Who can help with test baccarat shoes
December 8th, 2014 at 7:07:57 PM
permalink
I have baccarat shoes data.
Who can help with test some pattern statistic?
Best regards.
Who can help with test some pattern statistic?
Best regards.
December 8th, 2014 at 7:15:41 PM
permalink
I can help you with that.
The cards are random. There are no patterns.
The cards are random. There are no patterns.
December 8th, 2014 at 7:32:21 PM
permalink
Quote: sc15I can help you with that.
The cards are random. There are no patterns.
I need test some sequence
December 8th, 2014 at 8:08:40 PM
permalink
Quote: donikI need test some sequence
What's the sequence?
December 8th, 2014 at 8:22:12 PM
permalink
Quote: donikI need test some sequence
These check out just fine.
"What, me worry?"
December 8th, 2014 at 9:01:18 PM
permalink
Quote: sc15The cards are random. There are no patterns.
On the off chance that this is not true, there is very little you can do, unless you have perfect knowledge of future cards to be dealt.
May the cards fall in your favor.
December 8th, 2014 at 9:42:29 PM
permalink
Quote: DieterOn the off chance that this is not true, there is very little you can do, unless you have perfect knowledge of future cards to be dealt.
Short of you finding a table where they put in an unshuffled shoe, any shuffle machine used in a licensed casino in the US, or any standard wash and shuffle procedure will not give any patterns.
December 9th, 2014 at 3:00:43 AM
permalink
Donik,Quote: donikI need test some sequence
In baccarat there is no cardplay decision involved, either from the punter or the dealer.
So all sequences are just the product of shuffling. If shuffling is legitimate, there can be no pattern.
The only case where you might want to test something is if you suspect irregular shuffling. Of course, in real world casinos you should have very very solid grounds to suspect that...
But if you speak online casinos or illegal gambling joints, then yes, you could want to try and prove something. For your personal satisfaction only. Because you will not be able to argue anything with it, except decide that you don't play there anymore.
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
December 9th, 2014 at 3:26:59 AM
permalink
Bull Sh*it....There are patterns. But only after the fact.
♪♪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♪♪
December 9th, 2014 at 3:28:55 AM
permalink
Quote: sc15Short of you finding a table where they put in an unshuffled shoe, any shuffle machine used in a licensed casino in the US, or any standard wash and shuffle procedure will not give any patterns.
I completely agree. It would be an extreme rarity to find such a situation.
In the case of a hand-shuffle, the wash will destroy most patterns. In case they're not washing every shuffle, it's very difficult for any pattern to survive a 2 stage shuffle (like a dilution shuffle followed by a riffle & restack). Expect it to get worse if the dilution stage is riffle/strip/riffle.
There may be patterns, but you should expect that even if you recognize one hand, the subsequent hand won't be predictable.
May the cards fall in your favor.
December 9th, 2014 at 5:39:18 AM
permalink
Thank you for answers!
But i need statistic pattern like this 11, 12, 13, 21....etc.
Can somebody test by computer?
And second question: RNG and real shoes have big difference?
Greetings.
But i need statistic pattern like this 11, 12, 13, 21....etc.
Can somebody test by computer?
And second question: RNG and real shoes have big difference?
Greetings.
December 9th, 2014 at 5:59:15 AM
permalink
There will be approximately 50% streak of 1, 25% streak of 2, 12.5% streak of 3, 6.25% streak of 4, etc.
% = 1/2^x
% = 1/2^x
December 9th, 2014 at 6:06:36 AM
permalink
What do you mean by patterns? You will see certain series of events happening with a certain frequency. Obviously these numbers will be more true over a larger sample size.
You should see the following events: Source info
Streak of 1 - 50% of all events
Streak of 2 - 50% of streaks of 1
Streak of 3 - 50% of streaks of 2
Streak of 4 - 50% of streaks of 3
Streak of 5 - 50% of streaks of 4
Streak of 6 - 50% of streaks of 5
so on and so forth...
It would kind of look like this. (These are all very rough approximate values.)
1's - 50%
2's - 25%
3's - 12.5%
4's - 6.25%
5's - 3.13%
6's - 1.57%
7's - <1%
Now all of these events will certainly make up different patterns but how the events are distributed is completely random so good luck trying to guess an upcoming pattern.
When I first saw the info above I thought for sure I could use it to my advantage. Event streaks of 1-5 make up ~96.88 so if I martingale for 5 steps I will hit it most of the time or so I thought. The times you don't hit it wipes out any gains and will constantly knock you further and further negative. Just another failed "system".
You should see the following events: Source info
Streak of 1 - 50% of all events
Streak of 2 - 50% of streaks of 1
Streak of 3 - 50% of streaks of 2
Streak of 4 - 50% of streaks of 3
Streak of 5 - 50% of streaks of 4
Streak of 6 - 50% of streaks of 5
so on and so forth...
It would kind of look like this. (These are all very rough approximate values.)
1's - 50%
2's - 25%
3's - 12.5%
4's - 6.25%
5's - 3.13%
6's - 1.57%
7's - <1%
Now all of these events will certainly make up different patterns but how the events are distributed is completely random so good luck trying to guess an upcoming pattern.
When I first saw the info above I thought for sure I could use it to my advantage. Event streaks of 1-5 make up ~96.88 so if I martingale for 5 steps I will hit it most of the time or so I thought. The times you don't hit it wipes out any gains and will constantly knock you further and further negative. Just another failed "system".
"I'm not superstitious but I am a little stitious." -Michael Scott
December 9th, 2014 at 6:09:48 AM
permalink
Quote: donikThank you for answers!
But i need statistic pattern like this 11, 12, 13, 21....etc.
Can somebody test by computer?
And second question: RNG and real shoes have big difference?
Greetings.
Explain this 11, 12, 13, 21...etc. pattern(s) you'd like to be tested. Give examples what they look like. And give a complete list of patterns.
How would an RNG or a real shoe have a big difference? I think not.
December 9th, 2014 at 6:28:57 AM
permalink
Quote: donikThank you for answers!
But i need statistic pattern like this 11, 12, 13, 21....etc.
Can somebody test by computer?
And second question: RNG and real shoes have big difference?
Depends on the RNG, although if the number of shoes is large enough, there shouldn't be.
I can generate RNG-based shoes (it would be a lot easier than you trying to send me all of your data, if it is also RNG-based); what patterns are you looking for? (Also, how many decks are in each shoe, and how far down into each shoe do you want to go - e.g. 75%?)
