According to you, since there are more Banks than Players at the game of Baccarat, does it mean we have more singles on the player's side than on the bank's side ?
Ex.
B
B
B
P <- single
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
As a corrolary, do you have more singles than runs on the player's side ?
My tests show yes we have.
I have processed enough data to conclude yes we have more singles of 'Player' than runs of 'Player'. It's not 50/50 as we would be led to believe.
This might offer an opportunity to the player who prefers to target the "maturity of chances" opportunities. For example, if you see a huge number of singles on the Player's side then you might begin to target runs on this maturing side by trying to hit the second P of an emerging run.
I have processed 30000 hands of Baccarat and here are the results:
For Banker:
Nb of Runs: 3784
Nb of Singles: 3779
For Player:
Nb of Runs: 3654
Nb of Singles: 3910
Conclusion, there are more singles on Player, and Bank has more Runs than Player also the Nb of runs vs nb of singles on bank is 50/50 while it is not on the player's side.
Quote from: Arteinvivo on January 12, 2009, 12:06:04 AM
I have processed 30000 hands of Baccarat and here are the results:
Conclusion, there are more singles on Player, and Bank has more Runs than Player also the Nb of runs vs nb of singles on bank is 50/50 while it is not on the player's side.
That's very interesting. But why is it happening? More importantly, why is it just being discovered now.
Hi Arte,Giz.
<But why is it happening?>
Its the edge of Banker against the Player;
just a short e.g.
Banker and Player in Baccarat Statstic
Lets start with drawing the 3rd card is an [eight]
IF banker after 2h has 3 points
Player is o-5 point have to draw a card :
if card is "eight" banker not allow to draw.
[a] if player 0 draws an "eight" = 8 so winner
if player 1 draws an "eight" = 9 so winner
[c] if player 2 draws an "eight" = 0 so lose
[d] if player 3 draws an "eight" = 1 so lose
[e] if player 4 draws an "eight" = 2 so lose
[f] if player 5 draws an "eight" = 3 so Tie
Player third card is 8 when Banker is at 3 Points the probablities are:
2 win hands and 3 lose hands 1 tie hand
33.33% chance to win: 50%chance of losing : 16% chance of Tie.
Now if Banker has 4. 5. 6. 7 points
Player is o-5 point have to draw a card so if card is "eight" banker not allow to draw.
[a] if player 0 draws an "eight" = 8 so win = 8 against 4
if player 1 draws an "eight" = 9 so win = 9 against 4
[c] if player 2 draws an "eight" = 0 so lose = 0 against 4
[d] if player 3 draws an "eight" = 1 so lose = 1 against 4
[e] if player 4 draws an "eight" = 2 so lose = 2 against 4
[f] if player 5 draws an "eight" = 3 so lose = 3 against 4
Player third card is 8 when Banker is at "4" "5" "6" "7" Points the probabilities are:
2 win hands and 4 lose hands
33.33% chance to win: 66 % chance of losing :
Now if Banker has 4. 5. 6. 7 points
Player is o-5 point have to draw a card so if card is "nine" banker not allow to draw.
[a] if player 0 draws a "nine" = 9 so win = 8 against 4
if player 1 draws a "nine" = 0 so win = 9 against 4
[c] if player 2 draws a "nine" = 1 so lose = 0 against 4
[d] if player 3 draws a "nine" = 2 so lose = 1 against 4
[e] if player 4 draws a "nine" = 3 so lose = 2 against 4
[f] if player 5 draws a "nine" = 4 so tie = 4 against 4
Player third card is "9" when Banker is at "4" "5" "6" "7" Points the probabilities are:
2 win hands:........... 3 lose hands:.................1 tie hand
33.33% chance to win:....50% % chance of losing:.......16% chance of tie:
Now if Banker has 4. 5. 6. 7 points
Player is o-5 point have to draw a card so if card is "10" banker not allow to draw.
[a] if player 0 draws a "ten" = 0 so lose = 0 against 4
if player 1 draws a "ten" = 1 so lose = 1 against 4
[c] if player 2 draws a "ten" = 2 so lose = 2 against 4
[d] if player 3 draws a "ten" = 3 so lose = 3 against 4
[e] if player 4 draws a "ten" = 4 so tie = 4 against 4 : tie hand
[f] if player 5 draws a "ten" = 5 so win = 5 against 4
[g] if player 5 draws a "ten" = 5 so tie = 5 against 5 : tie hand
Player third card is "10" when Banker is at "4" "5" "6" "7" Points the probabilities are:
1 win hands: 4 lose hands: 2 tie hand
33.33% chance to win: 50% % chance of losing : 16% chance of tie:
Cheers
Win1win2
The exact probability for player to win is exactly 49.317563%. This is not new stuff. Except for the number of runs vs singles which is rarely mentionned.
Streaks in Baccarat:
nolinks://wizardofodds.com/baccarat/baccaratapx4.html (nolinks://wizardofodds.com/baccarat/baccaratapx4.html)
Thanks Bliss, i knew about this table.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi65.servimg.com%2Fu%2Ff65%2F11%2F75%2F07%2F03%2Fruns_v10.jpg&hash=43cfef019b3aaa710e4d657d714a81cbfcb8a5b4)
Suppose i had tried to exploit runs on the P side by targeting the second P in an emerging run, i would have lost 256 units.
If i would have tried to exploit singles on the P side by targeting the OLD when P hit then i would have hit B 3910 times correctly and missed 3654 times for a profit of 256 units but if we take the commission into consideration then i would have had to pay 3910/20 = 195.20 in commission so in all 256-195.20 is my profit, ie, 60.50 units.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi65.servimg.com%2Fu%2Ff65%2F11%2F75%2F07%2F03%2Fruns_v11.jpg&hash=e0c511fc6fc6f4084a8c214f07b1138a5c2e9070)
Once again, if i had tried to exploit runs on the P side by targeting the second P in an emerging run, i would have lost 39 units.
