+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

It would be an awesome accomplishment to make a living playing baccarat at casinos' expenses. After all winning at baccarat seems to be an easy task, we ought to be right just slightly above the ratio of 50/50 WL propositions (vig considered on B wagers). In the short run, that's true.

So if in this right moment every bac player in the world will bet to get just a single B hand wagering three hands by a simple martingale (1-2-4), we know for sure that the vast majority of players will be ahead as any combination of 3 hands will contain at least a B hand more often than not.
Indeed BBB, BBP, BPB, BPP, PBB, PBP, PPB sequences are overcoming as a whole the "enemy" PPP pattern by a higher 7/8 degree.   
Even if this situation won't be true by variance issues, we know that very soon "3 hands" patterns containing at least one single B hand will show up more often than not.

To get an idea of what I'm talking about, let's run 10k of such propositions assessing the results.

We are 100% sure that wholly considered (10k is a decent sample) players trying to get a single B on three attempts will be ahead over the house.

Building a paradoxically worldwide team, we know that utilizing such simple strategy we'll have the best of it, meaning that every player wagering B on 3 attempts will get at least a single B more often than not, getting a profit.

Trying to state otherwise is a sort of bighornshit, it's sufficient to run 10k contemporary 3-hands patterns and evaluate the results, no matter how is the chosen point of attack.
A further obvious proof is that B streaks are longer than P streaks, P singles are prevalent than B singles, P doubles are more likely than B doubles and so on.

In a word, a possible infinite team wagering B side on 3 consecutive hands by a martingale betting will get the best of it, meaning we'll get a profit.

Of course such more likely worldwide profit won't be 50/50 proportionally placed, as any winning hand must pay the 5% tax.

Therefore if any bac player of the world will adopt this style of betting itlr, he/she will be caught by the vig burden more and more erasing his/her short term advantage.

Attention, we are not talking about the ROI,  we're're talking about the probability to win.

That's why casinos like to let us betting a lot of hands.

Obviously, the more we bet the more we fall into the "random" world and we know that a random system cannot be beaten by any means. Not accounting that our expectation will be lower and lower in direct proposition of the amount of our bets.

Notice that if baccarat will be spread like a "casino war" game, we'll be 100% sure to be long term winners providing to be able to bet every side of the action (at casino war we can't, since we cannot bet the house side). And this is just a card distribution topic without any asymmetrical factor besides the house vig on ties.

The fact that itlr some dispositions are more likely than others (and they're not 50/50 placed) in most cases won't help us without a careful study of the outcomes.

Actually most part of bac results are randomly placed, we know that 91.4% of the total hands are coin flip situations (besides some card distribution issues).
So there is no point to try to guess an almost full random world for a single player.

In reality, we can assess the "shift" factor either registering it or more simply studying the most likely distributions every one single shoe in the world will take place.

Of course providing to get rid of those shoes not fitting the above situations.

Every winning B bet getting a no asymmetrical hand is a loss. Every P winning bet not getting a symmetrical hand is a loss.

From this we should set up our strategy.

as. 

[stacks21]

The game is simple to me. I only flat bet ...I wait for something to contrast before making a bet and will lock in the win...then from here look for another opportunity to bet if I win this I will also lock in this win....once I get ahead 3 units I will look for the next win to try to predict the direction it could continue. ...especially following chops....then lastly if ahead 8 to 10 units I will just stop betting till the beginning of the next shoe....also I got most of my styles of plays from reading old posts from gr8plr from the older message boards....basically just read his posts an ignored any responses to his posts that didn't add anything to what he said

[AsymBacGuy]

So there are two only possible situations to be long term winners:

a- we have found some long term EV+ situations;

b- we are able to control the negative expectation by a MM procedure.

The a point is easy assessable: we run several shoes to see if what we're betting will get the best of it itlr. If this is the case our only worry will be about properly controlling the variance.

The b point is more intricated, depending on what we're betting, the betting frequency and how our MM will be built. Now the variance will be a more severe factor as we cannot rely upon any kind of edge.

Since it's widely known that it's impossible to get some EV+ situations, we have to work on the MM subject.

