Ok, while waiting for Al shoes I'll make a simpler and more manageable example about the last issue.

Forget derived road, random walks and whatever and consider Big Road always in term of singles and streaks gaps.
Our aim will be to get just one statistical situation, that is getting a 3 (instead of a double) at the start of the shoe, then betting just one time whenever a 3 or any 3 had come out.
In a word, 1s do not interest us, we are still opposing 3s to 2s but now and differently to the above derived roads plan, here we're adding the very first 2 or 3 appearance just to make things faster (of course making more gambling in our plan).

Therefore positive spots will be when at the start of any shoe a 3 will come out instead of a 2, then we need a 3 appearance to bet toward a consecutive 3 (as opposde to a 2); any 3-2-3 or 3-2-2-3 o any other longer 3 gap will be considered as a loser.

I've stressed about the importance to not consider Big Road as a direct reliable source of results, anyway and no matter how will be the edge by wagering this plan (as being too diluted, that is needing too many shoes to observe), we decide to play a more risky plan by adopting a progression.

We choose the Jae's progression, Oscar grind, that is staying at the same betting level unless a win come out then if we're losing, we raise the bet by one unit until we've recovered the deficit.

So a x-3 sequence happening at the start of the shoe is a win and any 3-3 pattern (without 2s in the middle) is a win too.

Anything different from that is a loss, that is when a 2 come out at the start of the shoe and/or a 3 is not followed by another 3 but by a 2.

Again 1s are considered neutral, our triggers come whenever two homogeneous situations (singles or streaks) had come out.

My data suggest that the probability to get long losing situations without getting a proper winning patterns is not existent at all. Especially if we stop the betting plan at 0 level.

The fact that I've added the very first pattern happening without previous info, makes impossible to arrange cards to get more 2s than 3s as cards are burnt accordingly to the first exposed card quality.

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.
That's because S spots are less likely itlr.

There are many additional factors to increase our already strong probability of success, we'll see them next week.

as.

Quite interesting but not so surprising at all is to realize that propensities happening at cr road (there are many, I've made just the 'easiest' example) don't show up at the other d.r.'s.
In a sense we got a direct 'falsification of the hypothesis' so appreciated by scientists.

Thus if the appearance of a given pattern registered by a given pace will slightly promote the appearance of another pattern formed by the same qualities, once we change the pace of registration this propensity must change too.
This reasoning totally collide with the 'independent nature of the outcomes' so beloved by mathematicians.
We are talking about patterns and not about rank cards, of course.

And actually the propensity we've investigated so far neutralizes at another road and tend to invert its features at the remaining third d.r.

Now the question is: are we going to get a greater propensity of some kind when we're trying to merge the common three d.r.'s together?

The answer is YES.

At first glance this should constitute a paradox: when proper situations arise and taking into account the issue discussed so far A>B at one road, A=B at another road and B>A at the final road.
What could be interesting is that we cannot have means to know the 'intensity' of the diverse propensities happening along any shoe.

It's the average global intensity that gives us precious hints about when more likely patterns are going to occur and as you well know we just need to be one step ahead per every playable shoe.

So we must find a cumulative random walk capable to get spots accounting values overcoming the opposite part. Meaning we're estimating quite carefully the actual card distribution.

Maybe some examples will help.
Next time.

as. 

Hi 8or9!

Yep, your considerations make a lot of sense but think that the very few people making money (a lot of it) at this game are waiting rare profitable opportunities to show up.

Baccarat should be considered as black jack: hours of boredom (negative counts) with rare peaks of good situations (positive counts).

Here we play the average card distribution biased by a kind of improper shuffle and of course the average edge is way higher than at bj positive counting spots.

Nothing prevent us to play 'for fun' at a standard unit 10-20 or more times lower than at key hands.
Alrelax made a lot of posts about his 'turning points' topic involving more hands to play.

You're right: Stadium baccarat is the best place to adopt this strategy. Nobody gives a fk about our play.

After all having fun and/or getting a good time and consistently winning is anthitetical by definition.

Take care

as.

Mathematicians will say that no matter which spot we are taking as 'trigger', every bet will be EV negative.

A total fkng s.t.up.id bighornsh.it. A confirmation that math experts cannot get a single opportunity to beat baccarat.

