How the cards fall

[brad01]

Something not discussed about much is the strength of either banker or player at any 1 time based on how the cards fall

I have noticed that this does influence outcomes.

Sometimes I use this to bet and sometimes use it to not bet

For example if all bankers are going to 2 BUT you get say 2 strong banker draws resulting in say 2 naturals - I will either not take the bet based on the strength of banker and chance the 2 will go 3 OR I will take the bet based on an MDB+ type bet backed up by the strong banker outcomes

If you look at purely decisions and do not consider this then it could be an extra advantage you are missing out on.

Start looking at how the cards fall and at any 1 time try to see if there is 1 side which is definitively stronger therefore possibly influencing the outcome.

Use this to back up a good bet and make it a stronger bet OR use it to not bet on a 'not too sure' bet

[wolfat]

I am used to notice this:

there are some hands where one side get the 1 or 2 cards available to win the hand, it's a hand won with little % say 8 vs 92% or 16 vs 84%.

IE:  P has 7, B 5. now B get one card and it's a 3 (or a 4) and win the hand.

This is what I call a "lucky hand" for B that won the hand with one out of two cards available to win.

but I didn't found a way to exploit this...

[brad01]

I would liken this to all card games where sometimes one side gets good draws

Its trends and patterns of cards.

Blackjack players use clumping to get and advantage or not play when the cards are clumped low or high

If one side is getting all good hands in baccarat then it would make sense to play SS on that side while the bias lasted

When this happens I found its very hard for the SS to lose - it just seems to pull naturals and then the weak side pulls what you think is a good hand and then the SS pulls an even better one and wins

What I found in this situation is if say Banker is strong and all theories and methods and strategies point to a player bet then you would be best to either pass on this bet or consider to bet banker instead

Many times I have used every 'tell' to determine to bet say player and then banker wins

Times like that you say - well I cant win them all or that's just baccarat

Well consider the SS card theory and this could provide and answer as to why those bets fail.

I now look for SS cards and if I think it will have a bearing on the outcome then I pass on that bet or bet with the SS 

 

[brad01]

Poker players will also tell you this happens where one player gets unbelievable draws all night that just cant be beaten

I know poker players who will leave a table when they see this as they know they just cant beat this luck with any amount of skill so they move on.

[Pando]

I saw something like this on Sunday

I was turning the cards as I had already had a good shoe when a 10IAR streak started (there had already been a 6IAR and a 5IAR)

A pretty young thing sat down and started betting against what was then only 2IAR

Her bets started at $50 (4 of them), then 3 at $100, then 2 at $200 and 1 at $300, all against the run.

She lost every hand and her bankroll pretty damn quick. Conversely, I won every hand in the 10IAR

The interesting thing was that in the vast majority of her cards dealt were horrible pairs of 10's, and invariably she drew a rubbish 1 or 2, or another 10 as the 3rd card

My hands were not brilliant, cant remember any naturals, but it was that hers were so very poor

Only the last play of the 10IAR I drew a 10 and a 2, she drew a 10 and 1. Then I drew another 10, to stay on my total of 2.

And guess what, she drew a 9 to go with her 1 for a total of zero, and quickly left.

So the good cards don't have to be miracle cards, just better than the other side.

 

[brad01]

Yes this is true

Exactly right that sometimes the side that is winning doesn't draw naturals or great hands or scores but the other side just loses no matter what

Both situations cause the same outcome - a SS bias

It exists that's for sure and we should look for it rather than just outcomes.

Another reason why its always better to follow bias than to try and predict the change in a bias

 

 

[wolfat]

8 hours ago, brad01 said:

Yes this is true

Exactly right that sometimes the side that is winning doesn't draw naturals or great hands or scores but the other side just loses no matter what

Both situations cause the same outcome - a SS bias

It exists that's for sure and we should look for it rather than just outcomes.

Another reason why its always better to follow bias than to try and predict the change in a bias

 

 

This happens not only with streaks but also in case of long chop run.

anyway same phenomenon, but alternating side...

[brad01]

yes I notice this too.

a little harder to pick but happens.

one side gets good hand then the other

[brad01]

definitely using this now to make all my decisions.

at any time i'm always aware of if the cards seem to favour one side, they alternate, or they are neutral

this determines if I take a bet, or pass on a bet

so far results are good

will let you know in time if it results in long term better results but I recommend players to look at this if you haven't already

[avion]

"So the good cards don't have to be miracle cards, just better than the other side."   Good eye Pando.

