How many times in a row we're expected to lose with our plan?

This is the key factor to ascertain whether we're really playing a EV+ game or a kind of bighorn.sh.it.
Notice that I'm not mentioning the opposite situation as losing is well more likely than winning as baccarat remains a general EV- game.
As long as we're restricting the losing situations than what general probabilities dictate we're playing a EV+ game.

Say we're repeatedly tossing a unbiased coin but for some reasons we'll get an equal or less number of winning streaks than losing streaks, yet consecutive losing streaks stop at some points disregarding the general 0.5 probability to appear.
Of course an acute player will start to progressively bet until a losing streak of certain lenght had happened.
Notice that we won't give a lesser fk about which side is going to stop more likely as we have assessed that in the vast majority of the times losing streaks at either side hadn't surpassed a sort of cutoff point.

For example, say we tossed the coin one million of times, so on average we're entitled to cross a 10 or higher losing sequence 976 times but we have managed to register just 30 times of such occurence.
This is a strongly significant statistical value that the coin flip proposition won't follow a general 0.5 probability.

Now we begin to suspect that either our coin is not so unbiased or that it'll be unfairly tossed, yet we can't find reasons why intermediate W/L spots are following general probabilities whereas cutoff deviated spots are more likely to stop than to 'naturally' prolong.

Baccarat works around this concept: most of the times the coin is unbiased or fairly tossed (EV-), whenever a card distribution will reach some cutoff negative values, our expectancy will surpass the house edge (EV+) and fortunately for us and differently to this example many intermediate spots will get a fair probability of success and a low degree of variance (sd values).

For obvious reasons, card distributions cannot provide independent situations for long, actually most of the times they move around 'quite' expected and unbeatable probabilities until a given event is well more likely than what general probabilities dictate and of course a 'general' probability negates any kind of advantage for the player.

Add this to the fact that bac shoes are not so randomly produced as many people think: we are instructed to battle a random world but actually we don't.

as.

Curiously from one part side bets are the best option for casinos to enlarge their winnings and from the other part they can 100% be beaten mathematically.
It's like baccarat players like to fall into this cognitive dissonance as many people wager side bets but almost nobody or very few will take advantage of them.

The vulnerability of many side bets was publicly discussed by Eliot Jacobson in his 'Advanced Advantage Play' book, a very good reading for every serious baccarat player.
The problem is that it's quite difficult to put the theory into practice and people who really make a living by only attacking the side bets don't give public advices for obvious reasons.
Just to give an example, whenever a casino suspects some players are counting cards profitably, shoes start to be cut more lightly thus lowering or even erasing a possible players' EV+.

For that matter and in order to avoid home pc card counting, online casinos are used to cut a lot of cards from the play and when a 416 cards shoe is reduced to a 312 or less cards shoe (nearly two decks are removed from the play) every card counting attempt is fruitless.

Generally speaking, from a side bets vulnerability live shoes are way more attackable as most shoes are played for their almost entire lenght, especially whether a low card came as first card.
Notice that some casinos are aware of this, then when a low card is dealt as first card they'll cut off more cards at the end of the shoe in a kind of 'balancing' burning cards fashion.

Anyway and despite of their math vulnerability and a proper assessment of actual conditions, we think that side bets should be considered just as an enhancing winning factor going along our strategy and not the main reason why we are there.
First, side bets card counting involves a lot of natural variance and frankly we do not want to be behind or to wait favourable spots for long, it's just a waste of time (then of money).
Secondly, tracking the natural 'low frequency' of side bets can easily divert us from the more profitable main strategy made on BP and derived hands.
Third, side bets betting tends to elicit a 'tipping' attitude, an additional factor that will decrease our EV.
Fourth, a rare side bet player might get a lot more heat from casinos than a normal BP bettor as math is indisputable and Jacobson (along with other authors) scientifically proved that side bets are beatable.

In his numerous posts, Alrelax pointed out the importance to exploit rare events (F-7 or Panda bets, for example) coming out clustered, I mean they must come out clustered at some point.
He's right as a perfect frequency following the general probabilities is proven to be out of order.

Yet in our opinion the actual probability to hit a side bet is proportionally related about how many 'simpler' situations will come out, the simpler the better.

Therefore most of the times any 3-card hand situations won't belong to this category, in the sense that we better need one side to get a precise two-card situation as it'll be the more likely occurence to look for.