At every baccarat shoe dealt, we're not going to bet fkng general probabilities.
Instead we are betting the actual card distribution compared to general values and the actual card distribution cannot be totally insensitive from the previous patterns. By any fkng means.

Compliance with the shoe we're playing at

The horizontal single/streak registration will get rid of the long B and P streaks, that is a B or P streak is a streak no matter how is long. Period.

On the other end, singles remain singles both in vertical and horizontal registrations.

Of course the 1,2 and 3s single/streak consecutiveness will move around more likely general patterns, but it's the actual presentation of some categories that will enhance the probability to get this or that.

For example, whenever a 3+ sequence of any nature will happen at the start of the shoe (cr road), odds are that another 3+ sequence will happen very shortly at the same shoe, naturally those patterns must be considered after a 2 trigger pattern got place.
Taken the issue by another perspective, as long as no 3+ patterns hadn't show up, 1s and 2s tend to form longer clusters than expected, many times not crossing a proportional negative 3s part canceling the profits we got before.

Since it's virtually impossibile to get a proper EV+ compliance at every shoe played (no matter how fast a 3 will happen along a given shoe), some bac pros will take into account how many gaps will come between 3s (taking as negative as any 2 appearance happening after a 3).

As sayed before and taking as neutral 1s, the probability to get 0 vs superior patterns or 1 vs superior patterns or 2 vs superior pattenrs will be so quite balanced that even a kind of strong progression will get the best of it.

Translating, 3-3 or 3-2-3 or 3-2-2-3 cr patterns will get astounding low sd values than what a binomial proposition will dictate.

Notice that we can't hope to get this propensity acting for the entire shoe, we just need to select what happens after the first 3 happened at the actual shoe.

Itlr our live shoes data instruct us to know that the probability to get back to back higher than 0 or 1 '3s' gaps for long at cr road is almost not existent, providing at least a 3 happened at the first half of the shoe.

Well, if things tend to come out in this way at cr road, what about the two other common derived roads?

More importantly what about a cumulative betting plan taking into account ALL common derived roads as a whole?

Next time we'll discuss this.

as.

So, how many of the above three situations can be silent for long?
What about a possible probability enhancement when the same class had appeared one time and vice versa?

We know that itlr cr triples will proportionally prevail over singles/doubles wholly considered.

Yes, it happens that some shoes will produce very few 3+s with a lot of singles/doubles, meaning that those shoes are formed by a high degree of key card dilution, a quite rare circumstance to happen.

Since 1s are pretty common anyway, we should concentrate our attention about 2s and 3s distribution.
In this way we're just placing one bet after a 2 apparition.
Either a 2 remains 2 or jumps to a 3.

Some shoes will present a long sequence of 2s? No problem, as we're placing a bet (fictionally or for real) after a 3 happened.
There will be several classes of gaps between a 3 and another 3 apparition.

0= no one 2 is interpolated between two 3s

1= one 2 happened between two 3s

2= two 2s happened between two 2s.

3= three or more 2s happened between two 3s

Of course we are more concerned with the first three possibilities, being the vast majority of situations.

This simple plan will put into the toilet the common general assumption that every bet will cross a 50% (or so) probability to succeed or fail.

In some way 3s are our watchdog to know how good or bad is shuffled the shoe we're playing at, moreover instructing us what will be the more likely gap between them.

In fact and at least at non random live shoes (the vast majority of them), after a 3 pattern showed up there's a slight propensity to get another 3 pattern quite soon (2s remain the trigger to start the betting).

Such spots will be so balanced along the way, especially by fictionally waiting a slight deviation on negative side of one or more gap classes, that you'll feel pity for casinos.

Be greedy, set up a proper bankroll and extract more money than you can before this fkng SARSCov2 will close again our offices.

as.

Take this one

Montecarlo casino, Principality of Monaco, may 2018 (8-deck shoe played very short)

bbb
r
bbbb
rrrrr
bbb
r
bbbb
rrr
bbbbbbb
rrr
bbbbbb
rrr
bbb
rr
b
r
b
rr
bbb

that is a 1,1,3,1,3,3,(2)...

At this shoe casino got almost every penny of the super high stakes playing there but us. I guess nobody of you would have crippled by wagering at this shoe. Providing to look for situations not belonging to the actual big road.

as.

