Hi KFB, very good points!

My guess is that by introducing those side bets, casinos have transformed a kind of coin flip low edge game into a more appealing constant chase right on those "unlikely" bets that could guarantee huge returns.
Especially when players are losing, so mathematically aggravating the losses.

It's not a coincidence that Vegas HS rooms do not offer EZ tables where the vast majority of bets is payed 1:1, probably knowing that it'll be very unlikely that tourists are willing to bet the F-7 wager as being too rare to happen.
In any instance at EZ tables the HE is 1.01%/1.24% and 7.6%, whereas at Tiger/Lucky 6 tables (very common at HS rooms) HE is 1.46%/1.24% and 14% plus.
 
So no commission tables somewhat lure the Banker action backed up by some kind of side bet action, but in both cases (EZ and T/L6) what remains the best side to wager (generally speaking) now becomes the most burdened betting option, surely worse than the unchanged Player 1.24% HE.

It has to be sayed that differently to F-7 bets, Tiger bets are easily controllable by card counting, moreover featuring a decent average distribution among the shoes dealt.

Anyway we think that the best tables to risk our money at are normal commission games, even knowing to concede a 0.05% worse edge at B bets.

as.

Without the use of a software and by approximating at best the various patterns happening itlr, one of the infallible approach to get an edge is by wagering toward triples and 4s streaks by adopting a specific random walk.
Providing to use the old clustering/isolated effect taking care of a very unlikely symmetrical results distribution (results distribution and not card distribution).

In fact, 3 and 4 streaks must more likely come out as clustered or isolating a superior (5/5+) streak.
Therefore 5/5+ streaks situations once had surpassed the isolated cutoff point (so showing up clustered between 3 or 4 streaks) aren't chasable anymore.

Of course when putting into an infinite fight 3 and 4 streaks vs 5/5+ streaks, singles and doubles will become as ininfluent (neutral).

Here's a live sample where our random walk was following the above supposedly propensity.
3 and 4 streaks were played until a loss (5/5+ streak) or played just one time after a 5/5+ streak. The process restarts after a 3 or 4 streak happening.
Obviously a + sign is a +1 unit and any - sign is a -3 unit.
Notice the sd values.

- + + +

+ + + + + + + +

- + + + + + +

+ - + + -

+ + -

- +

+ + + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + + + -

+ + + +

- + + + + + -

+ + - -

+ + + + + + +

+ + + - -

+ + +

+ + + - +

+ + + + -

+ + - -

+ + + - +

+ + + + + -

+ + + + + + +

- +

+ + + + + -

+ - + + +

+ - + + + +

+ + + + - -

- -

+ + -

+ + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + +

+ + + + + -

+ + + + + +

+ + + + + +

+ + + + + -

+ + + - + + +

- + + + -

- + + +

- + + + + + + (-1)

+ + - + - +

+ + - + -

+ - - + -

+ - + + + (-1)

+ + + +

- + -

-

+ + + + + +

+ - +

- -

+ + + -

- -

+ - (-1)

+ + - + +

+ + + -

- + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + -

+ + - + + +

+ + + + +

+ + +

+ + + -

+ + + + +

+ + + + - + +

+ + + + + + +

+ + - + + +

- + + + +

+ + + + + +

- + + +

+ + - +

+ + + + +

+ - - -

- + - -

+ + + - +

+ +

+ + + + -

+ + - + +

- + -

+ + +

- + + + -

+ - + + +

- + + + + +

- + + - - +

- + - + +

+ + - + + +

- + + -

+ + + + +

- + + + +

+ + - + + + (-1)

+ + + +

- - + + + + +

- + - -

+ + - + + + +

+ + + + + (-1)

+ + + - + + +

+ - + - -

+ - + +

+ -

+ - -

+ + +

+ + + -

- - (-1)

+ + -

+ + + (-1)

+ + + + +

+ + + + + -

+ + + -

+ + + + -

- +

+ + - -

+ + + + + +

- + + + + + +

+ + -

-

+ - + +

+ - + + -

- + + -

+ + + + + -

+ + + - -

+ + - +

+ + + - -

+ + + + - +

+ + + + + - + + +

+ - + +

- - + +

+ + + - + (-1)

- -

+ + + + - -

+ + - -

+ + +

+ - - + + -

+ + + + + +

- + + + +

- + - -

+ + + + +

- - +

- -

+ - +

+ + + - + +

+ + + - + +

- + - -

+ + + + - +

+ + - -

+ + - -

+ - + +

+ + + - -

- + - +  - + +

+ + + - (-1)

+ - -

+ + + + + + -

+ + + - + + +

+ + + - + + +

- + + + -

+ + + + +

+ + + (-1)

+ + + + +

- + + +

+ + + + + +

- + +

+ - + - +

+ - - +

+ + + + (-1)

+ + + + +

- + + + + +

- + - +

- + - + - + +

+ + + + + + -

+ - + - +

- + + -

+ + + + + + -

+ + + + + + -

+ - + + + + + (-1)

- + + +

- + +

+ + + - +

+ + + + +

+ + + + - + + + +

- + + - -

+ + - -

+ + - + + + (sh. 61.260)

Such +/- distributions speak for themselves.
You know very well I'm not selling anything here, just trying to say that this game could be beatable by exploiting its flaws, that is by negating the beloved "coin flip" nature stated by experts of our a$$.

