Quote from: alrelax on February 22, 2022, 05:03:43 AM

Low ties 0-1-2-3 when there are plenty of hands out, tend to produce nice clumps of whatever.  Meaning, the presentations will basically follow something relatively easy to follow.  Higher amounts of ties say 5-6 and up, tend to produce much harder to follow presentations, etc.

Nice to hear from you this again, a further confirmation about that.

Shoes particularly rich of ties should fit the 'unplayable' shoes category.
We got even a theory about that.

Ties are more likely to show up when 6 cards are used to form a hand, that is where the most random world will take its place. As no key cards are more probably affecting the results at the start. 

So whenever ties seem to come out by a larger probability than expected, do not bet BP lines and get the fk out of that shoe very soon.

as.

Convergence in probability

No need to Wikipedia this concept that we can simply summarise into this passage:

"Stochastic convergence" formalizes the idea that a sequence of essentially random or unpredictable events can sometimes be expected to settle into a pattern.


Change the words 'essentially random or unpredictable events' with 'mostly unrandom events and quite predictable events' and 'sometimes' with 'more often than not' and you'll get a better idea of what I'm talking about.

There are no scientifical proofs showing that physically made baccarat successions are really randomly produced as they can't pass both the important 'place selection' and 'probability after events' features confirming the perfect random nature of results.
After all anyone thinking that baccarat produces random sequences infinitely should risk his/her money at other games.

So the vast majority of baccarat successions are made by limited probabilities oriented to produce more likely dynamic outcomes, of course at degrees well surpassing the fkng math negative edge.

But to get a substantial edge over the house we need our different limited random walks to converge into the same betting spot.

There are many ways to consider the factors influencing the actual patterns. A horizontal way of thinking the results (columns) is an answer as long with a kind of opposite vertical registration (rows).
Then the actual asym/sym hands finite ratio is another factor to consider.
Not mentioning how many high-key cards are live into the deck.
Finally, ties are surely another parameter to look for as shoes particularly rich of ties tend to deny 'normal' statistical deviations as any tie happened seems to 'erase' or lower any back to back expected probability.

To set up a long term winning strategy no need to take care of all those factors, maybe you have to do that whether flat betting maximum limits.
Actually a fair edge comes out whenever an isolated/clustered scenario converging into the same spot must take place at some points of most part of the shoes, as an already asymmetrical math proposition will be enforced by the important asymmetrical card distribution. Happening at unrandom shuffled shoes.

as.

Streaks as a realiable source of asymmetry

The asymmetrical card distribution feature could be exploited by advancing one step further, that is by considering only the streaks of certain lenght.
More precisely by forming 'classes' of streaks of specific lenght.

We well know that per each class of streak we'll get an equal amount of superior streaks, therefore two classes of streaks will fight against another one by a general 0.75 probability.

Say we want to examine 3,4 and 5+ streaks (from now we name them 5). (Of course there are reasons to choose such categories). 

Shoe example #1.  Streaks are: 5, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3.

3 vs superior streaks = 6/3

4 vs sup streaks= 1/2

Since we won't know when a given class of streaks will outnumber a proportional 'homogeneous' distribution, let's try to consider all possible 3-4-5 combinations.

3-4= LWWWLWWWW

3-5= WWLWWWWWW

4-5= WLWLWLLLL

Naturally to try to spot the 'heterogeneous' streak (and more importantly its average impact over the actual distribution) we can always adopt the unb plan #1 guidelines.

Shoe #2. Streaks are: 3, 3, 5, 4, 4, 3, 4, 5, 5.

3-4= WWLWWWWLL

3-5= WWWLLWLWW

4-5= LLWWWLWWW

Shoe #3. Streaks are: 4, 3, 5, 3, 5, 4, 5, 3, 3, 4, 5.

3-4= WWLWLWLWWWL

3-5= LWWWWLWWWLW

4-5= WLWLWWWLLWW

Shoe #4. Streaks are: 3, 3, 5, 4, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5.

