Plagiarised from eleswhere;

As a service to the forum, I am posting these test results. This may have been posted elsewhere, but it never hurts to repeat this important info.

I tested seven commonly used bet selection methods (and also one method which I modified slightly) against the Zumma 1600. I skipped the first few decisions in shoe one so that the bet selection method could be started. This is flat betting one unit with 5% banker commission deducted. I am listing the methods in order of Dollars won. I also show the winning percentage. Note that all of the bet selection methods lost money.

(1) M-STC $ -876 50.25%
(2) B $ -1074 50.80%
(3) TBL $ -1172 50.13%
(4) OLD $ -1272 50.07%
(5) STC $ -1448 50.01%
(6) FLD $ -1624 49.93%
(7) OTBL $ -1725 49.87%
(8 ) P $ -1823 49.20%

Explaining the bet selection methods a bit. First the most simple ones.

B = bet banker only
P = bet player only
FLD = bet last decision
OLD = bet opposite last decision
TBL = bet same as decision before last
OTBL = bet opposite to decision before last

The last two require more explanation.

STC - simple trend catcher

I got this off of a roulette forum a while back. This looks at the last 3 decisions and tries to catch streaks, chops, and twos. You bet like this...

XXX - X
XXZ - Z
XZZ - Z
XZX - Z

The strategy makes sense but does not test that well.

The next bet selection is a modified version of STC. I tweaked it a bit to improve results.

M-STC - modified simple trend catcher

XXX - Z
XXZ - X
XZZ - Z
XZX - Z

This bet selection method actually does the best of the 8 tested, in terms of money won. As you can see, you go against the 3 streak, bet against the twos, go with the 2 streak, and go with the chop. This would be scary if you get caught in a long banker or player streak, betting against all after 3. The numbers don't lie, however. It is the best of the 8 tested.

A few more notes. Betting Banker does best in winning percentage, but the 5% commission on every win grinds the profits down so it only made second place on the list. The worst of all is betting Player, with no banker bets, it has the lowest win percentage.

Thanks for posting up that Johno!

So although we can deduce that Baccarat is roughly a 50-50 game, there is a lot going on under the surface with all the different betting opportunities such as FLD, OLD etc...

Now obviously all these different bet selections can't be appearing all at the same time. Some of them could be missing for the majority of a shoe. Let's face it, things don't happen like they are supposed to! For if the law governing the long run were truly replicated over the short run, casino table games would have been extinct long ago!

Alrelax posted up this shoe on one of his most recent winning threads. On the face of things 30 Bankers vs 25 Players does not sound too extreme right?

[attachimg=1]

However there are three situations in this particular shoe where there is a short term discrepancy of 20 decisions involving a binary decision. The amount of short term disproportionate occurrence in this shoe was off the richter scale and it's no wonder the chip tray was half emptied.

As Craig Greiner states in his book  ''The challenge of the game presents a unique paradox! The short run is unequitable to the long run. So when it comes to gaming relationships and probabilities, though the whole is still equal to the sum of its parts, the parts themselves are not simply abbreviated versions of the whole''

Now talking about gaming relationships, here is a shoe that you yourself posted around a week ago!

[attachimg=2]

I found this one interesting because of how after getting at least two Bankers, the next Player was only a single for the majority of the shoe. So there is a relationship forming between different bet selections here if you are able to see it and therefore the so called 'trick' in my opinion is how do you build your framework or arrange your marking so that you can spot/anticipate these occurrences before they are over. But if you can do it, then it allows you the luxury of using positive progressions like the G3M1 for example because you can be confident that a lot of your wins will come in clumps.

Johno,

Thanks for posting. If you add mirror bet selections, you will get the same number. B+P=1074+1823=2897, TBL+OTBL=1172+1725=2897, OLD+FLD=1272+1624=2896. It is interesting to note that STC gives exactly half the sum. It could be a coincidence. It is also interesting that M-STC beats mighty B. B loses at 0.94% (1074/114073*100=0.94%) instead of 1.06%. P loses at 1.60% (1823/114073*100=1.6%) instead of 1.24%.

M-STC loses at 0.77% (876.5/114073*100=0.77%). Unbelievable and mathematically impossible. How can you combine 0.94 and 1.6 and get 0.77. Possibly an error in computation.

Quote from: Bally6354 on May 29, 2019, 04:31:46 PM
Thanks for posting up that Johno!

So although we can deduce that Baccarat is roughly a 50-50 game, there is a lot going on under the surface with all the different betting opportunities such as FLD, OLD etc...

Now obviously all these different bet selections can't be appearing all at the same time. Some of them could be missing for the majority of a shoe. Let's face it, things don't happen like they are supposed to! For if the law governing the long run were truly replicated over the short run, casino table games would have been extinct long ago!

