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.

Even though RP (right player) and WP (wrong player) outcomes will deviate from the 0 origin for long, we should understand that every intermediate movement will more likely take short but asymmetrical steps.

First let's consider a perfect random independent binomial model applied to infinite 6-hand patterns. So RP=WP.
Ties ignored, we have 64 possible R/W patterns but only 16 of them will be balanced in terms of an equal number of R and W.
It's like that anytime we attack each 6-hand pattern (whatever taken) the probability to get a kind of 'unbalanced' overall scenario vs a balanced one is 4:1.
Obviously this ratio won't change in relationship of the exact point attacked, as being proportionally placed.

Now let's take a double asymmetrical, finite and way likely not perfect random distribution (baccarat) where R and W  are supposed to get more polarized lines for every 6-hand dealt.
Thus we play (for real or fictionally) a 6-hand range pattern knowing that we are more likely to end it up by a sort of unbalanced ratio.
And what are the most probable unbalanced ratios to look at?
Naturally 4-2, then 5-1 and finally 6-0.

The important fact is that RP and WP do not play simple hands but patterns, so needing a more room to come out (that is more connected hands).

Therefore the RP and the WP are way more probable to form unbalanced short ratios than getting balanced lines for long.
Naturally we can't know exactly when a line will be unbalanced and by how much but surely it will.
Especially after having properly evaluated the previous balanced patterns surpassing some 'more expected' normal values.

After all, whenever we take a univocal betting line (RP) we are missing a lot of valuable opportunities coming around for the WP.
And we need just one step to be ahead or, at worst, to guess at least one winning hand per every two bets made.

Example.

Everybody knows the difficulty to be ahead after two or three or more shoes dealt, and the HE plays a minor role on that.
Obviously as long as the RP wins, we do not have reasons to shift toward the WP betting line.
But such thing happens more infrequently than most players hope for.

Anyway WP has the same identical probability to win and getting the same winning lines, but luckily for casinos nobody is going to someway stop or neglecting a possible unlikely winning line of some kind (so NOT taking the RP part) as the players' aim is to stubbornly get 'sky's the limit' winnings around any corner.

as.

Right and wrong players work by classes, that is by random walk steps

It's sure as hell that random walks moving at a perfect random environment can't provide detectable points as random world remains random, that is unbeatable.
So here we have strong reasons to think that the right or wrong player will take 'unguessable' lines even though the game is asymmetrical by the rules and somewhat finite.
Thus we don't know when the right or wrong player 'steps' will move forward or to stop then eliciting the opposite player to show up.

Fortunately, most of the times baccarat shoes won't fit the 'perfect' randomness feature and long term datasets proving otherwise can directly go under the toilet.

Therefore in the vast majority of the times our right and wrong players 'steps' move around way more likely situations. And that means a sensible likelihood that an event A will go forward or to stop by percentages different than expected by a perfect random environment.

But to grasp a probable non randomness of the outcomes we need to consider 'multiple hands' events , that is the total negation of the place selection tool confirming that a given succession should considered really random only whenever every point (whatever taken) will get the same probability to appear and at baccarat this is not the case.

More on that next week, in the meanwhile keep winning as we do. 

as. 

Thanks KFB for your reply!

About the possible unrandomness of the game I would present this topic:

The wrong player and the right player

Say that anytime we join a table we have two distinct players thinking for us: the player who tries to be right most of the times and a second player hating the first one and liking to counteract his options as he knows that it's impossible to be right most of the times at baccarat.
Obviously the same impossibility to be wrong most of the times will apply for the 'wrong' player.

So we have to decide which one to follow as hands are dealt.

Since we know that the probability to be either right or wrong per each shoe dealt can't be 1 or 0 (providing a fair number of bets made), we could assume that at some stage things will change.
And if things do change, probability to get the right player or the wrong player to win can't be 0 or 1 but must come out by a probability higher or lower than 50%.

Naturally the probability that the right or wrong player will win is in direct relationship of the betting frequency, so the lesser the frequency higher will be the probability that things won't change.

