Hi KFB! Thanks!

I was talking about A and B patterns and not just of B and P hands.
Once an A or B pattern shows up as "clustered" (AA or BB), there is a slight (subtle) probability that next pattern will be another A or B (AAA or BBB) than AAB or BBA, meaning that "doubled patterns" vs any other pattern will be less frequent than the counterpart.

Of course BB or PP aren't considered doubled patterns here.

The interesting thing to notice is that long term data have universally taught us that BB and PP (common doubles) are the most prevalent events among every other scenario. (So appearing to be the opposite situation seen above)
Therefore we we amplify the number of hands constituting a pattern, things seem (actually do) to take the opposite direction of long term distribution. (doubles<longer streaks)

I'll give more details tomorrow.

as.

Ranges of pattern apparition

Say we split the possible multi-hand patterns into A and B categories.

The FIRST STEP involves just two possibilities:

1) A or B will come out as clustered (AA.. or BB...)

2) A or B will come out as isolated (AB or BA)

Since shoes are formed by a sure asymmetrical card distribution, itlr it'll be more likely that one element (A or B) will remain silent for a unknown time frame.
On the other end, whenever A or B patterns will show up by a perfect 0.5 rhythm, we know we are facing an alternating sequence favoring the A and B isolated outcomes.

Obviously there are no rigid rules to be applied in order to predict an A or B clustered vs isolated appearance, but at the same time no human mind could guess when a clustered scenario will happen or stop or when an isolated scenario will stand or stop.

A thing verified by our long term data told us that A and B patterns will distribute along any shoe dealt by different levels of probability:

1- A or B coming out as clustered one time (e.g. AAB and BBA > than AB and BA)

2- A or B coming out as isolated one time (e.g. ABAA and BABB > ABAB... and BABA...)

3a- A or B coming out as clustered more than one time (AAA > AAB and BBB > BBA)

3b- A or B coming out as isolated more than one time (ABAB... and BABA...)

4 A and B coming out clustered/clustered and isolated/isolated...etc (AA...BB..AB...BA)

5- A and B coming out as isolated/clustered/isolated/clustered...etc (ABAABBABAABB...)

Notice that #1, #2 and #3a scenarios will be kind of unbalanced and accounting the minimum possible number of hands forming that pattern, whereas #3b, #4 and #5 situations are symmetrically shaped in quantity but needing a way greater number of hands dealt.

This way of splitting the possible shoe fragments distribution into different levels of probability will help us to predict by a sensible degree what will be the more likely next A/B quality (clustered or isolated) sequence.

as.

Why look for long, a small section producing those balanced or unbalanced pattens are a gravy train of beautiful wins, quickly.

Of course, but they could be even a train of lousy losses.

Personally, I learned and attempt not to rely upon anything from that shoe.

I understand but I think we should learn something from the past, especially after losing sessions.

We well know that almost every bac player in the world is a sure loser, so every bac player should wonder why he/she can't win.

We could enlist innumerable factors, probably those are the most important, IMO:

1) Thinking that bac could be beatable by progressions. It's funny to see how many people keep promoting and talking about complete worthless progressions that have ZERO probability to succeed itlr.

2) Greed. Baccarat is a survival game, in some way it acts like black jack.
Due to the negative HE, we're certain to encounter more patterns getting a cumulative loss than a cumulative win. After all casinos were built for this.

3) The absolute lack of understanding that itlr either a fixed approach or a "luck/actual way" to place the bets cannot work.
Say we have to "surprise" the patterns by finding changes in our strategy.
In this task the past experiences, whereas properly assessed, help us a lot.

More later

as.

Thanks guys!!

At baccarat there is no such a thing as "balanced" patterns lasting for long, even "overalternating" A/B patterns are a form of unbalanced scenarios.
Thus virtually only slight alternating patterns could pose a threat to our plan.

As already sayed one millions of times here, simple B and P hands or B/P doubles, etc are patterns too much affected by volatility, we need more complicated patterns to rely upon.
In fact more hands are needed to form a pattern, less likely is the probability that just one hand or a couple of hands will disrupt the normal asymmetrical flow.

And less hands we want to "guess" greater will be the probability of success, unless the actual distribution seems to be so deviated that we could think to "freerolling" with casino's money.
Unfortunately this situation happens quite rarely.

The real problems any bac player will face aren't related to WHEN a given pattern will happen but HOW LONG given patterns that had already shown up will present.
It's an approximation of course, but since we are taking care of multiple different patterns, we know that things must take a more likely line, that's why we play with an edge.

