Without a doubt, BAC is the greatest casino game that cannot be touched by all the others. The game is elite and easily transcends countless times throughout each shoe into superstations, individual beliefs and unmatched gambling depths  few can even grasp unless they are experienced Bac Players.

The game is interpreted widely different but most all players, admittedly or not. The situational aspect of playing BAC puts the highest majority of wagering decisions on a specific set of circumstances rather than being universal, such as in blackjack and a lot of other table games.

BAC players are most of the times joyfully brought together by winning hands and as well, brought down together by losing hands. Hands that were wagered on by both bankers and players bets, are visually divided with joy and sadness when the winning side is revealed.  Simultaneously, both visually and even physically. 

There are numerous types of BAC players, those that are outgoing as well as totally submissive. Those that are loud as well as perfectly quiet. Those that play long hours as well as those that play a fast hit and run style. Those that believe in flat betting and as well, those that parlay without a second thought. There are those that relentlessly continue session after session attempting previous loss recouping without really ever winning as well as, those that use a small portion of their bank rolls with a strong parlay schedule experiencing a much higher cash out profitability rate overall. There are those that play with complete frustration and emotional distraction as well as, those that play with pure passion and clear frame-of-mind.

BAC is a game of wonder in so many ways. I guarantee you that. Many claim it is pure luck and yet many claim it's strictly skill. Many claim it is random while others claim it is not random. BAC is a game of extreme beliefs without any doubt whatsoever. BAC has quick wins for many and quick losses for others.  And those that do not win or lose quickly, have a habit of getting grinded down more often than not.  And, so many continuously wonder why they cannot repeat their wins they have experienced previously in their upcoming wagering attempts just completed. As well, so many also wonder why they lost after they did not (wagering opposite) wager the way they played during their previous losing sessions. Like I said, a game of wondering in the ultimate definition of the word lived out so many times throughout each shoe played.

One can win with the highest point value hand in BAC as well as a zero point value hand.  One can win when all others lose the hand and as well, one can win the hand while losing a certain portion of it, because of the various side wagers available at most tables.

The highest majority of players these days have no idea about the history of BAC prior to the EZ BAC and mini BAC tables from 2000 and up. What I am referring to was the big tables where there were three dealers, two were sitting acting as the table's Bankers with separate chip racks each, side-by-side, each one for their seven seats of players on each end of the table. One dealer known as a Coupier, standing whom the cards were passed to after pulled from the shoe, exposed or unexposed by each gambler themselves. The shoe traveled from player to player and remained with each player as long as a winning bankers hand was made, no matter which side they were wagering on. The big table also had one floor person on each end of the table as well. It was a totally different game, different attitudes, different personalities, different set of patience, a much different level of play and much stronger sense of camaraderie amongst the players overall.  Shoes normally were in the 3 hour range to complete and a shuffle was easily 20 minutes. 

Talking about camaraderie, there was normally unwritten camaraderie amongst players on each side of the table to wager the same side. Unlike today's atmosphere so commonly brought forth, how others can influence losing hands.  Back at the big tables that wasn't a general thought at all. 

BAC even more so than other table games host a wide variety of its players. From restaurant and nail shop workers to the owners themselves. From competing casino Bac Dealers and Floor Personnel or an occasional host from other properties. To a high school dropout working at a McDonald's who out-plays an accomplished college graduate structural engineer most every time. Young and elderly, white, Asian, Latino and black all can be found at the BAC tables, anytime anywhere.

BAC the game were bystanders are in amazement when a two card 18 beats two face cards on the opposite side.  And those same bystanders comment on how the heck a blackjack loses to two cards on the opposite side comprised of just a seven and a two.
Additionally the same bystanders witness a 10 and a five on the players side and a 10 and a six on the bankers side. They see a six drawn for the player side and then a six drawn for the bankers side. Right about that time they shrugged their shoulders and walk away.

Priceless, IMO.

The game of BAC.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on January 28, 2026, 03:48:21 AMNext week we'll see how to exploit at a maximum level the AS/S patterns feature.

as.

Waiting for this, so interesting read and then elaborate that mixed with mine idea.

This finding (there are quite more of them) emphasizes the importance of studying shoes coming out from the same source and that around the globe there are very acute players trying to get a kind of an edge whatever intended as the person we've met during our sessions.

It's way more interesting to assess that this finding promotes an unsound math plan as all bets are placed at P side.

