Baccarat Build Math & Probability Based Playing Modells For EC

Intro I will share what I know and reckon to be the best knowledge that can be used with EC methods.
And talk about flat betting only and bet with or against.
Using pendulum effect and balance and imbalance.
Understand the concept of the Law Of Series and The Law Of Large Numbers.
And my favourite, Overrepresented and Underrepresented events in different combinations.

This will make Ellis look cheap with his playing models that is based upon pure gamblers fallacy among all the other 99% of topics in this section, in my opinion, so thanks for free speech.
And I know this is not for all, but I know I will save at least one soul from fantasy land and then it all was worth it.

Cheers

 

First, I share the Baccarat Excel Sheet for calculating Z-Score - for strength, and pressure in different scenarios without getting into deeper detail.



You can use this to build playing models based upon proven or own value methods where you give different events certain values.
More about that later.

Then after that is up to each individual to build their own reference charts or lazy charts to check when simulation and testing playing models.
They can look like this.

When you want to know the difference between singles and series of three, for example, more of one and less of the other.

Code:

1. Z-Score 0,02 -  1 singles contra 1 serie of three
2. Z-Score 0,73 -  2 singles contra 1 serie of three
3. Z-Score 1,18 -  3 singles contra 1 serie of three
4. Z-Score 1,53 -  4 singles contra 1 serie of three
5. Z-Score 1,82 -  5 singles contra 1 serie of three
6. Z-Score 2,07 -  6 singles contra 1 serie of three
7. Z-Score 2,30 -  7 singles contra 1 serie of three
8. Z-Score 2,51 -  8 singles contra 1 serie of three
9. Z-Score 2.58    9 singles contra 1 serie of three
10. Z-Score 2,70 - 10 singles contra 1 serie of three
11. Z-Score 2,89 - 11 singles contra 1 serie of three
12. Z-Score 3,06 - 12 singles contra 1 serie of three
13. Z-Score 3,22 - 13 singles contra 1 serie of three
14. Z-Score 3,37 - 14 singles contra 1 serie of three
15. Z-Score 3,52 - 15 singles contra 1 serie of three
16. Z-Score 3,66 - 16 singles contra 1 serie of three
17. Z-Score 3,80 - 17 singles contra 1 serie of three
18. Z-Score 3,93 - 18 singles contra 1 serie of three
19. Z-Score 4,06 - 19 singles contra 1 serie of three
20. Z-Score 4,18 - 20 singles contra 1 serie of three
21. Z-Score 4,30 - 21 singles contra 1 serie of three
22. Z-Score 4,42 - 22 singles contra 1 serie of three
23. Z-Score 4,53 - 23 singles contra 1 serie of three
24. Z-Score 4,64 - 24 singles contra 1 serie of three
25. Z-Score 4,75 - 25 singles contra 1 serie of three
26. Z-Score 4,86 - 26 singles contra 1 serie of three
27. Z-Score 4,96 - 27 singles contra 1 serie of three
28. Z-Score 5,07 - 28 singles contra 1 serie of three
29. Z-Score 5,17 - 29 singles contra 1 serie of three
30. Z-Score 5,26 - 30 singles contra 1 serie of three
31. Z-Score 5,36 - 31 singles contra 1 serie of three
32. Z-Score 5,45 - 32 singles contra 1 serie of three
33. Z-Score 5,55 - 33 singles contra 1 serie of three
34. Z-Score 5,64 - 34 singles contra 1 serie of three
35. Z-Score 5,73 - 35 singles contra 1 serie of three
36. Z-Score 5,82 - 36 singles contra 1 serie of three
37. Z-Score 5,90 - 37 singles contra 1 serie of three
38. Z-Score 5,99 - 38 singles contra 1 serie of three
39. Z-Score 6,07 - 39 singles contra 1 serie of three

And here is one other that I made several years ago ...



Should also mention that the worse or extreme after several million simulations was 5.25

 

This topic is for those who want to quit with the gambler fallacy and use more refined methods to try to get some degree of better results than now.
If not you just let this topic be alone and continue with your pattern formations and clustering combinations with no value whatsoever.

I attacked the Z-Score sheet in this reply - forgot to do that above.

Cheers

 

Here are some proven to-work math values with probability estimations and some unproven but in theory interesting ways to explore using math-based playing models.

