+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

Getting an edge and controlling the game are two distinct features to consider in order to constantly win at baccarat.

Let's say casinos go crazy reducing the Banker commission from 5% to 1%, so offering a long term profitable game for players wagering Banker.
Now we get a tiny mathematical edge so we'll expect to make some money itlr. And many players will.

Yet even in this fantastic and utopistic game we know we'll have to endure hard times, that is the strong Player dominated shoes appearance.

In a word, if now the commission on B winning bets is 1% (meaning our B bets will be EV+) does our actual strategy be affected in some way?

We know to get a mathematical edge, so we're just concerned about the "game control".

In reality the game control topic isn't so important as we realize that a stup.id flat betting strategy will get the best of it no matter what. But only in the long run. And knowing that positive and negative situations will be mixed along the way: variance.

Therefore in a such hypothetical EV+ game, even knowing to be eventual FB winners, we want to set up a plan capable to "control" the variance and there are only two obvious ways to do that: bet selection and MM.

Now the questions:

- can we improve our results (that is trying to reduce variance) utlizing a possible valid bet selection?

- can we improve our results (that is trying to reduce variance) utilizing a MM plan?

- what about both?

I mean, are there some additional tools to guess what will be the more likely course of action of the outcomes besides the fact that any B bet is slightly EV+?

Do take a role the various trending strategies, the B/P gap issues or many others features the game will provide?
Is a careful planned MM capable to be ok even on the very strong negative circumstances?

It's easy to ascertain the validity of the above strategies. We test a large sample of shoes registering if a planned strategy will overcome such obstacles.

Remember we are there to make a living at baccarat, not just to have fun.

I'm wondering if in this new game some of us will bet the mathematically unfavored Player side for some reasons.

I'm wondering which kind of MM progression experts will use here.


Ok, we know such game will never show up in a casino so we want to transfer the problem into the real game.
Actually the game isn't changed so much, the only difference is we have to pay an additional 4% on Banker winning bets.
I don't think bac players from being long term winners on the hypothetical situation depicted above will become heavy losers because of this added 4%.

Imo, to pretend to think the game as having a positive expectation on Banker bets (with many issues related to that) will improve a lot our results.

We know to encounter hard times even having a positive expectation, still some statistical features might help us to better "control" the game.

The same statistical features might help us to lower, erase or even invert a mathematical negative edge actually happening at real games.

As long as B>P, imo baccarat is a beatable game. Not mathematically of course.

as.









 



















 
 

[alrelax]

Just play EZ Baccarat with 0 commission on Banker winning decisions.  As you know 3 card total 7's that win on Banker pays 40:1, usually catch 1 or 2 on many shoes for $25 to $75 each.  Not always but many times.  If not on it, at least it's a push.

[roversi13]

If EV +:
-to make a living,flat bet at the max allowed.
Of course you need a huge Bkr to overcome variance,bur with EV + no problem to find the adequate bkr (bankers,friends,relatives,even pension funds or...Trump).
After 20000 hands you are SURE to be in big +

-as your example is concerned(meeting some members,3 days, 10 K$) you can play like usual,whatever MM or bet selection.You are not sure to win at the end of 3 days

[AsymBacGuy]

If EV +:
-to make a living,flat bet at the max allowed.
Of course you need a huge Bkr to overcome variance,bur with EV + no problem to find the adequate bkr (bankers,friends,relatives,even pension funds or...Trump).
After 20000 hands you are SURE to be in big +

-as your example is concerned(meeting some members,3 days, 10 K$) you can play like usual,whatever MM or bet selection.You are not sure to win at the end of 3 days

Of course you r right but it's not so easy to make a living having a 0 point something advantage, bj counters getting 1-2% advantage know this very well.
Anyway differently to bj, at baccarat we can chose to bet whenever we want and this IMO could improve a lot our results.

My example was posted just for curiosity purposes, so I erase it.

as.   

   

[AsymBacGuy]

Easy to see that the only way to win NOT having an edge is about controlling the game.

We can try to control the game either by a MM or by a bet selection that by itself will produce some low variance results.
Unfortunately no one MM ever invented can sustain the weight of the variance as well as no bet selection (generally speaking) can win itlr.

But certain features of the game help us to find those situations where variance is more restrained.
Now a MM could work with a well minor risk.

Naturally it's impossible to guess which direction will be taken by results if we start the betting at a "zero" starting point.
And at the same time, any MM starting at a zero point will invariably fail.

The more some events are deviating from the zero point, the better are the chances to get a balancement. And sometimes we need just one step of balancement to be winners.

So now the question is:

"are there some events that are more likely to go back and forth around the zero point and how many times per every class of hands dealt such events are supposed to cross the zero point?"

Obviously the problem is concentrated about the definition of "event". Or better sayed, about two opposite classes of events "fighting" each other.

