Banker payout
Thread Rating:
Quote: PushfordealerRecently I came across the game of Baccarat where payout is 19:20 for Banker bets. How much I will win if I place, say, €10 on this bet?
You will win 9.50
Quote: DRichYou will win 9.50
Plus your original bet is returned.
IF you win. Which has a probability of 0.458597Quote: billryanPlus your original bet is returned.
Or if you push.Quote: OnceDearIF you win. Which has a probability of 0.458597
Quote: ChumpChangeIf you parlay your bets, never choose Banker, the vig is too high despite winning more often. Choose Player.
Welcome back. We needed the misinformation in your post.
Quote: SOOPOOWelcome back. We needed the misinformation in your post.
And see how the new crop of mods handle!
this!
Quote: DeMangoAnd see how the new crop of mods handle!
this!
I'm not in the mood to migrate the post to betting systems.
How do you calculate it?Quote: DRichYou will win 9.50
Also I have a question regarding Blackjack payout, but I don’t want to make dozens of topics, so decided to ask here
If Blackjack table has a payout of 6:5 does it really mean that Blackjack will pay me even money if the bet will be lower than 5?
For example, if I wager $1 and receive a Blackjack – I will get only $1 back, right?
If you're playing a BJ machine that doesn't round and pays to the penny, you'll get paid $1.20 on a $1 bet, otherwise it'd be even money. At a $2 table, I'd guess they still pay 3:2 so they can pay you $3. I've always bet even numbers of dollars on BJ machines that paid 3:2 so I'd get paid correctly.
Quote: ChumpChangeI think they got sick of me betting $6 to win $9 on a blackjack. Will a 6:5 BJ pay $7 for a $6 bet now? A large portion of my winnings come from BJ's, Double Downs, & Splits. Cutting the BJ pay makes a winning session into a losing session. Casinos are just too cheap to shell out a $2.50 chip instead of a dollar chip.
If you're playing a BJ machine that doesn't round and pays to the penny, you'll get paid $1.20 on a $1 bet, otherwise it'd be even money. At a $2 table, I'd guess they still pay 3:2 so they can pay you $3. I've always bet even numbers of dollars on BJ machines that paid 3:2 so I'd get paid correctly.
Always assume breakage (rounding the change) goes to the house.
On 6:5, common practice is to take the portion of the wager divisible by 5, pay 6:5 on it, and pay even money on the remainder - so yes, $7 paid on a $6 6:5 blackjack.
Assume
ChumpChange: Thank you for keeping on topic, even though your advice is as bad as it could be.Quote: ChumpChangeIf you parlay your bets, never choose Banker, the vig is too high despite winning more often. Choose Player.
The house edge is 1.06% on the Banker Bet, 1.24% on the Player bet.
To advise the bettor to bet on player is to advise the bettor to try to lose more money. Generally bad advice.
You can completely avoid paying the vig at Baccarat while choosing banker: Just be sure to lose.
Please explain 'won't hobble' ChumpChange.Quote: ChumpChangeIf you want to run a progression on Banker, you'll get paid 1:1 pre-vig so it won't hobble your betting streak.
Quote: PushfordealerRecently I came across the game of Baccarat where payout is 19:20 for Banker bets. How much I will win if I place, say, €10 on this bet?
Quote: PushfordealerHow do you calculate it?
Are you really asking how 19:20 works?
For every $20 you stake: If you win they give you (stake * 19/20) plus your stake back. But as others have said, they ruthlessly round down the payouts depending on min denomination chips, and on how they choose to handle the rounding on any tally they keep. OR they pay you 1:1 but you settle up the vig later from a tally they keep.
Yes. and that sucks big time.Quote:Also I have a question regarding Blackjack payout, but I don’t want to make dozens of topics, so decided to ask here
If Blackjack table has a payout of 6:5 does it really mean that Blackjack will pay me even money if the bet will be lower than 5?
For example, if I wager $1 and receive a Blackjack – I will get only $1 back, right?
Simply put. Do not play 6:5 Blackjack. I can't speak for vegas, but in the UK, they don't short change on that, since they use a 50p chip for payout only and when you have two of them they trade you for a £1 chip.
Quote: AlanMendelsonWhen the old Sahara had $1 blackjack didnt they have half dollars to pay a blackjack? I vaguely remember this. From 20+ years ago.
Coins? In a casino today? Only at the cashier's cage? I'm sure BJ tables had 50 cent pieces back in the day, I expect some still do. Baccarat tables still have coins.
Quote: ChumpChangeyou owe a $17.50 vig ($2.50 + $5 + $10) on your $350 win
...
Quote: ChumpChangeyou'd bet $50, then $95 (rounded down to nearest $5), then $180, and you'd have a $325 win (instead of a $350 win) because the vig "hobbled" you while you were doing a betting streak.
