Counting cards for Dragon Bet?
November 20th, 2010 at 10:59:17 PM
permalink
I change my mind.
I'm OK with Corps which pick and choose clienteles. Both insurance companies and casinos have the right to pick and choose customers. They may keep profitable ones and kicked out the rest. But, I'm not OK with a casino supervisor who says counting cards... is like stealing food from a buffet (a foodlifting offense), or video-taping a movie in a cinema (a piracy offense).
November 21st, 2010 at 1:23:40 AM
permalink
Quote: ArtemisNote2: This XYZ casino cuts off 12 cards out of 416 cards in its EZ-Baccarat. Once awhile the dealer might used up almost 416 cards, i.e., for a toke, he might go 1 more round after the cut card's out.
Extending play after the cut-card reshuffle marker, - especially if manipulated by a tip against the casino - is a fireable offense for a dealer. It's like allowing a shoot and its basket after the buzzer had occured in basketball, with sports bets on the line. If I were a casino shift manager, I'd term the dealer after making him pay the Eight Grand the casino had lost because of his actions.
As for the Dragon-7 bet being countable: this would be real interesting item for the people at both the Talisman Group and DEQ Systems Corp.
I don't think it really is, but if so, a modified cut card penetration may result.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 21st, 2010 at 4:40:40 AM
permalink
Tracking would be so easy with Baccarat... they even provide the forms for you to do it. Though I'd sure disguise your actual interest in what you are tracking.
I wonder if simply waiting for a 2nd to last and last hand would do? Without the counting.
I wonder if simply waiting for a 2nd to last and last hand would do? Without the counting.
November 21st, 2010 at 6:18:29 AM
permalink
Card counting vulnerability studies are time consuming. I would hate to spend days on it to come to the same conclusion I have with regular baccarat, that hours may pass between positive EV situations. In the real world, it isn't going to look good to just sit there tracking every card and not making a cover bet from time to time. Maybe somebody else will take this on, but I have better uses for my time.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
November 21st, 2010 at 6:18:43 AM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanAs for the Dragon-7 bet being countable: this would be real interesting item
Looking for an edge, you've got a long ways to go to reduce 7+ percent HE down to player advantage. I'd have to figure you'll never get there.
As far as dealer collusion, the only way that is going to escape notice is if no one is winning any money.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
November 21st, 2010 at 9:24:10 AM
permalink
If you want to bet the Dragon Bet and it hasn't been hit in the last 35 hands, start betting it.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:27:29 AM
permalink
Quote: FatGeezusIf you want to bet the Dragon Bet and it hasn't been hit in the last 35 hands, start betting it.
Then how far do you go before you stop betting for it? We all know it WILL happen...but when?
0.022534 probability of a Dragon 7
https://wizardofodds.com/baccarat/baccaratapx5.html#dragonbet
Since the median (actually 50.6654%) for the Dragon 7 bet is 31 hands...half of all hits will be 31 hands or less.
[exact formula: 30.41 hands = LOG(1-0.5)/LOG(1-0.022534)]
The Dragon 7 could hit within:
49 hands 67.2673%... 2 out of 3
61 hands 75.0999%...3 out of 4
101 hands 89.9938%...9 out of 10
1 out of 10 will go PAST 101 hands.
132 hands 95.0635%...19 out of 20
So 1 out of 20 hits will be PAST 132 hands.
I say to bet for the first 35 hands after the Dragon 7 bet hit.
54.9642% of the time you will win, on average that is.
Or bet for the first 39 hands after the Dragon 7 bet hit.
58.8884% of the time you will win, on average that is.
November 21st, 2010 at 10:58:19 AM
permalink
Quote: guido111Then how far do you go before you stop betting for it? We all know it WILL happen...but when?
Hopefully FatGeezus was joking.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
November 21st, 2010 at 11:34:46 AM
permalink
Quote: ArtemisWizard, please confirm if counting cards for the above Dragon Bet will be profitable. I saw a guy who bet $200 on the Dragon and won $8,000 near the final round of the shoe.
I wonder if he was the same guy that asked me (a year or so ago) to see if the D7 bet was countable. I told him I knew nothing about programming and it would be a time consuming thing to accomplish. Maybe he has done things himself!
