Hi Al!
Here is:
Without any doubt and by playing a lot of hands, the number of profitable/unprofitable situations stays way below of the 1/1 ratio and actually it should remain unfavourable even when we bet five, two or one hand per shoe or just one hand per every ten shoes dealt.
I'll try to elaborate such concept.
Math teaches us that any bet is EV- no matter what, so no human influence (or fkng mechanical models or progressions) can invert it and this is a utterly indisputable statement.
Whenever you bet 1 to get a 0.9894 or 0.98.76 return, you're losing money itlr, period.
Of course math assumes that bettable successions are randomly and indipendently produced.
Baccarat literature has never investigated whether bac successions are really random, neither about how the "dependency" factor could be measured as both parameters were simply ascertained as 1) a sure feature (all shoes are randomly produced) and 2) any new hand is completely disjointed from previous hands.
Since black jack was found to be a beatable game (well before E. Thorp published his book), "experts" tried to apply the same math features at baccarat, obviously with no avail.
Whereas bj successions can get a lesser fk about a possible unrandomness, so focused about the current high cards/low cards ratio, at baccarat ALL successions were and are considered randomly produced.
Actually a kind of baccarat dependency was spotted, but acting by insignificant values.
So under the eyes of gambling experts baccarat remains a random EV- game.
This is a 1 billion false statement, such people didn't know the best definition of randomness ever made, let alone how much a finite slight dependent model will act by transforming it into a unrandom sequence.
Casinos do not know a fkng nothing about this, they just collect the profits as people keep playing the game without really knowing what to look for.
Therefore people willing to open the door about the bac vulnerability are considered just as clowns, unless they'd bet huge sums and being consistently more right than wrong.
Now math laws as well as mathematician assumptions start to be debatable, to say the least.
Let the house getting its math edge, we'd get the best of it no matter what.
as.
Here is:
Without any doubt and by playing a lot of hands, the number of profitable/unprofitable situations stays way below of the 1/1 ratio and actually it should remain unfavourable even when we bet five, two or one hand per shoe or just one hand per every ten shoes dealt.
I'll try to elaborate such concept.
Math teaches us that any bet is EV- no matter what, so no human influence (or fkng mechanical models or progressions) can invert it and this is a utterly indisputable statement.
Whenever you bet 1 to get a 0.9894 or 0.98.76 return, you're losing money itlr, period.
Of course math assumes that bettable successions are randomly and indipendently produced.
Baccarat literature has never investigated whether bac successions are really random, neither about how the "dependency" factor could be measured as both parameters were simply ascertained as 1) a sure feature (all shoes are randomly produced) and 2) any new hand is completely disjointed from previous hands.
Since black jack was found to be a beatable game (well before E. Thorp published his book), "experts" tried to apply the same math features at baccarat, obviously with no avail.
Whereas bj successions can get a lesser fk about a possible unrandomness, so focused about the current high cards/low cards ratio, at baccarat ALL successions were and are considered randomly produced.
Actually a kind of baccarat dependency was spotted, but acting by insignificant values.
So under the eyes of gambling experts baccarat remains a random EV- game.
This is a 1 billion false statement, such people didn't know the best definition of randomness ever made, let alone how much a finite slight dependent model will act by transforming it into a unrandom sequence.
Casinos do not know a fkng nothing about this, they just collect the profits as people keep playing the game without really knowing what to look for.
Therefore people willing to open the door about the bac vulnerability are considered just as clowns, unless they'd bet huge sums and being consistently more right than wrong.
Now math laws as well as mathematician assumptions start to be debatable, to say the least.
Let the house getting its math edge, we'd get the best of it no matter what.
as.