All,

  OK, an update on this 8/9 testing.

  After 20,000 hands dealt, flat betting, the play is up 113 units.

  I figure there is no need, at this time, to run the full 40,000 hands so I'll start to build a few basic charts and see if there is any other data that can be gleaned from this sub-set of decisions.

  If one attempted to play this way, it would be terribly boring, but then we're not there to be entertained, we're there to take money out of the casino with the least amount of risk.

  More later once I find some time to work with the spreadsheet.

  AD

Quote from: Bayes on June 16, 2013, 08:57:01 AM

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.

Quote from: Bayes on June 16, 2013, 08:57:01 AM
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.

Quote from: Bayes on June 16, 2013, 08:57:01 AM
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

Having read the offending comment, I'll have to go along with Esoito on this one.

This is supposed to be a place for civil discussion and hopefully mutual progress towards goals in roulette.

Childish and sometimes inflamatory outbursts by adults should not be treated as acceptable behavior here.

AD

"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

Quote from: andrebac on June 04, 2013, 09:43:49 AM
AD,
thanks for your work!
I also noticed that longest runs of losses happen when there is a ZZ run "running". is it true also for your experience?

Yes, I saw that too.

At this point in testing, I'm interested mainly is just how far out of whack the W/L can go.

For a Marty player, waiting for three losses might be a good way to go on a black table.

AD

Quote from: TwoCatSam on June 04, 2013, 07:21:35 PM
Shoe 894 had a profit of 15 units with a draw down of 42 units with the largest bet being 11 units

OK, this is boring.

Any comments?

A drawdown of 42 units on the normal green table is just over $1000.

This doesn't look all that good, just from that perspective!

AD

Just a quick update.

Ran another 1500 hands, right from the top, and the long loser is 6 (once) and three instances of 5 losses in a row.

Wins are outpacing losers 378 to 328.

I'll continue on with this dataset and try to finish another 2000 tomorrow "after my chores".

AD

There was another baccarat forum where this particular system play came up several times and was debated long and loud by several people.

No one could actually give a reason for the choice of wagers and it eventually just went away.

I don't normally monitor the natural 8/9 wins (although many Asian players do) but I may jot down some notes during future play if I have the time.

However, with most systems, if you can't find a reason for the placed wager, it's just gambling superstition.

And this one is as good as any as it has some kind of structure to it!!

AD

OK, hopefully you'll see that attached Excel spreadsheet subset at at the bottom of this message with the intial test run of 100 placed wagers from my dataset.

I will mention that this "test" is slightly different from the original plan as my data does NOT show natural wins but winning hands with an 8 or 9 as the total.   This, of course, is not what the author of the system had intended, but we'll have to live with it for now.

I took each winning 8 or 9 and wagered that it would repeat.  In the case of a tie as the next outcome, the bet was placed until a decision was made.  There was only one case where two ties came up which made the "decision" play two more hands down.   I believe it won.

This data is taken from the live Malta bacarrat table as they used to update the information on a hand by hand basis.

The long losing streak was a single run of 5 in a row.   A long win streak of 14 was obviously a large deviation in the short term, but it's gambling.  Deal with it.

AD

Quote from: monaco on May 31, 2013, 08:16:53 PM
Thanks ADulay


1952

Thanks.  1952 will be the starting line for the run.  I should be able to get most of it done on Saturday.

AD

OK, I've seen this method mentioned many times and evidently there are a few who swear by it.

In an attempt to at least see if it has any viability to it, I am willing to go into my extensive database of LIVE decisions, at least the one database that also shows individual hand results, and extract a minimum of 100 placed bets on this theory.

This is to at least see if it holds any water at all.

What I would like from the first person to respond, is a random number from 100 to 10,000 and that will be my starting point in the data.

I will run 100 placed wagers and see how they would result, at least from this dataset.

AD

Andrebac,

Did he give an explanation as to how or why a natural 8 or natural 9 would affect the next decision?

Is this something he's observed via data mining or is there another theory at work here?

AD

Darn it.

I made another reply to this thread and I swore I wouldn't.

Oh well, if Al won't send me the penultimate bad number from that spreadsheet I'll just send my solution to the problem to Victor and if he believes I've solved the problem legitimately, I'll post it up.

AD (180 replies to a pointless challenge.  Go figure.)

Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AM
You never did number 3, otherwise you would have come up with results jumping like a frog.

Well, if you'll remember back a few weeks, I did jump up and down when I told you how I solved this odd challenge with the help of my losing, craps player, brother.  Even posted up the results on your board.  Too bad only 4 people saw it.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AM
              This challenge is much like a very difficult hurdle race.

This challenge is pointless.  However, it does keep your name up "in lights" so you can pretend to be somebody in the finite roulette world.

Quote from: Albalaha on May 12, 2013, 03:15:31 AMOnly innovative ones can think of doing something here.

I think I already did that.

Anyway, how about sending out the next spreadsheet with the second worst number.   DO NOT tell me the number, just post up the spreadsheet like you did with the first one showing "W" and "L".   My curiosity is now getting to me and I'd really like to see if it can beat it again.   I'll run it EXACTLY like the first one, bet by bet, spin by spin.

AD

Quote from: Marshall Bing Bell on May 10, 2013, 07:33:07 AM

To be fair, why would he bother?

All you'll do is say, "Yep, played that like a tournament too, and won +1550 units. 

No, if he can come up with the "next worst number" I can attempt to validate MY own solution to his goofy challenge and put an end to this waste of time for once and for all.

I'm not quite sure what Al is looking for but it's evident his exposure to roulette is limited to a very small subset of the game.

Has nobody here ever played in a roulette tournament?  Any gambling tournament?

Hopefully his next "challenge for the ages" will have a bit more structure to it than "beat this number" and then tell me how you did it.

It's been beat.  Now I just need another number to validate my process to make sure it wasn't just a lucky streak.

I'll be more than happy to post up a play by play, just need to make sure the first one wasn't a "fluke" win.

AD (actually I believe the first win was something like +79)