Very Basic Baccarat Question

I might play some Mini-B very soon and have never played, except with the Wizard's online game. One thing puzzles me that must mean I am just an idiot, but I don't understand why, for example, if the Banker has '4' and the player has, say, '2' after the Player draws, that the Banker also draws. Clearly, the dealer must first determine that the Player does not have this or that, or the Bank does not draw. Why would the Banker then draw when the Player is already the loser???

Surely I am not just reading the chart wrong [if so, what an idiot!]

The banker's draw rules are based on what the player's third card is, not the player's final total. This is because in regular baccarat (James Bond-style), you wouldn't know the player's total, you just saw his third card (or that he drew at all). Therefore, you would almost always draw on the four because it is a losing hand, generally.

Does that help explain it?

(P.S. I've always wanted to play the old-style baccarat where you choose when to draw. The game becomes almost poker-like).

Quote: teddys

The banker's draw rules are based on what the player's third card is, not the player's final total. This is because in regular baccarat (James Bond-style), you wouldn't know the player's total, you just saw his third card (or that he drew at all). Therefore, you would almost always draw on the four because it is a losing hand, generally.

OK feel free to vote me an idiot!! [g]

but thanks!

I don't know the "why" either...I just know that there is a set of rules for drawing. I compare it to the dealer in BJ having to hit or stand on a soft 17 and draw to that point. The dealer knows your hand when their draw takes place but they have to draw per the rules.

It looks like the game would swing to a much better advantage to the banker position if they allowed decisions to be made after the player's draw was completed.

Odious,
The game was designed to give both parties a chance to win as a fairer gambling game, so the hit on a poor hand is allowed to give it a shot to improve. This is actually a very standard gambling allowance or practice.

This situation is similar to Blackjack, where you are allowed to hit your 12 against a dealer's nine, let's say, in order to try to improve your hand. The argument, "Why hit when you already have a loser" is invalid in the sense of, "you may hit your poor hand - to try to make it better."

In gambling, like baseball, it ain't over until it's over, and you will indeed get so many innings or chances to help your side.

Quote: Paigowdan

This situation is similar to Blackjack, where you are allowed to hit your 12 against a dealer's nine, let's say, in order to try to improve your hand. The argument, "Why hit when you already have a loser" is invalid in the sense of, "you may hit your poor hand - to try to make it better."

You've missed something here? I just did a few rounds with the Bodog version to confirm this, but in some cases the Banker clearly has the Player beat already but draws another card for Banker [this is less outrageous than pure insanity because the gambler cannot be assumed to be betting on Player]. Nonetheless, I just confirmed that the Player was dealt score of 5, took a third card that was a 6 and wound up with a score of one; the Banker had a score of 6 and was required to take another card even though at that point the Player was the loser. Banker clearly could have drawn a 4 to lose by scoring zero. This is so weird that I think the Wizard should mention it in his intro page on Baccarat, assuming this does not warrant a "ask the Wizard" mention [g].

The explanation that Teddys gave that the original game had the player's actual score hidden makes sense. I assume the cards are all visible in the real game now, I have not played it in a casino but just online.

If this thread keeps going I certainly have more questions. My opportunity will be at a Florida Indian Casino that has mini-baccarat but not craps!

The drawing rules for North American baccarat are derived from the original game of European chemin-du-fer. I am not sure how or when they were developed; that would be an interesting question to pose to a gambling expert. But they are based on the most common decision points in the original game.

The original game would unfold like this:
-Player would be dealt two cards.
-Banker would be dealt two cards.
-The player would look at his cards. If he had 0-5, he would draw. If he had 6-7, he would stand. (Actually, 5 was the pivot number, and some people would stand on it. This was the only really "critical" decision in the game. You can see this played out in this clip from "Casino Royale" with Peter Sellers and Orson Welles.)
-If the player chose to draw, his third card would be dealt face up.
-Whether or not the player chose to draw, the banker could draw a third card.
-The hands were revealed and the bet was resolved.

So the rule today is that the banker draws on a six if the player's third card is a six or seven. This is because the player most likely improved his hand with that draw, if we assume he was drawing on a low initial total. (1+6=7, 2+7=9, 3+6=9, etc. -- all good totals). Of course, he could also have given himself a crappy hand. (5+6=1, for example, or 4+6=0). But the odds come out that it is more advantageous for the banker to draw in that situation rather than stand -- kind of like blackjack "basic strategy." You'll win more times in the long run with that method.

Edit: I've just noticed that the Casino Royale clip doesn't show the full scene. Instead, enjoy this clip of Chris Tucker playing baccarat.

Looks like I might be shifting strategy for what to do at the Florida Seminole casino. They offer Pai Gow Poker, another game I have never played, but which I think I can learn quickly. I am too chagrined about how badly I play blackjack to really consider that, plus no doubt it actually will be a version of "21", at least in low limit. Minimums in fact will have a lot to do with which game I settle in on.

I think the right thing to do will be to switch to blogging about it.