An easy test to assess how a bac player really knows about baccarat.

1) What's the probability to get a natural 8 vs a natural 9 in every position per every shoe dealt?

2) What's the Banker's advantage when Banker shows a 4 giving a third card 9 to the Player?

3) What's the average number of 3+ streaks on Player side in a 8-deck shoe when an average 12 cards are cut from the play?

4) How many asymmetrical hands are going to show up per 70 resolved hands dealt?

5) Disregarding other key cards, what's the average EV on F-7 bets (dragon bonus) when after 30 hands dealt no 7 had shown?

6)  What's the average probability to get a back to back "standing" Player (6,7,8 or 9 point) hand?

7) How the Player disadvantage is calculated?

What's the probability Banker wins when showing a 5 and giving a third card 3 to the Player?

9) What's the probability a Player two-card 7 point showing will win?

10)  What's the probability to get a back to back winning natural hand on either side?

as.



     

My brader Asymbacguy, per your definition, I should stick to the slot machines but even then the slot machines these days are so complicated, I don't know how they determine wins. So many lines and so many lines.

Really like is said, there are many ways to skin the cat. Mathematically is one way. But I cannot imagine me having the intellect to  sit down and have a meaningful conversation with Asymbacguy on odds here and there. I was trying to find a cartoon sent me some time back that showed mathematicians at the highest level of the intellect food chain. Higher then the medical people.

But I dream to work with Asymbac one day. And with Glen, Jimske and etc. God bless. Please continue to grace this site with your expertise brader!

Asym,you have already given almost all the answers in an old thread,you posted 2 or 3 years ago.
Very useful "numbers" or %,but not enough for beating sistemacally Bac.
Only useful for creating a few strategies,not strong enough

It was just a kind of joke, we know mathematicians can't beat the game and neither players using an empirical approach. Probably the answer is in the middle.

I won't give specific answers to my questions as nobody is interested on numbers. Just personal comments.

Question #1: it's very very rare to get three consecutive shoes without at least one natural 8/9 showing, especially if 8s and 9s are quite live in the actual portion of the deck. Since such side bet is payed 50:1 we have plenty of room to set up a progressive profitable betting.

#2: when we are on Banker showing 4 and the third card is a 9, of course we are in a very good shape unless player's initial cards shows zero. A missed bonus as the probability player has zero is 1:3.77 (5 is ignored as it forms a tie hand).
An excellent wasted probability that we won't find around the corner. If we were on Player we have no reasons to jump.

#3: the average number of player's 3+ streaks is, imo, one of the best tool to take advantage from. Remember that sh.it or fantastic situations tend to come out in clusters.

#4: oh well, everybody reading my pages should teach me about this. Say we'll get at least 3 asym hands per shoe and it's very very unlikely to get more than 14. Do not fall in the trap to bet banker when the asym force went away.

#5: when 7s are particularly live at a EZ baccarat table, the best move is to bet player and the F-7 bet. You don't want to pay the banker's vig when a symmetrical hand is more likely to show up and to get a F-7 with live 7s, banker must get zero as initial point that is a non advantaged asym situation.

#6: Mathematically is relatively low but any Player standing point is favorite to win itlr. And do not forget the clustering effect: Glen wrote an interesting thread about this.

#7: player gets a 42.07% probability to win just about 8.4% of the total hands dealt. Not that easy to get consecutive dog situations like that.

#8: it's quite easy to lose (or win depending on which side we were betting) even 12 or more hands in a row in such B favorite situation. Sometimes it seems that P helping 3s are concentrated on the possible player's third card. Again a kind of clustering effect.
Notice that when the P third card is a 3 only a B 5 or B 6 point are standing (asym situations).   

#9: it's a pretty good spot to bet P side and getting a 7 as we'll lose immediately just 19% of the situations (B naturals). Moreover Banker must stand on its 6s when facing a P standing; actually it should draw to get a better probability not to lose (a sort of mistake made by bac inventors, probably set up in order to limit the B advantage). In the remaining possibilities Banker can beat us only catching two cards out of all 13 probabilities.

#10: the probability to get a natural on either side is 34.2%, yet per every shoe dealt card distribution issues tend to deny a perfect balancement of such occurences.
A careful assessment of the consecutiveness of naturals falling on one side or the other one may help to spot the actual "card distribution" advantaged side. Especially when cards are not properly shuffled (that is almost always).

It would be a honor for me to work with you Lungyeh as well as with many other members here.


as.

DITTO:  "It would be a honor for me to work with you Lungyeh as well as with many other members here."

Many of your comments are well taken as well.

Keep up the great all around postings.  Thanks.

Thanks Al, I will.

as.

Revisit this with my comments.  From B&M casinos, not from on-line which I do believe there are huge differences in the shoe presentments.  Anyway:

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on June 20, 2019, 11:18:51 PM
It was just a kind of joke, we know mathematicians can't beat the game and neither players using an empirical approach. Probably the answer is in the middle.

I won't give specific answers to my questions as nobody is interested on numbers. Just personal comments.

