Hi KFB! Thanks for your interest.

In a couple of days I'll be back.

as.

Bet selection Target

It's the average shoe card distribution, in a word we do not need to guess anything so just focusing our attention about the more probable fluctuations of opposite elements that of course roam around a 0-x range.
0= no given pattern appearance, any number different from 0 (x) is a fluctuation considered at various levels (1, 2, etc) of the same given pattern.

Obviously each number will "fight" with the superior class number and itlr we'll expect the same inferior class to be equally distributed with the superior class (for example 0= any number different than 0, 1=any number different than 1, etc).
Not surprisingly most likely numbers to encounter are 0, 1 and 2.

But what we really need to build a successful plan is to spot how's the more probable shoe distribution in terms of numbers.   
 
Baccarat successions

Each shoe is sensitive by a strong asymmetrical card distribution that not always translate into an asymmetrical results succession.
Say that when something seems to be too symmetrically placed it's just for coincidental factors.

At any rate, such asymmetry must be transformed into numbers as computers like numbers and not "feelings".
But as humans and knowing that we can't use a software to predict the outcomes, we'll have to approximate at best which numbers are more likely to come out and especially WHEN.
Simplyfing, we should use a kind of on/off action for every pattern situation coming out, conceding a fair room for mistakes.

Even by enlarging the number/amount of bets placed, when in doubt the best move to take (by far) is to stay still.

Silent numbers, repeating numbers and gap numbers

Every asymmetrical model relies upon the likelihood that something didn't happen or happened too little to be properly considered.
Naturally we have to take into account that each number will fight against a proportional superior number.

On the other end, more likely numbers as 0,1 and 2 (at different levels of apparition) must be considered not only by their "quantity" but even by their "range apparition".
Notice that such numbers are assigned to each pattern we are willing to classify.

Merging huge numbers into the same category

It's an old story if you have already read those pages.
Fluctuations equal or higher than 3 remains fluctuations of 3.
In our opinion this is the main factor why bac players would think to get a kind of (fake) advantage whenever huge numbers come along.
Actually huge numbers make the casinos' fortune, luring players to bet toward endless profitable situations that by any means are less likely to happen than a more "splitted" world.

On the other end, when such unlikely situations happen acute players must stay still, giving a fk about short term flukes.

Choosing the situations when to bet or not, how to devise the best low risk/reward betting plan will be discussed next.

as.

A progressive multilayered plan based upon the shoe "average" card distribution

Suppose that we feel so confident about the game that we want to increase significantly the number of bets placed, now by quitting our beloved flat betting scheme.

Our very large live shoes sample will constitute the basis and we'll try to manipulate the most deviated shoes into consecutive or short gap situations, so to test whether not average shoes can destroy a progressive plan.

More later

as.

It's a honor for me to be here sharing ideas with KFB and Alrelax (and some others), true real world class experts (and foremost real players as we are).

KFB wrote:

Though your post isn't about Ties. When debating coin flips with Bac or other supposedly even-chance games I always remind the other person that coins don't have Ties(land on their edge). Ties' affect on the overall outcomes are often overlooked IMO. Especially their influence on length of streaks. It is my opinion Ties absorb potential slightly more from one side.

Excellent point, IMO.

Always considering ties as a kind of "neutral" outcome constitutes a possible mistake; there are no evidences that a baccarat betting model/approach isn't affected by ties, actually and accordingly with other scholars we have found that shoes particularly full of ties are less detectable than "poor or average tie" shoes.

Unless a player is mainly interested to get comps, I'd suggest to avoid to wager at those heavy tie shoes as more often than not the entire picture is somewhat blurred by a more random (so undetectable) production.

as.

For example take the results table two posts above.
Say we're betting towards 0 or 1 at the very first occasion of every shoe dealt.
21 times out of 133 no 0 or 1 had shown up, of course that means that per every no 0-1 situation, we are going to lose 4 hands in a row.
Theorically all those 21 times could come out consecutively so destroying every sophisticated multilayered betting plan (well prior to that 21 cutoff point).

On the other end, if 21 times out of 133 are losing hands (2) clumped together, we'll expect the remaining winning hands to be astoundingly clustered.

