Quote from: KungFuBac on June 14, 2021, 04:11:52 AM
Good, Better, and Best.

Its difficult at times for us to pass on the Good/Better spots and wait for the Best. However, the latter is certainly more lucrative/yields a better ROI. 

Perfect!

And we can bet everything we have on our name that long term winners wager only at the Best spots.

It's true that in some shoes Good and Better could last for long thus enticing us to bet a lot of hands, yet only the Best part yields the advantage we're looking for.

Regardless of how whimsical the card distribution seems to be, it will produce a succession whose properties remain the same.
It's just a matter of 'finite space' that the properties we're looking for will present or not in the actual shoe.

Curiously, but no so much, bad shuffled shoes are going to consume less room than good shuffled shoes as in the latter category the symmetry tend to reach 'perfect' thus unbeatable values.

It's a fact that the vast majority of each bac hand will yield a probability quite different than 50/50 or 50.68/49.32 as it strongly depends about the actual card distribution.
In a sense, when a player places his bet he should expect to be quite wrong or quite right, and not equally wrong or equally right.

The above math and commonly accepted values come off from fake 'collectives', that is large samples made on pc simulations not fitting decent conditions happening when we bet real money at real live tables.
And of course considering each step as perfect independently placed from the previous one/s, assuming that the probability to get this or that comes from the same perfect random source.

More technically speaking, that every single card distribution could come out at specific points to break a given strategic plan.

This is a total fkng rattlesnakesh.it.

First, we need a perfect random source to get so called "unbeatable" expected values and of course the vast majority of live shoes do not belong to this category.

Second, baccarat is not black jack where some card clumpings favor or not the player or the house, at the same time knowing the bj player must bet something at every hand dealt.

Third, a baccarat deck is almost entirely dealt, thus endorsing at various degrees the probability to get (or not) an expected situation.

Fourth, at baccarat we have many tools to estimate how much a given card distribution tends to surpass the 'average' card distribution, a parameter that can't disrespect for long certain values, unless very rare situations consume a lot of space.

The 'space' concept was so seriously taken by certain high end casinos that even though the only side bet offered at their tables are ties, 8-deck shoes are played up to 50-56 hands. Then they shuffle again.

Probably those casinos' customers (btw wagering maximum or close to max limits) seemed to be smarter than average, it's quite probable that sooner or later all premises offering baccarat tables will adhere to the same procedure.

Is baccarat a kind of bj game where some features will get the players an edge?

Ooh it can't. Math geniuses state otherwise.
Fortunately for us.

as.

One more shoe.

P
B
PPP
B
P
B
P
BB
PP
BBBBBBB
P
B
PP
BBBBB
P
B
PPPP
BBBBBBBB
P
B
PP
B
PPPP
BB
PP
B
PPP

Total B= 32
Total P= 28

New sequence built on the same features seen above will be:

AAA
B
AAAAAA
BB
AA
B
A
B
A
B
AAAA
BB
A
B
A
BBBB
A
B
AA
BBBB
A
B
AA
B
A
B
A
B
A
BBBB
AAA
B
A
BB
AA
BBBBB

Total A= 34
Total B= 34

Here a slight BP asimmetricity shifted toward B side produced a perfect balanced final A/B ratio. Getting more valuable spots to bet at.

Think that to beat infinite so called 'random' finite and slight dependent successions, we need to transform them into unrandom sequences getting limiting values of relative frequency not fitting the general probability numbers.

Btw, it's funny to see that some math experts like to label baccarat scholars as complete i.d.i.ots.

Really?

Collect your fkng money and face our bets, after all you'll have the math edge on your side.

As long as we can bet whenever we want or not along any shoe dealt, you can put your math edge right on your behind.
In a way or another, some baccarat players know better than you, you must accept this.

Are you going to rewrite statistical laws acting at a finite and card dependent live shufflle deck?
I guess you can't.

as.

Hi KFB!

Let's suppose to face this shoe:

PP
B
PP
B
PPP
BBBBB
P
B
PPP
B
PP
B
P
BB
PP
BBB
PPP
BB
PPP
BB
P
B
PPPP
BBB
PP
BB
PP
B
PPPPPP
B
P

Total B=27
Total P=38

By just considering the mere B/P hands gap we could think as this shoe as being quite asymmetrical, actually it's one of the best example of strong symmetrical hands distribution.

