Baccarat Sputnik's Corner

Hello all - today I want to talk about the concept of the Random Walk wish theory and concept is based upon that the stock market is random chaos and there are no trends or patterns that work and the same goes for technical analysis and other preparations for decision making.

But there are two exceptions
Perhaps you have seen advertising about bots that run algorithms and they work.
They capture a nono-second fraction of a price movement and make a profit.
The other part is passive investing in long-term index long term that is proven to work historically.

Another thing that is being used when it comes to the stock market is a stop loss with a safety net.
Where you enter a trend and make a profit and then change the negative stop loss to a positive stop loss that you change when you reach your target and then you can not lose that trade.

Brett Morton's Bank Management strategy touches on that subject using different targets and a moving target for the stop-loss depending how much you decide to push forward after reaching a first-level target.

I think this line of thinking can be adapted when playing Baccarat.
Brett Morton's solution is terrific and really good stuff to apply with a playing method.

Then it is the trends and algorithms and staking plans left.
One thing I like to experiment with that gives you only a gap of two events/bets is using sequences where you cluster parts into two.

Let's talk about Marigny and STDV where we measure the strength behind the balance and imbalance.
Now take for example eight T and one H
TTTTTHTTT

Then we know that sixteen T and two H are slightly over 3 STDV
What we know is that we will expect that at least three H will show instead of another eight T and one H in the majority of times and certainly one more H
But that is if there is no growth of the STDV getting stronger and that happens with the same frequence
With at least one more event or several for the next eight/nine
So there is a mix of chaos of both

Here I have been thinking of solutions attacking both directions
Strength growing stronger and Regression growing weaker

What we need is a march or predefined random walk that tackles and catches those momentums.
So when eight T and one H ends with T we would aim for T once to continue growing stronger.
If we get H we have a tie direction for continue betting for growing stronger or take the H event as an indication for Regression of more H to come

So I come to a conclusion after looking at STDV charts that four more events of the eight make the sequence grow stronger and two opposite within a gap of four or less than four will drop the STDV values and make the sequence weaker and make the Regression come true.

As I also mention the clustering parts of two events as a good mark for decision making
I look at some sequences with eight/nine

TT TT TT HT TT

Les say we follow once and lose

TT TT TT HT TT H

Then we can look at the different mix outcomes solutions for pairs and how the stronger STDV and Regression behave to create a march with the minimum attempts to capture both

But these are ideas and experiments compared to computer algorithms that capture a fraction of tiny trends and execute a win.

The trend can be many different ways and lengths where we can decide what kind of window of events we want to explore and what kind of STDV values we want to tackle and play around with.

So instead of using T and H as patterns with no value in different shapes betting with or against we base our decision-making upon balance, and imbalance where we have three scenarios or outcomes

Growing Stronger
Hovering around zero
Growing Weaker

We can get one of them or two of them or all three with a mix of variations.
But are clear directions for decision-making and for observations using math and probability
And skip the nonsense of shapes of different outcomes with no meaning.

Here we might find that we can capture sequences that grow stronger before we hit three points of regression - that can be a foundation for a trend based on math and probability
For example, you have sequences with eight with one opposite in any combination and then ask yourself to enter, direct or wait for the opposite to show and then enter here is the exit point very clear when you have three opposites to show and you have regression as a summary of the whole sequence of sixteen events.
Here you might discover that only certain gaps or direct regression would result in a losing trend and all others would become a win or other mixed variants.

Only observations of STDV charts and basic understanding will lead to lighting
This is as close I can come to exploring Baccarat on real things and not hocus-pocus

And just to make things complex you can use different ways to read and apply random bits.
For example, eight can be eight series of singles versus single singles or the opposite
Or series versus singles or reverse.
Or smaller series versus larger series or reverse.

The variations are endless.

Cheers Patrik

 

Hi Patrik

Thank you for this topic. The only thing I don’t understand is what T and H are. I’m sure I will feel silly when you explain it. It’s late here in the States and I just finished playing in the casino for the night so I am tired. But I welcome this discussion.

 

Hello - Tail/Head

Cheers

 

I am concentrating and reading about robotics on the stock market, to learn the mechanism.
They are based upon a random market where there is different strategies with win targets and stop losses.
I was also looking at the distribution as an ongoing marathon with no ending.

A decade ago I made a strategy that passed 1 million spins - not placed bets - with groups of two attempts.
The method busts at evens with no loss.
So I keep that in mind when developing algorithms where I try to stop loss and recovery plans among other things.

I find staking levels with periodic cycles with built recovery phases are very effective for long-term profits.
Where I have experimented with Ching A Ling with triggers and levels and periodic cycles on a smaller range than six attempts in a row.