Also note that this thread may have already asked the questions you are thinking of asking concerning patterns. Short answer: none were detectable that can beat the house edge.
December 9th, 2014 at 9:36:45 AM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuyDepends on the RNG, although if the number of shoes is large enough, there shouldn't be.
I can generate RNG-based shoes (it would be a lot easier than you trying to send me all of your data, if it is also RNG-based); what patterns are you looking for? (Also, how many decks are in each shoe, and how far down into each shoe do you want to go - e.g. 75%?)
Also note that this thread may have already asked the questions you are thinking of asking concerning patterns. Short answer: none were detectable that can beat the house edge.
I meant pattern 11 single single
12 single double
13 single triple+ (3 and higher streaks).
December 9th, 2014 at 9:38:06 AM
permalink
Quote: donikQuote: ThatDonGuyDepends on the RNG, although if the number of shoes is large enough, there shouldn't be.
I can generate RNG-based shoes (it would be a lot easier than you trying to send me all of your data, if it is also RNG-based); what patterns are you looking for? (Also, how many decks are in each shoe, and how far down into each shoe do you want to go - e.g. 75%?)
Also note that this thread may have already asked the questions you are thinking of asking concerning patterns. Short answer: none were detectable that can beat the house edge.
I meant pattern 11 single single
12 single double
13 single triple+ (3 and higher streaks).
There are 9 patterns
Cheers
December 9th, 2014 at 10:37:07 AM
permalink
Quote: donikI meant pattern 11 single single
12 single double
13 single triple+ (3 and higher streaks).
I still don't understand.
Explain what a "12" is in terms of player wins and banker wins.
Is a 12 (or a "single double") something like Player, Banker, Player, Player, Banker?
And do I count ties? (So, for example, is Player, Tie, Player, Banker considered a "double" or two "singles"?)
December 9th, 2014 at 11:01:56 AM
permalink
Quote: donikQuote: ThatDonGuyDepends on the RNG, although if the number of shoes is large enough, there shouldn't be.
I can generate RNG-based shoes (it would be a lot easier than you trying to send me all of your data, if it is also RNG-based); what patterns are you looking for? (Also, how many decks are in each shoe, and how far down into each shoe do you want to go - e.g. 75%?)
Also note that this thread may have already asked the questions you are thinking of asking concerning patterns. Short answer: none were detectable that can beat the house edge.
I meant pattern 11 single single
12 single double
13 single triple+ (3 and higher streaks).
A single double (PBB or BPP) will happen with just about the same frequency as PPP, BBB, PBP, BPB, BBP, or PPB. Each will be slightly different due to P/B not being exactly 50/50 chance, but they will all occur roughly 12.5% of the time.
December 9th, 2014 at 11:28:18 AM
permalink
Assuming 12 ("single double") means Player, Banker, Player, Player, Banker (not counting ties), I checked 100 million shoes with 75% penetration and got:
The ratio of 12s to 11s, 22s to 21s, 32s to 31s, 21s to 11s, 22s to 12s, and 23s to 13s, are all about 0.484, which is approximately the probability of a player win if you ignore ties.
In other words, no pattern gives you a better play than any other.
| Pattern | Times Per Shoe |
|---|---|
| 11 | 3.62548232 |
| 12 | 1.75609417 |
| 13 | 1.64786375 |
| 21 | 1.75611017 |
| 22 | 0.8503849 |
| 23 | 0.7974774 |
| 31 | 1.64784478 |
| 32 | 0.797511 |
| 33 | 0.74667051 |
The ratio of 12s to 11s, 22s to 21s, 32s to 31s, 21s to 11s, 22s to 12s, and 23s to 13s, are all about 0.484, which is approximately the probability of a player win if you ignore ties.
In other words, no pattern gives you a better play than any other.
December 9th, 2014 at 11:58:03 AM
permalink
Sorry if i not clear explain.
I asking about player side only.
11 means
PPP
BBBB
P --------1 single player
BB
P --------- 1 single player
BB
PP
12 means
PPPPP
BB
P-------- 1 single player
BBB
PP -----2 double player
B
PPPP
and so on
I asking about player side only.
11 means
PPP
BBBB
P --------1 single player
BB
P --------- 1 single player
BB
PP
12 means
PPPPP
BB
P-------- 1 single player
BBB
PP -----2 double player
B
PPPP
and so on
December 9th, 2014 at 12:27:44 PM
permalink
That's what I thought it meant. My previous post is correct - no patterns stand out more than they should.
December 9th, 2014 at 4:29:29 PM
permalink
For three sequences of P:
112 happens about 49.3% as many times as 111
122 happens about 49.3% as many times as 121
132 happens about 49.3% as many times as 131
212 happens about 49.3% as many times as 211
222 happens about 49.3% as many times as 221
232 happens about 49.3% as many times as 231
312 happens about 49.3% as many times as 311
322 happens about 49.3% as many times as 321
332 happens about 49.3% as many times as 331
This is because, in the third run, after one Ps, the probability of exactly one more P (excluding ties) is about 49.3%.
113 happens about 97.3% as many times as 112
123 happens about 97.3% as many times as 122
133 happens about 97.3% as many times as 132
213 happens about 97.3% as many times as 212
223 happens about 97.3% as many times as 222
233 happens about 97.3% as many times as 232
313 happens about 97.3% as many times as 312
323 happens about 97.3% as many times as 322
333 happens about 97.3% as many times as 332
This is because, in the third run, after two Ps, the probability of one more P + the probability of two more Ps + the probability of three more Ps + ... (excluding ties) is about 97.3%
112 happens about 49.3% as many times as 111
122 happens about 49.3% as many times as 121
132 happens about 49.3% as many times as 131
212 happens about 49.3% as many times as 211
222 happens about 49.3% as many times as 221
232 happens about 49.3% as many times as 231
312 happens about 49.3% as many times as 311
322 happens about 49.3% as many times as 321
332 happens about 49.3% as many times as 331
This is because, in the third run, after one Ps, the probability of exactly one more P (excluding ties) is about 49.3%.
