I feel like that's a pretty small number ITT. But baccarat players by nature are absurdly illogical.

For that matter and with actual rules you can't win at every other game either with very rare exceptions.

About illogical players, I'm astonished to see how many idiots keep playing double zero roulettes or joining WSOP tourneys, for example.

You can though

FYP

Wonder how if anyone has gotten backed off from baccarat besides Phil Ivey...

Lots of people have

For winning too much? That's like saying that you got backed off from winning to much on slot machines.


On another note, didn't know our new casino has $1,000 chips. I might have to check this place out over Memorial Day weekend:

A ne bacc house just opened south of the Seatac airport

They have but you have to be kind of dumb to get that greedy. Packer was probably the most famous example before Ivey.

A lot of high-rollers figured out you could win by getting good rebate deals and keeping your sessions short. The "you can't win at bac" BS you read in the literature is about as far off-base as you can imagine, it is really trivial for a wealthy individual to get an edge. For many years the high-roller who didn't chain himself to the table had a small edge off the top.

Of course this doesn't justify pseudo-scientific approaches based on progressions or trending or other bull****. Though personally It is as boring to me to listen to people debunk that stuff than it is to listen to people develop the dumb theories in the first place. So it doesn't work-do you think that crowd is going to listen to you?

There's a lot of literature stating you can't count cards at bac, which is not really true. What is true is that a linear count system won't get you an edge by itself. But, it doesn't need to-you already have an edge with rebates/short sessions. Even 0.25% edge is a lot where you are betting 100K or whatever. With a 0.25-0.5% edge there's too much random noise to get made in any reasonable time frame.

Have to chime in regarding this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/2...-game-1694839/

Somehow, I can't post in that thread.

Anyways, I was there, like 1 table over. Must've been a full moon or something because like 2 hours earlier security had to throw another guy out and the guy that got thrown out and the MOD almost got in a brawl with each other. Good thing they had security close by...

I play baccarat next door to where this happened BTW...

Given those attitudes, I would change cardroom.
In Vegas one would think ten times before saying "fk you" to another person, let alone to raise the hands.

The MOD that was involved in the altercation earlier to "Assaulted at live game" thread seems like he got demoted to table games dealer...

Flip a coin. And, don't.

Hi.
Besides the low house edge, baccarat is a game full of traps and very very few seasoned players can get the best of it in the long run.

Forget online games, mainly because many cards are cut off from the play.
There are no foolproof winning systems even though plenty of internet sites are telling you this.

Baccarat is not an endless succession of independent coin flips, actually you are simply wagering about an actual card distribution every single shoe will provide.
Rules dictate to get more Banker hands than Player hands by a 1.36% edge shifted to the Banker but this feature taken alone can't be of any help.
Since Banker winning bets will be cut by a 5% vig, itlr always betting Banker will give you a 1.06% loss of your bets.
If you play "no commission baccarat" tables (EZ tables), house edge on B bets will be lowered to 1.01%.

In reality itlr almost no one player will lose around 1% of the total amount wagered, he/she will lose a lot more.

Why?
Because bac losing players apply a bad money management in the effort to break even, forgetting the random nature of the game that will approximate all expected values only in the long run.

Seen from the other side, the worst player any house could face is represented by a player regularly wagering the maximum bet allowed on B and P as such player will mathematically lose the exact expected amount but reduced by the huge comps he is entitled to get. Not mentioning some side benefits as a percentage cut of his possible losses.
This player will surely lose less than the entitled 1.06% or 1.24% without the risk of applying a bad MM in the worst situations.

This is true just for a possible "no brainer" player as counting cards will get any acute player a sure mathematical edge.

E. Jacobsen and other authors (including our team) have demonstrated that counting cards at baccarat will get a nearly cumulative 5.5% average advantage on certain side bets.
I'm referring to Fortune 7 bets (dragon bonus), Panda bonus, Dragon bonuses, ties and pairs bet.

Here I'm not talking about the intricate issues regarding the asymmetrical hand actual probability (enhancing or not the Banker hand appearance in relation of the remaining deck composition) but on the simple registration of the cards burnt.

