Baccarat Side Bet Counting
Quote: acesideI’m amateur mathematician. So, very sensitive to numbers.
Lol
Quote: acesideI’m an amateur mathematician, very sensitive to numbers. Ssho88 posted a bet spread of $5-440 earlier, but in the above table it’s actually $24-$458. However, I just calculated this row TC=4 and found bet size = 2.077%/40.8202*50000=$25.44, so it still does not match the table value of $24. I’m also learning about these Kelly and RoR financial terms.
link to original post
You can choose to bet $25.44 for TC=4. Will this really make a big difference to your total profit/shoe ?
What are the normal blackjack bet spread ? up to three decimal places?
Quote: acesideI’m an amateur mathematician, very sensitive to numbers. Ssho88 posted a bet spread of $5-440 earlier, but in the above table it’s actually $24-$458. However, I just calculated this row TC=4 and found bet size = 2.077%/40.8202*50000=$25.44, so it still does not match the table value of $24. I’m also learning about these Kelly and RoR financial terms.
link to original post
Gambling analysis is 'applied mathematics' not 'pure mathematics.' To understanding gambling, it helps to know elementary economics and to have played hundreds (or thousands) of hands of blackjack. If you had ever played one hand of blackjack in a casino, you would understand that it is not possible to place a bet of $25.44 because you are playing with chips in denominations of $1, $5 and $25 not pennies and dimes. Indeed, no player even counts out chips and bets $458 -they round it off to an approximate number because they don't want to call attention to themselves.
To discuss gambling analysis with experts in this forum, it helps to read on-line articles about topics like Kelly criterion, Risk of Ruin, etc. and to NOT use a brash tone and assert that others don't know what they are talking about just because you yourself are early in the learning process.
Personally, when I chat with giants in the field like mental and ssho88 and Wizard, I try to put as much work into my questions as they are putting into their answers. And to be respectful in my wording.
Quote: ssho88Quote: acesideI’m an amateur mathematician, very sensitive to numbers. Ssho88 posted a bet spread of $5-440 earlier, but in the above table it’s actually $24-$458. However, I just calculated this row TC=4 and found bet size = 2.077%/40.8202*50000=$25.44, so it still does not match the table value of $24. I’m also learning about these Kelly and RoR financial terms.
link to original post
You can choose to bet $25.44 for TC=4. Will this really make a big difference to your total profit/shoe ?
What are the normal blackjack bet spread ? up to three decimal places?
link to original post
I recently read a little more into Kelly criterion on wiki. Here is my understanding. There are two key components in Kelly:
1. Player wager is placed only on positive edge situations;
2. Wager size is proportional to the current/instant bankroll.
In the above table, you set a fixed bankroll of $50,000 and thus a fixed wager spread for this side bet. This seems against the criteria of Kelly. Could you please explain?
Quote: acesideQuote: ssho88Quote: acesideI’m an amateur mathematician, very sensitive to numbers. Ssho88 posted a bet spread of $5-440 earlier, but in the above table it’s actually $24-$458. However, I just calculated this row TC=4 and found bet size = 2.077%/40.8202*50000=$25.44, so it still does not match the table value of $24. I’m also learning about these Kelly and RoR financial terms.
link to original post
You can choose to bet $25.44 for TC=4. Will this really make a big difference to your total profit/shoe ?
What are the normal blackjack bet spread ? up to three decimal places?
link to original post
I recently read a little more into Kelly criterion on wiki. Here is my understanding. There are two key components in Kelly:
1. Player wager is placed only on positive edge situations;
2. Wager size is proportional to the current/instant bankroll.
In the above table, you set a fixed bankroll of $50,000 and thus a fixed wager spread for this side bet. This seems against the criteria of Kelly. Could you please explain?
link to original post
In actual play, we adjust betting amounts based on current/real-time bankroll. For players who can replenish their bankroll, there's no need to worry about these things.
Quote: acesideAlso, I recently tested a blackjack simulator, bjtheorem. They can simulate card counting with a real-time varying bankroll, so the bet amount is a percentage of the current available bankroll. They call it expected utility theory. So, here is my question. Do you think Kelly is better, or expected utility is better?
link to original post
If a player continues to lose money as the True Count (TC) increases and reduces their betting amount due to decreased bankroll, you might ask: Why reduce betting amount when the True Count is high? How should I answer this question? Therefore we should use a fixed bankroll in simulation in order to demonstrate the relationship between optimal betting amount and True Count.
