Blackjack's JSTAT Count is shown beating the banker bet at mini baccarat using asymmetry. Respected gambling authority Allan Wilson suggests that more tens assists in the asymmetry of the banker advantage in his book "The Casino Gamblers Guide (1965)". The mega casinos on the Las Vegas Strip and Macau, China hope this how to win strategy doesn't go viral on the internet.

Set aside a certain amount of big bets to make banker bets at a true count of +8 or more. We don't win every big bet as shown in the video, so don't expect to get rich quick. We need enough of a bankroll to weather the storms until the long run kicks in. Buy 8 decks of cards and remove 16 A-9 each to prove the effectiveness of this count by playing it at home. This gives us an initial running count of +128, more than enough to give us a small advantage betting on the banker.

In casino play, we need to determine the true count from the running count. Divide the running JSTAT Count (10,J,Q,K = -2, 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 = +1, aces = 0) with the number decks remaining to get the true count. We need a true count of at least +8 to nail the casinos with banker bets. With under under one deck left, the running count must be +6 at 3/4 decks and +4 with 26 cards remaining. Don't expect to win more than 1% of your total banker bet advantage action. We are in control of the gaming experience with this strategy when played with perfection.

Las Vegas Strip casinos won $1.87 billion from baccarat play while Macau's take was nearly $17 billion in 2010. In 1997, I was barred from playing blackjack in Las Vegas for card counting and been itching to reveal this how to win at baccarat method for many years. It's payback time for MGM Resorts, Wynn Resorts, Caesars Entertainment, Las Vegas Sands and other greedy casinos to deal with a new breed of counters, the baccarat card counter.

I know how to beat baccarat and this is not the way to do it.

I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and challenge any Las Vegas Strip major casino to configure the cards (subject to Nevada Gaming Control approval) as shown here. Would love to defeat the Wynn/MGM/Caesars Palace at $500 a crack with my premise. Anyone here with the pull to pursuade Bobby Baldwin/Steve Wynn/Gary Loveman/or Mr. Magoo, Sheldon Aldelson, to step up to the plate?

ev(bank) @ 3/4 deck = -0.01204
ev(player) @ 3/4 deck = -0.01094

shouldn't be hard to count as all casinos let you mark on paper while you play... but not sure this method works haha... btw maxplay, how do we beat baccarat?

Patience.

http://wizardofodds.com/baccarat/baccaratapx2.html

Oh yeah, the great Wizard with the green Emerald City shown in the link.

Not the sharpest knife in the kitchen.

JSTat is on record claiming hi lo doesn't work so he may not be the most reputable witness.. what sort of ev's are achieved with your method of beating bacarat maxplay?

It doesn't.

EV depends on penetration, and whether the player can sit out shoes for possibly many hours until a good shoe composition arises. If the player must bet instead of sitting out, the bet spread must be huge.

Bingo. Because wagering opportunities are few and far between.

Don't bother.

The fact that wagering opportunities are far apart is not really a problem if you can get a huge edge when you do get a favourable situation.

Say the deck is all-evens, doubling the normal chance of a push and making the tie wager very attractive. Betting Kelly, you can make about 6% of your bankroll.
Blackjack card-counters get many more favourable opportunities to bet on, but the edge, and the optimal Kelly bet size, is much smaller. Even at the top of your spread, you aren't going to make anything like 6%.

Advantage play is about understanding your earnings -- and it all translates into earnings-per-hour. Time is not your friend, it's your opponent.

My understanding that I'm making ~$200 an hour is what keeps me playing. If I go out for a night and "invest" eight hours, I know I've made ~$1,600. Even if my BR says I lost $10,000 -- I KNOW that I actually earned $1,600. Likewise, if my BR says I won $20,000 -- I KNOW that I actually only won only $1,600.

If you don't know what you win-rate is, you're spinning your wheels. It's all about getting in as many hours as you can in a game that has a known win rate. Period.

I played Baccarat once...

Player hit 15 times in a row...

(I was on Banker each time.........F-That....)

This has nothing to do with the thread. I don't know why you brought this up.

How many favorable situations you're going to encounter has nothing to do with it? OK. Good luck.

What matters is your overall bankroll growth.

How many favourable situations you encounter has no importance beyond that.

