08﻿ Show Posts - AsymBacGuy

### Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

### Topics - AsymBacGuy

Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next
16
##### Baccarat Forum / Book on ties
« on: April 11, 2016, 10:47:51 pm »
I've found on my remote shelfs a book specifically devoted on baccarat ties.

The book is "Q's baccarat winning strategies, vol II" by John Qiu (1997).

The author claims to be able to predict the tie occurence by a degree capable to overcome the horrible 14.1% house edge.

When certain conditions are contemporarily met,  he says the tie appearance is 99% predictable.

Fundamentally (I don't want to violate the copyright) he considers the tie appearance probability mainly as a simmetrical issue.

Well, having a "asymbac" nickname this sounds like a curse to me.

Basically and without offering a valid reason, he splits the outcomes in columns of 4 searching some kind of tie simmetries.

Has anyone of you ever heard of this book?

as.

17
##### Baccarat Forum / The mathematical method to win
« on: February 17, 2016, 12:37:06 am »
Don't waste time to test marches, betting selections, MM or whatever.
They all will fail itlr.

Seat at a EZ table aiming to get a dragon bonus. Then assign a -1 value to any 4,5,6 or 7 card and a +2 value to any 8 or 9 card removed from the deck.
Whenever the true count (actual count compared to the estimated amount of decks left) will reach the +4 or higher point you'll get a sure f undeniable edge over the house.

Itlr you cannot lose but only win. Mathematically.

I know this isn't the solution you were looking for, still is by far the best and sure option to beat baccarat on very long terms.

as.

18
##### Baccarat Forum / Baccarat as Chemin de Fer
« on: January 12, 2016, 02:03:43 am »
Chemin de fer ("railroad" in french) is a form of baccarat where the house isn't directly involved as the 9 people seated at the table play among themselves.
House only controls the game, taking the 5% vig on every Banker wins.

Almost exclusively spread in Europe, the game is played with 6 decks.

I'll try to explain the rules for the few who don't know this bac variant.

The player seated on #1 begins the action "owning" the shoe, meaning that he's the Banker and every other player at the table could only oppose his initial bet so wagering the Player side (the minimum bet generally is quite high, there is no maximum). It's not mandatory that one or more players have to cover all his initial or subsequent bets, whenever the Player side won't cover the Banker bet the uncovered amount will be given back to the Banker man.
Anyway, the man impersoning the Banker must leave the entire amount (generally a doubled sum per each hand won) as long as he keep winning his Banker hands. He cannot pass his first turn to be the Banker but after any win he has the option to pass the shoe to another player (so enticing a sort of auction among the players with a left to right priority).
Generally almost nobody will pass the shoe (so abandoning the right to be the banker) after just one winning hand, very rarely after two winning hands, mostly after 3 or 4 hands. Some players love to keep the shoe until the winning streak comes to an end.

Everytime the banker hand loses the shoe passes to the player seated in the immediate left who will be the new Banker and so on, the shoe going around the table in a clockwise fashion. If the shoe was "bought" by another player after a Banker winning streak,  the game continues until the B streak will be over and then the game resumes to the next player.
Therefore in turn every player will have the right to be the Banker as long as he will be able to win his Banker hands.

Differently to the baccarat version played in the casinos, here players betting the Player side don't show their two hole cards unless they form a natural point. However Banker player must show his cards.
If a Player bettor is taking the action alone, he can do whatever he wants, so standing with 4 or 5, hitting with 6, denying a natural by simple standing and not showing the natural (this last option is denied to the banker for obvious reasons). Otherwise, he must stay to the rule of showing naturals, standing with 6 or 7, drawing with 0,1,2,3,4,  but he still has the option to stand on 5.
The Banker player could decide what to do after the third card draw (even drawing with a 6 or even standing with a 5 vs a stand, a no brainer move), the third card more significant scenarios being when he has 5 giving a 4 and having a 3 giving a 9 (both stand or draw decisions have the same mathematical expectancy).
Moreover the Banker man showing a natural when the Player asks for a third card has the option to give this card, a move solely based on superstition (of course risking to tie the hand as it's almost always used with a B9 hand).

Example.

Player #1 holds the shoe so he's the Banker, if Player side wins the hand the shoe passes to the next player seated to his left, player #2. If player #1 wins the hand he must leave the doubled amount for the next hand and so on until he lose or he decides to take rid of the shoe.

We can easily see that being forced any player to be the Banker, the main aim is hoping to get streaks of Banker wins right on the seat assigned to a given player. A secondary option is to bet the Player side but for the clockwise nature of the game there are no guarantees that any player can effectively bet whenever he decides to, unless the banker win is so huge that he's the only one who might afford the sum to cover it. Definitely chemin de fer is a high stakes game and surely a pure luck game.