It suffice to utilize a simple "hand converter" to see that most situations are distributed quite balanced along the way. Of course knowing what to look for.

So now our shoe becomes as

A
BBB
AAA
B
AA
B
A
BB
AAA
B
AAA
BBBB
AA
BB
A
BB
A
BB
AA
B
AA
BBBB
A
B
AA
B
AA
B
AA
BB
AA
BBB
A
B
A
B
AAA

Total A=33
Total B=32

In our new sequence, strictly math derived from the original BP succession, some properties have changed and here it's easier to see what to look for before betting.

From this example we could think that the 'symmetry' or 'asymmetricity' concept would be totally relative, depending about what we really want to classify and register.

Of course the average 8.6% probability to get math favorite B hands to win stands, but this probability is hugely influenced by the actual card distribution.

Notice that the probability that an entire shoe will get ALL Banker winning hands at every asymmetrical B math favorite spot is very very slim.
In some sense we should know that when betting P side rarely (and with some reason), the expected disadvantage could be easily more restricted than what the math general values dictate. After all, just one hand out of 11.62 hands dealt (or wagered) will be B favorite.
Being wrong at sym spots after wagering Player side is a far inferior mistake than winning the same sym spots at Banker side.
And of course we need to win very very few spots per shoe along the way. 

Actually casinos like to face multiple bets by people preferring Banker side no matter what as they know that such B aficionados could more easily fall into the card distribution variance.

From the most part, a Player bet fears just two exact card situations:

- Player draws and Banker shows a 4 point (unless Player side gets a 5);

- Player draws and Banker shows a 5 point (the most B math advantaged spot).

At a way lesser degree of probability comes the Player drawing when Banker shows a 3 and third card is an 8.

There are no other card situations strongly favoring Banker side to be payed 0.95:1, thus we can easily assume that baccarat is a kind of coin flip game hugely depending upon the actual card distribution.

as.

Finally back home.

Baccarat vulnerability

People making a living at this game know very well that baccarat could be beaten only at very few spots arising along most part of shoes but not along every shoe.
It's the same concept why bj is beatable, albeit taken from different perspectives. Math issues at bj, card distribution issues at baccarat. 

A baccarat deck cannot refrain to produce more likely outcomes along the way, it's up to us to select what and when certain more likely outcomes should come out or not (and how long).
It's of paramount importance to understand that the vast majority of BP successions could be interpreted as different random walks getting diverse features of certain lenght.

Again the key word is symmetry, widely intended.

At baccarat cards cannot be distributed proportionally along every shoe, even though it could happen that unlikely whimsical results tend to produce "fake" symmetrical spots. Notice that the counter probability to get a hoped result by opposite issues will be specular itlr. So itlr weird unusual card distributions may be considered as neutral.

Along any shoe, the symmetry fights against the asymmetricity by various degrees and by various lenghts; to consider multiple sub successions will help us to better define their 'average' impact.

Since games must be accounted and measured by 'numbers', we should set up 'personal' limiting values of relative frequencies of both symmetry and asimmetricity acting at every shoe dealt.

For example (and assuming B=P for simplicity), a BBBBBBB sequence followed by a PPPPPP sequence is a sure asymmetrical situation, but we need 6 betting steps to find it out.

And a BBPPBBB sequence needs 4 betting steps to cross the same asym finding (this sequence forms two symmetrical spots and one asymmetrical spot).

Itlr numbers considered at various levels can't be wrong whenever the source (card distribution) is asymmetrical by definition.

See you next week

as.

Normally baccarat players consider shoes' outcomes as consecutive successions. Imo it's not the only tool to find out a possible bias and/or to take advantage of game's flaws.

Events (especially 'complex' events needing many hands to form) are distributed asymmetrically along any shoe, yet their pace varies continuously as long as new shoes are dealt.
Thus enforcing or not a general probability to appear whenever a positional study is in order.

The easy objection one could make is that itlr each event will be distributed proportionally at every position of each shoe dealt, but this objection only stands whether every card distribution is perfect randomly produced. And this is not the case, especially when same decks are shuffled back to back.
Anyway, our watchdog remains the sd.

