Thanks KFB, I appreciate it and I'm looking forward to your incoming comments!

I'll add just this.

A "linear" strategy suggesting to always bet A vs S is not going anywhere as sooner or later we'll catch a SSSSSS..sequence or anyway a shoe or multiple shoes feauturing plenty of S.
On the other end even A clusters could suffer from consecutive isolated A but in the majority of the times such unusual "chopping" A line easily alternate with single S (A-S-A-S-A-S..).

Then by waiting S clusters of any lenght (and you'll have to wait quite a fair time to cross them), we know that more room is conceded to more natural A clusters (of any lenght) as a 3:1 probability can suffer harsh situations but not standing for long time, especially whether the production is RNG dictated.
In any case this doesn't fall into a gambler's fallacy concept, otherwise anybody would be enticed to wager only for symmetrical patterns so breaking down the house well more (and easier) than what MIT team did at bj.

Casinos like randomness and randomness dislikes patterns.
     
More later

as.

Suppose we are betting randomly the pattern #2, #5 , #8 and #15 of the Big Road. (two time pattern #15 hadn't come out):

S-S-A-A
A-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
S-S-S
A-A-S-A
S-A-S-A
A-A-A-S
A-A-A-S
A-S-A-A
S-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
A-A-A-S
A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A
A-A-A-S
S-A-S

What and when to bet at these successions?

If S= -3 and A= +1, before vig any line will get:

-4
+4
0
+4
+4
0
+4
+4
-9
0
-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+4
0
0
-5

Total= +2

If adopting the strategy to play A-A one time and A after S one time we'll get:

(-3)(+1) = -2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
-3
+2
(+1)(-3)(+1) = -2
+1
+1
(-3)(+1)(+1) = -1
+2
+2
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
(+1)(-2) = -1

Total= +15

Therefore if we'd assume a A=0.75 p and S=0.25 p, the expected A/S ratio is 3:1. So it's the average more likely ratio while considering four A/S decisions (when applicable).
Thus when an average ratio shows up no possible permutation will deny us to make a +1 or more probable a +2 profit.

In fact a single S among three As cannot produce any loss.

Within sets of 4 resolved hands, losing streaks can only come out when two or more S happens.

Anyway 4 S are just a loss of -3
3 S produce a loss of -6, -6, -3, -2.
2 S produce a loss of -2, -5, -6, -1, -2; and a win of +2.

0 S are always a +1 win.

Paradoxically we are in less worse shape when 4 S are showing up than when 3 S are coming out.
2 S are really hurting us just in two out of six possible permutations; in the remaining cases we'll get a -2 or -1 controllable loss and even a win of 2 units.

Run this situation infinitely (that here were taken randomly even if some positive variance happened) and let's see how many 4-decision sets are getting the negative 3 S or, at a lesser degree, the 2 S negative enemy.

A more aggressive plan needing a very large bankroll would be to double the A-A bet and the S-A bet after two or three losses in a row with the addition of betting the A patterns until they'll stop and until the deficit is recovered.

A plan at least 50x fold better than betting Banker in whatever sauce.

as.

@lovepreaks, regarding our post #1297

Each shoe will form a sequence of Asymmetrical (A) and Symmetrical (S) patterns; for each category  A could stand one time, two times or even for the entire shoe (a thing that happens not so rarely).
The same about S, but since we have chosen the 0.75 probability to define A and S, S successions are obviously way shorter and normally less clumped (so rarely going past three in a row).

Put into numbers and assigning A(+1) and S(-3), what we're basically looking for first is any +2 (+1+1, that is A-A) or -2 (-3+1, that is S-A) sums. Of course at both cases the first number is the unbettable trigger.

If a longer than two S sequence come out, we put a limit of interest at (S-S) meaning that so far we aren't interested about values more negative than -6.

Most players like to bet towards symmetrical patterns because asymmetrical ones tend to be perceived as "too chaotic" so more undetectable.
But it's not what we are betting but WHEN.

OoOoO

The simplest tool to ascertain the "average" distribution of an asym/sym pattern are doubles.
Doubles are the perfect pattern to look for as they are the most likely bac pattern occurrence.

If you think the actual production you're playing at seems to be "undetectable" try to register some hundreds of shoes, then take care of how many consecutive doubles had happened on average.
If isolated doubles and two consecutive doubles vs superior double clusters are accounting for at least a 76.5% you'll be in good shape. 

Consider more than one random walk before reaching conclusions.

You won't bet many hands for sure and a natural variance is expected but you know to play with an advantage.
Moreover since the primary goal for any serious bac player is to win money and not getting thrilled by the possible volatile favourable circumstances, you can easily track how many times a first/second/third or fourth bet had won and acting accordingly.

