Back to my original topic.

Giving a 0.75% probability to win and assigning W as a winning pattern and L as a losing pattern we'll get infinite W/L successions to take care of.
The least likely succession to face will be a perfect WWWLWWWLWWWL.. succession, meaning that a strong overalternating mood had taken place.

On the other end, since W is 0.75:1, a good rule of thumb is to wager toward getting W as clustered at least once (WW).
L side moves around the same concept, being more isolated (WLW) than clustered (WLL) but since the game is volatile and affected by just one hand whimsically going toward one side than another, we do not want to chase the "end" of any L cluster.

Yet, "long" isolated W situations are way more probable to be intertwined by isolated Ls, so in essence the only real losing sequence is anything like as WLLWLL...

Notice that by falsifying the best randomness definition ever made in the history of probability field (RVM) and according to MvS studies, bac successions are affected by a kind of unrandomness (or instrinsic defects of a finite dependent bac card distributions) capable to get a full value of what is more likely to happen (W clusters and/or L isolated situations) as opposed to what could virtually happen at a 0.5068/0.4932 dynamically proposition.

as.

Regular posters here (Alrelax, me, KFB, etc) are well aware that side bets are enormously favoring the house, yet we have learnt that if we expect that sh.i.t happens (strong unexpected negative deviations) in the same way sometimes "jackpots" happen now favoring players for the huge payment involved.

Rarer events tend to come out in clusters (shorter gaps than the expected probability ratio) or not showing up at all (or once) for long periods, another way to consider bac outcomes under the "asymmetrical" factor.

Paradoxically not everytime the HE is the primary tool to look for, maybe it would be better to take care of the possible payement and the relative volatility.
Paradoxically only the side bets are mathematically favoring the players by card counting techniques (mostly by not getting a practical substantial edge over the house).

I've already mentioned the team wagering the naturals 8/9 or 9/8 situation (payement 50:1), obviously starting to bet whenever the naturals/any other hand ratio (34.2%) of any shoe was very low, then adding the current number of 8s/9s live in the deck.
Since the betting usually started after half of the deck was dealt, we know that just one winning situation was able to get a profit no matter what. 

Another side bet particularly present nowadays is the Tiger bet, the situation where Banker wins by a 6 point.
Probability that such event will come out is 5.38%, so we'll expect on average one Tiger event out of nearly 20 hands dealt, so around four times at any 8-deck shoe.
HE at Tiger bet is very huge, 14.33% when B wins with two cards 6 (Small Tiger, payement 22:1) and 15.25% when B wins with three cards 6 (Big Tiger, payment 50:1), aggravated when a general Tiger bet cumulatively takes care of both situations (16.68%, payments are respectively 12:1 and 20:1).

Regardless of the actual shoe conditions (number of 6s, number of 8s/9s) itlr we'll expect a B 6 point distributions shifted towards the P side (B 12.8% and P 14%) and the same is about 7, 8 and 9 points not belonging to naturals (respectively 13.5% vs 14%, 4.2% vs 4.9% and again 4.2% vs 4.9%).
Therefore 6,7,8 and 9 points (no naturals) happening at P side are more likely to show up than 6,7,8,9 points (no naturals) at B side.
On the other end, many 6- 0 value card situations are symmetrically falling at B side so it's just an educated guess about how many same/superior points P side will get, the remaining situations (B6-P drawing) are favorite to win.       

About F-7 (payment 40:1) we know they are quite unlikely to happen, mostly coming out, on average, just once per every shoe played.

Then Dragon bonus being nearly 4 times more burdened by the HE at B side than at P side.

Ties should be never ever wagered, too tiny payed and too whimsically distributed.

I don't know about other side bets, maybe Alrelax could be of some help here.

0=0=0

In our opinion side bets should never be considered as the main way to collect profits (or to recoup a previous deficit) but sometimes they could be a viable tool to enlarge at most an actual positive session as back to back or short gapped side bets happenings MUST come out sooner or later.

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on March 25, 2026, 04:56:37 AMI travel and play with two Bac dealers. I frequently ask them et al dealers: How do the most consistent winner(& losers) play?

     The consensus response is always something to the nature of : don't bet side wagers, money management, and press into an identifiable event. Always reset back to your base bet and do NOT ever chase with a martingale type betting regime.
Two of these dealers dealt in the high-limit rooms in vegas for nine years. They said some of the least-skilled players are also the largest-buyin players. Usually the largest buyins are from players that don't make their full time employment from the tables. Often business owners that can replenish the bankroll from other non-gaming sources.,...etc. So they can bet bonus bets, chase with a martingale,...etc.
     

