One area Im always striving to improve is recognizing there is nearly always a little bias showing. Just hold up awhile as most shoes will have at least one or two  groups of 9-12 outcomes where a significant  biased opportunity is available. Readily available for a huge cash extraction. 


+1

Hi KFB and thanks again for your interest at reading my pages.

Imo baccarat is a game of multiple observations made on several different aspects.

For example, how many times an asymmetrical hand comes twice in a row, so building the Banker math advantage on the second hand?
General probability tells us is 8.6%, hence it's way more likely to cross a symmetrical hand of course NOT favoring Player but even less Banker as on the latter scenario a winning bet is payed 0.95:1 and not 1:1.

Therefore when we place a series of bets at Banker side we must encounter a more restricted range of asym hands than average to get a math advantage.
And there are only two ways to be really advantaged when wagering Banker:

- Spot the situations where an asym hand will come out shortly.

- Hope that the actual shoe we're playing at provides a larger than expected number of asym hands.

Since the average asym advantage of B bets vs P bets is 15.86% but winning bets are decurted by a 5% vig, it's easy to see that there are very few spots to really get a math advantage (naturally 5% muts be considered as 2.5% per bet as half of the bets at symmetrical spots are losing).
Do the math and realize how many asym hands must show up to get a ROI (return on investment) advantage when betting Banker.

In reality casinos particularly love 'only Banker' bettors because they extract money either at losing bets  but even at winning bets. As long as the shoes they are providing not contain a substantial higher than average amount of asym hands, they collect some money.

Another important feature of the game that almost nobody would take care of is the quality of winning hands.

The largest part of winning results is formed by strong or moderate card situations, think about naturals and standing points or two-card higher initial points.
Nonetheless some rare shoes will elicit the formation of long clusters of winning hands (whatever shaped) by many 6-card hand situations or by a unfavorite side hitting multiple 'miracle' cards for long.

And many other situations in between.

Sadly to say, most 'betting many hands' strategies getting a profit at the end of the shoe would meet some unfavorite situations transforming a more likely losing hand into a winning hand.
It's what I name as a 'poker tournament' effect: eventual poker tournaments winners not only managed to win their advantaged hands but even some underdog confrontations (not mentioning a fair amount of so called 'coin flips').

This effect is partially erased by operating a strong and diluted bet selection.

Say that to be constant winners at baccarat we need to play a lot of shoes thus collecting imperfect informations about how the game works and for each of them to make multiple observations that are not worth per each shoe dealt.

In fact, probabilities continuously hop from one side to another, no one future hand will get a 0.5 probability to happen. And to get a long term edge we just need to bet B with at least a 51.3% probability and P with at least a 50.1% probability.
It can be done.

as.

Consider those 6-deck live shoes:

1)

PP
BBB
PP
B
P
B
PPPPPP
BBB
P
B
PP
BBB
PP
B
P
BBB
PP
BBB
P
B
PP
BB
P
BBBB
PPP
BBB

Doubles went as singled, singled, singled, singled, singled, doubled.

If we were to place a bet after any double toward not getting another double, we would have got several wins in a row, that is 5 wins in a row stopped by the final doubled sequence.
Interestingly, at big eye boy road we got just two 3+ streaks, the remaining hands produced singles and doubles.
Even at beb road doubles went as single, double, double, single, single, single, 4 consecutive doubles.

Even though some spots are colliding (that is forecasting an opposite event) playing toward getting an isolated double will get us a possible statistical edge.

Think about NOT getting three doubles in a row, now the colliding force will smooth up to the point that clusters of two doubles in a row will get a very low variance probability.

2)

BBBB
PP
BB
PPP
B
P
BBBBB
PPP
B
P
B
PPPP
B
P
B
P
BB
PP
BBBBB
P
BBBB
P
B

Now at big road doubles went as doubled, doubled.
At big eye boy road we got 3 doubles in a row, two doubles in a row and one isolated double.

