Instead of thinking about outcomes we should focus about cards distribution.
Do not forget that a large portion of hands will be resolved by the first four cards dealt alternatively.
For example, if we could bet about getting at least a natural point on either side this game wouldn't exist as a large part of hands will be determined right after the first cards are dealt.
We do not know which side will be kissed by such natural but we know that more than 1/3 of the time this event will happen.
Notice that when a natural will land, the game is a perfect coin flip proposition, meaning that there's no point to bet Banker. That is we're betting a zero negative edge game either on Player bets and on Banker bets at EZ tables.

Of course naturals are more likely when formed by a ten-8 or ten-9 combination than by the other card possibilities and 8s and 9s favor Banker only when dealt as fifth card (asym hands).
Therefore when we think that the next four cards will contain at least one of the possible 64 8s/9s, we know that it's more likely to get a natural.

Now, each of the all possible 64 cards rank will be distributed asymmetrically and the more such asymmetricity will be present better is the probability to assess their impact over the next outcomes.
And aces, 2s or 3s, for example, will involve a larger less impact than other key cards because they are going to produce more drawing hands than standing hands.
No way itlr a drawing hand will be favorite to win, especially at Player side.
But as players we are forced to work into an infinite succession of finite distributions.

After long tests made on live shoes compared to pc generated shoes, we've found that the more the key ranks are asymmetrically distributed, better are the chances to guess which side will be favorite to win on very few spots.

It's like as a given pattern should be more due than expected and obviously such thing cannot happen per every shoe dealt.

Thus the main problem is concentrated to spot the shoes which are really playable and neglect those which aren't.
And the fortune of casinos is that 99.99% of bac players want to guess every shoe dealt no fkng matter what.

as.

In few days I'll try to explain how a possible unrandomness could be the key to beat this game.

If you think that baccarat could be beaten you are reading the right pages.

as.

Interesting topic.

Somewhere I've read that classifying the last 5 numbers repeating or not could be a wise way to detect how things are working on that wheel.
I agree.

At a single zero wheel, the probability to hit the last 5 numbers (or any 5 numbers) is 0.135, obviously this value tend to be true only itlr.
For practical purposes we could consider separately a full cycle of 37 spins then  assessing such probability each time. 

Differently to man actioned wheels, softwares working at automated wheels tend to produce less randomized outcomes as there's less bouncing, less number of ball and rotor velocities and a constant point of ball's launch.

Of course there is some bet selection to be made along with the use of a strong progression helped by the fact that the payment will be huge (32:1).

There are several IB machines where around any cycle the probability to hit one of those 5 last numbers is 100%.

as.

Randomness definition is a quite complicated issue, many think that flipping a fair coin is a valid example of randomness but it isn't.

The real problem gamblers have to face is to ascertain whether the outcomes are simple products of a random unbeatable generation or if they are affected in some way by unrandom features.
   
Of course and that's where  the problem stands, itlr different unrandom generations tend to converge forming random results. So we can easily think that a long succession of different baccarat results will fall no distant from the expected values.
And this conclusion is totally correct.

Moreover, it's a total waste of time to think to beat a so called perfect random software production (baccarat buster, etc) or, even worse, to test a given method into a succession of live outcomes coming out from different sources.

For obvious reasons, a possible unrandomness should be always assessed in a situation where a large number of constant parameters is fulfilled. 
The final decisive role is played by key cards distribution and nothing else.
And since any card counting tool isn't going to give us any help, we must put in action several r.w. that must reflect such distribution, even though being approximated.

In conclusion, baccarat is beatable if we can estimate at a decent value that the shoe we're playing is affected by some unrandomness, otherwise we are losing money.

as.

Only people featuring two neurons but no neurotrasmitter could think to beat a EV- random game (Junketamine King is the first on the list).
Especially if such people keep thinking that every single baccarat decision will be a random 50/50 proposition.