Denying the opportunity to get certain EV+ spots means that every hand will be 50/50 placed. So there's no point to utilize a trend following strategy or taking advantage of a RTM effect or something else.

Hence, every player admitting no EV+ spots' existence and yet stating he's a long term winner must give a decisive role to certain MM procedures.

We see that following trends, no matter how sophisticated will be the procedure involved, won't get us any advantage, otherwise we must imply that trend following by itself is a strategy capable to get an edge over the house.

It's true that some trend following strategies are better than others (think about playing for P singles and doubles or toward the B streaks' formation), but itlr such strategies won't get us any advantage.

Thus almost every bac player must give a decisive role to the MM subject.

Well, common knowledge teach us that there's no way to overcome 50/50 propositions by a mere MM procedure.
This statement is 100% correct.

Soon or later, any MM procedure will encounter a 4 or 5 sr negative SD destroying any carefully studied MM method.

So we're back to the initial problem. Without any kind of edge we cannot be long term winners.

Goos news are that the definition of edge might be wide.

For example, an edge could be to know that some events are restricted into "human" terms, of course more limited than the above 4-5 sr deviation value.

If we know that a given opposite outcome cannot be produced by ratios higher than 4-5 sr SD we should be in good shape.

A 4 sr deviation is any "fight" deviation between two opposite events capable to get a 0-16 ratio (and proportional spots).

Surely we'll cross such deviation on mere BP gap ratios, but the more we restrict our term of intervention (complexity of patterns) the lower will be our "gaps" even if we test millions of shoes.

A vulgar example is when we are trying to watch at 16 B singles in a row or 16 P streaks in a row.
I bet that you'll encounter more 16 B or P in a row than the above situations. 

Of course streaks are more restricted by an obvious "card finiteness" issue, yet you won't encounter more shoes getting all streaks on P side than on B side.
At the same time, any long consecutive single succession will invariably be longer on the P side than on the B side.

In the short terms the game appears to be equal, sometimes unexpectedly shifted on the unfavorite side.

That's why we have to let the time to work in our favor.
The same thing the house is hoping for, for opposite reasons.

as. 

[soxfan]

The answer to yer question is the resounding NO for most cats. No discipline, no balls, no bankroll, and no shot. It's as simple as that, hey hey.

[AsymBacGuy]

The answer to yer question is the resounding NO for most cats. No discipline, no balls, no bankroll, and no shot. It's as simple as that, hey hey.

as. 

[Jimske]

The answer to yer question is the resounding NO for most cats. No discipline, no balls, no bankroll, and no shot. It's as simple as that, hey hey.

Yes.  The other part of this is confidence that you actually have a rule based method to win.  Without specific rules we come up against a real coin flip.  I don't believe many, if any, can win long term by their seat of the pants.

If you're betting small units like Gr8 player and myself it is obvious you don't have the confidence or the knowledge to make the kind of money you need to live.  Otherwise we'd be betting 1k a hand!

Once a specific documented set of betting and placement parameters are set and known to beat the edge bankroll and balls take second seat.

So IMO, whomever is not bringing down huge $ from this game don't have much real confidence in their own method.  That includes me, Gr8, as, and Gizmo at least. 

Feel free to correct me.

[Gizmotron]

So IMO, whomever is not bringing down huge $ from this game don't have much real confidence in their own method.  That includes me, Gr8, as, and Gizmo at least. 

You are not wrong concerning me. I'm still fleshing out how to go about this. I believe that if I were to take $1000 off the same casino every day, that casino would shut me down. I know enough to take it on the road because of that.

Interesting take on that rule based methodology you are suggesting. I use a loose kind of ruling, see the opportunity, attack the opportunity. In between that I attempt to stay as close to neutral as possible. That's what works for me.

[Jimske]

You are not wrong concerning me. I'm still fleshing out how to go about this. I believe that if I were to take $1000 off the same casino every day, that casino would shut me down. I know enough to take it on the road because of that.

Interesting take on that rule based methodology you are suggesting. I use a lose kind of ruling, see the opportunity, attack the opportunity. In between that I attempt to stay as close to neutral as possible. That's what works for me.

