As already sayed in my pages, if we'd run infinite times the same "quality factor" applied to certain patterns, we'll be able to ascertain the different but way controllable CFS getting values distant to a common independent binomial proposition.

Therefore there's nothing to guess or hope for, just landing our bets when average "ranges" are proven to be more likely to show up.

That's a completely different story than betting B because is math advantaged (for example) as it involves a deep study about how 312 or 416 cards can be arranged in form of patterns that in turn influence the CFS.

So in many situations the next hand or two next hands are featuring a diverse 0.50 probability technically involving an accelerating or slowing CFS.
When we consider pattern of the same nature being followed or not by the same pattern, we'll get a better idea about how much, on  average, the CFS works.

This translates into the asymmetrical/symmetrical nature of the patterns, being the purest and most detectable  form of the CFS propensity.

Asymmetrical patterns prosper about different quantities happening at an equal RESTRICTED number of propositions; once those restricted values are surpassed, we'll wait for a new different pattern to show up. And so on.

Take for grant that in the vast majority of the times symmetrical patterns coming out consecutively for long are a kind of "coincidental occurrence" or, worse, that the production isn't so random than what we think.

RNG instructed distributions (shuffling machines, for example) are not random by any means.
At least they are not fitting the asym/sym requisites we've assessed by collecting data from thousands and thousands of real shoes dealt by diverse than shuffling machines productions (anybody knows which brand we're talking about...lol).

Just to make an example, the ASSSSASSSSS sequence can only happen virtually at real random shoes and the same about the more appealing AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA sequence. Both successions were registered at SM shoes after a couple of hundreds of shoes played, but we haven't registered one at our live shoes sample.

RNG production seems to love the "extremes", we'll dare to say that it loves to fool the customers.
We are deadly sure that shuffling machines instructed by a RNG software do not produce random distributions (according to several math and statistical experts), so stay away from them even though some ploys can be adopted to fk them.

Finally, the first and second attempt made toward the asymmetry must rely upon an average A/S ranges, so if you don't see a single S event or at least an AAA cluster per every shoe dealt, start to consider that sequence as a total bighorn.s.h..it.

as.

The real advantage of the house

If baccarat tables would be fueled by the 1% or so math edge and considering that many players will get luxurious comps or rebates, etc. after their play, casinos would think twice to offer such a game.

The main factor casinos keep collecting serious money from baccarat is because players don't have a correct idea of how patterns are shaped in terms of quantity and quality.
Actually the quality factor very often goes down the drain, overwhelmed by the quantity factor that seems to be the only one to interest bettors.

I mean that the quantity is way more volatile than the quality and to set up a possible profitable long term plan we ought to rely upon quality.

In some sense quality remains a kind of costant parameter working for each shoe dealt (even though very often it seems to be overcome by quantities not fitting the average quality requisites) whereas most part of quantities are a by product of normal situations plus coincidental events "weirdly" prolonging more expected lines of distribution.

Sometimes it could be a viable option to follow "quantities" but IMO itlr the quality still reigns supreme over the vast majority of the outcomes.

More later

as.

"Good luck!"

Probably "good luck" are the most used words in Vegas casinos, obviously they don't mean nothing as there's no amount of luck capable to erase and let alone invert the HE.
Their real meaning would sound as "Thanks for joining the table, we love your money so much, try to lose it ASAP".

L. Pasteur stated that "luck favors prepared minds" but actually at baccarat luck favors nothing more than 1% of what we do itlr.

Winning and losing is a delicate process surely shifted toward the right L side for the HE impact but never related to "luck".
Once we've run thousands and thousands of shoes considered in their different productions and collected the data, we know that "good" or "bad" will whimsically alternate but itlr some distribution lines will show up more likely than others, so it's just the "permutation issue" that matters and we better make our plan more insensitive of the permutation factor than we can.

So when a distribution seems to get a kind of permutation not fitting the "average" parameters at some points, we better stop to bet toward what we're expected to face, let the hands go and wait for another shoe to be dealt.

By using a 0.75 probability and taking care of 4 hands dealt (ties ignored), the more probable expected scenarios are just these:

1- WWWL
2- WWLW
3- WLWW
4- LWWW

We see that all L events are isolated and just one possible sequence will get an isolated W (#3) anyway followed by a W cluster. All four sequences will produce a W cluster.

