+ Register

[alrelax]

Identifiable is engaging with knowledge—experience—possibilities—the flow of the card presentments  and what really could happen or even, might not happen with the forthcoming hands of the shoe being played.  Being in the right time at the right place, in other words.  It is not blind guessing or hoping something happens, although to the inexperienced player watching this type of player play or even reading his explanations, will generally produce a statement such as, "Yeah—but you are only guessing in all reality because you cannot back up what you cite by solid and proven mathematics and statistical analyses", etc., etc., or something along those lines. 

There is so much more to the game of baccarat than deciphering any number of shoes to prove or disprove any system of wagering or any certain wager will prevail 51% or more of the times—or whatever number might be profitable to the player questioning the method of a player that wins more than he losses with his baccarat knowledge.

The idea of a player being able to set a certain type of wager to be consistently repeated and the player winning greater than an equal amount of wagers placed, on a regular or consistent basis is simply not the truth.  Almost every, if not every person claiming to have mastered the mathematical and/or statistical analysis of baccarat will always end his conversation with something along the way of, "I cannot divulge my system, proof or even a picture or my locale I play at, because I fear being banned for trespass because I am simply a  skilled professional full time gambler enjoying the fruits of an easy living and I only wager on certain wagers that I can back up as being winners with mathematical and statistical analysis over what you say—but I cannot divulge that here for the reasons I so stated".  And basically that is the way it goes. 

As I said in my other piece I wrote the other day, the scenario with the 2 drag racers, one winning and one losing.  The one that lost is of course faster, better, more skilled and possess all the statistical and mathematical data about drag racing, but he lost and then goes up and squares off on the winner of the race and says, "Yeah you won just now, but not really because of........................", so on and so forth, etc., etc., etc.  All the numbers and specifications of all the racing stuff, speeds, statistics, torque, BHP at rear wheels, etc., etc., means nothing if you did not pass the white line at the green light ¼ mile down the asphalt than the other driver first, period.  Twist and turn and argue all you want.

Baccarat is won by a multitude of things, not one thing.  Emotional competence and the complete understanding of judgment problems inflicted upon themselves, understanding and implanting a rock solid—guarantee win hold money management system, having the capital to risk with buy-in funds, understanding the volatility of the game, having knowledge of opportunities and how they present themselves, along with so many other intangible and tangible things that will affect the player in numerous ways while wagering.  Not subscribing to and pursuing fallacies, desires and dreams at the baccarat tables, believing that there are wagers that can be discovered and wagered upon that will win the majority of the times, etc.  I have described the majority of them within the following two pieces I wrote, there are others within my Blog and within the Baccarat Room here in BetSelection.  I did not engage in the pursuit of mathematical and statistical deciphering in the attempt to wager on something that I believe will present itself time and time again.  I tried that and so many foolish and childish players have lost their life savings, their win money and anything else they have funded the pursuit of their dreams with and only added to the casino's profit margins. 

And, because you have never seen it happen, does not mean it cannot or will not happen within a baccarat shoe.  You know what---some of the largest amounts of money I see lost are those that are actually lost to the casino, when the unbelievable--jaw dropping--f**k me things, that can not and should not happen and the rarest of the rare--actually happen.  LOL. 

Finding a certain key wager from your, or any mathematical or statistical interpretation of a 'almost guaranteed wager over a certain period of hands' is just about the downfall of every gambler that tried it, professional full-time, recreational, once in a while, etc., does not matter the type of label any one of you desire to give a baccarat player to boast your ego and your projected status through your schooling and mathematical claim to fame, it just does not and will never happen your way by your numbers.  If it did, the game would have been pulled many years ago, period—end of story.  Give it a rest, stop the open dreaming and the false concept of saying how easy it is to win at baccarat.  Stop the false confessions of being banned at baccarat for skilled and advantaged play and not a criminal, cheating or attitude problem at the live B&M tables.  Stop the statements that you have definitively beat the casino through mathematical and statistical discovery of certain things and by the end of your message---say that you won't disclose them because they are secret and everyone else is just guessing and hoping for luck. 

https://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/randomness-equality-bias-in-real-life-casino-play/


https://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/illusions-preceptions-influences-frame-of-minds-(3-of-10-in-a-series)/


https://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/13-13-13-summation/

https://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/identifiable-events-in-baccarat-the-player's-advantage-9286/


The above four will get you further down the road to understanding baccarat than mathematical and statistical analysis and the attempt to implement it into key wagers that might or might not repeat themselves, etc., and that same old argument.

