Knowing Your Nemesis
There are so many bet selection methods and techniques, public and otherwise, that one can select from and adopt as their own. The list is virtually endless, from totally mechanical selections to a bit more subjective, such as trending, it's bound to boggle a propective users mind. Which of these might be best?
Well, the obvious answer is that your bet selection process must be a comfortable one for your preferred style of play. For instance, if, in fact, you're a relatively patient and disciplined sort of player, you might prefer a bet selection process that does not bet every decision but awaits certain criteria to be met prior to any bet placements.
But, that said, there exists as well a not-quite-as-obvious answer to your bet section process dilemma:
The "nemesis". The nemesis, in this instance, is defined as what your bet selection process loses to.
And, yes, it matters. It matters alot.
If I were to design a bet selection process, I would not want my nemesis to be the singles, or ones. Why? Because the statistical leader for appearances in the average Bac shoe is, in fact, ones (or singles). Would it make sense to have your nemesis be the most common occurrence, statistically? I should think not.
And, make no mistake of it, my friends, every bet selection methodology has its nemesis. If one were to even attempt any long term success with those bet selections, one had better be very well acquainted with exactly what their nemesis looks like. In this manner, they will be aware of exactly what they need to be on the lookout for, what to avoid, or, at the very least, what to back off against.
The smaller that nemesis window, the better. Try to select your bet selection methodology with that in mind.....as reduced a nemesis as possible. And an easily-recognizable nemesis (so you know when to back off as opposed to butting heads against it) is of equal importance.
So, while your preferred bet selection methodology is of paramount importance, and should be designed around your preferred style of play and your preferred money-management process as well; make no mistake of the absolute necessity of being familiar with your nemesis in order to best fend it off. Every bet selection method has its nemesis, but you can make it alot more bearable by recognizing it readily and reacting to it expediantly.
I wish you all the very best of it.
1. WIN
2. Minimize exposure
I find this pretty good advice for gambling as well as criminal law :)
Yes. Ideally, we'd all like to get in, get it, and get out.
And that, too, needs to be a part of our methodology as much as anything else.
Think about it for a minute:
A player utlizing an arduous, drawn out negative progression needs to keep his initial unit sizes on the low side, because he needs to have the "wiggle room" to escalate those bets as necessary. Now, that sort of player is not as apt to have that same "get in, get it, and get out" mentality, because his early wins are not sufficient to satisfy his session win goal. So he needs to play on. And play on into what, exactly? Might he be exposing his bankroll to an impending downturn?
That's why we need to make our initial units sizes large enough to MATTER. So that we can be satisfied with those couple/few unit wins. Then we can "get in, get it, and get out" in a much more expeditious manner.
I wish it for all of you.
Have you accepted the challenge yet?
I look forward to hearing from you, and I wish you the very best, gr8player. Take care now.
Quote: DeMangoWhy even give him a pass on the original post? It said absolutely nothing!
It said that he plays Baccarat and he makes bets, that's huge. Sometimes he bets on one result, and other times he bets on a different result. He doesn't always bet the same amount, either, I think that's just a piece of the puzzle.
The key is that you have to avoid adding up a bunch of negative numbers, because you still get a negative number. You have to make sure that you are multiplying negative numbers, and always an even amount of them. That results in a positive number, and that's winning.
Gr8Player is multiplying those negative numbers, man. I'm not quite sure how he's doing it, but he's doing it.
Quote: Mission146
Gr8Player is multiplying those negative numbers, man. I'm not quite sure how he's doing it, but he's doing it.
He's curve fitting, like I said. They do it all the
time in statistics. You bend or ignore the stats
you don't like and only use the ones that fit what
you're trying to accomplish. They did it with Global
Warming. Only used the stats that made their case.
Since you shared your method, here is the Wizard's that I found.Quote: gr8playerI get many questions about my bet selection techniques and how I might have arrived at them, so I'll begin this thread by way of response:
he has been so kind to let you post on his site
https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/
"Every baccarat table will have plenty of score cards and pencils for the players to keep track of the outcome of every hand.
Most players will do so religiously and carefully analyze their card for trends as the winning hand switches back and forth from the banker to the player.
This is a big waste of time!
The smart player will bet on the banker every time and leave the score cards alone."
The Wizard's method looks really simple and he knows how to do some very difficult math,
way beyond my ability. (and maybe your's too)
I would say any 5 year old can follow his method 100% accurately
100% of the time and have a lifetime of results results approaching the house edge of the Banker bet.
