This statement is logically true of the Punto and Banco bets. But what of the Tie bet?Quote:PaigowdanThere are games and game situations where the changing shoe composition helps neither player or dealer. An example of this is Banker and Player bets in Baccarat.

In other words, are there some deck compositions that alter the probability of a tie? (I am thinking of a deck with excessively many zeroes, for example)

Do these altered probabilities allow AP?

Quote:kubikulannFrom the One for the Money thread:This statement is logically true of the Punto and Banco bets. But what of the Tie bet? In other words, are there some deck compositions that alter the probability of a tie? (I am thinking of a deck with excessively many zeroes, for example). Do these altered probabilities allow AP?

Quote:kubikulannThank you. Cristal clear.

Be aware that teliot is basically a fraud: he mostly rehashes work done

by other gamblers who play professionally but has no real understanding

of what he is writing.

The approach you describe can work for baccarat, but you need excellent

conditions and a big spread. You also need a rather more sophisticated

approach than is described above.

Try starting here with this article

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=4843782&postcount=1.

Quote:GBVBe aware that teliot is basically a fraud: he mostly rehashes work done

by other gamblers who play professionally but has no real understanding

of what he is writing.

The approach you describe can work for baccarat, but you need excellent

conditions and a big spread. You also need a rather more sophisticated

approach than is described above.

Try starting here with this article

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=4843782&postcount=1.

GBV is suspended for 3 days for the above statement (bolded for emphasis): "you may attack the writing, not the writer" - Wizard

Quote:1BBGee, that wasn't very nice. As a staunch defender of those suspended, I got nothin'.

Indefensible. Teliot's post consists of only two links, both on-topic and authored by a highly respected expert. One link is critical of GBV's work. Aye, there's the rub...

Quote:BleedingChipsSlowlyIndefensible. Teliot's post consists of only two links, both on-topic and authored by a highly respected expert. One link is critical of GBV's work. Aye, there's the rub...

BTW, teliot is that highly respected expert.

I do encourage readers here to read this article and my articles linked above. Side-by-side comparison of these articles will shed a lot of light on GBV's claims about the Tie bet.Quote:GBVhttp://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=4843782&postcount=1.

Thanks B3. How about bolding the allegation of plagiarism as well?Quote:beachbumbabsGBV is suspended for 3 days for the above statement (bolded for emphasis): "you may attack the writing, not the writer" - Wizard

Quote:GBVThe approach you describe can work for baccarat, but you need excellent

conditions and a big spread. You also need a rather more sophisticated

approach than is described above.

Try starting here with this article

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=4843782&postcount=1.

So the "excellent conditions" described in your article are degenerate edge cases of interest only as a very, very loose bound: all of the cases are in the form of "all of a certain rank are gone from the shoe but none of another rank." The probability of any of those cases is so low as to be meaningless (and in any event, you did not report them, though Eliot did) so I don't think it's at all accurate to conclude that "It should be apparent to the perceptive from the above examples that baccarat can be "beaten" as a practical matter, though not neccessarily easily, at least, in games with deep penetration." Especially if, as you say in the next sentence, "Simulation data on computer-perfect analysis of the tie wager shows that if you can find a game where the last hand will be dealt from a 10-card subset, you can obtain a 1% advantage with a 45-1 spread, assuming you can detect favourable situations accurately."

It's disingenuous to start an article with an example showing a 3-digit player edge under ridiculous assumptions and then bury the punchline in the middle of your article: the player edge is only 1% using perfect counting under a last-hand scenario of 10 cards (which is 4 cards past where the cut card is normally placed, so how often does that happen?)

If even you admit that the edge is small under an unrealistic and improbable scenario, and that any higher edge occurs so infrequently as to be meaningless, I don't see why there's a dispute.

Ah!Quote:wudgedBTW, teliot is that highly respected expert.

Quote:MathExtremistIf even you [GBV] admit ...

Won't be happening for a few days, if ever, at least on this forum ;->

Quote:1BBGee, that wasn't very nice. As a staunch defender of those suspended, I got nothin'.

LOL. Calling someone a fraud is so blatantly offensive it amuses me. Obviously, this member was not attempting to skirt the rulebook.

