+ Register

[Garfield]

As I experienced 10 LIAR today  , watching the shoe while cursing myself , I realized that I was paying someone else's win. Those who bet at the opposite side of my bet.

Actually, it is a fact that baccarat only have 2 results (tie of course was ignored). Banker or Player. Repeat or Opposite. Trending or Anti-trending. Unlike roulette where 0 or 00 could make those who bet even/odd, red/black etc all lose, tie won't hurt anyone.

I also believe there are two side of player. The "Player" bettor vs "Banker" bettor, the "Trending" vs "Anti-Trending", the "FLD" vs "OLD" and so on and so on.

Many experts said that itlr the amount of B=P, streaks=singles. Could I safely conclude that those above player with their own style/method or whatsoever they used actually paying each other. The Casino only take 5% comm.

Then, the amount of losing player should be equal to the winning player. How come we always hear that more people are losing to this game than winning? Many said only small percentage will win itlr.

So there must be something wrong here. Could it mean the majority of player playing the same method? Do you believe it? Is really the universe has set up a scenario that would make all player losing, no matter what method/approach they used ?

Would we be able to stand on the correct side most of the time? Knowingly the other side, where the majority of player who claimed they lost all over the year are. Isn't there any way at all to know what kind of approach/method all the losing player is using and we just bet the opposite of that?

And how come baccarat always be the biggest money maker for Casino?

Would someone please give me a hint, explanation, or anything.

Thank you,

[Garfield]

I also believe there are two side of player. The "Player" bettor vs "Banker" bettor, the "Trending" vs "Anti-Trending", the "FLD" vs "OLD" and so on and so on.

Many experts said that itlr the amount of B=P, streaks=singles. Could I safely conclude that those above player with their own style/method or whatsoever they used actually paying each other. The Casino only take 5% comm.

I mean the Player bettor will lose while the Banker bettor win, vice versa. The amount should be fairly the same minus comm 5%.

The Trending player will lose while the Anti-Trending player will win at the same time, vice versa.

The OLD will win while at the same time the FLD player will win, vice versa.

Is it really possible that in certain of time only player with the same methodology play at the same time and they lose all together?

I started to get lost at my own topic. But I believe you all know what I mean.

[Garfield]

Because short and simple.  It is the easiest game to win at.  (I am not addressing holding the win or giving it back).

So for casino it's the easiest game to win the player money?

[Garfield]

The easiest but still the money maker for Casino. Ironic isn't it?

[bacpro]

hi Garfield

i can answer your question. the casinos make money not from the 5% but from your progression. Any type of progression 1-2, 1-1.5, 1-2-4 etc are in the house favor.

for example. if you use 1-2, if you lose 2 in a row, you lose 3 units meanwhile if you win 2 in a row, you win 2 units. do you understand what iam saying?

that's why casino offers comps or etc if you sit for long time. the casino hopes you lose in rows.

[sqzbox]

Exactly bacpro. It's not an easy concept to grasp. I tried to indicate the difference between a vig as in baccarat and an odds-based HE as in roulette in another thread but it isn't easily understood. Perhaps a small example here might help. Imagine you win 4 units playing Banker. The commission you would have paid (using the 5% on every Banker win method) would be simply 4 - (5% of 4), right? This equals 3.8 units.

Now imagine you have won 4 units using a D'Alembert (just because this particular progression is easy to calculate). You have had 4 losses in a row followed by 4 wins in a row - this results in a win of 4 units if you were playing Player (which means the outcomes were BBBBPPPP). Your bets were 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Work it out yourself - it's easy to see.

Now imagine the same scenario for Banker. That is, the outcomes were PPPPBBBB so the bets were, as before, 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Add up the winning B bets and work out the commission you would have paid. That is 5% of (5+4+3+2). 5% of 14 = 0.7. So your net win is 4 - 0.7 = 3.3 units.

Compare this with a 4 unit win flat betting: 3.8. So using progression to win your 4 units, in this case you are 0.5 units worse off. If you work out the ACTUAL percentages of your wins it works out like this:
flat betting: 4 units won, 0.2 units commission = 0.2 / 4 *100 = 5%
progression: 4 units won, 0.7 units commission = 0.7 / 4 * 100 = 17.5%

I realize that this example is simplistic, but I did it this way only to demonstrate the principle - that progression increases your commission cost as a percentage of your win. There are further corollaries if you wanted to pursue it further but the principle is sound - progression, no matter what kind, will ALWAYS make your commission cost LARGER than 5%.

[AsymBacGuy]

Exactly bacpro. It's not an easy concept to grasp. I tried to indicate the difference between a vig as in baccarat and an odds-based HE as in roulette in another thread but it isn't easily understood. Perhaps a small example here might help. Imagine you win 4 units playing Banker. The commission you would have paid (using the 5% on every Banker win method) would be simply 4 - (5% of 4), right? This equals 3.8 units.

Now imagine you have won 4 units using a D'Alembert (just because this particular progression is easy to calculate). You have had 4 losses in a row followed by 4 wins in a row - this results in a win of 4 units if you were playing Player (which means the outcomes were BBBBPPPP). Your bets were 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Work it out yourself - it's easy to see.

Now imagine the same scenario for Banker. That is, the outcomes were PPPPBBBB so the bets were, as before, 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Add up the winning B bets and work out the commission you would have paid. That is 5% of (5+4+3+2). 5% of 14 = 0.7. So your net win is 4 - 0.7 = 3.3 units.

