S40A Manual Q&A

[ECD]

Oh, I left a couple of important progs out. I mentioned above the situation where we are mostly LOSING our base bet.

Even if our OR count says otherwise we can easily find ourselves in a shoe where the OR count went from mostly minus (which got us into F2) and then went mostly plus with ZZ runs and / or 212 runs. F2 kills both even though we are using F2 as our basic streak system. It also kills the 313s! F2 is a dynamite system. It ALWAYS kills streak but it often kills chop as well.

[We NEVER change systems when we are Killing a shoe regardless of what the OR count seems to be saying.]

BUT we are killing the shoe in spite of the fact that we are generally losing our base bet. Fine! we can take advantage of the situation by making our base bet 0 and our prog 012 or 023 or 034 depending on how we are doing on our second bet.

For instance again we find ourselves killing them with F2 in a shoe chock full of ZZs. We are losing our base bet but we have a very high hit rate on our SECOND bet. Great! Go straight to 034 or even 0345. Now we are exploiting an already good situation. By adding a 4th bet (0345) we double our chance of winning each prog W/O the increased risk of a 4 bet prog. By the time we lose our 3 bet prog IF we lose a prog, we can easily afford it IF we decide to make the 5 bet. We might be so far ahead that we decide to Quit rather than risk a 5 bet.

That is one of those great situations where everyone at the table ends up staring at you. That same situation kills all the other players. Hey, it happened to us at Hollywood when we hit a long run of 212s playing F2! Everyone else quit the shoe and watched us (Ron, Keith and me) win 2 out of every 3 bets for an entire col. We made 11 units every 8 plays betting a 345. We never got to the 5. We hit +45 while everyone else lost!

Edited November 21, 2010 by ECD

[ECD]

Got a quick question. What is the best way to approach a shoe that the O/R count is high in Repeats? One that hangs around from +6 to +9.

jsoeur, I think you misspoke. If a shoe is high in repeats, it can't have a + OR count. So, I'll assume you ment to type - signs rather than + signs.

F2 is usually the answer. It will always beat a high - shoe and usually also a low - shoe. But if your streaky shoe is also very low in 1's you'll often find that RD1 will score a little better.

Remember RD1 hates 1's while F2 loves the darn things whether single or multiple.

[MrEvo]

I have a question I saw on someone post about their being two SAP charts one for the P and one for the B. so do I keep two of them or just one?

[jerseyslim]

It would seem if you are getting an abundant of 212's, and you were monitoring things closely, you could switch to otb4l. I hate F2. You get 4 or 5 losses in a row in a heartbeat. If I'm seeing single 1's I'd just as soon switch to opposites and watch for the LC to go long. If I have high 1's, low 2's, and MC is 3 or 4 I once again would rather bet opposites and go OTR after 2.

Oh, I left a couple of important progs out. I mentioned above the situation where we are mostly LOSING our base bet.

Even if our OR count says otherwise we can easily find ourselves in a shoe where the OR count went from mostly minus (which got us into F2) and then went mostly plus with ZZ runs and / or 212 runs. F2 kills both even though we are using F2 as our basic streak system. It also kills the 313s! F2 is a dynamite system. It ALWAYS kills streak but it often kills chop as well.

[We NEVER change systems when we are Killing a shoe regardless of what the OR count seems to be saying.]

BUT we are killing the shoe in spite of the fact that we are generally losing our base bet. Fine! we can take advantage of the situation by making our base bet 0 and our prog 012 or 023 or 034 depending on how we are doing on our second bet.

For instance again we find ourselves killing them with F2 in a shoe chock full of ZZs. We are losing our base bet but we have a very high hit rate on our SECOND bet. Great! Go straight to 034 or even 0345. Now we are exploiting an already good situation. By adding a 4th bet (0345) we double our chance of winning each prog W/O the increased risk of a 4 bet prog. By the time we lose our 3 bet prog IF we lose a prog, we can easily afford it IF we decide to make the 5 bet. We might be so far ahead that we decide to Quit rather than risk a 5 bet.

That is one of those great situations where everyone at the table ends up staring at you. That same situation kills all the other players. Hey, it happened to us at Hollywood when we hit a long run of 212s playing F2! Everyone else quit the shoe and watched us (Ron, Keith and me) win 2 out of every 3 bets for an entire col. We made 11 units every 8 plays betting a 345. We never got to the 5. We hit +45 while everyone else lost!

