UPDATE:

NEW YORK — A proposed Caesars Palace casino in Times Square that's backed by Jay-Z lost its bid for a lucrative New York City-area gambling license on Wednesday after running into fierce opposition from Broadway theater owners and producers who were worried about its potential impact on the theater district.

A state-commissioned community advisory committee rejected the $5.4 billion plan to redevelop an office tower into a Caesars-branded hotel, gambling and entertainment complex.


https://wtop.com/national/2025/09/jay-z-backed-plan-for-times-square-casino-loses-bid-for-nyc-license-amid-broadway-opposition/

The long term money you'll win is a by product of the money you haven't lost

As banal as this statement could appear actually is one of the best recipes to consistently collect profits.

Suppose we have two systems to adopt:

a) The preferred system, that is one we particularly like for whatever reasons;

b) The perfect opposite system.

We know that besides some very rare circumstances (of course privileging the (a) method, I guess), both systems are losers itlr for the HE.

But after having tested hundreds and hundreds of shoes shuffled in the same fashion, we'll see that at both systems W and L streaks will show up or stop by a better than expected probability in relationship of how things went so far in the actual shoe.

Obviously it seems better to bet toward positive a) system streaks, yet those streaks are (almost) equally likely to show up while using the b) system so becoming losing streaks.

Cutting a long story short, in order to get long term wins we have to fictionally cut off an equal or almost equal number of losses (that is wins on the other system's side), but this procedure must be partially insensitive of the previous shoe(s) distribution.
The "ploy" not to expect something more due than average without assessing current patterns was set up by not ruling out the possibility (albeit very rare) that the same or correspondent card distribution will be dealt twice or more.
An heaven when things went good at our favor but a terrible and worse nightmare in the opposite scenario.

Therefore and simplyfing a lot, back to back a) or b) system "long" streaks are not coming out around the corner and even less likely are the situations where a kind of overalternating mood stands for "long".
Nothing new: for example run 6 coin flip hands and symmetrical quality patterns are just 4 possibilites (ABABAB, BABABA, AAABBB, BBBAAA) out of 64 possible results.
So 60 patterns are making asymmetry either from a quality (e.g. AABABB) or quantity (e.g. AAAABB) point of view.
 
In real baccarat terms, it's the distribution of back-to-back patterns that counts, in the sense that once a symmetrical pattern had shown up we have to wait for a pattern breaking the previous symmetry then assessing whether the symmetry will stand another time for the new different pattern or conceding room to a more probable asymmetrical one.

Utilizing a 0.75% probability oriented to get an asym pattern (and providing the action of proper random walks), you'll see that first and second winning attempts will come out clustered at least one time (so negating long isolated successions) by percentages getting astounding levels of probability (so profitable edge to exploit) as, again, asymmetry is the norm at baccarat.

An opposite less desirable system to utilize (so privileging the less likely symmetry) should be employed with caution once asymmetrical patterns seem to be silent in relationship of the number of hands dealt, especially when we suspect that the production wasn't randomly distributed.

as.

You wrote: "I agree with most of your fine post. Some I may differ with a little. I agree limiting the uncertainty is extremely important. Even if we can't eliminate it we can do small things to lessen or lower said uncertainty."

"My belief is that we can apply the math of the game(Probability scales) yet stay in tune on "what this specific shoe is producing". Some times the shoe may initially present as skewed but will generally start settling in to the laws of probability expectations(or at least start approaching limits). Though sometimes the race is cut short and the runners run out of distance. So we may not get to see the comeback from the late-charging runners."

[/quote]


If that was in response to what I wrote; "We tend to wager on what I would define as, expecting certain results. I do believe those are brought about by our inner subconscious and previous experiences with what is actually occurring. And I wholeheartedly believe that is where and why we go wrong on many wagers."

You are correct.  I was not referring to anything along the lines as to what you wrote about as I will wager countless times along the same lines.  Those are not absolutely attempting to coincide with the statistical beliefs of the game to have the shoes produce a 50/49ish outcome, etc.  What you are talking about is equalization, common sense and what most shoes eventually produce in their own secret or semi-secret order. 

But I was not referring to what you wrote to cancel out or not have as some kind of trigger.  Probabilities and staying in tune are spot on advantages.

"...I have found taking the uncertainty out of the picture is truly the key. It is not easy by any means, but you have to. Taking the uncertainty out of your consciousness will allow a crucial skill for minimizing emotional chaos and allowing you a true advantage to distinguish more between what is actually happening at the moment (the presentments) and all of the other automatic tendencies to interpret and wager upon your experiences, memories and wagering plan(s) attacks..."

I agree with most of your fine post. Some I may differ with a little. I agree limiting the uncertainty is extremely important. Even if we can't eliminate it we can do small things to lessen or lower said uncertainty.

My belief is that we can apply the math of the game(Probability scales) yet stay in tune on "what this specific shoe is producing". Some times the shoe may initially present as skewed but will generally start settling in to the laws of probability expectations(or at least start approaching limits). Though sometimes the race is cut short and the runners run out of distance. So we may not get to see the comeback from the late-charging runners.