Are we wrong? Good, casinos have plenty of money to challenge us. LOL

as.

Thanks for the explanation Al!!

Yes, at Palms casino all tables are EZ baccarat tables (HE at B bets= 1.01%, the best). It's a nice premise to play baccarat giving players plenty of promotions. No many tourists playing baccarat there, the casino is crowded by locals.

About your friend..well good job...
Now after this fortunate session he has at his disposal 5.5 bankrolls to lose before breaking even.(Or, of course, to win more).
Nothing wrong to push winning sequences where the house can only hope to get that winning succession to stop once.
Then as we know very well it's all about to protect the money won by lowering the betting frequency and the betting amounts: "quitting the table as winner" move is not giving any long term advantage.

as.

QuoteThere is also "Off The Street", (no front money) $25 min to $100k (yes $100,000.00) max outside the Chicago area.  And it is mostly EZ. 

Please elaborate it. Thanks!

as.

Streaks

Let's assume for simplicity that each shoe dealt will contain 80 resolved hands (ties ignored). On average we'll get:

a) 20 singles
b) 20 streaks

Of those 20 streaks, half will be doubles (10) and half will be 3/3+ streaks (10).
Again of those 3/3+ streaks half (5) will be 3s streaks and half (5) will be superior 3s streaks.
Then of that 5 streaks belonging to the 4/4+ category, half (2.5) will be precise 4s streaks and half (2.5) will be superior 4s streaks.
And so on.

So per every shoe dealt we'll expect two or three streaks equal or superior than 5.

This assumption relies upon a constant perfect symmetry working per each hand dealt, but we know that at baccarat such symmetry will be disregarded by "forces" belonging to different sources:

1- bac rules mathematically favoring B side (constant)

2- greater two-card initial points limited ranges (actual)

3- factors capable to stop (3a) or prolong (3b) an already univocal succession (actual streak ranges)

For sure the most decisive factors in the streaks formation happening per every shoe dealt is 2 and 3.

Obviously the most powerful force comes out when 1, 2 and 3b merge together, thus enticing us to bet B. Nonetheless this situation happens quite rarely.

Yet we know that point 2 remains the most important as the side getting the higher two initial cards will get a close to 2:1 probability to win the final hand.
In other words, in order to spot the side getting the greater 2CIP we THEORICALLY need to be right just a bit more than one time in two attempts.
Unfortunately things aren't so easy in practice, as huge 2CIPs could easily succumb to higher points (even for long) and of course such math propensity relies upon an average zero value cards distribution having an important (neutral) role about third card(s)' impact.

Then (thanks to Alrelax points) there's the 3 factor, that is the actual third(s) card impact that very often will erase and invert an already point 2 propensity. Or, to enforce it (but now we are not really interested about it as we've already chosen the 'right' spot).
 
Streaks lenght are just the by product of those three factors converging together.

Since the baccarat model is asymmetrical by any means, we should approximate at best how many times a H2CIP will stand at the same side, then what are the actual ranges of the 3 factor knowing that, generally speaking, 3a>3b up to some cutoff points and only finally by considering that B streaks will be anyway longer than P streaks.

Considerations about odd and even slots or final points are too complicated to be evaluated without an electronic (ILLEGAL) device, so we must rely upon those three factors.

Three factors: Ideal world and mistakes

1- If B>P by a manageable pattern exploitation, the game wouldn't exist, so negating a kind of ideal world. 
In reality it's a sure fact that at commission games casinos particularly like Banker bettors than Player bettors. Not mentioning those id.iots constantly wagering B at no commission Tiger/Lucky6 tables where the HE is 1.46% and not 1.06%.

2- H2CIP feature a lot of variance as a sort of 35% expected and average losing probability will come out more often than many would think, providing of course to guess right the side getting that H2CIP by percentages slightly higher than 2:1.
But now the ideal world exists, that is to get all spotted H2CIP winning.
Again the main mistake is to force an event not appearing so far to show up soon. A sre recipe for disaster. 

