Card Counting the Dragon Side Bet in EZ Baccarat

Here is your chance to preview and comment on my latest page. This is a rare case where I publish an article by an outside writer.

Card Counting the Dragon Side Bet in EZ Baccarat by Eliot Jacobson.

Please follow the link and let me know what you think.

Duly noted.
More to respond.

The casinos in CA that I have visited that have EZ Baccarat do not allow any player to make the Dragon 7 bet unless they also make either a Banker or Player bet.
And no back betting is allowed, still I have seen some try.

Would not this rule alone change the expected results?

It would depend on the allowable ratio between banker and dragon bet. The EV of the banker bet is about -1%, so if you can get away with $5 banker bets and $25 dragon bets and you follow Eliot's system 2, you're looking at (100% * -1% * $5) + (7.64% * 4.09% * $25) = about +2.8c per hand in EV. Nothing to write home about, but it's positive. If you can't do at least 4x the bank bet on the side bet, it's not worth it. But if you can do 20x, say $5 banker and $100 dragon, your EV is up to +26c/hand or about $15-$20/hour. Still not going to make you rich, but add in comps and now you're covering your trip.

I don't know how long the casino would let you make $100 Dragon bets on a $5 table without getting wise, though.

Quote: MathExtremist

It would depend on the allowable ratio between banker and dragon bet. The EV of the banker bet is about -1%, so if you can get away with $5 banker bets and $25 dragon bets and you follow Eliot's system 2, you're looking at (100% * -1% * $5) + (7.64% * 4.09% * $25) = about +2.8c per hand in EV. Nothing to write home about, but it's positive. If you can't do at least 4x the bank bet on the side bet, it's not worth it. But if you can do 20x, say $5 banker and $100 dragon, your EV is up to +26c/hand or about $15-$20/hour. Still not going to make you rich, but add in comps and now you're covering your trip.

I don't know how long the casino would let you make $100 Dragon bets on a $5 table without getting wise, though.

Nice nmbers.

Minimum bets I have seen start at $15 and are normally $25 here in CA. They allow a D7 wager up to the max and no ratio to Banker bets.

I doubt there are any $5 EZ Bac games around. It costs the casino big $$$ to have that game installed.

Thanks for posting this Mike. It's an honor to have an article on your site.

For the record, I don't believe the Dragon is vulnerable in a significant way. The typically low house limit as well as the high variance of the wager will make it unappealing to high level players. Would-be card counters will stick out, as noted. I don't think any changes need to be made to the game to protect it.

Also, it should be noted that the same counting system can be used to reduce the house edge in the main game. Indeed, as the count goes negative, the chance of getting a three card 7 goes down, making a wager on the "banker" side have a reduced house edge. I've done this computation via simulation as well (20M shoes) -- at a true count of -1, the edge on wagering on the "banker" side is -0.895%. This looks promising. However, at -20 true count, the edge on the "banker" side is reduced to -0.356%, but still negative. Though this count system allows the counter to reduce the house edge, it is not a tool to beat the main game.

The dual use of this count is worthwhile noting: at a high enough positive count, play the Dragon side bet and the "player" side. At all negative counts, play the "banker" side.

One last very minor point that the reader may notice (and that bugs me). The data in Table 1 and Table 2 doesn't add up exactly to the total value. The problem is Excel -- it has a round-off error with integers of that size. Come on Microsoft, get your act together!

Quote: Wizard

Here is your chance to preview and comment on my latest page. This is a rare case where I publish an article by an outside writer.

Card Counting the Dragon Side Bet in EZ Baccarat by Eliot Jacobson.

Please follow the link and let me know what you think.

I followed the link and I think it is a nice addition to your WoO site.
Excellent presentation too.

updated: 10/4
Some readers may not understand the counting aspect in the article at all since it has no actual shoe example and is advanced information about counting.
I already received many questions about this.
My wife and daughter are happy Bac players along with their many friends.

So, to add an example of the counts and when to bet for the Dragon 7 when the true count is 5 or higher, as shown in the article, on the next game.

In an 8 deck shoe we start by subtracting the burn card(s) from 416. Then after each hand we again subtract the 4,5, or 6 used cards from the total remaining left in the shoe.
(Of course we do not know the actual makeup of the extra burn cards but those extra 10 cards early in the shoe does not raise or lower the true count by very much.)

The math then is to divide the total cards left by 52 to get how many decks remain.
Next we divide the running count by the remaining decks to get the true count. Lots of math.

You do not have to do this in actual play. This just shows how I did this in Excel.
The columns should be self-explanatory but here are the rules. (I switched a few from what the Wizard's format in his Baccarat shoes since his shoes did not burn any cards or have a shuffle point higher than 13.)
Column 1: shoe #
Column 2: Winning outcome (P = Player win, B = Banker win, T = Tie win)
Column 3:P Point value of player hand
Column 4:B Point value of banker hand
Column 5:p1 Point value of player's first card
Column 6:p2 Point value of player's second card
Column 7:p3 Point value of player's third card if taken, x otherwise
Column 8:b1 Point value of banker's first card
Column 9:b2 Point value of banker's second card
Column 10:b3 Point value of banker's third card if taken, x otherwise
Column 12:cu cards used in hand
Column 13: Remaining cards in shoe after completed hand
The 18th column or the D7 is the Banker 3 card 7 win hand (The Dragon 7)

The cards get changed to these values for columns 15-17 and 19-21 (I think I did the conversions correctly)
In real play you would just add the new card values and track the total for the hand.
card value/ new value
(system 2 from article)
A 0
2 0
3 0
4 -1
5 -1
6 -1
7 -1
8 2
9 2
10 0
And here is a snap-shot of the shoe.

That is how it works.
Hand 79 (chopped off that column) was the D7 at a true count of 14.625.

Below is an example of a true count table that you can easily make in a spreadsheet.

All you need is to know the # of cards remaining in the shoe and the running count total and over what count would be a 5+true count. (That saves you from always dividing or having other tables with you to determine the true count. But you can always do the math on the fly if you want to just use the true count of 5 or more.)

Example: Say there are 169 cards remaining in the shoe. column 3 shows any running total over 16.25 (17 or higher) is equal to a true count of 5 or higher so we would make the Dragon7 bet.
One can also see a relationship between the cards remaining and the running total above to bet at. Close to moving a decimal point.

