Maximizing the baccarat flaws
As long as we know that all 416 cards are inserted into a shoe and even if casinos would know precisely what is our strategic plan, the probability (voluntary or not) to arrange cards in order to get us losers is ZERO.
Just the math negative edge still works, period. Let casinos be glad about that.
Start with the assumption that if a third card(s) isn't involved in the results formation, the game would be so easily beatable that it wouldn't exist at all.
Actually third card was invented to promote a 'house' advantage centuries ago as players could only bet the Player disadvantaged side.
Only later the 5% vig was conceived to burden the now bettable Banker side (thus mathematically lowering players' disadvantage by a 0.18% degree.
For that matter baccarat inventors 'forgot' to add an edge about the Banker (house) scheme, that is still in use: That is that a Banker 4 two-card point should draw a third card whenever a third card Ace is dealt to the Player (actual bac rules dictate the Banker to stand).
In any other scenario, third card rules advantage the Banker side.
If we play a finite and dependent card game where two-card symmetrical spots are easily beatable, third card rules just tend to confuse but not altering the entire picture.
So even though third card rule won't be in use (91.4% of total hands) bac results are not a kind of endless 'coin flip' propositions as many ignorants (especially at 2+2 forum) keep saying.
So such ignorants are double ignorants (btw hating baccarat but particularly attracted by poker tournaments when many times their whole destiny relies upon a REAL 'coin flip or so' proposition).
Therefore there are two main fields to investigate:
- the possible divergence from a B and P two-card succession (symmetrical probability) distribution related to an independent coin flip succession (symmetrical distribution). First moves around a 91.4% probability over the total outcomes and the second over the 100% of results.
- the average third(s) card impact (8.6% probability) typical of baccarat over the outcomes.
Obviously the first factor will way more likely shift the results as being 10.62 times more predominant than the second one, yet the second factor could 'confuse' the more probable 'flowing line' by different degrees.
Good news is that itlr such different 'movements' converge into a steady more likely line as third card impact can prolong or stop a given pattern by probabilities that we may safely accept as 'symmetrical'.
I know that this sounds as contradictory for what I've sayed so far, anyway we should remember that we won't know the precise spot when an asymmetrical hand will show up and naturally the very slight verified propensity to get the opposite outcome works infinitely.
A statement confirmed by taking derived roads as lines to follow, where blue and red spots do not fit the B and P requisites.
So our betting plan won't be sensible about B or P spots, considering them as virtually equally probable.
Data extracted on our real live shoes sample by playing one of our plans
For simpliciity only Big Road results are displayed here (flat betting scheme).
We got 19.934 winnings by wagering a first order 'cluster' spots.
We got 3907 winnings by wagering a second order 'cluster' spots.
We got 711 losing spots at the first order class and being neutral at second order spots.
We got 1099 losing spots at both first and second order spots.
In total:
By wagering first order spot we got a 19.934/5717 W/L ratio.
By wagering second order spot we got a 3907/1099 W/L ratio.
Knowing the W=+1 and L=-3 ratio, the W/L was:
first order step: 19.934/17151 (1.16:1)
second order step: 3907/3297 (1.185:1)
Since we didn't make any difference about which side to bet, half ot such winning bets were decurted by the 5% vig.
So:
First step order: 0.95 x 9967 + 1 x 9967 = 9468.65 + 9967 = 19.435.65
Second step order: 0.95 x 1953.5 + 1 x 1953 = 1855.82 + 1953 = 3808.82.
So our real W/L ratio in units should be 19.435/17.151 (1.13:1) at the first order step and 3808/3297 (1.15:1) at the second order step.
Many could argue that a bit over 10k LIVE shoe results sample would be a too small insignificant one to reach some conclusions for, nonetheless we are not so naive to think that any system could get the best of it after even 2k or 3k of real live shoes.
Not mentioning the difficulty to collect a decent amount of live shoes data, the only ones we should care about.
After all, a keen player capable to observe/play an amount of 15 shoes per day, 5-6 days a week, needs almost three years to collect a 10k sample.
More importantly notice that second order clusters will get a higher positive EV, albeit needing more waiting time than first order spots.
You may ask whether higher order classes (third class and superior classes) will get a greater EV but our answer is that we are simply not interested about that for their rare appearance.
This is just one random walk derived from what I've written so far, next week we'll see how another different r.w. will perform on the same Big Road line.
With the consequences that sometimes multiple random walks will collide in the betting selection.
as.