Quote:MathExtremistSo the "excellent conditions" described in your article are degenerate edge cases of interest only as a very, very loose bound: all of the cases are in the form of "all of a certain rank are gone from the shoe but none of another rank." The probability of any of those cases is so low as to be meaningless (and in any event, you did not report them, though Eliot did) so I don't think it's at all accurate to conclude that "It should be apparent to the perceptive from the above examples that baccarat can be "beaten" as a practical matter, though not neccessarily easily, at least, in games with deep penetration." Especially if, as you say in the next sentence, "Simulation data on computer-perfect analysis of the tie wager shows that if you can find a game where the last hand will be dealt from a 10-card subset, you can obtain a 1% advantage with a 45-1 spread, assuming you can detect favourable situations accurately."

It's disingenuous to start an article with an example showing a 3-digit player edge under ridiculous assumptions and then bury the punchline in the middle of your article: the player edge is only 1% using perfect counting under a last-hand scenario of 10 cards (which is 4 cards past where the cut card is normally placed, so how often does that happen?)

If even you admit that the edge is small under an unrealistic and improbable scenario, and that any higher edge occurs so infrequently as to be meaningless, I don't see why there's a dispute.

I think it is pretty clear to any of us semi-interested in beating baccarat, who are also not dull-witted. It is neither strictly fact nor fiction, it is more like science fiction. Yes, ray guns and flying cars probably don't break the laws of physics, and can be built with existing resources. But we don't have any.

But here is the thing about all this. GBV isn't one of those baccarat-progression types, or one of the ones claiming that he has some psychic abilities that allows him a higher than normal "strike rate". He is talking about making bets based on the composition of the shoe.

I understand Eliot's point that profitable situations come up very rarely. However, I don't find his articles on the topic very convincing. He takes a lot of what GBV says out of context (intentionally or not, I have no idea).

He also spends a lot of time pointing out that a single-parameter linear counting system is not effective, even though GBV points out very clearly that the game is not linear and any counting system (particularly a single-parameter one) is going to break down as you get very deep penetration. This makes sense; blackjack has the same issue (for playing decisions). In other words, Eliot is not actually refuting what GBV says. GBV clearly says, in his 2+2 post, that doing this requires a lot of rote memorization. In other words (I assume), you aren't using a single-parameter linear counting system; you are memorizing combinations of cards that give you an edge and betting when you see those combinations.

Is this viable? I have absolutely no idea. I would tend to lean towards "no", but I can't claim to be 100% sure, and Eliot's work doesn't convince me. All he's really proven is that he can't find a way to beat it, not that there is no way to beat it. I kind of want to spend some CPU cycles on this but I haven't really had time to write any code lately.

I did a perfect play analysis on the Tie bet when it pays 9-to-1. Maybe you missed that. No system can do better than perfect play. When the Tie bet pays 8-to-1, it is worthless.Quote:AxiomOfChoiceAll he's really proven is that he can't find a way to beat it, not that there is no way to beat it. I kind of want to spend some CPU cycles on this but I haven't really had time to write any code lately.

"This allows us to fully quantify the vulnerability of the tie bet. If a person is allowed to use a computer program to tell them when to play the tie bet, and that person makes a $100 wager on the tie bet whenever they have the edge, then the player will earn at most $9.40 per shoe."

No amount of memorizing specific end-play compositions (what GBV says he does) can earn more than $9.40 per shoe with $100 wagers when the Tie pays 9-to-1.

Though large wagers are allowed on the Tie, equally large wagers are allowed on the "Pairs" bet, which is considerably more vulnerable. The Pairs bet may be the biggest baccarat advantage play going on right now. Lots of teams are going after it and a lot of casino attention is going towards defending it. It is a mess.

Quote:AxiomOfChoiceThe insult was obviously out of line.

But here is the thing about all this. GBV isn't one of those baccarat-progression types, or one of the ones claiming that he has some psychic abilities that allows him a higher than normal "strike rate". He is talking about making bets based on the composition of the shoe.

I understand Eliot's point that profitable situations come up very rarely. However, I don't find his articles on the topic very convincing. He takes a lot of what GBV says out of context (intentionally or not, I have no idea).

