Quote from: alrelax on January 13, 2022, 12:50:35 PM
Groups=Sections?

Hi Al!

Yep, of course everything depends upon about how one considers a 'group or section'; imo a group is any sequence of events getting the same properties belonging to the most possible restricted category.
Of course we can hope to be right for the almost entire lenght of the shoe, at the same time fearing that a large number of opposite 'heterogeneous' spots denying steady groups will come out sooner or later at a given shoe.
Most of the times, a shoe won't present steady long detectable spots and of course it won't present steady unguessable spots either.
But you know very well what I'm talking about. 

as.

Differently to 'simple' B/P or b/r results, numbers will be more equally distributed (lower sd values) along the shoes dealt as card distributions will make less volatile outcomes when taken as 'groups'.

Naturally each card distribution will make some numbers slight more likely to happen and it's quite easy to see what those numbers are.
Hence to exploit this property we should split the entire picture into smaller pieces getting each a probability different than the general probability values as card distributions provide more whimsical results if singularly taken (single hands) than 'clustered' considered (groups of hands).

So, for example, after a 0 there are numbers more likely to happen as the average card distribution will make those numbers (situations) more probable to show up.
In simple words, some back-to-back situations belonging to some numbers category will come out by longer clusters than at the opposite counterparts.

General probability dictates A=B but actually A>B and so on (i.e., A+B>C instead of A+B=C).

This is a complete different approach than the one based upon a 'general' Banker math advantage as now we're considering an average card distribution and not a side being favorite over the other one by a 0.18% better ROI (not applicable at no commission Tiger tables where, of course, the best bet is Player).

We've made exhaustive long tests about those baccarat 'codes', either by adopting the common 'horizontal' succession registration (single shoes) and 'vertically' successions (comparing which numbers are more likely to come out in the same position after many shoes are dealt).

So single hands are not important unless they are belonging to a more or less clustered event displayed by a precise number. And we ought to be interested just in what happens after a given number appeared.

The horizontal and vertical registration not only increases the betting opportunities but will amplify the actual probability that given numbers are more likely to be followed by some numbers categories.
In some way we're challenging the 'random production' to fall sooner or later into the more expected 'average' card distribution.

The more we're challenging this world by: 1- waiting for some 'negative' deviations before betting (the distributions are unlikely following deviated lines), 2- adopting a multilayered betting scheme and higher will be our edge.

Notice that in any instance we're not betting 'in the dark' as the average card distribution (making some numbers more likely than others) must prevail itlr, otherwise most part of trend following players would be rich by spotting profitable spots shoe per shoe and, frankly, that's not the case to look for (at least in our opinion).

To provide the simplest way to set up a possible strategy consider this plan:

after any 3 sequence (see again my above example) happening at singles and/or streaks, we'll wager that after the break of such 3 situation, any consecutive single succession and/or any consecutive streak will not surpass the 0 or 1 value.
If any 3-3 or 3-2 spot happens, we'll wait until another new 3 shows up.

Since the general '3' probability to show up is 12.5%, you can serenely wait all other outcomes so just focusing about what happens after a 3.
We've sayed to bet toward 0 and 1 (it's a win, if played by a 2-step progression) and stopping after any 2 or 3 (this last outcome won't interest us as we've stopped the wagering after the 2 losing appearance).

This is a specific random walk to follow that math considers the same way as any other 'random' betting, that is a EV- proposition getting the same sd values.

Bighornsh.it.

If you have the patience to wait for those '3's, maybe waiting to cross through some unfavourable 2 or 3 consecutive negative steps (3-2 and/or 3/3 spots), you'll get a sure fkng indeniable statistical edge over the house and reaching astounding profitable values.
For that matter there's no need to wait for consecutive negative spots whether a proper multilayered betting scheme is adopted.

Instead of trying to guess the 'unguessable' or hoping that things will go by general math propensities (betting B), consider to play an 'average card distribution' plan.
You'll bet very few hands (on average one or two hands per 8 resolved hands dealt) knowing that itlr you'll play an EV+ game by waiting a small negative deviation and/or by utilizing a multilayered progressive plan.

At the same token we can make a plan about more likely 2s, even though some differences must be considered here.
We'll see this topic next week.

as.

