Nice point KFB!
After all the longer one observes what really comes out greater should be the probability to catch the 'boundaries' of some results. And slot players look at many many results.

Back to the topic.

There are two sure ways to lose a lot of money at baccarat tables:

1) Playing stubbornly to get a symmetry whenever a kind of 'asymmetry' is perceived by us;

2) Hoping that a kind of asymmetry works infinitely or per every new pattern coming out.

Most bac players do know the danger of adopting the #1 strategy so they are enticed to work on the approach #2. Unfortunately even this strategy can't win itlr as supposedly favourable asymmetrical patterns need valuable 'cutoff' points that cannot be extracted other than by the constant evaluation of what really happens with what is supposed to happen.

Now let's take the opposite casinos' thought:

These stup.i.d donators hope to get asymmetrical patterns for long but they can't as things will change; just in case our math edge will progressively work at our side so more bets they'll make higher will be our profits.
Moreover we can rely about the sure indeniable fkng bighorns.h.it publicized everywhere that baccarat is just a MM game.

Let's summarize casinos' hopes:

a) players deal with a EV- game;

b) players think to beat the game by a biased production forming more asymmetrical patterns than symmetrical ones;

c) players raise their bets by subjective feelings or hopes or thinking that a dry MM approach will get the best of the game;

d) players want to win huge or at least breaking even per each session.

Whereas we can't do nothing about the a) point, we may do a lot about the remaining three points:

b) Asymmetrical spots surely come out by more likely 'steps', yet the asymmetrical world is constantly mixed by a kind of symmetrical one and even this is affected by the same more likely steps. In some way many symmetrical spots will form an asymmetrical pattern.

c) Raising the bets without having ascertained a flat betting advantage is the sure recipe for the disaster. Yes, in the shortest terms a MM could sound as a viable strategy to beat the game but it isn't by one trillion of accuracy itlr.

d) In the vast majority of the times, 'Winning huge' per every session played is the perfect negation of a possible player's advantage as at baccarat we can't rely about a math edge and of course things change a lot along the course of a restrict amount of shoes.
Even worse is the 'urge' to quit the session as a 'break even' player: despite of knowing we'll win an average amount of bets per shoe, we can't precisely estimate how things will come out, the important stuff to rely upon is that our profit line will be more and more ascending.

Actually and when in doubt, there's a fifth point to consider that is the several distinct 'human' random walks formed by the other players seated at our table.
Even those will follow 'more likely' steps, especially whenever the shoe isn't so polarized to entice a univocal more probable betting line (long streaks or chops, long homogeneous patterns, etc).
This issue albeit sounding as strongly unscientific has some practical merit as being directly related to the subjective bias affecting humans while facing binomial productions.

as.

BTW, RRS= random rotor speed (rotor will randomly change its speed after the ball was launched)

as.

While playing baccarat is important to adopt an asymmetrical educated thought

An average strong asymmetrical card distribution acting at a constant slight asymmetrical game needs some brain adjustments to get the best of the game.

It's the key to win itlr.

We'll see it in a couple of days.

as.

Craps is supposed to be the prototype of  unbeatable randomness, actually it isn't.
It doesn't matter that pass line and don't pass line sometimes allow 100x or close to infinite odds after the point has been made (almost nullifying the HE at such bets).

I've already presented some approaches about multiple consecutive shooters pass lines limits and some 'freerolling' situations after a first obstacle is surpassed.
Moreover a long study has shown that the no field/field proposition tend to be somewhat 'shooter dependent' in the sense that the 20/16 proposition provides slight but interesting discrepancies with the expected values.
Obviously just the field bet is bettable anytime we wish.

Mississippi Stud, Ultimate Texas Hold'em and Pai Gow all consider cards dealt by a machine and there's no option to choose the side to bet.
Pai Gow tiles are dealt by the dealer's dice roll destiny so the point is the same.

For practical reasons, 'no side bets' baccarat is by far and without any shadow of doubt the best game to make money in a casino for the old features we're stressing about for years:

- There are only three outcomes to take care of and one is almost always worthless but harmless (tie), HE is minimal.

- We can choose the side to bet anytime we want

- Baccarat productions are asymmetrical by definition, but they are no 'one-sided'.

- Baccarat is a game where 'irregular' (Alrelax word) successions come out quite often and we get at least eight sides to follow through (big road and derived roads)

- Baccarat is a game where players are considered just pure losing clowns both by casinos and  gambling 'experts'.