Care to comment on the Wizard's method??
He has a large following, I would say close to Annette Obrestad
Thanks and
Good Luck
All anyone needs to know regarding the Wizard's view of any betting methodologies can be found in the header of this very subsection:
"All betting systems are worthless."
And his "betting Banker every hand" falls into that same ill-fated "worthless" category, for it will lose in the long term. Make no mistake of it, my friend.
And the worst thing about it is the "variance"; the downturns will, at some point or another, be virtually astronomical and insurmountable.
I prefer not to bet every hand as if I were a machine. Rather:
I prefer to bet when I wish to based upon certain criteria.
I prefer to bet where I wish to based upon certain criteria.
I prefer to alter my bet size as I wish to based upon certain criteria.
I prefer to terminate a session as I wish to based upon certain criteria.
Do you notice a recurring theme among those stated preferences of mine, 7craps?
Sure you do: It's the "as I wish to".
You see, my friend, unlike that monolithic, decision-spewing table, I AM ALLOWED TO THINK. I AM ALLOWED TO REACT, AND COUNTERACT.
And my THINKING, REACTING, and COUNTERACTING trumps their house edge.
Stick that in your "all betting systems are worthless" pipe and smoke it.......
Again, much thanks for your interest, 7craps.
The key to winning gambling is to get really, really good at picking what is going to happen next.
The better you get at it, the more you will win. Start practicing.
Quote: gr8player
And my THINKING, REACTING, and COUNTERACTING trumps their house edge.
.
No it doesn't. If it did you would quit posting
on forums and be in the casino 6 days a week.
Instead you have a pile of reasons not to quit
your job. What about the challenge? Put all
this hyperbole to rest once and for all.
Hyperbole: Bragging, exaggeration.
Quote: MoscaThe key to winning gambling is to get really, really good at picking what is going to happen next.
I'm great at it. It's the actual event that doesn't get it right :P
Quote: EvenBobNo it doesn't. If it did you would quit posting
on forums and be in the casino 6 days a week.
Instead you have a pile of reasons not to quit
your job. What about the challenge? Put all
this hyperbole to rest once and for all.
Hyperbole: Bragging, exaggeration.
Says the man who won't take bets on the internet, or take challenges on his own special roulette schemes. Sauce for the goose and all that. Of all the people to attack someone's selection method, Bob, it's funny how you are the one doing it. You say you can make pit managers change their underwear with your special forecasting methods, if they only knew. But why are you on here, posting on forums, and not in the casino 6 days a week?
Quote: MoscaThe key to winning gambling is to get really, really good at picking what is going to happen next.
Hysterical, Mosca. Absolutely hysterical.
I wonder if you've ever heard that old adage: There's alot of truth in humor.
Yes, picking what's going to happen next is important. We do need to have decent strike rates in order to stay afloat at this game.
But, my friend, of equal import is our reaction to what happens next, win or lose.
I'm afraid that so many of you....strike that.....too many of you.....simply don't get that.
You're all so concentrated on the result that you can't see past it.
So I pick a side and I lose. Big deal. I've lost countless bets before, and I'm quite sure as I continue playing this game I 'll lose countless more of them.
But my reaction to those lost bets will always be measured and calculated.
You see, my friend, I KNOW HOW TO GET FROM A TO B, AND I'VE NO FEAR IN THAT JOURNEY. And that holds true, win or lose on my next bet. Or the next. Or the next.
Can't any of you GET THAT?
Quote: gr8playerAnd his "betting Banker every hand" falls into that same ill-fated "worthless" category, for it will lose in the long term.
Yes, it will lose in the long term. That's the effect of a house edge.
As stated in Nareed's 17th Law, derived in no small part from the work of the Wizard: "18) Be wary of offering solicited advice. Add disclaimers if you do, and remind the person asking for advice that the best bets are those least likely to lose." (emphasis added).
The advice to bet banker one every hand is based on the fact that the house edge is lower for that bet, making it the bet with which you'll lose the least. It's not a system, nor is it advanced as such.
Quote: gr8playerHysterical, Mosca. Absolutely hysterical.
I wonder if you've ever heard that old adage: There's alot of truth in humor.
Yes, picking what's going to happen next is important. We do need to have decent strike rates in order to stay afloat at this game.
But, my friend, of equal import is our reaction to what happens next, win or lose.
I'm afraid that so many of you....strike that.....too many of you.....simply don't get that.
