Casinos' advantage
First, forget the idea that casinos earn a lot of money by taking advantage of their math edge.
No one casino will accumulate huge profits at bac tables by getting a fkng 1.25% average edge, they profit a lot more than that.
Stup.id side bets? Maybe.
Improper players' money wagering? Sure as hell.
Consider that a fair coin flip succession isn't beatable by definition, we shouldn't give a flying fk if eventually we are supposed to break even.
In any fair proposition the wealthiest side will get the underdog side sooner or later.
Are we richer than casinos? No way. And even if we do are, maximum betting limits pose a real threat on such proposition. For us not for them.
Let's figure out if our bets are taxed somewhat.
Casinos perspective
Without no exception (besides when bac personnel are keen bac players too) anytime you join a table you are considered as a mere perfect stu.pi.d id.i.ot person willing to lose money. A lot of money indeed.
Most of the times they are right and whenever you are not they start to grumble.
They wish you 'good luck' when they intend to say "dude, you have no chance to win".
They are right. The most you play the more you'll lose as math edge is constantly working for them.
But there's a stronger accelerating process working for them either: raising our bets for whatever reason.
This is not about a linear relationship of the money percentage they'll entitled to win mathematically, they know we can't sustain the variance being asymmetrically placed along the way.
Heaven happens: we'll win less than the expected fair return;
Hell happens: we'll go broke.
So this fact should lure us to think what the fk we're doing when joining a bac table:
-are we really exploiting a kind of edge or we are there to just gamble?
Baccarat expectations
Mathematically speaking (so without any shadow of doubt) any possible advantage is best exploited by a strict fkng flat betting strategy and I do not stall the post to prove this by math formulas.
Remember that the best friend of gamblers is variance and the worst enemy of pros is variance.
Same issue to look for but for very different reasons.
Actually this is a strong asymmetrical proposition to look for as gamblers look for just one side of things going their way whereas pros look for two different way of things developing.
Up to a point.
Again, wisest way to ascertain that we're taking the best of things is by adopting a same betting amount, best if we're betting the maximum limit that gives us no room to be outrageously wrong or
outrageously right.
I mean that there's no way to quit a bac table as winners if we didn't catch more W spots than L spots.
People trying to convince you that a lower amount of W hands than L hands will get 'em a profit anyway are fooling you by a 1 billion accuracy.
This thing could really happen just at very short term successions, that is when the natural variance hadn't the room to show up.
Any session MUST be a winning session
This is the most important point to look for, imo.
Whereas at bj we could easily lose several sessions in a row despite a possible carefully assessed math advantage, at baccarat this thing doesn't exist at all.
Actually and providing a fair amount of shoes dealt, an acute player won't lose a dime for each session played. I mean by flat betting, of course.
If he/she is behind, it's because he/she played very bad. Cards are not the culprit of such 'misfortune'.
Profitable opportunities do not come around the corner but they'll come.
We'll see this topic in a couple of days.
as.
First, forget the idea that casinos earn a lot of money by taking advantage of their math edge.
No one casino will accumulate huge profits at bac tables by getting a fkng 1.25% average edge, they profit a lot more than that.
Stup.id side bets? Maybe.
Improper players' money wagering? Sure as hell.
Consider that a fair coin flip succession isn't beatable by definition, we shouldn't give a flying fk if eventually we are supposed to break even.
In any fair proposition the wealthiest side will get the underdog side sooner or later.
Are we richer than casinos? No way. And even if we do are, maximum betting limits pose a real threat on such proposition. For us not for them.
Let's figure out if our bets are taxed somewhat.
Casinos perspective
Without no exception (besides when bac personnel are keen bac players too) anytime you join a table you are considered as a mere perfect stu.pi.d id.i.ot person willing to lose money. A lot of money indeed.
Most of the times they are right and whenever you are not they start to grumble.
They wish you 'good luck' when they intend to say "dude, you have no chance to win".
They are right. The most you play the more you'll lose as math edge is constantly working for them.
But there's a stronger accelerating process working for them either: raising our bets for whatever reason.
This is not about a linear relationship of the money percentage they'll entitled to win mathematically, they know we can't sustain the variance being asymmetrically placed along the way.
Heaven happens: we'll win less than the expected fair return;
Hell happens: we'll go broke.
So this fact should lure us to think what the fk we're doing when joining a bac table:
-are we really exploiting a kind of edge or we are there to just gamble?
Baccarat expectations
Mathematically speaking (so without any shadow of doubt) any possible advantage is best exploited by a strict fkng flat betting strategy and I do not stall the post to prove this by math formulas.
Remember that the best friend of gamblers is variance and the worst enemy of pros is variance.
Same issue to look for but for very different reasons.
Actually this is a strong asymmetrical proposition to look for as gamblers look for just one side of things going their way whereas pros look for two different way of things developing.
Up to a point.
Again, wisest way to ascertain that we're taking the best of things is by adopting a same betting amount, best if we're betting the maximum limit that gives us no room to be outrageously wrong or
outrageously right.
I mean that there's no way to quit a bac table as winners if we didn't catch more W spots than L spots.
People trying to convince you that a lower amount of W hands than L hands will get 'em a profit anyway are fooling you by a 1 billion accuracy.
This thing could really happen just at very short term successions, that is when the natural variance hadn't the room to show up.
Any session MUST be a winning session
This is the most important point to look for, imo.
Whereas at bj we could easily lose several sessions in a row despite a possible carefully assessed math advantage, at baccarat this thing doesn't exist at all.
Actually and providing a fair amount of shoes dealt, an acute player won't lose a dime for each session played. I mean by flat betting, of course.
If he/she is behind, it's because he/she played very bad. Cards are not the culprit of such 'misfortune'.
Profitable opportunities do not come around the corner but they'll come.
We'll see this topic in a couple of days.
as.