Are there any scientific evidences that are unknown?

Yeah.
For example, a good idea should be to compare large samples of pc simulated shoes with actual manual shuffles or CSM distributions.
And of course knowing the standards to look for.
The hardest part to study is the latter one.

Yep :-)

Let say that there's a strong statistical evidence that this game can be beaten, PROVIDING....

This game is still alive because 99.999% of bac players think they could guess most part of hands dealt and/or that the past outcomes of the given shoe will influence the future in some way.
No way such strategies could work, of course.

Instead we should think that every single shoe is not a mere succession of resolved BP hands but that such hands are the reflex of a given distinct finite card distribution.
It's safe to assume that each shoe will be quite different from the previous one(s) even though some different card distributions may form some coincident results.

In a word and simplyfing a lot, at baccarat things will change continuously from shoe to shoe and it's up to us to estimate when such changes are more likely to show up.
This effect is so pronounced that even a lone card removed or shifted from the same distribution will provide consistent different outcomes on the next shoe.

Thus at baccarat per any shoe played we are playing an infinite succession of independent yet slight dependent situations as every card distribution cannot be altered until all cards are played.
And as sayed before, every shoe is different from the previous one, therefore changing more or less the general probability to form certain outcomes in the same position, for example.

Someone cashed out 4 racks with black chips ($40,000) at a local casino last night!!!

On another note:

"Baccarat, The World's Biggest Gambling Game"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidsc.../#71de56984188

Short version: Casinos gamble themselves by having baccarat tables...

This is the place it happened on Friday:



Note this picture is old but this is where it happened (the $40,000 cash out)!!!

You're weird, man.

[QUOTE=

Short version: Casinos gamble themselves by having baccarat tables...[/QUOTE]

Actually baccarat casinos' records confirm earnings of 14-15% of the total money wagered at tables.
From a mathematical point of view it seems that every bac player in the world would like to only bet ties having a -14.36% edge.

Now are casinos really gambling offering baccarat tables?

Moreover how many pure B/P bettors will lose 1.25% of the money wagered at the end of the year?
Answer: zero. They'll lose a lot more.

How? Are you saying the casinos are cheating?

LOL, Of course not at all.

It means that worldwide and in the whole bac players are really bad players capable to reach the maximum negative value provided by solely betting the worst possible option: ties (in reality some new side bets provide even higher negative edges)

The main reason why bac players lose so much is because they stubbornly want to break even per every session played.

Seen from a strict mathematical point of view, the best course to take is flat betting huge only the BP hands (best only B of course) as it's certain that itlr we'll lose around the expected and at the same time taking fully advantage of the luxury comps and deals casinos want to offer us.

Fortunately there are better ways to take.



.

Can you cite your source for these figures?

People don't bet that much on ties or side-bets, at least not from what I've seen. Your figures stated in post are not possible without something fishy going on.

There are not "good" and "bad" baccarat players. Two pure B/P bettors are going to lose roughly the same amount per dollar wagered over the course of a year of regular play.

There may be a few APs making good money, I don't know, but there are no casual B/P bettors losing 15% of money wagered in the long run.

maybe he is referring to hold figures, which are how much money the casino makes out of all that is changed

Nope, I'm sorry but you can take 'em for granted.

A 2007 article:


https://www.scmp.com/article/611604/...-baccarat-odds

A 2012 article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ered-hand.html

The first article doesn't seem to support your figures.

The second article is talking about hold figures incorrectly. The hold is NOT what the casino expects to win per dollar wagered.

Casinos are not earning 14-15% of money wagered at the bac tables.

People don't understand the hold. A guy buys in for $100. He plays a 1% house edge game and bets $5 at a time, and bets 300 times. So his expected loss is ($5 * 1% * 300) = $15. He cashes out $85 for his remaining chips. The house "holds" $15 of the guy's original buy-in of $100. So that's a 15% hold.

Given the law of large numbers it seems almost a lock that casinos make about 1% of the money wagered on player or banker, although I guess a few whales might be able to skew that figure.

No way.
Baccarat is still alive on the false misconception that hands may be controlled in some way itsr (in the short run).
For example, after every 7 winning hands in a row a player should be winning the same amount (minus vig if applicable) lost when he will cross the specular 7 losing streak.
Unfortunately bad players do not take care of this sort of balancement, thus raising the bets more on the losing spots than on winning ones.

Of course the HE is still the same and for that matter casinos are sure as hell that even a B/P no edge and no third card rule working, will get them a lot of money as most bac players are very bad players.

Think about an infinite fair coin flip successions offered at a given casino. Even if the EV=0, the large majority of players will end up the year as losers and cumulative losses won't be counterbalanced by cumulative wins.

Paradoxically, we are in a far better shape trying to get the best of it by a dynamic asymmetricity working on a negative EV game than seating at a game having EV=0.

From a strict statistical point of view, slight asymmetrical dependent and finite events can be beaten by any means.

Whoever Keep stating that any single outcome is EV- no matter what, is just endorsing his total ignorance. Period.

wat

You're falling for the same misconception that you're referencing. It's impossible to be able to "balance" your winning and losing hands.

You might be right about most players losing even in a fair coin flipping game, but even so, the casino will not make any money on average over the course of the year. The median of player results may be negative, but the mean will still be $0.

In a fair coin flip game the expected median is also even, with 50% winners ITLR (assuming sufficient bankroll to bet size ratio so we can effectively disregard RoR).

PS - and to asymbac's theory about an infinite game, in that case 100% of players go broke unless they have infinite bankrolls. In the real world half will be winners.

The median won't necessarily be even. In fact it is very unlikely to be since people are more likely to stop in the negative. My point was that the median can be affected by betting strategies, the mean can't be.

I interpreted the "infinite coin flip" as allowing an arbitrary number of plays.

Baccarat tables are populated by humans not by pc's that can tolerate huge swings without a blink.
Casinos will make a lot of additional money about the emotional and financial state of the players.

It's impossible to be able to "balance" your winning and losing hands

That's completely true.
In fact we get more winning hands than losing ones.