Examples.

Aria casino, LV, july 2017

Cr was:

bbb
r
bb
rrrr
bb
r
b
r
bb
r
b
rr
b
rr
bb
r
bbb
r
b
rr
b
r
b
rr
bbb
rrrrrrr
bbbbb
rr
b
r
bb
rrrrrr
bb
rr
b

that is a 1,1,3,3,1,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,1,3,3,2,3  succession

easy shoe :-)

Another one taken randomly, CP casino, LV september 2017

cr:

rr
bbb
rr
b
rr
bbbbbbb
rrr
bb
r
bbbb
rr
b
r
b
r
rr
b
r
b
rrrrrrr
b
r
b
r
bbb
r
b
rrr
bbb
rrr
bb

that is a 3,1,3,1,2,3,1,3,1,3,1,2,4 sequence

or this one, Aria casino, july 2017

cr:

bb
r
bb
r
bbb
r
bbb
r
bbbbbb
r
bbb
r
b
rt
bbbb
r
b
rrr
bb
r
b
r
bbbb
rrr
bb
r
bb
r
bbbb
r
b
rrrr
bb
rr

that is a 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,3,1,2,2,3,3,1,1,1,1,2,3 sequence

Finally an European casino surprisingly dealing 8-deck shoes (we needed a manual registration to convert the BR into the three common d.r.'s:

rr
bbb
r
bbb
rrrr
b
r
b
rr
bbb
r
b
rr
bbbb
rrr
bbb
rrr
b
rrr
b
r
b
rrr
bbbb
r
bbbb
rr
bbbb
rrrrrr
b

that is a 2,1,2,3,2,2,3,1,1,3,2,1,3 sequence

Easy way to predict what more likely should come next, huh?

as.   



 

Hi KFB!

There are several ways to register results and, more importantly, to dispute the real randomness of the outcomes.

So far we've seen registrations made on BP or AB lenght sequences, maybe restricted within more likely situations.

Now we take the issue from another perspective, that is the lenght of either singled or streaky occurences happening along any shoe.

We already know that Big Road is full of bighorn.stuff, the maximum example of results too much sensitive of weird situations that cannot help us by a sufficient degree of precision.
In this post we'll talk about cockroach road (cr).

Preface

Any common derived road is made upon a mechanical comparison of what happened in the past (ties ignored) by different intervals, the original source being the same BP sequence.
We know for sure that when talking about cr successions, long live baccarat data present different features than long live roulette data.
In the former class B>P but red=blue whereas at roulette N=R, O=E and H=L, yet red=blue.

Therefore the red and blue spots number is equally distributed at both games despite of the different source's nature (asymmetrical at baccarat, symmetrical at roulette).

This is a kind of paradox, as itlr asymmetrical games must get different results than symmetrical games,  no matter how deep we would classify the outcomes; it's like that when something happened at baccarat will temporarily affect future results way more than a perfect independent game as roulette will do.

Cr single and streak consecutive results classification

Say the cr distribution looks as

r
b
rr
bbbb
rrrrrrr
b
rr
b
r
b
rrrr
bb
r
bbbb
rr
bbbbb...

translating into a 2,3,1,1,3,2,1,3... succession.

We can't give a lesser fk whether itlr 1s, 2s and 3s consecutive single or streak successions will get the same proportional amount than expected, actually it's what we should expect.
What it should really interest us is the gap between same values appearance at the same fkng shoe we're playing at, being the most reliable parameter to look for, knowing that single and streak successions must be somewhat dependent from the actual shoe distribution.

Cr is the best common derived road to look for as being strong polarized to get this or that at some spots of the shoe.

In addition notice that playing toward 1s, 2s or 3s gaps doesn't mean to chase a preordered scheme as the actual shoe is addressing our betting plan. Moreover, such numbers aren't polarized to get a given outcome as a couple of three (or more) singles in a row must be considered the same as a couple or three (or more) streaks in a row, no matter how's their lenght.

If you test your live shoes, you'll soon see that there's a constant relationship between a previous sequence of some lenght and the probability to get a given outcome on the next results.

When a pattern getting dishomogeneous features taken at either both opposite ways doesn't come out at an asymmetrical and poor randomly distributed game, probabilities dictate that more often than not the state tends to remain more silent than average.

