Basic info comes up right away even on a simple google search, scan at wizard of odds or browse through this forum...

Card removal affects b/p/t odds. Getting from there to "making a living" is called advantage gaming in 2018. It's not a give me a few thousand bucks and a 3 by 5 index card and any square is printing money thing if that's the point you're trying to make you are certainly correct.

Lot of rich men have been made based on this line of thinking...

You can't be this ignorant. My question was semi-sarcastic. Aside from some uncommon and infrequent side bets, and comps aside, it isn't possible to beat baccarat, period. No debate. Sure you can get lucky, and you can even manage a string of small wins with a sufficient bankroll, until the true odds catch up with you with a loss larger than all the small wins combined. The rules of the game dictate that over the long run the house wins, just like all games against the house are designed. It just happens to have a smaller house edge than, say roulette.

Baccarat is not a skill game. It is a chance game with a biased coin. Against you. People that make statements about making a living playing games of chance are fools.

You just aren't correct. Card removal changes the odds of p/b/t. Occassionally it even changes one of them enough to beat the vig. That, possibly in combination w/ side bets, comps, hustling tablemates, etc can get the money. Name call all you want you can find the affects of card removal on p/b/t on the first page of an lol google search.

This isn't news. The frequency of a positive expectation p/b/t bet by card counting baccarat is about once per five hundred hands, and that's if you get 95% deck penetration, and if you are capable of keeping a true count for every card rank in the deck. Wagering $1000 every time, you can expect an average profit of about a dollar every couple hours doing it. And you'll need a huge bankroll to survive the variance. Have fun.

If you want to "beat" baccarat, straight card counting is probably one of the worst ways to do it. There are some intelligent discussions on this topic elsewhere on the forum, and other places.

Absolutely true.

That's quite a shift from, "you're ignorant. you can't beat baccarrat, period!" for something that isn't news. ..

Actually and besides the usual side bets vulnerability, there are very strong statistical evidences that this game can be beaten itlr.

If you consider winning 50 cents an hour with a $25K bankroll and a non-trivial risk of ruin, "beating the game" then I can't argue with you. You got me.

You have to think outside the box to get past what you just posted. The fact that what you just posted is true should show you there's something to work with if you're not one of the 999/1000 just here for the lowest of low hanging fruit ap's. It is what it is.

eta - and I mean it's not like I'm selling something. Just pointing out thinking like you blanket post can get you in trouble (it's broken more than a few stores...).

FYI almost all of the +EV is with < 30 cards remaining.

Who would ever flat bet when counting?

You don't. The figures I quoted are for only betting when you get the edge, which is about 1 bet per 400-500 hands.

Source? If it's Thorp then LOL.

50c/$25k is not flat betting?

You need to learn what Kelly staking is if you are considering risk of ruin.

The game has a reasonable EG so long as you have a huge bet spread, and the shoe is dealt down to < 7 cards.

You need to get past first order thinking. Games have changed for the worse.

Nobody said anything about $0.50 bets at any point. Multiple sources including Griffin and WoO.

50c/$25k is not flat betting?

And your sources don't know the proper counting techniques, nor do they know the frequencies for which profitable opportunities occur. They quote Thorp so GIGO. Go ahead and believe them though.

You also have a bad source for risk of ruin betting Kelly fractions. That is impossible btw.

Not sure if anyone has run the number on kelly bets. All -ev bets it is suggested you bet 0 kelly units.

The people who say you can staight up beat this game are a little special.

I keep thinking that a strict BP card counting won't help to efficiently beat the game. But you never know...I might be wrong, despite years of studying this game.

Nonetheless, the game was proven to be mathematically beatable.

- all side bets are beatable by c.c.

- BP hands are very very very slight beatable by card counting.

Thus baccarat is not a simple independent coin flip succession as many persons keep thinking. And even player side, despite its disadvantage, might get the bettor an edge.

And for that matter, it means nothing that Thorp, Griffin, Schakleford or others stated that baccarat is an unbeatable or a very very slight beatable game with no practical effect.
Tell me where such illustrious authors (along with E. Jacobsen, one of the fathers of published side bet counting) had given you the precise percentages of the asymmetrical hands apparition or the banker advantage on such hands.
Or the average distribution of B doubles, for example, after a given class of asym or sym hands had come out per any shoe dealt (values you can find in this forum somewhere).

You can argue that such values won't help the player a bit. In reality they are very valuable.

Someone bought in 200. In 3 hands he 1600 then cashed out...

Then he doubled 3 times his initial $200 bet on Player side having an average 12% probability to win.
If he bet Banker 3 times, he payed $70 of commission (net $1530) with a 13% average probability to win.

If he bet Player without any asymmetrical hand coming out he was playing a temporarily zero edge game or better (12.5% or better probability to win).
At Banker side the situation is slightly more difficult to assess as it depends on which kind of table he was playing at.

Baccarat will always be my favorite card game next to poker.

Good thing is that you can't never ever being barred from playing baccarat as it's scientifically considered an unbeatable game.

LOL.

I really can't believe that casinos are more worried about bj players carefully spreading their $20 or $50 bets than observing baccarat bettors very rarely wagering $1000 or more and being more right than wrong.

No possible wonging at baccarat, right?

Right. :-)

Btw, there are strong (fortunately unknown) scientific evidences that baccarat is by far the best gambling game, poker included, to make a luxury living with.

Whenever a game is finite and card dependent, there's no fkn way an observant and prepared player can lose. By 1 billion accuracy.

For those aware of such things, tapping the glass probably does not help.

1 billion is a lot of accuracy.