BTW, Alrelax stated that no matter how things develop at the start, most shoes are producing 'turning points' capable to get the player a kind of an edge.

Knowing his vast experience on the subject (and he's used to play serious money and not $10 bets), I tend to give him a lot of credit, after all Al is one of the few players I'd bet my money with.
Probably he's one of the few best opportunistic guys that tries to get the best of those rare situations occurring, meaning that it's the person capable to quit the table as a huge winner.

as.   

Hi KFB!

"...We've already seen that transforming a 'random' BP succession into 'derived' sequences will get itlr different "general" patterns depending upon which pace of BP results we've decided to take as a trigger.


Ok, take the cockroach road.
Long red or blue streaks come out whenever strong symmetrical 3-paced patterns or strong asymmetrical one-way BP streaks come out of the blue.
In either way red and blue singled and doubles patterns are slight less likely to happen.
In some way and since long b or r streaks tend to come out consecutively at this derived road, we may deduce that more often than not a quite diluted pace of registration tend to get strong polarized key card distribution in a way or another.
But notice that at this road just one hand that went 'wrong' will affect decisevely the next distributions.

Summarizing, the cr is the best indicator about how much key cards are concentrated or diluted along any shoe.
Then it's up to us to assess whether a single or a series of  'key' results was/were mathematically shifted to prolong a b or r streak or to cut it off.

Think that we can build additional derived roads getting a 4-pace or 5-pace registration...

The other two d.r's tend to be so stable to provide certain more likely outcomes for long or to provide some back to back situations that it's virtually impossible to state that 'baccarat is a game of non detectable patterns' (a careful reading of my unb plans would help).
I mean that at those two d.r.'s we can't give a lesser fk about how things have actually developed from a two-card math point of view.

In the improbable event that casinos will think that derived roads could be a valuable tool for players, so not directly displaying them on the screen, we know that an infinite different random walks registration will make the same job now at more precise values.
And we do not need to write them on paper.

The perfect plan would be to spot a betting line capable to get 7-10 all W sequences per shoe that must come out by a well higher degree of probability than what math values dictate.
Of course we need to wager two times each spot toward getting a more likely scenario.
And naturally whenever a shoe starts with a negative spot, we can't reach that aim.

as.

Everyone here or there can bet his/her a.s.s that live baccarat shoes are not perfect randomly shuffled.

And we can't give a lesser damn whether math formulas state otherwise. Mathematicians write formulas, we play the game. And as long as we are heavy long term winners such math statements go right into the toilet.
Especially after having implemented our plans by a couple of statistical tools studied in the past by eminent authors.
 
It's virtually impossible to shuffle 416 cards randomly.
Thus at some points of certain shoes (not all shoes dealt) something is well more likely than what the fkng general probability dictates.
Cards are removed, I mean key cards removed cannot come again and when they are 'live' they can't disappear so distributing itlr in a more likely way.

On average, a shoe will distribute back to back results very differently whether key cards are concentrated or diluted, yet the number of key cards is finite as well as the number of hands dealt per shoe. 

That makes baccarat a very different game than roulette where each spin is totally independent from the previous one and the possible non random features are very very hard to detect (assuming they're really acting).
(An exception was found at certain Interblock automated wheels where rotor speed and ball speed sequences were somewaht detectable, yet low sums of money can be wagered there and the general HE to overcome remains -5.26%)

We've already seen that transforming a 'random' BP succession into 'derived' sequences will get itlr different "general" patterns depending upon which pace of BP results we've decided to take as a trigger.

Naturally and as Alrealx pointed out several times here, a 'more likely attitude' is acting just when it seems to act at the actual shoe we're playing at.

Take the cockroach derived road as an example.
By far and among the three derived roads displayed on the screen, this road will get the higher amount of longer streaks, but it's not that unlikely that this road will form very long single and double results with just one or a couple of 3+s streaks.

In our opinion and according to our long term data, CR is the worst succession to get hints from as it's triggered by a quite large amount of actual hands.
In some way too diluting or too concentrating a possible key card impact.

Actually CR is the only one derived road succession among the common three DR's not giving us a long term advantage by flat betting as too influenced by positive or negative variance.

It's like the ancient 'in medio stat virtus (the right position is in the middle) quote takes its full meaning even at baccarat.
At baccarat we could translate this quote into discarding Big Road results and CR results.

