OK - I admit it - you have piqued my interest now!
There has been some discussion on whether or not baccarat is beatable and I've made my opinion clear in another thread. But I did read Carlito's link and I did read the comments of a few who say they believe that baccarat outcomes are not random, citing shuffling methods or the 3-card rule or whatever. I don't subscribe - BUT - it did make me wonder - IF baccarat is non-random, what does this mean? How does it manifest itself? That is, how can it be seen?
How could one demonstrate this non-randomness? Would it show up as a generally more-than-expected streaky shoe? Or more Bankers (or Players) than expected? Or what exactly? And if so how could one separate that from normal distribution? Because if you can't separate it from normal distribution somehow then this non-randomness is unable to be capitalised on and so is effectively useless - it may as well be 100% random. And, in fact, I would argue that it actually IS 100% random and all you have witnessed is simply normal variation within a standard distribution.
And is this non-randomness able to be measured? Because, again, if the answer is no then it is of no practical use whatsoever. Basically what I am saying is - if it can't be measured then it doesn't exist - a basic corollary of the tenet that everything that exists (i.e. is "real") can be measured. If it is real (this non-randomness) then it has to be measurable and it has to be repeatable.
So I would be interested in hearing from those who say that baccarat is not random. Tell me "how" - the "why" is perhaps interesting but doesn't really matter. How does this non-randomness manifest itself? How can it be measured? Maybe the "why" will point to the "how" but in any case, it has be seen to be believed, right?
Can you measure randomness? What is the unit for radomness?
Sure - look up binomial distribution.
Very good question.
I think that Baccarat is a perfect random game(like roulette).
I know that there are people that think the opposite.
I hope that they don't make confusion between randomness and standard deviation.
For these people the only way to determine the non randomness of a given shoe is to analyze a string(short??,long??) of hands having a particular behavior.
I am sure that there is no other method.
Question:how can they be sure that randomness(if it exists!) will continue?
Impossible.
In any case I suggest to study "the arcsine law"(trigonometry),that would demonstrate that randomness in Baccarat is a reality.
If in x hands there are a certain condition,in y hands the probability of winning for the player are higher than usual.
Difficult to believe,at least for me.
Ps, i just posted the link.
Iam not saying or claiming Baccarat is not random.
I thought the website plus Prof Ellis YouTube video were intresting to read and view.
Carlitos 8)
The way to measure randomness is with a valuation system that enables you to read a stream of characteristics from the recent or immediate past, in order to revel any current or trending states or patterns. Whether the game is random or not does not really matter much, as long as these states are present, and as long as you make an effort to discover them. Once that takes place you can use your best strategy to take advantage of any duration of continuing effect from this data.
First do the non-random event we're talking about is about a particular shoe or in general?
I believe one, or some shoe, could show a strong un-randomness event (i.e : one side dominant, a chop after streak, no streak more than 3 etc etc).
But, in a general, IMHO this is stil a random event. If one said that some approach could fit every shoe, every time it played, I believed it was a "temporary luck / coincidence"
Like I stated before, we would never know what kind of event we are going to face. It could be 1999 shoes of un-random event, then 234 shoes of pure random, and vice-versa, or somewhere between.
There is always 2 side of everything.
Found this dictionary meaning for random that suits casino games well.
of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an equal probability of being chosen.
So non-random would be.
of or characterizing a process of selection in which each item of a set has an unequal probability of being chosen.
..and that's the hard part for system/method players. The AP guys have us covered here, they would say.
Yep - agreed. I was just hoping that one of the guys who claim that it is not entirely random would front up with an explanation. Because if it is true that it is not entirely random then it would seem to me that this non-randomness should be able to be capitalised on once it is understood how it manifests. Not too surprised at the resounding silence really.
How many shoes do you play in an outing? VARIANCE and non-random.
Are you asking me? I'm a theoretician - I don't play since I realised I can't win. That doesn't mean that I gave up on trying to find a way though. So your question has a point?
