Law of Averages

I spent 5 hours counting all the player wins and the banker wins for 22 tables.
After 55 shoes, I tallied up the following score:

banker had won 1922 hands
player had won 2203 hands

For the next 18 hours, I bet Banker with a progressive raise after every 3rd loss. (Ex: win twice but lose 5 times)
If I win four times, I lower the bet back down (Ex: lose 6 times but win 10 times)
If I start losing at the $50 range, I raise it by $20 instead of $10
If I start losing at the $100 range, I raise it by $40 instead of $20, etc
Example: $100 then $100 then $100 then $140, $140, $140, then $200 etc. Then if I win the $200 four times, then I lower my bet to $140.

Around the 15th hour, my bets every hand shot up to $450
Around the 12th hour, I started losing track of how many times I won and loss.
I calculated the dragon 7 reduced my winnings by $4,000
I left at the 16th hour with $6,000 in winnings.

This system I used is based on the law of large numbers.
I predicted that since banker lost so many hands more than players, it would eventually win some back and balance it out.
In addition, I used a small progressive bet to break even if I lose more hands in total.

Please tell me your thoughts

I think the Yankees will win the World Series.

Quote: exoxeris

I spent 5 hours counting all the player wins and the banker wins for 22 tables.
<snip>
Please tell me your thoughts

did you play at more than 1 table?
or how many if not at just 1.

a team would have played over all 22 tables, nothing new
any one table is not expected to make up for 22 tables
that should be easy to understand

I think, you got lucky
many do
$6000 is nothing when you could have won millions, imo

thank you for sharing
Sally

added

Quote: exoxeris

This system I used is based on the law of large numbers. I predicted that since banker lost so many hands more than players, it would eventually win some back and balance it out.

Please tell me your thoughts

Textbook case of Gambler’s Fallacy.

The law of large numbers deals with future events only...forget about past events.

Quote: exoxeris

banker had won 1922 hands
player had won 2203 hands

I calculated the dragon 7 reduced my winnings by $4,000

so, this was EZ Baccarat (Banker 3 card 7 win is a push for Banker bet)
still the Player winning at least 2203 hands over that many BP decisions is about 1 in 13 million, I get.

It is true that in Regular Bacc the Banker does win more often
in EZ Bacc it is too close to call at 49.4% vs 49.3%

How much time does the Law of Large Numbers allow until
the ratios are close enough?

even without the time

Banker bet still has a house edge to work against.

Hope you had fun and I would not expect the same results if you find
the condition you found again

Sally

Quote: mustangsally

so, this was EZ Baccarat (Banker 3 card 7 win is a push for Banker bet)

wait!
in EZ Baccarat the Player bet wins more (more times on average per shoe)
often than the Banker bet.

forget the rest

read all about it
the Player bet does win more than the Banker bet

time for a EZ Bacc sim

OP missed something or is not telling all
(over 55 shoes the player wins about 2000 hands)

That can happen playing too much Baccarat!
Sally

one million shoes sim

Quote: exoxeris

Please tell me your thoughts

If this strategy really worked the casinos wouldn't offer the game.

Quote: Ace2

Textbook case of Gambler’s Fallacy.

The law of large numbers deals with future events only...forget about past events.

You're absolutely right. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Quote: Ace2

Textbook case of Gambler’s Fallacy.
The law of large numbers deals with future events only...forget about past events.

Were not all past events at one time future events? Yesterday's wins and losses were subject to the same math as todays wins and losses are subject to, are they not?

Yes they were. But irrelevant to today.

Quote: exoxeris

I spent 5 hours counting all the player wins and the banker wins for 22 tables.
After 55 shoes, I tallied up the following score:

banker had won 1922 hands
player had won 2203 hands

This system I used is based on the law of large numbers.
I predicted that since banker lost so many hands more than players, it would eventually win some back and balance it out.
In addition, I used a small progressive bet to break even if I lose more hands in total.

Please tell me your thoughts

Did you remember to take into account all of the other tables in whatever city you were in? Maybe there were far more banker wins than player wins on those tables, so your table "should have had" more player wins to balance it out.

One problem with the "law of large numbers" is, technically it applies regardless of your starting point. Suppose that, after 1000 games, there are 200 more banker wins than player wins, but in the next 1000 games, there are 100 more player wins than banker wins. What happens next - "there were 100 more banker wins in the past 2000 games, so player wins should be more common," or, "there were 100 more player wins in the past 1000 games, so banker wins should be more common"? Of course, the answer is, "The results of the previous 1000, or 2000, or any number of, games has no bearing on the next games other than at a card-counting level."

What I love about the Law of Large Numbers is that intuitively there is no possible was it should be a "law" at all

a + b = b + a
energy cannot be created or destroyed
Those are laws
Yet probability achieves the same level of certainty as 1 + 2 and thermodynamics

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Of course, the answer is, "The results of the previous 1000, or 2000, or any number of, games has no bearing on the next games other than at a card-counting level."

Doesn't that fly in the face of all these Monte Carlo simulations wherein they take a zillion trials and accept those results as being what should be expected in the future?

Quote: FleaStiff

Doesn't that fly in the face of all these Monte Carlo simulations wherein they take a zillion trials and accept those results as being what should be expected in the future?

as to this thread
the regular game of Baccarat
will have more Banker wins as more hands are played. Once ahead, Banker should stay in the lead.
That is right in line with the law of large numbers

with EZ Baccarat
as it appears to me from the OP (original post)
there will be more Player wins than Banker wins
yep, many many Bacc players will cry "FOUL"
and
the more hands played the more likely Player will be ahead and never to be behind.

I think my sim data shows that well


that is why I said the OP got lucky and won (I had to think about what was written)

as more and more hands and shoes are played
it has to be less likely that a balance of Banker and Player wins in EZ Bacc happens.

sure anything can happen over 55 shoes
but I still think Player wins (and that can be calculated too)

luck lucky
Sally