Assuming a 0.75 probability (W+1, L=-3), symmetrical patterns tend to slight overwhelm the asymmetrical ones at most shoes dealt.
The problem to bet symmetrical patterns is that they are a two-step proposition, meaning that to get the full value of any sym pattern we have to pospro every single bet.

Moreover and for an obvious "balancing" factor, many shoes will form endless Asymmetrical situations, those where it's virtually impossible to lose for the main portion of the shoe.

Generally speaking, the Big Road is the basic succession where sym patterns seem to prevail over the asym ones, a thing happening with a slight lesser attitude at other derived roads (or multiple random walks we can build).

At any rate, clustered symmetrical situations belonging to DIFFERENT patterns and showing up as consecutively shaped are well controllable (so restricted in their average appearance).
Otherwise any bac player in the world (who genetically privileges symmetry) would easily win at most shoes.

On the other end, casinos know that besides their math edge patterns will whimsically show up by a kind of undetectable fashion.
Among all those undetectable situations, a fair portion of symmetrical (detectable) patterns come out naturally as long as long streaks and other homogeneous (humanly speaking) events.
This is what fuels the game as there's nothing to guess or hope for.

What we should do is taking advantage of the asymmetrical propensity acting infinitely even knowing that some sym different patterns can show up in a row but by more likely levels in the vast majority of the times.

Think about how it's impossible to deal back-to-back diverse symmetrical patterns for long at the infinite sub successions derived from the BP original one.

Depending about how's the actual production (manual shuffle, machine shuffling, etc), the best betting spots you should aim for are wagering toward A after a single S pattern or after a double S pattern.

Then betting toward A clusters cannot hurt, especially when a counterpart S had previously shown up clustered.

A-S-S-S(..)-A-S-S-S(...) patterns sooner or later show up (very rarely), who cares?
People making a living at games rely upon numbers more likely to happen.

as.

When in doubt about what to bet and among the infinite options we can choose from, I think the A/S distribution is the best to take hints from.
We've seen there are only three different patterns of so called symmetrical nature, everything else could be easily considered as asymmetrical.

More later

as.

Hi KFB!
15 B singles in a row? A real strong deviation!

Do you have the entire shoe?

Thanks!

as.

Think about how's unlikely to get a balanced ratio in relationship of the number of decisions dealt even by considering a perfect independent 50/50 proposition.
 
In addition, bac sides are asymmetrical at the start, then cards cannot be arranged by a balanced scenario for multiple sets unless for "coincidental" factors, surely being affected by a "finite" slight dependent effect.

If deviations are naturally going far from the 0 neutral point and itlr 0 is the theoretical target, many counter balancing deviations are more likely to be asymmetrically than symmetrically shaped.
Or, at least, symmetrical scenarios seem to be more controllable in their appearance and lenght than asymmetrical spots.

as.

The paramount tool to take care of is that once a pattern had produced a S event, we're not interested to care about its lenght. So 1 is equal to 2, 3 or even 10. We need to wait until an asymmetrical A event will stop its sequence.

Setting up two or three different fictional players betting for us is one of the key to possibly win itrl, providing to bet far and few between situations.

For example:

Player #1 will always bet for A-A situation (one time); it'll lose whenever isolated A come out (A-S)

Player #2 will always bet for (A-S)-A situation, that is betting toward A after a single S came out)

Player #3 will always bet after a (A-S-S)-A situation, that is betting toward A after TWO S had come out in a row.

To get ALL three players losing at the same time we need to cross a (S)-A-S-S-S(...) pattern, yet singularly considered each player will suffer from a SINGLE loss.

It's true that S-S-S(..) patterns will make both player #2 and #3 to lose but we know that more clustered are S patterns greater will be the probability to encounter A-A patterns.

If you set up a starting betting point after two or three S clusters (S-S or S-S-S-...) fictionally happening, probability to get A-A or S-A will be enlarged and giving you a statistical edge.

On the other end, most part of A isolated events come out intertwined by S isolated events.