Obviously cards do not give a lesser fk about our current W/L status, this is one of the best tools making casinos' fortune as 99% of players want to get even in too short terms.
Or, it's the same concept, winning too much in the same short terms.

More later

as.

Interesting post, Al!

From our part we have postulated that bac successions aren't really random because we consistently win by flat betting and everybody knows that it's impossible to win itlr by betting random EV- successions.
Actually we have even theorized that even perfect random sequences (e.g. SHFL shuffling machines) might be beatable, say more beatable than manually shuffled shoes or preordered shuffled shoes.

In all cases the decisive point to focus about is the relationship between hands, the most important tool being the concentration/dilution of key cards as this factor impacts over the patterns formation (quality and lenght).

416 or 312 cards will be asymmetrically arranged along the shoe, so derived patterns must be somewhat asymmetrically shaped too.
Obviously and most of the times such asymmetry cannot last for long, other times the asymmetry seems to provide symmetrical results (naturally or more likely by coincidental causes), yet the asymmetry reigns supreme as the main force.

Each pattern or classes of patterns will fight against an opposite scenario, whenever something didn't happen so far, well, we simply assume it doesn't exist.

See you later

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on June 24, 2024, 02:58:42 AMHi Asym

On the following:

"..Long term data have taught us that per any shoe dealt by transforming adjacent complex patterns into numbers we'll get more likely totals than considering the game as a random model:..""

Do you mean coding certain pre-determined patterns(multiple outcomes) into a single numeral for comparison with other pre-determined patterns(multiple outcomes') coded numeral???

Can you give an example as Im not sure I understand what u are saying.


thx,kfb

Yes.

Say a 4/4+ streak happened.
You want to dispute that the following streak won't be another 4/4+streak, thus betting towards doubles and triples (of course singles do not matter).

In number terms a 4 will be more likely (yet slightly) followed by a 2 or a 3 streak.

Anyway such slight propensity will work whether intertwined streaks happened in relationship of how many hands were dealt, in the sense that if a 4/4+ streak was followed by a long sequence of singles, inferior streaks probability tends to be substantially diminished.

No matter what, 4/4+ streaks are strongly balanced in their apparition with another 4/4+ streak OR any 2 or 3 streak.
Of course when a 4/4+ streak cluster happens we do not have reasons to stop such (slightly but expected) unlikely situation. Even if we know that 4/4+ streaks vs 2/3 streaks are more likely to come out isolated than clustered more than once.

Other than after a mere general streaks probability, itlr 4/4+ streaks MUST be balanced by a correspondent 2/3 streaks counterpart.
After any 4/4+ streak apparition, by betting progressively towards a 2 or 3 streak appareance vs another 4/4+ situation you'll get a kind of moderate statistical egde.
Naturally and as already sayed, we need some streak to show up before thinking to play this plan.

That's the beauty of this game, where everything seems to be conditionally dependent in relationship of what happened so far.
A thing you and Al know very well. 

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on June 24, 2024, 02:10:41 AMAsymBacGuy in post #1073 above:

"...To beat baccarat we just need to implement and expand some ideas made by eminent mathematicians/statisticians of the past that didn't care too much (or anything) about gambling.

As you know after reading my pages, I'm referring to Richard Von Mises and Marian Von Smoluchoswki.

Actually we have found out that at baccarat some fragments of the shoe's succession cannot be labeled as "random" spots, the only issue to overcome was to evaluate whether such spots were able to reach the 51.3% or higher cutoff profitability at B bets and the 50.1% or greater cutoff profitability at P bets...."

Well stated Asym.
    I am familiar with some of the work by Smoluchowski, however, I've never studied much on Von Mises.
I think there are several areas of Mathematica that one can generalize to gambling(i.e., 50-50ish type wagers). It is my opinion that much of the underlying math of casino games is not the arithmetic we often use to analyze outcomes ex post facto. Nothing wrong with analyzing the outcomes as I do it too.

Speaking of mathematicians.
A couple of my favorite mathematicians: Blaise Pascal and Leonhard Euler(pronounced Oiler).
Of course Nik and Al contributed some decent studies too. 


Continued Success,

I really like you. 

Well, I'm pretty sure that nobody will be so happy to face our bets (mine, yours and Al ones, not mentioning if we're all playing and pooling our money together) as, sayed loud and clear, such people won't get any single fkng chance to win a dime from us (despite of the HE).

In the remote circumstance 2+2=5 "I know everything about games" owners (mr sklansky and relatives first) and some same site posters or any other "expert" is willing to challenge us, let us know how much money you want to put at stake.

