Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
May 7th, 2014 at 2:00:05 AM permalink
I 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
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
May 7th, 2014 at 5:09:54 AM permalink
What is a rolling chip? What is a rolling chip policy?
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
May 7th, 2014 at 5:50:41 AM permalink
Quote: FleaStiff

What 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?
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
teliot
teliot
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 2871
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
May 7th, 2014 at 6:30:27 AM permalink
Quote: Tomspur

I 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

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%.

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.
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
  • Threads: 265
  • Posts: 14484
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
May 7th, 2014 at 6:30:30 AM permalink
Nothing involving mathematics ever makes sense to me.

Non cashable chips ... I guess you have to be a high roller to qualify.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
May 7th, 2014 at 11:18:18 AM permalink
Quote: teliot

Rolling 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?
pokerface
pokerface
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 514
Joined: May 9, 2010
May 7th, 2014 at 12:05:57 PM permalink
Quote: Tomspur



Hope this makes sense?



not at all.
completely lost
winning streaks come and go, losing streak never ends.
teliot
teliot
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 2871
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
May 7th, 2014 at 2:03:25 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Am I missing something here? Am I misunderstanding the definition of a rolling chip?

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.

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.
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1491
  • Posts: 26435
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
May 7th, 2014 at 2:05:22 PM permalink
Please read this page: Dead Chip Programs in Macau.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
May 7th, 2014 at 2:06:56 PM permalink
Quote: teliot

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 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.
teliot
teliot
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 2871
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
May 7th, 2014 at 2:08:30 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

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.
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
May 7th, 2014 at 2:12:57 PM permalink
Quote: teliot

No, 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)
teliot
teliot
  • Threads: 43
  • Posts: 2871
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
May 7th, 2014 at 2:15:53 PM permalink
AoC, I can't imagine that we disagree on this. Perhaps my language isn't as accurate as it could be trying to express my points.
Climate Casino: https://climatecasino.net/climate-casino/
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
May 7th, 2014 at 2:19:38 PM permalink
I don't think that we disagree. I just didn't understand what you meant by the term "theoretical win".
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
May 7th, 2014 at 5:44:53 PM permalink
Thanks Eliot, Axiom and Mike,

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?
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
May 7th, 2014 at 5:54:03 PM permalink
Bet 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.
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
May 7th, 2014 at 6:01:43 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Bet 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.
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
May 7th, 2014 at 7:25:51 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Please read this page: Dead Chip Programs in Macau.



Thanks.

I found the EV of dead chips calculation especially helpful.
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
May 7th, 2014 at 9:07:41 PM permalink
I 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?
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
May 7th, 2014 at 9:08:40 PM permalink
Quote: Tomspur

I 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.
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
May 7th, 2014 at 9:12:33 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

What 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.
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
May 7th, 2014 at 9:31:43 PM permalink
Quote: Tomspur

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.



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.
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
May 7th, 2014 at 9:38:49 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

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.



Thanks
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
teddys
teddys
  • Threads: 150
  • Posts: 5527
Joined: Nov 14, 2009
May 10th, 2014 at 9:46:01 AM permalink
In his interview on Dancer's radio show, BJTraveler said he found dead chip programs/rebates where the player had the advantage.
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
Tomspur
Tomspur
  • Threads: 28
  • Posts: 2019
Joined: Jul 12, 2013
May 11th, 2014 at 5:27:53 PM permalink
Quote: teddys

In 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.
“There is something about the outside of a horse that is good for the inside of a man.” - Winston Churchill
  • Jump to: