Al wrote:

I have capitalized very nicely as well as missing the opportunities being presented because I was desiring something and not realizing at the instant time, what being presented cannot be changed to what I desired, etc.

Yep, as humans we make plenty of good plays and a greater amount of mistakes, that's why almost nobody will lose the expected EV- but way more than that.


What are we really going to exploit?

Once seated we should have a clear vision of what we're going to do. 

Each bet remains EV-, no mechanical plans can beat it, let alone a mere trend following strategy or other human shoe's compliance approaches.

Maybe a mix of the two could be helpful but the main issue we should be focused at is the classification of the actual shoe needing several factors to be ascertained.

More later

as.

Good quote.

Here's the quote.

Just because you are winning does not validate your edge any more than losing invalidates it.

DO NOT LET YOURSELF SLIP INTO GOD MODE

it often precipitates a fall. Your results are a product of the EV you generate.

as.

Top March Madness Contests and Bracket Challenges in 2025

Im a big fan of college basketball/ will watch many games during the next couple weeks. I will enter several of the following contests(Most are free) so the EV is great. Good luck to all.



https://www.thesportsgeek.com/blog/best-march-madness-contests-free-real-money/

There is a great quote near the midpoint of the article. It is in a green square and begins with "Captain Jack."



https://www.casinoreports.com/gambling-tilting-winning-need-name/

Top casino scams of the year unveiled at World Game Protection Conference
* If one scrolls down in the article it also shows links to the top 2022 /2023 scams. Many are still making the top-ten list.


https://cdcgaming.com/top-casino-scams-of-the-year-unveiled-at-game-protection-conference/

As you said, "you should understand that there are many different shoe productions incorrectly considered as equal when they are not."

Exactly.  And what I have been highlighting with B&M scoreboards and individual shoe/Sections for years. 

I have capitalized very nicely as well as missing the opportunities being presented because I was desiring something and not realizing at the instant time, what being presented cannot be changed to what I desired, etc.

Asymmetry and symmetry

Baccarat is a sure asymmetrical model as card ranks cannot be distributed proportionally along any portion of the shoe dealt. And there are many cards forming a bac shoe.
Moreover when cards are properly shuffled, different ranks are getting a "more likely distribution" producing a large number of "low" asymmetry and few sections of "moderate/high" asymmetry.

Virtually the symmetry doesn't exist unless for a coincidence; And we can't forget that the two fighting events (B and P) will get an asymmetrical probability at the start.

But if you want to try to make a living at this game you should understand that there are many different shoe productions incorrectly considered as equal when they are not.

Randomizing a 416 cards shoe is not an easy task and actually we players cannot have a bit of knowledge about how and how much shoes are really randomized.

The only situation to get more informations is when a new shoe or a same shoe is either manually or repeatedly shuffled under our eyes and this thing happens quite rarely.
In fact nowadays the vast majority of bac shoes are:

- machine shuffled (mainly by a SHFL machine), utilized more than one time with two alternating decks;

- preordered shuffled, utilized just one time.

Honestly and besides Vegas and some other US casinos, we do not trust any casino in the world so we're prepared to assume that cards cannot be properly shuffled at any shoe dealt.

The utmost interest of any casino in the world is to offer random situations, yet strong unrandom distributions itlr tend to favor the house and not the players.

Think about those "weird" blackjack infamous shoes coming out in a row when the distribution sounds as low cards/neutral cards/high cards and where it's almost impossible to extract an edge.

Believe me or not, our algorithms had taught us to realize when a shoe is profitable (so enticing a larger number of bets at that shoe), neutral (so itlr producing a slight loss for the EV-) or unprofitable no matter how deep we'll select our betting.

At the end the common denominator is the asymmetry level: When asymmetry reaches too high values at the shoe played (B category), we're navigating the "tourists' hope", meaning that this shoe is too much affected by a NOT average distribution enticing a possible negative multilayered progression. Anyway best option remains to stay still.

On the other end, those more probable shoes belonging to the average category might be exploited even better by a progressive multilayered positive plan, especially towards clustered events of low levels of happening.

Example.

No matter what random walk utilized, suppose we're taking care of doubles vs superior streaks.
Thus 0=no double (so a superior streak), 1=one double intertwined by two superior streaks, 2=two doubles between two superior streaks, and so on. 

More probable asymmetry levels about doubles move around 0, 1 and 2 levels.

The actual (real) shoe went as 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 1, 2, 1, 0, 2.
A derived road went as 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 3, 1, 0.

Another shoe:

0, 0, 0, 4 (so 3), 0.

Derived road: 4 (so 3), 1, 1, 1, 2.

Now let's take the opposite situation, that is superior streaks vs doubles.

3, 0, 1, 1, 0.

Derived road: 4 (so 3), 1, 1, 0.

Tourists hope that "huge" numbers will come out for long or that a given same number will show up as long as the shoe could.
Professionals will take the same route whenever LOW numbers come out shortly but when "huge" numbers (dictating a greater than average level of asymmetry) seem to be predominant (suggesting a moderate/high asymmetry level) are simply not interested to chase a kind of "too deviated" world, maybe discarding from the possibilities very low numbers as 0.

We're fully aware that those considerations are directly falling into the Gambler's fallacy world and actually we have no reason to let "experts" to think otherwise.

All baccarat players are pure donators, period. 

as.   

Hi KFB, thanks, it's the same for me. Even if I don't reply very often, I really read and reread every post you present here.

Distribution of pattern numbers

That given numbers alone cannot get us an edge by predominating over other numbers is sure as hell, yet each shoe dealt will present a "more probable" numbers distribution for the finitess of the elements producing the results and for the related math features.
For example, when a huge number (3) shows up, we have to "guess" what will be the more likely next number to come.