We'll invite such "expert" people to bring at their side any MIT professor or world class statistician or mathematician they'd like.

Actually we can safely assume that 100% of math and stats experts do not a fkng nothing about how baccarat really works.

See you in a couple of days.

as.
 

Assuming a decent "complexity" of the patterns examined, any pattern will get this REAL probability of success:

A x k / HE

Where A = expected general probability of success, k = a variable considered by the approximated asymmetrical (ka) and symmetrical (ks) card distribution and HE= house edge.

Obviously A and HE factors remain constant, so it's only the k parameter strenght capable to possibly increase, lower, erase or invert the HE.
Normally k is considered irrelevant, meaning that mathematicians and "experts" take as granted that there are no ways to know (other than by luck) when ka>ks or ka<ks at a given shoe succession; that is the above equation changes into A/HE, a sure negative expectation.

At the same time, we know that k really makes a decisive impact on our results (that is getting an EV+) when B bets will reach at least the 51.3% winning probability and P bets the 50.1% cutoff winning probability point.

Wait.

It's fkng sure that besides some B propensity features, itlr ka=ks but in the other short/intermediate terms ka>ks or, less likely ks>ka.

It could happen that an alternating sequence of pattern singles and pattern clusters coming out at the same side greater than two is an asymmetrical sequence.
 
So the main problem to face is not WHEN complex patterns will come out asymmetrically shaped, just to assess HOW MUCH an asymmetrical sequence will stand, knowing that by coupling two different events of any kind the winning probability will be way more detectable.
The adjacent lenght streaks clustering effect is just one example of that.

Long term data have taught us that per any shoe dealt by transforming adjacent complex patterns into numbers we'll get more likely totals than considering the game as a random model: it's the main feature why we are virtually destined not to lose any dime itlr.

Insert to your random walk an element to get a given BP streak to stop and you'll get the answer.

as.

I agree with the 8OR9 comment that casinos prosper about tourists or visitors trying to get a good time...

Anyway, by far and among the games KFB provided in his list, baccarat is the very best game to make a living at and probably the second best game is craps.

Black jack is a bighornsh.it game, you have to bet every hand dealt and if you use a kind of betting spread you are scrutinized by casinos. Even if you bet as low as $20 or $50.

Casinos are worried about certain $25/$50 bj players, not giving a fk about baccarat players betting thousands with a sure advantage.
LOL.
as.

Thanks for your response KFB!!

I 100% agree on everything you have written.

You wrote:

Furthermore, it is my opinion one is better off studying/monitoring gaps and distances between specific gaps, patterns, and events(& the Limits---->). Instead of always looking at the total score for the BlueDot vs the RedDot to even out or expecting patterns to be equally scattered.

That's the key to beat this game, especially if we are able to build innumerable subordinate random walks where one, two or more hands means nothing unless we can insert them in a way larger picture where values are restricted into detectable deviations.

as. 

 

Generally speaking, the main way to try to beat an EV- game is by disputing the perfect randomness of the outcomes.

At the same time it's particularly useful to know that baccarat productions are asymmetrical by definition, but such asymmetry could only be exploited by considering "complex" patterns. 

Thus there are no EASY detectable card compositions substantially favoring one side or the other one, B or P are just minuscule worthless pieces belonging to an entire picture.

UNRANDOMNESS + ASYMMETRY = DETECTABLE PATTERNS

It's a fortune that mathematicians and gambling experts keep stating that every bet we'll place is EV-.
It's a completely false assumption as they haven't properly investigated what "random" and "asymmetry" really means when applied to 416 (or 312) card combinations working at a finite asym game.

By 2015, Texas hold'em poker was solved by a computer program, a thing considered impossible up to that discovery.

To beat baccarat we just need to implement and expand some ideas made by eminent mathematicians/statisticians of the past that didn't care too much (or anything) about gambling.

As you know after reading my pages, I'm referring to Richard Von Mises and Marian Von Smoluchoswki.

Actually we have found out that at baccarat some fragments of the shoe's succession cannot be labeled as "random" spots, the only issue to overcome was to evaluate whether such spots were able to reach the 51.3% or higher cutoff profitability at B bets and the 50.1% or greater cutoff profitability at P bets.

Moreover our data have taught us that a complex pattern status is more or less susceptible to increase, stay or decrease its value in relationship of the number of hands dealt so far.
 
Cumulatively that means to play with a big verified advantage over the house.

Our algorithms rely just upon this.
And remember that the only way to asceratin a possible edge is by adopting a flat betting scheme. Any progression invented not relying upon an already verified EV+ is for losers. 