At main road (big road) and considering doubles as enemy, every column produced a win but at columns #2 and #3 and #17 and #18.
At big eye boy road 'losing columns' appeared at hands #9 #10 and #11 and #13 and #14.

Notice that at both roads (big road and byb road) consecutive doubles are more likely stopping at 2 level, in the sense that the probability to get two consecutive doubles vs superior doubles clusters is way more restricted than what a strict independent world dictates.
In addition and more often than not, long clustered doubles will elicit the formation of several 'no doubles patterns' as the probability to get simmetrical 'double' (thus consecutive) patterns  will be lowered.

Practical reflexes on actual betting

A fair amount of shoes will present a total isolated 'doubles' happening, a careful key card distribution study will be an additional tool to ascertain this.
That means that those shoes producing all isolated doubles cannot give us more than two losses in a row.

The more doubles are clustered, higher will be the probability to spot the situations where 1s and 3s prevail.

Doubles are more likely to show up when the actual shoe provides few singles and many streaks.
It's like that at the actual shoe we're playing at, consecutive streaks burn the half probability to isolate doubles at the first attempt.
So avoid to bet when the results seem to be 'streaky'.

Doubles are working as triples, with the important effect that they are slight more likely to show up.
That means that they are more likely to show up clustered, so enlarging the probability to spot the situastions where they won't act along a shoe.

as.

Yep, this is a classical example where general probabilities seem to be disregarded and actual probabilities are so polarized that every player should quit the table as winner or huge winner.
Jackpots happen and we should try to be there when they happen.

Imo almost every shoe presents one or more spots where a range of hands is more probable than the counterpart and we know there are infinite ways to dissect the outcomes.
Of course so called 'profitable' spots will fight against 'undetectable' spots, thus the only way to play a EV+ game is to get rid of those undetectable spots the more than we can. In the sense that we can't transform the undetectable world into a profitable world by the use of progressions or other 'human' tools.

I wish to present another way to consider a shoe by classifying as 'enemy' the most likely baccarat two-side occurences at Big Road: the doubles. A contradiction in terms, right?

Doubles as enemy

Our plan will be to bet toward singles and 3+s at any side, so doubles will produce two losses in a row, the remaining patterns will be winners (by a light two-step progression) or break-even or so spots.

Of course along every shoe doubles will distribute by different degrees, since we'll start our classification by waiting a first double appearance we'll get:

- single double (that is a double followed by a single or a 3+ streak)

- two consecutive doubles (xBBPPB or xPPBBP) followed by a single or a 3+ streak

- three consecutive doubles

- more than three consecutive doubles

Since doubles must follow a general probability to show up, we may infer that the more doubles are clustered, higher will be the probability to spot 'doubles-free' portions of the shoe.
Naturally it could happen that shoes particularly rich of doubles won't be a realiable source of profitable betting, but there's always a counterpart situation where doubles are so rare (thus singled distributed or by forming rare two-consecutive patterns) that most part of shoe is bettable toward singles and triples.

More on that later

as.

Hi klw!

They aren't.

I suggest to consider only real live shoes, the remaining part is just worthless rubbish.

as. 

Hi klw!

Itlr and discounting ties B probability is 0.5068 and P probability is 0.4932. So it's not a coin flip proposition, moreover is a light dependent process.
Simplyfing on average we'll get one more B hand than P hand per every shoe dealt.

'Itlr' and 'on average' are the worst player's words when talking about gambling.
On the contrary those two words are the best casinos' allies in order to make a lot of money.

So, yes, that average more B hand per shoe should fall after a B single (thus forming a B streak) or to stop any P pattern coming out.
If that more B hand would fall at any already formed Banker streak it simply prolong it just one step, so not changing the B streak/B single ratio or shapes.

Very frequently shoes will show long series of B singles without any B streak or few B streaks in between. Thus the potential B math propensity goes right down the toilet.
More importantly, any B winning bet is payed 0.95:1 and not 1:1 as any P winning bet, easy to see that betting B in those circumstances 'no matter what' constitutes a big mistake.

