+ Register

[Jarabo002]

Hello

Betvoyager offer the game Punto Banco without house edge.

In this game I'm testing a series of very simple mathematical strategies in relation to the 2.7% that is added or removed from the bet on punto and banco espectively. I see that this is impossible to have a modicum of success.

Can you think of you any idea about it? Is eventually possible to obtain some kind of positive result to the long run? I understand they are very difficult questions to answer.

Thank you.

[TwoCatSam]

Bro, you lost me on that 2.7%.  I only know of a 5% rake against the banker winning.  Player pays $1 and banker pays $.95.

What is this 2.7%??

Samster

[Jarabo002]

Bro, you lost me on that 2.7%.  I only know of a 5% rake against the banker winning.  Player pays $1 and banker pays $.95.

What is this 2.7%??

Samster

https://www.betvoyager.com/games/other/punto-banco/10471678719869/

[Chrisbis]

Our Punto Banco No House Edge version features the following payouts.
If the bet on Punto wins, the player gets additional 2.76% of the win.
In other words, this bet is paid 1.0276:1.
If the bet on Banco wins, the casino keeps not 5% of the win, but only 2.7%.

When the game ends in a tie, the bet on a tie is paid 9.5:1.
The payouts on all bets for Punto Banco are rounded down to the nearest cent.

[Albalaha]

Do not forget that they will charge additional 10% on the net winning of yours as the rule of "no house edge game". They have very clever rules to harass and not let you win with "no house edge games".
              If they want to give a real "no house edge" baccarat or punto banco, they should give 1:1 on both banker and player bets and 10 for 1 on "tie" bet wins.

Cards are shuffled before every hand in Punto Banco.

This rule further makes the game endless and highly unpredictable. RNG baccarat is a joke.

[TwoCatSam]

jara and Chris

That is a new one on me!!

Thanks

Sam

[ADulay]

"The cards are shuffled after each hand".

No need to read any more.  It's merely a computer generated "game" with a front end that resembles "Punto Banco" or a version of Baccarat.

Just say no to this piece of junk.

AD

[Albalaha]

Just say no to this piece of junk.

                          I said it too, Captain. This is something like tossing a virtual coin again and again. Limited cards baccarat and this RNG has world of difference. "No house edge" is not even a bit helpful or profitable than the standard one.

[Albalaha]

If a player plays on equal odds casino games, a 10% house fee will be taken from the player's net winnings at the end of the game session or upon a withdrawal of net winnings from the table through the cashier. The duration of the game session cannot exceed 24 hours. The house fee and restrictions are only in regards to equal odds games.If a player plays in the poker room, a 10% house fee will be taken upon a withdrawal of net winnings from the playing table. If a player is absent or does not play for 20 minutes, he is automatically removed from the playing table. The 10% house fee is taken from net winnings upon automatic removal.
The minimum house fee is not less than 1 cent. The rounding error for house fees is +/- 1 cent. Example: A player made a €100 deposit on the No Zero Roulette casino table, won €53.46 and closed the game with a total amount of €153.46. The net winnings here exceed the deposit by €53.46. A 10% house fee is rounded to €5.35. In this case, €148.11 will be credited to the player's account.

[Bayes]

"The cards are shuffled after each hand".

No need to read any more.  It's merely a computer generated "game" with a front end that resembles "Punto Banco" or a version of Baccarat.

Just say no to this piece of junk.

AD

AD, not wishing to start a flame war here, but...
WHY is a computer generated game any different, in terms of outcomes, than a "real" game of baccarat with dealers and shoes?
Disregarding rigged RNGs, why should the distribution of B & P be significantly different in an RNG if the game is modelled correctly using simulated decks?

Do you think RNG's are "junk" because they're too random, or perhaps not random enough? what is it about a real shoe which makes the game beatable, as opposed to an RNG. I'd really like to know, because this stuff comes up all the time on forums and it drives me crazy. It always seems to come down to a lack of trust in RNG's (because it's perceived that manipulating outcomes is easier), rather than any hard evidence that outcomes are inherently different.

[Blood Angel]

It always seems to come down to a lack of trust in RNG's (because it's perceived that manipulating outcomes is easier), rather than any hard evidence that outcomes are inherently different.

I would just like to add my two penneth worth (I know this wasn't about Roulette specifically but..).
I think the above statement by Bayes hits the nail on the head. Just because they can (and NO doubt have) been manipulated in the past people now have a mental thing in their head for RNG. When somewhere like BV has their hash security what else do you need to know?
I have seen 24 numbers in a row with no repeater and I have seen 7 zeros in a row, all on live wheels, so nothing RNG does surprises me.
This is the point, anything can happen real wheel or not.

[Chrisbis]

@Blood Angel
Now if U saw that on a wheel in Real Life.......U would wonder wouldn't U! 

Never seen those many Zero's in a Line before!!


@Bayes
Great Question. 

[ADulay]

AD, not wishing to start a flame war here, but...
WHY is a computer generated game any different, in terms of outcomes, than a "real" game of baccarat with dealers and shoes?

The comment was made with reference to this "new" game that was posted.   As well you know, the game of baccarat is dealt from a FINITE shoe meaning it has a defined start and finish to it.   The rules of the game are quite specific.   Reshuffling the cards after each hand makes this something other than the game of baccarat.  It now becomes an RNG that produces a number that you wager on.

Disregarding rigged RNGs, why should the distribution of B & P be significantly different in an RNG if the game is modelled correctly using simulated decks?

The distribution of the B&P may be mathematically correct and indeed random, but it NOT the game of baccarat if the RNG is shuffling the cards after each hand.

Do you think RNG's are "junk" because they're too random, or perhaps not random enough? what is it about a real shoe which makes the game beatable, as opposed to an RNG. I'd really like to know, because this stuff comes up all the time on forums and it drives me crazy. It always seems to come down to a lack of trust in RNG's (because it's perceived that manipulating outcomes is easier), rather than any hard evidence that outcomes are inherently different.

Once again, if the RNG game would play from a true 6 or 8 deck shoe, then it might be well worth looking into.  However, as it shuffles each hand, it is not the game you are paying for.  It is merely a computer generated, perfectly modeled game of "Pick a Number" and nothing more.

Baccarat is an international game with standard rules.  The casinos keep trying to change it in many ways, always to THEIR advantage, in order to make it look like something else.   One of my biggest pet peeves with most casinos is their refusal to allow you to sit out hand.  But I digress.

Baccarat is a game played from a set amount of cards, not a new deck every hand.  That is the reason that I gave the "junk" rating to this new game.  It would not be difficult to make the RNG game play it "correctly", they just don't want to do that and that's why I will not play RNG baccarat for real money.

I hate to keep harping on the "finite amount of cards" thing but it is a KEY part of the baccarat game.  Cards are removed and not replaced.  This is a big deal and I believe there have been attempts to use the Continuous Shuffle Machines at the baccarat table and the experiment failed miserable as nobody would play the game dealt that way. 

The hardest part of the baccarat game, at least for me, is the start.  You don't know what the shoe may be doing and you've seen nothing to suggest a strategy.   Now bring in the RNG baccarat and you're looking at a new shoe every hand!  Not a good position to be in.

AD

[NathanDetroit]

*****As well you know, the game of baccarat is dealt from a FINITE shoe meaning it has a defined start and finish to it.   The rules of the game are quite specific.   Reshuffling the cards after each hand makes this something other than the game of baccarat.  It now becomes an RNG that produces a number that you wager on.****** Quote by ADulay


As a  baccarat player at dealer staffed  tables  at B & M casinos I would not like to have  it any other way.


I am supportive of the statement that the RNG baccarat version is   nothing but junk.


Nathan Detroit

[Bayes]

I hate to keep harping on the "finite amount of cards" thing but it is a KEY part of the baccarat game.  Cards are removed and not replaced.  This is a big deal and I believe there have been attempts to use the Continuous Shuffle Machines at the baccarat table and the experiment failed miserable as nobody would play the game dealt that way. 

The hardest part of the baccarat game, at least for me, is the start.  You don't know what the shoe may be doing and you've seen nothing to suggest a strategy.   Now bring in the RNG baccarat and you're looking at a new shoe every hand!  Not a good position to be in.

AD

It's a fair point, but the fact that "true" baccarat uses a finite amount of cards would only have practical significance if it were possible to get an edge through counting them (perhaps in the latter half of the shoe), but to my knowledge no such advantage is possible. Replacing cards may result in something other than the game of baccarat, but since (according to the experts) not replacing cards doesn't make any difference insofar as potential profits are concerned (unlike Blackjack) then it has to asked, where is the harm?

P.S. Here's the Wizard's analysis of card-counting in Bacc.

He concludes:

I hope this section shows that for all practical purposes baccarat is not a countable game. For more information on a similar experiment I would recomment The Theory of Blackjack by Peter A. Griffin. Although the book is mainly devoted to blackjack he has part of a chapter titled 'Can Baccarat Be Beaten?' on pages 216 to 223. Griffin concludes by saying that even in Atlantic City, with a more liberal shuffle point than Las Vegas, the player betting $1000 in positive expectation hands can expect to profit 70 cents an hour.