3-4= WWLWWWWWL

3-5= WWWLWWLWW

4-5= LLWWLLWLW

Of course and besides of the last part of shoe #1, I have omitted to present shoe examples producing long homogeneous streaks of same lenght as 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 5, 3, 3, 3. And they are quite often to happen.
I've already named them as 'jackpots' for obvious reasons.
Now:

3-4= WWWWWWLWWW

3-5= WWWWWWWWWW

4-5= LLLLLLWLLL


Notice and obviously that there are no tricks involved about WL percentages, in fact:

shoe #1

3-4= +1
3-5= +5
4-5= -15   

shoe #2

3-4= -3
3-5= -3
4-5= -3   

shoe #3

3-4= -5
3-5= -1
4-5= -5   

shoe #4

3-4= +1
3-5= +1
4-5= -11   

Finally the last 'homogeneous' shoe:

3-4= +6
3-5= +10
4-5= -26   

If we were playing with a team formed by three different players each betting its class (3-4), (3-5) and
(4-5), we eventually got a -48 unit loss (plus vig), a loss accumulated only by the 4-5 player.

Do not be led to think that player wagering the longer streaks (4,5) will be destined to lose heavily most of the time as many shoes will present a lot of 4 streaks with few or no 3s and sometimes shoes are particularly rich of long streaks (5).

Again we are jumping back to the same old concept that it's not possible to beat the game by a strict mechanical betting unless we're considering a kind of 'biased' card distribution happening along any shoe dealt negating a perfect random unbeatable world.
And few spots are really worthwhile to be wagered at.

Therefore there will be 'math' probabilities to get B after A and there are statistical and actual probabilities to get B after A as at baccarat no hand is completely independent from the previous one, especially whether we have reasons to think the actual shoe is not perfect randomly shuffled.

Always realizing that such slight propensity will act under insignficant variance values just at very selected spots.

as. 

Think that any shoe dealt in the universe will be affected by a kind of sure 'asymmetrical' bias as key cards cannot be proportionally distributed along any shoe.

The 'average' card distribution will help us to define what will be the more likely patterns that can't avoid to suffer natural short term negative fluctuations, but surely getting a long term profitability.

For example and neglecting a key flat betting strategy, set your random walk at an X more probable event (unb plan #1, #2 or code). Do not give a fkn fk about short term deviations. Dayly sessions are losers stuff.

Martingale your setted event by a progressive betting up you'll erase any previous deficit.
At any loss you'll stay at the same level, at any win you'll raise your bet.

Since we know that a chopping WL long scenario is less likely to happen than streaky negative or positive situations, a simple progressive plan will get the best of it as we won't raise our wagers unless a W came out and whenever a L shows up we'll stay at the same level.

The power of such strategy is that in any instance three different strategic plans will simultaneously get strong negative deviations on all lines.

And, btw, in any instance you'll get your bankroll crushed as a symmetrical losing world cannot happen for long at any single plan.

More on that tomorrow.

as.   

Without any doubt statistical signicance is the best tool to try to beat BP results.
So we must ask ourselves 'how large should be the testing sample to know if a strategy is really good?"

The larger=the better of course, then we must compute the average betting frequency per shoe and the actual source of outcomes.

Simply put, we have to test until natural strong 'negative' deviations will happen (as heavy positive fluctuations are more expected) in relationship of the number of bets considered and then evaluating their impact on our strategy.

After all if we've chosen to set up our main plan on 'averages', we should be ready to face any strong negative unlikely deviation the course of action will produce along the way. And those unfortunate situations will come out proportionally with the number of shoes tested.
Trivial considerations, I know.

For example, say we have found a method capable to survive after a 4 sigma negative situation (e.g. losing 16 hands in a row or other situations like that).
More or less it's like facing a negative 16 B or P streak that will put a harsh or fatal dent to our bankroll.
At a 50/50 proposition and discounting neutral ties, odds that we'll face this event are 1:65.536.