cards remailing	decks remaining	run count over
200	3.85	19.23
199	3.83	19.13
198	3.81	19.04
197	3.79	18.94
196	3.77	18.85
195	3.75	18.75
194	3.73	18.65
193	3.71	18.56
192	3.69	18.46
191	3.67	18.37
190	3.65	18.27
189	3.63	18.17
188	3.62	18.08
187	3.60	17.98
186	3.58	17.88
185	3.56	17.79
184	3.54	17.69
183	3.52	17.60
182	3.50	17.50
181	3.48	17.40
180	3.46	17.31
179	3.44	17.21
178	3.42	17.12
177	3.40	17.02
176	3.38	16.92
175	3.37	16.83
174	3.35	16.73
173	3.33	16.63
172	3.31	16.54
171	3.29	16.44
170	3.27	16.35
169	3.25	16.25
168	3.23	16.15
167	3.21	16.06
166	3.19	15.96
165	3.17	15.87
164	3.15	15.77
163	3.13	15.67
162	3.12	15.58
161	3.10	15.48
160	3.08	15.38
159	3.06	15.29
158	3.04	15.19
157	3.02	15.10
156	3.00	15.00
155	2.98	14.90
154	2.96	14.81
153	2.94	14.71
152	2.92	14.62
151	2.90	14.52
150	2.88	14.42
149	2.87	14.33
148	2.85	14.23
147	2.83	14.13
146	2.81	14.04
145	2.79	13.94
144	2.77	13.85
143	2.75	13.75
142	2.73	13.65
141	2.71	13.56
140	2.69	13.46
139	2.67	13.37
138	2.65	13.27
137	2.63	13.17
136	2.62	13.08
135	2.60	12.98
134	2.58	12.88
133	2.56	12.79
132	2.54	12.69
131	2.52	12.60
130	2.50	12.50
129	2.48	12.40
128	2.46	12.31
127	2.44	12.21
126	2.42	12.12
125	2.40	12.02
124	2.38	11.92
123	2.37	11.83
122	2.35	11.73
121	2.33	11.63
120	2.31	11.54
119	2.29	11.44
118	2.27	11.35
117	2.25	11.25
116	2.23	11.15
115	2.21	11.06
114	2.19	10.96
113	2.17	10.87
112	2.15	10.77
111	2.13	10.67
110	2.12	10.58
109	2.10	10.48
108	2.08	10.38
107	2.06	10.29
106	2.04	10.19
105	2.02	10.10
104	2.00	10.00
103	1.98	9.90
102	1.96	9.81
101	1.94	9.71
100	1.92	9.62
99	1.90	9.52
98	1.88	9.42
97	1.87	9.33
96	1.85	9.23
95	1.83	9.13
94	1.81	9.04
93	1.79	8.94
92	1.77	8.85
91	1.75	8.75
90	1.73	8.65
89	1.71	8.56
88	1.69	8.46
87	1.67	8.37
86	1.65	8.27
85	1.63	8.17
84	1.62	8.08
83	1.60	7.98
82	1.58	7.88
81	1.56	7.79
80	1.54	7.69
79	1.52	7.60
78	1.50	7.50
77	1.48	7.40
76	1.46	7.31
75	1.44	7.21
74	1.42	7.12
73	1.40	7.02
72	1.38	6.92
71	1.37	6.83
70	1.35	6.73
69	1.33	6.63
68	1.31	6.54
67	1.29	6.44
66	1.27	6.35
65	1.25	6.25
64	1.23	6.15
63	1.21	6.06
62	1.19	5.96
61	1.17	5.87
60	1.15	5.77
59	1.13	5.67
58	1.12	5.58
57	1.10	5.48
56	1.08	5.38
55	1.06	5.29
54	1.04	5.19
53	1.02	5.10
52	1.00	5.00
51	0.98	4.90
50	0.96	4.81
49	0.94	4.71
48	0.92	4.62
47	0.90	4.52
46	0.88	4.42
45	0.87	4.33
44	0.85	4.23
43	0.83	4.13
42	0.81	4.04
41	0.79	3.94
40	0.77	3.85
39	0.75	3.75
38	0.73	3.65
37	0.71	3.56
36	0.69	3.46
35	0.67	3.37
34	0.65	3.27
33	0.63	3.17
32	0.62	3.08
31	0.60	2.98
30	0.58	2.88
29	0.56	2.79
28	0.54	2.69
27	0.52	2.60
26	0.50	2.50
25	0.48	2.40
24	0.46	2.31
23	0.44	2.21
22	0.42	2.12
21	0.40	2.02
20	0.38	1.92
19	0.37	1.83
18	0.35	1.73
17	0.33	1.63
16	0.31	1.54
15	0.29	1.44
14	0.27	1.35
13	0.25	1.25
12	0.23	1.15
11	0.21	1.06
10	0.19	0.96

Enjoy

Quote: MathExtremist

It would depend on the allowable ratio between banker and dragon bet. The EV of the banker bet is about -1%, so if you can get away with $5 banker bets and $25 dragon bets and you follow Eliot's system 2, you're looking at (100% * -1% * $5) + (7.64% * 4.09% * $25) = about +2.8c per hand in EV. Nothing to write home about, but it's positive. If you can't do at least 4x the bank bet on the side bet, it's not worth it. But if you can do 20x, say $5 banker and $100 dragon, your EV is up to +26c/hand or about $15-$20/hour. Still not going to make you rich, but add in comps and now you're covering your trip.

I don't know how long the casino would let you make $100 Dragon bets on a $5 table without getting wise, though.

I think there are a few points to note:
1. Even if there is a near 0% EV, no gambler is going to make a career making it his living at it, and he'd be a fool and a slave to the casino house if he tried. The fancy table above notwithstanding. Actually, we have enough of these "fractional percentage chasers" to keep us dealers and floormen and Casino execs fully employed, so please continue to talk about "the fraction of a penny of a percentage point of a decimal point of an infintessimal edge" in terms of chasining the house edge - like it will bring to to the full life memorizing and carrying out out this shit. Really. . Pardon my French, but try to memorize the above table before YOU walk into a casino for the next time. If E=MC^2 doesn't make you rich at a casino, then the above equation or tables won't work either. Go ahead and try, and spend your time memorizing the above table as a recreation - or as a career. Never had worked. Eliot and Stacy still need to go to work at their work offices and do math and design games that people will buy - just as I DO - and MAY buy - and lord knows I try on their behalf, as I do my own games, if very good. But for the effort wasted at gambling systems as a career or as a personal money-making scheme, we'd have a lot more doctors and laywers and politicians and social workers either saving lives [or wasting more time and money in other ways] for that matter. Counting the Dragon bet at EZ Baccarat is Just Another Gambling system. If mathermatically unproven - it will not work. If mathematically proven indeed, why would casinos let you work them?
2. DEQ Gaming Systems is aware of this mathematical paper and so-called counting problem of EZ Baccarat that only increases sales and revenue. Granted, the table hold and house edge for this game is amazingly small for a casino game, and so is a better value to play. So more people play it. But it is not there not be "beaten," as NO casino game exists. It is there to play and to try - like all other casino games. But NO casino games exist as such! See above, #1.
3. People gamble to have a recreation and to have fun, like going to the movies or to a show - that kind of thing. If they try to make a career out of it [gambling], they will get punished for it, when they could have had productive more productive lives with gambling as a past time - instead of counting NEW game as a NEW career. If Mike publishes this paper - which he had - it is NOT done so as a system - it is as a gambling interest and curio only.
4. If Eliot Jacobson - or ANYBODY ELSE - can make a career of counting down any casino game at this point in time, seriously, let them post photos of their mansions and their private jets in The Wall Street Journal. Casino gambling is to have fun and to sometimes get lucky and walk away a winner, which you cannot do at a bad show or movie or restaurant meal at any time. Come to a Casino as you would a movie or show or recreation, but come as a career, - you will get punished on BOTH sides of the pit!

Eliot did say, "In dollar terms, if the house allows a Dragon bet up to $100 (say), then on a per-shoe basis the counter will average about $25 profit. " I would be interested to know how this translates to expected win on an hourly basis. I roughly figure a shoe of baccarat would take about 70 minutes. So a $100 Dragon player would make about $21/hr. At a $25 max bet about $5 per hour.

Eliot nor I ever said this was a hot advantage play. However, from an academic and scientific point of view, I think it is worthwhile to explore any viable advantage play. Most I would file under the "not worth my time and risk," but the process of discovery should be applauded.

Lots of authors, including me, have explored the countability of conventional baccarat, and concluded that under any viable count system it just wasn't practical, but that doesn't mean the search for the answer was futile.

removed
silly

Quote: Paigowdan

I think there are a few points to note:
1. Even if there is a near 0% EV, no gambler is going to make a career making it his living at it, and he'd be a fool and a slave to the casino house if he tried. The fancy table above notwithstanding. Actually, we have enough of these "fractional percentage chasers" to keep us dealers and floormen and Casino execs fully employed, so please continue to talk about "the fraction of a penny of a percentage point of a decimal point of an infintessimal edge" in terms of chasining the house edge - like it will bring to to the full life memorizing and carrying out out this shit. Really. . Pardon my French, but try to memorize the above table before YOU walk into a casino for the next time. If E=MC^2 doesn't make you rich at a casino, then the above equation or tables won't work either. Go ahead and try, and spend your time memorizing the above table as a recreation - or as a career. Never had worked. Eliot and Stacy still need to go to work at their work offices and do math and design games that people will buy - just as I DO - and MAY buy - and lord knows I try on their behalf, as I do my own games, if very good. But for the effort wasted at gambling systems as a career or as a personal money-making scheme, we'd have a lot more doctors and laywers and politicians and social workers either saving lives [or wasting more time and money in other ways] for that matter. Counting the Dragon bet at EZ Baccarat is Just Another Gambling system. If mathermatically unproven - it will not work. If mathematically proven indeed, why would casinos let you work them? Bla Bla Bla

Your contempt towards advantage players is irrational. If it's true that most wannabe advantage players fail anyway (due to errors, lack of disclipine, bankroll management, superstitions etc.) and in fact even increase casino's revenue, then you should be indifferent to advantage players as it is not really a big deal. But the time and effort you put to your posts to despise advantage players indicates that it is actually a big problem to your bottom line.

