Many thx Asymbacguy for your elaborate answers to my Q up above.

Many gold nuggets:

Well, there's a 7.3% general math propensity toward 4-card hands than 5-card hands formation. Obviously the main factor orienting 4-card hands is the naturals apparition (34.2% vs 3.6%).
And again more obvious is the fact that shoes rich of 8s and 9s make more probable this possibility.
...

yet a fair amount of 5-card hands go toward Player side, think about standing or natural P points or asymmetrical spots where third cards help the P with Banker standing.

Do not forget that B winning hands are payed 0.95:1 and that a fair amount of 5-card hands (nearly 40%) are strongly favorite (at various degrees) to win the P side at the start.

...

It's the same reason working at asymmetrical spots when the third card instructs the Banker to stand while Player has a winning hand.

Maybe in the future Banker will win by standing points but the asymmetrical spots are somewhat consumed as they are limited in their appearance.
With the decisive difference that P standing points get a 40% probability to happen whereas asymmetrical spots have a 8.6% probability to happen, that is 4.65 times more likely to show up.


    I agree 100% on this last one. Im always astonished at how many players will state or suggest their "go to" method is to always bet Banker. Its funny that in past couple months I've had two acquaintances that play poker and related games(with above-avg skill) on a semi-professional level come up to me and state: I've got this friend or brother,...etc that makes a killing playing Bac and he always bets Banker continuously and everytime, ("and he wins big,makes a living,makes huge money...etc), as if they are trying to impress me knowing that I mostly play Bac.
They lose me as soon as they state : "he only bets Banker everytime".


Continued Success,

HI ASB

U say:
"...
it's quite unlikely to get a back to back 6-card hand, then it's even more unlikely to get a two cluster of 6-card hands. And so on.
Itlr 6-card hands are way more likely to come out as 'singled' patterns.

and

In addition, 6-card hands deny the Banker advantage unless the third card is a 6 or a 7 and B has a 6 two-card point.

Shoes rich of 6-card hands are more difficult to be detected as key cards distribution do not make their more likely job..."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with first part re unlikely scenario for bk2bk 6-card totals. So, if we follow that logic post-6card hand that now there is a greater probability for a 4-card or 5-card hand showing next (hopefully for B bettor it's the latter) ---

Q: Is there anything within that most recent 6-card hand that would suggest which of the two hand totals(4 or 5) is more likely as a f(x) of that 6-card hands' makeup. I believe 5-card hand is slightly more likely itlr (can't recall the exact % but believe its ~~31%.)

(Q1 is there an indicator suggesting a 4-card is more likely to show vs a 5-card hand next.)?
(Q2: Does your logic above also suggest that a 4-card hand is similarly less probable to show Bk-to-Bk? What about 5-card hand ??)

Thx in advance ASB or anyone else,

Hi all,

alrelax in reply #685:

"...My 2 cents ref ties is, not to ignore as well, but I cannot agree they stop patterns or trends.  I have to say a toss up and interpretation either way by individuals.  Just look at my thread with B&M shoes posted.

I have had just as many help and encourage a side to continue as cut. ..."


re: Ties. Personally, I view them as diluting the strength of what is presenting. Typically, and with no other better intel I treat them as place holders to whatever pattern is recently presenting. For example, if a T shows in the current string as: PBPBT (I would view the T as a continuance of what is happening "P slot" and would wager for B). I will also look at most recent 2-3 Ties just before this event and see if the pattern turned or continued and wager for whatever has been occurring.

Another T method I utilize (and have not confirmed if it is beneficial) is to look at how the two sides approached the Tie and wager on the increasing totals side. For example, let's say Bs recent hand totals were 8,7,6 and Ps recent hand totals were 4,5,6. Then I would wager for P after the T because it was "increasing" as it approached the T.

I would estimate that my success rate is probably near expectation.

Continued Success,

Thanks Asymbacguy

I like your paragraph:
"...To beat this game we must 'catch up' the actual more likely card ditribution and ties tend to 'stop' patterns happening so far (number of cards employed to form hands is the answer).
I agree that playing a 'ignoring ties' strategy is a big mistake to make.

A corollary is that shoes forming a lot of 6-card results (no matter how many ties are showing up) will get us harsher situations to look for.
...."

as--Do you utilize any method to try and help guess how many cards(4,5,or 6) are more or less likely to show in next hand.

Thx,

Thx 8OR9--a good read.

I see these articles and wonder how much of the stolen(& retrieved) crypto money will be returned to the owner(IOW how much does the government(s) keep).

*Another thought I am reminded of is from the beginning some of the key attributes many crypto Co. touted were:
A) Its safe and can neverevernever be hacked. 
B)Its the only transactions in the whole wide world that has total anonymity.