Question #1: it's very very rare to get three consecutive shoes without at least one natural 8/9 showing, especially if 8s and 9s are quite live in the actual portion of the deck. Since such side bet is payed 50:1 we have plenty of room to set up a progressive profitable betting.   (For example in three shoes last night 9/21/19 at a B&M Casino, one complete shoe, one half of a shoe and the third one about 3/4 of the shoe.  Asym, is exactly correct.  One shoe had 3 natural 8/9s presented.  One shoe had 2 and in a very short section of presented hands and the other none.  With the amount of hands as I mentioned.)  (I would say to wait for a bit for the 50:1 and if not appearing by hand 30-40 it is a pretty good side bet, IMO.)

#2: when we are on Banker showing 4 and the third card is a 9, of course we are in a very good shape unless player's initial cards shows zero. A missed bonus as the probability player has zero is 1:3.77 (5 is ignored as it forms a tie hand).
An excellent wasted probability that we won't find around the corner. If we were on Player we have no reasons to jump. (I would have to add 4 and 5 as well to that statement)

#3: the average number of player's 3+ streaks is, imo, one of the best tool to take advantage from. Remember that sh.it or fantastic situations tend to come out in clusters. (In lots of ways yes, but as an average, not as a definitive trigger)

#4: oh well, everybody reading my pages should teach me about this. Say we'll get at least 3 asym hands per shoe and it's very very unlikely to get more than 14. Do not fall in the trap to bet banker when the asym force went away. (I would say, if an average had to be named, IMO, 5-7 good ones)

#5: when 7s are particularly live at a EZ baccarat table, the best move is to bet player and the F-7 bet. You don't want to pay the banker's vig when a symmetrical hand is more likely to show up and to get a F-7 with live 7s, banker must get zero as initial point that is a non advantaged asym situation. (In a way, however, it appears to me a greater amount of F-7s are won with 3s, 4s and 6s rather than with 7s.  But i do not have worldwide stats on that and I do not believe no one would posses those stats.  Too many variables.  It does not only take an abundance of 7s in that case, it also takes an abundance of 10s as well as any otehr combination of 2 cards equaling 10 or zero for the third card of 7 to make it a F7 win) 

#6: Mathematically is relatively low but any Player standing point is favorite to win itlr. And do not forget the clustering effect: Glen wrote an interesting thread about this. (I forget which one I wrote, but Player seems to win more with standing on 6 than 7s.  Of course, if I could or would know the player would have a 7, I would wager on it every single time, just does not work out that way.)

#7: player gets a 42.07% probability to win just about 8.4% of the total hands dealt. Not that easy to get consecutive dog situations like that.

#8: it's quite easy to lose (or win depending on which side we were betting) even 12 or more hands in a row in such B favorite situation. Sometimes it seems that P helping 3s are concentrated on the possible player's third card. Again a kind of clustering effect.
Notice that when the P third card is a 3 only a B 5 or B 6 point are standing (asym situations).   

#9: it's a pretty good spot to bet P side and getting a 7 as we'll lose immediately just 19% of the situations (B naturals). Moreover Banker must stand on its 6s when facing a P standing; actually it should draw to get a better probability not to lose (a sort of mistake made by bac inventors, probably set up in order to limit the B advantage). In the remaining possibilities Banker can beat us only catching two cards out of all 13 probabilities. (Do not think about the only two cards to lose scenario.  Think about how many darn times you can only lose or tie by drawing one or two cards and that scenario happens, you draw the only one card to lose and everything else would have won or tied.  It happens and happens often.)  (in fact similar, last night out of 3 shoes, the amount of P or B hands reduced to zero or only one point, the other side (almost all of them where every one was betting) wither tied with a zero zero point value or lost by drawing a 10 or another card to reduce to one zero when the other side remain with a one point total.  Example: Player side had 10 and an Ace and Bankers side had 2 tens or face cards.  Players pull a third card of 10/0 value and Bankers pulls the same.  Players side no one is on wins 1 over 0.  Or Players side has a 4 total with first 2 cards and Bankers side has a 6 total and Players side pulls a 7 and Bankers side pulls a 4.)

#10: the probability to get a natural on either side is 34.2%, yet per every shoe dealt card distribution issues tend to deny a perfect balancement of such occurences.
A careful assessment of the consecutiveness of naturals falling on one side or the other one may help to spot the actual "card distribution" advantaged side. Especially when cards are not properly shuffled (that is almost always). (Seems that way at times, but that is one of the things/scenarios a player must be conscious of just as much and stay of conscious of that because it could not pan out or might very well continue with stronger and stronger occurrences rather than balancing out)

It would be a honor for me to work with you Lungyeh as well as with many other members here.


as.

Have no time to respond to all your comments, anyway very shortly:

1- The N 8/9 side bet will disappear very soon IMO as there are some teams attacking it and getting huge profits.

2- I do not understand what you meant.

3- You are correct.

4- You are correct.

5- The main condition where F-7 will come out more likely is when 8s and 9s are removed from the deck.

6- Nope, Player wins more hands having a standing 7 and not a standing 6 as any P standing point will not elicit the Banker to the correct drawing move when it has a 6.

9- Itlr my statement is perfectly true.

10- Absolutely agree with that.

as.