Welcome and thanks for sharing.

In the short run every method seems to be good mostly as players try to raise the probability of success in every way (progressions, bet selection widely intended, following or not trends or lucky/unlucky players, etc) but itlr every attempt will be of no avail to consistently win.
We need more than that.

For example we have been playing successfully "for long" a very simple method: we simply bet that a new Banker hand was followed by another single Banker hand (that is betting B after PB) utilizing a 1-2-4 progression.
Anytime this progression failed (meaning that a cluster of three or more B singles appeared) and whenever a new B streak trigger came out, we raised our standard unit to 2, now wagering 2-4-8, then 4-8-16 and so on until the deficit was proportionally and slowly recovered step by step.

Even if it could sound as silly, this system has a math foundation as itlr PBB>PBP, B streaks are more likely than B singles, isolated B singles are more likely than clustered B singles and so on.

In a word and even taking into account the vig burden, the probability to be ahead of something along the way is close to 100%.

Notice that patterns as BPPPPBPPPBPPBPBP....will produce "just" three losses as the betting is stopped until a new B streak comes out.
If you test your data you'll see that a two-step martingale failing won't come out so often and of course you need a kind of balancement to get a consistent long term profit.

The main problem to overcome is to get a decent distribution of winning and losing shoes, nonetheless is just a matter of time to recover any deficit.

But if you look more carefully to those shoes producing a lot of B singles clusters and few B streaks you'll see a kind of cluster-cluster effect.
The reason is because such shoes will present few asymmetrical hands, asymmetrical hands went "wrong" for B side, B drawing hands were more predominant than standing hands, fifth card was mostly belonging to the 3,4,5,6,7 category.
Easy to notice that itlr a perfect world would contain a minor whole amount of such situations.

On average asym hands impact on the whole shoe is 8.4%, on asym hands B gets a 15.86% advantage, B drawing hands are inferior to B standing hands, fifth card is more likely to be a not 3,4,5,6,7 rank category (1:1.6 ratio).
Moreover any two card point higher than the opposite side is going to win about 2/3 of the times.

Similarly to what happens in other games, we should think baccarat as a game of ranges and not in term of exact outcomes.
That's why the shuffling issue is of utmost importance as it's one trillion impossible to guess right into a random distribution. 

In some way a proper shuffle judgement is even a better indicator than edge sorting as we want to beat the game legally and, more importantly, we want to be payed after our winning sessions (with all due respect to the baccarat queen Cheung Yin Sun).

as. 

Thanks,

Most player  is  will for play like for entertainment,  I will try to  win in  short time as much as possible   im using DBL ZZ   1/16  /BBP  1/8  fixed  with trigger  if lost  then I will bet   4  times  add some parlay it will easy to recover of my base bet using   DBL ZZ  I play to win in sequence not every  decision  .  with small goal  once my bankroll  achieved comes from Casino tray that is the  time I will attacked using my time and another strategy  hitting them in &  out navigating for more triggers   aiming for  small goal .  I have to be patience of my for triggers / strategy  using  4 level of money management.    75 %  comes from  patience and discipline  to defeat baccarat  only to 25 % on how much and how  bet  we selection in the table.  that is i found out in practice.  We cannot use math in practice  to play baccarat  since it  is random    I strictly play to 2 shoes as much as possible to in order to fight  with equal mental strength of the dealer so  to execute my strategy . 

Walkingman

I have been playing for long period B after PB(looking for double B) or B after BP (looking for single P),that are the two more frequent decisions.
Bad results!
I didn't find any difference between these two attacks and playing B all the time.
Why a difference should exist?

QuoteFor example we have been playing successfully "for long" a very simple method: we simply bet that a new Banker hand was followed by another single Banker hand (that is betting B after PB) utilizing a 1-2-4 progression.
Anytime this progression failed (meaning that a cluster of three or more B singles appeared) and whenever a new B streak trigger came out, we raised our standard unit to 2, now wagering 2-4-8, then 4-8-16 and so on until the deficit was proportionally and slowly recovered step by step.

Interesting but did you ever simulate this way of playing? Banker is not a good bet for martingale. 5% commission works worst on the banker with martingale. If we lose 1-2-4, i.e 7 units, with 2 units we have fair chances of recovery but if we get many successive losses or more successive series losses than wins, bet could go dangerous. These two vital aspects should not be forgotten.

