Quote from: KungFuBac on February 19, 2021, 04:06:09 PM
Congrats AsymBacGuy on your 1000 post above.![]()
This is a good thread /subtopic and I like the analogy with the outcomes profile in craps. I think you will agree there are many similarities when comparing craps to bac. A couple huge differences too(as u point out one above re: dependence)
I look forward to your next post in the series.
Thanks KFB! :-)
Yep, besides the dependency factor, I totally agree that craps and baccarat tend to work by similarities.
When a craps shooter bet the pass line he/she has 2:1 odds to win
The casino's ploy to reduce a sure math edge for the don't pass bettor derives from transforming a losing twelve for the pass bettor to a push.
After this very first roll not producing a sudden win or loss, the pass line bettor is underdog to win as in relationship of the number established his/her odds to win are 5:6 (six or eight), 4:6 (five and nine) and 3:6 (four and ten).
Thus basically there are two distinct asymmetrical probabilities to get outcomes on either pass or don't pass sides: a sudden win getting 2:1 (pass line) and 3:8 odds (don't pass line); after that the don't pass line is hugely favorite to win at various degrees.
In essence, the above mentioned multilayered betting scheme relies upon the difficulty to first roll sevens and elevens in series greater than 4 per each consecutive shooter.
Of course it could happen that such 7s/11s will be mixed with number repeaters, anyway it's very very very very unlikely to get four consecutive players winning 16 rolls in a row without showing at least one or a couple of immediate 7/11 wins.
At baccarat from one part math propositions are more intricated to grasp, from the other one there are additional factors that might orient our bet selection.
We know that "sudden win or loss" are determined more likely by the fall of strongest key cards (8s and 9s) on the initial two initial cards of a given side, then the side getting the higher two initial card point is hugely favorite to win the hand.
Of course such probabilities are symmetrical (thus undetectable) but the finiteness of the shoe and the key card liveness or shortage along with simple statistical features will help us to define how much such factors are going to produce valuable deviations from the expected line.
As there's no way a perfect key card balancement is going to act along any shoe dealt (even though many not key card situations can produce strong deviated spots), we can infer that most part of random walks are not going to form back to back outcomes totally insensitive to the previous card distribution.
Simply put, the vast majority of shoes dealt are surely affected by a kind of finite dependency deviating from the expected values.
Tomorrow practical examples about that.
as.