What is the real world of results and understanding of Baccarat? It is complicated by everything on the internet these days, IMO. Unlike prior to 2000 when everything was not published instantly on the internet with the repeating of false findings, unproven theories and a few successful or non successful games of play, etc.
The real world results relating to understanding baccarat is relative observations, expectations and reality all mixed up and combined. Realistically meaning, real brick & mortar casino dealt shoes of baccarat.
Theory, system, method, triggers and desires in baccarat are often different than the outcome of a real baccarat shoe. Why? Because the person subscribing to any theory, system, method, trigger and his desires translated into wagering selections, is forming a set of desires that will seldom be matched with accurate results to consistent positive degrees of winning hands, versus losing hands in volume.
Mathematical and scientific results are rarely clear cut and not always identical, even ones of the same classification and exact type. On the other hand, theoretical tests can influence our observations and how we each subscribe to something or ignore something. And, that is a huge contributing factor to why we let others win or why we just fail to see something as it is happening at the baccarat table.
Consider this. The simplified experiences of a rolling ball down a ramp to see if its acceleration is constant. Each of our observations of the speed and position of the ball are affected by the motion and it underpinnings, but those observations will be consistently effected by all sorts of details you might not even know. And even if you did know them all, you could not always be accurate in your estimates as to what the data of the events are concerning the ball, its speed, its path and its repetitive exact acts waiting to reoccur. Air movement in the room, precision of your measuring equipment, variations in smoothness of the ramp and ball, slight changes in how the ball is released can and will end up affecting your observations, but cannot change what will ultimately happen.
Now, if your observations do not match the expectations which are generated by your own knowledge of whatever the subject is you are testing, will you reject or accept those results as accurate and realistic? Or does it just mean that there are factions that contribute to results sometimes and at other times, do not?
At a certain point our observations deviate from our expectations so much they have to be viewed as false positives or contradictory evidence.
Figuring all this out is a key part of analysis and self confidence. However, you have to recognize reality and accept it in its purest and non-stoppable forms of shoe presentment.
The match between observations and expectations is relative, do not think it is not. 100% relative to be successful in the game of baccarat. Scientists often compare alternative explanations or discoveries, which produce very different expectations and results. Observations may not exactly match either set of expectations, but if they somehow are closer to one set, than the other, this is almost always viewed as evidence supporting the corresponding explanation and then viewed as such.
Hence, summations usually lead to statements defining the theory being interpreted as strong evidence in support of general relativity. However, their results are not exactly science and under no circumstances will they be repeated in exact sequence upon further testing. And although they label it as science and theory, it has nothing to do with guarantees to repeat the same or further findings in any exact order with stern consistency of order.
Same as the game of baccarat and the proper interpretation of events and events waiting to be presented.