as....you mention in another thread that some of your best baccarat ideas came from roulette aficionados. Any chance you could share some of those strategies or possibly compare the two games, if you think that would maybe help us understand your baccarat methodology ? Just looking for a way to help us understand your writings a little (maybe more than a little) better.

Hi Rickk! Yep thanks to answering Garfield question, ub=my plans #1 (splitted in three categories) and #2.

Some roulette researchers seem to have an edge over most pure baccarat scholars, they want to fight independent successions trying to spot any possible randomness defect.

Of course this thing is very difficult, say almost impossible both theorically and practically. Nonetheless some ideas are quite interesting and sometimes may be applied even to baccarat productions, now not being independently formed.

Personally I think the best simplest and only way to attack modern wheels is by approaching certain IB automated roulettes where the software production seem to be decently predictable, especially if we can place the bets after having assessed the rotor velocity of each spin.

Cons are that the HE at those roulettes is too high (2.7%/5.26%) to overcome and, more importantly, that you can wager relatively small amounts of money. Then there are further considerations I do not want to discuss here.

The common idea, imo, is that both roulette and baccarat productions are affected by a fair transitory asymmetricity, lasting for given periods of time. But at baccarat we can find way better conditions to state and prove that the asymmetricity belongs to a more limited (hence predictable) world than expected for many reasons.

Finiteness of the shoe and key cards distribution with all shuffling implications make a huge and decisive role on that, again two simple examples:

- at baccarat symmetrical streaks are shorter than at roulette, meaning that whenever the third card rule doesn't intervene on the hand's outcome, we'll expect a way lesser amount of long streaks than at other 50/50 independent sources.

For example, at baccarat we need a larger amount of hands dealt to cross a pure symmetrical 7-hand streak that at roulette shows up with a 2/128 odds proposition (zero/s ignored).

- at baccarat probabilities are calculated only by considering math combinations working into a perfect random distribution.

A statement surely true in the long run by mixing everything regardless and naturally taking for grant all perfet random productions coming up from a software.

Really? No way.

Let's take the math asymmetrical probability favoring Banker, it's 8.6%.

And now take the single zero roulette probability to get a series of three given numbers showing up after a 75-80 spins run. It's 8.1%, so almost correspondent.

Are those "almost same probability" dispersion values equally placed?

They should, but they don't.

Good news.

Now we know that a given percentage of hands math favoring Banker will feature lower dispersion values than what any other pure independent game will do.

Even though we'd want to admit that every baccarat production we have to face is perfect randomly formed.

Ok, there's always the whimsical card fall favoring one side or the other one at the start (two initial cards).

Good, at which point the most likely situation can come out consecutively? And what if we want to consider results at different paces and quantities? And is hands quality an important factor before betting?

as.