Thread: Using Specific Patterns

Here is something I've worked on before. These are just ideas. I don't necessarily say they work well.
1. Play ONE SIDE only, say bank (no commissions)
This would get all runs on bank... all crosses of B P B (the bet would have to be raised) to get the profit from the second Bank win. If it runs PPP then I would switch to playing the Player as a run.
2. Playing ACROSS ie. P B P B. If it ran B P P B. A 10 20 30 or 10 20 40 might work. Don't really like the 10 20 40. If those failed I restart from 20 30 40.
If it runs P P P or B B B then I switch to playing the run instead of criss-cross.
3. Play SAME SIDE ie. if P was last, then play player again. If it switches to Bank, then play Bank. If it runs P B P... then switch to playing criss-cross until it goes back to P P or B B
I've used a change of pattern at the 3 miss to stop the damage. It could be the 4th consecutive miss etc.
I need a betting method to work with this.

Systemhunter,

Good start to a pattern-method. Hence, i think the betting scheme should wait until you finish what you started there.

My weakness in all of this baccarat stuff is just this, and it follows not enough actual experience to have stumbled upon pattern-methods in a universal sense myself. I have NO doubt PHYSICAL patterns, or 'biases' (to start putting it to theory,) which occur inherently in actuality MUST emerge from the outcomes. (And i will write more on how the universe is as physical as theoretical as i go.) I do however strongly feel that to fully exploit such patterns each and every time means finding their underlying theoretical outlines, or themes. But that MAY BE quite a bit harder than just using some rules-of-thumb and fiddling out something in the field, as others are doing right now. However, the blanket statement, "some patterns are more probable" is just wrong because in arriving at physical pattern-methods can the theory we already know to be true be abandoned? Every pattern happens; but given that, how do those interweave, and in which orders, to present us with the locked-in shoe patterns we begin to play?

Back to your work, consider also when there is "no" pattern, ie bits of all/some of the patterns in your outline combined; or the "anti" pattern, which goes opposite to all your picks. How do you alter your strategy then, when you're doing something "right" but it's not a matter of just reversing (,hence denying,) your method because you still need a method to refine.

I was checking out some more casino cards. I pay attention to the + - of runs over criss-crosses. It doesn't happen every time, but I find that runs usually beat criss-crosses. ie. pbpbpbp criss-crosses. 6x but is only one position and pppppp runs 6x but is only one position. If you check out baccarat results this way you may find something like this...
1 1 1 1 (4 criss-crosses), 2 3 2 5 (1 cluster of 4 runs). Two things I notice from studying the results are 1. the individual run positions usually beat the crosses 2. the crosses or runs tend to cluster together
I was thinking just play for it to run 2x because runs of 6 have to go through 2

Systemhunter,

To your observations, briefly, that is the only meaningful bet you have, on the 2d occurrence of either run.

Also note the very small effect the theoretical additional 1 or 2 bankers will have on the banker runs tending to be (naturally) longer.

Lastly, for tonight, theoretically allow for each run, and cross, -length; then focus on the physical (hence, ASYMMETRIC) permutations of those. Just need some more rules of thumb, later, to really start fiddling in the field.

One more extremely important note, which i was going to make a separate post of but will just put it here, i guess. As i think Archer first alluded to, and i am now starting to fully understand him, NO PURELY-MECHANICAL SYSTEM can work. As important is the non-trivial random side to that system. (By non-trivial, i mean to imply an understanding of randomness, itself, which doesn't cause the randomness to disappear when it is employed to defeat it. Like the old despots millennia ago, who tried to keep their prisoners alive while killing them, in the ultimate expression of torture. But that is asfaras i will explain this in the main forum.) To the extent the outcomes produced in the field are random in that non-trivial way, so must be one's mechanical system to correctly predict those. Purely-mechanical systems are too predictable. (Let the cards "try to figure out you", not the other way around. Anyways, being predictable is ALWAYS WRONG, who then knows, eg, when an opponent really is 'orchestrating' something on you.)

Originally Posted by systemhunter

I was checking out some more casino cards. I pay attention to the + - of runs over criss-crosses. It doesn't happen every time, but I find that runs usually beat criss-crosses. ie. pbpbpbp criss-crosses. 6x but is only one position and pppppp runs 6x but is only one position. If you check out baccarat results this way you may find something like this...
1 1 1 1 (4 criss-crosses), 2 3 2 5 (1 cluster of 4 runs). Two things I notice from studying the results are 1. the individual run positions usually beat the crosses 2. the crosses or runs tend to cluster together
I was thinking just play for it to run 2x because runs of 6 have to go through 2