Curious statistical features

Not surprisingly and from a Banker point of view, most part of shoes will award just a couple or three players among the nine seated, so at least 2/3 of the total players will be sure losers.
And this thing tends to perpetrate even for some series of shoes.

In a word, for every player the hope to get one or more substantial winning streaks on Banker side right on his turn will be somewhat misplaced.

Many times one or more given seats won't be able to win a single hand, everytime coming up a Player hand on their Banker turn.

Of course the opposite scenario, meaning that the same few seats are regularly kissed by luck, are quite frequent.

It seems that the RTM effect doesn't act at all at Chemin de Fer, at least considering a single session. Of course it's just a mathematical distribution issue.

Some players adopting a kind of "other people luck" strategy would find a heaven on those games.

Possible applications of such features on real baccarat

Of course I'm writing this stuff just for curiosity purposes, but if you test some shoes you'll get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

Let's say we want to transform a Chemin de Fer game into a baccarat table.

The initial shoe is: BP P BBP BP BBBBBP BBP  P BBBP P.
players                  1  2   3    4       5       6    7    8    9

So player #1 will win the first hand (B) the he proceeds to lose the next (P) so the shoe passes to player #2 that  lose the first hand being another P.
Player #3 wins two hands in a row (BB) then he loses so the shoe passes to player #4.
This wins just one hand the he loses.
Player #5 wins 5 hands in a row, then Player #6 wins two hands in a row then loses.
Player #7 lose his very first hand, then player #8 wins 3 hands in a row. Players #9 lose his first hand.

In this 14:9 B/P ratio we registered 3 players not getting just one winning hand, two players winning one hand, two players winning two hands, one player winning three hands and only one lucky player winning five hands.
From a strict chemin de fer point of view and generally speaking, it's very probable that after this first cycle only player #8 and #5 could have gotten some profit, admitting that player 8 wanted to abandon the shoe after 3 winning hands and that player #5 didn't want to press his luck if all or almost all of his temporary winning amount were covered by the other players at the table.

After the second cycle we could get a better idea about the "luck" of any player, also considering the nature of the first sequence of hands, voluntarily shifted toward the B side.

It's true that some shoes will provide strong dominances on B side so enhancing the probability that many players will be winning in some way, nonetheless itlr it should be interesting to assess the "lucky-unlucky" lines of each player, especially knowing that after any CdF session there are at least 4 or 5 players heavily losing.

Just for curiosity. Of course.

as.

19
##### Baccarat Forum / The FS MB/TF system
« on: January 11, 2016, 12:27:37 am »
This system (FS) originally invented for roulette several years ago is a mix between a mechanical betting (MB) method and a trend following (TF) method.
It produced a 4800 winning units over 200.000 real observed/played hands by flat betting.

It involves 5 different attacks.

1- After any 3+ series interrupted by the other chance, the system dictates to bet the dominant chance just one time.
So after a BBBP or PPPB sequence (and longer first streaks) we have to bet the dominant chance just one time (respectively B and P) . Winning or losing we stop the bet.

2- Everytime we'll look at a 3 streak, we'll bet just one time on the same side, hoping to get a 4+ streak.
If we win we'll stop the betting, if we lose we bet again the same side as the #1 attack will dictate.

3-  Whenever any symmetrical pattern will take place, we'll bet to get more symmetrical patterns but the lower symmetrical patterns will get the priority over the larger ones.

Examples:

after BBPP we'll bet B;

after PPBPBPP we'll bet B

after PPBBBPP we'll bet B

after PPPBPBPBPPP we'll bet B;

after BBBPPP we had to bet B but if we lost (BBBPPPP) and whenever we have a BBBPPPPBBB sequence we'll bet P chance.

So any previous exact 3 streak apperance we'll bet toward another exact same side 3 streak apperance and so on.

4- Two's consecutive sequences.

Everytime we'll look at two consecutive doubles we'll bet toward the 2s apperance.
Examples:

BPBPPBB now we bet P and then P. Whether a PP comes out we'll continue to bet toward BB then PP and so on.

Everytime we'll lose a bet we stop the betting unless we'll get a 3 sequence where we utilize the attack #1. If we get a single we'll wait another possible 2-2 sequence or a 3 streak dictating to bet the #1 attack.

5- If we'll encounter a single-double occurence we'll bet toward having more single-double occurences. The betting stop will be established after a double apperance on the "wrong side".
Then we'll restart the betting if the doubles and singles are coming up on the opposite side betting accordingly. Of course after a 3+ streak, we go back to the #2 attack.

Examples.

PPBPP we bet B then PP and then B PP B PP and so on.

In a word, we hope to get:

- More dominant patterns after any 3+ streak followed by a single counterpart had come out;

- More 3+s than 3s streaks on either side;

- More symmetrical patterns than other asymmetrical ones;

- More doubles consecutive apperance than any other pattern (if the doubles are followed by a 3+ streak we'll get almost even)

- More one side shifted singles-doubles apperance than any other patterns.

In a word, the original author assumed that some 50/50 patterns will get a clustered slight higher deviation amount than the opposite counterparts.

We all know that he was wrong and that he got positive results just by a short term working factor.

Yet and regarding baccarat his study might be of some help, as we all know that #1 and #2 attacks will show a slight better expectancy on one side, #3 and #4 attacks are more difficult to happen but sooner or later they will; and that the #5 scenario is by far the most likely occurence on one side.

Imo this could be a decent way to register and assess the possible results, as the whole system couldn't be disappointed for long on the five different multiple attacks. Especially if simultaneuosly considered.

as.

20
##### Baccarat Forum / Trend following world
« on: December 25, 2015, 12:23:07 am »
We know that the vast majority of bac players like to following trends and surely such aficionados are well represented here.

We also know that the scientific counterpart world fully denies the possibility to get the best of it by a trend following (TF) strategy. In reality such scientific world denies every other opportunity to win on the long term (besides the old issue of card counting the side bets and stuff related to that), so we can argue that adopting a TF strategy won't do any worse than utilizing every other method.

Let's see first and generally speaking what could be the pros and cons of TF strategy.

Pros:

- Undoubtedly if we are able to find a valuable trend, we'll lose just one bet being every other possibility a winning one but the first wrong attempt and the losing end of the trend.

So a player must spot a trigger he/she thinks as a valuable one, he/she keep playing it until the opposite scenario will come out and then he/she must restart to find another valuable trigger spot.

- Choosing to bet toward some deviations tends to support the idea that equilibrium is a kind of exception in the chance outcomes, expecially considering a finite card dependent game like baccarat.

Therefore a player using a TF strategy wants to take advantage of the many deviations the game will provide.

- Deeply thinking and elaborating the above issue, there's no a single possibility to get an equilibrium over the bac outcomes, providing a careful assessment of those results (more on this later).

Cons.

- It's quite difficult to know from the start which direction will take place a given pattern, trend or outcomes' line along the way.

- No matter how good we are able to spot some possible valuable trends, we must accept the idea that everything will be almost always perfectly and proportionally placed with the opposite situations.

General considerations

"Ok", will say the TF lovers: "itlr we surely know to be long term losers, but we will be pleased to try to be winners on short human terms of intervention, as we don't care a bit about what will happen thereafter".

So it seems that the most important factor any TF lover would focus on will be the actual results over a forcefully restricted amount of played shoes.

Furthermore, some acute players will try to get the best of it adopting a TF strategy filtered by certain very long statistical shifted evidences.

Practical considerations

From a strict mathematical point of view and assuming one unit wagering, each TF strategy attempt will produce:

- 1 unit win if after every selected trigger we'll be right then we quit the betting.

- 1 unit loss after every selected trigger starting point of betting is a losing one (wrong trigger).

- an almost break even result (vig impact) if after any successful bet we'll lose the second one (WL pattern).

- a temporary 1 unit profit (before vig) if we'll get a WLW sequence.

- a break even situation if we'll get a WLWL situation.

- many situations where W exceed L in a short amount of hands whereas many losing patterns are erased just from the first attempt, as we won't go any further after having missed the first favourable opportunity.

Easy to notice that every TF strategy to be successful must have a higher amount of winning than losing bets right on the first wager.
The remaining winning combinations are definitely going uphill, either for variance and negative edge issues.

So for practical purposes any TF strategy should be directed to get a winning hand right after the trigger recognition.

Trying to force the WL ratio by a MM procedure whenever we didn't do any good after the trigger showing imo doesn't represent the best viable tool of options. Unless our TF precognition will be more restricted than what the game suggests.

Imo the main collateral effect every TF strategy will produce is about the frequency of such so called profitable bets.

Most players want to spot too many triggers, many of them trying to guess profitable triggers per every hand showing by a direct or reverse way of thinking.

What about letting go some fictional profitable triggers which went wrong or, even better, some statistically unexpected patterns that have shown up "too much"?

And what about a multiple trend and multi layered TF registration possibly capable to lower the variance and to enhance the probability to win?

It's the same thing I've found about a couple of precise patterns coming out more often than not and acting on quite long terms, still a very carefully multiple trend registration might lead to the same results.

as.

21
##### AsymBacGuy / The PONR effect
« on: December 19, 2015, 11:48:35 pm »
The PONR (point of no return) effect was one of the decisive tools that helped me to discover some favourable betting opportunities.

