Btw, the Banker advantage on asymmetrical hands is 15.86% and not 15.7% as previously posted.

On average each side will have a 38% probability to be in the position either to not get an AS hand (Player chance) and to get a possible AS hand (Banker side).

In a word, we know that an average 38% of the time Player won't concede any Banker advantage right at the start of the hand.
At the same time, when Player draws but Banker doesn't show a 3,4,5 or 6 the hand will be symmetrical.
It's the intersection of those two requirements that makes an AS hand possible.

Easy to notice that the situations where Player has a drawing point (62%) don't correspond to the actual Player drawing percentage (50.3%) as some Banker hands will be naturals.

Therefore it might come to our advantage trying to know when a 6,7,8 or 9 could more likely land on Player side because now not only the AS apparition will be impossible but also as those points are mathematically favorite to win a Player bet.
(We shouldn't care the times when we lose the P bet having 6,7 or 8: itlr we are favorite to win).

The opposite situation, that is the bunch of Banker points capable to get an AS hand, will be more difficult to assess as it takes one previous condition to be fulfilled.

The miriad card combinations tend to darken the picture for several reasons.

- first, the 38% value on each side is high variance related; 

- second, a fair percentage of P favorite hands succumb to the higher B points;

- third, not every AS hand will show the same degree of B advantage;

- fourth, due to card distribution, many AS spots will make Player a winner despite its disadvantage;

- fifth, some AS situations aren't so B advantaged. Let's think about P 5 vs B 4.

Despite this, every our Player bet getting a 6,7,8 or 9 point on the first two cards will be a sure favorite to win itlr. Every other scenario (P drawing) will be a sort of disaster (at different degrees) an average of 38% of the time.

Oppositely, every Banker bet NOT getting a 3,4,5 or 6 point wil be a sure loser itlr, because either it loses or it wins 0.95% of our bet. Indeed it will a terrific bet whenever any 3,4,5 or 6 will land on this side having the Player drawing.   

By this new point of view we should consider any Player bet not getting 6,7,8 or 9 a loss no matter the real outcome.
At the same time any Banker bet not forming a 3,4,5 or 6 when Player doesn't draw is a loss, no matter the outcome.

In the intermediate-long run a careful registration of those point situations will help us to ascertain if we were betting the right side or the wrong side.

Naturally and without some possible statistical hint coming on our favor, everything will follow  the old expected percentages.
So the point is: could statistics help us to spot the times when a given ratio will be raised or lowered?

as.   

   

 
 

 
 





       
 



   



 





 



     

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 26, 2015, 11:32:29 AM
I really don't get my head around that statement, the Banker really doesn't have any choice, the rules are fixed.  Also the way you explain it, it is basically any non-natural banker hand.

Because every banker hand will either stand or draw after a third card to the Player, so are you saying, "Player draws a third card, Banker either stands or draws", that is an asymmetrical hand??

If yes, then it is IMO simply a label for a non-natural score.  Where does this 15.7% mathematical edge come from?  A friend of mine claims, that when the Players increases after the third card, it is more likely to win, even though the Banker still has a third card to come.  Also it is fine laying out in the retrospective, no casino lets players bet after any card is drawn that I know of, other than Baccarat 7 up in Singapore. 

As far as I'm concerned if you have a bet on the Player and while the third Banker card is being dealt and squeezed, you shouldn't expect to win unless the Player total is 7 or more, having said that, I have won P bets 1 - Baccarat, all of which tells me nothing before the event.

Because every banker hand will either stand or draw after a third card to the Player, so are you saying, "Player draws a third card, Banker either stands or draws", that is an asymmetrical hand??

YES!!!

To schematize,

AS hand = P drawing + B has 3,4,5 or 6.

Every other scenario will form a Symmetrical hand:

S hand situation #1 = P has 6,7,8 and 9.
S hand situation #2=  P draws and B has 0,1,2,7,8 and 9.


Now, it's mathematically undisputable that whenever an AS hand will take place Banker side will get an average 15.7% edge over the Player.

Ask the WOO site, Jacobsen or any gambling mathematical expert if you don't believe that.