I would like to develop a group - a private group that experiments and is creative.
The internet is a great source of good topics on gambling forums with the right mindset.

Here is one example of improvements and tweaks that are pretty amazing.
To test the frequency of periodic cycles of strike ratio and measure the median cutting point for the median value.

There is a topic about the very near infallible system.
Is forgotten even when the test results are amazing using an aggressive staking plan for one hit and reset with multiply staking levels.

But instead of using a series of two the common way use singles as a group of two.
Where the law of series is the same with singles.
Where you have 1000 singles with 1 and 500 singles with 2 250 singles with 3 and so on.
Same as B BB BBB.

Now PP and bet B for three attempts result in one win.
But using two singles P P one side and getting a series of three PPP results in two wins.

Where there is a slight difference that is almost not noticeable.
When using singles contra larger series.
Where a single creates a loss and series of two a tie and a series of three two wins.

Where both have the same frequency of hits with a nano difference.
These periodic cycles or events are interesting alternatives for using Holloways Rasie and Fall progression with 100 steps for a marathon betting during a lifetime gambling opportunity.
Or using the option of divisor plan by Lanky for EC approach with - stop safe breaks - that is the option for stop loses concept that reduce the overall loss and recoups towards the overall profit long term - and I don't think the divisor plan has been explored or tested with the concept of winning two in a row.

This is the kind of internet topic that is interesting and has value for robotics or algorithms that can be automated.
Or as individual playing methods for casino games and sports betting.

Cheers

 

A quick note before I forget and can get back to this reply.
When exploring Ching A Ling we use series to strike with singles versus series.
The big difference is that you don't need three in a row to win two in a row using that way.
Even if the distribution and the law of series are the same we capitalize on two series followed by each other.
Betting once on singles and once on series.

Further development for singles versus larger series march/algorithm

 

do you have Victor's Lw method? It has been removed i gues.

 

Today I will share a mechanism that changes the overall strike ratio depending on when and where you bet using triggers based on cycles.
Same LW-Registry with different ways of approaching it.

fictive win - w w w lw ll w ll lw w w lw lw ll w ll lw
hit and run - w w lw w ll w w ll ll w w lw lw ll w lw
regular betting - w w lw w ll ll ll lw w w ll ll ll ll ll lw ll ll lw w w lw lw ll ll w w lw

 

This made me think of one method by John - see attachment

Cheers

 

Ha! What a coincidence that you posted that 4 column from Johno! Full disclosure - I use a 4 column and have been using it in a fairly unique way for the last ??? 4 years I guess. For those of you who haven't seen that post from him it is a 16:1 shot that any 4 outcomes will repeat. That's useable information.

 

I’ve used this with varying degrees of success in betting against a four-hand pattern. You might have seen the thread about the 8 horses. You could expand this to 16 horses (it would be a “crowded” field haha but might have some merit. In the end, it’s still speculation.

For the eight horse field, the OP said you have the following:

BBB BBP (Group 1)
BPB BPP (Group 2)
PBB PBP (Group 3)
PPP PPB (Group 4)

The pattern that hits first is the one you play the remainder of the shoe in each group. I’d argue that with the laws of equality that each pattern should hit 1 in 8. So if BPB was the first pattern in Group 1 to show, then BPP is the one that is “due” from Group 1 to balance it out. If you lose betting on P from BP, then that makes it even more imbalanced and therefore the next time BP comes up, a P is more likely to show to try and balance Group 1 (and the same for the other groups). Of course this is a bit of Gambler’s Fallacy but it’s an interesting concept overall.

Just think if you made it 16 how you could construct the groups and have some fun with it. For instance, if you have 8 groups of 2, and Group 1 is BBBB and BBBP. Both have 1/16 chance of hitting in terms of the 16 patterns. So what is the probability that if BBBB shows that it comes again when there’s another BBB? Well it’s 1/256. I like my odds of playing P in this situation.

Just some food for thought.

 

Baccarat - How to turn £75 > £5250 or $150 > $10,000+ for 28 hrs effort | GamblingForums.com

 

How was your result with the 8 patterns horse racing?

 

This is not a complete file of 10.000 random TRNGs
I will not attach it but I will mention what I am testing.

So here is a twist that I solve with Asymbac strategy against 3+ and bet 2s and 1s after one fictive win.
Is a 1 in 3 ratio clustering each even horizontal and cutting the longer higher series after 3 into a new sequential event.
That way you get cycles with the 1 in 3 ratio.
In other words, you cut the random bits into cycles and do not allow 3+ that can vary in length.

