QuoteHi AS -- How would you group your HO and HE patterns or am I overthinking this ?

Hi klw!

Think that at most occurences, either playing toward HO or HE very soon will get a harsh stop getting more likely deviated values at each side. (I've stressed that the HO/HE or W/L situation is the less likely option to confide at).

Casinos hope we do like a unidirectional way of thinking the game, knowing that such stops will SURELY happen along the way.

Hence, for each shoe played, there are an average number of HO and HE patterns: think that HO pattern players are going to be crushed a bit more than HE pattern players, PROVIDING the latter category is capable to find out the situations where HO patterns are more likely to stop.

Most professional bac players would bet toward HE spots, knowing that the 'sky's the limit' attitude is just for losers.
On the other end, some acute players know to stop the betting after given cutoff points are reached by HE patterns. That is not chasing 'miracles' as they do not need them.

as.

Hi KFB!

Yes, ITLR B and P will approach more and more to the 0.5068 and 0.4932 expected probability, nevertheless such feature belongs to a perfect random model that is not going to happen at most shoes dealt.
Besides natural variance happening at real random models (so getting precise sd values), we ought to understand that bac shoes are not performing random requisites by any means.
Of course and since the 'unrandom' strenght cannot be precisely assessed shoe per shoe by simple B and P measures, it's obvious that itlr the unrandom world + unrandom unrandom = random world.

Alrelax is absolutely right on that, getting the least s.h.it on long term results:

Say A is the statistical or math propensity to overcome the B opposite situation.
If the production is really random, A>B by a 1.36% gap forever and ever (considering the math B advantage).

Actually A>B only whether bac productions are really random. Since we can discard such probability, our new situation to face will be: A=B*k, where k almost always is a number different than 1, so per every shoe dealt either A is more likely to happen (k<1) than B or less likely to show up (k>1).

Practically speaking, our watchdog cannot be the sd parameter but the actual card distribution privileging some patterns than others, especially when we are able to split the entire shoe into distinct sections.

Thus there's a potential A>B plan to look for and a more important actual A>B*k situation to take advantage from.
Obviously 'k' cannot be perfect balanced along the way as shoes are not randomly produced.

Ties.

You are 1 million % correct, imo.
For the most part, bac results are formed by 4 or 5 card propositions and ties are mathematically way more likely to show up when 6 cards are employed to form hands.
It's in those 6-card instances that the 'gambling' factor will take its highest role as most of the times one side won't be so 'hugely' favored to win (for math and for bac rules) than the counterpart.

To beat this game we must 'catch up' the actual more likely card ditribution and ties tend to 'stop' patterns happening so far (number of cards employed to form hands is the answer).
I agree that playing a 'ignoring ties' strategy is a big mistake to make.

A corollary is that shoes forming a lot of 6-card results (no matter how many ties are showing up) will get us harsher situations to look for.

as.

Baccarat is an infinite sequence of dependent and asymmetrical propositions (key cards, asym card distribution and intrinsic asym B/P probability) where just one factor is constant, that is the last one, nonetheless being affected by the first two factors.

So no one single hand is purely belonging to a coin flip proposition, let alone about a 'model' moving around a long term 50.68/49.32 expected probability.

Baccarat hands move around strong shifted math propositions, so everytime we'll bet a side we should know we'll be hugely right or hugely wrong, regardless of how 'whimsically' the final results are formed.

Say A is the probability to win at HO patterns and B the probability to win at HE patterns.

Of course itlr (so after having registered a fair amount of samples), A=B, but every shoe is a world apart for the dependent and asymmetrical card distribution features.

In fact, every shoe dealt will feature a A>B and B>A probability getting different values not belonging to a coin flip (unbeatable) model and neither to a 0.5068/0.4932 (unbeatable) probability.

Things go toward HO or HE sides in the same way as a edge sorting technique will get a math edge over the house.

The difference is that a 'statistical' edge sorting technique must take into account the important 'conditional probability' happening along any shoe dealt and naturally completely disjointed from a precise card rank.

Example.

There are several ways to lose hoping that a HO or HE sequence will stop, yet there are several ways to get this succession to last for at least one more hand.
The difference is that in the former scenario we'll progressively bet to get a miserable one winning hand, whereas in the latter case we need just one winning hand to get a kind of freeroll over the house.

