Okay let's talk here. I have witnessed countless baccarat  players; strangers, friends and even myself win shoes and sessions. Many frequently doubling, tripling, quadrupling and more their buy-in amounts. And the answers are vast and varied why the players give it all back in pursuit of larger wins, but it happens far more than retaining their wins.  It seriously does 100%.

Probably because of emotional excitement, attempt for loss recouping, belief that their found triggers that just worked will keep producing and repeating themselves, etc., etc., etc.

However in my early days I fit the above non-ability to hold win amounts greater than 50% of my sessions. And of course when I did, my 'great' MMM would be something along the lines of, hold buy-in for next session and increase it with the total amount just won.  Go bigger-harder-play longer and faster.  LoL, a road to no where but to be ground down of the win and the buy-in.

Well all that leads to nowhere, I promise all of you, with every ounce of energy I could ever put forward here. Believe me or not I have no reason to lie to you. 

So many people believe what they read on forums and watch on YouTube about the quick and easy make money wagering triggers/plans/schedules/etc., somewhere between 99.9 and 100% being massive amounts of fallacy and false statements for either attempt at or financial gain, or posted with plain lack of experience.

There are countless systems, books, reasonings and related ways to make money in the game Baccarat. Why are they fallacies? Because they promote contradictory premises and events by confusing the premises they face in themselves and each will poison the well. Think about it.

Seriously, there are certainly groups that subscribe to the above. Those that believe everyone will win if........................; and those that believe everyone will lose if ......................; and the smaller group that takes more of a neutral stance and extracts info that might help them develop advantages to implement within their play. 

In reality, what players 'think' and what actually 'happens' at the tables are two entirely different things. And I know 100% through experience and reality, losses in countless cases happen because people continue playing until all their chips are given back to the casino and then the chase to recoup is on with additional funds. 

Fallacy:  Believing what is not true and cannot work on a repetitive schedule in the game of baccarat.

Experience:  Knowing what MMM will work for you and how to use it with rock solid adherence.  Understanding that there will most likely be a drawdown of your buy-in amount and planning your wagering with that in mind.  What can and probably will not happen.  Not being oblivious to anything and everything can happen during a shoe of baccarat.

Here it is from Bloomberg, 10/30/24: 

Vegas Gambling Drops for Third Month; Caesars' Revenue Falls

"Gambling revenue on the Las Vegas Strip slumped 1.8% in September, the third straight monthly decline for the biggest US casino market and a sign of potentially tough quarterly comparisons for big resort operators.

The decline to $727.7 million was related to a steep drop in baccarat play, the Nevada Gaming Control Board said Tuesday in an email. Betting on baccarat was down 22%. And the casinos were less lucky, with the amount they kept shrinking by 40%. The last time, outside of the Covid-19 pandemic, that revenue on the Strip fell for three straight months was May 2019."

Well, let's face it, games can be thrown by certain people with financial interest in them.  From athletes to referees to coaches.  Here is an example of one QB in pro sports a while back.  Interesting how the FBI was involved as well.  Also, IMO once a gambler, always a gambler.  Read the following.

From the Wiki on Art Schlichter:

Schlichter was picked fourth in the 1982 NFL draft by the Colts franchise, then based in Baltimore, Maryland. Expected to be the starter, Schlichter lost the job to Mike Pagel, the Colts' fourth-round pick in that year, when he appeared at practice out of shape and in a distracted state of mind. However, he was expected to be the Colts' quarterback of the future.

Schlichter's gambling continued unabated, to the point that he blew his entire $350,000 signing bonus by midseason. Even before the Colts picked him, he already owed bookies several thousand dollars. His gambling spiraled out of control during the 1982 NFL strike, when he lost $20,000 betting on college football. By the end of the strike, he had at least $700,000 in gambling debts. Years later, he said his massive losses stemmed from desperate efforts to make good his previous losses. After losing $20,000 in the first week of the strike, he doubled up the next week and lost again—starting a cycle that would continue for over a year.

In the winter of 1982 and the spring of 1983, Schlichter lost $489,000 betting on basketball games. When bookies threatened to harm or expose Schlichter if he did not pay up (the NFL, like most major professional leagues, forbids its players from engaging in any kind of gambling activity, legal or otherwise), he went to the FBI in March 1983 and gave information that helped get the bookies arrested on federal charges. He also sought help from the NFL, as he feared the bookies would force him to throw games in return for not telling the Colts about his activities. The league suspended him indefinitely, but Commissioner Pete Rozelle reduced the suspension to thirteen months after Schlichter agreed to seek treatment for his gambling addiction. He was the first NFL player to be suspended for gambling since Alex Karras and Paul Hornung were suspended in 1963 for betting on NFL games.

Schlichter was reinstated for the 1984 season but later admitted that he'd gambled during his suspension (though not on football). He was released five games into the 1985 season, in part because the Colts heard rumors that he was gambling again. As it turned out, he had lost a significant amount of money over the spring and summer while playing golf and wrote one of his golfing partners a check for $2,000. The check was to be cashed after the season started. However, when the golfing partner contacted the Colts to see if the check was good, team and league officials feared Schlichter had relapsed. The NFL wanted Schlichter to take a polygraph test, but Colts coach Rod Dowhower had already seen enough and pushed the Colts front office to release him.