In the long run the mathematical mistake between B and P bets is just a 0.18% value favoring B, yet in the short run the payements remain hugely shifted toward one side.

Think of those shoes where the final number of P hands overcome the number of B hands or, conversely, of those shoes where B streaks were very prevalent but unnecessarily short payed more often than not.

Cheers

as.

Thanks, I'll address your questions in a couple of days

as.

Nice post, KFB!! 

as.

At baccarat propensities are around any corner, up to the point that we think it's virtually impossible to be losers at this game for long.

Due to its finiteness and asymmetrical rank card distribution (along with other features several times considered here) any single shoe is a world apart.

You already know that my unb plan #1 will rarely cross 3 or more losing spots in a row, after all the probability to win is 0.75% per every two bets placed.

To show how weird is this game compared to expected probabilities, let's consider now another betting plan.

This time we take care of columns' outcomes (horizontal registration) registered in term of 1s, 2s, 3s and 4s.

For example a shoe succession as:

BB
P
BBB
PPPP
B
P
BB
PP
B
PPP
B

becomes a 2,1,3,4,1,1,2,2,1,3 sequence

Next we'll build two opposite A and B chances getting different one-level and/or two-level winning results:

A chance wins whenever a single or an exact triple will come out (thus winning at 1 and 3 patterns);

B chance wins whenever a double or a 4+ streak will come out (thus winning at 2 and 4+ patterns).

So in the above sequence we'll get a B,A,A,B,A,A,B,B,A,A pattern.

Notice that B chance loses every single situation and will win just whenever a streak different to 3 will come out, A chance will win either after a single shows up or when the streak is limited to 3.

See what happens from a probability point of view:

A chance will win whenever a new column shows a single (0.5 or so probability)
or whenever a triple come out after a first losing bet (0.25 probability)

B chance will win whenever a new column shows a streak, but only doubles or 4+ streaks (0.5 + 0.25 probability) will be accounted as a win.

Therefore at A side long chopping lines (BPBPBP..) will be clustered winners the same as long single series getting many 3s along the way without doubles or 4+s.
On the other end, B side encounters long winning clusters only when doubles come in a row or when 4s come in a row or a mix of the two.

Now test your shoes and try to see if some patterns could be more likely than others in term of 'runs' or, better yet, whether previous patterns are 'forecasting' more often than not the following 'runs' situations.

as.

Hi KFB!

From a general point of view, best predictable patterns come out with chopping lines and streaks of moderate/huge lenght, naturally both are coming out more probably when key cards are strongly balanced between two sides for long or hugely unbalanced at one side.
The remanining world, albeit being the most part, belongs to the 'confusing' field of more whimsical outcomes that might stop or prolong those basic patterns.

It's like that a shoe is composed by undetectable sections (that is whenever key cards are diluted) and more detectable portions where key cards are clustered in some way, that is forming the above more predictable lines.

No need to track key cards precisely, an experienced player get an idea when 'neutral' and key cards are more likely to show up, in addition as he/she takes care about HOW previous hands went.
Notice that naturals (and standing points) are constituing a way large part of total outcomes.

Hands produced by 6 cards are the highest form of 'randomness', then hands formed by 5 cards and finally formed by 4 cards (standing points at either side and naturals on one or two sides)

So, imo, besides the total key cards ratio happening at given points of the shoe, the number of key cards falling at 6 cards and 5 cards hands is another helping tool.

If we'd dissect numerous long 'chopping lines' of a given shoe, we'll see that most of the times key cards are quite balanced on either side, in some way telling us that they're quite concentrated.

The same about long streaks: strong key card falling at the same side, maybe asym hands that went right for B side during a B streak, or conversely at P side, asym hands that went wrong so prolonging a P streak.

What seems to be undetectable actually it isn't. At least not by the degree casinos collect their profits.

