Thanks KFB!!!
It's nice to see we have many common ideas about bac.
4) Baccarat is a game of ranges, that is about how much key cards are concentrated or diluted to mathematically provide some more likely results, so forming more likely patterns.
In probability theory and statistics basically there are three kind of probability:
a) classical, b) frequentist and c) subjective.
Subjective probability here is not of interest.
Classical probability is based on the assumption that possible events are symmetrical in their appearance, for example a dice has six possible symmetrical outcomes so the probability to toss a 5 in one attempt is 1/6 = 16.66%
Frequentist probability is based upon long observations (the longer the better) of events where either we do not know anything about the real probability of their occurrence or because we suspect 'flaws' about the classical probability values whether applicable in the field of interest.
At gambling games we can't argue about classical probability values, providing each event is independent from the previous one and the source of results is random.
In this instance we're talking about a perfect symmetry/symmetry, that is an unbeatable proposition.
(Obviously black jack constitutes an exception and in fact is beatable mathematically)
At baccarat things are much more confused even if long term values converge more and more into the old 50.68%/49.32% B/P proposition dictated by the classical probability.
Why I use the term 'confused'?
Because at bac we can't extract other 'more complex' probabilities (patterns) than B/P by simply multiplicating single probabilities in various ways (the basic operation to get many events probability by the classical point of view). For each shoe being a world apart, having its card distribution and its asymmetrical features mentioned above.
Not mentioning an almost sure unrandom card distribution happening at every shoe dealt.
Actually every baccarat shoe is a single huge 'dynamic' asymmetrical model affecting the patterns way more than what classical probability dictates, mainly as 99.9% of what may happen or not wasn't investigated by a proper procedure (fortunately totally unknown by math pundits of our a$$).
It's obvious that when taking into account long series of shoes the 'mixing of apples with oranges' factor will apply but it's altogether obvious that only a strict frequentist point of view could help us to define the boundaries of the game possibilities.
So only long term observations made at real shoes dealt (best whether coming from a univocal source) might help us to assess whether our method is really good or to be just a fluke. And in that effort the flat betting scheme is by far the best random walk to realize it.
We could think the strong asymmetrical nature of the game (that, again, has nothing to share with the B/P ratio) as a finite succession having its peaks (strong asymmetry) and periods of relatively low deviations (false symmetry) both converging into 'more likely' or 'less likely' ranges.
Alrelax name them as 'sections'.
Naturally 'peaks' and 'flat' situations are the by product of the actual card distribution. More precisely they are in direct relationship of the key cards concentration/dilution parameter, a process completely dependent as once key cards are removed (or conversely live) in the deck patterns will be affected in some way.
Vulgarly speaking, we can't hope to get a pattern to stop when it's in the 'peak' mood but we can safely assume that a kind of 'flat' situation will happen for quite long.
In some sense, whenever we bet toward a peak raising we're simply gambling (maybe with a good cause) and whenever we bet toward more likely 'flat' patterns we're exploiting the game.
It's clear that forcing a steady state (peak or flat) to change is a strong mistake, instead we should be focused about how many times a'peak' or 'flat' state is going to change into the reversed situation after having collected a quite large of datasets. And obviously we can just estimate such processes by 'ranges'.
5) Baccarat is a game of numbers
We can't beat baccarat by math, yet we can beat it by numbers.
A contradiction in terms isn't it?
Maybe, but as long as we were and are more right than wrong after years of playing, either we're the luckiest persons in the world or we're up on something.
Numbers can't lie, number successions can't lie either.
We'll see this decisive topic next week.
as.
It's nice to see we have many common ideas about bac.
4) Baccarat is a game of ranges, that is about how much key cards are concentrated or diluted to mathematically provide some more likely results, so forming more likely patterns.
In probability theory and statistics basically there are three kind of probability:
a) classical, b) frequentist and c) subjective.
Subjective probability here is not of interest.
Classical probability is based on the assumption that possible events are symmetrical in their appearance, for example a dice has six possible symmetrical outcomes so the probability to toss a 5 in one attempt is 1/6 = 16.66%
Frequentist probability is based upon long observations (the longer the better) of events where either we do not know anything about the real probability of their occurrence or because we suspect 'flaws' about the classical probability values whether applicable in the field of interest.
At gambling games we can't argue about classical probability values, providing each event is independent from the previous one and the source of results is random.
In this instance we're talking about a perfect symmetry/symmetry, that is an unbeatable proposition.
(Obviously black jack constitutes an exception and in fact is beatable mathematically)
At baccarat things are much more confused even if long term values converge more and more into the old 50.68%/49.32% B/P proposition dictated by the classical probability.
Why I use the term 'confused'?
Because at bac we can't extract other 'more complex' probabilities (patterns) than B/P by simply multiplicating single probabilities in various ways (the basic operation to get many events probability by the classical point of view). For each shoe being a world apart, having its card distribution and its asymmetrical features mentioned above.
Not mentioning an almost sure unrandom card distribution happening at every shoe dealt.
Actually every baccarat shoe is a single huge 'dynamic' asymmetrical model affecting the patterns way more than what classical probability dictates, mainly as 99.9% of what may happen or not wasn't investigated by a proper procedure (fortunately totally unknown by math pundits of our a$$).
It's obvious that when taking into account long series of shoes the 'mixing of apples with oranges' factor will apply but it's altogether obvious that only a strict frequentist point of view could help us to define the boundaries of the game possibilities.
So only long term observations made at real shoes dealt (best whether coming from a univocal source) might help us to assess whether our method is really good or to be just a fluke. And in that effort the flat betting scheme is by far the best random walk to realize it.
We could think the strong asymmetrical nature of the game (that, again, has nothing to share with the B/P ratio) as a finite succession having its peaks (strong asymmetry) and periods of relatively low deviations (false symmetry) both converging into 'more likely' or 'less likely' ranges.
Alrelax name them as 'sections'.
Naturally 'peaks' and 'flat' situations are the by product of the actual card distribution. More precisely they are in direct relationship of the key cards concentration/dilution parameter, a process completely dependent as once key cards are removed (or conversely live) in the deck patterns will be affected in some way.
Vulgarly speaking, we can't hope to get a pattern to stop when it's in the 'peak' mood but we can safely assume that a kind of 'flat' situation will happen for quite long.
In some sense, whenever we bet toward a peak raising we're simply gambling (maybe with a good cause) and whenever we bet toward more likely 'flat' patterns we're exploiting the game.
It's clear that forcing a steady state (peak or flat) to change is a strong mistake, instead we should be focused about how many times a'peak' or 'flat' state is going to change into the reversed situation after having collected a quite large of datasets. And obviously we can just estimate such processes by 'ranges'.
5) Baccarat is a game of numbers
We can't beat baccarat by math, yet we can beat it by numbers.
A contradiction in terms isn't it?
Maybe, but as long as we were and are more right than wrong after years of playing, either we're the luckiest persons in the world or we're up on something.
Numbers can't lie, number successions can't lie either.
We'll see this decisive topic next week.
as.