Player side is more difficult to be assessed despite of its slight lesser probability to appear.
When betting P side we are simply wagering that key cards must be shifted toward this side at various degrees and in the meantime that no asymmetrical B favoring situation will arise.

Since we know that almost every shoe isn't immune to such asym probability, we could infer that  is virtually impossible to wager Player getting a steady 0.5 winning probability fairly payed (1:1).

In a sense when betting Player we are hoping about two orders of things:

a- no asym hand will take place at the time of our betting

b- key cards are shifted toward Player side

Oppositely thinking, we could reckon that B side is really advantaged only when an asym hand will come out within a restricted range of hands as the key cards shift is anyway burdened by a 5% vigorish.

Now let's think about the probability where our plan will get all positive Player betting situations upon a given shoe. Say this is our gold standard.

1- wagering toward getting all P singles.

2- wagering toward getting all P doubles

3- wagering toward getting all P 3+ streaks

4- any mix of the above situations

No need to test many shoes, almost no one single situation belonging to #1, #2 and #3 category will provide all winnings.
Then in order to increase such probability even at the risk of losing more money, we try to couple two different scenarios.

1-2: well, this situation may happen, mostly when many P doubles are formed or when P singles are interpolated by long B streaks.

1-3: situation less likely than the previous one, yet it could happen.

2-3: no way an 8-deck shoe is likely to show all P streaks, of course here the winning/losing probability remains confined at 0.5 at best.

If we aim to get all wins on our bets obviously we must rely upon the probability that things are going right just at the start.
Therefore plans 1-2 and 1-3 are more likely to provide this kind of jackpot, either as they involve a 0.75% or so probability to win and as 2-3 plan isn't going to form winnings at the whole played shoe.

Naturally such jackpot is just an ideal situation thus forcing us to build our betting plan upon lower degree probabilities. Yet some quality factors endorse the probability to get or not the expected long winning streak we should aim for.

Moreover those 1-2 and 1-3 plans are just considered by a mere B/P pattern random walk point of view.
That is not properly considering the actual conditions where those results were formed.

A thing discussed next

as.

Thanks for your response.

Pure randomness is unpredictable but only in a short span. Degree of certainty increases with number of trials.

Absolutely true, yet I prefer the "probability of success" term instead of the "degree of certainty" term. It's the same concept, of course.

1. It's ok. Yet we could add to our actual finding some randomness issues as I'm strongly convinced that unrandomness could prevail in short terms.

2. Ok, I'll wait your future posts on that. Anyway you made a good point.

Variance peak: you have considered only negative variance. I happened to see certain very bad baccarat shuffles where sky was the limit. Again, those shoes were not randomly shuffled.
I mean that the degree of certainty you have spoken about could be delayed for reasons not belonging to normal variance applied to a random proposition.

Bet selection: I think that utilizing a strict mechanical betting placement adapted to the actual conditions could help us to detect whether we're playing a perfect random game or a somewhat biased game.
Of course if you are able to overcome any situation taking for grant the results' randomness so the better. :-)

as. 

Good news!!!

as.

In reality the above P plan doesn't get the same variance features happening on the same B plan.
Even if shoes presented above were randomly taken, P side formed too many 1 or 2 situations than expected as itlr a lot of 3, 4 or higher numbers will be produced, especially whether consecutively considered. That's why my ub #2 didn't consider P side.

Let's try to give a formal answer to this.

If in order to set up our future betting plan we take BB and PP as symmetrical triggers we are making a mistake at the start.

Itlr every BB pattern is already a natural asymmetrical situation as math tend to shift the probability to B side after any given value that now we set after a single fresh B apparition.
On the other hand, itlr PP is already an artificial asymmetrical pattern as in some sense was slightly fighting against the math.
Therefore BB and PP patterns cannot be considered triggers springing up from the same probability. Actually most of the times are, but not itlr.

No matter what happens in between (just to simplify the things here), any new fresh B situation must fight with a new probability after any previous BB pattern had formed.
If we decide to always wager toward a B streak after any BB pattern previous production, we are simply implying that the asym value must act again just on this limited section of the shoe or, that whether the asym didn't act on the previous BB pattern, now it's more likely to work.
In addition, itlr the BB trigger involves a certain degree of "exhaustion" of asym force as the next hand is P.
That's why we could infer that itlr any fresh B appearance next to another exact BB pattern will be somewhat restricted to produce another B streak, thus orienting us to bet one time P side.
Whether this bet went wrong, we are challenging the actual card distribution to give another precise BB pattern, that is missing our plan two times (or more) in a row.

The PP counterpart is easier to be considered as an actual "artificial" asym strenght already worked. Thus after PP itlr the more likely outcome will be a P single and not a P 3+ streak whether the first bet failed (meaning a PP occurence). Thus lowering a lot the winning probability of our second attempt.

