Baccarat Simulation Series 33 Results: Izak Matatya’s Infallible Baccarat System 10 (IBS 10)
Results from Baccarat Simulations Series 33 are presented below.
In this series, I examined Izak Matatya’s Infallible Baccarat System 10 (IBS 10).
Read “I B.S.” for a discussion of these results.
| P.A. | Net | Gross | High | Low | Total Bets | |
| Flat Bet: | ||||||
| Z600 | 0.10% | 39.25 | 545 | 183.55 | -229.90 | 39,207 |
| Z1000 | -0.80% | -559.00 | 336 | 4.75 | -590.30 | 70,066 |
| Live 2361 | -0.94% | -1,494.15 | 526 | 23.55 | -1,511.15 | 158,508 |
| Live All | -0.75% | -2,013.90 | 1,407 | 183.55 | -2,030.90 | 267,781 |
| V10K | -1.43% | -10,430.30 | -1,220 | 61.40 | -10,491.20 | 727,670 |
| MM Prog: | ||||||
| Z600 | -0.33% | -315.60 | 925 | 607.55 | -980.45 | 96,870 |
| Z1000 | -1.08% | -1,877.30 | 299 | 3.40 | -1,881.20 | 173,140 |
| Live 2361 | -1.01% | -3,942.00 | 965 | 547.70 | -4,064.15 | 389,959 |
| Live All | -0.93% | -6,134.90 | 2,189 | 607.55 | -6,257.05 | 659,969 |
| V10K | -1.45% | -26,060.95 | -3,511 | 122.50 | -26,232.25 | 1,800,088 |
Data Sets: Zummas 600 & 1000, 2361 live baccarat shoes manually recorded from land casino tables, Virtuoid 10,000 shoes (ref. My Baccarat Shoe Factory).
P.A. = Player’s Advantage is the net units won after commissions divided by the total units bet.
Z600, Z1000 = Zumma 600 & 1000 Shoes
Live 2361 = 2361 live baccarat shoes manually recorded from land casino tables
Live All = 3961 Live Shoes (Z600+Z100+Live 2361)
V10K = Virtuoid 10,000 Shoes
Flat Bet = always flat betting 1u
MM Prog = using IBS 10′s optimized Money Management and Progression procedures as explained in “I B.S.”.
__________________________________________________________
Graphs of Net Units Won (after commissions) per Shoe:
Izak Matatya’s Infallible Baccarat System 10 (IBS 10):
3961 Live Shoes (Zumma 600 & 1000 plus 2361 Live Shoes):
Virtuoid 10,000 Shoes:


October 9, 2011 at 9:25 pm
[...]My simulations of Izak’s 10th “I B.S.” in Series 33 results show that whether flat betting or using his money management procedure, it yields the usual negative expectancies in the long run, as of course, it must, since all grid approaches commit the gambler’s fallacy or its inverse, and no money management or bet progression procedures are able to make positive an otherwise negative expectancy approach in the long run.[...]