Is this a real losing hand? LOL

It's 3.08 GMT

#1. Last results are BPTPPBBBBP

From now Ties won't displayed and the before tie bet still stand otherwise indicated

#2. last decisions are PPPP

#3. PPPPP

#4. NB of course

#5. bet B1.5

#6. Won 1.5 was B

#7.
After a tie a B should have won

#8. Ok, np, you have to manually write down the results
Scores are inaccurate

#9. Keep track of the streaming results and not of displayed outcomes!!!!

#10. B 2.0

#11. W B 2

#12. NB for long, I have to track manually the results
Anyway up of 3.5 units before tax

#13. B 2.5

#14. Won

#15. so far 5.5 units won before vig

#16. tie NB

#17. banker wins by a 5 point

18. player wins by 3-5 N

#19. banker wins by a 5-4 draw NB

#20. player wins NB

#21. b wins by A-7
Now bet 2 at B

#22. Tite 7-7 NB

#23. NB

#24. Bet B 1.8

#25. YESS!
Won 4-5

#26. NB

#27. banker won by a 8
Bet B 1.0

#28. easy fkng game won

#29. NB

#30. player won by a 6
NB

#31. P5 B4 player won
NB

#32. P won by a 5-4 point
NB

#33. Bet Player 2.5

#34. LOst

#35. P wins by a 6

#36. NB

#37. easy P bet 2.8

Let's see how a 'new genius in town' teaches us how to play baccarat.

I'd suggest to patiently watch the video step by step, mainly by his/her shoe selection.

https://kzread.info/dash/baccarat-840-does-the-baccarat-king-lose-his-crown/gKmrr8FsmZjJns4.html

as.

Gambling experts as well as casino's supervisors are really laughing when they read all the bighornshit we're writing about baccarat on the net.
Not mentioning the miriad of magical system sellers that for just $49.99 promise us millionaire profits.

As long as we can't (or we do not want to) demonstrate a verifiable math edge we are just fooling ourselves and the world.

That means that all efforts made to find exploitable ways to beat the house are totally worthless, confirmed by the huge profits casinos make by offering bac tables.

Probably the best player ever known in the history of baccarat was Akio Kashiwagi, a japanese real estate guru who put in some trouble mr D. Trump who gladly accepted very huge bets from him at one of his AC property.
It's ascertained Kashiwagi adopted a kind of trend following strategy by wagering a kind of flat betting approach. That is he knew very well that in order to beat a game, tax apart, one must get more winning hands than losing ones.
Furthermore, by flat betting he knew he was going to lose around 1% at worst.
Naturally Trump took advice from the best math gambling expert of the time who suggested to let him play as long as possible in order to get the negative edge fully working against him.

And actually this thing happened even though Kashiwagi (that was shot dead shortly afterwards) was still ahead in the process.

Of course even if Kashiwagi played a quite huge amount of hands but not enough to constitute a "long term" scenario by any means, we must give him some credit that his strategy was good.

To get a clearer example of what Kashiwagi did, try to flat bet 60/70 shoes and let us know how many bets you are winning or losing. Knowing that he wagered a large amount of hands dealt, the answer will be very likely placed on the negative side.

Therefore a question #1 arises: does a sophisticated trend following strategy lower in some way the math negative edge?
Was K. playing a kind of trend following strategy mixed with something else?

I have chosen to mention A.K. as it's my firm belief that in order to win one must spot more W than L situations as no progression could get the best of it when L<W, especially when wagering a lot of hands per shoe.

Truth to be told, I do not think that a strict trend following strategy could get the best of it, but I tend not to disregard such possibility at least in order to lower the negative edge.

More to come.

as.     















 



 

     

An easy test to assess how a bac player really knows about baccarat.

1) What's the probability to get a natural 8 vs a natural 9 in every position per every shoe dealt?

2) What's the Banker's advantage when Banker shows a 4 giving a third card 9 to the Player?

3) What's the average number of 3+ streaks on Player side in a 8-deck shoe when an average 12 cards are cut from the play?

4) How many asymmetrical hands are going to show up per 70 resolved hands dealt?

5) Disregarding other key cards, what's the average EV on F-7 bets (dragon bonus) when after 30 hands dealt no 7 had shown?

6)  What's the average probability to get a back to back "standing" Player (6,7,8 or 9 point) hand?

7) How the Player disadvantage is calculated?

What's the probability Banker wins when showing a 5 and giving a third card 3 to the Player?

9) What's the probability a Player two-card 7 point showing will win?