For example, at any level of the four progressive multilayered bets you could respectively raise the standard bet by a 10% after a win and by a 5% after a loss.

I could provide a list of casinos worldwide where such a simple strategy will 100% work so far (providing to take care of multiple random walks) where, of course, shoes are machine shuffled.

Notice that the slight double propensity toward asymmetry is the best situation to hope for among the three different patterns examined (single, doubles and triples) even if considered by two S steps.

as.

@lovepreaks

Do you have a defined probability model for pattern transitions—particularly from asymmetric to symmetric (A→S) or symmetric to asymmetric (S→A)?
For example, is a 0.75 probability for A→S transitions a reasonable estimate?

Since we need to place two bets to define the asymmetry (if the first bet was lost), yes we'll expect A to get a 0.75 p, so the A/S ratio should be 3:1.
That's in theory because in many RNG productions the number of S is way higher than 0.25(!).

Nonetheless S status is more frequent but tend to change faster than at other shufflings.
Maybe betting A-A one time is the safest pattern to look for, then betting A after S-S.
 

Given that the same P/B sequence can sometimes generate multiple A/B outcomes, what specific rule or method do you use to assign A or B in those ambiguous cases?


Not sure if I intendend well your question.
Derived roads are still the simplest way to get A/B sub successions, as you know well only long streaks will make every random walk to be homogeneously shaped.

When in doubt to bet between two or more lines, I'm not betting at all. Anyway as a general rule of thumb I'll prefer the line presenting a triple and not singles and/or doubles.
Moreover the line featuring many streaks and few singles do not elicit any first bet (that would be a sudden win).
So the line that collected more first winning bets than second winning bets is priviliged.
Then there are other considerations to be made.   

When identifying a potential betting spot, does the row position on the tote board (e.g., first row vs. deeper rows) affect your confidence or decision-making?
If so, how do you weigh that spatial factor?


Space distribution of the outcomes is the most important tool to master IMO.
It's the CFS working at different velocities but with a kind of "average steps".
 
I know a couple of successful players adopting a pure anti-streak game (so basically toward a positive CF speed) capable to get rid of many long unfavourable streaks by making considerations about how hands went in that specific (so far short) streak.
They start to consider betting only from row #2 or #3, sometimes even #4 so the shoe is halved or  quartered or even more reduced. Then only three or four bets are placed. 


How were the five betting trigger patterns developed and tested?
Were they based on statistical simulations, real shoe analysis, or other forms of data modeling?


We have never utilized simulators, just real live shoes listed by different forms of shuffling. We own a casino's shuffling machine too.   

Beyond the five primary triggers, have you developed any secondary filters or conditions to avoid high-risk zones or long losing streaks?

There are 4/5 different strategies we currently use and of course we try to adopt the ones performing best at the actual shoe.

Unfortunately losing streaks happen and MUST happen.
We are sure to play with an edge but nobody knows how the actual shoe is arranged. That's why we make very few bets and play a lot of shoes.

We try to avoid to play at tie rich shoes or when many hands are resolved by 6 cards (it's the same math concept).

Another tool we look for is the number of naturals happening so far.
We prefer to face an average value of them (around 1/3 of total hands as you know).

Take care!

as.

When you compare those two different plans (AS/S patterns vs anything else) applied to a RNG sequence, you'll see that an asymmetrical pattern MUST COME OUT and whenever it (temporarily) won't it's because some weird card distributions happened.

I mean that per every set of symmetrical options whatever intended, one side must be get a sort of discrepancy over the other one, maybe not now but surely by running the same proposition several times.

The stupi.d RNG makes more probable to get losing symmetrical patterns than average but at the same time will make more probable to get asymmetrical patterns to stop a symmetrical sequences.

It's like that the more we have lost (better fictionally) greater will be the actual probability of success as RNG is less likely prone to make strong AS/S deviations at either side.
And of course we better take the most likely course of operations, that is the AS process.

Suppose we are betting randomly the pattern #2, #5 , #8 and #15 of the Big Road. (two time pattern #15 hadn't come out):

S-S-A-A
A-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A
S-S-S
A-A-S-A
S-A-S-A
A-A-A-S
A-A-A-S
A-S-A-A
S-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
S-A-A-A
A-A-A-S
A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A
A-A-A-S
S-A-S

What and when to bet at these successions?

as.

Thanks Al and KFB for your replies!!

Are there different types of randomness while playing a baccarat shoe?

