A bac player betting TIES is considered the worst player in the universe, right?
After all such player is wagering with a more than -14% negative edge.

Nonetheless, ties must come out at an average rate of 1 tie over 10.52 hands (9.5%) and they are payed just 8 to 1.

Therefore itlr wagering every hand will produce a more than -14% return on the money wagered.
And, for that matter, no one progression in the world could overcome such negative ratio.

Good.

Now let's consider a large amount of shoes accounting the average amount of ties per every shoe. No surprises, It's still 9.5%.

But let's take the average distribution of ties per every distinct portion of any shoe and things will change.

Say that we would only bet the tie after 50 or more hands are dealt and just up to a couple of  ties had shown up.
Now we are reducing our negative edge as shoes not displaying more than 2 ties after 50 hands are more likely to produce ties on subsequent hands on the same shoe.

But wait.

Ties are more likely to come out if many cards are employed to form B and P hands.
I mean that ties are more likely to come out if 6 or, at a very lesser degree, 5 cards are employed to form hands.
Of course 4 cards may form ties, but at a very lower degree.

Thus the more likely occurence to get multiple ties is proportionally formed by 6, 5 or 4 cards in descending order.

The result is that we'll get more back to back ties or ties interspersed by a better 9.5% ratio whenever hands are formed by a huge amount of cards.

Since a tie is a mathematical effect event, we know that card distribution is a decisive matter to get those ties, meaning that we'll get more ties anytime few naturals are coming out as they are totally denying the use of a third or fourth card.

By this perspective now we have a new plan to consider whether ties are more likely to come out or not.
Actually some shoes are providing a lot of 5 or 6 cards situations to form any resolved hand, so enlarging the probability to get ties.
Other shoes do not provide such feature, meaning that the vast majority of hands are formed by 4 or 5 cards at most.

The practical effect may be taken by several angles:

- for example, a deck full of 8s and 9s and plenty of 10 value cards are not good to bet ties for obvious reasons.

- to get a 5 or 6 cards hand, we need the Player side to draw first, then the banker to stay or draw, possibly to draw anyway.

- the most likely occurence to get a back to back tie or to get a tie by a higher probability than expected is whenever the first tie hand was formed by 6 cards. Conversely, any 6 card hand not producing a tie must be considered as a kind of "missed" probability.
The same when an asymmetrical hand favored the player and not the banker.

- itlr, baccarat hands are formed by a constant number of cards, thus we shouldn't care less about which side will win, just the probability to get such ties.

In a word, whenever we think the future hand will be formed by 5 or, well better, 6 cards, we'll get a meaningful edge to bet ties.

as. 






 




 










   

Ties are a weird animal.  I have seen many regualr players I play with at the tables, repeatedly hit them like clockwork.  I really have never been a heavy tie player by any means.  At times, might give it shot, more so---when there are 0-2 or 0-3 ties after a good 25-40 hands or so. 

As we all know, a good mean average for ties is at the 7 to 12 mark, but like F-7's, runs of 6 or more, long sections of chop or doubles, etc., they might not come or they might very well exceed the expectation or averages.

With that said, I found the tie wager to be the most frustrating thing in bac, than anything else.  I strictly limit my exposure to it, if there is an extremely low tie count like I said and I am doing well with win rate, at the same I might give it a shot. 

If I am understanding what you are saying in your post, I can't quite agree on the number of cards drawn in the hands theory.  I do agree on the low to no ties after a decent amount of hands without, yes.  As far as the number of cards drawn, I think it averages out with 4 card ties, 5 card ties or 6 card ties.  Maybe not for the shoes within a session, but that goes for anything else as well, naturals cutting to the other side, or every natural resulting in a side wager prevailing after, or a strong section of 1's and 2's followed by a great streak, etc.  Meaning, it 'did it' that shoe and the player expects the up coming presentments to follow, etc.

My real problem with the tie wager, is the 'few' units you get back as compared to the other side wagers ranging from 25 to 1 up to 200 to 1.  Whereas, if you narrow it down and play the side wagers for a limited amount of time and do hit one or two of them, the return is pretty good.  As compared to the tie wager of 8 to 1 or 9 for 1, unless you are at the new Bad Beat tables then the 6/6 or 7/7 or any 6/6--7/7 ties will pay either 20 or 40 to 1.  However, the 8 to 1, doesn't leave much of a profit unless you hit it real quick, etc.  Usually most players will end up giving it back or barely recouping what they already won off of other wagers, etc

Thanks Al.

Of course I'm not referring to you, but actually I voluntarily made the mistake to say that 5 cards are prompting a tie more than 4 cards to see whether someone wnated to dispute this (correctly).
In reality 5 cards are the worst scenario to get ties.