Quote: Paigowdan

3. People gamble to have a recreation and to have fun, like going to the movies or to a show - that kind of thing. If they try to make a career out of it [gambling], they will get punished for it, when they could have had productive more productive lives with gambling as a past time - instead of counting NEW game as a NEW career.

So would it be okay then, that I go to casino to have recreation and fun but only place a bet whenever there is 4% player edge in play? I mean I wouldn't make a career out of it but would have the "fun and recreation" by playing only with advantage on my side. Would you consider this to be ok then?

Quote: Wizard

Eliot did say, "In dollar terms, if the house allows a Dragon bet up to $100 (say), then on a per-shoe basis the counter will average about $25 profit. " I would be interested to know how this translates to expected win on an hourly basis. I roughly figure a shoe of baccarat would take about 70 minutes. So a $100 Dragon player would make about $21/hr. At a $25 max bet about $5 per hour.

Eliot nor I ever said this was a hot advantage play. However, from an academic and scientific point of view, I think it is worthwhile to explore any viable advantage play. Most I would file under the "not worth my time and risk," but the process of discovery should be applauded.

Mike, apparently it is not yet discovered, it really isn't. I can respect that point of view.
If you want to take a look at the Casino results for EZ Bacarrat over the past seveal years at just one gaming tracking and monitoring authority, see:
.' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://www.mgc.dps.mo.gov/2010_fin/FY10_slot_table.htm]. Missouri State Gaming Commission.
Click a month of State Revenues to explore for EZ Baccarat...No overall loss - and if there were were an overall loss, it would not be there for long.

Quote: Wizard

Lots of authors, including me, have explored the countability of conventional baccarat, and concluded that under any viable count system it just wasn't practical, but that doesn't mean the search for the answer was futile.

Mike, you are the best in the business, period, end of Story.
But I don't think anyone is replicating an "Edward O. Thorpe's Beat The Dealer" for Baccarat in any form Realistically.
among other googles

As soon as a casino advantage play is opened, it is then closed, - partly because of sites like this.
Information is free, and knows no boundaries - or closures resulting...

There is a saying: "When One door closes, - another door opens for you...."

As far as casino advantage play is concerned, - in today's casino operations, the saying now is:
"When one [AP] door opens, it is now closed..." - primarily due to the speed of its opening...

Quote: Wizard

Lots of authors, including me, have explored the countability of conventional baccarat, and concluded that under any viable count system it just wasn't practical, but that doesn't mean the search for the answer was futile.

Not completely true. I found a Baccarat game online where they deal until only 7 cards remain in the shoe and you, Wiz, admitted it was very countable because of the possibility to calculate the edge with a computer in few milliseconds:
http://www.reviewpokerrooms.com/casino-games/baccarat/odds-calculator.html

I agree with Dan that whenever any advantage play is posted at the Wizard of Odds site, there is a great risk that it's not going to last very long. So I wonder if the decision to post the advantage at WoO site actually harms APers more than help them?

Quote: Jufo81

So would it be okay then, that I go to casino to have recreation and fun but only place a bet whenever there is 4% player edge in play? I mean I wouldn't make a career out of it but would have the "fun and recreation" by playing only with advantage on my side. Would you consider this to be ok then?

Fine with me if a casino books your bets.

The Casino house makes the rules.

This is why there is 6:5 Blackjack all over the place.

If anyone has a problem with this, they can either go to the mall or to the movies, - or open their own casino.

Clearly, - and unfortunately, - this is how it works.

And if you vote with your feet, then either you are at the mall, or at Pizza Hut, or at the movies.

This is why we have 6:5 Blackjack...

Quote: Wizard

Eliot did say, "In dollar terms, if the house allows a Dragon bet up to $100 (say), then on a per-shoe basis the counter will average about $25 profit. " I would be interested to know how this translates to expected win on an hourly basis. I roughly figure a shoe of baccarat would take about 70 minutes. So a $100 Dragon player would make about $21/hr. At a $25 max bet about $5 per hour.

It looks like that revenue rate assumes no other wagers; if you add in the likely requirement of betting the minimum on the actual baccarat hand, then I think it drops down to the $15 range I reported above. It looks like we're in agreement as to the income potential (or lack thereof) from this play. If you have the skills to count down a shoe, you can do a lot better than $15-$20/hour. But I also agree that the investigation is just as important as the result.

Quote: Jufo81

I do agree with Dan than whenever any advantage play is posted at the Wizard of Odds site, there is a great risk that it's not going to last very long.

Yes, that is very true.
Casino operators have people monitoring the various Internet sites for the latest updates and opinions all over the place.
Trust me: information moves very quickly and freely, again, all over the place. Yeah.

Edit: I absolutely don't mean to sound brutal, but casinos do have an interest in protecting their house edge and income.

Quote: Paigowdan

Mike, you are the best in the business, period, end of Story.
But I don't think anyone is replicating an "Edward O. Thorpe's Beat The Dealer" for Baccarat in any form Realistically.

It has indeed been done and shown to have an insignificant impact. You can certainly count cards at Baccarat, but you can't make any money doing it.

Nobody is saying that EZ Baccarat is an overall loser. You may see the win% tick down a notch or two after people figure this out, but no self-respecting AP would bother with a $15/hour win rate. That leaves you with a few people who have the bankroll to make $100 bets and think they're pulling a fast one. The majority of players will continue to do what they do, and the game will be fine.

Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: Paigowdan

Mike, you are the best in the business, period, end of Story.
But I don't think anyone is replicating an "Edward O. Thorpe's Beat The Dealer" for Baccarat in any form Realistically.

It has indeed been done and shown to have an insignificant impact. You can certainly count cards at Baccarat, but you can't make any money doing it.

Nobody is saying that EZ Baccarat is an overall loser. You may see the win% tick down a notch or two after people figure this out, but no self-respecting AP would bother with a $15/hour win rate. That leaves you with a few people who have the bankroll to make $100 bets and think they're pulling a fast one. The majority of players will continue to do what they do, and the game will be fine.

Exactly. While the dragon bet may be somewhat countable, it doesn't kill off the house edge. In fact, it is a very good and fair option - which is what players are looking for. If players are looking for a positive house edge, then they might as well also be looking for movies and theater tickets and restuarant seats that pay them to attend their services, too! Personally, I'm still looking for it.

But I am not living in a dream. I still have to go to work a day's work and to pay to take my wife out....

For what it is worth, I thought the exploration of the countability of the wager was interesting.

My math/counting skills are not strong enough to take advantage of most counting systems, but I do recognize that there are AP's out there that are not only capable but can execute if given the right opportunity.

I also enjoyed Wiz's link to the Bacc 14 card ribbon cut advantage play.

Understanding a game's exposure to counting or other AP play is educational for me as a newbie game designer. Much more so than the banter about what is "cheating" or not cheating when it comes to discussions of AP play. AP is something that needs to be addressed in game design and additional information about AP is helpful to me. Trying to categorize it as cheating or the exercise of your intelligence and therefore not cheating is not particularly helpful. I just don't think either side is going to convince the other that their position is correct......so why try?

Thank you Wiz for adding the link and kudos to Eliot for his excellent work in helping at least me get a little more knowledge on how AP's go about assessing a game's profit potential.

Quote: Jufo81

I agree with Dan that whenever any advantage play is posted at the Wizard of Odds site, there is a great risk that it's not going to last very long. So I wonder if the decision to post the advantage at WoO site actually harms APers more than help them?

At the risk of going off topic, this is a touchy and controversial topic within the AP community. Some say that information about advantage play should never be publicized, at the risk of ruining it. However, if we were go take that logic to its extreme we would have to blackball lots of legitimate gambling writers who cover blackjack, poker, sports betting, etc..

My philosophy is that it is not a zero sum game. Take the Mohegan Sun triple down promotion, which I was proud to let my readers know about. Despite the publicity I brought to it, the promotion went off anyway, for the entire 24 hours. I'd like to think I helped players make more money from it as a result.