Bringing down the house

Differently to what Ben Mezrich wrote on his two bestseller gambling books, it's not black jack the game to 'bring down the house' of but baccarat could.
Baccarat is the only game in the world where a given event or series of events within a relatively restricted results' sample MUST happen no matter what.
It's just a matter of time.

Whenever time is consumed improperly, the math edge cannot go elsewhere than toward casino's pockets as things tend to remain undepicted for the vast majority of occasions we'll be forced to face.

Actually baccarat pros have raised the attitude to properly consider 'time' as the main factor to deal with.

So anytime we have managed to build a bet selection capable to roam around the 0 point without getting huge fluctuations toward a way or another, we'll get the recipe to bring down the house.
Say this is the decisive 'winning random walk' that, of course, must win itlr by flat betting.
Now a strong multilayered progression cannot get but constant progressive accelerated and endless winnings.

At baccarat we can bet $20.000 (or more if a multiple players team is involved) out of blue without having to previously bet a single hand.
Now it's the casino to 'fear' our bet/s, hoping that that hand will go toward their favor.
As long as we do not make a lot of consecutive bets (without a reason and this, more often than not, will be denied by statistical issues), the situation happens again whenever we'll place another huge bet. Or a limited series of progressive bets.

Mathematically speaking, there's no value to bet X or Y by a 10, 20 or more hands pace than by wagering a 0 pace (betting every hand or almost every hand), but statistically there is.
Of course the negative math impact will raise proportionally with the number of hands wagered. So, in a basic way of thought, less hands wagered = less negative global impact.

But what is really important is that the probabilities to get X or Y will change as long as any shoe is dealt and as long a series of shoes are dealt. Especially whether a general probability is raised beyond 0.5.
Otherwise baccarat tables wouldn't be offered.

Say we have found a BS capable to get many spots roaming around the 0 point without suffering huge deviations from that 0 spot (of course according to the general probability we've decided to apply).
Naturally this plan cannot belong to any B>P general strategy as it's easy to find several (say hundreds) shoes in a row getting P>B results. The same about other simple general BP patterns.
For that matter it's virtually impossible to get long term winnings by hoping that B>P or that BBB>BB and so on.

This 'roaming around 0' random walk must be assessed by isolated and clustered classes. After a value is surpassed, we're not interested anymore to look for outcomes unless belonging to an 'isolated' or 'clustered' class.

Our EV is in direct relationship about how many times we got 'more likely' clustered events than 'isolated' events, knowing that itlr this value is slight more oriented toward the clustered side. In a way or another, but always depending about the general probability we want to classify.

Take the last classification I've illustrated above.

Itlr, consecutive successions of univocal patterns (singles or streaks) are more likely to come out by precise numbers, for example if you'd progressively wager toward not getting any 3-3 sequence (for example) you'll get a sure statistical advantage no matter how the fkng math will dictate.

More specifically, you could put in action a mechanical multilayered progressive plan wagering at all four roads (BR, byb, sr and cr) that after any 3+ outcome happening at every road, the next more likely outcome (surpassing the general probability value to happen) will be a number different than 3+.

Yep, any 3 value now must fight against three steps (0, 1 and 2) but show me how many shoes will produce back o back 3+ simultaneous spots at each derived road considered.

For that matter we could even take the luxury to consider 3-2 spots as losing spots, nothing will substantially change.

as. 

U r welcome klw!

as.

Assign a 2.2 positive value to any 7, 8 or 9 card dealt and a -3 negative value at any 6 dealt.

Actually and of course it's a +1.2 (not 2.2) value for 7-8-9s and a -3.6 negative value for 6s.

as. 

BTW, notice that even a fkng math unsound betting plan will get the best of it by progressively betting the Tiger bet.

When B side wins it's because a portion of symmetrical favourable hands go toward this side, but asymmetrical hands that cannot consider a 6 initial point will mathematically go toward Banker side itlr.
Add to this class those 6 initial B situations being more favorite to win.

In essence, a Banker bet working along with a Tiger side bet will lose itlr just when Player gets:

- an initial 6, 7, 8 or 9 initial two-card point (not always of course);

- a powerful third Player card not fitting the asym hand requisites;

- a symmetrical draw-draw spot favoring P side but here we're playing a 0 negative edge (besides the Tiger bet that will lose more often than not)

I mean that as long as we're not falling into a P standing point, a progressive Banker bet along with a Tiger progressive side bet will get a sure long term EV+.
This will take care even of the ties appearance making a loss at Tiger bets but a push at B bets.