For your info, my program is designed and always simulate card counting with a real-time varying bankroll.
Quote: acesideI feel people are using Kelly to do their own math.
link to original post
They should ask Harris instead of Kelly
Quote: ssho88Quote: acesideQuote: ssho88Quote: acesideI’m an amateur mathematician, very sensitive to numbers. Ssho88 posted a bet spread of $5-440 earlier, but in the above table it’s actually $24-$458. However, I just calculated this row TC=4 and found bet size = 2.077%/40.8202*50000=$25.44, so it still does not match the table value of $24. I’m also learning about these Kelly and RoR financial terms.
link to original post
You can choose to bet $25.44 for TC=4. Will this really make a big difference to your total profit/shoe ?
What are the normal blackjack bet spread ? up to three decimal places?
link to original post
I recently read a little more into Kelly criterion on wiki. Here is my understanding. There are two key components in Kelly:
1. Player wager is placed only on positive edge situations;
2. Wager size is proportional to the current/instant bankroll.
In the above table, you set a fixed bankroll of $50,000 and thus a fixed wager spread for this side bet. This seems against the criteria of Kelly. Could you please explain?
link to original post
In actual play, we adjust betting amounts based on current/real-time bankroll. For players who can replenish their bankroll, there's no need to worry about these things.
link to original post
I’ve re-read Kelly Criterion on wiki but still have a problem with the calculation of bet size. For a binary-return game, like this Dragon 7 side bet here, the Kelly fraction is
f = edge / odds.
Here the winning payout odds is fixed at 40, but the edge increases with TC.
For example, in your above table, at TC=32, EV=62.445%; therefore
f = 62.445%/40.
However, your Kelly fraction is defined as:
F = edge / variance,
While at TC=32, your variance=64.6482. This means that there is a large discrepancy between your Kelly fraction and the theoretical Kelly fraction. Is this correct? Thank you for your patience!
Quote: acesideQuote: ssho88Quote: acesideQuote: ssho88Quote: acesideI’m an amateur mathematician, very sensitive to numbers. Ssho88 posted a bet spread of $5-440 earlier, but in the above table it’s actually $24-$458. However, I just calculated this row TC=4 and found bet size = 2.077%/40.8202*50000=$25.44, so it still does not match the table value of $24. I’m also learning about these Kelly and RoR financial terms.
link to original post
You can choose to bet $25.44 for TC=4. Will this really make a big difference to your total profit/shoe ?
What are the normal blackjack bet spread ? up to three decimal places?
link to original post
I recently read a little more into Kelly criterion on wiki. Here is my understanding. There are two key components in Kelly:
1. Player wager is placed only on positive edge situations;
2. Wager size is proportional to the current/instant bankroll.
In the above table, you set a fixed bankroll of $50,000 and thus a fixed wager spread for this side bet. This seems against the criteria of Kelly. Could you please explain?
link to original post
In actual play, we adjust betting amounts based on current/real-time bankroll. For players who can replenish their bankroll, there's no need to worry about these things.
link to original post
I’ve re-read Kelly Criterion on wiki but still have a problem with the calculation of bet size. For a binary-return game, like this Dragon 7 side bet here, the Kelly fraction is
f = edge / odds.
Here the winning payout odds is fixed at 40, but the edge increases with TC.
For example, in your above table, at TC=32, EV=62.445%; therefore
f = 62.445%/40.
However, your Kelly fraction is defined as:
F = edge / variance,
While at TC=32, your variance=64.6482. This means that there is a large discrepancy between your Kelly fraction and the theoretical Kelly fraction. Is this correct? Thank you for your patience!
link to original post
This was covered earlier in the thread.
The exact Kelly fraction is to divide your edge by the ratio of a winning wager to a losing wager.
A common and usually mostly accurate approximation is edge/variance. Because many ap's are blackjack card counters, and the exact ratio of a winning wager to a losing wager is difficult to calculate at blackjack due to dd's splits etc, they often use this method.
