That's why a multiple multi-level random walks distribution will help us to restrict the variance at the lowest limits.

Whenever different random walks would elicit to bet the same side, we know our probability of success will get astounding values, a strong undeniable proof that shoes are not randomly produced or that a kind of detectable dependency works on most part of shoes dealt.
Technically it's what we call a "convergence of probability", a term coined several years ago by a roulette expert.

Theorically at any independent or very slight dependent proposition, any random walk (no matter how many r.w.'s we want to launch simultaneously) each spot we decide to bet will get the expected deviations considered at a kind of 50/50 game, say at a 0.5068/0.4932 p values.

Practically things go in a different way, as many spots MUST happen within a restricted range of hands dealt.

All depends on how we want to classify outcomes, and you know the worst tool we can utilize is by considering hands as B or P simple successions.
Actually casinos offer those st.u.p.id roads displayed on the screen as they know very well they are totally worthless.
Even considering those 5 different derived roads as 5 random walks, no way a convergence of probability may happen as they are taking into account EACH resolved hand (3 roads) or real BPT results (remaining 2 roads).

Remember, I'm here to disprove the real randomness of shoes dealt or the general undetectable slight dependency, it's not a coincidence that my plans get rid of many hands that tend to confuse the whole picture.

Say that after certain conditions are met, we could set up a simpler unb plan #3, one which could wager against the multiple formations of 3+ streaks on both sides.

It's not the final solution to beat this game, nonetheless it's a good start.

as. 

I remember one occasion where I was railbirding a couple of asian players at an off Strip casino.
Knowing the minimum limit was $10, they got a hell of bankroll something like $20.000 or more.
They used a violent martingale like 1-4-10-25 and of course they started to accumulate chips.
It seemed they used a weird selection the like of wagering alternatively for the repeat and for the cut.
I stayed there and of course they lost their composure (and they money) after having crossed an "unlikely" losing streak of ten hands.
Curiously in each hand they've lost but one they got the best two-card hand, third and fourth cards made the disaster.

Ask those players about the importance to start with the best two-card hand, 

as.

   
   

That's what I want to hear! 

as. 

We're ready to literally destroy some bac premises.

as. 

A supposedly random environment having the same attributes (collective) produces a miriad of subcollectives that should confirm or not that the original source was produced really randomly.
Of course we need a lot of samples to assess that as many subcollectives are formed by diluted outcomes that may present a short term positive (or negative) variance wrongly fooling or discouraging us.

The best watchdog of randomness is the statistical concept of dispersion, being the sd the most common one.
In a word, opposite results whatever taken should follow the distribution laws of the theorical probability of each result, in our example that itlr resolved results are pB=0.5068 and pP=0.4932.

We know that there's no fkng way such values are really working per each hand dealt or per every shoe dealt, being the result of two different finite 50/50 or 57.93/42.07 ratios.

A supposedly random environment having the same attributes (collective) produces a miriad of subcollectives that should confirm or not that the original source was produced really randomly.
Of course we need a lot of samples to assess that as many subcollectives are formed by diluted outcomes that may present a short term positive (or negative) variance wrongly fooling or discouraging us.

The best watchdog of randomness is the statistical concept of dispersion, being the sd the most common one.
In a word, opposite results whatever taken should follow the distribution laws of the theorical probability of each result, in our example that itlr resolved results are pB=0.5068 and pP=0.4932.

Actually we know that there's no fkng way such probability values are really working per each hand dealt or per every shoe dealt, being the result of two different finite 50/50 or 57.93/42.07 ratios.

The fact that long term values tend to more and more approach such values doesn't necessarily mean each shoe dealt is randomly placed. In reality an astounding amount of two fighting results are not getting the sd values expected for a mere theorical probability. What we need to set up a long term unbeatable plan.

as.

I'm wondering what we can do working together. 

as.

Imo and according to a couple of serious players the best situation to aim for is to win just one unit per shoe. Say per every playable shoe.
Hence there are no "good" or "bad" shoes, just shoes that may or not offer enough "room" to get the searched situations.
"Room" doesn't necessarily means the number of hands dealt so far. There are many of additional factors involved I don't want to discuss here.

Actually in some cardrooms shoes are still shuffled manually, say quickly and badly shuffled thus we could think to get multiple wins per each shoe, but I do not suggest to apply this strategy as bac remains a game full of traps (unless a huge betting spread is utilized after the profit was secured).