I feel bad for that young lady that was betting against a run.  It was clearly a novice doing what she did.  Betting against a trend, run, pattern, count, bias, etc is a close cousin to using a martingale.  Like trying to swim against a strong current......it will eventually wear you out in more ways than one.    

[Pando]

I used to feel sorry for people like her, but they do what the want, and that's up to them. I suspect she wasn't a novice in terms of playing experience.

I once got on the right side of a 12IAR, an older lady bet against the run every time, lost her bankroll. Then she went to the cage and got more money, fronted another table and played the same way. Some people cannot be helped

[Pando]

58 minutes ago, brad01 said:

definitely using this now to make all my decisions.

at any time i'm always aware of if the cards seem to favour one side, they alternate, or they are neutral

this determines if I take a bet, or pass on a bet

so far results are good

will let you know in time if it results in long term better results but I recommend players to look at this if you haven't already

Brad, I also incorporate that into my betting now where I look to see, for example, does a strong sided shoe over ride the pattern that should occur, such as a run of opposites.

A classic example would be if I see say a banker 6IA streak, then a player, then a banker, is the next play going to be banker or player. The way I see it is that it should normally be a player (opposite) as its looking like a S40 shoe, but that in this case I would bet banker as it is the much stronger side.

Actually if it was a banker, it is still a S40 shoe, but the streak is running rather than the chop.

I think the strong side, if there is one, dominates shoe in most cases.

If the next banker run was short, say a 2, then I would bet opposites when the next banker came.

Edited August 2, 2016 by Pando
correction

[ECD]

Norm used to say that SS was a hundred times more reliable than OT. If the opposite side consists of solitary 1's then SS overrules all. If SS and either S40 or OT are on the same side, then it's worth considering a 2 unit bet even when Flatbetting. For me...SS also overrules MC event. Be wary though if it's mainly 2's running on the SS because they have a tendency to switch sides. I like to see at least one 3+iar before SS betting and if it's a 1 2 1 2 situation...I stop and wait after the second 2iar unless I am already in a superstreak of opposites.

[brad01]

Good to hear that Norm used to go by this theory it backs up what I'm thinking.

From my experience I agree with everything you say above

I like to see at least a 3iar before I consider it SS as I find 2's unreliable also - too much chance of OTBL or S40 rather than SS

There can be a SS bias that will suddenly switch sides and go immediately SS on the other side this can throw you off if you don't look for it.

Then it sort of becomes a repeat bias where it keeps switching sides.

Looking at previous streak lengths can also be beneficial to determine when the streak will end (that goes for ZZ and straight events IMO) but with a strong SS bias it can always break through all previous lengths.

You can really clean up if you back a long SS but at the same time sometimes its better to take a 1 or 2 unit win if your not sure rather than back it all the way and break even or lose

In all the discussions and books about baccarat of which there are few of any value nobody really talks about the value of the scores and the patterns and trends of the cards much.

There are people who have tried to use card counting with baccarat and some people who claim that card counting can give you a slight edge but I fail to see how.

Definitely SS phenomenon exists and I believe it does give the player an advantage and its not that hard to pick once you start looking for it.

 

[Pando]

1 hour ago, ozscouser1 said:

Norm used to say that SS was a hundred times more reliable than OT. If the opposite side consists of solitary 1's then SS overrules all. If SS and either S40 or OT are on the same side, then it's worth considering a 2 unit bet even when Flatbetting. For me...SS also overrules MC event. Be wary though if it's mainly 2's running on the SS because they have a tendency to switch sides. I like to see at least one 3+iar before SS betting and if it's a 1 2 1 2 situation...I stop and wait after the second 2iar unless I am already in a superstreak of opposites.

Great post Oz, you put it much better than me and with more detail. Excellent stuff.

[Pando]

35 minutes ago, brad01 said:

Good to hear that Norm used to go by this theory it backs up what I'm thinking.

From my experience I agree with everything you say above

I like to see at least a 3iar before I consider it SS as I find 2's unreliable also - too much chance of OTBL or S40 rather than SS

There can be a SS bias that will suddenly switch sides and go immediately SS on the other side this can throw you off if you don't look for it.

Then it sort of becomes a repeat bias where it keeps switching sides.

Looking at previous streak lengths can also be beneficial to determine when the streak will end (that goes for ZZ and straight events IMO) but with a strong SS bias it can always break through all previous lengths.