I've already written several times here that any possible side bet paying a natural point on either side (B, P and/or both) will be astoundingly beatable by a multilayered progression and actually no one casino in the world will offer this side bet.
For that matter the Dragon bonus bet is beatable by the same features, of course always wagering (when indicated) Player side as being nearly 4 times less disadvantaged than Banker side.
I mean that our primary aim will be to get a Player natural by adopting a multilayered progression, knowing that even when we do not hit the P natural we'll get options to get higher than 1:1 payments.

At the same token, the 'losing natural' side bet is hugely beatable whenever many 8s and 9s are live in the remaining portion of the shoe. Remember it's a 50:1 payed bet.

Tiger bet follows the same lines as 6s must combine with a zero value card at some point, I mean it's virtually impossible not to get a B winning 6 along a couple of shoes dealt.

Pairs are more intricated to be assessed, only a computer could get the best of it itlr. In no way I'm suggesting an illegal device to get the best of baccarat, it would be an insult to common intelligence.

Panda bets and F-7 bets both involve 3-card precise situations, only a very experienced player (or a player adopting a card counting approach) will get the best of it itlr.
Of course 8s from one part (Panda) and 7s from the other one (F-7) will make a huge role about the likelihood to win.

6/7 bad beat bets or three card 8s/9s are too unlikely options to be considered.

Ties.

Accordingly to what I've written so far and knowing that most of the ties come out when 6 cards will form a hand, ties are very rarely exploitable.
Not only they are affected by a strong EV-,  but their volatility is pretty huge.
After all on average few hands involve the use of six cards and this thing should close the talk.

Summary

Most of the times ties are not a viable option to make money. Naturally if we know to get a main EV+ plan, betting ties tends to endorse the casino's perception we are clown losers.
In any case, do not bet a tie unless a tie happened.
If many ties have occurred in the actual shoe, continue to bet small amount on ties.

Do not bet pairs, 6/7 bad beats or three card 8/9 bad beats.
It's true that pairs are beatable via card counting, but it's virtually impossibile to get the best of it without the help of an illegal device or getting a kind of heat from casinos.

F-7 and Panda bets are beatable via card counting, yet as those bets are generally offered at no commission tables, we should be way more focused about F-7 spots than Panda bets as the former will transform a B winning hand into a push whereas a Panda bet is just an additional bonus.
In this instance live 7s make a primary role on that.

'Losing natural bad beat' is one of the best way to make money by card counting, by now this bet is only offered at certain Stadium baccarat pits.

Dragon bonus.
If you wish to play this side bet do not forget to only bet the Player side. Casinos are happy to see that many players like to place Dragon bonus bets at both sides or, even worse, just on B side.
Setting up a multilayered progressive plan to get a P natural (at least) after a given deviation happened, will get you a sure edge over the house as some huge payed spots will come out to your favor (not mentioning that an equal number of naturals must come out at P side than at B side itlr).

Tiger bet.

A more classical example where math goes right down the toilet. 
Casinos were so happy to know that at Tiger bet tables B bets jumped from a +1.06% EV to a more appealing +1.46% EV, without being instructed that Tiger bet is easily countable and affected by a kind of very low variance. 
We guess that Tiger tables will disappear very soon, so reverting back to common vig tables.
Or that CSMs will be employed with the serious risk that nobody will bet a cent on those CSM tables.

as. 

Along the flow of the game some hands are more important than others

From a practical point of view, the vast majority of bac hands shouldn't be considered at all.
Those numerous hands constitute the 'side' but we should only be interested about the 'main dish'.

I know this statement totally collide with common sense and math teaching us that any hand will get the same general probability to appear. True, providing a random source of results. Along with other features that have shown to be decisive in our process of winning.

It's a sure fact that you won't see a single long term winning bac player betting more than two or (very rarely) three consecutive hands either when winning and especially when losing.
Such players do not give a damn about dragon tails, long trends or stuff like that. (Actually sometimes we do but always by not endangering a previous profit).

If they think to be able to select profitable spots to bet into they want to win immediately or on the next hand at worst. If they win they collect, if they lose they go away.
It's like that a possible edge didn't appear in that selected circumstance so they think it won't come again along the same shoe.

Such repetitive process is made infinitely, hopping from table to table so watching a lot and wagering little.

Without knowing what they are really looking for, mathematically this procedure remains an unsound strategy; anyway and assuming they are not APs, they'll fill casinos' pockets by a very low frequency.

