Baccarat is beatable statistically
First, lets ignore ties, meaning to exclude ties in the calculation.
With ties ignored, B has an edge of 50.68%, this still leads to a defeat for players since we need 51.28% to overcome the 5% commissions.
However we should note that this 50.68% edge is a flat overall number, can some bet selections provide higher edge and even >51.28 so a statistically win can be achieved?
The answer is yes and some selections do provide much better edges. Here are some examples:
1 You should not bet B after B --- continuation is always bad bet in Baccarat statistically, although each one has slightly different statistical expectation, e.g. bet 5B to continue is much better than 6B to continue (50.18 vs 49.28).
2 As you can see from above example, we actually have an edge even bet P after 6B ---- 100-49.28=50.72
3 Lets back to bet B strategy, here is a winning one: bet B every time after first P appears, this will give us a 51.41% edge, it is a winner since it is >51.28.
If you bet B after 2P, you will get a 51.24% edge
If you bet B after 3P, you will get 51.27% ---- very close to even
If you bet B after 8P, you have a big edge at 52.5%
I am sure that there are other B-betting selections that will also provide winning statistics.
The bottom line is: the widely recognized 1.06% house edge for Baccarat is very misleading compared with BJ ----- BJ’s number is after applying some strategies while the Baccarat 1.06% number is flat overall number. It can be reduced significantly by some good betting selections.
Quote: wz60
1 You should not bet B after B --- continuation is always bad bet in Baccarat statistically, although each one has slightly different statistical expectation, e.g. bet 5B to continue is much better than 6B to continue (50.18 vs 49.28).
Nobody here is going to take this on faith. Back up your claim with (accurate) math.
Quote: wz60I want to share my findings and I want anyone who can do modeling to challenge me.
With ties ignored, B has an edge of 50.68%
Stop right there and go learn the difference between edge and probability.
Now the question is, do they fluctuate enough that they will give you a positive edge ? And if so, how frequently does this appear and how much would you need to bet to make your time worthwhile ? The more advanced questions are: How much bankroll would you need ? How much suspicion would you raise ? How much cover play can you afford ? How much comps can you expect to your support ?
Unless there is profund math delivered on that topic, the answer remains open. However, the truth is Baccarat is a very symmetrical game between B and P with respect to deck composition. Any card missing is likely to "help" both sides. You would need to look out for non-symmetrical bets, maybe ties.
I don’t claim that my findings are absolutely true since my sampling is limited (10000 shoes) and my algorithm may not be 100% correct although I am pretty sure they are correct. My purpose is to get those who CAN do modeling to confirm or invalid my findings.
Quote: wz60As a word-class expert in one of engineering modeling fields with >30 years experience I don’t feel a need to argue with you about terminology.
I don’t claim that my findings are absolutely true since my sampling is limited (10000 shoes) and my algorithm may not be 100% correct although I am pretty sure they are correct. My purpose is to get those who CAN do modeling to confirm or invalid my findings.
You're a wor(l)d class expert in...engineering...? Really? It appears that you think that past events impact future results in a predictable way in a game of independent trials. That's laughably wrong. It's 7th grade math. Come on...
Quote: FinsRuleNew forum suggestion - posts in betting systems don't show up on recent posts, only in betting system section....
That one was bouncing around when I first joined...
Quote: wz60As a word-class expert in one of engineering modeling fields with >30 years experience .
Let me know of any bridges you may have had a hand in building. So I can seek an alternate route
Quote: wz60As a word-class expert in one of engineering modeling fields with >30 years experience I don’t feel a need to argue with you about terminology.
Use whatever terminology you like. You can't have your own facts though.
Quote: wz60As a word-class expert in one of engineering modeling fields with >30 years experience I don’t feel a need to argue with you about terminology.
A "word-class" expert doesn't feel he needs to argue about terminology. That's funny on several different levels.
And somehow I doubt an attentive graduate of an engineering program would mistake the mean of a random distribution of events with the probability of a given event. That's equivalent to confusing the area beneath a curve with the vertical axis on the graph used to plot it.
Any one will greatly increase your credibility if you can provide your numbers.
Let me explain why we need 51.28% B winning rate to get even with P
T ---- total num of betting (exclude ties)
R ---- B winning rate
To get even, you need:
T*R * 0.95 = (1-R)*T
If you have baccarat data and can program to simulate then it would not be difficult to model the scenarios on which I have provided my numbers.
