Quote from: Jimske on November 21, 2018, 03:02:54 AM
I use the 1's only.  If they have been average by the quarter shoe I don't expect much long streaks - until the second half when card composition often changes due to certain denomination depletion.

That's interesting.
Do you want to say something more on that?

as.

Forget the real outcomes, this is just a losers topic.
Instead consider this new way of playing the game adopting those words: chopping and streaking.

No news huh?

Ok.
Go on.

Chopping= hands that form short or no streaks on either side.
Even though it could appear as a weird assumption, this is the main feature of baccarat.
Now what's short?
Surely singles, surely doubles. Maybe triples. Stop!

If you have been reading my posts, you know that the average number of 3+ streaks happening on a single shoe is around 9.
Thus everybody here knows (not there) that the average number of 4+ streaks is around 4.5.

Streaking=hands that tend to form 3+ streaks.

Every fkn single shoe in the universe will present a given amount of chopping situations and a given amount of streaking situations.
Well, a whole streaking shoe won't be produced by any means except if one or more streaks are so long that chopping won't have any room to appear.
Conversely, if you have your last bucks to spend I reckon you'll wait some favourable situations to bet on chopping patterns as they surely as hell will happen along the way.

Curiously, chopping and streaking will appear at various degrees per every shoe dealt.
The probability of average chopping/streaking occurence knowing what happened so far in the shoe was deeply studied by your "hero" :-)

Actually an english team discovered this bac flaw several years ago. They have destroyed and are continuing to destroy many casinos. What's their strenght?
They know the shoes to attack and which shoes to let it go.
Ironically they made most money at Ritz casino in London and everybody knows the Phil Ivey story. PI wasn't payed, they did.   

So rule #1.

Not every shoe is beatable by a high degree of confidence. And they need it.

Then rule #2.

A progression is worth if applied on multiple same situations coming out on different shoes and whether such betting spots are considered worth of betting. It's just an accelerator.

Rule #3

Progressions can only work if multilayered conceived and never by a linear progression.


Ranges.

Trying to guess right every hand or most hands dealt is a silly losing operation. We simply can't.
Better to play a winning range where we need just one hand to be ahead.

Say we want to get any streak in a given spot. And say we want to apply a 1-2-4 progression.
To lose we must cross a 3 singles apparition. It could happen but by a careful assessment of what happened so far the probability may be easily lowered to 11% or so. And the average apparition is 12.5%.

The same, even better, if we want to discount the spots where a 4+ streak will happen.
Again, we just need a 14% or so probability to win.

Baccarat is beatable right on the same field the house will rely upon: tiny edges infinitely working.

I'll come back soon on more topics.

as.

Thanks Al.

Actually I probably posted too many concepts. 

Anyway, it's widely known that casinos fear heavy bettors capable to win fast and quitting the table and not common mortals wishing to be right for a long time.

Imo we do not need to join a $5000 maximum table with the purpose to bet at least $2500.
We could easily set up our minimum-maximum betting standards from 1 to 2 and strictly adhering to this plan.

In a kind of taxed coin flip game we can't hope to be right after two levels of betting.

as.   
   

Quote from: Blue_Angel on November 13, 2018, 01:01:37 PM
The most probable way to lose all your money on Baccarat is by going all in on every hand, eventually there will come 1 hand to smack your cheek!

Exactly, unless we go all-in with the maximum bet right at the start. That's why in my example I put the bankroll at $1000 with a $1000 maximum limit.

Imo this is an important concept derived from mentoring people who like to bet not less than half the maximum limit.
If we know to have at our disposal just two (50% or 100%) or three (75%) betting amounts, we'll have a clearer picture of what is going on with our selection.
Only 100% bets cannot be recovered mathematically as the vig will wipe out everything itlr, even though a good selection may hopefully invert the HE.

as.

   

Nice replies on my humble board, thanks!

For one time I'd take the opposite direction, say we want to join a table with the purpose of losing the entire money we get at the table.
What's the speedest way to lose,  say a $1000 bankroll at a $10-$1000 limit table?

Is by betting the whole $1k in just on hand? No way. Actually this is the best move we can make to win, no matter the side we'll choose to wager on.
Same about splitting our one thousand in two parts, hoping to lose two more hands than we win. It's a difficult task, but we know that sooner or later will happen, especially by the HE disadvantage.
Splitting our bankroll in more portions (3, 4 or 10) won't do the job that easy, we need to lose more hands in the process.

