Thx Asym for promt reply.
Ill respond more later in the week as Im headed to the office(cas)*.

*A funny note. A couple weeks ago I drove my wifes' vehicle which I seldom do. My first casino for the day was one that I don't play at much but meet other players there sometimes and carpool. If I do play there it is typically my last stop for that days circuit as it is one of the closest to my house.

Anyway, I had entered the address into the cars' navigation system as I seldom traveled to it directly from my home plus I wanted to avoid peak traffic roads as it is a moderately large city. As I entered into the parking lot at approx 805am the navigation systems' female voice stated: "You have reached the parking lot of your work place",  lol.


Hope u all have a good week,

Hi Asym

On the following:

"..Long term data have taught us that per any shoe dealt by transforming adjacent complex patterns into numbers we'll get more likely totals than considering the game as a random model:..""

Do you mean coding certain pre-determined patterns(multiple outcomes) into a single numeral for comparison with other pre-determined patterns(multiple outcomes') coded numeral???

Can you give an example as Im not sure I understand what u are saying.


thx,kfb

ADulay above:

"...When the Blackjack tables all migrated to the 6/5 payout I just drifted away.

Kind of like the triple zero roulette...."


I play Bac with a couple (Husband/wife) dealers in Black Hawk, Colorado that for years dealt games in Vegas/recently moved to the Colo market. They both said in vegas that whenever they were dealing tables near a main thoroughfare of tablepit area.  They said most days and 3-5x per day a group of players would come by and want to know "Where is the zerozerozero roulette table"?. He said sometimes they would actually say it like that.

He said often it was 3-4 females 25--35yo drinking a tutifruti drink in one of the  18"-24" glasses you often see in vegas casinos. They would ask like it was a "new" game or a game that was easier to win,..etc. Obviously not AP. Just folks out for a good time and entertainment purposes.


Continued Success,

Thx for replies.

8OR9 above in post #2:

"...Most casinos now pay 6-5 for a blackjack instead of 3-2 ....which means you are wasting your time playing........and if they suspect you are counting, they will either :

a. Ban you from the casino
b. Tell you can play any casino game except blackjack
c. Tell you that you can play blackjack but all your bets must be the same size as your first bet....w..."


I agree 8OR9. I don't play BJ. However, I play with several skilled Bac players(75-80 yo) that for many years made most of their income from Blackjack and most certainly were Advantaged Players. They have since switched to mostly Bac and cash poker or similar games.

     IMO the casinos will do whatever they can get by with to squeeze another couple % profit. Players should boycott that type of game just for the: principle-of-the-matter.

I have the same opinion on players choosing not to play at indian casinos requiring one to pay an "ante" on every hand. 
Ditto for players in Missouri not playing in the "show-me-state". It is usury to be required to pay the vig up front on dice games(i.e., craps) regardless if the wager is a Win or Loss. This can change the casinos' HE from approx 3+% to approx 6.67%, ...etc.



Continued Success,

Continued Success,

AsymBacGuy in post #1073 above:

"...To beat baccarat we just need to implement and expand some ideas made by eminent mathematicians/statisticians of the past that didn't care too much (or anything) about gambling.

As you know after reading my pages, I'm referring to Richard Von Mises and Marian Von Smoluchoswki.

Actually we have found out that at baccarat some fragments of the shoe's succession cannot be labeled as "random" spots, the only issue to overcome was to evaluate whether such spots were able to reach the 51.3% or higher cutoff profitability at B bets and the 50.1% or greater cutoff profitability at P bets...."

Well stated Asym.
    I am familiar with some of the work by Smoluchowski, however, I've never studied much on Von Mises.
I think there are several areas of Mathematica that one can generalize to gambling(i.e., 50-50ish type wagers). It is my opinion that much of the underlying math of casino games is not the arithmetic we often use to analyze outcomes ex post facto. Nothing wrong with analyzing the outcomes as I do it too.

Speaking of mathematicians.
A couple of my favorite mathematicians: Blaise Pascal and Leonhard Euler(pronounced Oiler).
Of course Nik and Al contributed some decent studies too. 


Continued Success,

Great thread by alrelax: Reality Advantaged Winning.

Several great points that are so critical for long-term success at Bac(or any cas game).

It is my opinion most daily and lifetime winners(Net+ $) all possess similar traits. Most of these traits cannot be taught and must be learned.

I will make a few comments on some of the key points. More comments on additional points at a later time.  I think most of us on this forum will embrace/agree with the majority of my thoughts below. I welcome counter thoughts and ideas.


A. "...Before you can truly win, you must be able to compound positive results at the table and manage those results into profits..."

B. "...Wins are wins, no matter how you arrived at your win. Money from the dealers rack into your buy-in stack. Once it hits your stack, it is yours, of course. But, you have to give yourself positive profits you can apply a concrete Money Management Method (MMM) to.
  .."

