Baccarat is a mathematically beatable game by any means.

By card counting certain side bets, as the EZ Dragon Bonus bet, we could get an interesting (but very diluted) edge.
Despite the fact that this EZ Dragon Bonus bet is burdened by a 7.61% negative edge, we know that in some situations we are mathematically sure to totally erase and invert this high negative edge.

Also a prominent baccarat expert stated that some very rare card compositions will get the player an astounding edge even on "tie" bets having a 14.1% edge for the house.

In a word, brilliant studies have shown that baccarat is a mathematically beatable game even on very high taxed wagers.

Of course casinos could set up a simple countermeasure to prevent such unprofitable situations making a lighter penetration on the played shoe.
End of the story.

Nevertheless, casinos continue to offer very deep penetrated shoes as the almost totality of baccarat players like to guess the BP flows, not caring a bit about the possible profitable opportunities coming out on certain side bets.

Now the question is: can we find a method capable to beat the hugely less negative BP bets?

Yes, we know that by a precise pc card counting procedure we'll have some edge. Unfortunately it's too small, not saying that a pc use is illegal almost everywhere.

I don't mention here the "edge sorting" method, theorically a very nice tool to utilize but being more a myth than a reality (especially from a "collecting money" point of view).

Therefore we conclude that BP bets cannot significantly be beaten by mathematics, our only option is to try to find ways beating it by statistical features, well knowing that this last assumption collides to common sense.

At the same time we cannot disregard the fact that baccarat is a card dependent process game and a finite game, so not every hand will get the same probability. And at different degrees every previous hand will affect the future hand/s.

In the long term and discounting ties, BP hands are placed by a 0.5068/0.4932probability.

Such discrepancy is due to the third card rule favoring B side and happening an average of about one time over 11 hands dealt (for simplicity now I omit the very slight general propensity to produce the opposite of the last outcome due for card composition issues).

The game is a continue and finite production of asymmetrical and symmetrical hands; when an asymmetrical hand arises, Banker side will get an average mathematical edge of about 15.86%.

Along the bac hands production, the probability to get an asymmetrical hand is 8.6%.

So 15.86% x 8.6% = 1.36%.

Not surprisingly this 1.36% value is the negative edge every Player bet will get along the way (actually the known different 1.24% P negative edge is calculated on resolved bets and not on every bet dealt).

Thus the BP probabilities will be included within the 50/50 propositions most of the time, but sometimes the BP probabilities will be hugely and mathematically shifted toward one side.

In reality some asymmetrical spots tend to favor the unfavorite P side, let's think about a 5 P point facing a 4 B point or a shoe very rich of small cards.
But such spots are quite rare and globally considered cannot get the P side any practical edge.

An hypothetical perfect scenario capable to get us an astounding edge will be any method capable to spot the 100% occurences of asymmetrical hands, then going down and lowering our edge to the point where the AS/S hands ratio won't be able to overcome the house vig due on B winning bets.

Since we cannot have any control over the 50/50 outcomes and we know they are the most likely situations, we should assess the average AS hands distribution along any shoe, that is trying to spot the situations where the AS/S ratio should be more likely shifted toward the left.

Yes, mathematics laws will teach us that everything will be possible anytime and everywhere, still it seems that certain distributions can be statistically limited in their appearance.

Do you think that certain statistical limitations might help us at a card dependent and finite game?

Thanks.

The computer programs that simulate playing through a shoe already take all of that crap into account. Trying to win legit on the P/B bet is a complete waste of time.

http://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/appendix/2/

Thanks for your contribution, but even mr. Shackleford didn't think side bets were beatable until someone has shown they were.

So at gambling we should never take for granted any assumption. No matter the source.


as.

Fair enough. I won't take for granted that you're a moron who can't tell the difference between an assumption and calculations/simulations.

Streaks!

Good god man, you've been arguing this crap in multiple threads for months. Does your theory still rely on replacing well established general probabilty theory with your own version? Does it still include a mystical connection between past and future decks too?

Can we have a categorization for these threads please?

1. Magic door
2. Doubling
3. Streaks!
4. Streaks of X are rare so after X-1 then bet against
5. Quit while ahead (see 1)
6. Cheat to win

Magic door: don't know what you mean.

Doubling: imo a long term winning method must win by flat betting; doubling intended as a multilayered betting plan might be a tool to accelerate the expected positive results only after having assessed that we would have won by FB.

Point 3: the different nature of streaks typical of this game matters. Once the shifting factor is exhausted or more "due" by statistical features, the subsequent streaks production, IMO and according to my experience, is affected.

Point 4: generally speaking, people who make a living at numbers prefer to bet that some rare events won't happen.

Quit while ahead: if this statement is intended to say that we have to leave the casino after a profit, well it doesn't make any sense.
If we think to have an edge, the more we play the more we'll win.
We don't want to look at temporary winnings.

Cheat to win: I could think about this possibility in november. Fortunately odds are in my favor.