+ Register

[21 Aces]

Nothing like cranking through a shoe or part of it still good up even with no high payout bet wins.

Notorious track record building on key points where I bet Bank/ Player only. ....  and HIT.

[21 Aces]

I swear someone could write volumes on the shuffle and how high payout bets hit on Dragon, Panda, Animal lines, etc.  Planning on loading up more on these lines.

Even very impressed when my dealer friends are topping it off with a hand shuffle in other games.

[21 Aces]

Strong players on Bank/ Player that don't play high payout bets can give it a shot by allocating small on the order of 5% or less.  This should not be a notable drag on your play and you can record your P&L separately on it.  You can also simulate play with those bets and record how you would have done.

[21 Aces]

If you play strong then you should have zero hesitation going high payout bets only at times of indecision on Bank/ Player.  Can't say how many times I have missed because I am not sure on Bank/ Player so I sideline.

[21 Aces]

Every baccarat shoe with enough high payout bets to make allocating to them worthwhile will have several high payout bets hit on lines in the Bead Plate and lines on the Big Road.  If there are a lot of high payout bet wins, most every line on either can become a high payout bet win line.

BUT for most cases, leaning towards focusing more on the Bead Plate high payout win lines and reserving bets for those lines.  They tend to be more of an indicator than the Big Road.  Yes, there will be misses, but one could increase bet size on high payout at key points where the Bead Plate lines come up.

[alrelax]

Every baccarat shoe with enough high payout bets to make allocating to them worthwhile will have several high payout bets hit on lines in the Bead Plate and lines on the Big Road.  If there are a lot of high payout bet wins, most every line on either can become a high payout bet win line.

BUT for most cases, leaning towards focusing more on the Bead Plate high payout win lines and reserving bets for those lines.  They tend to be more of an indicator than the Big Road.  Yes, there will be misses, but one could increase bet size on high payout at key points where the Bead Plate lines come up.

I am sorry, IMO and Experiences what you say is 50/50 but at times as high as in the upper 90 Percentile they will not hit.  The problem with the Dragon's/Fortune 7's and the Pandas, is they will hit in a shoe with 5 to 7 times and other times with 1 or 2 hits, or none at all.  If you continually wager on them you will go broke, easily-no doubt.  I have seen shoes produce 1 or 2 only, steady all night long.  Other times I have seen 5 or 6 in a shoe and then zero for numerous shoes.  Many many players, beyond count--give back all their win money attempting re in a shoe or the following shoe.  More give it back without a single doubt than those that take it and keep it. 

I do agree on the 'bead plate' rather than the big road, for the 7's or Pandas to be on a certain line, but then again, one cannot count on that for every shoe.  Like I always said, 'if the shoe is producing it'. 

[21 Aces]

I am sorry, IMO and Experiences what you say is 50/50 but at times as high as in the upper 90 Percentile they will not hit.  The problem with the Dragon's/Fortune 7's and the Pandas, is they will hit in a shoe with 5 to 7 times and other times with 1 or 2 hits, or none at all.  If you continually wager on them you will go broke, easily-no doubt.  I have seen shoes produce 1 or 2 only, steady all night long.  Other times I have seen 5 or 6 in a shoe and then zero for numerous shoes.  Many many players, beyond count--give back all their win money attempting re in a shoe or the following shoe.  More give it back without a single doubt than those that take it and keep it. 

I do agree on the 'bead plate' rather than the big road, for the 7's or Pandas to be on a certain line, but then again, one cannot count on that for every shoe.  Like I always said, 'if the shoe is producing it'.

If you strike strong on Bank/ Player, up to 15-20% allocated to high payout should be viable.  Even much, much, more at times when you have a lock on a strong progression.
Many baccarat shoes have 0, 1, 2 total high payout bet wins though for sure.  More later as a lot of wasted time off tables.

[alrelax]

On a side note, I have found the following to be very advantageous for myself at least coming true about 8 out of ten times the scenario presents itself.

Which is:  Extremely low ties or no ties, low ties meaning 0-1-or 2, up to around hand 35-45.  It was also extreme 'clumpy' and 'strong' with lots of clumps ending in winning hands consistently of 7 or better, total point values.  Lots of naturals, like 15 out of 25 or so.  Also naturals appearing like 9 out of 12 or 16 out of 21 hands.  Then 1 or 2 Fortunes 7's come within a small section, maybe up to 6 hands apart or so, possibly 7 or 8 hands apart, etc. 