10)  What's the probability to get a back to back winning natural hand on either side?

as.



     

A bac player betting TIES is considered the worst player in the universe, right?
After all such player is wagering with a more than -14% negative edge.

Nonetheless, ties must come out at an average rate of 1 tie over 10.52 hands (9.5%) and they are payed just 8 to 1.

Therefore itlr wagering every hand will produce a more than -14% return on the money wagered.
And, for that matter, no one progression in the world could overcome such negative ratio.

Good.

Now let's consider a large amount of shoes accounting the average amount of ties per every shoe. No surprises, It's still 9.5%.

But let's take the average distribution of ties per every distinct portion of any shoe and things will change.

Say that we would only bet the tie after 50 or more hands are dealt and just up to a couple of  ties had shown up.
Now we are reducing our negative edge as shoes not displaying more than 2 ties after 50 hands are more likely to produce ties on subsequent hands on the same shoe.

But wait.

Ties are more likely to come out if many cards are employed to form B and P hands.
I mean that ties are more likely to come out if 6 or, at a very lesser degree, 5 cards are employed to form hands.
Of course 4 cards may form ties, but at a very lower degree.

Thus the more likely occurence to get multiple ties is proportionally formed by 6, 5 or 4 cards in descending order.

The result is that we'll get more back to back ties or ties interspersed by a better 9.5% ratio whenever hands are formed by a huge amount of cards.

Since a tie is a mathematical effect event, we know that card distribution is a decisive matter to get those ties, meaning that we'll get more ties anytime few naturals are coming out as they are totally denying the use of a third or fourth card.

By this perspective now we have a new plan to consider whether ties are more likely to come out or not.
Actually some shoes are providing a lot of 5 or 6 cards situations to form any resolved hand, so enlarging the probability to get ties.
Other shoes do not provide such feature, meaning that the vast majority of hands are formed by 4 or 5 cards at most.

The practical effect may be taken by several angles:

- for example, a deck full of 8s and 9s and plenty of 10 value cards are not good to bet ties for obvious reasons.

- to get a 5 or 6 cards hand, we need the Player side to draw first, then the banker to stay or draw, possibly to draw anyway.

- the most likely occurence to get a back to back tie or to get a tie by a higher probability than expected is whenever the first tie hand was formed by 6 cards. Conversely, any 6 card hand not producing a tie must be considered as a kind of "missed" probability.
The same when an asymmetrical hand favored the player and not the banker.

- itlr, baccarat hands are formed by a constant number of cards, thus we shouldn't care less about which side will win, just the probability to get such ties.

In a word, whenever we think the future hand will be formed by 5 or, well better, 6 cards, we'll get a meaningful edge to bet ties.

as. 






 




 










   

It's about Banker doubles distribution.

B doubles are fighting between B 3+ streaks and B singles.

Test your shoes and let me know how many times a B doubles will be followed by another B double streak or anything else.

No wonder, most of the time any B double will be followed by a pattern different to another B double streak up to a 4 level.

I mean that after a B double had come out,  the more likely scenario on subsequent B hand will be to get a B 3+ streak or a B single at different degrees.

We could classify such B doubles in such a way:

1- B double followed by another B double;

2- a couple of consecutive B doubles followed by another B double;

3- a triple of consecutive B doubles followed by another B double.

In a word, each class of B double situation will get a more likely different B double situation than expected and the more we are going deeply in the process the better will be our results.

Say we set up three fictional players betting toward NOT having another B double after a B double appearance by a 1-2 wager progression.

Number #1 player will lose whenever after a B double another B double will come out.

Number #2 player will lose whenever after a couple of B doubles a third B double will come out;

Number #3 player will lose whenever after a triple B double a fourth B double will come out.

Test your shoes and you'll notice that 4+ B doubles in a row will come out very very rarely.
It's up to us to determine how deep will be our loss.

The probability to get multiple B doubles in a row is inversely proportional to the number of B consecutive doubles.

Thus, a profitable and less risky plan is to bet after having waited that two or three B doubles had come out in a row.

Nonetheless, many shoes are presenting a single B double appearance.

Again, after a given deviation was reached, the probability to get something different than a B double is endorsed.

We want to set up a limit, that is a very unlikely 4+ consecutive B doubles appearance. After such limit was reached, we do not want to bet a dime.
As a 7 or more B doubles appearance could easily destroy our previous more likely profits.

Notice that per every class of distributions, a clustering effect will be in order, no matter what.
I mean that it will more likely to get single B double situations if a single B double situation had come out and the same happens for superior levels.

