Thx AsymBacGuy for elaboration.

What are the original BP sequences capable to get long and univocal both original and derived outcomes per every shoe dealt?

Just two.

Long BP chops and long consecutive streaks, both being quite unlikely to happen.

     I agree. Yet that is what a majority of players are primarily waiting for in every shoe. IMO the tote board design contributes alot to this pursuit and anticipation.  It would be interesting to see the change in betting patterns/habits if all of a sudden the design of the tote board changed from the Up-down/L-R layout that is currently utilized.


Thus imo it's not about how much the chopping propensity come out but about how many times it will come out per every shoe played.

     Good statement.


Thx as always,

Thx Albalaha

re: "I use extreme variance management to ward off the worst possible..."
   
     Do you also ward off the best possible to the exact same level??
Lets say (e.g., -4SD to +4SD),  OR  are u more likely to do a predetermined setup such as : (-4SD to +2SD, ....etc )  ??  Other?

thx,kfb

Hi Albalaha

How many of you go for a trigger to start bet?

     I do though I don't view my trigger(s) as being causal to the outcomes. One thing(trigger) I generally do when I sit down at a new shoe and immediately post-cut. I like to wait for the outcomes to hit the other side/back to orig outcome (as a minimum wait), prior to placing my first wager. E.G., PPBP, with the third P being a trigger to consider placing a wager going forward.

Nothing scientific or projective about it. Simply a way as to not allow the cut to dictate the first few outcomes at a short-term stage where results are random and more difficult to discern(at least for me). Mostly due to the simple fact we don't have any intel at that point. Of course I would be first to agree that most anything we do as an attempt to tame undesirable variance will also dilute the desirable variance,...etc.


Do you think it useful/helpful?

     My perception is Yes, as it helps with my above objective. Though may or may not increase my hit/miss ratio.
IMO anything we do to reduce number of hands wagered at random is beneficial. At least for me, I don't have any perceived +ev strategies that would help on the first hand following the cut(especially in cas that don't show the burn cards). If required to wager that first post-cut hand I might be slightly more inclined to put it on P.


In my humble opinion and observation, it doesn't change probability further but it could be utilized to ward off the worst possible probabilities and if we take multiple triggers together and their net total impact, I found it helpful logically and probability wise too. We should not expect any in built advantage with any trigger or flat bet win with it.

     I agree in that most triggers won't change probability. However, they could possibly make us enter a wager when a W is perceived to be more probable. Also, as u mention above it could help ward off(side step) a negative cluster of outcomes, thus , potentially preserving bullets until we are getting the best of it.

     re: Triggers, Im always reminded that a perceived beneficial trigger for my side of the wager has just created the exact opposite perception for approx 50% of my table mates(and vice versa).

Albalaha--what  are a couple of your favorite triggers to sidestep losing clusters?


Thx/Continued Success,

Good Day AsymBacGuy
Thx for your reply to my followup question.

Asym:
Hi KFB!

As Key cards I'm referring to 9s, 8s, 7s and 6s.

.Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees..."





     kfb initial followup question/statement:
     kfb:
     Respectfully, my opinion differs on this---OR--- maybe Im just not understanding what youre saying. Can u elaborate a
     little more on this sentence.


Asym:Btw, I'm interested to know your opinion about this, thanks in advance!

as.

   

     kfb

     IMO the propensity to get higher ITCPs does NOT remain the same and does indeed change if no key cards (6,7,8,9) were
     involved in the process.

     My initial thought was that lets say : KCR=KeyCardRemaing = x, and Total Cards Remaining(TCR)=y , then our kcr/tcr
     ratio at this given point in the shoe is lets say x/y. We don't know exactly the numerical value of x or y. However, the next
     hands' cards are A,B,C,D. You/I are at the table together and had both just departed to the restroom and upon our return
     asked the dealer: How many cards were dealt in that most recent hand? Four. We follow up with : Did cards A,B,C,or D
     have a value of 6,7,8, or 9?  Dealer: No.

