"Every plan has an inherent degree of risk. But risk is the price you pay for opportunity".

 A.J. Cooper played by Tom Selleck

"Each pattern or classes of patterns will fight against an opposite scenario, whenever something didn't happen so far, well, we simply assume it doesn't exist."

It doesn't exist, until it exists.  That is the smartest anyone can play the game, IMO and with extensive experience I state that.

And, RNG and computer generated trials, are not the same because they are usually, if not always set with a true 50/50.  And the real shoe of bac does not generate a true 50/50. 

A numeric sequence is said to be statistically random when it contains no recognizable patterns or regularities; sequences such as the results of an ideal dice roll or the digits of π exhibit statistical randomness.[1]
Statistical randomness does not necessarily imply "true" randomness, i.e., objective unpredictability. Pseudorandomness is sufficient for many uses, such as statistics, hence the name statistical randomness.
Global randomness and local randomness are different. Most philosophical conceptions of randomness are global—because they are based on the idea that "in the long run" a sequence looks truly random, even if certain sub-sequences would not look random. In a "truly" random sequence of numbers of sufficient length, for example, it is probable there would be long sequences of nothing but repeating numbers, though on the whole the sequence might be random. Local randomness refers to the idea that there can be minimum sequence lengths in which random distributions are approximated. Long stretches of the same numbers, even those generated by "truly" random processes, would diminish the "local randomness" of a sample (it might only be locally random for sequences of 10,000 numbers; taking sequences of less than 1,000 might not appear random at all, for example).
A sequence exhibiting a pattern is not thereby proved not statistically random. According to principles of Ramsey theory, sufficiently large objects must necessarily contain a given substructure ("complete disorder is impossible").

REASON I POSTED THAT:  "In a "truly" random sequence of numbers of sufficient length, for example, it is probable there would be long sequences of nothing but repeating numbers, though on the whole the sequence might be random."

The felt is reality and unlike sitting behind a computer or tablet or phone and playing free practice games with unlimited fake chips and no investment, it is a totally different world in a casino.  (Kind of liken it to sitting on a motorcycle in a artificial intelligence arcade game flying through the air doing a couple hundred miles an hour and being on a real motorcycle on the highway).

The two pictures below represent a little bit of what I'm referring to and trying to keep it simple, what I found to give me great advantage winning. 

The first picture represents $1,500 in black chips to my right.  2 stacks of $700 in green chips. And another $225 in green and $50 in red.  I have $200 on the felt on bankers, $30 on dragon bonus and $20 of Fortune 7.

The green chips would represent my buy-in I believe it was 1,400.  I am actively wagering with the rest of the green and red on the table and the felt.  The black is colored up winnings. 

The second picture represents black and purple on the rail, buy-in and winnings, several times my buy-in.  The $600+ on the felt is my 2nd wager, because I started at $300 (first wager of a series of 3) when I took the picture.  I happened to wager $100 on the tie, and I very seldom wager the tie, but did and won.  (You will note the dealers rack is just about cleaned out, but the rack became just about whole again before they called for a fill.  As sadly, most all gave back all their winnings.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 23, 2024, 09:22:22 PMCasinos are worried about certain $25/$50 bj players, not giving a fk about baccarat players betting thousands with a sure advantage.
LOL.
as.

Please read my post:

https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=11740.msg72156;topicseen#msg72156

Where I will answer why casino do not, never did and never will care about players winning thousands and thousands, even tens of thousands of dollars at baccarat. 

Before you can truly win, you must be able to compound positive results at the table and manage those results into profits. It goes a little bit further beyond winning a few hands or a bunch of hands, but how you schedule and plan what you are going to do with your win money while you are winning. And that is not easy because of the psychological affects winning has on all of us. 

How much-how long-decision making skill or hot lucky streaks-following others winning, and so many more will come in to play. 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.

We all have different goals and beliefs at the table. No matter how you win, when you win, you must hold portions of your wins and be able to get psychological and visual physical positiveness out of your wins. That will give you all good advantage over most anything else.