3- Most of the times third(s) card favors the already higher point, here the ideal points would be when the third(s) card always make a ZERO impact over the final outcome or to repeatedly help the same underdog side.
Whenever the card distribution seems to be so polarized to help consecutively the underdog side, we'd better forget the 2 factor.
Conversely, more emphasis must be given to the side not being sensibly affected for long by the third card impact.
   

as.

Quote"but one side is payed 1:1 and the other one 0.95:1."

Are all tables commissioned in Europe? 

Most all the tables I play on, even those with $10,000 and up max wagering, are non commission Banker side these days.

I do not know about European premises other than Montecarlo casino and yes, it's a 5% B commission there.

Yes, when one would think that a natural will come out, "no commission tables" spread among US are the best, EZ tables first (notoriously featuring the lowest HE).

The main problem of EZ tables is that a diluted hyper selective strategy cannot afford to get a "push" on F-7 Banker winning spots, thus enticing us to bet the F-7 side bet burdened by a bad 7.6% HE (even though such bet covering the main bet should be 1/40).

For what we know, no one HS Vegas room seems to offer EZ tables (for obvious reasons).

as.

KFB wrote:

Q wouldn't this favor P as P would prefer NOT to draw a third card since then B may be allowed to exercise its option(i.e., to draw or not to draw). E.G. lets say there are more 8/9 cards remaining and we see BPB_ , wager P??.

Yep, when the deck is particularly full of 8s and 9s (true count, of course) the probability either side will get a natural is beyond the average 34.2%, but one side is payed 1:1 and the other one 0.95:1.
Whereas is virtually impossible to spot the asymmetrical hands favoring Banker (8.6% vs all other hands), we have means to valuably approximate a nearly 4 fold more likely probability of naturals, even though half of them will fall into the losing B side.

More generally speaking, the baccarat model is built around odd (1st and 3rd) and even (2nd and 4th) card slots that dynamically change their pace in relationship of how many cards were utilized at the previous hand.
First card and third card = P
Second card and fourth card = B

So when 5 cards are used to resolve a hand, next hand restarts (inverting) the process; on the contrary 4 and 6 cards used to resolve a hand will make constant the odd/even card fall with no pace changements.
That doesn't mean we'll be able to spot easily the final winning hand, just to work about more likely ranges, the same thing studied at other games.   

Then at baccarat also the odd or even FINAL point matters, always considered by ranges.
Differently to what many think about, odd and even final numbers do not get the same probability to win and this fact affects the average streaks lenght probability and the related isolated/clustering factor happening per any shoe dealt.

as.

Be prepared to risk a large part or most or ALL of your bankroll at some spots, after all is the same thing "acute" smart poker players must do to win a WSOP NL hold'em tournament.

as. 

Say that you're at least 100 fold more likely to win $10 millions by starting with a $10.000 bankroll than hoping to win the WSOP Main Event bullsh.it.

as.   

Stay tuned because you'll get a better idea of what we're really relying upon, shoe per shoe.

You'll see that Alrelax and KFB ideas take an additional important role about our strategy, after all we are three players wagering serious money at the tables.

as.

 

There are few ways to consistently win and many ways to lose without any sensible probability to get even itlr (so losing more and more and more).

First, baccarat remains a strong EV- game featuring few EV+ spots along the way (experts never confirmed the EV+ spots appearance other than by a ridicolously low profitable edge extracted by card counting). Those "experts" are wrong experts.

Second, the only way to get an advantage is by spotting the (rare) situations where a given A pattern will more likely prolong or stop, a probability that "experts" consider as "symmetrical", that is not shifted toward a more probable outcome.
Another strong desert tortoise sh.it. 

As long as a given range of columns will be filled no matter how are distributed the outcomes, we know to be in a very good shape, even by not knowing precisely the "shifting points" intervening among columns (columns lenght).

Obviously streaky shoes are shortening the average columns lenght and chopping shoes are enlarging the columns number, yet the average columns number range remains quite restricted.

Actually some random walks "challenge" the model to provide LONG symmetrical (say homogeneous) situations, after all each shoe provides a sure asymmetrical card distribution better ascertained by registration paces different than consecutive B/P simple results.

Derived roads might be a possible answer but there are way better ways (random walks) capable to extract value by a sure asymmetrical card distribution forming streaks of more probable lenght and distribution shapes.

In a couple of days I'll present the distribution and relative weight of specific streaks lenght registered at a large live shoes sample by utilizing our main random walk, anybody could get his/her conclusions.

as.

It's impossible to track all the various card and pattern situations happening per every shoe dealt without an electronic (illegal) device and it's altogether obvious that there's no point to demonstrate publicly that such device could really help us to beat the game.