What's a PONR?

Every experienced baccarat player knows that after every session where the losses were too high, the subsequent efforts to recover partially or totally the deficit were almost always ineffective. Moreover, any effort to try to break even not only was worthless but even added more losses. More often than not.

Trying to erase a one unit deficit is quite simple, trying to erase a two unit deficit is an unproportional (not linear) more difficult task. And so on.

So I name as PONR a given point where the odds to recover the deficit are so bad that we better quit the betting.
Notice that the exact opposite situation, that is getting many consecutive winnings with very low possibilities to lose the entire gain are less likely placed for obvious reasons.

So itlr, the probability to get many winnings in a row is lower than to get the opposite situation.
With important consequences on a possible RTM effect.

The concept of "session" could be confusing as any player intend to consider a session as:

- a single shoe

- a given amonut of shoes

- a day

- a week

- a month

Most people consider a session as a given amount of played shoes or a day.

We see that the parameter is the time factor, even considered in form of shoes played or in form of hours or days or weeks.

All due to both mathematical and humanly related considerations, the PONR will most likely show up on short terms as the humanly related factor will have the predominant part over the mathematical factor.

Computing the sum of the average bac player outcomes, there's almost no one player in the world losing 1.06% or 1.24% of the total bets wagered itlr. They lose far more than that, not only for some of them wanted to wager the very negative odds of side bets.

Since most part of players like to bet many spots, we can safely assume that the PONR will more likely act on such players than on more selected bettors.

Of course, diluting the betting for itself isn't a valid reason to expect less losing patterns, yet we have to assume that the PONR will be more likely encountered by frequent bettors as the PONR factor will be proportionally placed with the bets wagered. Because almost every single bet we place is EV-.

The PONR factor represents just the bottom of the canyon we want to avoid falling into, there are many intermediate steps along the way.
Actually each time we're trying to climb up toward the ridge we'll meet an opposite stronger force bringing us more and more toward the invariable descent.

The fact that along this invariable descent we are hoping to find some handholds shouldn't give us much confidence. Such handholds are rare and most part of the times they are too weak.

Good news is that per every PONR it exists a slight lesser amount of opposite PONR, meaning that in some circumstances our whole expectation is more oriented toward a climbing mood than a descending one. But we better restrict our terms of intervention as the rule is to get a descending mood and not a climbing one.

Our task should be focused about those rare occurences where the opposite favourable PONR presence will be so high that the counter force cannot overwhelm it.
The same way a negative PONR will act, now on the opposite side.

PONR and opposite PONR.

It's all about making the wrong move at the right time, just to quote the C.K. movie.

as.

22
##### Baccarat Forum / One of the best mechanical system on 50/50 chances
« on: December 09, 2015, 12:27:09 am »
I don't know if you are aware of this system, anyway it's widely known as one of the best systems ever invented on 50/50 chances.

We bet whatever we want a given chance and everytime we'll get 1 unit profit, we collect the winning and we erase our betting plan.

If after betting 7 hands we won't get any profit, we'll have those occurences:

-  Being behind of 1 unit;

- Being behind of 3 units;

- Being behind of 5 units;

- Being behind of 7 units.

Anytime we'll get a deficit for the subsequent series of 7 hands we'll bet the deficit plus 1 unit.
Anytime we'll erase the previous deficit we start over betting 1 unit. Anytime we won't be able to recover the deficit we'll add one unit to the total deficit.

Notice that it's a mathematically proven fact that per every 7 hands series bet, we'll get a 72.66% propability to win.

Actually among the 128 occurences bet on each of the 7 hands series, 93 dispositions are winning and just 35 are losing ones. So the WL ratio is 93/35 = 72.66% and this is true per every 7 hand series wagered.

So after each 7 hands bet series the probability to win will be as follows:

- after  7 hands = 72.66%

- after 14 hands = 93.52%

- after 21 hands = 98.23%

- after 28 hands = 99.52%

- after 35 hands = 99.87%

So we'll notice that after a five cluster of 7 hands losing series the probability to lose is just confined at a 0.13% value.

If we can follow this strategy over and over, we'll cross the line where the losing event will be almost insignificant compared to the winning part, always considering the SD effect.

This is a mathematically sure plan to beat the house since sooner or later we'll get the favorite probability working on our favor (let's think about the theorically unfavourable WLLLLLL  or LLWWWLL or many other end losing pattern working for us).

Obviously and devised like that, such system needs a very large bankroll to bear the fluctuations of the game.

So we might reduce the betting raise amount by properly registering the possible favourable and negative patterns, knowing their actual SD features.

After all, we couldn't expect many more losing series after some consecutive 27.34% probability events had come out in short terms. Expecially if considered after any 7 hands consecutive series.