The game offers a multitude of betting options and no betting situations (we can bet whenever and whatever we want) that it's almost impossible to NOT select the situations where our bets will be EV+.

It's a difficult task but it can be done.
Providing a lot of study and experience.

At this game the best bets to get an edge are offered by wagering the side bets.
By 100% accuracy, there's no one single side bet not vulnerable to card counting.

The totality of known literature works had considered side bets individually, stating that many side bets mostly are offering very dluted EV+ values (the only partial exception publicized was Jacobsen approach about simultenously counting fortune-7s and panda-8s).

Actually every single card distribution offers plenty of opportunities to get or not a simultaneous cumulative edge on the various side bets offered at the table.

How is it that some people go everyday to the casino, win $100 or $200 a day in baccarat. At the end of each month they win like $6,000. This is all tax free too...

Theyre lying to you.

This.
Baccarat is the same as flipping coins for money. Yes there are some side bets that might pay minimum wage over time. But there is no betting strategy to win on player or banker.

Also I don't think you understand what "tax free" means.

Are you aware that a lot of places don't tax gambling winnings? Do you know where he lives? The US is not the whole world.

His past posting suggests he lives in WA state.

At gambling it's literally impossible to quit ahead every day even getting a solid mathematical edge and card counting the Fortune 7 EZ side bet provides the best example on this (because of the largest mathematical player's advantage involved).

Maybe such players know what we do not know.

True, but you forget the occurence of a particular side bet coming along the way and getting a lot of backups.

When player is drawing (it happens most of the time as 0,1,2,3,4,5 points are far more likely occurences than 6,7,8 and 9), banker has the same point probabilities but in four instances (3,4,5,6) it has the opportunity to decide what to do after knowing the third card given to the player. In such instances the overall banker advantage is 15.86%, mostly coming when banker shows a 4 or 5 initial point.

Thus this side bet needs two conditions to be fulfilled which are:

- player must draw;

- banker must gets a 3,4,5 or 6 point.

Only when those two conditions are not met, we are playing an unbeatable fkn coin flip game.

Any asymmetrical proposition, especially whether considered on finite and card dependent shoes, presents certain statistical features not necessarily vulnerable to a possible card counting as key cards could fall here or there. And actually a card counting effort doesn't work at all as key cards are just a miniscule part of every hand dealt.

Nonetheless, a 6,5:4 ratio along with a 4:6.5 ratio intersection must come along the way by statistical and mathematical terms, knowing that some "no side bets" outcomes will be shifted to our side no matter what as a player drawing situation might cross a favourable coin flip situation.

This is the best side bet we could take into account as it can't never be more wrong than a coin flip proposition.

More precisely, the probability that Player gets a 0,1,2,3,4 or 5 initial point is the addition of 14.33%, 9.65%, 9.35%, 9.65%, 9.35%, 9.65% distinct probabilities, that is an overall value of 61.98%. Thus 32% of the times Player side won't draw (being favorite to win and of course totally denying the Banker advantage).

On the other side, whenever Player side draws, Banker has the same probability to get a 0,1,2,3,4 or 5 initial point but in three occasions that accounts a 28.65% probability, Banker will be an overall favorite itlr.
The B remaining possibilities account the same 28.65% probability, again being overall favorite to win.

We see that when Player draws, Banker features a 28.65% overall probability to win (due to the rules) adding to a 28.65% probability to get a standing/natural point (also favorite to win, but unneccessarily taxed as it's similar to a coin flip).

We see that anytime Player draws, itlr we are mathematically favorite to get a winning Banker hand as now we're adding three "supposedly" B drawing outcomes (3,4,5) to the whole scenario, along with a fourth (6 point) backup (which doesn't get an advantage, just reducing a disadvantage just in case the third card is a 6 or a 7).

Anytime we are capable to spot the situations where P side draws more likely than expected, we are getting a kind of edge sorting game as any initial Player point different to 6,7,8 or 9 is going to get a huge overall disadvantage over the Banker side.

Nobody would be glad to go all-in with J-10 vs A-K, and nobody would be so comfortable to be in the opposite favorite situation.
Yet a 38%/62% proposition must get some long term statistical lines...

I wonder if a bacc fish like jion wansu even comprehends the post above this.