Compare this with a 4 unit win flat betting: 3.8. So using progression to win your 4 units, in this case you are 0.5 units worse off. If you work out the ACTUAL percentages of your wins it works out like this:
flat betting: 4 units won, 0.2 units commission = 0.2 / 4 *100 = 5%
progression: 4 units won, 0.7 units commission = 0.7 / 4 * 100 = 17.5%

I realize that this example is simplistic, but I did it this way only to demonstrate the principle - that progression increases your commission cost as a percentage of your win. There are further corollaries if you wanted to pursue it further but the principle is sound - progression, no matter what kind, will ALWAYS make your commission cost LARGER than 5%.

Incredibly we almost simultenously stated the same thing here and on my Chemin de Fer post.

as. 

[sqzbox]

Taking it just a little bit further then ... while I 100% agree that the probability of Player is -1.24% I do NOT agree that the probability of Banker is -1.08%. They have arrived at this figure by combining the true probability (+1.24%) with a bet amount of 1 unit in order to calculate that figure. What is not said is that as soon as you vary the bet amount the calculation that arrived at -1.08% is invalidated. A probability and a bet amount are apples and oranges - you can't combine them and expect a meaningful result.

A further corollary of this is - given that increasing bet amounts causes an increase in the commission cost as a percentage of the win (when playing Banker), then there must be a point where the effect of this diminishing returns phenomenon results in a cost greater than your profit - a cap if you will. In the case of a D'Alembert this cap is 20 units. But of course different progression schemes will result in a different cap.

This is just an example of the reason why many people say that you must understand the nature of your chosen progression in order to play it effectively. I would agree with this assertion.

[AsymBacGuy]

Taking it just a little bit further then ... while I 100% agree that the probability of Player is -1.24% I do NOT agree that the probability of Banker is -1.08%. They have arrived at this figure by combining the true probability (+1.24%) with a bet amount of 1 unit in order to calculate that figure. What is not said is that as soon as you vary the bet amount the calculation that arrived at -1.08% is invalidated. A probability and a bet amount are apples and oranges - you can't combine them and expect a meaningful result.

A further corollary of this is - given that increasing bet amounts causes an increase in the commission cost as a percentage of the win (when playing Banker), then there must be a point where the effect of this diminishing returns phenomenon results in a cost greater than your profit - a cap if you will. In the case of a D'Alembert this cap is 20 units. But of course different progression schemes will result in a different cap.

This is just an example of the reason why many people say that you must understand the nature of your chosen progression in order to play it effectively. I would agree with this assertion.

Good comment, imo.

as.

[Jimske]

Exactly bacpro. It's not an easy concept to grasp. I tried to indicate the difference between a vig as in baccarat and an odds-based HE as in roulette in another thread but it isn't easily understood. Perhaps a small example here might help. Imagine you win 4 units playing Banker. The commission you would have paid (using the 5% on every Banker win method) would be simply 4 - (5% of 4), right? This equals 3.8 units.

Now imagine you have won 4 units using a D'Alembert (just because this particular progression is easy to calculate). You have had 4 losses in a row followed by 4 wins in a row - this results in a win of 4 units if you were playing Player (which means the outcomes were BBBBPPPP). Your bets were 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Work it out yourself - it's easy to see.

Now imagine the same scenario for Banker. That is, the outcomes were PPPPBBBB so the bets were, as before, 1-2-3-4-5-4-3-2. Add up the winning B bets and work out the commission you would have paid. That is 5% of (5+4+3+2). 5% of 14 = 0.7. So your net win is 4 - 0.7 = 3.3 units.

Compare this with a 4 unit win flat betting: 3.8. So using progression to win your 4 units, in this case you are 0.5 units worse off. If you work out the ACTUAL percentages of your wins it works out like this:
flat betting: 4 units won, 0.2 units commission = 0.2 / 4 *100 = 5%
progression: 4 units won, 0.7 units commission = 0.7 / 4 * 100 = 17.5%

I realize that this example is simplistic, but I did it this way only to demonstrate the principle - that progression increases your commission cost as a percentage of your win. There are further corollaries if you wanted to pursue it further but the principle is sound - progression, no matter what kind, will ALWAYS make your commission cost LARGER than 5%.

Got to disagree.  The commission is never more than 5%.  It's not the commission that is the killer.  This is a 50-50 game meaning in theory we should win half of all our hands itlr.  Whether or not we bet flat or a prog.  With a prog we must, however, win just as many big bets as small bets (cumulatively if not bet per bet).  When we do we only pay the 5%.  As soon as we lose more of the big bets than small bets we get hammered.

The real profit that goes to the casino is that we lose more big bets than small bets and keep reaching and then run out of bank because we got no more money or hit the table max and are stuck.

Example if we bet $1000 on bank and win $500 and lose $500.00.  Our loss is -$25.00.  Still just 5%.  If I play a prog and lose just one more big bet than small bet, say I win $450.00 and lose $550.00 I have now lost $122.50 including the $22.50 for the vig.  Same principle for flat betting.

Finally one might consider the vig as that "losing hand."  So we got to win half our hands PLUS pay the vig just to break even which in essence means we got to win more hands than lose.   OR - win more of our big bets than small which is what progs NEED to do.  Otherwise you may as well just flat bet the average bet size. 

[Lung Yeh]

Based on these snapshots it is hard to argue against the fact that trends do happen in the short term. Why bet against the trend? Why do the random walk? I am open to arguments against...

[soxfan]

Anti-streaks play is solid but you can get whacked hard in the short/medium term, hey hey.

[Lung Yeh]

Normally I play alone. It would upset me no end to share a table with an anti trend believer when the trends are so strong and that guy bets the other way early to end the trend! It psychologically affects the rest who wants to bet and they could reduce their bets or abstain altogether when in effect one should be making a killing!

[Lung Yeh]

Give me a trend like this any time and I will take them casinos to the cleaners.

[soxfan]

We all tend to remember those long streak or chops because such occurrence is unusual, hey hey.