However in a game like dragon 7 with a fixed payout the former method is superior. Ssho's use of edge/var is good enough for most practical purposes however.
Quote: acesideBear in mind, we cannot use Wikipedia as a reliable reference. The first definition of Kelly fraction is from wiki, so whether it is superior than the other is still questionable. In the second definition, Kelly fraction is inversely proportional to variance is questionable too. I trust ssho88.
link to original post
It is not up for debate. You can run the numbers and observe the results yourself.
Quote: 7upWe can't use full Kelly and expect its ideal result—where the bankroll is never broken—because it requires unlimited this and unlimited that. Instead, we should take the concept, make a betting plan that is close to real casino conditions, and test it with a simulator.
link to original post
No. That isn't how Kelly works.
There is no way to make any approach fly with the dragon 7, using flat betting, kelly or anything. However you do it you get a lousy return on investment. It just is not a good opportunity.
1. Dragon 7 side bet of Baccarat;
2. Insurance side bet of Blackjack.
The only difference between these two games is on the winning payout. Dragon 7 payout is 40, but Insurance 2. We compare these two in these two respects: EV and variance every 2000 hands. What are these numbers?
Quote: GrahamThorpQuote: 7upWe can't use full Kelly and expect its ideal result—where the bankroll is never broken—because it requires unlimited this and unlimited that. Instead, we should take the concept, make a betting plan that is close to real casino conditions, and test it with a simulator.
link to original post
No. That isn't how Kelly works.
There is no way to make any approach fly with the dragon 7, using flat betting, kelly or anything. However you do it you get a lousy return on investment. It just is not a good opportunity.
link to original post
Some years back MIT John Chang formed a team to mainly play dragon 7 in Macau, and did quite well.
Quote: 7upQuote: GrahamThorpQuote: 7upWe can't use full Kelly and expect its ideal result—where the bankroll is never broken—because it requires unlimited this and unlimited that. Instead, we should take the concept, make a betting plan that is close to real casino conditions, and test it with a simulator.
link to original post
No. That isn't how Kelly works.
There is no way to make any approach fly with the dragon 7, using flat betting, kelly or anything. However you do it you get a lousy return on investment. It just is not a good opportunity.
link to original post
Some years back MIT John Chang formed a team to mainly play dragon 7 in Macau, and did quite well.
link to original post
You have to determine whether things are true by testing them scientifically, rather than anecdote. Anecdotes can be made up, exaggerated, distorted etc. Any one can tell a story.
We have fairly conclusively determined in this thread that ROI from dragon 7 is between 0.12 - 0.15% per shoe which is very poor. We have three different independent sources (me, ssho88, stephen how) all coming up with the same data.
If Chang did actually play the game my guess would be he focused on some form of card location, something he is familiar with. Dragon 7 is quite vulnerable to methods involving the prediction of the appearance of a specific card. The edge if you know a given card will be appear in the next hand is huge.
we fix to a game of 8 decks at a penetration of 338 cards. Eliot has investigated this. Let me list his number here:
For Dragon 7,
Average edge: 4.786%,
Bet frequency: 5.372%,
Win unit per 100 hands: 0.257.
For Blackjack Insurance,
Average edge: 6.343%,
Bet frequency: 0.729%,
Win unit per 100 hands: 0.0462.
The variance of Dragon 7 is just 20 times of insurance. In real-world situations, the edge of Dragon 7 should be higher because penetration is often deeper and there is more room to improve this number.
Quote: GrahamThorpQuote: 7upQuote: GrahamThorpQuote: 7upWe can't use full Kelly and expect its ideal result—where the bankroll is never broken—because it requires unlimited this and unlimited that. Instead, we should take the concept, make a betting plan that is close to real casino conditions, and test it with a simulator.
link to original post
No. That isn't how Kelly works.
There is no way to make any approach fly with the dragon 7, using flat betting, kelly or anything. However you do it you get a lousy return on investment. It just is not a good opportunity.
link to original post
Some years back MIT John Chang formed a team to mainly play dragon 7 in Macau, and did quite well.
link to original post
You have to determine whether things are true by testing them scientifically, rather than anecdote. Anecdotes can be made up, exaggerated, distorted etc. Any one can tell a story.