He also spends a lot of time pointing out that a single-parameter linear counting system is not effective, even though GBV points out very clearly that the game is not linear and any counting system (particularly a single-parameter one) is going to break down as you get very deep penetration. This makes sense; blackjack has the same issue (for playing decisions). In other words, Eliot is not actually refuting what GBV says. GBV clearly says, in his 2+2 post, that doing this requires a lot of rote memorization. In other words (I assume), you aren't using a single-parameter linear counting system; you are memorizing combinations of cards that give you an edge and betting when you see those combinations.

Is this viable? I have absolutely no idea. I would tend to lean towards "no", but I can't claim to be 100% sure, and Eliot's work doesn't convince me. All he's really proven is that he can't find a way to beat it, not that there is no way to beat it. I kind of want to spend some CPU cycles on this but I haven't really had time to write any code lately.

I would lean on the side of disagreeing here. It doesn't matter if you use a single-parameter or multi-parameter system. It won't work. Is there a different way to attain an advantage? Science fiction. My inclination is to want to believe that memorizing the exact order of every card played and their EOR effects would lead to you knowing the exact composition in the last hand, and often lead to an advantage. Science fiction, similar to what I think he is talking about. In practice with current knowledge, this would be a complete waste of time, and virtually impossible without cheating.

Quote:teliotI did a perfect play analysis on the Tie bet when it pays 9-to-1. Maybe you missed that. No system can do better than perfect play. When the Tie bet pays 8-to-1, it is worthless.

"This allows us to fully quantify the vulnerability of the tie bet. If a person is allowed to use a computer program to tell them when to play the tie bet, and that person makes a $100 wager on the tie bet whenever they have the edge, then the player will earn at most $9.40 per shoe."

No amount of memorizing specific end-play compositions (what GBV says he does) can earn more than $9.40 per shoe with $100 wagers when the Tie pays 9-to-1.

9.4% of a bet per shoe is quite significant in a game that has very large maximums and no heat (to the point that they give you paper and pens to help you count). A large bankroll is required, but multiple people (playing at different tables) playing from a shared bankroll can help with this if it's an issue.

I'm not sure that I follow your logic showing that the 8-1 version is worthless. You did analysis and showed that with 26 cards left, profitable situations come up very rarely. First, I don't think that GBV was advocating playing in games where you don't get any deeper than 26 cards, and second, it seems to ignore the fact that you might get more than one profitable bet per shoe (I can't tell if your 9-1 analysis ignores this too, or maybe I am just misreading what you wrote)

I don't actually play baccarat (I have tried it a few times, as I have with most gambling games, but it has been a very long time since I have played). How deep is the cut card actually placed in practice, at big casinos? The previous discussion seemed to imply that you could find games where the card was placed 14 cards from the end, and I know that they deal one more hand after the cut card comes out (I'm not sure what they do if the cut card is "between" hands -- does it count as coming out in the previous or next hand?) In any case, this would seem to render the analysis of the state of the shoe with 26 cards left kind of irrelevant, since you still have another 3-4 hands left after that point.

I numerically approximate the area under the distribution curve. I really get the idea you are not carefully reading what I did. I'll give you another chance before replying.Quote:AxiomOfChoicemaybe I am just misreading what you wrote

Meanwhile, you've given me a project -- to do a perfect play analysis on 8-to-1 Tie bets. I'll put the cut card at 14 cards with the usual cut card rules (that allows the shoe to be dealt to 2 unseen cards).

AoC, if I give you, for every card position in the shoe, the bet frequency for the Tie bet (the percentage of time the player has the edge at that point) and average edge for the Tie bet (the AP makes the Tie bet only when he has the edge, this number averages those edges), could you then integrate to find the win-rate for perfect play?

I am going to do this and write a note for my blog, just in case I have not made myself clear (which apparently I have not).

Quote:teliotI numerically approximate the area under the distribution curve. I really get the idea you are not carefully reading what I did. I'll give you another chance before replying.

Meanwhile, you've given me a project -- to do a perfect play analysis on 8-to-1 Tie bets. I'll put the cut card at 14 cards with the usual cut card rules (that allows the shoe to be dealt to 2 unseen cards).

Ok, I see what you did now. It seems like it should be a reasonable approximation (although, perhaps not?)