So what is the meaning and reflection when betting against one event to continue to strike or show?
I like to believe that Overrepresented events of the opposite will create and certain degree of imbalance and that makes the Z-Score for those events grow stronger and can be a way to describe that some cycles or windows of Z-Score strength are more common than others.

Is like a probability pressure for less likelihood to continue without that one or two or several underrepresented events will start to appear and make the Z-Score imbalance to get some degrees weaker or to a certain degree.
We are not talking about a full comeback or full correction, but sometimes a small, medium or large window of underrepresented events will show.

Another parameter into this Z-Score strength window of overrepresented events is that some values with them are more common and can continue to grow or create a bumpy ride and some windows of overrepresented events are rare and will more often allow you to see what is coming in the majority of times, yes is the same thing as having a crystal ball.

The following math and probability truth should back up the statement above.
But here is anything that there are no limits, just the present extreme value that was encountered with the latest long-term simulation.

That 68.3% of the time the divergence would be one Z-Score or less.
Either side of the MEAN.

That 95% of the time the divergence would be 2 Z-Score or less.
Either side of the MEAN.

That 99.7% of the time the divergence would be 3 Z-Score or less.
Either side of the MEAN.

That only 0.3% of the time would the divergence exceed 3 Z-Score.

Continue later ...

 

I will jump from one to the other observation and now I want to talk about strike ratio and creating a spread or odds for expected frequencies of hits.
I want to talk about probability where we use 1s 2s and 3+ each by itself as one event with the spread 1 in 3.

So everything has its opposite or event that will create a pendulum effect, but with 66% favouring you can get some pretty good observations.
The following is based upon following the flow where two events out of three strikes with high frequencies are opposite to the event that creates the pendulum effect.
I have difficulty seeing there is another way to create an in-play situation with bias favouring using other solutions.

Tie - (=)
Win - (+)
2 Loses - (-)

This is not on a rolling basis, if two bets and the last one create a Tie we get (=)
If we win the first bet with a continued strike of the current situation in play we get (+)
If we lose two attempts to catch a Tie or Win we have no bias/strike following the flow and we get (-)

This way we can see how the symmetrical distribution has bias and high-frequency hits regularly.
The asymmetrical distribution stops at one - sign (-) or continues as asymmetrical flow with several - sign (-)

So if you are familiar with Ellis NOR you will see this as three distribution events where you have the three signs.
Where we can decide to follow all three, so when we strike on + & = we bet continues on the sign -
That way you would take advantage out of all three or two pendulum effects of symmetrical and asymmetrical distribution.

This would narrow down the overall strike ratio because of the frequencies of the asymmetrical ongoing in-play strikes and if they don't continue you would take a 4 attempt loss.
This is not an optimal solution, but I share this so you can see how to tackle and estimate a 66% strike ratio with obstacles like the asymmetrical distribution and how to approach that distribution to find and complete the playing model.

So you have some degree of probability in a perfect world and need to make some observations on how to solve the issue.
This is how I usually approach the random bits to look at different ways to tackle such situations.

=+++=++++-+++++-+==++=+=--+---+++++=++--+=+==+-=++==

And now to the probability estimation here, you need to gather some statistical samples to make conclusions.
First, you need to ask the question that creates the wisdom to grow as a punter.

Do triple outcomes with each individual event of the distribution 1 in 3 hit one each have the same match and probability as dozen distribution on roulette - where the limit is around 13 hits each with the odds 1 in 3 happens once in every one million trials simulations.

I am not saying that you will bet against this occurrence.
Just to know or explore if the strength is the same in being a rare occurrence to strike as asymmetrical distribution.

And here many doors open up after such statistical observation.
All dozen strategies can be changed or adapted to the EC distribution described above and your regular EC strategies.
So is like adding one extra dimension.

I added the "Skip & Strike" PDF that allows you to measure the sweet spot or any median value or favouring value for any method with any odds and spread of risk and reward ratio.

 

Clarification - in the image above you can see two singles as one event one series of two as one event and a series of three or any length as one event.
They create an asymmetrical distribution with eight alternating tiples with no repeat.

That would be the following signs - - - -
One alternative observation would be a fictive win that results in a win on all selections above if someone chose to bet against and not with the flow.
Except one attack.

Cheers

 

Good Morning - today I had a moment - there are two categories of members - those who think, develop, and are overall clever using the best of the best to find some working strategies - then you have all the others who ask for free sharing and complete playing models from others, those who want to be served on a silver plate.

