Tony Renzoni introduced the game to the US, when brought the game to the Sands from Cuba, after the revolution.  His book ?Renzoni on Baccarat? includes his gambling philosophy and discusses his experience running a casino in Cuba.

The book is out of print, but I purchased an old copy on Amazon.

Some of what is in the book is included in this thread:

https://betselection.cc/bally's-blog/wise-words-from-tony-renzoni-a-professional-baccarat-player/

I saw this:

BPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBPBP  (28)

and this...

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB  (22)

Real cards. 

Quote from: 8OR9 on March 26, 2019, 11:06:56 PM
From what I heard from some Vegas old timers was that Oscar was a real person named Oscar.

Oscar was first mentioned in a book written in the mid sixties, that I have.  The book described his system and said he provided a hand written log of his sessions that showed he never lost a session.

His starting bet was $1.  It is possible he never lost a session with it.

I did a run for OG on WinCraps using a real casino dice roll file of 55K rolls.  I bet the Don't Pass only, which wins at the same 49.3% rate as the Player in Baccarat.

Starting with a $5 unit on the DP and no odds, the run ended +15K, or 3,000 units after 55K rolls.  Highest bet was 460 units, or $2,300.

Quote from: Albalaha on March 17, 2017, 10:24:53 PM
Oscar Grind is a proven failure way to play. Do not waste your time.

You are right.  Much risk, and no advantage over flat betting.

I tried Oscar?s Grind on these shoes, from bead plate photos posted by Al Relax.  Used a 25 unit loss limit.

"Mixed" is the bet selection I flat bet with. I tried it here using OG.


BPBBBBPBPBPPPPPPBPBPBBBPBBPPBBPPBPBPPPPPPPPPPB

Betting P only, ended +13 units.  Max bet 5 units. Lowest BR was -6 units
Betting B only, ended -22 units.  Max bet 4 units. Lowest BR was - 25 units.
Mixed, ended +14 . Max bet 6 units. Low BR was -4.


PBBPPPBBPPBBPPBPBPPPBPPPBPPBPBPPBPBPBPBBPPPBPBPBPBPPPPPBBBBBPPBPPB

Betting only P, ended +18 units. Max bet was 2 units.  Lowest BR was -1 unit.
Betting only B, ended -25 units.  Max bet 23 units.  Lowest BR was -25 units.
Mixed ended +17. Max bet 11 units.  Lowest BR was -22 units.


PBBBPPBBPBBPBPBPBPBBBBBBPBBBBBBBPPBBPPBPPBBBBBPPPBPPBBBBPBPPBPPPBBPPPPBB

Betting only P, ended -25 units. Max bet 1 unit.  Lowest BR was -25 units.
Betting only B, ended +22 units.  Max bet 4 units.  Lowest BR was -1 unit
Mixed ended -25 units. Max bet 11 units.  Lowest BR was -25 units.


PBBBBBPBBPPBBBPPPBPPBBBPBPBPPPBPBBBBPPPPBBBPPBBPPBPPBPBPPPPPBPPP

Betting only P, ended +16 units.  Max bet 6 units.  Lowest BR was -14 units.
Betting only B, ended -18 units.  Max bet 5 units. Lowest BR was -18 units.
Mixed ended -4 units. Max bet 7 units.  Lowest BR was -11 units.


BPBPPPBBPPPPBPBBBPPPPPBPBBPPBBPPBBBPBBBPPBPBPBPBPBBBPBPBB

Betting only P, ended -4 units.  Max bet 6 units. Lowest BR was -4 units.
Betting only B, ended +9 units. Max bet 5 units.  Lowest BR was -7 units.
Mixed ended +13 units. Max bet 4 units.  lowest BR was -3 units.

Totals after five shoes:

Ended +18 units betting P only, with a 25 unit loss limit.  If no loss limit, would have lost 30 units.  If flat bet P only would be +11.

Ended -30 units betting B only with a 25 unit loss limit. If no loss limit, would have lost 80 units.  If flat bet B, would be -11 units.

Ended+15 units betting Mixed, with a 25 unit loss limit. If no loss limit, would have been +1 unit.  If flat bet Mixed, would be +19 units.

Yeah, I got the picture.

You want me to tell you how I do it.

I analyzed nearly one-hundred different flat bet variations over more than 1,000 shoes, before I settled on the one I currently use. 

After all that work, why would I tell anyone how I play?

I posted my numbers to show flat betting can win units, and discourage people from wasting their bankrolls progression betting.   My previous posts show FTP, and Banker Only can be effective flat bet strategies.

I did add something to the discussion, but you were not listening.

"Stay away from progressions and cancellation systems."