I really have an issue with your statement:

Quote:The next step is to see if there is a practical (legal) way to get a piece of that $9.40 per shoe profit. To do this, I developed a card counting system to use against the tie bet.

And you then go on to develop a linear, single-parameter counting system. The implication is that the only practical and legal way to approach this is with a linear, single-parameter counting system (secondary complaint: you don't even prove that your count is the optimal linear single-parameter counting system)

People use mutli-parameter systems in blackjack, and you can't use a paper and pen there. In baccarat, I'd argue that (for someone who is good with mental arithmetic) it would be feasible to use a multi-parameter quadratic (or even cubic, or possibly even a higher power) counting system. Given a pen and paper (and therefore an exact count of the cards of each rank left in the deck) it would not be hard to check whether (for example) v^3 + 2w^2 + (x+y)*z > 121, where the variables represent parameters of your counting system. Perhaps this is not a worthwhile approach for everyone, but there are certainly many people who could pull it off. The parameters are all integers (and, when you get deep in the deck, relatively small integers, at that) so they are easy to work with.

One key point that GBV was making is that this game is extremely non-linear, so, of course, if you try to do a best-fit with a linear system, you are going to get bad results.

Quote:AxiomOfChoiceIn baccarat, I'd argue that (for someone who is good with mental arithmetic) it would be feasible to use a multi-parameter quadratic (or even cubic, or possibly even a higher power) counting system. Given a pen and paper (and therefore an exact count of the cards of each rank left in the deck) it would not be hard to check whether (for example) v^3 + 2w^2 + (x+y)*z > 121, where the variables represent parameters of your counting system. Perhaps this is not a worthwhile approach for everyone, but there are certainly many people who could pull it off.

If you're making the tie bet for $1000 whenever it's positive, according to even a reasonably accurate count, and sitting out the rest of the time, you might be looking at a theo of $75/hour. I submit that if you can keep a running evaluation of a cubic equations on pen and paper while you're playing baccarat, you can earn more than $75/hour. And you don't need to risk $1000 at a time to do it.

It's all about opportunity cost. If I had $50,000 lying around, using a cubic counting system on the tie bet in baccarat is the last thing I'd do.

This is an interesting exchange between GBV and JG:

http://www.beyondcounting.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=128&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Quote:MathExtremistIf you're making the tie bet for $1000 whenever it's positive, according to even a reasonably accurate count, and sitting out the rest of the time, you might be looking at a theo of $75/hour. I submit that if you can keep a running evaluation of a cubic equations on pen and paper while you're playing baccarat, you can earn more than $75/hour. And you don't need to risk $1000 at a time to do it.

It's all about opportunity cost. If I had $50,000 lying around, using a cubic counting system on the tie bet in baccarat is the last thing I'd do.

Why are you limiting yourself to $1000 bets? That is small time for baccarat; there are tables where that is the minimum bet. How do you feel about making $50,000 bets? or $100,000?

Now, the bankroll requirements are massive, but team play solves this problem quite nicely.

What would you do with $50,000 lying around, exactly? I ask this question seriously; I have much more than this "lying around". Note that your bankroll need not be sitting around collecting dust; it just needs to be invested in something liquid. There is no loss of opportunity here.

I'm not claiming that this is actually feasible (well, the 9-1 version certainly seems feasible). I'm just saying that nothing has been said here that convinces me that it's not feasible.

Here is another post by GBV:Quote:AxiomOfChoiceI'm not claiming that this is actually feasible (well, the 9-1 version certainly seems feasible). I'm just saying that nothing has been said here that convinces me that it's not feasible.

http://www.bjrnet.com/member/voodoo_archive1/index.cgi?read=663

"With a little training, it is not difficult to teach yourself when to bet on the tie. You can capture the lion's share of EV this way. ... Unfortunately the system I devised only makes about $20 per shoe, if you stake a $1000 with every favourable situation ... I will be happy to provide the full system to anyone who asks for it. I am reasonably certain that it is the most powerful baccarat system in existence, pathetic though it's returns may be."

Quote:AxiomOfChoiceWhy are you limiting yourself to $1000 bets? That is small time for baccarat; there are tables where that is the minimum bet. How do you feel about making $50,000 bets? or $100,000?