Alrelax posted up this shoe on one of his most recent winning threads. On the face of things 30 Bankers vs 25 Players does not sound too extreme right?

[attachimg=1]

However there are three situations in this particular shoe where there is a short term discrepancy of 20 decisions involving a binary decision. The amount of short term disproportionate occurrence in this shoe was off the richter scale and it's no wonder the chip tray was half emptied.

As Craig Greiner states in his book  ''The challenge of the game presents a unique paradox! The short run is unequitable to the long run. So when it comes to gaming relationships and probabilities, though the whole is still equal to the sum of its parts, the parts themselves are not simply abbreviated versions of the whole''

Now talking about gaming relationships, here is a shoe that you yourself posted around a week ago!

[attachimg=2]

I found this one interesting because of how after getting at least two Bankers, the next Player was only a single for the majority of the shoe. So there is a relationship forming between different bet selections here if you are able to see it and therefore the so called 'trick' in my opinion is how do you build your framework or arrange your marking so that you can spot/anticipate these occurrences before they are over. But if you can do it, then it allows you the luxury of using positive progressions like the G3M1 for example because you can be confident that a lot of your wins will come in clumps.

First Alrelax shoe almost a "homerun" shoe for me.  So I'd say it was only a triple.  But I'm not the kind of player that tries to "pounce" on shoes.  Too many times my good wins get halved or nearly eliminated.  I'm more of a grind player.  I try not to play more than 2 or 3 shoes so I hit and run.

Johno's shoe only a double.  But I'm not complaining.  Lots of shoes don't have those kind of consistencies.  All the ones Alrelax posts do.  I guess there's no fun in posting his losing ones?

Right, the trick is building your "framework."  But the crux of the matter is looking for consistencies in the shoe.  There's a lot of things to look for and it's always a gamble whether these consistencies are going to continue or not.  The rest is MM, discipline and all that stuff that Al keeps on talking about (comraderie?  I'm not in).

Then you got Johno and Assymbac who are math and statistic guys who don't buy into this "trend" stuff.  I'd really like to see a defined selection that doesn't require all this looking around for dominant consistencies but as of yet I haven't seen anything that can produce better results than what I'm already doing.

J

Quote from: Bally6354 on May 29, 2019, 04:31:46 PM
Now talking about gaming relationships, here is a shoe that you yourself posted around a week ago!

[attachimg=2]

I found this one interesting because of how after getting at least two Bankers, the next Player was only a single for the majority of the shoe. So there is a relationship forming between different bet selections here if you are able to see it and therefore the so called 'trick' in my opinion is how do you build your framework or arrange your marking so that you can spot/anticipate these occurrences before they are over.

I see what you are referring to, I don't really view it as an opportunity.  You can't say IMO it has become "regular" until after the 3rd occurrence.  Then you are left with only 3 more instances and the players way of thinking.  Personally mine is for events not to continue, indeed everything must eventually end.  So if I was to act, I would bet double P and would have lost every time, however in reality I wouldn't have got involved. IMO there exists superior opportunities if you wait and monitor multiple tables. 

Such as;

P
BB
PPPP
BB
PPPP
BB
PPPP 

^^ scope right there.

Quote from: james on May 29, 2019, 06:24:11 PM
M-STC loses at 0.77% (876.5/114073*100=0.77%). Unbelievable and mathematically impossible. How can you combine 0.94 and 1.6 and get 0.77. Possibly an error in computation.

Plagiarised, so couldn't possibly comment.

Quote from: Jimske on May 29, 2019, 07:51:55 PM
Then you got Johno and Assymbac who are math and statistic guys who don't buy into this "trend" stuff.  I'd really like to see a defined selection that doesn't require all this looking around for dominant consistencies but as of yet I haven't seen anything that can produce better results than what I'm already doing.

Tough ask seeing you are already hitting over 52~54% (don't recall which exactly).  Regardless you are not going to find it, you could play Method A, tested against say 200 shoes, averaging 54%, take it to the tables, average 55% ~ 68% and be over the moon with it.  Following period it's hitting 28%, 33%, 35%.  It's just the way things are, label it variance, wrong side of the bell curve, law of large numbers, whatever.

No different from players getting overly excited turning a very little into a lot, whether via single session, or multiple sessions, unless you are going to quit playing, the is always that element of risk to give it back, be that via a single session or in dribs and drabs. Ditto the side bet players conveniently only recalling the wins and conveniently forgetting the failed attempts and associated costs.
 

Quote from: Johno-Egalite on May 29, 2019, 08:58:44 PM
IMO there exists superior opportunities if you wait and monitor multiple tables. 

Yes, yes, yes and yes!!!

as.