113 happens about 97.3% as many times as 112
123 happens about 97.3% as many times as 122
133 happens about 97.3% as many times as 132
213 happens about 97.3% as many times as 212
223 happens about 97.3% as many times as 222
233 happens about 97.3% as many times as 232
313 happens about 97.3% as many times as 312
323 happens about 97.3% as many times as 322
333 happens about 97.3% as many times as 332
This is because, in the third run, after two Ps, the probability of one more P + the probability of two more Ps + the probability of three more Ps + ... (excluding ties) is about 97.3%
December 9th, 2014 at 4:50:03 PM
permalink
1) 2361 Live Shoes:
Events B P
1s 21,020 21,440
2s 10,462 10,544
3s 5,153 5,041
4s 2,614 2,539
5s 1,294 1,164
6s 668 603
7s 368 301
8s 161 123
9s 88 63
10s 52 35
11s 25 14
12s 10 7
13s 2 4
14s 3 0
Pay attention on player side only.
What coming after 3+ streaks
Events B P
1s 21,020 21,440
2s 10,462 10,544
3s 5,153 5,041
4s 2,614 2,539
5s 1,294 1,164
6s 668 603
7s 368 301
8s 161 123
9s 88 63
10s 52 35
11s 25 14
12s 10 7
13s 2 4
14s 3 0
Pay attention on player side only.
What coming after 3+ streaks
December 9th, 2014 at 5:01:38 PM
permalink
Please count if we have
3+and 2 and what coming more than your percent
PPPP
BBB
PP
B
P.........here like you counted 3+ has to be 2 times less than P singles but if you can count there will be difference
Best regards!
3+and 2 and what coming more than your percent
PPPP
BBB
PP
B
P.........here like you counted 3+ has to be 2 times less than P singles but if you can count there will be difference
Best regards!
December 9th, 2014 at 5:17:53 PM
permalink
Can somebody tell me how many
P streaks set
P
BBB
PPP
BB
PPP
B
P
B
This is 2 Player set
and so on
I looking for some programmer/tester.
P streaks set
P
BBB
PPP
BB
PPP
B
P
B
This is 2 Player set
and so on
I looking for some programmer/tester.
December 9th, 2014 at 6:22:10 PM
permalink
Quote: donik1) 2361 Live Shoes:
Pay attention on player side only.
2361 shoes is not nearly enough to be able to tell us anything. The fact that you have more 14s than you do 13s on the player side should tell you that.
December 9th, 2014 at 8:34:11 PM
permalink
I could write a program to analyze the data, and put it in a nice spreadsheet for you in any way you want.
My rate's $100 / hour. And because this is for essentially worthless data I'll require payment up front since you won't want to pay after getting useless data from it.
I can do better than 2000 shoes too.
I can give you a million shoes worth of data. Or even a billion shoes.
My rate's $100 / hour. And because this is for essentially worthless data I'll require payment up front since you won't want to pay after getting useless data from it.
I can do better than 2000 shoes too.
I can give you a million shoes worth of data. Or even a billion shoes.
December 10th, 2014 at 5:21:16 AM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuy(Also, how many decks are in each shoe, and how far down into each shoe do you want to go - e.g. 75%?)
On pen: I believe the usual way is to cut the deck, count 6 or 7 cards off the back, set the shuffle card, load the deck into the shoe, draw 1 card, turn it face up, and then burn that many cards off the top. (Draw & show an 8, burn 8 cards... Draw a Q, burn 12...)
This should yield about 95% pen on 6 deck, 97% on 8 deck. Pen can be much deeper, since there are a maximum of 6 cards dealt per round, unlike games without a fixed draw limit.
May the cards fall in your favor.
December 10th, 2014 at 11:12:48 AM
permalink
Here are my results, this time using pretty much 100% penetration of each shoe
Note that each number is an "average per shoe" - to get the total number in the 100 million shoes values, multiply each one by 100 million (so, for example, there are 945,608,400 occurrences of P, 460,075,600 of PP, and 435,626,900 of PPP or longer)
Note that each number is an "average per shoe" - to get the total number in the 100 million shoes values, multiply each one by 100 million (so, for example, there are 945,608,400 occurrences of P, 460,075,600 of PP, and 435,626,900 of PPP or longer)
| Pattern | 100M shoes average | 250M shoes average |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.456084 | 9.456222 |
| 2 | 4.600756 | 4.600711 |
| 3 | 4.356269 | 4.356139 |
| 1 1 | 4.725736 | 4.725942 |
| 1 2 | 2.298796 | 2.298802 |
| 1 3 | 2.175858 | 2.175802 |
| 2 1 | 2.298822 | 2.298871 |
| 2 2 | 1.118147 | 1.118132 |
| 2 3 | 1.057775 | 1.057686 |
| 3 1 | 2.175823 | 2.17578 |
| 3 2 | 1.05781 | 1.057742 |
| 3 3 | 0.999929 | 0.999908 |
