Quote from: alrelax on September 14, 2020, 04:39:07 AM

Don't forget guys it's very easy to armchair quarterback the right decisions after you see the whole board all written or typed out. It's not that easy at the table in a live game with real money.

Holy words!

as.

That's interesting!

This is the classic shoe where, even considering it under a simple lens, it would be impossible to lose.

1- Consistent P patterns, mostly as singles

2- No 3+ P streaks, just one 3 P streak

3- unb plan #2: win win

4- unb plan #1: easy spots to look for

5-  long B streak (11)

6- derived roads forming consistent random walks

Hope Al will put his comments about his personal strategy

as.



 

We should print in our mind there's no fkng way to beat this game itlr unless a defect of randomness at various degrees is working.

Sometimes it could happen that a normal distribution could be interpreted as a kind of unrandomness, mostly as some patterns seem to get a uniform shape.
That's now that we must consider along with quantity factors the more important quality factors.

I repeat, we can't expect to be long term winners whenever our bets aren't getting the first two card advantage itlr.
That's why progressions can't be of any help unless our bets succession will get a strong math edge itlr. That is unless our bet selection will get an edge by a simple flat betting.

If the improper shuffle parameter seems to be of paramount importance, think about how many times this factor will act along the shoes by percentages.

Do you think that every shoe dealt is affected by a decisive degree of unrandomness?
No tocking way.

Many times shoes are properly shuffled, meaning that randomness is accomplished. In those situations there's no fkng way to beat the game.

Random production equals to random betting that equals to a math negative proposition.

Think about those shoes where standing P points are losing to higher Banker points.
This specific random walk is strong asymmetrical as P 6s and 7s points are strong favorite itlr.
Nonetheless in our short term sample they have lost.

More interestingly is whenever the third card strongly helps (or not) several times P side, no matter which is the B point. Sometimes we have chosen the right side, meaning B side shows a higher point, especially if the hand is a pure asymmetrical hand by the rules.
In any case, this is another random walk.

In both cases quality doesn't correspond to quantity, that is math is temporariliy disregared by the actual card distribution.

People who have won such hands will think to be geniuses or lucky, actually they are either stup.id or stupi.d in either scenarios.

There's no one possibility in the world to be a long term bac winner whether our bets aren't getting the right math side of the proposition, either by crossing the higher initial 4-card point or, a lot better, by getting a higher asym hands percentage than expected while wagering Banker.
No matter the actual outcomes.

Up to the point where some shoes which went mathematically wrong for long cannot be of any future betting value.

as.

I'm deadly sure many bac players are long term winners, it's people who most of the times go unnoticed.
They smile at other players when an improbable long winning streak is giving them a lot of money, yet they do not bet a fkng dime.
But at the same time they never be caught in the specular losing streak, still smiling.

as.

Thanks Al!
I fear that most of your points rely upon your long experience very few baccarat players have...
Simulated shoes are not real shoes and simulated outcomes are not real outcomes, especially if one considers red or blue dots simply as red or blue dots...

Hands cutting or prolonging a pattern

Baccarat is not roulette where a red number has the identical probability to appear than two of the "losing" or "winning" contiguous black numbers and vice versa.

Say the shoe produced the PPP pattern.
Most of the times this situation comes from mere symmetrical hands getting the same probability to appear.
Sometimes (and you should know how much are those probabilities), PPP pattern comes from one asym hand not favoring B side and two sym hands; rarely two asym hands didn't favor B side and very very rarely all three asym hands went to P side despite the math disadvantage.

Anyway let's assume this PPP pattern was formed by an unknown asym/sym ratio. 

Now we decide to bet Banker because:

- generally speaking, Banker is a less disadvantaged hand

- itlr P3>P3+

- there is always the very slight propensity to get the opposite hand just formed.

At various degrees, all those points derive from sensible math and stats features, thus there's no doubt that itlr we'll get more B hands than P hands.

In the hand in question, Player shows a zero point and Banker a 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.
In a word, we are slight, moderate or strong favorite to win the hand.

The third card is an 8, therefore we'll lose the hand, despite of the initial general and actual advantage.

