Baccarat: Play only last few bets in a shoe - AP or not?

Hi Mike! I'm glad I've stumbled upon this forum. I've been a gaming enthusiasts for more than 10 years and have been trying to figure out any undiscovered advantaged play out there in the casino gaming world....

So here's my mathematical theory and I hope you can validate my thinking. Using the theory of propensity, will it yield any slight advantage to the player given the following variables in Baccarat:

1.) Standard 16-deck shoe
2.) On the average, a shoe will have 80 results/games played
3.) If a player keeps waiting, and take the first 75 game results, observing # of Player wins vs Banker wins.
4.) If the ratio of the PLAYER wins vs BANKER wins outnumbers the Banker by AT LEAST 2:1, FLAT BET on the last 5 games on the banker.
e.g. 50 Player vs 25 Banker wins,
51 Player wins vs 24 Banker wins,
55 Player wins vs 20 banker wins

My thinking is it's either one of these two:
A. It may yield a very small advantage (similar to card counting in Baccarat), however, because it's insignificantly small, it would not be worth it and nobody in their lifetime can look for at least 100,000 shoes with the similar pre-requisite variables.
B. The way the # of decks was designed for the game, resulting to the average # of games played (e.g. 75) per shoe, any propensity % (as the game goes longer) will not be significant for the player to gain any advantage.

Appreciate you enlightening me on this one, and more power!

Correction on my statement in B. (I meant 80, not 75)
B. The way the # of decks was designed for the game, resulting to the average # of games played (e.g. 80) per shoe, any propensity % (as the game goes longer) will not be significant for the player to gain any advantage.

What about this actual shoe

I made a mint on it, but I sure didn't do it betting that player would catch up.

End result ahead of that shoe, and I was barely betting:

The chips were the win, not the watch. I started and ended the shoe with the same watch. 😇

I think the answer is a combination of the two - if there is an effect on the house edge, then, even in the rare situations where the difference is maximized, it doesn't come close to making up for the house edge either way.

After a simulation of 20 million shoes (burning 2-11 cards off the top based on the top card - i.e. if the top card is a 6, burn 6 more cards; if it is a 10/face, burn 10 more - and dealing until there are fewer than 6 cards in the shoe; note the range of hands per shoe was 75-90), I get the following results after 75 hands in each shoe:
44.626% player wins
45.862% bank wins
9.512% ties

I guess, I wouldn't know as I haven't simulated it, that if you counted every card gone there might be a slight advantage (either one way or the other) as you get near the end of the shoe. However you'd have to wait throughout the whole shoe for perhaps one or two hands at the end and there's no guarantee any particular shoe would have an opportunity. At some places it might take a long time to get through each shoe.

The casino might take a dim view of you just sitting there not betting (although you could stand just watching) and only making occasional big bets at the end of a shoe. Also you have to be able to make the calculations and you may only be able to make a few bets per hour, so it's probably not worth the bother.

If I read it correctly Eliot has worked out you can make a measly 16c/shoe based on a $100 bet on all profitable occasions ( https://www.888casino.com/blog/baccarat-tips/beating-baccarat https://www.888casino.com/blog/baccarat-tips/card-counting-7-up-baccarat ).

In summary - sorry it's not really a profitable plan.

There are no mechanical systems, or progressions, that work consistently for Baccarat. Unless you have something special going on. 🤫

You get a good shoe, running, or with a pattern, or both, you make bank, and then you leave. You get a bad shoe, not running, no pattern/random, you bet small or leave.

If you stare at the above shoe I posted and say anything to yourself other than "I woulda cleaned up," then this is not the game for you.

Honestly though, who wants to waste time with Baccarat or casino gambling at all when the stock market is making us money hand over fist effortlessly lately?

I mean...

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/d6dc8040-f0de-465f-b8e2-95ac96a6be02

Quote: ThatDonGuy

I think the answer is a combination of the two - if there is an effect on the house edge, then, even in the rare situations where the difference is maximized, it doesn't come close to making up for the house edge either way.

After a simulation of 20 million shoes (burning 2-11 cards off the top based on the top card - i.e. if the top card is a 6, burn 6 more cards; if it is a 10/face, burn 10 more - and dealing until there are fewer than 6 cards in the shoe; note the range of hands per shoe was 75-90), I get the following results after 75 hands in each shoe:
44.626% player wins
45.862% bank wins
9.512% ties

OOPS - this doesn't limit the hands to when the number of player wins to bank wins is 2/1 or higher after at least 75 hands in the shoe.
When you include this limit, I ran 250 million shoes
Whether the player/bank or bank/player ratio is 2/1 or better after 75 hands, the winning percentages were the same (ignoring ties):
Player wins 49.3%
Bank wins 50.7%
Note that when the player/bank win ratio was 2/1, there was an average of 1 hand per 74 shoes
When the bank/player ratio was 2/1, there was an average of 1 hand per 36 shoes

Quote: MDawg

If you stare at the above shoe I posted and say anything to yourself other than "I woulda cleaned up," then this is not the game for you.

The shoe you posted consisted of a flying inverse double whammy probation. You had a 97.3% of going bust the way you bet it. You got very lucky. I'm frankly shocked you don't know this.

I see no reason to believe this strategy would help you. As I've said many times, unless you're tracking every card and using a computer, studying the past in baccarat won't help you.

Thank you for the feedback. I figured the profit per shoe would be measly, and won't be worth playing. :)

Unless you have like 1 billion spare money just to gamble, betting 1 million per game, playing 5 games only at the end of the shoe. You will be earning small change of $1,600 per bet in the long run. LOL.

@ThatDonGuy - Thank you for running the simulation for me. It satisfied my curiosity. Appreciate the effort and the insightful feedback. :)

Quote: sabre

I'm frankly shocked you don't know this.

I'm frankly shocked that you're shocked. You haven't been paying attention.

Quote: Wizard

I see no reason to believe this strategy would help you. As I've said many times, unless you're tracking every card and using a computer, studying the past in baccarat won't help you.

And if you could use a computer and sit out until the time is right what what type of an advantage of woud you have on average?

Quote: AxelWolf

And if you could use a computer and sit out until the time is right what what type of an advantage of woud you have on average?

That question is answered here.

I think that's a good plan.