Such propensity is so reliable that you'll find very few situations fitting a kind of A-S-S-S pattern.
Moreover it works at ALL infinite random walks you can build from the original BP sequence, so it's PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to deal shoes rich of S events without getting a proper exploitable amount of A situations.

as.

Thanks KFB, I appreciate it and I'm looking forward to your incoming comments!

I'll add just this.

A "linear" strategy suggesting to always bet A vs S is not going anywhere as sooner or later we'll catch a SSSSSS..sequence or anyway a shoe or multiple shoes feauturing plenty of S.
On the other end even A clusters could suffer from consecutive isolated A but in the majority of the times such unusual "chopping" A line easily alternate with single S (A-S-A-S-A-S..).

Then by waiting S clusters of any lenght (and you'll have to wait quite a fair time to cross them), we know that more room is conceded to more natural A clusters (of any lenght) as a 3:1 probability can suffer harsh situations but not standing for long time, especially whether the production is RNG dictated.
In any case this doesn't fall into a gambler's fallacy concept, otherwise anybody would be enticed to wager only for symmetrical patterns so breaking down the house well more (and easier) than what MIT team did at bj.

Casinos like randomness and randomness dislikes patterns.
     
More later

as.

Suppose we are betting randomly the pattern #2, #5 , #8 and #15 of the Big Road. (two time pattern #15 hadn't come out):

S-S-A-A
A-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
S-S-S
A-A-S-A
S-A-S-A
A-A-A-S
A-A-A-S
A-S-A-A
S-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
A-A-A-S
A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A
A-A-A-S
S-A-S

What and when to bet at these successions?

If S= -3 and A= +1, before vig any line will get:

-4
+4
0
+4
+4
0
+4
+4
-9
0
-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+4
0
0
-5

Total= +2

If adopting the strategy to play A-A one time and A after S one time we'll get:

(-3)(+1) = -2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
-3
+2
(+1)(-3)(+1) = -2
+1
+1
(-3)(+1)(+1) = -1
+2
+2
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
(+1)(-2) = -1

Total= +15

Therefore if we'd assume a A=0.75 p and S=0.25 p, the expected A/S ratio is 3:1. So it's the average more likely ratio while considering four A/S decisions (when applicable).
Thus when an average ratio shows up no possible permutation will deny us to make a +1 or more probable a +2 profit.

In fact a single S among three As cannot produce any loss.

Within sets of 4 resolved hands, losing streaks can only come out when two or more S happens.

Anyway 4 S are just a loss of -3
3 S produce a loss of -6, -6, -3, -2.
2 S produce a loss of -2, -5, -6, -1, -2; and a win of +2.

0 S are always a +1 win.

Paradoxically we are in less worse shape when 4 S are showing up than when 3 S are coming out.
2 S are really hurting us just in two out of six possible permutations; in the remaining cases we'll get a -2 or -1 controllable loss and even a win of 2 units.

Run this situation infinitely (that here were taken randomly even if some positive variance happened) and let's see how many 4-decision sets are getting the negative 3 S or, at a lesser degree, the 2 S negative enemy.

A more aggressive plan needing a very large bankroll would be to double the A-A bet and the S-A bet after two or three losses in a row with the addition of betting the A patterns until they'll stop and until the deficit is recovered.

A plan at least 50x fold better than betting Banker in whatever sauce.

as.

@lovepreaks, regarding our post #1297

Each shoe will form a sequence of Asymmetrical (A) and Symmetrical (S) patterns; for each category  A could stand one time, two times or even for the entire shoe (a thing that happens not so rarely).
The same about S, but since we have chosen the 0.75 probability to define A and S, S successions are obviously way shorter and normally less clumped (so rarely going past three in a row).

Put into numbers and assigning A(+1) and S(-3), what we're basically looking for first is any +2 (+1+1, that is A-A) or -2 (-3+1, that is S-A) sums. Of course at both cases the first number is the unbettable trigger.

If a longer than two S sequence come out, we put a limit of interest at (S-S) meaning that so far we aren't interested about values more negative than -6.

