Quote from: Albalaha on June 08, 2018, 02:46:13 AM
---Mike
Baccarat is a game of independent trials. Do not assert wrong things.
Al,
Not quite. Cards drawn from a shoe aren't replaced, so "strictly speaking" Bacc isn't a game of independent trials in the way that roulette is, because obviously cards not replaced cannot contribute to the probability of the NEXT hand. Therefore the probabilities are not fixed but change as cards are removed. But it turns out that this can't give you an advantage in the way that it does in Blackjack, where cards not being replaced can lead to favourable probabilities for the player. From the Wizard of odds FAQ :
QuoteOn baccarat, are the odds perpetual (as in dice and roulette) or do the odds change as cards are dealt out of the shoe (as in blackjack)? I know that it is not at all probable, but is it mathematically possible for the Banker to win every single hand in the baccarat shoe?https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/baccarat/
Anonymous
In an effort to debunk betting systems I used to say that the past does not matter in gambling. However once in a while somebody would rebuke me by saying that the past does matter for card counters, which is true. So now I say that in games of independent trials, like roulette and craps, the past does not matter. As I show in my baccarat appendix 2 a shoe rich in small cards favors the player and a shoe rich in large cards favors the banker. Thus, in baccarat, there is an extremely slight disposition that the next outcome will be the opposite of the last. So, yes, the odds do change in baccarat as the cards play out, but only to a very small extent. For all practicable purposes the game is not countable. I do not know if the banker could win every hand but I speculate that the answer is yes.
QuoteFurther, which math book did you refer who taught you that roulette being a game of independent trials, unbeatable?
I didn't say it was unbeatable, only that it's unbeatable using patterns and triggers, trends etc, precisely because trials are independent.
QuoteWho told you that I am looking for past outcomes to determine my way of playing?
I know you don't do that, but you DO believe that it's possible to win using progressions. I argue that progressions can't help unless you have an edge, because all they do is increase the variance (both positive and negative).
QuoteHave you heard of "the law of large numbers"? It is a law and not a "theory", I hope you know the difference between the two.
How does the LLN give you an edge or help you to win?
QuoteWhich physics book told you that you can get an edge in roulette with any study of physics? Winning roulette with physics is a theory and not a law.
I use "physics" broadly, which includes bias. No physics book needed; you don't need a physics PhD to understand that if a wheel is defective in some way the odds have the potential to be in your favour. Then there is Visual Ballistics. Apart from my own experience, there are independent studies which confirm that it works. See https://www.insidescience.org/news/physics-knowledge-can-tilt-odds-roulette
Of course there is no "law" that you will win at roulette using physics, because it's an APPLICATION of physics. Skill and a lot of hard work is necessary, and it's getting harder all the time, but there is POTENTIAL to get a real edge, unlike the case of trends, patterns and triggers.