Nonetheless and assuming for example a 1/4 betting frequency (one hand bet per every 4 hands dealt, ties ignored) probability to be always right or always wrong is not zero but very very very unlikely to happen. Actually for a 80-hand resolved shoe, it's like to be right or wrong by crossing a nearly 4.5 sigma probability.

Before crossing such very very very unlikely scenario, more likely patterns will come out at different levels so endorsing the right or wrong player probability to win.

I mean that it's very very very unlikely to get 20 hands shifted toward one wrong or right side, but there's a way greater probability to guess right 20-hands long by 'following' the right player or the wrong player at some point to stop their winning/losing streaks.

The important thing is to reduce (select) the A/B events pace as more hands are needed to form a given pattern higher will be the probability that things will change.
And this is not only a by product of variance but of cards distribution probability.

In a random independent binomial succession 1-steps and 2-steps are equally balanced with superior steps, at baccarat the binomial succession is dependent, finite and asymmetrically placed by the rules, not by an universal strenght but by an 'actual' strenght that must takes into account a volatile degree of likely unrandomness acting at various levels.
So here very often 1-steps and 2-steps are more or less likely than expected.


as.

Coin flip random walk and baccarat random walks

Flip carefully several times a coin and try to guess which side will win.
Itlr you are supposed to break even but at the same time by increasing the number of tosses you'll find yourselves either into the positive field or into the negative one for long (very long) and obviously such probability is 50/50.
Now say that each win is decurted by 1% so when you bet 100 you are payed 99 and when you lose you lose 100.
There is no way that after a large amount of trials you'll be in the positive field even if you are the new genius in town.

Casinos offer baccarat tables for this very reason: as long as we're paying 99 for 100 (or because the probability is somewhat shifted between the two sides) itlr everyone will be in the negative field. Additionally and just in case casinos have other tools at their disposal ('infinite' bankrolls, maximum betting limits, taking advantage of the many gamblers fallacies, etc).

Thus if we are not able to shift the results in our favor at a fair coin flip proposition (other than by chance) and knowing we surely can't win if the coin flip is burdened by 1%, why the hell are we playing baccarat?

To answer this question and as long as we'd think to be smarter than the 'house', we are forced to  think just about two things:

a) baccarat productions could be not perfect randomly offered;

b) baccarat productions are affected by a kind of 'dependence' as a finite number of cards is employed to deal the game (bac rules considered).

In fact those are the main factors that may alter bac successions vs coin flip successions. (Yes, by now we someway disregard the B>P probability).

What is important to say, imo of course, is that such important possible features will work by slight values and many times not presenting by sufficient levels capable to erase the HE.

It's like we're betting at a game where our EV moves from -1.06/-1.24 to +0.50 or +0.80, sometimes and hopefully way more positive than that.
So it could take a relatively long time to get its cumulative full power.

Are there bac random walks better than others?

Yes, providing we'll make a super selective betting worth of getting rid of the many 'coincidental' results making the recreational players fortune (or misfortune).
And of course providing that the best random walk we could think of is made by the least possible amount of favourable spots, that is 1.

For example say that we have two A and B events (that in no way could be B and P) to choose from and the 'range' of intervention will be 4 event steps.

Per every 4-event step, we'll get 16 possible patterns to face and 14 of them include a kind of consecutive A or B result.
So only ABAB and BABA patterns won't form any consecutive A/B pattern.
It's the old unlikelihood to get multiple 'hopping' events in a row, remember?

Ok, but the above values are taken assuming a 50/50 independent and random game, so we have reasons to think that a kind of dependence and possible unrandomness will slightly shift more such unlikelihood to get ABAB and BABA.
And even if this is not true, at some point those two less likely events must concede the room to the other more likely patterns at the next 4-event steps.

Therefore we do not need to get multiple A or B consecutive patterns, just any AA or BB pattern per any step of any lenght considered (4-event step was just an example).

Ok, per every 4-event step we'll have to make 3 bets to get a consecutive A or B 'run', but we can easily wait to bet after the first or the second betting step that had fictionally failed once or more times.
It's like we are adopting a kind of progressive multilayered plan acting just after some deviations happened so now a flat betting scheme will get the best of it at different levels.
The more we wait for deviated results higher will be our EV, providing to take care of A and B events that may need many hands to be classified.