With all of those factors, almost every one present, but like I said, 8 out of 10 times, there will be 2 or 3 more F-7's.  Ending with 4, 5 or even 6 F-7's. 

[AsymBacGuy]

It makes sense.

I do not know about how ties may have an impact over the whole picture.

Anyway and without using a precise card counting, a lot of naturals in the past shoe should endorse the probability to get F-7s in the next hands of the shoe.

Naturals cover a very large section of the total outcomes (more than 1/3, on average) and most of the time are formed by an 8 and/or a 9 accompanied by a zero value card.
I mean that a lot of naturals produced by many 7s (7-2) or 4-5 or 6-3 won't affect the F-7 overall probability, actually such situations tend to reduce such probability as 7s, 6s, 5s, 4s and 3s are important cards for the F-7 appearance.

Moreover the observation that a rare event tend to come out in clusters or never at all is well placed, imo, and confirmed by some theories.

I witnessed shoes starting with 2-3 F-7 hands then ending up with 4 or even 5-6 more F-7s.

In some way I would say that it's best to bet on repeats than wagering on what didn't happen so far.

After all players are forced to hope to get positive clusters of some nature.
It's up to us to decide when a positive cluster will be more likely to happen. And we do know that such thing won't happen everytime. 

as.   












 



 

[alrelax]

It makes sense.

I do not know about how ties may have an impact over the whole picture.

Anyway and without using a precise card counting, a lot of naturals in the past shoe should endorse the probability to get F-7s in the next hands of the shoe.

Naturals cover a very large section of the total outcomes (more than 1/3, on average) and most of the time are formed by an 8 and/or a 9 accompanied by a zero value card.
I mean that a lot of naturals produced by many 7s (7-2) or 4-5 or 6-3 won't affect the F-7 overall probability, actually such situations tend to reduce such probability as 7s, 6s, 5s, 4s and 3s are important cards for the F-7 appearance.

Moreover the observation that a rare event tend to come out in clusters or never at all is well placed, imo, and confirmed by some theories.

I witnessed shoes starting with 2-3 F-7 hands then ending up with 4 or even 5-6 more F-7s.

In some way I would say that it's best to bet on repeats than wagering on what didn't happen so far.

After all players are forced to hope to get positive clusters of some nature.
It's up to us to decide when a positive cluster will be more likely to happen. And we do know that such thing won't happen everytime. 

as.   

<<<<(I tightened up the space between the "as." and the "[/quote]", LOL---remember how others used to whine about that space???  Seriously, I do!  Anyway-------

Yes, there is something there, exactly what or can you count the cards until something 100% will appear, I seriously doubt it.  But, after such a long time playing and watching these events, there is something that produces a large amount of more prevailing F-7's (not pandas) with little/few or no ties.  As well with the naturals that dominate as compared to no naturals or considerably fewer naturals.

If you dig through my previous posts on the Fortune-7 subject, I also stated, IMO, there are considerable more in the first 10 to 20 hands.  And lots of time, but no count, if it makes 1, the 2nd is not usually far behind, but that is a lesser of a 'more prevailing consistent' everything everything else I stated.

Hands 1-10/12, etc.  I wrote about these.  For me, I see it consistently. But, for the 'clumping', the high/higher count of naturals and those naturals clumped together as well, coupled with the zero to very low ties, that is gold to me.   

[AsymBacGuy]

I didn't make any work about the probability of 7-Fs being most probable on the first fragments of the shoe but I trust you Al.
From now I'll pay more attention on this.

Surely the big payment on such bets make us either hugely wrong, sliightly wrong, slightly right or extremely right. Of course the line is shifted to the losing left side.

Since the average probablity to cross those bets is a bit less than two times per every shoe, we should act accordingly (besides the card counting procedure).
The vast majority of shoes will feature either zero or one F-7; the rest is a mix of two or more F-7 occurrences.
The long term balancing factor on those shoes not performing any or just one 7-F is represented by those shoes were this side bet came out three or more times per shoe.
Two 7-F coming out per every single shoe is a sort of a slight "abnormal" course of action.

From a mathematical point of view, anytime we'll get one F-7 per every 39 losing hands we'll get an advantage.
This situation isn't possible as on average and betting every hand, the F-7 happens one time over 45 hands.

Anyway a 1:45 probability event itlr must follow its general probability to happen, so itlr we'll get more shoes presenting two 7-F hands than those shoes showing just one hand or zero hands (and of course 3 or more 7-F hands).

We may consider the 7-F bet as a roulette single number, with the important difference that at baccarat every shoe is finite and card dependent.

