The more we play the more we'll win

This statement strongly collides with what most baccarat players have read about this game.

So worst counter statement sounds as 'quit when you are ahead', the perfect quote instructing us we just need a positive variance to end up as (temporary) winners.

Those geniuses do not tell you what to do when losing, probably they'll teach you to try to recover your losses up to a point (actual bankroll), then, well, tomorrow will be another day.

Consider that a shoe is a finite card distribution having its peaks of 'homogeneous' patterns and 'heterogeneous' patterns.
Most players hope to get long homogeneous situations (HO) because they can't find a way to beat heterogeneous sequences (HE).

On the other end, some players often adopting a progressive plan, like to get HE patterns as things must change in a way or another.

Obviously both categories are destined to lose as HO = HE with their variance values.

Think of a shoe forming long sequences of HE or HO, differently taken they constitute a harsh obstacle to deal with.

For that matter, no HE or HO betting line is superior than the other, it's just how many clustered sequences will show up, up to some cutoff points we've decided to classify them.
Actually and besides some situations, there are no specific cutoff points to look for otherwise the game wouldn't exist. 

Of course at baccarat we have to deal with 'space', meaning that after a long or predominant HE or HO successions, the balancement power may be lowered by several factors acting along that shoe.

It's a proven fact that changing the side of operations (either at HE or HO way) will get the best probability of success.
Of course intrdoucing the concept that many times our best move is to not bet at all.

More later

as.

Hi KFB!

Yes, consecutive probability patterns is one of the options to look for.

Examples are singles and doubles vs triples or doubles and triples vs 3+s and so on.
It may happen the clustering effect will be denied by singled appearances (of course we'll wait our trigger to show up before betting or fictionally betting). But sooner or later (very soon) probability makes things to follow more likely scenarios.

Naturally each shoe is a world apart, best shoes to attack are those converging a general probability to happen along with an 'actual' probability to happen.
It's impossible to get a 'clustered' event unless that event shows up very soon in the shoe, so hoping it will form 'multiple' opportunities to become clustered.

Maybe clusters of streaks of 3s and 4s considered at derived roads seem to get the lowest variance.

as. 

Numbers and human guesses

Casinos make a lot of money by letting players to guess hands using this simple strategic plan:

1) a given pattern will prolong (P);

2) a given pattern will stop (S).

Of course there are innumerable patterns to look for, think about big road and derived roads where a kind of homogeneous pattern (especially when considering a 0.75 or higher probability) will surely show up along the shoe's lenght.

Anyway we have strong reasons to think that itlr P=S even though some P patterns are more likely to come out for the asymmetrical nature of the game privileging Banker.
But this feature on average will impact the results by just one more B hand per shoe.

Anyway, the key factor to look for is that P or S patterns are the direct corollary of the actual card distribution.

For that matter, the vast majority of shoes dealt are not producing a B/P ratio shifted toward B by just one step, it's just a kind of abnormality.
So we may infer that more complicated patterns will make even more unlikely to get a final +1 W/L ratio on such patterns, mainly as we do not know precisely which side will be really favored to show up or not.

Thus different patterns move around four different probabilities considered at the simplest 2-pattern step: P+P, P+S, S+S and S+P.

In some way 'humans', that is the vast majority of bac players, like to progressively stop a P pattern or to constantly wager toward P+P or S+P patterns.

It's like that they concede to the house a 'natural' S+S pattern, getting a 25% probability to happen.

Moreover any P+P step will get some values to look for, meaning that certain cutoff points are more likely to happen itlr and the same is about S+P patterns.

This is a very important concept, as it's the main tool to put math in relationship of the actual card distribution.

Most bac players hope that P+P > P+S or, even worse, that S+P > S+S or that P+S should be less probable than P+P.
Or, worst of worst, that S+S must magically shift into S+P very soon.

Of course P+P, P+S, S+P and S+S are perfectly balanced in their apparition itlr, but in no way perfectly distributed along any shoe dealt.

More on that in a couple of days.

as.

Al, you can be sure I won't go anywhere, I'll stick with this wonderful site.

