Thanks for your understanding and no need to apologize my friend.

I agree with your "100% winning strategy" making many players to lose anyway.
The simplest example is facing a completely no commission game where B is math favorite to win by a 1.36% margin on any resolved bet. By the 80s the Sahara casino in Vegas made such an attempt but after a month it had to revert to a normal commission game as a large crowd of acute players merged in that casino to play a sure EV+ proposition.
Nonetheless in the meanwhile many players got busted by not being capable to bear the invariable negative deviations such a small edge will provide at the underdog P side.

So why should we be so confident that baccarat is beatable knowing that every bet will be an EV- proposition?

There are many possible answers getting rid of the "fallacy" concept so loved by mathematicians and gambling experts.

- Bac successions are coming out from a "biased" coin working by the supposedly random infinite card distributions but sooner or later producing a fair exploitable number of "opposite" results considered at the same spots of distribution, shoe per shoe.
A privilege a common coin flip cannot get by any means.
In poorer words, the RTM factor will work way better than at a perfect 50/50 independent proposition.

-Any shoe is a world apart.
Quite often a shoe seems to like to surpass common values in a way or another (by not fitting expected values or by fitting them by astounding levels) so forcing us to act accordingly and the word "accordingly" most of the times calls for placing very few bets or none at all. At other slight less likely situations, the attitude to ride a univocal wave until a single loss happens is a viable tool to put the casino into a passive mood but always knowing that securing some bets is way better than gambling for further wins.
That's especially important whenever we doubt about the real randomness of the outcomes, a factor particularly debatable nowadayws where cards are not shuffled under our direct vision.

- Bac BP successions produce an infinite number of sub sequences almost always getting different patterns and different back-to-back patterns happening simultaneously at the same spot (row or column) per every shoe dealt, that's an important tool to take care of.
Let the house "hoping" that at the same spot considered, different random walks set up by a different pace will get the same exact value for "long" per some shoes dealt and you'll get the idea.

- The asymmetry/symmetry tool will take the lead over any other statistical factor as rank cards are 100% asymmetrically distributed along any shoe dealt, so steady symmetrical patterns are just the by product of coincidental situations (just one hand result will form a symmetrical pattern instead of a more likely asymmetrical one).
Moreover there are no better indicators to exploit than asymmetrical and symmetrical patterns to stop or prolong at some point of the sequence by given levels, all the variance in the world considered.
That's our "fallacy" edge. LOL.

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on Yesterday at 09:49:43 PMSorry whatwswhats, for some reasons I was forced to erase your reply and the original post of mine.
Mates I play with do not tolerate anymore too detailed informations about our possible strategies.

Basically we think that considering the game under the asym/sym profile is one of the few opportunities to get a possible edge, a thing that it seems you have already investigated in the past.

More later

as. 

I understand you. I also don't like sharing too much information publicly, especially because 99.99% of people even if they had a   "100% sure win" strategy (which doesn't exist) would still end up losing money.
If you have time or would like to talk privately, we can exchange useful information surely, then the fact that you deleted the post confirms that I was giving too much good info but also you so it's okay.
I appreciate it, and I apologize if I went too far in the post by sharing more information publicly.

Sorry whatwswhats, for some reasons I was forced to erase your reply and the original post of mine.
Mates I play with do not tolerate anymore too detailed informations about our possible strategies.

Basically we think that considering the game under the asym/sym profile is one of the few opportunities to get a possible edge, a thing that it seems you have already investigated in the past.

More later

as. 

Out of curiosity I report a weird strategy employed by a player following this random walk:
Anytime the first card dealt of each new hand is a red card and the next hand is a Banker she signs a W on her score card, otherwise she writes a L.
The same procedure is utilized whenever the first card is a black card so prompting the next hand to be Player (W) or a L when the opposite side wins.

According to her "theory" such simple registration will make easier to spot the W/L patterns lenght and shapes.
Since she always bet purple chips ($500) and betting very rarely, we were particularly interested to see her strategy that after many polite askings was revealed to us.

An AS/S study applied to this weird rw is under investigation.

More later

as.

@Alrelax:

As far as "sessions", again I found that each 'time' I play, once or twice a week on the average, each time is a session.  That allows me to seclude and focus more on what is happening. 

That's a good, a very good concept of "session". 