     Thus my aforementioned statement was that although we don't know the values for ABCD(ignore which side won or any
     other implications),
     we do know that our KCR/TCR=x/y ratio has changed from x/y  to x/y-4, and we also obviously can't be
    100% certain of how many, if any,  KCR remain(0,16,12...etc). 
     
     So my thinking is the propensity to get higher ITCPs does not remain the same and has indeed changed(albeit very
     slightly). Obviously many other factors we could take into consideration but for simple illustrative purposes that is the gist
     of my previous inquiry.


Continue Success,

Hi Albalaha

Trick Question

I will raise my hand first and shall select option: B


That is, without saying "it depends", or  "what is the players objective", or "mr professor please clarify long run", "clarify earns averagely in average sessions" ...etc.


So my final answer: B


Continued Success,

Good Morning Albalaha

Thx for  your posts--Im watching your new project(millionaires plan) with interest/intrigue.

ALB:

"...To do this perfectly, I need a table limit of 1-1000 to be safest and surest but I would try to finalize it in a table limit of 1-100 too..."

     That bet spread is my dream scenario. I most commonly see $50--2k, with occasional 25-1k and 25-2k, occasionally travel to get a $50--5k,...etc.



"...to win at least 100 units per session with a risk of like amount of loss and probability to get a losing session should not be more than 20%. Once accomplished, nothing will be left for me but to play, play and keep playing fearlessly.
             It is a hybrid type MM (positive aided with negative progression) and could be trigger based. Playing with trigger will ensure this 80:20 win: loss sessions..."



     I like your ideas/ the implementation of 20% rule as I find that applicable to many things(gambling and nongambling alike).

     I utilize this metric (>=20%) quite often within a variety of PosPro wagering approaches. I like to set it as a my initial /lowest win (and session exit) stages, along with >=50% and >=100%, as i find it beneficial to set trailing stops and never leave a winning streak. 

To verbalize,  as I enter a session my thought process: "I think I can win >=20% of my buyin "first" as in "before" the casino
can win 100% of my buyin.  The best odds for me are obviously at the very beginning of the session when my balance is : -0-  .

In an even-chance game with weighted wagers I like our chances.


Continued Success to you Albalaha,

Hi AsymBacGuy

In your first post on 3/30 you state:

"...Normally card distributions will produce "more likely" back to back ITCPs, as the average key card distribution itlr will make a huge impact over the final two-card point results (not final results!).
It's true that key cards could easily combine with a second low or worthless card, anyway itlr it's way more likely to get a winning point whenever a key card had fallen on that side than to face the opposite situation.
Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees, meaning it's restricted within measurable (then exploitable) terms...."

To clarify: When you say "KEY CARDS" do you indeed mean 8/9 as in main cards to keep P from drawing. OR Do you mean key cards as in side-favoring cards such as 6/4  that may or may not keep P from drawing? thx in advance .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


AsymBacGuy: "...Whenever no key cards are involved in the process, the propensity to get higher ITCPs remain the same at different degrees..."

kfb:
     Respectfully, my opinion differs on this---OR--- maybe Im just not understanding what youre saying. Can u elaborate a little more on this sentence.

Thx/ Continued Success,

Greetings AsymBacGuy

On pg 14 of this thread you stated:

"...Re: Why bac could be beatable itlr
« Reply #205 on: October 14, 2020, 09:49:04 pm »
Quote
Instead of thinking as baccarat as a BP outcomes game, we should consider the average probability to get a shoe composition prompting certain degrees of math advantaged situations..."

?On average how many "math advantaged situations" do you typically find per shoe?

     IOW what is the Mean and Mode # of wagers for you per shoe----"on avg" ??


Thanks in advance,

Good luck Albalaha with your newest project: Millionaires Plan.