I had started by looking at the first 723 shoes from the WoO baccarat site. (The file has 1000 shoes, but Im still stuck with Excel 2003!)
Some results for those that want to see.
The bankers 3rd card draw that made the D7:
3rd count freq
card
0 0 0
1 13 0.009643917
2 83 0.0615727
3 110 0.081602374
4 234 0.173590504
5 274 0.203264095
6 245 0.181750742
7 389 0.288575668
8 0 0
9 0 0
This section is the 3 cards that produced the D7.
banker count frequency
cards
007 252 0.18694362
025 80 0.059347181
016 65 0.048219585
205 63 0.046735905
304 60 0.044510386
106 58 0.043026706
034 50 0.037091988
403 32 0.023738872
043 31 0.022997033
502 23 0.017062315
845 22 0.016320475
052 22 0.016320475
944 22 0.016320475
377 21 0.015578635
386 19 0.014094955
827 19 0.014094955
124 19 0.014094955
296 19 0.014094955
935 18 0.013353116
566 18 0.013353116
836 17 0.012611276
584 17 0.012611276
485 17 0.012611276
467 16 0.011869436
674 16 0.011869436
197 16 0.011869436
115 16 0.011869436
854 16 0.011869436
395 15 0.011127596
656 15 0.011127596
917 15 0.011127596
755 15 0.011127596
287 14 0.010385757
647 14 0.010385757
575 14 0.010385757
665 14 0.010385757
557 13 0.009643917
476 13 0.009643917
494 12 0.008902077
764 12 0.008902077
926 11 0.008160237
746 10 0.007418398
214 10 0.007418398
737 9 0.006676558
962 8 0.005934718
683 8 0.005934718
593 7 0.005192878
773 7 0.005192878
313 6 0.004451039
872 6 0.004451039
692 6 0.004451039
601 5 0.003709199
863 5 0.003709199
322 5 0.003709199
223 5 0.003709199
953 5 0.003709199
782 4 0.002967359
133 4 0.002967359
142 3 0.002225519
412 3 0.002225519
232 3 0.002225519
331 2 0.00148368
421 2 0.00148368
241 2 0.00148368
061 1 0.00074184
151 1 0.00074184
1348 1
November 21st, 2010 at 11:41:35 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardHopefully FatGeezus was joking.
Maybe...maybe not.
I wonder if "FatGeezus" is related to "Big Elvis"
the one that can be seen at Bill's Gambling Hall...
The hit frequency of the Dragon 7 bet and the 40 to 1 payout has made it a very popular bet with many EZ Baccarat players, including my wife, and each player has their own "theory" of when it is going to hit! A funny thing to watch since most times they are so far wrong.
With the "bar" of the 3 card banker 7 hand in EZ Baccarat, the "player hand" now wins more times than the "banker hand".
Every one still disagrees with that one. The Asian players argue with my wife on that one all the time. "The "Banker" wins way more times than the "Player" hand" they scream. They do not want to understand the math.
http://www.ezbaccarat.com/
Event / Probability
Banker win / 0.436063
Banker loss / 0.446247
Normal tie / 0.095156
Banker 3-card 7 win / 0.0225338
Player win / 0.446247
Player loss / 0.458597
November 21st, 2010 at 12:10:51 PM
permalink
Quote: guido111
The bankers 3rd card draw that made the D7:
3rd count freq
card
0 0 0
1 13 0.009643917
2 83 0.0615727
3 110 0.081602374
4 234 0.173590504
5 274 0.203264095
6 245 0.181750742
7 389 0.288575668
8 0 0
9 0 0
Fine work, Guido.
A strong positive count of medium cards (4..7) would do the trick!
Problem is, it would take a double deck to get such sways more consistently. Eight-deck shoes behave a bit like infinite decks. Still, they occur but rarely.
Instead of a hi-low count, a "mid vs. outlyer" count method would do it: 4's to 7's vs. outside cards.
Wouldn't occur often - but when it does...