Shoes are coming out from the same shuffling machine brand, even if working at different casinos (!).

That's not the only finding promoting a kind of univocal betting placement, just one of the easiest.

Unfortunately (and probably this is a possible added value of it) a nearly half of the shoes dealt are unplayable at least for this specific attack. Then only one bet is suggested per every playable shoe.
Needless to say and since it's an unsound math strategy, it cannot work at other shoe productions.

More later.

as. 

Thanks for the reminder!

Along with the no stop-win policy, it's worth remembering how much small wins can compound over time, too.

(Continued success stacks up when compounding)

Cheers! 🥂

Here additional real shoes coming out from the same source (3s are only considered at B side):

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

Total:

3-X = 114

3-3-X = 31

3-3-3-..= 10

We see that 3-X vs 3-3-.. sequences are still unfavorite to win (W=114, L= 41x3= 123) and 3-3-X vs 3-3-3.. events are almost equal (+1, 31 vs 30).

Nonetheless notice that 3-3-X sequences do not involve any vig as all bets are placed at P side.
Moreover, the 3-3-X/3-3-3-.. ratio is so balanced that we could even think of adopting a multilayered progressive plan without worrying about the vig.
Yes, the only substantial obstacle will be a permutation issue, so let's pretend to face an hypothetical unbelievable scenario to distribute all losing patterns consecutively or strongly clustered.
But when the "bad" is clustered and we know the proposition had demonstarted to be harshly balanced or shifted at one side, chances we'll cross a win or multiple wins are approaching the certainty.

Next week we'll see how to exploit at a maximum level the AS/S patterns feature.

as.

Quote from: Whatswhats on January 27, 2026, 11:55:51 PMOnline with 30 table, find pattern is faster

Probably it is, but maybe exploiting the derived roads distribution will make a similar job without internet issues, and we know there are plenty of them to overcome.

as.

Online with 30 table, find pattern is faster

@Alrelax: lol, I haven't deleted a single reply in years let's figure out if I'd delete one of yours..

The purpose of presenting this trigger was to give the idea that running the same situation for many times could present some non linear probability values as cards are finite, rules are fixed and a kind of "average" distribution will work providing the outcomes are really randomly produced.

@whatswhats:

Overall we got:

3-X= 103 times;

3-3-X = 41 times;

3-3-3 (or longer successions) = 10 times.

Since X is any pattern different than 3 (so 1 or 2) it's obvious that we have to assess an average probability to get or not to get another consecutive 3 and this needs a two-step betting.
The general odds of any 3 vs (1-2) are 1:3, since itlr B>P we shoudn't be surprised that 3-X will lose money against 3-3-...
In my example and assuming a 3:1 unit W/L ratio (before vig), 3-X won 103 times and lost 51 times (51 x 3= 153).
Clearly by wagering toward another 3 after a 3 happened (now by an inverse positive 1-2 progression) will get the best of it even though long streaks of 3-X can naturally show up along the course of the shoes dealt (that's why Alrelax pointed out his legitimate doubts about these findings).     

Then after a 3-3 succession came out things seem to change as betting toward 3-3-X got a kind of propensity to produce more 3-3-X patterns than 3-3-3-... patterns.
In fact 3-3-X patterns have shown up 41 times and 3-3-3-... patterns just 10 times (10x3=30).

Notice that I've presented the very first (or when applicable) the second or third B 3 streak happening per each shoe dealt, supposing those are more "randomly" placed results than others.

My conclusion is that a bac player should be interested about what happens most now AND itlr or, it's the same concept, that things could distribute by huge levels of volatility but always and invariably following more likely probability values.
And one of the best tools we should employ to get the best of the "actual" related to the "expected" is betting very few hands (for example think how's unlikely to wait for 3-3 to come out)

as.

I'm extremely sorry to interject here, but I have to.  If Asym wants this post deleted, delete it it's okay. 

Reference last few posts on both sides.  I have found in over 40 years of actual brick and mortar bac play, that anything and everything has an equal chance to occur.

Test and stat all one enjoys and until you are confident with numbers, triggers, patterns over the long run.

However, and a huge giant HOWEVER; those triggers that occurred and came about in all one's tests, cannot be transposed into a live bac game of a few shoes and may never come about in that session made up of 1-2-3-4 shoes. 

But, maybe I am off course?

So you tell that is better to bet one time after the second banker of

3 3 X

And not 3 X, but is false, explain if I miss something but seems not.