A collective is a long term registration of events getting the same attributes and regardless of the spots of the succession we've chosen to register, we'll expect to get constant probability values.

In some way this is the perfect form to detect real randomness as we derive the probability after the events have really happened into the same supposedly independent world.

I mean that without knowledge we suppose the model we are playing into is random but more often than not it isn't.

Obviously baccarat must be considered as an infinite succession of finite games as each shoe will feature dynamic probabilities either for card distribution issues and for the rules.

Nonetheless, it's widely ascertained by mathematicians and gambling experts that no matter which spots we want to bet along every shoe, itlr our results will follow the same WL percentages, our old -1.06% -1.24% negative values.

That is they assume that every shoe dealt is a form of a collective, at least in the baccarat sense.

And actually they are completely right, providing shoes offered to players are randomly shuffled.

Therefore and taking for grant that no one taxed random world can be beaten by any means itlr, if one is capable to devise spots constantly shifting to one side or, more likely, getting very small deviations, well this is an absolute confirmation that most shoes are not randomly shuffled.

Thus in order to achieve this, two conditions must be fulfilled to get profitable opportunities:

- not every shoe is playable

- a proper place selection must be used

If every shoe would be playable and knowing that some high stakes players are pretty smart, baccarat wouldn't exist.

Remember that casinos get less value money from certain HS players than from common low-mid stakes bettors as the former population bet with an edge rarely exceeding the 1.06/1.24% negative edge (huge comps, rebates, flat betting strategy, etc).

Baccarat exists as players want to bet every shoe and most part or all of hands dealt.

Interesting to notice that we must add a subjective probability theory to a strict frequency probability line.

It remains to assess which shoes may be profitable or at least less disadvanteged to the players.

First condition fulfilled, the place selection topic is, imo, of paramount and decisive importance.

Outcomes place selection is the direct scientific proof that baccarat shoes are not pure collectives as they involve a probability statistically significant different than what we've been taught for years.

And the only possible answer is that shoes aren't properly shuffled (or, less likely, that baccarat is a vulnerable game).

as.