Of course there are additional sub successions to look for, I've provided the BPBPBP... original scheme and there are infinitely others.

The advantage of setting up a derived road by utilizing a BPBP...orginal sequence compared to the actual shoe sequence is that non random card distrubutions will get more likely the production of 3+ streaks.
We know that live shoes are way affected by a higher percentage of long BP streaks than pc samples.

If this streaks probability is somewhat endorsed, we know that the AB probability will form shorter and more detectable patterns as sooner or later such 3+ streak must happen.

In fact a BBB or PPP sequence compared to a BPB... or PBP... original scheme will form respectively a ABA and BAB sequence or a BAB and ABA sequence.

Of course the losing counterpart comes out when a BPBP... original sequence will collide or coincide with an actual BPBP (AAAA) or PBPB (BBBB) situation.

Good news is that itlr non random shoes will form more likely BP streaks of some lenght than BP long patterns of singles and doubles.

It would be hard to accept this statement unless a careful long live data compared with pc data were attained.

After all pc samples are not placing phisically, live shoes will.

I mean that itlr the number of shoes richer than average of AB streaks will be lower than the number of shoes poor of those AB streaks.

It's up to us to select the possible profitable situations to bet at, knowing that not evry shoe and/or not every shoe sequence is bettable.

as.

Thanks KFB!

@Alba
Baccarat is not a game of math results, baccarat is a game of card distributions favoring this or that.
Even a portion of a black jack deck astoundingly rich of high cards could be not profitable for the player whether those high cards are confined at the unplayable portion of it.
Who knows if cards are (voluntarily or not) shuffled in this way repeatedly?

At baccarat this problem doesn't exist as almost all cards are utilized and of course we can bet whenever we want.
It will be the time that baccarat decks will be played 'Montecarlo style' that is cutting off from the play a lot of cards.

No matter how weird a deck is shuffled, especially whether a kind of non randomness is acting, at some points of most shoes some patterns will be more likely than others by a likelihood surpassing the general probability values and, more importantly, the negative EV.

Let's consider the easiest BP succession then trying to compare it to the actual BP distribution in order to build a new 'road' (S=same result, O=opposite result)

BPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBP........

BBBBPPBPPBPPPBPBPPBBBPPPPBPBPPB (actual shoe)

we'll get:

S
O
S
O
SSS
OOO
S
OOOOO
SS
O
SS
O
S
OOOOO
SS

Notice that instead of comparing the actual shoe with a BPBPBP succession we could use an original scheme starting with a P (that is an infinite PBPBPBPBPBPB sequence) anyway nothing will change as now S are O and vice versa.

Of course and depending upon which original scheme we'll use, actual long chopping shoe situations will translate into univocal S or O long streaks.

Other actual shoe patterns as

BB
PP
BB
PP
BB
PP
BB
PP...

become (BPBP original scheme)

S
OO
SS
OO
SS
OO
SS
OO
S

or (PBPB original scheme)

O
SS
OO
SS
OO
SS
OO
SS
O

If unlikely shoes provide a kind of

BBB
PPP
BBB
PPP
BBB
PPP  sequence, we'll get

S
O
SS
O
SS
O
SS
O
SS
O
SS
O
S

or the specular

O
S
OO
S
OO
S
OO
S
OO
S
OO
S
OO
S
O  counterpart

Do not waste your time to find out which shoe sequences will provide long consecutive S or O streaks: those situations are happening whenever a strong balanced BP succession will come out as

B
P
B
PP
B
P
BB
P
B
P....

forming a

SSSS
OOOO
SSSS... sequence

To cut a long story short, this simple tool will help us to find how "balanced" is the card distribution acting at every shoe dealt, knowing that under normal circumstances (live shoes) long balanced situations are restricted within countable values. Meaning that sooner or later they'll be disregarded, especially if we're restricting the field of our operations into 1,2 and 3 S/O outcomes.
Streaks and singles distribution is the answer.

Whenever a 3+ BP streak will happen (and we know that shoes not producing at least one 3+ streak at either side are very very very very unlikely to happen, say it's an almost zero occurence) S or O streaks of such limited lenght must shift.

