That's ok, but this shoe is very polarized towards something and of course such shoes won't come out around any corner.
That doesn't mean that whenever we'd think a distribution will seem to take a strong polarized line we must stay still (or, worse, approaching a kind of balanced route), yet it takes a lot of experience to know what to bet, how much to bet and by which frequency in such circumstances.
For sure when in doubt we better go toward the actual flow or what's happening, providing the actual flow is consistent so, IMO, getting marked deviations where thinking to bet the opposite would be a silly move most of the times.

OoOoO

According to our experience and long term data, the game could be "resolved" by crossing more EV+ hands than EV- hands so not giving a damn about the actual level of profitable or unprofitable probability.
We've taught that no matter how we manage our betting, every bet will be EV- no matter what and this is a complete bighorn.sh..it.

More specifically we think (but we could be wrong) that the best and riskless primary way to ascertain a possible advantage is by adopting a flat betting procedure.
If the sum of EV+ betting spots > EV- betting spots, we'll win otherwise we'll directly fall into the HE.
Varying the betting amounts without a EV+>EV- verified factor acting on the long term cannot alter the negative edge by a one trillion probability.

Again in the real world we'll have to choose whether to bet this or that, say to get something going on, stopping or showing up for the first time.

Basically, more tentatives we'll make to guess such three different situations and higher will be the probability to lose as those three diverse situations feature "general cutoff" values to get hints from where strong deviations happen but are not the norm.

Among the three different classes, a special place is taken by what hadn't happen so far as we do not want to rely upon general statistical data made on random successions when the actual succession could be easily unrandomly distributed.
I'm not joking, many shoes you'll face aren't randomly distributed.

Notice that once a pattern is not prolonging (so stopping its appearance) a given silent third pattern can easily remain silent so breaking the old adage that baccarat is an "either/or" interminable sequence.
That happens because we utilize a 0.75% probability where the third pattern could remain absent for quite long.
On the same token and whenever that's the case, the remaining two patterns move around very small levels of variance, that is 0 or 1.

Since any random sequence (any shoe dealt) is supposed to produce different but surely shifted (unbalanced) A,B or C patterns, we ought to approximate at best how many times each pattern will come out isolated, silent or clustered.
Obviously once a pattern remains silent, the other two patterns tend to take a more clustered route; conversely whenever all three patterns come out by a kind of proportional (unlikely) fashion, best bets will be made by a sort of "stopping" approach thus negating long clusters of anything.

Suppose we classify those three patterns as A, B or C.
Consider any shoe dealt as AA, AB, AC, BA, BB, BC and CA, CB and CC probability distributed by innumerable sequences.

At an indipendent random model, every doublet will show up by a math expected percentage (11.1%), at baccarat once a pattern had shown up OR NOT, it'll affect next outcomes by percentages capable to erase and invert the HE.

The baccarat model is asymmetrical, only incidental and rarer values will alter a more probable asymmetrical flow of the outcomes. Not ignoring that asymmetry most likely will be included within low or very low values.

See you in a couple of days.

as. 

You know we talk a lot about winning and sometimes about losing sessions. And most of the detailed talk is about the scoreboard roads, I wagered because of too many or not enough of this or that and of course, the armchair quarterbacking successes.  But have you ever really sat down and gave thought to your decision making process and what drove you to wager on whatever it was you did?

I believe a huge advantage to the Baccarat Player is, the ability to know what is really happening at the table and the interpretation of it.

I have found taking the uncertainty out of the picture is truly the key. It is not easy by any means, but you have to. Taking the uncertainty out of your consciousness will allow a crucial skill for minimizing emotional chaos and allowing you a true advantage to distinguish more between what is actually happening at the moment (the presentments) and all of the other automatic tendencies to interpret and wager upon your experiences, memories and wagering plan(s) attacks.

We tend to wager on what I would define as, expecting certain results. I do believe those are brought about by our inner subconscious and previous experiences with what is actually occurring. And I wholeheartedly believe that is where and why we go wrong on many wagers.

We read and discuss so much about stop losses and limiting Wagers. But is that going to allow us to win? Maybe to stop losses, but not to win. All the brew-haha aside, a person has to wager to win.  PERIOD.  By stopping the wagering, a person has no chance to win.  Winning and losing is derived from your wagering and your wagering will be determined by your decision making process.

If you become committed to a particular interpretation of presentments, it will become a habit and a situation that you repeat in similar or related circumstances that will drag you under with beliefs that the shoe has to produce what you desire. You will never win in the game Baccarat if you wager with that commitment.