Now, the bankroll requirements are massive, but team play solves this problem quite nicely.

No, I disagree. Once you're talking about a VC-type bankroll, and you are if you're suggesting making individual bets of $100,000, I can thing of several productive ways to invest that yield far more than what you could make in a Baccarat AP situation like this. Eliot just posted revised numbers from John where the theo is $20/shoe for $1000 bets, which is in the neighborhood of $15-18/hour, so you're looking at $1800/hour tops with $100,000 bets and a multi-million dollar bankroll. $1800/hour is $43,200/day (assuming you play 24h/day, and you can't do that). I've worked with several social gaming sites that make far more than that per day with far less investment. I can't start a social game company for $50,000, but if you lend me several million I'll make you far, far more than $43,200/day. And actually executing on that would be a lot more fun than "wait around at a baccarat table and make a $100,000 bet a few times per week."

Quote:MathExtremistNo, I disagree. Once you're talking about a VC-type bankroll, and you are if you're suggesting making individual bets of $100,000, I can thing of several productive ways to invest that yield far more than what you could make in a Baccarat AP situation like this. Eliot just posted revised numbers from John where the theo is $20/shoe for $1000 bets, which is in the neighborhood of $15-18/hour, so you're looking at $1800/hour tops with $100,000 bets and a multi-million dollar bankroll. $1800/hour is $43,200/day (assuming you play 24h/day, and you can't do that). I've worked with several social gaming sites that make far more than that per day with far less investment. I can't start a social game company for $50,000, but if you lend me several million I'll make you far, far more than $43,200/day. And actually executing on that would be a lot more fun than "wait around at a baccarat table and make a $100,000 bet a few times per week."

You are missing the point of a shared bankroll. All players play from the same bankroll simultaneously (at different tables). They can all make full-sized bets (as if the bankroll was all theirs) and the risk of ruin is the same.

So, say the bankroll requirements for $100k bets was $4 million. If 20 people put up $200k each and play from a shared bankroll, they can all make $100k bets and ALL make that hourly wage.

There is no max amount per hour on a specific bankroll, it's a max per hour per player. This is why team play is so strong, and why people do it despite the massive headaches and risks that go along with it.

I understand that you are a mathematician and are willing to debate things on their academic merits. But, where is this casino?Quote:AxiomOfChoiceYou are missing the point of a shared bankroll. All players play from the same bankroll simultaneously (at different tables). They can all make full-sized bets (as if the bankroll was all theirs) and the risk of ruin is the same.

So, say the bankroll requirements for $100k bets was $4 million. If 20 people put up $200k each and play from a shared bankroll, they can all make $100k bets and ALL make that hourly wage.

Yes, I know many casinos with $100k on the main bet. No problem with that. Higher than that, even. I'm looking for a casino that offers 9-to-1 on the Tie (not the main bet, the Tie), with Tie bets of $100k allowed, with the cut card at 14 cards (or less). Then I want 10 tables open with those limits. Then we need to find 10 guys, each with $200k, who are willing to learn end-plays on the Tie bet, and hang out at the table for days on end making no wagers, just so they can make a $100k bet on the Tie bet every so often.Quote:IbeatyouracesI've seen $100k max bets at various Horseshoe casinos. Whether or not you can bet that much on the tie though, I don't know.

By comparison, a guy who wants to beat the Pairs bet can walk into dozens of casinos world wide and make $20k wagers or higher, earning 0.47 units per 100 hands. This is what is really going on -- in the real world -- not this "Tie bet" fantasy.

Quote:teliotI understand that you are a mathematician and are willing to debate things on their academic merits. But, where is this casino?

Casinos that take $100k bets on baccarat? I have no idea -- I don't play those limits. I think that $50k is pretty common though (I don't play those limits either, but I'm pretty sure that I have seen it) I'm not interested in analyzing things based on a $1000 max bet though -- even I play higher than that, out of my own pocket (no sharing), with much slimmer edges, and I know that a lot of people are a hell of a lot better bankrolled than I am. Find me a good edge and getting the money will not be a problem.

The team doesn't all have to play at the same place, so it's not like you need 1 casino with 20 tables with favorable rules. My only point here is that, if the rules and large stakes are available at a few different places (possibly around the world) the argument about bankroll requirements go out the window. This is true for any game.

