Very interesting.

Thanks.

AD

Welcome back!!

as.

Thanks for sharing your notation & ways Allan!

WELCOME BACK!

Vic

RFS is another way to consider streaks lenght, more specifically how rows #2, #3 and so forth are more probable to jump in a new column, that is stopping the "slowing down" CFS.

Think that most of the times, long streaks (say longer than 3 or 4) are the by product of "coincidental factors", so denying a kind of relative general propensity to stop.

We've learnt at our expenses that per any shoe dealt the room to get a general propensity is a limited factor acting in the same way as the probability to get asymmetrical hands favoring Banker.

Short streaks are the rule, long streaks are exceptions.

But whenever long streaks happen at the shoe we're playing at, we should apply a kind of "quality" factor that basically could be translated into the propensity to get a specific streak lenght to be isolated or clustered.
Obviously we'll take care of the most probable streak situations, that is doubles, triples or 4s.

Once a streak had surpassed the 4 streak point, more often than not we're not interested to make predictions, unless we want to gamble a previous robust profit.

In our opinion, wagering towards long streaks needs a very long experience and acute thought, so we don't recommend it as a viable plan to make money at baccarat itlr.

Distribution of the most likely streaks

Each specific lenght streak (say doubles, triples and 4s) fight against superior streaks (so singles are ignored): the basic quality every specific streak will feature is the "isolated or clustering" parameter.

That means that we need one specific streak to show up before thinking to make any bet.

2-3 attack (that is wagering to get at least a 2 or 3 streak after a 2 or 3 streak happened) is the basic approach generally denying a long "overalternating" distribution in terms of I (isolated) or C (clustered) patterns.

Therefore the "overalternating" fashion (I-C-I-C.. or C-I-C-I...) is the slight least to happen, in the sense that sooner or later a I-I or C-C will show up.


3-4 attack, despite of needing more hands to be dealt, is even more "precise" as 3-4 clusters are way more probable than 3 or 4 isolated streak occurences.

An important rule of thumb to follow is that what didn't appear so far should be considered as "no existent".
On the other end, once a streak superior than 3 or 4 happened, we have to be more cautious about our wagering, a thing that might entice us to wait for TWO 2-3 or 3-4 patterns before placing a bet.

 
How long to ride a 2-3 or 3-4 I or, way more likely 2-3 or 3-4 C pattern.

2-3 attack is more probable to come out but suffers of more volatility than the 3-4 attack; a general guideline at both cases is to assess the common "3" streaks parameter.
Whenever a 3 streak didn't happen so far, a two-step betting isn't indicated, so leaving more room to the 2 or 4 streaks being clustered (or, more unlikely isolated).

Anyway never ever bet whenever a 4 streak (attack 2-3) or 5 streak (attack 3-4) happened.
Let a 2/3 or 3/4 pattern to show up and act accordingly to what happened in the previous part of the shoe.

As long as a "enemy" won't show up, it's not wrong to keep betting especially when the enemy hadn't come out once.
At any rate, the most likely and profitable situations come out after one step of cluster or, less likely, after one step of isolated pattern.

as. 

So here, I am going to share some of my approaches to Baccarat, things that hopefully are a bit new to anybody reading and so maybe that can help with your own game.

One thing I always believed throughout the years of studying the E.C. game was that someone needed a kind of framework to help them navigate their way through the decisions as they came out. It's not so much a prediction tool as just something to look at which can show you what's currently happening. Let's face it, whatever is currently happening or not happening for that matter is either going to continue along in that fashion or come to an end.

Based on my own understanding, I see the shoe is going to do one of three things for the most part. It's going to streak, chop or show the 2's. Now any of these that go on a prolonged run can be fairly straightforward to read and therefore profit from. When they are all appearing one after the other in a very haphazard way, well that's another story and I will come to that later but for now, I will just try and stick to something easy to read when it's happening.

I break the Bac results down into 4 numbers using pairs.

BB = 1
BP = 2
PP = 3
PB = 4

So here is a bit of a registry to show what I mean.