I'm asking everyone - how many shoes they play in a typical session at a real casino? I bet the number is very low. I also bet that many are using a P&L driven stop point, a time driven stop point, an energy driven stop point, or a combination that has no correlation to game house edge or statistics.
Math and statistic pros will give you their view all day long just like the economists and financial analysts that can't explain the thousands of occurrences of all sorts that should never happen in the markets. Advantage players have a similar view.
For example, the odds of 13 Bankers in a row are:
(0.458597)^13 = 0.00003968311 =>>> 1/ 0.00003968311 = 1 in 25,199.
I am not going to disclose what XX of what side in a row I have seen, but I have seen well over that. I have also seen many other serious XX in a row and streaks of other kinds in under a few months. In such a short amount of time with how little casino time I have I should not have seen what I have seen statistically. As a result, I believe there is non-random variance in the game.
Quote from: 21 Aces on December 16, 2015, 02:00:17 AM
I'm asking everyone - how many shoes they play in a typical session at a real casino? I bet the number is very low. I also bet that many are using a P&L driven stop point, a time driven stop point, an energy driven stop point, or a combination that has no correlation to game house edge or statistics.
I played around 7 - 8 shoes average. Yes it also depend on this circumstances :
1. Whether I have reached my target goal or not.
2. Whether my buy-in BR for that session was busted.
3. Whether I am exhausted or not.
For point no 3, IMHO there is no way we could match the casino. Because they work in shift.
Quote from: Garfield on December 16, 2015, 05:49:43 AM
I played around 7 - 8 shoes average. Yes it also depend on this circumstances :
1. Whether I have reached my target goal or not.
2. Whether my buy-in BR for that session was busted.
3. Whether I am exhausted or not.
For point no 3, IMHO there is no way we could match the casino. Because they work in shift.
And there you have it which seems to be completely lost on those looking at gaming mathematics. I play a ridiculously low number of shoes in comparison so let's say we play exactly the same bets.... do you think we each would look at our session differently given the difference in duration of play? YES
The shoes and hands don't change, but two players making the same bets along the way can have a very different experience for a number of reasons. In my view, all of these can be big drivers of performance.
UPDATE: This is getting off topic. More later. I think the fact that you can see many shoes in progress and decide when and where to play are also important to consider so you can get into strong short term characteristics of a shoe.
Hi sqzbox!
First I'd say that a random event/system is any event/system where my betting choices will meet the total impossibility to modify the probabilities of the game.
Imo, roulette perfectly fits to this assumption.
At baccarat things work quite differently as it's a finite card dependent game.
One dealer or a shuffle machine might act as randomly as wanted, but once the 8-deck is placed into the shoe we know that every single hand but the first will be affected by the previous card removal. Of course the more we remove cards the better are the chances that the future hands will be affected by the previous card exhaustion.
Furthermore, any hand won't be the product of a perfect 50/50 proposition since there's the third card rule favoring one side. And at the same time the third card rule effect is a byproduct of the deck composition.
So even though any hand seems to be 50/50 placed, it doesn't. That should be true because the so called 50/50 hands include cards that could more or less favor the subsequent side in a way or another.
Most of the time, and that's why baccarat still exists, such discrepances are very slightly placed yet they do act. Expecially itlr.
A sure confirmation that baccarat isn't a random game comes from some foolproof studies.
Dr. E. Jacobsen, a true expert of advantage play, has shown that a so called "perfect strategy" set up by a pc capable to register every card played (and obviously accounting that the most part of any shoe will be played) will get the player an edge. A mathematical edge I mean, not some kind of weird stuff coming from people like me or gr8player.
The fact that this edge is minuscule compared to the work needed (and even considering that any electronic device is illegal almost everywhere) shouldn't discourage us into trying to disclose other favourable opportunities.
Another sure proof the game isn't a mere successions of random events is given by the dragon bet and panda bet vulnerability. Even in this case we are speaking about a mathematical edge.
