Is it possible to beat the game of Baccarat?

For whatever reason many of the members here are set in their ways - whether it be because of age, lack of personal experience with knocking the d's off of casinos at table games, or rigid adherence to theory and lack of much empirical evidence at their end to support what I claim - which is that, YES! I do win consistently at Baccarat and am a lifetime winner in casinos.

A line from classic Star Trek comes to mind, about "if I let go of a hammer on a planet that has a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has in fact fallen" - however, that doesn't apply to what I do, because in my case, sometimes the hammer falls to the ground and sometimes it rises, even if I weren't playing with any Advantage still one could not simply assume that there will always be a loss, short or long term.



Just, for example, setting MDawg aside:

The Greek Syndicate
Most gamblers on the list of biggest casino players are exactly that — they were merely gambling and relied on luck to win. The Greek Syndicate is different, though, because they used skill to win large sums of money.

The name itself makes the Greek Syndicate seem like a gang of cheaters or even some type of mafia. In reality, this is perhaps the greatest collection of Baccarat players in history.

The Greek Syndicate Featured five members, including Francois Andre, Zaret Couyoumdjian, Eli Eliopulo, Anthanase Vagliano, and Nicolas Zographos.

Their story began when Eliopulo and Zographos left Greece for Paris in order to take advantage of their gambling skills. They began playing at Parisian casinos, where they met Couyoumdjian, an already established professional gambler.

This trio would later meet Vagliano, who had made a fortune through shipping and used this money to bankroll the team. The syndicate was completed when they added Andre, who made for the team’s fifth and final member.

They traveled to casinos in Paris, Cannes, in Monte Carlo throughout the 1920s and 1930s. The Greek Syndicate made most of their money through high stakes baccarat games.

The key to their success:
Was Zographos, who had incredible mathematical and memorization skills. He could memorize every single hand that had been dealt from a shoe, which allowed him to correctly guess what cards would come out towards the end.

Zographos alerted the team when the odds were either favoring the banker or player. The syndicate used this knowledge to bet accordingly and gain a sizable advantage over casinos.

The Greek syndicate continued to make large profits up until the start of World War II, when many countries banned gambling in order to concentrate on their war efforts.

First, welcome back, MDawg.

Second, Your post says "even if I weren't playing with any advantage..."

This pretty directly says you are. A lot of posters on here point to your denial of using AP so is that claim to win without an advantage now a part of ancient history?

Third, I don't understand arguing people can win consistently without an advantage and then giving an example of a team that used an advantage. Wouldn't someone like Archie Kara's who won millions be a better example (except that he ended up losing it all!)

Quote: MDawg

<snip>The key to their success:
Was Zographos, who had incredible mathematical and memorization skills. He could memorize every single hand that had been dealt from a shoe, which allowed him to correctly guess what cards would come out towards the end.

Zographos alerted the team when the odds were either favoring the banker or player. The syndicate used this knowledge to bet accordingly and gain a sizable advantage over casinos.

The Greek syndicate continued to make large profits up until the start of World War II, when many countries banned gambling in order to concentrate on their war efforts.

MDawg,

Eliot Jacobson has analyzed computer-perfect play at baccarat: see

https://advancedadvantageplay.com/2021/05/30/computer-perfect-baccarat-play/

There, he concluded that computer-perfect play for the Banker and Player bets is worth about $1.71 per 100 rounds for $1000 flat bets. On average the bettor will place a Player bet once per 6.78 shoes, and a Banker bet once every 6.12 shoes.

The Tie bet is slightly more vulnerable, worth $10.18 per 100 rounds with $1000 flat bets. The bettor will make a Tie bet on average once every 8.42 shoes.

Is this how the Greeks succeeded?

Dog Hand

Thanks for the Welcome Back DarkOz. I think you know the answer to your own question?

DogHand, no, I don't think what is mentioned as the key to the success of the Greeks is the same as what Eliot has analyzed, i.e. I don't think the Greeks were merely counting cards, if they were counting at all.

I view this thread as an attempt to continue the conversation from the hidden THE ADVENTURES OF MDAWG. I'm closing this thread and recommend further comments on the topic go to the mdawg thread.

Also, I am revoking mdawg's privileges to start new threads, unless prior permission is granted by me or OD.