By math of the game I mean: We should constantly be thinking and looking for opportunities to apply probability games with the casino where we are the casino. For example, what is the probability of seeing X and Y, and X or Y, prior to seeing Z, ...etc. I find opportunities are easier to see by looking for events where limits are being approached that we know are very rare or seldom reached (in most shoes).

Yes we will see some shoes that defy math theorems and are what I call "weird" shoes. This is where  money management is paramount. That is, we should have a cut off so we only miss a certain number of wagers (mine is typically two or three), and I stop pursuing that event. Yet I never limit the upside when I am in sync with the results(selecting consecutive winners). This is what I perceive keeps me off extended losing streaks on one single event.

"...Taking the uncertainty out of your consciousness will allow a crucial skill for minimizing emotional chaos and allowing you a true advantage..."


Emotional chaos and lack of emotional control is the "achilles' heel" for many players.


Continued Success,

Hopefully the vegas casinos will do a u-turn in the near future. Otherwise the downturn will continue.


https://www.casino.org/news/fee-loathing-the-most-maddening-examples-of-vegas-nickel-diming/

Addendum to TR above.

Note: The following shoe is shown as continuous and not R x C.

BBB P BBB P BBBTB PP B PP B PP BBBBB PP BTBBB P BBBT P BT P BTBBBBTBBBBBB PP BBB

P BBTBB PPPTP B PP B P B P BBB


It was B 49, P 24, T8 at this stage. Banker reached a shoe high of +26. 

This was a favorable opportunity for me (and two others at the table).  A dealer said approximately 180K departed the table with the majority from Banker wins. Because this was a Tiger Baccarat table(I.e., fewer high odds bonus bets offered), bonus bet payouts to players were lower. So majority of 180K was paid out on base bets(mostly  B). I only wagered for P twice in this shoe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*On this same trip I was at a table and saw approximately $300K depart the table(A pit staff suggested that was the approximate payout from this shoe),  with most from bonus bets:  3-card/ 2-card Blazing7s, B win on 3c7Fortune 7s, a couple 8-6 bonus bet winners...etc.

I hit two F7s with only $20 so very little of this 300K went into my stack. I didn't approach Tmax on any of my  base bets for this shoe.  I only wagered a few times on F7 yet probably more in this shoe than is typical for me. I did not wager any other bonus bets and typically do not wager for F7s.

Majority of the $300K came from the first 3-card Blazing 7 winners with one player wagering Tmax on the bet. I "think" he won around $60K on that one hand with majority from the Blazing7 . He also hit a 2-card blazing7 winner a short time later in the same shoe.  It took a while for the bonus bets payout after the first 3-card Blazing7 winners. Players from out in the casino at slots/other table games came into the Bac pit to see what caused all the celebrations.

I don't recall ever seeing so much money paid out in a single shoe.

You wrote:

We tend to wager on what I would define as, expecting certain results. I do believe those are brought about by our inner subconscious and previous experiences with what is actually occurring. And I wholeheartedly believe that is where and why we go wrong on many wagers.

Probably this is one of the best advice any baccarat player in the world should implement in his/her arsenal.

as. 

 

That's ok, but this shoe is very polarized towards something and of course such shoes won't come out around any corner.
That doesn't mean that whenever we'd think a distribution will seem to take a strong polarized line we must stay still (or, worse, approaching a kind of balanced route), yet it takes a lot of experience to know what to bet, how much to bet and by which frequency in such circumstances.
For sure when in doubt we better go toward the actual flow or what's happening, providing the actual flow is consistent so, IMO, getting marked deviations where thinking to bet the opposite would be a silly move most of the times.

OoOoO

According to our experience and long term data, the game could be "resolved" by crossing more EV+ hands than EV- hands so not giving a damn about the actual level of profitable or unprofitable probability.
We've taught that no matter how we manage our betting, every bet will be EV- no matter what and this is a complete bighorn.sh..it.

More specifically we think (but we could be wrong) that the best and riskless primary way to ascertain a possible advantage is by adopting a flat betting procedure.
If the sum of EV+ betting spots > EV- betting spots, we'll win otherwise we'll directly fall into the HE.
Varying the betting amounts without a EV+>EV- verified factor acting on the long term cannot alter the negative edge by a one trillion probability.

Again in the real world we'll have to choose whether to bet this or that, say to get something going on, stopping or showing up for the first time.

Basically, more tentatives we'll make to guess such three different situations and higher will be the probability to lose as those three diverse situations feature "general cutoff" values to get hints from where strong deviations happen but are not the norm.

Among the three different classes, a special place is taken by what hadn't happen so far as we do not want to rely upon general statistical data made on random successions when the actual succession could be easily unrandomly distributed.
I'm not joking, many shoes you'll face aren't randomly distributed.

Notice that once a pattern is not prolonging (so stopping its appearance) a given silent third pattern can easily remain silent so breaking the old adage that baccarat is an "either/or" interminable sequence.
That happens because we utilize a 0.75% probability where the third pattern could remain absent for quite long.
On the same token and whenever that's the case, the remaining two patterns move around very small levels of variance, that is 0 or 1.