With the advent of optical reading internal devices (allegedly inserted within shuffle machines, for example), many scholars think that some card distributions are arranged by a RNG software instead of the "old" classical physical process.
Nothing weird or illegitimate of course, but whether this should be the case when playing a bac shoe of such kind we're playing a succession of numbers (card ranks) totally insensitive of the previous shoe distributions (including the "fresh new shoe").

For practical purposes and since we cannot know which kind of RN generators are utilized in the specific scenario, we simply should accept the fact that we're facing a RNG sequence and not physically shuffled cards.

As several times pointed out here, the "cut" and the "number of initial cards burnt in relation of the first card shown" are almost irrelevant in the whole distribution process.

If we would be forced to define at all costs such RNG distributions, we could dare to state that they somewhat relatively lack of the patterns consinstency, curiously the main factor where most bac players focus upon.
Then there are other more specific features we'll see in future posts.

Obviously whether homogeneous patterns seem to be latent, a sort of "anti-homogeneous pattern strategy" should be the best option to take and actually it is but only if we're able to set up two different limits of intervention: the first by deciding when to prolong the betting and the second when to stop it.
Notice that in our opinion itlr the starting point will be irrelevant unless we incorporate the asym/sym feature seen above.

Actually a RNG card distribution not being biased by a kind of "card clumping" factor typical of physically shuffled shoes should be more inclined to present symmetrical patterns than asymmetrical ones (at least as intended in this thread---see above), but in reality just the opposite is true.
More low-level symmetrical patterns are due at many portions of the shoe than at other forms of shuffling. Especially if we are able to exploit other random walks. 

More later

Important shoe production considerations are coming soon.

No fake randomness can beat us.

as.

Lovepreaks: I'll give you a detailed answer ASAP.
Thanks for the patience!

as.

Hi KFB!!

The most emphasis should always be put at row #1

as.

Now the "battle" is not by guessing what happens next, just about comparing the two patterns considered in a specific position after running two different paced successions (BYB and SR, in our example).

This "trick" allow us to emphatize at most the natural asymmetrical features of the game, a thing that for sure will give us an edge.

After all the CFS cannot be homogeneous for long at two different sub sequences originated by a diverse pace (anyway not getting the common unbeatable binomial fluctuations), a kind of important proof that RVM and M. Von Smoluchoswki ideas are particularly effective in order to help us to define the baccarat problem.

Carefully studying two sub successions originated by the same sequence and getting a different pace will give us plenty of opportunities to take advantage and to restrict at most the biased limited values of relative frequency.

Of course natural and "coincidental" low level symmetrical patterns may happen for relatively "long" time, no matter which random walks we decide to utilize, yet the probability of success reamins higher than expected.

as.

Positional relationship between two derived roads

Consider the Big Eye Boy (BEB) and the Small Road (SR) successions taken column by column.
The pace starts as asymmetrical as SR needs more hands to initiate its sequence.
Then the density of the streaks happening at each succession will alter the positional paces, so it could happen that one road is quite prolonged and the other one is slow to fill the respective columns.
What we are interested at are the patterns showing up at the same column number.

more later

as.

CFS is made by + and - signs where + is any step moving toward the right (horizontal line) and - any step stalling (vertical lines).

So any + sign is any side shift and any - sign correspond to the same side happening again once or more times.
From a pattern point of view the only "long" +-+-+-... events are consecutive doubles, so we may consider them as the perfect form of CFS symmetry, everything else will accelerate or slow down the columns filling speed (CFS).

Considering  8 resolved BP hands, the fastest, the slowest and the most neutral speeds are: 

BPBPBPBP = +++++++
PBPBPBPB = +++++++

BBBBBBBB = -------
PPPPPPPP = -------

BBPPBBPP = -+-+-+-
PPBBPPBB = -+-+-+-

Those are just 6 out of the possible 128 patterns (first hand is the signal) coming out from any 8 resolved hand series.
In some sense they are "extremes" at either way.
Furthermore a kind of symmetrical movement acting for 7 or more consecutive steps can only come out from a 3,5 doubles consecutive appearance (2/128 probability).

Since an 8-deck shoe on average will form around 75 resolved hands, we know that we're facing close  to ten 7-hand situations.

Of course we do not want to consider doubles as "enemies", actually we are relatively more worried about long consecutive doubles successions that should be interpreted as a steady symmetrical (unwanted) distribution.

For example, a BPPBPPBPP (+-++-++-) sequence is an asymmetrical succession albeit showing two doubles).

On the other hand, we can't rule out long consecutive doubles successions (7, 8 or more doubles coming in a row) more likely to show up (even if very rarely) at some shuffling productions.

I've stated one millions of times here that at baccarat a kind of overalternating movement is the less likely to happen among others: the average consecutive doubles distribution could be a good start to investigate how a bac shoe really develops.