I agree with you about the general perception of ties any player gets: you won't' think about them unless they had come out very clustered or very dispersed (or nothing at all up to a point).

as.

And last week I saw just that.  It was either zero ties out or 1 and it was around hand 35 or so.  Three ties, back to back.  Then no more for quite some time.  The couple of players that hit 2 of them, neither one wagered for the 3rd of course.  Then they gave it all back attempting more.  To me, after all these years of playing, ties is the absolute most elusive thing to myself. 

After thinking about it, I would say overall, I think there are more with 4 cards out there and with 6, then with 5.  But, isn't there more hands total with 4 or 6 cards drawn rather than with 5?  And of course, there is no way to count or know or feel, if it is going to be a 4-5 or 6 card draw of course.

Welcome to your new position Glen!

as.

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 21, 2018, 12:42:35 AM
Welcome to your new position Glen!

as.

Thanks, appreciate the 'blessing', Glen.

House edge is a big evil and when it is tough to beat approx 1% edge of banker or player(rather considered impossible), thinking of beating a 14x house edge could be closer to insanity. I have worked upon tie bet for a very long time with no success. Why would one go for such bets with super heavy burden?

Quote from: Albalaha on June 28, 2018, 08:01:19 AM
House edge is a big evil and when it is tough to beat approx 1% edge of banker or player(rather considered impossible), thinking of beating a 14x house edge could be closer to insanity. I have worked upon tie bet for a very long time with no success. Why would one go for such bets with super heavy burden?

Well, a deck particularly rich of even cards will greatly enlarge the probability to get ties, for example.
Not mentioning that the percentage of 4/5/6 cards employed to form each hand follows some controllable variance lines.

When the 5 cards/ 4 or 6 cards forming hand ratio has reached very high values, it's time to bet ties.

as. 

Moreover, a quite low probability is supposed to show up either very rarely or in clusters (meaning by lower gaps than what expected probability dictates, frequently by very strict gaps)

Almost never a  rare event is supposed to show up by the perfect general probability pace.

Do not forget that a rare event must catch up a possible deficit by getting a higher frequency on single shoes or conversely diluting a high past frequency registered on multiple shoes.

The expected EV is always the same (-14%) still the ACTUAL variance is very very high for obvious reasons.
Sooner or later some mathematical situations promting ties will arise, and there's no way that a given event will come out more often than not without showing up at least once.   

as.

 




 

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on July 29, 2018, 12:29:28 AM
Moreover, a quite low probability is supposed to show up either very rarely or in clusters (meaning by lower gaps than what expected probability dictates, frequently by very strict gaps)

Almost never a  rare event is supposed to show up by the perfect general probability pace.

Do not forget that a rare event must catch up a possible deficit by getting a higher frequency on single shoes or conversely diluting a high past frequency registered on multiple shoes.

The expected EV is always the same (-14%) still the ACTUAL variance is very very high for obvious reasons.
Sooner or later some mathematical situations promting ties will arise, and there's no way that a given event will come out more often than not without showing up at least once.   

as.

 

Absolutely spot-on and like I've been saying in some of my posts, when it happens it happens and when it does not it'll hurt you if you keep waiting for it and wagering for it to happen.

And when you got 6 or 7 or 8 or 10 Bankers in a row and you got three fortune 7s within that run and then you got a whole bunch of panda 8s and a whole bunch of players to follow, you can clean house.  But you got to know when it's coming and you got to feel it.   And if you keep wagering for it to happen and it doesn't happen in those sections, you going to go broke or give it all back! 

That's what I warn everyone not to keep doing, you just got to have the frame of mind and you got to have the gut and go with it when it's happening and it's a very hard to do.  But it can be done!

Good points Al.

If I can't win mathematically, I want to get all the possible weapons to be at my side.
Statistics, actual outcomes, flow of the W/L players at the table, everything.

There's no fkn way that strong winning players are going to give back the entire amount won on the actual shoe because of the possibility they'll get the same amount of losing situations on the same shoe. Maybe they are wrong to set up their bets, not the percentage of W/L decisions. 
Not mentioning strong losing players.

At the same time  and conversely taken the concept, more often than not shoes containing multiple winning TIES or other winning side bets aren't going to give back the money won on the same shoe.

That is that shoes NOT forming multiple winning situations must discarded from our play.
At every negative edge game, we must hope to get solely one situation: winning clusters.

We do not want to chase a losing situation unless it would be strongly deviated to our side.
For example, after 60 or more hands and zero or just 1 TIE had happened, betting TIE would be a sensible option. We'll lose 20 or so bets in the effort at worst.

Same about ties not coming out consecutively or 1-hand gapped for 50-60 single tie hands.
In this instance, a progression can get the best of it despite the rarity of such target.
Notice that we are going to bet after an event searched had happened.

as.