Baccarat Sputnik's Notes on Baccarat

Z-Score

Two out of three shoe signatures are singles versus one series (singles versus series of three and higher /// singles versus series of two) where they have there TIE BET (break-even).
The same apply for series of two and series of three and higher versus two or more singles in a row (a series of singles) were one isolated is a TIE BET.

Now we know that six events have 1,5% to happen and 98,5% not happening, so if we start after one single and one series we will be betting against does numbers and seven or more in a row with two dominant events.
Now I don't believe in selections, but there are options to delay the game using seven singles with one series as a selection betting against 3.06 Z-Score where the likelihood to get six 3.06 Z-Score sequences after each other will happen once or none during one lifetime playing.
A 0,03 chance to repeat six times in a row.

Code:

 1. Z-Score 0,02 -  1 singles contra 1 series 
 2. Z-Score 0,73 -  2 singles contra 1 series 
 3. Z-Score 1,18 -  3 singles contra 1 series 
 4. Z-Score 1,53 -  4 singles contra 1 series 
 5. Z-Score 1,82 -  5 singles contra 1 series 
 6. Z-Score 2,07 -  6 singles contra 1 series 
 7. Z-Score 2,30 -  7 singles contra 1 series 
 8. Z-Score 2,51 -  8 singles contra 1 series 
 9. Z-Score 2.58    9 singles contra 1 series 
10. Z-Score 2,70 - 10 singles contra 1 series 
11. Z-Score 2,89 - 11 singles contra 1 series 
12. Z-Score 3,06 - 12 singles contra 1 series 

I see it from a trading perspective - either you play conservative with only good poker hands like a sniper using seven as selection or pick only one Shoe Signature to reduce the variance.

Not made up my mind yet ...

Cheers

 

With no Baccarat and little to no sports betting, I'm already bored out of my mind...and for the US this is like week 2 of a likely 12-16 week process.

By Week 10 I'll be playing Russian Roulette just to wake up in the morning.

 

Well, Zeus knows I wish that like you, I could peer into the future and know for certain what a shoe gonna off up before hands, hey hey.

 

You're twisting my words. I never said I could prognosticate the future. I just said that I sense when I am in a good shoe or bad shoe and bet accordingly. As I'm betting along if I bet according to the pattern and I keep winning, that is a good shoe and I step up the bets. If I start betting according to pattern and keep losing, then I lower my bet or jump ship to a different Baccarat table.

Not necessary to predict it in advance, but when it's happening, an experienced gambler takes advantage of it and presses his bet. If it's just a one hand lucky thing oh well, useless, but a streak, it's not hard to sense it as it's happening. That's the clutch.

Do you know what the clutch is, in gambling? If not, you're not a gambler.

And what's with this constant hey hey @ the end. Is this a Canadian thing? It diminishes the impact of your words makes you sound stupid.

 

Patience will have to predominate.

 

MDawg I don't want to offend or pick a fight, but I will generally express my opinion about your statement.

We can follow the shoe or bet against the shoe, but we can not guess what will happen more or less in any given situation, only estimate based upon stats and simulations and try to catch periodic phenomena (cycles of events).

All existing selections or reasons to place a bet in any given situation is mechanical behavior.
Placing bets randomly for 100 placed bets samples will result in 83% wins or break-evens and 17% will lose to some degree.
The same applies when using opinion or reason or hunch or guess when placing a bet, same stats.
This is statistically significant proven (flat betting).

This is why there not exist no better or worse way to tackle baccarat.
Either you aim to catch strikes or any other events and try to stay ahead.

Cheers

 

I should also mention the facts that back up my conclusions and statements.
The book and simulation by Philip Koetsch "Conquer the Casino"

Cheers

 

No offense taken. What you are saying, is that statistically, there is no way to win at Baccarat? or are you saying that your method lowers the loss such that it becomes then possible to win?

That is one question.

As far as the rest of what you are saying, that mathematically speaking over time one SHOULD lose at Baccarat, I would agree. But this is absent some kind of strategy / money management / etc. I have literally passed well over a billion dollars across the circle in gaming - my host has told me that on some long sessions my handle for one night alone was well over a million - so, given this even at a 1% house edge I should have lost over ten million dollars by now, but I have not, I am lifetime ahead. So, a posteriori, I argue that my methods, work.

 

There is no doubt about punters winning playing Baccarat and Roulette.

Cheers

 

MoSun 2.13.20 1068

BpBBBBB

Here we can see that singles and series of three and higher are present.
Now I know what will make this sequence to end, a series of two, I know the future, but not when.

pBB

And here is the end of the first sequence, now I know what will happen in the future but not in the exact order, but I know what will be part of the future.
Either we will get a series of three or higher or at least one single and one of them will be part of the series of two and will unfold the new future sequence.

ppBppB

Right again, now I know what will happen in the future and make the end of this sequence, a series of three or higher, but not when.

ppp

And now with the new sequence, we will get a series of two or at least one single with a series of three or higher.

BBBpp

Now, this sequence will end with a single, I know that, but not when.

B

Next, I know that the future sequence will be a series of two or a series of three or higher being part of the single outcome, I know the future, but not when it will unfold.

pppBBBBppppppBppppBpBp

The next figure to end this sequence is a series of two.

BB

And this series of two will get the company of singles or series of three or higher with next sequence, no matter small, medium or large.

pB

The next figure to end the sequence is a series of three or higher.

pppp

And the future sequence will be series of three or higher with either series of two or singles, that is a fact and i know that, but not when.

BBBpBBB

The current sequence will end with a series of two and have either singles or series of three and higher, I know that, but not when.

ppBpBpp

Now I can predict and tell what coming next of one figure that will be a conditional probability event - it has to happen - and the other future figure will be one of the last two being part of the conditional event and create the future sequence.
I can do this with any sequence, tell what will happen and what events you will get in the future, but not when, but we can estimate when this will occur using Sputnik's March.

Abstract probability and conditional events that have to happen.
When you get two different sequences you know that they will end with a third sequence, but not when.

Conclusions and predictions lasting a whole shoe.
Two sequences will last and dominate a whole shoe with a third sequence sleeping or missing, very common distribution.

I can estimate the future based upon this concept more accurate then any other public known concept on any existing gambling forum board, this is the Sputnik's March in a Nutshell.
Blindly I can tell the future of any baccarat shoe and estimate what the future will be with a very high likelihood.

