No, I won't pay you for it.

Everyone claims STRONGLY that there isn't a way to beat the game but someone is charging money claiming that they have the system to beat it. Someone also claim it takes a day to learn how to code and how easy it was to use the simulation. That's why I came up with the challenge.

You are right that I probably won't believe it. Not because I don't believe that you have the ability to code. I just don't know enough. No worries though. There are hundred of thousands of great minds in this world. If you make your proof publicly, the great minds of this world will tell you that you are either right or wrong. Go to beatthecasino.com and make it public that you are out to prove their system doesn't deserve the $600 that they are charging. We can call you a hero after that.

Why would I do your work for free? You're clearly not understanding math, so putting in the effort would be like beating my head against a wall for no reason at all. If I'm going to beat my head on a wall I need some kind of payoff. At least arrange for me to be in a Brazzers video or something...

Maybe we can turn the tables:
Explain to me how a series of negative expectation bets adds up to a net win.

And people selling systems exist because people like you are there to buy them.

Nah, you guys were too quick to say how easy everything is. So you have the burden to prove it. All talk but nothing to show.

No, I don't buy any system. Please show me where I said I would buy any. I also said I will let the world's great minds to check it out so you don't have to beat your head.

I guess I'm just wasting my time here. Later! Cheap! Cheap!

Ok.

Just to help clarify FlyOne's position...

But a disclaimer first - I would never play table games, I was/am sure this 'system' is BS... but I was interested enough to read up about it.

Yes a series of negative EV bets can't be turned into a positive result. But that is not what this 'course'/system is saying it is offering. I think we all agree that BJ is a losing game - but if you played with a single deck and were counting and changing your bet sizes - you can change this into a game that the player can have the advantage.

This is what the Baccarat system is offering. It is NOT [and I repeat that] NOT saying you need to change your bets when you 'feel' like it. So it having a randomization in the code will not be the same.

The instructor of the system says there are four different was to play Baccarat and depending on how the cards are shuffled - you pick the right one and the deck becomes +EV. He says there are 3 main ones abbreviated to NOR. And it depends whether the cards are streaky/choppy/etc???? I'm not sure what that all means.

People put up shoes they have played and players say - ah see the shoe was 'choppy' you should have played [I'm guessing here] N of the NOR system, and then the shoe becomes +EV.

Anyway the instructor does seminars and then plays live and seems to win all the time.

He is strict in playing in the right conditions.

And poker players will love this - he advocates as the main ingredient to winning being table selection.

So he won't play in certain states as they don't have enough rooms.

He has been banned from various casinos for winning.

A lot of his theory is based on the cards not being properly randomized in the shuffle. He goes quite deeply into why this is the case, and seems to suggest certain types of shuffles give shoes that are more choppy or streaky. He later on states (in 2012) that shoes have become more neutral. Which again is beatable by playing one of the NOR systems. He suggests that casinos all have different shuffling rules. Not sure if this is true. But he says the casino dictates how many riffles, etc are done by staff.

This is one of his pet projects as he suggests back in the day he would go to the casinos during the morning shuffle [is there such a thing?] and watch to get an idea of what the table conditions will be. Especially as if they are all new decks he has a better understanding of how the shoe will play.

I'm not saying any of this works. He obviously charges money for his courses. It's suggested he and some of his students win and are pros. Others don't do well. But that is about discipline, he says. They don't table select... etc.

A lot of the top players flat their bets - so don't bet a spread and go more heavily when the shoe is in their favour. So they won't be spotted and banned.

Further up FlyOne says the journalist/mathematician was first calling out this guy and saying it was all BS. And that -EV bets can't ever be made into +EV bets. Then he goes on the course [to write about it] and is converted. This is true.

What FlyOne doesn't mention [or didn't notice] is that a few years later the mathematician/journalist has swung back into thinking it's all BS.

So I'm not sure code can help. As you do need to make a read on the shuffling [yes sound BS] and the way the boards are playing out. You then need to choose the way to play NOR to exploit this in your favour.

I do read these thread from time to time and always think the posters are a bit ******ed. I'm not saying this system works. But this one has a little more to it than just some martingale or bet more when you feel like the colour orange - to it.

I don't think anyone else has read the long list of comments at the end of the second link OP posted. And i don't think he is explaining this very well.

So I thought I would post this. For what it is worth

The math has long since been done.

Certain deck compositions yield EV with < 25 cards remaining, with tie yielding the most EV. But you need to count the entire shoe down and withstand all the -EV prior to that. With comps it is possible, or you can just sit at the table and not bet until < 25 cards remain.

Link to baccarat shoe composition EV calculator here.

Okay, this dude is actually just pissing me off.

Here, nutsack:
-0.0106x = P | P > 0 && x > 0; false

Go ahead, plug it into any Ti-89. There's your proof you arrogant douche.

This is certainly possible, but are there any games where you can wong in like this after you count down to a favorable shoe? If not, then you can't win this way. Also, playing around with that calculator shows that such a favorable deck stub is pretty rare too.

So if you bet min - and then max if it becomes favorable, that might give you a little edge?

There was a UK book on finding edges against Casinos... that suggested this big spread from min bet to max - as it wouldn't be suspicious on Baccarat as the casino isn't looking for card counters in this game. But the author suggested there is only a small edge and only in a few shoes - so maybe not worth it

If you're gonna be that blatant just try to Wong in.

Yes, if you want to place a bet once every 1786 hands you could count it. Your win rate would be 0.000184 bets per 100 hands.

And yes, you could in theory shuffle track baccarat. One casino famously put unshuffled cards in play and got crushed. Aside from that, shuffle tracking it is purely theoretical. Remember, you could theoretically shuffle track a CSM if only you could see the internals while you were playing against it.

Playing around with the calculator will not give you the frequency of +EV plays. You need to develop simulations to get a better number.

I found that the frequency of +EV plays is about once every 3 shoes. Growth is very low but limits are generally very high. Obviously waiting around for the shoe to deplete is asking to get banned but I've seen more blatant abuses of +EV plays.

I thought most casinos allowed back betting on their main floor baccarat tables. I always see players bouncing around from table to table looking for streaks on the electronic monitors.

But I see your point, if one is standing there just tracking all the cards with pen and paper only to make a play at or near the ends of a shoe could draw heat.

I presume all the calculations and judjments above are based on the 5% commission rule. What if the house takes 3% from the Banco's win? That ought to make some difference. Can anyone propose the deduction for the 4-deck 3 per cent commission game of Baccarat where Punto also opts whether to draw the 3-rd card on total 5 (if that matters at all)?
I am sure the given data '0.000184 bets per 100 hands' and 'once every 1786 hands' will change dramatically.

Sorry if this has already been said...I haven't read the entire thread.

Just wanted to point out that the Martingale system wouldn't be a sure thing even if it was applied to a +EV game (well, barring the trivial case where the player wins 100% of the time).

I.e. there will still be a nonzero probability of you running out of money before you get the next win needed to make your next profit.

So all this talk about baccarat being -EV is [mostly] irrelevant.

But in a +EV game a martingale would be +EV ... being plus EV doesnt mean you never lose... otherwise casinos would never have any winning players... ever

he's referring to the thread title