True, let me say that any announcement that "Game X" may have an exploitable error is fraught with a number of concerns:

1. The question arises that, if game x may have an error, and it is also a commerical or proprietary product, as opposed to a public domain product such as Blackjack, do you contact the firm, designer, or distributor about it for more research, or coordination for repair on the subject, or do you publish a public notice on how to publicly exploit the product or defeat the product?

2. If the error or situation reduces the effectiveness of the gaming product, but does not totally provide a true and complete avenue of full customer advantage ( a la "Beat the dealer" where true positive EV is obtainable), are you providing a true public service, or more of an abstract "curio" on the product that may hurt the product's performance, or conversely help the product's promotion. The question arises, "what was the intent and purpose of the 'scholarly' paper?

3. I have been accuse of contempt of Advantage Play.

Quote: Jufo81

Your contempt towards advantage players is irrational. If it's true that most wannabe advantage players fail anyway (due to errors, lack of disclipine, bankroll management, superstitions etc.) and in fact even increase casino's revenue, then you should be indifferent to advantage players as it is not really a big deal. But the time and effort you put to your posts to despise advantage players indicates that it is actually a big problem to your bottom line.

Jufo additionally adds a non-verbatim ad hominen "Bla Bla Bla" to my quote - but let's discuss the accusation of my contempt of advantage play:

My contempt towards advantage players is not irrational. We have to ask some questions about the intent of the paper, and release of the paper:
- what good does the announcement do in terms of working with a vendor to notify them of a potential issue - and was that even done as a concern for a proprietary product in the process, as opposed to a public domain product?
- and if the announcement or paper does not provide a true concrete method of advantage play against a product, does instead it provide more of "yet another gambler's system" that ultimately does not work for the gambler (if such as the goal was to be an partially ineffective tool when the EV always stays negative). If so, then yes, it may provide somewhat for both a "gambler's falacy pipe dream" where both an obession of "shaving some decimal factions within a permanent negative EV" while possibly providing damage to both the gambler's and a product's bottom line. Both those scenarios (as Jufo points out) are possibilities, neither of which are positive scenarios.
- the goal of ANY casino product is to provide compelling and entertaining gaming system - while yes - assuring a valid house edge. Looking for a permanent player +EV is a lot like looking for a permanent "free back enterance" to a movie complex, a Buffet luncheon, or a permanent free gas pump for your Ford Explorer - and for our personal use while hoping the business establishment will continuously provide it for us, hopefully by our syphoning being under the radar of its business operations books.
- Is the real "juice" of the game the play of the cards on a gambling evening's outing, or is the juice in finding an exploitable something on some game?

For the record, any EZ Baccarat problem is not a problem for my bottom line. It is an issue for Robin Powell and TJ Tejada's bottom line, and I do not know if they were directly contacted by Eliot or worked with Eliot about a potential problem's solution for their product (as is done on rare occasions in the gaming industry), or if they just saw a publication that was more in the vein of, "how to try to slam their product's house edge" yet written in a scholarly fashion?

So....Was the intent here to help or repair a current commercial product, or to create an advantage play market against that product that may never be fully effective or achievable as an AP niche in the first place?

Remember that the Three-card hole-carding incident/scenario/examination/analysis DID provided for BOTH a truly positive player's EV, a frightening "game scam scenario" for casinos offering that product (where people were craning their necks to see if a non-face card were the bottom card of the dealer's three-card packet to be statisically assured of a positive player EV while casinos were sweating the money), - and for a complete Repair Response on the part of Shufflemaster, in providing a flush mounted "hole card unreadable" card dispenser.

To be honest, I do question and view the thrust of any AP article in the sense of "does this fix a potential problem - or does this seek to manufacture and exploit a problem?" Both for the vendor, and for any wannabe Advantage play chasers?

I view a casino game product as one that needs to be interesting to play, compelling even, but to also needing to be continuously assuring of some house edge - and I will say that - in the sense that a casino product that contains a defeatable house edge problem or issue is not a viable casino product - that will be repaired of pulled. While this is less fun, does the goal become "fix the leak," or "use the leak - while the using is good?"

Quote: Paigowdan

"does this fix a potential problem - or does this seek to manufacture and exploit a problem?"

Because this issue is now public, it allows for a public discussion of a fix. I have five suggestions to repair the game.

1) Do nothing. The game is working fine. Just like blackjack, if players believe they can beat it, then a lot more losing players will play the game. In truth, most counters are losing players. (my preference).

2) Leave the game as-is and train staff to look for suspicious play. The heuristic, like blackjack, will be large bets appearing suddenly on the dragon late in the shoe. Because most staff know what to look for at blackjack, it will be trivial to use that same skill here.

Note. The game will likely draw more play because of the article, not less. That's a good thing. Most people who try blackjack card counting are losers. Card counting the Dragon is considerably more difficult, given the high variance, slow pace, lower potential profit, and 2-level count. In the end, it's about casinos getting over the fear of AP's and understanding that with a little bit of extra care, publicity like this is a good thing for the game.

3) Decrease the penetration by placing the cut card at 26 cards. It is those last couple of rounds when the huge edges can be obtained.

4) Decrease the payout on the dragon from 40-to-1 to 35-to-1. Players don't know the odds and won't know the difference after a few days.

5) Decrease the table maximum wager on the Dragon. Most side bets have severely limited maximums compared to the main game.

I am sure there are many more fixes. Maybe others can suggest some.

As an interesting side note, Ed Thorpe is thought to have had a baccarat counting team. The truth is, he did have a team that successfully attacked baccarat -- however, they beat up a baccarat side bet. They even published an academic article on their methods and the wager: A Favorable Side Bet in Nevada Baccarat, by Thorpe and Walden.This may be the first instance of an academic publishing a paper on a proprietary game. I'm certainly no Thorpe, but I am an academic. Mathematical truth, ultimately, is what drives the joy I get from the work I do.

I vote #1 with a side of #2. If it ain't broke, don't break it.

removed
silly

Thanks!
This brings it to a real and very interesting point:

If you knew that by using some novel and unknown method - where you can change the statistical odds from its natural game of its declared natural odds to "weighted" odds - would you use it as a gambler and enjoy it as the juice of the game - or instead enjoy the juice of the new found illicit method?

Let me give some examples.
Let's say in Roulette, if you were to see or notice something specific, something exact, that no one else sees or notices, that announces to you that the next spin will be clearly weighted to the 2nd column, or to black, or to odd - while not revealing the exact direct number - would you secretly use this "loaded advantage,' or would you report the defect to the wheel manufacturer or casino operator?
Me, I would now no longer enjoy the game as gambling, and carry out the later.
Some would argue that using the advantage is to be using your brains, and that's okay.
Others would argue that using your brains would indicate to you that something is amiss - that the game is "gaffed" - and is wrongful in this situation.

Another example:
In Pai Gow, if you knew that every time that you were dealt two medium pairs with a king, and "know" by some method know that the dealer would have two higher pairs to be split, or two lower pairs or less, (but not knowing which exact ranks) would you play accordingly and still enjoy the game as gambling? For me, the joy in the game is playing the hand the best statistical way possible, and seeing its natural outcome. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose, and it's the gambling I enjoy. In this example, it would be like playing with marked cards.

I have as a code, the "two rules" of game design:
1. That the game has to be fun and compelling under its natural statistics and "play of the hand": for some the preference is dice, for some it is poker, for some it is Pai Gow, and for some it is Casino War.
2. That the game must have a reliable and undefeatable house edge of a certain and arguably fair amount for the game to be offered in the first place or at all. This is much like not arguing about a movie's ticket price, and gambling that you will enjoy the movie, instead of sneaking in the back to see it in for free, as part of the excitement.)
If the game lacks quality #1, it is boring and uncompelling, and will be pulled.
If the game lacks quality #2, it is unsupportable for the operator, - and should not be offered by the operator as defective, - and will be pulled.
If the game HAS quality #1, and a problem with #2 is easily repairable, the focus should be on notification if it is a proprietary product. One can argue that exploiting it will force it's repair, and that there is a window to be "enjoyed" while the taking is good. Most would enjoy a situation where the casino is the dupe.

Quote: teliot

Because this issue is now public, it allows for a public discussion of a fix. I have five suggestions to repair the game.

1) Do nothing. The game is working fine. Just like blackjack, if players believe they can beat it, then a lot more losing players will play the game. In truth, most counters are losing players. (my preference).

