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.

That's real interesting, but I guess that in order to recover any deficit you need W's coming in short intervals after the strongest L bad situations happened.

But say the "enemy" knows in detail your plan, thus rigging the game you're playing at.
Do you have any escape plans?

Thanks.

as. 

Hi Rickk!

Obviously patterns are the direct product of either math and card distribution.
To be consistent winners on long terms we need both.

For example there's no point to bet Banker if we have reasons to think that no asym hands will come out shortly or, it's the same, that many previous asym hands got the Player side winning.
We can't get a shoe featuring 20 or zero asym hands, anyway naturals and standing points must show up at a value well exceeding 1/3 of the total hands dealt. Those situations are the math advantaged hands, even though a favorite standing 7 will lose to a natural 8 or to a miracle 6 falling to the opposite underdog 2 point.
How much those "unfortunate" (or mistakenly considered "lucky") events will impact over the long run? I guess at a lesser degree than what the most likely course is going to take along the way. 

Therefore a valuable betting method must be set up onto two different levels: math advantaged situations or card distributions so polarized that even the Player side may be slight advantaged.

We see that it's more difficult to spot or concentrate real Banker advantaged situations as the asym general probability is 8.4%, whereas Player side can be underdog just on those asym hands.
Of course Player side never get the astounding math advantage of 15.86% working on its asym hands, even knowing that the asym impact is a well finite factor.

Example.

We set up a mechanical plan dictating to bet one time Player side after any asym hand was produced. If a couple of asym hands were formed we'll stop the betting (that is we are trying to isolate asym math advantaged hands)
On average we'll bet 6 or 7 times, we will be hugely underdog only when consecutive asym hands will be formed. In the remaining cases we are at least playing a 0.5 no negative edge game (as linear card counting is a bighornshit).
Naturally itlr we'll expect to get the same asym-sym and asym-asym ratios, yet the asym/total hands dealt ratio is quite restricted.
And altogether naturally is that post asym hands situations are 50% dealt but one side is payed 0.95:1 and the other one 1:1.

Our new random walk wagering 6 or 7 hands per shoe is moving around two very different probabilities: the first probability is to get or not get another strong math advantaged situation favoring B, second probability is surely set up around the 0.5 value. It's the simplest example of 'probability after events' feature.
Think that we can take into account what happens after two or more hands after an asym hand happened or after a couple of consecutive asym hands, thus building infinite random walks.

Now it's the actual card distribution that plays the decisive role as symmetricity cannot exist at all at baccarat.

The idea to restrict the succession of outcomes within simple categories working under specific circumstances tries to approximate at best the actual card distribution.
Imo and according to our long term data, 1-2, 1-3 and B2-B1/B3 are among the best indicators of the actual card distribution.

as.

The "alignment" curiosity

Suppose we want to arrange cards forming a shoe which provides all Banker or Player hands.
For simplicity we use just one deck.

One of the numerous card distribution producing all banker hands (and no ties) is:

A, A, K, 5, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, K, 4, 10, 3, 9, 6, Q, J, 7, 5, 8, 5, 8, 5, 8, J, 10, 9, 7, A, Q, A, 6, 6, 4, 10, 4, J, 9, J, 2, 10, K, 4, K, 3, 8, Q, Q, 7, 9. (6,7 left as they can't produce a hand)

Such sequence provides 11 straight Banker hands and no tie:

B B B B B B B B B B B

Now let's remove from the play the first card (A) from the play and see what happens:

P P T B B B B B B B

Or the first two cards (A, A):

B B T B B B B B B B

Finally the first three cards (A, A, K):

P B T B B B B B B B

We see that results are not much affected by burning one, two o three cards and such thing happens with a lot of decks. In a sense we could deduce that this card distribution is Banker polarized; it's just a matter of time that results will be aligned with the original untouched sequence.

Even when multiple decks are utilized or no substantial card clumping is present (as 2-3 and 5-8 in the example),  things go quite in the same way, at least on the vast majority of the shoes dealt.

as.

Excellent job.

Now consider that in no fkng way some strategies won't reach dispersion values higher than 1.5 SD.
What's your higher bet amount here, knowing that standard unit is $1000?

Thanks

as. 

I trust Nevada authorities so much that I think a reopening by May 15 would be impossible.

as. 