Quote: wz60Let me explain why we need 51.28% B winning rate to get even with P
T ---- total num of betting (exclude ties)
R ---- B winning rate
To get even, you need:
T*R * 0.95 = (1-R)*T
That reduces to 1/1.95 = 51.282%. So what? Do you think the probability of a banker win changes meaningfully over time? Because many gaming experts have used actual composition-dependent analysis (not simulations) have demonstrated that it doesn't, except at the very end of a shoe. You don't think the Banker becomes "due" if there's a long streak of Player wins, do you?
[0.5141 * T * 0.95 - (1-0.5141)*T] / T * 100 = 0.25 %
Quote: wz60MathExtremist ---- you seem to be clueless. I am talking about particular patterns that MAY have edges statistically. Chasing or against streaks are all losing strategies.
wz60,
Welcome to the forum for the moment. I appreciate that you are attempting to base your system discussion on the numbers, so please read the forum RULES carefully. Your words in bold above are just barely....barely...not a personal insult (if I turn my head, squint, and assume you meant, "Sir, I do not believe you understand my proposition."), so since you're new, please take this as a warning, and take care to discuss the writing, not the writer. Thanks!
Quote: MathExtremistA "word-class" expert doesn't feel he needs to argue about terminology. That's funny on several different levels.
And somehow I doubt an attentive graduate of an engineering program would mistake the mean of a random distribution of events with the probability of a given event. That's equivalent to confusing the area beneath a curve with the vertical axis on the graph used to plot it.
Why, yes, it is! :) I must've missed the unedited post.
if you devised a counting scheme to identify when the deck is in your favor (1) it would happen very infrequently (2) the advantage wouldn't be very high so the risk is enormous.
Precisely. Your terminology should be so precise that no one should have any questions and therefore there should be no arguments about it at all.Quote: wz60As a world-class expert in one of engineering modeling fields with >30 years experience I don’t feel a need to argue with you about terminology.
Baccarat is beatable? Yeah.. just ask Phil Ivey... the Judge should be ruling on his unique style of playing Baccarat any day now.
Quote: wz60If we can get a 51.41% winning rate as I have discovered
You think the probability of a Banker win, conditional upon a prior-round Player win, is 51.41% exclusive of ties? Uh, okay. Good luck at the tables, then.
Quote: wz60I am talking about particular patterns that MAY have edges statistically.
So, do those patterns happen in the past? Or the future? If the past: who cares? It's too late to take advantage. If the future: who cares? you have no viable method of predicting the impending start of the pattern.
As I see it, here is the problem we're currently facing. You've provided a list of results. They don't match the expected results of baccarat, so we're questioning their validity. As proof of the quality of your work, you did not detail your process or explain your methodology. Instead, you claimed to be an expert in the world of engineering. That would be a logical fallacy even if you'd spelled "world" correctly. Maybe you have a revolutionary discovery about baccarat. But nothing you've said so far indicates that this is likely to be the case.
Quote: MathExtremistYou don't think the Banker becomes "due" if there's a long streak of Player wins, do you?
I'm going out on a limb and declaring the banker due after say a run of 23 players. Call me crazy..
It is indisputable that B has a slightly edge over P, but the small margin (50.65 %) can not overcome the negative effect of 5% commission so in the end it is still losing statistically. We need 51.28 % winning rate to overcome it.
My point is that not every B betting has same statistical expectation, some particular patterns do have higher winning rate, and some have lower rate, than 50.65. This leads to the question: can some patterns provide >51.28 rate. That is what I am trying to find out.
One of the “best” patterns I have found is:
……BPB ------ bet B every time after a new P
Which gives me a 51.41 winning rate, a net +0.25% edge as compared with -1.06% edge if you flatly bat B.
As I have said I may be wrong in my calculations, I need someone to prove that I am wrong with your simulation number.
Quote: wz60My point is that not every B betting has same statistical expectation, some particular patterns do have higher winning rate, and some have lower rate, than 50.65.
This is false.
Quote:This leads to the question: can some patterns provide >51.28 rate. That is what I am trying to find out.
One of the “best” patterns I have found is:
……BPB ------ bet B every time after a new P
Which gives me a 51.41 winning rate
This is also false.
But what did you do to arrive at those conclusions? Did you simply write a random simulation, run it for a few million hands, and infer that your results were perfectly representative of the actual population of game outcomes?
Quote: wz60bet B every time after a new P
The millions of players before you who have tried to win at Baccarat failed to realize how simple it is to kill the casinos at their own game. Now you have discovered the simple secret! We'll be packing the tables now!
Quote: wz60
One of the “best” patterns I have found is:
……BPB ------ bet B every time after a new P
Which gives me a 51.41 winning rate, a net +0.25% edge as compared with -1.06% edge if you flatly bat B.