Patterns are a good way to think of things, better if we assign to them a 'card feature' even whether approximated.

Finally, there's always the old scientifically proved 'very slight propensity' to get the opposite result already happened. A natural reflex of key cards that cannot disappear from the shoe.

More on that later

as.

Propensities are the natural way of arranging things

Anytime a 6 or 8-deck shoe is shuffled and ready to be played, we know for sure that rank cards are not proportionally distributed.
Some portions of the actual shoe will be poor or rich of key cards, cards that most of the times affect the results.
Since results can be registered by infinite ways (different paces of registrations by quantity and quality), we know that there's no a univocal line to be formed, just a math propensity to produce this or that.

Math can be disregarded several times per shoe (think how many times your standing 7 will lose to a natural or a fkng 3-card opposite point), yet what is mathematically more likely remains more likely to produce a given winning result.

What stays in the middle (the most part of outcomes) constitutes the player's hell and casino's heaven.

In some way we could assume that each shoe will surely present at least a couple of moderate/strong card propensities, naturally not deriving from real results but from key card distributions, hence math favored situations.

Naturally we players may easily confuse real results with math propensities as too much 'result oriented'.

Let's make some examples.

Per every shoe played the probability NOT to get at least one 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2 (single-single, single-double, double-single or double-double) pattern at the big road and common derived roads is ZERO.
For that matter the probability NOT to get at least a back to back 3+ spot at all big road and derived roads considered at the same shoe is NOT ZERO.

The reason is not about the general 0.75 average probability those patterns will show up, just because long 3+ streaks will consume a lot of space along with not resolved hands (ties) both cutting off at various degrees the single-double probability.

And we know the average number of 3+ streaks happening at every shoe dealt, thus estimating how many times and how long the opposite 1-2 patterns will come out.

It's like that the 'random world' we must face is way more predictable than expected.

as.

Hi KFB!

I strongly think that at baccarat we shouldn't bet toward precise outcomes but toward 'propensities' of different nature happening at each shoe dealt.

At the start we know 416 cards of 10 different ranks are shuffled in order to produce math situations favoring one side or the other one by different degrees and dynamic yet card dependent frequency.

To state that along one shoe a given card concentration or dilution (no matter how strong is) will help one side is a total mere and worthless bighornsh.it.

Instead we should assume that along every shoe a natural key card concentration/dilution will help to form certain more likely patterns of different nature at some portions of it that most of the times aren't corresponding to a specific dominating side.
A feature hugely strengthened by a non random shuffle that at baccarat it's normal.

In one way or another and when considering different random walks taken at different spots, the actual card distribution will make more probable some events than the opposites as we're continuously changing the triggers by quantity and quality.
Up to the point that when adopting a super selected betting strategy some shoes are unplayable.


Spotting and taking advantage of 'propensities'

Even considering the four main roads displayed on the screen, a given BP succession will form different and apparent colliding situations:

Say the actual first part of the shoe reads as (btw the second to last shoe we've played yesterday)

B
PPP
BB
P
BBB
PP
B
P
BB
PPPPPPP
B
P
B
PP
B
PPP
B

a fkng undetectable big road shoe.

byb:

b
r
bbb
r
b
r
bb
r
bb
r
b
rrrr
bb
rr
bbbb
r
b

sr:

bbb
r
bbbbbbbbb
rrrrr
bbb
r
bb
rr
bb

cr:

rrrrrrr
b
rr
b
rrrrr
b
r
bbbb
r
b
r
b

Even though this shoe's portion could be interpreted as a partial 'good' shoe when considering sr and at some extent the cr (and a quite horrible big road besides the P 7-streak), this BP succession provides powerful insights at all four roads.

No need to stop the betting after getting a given win (or loss), if things are properly accounted the probability to be more wrong than right is close to zero.

