teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
• Posts: 2371
April 1st, 2014 at 1:54:00 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

maybe I am just misreading what you wrote

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.

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).
End of the world website: www.climatecasino.net
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
April 1st, 2014 at 2:29:13 PM permalink
Quote: teliot

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.

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.
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
April 1st, 2014 at 2:39:49 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

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.

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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
• Posts: 2371
April 1st, 2014 at 2:45:35 PM permalink
I am going to run and publish perfect play against 8-to-1, since there seems to be an implication that it can lead to meaningful advantage play. Beyond that, you just need to do the research yourself. It's easy enough.

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=
End of the world website: www.climatecasino.net
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
April 1st, 2014 at 2:56:41 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

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.

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.
teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
• Posts: 2371
April 1st, 2014 at 3:15:36 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

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:

"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."
End of the world website: www.climatecasino.net
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
April 1st, 2014 at 4:20:03 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

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.

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."
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
endermike
Joined: Dec 10, 2013
• Posts: 584
April 1st, 2014 at 4:50:39 PM permalink
Does anyone know of a casino offering 9 to 1 (or 10 for 1) payouts on ties which does not shuffle between every hand?
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
April 1st, 2014 at 4:51:54 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

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."

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.
teliot
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
• Posts: 2371
April 1st, 2014 at 4:55:37 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

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.

I understand that you are a mathematician and are willing to debate things on their academic merits. But, where is this casino?
End of the world website: www.climatecasino.net