Cheers

MoSun 2.13.20 1069 BppppBpBpBBBBBBBpppBpppBppppBBpppBBBpppBBBppBBBpBpBpBpBBpBBBpBpBBBBB
MoSun 2.13.20 1070 BpBppppBBBppppBBBppBBBppBBBBBBpppBpBpBBpBpppBBppppBpBpBppppppp
MoSun 2.13.20 1071 BBBpBppBppppppppppBBpppBpBBBBBBBBpppBBBpBBBBppBpBpBpBBpBBp
MoSun 2.13.20 1072 pBBBppBBppBpppBBppBppBpBBBpBpppBBBBBBppBpBpBpppppBpBBpBppBBBppBBBBpB
MoSun 2.13.20 1073 pppBpppppBBBBpppBppBpppBBpBBppBBBBBpppBBBBBBpBpBpBppBBBppBBpBBBpBpBBpBBpBp
MoSun 2.13.20 1074 pppBpBBppBBpppBppppBBBpBBBpppBBppBBBBBBBppppBppBBpBpppBpBBBppBpBpBBpppBBB
MoSun 2.13.20 1075 BBpBppBBppBpBppBpppBpBppppppppBBppBBpBpppBpppBBppBpppBpppBBBBpBp
MoSun 2.13.20 1076 BBBBppBpBpBpBpBBBppBBppBBBppBpBBpppBppBBpBpBBppBpBBppBpppppBBppBppBpp
MoSun 2.13.20 1077 BppBpBpBpBBpBpBBpppBBBBpppBBBppppBBBBBpppppBpBBppBpBpBpBppp
MoSun 2.14.20 1078 pppBpppBpBpBBppBppBBpBBppBppBppBBBpBBpBppBBppppBppBBppBBBpppBpBppBBpp
MoSun 2.14.20 1079 BpBppBBpppBBBpBpBBBpBppBBBppppBBBppBpBBpppBppBBBpBBBBpBBpppppBBBBp
MoSun 2.14.20 1080 BpppBBpppBpBBBpBBpBBBBBBBpppBpBppBBpBBppBBpBppBpBpBBpBBpBppBBBpBB
MoSun 2.14.20 1081 pBBppBBpBppppBpppppppppppBppBBBppBBBppppBppBpppBpBBBBpBBBBBpB
MoSun 2.14.20 1082 pBppBpBBBpppBpppppppBppBBBpBBppppBpppBBpppBpppBBpppBBppBppBppBBBBBpppp
MoSun 2.14.20 1083 ppppBBpBBBBpBBBBpBpppBBpppBppppBpBpBpBBpBpppBBBppppppBBBpBBBpBBpBBpBBBBB
MoSun 2.14.20 1084 BBppBBBBBppBpBBpBBpBBpBBpppppBpppBpBppBppBppBpBpBpBBpBBppBBpBBppppB
MoSun 2.14.20 1085 pBppBppBBBBpBBBpppBBBBpBBppBppBBpBBBBBBBpBBBppppppppBBBBBppBpBBBpBBBpBpB
MoSun 2.14.20 1086 BBBBpBBBBpBpppBBppBBBpBBBBppBBppBpppBBBBBpBpBpppBpppBpppBpBppppBBpBppBB
MoSun 2.14.20 1087 BpBBBBpBppBpBpBppBpBBppBpppppBBBpBppBBppBpppBpppBpBpBpBBBpBpppppBppp
MoSun 2.14.20 1088 BBBBBpBBBBpBpBBppBBpBBpBBppBppBpBBBpBBBpBBpBBBBBpBpBpBBBBpBBBBpBBpBpBppBBB
MoSun 2.17.20 1089 BpppBBpppppppBpppBpppBpppBpppppBpppBpBBBpBpBBpBBBpBpBBpBBppBBpppBBB
MoSun 2.17.20 1090 BpBBBpBBppBppBBppBppBBBBpBBppppBppppBpppBBppBBBppppBppppBpBBBpBppBpBBB
MoSun 2.17.20 1091 BBpBBBBBBBBBBBBBpppBppBBpBpBpBpBpBppBppBBBpBppBpBBBpBBBpppBBBBBppBB
MoSun 2.17.20 1092 ppBpBppBpBppppBpBppBBpBpBBBBBpBBBBpBBpBBpBBBpppBpBppBBppBBBBBpBBp

 

Will continue tomorrow ... then I will show the shoes dominating figures ...
Why, where and when ...

Cheers

 

That sounds good, really good.

I'll have to study it.

Off the top of my head, is it not possible that what I am doing is akin to this, just not quite as mathematically derived? After all, sitting at the Baccarat table I have only my brain to work with, no computer to crunch numbers.

Put it this way: there is counting cards in BJ, completely, accurately, and to the exact true count, and then there is getting an idea for where the count is and watching exactly what cards have dropped the past ten or fifteen. In certain circumstances, at least from my experience, I have been able to jump my BJ bet to table max with just the latter data (imprecise) versus the precise data (true count), and won vast sums, very consistently. Point being that knowing everything is great, but not always necessary.

I can and do count cards at BJ, but this gives just a slim advantage. I need more to justify my table max BJ bets.

 

Nice Sputnik, interesting as a concept rooted in the flow of the game itself.

Will it be as sharp through dozens or hundreds of shoes, not sure, but a good start. Keep at it.

 

Yes, essentially you’re setting the bet based on rough probability, meaning you may not have the exact number in terms of how probable the favorable outcome is at that moment, but you know it’s high and are thus safe to engage.

Hard to put exact probability percentages on how Sputnik is applying his concept though, and in near even chance games like Bacc you can go a long time in testing with a positive result that might not be an actual result. Will enjoy watching him explore further.

 

MDawg said: ↑
In certain circumstances, at least from my experience, I have been able to jump my BJ bet to table max with just the latter data (imprecise) versus the precise data (true count), and won vast sums, very consistently. Point being that knowing everything is great, but not always necessary.

Please forgive me but I got to chuckle! Making a max bet on a "running count" and winning vast sums "very consistently." on that count? Surely you jest or else got the luck of the blarney! I played BJ for many years before getting "flat betted" at Foxwoods where, thereafter, I turned my attention to Baccarat.

If one makes enough bets one finds out that the maths don't lie!