So, on average, assuming to play nearly 65 resolved hands per shoe, we need 1000 shoes to face this possibility.

At the same token, by betting just 6.5 average hands per shoe we'll need more than 10.000 shoes to get a 4 sigma.

Hence we shouldn't fool ourselves by thinking that a 'diluted' betting plan alone will get better odds unless a proper proportional amount of shoes were tested. (Of course betting by a 10 times less frequency leads to a minor vig impact). 
This trick was (and is) currently used by 'magic system sellers' that (and I'm taking into account the 'fair' part of them) had tested an insignicant amount of shoes when related to the actual betting frequency.
Even worse are the people keep thinking and claiming that simple key trigger mechanical situations happening on average 1 or 2 times per shoe will get 'em a long term profit.
Now they'd need at least a 32.500 or 65.000 shoe sample to verify their claimings.

And we know the importance to ONLY register real phisically shuffled shoes, better whether considered under the more homogeneously factors we can think about.
So it's very very unlikely that a player or a team of players will possede such a large sample, so such claimings will directly go into the toilet.

But now let's say that after a fair amount of tested shoes in relationship of a shoe's average bet frequency, per every strong negative deviation happening (where we can't do anything) we'll get an unproportional amount of strong positive deviations, that is a number higher than 1.
If this number is substantially higher than 1, we might overcome the HE even knowing that our general math expectancy will be negative but our actual probability of success will go beyond the expected values.

And this possible feature must show up unproportionally at each class of favourable or unfavourable streaks lenght.

For example: say that after 1000 hands placed and assuming to bet a 50/50 percentage of BP hands, we've set up a strategy where our profitable winning rate must be at least 50.7%.
Thus we need to win at least 507 hands, so losing hands account as 493.
It's a 1.4% cutoff edge, the minimum value to beat the HE when considering a 50/50 BP percentage average betting frequency.

Now let's dissect such values in terms of patterns.

Step #1

W singles must be lower than W clusters of any lenght;

L singles must be superior than L streaks of any lenght.

Step #2

W doubles must be inferior than superior winning streaks;

L doubles must be superior than superior losing streaks.

Step #3

W 3+ streaks must be superior than triple W streaks;

L triple streaks must be superior than 3+ losing streaks.

And so on.

Each class fights constantly against the opposite counterpart, so itlr a powerful strategy must get every class to outnumber the same opposite class by an ascending line.

It's the average card distribution that beats the house.

as.

8OR9: good points.
BTW, "happy wife (or happy husband) = happy life" 

There's a big difference between baccarat testing and black jack testing:
At black jack we are just interested about high/low card concentration/dilution, being high cards favourable and low cards unfavourable, anytime anywhere and anyhow. So pc simulated shoes are really worthwhile to test.
In a word, one sided deviation (deck portions rich of high cards and aces) will be the only guideline to follow in order to get a math edge.

At baccarat the main factor polarizing the results will be the average key card distribution, but we do not know how much and how long a side will be kissed by such key card falling.
Moreover many 'whimsical' results produce 'prolonging' or 'stopping' patterns where math apparently can't do anything about that other that in the very long run.
That is there are so many actual variables to consider that we should just rely upon the king/queen tool of statistical evidence: the frequentist approach.

So, for example, never assume that after tossing a given dice a '6' will show up by a 1/6 'expected' probability unless you have collected data capable to confirm that (sd is the watchdog of randomness).
Now it's clear that pc simulated shoes are not performing the same qualities any physically shuffled shoe dealt will get as many different than 'high/low' variables come in order.

Consider a Shuffle Master Machine shuffling two different shoes alternatively.
The probability a fresh shuffled shoe will break ALL coupled (back-to-back) cards happened at the same dealt shoe is literally zero. And many times even three (or more) cards won't be broken in their old sequence.
You can argue that this thing doesn't make a side more likely than the other one, yet this is a strong proof that shoes are not so 'randomly' shuffled as people would think of.

