Knowing the value of just one card in the exact position (from 1 to 6) could get us a mathematical edge in most cases, we might set up a betting plan.
The largest edges will come out when:

- the first card is a 9 dealt to the Player (21.528%)
- the second card is a 9 dealt to the Banker (20.641%)
- the fifth card is a 4 dealt to the Player (18.316%)
- the first card is an 8 dealt to the Player (17.294%)
- the second card is an 8 dealt to the Banker (16.493%)
- the sixth card is a 5 dealt to the Banker (14.514%)
- the sixth card is a 6 dealt to the Banker (14.424%)

Thus if we were able to get such aknowledge, we'll easily destroy the game itlr.

Unfortunately we cannot benefit of those situations.

Since we are stubbornly oriented to beat the game we want to try whether the statistical approach might help us.
After all baccarat is a finite and dependent process game.

To simplify the process, we'll register the times when a 9 or an 8 is dealt as first card to the Player side and the times when the fifth card is a 4, those situations having the highest ROI on P side.
There are many reasons to just consider the P side.

It's easy to notice that the very first card dealt will have a higher impact on every bac hand than every other position as many hands will end up after just 4 cards have been dealt. Surely the second same value card dealt on the other side will show a more or less impact similar to the first card, but most of the times we'll have to pay an unnecessary 5% vig on our winning wagers.

In a word, a very deviated situation where 9s, 8s will not fall in the first spot and 4s will not fall in the 5th spot, should entice a RTM effect where next P hands will show a slight player's edge.

Of course, there's an additional issue to consider: how many 9s, 8s and 4s are really live in the left deck.

We cannot hope to get a 4 falling into the 5th spot if many 4s were removed from the deck in the right or more likely "wrong" spots.

The same about the most likely cards capable to end up right now a bac decision: 8s and 9s.

The most part of 2.5 and 3 sr deviations taken are going to get a higher RTM effect than the propensity to reach larger deviations, expecially if we are properly considering the card removal effect per any shoe.

In this perspective, we aren't playing to get some P or B winning hands, we are betting that a given card (or better a bunch of such cards) will have to fall in a given spot after a very large absence and after having assessed that such key cards are very live per any live deck. (So many shoes won't provide any hint).

as.



       
















 










 










 









   



 

 



     

Two games A and B

A is a throw of a coin where Head is winning with the probability p1=1/2-e, the gain is then of 1 unit. Tail is a loss (of 1 unit) with the probability 1-p1=1/2+e .
B is a little more complicated, if the capital is a multiple of 3, then Head wins with the probability p3= 1/10-e, if not Head wins with the probability p2=3/4-e, (gain or loss of 1 unit).

Wen e = 0, the play A, alone, is fair. The play B become fair when the n of plays tends to infinity.
A and B, alone, are lose when e > 0.

Combinations of the two plays
 
Average profits in B+, (AB)+, (AAB)+ (e=0)
When one uses combinations repeated like (AABB)+ or (AAABBAB)+, one observes that the game becomes gaining for certain these combinations, which can seem against-intuitive!

Obviously the play is paradoxical only seemingly, the results observed are calculated easily and the 'paradox' is explained by the no-commutativity of the product of certain matrix (of transition).
Who would think of finding paradoxical that a matrix product M×N is different from N×M?

One can conceive easily besides other plays, simpler, having the same type of behaviour.

Happy Gambling

Perfect.

as.

Here is how you can predict if the Player will get an 8 or 9 on the first card.......and let you  win millions playing baccarat

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/04/sorting-out-the-law-behind-phil-ivey-s-edge-sorting-debacle-18054.htm

Quote from: tdx on August 23, 2015, 12:05:41 AM
Here is how you can predict if the Player will get an 8 or 9 on the first card.......and let you  win millions playing baccarat

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/04/sorting-out-the-law-behind-phil-ivey-s-edge-sorting-debacle-18054.htm

Yeah, it remains to be really payed such millions 

as.

Definitely 8s and 9s produce the vast majority of total decisions, either in form of natural hands (34.2%) and by a lesser degree when the third card rule will take place.

We know very well that naturals have the same probability on each side, but when a natural is dealt on B side and we are betting this chance we'll have to pay a 5% tax on a perfect symmetrical situation.
Of course, the remaining 65.8% hands will show a slight mathematical propensity to get more B hands than P hands, so our efforts should be oriented to possibly select the times where such propensity will have a higher or a lower impact than what mathematics dictates and capable to erase or hopefully invert the house edge.

Naturally mathematicians will say us that everything is possible, so there's no point to select some favourable betting spots, as they simply won't exist.
That's ok.

Anyway, baccarat is both a finite card game and a dependent card game so besides the very first hand, any next decision will be very sligthly whatever they want affected by the cards removed from the deck.
Morevover and even if some scenarios will be mathematically possible, we won't look at many situations where, for example, a given hand will be formed by four 8s, four 9s or by any four same value cards different from a zero value card.

At baccarat we're 100% sure that 64 8s and 9s will be present into a 416 deck.
We know that such 15.38% portion of the deck cannot fail to land at least on one of the four first four spots on any chance for long periods.
Whenever an 8 or a 9 will fall on the first four cards, most likely they'll produce a natural hand as the deck is almost always proportionally rich of zero value cards.

Admitting that everything is possible, it means that soon or later it could be possible to get a shoe where no "simple" natural hands (9s or 9s accompanied by a zero value card) will take place.
No way.

As weird as it could appear, it seems that the study of the ratio of 8s and 9s/total cards left in  the deck in relationship of the number of the cards left in the shoe (true count), the previous scarcity of those cards in two posiitions of one chance and the previous card combinations' nature involving one of those key cards, could help us to get an edge or at least to get a valid control on the future results.

In a word, we're playing to get more naturals on one side. Every incidental positive outcome will be very welcome, expecially if for some strange and lucky reasons it will not follow the 50.68/49.32 ratio itlr. 

as.