Moreover, B doubles are more likely to come out in clusters whenever few B singles had come out in the previous fragments of the shoe and vice versa.

Alrelax is right. What didn't happen so far is less likely to show up as a finite shoe is always a card dependent proposition and vice versa.

Actually and after millions of shoe tested,  the number of situations when consecutive B doubles are followed by single or 2-in a row B doubles are out numbered by the same opposite events.

What didn't happen could happen but what did happen could more easily happen again. Providing a careful classification of what we are registering.

as.     

   











   

       

Dedicated to soxfan. :-)

We want to bet toward P singles and P doubles vs P 3+s by a multilayered progression.

Betting requisites.

We'll bet a 1-2 unit progression whenever a P single or a P double had come out, in order to get at least a two P 1-2 clustered succession in any order. After winning the first (single) or second (double) event, we stop the betting waiting for another 1 or 2 P situation and going over and over. Meaning we have to wait a 3+ appearance cutting the pattern.

In a word, we'll lose anytime the shoe will present situations as 2-3 or 1-3. Anything different from that (as 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2), will go in our favor.

The average number of 3+ streaks on P side is 4.5, so we are quite favored to get many 1-2 or 2-1 profitable patterns, moreover we won't bet a dime after a 3+ streak. That is consecutive P 3+s streaks won't harm us.

The probability to look at consecutive 1 or 2 single situations is so low that you'll need a lot of work to find them.

Multilayered progression.

Since we are not stu.pid, meaning that the very unlikely can come out anytime, we 'll set up our initial bet as 5-10 (at $10 limit is $50-$100).
Anytime we'll win we stay at the same level for two times, then we'll go down at the 4-8 level and so on, up to the 1-2 level.
Anytime we lose we'll raise our bet by 20%, so a 5-10 losing bet will followed by a 6-12 bet (at $10 limit, it's a $60-$120 bet)
Again, after a win at a given limit we stay at that level for two times globally (once more), then we go to the immediate lower limit.
And so on.

Statistical issues

Shi.t happens either isolated (more likely) or in bleeding clusters (very less likely), thus after a 3-1-3 or 3-2-3 consecutive pattern appearance I suggest you to not bet a dime until a new fictional 1-2 winning pattern had come out. Many times this means to wait the next shoe.

Notice that more likely than not, an early P 3+ streak apperance will followed by many 3+ streaks than what the opposite situation will do.
Especially whether such 3+ streak is immediately followed by another identical 3+ streak. 

Notice that if you wait some fictional losses, your win rate will be enlarged even more.

This is my original bac approach I want to present here (it was related to my defunct "dispositions and distributions" post.
As I sayed in the baccarat section, I have robbed the word "march" from Sputnik.
With the proper adjustments and experience it can fail.   

Denominations and key attacks

Singles are 1, doubles are 2, triples or longer streaks are 3.

Since singles are forming the most part of all baccarat outcomes, our main bet will be toward singles (1).
Doubles (2) and triples (3) are acting just a "recovering" second step situation. Anyone could assign a specific betting role to those 2 and 3 situations.

We'll only bet (or consider a bet) whenever the last two out of three possible outcomes are 1-2, 2-1, 1-3 or 3-1 in any order and distribution, meaning that 2-3 and 3-2 situatiuons will either not start the betting or stop the betting.

Splitting the 1,2 and 3 outcomes into two separate columns.

Of course the two separate columns I'm referring to are the Banker and Player columns.
Thus we'll get two separate 1-2 and 1-3 different marches, each of one starting the actual or fictional betting whenever the last two outcomes present 1-2, 2-1 or 1-3 or 3-1 outcomes.

Mathematical expectancy

From a mere mathematical and statistical point of view, we know that the 1-2 and 2-1 betting plan itlr will get better results on Player side; conversely a 1-3 and 3-1 betting plan will get the best of it on Banker side.
Actually there's no a better betting plan made on Player side other than 1-2 or 2-1 and, truth to be told, the better Banker plan is toward getting anytime streaks (2-3 or 3-2).

Yet our main issue isn't just focused to always get the most likely events, but to get the events having the lower variance impact.
And since baccarat card distributions are always slight privileging the "chopping mood", I think it's wiser to include singles on our long term betting plan even on B side.

Example

Our shoe portion will be as BBPBPPPPBPBBBPBPBBPPPPPPBBPBPPBPBBB

That is, 2,1,1,3,1,2,2,1,1,3 on B side and 1,3,1,1,1,3,1,2,1 on P side.