Continued Success,

Thanks KFB for posting this!

More or less I got similar responses from a couple of floormen working at two different HS rooms.

Very HS players are there to gamble, period. And most of them are totally insensitive of the money lost for the reasons you wrote. 

Surprisingly both think that the game could be beatable by players patiently waiting for the "right" opportunities as infinite coin flip propositions must markedly go in one univocal way, the job is just to wait for such deviations.

About the side bets wagering, I will make a post later.

as.

Quote from: albertojonas on March 22, 2026, 10:43:51 PMMay you direct me into these posts please?

Suppose your trigger is a FRESH 3/3+ streak.
You want to classify the next pattern being either another 3/3+ streak (cluster) or anything else (that is a single or a double so making that 3/3+ streak as isolated).
Of course after a 3/3+ streak came out as clustered you don't want to go further so waiting until a new 3 streak shows up.
You register how many times a (1/2) or another 3 had shown up knowing that the expected ratio is 3:1.
Even though occasional deviations could be harsh in a way or another, there's a constant force acting toward a balanced ratio after a given deviation happened, especially after some clustered 3s and especially when the 3/3+ streak is at B side (making more probable short predominant patterns at B, so leaving few room to 3/3+ P streaks suddendly balancing the previous B same streak).

The same classification could be made for clusters of 2 vs superior clusters, clusters of 3 vs superior clusters and so on.

Normally here it's the back-to-back shoes registration that counts as single shoes may be affected by huge volatility and  no balancement.
 
as.

Quote from: alrelax on March 23, 2026, 02:04:57 AMYou wrote: "Probably those who constantly win have learned to think that the HE is the least problem to face, yet we don't know a single successful player confiding that his/her main profit comes out from wagering the side bets."

And you are absolutely correct.  But side bets do appear frequently, not rarely in the 5 Treasures game.  I have done and do well with wagering 3-4 sides at a time.  But the main source of winnings will always be the base B/P wager.

That's the answer I wanted to hear from you after reading your excellent post (#1501). 

oOoOo

Successful players consider any new session as a fresh one, forgetting what happened in the past, for the simple reason that we can't know precisely how the cards are shuffled. Actually we could even consider the scenario that the same or almost the same shoe will distributed again, an heaven if we have won and we keep taking the same strategy but a bad nightmare whether we have seriously lost and continuing to apply a preordered/adapting plan not fitting the previous shoe(s).

Winning is not "hoping for", winning is a complex process dictating what's more likely to happen at the spot we decide to wager (or to fictionally guess).
Fictional right guesses are not wasted opportunities and at the other end fictional wrong guesses are good spots to save our money as we'll expect more negative ROI situations than positive ROI situations.
Moreover the vast part of W/L results are distributed by a clustered fashion so negating a long overalternating scheme.

There are infinite situations to look for, especially if we take into account several sub random walks applied to the original BP sequence.

Suppose we are taking care of the 1/2 vs 3s ranges.
Obviously the 1/2 ranges cannot be zero at any of derived roads (meaning we won't get all 3s streaks along all the shoe at one line, let alone at different random walks) and it's 100% certain that very soon a 1/2 range will come out clustered at one or, more probable, more than one derived road.
On the other end it's particularly likely that at a given derived road, a long 1/2 pattern will stand for long.
If the general probability ratio of 1/2 vs 3 is 3:1 and knowing that the production is asymmetrically shaped, we may infer that most of the times a 3 value will shift to 4 (or more), especially whether one or two 1/2 ranges have formed an exact 3 gap.

3s streaks are moving by the same propensity, so more likely coming out as isolated than clustered, especially by the "clustered" isolated/isolated fashion.
 
Even though some colliding events come out quite often (meaning that opposite BP bets are making favourable opportunities at one side or the another one(s) ), we know that the vast majority of shoes will make more probable fair long 1/2 ranges so making our guess a kind of no brainer shot.

as.

Yep.
 
It's 1 billion % certain that itlr any progression in the world can't overcome a negative edge, otherwise the claimer would be hired by MIT or by NASA and getting payed millions of bucks without betting (so risking) any dime at bac tables.