When Tiger bets tend to rarely come out, Banker side will be strongly favorite to win as the math asym power will get the best of it itlr.
Conversely, a shoe particularly rich of Tiger spots will get the best of it by winning Tiger side bets being payed 12:1 or 20:1.

In a way or another when we're betting Banker with a Tiger bet and as long as Player draws, we're kind of freerolling.

Think that the probability to get zero Tiger bets is almost not existent at any shoe dealt.
In the meanwhile we'll get the best of it by wagering a math favorite side (Banker).
Cards are arranged not getting a proper amount of Tiger bets? Good, we're playing an advantaged proposition.

Now a multilayered progressive plan can't lose itlr as we have depicted reasons why it should work.

Test your shoes after having registered the Tiger bets average distribution.

as.

Fictional betting

Is there any real value to make a fictional betting plan before making actual wagers on the felt?

Mathematically there isn't. At least if we don't attack side bets vulnerable from card counting, but in this case we can't speak of 'fictional betting'. We simply bet when the circumstances are math favourable for us.

On the other end, those very rare players making a living at this game know that the only way to win itlr is by betting very few hands.
Therefore a 'fictional plan' must get a decisive role in that.

The foremost gambling expert who deeply investigated fictional betting one century ago was Marigny de Grilleau in his voluminous book called 'Le gain scientifique d'une seule unité'.
Basically his theory (applied at roulette) was to wait until a EC gets a 3 sigma or higher deviation before betting then hoping by a strict flat betting that the 'silent' chance will come out more clustered than isolated.
To raise the probability of success he decided to win just one big unit for every profitable arising spot, then waiting for another opportunity.
Actually and to avoid the long situations not fitting the 3 or above sigma triggers, he also claimed other weird theories not working at all at baccarat (even less at roulette).
Despite his huge contribute to gambling, he died pennyless mostly as roulette is a endless proposition of independent outcomes.

Nevertheless his work was very important especially when we take a 'dependent' and 'asymmetrical' game as baccarat.

When things remain steady and when things are supposed to change

Most baccarat players approach baccarat by hoping that things remain restricted in detectable patterns, of course a steady pattern (whatever considered) is any sequence higher than 1, that is the pattern managed to go beyond 0 point by one or more steps. Those players hope that after 1 or 2 positive steps the pattern will go toward higher numbers.
At the same time there is a 'counter pattern' that is the right opposite situation fighting the above pattern extension.

So baccarat results are limited by infinite patterns' steps starting at 0 and going toward certain values dependent upon the general probability we wish to utilize.

If things would remain steady for long (patterns will reach huge numbers and counter patterns remain at 0), a wise recreational player would collect a lot of money.

On the other end, if things keep patterns to stay around the 0, 1 or 2 levels for long, a progressive plan would get the best of it by any means unless an improper strategy will dictate to chase counter patterns beyond high numbers (3 or higher, for example). Even the player wanting to utilize this plan will collect a lof of money. 

Baccarat is a mix of those two opposite situations.

But there's an important feature to be aware of: any shoe is a world apart, only back-to-back shoes may entice the 'things will change' formation at the same time endorsing the probability to get the 'longest' steady patterns.

The fantastic baccarat feature is that itlr some ascending, descending or equal numbers are more likely than the opposite counterparts by values not fitting their general probability to happen.
In the sense that some numbers' classes are more likely to happen after certain other numbers, as sky's the limit just for casinos and not for us.

The best baccarat player in the world is the one who takes full advantage of both 'steady' and 'changing' situations, knowing the most likely values that could happen at a given series of shoes dealt.
In that sense fictional plans are working just by defining the possible extension or stopping patterns' triggers.
Notice that a 'steady' pattern could prolong for long one or two times per shoe but stopping patterns are more likely to happen.

Practical hints

My unb plan #1 works wonderfully whenever shoes provide a quite number and/or a lot of singles, the backup plan to wager toward doubles and triples in some spots will act toward a general probability of success. In the sense that WW or LW or LLW will be slightly more likely to happen than WL, LL or LLL spots.