Since we are actually or fictionally betting 1-2 or 1-3 situations on both side by a two step progression, we'll get:

Banker: + - + - + + +  -
and
Player: + + + + + - - +

Of course our winning probability is determined by the chance to get at least one of the two outcomes out of possible threes by an average 75% ratio and we know that we'll get higher 75% ratios on P side betting 1-2 events and 1-3 events on B side.

But we can't care less about those long term ratios as we want to restrict their variance by adding some "unlikely events" (singles on B side and triples on P side) that could help us to get the best of it even when those unlikely shoes coming up along the way.

Detecting the possible actual shoe flow

After testing millions of shoes, we can state that there are many shoes presenting all 1-3 B side situations and at a higher degree many 1-2 P side situations. And of course, an all 1-3 or 1-2 patterns shoe must show up at the very start of it.
I mean that what was not presenting at the start of the shoe it will be less probable on the subsequent fragments of it as randomness will most likely act by clusters, especially on finite samples.

Long term probability

For example, betting after 1-2 or 1-3 events got two or more consecutive losses on any side, will reduce the average probability to get subsequent losses as now the W/L ratio can't be lower than 75%, actually it will be a lot lower than that on average.

If our strategic plan dictates to bet whenever we'll get two losses in a row on any side tripling up our original bet after a two-step loss, we can't experience any failure.


as.

Since when I've joined this awesome site I've been stressing that roulette is a perfectly unbeatable game.
Nevertheless I've found very interesting topics made by some members here, actually imo some of the best ideas about baccarat came from roulette aficionados.

Anyway how could a player erase and invert a -5.26% (or 2.70%) negative edge?

The advent of authomatic wheels (aw from now) made me change my long term opinion.

To blatantly put it, the possible edge a player may have on such wheels is a lot more manageable than what a well lower negative edge game as baccarat could provide.

I mean aw can be beaten and I'm not joking at all.

Preface.

Any gambling game favoring the casino relies upon the winning premises about its randomness (along with the math edge). The more the game is random the better are the chances the casino will get its long term mathematical edge. At least in theory.

Thus any player cannot get any advantage from a perfect random game as this one will amplify at most the negative math edge.

On the contrary, a quite unrandom model might endorse the player's winning probabilities, providing an accurate and proper player's detection of such unrandomness features.

Good news are we don't have to bother about the supposedly randomness or unrandomness of the game. Meaning that even a so called perfect random game could be beaten beacuse it will raise the equiprobability of the outcomes.

My statement is that perfect random games may be easily beaten as long successions of pc generated bac shoes or long successions of perfect random roulette spins.

That should be true as here a new outcome will be perfectly made independent than the previous one. A thing that could only happen with pc generated outcomes.
And, more importantly, at "controlled" degrees as pc's are stupid by definition.

Real world vs pc generated world

A real world is composed by many subjective and objective variables as a human factor will interfere with the whole process.
The more the objective features will act over the whole process, the better will be the probabilities to get random outcomes and the only sure way to get a more objective impact is knowing that a pc is releasing the outcomes.
A software isn't affected at all by emotional issues, actual issues, sweat, spinning effects or whatsoever that characterizes a human.
It will act according to a more or less pre-ordered plan set up by humans but such parameters will be constant along the way as a pc is stupid. Especially whether the production will act in the same environment.

More importantly we should infer that a pc generation will be instructed to get more random results than what a non software generation could make, that is a better equiprobability of the outcomes.

And more specifically, a software is less likely to produce the exact outcome of the previous situation as it will never choose the same previous landing spot/next ball velocity parameter, taking for grant a constant rotor speed and a constant ball launching time.

Of course there are more issues related to a software generation that I do not want to discuss here for obvious reasons.

as. 








   


 

 

 
 







 



   





 



   





   

 

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.
 

Even though roulette is a perfect independent results' game, there are some interesting long term features that could be easily tested by everyone.
The strategy  was conducted over 1.500.000 real spins (single zero).

I mean some events are more likely than others. Unfortunately zero tax and some other practical features will lower a lot the value of such aknowledge.

The trigger we are looking for is really simple: we take note of the last number produced then we bet all the 3 EC belonging to this number. And this procedure is made per every last number sorted out.

For example number 33 sorted out, next spin we want to bet black, odd and high.

Obviously such betting will get 4 different outcomes (zero ignored):

- winning all 3 EC (sorting of 29,31,33,35): +3

- winning just one unit (sorting of 11,13,15,17,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28): +1

- losing just one unit (sorting of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,20,30,32,34,36): -1

- losing all 3 EC (sorting of 12,14,16,18): -3

Well, in the long run the number of spots winning all 3 bets are greater than the number of spots losing all 3 bets and it will increase the more the hands are played.