C."...AT A MINIMUM, BUT NOT OPTIMIZED:
* Holding portions of your win amounts religiously.
* Able to hold partial wins and use partial wins.
* Applying protocol. ..."

    It is my belief one of the greatest tools we have as casino gamers(Cas Investors) is the opportunity to compound. Compounding that current winning wager and also compounding a small % through our buyin/bankroll. Wins should be treated just as a win in the stock market or any other investment vehicle. I like to think of compounding as similar to vibrations or like tides/ripples across water in the ocean or on a pond. Sometimes that little ripple can have a very long lifespan.

A strict MMM is so crucial as wins need to vibrate slightly through that current buyin, along with a slight vibration through our overall bankroll. This % added to our buyin can be very small (maybe even just 1-3% of buyin). The more one games the more often this tiny % can compound. Reminder banks only give us 4.5--5.25% CDs for a whole year of holding our money. Let that tiny compound% start rolling and before long it will be like an exponential snowball rolling(compounding) down a mountain side.

Though most importantly we need to parse out a certain % of ALL wins into an intrinsic item (e.g., gold,silver, a new watch, car tires, gun, ..etc (or other investment vehicle) that "never-ever-never" gets run through the casino again.

The reason I prefer only a tiny % added back into THAT buyin is we must also be willing to risk that whole buyin to get a win. That means we must also accept the fact we will eventually bust THAT buyin. But one must still be wiling to risk the whole buyin, IMO.
Otherwise it would be like sending your stock broker 100K and only buying one stock with $1k/not invest the other $99K. Our ROI would be miniscule regardless of how successful our ROI on that one stock.

I see a lot of skilled players that lose because of weak betsizing/MMM, and not because of weak bet selection or poor self control.

I believe all of ones gameplan should start with knowing ones hit rate(advantage or lack of), and then proper bet sizing, buyin, and bankroll. Everything must be a "fit" for that specific gamers objective.


D."...Use Winnings With Protocol:  Mine are, winning in excess of my buy-in gets divided up into 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd amounts. 1/3rd back into my buy-in stack, 1/3rd locked up for anything but gaming and 1/3rd into reserve. When certain amounts are won, those amounts are further divided up. I am governed by the losses of winnings, or simply in other words, not wining after winning according to protocol. ..."

    Exactly /so very important. I do a similar approach with slightly different %.

We must not require our skillset/bankroll to "rewin" our wins.


More later,

My earlier comment above:

"...re: Baccarat, with a H.E. just over 1%.

Though according to many book authors supposedly card counting/ sequence counting, et al approaches,...etc doesn't improve ones probability of success..."


To clarify: Though book authors suggest card counting/ sequence counting doesn't improve one probability of success.
     In my opinion it depends on what one is counting and or what sequence(or gap or cycle) one is monitoring. I do think one can glean a slight benefit from counting a specific card removal or counting "distance between" certain events or cycles,..etc. However, it is only a minimal pos effect on ones bet-selection skill. Plus it is hard work and requires stamina/ attentiveness.

*It is my opinion the more beneficial events for counting/monitoring are seldom the ones displayed on the tote board. I'm not saying the tote board is harmful. I'm simply saying that IMO most of the variables on the tote board are casino-intended distractions. They are certainly not displayed in an optimal format.


Continued Success,

AsymBacGuy above in response to my post:

"...Please can you elaborate your interesting Random doesn't  mean scattered evenly passage?..."

Re: Random doesn't  mean scattered evenly

My statement (and belief) is that random outcomes are indeed scattered above and below the expected Mean. Though never evenly scattered.

In Bac I do not think we should expect them (i.e. Patterns) to be scattered evenly(e.g., think of a scatter plot).

Bac (unlike most games) has outcomes that want to approach Limits---->. This is obviously due in part to the limiting nature of the game(only 84 hands) and (Dealt cards are removed). Everything starts approaching limits from the very first hand. So because the race ends (lets say hands=miles) in 84miles then many times the trailing event(s) or patterns simply run out of distance. Therefore they(various patterns, events) didn't have enough time to even out or match the scatterplot from earlier in the shoe.

Lets say P builds a a lead of (+11) by hand 60. Due mostly from two runs of(PPPPPP B PPPPPP). Lets say that "IF" B does indeed close the gap some by hand 82 we should not expect to see the same dominant pattern(s). So lets say at the end of the shoe B now only trailed by (4). I do not think we should be in anticipatory mode from hand 60--82 thinking B will see the same scatter (BBBBBBB P BBBBBB). The results are seldom dispersed (or scattered) evenly. In fact from hand 60--82 I would have been slightly in anticipatory mode for B to indeed close the gap. However, I would have been leaning toward the "scatter" being NOT the pattern that gave P a +12 lead. Something more like (BBB P BBBB P BB ,...etc) as it tried to close the gap.

Nor do I think we should expect the overall long-term outcomes' totals to always be even (20K outcomes: BlueDot=10K, RedDot=10K).