Now let's take into account the single/streak distribution.

Everyone reading these pages and willing to test his/her shoes has probably noticed that the more shoes are tested, higher will be the probability to get some numbers more likely than others.
It's like that the average card distribution will take univocal long term lines in terms of quantity and, especially, in quality.

oOoOo

Since the fkng 2+2=4 forum math clowns will think baccarat scholars as pure id.i.ots (actually and fortunately for us they are right), let's provide a sure indeniable baccarat math edge working at those fashioned 'Tiger' or 'Lucky six' tables spread everywhere and raising the Banker negative edge from 1.06% to 1.46%.
We mean those 'no-commission' tables where a winning Banker by a 6 point will be payed 1:2.

The 'Tiger' side bet is payed 12:1 or 20:1 depending upon how many cards Banker needs to win by a 6 point (two cards= 12:1, three cards= 20:1).

At a normal 'burnt cards' 8 deck shoe we'll get five 'Tiger' occasions.

Naturally cards that are more likely denying a Tiger winning bet are 7s, 8s and 9s.
And of course 6s are of paramount importance.
Assign a 2.2 positive value to any 7, 8 or 9 card dealt and a -3 negative value at any 6 dealt.
Anytime you'll get a positive count equal or higher than 3.5 bet the 'Tiger' side bet.
You'll win a lot of money and by multilayered progressive betting under favourable situations you'll reach the sky.

Words of caution:

- pretend to casually look at this side bet at live tables;

- do not forget to tip the dealers after a win;

- look at how many cards are burnt at the initial portion of the shoe; we have seen that if the first card exposed is a card included within the 0-5 range, more final cards are cut off from the play.

- avoid at all costs a CSM baccarat table for obvious reasons (this thing should be natural no matter what, Venetian Stadium in LV is an example)

Notice that despite the math negative edge, Tiger bet is a wonderful opportunity to amplify the Banker advantage in a way or another.
It's well more likely than F-7 bet, especially if you have reasons to think that Player side will draw at the next hand.

In some way and card counting the Tiger bet aside, whenever we have reasons to think that on the next hand Player will draw more often than not, we'll get three ways to win when betting B side with a Tiger bet wager:

- Banker gets an asymmetrical math advantage (EV+);

- Banker will get a symmetrical spot superior point (neutral EV);

- Banker will win by a 6 point with two (12:1) or three cards (20:1). Astounding EV+.

More on that next time.

as.

You have to mix the theoretical side of it with the practical side of the same thing.  The goal you need to focus on, is getting both ends of the spectrum to meet the majority of the times.   

Yep.

That's why this game is so difficult to beat: most people try to be too 'theoretical' or too 'practical'.
More often than not theorists will get the best of it on long terms, practicals will get the best of it on short terms. Since it's not that easy to split 'long term' with 'short term' both will lose more often than not.

Even casinos collect their profits or (temporary) losses by this assumption/evidence:

"in theory we must win all the money a player will risk at the table, providing he/she will bet a lot of hands"

"in practice we (casinos) must hope shoes won't provide easy detectable patterns where high rollers playing a relative low amount of hands will bet at"

In essence, things will change whenever an appropriate amount of time is involved, playing each hand or many hands tend to restrict the time interval.

More importantly, some BS are more sensitive to what happened at the last shoe or last shoes, it's here that a possible player's edge comes out.

Let's consider the bac 'codes' I was talking about above.
Any number will be followed by another number (same, superior or inferior number), of course some numbers will be more likely than others.
I guess a 0-0 situation will be more likely than a 0-3 or 0-2 situation but any 0 will fight by an even 'supposed' probability against any number different from 0.
Moreover as long as a given number won't appear, we can't estimate a back-to-back number registration.

It could happen that at a given shoe a given number won't appear with different general degrees of probability.

Naturally 0 fights against any number different from 0 (1,2 or 3), 1 against any number different from 0 or 2 and 3 (a >1 and <1 category), 2 against 0,1 and 3 and finally 3 against 0,1,2).

Mathematically we'll get a 50/50 general probability to win if we play toward a 0 vs the remaining situations,
12.5% of winning probability to get a precise 1, 2 or 3 scenarios.

Naturally if we'd bet toward a higher than 0 scenario we'll confide about any of the 1, 2 or 3 possibilites and vice versa.

