Baccarat Counting Clarification Needed
Thread Rating:
On this page, the Wizard's card counting advice for baccarat confuses me:
"Looking at this from the perspective of the Player bet, a deck rich in high cards is good. That is why it is bad for the Player bet when they leave the deck. The flip side of that coin is a deck rich in low cards is good for the Banker bet. Thus, if a low card leaves the shoe, that improves the odds on the Player and if a high card leaves, it's good for the Banker."
In the chart included on this page the effect of removal shows negative values for cards 5,6,7,8,9 for the player. This seems to be contradictory. What am I missing? Any clarification would be appreciated on why this seems backwards. Shouldn't the Player bet be more optimal when the count is positive instead of negative, since this would mean that more low cards than high cards have left the shoe?
Quote: trackmastergreg/games/baccarat/card-counting
On this page, the Wizard's card counting advice for baccarat confuses me:
"Looking at this from the perspective of the Player bet, a deck rich in high cards is good. That is why it is bad for the Player bet when they leave the deck. The flip side of that coin is a deck rich in low cards is good for the Banker bet. Thus, if a low card leaves the shoe, that improves the odds on the Player and if a high card leaves, it's good for the Banker."
In the chart included on this page the effect of removal shows negative values for cards 5,6,7,8,9 for the player. This seems to be contradictory. What am I missing? Any clarification would be appreciated on why this seems backwards. Shouldn't the Player bet be more optimal when the count is positive instead of negative, since this would mean that more low cards than high cards have left the shoe?
link to original post
trackmastergreg,
Remember that you're counting the cards as they are removed from the shoe, but what you really want to know is what remains in the shoe.
When "big" cards (5, 6, 7, and 8) are removed, then the remainder of the shoe has fewer big cards, which is bad for the Player bet: that's why their tags are -1.
Conversely, when "small" cards (Ace, 2, 3, and 4) are removed, the remainder of the shoe has fewer small cards, which is good for the Player bet: that's why their tags are +1.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
Here's where I get mixed up...Why does the wizard's page go on to say:
"The Expected Values by Running count table shows the best bet is on the Player for running counts of -4 or less and on the Banker otherwise."
Wouldn't the more negative the count mean that more big cards have been removed and thus bad for the player bet. What have I misinterpreted here?
Quote: trackmastergregThanks so much for your quick reply! What you have said makes perfect sense. When the "big" cards are removed this is bad for the player so the count goes negative.
Here's where I get mixed up...Why does the wizard's page go on to say:
"The Expected Values by Running count table shows the best bet is on the Player for running counts of -4 or less and on the Banker otherwise."
Wouldn't the more negative the count mean that more big cards have been removed and thus bad for the player bet. What have I misinterpreted here?
link to original post
trackmastergreg,
After a bit of effort I found the reason: our peerless leader, the Wiz, inadvertently transposed the headings on the "Effect of Removal" table!
You and I have been using the EoR table from //wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/card-counting/ found here.
But that EoR table came from the Count Adjustment table on another webpage //wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/appendix/2/ found here.
However, the "Player" and "Banker" labels are reversed on these two tables: the appendix/2/ version has the correct labels.
Let me fix my previous answer, where now we are looking at the bet from the Banker side:
Quote: DogHandtrackmastergreg,
Remember that you're counting the cards as they are removed from the shoe, but what you really want to know is what remains in the shoe.
When "big" cards (5, 6, 7, and 8) are removed, then the remainder of the shoe has fewer big cards, which is bad for the PlayerBanker bet: that's why their tags are -1.
Conversely, when "small" cards (Ace, 2, 3, and 4) are removed, the remainder of the shoe has fewer small cards, which is good for the PlayerBanker bet: that's why their tags are +1.
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
link to original post
Hope this helps!
Dog Hand
P.S. Wiz, please correct the EoR table headings on the wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/card-counting/ page, and then fix the text following that table:
"Looking at this from the perspective of the PlayerBanker bet, a deck rich in high cards is good. That is why it is bad for the PlayerBanker bet when they leave the deck. The flip side of that coin is a deck rich in low cards is good for the BankerPlayer bet. Thus, if a low card leaves the shoe, that improves the odds on the PlayerBanker and if a high card leaves, it's good for the BankerPlayer."
