Now let's consider a totally fkng undetectable shoe's portion as:

BB
P
BBB
P
B
PP
B
P
BBBBB
PPPP
B...

Here BR streak gaps got a 1, 2, 2 gaps.

At byb:

bb
r
bb
r
bbb
r
b
rrr
b
rrr
b


at sr:

b
r
bbb
r
bb
rrr
bb
rr
b

at cr:

b
rr
b
rrr
b
rr
bb
rr
b

Byb streak gaps: 1, 1, 1

sr streak gaps: 2, 1

cr streak gaps: 1, 1, 1

See if you could devise a more likely pattern....

as.

The average shoe card asymmetrical distribution

Even though card combinations are innumerable, more often than not and itlr back to back results will form more likely patterns of certain lenght.
Anyway this feature will mainly happen whenever cards are real randomly shuffled; without the doubt of being contradicted, a series of perfect random shuffled single shoes will present sure detectable spots to be exploited.
Unfortunately real baccarat shoes are made of 6 or 8 decks and, more importantly, they are not perfect randomly shuffled.

Try to tell casinos to deal baccarat with one deck shoes and they'll respond you 'no way', even if you're wagering thousands per hand.
We've tried this knowing the obvious negative answer.

Curiously math negative values working at single deck shoes or multiple deck shoes are more or less the same, yet casinos haven't offered once baccarat single deck shoes (or double deck shoes for that matter).

The main reason why baccarat is not offered by single deck shoes is not about their vulnerability (math remains the same) but about the side bets issue where casinos make huge sums of money, at the same time now being quite worried about a possible card counting scheme.

Now about the random or unrandom shuffle.

It's way more likely to randomly shuffle one deck than multiple decks, so with multiple decks in use it'll be  more difficult to get an 'average' impact of key cards.
On the other end, unrandom shuffles will make some portions of the shoe more likely to produce univocal patterns by a superior average lenght.
Meaning that differently to one deck shoes, multiple deck shoes are more affected by a kind of stronger propensity to get this or that within different portions of the shoe.
In some way we could deduce that at multiple shoes and more often than not we are strongly favorite to get this or that for long. See for reference what I've talked about hopping WL sequences.

A possible bringing down the house strategy

Since by any means shoes are surely asymmetrically placed by different issues, Ws and Ls are more likely placed by a polarized 'streaky' movement than by a 'hopping' WL distribution happening for long.
Notice that this is true no matter what the actual strategy is utilized, of course we've devised a strict mechanical placement to get the best of this feature.
That's particularly true whenever we compare mulitple random walks extracted by the same sequence, having each a cutoff point where things must change.

For example, let's consider thsi shoe's portion:

B
P
B
P
B
P
B
PPP
B
P
B
P
B
P
BBBB
P...

Betting toward B or P streaks will get a great amount of 'hopping situations', nonethless let's see what happens at derived roads:

byb:

rrrrrr
b
r
bb
rrrrr
b
rr
b

sr:

rrrrr
b
r
bb
rrrrr
b
rr
b

cr:

rrrr
b
r
b
rrrrrr
b
rr
b

At BR streaks got a 6 and 5 gaps, at byb streak gaps were 2, 1; at sr streak gaps were 2, 1; at cr streak gaps were 3,1.

Even in this pretty 'hopping' BP scenario we got five streak gaps superior than 1 and three streak gaps of 1.
More importantly, notice what happened about all derived roads gaps, promptly followed by short 'non streak' sequences.

as.

Hi KFB!!

Can you give us a couple examples of certain outcomes you most commonly track/ and the implications for wagering later in the shoe. So would you now be more inclined to look for (another of the same) event just observed or in some cases maybe (NOT another of the same)  event just observed???


You can take as example my ub plan #1, so we are always betting toward the same patterns. What counts is the frequency of our actual wagers and, more importantly, their distribution shoe per shoe.
Hence if we wish to apply a flat betting scheme we must restrict at most our field of operations, looking for back to back positive outcomes surpassing the 1 cutoff (that is 1->2). In this instance we do not care about possible 2->3 or 3->4, etc superior situations, thus the losng spot is whenever 1->0 comes out.
Naturally and besides the trigger happening, in order to find possible profitable spots we make a lot of fictional betting, a thing denied by mathematicians.

