Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 21, 2024, 10:29:12 AM

No drama, no spam, no phishing, no posting unverified casino links, no posting links to businesses, etc., etc.

If you want to advertise and post banners, contact me.  If not, I highly suggest going to a forum such as WizardofVegas, etc.  or one of the others.   I am quite sure they will allow one to post all the links desired (LOL).   

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

Lol, I thought at first you were going to refer to Sputnik and Jimske, especially with their $15.00 and $50.00 flat bets, I'm just so jealous over.    Again, lol.

As you said; "Obviously each possible pattern ITLR will get the proportional values expected by math, yet we should be more interested about WHEN and HOW MUCH different points of the sequence will make room to some detectable patterns."

And there are plenty of shoes and countless sections of shoes that will and do give way to the different points of 'everything'.

When I used to research bac statistics a while back, the stats were generally a compilation 500,000 or 1,000,000 shoes.  At least the more serious ones, not the forum writer doing a few hundred shoes here and there, etc. 

500k shoes is about 40 Million hands and 1M shoes is about 80 Million hands played out. 

Just for sake of giggles, if you are wagering because of statistics, think about how many shoes/hands/events are in between all those "ITLR" numbers, etc. 

Lots of people playing cannot capitalize handsomely on streaks, extended chop chop, extended doubles or countless other events because of the drummed in belief of, "it can't or shouldn't happen" so they wager continuously for the cut and then when the cut comes, they go for the IAR, etc.  Or, they stop wagering all together.

People should think and think hard at the table and realize that the hands within a shoe (or 2 or 3 or 4, etc.,) at the bac table, are not regulated to fall within the statistical results published and found by the so called 'experts'.

Totally Unbelievable!  "Dear Judge, I was a police officer but I have a gambling addiction.  Please don't give me too many years in prison because I used to serve our community".  Yeah, Right. What a total menace to society that was a Gun assigned law enforcement officer.  IMO, put him in general population at a hard core prison and not some low level prison camp either.

"A Las Vegas police officer was sentenced Tuesday to 12 years in federal prison for stealing nearly $165,000 in a trio of casino heists, including one in which he was found guilty of brandishing a department-issued weapon."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/las-vegas-officer-gets-12-years-role-3-casino-heists-stealing-165k

What a wicked sky earlier tonight.  Completely black rolled in, over a beautiful bright clear sky.  Unique as well, was the UFO looking round opening.

"Whereas the former part of the comment above relies upon common sense and experience (and math), the second part rely upon math, that is by assuming a total randomness and independence of the outcomes being always EV-, a thing completely disappointed by our studies."

Please define the comment you are referring to.  Thanks. 

QuoteAsymBacGuy 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.

Absolutely!  And Absolutely Times a million reference those that will continuously wager for additional shoes to replicate what they just had.

What normally happens because most all have no MMM they stick to, is that all winnings and all their available risk capital goes right into the dealers rack in numerous subsequent shoes after those types of shoes. 

PLEASE NOTE:  I am writing from decades of experience in various areas of the country.  It is not a pitfall secluded to a certain small casino locale, that all types of players do not engage in a concrete MMM that will protect them and control them in multiple ways.

"Yep, I was talking about unfavourable opposite events, I'd guess your shoe is a paramount example of a strong FAVOURABLE situation to get the best about. 

BTW, you can't imagine how many posts of yours have improved our betting model."

Strong Favorable Situation.  Well.  Possibly, but that is an outta left field Bankers slam dunk, especially the latter part, 30 Bankers to a tiny 3 Players.  Only a few at the table really believed in the Bankers and most were wagering tiny bits of risk capital on Bankers and numerous others on the Players side to make its come back. 

Strong streaking and multiple streaks clumped together IMO is certainly not favorable, but does occasionally happen.

