Am I just lucky?
I do understand the stats will snap back around one day and average 9.52%, but my question is, is this extra % what may be allowing me to win the Tie bets over the last 40 hours of play (not by much but enough)? It is only an ancillary bet for me, but makes as much as $250 to $500 per hour some hours of play.
Thanks if anyone knows the math well enough to know if the extra 1.43% is enough to sway the odds in my favor on the Tie bet given that this is 15% higher than the expected Tie % coming up in play.
Quote: NewtoTownI am playing Baccarat and have been betting on the Tie bet (I know its a horrible bet). However, I have recorded the data and the Tie has come up 355 times out of the last 3242 deals, meaning it has occurred 10.95% of the time versus the predicted 9.52% ( I think that's what I read). My system has me betting the Tie and oddly enough I am in fact ahead, however, is this just because of the fact I am seeing the Tie at this point more than I should be.
I do understand the stats will snap back around one day and average 9.52%, but my question is, is this extra % what may be allowing me to win the Tie bets over the last 40 hours of play (not by much but enough)? It is only an ancillary bet for me, but makes as much as $250 to $500 per hour some hours of play.
Thanks if anyone knows the math well enough to know if the extra 1.43% is enough to sway the odds in my favor on the Tie bet given that this is 15% higher than the expected Tie % coming up in play.
I don't know how many decks you're playing, so we'll assume eight. If we look here:
https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/basics/#toc-Rules
We see that the tie bet is supposed to win 9.5156% of the time and pays eight units on a win. Assuming you bet $10 every single time you play a hand, here are the actual results based on your percentages:
(355 * 80) - (2887 * 10) = -470
Therefore, you would actually still be down with flat betting $10 despite the number of times that the Tie has come up. With that being said, since you are using a system, I would assume that you are not flat betting the Tie every single hand. You're certainly not ahead because of your system, just when it so happens you have been betting more, but the Tie running better than expected has certainly not hurt you.
Also, are you playing somewhere that pays 9-TO-1 on the Tie bet? My understanding is that some online casinos do that and perhaps there is a land casino somewhere that offers that. If that's the case:
(355 * 90) - (2887 * 10) = $3080
So, you would be ahead flat betting in that situation given how well the Tie bet has been coming in.
As far as the probability of your tie bet hitting as much as it has goes, we can use a binomial probability calculator to get an idea how likely that is:
http://vassarstats.net/binomialX.html
Probability: .095156
Trials: 3242
Successes: 355
And we get: 0.00298 so the probability of the Tie bet coming up this frequently (or more frequently) in that sample is 0.298% or 1 in 335.57
Therefore, we can conclude that the Tie bet has been running extremely well for you. It's running ever so slightly better than three standard deviations to the good. If one less Tie bet had come, then you would be within the third standard deviation.
So, it just depends on how much the Tie bet pays. If it pays 8-TO-1, it just so happens that you're betting it (or betting more) at fortunate times. If it pays 9-TO-1 and you were flat betting it, you would be winning regardless.
I have not kept a running total of how many times I have placed the Tie bet, but have this in my logs and can check.
I guess I would then enter (number of wins on Tie * 80) - [number of times the Tie bet has been placed * 10) = +$380 (wins on Tie bets so far). I do have the data on separate log pages and will have to add them up (i.e., number of wins on Tie versus number of Tie bets placed). In other words, I only flat bet the Ties but am still up.
Hopefully over the holiday I will get time to add up the actual number of wins on Tie (since I only bet as the system indicates) versus the number of Tie bets placed. It seems like the system does an Ok job of predicting when Ties will occur, but I think once the ratio of Ties drops back to 9.5156% (the norm) versus 11.05% that it's averaging as of today, I'll break even or maybe even lose a little. I wonder how many hours a Tie bet can run this hot (i.e., so far above the norm, especially given that Banker to Player ratio is much closer to what they should be running [1614 Player decisions and 1743 Banker decisions).
Quote: NewtoTownI am only *flat* betting with the system which tells me when to place the Tie bet, even though I have only witnessed 355 ties so far (actually 417 as of today out of 3774 total decisions, including Player and Banker), I am still up. The Tie is only an ancillary bet, not the real money maker, but because Ties represent 11.05% of the total decisions as of today, Ties are now running 16.1% more than they should be, and I am trying to attribute it to the system or the "Tie decisions running too hot" factor. I am only getting paid 8 to 1 on ties, not 9 to 1. Playing 8 decks.
I have not kept a running total of how many times I have placed the Tie bet, but have this in my logs and can check.