There are additional examples to make not involving SM machines that for obvious reasons I do not want to expose here.

Anyway think that in the vast majority of the times, physically shuffled shoes can't simulate a pc card distribution as a kind of bias is acting along the way at some point.
So testing a strategy on pc bac shoes is a fruitless task.
After all we won't bet our money at pc simulated shoes.

as.

At baccarat the only thing we should look for is the 'Probability World', I mean the real situations bac tables are going to produce endlessly.

We won't give a lesser cottontail rabbitsh.it about math laws as those belong to an 'ideal' world where each hand is completely independent from the previous one and the source of results will be perfect randomly distributed.
Therefore do not insult your intelligence by thinking that baccarat cannot be beaten as math dictates so.

Anyway it can't be beaten as well without having measured your results by testing a very large LIVE shoes sample.

After having tested a lot of real live shoes and knowing what to look for, it's quite easy to find out that potential math probability has nothing to share with actual probability, especially whether we're considering series of limited events.

That means that itlr the probability to get an 'average card distribution' shoe will overcome any other scenario and whenever an average shoe will happen we're strongly favored to win.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on February 01, 2022, 02:30:34 AM

However the problem once a player wins using it, is his psychological end which falls subconsciously to greed (big time) and then the recklessness begins. 

I have written extensively about that. 

Being successful at baccarat involves numerous things to be conscious about and employ at the table.

You are absolutely correct!!

Probably the quote Hoping for the best but expecting the worst best illustrates the concept.

Even playing by a math edge (or an advantage of some kind) we must 'hope' that things will go in our favor in a decent amount of time; in the meanwhile we must expect the worst.

Sometimes even casinos rely upon that adage.
Think how glad pitbosses stare at an occasional super high stakes player finding endless winning streaks with no guarantees he/she will return to play there.   

Sayed that, I'm pretty certain that baccarat is a scientifically beatable game, actually the best game to play at any casino.
It will be a time when casinos will use CSM at their bac tables, erasing any possible 'card distribution' study and finiteness of the shoe, neutralizing random defects and of course any side bets card counting.
Or maybe not as 99.9% of bac players (a real optimistic percentage) keep staying at the 'ignorant' side of the things, so continuing to fill casinos' pockets. 

Finally, but we should know that very well, itlr the probability to win mathematically at a math EV- game is zero.

But 1+1=2 only when 1 is a real 1; maybe in the real world 0.9+1.1=2 and it's now that things could change.

as

This new derived road will take care of the 'predominant' red or blue global propensity (2/3 or 3/3) happening at any shoe dealt.
If 2/3 or 3/3 of all three DRs dictate to get a red spot and the next hand will be a red spot we'll sign a red spot otherwise we write down a blue spot.

Of course this new line will get the same identical properties of any other registration, confirming that baccarat shoes are not so randomly produced as general probabilities dictate.

It's now that we should understand the important fact that some hands cannot belong to our registration by any means as they simply had surpassed our cutoff points of interest.

Since bac shoes are finite by definition, we know that the probability to get this or that will be proportionally related about how many times such cutoff points will be surpassed.

We can't control every outcome, let alone the majority of outcomes, we could just control the propensities of an average (then more likely) card distribution.

In other words, our strategy should rely upon a 'limited random walk'.

We can do that as any card distribution of the universe cannot deviate from more likely occurences for long, otherwise casinos would be thrown out of business by offering bac tables.

So 'easy detectable trends' will be less and less probable as long as shoes are dealt whereas the 'more likely world' must happen very soon than later.

Math expectation and statistical expectation

Mathematics cannot be disputed but the environment where math should be working should.

There's no one serious statistical evidence proving that live baccarat shoes are randomly produced, and we can't give a lesser fk whether itlr B will approach more and more the 50.68% winning probability.
For that matter ask the math geniuses what will be the more likely pattern coming up at both sides and such fkng 'experts' have to run simulated shoes to provide an answer.
As no math formula will help them.

