As they said, "It was an audacious scheme and brilliantly executed. But the group made one fatal mistake: they came back for more. Two days later, they returned to Swiss Casinos Zurich to play punto banco again — and this time the police were waiting."

Greed will ALWAYS GET THEM.  I am remembering the Tran Gang, greed, greed and more greed.

One doesn't realize, casinos send emails and video footage to their peers of scams, schemes and strange appearing 'things'. 

Link below. Key points from the article:

Eleven-player baccarat team executed sophisticated casino cheating scheme in Zurich
Hidden phone camera captured card sequence to predict baccarat shoe
Casino surveillance review exposed the scam after suspicious $180K win



https://www.casino.org/news/inside-the-180k-baccarat-cheating-plot-that-almost-fooled-a-zurich-casino/

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on Yesterday at 02:40:17 AMYep.
 
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.

Everything sucks if it loses.  However, it the wager won it was great, flat wagering and even more so, positive progression wagering.  The same amount of negative HE exists for the player no matter what type of wager he chooses to employ.

I am a strong, aggressive positive progression wagerer.  However, my progression is almost always from select (and I stress select) winnings, not attempted recouping or negative Martingales, etc., etc.  My MMM controls my winnings and assures me I cannot lose all my session winnings if I follow my MMM.

My only downfall is obeying my MMM and cutting my sessions at magical times while winning or worst scenario, after getting back even. 

Quote from: alrelax on Yesterday at 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.

Whatswhat, that is a very difficult sequence of W/L.I would have lost 19 Units after making 8 bets and would have not made anymore bets until further virtual bets had better results.
Anyway, thanks for posting real W/L outcomes.

P.S. I haven't fully disclosed my exact MM/Rules. The simple modified Labby with pause and resume is only a small part of the strategy.

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.

You 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.

Quote from: Bac2Bac on March 22, 2026, 05:26:58 PMCame away with +19 units.
Total decisions= 290
Total wins= 97
Total Losses= 123

I made 123 bets with 53 wins and 70 losses
Used Labby (0,1) biggest bet=7units largest drawdown =11units
Paused betting after 3 losses in a row and resumed betting only after a W or WLW had come out.(at times 30 or more decisions had passed before a W or WLW had come out)

L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
W
L
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
L
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
L

With your MM / Rules, go down to -700 ammazza drawdown with this sequence of W/L, real sequence I got.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on March 22, 2026, 09:03:32 PMAnyway 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.

May you direct me into these posts please?

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.