Again, by far this is the only forum where people could grasp ideas to beat baccarat in a way or another.

Let naysayers think that experience and subtle features of the game cannot help us to find a way to beat baccarat (most math experts do not know a fkng nothing about some Smoluchowski works, let alone about what randomness really is).

Your peer and comrade asymbacguy.

as.

Thanks klw and KFB! I have the same feeling, many times you've inspired me in certain things!

Yep Al, I knew you would have liked those points 
And of course I've benn always reading the real shoes you provide here.

@8OR9: fortunately my ban was erased the day after this mess but I was informed just yesterday.

Yeah, gambling is not for everyone, arrogant or abusive people, sober or stoned, should find another hobby.

as. 

Overthinking

If there's a game where 'overthinking' is harmful, this is baccarat.

So if we're in doubt to bet this or that, we should simply do not bet at all.

After all baccarat is a game of clusters, educated guesses based upon long term tests or actual situations or, best, all of the three.

Here a brief list of general assumptions, imo, that won't help us in any way:

1- Banker is more advantaged to show up, so when in doubt bet Banker.

Cottontail rabbitsh.it.

If we'd decide to bet B is because for some reasons B should be more probable than P, we're not betting B as it's less disadvantaged than P.
This stuff belongs to math minds that in the 99,999% of the times are sure losers at this game.

2- We bet B and after a natural 9 showed up at P (sigh), a same natural 9 happened at B. So if we have miraculously shifted an almost sure loss, "it means that B must show up at the next hand".

Desert tortoisesh.it.

Actually there's a very very slight propensity that a natural will be followed by another natural at the same side, so betting B is a strong wrong move to make as when naturals come out (no matter at which side) asymmetrical hands favoring B cannot happen.

3) Last card dealt at the previous hand was an 8 or a 9, so P side is less likely to be kissed by a natural.

Roadrunnersh.it

If this assumption may be true we should infer that B will be more probable than P as a part of winning points involving naturals must fall at position #2 or #4 as opposed as position #1 or #3.
Meaning that after an 8 or a 9, a 1-step (consecutive) or 3-step (gap of 2) between 8s/9s is less probable to happen than a 2-step (gap of 1) of 4-step (gap of 3). No way.

4) In some way Banker or Player must 'catch up' after an opposite predominance happened.

This is a more debatable point as very good players try to get this effect to show up in selected circumstances differently to poor players that like to bet a side no matter how patterns develop.

5) Sooner or later a streak of fair lenght must happen along most part of shoes.

False assumption.
I've registered up to 5 consecutive shoes produced by the same source not forming a streak superior than 3 at either side.
A kind of heaven instead.

6) The more a side bet is silent higher is the probability to get it along the way.

Without a proper card counting, side bets are not more likely to come out after a period of 'silence'.
Actually it's true the opposite.
Most of the times, we awake about side bets when they come out clustered, before that we simply ignore their possibility to happen.

7) 'I'm doing so bad that I'm starting to play the opposite of what my strategy dictates' or 'I'm doing so good that I'm starting to play the opposite of what my strategy dictates'. 

In most of the cases, it's a fatal error.
We can't know how long a bad or good sequence will come out and the simple countermeasure to adopt is to keep betting when good things happen and not betting when bad things happen.
Stopping to bet after a good sequence happened is very easy, the opposite scenario is way more difficult to manage.
When to restart the betting? A topic we'll see in a next post.


as.

Actually I have several topics to write about I can't quit. 

@KFB and Alrelax: thanks for your kind words. Of course I'm looking forward to play with you somewhere! 

@8OR9: the story is simple. An unknown friend of a peer playing baccarat with me (we stupidly picked up him as the 'driver' for the night) tossed violently a losing natural 8 right in the face of an obnoxiuos dealer, cursing and shouting words like "I'll wait for you outside".
Floorman decided we all three were culprit for his behaviour, telling us that we won't be welcome to play there anymore.
I was so disgusted I started to hate baccarat, casinos and everything.
This casino is linked with another casino, so all of a sudden we were barred at both.

A real bad beat.

as.