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
November 21st, 2010 at 12:18:50 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardCard counting vulnerability studies are time consuming. I would hate to spend days on it to come to the same conclusion I have with regular baccarat, that hours may pass between positive EV situations. In the real world, it isn't going to look good to just sit there tracking every card and not making a cover bet from time to time. Maybe somebody else will take this on, but I have better uses for my time.
Wizard, thanks for your honest reply. I respect your decision not to spend time on card counting vulnerability study in regard to the Dragon Bet. I do in agreement with you in regard to your statement: "for all practical purposes baccarat is not a countable game."
About making a cover bet in the game of EZ-Baccarat, yes, there is already a way to make an almost-$0-cost-cover-bet on Banker, i.e., a player has to find a dead-tired-dealer (Note 2) who fails to recognize the Dragon (Banker 3-card 7 win). Why won't a dealer recognize the Dragon? Here's why. Per note #1: 225 Dragons come out about 10,000 rounds of plays. That means that 9,775 rounds of plays are non-Dragons. When a dragon does come out, a dead-tired-dealer in graveshift will not notice the Dragon. A smart player will gain a 2.2535%EV when he can find an aforementioned dealer. However, a disgruntled-player at the table can rock the boat, i.e., if that player places a $5 bet on Dragon, & the Dragon comes out, then that's another story. That player will make sure that I will not get paid on my Banker bet of $20., i.e, it's a push, or it's a hidden commission of $20 for the casino.
Note 1: 225 Dragons per 10,000 rounds is from this link by Wizard:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/custom?q=cache:iRIUGYyq3o0J:wizardofodds.com/baccarat/baccaratapx6.html+ez+baccarat&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Note 2: Some dealers are dead tired because they work 2 jobs, i.e., They may work in ABC Casino during the swingshift, then they rush to work in XYZ Casino thereafter in the graveshift.
Note 3: I like to share with you guys of my first question to an easy-going-pitboss.
Me: How does a casino make money from EZ Baccarat?
Pitboss: We make money from hidden commissions. You don't get paid on Banker bet when the Dragon comes out. For example, if you bet $1,000 on Banker, you don't get paid $1,000 when Dragon pops up (Banker 3-card 7 win). That $1,000-savings is the hidden commission for the casino.
I'm OK with Corps which pick and choose clienteles. Both insurance companies and casinos have the right to pick and choose customers. They may keep profitable ones and kicked out the rest. But, I'm not OK with a casino supervisor who says counting cards... is like stealing food from a buffet (a foodlifting offense), or video-taping a movie in a cinema (a piracy offense).
November 21st, 2010 at 12:31:03 PM
permalink
Quote: PaigowdanQuote: guido111
The bankers 3rd card draw that made the D7:
3rd count freq
card
0 0 0
1 13 0.009643917
2 83 0.0615727
3 110 0.081602374
4 234 0.173590504
5 274 0.203264095
6 245 0.181750742
7 389 0.288575668
8 0 0
9 0 0
Fine work, Guido.
A strong positive count of medium cards (4..7) would do the trick!
Problem is, it would take a double deck to get such sways more consistently. Eight-deck shoes behave a bit like infinite decks. Still, they occur but rarely.
Instead of a hi-low count, a "mid vs. outlyer" count method would do it: 4's to 7's vs. outside cards.
Wouldn't occur often - but when it does...
I would think the makeup of the bankers 3 cards would be more important.
Here is a better table from the Wizards 723 shoes.
I know this is a small sample but it is a start.
The top 9 hands have many 0,3,4s.
Distribution of the cards
card / count
0/ 14
1/ 19
2/ 24
3/ 24
4/ 24
5/ 23
6/ 24
7/ 22
8/ 12
9/ 12
198
See if some one wants to take the ball and run.
112,633,011,329,024 combinations for the D7 bet, you would need to spend some good computer time in finding any advantage.