That's why one of the best tools we could use is to put in action several random walks working by different parameters, this in order to really ascertain if the outcomes' distribution is really random or not.

It's mathematicallly certain that only unrandom distributions working into a EV- game can be beaten itlr.

And it's funny to see that some (rare) brilliant players have realized that empirically just by long term observations.

as.

Quote from: Albalaha on July 31, 2019, 09:50:38 AM
@Asymbacguy,
              If you can play with any logic that can be told and made to understand to others too, it can be tested, programmed and played mechanically too. If you play with any gifted capacity of precognition that you are unable to transfer to others, it can neither be transferred nor anybody else can imitate ever. So, let us all know in which way, you "think" it is beatable?

The logic is pretty simple but quite complicated to be put in practice.
And unfortunately I can't read randomness, the only one capable to do that is gizmotron.

No one mechanical system can work into an EV- game unless is capable to pass all the "unfortunate" situations that could come along after thousands and thousands of trials.
Nonetheless we know for sure that a large part of different random walks will be winners at the end of the shoe.
We do not know how much they will be winners but they surely will.

On the other end and for obvious reasons, on average a larger random walks part is going to lose no matter what.

Have to run. later.

as.

I know that eminent experts as M. Shakleford, E. Jacobsen, J. May are laughing at me when I'm presenting those ideas,  but I can assure you by 1 trillion certainty that this fkng game can be beat on B/P hands with an astounding positive edge.

Simply put, they do not know what to look for. 

as.

One of the best tool to confirm or deny that this game is really beatable is to put on one side a real live bettor and on the other one a mechanical player who places the bets in a perfect randomly fashion (for example wagering B if the previous first card hand was red or P if it was black).
Of course the first player will get a slight less disadvantage if he happen to bet only Banker side but we know this isn't the strategy to win itlr. So we assume that even the first player will proportionally place his bets 50/50.   

Mathematicians, experts, etc, will say there will be no difference in the final outcomes of both players. That means that both players build two different random walks getting the same long term disadvantage.

Therefore the only way to suppose a possible edge of player #1 is to study the hands distribution, trying to grasp hints of the previous outcomes in order to guess future hands by a better than 50/50 ratio.
In a word, player #1 tries to partially transform a random game into a unrandom game, a luxury denied to player #2 who must "passively" place his bets.

Now say that besides his own plan, the first player can take into account what happens to player #2.
Considering each shoe, most of the times player #2 outcomes will flow with relatively low pattern deviations, in few situations player #2 will find himself into a strong positive or negative territory.



as.

One thing for sure.

The probability to win itlr playing a random EV- game (even if taking into account that bac is a finite and card dependent propositon) is zero.

There's no way to "read randomness", maybe to grasp some hints about the partial unrandomness of the game.
 
Only unrandomness, when properly assessed, could enlarge the probablity of success on certain spots.
And the best way to estimate such possible unrandomness is to study several different random walks applied to the main outcomes.

as.

You are absolutely correct.

The main problem is that we can't expect to get consistent profits from a negative edge game, let alone huge profits.
What we can do is trying to exploit the game's flaws and, fortunately, there are many of them.

Math needs some time to fully take its power, we should act in the same way by opposite reasons.

as. 

The partial unrandomness of the shoe is the main reason why we could beat this game itlr.

Such conclusion may be deduced empirically or by strict scientific methods, of course most players use the first approach as it takes a quite long work to demonstrate scientifically that any single LIVE shoe isn't true randomly generated.

Since the definition of real randomness is a complex and very debated subject and 312 or 416 cards working into an asymmetrical physical  finite model cannot be properly shuffled by any means, we know for sure that most of our bets are placed into a non perfect random world.

A pretty exhaustive proof comes from putting in motion dozens of "random walks" applied to the same outcomes springing from the same shoe and then repeating the process for the next shoes.

Therefore what we tend to classify as a "normal deviation" happening into a single shoe is instead a unrandom product working at various degrees.