I have found that the highest majority of all baccarat players will wager more when they are losing than when they are winning. Cutting a long and complex explanation of the above statement, you must engage in a reversal of exactly that. Wagering smaller and then bigger. However the 'bigger' must not be your buy-in or stacked money. I will attempt to explain this as simple as I can.

You must also understand and be able to separate decision making for your bets and how to handle your winning wagers to give you advantaged winning.

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

THE ABSOLUTE OPTIMAL:
* Using only your winnings not your buy-in funds at some point.
* Applying protocol.

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. 

So I am governed by the losses of the wins, rather than always relying on my buy-in and stacked chips with really no protocols. Thus I refrain from believing my wins won't stop or really getting 'sucked in' and giving it all back and losing my buy-in as well.

I am writing this from years (decades) of brick and mortar casino experience. I constantly witness experienced Players, friends and those that have extremely great BetSelection and Decision ability and other positive traits.  However most all have little or no MMM and that is what is killing their ability to win more sessions by far than what they lose.

Explaining what I mean by wagering smaller than bigger and how to handle your winning wagers to give you advantaged winning.  A realistic example and on the side of seriousness is a $180 base wager. Instead of a flat betting, pull down, add a partial unit of win or two and then wager again, etc., etc., I have found a solid and quickly aggressive strategy would be the following:

$180 Base wager.  If won, move to second;
$360 Second wager.  If won, move to third;
$720 Third wager.  If won, STOP. 

$1,440  $180 Back into buy-in.  $1,260 play money.

Or Another Example Would Be:

$300 Base wager.  If won, move to second;
$600 Second wager.  If won, move to third;
$1,200 Third wager.  If won, STOP. 

$2,400  $300 Back into buy-in.  $2,100 play money.

NOTE:  Replenish buy-in with whatever drawdown might have occurred prior to the, 'STOP'.

(Below I will post a couple of pictures of actual chip stacks of mine at the table and maybe you can imagine the psychological and visual physical advantages they give me).  I separate my chips, I know why and how I earned them as well the representation of drawdown or win, and the amounts by protocol with a quick glance. 

Back To Protocol.  You get the idea. Two wins past your base wager, with your risk money is not far-fetched and dreaming at all. I've done quite well at it and although I do not keep session by session records, I know I am up overall since I started to employ that several years back. And it helps me extremely well over just grinding it down or betting blindly and not having any outcome planned for the win money except to win more. Again you should get the idea. 

The protocol you must stick to, is that of the base wager, your first wager. If you lose, you are losing the wager from your buy-in amount. Yes that is your risk money, at least it is mine. If you win, you are governed by your win and you are allowing your winnings to earn you more winnings and within a short period of time you will apply your MMM to the wins by strict protocol.  Within my protocol is, that of my further win and generally I am governed by losing a buy-in worth of winnings, is my tap on the shoulder to wait or stop the session.

The reason I choose to wager and draw down on my buy-in, is because it gives me a greater alertness to wagering as well as a greater consciousness to make fewer and quicker wagers especially when winning. I have found that reserving win money and only increasing a small percentage of my base wager, works against me from my goal of base wager +2 additional wins before reverting back to my base wager.

The hardest, the most difficult and the greatest notorious killer of most all baccarat players as I said, is their inability to apply a solid concrete MMM to their winnings. But also, their inability to understand a flat betting grind and its adverse affect on the player. As well, the player winning a few and believing in the continuation of a hot streak or skilled decision making trend, etc., and then a few losses occur with the players quick attempt to recover what they just so foolishly gave back.

Sure it's hard not to continuously wager larger and larger bets, but with my way I am risking minimal base wagers and reaching out for three wins, two after a base win and then scaling back to my minimal base risk again. No matter if I am drawing down on my buy-in or if I am using my base wager from sole winnings.

Baccarat is probably the easiest game in the casino to win as well as lose. But, if you win you better learn how to handle it and what advantage you can easily employ to hold it.  Be Smarter-Be Better. Realize the power of winning-realize the power that losing has over most everyone as well. If you really do, you will become a better player, a more successful player and much happier. I promise you that.

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.