What I try to say is that this shoe part was a classical example of strong 'propensity' not giving a damn about the math negative edge or easy 'trend following' strategy as there was not anything to follow besides the third b streak at sr and maybe the very first r streak happening at cr.
Big road P 7-streak coudln't be source of many winnings in a row for obvious reasons.

as.

In the gambling world, it's quite funny to see that poker or black jack are considered 'skill games' and baccarat a game for 'stup.id' people.

Poker is a game of imperfect informations by nature, featuring an astounding level of variance.
And such variance could last for long up to the point that many top poker players went broke along their career.
Of course best poker players are definitely ahead itlr but not by a degree most people think of. As serious money can be won (or lost) by challenging people getting fair skills at the start.
And every win will be decurted by the rake or by the tournament entry fee.

Black jack is a math advantaged game for the counting player, yet EV+ situations are showing up by very low frequencies (12-15% on average) and the edge is so relatively small that staying on the negative side for weeks or months won't be a unlikely circumstance.
Not mentioning that whenever we raise our bet, we could get some heat from casinos, even if we're raising our $20 standard bet to $60. Maybe by coincidence as we're not counting a fkng sh.it. LOL.

Baccarat is a completely different world.

Recently math gurus (of my behind) keep stating that every B/P bet will be EV- as Thorp or other gambling experts had not found evidences that one hand should be more likely than the counterpart besides some very low and insignficant math features.

Summarizing their findings, one side shouldn't be more probable than the other one by values capable to erase/invert the HE unless some very rare strong rank card distributions happen, giving a fkng sh.it about the real randomness of the sample and of course not giving the proper role about other statistical issues.

Actually we know that:

- most shoes aren't randomly shuffled;

- most of the times the non randomness will elicit the formation of more likely results;

- there's a dependency between back to back outcomes, privileging a clustering effect as key cards cannot be distributed proportionally along any shoe unless voluntarily placed.
That is most of the outcomes considered by different random walks are sensitive to what happened in the same shoe, getting limiting values of relative frequency more restricted than what a pure random world dictates.

At baccarat we should pretend to get a coin flip proposition but in reality it is not.
Especially if we're not compelled to bet every outcome.

as. 

The three d.r.'s extracted from the above shoe look as:

bye: 1,3,2,1,3,1,1,1,(2)

sr: 1,1,2,2,1,1,1,2,2,1,1,1

cr: 3,2,1,1,3

In term of gaps:

BYe
1s/anything else: 2, 1, 0, 0,

2s vs 3s: (1)..

3s vs 2s: 1

sr

1s/anything else: 0,2,0,0,2,0,0

2s vs 3s: 0,0,0

3s vs 2s: n.a.

cr

1s vs anything else: 0, (1)

2s vs 3s: (1)

3s vs 2s: 1

Regardless of how we are dissecting the results, some situations are more  'uniformly' distributed than expected even by assuming a perfect random distribution that by no fk means exists in the real world.

Sunday we'll see this last topic.

as.

Under the 'runs' distribution we're talking about recently we'll have:

1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 2, 3....

Now the gap of 1s vs everything else is: 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, (2).

The gap of 2s vs 3s is: 0, 1.

The gap of 3s vs 2s is: 1.

Remember we are just considering the big road.

as. 

Quote from: KungFuBac on August 23, 2021, 05:16:58 AM
Thx AsymBacGuy
Good posts/ several good points in the last couple essays--I like that you also take time in your posts to give specific examples.

"...Virtually speaking the probability that every shoe will not present a back to back same pattern on different random walks is zero.
I mean that at some point 1 must be followed by another 1 (2s and 3s as enemies), 2 by another 2 (3s as enemy) and 3 by another 3 (2s as enemy).


re: 3 by another 3 (2s as enemy).[/b]
     Q: Is your example referring to  (BBB: P BBB)  or  (BBB:PPP)

Thanks

HI KFB!

Consider the BR succession of this shoe part:

B
PP
B
P
BBB
P
BBBB
PPP
B
PP
BB
PP
B
PPP
B
P
BB
PPPP
BB...