Of course to try getting the best of it from this finding needs also to take into account the spots where we'll either win or lose 1 unit.

Despite of what many may think, there are no better numbers or worse numbers to spot as triggers.

True, red-odd-low numbers or black-even-high numbers should have the theorical best probability to match the same EC on the next spin but this wasn't the case, at least on our quite long sample.

In a word and transferring the plan on the statistical field, we'll expect to have more single total different EC outcomes than streaks of different EC outcomes, more double different EC outcomes than 2+ streaks of different EC outcomes and so on. And the reverse is also true regarding the same EC situations (more streaks than single, more 2+ than doubles, etc).

The variance and the weight of zero could be quite high, yet the final result will be sure.

as.   

 

   














 

We know that any progression will get the best of it whenever a zero equilibrium point will be reached within a fair amount of trials. Of course some progressions could do even better, that is getting the player a profit even when the W/L ratio is shifted toward the right.
Notice that the well known D'Alambert progression will win 1 unit after the equilibrium is reached but not everytime as everything depends about the DISTRIBUTION of W and L.

Here I'm talking about the almost absolute impossibility to lose our entire bankroll and this is a total different thing than stating that we will win easily. Nonetheless knowing that we won't lose in the longest possible runs isn't a vulgar accomplishment.

I have to forcely consider a $100 standard unit bet and the total bankroll is $6600 (66 units).
For simplicity we won't take into account the commission when applied.
Remember that our goal is to reach at a given point a zero equilibrium point, meaning we want to get the W/L ratio = zero.
Later more on that.

Columns are: L deviations, betting amount in $, financial exposure, gain after the equilibrium will be reached

0  $100           100   -
1  $100 + $10 210 10
2  $100 + $20 330 30
3  $100 + $30 460 60
4  $100 + $40 600 100
5  $100 + $50 750 150
6  $100 + $60 910 210
7  $100 + $70 1080 280
8  $100 + $80 1260 360
9  $100 + $90 1450 450
10 $100 + $100 1650 550
11 $200 + $10 1860 660
12 $200 + $20 2080 780
13 $200 + $30 2300 780
14 $200 + $30 2430 910
15 $200 + $30 2760 910
16 $200 + $30 2990 910
17 $200 + $40 3130 1050
18 $200 + $40 3370 1050
19 $200 + $40 3610 1050
20 $200 + $40 3850 1050
21 $200 + $50 4100 1200
22 $200 + $50 4350 1200
23 $200 + $50 4600 1200
24 $200 + $50 4850 1200
25 $200 + $50 5100 1200
26 $200 + $60 5360 1360
27 $200 + $60 5620 1360
28 $200 + $60 5880 1360
29 $200 + $60 6140 1360
30 $200 + $60 6400 1360
31 $200 + $60 6600 1360

We see that to lose our entire bankroll we need either a 5.56 sr negative deviation (like looking at 31 negative hands in a row, a 31 streak) or, most likely, a W/L gap of 31.

Every roulette player knows that a gap between even chances could easily reach and surpass the W/L amount (btw a 31 streak is a very very very rare finding also at this game) but at baccarat we have a lot of ploys to find two opposite events that cannot reach the 31 negative (or less likely positive)value by any fkn means.
Especially if we want to prolong the progression by another 10 or so steps. 

So we know that adopting this slow progression we can't lose or, better sayed, that the probability to lose is really very very low, let's say almost impossible.

And, wonder of wonders, with proper adjustments we may use it betting only the Player side, hence knowing that we won't pay a bit of commission.

In a word, we can even regularly bet the unfavourable side knowing that we can't lose itlr.

A further example why we have to play slowly and with a lot of patience.

as.   



   



     

   

   

The PONR (point of no return) effect was one of the decisive tools that helped me to discover some favourable betting opportunities.

What's a PONR?

Every experienced baccarat player knows that after every session where the losses were too high, the subsequent efforts to recover partially or totally the deficit were almost always ineffective. Moreover, any effort to try to break even not only was worthless but even added more losses. More often than not.

Trying to erase a one unit deficit is quite simple, trying to erase a two unit deficit is an unproportional (not linear) more difficult task. And so on.

So I name as PONR a given point where the odds to recover the deficit are so bad that we better quit the betting.
Notice that the exact opposite situation, that is getting many consecutive winnings with very low possibilities to lose the entire gain are less likely placed for obvious reasons.

