Differential of 7 baccarat

When testing a D'Alembert, playing baccarat, I noticed that it was busting out at 7 around 2.2 times per shoe.
Each time it would bust, I would start again from where I stopped. I noticed alot of the time one side would get 7 behind, just to even out again later in shoe.
Has anyone got any data regarding this?
I was considering just flat betting whichever side is dominant by 1, until in front by 7- then re setting.

The Wizard has some data to answer such questions. See the bottom of this page (under the heading simulations):

https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/

And in any such testing, always make sure to remember the commission on the banker.

The main issue is that none of this matters. Streaks only appear in the rear-view mirror; they have no predictive value.

If I toss a coin 3 times, I can tell you that 1/8 of the time, all 3 tosses will be heads and 1/8 of the time, all 3 will be tails. That does not let you predict the next toss at any point; it's always 50/50. That is because the trials are independent.

Technically in baccarat the trials are not quite independent, but the effect of removing cards is so small that they are very close to independent -- for your purposes you can consider them to be independent.

Anyone who tells you that you can predict random events based on the outcomes of previous, independent random events has no understanding of probability theory at all, and is most likely destined to lose all their money. I would suggest that you not join them in that endeavour.

Having said that, if you enjoy looking for patterns and betting a certain way, (ie, if it makes the game more fun for you) then there is nothing wrong with that. You are just paying for entertainment, after all. Just understand that the patterns don't really exist and you don't really have an advantage, and you are no more likely to win than someone who just bets randomly. When you start believing otherwise, that's where real problems can start.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

The main issue is that none of this matters. Streaks only appear in the rear-view mirror; they have no predictive value.

I think that if my observations are correct and that there will on average be 2.2 times per shoe where there will be a difference of 7 wins between dominant side and non dominant side, there would be great predictive value. The problem would be whether this would be enough to cover the choppy hands where there has not yet been a dominant side and of course commission.

Quote: Bmayo319

I think that if my observations are correct and that there will on average be 2.2 times per shoe where there will be a difference of 7 wins between dominant side and non dominant side, there would be great predictive value.

That's the part where you're wrong. It has no predictive value at all. The belief that it does have predictive value is known as the gambler's fallacy.

Quote: Bmayo319

there will on average be 2.2 times per shoe where there will be a difference of 7 wins between dominant side and non dominant side

This may be correct, and would actually be a fairly interesting and difficult math problem to determine correctly. Much easier to estimate by simulation or observation.

Quote: Bmayo319

there would be great predictive value.

Not correct. Any given shoe that is halfway done without this differential is not going to correct itself just for you. It's outcome will be random, and only by collecting statistics on past shoes will you observe this behaviour in the long term.

I do not mean that predictive value would be in hoping for sides to even out, I beleive the value would be in chasing these variance spikes.
Yes it would be great if someone could run a simulation and see if these numbers are correct.

Quote: Bmayo319

I do not mean that predictive value would be in hoping for sides to even out, I beleive the value would be in chasing these variance spikes.
Yes it would be great if someone could run a simulation and see if these numbers are correct.

You cannot chase variance spikes. This is gambler's fallacy. No one is going to waste their time writing a simulation to determine something that is already well-known. Perhaps you should write the simulation?

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

You cannot chase variance spikes. This is gambler's fallacy. No one is going to waste their time writing a simulation to determine something that is already well-known. Perhaps you should write the simulation?

Why cant I chase variance spikes?
Why would it be a waste of time to see if the numbers I have observed are correct?

Quote: Bmayo319

Why cant I chase variance spikes?

You can, just the math says that "in the long run" that strategy will not be more profitable than anything else.

Quote: Bmayo319

Why would it be a waste of time to see if the numbers I have observed are correct?

It wouldn't be a waste of time. I recommend you try it via simulation.

Quote: Bmayo319

Why cant I chase variance spikes?

Well, you can chase them, but it will be expensive. They have no predictive value.

Quote:

Why would it be a waste of time to see if the numbers I have observed are correct?

Because the math is obvious.

You can't really chase variance spikes in baccarat because the cards hold essentially no memory. It's just as valid a strategy as any other, but since there is no real relation to what is happening in each shoe you won't see them really even out. For instance if one shoe goes nuts and the banker wins all 7 right away then the next hand is still the same odds as the first for each one to win. In the long run it will all even out with maybe the next shoe the player goes to 7 right away, but the main thing is there is no predictive value.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Well, you can chase them, but it will be expensive. They have no predictive value.



Because the math is obvious.

Why do you think it would be more expensive than betting any other way?
If the maths is soo obvious can you tell me whether the numbers I observed are correct?