In some way we're challenging bac shoes to produce balanced card distributions for long, a thing that for obvious reasons cannot happen in the vast majority of situations.

Consider this registration as an additional derived road to look for. Check out your live data and let me know.
Streaks and singles.

as.

Let's try to clarify the issue.

Itlr simple B and P successions cannot be beaten by any means as they are too way affected by variance, that is by the actual card distribution that we know not being randomly placed as we think. Moreover B and P probabilities are dynamically moving hand per hand very often giving a fk about the general B/P probability.
Therefore nearly half of the times we'll be right and the remaning half we'll be wrong, all wagers burdened by the math negative edge.

If we try to select B and P results by registering longer patterns, we're increasing our chances of success but almost always not to the point of erasing and inverting the HE as the actual card distribution is the king (or queen).

A sophisticated progression could make us winners for long but it can't erase the invariable probability to lose everything (and more), it's just a matter of time.

Hence imo the Big Road is one of the worst successions to look for to get hints before betting.
In fact our data say that the probability to be long term ahead by betting even selectively B and P hands is zero.
I'm not rot ruling out the possibility that some very experienced players can be ahead even by betting BP hands but I guess it's a very remote probability.

Then what should make baccarat as a beatable game?

The average shoe card composition affecting sd values of certain situations not strictly belonging to BP hands.
The more we're waiting for a given AB deviation to show up, higher wil be our EV on our bets, up to the point that we are kind of facing a Bingo game, now impersonating the casino's side.

I'm implying that it'll be way more likely to get ridiculous low sd values after a given expected event hadn't come out one or two times than to steadily wager toward positive situations.   

Curiously, the probability to cross those astounding EV+ spots is more or less equiparable to the probability to get valuable positive card counting situations happening at bj.
Now with a way higher positive expectancy and of course by taking into account very different issues.

It's not that difficult to grasp how to transform BP successions into some AB sequences capable to get very low sd values.

Next time we'll see the general principles how to do that.

as.

Baccarat is the only gambling game where some (rare) selected bets will get the player an astounding positive EV, best bj counters at the most favourable opportunities cannot think to get this huge advantage.

Whenever a shoe is somewhat biased by a lack of perfect randomness (say almost everytime), the player will get a sure indeniable edge.
Unfortunately most part of shoes will present a too tiny non random feature, making such non random results as a kind of random results succession.

The reason is about the average biased card distribution affecting most of the BP results but way less the AB limited random walk successions considered by mathematicians as totally independent from each other besides their general probability to happen.
Of course a perfect random card distribution cannot get valuable hints at any derived r.w. we wish to put in action.

It's like that per each shoe played we're challenging the actual distribution to get or not for long some general more likely AB situations after a given deviation appeared at the same terms.
A feature not exploitable whenever a shoe is perfect randomly dealt, but most of the times this thing cannot happen.

as.   

Quote from: alrelax on July 06, 2021, 02:18:26 PM
Certain things will happen and will not happen, no matter what. 

If its being presented, wager on it.  If not, don't  wager on it. 

There is a huge difference in what I am saying versus trying to change the presentments. 

Alrelax

Sure, but everything comes out by a degree of probability.

If every member here will bet toward the 3+ BP streaks probability on the next shoe dealt at Wynn casino right now, he knows he/she'll get an average 8.6 number of 3+ BP streaks probability.
This value is extracted not by considering Wynn shoes shuffled in precise circumstances, but by considering well shuffled shoes.
Of course there are additional features to take into account, the number of cards cut off from the play or the coincidental very long streak appearance, for example.

I guess that the probability that a player will get zero-1-2-3 or 13 or more 3+ BP streaks on that shoe is insignificantly low.
Up to the point that we can assign to those probabilites an almost zero value.

Of course I'll be in better shape to predict how many 3+ streaks will come out on average after a given shoe sample was registered.

Anyway let's suppose casinos want to voluntarily restrict or enlarge whimsically this value in order to confuse players' plans.
That's a worthless move.

As long as BP results are transformed into AB outcomes, the hands predictability remains ridiculously high.

as.

Hint: streaks of any lenght are going to our favor no matter what and for that matter most part of chopping situations or short patterns will go to our favor too.
It's a strict math based evaluation plan challenging sym spots vs asym spots.

as. 

Hi KFB!

The BP model is biased at the start for two different reasons.

