which can lower 0.2% for betting banker

i know betting banker loss 1.06%

so i only need this help me become loss 0.86% per hand

how many hands can I bet per shoe?

i want using this counting system on table not by computer

who can help ?

actually i know there is a baccarat counting formula in beyond counting which said can make baccarat house edge become 1%

is this mean using it can lower 0.14% for each side ,??

http://apheat.net/2012/12/22/beating-baccarat/

teliot, hope you don't mind me linking to this article?

Quote:TomspurMaybe have a read at this article and decide for yourself if you can move the HE.

http://apheat.net/2012/12/22/beating-baccarat/

teliot, hope you don't mind me linking to this article?

From that graph it looks like he would be able to bet a reasonable number of hands (remember that his dividing line is not 0.00 but -0.086). It is kind of hard to read -- something is wrong with the graph, the axis labels, or the text describing it (despite the text which claims that the blue curve hits a maximum at -0.0106, the maximum is well to the right of the -0.010 label, around what should be -0.0075 according to the labels)

if i only want the house edge become 0.86%?

but how to apply on table for counting?

I haven't looked at it lately, but I think I hash marked the x-axis with 0.00125 intervals (4 hash marks = 0.005). The graphs are ugly, apologies.Quote:AxiomOfChoiceFrom that graph it looks like he would be able to bet a reasonable number of hands (remember that his dividing line is not 0.00 but -0.086). It is kind of hard to read -- something is wrong with the graph, the axis labels, or the text describing it (despite the text which claims that the blue curve hits a maximum at -0.0106, the maximum is well to the right of the -0.010 label, around what should be -0.0075 according to the labels)

Quote:teliotI haven't looked at it lately, but I think I hash marked the x-axis with 0.00125 intervals (4 hash marks = 0.005). The graphs are ugly, apologies.

Ugliness aside (they are not that ugly IMO), there is certainly something wrong. You claim (in the article) that the blue graph peaks at the house edge (-0.0106) but it does not. It clearly hits that number and has a "corner", but it continues to increase (not decrease) and peaks somewhere between -0.005 and -0.010 (I know this for sure, because those two hash marks are labeled). The peak appears to be close to -0.0075.

This may just be a minor (more or less irrelevant) error in the article. It's not clear to me that the graph needs to peak at the house edge (does it? I am missing something?), only that the mean of the distribution be the house edge.