Furthermore, it is my opinion one is better off studying/monitoring gaps and distances between specific gaps, patterns, and events(& the Limits---->). Instead of always looking at the total score for the BlueDot vs the RedDot to even out or expecting patterns to be equally scattered. 



Continued Success,

AsymBacGuy above:

"...Baccarat literature has never investigated whether bac successions are really random, neither about how the "dependency" factor could be measured as both parameters were simply ascertained as 1) a sure feature (all shoes are randomly produced) and 2) any new hand is completely disjointed from previous hands...."

I agree. Most Bac literature(i.e., book authors) as well as system sellers and such simply repeat what previous literature/book authors/system sellers and such, have parroted for decades.



"...So under the eyes of gambling experts baccarat remains a random EV- game.

This is a 1 billion false statement, such people didn't know the best definition of randomness ever made, let alone how much a finite slight dependent model will act by transforming it into a unrandom sequence...."

The word random or randomness, in casino games is often used very loosely by most, at least IMO. I too have likely been guilty of using in its most generic/broad form. 

Random doesn't  mean scattered evenly.

Which is how I perceive many use (or misuse) it.

Considering potential for Advantage Play and Edgewise, which is better and why?

Baccarat (P or B), Craps Line Bets(Pass or don't), BlackJack BasicStrategy?

 
Obviously all low house edge/ SD is comparable.

re: Baccarat, with a H.E. just over 1%.
Though according to many book authors supposedly card counting/ sequence counting, et al approaches,...etc doesn't improve ones probability of success.

re: Blackjack--I probably haven't played a hand since my freshman year in college (Single deck @ $1),  so no opinion/ no expertise. Though allegedly some players can get an edge with Basic Strategy w optimal play. However, casinos frequently sell little laminated cards in their gift shops with  Basic Strategy. Therefore, I am hesitant to think that approach is a concern for the casino.

re: Craps Line Bets(P or D). I've played line bets and agree they are low H.E. and low SD. However, I don't know all the other wagers. Though, I do know they are significantly higher H.E. vs Line Bets.



Q: Which is better and why?



Thx in advance,

AsymBacGuy above:

"..."It's completely obvious that longer streaks will come out more isolated than clustered, and when they are not most of the times is because a shortage of streaks happened so far...."

    I concur.
I think we all agree the referenced shoe above was quite the anomaly. The most difficult obstacle for the players at that table will be to realize "when its over its over." The majority will very likely never see that shoe again. Though many will hunt for it, repeatedly.

alrelax:

"...I know it will never happen again , never ever.  But I sure do miss the old school Baccarat rooms and the high limit rooms—ran and patronized the way they used to be, which also held the original bac tables.
..."

    I agree 100%. I started playing around early 2000 or so and the big table was already being fazed out. Mostly see the big table in vegas now. I seldom see Midi tables except Vegas/Biloxi and a couple in Black Hawk,Colorado.


"...Virtually no one dressed as the majority does today or should I say post late 90's.  Meaning no ripped jeans, no hoodies, no sweatshirts, no shorts, no ultra casual errand running clothes.  Guys had on slacks, dress shirts, Tommy Bahama style shirts, etc.  Women had on dresses, pants suit outfits, skirts and blouses, etc.    ..."

    I see that relaxed dress code as well at most places. Especially during the day weekdays. Weekend players sometimes dress a little better it seems. I encourage all of us to try and keep the standards high. When at nicer cas markets I still wear a light sport coat with a short sleeve polo, casual pants, casual leather type shoes...etc. I immediately pull the jacket off and place on chair / get comfortable.
I would say at casinos in midwest most in evenings are coming from work so often dressed a little nicer if their occupation requires better dress code. Most don't wear a sport coat but above average dress. Some of the ladies still dress classy.
Though I do see a slippage from just 10-15 years ago.

I sometimes still see better attire at Bellagios in vegas and Beau Rivage in Biloxi. Mostly at upper limit tables >=$100 it seems.

"...
But all in all, the whole atmosphere and level of camaraderie were heads and tails over what it is today..."

    I concur.



Continued Success,

KungFuBac likes this:

"We've seen that some random walks working by a 0.75% probability of success itlr will form longer W successions than a proportional amount of L successions. (W=+1 and L=-3).
We've found out that the gap, albeit being rare to cross through, will provide us a strong statistical advantage."

Good post AsymBacGuy

Personally I find #2 easier to discern vs #1 or #3:

"2- Considering it to stop a L pattern of given lenght"



Continued Success,

Note in the following link below:

Pg. 3 NOTE the significant drop in Hold% for Bac starting in 2004.? Any thoughts as to why the hold % dropped from approx 18%--21% from 1992--2003, then a huge drop to mostly 11-12% from 2004--2023.
* My thinking was that maybe the increase in EZ Bac tables vs the old-school "Big Table". I don't know as just thinking out loud. There has to be some major change in the game for that to occur. Maybe just variance??

Any thoughts or theories??


NevadaTablesHold%


Thanks/credit to the UNLV Center For Gaming Research