Therefore, the best virtual mathematical edge any player may have playing baccarat will come out whenever is able to bet Banker most than he/she can on those AS hands.

So the virtual plan of a baccarat mathematically winning system can't be other than a given procedure capable to raise the 8.6/91.4 AS/S hands ratio.

Hence now we won't give a damn about the actual otucomes, trend lines, number or distribution of expected patterns and so on. The only task such player is focused on is the probability to fall into those AS hands the more he/she can.

Indeed any player betting Banker whenever no AS hand will take place is mathematically losing even if some, many or all his bets are winning, whereas Player bets on not AS hand are perfectly playing a zero edge with the house (no mathematical player's edge though).

In my defunct post you keep denigrating I exposed a simple way to ascertain if we're long term winners by luck or by some mathematical consideration (statistically derived, of course):

A) our P bets at the end must be showing a perfect (ideal situation) or nearly zero house edge (not a 1.24% negative edge);

B) our B bets at the end must be showing a higher AS/S hands expected ratio capable to lower, erase or invert the house edge.

Utilizing this simple method and after having played and properly registered our bets, we know for sure by an almost 100% certainty (variance will take several hands to be properly assessed)that we are doing really good, we are winning by luck, or we're losing by either a mere variance factor or because we're making a poor betting selection.

Naturally the law of averages dictates will be losers no matter what as the mathematical negative edge will take place anyway and anytime.
So, imo, we have to work on statistical considerations because the game is limited and card dependent.

In conclusion, imo and according to my very long data, every bac player wanting to make a living at this game must evaluate properly what happened on his/her bets placed.

If the sum of all the Banker bets will show a higher 8.6/91.4 AS/S ratio any player is surely doing a good bet selection no matter what system utilized.

If the sum of all the Player bets will show a lower 8.6/91.4 AS/S ratio any player is surely doing a good bet selection no matter what system is using.

Transforming this thought into more practical terms, whenever we'll bet Player we'll simply and primarly hope to get 6,7,8 or 9 P point. Whenever we bet Banker we ought to get more AS hands than we can (3,4,5,6 points, considering bad any other outcome even though it'll produce us a win).

In my poor opinion there are no other mathematical tools to assess if we're playing a winning method.

So we should act statistically to get mathematical and undeniable long term favored outcomes.


as.












 





     
     










   









   




   





   

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 25, 2015, 11:57:51 PM
Three questions;

1) Define what an asymmetrical hand is?

2) do we need to keep a track (count) of how many times the Player side took a third card for any given shoe?

3) why do you need to press the enter key so many times, before hitting the post button, creating a lot of empty space on all your posts?
Yeah, more possible combinations than stars in the universe, apparently.

Glad to give you my answers.

1) An asymmetrical hand is any hand whenever Banker has a choice to decide what to do (stand or draw) after a third card has been dealt to the Player.

2)  Yes. We do need to register both the P and B conditions making an AS apparition.

3) As I'm the worst english writer in the universe.

3 bis: card combinations will limit the AS hands apperance within restricted terms as many card combinations won't take place at all or at very low percentages. Let's think about the probability to get four or fives same rank apparition  in a row; even six zero value cards in a row won't come up very frequently despite their 50% increased likelihood vs any other six card situation.

as. 
   

Normally we consider baccarat outcomes just in form of BP hands (I omit Ties for simplicity)

There are many ways to register BP results.
Asian players like to place BP results in orizontal lines whereas european players tend to utilize a vertical registration.
Then there are many "complex" forms of classification (for reference see WOO site) and naturally no one will give profitable betting spots to the player.

Every classification will act as an "on-off" pc work. We either register B or P. Period.
I mean nobody cares about HOW such opposite results have come out.

Since I strongly think the game is beatable for its asymmetrical nature, let's try to concentrate more about this important topic.

To get an asymmetrical hand (AS), a hand capable to mathematically shift the 50/50 results, some conditions must be fulfilled. Then we should consider the actual outcomes of every AS hand per any single shoe.

A. Player side must draw

B. Banker side must have 3, 4, 5 or 6 point.

We know that on average this situation comes about 8.6% of the times.