Conversely, a kind of 'sky's the limit' approach must progressively bet more hands, but the spotting profitability 'concepts' remain the same, albeit being now more frequent.
That's the 'jackpots' occurence I was talking about in my previous posts.

For that matter, it's very likely that those rare pros are adopting an intermediate strategy, that is looking for rare triggers happening (or not) at one shoe, then adjusting future bets by a 'light' progression, name it a sort of 'enforced flat betting'.


Player received (2-6=8, 3-5=8, 4-4=8) .
Disregarding what B received as all we know is B had totals <8 on its respective hands.

     Would you interpret the results  as P will likely be receiving fewer Naturals going forward because there are now (N-3) Naturals remaining in the shoe.
(OR)
Would you think wow Player must have the hot hand so I shall bet only P in the near future??? Other interpretations?
How would you apply the above info so that it would increase your probability of guessing with a greater accuracy in the remainder of shoe??


It depends about the actual patterns distribution I'm interested at.

Naturals have a great degree of appearance (34.2%) amongst all hands and 8s and 9s play a slight greater role than naturals formed by other two card combinations (134/118 at one deck).
In your example there are two conflicting situations: from one side P seems to be 'hot' and on the other end many low cards (favoring Player) came out.

Anyway P got a 3 streak, so we shouldn't be really interested about future immediate hands P related and definitely our main job is to find out the situations when something will either stop or prolong regardless of the transitory B or P predominance.
Always considering the simplest feature of close to coin flip distributions: within two attempts half of the times we'll broke even, in the remaining part we'll either lose or win.

as.

Think more deeply about the 'WL probability' even by accounting the slight asymmetrical BP probability.

In the long run, math values teach us that there's no way to spot possible favourable outcomes as an EV- game remains an EV- proposition, so producing a cumulutive long term loss for the player.

So in order to possibly find a long term winning plan we're forced to dispute that each betting spot is EV-, and not by trying to bypass the EV- issue by adopting a betting progression that 'seems' to overcome it in short-intermediate runs.

Practically speaking, we must work toward a possibile betting scheme capable to lower the expected sd values (our wacthdog of variance).

In a sense, we shouldn't work about finding a constant winning betting scheme, just about a given plan that makes slower than expected movements around a 0 point.
It's now that a given progression (or a fictional registration making more likely movements to happen) will get its full power.

To ascertain this, we must consider the correlation between back to back outcomes assessed by several degrees of quantity and quality.

For example B/P successions are made of the 'simplest' form of situations: either one side wins or loses.
Derived roads are made by a 'quantity' superior degree of distribution: either one side wins or loses by a mechanical preordered scheme of different paces distribution.

A 'quality' distribution may be evaluated by assessing how many times an asymmmetrical hand comes out   (consecutively or not), how many times a third card helps the Player side or the Banker side, and so on.

It's like that we are trying to approximate the actual distribution with the 'general math laws' distribution by considering how many times and how long the actual shoe is following or disregarding math values.

Since the job will be quite difficult to precisely carry out in practice, we just take care of BP and derived patterns shape.

We ought to remember that a given A or B pattern will be more or less prevalent not only about its general probability to happen, but about the actual distribution/general probability ratio dynamic assessment.

To make a vulgar example, say a A political candidate was univocally favored to win by a 65% vs 35% edge over the B second one, but after 80% of the votes B was ahead of something.
Now would you make a bet that even the remanining 20% of the votes would privilege B candidate?
Or, better sayed, do you think there are better ways to consider such 20% remaining part of votes (for example in term of clustered and isolated spots)?

Say we are running the above example 100 times at different worldwide locations, that is 100 favorite A candidates were 65% favorite to win over their opposite B candidates.
In this instance we're sure that at least half of the A candidates will win, again we should take care of the final results per every candidate after 80% of the votes. Are there spots to know if a A or B bet will be more likely to win?

Anybody could argue that political polls (assigning a 0.65/0.35 A/B probability) might easiliy be more wrong than math baccarat values, yet there are no ways to state that a 100 baccarat sample gets a greater or same degree of 'randomness' happening at the political polls, unless we've measured that future results are constantly independent at various levels of previous results.