I know it's not that appealing to set up a mere +1 profit per shoe (especially knowing that not every shoe is eligible to be played), but think that we join bac tables just to win getting an astounding high probability of success and not to gamble.
Moreover we see that the "luck" factor will be placed in the remotest corner; after having assessed that a given shoe is playable, we do know that a certain event must happen at least once.
A thing confirmed by the fact that itlr profitable spots will produce points mathematically favorite at the start, meaning that no matter which side we've got to bet, itlr the side we wagered got the highest two-card value by values very different to a random environment.

Again you can measure the validity of your system/method/approach by simply controlling the percentages of the two-card highest point happening on the wagered side.
If itlr such values tend to be equal, alas the method can't work. It's just a mere kind of taxed unbeatable coin flip proposition.


as.

What i am looking for is a bet selection that produce short streak of losses and of course i have to sacrifice long streak of wins as well .

Perfect.
And this is going to happen only and only whether outcomes are springing from a unrandom source.
Since you can take for grant that live bac shoes are not randomly produced, it remains to define how, when and how much such unrandomness work on the shoes dealt from a practical point of view.

After all we are not talking about gas kinetic or Brownian movement theories, just a stu.pi.d finite 416  card arrangement following specific rules that produce A or B results.

At baccarat the A/B probability varies a lot after some multistep conditions were met or not along each shoe, thus simple linear assessments won't go but to nowhere.
The same about certain "balancement" strategies that, imo, are worthless.

To do that we have to put in action several different random walks NOT registering each hand, thus trying to negate the concept that each bac hand will be equally likely (or following the natural slight asymmetricity) at every single step of the shoe dealt. This being a complete fkng nonsense made by mathematicians or some "gambling experts" that know about baccarat what I know about astrophsyics. That is zero.

By putting in action several random walks working into a sure unrandom enviroment, some spots will provide an edge well superior to any precise edge sorting techinque.

And differently than "I know the first card nature", we'll be surely get payed.

as.

Starting to consider baccarat from the strictest definitions of randomness it's the way to go.

When playing you do not want to only adhere to those fkng roads displayed on the screen.
They are springing from too simple situations very vulnerable to our main enemy: variance. Even whether unrandomly produced.
That's because after some mechanical given conditions are met, they consider each hand as eligible to be registered no matter what.

It's obvious the more hands we are collecting per any given shoe higher will be the variance and this strongly relates to some insensitivity to place selection and probability after events features.
I mean that we have to discard from our registrations many resolved hands pretending as they haven't happened at all.

It's just this fact that makes beatable this wonderful game.

as. 
   

Hi Fran!

Randomness is a quite intricate topic and baccarat wasn't resolved so far as "experts" made a fatal mistake considering bac shoes as randomly produced.
Actually the very few players making a living at this game know very well this bac vulnerability.

No matter the game involved, any shoe formed by multiple decks provide "unrandom" situations as key cards could be more or less concentrated in some portions of the shoe.
Itlr such key card distribution will dictate the results, say their weight on the whole picture, thus the probability of success of certain bets.
At bac we have the luxury to decide what, when and how much to bet. Not mentioning the fact that bac shoes are dealt almost entirely.
In some sense we should know that most of the times some event/s must happen at least one time or, it's the same concept, that certain situations are very very unlikely to happen even considering every single shoe dealt.

About your specific question, let's say that any physical shuffling procedure will provide some valuable unrandom spots to bet into, practically it's just a matter of space. Say of available betting space. And of course we should expect very few occasions to bet profitably.

By any means SM machines working on the same shoe provide the best opportunities for the player. Obviously I do not want to go into details, keep "experts" and casinos thinking that such shoes are randomly placed. Overall those tables provide huge profits for the house as many players like to wager the innumerable side bets offered (without trying to use the proper card counting techniques).

I do not know how Woo shoes are produced, I guess they are not springing from a real physical source. Thus they do not mean nothing to me. Even if my unb plan #2 had provided good results to you.   
The same about RNG shoes.


I am looking to play shoes where the early presentments will be significatives for a good portion of the remainder of the shoe .

It depends about the portion of the shoe you have considered and about the quality of the hands dealt so far.

Say it's virtually impossible to miss a winning hand unless a proper betting space is available to you.

as.