I'll get more detailed info in a couple of days.

In the meanwhile check out the lenght of consecutive single and streak r and b spots happening at cr per each shoe.

Remember that 1=1, 2=2, but 3 or 25 or more must be still considered as 3.

as.

Very good post

as.

Hi KFB and thanks!

If you want to beat this fkng game itlr you are in the right section. :-)

Whether cards would be so randomly distributed, the 7 WIAR situations will face the opposite losing counterpart and we can't expect to win anything.
At the actual live spots, this probability will be either diminished or endorsed by studying the first patterns.
Remember we need a moderate key card clumping to happen along any shoe to get the best of it, strong or too diluted clumps tend to produce too polarized and/or whimsical subsequent situations in either way.

Depending upon which random walk you choose to use, the appearance of streaks of certain lenght teach us that key cards are clumped at different speeds.

It's particularly helpful to know that when the average number of streaks of certain lenght per shoe is X,  odds are that itlr we'll get on average a higher amount of shoes showing more likely an inferior than superior number than X.

Therefore streaks appearing at the initial portions of the shoe must be considered as a key card clumping, especially whether such streaks are consecutively placed.
We know that portions of the shoe particularly rich of key cards more often than not tend to deny a moderate subsequent key card distribution as the key card/remaining cards ratio is hugely shifted toward the right. Meaning results will be more affected by short term undetectable variance.

Cockroach road.

This road is one of the best example why results are sensitive to probability after events and place selection tools both denying a perfect randomness.
And/or a flaw of the game, of course.

Few players follow this road, probably as it's visually more difficult to track than other d.r.'s or simply as it starts very late in the shoe.

Cockroach road is relying about the probability to get symmetrical (red spots) or asymmetrical (blue spots) taken at a 3-pace along the way.
It's the most volatile road we could track of, sometimes we'll get almost singles and doubles, at other occasions multiple consecutive long streaks show up.
It's this feature that could get us hints about how a shoe is distributed.

Since at this road the quite long asymmetrical and symmetrical situations tend to be more clustered than at other roads, we could infer that the remaining part of asym/sym single streaks tend to stay more isolated than clustered.
Therefore if 2+ tend to be followed by 2+, 1 should be followed by at least another 1.

Counterintuitive but it works.

So consider a given red or blue streak of certain lenght happening at cr. Wait until this streak had come out isolated (that is not followed by a perfect streak of the same opposite lenght).
Now bet toward getting another isolated b or r streak accordingly to the previous streak happened.
Just one time, even knowing that a fair percentage of shoes will provide a chain of isolated streaks.

Itlr the 1-1 vs 1-X situations will get a ridiculously low variance not fitting the fkng general values under normal circumstances.

But say casinos know this bet selection trying to get infinite isolated single streak patterns followed by consecutive streaks of the same lenght happening at cr.
Really? That's the perfect negation of statistical laws, and btw it's impossible to arrange cards to get this or that belonging to a specular plan for long and by a 3-paced interval.
What about other roads?

You can be 100% certain that some patterns will be more likely than others, giving a lesser fk about what math dictates.
Next time we'll see many other spots getting an astounding probability to appear, no matter how the s.tu.pi.d math experts keep to state.

as.   

Quote from: alrelax on July 26, 2021, 12:58:20 AM
Two things come instantly to mind reference your last few posts.  Copy and pasted from a post of mine.

1)   First and foremost, anything and everything can continue or cease within a shoe;

5)  You cannot adjust your emotional level on the better and larger wins (and losses) as easy as you might believe you can. This is super important and that emotional level will send you into another realm of belief, that you should not be in and one you cannot understand at the table.

Alrelax.

1) Very true, yet a larger than 50% probability is going to produce more likely patterns along the way. Not at every shoe dealt, of course.
For example, it'll be way more difficult for a shoe to produce a larger than average number of 3+ streaks of any nature than the opposite situation (shoes short of 3+ streaks).

5) That's completely true regardless.

as.

BTW, Alrelax stated that no matter how things develop at the start, most shoes are producing 'turning points' capable to get the player a kind of an edge.