Quote: Bmayo319

Why do you think it would be more expensive than betting any other way?

Oh, it isn't. The game is -EV so you will lose a pile no matter what. You can slow the bleeding a bit by betting on banker, and skipping more hands.

People who chase streaks tend to lose more because they are so sure that they are right that they tend to bet more than they otherwise would. The worst thing that can happen to you is to think that you have an edge when you don't.

Quote:

If the maths is soo obvious can you tell me whether the numbers I observed are correct?

The obvious part is that the streaks have no predictive value. In other words, it doesn't matter if the numbers you observed are correct. The covariance between hands is extremely close to 0, which means that the expectation does not change much from one hand to the next. In other words, it starts negative, and stays negative, and every bet that you make is -EV.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

The obvious part is that the streaks have no predictive value. In other words, it doesn't matter if the numbers you observed are correct.

Ok mate.
Anyway... If anyone has any data on this I would be interested to find out if my observations are correct.

Quote: Bmayo319

Ok mate.
Anyway... If anyone has any data on this I would be interested to find out if my observations are correct.

I think the wizard has a pile of generated baccarat shoes which I'm pretty sure are there just to debunk nonsense like this.

Related to this, I'm just curious to know how randomized is an 8 deck shoe??? If it was as randomized as it is supposed to be then why and how do you explain why multiple streaks do occur irregardless of the lenth and/or frequency that it does occur?? Someone mentioned perhaps that its due to the rules pertaining to how the third is card is drawn in baccarat but even then all the more it does not necessary explain the frequency and lengths of streaks occurring in an 8 deck shoe.

Multiple streaks are expected to occur. It wouldn't be very random if they didn't.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I think the wizard has a pile of generated baccarat shoes which I'm pretty sure are there just to debunk nonsense like this.

Yeh I know they were partly where I noticed this occurrence.
You sound like you have too much time on your hands mate, you are on a gambling forum talking to people who enjoy various ways of gambling and different ways to go about it but having nothing to contribute except the usual -ev unbeatable stuff.
I am well aware of the unbreakable house edge and that nothing will have an effect on it- I will continue to gamble and have fun with it never the less.
I do not see what the nonsesnse is- I am not saying I have a great gambling system and to follow me just having some fun and trying different things- you need to lighten up bud

Sorry, my mistake. I guess you are different from the bmayo319 who said:

Quote:

I think that if my observations are correct and that there will on average be 2.2 times per shoe where there will be a difference of 7 wins between dominant side and non dominant side, there would be great predictive value.

Also if you know where they are, why are you asking for data? Your data is right there. Go nuts.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Sorry, my mistake. I guess you are different from the bmayo319 who said:

Also if you know where they are, why are you asking for data? Your data is right there. Go nuts.

If you know it happens avg 2.2 times per shoe it is pretty reliable to predict it will keep doing so = predictive value.

Quote: Bmayo319

If you know it happens avg 2.2 times per shoe it is pretty reliable to predict it will keep doing so = predictive value.

I don't think you understand what "average" means.

Quote: Bmayo319

You sound like you have too much time on your hands mate, you are on a gambling forum talking to people who enjoy various ways of gambling and different ways to go about it but having nothing to contribute except the usual -ev unbeatable stuff.
I am well aware of the unbreakable house edge and that nothing will have an effect on it- I will continue to gamble and have fun with it never the less.
I do not see what the nonsesnse is- I am not saying I have a great gambling system and to follow me just having some fun and trying different things- you need to lighten up bud

You need to brighten up bud.

But if your objective is to find someone who will agree with you, try hanging around the casino and waiting for this guy:

Quote: Bmayo319

When testing a D'Alembert, playing baccarat, I noticed that it was busting out at 7 around 2.2 times per shoe.
Each time it would bust, I would start again from where I stopped.
I noticed alot of the time one side would get 7 behind, just to even out again later in shoe.

I was considering just flat betting whichever side is dominant by 1, until in front by 7- then re setting.

please show an example of this so more can understand.
1st, most know the D'Alembert is a loser system in Blackjack, Baccarat, Craps, Roulette and Video Poker.
But testing for statistics can be fun.

But you are really talking about the difference between Player and Banker wins during a shoe
here is a photo of a shoe as a random walk (8 deck)
a move up means Player won, a move down Banker won
a 3 means the Player at that point has won 3 more than Banker
a -4 means at that point the Banker has won 4 more hands than Player

so you start to bet on Banker right after the first win. but it becomes a Player shoe at that point
Do you switch to Player once it is +1 (that happened on the 3rd hand)
You flat bet until Player is at +7, it never happened in this shoe. When would you stop betting?