You can really clean up if you back a long SS but at the same time sometimes its better to take a 1 or 2 unit win if your not sure rather than back it all the way and break even or lose

In all the discussions and books about baccarat of which there are few of any value nobody really talks about the value of the scores and the patterns and trends of the cards much.

There are people who have tried to use card counting with baccarat and some people who claim that card counting can give you a slight edge but I fail to see how.

Definitely SS phenomenon exists and I believe it does give the player an advantage and its not that hard to pick once you start looking for it.

 

Yes I agree Brad, especially your point about the 2's. That's why I maintain 2's are everything - they are the key to most shoes. They ARE unreliable, and waiting for a 3IAR is a very good approach.

This is a great discussion

[ECD]

1 hour ago, Pando said:

Great post Oz, you put it much better than me and with more detail. Excellent stuff.

Just to make myself clear...in a  1 2 1 2 situation unless I am already into a strong S40 Bias...the bet following the last 2iar is a pure 50/50 bet and best to just hold fire and paperbet  to see what your next move should be. If I am in a Loop situation and I'm betting opp the last 2iar...I only bet a single unit(probe bet) even if the Loop is calling for a 2 unit bet. It's all about "risk minimisation" 

Also...Norm was a great one for 1 unit "probe" bets to see the direction of the shoe which works fine for the 1 2 Loop but best to paperbet only when flatbetting when unsure because if you lose that one unit bet that you weren't sure of in the first place, you have to have a win just to get back to par. 

[Pando]

Thanks Oz.

Like you I almost always flat bet, perhaps a 1-2 loop in a good shoe, so I see where you are coming from

If I happen to be behind in the shoe I only flat bet until I get my loss back.

I am very conservative, so I figure if I cannot get back to even by flat betting then I should not be in the shoe.

I consider 2's to be the most unreliable unless they are clumped (2222) but a 21212 situation is very dangerous.

As you say its a 50/50 proposition unless there is a strong bias

I really appreciate your input.

[avion]

Thank you Brad, Pando, and Oz.  I love this great input from some really dedicated and insightful players.  I use BaS40, along with what I call "walls" (like 3 players, 4 bankers, no 1's in between them, and also bet sporadics.  With BaS40 I use a 1,2 negative progression, and with "walls" and sporadics, if I win the 1 bet, I go to a 2 bet.  From some good conversations with Pando, from how he plays (very effectively) I know he hates 2's, whereas I hate 3's, unless they are connected with a wall of 4 or more, or a part of a sporadic banker or player run.  

Oz made a great point in the way he plays that he described as a "bias within a bias".  I use that also which might be the same aspect he mentioned.  I don't know for sure if it is the same as he mentioned, but lets say there is a banker sporadic run, and banker hasn't lost 2 in row. I term a sporadic as having a 3 in row, connected to a 2 in a row on the same player or banker side with no more than 1's between them. Then you see the 1's running in that same banker sporadic run.  To stay on banker, win 1, lose one, and that continues with a streak of 1's that is winning each hand, I switch to the 1's, and when it loses (in this case to 2 bankers) I switch back to banker for the banker sporadic run to possibly continue.  I do the same thing if it is a player sporadic run.  A good run of the 1's like that inside a sporadic, I refer to as a "bias within a bias".   

Edited August 3, 2016 by avion

[wolfat]

To set when a side get "lucky cards" I consider this when it gets 1 of the 2 or 3max cards availables to win the hand.

Every card worths 8% (1/13), so the winning hand get the winning card when it was at 8/92% to lose, or 16/84%, or 24/36% (with 3 cards availables).

IE, this happened to me yesterday:

first deal: P4 B3

then P get a 8 totaling 2

..and the B get a 7 totalling 0!

lol I was on B...

sometimesit it happens|!

PS I have one more question for my fellow players:

Do you usually play a pattern straightforward, IE when you decide to play, sy OTBL, or prefere to play, more selectively, a "pattern within  the pattern" like Avion said.

Be selective is less risky, but also less rewarding.

What's your opinion on this matter?

thanks

Edited August 3, 2016 by wolfat

[brad01]

About the SS bias and strength of the cards on 1 side I make this observation for live dealer online hand shuffled play

I don't know if this same phenomenon would apply to machine shuffled as we have to assume the cards will be 'placed' into a specific order to produce specific patterns.