With that said, if you commit yourself to certain wagering triggers and points, you have made a decision to selectively gather the data of the shoe just produced and believe your interpretation of such that the shoe will go your way when you wager is going to place you in winning considerably less than 50% of your wagers.  Unless you can parlay at the correct times the less than 50% of the wins, you will consistently lose at the game.  On the other hand if you do not commit yourself to any certain wagering triggers and points, you have made a decision to screen for evidence (presentments) to support your wagering attempt(s) with what is actually occurring and not being clouded by the strong emotions of the losses that you have made that you seek to correct. Or if you didn't make any losses yet or they are trivial, you will not cloud your emotions to start winning or continue winning. 

There are both -EV and +EV at the table in all shoes. Although the shoe will produce what it is set to do with no way to know any outcome of it whatsoever. PERIOD.  There is no way to change that. There never has been and there never will be you have to remember that.  To me and it should be to you IMO, the game will be -EV when you lose and +EV when you win.  Forget the casino's hold on the game.  Say you sat down and bought in for $3,000.00.  You wagered $500.00 on bankers and it won.  You parlayed the win and won again with a second bankers.  You parlayed again decided to let the $2,000.00 ride on bankers and at that point you decided the wager will continue on bankers and every winning wager will come down to the rail and be locked up.  You did that to recoup your initial risk capital of $3,000.00 (even thou not lost) and hopefully some profit.  A bankers 7-iar mini streak occurred and you put the $10,000.00 into your pocket to recoup the buy-in and the profit.  You lost the last hand when it cut to players.  That just made the game of Baccarat for +EV for you.  Hence a concrete Money Management Method came into play.  You didn't fall prey to the casino's psychology of installing scoreboards to assist the gamblers and all of that brew-haha, etc.  You wagered for what was happening.  PLEASE NOTE:  THAT DOES NOT MEAN STREAKS ONLY AS SO MANY THINK.  IT MEANS ANYTHING.  And if you lost that first wager of $500.00, that just made the game of Baccarat -EV for you and well, you try again for whatever you feel, because your buy-in is risk capital. 

So in the scenario I gave you above, I would have kept the $6,500.00 profit because I would have gave my initial buy-in back the $500.00 and put that $3,000.00 back in my pocket.  Then I would have played the $3,000.00 (buy-in) risk free on my winnings. Which would be a lot less stress and frustration if I began to lose or even lost that $3,000.00 (my initial out-of-pocket funds). 

I truly believe, found and discovered with factual long time experience, the highest majority of all baccarat players do expect certain outcomes of each shoe. And in my opinion, that is where most of us go wrong.

Think about your decision making process and give yourself a true advantage that will allow you to win easier.

Refresher.

I would like to say I do not allow posting of links or advertising selling of anything unless you are a paid sponsor. Of course, I've had a few paid sponsors in the past, however their accounting was very poor and they were not reputable businesses so they were taking off the forum.

Unless you are a regular and well-known member, I do not allow links for any purpose especially from those that just sign up and are new to the forum because of all of the attacks and problem people have had by clicking on links.

As far as all of those Click On Banner casinos and games with bonuses requiring deposits that are also on other forums, I've had those as well and they were nothing but liars and cheaters. Reason being, they did not fulfill their end of our business contract. So I also took them off the forum because I cannot see them being honest with my members deposits and payouts.

Just wanted to post this to refresh peoples memories as well as those readers that sign up and immediately post links to casinos, systems, books, etc., and all kinds of other things. I cannot keep my forum clean if I accept all of those links from non-well-known members.

Here is a perfect example which happened last night.

Hand 61 produced 42 P and 19 B

There was 8 Panda 8s up to Hand 45.

There was 4, 3 card 9s

The was 2 Two card 7-7 ties for Blazen 777s.

Below is one snapshot I snuck in after the 6th Panda 8.  Gotta love that back-to-back Pandas! First one player has blackjack and bankers have a 3.  Players flop a 7 and bankers flop another 7.  Players win, Panda 8 wins and dragon bonus wins with the 8-0 as well.  Second one players have a 3 and bankers have 2 face cards.  Players flop a 5 and bankers flop a 10.  Players win, Panda 8 and dragon bonus wins again with another 8-0.

As always, most were on bankers and those that were on players would wager one or two wagers, win and then run scared by wagering extremely small bets on players or not wagering at all.

Of course after hand 30 or so, the verbal out-lashing was that the bankers would make their come back, etc. 