B
B 1
B 1
P 2
P 3
P 3
P 3
B 4
P 2
B 4
P 2
P 3
B 4
B 1
P 2
P 3
B 4
B 1
B 1
B 1
B 1

By doing it like this, I have learned to spot what's happening, be it runs, chops or the 2's.

If you get a continuous run of 1's, then it's showing B

If you get a continuous run of 3's, then it's showing P

If you get a continuous run of 2,4 or 4,2 then it's showing chops.

Finally, if you get a continuous run of 1,2,3,4, then it's running the 2's.

Let's have a look at that registry again.


B
B 1
B 1 (a small run of B)
P 2
P 3
P 3
P 3 (a small run of P)
B 4
P 2
B 4
P 2 (a small run of chops)
P 3
B 4
B 1
P 2
P 3
B 4
B 1 (a run of the 2's)
B 1
B 1
B 1 (a small run of B)

So that just gives you an idea of the notation that I am using.

I remember reading in several places over the years that the 2's just creep up on you and after testing a load of systems, a lot of them didn't seem to be able to handle the 2's. Now looking above you can see how easy they are to read. In fact, quite often, you will get the 2's dominating although you will see something else interspersed with them.

So it might go something like the following...

B
B 1
P 2 (2's)
P 3 (2's)
P 3 (single)
B 4 (back to 2's)
B 1 (2's)
P 2 (2's)
P 3 (2's)
B 4 (2's)
P 2 (single)
P 3 (back to 2's)

Hopefully you get the idea. That can actually be a real strong run and it's not unusual to see 20-30 hand runs where it performs like this and even just a simple 1-2 neg progression can capture a lot of units this way. I only mention this because a lot of people don't seem to like the 2's but really, there is nothing to fear from them.

So I think that's a good place for me to begin from and I use this framework as my basic template and pretty much everything else then revolves around this.

cheers

The number of shifts is another way of considering the CFS, but there's another factor to take care of, that is the RFS (rows filling speed) that starts to act after two same sides happen as the row #1 is 100% filled by definition.

More later

as.

It's funny that you mention the "table wash" of the cards at the start of the day.

I used to see that a lot but now that I think about it, I haven't actually seen it in a long time at my local casino.

When I would be the only person at the table and a new set of cards came out I could sit right there and watch it right in front of me and usually the dealer would also let me place the cut card when they were ready!!

That hasn't happened in a long time but then, I don't get into the casino early enough to see if they even do that anymore.

AD

I still love coming here and reading the Baccarat posts from Assym, Al, KungFuBac and Andy. To be honest, it almost feels like it's the last bastion of genuine Baccarat talk on the web apart from a handful of other experienced players dotted around here and there. I have learned a lot from some of you guys and your posts are appreciated.

That's me pretty much done with Roulette for now. I figure that there is really no point in playing it now that I just focus on the EC. That green zero just gets in the way of things and when it does streak, it can be annoying. So why pay the extra tax if you don't have to.

My Baccarat knowledge (or even EC knowledge) has grown pretty rapidly just lately. It seems to go like that where you feel like you are just treading water for a while and then things just kind of take off again leading to new insights and discoveries. I have done quite a bit research lately on the subject of parlays. You would think getting two in a row is not that difficult. On hindsight, it's actually not that difficult I suppose but where it becomes difficult is when you are looking for those two wins on a particular decision.

So for instance, looking for two wins on the Bank is obviously not going to be as straightforward as looking for two straight wins anywhere like on either the Bank, Player, Chops or two's etc... Sometimes I think we don't realize how we are setting ourselves up for failure depending on how we are setting our game or if we are looking for something in particular. There is no future in trying to put randomness into some kind of limited framework because we will likely end up disappointed.

It's actually quite sobering when you see just how long certain things can be absent from a shoe because of other elements dominating and that even the cleverest MM scheme might not be enough to circumnavigate it. I will come back and give a few examples of that and they could be used for other EC games I suppose if Roulette or Craps is your thing.

see you all soon