For every AS situation produced, Banker side will get a 15.7% mathematical (on average) edge.

That means that after any AS hand, on average Banker will win 57.85% of the times and Player the remaining 42.15%.

Besides what some magic system sellers j.erks have stated claiming a 70% or more edge for the player by unkown reasons, the best mathematical undeniabale average edge a baccarat player could have is right based upon this 57.85-42.15 proposition decurted by the B tax.

That is a player capable to bet Banker side only or mostly when an AS hand wil take place will destroy the game.

The rest, mathematically speaking, is a totally worthless speculation.


Average apparition of an AS hand per any single shoe.

Assuming 70 BP decisions per any shoe, on average we'll expect to get an AS situation nearly one time over 8.14 hands.

Obviously, per every single shoe this ratio almost never will fit this ratio, as any card distribution will produce countless combinations.

For example, when Banker shows a lot of 3,4,5 or 6 points and Player simultaneously won't draw (6,7,8 or 9) no AS hand could arise and the same happens whenever Player must draw having the Banker a 0, 1, 2, 7, 8 or 9 point.

So a separated registration of those two A and B conditions' apparition will make a very different scheme differently than a mere BP registration. And that's just the first step.

Summary of the first step.

Player will draw an average of 50.3% of the times and that is the first condition to get an AS hand, so this situation will mostly follow a 50/50 proposition, yet understanding that bac is a dependent card game; at the same time to have an AS hand first condition fulfilled, Banker must have a 3, 4, 5 or 6 point and such event will happen less probably than the opposite bunch of B outcomes including 0,1,2,7,8 and 9 points knowing that 0 will be the most likely outcome over any other possible result by a multiplied 1.5 value.

Thus and independently of the P draw/no draw situation, on the B side we'll get the AS probability of 1,1,1,1 vs the opposite probability of 1,1,1,1.1, 1.5. Wholly considered the ratio is 4/6.5.

In a word, to get an AS hand any card distribution must precisely intersect a 50.3% average P probability spot with a 38% average B probability.

Since baccarat is a finite and card dependent process game, we could get some help studying certain statistical deviations.

Next time I'll talk about the second step, that is the AS actual outcomes acting per every shoe. 

as.





   











   




 



 

   
 




 

 

 











         

Here's some baccarat mathematical situations. 

- Player hand draws the third card: 50.3%

So any careful and very long peeking of the P cards will get no good news half of the times, no matter how the player is concentrated in doing this.
Worst news for them is peeking up a "three side" card when having a 4 or a 5. Among other scenarios, a nightmare for us it's when those legendary peekers find a three side card having a 3 point.     


- Both sides stand: 37.8%

Almost four times over ten the action is freezed just on the first four cards.
So in such situations there should be no point to bet Banker. Unfortunately we know this after it happened. 


- Natural point on either side: 34.2%

Again more than 1/3 of the deck will provide immediate and perfectly symmetrical outcomes. In this circumstance there's either one fantastic bet or a very poor one. Coincidentally we tend to win most of our bets by a natural point when betting Banker and regularly losing with an 8 when wagering Player. Naturally, whenever we win by a Player 9, we won't care a bit about the point landed on Banker that quite often is a losing 8. A pure form of selected attention.
   

- Banker draws no matter what: 43.4%

Despite its advantage when betting Banker we'll expect to draw and hope for the best more than four times over ten. Better than 50.3% of the time, still an high percentage.


- Banker draws after Player stands: 11.8%

Good news for Banker aficionados. They know to go uphill just a bit more than one time over ten hands.


- Banker stands after Player draws: 18.7%

Again no bad news for Banker fans. Almost one time over five they could rely just upon the strenght of the very two first cards dealt.


- Both hand draw: 31.6%

For thrilling hand lovers: a slight less than 1/3 of the time the final decision will be made by two additional cards.
An awful situation when there are two active bets on either side made by eternity flashing the cards players.
For unknown reasons, when we're losing at the table not having the privilege to look at cards it happens more often. 