Albalaha,you are right as far as a martingale of several terms is concerned.
According with my experience a three terms martingale is acceptable,also for recovery

Quote from: Albalaha on October 02, 2019, 02:28:12 PM
Interesting but did you ever simulate this way of playing? Banker is not a good bet for martingale. 5% commission works worst on the banker with martingale. If we lose 1-2-4, i.e 7 units, with 2 units we have fair chances of recovery but if we get many successive losses or more successive series losses than wins, bet could go dangerous. These two vital aspects should not be forgotten.

Of course we have simulated this approach and the flaw was just about the verb "simulate".
As long as we do not play or test our method on live shoes we are not doing us a favor.
And as you can easily deduce, we didn't play every single shoe dealt.

Improper shuffles will cut off a lot of possible combinations, naturally we must focus about the asymmetrical hands pace forming the Banker advantage.
For example, the main target to get the best asym hand is a Banker 5 point and there are only two ways to form a 5 point: 5-ten value card and, less likely, 4-A, 3-2.
That is we need a fair amount of 5s falling on the first two B cards.
Then among the best asym hands, there is the Banker 4 point. Here to build this point Banker gets a 4-ten value card and 3-A and 2-2 possibilities. Notice that 3-2 hasn't the same probability than 2-2.
In a sense we should get a kind of help if along with many other factors we want to track 5s and 4s falling here or there on the first two initial cards.
Historically 4s and 5s were considered as Player helping cards but they really are only when they are distributed as fifth card when the hand dictates the P side to draw. Naturally a 4 or a 5 as sixth card remains a good card even for the Banker.   

Anyway you are correct that the 5% vig may worsen any multilayered progression, yet Banker is always working by a 1.24% long term probability mathematical advantage.
Imo the key is just to estimate the range of spots when B is REALLY more likely than P or, at a lesser degree, the range of spots when P is working by an almost perfect 50/50 untaxed and fair proposition (knowing that as long as no asym hand can be formed, some card distributions will help this side with a better 50/50 ratio).

Nonetheless I'm 100% sure that there's no way to control any shoe dealt, no matter how many random walks working for us we want to put in action.

as. 

Quote from: roversi13 on October 02, 2019, 05:55:24 AM
I have been playing for long period B after PB(looking for double B) or B after BP (looking for single P),that are the two more frequent decisions.
Bad results!
I didn't find any difference between these two attacks and playing B all the time.
Why a difference should exist?

Hi roversi!

The probability of the so called "more likely outcomes" is strongly related to the actual card distribution. Not every shoe is playable.
In order to get a strong advantage, we need to play only badly shuffled shoes.

Recently we've set up a marvelous $500-$20.000 spread betting action at a high end casino acting as pure drunk clowns and where a mate was previously treated really bad and looking for revenge.
Ask how things went after a 13-hour playing session.

as.

No matter how smart we are and how deeply we have studied the game, if we consider bac outcomes as pure random propositions we know that after playing 2/3 of the total hands of each shoe, after 5 shoes dealt the probability to be ahead of something is very small.
Up to the point that whenever a player is ahead of something (without having wagered any side bet) only two things happened: either he was getting a positive variance or, more likely, he was betting EV+ spots by a proper spread betting.

Since there's no way to overcome a negative edge working into a random game by a spread betting strategy, we must infer that acute players make some "low" bets just for the illusion of action, let's say only for comp purposes.

In a word, if baccarat is beatable is because itlr we will get the  best of it by a flat betting strategy.
That is some spots are slightly more likely than others.

And, again, this thing is only possible whether cards are not properly shuffled.

Discard the random world and ride the situations when a kind of unrandom world happens.
Sometimes this could be done coincidentally.
We prefer to do it scientifically.

as. 

When are you sure that you are facing a bad shuffling?
During the shoe?During the shuffling itself?
It's depends on the permanence or on the lazy croupier?

Asymbac, is there a target amount that one wins and then stops? Say if one goes in with 5,000 what would be the recommended bet amount per hand and the recommended target win amount before you stop? For you.

Thanks.

Quote from: Lungyeh on October 10, 2019, 07:20:04 PM
Asymbac, is there a target amount that one wins and then stops? Say if one goes in with 5,000 what would be the recommended bet amount per hand and the recommended target win amount before you stop? For you.

Thanks.

Hi Lungyeh!

No way we should set up a winning goal whenever a shoe is astoundingly playable.
Our rule is to keep betting and betting, stop comes after we'll lose two or three (in the latter case whether we've won a lot) hands in a row.

If I had to put in play a $5000 bankroll, I'd make $400 or $500 standard wagers, i want to guess right by risking 10-12 units or so. Of course my betting is extremely diluted and shoe-depending.
   