We have fairly conclusively determined in this thread that ROI from dragon 7 is between 0.12 - 0.15% per shoe which is very poor. We have three different independent sources (me, ssho88, stephen how) all coming up with the same data.
If Chang did actually play the game my guess would be he focused on some form of card location, something he is familiar with. Dragon 7 is quite vulnerable to methods involving the prediction of the appearance of a specific card. The edge if you know a given card will be appear in the next hand is huge.
link to original post
Where does the 0.12-0.15% per shoe figure come from?
Both Jacobson and ssho88 agree on a +EV of about 6% with a bet frequency of around 7%.
A $100 flat bet on 5 hands per shoe with a +6% EV yields about 1 unit every 3 shoes, which is not bad.
By pure card counting with a 24-card cut, Chang's team made $10,000 a day across 6 tables, and the game lasted for almost a year.
Quote: 7upQuote: GrahamThorpQuote: 7upQuote: GrahamThorpQuote: 7upWe can't use full Kelly and expect its ideal result—where the bankroll is never broken—because it requires unlimited this and unlimited that. Instead, we should take the concept, make a betting plan that is close to real casino conditions, and test it with a simulator.
link to original post
No. That isn't how Kelly works.
There is no way to make any approach fly with the dragon 7, using flat betting, kelly or anything. However you do it you get a lousy return on investment. It just is not a good opportunity.
link to original post
Some years back MIT John Chang formed a team to mainly play dragon 7 in Macau, and did quite well.
link to original post
You have to determine whether things are true by testing them scientifically, rather than anecdote. Anecdotes can be made up, exaggerated, distorted etc. Any one can tell a story.
We have fairly conclusively determined in this thread that ROI from dragon 7 is between 0.12 - 0.15% per shoe which is very poor. We have three different independent sources (me, ssho88, stephen how) all coming up with the same data.
If Chang did actually play the game my guess would be he focused on some form of card location, something he is familiar with. Dragon 7 is quite vulnerable to methods involving the prediction of the appearance of a specific card. The edge if you know a given card will be appear in the next hand is huge.
link to original post
Where does the 0.12-0.15% per shoe figure come from?
Both Jacobson and ssho88 agree on a +EV of about 6% with a bet frequency of around 7%.
A $100 flat bet on 5 hands per shoe with a +6% EV yields about 1 unit every 3 shoes, which is not bad.
By pure card counting with a 24-card cut, Chang's team made $10,000 a day across 6 tables, and the game lasted for almost a year.
link to original post
As has patiently been explained multiple times in the thread already to bet $100 on this side betyou need a bankroll of $50,000. Or you run a very high risk of ruin.
I can't know whether some guy on the internet telling a Johnny Chang story story is telling the truth or not. I can run sims and work out the story doesn't make sense.
No serious professional gambler thinks purely in terms of expected value.
[I make $10+ dragon bets when the count is good, so I’ll win back at least $5.30/shoe of that on average.]
[Use my simple dragon tracking sheet that simulates at an $53 profit/shoe (betting $100 dragons 6.4% of the time)]
Jacobson, 888casino.com :
Cut card depth: 24, Average Edge: +7.042%, Bet Frequency: 8.447%
ssho88, June 6th, 2026 at 2:38:56 AM :
2) Counting method : Better TC system, bet when TC > 11
Betting Frequency = 9.3 hands/shoe
Bet size : 1 kelly (bet size range from $5 to $410, average betsize = $75)
Profit/shoe = $96++
ROR = 13.5%
Win rate : $64/hour
I think they all pretty much agree on the figures.
And based on the data above, I would say this side bet is both countable and profitable.
Quote: 7upStephen How, discountgambling.net:
[I make $10+ dragon bets when the count is good, so I’ll win back at least $5.30/shoe of that on average.]
