Taken from a BP point of view, baccarat is a beatable game by any means because it's an asymmetrical game. Meaning that itlr something is going to happen more often than not.
Not everytime, never by a steady state. But we know it will.

Two main mathematical conditions will affect the long term outcomes:

1) the asymmetrical factor favoring the B side, mostly when it collects a 4 or 5 two card point;

2) the very slight propensity to get the opposite of the last result, this due to a finite card composition interacting with the bac rules.

Both are two undeniable aspects of the game and I'll challenge any expert of the world to prove otherwise.

Then there is the finite card composition that in some way will limit the random world (mostly because there's no enough room to get a balancement of previous events).

We also know that per every bet wagered we have to overcome a 1.06%/1.24% negative edge but we shouldn't care less as some people have found methods to get en edge at roulette having a 2.70% or 5.26% negative edge.

Of course any random game, no matter how much is asymmetrical, will produce fluctuations statistically known as standard deviation.
In a word, we cannot control or getting the best of it from a random game betting every hand, it's literally impossible even for untaxed situations.

The real holy grail is trying to devise a method capable to win by flat betting. This means to be able to erase the house tax first, then to be able to get more winning situations than losing ones.
Meaning we can control the outcomes.
It could be done but only after very long trackings and after some unexpected situations had occurred.
An astounding method capable to get an almost perfect balancement between two opposite events is good either, because the use of a simple progression will get a good control of the outcomes.   

Disregarding the FB possibility, we should rely upon more likely situations capable to get very low sd values.

After long years of studying and testing baccarat, I devised three principal triggers and a so called systematic plan of action that has nothing to share with the aforementioned triggers.

Here I'll mention the three triggers.

A) The distribution of Banker streaks (that is when a B is followed by another B without regard about the streak's lenght)

B) The distribution of Banker doubles.

C) The distribution of Player 3+ streaks vs counterparts.

Someone will be surprised that in my list I haven't included P singles and P doubles and there's a reason for that I don't want to elaborate.

A) Itlr Banker streaks are more prevalent than B singles counterpart but we all know that many shoes will produce many B singles. So we have to limit the B singles impact in some way. And it's statistics which will give us some help.
Any shoe is a finite and dependent production, so more often than not a strong deviated situation in either way will be NOT compensated by the remaining of the shoe.
The question is: how I'll know that a more likely event will be really more likely or somewhat silent? To answer the question we'll have to devise a method capable to get rid of the unfavorite outcomes (B singles) and trying to get the best of the expected situations (B streaks).
More importantly, we should know the B streaks/B singles ratio knowing the finite nature of the deck and acting accordingly.   

B) Banker doubles are a wonder. They are forced into a struggle between forming a more likely longer streak and the propensity to get the opposite of the last result, that is a B double.
The answer should be quite easy. From one part we have a mathematical diluted edge to get a longer streak and from the other one we have a statistical long term finding. We'd better wait to get a B double and see what happens next.     

C) Player 3+ streaks (a P streak of any 3 lenght or longer) are both the easiest and safest way to approach a method and also the most dangerous ones.
We shouldn't forget that most of the time (91.4%) the BP outcomes are perfectly symmetrical, so without the asymmetrical factor acting in some way (and we should know the previous actual result of such asymmetrical hands) BBB+ is perfectly probable than PPP+, so transforming the game into a perfect unbeatable situation.
Nonetheless, any P 3+ streak and any distribution related to that itlr will have to overcome TWO CONVERGENT opposite factors favoring the production of different outcomes: the asymmetricity and the slight propensity to get the opposite of the last result.

No news, right? Banker is still the best bet or, better sayed, the less negative bet.
This is true most of the times but not always true, as wagering toward the B singles apparition in some circumstances will provide many favourable spots to bet into. Especially knowing the finite card composition of any deck.

You can bet whatever you get that at baccarat there are no other more controllable situations than the three depicted above.

B streaks, B doubles and P 3+ streaks distributions are by far the best triggers to set up a strategy on because without any doubt they are particularly balanced in their appareance and distribution.

as.
 

Quote from: johnnycs1 on October 30, 2016, 02:17:56 PM
AT THE PALAZOO , WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF STADIUM BAC MACHINES ?

THANK YOU ! and good blessed fortune in your new endeavor !

If you think to have a successful system, both Venetian and Palazzo will give you an excellent offer to test it.