You're all so concentrated on the result that you can't see past it.
So I pick a side and I lose. Big deal. I've lost countless bets before, and I'm quite sure as I continue playing this game I 'll lose countless more of them.
But my reaction to those lost bets will always be measured and calculated.
You see, my friend, I KNOW HOW TO GET FROM A TO B, AND I'VE NO FEAR IN THAT JOURNEY. And that holds true, win or lose on my next bet. Or the next. Or the next.
Can't any of you GET THAT?
Naw, I don't get it.
I gamble for fun. I win some, I lose a little bit more, the sun comes up tomorrow.
You know what the hardest thing is about gaming? Fitting it into a balanced life. Because the goal is not winning: the goal is satisfaction. To make it fit, I follow The 10 Commandments of Gambling. I really appreciated finding those. I even wrote Michael an email thanking him, which he answered about a year later. Notice that a lot of those rules address the interface of man and math.
Satisfaction is going to sleep at peace, and waking up at peace. Making money? That's why I go to work. Tossing dice, peeking at pasteboards, pushing buttons, all that stuff is for fun. If it got me all torqued up, win or lose, why bother?
I can lose at the games and still sleep, and still awaken the next morning, because it is all for fun. If it wasn't, then I wouldn't do it.
In non-correlated games of chance, I would sure like a clue to how this is remotely possible?Quote: gr8playerThe smaller that nemesis window, the better.
Quote: gr8player
So I pick a side and I lose. Big deal. I've lost countless bets before, and I'm quite sure as I continue playing this game I 'll lose countless more of them.
Sure, but do you win more than you lose? (Of course you'll say that you do, else we wouldn't be here). What you describe suggests that the deck is not a series of a independent events (Banker, Player, Tie), but there's is a correlation of results, such that bet sizing (0 is a bet size) and knowledge of previous events can turn a profit.
I find that hard to believe. You'd have to point out where the mathematical models of a shuffled deck played through Baccarat is faulty. Which suggests the correlation between hands in Baccarat is not negligible (it's not 0, as the deck composition changes, but its teeny-tiny, from what I know).
It may be faulty, but I'd need evidence on that.
Quote: MoscaI gamble for fun. I win some, I lose a little bit more, the sun comes up tomorrow.
You know what the hardest thing is about gaming? Fitting it into a balanced life. Because the goal is not winning: the goal is satisfaction. Satisfaction is going to sleep at peace, and waking up at peace. Making money? That's why I go to work. Tossing dice, peeking at pasteboards, pushing buttons, all that stuff is for fun. If it got me all torqued up, win or lose, why bother?
I can lose at the games and still sleep, and still awaken the next morning, because it is all for fun. If it wasn't, then I wouldn't do it.
Mosca, thank you for posting this sage commentary. Absolute gold, my friend.
I just recently posted about my full-time job and how it fulfills me and my family's needs, and as hard as my job is at times, I graciously accept it as a necessity.
I, too, am at peace. I and my family are truly blessed and I am forever thankful.
And, you know what? I happen to believe that all of that is the impetus for my gaming successes. Why? Because there's nothing like gambling when you aren't really in it for the money. I enjoy it as a diversion from my difficult and testing job, but I mostly enjoy it because I happen to do rather well at it.
Anyhow, thanks again Mosca for your wonderful contribution to this thread.
Quote: thecesspitYou say you can make pit managers change their underwear
No no no, I said I like WATCHING them change
their underwear. Thru a keyhole preferably. When's
the last time you saw a keyhole, talk about a bygone
era.
Quote: gr8playerBecause there's nothing like gambling when you aren't really in it for the money.
Wow, doesn't this sound similar to what another member (who also "isn't in it for the money") has said??? Almost like gr8player has an identical twin. ;)
Quote: Beethoven9thWow, doesn't this sound similar to what another member (who also "isn't in it for the money") has said??? Almost like gr8player has an identical twin. ;)
That would be Ahigh, who told the Wiz he played
for fun and not for money. Then later he went on
to describe in every way just how obsessed with
money he was. Go figure.
Quote: NareedThe advice to bet banker one every hand is based on the fact that the house edge is lower for that bet, making it the bet with which you'll lose the least. It's not a system, nor is it advanced as such.
Hello, Nareed.
You, I, and the Wizard are very well aware that the "betting Banker every hand" is not an effective strategy by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, IMHO, it's an accident waiting to happen. Again, you, I, and the Wizard are aware. However, the member/poster 7craps did not appear to be taking it that way, and was looking at it as something it simply is not. He asked for my opinion, and I simply complied.