In any instance simulated shoes are belonging to an 'ideal' world as cards are not physically shuffled with all the consequent random limitations.

We can guess that a profitable strategy relies upon the actual probability to get a more likely average card distribution than a deviated card distribution as we've tested that the former category will overcome the latter category itlr.
So in some way we must get the lesser impact of natural deviated situations over the more likely normal lines, a principle perfectly opposed as to what many bac players will try to take advantage from.

And the answer is by assessing clustered and isolated events.

as.

At gambling (and at real world for that matter) it's very unlikely that authors and works of the past won't be of any help for actual scholars.
You know that on my pages I've stressed a lot about the cleverness of derived roads (DR) Macau inventors in the 70s: even though it's probable their main aim was different than ours, derived roads remain the best indicator that baccarat could be beatable.

Why casinos that are so smart in extracting money from their customers keep presenting derived roads on their displays?
I do not know, probably as math gurus had instructed them to think that more derived lines are showing up higher will be the confusing world players must face. Or in any case that DRs won't hurt the house.   

Notice that baccarat literature remains focused about B and P hands (mainly by fruitless card counting techniques) or side bets card counting but nobody has ever mentioned DR features.
Along with other features. Fortunately for us.

Of course to be worthwhile DR probabilities must follow a kind of 'biased' original BP sequence, so if we win at DR we'll win at Big Road too. And vice versa.

Technically this thing is possible only when disputing the real randomness of the sample (card distribution) by place selection and probability after effects tools.
Or that baccarat was beatable at the start but 'experts' hadn't find a decisive tool to look for as stubbornly oriented about math probabilities.

Building a fourth derived road

This is not the magic potion to look for, just an accelerating and additional tool to assess in order to get more likely patterns along any shoe dealt. A further proof that the random world won't be so random.

Say we call it 'asymbac' road as I strongly think to be the first to publicly present this idea.

In a nutshell, we are simultaneously registering all 3 DR (byb, sr and cr) in form of blue or red dots by this rule: whenever 2/3 or 3/3 DR will converge toward a specific color (blue or red) we will write a blue or red spot in one separated line accordingly to the actual red or blue outcome.

Since any hand is good to provide a shifted red or blue spot as 2/3 oriented no matter what, we can assess an additional 'predominant' red or blue line considered by 'codes' and each having a more likely  lenght.

Example.

Shoe went as

PPP
BB
P
BBBB
PP
BBB
PPPP
B
PP
BBB
PPPP
B
P
BB
PP
B
PP
BB
P
BB
PP
BBB
P
B
P
BBB
PPP
B

The actual 'asym DR' went as:

rrr
b
r
b
rr
b
rrr
bb
r
b
rr
b
rrr
bbbbbbbb
rrrr
b
rrrrr
bbbb
r
b
r
bb
r
b

Let's add byb and small road lines:

byb:

r
bbb
rr
b
r
b
r
bb
rr
bbbbb
r
bb
rr
bbb
r
bb
rr
bbb
rr
bbb
rrr
bbb
rr
b
r
b
rrr

and sr:

b
r
b
r
bbb
rr
b
r
b
r
bb
r
bb
r
b
r
b
r
bbbbbbbb
rr
bbb
rr
bb
r
bbbb
r
b
r
bb
r
b

If we were to assess the most likely card distribution this shoe presents, we see there are good opportunities to look for, sometimes so polarized a child would get the best of, others more intricated but in any way 'codes' are way more restricted than what a unbeatable random world dictates.

More on that tomorrow.

as. 

Quote from: klw on January 26, 2022, 08:00:17 PM
Cogratuations AsymBacGuy . It truly is 1 of the best threads ever. Full of information and very helpful. I am using your information as a base for my Bac. journey. A problem I am encountering is that I am trying to observe and note hand histories from live play. I can't seem to find a free play Bac. table and when I observe my online casino tables you get disconnected pretty quickly if you don't place a bet and I don't want the added pressure of placing bets while studying what's going on.