Getting the boot from Bacc would be difficult.  AC can't throw you out and I have a hard time seeing them use preferential shuffle as they used to do to us in Blackjack.

Further, there are so many casinos around the US and world.  It would be pretty easy to go on a long run even IF they would give you the boot.  I played BJ for 6 or 7 years before they finally put 2 and 2 together and flat betted me.  I think that's because variance works against them too.

[Gizmotron]

  I think that's because variance works against them too.

It most definitely does. They can't prevent themselves from having a casino losing streak. And they have to pay off on bets during those times too. We can use reduced bets or not bet at all like in Rapid Roulette when we have losing streaks.

[soxfan]

Making large bets is just outside the comfort zone of some cats. Also, there are some practical considerations as well. For example, lots of joints offer a paltry spread between min/max bets precluding cats from using effective deep negative progressions like the star style, hey hey.

Yes.  The other part of this is confidence that you actually have a rule based method to win.  Without specific rules we come up against a real coin flip.  I don't believe many, if any, can win long term by their seat of the pants.

If you're betting small units like Gr8 player and myself it is obvious you don't have the confidence or the knowledge to make the kind of money you need to live.  Otherwise we'd be betting 1k a hand!

Once a specific documented set of betting and placement parameters are set and known to beat the edge bankroll and balls take second seat.

So IMO, whomever is not bringing down huge $ from this game don't have much real confidence in their own method.  That includes me, Gr8, as, and Gizmo at least. 

Feel free to correct me.

[AsymBacGuy]

BBB = +30
BBP = +10
BPB = +20
BPP = -10
PBB = +20
PBP = 0
PPB = +10
PPP = -70

Are these the outcomes you are referring to?

Nope, because here you get a +10 profit (minus the vig) instead of zero.

as.

[AsymBacGuy]

BBB = +30
BBP = +10
BPB = +20
BPP = -10
PBB = +20
PBP = 0
PPB = +10
PPP = -70

Are these the outcomes you are referring to?

In reality the final outcome of +10 after the vig will be reduced to +1
(vig burden per each 3-pattern: 1.5 + 1 +1.5 + 0.5 + 1.5 + 1 + 2 = 9)

If the game itlr will produce an exact number of such 3-patterns, it seems that utilizing this 3-step progression we'll get a 10% average profit on our initial bet per every round of 24 bets.
Actually itlr the winning patterns are more likely than the losing ones but the variance will make a serious issue on such a plan.
For example a simple 9 P streak will produce a -21 units loss, not so easily recoverable.
 
as.

[AsymBacGuy]

Yes Jim, I don't like to bet too much, even if the word "too much" is very relative.
And I'll explain why.

First and at least considering the preferred rooms I attend, it's very difficult to wait and wait without wagering. Ok, I can randomly put here and there a black minimum chip, after all I can't expect to lose more than an average 1.24% at worst.
But we all are humans and not following our strict rigid strategy proven to be good more often than not and after having suffered many losses waiting for the selected favourable situation, we might fall into what I call the "gambling" disorder.
We are trying to bet a whatever "more likely situation" that in reality we know it isn't. We begin to raise our bets with no reason. We try to follow "lucky players" that seem to not lose a single hand and flashing everytime a natural. Of course their lucky run ends up right in the moment  we're betting their same invincible chance. 

It must take several (losing) sessions to see that shifting from our well studied plan it's just a money donation to casinos.

As you brilliantly pointed out somewhere Jim, lights, drinks, atmosphere will all enhance the likelihood to make the aim for casinos do exist: taking our money the most they can.

Secondly, in the effort to try to find a long term edge, I ran millions of shoes. I got and I get 10 shoes within just 4 seconds. A -2 units result after 10 shoes is only a minor problem at my eyes. But to get 10 shoes in live play it takes from 15 to 25 hours of playing (or observing).
I'm a very long term results oriented player, but in the practice the long term fits more with the house than with the players and not only for mathematical reasons.

Third, I'm somewhat suspicious about everything navigating into the gambling ocean.