By switching the perspective to the Banker bet in the above paragraph, you can keep the original tags for the big and small cards.
This means:
If running count (RC) < or = -4, you bets on the Player.
If RC > -4, you bet on the Banker.
But, I don’t want to bet on every hand; therefore, here is my question. What is the RC range for no betting?
Quote: acesideHi, I just read this part. Wizard states: “ Level 1 Strategy: The use the Level 1 strategy, simply bet on the Player if the Running Count is -4 or less. Otherwise, bet the Banker.”
This means:
If running count (RC) < or = -4, you bets on the Player.
If RC > -4, you bet on the Banker.
But, I don’t want to bet on every hand; therefore, here is my question. What is the RC range for no betting?
link to original post
aceside,
Quoting from the https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/card-counting/ page to which I linked above in this thread:
"The following table shows the ratio of hands played and house edge according to what range of true counts are skipped by not betting. For example, if the player sits out when the true count is -8 to 0, then he will play 55.69% of hands and those hand he does play will have an average house edge of 0.95%.
Skipping Bad Counts
COUNTS SKIPPED RATIO HANDS PLAYED HOSUE (sic) EDGE
None 100.00% 1.01%
-4 95.12% 1.00%
-5 to -3 85.37% 0.99%
-6 to -2 75.66% 0.98%
-7 to -1 66.11% 0.96%
-8 to 0 55.69% 0.95%
-9 to +1 47.13% 0.93%
The player might also consider betting more the further away the running count gets from -4."
Dog Hand
I see that the table headings for BANKER & PLAYER have now been switched on the /games/baccarat/card-counting/ page but it looks like the paragraph below it still needs updating to reverse the BANKER & PLAYER.
Now it all makes sense to me that we bet PLAYER when the count is -4 or less!
Counting isn’t a real thing.
You can cut the house edge from like 1.25% to 1% by counting.
That's with computer-perfect play. If you had a game with great penetration and some means of accurately assessing the expectation of a small subset then you could potentially make a lot of money because of the absolute returns you can get at baccarat. A play for a sophisticated high-rolling syndicate.
Discussion of linear systems binary point-count systems which don't work is IMHO a dead-end. I've seen a lot of mediocre theorists essentially cut and past Thorp's work on simple point counts with slight variations-we just need to move past that.
Quote: Archvaldor1Peter Griffin, considered one of the leading authorities on the mathematics of gambling, stated that you can get a 2% edge per shoe with deep penetration.
That's with computer-perfect play. If you had a game with great penetration and some means of accurately assessing the expectation of a small subset then you could potentially make a lot of money because of the absolute returns you can get at baccarat. A play for a sophisticated high-rolling syndicate.
Discussion of linear systems binary point-count systems which don't work is IMHO a dead-end. I've seen a lot of mediocre theorists essentially cut and past Thorp's work on simple point counts with slight variations-we just need to move past that.
link to original post
No you can't get an advantage like that on the standard baccarat bets, not even with a real time CA analyzing the game. In hundreds of shoes like that, I've seen a small advantage for the player bet once, and an advantage for an 8-1 tie several times. It would be a great way to play a 9-1 tie table, if you can find one.
Doesn't occur very often but your edge can be over 100%-in theory you could make quite a nice annual income making four or five bets like that a year if you can get money down.
There's a combinatorial analyzer here on the site. You can try inputting subsets. You'll see that with extreme rank depletion there are some interesting opportunities.
This is all very high-level stuff obviously and not practical for most.
Quote: Archvaldor1You can at quarter-deck penetration. Dunno how often that occurs these days but it used to be fairly common (could find it in AC, UK, online and a bunch of other places).
Doesn't occur very often but your edge can be over 100%-in theory you could make quite a nice annual income making four or five bets like that a year if you can get money down.
There's a combinatorial analyzer here on the site. You can try inputting subsets. You'll see that with extreme rank depletion there are some interesting opportunities.
This is all very high-level stuff obviously and not practical for most.
link to original post
How can I put this without self-incrimination.... I do not need to use the CA on the site.