It would be Schlichter's last meaningful action in the NFL. He signed as a free agent with the Buffalo Bills in the spring of 1986. However, his tenure in Buffalo effectively ended when the United States Football League (USFL) collapsed. Jim Kelly, the Bills' 1983 first-round pick, had bolted to the USFL instead but signed with the Bills when the league "won" its antitrust lawsuit ($1.00 damages trebled to $3.00); the Bills had intended all along for Kelly to be their quarterback. With Kelly now firmly in the Bills fold, Schlichter's services were no longer necessary. He sat out the 1986 season after no other team expressed interest.

In January 1987, Schlichter was arrested in New York City for his involvement in a multimillion-dollar sports betting operation. He pleaded guilty to illegal gambling in April and was sentenced to probation. That arrest came back to haunt him that summer. The Cincinnati Bengals saw enough promise in Schlichter that they were willing to bring him on as Boomer Esiason's backup. However, Rozelle vetoed the deal, citing the January arrest.  Rozelle let it be known that he would not approve any NFL contract for Schlichter that season, costing him valuable work when the National Football League Players Association went on strike that year. He made another bid for reinstatement in 1988 but was turned down. That same year, he filed for bankruptcy to shield himself from creditors.

In parts of three seasons, Schlichter played only thirteen games, primarily in backup or "mop-up" roles. He made only six starts, losing them all. He threw 202 passes and completed 91 of them. He threw three touchdown passes and eleven interceptions. He amassed a quarterback rating of only 42.6 and is considered one of the biggest draft busts in NFL history. In 2007, Schlichter was listed as the #7 all-time draft bust on the NFL Network's Top 10 Draft Busts episode. In an updated list from 2010, Schlichter was moved to the #4 draft bust of all time,[18] and in a video listing the top ten quarterback draft busts of all time, Schlichter was listed #3, behind JaMarcus Russell (#2) and Ryan Leaf (#1). In 2007, Charles Robinson of Yahoo! Sports named Schlichter the worst #4 pick since the AFL-NFL merger, writing that Colts fans long felt chagrin that Jim McMahon was taken by the Chicago Bears with the very next pick. McMahon would lead the Bears to victory in Super Bowl XX during Schlichter's final NFL season. In 2021, The Athletic named Schlichter the worst #4 pick since the merger, noting that the Colts selected him with McMahon and future Hall of Fame running back Marcus Allen on the board.

Schlichter said years later that he was distracted for much of his NFL career. He went through a messy break-up with his girlfriend before his rookie season with the Colts, and the ensuing depression led him to gamble more. Schlichter believed the accolades he received after his sophomore year at OSU diminished his drive, and the pressure of living up to that praise led him to gamble as an outlet.

After spending 1987 out of football, Schlichter signed a contract with the Ottawa Rough Riders of the Canadian Football League (CFL) in 1988. He was named the starter out of camp and saw his first meaningful game action in three years. However, he suffered broken ribs from a hit midway through the season. The Rough Riders placed him on injured reserve for thirty days then released him.

Schlichter played for the Detroit Drive of the Arena Football League (AFL) in 1990 and 1991, where he was named MVP in the former en route to winning ArenaBowl IV. His AFL success was attributed to his frequent deep passes, which caught opposing defenses off guard in an era when most AFL offenses relied on short passes. Ahead the 1992 season, Schlichter was traded to the expansion Cincinnati Rockers, with league officials believing his popularity in Ohio would generate interest for the franchise. Schlichter helped lead the Rockers to the playoffs in their inaugural season, but announced he was retiring from football that October. Although he said he intended instead to focus on his radio career and curing his gambling addiction, evidence later came to light that Schlichter was forced to retire rather than face being banned from the league for betting on AFL games.

Last night.  Played the majority of the hands shown in this one shoe, about 3/4 of a full shoe as you see here.  Followed what was happening most times and lost the last wager of course and then started on the next presentation.

Caught 9 players hands in that players streak with a few full parlays.  Same with the bankers streak as well.

THE 4 HANDS PRIOR TO THE 3 IAR NATURALS IN THE PLAYERS STREAK:  A bit unique.

P First two = 0.  B First two = 7. Players third card was an 8.  Players 8 over 7.

P First two = 5.  B First two = 6.  Players third card was a 6.  Bankers third card was a 4.  Players 1 over 0.

P First two = 3.  B First two = 2.  Players third card was a 9.  B third card was also a 9.  Players 2 over 1.

P First two = 6.  B First two = 5.  Bankers third card was a 10.  Players 6 over 5.

All four hands players won by 1 point.  Now on to the 3 back to back naturals.


THE 3 IAR NATURALS IN THE PLAYERS STREAK:

First one in group of three:  Players Natural 9 over B Natural 8.

Second one in group of three:  Players Natural 9 over B Natural 8 again.

Third one in group of three:  Players Natural 8 over B 7. 

Once again all 3 Natural players hands won by 1 point.

That made 7 IAR players hands winning by 1 point.  2 cards, 3 card reductions, naturals, etc. 

And of course that fueled the majority of the people playing to wager heavy banker, because they were convinced that was the pattern/trend showing the players would quickly fall off and cut. 

Does the casino care that a few of us were physically banging them and cleaning up?  Of course not!  Why?  Because, they still make money by taking in all those heavy losing bankers bets and paying out the few of us that were winning all the players bets.  Gotta love it!