Here are the decisions, no ties, that produced the shoe.
Notice NO run of 5 or more. That happens about 7.2% of the time or about 7,200 shoes out of 100,000
B: 38
P: 32
B
PP
B
PPP
BB
PPP
BB
PP
B
P
B
P
B
P
BBBB
P
BBBB
P
BB
PP
B
P
B
P
BB
PP
B
PP
BBB
P
B
PP
BBB
PP
BBB
P
BBB
PPP
B

exactly, how would you play this shoe and where are those 2.2 7 that you talk about
Maybe you would not play this way as you do mention this is just an idea you have
I have more shoes I could show too


you see many times when one side gets to 7 it evens out ("I noticed alot of the time")
so you say. I do not think so
there really is not that much time in one shoe, IMO, for that event to happen on average 2.2 times

please show your data that produced these 2.2 times results
as I do not at all see this just looking over many many shoes

Plus, simulating this would be useless I say as there are millions and millions of computer sorted (shuffled) shoes that a casino would never deal out.
the computer can make things equal when in reality they are not.
Sally

Quote: mustangsally

1st, most know the D'Alembert is a loser system in Blackjack, Baccarat, Craps, Roulette and Video Poker.

That's why I only use it for the big six wheel.

As I mentioned in my OP I had noticed in my experiences playing DAlembert which is why I asked if anyone had data on this. It appears that it may have been higher than average in my experiment.
Not a worry.
Thanks anyway for all the friendly replies lol keyboard warriors unite!

Quote: Bmayo319

As I mentioned in my OP I had noticed in my experiences playing DAlembert which is why I asked if anyone had data on this. It appears that it may have been higher than average in my experiment.

maybe
but without seeing the data you used that made you conclude an average of 2.2 (22 times in 10 shoes)
no one knows and will never know.
you are a Baccarat expert, yes? There are many. but maybe not an expert in Baccarat shoe statistics.

maybe the data you observed is correct but you placed the wrong values on them
I can add 2 and 6 and get 26 some times and then that messes up all the calculations that follow.

here is the first and second shoe in the collection of Z600
(the challenge with the zumma books is the actual cards that created the decisions are not shown
these could have been made up after the fact just to sell books. It was the 1990s)

the time series
one can see the movements of a Banker win (moving down or -1 etc) or a Player win (moving up or 1 etc)
this is from Excel crunching the values and making the chart
some nice runs but no 7 margin corrected can be seen
the number of equalizations (returns to 0 margin) in shoe1 is 3 and that came from a -6, 1, -1


shoe2


I think the data you seek does not exist currently in any form but could be collected after being calculated
and those that show some data may also enter errors (knowingly or unknowingly) in the data
just to throw off the Baccarat shoe non-experts

Sally

Quote: mustangsally

In this graph, if the 8th hand had continued in the same direction before changing, there would have been 3 times within this shoe where there would have been a difference of 7 (0 to -7, -7 to 0, 0 to -7)
Instead because the 8th hand didnt quite make it to a difference of 7, it evened out at +1 before taking another run to -7 so this shoe difference of 7 or more happened only once.

Quote: Bmayo319

In this graph, if the 8th hand had continued in the same direction before changing, there would have been 3 times within this shoe where there would have been a difference of 7 (0 to -7, -7 to 0, 0 to -7)
Instead because the 8th hand didnt quite make it to a difference of 7, it evened out at +1 before taking another run to -7 so this shoe difference of 7 or more happened only once.

yes, in shoe #1 I posted the are movements of at least 6 3 times
(BTW the first hand at 0 is not a hand it is just the beginning of the shoe like a sports score of 0-0)

The 8th hand produced a -6 margin for Banker (7wins and 1 loss)
now follows is a movement of 7 for a Player 1 margin (the 15th hand)

But you do not know when this will happen when Banker was at -6

In your OP, you state this (as a bet selection method)
"I was considering just flat betting whichever side is dominant by 1, until in front by 7- then re setting."

OK you won some bets right from the start on Banker, but Banker was not in front by 7 when a turn occurred.
I think from what you stated you would not have been betting Player in the Player run of 7
or do you have a different re-set method?

when the Player was at 1 you would be flat betting Player
"I was considering just flat betting whichever side is dominant by 1, until in front by 7- then re setting."
to reach 7 but that was it's high point in the shoe

gathering shoe statistics is one thing but one also needs to be very specific on how one would use those stats as a bet selection method

How would you have bet this z600 shoe1
starting with hand#9 as we know you were betting Banker after the first hand win

now we are getting somewhere other than our starting point
Sally