Baccarat FOR WHAT IT WORTHS

Only the small sample size I know but buckin up against 100 shoe betting b after ppp pop would have given you +49.4 unit nets profits. Conversely betting p after ppp pop would have clipped you for -51 unit. There were 145 pppp+ streaks and 196 ppp streaks. Betting b after ppp pop would have gievn the strikes rate of 57.5 % and betting p after ppp streaks pop would have given you the strikes rate of a paltry 42.5%. So, I think this confirm that anti-streaks style is solid and betting on players is a lousy proposition. And betting p after ppp+ pop is an especially lousy coconut play, hey hey.

 

This would make sense given that B is a better percentage play. Playing it versus a streak of 3 is a higher percentage play in terms of probability. I have 20,000+ shoes I can look at as well. What was your longest losing streaks on that?

 

I been testing the bet b after ppp pop in addition to my main flats bet style and buckinup against 298 shoe am lookin at a total nets profits of +111.85 unit. The worst case scenario for drawdown never exceeded -8 unit, that's because streak of pppp+ are so rare. So these cat what trend and read shoe and wager on p after ppp pop are gonna win that wager at a clip of wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less than 50%, hey hey.

 

-8 I realize is the lowest points but you never lost eight in a row, corrects?

 

Several years ago we have tested a more sophisticated way to get the B probability to possibily overcome the negative edge (51.3% cutoff) by waiting a 3+ P streak coming out then wagering against another P 3+ streak when a new P hand showed up.

Example:

PPP...(trigger)
Bxxx
P, now betting two times against another back to back 3+ P streak.

A long term losing proposition (of course)

Then we've tried to set up our trigger as a 4+ P streak, either by wagering two B hands or by wagering three B hands.

Same negative results, albeit being very slight less negative.

Best option to bet B no matter what was by progressively wagering Banker two times after two B singles came in a row at 6-deck shoes.

Example

P..
B
P...
B
P...
B now betting progressively (1-2) toward getting at least a BB streak. If a 4 B single (losing) sequence would come out, we'll wait next opportunity.

At 6-deck shoes two B singles in a row patterns are the best triggers to look for, as longer B singles patterns tend to be more clustered than isolated and B singles are too much affected by variance.

For that matter, at 6-deck shoes it's not so unlikely to get a whole shoe presenting all B streaks whereas at 8-deck shoes this possibility is very remote.

as.

 

I looked through 75 shoes and unfortunately flat betting would have lost me 25 units betting B on a PPP trigger.

as far as singles are concerned, I’ve found that betting after three single events B or P will have a streak a lot of times.

B
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
P
B <- at this point you would bet for the B to go to 2 IAR minimum. If P comes up, then play again after the next B

I don’t have any concrete evidence for this play, but it seems as though sooner or later you will have some luck.

 

Buckin up against 303 tested shoe I never got result anywhere near as bad as what you got in 75 shoe. What is the source of yer shoe data? Frankly result like that seem to be computer generated rubbishes, hey hey.

 

Live shoe data mainly from casinos in the East Coasts. There was a time where I was a good bit ahead though. Will test more.

 

hey, hey, thar ya go agin. Wen suxfan lose it cuz shoes ain't legit! LMAO

 

It real easy to determine real, legit baccarats result from computer generated garbages, and rubbishes. The baccarats is random but it ain't that random, hey hey.