I contribute three things to my success with this shoe.  One, Low Ties-0-1-2-3.  Two, Equalization.  Three, defining sections and wagering heavy after the start of each.

Well, I might have posted a picture of my little buddy here a few years back.  Actually misplaced him and never really searched for him.  Came across him under a pile of clothes in a drawer the other night.

I bring him in my pocket to the casino and occasionally when I or the entire table are calling for a monkey, pull him out.  Yes, he is solid gold and about the size of a thumbnail. 

Call it superstitious or quackery, it does bring smiles and pats on the back when it works. 

"An arrest warrant has been reissued for a Massachusetts millionaire who failed to appear in court Wednesday to answer charges he wrote two bad checks to Bellagio totalling $1.5 million."

Click on the following link to read the story as detailed out in the Las Vegas Review Journal:

https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/warrant-issued-for-millionaire-accused-of-writing-1-5m-in-bad-checks-to-bellagio-3187092/?utm_campaign=widget&utm_medium=latest&utm_source=crime&utm_term=Warrant%20issued%20for%20millionaire%20accused%20of%20writing%20%241.5M%20in%20bad%20checks%20to%20Bellagio

The following is an article I came across about professional gamblers and others in reference to the Dragon 7 or the Fortune 7 exploitation bet.  The article was written by Max Rubin with references to Dr. Elliot Jacobson, with that misinformation article a while back that was published on the Wizard of Odds forum.

I will put my two cents in here before I copy and paste the article. One side of wagering for a Fortune 7 also known as the Dragon 7, 40:1 wagers is the following.  IMO, experience and knowledge about the wager-for myself and my protocols of wagering for it, is that I like it.  Although I do not wager constantly and repetitiously for it. I have a greater than 50% rate on it and have profited from it quite well in the past several years. Like everything in the game a baccarat, if you wager on anything repetitiously you will eventually be ground down and lose all your buy-ins as well as your bank roll.

The simple fact that is indisputable reality, concrete solid reality is most will only talk about, is that the game of baccarat can be counted down along with several of its side bets. But as Max Rubin says, within this article, is the huge $100,000 plus bank roll a player will need to have for a possible return of somewhere around $25 an hour. Go figure.  Well said! 

In theory, talkers are great but the bottom line is, in theory and not at the tables in reality. In reality the game is presented completely different than the math and the theory it appears to have.

START ARTICLE.  On the Friday before G2E, Dr. Elliot Jacobson published a short paper at wizardofodds, which illustrated how a card counter could theoretically exploit the Dragon 7 wager on EZ Baccarat and win a quarter of a betting unit per hour.

By the time the show was in full swing, the article had convinced a number of table game operators that the Dragon 7 wager was so dangerous that the now-popular EZ Baccarat side bet should be modified or removed. 

This is a perfect example of how a little bit of (published) information can be a dangerous thing. The reality is that offering players EZ Baccarat—with the Dragon 7 wager—is one of the easiest—and smartest—decisions a table game manager can make, for one simple reason:

Professional advantage players simply will not play EZ Baccarat and count down the Dragon 7 wager. Why? It's one of the least profitable advantage plays a competent professional can (or will) make.

To understand why, let's look at the math, as proposed by Dr. Jacobson. In a perfect world, assuming that the casino were to deal a full eight-deck shoe every hour (which they don't), if the player were to wager $100 on the side wager every time there was a slight advantage, the player could harvest a whopping $25 an hour.

And that's if the conditions were perfect. By perfect, I mean that they would be able to sit on the game for hours on end without making a single Player or Banker wager (impossible) and that they would also be assured of getting a full 80 hands an hour (nearly impossible, as well) and have no need to tip (after hitting a $4,000 bonus—highly unlikely).

If that weren't enough to dissuade the pros or wanna-be pros from tackling the game, in order to make that near-impossible $25 an hour, they would also have to be willing to risk a $100,000 bankroll on the high-volatility $100 wager to avoid an unacceptable risk of ruin. And then they'd have to factor in expenses (travel, lodging, etc.).

In fact, it would be much easier for a seasoned pro (or even a novice counter) to grind out an easy $25 an hour earn—with a much smaller bankroll and a limited risk of exposure—by simply playing existing blackjack games (shoes, 6/5 or Superfun, you name it), the same games they've been exploiting for years. Or they could play some other games/side bets that are more easily exploitable, including Caribbean Stud (which can be played at a 2.3 percent advantage on every hand with shared information and miniscule bankrolls), Mississippi Stud (at more than 3 percent) with shared information and Shuffle Master's "Margin of Victory" Dragon Bonus, which can return a 10th of a betting unit each shoe with a very small risk of bankroll ruin. Yet none of these games has been assaulted by the pros; they're just not worth the time or effort. 

There are two kinds of advantage players—those who talk about it and those that make a living at it—and I don't know a single professional advantage player worth his salt who would even think about sitting on a game on which he would make that measly $25 an hour. But I digress.

The proof that savvy table game operators should continue to offer EZ Baccarat and the Dragon 7 wagers is indisputable; long before Dr. Jacobson released his paper, the pros were aware that game could be counted down, yet none of them played it and in virtually every instance in which an EZ Baccarat game has replaced a conventional baccarat game, the EZ game has made the casino more money.