After all to get a long term edge over the house our single bets must get at least a 51.3% probability to win when betting Banker and at least a 50.1% probability to win when wagering Player.
Betting multiple hands in a row or many bets per shoe cannot achieve that important cutoff probability percentages as profitable spots (if they really exist) comes out few and far between.

Naturally it's easier to compute the actual w/l percentages happening at the different sides when betting one or two hands per shoe.

For example, an average two hands betting per shoe means to play 35 different tables as compared to a player betting 70 hands at a single shoe.
Again, mathematically things doesn't change but maybe practically they do.

In fact, a player betting 70 hands per shoe is going to challenge several times in a row a single card distribution. This shoe could be profitable (easy detectable patterns) or not (weird undetectable patterns), yet the house is going to get the same expected amount of money at just one table than the player betting two hands at 35 different tables.

Even if the two-hands per shoe bettor plays randomly, he/she'll get more 'free' informations than the 'bet every hand' player that is forced to 'guess' everything happening at that single shoe.

In addition, the rare bettor could track easily what happened in that selected wagered situation/s shoe per shoe and acting accordingly, the other player cannot remember his/her w/l line as more forced to consider a shoe as a total world apart.

There's a big substantial difference by hoping that a 'more likely' pattern will come out by playing 35 shoes (meaning 35 different card distributions) than by playing one shoe.

Always remembering that if our bets are not getting at least 51.3%/50.1% percentages, itlr we're not going anywhere and this thing can only happen when a fair number of 'average' card distributions show up.

I understand it's hard to play a couple of hands per shoe but without this attitude you'll invariably belong to the losers category.
(Of course nothing prevent us to bet many hands per shoe by a 10x or 20x lower amount than the 'key' bet, but consider this approach as an additional vig to face).

Next week some practical guidelines we use to attack side bets.

as.   

There are 'infinite' ways to arrange 312 or 416 cards into a shoe but bac codes are way more restricted in their distribution.
And a bac code is just the result of innumerable card distributions. Hence many many card distributions provide the same outcomes in a way or another. Almost always by unproportional values.

Naturally it's way more likely to 'guess' right whenever a number succession includes three or four number categories than a sequence as 1,4,1,2,3,2,7,1,1,1,3,5, etc...
Especially if those few numbers seem to get unequivocal properties. 

Guessing the actual baccarat code

Itlr, the probability to win is in direct relationship of how much 'more likely' situations will show up along the played shoe. It's like throwing darts having a larger than normal target to aim for. We won't hit the target everytime but more frequently than at a normal target.
In baccarat terms this means that an average card distribution will make this target quite large to be exploited but deviated card distributions could be heaven or hell by a symmetrical probability.
Unfortunately most bac players transform 'hell' into disaster and heaven into a too slight positive occurence.

Simply sayed and providing that acute players are in action, average card distributions will make casinos as sure losers because in a way or another something will be more likely than other by a fair margin.
Technically those spots arise when Banker got its fair share of streaks, Player a fair amount of consecutive singles and/or doubles or very short streaks and so on.
At those situations, acute players do know when to attack and when to simply watch.

Anyway even acute players do not know what to do when 'undetectable' situations will come out in a row and many shoes belong to this category.
It's now that a proper evaluation of bac codes could help them.

Are shoes so randomly produced that any effort made to be more right than wrong is totally fruitless?

Rattlesnakes.h.i.t.

Even though many card distributions will make same results no matter how cards are distributed into a shoe (and we've seen this is a decisive property to exploit from but from another point of view), numbers instruct us that the 'random' world is not that random and we have the direct proof by studying the sd values of the results.

Let's make an example.

Every baccarat code is formed by a number succession, say by 3 or 4 different numbers getting a different descending probability to appear. I transform numbers into letters. 

We have registered the first shoe that looked as ACBBCDAABDDCAAB (4 letter spots).
It's important to grasp the concept that each letter won't belong to a precise quantity hands distribution.

Now we have to guess what the fk is more likely coming out on the next shoe.

First.
Odds that this shoe will get the same number of letters are relatively low.
Technically and obviously it means that 'letters states' could come out by a more or less quantity than the previous one.
Surely and in the worst case scenario at least 6 or 7 letters steps will be involved.

Second.

There's a probability to get same letters at each position depending upon their general probability to happen (A=even money, B=1/4, C=1/4 and D=1/4).

Third.

Notice what letter came out after a given letter in the first shoe. (In our example A was followed by C,A,B,A,B. And B by B,C,D;  C by B,D,A; D by A,D,C).