Most players like to bet towards symmetrical patterns because asymmetrical ones tend to be perceived as "too chaotic" so more undetectable.
But it's not what we are betting but WHEN.

OoOoO

The simplest tool to ascertain the "average" distribution of an asym/sym pattern are doubles.
Doubles are the perfect pattern to look for as they are the most likely bac pattern occurrence.

If you think the actual production you're playing at seems to be "undetectable" try to register some hundreds of shoes, then take care of how many consecutive doubles had happened on average.
If isolated doubles and two consecutive doubles vs superior double clusters are accounting for at least a 76.5% you'll be in good shape. 

Consider more than one random walk before reaching conclusions.

You won't bet many hands for sure and a natural variance is expected but you know to play with an advantage.
Moreover since the primary goal for any serious bac player is to win money and not getting thrilled by the possible volatile favourable circumstances, you can easily track how many times a first/second/third or fourth bet had won and acting accordingly.

For example, at any level of the four progressive multilayered bets you could respectively raise the standard bet by a 10% after a win and by a 5% after a loss.

I could provide a list of casinos worldwide where such a simple strategy will 100% work so far (providing to take care of multiple random walks) where, of course, shoes are machine shuffled.

Notice that the slight double propensity toward asymmetry is the best situation to hope for among the three different patterns examined (single, doubles and triples) even if considered by two S steps.

as.

@lovepreaks

Do you have a defined probability model for pattern transitions—particularly from asymmetric to symmetric (A→S) or symmetric to asymmetric (S→A)?
For example, is a 0.75 probability for A→S transitions a reasonable estimate?

Since we need to place two bets to define the asymmetry (if the first bet was lost), yes we'll expect A to get a 0.75 p, so the A/S ratio should be 3:1.
That's in theory because in many RNG productions the number of S is way higher than 0.25(!).

Nonetheless S status is more frequent but tend to change faster than at other shufflings.
Maybe betting A-A one time is the safest pattern to look for, then betting A after S-S.
 

Given that the same P/B sequence can sometimes generate multiple A/B outcomes, what specific rule or method do you use to assign A or B in those ambiguous cases?


Not sure if I intendend well your question.
Derived roads are still the simplest way to get A/B sub successions, as you know well only long streaks will make every random walk to be homogeneously shaped.

When in doubt to bet between two or more lines, I'm not betting at all. Anyway as a general rule of thumb I'll prefer the line presenting a triple and not singles and/or doubles.
Moreover the line featuring many streaks and few singles do not elicit any first bet (that would be a sudden win).
So the line that collected more first winning bets than second winning bets is priviliged.
Then there are other considerations to be made.   

When identifying a potential betting spot, does the row position on the tote board (e.g., first row vs. deeper rows) affect your confidence or decision-making?
If so, how do you weigh that spatial factor?


Space distribution of the outcomes is the most important tool to master IMO.
It's the CFS working at different velocities but with a kind of "average steps".
 
I know a couple of successful players adopting a pure anti-streak game (so basically toward a positive CF speed) capable to get rid of many long unfavourable streaks by making considerations about how hands went in that specific (so far short) streak.
They start to consider betting only from row #2 or #3, sometimes even #4 so the shoe is halved or  quartered or even more reduced. Then only three or four bets are placed. 


How were the five betting trigger patterns developed and tested?
Were they based on statistical simulations, real shoe analysis, or other forms of data modeling?


We have never utilized simulators, just real live shoes listed by different forms of shuffling. We own a casino's shuffling machine too.   

Beyond the five primary triggers, have you developed any secondary filters or conditions to avoid high-risk zones or long losing streaks?

There are 4/5 different strategies we currently use and of course we try to adopt the ones performing best at the actual shoe.

Unfortunately losing streaks happen and MUST happen.
We are sure to play with an edge but nobody knows how the actual shoe is arranged. That's why we make very few bets and play a lot of shoes.

We try to avoid to play at tie rich shoes or when many hands are resolved by 6 cards (it's the same math concept).

