Randomness definition is a quite complicated issue, many think that flipping a fair coin is a valid example of randomness but it isn't.

The real problem gamblers have to face is to ascertain whether the outcomes are simple products of a random unbeatable generation or if they are affected in some way by unrandom features.
   
Of course and that's where  the problem stands, itlr different unrandom generations tend to converge forming random results. So we can easily think that a long succession of different baccarat results will fall no distant from the expected values.
And this conclusion is totally correct.

Moreover, it's a total waste of time to think to beat a so called perfect random software production (baccarat buster, etc) or, even worse, to test a given method into a succession of live outcomes coming out from different sources.

For obvious reasons, a possible unrandomness should be always assessed in a situation where a large number of constant parameters is fulfilled. 
The final decisive role is played by key cards distribution and nothing else.
And since any card counting tool isn't going to give us any help, we must put in action several r.w. that must reflect such distribution, even though being approximated.

In conclusion, baccarat is beatable if we can estimate at a decent value that the shoe we're playing is affected by some unrandomness, otherwise we are losing money.

as.

Only people featuring two neurons but no neurotrasmitter could think to beat a EV- random game (Junketamine King is the first on the list).
Especially if such people keep thinking that every single baccarat decision will be a random 50/50 proposition.

That's why one of the best tools we could use is to put in action several random walks working by different parameters, this in order to really ascertain if the outcomes' distribution is really random or not.

It's mathematicallly certain that only unrandom distributions working into a EV- game can be beaten itlr.

And it's funny to see that some (rare) brilliant players have realized that empirically just by long term observations.

as.

Quote from: Albalaha on July 31, 2019, 09:50:38 AM
@Asymbacguy,
              If you can play with any logic that can be told and made to understand to others too, it can be tested, programmed and played mechanically too. If you play with any gifted capacity of precognition that you are unable to transfer to others, it can neither be transferred nor anybody else can imitate ever. So, let us all know in which way, you "think" it is beatable?

The logic is pretty simple but quite complicated to be put in practice.
And unfortunately I can't read randomness, the only one capable to do that is gizmotron.

No one mechanical system can work into an EV- game unless is capable to pass all the "unfortunate" situations that could come along after thousands and thousands of trials.
Nonetheless we know for sure that a large part of different random walks will be winners at the end of the shoe.
We do not know how much they will be winners but they surely will.

On the other end and for obvious reasons, on average a larger random walks part is going to lose no matter what.

Have to run. later.

as.

I know that eminent experts as M. Shakleford, E. Jacobsen, J. May are laughing at me when I'm presenting those ideas,  but I can assure you by 1 trillion certainty that this fkng game can be beat on B/P hands with an astounding positive edge.

Simply put, they do not know what to look for. 

as.

One of the best tool to confirm or deny that this game is really beatable is to put on one side a real live bettor and on the other one a mechanical player who places the bets in a perfect randomly fashion (for example wagering B if the previous first card hand was red or P if it was black).
Of course the first player will get a slight less disadvantage if he happen to bet only Banker side but we know this isn't the strategy to win itlr. So we assume that even the first player will proportionally place his bets 50/50.   

Mathematicians, experts, etc, will say there will be no difference in the final outcomes of both players. That means that both players build two different random walks getting the same long term disadvantage.

Therefore the only way to suppose a possible edge of player #1 is to study the hands distribution, trying to grasp hints of the previous outcomes in order to guess future hands by a better than 50/50 ratio.
In a word, player #1 tries to partially transform a random game into a unrandom game, a luxury denied to player #2 who must "passively" place his bets.

Now say that besides his own plan, the first player can take into account what happens to player #2.
Considering each shoe, most of the times player #2 outcomes will flow with relatively low pattern deviations, in few situations player #2 will find himself into a strong positive or negative territory.



as.

One thing for sure.

The probability to win itlr playing a random EV- game (even if taking into account that bac is a finite and card dependent propositon) is zero.

There's no way to "read randomness", maybe to grasp some hints about the partial unrandomness of the game.
 
Only unrandomness, when properly assessed, could enlarge the probablity of success on certain spots.
And the best way to estimate such possible unrandomness is to study several different random walks applied to the main outcomes.

as.

You are absolutely correct.

The main problem is that we can't expect to get consistent profits from a negative edge game, let alone huge profits.
What we can do is trying to exploit the game's flaws and, fortunately, there are many of them.

Math needs some time to fully take its power, we should act in the same way by opposite reasons.

as. 

The partial unrandomness of the shoe is the main reason why we could beat this game itlr.

Such conclusion may be deduced empirically or by strict scientific methods, of course most players use the first approach as it takes a quite long work to demonstrate scientifically that any single LIVE shoe isn't true randomly generated.

