1 as after having lost the first bet (not being a single) in order to get a profit you'll raise (double) the second bet toward a double.
It's a math affair: on average and assuming a perfect coin flip game, one triple will come out after 3 single/double apparitions of any kind and distribution.

So according to the above posts, let's pretend to set up a progressive multilayered plan that the very first pattern of any shoe won't be a 3/3+ streak.
3 streak = L and single/double = W

Itlr and without any doubt W clusters will be slight superior than W isolated, the only (relative) issue is about the vig.
The same but by a lesser degree of confidence level about each class of Ls, more isolated than clustered, more doubled than tripled, etc.

Nevertheless this is just a 'quantity' point of view, very susceptible to the negative variance.
Sooner or later and still considering 10-shoes samples, it will happen that ALL 10 shoes will form a 3 streak at the very beginning of it (first column).
A very very unlikely scenario but surely it will happen.

Now let's consider the second column in relationship of what happened at the very first one:
Simplifying a lot, how many 3s will follow another 3 streak that came out as first pattern?
And how many single/double patterns will follow a single/double pattern previously showing up at the first column?
Now the variance is way more restricted as it's somewhat negated by several steps the 'hopping' verified baccarat propensity. In some way that's a quality factor.
Here the probability to encounter 3/3 patterns at both first and second columns of each shoe is almost zero. Assume is 0.

Consider this 10-shoe sample taken randomly
W= single or double and L= 3 streak

WL
LL
WW
WW
WW
WL
WW
WW
WL
WW

Put these outcomes into a horizontal succession:

WLLLWWWWWWWLWWWWWLWW 

Another 10-shoe sample:

WW
WL
WW
WW
WW
LW
WW
LL
LW
WW

The horizontal succession is: WWWLWWWWWWLWWWLLLWWW

Another 10-shoe sample:

WW
LW
WW
LW
WW
WW
LW
WW
LW
WW

Horizontal succession is WWLWWWLWWWWWLWWWLWWW

Comments

At baccarat there's no point to 'chase' losses, only betting towards winning clusters at the same time never forgetting that we need just the number 1 to be ahead (hoping for more than 1 is just gambling). The same 1 number could be utilized at L situations but knowing it will get a greater variance's impact.

In order to reduce variance, results must be someway restricted within 'ranges'.

It's impossible to beat baccarat if we're considering it a kind of coin flip game.

After all at a perfect random coin flip game and no matter how much we raise the probability of success, itlr W clusters = W isolated and L isolated = L clusters.
It's wise to work out at things disputing this and not trying to beat it mathematically as it can't be possible by any means.

as.