But notice: I was referring about HO or HE successions and not just HO situations the vast majority of players will look for.

It could happen that HO and HE will be distributed by a kind of 'hopping' scheme, but again prolonging the 'hopping attitude' will put ourselves in the position to freerolling after the first hand won.

In reality, a WL hopping situation is the least likely to happen at baccarat and the proof is to adopt  a D'Alambert progression that will make us losers very soon.

as.

The more we play the more we'll win

This statement strongly collides with what most baccarat players have read about this game.

So worst counter statement sounds as 'quit when you are ahead', the perfect quote instructing us we just need a positive variance to end up as (temporary) winners.

Those geniuses do not tell you what to do when losing, probably they'll teach you to try to recover your losses up to a point (actual bankroll), then, well, tomorrow will be another day.

Consider that a shoe is a finite card distribution having its peaks of 'homogeneous' patterns and 'heterogeneous' patterns.
Most players hope to get long homogeneous situations (HO) because they can't find a way to beat heterogeneous sequences (HE).

On the other end, some players often adopting a progressive plan, like to get HE patterns as things must change in a way or another.

Obviously both categories are destined to lose as HO = HE with their variance values.

Think of a shoe forming long sequences of HE or HO, differently taken they constitute a harsh obstacle to deal with.

For that matter, no HE or HO betting line is superior than the other, it's just how many clustered sequences will show up, up to some cutoff points we've decided to classify them.
Actually and besides some situations, there are no specific cutoff points to look for otherwise the game wouldn't exist. 

Of course at baccarat we have to deal with 'space', meaning that after a long or predominant HE or HO successions, the balancement power may be lowered by several factors acting along that shoe.

It's a proven fact that changing the side of operations (either at HE or HO way) will get the best probability of success.
Of course intrdoucing the concept that many times our best move is to not bet at all.

More later

as.

Hi KFB!

Yes, consecutive probability patterns is one of the options to look for.

Examples are singles and doubles vs triples or doubles and triples vs 3+s and so on.
It may happen the clustering effect will be denied by singled appearances (of course we'll wait our trigger to show up before betting or fictionally betting). But sooner or later (very soon) probability makes things to follow more likely scenarios.

Naturally each shoe is a world apart, best shoes to attack are those converging a general probability to happen along with an 'actual' probability to happen.
It's impossible to get a 'clustered' event unless that event shows up very soon in the shoe, so hoping it will form 'multiple' opportunities to become clustered.

Maybe clusters of streaks of 3s and 4s considered at derived roads seem to get the lowest variance.

as. 

Numbers and human guesses

Casinos make a lot of money by letting players to guess hands using this simple strategic plan:

1) a given pattern will prolong (P);

2) a given pattern will stop (S).

Of course there are innumerable patterns to look for, think about big road and derived roads where a kind of homogeneous pattern (especially when considering a 0.75 or higher probability) will surely show up along the shoe's lenght.

Anyway we have strong reasons to think that itlr P=S even though some P patterns are more likely to come out for the asymmetrical nature of the game privileging Banker.
But this feature on average will impact the results by just one more B hand per shoe.

Anyway, the key factor to look for is that P or S patterns are the direct corollary of the actual card distribution.

For that matter, the vast majority of shoes dealt are not producing a B/P ratio shifted toward B by just one step, it's just a kind of abnormality.
So we may infer that more complicated patterns will make even more unlikely to get a final +1 W/L ratio on such patterns, mainly as we do not know precisely which side will be really favored to show up or not.

Thus different patterns move around four different probabilities considered at the simplest 2-pattern step: P+P, P+S, S+S and S+P.

In some way 'humans', that is the vast majority of bac players, like to progressively stop a P pattern or to constantly wager toward P+P or S+P patterns.

It's like that they concede to the house a 'natural' S+S pattern, getting a 25% probability to happen.

Moreover any P+P step will get some values to look for, meaning that certain cutoff points are more likely to happen itlr and the same is about S+P patterns.

This is a very important concept, as it's the main tool to put math in relationship of the actual card distribution.

Most bac players hope that P+P > P+S or, even worse, that S+P > S+S or that P+S should be less probable than P+P.
Or, worst of worst, that S+S must magically shift into S+P very soon.