I don't know if this will cause the same noticeable strong side card patterns as the combinations are all probably calculated by computer

I have not played baccarat at my local casino for a while because why would I when my unit size is still small enough to allow me to play online with hand shuffle and no banker 6 rule.

My local casino on the main floor uses all preshuffled cards put through shufflers and they all seem to come out with primarily strong OTBL bias but they throw in curve ball shoes as well.

So I just don't really know if machine shuffle will allow for the same SS card pattern observations like I get with hand shuffle.

Well Crown Perth and Crown Melbourne are both owned by James Packer and his wealth category is gaming

I daresay Mariah Carey is not after him for his good looks

 

[ECD]

Don't play the shoe that you want or the shoe that you expect. Play the shoe that you are dealt and just adapt. As Norm used to say..."Follow the shoe". Remember...if you don't like the way that the cards are falling...DON"T DAMN WELL BET!...

Better to go home without playing a single game than to go home with an empty wallet wishing that you hadn't forced the play.

This "no commission...Banker 6" rule is becoming more common and is a goldmine for the Casinos and you would have to be retarded to play a progression with those rules. Imagine playing Ellis's favourite progressions U1D2 and U1D1  and your 4, 5 or 6 unit winning bet pays only half. You would be slitting your wrists. It's bad enough if your 2 unit bet in the Loop wins with a B6 but at least you aren't in negative progression mode so you can suck it up, punch the dealer in the mouth(OK...wanting is not actually doing) and continue on. If I have time in the next few days, I'll give you my figures on the "REAL" PA of Flatbetting v Loop v Progressions. I guarantee that you will be in shock.

[ECD]

1 hour ago, brad01 said:

 

Well Crown Perth and Crown Melbourne are both owned by James Packer and his wealth category is gaming

I daresay Mariah Carey is not after him for his good looks

 

 

I've worked for both Kerry and James Packer and I guarantee you that it isn't his personality that attracted her either. If ever there was an arrogant son of a bitch that I wanted to pound his face to a pulp...James Packer is it. 

When he finally opens his new Casino at Barangaroo, I will be making it my mission in life to take as much of that prick's money as I can. OOPS!...I musta forgot to take my medication again...LOL

[avion]

Oz, I like it when you don't take your medication.  The fire inside you burns with a greater intensity.  Bring it on my friend......and thank you for all that you share.

[avion]

4 hours ago, wolfat said:

To set when a side get "lucky cards" I consider this when it gets 1 of the 2 or 3max cards availables to win the hand.

Every card worths 8% (1/13), so the winning hand get the winning card when it was at 8/92% to lose, or 16/84%, or 24/36% (with 3 cards availables).

IE, this happened to me yesterday:

first deal: P4 B3

then P get a 8 totaling 2

..and the B get a 7 totalling 0!

lol I was on B...

sometimesit it happens|!

PS I have one more question for my fellow players:

Do you usually play a pattern straightforward, IE when you decide to play, sy OTBL, or prefere to play, more selectively, a "pattern within  the pattern" like Avion said.

Be selective is less risky, but also less rewarding.

What's your opinion on this matter?

thanks

 

Great question Wolfat.......Simply, I NEVER start to play a shoe with any certain strategy or plan in mind.  What I look for in "reading and seeing the shoe clearly" is consistency. That could be consistent "walls", sporadics, 1's and 2's, 2's and 3's, 3's and 4's+.  If a shoe is inconsistent....I simply wait for the possibility that some consistency may develop.  Like Oz has emphasized one of the greatest things a seasoned player of the game can learn to do, handed down by Norm, is not to bet.  It takes a lot of time, work, and experience to learn when not to bet, and it is so worth it when you wanted to bet....but because of what you were seeing you decided not to bet.  Sure enough if you had bet, you would have lost.  That losing one unit bet that you didn't make, just put you one unit closer to achieving your win goal for that shoe, session, and day.   I will emphatically say, even if I only win one unit a shoe, I won that shoe.  It's more important to me to win consistently than how many units I won.  Many baseball games have been won and lost by the score of 1-0, including many extra inning games.  The guys on the losing team know they lost.  The guys on the winning team know they won.  That one unit bet, can literally mean the difference between winning the shoe, or not.

One of Pando's greatest strengths and skills, if he sees a shoe is not the type he wants, he doesn't play, and is disciplined to wait for the type of shoe he knows he will win.  That is such a powerful weapon in the skillset of "reading a shoe and seeing it clearly".