"Nope/Nope"


Continued Success,

Hi all,
Hi AsymBacGuy/thx for essays above. In post #679 u say the following:

"... So no one single hand is purely belonging to a coin flip proposition, let alone about a 'model' moving around a long term 50.68/49.32 expected probability.

Baccarat hands move around strong shifted math propositions, so everytime we'll bet a side we should know we'll be hugely right or hugely wrong, regardless of how 'whimsically' the final results are formed. ..."

So no one single hand is purely belonging to a coin flip proposition,
    I agree 100%

let alone about a 'model' moving around a long term 50.68/49.32 expected probability.

    My opinion differs a little on this part as I perceive the decisions that have a P OR B winner and loser declared (Not a Tie) do indeed converge toward a ratio very close(though not exact to this), ITLR. That is, after only a few hundred decisions we can see a convergence. Though I will also state this convergence can change directions and flow outward again prior to converging again back toward expectation, so some of our views can depend on when we looked at the data(i.e. After 1000, 15000, 1000000 , et al decisions,..etc).

I see where alot of posters, data crunchers,  et al make generalized statements like:

Lets just ignore ties because we arent betting them anyway,....etc.

I like to view Ties as events too(and they are), as they have their own probability, and since we all agree each shoe will have a finite number of decisions, the overall Variance of P and B are indeed affected by the number of Ties(low or high Ties). So this contributes to my next thought. I've wondered if this tendency by some to ignore Ties when looking at large collections of data (or the Non consistent language we use when discussing the overall 50-50 ratio of P/B where some may assume the reader isn't considering Ties), is why many perceive the sole PorB decisions as always being near 50/50 ratio, thus we see a perception of many that think:
It doesn't matter how one bets as its just a "coin flip" or "fiftyfifty" anyway.
Yes, no?? What say you.

Baccarat hands move around strong shifted math propositions, so everytime we'll bet a side we should know we'll be hugely right or hugely wrong,
    ABG , when you say hugely right or wrong do you mean say 44%,53% or 57%(which is indeed huge), or do you mean something much larger(or smaller)??


Thanks in advance to all replies,

alrelax above:

"...I began to win again and really took off with larger and more aggressive wins. I became more aggressive and that paid off nicely, which is generally against the norm and past experiences I might add. I got to the point where I easily won 5 to 6 times the amount of my buy-in. Once again, the thought process was only to play and keep playing. Should I have stopped when I won 5 to 6 times the buy-in amount I was at?  I can not honestly answer that.  After a bit, I once again began to lose, my win level dropped quickly down to the point I quadrupled my buy-in.  I stopped.  To slow myself down, I was actually getting up and texting a member from this forum.  Sending pics of the score board, etc.

I probably would have colored up earlier(and missed the 500%+ buyin. I like to look at my buyin as my main >= win goal(not neccessarily per shoe but across that session. For example if I bought in for $2k and had won $2500, I look at the $500 (or maybe 3 base unit wagers) as what I am willing to give back before settling up(dispersing winmonie$ to their respective stacks). This is when my buyin is brand new(meaning in hasnt produced anything yet as I need to replace it to be even. The key IMO is that whatever one chooses for a MMM  we should do it consistently. Most all decisions will reduce to Fear vs Greed and how detached(or attached) we are to the money in our win stack. Fear is the stronger determinant in my opinion.


The dilemma i was in, I was very conscious of was, buy-in doubled, lost win and continued playing got me up to 5 to 6 times the buy-in. Lost 1 to 2 times the buy-in. Stop or continue, plenty of 'won' ammunition to possibly get up to double what I had in front of me. Meaning 9 or 10 or 11 times the buy-in or double the four times buy-in and win sitting in front of myself. I wanted to stop, but equally as much, I wanted to continue. I stopped and cashed out. ...".

The mistake I see with many players , e.g., Buyin for $2k, win $3K-$4K wagering a base unit of $50 , parlaying a few times, and pulling down at the perfect moment. Then once they have that $3-4K W in front of them they exercise -0- MMM and immediately up their base unit to say $200 and give it all back plus most of original $2k buyin,  with only the slightest of losing streaks. This obviously creates a great opportunity for the casino as they won their temporary loss back + the buyin on fewer tries than their(cas) initial loss streak.
My premise is that it is important that we exercise consistency in most all that we do.

*A perfect example of the above was at a session last week (cas has $50--$2k min/max). A player buys in for approx $1500, starts wagering $50 here and there, bonus bets(T,f7,p8), does a few presses, hits a couple bonus bets, and now has $3500 in front of him. He colors up and Im thinking "good for him".
He comes back to the table in about 15mins and now buys in with $2k, and wagers three $500 wagers along with some bonus bets,  and loses all of them/busts. He immediately starts verbalizing "how stupid am I", "damn it I knew I should have left",...etc.
Nothing wrong with playing another shoe(s) or session. Its just my main thesis is that we should not win our win money more than once. In other words exercise some method of MMM on a consistent basis so we don't "re play" 100% of our win money back through the casino machine. We need something to show for our Ws: Gold or silver coin, new watch, new shoes, pay bills,car tires,...etc. So when that $2000 buyin is separated from us we do have something to show for it.