Since this doesn't seem to be the case, we can conclude that results are somewhat sensitive about previous outcomes, the reason being about an actual card distribution making some patterns more likely than others at certain steps and after some situations happened.

as.

Next weekend we'll see how to get the best of it by exploiting card distribution flaws.

as.

Hi KFB!!

Say we have a method that on average dictates to bet 15 times per shoe (playable shoe)
Even adopting a multilayered progression we need a substantial amount of winning situations and those cannot come out other than by crossing more two-card math advantaged situations than third card 'miracles'.
When it happens that our wins derive too much from such 'miracle' spots, we know that in the near future we'll pay dearly this 'privilege'.

Obviously a 'random' betting will get a balanced number of third card winning or losing spots disregarding the math advantaged side.
But a solid approach must get a slight superior number of math advantaged hands to succeed as it's way more likely to win starting as favorite than underdog.

Cards speaking we could summarise things in such way:

-When our method dictates to bet Player we just hope to get a 'standing' point (naturals and 7s and 6s), then a drawing hand with a superior two-card value than Banker, then a drawing hand crossing a 0, 1 or 2 Banker point (no asymmetrical hand). An exception of the asym B edge comes when P shows a 5 and B a 4.
Everything different from that is a long term losing proposition more often than not.

-When we bet Banker we need first a natural, then an asymmetrical hand, then a standing point. Everything different from that is a long term losing proposition more often than not (vig counts, sigh)

Since our plan must be adopted within range of hands and not single hands, we might add to our strategy a 'hand quality' feature.

This help us to stop or prolong a given patterns attack happening at a given shoe.

But more importantly is to understand that making a living at this game means to bet very few hands, accepting the temporary negative fluctuations without the urge to bet anything different than what we had devised.
Always knowing that unlikely stuff tends to come out clustered, especially if we got a sign after the first-intermediate portions of the shoe (as you correctly sayed KFB, imo).


After making some observations by following HS players bets, it's quite curious (yet confirming our theory) to have seen that WL result movements of each player rarely took a 'hopping' fashion: W and L streaks of any kind are more prevalent than WLW or LWL sequences.

So e.g. after placing four straight bets, each player seemed to have got a lesser amount of 2/16 occurences (WLWL and LWLW) than expected.
Probably this fact is due as 99.9% of HS players prefer to adopt a 'trend following' strategy that it's less probable to produce 'hopping' situations than polarized spots at either way.

I know at least a couple of serious players trying to get advantage of such 'math unsound' feature.
No need to follow other players though (even if a large players pool will amplify this possible effect): try to follow patterns in the way you want and register how many times you'll get W or L streaks and WL hopping situations.

After all if you realize that by following trends you'll get a fair amount of WLW or LWL fair long spots, you'll start to increase your second bet after a loss.
It's like that the human mind 'road' loves to avoid 'alternative' spots for long.

as.   

Forget math issues, I'll try to simplify our strategical thoughts.

In our opinion easiest plan to put in action is by taking into account BR and byb roads as they are 'mutually exclusive' at 'finite' degrees, meaning that no matter how things are developing, the vast majority of the times they'll reach detectable values.

For example, a sequence as

BB
P
BB
P
BBBB
PP
B
P
B
PPP...

provides two patterns of four 1-2 sequences and at byb road the situation looks as:

bbbbb
rr
b
r
bb
rr
b
r...

A six 1-2 straight sequence.

This sequence is going to get a statistical advantage no matter when we'll decide to wager.

Now let's take a more intricated sequence as

BBB
PPPPPPP
B
PP
BB
P
BB
P
B
P
BB
P...

at byb road the sequence looks as

rr
b
rrr
bbbb
rr
bbbb
rr
bb...

Now we have a nine 1-2 straight sequence at BR and a two 1-2 sequence at byb.
In another way of considering results, first registration is affected by a very low degree of 'shifting' strenght (few 3s, many singles and doubles) and the byb presents just one single and all streaks of some lenght.

We know that an average card distribution tend to get opposite BR and BYB patterns unless long consecutive BP streaks come out and for sure itlr such streaks are affected by a mathematical and/or statistical 'bias'.

