Actually in the vast majority of the times, strong Player shoes feature many asym hands that went "wrong" for B side.
It's like betting a less likely situation knowing that events favoring the opposite B side are not coming out as the shifting power was somewhat over.

as.

Neglecting ties for simplicity, any possible hand will get those true percentages for the player:

Betting B at any asym hand: +0.95 x 57.93% - 1 x 42.07 = + 12.96%

Betting P at any asym hand 1 x 42.07 - 1 x 57.93% = - 15.86%


Betting B at any sym hand: +0.95 x 50% - 1 x 50% = - 2.5%

Betting P at any sym hand +1 x 50% - 1 x 50% = 0%

Therefore itlr we can only hope to be ahead by catching a higher percentage of asym hands than expected when betting Banker and a higher than expected amount of sym hands when betting Player. The remaining events are just belonging to strong or very strong negative propositions.

Obviously there's no one method in the world that could hope to be long term winner whenever the cumulative sums of those four situations will produce the expected negative amount.

It's just a work about detecting when an asym hand will show up more likely within a restricted range of hands, at the same time trying to get rid of those sym hands going to B side as itlr the number of sym B hands will be equal to the number of P sym hands but very differently payed.

For example, say we bet Banker and a simple BBBB pattern shows up with no asym hands coming out.
Itlr we are losing more money than if we were wagering Player side thus losing all four bets.
An apparent "good" situation just becomes a strong losing event.

Conversely a Banker steady wagering on the same BBBB pattern including just one asym hand will get us a long term profit.

Back to your question.

The asym Banker advantage is an average long term value made by all possible standing/drawing situations after a third card is dealt to the Player and Banker can decide what to do in relation of its point (3,4,5 and 6 initial points).
We know that most edge comes from standing 5s, then standing 4s, then standing 3s.
6s drawing after a 6 or 7 is dealt to the Player just lower the disadvantage, it's not a true advantage.
I mean that the asym power on asym hands could be more or less concentrated, always depending upon how is the card distribution on the actual shoe.
Thinking this way we may assign a specific role to any asym hand occurred, not only in the form of initial point but in terms of actual result.

Now let's compare the general probability with the actual probability: 8.6% asym occurence getting a 15.86% B advantage with what really happen at the shoe we're playing at.

Former value is more stable than second one as it's more likely to get P drawing situations as opposed to 3,4,5,6 B points. Actually almost no one single shoe will form no asym hands.
Yet the average 15.86% B edge on those asym hands is more whimsically placed, being the reflex of which B point is dealt when P draws. Not mentioning that the main destiny of asym hands is focused about just one card, that is the third card.

as.

If baccarat is a constant asymmetrical game, first we should focus our attention about real symmetrical probabilities.
More specifically about the lenght of those sym probabilities.

A perfect world dictates that whether a baccarat shoe won't produce asym B favored hands, a constant Player wagering will get at least a zero negative edge against the house.
Oppositely, ONLY a higher than 8.6:91.4 asym/sym hands ratio will lower, erase or invert the house edge on B wagers.

On average, an asym hand will come out about one time over 11.62 hands. To simplify say we'll get one asym hand out of 12 hands and some of them are producing a tie hand.
We also know that a 8.6% probability, differently to other gambling games, cannot be silent per every shoe dealt (that is within a 75-80 hands sample).
Therefore we might imply that no matter how whimsically is the actual card distribution, sooner or later probabilities will change from 0.5/0.5 to 0.5793/0.4203.

In a sense, now we are not interested about how things seem to develop but about will be the probability to cross either 0.5/0.5 or 0.5793/0.4203 events.
That is how much and how many times those two different probabilities change in our actual shoe.

But there's a third important factor to be examined.
That is how asym hands went as more than four out of ten times a shifted math probability favoring B side will be "disregarded".

Now we could consider any shoe as a finite world made by many subsequences of sym/asym hands; on their part asym hands will form further sequences of W/L patterns.

as. 