The number 1 appearance needs to get rid of the 0 situation first, then to stop right before getting 2 or 3 spots (0.75 winning probability)

The number 2 and number 3 situations are the most intricated to assess as they must shift three different steps each (0,1 and 3 for 2 patterns and 0,1 and 2 for 3 patterns). That is a 12.5% probability to get a back-to-back spot.
Obviously a sky's the limit progressive plan (or, better sayed, a multilayered progression plan) will get the best of it by wagering isolated 2s and/or 3s vs clustered same 2s or 3s spots.

It's quite interesting to see that 0/1 vs 2/3 and vice versa plans will get standard deviation values quite different than general probabilities depending upon what initial-intermediate actual results had come out along.

In addition, notice how many times a same back to back same number spot sequence happens at the next shoe played.

Statistical or mathematical bighorn.stuff?

Of course, do not disturb the fkng math gurus....

as.

Obviously there will be some (rare) shoes looking as 3-3-3-3-2-0-3-3-3-2-3-0-1-3-3

Really?

Actually this shoe transformed in numbers will be almost impossible to happen as too many hands are needed for surpassing the number of playable cards (even if all or most streaks are just doubles and singles stopping at four, we must discard from the registration the tie hands and cards burnt at the beginning and at the end of the shoe.

It's like we are applying a code to each shoe dealt. A kind of 'gathering factor' to any hand succession not getting precise qualities as 0,1,2 are the same in quantity but different in quality depending on what event happened and naturally 3 concentrates many high clustered events belonging to the same category.

We have many strategical options to act about these 'codes'.

For example, we could evaluate how many ascending, descending or same value steps will come out at the same position or back-to-back positions shoe per shoe. Will some numbers be more likely to appear after certain other numbers at the actual shoe?

Within a shoe could a 0 value comes out always isolated (if any) or it should show up clustered at some point of it?
What about other numbers?

Is a same source of outcomes (same deck shuffled) a real important feature to possibly exploit those codes?

Every baccarat player knows that things may stay univocal sometimes but even may change rapidly in a way or another, that's why imo we better concentrate at most our field of operations.

as.

Another shoe (not displayed for simplicity):

0-0-0-1-3-1-0-1-1-1-1-1-0-1-2-0-0-0-1-(1)

Same amounts of situations of the previous shoe (that is 20, even if the last one is undefinied so far)
Notice that even in this shoe 2s went 'silent' and the shortage of 3s.

Next shoe is:

0-2-3-0-0-2-0-2-1-0-2-1-2-2-0-1

16 situations, more 2s than previous shoes, fewer 0s and 1s, just one 3.

Obviously there will be some (rare) shoes looking as 3-3-3-3-2-0-3-3-3-2-3-0-1-3-3 where we either want to stay away or to bet that something will be silent for long.

After all we can't get a 0 or 1 probability after effects value after a 3 and neither after a 2.

as.   

Baccarat is a game producing constant clustered events in either way as the shoe distribution is affected by a huge degree of concentrated/diluted card factor.
Many times such clusters will act in the form of 'easy detectable' patterns, others are not.

The easiest detectable clustered forms come out from either long B or P (or r/b) streaks or long chops, then other 'next level' situations come around depending upon how many times we would want to challenge an 'isolated' form to show up.
After all even series of isolated spots constitute a cluster.

Since we have no valid reasons to think that every single shoe we're playing at is really randomly shuffled, we must be forced to consider every shoe as a single entity.

For example, the natural B propensity could go down in the toilet as well as the more likely predominance of P side to get long singles and doubles sequences.

Consider the most basic plan of all: singles and streaks.

Most of the times, sections full of clustered singles deny the probability to get streaks and vice versa.
Each clustered events will get a value different from zero unless a single-streak or streak-single situation o ccurs.
This last scenario could easily come out when sequences as BPPBPPPBPPBPPP or BBBBPBBPBBBBPBB show up. But even now we consider it as a cluster.
Notice that whenever a cluster of this last kind happens, the unfavorite side will get only singles otherwise we'll get a streak cluster ending up this clustered particular event.