Overall and itlr the B2/B1 strenght will be more powerful than the P2/P3 strenght of course considering that both bets are mathematically facing the same 1:1 payment.

Player side must be attacked by other weapons.

as.

1. True, but ask casinos whether they really like to face virtually "infinite" bets coming from Bezos or Gates. Thus the main factor working for casinos is setting maximum betting limits.

2. See above

3. Absolutely true

4. Pure randomness is unpredictable yesterday, now and tomorrow and for the sake of our argument hence unbeatable. Whoever states otherwise deserves to be awarded the Nobel prize or a Fields medal.

-o-o-o-



1. Ignorance about how things generally should work or actually do work is of paramount importance to get an edge, imo

2. This statement could be true whether we have valuable reasons to think that pure randomness isn't going to act along this particular section of playing (and betting)

3. Define a "variance's peak"

4. Generally true

5. Absolutely correct

6. True at the utmost degree

7. I know what you do mean, but I fear most readers just see a contradiction in terms of what you already have sayed above.

as. 

More shoes:

B: 1  P: 1-1-1-1

B: 1-1-2-3  P: 1-1-1-1

B: 1-4-1  P: 1-3

B: 1-1-1-1  P: 3-1-1

B: 1-1-3-1-2  P: 1-1-1

B: 1-1-1-1  P: 1-1-1

B: 1-1-2-2-2*  P: 1-2*

B: 1-1-1-1-2  P: 1-1-3-1-1

B: no triggers  P: 1-2*

B: 1-1  P: 3*

B: 1-1  P: 1-3-1-1

B: 1  P: 1-3

B: 2-1-2  P: 1-4-1-1

B: 1-2*  P: 1-2*

B: 1-1  P: 1-4-1

B: 2-1-1-1  P: 1-1-1

B: 1-1-1  P: 1-1-1-1-1

B: 1-1-1  P: no triggers

B: 1-2-1  P: 1-1

B: 1-1-1-1-1  P: 1-1-1-2

Total 1=91  2=15 3+=11

Now betting 1 vs 2+= +13 before tax; 2 vs 3+= -18

Now asymmetricity considered the way discussed so far went right on the first level.

as.

Actually this covid-19 is pretty dangerous.

I'll add some "not so appealing" informations, some known others not.

- Cases of healthy people infected then dying in the 40-65 age range are not infrequent.

- Many cases were reported of people being infected and after 15-20 days tested negative, but when some symptoms came back their test was positive. Thus almost surely infecting relatives and potentially a lot of unaware people.

-  There's no scientific proof that infected people after recovering will be immune to covid-19.

- Notoriously at least a 10 fold amount of cases reported is infected.

- A no symptom and negative tested patient was hospitalized for heart failure. For good measure she was tested a second time, still being negative. Other patients in the hospital were negative tested not showing any symptom at all.
5 days later ALL doctors and nurses taking care of her were infected and thereafter 22 other patients staying at the same hospital section were infected. 
Now patient's test was positive for C-19.

- Some patients get a mild C-19 infection still being positive to the test after 60 or more days.

- "Chopping" test pattern. Many patients after getting ill (fever, violent headache, SOB, etc) will feature positive-negative-positive-negative tests.

- Some patients after 40 or more days infection have completely lost their sense of smell and the taste sensation up for 85-90% percentage.

I guess we shouldn't gamble too much with this virus and it's quite likely a vaccine won't let it to disappear so easily.

as.

Let's see what happens on those 20 live shoes taken randomly:

B plan: 1-1  P plan: 2-1-2

B plan: 2-1  P plan: 1-1-1

B plan: 1-1-2  P plan: 2-1

B plan: 1-1-1  P plan: 1-1-1-2-2

B plan: 1-1-1-1-1  P plan 2-1

B plan: 1-1-1  P plan 2

B plan: 1-1-2  P plan: 1

B plan: 1-1-2-1-1  P plan: 2-1

B plan: 1-2  P plan: 2-2-1-1

B plan: 1-2  P plan: 1-1-1

B plan: 2-2-2  P plan: no triggers

B plan: 1-1  P plan: 1-2-2

B plan: 2-2  P plan: 1-1-1-1

B plan: 3-1  P plan: 1-1-1

B plan: 1-2-1  P plan: 2-1-2-1

B plan: 1-1-1-3  P plan: 2-2-2

B plan: 1-1  P plan: 1-2

B plan: 1-1-1  P plan: 1-1-2

B plan: 3-1-1  P plan: 1-1

B plan: 1-1-1-1-2  P plan: 1-2-2-1-1

Fortunate shoes?
Probably not, as  1=76; 2=34 and 3=3

Since any 2 or 3 (or higher) occurence causes a -3 unit deficit providing a 1-2 mini progression made toward the 1 appearance and 1 just means +1, we'll get (before tax) 76 unit wins and 103 unit losses for a net loss of -27 units.
More interesting is that in this sample betting not to get 3 after 2 means 34 units of profits vs a 9 (3x3) unit loss. That is (before tax) a 25 units profit.