Since the definition of real randomness is a complex and very debated subject and 312 or 416 cards working into an asymmetrical physical  finite model cannot be properly shuffled by any means, we know for sure that most of our bets are placed into a non perfect random world.

A pretty exhaustive proof comes from putting in motion dozens of "random walks" applied to the same outcomes springing from the same shoe and then repeating the process for the next shoes.

Therefore what we tend to classify as a "normal deviation" happening into a single shoe is instead a unrandom product working at various degrees.

It's quite surprisingly that some successful players I know can ascertain that by just watching at what is happening, still the common denominator (without exception) is that they play very few hands.

People who make a living at games want to wager upon the probability that something isn't going to happen and not that distant probabilities come in their favor.

We see that the goal to make a tiny profit per a given series of shoes isn't a so appealing task to most bac players.
That's why they are entitled to lose forever and fortunately this is the reason why the game is still alive.

as. 

The theory according to which we should beat this wondeful silly game is quite simple:
even though the negative math edge remains constant, the probability of success on certain spots will be higher than expected.
This supposedly raised probability is caused by many factors:

- bad shuffles
- actual asym/sym hands ratio
- asym hands outcomes
- nature of winning points
- strong points winning or losing
- key cards producing or not a winning hand
- actual finite distribution related to the expected long term distribution
- other

In some way this theory aims to take advantage of the past in order to partially estimate the future.
Easy to see that generally speaking the more was the past assessed, better will be the chances to guess the future.

After all we need to guess right just very few spots.

as.

Quote from: Babu on July 10, 2019, 06:03:26 AM
Indeed baccarat can be beat in the long run.  This is what I have been waiting to hear.  Many spend a life time trying to find strategies to beat every shoe and guess every single hand.  Once can actually win without any strategy as long as they have a good approach.

One can randomly guess and use random size bets.   Leave when one is up and recover when down.  It takes great discipline.  Key is a huge bankroll and reasonable win expectation.

Actually it's quite likely the few who make a living at this game adopt this strategy as any serious player knows that it's literally impossible to beat every single shoe or hand. I mean that even getting a verified math advantage of 2% one is going to endure inevitable harsh losing sessions.

Anyway the conclusive word would come whenever we find a long term edge by flat betting and obviously this conclusion must be strictly intended as a randomness defect.
There are no other ways to get an edge if we are playing a perfect "random" math negative game.

I got the confidence that around 80% of total live shoes are not properly shuffled or that they present intrinsic card distribution flaws, it's up to us to find how and when those features could help us.

Good post Babu.

as.

Yep.
I wish to add that after only one hand played (no matter the result) our brain works in a totally different way than if we would have just observed that hand.
And the process goes on and on logarithmically.

as.

Indeed Kashiwagi was a brilliant player but he didn't fit to the "pros" category.

Undoubtedly around the globe there are few people who make a living by playing baccarat and they like to go unnoticed for obviuos reasons.
They are not there for gambling but to win. And not to win astronomical sums but to win. Consistently.
It's funny (euphemism) that such people wager very few spots or at least using a large spread on certain hands giving to the house the illusion of action.
Many do not care a bit about comps, they pretend not to know what a player's card is.
They do not want their play to be registered.

Despite of what many could think, casinos do not like baccarat winners and generally speaking they adopt an old statement telling that any player being ahead after playing 80 hours isn't welcome as in some way he/she surpassed the "math" test.
Well, baccarat is an unbeatable game but we never know. We (casinos) expect to win and we do want to win. Period.

The common trait of those players is they wager very few hands, almost always quitting the table after getting relatively small profits and, most importantly, they don't like to chase losses.
In the sense that after two or three losses in a row they tend to lose interest to that shoe.

It's like they are playing a kind of blackjack card counting strategy. Selecting the spots to bet, look at the outcome and keep the results whatever they are.
That is a complete different approach made by most bac players worldwide.

Now let's take the casino's part.
We know that some successful bj $20-$80 spread bet counters are going to be barred, what about the possibility that bac can be beaten by bets of $400, $500 or more?
After all so far every math expert says such thing isn't possible. Actually only side bets can be beaten mathematically.

That's the worst assumption they can make as their only hope to win money at bac tables remains upon the probability that most bac players like to gamble, that is betting a lot of hands and trying to guess the unguessable. Or that the game can be beaten by progressions. 

Remember that if any side bet is beatable, BP bets are more beatable. It's only up to us.

as. 

Gambling experts as well as casino's supervisors are really laughing when they read all the bighornshit we're writing about baccarat on the net.
Not mentioning the miriad of magical system sellers that for just $49.99 promise us millionaire profits.