Of course the slowest procedure we could think of about losing our $1000 is by flat betting $10, it will take a lot of time to win such "losing reward".

Idea!
We'll bet an important part of our bankroll hoping to lose, then raising the rest part of it hoping to lose again. After all, two losses in a row comes out quite frequently along the way.
Mmmhhhhh, if we bet $300 then $700 when losing the first wager we are increasing the overall probability to be temporarily ahead of $400 and the process repeats.
Mathematically and no matter how we'll split the money wagered, the more we'll proportionally bet after a loss the higher will be the probabilities to win.

Providing finite spots.

I mean that an infinite process of raising the bets from one part increases the probability to win and on the other hand raises the risk of ruin up to the point where either betting limits or our bankroll cannot sustain the action.

We may come up to the wrong conclusion that the best way to lose is the best way to win, that is to bet a lot at the start or an important part of the bankroll, then promptly hoping to get more immediate losses (or wins).

Anything different from that will just dilute the entire process and as we well know time goes in casinos' favor.

Therefore, the more we play (hands), the more we are entitled to lose and the more we raise the wagers the more are the probabilities to lose.

I mean that the more aggressive we are playing at the start and higher will be the probability to win but itlr such procedure will surely fail; on the other hand light progressions may work just on very diluted and well calibrated spots where the probability to win (or lose) is quite restricted and whether properly assessed will sum up.

Imo, we shouldn't want to guess every single hand but just aiming to get a positive outcome on a couple (or 3) of hands serially considered.

as. 
 

You are right, no human element should be applied into the game and that's why I kept stressing about asym and sym hands, average shoe composition, lenght of certain patterns and so on.

Everything we wish to set up must be more math sensible than we can, then statistics will help us a lot (imo).

Example.
For one time we do not want to win, instead we just try to find spots where symmetrical hands will come out then always betting Player.
If in our endeavour we'll find 100% of sym spots, no matter the results, we know to play an EV=0 game.
Itlr the house will get zero from our bets.
Conversely our Banker bets will suffer a lot from such play as we'll get 0.95:1 on our winning wagers.

Naturally it's impossible to find only sym spots when betting Player, thus our hope is to reduce at most the asym hands probability on such spots, transforming the game into a lesser negative EV.

On the other hand, we do not need to spot precise asym hands as the advantage on such hands is so high when betting Banker side that we could think just in terms of range of apparition. No matter the results.

Now, asym/sym average ratio is well defined as well as its volatility (sd) with the important caveat that every single shoe is finite and card dependent.

Simplyfing (in my book I've explained everything) we should choose to put in action two distinct players playing for us, one betting B on the ranges thought to be more prone to give asym hands and the other one betting P when we think that in those spots wagered a sym hand will come out.
Of course such way of thinking needs a very diluted betting strategy.

Properly wagering in this way not only will reduce the house advantage on P hands (actually some sym hands will favor the P side for card distribution issues) but will enlarge the expectation on our B hands, hopefully inverting the house edge to our favor.

What are the statistical issues favoring us ITLR?

- There's virtually no one single shoe not forming at least one asym hand;

- Actual results of sym or asym hands don't affect our overall plan, we must think in term of EV;

- Asym hands have a general probability to come out consecutively or short gapped and a specific probability to come out depending upon the cards already removed from the shoe;

- Asym and sym hands ITLR will form polarized patterns if we split the shoe into two distinct columns (B and P).

- Sym hands are coming well more likely consecutively than singled shaped, it's up to us to ascertain the portions of the shoe when such math propensity will happen most and how long. This process needs a lot of virtaul observing.

According to those premises, we see that  consistently winning is just a long term process needing a lot of patience and observation and that it can't disjointed from a strict math foundation.

as. 
 

And I found the second bet after the first loss to be a net loss.

That's correct. And that's why we should consider certain second bets as first bets, meaning that sometimes we have to wait a fictional loss without betting.
Now our second bet becomes a first bet and it won't be followed by another "second bet".

As I've sayed numerous times here, key word at baccarat is 1. We must win the very first hand of any sequence we wish to play as it's more likely to be +1 from 0 than to get 0 from -1. 
And for that matter a series of -1 situations (from 0 to -1) won't affect the next attacks operated on the same shoe, actually they just slightly endorse the probability to lose more.