Many, especially the self-proclaimed mathematical advantaged player crowd, that claims—possesses and operates with mathematical advantaged/advanced protocols that are science and works great in the classroom and lab—IMO, are correct but (BUT) their material is at best in theory and calculation and once again, in live play will not prevail in much over 50% in the long run. 

With that said, if you are ready to apply, realize and psychologically give yourself certain tools to use—you have to know them, apply them and live by them.  I outlined some of them above and the others are within my writings. 

There are basically 3 ways players are engaging in baccarat.  That is, 1) Follow patterns what happened and what you think will happen based upon that; 2) Bounce around the busier casinos and catch 1 or 2 or 3 wagers by back-betting and be lucky or not and leave; 3) Wager based on statistical and mathematical outcomes that you believe will repeat themselves over 50% of the times with stop loss and stop wins in place so you don't loss too much or give back wins.  And that is it, unless you want to change and believe what I say and engage in playing baccarat with the proper tools and the ability to hold your wins and multiply them into meaningful amounts, while you risk a lower certain amount and view it as purely your risk money that you can easily recoup with sizable wins that will be greater than your losses, if you employ, believe and teach yourself the things I have wrote about, explained and detailed out.

By the way, this is the other week, here is my proof that I do what I say and I live by what I say.  It is also proof that I will lose part of my winnings because I failed to continually do what I wrote about.  Yes, I was stupid, something you almost never hear another player say, especially the super-genius ones with the mathematical and statistical knowledge that have discovered the 'holy-grails' and come on the board to chastise-demean and humiliate closing out their posts with the common similar of accusing anyone with any kind of knowledge or discovery that he is guessing and has no proof while he cannot disclose any of his specially gifted and unique talents of consistently winning as they employ a definitive mathematical and statistical analysis converted to advantaged wagering that prevails for themselves, etc. 

Once again, I state, numbers--statistics and mathematical models are impressive and great!  Smart people, well educated, super hard exams and tests to gain those impressive titles.  All fine and good.  The only problem is, you cannot definitely apply them o baccarat and have certain wagers prevail a much greater period of times they might or should win according to the statistical models.  The only way that would actually benefit the player is if the player had unlimited bankroll funding and he played non-stop for that total quantity of shoes.  Period. 

https://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/baccarat-reality-part-2-reality-not-fallacy/msg62028/#msg62028

https://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/because-of-what-i-read-that-gizmotron-wrote-the-other-night!!/msg61886/#msg61886

Here, $7k in hand after a partial shoe with a low buy-in, taking advantage of opportunities without any thought of mathematical outcomes that may or may not present themselves, this is playing the right way, risking little and winning many times greater:

[attach=7]

Here, the same $7k chips up on the counter waiting for the verification from the bac floor person to the cashier:

[attach=1]

Here, a smaller win from the night before on top of the microwave at my office:

[attach=2]

Here, another partial shoe that week in March with over $10k on the cashiers counter waiting for the verification from the bac floor person:

[attach=3]

Here are 2 of the larger win of about $25k in a couple of shoes that same week.  The smaller win which normally comes was the first win that week, then the second one with the $7k and then the Thursday night with the larger amount of $25k.  That is the week that I continued going and got the stupid big head and sucked in on the Friday and gave back $15k of the $40k + I won that week:

[attach=4]

[attach=5]

Here, a $45.00 F-7 with $1,800 win money out there doing it the way I say:

[attach=6]

And here is the link to the night I gave $15k right back out of that.  That proves to myself that my 1/3rd system works and works iron-clad, hands down, no matter what.  I f***ed myself that night and lost vision, reality and played unconsciously.  Everything I know and written about and yet---I did it.  And, that will be the very last time I know that.  Just have to label that one as a reinforcement to the millionth degree of my definitive knoweldge of the game as well as my refusal for staying psychologically conscious with the correct winning vision, etc.   And violating the very things I know is what caused the loss of about $14,000.00 more than what I normally would have lost if I didn't go sideways with my vision, frame of mind and Money Management system, etc.

https://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/back-at-the-casino-bad-choicereal-bad-and-ugly-choice!/msg61942/#msg61942

Why do I post these?  Because it helps a few seriously minded and already experienced players change their ways and better themselves instead of listening to the open ended fallacies as I described when I started this post off.  That is why.