EZ Bac is working, and the stats are available via online gaming commission resources. While the drop is amazing (sometimes $1m a month) the hold is sometimes scary (e.g., 4%), but that happens on many games. This is simply online public data.

Quote: teliot

2) Leave the game as-is and train staff to look for suspicious play. The heuristic, like blackjack, will be large bets appearing suddenly on the dragon late in the shoe. Because most staff know what to look for at blackjack, it will be trivial to use that same skill here.

Training staff to look for suspicious play may result in Baccarat High-Rollers being backed off, to all sorts of howling. How do gamblers view being backed off? Too often like a violation of their God-given constitutional rights with a shout-down scene in the casino pit and hurt feelings and PR galore. Not trivial. Same probelms as with counting BJ, an operational nightmare with "players" at times. The added casino business is diluted by "back-off" problems. This is one of the reasons I really like Stanley Ko's "2 thru 7" blackjack: way better than 6:5 BJ with superior resistance to card-counting, while basically keeping the game as is.

Quote: teliot

Note. The game will likely draw more play because of the article, not less. That's a good thing. Most people who try blackjack card counting are losers. Card counting the Dragon is considerably more difficult, given the high variance, slow pace, lower potential profit, and 2-level count. In the end, it's about casinos getting over the fear of AP's and understanding that with a little bit of extra care, publicity like this is a good thing for the game.

3) Decrease the penetration by placing the cut card at 26 cards. It is those last couple of rounds when the huge edges can be obtained.

Very good solution.

Quote: teliot

4) Decrease the payout on the dragon from 40-to-1 to 35-to-1. Players don't know the odds and won't know the difference after a few days.

Players do know the odds via Mike's main site, and consistently howl at reduced/modified paytables and high house edges. Solution #3 seems very good.

All in all, some very fine solutions.

Quote: teliot

For the record, I don't believe the Dragon is vulnerable in a significant way. The typically low house limit as well as the high variance of the wager will make it unappealing to high level players. Would-be card counters will stick out, as noted. I don't think any changes need to be made to the game to protect it.

Me too.

added:
The distribution of 5+ true count (system 2 in the article) per shoe is no where near normal, actually closer to a geometric distribution without looking more into it.
Slightly more than 55% of shoes (1,000 shoe sample) have a 0 (35%), 1 ,2 or 3 hands where the tc is 5+ and the 6 average bets per shoe, from the article, comes from the shoes that have 10 to 30 hands at the end of the shoe that are all 5+.
Here is my distribution table below: # of bets when true count was 5 or higher per shoe(not counting the last hand of the shoe)

bets per shoe	freq	relative freq	cumulative freq
0	353	0.353	0.353
1	82	0.082	0.435
2	65	0.065	0.5
3	55	0.055	0.555
4	57	0.057	0.612
5	32	0.032	0.644
6	41	0.041	0.685
7	26	0.026	0.711
8	23	0.023	0.734
9	26	0.026	0.76
10	24	0.024	0.784
11	19	0.019	0.803
12	20	0.020	0.823
13	16	0.016	0.839
14	11	0.011	0.85
15	17	0.017	0.867
16	16	0.016	0.883
17	10	0.010	0.893
18	12	0.012	0.905
19	8	0.008	0.913
20	9	0.009	0.922
21	10	0.010	0.932
22	4	0.004	0.936
23	6	0.006	0.942
24	7	0.007	0.949
25	5	0.005	0.954
26	7	0.007	0.961
27	5	0.005	0.966
28	6	0.006	0.972
29	3	0.003	0.975
30	2	0.002	0.977
31	3	0.003	0.98
32	1	0.001	0.981
33	2	0.002	0.983
34	3	0.003	0.986
35	3	0.003	0.989
36	0	0.000	0.989
37	2	0.002	0.991
38	3	0.003	0.994
39	1	0.001	0.995
40	1	0.001	0.996
41	1	0.001	0.997
42	0	0.000	0.997
43	1	0.001	0.998
44	0	0.000	0.998
45	0	0.000	0.998
46	1	0.001	0.999
47	0	0.000	0.999
48	0	0.000	0.999
49	0	0.000	0.999
50	0	0.000	0.999
51	0	0.000	0.999
52	0	0.000	0.999
53	0	0.000	0.999
54	1	0.001	1

My daughter played EZ baccarat last night for 7 hours and almost 6 shoes and only 1 time was the count 5+ a winning Dragon 7. Ouch.


Data on my 1,000 shoe simulation.
from "teliot" post 2 below this one...
"you are winning the Dragon about 1-in-44.4 times you bet it. If you only play it at 5+ counts, then you are winning the dragon about 1-in-39.4 times."

My sim parameters were 8 deck; 14 shuffle point.
First some expected values.
***1000 shoes
81.280279 average hands per 8 deck shoe (from a 1 million shoe simulation)
81280 total hands
0.02252252 (1/44.4) Prob Dragon 7 (Banker 3 card win total)
1830.6 expected number of D7s
42.3 SD
***D7 5 true count expected values
0.0764 probability of a 5+ true count
6209.8 expected number of 5+ true count hands
0.025381 (1/39.4) probability of a D7 5+ true count hit
157.6 expected number of D7 5+ hits
12.4 SD

Now knowing what to expect let us view the sim data.

Sim data:
1000 shoes
81368 total hands
1874 actual number of D7s
+42.3
+1 SD

D7 wagers every hand:
81368 wagers ($1)
1874 bet wins
79494 bet loss
74960 net win (1874*$40)
-4534 net
-0.05572 edge (edge was higher with 42 more D7 hits in the 1,000 shoes)

D7 wagers 5+ true count:
6101 wagers ($1)
166 bet wins
5935 bet loss
6640 net win (166*$40)
+705 net
+0.1156 edge (edge was higher with 42 more D7 hits in the 1,000 shoes)

Summary.
Just in 1,000 shoes one can easily see the effectivness of the counting system.

added: For any player to get overly excited about taking advantage of this AP play one must be prepared for very long wait times between shoes and actual hours of play for a D7 win at a 5+ tc.
I personally think this type of play would be perfect for team style play.

Maybe Mr. Jacobson would be so kind to show the actual simulation distributions for 5+ tc per shoe and winning D7 per shoe at those 5+ counts if he has time to look into this more.
Excellent work!

Quote: guido111

Maybe he [Eliot] would be so kind to show the actual simulation distributions for 5+ tc per shoe and winning D7 per shoe at those 5+ counts if he has time to look into this more.

Yes.
The thing is that you don't need to have many opportunities present, as opposed to any opportunities present. Shuffle tracking and BJ counting also give narrow windows.
It would be interesting to see some statistics on the count's divergence from 0 in relation to shoe depth.

Quote: guido111

Maybe he [Eliot] would be so kind to show the actual simulation distributions for 5+ tc per shoe and winning D7 per shoe at those 5+ counts if he has time to look into this more.

Without counting, you are winning the Dragon about 1-in-44.4 times you bet it. If you only play it at 5+ counts, then you are winning the dragon about 1-in-39.4 times. That's still 38.4 losses betting the dragon at 5+ for every 1 win.

Quote: Paigowdan

Thanks!
This brings it to a real and very interesting point:

If you knew that by using some novel and unknown method - where you can change the statistical odds from its natural game of its declared natural odds to "weighted" odds - would you use it as a gambler and enjoy it as the juice of the game - or instead enjoy the juice of the new found illicit method?

Let me give some examples.
Let's say in Roulette, if you were to see or notice something specific, something exact, that no one else sees or notices, that announces to you that the next spin will be clearly weighted to the 2nd column, or to black, or to odd - while not revealing the exact direct number - would you secretly use this "loaded advantage,' or would you report the defect to the wheel manufacturer or casino operator?
Me, I would now no longer enjoy the game as gambling, and carry out the later.
Some would argue that using the advantage is to be using your brains, and that's okay.
Others would argue that using your brains would indicate to you that something is amiss - that the game is "gaffed" - and is wrongful in this situation.

I would of course enjoy the "juice" of the improved odds more (which you call "illicit method" - what a prejudiced choice of words!). This doesn't mean that it isn't still gambling or that I am not still a gambler enjoying the juice.