A single roulette number could be silent for 500-600 (or more) spins, meaning that a F-7 bet, being less probable, could be silent for 9-10 consecutive shoes. 
Thus any strategy oriented to get one 7-F within a given range of hands is totally fruitless.

Nonetheless and differently to roulette, whenever a lot of 8s and 9s have been removed from the deck, the probability to get 7-Fs is raised.

Notice that whenever a lot of 8s and 9s are removed from the deck, the Player side is slighlty favored to happen.
Thus, imo, the best strategy to set up whenever a lot of 8s and 9s are removed from the deck is wagering the Player side and, if conditions dictate so, simultaneously put a small amount on 7-F bet.

Without going into details, we see that most of the time 8s/9s will either damage or unlikely hugely favor the P point or not enticing at all a possible F-7 hand.
No one 8 or 9 being dealt on B side could form a winning F-7 hand and more often than not, 8s and 9s do not entice a B drawing to a possible F-7.

Eliot Jacobsen tried to find a possible F-7 advantage from registering how many naturals had shown up in the past shoe, but he forgot to classify how those naturals had come out.

A possible winning strategy, though diluted and impèlemented by a progression, is about simultaneously betting P side and F-7 whenever a huge number of naturals had come out, providing those naturals were formed by 8s and 9s accompanied by a zero value card.

We must play P and F-7 anytime we think that small-medium cards along with 7s are particularly live in the remaining portion of the shoe as one situation (P win or F-7) must be more likely to happen than what the common probabilities dictate.

If you think well, wagering Banker whenever you think a 7-F will come out is a stu.pid move, as it implies the concept that B side must draw.

Itlr whenever B side must draw and we were betting Banker,  we're playing a perfect coin flip situation. A losing scenario by any means.

as.







   



   

   

 



 











 



 





     

[alrelax]

I didn't make any work about the probability of 7-Fs being most probable on the first fragments of the shoe but I trust you Al.
From now I'll pay more attention on this.

Surely the big payment on such bets make us either hugely wrong, sliightly wrong, slightly right or extremely right. Of course the line is shifted to the losing left side.

Since the average probablity to cross those bets is a bit less than two times per every shoe, we should act accordingly (besides the card counting procedure).
The vast majority of shoes will feature either zero or one F-7; the rest is a mix of two or more F-7 occurrences.
The long term balancing factor on those shoes not performing any or just one 7-F is represented by those shoes were this side bet came out three or more times per shoe.
Two 7-F coming out per every single shoe is a sort of a slight "abnormal" course of action.

From a mathematical point of view, anytime we'll get one F-7 per every 39 losing hands we'll get an advantage.
This situation isn't possible as on average and betting every hand, the F-7 happens one time over 45 hands.

Anyway a 1:45 probability event itlr must follow its general probability to happen, so itlr we'll get more shoes presenting two 7-F hands than those shoes showing just one hand or zero hands (and of course 3 or more 7-F hands).

We may consider the 7-F bet as a roulette single number, with the important difference that at baccarat every shoe is finite and card dependent.

A single roulette number could be silent for 500-600 (or more) spins, meaning that a F-7 bet, being less probable, could be silent for 9-10 consecutive shoes. 
Thus any strategy oriented to get one 7-F within a given range of hands is totally fruitless.

Nonetheless and differently to roulette, whenever a lot of 8s and 9s have been removed from the deck, the probability to get 7-Fs is raised.

Notice that whenever a lot of 8s and 9s are removed from the deck, the Player side is slighlty favored to happen.
Thus, imo, the best strategy to set up whenever a lot of 8s and 9s are removed from the deck is wagering the Player side and, if conditions dictate so, simultaneously put a small amount on 7-F bet.

Without going into details, we see that most of the time 8s/9s will either damage or unlikely hugely favor the P point or not enticing at all a possible F-7 hand.
No one 8 or 9 being dealt on B side could form a winning F-7 hand and more often than not, 8s and 9s do not entice a B drawing to a possible F-7.

Eliot Jacobsen tried to find a possible F-7 advantage from registering how many naturals had shown up in the past shoe, but he forgot to classify how those naturals had come out.

A possible winning strategy, though diluted and impèlemented by a progression, is about simultaneously betting P side and F-7 whenever a huge number of naturals had come out, providing those naturals were formed by 8s and 9s accompanied by a zero value card.

We must play P and F-7 anytime we think that small-medium cards along with 7s are particularly live in the remaining portion of the shoe as one situation (P win or F-7) must be more likely to happen than what the common probabilities dictate.

