I can't understand why our software put a plus on Eagles side about the Louisiana wheather conditions.

as. 

Mmmhhh we're wondering why our computer told us it was "a slight advantage" for Ph Eagles...
Maybe it works better with bac algorithms than about football predictions....uahahahhah

as. 

Our computer never fails....

Now only a very unlikely bad beat could change a sure Eagles win

as.

Al wrote:

However if you believe in the reality of the game of baccarat and set aside your desires, you just completed one tiny (could be large) step and put on a great game face that can lead you down paths to your advantage.

Good point, but IMO we should raise the ability to process the actual informations with the general more probable card patterns not giving too much emphasis to single results.
Itlr we'll succeed.

For example, and I'm referring to the KFB reply too, if we could restrict the range of an 8 or a 9 as a first card falling at Player side, we'll get a strong edge.
We do not need to be right every time, just more than average (general probability is 2/13, of course).
Into a general heavy symmetrical card model and without pc findings or other advanced tools, the easiest spots to extract a kind of advantage are those focused about the first card of any new hand dealt.

If the first card is a 7, 8 or 9 more than 3/13 of the times, we are in the position to reduce, erase or invert the HE in relationship of how much we are able to alter that ratio towards the left.
Of course even 6s belong to that category.

On the other end of the spectrum, zero value cards or aces, 2s and 3s perfom the exact opposite result (maybe eliciting B wagers).

IMO we do not need to win what happens at the shoe we're playing at, just winning the most part of the shoes we're wagering.

More later.

as.

Our computer says Eagles should be slight advantaged.

Let's see what happens.

as.
 

Hi KFB, thanks!

KFB: I like this/always good to see when a gamer knows this %. It is my opinion ones' wagering approach should be built up/out from this known value. Though it is my opinion this is seldom a static figure one simply needs to know the Mean/ expected range. If one is an advantage player it is my opinion we can see this fluctuate from approx -1.36% ---  +7.35%.


Yep, edge comes out when shufflings are close or very close to the "average category" and that means that key cards are distributed by more probable ranges.

For example, if we knew how many cards will be utilized to form the next hand, we're getting a strong advantage as:

a) 4 cards utilized: A perfect symmetrical situation where one side (P) is payed 1:1 and the other one (B) 0.95:1.

b) 5 cards utilized: An asymmetrical situation where only P6 and P7 points (11.8% probability with Banker having to draw) make Banker unfavorite to win.

c) 6 cards utilized: A complex asym/sym situation splitted into two different categories:

c1- A pure symmetrical spot where both sides must draw no matter how's the third P card and

c2- A former asymmetrical spot where the third card dealt to the Player must elicit Banker to draw.

Obviously any higher two-card initial point is strongly favorite to win the final hand at both categories.
Moreover any hand formed by 6 cards is way more probable to end up as a tie.

Mathematically scenario a) accounts for a 37.8% probability, scenario b) accounts for a 30.5% probability and scenario c) accounts for a 31.6% probability. The total is 99.9% instead of 100% just for the decimals.

Naturally and without any doubt any Banker bet must rely upon a 5-card hand because it includes a larger part of profitable situations for that side.

On the other end, 4-card hands and most part of 6-card hands will make the Player as the best bet to make for a symmetrical world coming out at the start or becoming 'symmetrical' thereafter.

So it could be useful to approximate at best those 4, 5 or 6 card ranges, in the sense that whenever we'd think that the next hand will be formed by 4 cards the best bet, by far, is the Player bet.

If we'd think that the next hand will be formed by 5 cards, odds are that we'll be way more likely to win by wagering Banker side.

If we'd think that the next hand will be formed by 6 cards, well we better choose to stay put or, at the very least, to make a Player bet with a kind of minimal tie side bet whenever 6-cards consecutive hands are coming out.

Since any shoe dealt is somewhat affected by a kind of conditional probability, it could be worthwhile to estimate the total of the actual number of cards utilized in relationship of an "expected value" verified by long term data.

By doing that we'll better approximate how many 5-card hands can come out in a row and the more likely levels kissing the same side or how many 4-card hands deny a side to lose for long.

6-card hands? They are only good for gambling.

as.

Thanks Al, I've read it. Good thread indeed.
Sometimes the boundary limiting a catastrophic session vs a profitable one is very thin.
Anyway it was one brilliant example of how things might work at baccarat.

Our estimated edge

Since we cannot use our algorithms in real play and not trusting (mainly for technical reasons) online games, we're forced to approximate at best an already approximating way of considering an average card distribution. Nonetheless at the end our average edge lines up at around 3.46% after vig.
It's a real big advantage but unfortunately performing huge fluctuations related to the actual shoe card distribution.
       
That's why we strongly suggest a flat betting procedure as we can't know when and how many those expected profitable shoes are coming out at the single sessions we're playing at.

