Mistake or Bias or just luck?
June 19th, 2017 at 8:16:07 AM
permalink
I have been playing Baccarat for some time (More than I should admit :). I always keep my "scoring cards" and always enter them in a spreadsheet to track/read the numbers, percentages, trends, etc.
I track player/banker/tie (of course), but also my actual wins and losses, swaps, repeats, runs, and amounts risked, ROI, comps, and some other incidentals.
Recently I have frequented one specific Casino, and over the course of 6381 observed hands, I found the following numbers:
Banker: 2973
Player: 2840
Diff: 133
Dividing the (resolved) hands I find an unsurprising Banker at 51.1440% and Player at 48.856%.
Numbers appearing to the (somewhat untrained) eye to be close to the "norm" over the 71.17 shoes so far (this year), yet when I plug these numbers into the formula for SD's I get;
(n)6381 x (p)0.5068 x (q)0.4932 =(v)1594 with SqRt of (v) = SD of 39.94
And the difference of 133 divided by the SD (39.94) yielding a result into the 3rd standard deviation (3.330255)0.003330255
or a "1 in 300.28 times" probability of happening when playing this large a sample.
Additionally, inside of the last 6 sessions (2 x 3 shoes each average except for the last one of 25) I hit 3, 4th SD shoes. 2 Shoes in a row (Plyr/Bnkr) at 42/22, and 47/23 on 6/8/17, and 23/47 on 6/13/17 #25 for a whopping 4.286% of my shoes observed.
All the other "normal" SD's seems to have normal range percentages except the 4th
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Actuals 67.4% 27.4% 5.3% 4.286%
Normal Percentage 68.2% 27.2% 4.2% 0.02%
Have I made a mistake in my numbers? Is there a bias (and should I play Banker only at this casino)? or is this STILL too small sample size to call it anything but Luck?
(Bad luck in my case, as I don't think/feel it should be this hard to use the "law of large numbers" to find a sample size that approaches a "normal" bell curve)
I track player/banker/tie (of course), but also my actual wins and losses, swaps, repeats, runs, and amounts risked, ROI, comps, and some other incidentals.
Recently I have frequented one specific Casino, and over the course of 6381 observed hands, I found the following numbers:
Banker: 2973
Player: 2840
Diff: 133
Dividing the (resolved) hands I find an unsurprising Banker at 51.1440% and Player at 48.856%.
Numbers appearing to the (somewhat untrained) eye to be close to the "norm" over the 71.17 shoes so far (this year), yet when I plug these numbers into the formula for SD's I get;
(n)6381 x (p)0.5068 x (q)0.4932 =(v)1594 with SqRt of (v) = SD of 39.94
And the difference of 133 divided by the SD (39.94) yielding a result into the 3rd standard deviation (3.330255)0.003330255
or a "1 in 300.28 times" probability of happening when playing this large a sample.
Additionally, inside of the last 6 sessions (2 x 3 shoes each average except for the last one of 25) I hit 3, 4th SD shoes. 2 Shoes in a row (Plyr/Bnkr) at 42/22, and 47/23 on 6/8/17, and 23/47 on 6/13/17 #25 for a whopping 4.286% of my shoes observed.
All the other "normal" SD's seems to have normal range percentages except the 4th
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Actuals 67.4% 27.4% 5.3% 4.286%
Normal Percentage 68.2% 27.2% 4.2% 0.02%
Have I made a mistake in my numbers? Is there a bias (and should I play Banker only at this casino)? or is this STILL too small sample size to call it anything but Luck?
(Bad luck in my case, as I don't think/feel it should be this hard to use the "law of large numbers" to find a sample size that approaches a "normal" bell curve)
June 19th, 2017 at 8:21:09 AM
permalink
You aren't counting ties which will bring the percentages down. Bank wins are 0.4659144335% in your example. (2973/6381)
P.S. Baccarat basic strategy is to always bet banker.
P.S. Baccarat basic strategy is to always bet banker.
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
June 19th, 2017 at 8:37:32 AM
permalink
Quote: Ibeatyouraces
P.S. Baccarat basic strategy is to always bet banker.
...and to turn the cards over as slowly as possible!! :D
June 19th, 2017 at 9:14:49 AM
permalink
Correct.
6,381 observed hands
2,973 banker
2,840 player
568 ties
the standard deviation is 39.80 on the banker, 39.71 on the player, 23.44 on the tie.
Expected number of banker is 6,381 x .458597 = 2926.3. You are observing +1.17 SDs on the banker
Expected number of player is 6,381 x .446247 = 2847.5. You are observing -.18 SD on the player.
For ties you are seeing -1.672 SDs.
You do a chi square on the whole thing with two degrees of freedom and you get about a 20% probability of what you are seeing occuring. So nothing to see here.
6,381 observed hands
2,973 banker
2,840 player
568 ties
the standard deviation is 39.80 on the banker, 39.71 on the player, 23.44 on the tie.
Expected number of banker is 6,381 x .458597 = 2926.3. You are observing +1.17 SDs on the banker
Expected number of player is 6,381 x .446247 = 2847.5. You are observing -.18 SD on the player.
For ties you are seeing -1.672 SDs.
You do a chi square on the whole thing with two degrees of freedom and you get about a 20% probability of what you are seeing occuring. So nothing to see here.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
June 19th, 2017 at 9:59:49 AM
permalink
Nope, you bet both sides and bring a Monkey.Quote: Ibeatyouraces
P.S. Baccarat basic strategy is to always bet banker.
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
June 19th, 2017 at 10:03:49 AM
permalink
Invite ZK and bet whichever way he doesn't.
The older I get, the better I recall things that never happened