Naturally and at the same time we should care about those "easy" winnings coming up on long consecutive series, a sure signal that things won't be so profitable for us.

as.

23
##### Baccarat Forum / Is it possible to make a living playing baccarat?
« on: December 01, 2015, 11:38:53 pm »
It would be an awesome accomplishment to make a living playing baccarat at casinos' expenses. After all winning at baccarat seems to be an easy task, we ought to be right just slightly above the ratio of 50/50 WL propositions (vig considered on B wagers). In the short run, that's true.

So if in this right moment every bac player in the world will bet to get just a single B hand wagering three hands by a simple martingale (1-2-4), we know for sure that the vast majority of players will be ahead as any combination of 3 hands will contain at least a B hand more often than not.
Indeed BBB, BBP, BPB, BPP, PBB, PBP, PPB sequences are overcoming as a whole the "enemy" PPP pattern by a higher 7/8 degree.
Even if this situation won't be true by variance issues, we know that very soon "3 hands" patterns containing at least one single B hand will show up more often than not.

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, let's run 10k of such propositions assessing the results.

We are 100% sure that wholly considered (10k is a decent sample) players trying to get a single B on three attempts will be ahead over the house.

Building a paradoxically worldwide team, we know that utilizing such simple strategy we'll have the best of it, meaning that every player wagering B on 3 attempts will get at least a single B more often than not, getting a profit.

Trying to state otherwise is a sort of bighornshit, it's sufficient to run 10k contemporary 3-hands patterns and evaluate the results, no matter how is the chosen point of attack.
A further obvious proof is that B streaks are longer than P streaks, P singles are prevalent than B singles, P doubles are more likely than B doubles and so on.

In a word, a possible infinite team wagering B side on 3 consecutive hands by a martingale betting will get the best of it, meaning we'll get a profit.

Of course such more likely worldwide profit won't be 50/50 proportionally placed, as any winning hand must pay the 5% tax.

Therefore if any bac player of the world will adopt this style of betting itlr, he/she will be caught by the vig burden more and more erasing his/her short term advantage.

Attention, we are not talking about the ROI,  we're're talking about the probability to win.

That's why casinos like to let us betting a lot of hands.

Obviously, the more we bet the more we fall into the "random" world and we know that a random system cannot be beaten by any means. Not accounting that our expectation will be lower and lower in direct proposition of the amount of our bets.

Notice that if baccarat will be spread like a "casino war" game, we'll be 100% sure to be long term winners providing to be able to bet every side of the action (at casino war we can't, since we cannot bet the house side). And this is just a card distribution topic without any asymmetrical factor besides the house vig on ties.

The fact that itlr some dispositions are more likely than others (and they're not 50/50 placed) in most cases won't help us without a careful study of the outcomes.

Actually most part of bac results are randomly placed, we know that 91.4% of the total hands are coin flip situations (besides some card distribution issues).
So there is no point to try to guess an almost full random world for a single player.

In reality, we can assess the "shift" factor either registering it or more simply studying the most likely distributions every one single shoe in the world will take place.

Of course providing to get rid of those shoes not fitting the above situations.

Every winning B bet getting a no asymmetrical hand is a loss. Every P winning bet not getting a symmetrical hand is a loss.

From this we should set up our strategy.

as.

24
##### AsymBacGuy / The key asymmetrical factor
« on: September 25, 2015, 11:45:45 pm »
Normally we consider baccarat outcomes just in form of BP hands (I omit Ties for simplicity)

There are many ways to register BP results.
Asian players like to place BP results in orizontal lines whereas european players tend to utilize a vertical registration.
Then there are many "complex" forms of classification (for reference see WOO site) and naturally no one will give profitable betting spots to the player.

Every classification will act as an "on-off" pc work. We either register B or P. Period.
I mean nobody cares about HOW such opposite results have come out.

Since I strongly think the game is beatable for its asymmetrical nature, let's try to concentrate more about this important topic.

To get an asymmetrical hand (AS), a hand capable to mathematically shift the 50/50 results, some conditions must be fulfilled. Then we should consider the actual outcomes of every AS hand per any single shoe.

A. Player side must draw

B. Banker side must have 3, 4, 5 or 6 point.

We know that on average this situation comes about 8.6% of the times.

For every AS situation produced, Banker side will get a 15.7% mathematical (on average) edge.

That means that after any AS hand, on average Banker will win 57.85% of the times and Player the remaining 42.15%.

Besides what some magic system sellers j.erks have stated claiming a 70% or more edge for the player by unkown reasons, the best mathematical undeniabale average edge a baccarat player could have is right based upon this 57.85-42.15 proposition decurted by the B tax.