Knowing his vast experience on the subject (and he's used to play serious money and not $10 bets), I tend to give him a lot of credit, after all Al is one of the few players I'd bet my money with.
Probably he's one of the few best opportunistic guys that tries to get the best of those rare situations occurring, meaning that it's the person capable to quit the table as a huge winner.

as.   

Hi KFB!

"...We've already seen that transforming a 'random' BP succession into 'derived' sequences will get itlr different "general" patterns depending upon which pace of BP results we've decided to take as a trigger.


Ok, take the cockroach road.
Long red or blue streaks come out whenever strong symmetrical 3-paced patterns or strong asymmetrical one-way BP streaks come out of the blue.
In either way red and blue singled and doubles patterns are slight less likely to happen.
In some way and since long b or r streaks tend to come out consecutively at this derived road, we may deduce that more often than not a quite diluted pace of registration tend to get strong polarized key card distribution in a way or another.
But notice that at this road just one hand that went 'wrong' will affect decisevely the next distributions.

Summarizing, the cr is the best indicator about how much key cards are concentrated or diluted along any shoe.
Then it's up to us to assess whether a single or a series of  'key' results was/were mathematically shifted to prolong a b or r streak or to cut it off.

Think that we can build additional derived roads getting a 4-pace or 5-pace registration...

The other two d.r's tend to be so stable to provide certain more likely outcomes for long or to provide some back to back situations that it's virtually impossible to state that 'baccarat is a game of non detectable patterns' (a careful reading of my unb plans would help).
I mean that at those two d.r.'s we can't give a lesser fk about how things have actually developed from a two-card math point of view.

In the improbable event that casinos will think that derived roads could be a valuable tool for players, so not directly displaying them on the screen, we know that an infinite different random walks registration will make the same job now at more precise values.
And we do not need to write them on paper.

The perfect plan would be to spot a betting line capable to get 7-10 all W sequences per shoe that must come out by a well higher degree of probability than what math values dictate.
Of course we need to wager two times each spot toward getting a more likely scenario.
And naturally whenever a shoe starts with a negative spot, we can't reach that aim.

as.

Everyone here or there can bet his/her a.s.s that live baccarat shoes are not perfect randomly shuffled.

And we can't give a lesser damn whether math formulas state otherwise. Mathematicians write formulas, we play the game. And as long as we are heavy long term winners such math statements go right into the toilet.
Especially after having implemented our plans by a couple of statistical tools studied in the past by eminent authors.
 
It's virtually impossible to shuffle 416 cards randomly.
Thus at some points of certain shoes (not all shoes dealt) something is well more likely than what the fkng general probability dictates.
Cards are removed, I mean key cards removed cannot come again and when they are 'live' they can't disappear so distributing itlr in a more likely way.

On average, a shoe will distribute back to back results very differently whether key cards are concentrated or diluted, yet the number of key cards is finite as well as the number of hands dealt per shoe. 

That makes baccarat a very different game than roulette where each spin is totally independent from the previous one and the possible non random features are very very hard to detect (assuming they're really acting).
(An exception was found at certain Interblock automated wheels where rotor speed and ball speed sequences were somewaht detectable, yet low sums of money can be wagered there and the general HE to overcome remains -5.26%)

We've already seen that transforming a 'random' BP succession into 'derived' sequences will get itlr different "general" patterns depending upon which pace of BP results we've decided to take as a trigger.

Naturally and as Alrealx pointed out several times here, a 'more likely attitude' is acting just when it seems to act at the actual shoe we're playing at.

Take the cockroach derived road as an example.
By far and among the three derived roads displayed on the screen, this road will get the higher amount of longer streaks, but it's not that unlikely that this road will form very long single and double results with just one or a couple of 3+s streaks.

In our opinion and according to our long term data, CR is the worst succession to get hints from as it's triggered by a quite large amount of actual hands.
In some way too diluting or too concentrating a possible key card impact.

Actually CR is the only one derived road succession among the common three DR's not giving us a long term advantage by flat betting as too influenced by positive or negative variance.

It's like the ancient 'in medio stat virtus (the right position is in the middle) quote takes its full meaning even at baccarat.
At baccarat we could translate this quote into discarding Big Road results and CR results.

Of course there are additional sub successions to look for, I've provided the BPBPBP... original scheme and there are infinitely others.