1- B is more likely than P just on rare occasions, I mean it's not steadily more probable than P as the overall B/P probability is assessed on the very long term, many times mixing up different sources of data and/or considering pc simulated shoes.

2- any live bac shoe dealt in the universe is affected by a kind of non randomness.

#1: I've provided here and for the first time publicly (for free) the math values why and by which degree B>P.

#2: math values work only at real random propositions, yet we can assume that such randomness doesn't affect most part of live shoes dealt.
But we need more advanced tools to ascertain a possible non randomness, namely getting rid of simple B/P successions.

Several years ago Ed Thorp devised a card counting scheme assigning a value to Banker's positive cards and Player's positive cards.
After a cutoff point was reached (needing many many hands to show up on average), Thorp demonstrated that a side was more likely than the other one and, surprise, only the Player's side got a small positive edge over the house (0.33% or so). Banker side remained negative no matter what.

More recent studies (always apllied to pc simulations) have shown the in very rare occasions some shoe distributions could get the Banker the 51.3% cutoff probability capable to erase and invert the negative HE. Unfortunately being so much restricted that it's considered as worthless.

Everybody here knows that a card counting technique cannot be a viable option to overcome the negative BP edge.
But at least we may conclude that baccarat is not made by independent successions and that even though B>P, one study showed that the only profitable situation to be ahead of the game is by waiting a strong deficit of Player positive cards.

Another eminent gambling expert, James Grosjean, stated that "the game is symmetric so that are no cards that massively favor one bet or the other".

Actually and knowing the average asymmetrical key cards impact acting at every live shoe dealt we should transform the above statement into "the game is so symmetrical that asymmetrical spots will tend to get more probable cutoff values than expected".
And of course B/P values tend to be way less predictable than A/B models.

B/P classifications must consider a BP distribution acting at every hand dealt without any previous consideration, yet A/B models could start the registration after precise situations had arised (or not).

I mean that the more hands we must classify to get a A/B result, higher will be the probability to get A after B or B after A.

Consider this shoe sequence:

PPPPP
BB
P
BBBBB
P
B
BB
PPP
BBB
PPPP
...
as a

A
B
A
B
AA
BBB
A
B
A
BBB
A
BB
A
BB
A
B
A
B
A
B
succession.

We transformed the BP sequence into a AB succession by a  simple mechanical way.

Are we more favored to detect the AB sequence than the BP original sequence?

What about very long term situations?

as. 

Quote from: alrelax on June 28, 2021, 01:55:08 AM

Please do not take it the wrong way, I'm not criticizing your writing and your comments, I'm just making an observation to stress the drawdown, the patience required, the frame of mind and everything else that is mandatory in trying to catch all of this, which I've learned over the years.

I do not, Al and I never did.
I take your observations very seriously, after all what you say it's very effective at the tables.

I just want to reiterate the idea that baccarat can get the player a sure indeniable edge by a strict scientifical point of view.

To beat baccarat nobody is totally wrong or totally right, thus we better put different ideas together (imo).

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on June 23, 2021, 06:09:07 AM
Thx AsymBacGuy--good thread/ post.

Your sentence:
"... An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win.  ..."

Can you clarify the phrase in bold? or give an example. thx

Continued Success,

Hi KFB!

Say our method is tested on 70.000 live bac shoes.

The probability to be ahead by randomly selecting just one or more BP betting spots per shoe is very close to zero, even if we are acting after knowing the exact BP distributions happening at this 70k shoes data.
Ok, maybe 12+ P streaks are going to get a B hand more often than not (vig considered) but the ROI still remains negative. Not mentioning that the hands observed/EV ratio will be constantly shifted toward the left side. No matter how deep we'll start the betting.

I mean no general rare BP triggers coming up along the way are valuable itlr as the actual shoe card distribution will make a decisive role about it.
Shoe per shoe.

Variance

When we transform a 'random' BP succession into multiple AB unrandom sequences, the variance will be way more restricted than expected. For good peace of mathematicians.

It happens that BP successions are way more affected by volatility than AB sequences, as B or P are going to get a place just by the simple nature ot the actual outcome, whereas an AB model must take into account a back to back probability made on multiple situations before getting a place.