A deck of cards shuffled decently is asymmetrical by definition.
Let's shuffle numerous times a simple 52 cards deck and register how many times three or four same suit cards are coming out consecutively. Of course after something had happened (say many spades were turned out), the future probability to get those consecutive suited cards on diamonds, clubs and hearts is enlarged in some way.
But no one would be so naive to think that after any single diamonds, clubs or hearts card coming out the future probability will be always enlarged or at least included within playable terms (assuming the game is EV-).
We could easily get a lot of decks with a low spades impact producing many D,C and H consecutive sequences not belonging to the 3 or 4 same suit occurence we are looking for.

Of course one could think that a possible strategic plan may be oriented  NOT to get long same suit sequences up to a point and naturally based upon the partial aknowledge of the removed cards nature as we've seen about the spades example.
And one could think that same suit cards on next decks may be "clumped" in some way as a physically perfect shuffle doesn't exist at all.

At baccarat things work differently as removed cards cannot sensibly affect future outcomes, yet baccarat is an asymmetrical proposition at the start and at every single point even without the natural asymmetrical cards impact.
Anyway the asym-asym value is so high that it's impossible any single deck dealt in the universe will be symmetrically placed as, simply put, symmetricity at baccarat cannot exist.

Now the problem is to spot the situations where a constant asymmetrical proposition made on two different levels (bac rules and card distribution) will reach very low dispersion values as something is "more due" no matter what.

Suppose casinos know the B doubles vulnerability and start arranging shoes to produce a lot of consecutive B doubles.
Who cares?
The B double plan is just one random walk, for example many B doubles will entice the probability to get many 1-2 B situations and we need just one to be ahead.
Casinos will arrange shoes to get a lot of B doubles and B 3+ streaks without any B single trigger thus destroying one half of my ub #1? Perfect, the vast majority of baccarat players will wager to follow the consecutive B streaks line.

Since almost no one bac shoe won't present at least one B single, we know that either plan #1 or #2 will get at least one win, more often (say everytime) multiple wins.

More on that tomorrow.

as.

Hi Rick and thanks!

I know the suggestions I'm disorderly posting cannot give the reader precise betting guidelines, it's made on purpose.

Yep, you took one of the fundamental points to beat bac.
Instead of wagering hoping for this or that or, even worse, to play general probabilities, we should focus to understand the asymmetrical level of the actual shoe.
To do that we need to put into action several r.w.'s, setting up the actual relative probability compared to the general 0.5068/0.4932 proposition.
If the dispersion values taken from a place selection point of view remain unchanged, baccarat is not beatable.

In a sense, we do not want to simply bet toward asymmetricity but instead toward certain different levels of asymmetricity that are present per each shoe dealt.
And of course the most favourable situation to look for is 1.

I'll write more on that in few days.

Cheers!

as.

Start thinking that any bac shoe dealt is asymmetrically placed as cards cannot be symmetrically placed along any single shoe, moreover as bac rules are not symmetrically intended. 
It's up to us to spot the situations where such asymmetricity gets a valuable strenght capable to invert the fkng house edge. And to be consistent long term winners we need just few spots to be ahead. 

It's intuitive that such asymmetricity cannot last for long or, better sayed, that this asym factor works at different degrees per any shoe dealt.

Notice that I'm not talking about Banker advantage, to get such advantage we need precise situations to appear as P drawing and B getting a 3,4,5 or 6 initial point.

Whenever a given asym level is surpassed (whatever intended), no one prediction is possible as the asym strenght will be "randomly" placed more often than not.

That's why is important to play shoes where asym levels won't reach huge values at the start.

as.

Imo best casinos to play at are those offering multiple tables getting affordable min limits.
If I'm playing at a $1000 min table, I want more tables offering limits no higher than this.
I do not want to get the feeling of being tied on that table.

Obviously most "affordable" tables are set up to face $5000 maximum bets, often without the "privilege" to peek at cards. Thus many HS players won't look at those tables.

In some sense "normal" players will get better opportunities than HS players, especially those HS gullibles who are setting up the minimum limit so high that nobody will enter their table.

Moreover, huge min limit tables offer a ridicolous max betting limit, very often set up at 4x or 10x.

as.