As long as we can't (or we do not want to) demonstrate a verifiable math edge we are just fooling ourselves and the world.

That means that all efforts made to find exploitable ways to beat the house are totally worthless, confirmed by the huge profits casinos make by offering bac tables.

Probably the best player ever known in the history of baccarat was Akio Kashiwagi, a japanese real estate guru who put in some trouble mr D. Trump who gladly accepted very huge bets from him at one of his AC property.
It's ascertained Kashiwagi adopted a kind of trend following strategy by wagering a kind of flat betting approach. That is he knew very well that in order to beat a game, tax apart, one must get more winning hands than losing ones.
Furthermore, by flat betting he knew he was going to lose around 1% at worst.
Naturally Trump took advice from the best math gambling expert of the time who suggested to let him play as long as possible in order to get the negative edge fully working against him.

And actually this thing happened even though Kashiwagi (that was shot dead shortly afterwards) was still ahead in the process.

Of course even if Kashiwagi played a quite huge amount of hands but not enough to constitute a "long term" scenario by any means, we must give him some credit that his strategy was good.

To get a clearer example of what Kashiwagi did, try to flat bet 60/70 shoes and let us know how many bets you are winning or losing. Knowing that he wagered a large amount of hands dealt, the answer will be very likely placed on the negative side.

Therefore a question #1 arises: does a sophisticated trend following strategy lower in some way the math negative edge?
Was K. playing a kind of trend following strategy mixed with something else?

I have chosen to mention A.K. as it's my firm belief that in order to win one must spot more W than L situations as no progression could get the best of it when L<W, especially when wagering a lot of hands per shoe.

Truth to be told, I do not think that a strict trend following strategy could get the best of it, but I tend not to disregard such possibility at least in order to lower the negative edge.

More to come.

as.     















 



 

     

Thanks Al, I will.

as.

It was just a kind of joke, we know mathematicians can't beat the game and neither players using an empirical approach. Probably the answer is in the middle.

I won't give specific answers to my questions as nobody is interested on numbers. Just personal comments.

Question #1: it's very very rare to get three consecutive shoes without at least one natural 8/9 showing, especially if 8s and 9s are quite live in the actual portion of the deck. Since such side bet is payed 50:1 we have plenty of room to set up a progressive profitable betting.

#2: when we are on Banker showing 4 and the third card is a 9, of course we are in a very good shape unless player's initial cards shows zero. A missed bonus as the probability player has zero is 1:3.77 (5 is ignored as it forms a tie hand).
An excellent wasted probability that we won't find around the corner. If we were on Player we have no reasons to jump.

#3: the average number of player's 3+ streaks is, imo, one of the best tool to take advantage from. Remember that sh.it or fantastic situations tend to come out in clusters.

#4: oh well, everybody reading my pages should teach me about this. Say we'll get at least 3 asym hands per shoe and it's very very unlikely to get more than 14. Do not fall in the trap to bet banker when the asym force went away.

#5: when 7s are particularly live at a EZ baccarat table, the best move is to bet player and the F-7 bet. You don't want to pay the banker's vig when a symmetrical hand is more likely to show up and to get a F-7 with live 7s, banker must get zero as initial point that is a non advantaged asym situation.

#6: Mathematically is relatively low but any Player standing point is favorite to win itlr. And do not forget the clustering effect: Glen wrote an interesting thread about this.

#7: player gets a 42.07% probability to win just about 8.4% of the total hands dealt. Not that easy to get consecutive dog situations like that.

#8: it's quite easy to lose (or win depending on which side we were betting) even 12 or more hands in a row in such B favorite situation. Sometimes it seems that P helping 3s are concentrated on the possible player's third card. Again a kind of clustering effect.
Notice that when the P third card is a 3 only a B 5 or B 6 point are standing (asym situations).   

#9: it's a pretty good spot to bet P side and getting a 7 as we'll lose immediately just 19% of the situations (B naturals). Moreover Banker must stand on its 6s when facing a P standing; actually it should draw to get a better probability not to lose (a sort of mistake made by bac inventors, probably set up in order to limit the B advantage). In the remaining possibilities Banker can beat us only catching two cards out of all 13 probabilities.

#10: the probability to get a natural on either side is 34.2%, yet per every shoe dealt card distribution issues tend to deny a perfect balancement of such occurences.
A careful assessment of the consecutiveness of naturals falling on one side or the other one may help to spot the actual "card distribution" advantaged side. Especially when cards are not properly shuffled (that is almost always).

It would be a honor for me to work with you Lungyeh as well as with many other members here.


as.