[Use my simple dragon tracking sheet that simulates at an $53 profit/shoe (betting $100 dragons 6.4% of the time)]
Jacobson, 888casino.com :
Cut card depth: 24, Average Edge: +7.042%, Bet Frequency: 8.447%
ssho88, June 6th, 2026 at 2:38:56 AM :
2) Counting method : Better TC system, bet when TC > 11
Betting Frequency = 9.3 hands/shoe
Bet size : 1 kelly (bet size range from $5 to $410, average betsize = $75)
Profit/shoe = $96++
ROR = 13.5%
Win rate : $64/hour
I think they all pretty much agree on the figures.
And based on the data above, I would say this side bet is both countable and profitable.
link to original post
Which part of "you need a $50,000 bankroll" are you not getting here?
With a decent blackjack game you would be making $250 an hour on a $50,000 bankroll, FOUR TIMES AS PROFITABLE.
If another game is better than a decent blackjack game, does that mean blackjack is no longer countable or profitable?
Besides, some parts of the world simply do not offer countable shoe-game blackjack.
Go ask John Chang why he wanted to form a team to play Dragon 7 instead of choosing blackjack.
Quote: 7upYou are comparing apples to oranges.
If another game is better than a decent blackjack game, does that mean blackjack is no longer countable or profitable?
You could make more money doing almost anything else with $50000. There has to be some reason for doing this.
Whether someone wants to invest their bankroll, time, and energy into playing Dragon 7 is entirely their own choice, and they have their own reasons for doing so.
Whether Dragon 7 is a countable and profitable game as a matter of mathematical fact.
You don't like Dragon 7, that's your choice.
JC formed a team and flew halfway across the globe just to play it, that was his choice.
But as for whether Dragon 7 is countable and profitable, we can clearly see the answer from the calculations and simulations.
Please, enlighten me on how I can use my $50k bankroll to generate a better return.
Quote: 7upIn fact, I am currently playing a game much worse than Dragon 7.
Please, enlighten me on how I can use my $50k bankroll to generate a better return.
link to original post
You can find an awful blackjack game somewhere and win twice as much. /
The nearest blackjack shoe can only be found on another continent.
Quote: 7upI'm currently in Macau, and it's all CSMs here. What should I do?
The nearest blackjack shoe can only be found on another continent.
link to original post
I'm pretty certain there are still hand-dealt shoes in high limit games in Macau. Which technically you sound like you can afford to play given you are willing to risk 50k+ betting a 40-1 proposition.
Aren't there other baccarat side-bets you can hit?
But, yeah,If you want to grind a tiny profit on this I guess yeah go ahead. Hope you win.
Quote: GrahamThorp
Which part of "you need a $50,000 bankroll" are you not getting here?
With a decent blackjack game you would be making $250 an hour on a $50,000 bankroll, FOUR TIMES AS PROFITABLE.
link to original post
I’ve indicated several times above. People frequently use Kelly bankroll are mostly Wikipedia authors who do not understand it. They over stretched this terminology to do their own math.
I haven't heard of a single shoe game here in the last 10 years.
Yes, I am planning to exploit a baccarat side bet with a hit frequency of about once every 10 shoes. With a million-dollar bankroll, this is well worth pursuing. If anyone here has the capital and is interested, let me know. No joke.
Quote: 7upThe last time I heard of hand-dealt shoe games in the High Limit area was 15 years ago. Back then, the table minimum was US$1,000, it required the highest membership tier just to enter the room, and you needed a minimum first buy-in of US$250k to start.
I haven't heard of a single shoe game here in the last 10 years.
Yes, I am planning to exploit a baccarat side bet with a hit frequency of about once every 10 shoes. With a million-dollar bankroll, this is well worth pursuing. If anyone here has the capital and is interested, let me know. No joke.
link to original post
The games I am thinking of do not have "membership tiers". Essentially private games negotiated through high-roller privilege.
A professional gambler at the million dollar level is not interested in the "hit frequency" of a bet. We want to know what the SCORE or other risk-return metric is. Without that information we cannot assess the return on investment. A bet can have a high hit frequency and a high expected value and be utterly worthless to an advantage player if the variance is too high. Conversely a wager with a low payout frequency and low EV could still be interesting if the variance was very low.
If you try to sell your play you need to understand this or you will probably just alienate the potential purchaser: which would be unfortunate because it sounds like you actually have something good.