A casino which I visit actually offers a game where I am able to increase the "juice" by discreetly peeking at the cards of other players and improve my odds to slightly to eliminate house edge and obtain a narrow player edge. But even then the variance is very high (high payouts) so playing this game is still very much a gamble, but at least it is a "well-juiced" gamble. And I often play other -EV games at the casino too (after all I am there for recreation and not working), so taking all of this into account I don't necessarily have an overall edge. But I can say that if this "well-juiced" game was pulled, I would simply feel no reason to go back to the casino as there wouldn't be enough juice for me anymore.

Dan, your approach seems to be that gamblers should be mostly unaware of the odds stacked against them and just enjoy the juice given. This reminds me of a story about physicist Helmholz who once witnessed an impressive thunderstorm with his friend. Instead of watching the thunderstorm, Helmholz started immediately making calculations about the magnitudes of electric currents and electromagnetic phenomena involved. His friend asked: "Instead of admiring the thunderstorm you started to do calculations, and broke down this beautiful display into numbers. Doesn't this take away from the unique experience of witnessing such a beautiful show?". And Helmholz responded: "No, it heightens the experience". I am in the same opinion as Helmholz. Being aware of the odds can increase the enjoyment from the gambling juice you get, not lessen it.

Quote: Jufo81

I would of course enjoy the "juice" of the improved odds more (which you call "illicit method" - what a prejudiced choice of words!). This doesn't mean that it isn't still gambling or that I am not still a gambler enjoying the juice.

Let there be no misunderstanding. There is a difference between "improved odds" and a "gaffed" game, - between playing the best odds within the rules, and playing out of bounds of the house rules.
I have NO problem with best play actions.
I have a problem with "gaffed game" actions
- yet both of which improve the odds. Just because something improves the odds or player's EV doesn't necessarily make it kosher.

Improve your odds within the rules - fine. Improve your odds with out of bounds actions - not fine.
Getting juice from one is okay. Getting juice from the other is not. There is a distinction.
As for card counting Bac side bets - if it's okay with the house - then 100% fine.
But for that matter, if they move the cut card up to 40 cards, or make the payout 35:1, or limit the side bet to a certain precentage of the main bet -
then be fine with that, too.

Quote: jufo81

A casino which I visit actually offers a game where I am able to increase the "juice" by discreetly peeking at the cards of other players and improve my odds to slightly to eliminate house edge and obtain a narrow player edge. But even then the variance is very high (high payouts) so playing this game is still very much a gamble, but at least it is a "well-juiced" gamble. And I often play other -EV games at the casino too (after all I am there for recreation and not working), so taking all of this into account I don't necessarily have an overall edge. But I can say that if this "well-juiced" game was pulled, I would simply feel no reason to go back to the casino as there wouldn't be enough juice for me anymore.

That's fine, too. Attendance at a casino is not mandatory. If you can't play with a +EV, there are many other things to do in life.

Quote: Jufo81

Dan, your approach seems to be that gamblers should be mostly unaware of the odds stacked against them and just enjoy the juice given.

No, quite the contrary - I feel they should indeed know and be fully aware of a game's math odds, and for any game they play. They are foolish if they don't have an understanding of that. I endorse sites that show math odds of all games.
However, players should also know - and be fully aware of - casino house rules, (to include hole carding and other-player carding) if they play at casino houses.
What you do is your business, fine with me.

Quote: jufo81

This reminds me of a story about physicist Helmholz who once witnessed an impressive thunderstorm with his friend. Instead of watching the thunderstorm, Helmholz started immediately making calculations about the magnitudes of electric currents and electromagnetic phenomena involved. His friend asked: "Instead of admiring the thunderstorm you started to do calculations, and broke down this beautiful display into numbers. Doesn't this take away from the unique experience of witnessing such a beautiful show?". And Helmholz responded: "No, it heightens the experience".

I am familiar with Helmholtz; my late father supplied me with a large science interest library when I was middle school growing up.

Quote: jufo81

I am in the same opinion as Helmholz. Being aware of the odds can increase the enjoyment from the gambling juice you get, not lessen it.

I agree with that, too - that is, to know the odds. That's fine, I never said otherwise at all [that players should be ignorant.] A lot depnds on HOW you increase your EV.
In fact, I feel players should be knowledgable on both the game's true odds, and the casino house rules for playing a game at a casino. I have also said that playing a game in such a way to seek a 0.000000000001% additional edge is meaningless and ridiculous to quibble about or to seek as extra work!

What I am trying to make a distinction on (and it seems to be ungraspable by some), is that things are different when taking actions to manufacture your own additional odds, above and beyond what is within bounds/out of bounds by house rules.

Player says: "Hole carding on Three-card provides for a positive player EV! Yippie!" (which is true!). Casino says: "Our security will detain you to ask you some questions."

Player says: "I can count cards here on Blackjack if I want to!" (providing a better player EV!) Casino says:"No, you cannot. And you are done for the night!"

Player says: "I may set my Pai Gow hand any way I want, even if different than the house way - for Better EV!" Casino says: "yes, you may indeed. Welcome to the [such-and-such] casino, and enjoy your stay with us! [smiling faces abound]"

And possibly coming up for Baccarat:
Player says: "Dealer, you must put the cut card exactly 14 cards from the end of the shoe!"
Dealer says: "No, sir, I do not. New pit instructions for Baccarat indicate that the cut card is now to be placed 40 cards from the end of the shoe. So sorry."

etc.

I think the analysis provided by the original poster is exactly what this site is all about. I love that he exposed a possible advantage play, even one that is likely to have almost no real practical applicability. The math part is what intrigues me. So I just want to say thanks.

First, sorry again for not discussing the Baccarat side bet itself but the related discussion of AP tolerance.

Thanks Dan for responding to my previous post.

Quote: Paigowdan

My contempt towards advantage players is not irrational. We have to ask some questions about the intent of the paper, and release of the paper:

As for the topic of AP at casinos, one point of view is the one supported by Dan, to rigorously eliminate all such possibilites, as they come to light, by changing the game rules accordingly. Reducing the payout of the Dragon bet to 35:1, Blackjacks pay 6:5, shoes are replaced by CSMs. Sure, all of this can be done.

But then there is the other point of view, proposed by Eliot Jacobson in this thread when he wrote:

Quote: teliot

1) Do nothing. The game is working fine. Just like blackjack, if players believe they can beat it, then a lot more losing players will play the game. In truth, most counters are losing players. (my preference).

This view supports that having some legitimate AP opportunities at the casino may attract more players, and also much more -EV action than +EV action. Players simply like knowing that some games might be beatable even when they don't bother with actually going through with it (or don't have the skills for it). I was told that a casino in Germany replaced the Blackjack shoe with CSMs and as a result very large number of players simply stopped coming back to the casino. The casino lost so much revenue that they had to re-install the shoe games back. And most of these players who voted with their feet weren't advantage players, but they left simply because they thought that the casino had become unnecessarily stingy with their rules.

So, Dan, you would have to ask whether your contempt towards APs and the suggested actions against them might come with a cost that decreases your revenues more than they would decrease by tolerating APs to an extent. If you make payouts stingier (so that there is enough house edge to eliminate all AP play), it decreases the juice for regular gamblers as well, who might not bother to come back, which in turn reduces revenues even further and necessitates making games even more stingier - a downward spiral where no one is happy in the end. While generous payouts would keep the -EV gamblers coming back even with the prospect of some disclipined and skillful player having a small edge.

So when I wrote that Dan's contempt towards advantage players is irrational I meant that it might cost him more in revenues than by tolerating APs. Instead Dan should think of APers like parasites living inside an animal in symbiosis. The parasite is slightly harmful to the animal (it eats some of the food the animal eats) but is kind of necessarily evil for the whole system to work well.

There is a saying: "You gotta give action if you wanna get action". Stingy casinos aren't prepared to "give action" so they don't deserve to "get action" either.

Looking at the numbers that Eliot has presented, I've come up with a base count that is somewhere between the "1" and the "2" counts that have been shown. It's still reasonably easy to keep track of, particularly in baccarat where the time between hands can be up to 20 seconds or more and the house doesn't mind anyone using a tracking card.