That is also reflected in the interest in topics like this one, so for all those people who downloaded the sheets, there will be more.
And today I will offer you something really special.

I will give away several simulation Excel tools - that only operate on Microsoft Excel - that will show you the Z-Score 3+ samples and what happens after such samples - here you can see with your own eyes and statistically prove the occurrence of regression towards the mean.
Those values applied for each playing model can be converted to other selections and scenarios where the output and expectation of the same results will be just that, the same with the same behaviour.

This makes you ignore all those who say is not working, is not possible or whatever as you have statistical proof and can run TRNGs from Random Org every day and night to try to get some proof that is not working.
So all those years when I have been taking a shit or been mentioned as not having any clue or not know how to perform in real life.
Is people who do not have this statistical simulation software and the knowledge about correction and how it performs with larger samples of statistics.
So how do you think that feels knowing that you are right, but others get influenced by members who claim and talk with no proof, they are liars and in the same category as scam artists, never forget that.

I will decide who and when to share, but I can not upload the files as they are made by a coder and I don't want anonymous members to get hold of them.
So you need to send me a private message and then I will decide whether to share or not, after asking some simple questions.
Is not asking much in contrast to what I give away.

Cheers

 

Here is an example of a playing model and how to apply and explore the sheets I have been sharing above.
Do your homework, this is the current cracking stats model I am working on.
Hope you like complexity, because this is not a beginner guide to success.

At the moment I am working on and similar method to Card Counting and I know some others would be interested in this.
So you run one or two or more simultaneous windows that grow in strength and beyond 1,2,3,4,5 Z-Score.
Where you create a decreasing pressure situational window that is in a medium-growing imbalance with 1s, 2s, 3,s 4s, and so on.
Where all become Overrerpesented with math values for each one, so we can measure the strength with each window, but beyond the passing point we don't need to have control over the value as we know it toward even stronger imbalance territorium.
The extra parameter here is and the hypothesis is that we can not bunch all 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, 6s, and so on in perfect order with an example, benchmark 2,5+ Z-Score for each window following or within each other without getting the tipping point from the other side to show.
Exact as the Bell Curve where you push the Curve to the end of the chart and then the Z-Score reach maximum values.
So imagine an 8-hour shift where you have been in front of 300 outcomes with no tipping points.
Let's say, the hypothesis that all 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s, 6s, 7s, 8s, and so on comes in perfect order where no tipping point occurs between them.
I reckon that has the same probability as getting all numbers from a roulette wheel in an exact perfect order and where all show once each.
Just to make an abstract comparison.

So the playing model would be to use the skip and streak document provided above and find the window with the different degrees of Z-Scores values find the sweet spot for the tipping point and then from that benchmark create a point value system for the occurrence for the Z-Score windows, kind of minimum benchmark from where to start or enter and categorize the point values into Strict Expectation, Relax Expectation, Loose Expectation.

At the moment I don't have the values as this is hypothetical and abstract.
But one example could be that Loose Point Value would be around 2 Relax at 2.5 and Strict around 3
In reality, after successfully playing this way on a rolling basis and flat betting to reach the tipping point that comes with variance and the contrast between the existing pendulum effect between smaller and larger occurrences, I am pretty sure this can be a very good and solid approach.

My assumption is that the calculation should be made by headcount for each occurrence of each event to a certain level and then extend to the next event occurrences to a certain extent to reach the optimal window for a tipping point where we have proven mathematical and probability expectation of the underrepresented occurrences to have been pressured into a Bell Curve Corner and just waiting to show with higher and higher probability as the headcount increase.
So there should be the optimal window point value and attack window.

The difference from regular ECART play is the solution to combine several simultaneous windows with overrepresented occurrences to create double or triple or more underrepresented occurrences to be missing where the probability and overall Z-Score will have much higher values than using one string of occurrences.

Cheers

 

I like your statistical analysis Patrik. The tipping point are certainly well within the scope of randomness and imperfections that could be physical such as a faulty roulette wheel or a croupier’s delivery. These deviations are the ones in which you can capitalize given the statistics of play. Thank you for your hard work on this.

 

Hello Sputnik,

First of all, thank you for everything you've shared on this forum. I'm new here and new to gambling in general so I'm trying to absorb as much knowledge as I can. Your inputs have been helpful.