Hi Rickk!

The principal aim of this plan is to win just one hand getting a general P 0.75 winning probability. If we are betting toward singles and doubles, we must hope that the third unwanted "3" won't come out after the other two different states (singles and doubles) had come out at least once each.
For example a P 1-1-1-1-1-1-3-1-1-1-1 sequence, despite being so attractive doesn't elicit any betting.
If in the same sequence the 3 would be replaced by a 2 (1-1-1-1-1-1-2-1-1-1-1) we'll get four wins when betting "infinitely" and just one win after the 1 that follows the 2.

The 1-2 unit progression was just an example; actually we generally use a softer 1-1.3 or 1-1.5 progression, meaning that the main effort is focused about singles as doubles are considered just a back-up plan.

Of course the 0.75 P winning probability is extracted from a perfect 50/50 proposition but we know that bac B/P probabilities jump from 0.5/0.5 (sym hands) to 0.5793/0.4207 (asym hands), therefore in no way we could think to really wager each hand by a real 0.5068/0.4932 probability ratio.
Especially when we are restricting at most our range of intervention by quantity and quality factors.

as.

"Points" of interest

What is the long term distribution of Banker and Player final points?

Contrary to what many could think, only two categories of points will get the same probability to appear on both sides.
And of course those two are natural 8s and natural 9s. Every other point category will feature a different probability whether we are considering Banker or Player.
Another form to think about asymmetricity.

Hence the only situations where final points get a real symmetrical probability occur with naturals. Not even 6s and 7s will get a symmetrical probability (for obvious reasons).

That's why the Dragon bonus side bet involves a quite different house edge depending upon the side we choose to bet (by far the house edge is a lot lower on P side bets).

The slightest difference between same point B and P probabilities comes with "3" and "7" points. Then about non natural 8s and 9s, 0, 1 and 2 points.
Then "6" points.
Greatest gap in probability exists with 4s and 5s. (Obviously)

On average a deck will form around 19% of naturals on either side, thus around 4/5 of the total hands dealt are following a more or less pronounced asymmetricity.
Naturally we are not talking about more likely B or P outcomes, just about long term final points probability.

Of course the higher the point the better is the probability to win, yet itlr those point gaps are constantly moving around fixed probabilities, each point fighting with a general and an actual shoe probability.

Taken from another point of view, we should see that if 4s and 5s are the more gapped final points (5.4%) then a kind of Banker advantage is more concentrated right on those exact B final points. And we know this being absolutely correct as most asym B edge comes from standing 4s and 5s.

Well, standing. And not all 4s and 5s stand after Player draws.
Not mentioning that some 4s must stand when a third card ace id dealt to the Player, a slight negative edge situation.
And 4s and 5s cannot come infinitely.

The third more pronounced gap situation between same points is about point 6, now favoring Player side and accounting to around 1.1%.
That is that we'll get more P 6 final points than B 6 final points and of course a 6 point is long term favorite to win.

Cumulatively and regarding final points distribution, B 4s, B 5s and P 6s get a nearly 6.6% general asymmetrical probability to appear that we should compare to the actual shoe situations.


as.   

Yes, it would be a good start if MGM made smoking free one of their premises, imo.

as.

My comments.

As long as US keep getting this very high infection rate, nobody residing outside US will want to jump in Vegas or in US. (An exception are those degenerate poker players not knowing what are the real effects of a covid-19 infection)
USA is still the most Covid-19 infected country along with Brasil, India and Mexico (right now).
Not mentioning that aircrafts, especially long haul flights, are among the best places to be infected.

Checking the temperature is a total bighornsh.it. Anybody, infected or not, before entering a premise or an airport would like to be heavily loaded by Tylenol or ibuprofen or aspirin assumption.
Moreover many Covid-19 infection cases went without any fever and, sigh, without getting a positive test.

Buffets, imo, could be reopened as long as single portions of food would be available and where no customer can touch other than a single personal spoon.
And of course where a proper social distancing comes in order.