The actual EOR for each card value is:

(1, 0.5) (2, -0.9) (3, -1.1) (4, -2.7) (5, -2.6) (6, -3.2) (7, -3.6) (8, 5.4) (9, 4.8) (10, 0.9)

Eliot's "2" count "tags" or gives the following weighting to each card value:

(1,0) (2,0) (3,0) (4,-1) (5,-1) (6,-1) (7,-1) (8,2) (9,2) (10,0) / or / 0, 0, 0, -1, -1, -1, -1, 2, 2, 0

I suggest that a slightly more accurate count would be as follows:

(1,0) (2,-1) (3,-1) (4,-1) (5,-1) (6,-2) (7,-2) (8,4) (9,4) (10,0) / or / 0, -1, -1, -1, -1, -2, -2, 4, 4, 0

The weighting of the 8 and 9 pip cards is closer to their true comparative value as is the weighting of the mid-value cards. The sum total still balances (=0) and with this system you'd be looking for a count of +10 or great to play the dragon bet.

I don't know that it makes much of a difference but it seems to be slightly more accurate and the average player could still follow the count with relative ease. The expected results come closer to the 4.39% of optimal with no more difficulty than Eliot's "2" count.

Quote: Paigowdan

... However, players should also know - and be fully aware of - casino house rules, (to include hole carding and other-player carding) if they play at casino houses. ...

Dan:

Does the casino decide in advance what the rules of a game are going to be and have them written down, or do they change them on the fly? Are the complete house rules for a game available for a player to review, perhaps before playing? I would expect the official rules of a game to be registered with the governing authority and be freely available to every player.

I have read various casinos' rules/instructions for blackjack both on their web sites and on some handouts (which I haven't seen around lately). I don't think I have ever seen a written set of instructions with statements like, "A player may not mentally keep track of which cards have already been played and adjust his play," or "A player may not watch for dealer mistakes such as exposed cards and make use of that information." Are statements such as those in the official rules of casino games as approved by the NGC?

If those really are house rules that must be obeyed, how does a player learn the rules of a game prior to being accused of breaking them (or perhaps being banned for an unspecified rule violation)? If a casino doesn't like to have winning card counters at their tables and runs them out when a suspected counter starts winning too much, that sounds like an operations policy, not a "rule" of the game. If it were a rule, I think they would have to actively expel lousy card counters who are losing bundles of money. Do they do that?

FWIW, I am neither a card counter nor a hole carder.

Doc, as has been discussed before in a previous thread, there are no written rules that will state, "A player may not mentally keep track of which cards have already been played and adjust his play," or "A player may not watch for dealer mistakes such as exposed cards and make use of that information."

Yes, the casino changes these rules on the fly as the best they can do is bar suspected counters which in many if not most cases will mean they are barring people who have no idea how to count.

Casinos obviously do not expel lousy card counters who lose bundles of money. Casinos operate for the sole purpose of making money, just like most businesses. Yes, perhaps they make an effort to provide some level of entertainment along the way but that is nothing but a ploy to keep players in the casino.

Dan, the idea that someone has made an effort and successfully come up with a counting method to gain an advantage over the Dragon bonus is nothing less than wonderful. It shows ingenuity and creativity. Perhaps the inventor should have been so ingenious and looked for such a possibility before putting the game on the floor. For someone to suggest that using this method in cheating to the slightest degree is way out of line. The game is being played precisely as it was intended - the problem you have is that the math on the bonus payout was calculated incorrectly because not enough attention was paid to this possibility.

Dan, anyone on this site who has read your posts regarding AP in all its various forms knows how you feel about it. Ok, we got the point. Let it go. Stop trying to force your morals on others because whether it is about card counting, drug abuse or cheating on a spouse, it's nothing more than your opinion.

Cheating in a casino in Vegas is against the law and anyone caught using certain nefarious methods will be punished appropriately by the law. Counting cards is not cheating and you know it, regardless of how you feel about it. Go back to the drawing board and create a better game that cannot be taken advantage of by counting or suck it up and accept that it is the game and your view on counting that is flawed. The counter is only using the game rules to their advantage. You just happen to have incorrectly assumed that the game had an unbeatable advantage before it went on the floor.

Quote: Doc

Dan:

Does the casino decide in advance what the rules of a game are going to be and have them written down, or do they change them on the fly?

Casinos decide in advance, and dealers and floormen are trained and notified in meetings, huddles, and written documentation as to rules and procedures of all games. Every from coloring up procedures to shuffling procedures, etc. are covered.

Quote: Doc

Are the complete house rules for a game available for a player to review, perhaps before playing? I would expect the official rules of a game to be registered with the governing authority and be freely available to every player.

For the player, no, not at the casino, aside from any "How to play" cards available at the table. If fact, players may have trouble getting a printed copy of the Pai Gow Poker house way.
Many online sites such as Wizard of Odds are a repository of game rules.
If gaming agents came in requesting to see operational documentation and procedures, they will be shown it.

Quote: Doc

I have read various casinos' rules/instructions for blackjack both on their web sites and on some handouts (which I haven't seen around lately). I don't think I have ever seen a written set of instructions with statements like, "A player may not mentally keep track of which cards have already been played and adjust his play," or "A player may not watch for dealer mistakes such as exposed cards and make use of that information." Are statements such as those in the official rules of casino games as approved by the NGC?

No, not as far as I know. But for that matter, rules such as "player may not reach into the dealer's rack and steal chips and run for the door," "Player may not pull a 'Bellagio' maneuver etc." aren't declared as such either. Many rules and policies are handled by surveillance in a close-to-the-vest fashion, with pit crews acting on their orders.

Quote: Doc

If those really are house rules that must be obeyed, how does a player learn the rules of a game prior to being accused of breaking them (or perhaps being banned for an unspecified rule violation)?

Dealers and floormen instruct newbie players via verbal instructions. We do not provide a power-point presentations. Players ge the hang of games very quick:
1. "Sir, pick up and hold the cards with one hand" (on pitch Blackjack games)
2. "Ma'am, the higher hand has to be a stronger poker hand than the lower hand" (in Pai Gow Poker)
3. "Sir, use one hand to pick up the dice and throw them so that both dice hit the back wall" (craps)
4. "Sir, you have to bet the same amount on every subsequent hand as you do on your first hand played." (on flat-betting a card counter.)

Quote: Doc

If a casino doesn't like to have winning card counters at their tables and runs them out when a suspected counter starts winning too much, that sounds like an operations policy, not a "rule" of the game. If it were a rule, I think they would have to actively expel lousy card counters who are losing bundles of money. Do they do that?

]
Card counting has a number of operational policies, many of which are handled by surveillance crews calling down and giving handling instructions.

Quote: DRC

FWIW, I am neither a card counter nor a hole carder.

Excellent, very fine.

Quote: TheNightfly

Doc, as has been discussed before in a previous thread, there are no written rules that will state, "A player may not mentally keep track of which cards have already been played and adjust his play," or "A player may not watch for dealer mistakes such as exposed cards and make use of that information."

Cheating in a casino in Vegas is against the law and anyone caught using certain nefarious methods will be punished appropriately by the law. Counting cards is not cheating and you know it, regardless of how you feel about it.

Card counting is not illegal, it is against the house rules which can get you flat-betted or removed from the premises.
The cops don't back you off, the pit crew and security do.

Quote: TheNightfly

Go back to the drawing board and create a better game that cannot be taken advantage of by counting or suck it up and accept that it is the game and your view on counting that is flawed.

I did. EZ Pai Gow is not Countable! One deck is fully played out per deal.
EZ Baccarat (which is not my product) is somewhat countable. It has a six or eight deck shoe from which many deals or rounds are produce, and as the composition of the remaining deck changes in terms of various card ration.

Quote: Thenightfly

The counter is only using the game rules to their advantage.

Not when they get backed off. It is generally against house rules.
Casino houses can also limit bet spreads, have 50% cut card penetrations, etc.

Quote: Doc

You just happen to have incorrectly assumed that the game had an unbeatable advantage before it went on the floor.

Not for EZ Pai Gow, not at all.
But true, many games are released and assumed to be uncountable, when in fact they are later discovered to be countable, and rule changes and procedure changes implemented, etc.

Quote: Paigowdan

Card counting is not illegal, it is against the house rules which can get you flat-betted or removed from the premises.
The cops don't back you off, the pit crew and security do.

