Hi KFB!

From a general point of view, best predictable patterns come out with chopping lines and streaks of moderate/huge lenght, naturally both are coming out more probably when key cards are strongly balanced between two sides for long or hugely unbalanced at one side.
The remanining world, albeit being the most part, belongs to the 'confusing' field of more whimsical outcomes that might stop or prolong those basic patterns.

It's like that a shoe is composed by undetectable sections (that is whenever key cards are diluted) and more detectable portions where key cards are clustered in some way, that is forming the above more predictable lines.

No need to track key cards precisely, an experienced player get an idea when 'neutral' and key cards are more likely to show up, in addition as he/she takes care about HOW previous hands went.
Notice that naturals (and standing points) are constituing a way large part of total outcomes.

Hands produced by 6 cards are the highest form of 'randomness', then hands formed by 5 cards and finally formed by 4 cards (standing points at either side and naturals on one or two sides)

So, imo, besides the total key cards ratio happening at given points of the shoe, the number of key cards falling at 6 cards and 5 cards hands is another helping tool.

If we'd dissect numerous long 'chopping lines' of a given shoe, we'll see that most of the times key cards are quite balanced on either side, in some way telling us that they're quite concentrated.

The same about long streaks: strong key card falling at the same side, maybe asym hands that went right for B side during a B streak, or conversely at P side, asym hands that went wrong so prolonging a P streak.

What seems to be undetectable actually it isn't. At least not by the degree casinos collect their profits.

Patterns are a good way to think of things, better if we assign to them a 'card feature' even whether approximated.

Finally, there's always the old scientifically proved 'very slight propensity' to get the opposite result already happened. A natural reflex of key cards that cannot disappear from the shoe.

More on that later

as.

Propensities are the natural way of arranging things

Anytime a 6 or 8-deck shoe is shuffled and ready to be played, we know for sure that rank cards are not proportionally distributed.
Some portions of the actual shoe will be poor or rich of key cards, cards that most of the times affect the results.
Since results can be registered by infinite ways (different paces of registrations by quantity and quality), we know that there's no a univocal line to be formed, just a math propensity to produce this or that.

Math can be disregarded several times per shoe (think how many times your standing 7 will lose to a natural or a fkng 3-card opposite point), yet what is mathematically more likely remains more likely to produce a given winning result.

What stays in the middle (the most part of outcomes) constitutes the player's hell and casino's heaven.

In some way we could assume that each shoe will surely present at least a couple of moderate/strong card propensities, naturally not deriving from real results but from key card distributions, hence math favored situations.

Naturally we players may easily confuse real results with math propensities as too much 'result oriented'.

Let's make some examples.

Per every shoe played the probability NOT to get at least one 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2 (single-single, single-double, double-single or double-double) pattern at the big road and common derived roads is ZERO.
For that matter the probability NOT to get at least a back to back 3+ spot at all big road and derived roads considered at the same shoe is NOT ZERO.

The reason is not about the general 0.75 average probability those patterns will show up, just because long 3+ streaks will consume a lot of space along with not resolved hands (ties) both cutting off at various degrees the single-double probability.

And we know the average number of 3+ streaks happening at every shoe dealt, thus estimating how many times and how long the opposite 1-2 patterns will come out.

It's like that the 'random world' we must face is way more predictable than expected.

as.

Hi KFB!

I strongly think that at baccarat we shouldn't bet toward precise outcomes but toward 'propensities' of different nature happening at each shoe dealt.

At the start we know 416 cards of 10 different ranks are shuffled in order to produce math situations favoring one side or the other one by different degrees and dynamic yet card dependent frequency.

To state that along one shoe a given card concentration or dilution (no matter how strong is) will help one side is a total mere and worthless bighornsh.it.

Instead we should assume that along every shoe a natural key card concentration/dilution will help to form certain more likely patterns of different nature at some portions of it that most of the times aren't corresponding to a specific dominating side.
A feature hugely strengthened by a non random shuffle that at baccarat it's normal.

In one way or another and when considering different random walks taken at different spots, the actual card distribution will make more probable some events than the opposites as we're continuously changing the triggers by quantity and quality.
Up to the point that when adopting a super selected betting strategy some shoes are unplayable.


Spotting and taking advantage of 'propensities'

Even considering the four main roads displayed on the screen, a given BP succession will form different and apparent colliding situations:

Say the actual first part of the shoe reads as (btw the second to last shoe we've played yesterday)

B
PPP
BB
P
BBB
PP
B
P
BB
PPPPPPP
B
P
B
PP
B
PPP
B

a fkng undetectable big road shoe.

byb:

b
r
bbb
r
b
r
bb
r
bb
r
b
rrrr
bb
rr
bbbb
r
b

sr:

bbb
r
bbbbbbbbb
rrrrr
bbb
r
bb
rr
bb

cr:

rrrrrrr
b
rr
b
rrrrr
b
r
bbbb
r
b
r
b

Even though this shoe's portion could be interpreted as a partial 'good' shoe when considering sr and at some extent the cr (and a quite horrible big road besides the P 7-streak), this BP succession provides powerful insights at all four roads.