It cannot be applied profitably to real-world baccarat. While it's true you can force a result by hand-picking the cards, the banker/player bets are the last place you would find an advantage. If all the cards are the same value you will get an 800% advantage on the tie bet. But you're going to wait a lifetime to find such a shoe. If you are set up for this kind of play there are many better things you can do with your CA.
This isn't easy obviously. But it is possible.
As I said Griffin posted numbers on this, it is 2% profit per shoe with optimal play at quarter-deck pen.
Not sure what you are proposing CA for otherwise but you can't really get the same type of money down at other games as you can at bac so the edge would have to be very big to be interesting.
Quote: Archvaldor1I'm not sure what penetration what you are assuming but you wouldn't be waiting a lifetime for, say, an all-even subset (65% edge) if it is deep.. With an optimized Kelly bet you expect to win over 5% of your entire bankroll, eg 5K expected profit on a 100K bank. There are other subsets like this.
This isn't easy obviously. But it is possible.
As I said Griffin posted numbers on this, it is 2% profit per shoe with optimal play at quarter-deck pen.
Not sure what you are proposing CA for otherwise but you can't really get the same type of money down at other games as you can at bac so the edge would have to be very big to be interesting.
link to original post
If Griffin posted that, he is incorrect. There is never a time when you will get 2% profit per shoe, with any penetration, in any baccarat, using any type of analysis, on the banker and player bets.
First, all due apologies for the transposed column headings. Are there any other alleged mistakes in the page?
Second, where does Griffin say a card counter can get a 2% edge in baccarat. I have two of his books and happy to confirm or deny the claim.
Third, I agree an edge can be obtained late in the shoe with computer perfect combinatorial play. I hear in Macau there is no law against devices and the casinos have been hit hard by computer teams beating stadium baccarat games with the aid of apps on cell phones.
Fourth, card counting in baccarat is not a viable advantage play. I made that page for people that play baccarat anyway as a way to shave the house edge a bit.
His conclusion is using his Ultimate Count, betting $1000 whenever the count is enough to have an advantage, yields $0.70 per hour and 3 bets made per 8 hours of play.
I'm still curious where his 2% figure can be found.
P.S. Chag Sameach!
Quote: WizardLet me catch up here.
First, all due apologies for the transposed column headings. Are there any other alleged mistakes in the page?
Second, where does Griffin say a card counter can get a 2% edge in baccarat. I have two of his books and happy to confirm or deny the claim.
Third, I agree an edge can be obtained late in the shoe with computer perfect combinatorial play. I hear in Macau there is no law against devices and the casinos have been hit hard by computer teams beating stadium baccarat games with the aid of apps on cell phones.
Fourth, card counting in baccarat is not a viable advantage play. I made that page for people that play baccarat anyway as a way to shave the house edge a bit.
link to original post
Griffin writes on pg 219 of elephant edition Theory Of Blackjack (of computer-perfect baccarat play) "then we would profit from our knowledge and technology at the rate of 2% of $1000, or $20 per shoe". He is talking about AC penetration.* The full text is online here www.scribd.com/doc/117569526/Peter-Griffin-The-Theory-of-Blackjack
I don't have much disagreement with your third and fourth points except in that it isn't necessary to use a computer to assess your advantage. Most subsets are not profitable and this is usually obvious since these mirror the composition of a mathematically expected deck (ie roughly one of each rank). The very large advantages are obvious. There is a small but significant number of advantageous situations in the 0-50% range which are not obvious and have to be learned. But this is not beyond a smart and motivated intellect. Other forms of AP such as sequencing are significantly more intense and demanding.
I'd add that you can notablly increase your returns above 2% by leaving a baccarat shoe if it is deficient in even-valued cards and/or ten-valued cards. Evens and tens produce a disproportionate amount of the expectation from perfect play.
This is similar to leaving negative counts in a blackjack shoe but the fundamental mathematics are different:.
*Note computer perfect play is not the same as the ultimate point count-which is a linear system incapable of picking up non-linear effects in the composition of the deck structure at deep penetration. The 2% figure is the practical maximum.