The Wizard has declined, so do I.
| rank | banker cards | count | frequency | cumulative |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 007 | 252 | 0.18694362 | 0.18694362 |
| 2 | 025 | 80 | 0.059347181 | 0.246290801 |
| 3 | 016 | 65 | 0.048219585 | 0.294510386 |
| 4 | 205 | 63 | 0.046735905 | 0.341246291 |
| 5 | 304 | 60 | 0.044510386 | 0.385756677 |
| 6 | 106 | 58 | 0.043026706 | 0.428783383 |
| 7 | 034 | 50 | 0.037091988 | 0.465875371 |
| 8 | 403 | 32 | 0.023738872 | 0.489614243 |
| 9 | 043 | 31 | 0.022997033 | 0.512611276 |
| 10 | 502 | 23 | 0.017062315 | 0.529673591 |
| 11 | 845 | 22 | 0.016320475 | 0.545994065 |
| 12 | 052 | 22 | 0.016320475 | 0.56231454 |
| 13 | 944 | 22 | 0.016320475 | 0.578635015 |
| 14 | 377 | 21 | 0.015578635 | 0.59421365 |
| 15 | 386 | 19 | 0.014094955 | 0.608308605 |
| 16 | 827 | 19 | 0.014094955 | 0.622403561 |
| 17 | 124 | 19 | 0.014094955 | 0.636498516 |
| 18 | 296 | 19 | 0.014094955 | 0.650593472 |
| 19 | 935 | 18 | 0.013353116 | 0.663946588 |
| 20 | 566 | 18 | 0.013353116 | 0.677299703 |
| 21 | 836 | 17 | 0.012611276 | 0.689910979 |
| 22 | 584 | 17 | 0.012611276 | 0.702522255 |
| 23 | 485 | 17 | 0.012611276 | 0.715133531 |
| 24 | 467 | 16 | 0.011869436 | 0.727002967 |
| 25 | 674 | 16 | 0.011869436 | 0.738872404 |
| 26 | 197 | 16 | 0.011869436 | 0.75074184 |
| 27 | 115 | 16 | 0.011869436 | 0.762611276 |
| 28 | 854 | 16 | 0.011869436 | 0.774480712 |
| 29 | 395 | 15 | 0.011127596 | 0.785608309 |
| 30 | 656 | 15 | 0.011127596 | 0.796735905 |
| 31 | 917 | 15 | 0.011127596 | 0.807863501 |
| 32 | 755 | 15 | 0.011127596 | 0.818991098 |
| 33 | 287 | 14 | 0.010385757 | 0.829376855 |
| 34 | 647 | 14 | 0.010385757 | 0.839762611 |
| 35 | 575 | 14 | 0.010385757 | 0.850148368 |
| 36 | 665 | 14 | 0.010385757 | 0.860534125 |
| 37 | 557 | 13 | 0.009643917 | 0.870178042 |
| 38 | 476 | 13 | 0.009643917 | 0.879821958 |
| 39 | 494 | 12 | 0.008902077 | 0.888724036 |
| 40 | 764 | 12 | 0.008902077 | 0.897626113 |
| 41 | 926 | 11 | 0.008160237 | 0.90578635 |
| 42 | 746 | 10 | 0.007418398 | 0.913204748 |
| 43 | 214 | 10 | 0.007418398 | 0.920623145 |
| 44 | 737 | 9 | 0.006676558 | 0.927299703 |
| 45 | 962 | 8 | 0.005934718 | 0.933234421 |
| 46 | 683 | 8 | 0.005934718 | 0.939169139 |
| 47 | 593 | 7 | 0.005192878 | 0.944362018 |
| 48 | 773 | 7 | 0.005192878 | 0.949554896 |
| 49 | 313 | 6 | 0.004451039 | 0.954005935 |
| 50 | 872 | 6 | 0.004451039 | 0.958456973 |
| 51 | 692 | 6 | 0.004451039 | 0.962908012 |
| 52 | 601 | 5 | 0.003709199 | 0.966617211 |
| 53 | 863 | 5 | 0.003709199 | 0.970326409 |
| 54 | 322 | 5 | 0.003709199 | 0.974035608 |
| 55 | 223 | 5 | 0.003709199 | 0.977744807 |
| 56 | 953 | 5 | 0.003709199 | 0.981454006 |
| 57 | 782 | 4 | 0.002967359 | 0.984421365 |
| 58 | 133 | 4 | 0.002967359 | 0.987388724 |
| 59 | 142 | 3 | 0.002225519 | 0.989614243 |
| 60 | 412 | 3 | 0.002225519 | 0.991839763 |
| 61 | 232 | 3 | 0.002225519 | 0.994065282 |
| 62 | 331 | 2 | 0.00148368 | 0.995548961 |
| 63 | 421 | 2 | 0.00148368 | 0.997032641 |
| 64 | 241 | 2 | 0.00148368 | 0.99851632 |
| 65 | 061 | 1 | 0.00074184 | 0.99925816 |
| 66 | 151 | 1 | 0.00074184 | 1 |
| 1348 | 1 |
November 21st, 2010 at 2:35:42 PM
permalink
Quote: guido111
Some results for those that want to see.
