Sorry I have some issues to display the data, hope to fix the problem very soon.

as.

Very true, yet imo there's a difference between 'trying to adhere at most at the actual shoe' and 'trying to adhere at most at the actual shoe kwowing the more likely patterns ranges'.

One of the best advices you gave us Al is that while crossing a winning situation, people tend to get confidence 'too late' in the process instead of 'pushing' sooner.
I've found this attitude to be a strong mistake as more often than not positive things become less and less probable.
Of course negative situations appear to come out endlessly, so there's no point to press anything just watching.

Later the data I was talking about yesterday.
 

as. 

At baccarat there are sure indeniable bet selections getting a slight edge over the house (after vig, of course) so bac results are affected by a kind of dependency neglecting a perfect unbeatable randomness.

The problem is that such 'slight' edge is quite dispersed within the various successions, needing some 'room' to show up.

Tomorrow I'll present many real examples of that, maybe it would be helpful to understand that a lot of times baccarat is more a silly than wonderful game even though we're playing with a verified edge.
 
as. 

Definitely it's a nice post.

Maybe the most important and difficult factor to grasp is the fourth one, needing a lot of experience and harsh losing sessions coming over the player's shoulders.

as.   

Postulating that bac shoes are not randomly shuffled doesn't mean that streaks of 'specific' something all of the time will take a univocal direction longer than expected, it would be too easy to exploit the game.
In fact we can't know what will be more likely to happen per every shoe dealt as things continuously change so not privileging one side or the other one of the operating world.

That's why the only tool we can rely upon is the watchdog of randomness: standard deviation values.

Beyond any doubt bac shoes are not perfect randomly shuffled but it's very likely they are offered quite close to that, so we should learn to distinguish when and how much the unrandom world will take a practically exploitable lead over the unbeatable random world.

Therefore we should think of our bets in terms of winning 'ranges' where most part of them will fall into the random EV- proposition but some of them do incorporate a greater than expected winning probability capable to erase and invert the HE working at all other bets.

It's the same math concept why Banker wagers are less worse than Player bets: most of the times they don't, all of a sudden they strongly are.

Then it's intuitive to think that the 'independence' factor cannot work at baccarat as unrandom shoes sooner or later will feature a kind of dependence more likely showing up at sensibile levels after the formation of certain 'complex' events that tend to restrict the power of randomness.

In a nutshell and differently to any other gambling game, at baccarat each shoe is a world apart where most outcomes are randomly offered but some events (due to the unrandom shuffling nature) are way more likely to happen than what a pure random world dictates (e.g. sensible lower sd values).

Our advantage comes right by selecting 'probability' ranges where one or more bets should involve a strong EV+ capable to proportionally erase and invert all the other wagers made on that betting range (where half are lost and half are won by chance), the same way why itlr B>P.

Fortunately for us, regarding baccarat mathematicians and gambling 'experts' have made two fatal mistakes:

a) Taking for grant that bac shoes are really randomly offered;

b) It's the corollary of the above point, that is considering baccarat as any other gambling game where the 'whole' findings (infinite shoes) matter instead of focusing about 'single shoe' dependent features and properties.

Baccarat works the same way as poker: it's better to appear stu.p.i.d than smart but with a substantial difference: itlr at poker some players are detected smarter than others, at baccarat we are all stu.pi.d.s with no exception.

as.

Lol, I like 'Mr Fu'...I guess Fu stands for 'luck' isn't it?

Yep, that succession was awesome and of course scientifically unsound (actually it's not strictly speaking), yet I guess most bac players would have collected many wins from that.

Is it rare to happen? Sure!
Are there other ways than following it in order to get multiple back-to-back winnings? Nope.

Independence

The notion of independence, which is, in a way, the heart of randomness, presents a major psychological obstacle.
This obstacle involves severe fallacies concerning random walks (Falk).

We have seen that 'normal' people tend to assign (improperly) a too much 'overalternating' strenght at random binary successions whereas bac players tend to do the opposite, that is hoping that random binary sequences will get homogeneous situations of many kind around any corner.

Obviously as long as the baccarat production is really random, both different ways of thinking 'probability' doesn't lead to nowhere as random=unbeatable.

More on that later

as.

Excellent point KFB!!

Casinos do not give a lesser fk about probability in decline, RVM definition of randomness, Marian V. Smoluchoswki probability after effect concept and many others studies conclusions, as whenever a math edge is shifted at their side, well, the remaining stuff is just bighorn.sh.it.
Good for us.

At their bac tables casinos should print in bold those words: "players should be warned that we try to deal random successions, actually it's very likely we don't"

as.

So we are 'genetically oriented' to think that random successions are somewhat more limited than real, but all of a sudden while playing baccarat we are completely distorting such predisposition thus hoping for endless streaky situations of any kind.