Probably transforming shoes into a mere 8-15 digit number (of events) and comparing those shoe per shoe numbers by a positional study should be the best tool to know which spots are more likely (or not) to show up.
The 8-15 number is just an indicative value posted for practical reasons, actually the more we are restricing our field of registrations higher will be our probability of success.

Let's make an example.
Say our first shoe is read as 21513123413 (a real shoe, btw). 

Now we are facing the next shoe trying to get some hints before betting.
Since I have omitted the general probability why such numbers will form, we could think that an option might be to get the new shoe producing more different positional numbers than equal positional numbers (or vice versa if you knew the exact events general probability to happen).

Of course it's way more practical to bet that numbers will differ from simple values, for example numbers being equal or different than 1 or 2 at the same positions.

Anyway, the next same shoe shuffled by a CSM (the very next shoe was not considered as belonging to a diverse 8-deck) produced a 422162113241 sequence.

1) 2-1-5-1-3-1-2-3-4-1-3
2) 4-2-2-1-6-2-1-1-3-2-4-1

There are infinite ways to consider such back to back outcomes, anyway we just consider 1s and 2s, that is the six numbers produced at the first shoe (positions #1, #2, #4, #6, #7 and #10) compared to the next shoe same positions.

pos 1: different number
pos 2: different "
pos 4: equal  "
pos 6: different  "
pos 7: different  "
pos 10: different "

Naturally any 1 will need just one step to be different than another 1, whereas 2s need a two-step betting to get a different value than 2 (first step betting toward a 1, next step betting toward a 2+).

Another interesting effect to be aware of after having tested several live shoes shuffled in the same circumstances is that single shoe positions could endure homogeneous results for long, a kind of weird clustering effect of rare events. When such thing seems to happen, best way to take is to simply get rid of that position.

It's important to add that we aren't forced to bet each position by any means, a thing particularly valuable at HS rooms where each deck is a new one.

Finally, the 8-15 events per shoe range was just an example, we could select more deeply our bet selection at the price of waiting and waiting and waiting but in the meanwhile raising our probability of success.

as.

Hi KFB and thanks!

The paper is "Probability in Decline" by Dean M. Brooks.
I've found that some general ideas contained here could be helpful at specific same deck shuffling situations.

Later about your first question.

as.

Frequentist theory of probability

Frequentist probability or frequentism is an interpretation of probability; it defines an event's probability as the limit of its relative frequency in many trials. ...


Words already heard in my posts...

So, ties ignored, is B showing 50.68% of the times and P the remaining 49.32% itlr?
Who gives a sh.it?

Instead let's work on the definition of "event" and thus about its relative frequency.
After all an "event" could be interpreted as a single B or as a single P or as a 5 B or P streak or as a 10 chopping BP line or as any other red/blue succession showing up at derived roads.

I mean that whenever an event is considered by a multiple hand situation, the probability to get the same or opposite event will be slight affected according to the patterns (and quality features) already happened on that line.
In addition, multiple hand events considered shoe per shoe are not producing the same positional features as long as a restricted amount of hands constitute an "event".

Even though a "more likely" world sometimes can't be valuably assessed within a single shoe card distribution, consecutive shoes will enlarge this probability as it's impossible to think that a given card distribution will produce the same random walks for long. Especially whether our betting points (events distribution) are dynamically insensitive to a precise hands' number and position.

Every shoe as a number

Depending upon what events we'd like to register (the few the better, of course) every shoe dealt in the universe will get an "event number" transformed in digits.
Since we're classifying "events", the number 0 doesn't appear in our registrations, when a 10 or higher number will appear we'll sign it as a "X".

Even though the possible card combinations are almost infinite, an already slight propensity to get something at a single shoe must be endorsed by a back to back shoe assessment but not by considering outcomes as mere BP successions but as "events" having a dynamic probability to form.

We've already seen that a given BP succession is directly displayed within four additional forms (derived roads), of course the bead plate displaying ties should be discarded by any means.

Positionally speaking, if any event is already more likely than the counterpart, vertical 'hand insensitive' spots considered shoe per shoe will be even more likely or not, meaning that shoe single digit numbers will deviate from a supposedly perfect random world.

