There are 'infinite' ways to arrange 312 or 416 cards into a shoe but bac codes are way more restricted in their distribution.
And a bac code is just the result of innumerable card distributions. Hence many many card distributions provide the same outcomes in a way or another. Almost always by unproportional values.
Naturally it's way more likely to 'guess' right whenever a number succession includes three or four number categories than a sequence as 1,4,1,2,3,2,7,1,1,1,3,5, etc...
Especially if those few numbers seem to get unequivocal properties.
Guessing the actual baccarat code
Itlr, the probability to win is in direct relationship of how much 'more likely' situations will show up along the played shoe. It's like throwing darts having a larger than normal target to aim for. We won't hit the target everytime but more frequently than at a normal target.
In baccarat terms this means that an average card distribution will make this target quite large to be exploited but deviated card distributions could be heaven or hell by a symmetrical probability.
Unfortunately most bac players transform 'hell' into disaster and heaven into a too slight positive occurence.
Simply sayed and providing that acute players are in action, average card distributions will make casinos as sure losers because in a way or another something will be more likely than other by a fair margin.
Technically those spots arise when Banker got its fair share of streaks, Player a fair amount of consecutive singles and/or doubles or very short streaks and so on.
At those situations, acute players do know when to attack and when to simply watch.
Anyway even acute players do not know what to do when 'undetectable' situations will come out in a row and many shoes belong to this category.
It's now that a proper evaluation of bac codes could help them.
Are shoes so randomly produced that any effort made to be more right than wrong is totally fruitless?
Rattlesnakes.h.i.t.
Even though many card distributions will make same results no matter how cards are distributed into a shoe (and we've seen this is a decisive property to exploit from but from another point of view), numbers instruct us that the 'random' world is not that random and we have the direct proof by studying the sd values of the results.
Let's make an example.
Every baccarat code is formed by a number succession, say by 3 or 4 different numbers getting a different descending probability to appear. I transform numbers into letters.
We have registered the first shoe that looked as ACBBCDAABDDCAAB (4 letter spots).
It's important to grasp the concept that each letter won't belong to a precise quantity hands distribution.
Now we have to guess what the fk is more likely coming out on the next shoe.
First.
Odds that this shoe will get the same number of letters are relatively low.
Technically and obviously it means that 'letters states' could come out by a more or less quantity than the previous one.
Surely and in the worst case scenario at least 6 or 7 letters steps will be involved.
Second.
There's a probability to get same letters at each position depending upon their general probability to happen (A=even money, B=1/4, C=1/4 and D=1/4).
Third.
Notice what letter came out after a given letter in the first shoe. (In our example A was followed by C,A,B,A,B. And B by B,C,D; C by B,D,A; D by A,D,C).
Probability to get a precise back-to-back same number positional situation will be quite low unless the first shoe presented many consecutive even money spots (A occurences). And/or if many consecutive same more likely letters had come out in the first shoe.
Additionally, back to back shoe consecutive same numbers different than 0 and falling into the same position will be less likely to happen at various degrees and many times we don't have to bet 3 steps to get the best of it.
Naturally it's sufficient to test your shoes to see what's the most profitable course of action to be taken. The 'things change' approach is just an accelerating (and quite more risky) process of taking the best of it.
as.
And a bac code is just the result of innumerable card distributions. Hence many many card distributions provide the same outcomes in a way or another. Almost always by unproportional values.
Naturally it's way more likely to 'guess' right whenever a number succession includes three or four number categories than a sequence as 1,4,1,2,3,2,7,1,1,1,3,5, etc...
Especially if those few numbers seem to get unequivocal properties.
Guessing the actual baccarat code
Itlr, the probability to win is in direct relationship of how much 'more likely' situations will show up along the played shoe. It's like throwing darts having a larger than normal target to aim for. We won't hit the target everytime but more frequently than at a normal target.
In baccarat terms this means that an average card distribution will make this target quite large to be exploited but deviated card distributions could be heaven or hell by a symmetrical probability.
Unfortunately most bac players transform 'hell' into disaster and heaven into a too slight positive occurence.
Simply sayed and providing that acute players are in action, average card distributions will make casinos as sure losers because in a way or another something will be more likely than other by a fair margin.
Technically those spots arise when Banker got its fair share of streaks, Player a fair amount of consecutive singles and/or doubles or very short streaks and so on.
At those situations, acute players do know when to attack and when to simply watch.
Anyway even acute players do not know what to do when 'undetectable' situations will come out in a row and many shoes belong to this category.
It's now that a proper evaluation of bac codes could help them.
Are shoes so randomly produced that any effort made to be more right than wrong is totally fruitless?
Rattlesnakes.h.i.t.
Even though many card distributions will make same results no matter how cards are distributed into a shoe (and we've seen this is a decisive property to exploit from but from another point of view), numbers instruct us that the 'random' world is not that random and we have the direct proof by studying the sd values of the results.
Let's make an example.
Every baccarat code is formed by a number succession, say by 3 or 4 different numbers getting a different descending probability to appear. I transform numbers into letters.
We have registered the first shoe that looked as ACBBCDAABDDCAAB (4 letter spots).
It's important to grasp the concept that each letter won't belong to a precise quantity hands distribution.
Now we have to guess what the fk is more likely coming out on the next shoe.
First.
Odds that this shoe will get the same number of letters are relatively low.
Technically and obviously it means that 'letters states' could come out by a more or less quantity than the previous one.
Surely and in the worst case scenario at least 6 or 7 letters steps will be involved.
Second.
There's a probability to get same letters at each position depending upon their general probability to happen (A=even money, B=1/4, C=1/4 and D=1/4).
Third.
Notice what letter came out after a given letter in the first shoe. (In our example A was followed by C,A,B,A,B. And B by B,C,D; C by B,D,A; D by A,D,C).
Probability to get a precise back-to-back same number positional situation will be quite low unless the first shoe presented many consecutive even money spots (A occurences). And/or if many consecutive same more likely letters had come out in the first shoe.
Additionally, back to back shoe consecutive same numbers different than 0 and falling into the same position will be less likely to happen at various degrees and many times we don't have to bet 3 steps to get the best of it.
Naturally it's sufficient to test your shoes to see what's the most profitable course of action to be taken. The 'things change' approach is just an accelerating (and quite more risky) process of taking the best of it.
as.