Does this ridiculously small sample suggesting that betting 2 after 2 vs 3+ will provide an advantage whereas the 1 vs 2+ proposition is a long term losing bet?
No way, naturally.
Those short term frequencies just suggest that the asymmetricity overall acted lightly at 1-level degree and very well at 2-level degree.
Indeed we could face shoes getting very different values of asymmetricity, anyway we are pretty sure that smaller classes will overwhelm superior values, all depending upon how good or bad are shuffled the cards.   

Of course and regardless of the asymmetricity value acting on the actual shoe, by both place selection and probability after events tools use, many random walks can be built getting ridiculously (now on the positive side) low dispersion values.

as. 

Is B plan better than P or vice versa?
What about a plan considering both strategies simultaneously as a whole?
What about other strategies linked to those different one-side situations?

Let's start with the both sides plan, that is always wagering toward getting a B1/B3 or P1/P3 after a B2 or P2 trigger up to some levels.

Obviously we'll get many losses when many BB or PP doubles are coming consecutively, a kind of costant symmetrical situation but acting asymmetrically after one single hand is dealt, for each single hand considered itlr has a Bp=0.5068 and Pp=0.4932.
We shouldn't give a fk whether a given BBPPBBPPBBPP pattern (or when many other B/P doubles patterns provide more consecutive doubles) will be only formed by symmetrical situations, itlr and on average per every 12 resolved hands one asymmetrical hand favoring B side must happen (for simplicity here I omit the asym hand apparition producing a tie). And we know that many B favored hands can easily make the Player side winning.

Moreover unless a third card is exactly a zero value card, asym hands involve various degrees of B advantage, sometimes even unfavorite math situations as when Banker gets an initial 4 point and the third card is an Ace (slight negative EV as B should draw and not standing).

Baccarat is a game governed by asymmetrical states for rules and card distribution and when certain asymmetrical situations tend to produce symmetrical second-level (or higher) states we might endure some harsh times.

If by various causes, the asymmetricity will be so balanced along the vast or even the entire portion of the shoe, we're not going anywhere, thus imo not every shoe is playable.

A strong predominance of one side could be a kind of an extreme asymmetrical state being so simple to be detected. Unfortunately vast majority of shoes dealt do not belong to such category and moderate/light predominances are assessed after such state happened.
In addition, a simple B or P predominance is just a back to back unidirectional issue, mostly taken without considering the actual conditions that favored one side for long.

Thus we shouldn't bet on how long the asymmetricity works but about when it's more likely to produce given results on the side chosen.

as.   

LOL

This fkng virus is more dangerous than what many could think about, including millionares.
Refer to Wuhan and South Korea experiences where covid-19 was mistankely thought as debelled.

as.

More P2/P1-P3 results randomly taken:

1-1-1

3-1-1-2-1-*

1-2-1-1-1

1-2-1-1

1-1

1-1

1-2-1

1-1-1-1

1-1-1

1

3

1-1-1

2-1-3

2-1-2-1

1-1-1-*

1-1-2-2

1-1-1-3

1-1-1-2-1-2

2-2

1-1-1

3-2-2

1

1-1-2-1

1-1-1-2

1-1-1

1-2-2-1

1-1

2-1-1-1

1-2-1-1

1-1-1

1-2

2-1

1-1-1

2-4

1-1-1-1

2-1-1-1

1-1-1

2-1-1-1

1-2-1

1-1-1-1

1-1-1-1

Now only a real id.iot could lose at those different B/P situations that MUST happen along each shoe.
Especially at 8-deck shoes.

as.

Thanks for your contributes, but I'm afraid people want to know precisely the situations when to ride in and when to jump out of the shoe they're playing at.
Baccarat could be a form of both art and science, I still prefer the latter form as most players do not have the proper experience to learn the "when" and the "how" as Al or others can do.

If B2/B1-B3 plan could get us possible valuable hints to consider bac outcomes, in order to spot some long term features let's take the asym counterpart, that is the P2/P1-P3 opposite situation.

Again let's extract 10 shoes randomly from a live shoes data.

1) 2-1-1-2-2-1

2) 1-1-1

3) 2-1-1-1

4) 1

5) 1-2

6) 1-1-1

7) 1-1-3*

1-1-1

9) 1-1-1

10) 1-1-2-3-2-1

Obviously we could infer that P consecutive doubles must show up by higher percentages than B doubles. After all B2<B3 and P2>P3 itlr.
True, but at the same time P1>P2, so now we get two exact opposite forces acting after each P double apparition. Knowing of course that P2>P3 so lowering the probability of success of second bets made on such P plan.