Next two hands are two P hands, hence the actual pattern is PPPPPP instead of a more likely (in our example) PPPBPP pattern.

From a strict math and ROI point of view, our Banker bet was really right just whether Banker had shown a 3, 4 or 5 initial point. Actually the best situation was to get a Banker 5 point followed by a 4 and then by a 3.
Since the probability to get 3,4 or 5 is more than 3/2 placed than having Banker to show 6 or 7, we know that this bet was EV+. 

But more importantly is to see that that PPPPPP pattern didn't follow a more likely scenario as a strong shifted situation hasn't happened.
Notice that among the Banker options, I've discounted a natural as it involves an unnecessary 0.95:1 payement.
I mean that itlr we'll be in way better shape when trying to cut a banker streak by estimating that a natural (or standing point) is coming at P side than vice versa.

Even if is totally true that a sensible strategy could get the best of it by splitting the outcomes in 1s, 2s and 3s, is altogether true that long streaks must be properly classified as quite unlikely to show up by mere symmetrical propositions.

Very often quality overcomes quantity.

as.

Thanks for your interesting reply Al!

Regardless of the method one likes to use, I see a common trait between my thoughts and your words: the probability to win doesn't come around any corner, we ought to select possible profitable spots within the realm of chaotic disorder.

Thinking in this way we can assume that per every three shoes played, one could be good, the second neutral and the third quite bad (in any order, of course).
Since, as Al correctly sayed, good is inferior to bad for the negative edge, after having won we must expect to lose everything back and naturally there are no guarantees that after bad a balanced good is going to come out shortly.

It could happen that two, three or even more consecutive shoes produced all good situations, yet the probability this thing happens is very low.

At the same token, it could happen that two, three or more shoes will form bad events and it's now that the catastrophe is coming.

We can't give the casino the luxury to know that we are going to bet every shoe dealt (or most part of them).

That's the downfall of every mechanical method presented or sold everywhere.
A method is set up in order to win no matter what, maybe stuffed with worthless stop win or stop loss techniques.

We can't interfere with probabilities, they are just there and it's up to us to estimate what's more likely now.

as. 

The casinos fortune is not made upon the math edge but about players.
They even might offer a zero HE baccarat game where both sides draw or stand in the same way (no third card rule) and winning bets are payed 1:1. They would still make a lot of money.

Thus before playing we should ask to ourselves what should be our edge.
Imo here are some of the principal wrong thoughts:

1- "I'm capable to read randomness"

Well, if this is the case I better present my ideas and my scientifical findings to MIT or NASA. I'll make more money than sitting at a baccarat table.
A better statement would be "I think that in my field I can spot some objective situations where supposedly randomness seems to be pseudo randomness or unrandomness at various degrees".
Scientifically speaking that means to provide strict measurements of my assertion made on long trials.

2- "My money management can overcome the negative HE itlr"

From a conceptual point of view, this is a worse statement than the previous one.
Whereas a possible randomness reader could get some possible hints to take advantage from (of course under the form of occasional non randomness), there's no one possibility in the world that a MM strategy could overcome a random negative edge game itlr.

3- "I'm trying to win more on positive situations and losing less on negative ones"

That's another bighornshit.

Positive and negative situations will equal itlr and without a careful assessment of the events where sd values are way more restricted than expected, there's no way to know how and when
I'll get positive or negative events.

4- "My profit goal is X bets per single shoe or per Y shoes played .

It's like we want to subdue randomness or even partial unrandomness in the way we humanly set up previously.
This is not only an impossible task but a math heresy.

Now let's try to get the best of it by considering the above assertions.

1- If I've found to be a randomness expert I should know that a possible unrandomness is an occasional finding and anyway it should not be exploited for long.
Generally my ROI is 0.9894 and 0.9876 when I win and 1 when I lose.
Therefore before betting I either would prefer to get just one profit unit under favourable circumstances or to hope that a given random walk gets an interesting probability to get all winnings in the entire shoe.
Playing every hand or most hands or half (or 1/3) of the deck cannot accomplish this task. 

2- Getting an edge means to win by flat betting by 1 trillion of accuracy.
No flat betting win = no party.
Notice that a flat betting strategy may involve several small adjustments in the betting process, anyway itlr the sum of the same level bets must be superior to a random wagering.

