Baccarat Follow the Last anyone?

Chops scarce in this shoe.

 

A while back I buck up against a shoe what didn't have a single chop. I didn't think it possible but it happened, hey hey!!!!

 

Crazy how the cards fall sometimes.

 

Did you see that while it was happening and able to take advantage of it? Profitability could have been very good.

 

No just gathering Evolution and Pragmatic Play Live shoes to test. Starts out 70% Player.

 

Had I played the shoe looks to be easily profitable with little stress.

 

You mention testing, what strategy are you testing?
Do you feel there is a difference between live and simulated?

I do not mean to bother you, I am just trying to get a understanding of your depth and experience.
That is the problem when you have to deal with someone new to this forum.

 

I prefer live data. I have tested simulated data and it seems a little off. Maybe the virtual shuffle is not the same as a live shuffle?

Currently I look for shoes that reach 70% or more Players starting at hand 14 through hand 32 (ignoring ties). Only about 11% of shoes qualify. There is opportunity there which I am exploring. The original idea was to bet that Banker would try to return to equilibrium with Player. I am attempting to improve upon the initial research.

You are no bother.

 

The difference that you will see in live recordings is they are generally not linear in nature The typical card has 80 hands and if you have 200 cards they are mixed up and not necessarily in the order they were produced or they are from multiple tables. That makes the patterns and the shift in patterns different than a computer generated when they all come out in strict linear order. The operation of shuffling, cutting and burning has no effect. I could easily intermix the two and you will never be able to tell where that occurred. Same for shuffling.

As for waiting for the bias to shift in the bankers favor can give you an advantage, but you do not have to wait only for that bias to show up at the beginning of the shoe. If it shows up late and you have to shuffle the bias will still be in effect. The shuffle change nothing. It will carry into the new shoe. So work with your strategy but skip the 14-32 starting point. Wait for your signal and play right through the shuffle.
There is no starting or stopping point in the cards. The recording is what you are looking at.

 

I forgot to mention that the only difficulty that can occur in real table action is the bias to players might be offsetting an earlier bias from the banker side that occurred before you started playing. This does not happen with the online play since the game stops when you do. But in live action the deal goes on when you are not there.

 

What do you mean by shuffle the bias will still be in effect as you explained above? And how does that carry over to the new shoe?
This topic is very intriguing!

 

I think I got it: waiting for the player to banker bias to show up in the shoe.

 

The bell curve is skewed (bias) to the house side (Player disadvantage/against bankers commission) full house odds. When you come to a live table the game has been going on before you arrived (unless you are controlling the seat 24/7). The normal assumption is that a new shuffle starts everything over again. It does NOT (sometime a difficult concept that I can explain in greater detail). Do there could have been excess bankers that occurred before you started and now you see an excess of players. They are just offsetting the previous bankers. At this point you do not know that (unless you are playing online) so you think there is an excess of players and you start betting the bankers but they do not show up which could cause you loose. Each shoe does not break the overall pattern. It is linear. The online casino stops with you (unless you are playing their live tables) hence it is under your control.
Where you are at on the Bell curve can be on either side of the house/player odds, the only way to be on the win side is to know that you actually have an over abundance of players to start betting bank. It is a hard concept to understand that the shoe does not come into play at all. The shuffle changes nothing. So there is really no new shoe it just a continuation. If you record your results continuously you could not pick out where that shuffle was done.

 

Thanks for that detailed explanation Rz. I understand it a lot clearer now. Thanks.

 

I remember these Interblock Baccarat virtual hands well. When I sat down, Player was +33. It went +39 for Player, before giving back 21 hands to Banker.

I did not record the ties.

PPPBPBPPPPPPPPBPPBBPBBPBPBPPPBPPPPPPBPBPBPBPBBPBPPPPBBBBPBBPBPPBBPPPPPBBPPBBPPBPBPBBPPPPPBPPPPBBPBPPBBPBPBBPBBBPPBBBPPBPBPPBBBPPPPPPPPBPPPBPPBPPPBPBBPBPPPP33BPBBPBBBPBPPPBBPBPBBPPBPPBBBBBPPBPBPPBBPPBBBBPPBPPBPPPPPBBPPBBBBPBPPPBPPPBPBPBBPBPPBBPPPBPPPBBBPBPPBBBPPPBPBBPBPPPPPP39BPBBBPBPBBPBPBBBPBBPBBBBBBBBBPBBBBBBPPPBPBBPBPBPBBB

Interblock shuffles an eight deck shoe. Real cards and virtual. Instead of dealing the entire shoe, the machine sometimes randomly changes shoes. It might deal an entire shoe, and it might deal only nine hands from the next. It is impossible to tell where a new shoe begins or ends.

 

In order words the shoe doesn't begin at zero count. It makes sense then the number of players cannot equal the number of bankers formed within the entire shoe.
Is it fair to say that the machine shuffle produces an uneven distribution of cards, in that case?

 

What you see is absolutely correct.
Players are very ground in the concept that the way a shoe is prepared has an outcome on the results. That it has a starting and ending point. I work in a relatively unknown math called multi-dimensional spatial engineering that I utilize in AI software development. and it sees right through those concepts. To test this theory take one or two decks and start playing. Shuffle anytime you wish (randomly) and record the results. They will look like any other shoe that you have run into. You will not be able to distinguish where your shuffles have occurred. Ignore the ties, they have no impact other than burning a hand.

 

Players, especially in Las Vegas, had major problems with machine shuffling when it was first introduced. They firmly believed that the casinos were placing the cards into an order that would cause them to loose. They forgot that after they cut that the entire order was changed. The concept that it has no starting/stopping point is hard to accept due to conventional thinking. But it is easy to test and it fits all of the observations.
I work in a relatively unknown math called multi-dimensional engineering that I utilize in AI software development and it sees right through all of the concepts that players have traditionally accepted. It explains the real world occurrences.

 

I understand your point and do generally test that way (all my data combined as one big shoe) mainly because it is just easier. For many ideas (including this one) I do reset everything at the beginning of a new shoe to simulate actual playing conditions, however.

What I am testing currently uses a fixed entry point. For example, the shoe I posted above started out with 12 Players and 2 Bankers. So that is hand 14 and qualifies at well over 70% Players.

Since most shoes qualify early, it might be worth testing a rolling window of 14 hands, entering at any point where Player goes above 70%. That is a good idea you have given me. I may try that version to see how it fares.

I am testing a few variations which I won't go into right now. What I am finding with the best version is that the further I progress away from the entry point, the lower the win percentage. So short sessions would be best, within reason. The shorter the session, the fewer the bets so you could only push this so far. Honestly, going into the next shoe has not been a good strategy with this. That is what I am seeing.

 

Now the reason that going into the next shoe is not performing well might be that you are far away from the initial entry point. But what if you had an entry point near the end of a shoe in the rolling 14 day window? It would be interesting to see if it fared better or not. Something to think about.