To further clear up any confusion, check out what Jacobson himself said following the show:

"For the record, I don't believe the Dragon is vulnerable in a significant way. The typically low house limit as well as the high variance of the wager will make it unappealing to professional players. I don't think any changes need to be made to the game to protect it."

Jacobson further explained, "The potential earnings are small and the volatility is enormous. It would require an immense amount of time and a huge bankroll to yield a very small long-term profit. Any casino that removes the Dragon 7 wagers from EZ Baccarat based on my article is making a mistake. No competent advantage player will attack it. Like blackjack, the fact that it can be counted in theory is more likely to draw valuable customers. However, unlike blackjack, no undue measures need to be taken to protect it. I strongly believe my analysis will help those casinos that place EZ Baccarat make more income from the game, not less."

I've known about the theoretical possibilities of beating the Dragon 7 wager for almost a year, yet as a consultant for Barona casino, I have urged them to continue offering EZ Baccarat and the Dragon 7 wager—which they have, with great success.

Should table game operators fear professional Dragon hunters? The answer is no. Why? Because there aren't any.

The following is an article written by Roger Gros, IMO a fantastic and super intelligent casino expert. 

Ethical actions versus unethical actions by casino executives exists, in the past as well as today.  The difference is, in the past it was blatant and today it is, "let's see how we can manipulate and still be within the rules and regulations we have to abide by". 

Anyway, what Roger Gros is referring to in Atlantic City, is where I got my start in gaming and introduction to high limit baccarat.  I have written about it before.  OMG, the baccarat rooms and pits were ungodly busy with stacks of money being thrown up on the tables and exchanged for chips.  Although Roger highlights the movie, 'Owning Mahowny' (which by the way is worth watching) the majority of the money back then brought in by players, was from their businesses in the New York City, Northern New Jersey and Philadelphia markets.  Legal money as well as illegal was brought in and accepted, no background checks of course and only federal CTR's when the $10k limit within 24 hours was hit.  No SAR's or anything of the type.  $10k - $50k was really not out of the norm by any means whatsoever. 

Side Note.  The casino hosts were the front line defense as well as the offense for their employers, the casinos.  The hosts would alert their players when they approached certain levels of play and how to avoid being CTR'd, etc.  As well, a large amount of players would play under fictitious names and their hosts would check them in to the hotel, obtain their room keys, all without the player ever being ID'd. 


Start Article.  When I was a dealer in Atlantic City in the late 1970s and early '80s, I saw a lot of unethical behavior by casino executives. After spending some time as a blackjack dealer (a long time!), I became a baccarat dealer and was promoted to deal in the busiest pit in the city at the time. In those days, Atlantic City was a boomtown. Millions of dollars crossed the tables in that pit every day, and some of it was what we'll call ill-gotten gains.

Now, the baccarat pit was dark, and had many columns creating different segments. Back in its recesses stood a phalanx of blackjack tables that were usually busy, but in the daytime, it was quiet. It was during those times certain characters, escorted by top-level casino executives, would show up with small suitcases. They would be filled with money and the process of a "buy in" would begin. I remember, one day I counted out $500,000, and passed the chips off to the player, who played one hand (for $500) and cashed in.

Now, to be clear, while I think this was clearly unethical, at the time, it was not illegal. It was the days before money laundering laws were put into place, or the "$10,000 rule" as we called it then, which required casinos to record and obtain identification of players who engaged in transactions in excess of that figure.

In another event, I was brought in specifically to deal to a "rich" Canadian gambler. He didn't look rich, wearing a flannel shirt and jeans. But he was the fastest baccarat player I ever saw, and there were only a few dealers who could keep up with him, playing $10,000 to $50,000 a hand. It turns out, he was a bank clerk from Toronto who was embezzling money from his bank and gambling at the casino. The incident was later made famous by a movie, Owning Mahowny, which I haven't seen yet. I wonder who played my part. But because the casino failed to investigate the source of his funds, a severe penalty was charged, with the casino forced to close for two days.

Neither of these events was technically illegal, but they were certainly unethical and no doubt, 30 years later, are today illegal.

These days, there are enough rules and regulations to control these kinds of things, but there are still many ethical issues that need to be addressed.

We have many examples, some of which are emanating from Macau these days. Questions about the VIP operators, the effectiveness of the Macau regulations and the commitment to anti-money laundering programs abound. Are background checks even conducted there? In many ways, Macau regulations are like Nevada regulations in the 1950s and '60s. While many jurisdictions understand and accept that Macau is going through these regulatory growing pains, others won't wait.

In many areas of the world, gaming regulations are being scaled back because of the economy. While the casino industry applauds this move for the most part, there needs to be a combined effort between the industry and government to ensure that while unnecessary regulations are eliminated, integrity does not suffer.

And of course it's in the casino industry's best interests to focus on integrity. If the games aren't secure and the operators aren't squeaky clean, the industry is at risk.

And as we move into the legalization of online gaming, ethics become that much more important. There is so much potential for abuse (which we've seen clearly by the illegal operators), if major licensed casino companies become involved, it's important that the operations and regulations are transparent and fair.