That is a player capable to bet Banker side only or mostly when an AS hand wil take place will destroy the game.

The rest, mathematically speaking, is a totally worthless speculation.

Average apparition of an AS hand per any single shoe.

Assuming 70 BP decisions per any shoe, on average we'll expect to get an AS situation nearly one time over 8.14 hands.

Obviously, per every single shoe this ratio almost never will fit this ratio, as any card distribution will produce countless combinations.

For example, when Banker shows a lot of 3,4,5 or 6 points and Player simultaneously won't draw (6,7,8 or 9) no AS hand could arise and the same happens whenever Player must draw having the Banker a 0, 1, 2, 7, 8 or 9 point.

So a separated registration of those two A and B conditions' apparition will make a very different scheme differently than a mere BP registration. And that's just the first step.

Summary of the first step.

Player will draw an average of 50.3% of the times and that is the first condition to get an AS hand, so this situation will mostly follow a 50/50 proposition, yet understanding that bac is a dependent card game; at the same time to have an AS hand first condition fulfilled, Banker must have a 3, 4, 5 or 6 point and such event will happen less probably than the opposite bunch of B outcomes including 0,1,2,7,8 and 9 points knowing that 0 will be the most likely outcome over any other possible result by a multiplied 1.5 value.

Thus and independently of the P draw/no draw situation, on the B side we'll get the AS probability of 1,1,1,1 vs the opposite probability of 1,1,1,1.1, 1.5. Wholly considered the ratio is 4/6.5.

In a word, to get an AS hand any card distribution must precisely intersect a 50.3% average P probability spot with a 38% average B probability.

Since baccarat is a finite and card dependent process game, we could get some help studying certain statistical deviations.

Next time I'll talk about the second step, that is the AS actual outcomes acting per every shoe.

as.

25
##### AsymBacGuy / Baccarat mathematical facts
« on: September 25, 2015, 02:25:27 am »
Here's some baccarat mathematical situations.

- Player hand draws the third card: 50.3%

So any careful and very long peeking of the P cards will get no good news half of the times, no matter how the player is concentrated in doing this.
Worst news for them is peeking up a "three side" card when having a 4 or a 5. Among other scenarios, a nightmare for us it's when those legendary peekers find a three side card having a 3 point.

- Both sides stand: 37.8%

Almost four times over ten the action is freezed just on the first four cards.
So in such situations there should be no point to bet Banker. Unfortunately we know this after it happened.

- Natural point on either side: 34.2%

Again more than 1/3 of the deck will provide immediate and perfectly symmetrical outcomes. In this circumstance there's either one fantastic bet or a very poor one. Coincidentally we tend to win most of our bets by a natural point when betting Banker and regularly losing with an 8 when wagering Player. Naturally, whenever we win by a Player 9, we won't care a bit about the point landed on Banker that quite often is a losing 8. A pure form of selected attention.

- Banker draws no matter what: 43.4%

Despite its advantage when betting Banker we'll expect to draw and hope for the best more than four times over ten. Better than 50.3% of the time, still an high percentage.

- Banker draws after Player stands: 11.8%

Good news for Banker aficionados. They know to go uphill just a bit more than one time over ten hands.

- Banker stands after Player draws: 18.7%

Again no bad news for Banker fans. Almost one time over five they could rely just upon the strenght of the very two first cards dealt.

- Both hand draw: 31.6%

For thrilling hand lovers: a slight less than 1/3 of the time the final decision will be made by two additional cards.
An awful situation when there are two active bets on either side made by eternity flashing the cards players.
For unknown reasons, when we're losing at the table not having the privilege to look at cards it happens more often.

Player fans minds have transformed 0.18% into 0%. At worst, of course.

- Asymmetrical hand apparition: 8.6%

Well, Banker lovers should know that the best situation they could hope for will come out quite less than one time over ten.

-  Banker advantage in asymmetrical situations: 15.7%

Strangely enough, such huge edge will be regularly disappointed when we make an important bet on B side. Thus, a zero point on Player chance will magically transform into an 8 or a 9, even if there were just one or two of those cards left in the deck.
Likewise a fantastic 3 will invariably land on a 5, Banker showing a 7; not mentioning a 4 adding to another 4 when Banker has a 4 + 3 and 31 4s where already removed from the deck.
The power of timing.

as.

26
##### AsymBacGuy / First and fifth card
« on: August 21, 2015, 10:46:55 pm »
Knowing the value of just one card in the exact position (from 1 to 6) could get us a mathematical edge in most cases, we might set up a betting plan.
The largest edges will come out when:

- the first card is a 9 dealt to the Player (21.528%)
- the second card is a 9 dealt to the Banker (20.641%)
- the fifth card is a 4 dealt to the Player (18.316%)
- the first card is an 8 dealt to the Player (17.294%)
- the second card is an 8 dealt to the Banker (16.493%)
- the sixth card is a 5 dealt to the Banker (14.514%)
- the sixth card is a 6 dealt to the Banker (14.424%)

Thus if we were able to get such aknowledge, we'll easily destroy the game itlr.