W, LW, LL

BBB
BB
BB
B
BB
B
B
BBB
B
BBB
BB
B
BB
B

But I find a loophole

BBB W
BBP W
BPB LW
BPP LL

Same as W, LW, LL and 1 in 3 but here we have 1 in 4 and 75% favoring and not 66%.
You will notice using the Asymbac strategy.

So this is what I did and testing.

How many singles of BPP do I get and how many series of BPP do I get?
Singles or Multiples
S/M

The odds are 1 in 16 to roll a dice with four sides and that one side repeat.
So doubles will create two loses and two doubles after each other will create four losses.

But this is a cycle and the singles chop and strike for example 30 in a row with single events of doubles.
So trigger-based or on a rolling basis - the march might be different and I don't know yet.

But here is a short winning sample using Johns's approach.

We have regular betting
We have fictive wins
We have triggers
We have on a rolling basis, march

s stands for a single group and m stands for multiples singles - in other words a formation of series.

ssssmsmssssmsssmssmsmssssssssssmmsmsssssssssssmssssssssssssssmsssssssmm

Here you can see a strike with W and LW versus LL
First strike 24 in a row before 4 loses
Second strike 37 in a row before 4 loses

Those stats are based upon an automated march or algorithm.

 

Going well. I am going to do a good bit more testing this weekend. Great concept.

 

I would be happy if you could explain your MM. Flat betting doesnt do good. Please explain us if you have time with an example.

 

Hi Patrik

Is that WL registry based on the S and M? Meaning the 24 wins in a row followed by 4 losses. If so what is your criteria with what wins and loses on the SM registry for me to follow?

 

My MM is simple and complicated at the same time. I am looking for best of 3 on all levels and level 1 is always 3 bets. If on Level 2 you lose the first two bets, you move to Level 3. If you have a loss followed by a win, you reset on that level.

For instance, starting at Level 1 (1 unit), you may find this:

W - reset
W - reset
L - 1st bet on L1
W - reset as it becomes “even”
W - reset
L - 1st bet on L1
L - 2nd bet on L1
W - 3rd bet on L1 however since we lost 2 of 3, we move to L2

Important: only move to L2 with an LLW or an LLL. An LW is a reset on L1 as is just a W.

Continuing on with L2:

If we have a win in this instance, since we entered L2 with a -1 balance, a win will give us a new high profit (+1) so we reset to L1. Anytime there is a new high profit level no matter where you are in the progression, you drop back to L1.

Now suppose we have LLL in L1. A first bet win on L2 only gives you -3 +2 = -1. You have to keep betting on L2. A win on the next bet puts you at +1. A loss brings you to -3 again. A third bet would be required and if that’s a loss, move to L3. If it’s a win, you have WON 2 of 3 on L2 and you can move back to L1 even though you would be at -1.

Does this make sense so far?

So, with the original example we had LLW.

L2:

L
W <- reset on L2 (it’s basically a wash)

This is done to prevent bets escalating too quickly. Because had this gone LWL you lost two of three and have to move to L3. But why risk more when you are even on L2 with LW? Had it been LL you move to L3 automatically much like how we had LLW in L1, an opening LL in L2 will automatically move you up to L3 regardless, so to recover, go ahead and move to L3. This ONLY occurs on L2 and above. L1 MUST take three bets even on LL.

On all levels, an LW is a reset on that level.

LL on L2 and above, move up 1 level
WW on L2 and above, move down 1 level

If at any time, you reach a new profit level, completely reset to level 1.

If you have a WL registry that you want me to provide an example on, please post it here and I will get to it when I have some time later today.

 

No.

I think a single group is 1 IAR A multiple group is several 1 IAR. Patrik, yes or no?

 

I have this WL registry. Please explain with betting units too

WWLLWLLLWWLWLWW

 

Level 1:

W +1
W +1 (overall +2)
L -1 (overall +1)
L -1 (overall Even, you will go to L2 after the next bet)
W +1 (overall +1, lost 2 of 3 in L1, move up to L2)
L -2 (overall -1)
L -2 (overall -3, move to L3)
L -3 (overall -6)
W +3 (overall -3, reset on L3)
W +3 (overall Even)
L -3 (overall -3)
W +3 (overall Even, move down to L2 as you won 2 of 3 after the reset)
L -2 (overall -2)
W +2 (overall Even, reset on L2)
W +2 (overall +2 which matches your high profit so you could either reset to L1 or since you likely bet Banker for a win at some point in this stretch, you could stay on L2 since you’d likely be below +2 net)

Hopefully this makes sense. Not a high escalation of bets, and you get profit off 8 wins and 7 losses)