In a word and if you want to consistently win at baccarat, you must know that the game is asymmetrical by any means.

No one hand will be formed by perfectly symmetrical features for two reasons:

- first, a decent portion of the total hands will be mathematically B shifted;

- secondly, every next hand will be more or less influenced by the cards previously removed.

Just to give a vulgar example, we know that 8s and 9s hugely removed from the deck are going to get more B oriented hands as P chance won't get a fair percentage of natural points not giving the B side an advantage.
Better sayed, any hand not giving the possibility to P chance drawing isn't going to produce an asymmetrical hand giving the B side an advantage.

It's true that shoes' portions rich of 7s and 6s aren't going to form many asymmetrical hands since P side will show more likely 6 or 7 points, but at least we know that B side has the opportunity either to win by drawing or by showing a natural, besides the cut and dried 7-6 scenario.

Anyway, we cannot care a bit about the card counting procedures, as the general dispositions/distributions topic will make the job fo us ITLR.

Therefore the game is asymmetrical for one reason or another.

Statistically the best tool we can take advantage of is studying what happens itlr on each side.

We don't want to guess what happens most in a shoe WHOLLY considered. We want to register each side separately.

Better sayed, we want to know what most likely happens on each side.

Is this a randomly world?

Yes and no.

Most part of it it will.

Nonetheless, itlr some patterns are more likely than others by 100% accuracy.

Back to a perfect strategy plan, meaning the help of a pc software capable to weight the card removal impact, we know that 3/4 of the hands must be B oriented and just nearly more than 1/5 of the total hands (ties included) are P side favored.

Such result come out from a perfect card by card removal effect (with proper burning cards value) dictating that only some hands are BP favored onto a side or another.

Anyway, we don't want to be favorite on every bet we are wagering. We do want to bet some hands where one side is hugely favored over the the counterpart, no matter the cards distribution.

This is a really nonsense.
How could be in the position to be right more often than not if we're not taking account of cards removed from the deck?

For once, the law of averages will help us.

Average card distributions might help one side no matter the third card rule, yet itlr either the asymmetrical factor or the general card distribution must take place at a higher level capable to invert the negative edge values.

Unfortunately or fortunately, it takes some time to this feature to show up but it will.

as.   

 


 






 


 






   

     

I strongly believe (comforted with my results) that the most winning bets part of a given system must come out from B advantaged situations.
I mean that our B winning wagers must encounter a better 8.6/91.4 ratio as there are no other sensible means to win at this game.

We should remember that among the gambling world, baccarat is the only single bet game where we are advantaged to win. The fact that the house will pay us 0.95 to 1 shouldn't affect our mind.
That doesn't mean that we are supposed to make a steady series of Banker bets strategy, we just have to work about selecting the situations where Banker must show its advantage at a higher degree than expected.
We can accomplish this by several ways: studying long term data, confronting them with actual results, evaluating the actual S/AS ratio, taking care of the S outcomes, knowing the limits of the baccarat system, taking advantage of RTM effect, even roughly assessing the cards removed from the deck.

About the last topic, for example a high amount of 7s removed from the deck (aside than lowering the Dragon bet occurence on EZ tables) will reduce the probability to get asymmetrical hands, as any standing 7 point on one side will totally erase the AS possibility.
Not forgetting that the most valuable AS hands are Banker point 4 or 5. Nonetheless, B4 or B5 are totally worthless from an AS point of view if they'll encounter a 6,7,8 or 9 P point.
In a certain sense, whenever Banker has a 4 or a 5 on the initial two cards and the hand will be not asymmetrical we're losing money.
The same if we're winning by a Banker natural. We'll be happy but we shouldn't. 

Another common situation is when a given shoe is particularly rich of naturals on either side.
I recently played a shoe where more than half of the hands were naturals. The thing happened along the entire shoe, it seemed that any 8 or 9 was glued to a zero value card.
From a personal statistical point of view the shoe seemed to be a "normal" shoe, getting 18 columns on each side. 
I finally counted the AS hands and after what I've sayed so far you can guess how many of them have shown up.

as.   








   
       




   











     

So let's pretend we are going to bet Player for whatever reason.

Anytime our Player hand will get a 6,7,8 or 9 point we are on haven territory. No matter the real outcome will be.  This is very important.
Another good scenario besides the above happenings will be whenever Player will get a 5 point and Banker a 4 point, as we have 5/13 cards value (zero and aces) ending up the hand in P favor without further B drawing. Only an 8 would be a disaster, a 9 forming a tie and all other cards forming a symmetrical situation into an asymmetrical spot with a slight P advantage. 

Thus and from a strict hand point of view, about half of the times our P hand won't draw, so the game won't concede any Banker advantage. that means playing the game with a zero negative edge.