No need to stop the betting after getting a given win (or loss), if things are properly accounted the probability to be more wrong than right is close to zero.

What I try to say is that this shoe part was a classical example of strong 'propensity' not giving a damn about the math negative edge or easy 'trend following' strategy as there was not anything to follow besides the third b streak at sr and maybe the very first r streak happening at cr.
Big road P 7-streak coudln't be source of many winnings in a row for obvious reasons.

as.

In the gambling world, it's quite funny to see that poker or black jack are considered 'skill games' and baccarat a game for 'stup.id' people.

Poker is a game of imperfect informations by nature, featuring an astounding level of variance.
And such variance could last for long up to the point that many top poker players went broke along their career.
Of course best poker players are definitely ahead itlr but not by a degree most people think of. As serious money can be won (or lost) by challenging people getting fair skills at the start.
And every win will be decurted by the rake or by the tournament entry fee.

Black jack is a math advantaged game for the counting player, yet EV+ situations are showing up by very low frequencies (12-15% on average) and the edge is so relatively small that staying on the negative side for weeks or months won't be a unlikely circumstance.
Not mentioning that whenever we raise our bet, we could get some heat from casinos, even if we're raising our $20 standard bet to $60. Maybe by coincidence as we're not counting a fkng sh.it. LOL.

Baccarat is a completely different world.

Recently math gurus (of my behind) keep stating that every B/P bet will be EV- as Thorp or other gambling experts had not found evidences that one hand should be more likely than the counterpart besides some very low and insignficant math features.

Summarizing their findings, one side shouldn't be more probable than the other one by values capable to erase/invert the HE unless some very rare strong rank card distributions happen, giving a fkng sh.it about the real randomness of the sample and of course not giving the proper role about other statistical issues.

Actually we know that:

- most shoes aren't randomly shuffled;

- most of the times the non randomness will elicit the formation of more likely results;

- there's a dependency between back to back outcomes, privileging a clustering effect as key cards cannot be distributed proportionally along any shoe unless voluntarily placed.
That is most of the outcomes considered by different random walks are sensitive to what happened in the same shoe, getting limiting values of relative frequency more restricted than what a pure random world dictates.

At baccarat we should pretend to get a coin flip proposition but in reality it is not.
Especially if we're not compelled to bet every outcome.

as. 

The three d.r.'s extracted from the above shoe look as:

bye: 1,3,2,1,3,1,1,1,(2)

sr: 1,1,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1

cr: 3,2,1,1,3

In term of gaps:

BYe
1s/anything else: 2, 1, 0, 0,

2s vs 3s: (1)..

3s vs 2s: 1

sr

1s/anything else: 0,2,0,0,2,0,0

2s vs 3s: 0,0,0

3s vs 2s: n.a.

cr

1s vs anything else: 0, (1)

2s vs 3s: (1)

3s vs 2s: 1

Regardless of how we are dissecting the results, some situations are more  'uniformly' distributed than expected even by assuming a perfect random distribution that by no fk means exists in the real world.

Sunday we'll see this last topic.

as.

Under the 'runs' distribution we're talking about recently we'll have:

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

Now the gap of 1s vs everything else is: 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, (2).

The gap of 2s vs 3s is: 0, 1.

The gap of 3s vs 2s is: 1.

Remember we are just considering the big road.

as. 

Quote from: KungFuBac on August 23, 2021, 05:16:58 AM
Thx AsymBacGuy
Good posts/ several good points in the last couple essays--I like that you also take time in your posts to give specific examples.

"...Virtually speaking the probability that every shoe will not present a back to back same pattern on different random walks is zero.
I mean that at some point 1 must be followed by another 1 (2s and 3s as enemies), 2 by another 2 (3s as enemy) and 3 by another 3 (2s as enemy).


re: 3 by another 3 (2s as enemy).[/b]
     Q: Is your example referring to  (BBB: P BBB)  or  (BBB:PPP)

Thanks

HI KFB!

Consider the BR succession of this shoe part:

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

This is a pretty good example where it's quite difficult to lose more than a couple of times (at worst), letting the predominant counterpart to get 'endless' wins. Especially under the card features Al has pointed out.

A further proof that baccarat is a strict situational game.

Are those events so rare to show up?
Who gives a s.h.it, casinos must pay us no matter what.
 

as.