Interesting. I think you'd make a good programmer.
Seems to me from your list that the small cards are favored. Everything in the top 10 is 7 or less. Then again, 84.6% of cards are 7 or less (counting tens as zero).
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
November 21st, 2010 at 3:19:32 PM
permalink
First let me clarify something. I never bet the Dragon Bet.
Most importantly I said "IF YOU WANT TO BET THE DRAGON BET".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see that now we have three ways to bet the Dragon Bet.
Number1.
Wait for 35 consecutive hands for the Dragon Bet not to appear.
AND
Most importantly I said "IF YOU WANT TO BET THE DRAGON BET".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see that now we have three ways to bet the Dragon Bet.
Number1.
Wait for 35 consecutive hands for the Dragon Bet not to appear.
AND
Quote: guido111
Number2.
I say to bet for the first 35 hands after the Dragon 7 bet hit.
54.9642% of the time you will win, on average that is.
AND
Number3.
Or bet for the first 39 hands after the Dragon 7 bet hit.
58.8884% of the time you will win, on average that is.
November 21st, 2010 at 3:54:10 PM
permalink
Quote: FatGeezusFirst let me clarify something. I never bet the Dragon Bet.
Most importantly I said "IF YOU WANT TO BET THE DRAGON BET".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see that now we have three ways to bet the Dragon Bet.
Number1.
Wait for 35 consecutive hands for the Dragon Bet not to appear.
AND
Yes, I saw the word "IF".
I'm with you also. I never bet the Dragon bet myself.
My wife and her friends all do.
I say bet for 35 hands and stop. But it may be different tomorrow since I never make the bet myself.
My wife says 39 hands and stop. I'm sure that is because the bet pays 40 to 1.
Her 4 friends all have other "theories" and all the other players have theirs.
Mine is based solely off of the math of the bet.
So, then if one is to wait for 35 hands then bet, how many bets should be made?
I have no answer, but I hear another 35 from some one in the back room.
Here is a hit frequency table (actually a cumulative frequency table)
for the Dragon 7 bet. A theoretical table...from the math only.
[cell formula: 1-((1-P)^N)]
example: 41 hands = 60.7203% (3 out of 5) of all hits are at 41 hands or less.
(1-((1-0.022534)^41))
My studies of The Wizard's 2000 baccarat shoes shows the numbers to also be empirically correct.
| Hands | Hit % | Hands | Hit % | Hands | Hit % | Hands | Hit % | Hands | Hit % | Hands | Hit % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.2534% | 41 | 60.7203% | 81 | 84.2154% | 121 | 93.6569% | 161 | 97.4510% | 201 | 98.9757% |
| 2 | 4.4560% | 42 | 61.6054% | 82 | 84.5711% | 122 | 93.7998% | 162 | 97.5085% | 202 | 98.9988% |
| 3 | 6.6090% | 43 | 62.4706% | 83 | 84.9187% | 123 | 93.9396% | 163 | 97.5646% | 203 | 99.0213% |
| 4 | 8.7135% | 44 | 63.3163% | 84 | 85.2586% | 124 | 94.0761% | 164 | 97.6195% | 204 | 99.0434% |
| 5 | 10.7705% | 45 | 64.1429% | 85 | 85.5908% | 125 | 94.2096% | 165 | 97.6731% | 205 | 99.0649% |
| 6 | 12.7812% | 46 | 64.9509% | 86 | 85.9155% | 126 | 94.3401% | 166 | 97.7256% | 206 | 99.0860% |
