Yes, many players do that, but this irrelevant to my previous posts about the stats. You seem to be assuming that I'm recommending that it's a good idea to choose your bets this way, presumably because I cast doubt on your 10% figure. But I only commented on that because it would be miraculous if after so many thousands of shoes the stats didn't conform to the 'official' statistics. But actually I'm in full agreement with you regarding the merit of betting by following the stats. There is no merit it in because although the outcomes do approach the theoretical probabilities, they don't necessarily do so in the present shoe, or from shoe to shoe or even the next few shoes. You may actually be correct quite often in terms of the NUMBERS or ratio of B to P, or the numbers of streaks of 1, 2, etc, but generally not in the ORDER in which they arrive in a shoe, except sometimes by luck. If you try to do this you're just committing the gambler's fallacy. Trying to apply the stats to the next few hands, or the next few shoes doesn't work because as you rightly point out, the stats are not derived from just a few hands or shoes; at least a few dozen shoes are needed before the stats converge to the 'true' probabilities, and the smaller the probabilities are, the more shoes you need.
To myself, it does not matter what the statistics are with a large amount of shoes. It does not apply or matter one bit. Those statistical numbers converted to the instant table and shoe for wagering, will allow you to win or lose about equal. Sorry, that is a fact. As you have agreed and anyone with a bit of casino-real play experience would have to side with--the fact that the short term, the 1 or 2 or 3 or 5 or 7 shoes played, will not be reflective of the statistical numbers. And if a certain set of shoes are, there will be countless other set of other ones that are not, by far. My numbers are from my play, my shoes, my sets, not the ones I engage in and than multiply by 100,000 or 1,000,000 or 10,000,000 the way the Wizard of Odds would do it, etc.
I do realize (or at least I think the reason you are figuring the opposite of me) is that you think XYZ numbers of bets, multiplied by XYZ shoes/sessions, etc., will get yourself to that same number being published by the casinos, the book authors, Wizard of Odds, etc., etc. Good luck. I wouldn't touch that way of thinking for a large stack of cash as a bribe to do it.
So, don't know if you understand what I am trying to convey here-but my numbers are my numbers. Not converted to what should be a new standard or the real results, etc. I am NOT attempting to re-write or modify or change in anyway the statistical results as published by many and accepted by the majority for baccarat. I am merely side-stepping those and focusing on what I am sitting at, what I am playing, what is being presented to me to each time. Completely removed from statistical circle of its parents, of sorts.
Continuously wagering for what should be, according to the statistical percentages of what was or is within the numbers, will only get a baccarat player to something along the following. Winning about as much as you lost if you have extreme willpower and you never ever fall prey to the greed or the overwhelming feeling you can smack the casino, ever. You might break even after losing, thereby curtailing your chances to actually be an overall winner or win sums of money larger than you are actually losing.