 

Simply put, most of the times the first patterns of the shoe are a reliable indicator of what will be more likely to happen along that shoe.
Especially whether we're taking into account the very first back to back pattern class considered by various random walks.

Since I never ever tried to sell anything in years (probably I should, lol) you can give me a bit of credit of what I'm saying here.

Naturally patterns shape remains the main indicator to look for, nonetheless key card distribution is a powerful enhancer working for us.
And for that matter, even ties are playing a fair role on that. In some way shoes particularly rich of ties at the start should be considered as unplayable ones.

Shoe composition affecting dfferent random walks

Virtually speaking the probability that every shoe will not present a back to back same pattern on different random walks is zero.
I mean that at some point 1 must be followed by another 1 (2s and 3s as enemies), 2 by another 2 (3s as enemy) and 3 by another 3 (2s as enemy).
Naturally many 'colliding' spots will arise along the way, meaning that we do not know what will be the favorite line to get a back to back same pattern situation.

The single/streak registration I've suggested will help us to spot the situations where A should be more likely than B after a given 'delayed' back to back time elapsed.

For example, at byb road, the 1-2 back to back probability will be quite enhanced at various stages as back to back 3s are less common to happen than at cr road. Especiallly if no 3s happened in the first stages of that shoe.

Moreover and regardless of the road considered, what didn't happen tend to remain more silent than average, as the alternating shape of some outcomes will be the least probability to happen.

Up to some values, of course.

Say we are betting a given line that 1 remains 1, 2 remains 2 (instead of 3) and 3 remains 3 (instead of going back to 2).

If per any value considered at each random walk accounted we'll wait a 2 or 3 negative deviation, our bets  will get a positive expectation as heterogeneous opposite patterns can't last for long.

On the other end, back to back same patterns cannot stop at the first valuable level for long, many times surpassing hugely the simple first obstacle.

- 1s fight to every other pattern different to 1 (2s and 3s)
- 2s fight against 3s
- 3s fight against 2s.

as. 

Linked events

Best way to assess a possible advantage is by measuring various and different opposite situations, knowing their general probability to happen and comparing it with the specific shoe we're playing at.

By doing this several times we'll be able to get an idea whether our selection will be either right (EV+) or random (EV-).
Of course the concept of 'bad selection' besides a random selection can't be applied as it simply doesn't exist at all. 

Since the baccarat literature has taught us that no possible bets will be EV+, we're forced to think (or to hope) that 'random' world is not so randomly placed, thus that some events happening at any given shoe are somewhat linked to others.

The probability to get a linked event or not is naturally following the general laws, obviously some events are more likey than others (2-2 is more likely than  3-3, for example), the important thing to remember, imo, is that the actual card distribution tends to make certain patterns more sensitive to the previous distribution up to a point.

Since we do not want to fall into the realm of variance and knowing that best bac players like to bet just very few spots along any playable shoe, we start to consider the very first 'linked event' coming out along each shoe.
Then we'll set up our strategy accordingly.

Have to run, more on that later.

as.

Nope you're fortunate, Agassi's house is still on sale...

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4944-Spanish-Heights-Dr-Las-Vegas-NV-89148/7148468_zpid/

as.

Thanks a lot KFB!

There's an advantage of taking into account 'back to back' situations as multiple different patterns will merge toward one of the three (or more) categories.

For example:

BB
P
BBB
P
BB

is 1-1-1-1...

or

B
P
B
P
B   is just a 3

as well as

BB
PPP
BBBB
PP
BB

(another 3)

Thus every shoe will be formed by a succession of numbers where there's a kind of relationship between numbers of different values, shoe per shoe.

We will get several classes of number clusters that by no means are getting the high variance typical of 'binomial' independent propositions.
Now we could serenely give a fk about the Banker propensity as acting too lightly here and there.
It's the average card distribution that counts (especially key cards) and we know that things vary enormously between shoes.

For example, say we want to track 1-1 patterns at a given random walk.
It doesn't take to be a rocket scientist to see that 1s tend to be more clustered than isolated as a kind of steady unbalancement must come out sooner or later.

Cards can produce whatever whimsical results somebody will think of, but 7s, 8s and 9s remain the main forces orienting the results.

Moreover when a given number category tend to be silent for a fair percentage of the shoe, generally odds that it'll 'catch up' in the next portions of it are lower than expected.
That's why we need to see at least one category to show up before starting the actual classification. (An exception was made about the very first 3 as opposed to 2).

Under selected situations happening at certain random walks, 3s variance will be so low that you'll be  bored to play and win at baccarat. 
But before thinking to quit baccarat consider to make investments as buying a Lamborghini Huracan or one of the Andre Agassi houses at Spanish Hills, Las Vegas ($2.2 M is the price but maybe it's already sold).

as.