[Xander]

Alrelax,

I'm glad what you're doing is working for you.

The AP world is much different.  In this world, what matters is playing a mathematically perfect game based on the strategy.  This is true for sort players, and side bet counters. In this world the least experienced will perform just as well as the most seasoned player... if they both strictly follow the strategy. There is no room for hunches or feelings.   The money management is mindless, because it's nothing more than a very simple calculation.  The variance is viewed as nothing more than a random streak that is a double edged sword.  It's both good and bad.  Variance/luck is not predictable, exploitable or avoidable.  It just IS.  Gaining and maintaining the edge is everything.

taking advantage of opportunities without any thought of mathematical outcomes that may or may not present themselves, this is playing the right way, risking little and winning many times greater:

I hate to say it, but that sounds a bit like just guessing.   In the AP world, the optimum strategy based on the math is what matters most.  But again, I'm glad you've found something that works for you.

Best of luck,

-Xander

[alrelax]

Real World Baccarat Results......are and will always be derived from each and every shoe or session played, in real-life gambling at baccarat.  If you are totaling up you wins and losses, come back when you are all done—your view point and frame-of-mind is on a different wave length than almost all the members here, IMO. 

"Aha! Starlight appears to bend exactly as predicted by general relativity — so Einstein must have been right!"

"Aha! Starlight appears to bend exactly as predicted by general relativity — so Einstein must have been right!"

"Aha! The number of hatching crickets with mutant wings was exactly the number we'd expect if the gene for this trait were located on the X chromosome!"

"Aha! No matter where I release it, the steel ball moves down the ramp with exactly the same acceleration — just as Galileo predicted!

Get the picture?  I studied 1,000,000 shoes and 62.8% of all ties 'cut' to the opposite side.  I studied 100,000,000 shoes and 74.3% of all shoes had a double B or P following a single B or P after three sets of 'doubles'.  I studied 80,000,000 shoes and the results proved that there is an average of 84.1% 1's and 2's with four sides producing four "4's" within the shoes.  So therefore, I will wager for......" ____" every time "_____" comes around.   Hey—great, do it.  Come back and report to us.  The only problem is the order of the presentments will not and cannot be the same order of the presentments that produced the results in the theoretical tests you wager by---unless you play the same amount of hands in a continuing and consecutive order, i.e.: one session. 

The game of baccarat is a not a 'cut and dried' game being presented — and many factors besides the theoretical ones being applied in exact replica of statistical analysis, or a twist on those by a sharp eyed player that may be applying other non-statistical wagering techniques are both just ideas being employed by two different types of players and yet---to a third player watching the both of them, can influence his observation and thought process allowing him to profit more than each of the aforesaid players. 

There are many types of players but the three, I just defined in the above paragraph are by far the most popular and prevalent at the baccarat tables.   

My problem with the mathematical and statistical player that applies wagers in some type of replica to those analysis results is that, those results may or may not be presented in the same order and presentment that, that type of player needs to happen in order to win.  So in all essence, that player is a pure guesser in the perfect definition of the word.

I do certainly agree with the highest majority of all the statistical numbers produced by mathematical and statistical devotees, it is just that you have to add one huge and bothersome 'but' to that statement.  And this is reality in a huge and quick dose that so many will not or never face because they put all their effort, motivation, belief and continuing play, into the results being reproduced in a short period of time—that can never be performed with any regularity.  And that is, getting from the beginning to an end of a baccarat shoe will happen no matter what the mathematical and statistical results were in any and all tests/theories, but getting there is the sole and most important thing and how you handle yourself in the application of whatever it is you are wagering according to.  Guiding yourself because of your beliefs, mixed with another set of beliefs in 'outcomes', will not in any way scientific or mathematical way—over the short term or long term, equal your results.  Period.

Most importantly, at what point do our observations deviate from our theoretical planned out wagering events no matter what each of us believes or is governed by?  And, that deviation can be a great thing for the player or deferential to him.  The highest majority of all players do so much, that they must be viewed as contradictory and labeled as 'guessers'.

