Here is part of the question from a valued forum member:
B) Where do you anticipate B runs? within a typical shoe? IOW what catches your eye to start anticipating a B run so that u are on it earlier? Not necessarily huge streaks but im speaking of >=4 streaks.
C)re:transition points or sections ending and a new section beginning. I think I understand your teachings re: this occurs at approx ever 18-21 hands and agree with this increment. However, Im not real clear on how to determine the next section(or trend) has indeed started. Therefore , as I think u will agree, a huge difference if we can anticipate and possibly get on a 7ish streak of something at say spot 2 or 3 vs spot 4,...etc.
Please elaborate anywhere u can as I always value your opinions.
e.g., What is your hierarchy when u have several hypotheses activated at same decision point(i.e., Pattern should continue based on current profile, however, that side also has a Panda 8 or 3c7,...etc and would suggest the opp side is preferable...etc)?? IOW what is your hierarchy of triggers 'generally" speaking such as A trumps B trumps C,,.etc.??
Okay, I will attempt some answers:
Baccarat shoes are all weak or a combination of weak and strong. Seldom and extremely rare they would be strong for the whole shoe and sitting down when we did we ruled out that because it was not. We all have different an defensive definitions of what weak and strong is in baccarat. I've talked about this many times in my writings on the Forum.
If you play chops you will lose on twos. If you play twos you will lose on chops. If you play 3s you will lose if it fails to make a 3rd, etc., etc. Ones, twos and threes all grouped closely together are extremely hard to capitalize on if you believe in anything else in baccarat and so on.
This particular shoe we sat down in Section B right at the end of the three doubles on hand 34, when It produced a Natural 9 Player over a Natural 8 Banker. We did note there were no F7s out as well.
We started wagering for a continuation of doubles. We lost as a natural came out for Banker with the chop to hand 35. We did wager for a player on hand 36 and continued on hand 37. Then we switched to banker and also wagered for an F7 on hand 38 and it was beautiful. Player had a 9 and a 5 and Banker had a 6. Player flops a 6 and Banker flops an Ace. Banker F7, first one.
We figured a double was going to appear but we had the strong belief and we have observed and know from years of playing the highest majority of the times it does cut to the player right after the F7 appears. It did not. Then a 3rd Banker came out. We actually wagered for a player on that hand. Then we switched back to Banker for a 4th Banker win, but not with the belief what was going to happen happened.
Once it made the 4th Banker we were totally convinced it was going to run down and match the 5 players with two ties in the beginning of the shoe. Everyone else at the table wagered heavy on the player side. Then the 6th and 7th Banker came out. Then another F7 Banker on the 8th Banker hand and then a natural followed for the 9th Banker. Then there was another F7 on the 10th Banker hand and then two more naturals on the 11th and 12th Banker wins.
We rode it and we used positive progression on the 5th and 6th Banker wins and then just pulled down the winnings on the rest of them and we lost the last one of course. All the while the entire table was wagering heavy on the players to appear and commenting how the players side has to come back and all kinds of other comments attempting to change the shoe. I've said it countless times before, capitalize on what is happening and do not attempt to change the shoe or include some type of mechanical scheduled wagering triggers to wager on.
Most of the non natural Banker win hands were three card eights and nines versus the players two card 6 or 7. Yes if you looked at the point value of the cards most of the time the players first two cards would have won and only a very limited amount of cards being flopped for the 3rd Banker card could have beaten the player which was the case here.
At the end of the Banker run it was Banker 27 vs Players 18. We actually did think the Player was going to catch up and equal out, but we were not really betting that way heavy. Most people were. Player made the next straight 4 with three Naturals with 2 of them being natural 9s over Banker natural 8s.
We wagered two times for Bankers on the first two players right after the banker run and then we switched to the players side. We won the third and fourth player wagers, so we lost one. The frustration started to set in as we did wager for the fifth player and then a natural for the banker came out.
We recognized quickly and regrouped, we decided to wager every hand until the end of the shoe for Banker. So there were 22 hands left and we won 11 plus another F7 on the banker side and we lost eight on the players side. Normally we would have just stopped after the 12 Banker run but we decided not too because we just sat down.
As far as your question about banker runs and what we look for, in this particular case I would say it was that 4th Banker win and there was only the 5 player and 2 tie mini run in the beginning of the shoe. As well there was a good-sized stretch of 1s and 2s with a couple of 3s. This is coupled with another fact that I've said many times on 0-1-2-3 ties after many hands are out and with a low amount of ties how the shoe holds and continues presenting what it has been presenting. This is pertaining to mini groups and clusters within each section as you will see is exactly what it did. All of those things convinced us both to wager on the banker run continuing past that fourth one and stick with it. Heck all we would have lost was one wager if that did fizzle out because we would not have chased it and stayed on the bank for the bank to come back. But everyone else did on the player and stuck with the player almost no matter what.
The first section line was drawn just before the 3 bankers because it changed from the four chops. Plus it was a third Banker and it was the first time a third bank was made. The second section line was drawn just before the bank run at the time it made the 4th Banker.
[attachimg=2]
If we were going to do a Section D at the casino we would have put it after 4 players and the 3 bankers after the 12 Bank Run, as I show you below but we did not do it that way. I'm doing it here just for an example. And the reasoning would have been because it was fizzling out and going back to 1s, 2s and 3s rather than anything strong and you have to concentrate within a Section as it's happening and sometimes break down a section further into a mini Section or Clump and therefore playing what is being presented rather than attempting to change the shoe to what you want. Psychologically it helps.
