Baccarat Secrets of Winning Baccarat by Brian Kayser

27 Shoes and we get the positive expectation to manifest.

Win 22 and Lose 45 = 23
Win 31 and Lose 8 = 23

-3 +2 -2 -3 +6 +6 +5 +2 +2 +3 +5

What a great feeling - now there is more fun testing ...

Cheers

 

Verdict - I am not the type who can take large drawdowns and wait for reversals to end up with even money.
Did some further testing and got +7 with one session and another +4 then a negative drawdown again.
Is a very bumpy ride to play Brian Kayser's method.

Cheers

 

minus 5 units. not good

 

i understand but counting does work, the casinos do kix people out of them for counting, you really do need a massive bankroll especially under poor conditions like atlantic city no surrender h17 and 8 deckers 1-10 yields less than min wage and your right about hot dealers. i stopped the idea of BJ 21 realizing min wage for risking 10k not worth the cat and mouse game but if you live out in vegas it might be profitable

 

Baccarat 100% Luck, 0 % strategy .


A well known fact . No 2 ways to slice the mustard.

 

i think JAe and his massive winning bankrolls would disagree with you ND!

 

Who is that cat ?

 

what do you mean who is that?

https://www.gamblingforums.com/thre...orks-and-why-it-wont.21174/page-2#post-114812

 

That garbage ?

 

How many times a month do you get punched?

It doesn’t seem like enough.

 

Yea you need to spend too much time, on too much shoes for just a little result. That's why i am not a fan of brian kayser's but atleast he got something logical

 

AndyCasinoK and all ...

I start from scratch with my 100 real shoes.
This is the reason:

When we only look at the shoe total results and decide if the total is a win or loss at the end of the shoe - we miss out on a certain situation.
For example, I might get one shoe ending with -6 units and the next shoe is up (peak) +6 units but the total at the end might be lower.
So if we calculate the balance all the time and not just the total results after each shoe is finished.

So I will pocket each winning shoe and aim for even money after the first negative shoe as I describe above on a rolling basis.
Update soon.

Cheers

 

One strange thing is that getting four losing shoes should have a 4.1% likelihood and is not true when I made my testing.
Maybe I misunderstand something, have to read the whole PDF ... again ...

Cheers

 

Opinion:

Not to get boxed into "shoes" bet sessions instead .


ND

 

Now I get the same results you can see in the PDF but I am playing reverse.
Testing 100 Real shoes and Wizard Of Odds RNG shoes and pure RNG

Here is a short sample (real shoes) I can feel that the 4.1% to getting four losing shoes in a row kick in.

+4, +5, +2, -1, +8, -2, -2, +3, +3, +4, +2, +11, -2, -8, +6, -1

+45
- 16

This is how the winning rows look in the PDF - I will get back when I have done the 100 real shoes.

cheers

 

I stop testing the original and the reverse way - I can not get the same results as Brian Kayser.
My test is not large 50 Shoes, but at least it should show some positive tendency to similar results and that is not the case.

Cheers

 

Even wining style can run bad for 100 shoe or more so 50 shoes testing not nearly enough, hey hey.

 

Thanks

 

The author studied only 232 shoes and then thinks he has found the secret to winning at baccarat. If only it were so easy.