Let's make an example.

The actual shoe portion we're observing is:

B
PP
B
PPPPPP
BB
PPPP
B
PP
B
P
BBBBB
PPP
BB
P
B
PPPPP
B
PP
B
P
B
P...

That is a 1-1-1-3-1-1-2-3-2-1-1-1-3... sequence

This shoe will be classified as a 0-1-1 succession.

First outcome is a 3 and not a 2, then it's a 0 number; then we got a one '3 gap' (1) and again another one '3 gap' number (1).

No matter how things went at B/P registrations, we got a 0-1-1 succession.

Itlr 0s as opposed to S spots (1 or higher numbers) will get a very low variance to happen as cards cannot be distributed for long to get precise cutoff points stopping at the 2 level.
This thing (multiple 2s in a row) can happen more likely when the first outcome is not a 3 (1s being considered as neutral) for the reasons illustrated above.

Even considering the worst random walk we can register (Big Road) this BS could be so reliable that shoes forming a 3 at the very start of the shoe or a back to back 3 pattern (1s ignored) will get for the patient player astounding low variance values up to the point that casinos will be our ATM.

Not mentioning that whenever a 3 fails to show up, more often than not we'll get an edge no matter what.
And we'll see this topic tomorrow.

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on August 11, 2021, 04:43:23 PM
Thx AsymBacGuy
Youre doing a great job detailing the CR. I appreciate your thorough explanations/then also giving us examples to make your points.


One sentence Im not 100% comprehending  and need a little extra clarification on:

"...In a word the 0/S ratio (0= first 3 and/or consecutive 3s; S=superior gaps) are moving around a strong balanced world (very low sd values), no matter how whimsically are shuffled the cards.   ..."

Can you give an example for the words in BOLD. Thank you.


Continued Success,

Hi KFB!!

Obviously the 3 pattern must affect in some way the following patterns belonging to certain categories, it's the probability after events and place selection probability working at full degree.
Thus we must set up the 'limiting values of relative frequency' of certain outcomes capable to get results more balanced or, even better, more oriented to get a back to back situation.

In a word, setting up multiple random walks more likely to form low variance lines.

We've seen that the small road, for example, can't get this feature and there's a reason for that.
Say 2 is a too low parameter and 3 is a too high parameter to look for low variance successions.

Under normal circumstances, Big road cannot give us a strategy to win by flat betting, nonetheless the 3 vs 2 'fighting'  provides interesting low sd values.

The fact that we're adding to our successions the first 3 appearance (as opposed as to any 2) represents a kind of gambling move, yet it's a move that tends to get more power to those 0-0-0-0...sequences more likely than S-S-S-S... ones.

That's because our live shoes data have shown that after a 0 (very first 3 appearance) more shoes will present a univocal 0-0-0...sequence than after any S situation happening at the start of the shoe.

Nobody here wants to disprove the total 3/2 mere patterns ratio, it remains the same. We just put some emphasis about the fact that the 3/2 distribution on certain random walks won't be so proportionally placed as mathematicians keep to state.

Of course whenever a 3 didn't happen at various stages of the shoe (especially at the very first spot), we may deduce that 3s are less likely than opposite 2s.
Not a sufficient reason to bet toward 2s...

After all 3s move the balancement 3/2 ratio acting at every shoe dealt toward one side and at measurable levels as at some random walks they are able to shift the future probability.

Since 3s can be accounted as three or more singles in a row AND/OR three or more streaks in a row and knowing that the average card distribution can't be proportionally placed along the vast majority of the shoes dealt (especially when cards are badly shuffled), the probability to get a proportional amount of 2s as opposed as 3s for long is not existent.
Providing to set up a limit of the actual distribution and we've seen that 0s vs Ss is the simplest way to get an edge.

as.

The mistake made is you see what you desire turning off factual based or biased available opportunities to Hope and Greed, because your mind immediately turns to:

1)  Making previous losses back;

2)  Losing sight of what is possible and focusing on unrealistic win amounts.

I can't agree more on that too!

In some way we win money whenever a kind of bias (whatever intended) is acting along some shoes, not along all shoes and of course this bias could be mild, moderate, strong or very strong.
Or, alas, not happening at all.

Shoes distribution don't give a fk about our strategy, either shoes are biased or not.
And when they are biased, the quality of such bias will be more likely included within the 'mild or moderate' categories.
There's no one sensible reason why after one or a couple (or more) unbiased shoes, next shoes will be more biased than average. That is capable to get a balancement of our previous losses.

Actually the main problem is to manage strong biased shoes coming in a row.
And we know it's more probable such situation arises when cards are badly shuffled.

as.