Playing 4 x strings of 4

Recently I have been playing Baccarat using a bet selection that consists of 4 strings of 4.
The 4 strings of 4 I use are:
XXXX
XYXY
XYYX
XXYY
*I bet every hand (after the first 3 hands, I'll explain why next)
*I look what the past 3 hands have been to decide what my next bet will be.
Example 1) if the last 3 hands have been XXX (meaning either BBB or PPP) I will bet for a fourth to hit playing my XXXX string.
Example 2) if the last 3 hands have been BPB, I will bet for a P to hit using my XYXY string.

In my trials so far it appears that the difference between wins and losses at the end of shoe are less than betting either always player or always banker for the same amount of hands.

Would anybody be able to confirm or disprove this for me?

Cheers
Dan

The possible outcomes looking at strings of 4 are:

XXXX
XXXY
XXYX
XXYY
XYXX
XYXY
XYYX
XYYY
YXXX
YXXY
YXYX
YXYY
YYXX
YYXY
YYYX
YYYY

Your 4 "strings" are contained in the possible random outcome (of course) but you don't have more than 25% of the possible result set. So when you see "XXX" on the last 3, you think you should bet "X"... but why, there are other completely plausible outcomes, such as XXXY, or perhaps the XXX you see is the ending part of YXXX. Do you see how you are just "guessing" all the same still and the previous results don't tell you that you "should" bet X or Y because both are plausible?

Your results are purely random until you have a large enough sampling size to prove anything. Go play this for 1,000,000 hands and report back with crystal clear results and you'll find that the math of the game works out exactly the same. (don't do this you'll lose A LOT OF MONEY)... So NO, picking a subset of 4 of the possible 16 "4 string" results does not change or affect the odds in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

Quote: Romes

Your 4 "strings" are contained in the possible random outcome (of course) but you don't have more than 25% of the possible result set.

You misunderstand his strategy; since "X" can be player or banker, then, for example, YYYY and XXXX are the same (in fact, each of the eight Y sets is the same as the X set generated by replacing Ys with Xs and Xs with Ys). Also, what he showed was the first three results, and what his next bet would be.
If the first result is P, there are only four sets of results for the next two:
1. PP (XXX) - bet P (XXXX)
2. BP (XYX) - bet B (XYXY)
3. BB (XYY) - bet P (XYYX)
4. PB (XXY) - bet B (XXYY)
If the first result is B, then switch Bs and Ps.

The strategy can further be simplified to this:
If the last two non-tied hands had the same result, bet the same as the result from three hands ago;
If they were different, bet the opposite of the result from three hands ago.

Quote: Dantheman

In my trials so far it appears that the difference between wins and losses at the end of shoe are less than betting either always player or always banker for the same amount of hands.

How many trials?

in other words you want 3 methods of bet selection based on B and P result sequences ONLY
compared per shoe.

1 Method (see 1,2,3-BET)
BBB-B
PPP-P

PBP-B
BPB-P

BPP-B
PBB-P

BBP-P
PPB-B

2 Method
always bet Player

3 Method
always bet Banker

I think this has been already done many times
by many so I won't bore with my results here.

what I do have is my opinion on B or P bet selection.
Without considering card removal and the changing probabilities of Banker and Player
bleeck!!
ok
yuck!

of course if any bet selection method makes one feel better and think something is better
then it is better.
That is better-super!
******
how about this interesting tidbit of info.
I sampled 10 million 8 deck Bacc shoes and have this table of data

Banker wins minus (-) Player wins per shoe

stats show on average 0.93 more Banker wins

looks like the top 2 are 0 and -1
0 means equal Banker and Player wins (difference of 0)
-1 means 1 more Player win than Banker win
(no method of bet selection)

difference	count	count/10million
0	470876	0.0470876
-1	464159	0.0464159
3	461944	0.0461944
1	452870	0.045287
2	440194	0.0440194
5	432053	0.0432053
-3	421225	0.0421225
4	408527	0.0408527
-2	407685	0.0407685
6	392305	0.0392305
-5	385988	0.0385988
-4	381998	0.0381998
7	357713	0.0357713
8	340837	0.0340837
-6	328947	0.0328947
-7	298758	0.0298758
9	291604	0.0291604
10	272797	0.0272797
-8	258235	0.0258235
11	239853	0.0239853
-9	235278	0.0235278
12	220101	0.0220101
-10	213561	0.0213561
-11	182223	0.0182223
13	180280	0.018028
-12	152011	0.0152011
14	151358	0.0151358
15	132195	0.0132195
-13	129223	0.0129223
-14	102517	0.0102517
16	100993	0.0100993
17	83963	0.0083963
-15	77411	0.0077411
-16	65432	0.0065432
18	55442	0.0055442
-17	52227	0.0052227
19	48445	0.0048445
-18	44470	0.004447
20	36014	0.0036014
-19	31716	0.0031716
-20	31271	0.0031271
21	24844	0.0024844
22	24738	0.0024738
-21	17794	0.0017794
23	17776	0.0017776
-22	12020	0.001202
25	10435	0.0010435
-23	10426	0.0010426
24	9703	0.0009703
-24	5812	0.0005812
-25	4653	0.0004653
-26	4636	0.0004636
26	4274	0.0004274
-27	3859	0.0003859
29	2697	0.0002697
28	2325	0.0002325
-29	1927	0.0001927
30	1925	0.0001925
-28	1167	0.0001167
32	1160	0.000116
31	1153	0.0001153
-30	773	0.0000773
-31	770	0.000077
27	411	0.0000411
33	5	0.0000005
-32	4	0.0000004
34	4	0.0000004
-34	2	0.0000002
35	2	0.0000002
37	2	0.0000002
-38	1	0.0000001
-33	1	0.0000001
38	1	0.0000001
40	1	0.0000001

