Quote from: alrelax on March 31, 2020, 12:54:01 PM
The highest majority, not all but the highest majority of all players will not capitalize on the opportunities that are being presented by the shoe and then when they do they are so convinced  that's how they can beat it

True, yet they do not realize that profitable opportunities won't come out around the corner.
That's why casinos entice players to bet every hand dealt, a sure recipe for disaster.

as. 

Hi Lungyeh.
It's very very very likely players won't build long term profitable random walks (that is r.w.'s getting very low variance) by simply assembling the outcomes of the three derived roads I'm referring to (beb, sr and cockroach r).

And considering bead plate (placing outcomes in columns of 6 hands each) doesn't make the job. Dispersion values applied to such mechanical road are adhering to expected situations, that is to an unbeatable world.

Imo to get a long term profitable plan we must get rid of many unnecessary hands, those tending to surpass certain cutoff values that can easily hurt our strategy.
And from a strict statistical point of view, profitable situations won't arise so often. This because a supposedly unrandom world (the only one cause that make us long term winners) wil be quite diluted.

Imo the only way to beat baccarat is by considering strong asymmetrical random walks applied to a slight asymmetrical model as baccarat is.

For example, the situation where "infinite" PBB patterns show up in succession is one of the simplest event we should look for.
No matter how many P hands come between a PBB pattern and a new single B hand, we know that our plan starts after a precise situation happened. That is a sort of compromise between the most math probability to get another B and the very very slight propensity to get the opposite hand (P).

Vast majority of card distributions will place asymmetrical results on this plan, not necessarily strong favoring one event or the other one.
Of course it could "easily" happen on some shoes that the same asym situation will go on and on, meaning that our asymmetrical strategy will be canceled by an unlikely card distribution transforming a steady asym world into a seemingly symmetrical model.

Later some thoughts about derived roads.

as.

Moreover could we connect in some way the three derived roads in order to get a unique distribution (r.w.) where dispersion values are way lower than expected?
Obviously knowing that only when all roads dictate to bet the same side such new r.w. exists and, more importantly, is bettable.

as.   

Now suppose that in order to build our new sequences, instead of considering normal BP results we use the blue and red spots of the three displayed derived roads (big eye boy, small road and cockroach road).
Again we decide to assign the 1 value to red spots and 2 to blue spots.
Then we sum the two adjacent numbers from left to right.

Do have those new sequences the same features belonging to the sequences derived by the original BP succession?

as. 

Ties are a complicated issue as any method must get rid of those "unresolved BP hands".
Yet they exist consuming space and cards.
In addition ties are way more likely when 6 cards are utilized to form a hand.

I fear that shoes containing a lot of ties perhaps are less manageable when using a "fixed" plan, but it would take a lot of time to ascertain their real impact over the different registrations I've discussed here.

Surely after a tie future real BP probabilities change, very slightly maybe still they change.

It should be interesting to study how many cards are utilized per each shoe in relationship of the r.w.'s applied, for example.
Notoriously most likely winning hands are formed by only 4 cards then by 5 cards. When more cards are utilized to produce a hand a sort of dilution effect may come out.

Anyway I firmly believe that any valuable method, system or approach when dictating to bet B or P that side must contain a mathematical advantaged situation on the first two cards dealt.
Therefore if I passed 70 minutes to wait for a profitable situation and I'm betting Player, I want Player to show a standing or natural point and not a K-4 catching a third card 4 vs a Banker standing 7.
Of course we could win a hand as underdog (or losing it as huge favorite), I'd prefer to lose it being favorite.

as.

Dear friend, I'm just looking forward to play with you and Lung (and maybe few others), I mean serious money I know three of us get.

Let's wait this fkng Covid-19 stuff stops.

as.






 

Summarizing:

- no way you can find a long term profitable betting plan without speculating that outcomes are not perfectly randomly placed as random bac outcomes are unbeatable by a 1 billion degree. 

-  to ascertain outcomes are not properly random produced only place selection and probability after events tools can help you by strict scientifically accurate assessments. Some bac productions are better than others, meaning they involve a higher unrandomness factor.

- best way to take an advantage without suffering the variance impact is by looking just for one unit profit per a given amount of hands.

- no matter how's your strategy and which side you choose to bet, each set of two consecutive wagers must get a way higher 75% probability to win. Considering as Banker side as a steady advantaged option is one of the biggest mistake to make. Asym hands favoviring Banker don't come out so often, especially whether consecutively taken.

-  the game cannot be altered or predicted by human considerations, otherwise it wouldn't exist.

as.

Making things in a more complicated way, we could set up many different r.w.'s utillizing a pace different than 1.
After all the general law of independence of the results should work no matter how deep we want to classify the outcomes, right?

Thus a BPBBPPBPBBBBBBPBPPPPBPBBPPB succession could be

1-2-1-1-2-2-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-1-2-2-2-2-1-2-1-1-2-2-1 (1 pace) or

1-1-2-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-1-1-2-1 (2 pace) or

1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2 (3 pace)

Again summing the two adjacent numbers from left to right we'll get:

1 pace) 3-3-2-3-4-3-3-3-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-4-4-4-3-3-3-2-3-4-3 (runs: 12)

2 pace) 2-3-3-2-2-2-3-4-4-3-2-3-3 (runs: eight)

3 pace) 2-2-2-2-2-3-4-4 (runs: 3)

Skipping certain outcomes provides a better evaluation of the place selection impact, that is the main factor by which certain subsequences must be considered as collectives or not.
And naturally in this example the best indicator is the number of runs.