Millions of players have been using them for the past 100 years.  If even one of them worked, the game would no longer exist.

Wannabes are the ones who waste their time and bust their bankrolls over and over on that nonsense.

There is never a mathematical reason to use a progression in Baccarat.

Even if a side is mathematically favored to win the next hand, it is only favored by a small fraction of a percentage. That is no justification for increasing a bet by 100% or more.

I am up net 60 units this year, flat betting.  I had similar results last year as well.

Was up net 74 units until yesterday, when two virtual machines beat me.  Lesson learned.

I buy in for ten units, and use a twenty unit bankroll.

Progressions, and systems such and Lebouchere and Oscars Grind, D alembert, and others, will destroy you. They add nothing to overall wins, and increase risk of ruin and variance exponentially.

That is why casinos love system players.

Unlike Blackjack, there is never any mathematical reason to justify using a progression in Baccarat.

Quote from: soxfan on May 30, 2018, 11:39:42 PM
Bwaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the garnabby is back. So, do tell, what has befallen the gr888888888888888888888888one, hey hey?

Someone elsewhere reported there is a 'strong rumour' Gr8Player committed suicide over his baccarat losses.

Quote from: ADulay on June 12, 2017, 03:07:26 AM
Well, if we can get "permission" from the author of TUBS, I'd like to post up the play from Shoe #2 which I show never goes positive after hand 14.  Obviously we're playing it differently.

AD

Re-checked.  You are correct.  Shoe #2 lost 5 units with TUBS.

Thanks.

Thanks for testing those shoes fellows.  I neglected to say I used a different strategy for those shoes where I won the four units.

The shoes yielded 3+3+3 = 9 units when I tested them using TUBS. 

Quote from: ADulay on June 10, 2017, 08:55:47 PM


   For the near future I will now run VDW/2 and TUBPBWS in tandem when anybody posts a live shoe here on the forum and report back the results.  At least you'll have some kind of benchmark.


  AD

Are VDW/2 and TUBPBWS flat-bet systems?

Appreciate it if you could run any of these live hand shuffled and dealt shoes.  I was only +4 gross for all three combined.

Thanks.

PBPBPPTPTPBPBBPBBPPPBPPPBBPBBBBPPTBPBPPBBBPBPPPPPBBTPPPTPBBPTPP


BTBTPBTBBTPPPPBPBPPPPBPBBPPTPBPBTPPPBPPPTBPPBPBBBBTPPPBPPBB


BBBBPBPBPTPBBBPTTPTPPBTPPPBPBBBPPBBPBBPBPPTBPPBBBPBPTBPPPP

Quote from: Blue_Angel on May 02, 2017, 01:46:33 AM
Don't play those machines because they arrange the sequence of the cards, actually don't play neither pre-shuffled decks which bring them on the tables.
Play only with the good old fashioned way when shuffling was manually in front of you.
Unfortunately under the excuse of making the game faster, they've invented these shady tactics.
At least on Baccarat you could bet either way but on Blackjack is real slaughterhouse!

Great Post.

It can also work to your advantage if you spot it.

These are the opening hands of six of fourteen EZ-Bac machine shuffled shoes I played over two sessions. 

PBBBPPB
PBBBPPB
PBBBBPP
PBBPPPB
PBBPBBP
PBBPPBB

For Blackjack, the CSM only need be programmed to shuffle the shoe so the count remains neutral throughout the shoe, so there will never be any point in the shoe where the player has an edge.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on May 11, 2016, 11:19:31 PM

Here I'm talking about the almost absolute impossibility to lose our entire bankroll and this is a total different thing than stating that we will win easily. Nonetheless knowing that we won't lose in the longest possible runs isn't a vulgar accomplishment.


Remember that our goal is to reach at a given point a zero equilibrium point, meaning we want to get the W/L ratio = zero.

......

So we know that adopting this slow progression we can't lose or, better sayed, that the probability to lose is really very very low, let's say almost impossible. ......

And, wonder of wonders, with proper adjustments we may use it betting only the Player side, hence knowing that we won't pay a bit of commission. ......

If W=L, the ratio is 1.

Izak Matatya on the Zumma tester:

"There are 20,825 Banker decisions versus 20182 Player decisions overall, meaning there are 643 more Banker decisions than Player decisions.   Multiple random sampling over 600 shoes also shows results ranging from 300 to 1200 more Banker decisions than Player decisions."

Using this progression, a bettor would lose their bankroll ten or more times over, betting Player only on the Zumma shoes.

Betting Banker only,would not be a solution.

Using this progression, a bettor would lose their bankroll within the first 36 shoes of the Zumma Tester.