Probability to get a precise back-to-back same number positional situation will be quite low unless the first shoe presented many consecutive even money spots (A occurences). And/or if many consecutive same more likely letters had come out in the first shoe.

Additionally, back to back shoe consecutive same numbers different than 0 and falling into the same position will be less likely to happen at various degrees and many times we don't have to bet 3 steps to get the best of it.

Naturally it's sufficient to test your shoes to see what's the most profitable course of action to be taken. The 'things change' approach is just an accelerating (and quite more risky) process of taking the best of it.

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on January 13, 2022, 01:40:59 PM


Itlr, consecutive successions of univocal patterns (singles or streaks) are more likely to come out by precise numbers, for example if you'd progressively wager toward not getting any 3-3 sequence (for example) you'll get a sure statistical advantage no matter how the fkng math will dictate.   ..."


     Q: For clarification--You are suggesting wagering for NOT getting a precise (exact)3-3 and you do not mean the second leg could equal a  3-3+  with your example of a 3-3 being pppbbb ?
Thanks

Continued Success,

Hi KFB!

Nope, whenever a 3 value is reached I'm not interested whether it will be an exact 3 or a 4, 6 or 12.
I'm going to classify those different sequences into the 3+ category.

Btw, you've raised an interesting topic we didn't investigate so far, obviously any 3+ precise class will fight against any superior 3+ class but it will take too long time to exploit this feature.

Anyway notice that now we're talking about singles and streaks successions (horizontal sequences) and not about vertical sequences (singles, double, triples...)

It's true that a multilayered betting strategy wagering toward isolated 3+ 'normal' streaks happening at any side of any road (except cr) will be quite 'variance limited', but itlr the sum of W/L ratio will be deviated toward either the singled isolated 3+s or doubled isolated 3+s without knowing which category will be kissed by this propensity.
For example, some (rare) shoes will provide many two clustered 3+ consecutive streaks, therefore to get this plan properly working we need to classify 'isolated 3+s' and double 'isolated 3+s'.
Whenever a clustered value of any class (isolated 3+s and double isolated 3+s) will get substantial abnormal deviations, we know we'll play a sure EV+ game by exploiting a simple RTM effect (that at baccarat works for the average card distribution topic).

The 'horizonzal' registration tends to get rid of those problems as now we are not giving a lesser damn about a simple back-to-back probability unless a new winning side comes out.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on January 13, 2022, 12:50:35 PM
Groups=Sections?

Hi Al!

Yep, of course everything depends upon about how one considers a 'group or section'; imo a group is any sequence of events getting the same properties belonging to the most possible restricted category.
Of course we can hope to be right for the almost entire lenght of the shoe, at the same time fearing that a large number of opposite 'heterogeneous' spots denying steady groups will come out sooner or later at a given shoe.
Most of the times, a shoe won't present steady long detectable spots and of course it won't present steady unguessable spots either.
But you know very well what I'm talking about. 

as.

Differently to 'simple' B/P or b/r results, numbers will be more equally distributed (lower sd values) along the shoes dealt as card distributions will make less volatile outcomes when taken as 'groups'.

Naturally each card distribution will make some numbers slight more likely to happen and it's quite easy to see what those numbers are.
Hence to exploit this property we should split the entire picture into smaller pieces getting each a probability different than the general probability values as card distributions provide more whimsical results if singularly taken (single hands) than 'clustered' considered (groups of hands).

So, for example, after a 0 there are numbers more likely to happen as the average card distribution will make those numbers (situations) more probable to show up.
In simple words, some back-to-back situations belonging to some numbers category will come out by longer clusters than at the opposite counterparts.

General probability dictates A=B but actually A>B and so on (i.e., A+B>C instead of A+B=C).

This is a complete different approach than the one based upon a 'general' Banker math advantage as now we're considering an average card distribution and not a side being favorite over the other one by a 0.18% better ROI (not applicable at no commission Tiger tables where, of course, the best bet is Player).

We've made exhaustive long tests about those baccarat 'codes', either by adopting the common 'horizontal' succession registration (single shoes) and 'vertically' successions (comparing which numbers are more likely to come out in the same position after many shoes are dealt).

So single hands are not important unless they are belonging to a more or less clustered event displayed by a precise number. And we ought to be interested just in what happens after a given number appeared.

The horizontal and vertical registration not only increases the betting opportunities but will amplify the actual probability that given numbers are more likely to be followed by some numbers categories.
In some way we're challenging the 'random production' to fall sooner or later into the more expected 'average' card distribution.