- At baccarat we can bet any possible amount (up to 100k or 200k or more per hand) being promptly payed without the risk to wait as money (chips) talk.

- Baccarat is the only game where an educated estimation of 'luck' or 'bad luck' of the other players could play a role in our winning or losing process as additional random walks come out in play. We know this is just another Gambler Fallacy, that's why I've mentioned it.

So my list is (from best to worst):

1) Baccarat

2) Side bets baccarat

3) Sports betting

4) Automated roulettes without the RRS tool

5) Craps

6) Anything else

as.

Those are just personal comments maybe way less technical than those of Shackleford authority had made.

First, only video poker, blackjack and many baccarat side bets can be beaten mathematically but only baccarat side bets can be attacked just in the favourable circumstances, so here every bet is EV+ taken individually.

We can conclude that the best profitable games, math besides, are those where we can bet whenever we want choosing the side we wish without losing anything (EV- spots) along the process.

Besides math, probably sports betting is the best 'game' to risk the money at, but we do not know anything about the subject.

We do know that in rare occasions some video poker machines are EV+ as a Royal Flush is payed more than expected by the odds. Yet is a very looooong diluted accomplishment...

Actually blackjack is beatable just in theory as too many profitable factors should happen for the player: a deep deck penetration, good rules, low casino's heat, etc.

Among the games where we can anytime choose to bet or not (in our opinion a decisive factor) there are roulette and craps.

Live unbiased roulettes aren't beatable by any means but automated roulettes do are unless a RRS is added to the spins production.
A single software trying to reproduce randomness acts stupidly (so it's beatable) but whenever two distinct softwares converge into the single spin production...well no way to beat the game.
An additional factor endorsing the partial unrandomness of automated wheel spins (as long as RRS isn't added) is the low bouncing/splattering ball's effect way more branded at live roulettes.

I'll continue later

as.

Interesting thread Kfb!

I agree with Al: there's a lot more than the HE to be considered before seating at a table or in front of a screen.

I'll make my comments on that next Sunday

Have a nice weekend!

as.

Human mind, symmetry and edge

Human mind is somewhat 'biased' by constantly looking for simmetry. Several studies have shown that when subjects are instructed to write down 'random' successions applied to a binomial probability, a sure undeniable 'overalternating' feature affects the results.
More interestingly is that real random objective successions are perceived by subjects 'less random' whereas unrandom successions are mostly considered as 'randomly' formed.

At baccarat the vast majority of people bet along those 'simmetrical' lines (widely intended), at the same time privileging just one kind of asymmetry, that is the 'long' streaks possibility.

Then there are 'foolproof' systems that give the subjective 'guessing' a 0 impact as every outcome  must fall into well restricted ranges.
Those worthless systems are mostly based around several kind of gamblers fallacies that many times are fallaciously(!) overtaken by the best short term move anyone could think of: progressive betting.
Nonetheless objective flat bet findings alone cannot lead to any EV+ with one billion of accuracy.
 
Therefore and simplyfing a lot, a 100% subjective way of considering things is EV-, as well as it's EV- a strict objective system stubbornly looking for precise triggers.
So the 'truth' must be in the middle. At least according to the money we've collected over the years at bac tables.

At baccarat the possible player's edge is a dynamical issue, surely defined after having measured long term flat betting results.

No matter the fkng strategy we are going to utilize, either we'll catch more W spots than L spots (after vig impact) or we are destined to fail.

Mathematically there's no way to 'guess' right by inserting a kind of 'subjective' sole element in our strategy whether bac successions are really random.
The same if bac successions are kind of unrandom.

On the other end, 'obiective' findings that tend to mix many different baccarat productions (card distributions) are sensitive to huge volatility that only in the long term will approach the expected values.

Subjective and objective strategies are two different categories of random walks following the same math laws, sometimes converging into the same betting line and other times negating it.
And obviously there are more likely positive or negative steps converging at a same betting line  than events forming long series of 'outliers' that could be 'heaven' or 'hell'.

For casinos the only tools that matter are the math edge and the several gamblers fallacies affecting almost every player. 
Educated players can overcome such factors.

as.

Al: yep Golden Steer at West Sahara (close to the defunct Lucky Dragon casino) is a classic for steakhouse lovers.

I'm curious about 888 Korean BBQ....

What about your preferred list of seafood restaurants?

@KFB.
Nice simple way of classifiying what we should expect and what we actually see at the shoe we're playing at.
I'll be back on this later.

as.
 

You are the best Al!