Naturally any 0,1,2,3,4 or 5 Player point will be the first condition to get an asymmetrical B favored hand; anyway this first condition fulfilled, Banker must have a 3,4,5 or 6 point to get an AS hand.

So everytime we bet Player and the actual hand won't be an asymmetrical hand we'll play a perfect 50/50 game with the house, a very good accomplishment.

Conversely, when we are betting the P side and we must draw having the Banker 3,4,5 or 6, we are cumulatively in a very bad shape, having to overcome a 15.86% average negative edge.

Nonetheless, some asymmetrical hands will produce some P side winning hands, and some of them are even favorite to win (as depicted on the above 5-4 scenario, or other rich Player favored card shoes).

You see that is the word "average" to confuse us.

We know that the better theorical option itlr will be to bet everytime Banker, producing a lower disadvantage (0.18%), yet we know that many card distributions won't allow decent propositions even on S/AS ratio and on AS outcomes.
That means that many times we'll get too many or too few AS hands or to get unexpected results from AS hands.

Very long term data suggest that rich and very rich Player shoes have shown a fair S/AS ratio, meaning that some AS hands must have gone in the Player favor no matter the disadvantage.
Of course, some very rich Player shoes had provided a larger amount of naturals than expected.

From a general point of view, the most likely outcome to get any natural (on each sides) is an 8 or 9 accompanied by a zero value card; at the same time, any 8 and more importantly a 9 removed from the deck will reduce in some way the power of every asymmetrical hand.
Moreover, any winning Banker hand formed by a natural must be considered as a loss, since it won't produce any AS hand.
Let's think about this: for every 20 Banker hands won by a natural point (or any other non symmetrical hand), we'll surely play a 5% taxed game meaning we'are playing 20 to get 19, an i.diot challenge to deal with.

To try getting the best of it we should forget the word "average", otherwise bac players worldwide have been accounting just a loss of 1% or so of the total bets wagered, and that's not the case. (Yes, such very higher losses should be due by bad money managements and side bets placements, but I know many controlled players not betting side bets having lost a well higher 1% amount).

The AS factor shifthing the bac results itlr cannot present itself forever and ever, so the shoe won't have memory on previous unexpected AS results (favoring P side), but it has a sort of memory about how many AS hands will take place per every shoe. Not only by a total number amount, but also about consecutive clusters and many other features.

So if we're betting the B side after some losses and we're looking at a 7 two card point, we are just playing a coin flip 5% taxed situation, no matter how good looks such 7.

Conversely, any no bet hand on P side forming an AS hand is a huge gain for us and must considered not a single loss but a large loss avoided.

Imo every system must take in account this: lowering the 1.24% Player disadvantage on our P bets and raising the AS expectancy on our Banker bets.

The rest is just a confusing world, even if we are guessing right most of the time.
It won't last for sure.

as.








 




 

 











   


   

 

     













 





   


 



   

Hi RW!

The Banker 15.86% average edge going on asymmetrical spots is a foolproof mathematical finding.

Banker can decide what to do (standing or drawing) after having known the Player third card.
From a strict point occurence, there are 19 such situations, in 17 of them Banker will stand, in the remaining two Banker will draw.

In fact, 15.86 x 8.4 = 1.36%.

1.36% is a familiar finding, right?

Actually 1.36% is the resolved bet Player disadvantage, so it seems I worked fancifully but getting some sound results.

Within each asymmetrical spot Banker will stand 17 over 19 times, so it's easy to assume the third card dealt to the Player won't likely help P side, either because it has a zero/small value or because it's too high to most likely ruin the actual two card Player point.

Of course the rule Banker will stand a huge percentage of times is due to avoid the probability to ruin its initial two card point during a most likely unnecessary situation.

Along the way naturally we'll encounter shoes not getting the proper average S/AS hands ratio, otherwise it would be so easy to wait a large portion of a shoe forming a huge S/AS hands deviation shifted to the left, then hugely betting Banker knowing that we can overcome the 1.06% negative edge by a lower S/AS ratio.

So we should work on many other related features, such as the likelihood of having S hands in relationship of some card distributions, the careful study of the actual running S/AS ratio, the real results of the AS hands.

By this perspective, we should think the game just as a constant effort to pick up the AS hands the more than we can, trying to raise the AS/S ratio (now inversed for practical reasons) and to consider a loss every symmetrical hand that will take place (even and even more if it will be a winning bet).

If we'll be able to transform a S/AS 91.4/8.6 ratio into a sensible lower one on our actual bets (we don't need high values, just to erase the negative edge) we can safely say we can beat the game mathematically.
Of course we cannot expect to get lower ratios betting every hand. It's a slow and difficult process.

as.

   








 

     







   

 
 

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.