Acting this way we're discarding most of the strong unlikely deviated situations being the heaven for recreational players and the hell for serious long term winners. As they are constituting few spots along the shoe number formation.

Moreover an interesting study has found out that rare events tend to come out in clusters then declining in probability.
The authors of this study claimed that such findings wouldn't get an advantage over gambling games.
We disagree. 

as.

I think that in the complicated gambling world people raised their expertise in different fields, about managing worst drawdowns you seem to be very prepared.

And btw, anyone stating that random successions can be controlled in player's favor no matter what, should get more emphasis than those saying that a game is not so random thus potentially producing a player's edge.
So congratulations are for you.

It's a fact that baccarat scholars like to stay on their findings, without trying to get inputs from  other players to possibly improve their strategy. And this is a pity, imo.

I still consider baccarat as a finite unrandom and multiple factor asymmetrical game; but those features on average will be very slight placed, and not happening valuably at every shoe dealt.

If a MM might get the best of it by wagering every shoe dealt, well chapeau!, yet I prefer to win by a strict flat betting procedure. That's all.

as.

Hi Alba!


1. Flat betting will be done, which is bound to lose as you can not find any logic to get more wins than losses in Player, in the long run or way to offset house fees if you choose Banker.

That's absolutely true whether a static probability will act per each single outcome (roulette, for example), thus every outcome registered in infinite sub successions will invariably get the same  values dictated by math.
However baccarat outcome probabilities belong to a dynamic world obviously affected by the actual card distribution forming infinite sub successions that are not fitting the math values they should get even after thousands and thousands of shoes dealt.

It's altogether natural to know that single shoe dynamic probabilities will increasingly merge toward the expected math values that in the state of art of baccarat were considered just in B/P terms. (side bets aside). That is by unbeatable terms.

2. Crazy progressions will lose even more and faster
      and I firmly believe that both are set in stone. Only difference one can make is doing either of these two:
1. Somehow manage more wins than losses in number to offset the house edge and house fees and win flat bet;or
2. Somehow win more money and lose less despite more losses than wins(in numbers) and that too without any order.


Again, you are 100% correct.

If I'm playing a 50.68%/49.32% probability (where 50.68% is EV-) knowing that no one hand wil fit this probability value but just itlr, I'm not doing myself a favor.
To get my progression to win I need to transform that 50.68% into a profitable 51.3% (at least) and that 49.32 into a 50.1 (at least).

Thus no one progression will get the best of it until such values will be reached itlr.
The idea and claims stating that a progressive plan may be in the positive field for long can be easily disproved by a sd study (and common sense).

By the early XX century an eminent roulette scholar tried to set up a plan by waiting that a 3 or higher sigma deviation would happen at one EC side, then starting the betting to get a kind of RTM effect, that is wagering the opposite side to get sooner or later at least a +1 situation (slight balancing the previous deviation).
Unfortunately many pc tests confirmed that betting the very first hand or the hands following a 3 sq deviation or higher deviation provide the same unbeatable random probabilities (48.65% at single zero wheels).

1. Somehow manage more wins than losses in number to offset the house edge and house fees and win flat bet;or
2. Somehow win more money and lose less despite more losses than wins(in numbers) and that too without any order.


Point 1 is the only sure way to win itlr, and even here we'll have to endure some harsh times to control the variance.

Point 2: yep, this should be a heavenly task negating some issues I've written so far.

Think what can do two players who have found out that the game is beatable by flat betting and the other one by getting a long term profit even when the W/L ratio is shifted toward the right. 

as.

Alba, I agree with your Player's betting attitude.

First, most of our bets aren't entitled to cross an unfavourable asym hand favoring B; in some way a selected betting plan must avoid 7-8 math disadvantaged hands per shoe, on average.
After all, when betting P side, the probability to cross an unfavourable math hand is 8.6%.

Second, people who haven't played at HS rooms do not get the idea about how much the vig affects their bankroll, most of the times unnecessarily.

Third, many shoes provide card distributions giving a fk about the asym B hand advantage, meaning P will win anyway at those asym B favored hands. And in the meanwhile the finite asym hand probability (favoring B) will be consumed.