The advantage of setting up a derived road by utilizing a BPBP...orginal sequence compared to the actual shoe sequence is that non random card distrubutions will get more likely the production of 3+ streaks.
We know that live shoes are way affected by a higher percentage of long BP streaks than pc samples.

If this streaks probability is somewhat endorsed, we know that the AB probability will form shorter and more detectable patterns as sooner or later such 3+ streak must happen.

In fact a BBB or PPP sequence compared to a BPB... or PBP... original scheme will form respectively a ABA and BAB sequence or a BAB and ABA sequence.

Of course the losing counterpart comes out when a BPBP... original sequence will collide or coincide with an actual BPBP (AAAA) or PBPB (BBBB) situation.

Good news is that itlr non random shoes will form more likely BP streaks of some lenght than BP long patterns of singles and doubles.

It would be hard to accept this statement unless a careful long live data compared with pc data were attained.

After all pc samples are not placing phisically, live shoes will.

I mean that itlr the number of shoes richer than average of AB streaks will be lower than the number of shoes poor of those AB streaks.

It's up to us to select the possible profitable situations to bet at, knowing that not evry shoe and/or not every shoe sequence is bettable.

as.

Thanks KFB!

@Alba
Baccarat is not a game of math results, baccarat is a game of card distributions favoring this or that.
Even a portion of a black jack deck astoundingly rich of high cards could be not profitable for the player whether those high cards are confined at the unplayable portion of it.
Who knows if cards are (voluntarily or not) shuffled in this way repeatedly?

At baccarat this problem doesn't exist as almost all cards are utilized and of course we can bet whenever we want.
It will be the time that baccarat decks will be played 'Montecarlo style' that is cutting off from the play a lot of cards.

No matter how weird a deck is shuffled, especially whether a kind of non randomness is acting, at some points of most shoes some patterns will be more likely than others by a likelihood surpassing the general probability values and, more importantly, the negative EV.

Let's consider the easiest BP succession then trying to compare it to the actual BP distribution in order to build a new 'road' (S=same result, O=opposite result)

BPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBP........

BBBBPPBPPBPPPBPBPPBBBPPPPBPBPPB (actual shoe)

we'll get:

S
O
S
O
SSS
OOO
S
OOOOO
SS
O
SS
O
S
OOOOO
SS

Notice that instead of comparing the actual shoe with a BPBPBP succession we could use an original scheme starting with a P (that is an infinite PBPBPBPBPBPB sequence) anyway nothing will change as now S are O and vice versa.

Of course and depending upon which original scheme we'll use, actual long chopping shoe situations will translate into univocal S or O long streaks.

Other actual shoe patterns as

BB
PP
BB
PP
BB
PP
BB
PP...

become (BPBP original scheme)

S
OO
SS
OO
SS
OO
SS
OO
S

or (PBPB original scheme)

O
SS
OO
SS
OO
SS
OO
SS
O

If unlikely shoes provide a kind of

BBB
PPP
BBB
PPP
BBB
PPP  sequence, we'll get

S
O
SS
O
SS
O
SS
O
SS
O
SS
O
S

or the specular

O
S
OO
S
OO
S
OO
S
OO
S
OO
S
OO
S
O  counterpart

Do not waste your time to find out which shoe sequences will provide long consecutive S or O streaks: those situations are happening whenever a strong balanced BP succession will come out as

B
P
B
PP
B
P
BB
P
B
P....

forming a

SSSS
OOOO
SSSS... sequence

To cut a long story short, this simple tool will help us to find how "balanced" is the card distribution acting at every shoe dealt, knowing that under normal circumstances (live shoes) long balanced situations are restricted within countable values. Meaning that sooner or later they'll be disregarded, especially if we're restricting the field of our operations into 1,2 and 3 S/O outcomes.
Streaks and singles distribution is the answer.

Whenever a 3+ BP streak will happen (and we know that shoes not producing at least one 3+ streak at either side are very very very very unlikely to happen, say it's an almost zero occurence) S or O streaks of such limited lenght must shift.

In some way we're challenging bac shoes to produce balanced card distributions for long, a thing that for obvious reasons cannot happen in the vast majority of situations.

Consider this registration as an additional derived road to look for. Check out your live data and let me know.
Streaks and singles.

as.