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. 

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.