Sally

Quote: ThatDonGuy

The strategy can further be simplified to this:
If the last two non-tied hands had the same result, bet the same as the result from three hands ago;
If they were different, bet the opposite of the result from three hands ago.

Ok great that makes it easier to play.
Yeh just a fun way to pick which side to bet on, and so far it seems to not have as wild of swings as just betting either player or banker, but I would be interested to look into that further.

Quote: mustangsally

******
how about this interesting tidbit of info.
I sampled 10 million 8 deck Bacc shoes and have this table of data

Banker wins minus (-) Player wins per shoe

stats show on average 0.93 more Banker wins

looks like the top 2 are 0 and -1
0 means equal Banker and Player wins (difference of 0)
-1 means 1 more Player win than Banker win
(no method of bet selection)

difference	count	count/10million
0	470876	0.0470876
-1	464159	0.0464159
3	461944	0.0461944
1	452870	0.045287
2	440194	0.0440194
5	432053	0.0432053
-3	421225	0.0421225
4	408527	0.0408527
-2	407685	0.0407685
6	392305	0.0392305
-5	385988	0.0385988
-4	381998	0.0381998
7	357713	0.0357713
8	340837	0.0340837
-6	328947	0.0328947
-7	298758	0.0298758
9	291604	0.0291604
10	272797	0.0272797
-8	258235	0.0258235
11	239853	0.0239853
-9	235278	0.0235278
12	220101	0.0220101
-10	213561	0.0213561
-11	182223	0.0182223
13	180280	0.018028
-12	152011	0.0152011
14	151358	0.0151358
15	132195	0.0132195
-13	129223	0.0129223
-14	102517	0.0102517
16	100993	0.0100993
17	83963	0.0083963
-15	77411	0.0077411
-16	65432	0.0065432
18	55442	0.0055442
-17	52227	0.0052227
19	48445	0.0048445
-18	44470	0.004447
20	36014	0.0036014
-19	31716	0.0031716
-20	31271	0.0031271
21	24844	0.0024844
22	24738	0.0024738
-21	17794	0.0017794
23	17776	0.0017776
-22	12020	0.001202
25	10435	0.0010435
-23	10426	0.0010426
24	9703	0.0009703
-24	5812	0.0005812
-25	4653	0.0004653
-26	4636	0.0004636
26	4274	0.0004274
-27	3859	0.0003859
29	2697	0.0002697
28	2325	0.0002325
-29	1927	0.0001927
30	1925	0.0001925
-28	1167	0.0001167
32	1160	0.000116
31	1153	0.0001153
-30	773	0.0000773
-31	770	0.000077
27	411	0.0000411
33	5	0.0000005
-32	4	0.0000004
34	4	0.0000004
-34	2	0.0000002
35	2	0.0000002
37	2	0.0000002
-38	1	0.0000001
-33	1	0.0000001
38	1	0.0000001
40	1	0.0000001

Sally

I find these results very hard to believe as generally either the total banker or player wins by approx 5 hands over the shoe, occassionally it is even, occassionally there is a large difference of 10 or more but on average it is usually around 5 🤔
Dan

Quote: Dantheman

I find these results very hard to believe as generally either the total banker or player wins by approx 5 hands over the shoe, occassionally it is even, occassionally there is a large difference of 10 or more but on average it is usually around 5 🤔
Dan

If Sally says it, my experience is that you can take it to the bank. Perhaps more appropriately, you can take it to the Baccarat table. Or, better not to take it to the Baccarat table.

You find the results to be very hard to believe because you want them to be very hard to believe. Her simulation is of more Baccarat hands than have likely been played (in total) than the total of physical Baccarat hands played in all of recorded history.

I'll take her simulation, not to mention her genius. Quite frankly, I wish I had it.

Quote: Mission146

If Sally says it, my experience is that you can take it to the bank. Perhaps more appropriately, you can take it to the Baccarat table. Or, better not to take it to the Baccarat table.

You find the results to be very hard to believe because you want them to be very hard to believe. Her simulation is of more Baccarat hands than have likely been played (in total) than the total of physical Baccarat hands played in all of recorded history.

I'll take her simulation, not to mention her genius. Quite frankly, I wish I had it.

Thanks haha yes I agree that Sally is usual pretty much spot on, though this one I do find very hard to believe, although I am very happy if it is correct :)