Now say that we'll mechanically registering how many singles and streaks will come out assigning them a value:

0= single followed by a streak or streak followed by a single, zero clusters on either side;

1= two singles in a row or two streaks in a row

2= three singles in a row or three streaks in a row

3= four or more singles in a row or four or more streaks in a row

At the same time the single-streak or streak-single situation getting a 0 value at the above classification will get different values in relationship of how many back-to-back spots happened:

one 0 = just one single-streak or streak.single situation followed by a same single or streak cluster.

two 0= two single-streak-single or streak-single-streak situations followed by a same single/streak cluster

three 0=three or more single-streak-single-streak or streak-single-streak-single situations followed b a same single/streak cluster.

Example:
the shoe is:

P
B
PP
B
P
B
P
BBB
P
BBBB
P
BB
P
BBBB
PP
B
PP
B
P
BB
P
BB
PP
BBBBBB
PPP
B
P
B
P
B
PPP
B
PP
BBBB
PP
B
P
B
P
BB

Now in numbers the shoe looks like as:

1-0-3-0-0-0-0-0-0-1-0-0-1-0-0-3-3-0-2-3

Since we cannot have numbers different from 0,1,2 or 3 we could have a better picture of what the shoe is really producing.

In this shoe we got a higher than expected single-streak or vice versa spots ('0' values), anyway notice how short went '2' situations and cumulatively how many 0 and 1 situations happened versus superior numbers.
Moroever note the final portion of the shoe formed by a kind of 'concentrated' numbers different from zero.

Anyway we're restricting the field of operation by two tools: any streak is a streak no matter what, and the number 3 incorporates the more likely events after setting up a cutoff at four.

as.

Thanks Happy Christmas and a Wonderful New Year!!!

as.

Btw, there's a reason why a 'clustered' plan of action (at either W or L way) is more suitable than an 'isolated' one.
Whenever we're betting toward a given flow, odds that this flow will stop are inferior than odds that the flow will prolong.

For example, we'll surely face a shoe showing up 7 or 8 or more consecutive doubles (singles ignored) than a shoe producing 7 or 8 or more isolated double spots (that is gapped each time by a 3+ streak).

Anytime you won't get a feeling about what side to bet, consider Player C situation.
He is favorite to get more long losing spots than long winning spots as most of the times the BP texture won't get a WL hopping situation for long or not proportionally placed.

That means that in the majority of the times you are either destined to consecutively win or consecutively lose, giving the best of your fk about math percentages of being WL or LW balanced.

as. 

To better understand how things work at baccarat let's say we set up three different players wagering (fictionally) for us: we simply register their results in term of Ws and Ls distribution. Shoe per shoe.

Player A will bet toward getting positive clusters (trend following, long streaks or long chops, my plans, AD, Banker wagering in possible profitable situations, etc)

Player B thinks player A is an id.iot and takes the right opposite route, that is betting that valuable patterns do not come out or that will break soon or toward short streaks, weak B distribution, my plans are sh.i.t, I like doubles, etc)

Player C (the passive one) takes a middle route by alternatively wagering that player A or B will respectively get very short winning or losing sequences set up at 1 level (chopping level). That is he bets that A and B will get more long WL chopping sequences than a proprotional amount of losing W or L streaks.

Obviously it's virtually impossible that at the end of each shoe all three players will be losers as a perfect balancement world is out of order (see later).
Maybe the negative EV will get a role on that, but it's not the main cause why casinos take a lot of money from bac players.

Nonetheless, the general probability to get player C as final winner is diminished as a perfect hopping mood between players A and B  is slight less likely to happen, otherwise a simple multilayered martingale applied to him would get easy and endless series of winnings (giving a fk about normal variance).
Anyway, even player C is entitled to get his share of wins and, guess what, they must come out clustered at some point. And naturally the losing counterpart (forming Pl A or Pl B clusters) must come out clustered too.

In this way no one single shoe is unplayable as something profitably clustered MUST come out at various degrees of quantity and quality (distribution).
It's important to understand that a 'cluster' is just a back to back scenario so WW or LL belongs to the same cluster category as a WWWWWWW or LLLLL situation.
And by the same way of thought any xWL or xLW spot is an isolated (chop) mood.

Fortunately for us at baccarat clustered events of different nature will prevail over isolated spots.
Tomorrow I'll provide some examples about it. 

as.

Shortly  I'll provide some numbers, without them we're not going anywhere.

as.