Finally, thanks for your interest of reading my pages and this wonderful site where our betting plan got formidable improvements by reading Alrelax and KFB posts.
And I really mean it.

as.

If baccarat shouldn't be a so complex model, the most ambitious goal would be to approximate at best the actual patterns distributions of EVERY shoe dealt.

I'm not joking, as long as the quality of streaks (and singles) is somewhat limited, the first/intermediate portions of the shoe should give us slight hints capable to erase and invert the HE in our favor.
And of course one of the most important thing to assess is the shuffling procedure employed at that particular casino you're playing at.

To do that, we need "complex" patterns to take as possible triggers because more hands are needed to form a pattern (let alone two consecutive patterns...etc) lesser will be the whimsical third card(s) impact over the results.

Since each shoe features an asymmetrical card distribution by any means, on average we'll expect more clustered patterns of any kind than "alternating" patterns, yet alternating patterns must show up sooner or later because they have to somewhat catch the most probable clustering propensity.
Thus betting is a delicate process directed to get the most at pattern clusters and the least damage at alternating patterns.
In reality even the "alternating" model is expected to provide unlikely "overalternating" sequences that could be bettable as well.
 
Curiously, people invited to write down "random" sequences at binomial games (e.g. coin flips) are more prone to provide (wrong) overalternating sequences.
And most part of baccarat players tend to reverse such propensity thought, thinking that the alternating mood is too much subordinate to several kind of clustering patterns.

More later

as.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Google "wheather randomness" and the first words are those:

If a physical system is sufficiently complex then it also will exhibit randomness.

Well, baccarat is everything other than a complex model as outcomes are the by product of innumerable card combinations but merging toward more likely patterns formation.

That is running several times the same situation, results will be surely shifted towards one side by different levels that are in partial relationship about how things went so far in the actual shoe.

It's the "partial" relationship factor we should focus upon but not forgetting that itlr some events are more probable than others.

I've already sayed that by setting up a "approximate algorithms" plan, the probability to lose is virtually zero.
And just for the reasons you've illustrated in your post above.

Differently than most part of human minds, algos realize quickly how many "profitable" patterns should come out per each shoe dealt, especially after many hands are dealt.
Of course the word "profitable" assumes a relative weight, but whenever things seem to be unclear the best option to make, by far, is not to bet.

Anything can happen no matter what?
Sure, but by limited standards.

Say we want to pick up randomly three numbers from 1 to 28, then checking the pattern corresponding to the column number of any shoe we have collected.
To simplify the problem, say our "enemy" will be a 5/5+ long streak, singles are considered as neutral, so "enemies" must fight vs 2, 3 and 4 streaks.

For example numbers picked up are #3, #11 and #22.
What's the pattern happening at those column numbers?

Odds are that at most circumstances no 5/5+ streak happened, even if it's way likely such columns were filled by neutral singles.

Whenever two or three streaks of any nature really happened at those randomly picked up spots, we should consider if any kind of "more probable" clustering effect should be working, first by considering 2/3 long streaks, then 3/4 long streaks and finally by a 2/4 long streaks distribution.
A less interesting scenario is to see which streak followed a possible 5/5+ streak happening in the first position or in the second position if the 3 picked up numbers corresponded to three streaks.

Repeat the process infinitely and you'll see that it's way more probable to get 2/3 and 3/4 streak clustered than any other scenario, even knowing that many times you are not in the position to bet anything (for streaks not happening at least twice within the 3 columns range).

I understand that this is a sort of intricate example, but it should get the idea that bac results are not perfect randomly distributed even we had implemented at the start a random factor.

as. 

Thanks KFB for your post.

Please can you elaborate your interesting Random doesn't  mean scattered evenly passage?
Thank you!

Anyway I think that a succession should be taken as really random (so not depicting any "valuable" pattern along the way, that is a unbeatable sequence) when the limiting values of relative frequency remain costant no matter the points of the succession considered.

Obviously each possible pattern ITLR will get the proportional values expected by math, yet we should be more interested about WHEN and HOW MUCH different points of the sequence will make room to some detectable patterns.
In this way baccarat is definitely a unrandom game.

This way of considering bac outcomes get rid of most part of "averages", focusing more about actual patterns probability of coming out "out of blue" or actual patterns more likely lenght.

To get a better idea of that, suppose a casino voluntarily or coincidentally provide two or more consecutive shoes not belonging to averages, so taking a unidirectional unexpected line for long.
In relationship of the actual method we're using, such situation could be either a heaven or a hell and to make a living at this game we ought to know that heaven and hell are two extremes we should try to avoid at all costs.

More later

as.