Parking fees: it's a total another bighornshit to make people pay the parking when entering a casino.
Did we need to get covid-19 to accomplish this?

Smoking.

It's a third rattlesnakeshit to allow people to smoke inside a casino, unless a very strong air ventilation is used. A wasted opportunity to stop the fkng smoking into a casino.

Imo and in the opinion of many, Vegas casinos will make a safe environment if:

- every person entering the premise must wear a face mask (not allowed a FFP2/FFP3 mask with a valve)

- many gel sanitizers are at disposal, forcing people to clean hands before any table/slot join or before/after any toilet enter/exit and buffet/restaurant enter/exit.
Covid-19 is very susceptible to any alcoholic/bleach solution.   

- a proper air ventilation is in order (many high end casinos offer a kind of clean air long since)

- no smoking is allowed. Smoke endorses the probability to get virus particles trapped in the air, thus increasing the probability to catch the unwanted fkng covid by simple breathing despite of the use of surgical masks.

- any person will constantly keep a "social distance" of at least 4-5 feet from another one.

Unfortunately long haul flights cannot guarantee a safe environment by any means.
An aircraft is the prototype of an indoor same breathing air enviroment, even if seats are distanced.
Probably only FFP2/FFP3 face masks and gloves wearing and a deep disinfection after any flight is the solution to lower the risk. It's like entering a covid-19 ICU, no more no less.

as.     

To get the idea that at baccarat things are constantly moving around clumps of key cards each time removed from the deck and then affecting or not the next results, let's shuffle an 8-deck shoe then taking out randomly, say 40 consecutive cards, and see what are the real outcomes coming out infinitely from this 40 cards sample.

Since our sample is randomly/randomly taken and on average we'll get about 7 hands (in form of B, P and T hands) we shouldn't expect to get other than a random pattern (ties ignored for simplicity) belonging to one of the possible 128 distributions. Of course patterns containing more B decisions will overcome the same P counterpart, as sooner or later this finite card distribution will produce some asym hands at various degrees. And we all know the overall general probability to get an asym hand is 8.6%. 

Since it's impossible to know which side will be more favored to win unless cards will form one or more asymmetrical hands, we could think to operate about the unlikelihood that long symmetrical patterns will happen along the way by the simplest form of symmetrical card distribution tools acting (or not) at various degrees.

Considering my above example, any 8-deck shoe is formed by at least nine 40-cards situations, each belonging to a given real asym/sym ratio and/or real sym/sym ratio, all producing each 7 different patterns.
In some sense there's no one single possibility in the world that homogeneous quality outcomes are going to produce the same quality back to back ratios occurred within consecutive portions of the deck.

More on that later.

as.

Yeah, I remember that! 
You had perfectly spotted the situation way before what actually really happened.

as.

Exactly Alba!

"Secure a profit"

If we think to get an edge at a given game and conditions are favourable, we should stay and play regardless of the actual economical situation.
As Albalaha sayed, it's only the long run which counts and itlr everything will come out, thus to secure a profit means "I know I'll surely lose, better to get the illusion to be ahead of something now".
Instead a proper formulation should be: favourable conditions are met, the more I play the more I'll win. Period.

"Quit when you are ahead"

Same bigornsh.it as above.
Our play cannot be splitted into sessions, it's just an infinite series of bets where the cumulative number of times we are ahead (by a W/L ratio) is equal to the cumulative number of times we are behind, all aggravated by the fact that bets are unfair payed in a way or another.
In some sense and oppositely thinking, the specular statement should be "do not quit when behind", a statement particularly liked by casinos.

"Stop win" and "Stop loss"

It depends about what we are considering.
Each class of Ws and Ls follow a general probability and an actual probability. For example I've presented random walks having a general probability to produce all wins for the entire lenght of the shoe, hence lowering the value of a stop win strategy.
On the other hand, some shoes will form many back to back losses that make a future winning streak less probable (mainly for a lack of space).

