I know you don't do that, but you DO believe that it's possible to win using progressions. I argue that progressions can't help unless you have an edge, because all they do is increase the variance (both positive and negative).
You can never have an edge mathematically because you can not change the payouts of a casino. Stop ranting over edge or dreaming of changing payouts. Go beyond that. As I told earlier, even martingale or labouchere wins the game despite the house edge. Problem is, they need countless chips(mathematically they will win though) which makes them impractical, rather bad to try. A progression, sensible enough to handle the worst and then winning in near average case thereafter, as LLN confirms, can beat the game, in the long run.
How does the LLN give you an edge or help you to win?
As I said, mathematically, you can never get an edge so LLN doesn't give me an edge by itself but only the wisdom to understand that things are near average, with a nice degree of certainty, only in the long run. All MMs suggested so far, are meant for short sessions, causing rapid death in adverse cases. I have a strategy (mm) that safeguards me from big losses and it is designed to win when you see regression towards mean.
No study in this world proved baccarat to be a game where past outcomes can help in winning. Hypothesis can not become a rule unless worth proving. Even Thorpe could not do much in baccarat.