Take this very unlikely shoe's portion (yet it's a real shoe dealt at Encore casino, LV):

BBBBB
PPPP
BBBBBBBBBBBBB
PPP
BBBB
PP
BBB
PPPPPPP
BB
PPPPP
B

No one 1-2 patterns happened, just 10 consecutive streaks.

Byb looks as

rrr
b
rrr
b
rrrrrrrr
b
rr
b
rr
bb
r
b
r
bb
rr
b
rrr
b
r
b
r
b
rr
b...

From a 1-2 pattern point of view we got 1,1,11, 6,... situations. So in a way or another a kind of 'steady' situation to be exploited happened.

Now let's take a BR sequence not getting many 1-2 sequences:

BBBBBB
P
BBBB
P
BBB
P
BB
PPP
B
PPPP
BBB
P
BB...

At BR 1-2 sequences got 1,1,2,1,(-1) appearance (six 3+ streaks in twelve columns, not a likely scenario to happen)

Byb got:

bb
rr
bbb
r
bbbb
r
bbbb
rr
b
rr
bbb...

Now the 1-2 probability is 2,1,1,3.

Now let's compare the BR 1,1,2,1 (-1) sequence with the Byb 2,1, 1, 3 sequence.

Are there many BR patterns following for long the same positional Byb patterns when taking into account the simple 1-2 (single-double) plan?

Even in the worst scenarios they simply can't. And the main problem is about avoiding colliding events.

Consider this shoe's portion (just two singles and eight streaks):

BBB
P
BBBBBB
PP
BBBB
P
BB
PPPPP
BB
PPPPPPP

that is a 1,1,2  (single-double) pattern.

At byb road we'll get:

1, 6, 8.

If the game is random and hand by hand independently placed, 1s at BR (or vice versa) should be followed by 1s at BYB by a 25% probability (as superior than 1s spots take the remaining 75% part), but it's not the case.

More simply speaking, most of the times when 1-2 patterns tend to be silent for long at either BR or BYB roads, the other sequence will get plenty of valuable positive sequences up to the point that we can't be interested about the precise spot to wager at.

After all, it's very very very unlikely to get many contemporary positional 1s at both BR and BYB, we need to manually arrange cards in order to get that.

Even if 1s tend to unlikely take the same position at both roads, well 3+ streaks are not coming around so often and when they are they tend to show up clustered thus giving more room to 1-2 patterns.

as.

Hi KFB!

Bac results are mainly made by 50/50 math situations, the third card is just an 'interference' that will follow the same math expectations.
It's the third card that makes things confused or math shifted toward one side (for the rules).

If baccarat would be a mere higher 'two-initial' point proposition, the game wouldn't exist as too easily beatable.

Therefore there are two different levels to consider outcomes: one is the higher two-card point distribution and the other one is the actual results (distribution).
Of course we do not win nothing while betting the math advantaged 2-card side when the final result is opposite, nevertheless some math disadvantaged hands will come out at our favor but by a way lesser degree of appearance (not only itlr but even at short-intermediate runs).
So our plan must rely upon those math advantaged situations to succeed, at the same time giving a 'dynamic' value about those rarer spots disregarding math.
   

Cards can be shuffled by infinite ways, yet there are more likely statistical distributions happening along the way as each card has a different impact over the outcomes.
Hence 2-card initial points are following a more likely distribution made of some steps and cutoff points, naturally not happening at every shoe dealt.

Example.

Consider long streaks (say higher than 5) happening at either side.
Most of the times such streaks are neglecting a math advantage/disadvantage or acting within very restricted limits about their potential winning probability.
Think about one side getting a 6 or a 7 and the other one showing a natural and so on.
Or whenever a PPPP sequence will be prolonged (or formed) by an asymmetrical hand favoring B that went wrong so producing a PPPPP pattern.

At B side, natural 2-card math advantaged spots will mix (or not) with a finite number of asymmetrical hands favoring the same Banker side, whenever the math edge goes right we'll get a long B streak.

But in both cases such scenarios must be considered as 'erasing' spots of the natural math 2-card propensity to get this or that.

That is that 1,2,3,4... levels of statistical propensity to get 2-card higher initial points must be assessed by disregarding actual results.

I'll give you more examples later

as.

We may safely consider the 'baccarat problem' into the average probability to get two-card higher initial points as this is, by far, the main math feature affecting the final results.