A final consideration related to the post is that the best players I know tend to bet very few hands.
Favorite sport teams cannot be always ahead for each every gap of played time considered. It's the final outcome that matters. Sometimes even the final outcome won't be placed on their favor. But the sum of the final outcomes will be invariably shifted on the favorite teams side.

Playing baccarat for a living is very very difficult the like is very very difficult to be long term winners at poker or bj, both games proven to be beatable.
Most of the time poker or bj players fold or bet the minimum for the profitable situations will be quite rare.
Do we want to do any better playing a game that totally denies every possible advantage?

as.

[AsymBacGuy]

Many casinos have EZ Baccarat with no fee due by the players though, right?

Yes, but the vig at EZ tables is reduced from 1.06% to 1.01%.
So not a huge difference, then on long term results the vig burden will be almost the same.

Anyway and according to the simple strategy proposed by aces, there could be some hints to raise our expectation:

- choosing to sit at EZ tables, counting the cards and evaluating the 4-5-6-7/8-9 ratio in order to assess a more likely "dragon bet" appearance. This can lower the house vig by mathematical issues.

- waiting a too large formation of PPP patterns (meaning long P streaks production) knowing that some slight unlikely patterns could come out in clusters and then disappear for long times (thanks also to a sxzbox member contribute). It's just both a normal variance issue and a card distribution issue negating the banker side its consistent mathematical edge. 

- constantly assessing every single 1/8 pattern in term of SD.

- registering the AS/S hands ratio per any shoe. If a lot of AS hands had taken place into a restricted number of shoes, it means that more often than not next shoes will be more privy of such AS hands. The AS/S average ratio is 8.4/91.6.

- registering the AS hands outcome. It won't be any good for B lovers to know that mathematical favorite B spots unexpectedly went on the other side (if they continue to bet B chance). Still we ought to consider that any AS hand is a supposedly Banker favorite hand, no matter what will be the outcome. So it must be considered a kind of worthless mathematical consumption.

In conclusion, playing at EZ tables is preferable even if the house edge on B bets is reduced by a mere 0.05%.
But only because we can take advantage of counting cards.

as. 









         

[Jimske]

Yes Jim, I don't like to bet too much, even if the word "too much" is very relative.
And I'll explain why.

First and at least considering the preferred rooms I attend, it's very difficult to wait and wait without wagering. Ok, I can randomly put here and there a black minimum chip, after all I can't expect to lose more than an average 1.24% at worst.
But we all are humans and not following our strict rigid strategy proven to be good more often than not and after having suffered many losses waiting for the selected favourable situation, we might fall into what I call the "gambling" disorder.
We are trying to bet a whatever "more likely situation" that in reality we know it isn't. We begin to raise our bets with no reason. We try to follow "lucky players" that seem to not lose a single hand and flashing everytime a natural. Of course their lucky run ends up right in the moment  we're betting their same invincible chance. 

It must take several (losing) sessions to see that shifting from our well studied plan it's just a money donation to casinos.

I'm not buying it.  As I mentioned to you privately quite a while back sitting, "paying rent" waiting for the "big" bet(s) is the way to go,  Of course you need a game with the appropriate spread.  I have sat at the BJ table 3 or 4 shoes never seeing a chance to increase the bet to a 15:1 spread!  It happens.  I once lost 12 of 14 advantage bets in a row - that's variance.  I digress.

The Gr8 one genius professional plays a guessing trend game similar to me.  It's what I call a spot player.  A successful player who doesn't "bet too much."  He harps incessantly about discipline . . . and rightly so. 

We are trying to bet a whatever "more likely situation" that in reality we know it isn't. We begin to raise our bets with no reason. We try to follow "lucky players" that seem to not lose a single hand and flashing everytime a natural. Of course their lucky run ends up right in the moment  we're betting their same invincible chance.

A plan is needed in any endeavor and requires DISCIPLINE.  So. . . play a trend thingy like Gr8 and wait until your big bet comes up.  Make a plan to play x times a week for x shoes a visit and be done with it.

What could be simpler?  A solution if it becomes too difficult.  Put two people on the same table to keep each other honest