Any ideas how I get round this ?

Cheers.

Thanks klw!

Yep, it's quite difficult to play at online casinos and one of the reasons is just the disconnection issue.
For that matter I know some people experiencing many disconnections even though a lot of real bets were placed but a more fearsome issue to face is that some bets are 'returned' without any sensible reason (as they were placed on time and connection was good).
Finally, too many cards are burnt at the end of the shoe (for obvious reasons) erasing some profitable opportunities to bet.
However, a strong pro about online play is that you won't catch Covid by any means 

I'd suggest to manually shuffle and deal shoes for yourself, tracking the results by a free software that takes care of all roads.
A further (but quite costly) improvement is to purchase a Shuffle Master machine (identical to those working at live casinos) where you can get a new fresh shoe ready to use after the first one was dealt.
Now you can compare the same shoe results coming out alternatively.

as.

I have to thank you all as this thread got 100k views, it's a nice accomplishment I'm very proud of!

Special thanks to Alrelax, the owner of this site. Then thanks to Kungfubac, klw and many others.

On one occasion I've heard a bac manager of one high end casino saying "not every baccarat player is a loser".
Good news. We suspect he was right. 

Next week I'll present a class of additional derived roads to look for.

Take care.

as.

How many times in a row we're expected to lose with our plan?

This is the key factor to ascertain whether we're really playing a EV+ game or a kind of bighorn.sh.it.
Notice that I'm not mentioning the opposite situation as losing is well more likely than winning as baccarat remains a general EV- game.
As long as we're restricting the losing situations than what general probabilities dictate we're playing a EV+ game.

Say we're repeatedly tossing a unbiased coin but for some reasons we'll get an equal or less number of winning streaks than losing streaks, yet consecutive losing streaks stop at some points disregarding the general 0.5 probability to appear.
Of course an acute player will start to progressively bet until a losing streak of certain lenght had happened.
Notice that we won't give a lesser fk about which side is going to stop more likely as we have assessed that in the vast majority of the times losing streaks at either side hadn't surpassed a sort of cutoff point.

For example, say we tossed the coin one million of times, so on average we're entitled to cross a 10 or higher losing sequence 976 times but we have managed to register just 30 times of such occurence.
This is a strongly significant statistical value that the coin flip proposition won't follow a general 0.5 probability.

Now we begin to suspect that either our coin is not so unbiased or that it'll be unfairly tossed, yet we can't find reasons why intermediate W/L spots are following general probabilities whereas cutoff deviated spots are more likely to stop than to 'naturally' prolong.

Baccarat works around this concept: most of the times the coin is unbiased or fairly tossed (EV-), whenever a card distribution will reach some cutoff negative values, our expectancy will surpass the house edge (EV+) and fortunately for us and differently to this example many intermediate spots will get a fair probability of success and a low degree of variance (sd values).

For obvious reasons, card distributions cannot provide independent situations for long, actually most of the times they move around 'quite' expected and unbeatable probabilities until a given event is well more likely than what general probabilities dictate and of course a 'general' probability negates any kind of advantage for the player.

Add this to the fact that bac shoes are not so randomly produced as many people think: we are instructed to battle a random world but actually we don't.

as.

Curiously from one part side bets are the best option for casinos to enlarge their winnings and from the other part they can 100% be beaten mathematically.
It's like baccarat players like to fall into this cognitive dissonance as many people wager side bets but almost nobody or very few will take advantage of them.

The vulnerability of many side bets was publicly discussed by Eliot Jacobson in his 'Advanced Advantage Play' book, a very good reading for every serious baccarat player.
The problem is that it's quite difficult to put the theory into practice and people who really make a living by only attacking the side bets don't give public advices for obvious reasons.
Just to give an example, whenever a casino suspects some players are counting cards profitably, shoes start to be cut more lightly thus lowering or even erasing a possible players' EV+.