Let's prepare in advance that summertime session hoping KFB will join us!

First dinner it's up on me, my favorites are:

Picasso or Joel Robuchon (French)

Il Fornaio or Canaletto (Italian)

Wing Lei (Asian)

Xavier (Mexican)

Sushi Yiroyoshi (Sushi)

What about your preferites?

as.

For some reasons I'm more inclined to trust people betting serious money at bac tables and undoubtedly Alrelax and KFB belong to this category.

BTW, let me know if any long term member of this site would be interested to get a total free RFB accomodation in a couple of high end Vegas premises or in Montecarlo SBM properties and I will arrange it in a millisecond.

as.

 

I'm astonished to see that people keep thinking that baccarat is beatable by progressive bettings of any kind.

Without a verified edge progressive bettings don't work and can't work, actually they constitute a sure detriment of any strategy. (Variance is greater, vig impact is greater, maybe comps are the only reason to adopt this silly line). 

About the edge.

A possible edge can only come out after having verified it at large datasets and by adopting the same betting amount.

If we'd think that after betting 1, future 2 or 3 or 1.1 or whatever bets involve a better EV we are completely falling into the worst gambler's fallacy territory.

The EV of any method, strategy, system or approach remains the same whether we bet $1 or $200.000 per hand. And per every intermediate category of such a range.

Humans can't read randomness and without the help of math and statistics can't read unrandomness either.
Why?
As the human brain is somewhat biased about 'overalternating' and 'overclustering' patterns where some event or classes of events are mistakenly taken as 'more likely' or 'less likely'.

So we're sure as hell that 'subjective' methods don't make winners but just deluded people.

Most of the times anytime we put a 'subjective' element in our strategy we are just gambling. And gambling is a EV- move.

Notice that gambling forums and internet videos abound of wonderful winning shoes without mentioning or presenting the specular harsh losing counterpart, just in case labeled as a rare 'unlucky' situation that may happen.

Actual card distributions might be relatively insensitive to math and statistical long term findings but they do are to subjective methods in the same way.

To measure a possible winning strategy

Again our old betting random walk friend will help us to find out whether we're doing good or just for a transitory luck's (short term positive variance) impact.

Per every shoe dealt we assume to start at a 0 point, left side is the negative territory and right side is the positive one. Each bet won makes a step toward the right and vice versa for a losing bet.
Alrelax is completely right about this: every shoe is a world apart in the sense that previous outcomes cannot noticeably affect in any way the next shoe.

Obviously such random walk must take into account the ROI, otherwise a simple steady Banker wagering will approach more and more the far end of the right side. 

What is important is that positive steps must be considered under the 'coin flip' multilevel probability classes, what we name as a 'limited random walk'.
For simplicity and according to my unb plans, we consider just two back to back betting spots (that is a way different thing than betting all of the time two consecutive hands). 

Assuming for simplicity a perfect 0.50% winning/losing probability, odds to get a two unidirectional step at either side are 0.25%, so most of the remaining times per every two-bet wagered (for real or fictionally) we'll get a kind of 'balancement' movement where W=L or L=W.
In other words our betting random walk doesn't sensibly move toward any side.

This movement do apply to every two opposite events fighting and the least battle we should be interested at is the B/P distribution as affected by too much volatility.

So 'complex' opposite events taken under the two wagers line mostly move around a 0.75% probability to show up, that is a kind of 'neutral' situation producing the least number of steps toward any side.

As long as the 0.75% or so probability shows up, we can't lose serious money, maybe just the vig when applicable (actually a portion of winning hands will benefit from the B propensity).
The problem remains about what to do when the 0.25% unidirectional probability will come out.

The answer is about the more likely 'clustered-clustering' values happening at such less likely event.

Say A event will fight vs B event.
Most of the times (75%) AB and BA two-step situations will prevail over the AA and BB patterns (25% each).

After a AA or BB pattern had shown up, next event will form either another univocal AA or BB pattern or a more likely AB or BA event.
Let's classify the first AA or BB pattern as 1, AAAA and BBBB patterns as 2 and so on. 

Notice that differently than a simple B/P patterns distribution, many 'complex' A/B patterns involve a way lesser variance than B/P outcomes as more hands are needed to form a A or B pattern.

Therefore BB and PP patterns tend to distribute themselves by a stronger variance than AA/BB patterns.

