1 is the loniest number...

[kachatz1]

Hello, my friends...

Before you start to read this thread, I suggest you "google" the words "1 is the lonliest number 3 Dog Night", and you'll be in the mood for what I am about to say...

I must admit this is my first real post to start a thread in this FORUM, but I am a long-time Bac player and I think I have a lot to add, albeit requiring you to put your thinking-cap in place.

What I am about to write about is not a PROVEN COMMODITY, and will be most meaningful to those of you who have saved 100's of actual played shoe results like I have...

That said, I am looking for your comments...

My "research" consists of cards I have saved since 2002 , played in Canada, Reno,Milwaukee, Macau, Vegas, Biloxi, etc...I only have kept the last several hundred, but have played many more over the last 10 years...

_______________________________________________________________________________-

So, here goes:

The other day, I was playing in Biloxi, MS. and it seemed to me that 3-in-a-row, 4-in-a-row, 5-in-a-row, etc on either PLAYER or BANKER was most likely to occur after a single event of "1-in-a-row" on the opposite side.

Got me to thinking so much, that when I got home, I went back to my 300+ cards saved from playing all-over-the-place, and I calculated the following:

IN MY CARD SAMPLING, , ANYTHING EQUAL TO OR MORE THAN 3-in-a row occurred 53.7 % of the time after a 1-in-a row on the opposite side...

In other words, in only 46.3% of the cases did a 3-in-a-row, 4-in-a-row,5-in-a-row OR MORE on either the PLAYER OR BANKER side occur after anything other than a 1-in-a-row on the opposite side...( NOTE: A TIE DOES NOT COUNT AS AN INTERRUPTION TO THE PROGRESSION)

Yes, I find this very hard to believe myself!! All of my cards are live games, no internet shoes.

1) This goes against everything about the "averages" of BACCARAT ( how many times a shift will occur after 1-in-a-row, 2-in-a-row, etc.) . And by the way, those #'s posted by Ellis are correct...

2) This hardly seemed possible, so I rechecked my figures again and again. I kept thinking maybe my sample size is inadequate, but figuring 75-80 hands per shoe, that's over 22,000 hands played.

3) Just like you would expect, in some shoes, this was way off, while in others the advantage was as much as 8-to-1!

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

So my question is this:

Can enough of us look at our old shoes ( actually played) to see if my experience is a fluke??

Most, important, Is this an exploitable advantage? In other words, can we make money from this? Would it help to influence your bet progressions, no matter what strategy you were using?

Frankly, I do not know the answer...

____________________________________________________________________________________________

If you think this is radical, wait until you see my next post about what I have observed happens after a 3-in-a-row, 4-in-a-row, 5-in-a-row, etc...it is even more thought-provoking...

_____________________________________________________________________________

Thanks to all for their insight and response. I am anxious to hear your comments. Email me or call me.

kachatz1

kachatz@treomanagement.com

850-687-3128

[ECD]

Hi Kach and welcome to the group! The fact that you noticed such a thing tells me you will do well here. But.....

No surprise. Somewhere here we have A frequency of events table calculated. 1's are half of all events. So you are proving my table is correct. All events of 2 or more will follow 1's half the time since 1's are half of all events.

Not counting ties, in an avg 8 deck, 72 play shoe there is an avg of 36 events. On avg. 18 of those events are 1's. So you have discovered that your shoe collection is normal. So now you can have more confidence in my frequency table.

But if you want to look at something MORE interesting, note that tables often have trends. The most biased table in the casino will often remain consistently biased in the same way shoe after shoe. For instance there is such a thing as streaky tables, (favoring repeats), choppy tables (favoring opposites). TB4L tables, OTB4L tables, Player favorable tables, Bank favorable tables and so forth. THAT is information you can use to your advantage. THAT is what we teach here. How to select your system according to the bias of the table. Then how to adjust the right system to the precise bias of the table. THAT is why our players have such high win rates. That is also why nobody else does.