Moreover notice that 36 times out of 133 there are no consecutive doubles for the entire shoe.
Then and at any stage of the shoe, the more probable "number" to encounter is 1 and of course number 1 doesn't fight with 0 but only with number 2.

So let's discard all 0s and see how many times 1 and 2 come out at the very first step of any shoe dealt:

- 74 times a 1 number came out;

- 20 times a 2 number came out.

Short term variance?
Bighorn.sh.it.

Again "unusual" card distributions could come out in a row, but at the end the asymmetrical average shoe composition will make more probable to cross low levels of so called "symmetry" than the opposite situation.

Do we want to consider the second step of any shoe dealt?

Now we get:

- 38 times a 1 number came out;

- 13 times a 2 number came out.

Even though now proportionally taken 2>1 (just for one step) we see that those patterns are roaming around the neutral cutoff point, meaning that strong deviations privileging the symmetry do not take the room of the more likely asymmetrical situations.

In fact even the third step (when applicable) is shifted towards the 1 number and not towards the 2 number.

17 times a 1 number came out;

4 times a 2 number came out.

Those simple examples should give the idea that more selected will be our betting plan better will be our positive results, variance considered.

Asymmetry will always reigns supreme over the symmetry. Yesterday, now and in the future.
Even if a card distribution is voluntarily manipulated to get long symmetrical patterns for long.
A theorical (illegitimate) thing that could easily bypassed by building some random walks derived by the original succession.

as.

True, every shoe is a world apart yet some situations are generally more probable to come out or, at least, not performing a huge volatility.

Definitely the game won't produce huge homogenoeus patterns for long/moderate time, especially if we put some limits about classifying a "pattern".
Setting up a limit to each pattern we're interested to bet at could be interpreted as a strong example of gambler's fallacy but it is not, IMO.

A possible reason beyond that is that a fair amount of hands will take an "unsound" math direction, so disrupting a kind of more "normal flow" that might be easily perceived as a long univocal pattern.

More later

as.

Real shoes sample (very slight penetration), only Big road displayed:
0=no consecutive doubles, 1= two consecutive doubles, 2= three or more consecutive doubles. 

1- 0
2- 1
3- 1
4- 1
5- 2
6- 1-1-1
7- 1-1
8- 1-1-1-1
9- 1-2-1
10- 0
11- 1-1
12- 1
13- 1
14- 1-1
15- 1
16- 1
17- 0
18- 0
19- 1
20- 1-1-1
21- 1-1-1
22- 1-1-1
23- 0
24- 2
25- 0
26- 2-1-2
27- 1
28- 2-1
29- 1-1-1
30- 0
31- 1-1
32- 1-2
33- 1-1
34- 1
35- 1-1-1
36- 1-1
37- 1-1-1
38- 1
39- 0
40- 2
41- 0
42- 1-1
43- 1-1
44- 1
45- 1-2
46- 0
47- 0
48- 1
49- 1
50- 1
51- 0
52- 0
53- 1
54- 1-2
55- 1-1
56- 1
57- 2-1
58- 1-1-1
59- 0
60- 1
61- 1
62- 0
63- 2-1
64- 0
65- 2
66- 1-2
67- 2-2
68- 2
69- 0
70- 1
71- 2
72- 1-1-2
73- 1
74- 2
75- 0
76- 0
77- 1
78- 1-1
79- 1-2
80- 1
81- 0
82- 0
83- 0
84- 1
85- 1-2
86- 0
87- 2
88- 1
89- 1-1
90- 1
91- 1
92- 1-2
93- 1
94- 2
95- 1
96- 0
97- 0
98- 0
99- 1
100- 1-1
101- 1-1
102- 1
103- 1-1
104- 1-1
105- 2-1-1
106- 1
107- 1-1-1-1
108- 2
109- 0
110- 2-1
111- 1-1-2
112- 0
113- 1-2-2
114- 1-1-1
115- 1
116- 0
117- 0
118- 1
119- 2
120- 0
121- 0
122- 2-1
123- 1-2
124- 2-2-1
125- 0
126- 0
127- 0
128- 1-2-1
129- 1-1-1-1-2
130- 2-1-1
131- 0
132- 1-1
133- 1 (s #19240)

It seems that longer streaks of consecutive doubles are not showing up so often, despite of being the most pattern occurrence.

as.
 