So per every $10.000 wagered, on average we'll expect to win $346; that means that after one hundred $100 bets we'll win 3,46 units.

Yet and even though the advantage remains as constant, we ought not to forget that consecutive shoes not belonging to an "average card distribution" class may easily come out in a row; on the other end and even if more probable to happen, multiple profitable shoes could give us the idea we're unbeatable.

In our opinion, at baccarat there's nothing to guess or hope for, we should just rely upon objective long term findings with all the intricated related statistical issues.

After all if we know that per each bet placed we'll get an average 51.73% ROI, we should just wonder how sweet is to play baccarat instead of keeping a 9-5 job.

BTW, there are no possible countermeasures to be employed by casinos.

First, it's virtually impossible to shuffle 416 cards by a not average card distribution for long.

Second, the vast majority of bac players not giving a f about the average card distribution topic (or not knowing its existence) will get the most advantage by shoes not belonging to that category, meaning that more shoes are deviating to the "average card distribution" class and better will be their (short term) results.
A thing particularly hated by casinos while facing very HS players, so hoping that sooner or later things will get a undetectable rhythm. And that's the average card distribution we're talking about.

as. 

Suppose we have decided to follow three patterns distribution: A, B and C.

Since per each shoe dealt we have strong reasons to think that a perfect balancement of the three patterns will be the least probability to happen, first we must choose if we're either acting from a quantity point of view or from a quality point of view.

Quantity is in direct relationship of a given pattern appearance (presenting two or more times), quality is any different pattern coming out after a given pattern (so the previous pattern stops its appearance).

We've seen that whenever a pattern hadn't shown up so far we might consider it as virtually non existent, so luring us to bet for the other two possible patterns.

On the other end, more hands are dealt and greater will be the probability to fall into a "silent" pattern, so stopping the other two patterns flow.

Our data have shown that quality takes a primary role over quantity, otherwise the game would be easily be beaten by following what happened.

After all, there are only two ways to lose several units in a row:

1) Chasing for long a silent quality pattern (fatal error)

2) Keep betting for too long toward clustered patterns.

Anyway it's the "for long" and "too long" that will make a decisive role about our long term results.

The important tool to look for, regardless of the random walk(s) utilized, is to properly ascertain whenever a pattern should be more entitled to get a cluster of any kind, knowing that a minor part of the total shoes dealt will increase the different patterns appearance.

Technically we know that gambling revolves about streaks, baccarat is revolving about streaks even more.
That means to build some derived random walks then assessing the lenght of such streaks in order to get them clustered or not.

as.

By Alrelax: "But, the player must know how to handle his wagering losing and winning hands during the course of the shoe and session.  And I have written plenty about that."

Yep, after all at baccarat each bet wagered will get either a tremendously wrong or an astoundingly good result. Sometimes a hand won't be resolved (tie) and it's not a coincidence this situation happens way more often whenever six cards are utilized to form a final hand.

Winning and losing hands are more probable to move around asymmetrical clusters, so basically it's the average lenght of such clusters that matters.

Patterns are just the by product of a more likely card distribution, that's why baccarat is not offered by dealing 1-deck or 2-deck shoes.
Casinos want a lot of cards to be arranged, technically that means to dilute or concentrate at most the key cards in order to prevent more probable patterns formation.

So one of the tools we could exploit, in our opinion, is to let many hands to go as sooner or later cards will align with a more likely distribution.
Not always this tool will help us to get an edge, most of the times it will.

More later

as. 

That's true Al!

One of the most important lesson any bac player should learn is that the money lost previously is forever lost, period.

as.

Here's the point.

Any "horizontal" random walk applied to an original BP succession (being itself a random walk) moves by a different speed toward the right side of the display.

The speed is not determined by a perfect binomial independent probability but, even though partially, by the key cards dilution/concentration factor.

Thus we cannot know precisely when key cards will land or privilege one side or the another one, what we can do is just approximating at best the A/B streaks "average" lenght or A/B "average" streaks/singles apparition.   

Since cards are asymmetrically arranged along any shoe dealt, we have reasons to think that patterns are more probable to come out as some way clustered than precisely arranged into a strong balanced fashion.
Of course the clustering factor is more likely to produce some ranges than others but whenever a given class of "less probable" patterns had shown up, we have to decide whether to chase the most probable situation or to give up.   

Unfortunately, baccarat results are made by many "incidents", that is by hands being math underdog at various levels from the start and eventually unlikely winning the decision.
Yet those situations aren't offering us any long term edge as they're perfectly 50/50 distributed.   

Say we think that the next hand will more likely be a Player hand.
We got a 7 and we'll lose to a Banker natural or another fancy Banker three card 8 or 9.
Actually we have won.

For the same reasons anytime we bet Banker, Player draws and we have a Banker 3 or higher initial point cumulatively we have won even if we lose the hand.

Short term variance could only help tourists and amateurs.