A small tidbit that is huge in baccarat which Lungyeh, had written last night.  "4) of course if such a strong trend were to present itself and one was to bet to break the trend, one may not look good; to put it mildly".  Another one by JIMSKE.  "Personally, Lugi, I wouldn't bet against the dominant bias in the shoe".  And those dominant ones as well as the inferior ones, is where the real pot-of-gold is at the baccarat tables—at least for myself.   As far as the statements I just quoted, there are tons of them on the board other members have said, as well as by myself.  It is just that I have taken countless numbers of 'those', along with what works and governs me in the entire psychological, emotional and 'frame-of-mind' departments and merged them all together.  I also, as I have explained in many posts, found that risking a certain amount of buy-in money, which is part of a bank roll solely dedicated for playing this game along with labeling that as 'risk' money without any stop loss or win stop, is by far more effective and profitable for myself.  Otherwise, every road block, pitfall and player suck-in will be applicable to a player that is winning or losing and will affect him to tremendous ways, no matter what type or kind of player he is according to his beliefs in wagering.  Can those be applied to another (before Xander bangs me on this), yes!  If you use them under them same beliefs and circumstances as I do.  The problem arises in the varying of protocol with playing times and all the other emotional—psychological and frame-of-mind concentrations and consciousness states that you and I and others will always differ from. 

Lungyeh likes analogies.  So, here is my analogy to this:  Sex.  Mr. 'XYZ' gets home from the casino and kisses his wife and she says let's go to the bedroom.  Mr. 'XYZ' is thinking, great--sex!  Seven minutes later it is over in a dark bedroom and Mr., 'XYZ' walks out to and goes to the living room and flips on the TV to 'All in the Family' show.  Now, Mr. 'ABC' gets home from the casino and kisses his wife and she says let's go to the bedroom.  Mr. 'ABC' is thinking, great—time to make love!  Two hours later, after the candles, the cognac, and the massages are exchanged, the brushing of the wife's hair, the reciting of the husband's devotion and idolization of his wife to her and those exact same seven minutes of love making are over, within that two hours' time span.  They both walk out of the bedroom hand-in-hand and sit on the couch and turn the TV on to "The War of the Roses" movie and laugh about how people do not get along, falling asleep together before the end of the movie. 

[alrelax]

Alrelax,


I hate to say it, but that sounds a bit like just guessing.   In the AP world, the optimum strategy based on the math is what matters most.  But again, I'm glad you've found something that works for you.

-Xander

The rest of what you said has always and will always be correct to a certain point.  However, you are dead wrong about the things I have written about and how I play the game the past 15 or so years since 2000'ish.  The first 20 years of y play, I would be guilty of most of what you cite. 

It is not guessing what I do.  I have spelled it out in numerous posts, threads and articles and it is not guessing.  You are free (at this point) to label it that way--but it is not.  But you are an 'expert' (IMO) at twisting other's words and adding innuendoes that make it appear as though the original poster is presented at what you desire him to be and as well, boasts your position.  Is it a definitive science or math, not really. But I can milk the opportunities when they arise with scientific and mathematical vision (applying to the instant shoe in front of me, right-then and there, not overall in the long run--and there is a huge difference--huge!) as I have done to identify those opportunities when it 'pours' or 'storms' in the Midwest.  You know I live in the Midwest and our weather is extreme at times, much more than most other parts of the country.  I guess that best way to put it, is wagering on a storm here.  When it clouds up, darkens, temperatures drop and begins to rain, snow or produce ice or hail.  That is the time to wager.  How much, how long and how intense will those storms be?  I cannot say, but while it is storming I am positively progressing and parlaying with everything I can and implementing the 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd system and my '1+4 Side Parlay Wagers' like crazy, thus turning $500 or $1,500 into $20k  $40k or $135k, etc.  When the storm is over, it is over, period.  The exact same as making a few units consistently with 'XYZ' swings. 