Hence, if we can get the best of it by counting cards, we should assume that the game won't be randomly placed because it is finite and card dependent by any means.
Are those EV+ spots so frequently placed along the way?
Nope. They are quite rare and they are the product of a careful registration of cards used, mainly after many cards have been removed form the deck.
Now the question: knowing that sometimes the game is really beatable, could we find ourselves in the position to bet EV+ spots without a card counting procedure?
Good question.
I'd dare to say that most of the time it isn't. So, imo, there's no point to try to guess the mostly ungueassable baccarat world (or better sayed an insignificant shifted world considering the vig, the variance and other issues).
We do know that every hand won't be perfectly 50/50 placed but we don't know which side might be favored.
So we must act into the high empirical world of getting something by long term statistical evidences.
And, imo, only a very long study could help us to define the restricted terms when certain spots are going to more likely produce some so called "non random" outcomes.
They are diluted results but they exist, the same way we must accept that some very unfavorite side bets are beatable even if they are burdened by a well higher negative edge than BP hands present along the way.
as.
Interesting question you ask, sqzbox. Interesting, but, alas, moot.
The "random v non-random" question is rendered moot by the astute player that both ACKNOWLEDGES and RECOGNIZES the differences between the two.
Their job then becomes to "sit out" the random and take profit (read: bet into) the non-random. Sidenote: When I say "bet into", I mean to say to accept the quick profit (or short loss, if wrong), lest we give back our profit by betting back into the inevitable return of randomness.
Now, before I am asked for an example of such play, let me state here and now that it can be accomplished only by the experienced, patient, and disciplined player that realizes the true limitations of any non-randomness that is associated with this game.
This means limiting one's bets. This means limiting one's betting-progression use. This means strict win goals/loss limits.
Why? Because, unfortunately, sqzbox, this is not an exact science. You see, random can be a rather fickle witch to contend with. Random results are the bane of any good trender. And so the astute player comes to terms with that rather swiftly, and works only on seeking out the non-randomness sections of the game (read: shoe).
That's why I can never fathom nor understand the player that bets every hand, or even most hands, of the shoe. Are they doing so in the name of hoping to catch their "sweet spot" at some point or another? I suppose so. But I will tell you this: That style of play, that approach, served as the absolute birthplace of long and extended negative progressions. Need I state why? Of course not, for it's rather obvious. And the casinos absolutely LOVE these players. Again, need I state why?
Lastly, sqzbox, you ask in your opening post "if non-randomness is able to measured"? My friend, yes, it can. A simple study of the "Laws of Series" is but one example of non-randomness measured. But let us not confuse "measurement" with any sort of "exactness", which might have been more to the point of your inquiry. In that case, no, non-randomness (and, for that matter, even randomness) is rendered as inexact. So, again, the astute player can only subjectively seek to profit from the non-randomness as they deem it so, for it is not an exact science. That is the reason I stated earlier the importance of accepting the quick profit as each non-randomness becomes evident, and then await the next opportunity.
Stay well.
Thanks as and gr8 for your detailed responses. Interesting views.
So the consensus to this point seems to be that a) there are some minimal advantage possibilities due to the nature of the rules of the game but these are so sparse and fleeting as to be effectively useless, and b) trends are examples of a form of non-randomness and can be capitalised on. So point a) is not practically achievable and point b) is the only one worthy of further discussion.
It seems to me that this form of non-randomness is not actually non-randomness at all but rather just periods of time where randomness is operating in its extremes - or perhaps easily-recognisable patterns are being thrown up that fall within the realms of normal randomness. If this is true then I am not sure that selectively betting in this manner is going to achieve an edge because you are actually still betting into the random series - just selectively. Is this just pattern betting? Because a pattern can be found in anything - if you look hard enough and are creative enough about it.
UNLV Center for Gaming Research
Macau Gaming Summary
Baccarat still dominates in Macau - it's for a reason.