The GR8player mentions something in relation to nemesis-window and making it small, offering no further explanation to what he was on about, how he implements such a strategy if at all, and now ignores the comment altogether, we can only assume it's all smoke and mirrors.
Quote: egaliteIn non-correlated games of chance, I would sure like a clue to how this is remotely possible?
I'll attempt to answer your inquiry regarding "tightening the nemesis window" with the following example, but please know that I will proceed with caution in this public forum:
My "recurring single" trend.
P BB P B P....I would betting betting for Banker here, as the Player's side has "singled" in it's last two appearances.
It's a very strong trend for me, and had been for years.
And, my "nemesis" on this trend: a "double".
I prefer my chances of a single, especially when it's "trending" thusly, over the chances of a double.
(Again, I play that same trend with another "angle" as well, but, sorry....this is one "funny" forum where its definitely better left unsaid. But you get my drift....)
What are you attempting to say here, my friend? That if the cards were somehow mysteriously transposed my preferred trending plays wouldn't work???
Hmmmmm.....by that logic, had I been born with a couple more legs I might've won the Kentucky Derby. Darn.....so close, yet so very far......
Quote: IbeatyouracesBut good luck anyhow.
Thank you, Ibeatyouraces. It's all good....
I don't expect those that don't trend or play Baccarat with any strategic plan at all to understand exactly what I'm attempting to convey with my posts, so, again, it's all good, my friend....
I wish you all the best in your play, as well.
Quote: IbeatyouracesWrong, I'm spot on. A run of PBBPBP means nothing and does NOT predict in any way, shape or form which side will win the next hand. But good luck anyhow.
But confirmation bias and selective memory may make it seem like it does. The question isn't whether he's wrong, it's what you're going to do about it. If someone thinks they can discern exploitable patterns in independent prior random events, and thereby "overcome" the house edge in a game, they're wrong -- but so what?
"Funny forum"? Their are some very clever members on this site, serious players (this isn't a newbies boys club like BF & GG) as anybody can see from the interesting maths that is shared. If somebody posts idea's and concepts that belong in the dark ages and have zero substances, then more fool them when people snigger. There are some savvy players on this site, including veteran card counters, so when somebody claims they enjoy a bigger edge playing EV Baccarat than any card counting BJ player, you reap what you sow. What did you expect? Readers without question to swoon in admiration or fall about laughing.Quote: gr8playerI'll attempt to answer your inquiry regarding "tightening the nemesis window" with the following example, but please know that I will proceed with caution in this public forum:
My "recurring single" trend.
P BB P B P....I would betting betting for Banker here, as the Player's side has "singled" in it's last two appearances.
It's a very strong trend for me, and had been for years.
And, my "nemesis" on this trend: a "double".
I prefer my chances of a single, especially when it's "trending" thusly, over the chances of a double.
(Again, I play that same trend with another "angle" as well, but, sorry....this is one "funny" forum where its definitely better left unsaid. But you get my drift....)
P BB P B P "bet B next" In this public forum?
You would do well not to disseminate this sort of information anywhere.
More to do with factor relating to embarrassment than sharing secrets which will bring casinos to their knees. Yes I have looked and dabbled with trending the individual sides, it turned out to be the biggest load of tosh.
Banker 2nd hole is populated, non-populated, populated and so on, ditto the Player side doing the exact same thing at the same time. Prior hands / patterns / trends / acting after the event have no bearing on future hands, as you well know, so your magical bet selection carries no advantage. There are no magical 52% stats that when ABC happens, XYZ is more likely, people only see what they want to see. 52% may have been extracted from the Zumma test data, which is not even a smidgen of what any individual shoes can throw at the player.
Just like many games of chance, nothing is due, not next time, not next shoe nor the next session. Just because your favoured moves failed a few times, does not mean some relieving turnaround is pending. The cards have no idea what they have produced previously, it is you that is anthropomorphizing the game, which is without reason or rationale. The epitome of gamblers fallacy, the only aspect that keeps you floating is your discipline and not getting in too deep monetary~wise.
Quote: IbeatyouracesYeah I forgot, these people keep the casinos in business for the legit AP's
Actually, it's these people keeping the casinos in business:
Quote: gr8playerYou, I, and the Wizard are very well aware that the "betting Banker every hand" is not an effective strategy by any stretch of the imagination.