Am I am recreational player,? I guess so.  Is that bad as compared to your professional full-time making a great living at gambling without working a classical job?  I don't know but it is your label and your choice to label me as such for whatever reason, as I have been self-employed or partnership business endeavored for the past almost 40 years.  I always love what I am engaged in.  That is the reason I am in the process of dissolving my partnership in my current endeavor and I purchased real estate and a restaurant in the Mississippi Delta Region.  I can't picture life without a steady income from non-gambling means while performing at something I really love to do, the same as yourself, (I can only imagine) working for someone or running a business--feeling tied down and held hostage without being able to inhale the second hand smoke, engage in maybe okay and maybe not okay days, as well as worrying about getting banned and trespassed and all the other things you have cited that a professional full time gambler faces, etc.  But hey--I admire you.  By way, I have an abundance of breathing equipment from the haz-mat business that my partner will be forced to either close or find a suitable qualified and certified partner for (which I highly doubt) so if you need some of it--oh well..........  Anyway, I don't guess when I pounce on it and it produces countless times the amount of lost buy-in's, I might have incurred between storms.  Because, as in business, I figured out with baccarat what capital and risk is needed and how to make it work, again--the same as running a small business with inventory.  No different.  It is just that the highest majority of all players, lose their mind, thought and vision when they win or lose.   

And, I do like your unique and defining labels of the hierarchy of baccarat players with the AP and all that.  Kind of like we do in the Haz-Mat business, Awareness--Operations--Technician--Specialist and Command, etc.  So, when I bang it out at the baccarat table next time with catching a 16 Banker run with a couple of parlays and pulling each win down, while the mathematical player is wagering for the 'cut' losing 15 times, or I catch a 14 unit 'chop-chop' or another 3 F-7's in a 10 Banker run for table max each--and everyone else is wagering the opposite side because  that is what the mathematics and the statistics say will happen by percentage outcomes in testing--should I apologize to them for winning?

By the way, as I posted a few months ago, here is another picture of a situation where everyone except me and one other player, lost wager after wager because  of their continued thought that the Banker has to lose to the Player and 3-F-7's cannot happen in the same run--so close together especially with the 3 natural ties, even quoting their own versions of math and statistical happenings, etc., etc. 

The time to make money, huge money--as compared to your buy-in and risk, is when that storm is presented from the shoe, not after or praying for a storm--as that is guessing, but when you wager and prevail with the storm--that my friend is a skilled player with a sharp eye, applying whatever it is he is wagering by has no meaning or influence on the winning stacks of chips he is taking from the dealers tray.  And I rather have them verify my CTR is on file at the cashier counter rather then throwing up a few chips and cashing out, moving on and wondering where to go next. 

[attach=1]

[Mike]

Identifiable is engaging with knowledge—experience—possibilities—the flow of the card presentments  and what really could happen or even, might not happen with the forthcoming hands of the shoe being played.  Being in the right time at the right place, in other words.  It is not blind guessing or hoping something happens, although to the inexperienced player watching this type of player play or even reading his explanations, will generally produce a statement such as, "Yeah—but you are only guessing in all reality because you cannot back up what you cite by solid and proven mathematics and statistical analyses", etc., etc., or something along those lines. 

It is not guessing what I do.  I have spelled it out in numerous posts, threads and articles and it is not guessing.  You are free (at this point) to label it that way--but it is not.  But you are an 'expert' (IMO) at twisting other's words and adding innuendoes that make it appear as though the original poster is presented at what you desire him to be and as well, boasts your position.  Is it a definitive science or math, not really. But I can milk the opportunities when they arise with scientific and mathematical vision (applying to the instant shoe in front of me, right-then and there, not overall in the long run--and there is a huge difference--huge!)

Can you point me to some of these posts in which you have spelled out how you select your bets? If it's a secret, I understand, no worries. But then why bring it up in the first place?

Get the picture?  I studied 1,000,000 shoes and 62.8% of all ties 'cut' to the opposite side.  I studied 100,000,000 shoes and 74.3% of all shoes had a double B or P following a single B or P after three sets of 'doubles'.  I studied 80,000,000 shoes and the results proved that there is an average of 84.1% 1's and 2's with four sides producing four "4's" within the shoes.  So therefore, I will wager for......" ____" every time "_____" comes around.   Hey—great, do it.  Come back and report to us.  The only problem is the order of the presentments will not and cannot be the same order of the presentments that produced the results in the theoretical tests you wager by---unless you play the same amount of hands in a continuing and consecutive order, i.e.: one session. 

I agree 100%. Knowing the stats does you no good at all, which is why I'm puzzled how you can identify favourable bets and take advantage of opportunities. If a bet is favourable it must be always favourable, albeit under certain conditions. If you can recognize such opportunities then there MUST be stats which verify that they are indeed opportunities that can be relied upon, right? Previous research and/or experience must have given you those answers.

If the opportunities aren't based on stats and you're not just guessing, then how do you know when a true opportunity arises? The only other possibility is psychic ability or precognition.

