danielsan

From what I read casino hold for Bac can be from -10% to 50%, given the precarious nature of the Whale's winning/losing streaks, on any given month or even year from what I read making it one of the more - if not the most - erratic of the games. When the per wager betting limit are in the hundred thousand, 1.25% commission would still bank quite nicely.

Thank you. The reason everyone lose is because the game is random and most aren't keen enough (just keen enough to break even) to find the short term trend as well as Ellis, NOT because every one has cracked the code forcing the casino's hand in having to resort to creating their own counter bias - which isn't possible anyways. Random in itself will kill the gambler; creating artificial bias is actually a risk or at the very least extraneous.

You are giving BTC members way too much credit and the average gambler way too little. If the average gambler can't pick up on the dominant disparity than they shouldn't be gambling. And if the Casino are brave enough to change up the disparity hoping that these 'dunces' across the table don't pick up on it, I'd be surprise. I reckon that 90% percent of baccarat players are there to look for streaks whether if it's chops, straights, OTB4L (that specifically may be too advance for the uniformed) am I right? It's innate. That's the first thing newbie would look for (straights to be exact since that is the most obvious to look for) if they were to make a wager for the first time at the bac table, and, in time, I would also reckon they pick up on the disparity changes quite nimbly. It's just counter-intuitive in my humble opinion when you are basically playing Russian Roulette with the players across the table keeping your fingers crossed and wondering on whether anyone will pick up on it. A random shuffle should be the best policy in their case. Unless they have some kind of recognition software and a state of the art shuffler to read and carefully place all 416 cards in their respective places (unless they have that ability already then I stand corrected) to recreate past choppy, streaky, or neutral shoes, simply finding creative ways to change up the shuffle with no cognitive intent just makes it a random act, nothing more - and a tad superstitious on their part. Lastly, it is quite convenient to say that if all the orchestrated choppy, streaky, neutral shoes come together we would have random and does not prove for or against your theory. If only I could bring in 6 crafty dealers and designate one disparity for them to produce all day long with no end in sight then that would humble me.

What Ellis deems Casino Orchestration are mere standard deviation in the long term. I have simulated thousands of shoes that heavily favored one in each of the "six disparities" (P/B, Chop/Streak, OTB4L/TB4L) at a time. Heck, you can even have a session on just one table playing with one of the disparity. It just seems like an oddity in a few shoes but when the events are talllied up in the hundreds or thousands it returns to the mean. You see, creating bias is not even necessary when it happens in nature. And it's still a random game. Honestly, it would have to be quite counter-intuitive, if it's at all possible to even orchestrate a certain disparity - shoe bias - (unless it has been proven factually and not just conjecture), to thwart subjective players such as himself or even mechanical players (as newbie gambler goes, it's a moot point). In fact, it would be monumentally idiotic. How any impulsive gambler would not pick up on the oddity after hours of play is beyond me. You may thwart one mechanical player favoring the weak/opposite disparity strongly, but you are also likely to have another mechanical player whose system perfectly fits the bill favoring the dominant disparity. Subjective players are even more of a threat with their continuous quest to find the bias in the moment and maybe gain an edge. It just doesn't add up even - and especially - if it was on a shoe by shoe basis as well. The best policy is to let randomness prevail which sounds pretty ridiculous to even contemplate in the first place. What is conceivable though is cheating from the dealers. That I believe is more of a bottom line intuitive action - from the Casino's perspective - to thwart players. That I believe Ellis is right on about. Nice to be back on the forum. Don't take this as anything other than a counter point which I strongly believe in.

HI TomM Do they hand shuffle or machine shuffle? It would be hard to "fix" games when the cam is on them non-stop unless they have sleight of hand tricks up their sleeves when deem necessary. Wouldn't it be safer to play online for both parties where there's actually no chance of players swindling the dealers and the dealers every move is being scrutinized at a much slower pace with less distractions? Plus there are software out there which could possibly record the live streaming of your baccarat game if you want to take it further and break down every play for inconsistencies. Danielsan