If you wait around six months to double your bankroll on a single favourable bet, you have the same hourly return as if you made tens of thousands of bets with a very small advantage and doubled your bankroll that way.

i think my way works the best for non-pro play
look for those unlucky face, born losers...etc and bet the opposite.
look for those lucky, god's favorite...etc and just do what they do.
now
it's hard to find god's favorite, but there is alot of born losers in casino.

p.s: i try it before, i went with a friend, and i bet $50 and he bet $ 250
i have $1000, lost 9 straight, pickup 2 win, then lost 6 straight, won 1 and lost 7 straight times. then i don't have enough for minimum bet.
my friend who bet $250 make a killing, and we work as a team. so we split the profit.

And what's your risk of ruin if you're waiting for a few chosen spots to jam your whole roll in?

I doubt your actual EG is that great under your scenario.

I mentioned Kelly. You should know what the ROR is betting Kelly: about 13.5% with no resizing, 5% if you chop your bets in half when you lose half the bank, theoretically 0 when resizing proportionately as with all proportional betting schemes.

I've never heard the term "EG" used before. Did you mean EV?

I mean expected growth.

With proper bet sizing, and infrequent opportunities, I don't see how you'll double your bankroll very effectively.

I believe Kyleb has already given you the link. Shackleford calculates a wager of $1,000 in one out of 475 playing situations -- making 70c an hour (assuming you can sit out the other hands).

This has been analyzed as far back as Thorpe, Braun, Parsons, Epstein and Griffin. Calculate the frequency of favorable situations, calculate hands per hour, your top wager, and your advantage.

it's pretty obvious stuff. the game can be beaten in a myriad of other ways but counting is the one of the worst. Neil S already pointed out why (EG)

I believe Kyleb has already given you the link. Shackleford calculates a wager of $1,000 in one out of 475 playing situations -- making 70c an hour (assuming you can sit out the other hands).

That's a linear counting system, the type used at blackjack. It is a terrible approach to use at baccarat.

Linear counting systems work this way: take a card out of the pack, measure the effect on the house advantage, then round it down to an integer, rinse and repeat with the other cards, and create a count system.

This is good approach for games like blackjack, but it doesn't work for the tie.

Let's illustrate:

Classic advantage remainder: say, eight tens remain to be dealt.

Linear system recommendation: negative bet.

Actual advantage 800%.

So, your linear system just told you to pass up a chance to octuple your bankroll.
This isn't by any means an isolated example, using a linear count system you will pass up almost all of the large advantage situations you get at the end of the pack.

Just counting evens+tens will yield superior returns to a linear count system.


This has been analyzed as far back as Thorpe, Braun, Parsons, Epstein and Griffin.

Thorp's (no e) major study into baccarat "A winning bet in Nevada baccarat" (Journal Of The American Statistical Association")consisted of a valve-era computer analysis of no more than six random subsets in the 1960's. The study predated the tie wager. The paper contains a note that the game may prove beatable when technology has advanced further.

I had a lengthy and detailed correspondence with Thorp on this subject about ten years ago. His position is much more complicated than you imply.

The Peter Griffin study is not much more comprehensive. There are numerous errors in his baccarat chapter in "Theory Of Blackjack", noticeably the point counts don't sum to zero. Even ignoring this, there is a major problem with the Griffin study is that doesn't take risk into the equation and uses the concept of "average advantage". Average advantage doesn't mean a lot. To illustrate:

Take game A where you have one 100% advantage every 100 hands, on an even-money payout, and no edge on the other 99 hands .
Take game B where you have 1% advantage over each of 100 hands.

Using "average advantage" you'd conclude these games were equally profitable. In fact, A is 100 times more profitable than B.

The reason is that with game B and a 1% edge on every hand you can only bet 1% of your bankroll on each trial because of the high probability of a loss. You gain 1% of your whole bankroll after 100 hands.

In the 100% edge situation on game A you can commit your whole bankroll to one hand. You gain 100% of your whole bankroll after 100 hands.

The situation with baccarat tie advantage isn't quite as extreme as this, but the same principle applies. Most of the average advantage is distributed into very occassional very advantageous subsets (often greater than 50% when favourable). Griffin significantly understates the profitability of baccarat counting because of this.

Epstein never wrote about punto banco, the modern incarnation of baccarat. His book covers Chemin De Fer, which is a completely different game to Punto Banco.

I have no recollection of Braun doing any work on baccarat. You may be confusing Braun with William Walden. Thorp did work with Braun on blackjack and Walden at baccarat.

I've never heard of a gambling author named Parsons. I'm guessing you meant someone else.