[alrelax]

Can you point me to some of these posts in which you have spelled out how you select your bets? If it's a secret, I understand, no worries. But then why bring it up in the first place?

I agree 100%. Knowing the stats does you no good at all, which is why I'm puzzled how you can identify favourable bets and take advantage of opportunities. If a bet is favourable it must be always favourable, albeit under certain conditions. If you can recognize such opportunities then there MUST be stats which verify that they are indeed opportunities that can be relied upon, right? Previous research and/or experience must have given you those answers.

If the opportunities aren't based on stats and you're not just guessing, then how do you know when a true opportunity arises? The only other possibility is psychic ability or precognition.

Mike, with all due respect, we do not see eye-to-eye.  That is fine.  I do not agree with your broad view of generalization and classification, period.  As far as your 'favorable' definition, you are dead-on wrong.  IMO, and for a player to place himself in a position to 'bang it out' when it can be identified at the game of baccarat.  Nothing is definitive within the game of baccarat that will produce winning hands the majority of the times with a wager by the player that is regularly and consistently wagered for any certain individual event to appear.  PERIOD! 

With that said, my answer for you, out of this one time respect and continuance of your challenge to myself, is my updated 'short' list of identifiable events, part of which I did post and will again post to answer you.  There are others posted within my writings but you do not read everything I write and you have no intention to, which is obvious by your calling me out to specifically post the events I have defined as allowing me to win greater than I lose and why I select certain wagers when I gamble.   

IMO, some members here as well as other boards, perpetuate for the continual saying, there are "No Skills" needed to play baccarat and the game is "All Luck", etc, etc.  Those kind of statements make for the boasting as well as the demeaning or chastising drama, that they present by the offeror onto the receiver in the form of retaliatory and reasoning for non-detailed comeback type of statements, by the offeror. 

The problem with most players of baccarat is, that they fail to recognize that there is more than one type of wager, either following or going against the shoe scoreboard.  Players also frustrate themselves while gambling or its equivalent, their attempting to figure out holy-grails and winning solutions on here or other message boards. 

Here it is:

Additions and Reductions, on 3 card draws.  As soon as one side begins to get additions, particularly the player side and the banker side is reduced by its 3rd card—be alert for that event to continue.  Once it happens a 2nd time in a row—particularly within the first half of the shoe or the middle section, it might favor the continuance of doing that numerous times.  Likewise a reduction to the Players side and the banker winning with the first 2 cards or the third card that increases.  However, IMO and experience the first one is usually stronger overall and continues longer.

6/7's & 8's/9's.  Without anything else, I have found that 1 point wins and 1 point losses for both hands, tends to lend itself to the worst rationalization of what the next hand will bring, more often than not.  As well as any other numbers that prevail and lose this is the worst that brings total randomness, continuance and any other chain of events that almost no one can profit off of.

Naturals-alternating.  An event exists to be exploited when alternating naturals appear frequently.  Naturals have a huge tendency to 'WOW' the players and they convince themselves that the side just got 'strong' and aggressively wager the same side that the natural just prevailed on.  However, naturals are frequent and have a tendency to bounced or alternate back and forth for a short event more often than not, especially when the '-' or '+' is close together.

Naturals.  When one side is producing naturals over the other side's 6-7 or 8's and winning—it is an event that can be exploited frequently.  Meaning, for example, P has 6 and B has 7, then P has a N8 and B had a N9, etc., or the opposite.

Fortune 7's (3 card Banker winning 7's, 40:1). Zero to low ties.  Within the first 10 hands.  And hands 16-23.  Those are the most frequent events when the shoe produces the F-7 hand.  Frequently shoes have 1 or 2 F-7's.  Some shoes have none.  If a 3rd F-7 does appear, generally there is a 4th.  5 and 6 F-7's are a bit infrequent or rare but do occur.  Or, should I say you will not generally see that in every other shoe or every third shoe, etc.  By the way, the reason there are more F-7's in the beginning of the shoe than elsewhere and on a more frequent basis is the number of cards in the shoe of course.  Frequently there are many 10's that form the first 3 or 4 cards dealt and then a larger card reducing the players side 'under 6' or remaining at 6 and drawing an Ace through a 7 to make the 3 card 7 on the Banker side, etc.  F-7's and the next hand 'cut'.  The highest amount of the F-7 appearing hands will 'cut' to the Players side with the upcoming hand to be dealt.