If i would have tried to exploit singles on the P side by targeting the OLD when P hit then i would have hit B 790 times correctly and missed 751 times for a profit of 39 units but if we take the commission into consideration then i would have had to pay 790/20 = 39.5 units in commission so in all 39 - 39.5 is my profit, ie, -0.50 units only.
This means, by simply using a basic scheme we can see how tough it is for the casino to take your money.
My expectation is that there will be more singles observed on the P side and more runs on the B side.
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi65.servimg.com%2Fu%2Ff65%2F11%2F75%2F07%2F03%2Fshorte10.jpg&hash=58207e2fd5722a15ef677e36e31d8f5c095946e3)
this is interesting, I will try it out and report back
Quote from: Worm on January 12, 2009, 03:04:41 PM
this is interesting, I will try it out and report back
Don't expect to break the house but over the long term it should help you to protect your capital in an optimal way. I am presently testing my pattern capturing techniques on patterns of Runs vs Singles. Ex. of such a pattern : "RSSS" this just means Run followed by three Singles. I'll come back with this other possibility later on.
Just a small test..
Dublinbet live 12jan 2009
Playing one shoe 25-30 min
(ignoring ties)
L
W
L
L
W
W
W
W
W
L
W
W
W
L
---->+3.5 units flatbetting banker 1 unit
8) Worm
Still having fun testing this idea..getting some slow and nice results.
Just a question..what does the long term say of banker outcome of 3 or more in a streak if you compare to player.
Just if it is a good idea to bet B after BB? rubbish? prob ;D
Quote from: Worm on January 14, 2009, 08:22:47 PM
Still having fun testing this idea..getting some slow and nice results.
Just a question..what does the long term say of banker outcome of 3 or more in a streak if you compare to player.
Just if it is a good idea to bet B after BB? rubbish? prob ;D
Worm,
Here is a more fascinating idea.
We know bank should hit more often than player but because of the commission we have to pay when Bank hits then it kinds of compensate for or counterbalance the apparent advantage Bank has over Player. But a thing is sure Bank will hit more often than player.
[colorsb]
Try this, on each hand bet on Bank, always. This bet selection is the easiest of all. You don't need to think, just bet on bank on every turn.
You'll use a very simple money management. You will use the old timer Alembert progression when you lose one time after a single B or a run of B like this:
B +1
P -1
B +2 increased bet won
B +1
B +1
P -1
B +2 increased bet won
P -1
P -2 increased bet lost, next time bet 3 instead of 2
P -1
P -1
B +1
P -1
B +3 increased bet Won, next time bet 3-1 = 2
P -1
B +2 increased bet won
etc.
See ?
The first lost after a single B or any run on the B side you increase your bet. If this increased bet is lost then next time you bet the same amount +1. You use the Alembert progression on this one shot after a single or a run on the B side.
[/colorsb]
Here are some results:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi65.servimg.com%2Fu%2Ff65%2F11%2F75%2F07%2F03%2Fbeatin10.jpg&hash=f9e563e89ae246084d31ebae7edfce93c74cba42)
This is the final analysis of 91 shoes provided by a good friend of mine Johno from GG:
A simple Alembert suffices to beat Johno's 91 real shoes. Highest bet ever 10 units :o
The reason why it works so well is because it uses the optimal mixture of MM and BS. Always betting on B is the optimal way to bet and the Alembert applied when losing once after a single or a run is also the optimal time to increase our wagers.
This prove one thing, designing a system to stay above ground zero is not that tough if you know what you are doing. :thumbsup:
(https://www.vlsroulette.com/proxy.php?request=nolinks%3A%2F%2Fi65.servimg.com%2Fu%2Ff65%2F11%2F75%2F07%2F03%2Fbeatin11.jpg&hash=e2c9d1b75c0e75522c8967c32113e03f191420a3)
Wow nice result i have to admit :). Thanks for your time and effort posting this.
Have a nice day and take care :thumbsup:
/Worm
Quote from: John on January 15, 2009, 08:54:48 AM
<This is the final analysis of 91 shoes provided by a good friend of mine Johno from GG:>
Is that the same one who is intellectually inpaired and plays often?
You've got some neck arte, I'll give you that.
No, the one i know does not come in pair, he is complete in himself ;D
Hmm I like the only bet when single P even better.... although it simular.. ::)
Any advice on where to find real shoe results btw?
Arte,
In your second example above about half way down you bet 8 units and won then at the next opportunity you bet 7 units and won then at the next opportunity you dropped your bet to 2 units rather than 6 units? Would you explain why you reduced your bet to 2 units rather than bet 6 units?
[smiley=3D-Smil/28_1_14.gif]
Just gamblers intelligens i think, after being in the - and then get back up u need to downsize your bet again
Quote from: dennisbelle on January 15, 2009, 03:46:48 PM
Arte,
In your second example above about half way down you bet 8 units and won then at the next opportunity you bet 7 units and won then at the next opportunity you dropped your bet to 2 units rather than 6 units? Would you explain why you reduced your bet to 2 units rather than bet 6 units?
[smiley=3D-Smil/28_1_14.gif]
Each time i win a bet which is greater than 2 i look at my running balance and if it is > 0 then i reset my bet to 2 to avoid risking money for nothing since i am positive at that point. It's not optimal but it's less risky. Again, this is just a possibility not an end in itself.