The more we're challenging this world by: 1- waiting for some 'negative' deviations before betting (the distributions are unlikely following deviated lines), 2- adopting a multilayered betting scheme and higher will be our edge.

Notice that in any instance we're not betting 'in the dark' as the average card distribution (making some numbers more likely than others) must prevail itlr, otherwise most part of trend following players would be rich by spotting profitable spots shoe per shoe and, frankly, that's not the case to look for (at least in our opinion).

To provide the simplest way to set up a possible strategy consider this plan:

after any 3 sequence (see again my above example) happening at singles and/or streaks, we'll wager that after the break of such 3 situation, any consecutive single succession and/or any consecutive streak will not surpass the 0 or 1 value.
If any 3-3 or 3-2 spot happens, we'll wait until another new 3 shows up.

Since the general '3' probability to show up is 12.5%, you can serenely wait all other outcomes so just focusing about what happens after a 3.
We've sayed to bet toward 0 and 1 (it's a win, if played by a 2-step progression) and stopping after any 2 or 3 (this last outcome won't interest us as we've stopped the wagering after the 2 losing appearance).

This is a specific random walk to follow that math considers the same way as any other 'random' betting, that is a EV- proposition getting the same sd values.

Bighornsh.it.

If you have the patience to wait for those '3's, maybe waiting to cross through some unfavourable 2 or 3 consecutive negative steps (3-2 and/or 3/3 spots), you'll get a sure fkng indeniable statistical edge over the house and reaching astounding profitable values.
For that matter there's no need to wait for consecutive negative spots whether a proper multilayered betting scheme is adopted.

Instead of trying to guess the 'unguessable' or hoping that things will go by general math propensities (betting B), consider to play an 'average card distribution' plan.
You'll bet very few hands (on average one or two hands per 8 resolved hands dealt) knowing that itlr you'll play an EV+ game by waiting a small negative deviation and/or by utilizing a multilayered progressive plan.

At the same token we can make a plan about more likely 2s, even though some differences must be considered here.
We'll see this topic next week.

as.

Bringing down the house

Differently to what Ben Mezrich wrote on his two bestseller gambling books, it's not black jack the game to 'bring down the house' of but baccarat could.
Baccarat is the only game in the world where a given event or series of events within a relatively restricted results' sample MUST happen no matter what.
It's just a matter of time.

Whenever time is consumed improperly, the math edge cannot go elsewhere than toward casino's pockets as things tend to remain undepicted for the vast majority of occasions we'll be forced to face.

Actually baccarat pros have raised the attitude to properly consider 'time' as the main factor to deal with.

So anytime we have managed to build a bet selection capable to roam around the 0 point without getting huge fluctuations toward a way or another, we'll get the recipe to bring down the house.
Say this is the decisive 'winning random walk' that, of course, must win itlr by flat betting.
Now a strong multilayered progression cannot get but constant progressive accelerated and endless winnings.

At baccarat we can bet $20.000 (or more if a multiple players team is involved) out of blue without having to previously bet a single hand.
Now it's the casino to 'fear' our bet/s, hoping that that hand will go toward their favor.
As long as we do not make a lot of consecutive bets (without a reason and this, more often than not, will be denied by statistical issues), the situation happens again whenever we'll place another huge bet. Or a limited series of progressive bets.

Mathematically speaking, there's no value to bet X or Y by a 10, 20 or more hands pace than by wagering a 0 pace (betting every hand or almost every hand), but statistically there is.
Of course the negative math impact will raise proportionally with the number of hands wagered. So, in a basic way of thought, less hands wagered = less negative global impact.

But what is really important is that the probabilities to get X or Y will change as long as any shoe is dealt and as long a series of shoes are dealt. Especially whether a general probability is raised beyond 0.5.
Otherwise baccarat tables wouldn't be offered.

Say we have found a BS capable to get many spots roaming around the 0 point without suffering huge deviations from that 0 spot (of course according to the general probability we've decided to apply).
Naturally this plan cannot belong to any B>P general strategy as it's easy to find several (say hundreds) shoes in a row getting P>B results. The same about other simple general BP patterns.
For that matter it's virtually impossible to get long term winnings by hoping that B>P or that BBB>BB and so on.

This 'roaming around 0' random walk must be assessed by isolated and clustered classes. After a value is surpassed, we're not interested anymore to look for outcomes unless belonging to an 'isolated' or 'clustered' class.