So itlr, the probability to get many winnings in a row is lower than to get the opposite situation.
With important consequences on a possible RTM effect.

The concept of "session" could be confusing as any player intend to consider a session as:

- a single shoe

- a given amonut of shoes

- a day

- a week

- a month

Most people consider a session as a given amount of played shoes or a day.

We see that the parameter is the time factor, even considered in form of shoes played or in form of hours or days or weeks.

All due to both mathematical and humanly related considerations, the PONR will most likely show up on short terms as the humanly related factor will have the predominant part over the mathematical factor.

Computing the sum of the average bac player outcomes, there's almost no one player in the world losing 1.06% or 1.24% of the total bets wagered itlr. They lose far more than that, not only for some of them wanted to wager the very negative odds of side bets.

Since most part of players like to bet many spots, we can safely assume that the PONR will more likely act on such players than on more selected bettors.

Of course, diluting the betting for itself isn't a valid reason to expect less losing patterns, yet we have to assume that the PONR will be more likely encountered by frequent bettors as the PONR factor will be proportionally placed with the bets wagered. Because almost every single bet we place is EV-.

The PONR factor represents just the bottom of the canyon we want to avoid falling into, there are many intermediate steps along the way.
Actually each time we're trying to climb up toward the ridge we'll meet an opposite stronger force bringing us more and more toward the invariable descent.

The fact that along this invariable descent we are hoping to find some handholds shouldn't give us much confidence. Such handholds are rare and most part of the times they are too weak.

Good news is that per every PONR it exists a slight lesser amount of opposite PONR, meaning that in some circumstances our whole expectation is more oriented toward a climbing mood than a descending one. But we better restrict our terms of intervention as the rule is to get a descending mood and not a climbing one.

Our task should be focused about those rare occurences where the opposite favourable PONR presence will be so high that the counter force cannot overwhelm it.
The same way a negative PONR will act, now on the opposite side.

PONR and opposite PONR.

It's all about making the wrong move at the right time, just to quote the C.K. movie.

as.

   



     







   



   




   










 

Normally we consider baccarat outcomes just in form of BP hands (I omit Ties for simplicity)

There are many ways to register BP results.
Asian players like to place BP results in orizontal lines whereas european players tend to utilize a vertical registration.
Then there are many "complex" forms of classification (for reference see WOO site) and naturally no one will give profitable betting spots to the player.

Every classification will act as an "on-off" pc work. We either register B or P. Period.
I mean nobody cares about HOW such opposite results have come out.

Since I strongly think the game is beatable for its asymmetrical nature, let's try to concentrate more about this important topic.

To get an asymmetrical hand (AS), a hand capable to mathematically shift the 50/50 results, some conditions must be fulfilled. Then we should consider the actual outcomes of every AS hand per any single shoe.

A. Player side must draw

B. Banker side must have 3, 4, 5 or 6 point.

We know that on average this situation comes about 8.6% of the times.

For every AS situation produced, Banker side will get a 15.7% mathematical (on average) edge.

That means that after any AS hand, on average Banker will win 57.85% of the times and Player the remaining 42.15%.

Besides what some magic system sellers j.erks have stated claiming a 70% or more edge for the player by unkown reasons, the best mathematical undeniabale average edge a baccarat player could have is right based upon this 57.85-42.15 proposition decurted by the B tax.

That is a player capable to bet Banker side only or mostly when an AS hand wil take place will destroy the game.

The rest, mathematically speaking, is a totally worthless speculation.


Average apparition of an AS hand per any single shoe.

Assuming 70 BP decisions per any shoe, on average we'll expect to get an AS situation nearly one time over 8.14 hands.

Obviously, per every single shoe this ratio almost never will fit this ratio, as any card distribution will produce countless combinations.

For example, when Banker shows a lot of 3,4,5 or 6 points and Player simultaneously won't draw (6,7,8 or 9) no AS hand could arise and the same happens whenever Player must draw having the Banker a 0, 1, 2, 7, 8 or 9 point.

So a separated registration of those two A and B conditions' apparition will make a very different scheme differently than a mere BP registration. And that's just the first step.

Summary of the first step.

Player will draw an average of 50.3% of the times and that is the first condition to get an AS hand, so this situation will mostly follow a 50/50 proposition, yet understanding that bac is a dependent card game; at the same time to have an AS hand first condition fulfilled, Banker must have a 3, 4, 5 or 6 point and such event will happen less probably than the opposite bunch of B outcomes including 0,1,2,7,8 and 9 points knowing that 0 will be the most likely outcome over any other possible result by a multiplied 1.5 value.