Actually we need just couple of opposite events that for statistical reasons are more likely to repeatedly cross the zero point and this probability is proportionally enhanced in relationship of the actual distance from this point.

Especially whether two or more different events are simultaneously involved in the process.

as.



 








 

[roversi13]

The only way for "controlling" and reduce the variance is the arcsine approach,at least at Baccarat.
No at roulette, having perfect symmetry.
I spoke already about that in the past, but it seems that no member followed this idea,even if Google can teach some principles (not all needed details,of course!)
Even if the control of the variance is difficult but possible,it's not easy at all, also to find a MM that works.
"Works" means:no huge BKR,no ten hours a day at the table,no very very low wins.
Personnally I tried to control the variance with statistics,agglomerations,cluster of agglomerations,figure of 1,2,3,cluster of intermittences,very big variance and so on but I must admit that I failed......like the most people writing on this Forum,apart may be Asym that has an important knowledge of Basics,a smart approach to the game and a huge creativity.

[AsymBacGuy]

The only way for "controlling" and reduce the variance is the arcsine approach,at least at Baccarat.
No at roulette, having perfect symmetry.
I spoke already about that in the past, but it seems that no member followed this idea,even if Google can teach some principles (not all needed details,of course!)
Even if the control of the variance is difficult but possible,it's not easy at all, also to find a MM that works.
"Works" means:no huge BKR,no ten hours a day at the table,no very very low wins.
Personnally I tried to control the variance with statistics,agglomerations,cluster of agglomerations,figure of 1,2,3,cluster of intermittences,very big variance and so on but I must admit that I failed......like the most people writing on this Forum,apart may be Asym that has an important knowledge of Basics,a smart approach to the game and a huge creativity.

Thanks roversi, I can only exchange your compliments.

You are the only one here having a vast aknowledge of ancient gambling issues.

But I'm disappointed to hear that you failed as you worked just in the right direction.

The game is easy: you can have A or B and there are many ways to build and register many A and B situations.
Moreover A and B could be the result of sub-events and so on...

We're 100% certain that the totality of A/B different classes will produce different results depending on what we are considering. As the game is asymmetrical. But just 8.6% of the times. So it happens just 8.6 times over 100 hands dealt.

The more we want to restrain the A/B registration DILUTED field, the better will be our results.
By 1 trillion % certainty.

So you don't want to limit your variance by finding just what happens most likely; you should work on finding the situations where a given deviation will more likely go back (or forward) by statistical issues.

Test your shoes again and focus about the different probability to get certain A or B situations in different spots.
You won't be disappointed.

as.   

   













 

[roversi13]

AsymBacGuy,you are working in the same direction I used to work.

I had good results betting for agglomeration of B,after 2 agglomerations of B, or breaking 2 ,3 or 4 Players,or betting for single players or series of B.
Good but dangerous...

The best is,once again to use the principle of arcsine law.
It states that the equilibrium between B and P occurs  for sure or at the beginning of the shoe(within x hands) or at the end of the universe....
Low probability,but possible that it occurs between the beginning of the shoe and the end of universe.
In other words if in x hands there is a given unbalance between B and P ,the unbalance continues for y hands.
Of course x, y and the necessary unbalance have been calculated very carefully and some clear demonstrations exist about validity of this theory.
I use this rule betting only B:it means that I bet 0/5 hands max per shoe
Progression very conservative,rigid stopwin or ...ruine( average once a year,100 casino visits)
Impossible to make your living,but to have a positive balance every year is possible.
Of course that's my opinion and experience.
Of course I know some rich professional players with unbeatable systems,at least it's what they say

[AsymBacGuy]

The best is,once again to use the principle of arcsine law.
It states that the equilibrium between B and P occurs  for sure or at the beginning of the shoe(within x hands) or at the end of the universe....
Low probability,but possible that it occurs between the beginning of the shoe and the end of universe.
In other words if in x hands there is a given unbalance between B and P ,the unbalance continues for y hands.
Of course x, y and the necessary unbalance have been calculated very carefully and some clear demonstrations exist about validity of this theory.
I use this rule betting only B:it means that I bet 0/5 hands max per shoe
Progression very conservative,rigid stopwin or ...ruine( average once a year,100 casino visits)
Impossible to make your living,but to have a positive balance every year is possible.
Of course that's my opinion and experience.
Of course I know some rich professional players with unbeatable systems,at least it's what they say

This arcsine law principle is interesting but I guess it's not so easily appliable at the tables.

I like your choice to only bet very rarely.

Yeah, besides being mathematically impossible, making a living at baccarat is really hard with no guarantees to succeed. But finishing in the positive field after one year of playing is a very good accomplishment. 

Maybe there are some baccarat professionals around the globe but it doesn't exist an unbeatable system.

as.