One thing I noticed is that sometimes a shoe will revert to a balance between Banker and Player or be balanced throughout, but often there are shoes that are heavily biased one way or another. It doesn't seem like a shoe should do that so frequently.
Quote from: sqzbox on December 17, 2015, 10:18:34 PM
... I am not sure that selectively betting in this manner is going to achieve an edge because you are actually still betting into the random series - just selectively. Is this just pattern betting? Because a pattern can be found in anything - if you look hard enough and are creative enough about it.
No. And yes.
No, I do not bet into any "random series"; or, might I say, I don't bet into any series that I deem as a random one. I am a selective trender/bettor, but my bet selections are limited strictly to those events in the shoe that I deem as non-random.
And yes, "a pattern can be found in anything". This is true. While I am not a pattern bettor, as a trender I am very well aware that the same thing can be said of most trending...."I can find a trending reason to bet every hand"...so that, in effect, a trend can be found in anything, as well. The serious trender is the one that realizes this phenomena and, thusly, does not allow themselves to get caught up in that "trender's trap". How? By specializing and mastering just a couple of statistically-sound trends, rather than attempting to play them all. (Sidenote: Playing this selective style will also produce the tight variance statistics that the serious player utilizes when molding their money management strategy.)
Stay well.
Quote from: gr8player on December 18, 2015, 04:14:43 PM
The serious trender is the one that realizes this phenomena and, thusly, does not allow themselves to get caught up in that "trender's trap". How? By specializing and mastering just a couple of statistically-sound trends, rather than attempting to play them all. (Sidenote: Playing this selective style will also produce the tight variance statistics that the serious player utilizes when molding their money management strategy.)
Stay well.
Good post.
I think that if you are playing just a couple of statistically-sound trends you are not a trending player.
I think that basically we're playing the same strategy, maybe I'm more selective.
as.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 18, 2015, 06:43:31 PM
I think that basically we're playing the same strategy, maybe I'm more selective.
You may be right, my friend, but I'm not so sure. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that your selective play revolves around certain card distribution; mine, on the other hand, does not.
That said, however, there's no doubt that we both are rather selective in our plays, and that's a certain commonality between us.
Stay well.
Quote from: gr8player on December 18, 2015, 08:22:39 PM
That said, however, there's no doubt that we both are rather selective in our plays, and that's a certain commonality between us.
Stay well.
Yep.
When I reduced more and more my betting options, things came out more and more appealing.
Cheers!
as.
To play only a few hands is by far the best solution at Baccarat.
As Dubins and Saavage wrote in their famous book:"How to gamble if you must" the best bet selection is not to play at all......LOL
But "if you must" the mathematical and statistic more effective approach is the "bold strategy",with a win goal of 10% of your bkr.
Has anyone tested it at Baccarat with(better) or without bet selection?
To add to that Roversi13, according to an Profesor with expertise in Games of Changes the best way to play in roulette is to play even changes, high stakes and for an short period of time.
The same could be said for Baccarat, i assume.
Carlitos 8)
Yeah.
Less bets: less vig, less risk of being ruined = more probability to be ahead, more control over the outcomes, more composure (discipline and patience). No matter how good is the selection utilized.
Naturally it's not funny to rarely bet, to say the least.
as.
In other words:
the best behavior is "NOT PLAYING AT ALL" and "if you must (play) ..." is playing in the most similar way at "NOT PLAYiNG AT ALL",that is to play the lowest number of hands.
Very often only one hand per Casino visit:boring but it's the sole solution.
I don't know a player playing all the hands of 3 or 4 shoes(or more,)that in a given period(for instance a year) is W after regular Casino visits(i.e. 3/4 a month).
Impossible...
I know players that are W playing as I said at the beginning.
Baccarat is built up in a way you need huge BKR for small wins and a permanent risk of ruin....
Are we masochists?
QuoteIn other words:
the best behavior is "NOT PLAYING AT ALL" and "if you must (play) ..."
