## Poll

 Golden 8 No votes (0%) Fortune 7 No votes (0%) Heavenly 9 1 vote (11.11%) Blazing 7s No votes (0%) All of them 1 vote (11.11%) None of them 2 votes (22.22%) Blazing 7s should have an apostrophe 1 vote (11.11%) I'm thinking of taking up tap dancing. No votes (0%) Wizard Live Stream reminder 3:00 on Thursdays 2 votes (22.22%) Grumpy Cat -- RIP 6 votes (66.66%)

9 members have voted

Ayecarumba
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
• Posts: 6763
May 28th, 2019 at 12:19:57 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Quote: Ayecarumba

I think this is the point of confusion. The Blazing 7 pays more (50-1) for, what appears to be more possible winning states (Banker OR Player with 3 card total of 7; win not required) than the Fortune 7 that only pays 40-1 for a specific state (Banker 3 card win with total 7).

I just put the ANDs and ORs in the return tables in all caps, to hopefully make it more clear.

My suggestion is to clarify this condition in the Blazing 7's Return Table:

"Player OR Banker both have a 3-card total of 7"

Should it read, "Player OR Banker both have a 3-card total of 7"?

But what I'm not understanding is how what appears to be a rarer event, a Banker 3 card win with a total of 7 (the Fortune 7), pays less than what appears to be a more common event, Banker or Player with a 3 card total of 7 (no win required). Maybe a more detailed explanation would clear this up.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
DogHand
Joined: Sep 24, 2011
• Posts: 514
May 28th, 2019 at 12:35:52 PM permalink
Wiz,

Ok, I fired up my Baccarat CA Excel Workbook and ran the numbers for the Fortune 7 and Blazing 7s sidebets:

Fortune 7
ResultPaysProbReturn
Banker Winning 3-Card 7400.02253382086037950.901352834
Lose-10.9774661791396210-0.977466179
-0.076113345
Blazing 7s
ResultPaysProbReturn
BOTH Player AND Banker have a 3-card total of 72000.00231194312430100.462388625
EITHER Player OR Banker has a 3-card total of 7500.06998035013867263.499017507
Lose-10.9277077067370260-0.927707707
3.033698425

By the way, you were victimized once again by the 15-digit limitation in Excel: note that when you sum your "Combinations", you don't get the precise "Total": the last digit is off.

We are in agreement on the Fortune 7 sidebet.

In particular, I found these probabilities related to the Blazing 7s:

Player has 3-card 7 0.0387636398899887
Banker has 3-card 7 0.0335286533729849

Notice I changed the wording on the B7 table (to "BOTH Player AND Banker have a 3-card total of 7" and "EITHER Player OR Banker has a 3-card total of 7") to reflect my understanding of the payouts.

Clearly, I have misinterpreted the payouts for the Blazing 7s sidebet… or the company marketing it has erred tremendously. What did I do wrong?

Dog Hand
UCivan
Joined: Sep 3, 2011
• Posts: 840
May 28th, 2019 at 2:21:18 PM permalink
Wiz,

Do U know who the distributor/inventor for this side bet is? Do you have a picture of the layout?
FCBLComish
Joined: Apr 11, 2010
• Posts: 549
May 28th, 2019 at 5:10:38 PM permalink
If I am not mistaken, this game came out of the UNLV gaming lab. I remember seeing it at the last Cutting Edge.
Beware, I work for the dark side.... We have cookies
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 24233
May 28th, 2019 at 5:37:53 PM permalink
Quote: DogHand

Wiz,

Ok, I fired up my Baccarat CA Excel Workbook and ran the numbers for the Fortune 7 and Blazing 7s sidebets:

Clearly, I have misinterpreted the payouts for the Blazing 7s sidebet… or the company marketing it has erred tremendously. What did I do wrong?

Dog Hand

I just don't agree with your probabilities for the Blazing 7's. There is no easy way to prove yours are wrong or mine are right, as it is a matter of cycling through millions of combinations.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
DogHand
Joined: Sep 24, 2011
• Posts: 514
May 28th, 2019 at 6:46:03 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

I just don't agree with your probabilities for the Blazing 7's. There is no easy way to prove yours are wrong or mine are right, as it is a matter of cycling through millions of combinations.

Wizard,

I see you have changed the wording on the B7 return table: I think the new wording is much clearer.

Let me try one more time to clarify my question about your numbers. On the F7 table, you list the probability that the Banker has a winning 3-card 7 as 0.022534: I agree with this value.

However, on the B7 table, you list the probability that the Banker or the Player has a 3-card 7 as only 0.008971.