Coin flip successions vs baccarat successions

Comparing coin flip tosses with bac successions is a pure mistake as the former model remains always independent but bac results are somewhat restricted by the average key cards distribution and, more importantly, by their sure asymmetrical distribution.

It's obvious that besides of the key cards average distribution, baccarat card combinations forming huge points (e.g. 6-3 or 5-4, 2-5, etc) move around the same concept, so what seems to be perfectly "randomly" distributed actually it doesn't. By any means.

An overalternating W/L CFS movement will happen just when consecutive B/P doubles will happen, anything different than that will get a + or - clustered line.
Such feature could be better exploited by running several random walks derived from the BP original succession.

How many consecutive BP or A/B (whatever considered) doubles are going to show up per each derived road considered?
Maybe setting up a cutoff stopping value for each alternating succession might be a good idea.

as.

Relationship between probable and improbable events at baccarat successions

Only unaware casinos could offer side bets for final winning points, no matter how's the HE (well...up to a point).

Fortunately we can do the same job by assembling the various BP hands distribution even though we know that half situations will go there and half will go here.
But by setting up a plan at BP hands we know to lose a lot of precision (so profitability) but facing a way lesser HE.

More later.

as.

Hi KFB, good thread and link!

I totally agree with your comments;IMO and especially at gambling we should be way more interested about the probability of something NOT happening.
Then (at gambling) there's the art to try to avoid the total impact of those "improbable" events that sometimes could be even turned in our favor.

Maybe we should use the key factor why casinos will get huge profits: time.

as.

Example.
How many times a different than 6-7-8-9 winning point category comes out as clustered (some shoes sample)?
0= no clusters, 1= one cluster and so on.

0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 3, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1.

Ok, it's more likely that such 0s derive from a 6-7-8-9 winning point happening at P side than at B side.
At the same token, it's more probable that 1s come out from a 6-7-8-9 category falling at P side than at B side, so stopping the opposite category to be clustered more than one.
And so on.

as.

Differently than pure coin flip independent propositions, per each shoe dealt (8-9 points) vs (any other winning point) move by more detectable ranges, moreover 8s and 9s are slight more likely to show up at Player side than at Banker side.

In fact the total number of 8s and 9s final points at B side account for a 27.4% probability whereas at P side the same total number is 28.8%. (naturally Naturals probability remains perfectly symmetrical between the two chances).
Even 6s and 7s final points are asymmetrically distributed accounting for a 26.3% at B side with P side getting a 28% probability.

Cumulatively 6, 7, 8 and 9 final points get a 53.7% probability at B side and a 56.8% probability at P side.

Therefore if we'd "think" that the next final point or close to the next final point will be a 6,7,8 or 9, we'd better wager Player and not Banker.

Definitely the vast majority of winning points fall into the 6-7-8-9 category.

On the other end, Banker side gets an asymmetrical probability to ends up the hand by a 4 or a 5 point accounting for a 19.4% probability vs a 14% Player probability to show up the same 4 or 5 final points.

There could be all the variance you want, yet itlr any 6, 7, 8 or 9 point is advantaged at various levels to win the final hand.
And as we've seen there's a mathematical factor shifting such points category towards the P side.

In other words, whenever we think that B side won't get a 5 or 4 initial two-card point and, more importantly, that the next final point will be a 6-7-8-9 point, wagering Player side is by far the best option to make.

In fact: Naturals are getting a perfect symmetrical probability to come out but an asymmetrical payement.
All other 9s, 8s, 7s and 6s points get a probability shifted towards the Player side, not mentioning (again) that the payement is quite diverse (0.95:1 than 1:1). Even at no commission tables, such points category will benefit more by wagering P side than B side.

Exaggerating the concept, it's like we just try to get rid of those "low" final winning 5 and 4 points markedly privileging Banker side; almost anything else is going towards Player side for a reason or another.
Even if it seems that many huge points will succumb to greater points or whether a high point falls many times at the "wrong" side.

Naturally B predominating shoes are getting a real threat to this plan, but this is just one unidirectional random walk to be taken care of as the vast majority of the times B streaks need very long sequences to get univocal results at ALL different random walks considered.
If this shouldn't be true, baccarat wouldn't exist.

as.