Now, I don't mean to suggest there's an absence of ethics in the gaming industry today. There's not. In fact, most of the gaming executives I know are completely ethical, almost to a fault. But we're entering a new phase in the industry, by inviting in online partners and operating in a financially depressed market. The pressures to do something that may be considered unethical are growing, and hard to resist sometimes if the payoff seems acceptable.

In my view, however, there is no payoff to conducting yourself unethically. You wouldn't sell your soul, and in a sense, that's what you're doing when you lack ethics. Let's keep gaming on the straight and narrow so we never have any questions about whether we're doing our best for our customers, our employees and the shareholders in the enterprise.

Will table-game discounting be the downfall of the casino industry?

The following is a great article I ran across from 2011 written by gaming expert, Roger Gros.  It highlights what Don Johnson did mostly with baccarat and his multi million dollar wins, etc. 

START ARTICLE:  Everybody loves a winner, and Don Johnson seems to be a favorite of all casino gamblers. Although he built a very successful horse-race handicapping business and managed Philadelphia Park racetrack for a time, Johnson's fame has risen from his proficiency in playing blackjack at Atlantic City casinos.

Over the past year, Johnson has won $4 million from Caesars Atlantic City, more than $5 million from the Borgata. But his biggest "score" to date—and the one that attracted most of the media attention—was a $5.8 million win at Atlantic City's Tropicana in April. While Johnson admits to some losing sessions, his success, he says, is due to one key concession from the casinos where he plays: a discount on his losses.

Johnson's consistent wins made some suspect that he may have been cheating or manipulating the cards, but others knew better. He was merely taking advantage of a situation that the casinos themselves agreed to. Johnson understands numbers and proposed set game rules, betting spreads and limits, and discounts on losses, which he says was crucial.

Discounting History

Table game discounts are hardly a new development in the gaming industry. They've been going on for at least 30 years. Jim Kilby, a casino consultant, former executive and author of Casino Operations Management, the "Bible" of any gaming operation, is critical of how casinos offer these discounts and claims to have been there at the beginning of the trend.

"I'm sorry to say I may have been partially responsible for this when I worked at the Trop (Las Vegas) in the early '80s," he says.

According to Kilby, the competition for high rollers was reaching a peak at that time.

"We had a group of high-rolling gamblers who would come in and play for 50 or 60 hours each trip," he explains. "They'd lose around $1 million and take months to pay it off. So our casino and others made a deal with them. If they paid off their markers before they left, they'd give them a 5 percent or 10 percent discount."

While it seemed like a rational offer at the time, Kilby said discounting began to spread like wildfire.

"It began to spread as executives moved around," he says. "If a baccarat pit manager wanted to move down the street, that casino would want him to bring players with him, so they would agree to deepen the discounts. It became a vicious circle. It's insidious."

The problem, says Kilby, is that the discounting isn't as simple as it appears.

"It looks like the discount only costs you 10 percent," he says, "but it's usually more costly. We discovered that for the average discount player, we just broke even. And that was without the expenses of actually operating the marketing department."

Kilby shudders when he hears an executive talk about how his casino "beat" a particular player, explaining that there is no such thing.

"I hate that term 'beat' because you do not keep what losing players lose; you only keep the difference between what losing players lose and what winning players win," he explains. "So they ask me, 'If a player loses $500,000 and we refund $100,000, haven't we just won $400,000?' No, because you're going to have another player or another group of players that comes in and wins, and you won't get that $100,000 you discounted to the first player back from them."

Making the Choice

Casinos have to evaluate their risk when competing for the big players. Max Rubin, a former casino executive and author of Comp City: A Guide to Free Casino Vacations, believes discounting has a place in the industry, but executives have to evaluate it very carefully.

"Today's casino operators are very savvy," he says. "They understand the business, particularly the big companies like MGM, Caesars and the Sands. They know what they're doing and who they can offer those discounts to and who they can't. There is a professional here and there who will slip through the cracks, but by and large it makes the casino money. And those companies get enough business so they can overcome the deep discounts and the wins that some players make. But you don't see a Gaughan or any mid-tier operators in Vegas getting into that game because they understand that they don't understand it. That's really a crucial point to grasp."

Kilby believes the small margins make it a loser for every casino but the largest corporations.

"The good thing about premium play is that there is a high profit margin," he says. "The bad thing about premium play is the extreme volatility. When we invented the discount, we kept the bad—the volatility—but we've done away with the good—the profits."

Rubin says the big companies can still make profits even with a narrow margin.

"Unquestionably it is a small-margin business, always has been," he says. "But it's a small margin on a huge amount of money, so they can still make a lot of money."

But the smaller casinos had better beware, he says.

"If you're a single, stand-alone property and you don't have an appetite for volatility, it might not be the way to go," he says. "The Tropicana (Atlantic City), probably given the nature of where they stood with the markets and ownership, probably should not embrace these players as much as a Wynn Resorts would or one of the other big companies."

The bad economy probably influences the decision these days, says Rubin.

"Casinos get so desperate to get a big win given the erosion of profits, they are gambling," he explains. "And that's the trap that some of these smaller and stand-alone casinos get caught in. This often offsets all of the other business you take in. For example, it's highly probable that Don Johnson was betting more on one hand than all the other players in the casino were betting at the same time. It's impossible to offset. And they just ran unlucky. Had they had a war chest like an MGM would have, they could have withstood those kinds of hits. But I don't think its good business for a small casino to take the chance they'll take a hit like that."