That's not what I said and it's not what the Wizard claims.
Quote: MathExtremistActually, it's these people keeping the casinos in business:
Rocket scientist convention
(But as always, gr8player doesn't "GET THAT"... honestly, his posts are far enough removed from reality and reason, I'm not sure exactly what it is he doesn't get, but he seems to think it's possible to use baccarat as a source of income, so let's go with that.)
Quote: MathExtremistBut confirmation bias and selective memory may make it seem like it does. The question isn't whether he's wrong, it's what you're going to do about it. If someone thinks they can discern exploitable patterns in independent prior random events, and thereby "overcome" the house edge in a game, they're wrong -- but so what?
If I recall correctly, gr8player understands that, and his methodology isn't so much about "predicting the odds" as much as it is "since it's all random, I'll do it this way and see what happens". It's human involvement. Yeah, you can bet consistently and let the cards vary, or you can bet randomly and let the cards vary. Or you can bet a specific pattern and let the cards vary. And it's all the same. gr8player likes to bet a pattern. I don't think he believes he is beating the house; I think he believes he is maximizing his enjoyment, and by extension the value of his entertainment dollar.
Quote: IbeatyouracesYeah I forgot, these people keep the casinos in business for the legit AP's
No one cares about "the legit AP's". Just like "the legit AP's" don't care about us recreationals. Everyone's game is his or her own, to enjoy as he or she sees fit.
Quote: MoscaI don't think he believes he is beating the house;
He said yesterday he had an edge, so he's beating the
house. In his mind, anyway.
Quote: IbeatyouracesIf you say so.
Two examples, there are more:
Quote: gr8playerHello all. I just happened upon this open forum, and decided to join it, as I'm familiar with Wiz's other site and always found it both repectful and enlightening. And, in my brief perusal here, this appears similar.
By way of introduction, I'm a confirmed Baccarat "trender", and I've previously posted, rather extensively, at both the Glen and Baccarat Forum site...
Sidenote: Yes, I am fully aware of the Wiz's stance on "trending", and it's viability (or, should I say, lack thereof) as it pertains to games of chance. I trust, however, that he wouldn't object to anyone discussing their personal beliefs and/or experiences regarding same.
I look forward to some open discussions.
(Emphasis added)
Quote: gr8playerBut that's not quite what I have in mind whenever I'm in "no-bet" mode. It's not all about the house edge for me. I much prefer to concentrate on my edges, defined thusly:
I can bet where and when I choose to.
I can bet how much (or less) as I choose to.
I can terminate a shoe and/or session as I choose to.
I use those edges to the very best of my ability to, at the very least, put myself in the very best position to succeed over the long term.
Why? Because they're all I've got. I've no crystal ball, and thusly have no concrete evidence of the next decision about to be played out.
But I'm fine with that. I have pre-set "exit strategies" for each contingency; win, lose, or draw.
In other words, I fully recognize what I can control, and what I cannot. And what I can control, I control to my very best advantage. Absolutely imperative, and absolutely inexcusable if it's not an integral part of your own play.
Quote: gr8playerI prefer to bet when I wish to based upon certain criteria.
I prefer to bet where I wish to based upon certain criteria.
I prefer to alter my bet size as I wish to based upon certain criteria.
I prefer to terminate a session as I wish to based upon certain criteria.
You see, my friend, unlike that monolithic, decision-spewing table, I AM ALLOWED TO THINK. I AM ALLOWED TO REACT, AND COUNTERACT.
And my THINKING, REACTING, and COUNTERACTING trumps their house edge.
Quote: MathExtremistActually, it's these people keeping the casinos in business:
*Pocono Downs Slot Pic with an Aristocrat slot bank fully occupied*
Amen!
The two casinos nearest to me:
May 2013 revenue:
Slots/Video Poker:
Ameristar St. Charles: $19,367,016.42
Hollywood St. Louis: $17,632,963.20
Total: $36,999,979.62
Tables:
Ameristar St. Charles: $2,157,034.40
Hollywood St. Louis: $2,915,950.78
Total Tables: $5,072,985.18
Total revenue for these two casinos:
$42,072,964.80
Slot revenue: 87.94%
Table game revenue: 12.06%
Quote: EvenBobHe said yesterday he had an edge, so he's beating the
house. In his mind, anyway.
Yeah, gr8player compared himself to the US hockey team vs. the Soviet Union in the Miracle on Ice. LOL!
