Quote from: Jimske on March 27, 2019, 08:02:20 PM
I guess I missed anything Glen wrote about unplayable shoes.  Maybe you could opine on the subject and present an example "unplayable" shoe?  Thanks.

J

In order to win two units one needs to win one unit first.
It's a mathematically undisputable fact that it's a lot more likely to be ahead of one unit than to be ahead of two units and so on by a logarithimic scale.

Therefore any strategic plan should be oriented to get that one unit profit per a given series of trials and this is an awesome result as it will deny the math negative edge.
When an initial loss comes around, we must hope that subsequent outcomes will first balance the previous loss, then inverting the losing line dictated by the first loss.
In a word, to get a profit we need two positive results to balance that first loss.
Without a verified edge, attempts directed to get a balancement even by the use of progressions represent a totally worthless effort. That is it will be more likely to be +1 after a 0 cutoff scenario than to be +1 after a -1 spot.

People who like to state they can get multiple winning units per any given shoe are bighornshitting themselves and anyone reading them.

It's not fkng possible to be ahead of multiple units not only per any single shoe but per a decent sample of shoes unless whether a lucky (unlikely) positive variance is acting.

We can't be right on every shoe dealt, maybe placing the "turning point" to -1 is the best option to get an edge itlr, that is to get rid of that shoe (best if the process is made fictionally).

To get a long term edge at this game one needs to bet huge and very rarely and it would be an outrageous statement to say otherwise. Especially if someone tries to demonstrate that every single shoe is controllable, a total fkng bighornshit.

No human can be more right than what probability and math dictate, otherwise this game wouldn't exist.

I'll be more convinced of the contrary if any "foolproof system" claimer would bet $1000 or more per hand, and this thing isn't going to happen.

Watch me when I'm playing and you'll get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

as. 























   

Nice reply Al. Thanks.

It's quite known that I'm hardly working to set up a no brainer mechanical method capable to get the best of it no matter how whimsically will get the hands distribution.

Many shoes are not playable at all just for the reasons Al outlined in his several posts.

This as sh.it tends to come out in clusters than being balanced in subsequent portions of the shoe.
As well as good outcomes can be detected right at the start.

Into a finite and dependent model, probability works by various degrees and whereas some levels are "unlikely" reached, our best move is to not play at all.

Notice that imo we do not want to follow "unlikely" lines, we just want to get rid of them.

Baccarat is a game of balancements and deviations, whenever a given deviation is "due" we follow it, whenever is harshly going against the "expected" (it's sufficent to lose 2 bets in a row) we better wait the next shoe.

Imo never ever try to adhere at an "unlikely" distribution as it's more inclined to form difficult detectable results.

It's like poker where to get an edge you have to fold some possible best hands.

as.


















 

Summarizing, the main feature why bac can be beaten is because certain spots can't be missed, meaning that probability plays a huge and decisive role in that.

Of course such feature cannot be theorized whether a perfect random world is working, otherwise I have to put into the trash bin all the math involved.
And I can't do this.

as. 

Baccarat provides an important feature many times we forget about.
The casino's winning probability cannot be less than 50% unless bets are placed on Banker side.
Yet the economical return favors casino every bet we'll make.

Thus even if we're the world champion geniuses of bet selection, we are still playing a 48.94% or 48.76% proposition on our winning probability unit wager.

The only way one could lose only 1.06% or 1.24% or an average  mix of two of the total money wagered is by flat betting.
It doesn't matter which kind of selection one utilizes, by flat betting one is math expected to lose from 1.06% to 1.24% of his/her total bets.

Actually most bac players want to recover losses by increasing the bets, but they forget that the more they'll increase the wagers better are the opportunities to lose everything.
The same is about increasing the wagers when positive streaks seem to come out.

There's no one single possibility in the world that after a decent trial of shoes one can get the best of it by increasing the wagers unless certain "battles" provide a very low variance impact.

Say we have found an astonishing -4 +4 random walk working onto two opposite situations.
We know that when the +4 level is reached an unlikely still possible 8 losing streak is going to happen (that is a shifting force going toward -4 point). Are we going to bet?
No fkng way.
The same about a +3 or +2 random walk position.

We do not want to raise our bets to win just one fkng lousy unit, we want to get the best of it by increasing the probability to get one unit profit immediately or, at least, after two bets.

Say we are going to join an HS table after forming a bet selection site team, where each member put $5000 at risk . Our standard unit will be $10.000 and the maximum wager on that table is $20.000.
Our bankroll is $200.000, that is 20 units. That is 40 members.
Our goal will be to win just one unit after 3-4 shoes dealt, so every member will get $250 and the probability to lose the entire 20 bets for each player is very close to zero. Say it's zero.
In fact the probability to win one unit after 3-4 shoes dealt is 99.999%.

Are you going to join such team or do you think you'll get a better edge?

I know many players tell you they'll get a better edge but they are deadly wrong.