Extremely favourable shoes are not coming around the corner, but they are still quite likely.
In our over selected random walks multiparameter action (very difficult to put in action without the use of an illegal device that, btw, we never used), we have assessed that strong favourable shoes are coming out at a 1:3 ratio. 
In the real world I assess that such ratio is lowered to 1:4.

In conclusion I'd say that it's not what we want to win per every session played but just how will be the probability to cross those strong favourable shoes.

as.

Roversi, I'll try to respond to you later.

as.

Quote from: roversi13 on October 10, 2019, 09:27:43 AM
When are you sure that you are facing a bad shuffling?
During the shoe?During the shuffling itself?
It's depends on the permanence or on the lazy croupier?

Almost every shoe dealt is bad shuffled, unfortunately this feature won't get the player any help in many instances.
Thus it's not how bad is shuffled an entire shoe that matters, instead it's how bad a shoe is shuffled in some portions of the deck.

Itlr bac outcomes are strictly related to the actual distribution of key cards, falling here or there yet forming some more or less likely sequences.
Obviously nothing is more likely than the counterpart unless a strong unrandomness went in place (of course this may happen even into a perfect random environment coincidentally).

At any rate, the shuffling moves made by a live dealer or a CSM working on the same deck will produce the best opportunities to catch the situations where unrandomness will reign.
Notice that 100% of the CSM decks are dealt alternatively (meaning that two different entire decks are shuffled each time).
Of course where a CSM isn't working, it's virtually impossible that a live dealer will shuffle the cards in a perfect random fashion.

At HS tables (where most money is collected by casinos), decks are presented pre-shuffled and slight manually shuffled after, therefore the situation is more unclear.
Should players fear a close to a perfect random shuffle?
No way.
Unless cards are arranged by a software, perfect randomness will get no place into an 8-deck shoe.
The casinos' fortune is because players want to win too much in the wrong place or to win per every shoe dealt, an impossible task by any means.

That means that whether we're properly selecting the playable shoes and the favourable spots,  baccarat is 1 trillion percent beatable scientifically by a close to 0% probability error.

Just as decks are not perfectly shuffled.

as.

Any method can't work whether we are going to consider each shoe dealt as perfect randomly shuffled.
It's our interest to know that itlr unrandom shuffled shoes will tend to produce "random" results, that is that short term deviations are attributed to the simple variance's action.
It should be our duty to catch the situations where this unrandomness will take place most.
Never globally, always in relationship to the actual shoe we're observing/playing.

It's 100% certain that players making a living at this game won't bet the first hands of a shoe and never enter the game without having observed the cards pace.
I mean they are not focused about outcomes but about cards falling and actual situations.
Key cards, obviously.
And of course drawing and standing and third card nature situations (say successions).

More on that later.

as.

So it seems that baccarat can be beaten by a strict mechanical bet selection, the name of this wonderful site.....
At least it's what my multiple years tests say that I've completed yesterday.

Probably some people play an EV+ game by using other tools, the main being long term experience, I just prefer to do things scientifically as much as possible. 

Summarizing.

Certain (rare) baccarat hands give the player a sure edge, meaning that the same situation repeatedly bet and bet and bet by the same amount will provide a very interesting edge (not bighornsh.it edges as "perfect pc play" or stuff like that) .

Since I'm not a baby in the wood when talking about baccarat, I can only attribute this success to the partial unrandomness of the shufflings.
That is I'm strongly convinced that randomness working into a math negative edge game cannot be beaten, especially by a flat betting strategy, the cardinal feature to know if we're doing good or not.

Cards are arranged to give certain outcomes, it's impossible to guess which side will be favorite to win, but either the distribution of outcomes and the expected values could help us to know whether there's a shuffling very close to randomness or anything else.
To emphasize the importance of this topic, say that "Casino War" game it's 100% beatable whether any card is dealt without any further shuffle and offered with a proper deck penetration, And in the real world you'll never find conditions like that.

Of course Casino War is a perfect symmetrical game, meaning that no other asymmetrical factors will intervene in the process.
Obviously players can only bet their side, that is just one side.

Baccarat is not a perfect high card game, as occasionally (8.4% of the times) one side takes the third card according to the rules and mathematically advantaging it.
Therefore we have two different basic random walks working on the same shoe: the symmetrical probability and the asymmetrical probability.
To say the truth a third probability will show up, the tie probability that slightly tend to disrupt some more likely situations. Especially when a large amount of shoes is utilized.

The tie interference provides quite a burden as tie probability is hugely endorsed whenever 6 cards are used to resolve one hand.

More later

as.