The casino doesn't take their win money(our $2k buyin) and go buy $2000 more wooden chips. They do invest some back into the casino but also pay utility bills, mortgage , upgrades to building, company cars, outside investments, ...etc.
We should do the same with some of our won monies.


Continued Success To All,

Hi alrelax. Good thoughts in above essays. I agree and find several of these topics critical for ones long-term success.

"...Okay, while playing you better realize plenty!  No matter if you are winning or losing.

How much can I win?
How much am I prepared to lose?
Can I recoup my current losses and get back positive?
I am winning, I don't want to give it back, should I stop?
Thinking, if I stop while winning, I can't win more.   ..."

Im of the belief almost everything in our game plan should be predetermined prior to our buyin(except total win or our trailing stop-win amount). We can't determine what our stop-win amount is until we hit our high or total win for the session.

Alrelax example above where he won 500%+ of buyin(how much he was willing to risk for a potential loss). He didn't have a goal of "I shall win 500% of buyin, or nothing". Nor did he know what his hit rate would be this high. He let the Ws come to him.

Since he won 500% I doubt if his predetermined wagering regime was "I shall wager a $25 continuous flat bet". Nothing wrong with a flat bet(Im just saying we should use a reasonable /realistic wagering amount and betting regime that give us the best opportunity to hit our >=target win(whatever that may be).

Limiting the upper end is limiting the volatility. We need volatility to win. The casino controls our lower end (buyin loss). It is to our benefit to only allow them to win only one(1) buyin per bad shoe or session. We can (or at least have the potential) to win far more than our buyin, prior to losing said buyin in our very good sessions.

How much can I win?
How much am I prepared to lose?

Furthermore, we should have a very precise bet size to buyin to bankroll predetermined. Most other variables are a f(x) of these choices.
I also believe our preferred wagering regime should be predetermined. Each and every tier or step or dollar amount, with exact precision.

In other words if we want to win an amount equal to our buyin we should design a plan to target that. If we want to 20% of buyin then we should design a plan to target that.
If we want to win X units we should design a plan to precisely target that (X units),....etc

Im not saying we shouldnt have a minimum win goal(Im saying we shouldnt stop prematurely after a winning streak "unless we have hit our predetermined win goal" and that win goal IMO should not be limited and be >=Win goal).
 
Winning streaks (and their duration) are a phenomenon within themselves that I think are worthy of further study. What I don't know is when these W streaks will occur and when they will cease (and they certainly will). Its just we don't know their duration any more when in the middle of one than we did prior to sitting down at the table.

The casino has already determined the range for much of what we want to accomplish.
For example: $50min--$2000Max. This limits what we should predetermine in our wagering regime, win goals, loss limits,...etc.

Bottomline: Plan your play and play your plan. Just make sure we do it with maximum intentions, precision, and consistency.


More later on the above topics,

Hi ABG.
"...After all baccarat is a game of clusters, educated guesses based upon long term tests or actual situations or, best, all of the three.   ..."

     I like the wording in the above statement.
Do you have favorite clusters you like to watch for in anticipatory mode and then bet for continuance(or against)?

Thx in advance,

Hi klw--perfect post above and I concur.

Hi ABG. I agree with your 1-7 thoughts above. I will respond later (or in next couple days)as I had a couple Q/thoughts. Im prepping to get on road for a 3-day gaming trip so may not send Qs til Sunday.

Hope everyone has a nice weekend.

Hi ABG:
"... BTW, which kind of tables (classic, EZ, etc) do you prefer to bet at?..."
    If I had to choose I would say probably prefer EZ vs others. Mainly due to that's what my cas market seems to offer(6 deck mostly).

ABG:"... A warm thanks to everyone who had the patience to read my section, for some reasons I'm stopping to post anymore about baccarat (maybe as we were banned to play at a couple of premises)..."

    Thanks for all your research and work along with the many posts on the forum. Hopefully your sabbatical will be short.

Continued Success,

Thx 8OR9
I like your analogies to the stocks/futures markets. I've seen other gamblers even compare Bac to sports handicapping. A lot of similarities. I know little about sports handicapping, so I find it more helpful to use the stock market and banking analogies.

re: Stock Market. I find many comparisons between Bac and the markets. Besides drawdown I also see many similarities with compounding and interest spinoff.

