I agree.
This scam was actually a little more sophisticated than most.


Continued Success,
KFB

Thx Asym:

"...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...."

that's a good one. I think you will agree there are a couple (very similar & related) that are productive too.

The key for the above triggers (et al) similar ones is to have patience and wait for the set up. Some shoes may not have very many set ups. I perceive that's what gets most players is they simply can not stand to wait/just watch.


Just my opinion.

Asym quoting from above:

"..."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 si..."

I 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,

     

Good win /trip report. I do not see the pics you referenced*.

I like that you use the bonus bet wins to enable a larger base bet(P or B).

"...*The point where I took the picture, I already won 2 Panda 8s, 3 Fortune 7s, 2 three card 9-0s (wagering bankers plus dragon bonus), netting me greater than $8,000.

There were lots of dragon bonuses on both sides as well.  Bankers had several three card 8s with players having 0 or 1.  Both sides had over 25 dragon bonuses paying out between 2:1 and 10:1 consistently. The shoe ended with 5 Fortune 7s and 4 Panda 8s total. ..."


"with 5 Fortune 7s..."
     Im guessing you wager every hand for the Fortune7 to catch that many.

     I think this shoe was a bit of an outlier. Probability for a Fortune7 is (.02254) so approx 1:44 .



Continued Success To All,

It seems like the casino could detect these scams a bit faster.


https://cdcgaming.com/top-casino-scam-of-2025-hidden-camera-in-mickey-mouse-t-shirt/

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.

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 (complex well executed baccarat USA scheme performed numerous times), 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 March 23, 2026, 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 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.