The difference between the two different ways of thinking 'outcomes' is that whereas our ancestors would have starved for long when they didn't find any food (so fearing at most long no-food runs), at baccarat we can serenely wait the possible favourable opportunities without consuming a lot (or any) of our resources by exploiting the most likely situations that must happen sooner or later even if they don't show up around any corner.
Furthermore and even considering a 'unbeatable' random world, some patterns that mathematically have the same probability to appear will show up sooner than others.

Example.

Say that at a random coin flip succession you have to choose from one of those HTHHTT or HHHHHH pattern coming out first.
All intermediate patterns do not count, so you will win or lose just when one of the two patterns will show up first.
Different studies, albeit being made on different patterns lenght, have demonstrated that the former HTHHTT pattern will show up by a lesser 'waiting time' than the HHHHHH pattern, despite of having the same probability to appear.

So we do not know about all other patterns coming out, but we do know that we're favorite to first cross the HTHHTT pattern than the HHHHHH pattern, so in some way the 'waiting time' matters.

Obviously this finding doesn't directly help us to predict bac outcomes (random independent propositions are unbeatable by definition), but maybe luring us to think about the importance that    some events, albeit getting the same probability to appear, will feature different 'waiting times'.

Fortunately for us, baccarat is not a perfect random proposition and not even a perfect symmetrical 'fight' (as B>P), yet the aforementioned findings still get a huge role in determining  why 'complex' events (e.g. HTHHTT) should show up first before some other 'equal probability' counterparts will do.
Therefore in some sense attributing a decisive role to the 'waiting time' gaps.

See you next week.

as.

Patterns waiting time

Coin flip successions were deeply investigated by many scholars and not only by a strict math/statistical point of view but even about how they are perceveid by humans (Gardner studies for example and many others afterwards).

To cut a long story short, humans tend to get an 'overalternating' perception of random binary outcomes, in poorer words they expect a given winning side to stop soon after a positive run or to think that a streak of certain lenght is less likely than what math really dictates.
It's one example of Gambler's Fallacy.

On the other hand, after years of playing this game, I've found that most part of baccarat players tend to assign too much emphasis to the opposite feature, that is looking for the 'streaky' part of the game and neglecting the 'alternating' one.
Obviously and differently to a coin flip succession where H and T are continuously showing up, bac players add some (basic) considerations to the 'streaky/alternating' ratio, for example considering singles vs doubles, or double vs 3+s, long streaks, etc.
In any instance most players constantly hope to get streaky situations of some kind to show up as it's the easiest situation not needing much thought to accumulate winnings.

See you later

as.

QuoteLike myself, when a player has had a nice run and begins to give it right back to the rack with aggressive wagering, especially wagering with the exact same reasoning that won him/her the sizable amount in the first place, it is a very commonplace event that their decisions are not generally going to produce continuing positive results for multiple reasons that occur more often than not.

Whether that influences you to wager the opposite, you are still attempting to match the presentment the shoe is setup to present, no one can change that.  You can only change or influence yourself and others what to wager on.

Very very nice passage!!!     

No jokes.

as.

I've posted before the KFB interesting comment.
I'll make my personal comments on that in a couple of days.

as.

Thanks for your answer, Al.

Besides the third point (we are not ashamed to exploit the current strong loser misfortune), we agree on the other points you've posted.

as.

I have a question Al:

Do you think that the winning process is somewhat affected by the 'ability' of the other players sitting at your table?

Many players I know do not like playing alone at a table.
What do you think?

Thanks in advance

as. 
 

Both the last two posts are particularly interesting.

I'd suggest to read them several times.

as.

Let's take the casino's counterpart: they serenely accept RP results knowing that sooner or later the WP counterpart will come out. (HE is just an accelerator factor working for the house and not the main tool making us losers).

In fact huge players winnings are asymmetrically produced than huge casino winnings and not by a 1.25% or so HE working for them.

I mean that unless we are able to endure long waiting periods before betting, many times we have to take the part of the WP, that is and taking a forum member words 'playing to miss' instead of constantly looking for favourable opportunities making the RP fortune.

Technically and just to give an example is betting a couple of hands that streaks will stop, or possible starting patterns to stop, or better yet that no common valuable patterns should come along, the right 'hope' (it's a symmetrical expectancy) casinos will rely about.

If you are able to catch the more likely situations where WP will get its share of 'positive' results, you won't concede room to casinos hoping for inevitable strong outcomes changes.

In some sense it's like that nearly 50% of the times we're playing the same side casinos hope for.
And itlr casinos do not lose and more importantly do not win just what math dictates.

Next week I'll elaborate this concept.

as.