| 1 1 1 | 2.296862 | 2.29693 |
| 1 1 2 | 1.116625 | 1.116627 |
| 1 1 3 | 1.055372 | 1.055471 |
| 1 2 1 | 1.116579 | 1.116569 |
| 1 2 2 | 0.542761 | 0.542793 |
| 1 2 3 | 0.51284 | 0.512817 |
| 1 3 1 | 1.055592 | 1.055564 |
| 1 3 2 | 0.512788 | 0.512792 |
| 1 3 3 | 0.484213 | 0.484163 |
| 2 1 1 | 1.116486 | 1.116607 |
| 2 1 2 | 0.54274 | 0.542732 |
| 2 1 3 | 0.512905 | 0.512826 |
| 2 2 1 | 0.542718 | 0.542763 |
| 2 2 2 | 0.263793 | 0.263775 |
| 2 2 3 | 0.249136 | 0.249118 |
| 2 3 1 | 0.512818 | 0.512795 |
| 2 3 2 | 0.249167 | 0.249103 |
| 2 3 3 | 0.234969 | 0.234976 |
| 3 1 1 | 1.055536 | 1.055569 |
| 3 1 2 | 0.512802 | 0.512776 |
| 3 1 3 | 0.484188 | 0.48419 |
| 3 2 1 | 0.512844 | 0.512857 |
| 3 2 2 | 0.24914 | 0.249104 |
| 3 2 3 | 0.235037 | 0.234985 |
| 3 3 1 | 0.484164 | 0.484129 |
| 3 3 2 | 0.235049 | 0.235034 |
| 3 3 3 | 0.221571 | 0.2216 |
| 1 1 1 1 | 1.114286 | 1.114284 |
| 1 1 1 2 | 0.541377 | 0.541371 |
| 1 1 1 3 | 0.510996 | 0.511046 |
| 1 1 2 1 | 0.54132 | 0.541322 |
| 1 1 2 2 | 0.262959 | 0.262979 |
| 1 1 2 3 | 0.24815 | 0.248151 |
| 1 1 3 1 | 0.510959 | 0.511007 |
| 1 1 3 2 | 0.248087 | 0.2481 |
| 1 1 3 3 | 0.233862 | 0.233876 |
| 1 2 1 1 | 0.541288 | 0.541322 |
| 1 2 1 2 | 0.262948 | 0.262948 |
| 1 2 1 3 | 0.248145 | 0.248092 |
| 1 2 2 1 | 0.262912 | 0.262978 |
| 1 2 2 2 | 0.127716 | 0.127722 |
| 1 2 2 3 | 0.120435 | 0.120427 |
| 1 2 3 1 | 0.248149 | 0.248128 |
| 1 2 3 2 | 0.12043 | 0.1204 |
| 1 2 3 3 | 0.113434 | 0.113466 |
| 1 3 1 1 | 0.511079 | 0.511102 |
| 1 3 1 2 | 0.248091 | 0.248069 |
| 1 3 1 3 | 0.233928 | 0.233927 |
| 1 3 2 1 | 0.248111 | 0.248117 |
| 1 3 2 2 | 0.120444 | 0.12044 |
| 1 3 2 3 | 0.113431 | 0.113423 |
| 1 3 3 1 | 0.233914 | 0.233875 |
| 1 3 3 2 | 0.1135 | 0.113479 |
| 1 3 3 3 | 0.106824 | 0.106835 |
| 2 1 1 1 | 0.541279 | 0.54134 |
| 2 1 1 2 | 0.262909 | 0.262947 |
| 2 1 1 3 | 0.248095 | 0.248115 |
| 2 1 2 1 | 0.262961 | 0.262955 |
| 2 1 2 2 | 0.127694 | 0.127696 |
| 2 1 2 3 | 0.12044 | 0.120426 |
| 2 1 3 1 | 0.248212 | 0.248176 |
| 2 1 3 2 | 0.120405 | 0.120377 |
| 2 1 3 3 | 0.113479 | 0.113465 |
| 2 2 1 1 | 0.262921 | 0.262967 |
| 2 2 1 2 | 0.127677 | 0.127687 |
| 2 2 1 3 | 0.120453 | 0.120438 |
| 2 2 2 1 | 0.127715 | 0.127691 |
| 2 2 2 2 | 0.061995 | 0.061999 |
| 2 2 2 3 | 0.058462 | 0.058466 |
| 2 2 3 1 | 0.120442 | 0.120427 |
| 2 2 3 2 | 0.058496 | 0.058478 |
| 2 2 3 3 | 0.054999 | 0.05501 |
| 2 3 1 1 | 0.24812 | 0.248108 |
| 2 3 1 2 | 0.120428 | 0.120414 |
| 2 3 1 3 | 0.113469 | 0.113485 |
| 2 3 2 1 | 0.120455 | 0.12044 |
| 2 3 2 2 | 0.058453 | 0.05844 |
| 2 3 2 3 | 0.055059 | 0.055029 |
| 2 3 3 1 | 0.113451 | 0.113442 |
| 2 3 3 2 | 0.055001 | 0.055015 |
| 2 3 3 3 | 0.051732 | 0.051735 |
| 3 1 1 1 | 0.511106 | 0.511129 |
| 3 1 1 2 | 0.248132 | 0.248109 |
| 3 1 1 3 | 0.233827 | 0.23385 |
| 3 1 2 1 | 0.248115 | 0.248087 |
| 3 1 2 2 | 0.120444 | 0.120443 |
| 3 1 2 3 | 0.113469 | 0.113453 |
| 3 1 3 1 | 0.23391 | 0.233881 |
| 3 1 3 2 | 0.113459 | 0.113496 |
| 3 1 3 3 | 0.106829 | 0.106826 |
| 3 2 1 1 | 0.248087 | 0.248106 |
| 3 2 1 2 | 0.120427 | 0.120431 |
| 3 2 1 3 | 0.113505 | 0.113492 |
| 3 2 2 1 | 0.120455 | 0.120443 |
| 3 2 2 2 | 0.058443 | 0.058435 |
| 3 2 2 3 | 0.055064 | 0.055034 |
| 3 2 3 1 | 0.113413 | 0.113429 |
| 3 2 3 2 | 0.055058 | 0.05504 |
| 3 2 3 3 | 0.051772 | 0.05173 |
| 3 3 1 1 | 0.233872 | 0.233875 |
| 3 3 1 2 | 0.113464 | 0.113461 |
| 3 3 1 3 | 0.106827 | 0.106802 |
| 3 3 2 1 | 0.11345 | 0.113467 |
| 3 3 2 2 | 0.055035 | 0.055018 |
| 3 3 2 3 | 0.051778 | 0.051757 |
| 3 3 3 1 | 0.106794 | 0.106811 |
| 3 3 3 2 | 0.051752 | 0.051752 |
| 3 3 3 3 | 0.048641 | 0.048649 |
December 10th, 2014 at 3:10:59 PM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuyHere are my results, this time using pretty much 100% penetration of each shoe
Note that each number is an "average per shoe" - to get the total number in the 100 million shoes values, multiply each one by 100 million (so, for example, there are 945,608,400 occurrences of P, 460,075,600 of PP, and 435,626,900 of PPP or longer)
