Those "stories" always start out with a room-full of card-counting "experts", "mathematicians" and "programmers"; then forgetting something (?); then "shock"; and then, well, a one percent edge over a million games (, which isn't the same as OVER THE HOUSE ON EACH AND EVERY GAME.)
Waiting 1/2 a shoe to get a 'standard' (best possible already widely published) count, which then warrants no action 99/100 of the shoes, renders that approach, itself, absolutely beyond useless as a way in itself to beat the game. Too bad that room of experts didn't apply their new-found abilities against actual casinos. Then we'd have ourselves another (largely fictional) 21 movie. (Every one thinks that movie was about him/herself.) Baccarat books, etc, have been around half a century... but casinos still host it as is, right, hence none of that worked. (And the only reason blackjack changed was to stop most counters from breaking even. Card-counting correctly in a fast-paced game like
bj is 10X harder than refined book after book let on.)
There's a big difference between "slick" and 'scientific'. The latter would not be reported that way, like a movie-script. Youze would be better off betting the $50 and letting it ride until a million... at least one of youze would make it.