In order to 'beat' randomness and 'define it' to mathematical and statistical outcome, you would have to be able to compress all the strings of outcomes, that are possible in baccarat. And, that feat cannot be done and converted to a schedule of definitive presentments that will happen with certainty or even near certainty.

The reason no one can develop a schedule of upcoming winning hands in baccarat is, that the upcoming sequence(s) will not repeat themselves in a 'cyclical order' with definition and preset values that have to happen.

The reason baccarat goes to only 9 and cancels out, is not dragon trails, luck, certain low numbers divisible, Gods, myths, or anything of the like, especially Asian. The whole Asian end of it was added once the game began to die off in the USA and elsewhere and the casinos saw the light with the amount of money the Asians were willing to risk, pool together, commit crimes to get, etc. Then all the Asian myths, twists and turns were integrated into the game.

Back to the 0-9 values and what the cards represent. The game cannot be cracked with a system according to mathematical and statistical figuring out, because of 'LOG' and 'pi'. In short, the Pi will have the first 6+ billion places each developed from 0 to 9, showing up around 600 million times, if I am correct as the basics go.

Anything that the shoes produce with similarity to what the tester found, is just coincident data, with no real reoccurring lock to discover and place into a schedule of digits that form events, that will repeatedly present themselves, time after time after time within any section, etc. It is impossible. It has to do with Binary Logarithm or 'LOG 2s' as they call it I believe.

Where gamblers and system writers, etc., fall prey, is they want the value 'x' = Log2 to convert to their 'wishful dream thinking' of discovering standard mathematical functions that come about on a repetitive basis. When you mix in 8 decks of cards and limit each card value between 0 and 9, your outcomes jump to 10's of billions of possible results. I did not invent the game, I am not a mathematician, I am not a computer programmer. I am a realist and I know the game. I know the basics about math and stats and a long time ago realized there is no way to continually apply those to the game and when in any type of scheduled plan based upon discovering the future presentments of the cards.

Then the programmer or casino wizards, whatever they are called, go into their analysis of the algorithms to locate the frequency and use of Log2's, etc., to *make-up some kind of structure*, which they claim is a system to Beat The Casino, etc. At least that is how I see it all over these years.

The problem being, the manual cards will not match up to the mathematical reoccurring logarithms. In other words, those cards have an exposure value and not a programmed value. Additionally, IMO, the gambling system finders and tester, etc., are claiming they input real numbers, 'x' and the outputs from their computer science they apply, are equaling some type of 'mapping'. Which will be something like greater than, or equal to (whatever they are working with). Then they count down or up and justify whatever it is the balance they found. The result in that balance if it appears several times is their 'key', or their 'holy grail', etc.

But they really found nothing that will repeatedly and with any consecutively repeats itself every time that certain events or values they deduced down, come about. Why? Simply because of manual presentments from those cards valued 0 to 9. And those very same cards not being programmed. That's why. Any type of shuffle and cut, kills any thought of a pre-set value that can be determined.

If you truly understand what a logarithm is, you would understand what I am saying. When you mix 4-5 and 6 cards of values limited to 0 through 9, to get the outcome of a W or a L, that is not based on the previous W's and L's, or what is left, that is where the different schools of thought surface as to what can be *systemically invented* or *discovered* by a mathematician or a statistical professor involving baccarat.

In short, they will never find that 'a' means anything to 'b' equaling 'x'. Period. They will find that 'a' and 'b' affect the value of each other, but there are billions of combinations possible and within a round of 80 hands or so, the impossibility will remain.

That is why I take the stance I do regarding the conversion of math and stats to the value of the cards and attempting to realize a repetitive schedule to play by. *The cards can never present themselves the same way, based on anything to coincide with a planned schedule.*

Here is one more way I will attempt to explain it. If the shoe of baccarat was a pre-programmed event of 76-84 hands and written by a programmer with cards installed to produce sporadic events at any given time, or in fact not produce them, then you got a chance at discovering the presentments and learning the 'how and why' certain events will always present themselves or not.

But the way the manual cards determine the value of a winning and a losing hand, is solely based upon the order of the cards that a computer did not direct, and therefore those cards are not governed by what you are developing according to math and stats. And, since a computer program is not directing how the shoe will be presented (at least in a B&M Casino) there would be no way you can reduce any series of tests to become a universal scheduled plan to dictate your wagering, allowing you to win with certainty. You will never figure out a system to learn how and when the cards will present themselves with an advantage according to mathematical and statistical adherence.

I told you, I'm not a mathematician or a statistician or a computer programmer. So maybe I just stuck my foot so far up my butt, I made myself look like a clown standing on my head. Quite possibly.