Pattern 100M shoes average 250M shoes average 1 9.456084 9.456222 2 4.600756 4.600711 3 4.356269 4.356139 1 1 4.725736 4.725942 1 2 2.298796 2.298802 1 3 2.175858 2.175802 2 1 2.298822 2.298871 2 2 1.118147 1.118132 2 3 1.057775 1.057686 3 1 2.175823 2.17578 3 2 1.05781 1.057742 3 3 0.999929 0.999908 1 1 1 2.296862 2.29693 1 1 2 1.116625 1.116627 1 1 3 1.055372 1.055471 1 2 1 1.116579 1.116569 1 2 2 0.542761 0.542793 1 2 3 0.51284 0.512817 1 3 1 1.055592 1.055564 1 3 2 0.512788 0.512792 1 3 3 0.484213 0.484163 2 1 1 1.116486 1.116607 2 1 2 0.54274 0.542732 2 1 3 0.512905 0.512826 2 2 1 0.542718 0.542763 2 2 2 0.263793 0.263775 2 2 3 0.249136 0.249118 2 3 1 0.512818 0.512795 2 3 2 0.249167 0.249103 2 3 3 0.234969 0.234976 3 1 1 1.055536 1.055569 3 1 2 0.512802 0.512776 3 1 3 0.484188 0.48419 3 2 1 0.512844 0.512857 3 2 2 0.24914 0.249104 3 2 3 0.235037 0.234985 3 3 1 0.484164 0.484129 3 3 2 0.235049 0.235034 3 3 3 0.221571 0.2216 1 1 1 1 1.114286 1.114284 1 1 1 2 0.541377 0.541371 1 1 1 3 0.510996 0.511046 1 1 2 1 0.54132 0.541322 1 1 2 2 0.262959 0.262979 1 1 2 3 0.24815 0.248151 1 1 3 1 0.510959 0.511007 1 1 3 2 0.248087 0.2481 1 1 3 3 0.233862 0.233876 1 2 1 1 0.541288 0.541322 1 2 1 2 0.262948 0.262948 1 2 1 3 0.248145 0.248092 1 2 2 1 0.262912 0.262978 1 2 2 2 0.127716 0.127722 1 2 2 3 0.120435 0.120427 1 2 3 1 0.248149 0.248128 1 2 3 2 0.12043 0.1204 1 2 3 3 0.113434 0.113466 1 3 1 1 0.511079 0.511102 1 3 1 2 0.248091 0.248069 1 3 1 3 0.233928 0.233927 1 3 2 1 0.248111 0.248117 1 3 2 2 0.120444 0.12044 1 3 2 3 0.113431 0.113423 1 3 3 1 0.233914 0.233875 1 3 3 2 0.1135 0.113479 1 3 3 3 0.106824 0.106835 2 1 1 1 0.541279 0.54134 2 1 1 2 0.262909 0.262947 2 1 1 3 0.248095 0.248115 2 1 2 1 0.262961 0.262955 2 1 2 2 0.127694 0.127696 2 1 2 3 0.12044 0.120426 2 1 3 1 0.248212 0.248176 2 1 3 2 0.120405 0.120377 2 1 3 3 0.113479 0.113465 2 2 1 1 0.262921 0.262967 2 2 1 2 0.127677 0.127687 2 2 1 3 0.120453 0.120438 2 2 2 1 0.127715 0.127691 2 2 2 2 0.061995 0.061999 2 2 2 3 0.058462 0.058466 2 2 3 1 0.120442 0.120427 2 2 3 2 0.058496 0.058478 2 2 3 3 0.054999 0.05501 2 3 1 1 0.24812 0.248108 2 3 1 2 0.120428 0.120414 2 3 1 3 0.113469 0.113485 2 3 2 1 0.120455 0.12044 2 3 2 2 0.058453 0.05844 2 3 2 3 0.055059 0.055029 2 3 3 1 0.113451 0.113442 2 3 3 2 0.055001 0.055015 2 3 3 3 0.051732 0.051735 3 1 1 1 0.511106 0.511129 3 1 1 2 0.248132 0.248109 3 1 1 3 0.233827 0.23385 3 1 2 1 0.248115 0.248087 3 1 2 2 0.120444 0.120443 3 1 2 3 0.113469 0.113453 3 1 3 1 0.23391 0.233881 3 1 3 2 0.113459 0.113496 3 1 3 3 0.106829 0.106826 3 2 1 1 0.248087 0.248106 3 2 1 2 0.120427 0.120431 3 2 1 3 0.113505 0.113492 3 2 2 1 0.120455 0.120443 3 2 2 2 0.058443 0.058435 3 2 2 3 0.055064 0.055034 3 2 3 1 0.113413 0.113429 3 2 3 2 0.055058 0.05504 3 2 3 3 0.051772 0.05173 3 3 1 1 0.233872 0.233875 3 3 1 2 0.113464 0.113461 3 3 1 3 0.106827 0.106802 3 3 2 1 0.11345 0.113467 3 3 2 2 0.055035 0.055018 3 3 2 3 0.051778 0.051757 3 3 3 1 0.106794 0.106811 3 3 3 2 0.051752 0.051752 3 3 3 3 0.048641 0.048649
Thanks so much DonGuy!
Id like ask you that only player side?
Appreciate you!!!
December 10th, 2014 at 5:48:07 PM
permalink
Quote: donik
Thanks so much DonGuy!
Id like ask you that only player side?
Yes - only player side
December 10th, 2014 at 7:20:14 PM
permalink
Thanks so much!!!
December 11th, 2014 at 2:50:21 PM
permalink
Hello DonGuy!
Can you make same test for player streak set
1 - 1 player streak set (2 and higher streak)
P
BBB
PPP -------1 player streak set
B
P
B
2 - 2 player streak set
P
BB
PPP
B
PP
B
P
B
3 - 3 and more player streak set
P
B
PP
B
PPP
B
PP
BB
P
B
With like you made table above. 11, 12, ....111, 112, etc.
Thanks so much!!!!
Can you make same test for player streak set
1 - 1 player streak set (2 and higher streak)
P
BBB
PPP -------1 player streak set
B
P
B
2 - 2 player streak set
P
BB
PPP
B
PP
B
P
B
3 - 3 and more player streak set
P
B
PP
B
PPP
B
PP
BB
P
B
With like you made table above. 11, 12, ....111, 112, etc.
Thanks so much!!!!
December 11th, 2014 at 3:26:30 PM
permalink
Hey DonGuy,
Can you test a Banker streak of 3 after a Player streak of 1 on days that start with "T". The other days I just don't want in my sample because I only play on Tuesdays and Thursday. Also, what is the likely hood of of hitting Banker when 20% of the other players at the table are betting Banker and it's windy outside? Oh, and it has to be night time (central time zone). Do I have a better chance of hitting Player when the dealer scratches his/her nose before dealing? I noticed that happened a couple of times once!
Donik,
I know the above sounds ridiculous and it is. So is every variation you will ask anybody to run.
Can you test a Banker streak of 3 after a Player streak of 1 on days that start with "T". The other days I just don't want in my sample because I only play on Tuesdays and Thursday. Also, what is the likely hood of of hitting Banker when 20% of the other players at the table are betting Banker and it's windy outside? Oh, and it has to be night time (central time zone). Do I have a better chance of hitting Player when the dealer scratches his/her nose before dealing? I noticed that happened a couple of times once!