A warm thanks to everyone who had the patience to read my section, for some reasons I'm stopping to post anymore about baccarat (maybe as we were banned to play at a couple of premises).

Almost 140k views consitute a huge accomplishment I'm very proud of it.

For sure you can bet your a$$ that baccarat is a beatable game, no matter what math dictates.

Hope to see you at real tables very soon!

as.

Nice post!

as.

Hi KFB!

Re: B /F7--I agree that it is not mathematically sound and ITLR an increased HE to an already -EV wager. My main reason for not habitually wagering the Bwager coupled with the F7 is the hedging effect on the B bet(I can't win both but can lose both). However, a situation where I do sometimes is when I have pressed my B wager to a higher level and I don't want to lose-a-win, or push on a win. I will then wager the F7 for an amount equal to "my" chips in the wager or maybe so an F7 win =66% of that pressed up wager,...etc..

Of course, there could be times we perceive or calculate that F7 has a higher probability of showing/ that could skew all of the above probabilities in the players favor(or at least make less disadvantaged), as long as one doesn't wager it too often.

I totally agree about those passages of yours.

Many times I'm astonished to watch at a player betting ALL the possible side bets at every hand dealt. (The like of six or more side bets I mean)

Yes, some shoes are particularly full of F-7 and Panda, nothing wrong about betting both even if they are mutually exclusive.

I admit to be cognitively disturbed while wagering P and at the same time betting the Lucky 6.
After all, any P bet needs a 6, 7, 8 or 9 two-card point to look for, all scenarios denying a Lucky 6 winning. 
But when 6s are particularly live in the deck, the logic department might start to come back.

Generally speaking and following Al's thought, some side bets should be bet when winning and not in order to recover losses.

BTW, which kind of tables (classic, EZ, etc) do you prefer to bet at?

Thanks in advance

as.

More clustered streaks of consecutive lenght:

WW
WWW
WW
WWW
WWW
LWW
WW
WWW
WWLL
WW
WW
WWW
WW
WWLW
WLWL
WWW
W
LLLLW
WWW
WW
WW
WWW
WLWL
LLWWW
LWW
WL
WLW
LWW
W
WL
WWWW
WW
WW
WWW
WWW
LW
LWW
LLLW
WWL
WLW
WWW
LWW
WW
WWW
LWLW
LWW
WLWW
W
WWLW
WLWW
WLLW
LWW
WWL
WWW
WWW
LW
W
LLW
WW
WLW
WW
WW
LWWW
LWW
WW
WLL
WW
W
W
LWWW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
WW
LLL

Hi KFB!

I think (you too, of course) that the best bac players are 'situational' players, meaning they like to bet toward some value of clustered events that happened so far than hoping that an event 'must' happen sooner or later.

So for example, if my strategy tells me to bet P I could place an additional Panda side bet, providing it came out by a higher frequency than probability dictates, that is following the 'rare events come out in clusters or stay silent for long' tool.

The 'betting P and F-7' is a more intriguing matter (the same about betting P side and placing a 'Lucky 6' wager).

Personally I very rarely play at EZ bac tables, so I can't tell you about the first attack, yet it could happen that I'll bet P side simultaneously wagering a 'lucky 6'.

The reason is because 'Lucky 6' is a well more likely possibility than F-7, at the same time knowing that Lucky 6 tables provide a better negative edge at Player bets (1.24% vs 1.46%).

In some way, my P bet must shift many Banker winning points but a 6. And those are surely coming out at least once in the vast majority of shoes dealt (differently to F-7). 

Many casinos have changed some bac tables from a pure 5% B commission game to "Lucky 6" tables as their math advantage will raise from 1.06%/1.24% to 1.46%/1.24%, forgetting that Lucky 6s are more constant to be distributed than F-7, for example (now the HE at B bets is around 1.01%).

The main error (obviously dictated by math experts losers and math probabilities) is that three cards are needed to form a F-7, whereas in the vast majority of the times a Lucky 6 needs just two. The same about Panda bet.

I think that any bac player should bet toward more likely situations, thus two-card happening will be more likely than three-card happening.
The same about simple B and P bets: we do not want to bet a side needing a third card to improve its point.

as.   