Meeting 20 people who you trust with that kind of money (and have the skill to pull it off) is probably the harder part.

Quote:MathExtremistif you lend me several million I'll make you far, far more than $43,200/day.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it just struck me how absolutely ridiculous this statement is. $43,200/day is almost 16 million dollars per year.

Are you really claiming that you can get annual returns in the 400% range? If so, I would be interested in investing with you as soon as I close the deal on this bridge I am buying.

Quote:AxiomOfChoicePlease don't take this the wrong way, but it just struck me how absolutely ridiculous this statement is. $43,200/day is almost 16 million dollars per year.

Are you really claiming that you can get annual returns in the 400% range? If so, I would be interested in investing with you as soon as I close the deal on this bridge I am buying.

Ridiculous is a good word for it, actually. So is inconceivable. Both of those are what Wall Street thought for at least 6 months after the deal, but the numbers don't lie:

Daily Active Users: 1,716,000

Average Revenue Per Daily Active User: $0.42

Daily Revenue: $720K

Quarterly Revenue: $64.8M

Source: p. 26 of IGT's 10-Q dated 12/31/2013.

And yes, I'm claiming I can improve on what I did for DDC, but I wouldn't even need to in order to hit $16M/year. A hypothetical new social site with 200K DAU and $0.20 ARPDAU results in $40K/day revenues, and I can spin that up with a few million dollars.

Edit vis-a-vis team baccarat play, if you give me the same 20 guys with $200k bankroll each, and they can code, we're already halfway there.

Quote:MathExtremistAnd yes, I'm claiming I can improve on what I did for DDC, but I wouldn't even need to in order to hit $16M/year. A hypothetical new social site with 200K DAU and $0.20 ARPDAU results in $40K/day revenues, and I can spin that up with a few million dollars.

So, why aren't you doing it?

Quote:endermikeRevenue or profit. I would assume that company has some overhead, some employees to pay, and some debt to service. Not to mention the possibility of investing in a company which fails. However these problems plague both endeavors.

This discussion has gotten kind of stupid.

Right now that claim is that anyone who can make money as an AP should instead invest with MathExtremist for a guaranteed 400% return in a year. All we need is an infomercial and we will be good to go.

At least, OT.Quote:AxiomOfChoiceThis discussion has gotten kind of stupid.

I am currently running a perfect play model of the baccarat Tie bet with various cut card placements, tie pays 9-to-1. I will give the DI along with various stats that help place the Tie bet in the context of other baccarat side bets that allow large wagers.

James Grosjean stated "I am quite confident in saying that I have written the last (competent) word on counting the Tie bet in baccarat." Perhaps by "last" he means chronologically, in which case, I intend to supersede his work.

Of course, by "last" he really means that no one will come to a more researched final conclusion about the vulnerability of Tie bet to advantage play than him. I do not expect to contradict him.

There is almost no 9-to-1 available for the Tie bet. I will post the 8-to-1 results in a follow-up post.

Quote:AxiomOfChoiceThis discussion has gotten kind of stupid.

Right now that claim is that anyone who can make money as an AP should instead invest with MathExtremist for a guaranteed 400% return in a year. All we need is an infomercial and we will be good to go.

Um, I made no such claim. But it seems clear that if you have a bunch of money lying around, your best investment is decidedly not going to be hiring a team of card counters and trying to AP the baccarat tie bet.

Quote:MathExtremistUm, I made no such claim. But it seems clear that if you have a bunch of money lying around, your best investment is decidedly not going to be hiring a team of card counters and trying to AP the baccarat tie bet.

You said that given a few million dollars, you could bring in returns of "far, far more than" $16 million per year.

It follows that this is the investment that anyone should make, since nothing else will come close, because the claim is absolutely preposterous and anyone who has even heard of the efficient market hypothesis in passing will understand that anything that is capable of those types of returns also has a massive amount of risk.

Quote:teliotHere is my new article about computer-perfect play against the baccarat Tie bet.

Good article. The 8-1 version definitely seems to be unplayable.