I mean that itlr it's way more likely to get multiple detectable AB situations than simple BP successions as the former category cannot give a damn about the asymmetrical outcomes nature acting just one time over an average number of 11.62 attempts. Sd values will help us.

Summarazing.

- all shoes dealt are affected by a sure asymmetrical card distribution acting by some values;

- the fact that B>P should be considered as an irrelevant factor as AB streaks are way more detectable than BP streaks.

- the probability to get a given AB pattern is at least 1.5 times higher than the BP probability to get the same pattern, providing to get rid of the unplayable shoes.

as.

Besides other topics, Alrelax is deadly right about the importance of ties affecting the BP distribution or, generally speaking, our plan.

Recently I've crossed a really weird live shoe (a manually shuffled fresh shoe):

first card is a 5, thus five cards were burnt. First hand is Player, second hand is Banker

1)  3-6  K-9  TIE

2)  3-T (3) Q-6  TIE

3) 8-T   K-8   TIE

4) 5-2   4-J (3)  TIE

5) A-9 (9)  K-Q (9)  TIE

6) 4-5   Q-9   TIE

7) 2-2 (6)   4-K (6) TIE  That's amazing....a complicated way to get the seventh tie in a row when a simple third zero value card could have made the job.

2-A (2)  8-7   TIE

9) T-2 (  4-3  Banker wins, end of the ties streak.

In summary this shoe presented 8 ties in a row at the very start of it; just two over eight tie hands employed six cards (the more likely situation to get a tie); at hand #7 people at the table went crazy.

Ties are one of the worst betting opportunity at baccarat, yet jackpots happen.
And in reality few people have made serious money at this shoe.

In my tests I've run hundreds of thousands of pc simulated shoes and this thing never happened at the very start of the shoe, just a couple of times 8+ ties came out but in different positions. And of course my live shoe data consider a significant smaller percentage of shoes.

I mean that if sh.it happens, well, jackpots must happen, especially at a game where we have reasons to think that each 'spin' cannot be perfectly independent from the previous one.

Math goes right down the toilet whenever each distribution isn't perfect randomly shaped.
That is nearly 100% of the times.

as.   

Hi KFB!

I think that at gambling games more imperfect informations a player will get higher will be the probability to lose.
At baccarat everything seems to be so "volatile" that players' efforts to look for predictable results are worthless. Imo, this is not the case.

Baccarat results move around two distinct fields of probability:

- the math probability to get B advantaged over the P side;

- the average card distribution probability eliciting patterns of some lenght. That's the main factor we should be interested to assess.

Itlr, the vast majority of patterns could be restricted into precise lenght situations up to the point that we can consider B=P.
After all, an 8-deck shoe will present, on average, just one more B hand than P hand. Thus enlarging a possible B streak at one spot or shifting the P sequences at one spot.

Obviously CSMs deny a sequential probability of some kind and even though we can assess the BP distribution by multiple derived roads, the lack of dependence factor will invalidate the power of the average card distribution issue.

For that matter, many high end casinos know very well the baccarat vulnerability, they'll simply hope that players like to get huge winnings within too short intervals or liking to wager the insourmountable negative edge apllied to side bets.

[b]Simple back to back outcomes and complex back to back outcomes

It's the key to win itlr.

An average card distribution will more likely produce clustering win situations. The more we are considering winning clusters by strict parameters, higher will be the probability to win.

The clustering effect will form situations of different lenght, anyway we are interested about back to back W or L spots.
We know there's a general probability to get singles and doubles, the probability to get losses in such sequences is specularly placed as we shouldn't consider as B and P as opposite results.
Anyway, all streaks surpassing the 3 cutoff point are going to our favor as they'll produce opposite situations from a A/B point of view.

as.

Q: Do you know of houses that do this on a regular(daily) basis  ?

Thx in advance,
[/quote]

Best example is the Salon Privés at Monte Carlo casino in the Principality of Monaco.
Needless to say, it's the most prestigious historical gambling premise in the planet to bet the money at.
In the summer season Salon Privés games (single zero roulette, bj and baccarat) are offered at a outdoor terrace directly overlooking the Mediterranean Sea.
Few players can get the admission to play at this room even though baccarat tables limits are as low as €100-€30.000.

Notice that in Monte Carlo and in most european casinos, no free hands are dealt. 