How can the probability that "the Banker or the Player has a 3-card 7" be less than the probability that "the Banker has a winning 3-card 7"?

Dog Hand

P.S. Maybe some of our other posters can chime in this as well.
charliepatrick
Joined: Jun 17, 2011
• Posts: 2577
May 28th, 2019 at 7:24:00 PM permalink
Quote: DogHand

...
In particular, I found these probabilities related to the Blazing 7s:

Player has 3-card 7 0.0387636398899887
Banker has 3-card 7 0.0335286533729849

I have the long numbers somewhere but knocked up an infinite deck analysis. These figures are very close to those above.

I got 14385/371293 (0.038743) for the chances of the Player getting a 3-card 7.

As to the Dealer, I get 161805 of 371293 hands the dealer will take a 3rd card. Since the chances of a getting the correct card to get to a total of 7 are 1/13 then the probability the Dealer gets a 3-card 7 = 161805/371293/13 = 0.033522.

I get the times the dealer is drawing a 3rd card when the player has a 3C7 is 11169 of 371293, thus P(both 3C7) = 11169/371293/13 = 0.002314.

Similarly (by spreadsheet) the times either party get a 3C7 is 337641/4826809 = 0.069951.

Thus I get if the top payout is 200/1, a possible low payout could be 5/1 (or 6/1). Personaly I prefer 100/1 and 10/1 which gives a reasonable House Edge and is easy to remember.

When I first read the wizard page I saw that the chances of either party getting a 3C7 was likely to be larger than one particular party winning with a 3C7; so also tend to agree with the above interpretation.
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 24233
May 28th, 2019 at 8:03:23 PM permalink
Quote: DogHand

Wizard,

I see you have changed the wording on the B7 return table: I think the new wording is much clearer.

Let me try one more time to clarify my question about your numbers. On the F7 table, you list the probability that the Banker has a winning 3-card 7 as 0.022534: I agree with this value.

However, on the B7 table, you list the probability that the Banker or the Player has a 3-card 7 as only 0.008971.

How can the probability that "the Banker or the Player has a 3-card 7" be less than the probability that "the Banker has a winning 3-card 7"?

Dog Hand

You're absolutely right. My math was right, but I was lazy in the write-up of the page, my least favorite part of the job. It should have said that the big win is if both the player have 3-card totals of 7, and the small win is if they both have a 2-card total of seven. Thank you for the correction.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
DogHand
Joined: Sep 24, 2011
• Posts: 514
May 28th, 2019 at 8:34:54 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

You're absolutely right. My math was right, but I was lazy in the write-up of the page, my least favorite part of the job. It should have said that the big win is if both the player have 3-card totals of 7, and the small win is if they both have a 2-card total of seven. Thank you for the correction.

Wizard,

Ok, I get the same values as you have on the B7 sidebet.

Let me make two small recommendations for your webpage.

First, you wrote: "Blazing 7s — Wins if the Player or Banker both have a three-card total of 7 composed of the same number of cards. Pays 200 to 1 if both hands are composed of three cards and 50 to 1 if both hands are composed of two cards." I would suggest deleting the phrase "three-card" from the first sentence.

Second, check the Combination numbers: they don't quite add up, probably due to Excel giving only 15 significant figures on integers. For example, on the Fortune 7 table, the Combinations for winning (112,633,011,329,024) and losing (4,885,765,264,174,340) don't add up to the total of 4,998,398,275,503,360. The problem is that the losing Combinations should be 4,885,765,264,174,336, with 16 significant figures.

Hope this helps!

Dog Hand
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
• Posts: 24233
May 29th, 2019 at 10:01:01 PM permalink
Quote: DogHand

First, you wrote: "Blazing 7s — Wins if the Player or Banker both have a three-card total of 7 composed of the same number of cards. Pays 200 to 1 if both hands are composed of three cards and 50 to 1 if both hands are composed of two cards." I would suggest deleting the phrase "three-card" from the first sentence.

You're absolutely right, just did.

Quote:

Second, check the Combination numbers: they don't quite add up, probably due to Excel giving only 15 significant figures on integers. For example, on the Fortune 7 table, the Combinations for winning (112,633,011,329,024) and losing (4,885,765,264,174,340) don't add up to the total of 4,998,398,275,503,360. The problem is that the losing Combinations should be 4,885,765,264,174,336, with 16 significant figures.

I updated that losing combinations number, but you can find this problem all over the site in hundreds of games. Not much I can do about it until Excel can support more significant digits.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.