I guess I would then enter (number of wins on Tie * 80) - [number of times the Tie bet has been placed * 10) = +$380 (wins on Tie bets so far). I do have the data on separate log pages and will have to add them up (i.e., number of wins on Tie versus number of Tie bets placed). In other words, I only flat bet the Ties but am still up.
Hopefully over the holiday I will get time to add up the actual number of wins on Tie (since I only bet as the system indicates) versus the number of Tie bets placed. It seems like the system does an Ok job of predicting when Ties will occur, but I think once the ratio of Ties drops back to 9.5156% (the norm) versus 11.05% that it's averaging as of today, I'll break even or maybe even lose a little. I wonder how many hours a Tie bet can run this hot (i.e., so far above the norm, especially given that Banker to Player ratio is much closer to what they should be running [1614 Player decisions and 1743 Banker decisions).
For the purposes of advantage play, the Tie Bet at Baccarat is effectively not countable. However, bets in Baccarat do have a variable house edge based upon the composition of the remaining cards. I tend to doubt it, but it is possible that whatever decision-making method you're using to place the tie bets might also correlate with the tie bets having a lower house edge than off of the top of a fresh shoe.
Even then, I would suggest that the ties running 3SD+ to the good is undoubtedly helping you. There's really no way to attribute that to your system, method, whatever you want to call it...whatsoever. That's like having a coin toss calling system that relies on selectively calling heads (never tails), having 65/100 flips (not all of them bet) come up heads and then attributing financial success to the system. Granted, you'd still be down flat betting the tie under this 8-TO-1 scenario, but you certainly woulkd not be down nearly as much as expected given that you are running 3SD+ to the good.
If anything, that should be evidence of how fortunate you've been running on this high house edge bet. Even with this kind of a sample size, if the tie was being flat bet every single hand AND running 3SD+ to the good, it would still be losing. That tells you it's an awful bet.
What you would do is this: (Number of wins on tie * 80) - (Number of losses on tie * 10) = Profit/Loss
Otherwise:
(Number of wins on tie * 80) - ((Number of times tie bet placed - Number of wins on tie) *10) = Profit/Loss
As far as only flat betting the ties is concerned, if ties are running 3SD+ to the good overall in your limited sample size AND you're not betting it every time, then your sample size of tie bets placed is effectively smaller. And, again, your method for choosing when to bet the tie might have a lower house edge than, "Normal," if it correlates somehow with a deck composition that would be, "Good," for the tie bets. Either way, tie bets are overall running far better than expected, so there can be no doubt that is helping you tremendously.
Thank you for the input. It lead me to look at my data. Although it is not frequent, the online casino I played a fair bit at (several owned by the same company, which I won't name) is having (not all the time) the dealer take a card when the player has a natural and also from time to time the player take a card when the banker has a natural, and this is leading to the number of Ties occurring too frequently.
Am I incorrectly interpreting the rules Baccarat? I thought the Player must stand when the Banker has a "Natural" (8 or 9) and the Player must stand when the Banker has a Natural (8 or 9). This is *not* happening very frequently at the online casinos I have played at. Are their rules programmed into their algorithm incorrectly? Or, do I have the rules wrong regarding the fact both the Banker and Player must stand if the other (or both) have a Natural?
I am shocked at how often this is creating Ties that should not be Ties. If I have the rules correct, I will notify the casino operator that they have a serious rule glitch in their systems.
Thank you all for the help, as I would have never solved this issue without all your input, assuming I have solved the issue (based on me interpreting the rules as per above).
At a $100 table
Player bets only: 1614 x $100 = $161,400 won - 1743 x $100 = $174,300 lose = -$12,900
Banker bets only: 1743 x $95 = $165,585 won - 1614 x $100 = $161,400 lose = +$4,185
Player bets only: 1000 x $100 = $100,000 won - 1053 x $100 = $105,300 lose = -$5,300
Banker bets only: 1053 x $95 = $100,035 won - 1000 x $100 = $100,000 lose = +$35
Quote: NewtoTown
Am I incorrectly interpreting the rules Baccarat? I thought the Player must stand when the Banker has a "Natural" (8 or 9) and the Player must stand when the Banker has a Natural (8 or 9). This is *not* happening very frequently at the online casinos I have played at. Are their rules programmed into their algorithm incorrectly? Or, do I have the rules wrong regarding the fact both the Banker and Player must stand if the other (or both) have a Natural?
I don't play online casinos, but I have noticed this very thing in certain baccarat apps that are free to play. One side will have an 8 or 9, which should immediately end the round, but the other side will draw a card if their total is low enough. At first I thought it was just a glitch in the programming, but I've noticed it happening in more than one game, so these companies are obviously programming those drawing rules on purpose.