....its up to yourself to decide whether you want to double your money.... nobody says you must do it....however, with the intrest being so low.... one might want to add some more money to the account.... in which manner that is... is for everyone to decide....
Carlitos 8)
There are far too many options in bet selection and bet amount. For example, a play with confidence can be one unit (well above table minimum) and one could still play 'more uncertain' situations with less than one unit.
Back to the issue of outside of all of that, most players are playing a very low number of hands vs. laws of large numbers...
Anyone buying my dear friend Gr8's double talk? :))
Quote from: gr8player on December 17, 2015, 09:57:36 PM
Interesting question you ask, sqzbox. Interesting, but, alas, moot.
The "random v non-random" question is rendered moot by the astute player that both ACKNOWLEDGES and RECOGNIZES the differences between the two.
Rendered moot ONLY because whether it is or not we still must be able to PREDICT an outcome.
QuoteTheir job then becomes to "sit out" the random and take profit (read: bet into) the non-random. Sidenote: When I say "bet into", I mean to say to accept the quick profit (or short loss, if wrong), lest we give back our profit by betting back into the inevitable return of randomness.
What he really means but fails to say is one must PREDICT.
QuoteNow, before I am asked for an example of such play, let me state here and now that it can be accomplished only by the experienced, patient, and disciplined player that realizes the true limitations of any non-randomness that is associated with this game.
Enter the SECRET SAUCE! Here's a guy who makes 15 bets a shoe but cannot produce one shoe and one bet and make a statement as to why he made that bet. Yet . . . he is able to "(read: bet into) the non-random."
This means limiting one's bets. This means limiting one's betting-progression use. This means strict win goals/loss limits.
Why? Because, unfortunately, sqzbox, this is not an exact science. You see, random can be a rather fickle witch to contend with. Random results are the bane of any good trender. And so the astute player comes to terms with that rather swiftly, and works only on seeking out the non-randomness sections of the game (read: shoe).
QuoteThat's why I can never fathom nor understand the player that bets every hand, or even most hands, of the shoe. Are they doing so in the name of hoping to catch their "sweet spot" at some point or another? I suppose so. But I will tell you this: That style of play, that approach, served as the absolute birthplace of long and extended negative progressions. Need I state why? Of course not, for it's rather obvious. And the casinos absolutely LOVE these players. Again, need I state why?
Incredible! Here's a guy who has testified that he makes about 15 bets per shoe on average and wins 54% of his bets. Okay - let's take him at his word. 54% X 15 bets = W 8.1 and L 6.9 for total win of 1.2 bets per shoe less commission. A win is a win. Never knock a win. I average about 50 bets a shoe with a 52.5% Win. That comes out to 3 units a shoe less commission. That's for over 8000 bets which I'm pretty sure that is more bets than the Gr8 one has made in the last two years. For him that would be about 500 shoes.
You want to be a spot player? That's fine. Each to his own. But please stop with "the only way to play" stuff.
QuoteLastly, sqzbox, you ask in your opening post "if non-randomness is able to measured"? My friend, yes, it can. A simple study of the "Laws of Series" is but one example of non-randomness measured. But let us not confuse "measurement" with any sort of "exactness", which might have been more to the point of your inquiry. In that case, no, non-randomness (and, for that matter, even randomness) is rendered as inexact.
Wait . . . what? I guess you are attempting to articulate that even though you can identify a non-random situation you are not sure of the win rate for that selection? Yet you know that your win rate is 54% for all your selections of those non random situations combined? Isn't this just a long way round of describing variance?
Stay well,
J
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 19, 2015, 11:57:08 AM
Yeah.
Less bets: less vig, less risk of being ruined = more probability to be ahead, more control over the outcomes, more composure (discipline and patience). No matter how good is the selection utilized.
Naturally it's not funny to rarely bet, to say the least.
as.