The only way to verify a possible advantage at a negative edge proposition is to show a strategy capable to provide an ascending profits line by flat betting and the only way to do that is by theorizing a possible unrandomness of the production and/or to demonstrate that card distributions are affected by "limits" shifting at some points the results by values overcoming the HE.

If a given flat betting strategy sucks, the same strategy applied by any kind of progression sucks even more.

as.

Definitely baccarat is a game of skills, the few who have found out why this game could constantly be beaten know very well this.

Probably those who constantly win have learned to think that the HE is the least problem to face, yet we don't know a single successful player confiding that his/her main profit comes out from wagering the side bets.

Successful players know that a strict mechanical betting applied to every production have zero chance to overcome the HE.

Successful players know that patterns, being positive or negative, could last for "very long" but negative patterns are asymmetrically more harmful than positive ones (for the HE).

Successful players know that the occasional ultra positive patterns will be soon replaced by undetectable patterns that again could last for long.

Successful players know that "less is more", meaning that the probability to be right is inversely proportional to the number of bets placed on the felt.

More later

as. 

Quote from: albertojonas on March 18, 2026, 11:14:39 PMCan you direct me to any information on these investigations, beside the books written on Marigny adaptations?

Unfortunately not, such tests were run several years ago at real roulette spins , I've tried to look for some links but without finding them.
Basically the trigger was set up at 3,5 sigma and even at 4 sigma then looking for a minimal correction under the MdG guidelines but no significant differences emerged than by using a random selection.

Anyway my posts abound of Marigny concepts as "isolated", "clustered" and the best of his philosophy that is the flat betting scheme suggested in his main book.
After all baccarat can't be compared with the roulette symmetrical productions, maybe here some of his ideas whether properly adapted might work.

as. 

You described very well the "statistical limit" concept but as long as the production is independent and therefore symmetrically shaped, no strategy will be able to shift a 50/50 probability in our favor no matter how deep a deviation will happen before starting to bet.

This topic was studied nearly one century ago by Marigny de Grilleau whose strategy was to wait for a 3 sigma before betting with the aim of winning just one (large) unit by flat betting.
Several years later, this MdG strategy was deeply investigated by testing real roulette outcomes and simulated pc spins but with no avail at both cases.

Correction surely will act but always in proportional terms (percentages) related to the number of hands dealt so needing a lot of time to show up, so making worthless any bet selection.

Anyway the main problem is not related to the A/B deviations but by the 0 impact that cannot be overcome by any bet selection or progressive schemes no matter how sophisticated are conceived.

At baccarat things are way easier as any deviation won't stand for long (strong correction), at least by considering the same shape of apparition of any pattern at back to back finite and dependent shoes.  If not, all bac player aiming for constant deviations of some kind will clean up every casino in the world and we know that's not the case.

To support our hypothesis let's take the back to back bac doubles distribution.  We want to bet that any double won't be followed by another double just one time (so letting go the multiple double clusters greater than two).

The double/double vs double/anything else ratio is 1:3, we'll wait for a situation where this ratio is moderately/heavily shifted towards the left (the strongest, the better), then starting to bet in order to get an isolated double apparition or isolated double sequence (isolated double correction).

That's one of the most "balanced" propositions we've found out in our long term trials.

as.

Maybe you are opening a new world about this game, no jokes.

Yes, getting a clear and focused mind is very important in every field, but successful gamblers made their fortune by exploting an advantage most people do not have.

Now the question specifically related to baccarat is:

Could a player find the situations where B bets will get at least a 51.3% probability to win and/or where P bets will get at least a 50.1% probability to win?
That's the basic undisputable form of advantage that must be measured after collecting several session results.

If no valuable triggers exist (I disagree on that, but that's not the point here) that means that some players show the ability to guess more right than wrong by a value capable to erase and invert the HE.

I'm aware some studies made at mere coin flip propositions guessing have shown that some people got a winning percentage above than 50% and those studies were driven by serious professors evaluating significant statistical data.
We know that when the HE=0 things might naturally take incredible long positive (or negative) lines, so what when we have to guess at a -1.06%/-1.24% negative edge proposition?
Now is a clear focused and prepared mind capable to spot the events where the HE will go down the drain?

I don't have the answer but Alrelax words seem to give us a positive reply, we ought not to forget that he played for real an astounding amount of shoes.
For that matter a couple of high end casinos floormen gave me a similar response when asked if they'd think some players have "more feeling" for the game than the rest.

