Normally baccarat players consider shoes' outcomes as consecutive successions. Imo it's not the only tool to find out a possible bias and/or to take advantage of game's flaws.
Events (especially 'complex' events needing many hands to form) are distributed asymmetrically along any shoe, yet their pace varies continuously as long as new shoes are dealt.
Thus enforcing or not a general probability to appear whenever a positional study is in order.
The easy objection one could make is that itlr each event will be distributed proportionally at every position of each shoe dealt, but this objection only stands whether every card distribution is perfect randomly produced. And this is not the case, especially when same decks are shuffled back to back.
Anyway, our watchdog remains the sd.
Probably transforming shoes into a mere 8-15 digit number (of events) and comparing those shoe per shoe numbers by a positional study should be the best tool to know which spots are more likely (or not) to show up.
The 8-15 number is just an indicative value posted for practical reasons, actually the more we are restricing our field of registrations higher will be our probability of success.
Let's make an example.
Say our first shoe is read as 21513123413 (a real shoe, btw).
Now we are facing the next shoe trying to get some hints before betting.
Since I have omitted the general probability why such numbers will form, we could think that an option might be to get the new shoe producing more different positional numbers than equal positional numbers (or vice versa if you knew the exact events general probability to happen).
Of course it's way more practical to bet that numbers will differ from simple values, for example numbers being equal or different than 1 or 2 at the same positions.
Anyway, the next same shoe shuffled by a CSM (the very next shoe was not considered as belonging to a diverse 8-deck) produced a 422162113241 sequence.
1) 2-1-5-1-3-1-2-3-4-1-3
2) 4-2-2-1-6-2-1-1-3-2-4-1
There are infinite ways to consider such back to back outcomes, anyway we just consider 1s and 2s, that is the six numbers produced at the first shoe (positions #1, #2, #4, #6, #7 and #10) compared to the next shoe same positions.
pos 1: different number
pos 2: different "
pos 4: equal "
pos 6: different "
pos 7: different "
pos 10: different "
Naturally any 1 will need just one step to be different than another 1, whereas 2s need a two-step betting to get a different value than 2 (first step betting toward a 1, next step betting toward a 2+).
Another interesting effect to be aware of after having tested several live shoes shuffled in the same circumstances is that single shoe positions could endure homogeneous results for long, a kind of weird clustering effect of rare events. When such thing seems to happen, best way to take is to simply get rid of that position.
It's important to add that we aren't forced to bet each position by any means, a thing particularly valuable at HS rooms where each deck is a new one.
Finally, the 8-15 events per shoe range was just an example, we could select more deeply our bet selection at the price of waiting and waiting and waiting but in the meanwhile raising our probability of success.
as.
Events (especially 'complex' events needing many hands to form) are distributed asymmetrically along any shoe, yet their pace varies continuously as long as new shoes are dealt.
Thus enforcing or not a general probability to appear whenever a positional study is in order.
The easy objection one could make is that itlr each event will be distributed proportionally at every position of each shoe dealt, but this objection only stands whether every card distribution is perfect randomly produced. And this is not the case, especially when same decks are shuffled back to back.
Anyway, our watchdog remains the sd.
Probably transforming shoes into a mere 8-15 digit number (of events) and comparing those shoe per shoe numbers by a positional study should be the best tool to know which spots are more likely (or not) to show up.
The 8-15 number is just an indicative value posted for practical reasons, actually the more we are restricing our field of registrations higher will be our probability of success.
Let's make an example.
Say our first shoe is read as 21513123413 (a real shoe, btw).
Now we are facing the next shoe trying to get some hints before betting.
Since I have omitted the general probability why such numbers will form, we could think that an option might be to get the new shoe producing more different positional numbers than equal positional numbers (or vice versa if you knew the exact events general probability to happen).
Of course it's way more practical to bet that numbers will differ from simple values, for example numbers being equal or different than 1 or 2 at the same positions.
Anyway, the next same shoe shuffled by a CSM (the very next shoe was not considered as belonging to a diverse 8-deck) produced a 422162113241 sequence.
1) 2-1-5-1-3-1-2-3-4-1-3
2) 4-2-2-1-6-2-1-1-3-2-4-1
There are infinite ways to consider such back to back outcomes, anyway we just consider 1s and 2s, that is the six numbers produced at the first shoe (positions #1, #2, #4, #6, #7 and #10) compared to the next shoe same positions.
pos 1: different number
pos 2: different "
pos 4: equal "
pos 6: different "
pos 7: different "
pos 10: different "
Naturally any 1 will need just one step to be different than another 1, whereas 2s need a two-step betting to get a different value than 2 (first step betting toward a 1, next step betting toward a 2+).
Another interesting effect to be aware of after having tested several live shoes shuffled in the same circumstances is that single shoe positions could endure homogeneous results for long, a kind of weird clustering effect of rare events. When such thing seems to happen, best way to take is to simply get rid of that position.
It's important to add that we aren't forced to bet each position by any means, a thing particularly valuable at HS rooms where each deck is a new one.
Finally, the 8-15 events per shoe range was just an example, we could select more deeply our bet selection at the price of waiting and waiting and waiting but in the meanwhile raising our probability of success.
as.