I view our Bac bankroll as similar to ones overall holdings in the markets. Our allotted buyins would be analogous to ones individual stocks. Lets say we have 30 stocks(buyins)in our overall portfolio. Lets say one stock tanks(drawsdown)/loses 40% of its value(So one buyin has drawndown 40%).

Providing we had near the same amount of our portfolio weighted for each of 30 stocks, then if that one stock drops 40% it should  have little effect on our overall investment(bankroll). Obviously if our buyin drops 40% in a session we shouldn't add to that losing investment(just as we likely would not buy more of a stock that suddenly tanked 40%), or I wouldn't.

I like the example you provided and I agree with the drawdown definition. However, I treat my Bac drawdown slightly different.

For example, let say I buyin with $2K which is approx 35 units(approx 80% of my casino market only has tables at $50--2K), with a couple casinos offering $25-1K, and a couple offering $50or100--$5K). So its really easy to generalize to the various increments/keep base unit size proportional in #/ to respective buyin.

E.G.,

If my $2000 buyin wins +400 in the first session(of that $2k buyins' lifespan), I don't change my buyin in my next session as it still= $2k/same base unit size.

Lets say the second session(of that $2K buyins lifespan) has a net loss: -400, so now that $2000 has drawndown and now only has a value of $1600(-20%).

My third session for that buyin will start with the $1600(with same original base unit size), as that  +$400 W from session  #1 was placed in the W stack/never rejoins that parent buyin.

    In that third session for that buyin lets say I make a net of +600(so I now have 2200:1600+600). However, this is irrelevant in my big scheme of things(I simply put that excess $200, (2200-2000), into the stack with the +$400 from the W in buyin session #1.

This keeps going until that $2K buyin has died(And it will). So I could actually buyin with just a few hundred dollars remaining from the initial $2K and still make a comeback(Last week I had a session produce a net win of +$2700(so the 2700 went into the W stack and my MonMgmt)/ the very next session the same $2k buyin had a drawdown to $500(-1500), made a comeback to 1200 in the next session, then the next session it went to -0- (it died).

I find it helpful to have discipline on the drawdowns(The upticks are easy). I never rebuy into the same shoe when I lose the buyin completely. My thesis is that managing our drawdowns will allow us to maximize the upticks(which will be at a >=(+SD) at or above the (-SD) of our drawdowns. I don't limit the upticks. This is one of the main reasons I mostly prefer a pos progression wagering regime.

What I find is that unless I get completely whacked in the very first session(for that buyin), then I never lose 100% of that specific buyin(Which is more important than it may seem),

(In the example above it earned $600/then lost, so that $2k still produced $600 prior to its demise).
Sometimes it may earn >= 300--500% , or more,  prior to its drawdown to -0-.

For me personally it keeps the emotions at an even keel (though the drive home is more enjoyable after an uptick(s) vs a day where I had a drawdown or drawdown(s) to -0- .

*I often pat myself on the back (after a drawdown or bust) in which I leave that shoe or session. Drawdowns and busts are inevitable.


Thx again 8OR9


Continued Success To All,

Hi All,

Thanks ABG for your reply to my Q .

ABG resplied:

Personally I very rarely play at EZ bac tables, so I can't tell you about the first attack, yet it could happen that I'll bet P side simultaneously wagering a 'lucky 6'.

The reason is because 'Lucky 6' is a well more likely possibility than F-7, at the same time knowing that Lucky 6 tables provide a better negative edge at Player bets (1.24% vs 1.46%).


I agree on your assessment for Lucky6 and can see the merits for wagering P/Lucky6. I seldom see a table with Lucky6 (or maybe I simply don't notice), and seldom if ever wager it. So good to know your thoughts above should I encounter that situation.

Re: B /F7--I agree that it is not mathematically sound and ITLR an increased HE to an already -EV wager. My main reason for not habitually wagering the Bwager coupled with the F7 is the hedging effect on the B bet(I can't win both but can lose both). However, a situation where I do sometimes is when I have pressed my B wager to a higher level and I don't want to lose-a-win, or push on a win. I will then wager the F7 for an amount equal to "my" chips in the wager or maybe so an F7 win =66% of that pressed up wager,...etc..

Of course, there could be times we perceive or calculate that F7 has a higher probability of showing/ that could skew all of the above probabilities in the players favor(or at least make less disadvantaged), as long as one doesn't wager it too often.


Continued Success,

Hi ABG

ABG: "...Meaning that in the vast majority of the times we shouldn't put ourselves in the position to 'ensure' our main B bet by wagering a side bet.
This is a strong long term EV- move.   ..."

     I agree for the most part.

     What are your thoughts re: The same scenario with P/Panda8 (or P with F7)??

Thx in advance

p.s.
I also like the color and hue that you selected. A nice clean/professional look.



Continued Success,