I'd add utility at the million dollar level is rather different from what you might imagine. For example the tie wager can be exploitable at that level which is not generally reckoned to be the case due to the high absolute maximums and high absolute returns. Most high-rollers can negotiate an off the top edge with rebates.
Quote: GrahamThorpQuote: 7upThe last time I heard of hand-dealt shoe games in the High Limit area was 15 years ago. Back then, the table minimum was US$1,000, it required the highest membership tier just to enter the room, and you needed a minimum first buy-in of US$250k to start.
I haven't heard of a single shoe game here in the last 10 years.
Yes, I am planning to exploit a baccarat side bet with a hit frequency of about once every 10 shoes. With a million-dollar bankroll, this is well worth pursuing. If anyone here has the capital and is interested, let me know. No joke.
link to original post
The games I am thinking of do not have "membership tiers". Essentially private games negotiated through high-roller privilege.
A professional gambler at the million dollar level is not interested in the "hit frequency" of a bet. We want to know what the SCORE or other risk-return metric is. Without that information we cannot assess the return on investment. A bet can have a high hit frequency and a high expected value and be utterly worthless to an advantage player if the variance is too high. Conversely a wager with a low payout frequency and low EV could still be interesting if the variance was very low.
If you try to sell your play you need to understand this or you will probably just alienate the potential purchaser: which would be unfortunate because it sounds like you actually have something good.
I'd add utility at the million dollar level is rather different from what you might imagine. For example the tie wager can be exploitable at that level which is not generally reckoned to be the case due to the high absolute maximums and high absolute returns. Most high-rollers can negotiate an off the top edge with rebates.
link to original post
Private games... interesting! That's news to me. How do you define a 'private game'?
Of course, the casino can arrange a designated table in a VIP room or special gaming area for specific players. However, all gaming rules must strictly comply with Macao law and remain under the constant supervision of the regulatory authorities, specifically the DICJ (Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau). For example, a dealer is not permitted to sit in the player's chair.
That is why I am curious about your use of the term private games. True private games do not legally exist in Macau, there are only reserved tables or reserved VIP salons.
[A professional gambler at the million dollar level is not interested in the "hit frequency" of a bet. We want to know what the SCORE or other risk-return metric is.]
Why do most game analysts prefer to use "bet frequency"?
Speaking of my selling track record: Last time I called for a joint bankroll back in 2020, we raised a HK$15 million bankroll and netted HK$23 million in profit within two months.
Quote: 7upQuote: GrahamThorpQuote: 7upThe last time I heard of hand-dealt shoe games in the High Limit area was 15 years ago. Back then, the table minimum was US$1,000, it required the highest membership tier just to enter the room, and you needed a minimum first buy-in of US$250k to start.
I haven't heard of a single shoe game here in the last 10 years.
Yes, I am planning to exploit a baccarat side bet with a hit frequency of about once every 10 shoes. With a million-dollar bankroll, this is well worth pursuing. If anyone here has the capital and is interested, let me know. No joke.
link to original post
The games I am thinking of do not have "membership tiers". Essentially private games negotiated through high-roller privilege.
A professional gambler at the million dollar level is not interested in the "hit frequency" of a bet. We want to know what the SCORE or other risk-return metric is. Without that information we cannot assess the return on investment. A bet can have a high hit frequency and a high expected value and be utterly worthless to an advantage player if the variance is too high. Conversely a wager with a low payout frequency and low EV could still be interesting if the variance was very low.
If you try to sell your play you need to understand this or you will probably just alienate the potential purchaser: which would be unfortunate because it sounds like you actually have something good.
I'd add utility at the million dollar level is rather different from what you might imagine. For example the tie wager can be exploitable at that level which is not generally reckoned to be the case due to the high absolute maximums and high absolute returns. Most high-rollers can negotiate an off the top edge with rebates.
link to original post
Private games... interesting! That's news to me. How do you define a 'private game'?
Of course, the casino can arrange a designated table in a VIP room or special gaming area for specific players. However, all gaming rules must strictly comply with Macao law and remain under the constant supervision of the regulatory authorities, specifically the DICJ (Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau). For example, a dealer is not permitted to sit in the player's chair.
That is why I am curious about your use of the term private games. True private games do not legally exist in Macau, there are only reserved tables or reserved VIP salons.