All casinos have owners, whether they are individuals, boards of directors or Indian tribes. Rubin says the decision to pursue this action should take place at that level.

"From an operator's standpoint, there are other implications to whether you should take the bet simply because you have the edge," he says. "Some of those implications are what does it do to your quarterly earnings, what does it do to the longevity of your management team or CEO. In Indian Country, you have to answer to a tribe that may not want to embrace this volatility. An MGM, on the other hand, isn't going to worry about a player that beats them for $5 million or more. They know they'll get it back."

And there are other reasons that would preclude taking the action that have nothing to do with volatility.

"It takes all the energy out of your company," says Rubin. "If you start focusing on this player or this small group of players, everything else becomes secondary. You lose focus on the larger pool of players who are really providing the foundation for your organization. Most casinos are much better served not trying to get this business, not trying to play the game. They'd be much better served trying to get the $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 credit-line players in action rather than pursue this often unrealistic group, where the margins are much slimmer. Those smaller players won't affect your bottom line as much, and won't threaten your career longevity either."

Aaron Gomes, the vice president of casino operations at Resorts Atlantic City, turned down Johnson when he proposed a similar deal to the one accepted by the Tropicana.

"It wasn't a smart offer, and common sense told us that it wouldn't work for us," he says.

Tony Rodio, the recently appointed president of the Tropicana in Atlantic City, says his casino's goal is simply to increase business.

"Our strategy is to offer higher limits," he told Global Gaming Business. "And the more you allow them to bet, the more they can win. When you allow a player to bet $100,000 a spot on blackjack, they can win quickly. For the first eight or nine months of the program, the Tropicana played lucky. Just my luck, when I arrive it swings back the other way."

Setting Limits

A report in Blackjack Insider said that Johnson's deal was hard to beat. In addition to his 20 percent discount, he set the rules of the game—a hand-shuffled six-deck show, standing on soft 17, splitting up to four times were just some of the rules—and the betting limits. He reportedly had the option to bet $15,000 on three spots, $25,000 on two or $100,000 on one spot.

Kilby says that was just playing into his hands.

"The casino was just encouraging more volatility," he says. "This player knew that he'd much rather bet $100,000 on one hand than smaller amounts on two or three hands."

It's the deal that makes discounting so bad, says Kilby, not the rules of the game.

"If a player can make a discounting deal with a casino and really understand how it works, he can lower the house edge on any game," he says. "There's one dice player in Las Vegas who shops deals that turn the game in his favor. The last one I looked at, he had a positive expectation of about $20,000 an hour."

Johnson's deal required him to buy in for $1 million and he'd get the 20 percent discount after he lost $500,000. But Johnson said he'd never lose the million.

"If you got to minus-five hands, you would stop and take your 20 percent discount," he told Blackjack Insider. "You'd only owe them $400,000."

It's that discount that caused Resorts to refuse his play on his terms.

"When you think about discounts, a 20 percent discount is really a 40 percent discount," says Gomes. "We'll assume that there is no edge, since the numbers are so small, so the player will win half the time and lose half the time. You'd be crazy to give them a 20 percent discount because you don't get a discount when you lose! So there's their 40 percent discount. And when you add show-up money, match play, airfare, comps, they player has the edge. It's nuts!"

Kilby says craps is even worse.

"Forget about discounts on dice," he says. "The fluctuations are too great."

Rodio found that out the hard way when a second player beat the Tropicana for $5 million at the craps table.

"We allowed a player to bet $10,000 on the line at craps," he says. "It doesn't sound like a lot, but when you throw in five-times odds; he's buying all the numbers and prop bets; he's got $180,000 on the table for every roll. If he holds the dice for 15 minutes he can win hundreds of thousands of dollars. That said, over time, it's going to swing back."

Rubin agrees about the math.

"The math will catch up," he says. "It always catches up. But if the math is in the player's favor, then you have to expect that it will catch up big time."

If you're going to offer a discounting program, you have to set reasonable parameters. Gomes says Resorts has done just that.

"We do have a discount policy, but it's a quarterly program with at least three trips during that period," he explains.

The long time period and a requirement for time played will avoid the problems encountered by creating short "trips," says Gomes.

"If you have a customer who comes in one day and loses $200,000 with a 20 percent discount, and then comes in the next day and wins $200,000, he's even gaming-wise, but he's up 40 grand! How does that makes sense?" he asks.

Kilby says the numbers will tell the story.

"Casinos have requirements on how long a customer has to play, but then have a provision for a quick loss, which is silly," he says. "Mr. Johnson in Atlantic City would be done after losing five hands, so how does that work? You have to develop an objective system.

"It cannot be based about how much a player loses. It has to be based on how many hands he plays and the volatility of his betting. And then of course you have your administrative costs."

Rubin says that it takes more than just a computer program to determine if a casino should accept action from a particular player.

"If you know your players, you'll know that some will just play as long as possible until they've lost their money," he explains. "That's just who they are. You have to know your players, and that's why you rely on your director of player development when you decide whether or not to take this action. Blackjack isn't simply about the math; it's about the people and their behavior. If you have a brand new player coming in requesting these things, the alarms should go off. But if you have a player who has a record of playing in different places with a long track record of being a profitable guest, the math won't help. You do it. That's a good decision."