Moreover BBBB or PPPP patterns (two steps deviating from a more likely albeit proportional course) are slight more likely to show up than the same AAAA and BBBB counterpart and this last feature is more and more predominant whenever we take into account several steps of such kind.
Of course and as already sayed, single shoe productions are finite so anytime a more likely value or class of values are surpassed, we better consider the room left to get the more likely events coming out.

as.

The important thing is leaving the casino with more money in our pockets. 

as.

Baccarat is a game of multiple asymmetrical steps

It's almost certain that baccarat may only be beaten by exploiting its innumerable asymmetrical steps acting per every shoe dealt, steps that by definition cannot be contained in a univocal cut and dried strategy.

There are infinite asym steps to take care of, and each of them must be studied by testing a large shoe sample then collecting more informations than we can.

Here's a brief list of such asym steps. (Obviously I get rid of the Banker math propensity)

1) Number and distribution of naturals

Naturals come out very often so that if an hypothetical naturals side bet would give the house a 15% or so edge we could easily destroy any casino in the universe.
And I'm not talking about card counting 8s and 9s, just considering an average distribution.
For that matter casinos could even cut off from the play two or 2,5 decks and nothing will change for us.
Unfortunately such side bet doesn't exist.

Anyway we know that naturals probability is symmetrically placed in theory but actually distributed by 'more likely' asymmetrical ranges we should consider before choosing the side to bet.
We can't catch when and where a natural spot will fall at, we do know that naturals move around more likely ranges depending upon the segment of the shoe considered.
One sided naturals probability is more than double of the asymmetrical math strenght favoring Banker, so just to simplify a lot the issue whenever we'd think a natural will come out soon we're way better to wager Player for some (few) consecutive hands than betting Banker by taking advantage of the math propensity to win.
A natural coming out at P side is a huge win whereas a natural coming out at B side is a sure long term loss.     

2) The highest two-card initial point is strongly favorite to win the final hand.

Almost every bac player do not give a cottontail rabbitsh.it about how this parameter went along the shoe dealt. (Let alone in their testings if they did any). They are interested about the win/lose destiny of the hand, bet or observed.

In reality such parameter is essential toward the final hand destiny and it moves around more likely ranges.
Sayed in another way, as long as our bets have caught more two-initial higher points than expected, the final hand destiny shouldn't bother us. And obviously I'm not referring about naturals and standing points, just about all other hands that must draw one or two cards.

3) Third card(s) nature distribution

This is a more intricate issue as many times it intervenes at both strong unfavorite or favorite situations.
It's undoubtedly sure that Player predominant shoes benefit a lot from the third card impact, way more than what third cards will help the Banker side.
In fact Banker side more often than not doesn't want to draw a third card unless it has a 0, 1 or 2 initial point.

I mean that it's more difficult to track the third card actual impact range than the above mentioned factors without registering the real outcomes, so we might simplify the problem by assigning a general positive value only at cards different than 0, 1, 2 or 3.
8s and 9s are generally bad cards for the Player but they could transform a very bad situation into a wonderful one.

Anyway the third cards impact follow some more likely ranges, surpassed whom we're not interested to 'guess' anything unless we want to take the 'sky's the limit' approach thus considering 'potential' probabilities as 'virtual' probabilities but with no guarantee to succeed.

as.

Notice to not make confusion between final points probability and actual final winning probability.

as. 

Hi KFB and thanks for your reply.

Original authors of such a system investigated deeply the game by a strict mathematical approach, they didn't mention the previous BP gap other than by the rules I've written here.
So I do not know if your idea could be implemented in the system.
Only a program could solve the issue.

What I could provide is this:

The largest majority of winning points at either side are included within the 9-4 final points.
At Banker side this probability is 73.1% vs a Player's 70.8%.
Considering this final points range, Player odd and even final points are perfectly symmetrical in their probability to happen whereas at Banker side odd points amount to a 37.2% percentage and even points to a 35.9% probability.

Obviously this odd/even final points range must someway invert at the other less likely winning points range, that is points 3, 2 and 1.
Now Banker side will get a 19.4% share and Player a 21% share.

Naturally a 0 final point can't win, anyway this possibility comes out 7.5% of the times at Banker side and 8.2% at Player side.

Not suprisingly and taking into account both sides the highest final points gap shows up at 5 point (3% propensity for Banker side) and at 4 point (2.4% propensity for Player side), the actual situations where baccarat rules advantaging Banker will work most.

In addition, Banker final odd points account for a 37.2% probability vs a final even points of 35.9%.

After all it's not a bad idea to play toward math percentages under conditonal probabilities happened. 

as.