[jsoeur]

I did misspoke. I meant to say Opposites, not Repeats. The O/R count ranging from +6 to +9.

[ECD]

I did misspoke. I meant to say Opposites, not Repeats. The O/R count ranging from +6 to +9.

OK, S40 is the best chop system in the world and beats virtually all + count shoes as well as most - count shoes. This is why we use it as S40A's ONLY chop system. It will easily beat + counts that high.

[ECD]

It would seem if you are getting an abundant of 212's, and you were monitoring things closely, you could switch to otb4l. I hate F2. You get 4 or 5 losses in a row in a heartbeat. If I'm seeing single 1's I'd just as soon switch to opposites and watch for the LC to go long. If I have high 1's, low 2's, and MC is 3 or 4 I once again would rather bet opposites and go OTR after 2.

Right! 40 loves ZZs and 212s also. What I'm saying is if you happen to be in F2 mode when you encounter either a ZZ or a 212 on the strong side, F2 loves that so don't switch systems just because your OR count went +. Recognize that, in general, the more we switch systems within a shoe the worse off we are so the FIRST criteria for switching is "Don't switch if you are winning". If you are winning in spite of the OR count, winning takes priority over the OR count. The OR count tells you the best system to switch to IF you are losing.

Don't sell F2 short. It only loses to ONE thing - a 2 on the other side followed by a 1,2 which is quite rare in - count shoes. While S40 loses to any straight or ZZ run the wrong length. Maybe you just got unlucky with F2.

Edited November 22, 2010 by ECD

[ECD]

I have a question I saw on someone post about their being two SAP charts one for the P and one for the B. so do I keep two of them or just one?

Good question. I've been watching for follow up posts from the guys who recommended that in the first place. I fooled around with the double charts (P and in past years but I could never demonstrate that double charts worked any better than single charts. I'd like to see some conclusive evidence.

The thing is, I know why shoes usually favor either Repeats or Opposites but while many books have been written about card counting in Baccarat no one has ever been able to demonstrate what criteria would make a shoe favor Bank or Player other than pure coincidence. I don't want to be betting real money on a myth. So lets wait and see if those guys have any more to say about how they made out playing double charts. Is it worth the extra effort???

[ECD]

Back to Vic's question on Big Bac vs mini bac. I wrote a detailed reply and then tripped a circuit breaker trying to cook some lunch and lost my reply.

In short, the question was is there any advantage to hand shuffled, new cards, Big Bac over machine shuffled mini bac.

In short, the answer is yes.

Recognize that I learned on Big Bac, hand shuffled , new cards every shoe. I started many years before either mini bac or shuffle machines were invented. It WAS easier.

Every shoe was either streaky or choppy and decidedly so. It would be years before casinos would learn how to produce Neutral shoes. We never saw them. We didn't even have a name for them.

But the BIG advantage was I ALWAYS new if the upcoming shoe was going to be streaky or choppy! And I was the only player who knew. How and why was I the only one?

Recognize that I was playing full time professional back then. Both BJ and Bac. I HAD to have every advantage possible going for me.

The cards come in 8 single deck sealed packs in boxed card order A thru 2 Spades Diamonds Hearts Clubs.

First the pit crew does a "wash" That is where they clear the 14 player table and mesmerize the big pile of cards (all 8 decks) by hand. Then they go through an 8 deck shuffle procedure. The shuffle is virtually meaningless. The wash is everything.

I was the only one who knew what was coming because I was always the only player still at the table during this half hour card prep procedure. I soon learned that the wash was timed by the pit crew Mgr by stop watch. They were all either 30 seconds or 60 seconds. The short wash ALWAYS produced a streaky shoe and the long wash always produced a choppy shoe. It never failed. The pit crew Mgr controlled the game type. And I knew the secret.

They could also produce super streak by conducting what I called an eye wash where the mesmerizing was very slack. Runs over 20 long were an everyday occurrence sometimes two in the same shoe. We never see 20's now because players have learned how to exploit them and casinos have learned how to avoid them.

So what good is all this now? Well, these Big Bac, new cards, hand shuffled, games still exist today in high stakes rooms. Some are dealt exactly the way they were then. Now you know how to beat such games.

Edited November 22, 2010 by ECD

[ECD]

I just noticed over on the Maverick forum that Mark says that RDh makes better sense than RD1. Well to each his own.