In the way presented so far, we see that at baccarat we do not need complicated math formulas to prove or disprove randomness. A simple place selection method forming a miriad of subcollectives will make the job.
Leave to the experts and casinos the idea that bac shoes are randomly produced or, conversely, that a possible unrandomness will be recognizable by the formation of repetitive patterns or stuff like that.
Baccarat could be solved (or not) first by the negation or confirmation of the strictest definition of randomness ever made and then and only then by the probability calculus applied on such random or unrandom environment.

Probably one of the reasons why bac is considered a random game happens as BP limiting values of relative frequency itlr will conform to a 50.68/49.32 steady proposition.
Thus every shoe will be eligible to be included in the registrations and that each playable spot will provide given probability values no matter what.

Bighornsh.it by any means.

First, BP probability values vary a lot by the actual shoe composition and actual card situations not regarding a so called general or so "equally likely scenario", secondly many BP "higher level" outcomes will surely provide lower dispersion values, third and more importantly, place selection issue will form infinite subcollectives not fitting the above expected BP dispersion values, especially whether involving a "same" or "opposite" result at given spots happening at certain shoes.

Consider my plan #2.
That is about the restricted probability to get multiple BB consecutive scenarios at various degrees.
We may think that after any given BB situation the most likely pattern will be BBB and not BBP by a better 0.18% long term degree.

Rattlesnake.sh.it.

Tomorrow the fundamental steps to restrict the variance.

as.

We see that no matter what are the actual results according to the game rules, any single shoe formed by a finite card distribution and dealt almost entirely will be somewhat biased (from a strict probability calculus point of view).
We just need to know how to take advantage of such bias recurring per every shoe dealt.

Of course if baccarat still exists is because the bias either is very limited or not always detectable by the common forms of registrations made by ridicolously simple mechanical processes.
The more we are complicating our registrations, better is the probability to disprove that baccarat is a random game.

In reality some simple events happening at baccarat are affected by certain very low dispersion values that when properly selected are offering a player's edge easily surpassing a possible 10-15% negative edge established by the house.
Quality events like the naturals apparition on either side, for example.
Unfortunately no casino is so stupi.d to offer such side bets, they want us to enlarge the uncertainty by forcing us to guess the exact winning hand.

Now, if a 34.2% probability presents low dispersion values, why to bother about a well higher 49.32% or 50.68% winning probability?

Indeed there's a big difference when betting low dispersion values at an almost 1:2 winning probability compared to an almost coin flip probability where dispersion values are considered as undetectable.
Quality happening on former situation must be converted into a quality feature on the latter events.
The B doubles succession is one of the simplest strategy to adopt with the important caveat that differently to naturals either side apparition, many shoes are not fitting the requisites to get a proper quality factor for a lack of space or obvious intrinsic features not neceessarily related to key cards fall.

as.

Here are 34 real live shoes recently dealt at one HS Vegas room (not involving a SM machine):

- 1, 1, 2

- 1, 1

- 1, 1, 1, 1

- 1, 2, 1, 1

- 3, 2, 1

- 3, 1, 1, 5, 1

- 2, 2, 1

- ----

- 1, 1, 1, 1

- 1, 1, 1

- 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 4

- 2, 2, 2

- 1, 3, 1

- 2, 1

- 1, 1, 2, 2

- 3, 3

- 1, 1

- 2, 1, 1, 3

- 1, 3, 1, 1

- 2, 1

- 1, 1

- 1, 2, 1

- 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

- 1, 2, 1

- 2, 1 ,1

- 1, 1, 1, *

- 1, 4, 1, 1

- 1

- 1, 1

- 1, 1, 1, 2

- 1, 1, 1

- 1, 3, 1

- 1, 1, *

- 2, 1, 1, 1, 1

Notice that, for example,  the second position being the effect of "so called" whimsically and random results, formed outcomes of: 1,1,1,2,2,1,2,0,1,1,1,2,3,1,1,3,1,1,3,1,1,2,1,2,1,1,4,0,1,1,1,3,1,1.

First position formed those results:

1,1,1,1,3,3,2,0,1,1,1,2,1,2,1,3,1,2,1,2,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2.

Now tell me how the fck one can lose by a selected betting strategy applied on those patterns.

And for obvious reasons I have presented one of the stu.pi.dest r.w. that could work on such game.

as.

To understand my point first we need to assign a specific role to the word "probability".
It doesn't exist probability calculus over a given sample of data without the involvement of a "proper" randomness factor.

Probability can only be ascertained by assessing the limited values of relative frequency made over long samples of the same collective and, more importantly, of "infinite" sub collectives derived from the collective mother. 
And real randomness can only be verified by statistical tools as place selection and not by classical probability formulas that consider each scenario as equally placed or corresponding to simple long term ratios involving too general features (B>P is the best known).
At least if we want to beat the game itlr.

No wonders, we can't have a single possibility to beat a random EV- game, that is a game where the winning probability is insensitive to place selection. Meaning that no matter which spot we choose to play on many sub-collectives our EV will be always negative. Even if our bets will be always placed on "more likely" B side. Such difference will be limited to a mere less -0.18% disadvantage and we do need a lot more to win itlr.
Only the shoes affected by a fair degree of unrandomness could be beaten itlr. By a degree very very close to 100%.

My unb plan #2 is one of the simplest examples of that.
We build three different collectives (supposedly being three distinct random walks) derived by the consecutiveness of B doubles.
Rw #1 will fictionally bet after a single B double not getting another B double (that is betting just two times and then stopping until a new situation will arise), rw #2 will fictionally bet after two B doubles had appeared and the same about r.w. #3.
Our challenge is to assess whether such B double clusters itlr will stop or prolong at percentages different to the classical expected values (in a way or another).

Since we have been told that no matter which spot we decide to bet our EV will be always negative (with all the related consequences about dispersion values), we want to verify such thing.

We register how many consecutive W or L we will get from each of those three distinct betting plans, of course when r.w. #1 will steadily win plans #2 and #3 will get no entry or mostly very few entries.
As our derived plans must consider a precise trigger (any B double up to 4 consecutive doubles considered as a losing overall situation), many shoes won't be playable for a "lack of space", meaning that we can easily wait a high percentage of the shoe played before getting a B double trigger.

And it could happen that a 4+ B double consecutive recurrence will be placed at the start of the shoe, meaning that all our r.w.'s will be losers (anyway just at one step each).

Hence we are forced to work at various degrees among two opposite situations, the lack of triggers from one part and the "unlikely" situation from the other one.

Let's run a "random" 10 live shoes sample taken from my data (I used the actual time) and see what happens.
The number after any shoe indicates the number of B consecutive doubles. *=a losing hand not forming a resolved hand according to my plan):

1) 1, 2

2) 1, 1, 1, *

3) 1, 1

4) 2, 1

5) 1, 1, 1, 2, 1

6) 2, 1, 1, 1

7) 1, 1, 1, 1

1, 1, *

9) 1, 1, 1, 1, 2

10) 1, 2, 1, 1

Another sample taken randomly:

11) 1

12) 1, 3, 2, 1

13) 1, 1, 1, 1

14) 2, 2

15) 1, 1, 2, 1, 1

16) 1, 1, *

17) 5, 1, 1

18) 3, 1

19) 1, 2, 1, 1

20) 1, 1, 3, *

again more 10 shoes

21) 1, 1

22) 3, 2

23) 2, 1, 2

24) 1, 1, 1

25) 1, 3, 1

26) 1, 1

27) 1, 1

28) 1, 2

29) 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

30) 1, 2, 1.

more ten live shoes

31) 1, 1, 1

32) 1, 1, 1, 3, 2

33) 1, 1

34) 1, 1

35) 1, 1, 1, 1

36) 2, 1, 2, 1, 1

37) 1, 3, 2, 1

38) 1, 1

39) 1, 1, 1, 2, 2*

40) 1, 1

Try to run your LIVE shoes and you'll see that those values will more or less correspond to such results (providing to assign a proper 1, 2 or 3 value to your distinct r.w.'s)

Even if you think that such results will be manipulated in some way (and you can bet that they are not as you are well aware I'm not selling anything) we may assume that such "easy to detect" outcomes are the result of many opposite forces acting along the way per each shoe:

1- propensity to get more B3+ than B2 after a B2 outcome

2- very very slight propensity to get the opposite result already happened

3- the possible unrandomness of the game


Now, the #1 factor is mathematically ascertained not needing further explanations.
#2 factor is either confirmed by simple statistical issues and by mr Shackleford  authority.
#3 third factor was deeply studied by myself confirming without a doubt the shoes are not collectives, that is they are definitely not randomly placed.

Naturally there are more precise and accurate random walks oriented to disprove the common assumption that at baccarat anything is possible at any time.

A total complete bighornsh.it by any means.

as.

It's quite interesting to notice the splitting shoe division made by Al.

as.