Specific Baccarat Calculation/Problem

Hi There Guys, this is my first post
Let me start by saying I'm a big fan of the blog, loads of really interesting information availible

I'm not especially good at maths and I had an idea about an occurance in Baccarat which I've not seen mentioned before, even by Thorpe etc. I suspect it is so extremely rare as to be unusable, but without knowing the maths I cannot be sure by how much, and I was hoping you could help me out.

For a standard 8-deck shoe, One would expect around 80 hands. By having seen every card delt, up to the final hand, in theory a situation could arise where every card A-9 across all suits, across all 8 decks has been delt out. At that point one would know with 100% certainty that the remaining cards will produce a 0 Tie, paying 150-1 on the UR WAY Egalite sidebet

How would one go about working out the probablility of all the cards A-9 havig been played [ie so they can be visbly recorded] before the end of the shoe. I realise this is an unlikely situation since it also means the burn card and entire cut section must also be 10/J/Q/K, but is there a way to work out the probability? And if so, how many games would you theorhetically have to play before you expected to see this situation arise

Any Help would be really appreciated, Thanks

Quote: GuyFrom

Hi There Guys, this is my first post
Let me start by saying I'm a big fan of the blog, loads of really interesting information availible

I'm not especially good at maths and I had an idea about an occurance in Baccarat which I've not seen mentioned before, even by Thorpe etc. I suspect it is so extremely rare as to be unusable, but without knowing the maths I cannot be sure by how much, and I was hoping you could help me out.

For a standard 8-deck shoe, One would expect around 80 hands. By having seen every card delt, up to the final hand, in theory a situation could arise where every card A-9 across all suits, across all 8 decks has been delt out. At that point one would know with 100% certainty that the remaining cards will produce a 0 Tie, paying 150-1 on the UR WAY Egalite sidebet

How would one go about working out the probablility of all the cards A-9 havig been played [ie so they can be visbly recorded] before the end of the shoe. I realise this is an unlikely situation since it also means the burn card and entire cut section must also be 10/J/Q/K, but is there a way to work out the probability? And if so, how many games would you theorhetically have to play before you expected to see this situation arise

Any Help would be really appreciated, Thanks

I got the same text, copy and paste, as a personal e-mail through the contact link on my website from this very same person.

Quote: M

Let me start by sayig I'm a big fan of the blog, loads of really interesting information availible, delivered in a very down to earth way! I especially loved you "Card Counting the UR Way Egalite Baccarat Side Bet" article on July 19th. Great Stuff!

I'm not especially good at maths and I had an idea about an occurance in Baccarat which I've not seen mentioned before, even by Thorpe etc. I suspect it is so extremely rare as to be unusable, but without knowing the maths I cannot be sure, and I was hoping you could help me out.

For a standard 8-deck shoe, One would expect around 80 hands. By having seen every card delt, up to the final hand, in theory a situation could arise where every card A-9 across all suits, across all 8 decks has been delt out. At that point one would know with 100% certainty that the remaining cards will produce a 0 Tie, paying 150-1 on the URE bet, How would one go about working out the probablility of all the cards A-9 being played [ie so they can be visbly recorded] before the end of the shoe. I realise this is an unlikely situation since it also means the entire cut section must also be 10/J/Q/K, but is there a way to work out the probability?

I answered the question in detail prior to this same person posting here.

Quote: teliot

I got the same text, copy and paste, as a personal e-mail through the contact link on my website from this very same person.

I answered the question in detail prior to this same person posting here.

That is hilarious. Maybe his name should be gr8guyfrom.

That's pretty funny, Eliot! "Guy from M?" It was kind of you to answer him, since you're only a world-renowned expert on the subject. Guess that wasn't good enough.

Quote: DoubleOrNothing

Using sledgehammers to satisfy yourself or profit by proclaiming that casino gambling games can't be beat might actually remain dumber than deluding yourself that there's a valid reason for the supposedly then such stupid behavior. The latter has at least the ongoing fantasy that something good will happen; compared with the former, who thus based one's happiness on the actions of the deluded. The futility of which serves only, by confirmation, to further perpetuate the thing.

This is bot talk. Flag.

Quote: teliot

This is bot talk. Flag.

Physicists get the same type of crackpot mail, but they don't go around trying to expose them or their practices.

deleted

Quote: DoubleOrNothing

Physicists get the same type of crackpot mail, but they don't go around trying to expose them or their practices.

teliot is as good as there is in this business. If he finds that AP can take advantage in your game/sidebets you may not want to hear it but you cannot ignore it. Better finding out now than later and no matter how harsh teliot may been, believe me it is much, much milder than what the real world would do to your game and reputation.

As far as the quote from double, do you see anything odd. Quote is from tellot, not teliot. bot talk?

AceCrAAckers: Either bot talk or DoubleOrNothing is off his meds.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

teliot is as good as there is in this business. If he finds that AP can take advantage in your game/sidebets you may not want to hear it but you cannot ignore it. Better finding out now than later and no matter how harsh teliot may been, believe me it is much, much milder than what the real world would do to your game and reputation.

As far as the quote from double, do you see anything odd. Quote is from tellot, not teliot. bot talk?

Teliot's approach is extremely crude. He just tests the effects of card removal/next card exposure with a computer simulation. That's what the game inventor usually did already. A casino has very badly screwed up if it allows a game on the floor with that type of vulnerability. His practical recommendations would mostly result in the casino making less money from regular gamblers and having a much higher exposure/liability level to a high-level team.

Quote: beachbumbabs

That's pretty funny, Eliot! "Guy from M?" It was kind of you to answer him, since you're only a world-renowned expert on the subject. Guess that wasn't good enough.

The other thing about this quote too easily of the cuff from a novice poster. It's like the sites on which people sell systems outright for rather large sums of money. There, the owners go about under 30 some clones by which to expound their own virtues. Who knows. My original post in its original form, which quoted only Babs, has (then not so) mysteriously vanished.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

You forgot which side he consults for.

What sides, he works for himself/herself like the rest of us ought? Already stated the credentials lately in another thread. Those shouldn't take sides. Unbiased in nature.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

Better finding out now than later and no matter how harsh teliot may been, believe me it is much, much milder than what the real world would do to your game and reputation.

Personally, I don't come with a "reputation". Nor would I want to.

As for Eliot, I very much hesitated to write this the first time around because it quickly appeared to me that it was he who had found things too harsh. Like Sheldon Cooper having gone into his classic, but not patented, fetal position with the bot talk stuff.

Quote: AceCrAAckers

As far as the quote from double, do you see anything odd. Quote is from tellot, not teliot. bot talk?

Often, people see what they want to see. Always, the ones with a lot at stake in something questionable. In my opinion here.

Quote: GBV

Teliot's approach is extremely crude. He just tests the effects of card removal/next card exposure with a computer simulation. That's what the game inventor usually did already. A casino has very badly screwed up if it allows a game on the floor with that type of vulnerability. His practical recommendations would mostly result in the casino making less money from regular gamblers and having a much higher exposure/liability level to a high-level team.

That's another way to put it. From the people who don't let the harshness of mathematical analysis get in the way. (I alluded to/eluded that in another thread just before this one.)