How many fkng times two-card higher initial points are presenting clustered or isolated?
Surely not following a mere 50/50 independent proposition, this being typical of roulette outcomes or every other independent proposition.

Unfortunately, most bac players think baccarat as a game of outcomes and not about situations.

In addition, most of the times  long profitable spots cannot come out clustered for long, unless those 'incidental' spots that are supposed to break a flow tend to prolong a trend.

Say that three hands went 'normally' at B side, meaning that math propensity acting at those 2-card initial points went as expected (for simplicity we consider both sym and asym hands).
Now the fourth hand was as:

B (3-2)
P (7-J)

Banker draws and wins by catching a 3.

Is this hand forecasting a possible long Banker streak?

No way.

The 'flow' was interrupted by a more likely math advantaged hand, thus we should interpret this hand as a kind of new 0-point 'trigger' even though it seemed to prolong a given univocal pattern.

Now you should ask about those 'long' B or P streaks happening along the way.

Most of the times such streaks are coming out by breaking math features (or following or not them at asym hands) as the probability to get long sequences of two-card higher points at the same side is really low.
The same about getting many asym hands coming out in a row or shortly sequenced.

Since singles and doubles are the more likely occurences at baccarat, it's like that 'streaky' rich shoes are neglecting a math propensity acting at various degrees.

That's why I strongly recommend to stop the pattern classification within 1s, 2s and 3s classes.

Test your shoes and register how many two-card higher initial points will happen at the same side and how is the 'incidental' strenght acting along any shoe.
Independently of the actual results.

as.

Thanks KFB, again you've made good opinions.

About 'jackpots' (JE)

Differently to other games, baccarat presents an infinite variety of 'JE' where the 'starting event' of each class can come out or not, yet it's impossibile not to have at least a 'back to back' same result; sometimes an event will grow up to the 'jackpot' (all results are belonging to the same class or classes), other times a given event will be followed by a counter event several times, but even here we got a kind of 'hopping jackpot'.

Even though this seems an 'exoteric' way to consider things, everything derives by long samples considered by our old statistical tools that at baccarat work particularly well.

In fact jackpots can come out mainly when cards are so badly shuffled that 'incidental' events must come out in our favor despite of their unlikelihood.
No one math advantaged situation can last for long and for the entire lenght of the shoe, so even though we were to know which two initial cards are higher, we'll be destined to lose some hands.

Therefore and generally speaking, lesser is the number of hands wagered, higher will be the probability to profitably catch that 'bias' without the interference of variance.

More on that later

as. 

Hi Al, sorry I had to cancel my last post, too detailed for my colleagues taste....

I report the last part of it.


Baccarat players lose by a 5% degree for HE and the remaining 95% comes from bad betting attitude (playing too many hands, bad bet selection, improper fluctuations assessment, etc).

Betting toward a more likely scenario is a good idea when actual things seem to be restricted within 'more likely' ranges. Otherwise it's a very bad mistake as unlikely events tend to come out either clustered or very diluted.

Good plans work in the long run, therefore they can't be successful at every situation encountered.

The fact that it's very very difficult to win 3 or 4 shoes in a row means that things change in way or another, otherwise casinos would be out of business.

as.

Sorry again, hope you'll post your shoes very soon, thanks!

as

Quote from: klw on October 12, 2021, 09:13:08 PM
Hi AsymBacGuy  -- I don't want to become a pain asking lots of questions, I'm just trying to learn the game of Bacarrat. So if you want me to stop posting so as to not derail the flow of your thread , just say.

I have a question from a post of yours on March 15th. You wrote :-


" Say we have tested several shoes and the average shifting higher two-card point shows a median=3, that is 3 is the more likely shifting number between two sides (higher two-card points, not final results).
Thus we let go all inferior situations until we'll reach a shifting number of 3. "

I understand what 2 card point means and that we are measuring them rather than the final results.

1. We measure both sides independently ?
2. Can you show me an example of how you reach a shifting number of 3 ?


Cheers.