Since any random sequence (any shoe dealt) is supposed to produce different but surely shifted (unbalanced) A,B or C patterns, we ought to approximate at best how many times each pattern will come out isolated, silent or clustered.
Obviously once a pattern remains silent, the other two patterns tend to take a more clustered route; conversely whenever all three patterns come out by a kind of proportional (unlikely) fashion, best bets will be made by a sort of "stopping" approach thus negating long clusters of anything.

Suppose we classify those three patterns as A, B or C.
Consider any shoe dealt as AA, AB, AC, BA, BB, BC and CA, CB and CC probability distributed by innumerable sequences.

At an indipendent random model, every doublet will show up by a math expected percentage (11.1%), at baccarat once a pattern had shown up OR NOT, it'll affect next outcomes by percentages capable to erase and invert the HE.

The baccarat model is asymmetrical, only incidental and rarer values will alter a more probable asymmetrical flow of the outcomes. Not ignoring that asymmetry most likely will be included within low or very low values.

See you in a couple of days.

as. 

You know we talk a lot about winning and sometimes about losing sessions. And most of the detailed talk is about the scoreboard roads, I wagered because of too many or not enough of this or that and of course, the armchair quarterbacking successes.  But have you ever really sat down and gave thought to your decision making process and what drove you to wager on whatever it was you did?

I believe a huge advantage to the Baccarat Player is, the ability to know what is really happening at the table and the interpretation of it.

I have found taking the uncertainty out of the picture is truly the key. It is not easy by any means, but you have to. Taking the uncertainty out of your consciousness will allow a crucial skill for minimizing emotional chaos and allowing you a true advantage to distinguish more between what is actually happening at the moment (the presentments) and all of the other automatic tendencies to interpret and wager upon your experiences, memories and wagering plan(s) attacks.

We tend to wager on what I would define as, expecting certain results. I do believe those are brought about by our inner subconscious and previous experiences with what is actually occurring. And I wholeheartedly believe that is where and why we go wrong on many wagers.

We read and discuss so much about stop losses and limiting Wagers. But is that going to allow us to win? Maybe to stop losses, but not to win. All the brew-haha aside, a person has to wager to win.  PERIOD.  By stopping the wagering, a person has no chance to win.  Winning and losing is derived from your wagering and your wagering will be determined by your decision making process.

If you become committed to a particular interpretation of presentments, it will become a habit and a situation that you repeat in similar or related circumstances that will drag you under with beliefs that the shoe has to produce what you desire. You will never win in the game Baccarat if you wager with that commitment.

With that said, if you commit yourself to certain wagering triggers and points, you have made a decision to selectively gather the data of the shoe just produced and believe your interpretation of such that the shoe will go your way when you wager is going to place you in winning considerably less than 50% of your wagers.  Unless you can parlay at the correct times the less than 50% of the wins, you will consistently lose at the game.  On the other hand if you do not commit yourself to any certain wagering triggers and points, you have made a decision to screen for evidence (presentments) to support your wagering attempt(s) with what is actually occurring and not being clouded by the strong emotions of the losses that you have made that you seek to correct. Or if you didn't make any losses yet or they are trivial, you will not cloud your emotions to start winning or continue winning. 

There are both -EV and +EV at the table in all shoes. Although the shoe will produce what it is set to do with no way to know any outcome of it whatsoever. PERIOD.  There is no way to change that. There never has been and there never will be you have to remember that.  To me and it should be to you IMO, the game will be -EV when you lose and +EV when you win.  Forget the casino's hold on the game.  Say you sat down and bought in for $3,000.00.  You wagered $500.00 on bankers and it won.  You parlayed the win and won again with a second bankers.  You parlayed again decided to let the $2,000.00 ride on bankers and at that point you decided the wager will continue on bankers and every winning wager will come down to the rail and be locked up.  You did that to recoup your initial risk capital of $3,000.00 (even thou not lost) and hopefully some profit.  A bankers 7-iar mini streak occurred and you put the $10,000.00 into your pocket to recoup the buy-in and the profit.  You lost the last hand when it cut to players.  That just made the game of Baccarat for +EV for you.  Hence a concrete Money Management Method came into play.  You didn't fall prey to the casino's psychology of installing scoreboards to assist the gamblers and all of that brew-haha, etc.  You wagered for what was happening.  PLEASE NOTE:  THAT DOES NOT MEAN STREAKS ONLY AS SO MANY THINK.  IT MEANS ANYTHING.  And if you lost that first wager of $500.00, that just made the game of Baccarat -EV for you and well, you try again for whatever you feel, because your buy-in is risk capital. 

So in the scenario I gave you above, I would have kept the $6,500.00 profit because I would have gave my initial buy-in back the $500.00 and put that $3,000.00 back in my pocket.  Then I would have played the $3,000.00 (buy-in) risk free on my winnings. Which would be a lot less stress and frustration if I began to lose or even lost that $3,000.00 (my initial out-of-pocket funds). 

I truly believe, found and discovered with factual long time experience, the highest majority of all baccarat players do expect certain outcomes of each shoe. And in my opinion, that is where most of us go wrong.

Think about your decision making process and give yourself a true advantage that will allow you to win easier.