Yes Chicago is a super aggressive casino market with extremely high table limits.  Table limits are anywhere from $25,000 to $1000,000 without front money required.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/02/20/us-casinos-best-year-ever-chicago/#:~:text=Nevada%20remains%20the%20nation's%20top,with%20%2415.5%20billion%20in%20revenue.

And for example here is Ameristar's description of their baccarat room.

BACCARAT ROOM
The newly renovated Baccarat Room is the best place to play in Chicagoland featuring 11 Baccarat tables.
PLACE YOUR BETS


You'll find our newly expanded and renovated Baccarat Room on the casino's third floor. This new state-of-the-art gaming room is complete with 11 Baccarat tables, offering minimum bets of $15 and maximum bets up to $25,000.

We offer a wide variety of games including:

-Dragon Bonus, a bonus side wager that pays on the margin of your win

-2 EZ Baccarat, an exciting variation on Baccarat where no commission is taken

-Dragon 7

-Panda 8

Plus, after 30 minutes of rated play, receive a comp at our Red Lotus Asian Kitchen which specializes in authentic Pacific Rim dishes and conveniently located inside the Baccarat Room.

Looking to play Baccarat but in an exciting high-stakes action environment? Visit our High Limit room which also includes two new Baccarat tables.

And as far as I know, the highest table maximums are at Rivers Casino in the Chicagoland area. 

A brief background reference Indian gaming and what got them to the point they are at today.

Because of the decision, the Seminole Tribe was able to build and operate the nation's first tribally-owned high-stakes bingo parlor on their reservation in Florida, even though bingo for profit was illegal under Florida law at the time. Many other tribes later followed the Seminole Tribe's lead by building their own bingo parlors on their reservations, leading many scholars to call the Seminole Tribe's victory in this case the "birth" of modern commercial gambling on reservations

And let's not forget the following:  "In March 2007, the Seminole Tribe of Florida acquired Hard Rock International, Inc. and other related entities from The Rank Group Plc. Today, Hard Rock International is one of the most globally recognized companies in the world and has venues in over 70 countries; Cafes, Casinos and Hotels."


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seminole_Tribe_v._Butterworth

Assuming a 0.75 probability (W+1, L=-3), symmetrical patterns tend to slight overwhelm the asymmetrical ones at most shoes dealt.
The problem to bet symmetrical patterns is that they are a two-step proposition, meaning that to get the full value of any sym pattern we have to pospro every single bet.

Moreover and for an obvious "balancing" factor, many shoes will form endless Asymmetrical situations, those where it's virtually impossible to lose for the main portion of the shoe.

Generally speaking, the Big Road is the basic succession where sym patterns seem to prevail over the asym ones, a thing happening with a slight lesser attitude at other derived roads (or multiple random walks we can build).

At any rate, clustered symmetrical situations belonging to DIFFERENT patterns and showing up as consecutively shaped are well controllable (so restricted in their average appearance).
Otherwise any bac player in the world (who genetically privileges symmetry) would easily win at most shoes.

On the other end, casinos know that besides their math edge patterns will whimsically show up by a kind of undetectable fashion.
Among all those undetectable situations, a fair portion of symmetrical (detectable) patterns come out naturally as long as long streaks and other homogeneous (humanly speaking) events.
This is what fuels the game as there's nothing to guess or hope for.

What we should do is taking advantage of the asymmetrical propensity acting infinitely even knowing that some sym different patterns can show up in a row but by more likely levels in the vast majority of the times.

Think about how it's impossible to deal back-to-back diverse symmetrical patterns for long at the infinite sub successions derived from the BP original one.

Depending about how's the actual production (manual shuffle, machine shuffling, etc), the best betting spots you should aim for are wagering toward A after a single S pattern or after a double S pattern.

Then betting toward A clusters cannot hurt, especially when a counterpart S had previously shown up clustered.

A-S-S-S(..)-A-S-S-S(...) patterns sooner or later show up (very rarely), who cares?
People making a living at games rely upon numbers more likely to happen.

as.

When in doubt about what to bet and among the infinite options we can choose from, I think the A/S distribution is the best to take hints from.
We've seen there are only three different patterns of so called symmetrical nature, everything else could be easily considered as asymmetrical.

More later

as.

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of online casinos but I can't visit Vegas as often as I want. It's just different: another atmosphere, no people around. But when I decide on online gambling I visit platforms like (YOU HAVE TO FIND YOUR OWN THAT ARE SAFE AND SECURE——-MODERATED BY ADMIN WITH NAME AND LINK REMOVED BY FIRST TIME POSTER) to find the best options because I'm not familiar with online gaming as with offline.