Now let's lower the W/L 3:1 ratio by increasing by one step the number of L events (2:2 W/L ratio):

1a) WWLL
2a) WLWL
3a) LWLW
4a) LLWW


Now the possible distributions  are going to get three L isolated events and two L clusters (3:2) and two W clusters as opposed to three W isolated events (2:3).
 
Those eight different situations are covering the vast majority of 0.75 p W/L patterns.

If the game would provide only such situations winning would be a piece of cake.

Thus let's raise by one step the number of L events always considered in terms of 4 hands dealt ranges.

1b) WLLL
2b) LLWL
3b) LWLL
4b) LLLW

Here there are no W clusters and just one L events is isolated (#3b); L clusters are 2:1 underdog to make L doubles (2b vs 1b and 4b).

Finally there are the most deviated W/L situations strongly shifted toward the W side for the way superior proportional probability to happen, that is WWWW and LLLL.

If you'd run infinite times such 4-hands scenarios, you'll see that 1 and 1a patterns will overwhelm the remaining possible situations with an important caveat that not only all 0.75 probability events will get the same distribution as some random walks will make more probable to encounter "unexpected" L back to back events after an unexpected L streak (equal or greater than 2) came out previously.

Asymmetrical and symmetrical patterns distribution along any shoe dealt

Process of dealing asymmetrical patterns is a sure fact but it's a finite and limited process.
Virtually we're expecting to face an astounding portion of asymmetrical situations, yet a fair number of patterns (more probable by coincidental factors) are going to produce symmetrical patterns.

Once the actual shoe we're playing at a symmetrical pattern had shown up by values not fitting the two more likely categories (1 and 1a), we better consider the "asymmetry" more as a potential wasted opportunity than a powerful winning opportunity. Now the symmetry constitutes a kind of "threat" especially if we try to limit it by common values (zero or one).

For that matter, RNG "instructed" shoes (shuffling machines) are particularly able to destroy this (unbeatable) plan, so dealing patterns featuring the most unlikely symmetrical deviations ever conceived by math.

Being this the case, do not bet a dime once a double or triple consecutive symmetrical pattern happened.
Let the shoe ends up and tell the house to GF.

Do not make the mistake to chase the symmetry when only a fool could lose by exploiting the asymmetry.

as.

Alrelax wrote:

IMO when the player applies his experience, knowledge and a rock solid Money Management Method with a complete clear frame of mind, he is advantaged over the casino and can take large profits from certain shoes.


Exactly! I would add at the end of your passage: ...at the same time putting maximum efforts to stay away from betting when things seem not to go in our way.

KFB wrote:

He does (the Tie bettor) a slow series of wagers following a slight Neg Progression, He said what happens is that often at the higher tier levels he will hit several winners within a short gap distance between (cluster). He then drops the tier level (even if he is not Net +) at that stage,...etc until in positive territory.
He utilizes a very large bank roll to wager ratio/ doesn't mind using it. He stated once that Tier 13 was the most extreme level reached before + again. I do not know the number of wagers in each tier and what the % is between tiers.

If this player attracted your attention he deserves some credit.

IMO the problem is about "triggers" that I find more consistent by attacking the Tiger bet (for example) as here we have a valuable impact of 6s first and then of 8s/9s. Despite Tiger bet(s) involve a superior HE than ties.

Thus by wagering ties we're compelled to consider the results in form of mere "Tie" or "No tie" despite the Tie general probability to occur is almost double than the Tiger bet.

On the other end and just for these last mathematical considerations, it should be more probable (sooner or later) to encounter tie gaps lower than 1:9.5 intertwined by larger "no tie" ranges that naturally must create the conditions to get more ties than expected once a new tie shows up.

It someway reminds me one paper made by D Brooks about Probability in decline (2010) after having analyzed a Spencer-Brown old study (1957).
Conclusions of Brooks work were that at gambling no help could be extracted by those considerations, yet and as always we never know.


Later we'll see how much "disturbing variables" will affect our long term profits.

as.   

Frankly, I can't see how one could lose a lot by taking care of the asym/sym feature traced here.

Maybe asymmetry stalls (meaning it could be quite undetectable for some shoes) but more shoes are played (or observed) higher will be its detectability considered by frames.

Present me some shoes where you got the perception that asymmetry would succumb to symmetry.
We'll take care of the possible bettable spots together.

as. 

