Taken from a BP point of view, baccarat is a beatable game by any means because it's an asymmetrical game. Meaning that itlr something is going to happen more often than not.
Not everytime, never by a steady state. But we know it will.
Two main mathematical conditions will affect the long term outcomes:
1) the asymmetrical factor favoring the B side, mostly when it collects a 4 or 5 two card point;
2) the very slight propensity to get the opposite of the last result, this due to a finite card composition interacting with the bac rules.
Both are two undeniable aspects of the game and I'll challenge any expert of the world to prove otherwise.
Then there is the finite card composition that in some way will limit the random world (mostly because there's no enough room to get a balancement of previous events).
We also know that per every bet wagered we have to overcome a 1.06%/1.24% negative edge but we shouldn't care less as some people have found methods to get en edge at roulette having a 2.70% or 5.26% negative edge.
Of course any random game, no matter how much is asymmetrical, will produce fluctuations statistically known as standard deviation.
In a word, we cannot control or getting the best of it from a random game betting every hand, it's literally impossible even for untaxed situations.
The real holy grail is trying to devise a method capable to win by flat betting. This means to be able to erase the house tax first, then to be able to get more winning situations than losing ones.
Meaning we can control the outcomes.
It could be done but only after very long trackings and after some unexpected situations had occurred.
An astounding method capable to get an almost perfect balancement between two opposite events is good either, because the use of a simple progression will get a good control of the outcomes.
Disregarding the FB possibility, we should rely upon more likely situations capable to get very low sd values.
After long years of studying and testing baccarat, I devised three principal triggers and a so called systematic plan of action that has nothing to share with the aforementioned triggers.
Here I'll mention the three triggers.
A) The distribution of Banker streaks (that is when a B is followed by another B without regard about the streak's lenght)
B) The distribution of Banker doubles.
C) The distribution of Player 3+ streaks vs counterparts.
Someone will be surprised that in my list I haven't included P singles and P doubles and there's a reason for that I don't want to elaborate.
A) Itlr Banker streaks are more prevalent than B singles counterpart but we all know that many shoes will produce many B singles. So we have to limit the B singles impact in some way. And it's statistics which will give us some help.
Any shoe is a finite and dependent production, so more often than not a strong deviated situation in either way will be NOT compensated by the remaining of the shoe.
The question is: how I'll know that a more likely event will be really more likely or somewhat silent? To answer the question we'll have to devise a method capable to get rid of the unfavorite outcomes (B singles) and trying to get the best of the expected situations (B streaks).
More importantly, we should know the B streaks/B singles ratio knowing the finite nature of the deck and acting accordingly.
B) Banker doubles are a wonder. They are forced into a struggle between forming a more likely longer streak and the propensity to get the opposite of the last result, that is a B double.
The answer should be quite easy. From one part we have a mathematical diluted edge to get a longer streak and from the other one we have a statistical long term finding. We'd better wait to get a B double and see what happens next.
C) Player 3+ streaks (a P streak of any 3 lenght or longer) are both the easiest and safest way to approach a method and also the most dangerous ones.
We shouldn't forget that most of the time (91.4%) the BP outcomes are perfectly symmetrical, so without the asymmetrical factor acting in some way (and we should know the previous actual result of such asymmetrical hands) BBB+ is perfectly probable than PPP+, so transforming the game into a perfect unbeatable situation.
Nonetheless, any P 3+ streak and any distribution related to that itlr will have to overcome TWO CONVERGENT opposite factors favoring the production of different outcomes: the asymmetricity and the slight propensity to get the opposite of the last result.
No news, right? Banker is still the best bet or, better sayed, the less negative bet.
This is true most of the times but not always true, as wagering toward the B singles apparition in some circumstances will provide many favourable spots to bet into. Especially knowing the finite card composition of any deck.
You can bet whatever you get that at baccarat there are no other more controllable situations than the three depicted above.
B streaks, B doubles and P 3+ streaks distributions are by far the best triggers to set up a strategy on because without any doubt they are particularly balanced in their appareance and distribution.
as.