In Vegas, few casinos are worried about dealing the vast majority of the shoe and very often players  instruct the dealer to stop the actual shoe in order to get a new one.

Of course whenever acute players had considered a shoe as a unplayable one, this stopping procedure will go to their benefit. But in the remaining and more likely occurences, acute players' interest is to get the shoe dealt up to the end.

To clarify things more and for one time taking the Jacobson's book direction to consider the two opposite parts (players side and casinos side) I would suggest:

Players side

- bet only at shoes were most part of the shoe are supposed to be dealt. Preferably when the first card is an ace, deuce, three or four, thus cutting off from the initial part of the shoe just one, two, three or four cards.

- avoid shoes where the red card is too 'light' placed, meaning that too many cards are cut off from the play.

- play at tables where you're not compelled to place a bet for whatever reason, that is tables where more than one person likes to bet every hand.

- play at manually shuffled shoes or Shuffle Master Machine same shoes dealt in alternating pace. 

- for practical reasons serious money can't go unnoticed at Bac Theaters, so true HS rollers must bet at live tables. At live tables nobody gives a fk whether you'll place an occasional yellow or multiple yellow chip denomination, but at Bac Theaters you need to introduce several $100 bills to get a proper bankroll capable to bet the same amount or to endure the invariable losing situations. Not mentioning that the maximum betting limit at BTs is, in the most fortunate case, set up at $5000.
Moreover chips are money in distinct denominations, tickets cannot be splitted.

Casinos side

- only a pc software always starting from a perfect 'neutral' point where everything is equally probable to show up could provide real random results.
In the remaining cases, your card distributions will be affected by a kind of bias. 
SMs acting at the same deck won't fit the random parameters, let alone manually shufflled shoes starting from precise card sequences.

- more hands are dealt and lesser are the decks utilized to form a shoe and higher will be the probability to face players capable to get hints from the actual card distribution.
It's not a coincidence that at Monte Carlo casino (where players can regularly bet 30.000 euros, that is $35.000 at this time, almost the double max limit allowed at Vegas casinos) shifted a 6-deck shoe offer to a 8-shoe offer cutting off from the play at least two decks.

- besides the above considerations, the only sure way to neglect a possibile (sure) player's advantage is by dealing bac hands by a CSM, that is by totally denying a possible back to back influence over the outcomes.

We'll see more deeply this issue in a couple of days.

as.

Think that our claims consider all possible outcomes' successions and strictly measured, classified upon the same shuffling procedures made at the same deck.

Whenever a new deck is offered (HS rooms) we have accounted a general probability compared to the actual probability, so unless cards are precisely dealt by a software (and even if we suspect this fact, the post manual shuffling happening at every HS shoe dealt must neglect such possibility), the probability to get equal or opposite results at back to back shoes remains quite asymmetrically placed.

Btw, casinos have no interest to shuffle cards in a certain way to promote players to lose.
That's a total nonsense, it suffices to study the 4 derived roads directly displayed on the screen.
There's no one BP succession  in the world to get all losing sequences on all four derived roads and even though they know our precise preferred personal random walk we like to use, they can't arrange cards to get multiple losing sequences at back to back shoes.

Casinos get their huge profits at bac tables about players' ignorance or fake statements and not only about the math edge.

Most players like to bet upon asymmetrical situations lasting for long, a kind of trending based action, unfortunately asymmetrical situations will proportionally mix with symmmetrical situations and unless those spots are math studied and properly classified and measured, the EV will be negative.
By a 1 trillion % degree.

The same about the Banker math propensity.
Banker bets are better than Player bets by getting a lesser than 0.18% ROI disadvantage.
Anyone who is used to play at HS rooms knows very well the commission weight, I mean that commissions add up at the end of the shoe, very often producing a total loss.

After all, our bets must erase or invert a more than 1% math edge, thus no help comes from lowering it by a st.upid 0.18% long term value.

It's more likely to get a better than 50% win rate at P bets than getting a 51.3% cutoff value to get B bets to be worthwhile as the asym strenght favoring B bets come out one time out of 11.62 hands on average.

But it's whenever we consider the BP sequence as A or B result successions that we can get a better idea that no one side is particularly shifted toward one side as the actual card distribution will make a huge role on that.

As long as A or B are different than B or P, well we're playing a winning game.

as.