Well sayed.

If we're losing our mind is imperfectly oriented to chase "more normal situations" happening in a row to get our money back, instead we should be more focused not to lose more bucks.

The same when we're winning, the world seems to be positively shifted to our favor, but most of the times it takes just two-three wrong hands to give back most of our profit and resetting the mind is not an easy task.

Casinos are totally insensitive of emotional issues, unfortunately players do.

OoOoO

The asymmetrical/symmetrical nature of the productions give us valuable hints to estimate when and how much, on average, winning or losing events (streaks) show up or stand.

I dare to say that once we've run and registered thousands of shoes, it's virtually impossible to lose a lot or, on the other part, to easily get "sky's the limit" sessions.

We made an experiment by running 20 different random walks applied to the original BP sequence and not surprisingly the asymmetrical nature of most patterns overwhelmed (by values capable to invert the HE) the symmetrical counterpart.

Obviously it's not that easy to find out which random walk gets the best asym features, let alone to build such 20 different r.w. lines in practice, yet we've reached the conclusion that it's way better to bet toward asymmetry than symmetry, especially and foremost when different patterns show up.

Another interesting aspect to take care of is that per every shoe dealt in the same circumstances, asymmetrical or symmetrical patterns stop their homogeneous lenght of apparition by more probable values, especially at a couple of random walks utilized.

In a word and considering 1st winning attempts, each shoe is way less likely to produce long (greater than 3) AS patterns followed by the same or greater S counterpart and vice versa.
Meaning that each first attempt vs everything else will get a kind of further "asymmetrical probability" between wins and losses.

That give us a strong long term advantage, even if it's complicated to be ascertained and adding to the features already discussed.

Suppose to get a string of first winning attempts equal or greater than 3, our data suggest it'll be more probable to get subsequent losing patterns inferior than 3, so negating a further "so called" symmetry between second level patterns. Of course by levels superior than expected math values.

See you next week

as. 

Hi KFB and Al, thanks!

I've recently witnessed three consecutive ties in a row getting a 0 point (6-5-9, J-2-8; six zero value cards, K-3-7 10-6-4) a kind of super unlikely event.
I know that somewhere there's the option to bet a 0 tie...just wondering how much money could be won here.

I agree about the importance of events "clumping", honestly I still don't see reasons to bet ties no matter how card ranks are diluted or concentrated in the playable deck but maybe I'm wrong.
   
Yes, a deck particularly rich of even cards make more probable the tie apparition (John May) but real valuable opportunities are so rare that we better take more "imperfect" approaches.

Finally, yes rare shoes are so asymmetrically distributed that even the simple BP predominance will take the lead over every other sophisticated or not strategy.
Shoes as the one provided by Al with a proper multiple players action are the only ones capable to literally empty the dealer's tray.

as.

Second winning attempt

Second winning attempts move around a kind of opposite probability seen at the first W attempts as the main asymmetrical force was somewhat exhausted after the first step.
That means that after the first attempt had failed (fictionally or for real, it doesn't make any difference over our long term results), univocal winning sequences are supposed to stop sooner or later so conceding fair room to get a symmetrical pattern.

Once second winning attempts had surpassed the one or two consecutive winning patterns, we'd better wager toward the symmetry. If the winning streaks prolong beyond the two level, we'll wait another "second winning attempt" situation. And so on.

Summary

Cards are arranged to more likely produce back to back asymmetrical quality patterns (singles, doubles and triples) than symmetrical ones.
Since just one card or other incidental factors can make a strong impact over the short term outcomes, we must accept the concept of a "systematic error" that itlr won't make any difference.

Once a given pattern (single, double or 3/3+ streak) failed to fit the first step asymmetrical requisite, the problem shifts into how many asymmetrical hands come out at the second possible asymmetrical step. Our data suggests that the second winning attempt directed to get an asymmetrical back to back pattern will be more probable restricted to the 1 or 2 level.

The independence of bac results

Experts telling you that each hand is a new hand (so completely undetectable) or, even worse, that baccarat is a mere coin flip game are just fooling you, basically considering the next hand as a completely new hand coming out from a perfect independent model (an astoundingly big.horn.stuff), moreover humiliating scientists as RVM or M. V. Smoluchowski.