Not everytime, never by a steady state. But we know it will.
Two main mathematical conditions will affect the long term outcomes:
1) the asymmetrical factor favoring the B side, mostly when it collects a 4 or 5 two card point;
2) the very slight propensity to get the opposite of the last result, this due to a finite card composition interacting with the bac rules.
Both are two undeniable aspects of the game and I'll challenge any expert of the world to prove otherwise.
Then there is the finite card composition that in some way will limit the random world (mostly because there's no enough room to get a balancement of previous events).
We also know that per every bet wagered we have to overcome a 1.06%/1.24% negative edge but we shouldn't care less as some people have found methods to get en edge at roulette having a 2.70% or 5.26% negative edge.
Of course any random game, no matter how much is asymmetrical, will produce fluctuations statistically known as standard deviation.
In a word, we cannot control or getting the best of it from a random game betting every hand, it's literally impossible even for untaxed situations.
The real holy grail is trying to devise a method capable to win by flat betting. This means to be able to erase the house tax first, then to be able to get more winning situations than losing ones.
Meaning we can control the outcomes.
It could be done but only after very long trackings and after some unexpected situations had occurred.
An astounding method capable to get an almost perfect balancement between two opposite events is good either, because the use of a simple progression will get a good control of the outcomes.
Disregarding the FB possibility, we should rely upon more likely situations capable to get very low sd values.
After long years of studying and testing baccarat, I devised three principal triggers and a so called systematic plan of action that has nothing to share with the aforementioned triggers.
Here I'll mention the three triggers.
A) The distribution of Banker streaks (that is when a B is followed by another B without regard about the streak's lenght)
B) The distribution of Banker doubles.
C) The distribution of Player 3+ streaks vs counterparts.
Someone will be surprised that in my list I haven't included P singles and P doubles and there's a reason for that I don't want to elaborate.
A) Itlr Banker streaks are more prevalent than B singles counterpart but we all know that many shoes will produce many B singles. So we have to limit the B singles impact in some way. And it's statistics which will give us some help.
Any shoe is a finite and dependent production, so more often than not a strong deviated situation in either way will be NOT compensated by the remaining of the shoe.
The question is: how I'll know that a more likely event will be really more likely or somewhat silent? To answer the question we'll have to devise a method capable to get rid of the unfavorite outcomes (B singles) and trying to get the best of the expected situations (B streaks).
More importantly, we should know the B streaks/B singles ratio knowing the finite nature of the deck and acting accordingly.
B) Banker doubles are a wonder. They are forced into a struggle between forming a more likely longer streak and the propensity to get the opposite of the last result, that is a B double.
The answer should be quite easy. From one part we have a mathematical diluted edge to get a longer streak and from the other one we have a statistical long term finding. We'd better wait to get a B double and see what happens next.
C) Player 3+ streaks (a P streak of any 3 lenght or longer) are both the easiest and safest way to approach a method and also the most dangerous ones.
We shouldn't forget that most of the time (91.4%) the BP outcomes are perfectly symmetrical, so without the asymmetrical factor acting in some way (and we should know the previous actual result of such asymmetrical hands) BBB+ is perfectly probable than PPP+, so transforming the game into a perfect unbeatable situation.
Nonetheless, any P 3+ streak and any distribution related to that itlr will have to overcome TWO CONVERGENT opposite factors favoring the production of different outcomes: the asymmetricity and the slight propensity to get the opposite of the last result.
No news, right? Banker is still the best bet or, better sayed, the less negative bet.
This is true most of the times but not always true, as wagering toward the B singles apparition in some circumstances will provide many favourable spots to bet into. Especially knowing the finite card composition of any deck.
You can bet whatever you get that at baccarat there are no other more controllable situations than the three depicted above.
B streaks, B doubles and P 3+ streaks distributions are by far the best triggers to set up a strategy on because without any doubt they are particularly balanced in their appareance and distribution.
as.