Of course P+P, P+S, S+P and S+S are perfectly balanced in their apparition itlr, but in no way perfectly distributed along any shoe dealt.

More on that in a couple of days.

as.

Al, you can be sure I won't go anywhere, I'll stick with this wonderful site.

Again, by far this is the only forum where people could grasp ideas to beat baccarat in a way or another.

Let naysayers think that experience and subtle features of the game cannot help us to find a way to beat baccarat (most math experts do not know a fkng nothing about some Smoluchowski works, let alone about what randomness really is).

Your peer and comrade asymbacguy.

as.

Thanks klw and KFB! I have the same feeling, many times you've inspired me in certain things!

Yep Al, I knew you would have liked those points 
And of course I've benn always reading the real shoes you provide here.

@8OR9: fortunately my ban was erased the day after this mess but I was informed just yesterday.

Yeah, gambling is not for everyone, arrogant or abusive people, sober or stoned, should find another hobby.

as. 

Overthinking

If there's a game where 'overthinking' is harmful, this is baccarat.

So if we're in doubt to bet this or that, we should simply do not bet at all.

After all baccarat is a game of clusters, educated guesses based upon long term tests or actual situations or, best, all of the three.

Here a brief list of general assumptions, imo, that won't help us in any way:

1- Banker is more advantaged to show up, so when in doubt bet Banker.

Cottontail rabbitsh.it.

If we'd decide to bet B is because for some reasons B should be more probable than P, we're not betting B as it's less disadvantaged than P.
This stuff belongs to math minds that in the 99,999% of the times are sure losers at this game.

2- We bet B and after a natural 9 showed up at P (sigh), a same natural 9 happened at B. So if we have miraculously shifted an almost sure loss, "it means that B must show up at the next hand".

Desert tortoisesh.it.

Actually there's a very very slight propensity that a natural will be followed by another natural at the same side, so betting B is a strong wrong move to make as when naturals come out (no matter at which side) asymmetrical hands favoring B cannot happen.

3) Last card dealt at the previous hand was an 8 or a 9, so P side is less likely to be kissed by a natural.

Roadrunnersh.it

If this assumption may be true we should infer that B will be more probable than P as a part of winning points involving naturals must fall at position #2 or #4 as opposed as position #1 or #3.
Meaning that after an 8 or a 9, a 1-step (consecutive) or 3-step (gap of 2) between 8s/9s is less probable to happen than a 2-step (gap of 1) of 4-step (gap of 3). No way.

4) In some way Banker or Player must 'catch up' after an opposite predominance happened.

This is a more debatable point as very good players try to get this effect to show up in selected circumstances differently to poor players that like to bet a side no matter how patterns develop.

5) Sooner or later a streak of fair lenght must happen along most part of shoes.

False assumption.
I've registered up to 5 consecutive shoes produced by the same source not forming a streak superior than 3 at either side.
A kind of heaven instead.

6) The more a side bet is silent higher is the probability to get it along the way.

Without a proper card counting, side bets are not more likely to come out after a period of 'silence'.
Actually it's true the opposite.
Most of the times, we awake about side bets when they come out clustered, before that we simply ignore their possibility to happen.

7) 'I'm doing so bad that I'm starting to play the opposite of what my strategy dictates' or 'I'm doing so good that I'm starting to play the opposite of what my strategy dictates'. 

In most of the cases, it's a fatal error.
We can't know how long a bad or good sequence will come out and the simple countermeasure to adopt is to keep betting when good things happen and not betting when bad things happen.
Stopping to bet after a good sequence happened is very easy, the opposite scenario is way more difficult to manage.
When to restart the betting? A topic we'll see in a next post.


as.

Actually I have several topics to write about I can't quit. 

@KFB and Alrelax: thanks for your kind words. Of course I'm looking forward to play with you somewhere! 

@8OR9: the story is simple. An unknown friend of a peer playing baccarat with me (we stupidly picked up him as the 'driver' for the night) tossed violently a losing natural 8 right in the face of an obnoxiuos dealer, cursing and shouting words like "I'll wait for you outside".
Floorman decided we all three were culprit for his behaviour, telling us that we won't be welcome to play there anymore.
I was so disgusted I started to hate baccarat, casinos and everything.
This casino is linked with another casino, so all of a sudden we were barred at both.