- Player disadvantage: 0.18%

Player fans minds have transformed 0.18% into 0%. At worst, of course.


- Asymmetrical hand apparition: 8.6%

Well, Banker lovers should know that the best situation they could hope for will come out quite less than one time over ten.


-  Banker advantage in asymmetrical situations: 15.7%

Strangely enough, such huge edge will be regularly disappointed when we make an important bet on B side. Thus, a zero point on Player chance will magically transform into an 8 or a 9, even if there were just one or two of those cards left in the deck.
Likewise a fantastic 3 will invariably land on a 5, Banker showing a 7; not mentioning a 4 adding to another 4 when Banker has a 4 + 3 and 31 4s where already removed from the deck.
The power of timing.

as.     


   

       

 

 

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.





   









 









































   












   

   

 

Quote from: tdx on August 23, 2015, 12:05:41 AM
Here is how you can predict if the Player will get an 8 or 9 on the first card.......and let you  win millions playing baccarat

http://www.pokernews.com/news/2014/04/sorting-out-the-law-behind-phil-ivey-s-edge-sorting-debacle-18054.htm

Yeah, it remains to be really payed such millions 

as.

Perfect.

as.

Knowing the value of just one card in the exact position (from 1 to 6) could get us a mathematical edge in most cases, we might set up a betting plan.
The largest edges will come out when:

- the first card is a 9 dealt to the Player (21.528%)
- the second card is a 9 dealt to the Banker (20.641%)
- the fifth card is a 4 dealt to the Player (18.316%)
- the first card is an 8 dealt to the Player (17.294%)
- the second card is an 8 dealt to the Banker (16.493%)
- the sixth card is a 5 dealt to the Banker (14.514%)
- the sixth card is a 6 dealt to the Banker (14.424%)

Thus if we were able to get such aknowledge, we'll easily destroy the game itlr.

Unfortunately we cannot benefit of those situations.

Since we are stubbornly oriented to beat the game we want to try whether the statistical approach might help us.
After all baccarat is a finite and dependent process game.

To simplify the process, we'll register the times when a 9 or an 8 is dealt as first card to the Player side and the times when the fifth card is a 4, those situations having the highest ROI on P side.
There are many reasons to just consider the P side.

It's easy to notice that the very first card dealt will have a higher impact on every bac hand than every other position as many hands will end up after just 4 cards have been dealt. Surely the second same value card dealt on the other side will show a more or less impact similar to the first card, but most of the times we'll have to pay an unnecessary 5% vig on our winning wagers.

In a word, a very deviated situation where 9s, 8s will not fall in the first spot and 4s will not fall in the 5th spot, should entice a RTM effect where next P hands will show a slight player's edge.

Of course, there's an additional issue to consider: how many 9s, 8s and 4s are really live in the left deck.

We cannot hope to get a 4 falling into the 5th spot if many 4s were removed from the deck in the right or more likely "wrong" spots.

The same about the most likely cards capable to end up right now a bac decision: 8s and 9s.

The most part of 2.5 and 3 sr deviations taken are going to get a higher RTM effect than the propensity to reach larger deviations, expecially if we are properly considering the card removal effect per any shoe.

In this perspective, we aren't playing to get some P or B winning hands, we are betting that a given card (or better a bunch of such cards) will have to fall in a given spot after a very large absence and after having assessed that such key cards are very live per any live deck. (So many shoes won't provide any hint).

as.



       
















 










 










 









   



 

 



     

So, imo, a long term winning system should be able to totally erase and invert the negative expectation on some selected P bets.

P bets cannot benefit of any positive mathematical factor like a part of B wagers, on the contrary they must bear it along the way.

We want to transform a 50.68/49.32 game into a perfect 50/50 game, hopefully deviated to the right term of the ratio.

Imo, there are many reasons to pick up the P side bets to assess whether our system is really working or not.
The most important reason is that P bets are payed even money and itlr there are no tricks to alter the registration of W and L distributions knowing that one side is underdog.