3-  The general probability to win or lose a single hand remains the same, what changes is the actual probability to win after some quantity and quality events happened so far in the shoe.
As I sayed many times in my pages, what happened in the past must be properly registered other than from a strict B/P or R/B or S/O point of view.

4- We know very well that it's quite difficult to be ahead after 3 or 4 played shoes other than by benefiting from the luck factor. Let alone to be ahead per every shoe played.
Actually it's very very unlikely to be ahead of something whether we're flat betting randomly five sections formed by 4 or 5 consecutive shoes, no matter how many bets we're putting into the felt.

I mean that it's virtually impossible to get consecutive profitable shoes by flat betting no matter how's diluted our wagering.

We must discard some shoes from our play.

See you tomorrow

as.

The answer is yes, providing one can look properly at what must happen, may happen or cannot happen (in this last instance it's better to say very very very unlikely to happen).

Now our SOS (save our 'Bac' souls) road is one of the most reliable source to rely upon when we're trying to detect every shoe in the universe.

Of course a long term profitable strategy should be focused about what must happen, what may happen being just a kind of jackpot, and at the same time trying to avoid at all costs what very very very rarely could happen.

According to our data and results, the probability that some "key" events will appear or not on a given shoe are in relationship to the previous outcomes and quality features.
This helps us to avoid to play at shoes that do not seem to fit our requisites.

Again, there's nothing to guess and nothing to follow just playing the probabilities.
Under normal circumstances we do not want to hope for jackpots or force the unlikely not to happen.

The very few people making a living I know place large bets rarely or quite rarely. They win insignificant number of bets per shoe played (not to mention per shoes observed) but with an astounding regularity.
We should copy them.

as.   

Say we want to build new "roads" originating by the simple B/P results succession.
For example, we classify outcomes as S (same) or O (opposite) according to a preordered pace, e.g. 4. We register our new result in relationship of what happened four hands back.
Since this new road is single paced, every outcome will be recorded but the first four results.

BBBPBPPBBPBPBPPP.. becomes

S
OOO
SS
OO
SS
O
S...

This new sequence isn't directly affected by the asymmetrical BP probability as our S/O signs distribution do not correspond to a B or P result.

Simply put, it's very hard to precisely deduce from S/O distributions what really happened on those shoes in terms of BP outcomes.
Of course the probability to be right or wrong is 50/50 and only long samples might help us to assign the proper BP results to our S/O registrations.

Now we are working into one of the simplest world of place selection.

Of course some BP patterns are going to produce (or not) homogeneous S/O situations:

BPBPBPBPBP = SSSSSS

BBPPBBPPBB = SSSSSS

BBBBPPPPBB = OOOOOO

BPBPPBPBBP = OOOOOO

Taken from the simplest definition of symmetricity, those are balanced outcomes as the number of Bs is equal to the number of Ps (except of the third pattern shortened for simplicity)

Actually it could happen that even strong unbalanced sequences as BBPBBBPBBB... (or the opposite counterpart) or long B or P streaks (longer than 9) will produce a SSSSSS pattern.

Now the question is whether this new S/O sequence alone could help us to define the features of the shoe we are playing/observing.

as.

At baccarat we can't consider any single outcome as a valid outcome in our registration unless if following normal math percentages.

For example, say the pattern is BBPP

Here we must consider first whether BB is coming from mere sym propositions, meaning that B in both cases wasn't advantaged by the rules.

Secondly we must assess whether PP didn't cross an unfavourable asym hand getting the best of it by starting underdog.

Most of the time BBPP pattern is the product of sym propositions as the asym strenght will act by the old 8.6/91.4 ratio.
Not everytime.

On the same line and more practically speaking, after a single P we should know that betting Banker means to hope that Banker will cross an asym hand more likely than not. Otherwise we're losing money.

The same after a single B apparition.

That means that there's no value to detect sym situations unless our strategy will dictate to bet Player or, reversely taken, that while wagering Banker we hadn't estimate that an asym hand is coming around shortly.

Again about key cards.