It's the same conclusion made on B doubles: from one part something is "generally" more likely (B3>B2) and something will be "actually" more likely (B1>B2+), now considering Player side respectively reversed by P1>P2 (general) and P3>P2 (actual) values.

It's not a coincidence that we need a couple of "homogeneous" outcomes happening at the same side to be considered as triggers.

Itlr B-B is an asymmetrical situation as well as is a P-P pattern.
But a perfect symmetrical card distribution cannot happen by any means, especially whether bac rules dictate otherwise. Even though this kind of asymmetricity seem to produce "symmetrical" results, we should know that it's impossible to get perfect sym outcomes for long, for the simple reason that at baccarat nothing is symmetrical or at least that a mistakenly sym perceived world cannot last for long.

as. 

Reopen?

No way they will reopen soon, I bet they will be closed for long.

And I guess the least thing anyone want to do now is gambling or going into frequented indoor places as casinos.

as. 

A) 1-2

1-2 is the state where key cards are arranged quite proportionally along a given section of the shoe.
It's impossible or very very very very unlikely that a common B/P registration of such state can last for the entire shoe or most part of the shoe. A luxury offered by utlizing other form of random walks.
Obviously itlr 1-2 works better on P side than on B side.
Not surprisingly when the 1-2 state seem to be silent at the start of the shoe, the remaning portions of the shoe more often than not contain short 1-2 states. Naturally all depends about how good or bad are shuffled the cards.

B) 1-3

1-3 state is less likely to provide very long patterns and that's quite curious as given 1 as a costant, 2 should be equal to 3. Moreover 3 consumes more space than 2s thus increasing the probability to get an entire shoe or most part of it featuring this 1-3 state. 
In some way we could infer that a proportional key cards third-level arrangement on both sides is more unlikely, unless B keep forming 3s and P shows up in singles. Or, of course, that few 3s are interleft with many singles. But this being the case, we should just focus our betting on singles without risking the second bet.

C) 2-3

This state is like betting toward getting consecutive streaks, period.
In reality many shoes produce long consecutive streaks of any lenght, of course if I've omitted this state in my plans there's a reason. And the main reason is variance.
Differently to the above states, this one-level state cannot get a backup plan: either we win or we lose. And imo and according to my data there's no valid selection to try to get a kind of advantage as we can only hope that cards are clustered in one way and just one time each.

Imo the value of such state should be indirectly taken. More often than not long 2-3 situations endorse the subsequent probability of A and B states.

D) B2/B1-B3

This state starts its course after a precise condition will be met, that is a B double apparition.
Itlr any B double is the product of an asymmetrical value, even at a slight degree.
That is a small percentage of every B double is asymmetrically placed differently to what happens at Player side where such force must act oppositely.
Now we want to challenge the actual card distribution to get within a couple of hands either a quite proportional key cards distribution (Player side apparition) or, whether our previous attempt failed, a relatively shifted key cards distribution or asym situation favoring the same winning side (Banker).
In a word we're challenging the shoe to form another "same" situation just happened on that B side. And we can do this two times (betting after two B consecutive doubles), three times and so on.

In normal conditions and naturally itlr, this plan doesn't guarantee us a profit (and the same is true about the other plans) but the dispersion values calculated upon this plan are well lower than what we have been taught for years, that is that no matter which spot we select to bet into, probabilties will remain the same.

Actually tests made on LIVE shoes suggest that B doubles quality and B doubles consecutiveness produced at the start of a shoe can be a valuable trigger to evaluate the probability to get or not more B doubles.

Next time we'll see "albalaha way" how to manage real live unfortunate shoes that seem to disrupt those plans.

as.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 06, 2020, 03:31:51 AM
Expectation of Clustering or clumping wins or compensatory wins is wrong even after the worst possible so my methodology doesn't look for one. If you see my worst 800, it has first 200 bets with 60 wins only, rest 400 has 186 wins only and the last 200 bets has 99 Wins. Thus, it only confirms to regression towards Mean and law of large numbers and there is nothing to compensate and no wins in big clusters. It still won without going -300 ever.
Regarding, a rigged casino, I do not believe it to be so easy and I do not ever try to win huge in EC bets so there is no room for rigging results only for me. That could be done for a martingale player. Playing on unrealistic premises is wrong by default.
I created this methodology primarily to beat "Player" bet of Baccarat in an all over game. So far, it is unbeatable even in the worst found stretches. I believe that I can sustain now even if there is an unbelievable case of 1/50 or anything alike.

Ok, thanks.
Regarding baccarat, how many shoes on average do you expect to be behind when strong negative conditions are met? (Say 4 sigma or higher deviations)

Thanks again.

as.