Unfortunately we cannot benefit of those situations.

Since we are stubbornly oriented to beat the game we want to try whether the statistical approach might help us.
After all baccarat is a finite and dependent process game.

To simplify the process, we'll register the times when a 9 or an 8 is dealt as first card to the Player side and the times when the fifth card is a 4, those situations having the highest ROI on P side.
There are many reasons to just consider the P side.

It's easy to notice that the very first card dealt will have a higher impact on every bac hand than every other position as many hands will end up after just 4 cards have been dealt. Surely the second same value card dealt on the other side will show a more or less impact similar to the first card, but most of the times we'll have to pay an unnecessary 5% vig on our winning wagers.

In a word, a very deviated situation where 9s, 8s will not fall in the first spot and 4s will not fall in the 5th spot, should entice a RTM effect where next P hands will show a slight player's edge.

Of course, there's an additional issue to consider: how many 9s, 8s and 4s are really live in the left deck.

We cannot hope to get a 4 falling into the 5th spot if many 4s were removed from the deck in the right or more likely "wrong" spots.

The same about the most likely cards capable to end up right now a bac decision: 8s and 9s.

The most part of 2.5 and 3 sr deviations taken are going to get a higher RTM effect than the propensity to reach larger deviations, expecially if we are properly considering the card removal effect per any shoe.

In this perspective, we aren't playing to get some P or B winning hands, we are betting that a given card (or better a bunch of such cards) will have to fall in a given spot after a very large absence and after having assessed that such key cards are very live per any live deck. (So many shoes won't provide any hint).

as.

27
##### Baccarat Forum / What strategy if we must win?
« on: July 25, 2015, 12:23:44 am »

Let's suppose you really need \$500 just playing baccarat (no other extra money earnings allowed) having our last \$5000 bankroll and 3 days to play (24/7).

The tables minimum limit is \$25.

We know that the best mathematical expectancy of being ahead of \$500 will be the choice of betting \$525 on Banker side right on our first bet, but we rule out such possibility from the options.

Which one or more than one of the following factors would you attribute the most importance to reach the goal?

- Table selection (shoe general texture, hand made shuffling vs machine shuffling, speed of the game, etc)

- "Small" standard bet strategy trying to control the disbursement and hoping to get a multiple winning outcome soon or later.

- "Moderate" standard bet strategy trying to control the variance and to shorten the EV- game periods.

- "High" standard bet strategy oriented to reduce the EV- impact hoping for the best in short intervals.

- Money management (parlays and negative aggressive martingales included)

- Preordered subjective betting selection (no use of possible objective long term winning findings)

- Trend following strategy

- "Lucky" players following strategy

- Other

I'd like to know your opinions not forgetting that the scenario will be all about the absolute urgency to win \$500 not affording to lose your last \$5000 bankroll.

as.

28
##### AsymBacGuy / The ABG test to prove a system is really working
« on: May 30, 2015, 11:02:39 pm »
Whenever we test a given method we could experience the illusion to have discovered the miracle betting mood to get the best of it itlr. Meaning we get an edge over the house. Meaning we can invert the house negative edge into a positive one.
By acutely thought progressions or brilliant betting selections it doesn't matter.

There are many scientific assumptions and tests available to prove our system is really working or not.

The best and most annoying assumption is that no one progression could overcome a mathematical negative edge game.
Or that one coming from a BJ pro stating that is a perfect gambling miracle to triple up our bankroll two times in a row before going broke.
I personally agree and I can't dispute this assumption.

Then it comes the second and more interesting assumption: there's no way to place our bets to get an edge without the use of any progression. Meaning we cannot get any kind of fk advantage choosing what to bet and what to not bet.
So despite our efforts directed to find some possible miracle EV+ spots, we aren't going anywhere as mathematics dictates that every our bet will always produce a negative global outcome.
Now I personally disagree.

Obviously, a possible EV+ betting selection will get better results by the use of a progression, providing it will take care of the itlr fluctuations of the game and after having properly assessed our long term edge.

Experts think that such positive edge bet selection doesn't exist at all and they are right because they keep thinking on mathematical terms.
So every single hand the game is producing will get an average of 50.68-49.32 mathematical expectation.  And every f bet we'll place is getting a long term 1.06%-1.24% negative edge.

So far so good. No news.

Back to the topic.