Fourth, it's way more likely to get shoes with lower than average percentage of asym hands than higher than average asym hand percentages.

Fifth, more than 1/3 of the total results will show a natural, but B naturals are payed 0.95:1 and P naturals are payed 1:1.

Sixth, the vast majority of bets made toward a kind of asymmetricity applied to many random walks will get a way more winning probability when P side is wagered.

Seventh, let's casinos think that P bettors are losers, they surely won't like so much a worse 0.18% disadvantage than B bettors.

Eighth, when a given random walk is going to form a more likely long term asymmetrical situation, we want to be payed 100% and not 95%.

as.

Hi Alba!

Banker is always more probable(very marginally though) due to drawing rules. Do you doubt that?

Yes, I dispute the "always" word.

Large samples show that Banker could be easily behind to Player after several shoes dealt.
Now think what the vig impact causes on our Banker winning bets when the B/P ratio is too close or even lower than 50/50.

If any single shoe wil get on average just one more B hand than P hand, we see that not many patterns will be so much affected by the asymmetrical probability.

The only way to get a real advantage by always wagering Banker comes whenever the asym hands number will be quite higher than expected per any shoe played.
And the "magic" winning probability value to look for in this instance is 51.3% or higher.

Unfortunately we can't prevent many consecutive card distributions to NOT provide a asym/sym ratio higher than expected, so hoping constantly for a math oriented situation won't be a viable option to beat this game.

On the other end, card distributions favoring asymmetrical probabilities NOT belonging to math advantaged situations (but shifted by key card distribution issues) recur at every shoe played.
Half of them will dictate to bet B, but the remaining half induce us to bet P.

About your next thoughts.

The bac probability isn't a constant asym proposition, 50.68/49.2 BP probabilities are coming out by long term assessments, that is by considering each outcome as a valuable result to be classified.
But for good peace of many, this probability is affected by either card dependent and math finite features both denying a perfect and independent source of randomness (of course happening only when we want to mix pears with apples, that is considering each outcome as a valuable one to be registered).

It's scientifically proven that any live card distribution will be more or less affected by a kind of defected randomness as such distributions won't fit the place selection and probability after events requirements confirming that a sample is a real random sample.
Thus any single shoe must be considered as a world apart.

Of course a possible defect of randomness is more probable to be detected whenever a given pattern will show back to back same situations and at baccarat we get many different situations to look for.

as.

I see and respect your points.

But think that casinos need the appearance of sd values well below than 5 or 6 sigma to pocket most or all of players's bankrolls.

At baccarat a proper bet selection cannot reach sigma values higher than 1.5 or maybe 2, as there's no fkng way that asymmetrical probabilities or so called pseudo symmetrical probabilities can reach those values for long when applied into a finite and card dependent model.

Every bac player should adapt Smoluchowski and RVM works into baccarat and he/she'll get an idea of what we're talking about.

Everytime we're considering as baccarat as a finite and card dependent asymmetrical succession (good start), there will be times where A will be more likely than B by a degree surpassing the fkng negative math edge as the asym factors eliciting a  more likely world are getting a higher power than what the pseudo sym strenght could do in other constant symmetrical propositions.

No way baccarat is beatable by thinking that results are made by independent sym situations or, even worse,  that one side should be constantly more probable than the other one no matter what.

If one had discovered a way to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, well it means he'll be able to get the same counterpart positive results by always wagering P side by a worse -0.18% long term profit.
I mean that anyone claiming to beat baccarat by always wagering B side, should get the same positive results by always wagering the P side, now decurted by a 0.18% lesser edge.

Do not tell us that -1.06% vs -1.24% becomes a decisive factor about how to get long term wins, as the huge factor to be overcome is -1%.
LOL.

Moreover, there's no one single fkng probability to be long term winner when playing every single shoe dealt by a 1 trillion % accuracy.

as. 

Now let's put the craps system ideas into baccarat.

That craps system relies upon the distant probability to get four distinct consecutive players in a row to make each 4 or more passes.

Our progressive betting sounds as

$10-20-40-80

$20-40-80-160

$30-60-120-240

$40-80-160-320

Total $1500, that is 150 units.

Whenever we win we restart the $10 betting, whenever we lose we'll go toward the next betting step.