In the first case, you have a $332.50 win, not a $350 win.
In the second case, the hobble is not from the commission, but from the $5 betting increments conflicting with your short bankroll.
Commission free baccarat variants do exist, but some of the winning banker hand values doesn't get paid. You still pay the house, but as a lump sum, unpredictably.
No. I still don't get it. When you settle the vig has no bearing on the return. If you have yet to settle at the end of the session, you are parlaying with some borrowed funds.Quote: ChumpChangeIf you parlay $50 twice you bet $50, $100, $200 for a total of $350. If you win the 1st bet, you owe a $2.50 vig, if you win a 2nd time, you owe a $7.50 ($2.50 + $5) vig, if you win a 3rd time, you owe a $17.50 vig ($2.50 + $5 + $10) on your $350 win. But if you win only once or twice, you owe the vig anyway even though you walk away empty handed from the 3 bet series. If you were betting online and had the vig taken out on each win as you played and you want to parlay on the win because you have a $0 balance last bet situation, you'd bet $50, then $95 (rounded down to nearest $5), then $180, and you'd have a $325 win (instead of a $350 win) because the vig "hobbled" you while you were doing a betting streak.
As I understand it, Parlay means to rewager the total return on a winning wager. Not rewager more than the total return, happily ignoring that you are carrying a debt.
In your first scenario, the first return is ( $100 plus a debt of $2.50) = $97.50. You should therefore only be re-wagering $97.50. If you choose to ignore the fact you have an outstanding debt of $2.50 and proceed to wager $100, then that's your lookout. Same when you wager $200 while still carrying a debt of $7.50. You should only be wagering $192.50.
With the outstanding debt, at every winning wager, you are effectively topping up your wager above and beyond what you initially put into the betting circle.
In your second example... Which is a proper parlay...
If you won bets 1 and 2 but lost bet 3, you would pick up $0.00 but have no outstanding debt. You would have wagered a total of $50.00 Had you won that third bet, you pick up £351 and have no outstanding debt
Am I wrong? Please continue to explain this hobble.
Well when you feel ready to tell us about your losing system, player side or banker side, there's a subforum waiting for it.Quote: ChumpChangeIf I was playing Player I wouldn't have to worry about the vig "hobbling" my betting streak or racking up debts owed. Besides, there's a betting system I was working on while I was gone that wound up with me owing more in vig than I won after less than 20 tries. On the Player side, I would have been up around 3X my original bet. This strategy depends on winning 2 in a row before losing 9 times.
There's a guy on youtube for every situation. The videos that don't present success are the ones that don't get posted.Quote: ChumpChangeThe guy on YouTube won big. I lost like the computer game always makes me lose.
The game doesn't make you lose. The house edge that so many dismiss is what makes you lose.
That said, house edge is pretty tiny for baccarat, so session winners should be abundant in anything like the short term.
If you honestly believe the free demo game being rigged is the reason you lose, then I earnestly suggest you go get rich in a real casino.
what does that mean.... If you win, how could they not last?Quote: ChumpChangeMy $1,000 buy-ins wouldn't last 20 shoes, win or lose.
Pah!Quote: DeMangoA long time ago, your countrymen found out the uselessness of dealing with a tyrant. When will you find out the uselessness of arguing with a troll?
No trolls here..... Well not yet. I'm just trying to figure out what Chumpchange is getting at, for the benefit of the wider audience.
He seems to assert that the free play game here stymies him such that he can't prove his winning system with it..
Quote: OnceDearIF you win. Which has a probability of 0.458597
yes, but that includes consideration of ties
without considering ties the Banks wins - I believe - about 51% of the time
if you're not betting ties a tie is really a meaningless event and it doesn't seem to me to be useful to consider it in the winning %
of course, betting Bank you still face a house edge of a little over 1%
I believe betting Bank you will face the lowest edge of any bet in any house game except for the free odds bet in craps and not including bets made by a blackjack AP or a person playing perfect Basic Strategy in a blackjack games with good rules
.
Quote: ChumpChangeIf you win 20 Banker hands, that pays the same as winning 19 Player hands. All that could happen nearly twice a shoe if there's an absolute dearth of ties and the game plays evenly otherwise.
The math tells us to expect about 1 more banker win than player win per 75 hands.
Rule 10/12 caution.
True enough.Quote: ChumpChangeIf you win 20 Banker hands, that pays the same as winning 19 Player hands. All that could happen nearly twice a shoe if there's an absolute dearth of ties and the game plays evenly otherwise.
Also trueQuote: DieterThe math tells us to expect about 1 more banker win than player win per 75 hands.
Quote: ChumpChangeSomebody wanna tell me how 20 + 19 = 75?
Nobody is making that assertion!