Definitely 8s and 9s will favor the side where those cards fall on. The probability those cards will fall into the first four positions is perfectly equal.
But whenever the third card is an 8 or a 9, Player side is unfavorite to get a valid point to win.
It's like 8s and 9s are symmetrically placed unless the 5th position is involved. The impact itlr is much greater about fifth positions than sixth positions as some part of 6th cards are not allowed to show up for the rules.

It could happen that Player gets some winning hands by the help of such key cards falling at 5th position (aka Player gets 0 and/or 1 initial point). But if we run infinite times this situation we'll lose.
The reversed situation is less likely to happen as some B initial points won't elicit a draw.

Therefore many seemingly equal patterns aren't equal by any means.

There's no doubt that long term results are the direct reflex of math percentages and those math percentages are the direct reflex of initial points and third card points actual situations.

Say most 7s and 8s have fallen on initial two card B side and we can't care less about actual outcomes.
Do you really expect that on the following hands the remaining 7s and 8s are more likely to fall on P side?

Same about third cards.
Third cards, while whimsically placed as they could intervene in the hand or not, are following a more or less attitude to help or not P side; in some way they constitute a supplemental random walk no matter which will be the real result.

Actually best playable shoes are those which seem to conform at most to normal math propositions and according to bac features already known here; those which aren't must be abandoned at the first opportunity.

as.

LOL

Look at the covidiot posting "Yeah, masks deprive your oxigen intake, which goes against federal regulation. Look it up"

Actually the oxigen flowing in the brain of such a covidiot is chronically low even without wearing a mask.

as.

Nevada should have taken the Hawaii "stay fkng away from our isles" line and actually it did at the very start of this pandemic (03/15).

Then I can't understand why the hell they didn't force people to wear masks inside casinos...

I agree on many 8R9 points yet I'm feeling confident about US and especially the great State of Nevada.

as. 

It's intuitive to think that itlr chopping lines showing at most likely degrees (singles and doubles) are the direct reflex of a low imbalance of key cards.
Therefore long streaks must come out whenever a strong imbalance of key cards come out.

Nonetheless key cards are finitely placed as they are burnt from the play. Say they must be more or less concentrated along the deck.

It's true that strong points could be made by "normal" cards as a combination of 3 and 6 or 4 and 4 could do, for example. And of course many results will be dictated by "weird" situations as a 4 getting a 4 vs a standing 6 etc.
But those spots are just belonging to the short term deviations category.

Say we want that our strategy is set up in order to only bet Player side, thus trying to get a kind of advantage.
There are three steps to look for.

1- we want a higher initial point

2- we want a standing point

3- we do not want to cross an asym hand.

Anytime we get a higher initial point and regardless of the quality of the hand, we're hugely favorite to win.
Naturally key cards distribution play a great role on that. In a sense we want the shoe to get a low imbalance of key cards on the portions of shoe we chose to wager.

A standing point (6s, 7s and naturals) come out at P side with a 38% probability and of course any P standing point is favorite to win.
Such 38% probability could be more or less concentrated along the various portions of the shoe.

Finally, any P drawing situation (a close to 50/50 probability) is susceptible of crossing a 3,4,5 or 6 B point, therefore being strong unfavorite (at various degrees) to win unless the initial point is higher.

Mathematically speaking it's like playing a coin flip game, a kind of 38/62 ratio and a reversed 62/38 ratio considered at different steps.

Remember that at any 8-deck shoe symmetrical initial points will come out at those percentages:

0 = 14.74%
1 = 9.49%
2 = 9.45%
3 = 9.49%
4 = 9.45%
5 = 9.49%
6 = 9.45%
7 = 9.49%
8 = 9.45%
9 = 9.49%

as.

Say we want to transform the game into mere symmetrical successions where asymmetrical hands do not form B results, thus considering them as a bonus when betting Banker and a kind of losing zero at roulette when betting Player.

Naturally the asym hand apparition remains a bonus (+15.86%) on B bets and a same negative happening on P wagers.
Thus it's not a sure win or loss on either sides.
Surely our long term results will be affected by the number of times we crossed an asym hand when betting B, and at the same time by the number of times we met an asym situation when betting P.