"...I got excited to read the book, "13 at the bank" but.."

I agree it's a good read--david vs goliath.


Continued Success,

AsymBacGuy:

"...discipline doesn't turn an EV- game into a profitable one.
Probability to win as disciplined players is the same as being undisciplined.
Discipline intended as a way to restrict the field of operation probably helps to lose less but surely doesn't help to win itlr..."

Thanks Albalaha for your thoughts/opinions. Always appreciated..


Continued Success,

Thx Albalaha
Appreciate you always promptly responding /answering my questions as best possible. I know at times they may be generic in nature, already addressed in old posts...etc/ you could easily just respond with a "well it depends" reply. Many Thanks.

You have several new ideas (or maybe just new and improved), that have inspired me to dust off some old wagering regimes.


?1)Since your preference is to wager P in Bac--Do you try to wager in shoe sections that may have a tendency to indeed provide optimum opportunities for a P win?

?2) Do you have a predetermined # of wagers per shoe that you will attempt (Wins and or L), and abandon the shoe because you lost X# of initial wagers( Or won X# of initial wagers)?
     For Example: Lets say you won your first 12 wagers on P and P is also now ahead by 12. Obviously, if we had to make a one time wager I think the majority of us would guess the final tally is more likely to have a difference of 2 vs 22.
??Or do you would you just view as its all random /one big shoe and continue playing that shoe wagering on P to continue its domination?

Thank you,

Hi AsymBacGuy
Your following sentence from (March 15, 2021, 11:43:38 pm) caused a pause.

"...it's quite interesting to notice that "homogeneous" sources of shuffling (i.e. same shoes shuffled manually or shuffle master machines working at the same deck) tend to provide more constant and regular median values. It's what we name as a "fair or strong" propensity going far from a perfect randomness..."

I've evaluated various shuffling methods for other variables. However, I have not considered the affect on Shift Median Values(SMV).

Good ideas/research AsymBacGuy


All the best,

Greetings Alrelax

on: March 15, 2021, 05:52:50 am »Insert Quote
"...More so in the first half of the shoe then the second half. And more so with the player side than the banker side. But don't take that for players side only, because it will happen to the banker side as well, just more-so with the player side.

Particularly the prelude will be extremely choppy or very much equal for a pretty large section..."
[/b]

In simplistic terms do you feel its partially because starting on the first draw(without knowing burn cards) and obviously unknown order, that all the GOOD cards for Player are still  100%  avail in the shoe, only at this exact moment(GOOD meaning cards more likely to prevent P from drawing 3rd card)?? Coupled with the slight P advantage of having first dibs and said GOOD cards. Obviously after P draws , then B might  make same proclamation depending on the card drawn by P. This very slight and briefly enjoyable stage for P immediately starts diminishing, though minutely,  from the first card onward. Yes?


b]Particularly the prelude will be extremely choppy or very much equal for a pretty large section..."
[/b][/color]
Do you agree this prelude(chop/equal) is also often seen immediately after the streaks are observed. Yes?

Thx as always.



All the best,

Thx Albalaha. I appreciate your various threads/sharing of research.


It seems much of your earlier research(e.g., >=3 years ago) focused more on Roulette et al EC games vs the recent attention to Bac(just my perception).

Q1: Do you indeed mostly focus on Bac?
Q2: Was it the lower H.E. vs say Roulette et al? or the overall outcomes profile for Bac that seemed a better fit for your research?  Other?
Q3: In earlier years did u also pursue other EC games while hunting for the HG?


I frequently see/hear statements from players referencing Bac b/p  in comparison with Craps Dp/Pl. I recognize that both sets
of outcomes are considered similar re: H.E. However, in the example of craps i do NOT see a comparable profile for PL vs DP re: overall outcomes profile as well as streaks. Though Bac B vs P very similar, IMO.


Thx in advance for your answers/addendum thoughts.

Happy Pi Day To All,

3/14/21