Long tests have taught us that after a 3 number, there's a very slight propensity that next probable number will be 0 or 1, then 2.
Thus the least probability is assigned to another 3. It means that back-to-back "huge" number patterns are not coming out around any corner.
This shouldn't lure us to bet for any number different than 3 after a 3 even though a same succession won't form many simultaneously derived lines having the 3-3... shape.

Even worse is thinking that after a 3-3 succession, best bet to make all the time will be against one more 3 number.

Actually any 3 single number should be considered as a sign of a moderate/strong asymmetrical distribution deviating from the more likely "light" natural asymmetry.
Good news is that an interesting part of total shoes won't perform a single 3, so giving us a kind of "freerolling" by betting any of the other numbers.

On the other end of the spectrum 0s vs any superior number or 1s vs (2s-3s), will constitute the core of the light asymmetry.
Now differently than other mentioned techniques getting a 0.75%/0.25% general probability, here we are talking about a kind of 50/50 probability propositions.
Naturally linking 0s and 1s vs anything else will merge into a 0.75 p. 

Interestingly and obviously, the light asymmetry (0 and 1 numbers) tend to come out either  clustered at some levels or rarely distributed along any shoe*.
Most of the times single shoes do not produce balancements of a previously silent number, paraphrasing it's the classical example of "very good shoe" (no balancement) or "very bad shoe" (many balancements, thus chaotic undetectable flow).

*: Chasing the light asymmetry to be clustered is a way minor mistake than chasing a number never happened or few happened so far, especially if it's a huge number.

Labeling a shoe into a more probable category ASAP

Schematically and even knowing that things could (!) change along the course of a shoe, we'll have just two shoe types:

A- Light asymmetry predominant shoes (average shoes)

Patterns are consecutively short, huge numbers come out rarely or even not at all.   

B- Moderate/strong asymmetry predominant shoes.

One or two long patterns apparition is a long term reliable tool to look for, two huge numbers coming out rapidly are a fair sign of strong asymmetry somewhat affecting next shoe parts.

There's another important technical factor helping us to approximate at best which A or B category each shoe dealt belongs to that I can't discuss here.

At the end, average shoes entice a low numbers betting placement; Conversely B category should orient us to get rid of just one number: 0.
That means to encourage the use of a multilayered positive progression at A shoes and a multilayered negative progression at B shoes.

See you next week

as.

Asym above in post#1252

"...It's a honor for me to be here sharing ideas with KFB and Alrelax (and some others), true real world class experts (and foremost real players as we are)..."

Thank you AsymBacGuy. I learn a lot from your many essays(older posts too). I like that you elaborate on your topics. As many of your underlying theses are not the typical cookie-cutter or simplistic type ideas often observed on forums.

Keep up the good work.

From up above:

"...Well pre-2000, there were mostly the bac big tables where 2 dealers would work the double bank chip rack and 7 people can play on each end.  One dealer would stand opposite the chip rack in the middle of the table (see picture below where the indent is and place the players cards down by the rail and the bankers cards above those), he or she would receive the cards from each person when they had the shoe.  The shoe would start in seat #1 and be past around the table counter clockwise.  The person with the shoe would deal one card for the player and slide it to the dealer standing and then the next card for banker with its corner under the shoe, third card slid for the player again to the standing dealer, fourth card again under the corner of the shoe. You could wager either player or banker of course.  If you were high wagering player, you would then slide the bankers cards to the dealer standing and you would receive the players cards back to open.  If you were not high wagering players bet, they were slid to whomever was.  Then you would open the bankers cards no matter the amount you had wagered.  You kept the shoe as long as you made winning banker hands.

There was always at least a $100.00 minimum on the table.  The game was very slow and there were no automatic shufflers.  Took at least 20-30 mins for the shuffle.

Most all played same side and in sync.  Huge camaraderie prevailed most all the time.   .."


     I agree that pre-2000 the baccarat game was less profitable for the casino. I liked the big-table atmosphere. Since the 1980s it has gradually disappeared to only a few high-limit rooms offer it(& then not open 24/7). Although I do prefer the speed of decisions from the EZ Bac version in recent decades.

Besides the significantly fewer hands the Pre-2000 players were most likely to "follow the leader" (i.e., play in sync). It didn't really matter to casino which side (P as well as B) as "everyone betting with the camaraderie" created more volatility for the casino(vs the modern player more willing to wager opposite the current trend).

Casinos prefer less volatility and more predictability. If we go way back the game was played more like Black Jack where players could make drawing decisions based on what their opponent was showing,LOL. That would have been fun. The problem for the casino was they couldnt count on the Banker(dealer) using optimum strategy. Todays drawing rules fixed that concern for the casino. So in todays game the casino is satisfied with straddling the game results. Less volatility and guaranteed profits.


Many changes from the original parlor version of Baccarat chemin de fer:


The parlor game was originally a three-person zero-sum game. Later in the 19th century it was simplified to a two-person zero-sum game. Early in the 20th century the parlor game became a casino game, no longer zero-sum. In the mid 20th century, the strategic casino game became a nonstrategic game, with players competing against the house instead of against each other. It is my opinion that this evolution was motivated by both economic and game-theoretic considerations.

*Mostly Economic
     Majority of changes through the years are motivated by casinos' desire to increase profits. Meaning that when an inventor for a new layout presents their pitch to a casino they show how this "new layout, bonus bets, procedural changes,...etc" will increase ROI for the casino vs the current method.
I often find it informative to dissect and unravel bonus bets and (i.e, Why would they offer this, and or how did they calculate the house edge on this new wager). Then I look at the underlying premise and try to discern if there is a flaw in the inventors' calculations.


Continued Success,