As I have said I may be wrong in my calculations, I need someone to prove that I am wrong with your simulation number.
WHY would that be the case? What is the reason for which the game's dynamics change - even mid-shoe - when this pattern emerges? Have you identified a correlation between the winning side and the card values involved?
And, of course, it would be easiest by far for us to help with your calculations if you ACTUALLY SHOWED YOUR WORK. But you're apparently unwilling to do that.
1 First no one can derive an equation for this thing, you need large Baccarat data to run some computer analysis
2 Second, do a filtering to filter out all ties --- treat them as never happened since they are meaningless. You can keep them but you will need to modify your algorithm in following steps
3 Run s scan, hand by hand going forward, for the shoe for any three of
BPB and BPP
4 Record the number of BPB and BPP for all shoes
5 Get your statistical numbers of total BPP and BPB, you will get more BPB than BPP, the question is how much, I expect you to get 51.41 % more. If that is true then we have a world-class discovery (not word-class !%&)
6 Even if you can prove that I am wrong, we will still discover that the edge of -1.06% will be reduced to near 0 for this pattern, lets see.
Quote: Ibeatyouraces*shakes head* Why do you people bother????
This. It is a pretty obvious troll.
Quote: wz60Well I know you want to know the methodology, here it is:
1 First no one can derive an equation for this thing, you need large Baccarat data to run some computer analysis
You can iterate -- the third option that you didn't consider. Iterate over all possibilities of cards for three hands, then do the same analysis. Your results will be exact and your theory will be disproven.
Quote: MathExtremistYou can iterate -- the third option that you didn't consider. Iterate over all possibilities of cards for three hands, then do the same analysis. Your results will be exact and your theory will be disproven.
Well get your number to make your point. You will be surprised.
If you have data and be willing to run simulations I will be glad to work with you.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say....maybe THAT's where he's coming up with this idea?
Quote: RSOn the first page, OP says he has a sampling of 10000 (shoes?).
I'm going to go out on a limb and say....maybe THAT's where he's coming up with this idea?
Yes, that's why I suggested iteration. This thread is sort of like flipping a coin 100 times, seeing 53 heads and 47 tails, and inferring that everyone's been wrong about coin flips forever.
Quote: endermikewz60, here (under simulations) is a lot of data. Please try your patterning technique on it and report back.
Thank you very much and a very constructive contribution for such discussion. I did not know the availability of these large data.
Lets see what numbers I will get and I welcome anyone who can run my patter to these data to challenge my calculations.
Here is what I got from betting B after BP:
1 If just make one bet if the first hand is P: 51.37% wins, total 12280 bets, so a net winning edge +0.17% (win)
2 If bet these selections up to 20 hands (without ties): 50.98% wins, total 125040 bets, so a net winning of -0.58% (loss)
3 If bet these selections to the end of a shoe, 50.81% wins, total 457946 bets, so a net winning of -0.91% (loss)
Unless someone can prove that the above numbers are not correct from same data source, I need go no further to prove my point: bet selections do make a difference, gr8 has left and he was correct about only betting certain selections ----- which significantly reduce your disadvantage expectation, or even possibly give you advantage expectation.
Please, what does selection 1 (the winning one) mean? Is it if the first hand of the shoe is P, bet B (and so only about 1 bet per every 2 shoes)? If so, and you would indulge me, please try that pattern on a couple of the other simulations and report back.Quote: wz60Well, use the data "simulation1" in your link, I did find a winning bet selection although some results are not quite in line with what I got from my data:
Here is what I got from betting B after BP:
1 If just make one bet if the first hand is P: 51.37% wins, total 12280 bets, so a net winning edge +0.17% (win)
2 If bet these selections up to 20 hands (without ties): 50.98% wins, total 125040 bets, so a net winning of -0.58% (loss)
3 If bet these selections to the end of a shoe, 50.81% wins, total 457946 bets, so a net winning of -0.91% (loss)
Unless someone can prove that the above numbers are not correct from same data source, I need go no further to prove my point: bet selections do make a difference, gr8 has left and he was correct about only betting certain selections ----- which significantly reduce your disadvantage expectation, or even possibly give you advantage expectation.