Thus and independently of the P draw/no draw situation, on the B side we'll get the AS probability of 1,1,1,1 vs the opposite probability of 1,1,1,1.1, 1.5. Wholly considered the ratio is 4/6.5.

In a word, to get an AS hand any card distribution must precisely intersect a 50.3% average P probability spot with a 38% average B probability.

Since baccarat is a finite and card dependent process game, we could get some help studying certain statistical deviations.

Next time I'll talk about the second step, that is the AS actual outcomes acting per every shoe. 

as.





   











   




 



 

   
 




 

 

 











         

Here's some baccarat mathematical situations. 

- Player hand draws the third card: 50.3%

So any careful and very long peeking of the P cards will get no good news half of the times, no matter how the player is concentrated in doing this.
Worst news for them is peeking up a "three side" card when having a 4 or a 5. Among other scenarios, a nightmare for us it's when those legendary peekers find a three side card having a 3 point.     


- Both sides stand: 37.8%

Almost four times over ten the action is freezed just on the first four cards.
So in such situations there should be no point to bet Banker. Unfortunately we know this after it happened. 


- Natural point on either side: 34.2%

Again more than 1/3 of the deck will provide immediate and perfectly symmetrical outcomes. In this circumstance there's either one fantastic bet or a very poor one. Coincidentally we tend to win most of our bets by a natural point when betting Banker and regularly losing with an 8 when wagering Player. Naturally, whenever we win by a Player 9, we won't care a bit about the point landed on Banker that quite often is a losing 8. A pure form of selected attention.
   

- Banker draws no matter what: 43.4%

Despite its advantage when betting Banker we'll expect to draw and hope for the best more than four times over ten. Better than 50.3% of the time, still an high percentage.


- Banker draws after Player stands: 11.8%

Good news for Banker aficionados. They know to go uphill just a bit more than one time over ten hands.


- Banker stands after Player draws: 18.7%

Again no bad news for Banker fans. Almost one time over five they could rely just upon the strenght of the very two first cards dealt.


- Both hand draw: 31.6%

For thrilling hand lovers: a slight less than 1/3 of the time the final decision will be made by two additional cards.
An awful situation when there are two active bets on either side made by eternity flashing the cards players.
For unknown reasons, when we're losing at the table not having the privilege to look at cards it happens more often. 


- Player disadvantage: 0.18%

Player fans minds have transformed 0.18% into 0%. At worst, of course.


- Asymmetrical hand apparition: 8.6%

Well, Banker lovers should know that the best situation they could hope for will come out quite less than one time over ten.


-  Banker advantage in asymmetrical situations: 15.7%

Strangely enough, such huge edge will be regularly disappointed when we make an important bet on B side. Thus, a zero point on Player chance will magically transform into an 8 or a 9, even if there were just one or two of those cards left in the deck.
Likewise a fantastic 3 will invariably land on a 5, Banker showing a 7; not mentioning a 4 adding to another 4 when Banker has a 4 + 3 and 31 4s where already removed from the deck.
The power of timing.

as.     


   

       

 

 

Knowing the value of just one card in the exact position (from 1 to 6) could get us a mathematical edge in most cases, we might set up a betting plan.
The largest edges will come out when:

- the first card is a 9 dealt to the Player (21.528%)
- the second card is a 9 dealt to the Banker (20.641%)
- the fifth card is a 4 dealt to the Player (18.316%)
- the first card is an 8 dealt to the Player (17.294%)
- the second card is an 8 dealt to the Banker (16.493%)
- the sixth card is a 5 dealt to the Banker (14.514%)
- the sixth card is a 6 dealt to the Banker (14.424%)

Thus if we were able to get such aknowledge, we'll easily destroy the game itlr.

Unfortunately we cannot benefit of those situations.

Since we are stubbornly oriented to beat the game we want to try whether the statistical approach might help us.
After all baccarat is a finite and dependent process game.

To simplify the process, we'll register the times when a 9 or an 8 is dealt as first card to the Player side and the times when the fifth card is a 4, those situations having the highest ROI on P side.
There are many reasons to just consider the P side.

It's easy to notice that the very first card dealt will have a higher impact on every bac hand than every other position as many hands will end up after just 4 cards have been dealt. Surely the second same value card dealt on the other side will show a more or less impact similar to the first card, but most of the times we'll have to pay an unnecessary 5% vig on our winning wagers.