I suspect that of the 4 systems comprising S40A that RD1 will come up the least in actual play because it only has a slight advantage over F2 in only one situation which is straight runs following straight runs. But in that same situation (very rare) F2 does almost as well. Think about it - F2 LOVES runs following runs. We could drop RD1 altogether.

But the reason I chose RD1 over RDh is that RDh loses to the 212s - EVERY bet, and 212s is the most common pattern in Baccarat because it is comprised of the two most common events. Half of all events are 1's and a quarter of all events are 2s. You simply can't have a system that loses every bet to the 212's. For instance, in the Hollywood shoes we had a full col. of 212s TWICE. RDh would have lost every bet in BOTH cols. But RD1 has a built in 212 defense because it is a MUST. So, in my experience, RDh is the system that makes no sense - no sense whatsoever. And, while RDh has that huge DISadvantage, it has no redeeming ADvantage over RD1. So NO, I could never recommend RDh under any circumstances.

Now, you sharpies might be thinking "But wait a minute, F2 CAN also lose to the 212s when they start on the weak

side!"

True but the key word is "can". RDh ALWAYS loses to the 212's. F2 USUALLY beats the 212s soundly.

But we could eliminate the wrong side 212s specter from F2 altogether by adding an override rule. F2 is the simplest system in Baccarat and only has 2 rules. We could add a third rule W/O making F2 overly complicated. In fact, it would STILL be the simplest system in Baccarat.

Look, one of the biggest advantages of F2 is it is designed to ALWAYS be on the strong side - and it always is. EXCEPT when the 212s start on the weak side, however rare.

We could have a third override rule that simply says: Always switch to the strongest side of the last 5 plays. We are always on that side anyway except for half of the ZZ runs and the wrong footed 212s. Such a rule would cause us to win an extra bet in ZZ runs while making us always right footed in the 212s.

The question is, is it worth the added complexity? Well, since it adds to complexity only very slightly I think it is probably worth the effort to make F2 that much stronger. We will be playing F2 almost half the time.

What do you think?

Edited November 23, 2010 by ECD

[Sir Donald]

I just noticed over on the Maverick forum that Mark says that RDh makes better sense than RD1. Well to each his own.

I suspect that of the 4 systems comprising S40A that RD1 will come up the least in actual play because it only has a slight advantage over F2 in only one situation which is straight runs following straight runs. But in that same situation (very rare) F2 does almost as well. Think about it - F2 LOVES runs following runs. We could drop RD1 altogether.

But the reason I chose RD1 over RDh is that RDh loses to the 212s - EVERY bet, and 212s is the most common pattern in Baccarat because it is comprised of the two most common events. Half of all events are 1's and a quarter of all events are 2s. You simply can't have a system that loses every bet to the 212's. For instance, in the Hollywood shoes we had a full col. of 212s TWICE. RDh would have lost every bet in BOTH cols. But RD1 has a built in 212 defense because it is a MUST. So, in my experience, RDh is the system that makes no sense - no sense whatsoever. And, while RDh has that huge DISadvantage, it has no redeeming ADvantage over RD1. So NO, I could never recommend RDh under any circumstances.

Now, you sharpies might be thinking "But wait a minute, F2 CAN also lose to the 212s when they start on the weak

side!"

True but the key word is "can". RDh ALWAYS loses to the 212's. F2 USUALLY beats the 212s soundly.

But we could eliminate the wrong side 212s specter from F2 altogether by adding an override rule. F2 is the simplest system in Baccarat and only has 2 rules. We could add a third rule W/O making F2 overly complicated. In fact, it would STILL be the simplest system in Baccarat.

Look, one of the biggest advantages of F2 is it is designed to ALWAYS be on the strong side - and it always is. EXCEPT when the 212s start on the weak side, however rare.

We could have a third override rule that simply says: Always switch to the strongest side of the last 5 plays. We are always on that side anyway except for half of the ZZ runs and the wrong footed 212s. Such a rule would cause us to win an extra bet in ZZ runs while making us always right footed in the 212s.

The question is, is it worth the added complexity? Well, since it adds to complexity only very slightly I think it is probably worth the effort to make F2 that much stronger. We will be playing F2 almost half the time.

What do you think?

I vote to eliminate RD1 ( infrequent use ) and strengthen F2 by adding the third rule. Based on the rationale offered above by Ellis, this change would appear to be beneficial for all of us.