Fortunately and without waiting too long, it's a piece of cake to understand when A or B will be clustered at least one time, as always it's important not to particularly like A or B as they are the exact opposite sides of the medal.

as.

Situations when Player is the best bet to make

1) 'Lucky 6' tables (here any Banker 6 winning point is payed half the bet, so the HE on B bets is 1.46% vs 1.24% at P bets);

2) There is a shortage of naturals related to the average naturals ratio at commission games;

3) Asymmetrical hands actual number related to the average ratio;

4) Asymmetrical hands destiny over the real results;

5) Patterns evaluation on the shoe we're playing at.


1) At Lucky 6 tables and besides of card counting the L6 side bet, best bet to make is Player.
Actually whenever there's a strong shortage of naturals, even betting Banker side could be a sensibile option as there's no commission involved.

2) Naturals have the same probability to appear but at commission games they are asymmetrically payed (1:1 at P side, 0.95:1 at B side).
So whenever we think a natural should come out shortly we have reasons to bet Player and not Banker.
In fact whenever a natural point comes out, our EV at P bets is 0 whereas it's -2.5% at B bets.

3) Asymmetrical hands, those really endorsing a math force at B bets do not come out around the corner. We'll expect them by an average 1/11.62 ratio. So about 10.62 times out of 11.62 we'll play a perfect coin flip game where no side is particularly favored over the opposite.

Obviously and taking the Banker counterpart thought, we have only two ways to get the best of it by always wagering Banker: a) catching above than average asym hands gaps or b) hoping that the shoe we're playing at is richer than expected of such asym hands.

But we need to be a lot more confident (so guessing, that is hoping to be lucky) about the
b) point than the a) point as the latter is more defined by 'more probable' spots.

For example, we have reasons to think that after an asym hand had shown up, a way more symmetrical  spot comes around and such sym hand will be way more clustered than singled.
 
Bac players are too much focused about the real destiny of the hand than about the 'quality' of the hand.
Thus any Player bet not crossing an asym hand is at least an EV=0 proposition, so not conceding any HE.
Conversely any Banker bet NOT crossing through an asym hand is a sure long term ROI (return on investment) loser.

4) Asym hands come out by finite values, it may easily happen that at an asym hand will make the Player to win (for example think when P has 4 and B 5 and the third card is a 2 or a 3, etc). So in this instance we may consider such asym hand as a 'wasted' opportunity to make B more probable to win. And on average it takes quite of space to make another asym hand to come out.

5) Strong polarized shoes, albeit being very rare, tend to remain slightly more polarized than balanced until the end and giving a fk about expected percentages (besides 'naturals' happenings).

Eventually and by assigning a proper value to the above factors, we could build up a 'Player probability score' where we should be inclined to bet or not the Player side. Not necessarily meaning that when such score is negative Banker side will be more probable to happen as the strenght favoring it more often than not is not sufficient to erase and invert the HE.

as.

Very good post indeed.

Best part imo is this:

If the player has past experience then the player has good perception as to what very well could come about.  So, I am not saying old-timers that played this game for 30-40 or 50 years have a better shot at it then a fresh newbie does without deducing down how much experience, perception and thought process is used in a skillful way, rather than prediction wishful thinking and dreaming, based upon a written advisement someone created and sold on the internet entitled something like, "how to win at baccarat".

Such statement is so true that whenever we find ourselves losing after a couple of shoes it's because we did something wrong, no matter how things went.
Mainly because we had bet too many hands.

as.

Nice point KFB!
After all the longer one observes what really comes out greater should be the probability to catch the 'boundaries' of some results. And slot players look at many many results.

Back to the topic.

There are two sure ways to lose a lot of money at baccarat tables:

1) Playing stubbornly to get a symmetry whenever a kind of 'asymmetry' is perceived by us;

2) Hoping that a kind of asymmetry works infinitely or per every new pattern coming out.

Most bac players do know the danger of adopting the #1 strategy so they are enticed to work on the approach #2. Unfortunately even this strategy can't win itlr as supposedly favourable asymmetrical patterns need valuable 'cutoff' points that cannot be extracted other than by the constant evaluation of what really happens with what is supposed to happen.