I played around with your bet selection but decided to bet on a "rolling basis" as you say. Like you said, you can get unlucky from the moment you enter a shoe. I got hit with 7 singles. The rest of the shoe was choppy as well. Second shoe is choppy too and I was already pretty deep in the Holloway progression.



The image I have here is the 3rd shoe. As luck would have it, I got 6 singles at the start and then followed by 7+ singles. Stopped betting after the 7th single and waited for a series of 3. It was frustrating to get hit by the singles when you're already deep in your progression.

I was able to end up in the positive the next shoe. I failed to monitor the biggest drawdown. But the largest bet was 45 units in the Holloway.

I wouldn't pretend to understand all the math behind this strategy but I do see its merits. I just wanted to share my experience with betting on a rolling basis and getting hit by 3 very choppy shoes in a row.

I think this clarifies your suggestion about taking a win, tie, or loss. And possibly waiting for triggers before betting like waiting for 7 singles and then a series of 3.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience -45 is not fun and I want to tell you that singles can stay ahead for over 300 hands and that would make the Holloway bust - and as the Author states you need a positive expectation to use Holloway and get the progression to work.

So I can not suggest or help you other then you need to experiment for your self.

Cheers

 

I will test and show you something that I have been playing around with - a hybrid as singles also create pressure for series to chop and strike with several in a row as underrepresented events when looking at the pendulum effect.

I will run some 100 trails sessions to show you the true expectation of flat betting with my approach and that is superior to anything in comparison in a public forum board on the internet.

Rule of the HEDGE TWEAK on a rolling basis

1) you have one outcome and play it will be a series and if you win you wait for the other side to show and bet for another series.
When they chop you have a series opposite to singles in the pendulum effect favoring you.
If one single bet again for a series if a win you have a tie and start over from the beginning.

2) if you get two singles you play the original to catch a series of three and play against a 3+ STDV
Personally, I have encountered several flat bets and have still been able to quit with one reversal or tie and then move on.

3) I will show one video and several example sessions with PDF that show each and every placed bet for you to verify the claims and statements and the results that I post.

No hocus pokus claims or lies or empty words with no value, this is the real thing.

Cheers

 

Here is session one, and I faced 7 singles once and solved the situation as I know the majority of the expectation of several 3+ will show.

+9 Units Flat Betting 1 Shoe

Add placed bets for this session for verification

 

Now I got one losing session where there were many singles and they tended to stay ahead with the hybrid situation sample one.
But I ran the same sample again but using the original approach and then after 7 singles took a tie and quit when I resolved the situation.

So you can test how many reversals you can get and how many +5 or +10 units flat betting comparing to rare losing sessions with 100 trails samples.

Here is the placed bets PDF 2 the losing session PDF 2 b and the tie session with the original approach.
Sometimes it is better not to change a winning concept.

Cheers

 

Would this concept work on roulette?

 

Thanks for sharing. I do not quite understand the tweak yet so I'll give it more time and try it out. Will update once I fully understand.

Hi cps10,
Yes, I believe so. In fact, I think he uses a roulette simulator. Correct me if I'm wrong, Sputnik. He also shared a video where he showed how to bet and he played roulette there.

 

I figured it was what he was doing. I know Patrik uses roulette more as his basis so that’s good. Thank you for the reply!

 

Hello, I use RX RNG same as all other existing random bits, but all my simulations are pure 50/50 with no house edge.
Maybe with La Partage Rule or Craps would work.

And for those who believe the banker side has a slightly higher strike ratio that you can explore in real life (fiction) but then you can play this one side only.
But a clever and smart person would pick the Player side as that side has a lower fee.

Cheers

 

I played around some more using the Wizard simulator. Variance was kind to me for all 6 shoes I played. Here are the results:

+8.2
+6.6
+11
+13.3
+4.2
+14.95

This was flat bet all the way. In contrast to the previous experience I shared, these 6 shoes had lots of streaks and very few chops.

Also, I wanted to clarify that during my previous experience, the largest drawdown was -130+ units. I wasn't monitoring so I couldn't tell exactly. I reached 45 units in the Holloway progression and was able to get back in the positive.

I went through the PDFs you shared, Sputnik. I now understand the tweak and will give it a spin next time.

Thanks!

 

Well, I skip this approach as singles can chop in segments and stay ahead.

Cheers