Panda 8's (3 card Player winning 8's, 25:1).  Panda 8's will appear a norm of 3 to 6 times.  Panda 8's appear frequently in the beginning of the shoe in multiple more than F-7's generally will by far.  Panda 8's will also appear in clusters (repeating themselves in a shorter hand-span) with greater frequency than F-7's generally do.  Panda 8's appear with less consistency within certain clusters of hands than F-7's but with a greater appearance of anywhere in the shoe from the beginning to the end.  Panda 8's also with great frequency tend to 'cut' to the Banker with the following hand to be dealt after the appearance of a Panda 8. 

-10/+10/+20. Frequently the total count will hover around '-' or '+' 10 somewhere between hand 15 and midway or so.  And then favor the deficit side in smaller hit rates for its attempt to "catch-up".  It happens and happens repeatedly.  Much rarer an event, one side will continue to +20 and continue to rise.  Infrequent by far.  I have only witnessed a handful of shoes be able to provide the + side that was already well over +15, say +17 to +20 or so and then produce a streak on top of that.  Depending on how far into the shoe it is, the deficit side usually (USUALLY) makes a pretty good attempt to "catch-up" to the other side. The key thing in this event as I have found, is the deficient side will usually 'catch-up' in a slow grind by not allowing the + side to streak or repeat as it was doing or presenting, previously.  Depending on the hand of the shoe, I have done extremely well and won larger wagers based on these events siding with the '-' or the '+' of a side to win or lose.   

Equaling Out.  The highest numbers of shoes will equal out in how many winning hands each side ended up with and if not equal, within 3 to 5 of each other as next most favorable.  An event to be exploited along the shoe after the first 1/3rd of the shoe, many times.  If not, after the midway or 60% point.  Another easy exploit that comes along frequently is when it is within 1 or 2 of each other.  Example, 27-28, then 28-28, then 28-29, then 29-29, then 30-29, etc.  That event to me has won many a large wager, the same as a streak of any one side continuing—when it is there, it is there without reason, comparison or definitively being able to define the reason why.   


½ Way to End of Shoe.  More often than not, when the first half of the shoe was 'strong', frequently repeating B's and P's and other distinctive continuing trends that formed, the second half is one to be extremely careful of it continuing.  Sure, great if it does.  But when you play long enough, this is one of the easiest and most profitable events that can be exploited big time for it to be almost the opposite of the first half.

Alternating & 2's.  No rhyme or reason, nothing I have ever found that will point to the successful and continued outcome of chops and/or 2's.  If they appear within a section they can be exploited as it is an event that frequently happens.

Players Side Repeating Within Beginning/First Section.  Players repeating hands in any form of clusters have a frequent tendency to appear within the beginning of the shoe, in the first section.  Meaning, 3 + Players with a frequent 1, sometimes 2 Bankers and each time the winning hand is Players it repeats with 3 + occurrences.  This kind of section is frequently followed by a section of 1's and 2's in various configurations when the first section losses its Player dominance stance, frequently around the 15-19th hands.

Sections & Turning Points.  The card or board needs to be visualized into 'sections and turning points'.  There are usually 4 of them easily identifiable within a shoe.  There might be 3 in the extremely weak or very strong shoes and a possibly of 5.  Following 'waves' and the 'sections' makes it easier to follow the flow of cards and the presentments many of the times.  Following the 'waves' and attempting to wager heavier within the middle of them, is my key to increasing my wins with heavier wagers rather than all too often wagering at the very end of any weak, strong or continuing neutral presentments happening.  The key to using it while it is happening, is to identify a new section and with a multitude of other quickly rationalized out thoughts, find yourself within the start or the middle of a presenting 'wave'. 

Sections Identified.  The sections with their turning points will reflect the 'waves' of the shoe.  The sections are basically, one of three things.  1)  Weak; 2) Strong; and 3) Neutral.  Baccarat shoes will produce those three series of events in a random order.  However, the shoe will generally have many consistencies which will represent 'weak' or 'strong', patterns/trends/clusters, etc.  For sake of a 'non-arguing/non-challenging' definition, the 'weak-strong-neutral' clusters which I put into 'sections' appear in random presentations without being repetitive according to any one thing.  However, numerous factors when present, have proved them to myself with frequency that is noticeable and identifiable as I have described within the above paragraphs.  How long will the 'clusters' last?  Unknown.  From a few to numerous. 