At craps this system is so solid that you'll need a lot of sessions to lose your entire 150 units bankroll. Odds are that in the process you'll be in the positive field in the vast majority of the times.

Say we want to assign at any single baccarat column a kind of new shooter, thus whenever a new column starts it's like this column impersonates a new shooter.
For example a BBBPBBBPPPBBPBPPPB sequence will endorse the action of 8 distinct shooters getting each 2 passes (as the first hand of the shoe is a neutral indicator), zero passes, 2 passes, 2 passes, 1 pass, zero passes, zero passes and 2 passes.

In this "fortunate" example we didn't get forward the first step betting line, thus we'll get all winnings.

Of course any 5+ streak will make us a first-step loser, thus thereafter we need a proper cumulative amount of not 5+-hands to get an overall win.

Now we'll get singles, doubles, triples and 4-streaks to get a winning situation, the only situation we'll lose is whenever a 4+ situation will come out.

In a word, we'll lose our entire bankroll when a shoe will produce four or more 5+ consecutive streaks, a thing that it'll surely happen but by which degree of probability?

Now say we do want to put in action just the players getting two wins in a row. After all doubles are the more likely results at baccarat, aren't they?

Then our new betting patterns are doubles, triples, 4-streaks and 5-streaks. At the price of missing singles opportunities, now we know that the probability to lose our entire bankroll is not existent at all other than from a theorical point of view.
Show me how many times you had crossed shoes producing four or more consecutive 6+ streaks. Answer: zero.

But we can make a further adjustment, that is to classify how many times different classes of winning/losing patterns had acted consecutively along the way.
We can't prevent shoes to produce consecutive 5+-streaks, but this happening is a perfect negation either of the general asymmetrical card distribution and of the whinsical asym strenght favoring B side.

That's now that so called math experts must put their knowledge in their a.sses, even though they can easily opine that no matter what, our bets are getting a money return lower than 1.
Yep, but for their misfortune, when properly assessed the statistical advantage will be higher than what a math edge can do.

Is this mathematical big.hornsh.it?

Probably, but we're eager to get people facing our bets.

as. 

Hi KBF!!

I have the absolute certainty that most live casinos don't have a single reason to deal bac shoes favoring them in some way other than knowing their constant math edge (at bj this thing is possible but very unlikely).
I wouldn't be so sure about certain online casinos.

For that matter casinos do not know how to arrange cards to make players to lose, even if they consult the best statistical experts on the planet.
Since most baccarat players like to following trends and knowing that all mechanical systems rely upon the probability that strong deviations must be compensated sooner or later, casinos cannot know how to arrange cards to neglect this or that situation.

More specifically, any simple BP succession could be splitted into infinite derived successions each of them getting different features that cannot be symmetrically placed per every succesion considered.
The coin is biased at the start of any single shoe, unfortunately we can't properly guess per every shoe dealt which side of the coin will be biased.

The fact that B side is math favorite to win itlr doesn't help us too much as it's strongly influenced by the actual card distribution.
The probability to get shoes producing a well below than average amount of asym hands is around any corner, thus any regular B wagering will get tremendous negative situations. After all when we lose we lose 1 and when we win we win 0.95.
Not mentioning how things really work at many other roads.

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on May 08, 2021, 10:02:54 PM
Hi AsymBacGuy

re: your following statement from a previous post in this thread:

"...Technically speaking and whether the cards are properly random shuffled, now the game is a finite (312 or 416 cards are employed) and made by independent binomial successions...."


? Do you approach a six-deck shoe different than an eight-deck ? How?
Any opinions on same-side streaks or chops comparison from a shoe length perspective? 

When comparing the two shoes do you prefer one over the other for your most-commonly utilized wagering approach?

Thx

The lesser the amount of cards are involved in the process, higher will be the probability to get univocal patterns to bet into as the room to get a kind of balanced situations are going against the odds.
It's a sure fact that casinos using 6-decks are getting inferior profits than casinos offering 8-deck shoes.
A possible reason is because casinos using 6-deck shoes offer fewer side bets than 8-deck casinos.

Anyway, yes, I'm sure 6-deck shoes are getting more profitable situations than 8-deck shoes.

as.