Baccarat Why Bac Can Be Beatable itlr

The following is from Assymbac. I copied it here because I am banned from that site for voicing my opinion. Anyway. . . I know he reads this site and maybe some others have comments.

"The probability of the so called "more likely outcomes" is strongly related to the actual card distribution. Not every shoe is playable.
In order to get a strong advantage, we need to play only badly shuffled shoes.

Recently we've set up a marvelous $500-$20.000 spread betting action at a high end casino acting as pure drunk clowns and where a mate was previously treated really bad and looking for revenge.
Ask how things went after a 13-hour playing session.

as. "

First, why make people ask? Pretty childish, IMO. that spread allows for a 40:1 spread so one can imagine it can be tough to lose but when you do....!!

But the subject matter of poorly shuffled shoes which I guess means that certain cards will clump OR that the denominations are not more or less "equally" distributed (depends how you look at it) can produce predictable results has been a long standing controversy in BJ and, more recently Baccarat.

It's more understandable in BJ due to the nature of the game. In Baccarat an argument against could be the order of the cards are more important than the distribution. Take 6 "clumped" cards of denominations of only 7,7,8,8,9,9. Place them in all possible combinations and see if there is a significant outcome to one side or another. That little test should give anyone an idea of the possibilities of the validity of what he is expressing.

Of course then the other question is how practical or possible is it to determine the future card order as they come out? Not only that but even if one could how long would it take to find a shoe where such needed card order existed? I know from experience that, for instance, one could play multiple shoes of an 8 deck BJ shoe game and never see a situation where one could determine a high true count for example.

So Assymbac needs to opine in a way that's not so cryptic. And I guess that's why I am banned from the other site. Hard to get a straight answer.

J

 

What side are you say you're banned from? I was banned from a couple of sites and both times I contacted the website owners it was mistakes and it was cleared up maybe that's the case? Everyone on this board seems to have complete hard-ons and want to kill each other it's laughable

 

Am I mistaken here? The Banker drawing a 9 + 6, or an 8 + 7 also equal 5. When the Bank draws a five, can you modify your bets?

There was a fella down-under who swore the Banker winning 5-4 had special significance, he preached this for years, getting on everybody's nerves. Once it happened on a table me and friend were playing on, he was on another table, so we called him over and watched him Marty the Player until he went broke. He was fuming, shouting, "I wasn't even fuckin' playing this table", while we were sniggering at his deluded way of thinking (mean I know, but he owed a lot of the wrong people, a bit of a wrongun, like glenda). Last I heard he got sectioned. Maybe he got released and escaped to Vegarse and now posts on the BS web-site, stranger things have been known.

That aside, if you browse the rest of this particular thread, it should be obvious asym is certifiably nuts.

The next bet thing to Phil Ivey, jesus wept, a bit audacious for somebody who posted he doesn't actually play himself (that may change when he reads this, as is usually the case) rather tells others what to do with their money.

 

So everybody is crazy or nuts or wrong except you. Great story really really good story

 

There's a lot to criticize here from Assym post. But I was most interested in the content regarding shuffle procedure and pattern outcome. JK himself raised the question and demonstrated "unusual" shoes purportedly due to poor shuffle procedures.

My own opinion is that Baccarat shoes are not as random as compared with other me mechanical systems such as dice or Roulette. However we still have the age old beaten to death question. As Lani said years ago even if they're not we still have a prediction problem.

The pursuit of this problem is an interesting and valid one. The first thing we have to do is determine how to recognize a poorly shuffled shoe. If Assym (John) would at least go down that road with some ideas it could begin to be a worthwhile discussion. If he feels he'd be giving too much away by doing that then he should basically just keep his mouth shut.

 

I've been away a lot but now I'm back but I haven't been at the casino. Instead I've been looking into a method of play and have gone through about a hundred and eighty-five shoes with pretty good results. But I'm not going to talk about that at least until I do another few hundred shoes. But I thought I'd mention that for the last bunch of shoes I've been keeping track of the number of players and the number of bankers. These are all alive shoes that I've played. So over the last 4514 actual bets placed there have been 2185 players and 2329 bankers. That represents the expected value of Bankers being about 51.2%. Point I'm making is that one would expect that number to be quite different in shoes where the shuffle is poor and the cards are not distributed in a more random fashion. And from that some different pattern outcomes that can be exploited.

 

Look for inevitability. That is, something that MUST occur. Not something that has a probability of occurring but something that absolutely MUST occur. For example, in 3 hands there MUST be at least one repeat.

Ramsey theory!!!

 

I'm not making the connection between what I posted in this thread and what you're saying.

 

Oops,



Customers!!! he ain't no Rainman

 

Rainman? He'd like us to believe it.

Assym wrote:
"Only stupi.d people could think we did bet a $500-$20.000 spread action utilizing a kind of progression. My customers do not want to win $500 or $1000 risking 40 or 20 times the standard unit wagered. You'll never cross any serious HS player willing to put a progressive wager after a losing situation."

Doesn't have to be a linear or "balanced" progression to be progressive betting. Heck, a BJ card counter only needs a 15:1 spread to gain advantage.

It's fun to read between the lines of this nonsense! Think about it. A group of guys play acting drunk for 13 hours while madly writing down all the card outcomes to determine when to place those big bets and which shoes to play. Let's not forget that "some shoes are not playable." So what's the point of the spread?

Of course they got all the floor critters fooled!