Nice job by any means!

Congratulations!

as.

More samples to look for:

WWW
WW
LWW
WWW
WWWW
W
LLLW
WWWL
WW
LLW
WWW
WW
LW
LWLWW
WW
WW
LW
WLW
LWW
WW
WWW
WW
WWW
LWW
WW
WWW
LWW
LWLWW
W
WWW
WL
WWLW
WWW
LWW
WLW
WLLL
WLW
WW
WL
WW
WWLW
WLWW
WW
WW
LLW
WWW
WL
WW
WLW
WL
W
WWW
WWW
LWL
WWW
LWW
WWW
WWW
LW
WW
WWW
WW
W
WW
LWL
LWW
WLW
WW
WW
LLLL
WWLW
W
LWL
WW
WWW
WWWWW
LWL
LLW
LL
LWW
LW
WW
WW
WWWW
WWLW
WL
W
WW
WW
WLW
WWW
WWW
W
LW
WW
WW
LW
LW
LLW
LWW
WW
WW
WWWW
WW
W
WW
WW
WWW
WLW
WL
WWW
W
WWWL
LLLWW
LWW
WWW
WW
no PATTERNS
LWWW
WWW
WW
WW
WLW
WWW
LW
W
WWW
WL
WWW
LLW
LWLW
WW
W
WL
WW
LWWL
WW
WW
LLW
WW
LWW
WL
WLW
WWLW
LLLL
WW
WWW
WL
WW
W
WW
WW
WW
LW
WWW
WWW
WW
WW
WW
WLW

At the end the same 'after a single L bet toward W' strategy will get a +11 unit result before vig.

For that matter a W-W clustering scheme applied at this last sample will get a +15 unit final result (before vig) that at the previous shoes sample won't provide any positive amount.
That's why is so important to patiently waiting for things more likely stopping after a given 'unlikely' pattern had shown up than hoping that a given pattern will prolong forever and ever.
Of course many intermediate situations may endorse a 'stop the betting up to a loss' strategy, anyway it's not the main tool real bac pros will look at.
And numbers displayed are the answer. 


as.

Even if I like Walt Whitman US writer, I don't want to be contradictory about what I've written so far: that is simple W or L situations happening when a strict mechanical strategy works out cannot provide a valuable edge.
Yet let's see what are the results of a 'bet W after a single L' plan did on the previous samples: 

It's a +23 unit (before vig) result.

Summary.

W= +1, L= -3, triggers are any L not following another L and of course we'll bet one time toward a W.

I'm not stating this is an 'optimal' strategy to look for, I'm just saying that this is one of the wonderful opportunities to get the best of it at baccarat. Of course getting the least impact of variance.
Why should that be true?

Again the answer relies upon the average card distribution happening at every shoe dealt. making 'unrandom' certain pattern successions showing up at some points of interest, that is such spots are fully beatable.
Add this to the fact that the vast majority of shoes dealt are affected by an intrinsic defect of randomness: yesterday, now and in the future.

oOoOo

Playing baccarat is just as wagering into a 'biased' coin flip finite succession, where there two kind of 'biases':

- a general steady math bias (general asymmetrical probability favoring B);

- a more important actual 'bias' coming out from the actual card (unrandom) distribution, privileging some patterns than others.

Needless to say that such features cannot mock an independent 'coin flipping' game unless dictated by coincidence.
Thus, we know without any shadow of doubt that the coin will be heavier or lighter in some points of the shoe, naturally knowing that at the most situations our coin will be 'equally' balanced considering all opposite forces, meaning it will be unbeatable.

So forget to try to guess every hand dealt as most hands fall into the 'pure coin flip' unbeatable category. 
Whenever you'd think a given line (and there are innumerable r.w.'s to look for) seems to reach a valuable deviated ratio (especially after many no valuable patterns had shown up), bet this line by a 0.75% probability in order to prolong it just by one step.
But the better feature to look for is the 'complexity' of such patterns, so the more complex a searched pattern is, better are the probabilities to catch a winning hand along the way.
It's now that the 'clustered' factor will take its primary role over the possible outcomes.

as.