The actual probability, imo, should be considered either by a simple pattern point of view and, more importantly, by certain quality factors prompting the hands formation.

In no way we could think to hope for a preordered amount of W units either per each shoe or per a series of shoes as we do not know how things will develop and the same is true about Ls situations.

Knowing that the actual shoe has a probability different from zero to produce all winnings represents a good start.
Conversely, cards distributions forming unlikely "losing" situations at the start (albeit due for obvious reasons regarding variance) are not going to produce specular winning counterparts.
It's like stating that key cards clumped toward one side at the beginning are symmetrically clumped toward the opposite side thereafter.

Of course people making a living at numbers like to wager toward the unlikelihood that something won't happen, thus betting toward slight or intermediate more likely situations.
And more often than not the initial-mid sections of the actual shoe are offering us good hints.

as.

Hope you'll be back very soon. 

as.

 

Tomorrow I'll discuss nonsense topics as "quit when you are ahead", "secure a profit", and the more intriguing "stop win or stop loss", all "human factors" that cannot alter in our favor the natural flow of the game.

as. 

You are welcome! :-)

Obviously the level of asymmetricity (generally intended) of each shoe dealt is strictly related to the actual card distribution. Same shoes dealt and shuffled poorly tend to mantain the same level of asymmetricity but very often detected by different patterns' shapes. That's why we need several r.w.'s operating for us.

Since 1-2, 1-3 and B2/B1-B3 and P2/P1-P3 cover all the most frequent possibilities at various degrees, we might get a more precise idea about how "asymmetrically" cards are distributed along the actual shoe. Or, better sayed, which spots are more likely to be asymmetrically distributed.

Any 2-hand attack features a theorical winning probability of 0.75 on symmetrical hands and various different probabilities when one of two asymmetrical hands come along.
For example, if our plan dictates to wager P side two times and two asym hands come out, the P winning probability is restricted to about 0.6645.
In the same example, just one asym hand coming out on our two P betting attempts shifts the P winning probability to about 0.71.

Naturally asym hands don't come out around the corner, therefore many "more likely Banker outcomes" should be assessed by the actual quality/quantity pattern distribution. We do not want to bet a side being unnecessarily payed 0.95:1, especially when the actual distribution seems to privilege the symmetrical hands formation.

as. 

Hi Rickk.

Numbers register how many P2 doubles come out after an initial P2 "trigger": if P2 is limited by an immediate P1 or P3 the number registered will be 1.
If a couple of P2 patterns come around consecutively, we'll write 2. If three P2 patterns show up we'll write 3 and so on.

Example.

BPPBBBPBPPBBPPBBBBBPBPBBPPBPPBBPPBPPBPPPBPPBBBPPPPB according to the P2/P1-P3 r.w is:

1-2-4-2

In the same sequence the B2/B1-B3 r.w. is read as:

1-1-1


as.








 

In the last shoe notice how would fare a cumulative strategy applied simultaneously to every 6 possible "highest state" number pattern:

1. - -  + + + +

2. - + + + + -

3. + + + - + -

4. + + + + + -

5. - + + + + -

6. + + + - + -

7. + + - + + +

8. + + - + - +

9. + - + + - +

10. + - + + + +

11. + - + + + +

12. + - + + - +

13. + + - - + +

14. - + + + + -

15. + - + + - +

16. + + - - + +

17. + + - + - +

18. + + + - + -

19. + + + + - -

20. + + - + - +

21. + + + - +

22. - - + + + +

23. + - - + - +

24. + + + + - -

25. - - + + + -

26. + + + + - -

27. + - + + - -

28. + + + + - -

29. - + + + + -

30. + + + - + -

31. - - + + + +

32. + + - + + +

33. + + + - - -

34. - - + + + +

35. + + - + + +

36. + + + - - -

37. + + - - + +

38. - + - + + -

39. - + + + + +

40. - - - + + +