Casinos particularly like short term variance, this being the only tool to lure people keep playing this game.

On average, way more than 75% of total hands dealt are unguessable by any means. Anytime we'll wager an amount equal or greater than that we're destined to lose even if we utilize the most sophisticated algorithms ever invented.
Meaning that in that betting range we cannot approximate nothing at our favor.

as.

Hi KFB!
Thanks for your detailed answer, I appreciated it a lot.

So basically you mean that itlr LLL and WWW will show up by the same average quantity (of course it's correct); if each LLL sequence produces us a 1-1-1 loss (3 units plus the average 1.15% vig when applicable), we need to get a greater than 3.033 (at worst) profit per each WWW sequence showing up.

I'll be back later

as.

Thanks for the link KFB!

It's an interesting list of course, especially for black jack and video poker players.
I agree about the South Point, probably the most crowded Vegas casino at any hour of any day for a reason.

As baccarat player, I would mention which casinos offer commission and no commission games, but more importantly what's the average action at the tables.
Normally the baccarat action in US outside Vegas is good or very good. For obvious reasons it's not the case for Vegas casinos.

It's really sad to play alone or with just another player or asking too many times for "free hands", especially for low frequency bettors.

This is my list based upon the baccarat average action (number of players) in Vegas casinos (no downtown casinos are considered here).

Good action

- Gold Coast
- Palms

Medium action

- Aria
- Palace Station
- Bellagio
- Venetian
- Durango
- Paris
- Stratosphere
- Red Rock
- South Point
- Rio
- Orleans
- Caesars Palace
- Rampart


Low action

- Wynn
- Encore
- The Palazzo
- Fontaineblue
- Resorts World
- Cosmopolitan
- MGM Grand
- MGM Park
- Treasure Island
- PH
- Boulder Station
- Mandalay Bay
- others

Not coincidentally the two most crowded casinos are close to Vegas Chinatown: you'll be surprised to see several tables open (and full of players, especially at Gold Coast) in a unsuspected Monday morning. A thing happening only at Macau.

A more technical thing (considered worthless by "experts" but not by us) is how the shoes are shuffled. In Vegas shoes are not manually shuffled so either a machine do the job or preordered shuffled decks are utilized.
Since most players like to peek at the cards, more and more preordered shuffled shoes are dealt in Vegas.

Then there are several additional factors to award a "best baccarat tables in Vegas" prize.
Mostly are related to min/max betting limits, HE, general atmosphere, propensity to deal many free hands or dealing a new shoe before the end of it, then average skills and 'composure' of the other players (generally speaking there are more good local players than good tourist players). Etc.

From a strict HE point of view, the best Vegas baccarat casino ever was (or still is, we don't know) the "D" in downtown where Banker winning bets were burdened by a mere 4% vig.
Besides of a short lived experiment made at Sahara casino in the 80s, where there wasn't no commission at all at B winning bets (lol), by far "D" casino offered the best baccarat tables in the history of this game.

as.

Hi KFB! Thanks for your interesting reply.

Can you elaborate this passage of yours?

Sometimes(not always) we may win FIRST (due to skill or luck). Then have the option to:Press to our win, regress to our win, set aside that wager for a perceived better entry, press higher,...etc all the while compounding our initial base unit.


Thanks in advance.

Take care.

as.

Hi KFB!

You wrote:

My opinion differs on the progression part(Posprogression is the path mi amigo). HOWEVER, the pos progression must be applied against "An increasing improbability", then set aside, then reinserted again later on. In other words, not inserted with the expectation for a single event to continuously repeat in perpetuum. Many players have unrealistic expectations for "same-event streaks". that's my opinion.

I understand your point and I totally agree about the "increasing improbability" topic.
What I would think is that, generally speaking, a positive progression will concede to the house those (albeit relatively rare) overalternating WL sequences where any win is not properly balanced by the following loss, meaning that in any case in order to win we need some winning clusters to show up.

Since most bac movements, yes, distribute themselves by a slight number of homogeneous clusters than by an overalternating fashion, it could be a point to wait that some (slight improbable) overalternating situations had shown up, then betting toward deviations on either side of the "model". Up to a point, as you correctly sayed.
We continue to support the idea that if an advantage comes out, it must show up by a larger number of winning than losing situations, so the betting amount shouldn't be our main problem to take care of. But in any instance raising the bet where supposedly favourable conditions are coming out doesn't hurt us either. To say the least.

@Alrelax

You're right, yet casinos know by an absolute certainty that more bets are placed greater will be their profits, otherwise they won't get the players such luxurious comps or, even worse, a rebate on their losses.

Most high end casinos know very well the baccarat vulnerability, yet they keep relying on the "human" vulnerability this being proportionally related to the number of hands wagered.
Math is just an additional factor not the cause of it.

Success is not a goal, it's just a by-product

as.