Less vig, yes. Increased probability? More control over outcomes? You're another one who is predicting and implying a positive expectation though, unlike Gr8, you refuse to say what the prediction rate is. Nor, like Gr8, can you produce a shoe and give an example of such a rare occasion that, win or lose due to variance, has the best of it. Yet . . .whilst sitting at a Baccarat table when said condition arises even if it is only once every several shoes you can somehow identify it!
Stay well my friend,
J
More discipline because patience tends to increase discipline, yes.
Yes, if I want to give the illusion of action even though it isn't a mandatory task as in bj, I could spread a lot my bets, but I have to know that my higher bets will be more right than not.
And such conclusion cannot come out from a mere assessment of the actual WL ratio or by some instict feeelings or whatever. Because those last feautures have proven to lead to nowhere.
As roversi sayed, the best thing to do about baccarat is not playing it at all.
The second best thing is to bet so rarely that casinos will be going to hate us, maybe giving our seat to other more actioned players.
And it doesn't take to be a rocket scientist to understand that if we play a lot we're liked and comped and if we rarely bet we're disliked.
Two opposite sides: casinos and players.
The aim of the first side is to have us betting the most. So what should be our best course of action NOT wanting to collaborate in their purpose?
as.
Quote from: Jimske on December 19, 2015, 09:44:36 PM
Incredible! Here's a guy who has testified that he makes about 15 bets per shoe on average and wins 54% of his bets. Okay - let's take him at his word. 54% X 15 bets = W 8.1 and L 6.9 for total win of 1.2 bets per shoe less commission. A win is a win. Never knock a win. I average about 50 bets a shoe with a 52.5% Win. That comes out to 3 units a shoe less commission. That's for over 8000 bets which I'm pretty sure that is more bets than the Gr8 one has made in the last two years. For him that would be about 500 shoes.
Yes a win is a win. I wonder why have to bet 15 hands to win 1 unit? Why bet 50 hands to win 3 unit?
Based on my experience, the 1 unit win might be achieved in the beginning of the shoe. And 3 unit win might be achieved in the 23rd bet. Why not stop there?
I believed this all happened because of the human factor. We always want to achieve more. And for some, they prefer to stop after 15 bets, and for some after 50+ bets.
Bet 15 bets per shoe is different with bet 50 bets per shoe, eventhough the result is different. The stress rate is different. But no one is equal. One might have the strenght to overcome more stress than other.
Bet the way that suits you the best. I believe the "human factor/aspects" is rarely to be discussed. However we are all flesh and blood, not some artificial AI / BOT.
Nb. I believe this discussion is beginning to OOT.
Quote from: AsymBacGuy on December 19, 2015, 09:56:02 PM
Yes, if I want to give the illusion of action even though it isn't a mandatory task as in bj, I could spread a lot my bets, but I have to know that my higher bets will be more right than not.
And such conclusion cannot come out from a mere assessment of the actual WL ratio or by some instict feeelings or whatever. Because those last feautures have proven to lead to nowhere.
As roversi sayed, the best thing to do about baccarat is not playing it at all.
The second best thing is to bet so rarely that casinos will be going to hate us, maybe giving our seat to other more actioned players.
And it doesn't take to be a rocket scientist to understand that if we play a lot we're liked and comped and if we rarely bet we're disliked.
Two opposite sides: casinos and players.
The aim of the first side is to have us betting the most. So what should be our best course of action NOT wanting to collaborate in their purpose?
as.
After reading the above I must wonder if you actually play the game. Sure, in LV where you live the casinos can prevent one from patronizing even if they don't like the color of ones shoes. Are you really worried about casino asking you to leave because you are not playing enough hands or whether they like you or not?
It's been a while since I played in LV but I don't recall anyone having any difficulty sitting out hands at Bellagio or others. In fact the Nugget deals hands whether or not there are bets even placed! At least they used to. It is my understanding that in Seattle casinos one can bet the back line whenever one wants. I play in CT, NJ, PA and MS. I see players bet just a couple hands a shoe all the time. Never yet seen any heat on them.
So I'm beginning to think . . . you really don't play, do you? You ever been asked to give up your seat?