So could a clear, focused, prepared and experienced mind be able to approximate at best when some spots are better than others?

as.

Good thread.

Al wrote: The bottom line is, while you cannot totally control what is happening, or about to happen in front of you, you must control yourself by the way you respond to what is happening or just happened.

That's a very good rule of thumb and our general answer, when in doubt, is to bet very few hands.
Obviously there are many specific guidelines to follow as well that more or less are framed in the "hoping for the best but expecting the worst" picture.
This seems to collide with the #2 point (The habit of your inner resistance) but it doesn't if one has verified a long term edge that must be adapted to the actual outcomes.
Laboratory tests are made by a way greater speed than live shoe results and this leads us to do a lot of mistakes at real tables, especially when we're losing.

Then:
1). The Habit of Expecting Things to be a Certain Way

As you sayed, this point is very subjective.
We'd guess that at least 95% of bac players hope for limitless positive deviations, 4.99% "wrongly" confide about 1-step long term math/statistical data (B>P, B/P average ratio, etc) but only the remaining 0.001% (an optimistic percentage, I know) are really able to understand and more importantly exploit the intricacies of the game.
"Expected things" need a moderate/huge hands volume to be exploited, providing one had carefully tested and measured why his/her edge comes from.

2-The Habit of Your Inner Resistance

Not a surprise knowing that 100% of keen bac players have lost their a$$es at the tables.
The game is conceived to make the players to lose no matter how smart or st.u.p.id or aggressive or cautious they are.
If a coin flip proposition (No HE) cannot guarantee a player to be ahead after X hands, let's imagine what happens after several trials of betting when the ROI is constantly 0.9894:1 or 0.9876:1.
In a word, this factor is important to be "ignored" after having assessed to play with a verified long term edge, even though we all know that most "no edge" players are particularly prone to raise their bets while losing and being particulary prudent while winning (an asymmetrical detrimental attitude).

3). The Habit of Focusing Only on What Is/Was Wrong

This is a very important factor to be constantly aware of.
When things are not going to our favor, we should evaluate what are the probabilities that future patterns will fit (or not) our plan and now our brain must be particularly focused about NOT losing more hands than promptly recovering the actual losing status.
It's here that most money is lost by the intervention of what we call as "compounding error" even if the first hands were lost by natural variance.

as.

By applying a 0.75% general probability to win at a sure asymmetrically card distribution and slight asym results game (B math propensity) we are taking into account a "biased" W/L 3:1 ratio.
We know that the B propensity won't get us any advantage whatever taken whereas the asym card distribution will.

Then quite frequently a part of results will come out "coincidentally" and confounding the picture, nevertheless following a long term more likely distribution that becomes "certainty" with the increasing number of shoes dealt.

So the "expected" general 3:1 ratio becomes more than a virtual value whether considered within few shoes where we expect more deviations than "balanced" events, of course the problem is always to estimate (approximating at best) which deviated line will be predominant over the other one (that is disappointing the 3:1 ratio).

Possible answers addressed to solve this problem.

1) The unlikelihood such 3:1 ratio will stand for long

2) The minimum requisites to get an event coming out by a more likely shape

3) The actual deviations happening at the shoe we're playing at (exploiting deviations)

4) The RTM effect working at multiple shoe distributions.


1) Any exact 3 W streak vs 3+ W streaks will be so balanced in its apparition that waiting for a fictional 2:0 or 3:0 ratio will get us a future edge, of course by betting that a 3 streak will become a 4 streak or longer streak.

2) If the W/L ratio is 3:1, we just need a W event to come out clustered once and again waiting for a 0:2 or 0:3 W event NOT showing up clustered is a good way to look for a possible advantage.

3) Nowadays cards are so whimsically (and possibly unrandomly) distributed that strong deviations come out around any corner so giving a fk about expected probabilities.
I don't recall how many times we have collected additional important profits by following the Alrelax statement: "when it's there it's there".
Do not put a limit about a positive steady deviation happening. Most of the times cards aren't properly shuffled so affecting general (short term) probabilities.
On the same line whenever results are strongly deviating from the norm, do not continue to bet the "norm", stay put (or, at the very least, bet that the improbable stays improbable).

4) Unless you have verified that after very long trials same deeply selected events will provide more wins than losses after vig, the RTM factor will make worthless any unidirectional mechanical plan in a way or another.

as.