The overall amount of W and L will balance itlr but almost never in the same shoe. Thus we could use the WIAR, LIAR or anything else related to that as a termomether of the shoe water: we can't get a warm or hot water from a cold or icy water and vice versa.

Imo the important thing to remember is to let it go strong cold temperatures without betting a dime and not trying to get something from adverse conditions. And of course not trying to get too much whenever tepid or warm waters show up.

But before playing we always need to set up a precise target to look for and not only trying to adhere instinctively to what the actual shoe is producing.

as. 

Glad to hear that Sputnik!

And of course there's no need to play a lot of hands or every shoe dealt.
At baccarat you can join the game whenever you want (providing some open seats are available)

If we are driving off road in the desert and some light rain is coming, we do not know if our path will be flooded by a heavier rain. So it's better to stop our ride trying to reduce at most the very unlikely case that we'll find us stuck right in the middle.

as.
 

Quote from: Jimske on October 08, 2018, 04:05:34 PM
Virtually yes but it will happen.  I've seen this concept and have played it some in the past.  I don't know what "properly dissected patterns" means.  Best to pick a pattern that is less common than others.  But it has to be a series of decisions and I'm not sure if betting 12 will suffice.

Forget the 12.

Example.
We choose to progressively wager vs the very first 5 hands happened in the past shoe.
Say it was BPPBB
Now we bet PBBPP
Odds to win are 31/32, actually such odds are slightly inferior as a betting sequence dictating to wager more P than B will be less likely to show up.

Notice that if the first target didn't contain any asym hand, on the next shoe our odds are more prone to get more B hands, thus damaging our plan as it involves to bet three P and just two B.

Therefore, one of the theorical best approach is to wait a specific 5 hand pattern involving or not one or more asym hands.
Say our target provided a PPPPP sequence.
Our plan is to bet BBBBB.
But we should know HOW such PPPPP pattern had come out.
From a mathematical point of view, a 10 hand pattern should contain, on average, one asym hand. If such hand didn't come out on the first 5 hands, odds are it'll come out on the next ones.

Split the shoe into multiple 5 hands fragments, that is nearly 14-15 sections (ties included).

Any 5 hand section which previously got one ore more asym hands won't be considered. We want to bet only sections that didn't feature any asym hand.
Even if our real betting action crossed just one asym hand, our overall expectation on B bets will be: 57.93%, 50%, 50%, 50%, 50%. That is 51.586%.
Now we are playing a 51.586%/48.414% game that is better than a 50.68%/49.32% ratio.

Then say that we will be playing just the exact sections not featuring any asym hand for 3-4 or more situations.
Of course we'll lose the sections where sym hands will come out plenty thus favoring the banker but itlr pure 50/50 deviations must include asymmetrical spots.

I mean that if  3-4 or more 5-hand same sections hadn't featured any asym hand, the probability to get the banker advantage is endorsed.
After all, the probability to get 5 P hands in a row in the exact position on the next shoe NO MATTER HOW SUCH HANDS HAD DEVELOPED IN THE PAST and for consecutive times is very very very slim.

Imo at baccarat we shouldn't want to guess a fkng nothing, we just play the probabilities.

as. 

More than inviting people to play with me FOR FREE and putting my name on it I can't.
Telling that I'm mentoring $10k or more betting players won't' help, I guess.

as. 

BTW, it's time to put in practice for BS members what I've been stressing here and there for years.

Let me know when you can join me in Vegas and you'll get an idea what I'm talking about.
I'll take any side action, obviously for free.

If you'll lose after a coup,le of sessions, I'll promptly cancel my name here and there.
Of course it won't' be the case. :-)

as.

Ok with your points Al.

But we ought to remember that the probability that properly dissected patterns happened in the previous shoe will repeat in the same position and in the next shoe are virtually zero. Let's safely say zero point zero.
This is a good starting point, imo.

as.





   

Quote from: Sputnik on October 06, 2018, 01:08:14 PM
AssymBacGuy I have a method based upon this principals, it dictates to wait for two doubles to hit, then bet for 3+ for the next three coming doubles.
So you betting against five doubles to show in a row without hitting a 3+.

Now I want to grasp your method and fully understand your concept.
You say that we should use a 1-2 progression, what do you mean by that, should we wait for two doubles to hit before attacking against four in a row or do you mean we should start after one fictive double and bet against three doubles not becoming 3+.