@whatswhats:

I understand and appreciate some points you have written, yet the volatility could be only reduced by a valid bet selection and not by manipulating the betting amounts.
If you win consistently and I believe you do is because you would win anyway by flat betting.


as.
 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/two-indian-american-men-indicted-for-allegedly-using-3000-stolen-identities-to-defraud-online-gambling-sites-of-3-million/articleshow/128077490.cms#

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on February 09, 2026, 02:16:19 AMInteresting bankroll managements, yet we personally don't consider the word "session" simply because by flat betting all of the time we take the game as a kind of "infinite" proposition that cannot be splitted by how many shoes or hands we play at a given day other than by a long term winning probabilities schedule.

Anyway the fact that a given entire bankroll cannot be wasted within multiple "sessions" should be interpreted as a possible sign of an EV+ strategy.

as.

was about my post?

I use word session because I don't use flat betting.
buy in and bankroll, bet selection and mm + a plan fixed is the way for me to make it.

Losing buy in arrive obviously but like said before, before that happen we are in profit or will be next.
and yes for me this is the ev+ plan.

the continue research/create of strategies/mm is always then to reduce volatility not for make more money etc.. if you think.

in this case with my plan I reduce the volatility not in a single session but in example, 10 sessions.
(I play online so it's easier and faster)

Asym, I highly respect you and your long term standing here as "one of the best", without any doubt whatsoever!

However, personally and in my 4 decades plus of live B&M play experience all over the USA on all kinds of tables.  I could never engage in flat betting protocol as a mechanical and set wager amount.  I do flat bet, but for a few/several hands at most. 

As far as "sessions", again I found that each 'time' I play, once or twice a week on the average, each time is a session.  That allows me to seclude and focus more on what is happening.  The same with this subject as flat betting for myself.  Better focus, less remembrance of past loss, patterns, trends, and all the other things that go along with our play, admittedly or not.

So I have a definitive play scheduled limited to each and every time I play.  Win, lose or draw.  Half a shoe or three shoes.  My play continues of course, but I am more aggressive and clearer frame-of-mind when each and every "session" is brand new and secluded with a new beginning and a finite ending. 

As far as the Bankroll and Buy-in.  I learned a long time ago the following.  Risk approximately 10-15% of a Bankroll and replenish any previous losses immediately, maintaining the same Bankroll. 

If I go out of town, I would take several days Buy-in from my Bankroll to allow continued play if I had losing sessions.

Among the two players particularly liking the B side, one who collected astounding winnings in nearly 4 years eventually went "broke" (meaning he lost two times his enormous bankroll) by crossing a very very very unlikely 5.1 sigma deviation (basically it's like facing a 28-29 P consecutive streak and similar B/P strong deviated situations).
Nevertheless and considering that this player was able to bear huge negative sigma values and anyway knowing he's abundantly ahead by thousands of bucks, we still consider him as a kind of excellent baccarat player.
A good additional note about this player is that he bet around 1/4 of total hands dealt.

The other B aficionado one is a very patient player roaming at multiple tables and waiting that the first 10 hands occurring per every shoe dealt will produce a P/B 8:2 or greater gap, then progressively wagering the B side until getting a profit.
This is a more risky strategy (in the sense that it's unlikely to bear strong sigma deviations) but involving a lot of wins before an inevitable losing sequence will happen.

The remaining players seem to bet that an average amount of streaks must happen at every road considered, no matter the side.
For example, we'd guess that their strategy is based upon a kind of one side predominance that is more due after many multiple "balanced" situations.
We took this concept in the same way we consider the asymmetrical/symmetrical pattern distributions getting some limits in their appearance.

OoOoO

Most of the times players will try to exploit just two situations:

- symmetrical patterns;

- moderate/strong predominance of one side over the other one.

Besides the constant HE they're getting advantage from, casinos are forced to take the opposite part: that is confiding that patterns are more likely to come out asymmetrically shaped (so more undetectable) or that a fair predominance won't take place for long (again orienting towards a sort of long term undetectability).

We see that a low or moderate predominance will make more probable symmetrical patterns to happen and moderate/strong predominances will provide asymmetrical patterns.
So when we bet toward symmetrical patterns we are just playing the opposite situation casinos will aim for.
Conversely, strong predominances are a natural occurrence that casinos cannot do anything to prolong, unless hoping that such a predominance will stop sooner than later.

A possible edge comes out from estimating how much syncronized asymmetrical or symmetrical patterns show up at different roads at the same pattern positions, a thing we'll discuss in a couple of days.

as.

Interesting bankroll managements, yet we personally don't consider the word "session" simply because by flat betting all of the time we take the game as a kind of "infinite" proposition that cannot be splitted by how many shoes or hands we play at a given day other than by a long term winning probabilities schedule.

Anyway the fact that a given entire bankroll cannot be wasted within multiple "sessions" should be interpreted as a possible sign of an EV+ strategy.

as.