In fact just the symmetry/asymmetry factor will get us valuable hints to disprove their claims as there are no many card combinations capable to transform a sure asymmetrical card rank distributions into strong steady symmetrical results happening for long.

Therefore we'll get plenty of situations to benefit from a sure indeniable verified EV+, it's just a matter of how much we want to be advantaged over the house.
Such task needs a lot of patience, only people playing baccarat to pay the bills know what I'm talking about.

as.

First, Congratulations to Michael Mizrachi that of course won the WSOP Main Event making history!!!

Back to baccarat.

First attempt is particularly sensitive of its pattern shapes happening along the course of multiple shoes, meaning that it's not the actual lenght or absence that counts but the quality of the back-to-back scenarios considered by isolated and clustered events.
The sort of "binomial probability" is now way more restricted than expected by common math laws, furthermore endorsed by a slight propensity to show up by long term greater numbers than the everything else world.

Therefore on average we'll expect a first winning attempt or a clustered first winning pattern happening by ratios quite distant from a kind of indepedent binomial model. Hence more detectable. 

In a word, on average there are more very slight shifted productions privileging first winning attempts than everything else, but more importantly the RTM effect will get an interesting power when things seem to be "too symmetrically" oriented from the start by taking innumerable "first winning attempts" that failed to be clustered for "long".

The possible reason is that asymmetry works better in the early stages of back to back patterns formation than after a given number of failed first attempts.
We've seen that just one card could transform a sure asymmetrical propensity into an unexpected strings of symmetrical situations and the process is slightly aggravated when first attempts didn't come out clustered immediately or very soon.

More later (second winning attempts)

as.

Baccarat is a dynamic probability game where each hand is somewhat related to the past and when it seems it doesn't is because too many (unlikely) coincidental results happen and we've seen that just one hand could transform a more likely line into an unexpected one.
Obviously and since we can't rely upon a verified math advantage, our action must be approximated by considering more likely situations (ranges) and the asym/sym tool is one of the best to assess more probable ranges happening along the course of a shoe.

Suppose we have devised the asym/sym nature of some patterns of interest and a shoe went as (W= first winning attempt and L= anything else):

L-L-W-L-L-W-W-W-L-W-L-W-L

Even if W<L, we find bettable spots where things are suppsoed to change. Notice that W isolated events are 3:1 than W clusters, yet isolated L events are equal to L clustered events. Finally no L streak went past than two.

Another shoe:

W-W-L-L-L-L-W-W-W-W-L-W-W-W-W-W-L-L-L

Now W>L (11: yet the above propensity to get short L clusters went down the drain.
So what seemed to fail at the previous shoe (W clusters, short L sequences) now becomes a kind of opposite world.

A third shoe:

W-L-W-L-W-W-W-W-W-L-W-W-L-L-L-L

W/L is 9:7, W clusters come out by the same amount than W isolated events, isolated L events/clustered L events ratio is 3:1.

More shoes:

W-L-W-L-W-W-L-W-W-W-W-L-W-L

L-L-W-W-L-L-W-L-L-L

W-L-L-W-W-L-W-W-W-L-W-W

W-W-W-W-W-L-W-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-L

L-W-W-W-L-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-W-L-W-W

W-L-L-W-W-L-L-L-W-W-W-L-L-W-L-L-L

W-L-W-L-L-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-L-L-L-L-L

L-W-L-W-L-L-L-L-L-L-L

W-L-L-W-W-L-W-L-L-L-W-L-W-L-L-W

L-L-L-W-L-W-W-L-L-L

W-L-W-L-W-W-W-W-W-L-W-W-L-W-L

W-L-L-W-W-W-W-W-L-L-L-L-L-L-W

L-L-W-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-W-W-L

W-L-L-L-L-L-L-L-W-W-L-W-L

W-W-W-W-L-W-W-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-W-L-L

L-L-W-L-W-L-L-W-L-W-L-W-W-W-W-L-L-W-W-L-L

W-W-L-L-W-W-L-W-L-W-W-L-L-W

W-W-L-L-W-W-W-L-L-L-W-L-L-L-L (11.037)


Now pretend to get fictional various players registering conseutive losses at different W/L patterns, for example:

a- First player will bet toward W clusters, getting W isolated events as enemy;

b- Second player will bet toward L clusters, getting L isolated events as enemy.