For that matter and in order to avoid home pc card counting, online casinos are used to cut a lot of cards from the play and when a 416 cards shoe is reduced to a 312 or less cards shoe (nearly two decks are removed from the play) every card counting attempt is fruitless.

Generally speaking, from a side bets vulnerability live shoes are way more attackable as most shoes are played for their almost entire lenght, especially whether a low card came as first card.
Notice that some casinos are aware of this, then when a low card is dealt as first card they'll cut off more cards at the end of the shoe in a kind of 'balancing' burning cards fashion.

Anyway and despite of their math vulnerability and a proper assessment of actual conditions, we think that side bets should be considered just as an enhancing winning factor going along our strategy and not the main reason why we are there.
First, side bets card counting involves a lot of natural variance and frankly we do not want to be behind or to wait favourable spots for long, it's just a waste of time (then of money).
Secondly, tracking the natural 'low frequency' of side bets can easily divert us from the more profitable main strategy made on BP and derived hands.
Third, side bets betting tends to elicit a 'tipping' attitude, an additional factor that will decrease our EV.
Fourth, a rare side bet player might get a lot more heat from casinos than a normal BP bettor as math is indisputable and Jacobson (along with other authors) scientifically proved that side bets are beatable.

In his numerous posts, Alrelax pointed out the importance to exploit rare events (F-7 or Panda bets, for example) coming out clustered, I mean they must come out clustered at some point.
He's right as a perfect frequency following the general probabilities is proven to be out of order.

Yet in our opinion the actual probability to hit a side bet is proportionally related about how many 'simpler' situations will come out, the simpler the better.

Therefore most of the times any 3-card hand situations won't belong to this category, in the sense that we better need one side to get a precise two-card situation as it'll be the more likely occurence to look for.

I've already written several times here that any possible side bet paying a natural point on either side (B, P and/or both) will be astoundingly beatable by a multilayered progression and actually no one casino in the world will offer this side bet.
For that matter the Dragon bonus bet is beatable by the same features, of course always wagering (when indicated) Player side as being nearly 4 times less disadvantaged than Banker side.
I mean that our primary aim will be to get a Player natural by adopting a multilayered progression, knowing that even when we do not hit the P natural we'll get options to get higher than 1:1 payments.

At the same token, the 'losing natural' side bet is hugely beatable whenever many 8s and 9s are live in the remaining portion of the shoe. Remember it's a 50:1 payed bet.

Tiger bet follows the same lines as 6s must combine with a zero value card at some point, I mean it's virtually impossible not to get a B winning 6 along a couple of shoes dealt.

Pairs are more intricated to be assessed, only a computer could get the best of it itlr. In no way I'm suggesting an illegal device to get the best of baccarat, it would be an insult to common intelligence.

Panda bets and F-7 bets both involve 3-card precise situations, only a very experienced player (or a player adopting a card counting approach) will get the best of it itlr.
Of course 8s from one part (Panda) and 7s from the other one (F-7) will make a huge role about the likelihood to win.

6/7 bad beat bets or three card 8s/9s are too unlikely options to be considered.

Ties.

Accordingly to what I've written so far and knowing that most of the ties come out when 6 cards will form a hand, ties are very rarely exploitable.
Not only they are affected by a strong EV-,  but their volatility is pretty huge.
After all on average few hands involve the use of six cards and this thing should close the talk.

Summary

Most of the times ties are not a viable option to make money. Naturally if we know to get a main EV+ plan, betting ties tends to endorse the casino's perception we are clown losers.
In any case, do not bet a tie unless a tie happened.
If many ties have occurred in the actual shoe, continue to bet small amount on ties.

Do not bet pairs, 6/7 bad beats or three card 8/9 bad beats.
It's true that pairs are beatable via card counting, but it's virtually impossibile to get the best of it without the help of an illegal device or getting a kind of heat from casinos.

F-7 and Panda bets are beatable via card counting, yet as those bets are generally offered at no commission tables, we should be way more focused about F-7 spots than Panda bets as the former will transform a B winning hand into a push whereas a Panda bet is just an additional bonus.
In this instance live 7s make a primary role on that.