BUT, AS I DISCUSS WITH KUNGFUBAC, MY WAGERING STYLE WOULD BE TO QUICKLY HAVE POSITIVE RISK CAPITAL FROM A FEW WINS AND USE THAT TO WAGER, FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL STREES FREE, INTO SOMETHING THAT PAYS OFF HAND AFTER HAND (for a few hands) QUICKLY REALIZING MULTIPLE TIMES MY BUYIN AMOUNT.  Then apply my 1/3rd-1/3rd-1/3rd MMM to the win total at the end of the streaks or the shoe.

"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."

The above, as a norm.  But not as a guarantee of course.  And that is a reason so many didn't win anything on the shoe last week of 51B vs. 20P I posted.  And the 3 Bankers streaks were classically clustered/clumped.

https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=11733.msg72116;topicseen#msg72116

"The difference is that at baccarat we are not forced to bet a fkng dime, just let the house to confide about improbable events to happen for "long"."

Oh yeah!  But............On the flip side, if your not on it, you cannot win.

All midi/Macau style bac games, then and now, have every single card-every single deck replaced for every single subsequent shoe, period. 

Might hold true in poker, not in bac. 

At many of the casinos today, there is still player handled cards, but unlike the previous days of 'big table bac' the gamblers do not hold the shoe itself.n

Unlike Phil Ivy and Don Johnson, player handled cards could never ever lead to any advantage by marking them or anything similar. 

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. 

The tables were all two-sided with a capacity of 7 people each side, having their own plenty of space area.  No back betting, no handing money to another, no capping wagers, etc., etc.  There was one dealer standing that would call the cards, once the person that had the shoe slid the cards to the dealer standing.  Yes, each person physically had possession of the shoe and dealt the cards.  The person kept the shoe as long as that person made Banker winning hands, when the person made a players winning hand the shoe was passed to their right.  The person having the shoe could wager for Bankers or Players.

It was considered bad luck and uncool by all means to pass and not take the shoe, or pass the shoe if you made a Banker and didn't desire to deal additional hands.  If you were wagering for Banker, you would slide a card out of the shoe and to the dealer standing face down.  Then you would put the next card under the corner of the shoe face down.  Then you slide the next card for the players to the dealer face down, as well as another card for the banker under the corner of the shoe.  If you were wagering on Players side, you would slide the 2 face down Bankers cards under the shoe to the dealer and the dealer would slide you the Players two cards.

If no one was on players you could tell the dealer standing to flip the cards or hold them face down.  Then you would look at the bankers side cards you had wedged under the shoe.  On rare occasions at certain casinos, one could ask permission to pass the Bankers cards to another person.  If anyone was wager on the players side, then the dealer would slide them face down to whomever had the highest wager or whomever several said to pass them to.  Then you would expose the bankers side cards.

If needed, the dealer standing would call for a third card for the P or B or both.  Those would also go to whomever turned over the first two.

Shoe started in Seat 1 and travelled counterclockwise.  Where the shoe ended, the next shoe would begin in the next spot.  New cards of course each shuffle.  But a real shuffle, unwrap the new cards, mix-wash-shuffle. A true 20-30 mins between shoes easily.  Old cards put in a zip lock bag, marked, tagged and taken away. 

There were no electronic scoreboards.  Most all kept their score and notes on a house provided scorecard and decent pen.  Usually a two color pen at most places, blue and red ink.  Also, no side bets at all.  Only B, P and Tie. 

Most people were not playing a few hands by any means.  Sure a very limited amount of people would come on and play a small amount of hands, then leave, but not many.  Most of those type were frequenting the mini bac lower limit tables on the main floor.  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. 

Besides the dealer standing that would call and handle the cards, there would be two banker dealers seated with 2 completely independent chip racks.  One for each side of the table.  There would also be one floor person standing behind each side of the table, the entire shoe.  All dealers and floor people had 20-30 min breaks and got tapped out, etc. 

And as long as the person with the shoe was making Banker winning hands, no dealer or floor could go on break until the next winning player hand.  Same thing with a chip fill arriving at the table, shoe could not be brought in until the next winning player hand was made. 