[MVSeahog]

We could have a third override rule that simply says: Always switch to the strongest side of the last 5 plays. We are always on that side anyway except for half of the ZZ runs and the wrong footed 212s. Such a rule would cause us to win an extra bet in ZZ runs while making us always right footed in the 212s.

What do you think?

Hmm, now that's an interesting angle to "solve" the 212 thing.

I should be able to put a lot of free time in the next few days to work playing around with that idea to see if it is as valid as it sounds.

Good idea.

MVS

[jerseyslim]

Ellis.........would you please give an example of your latest idea here on handling this new maneuver with F2. I think I've got it but just want to make sure............Jersey

I just noticed over on the Maverick forum that Mark says that RDh makes better sense than RD1. Well to each his own.

I suspect that of the 4 systems comprising S40A that RD1 will come up the least in actual play because it only has a slight advantage over F2 in only one situation which is straight runs following straight runs. But in that same situation (very rare) F2 does almost as well. Think about it - F2 LOVES runs following runs. We could drop RD1 altogether.

But the reason I chose RD1 over RDh is that RDh loses to the 212s - EVERY bet, and 212s is the most common pattern in Baccarat because it is comprised of the two most common events. Half of all events are 1's and a quarter of all events are 2s. You simply can't have a system that loses every bet to the 212's. For instance, in the Hollywood shoes we had a full col. of 212s TWICE. RDh would have lost every bet in BOTH cols. But RD1 has a built in 212 defense because it is a MUST. So, in my experience, RDh is the system that makes no sense - no sense whatsoever. And, while RDh has that huge DISadvantage, it has no redeeming ADvantage over RD1. So NO, I could never recommend RDh under any circumstances.

Now, you sharpies might be thinking "But wait a minute, F2 CAN also lose to the 212s when they start on the weak

side!"

True but the key word is "can". RDh ALWAYS loses to the 212's. F2 USUALLY beats the 212s soundly.

But we could eliminate the wrong side 212s specter from F2 altogether by adding an override rule. F2 is the simplest system in Baccarat and only has 2 rules. We could add a third rule W/O making F2 overly complicated. In fact, it would STILL be the simplest system in Baccarat.

Look, one of the biggest advantages of F2 is it is designed to ALWAYS be on the strong side - and it always is. EXCEPT when the 212s start on the weak side, however rare.

We could have a third override rule that simply says: Always switch to the strongest side of the last 5 plays. We are always on that side anyway except for half of the ZZ runs and the wrong footed 212s. Such a rule would cause us to win an extra bet in ZZ runs while making us always right footed in the 212s.

The question is, is it worth the added complexity? Well, since it adds to complexity only very slightly I think it is probably worth the effort to make F2 that much stronger. We will be playing F2 almost half the time.

What do you think?

[ECD]

Jersey, as I'm sure you know by now, I highly respect your opinions. You are a quick learner. Let me sleep on this. I'm sure I can figure a way to grant your request. Tonight, I'm soundly bushed. Just had one of those days we all have. Nothing to do with Baccarat. Oh, and I owe some Sir answers as well.

[John12345]

Ellis:

How do you feel about the Up.5 D1 prog? This progression was discussed way back last year with the New SAP. I always liked how it was not risky but I never really tried it live. Obviously in a good shoe we wouldn't want to play this prog but do you think it is even worth using now?

And as far as the 034 bet is concerned, are you saying that with the "0" unit bet we don't bet at all? I just want to make sure.

[aegis21]

Hi John12345,

Next weekend I am thinking about trying my base unit at 5 units Using nickels that alows me to play a 25 dollar table with nickels. U1D2M2 How is that for a slope Ellis? I would imagine if you played dimes then .5 up (one nickel) would be easy to keep track of at casino conditions. But it is better to focus on winning the bets than managing the money and wasting valuable thought process on that than the game. This is probably because I am a little slow!

Just my 2 1/2 cents

John

Edited November 27, 2010 by aegis21

[John12345]

Hi John12345,

Next weekend I am thinking about trying my base unit at 5 units Using nickels that alows me to play a 25 dollar table with nickels. U1D2M2 How is that for a slope Ellis? I would imagine if you played dimes then .5 up (one nickel) would be easy to keep track of at casino conditions. But it is better to focus on winning the bets than managing the money and wasting valuable tought process on that than the game. This is probably because I am a little slow!