Higher two card initial points are getting a huge edge over the final outcomes, after all it's one of the main tool we should rely upon.
The average flow of the cards seem to get a cutoff point at 3 value, meaning that after a given side had reached three consecutive two-card higher points, the more likely situation will be to get a higher two-card hand on the opposite side.
Of course we must take into account some asymmetrical features favoring B side. Fortunately they don't come out very often, being their probability to happen just 8.6%.
In the short run variance will get a huge impact over the final results, itlr we are just taking casinos' money.

Anyway, yes, a progressive plan starting to work after three two-card higher points had fallen at given side and betting the opposite side will get us an edge. Be careful of ties that tend to erase such propensity.

An example is this:

B (8-4) P (3-4)

B (6-5) P (2-2)

B (6-K) P (9-J)

No matter how were the actual results, itlr the more likely hand will be B and you can shift the situations and the probability remains almost the same (as in the second hand an opposite situation will math favor the B side)

More generally speaking, any single baccarat shoe will present one or more 'jackpots' spots at various degrees, meaning that univocal patterns are going to show up for 'long' or at least one more time than the opposite situation.
So we must split a shoe into 'confusing' sections mixed by a fkng easy detectable world.

To do that we must consider several different subsuccessions, four of them are directly displayed on the screen (BR, Byb, sr and cr). We can add a 2-4 pace (we are registering the hands as same, S, or opposite O, by taking into account the second to last or fourth to last hand) or by setting up a 'super cr' road that is a sequence coming out by taking into account 4 back hands instead of 3 (cr). And so on.

After years of playing and studying this game, I would recommend to mainly consider BR and Byb as they are the best and easiest indicators to look for.

For that matter, sr is the best reliable indicator to know if shoes are 6-deck or 8-deck dealt before knowing the final amount of hands, and I say that with an almost certainty.

Let math experts to state otherwise, after all they are just pure losers when talking about baccarat.

But we need real fkng shoes samples to prove or disprove that, pc simulations are toilet paper.

as. 

Thanks both KFB and klw for your interest!

I've started to write a Smoluchoswki derived strategy but I've seen it's a too complicated strategy to post here and for sure we can get the same profits by adopting easier concepts.

What I name as 'runs' is the number of same situations shifting from one state to another.
For example a BBPBPPPPPPPBBPBBBBPBP pattern is made of 9 runs.

The same about a byb sequence as bbbrrbrbrbrrrrbbbrrbrbbrrr: it contains 15 runs.

Itlr the number of runs follows the expected general probability providing a random production.

To 'bring down the house' we need to know either the general probability to work but more importantly an actual evaluation about how good or bad are shuffled the cards.

For example, it's literally impossible to get all steady states happening at a given shoe and the same is true about unsteady states.
Imo it's a strong mistake hoping to get too many steady states for long and of course is a worse mistake to get unsteady states coming out for long as cards are not randomly shuffled, thus what happened is slight more likely to come out again than to get an opposite situation.

Rain is very unlikely in Las Vegas, yet on my very first trip there I've got 5 straight raining days in a row.
After all sh.it happens in clusters.

See you tomorrow

as.

Marian von Smoluschowski was a Polish Physics Professor that made several interesting studies about Brownian motion and many other topics, including the several mentioned here 'probability after effects' (I voluntariily changed the second word with a 'events' word).
Simplifying a lot, a given independent 0-1 binomial succession having a 0.5 probability to appear (the event come out=1 or not=0) considered at different consecutive steps will form another succession by adding the previous number with the very next number, now the new succession loses the 'random' factor as some values cannot be reached.
   
Example:

B=1 and P=0

Say the original sequence looks as 1-1-1-0-1-0-0-1-0-1-1-0-1-0-1-0-0-0-1, if we want to add two consecutive 'values' we'll get:

2-2-1-1-1-0-1-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-0-0-0-1.

Naturally the value 2 may go back to 1 or remaining at 2, but it can't never directly go to 0; the same about 0: no way it can jump to 2 without before going to 1.

If the original sequence is really random and independent (and not affected by the natural asymmetry working at baccarat), the derived subsuccession (albeit being unrandom), will present 'unbeatable' values typical of a coin flip proposition.

Nonethless, a simple 'runs test' made on reliable samples will deny this possibility, in the sense that the original succession is more or less affected by a kind of unrandomness. Of course at values higher than the expected natural 'asymmetry' working at B favor.
Otherwise we're just considering 'natural' situations and not 'actual' situations.