Before the highest majority of all big bac tables were removed and replaced with minis, midi-Macau style tables, the people playing had the option of playing the big table mini style, where as one of the two seated chip rack dealers would deal the shoe and flip the cards, etc. 

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

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 05, 2024, 02:28:08 AMIn summary, W long clusters should be "gambled" just in very few situations and anyway always by not jeopardizing a previous profit or in order to recover promptly an actual loss, thus this is the exact opposite way recreational players like to do."

(The above needs to be seriously ingrained by 'real' players)

AND:

(I have found that my "Just One More" is a subjective way to pick out IAR events brewing to happen.  And remember, it also might be other events besides IAR.)



as.

QuoteWinning spots

There are three different ways to catch a W spot:

1- Hoping it'll come out as a "starting" spot

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

3- Considering it to come out again after a W spot (W cluster)

From a math point of view, such list doesn't make any sense as the W probability will remain 0.75 indipendently of what we're trying to dissect.

Actually (and fortunately) things doesn't correspond to those raw probabilities for each W scenario happening.
In fact even the first starting scenario mainly based upon "luck", itlr will form detectable W distributions needing quite time to be correctly grasped, many times by letting go those natural L clustered events to show up.

The third point seems to be quite straightforward but it is not, we reckon being the #1 reason why most players fail.

The second point needs a lot of time to provide real bettable spots, but by far will provide those sure strong EV+ situations completely denied by math (but not by statistics).
Remember that we do not want to win 100% of those relative rare allegedly EV+ spots, we'll always expect negative variance putting us into a harsh emotional status.

Yet, whenever a verified situation launched "infinite" times won't provide proportional math values, well we'd think to be in a very good shape to exploit an advantage.

More later

as.

1 & 3 go together for myself and I have profited nicely and smoothly with clear insight because of both of them merged at a live table.

You have touched upon a detailed post I have been working on!

Minor/Major problem with your 1-2-3 and catching a winning spot are many.

HOWEVER, 1–Single spot is easier, than 2-3-4-5, etc., I agree,  but the confidence and profitability is usually not available with just 1-ONE-a single wager here and there sporadically for numerous reasoning. 

But, and a huge "however" with detectable distributions remain with numerous wagers are needed for a good advantaged chance at profitability in a live game of baccarat. 

To myself, your 1 & 3 combined to a nice opportunity at times and those times it does, when I am on it, I progress heavy and fast and then pull down continual winnings. 

My reasoning is because change happens and will happen no matter what it is.  And when it does, it is a "FOLLOW ME" flag and reward.  Doesn't matter if it was supposed to produce what was presented or not. 

As you wrote in post #1043: "After all the game moves around more likely asymmetrical movements and less likely symmetrical lines, so we need to find out an asymmetrical random walk capable to catch more asymmetry than (virtual) symmetry."

The game of bac jumps around like a super addicted crack addict on their traditional binges! 

Bac shoes produce unknowns.  Period.  The trick is to identify something to follow or stick with whatever it is you can profit by.  As far as the sticking with a grind, boy—to me that is tough.  As far as identifying something to follow, that is where the money is for myself. Doesn't matter if that is a chop chop, doubles, triples, 1-2-3s, 1-2s, or streaking.  The pounce and the heavy positive progression with a solid concrete MMM to govern you, is the advantage I found after years of playing.

And, throw in what you wrote in post #1044:  "Betting few or very few hands is the key to success. Some shoes are unplayable."

Truly the whipped cream on top when you can follow that, know that, be conscious of those and governed by them as well.  Not always easy at a live table.

Lost the other pic somehow but here is one of them.  41B and 29P.  5 Fortune 7s with a fantastic back-to-back at the end.  Both 3rd cards for the bankers were 7s on top of zero.

F7s at hands: 8-10-18-70-71.