Just my 2 1/2 cents

John

Thanks for your reply. I see what you are saying and I just realized that the back end of the U.5 D1 is not as strong as the back end of the U1D2 and that the U1D2 does much better when the base bet is losing which is often common for me.

[John12345]

I read the manual a few times and went through the entire q & a thread. There is one thing that I am a little confused about. it deals with page 10 of the System40 manual. As far as I am aware, when the OR count keeps crossing 0, going from + to - then we want to be in OTB4L because we would be in Neutral, correct?

Now page 10 is describing an approach that appears to be different than OTB4L which is When 40 wins an OTR bet it alternates OFF the run, on the run, off, on until the run ends, then back to normal. The opposite progression does the opposite. so what exactly is the difference? Is there an example shoe anywhere of this play? I think I am having trouble visualizing the words.

[Plasia87]

Ellis:

How do you feel about the Up.5 D1 prog? This progression was discussed way back last year with the New SAP. I always liked how it was not risky but I never really tried it live. Obviously in a good shoe we wouldn't want to play this prog but do you think it is even worth using now?

That was my progression :)

I don't know precisely how it stacks up against U1D2(M2) but if I remember correctly from my testing it wasn't too far behind in high score with a better low. Maybe we should do some proper comparisons.

[aegis21]

Hi Plasia,

If you start with a 5 unit bet as your base then going up one unit is the same as starting with a one unit bet and going up .2 units. So if you start with a two unit bet then going up one unit would be the same increase as up.5 It is just percentages of the base bet.

What is the point of using a progression at all? It appears as if we are trying to catch the good side of a run of opposites. bet one on bank lose then bet two on bankif you have an opposite you win one unit, if on the other hand opposites end you lose three units If you flat bet those then you would break even on the opposite and lose two against the straight run.

So Up.5 would get you closer to flat betting but not quite there yet.

Plasia, I am not sure what you do when you win the 1.5 bet. go down 1 unit and bet .5 or only go down .5 ???

We need to know where we are trying to go with this, then the path will be clearer.

Thanks

[Plasia87]

Minimum bet is 1, so you go down to that in those cases.

There's an old thread on this:

http://www.beatthecasino.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5825

It's still pretty much untested, rescore your shoes against your other progressions and get a feel for its strengths and weaknesses.

[wolfat]

This is stll oneof my favourite betting style!

[ECD]

Ha, John, Plasia said .5, not 5. It really is just semantics. You are still betting U1D2. Let's say you start with $10 units. Then you say, "I think I'll go to 1/2 a unit as my base bet and bet up 1/2 and down 1 as Plasia said. All you are doing is betting U1D2 with nickels. All you did is cut your unit in half.

In the rules at most casinos they don't let you bet with fractional chips so you could not do that with $25 units but you CAN do it with dimes going to nickels. BUT all your did is change your unit from dimes to nickels. Its semantical, not mathematical.

On the other hand, going to a 345 is NOT simply increasing your unit 3 fold because again you cant bet fractional chips. Threefold would be 369. With a 345 you are increasing your bet 1 unit twice so your unit is still 1, not 3 chips. You can bet a 345 with nickels, dimes, quarters or whatever.

This is all difficult enough W/O getting confused by semantics or decimal points.

This reminds me of some prominent BJ authors (won't say who) who had you betting in fractional chips in their books. This immediately told me these guys have no actual casino experience and their books should be taken with a major grain of salt. Yet some of these guys are even more prominent today and are big names on some card counting sites. They still have no idea of what they are talking about. Yet ignorant would be players flock to them like lemmings. They'll eventually learn the hard way.

The important thing to always remember is this: Your base bet should always reflect your win rate with your first bet at the table you are playing. Which bet are you winning the most, the first bet in your prog or the second?

For instance in 3rd base NBJ BJ we try to work up to a 146 prog instead of a 123. Why? Because it is the nature of 3rd base NBJ to win your SECOND bet more often than your first bet. But, in those games where we are in fact winning our first bet more often (Winning hands in a row) we are better off to switch to a 234 under those particular circumstances. Put the emphasis on the bet you are winning the most at the table you are playing.

Edited November 27, 2010 by ECD

[aegis21]

Ha, John, Plasia said .5, not 5. It really is just semantics. You are still betting U1D2. Let's say you start with $10 units. Then you say, "I think I'll go to 1/2 a unit as my base bet and bet up 1/2 and down 1 as Plasia said. All you are doing is betting U1D2 with nickels. All you did is cut your unit in half.

