These Shoes Are Made For Talkin'......
ZCore13
In that case time to grab the 'windolene'.Quote: AxelWolfFrom the impression he has given he has a system that is better then the best card counting system and worth more. If this were true he would have Pros knocking down his door willing to to make over 10k bets with him, they would probably offer him a generous free-roll. If I were him I would take the challenge prove your system and if its money he want its money he will have. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.
I really don't know why he won't play a few shoes with Mission, because he has already spelt out his bet selection and MM, there is little left to hid, other than the fear of losing shoes.
Quote: egalite
I really don't know why he won't play a few shoes with Mission, .
Lol, yes you do.
Quote: Zcore13Question though... If one could memorize (not count) the cards that have been played and therefore know the remaining cards, could there be a player advantage?
Probably. Certainly in theory - with this calculator, you certainly could. It seems likely to me there might be some heuristic, but I can't think what it could be.
Quote: Zcore13Question though... If one could memorize (not count) the cards that have been played and therefore know the remaining cards, could there be a player advantage?
Yes, but only so small and so infrequently that it is not worth doing. Eliot Jacobson calculated that computer-perfect play yields less than $1.60 profit per shoe based on making $1000 wagers whenever you have the edge.
http://apheat.net/2012/06/25/card-counting-in-baccarat/
http://apheat.net/2012/12/22/beating-baccarat/#more-1893
That's a TOUGH game!
ZCore13
Quote: Zcore13Wow, so even if the OP had the incredible talent of memorizing every card played and knowing which ones were due and upped his bet to $1,000 when he had an advantage (seemingly rare) he still would not be able to make any dent into the game more than just plane luck and variance?
That's a TOUGH game!
ZCore13
It's worse than that -- the analysis Eliot did assumed you didn't bet at all when the house had the edge. You're spreading 0-1000, not 5-1000 or 25-1000. There are ways to have an edge at a baccarat table, but counting the Player or Banker bets isn't really one of them.
I'm surprised you can't beat it with player and banker alone, although I don't doubt his analysis.
EDIT: Okay, he's apparently analyzed the tie bet as well, and computer-assisted, if it pays 9:1, you can get an advantage of about a hundredth of a unit per shoe. Since so few pay 9:1, and even that would require a huge spread if betting elsewhere normally, I guess it is uncountable.