[attachimg=3]
Locations of Banker F7s
[attachimg=4]
B) Where do you anticipate B runs? within a typical shoe? IOW what catches your eye to start anticipating a B run so that u are on it earlier? Not necessarily huge streaks but im speaking of >=4 streaks.
C)re:transition points or sections ending and a new section beginning. I think I understand your teachings re: this occurs at approx ever 18-21 hands and agree with this increment. However, Im not real clear on how to determine the next section(or trend) has indeed started. Therefore , as I think u will agree, a huge difference if we can anticipate and possibly get on a 7ish streak of something at say spot 2 or 3 vs spot 4,...etc.
Please elaborate anywhere u can as I always value your opinions.
e.g., What is your hierarchy when u have several hypotheses activated at same decision point(i.e., Pattern should continue based on current profile, however, that side also has a Panda 8 or 3c7,...etc and would suggest the opp side is preferable...etc)?? IOW what is your hierarchy of triggers 'generally" speaking such as A trumps B trumps C,,.etc.??
Okay, I will attempt some answers:
Baccarat shoes are all weak or a combination of weak and strong. Seldom and extremely rare they would be strong for the whole shoe and sitting down when we did we ruled out that because it was not. We all have different an defensive definitions of what weak and strong is in baccarat. I've talked about this many times in my writings on the Forum.
If you play chops you will lose on twos. If you play twos you will lose on chops. If you play 3s you will lose if it fails to make a 3rd, etc., etc. Ones, twos and threes all grouped closely together are extremely hard to capitalize on if you believe in anything else in baccarat and so on.
This particular shoe we sat down in Section B right at the end of the three doubles on hand 34, when It produced a Natural 9 Player over a Natural 8 Banker. We did note there were no F7s out as well.
We started wagering for a continuation of doubles. We lost as a natural came out for Banker with the chop to hand 35. We did wager for a player on hand 36 and continued on hand 37. Then we switched to banker and also wagered for an F7 on hand 38 and it was beautiful. Player had a 9 and a 5 and Banker had a 6. Player flops a 6 and Banker flops an Ace. Banker F7, first one.
We figured a double was going to appear but we had the strong belief and we have observed and know from years of playing the highest majority of the times it does cut to the player right after the F7 appears. It did not. Then a 3rd Banker came out. We actually wagered for a player on that hand. Then we switched back to Banker for a 4th Banker win, but not with the belief what was going to happen happened.
Once it made the 4th Banker we were totally convinced it was going to run down and match the 5 players with two ties in the beginning of the shoe. Everyone else at the table wagered heavy on the player side. Then the 6th and 7th Banker came out. Then another F7 Banker on the 8th Banker hand and then a natural followed for the 9th Banker. Then there was another F7 on the 10th Banker hand and then two more naturals on the 11th and 12th Banker wins.
We rode it and we used positive progression on the 5th and 6th Banker wins and then just pulled down the winnings on the rest of them and we lost the last one of course. All the while the entire table was wagering heavy on the players to appear and commenting how the players side has to come back and all kinds of other comments attempting to change the shoe. I've said it countless times before, capitalize on what is happening and do not attempt to change the shoe or include some type of mechanical scheduled wagering triggers to wager on.
Most of the non natural Banker win hands were three card eights and nines versus the players two card 6 or 7. Yes if you looked at the point value of the cards most of the time the players first two cards would have won and only a very limited amount of cards being flopped for the 3rd Banker card could have beaten the player which was the case here.
At the end of the Banker run it was Banker 27 vs Players 18. We actually did think the Player was going to catch up and equal out, but we were not really betting that way heavy. Most people were. Player made the next straight 4 with three Naturals with 2 of them being natural 9s over Banker natural 8s.
We wagered two times for Bankers on the first two players right after the banker run and then we switched to the players side. We won the third and fourth player wagers, so we lost one. The frustration started to set in as we did wager for the fifth player and then a natural for the banker came out.
We recognized quickly and regrouped, we decided to wager every hand until the end of the shoe for Banker. So there were 22 hands left and we won 11 plus another F7 on the banker side and we lost eight on the players side. Normally we would have just stopped after the 12 Banker run but we decided not too because we just sat down.
As far as your question about banker runs and what we look for, in this particular case I would say it was that 4th Banker win and there was only the 5 player and 2 tie mini run in the beginning of the shoe. As well there was a good-sized stretch of 1s and 2s with a couple of 3s. This is coupled with another fact that I've said many times on 0-1-2-3 ties after many hands are out and with a low amount of ties how the shoe holds and continues presenting what it has been presenting. This is pertaining to mini groups and clusters within each section as you will see is exactly what it did. All of those things convinced us both to wager on the banker run continuing past that fourth one and stick with it. Heck all we would have lost was one wager if that did fizzle out because we would not have chased it and stayed on the bank for the bank to come back. But everyone else did on the player and stuck with the player almost no matter what.
The first section line was drawn just before the 3 bankers because it changed from the four chops. Plus it was a third Banker and it was the first time a third bank was made. The second section line was drawn just before the bank run at the time it made the 4th Banker.
[attachimg=2]
If we were going to do a Section D at the casino we would have put it after 4 players and the 3 bankers after the 12 Bank Run, as I show you below but we did not do it that way. I'm doing it here just for an example. And the reasoning would have been because it was fizzling out and going back to 1s, 2s and 3s rather than anything strong and you have to concentrate within a Section as it's happening and sometimes break down a section further into a mini Section or Clump and therefore playing what is being presented rather than attempting to change the shoe to what you want. Psychologically it helps.
[attachimg=3]
Locations of Banker F7s
[attachimg=4]