Quote: wz60Well, use the data "simulation1" in your link, I did find a winning bet selection although some results are not quite in line with what I got from my data:
Here is what I got from betting B after BP:
1 If just make one bet if the first hand is P: 51.37% wins, total 12280 bets, so a net winning edge +0.17% (win)
2 If bet these selections up to 20 hands (without ties): 50.98% wins, total 125040 bets, so a net winning of -0.58% (loss)
3 If bet these selections to the end of a shoe, 50.81% wins, total 457946 bets, so a net winning of -0.91% (loss)
Unless someone can prove that the above numbers are not correct from same data source, I need go no further to prove my point: bet selections do make a difference, gr8 has left and he was correct about only betting certain selections ----- which significantly reduce your disadvantage expectation, or even possibly give you advantage expectation.
So you were found to be wrong pretty close to what we expect you to be wrong by and your response is clearly I am right and I just need more proof. Again what mechanism do you thing explains why bet selection would have any effect. Why is BPB more likely than BPP?
Quote: wz601 If just make one bet if the first hand is P: 51.37% wins, total 12280 bets, so a net winning edge +0.17% (win)
2 If bet these selections up to 20 hands (without ties): 50.98% wins, total 125040 bets, so a net winning of -0.58% (loss)
3 If bet these selections to the end of a shoe, 50.81% wins, total 457946 bets, so a net winning of -0.91% (loss)
What is the standard error for your calculations using this simulation data? Does a 95% confidence interval contain 0? Can you reject the null hypothesis?
Quote: TwirdmanSo you were found to be wrong pretty close to what we expect you to be wrong by and your response is clearly I am right and I just need more proof. Again what mechanism do you thing explains why bet selection would have any effect. Why is BPB more likely than BPP?
You guys are spoiling my game. My goal was to derive the basics statistical testing in this tread via the Socratic method. Oh well, some other time...Quote: dwheatleyWhat is the standard error for your calculations using this simulation data? Does a 95% confidence interval contain 0? Can you reject the null hypothesis?
Quote: endermikePlease, what does selection 1 (the winning one) mean? Is it if the first hand of the shoe is P, bet B (and so only about 1 bet per every 2 shoes)? If so, and you would indulge me, please try that pattern on a couple of the other simulations and report back.
That is not my point, my point is that some betting does give statistically advantage, or at least reduce disadvantage from -1.06 to near 0, or possibly +territory. The selection example I gave is the simplest one for you to understand.
I will not go back with new numbers, unless someone can confirm my existing numbers from the first data in the link.
Quote: dwheatleyWhat is the standard error for your calculations using this simulation data? Does a 95% confidence interval contain 0? Can you reject the null hypothesis?
Nothing like that in the simulation. Let me re-frame how to get these numbers:
1 Ignoring all T, you just collect all BPB and BPP ---- BPB is a win and BPP is a loss
2 First 2 hands are exceptions, in this case just collect PB and PP for the first 2 hands, PB is win and PP is loss
3 Total win /Total bets would be the winning rate for this selection, 51.28% is the winning mark, 50.65% is the quoted rate for flat B betting, any number larger is an improvement.
Edit: I made a mistake in this calculation, on the next page of the thread I correct it.
Quote: endermikeMy point is that you can take random data and then find patterns in it. The value in finding such patterns is if they will repeat themselves moving forward. You took simulation 1 and found a pattern: "Bet B on the second hand after P on the first." Now for that pattern to be of value, it needs to be repeatable (statistically significant). Hence, this is why I'm encouraging you to further test your pattern to now demonstrate that it seems to hold in general. Without getting too deep into the philosophy of science, this is what is required for a claim to be accepted. It should be repeatably demonstrable by independent sources. That is why I tried it with the data from simulation 2.
Return = -4.792%, oh well, can't quit the day job yet
Well without looking into any deep, -4.792% for baccarat is laughable, go back to check you algorithm.
I would suggest you actually go to a casino and play your strategy with your own money and report back on your winning and losing sessions.
If, after 5000 sessions you are still winning, perhaps someone will bother to run your sims for you, otherwise just keep your sims to yourself and take down the house!!!
You should be a bagillionaire by now!
All the best!
Quote: wz60That is not my point, my point is that some betting does give statistically advantage, or at least reduce disadvantage from -1.06 to near 0, or possibly +territory. The selection example I gave is the simplest one for you to understand.
I will not go back with new numbers, unless someone can confirm my existing numbers from the first data in the link.
if anyone is arguing that the deck composition of baccarat can not be advantageous to the player that is wrong, it could be.. (example a deck of all 10 cards, will always result in a tie). That's pretty advantageous.
However your assertion (at least i think this is your assertion) that a particular pattern could be identified that shows a deck is in favor to banker or player or tie is also wrong. Any system that could work would have to tell you something about the deck composition.
