Chip rolling and its effect
Let me start by asking a simple question before we get into the nitty gritty.
Do you think an individual or a team can beat a baccarat game by exploiting their rolling chip policy?
Let's say the casino gives back 1.6% commission on all rolling chips bought at the cage for the entire trip.
If they follow specific betting patterns (we can get into this later) and the casino is willing to raise their maximums so a higher spread is possible, do you think there is any way to beat the game of baccarat?
Thanks
Quote: FleaStiffWhat is a rolling chip? What is a rolling chip policy?
Sorry, I thought perhaps you guys would know.
Here is the rundown.
Player "non negotiable chips" from the cage and takes it to a baccarat game. The player makes bets. If he wins, he gets paid with live money. If he loses, the chips get taken as per normal.
When he runs out of non negs, he takes his live chips and goes to the cage to buy more non negs. At the end of his session, the casino comps him an amount on all the non negs he has purchased at the cage. Usually between 1.1 and 1.8%.
The players get the commission in place of any all all other comps.
Hope this makes sense?
Rolling chips amount to a cash rebate on theoretical win, therefore can't be beat unless the rebate exceeds the theoretical per dead chip. A 1.6% rebate is very large, usually reserved for the highest of high rollers. I've seen 1.6% once, never 1.8%.Quote: TomspurI have been presented with an interesting theory.
Let me start by asking a simple question before we get into the nitty gritty.
Do you think an individual or a team can beat a baccarat game by exploiting their rolling chip policy?
Let's say the casino gives back 1.6% commission on all rolling chips bought at the cage for the entire trip.
If they follow specific betting patterns (we can get into this later) and the casino is willing to raise their maximums so a higher spread is possible, do you think there is any way to beat the game of baccarat?
Thanks
Here are some stats for a 1.6% rebate:
Banker:
H/A per bet after rebate = 0.344%
N_0 (dead chips) = 32448
N_0 (actual hands)= 72714
Player:
H/A per bet after rebate = 0.501%.
N_0 (dead chips) = 16508
N_0 (actual hands) = 35997
N_0 is the number of hands to have roughly an 84% chance of being ahead of the player.
In other words, the "Long Run" is really long with this level of rebate, so you should have no expectation of beating any given player in a reasonable period of play.
Non cashable chips ... I guess you have to be a high roller to qualify.
Quote: teliotRolling chips amount to a cash rebate on theoretical win
I don't think that that's correct (at least not if a rolling chip is as Tomspur described it)
What he described is a rebate on all losing bets (with the condition that you never leave directly after a win), so frequency of winning bets is important.
Eg, consider a game of singe-zero roulette, where you can use these rolling chips.
Say player 1 bets red all the time, and player 2 bets on 13 all the time. Both flat-bet the same amount B. Both get fraction R of their non-neg chips rebated to them.
Player 1 will win 18 times and lose 19 times out of every 37. His rebate is 19 * R * B for every 37 spins.
Player 2 will win 1 bet and lose 36 bets out of every 37. His rebate is 36 * R * B for every 37 spins.
Both have the same theoretical (losing 1 bet per 37 spins). But Player 2's rebate is almost double player 1's.
The key here is that you bet through the same non-neg chips after you win, but you only get the rebate on purchases. (ie, if you win 5 times and lose once, you only get rebated on one bet even though you made 6 bets)
Am I missing something here? Am I misunderstanding the definition of a rolling chip?
Quote: Tomspur
Hope this makes sense?
not at all.
completely lost
I don't know, but that doesn't matter. Each rolling chip has an expected number of uses before it is lost. All calculations of t-Win are based on that. I have never heard of rolling chips on roulette.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceAm I missing something here? Am I misunderstanding the definition of a rolling chip?
I have tried to find an analysis of rolling chips for baccarat online, but have not been able to find anything (oops, Mike's stuff, see below -- I think I knew that). I did it from scratch a few months back and the numbers given above are the results of those calculations.
Again, just to stress the point, rolling chip programs are for baccarat.
Quote: teliotI don't know, but that doesn't matter. Each rolling chip has an expected number of uses before it is lost. All calculations of t-Win are based on that. I have not heard of rolling chips on roulette, for baccarat their value is well known. Hence Tomspur's question.
But my point is that it is not a straight rebate on expected loss (expected win from your point of view)
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant in the part that I quoted. I took it to mean that it was just a refund on house edge -- ie, a 1% rebate cuts the house edge by 1%. That would be true if the rebate was on action (which I've also heard of), but it's on chip sales, not action.
No, you are not refunding based on the house edge. No, not at all. You are refunding based on the number of rolling chips lost at the table. But each chip lost generates a t-win that can be clearly accounted, allowing the rebate on chips lost to be expressed in terms of reduced house edge for individual wagers.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceBut my point is that it is not a straight rebate on expected loss (expected win from your point of view)
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant in the part that I quoted. I took it to mean that it was just a refund on house edge -- ie, a 1% rebate cuts the house edge by 1%. That would be true if the rebate was on action (which I've also heard of), but it's on chip sales, not action.