In a word, a very deviated situation where 9s, 8s will not fall in the first spot and 4s will not fall in the 5th spot, should entice a RTM effect where next P hands will show a slight player's edge.

Of course, there's an additional issue to consider: how many 9s, 8s and 4s are really live in the left deck.

We cannot hope to get a 4 falling into the 5th spot if many 4s were removed from the deck in the right or more likely "wrong" spots.

The same about the most likely cards capable to end up right now a bac decision: 8s and 9s.

The most part of 2.5 and 3 sr deviations taken are going to get a higher RTM effect than the propensity to reach larger deviations, expecially if we are properly considering the card removal effect per any shoe.

In this perspective, we aren't playing to get some P or B winning hands, we are betting that a given card (or better a bunch of such cards) will have to fall in a given spot after a very large absence and after having assessed that such key cards are very live per any live deck. (So many shoes won't provide any hint).

as.



       
















 










 










 









   



 

 



     

Whenever we test a given method we could experience the illusion to have discovered the miracle betting mood to get the best of it itlr. Meaning we get an edge over the house. Meaning we can invert the house negative edge into a positive one.
By acutely thought progressions or brilliant betting selections it doesn't matter.

There are many scientific assumptions and tests available to prove our system is really working or not.

The best and most annoying assumption is that no one progression could overcome a mathematical negative edge game.
Or that one coming from a BJ pro stating that is a perfect gambling miracle to triple up our bankroll two times in a row before going broke. 
I personally agree and I can't dispute this assumption.

Then it comes the second and more interesting assumption: there's no way to place our bets to get an edge without the use of any progression. Meaning we cannot get any kind of fk advantage choosing what to bet and what to not bet.
So despite our efforts directed to find some possible miracle EV+ spots, we aren't going anywhere as mathematics dictates that every our bet will always produce a negative global outcome.
Now I personally disagree.

Obviously, a possible EV+ betting selection will get better results by the use of a progression, providing it will take care of the itlr fluctuations of the game and after having properly assessed our long term edge.

Experts think that such positive edge bet selection doesn't exist at all and they are right because they keep thinking on mathematical terms.
So every single hand the game is producing will get an average of 50.68-49.32 mathematical expectation.  And every f bet we'll place is getting a long term 1.06%-1.24% negative edge.

So far so good. No news.

Back to the topic.

Many internet winning method sellers claim to get an edge over the house (some i.diots claim to get a 70% edge over the house, a real bighornshit).
Obviously we know with 100% accuracy that no one progression could have the best of it.
Likewise we know that a given edge must be produced by a simple flat betting procedure and I don't know a single author able to demonstrate that a FB method will give the player an edge.

Imo, the real accurate test to ascertain that a method is really a winning one is a betting procedure capable to totally erase or hopefully invert the P hands' inferior expectancy.

I mean a betting method where our P bets will get a zero results gap with B hands at worst or a slight edge itlr.

In the long run.

What's the long run?

Difficult to say, but I dare to say that we are in good shape after having noticed that our P bets are showing a zero or a slight positive outcome after thousands and thousand of shoes where B hands are getting closer to the 50.68-49.32 ratio. So no tricks or positive variance issues are allowed as any P bet must have a zero or positive otucome at worst.   

In a word, a possible winning method should surpass my personal ABG rule suggesting that a winning bet selection must produce either neutral or positive P betting long term outcomes, that is a betting selection capable to totally erase the B advantage over thousands and thousands of shoes.

How many betting selection systems are able to get such accomplishment?

Summarizing, imo a long term winning method should be able to catch those spots where P bets are going to get neutral (at worst) or positive long term outcomes.

Mathematics dictates in every P spot we'll bet we are getting a -1.24% disadvantage, but actually and for some weird reason my rule likes to state that a winning system should get a 0% or a slight positive edge.

And I'm only talking about the worst B/P proposition the game will produce, the P bets.

as. 

   
 


 



 


   

 



 



























   

That's my book I'm glad to introduce here.  It will be printed in october.

Contents (so far no editing was made, so i'm sorry about my bad english):

- General concepts

- Differences between a perfect 50/50 game and baccarat

- The role and the weight of asymmetricity

- Dispositions and distributions

- Baccarat variance and the "decline in probability" concept applied to baccarat

- Banker side events vs Player side events. The "enemy concept"

- Approaches based on the most likely events apparition

- Getting an edge by flat betting on some selected spots, part one

- Online vs live casinos

- The long term winning baccarat player attitude



as.