Unlike roulette, where a binomial proposition (R/B) could give the lucky player long term positive outcomes by SD issues (unfortunately destroyed by the zero/zeroes appearance), at baccarat any hand will provide an outcome placed on one chance or another (ties excluded, but they are neutral and not negative results).
Therefore, at baccarat a neutral or winning long term P bet placement is, imo, the best tool we could have to ascertain if our tests were the subproduct of luck or something else.

Admitting a no fixed game, we are 100% sure that in the long run the expected gap between B and P hands will approach with more and more precision the 50.68/49.32 expected ratio.

Hence, after 10.000 placed bets on P side we expect to lose an average of 136 bets (124 if we consider the "resolved bets", but I take the first value for simplicity).

After 100.000 bets, our P wagering will show an average of 1360 loss and after 1 million of P placed bets, we'll lose an average of 13.600 units.

Now I dare to state that if after several hundreds of thousands of P side placed bets a player is having a neutral result or a small profit, well, it means that he/she was able to utilize a good bet selection.

Anyway, moving such knowledge into the practical environment is a difficult task, despite of the appearances.


The B side is either more enticing as it's less unfavorite and more silly as we have to pay a 5% vig on many B winning bets not showing a given mathematical advtantage.
For example, 20 B winning bets not contemplating any asymmetrical hand will produce 1 sure unit loss.

Of course mathematics will tell us that itlr the best move to take is betting B as it's a 0.24% better move (meaning we'll lose 0.24% less than on P bets).
Good, as baccarat is a mathematically unbeatable game.

And mathematicians keep stating that any hand ON AVERAGE will be always 50.68/49.32 placed.
That's true, on average.

For example and giving a card composition topic (anyway not working at a substantial degree), a terminal deck particularly rich of 7s, 8s and 9s will provide a huge amount of symmetrical hands.
In that instance only a fool would bet the B side as the AS/S hands ratio will be much lower than expected.

Luckily, we don't need to counting cards because itlr the mere distribution of hands will help us.

It'll be a very difficult and very diluted task but we can make it.


as. 

   






       



   



   

 





 

 

So am I stating that a given long term winning method should get us more winning P bets than what mathematics dictates?
After all P bets are just a less slightly half part of whole bets. And they are mathematically underdog, of course.

That's an interesting point.

We are sure and we can bet everything we have on our name that in the long run B1<B2<B3<B4 up to a point and P1>P2>P3>P4>P5 infinitely.

Anyway, we know that at baccarat it's steadily working a very slight force shifting the outcomes on the opposite side of the last hand occurred (Shackleford, WoO and many others).

Now the whole trick is about assessing the real relationship between first and second assumption.

That's the solution to beating baccarat itlr, imo.

Therefore, we should assess the times where the as force is shifting the outcomes toward one side and the times where the card distribution force shifts the results toward the opposite hand just occurred.

Well, in a perfectly 50/50 game everything will be 50/50 placed, so the game is following the binomial rules everyone here knows.

Alas a perfect 50/50 game cannot be beaten by any means.
But baccarat isn't a perfect 50/50 game. Fortunately.

Then, we should evaluate the relationship between the most likelihood to get B streaks/superior B streaks and P singles/P streaks and P streaks/P superior streaks with the probability to get the opposite outcome to the last hand occurred.

If you notice, one side is infinitely going to get certain results, the other one is fighting to get some expected results along with some other "unexpected" outcomes.

So one side is going to get some univocal results, about the other one we're not sure about it.

Moreover, the "univocal results" side will follow some statistical features belonging to some "unaccepted" statistical findings.

Baccarat is an asymmetrical game by nature and that means that we'll easily expect some (many) asymmetrical findings.

When an asymmetrical force is acting upon a given system, most of the times we are expecting to have such force working a lot or almost nothing at all.
And this assumption is even truer when we are talking about a finite production system, as a 416 (or 312) deck shoe.

Hence, on one side we are one trillion sure to get long term certain results taking some rare cut-off points as targets; on the other side our task to get some "expected" results is more complicated as there are more struggling and opposite forces working, anyway in the long run falling on some certain results being the subproduct of asymmetricity and card distribution.