[kachatz1]

Agreed about the frequency of events. I have seen your table and understand it.

It is very useful information for all to have.

I'll be curious to see if others experience the longer runs of 3-in-a-row ( or 4, 5, 6, etc.) more frequently than 50% of the time after a 1-in-a-row...

[ADZ505FL]

So my question is this:

Can enough of us look at our old shoes ( actually played) to see if my experience is a fluke??

OK, so I took a look at the last 10 shoes in the current pile. Here's what I got for sporadic 1's and what follows. I took any run of three or more after a sporadic one to be a "win".

Lose to Win

 7-2
10-5
 9-4
20-4
 5-6
14-5
10-4
13-1
 2-4
10-4

If I can get some free time I'll check another batch of 10 or 20 shoes.

[Norm A]

OK, so I took a look at the last 10 shoes in the current pile. Here's what I got for sporadic 1's and what follows. I took any run of three or more after a sporadic one to be a "win".

Lose to Win

 7-2
10-5
 9-4
20-4
 5-6
14-5
10-4
13-1
 2-4
10-4

If I can get some free time I'll check another batch of 10 or 20 shoes.

I think you should be looking at any run of 2 or more ???

See secound line of post #2

Norm

[ADZ505FL]

IN MY CARD SAMPLING, , ANYTHING EQUAL TO OR MORE THAN 3-in-a row occurred 53.7 % of the time after a 1-in-a row on the opposite side...

I thnk the original poster said he was looking at 3's and up.

[Norm A]

OK, so I took a look at the last 10 shoes in the current pile. Here's what I got for sporadic 1's and what follows. I took any run of three or more after a sporadic one to be a "win".

Lose to Win

 7-2
10-5
 9-4
20-4
 5-6
14-5
10-4
13-1
 2-4
10-4

If I can get some free time I'll check another batch of 10 or 20 shoes.

ADZ505

I don't think this is what kachtz is looking for ?????

I think he is asking how many times does it come back to the strong side after a 1 opposite that comes after a 3 in a row

Norm

[Norm A]

I thnk the original poster said he was looking at 3's and up.

I think you are correct, to be honest I am confused in what he is asking.

Because I don't see the the logic, But I am sure its just me ?????

Norm

[ADZ505FL]

Perhaps I may be reading it wrong.

I think he's looking for how many times a run of 3 or more comes up after a sporadic 1.

P BBBB PP B PP B PP B PP would be a single time.

P BBBB PP B PPP BB PPP B PPPPP would be three times, if I'm reading the message right.

If I've got this wrong, I'll go back over those initial 10 shoes and redo the count.

[Norm A]

I think you are correct in your interpretation

But still don't see the logic ????

If we were to say 2 or more rather the 3 I could see the logic.

Norm

Edited March 1, 2010 by Norm A

[kachatz1]

Thanks to all for your responses.

Here is what i am trying to say, and what i am wondering if you have experienced:

1) Take a look at a bunch of games you have played.

2) Look at all the 3-or-more WINS in a row on one side (PPP or BBB or PPPPTP or BBBBBBBBBB, etc)

3) Examine the number of WINS in a row on the opposite side just before it switched over to the 3-or-more in a row side as in (2) above

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

It seems to me that since 1's occur 50% of the time, 2's occur 25% of the time, etc that a 3-or-more Wins in a row streak would only occur after a 1-in-a-row on the opposite side 50% of the time. However, my experience has been that it is almost 54% ( see my original post). I am curious to know if this makes sense as it could be an exploitable betting advantage over a large # of hands ( just another way of helping to decide whether a 2-in-a-row will become a 3-in-a-row, a 3 will become 4, etc.)

Let me know what your experience has been...

Regards

Regards

[ECD]

Whether Kach is looking at 2 or mores or 3 or mores doesn't matter because BOTH will follow 1's half or 50%

of the time if you look at continuous shoes. By continuous shoes I'm talking about running one shoe into the

next so that when a shoe ends with one Player, for instance, and the next shoe begins with 2 Players.

mathematicians call that a 3 in a row, not a one and a two.

