+ Register

[horus]

I am going to share a bet selection out of Craig Greiner's book 'The Future Gambler' for ties.

Yes, I know the ties are considered a mug bet if you are not 'counting' them aka The  your Way Egalite side bet. But something AsymBacGuy said does ring true regarding the obscure stuff hitting in purple patches. I am noticing it myself again with some things that I am testing at the moment.

Anyhow, it reminded me of Greiner's tie strategy......so here it is.

Because the tie-bet is considered a 'proposition' bet, it is frequently overlooked as fertile ground for opportunity. As with every other relationship in gaming, the Law of Disproportionate Occurence makes its presence felt here also.

A tie hand is expected on average on a 9-1 basis. The casino then pays off the tie-bet on an 8-1 basis. Now we may go 14 to 35 hands without a single tie and then get 3 ties in the next 15 hands. In fact my actual casino records indicate that in an almost countless number of Baccarat shoes, that nearly 80% of the tie hands are compacted into a 65-70% time frame or window. In other words, once a tie hand does occur, the frequency of another tie hand within the next 6 hands is inordinately high. Therefore, the following tie bet progression has exceptional merit.

[attachimg=1]


As you can see with this progression, a tie hand only needs to appear within any one of the next six hands for a substantial profit to be realized.

cheers

[AsymBacGuy]

Hi horus!

For what I know, besides John May (he is a very very competent person) and very few unknown others stating that ties are beatable, there's no way to overcome a 14.4% disadvantage.
Expecially from a statistical point of view.

If casinos have chosen to offer the 8-1 and not the 9-1 payment (still getting them by the last one a juicy 4.93% edge) is because, imo, they "fear" any possible card counting. That is a possible mathematical player's edge.

I don't want to discourage you, but I tested the suggested way to play ties and the results are invariably bad.
Too many shoes present very diluted ties and even after having registered a substantial number of no winning shoes based on the strategy you suggested, we won't get any edge from a statistical point of view.

Remember that it's very very difficult to win itlr even on BP outcomes presenting an enormous lower negative edge.

Imo, the only way to win attacking ties is waiting some very rare circumstances where the very last portion of the shoe is rich of 6s and 8s or greatly abundant of even cards.

From a "side bet" perspective, it should be more manageable a "pair" bet attack, as they will burden a lower negative edge and theorically they are more easily countable.

as.





   

[21 Aces]

A tie hand is expected on average on a 9-1 basis. The casino then pays off the tie-bet on an 8-1 basis. Now we may go 14 to 35 hands without a single tie and then get 3 ties in the next 15 hands. In fact my actual casino records indicate that in an almost countless number of Baccarat shoes, that nearly 80% of the tie hands are compacted into a 65-70% time frame or window. In other words, once a tie hand does occur, the frequency of another tie hand within the next 6 hands is inordinately high. Therefore, the following tie bet progression has exceptional merit.

I would say the same for high payout bet wins.  Also, I had one dealer state that the expected payout for high payout bets like Dragon and Panda should be higher as well, but even though many shoes have few wins, some shoes have a substantial amount of wins.

Given that high payout bets lose on a Tie.   Anyone place enough on Tie to cover part or all of high payout bets?

For example, if you place $25 on Dragon and $15 on Panda you could place $5 on Tie.