Itlr and in absence of a valuable bet selection the AS/S ratio will approach more and more to the expected 8.6/91.4 ratio. Therefore we are losing.
And the EV gap between a long term betting made on B instead of P is 0.18%.

Therefore there are only two options to win or to lower/cancel the HE:

a- getting an higher asym/sym hands ratio than expected capable to invert the HE when wagering Banker;

b- wagering Player only on symmetrical situations.

Then what might help us to define the terms of the problem?

Average asym hand distribution, for example.

Players are too focused about the actual outcome, maybe in the effort to follow an unguessable succession.
When betting Banker we must hope that no matter how are consecutively placed our bets an asym hand must come out within a shorter gap than expected.
Otherwise we're losing money, a lot of money I mean, even if the actual pattern is a symmetrical  BBBBBBBBPBBBB succession (for that matter even a single asym hand happening on this sequence is a long term money loser when regularly betting banker)

Gaps between more frequent symmetrical hands and rare asymmetrical spots.

Asym-asym hand apparition hugely favors the B side and actually some shoes will present many asym hands distributed in couples (or more).
In reality. more often than not asym hands come out in single apparitions (for obvious reasons) or clustered at some portion of the shoe.
We ought to remember that natural/standing points on Player side totally deny the asym hand happening and some Player drawing points crossing an asym hand are actually favorite to win (think about a P5-B4 drawing situation).

On the other end, it's sure as hell that at least a couple of asym hands will come out per every shoe played. Meaning that sooner or later a constant Player betting virtually getting an EV not lower than zero, will cross those unfavourable spots where our P bet is worthless.

Symmetrical spots

Sym spots hugely favor Player side for several reasons:

- first, we're playing no worse than a fair game as bets will be payed 1:1;

- secondly, as long as no asym hand will be formed, key cards will land equally on both sides;

- third, the 7/6 symmetrical standing point situation is unequally payed regarding which side we bet.

The idea is that baccarat should be considered not just in terms of patterns but in term of ranges (gaps) helping one side at various degrees or at worst not damaging the other one.
Sometimes (just for practical purposes) the most likely pattern distribution tend to correspond to those ranges. 

Knowing that most outcomes are in direct relationship of sym hands results, we should focus our attention about the actual probability and distribution to get higher initial four-card points as this is the main tool that shift the results.

A thing that we'll discuss tomorrow.

as. 

At baccarat we should play probabilities and there are general probabilities and actual probabilities.

No doubt at bac key cards are 9s, 8s and 7s.
Itlr and per every shoe dealt the side getting most of those key cards at positions #1-#3 and/or #2-#4 will get a sure advantage.
Actually 9s, 8s and 7s falling at P side will get a higher EV impact than the same cards falling at B side.

Those cards are not the cards you want to see when instructing the dealer to show "just one card" on the opposite side.

There are many other ways to form 9, 8 or 7 initial points but itlr the 9-zero value card, 8-zero value card and 7-zero value card are overwhelming the rest.

It could happen that the side getting most part of 7s, 8s and 9s will lose to the counterpart. Besides the less likely situations where those cards forming an exact 7, 8 or 9 point will lose to higher points, those cards could combine themselves with very low cards producing "worthless" points. Think about 7-3, 8-2, 9-A, 9-2, etc..
Such probability is symmetrical.

Of course per each shoe dealt those cards cannot be equally distributed on both sides. The fact that those key cards could combine with low cards getting very low points shouldn't affect the main concept that the higher the card falling on a given side, the better the probability to win.
Altogether naturally is to generally think that key cards cannot fall endlessly on one side.

It's like considering those key cards as a kind of "wild cards": they may hugely, moderately, slightly or not at all help "our" hand.

In some way, outcomes are the direct reflex of those endless (but finite as considered per every shoe dealt) propositions.
Most of the times such key cards will enhance the production of short symmetrical outcomes, it's only when the actual key card distribution tend to strongly privilege one side that B or P will take a substantial advantage over the other one.
And of course there's the rare asymmetrical impact working (or not) for B favored hands.

I mean that itlr third or fourth card happenings will affect outcomes way lesser than what initial points will do, as the initial point gap situation involves an increased 7% advantage over asymmetrical hands.

as.