'Losing natural bad beat' is one of the best way to make money by card counting, by now this bet is only offered at certain Stadium baccarat pits.

Dragon bonus.
If you wish to play this side bet do not forget to only bet the Player side. Casinos are happy to see that many players like to place Dragon bonus bets at both sides or, even worse, just on B side.
Setting up a multilayered progressive plan to get a P natural (at least) after a given deviation happened, will get you a sure edge over the house as some huge payed spots will come out to your favor (not mentioning that an equal number of naturals must come out at P side than at B side itlr).

Tiger bet.

A more classical example where math goes right down the toilet. 
Casinos were so happy to know that at Tiger bet tables B bets jumped from a +1.06% EV to a more appealing +1.46% EV, without being instructed that Tiger bet is easily countable and affected by a kind of very low variance. 
We guess that Tiger tables will disappear very soon, so reverting back to common vig tables.
Or that CSMs will be employed with the serious risk that nobody will bet a cent on those CSM tables.

as. 

Along the flow of the game some hands are more important than others

From a practical point of view, the vast majority of bac hands shouldn't be considered at all.
Those numerous hands constitute the 'side' but we should only be interested about the 'main dish'.

I know this statement totally collide with common sense and math teaching us that any hand will get the same general probability to appear. True, providing a random source of results. Along with other features that have shown to be decisive in our process of winning.

It's a sure fact that you won't see a single long term winning bac player betting more than two or (very rarely) three consecutive hands either when winning and especially when losing.
Such players do not give a damn about dragon tails, long trends or stuff like that. (Actually sometimes we do but always by not endangering a previous profit).

If they think to be able to select profitable spots to bet into they want to win immediately or on the next hand at worst. If they win they collect, if they lose they go away.
It's like that a possible edge didn't appear in that selected circumstance so they think it won't come again along the same shoe.

Such repetitive process is made infinitely, hopping from table to table so watching a lot and wagering little.

Without knowing what they are really looking for, mathematically this procedure remains an unsound strategy; anyway and assuming they are not APs, they'll fill casinos' pockets by a very low frequency.

After all to get a long term edge over the house our single bets must get at least a 51.3% probability to win when betting Banker and at least a 50.1% probability to win when wagering Player.
Betting multiple hands in a row or many bets per shoe cannot achieve that important cutoff probability percentages as profitable spots (if they really exist) comes out few and far between.

Naturally it's easier to compute the actual w/l percentages happening at the different sides when betting one or two hands per shoe.

For example, an average two hands betting per shoe means to play 35 different tables as compared to a player betting 70 hands at a single shoe.
Again, mathematically things doesn't change but maybe practically they do.

In fact, a player betting 70 hands per shoe is going to challenge several times in a row a single card distribution. This shoe could be profitable (easy detectable patterns) or not (weird undetectable patterns), yet the house is going to get the same expected amount of money at just one table than the player betting two hands at 35 different tables.

Even if the two-hands per shoe bettor plays randomly, he/she'll get more 'free' informations than the 'bet every hand' player that is forced to 'guess' everything happening at that single shoe.

In addition, the rare bettor could track easily what happened in that selected wagered situation/s shoe per shoe and acting accordingly, the other player cannot remember his/her w/l line as more forced to consider a shoe as a total world apart.

There's a big substantial difference by hoping that a 'more likely' pattern will come out by playing 35 shoes (meaning 35 different card distributions) than by playing one shoe.

Always remembering that if our bets are not getting at least 51.3%/50.1% percentages, itlr we're not going anywhere and this thing can only happen when a fair number of 'average' card distributions show up.

I understand it's hard to play a couple of hands per shoe but without this attitude you'll invariably belong to the losers category.
(Of course nothing prevent us to bet many hands per shoe by a 10x or 20x lower amount than the 'key' bet, but consider this approach as an additional vig to face).

Next week some practical guidelines we use to attack side bets.

as.