Quote from: Whatswhats on March 09, 2026, 10:48:25 AMASYM, I didn't understand well why you got the sequence of W/L , example why first is WL while other just W?

The plan is to make clustered 1 and 2 vs 3s (horizontally or, as in this example, vertically), so only singled 1 or singled 2 are a L, any 1-2 cluster (1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2) is a W.

For example a 1-2-2-1-2-1-1-2-2 sequence is just a W, 1-3-1-3-2-1-1 sequence is L-L-W, etc

What we should be interested about is not how many consecutive Ls or Ws we'll get along the way but the "waiting time" of the patterns.

Notice that a 3-3-3-3 or 3-3 or 3-3-3 sequence doesn't provide any classification (no W no L) as in order to have something clustered (1-2) we need one element to come out.

Then you can classify how many 1-2 clusters greater than two show up so now the "singled" losing event is a double appearance and true clusters are 1-2 successions longer than two.
Example: 2-1-3-1-1-3-3-1-2-3 that under the simple cluster classification is a W-W-W sequence now becomes a L-L-L succession; In the same way, a 3-1-3-3-2-3-1-3 sequence forming a L-L-L under the simple cluster classification now becomes a worthless registration as no 1-2 category got at least one cluster.

We ought to remember that at baccarat the "overalternating" movement is the less likely to happen so when we play the 1/2 vs 3 plan we are betting that the 3:1 ratio won't stand for long at either side of the deviation.

More later

as.

Thanks for your valuable comments.

Both replies focus about the importance of concentrating our action when things seem to go in our favor and/or when expected values are more likely to show up.

Casinos will make their enormous bac profits by exploiting the uncertainty but this will get limits of intervention capable to erase/invert the HE.
Only the "time" factor will help us to define such limits but at the same time long term data assessments (or long term experience) will direct us to play the right spots where the uncertainty is underdog to come out so favoring more likely situations to show up.

Example.

Probability that any shoe will present at least a 1-2 succession in any order (1-1, 1-2, 2-1 or 2-2) longer than one (enemies: 1-3, 2-3) is 100%, so it's just a matter of time to spot the shoe fragments where a 1 or 2 will be followed by at least another 1 or 2 before a 3 happens.
More importantly is assessing back to back shoes where precise pattern positions are less likely to form same back to back situations (ranges) for "long".

Here some shoes (just the first 14 patterns are displayed for simplicity):

1-1-1-1-3-2-3-1-2-1-3-1-2-3
2-1-1-1-2-3-2-1-1-3-3-2-1-3
3-3-1-2-3-1-3-3-2-2-3-2-2-1
1-1-3-1-3-2-3-1-1-1-2-2-1-3
3-3-3-3-3-1-3-2-1-1-1-1-1-1
3-2-1-1-1-3-3-1-2-1-1-1-2-3

So far how many 1-2 patterns longer than one are VERTICALLY showing up per each of the 14 columns? W= win and L=loss

01) WL
02) WL
03) W
04) W
05) L
06) LW
07) L
08) WW
09) W
10) LW
11) W
12) W
13) W
14) LL

Now, if you have to make some "guesses" about the next W/L patterns belonging to the simple 1/2 lenght what will you expect to get?

1-2-1-3-2-3-1-1-1-1-1-2-3-1
2-1-3-3-1-1-1-3-1-1-3-2-1-2
2-1-3-3-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-3-2-1
2-1-3-1-2-2-3-1-2-1-1-2-3-2
2-2-1-3-1-1-1-3-2-1-3-3-3-3
3-3-2-3-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-3-2-1

Again considering vertically those outcomes we'll get:

01) W
02) W
03) LW
04) L
05) W
06) W
07) WW
08) LW
09) W
10) W
11) LW
12) WL
13) W
14) W

There are infinite statistical considerations to be made, for example that the only column providing ALL 1-2 patterns is just the column #9.
On the other end, all columns getting a loss (L) on the first six shoes dealt (#5, #6, #7, #10 and #14) got a W on the next six shoes dealt.
(L happening at columns #1, #2 and #14 after the first shoes sequence didn't get a second result to be compared at the second shoes succession).

We mean that "limits" should be evaluated not only by the simple single shoes' texture but even by the back-to-back shoes sequence (vertical shape) that cannot provide harsh deviations for more than one column in most cases.

as.   

That's an interesting list, never heard of "bilking" at bac tables.

as.