You can bet a $5 minimum up to thousands and you can bet whenever you want and whatever you like without suffering any heat on you.
Cards are manually shuffled so no bother about being "cheated".
And you are not compelled to tip anyone besides the cocktail waitress.

However if you think that baccarat is a mixture of probabilities and real human bets outcomes, I suggest you to join a real baccarat table, preferably an high stakes room, where some subtle variables come out in play.

Once I was playing at a Wynn table and a new guy joined shouting that he was "very lucky" on his night as his wife was abandoning him.
For unknown reasons, he yelled that Player side was "hot" and of course a streak of 11 Player came out followed by a couple of Banker hands followed by an 8 or so Player streak.

Nothing scientifically acceptable, but it worked for me.

Quoting Alrelax, I needed to be right just about the first hand, the rest was a sort of freeroll.

A very good freeroll, for the good peace of mathematics.

as. 

Quote from: Tomla on October 12, 2016, 04:42:24 PM
and how does one get a copy?

Knowing the problems related to publishing, I'll sell my book only in Vegas.

as.

Hi BtW!

Your first post is interesting and I agree with most of your ideas.
But I tend to disagree about the 5 strategy points you mentioned later.

Imo you are assigning too much subjectivity to the game.
"very long absence of singles"......"seasons of 10, 12 or 15 spins" and so on.

At gambling, besides the EV-, we cannot rely upon anything but the starting probability and the statistical laws related to it.

Where can I find the "pinwheel" you were talking about?

Thanks in advance and cheers

as.

Quote from: Tomla on September 02, 2016, 02:38:30 PM
I'm not sure , maybe he got a gig on "dancing with the stars"

Lol.

The book is ready.

as. 

Giz, you are one of the best read among the gambling world ever.

And I think to know what you mean. :-)

as. 

Quote from: Albalaha on July 24, 2016, 04:44:38 AM

  and who is that expert?

Easy to find out. One of the few roulette posters intervening on the baccarat section.

as.

Quote from: mogul397 on July 24, 2016, 03:39:31 PM
They're all "single reply".  If you're referring to ND's usual philosophical
slant that he ads to a topic, they are "single" by definition of his post.
Saying that "any single reply makes sense to you" creates confusion in my
head as to how it makes sense or why. Since I always have a hard time
wrapping my head around vague comments.

I meant that every single comment here cannot be criticized unless it comes from a "no way to beat the game as every bet is EV-" person.

There's no way to guess what single D/C event will come out, actually there are plenty of ways to determine what will be the most likely distribution of those events.

The ball landing is a mere physical effect, maybe you'll get some hint studing the "trascendental probability" field.

In a simplier way, you'll notice that after a certain number of spins the ball privileges or not some sections of the wheel and such propensity is linearly placed with the consecutiveness of the slots considered and touched or not by the ball.

Naturally itlr everything will follow the normal probabilty line, as the probability to get some delayed outcomes will balance.
Since we know that itlr we'll be sure losers, we have to rely upon the short term probability that some chances will be heavily or not favored over the opposite counterparts.

In a word, we know that something will going to happen by a degree superior to a mere 50/50 game.

as.




   

   

Not surprised about that, I've always stated that the most brilliant gambling experts are roulette researchers; actually the only person here who seem to have found one possible way to beat baccarat is a roulette expert.

as.

Any single reply posted here makes a lot of sense to me.

In particular, ND reply confirms my suspicions that the distribution of some dozens created by connecting two natural double-street is quite different depending on which 6 numbers we are connecting.
Of course the probability to win will be always the same, yet we should assign a role to how many adjacent numbers are represented among the double-street chosen.
That, imo, affects in some way the distribution.

as.





 

Quote from: Blue_Angel on July 18, 2016, 09:02:10 AM

What we know for sure is only what happened, the rest are merely estimations, it can be correct or wrong.

But try not to cost you a lot when you are wrong, while you are right take as much as possible.

One wrong cannot be corrected by another wrong...

Excellent comment.

as.

I noticed you got more W than L just on the first outcome of each row, so why not stopping the betting after a L without looking for a +1 or -3 result?

Anyway jonas work is really brilliant, I start to think that roulette could be beaten.

as.


   

A good post with good replies.

Imo it's quite easy to assess if we have found a kind of edge putting at work a given system.

First we need a decent sample and we can even manipulate it, for example reversing the EC apparitions. This ploy is very important at baccarat where chances are not equally probable.