Actually many people utilize softwares to beat online games, mostly at poker sites in order to ascertain opponent moves by % ranges then putting those infos into the software which will tell them what would be the best approach to make.

So would it be a viable option to use a software to beat online baccarat games?

Probably it is, yet we strongly prefer to play live games for several reasons:

- Generally speaking at gambling we do not trust anyone, sometimes even if we can keep a visual direct approach of what is happening (so including some live action).

- Online games provide too short betting intervals between hands, a factor further aggravated by occasional disconnections.

- Our very diluted betting strategy suffers a lot when sites authomatically disconnect a player from the play, thus forcing us to rejoin the site with a sensible waste of time (and not witnessed hands dealt).
Of course betting every hand with a way lower standard unit will erase the problem but raising casinos' heat.

- Many hands are missing from the display. They happened but not registered. 

-Online it's more difficult to play huge sums and to collect them in brief time. We hate to lose serious money in minutes/hours but to collect winnings in days (or weeks).

- It's a sure fact that "too winning" players are banned from almost every site; frankly the 'trick' to set up new or multiple accounts (or other ploys) is annoying.

- Other

In summary it's way better to lose a fair part of our EV by choosing to bet live games than online games.
It's what we name as an approximated way to consider things.

Later

as.

Note: 2CIP must be intended as the "higher" 2CIP falling at one side (H2CIP), obviuosly this is a symmetrical (but slight dependent) probability.

But clustered or isolated H2CIP situations are more affected by the actual card distribution, subtly privileging the opposite side which won the last hand.

Again, check your shoes and let me know how many "long" streaks come out from a homogeneous H2CIP situation.
Very few, most part of long streaks need to win "unfavorite" hands ("lucky" third card impact) even though is certain that a fair portion of the shifts (short streaks or any) between sides is caused by the same effect.
 
See you later

as.
   

By now my "horses" seem to do quite well...

Back to baccarat.

The "average shoe distribution" relies upon the consecutiveness (range) of higher two-card initial points falling (or not) at the same side (B or P) as any two-card initial point (2CIP) is strongly favorite to win the final outcome.

Whenever 2CIPs follow an average probability to show up (meaning deviations are quite restricted, so well controllable) AND final results tend to follow such math advantage, it's a child's joke to get an edge over the house.

Problems rise up when the math advantaged side will succumb to the third(s) card impact too many times in a a row or by percentages going too distant from a general 2:1 shifted ratio.
In this instance the actual shoe becomes as "unplayable" as we have reasons to think that an average card distribution won't happen at this shoe or that is too whimsical to be exploited other than by luck.

And we know that "luck favors prepared minds" only if we're able to restrict its impact by verified (so more probable) limits, surpassed them we're not interested to chase anything.

Remember that playing with an edge means to spot a slight greater amount of 2CIP situations than average and not guessing the winning final hand no matter what.

In fact guessing the winning final hand is in direct relationship of how many MORE times we were able to spot a 2CIP situation than average, letting the third(s) card impact to get their job.

Whenever the third(s) card seems to alter too much in expected frequency an already math shifted situation, we should simply say to the house "let your hands flow, I won't bet a dime on this improbable succession".

In some way the bet selection issue is restricted by approximating at best the probability ranges of 2CIP events.

And those 2CIP events aren't so whimsically placed than one could think of, actually they are arranged by more likely ranges.
Then a strong factor altering the final results is made by the third(s) card impact, but most of the times what was math favorite to win remains favorite to produce the final winning hand, even if some harsh variance acts along the way.

4/13 of total rank cards are neutral (zero value) cards, if we add Aces to the neutral cards we know that 38.46% of the deck is most likely irrelevant to the final result, so the main bet selection should be oriented to prolong or stop an already 2CIP math shifted situation.

The decisive factor to take care of is that inferior 2CIP events winning the final hand by getting a value of third card are restarting the normal flow of 2CIP, no matter what were the univocal results happening at a same side.

It's 1 billion % certain that the vast majority of long streaks apparition do not come out from long sequences of 2CIP situations, but by taking advantage of the third card impact.
Normally such situations being underdog to alter the final results, yet they could entice long streaks formation.

as.

Thanks for your comments KFB and Al!

Recently we have built a possible useful "simple" answer to know whether a shoe will be playable (so profitable) or not (where the profitability seems to be denied by the actual card distribution), we'll see it later.

BTW (off topic): In around 5 minutes the Day 8 of The WSOP Main Event will start. There are 18 players left (10.112 entrants), among them there are a couple of poker players I admire the most:

Kristen Foxen (Canada) and Niklas Astedt (Sweden) that have demonstrated to play a wonderful brilliant poker.
Good luck to both, hope to see you at the Final Table!

as.