Donik,
I know the above sounds ridiculous and it is. So is every variation you will ask anybody to run.
"I'm not superstitious but I am a little stitious." -Michael Scott
December 11th, 2014 at 6:01:58 PM
permalink
Quote: donikHello DonGuy!
Can you make same test for player streak set
1 - 1 player streak set (2 and higher streak)
2 - 2 player streak set
3 - 3 and more player streak set
With like you made table above. 11, 12, ....111, 112, etc.
No, I can't, because I have no idea what you are asking me to do.
You must be very specific as to what, for example, a "1 - 1 player streak set" is.
December 11th, 2014 at 8:40:35 PM
permalink
Hello sorry if i not clearly explained
1-1 player streak set is
P
BB
PPP------1 player streak set
B
P
B
PP-------1 player streak set
BB
P
B
BETWEEN PLAYER STREAKS SET DONT PAY ATTENTION HOW MANY SINGLES PLAYER.
1-1 player streak set is
P
BB
PPP------1 player streak set
B
P
B
PP-------1 player streak set
BB
P
B
BETWEEN PLAYER STREAKS SET DONT PAY ATTENTION HOW MANY SINGLES PLAYER.
December 11th, 2014 at 8:42:56 PM
permalink
2-2 PLAYER SET
P
B
PPP
B
PP
B
P
BB
PPPPP
B
PPP
BB
P
B
If i not clear let me know
P
B
PPP
B
PP
B
P
BB
PPPPP
B
PPP
BB
P
B
If i not clear let me know
December 12th, 2014 at 7:44:35 AM
permalink
Still not clear. Explain in words, and not with just Ps and Bs. Very specific.
If, by a "2-2" player set, you mean things like:
PP B PP BB
PP BBB PP B
then those are already counted in the "2 2" row of my earlier results.
If, by a "2-2" player set, you mean things like:
PP B PP BB
PP BBB PP B
then those are already counted in the "2 2" row of my earlier results.
December 12th, 2014 at 10:54:11 AM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuyStill not clear. Explain in words, and not with just Ps and Bs. Very specific.
If, by a "2-2" player set, you mean things like:
PP B PP BB
PP BBB PP B
then those are already counted in the "2 2" row of my earlier results.
No if 2-2 this can be not only PP I MEAN ANY LENGHT STREAKS
Here example 2-2 player streaks set Divided by single player P (single player can be any amount just for divide Player streak set)
BPBBPPPBBPPPPPBPBBBPPPPPBPPBBPB
IF YOU SEE ABOVE MY EXAMPLE 2 PLAYER STREAKS SET DIVIDED BY SINGLE PLAYER AFTER CAME AGAIN 2 PLAYER STREAKS SET
IN YOUR EXAMPLE THERE 4 PLAYER STREAKS SET BECAUSE 4 STREAKS IN ROW
BBBB
P
B
PPPPP THIS 1 PLAYER SET
B
P
B
B
P
B
PPPPP
B
PP
B
P
B
HERE 2 PLAYER SET
December 12th, 2014 at 11:58:01 AM
permalink
I think I finally understand what you want.
You want to know how many times you get:
(a) one P, followed by one or more Bs, followed by 2 or more Ps, followed by one or more Bs, followed by one P
for example, in BB P B PPP BB P B, the PPP is a "1-player set"
(b) one P, followed by one or more Bs, followed by 2 or more Ps, followed by one or more Bs, followed by 2 or more Ps, followed by one or more Bs, followed by one P
for example, in B P BB PPPP B PP B P BB, PPPP followed by PP is a "2-player set".
(c) the same thing, but with three (or more) sets of two or more consecutive Ps.
Assuming this is true, here's what I get after 200 million shoes (again, dealt pretty much all the way through - I burn 1-10 cards from the top, and stop when there are 5 or fewer cards left after a hand):
1 run of 2+ Player wins - 2.609317 times per shoe
2 consecutive runs of 2+ Player wins - 1.208724
3 consecutive runs - 0.557544
4 consecutive runs - 0.255977
5 consecutive runs - 0.116836
6 consecutive runs - 0.052994
7 consecutive runs - 0.023845
8 consecutive runs - 0.010645
9 consecutive runs - 0.004696
10 or more consecutive runs - 0.003501
Please do not ask me for any more testing, as I am convinced you are looking for something that does not exist.
You want to know how many times you get:
(a) one P, followed by one or more Bs, followed by 2 or more Ps, followed by one or more Bs, followed by one P
for example, in BB P B PPP BB P B, the PPP is a "1-player set"
(b) one P, followed by one or more Bs, followed by 2 or more Ps, followed by one or more Bs, followed by 2 or more Ps, followed by one or more Bs, followed by one P
for example, in B P BB PPPP B PP B P BB, PPPP followed by PP is a "2-player set".
(c) the same thing, but with three (or more) sets of two or more consecutive Ps.
Assuming this is true, here's what I get after 200 million shoes (again, dealt pretty much all the way through - I burn 1-10 cards from the top, and stop when there are 5 or fewer cards left after a hand):
1 run of 2+ Player wins - 2.609317 times per shoe
2 consecutive runs of 2+ Player wins - 1.208724
3 consecutive runs - 0.557544
4 consecutive runs - 0.255977
5 consecutive runs - 0.116836
6 consecutive runs - 0.052994
7 consecutive runs - 0.023845
8 consecutive runs - 0.010645
9 consecutive runs - 0.004696
10 or more consecutive runs - 0.003501
Please do not ask me for any more testing, as I am convinced you are looking for something that does not exist.
December 12th, 2014 at 9:06:13 PM
permalink
APPRECIATE YOU DONGUY!!!
HERE I FOUND SOME INTERESTING THINGS
AGAIN THANK YOU!!!!
HERE I FOUND SOME INTERESTING THINGS
AGAIN THANK YOU!!!!
December 13th, 2014 at 8:17:33 AM
permalink
Quote: ThatDonGuyI think I finally understand what you want.
You want to know how many times you get:
(a) one P, followed by one or more Bs, followed by 2 or more Ps, followed by one or more Bs, followed by one P
for example, in BB P B PPP BB P B, the PPP is a "1-player set"
(b) one P, followed by one or more Bs, followed by 2 or more Ps, followed by one or more Bs, followed by 2 or more Ps, followed by one or more Bs, followed by one P
for example, in B P BB PPPP B PP B P BB, PPPP followed by PP is a "2-player set".
