Follow the wheel- stop, start
Im a long time lurker, decided to join in the fun!
I know that at the end of 100 hands in baccarat that most of the time player/ banker wins will be within 5-7 of each other, though during the 100 hands there is usually at least 2 times where there is a difference of 7.
If I were to bet on whichever side was dominant until it were plus 7 then start over, would this be an effective strategy? From my findings, usually around 2.2 times per shoe that there will be a difference of 7.
I can understand that occasionally I will get caught in ping pong and lose some units but I would imagine it could be overcome.
Anyone have any thoughts or feedback from their own personal trials of a similar strategy?
I would take the win and then start betting on whichever was infront by 1.
Does anyone have stats? Is there an optimal differential to go for?
Quote: Bmayo319Anyone have any thoughts or feedback from their own personal trials of a similar strategy?
I guess I would question your apparent premise that personal trials are more significant than computer simulations or mathematical calculations.
Do you have some indication that real casino games are biased in a way not predicted by the math?
Quote: Bmayo319If I were to bet on whichever side was dominant until it were plus 7 then start over, would this be an effective strategy?
No.
That is all.
Quote: gpac1377I guess I would question your apparent premise that personal trials are more significant than computer simulations or mathematical calculations.
Do you have some indication that real casino games are biased in a way not predicted by the math?
I am just talking from my experiences as I said.
Are you saying you have simulated this on a computer?
Quote: Bmayo319I am just talking from my experiences as I said.
Are you saying you have simulated this on a computer?
No I haven't because it would be a waste of time. I'm no expert, but the problem is that the card removal effects are very weak. No matter which cards are depleted from the shoe, the odds tend to remain roughly 45.9% for banker, 44.6% for player, and 9.5% for tie.
That's the reason card counting systems tend to be ineffective at baccarat, and the same would apply to your concept, unfortunately.
Hope that helps.
Quote: gpac1377No I haven't because it would be a waste of time. I'm no expert, but the problem is that the card removal effects are very weak. No matter which cards are depleted from the shoe, the odds tend to remain roughly 45.9% for banker, 44.6% for player, and 9.5% for tie.
That's the reason card counting systems tend to be ineffective at baccarat, and the same would apply to your concept, unfortunately.
Hope that helps.
Im not talking about counting cards. Im talking about taking advantage of the short term variance spikes.
Are you saying that you dont think that over twice per shoe there would be a differnce of 7 playing this way, in a longer data set?
Thanks
Quote: Bmayo319Im not talking about counting cards. Im talking about taking advantage of the short term variance spikes.
Are you saying that you dont think that over twice per shoe there would be a differnce of 7 playing this way, in a longer data set?
Thanks
A rigorous card counting system would be the best way to capture the potential of any variations, but would nevertheless be insufficient to overcome the house edge. Any simplified rule-of-thumb would be inferior to card counting.
Quote: gpac1377A rigorous card counting system would be the best way to capture the potential of any variations, but would nevertheless be insufficient to overcome the house edge. Any simplified rule-of-thumb would be inferior to card counting.
I do not think card counting would have any real effect at all, I think a basic 'rule of thumb' approach would be much more effective at finding myself on the right side of variance.
Quote: endermikeI might recommend a PM to gr8player. Try that, he seems to be an expert on baccarat play.
Yes I might, he sounds like he also plays alot of baccarat and may have noticed the same thing or have some data.
Quote: Bmayo319I do not think card counting would have any real effect at all, I think a basic 'rule of thumb' approach would be much more effective at finding myself on the right side of variance.
Baccarat is a low house edge game, so variance could certainly put you ahead for awhile, but I think you'll find that the math doesn't support your concept.
Quote: gpac1377Baccarat is a low house edge game, so variance could certainly put you ahead for awhile, but I think you'll find that the math doesn't support your concept.
Cheers- you are most likely right - just find it an interesting phenomenon.
Quote: Bmayo319Cheers- you are most likely right - just find it an interesting phenomenon.
Good luck. I hope you have fun regardless.