Quote: teliotNo, you are not refunding based on the house edge.
Hey, that's my point....
You said:
Quote:Rolling chips amount to a cash rebate on theoretical win
I understand the term "theoretical win" to mean "house edge multiplied by total action". I'm saying, either you meant something else by the term "theoretical win", or you were incorrect (I assume that the former is true, although I still have no idea what you actually mean by that term)
Eliot, I agree that 1.6% is on the high side and the effect that has on the HE is quite substantial but my concern here was merely if the game could be turned to +EV if the players had a distinctive betting pattern?
I know the game is not beatable through bet manipulation but is it possible that, together with a rather generous rolling chip rebate that the game could be +EV?
Apologies if I'm repeating myself, just want to be clear on what I'm asking and what the end result could be.
As far as I can tell it isn't possible for this level, however if you move up to 1.7%, would it be possible then?
Also, do free hands play a part at all in the using of rolling chips?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceBet manipulation (I assume that you mean bet selection?) and free hands don't matter. All that matters is the average number of times each chip is bet before it is lost, and the edge on each bet -- you want to multiply these numbers together. From Eliot's spreadsheet (now removed), the numbers are pretty clear.
I must have missed the spreadsheet.....damn you sleep :)
Anyway, I think I have it figured out, for the most part. I will delve a little deeper and try figure out the HE for comparative rebate percentages around the 1.6% benchmark.
I did mean bet selection but manipulation made more sense to me in the context. Manipulating your bets up or down based on how many hands you have lost to try and minimize the effect of the HE combined with the rolling chip rebates.
Quote: WizardPlease read this page: Dead Chip Programs in Macau.
Thanks.
I found the EV of dead chips calculation especially helpful.
Do you think that the spread on a game can perhaps turn the advantage?
What I mean is, if a table starts off at $100 to $10,000 and then the players ask for the limits to be increased, let's say $2,000 to $200,000 using martingale or a version of Martingale, would it be possible to get an edge in the short term?
Quote: TomspurI have one more question.
Do you think that the spread on a game can perhaps turn the advantage?
What I mean is, if a table starts off at $100 to $10,000 and then the players ask for the limits to be increased, let's say $2,000 to $200,000 using martingale or a version of Martingale, would it be possible to get an edge in the short term?
What is an edge in the short term?
I don't think that this concept exists.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhat is an edge in the short term?
I don't think that this concept exists.
I guess what I'm trying to figure out is the following.
Using the rolling chip method of getting a rebate of say 1.6% on your play, if the casino allows you to raise the limits of the game you are playing up to a point (in my example I used $200k, which is pretty close to what it was), if you had been allowed to bet as little as $100 and now are able to bet at $200k (obviously chasing but using the rolling chip method to gain your rebate), can you in theory get an advantage over the game you are playing.
The reason I used short term is because of variance. There is no way martingale or any system that resembles martingale works but with the rebates and raised minimums, perhaps there is a chance of playing a +EV game?
This is all just theory as I'm trying to work out all I can about rolling chip programs and their effects on HE and most importantly if the game can be swung.
Quote: TomspurI guess what I'm trying to figure out is the following.
Using the rolling chip method of getting a rebate of say 1.6% on your play, if the casino allows you to raise the limits of the game you are playing up to a point (in my example I used $200k, which is pretty close to what it was), if you had been allowed to bet as little as $100 and now are able to bet at $200k (obviously chasing but using the rolling chip method to gain your rebate), can you in theory get an advantage over the game you are playing.
The reason I used short term is because of variance. There is no way martingale or any system that resembles martingale works but with the rebates and raised minimums, perhaps there is a chance of playing a +EV game?
This is all just theory as I'm trying to work out all I can about rolling chip programs and their effects on HE and most importantly if the game can be swung.
The bottom line is that, the EV of each bet made with a dead chip is proportional to the size of the bet. As always, you can add EVs together and ignore variance.
The game can only be swung is the rebate is so big that the EV becomes positive for the player. How the player bets is irrelevant.
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceThe bottom line is that, the EV of each bet made with a dead chip is proportional to the size of the bet. As always, you can add EVs together and ignore variance.
The game can only be swung is the rebate is so big that the EV becomes positive for the player. How the player bets is irrelevant.
Thanks
Quote: teddysIn his interview on Dancer's radio show, BJTraveler said he found dead chip programs/rebates where the player had the advantage.
I guess it would be possible where the rebates are too high. I think even the 1.6% that I have spoken about in my Op is too high but due to that being the figure I was given, I thought I would relay the question as is.