We do want to lower the variance at most and, by the way, nobody has shown to you that a given method can get the best of it by such "low" win rate.

Still you can't be wrong about this "silly" method, it's just a matter of waiting the right opportunities to come along.

And actually it's what we do, putting at risk 20 units to win just one unit after 3-4 shoes dealt by 99.999% accuracy.

Imo one needs to risk a relatively huge bankroll to win something after a given period of time, think that casinos are going to put at risk virtually infinite bankrolls to win our miserable buy-ins.

Guess what casinos think when we're constantly betting $100 or $300 (EV- situations) and suddendly we're raising the bets to $10.000 where our EV will be positive.
They'll think we are i.diots, but they'll fear our bets as they need 100 or 33.3 wrong bets to balance our previous no edge wagers.
Situations that cannot come along.

as.   













     






 


 

Yep Al! Still many players like to wager via strong progressions.

Back to the subject.

When we consider two opposing events A and B having the same (or almost the same) probability to appear, we'll expect deviations according to the binomial model.
Such events could be as simple as a Banker or Player hand or highly complicated specific situations (for example what's the next winning hand after a side had won with a natural 7 vs a drawing hand, etc)

No matter how sophisticated is our approach to select two opposing A and B situations, itlr everything will equalize with the well known unbeatable deviations (burdened with the vig).

Wait.
This is true whether the game is perfectly randomized and it's very difficult to negate that shoes do not present such feature.
Thus in order to try to demonstrate that shoes are not that random, instead of assessing the randomness by statistical tests (chi-square, etc), we should work more empirically, say thinking in more practical terms as it's what really counts.

If I'm able to find out the spots when two opposing situations do not adhere to the common deviations (that is they are more "restricted") I'm on cloud nine.

In fact, there's no way I could spot favourable situations per se, the only hope is to get what I name "limited random walk", a sort of pendulum which moves from the left to the right and vice versa within a restricted range and crossing several times the 0 point.
Since I do not think I'm a genius capable to dispute math laws, the only explanation is that cards distribution of every single shoe couldn't be that random as we think.

Therefore and thanks to my long analysis I dare to state that not every A/B opposing situation will produce the same expected deviations and, more importantly, that not every shoe is playable as some shoes are so polarized at the start that we better get rid off them without betting a dime.
I mean that we can't try to be right on every shoe dealt as many times the possible unrandom effect can't be properly grasped by human eyes.

And this is proven by the fact that no matter how many random walks we wish to set up, a given card distribution will present similar lines on each of them.

Now the question is how to classify a "not playable" shoe.
Next time.

as.

It's important to take track of derived roads (four are displayed right on the screen but you can construct infinite roads).

BEB, SR and CPR are three displayed "derived roads" that are representing three different random walks being a direct reflex of hands distribution.
To simplify the issue a bit, BEB represents a 1-step random walk, SR a 2-step random walk and CPR a 3-step random walk.

It's interesting to notice that the main road (the main BP distribution) will almost always form omogenous distributions on derived roads according to the main road.

The most imprtant parameter to look for is the constant asymmetrical distribution on such four distinct situations.

There are several factors that endorse such assumption.

- one is the general asymmetry of the game

- two, cards are depleted once they are used, so the future deck is always asymmetrical even if we do not know which side will be favored by such asymmetry.

- three, the shoe we're playing at is not a perfect random model by any means.

It's up to us to define and restrict the values and assess the limits of such different random walks.

Say we want to restrict the variance effect thus trying to find the situations when A can't be higher or lower than a -4 or +4 B deviation respectively.
We know that whenever such "cutoff" limits are reached we're playing a 100% edge game.
I mean that whenever A reached the -4 cutoff value (or B the +4 value), our bets could only have a positive expectancy.

Thus the main issue is to find opposite situations where A or B can't produce higher deviations than 4.

Secondly we must approach our strategy in order to get the least deviations, even if we know that an 8-step martingale will get the best of it in any case.

Are we going to bet 256 units to win just 1 unit? Maybe, but it's a worthless and risky effort as the certainty to get an 8-step random walk cannot be achieved by 100% accuracy.

Moreover, we shouldn't forget that a continuos +1  -1 random walk provides us a light loss (vig impact).

So what's the best strategy to adopt?

See u tomorrow.

as. 


















   

Thanks all for your replies.

No matter how is the strategy, positive and negative results will come out along according to the binomial probability.
Since our enemy is not the house edge but the variance, we know that part of the shoes will present more negative situations than positive situations even if we are trying to reverse the probability by following trends or altering our strategy.

Imo the better countermeasure to take is not to play the shoes who are not adhering to our plan and not hoping that the following section of the same shoe will balance the previous negative outcomes.

Same is true about those positive shoes which can easily transform themselves into nightmares (Al' turning points).

Following this approach I've schematized my results as:

immediate win= +++
win after a loss= ++
immediate loss= - -
two losses in a row= - - - -

Notice that the total amount is unequal (5 + and 6 -) as there's always a vig working.