| 7 | 14.7466% | 47 | 65.7407% | 87 | 86.2328% | 127 | 94.4676% | 167 | 97.7768% | 207 | 99.1066% |
| 8 | 16.6677% | 48 | 66.5127% | 88 | 86.5431% | 128 | 94.5923% | 168 | 97.8269% | 208 | 99.1267% |
| 9 | 18.5455% | 49 | 67.2673% | 89 | 86.8463% | 129 | 94.7142% | 169 | 97.8759% | 209 | 99.1464% |
| 10 | 20.3810% | 50 | 68.0049% | 90 | 87.1427% | 130 | 94.8333% | 170 | 97.9237% | 210 | 99.1656% |
| 11 | 22.1752% | 51 | 68.7259% | 91 | 87.4324% | 131 | 94.9497% | 171 | 97.9705% | 211 | 99.1845% |
| 12 | 23.9289% | 52 | 69.4306% | 92 | 87.7156% | 132 | 95.0635% | 172 | 98.0163% | 212 | 99.2028% |
| 13 | 25.6430% | 53 | 70.1195% | 93 | 87.9925% | 133 | 95.1747% | 173 | 98.0610% | 213 | 99.2208% |
| 14 | 27.3186% | 54 | 70.7928% | 94 | 88.2630% | 134 | 95.2835% | 174 | 98.1047% | 214 | 99.2384% |
| 15 | 28.9564% | 55 | 71.4510% | 95 | 88.5275% | 135 | 95.3898% | 175 | 98.1474% | 215 | 99.2555% |
| 16 | 30.5573% | 56 | 72.0943% | 96 | 88.7860% | 136 | 95.4936% | 176 | 98.1891% | 216 | 99.2723% |
| 17 | 32.1221% | 57 | 72.7231% | 97 | 89.0387% | 137 | 95.5952% | 177 | 98.2299% | 217 | 99.2887% |
| 18 | 33.6517% | 58 | 73.3378% | 98 | 89.2857% | 138 | 95.6944% | 178 | 98.2698% | 218 | 99.3047% |
| 19 | 35.1468% | 59 | 73.9386% | 99 | 89.5272% | 139 | 95.7915% | 179 | 98.3088% | 219 | 99.3204% |
| 20 | 36.6082% | 60 | 74.5259% | 100 | 89.7632% | 140 | 95.8863% | 180 | 98.3469% | 220 | 99.3357% |
| 21 | 38.0367% | 61 | 75.0999% | 101 | 89.9938% | 141 | 95.9790% | 181 | 98.3842% | 221 | 99.3507% |
| 22 | 39.4329% | 62 | 75.6610% | 102 | 90.2193% | 142 | 96.0696% | 182 | 98.4206% | 222 | 99.3653% |
| 23 | 40.7978% | 63 | 76.2094% | 103 | 90.4397% | 143 | 96.1582% | 183 | 98.4562% | 223 | 99.3796% |
| 24 | 42.1318% | 64 | 76.7455% | 104 | 90.6551% | 144 | 96.2447% | 184 | 98.4909% | 224 | 99.3936% |
| 25 | 43.4358% | 65 | 77.2696% | 105 | 90.8657% | 145 | 96.3294% | 185 | 98.5249% | 225 | 99.4072% |
| 26 | 44.7104% | 66 | 77.7818% | 106 | 91.0716% | 146 | 96.4121% | 186 | 98.5582% | 226 | 99.4206% |
| 27 | 45.9563% | 67 | 78.2824% | 107 | 91.2727% | 147 | 96.4929% | 187 | 98.5907% | 227 | 99.4337% |
| 28 | 47.1742% | 68 | 78.7718% | 108 | 91.4694% | 148 | 96.5720% | 188 | 98.6224% | 228 | 99.4464% |
| 29 | 48.3645% | 69 | 79.2502% | 109 | 91.6616% | 149 | 96.6492% | 189 | 98.6535% | 229 | 99.4589% |
| 30 | 49.5281% | 70 | 79.7177% | 110 | 91.8495% | 150 | 96.7247% | 190 | 98.6838% | 230 | 99.4711% |
| 31 | 50.6654% | 71 | 80.1748% | 111 | 92.0332% | 151 | 96.7985% | 191 | 98.7135% | 231 | 99.4830% |
| 32 | 51.7771% | 72 | 80.6215% | 112 | 92.2127% | 152 | 96.8707% | 192 | 98.7425% | 232 | 99.4947% |
| 33 | 52.8638% | 73 | 81.0582% | 113 | 92.3882% | 153 | 96.9412% | 193 | 98.7708% | 233 | 99.5060% |
| 34 | 53.9259% | 74 | 81.4850% | 114 | 92.5597% | 154 | 97.0101% | 194 | 98.7985% | 234 | 99.5172% |
| 35 | 54.9642% | 75 | 81.9023% | 115 | 92.7274% | 155 | 97.0775% | 195 | 98.8256% | 235 | 99.5281% |
| 36 | 55.9790% | 76 | 82.3101% | 116 | 92.8913% | 156 | 97.1433% | 196 | 98.8520% | 236 | 99.5387% |
| 37 | 56.9710% | 77 | 82.7087% | 117 | 93.0514% | 157 | 97.2077% | 197 | 98.8779% | 237 | 99.5491% |