The following link will bring you directly to The Office Of Public Affairs, United States Department of Justice.

It is about The Tran Organization and its gambling cheats at casinos across the United States. In the plea agreement, Van Thu Tran also admitted that she and her co-conspirators unlawfully obtained up to $7 million during card cheats.


https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/co-founder-casino-cheating-criminal-enterprise-sentenced-36-months-prison-targeting-casinos

And another member of the organization's Press Release:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/twentieth-member-casino-cheating-criminal-enterprise-pleads-guilty-racketeering-conspiracy

The following link will bring you directly to the United States Attorney's Office, District of Guam.

It is about a press release concerning the operation of an illegal gambling business, by operating baccarat and poker games at the former MGM Spa.


https://www.justice.gov/usao-gu/pr/jimmy-hsieh-william-perez-and-pauline-perez-sentenced-today

The following link will bring you directly to the United States Attorney's Office, District of Hawaii.

It is a press release about the operation of illegal gaming machines, an illegal baccarat gaming room and police corruption to protect the illegal operations.


https://www.justice.gov/usao-hi/pr/oahu-men-charged-operating-gambling-business

The follow link will bring you directly to a press release of the United States Attorney's Office, Central District of California.

It is in reference to The Bicycle Casino, which is a huge casino property in the Los Angeles area offering baccarat. 

The Bicycle Casini admitted that a "high roller" Chinese national gambled at the casino approximately 100 times over an eight-month period in 2016, playing high-limit baccarat in a VIP room with huge sums of cash that on some occasions he transported to and from the casino in duffle bags.


https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/bicycle-casino-agrees-pay-500000-settlement-and-submit-increased-review-anti-money

The following link will bring you directly to the United States Attorneys Office, District of Maryland. 

It is a press release concerning a, Former Casino Dealer Sentenced to Federal Prison for Participating in a Cheating Scheme in baccarat. 


https://www.justice.gov/usao-md/pr/former-casino-dealer-sentenced-federal-prison-participating-cheating-scheme

Very interesting article about a tiny tribe is getting pushback for betting big on a $600M casino in California's wine country.

The Koi Nation's chances of owning a Las Vegas-style casino seemed impossible until a federal court ruling in 2019 cleared the way for the tiny tribe to find a financial partner to buy land and place it into a trust to make it eligible for a casino.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/tiny-tribe-getting-pushback-betting-040604600.html

Ron Paolucci, whose Loooch Racing Stable won multiple leading owner titles in Ohio and ranked second nationally by wins in 2017 and 2018, was sentenced on Sept. 16 to 52 months in prison and ordered to pay more than $38.9 million in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service.


https://paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/paolucci-who-gambled-and-lost-with-irs-gets-52-month-jail-sentence-ordered-to-repay-38-9-million

Totally unbelievable!!

But on the other hand, why not??

https://nypost.com/2024/09/08/us-news/atlantic-city-dismantles-homeless-encampment-apartments-beneath-boardwalk-where-beer-was-on-tap-and-pizzas-were-delivered/

"Wynn Las Vegas, a subsidiary of Wynn Resorts, on Friday signed a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of California and the U.S. Department of Justice to end an investigation. Wynn agreed to forfeit $130.1 million in funds involved in the transactions in exchange for not being prosecuted, the company said."


https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/wynn-resorts-to-forfeit-130m-in-deal-with-feds-over-illegal-transactions-3164522/

"I would gamble until I exhausted our family's savings, my law firm's profits; all the while avoiding reality and any type of feeling (which is the only way I can explain not fearing the consequences of my irrational and immoral behavior)," the letter says. "And then, once I received more money, I would gamble and lose those monies."



https://www.theledger.com/story/news/local/2024/09/04/lawsuit-owner-of-polk-law-firm-stole-1-8m-lost-it-all-gambling/75053949007/

A San Diego couple thought they'd invested in gold. Instead, they and hundreds of others say they were scammed.

Oxford Gold told clients their assets would be deposited with Equity Trust Co., an Ohio firm specializing in so-called self-directed investment accounts focused on precious metals, cryptocurrency and other alternative assets.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/2024/08/19/a-san-diego-couple-thought-theyd-invested-in-gold-instead-they-and-hundreds-of-others-say-they-were-scammed/

Interesting that the state Gaming Authority mandates background checks for wins above a certain amount.


https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/rapper-nelly-arrested-in-maryland-heights-wednesday-morning/

OUTSIDE OF THE CASINO ENTERTAINMENT.
       

IMO these are spot on and great scenes!