Chumpchange plucked 19 and 20 out of one post and put them alongside 75 from another post quite arbitrarily.
Probability of Banker=0.458653 : 0.506836977806 if you ignore ties
Probability of Player=0.446279 : 0.493163022194 if you ignore ties
ratio Pb/Pp = 0.458653/0.446279=1.02772704967 = 1 + 1/36
So in 75 hands you expect ...
75 x 0.458653 = 34.4 Banker
75 x 0.446279 = 33.5 Player
I.e approx 1 extra banker than player in 75 hands
Quote: OnceDear
So in 75 hands you expect ...
75 x 0.458653 = 34.4 Banker
75 x 0.446279 = 33.5 Player
I.e approx 1 extra banker than player in 75 hands
... and because the banker hand is slightly more likely to win, the banker wager is slightly more likely to get paid... so the casinos - businesses that exist to make money - set the payoff at 19:20 (instead of 20:20, aka 1 to 1 or "Even Money"), so they can make about a penny for each dollar wagered.
1/75 is only slightly more than 1%
Quote: AlanMendelsonSince I played Baccarat only once in a free tournament and know nothing about it... why is there a 5% commission on the Banker win when it is expected that the Banker will have only one more winner than the Player in 75 hands?
1/75 is only slightly more than 1%
Because the casino wants to make money.
Quote: AlanMendelsonSince I played Baccarat only once in a free tournament and know nothing about it... why is there a 5% commission on the Banker win when it is expected that the Banker will have only one more winner than the Player in 75 hands?
1/75 is only slightly more than 1%
It's maths and expedience. You can't just compare 5% to 1/75 and say 'Woah, too much;
The 5% commission is just enough to give them a 1.06% advantage on the Banker Bet. There's already a 1.24% edge on the Player bet.
If it were much less than 5% there would be a player advantage (someone work out the breakeven?)
If it were 6% , 7%, 8% or 9% it would be a PITA to calculate. and if it were 10% it would be unattractive to the player.
Quote: ChumpChangeIf you parlay $50 twice you bet $50, $100, $200 for a total of $350. If you win the 1st bet, you owe a $2.50 vig, if you win a 2nd time, you owe a $7.50 ($2.50 + $5) vig, if you win a 3rd time, you owe a $17.50 vig ($2.50 + $5 + $10) on your $350 win. But if you win only once or twice, you owe the vig anyway even though you walk away empty handed from the 3 bet series. If you were betting online and had the vig taken out on each win as you played and you want to parlay on the win because you have a $0 balance last bet situation, you'd bet $50, then $95 (rounded down to nearest $5), then $180, and you'd have a $325 win (instead of a $350 win) because the vig "hobbled" you while you were doing a betting streak.
How much would you win if you bet PLAYER 3 times during a 3 BANKER streak?
Quote: AlanMendelsonSince I played Baccarat only once in a free tournament and know nothing about it... why is there a 5% commission on the Banker win when it is expected that the Banker will have only one more winner than the Player in 75 hands?
1/75 is only slightly more than 1%
Per WOO the probabilities are:
Banker: 0.458597
Player: 0.446247
Tie: 0.095156
So over 75 hands you would expect:
Banker: 34.4
Player: 33.5
Tie: 7.1
So just less than one more banker than player. So why the 5% tax? Seems weird at first that it would make it still a better bet than player. But here’s one way to look at the math:
Bet player for the whole shoe and you win 33.5 hands, lose 34.4 hands and push 7.1 hands for a net loss of: 33.5 - 34.4 = -0.9
Bet banker for the whole shoe and you win 95 cents on 34.4 hands (there’s the commission), lose 34.4 hands and push 7.1 hands for a net loss of: 34.4*0.95 - 33.5 = -0.82
So you still do 8 cents better on banker!
Same shoe but I bet Player: I win 40 x $25 = $1,000 and lose 40 x $25 = $1,000 for a net of $0, break even.
*****
If I win 40 Banker bets and lose 39 Player bets in one shoe, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $1,000 x 95% = $950, and I have 39 Player losses of -$975, so my net is -$25, or -1 bet in that shoe.
Same shoe but I bet Player: I win 39 x $25 = $975 and lose 40 x $25 = $1,000 for a net of -$25, or -1 bet in that shoe.
*****
If I win 40 Banker bets and lose 38 Player bets in one shoe, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $1,000 x 95% = $950, and I have 38 Player losses of -$950, so my net is $0, break even.
Same shoe but I bet Player: I win 38 x $25 = $950 and lose 40 x $25 = $1,000 for a net of -$50, or -2 bets in that shoe.