Our EV is in direct relationship about how many times we got 'more likely' clustered events than 'isolated' events, knowing that itlr this value is slight more oriented toward the clustered side. In a way or another, but always depending about the general probability we want to classify.

Take the last classification I've illustrated above.

Itlr, consecutive successions of univocal patterns (singles or streaks) are more likely to come out by precise numbers, for example if you'd progressively wager toward not getting any 3-3 sequence (for example) you'll get a sure statistical advantage no matter how the fkng math will dictate.

More specifically, you could put in action a mechanical multilayered progressive plan wagering at all four roads (BR, byb, sr and cr) that after any 3+ outcome happening at every road, the next more likely outcome (surpassing the general probability value to happen) will be a number different than 3+.

Yep, any 3 value now must fight against three steps (0, 1 and 2) but show me how many shoes will produce back o back 3+ simultaneous spots at each derived road considered.

For that matter we could even take the luxury to consider 3-2 spots as losing spots, nothing will substantially change.

as. 

U r welcome klw!

as.

Assign a 2.2 positive value to any 7, 8 or 9 card dealt and a -3 negative value at any 6 dealt.

Actually and of course it's a +1.2 (not 2.2) value for 7-8-9s and a -3.6 negative value for 6s.

as. 

BTW, notice that even a fkng math unsound betting plan will get the best of it by progressively betting the Tiger bet.

When B side wins it's because a portion of symmetrical favourable hands go toward this side, but asymmetrical hands that cannot consider a 6 initial point will mathematically go toward Banker side itlr.
Add to this class those 6 initial B situations being more favorite to win.

In essence, a Banker bet working along with a Tiger side bet will lose itlr just when Player gets:

- an initial 6, 7, 8 or 9 initial two-card point (not always of course);

- a powerful third Player card not fitting the asym hand requisites;

- a symmetrical draw-draw spot favoring P side but here we're playing a 0 negative edge (besides the Tiger bet that will lose more often than not)

I mean that as long as we're not falling into a P standing point, a progressive Banker bet along with a Tiger progressive side bet will get a sure long term EV+.
This will take care even of the ties appearance making a loss at Tiger bets but a push at B bets.

When Tiger bets tend to rarely come out, Banker side will be strongly favorite to win as the math asym power will get the best of it itlr.
Conversely, a shoe particularly rich of Tiger spots will get the best of it by winning Tiger side bets being payed 12:1 or 20:1.

In a way or another when we're betting Banker with a Tiger bet and as long as Player draws, we're kind of freerolling.

Think that the probability to get zero Tiger bets is almost not existent at any shoe dealt.
In the meanwhile we'll get the best of it by wagering a math favorite side (Banker).
Cards are arranged not getting a proper amount of Tiger bets? Good, we're playing an advantaged proposition.

Now a multilayered progressive plan can't lose itlr as we have depicted reasons why it should work.

Test your shoes after having registered the Tiger bets average distribution.

as.

Fictional betting

Is there any real value to make a fictional betting plan before making actual wagers on the felt?

Mathematically there isn't. At least if we don't attack side bets vulnerable from card counting, but in this case we can't speak of 'fictional betting'. We simply bet when the circumstances are math favourable for us.

On the other end, those very rare players making a living at this game know that the only way to win itlr is by betting very few hands.
Therefore a 'fictional plan' must get a decisive role in that.

The foremost gambling expert who deeply investigated fictional betting one century ago was Marigny de Grilleau in his voluminous book called 'Le gain scientifique d'une seule unité'.
Basically his theory (applied at roulette) was to wait until a EC gets a 3 sigma or higher deviation before betting then hoping by a strict flat betting that the 'silent' chance will come out more clustered than isolated.
To raise the probability of success he decided to win just one big unit for every profitable arising spot, then waiting for another opportunity.
Actually and to avoid the long situations not fitting the 3 or above sigma triggers, he also claimed other weird theories not working at all at baccarat (even less at roulette).
Despite his huge contribute to gambling, he died pennyless mostly as roulette is a endless proposition of independent outcomes.

Nevertheless his work was very important especially when we take a 'dependent' and 'asymmetrical' game as baccarat.

When things remain steady and when things are supposed to change

Most baccarat players approach baccarat by hoping that things remain restricted in detectable patterns, of course a steady pattern (whatever considered) is any sequence higher than 1, that is the pattern managed to go beyond 0 point by one or more steps. Those players hope that after 1 or 2 positive steps the pattern will go toward higher numbers.
At the same time there is a 'counter pattern' that is the right opposite situation fighting the above pattern extension.