Itlr and evaluating some DD topics, there's no one single possiblity to get 50/50 outcomes and there's no way such results will follow a 50.68-49.32 ratio. With one trillion of accuracy.

as.   

   












 


















 

Whenever we test a given method we could experience the illusion to have discovered the miracle betting mood to get the best of it itlr. Meaning we get an edge over the house. Meaning we can invert the house negative edge into a positive one.
By acutely thought progressions or brilliant betting selections it doesn't matter.

There are many scientific assumptions and tests available to prove our system is really working or not.

The best and most annoying assumption is that no one progression could overcome a mathematical negative edge game.
Or that one coming from a BJ pro stating that is a perfect gambling miracle to triple up our bankroll two times in a row before going broke. 
I personally agree and I can't dispute this assumption.

Then it comes the second and more interesting assumption: there's no way to place our bets to get an edge without the use of any progression. Meaning we cannot get any kind of fk advantage choosing what to bet and what to not bet.
So despite our efforts directed to find some possible miracle EV+ spots, we aren't going anywhere as mathematics dictates that every our bet will always produce a negative global outcome.
Now I personally disagree.

Obviously, a possible EV+ betting selection will get better results by the use of a progression, providing it will take care of the itlr fluctuations of the game and after having properly assessed our long term edge.

Experts think that such positive edge bet selection doesn't exist at all and they are right because they keep thinking on mathematical terms.
So every single hand the game is producing will get an average of 50.68-49.32 mathematical expectation.  And every f bet we'll place is getting a long term 1.06%-1.24% negative edge.

So far so good. No news.

Back to the topic.

Many internet winning method sellers claim to get an edge over the house (some i.diots claim to get a 70% edge over the house, a real bighornshit).
Obviously we know with 100% accuracy that no one progression could have the best of it.
Likewise we know that a given edge must be produced by a simple flat betting procedure and I don't know a single author able to demonstrate that a FB method will give the player an edge.

Imo, the real accurate test to ascertain that a method is really a winning one is a betting procedure capable to totally erase or hopefully invert the P hands' inferior expectancy.

I mean a betting method where our P bets will get a zero results gap with B hands at worst or a slight edge itlr.

In the long run.

What's the long run?

Difficult to say, but I dare to say that we are in good shape after having noticed that our P bets are showing a zero or a slight positive outcome after thousands and thousand of shoes where B hands are getting closer to the 50.68-49.32 ratio. So no tricks or positive variance issues are allowed as any P bet must have a zero or positive otucome at worst.   

In a word, a possible winning method should surpass my personal ABG rule suggesting that a winning bet selection must produce either neutral or positive P betting long term outcomes, that is a betting selection capable to totally erase the B advantage over thousands and thousands of shoes.

How many betting selection systems are able to get such accomplishment?

Summarizing, imo a long term winning method should be able to catch those spots where P bets are going to get neutral (at worst) or positive long term outcomes.

Mathematics dictates in every P spot we'll bet we are getting a -1.24% disadvantage, but actually and for some weird reason my rule likes to state that a winning system should get a 0% or a slight positive edge.

And I'm only talking about the worst B/P proposition the game will produce, the P bets.

as. 

   
 


 



 


   

 



 



























   

Quote from: Mike on May 22, 2015, 08:21:54 AM
AsymBacGuy,

Send me your system by PM and I'll prove it doesn't work. 

Thanks, but I save you the time to test it.

Somebody else is doing the job right now.
 

as.

Thanks for your attention, soxfan.

If you'll have the kindness to purchase it, you won't read some spectacular assumptions.

But if you keep losing after having read my ideas, well call the police. 

as. 

That's my book I'm glad to introduce here.  It will be printed in october.

Contents (so far no editing was made, so i'm sorry about my bad english):

- General concepts

- Differences between a perfect 50/50 game and baccarat

- The role and the weight of asymmetricity

- Dispositions and distributions

- Baccarat variance and the "decline in probability" concept applied to baccarat

- Banker side events vs Player side events. The "enemy concept"

- Approaches based on the most likely events apparition

- Getting an edge by flat betting on some selected spots, part one

- Online vs live casinos

- The long term winning baccarat player attitude



as.