Another tool we look for is the number of naturals happening so far.
We prefer to face an average value of them (around 1/3 of total hands as you know).

Take care!

as.

When you compare those two different plans (AS/S patterns vs anything else) applied to a RNG sequence, you'll see that an asymmetrical pattern MUST COME OUT and whenever it (temporarily) won't it's because some weird card distributions happened.

I mean that per every set of symmetrical options whatever intended, one side must be get a sort of discrepancy over the other one, maybe not now but surely by running the same proposition several times.

The stupi.d RNG makes more probable to get losing symmetrical patterns than average but at the same time will make more probable to get asymmetrical patterns to stop a symmetrical sequences.

It's like that the more we have lost (better fictionally) greater will be the actual probability of success as RNG is less likely prone to make strong AS/S deviations at either side.
And of course we better take the most likely course of operations, that is the AS process.

Suppose we are betting randomly the pattern #2, #5 , #8 and #15 of the Big Road. (two time pattern #15 hadn't come out):

S-S-A-A
A-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
S-S-S
A-A-S-A
S-A-S-A
A-A-A-S
A-A-A-S
A-S-A-A
S-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
A-A-A-S
A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A
A-A-A-S
S-A-S

What and when to bet at these successions?

as.

Thanks Al and KFB for your replies!!

Are there different types of randomness while playing a baccarat shoe?

With the advent of optical reading internal devices (allegedly inserted within shuffle machines, for example), many scholars think that some card distributions are arranged by a RNG software instead of the "old" classical physical process.
Nothing weird or illegitimate of course, but whether this should be the case when playing a bac shoe of such kind we're playing a succession of numbers (card ranks) totally insensitive of the previous shoe distributions (including the "fresh new shoe").

For practical purposes and since we cannot know which kind of RN generators are utilized in the specific scenario, we simply should accept the fact that we're facing a RNG sequence and not physically shuffled cards.

As several times pointed out here, the "cut" and the "number of initial cards burnt in relation of the first card shown" are almost irrelevant in the whole distribution process.

If we would be forced to define at all costs such RNG distributions, we could dare to state that they somewhat relatively lack of the patterns consinstency, curiously the main factor where most bac players focus upon.
Then there are other more specific features we'll see in future posts.

Obviously whether homogeneous patterns seem to be latent, a sort of "anti-homogeneous pattern strategy" should be the best option to take and actually it is but only if we're able to set up two different limits of intervention: the first by deciding when to prolong the betting and the second when to stop it.
Notice that in our opinion itlr the starting point will be irrelevant unless we incorporate the asym/sym feature seen above.

Actually a RNG card distribution not being biased by a kind of "card clumping" factor typical of physically shuffled shoes should be more inclined to present symmetrical patterns than asymmetrical ones (at least as intended in this thread---see above), but in reality just the opposite is true.
More low-level symmetrical patterns are due at many portions of the shoe than at other forms of shuffling. Especially if we are able to exploit other random walks. 

More later

Important shoe production considerations are coming soon.

No fake randomness can beat us.

as.

Lovepreaks: I'll give you a detailed answer ASAP.
Thanks for the patience!

as.

Hi KFB!!

The most emphasis should always be put at row #1

as.

Now the "battle" is not by guessing what happens next, just about comparing the two patterns considered in a specific position after running two different paced successions (BYB and SR, in our example).

This "trick" allow us to emphatize at most the natural asymmetrical features of the game, a thing that for sure will give us an edge.

After all the CFS cannot be homogeneous for long at two different sub sequences originated by a diverse pace (anyway not getting the common unbeatable binomial fluctuations), a kind of important proof that RVM and M. Von Smoluchoswki ideas are particularly effective in order to help us to define the baccarat problem.

Carefully studying two sub successions originated by the same sequence and getting a different pace will give us plenty of opportunities to take advantage and to restrict at most the biased limited values of relative frequency.

Of course natural and "coincidental" low level symmetrical patterns may happen for relatively "long" time, no matter which random walks we decide to utilize, yet the probability of success reamins higher than expected.

as.