To cut a long story short, knowing that all 8/9 winning points battle by a kind of coin flip with any other winning point, assuming that cards are asymmetrically distributed along any shoe dealt, and taking care of other tools, we could split every shoe dealt into two distinct categories:

1- Condensed BP pattern shoes (low or very low CFS);

2- Diluted BP pattern shoes (huge or moderate CFS).

Of course the derived random walks (A/B, r/b, etc) will get different lines (very often taking an opposite route) at any shoe dealt but eventually featuring one of the above categories.

It's obvious as hell that at some portions of the shoe (sections) things could easily take a strong opposite way than assessed previously, but we have found to be particularly profitable to make an approximated shoe model first, then trying to make some possible adjustments along the course of it.

After all we just need to be right by few steps per any shoe dealt, one step ahead should be our main goal all of the time.

More later

as.

House edge and finite dependent successions

There's a strong difference between wagering at an independent model or at baccarat.
Think about side bets: they are offered with huge HE just to prevent acute players to get the best of a finite dependent succession.
For example the tie bet being payed 9 to 1 instead of the common 8 to 1 keep assuring the house a strong advantage, yet no casino will offer this better (for players) payment.

So is it possible to make a plan capable to exploit tie bets no matter how much is the HE?
The answer is no, unless we want to live at bac tables without betting a dime for long (very long).
Tie favourable conditions are too rare to happen, but more importantly tie distribution is too much affected by volatility, a real enemy for players.

Tiger bets (B winning with a 6 point) move around a more depicted scenario (even featuring a higher HE than ties) but still difficult to chase for the same volatility issues.

The same about F-7, Panda bets and other side bets.

Curiously the best bets featuring the lowest HE and where all players (correctly) focus their main action are B/P hands but with no avail for the simple reason that it's very difficult (say almost impossible) to guess which side will be kissed by the higher point other than by luck.

Actually what we need to conquer a finite dependent model is not centered about the HE but about the volatility.

A perfect random (so totally unbeatable) distribution is any succession where each spot is completely independent from the previous ones and getting the same relative probability to appear without featuring "jumps" or "falls".
BP hands are sensitive of those jumps and falls but unfortunately we can't assess which side will be favorite unless, IMO, we are linking many hands together so to build "complex" patterns more affected by a diverse probability to show up.

More probable winning points

Most results are made by 7, 8 and 9 final points so if we're putting into a graphic the 7-8-9 category vs any other winning point (1,2,3,4,5 and 6) we might get an idea of the average winning points distribution (gaps, clusters, etc).
This graphic features a very low (controllable) volatility as besides the strong impact of 9s, 8s and 7s, many points will be formed by two or three card totaling 7, 8 or 9 winning points.

Actually some time ago we've found four casinos offering a side bet where players have to guess which point will be the final winning point, no matter which side won.
Tie hands are just a push (no win no loss).
Of course and without any doubt there's a HE so a continuous play will get only losses for the unfair payment at each winning point class.
But good news is that each winning 7,8 and 9 class will get a low variance for any shoe dealt so differently than any other bac side bet.
That means that a kind of conditional probability is working at many steps of the shoe, moreover enforced by card counting 7s, 8s and 9s.

That's one of the few occasions to make a sort of progressive multilayered betting plan based on the probability of success.

Actually even a simple selected betting made upon the sole 8 and 9 winning points vs all the remaining points move around a coin flip probability but getting a very low variance than real coin flip tosses.
 
Related considerations about BP hands

Higher final winning points will favor more the P side than B side, in fact Banker's advantage is mostly centered about 5 and 4 final winning points.

Therefore if we'll expect a 7,8 or 9 winning point, we somewhat deny most part of asymmetrical hands favoring B side.
Moreover P side is payed 1:1 and B side 0.95:1.

Guessing right the side getting a 7,8 and 9 final winning point is just a matter of short term luck, we need to think about the long term picture.

I know that confiding that very soon a 7-8-9 winning point will come out at any side it's way better than estimating which side will win (despite of the HE being nearly 5x worse at the former scenario), yet we shouldn't forget that what wins at 1:1 ratio is way better than what wins at 0.95:1.

Obviously if we'd think that the more probable next hand will be included within the 7-8-9 range, betting the Tiger bet is just a waste of money.

Next we'll see how BP patterns might be linked to get a kind of favourable side bet.

as.

Eagles 40-22

Good job.

as.