Definitely 8s and 9s produce the vast majority of total decisions, either in form of natural hands (34.2%) and by a lesser degree when the third card rule will take place.

We know very well that naturals have the same probability on each side, but when a natural is dealt on B side and we are betting this chance we'll have to pay a 5% tax on a perfect symmetrical situation.

Of course, the remaining 65.8% hands will show a slight mathematical propensity to get more B hands than P hands, so our efforts should be oriented to possibly select the times where such propensity will have a higher or a lower impact than what mathematics dictates and capable to erase or hopefully invert the house edge.

Naturally mathematicians will say us that everything is possible, so there's no point to select some favourable betting spots, as they simply won't exist.

That's ok.

Anyway, baccarat is both a finite card game and a dependent card game so besides the very first hand, any next decision will be very sligthly whatever they want affected by the cards removed from the deck.

Morevover and even if some scenarios will be mathematically possible, we won't look at many situations where, for example, a given hand will be formed by four 8s, four 9s or by any four same value cards different from a zero value card.

At baccarat we're 100% sure that 64 8s and 9s will be present into a 416 deck.

We know that such 15.38% portion of the deck cannot fail to land at least on one of the four first four spots on any chance for long periods.

Whenever an 8 or a 9 will fall on the first four cards, most likely they'll produce a natural hand as the deck is almost always proportionally rich of zero value cards.

Admitting that everything is possible, it means that soon or later it could be possible to get a shoe where no "simple" natural hands (9s or 9s accompanied by a zero value card) will take place.

No way.

As weird as it could appear, it seems that the study of the ratio of 8s and 9s/total cards left in the deck in relationship of the number of the cards left in the shoe (true count), the previous scarcity of those cards in two posiitions of one chance and the previous card combinations' nature involving one of those key cards, could help us to get an edge or at least to get a valid control on the future results.

In a word, we're playing to get more naturals on one side. Every incidental positive outcome will be very welcome, expecially if for some strange and lucky reasons it will not follow the 50.68/49.32 ratio itlr.

as.