Our goal should be oriented to get a zero sum, meaning we are compelled to spot and ride the positive situations and not chasing the negative territory.

Unfortunately as I sayed above, some shoes start negative and remain negative as it's a natural thing that MUST happen.
And negative shoes are presenting negative clusters as well as positive shoes are presenting positive clusters. But remember the different wieght.

as. 



   

Imo to win at baccarat itlr, our plan must be considered in cycles adhering at most by taking into account just two steps:

1-  winning the first hand wagered is of outmost importance;
2- winning the second hand whether the first was lost.

This simple two step wagers plan considered by cycles must have each a higher 75% of success.

When it happens to be wrong at both opportunities, we need to be very careful to place more bets as strong negative variance is going to come out more often than we think.
Thus waiting to get a fictional positive outcome is not sufficient to restart the betting.

The reason is that baccarat is very similar to a coin flip endless proposition, therefore WW, WL, LW and LL sequences are presenting whimsically but itlr they'll be equal.

We cannot guess the lenght of the streaks, therefore we should simplify the problem by considering columns as singled or streaky (any streak).
It doesn't matter what strategy we like to adopt, what really counts is whether how many times we'll win the first or the second hand (really or fictionally), then classifying the results.

Since any bac shoe is a finite limited model, we know that more often than not a losing series won't be balanced by a perfect counterpart and the same is true taken in the opposite direction.

I mean that some shoes cannot be played at all as we do not want to find us in the position to guess the opposite of what our plan is dictating.

In a word, we'll be in a far better shape not playing certain shoes not fitting our plan at the start than trying to follow the actual shoe or, even worse, trying to hope to get balanced outcomes that have no room to show up.

Professional players like to bet a lot on very few spots and they never want to chase previous losses and it's not a coincidence that they'll stop the betting after two consecutive losses.

as.

Sometimes casinos are working hard to get something in our favor...

A couple of months ago a large casino introduced two EZ baccarat tables where  Dragon and Panda wagers were not removed after a tie.
That means that we could cut off a 9.5% percentage from the losing hands making Dragon bet an EV+ wager.

Do you think the house did realize the mistake?
No way. They simply kept away the tables as almost nobody was playing there...

as.




 

High stakes players willing to hear strategic suggestions and giving the mentor a cut on their profits simply want to get more winning hands than losing ones.
They do not give a fk about progressions, stop losses or MM issues.
They mainly like to adopt a wise flat betting strategy as they know that at worst they won't lose more than math expected (minus the huge comps they are entitled to get or deals on losses made with the casino).
A luxury almost no one bac player in the world would think about.

Thus only a proper bet selection might have the best of the game by 1 trillion of certainty.

There's no way a math disadvantage could be overcome by "human" countermeasures like MM, stop losses and progressions: such are just human illusory worthless tools.

If our plan is properly set up, the more we'll play the more we'll win.

Period.

as. 






 




   

Very soon a strict mechanical method which should help us to define when, how much and how long to bet.

as. 

Merry Christmas to everyone!!! 

as.

Thanks LungYeh,

Merry Christmas!!!

as.

Good job! 

But softwares can't teach us about the actual conditions we're playing in.

If roulettes worldwide were adhering to the random.org site production I'd be the most wealthy guy in the universe.

as. 

After years of studying baccarat I've come to the conclusion that the only way to win at this game is by properly assessing the number and distribution of BP shifts per each shoe.

Each shoe features an average probability to get this or that, first we should restrict the number of such this and that.

We cannot care less about long streaks, they are the best way amateurs try to get a profit by.
Long streaks or homogeneous patterns or predominance factors are just post hoc findings.
They will come at the right time or not.
As players we are compelled to restrict the "right time" within "now" or "very shortly" terms. A thing that the random world is laughing at.

Baccarat shifts move more from P to B than from B to P but itlr (and intermediate terms too) the number of BP shifts is equal, actually is slightly oriented to get more shifts than a perfect 50/50 proposition dictates.
Such conclusion came from testing millions of shoes.

We know that in a 50/50 perfect proposition itlr the number of singles and doubles will be very close to 75%.
Of course B singles and B doubles itlr will get a lesser amount than 75% compensated by the P outcomes.

Really?

No way.

A large sample study about sd values calculated on 3+ or 4+ streaks formed on both sides tell us that the number of shoes featuring a low than average number of such streaks will outbalance the number of shoes featuring a higher than average number of those streaks.

Of course along any shoe the probability to get an higher than average number of such streaks will come out more often than not whether those streaks had come out by a higher pace than expected.

Why?
Because actual card distribution which produced such "unexpected" long streaks has consumed space to get the more likely shifthing mood.
And the same is true regarding more likely situations.

The effect is working on every shoe dealt in the universe but it's more likely to happen when we have reasons to think that the distribution won't be perfectly random.

And in the actual bac world we're not betting against pc distributions.

as.