I promise not to complain if I ever get backed off. If you want to change the penetration, knock yourself out. Now quit complaining about counters and deal the cards.
As for surveillance spotting a counter, most members of surveillance teams (no offense Face) are about as sharp as a wet diaper and are usually so focused on preventing employee theft that they have neither the time nor the inclination to spot a counter, whether said counter is actually capable of counting or not.

Quote: Paigowdan

Quote: Doc

You just happen to have incorrectly assumed that the game had an unbeatable advantage before it went on the floor.

I never said that.

Quote: TheNightfly

As for surveillance spotting a counter, most members of surveillance teams (no offense Face) are about as sharp as a wet diaper and are usually so focused on preventing employee theft that they have neither the time nor the inclination to spot a counter, whether said counter is actually capable of counting or not.

None taken =). In fact, I rather wish your comment was more true. Time and again, in all forms of jobs in which money is handled, reports come out which all say ~80% of all theft is from employees. Yet the powers that be are worried about every spook and spectre that might be adding and subtracting 1's. Drives me nuts.

If you came to my place, I reckon I COULD catch you counting within the hour. But chances are I wouldn't catch you for a month, or more likely, a lot longer. I just don't care. Same as with this Bac count. Kudos to the premise, that's some fine work to find an advantage where none is apparent. No, it's downright awesome, a real discovery. I can appreciate that. But (and maybe I'm ignorant) this wouldn't register on my fear meter if we had that game here. I see it needing a difficult skill set with an even more difficult strategy and implementation. I look at revealing this info as possibly increasing interest, maybe getting more people to think they could actually do it, and maybe increasing gameplay and therefore revenue (just like BJ counting). And if that 1 in a million guy comes along that can actually do it and makes a killing, Table Games will just back him off (just like BJ counting). As a threat, no big deal. As a discovery, it's properly amazing.

Quote: Face

... all of the above ...

That is so cool ... no AP wants to hear that casinos don't care about them ...

--Ms. D.

.....

Quote: DorothyGale

...no AP wants to hear that casinos don't care about them ...
--Ms. D.

This is absolutely true. They would prefer not to hear this.

No customer or player - no matter how undesirable he actually may be (money-sweater, or shot-taker, or a player who is obnoxious to other players or dealers, and yes, to include hole-carders and card-counters who are good enough to be a risk to the house) - would like to think that they are desirable to a business when actually not the case.

Personally, I would like for all players to be curteous, sober, patient with other players, patient with break-in dealers, friendly, etc., essentially, to bring in more players and action and create a friendly atmosphere - but not all customers are created equal, or are equally desirable.
The official line of every business, including casino operators is "We LOVE all customers! - So Come on down, y'all!" etc., etc., etc.
The Official Line of every business that is open for business.

But some customers are more desirable than other customers, and this is true of any and every business...in Casinos:

1. $500 players are more desirable than $3 players.
2. Sober players are more desirable than excessively rowdy players.
3. Curteous players are more desirable than miserable or obnoxious players who drive off good (or better) customers.
and the list goes on. And on and on and on, until halfway through graveyard shift, when things are dead anyway.
This is true of all business, as some customers are more desirable than others, and Casino operators are no different, in the sense that we evaluate who is better or lesser to have.

Any customer may have any fantasy he wants about him being a great customer.
92.738% of the time he is correct about being a good customer.
7.262% of the time he is deluded, is pure trouble, and is not able to convince us his business is worth it at all.
100% of the time our official line is "We Love you all - come on down!"

1% or 2% of the time he is actually trouble enough to get some rude "speaking to," and is asked to leave, to bring his trouble-causing somewhere else in no uncertain terms. Better business is to lose a trouble-maker who is hurting business. We decide, we assess, we make the call, we run the pit operations, and we take action. If backed off, please quietly leave. Not an issue unless made an issue.

And getting rid of real problem players IS good customer service, hurt feelings aside! A lumpendectomy in the view of a business operator, doesn't matter which business.

I often dislike what I see when I am out playing at other casinos.

When I am a player at a table at some casino where a table player acts up or has a problem for the pit crew, I will indeed notice that the floorman reduces his betting average when he is colored off a table, just to bang down his comps: at $100 actual betting average gets recorded as $15 per hand action on his comp/player card account, to be punish for "being a prick" at the table.
I also see a player who acts like a patient sweatheart to all parties during a game get a generous "comp level" notice in the system, for an action level that improves her comps, and to hopefully bring a good player back that'll be helpful to all. Remember, a good player is also a shill for the house, and a bad player a stink bomb.

When working, when I close out a player from a table session [saying "Color coming in! - "Okay, Dan, bring it!"] I tell the floorman his real average bet, and he [the floorman] also sees the color-out leaving amount, and so he punches in all the info based on this information, and may be affected by other factors, - many of which may be "human" factors. And my boss makes the call, PEOS. Table play is not slot play.

Quote: Face

Yet the powers that be are worried about every spook and spectre that might be adding and subtracting 1's. Drives me nuts.

I do know what you mean.
So...in terms of making games uncountable [for example, using Stanley Ko's "2 thru 7" for BJ, or placing the Baccarat cut at 26 to 40 cards from the end of a Baccarat shoe instead of 14 cards] wouldn't that just finally eliminate - I mean RID us - of this extra and needless nuisance in casino and surveillance operations so we can concentrate on better things, like nabbing real cheating threats, as well as providing better customer service?

I thought Eliot's Baccarat paper was both very sharp and a little bit misguided. MO.

Quote: Paigowdan

So...in terms of making games uncountable [for example, using Stanley Ko's "2 thru 7" for BJ, or placing the Baccarat cut at 26 to 40 cards from the end of a Baccarat shoe instead of 14 cards] wouldn't that just finally eliminate - I mean RID us - of this extra and needless nuisance in casino and surveillance operations so we can concentrate on better things, like nabbing real cheating threats, as well as providing better customer service?

Just replace the blackjack shoe with a CSM. "2 thru 7" Blackjack is even worse than CSM. But you know what Dan, you probably never will because deep down inside you know that you NEED APs to be in the business because of all the LOSING action that it brings. What I don't still understand from your posts is that why you want to so desperately get rid of something that improves your revenues? If you let your personal agendas to get into away of making a profit, then you are quite sucky business person, right?

APs are great shills sometime, true. But we strive to provide services for regular people without APs being a factor or getting in the way of operations. And "2 thru 7" BJ - with a 3:2 BJ payout average - would crush 6:5 BJ.

Anyway - What wasn't highlighted enough in terms of counting down a shoe game: the number of card ranks that affect a game's countability.
In counting Blackjack, the number of ranks that affect the game's countability is huge: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, J, Q K, A. TEN out the 13 ranks affect the count.
In "Dragon Counting," only two ranks - the 8's and 9's are really important, with 4's through 7's somewhat important as the opposing ranks.

The "dilution factor" - or the number of trivial neutral ranks in the deck - can dilute out the ability to generate a strong "true count."

If an eight deck Blackjack shoe had the cut card placed at the last deck shuffle point - for 88% penetration - it would be great for BJ counters.
If an eight deck Baccarat shoe had the cut card placed at the last deck shuffle point - also for 88% penetration - it would be doom for Baccarat Dragon bet counters, as only the last deck is really the "sweet zone" of count opportunity.

And the frequency of the true counts 5 or higher.
In ~35% of the shoes I have simulated, not one hand had a true count that triggered the bet.

Team play may take advantage of this, but the average player would get burnt out waiting and waiting and waiting...

Some EZ Bac players, and I know a few of them here in SoCal, want 2 shoes to go by without any Dragon 7 hits, then they start going crazy betting that they will come back with a vengeance.

Last night I watched as one shoe hit the Dragon7 6 times after not showing once in the last 2.
My daughter made some good money on that shoe but I only counted 4 times the tc was 5+ and not one time was it a winner. The price one pays for +EV.
Of course, there were players that tell the sad story of 6 and 7 shoes in a row without a D7 hit. That is gambling!
And the supervisors that watch the games, they love the action!

Ggggh

Quote: RoyalGeejoon

Ggggh

Best. Bump. Ever.

Just shows the more things change, the more they stay the same. Some of the players are gone but opinions don't change with Dan. Good read.