The actual procedure I discovered to get a long term flat betting winning strategy was mainly built upon R. Von Mises and M. von Smoluchoswki works made on different fields than gambling (of course).

The method is on sale for $3.500.000, so basically isn't for sale.
Let casinos think that math will guarantee them a long term profit no matter what, it's our interest to keep this statement true as long as possible.

At the same token, I admire people who made and still make their best efforts to contradict math experts statements that stubbornly think that at baccarat every proposition is EV- no matter what.

This last is a complete absolute total tocking no brainer bighornshit, a thing that only ignorant people could keep stating.
We're ready to challenge for real money those fkng "experts" claiming that every bet will be EV- no matter what, providing data will come from a real source and not from pc simulated shoes that supposedly bring a so called "perfect randomness".

Curiously most people claiming that bac is an unbeatable game couldn't provide a proper amount of REAL shoes data showing that every bet selection is worthless, just focusing about Phil Ivey's edge soprting strategy who won a lot but collected nothing.

as.

So after years of studying this game, I've devised the random walk capable to spot the situations where an astounding high probability of crossing a possible unrandom production at given shoes will happen, that is the necessary tool to get an edge over the casino.

For practical reasons I had to converge multiple limited random walks into an univocal line, knowing that the mere asym hands factor will be too much diluted with the more powerful sym strenght.
Of course this lack of precision will affect more the short term variance but not the overall probability of getting key cards or not at given spots.

In a word, every shoe dealt in the universe must follow some more likely key cards distributions up to the point that short term outcomes are just small interferences over the long term plan.

To do that I had to compare multiple random walks reaching some values of limiting value of relative frequency converging into a single line that will get the "on" or "off" input according to certain actual results.

Whenever such values are not getting a signficant point or, on the other side, are passing certain points, the betting line won't dictate any bet.
Naturally such points are empirically placed for simplicity, probably there are more precise assessments of this random walk run.

The important thing is that any bet made following this random walk is EV+.

as. 

Quote from: alrelax on September 27, 2020, 08:28:12 AM
Can you please comment because this is exactly your last sentence what happened the other night and this shoe was an astronomical shoe but if you bet with your feeling or what you wanted you would have lost money.!

https://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/absolute-fantastic-shoe-seriously-readable!/msg68849/#msg68849

No comment on it.....

as.

Asymmetricity is not in the eye of the beholder, it's just a pure objective fact not needing supernatural powers to be detected but some calculations.

as.

I repeat, the only way to know if we're betting the right side ITLR is by assessing how many times our selection got math favorite spots in form of higher two card initial points.
We shouldn't care a damn whether in the actual shoe played our 7s are losing to higher points, itlr we'll win.

In some sense we could transform actual results into two first card situations. Itlr no way a 2 initial point is going to win more times than an opposing 3 point and so on.

As explained here many times, baccarat results are the direct reflex of math situations. Not everytime a math advantaged spot will form a win, but to get a long term edge we have to bet those math advantaged spots anyway, otherwise we're destined to lose.

The more we're winning those unfavorite math spots, higher will be the probability to lose subsequent bets.

We can't control the real outcomes, more likely we can make a fair estimation larger than 50% about the side which will be kissed by a higher 2-card point.

as.

What about a MM which SEEMS to get a primary role over a proper bet selection?

First, there are bet selections getting us a long term edge (albeit small), thus we know to be on the right side of the betting options.
They do not come up around the corner, we need certain moderate deviations to be exploited and of course the main reason why we get an edge is because unrandom portions of the shoe are more likely than we think.

Second, most of our bets made by utilizing a MM along with a weak BS will get a negative EV, it could happen that by coincidence we catch one or several key EV+ hands. But itlr we are going uphill.
Surely a simple MM will raise the probability of success but almost always wil lfollow the negative values we expect to get.
Of course a MM enlarge our profits only whenever we know our betting spots are getting a positive EV.

Third, there's no way in the universe to play profitably an EV- game when we think it's randomly placed.
It's a pure contradiction in terms.


About bet selection.

I stress again about the importance of asym/sym concept widely taken.
We can't give a fkng fk about what math experts keep to state, they make their assumptions about a perfect complete randomness of the outcomes.
No way itlr a 50.68/49.32 dynamic probability will get the same probability to show up per every hand dealt.

The fact that casinos will get huge profits from baccarat tables doesn't mean that every single bac player is a fkng loser.

Per every shoe dealt, cards are arranged in a more or less asymmetrical fashion. Think about 8s and 9s falling here or there. Even if 8s and 9s are equally distributed, second card of each side will prompt more or less likely winning results.
Same about third card values, now more important as they tend to confirm or deny a possible light/moderate/strong asymmetricity either by numbers or by rules.

More on that later.

as.

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.