It's quite surprisingly that some successful players I know can ascertain that by just watching at what is happening, still the common denominator (without exception) is that they play very few hands.

People who make a living at games want to wager upon the probability that something isn't going to happen and not that distant probabilities come in their favor.

We see that the goal to make a tiny profit per a given series of shoes isn't a so appealing task to most bac players.
That's why they are entitled to lose forever and fortunately this is the reason why the game is still alive.

as. 

The theory according to which we should beat this wondeful silly game is quite simple:
even though the negative math edge remains constant, the probability of success on certain spots will be higher than expected.
This supposedly raised probability is caused by many factors:

- bad shuffles
- actual asym/sym hands ratio
- asym hands outcomes
- nature of winning points
- strong points winning or losing
- key cards producing or not a winning hand
- actual finite distribution related to the expected long term distribution
- other

In some way this theory aims to take advantage of the past in order to partially estimate the future.
Easy to see that generally speaking the more was the past assessed, better will be the chances to guess the future.

After all we need to guess right just very few spots.

as.

Quote from: Babu on July 10, 2019, 06:03:26 AM
Indeed baccarat can be beat in the long run.  This is what I have been waiting to hear.  Many spend a life time trying to find strategies to beat every shoe and guess every single hand.  Once can actually win without any strategy as long as they have a good approach.

One can randomly guess and use random size bets.   Leave when one is up and recover when down.  It takes great discipline.  Key is a huge bankroll and reasonable win expectation.

Actually it's quite likely the few who make a living at this game adopt this strategy as any serious player knows that it's literally impossible to beat every single shoe or hand. I mean that even getting a verified math advantage of 2% one is going to endure inevitable harsh losing sessions.

Anyway the conclusive word would come whenever we find a long term edge by flat betting and obviously this conclusion must be strictly intended as a randomness defect.
There are no other ways to get an edge if we are playing a perfect "random" math negative game.

I got the confidence that around 80% of total live shoes are not properly shuffled or that they present intrinsic card distribution flaws, it's up to us to find how and when those features could help us.

Good post Babu.

as.

Yep.
I wish to add that after only one hand played (no matter the result) our brain works in a totally different way than if we would have just observed that hand.
And the process goes on and on logarithmically.

as.

Indeed Kashiwagi was a brilliant player but he didn't fit to the "pros" category.

Undoubtedly around the globe there are few people who make a living by playing baccarat and they like to go unnoticed for obviuos reasons.
They are not there for gambling but to win. And not to win astronomical sums but to win. Consistently.
It's funny (euphemism) that such people wager very few spots or at least using a large spread on certain hands giving to the house the illusion of action.
Many do not care a bit about comps, they pretend not to know what a player's card is.
They do not want their play to be registered.

Despite of what many could think, casinos do not like baccarat winners and generally speaking they adopt an old statement telling that any player being ahead after playing 80 hours isn't welcome as in some way he/she surpassed the "math" test.
Well, baccarat is an unbeatable game but we never know. We (casinos) expect to win and we do want to win. Period.

The common trait of those players is they wager very few hands, almost always quitting the table after getting relatively small profits and, most importantly, they don't like to chase losses.
In the sense that after two or three losses in a row they tend to lose interest to that shoe.

It's like they are playing a kind of blackjack card counting strategy. Selecting the spots to bet, look at the outcome and keep the results whatever they are.
That is a complete different approach made by most bac players worldwide.

Now let's take the casino's part.
We know that some successful bj $20-$80 spread bet counters are going to be barred, what about the possibility that bac can be beaten by bets of $400, $500 or more?
After all so far every math expert says such thing isn't possible. Actually only side bets can be beaten mathematically.

That's the worst assumption they can make as their only hope to win money at bac tables remains upon the probability that most bac players like to gamble, that is betting a lot of hands and trying to guess the unguessable. Or that the game can be beaten by progressions. 

Remember that if any side bet is beatable, BP bets are more beatable. It's only up to us.

as.