[A professional gambler at the million dollar level is not interested in the "hit frequency" of a bet. We want to know what the SCORE or other risk-return metric is.]
Why do most game analysts prefer to use "bet frequency"?
Speaking of my selling track record: Last time I called for a joint bankroll back in 2020, we raised a HK$15 million bankroll and netted HK$23 million in profit within two months.
link to original post
The legal issues aren't really pertinent here. They will set up a game that can only be accessed by you and your friends. I'm sure its technical legal definition is "reserved vip salon" or something but it is a private room in actuality.
Macau law does prohibit things like offering a 2/1 payout on blackjack but it still allows substantial freedom to offer tailor-made procedures, including hand-shuffled blackjack games, there's no specific statute preventing that.
You would need to raise a little more than hk23million in order to get the casino to cater to your every whim probably. In practice if you can negotiate this type of game something as obvious as a hand-shuffled blackjack game is likely not the best approach. Something like Ivey's sorts set-up, done with more subtlety, would probably work well. There's literally a thousand ways to exploit minor procedures profitably.
[substantial freedom to offer tailor-made procedures] — the freedom is actually very narrow. Macau operates under a civil law system, where gaming regulations are strictly codified and far more rigid. As I mentioned earlier, a dealer is not even permitted to sit in a player's chair. It is explicitly written into the text of the law.
If a casino wants to set up a roulette table in a 'private' VIP room, they must formally apply to the DICJ and wait for official approval before installing it. It is a system where casinos can only do what the law explicitly permits.
Quote: 7upMacau law explicitly provides the option to choose between hand-shuffled blackjack games and CSM games.
Yes, that is what I was saying.
You can argue whether Macau's regulation is strict or not, but there's certainly enough there to work with from an ap perspective.
The simplest option is just to hustle rebates.
Quote: harrisThere is no need to argue about Kelly and SCORE endlessly for weeks and I do not think this current conversation is productive. The reality is that some baccarat side bets are countable to the point of being highly profitable, and many people in this thread have first-hand evidence of this.
You haven't provided any substantive evidence to support that at all.
So far we have established that the Dragon 7 and Panda 8 are 400% less profitable than a mediocre blackjack game under the best conditions. That is not "highly profitable".
You wrote in the first post in this thread:
"From my research, it seems like some side bets out there are extremely vulnerable to card counting. " If that were the case then you'd just present the evidence rather than trying to intimidate others into dropping discussion of the subject.
There isn't really surveillance software to catch baccarat card counters nor are most surveillance people actively looking for that (as opposed to blackjack card counting). Additionally you can write on a baccarat card while playing makes it easy. Finally, baccarat card counting does not have basic strategy deviations to learn unlike blackjack.
I have not done baccarat card counting nor do I have enough free time to do a super-advanced simulation right now but I think the testimonies from Wizard and others about the existence of highly profitable baccarat card counters make it so I am relieved the burden of providing evidence that it's possible.
I do not want to name every single bet I think is countable on a public forum, but for example I think some such as the "2-Card 9/7" are pretty obviously countable. I know of another one which I won't mention that is even easier to count (a certain card has to reach a certain percentage of the deck to reach profitability, which seems to happen by the end of the shoe at least a quarter of the time).
Quote: GrahamThorp
The simplest option is just to hustle rebates.
What kind of rebates are you referring to?
I do know some of them.
So...you first.
Quote: GrahamThorpQuote: harrisThere is no need to argue about Kelly and SCORE endlessly for weeks and I do not think this current conversation is productive. The reality is that some baccarat side bets are countable to the point of being highly profitable, and many people in this thread have first-hand evidence of this.
You haven't provided any substantive evidence to support that at all.
So far we have established that the Dragon 7 and Panda 8 are 400% less profitable than a mediocre blackjack game under the best conditions. That is not "highly profitable".
link to original post
Here are some highly profitable, countable baccarat side bets I know:
Super Tie on a cruise ship: The casino got absolutely crushed for HK$8 million.
Natural 8 / Natural 9 in Singapore: Hit by several teams for a combined total of several million HKD.
Baccarat Insurance in Macau: Netted HK$10 million in just one week.