| 38 | 57.9406% | 78 | 83.0983% | 118 | 93.2080% | 158 | 97.2706% | 198 | 98.9032% | 238 | 99.5592% |
| 39 | 58.8884% | 79 | 83.4792% | 119 | 93.3611% | 159 | 97.3321% | 199 | 98.9279% | 239 | 99.5692% |
| 40 | 59.8148% | 80 | 83.8515% | 120 | 93.5107% | 160 | 97.3923% | 200 | 98.9521% | 240 | 99.5789% |
November 22nd, 2010 at 9:12:03 AM
permalink
guido111 -
I'm not a math guy and those numbers you post make my head spin.
I try to keep it simple when I play Bac.
It's either a bet on the Player or Banker.
Like I said, I never bet the Dragon and I never yell
MONKEY - MONKEY - MONKEY
Good Luck at the table.
I'm not a math guy and those numbers you post make my head spin.
I try to keep it simple when I play Bac.
It's either a bet on the Player or Banker.
Like I said, I never bet the Dragon and I never yell
MONKEY - MONKEY - MONKEY
Good Luck at the table.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:58:18 AM
permalink
Quote: WizardSeems to me from your list that the small cards are favored. Everything in the top 10 is 7 or less. Then again, 84.6% of cards are 7 or less (counting tens as zero).
Correct. There does not seem to be a smoking gun with a certain card value.
If we split an 80 hand shoe into 8 bins each (1-10,11-20, etc.), then 12.5% of all hits would be in each bin and we could expect in 125 shoes (10,000 hands) an average of 225 D7 hits. (1.8 D7 hits on average per shoe)
That makes 28 (225*.125) D7 hits in hands 71-80 per 125 shoes.
That makes on average 1 D7 hit in hands 71-80 every 4.48 shoes.
I'd be willing to bet 5 cents that DEQ already looked into the counting possibility.
A player advantage would be very small, if any, from the remaining distribution of the shoe.
Good luck for any one that really wants to calculate that.
November 22nd, 2010 at 11:59:39 AM
permalink
Quote: FatGeezusI never yell
MONKEY - MONKEY - MONKEY
But isn't doing that the essence of winning baccarat strategy?
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:32:21 AM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321But isn't doing that the essence of winning baccarat strategy?
It's the same strategy in Craps as yelling "YO" on the come out roll.
November 23rd, 2010 at 11:58:59 PM
permalink
Card-counting-update...
I got my first backoff at a Baccarat table.
Pitcritter: Give up your seat.
Me: I gave no lips. I picked up my chips and walked out.
Geez, casino spies are fast workers.
They probably copied this thread, pasted and emailed it to all their casino-clients .
I got my first backoff at a Baccarat table.
Pitcritter: Give up your seat.
Me: I gave no lips. I picked up my chips and walked out.
Geez, casino spies are fast workers.
They probably copied this thread, pasted and emailed it to all their casino-clients .
I'm OK with Corps which pick and choose clienteles. Both insurance companies and casinos have the right to pick and choose customers. They may keep profitable ones and kicked out the rest. But, I'm not OK with a casino supervisor who says counting cards... is like stealing food from a buffet (a foodlifting offense), or video-taping a movie in a cinema (a piracy offense).