Good Morning Ellis,

I'm old but I can still set my computer to magnify and see the .5

Basically I am looking at playing nickels with a 5,6,7 base bet is 5 units U1D2M6 so you increase your bet only 20% not 50% as with Plasia's .5 suggestion. Which from a prior post Wolfat uses very sucessfully!

Or a 100% increase with a standard U1D2M2

If .5 is good is .2 better or worse? Boss from your comments, I guess it depends if you are always losing your first bet play U1D2M2 If you are always winning your first bet, bet the ranch! Oh sorry make it a high bet....

[ECD]

I read the manual a few times and went through the entire q & a thread. There is one thing that I am a little confused about. it deals with page 10 of the System40 manual. As far as I am aware, when the OR count keeps crossing 0, going from + to - then we want to be in OTB4L because we would be in Neutral, correct?

Now page 10 is describing an approach that appears to be different than OTB4L which is When 40 wins an OTR bet it alternates OFF the run, on the run, off, on until the run ends, then back to normal. The opposite progression does the opposite. so what exactly is the difference? Is there an example shoe anywhere of this play? I think I am having trouble visualizing the words.

BTW guys, this is a different John. This John does not overlook decimal points.

OK John, let me see if I can describe what we are really getting at here.

S40 and OTB4L are similar but distinctly different systems. S40 prefers shoes where the OR count marches ever higher in the + direction. OTB4L prefers shoes where the OR count hovers 0.

But both systems can be confounded by long straight runs. Plus, OTB4L can be confounded also by long ZZ runs while S40 LOVES them.

The question we are trying to satisfy here with both systems is once we successfully bet on a run (OTR) and win, HOW LONG SHOULD WE STAY ON THE RUN? The problem is that what is right in one casino is wrong in another. And what is right at one time of day may be dead wrong at another time of day.

In general, casinos lose money on long runs straight or ZZ. Most casinos today, therefore, have learned to virtually avoid them through shuffle technique or shuffle machine technology. But not all casinos have learned this to the same degree. Esp. when you add in on line casinos and the many brand new casinos. So some casinos are known for long runs while others are known for the absence of long runs. At my local casino, Gold Strike, for instance, runs longer than 7 are extremely rare and NEVER in the morning.

The mathematical norm for 7s is one in 4 shoes straight plus one in 4 shoes ZZ, counted correctly. But some casinos you see 7 or mores far less than this while others far more than this.

Regardless of WHY this is, the point is we can't have a single rule regarding how long to stay on runs that suits all situations at all casinos all the time.

So for S40 we have a "rule of thumb" that says:

With 2s LC stay on all runs until you lose.

With 3s LC, stay on all runs foe 2 bets.

With 4s LC stay for ONE bet win or lose.

Yet at my casino, at the time of day I play if 2s are LC, I switch to F2. But, with S40 or OTB4L, I only stay OTR for one winning bet regardless if 3s or 4s are LC. That is what works best in MY situation. But it may not be best in yours.

To get the best of all worlds you need to note whether runs of 7 or more are occurring more or less than normal.

Our rule of thumb works pretty good at normal frequencies. But if you are seeing more runs than normal you are probably better off staying on all runs until you lose. And less than normal just stay for one bet as I do.

But there is one more option when you simply don't know the frequency of runs. That is the option you found. If the run keeps going after you get off, you can go right back on the run and bet on off on off until the run ends. That way you protect yourself from long runs, and when the run ends you have a 50% chance of winning BOTH bets.

In validation of casino control and how things used to be back in the 90's, there are some long time players here besides me who can tell you that 20 or more in a row used to be about as common as 8s are now. Occasionally we would even see two in the same shoe. In those days most of us would bet a Fibonacci up as you win on long runs and Kill the casino. You might even see all 14 players eventually end up flat betting at the table max until they lost. The casinos HAD to either fix this or get out of Baccarat. They fixed it! We virtually ever see 20 or mores anymore. Yet some newcomer idiots think all is random.

BTW, the average casino profits in Baccarat back in the 90s was 3% of the drop. Today it is closer to 26%. That, among many other things, should tell anyone with even minimal intelligence that the game is FAR from random. The problem is that we have many outspoken critics today that lack even minimal intelligence and are speaking with no experience whatsoever.

Edited November 27, 2010 by ECD