Now let's take the opposite casinos' thought:

These stup.i.d donators hope to get asymmetrical patterns for long but they can't as things will change; just in case our math edge will progressively work at our side so more bets they'll make higher will be our profits.
Moreover we can rely about the sure indeniable fkng bighorns.h.it publicized everywhere that baccarat is just a MM game.

Let's summarize casinos' hopes:

a) players deal with a EV- game;

b) players think to beat the game by a biased production forming more asymmetrical patterns than symmetrical ones;

c) players raise their bets by subjective feelings or hopes or thinking that a dry MM approach will get the best of the game;

d) players want to win huge or at least breaking even per each session.

Whereas we can't do nothing about the a) point, we may do a lot about the remaining three points:

b) Asymmetrical spots surely come out by more likely 'steps', yet the asymmetrical world is constantly mixed by a kind of symmetrical one and even this is affected by the same more likely steps. In some way many symmetrical spots will form an asymmetrical pattern.

c) Raising the bets without having ascertained a flat betting advantage is the sure recipe for the disaster. Yes, in the shortest terms a MM could sound as a viable strategy to beat the game but it isn't by one trillion of accuracy itlr.

d) In the vast majority of the times, 'Winning huge' per every session played is the perfect negation of a possible player's advantage as at baccarat we can't rely about a math edge and of course things change a lot along the course of a restrict amount of shoes.
Even worse is the 'urge' to quit the session as a 'break even' player: despite of knowing we'll win an average amount of bets per shoe, we can't precisely estimate how things will come out, the important stuff to rely upon is that our profit line will be more and more ascending.

Actually and when in doubt, there's a fifth point to consider that is the several distinct 'human' random walks formed by the other players seated at our table.
Even those will follow 'more likely' steps, especially whenever the shoe isn't so polarized to entice a univocal more probable betting line (long streaks or chops, long homogeneous patterns, etc).
This issue albeit sounding as strongly unscientific has some practical merit as being directly related to the subjective bias affecting humans while facing binomial productions.

as.

BTW, RRS= random rotor speed (rotor will randomly change its speed after the ball was launched)

as.

While playing baccarat is important to adopt an asymmetrical educated thought

An average strong asymmetrical card distribution acting at a constant slight asymmetrical game needs some brain adjustments to get the best of the game.

It's the key to win itlr.

We'll see it in a couple of days.

as.

Craps is supposed to be the prototype of  unbeatable randomness, actually it isn't.
It doesn't matter that pass line and don't pass line sometimes allow 100x or close to infinite odds after the point has been made (almost nullifying the HE at such bets).

I've already presented some approaches about multiple consecutive shooters pass lines limits and some 'freerolling' situations after a first obstacle is surpassed.
Moreover a long study has shown that the no field/field proposition tend to be somewhat 'shooter dependent' in the sense that the 20/16 proposition provides slight but interesting discrepancies with the expected values.
Obviously just the field bet is bettable anytime we wish.

Mississippi Stud, Ultimate Texas Hold'em and Pai Gow all consider cards dealt by a machine and there's no option to choose the side to bet.
Pai Gow tiles are dealt by the dealer's dice roll destiny so the point is the same.

For practical reasons, 'no side bets' baccarat is by far and without any shadow of doubt the best game to make money in a casino for the old features we're stressing about for years:

- There are only three outcomes to take care of and one is almost always worthless but harmless (tie), HE is minimal.

- We can choose the side to bet anytime we want

- Baccarat productions are asymmetrical by definition, but they are no 'one-sided'.

- Baccarat is a game where 'irregular' (Alrelax word) successions come out quite often and we get at least eight sides to follow through (big road and derived roads)

- Baccarat is a game where players are considered just pure losing clowns both by casinos and  gambling 'experts'.

- At baccarat we can bet any possible amount (up to 100k or 200k or more per hand) being promptly payed without the risk to wait as money (chips) talk.

- Baccarat is the only game where an educated estimation of 'luck' or 'bad luck' of the other players could play a role in our winning or losing process as additional random walks come out in play. We know this is just another Gambler Fallacy, that's why I've mentioned it.