So it's not about HOW LONG a same sign (+ or -) will stand but about approximating at best WHEN either + or - clusters will show up by "categories" (clusters of one, clusters of two, etc).

After all consecutive doubles do not come out around any corner and anyway there are some tricks to partially get rid of them by following some derived random walks.

See you tomorrow.

as.

Anyway here some Big Road shoes really played: (A=asym pattern, S=sym pattern)
E= easy shoe, M=moderate shoe, T= tough shoe

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-A-S-S (E)

A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S (E)

S-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A  (E)

S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-S (E)

S-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-S-S (E)

A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-S-A-A  (E)

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S (E)

A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A (E)

A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A (E)

S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-S-A-A-S  (E)

S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A  (E)

A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A  (E)

A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-S  (M)

A-S-S-A-S-S-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-S-S-A-S  (M)

A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S (E)

A-S-A-A-S-A-S-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A (E/M)

A-A-S-S-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-S-A (T)

A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S-A (E/M)

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-S (E)

S-S-S-S-S-A-S-A-S-A-A* (T)

S-S-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-S (E)

S-A-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S (E/M)

A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A (E)

A-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A (E)

*: a very rare back-to-back 5 S sequence

as.

99.99% of baccarat players quit the tables as moderate or huge winners anytime a kind of long univocal situation(s) happen; Most part of players make a living a this game quit the tables as low or very low winners, so not relying upon long univocal situations.

If experts improperly label baccarat as a "coin flip" game they have reasons to state that.
Long winning streaks=long losing streaks plus something and long winning streaks come from steady univocal situations getting the same probability of long losing streaks.

What happens "good" sooner or later will transform into "bad", so in some sense we should be more prepared to face the "bad" than trying to get the "good" around every corner.

Technically here we've seen several ideas (yet based upon long term statistical findings) to try to restrict at most the bad instead of steadily looking for the good.

And IMO this task involves a lot of patience as there are no easy countermeasures to be employed other than by staying still, maybe waiting for the next shoe.

As Alrelax pointed out several times here, an approach works until it doesn't.
Unfortunately casinos profits made worldwide teach us that the vast majority of approaches do not work.

Asymmetrical vs symmetrical successions

With the A/B patterns seen above and somewhat limited in their AS/S appearance, we know beyond any shadow of doubt that the good (asym consecutive events) will be proportionally longer than the bad (sym consecutive events).
That alone is not sufficient to set up a long term winning plan as too many situations will form "unsound" results in relationship of what we'd expect to face. In poorer words, AS-AS>AS-S or S-AS>S-S and every other superior ratio (as S-S-AS>S-S-S, etc), will be easily counterfeited by just one wrong card falling. 

Therefore we should be more interested to consider results of every shoe as a "whole" and comparing it with our old average shoe category.
Whenever things seem to be "too weird distributed in terms of card combinations" we should put the brakes on. In fact odds are that this shoe doesn't fit the category.
The same about shoes featuring a high number of ties (unresolved hands).

When to bet for AS patterns

A general plan could be devised as:

1- Bet AS after a single S event (P1)

2- Bet AS after two S events (P2)

3- Bet AS after any AS event (Px)

Such attacks taken individually will be so balanced in their apparition that even a kind of brainless progression (both positive and negative) will get the best of it.
Way better is to start the action after a fictional multi shoes negative situation happened.

Remember that we're not necessarily considering the Big Road, actually this is the worst succession to take care of.

as.

Example.

We know that per every shoe dealt the probability to get all or just one asymmetrical patterns is very low.
Therefore more than one symmetrical pattern MUST come out at some portion of the shoe.

Since we are not belonging to the category of those id.iots thinking that it's possible to read randomness or profitably following patterns, we must be prepared to face symmetrical patterns that we empirically labeled as "unprofitable".

Now it's up to us whether we want to select at most our betting opportunities or to hope we'll able to humanly guess a greater than 50% of total situations.
The latter scenario is what really fuels the game and casinos' profits.

Gambling experts of my a$$ teach us that every hand is a new hand no matter what.

Bighornsh.it.

Since cards are surely asymmetrically distributed, related results will be surely asymmetrically distributed.
Maybe sometimes results will take a kind of symmetrical shape for quite long but that's not the rule.

So let's falsify such hypothesis and starting to bet towards symmetry.
You'll go broke very soon or at least sooner than by wagering a kind of asymmetrical approach.

As long as symmetrical patterns will be consecutively placed by lower proportionally levels than asymmetrical patterns we will be in good shape.

We'll be back on this issue in a couple of days.

as.