Like I say, be totally conscious of the presentments and what is happening.  Statistics over a million shoes produce shoes like these that are easy peasy money!  Doesn't matter how out of the norm it seems at the time, wins are wins no matter what. 

By the way, at least 5 of those first 6 Panda 8s were players first 2 cards had blackjack and the bankers first 2 were either totaling 6 or 7.

Also the players would have one greater point at least 25 times out of the 60 hands.  Such as natural 9 players and natural 8 bankers, or 4 players and 6 bankers with the players 3rd card being a 7 and the bankers third card a 4.  Numerous reductions to win for the players with a 5 and bankers with a 5 and then the players flop a 6 and bankers flop a 5.  Not a few times, but configurations repetitively like those.

There was a second table going on and the players side totally dominated that table as well.  Not as many Panda 8s, but other side bets were plentiful in prevailing.

Well, how can I disagree with what you have written...

as.

Okay, here is a new one for you guys!

Cruise passenger charged after jumping overboard to allegedly dodge $16,000 in gambling debts

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cruise-passenger-charged-jumping-overboard-allegedly-dodge-16000-gambl-rcna230332

Here is a more detailed link.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/cruise-ship-passenger-jumps-overboard-225200865.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABP3dso0XxuV0dZRaaUXb8awAQV3m20MMa1STxBulodZN0SEWI0jwj0IPbMWmY5Of-w5UF5C-fLb72lDC_Mftl4TdjRQEWVlQB-3l4qoliIG-YXtMwYLcd-3YFF6zNq4ztiWGjWq-yGeotOS15mxLdEcjg1PrIbzBEYSf1SkYNZP

5 people I know all put sizable amounts on the Eagles -7.5 and well, although they won if you bet on them you lost. 

Well it's that time of the year again.  The National Felons League is on TV and that gives me a reason to get out of the office and make some friendly wagers online and with friends.

As the first week of the season is always a pain to bet on, I went with a tried and true favorite to give me a win.

I took the Bungles giving points to the Brownies.   The Browns never let me down.  They NEVER cover in Week 1.

Uh, wrong.   They covered the spread this week.  This never happens!

Oh well, luckily for me my online book also has a live casino available so I took the loss over to the casino and got that money back on the roulette and baccarat tables.

So, going into the 2nd week of the season, my bankroll is back where it belongs and knowing that I can take the loss from Sunday and pick it up on Monday is nice!

AD

As you said: "That's why we advocate a basic flat betting procedure where W/L streaks and W/L spots aren't equally balanced within short frames.

So when you'd think to raise your bet consider the worst scenario (losing a lot more) than the hopeful situation capable to erase some losses by a lesser number of wins.
It's true that no matter what are the betting amounts we will place, once we play with an edge everything will come at our favor.

Yes, but we cannot be 100% sure about the current conditions making profitable our plan devised at different environments."

And therefore; That proverbial -EV comes and goes without any statistical mechanical guarantee whatsoever.  So in my book, I do not discount what is happening no matter how out of the norm, weird, off-the-wall, jaw dropping, etc., it might be. 

Wins are wins.  Money from the rack to my stack are great.  Doesn't matter how or why it occurred!  Just do it and smile and feel good. 

And an advantaged player will not (NOT) carry those reasons he just won XYZ into the next Section, Shoe or Session.  I call it be careful of the upcoming SSS.

If we'd think to play with an edge, two big enemies must be overcome in order to properly exploit it.

1) Betting few hands, that is selecting at most our betting options.

2) Being totally insensitive of the actual session's bankroll status, knowing that any edge needs time to get its full power.   

No surprises that by disregarding the point #2 even the point #1 will be invariably affected, meaning that when we're losing we'll try to find reasons to unnecessarily bet too many hands with the effort of breaking even.

That's why we advocate a basic flat betting procedure where W/L streaks and W/L spots aren't equally balanced within short frames.

So when you'd think to raise your bet consider the worst scenario (losing a lot more) than the hopeful situation capable to erase some losses by a lesser number of wins.
It's true that no matter what are the betting amounts we will place, once we play with an edge everything will come at our favor.
Yes, but we cannot be 100% sure about the current conditions making profitable our plan devised at different environments.

Then the house and besides the HE has at its disposal way more money than us, so serenely willing to accept a passive mood vs our wagers oriented to get an advantage by mere statistical reasons.

Probably the most wanted action any casino in the world would like to face is getting players betting every hand and raising their wagers with a kind of "sky's the limit" attitude.
So, in some way and generally speaking, our best action would be to play very few hands and always betting the same amount.

Next topic is so complicated I prefer to present it the next week.
Sorry.

as.