Quote: gr8playerIf I were to design a bet selection process, I would not want my nemesis to be the singles, or ones. Why? Because the statistical leader for appearances in the average Bac shoe is, in fact, ones (or singles). Would it make sense to have your nemesis be the most common occurrence, statistically? I should think not.
Hi gr8player,
This is some what accurate.
Yes, there are more singles then 2's, more 2's then 3's and so on.......
But if you just look at singles and mutiples (more then ones). They are statistically equal (50%).
So design your nemesis not on singles has any advantage?
“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
Quote: egaliteP BB P B P "bet B next" In this public forum?
You would do well not to disseminate this sort of information anywhere.
More to do with factor relating to embarrassment than sharing secrets which will bring casinos to their knees.
Embarrassment????? I've nothing to be embarrassed of, my friend........and, least of all, my Baccarat play.
Frankly, I believe that you're the one that should be embarrassed. All those years of Baccarat play under your belt and you still don't "get it", and it appears that you never will.
Look again at that posted example of mine.
Now, look past the result......Do you think I care about it being a Player (loss) as opposed to a Banker (win)????
There's where you're missing the boat.....you're much too invested in that single winning outcome. That's been your problem as long as I know you. But, don't feel too bad about it.....most players have that same handicap.....they can't get past the resulting decision well.
So I'm wrong, as the next hand is, in fact, a Player decision, and I lose the bet. So what???? I've lost a thousand bets over the years. So what???
That is not what defines my plays for me. Let me repeat that: THAT IS NOT WHAT DEFINES MY PLAYS FOR ME. Rather, my reaction to the outcome is what does define my play for me. And, consequently, MY LONG TERM SUCCESS. Quite a few of my preferred plays lost yet again this past Thursday night and yesterday afternoon, yet I drove home a $320. winner last night. (And that was $320. after comm and tips and an $18 Ashton Churchill...yeah, over-priced but that's what I get for leaving my cigars home.) Not alot of money over two sessions of Bac, it's only a few units, but a winner nonetheless. Imagine that....I lost some bets along the way, yet I still prevailed....imagine that.
Don't any of you understand how I approach this game????
Consistency. Patience. Discipline. Money Management. Knowing one's way around a Baccarat shoe, armed with the experience of knowing when it's "ripe" and when it's "sour".
I could post The Grail right here in this very forum, but it ain't never gonna happen, not on my watch. Not here. Not now. You guys just don't "get it", and probably never will.
Quote: IbeatyouracesYou don't have IT and we don't want IT! Your system WILL FAIL, GUARANTEED!!!
I want gr8player's system
Quote: gr8playerConsistency. Patience. Discipline. Money Management. Knowing one's way around a Baccarat shoe, armed with the experience of knowing when it's "ripe" and when it's "sour".
It has been demonstrated that a computer armed with perfect knowledge of the remainder of the shoe cannot achieve a meaningful or regular edge over the house[1][2]. From the second footnote:
Quote: recounting Thorp & Walden[Dr. Edward O.] Thorp and a fellow academic, William Walden, investigated the possibility of applying card-counting techniques to baccarat, their work being recorded at the taxpayer's expense for the benefit of posterity in "A winning bet in Nevada baccarat" (Journal of the American statistical association, vol 73, 1966). The work was an outgrowth of Walden's PhD thesis which Thorp supervised.
Thorp and Walden, with the aid of a computer, determined the precise expectations for the various bets. They then analyzed random subsets of thirteen cards,a typical minimum number of cards remaining in a deck before a shuffle, to see if either player or banker bet was favourable (the tie-bet had not yet been introduced). In only two occasions out of 58 did Thorp and Walden discover any advantage. Once the player had an edge of 3.2%, once the banker had an edge of 0.1%. Clearly, they concluded, no system based on card-counting could yield a practical winning strategy, for the favourable situations were just too infrequent.
In short, your belief that you can tell when a shoe is "ripe" vs. "sour" based on past hand results is mistaken. Baccarat cannot be beaten by counting cards or -- in your case -- by tracking prior results. One must have knowledge of where in the shoe are the remaining cards in order to profit from the game, and such knowledge cannot be discerned merely by recording Ps and Bs on a scorecard and looking for patterns like P BB P B P.
There are ways to beat baccarat, but that's not one of them.
[1] https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/appendix/2/
[2] http://greenbaizevamp.hubpages.com/hub/Edward-Thorps-baccarat-adventure