Kach, I think that it is very good that you are investigating such technical details because that is what we do

on this forum. Such investigations have led us to clear cut, undeniable player advantages.

However, I think you are looking at what past mathematicians and Bac book writers have termed a mathematical

aberation.

See, when a mathematician computes a frequency chart he does not count events in 72 play shoes. He counts

events in 72,000 plays and then divides by 1000. That is how I did my chart as well so my chart contains the

same "aberation" (error). When he divides the total ones counted in 72,000 plays by 1000 he arrives at 18.

But then when he counts the ones in each shoe he arrives at 19. A paradox?

Not really. The problem is he is looking for some high minded cause for this seemingly paradox. What he needs

to do is lower his sights and look for a low minded cause. Of course we have less problem doing exactly that.

Here is the simple low minded explanation of the so called paradox.

Half of all shoes start with a 1 in a row. Half of all shoes end with a one in a row (an opposite). But only half of

those starting and ending 1 in a rows actually get counted as ones because the other half end up actually being

a cut off play of a 2 or more and became ones only because of the artificial shoe cut offs. So looking at individual

shoes there are about 19 ones per shoe while looking at 72000 plays there are 18 ones per shoe.

Therefore, looking at individual shoes, all other events will follow ones about 53% of the time. So you are really

looking at a "normality", not an abnormality. Get it?

Sometimes we have a tendency to outsmart ourselves. But that is a GOOD thing. At least it shows we are thinking.

[Norm A]

""It seems to me that since 1's occur 50% of the time, 2's occur 25% of the time, etc that a 3-or-more Wins in a row streak would only occur after a 1-in-a-row on the opposite side 50% of the time. However, my experience has been that it is almost 54% ( see my original post). I am curious to know if this makes sense as it could be an exploitable betting advantage over a large # of hands ( just another way of helping to decide whether a 2-in-a-row will become a 3-in-a-row, a 3 will become 4, etc.)"

Sorry I am still don't understand what you are saying.

I think you agree that 1's occur 50% of time and 2's occur 25% of time, how could 3's or more Occur 50% of time.

That would make a total of 125% ??????

Norm

PS: Your shoes could be a Fluke or a Fluke and a Flounder mix breed. LOL

Edited March 1, 2010 by Norm A

[ECD]

Hi Norm, That is not what he is saying. What he is saying is that in his shoe collection 54% of all 3 or mores followed 1's. This would also be approximately the same if he had looked at 2 or mores or 4 or mores. But, as I explained above, ones are actually about 53% of all events when you look at individual shoes and 50% only when you look at continuous shoes. So, if ones are 53% of all events, it is perfectly normal for all other events to follow ones 53% of the time. The one % difference is just due to the size of the sample taken. The sample contained 54% ones instead of the normal 53%. This very small error is to be expected. Standard deviation.

[Norm A]

Thanks Ellis

So with that said, would I be correct in saying that about 46% or 47% of 2's or more would follow a 2's or more on the other side ?

Thanks

Norm

[Norm A]

Hi Kachatz

I just looked at 5 shoes I did at MGM last week, as per your request and rule I got the following:

Win Loss

5 10

5 16

5 15

6 14

3 15

Norm

[ECD]

Thanks Ellis

So with that said, would I be correct in saying that about 46% or 47% of 2's or more would

follow a 2's or more on the other side ?

Thanks

Norm

I think you mean 26 or 27% since 2s are a quarter of all events. The "cut off" error gets

smaller as you look at longer events.

[kachatz1]

This is all starting to make sense to me, Clifton.

When you have a minute,can you look at my HORSE WITH NO NAME post and explain that math to me? it seems even more profound/different.

Again, as i explain in that post the reason I was investigating it is because a number of Dealers have told me about their feelings on streaks...of course, they are on the other side of the table, but i do believe they have some insight into things just from having experienced the game and staring at the Tote Board with all the results ...

Best,

Kevin