If you think well, wagering Banker whenever you think a 7-F will come out is a stu.pid move, as it implies the concept that B side must draw.

Itlr whenever B side must draw and we were betting Banker,  we're playing a perfect coin flip situation. A losing scenario by any means.

as.

They do or they don't.  Yes, crazy!  Played the last two nights.  It happens.  To me, IMO--it is more defined than the B or the P trending and triggers we all have, if we admit it or not--at least the experienced players do anyway..


I do not and do not recommend the wagering of a steady wager on all shoes in the hopes to catch a high-payout reward.  It will usually be a losing proposition.  The odds of the F-7's are figured at 40 to 1.  So a $25.00 wager on 40 hands will recoup your funds if it hits around hand 40.  Problem being, worse than the trend and the patterns for most, if not all players is the highly addictive and highly rewarded result when they do hit.  And if you get a shoe with 3 to 6, blast city!!!!!  If you were on them.  Winning F-7's, drive most players, the highest amount I do observe, into a more destructive and addictive wagering 'war' against the casino.  Few people can then cash out and leave and fewer players yet--slow down.  It is like rocket fuel--for the lack of a better definition I am searching for to describe. 

I had a shoe last night with 3 in the first 11 hands.  Hand 1, hand 7 and had 11.  I had at least 8 shoes with only 1, for two of those 8, maybe even 9 shoes.  But some of the shoes had zero -7's and others had 3 to 5. 

Pay attention to the 'none/extremely low tie count', 'clumping of strong or semi-strong B's and P's' and 'consistent winning hands of 7 or better-lots of naturals' and this all building in any 20-40 hand section of the shoe, beginning or middle, etc., before the Fortune 7's start appearing. 

I hit a few of them, one was comical between the dealer and myself.  I usually do better when the dealer  the personalty, the drive and gets right in the game with us, in a sense.  She tapped out the previous dealer and I tried a few times, maybe 3 or 4 with her to get a F-7.  She goes, 'Come on, it's coming up'.  So I didn't wager for it on a couple/few hands.  Then I threw out $50 worth of red chips and slid one off the top for the dealer's toke/side bet on my F-7 wager.  Before she could take a card from the shoe, i slid another chip off the F-7 wager I had and onto her toke/wager.  She deals the players 2 monkeys and the banker has and 8 and a 2.  She pulls a 6 for the players side and she slides the card out of the shoe and before she could turn it over, I stopped her.  Pointed out the two red chips and verbally said, "$410.00 for the dealer for a 7".  She looks and the determination in her eyes was clear.  Very clear.  She turns the card over and it was a 7.  2 others out of a full table were wagering on it as well.  It was a good hit and the dealer's involvement made it better. 

I switched tables after that shoe and could not catch any of them that did hit at the new table. There was several at the table I switched from and most of them were according to my definition as I described to you. Not all, but better than 50% of them by far.  The next dealer tried equally as hard, but he was continually making greeat patterns and stronger trends of both B's and P's, not a single F-7 or a Panda for the 20 min's he was one.  Just about the same thing but a weaker everything for the next dealer at that table.




   



   

   

 



 











 



 





   

[21 Aces]

If you want to score high payout wins, you have to go looking where they are.

The party is here:




Not here:

[alrelax]

Again last night.  The heavy 'clumping' was not present, but everything else I talked about on 3 shoes was.  One shoe with 6 F-7's, another with 3 and one with 2.  3 of them were in the first 10 hand.  One shoe the very first hand was an F-7 and that actually happened a few days ago, I have almost never witnessed that for some reason, possibly once or twice in many years since the F-7 wager came about with EZ-Bac.  Another shoe had one of the 7th hand and for superstition and memory of others I almost always wager the 7th, 17th, 27th and 77th hands for the F-7, but did not yesterday, LOL. 

[21 Aces]

Hit several Panda 8 with only one having an underlying bet on Player.  I do place more on Panda 8 for this reason so that the Bank bet is covered and the result is a decent win.  Hit a key Dragon 7 with the entire table and I called exactly what we saw with the dealer at the table next door before hand.  The only bad thing is that I didn't go big.  Everything lined up perfectly which the Dark Wizard will never understand, and non-players will never have a hard time believing.  This Dragon 7 closed out my night and that is one of the biggest advantages of high payout bet wins.  They can provide favorable variance that you can exploit.

Go looking for high payout bet wins where there are some already and go looking where the shoe is screaming it will fit if you look at it the right way.