So baccarat results are limited by infinite patterns' steps starting at 0 and going toward certain values dependent upon the general probability we wish to utilize.

If things would remain steady for long (patterns will reach huge numbers and counter patterns remain at 0), a wise recreational player would collect a lot of money.

On the other end, if things keep patterns to stay around the 0, 1 or 2 levels for long, a progressive plan would get the best of it by any means unless an improper strategy will dictate to chase counter patterns beyond high numbers (3 or higher, for example). Even the player wanting to utilize this plan will collect a lof of money. 

Baccarat is a mix of those two opposite situations.

But there's an important feature to be aware of: any shoe is a world apart, only back-to-back shoes may entice the 'things will change' formation at the same time endorsing the probability to get the 'longest' steady patterns.

The fantastic baccarat feature is that itlr some ascending, descending or equal numbers are more likely than the opposite counterparts by values not fitting their general probability to happen.
In the sense that some numbers' classes are more likely to happen after certain other numbers, as sky's the limit just for casinos and not for us.

The best baccarat player in the world is the one who takes full advantage of both 'steady' and 'changing' situations, knowing the most likely values that could happen at a given series of shoes dealt.
In that sense fictional plans are working just by defining the possible extension or stopping patterns' triggers.
Notice that a 'steady' pattern could prolong for long one or two times per shoe but stopping patterns are more likely to happen.

Practical hints

My unb plan #1 works wonderfully whenever shoes provide a quite number and/or a lot of singles, the backup plan to wager toward doubles and triples in some spots will act toward a general probability of success. In the sense that WW or LW or LLW will be slightly more likely to happen than WL, LL or LLL spots.

Now let's take into account the single/streak distribution.

Everyone reading these pages and willing to test his/her shoes has probably noticed that the more shoes are tested, higher will be the probability to get some numbers more likely than others.
It's like that the average card distribution will take univocal long term lines in terms of quantity and, especially, in quality.

oOoOo

Since the fkng 2+2=4 forum math clowns will think baccarat scholars as pure id.i.ots (actually and fortunately for us they are right), let's provide a sure indeniable baccarat math edge working at those fashioned 'Tiger' or 'Lucky six' tables spread everywhere and raising the Banker negative edge from 1.06% to 1.46%.
We mean those 'no-commission' tables where a winning Banker by a 6 point will be payed 1:2.

The 'Tiger' side bet is payed 12:1 or 20:1 depending upon how many cards Banker needs to win by a 6 point (two cards= 12:1, three cards= 20:1).

At a normal 'burnt cards' 8 deck shoe we'll get five 'Tiger' occasions.

Naturally cards that are more likely denying a Tiger winning bet are 7s, 8s and 9s.
And of course 6s are of paramount importance.
Assign a 2.2 positive value to any 7, 8 or 9 card dealt and a -3 negative value at any 6 dealt.
Anytime you'll get a positive count equal or higher than 3.5 bet the 'Tiger' side bet.
You'll win a lot of money and by multilayered progressive betting under favourable situations you'll reach the sky.

Words of caution:

- pretend to casually look at this side bet at live tables;

- do not forget to tip the dealers after a win;

- look at how many cards are burnt at the initial portion of the shoe; we have seen that if the first card exposed is a card included within the 0-5 range, more final cards are cut off from the play.

- avoid at all costs a CSM baccarat table for obvious reasons (this thing should be natural no matter what, Venetian Stadium in LV is an example)

Notice that despite the math negative edge, Tiger bet is a wonderful opportunity to amplify the Banker advantage in a way or another.
It's well more likely than F-7 bet, especially if you have reasons to think that Player side will draw at the next hand.

In some way and card counting the Tiger bet aside, whenever we have reasons to think that on the next hand Player will draw more often than not, we'll get three ways to win when betting B side with a Tiger bet wager:

- Banker gets an asymmetrical math advantage (EV+);

- Banker will get a symmetrical spot superior point (neutral EV);

- Banker will win by a 6 point with two (12:1) or three cards (20:1). Astounding EV+.

More on that next time.

as.

You have to mix the theoretical side of it with the practical side of the same thing.  The goal you need to focus on, is getting both ends of the spectrum to meet the majority of the times.   

Yep.

That's why this game is so difficult to beat: most people try to be too 'theoretical' or too 'practical'.
More often than not theorists will get the best of it on long terms, practicals will get the best of it on short terms. Since it's not that easy to split 'long term' with 'short term' both will lose more often than not.