So my list is (from best to worst):

1) Baccarat

2) Side bets baccarat

3) Sports betting

4) Automated roulettes without the RRS tool

5) Craps

6) Anything else

as.

Those are just personal comments maybe way less technical than those of Shackleford authority had made.

First, only video poker, blackjack and many baccarat side bets can be beaten mathematically but only baccarat side bets can be attacked just in the favourable circumstances, so here every bet is EV+ taken individually.

We can conclude that the best profitable games, math besides, are those where we can bet whenever we want choosing the side we wish without losing anything (EV- spots) along the process.

Besides math, probably sports betting is the best 'game' to risk the money at, but we do not know anything about the subject.

We do know that in rare occasions some video poker machines are EV+ as a Royal Flush is payed more than expected by the odds. Yet is a very looooong diluted accomplishment...

Actually blackjack is beatable just in theory as too many profitable factors should happen for the player: a deep deck penetration, good rules, low casino's heat, etc.

Among the games where we can anytime choose to bet or not (in our opinion a decisive factor) there are roulette and craps.

Live unbiased roulettes aren't beatable by any means but automated roulettes do are unless a RRS is added to the spins production.
A single software trying to reproduce randomness acts stupidly (so it's beatable) but whenever two distinct softwares converge into the single spin production...well no way to beat the game.
An additional factor endorsing the partial unrandomness of automated wheel spins (as long as RRS isn't added) is the low bouncing/splattering ball's effect way more branded at live roulettes.

I'll continue later

as.

Interesting thread Kfb!

I agree with Al: there's a lot more than the HE to be considered before seating at a table or in front of a screen.

I'll make my comments on that next Sunday

Have a nice weekend!

as.

Human mind, symmetry and edge

Human mind is somewhat 'biased' by constantly looking for simmetry. Several studies have shown that when subjects are instructed to write down 'random' successions applied to a binomial probability, a sure undeniable 'overalternating' feature affects the results.
More interestingly is that real random objective successions are perceived by subjects 'less random' whereas unrandom successions are mostly considered as 'randomly' formed.

At baccarat the vast majority of people bet along those 'simmetrical' lines (widely intended), at the same time privileging just one kind of asymmetry, that is the 'long' streaks possibility.

Then there are 'foolproof' systems that give the subjective 'guessing' a 0 impact as every outcome  must fall into well restricted ranges.
Those worthless systems are mostly based around several kind of gamblers fallacies that many times are fallaciously(!) overtaken by the best short term move anyone could think of: progressive betting.
Nonetheless objective flat bet findings alone cannot lead to any EV+ with one billion of accuracy.
 
Therefore and simplyfing a lot, a 100% subjective way of considering things is EV-, as well as it's EV- a strict objective system stubbornly looking for precise triggers.
So the 'truth' must be in the middle. At least according to the money we've collected over the years at bac tables.

At baccarat the possible player's edge is a dynamical issue, surely defined after having measured long term flat betting results.

No matter the fkng strategy we are going to utilize, either we'll catch more W spots than L spots (after vig impact) or we are destined to fail.

Mathematically there's no way to 'guess' right by inserting a kind of 'subjective' sole element in our strategy whether bac successions are really random.
The same if bac successions are kind of unrandom.

On the other end, 'obiective' findings that tend to mix many different baccarat productions (card distributions) are sensitive to huge volatility that only in the long term will approach the expected values.

Subjective and objective strategies are two different categories of random walks following the same math laws, sometimes converging into the same betting line and other times negating it.
And obviously there are more likely positive or negative steps converging at a same betting line  than events forming long series of 'outliers' that could be 'heaven' or 'hell'.

For casinos the only tools that matter are the math edge and the several gamblers fallacies affecting almost every player. 
Educated players can overcome such factors.

as.

Al: yep Golden Steer at West Sahara (close to the defunct Lucky Dragon casino) is a classic for steakhouse lovers.

I'm curious about 888 Korean BBQ....

What about your preferred list of seafood restaurants?

@KFB.
Nice simple way of classifiying what we should expect and what we actually see at the shoe we're playing at.
I'll be back on this later.

as.