Dragon 7: Taken down by the JC team for several million HKD.
Any Pair: Attacked by multiple teams, yielding over HK$10 million.
Catch a Rank: Easily a million-plus HKD.
We consider a game of 8 decks with a cut card behind 338 cards. Let me list Eliot’s numbers here:
For Easy 6,
Average edge: 3.166%,
Bet frequency: 15.57%,
Win unit per 100 hands: 0.493.
The variance is a lot smaller here too.
Quote: 7upQuote: GrahamThorpQuote: harrisThere is no need to argue about Kelly and SCORE endlessly for weeks and I do not think this current conversation is productive. The reality is that some baccarat side bets are countable to the point of being highly profitable, and many people in this thread have first-hand evidence of this.
You haven't provided any substantive evidence to support that at all.
So far we have established that the Dragon 7 and Panda 8 are 400% less profitable than a mediocre blackjack game under the best conditions. That is not "highly profitable".
link to original post
Here are some highly profitable, countable baccarat side bets I know:
Super Tie on a cruise ship: The casino got absolutely crushed for HK$8 million.
Natural 8 / Natural 9 in Singapore: Hit by several teams for a combined total of several million HKD.
Baccarat Insurance in Macau: Netted HK$10 million in just one week.
Dragon 7: Taken down by the JC team for several million HKD.
Any Pair: Attacked by multiple teams, yielding over HK$10 million.
Catch a Rank: Easily a million-plus HKD.
link to original post
Let's make this clear: I was asking Harris to substantiate HIS argument. I want to know whether HE can justify HIS own words. He was asking for the help of powerful, influential people for assistance. If I or anybody else were to do that then we need a reasonable idea he knows what he is doing.
I don't need proof personally. I know which side-bets can be beaten and under what conditions. A minority have impressive SCORE's under ideal, if rare, conditions. I have run the numbers.
Now what concerns me in this thread with your comments is the methodology you are using.
First, anecdotal evidence is NOT permissible as substantive evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence. At best it is useful for hypothesis forming eg deciding what bets to spend time investigating. It is very unscientific.
When you say something like "Johnny Chang beat this game", then there are several possibilities. You may be making it up. You may have got the details wrong. You may have the details right but the wrong information may have been relayed to you. Chang might not have been counting and lied about it to misdirect the casino. He might have been counting, but may have got lucky and later considered the game poor value on further analysis (he made similar statements about blackjack ace location and shuffle-tracking). There are about a hundred plausible explanations The probability of any these being true is small individually but large in aggregate (0.97 x0.95....) Note that I don't have to find you untrustworthy or lacking in competence to believe the thing you stated never happened (in fact I don't, you seem honest and competent) I just have to crunch the numbers on the possible explanations. The same goes for the Wizard with this casino manager story. The compound error is just way too high to take that on trust.
And... we have THREE different studies showing the game isn't worth anything. Your own objection that you have no other games to play is a valid reason to accept a low SCORE for you but not for Chang who is known for his US play.
Quote: acesideI just read another online article by Eliot about card counting Easy 6 side bet and found something more countable. Actually, MDawg has posted this earlier.
We consider a game of 8 decks with a cut card behind 338 cards. Let me list Eliot’s numbers here:
For Easy 6,
Average edge: 3.166%,
Bet frequency: 15.57%,
Win unit per 100 hands: 0.493.
The variance is a lot smaller here too.
link to original post
I have to throw out analysis by Jacobson.
He simply does not factor risk into the equation. His analysis is not useful for that reason
Here's the problem with a simple illustration:
Profitability — Player A vs Player B
Player has a 1% edge on an even-money payoff.
Player B has a 5% edge on a 10-1 payoff.
On a $10,000 bankroll, with correctly-sized Kelly stakes:
Player A (1% edge, even-money): bets $100/wager → average profit $1 per bet
Player B (5% edge, 100:1 long-shot): bets $5/wager → average profit $0.25 per bet
Put simply: the lower variance means the player with the smaller edge makes more money overall for the same risk of ruin.
In the specific case of the easy six it is actually a good bet but about half of Jacobson's published analysis come to the wrong conclusions: he almost always overstates the value of high-variance wagers to a counter.