(c) the same thing, but with three (or more) sets of two or more consecutive Ps.
Assuming this is true, here's what I get after 200 million shoes (again, dealt pretty much all the way through - I burn 1-10 cards from the top, and stop when there are 5 or fewer cards left after a hand):
1 run of 2+ Player wins - 2.609317 times per shoe
2 consecutive runs of 2+ Player wins - 1.208724
3 consecutive runs - 0.557544
4 consecutive runs - 0.255977
5 consecutive runs - 0.116836
6 consecutive runs - 0.052994
7 consecutive runs - 0.023845
8 consecutive runs - 0.010645
9 consecutive runs - 0.004696
10 or more consecutive runs - 0.003501
Please do not ask me for any more testing, as I am convinced you are looking for something that does not exist.
TDG,
You are a saint. I could not see what question he was asking, let alone imagine the test parameters. Thanks for assisting him throughout the thread.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
December 13th, 2014 at 10:54:23 AM
permalink
Thank DonGuy!
How you opinion RNG test what you made is close to real shoes?
Appreciate you!!!
How you opinion RNG test what you made is close to real shoes?
Appreciate you!!!
December 13th, 2014 at 11:37:36 AM
permalink
Okay, need another set of eyes to look at something here...
A "run of 2" is PP+ B+ PP+ B+ P B
A "run of 3 or more" starts with PP+ B+ PP+ B+ P P
(+ indicates one or more times - e.g. "PP+" is any 2 or more consecutive Ps)
You would expect the ratio of runs of 2 to runs of 3 or more to equal the bank win probability to player win probability ratio, but according to the above numbers, it's more like 1.18.
The obvious answer is that I'm counting the runs wrong somehow, but I can't find the problem in my code. Is there some mathematical explanation that I am missing? Obviously, the answer is not "wait until you get two or more player wins (ignore ties), then one or more bank wins, then two or more player wins, then one or more bank wins, then a player win; the next non-tie will be a bank win 68.4% of the time - profit!".
A "run of 2" is PP+ B+ PP+ B+ P B
A "run of 3 or more" starts with PP+ B+ PP+ B+ P P
(+ indicates one or more times - e.g. "PP+" is any 2 or more consecutive Ps)
You would expect the ratio of runs of 2 to runs of 3 or more to equal the bank win probability to player win probability ratio, but according to the above numbers, it's more like 1.18.
The obvious answer is that I'm counting the runs wrong somehow, but I can't find the problem in my code. Is there some mathematical explanation that I am missing? Obviously, the answer is not "wait until you get two or more player wins (ignore ties), then one or more bank wins, then two or more player wins, then one or more bank wins, then a player win; the next non-tie will be a bank win 68.4% of the time - profit!".
December 13th, 2014 at 1:05:14 PM
permalink
Quote: donikThank DonGuy!
How you opinion RNG test what you made is close to real shoes?
As far as I can tell, these are close to real shoes.
However, I have also found the problem in your "discovery" that a run of 2 is 15% more likely than a run of 3 or more.
When I counted runs, I did not allow for the possibility that a run in progress at the end of a shoe could be continued had there been more cards.
In other words, if a shoe ends with P B PP B PP B, then this counts as a run of 2, even though if the shoe were to continue and the next P is followed by another P, that would make it a run of 3. When you take this into account, the ratio of "runs of 2" to "runs of 3 or more" matches the ratio of the probability of B to the probability of P - in other words, betting B after a run of 2 followed by a single P is not 15% more likely to win.
This is all that I will say in the matter.
December 13th, 2014 at 2:13:03 PM
permalink
Thank so much!
If not difficult can you make test baccarat shoes together without break i mean join first shoe to second shoe.
Besides, i counted there 22%.
And also we can increase percent with some MM
All the best!!!
If not difficult can you make test baccarat shoes together without break i mean join first shoe to second shoe.
Besides, i counted there 22%.
And also we can increase percent with some MM
All the best!!!
December 13th, 2014 at 2:59:06 PM
permalink
Here are the values with continuing from one shoe to the next:
| Runs | Number per shoe | Higher number per shoe | Ratio of higher to current |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.36409 | 2.300773 | 0.973217 |
| 2 | 1.166031 | 1.134742 | 0.973166 |
| 3 | 0.575109 | 0.559633 | 0.973089 |
| 4 | 0.283557 | 0.276075 | 0.973613 |