Even casinos collect their profits or (temporary) losses by this assumption/evidence:

"in theory we must win all the money a player will risk at the table, providing he/she will bet a lot of hands"

"in practice we (casinos) must hope shoes won't provide easy detectable patterns where high rollers playing a relative low amount of hands will bet at"

In essence, things will change whenever an appropriate amount of time is involved, playing each hand or many hands tend to restrict the time interval.

More importantly, some BS are more sensitive to what happened at the last shoe or last shoes, it's here that a possible player's edge comes out.

Let's consider the bac 'codes' I was talking about above.
Any number will be followed by another number (same, superior or inferior number), of course some numbers will be more likely than others.
I guess a 0-0 situation will be more likely than a 0-3 or 0-2 situation but any 0 will fight by an even 'supposed' probability against any number different from 0.
Moreover as long as a given number won't appear, we can't estimate a back-to-back number registration.

It could happen that at a given shoe a given number won't appear with different general degrees of probability.

Naturally 0 fights against any number different from 0 (1,2 or 3), 1 against any number different from 0 or 2 and 3 (a >1 and <1 category), 2 against 0,1 and 3 and finally 3 against 0,1,2).

Mathematically we'll get a 50/50 general probability to win if we play toward a 0 vs the remaining situations,
12.5% of winning probability to get a precise 1, 2 or 3 scenarios.

Naturally if we'd bet toward a higher than 0 scenario we'll confide about any of the 1, 2 or 3 possibilites and vice versa.

The number 1 appearance needs to get rid of the 0 situation first, then to stop right before getting 2 or 3 spots (0.75 winning probability)

The number 2 and number 3 situations are the most intricated to assess as they must shift three different steps each (0,1 and 3 for 2 patterns and 0,1 and 2 for 3 patterns). That is a 12.5% probability to get a back-to-back spot.
Obviously a sky's the limit progressive plan (or, better sayed, a multilayered progression plan) will get the best of it by wagering isolated 2s and/or 3s vs clustered same 2s or 3s spots.

It's quite interesting to see that 0/1 vs 2/3 and vice versa plans will get standard deviation values quite different than general probabilities depending upon what initial-intermediate actual results had come out along.

In addition, notice how many times a same back to back same number spot sequence happens at the next shoe played.

Statistical or mathematical bighorn.stuff?

Of course, do not disturb the fkng math gurus....

as.

Obviously there will be some (rare) shoes looking as 3-3-3-3-2-0-3-3-3-2-3-0-1-3-3

Really?

Actually this shoe transformed in numbers will be almost impossible to happen as too many hands are needed for surpassing the number of playable cards (even if all or most streaks are just doubles and singles stopping at four, we must discard from the registration the tie hands and cards burnt at the beginning and at the end of the shoe.

It's like we are applying a code to each shoe dealt. A kind of 'gathering factor' to any hand succession not getting precise qualities as 0,1,2 are the same in quantity but different in quality depending on what event happened and naturally 3 concentrates many high clustered events belonging to the same category.

We have many strategical options to act about these 'codes'.

For example, we could evaluate how many ascending, descending or same value steps will come out at the same position or back-to-back positions shoe per shoe. Will some numbers be more likely to appear after certain other numbers at the actual shoe?

Within a shoe could a 0 value comes out always isolated (if any) or it should show up clustered at some point of it?
What about other numbers?

Is a same source of outcomes (same deck shuffled) a real important feature to possibly exploit those codes?

Every baccarat player knows that things may stay univocal sometimes but even may change rapidly in a way or another, that's why imo we better concentrate at most our field of operations.

as.

Another shoe (not displayed for simplicity):

0-0-0-1-3-1-0-1-1-1-1-1-0-1-2-0-0-0-1-(1)

Same amounts of situations of the previous shoe (that is 20, even if the last one is undefinied so far)
Notice that even in this shoe 2s went 'silent' and the shortage of 3s.

Next shoe is:

0-2-3-0-0-2-0-2-1-0-2-1-2-2-0-1

16 situations, more 2s than previous shoes, fewer 0s and 1s, just one 3.

Obviously there will be some (rare) shoes looking as 3-3-3-3-2-0-3-3-3-2-3-0-1-3-3 where we either want to stay away or to bet that something will be silent for long.

After all we can't get a 0 or 1 probability after effects value after a 3 and neither after a 2.

as.