Unfortunately, I don't know much about bacarrat and won't be able to help you much. If you know a bit of math, you should be able to figure this out on your own. At least, you can figure out the "true odds" on your own. Figure out the percentage chance that a banker will draw a 3rd card. Whenever the banker draws a third card, you'll have a 3/13 chance of winning. NOTE: I'm not taking into account the Effect of Removal. (Every time you take a card out, it changes the chance of getting any other card, because there will be a slight increase or decrease in those cards and other cards.....especially if a J/Q/K is necessary or is NOT necessary to be in a player/banker set.)

If you're paid 8:1 on the side bet, the dealer has an X chance of drawing a third card, and drawing a J, Q, or K will happen 3/13 of the time.....

X * 3 / 13 = 100% [ie: 100% return]

X = 1.00 * 13 / 3

X = 1.30 / 3

X = 43.33%

If the banker draws a third card 43.33% of the time, the game will be break even. If the banker draws a third card more often (greater than 43.33%), the game has a PLAYER edge. If the banker draws a third card less often (less than 43.33%), the game has a HOUSE edge [this is most likely the case].

PS:

I'm not super great at math or the whole card logic stuff, so perhaps my way of figuring this out isn't accurate.

Quote:JBA quick estimate reveals a 34% house advantage.

I'm getting 9.67% I think you are not counting hands where Player doesn't draw a 3rd card.

Hand | Pays | Combinations | Return |
---|---|---|---|

Banker 3rd card Face | 8 | 88204532672448 | 0.802891097 |

Lose | -1 | 790664674223232 | -0.899638613 |

Total | 878869206895680 | -0.096747516 |

Quote:mipletI'm getting 9.67% I think you are not counting hands where Player doesn't draw a 3rd card.

No, I did. However, I see that I used an 8-deck shoe instead of a 6-deck shoe, although after recalculating, the 6-deck result is almost identical to the 8-deck result.

My estimate involved tallying the combinations where the banker's third card is a 0-pointer and then multiplying by 3/4 to eliminate the 10s.

The total for any 0-point third banker card is 85,855,253,882,112; multiplied by 3/4 that is 64,391,440,411,584.

So my revised result is:

Outcome | Combinations | Probability | Return |
---|---|---|---|

Banker face as 3rd card | 64,391,440,411,584 | 0.073266 | 0.586130 |

All other | 814,477,766,484,096 | 0.926734 | -0.926734 |

Totals | 878,869,206,895,680 | 1.000000 | -0.340604 |

I submit that you might have counted 10s as face cards.

Quote:JBNo, I did. However, I see that I used an 8-deck shoe instead of a 6-deck shoe, although after recalculating, the 6-deck result is almost identical to the 8-deck result.

My estimate involved tallying the combinations where the banker's third card is a 0-pointer and then multiplying by 3/4 to eliminate the 10s.

The total for any 0-point third banker card is 85,855,253,882,112; multiplied by 3/4 that is 64,391,440,411,584.

So my revised result is:

Outcome Combinations Probability Return Banker face as 3rd card 64,391,440,411,584 0.073266 0.586130 All other 814,477,766,484,096 0.926734 -0.926734 Totals 878,869,206,895,680 1.000000 -0.340604

I submit that you might have counted 10s as face cards.

I'm getting 117,606,043,563,264 combinations where the banker's third card is a 0-pointer. I checked both in my Excel file and bac program. Maybe I'm having a serious brain fart. :+)

Quote:mipletMaybe I'm having a serious brain fart. :+)

Nope, the mistake was on my end. In my code where I was adding the combinations for a third banker card when the player stood, it wasn't using the correct weight factor.

I now get the same 117,606,043,563,264 count as you, and a 9.6747516% house edge.

Quote:JBNope, the mistake was on my end. In my code where I was adding the combinations for a third banker card when the player stood, it wasn't using the correct weight factor.

I now get the same 117,606,043,563,264 count as you, and a 9.6747516% house edge.

9.6% is pretty stiff. Can the counting player overcome the edge?

Quote:Ayecarumba9.6% is pretty stiff. Can the counting player overcome the edge?

Card Removed | Player EV | Difference |
---|---|---|

Normal | -0.096747516 | 0 |

1 | -0.094626093 | 0.002121423 |

2 | -0.095039316 | 0.0017082 |

3 | -0.094904526 | 0.001842991 |

4 | -0.094451669 | 0.002295847 |

5 | -0.094098138 | 0.002649378 |

6 | -0.093948603 | 0.002798913 |

7 | -0.093672118 | 0.003075398 |

8 | -0.090166174 | 0.006581342 |

9 | -0.090594521 | 0.006152995 |

10 | -0.094623129 | 0.002124387 |

Face | -0.107197808 | -0.010450292 |

Editable spreadsheet. Green are ace to 9. Yellow are all faces and 10's and red are just the 10's.

http://miplet.net/bacpic.xlsb

Quote:SuperpalThanks for the computations on the House edge ! The following revisions to the original data are noted ... 8 decks , but approx. only 7 1/2 decks are played to an 80 hand maximum / the first 10 cards are shown and burned , but no cards are removed. The card count , of course , necessitates counting only the 'Pictures' and the total number of cards gone by - a slow and easy process , since a paper tally is allowed. Would you please evaluate the following strategy ? ... After establishing a favourable 'Picture' / Total card ratio , the individual ALWAYS simultaneously bets BOTH the Player and the 'Picture' ( which the Banker may or may not draw ) as a form of insurance betting. Admittedly this is a flawed strategy , since the Banker may win without a third card , or a third card that is not a 'Picture' ... however since the Player's chances are slightly less than 50 % , the occasional 'Picture' win might now at least level the odds , ... ALL THE WHILE WAITING for a 'Picture' rich lower shoe to really start hammering the 'Picture' Side Bet ! Crazy , crazy like a fox ... or just plain boring !? Your call ... ?

Hi Superpal,

I need this info to develop the counting system :-

1) 8 deck with penetration 7.5/8 ?

2) burn 10 cards from the beginning of the shoe ?

3) what is the minimum and maximum betting limits ?

Please check your private mail box.

Regards

James

Card Removed | Player Edge(%) |
---|---|

None | -9.628813 |

Ace | -9.470000 |

2 | -9.500579 |

3 | -9.490243 |

4 | -9.455583 |

5 | -9.430203 |

6 | -9.419014 |

7 | -9.397949 |

8 | -9.135586 |

9 | -9.167011 |

10 | -9.469834 |

Face | -10.412857 |

a) What do you mean by : " First , 8 decks / only 1 cut is made !" Player allow to use an indicator card to cut the shoe after shuffling ?

b) Second, say the top card is a "5", then dealer will reveal and burn next 4 cards.

c) Third, say the dealer will burn(NOT REVEAL) another 6 cards. So total burn cards is now 11 (5 + 6) cards. All these 11 cards will put into a discard tray ? What's the purpose to put indicator card on top of those 11 burn card ?

d) I thought the indicator card already inside the shoe box ??

e) What is the maximum and minimum number of cards above the indicator card just before the first test deal ? 409 cards and 393 cards respectively ?

f) Casino closed for holiday ? How many baccarat tables are there with this side bet ? Many players at those baccarat tables ?

Please explain further.

James

1) Can player ONLY bet on PICTURE sidebet(Without betting on BANKER/PLAYER/TIE) ?

2) Can I assumed the dealer reveal the burn cards(at stage 1) 50% of the time and Pit Boss NEVER reveal the burn cards(at stage 2) ?

3) What is the casino name ? Please send to my private mail box, I have something for you.

James