XX------------------>

 

In my case, I wasn't formally banned from blackjack, but rather, handicapped. I had been clocking them consistently for a several years, but for relatively small sums. Then I got to the point where I was alternating between table min and table max, pretty much betting nothing but table min or table max, and clocking them for vast sums several trips in a row. It sounds incredible but I had entire trips, days on end, where I would not lose even one table max bet, and many ended up double downs.

I'd sit at first base and wait for both a positive count and a sequence where not even one ace face or ten had passed in say ten or more cards, for the entire previous deal with a few players total including me at the table, and then jump the bet to max, reasoning that the first card to be dealt would most likely be a ten, and then hoping to catch another one, or an ace. It's weird because not only would I tend to get twenties or blackjacks, but I'd not infrequently get an eleven with two small cards (where did those come from?) and then with a million tens coming I'd double down in an instant, and win twice as much.

So they stepped in and handicapped me to 3X my bet on each subsequent hand, no more table min / table max. 3X is better than flat betting, but not enough of a spread to win with, so I had to stop playing BJ, and this was at a LOT of the Vegas casinos that were at that time all owned by Wynn. But a couple of years or so later, I became good friends with the same Director of Table games who had "banned" me and he let me back in to play BJ any way I wanted, but by then I had switched to Baccarat, won even more money at Baccarat than I ever won at BJ, and didn't really care as much about the BJ. I do still play BJ some at certain tables in Vegas.

Anyway, I've just always been either very good, or very lucky at cards (and at love, go figure).

 

Yeah, they said I could only play one spot and table minimum. So I quit.

I never really won a ton of money just consistent grind. I once did lose 12 of 14 high bet hands! That is burned into my memory. Lots of funny stories. For another thread maybe.

 

MoSun 2.13.20 1068

BpBBBBBp
BBppBppB
pppBBBpp

Three sequences alternate and show once each.
Here there is an option to catch the missing and sleeping sequence and catch small, medium and large winning strikes.
Or just accept two loses and move on to catch other opportunities where one shoe is dominating with two sequences.

BpppBBBBppppppBpppp
BpBpBBpB
ppppBBBpBBB
ppBpBpp

The second half of the shoe is dominating with two sequences.

- Singles and series of three and higher.
- Singles and series of two.
- Singles and series of three and higher.
- Singles and series of two.

Sometimes as I stated before, one whole shoe can be dominating with two sequences.
All four sequences have singles within them.
The only thing separates the four sequences is a series of two versus a series of three and higher.

One past event of two of the past sequence is always (one event) part of the future sequence.
With no further explanation, I will divide and split the following shoes into sections based upon the concept above.

Now there is a fourth sequence and it has no bias or dominating figure/shape.
That is when three events alternate - one single - one series of two - one series of three or higher.
In any combination.

Clarify.
A bias sequence has to have two events striking a minimum three times in any combination or more.
Small, medium, large.

Details

It takes two or three placed bets to catch one sequence, no mater after one show or two dominating.
It depends on tactic and reason behind decision making based upon why and when to place a bet.

For example, the majority of sequences will have singles within them and connect the majority of sequences.
That can be one reason for decison making to place two bets to catch that future sequence being part of that.
This is only one example among many.

Cheers

 

Okay if I understand you correctly, I play the way you describe, or something like that anyway.

Now, say this shoe

Towards the end I just kept running down the line, no brainer, bank all the way, then player all the way, then bank again, then player, then bank to the end losing only one bank on that run and losing one hand at the bottom of each run. I'm stupid like that

I just follow each run until it stops, even if the run never happens. But in this case, this shoe, it did.

I think what you are talking about is more like this shoe?

where the player is single? On that one it was a no brainer I figured out almost immediately that player ran only one, and whenever it did I just bet bank until it went back to player, then bet bank again. It was hard to lose much on this shoe I really piled it in.

Also, when I win on a bet I press the next bet if any kind of streak is going on.

It's not a matter of hindsight - for me, these things just seem obvious soon enough after they start happening.

But what is more important than following these patterns and pressing into them, is to LEAVE after getting one of the fabulous shoes. What I call "pattern" shoes that follow a pattern don't come up every time. I seem to be very lucky in that they come up most of the time for me, but when they do and I have bet them right and really raked in the chips, I end the session.

Your system more or less applies to this sort of thing?

 

It is ALL AFTER THE FACT . Noting more , nothing less .


ND