Cheers

Hi Sputnik!

Think as any single shoe as a matter of "space". Yoiu won't necessarily know which side will be winning next. Who cares?
We only need to "guess"  the lenght of W/L spaces.
What not happened so far could present next at various degrees of probability, depending how and how much such deviations had valued in the past.
Therefore, if we want to adopt a 1-2 progression we need to know that a larger quantity than 50% must be winning on the very first step of the progression. I mean the second bet is just a back-up.
Of course, adopting a 1-2 progression will put the house at a math disadvantage as itlr 75% is larger than 25%.
Trying to get more profitable winning opportunities (for example adopting a 1-2-4 progression) will put us at a logarithmic larger risk as now we're betting after two consecutive losses. And it's more difficult to get back 7 units than 3 units.

The average probability to get certain patterns is always the same, but notice that whenever a given pattern had come out it tends to repeat in the same shoe more often than not.

In a perfect world, 3+s should come out by a 1/3 cadence, a thing that almost always never happens.
Yet card distributions favoring 3+s at the start of the shoe are more likely to produce certain patterns not just by quality but by quantity.

The consecutiveness of patterns wasn't studied in detail by anyone and all "bac experts" forgot to assess the general probability to consider any single shoe as a distinct entity from the whole. As every single shoe is a finite and card dependent shoe.

I mean that some previous dispositions could tell us what's the future more likely distribution any shoe will take.

Thus there's no one single and univocal trigger plan to follow.

as.

Let's go back with my idea on baccarat.

Step #1.
To be ahead of the game we have to get more wins than losses. Easier to say than done. But any bac player should remember this.
We do not need to be rocket scientists to do that: itlr betting Banker and its related distributions will provide more W than L. Period.
The obvious problem is that any W won't be counterbalanced by the L weight but only FROM AN ECONOMICAL POINT OF VIEW.
Therefore we must operate either in form to raise the  general W probability or, more likely,  to restrict at most the W appearance within the shortest periods of betting.

Step #2

Math gurus and fkn bac pseudo experts abounding on internet will teach us that every bac bet is EV-

This is a total bullsh.it statement.
It could be true whether any resolved hand is totally independent from the previous one and, of course, if the game isn't finite (that is determined by a finite deck). 

For example, we know that sooner or later a 4 Player streak formed by no asymmetrical hands is a perfect EV=0 disposition (actually it could have a EV+ due to card distribution). We know that such P streak isn't the product of 0.4932 x 0.4932 x 0.4932 x 0.4932 probability.
The same is about a Banker 4 streak not forming one or more symmetrical hands in between.
In this case the probability is just 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5.
Various streaks at either side will come out at different times but itlr the number of different mix of as/s hands tend to be correspondent to the expected values.

Step #3

The most important thing in order to take advantage of what I've written so far is restricting at most our probability of success per each series of bets we wish to place.
In a given infinite succession of pseudo coin flips, trying to win one unit in two consecutive attempts by a kind of progressive wagering must invert to our favor the general 75% probability.
At baccarat this 75% W probability may come out or not, it's our duty to select the spots where such probability could be higher or lower.
Thus it's not about how we'll raise our bets.

Why 2 consecutive wagers are better than 2+ wagers or a succession of single bets followed by a kind of progression on next bets?

Easy answer.   
Variance acts by steps. Our bets must be winning on the very first bet or the second one. The rest will sink into the uncontrollable variance ocean. And such ocean may present several consecutive deep holes we can easily fall into.
Restarting to bet will be covered later about step #5. 

Step #4

416 cards can arrange in numerous ways, yet it's more likely that what happened first won't be perfectly balanced by the next outcomes of the same shoe as the previous card distribution must affect subsequent card dispositions (not results).

Step #5

Besides strict statistical issues, everything comes in handy to ascertain what's the best course to take: if a given negative pattern had come out, odds are it will represent again on the same shoe.
Predominance, cards issues, overall other players' outcomes, turning points, Alrelax wrote a lot of interesting and valuable  topics about this.

A final note, a kind of gift: study the shoes where the very first pattern is a 3+ streak on any side (especially on B side). You'll find valuable spots to bet into the subsequent hands by a 99.9% accuracy.

as.

Hi Sputnik!

I'll answer tomorrow extensively to your interesting questions.

Cheers

as.