Greater will be the negative deviations before betting (especially when coming out at both players' action) higher will be our edge as a moderate/strong deviation is kind of insensitive of the possible negative permutations.
Remember the the best way to get an edge without risking our bankroll is by flat betting.

That's just the first winning attempt, next week we'll see about the second winning (or recovering) step.

as.

BTW, best luck to Michael Mizrachi, WSOP Main Event finalist and aiming for the prestigious bracelet and $10 millions first prize.

as. 

First winning attempt

If we use two bets towards the asymmetrical formation of certain events, we'll see that it won't so easy to win the first step several times in a row.
The problem is magnified at the very first attempt of any shoe, up to the point that we consider it just a pure gambling spot, so no getting us any possible edge.
Things begin to change when we've collected a fair number of 1st attempts vs anything else situations as average statistical distributions help us to define whether 1st spots should be more likely or not to show up.

As always our attention should be directed toward those 1st attempt shapes (isolated or clustered) and naturally being particularly focused about their absence.
In a word about their range of apparition per every shoe dealt.

Since the bac production is asymmetrical by any means, we'll expect asymmetrical shapes even at the infinite pattern considerations we could register.
It's very unlikely but we could find ourselves to face a shoe completely empty of first winning attempts (meaning that patterns are either a mix of asymmetrical events at the second step or symmetrical).

more later

as.

Hi KFB, welcome back! 

*I will elaborate more later on some of his triggers. He tracked several triggers/ like me felt "gaps between" events are important to track(e.g. The event gaps' contraction and expansion.)

Yes, please, it would be quite interesting!

I like the term "Event gaps' contraction and expansion"

It could be someway intended as the Alrelax "sections" or my "ranges".

as.

Note: if RNG shuffling machine productions will make more probable long S patterns than average, we might think to bet toward S than A after a S happened, at least at the very first step of the 2-level betting.

Nothing wrong with that, but by doing so we're somewhat denying what really get us an advantage over the house, that is that A patterns are "more due" at many shoe's spots.
After all and most of the times A patterns will rely upon the asymmetrical distribution of the cards (and so of the outcomes) thus privileging the many "predominant" situations each shoe will present.

This will transfer the problem not about the real asymmetry or symmetry of the pattern (needing two consecutive hands to be ascertained), just about the winning probability of the first attempt vs anything else.
A topic we'll see in a couple of days.

as.

S and A patterns

Paradoxically at baccarat we find ourselves in a way better shape whenever itlr some patterns will slight privilege the side we are not interested to bet (S) as the A counterpart is more entitled to happen somewhere at various levels.
Providing to properly consider the S clustering effect that happened previously in the shoe.

That means that a real randomly shuffled shoe will present a slight greater number of S isolated events than S clusters (capable to erase and invert the HE), so making as profitable a stu.pi.d wagering plan oriented to bet A after any isolated S.

Casinos are not there to concede the players any possible edge, thus the use of shuffling machines instructed to deal RNG distributions that are not random by definition.
Now the S isolated propensity will go down the drain so basically the problem will be transformed about WHEN S events will shift into more probable A patterns.
After all the vast majority of bac players cannot give a damn about the importance of selectively wagering toward asymmetry than symmetry.

In fact real random binomial propositions are characterized by a fair degree of asymmetry, making more and more improbable (by increasing the number of trials) to get the same amount of specific different patterns roaming or crossing around the 0 neutral point. Especially when back to back considered.

Furthermore, it's theorically unlikely to get many consecutive S patterns when finite parameters are involved and when an asymmetrical results game (as baccarat) is considered, unless (but partially) while unrandomly distributed.

In our opinion RNG distributions had demonstrated to deal a greater than average amount of S clustered patterns or, worse, to get abnormal S/A shoe gaps privileging the left S side.
That is the game seems to "stall" too many times than expected by a real random production.

Most of the times RNG productions tend to shift S patterns toward A patterns after a 1-level clustered S-S situation, yet the general probability to get long S consecutive lines (greater than 1-level) seems to be nearly 5-fold more probable at RNG productions than at a real random model. So telling us that the shoe featuring "too many S patterns" is just a BS shoe. That is completely unplayable.

Probably the S/A patterns ratio is one of the easiest indicators to ascertain whether we're facing a real random model or a kind of bighorn.stuff production where a natural asymmetry is denied by a weird card distribution.

See you in a couple of days.

as.