| 5 | 0.139903 | 0.136173 | 0.973339 |
| 6 | 0.06896 | 0.067213 | 0.974665 |
| 7 | 0.034043 | 0.033169 | 0.974323 |
| 8 | 0.016787 | 0.016383 | 0.975919 |
| 9 | 0.008298 | 0.008084 | 0.974185 |
| 10 | 0.008084 | 0 | 0 |
| Pattern | 100M shoes average | 250M shoes average |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9.456084 | 9.456222 |
| 2 | 4.600756 | 4.600711 |
| 3 | 4.356269 | 4.356139 |
| 1 1 | 4.725736 | 4.725942 |
| 1 2 | 2.298796 | 2.298802 |
| 1 3 | 2.175858 | 2.175802 |
| 2 1 | 2.298822 | 2.298871 |
| 2 2 | 1.118147 | 1.118132 |
| 2 3 | 1.057775 | 1.057686 |
| 3 1 | 2.175823 | 2.17578 |
| 3 2 | 1.05781 | 1.057742 |
| 3 3 | 0.999929 | 0.999908 |
| 1 1 1 | 2.296862 | 2.29693 |
| 1 1 2 | 1.116625 | 1.116627 |
| 1 1 3 | 1.055372 | 1.055471 |
| 1 2 1 | 1.116579 | 1.116569 |
| 1 2 2 | 0.542761 | 0.542793 |
| 1 2 3 | 0.51284 | 0.512817 |
| 1 3 1 | 1.055592 | 1.055564 |
| 1 3 2 | 0.512788 | 0.512792 |
| 1 3 3 | 0.484213 | 0.484163 |
| 2 1 1 | 1.116486 | 1.116607 |
| 2 1 2 | 0.54274 | 0.542732 |
| 2 1 3 | 0.512905 | 0.512826 |
| 2 2 1 | 0.542718 | 0.542763 |
| 2 2 2 | 0.263793 | 0.263775 |
| 2 2 3 | 0.249136 | 0.249118 |
| 2 3 1 | 0.512818 | 0.512795 |
| 2 3 2 | 0.249167 | 0.249103 |
| 2 3 3 | 0.234969 | 0.234976 |
| 3 1 1 | 1.055536 | 1.055569 |
| 3 1 2 | 0.512802 | 0.512776 |
| 3 1 3 | 0.484188 | 0.48419 |
| 3 2 1 | 0.512844 | 0.512857 |
| 3 2 2 | 0.24914 | 0.249104 |
| 3 2 3 | 0.235037 | 0.234985 |
| 3 3 1 | 0.484164 | 0.484129 |
| 3 3 2 | 0.235049 | 0.235034 |
| 3 3 3 | 0.221571 | 0.2216 |
| 1 1 1 1 | 1.114286 | 1.114284 |
| 1 1 1 2 | 0.541377 | 0.541371 |
| 1 1 1 3 | 0.510996 | 0.511046 |
| 1 1 2 1 | 0.54132 | 0.541322 |
| 1 1 2 2 | 0.262959 | 0.262979 |
| 1 1 2 3 | 0.24815 | 0.248151 |
| 1 1 3 1 | 0.510959 | 0.511007 |
| 1 1 3 2 | 0.248087 | 0.2481 |
| 1 1 3 3 | 0.233862 | 0.233876 |
| 1 2 1 1 | 0.541288 | 0.541322 |
| 1 2 1 2 | 0.262948 | 0.262948 |
| 1 2 1 3 | 0.248145 | 0.248092 |
| 1 2 2 1 | 0.262912 | 0.262978 |
| 1 2 2 2 | 0.127716 | 0.127722 |
| 1 2 2 3 | 0.120435 | 0.120427 |
| 1 2 3 1 | 0.248149 | 0.248128 |
| 1 2 3 2 | 0.12043 | 0.1204 |
| 1 2 3 3 | 0.113434 | 0.113466 |
| 1 3 1 1 | 0.511079 | 0.511102 |
| 1 3 1 2 | 0.248091 | 0.248069 |
| 1 3 1 3 | 0.233928 | 0.233927 |
| 1 3 2 1 | 0.248111 | 0.248117 |
| 1 3 2 2 | 0.120444 | 0.12044 |
| 1 3 2 3 | 0.113431 | 0.113423 |
| 1 3 3 1 | 0.233914 | 0.233875 |
| 1 3 3 2 | 0.1135 | 0.113479 |
| 1 3 3 3 | 0.106824 | 0.106835 |
| 2 1 1 1 | 0.541279 | 0.54134 |
| 2 1 1 2 | 0.262909 | 0.262947 |
| 2 1 1 3 | 0.248095 | 0.248115 |
| 2 1 2 1 | 0.262961 | 0.262955 |
| 2 1 2 2 | 0.127694 | 0.127696 |
| 2 1 2 3 | 0.12044 | 0.120426 |
| 2 1 3 1 | 0.248212 | 0.248176 |
| 2 1 3 2 | 0.120405 | 0.120377 |
| 2 1 3 3 | 0.113479 | 0.113465 |
| 2 2 1 1 | 0.262921 | 0.262967 |
| 2 2 1 2 | 0.127677 | 0.127687 |
| 2 2 1 3 | 0.120453 | 0.120438 |
| 2 2 2 1 | 0.127715 | 0.127691 |
| 2 2 2 2 | 0.061995 | 0.061999 |
| 2 2 2 3 | 0.058462 | 0.058466 |
| 2 2 3 1 | 0.120442 | 0.120427 |
| 2 2 3 2 | 0.058496 | 0.058478 |
| 2 2 3 3 | 0.054999 | 0.05501 |
| 2 3 1 1 | 0.24812 | 0.248108 |
| 2 3 1 2 | 0.120428 | 0.120414 |
| 2 3 1 3 | 0.113469 | 0.113485 |
| 2 3 2 1 | 0.120455 | 0.12044 |
| 2 3 2 2 | 0.058453 | 0.05844 |
| 2 3 2 3 | 0.055059 | 0.055029 |
| 2 3 3 1 | 0.113451 | 0.113442 |
| 2 3 3 2 | 0.055001 | 0.055015 |
| 2 3 3 3 | 0.051732 | 0.051735 |
| 3 1 1 1 | 0.511106 | 0.511129 |
| 3 1 1 2 | 0.248132 | 0.248109 |
| 3 1 1 3 | 0.233827 | 0.23385 |
| 3 1 2 1 | 0.248115 | 0.248087 |
| 3 1 2 2 | 0.120444 | 0.120443 |
| 3 1 2 3 | 0.113469 | 0.113453 |
| 3 1 3 1 | 0.23391 | 0.233881 |
| 3 1 3 2 | 0.113459 | 0.113496 |
| 3 1 3 3 | 0.106829 | 0.106826 |
| 3 2 1 1 | 0.248087 | 0.248106 |
| 3 2 1 2 | 0.120427 | 0.120431 |
| 3 2 1 3 | 0.113505 | 0.113492 |
| 3 2 2 1 | 0.120455 | 0.120443 |
| 3 2 2 2 | 0.058443 | 0.058435 |
| 3 2 2 3 | 0.055064 | 0.055034 |
| 3 2 3 1 | 0.113413 | 0.113429 |
| 3 2 3 2 | 0.055058 | 0.05504 |
| 3 2 3 3 | 0.051772 | 0.05173 |
| 3 3 1 1 | 0.233872 | 0.233875 |
| 3 3 1 2 | 0.113464 | 0.113461 |
| 3 3 1 3 | 0.106827 | 0.106802 |
| 3 3 2 1 | 0.11345 | 0.113467 |
| 3 3 2 2 | 0.055035 | 0.055018 |
| 3 3 2 3 | 0.051778 | 0.051757 |
| 3 3 3 1 | 0.106794 | 0.106811 |
| 3 3 3 2 | 0.051752 | 0.051752 |
| 3 3 3 3 | 0.048641 | 0.048649 |
Ok Donguy!
What about that statistic 0,9213=8% profit-5% Banker comission=3% profit
If bet 1 and 2 patterns against 3 (4.356269) pattern.
you can count.
Cheers.
December 15th, 2014 at 6:34:45 PM
permalink
Hi Donguy!
How you think 3% enough for make money?
I took that from your statistic.
How you think 3% enough for make money?
I took that from your statistic.