Weak.  'Weak' is a representation of the most prevalent events that happen within a shoe of baccarat, usually.  'Weak' can be the traditional 1's or 2's or say 1's followed by a 3 repeating side.  'Weak' can be a situation where say the Player had 3's and 4's to the Bankers 1, each time the Banker beat the Player.  Thus, "The Banker is weak".  Or, say the shoe produced 4 Banker runs of 6 to 9 and 3 Player runs of 5 to 7 with a 3 repeating Banker.  Then there was a turn to presenting 1's and 2's.  Thus, "The shoe got real weak".  Or, the Player's 3rd card consistently reduces them to zero or near zero total point value and the Bankers are winning with the first 2 cards or adding up to 7-8-9 total value with every 3rd card pulled.  Thus, "The Player is weak". 

Strong.  'Strong' is a representation of the third most prevalent events that happen within a shoe of baccarat, usually.  'Strong' can be the traditional streaks and runs of either Banker or Player in consecutive order, one after the next.  'Strong' can be a situation where either side, Banker or Player, consecutively produces series or sections of winning hands in multiple.  'Strong' can very well be a section of alternating hands, a continuous 'chop-chop' of alternating Bankers and Players for many times.  'Strong' can very well be a section of 'doubles' or 'pairs' that are produced side-by-side in a continuous result for 6 or 8 or 10 times, etc.  'Strong' can be a series of 1's-2's-3-3-2's-1's, or many other things along those lines.  'Strong' can very well be where a deficient side lost +10 or even +15 or more times and then began to catch-up and equal out the deficiency it was holding.  'Strong' can be where either side is adding point value with every 3rd card drawn for many successive hands in repeating shoe presentment. 

Neutral.  'Neutral' is a representation of the second most prevalent events that happen within a shoe of baccarat, usually.  Neutral happen repeatedly throughout the shoe in many ways.  The most obvious is the +10, -10 or +20 situations with the 'total running' count.  The shoe will frequently, very frequently 'equal' out, meaning the deficient side will catch up and then balance out.  See, 'Equaling Out' in the above paragraphs.

Consistent.  'Consistent' is when the shoe is producing presentments that are holding a repetitive pattern, that replicates a several to numerous previous hands, whether those hands lost or won.  Consistency is one of the easiest things to spot in an upcoming wave about to happen or one that is happening.

Inconsistent.  'Inconsistent' is an event that occurs, not quite rare, but with a lot less frequency than weak/weakness.

Dominant.  'Dominant is the same as strong and consistent events that occur.

Singular.  'Singular' is an individual event or 1's, that occur.

Multiple.  'Multiple' is repeating, dominant and strong events that occur.

Frequent.  'Frequent' is the same as strong events that occur.

Rare.  'Rare; is the same as inconsistent events that occur. 

What so many players, regardless of their experience fail to recognize are the identifiable events I touched on here.  Oh yeah, they do after they are presented and it is then history of course.  That method gives them their fuel and energy to continually label the game as guessing and luck because when they attempt to use that presented information as the sole basis for wagering, the wagers are not within the 'wave'. 

As well, so many people believe baccarat goes only two ways with its presentation, which are attempted to be identified.  'Strong', which they label only as streaks and runs and we all know how that goes.  And secondly, with the 'weak' meaning they interpret 'weak' as being related to chop-chop or possibly the presentments proving 'non streaks', etc. 

Baccarat will never ever be consistently won by those that preach all types of VINS/SAP's or anything of the like identifying 1's and 2's and the dominant versus the non-dominant/more frequent appearing singles or doubles, just because  there are more of those than streaks presented.  That is so silly, it is pitiful and ludicrous.  One can win larger amount of increased wagers without depending on a continuing streak, as so many think happens or is the only way to win larger amounts, with all wins in the game of baccarat.

Baccarat can be frequently identifiable with the correct vision of a player that has the correct frame-of-mind coupled with other emotional, judgement and physiological issues being present or absent. 


(The above is a short list of some of the identifiable events at baccarat, which I updated some, f the post I had on this board with additional comment contained in the following:  https://betselection.cc/alrelax's-blog/identifiable-events-in-baccarat-the-player's-advantage-9286/)