Two from Die Hard:

BAG IT, BIG TIME!  Gotta love it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ncqyBPVxwfg&pp=ygUfQW1QbSBnYXMgc3RhdGlvbiBzY2VuZSBkaWUgaGFyZA%3D%3D

WELCOME TO THE PARTY PAL!  Come the frick on, can't get much better than this, no?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I6wRZCV7naE&pp=ygUhRGllIGhhcmQgdGhyb3dpbmcgb3V0IHRoZSB3aW5kb3cg

INSPECTOR CALLAHAN,  OH YEAH!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KqgGihIfq5U&pp=ygUac2lkZXdhbGsgc2NlbmUgZGlydHkgaGFycnk%3D

HEAT.  2 of the BEST!  Deniro and Pacino.  What a scene!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LUy2Wx_r0_w&t=60s&pp=ygUVaGVhdCByZXN0YXVyYW50IHNjZW5l

Black Mass. Cop Pull Over scene. 

https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=black+mass+cop+pull+over+scene+

NYPD BLUE.  GOTTA LOVE SIPOWICZ!  He was a real person.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4qdT3qs-jFo&pp=ygUaTnlwZCBibHVlIHRoaXMgaXMgYSB3b3JraW4%3D

SICARIO.  THE OPENING SCENE.  I SAW THAT AND WAS HOOKED.  PERIOD.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTwbMMO_VI&t=299s&pp=ygUVb3BlbmluZyBzY2VuZSBzaWNhcmlv

BEVERLY HILLS COP.  Come on man, this was acting, look at their eyes, their faces.  Many great scenes from the original movie, but gotta love this one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lKE3zh_Hxqw&pp=ygUeQmV2ZXJseSBoaWxscyBjb3AgZm91bCBtb3V0aGVk

SCARFACE.  Man, once again, so many great scenes, but gotta love this one!  You want a job Ernie?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XjLd8V_B9eg&pp=ygUXU2NhcmZhY2UgeW91IHdhbnQgYSBqb2I%3D

STEVEN SEAGAL.  Love this one!  Anybody Seen Richie?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Zu1YIukylw&pp=ygUiU3RldmVuIFNlYWdhbCBhbnliaWR5IHNlZW4gcml0Y2hpZQ%3D%3D

THE BLUES BROTHERS.  SHI*T, Rollers.  No.  Yes.  SHI*T.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Abmwmg_tx0A&pp=ygUYYmx1ZSBicm90aGVycyBtYWxsIGNoYXNl

A BRONX TALE.  Gotta include this one, even though it not a cop scene.  "Now youse can't leave". 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4UBXTC24T8g&t=23s&pp=ygUhQnJvbnggdGFsZS4gTm93IHlvdXJzZSBjYW50IGxlYXZl

LETHAL WEAPON.  "I'm too old for this stuff".  Man, so many great scenes in that movie, but this one has a few within a couple of minutes. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vcxEgyiu16Q&pp=ygUiTGV0aGFsIHdlYXBvbm1lZXQgeW91ciBuZXcgcGFydG5lcg%3D%3D

AMERICAN MADE. THE LIFE OF BARRY SEAL.  "I'm gonna walk out of here and there isn't nothing anyone of you can do".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h6XCQUuZQU4

AND MY FINAL ONE. 

MIAMI VICE.  THE FINAL SCENE OF THE FINAL SHOW.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YH0BJ8baUkA&pp=ygUWbWlhbWkgdmljZSBmaW5hbCBzY2VuZQ%3D%3D

Well, I don't know what to say.  Every once in awhile I email Gizmotron (Mark) and ask if he is okay.  Awhile back I got a short answer of yes, but not writing any longer on forums. 

I have not heard from him in quite awhile so this morning I emailed him and received this back:

"Address not found
Your message wasn't delivered to g1234567@...........com because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail."

I called his cell phone number and it says, "I'm sorry the person you called has a voice mail box not set up yet", with no ring tones.  My experience is those are phone numbers either out of order or not assigned yet by the cellular company that controls them. 

Anyways, we had our share of drama and fights for well over a decade plus between the two of us.  Mark is a great guy 24/7!  Hope all is well!

There's not a single book, not a single research paper, not a detailed audited video of a series, etc., etc.,  that will show guaranteed and systematic wins.  PERIOD.  There is none, never have been—never will be, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada!

There are numerous clowns and goons that say, post and attempt to sell systems pretending that they repeatedly prevail winning within the game. And there are just as many that will post garbage and attempt to sidetrack any reasonable factual and truthful people posting. Sad but true. 

What I said is all easily searchable but the Internet is the Internet and countless will be overtaken by the virtual lies and made up fairytales that people tell and the ones on YouTube are pretty darn attractive I will admit.

There most certainly is opportunity on the baccarat table. Not one doubt, but you must have some kind of knowledge of the game, common sense and have the stomach to risk money. But you must understand there is winning and losing and have a concrete money management method that will work for you and give you an advantage.

And let's all remember those countless people posting, "wait for this or that" and then "wager so-and-so on such and such". LOL, guaranteed losing propositions, but once again, the Internet is the Internet.

What about all those with their triggers, they are claiming nearly 100% or even 80-90%.  And all with their justification so systematically laid out. Looks like research, looks like experienced and advantaged secretive play, and so many other things to the person stumbling upon it. My response?  Fantasy and fallacy. 

And those that say to watch and watch and wager only a wager or two or three with some kind of small stop loss amount.  My response?  Well here it is. Uneventful failure is not a success. Because you do not lose you cannot justify not winning with success, it is a catastrophic failure of play. 

Do you want to do something to give yourself some type of advantage? You have to focus on winning. Realizing your buy-in is risk and understand how to turn your risk into profit.

Be Careful, Be Smart, Be Advantaged!

I caught a rare glimpse of Waldo at a gas station near the casino he works at early this morning.  Told me he just got off pulling 2 shifts straight. 

Here is a pic of his truck!  Gotta Love It!