We should convert what others call "stop loss" or stop wins" cutoff points with the simple number of runs, especially if we want to disprove a real randomness.

Without boring to test many shoes, it's intuitive that a kind of asymmetrical force is acting along the way on the vast majority of shoes dealt, our task should be directed to spot the shoes where such asym force will be more likely to act on certain points.

Now let's sat we want to follow two opposite players, one player A wishing to parlay his bet up to 5 steps toward a new same number situation (being 2, 3 or 4) and the other one B wishing to make a progressive plan toward not getting same number clusters (up to 5 steps).

Player A will win anytime 5 or more consecutive homogeneous situations will show up (2-2..-3-3..-4-4.. 3-3, etc) and player B will win anytime a given number won't be clustered up to 5 times.

From a math point of view both players will get the same results getting different W/L frequencies.
In the practice things go quite differently.

as.   

We've seen that every shoe in the universe can be considered just as a 2-3-4 sequence of runs.
In my example I've chosen to consider the simple hand to hand registration, meaning that every resolved hand will be eligible to be listed.
Moreover hands are considered by a simple B=1 and P=2 registration.

Now say we do not want to simply assign the 1 value to B and 2 value to P, instead 1 to an identical situation and 2 to an opposite situation taken at a given mechanically preordered pace.

If the results succession will be really randomly placed, we know this tool won't affect the dispersion values. Technically speaking, we want to disprove the common knowledge that any mechanical preordered plan will be insensitive to every place selection strategy. The only way to prove this game is beatable.

There are infinite ways to set up random walks trying to disprove a perfect randomness, being the runs distribution the common denominator.

Any bac hand/pattern distribution is a complex result made of three finite different forces acting along a slight dependent model:

1- asymmetricity favoring B side

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

3- key cards distribution (low cards should be considered as key cards as 8s/9s)

Taking those three factors together some r.w.'s are more inclined to provide a higher number of runs.

as. 

Some studies show this fkng virus tends to spread more in high polluted areas (Wuhan, Northern part of Italy, Madrid, N.Y.C., L.A., etc).
Moreover warm wheather and high humidity seem to lower the COVID-19 virulence (Singapore, Malaysia) no matter how huge is the population density.
Probably Lungyeh could say something about this. 

In Vegas we must hope the warm factor will overcome the humidity one...:-)

as.   

Yeah....

Sadly the mortality rate of this COVID-19 is a lot higher (up to 5%)

as.

No surprise, this virus is extremely dangereous as very often goes unnoticed.

Probably some casinos will increase the number of stadium baccarat where players remain at a decent distance among themselves and from the dealer and no chips are involved.

as.

Next why some random walks applied to baccarat are better than others. The decisive tool to destroy this fkng beautiful game.

as.

Those new derived subsequences are not forming random successions as 2 cannot go to 4 and 4 cannot go to 2 without crossing the 3 step.
Moreover no matter how whimsical is the original BP succession, any shoe will produce a given number of  2-3 / 3-2 or 3-4 / 4-3 steps.

Notice that we shouldn't give a damned fk about the lenght of same level values, let alone the exact or approximated final number of runs. We instead should focus about the actual probability to get one or a couple of runs on different portions of the shoe.

If the original succession is perfectly randomly placed, the subsequent derived collectives cannot give us profitable betting spots as in order to get an advantage we must put in action certain random walks anyway.
I mean that a perfect random original sequence cannot form low dispersion values on derived situations no matter how sophisticated they are intended, what we really need to set up an unbeatable plan.

as.

Suppose we want to classify BP outcomes assigning 1 to any B result and 2 to any P result.
Thus a sequence as BPBBBPPBPBP becomes 1-2-1-1-1-2-2-1-2-1-2

Now let's add the number on the left with the adjacent number placed on the right in a way to build another subsequence.
In our example, we'll get 3-3-2-2-3-4-3-3-3-3

The number of "runs", that is situations where a number stays at the same level are transformed from 7 in the original sequence to 5 in the new one.

Before continuing let's see what happens on strong streaky BP situations as

BBBBBPPPBBPPPPPPPBBBBBBPPPPP =

1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2

then

2-2-2-2-3-4-4-3-2-3-4-4-4-4-4-4-3-2-2-2-2-2-3-4-4-4-4

here the number of runs is 6 on the original sequence and 11 on the new one.

or a "choppy" sequence as

BPBPBPPBPBBPBPBPBPPBPBPB

1-2-1-2-1-2-2-1-2-1-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-2-1-2-1-2-1 =

3-3-3-3-3-4-3-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-4-3-3-3-3

Number of runs shifts from 21 to 7.

Let's try to fictionally build a shoe getting many runs on our new sequence.
Easy to do, we need many different sums coming in fast succession.
Example:

BPPBBPPBBPPBBPPBBPPBB =

1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1  (runs= 9)

3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2 (runs= 16)

Nothing special so far, it's just another way to consider the hands distribution taken from a simple B/P point of view. A wrong point of view. But...


as.