Secondly W must come out more streaky than singled and the opposite about the L part. (Obviously the same concept applies on any streak or single class depending on which W or L side we are considering)

Third, if we use a progression, winning spots taken on a given X level must be unproportionally more prevalent than superior X+1 winning spots.

In reality any gambling game seen from the house side point of view itlr will follow those guidelines, so we should be in good shape knowing to have gotten the perfect or almost perfect opposite statistical situation.

as.





   

Quote from: MarkTeruya on June 05, 2016, 12:03:36 AM
It's impossible to predict when a side is going to win, regardless of card tracking, symmetrical hand counts / ratios or otherwise.

One could track Bank naturals v's bank wins via 5th card and gain a fair expectation that a 4 card card natural Bank is due, yet still not know precisely when it is going to happen until after the event, which makes it all superfluous.

I resurrect this, because it's always been hovering in the back of my mind, sitting at a table tracking / counting the Bank asymmetrical v's symmetrical hands, even knowing a shoe is rich in 8's and 9's, the punter still doesn't know the precise moment to bet, therefore unworkable.

I've played many a shoe where at the on-set (10~15 hands) you simply can't hope to get paid out unless your betting side has a  score of 8 or 9.  Every winning hand has a score or 8 or 9 and only after say 15 hands you start seeing sides winning via Barbecue, 1-Baccarat, 5-4 etc.   

In those circumstances were a shoe maybe rich in 8's and 9's (how rich is rich?), balanced ratio between Player and Banker wins, many 4th and 5th card draws.  Natural Bank is due!! When do you "go all in" on the Bank, answer is you can't.

The figures may be true in your first post, but so what, when you tracking criteria is 100% you can't hammer the Bank, too bad so sad if you do and the Player suddenly decides to go on even a 4 streak. Or do you wait until your criteria is met and wait for a 4P streak, lot of work required here, asymmetrical hand count, tracking of 8's and 9's and a 4P streak, then go all in, correct?     

Thanks for your interest in my post.
You made some good points on that.

Mathematically speaking and talking about BP hands there are no other valuable tools to guess what will be the more likely hand WITHIN A GIVEN BUNCH OF HANDS.
I know it's a difficult task to accomplish.

As you correctly sayed, first step is registering the AS/S ratio. We know that per any shoe the most probable range of AS hands will be limited within the 4-14 value.
Then we know that nearly one third of total hands on average will be formed by naturals negating any AS situation.
Starting our betting solely relying upon those percentages won't get the job, of course.
We need, imo, a relatively deviated and unexpected situation as a fair P streak occurence.
Now we have to think back evaluating how many AS hands had taken place so far.

The more this P streak came out on the initial portions of the shoe, the less will be our future degree of precision.

Moreover, some AS hands will unexpectedly favor the P side, still the only real shifting situation had come out.

I mean that after a 4 P streak and after having registered zero AS hands on the first, let's say, 20-25 hands, the probability to get B on subsequent hands is higher.

If many AS hands had taken place or whether some AS hands favored the P side (mostly because they did work to build up such relatively long P streaks), the P 4 streak starting betting point loses a lot of its possible value.

Actually long P streaks do contain one or more AS hands favoring this P side.
Of course the same it's true about relatively long B streaks, now obviously the AS factor went in the expected way.

AS parameter is just an added factor increasing our expectation to get A rather than B.
We want to pay a tax on our B winning bets having a reason and not by coincidence.

Besides the naturals, another possible important point to consider is about how many and how 6 or 7 points had fallen on the P chance.

P 6,7,8 or 9 point negates from the start any possible B advantage. Then we are more favorite than even money to get a P drawing hand crossing a B standing hand (any B standing hand is favorite to win itlr as it adds to naturals and 6s,7s even 3s, 4s and 5s).

Itlr long B streaks are more likely than not composed by AS hands; on the other part long P streaks are more likely than not formed by one or more AS hands.

B or P streaks springing from perfectly 50/50 situations are not good starting betting points, imo. Unless a huge AS/S ratio was shifted to the right before a given P streak had taken place.

as.




 













   

Quote from: soxfan on May 31, 2016, 12:18:17 AM
With m y current 13 step parlay progression I'm buckin up against a 95% win rate. So, I get clipped for 500 unit in progressions bust out every 100 shoe, so I can win well and regular by capturing just 10 units profits on the 95 winning shoe and I average better than that, hey hey.

Probably with my over selected BS tested on millions of shoes, your win rate will be close to 99.999999999%. 

as.