I wouldn't be so quick to write off 9-1 though. The DI argument really assumes a solo player; it falls apart with team play and shared bankroll (since that effectively multiplies the DI). How common is 9-1, though? Is it something that tends to be offered in smaller casinos (with smaller max bets, making it worth a lot less) or is it available for high stakes anywhere?

I have seen it in Online Internet casinos, but have never personally seen it in a B&M casino.Quote:AxiomOfChoiceHow common is 9-1, though?

Quote:AxiomOfChoiceYou said that given a few million dollars, you could bring in returns of "far, far more than" $16 million per year.

It follows that this is the investment that anyone should make, since nothing else will come close, because the claim is absolutely preposterous and anyone who has even heard of the efficient market hypothesis in passing will understand that anything that is capable of those types of returns also has a massive amount of risk.

That's fine, you don't have to believe the numbers. They're public though so it's not like I'm making anything up; you can check the quarterly numbers yourself. IGT thought it was preposterous too, and then they looked at revenues and subsequently bought it for $500,000,000. Yes, that's the right number of zeroes.

I'm not suggesting there's no risk, but neither should you be suggesting that "card counting the baccarat tie bet" is somehow a safe (or better) investment.

Quote:MathExtremistThat's fine, you don't have to believe the numbers. They're public though so it's not like I'm making anything up; you can check the quarterly numbers yourself. IGT thought it was preposterous too, and then they looked at revenues and subsequently bought it for $500,000,000. Yes, that's the right number of zeroes.

I'm not suggesting there's no risk, but neither should you be suggesting that "card counting the baccarat tie bet" is somehow a safe (or better) investment.

Ok, look, I don't want to get into an argument over this, buy you and I both know that there is a difference between doing something once and doing it every time. I got an 1160-1 payout on a royal flush at video poker once (progressive). That does not mean that I can do it on every dealt hand.

I do not mean to make light of your previous accomplishments, but I think that you would agree that there are several factors, many of which are outside your control, which all have to work out in order to succeed, which explains exactly why the potential reward is so high compared to the amount risked.

Back to baccarat; the risk is well-defined. With a small enough max bet compared to your bankroll, it's certainly lower-risk. I actually feel that if you could find enough games that paid 9-1 and had high enough limits, and could get a team together, this would be worth doing.

Quote:AxiomOfChoiceOk, I see what you did now. It seems like it should be a reasonable approximation (although, perhaps not?)

I really have an issue with your statement:Quote:The next step is to see if there is a practical (legal) way to get a piece of that $9.40 per shoe profit. To do this, I developed a card counting system to use against the tie bet.

And you then go on to develop a linear, single-parameter counting system. The implication is that the only practical and legal way to approach this is with a linear, single-parameter counting system (secondary complaint: you don't even prove that your count is the optimal linear single-parameter counting system)

People use mutli-parameter systems in blackjack, and you can't use a paper and pen there. In baccarat, I'd argue that (for someone who is good with mental arithmetic) it would be feasible to use a multi-parameter quadratic (or even cubic, or possibly even a higher power) counting system. Given a pen and paper (and therefore an exact count of the cards of each rank left in the deck) it would not be hard to check whether (for example) v^3 + 2w^2 + (x+y)*z > 121, where the variables represent parameters of your counting system. Perhaps this is not a worthwhile approach for everyone, but there are certainly many people who could pull it off. The parameters are all integers (and, when you get deep in the deck, relatively small integers, at that) so they are easy to work with.

One key point that GBV was making is that this game is extremely non-linear, so, of course, if you try to do a best-fit with a linear system, you are going to get bad results.

Does someone want to explain what a cubic count is?

Quote:SonuvabishDoes someone want to explain what a cubic count is?

A count where some parameters get cubed before comparing to the index number.

x + y - z > 3 is linear.

x^2 + y - z > 3 is quadratic

x^3 - 2y^2 + 4 < 12 is cubic

etc, etc. Because baccarat uses at most 6 cards to complete a hand, perfect play would require no more than an order-6 polynomial (I think?)

Quote:AxiomOfChoiceBecause baccarat uses at most 6 cards to complete a hand, perfect play would require no more than an order-6 polynomial (I think?)

I think I see the 6th order poly you would have to use, but it would have ridiculously complicated coefficients that depend on the deck composition. Why are we even talking about polynomial counting systems?