ADMIN NOTE:  EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE I POST ONE OF THESE FIRST TIME POSTING NEW MEMBERS TO REMIND OTHERS.  WE DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT SIGN UP HERE AND BEGIN POSTING IN THE FORUM ABOUT YOUR GIG/PAID TO POST LINKS, ETC. 

I HIGHLY SUGGEST SUCH WELL KNOWN FORUMS SUCH AS, WIZARDOFVEGAS AS THEY LOVE MEMBERS THAT SIGN UP AND POST LINKS TO UNKNOWN GAMBLING SITES!!!

Hi KFB!
15 B singles in a row? A real strong deviation!

Do you have the entire shoe?

Thanks!

as.

Think about how's unlikely to get a balanced ratio in relationship of the number of decisions dealt even by considering a perfect independent 50/50 proposition.
 
In addition, bac sides are asymmetrical at the start, then cards cannot be arranged by a balanced scenario for multiple sets unless for "coincidental" factors, surely being affected by a "finite" slight dependent effect.

If deviations are naturally going far from the 0 neutral point and itlr 0 is the theoretical target, many counter balancing deviations are more likely to be asymmetrically than symmetrically shaped.
Or, at least, symmetrical scenarios seem to be more controllable in their appearance and lenght than asymmetrical spots.

as.

The paramount tool to take care of is that once a pattern had produced a S event, we're not interested to care about its lenght. So 1 is equal to 2, 3 or even 10. We need to wait until an asymmetrical A event will stop its sequence.

Setting up two or three different fictional players betting for us is one of the key to possibly win itrl, providing to bet far and few between situations.

For example:

Player #1 will always bet for A-A situation (one time); it'll lose whenever isolated A come out (A-S)

Player #2 will always bet for (A-S)-A situation, that is betting toward A after a single S came out)

Player #3 will always bet after a (A-S-S)-A situation, that is betting toward A after TWO S had come out in a row.

To get ALL three players losing at the same time we need to cross a (S)-A-S-S-S(...) pattern, yet singularly considered each player will suffer from a SINGLE loss.

It's true that S-S-S(..) patterns will make both player #2 and #3 to lose but we know that more clustered are S patterns greater will be the probability to encounter A-A patterns.

If you set up a starting betting point after two or three S clusters (S-S or S-S-S-...) fictionally happening, probability to get A-A or S-A will be enlarged and giving you a statistical edge.

On the other end, most part of A isolated events come out intertwined by S isolated events.

Such propensity is so reliable that you'll find very few situations fitting a kind of A-S-S-S pattern.
Moreover it works at ALL infinite random walks you can build from the original BP sequence, so it's PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to deal shoes rich of S events without getting a proper exploitable amount of A situations.

as.

Thanks KFB, I appreciate it and I'm looking forward to your incoming comments!

I'll add just this.

A "linear" strategy suggesting to always bet A vs S is not going anywhere as sooner or later we'll catch a SSSSSS..sequence or anyway a shoe or multiple shoes feauturing plenty of S.
On the other end even A clusters could suffer from consecutive isolated A but in the majority of the times such unusual "chopping" A line easily alternate with single S (A-S-A-S-A-S..).

Then by waiting S clusters of any lenght (and you'll have to wait quite a fair time to cross them), we know that more room is conceded to more natural A clusters (of any lenght) as a 3:1 probability can suffer harsh situations but not standing for long time, especially whether the production is RNG dictated.
In any case this doesn't fall into a gambler's fallacy concept, otherwise anybody would be enticed to wager only for symmetrical patterns so breaking down the house well more (and easier) than what MIT team did at bj.

Casinos like randomness and randomness dislikes patterns.
     
More later

as.

I have been on a multi-day trip and will try to elaborate more within a couple days.

I have been on a multi-week winning streak at my home market. Meaning, I have not busted a buyin in several weeks. Often I bust a buyin every 4-5 days or so in part due to my aggressive pos progression approach. I prefer not to boast or speak of winning streaks(During the ongoing streak) as not to "jinx" them. I know that's a superstition on my part.

I did bust a buyin on my current multi-day trip.


A highlight shoe on this trip was a shoe that produced 15 B singles in a row. Meaning B was stuck on 1iar(In-A-Row). Unfortunately I did not catch 15 wins in that run. Just prior to that I saw each side with approx 7iar runs. I will show the outcomes/elaborate more on this later.

Have a good week,