June 16th, 2011 at 9:20:04 AM
permalink
Quote: ArtemisCard-counting-update...
I got my first backoff at a Baccarat table.
Pitcritter: Give up your seat.
Me: I gave no lips. I picked up my chips and walked out.
Geez, casino spies are fast workers.
They probably copied this thread, pasted and emailed it to all their casino-clients .
I dont believe this is true at all.
June 16th, 2011 at 1:00:11 PM
permalink
The other day I saw a "dragon" come up 7 times in one shoe at work, I have never seen it happen that much. The guy won over $8,000 and tipped me $25! Yay!
June 29th, 2011 at 4:15:51 PM
permalink
There is a (very) old Sports Illustrated article about Thorp's experiences counting cards at baccarat (there used to be a side bet that he was able to exploit, and published a paper on his exploitation of, which was replaced by the Tie bet as a result). He apparently assembled a team that was ~$5000 in profit after a week (that being the non-inflation-adjusted figure from half a century ago), at which point the casino slipped a mickey in his drink and he went all rubbery.
If anyone is interested, Thorp's paper on the obsolete baccarat side bet (Banker natural nine) was published in 1966 as "A favorable side bet in Nevada baccarat" in the Journal of the American Statistical Association. Might be interesting if you can find a casino offering natural nine as the dragon bonus.
On the subject of academic research into the exploitation of baccarat, the taxpayers of Canada have recently funded a paper entitled "Three-person baccarat" (by Sherry Judah and William T. Ziemba) which makes the suggestion that "It is optimal for the players to collude and place indentical bets in which case the game becomes a Bernoulli trial with banker's edge of 0.82%." I'm not sure that I follow the logic, but it seems like a significant reduction in house edge.
If anyone is interested, Thorp's paper on the obsolete baccarat side bet (Banker natural nine) was published in 1966 as "A favorable side bet in Nevada baccarat" in the Journal of the American Statistical Association. Might be interesting if you can find a casino offering natural nine as the dragon bonus.
On the subject of academic research into the exploitation of baccarat, the taxpayers of Canada have recently funded a paper entitled "Three-person baccarat" (by Sherry Judah and William T. Ziemba) which makes the suggestion that "It is optimal for the players to collude and place indentical bets in which case the game becomes a Bernoulli trial with banker's edge of 0.82%." I'm not sure that I follow the logic, but it seems like a significant reduction in house edge.
July 19th, 2014 at 8:54:22 AM
permalink
I change my mind.
I'm OK with Corps which pick and choose clienteles. Both insurance companies and casinos have the right to pick and choose customers. They may keep profitable ones and kicked out the rest. But, I'm not OK with a casino supervisor who says counting cards... is like stealing food from a buffet (a foodlifting offense), or video-taping a movie in a cinema (a piracy offense).
July 19th, 2014 at 10:29:56 AM
permalink
Yay! Is right considering he used a credit line and lost about that much the day before. He had to pay everything back. Because he gave you that $25, his kids had to eat Top Raman for a few days.Quote: NicksGamingStuffThe other day I saw a "dragon" come up 7 times in one shoe at work, I have never seen it happen that much. The guy won over $8,000 and tipped me $25! Yay!
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
July 19th, 2014 at 12:14:42 PM
permalink
Good for you. There is nothing wrong with a little camaraderie but there is no need for this endless whooping and hollering.Quote: FatGeezus
Like I said, I never bet the Dragon and I never yell MONKEY - MONKEY - MONKEY
July 23rd, 2014 at 4:39:23 PM
permalink
Can any of these counts overcome the $1 per bet "rake" at California card rooms?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
August 2nd, 2014 at 1:29:13 PM
permalink
There are 5 card rooms in the San Francisco/Sacramento area that do not charge collection on table games - all the collection is paid by the "bank" - either the "corporation" that has been contracted by the card room to bank the games or a player/banker. Casino 101 in Petaluma, Casino 580 in Livermore, Cordova Casino in Rancho Cordova, Lodi Casino in Lodi, and Lotus Casino in Sacramento.