Many internet winning method sellers claim to get an edge over the house (some i.diots claim to get a 70% edge over the house, a real bighornshit).
Obviously we know with 100% accuracy that no one progression could have the best of it.
Likewise we know that a given edge must be produced by a simple flat betting procedure and I don't know a single author able to demonstrate that a FB method will give the player an edge.

Imo, the real accurate test to ascertain that a method is really a winning one is a betting procedure capable to totally erase or hopefully invert the P hands' inferior expectancy.

I mean a betting method where our P bets will get a zero results gap with B hands at worst or a slight edge itlr.

In the long run.

What's the long run?

Difficult to say, but I dare to say that we are in good shape after having noticed that our P bets are showing a zero or a slight positive outcome after thousands and thousand of shoes where B hands are getting closer to the 50.68-49.32 ratio. So no tricks or positive variance issues are allowed as any P bet must have a zero or positive otucome at worst.

In a word, a possible winning method should surpass my personal ABG rule suggesting that a winning bet selection must produce either neutral or positive P betting long term outcomes, that is a betting selection capable to totally erase the B advantage over thousands and thousands of shoes.

How many betting selection systems are able to get such accomplishment?

Summarizing, imo a long term winning method should be able to catch those spots where P bets are going to get neutral (at worst) or positive long term outcomes.

Mathematics dictates in every P spot we'll bet we are getting a -1.24% disadvantage, but actually and for some weird reason my rule likes to state that a winning system should get a 0% or a slight positive edge.

And I'm only talking about the worst B/P proposition the game will produce, the P bets.

as.

29
##### AsymBacGuy / "BACCARAT EDGE, PART ONE" by Asymbacguy
« on: May 22, 2015, 01:35:46 am »
That's my book I'm glad to introduce here.  It will be printed in october.

- General concepts

- Differences between a perfect 50/50 game and baccarat

- The role and the weight of asymmetricity

- Dispositions and distributions

- Baccarat variance and the "decline in probability" concept applied to baccarat

- Banker side events vs Player side events. The "enemy concept"

- Approaches based on the most likely events apparition

- Getting an edge by flat betting on some selected spots, part one

- Online vs live casinos

- The long term winning baccarat player attitude

as.

30
##### Baccarat Forum / Breaking selected long streaks
« on: May 01, 2015, 11:28:15 pm »
From a theorical point of view, there's nothing wrong betting toward the streaks' breaking, as a finite card composition itlr is slightly more likely to produce the opposite hand just occurred (in a high card game whatever intended).

That's true considering a perfect 50/50 game, where any side has a perfect 50/50 expectancy per any hand played.
Unfortunately, or better sayed, luckily, baccarat has a third card rule (TCR) working.

Now in real baccarat, TCR not only enhance this effect on one side but even revert it on the other one in many occasions (not in every occasion after long statistical studies!).

From a theorical point of view and according to our data, after a no TCR bac game the best move is to bet against the last outcome as this strategy will get us a very very very slight edge and not a zero edge game.
Naturally, the more we wait to get some selected dispositions, the better will be our results since a finite deck will more likely produce the opposite hand just occurred in some proportional fashion.
Simplifying, in the long run we'll get more 5s streaks than 5+s streaks than mere singles/streaks. Expecially in some portions of the shoe after some events had occurred.

Itlr, the way a card composition deck is placed is to get more opposite last hand results than what a 50/50 proposition will dictate.
That's an effect of card removal and finite force of random intervention.

Now let's consider the TCR.

We know that TCR will act an average of about one time over ten hands (ok, it's slight less for the good peace of one real expert of this game, 8.4% is the answer) and we don't know its real frequency per actual shoe.

We surely know that whenever an AS spot (springing a TCR effect) will be formed, banker will be mathematically advantaged by a 15.86% edge (this is 100% accurate).

And we also know that a streak of some lenght is a theorical abnormality of the normal flow of the game, expecially whether such streak is Player placed.

Let me guess.

Maybe after a P streak of some lenght having shown one or more asymmetrical hands unexpectly going to the Player side?

Or maybe trying to get a P hand after a B streak which has shown NO asymmetrical hands?

Oops, in both the circumstances there were no AS hands working or, worse yet, if such AS hands had formed they unexpectedly went to the P side.

Hence we are playing an almost perfect 50/50 game coping with the obnoxious thing we have to pay a 5% tax if we'll get lucky to win during a B symmetrical hand.

Am I saying that not every streak is equal from a forming point of view?

Am I saying that itlr a 5 P symmetrical hands streak is slight different from a 5 P streak where one or more AS hand unexpectedly went on P side?

And what about the likelihood that such selected events itlr will repeatedly go on the same side?

as.

Pages: Prev 1 [2] 3 Next