In the above example and considering the Smoluchoswki subsuccession, we got 7 'runs' whereas at the original sequence the runs number was 12.

Now let's consider a strong polarized streaky shoe where the original sequence looks like as:

1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-1-1-1-1-0-0-0-0-0-1-1-1-1-0-0-0-0-1-1...

the Sm. succession will be:

2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-1-2-2-2-1-0-0-0-0-1-2-2-2-1-0-0-0-1-2....

original sequence got 7 runs and the Sm subsequence got 12 runs.

The exact counterpart of what happened at the first shoe.

Now let's compare how many shoes will get the original/derived suuccesions getting more runs at derived roads than at original sequence.

To falsify this hypothesis let's take three different real and very polarized shoes portions:

1) 0-0-1-1-0-0-1-1-0-0-0-1-1-1-0-0-1-1-1-0-1-1-0-0-1-1-0-0-1-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-1-1-1-1

that is a Sm derived sequence as

0-1-0-1-2-1-0-1-2-1-0-0-1-2-2-1-0-1-2-2-1-1-2-1-0-1-2-1-0-1-2-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-1-2-2-2...

original sequence got 16 runs and Sm subsequence got 31 runs.

2) 1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-1-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-1-0-0-0-1-1-1-1-1-0-1-0-1-0-1-0-1...

SM derived sequence is:

1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-1-0-0-1-2-2-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1...

original sequence got 29 runs and Sm sequence just 9 runs.

3) 0-0-0-1-1-1-0-0-0-0-0-1-1-1-1-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-0-0-0-1-1-1-1-1...

original sequence got 8 runs and Sm subsequence got:

0-0-1-2-2-1-0-0-0-1-2-2-2-2-1-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-1-0-0-1-2-2-2-2...

15 runs.

Notice that regardless of the actual distribution,  the overall number of 'shifting' numbers at Sm subsuccessions will be superior to the number of 'same value' clusters, now matter how's the fk cards are arranged.

In the four shoe fragments displayed, and assigning a W at shifting clusters and a L at losing situations we'll get:

1- L L W L W L

2- L W L W L W L W

3- L L L W W L W L W L L

4- L W L W L W L W L W L W L W L

Notice again that Ws came out clustered just one time, so no 'positive variance' in the common intended sense had acted along the way, yet Ls are more likely to be followed by a W than by a L, another way to consider results.

Now we have the tools to set up a 'bringing down the house' strategy by adopting a careful multilayered progressive plan that makes baccarat as the best game to take casinos' money.

See you in a couple of days.

as.

Hi klw!
Your observation is a good one, imo 

Shoes are just numbers and numbers are the reflex of patterns lenght


There are innumerable possible BP (and derived sequences) combinations at baccarat, yet we could take care just of the most likely patterns coming up along the way, getting rid of the most unlikely ones.
Of course we do not know the precise numbers distribution but we know that something must happen in a way or another at different degrees of probability

For example, if we'd bet toward getting two singles in a row at the start of the shoe, we know the general probability to win is 0.25, the same about getting two doubles in a row but now we need a double to come out as the very first pattern. In the sense that after a BB or PP sequence (that is a BBP or PPB) we'll bet respectively toward another P or B then playing the opposite side to limit that consecutive second double.
Again the probability is 0.25.

When we'd consider triples, we need a triple to come out and we know that any 3+ streak belongs to this category.
Thus BBB or BBBBBBBBB, or PPP or PPPPP is a triple.
Now to get another back to back (consecutive) triple of any kind we must bet two times the same side after the triple trigger has shown up.
So after BBB(P) we'll bet two times P, or after BBBBBBBBB(P) we'll bet two times P and the same about P triples. And guess what, the probability remains 0.25.

Oppositely thinking the probability not to get two consecutive same patterns in a row is 0.75 and of course it's the same fkng general probability to get two consecutive bets winning (or losing now by a 0.25 value).

But a baccarat shoe is not a 'sky's the limit' proposition, if it were we couldn't get a single possibility to win itlr.

I mean that those probabilities are dynamically placed along each shoe either for 'natural' reasons but more importantly for other features where a possible 'bad shuffling' takes a primary role.

More on that later

as.