**********
This has nothing to do with the ratios implied in the previous posts re:
Per WOO the probabilities are:
Banker: 0.458597
Player: 0.446247
Tie: 0.095156
So over 75 hands you would expect:
Banker: 34.4
Player: 33.5
Tie: 7.1
An awful lot of 'ifs' in that. Some simple enough math questions which you answered yourself.Quote: ChumpChangeSo if I win 40 Banker bets and lose 40 Player bets in one shoe, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $1,000 x 95% = $950, and I have 40 Player losses of -$1,000, so my net is -$50, or -2 bets in that shoe.
Same shoe but I bet Player: I win 40 x $25 = $1,000 and lose 40 x $25 = $1,000 for a net of $0, break even.
*****
If I win 40 Banker bets and lose 39 Player bets in one shoe, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $1,000 x 95% = $950, and I have 39 Player losses of -$975, so my net is -$25, or -1 bet in that shoe.
Same shoe but I bet Player: I win 39 x $25 = $975 and lose 40 x $25 = $1,000 for a net of -$25, or -1 bet in that shoe.
*****
If I win 40 Banker bets and lose 38 Player bets in one shoe, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $1,000 x 95% = $950, and I have 38 Player losses of -$950, so my net is $0, break even.
Same shoe but I bet Player: I win 38 x $25 = $950 and lose 40 x $25 = $1,000 for a net of -$50, or -2 bets in that shoe.
Like with so many of your posts, I cannot see what you are getting at. What point are you trying to make ???
So if I win 800 Banker bets and lose 800 Player bets in 20 shoes, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $20,000 x 95% = $19,000, and I have 800 Player losses of -$20,000, so my net is -$1,000, or -40 bets in that session.
Same 20 shoes but I bet Player: I win 800 x $25 = $20,000 and lose 800 x $25 = $20,000 for a net of $0, break even.
*****
If I win 800 Banker bets and lose 780 Player bets in 20 shoes, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $20,000 x 95% = $19,000, and I have 780 Player losses of -$19,500, so my net is -$500, or -20 bets in that session.
Same 20 shoes but I bet Player: I win 780 x $25 = $19,500 and lose 800 x $25 = $20,000 for a net of -$500, or -20 bets in that session.
*****
If I win 800 Banker bets and lose 760 Player bets in 20 shoes, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $20,000 x 95% = $19,000, and I have 760 Player losses of -$19,000, so my net is $0, break even.
Same 20 shoes but I bet Player: I win 760 x $25 = $19,000 and lose 800 x $25 = $20,000 for a net of -$1,000 or -40 bets in that session.
Quote: ChumpChangePlaying 20 shoes plus extra cards to exclude the ties, with no bias from the WOO calculations. 20 shoes x 80 hands = 1600 hands. Working with my $1,000 buy-in.
So if I win 800 Banker bets and lose 800 Player bets in 20 shoes, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $20,000 x 95% = $19,000, and I have 800 Player losses of -$20,000, so my net is -$1,000, or -40 bets in that session.
Same 20 shoes but I bet Player: I win 800 x $25 = $20,000 and lose 800 x $25 = $20,000 for a net of $0, break even.
*****
If I win 800 Banker bets and lose 780 Player bets in 20 shoes, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $20,000 x 95% = $19,000, and I have 780 Player losses of -$19,500, so my net is -$500, or -20 bets in that session.
Same 20 shoes but I bet Player: I win 780 x $25 = $19,500 and lose 800 x $25 = $20,000 for a net of -$500, or -20 bets in that session.
*****
If I win 800 Banker bets and lose 760 Player bets in 20 shoes, my table minimum bet is $25, my total winning bets are $20,000 x 95% = $19,000, and I have 760 Player losses of -$19,000, so my net is $0, break even.
Same 20 shoes but I bet Player: I win 760 x $25 = $19,000 and lose 800 x $25 = $20,000 for a net of -$1,000 or -40 bets in that session.
Are you intent on calculating and posting every conceivable combination of wins or losses in some arbitrary bunch of hands?!
Get to the point, before someone deems you to be hijacking or trolling
What point were you making (rhetorical now). All I see is a ramble through some scenarios.Quote: ChumpChangeI got to the point.
Still. Don't bother trying to clarify for my benefit.
a - you won't succeed.
b - I've lost interest.
Quote: MDawgThe Bank at Baccarat actually has a slight advantage, correct? When factoring out the tie the Bank will (should) win about 51% of the time.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/blackjack/36255-losing/#post816664
What happened here?
EDIT: He did post the link to UnJon's comment, thus giving him credit.
I'm still confused on what side of the mathematical fence ChumpChange sits on this issue.
Quote: mwalz9I'm super confused. ...
I'm still confused on what side of the mathematical fence ChumpChange sits on this issue.
You and me both. I could neither see a question or a conclusion in his posts.
I'm glad it ended up in his blog and never mind if he missed out on attribution.