As long as we know that all 416 cards are inserted into a shoe and even if casinos would know precisely what is our strategic plan, the probability (voluntary or not) to arrange cards in order to get us losers is ZERO.
Just the math negative edge still works, period. Let casinos be glad about that.
Start with the assumption that if a third card(s) isn't involved in the results formation, the game would be so easily beatable that it wouldn't exist at all.
Actually third card was invented to promote a 'house' advantage centuries ago as players could only bet the Player disadvantaged side.
Only later the 5% vig was conceived to burden the now bettable Banker side (thus mathematically lowering players' disadvantage by a 0.18% degree.
For that matter baccarat inventors 'forgot' to add an edge about the Banker (house) scheme, that is still in use: That is that a Banker 4 two-card point should draw a third card whenever a third card Ace is dealt to the Player (actual bac rules dictate the Banker to stand).
In any other scenario, third card rules advantage the Banker side.
If we play a finite and dependent card game where two-card symmetrical spots are easily beatable, third card rules just tend to confuse but not altering the entire picture.
So even though third card rule won't be in use (91.4% of total hands) bac results are not a kind of endless 'coin flip' propositions as many ignorants (especially at 2+2 forum) keep saying.
So such ignorants are double ignorants (btw hating baccarat but particularly attracted by poker tournaments when many times their whole destiny relies upon a REAL 'coin flip or so' proposition).
Therefore there are two main fields to investigate:
- the possible divergence from a B and P two-card succession (symmetrical probability) distribution related to an independent coin flip succession (symmetrical distribution). First moves around a 91.4% probability over the total outcomes and the second over the 100% of results.
- the average third(s) card impact (8.6% probability) typical of baccarat over the outcomes.
Obviously the first factor will way more likely shift the results as being 10.62 times more predominant than the second one, yet the second factor could 'confuse' the more probable 'flowing line' by different degrees.
Good news is that itlr such different 'movements' converge into a steady more likely line as third card impact can prolong or stop a given pattern by probabilities that we may safely accept as 'symmetrical'.
I know that this sounds as contradictory for what I've sayed so far, anyway we should remember that we won't know the precise spot when an asymmetrical hand will show up and naturally the very slight verified propensity to get the opposite outcome works infinitely.
A statement confirmed by taking derived roads as lines to follow, where blue and red spots do not fit the B and P requisites.
So our betting plan won't be sensible about B or P spots, considering them as virtually equally probable.
Data extracted on our real live shoes sample by playing one of our plans
For simpliciity only Big Road results are displayed here (flat betting scheme).
We got 19.934 winnings by wagering a first order 'cluster' spots.
We got 3907 winnings by wagering a second order 'cluster' spots.
We got 711 losing spots at the first order class and being neutral at second order spots.
We got 1099 losing spots at both first and second order spots.
In total:
By wagering first order spot we got a 19.934/5717 W/L ratio.
By wagering second order spot we got a 3907/1099 W/L ratio.
Knowing the W=+1 and L=-3 ratio, the W/L was:
first order step: 19.934/17151 (1.16:1)
second order step: 3907/3297 (1.185:1)
Since we didn't make any difference about which side to bet, half ot such winning bets were decurted by the 5% vig.
So:
First step order: 0.95 x 9967 + 1 x 9967 = 9468.65 + 9967 = 19.435.65
Second step order: 0.95 x 1953.5 + 1 x 1953 = 1855.82 + 1953 = 3808.82.
So our real W/L ratio in units should be 19.435/17.151 (1.13:1) at the first order step and 3808/3297 (1.15:1) at the second order step.
Many could argue that a bit over 10k LIVE shoe results sample would be a too small insignificant one to reach some conclusions for, nonetheless we are not so naive to think that any system could get the best of it after even 2k or 3k of real live shoes.
Not mentioning the difficulty to collect a decent amount of live shoes data, the only ones we should care about.
After all, a keen player capable to observe/play an amount of 15 shoes per day, 5-6 days a week, needs almost three years to collect a 10k sample.
More importantly notice that second order clusters will get a higher positive EV, albeit needing more waiting time than first order spots.
You may ask whether higher order classes (third class and superior classes) will get a greater EV but our answer is that we are simply not interested about that for their rare appearance.
This is just one random walk derived from what I've written so far, next week we'll see how another different r.w. will perform on the same Big Road line.
With the consequences that sometimes multiple random walks will collide in the betting selection.
as.