A real bad beat.

as.

A warm thanks to everyone who had the patience to read my section, for some reasons I'm stopping to post anymore about baccarat (maybe as we were banned to play at a couple of premises).

Almost 140k views consitute a huge accomplishment I'm very proud of it.

For sure you can bet your a$$ that baccarat is a beatable game, no matter what math dictates.

Hope to see you at real tables very soon!

as.

Nice post!

as.

Hi KFB!

Re: B /F7--I agree that it is not mathematically sound and ITLR an increased HE to an already -EV wager. My main reason for not habitually wagering the Bwager coupled with the F7 is the hedging effect on the B bet(I can't win both but can lose both). However, a situation where I do sometimes is when I have pressed my B wager to a higher level and I don't want to lose-a-win, or push on a win. I will then wager the F7 for an amount equal to "my" chips in the wager or maybe so an F7 win =66% of that pressed up wager,...etc..

Of course, there could be times we perceive or calculate that F7 has a higher probability of showing/ that could skew all of the above probabilities in the players favor(or at least make less disadvantaged), as long as one doesn't wager it too often.

I totally agree about those passages of yours.

Many times I'm astonished to watch at a player betting ALL the possible side bets at every hand dealt. (The like of six or more side bets I mean)

Yes, some shoes are particularly full of F-7 and Panda, nothing wrong about betting both even if they are mutually exclusive.

I admit to be cognitively disturbed while wagering P and at the same time betting the Lucky 6.
After all, any P bet needs a 6, 7, 8 or 9 two-card point to look for, all scenarios denying a Lucky 6 winning. 
But when 6s are particularly live in the deck, the logic department might start to come back.

Generally speaking and following Al's thought, some side bets should be bet when winning and not in order to recover losses.

BTW, which kind of tables (classic, EZ, etc) do you prefer to bet at?

Thanks in advance

as.

More clustered streaks of consecutive lenght:

WW
WWW
WW
WWW
WWW
LWW
WW
WWW
WWLL
WW
WW
WWW
WW
WWLW
WLWL
WWW
W
LLLLW
WWW
WW
WW
WWW
WLWL
LLWWW
LWW
WL
WLW
LWW
W
WL
WWWW
WW
WW
WWW
WWW
LW
LWW
LLLW
WWL
WLW
WWW
LWW
WW
WWW
LWLW
LWW
WLWW
W
WWLW
WLWW
WLLW
LWW
WWL
WWW
WWW
LW
W
LLW
WW
WLW
WW
WW
LWWW
LWW
WW
WLL
WW
W
W
LWWW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
LLL

Hi KFB!

I think (you too, of course) that the best bac players are 'situational' players, meaning they like to bet toward some value of clustered events that happened so far than hoping that an event 'must' happen sooner or later.

So for example, if my strategy tells me to bet P I could place an additional Panda side bet, providing it came out by a higher frequency than probability dictates, that is following the 'rare events come out in clusters or stay silent for long' tool.

The 'betting P and F-7' is a more intriguing matter (the same about betting P side and placing a 'Lucky 6' wager).

Personally I very rarely play at EZ bac tables, so I can't tell you about the first attack, yet it could happen that I'll bet P side simultaneously wagering a 'lucky 6'.

The reason is because 'Lucky 6' is a well more likely possibility than F-7, at the same time knowing that Lucky 6 tables provide a better negative edge at Player bets (1.24% vs 1.46%).

In some way, my P bet must shift many Banker winning points but a 6. And those are surely coming out at least once in the vast majority of shoes dealt (differently to F-7). 

Many casinos have changed some bac tables from a pure 5% B commission game to "Lucky 6" tables as their math advantage will raise from 1.06%/1.24% to 1.46%/1.24%, forgetting that Lucky 6s are more constant to be distributed than F-7, for example (now the HE at B bets is around 1.01%).

The main error (obviously dictated by math experts losers and math probabilities) is that three cards are needed to form a F-7, whereas in the vast majority of the times a Lucky 6 needs just two. The same about Panda bet.

I think that any bac player should bet toward more likely situations, thus two-card happening will be more likely than three-card happening.
The same about simple B and P bets: we do not want to bet a side needing a third card to improve its point.

as.