Now i do know that baccarat is basically a coin toss with a slight edge twords the dealer. But there is the third option which is very interesting the tie. At first glance its an obvious sucker but. But With counting just as in BJ you can predict the number of tens and faces which are 0 (and with the prediction of a tie it pays off 9:1) so if they play with single deck could it be possible to count baccarat???
Baccarat AP play
- Thread starter lol6deck
- Start date
Some casinos will post the tie payout as 9 for 1, which works out to 8:1.
I suspect that it's nothing more than an attempt to confuse the players into thinking that it's something different than what it is.
On a side note, where in the world did you ever find a baccarat game that was dealt with a single deck?
I suspect that it's nothing more than an attempt to confuse the players into thinking that it's something different than what it is.
On a side note, where in the world did you ever find a baccarat game that was dealt with a single deck?
No see i dont know much about baccarat so idk if there even is a SD baccarat i just know there is a baccarat game near me and i was just curious if anyone has tryed this cause you could just play banker til the count is astronomical then go to with your min bet and if you loose its just a normal loose but if you win thats quite a bit.:joker:
How many decks are usually used in a baccarat game??
How many decks are usually used in a baccarat game??
Baccarat is always dealt from 8 decks.
As you are being paid 8-1 on what is a 9-1 shot the House Advantage is HUGE
With a huge surplus of 6's, 7's, 8's there is a possible advantage, but it almost never occurs; ergo you would be betting into rare situations with HUGE variance. The rarity will require your betting a LOT of money when a 9-1 shot improves to better than 8-1. This means that you can play the game for a few hours a day and perhaps find one opportunity a month that is bet-worthy — but is still a "longshot" — so you can easily go the year without ever winning.
Can you say "bankruptcy"
As you are being paid 8-1 on what is a 9-1 shot the House Advantage is HUGE
With a huge surplus of 6's, 7's, 8's there is a possible advantage, but it almost never occurs; ergo you would be betting into rare situations with HUGE variance. The rarity will require your betting a LOT of money when a 9-1 shot improves to better than 8-1. This means that you can play the game for a few hours a day and perhaps find one opportunity a month that is bet-worthy — but is still a "longshot" — so you can easily go the year without ever winning.
Can you say "bankruptcy"
Straight counting in a traditional casino banked bacarrat game is not profitable in any practical sense. I believe Thorpe provided the initial proof and Grosjean has done his own research that reached a similar finding. There are ways to exploit the game and there have been countable sidebets on it in the past but these opportunities differ from casino to casino.
-BW
-BW
Thorp's (not Thorpe) primary research into baccarat was conducted in the sixties (A favorable side bet in Nevada baccarat EO Thorp, WE Walden - Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1966), and involved analysis of no more than six card subsets using valve-era computer technology. It was meant to be a preliminary study, obviously.
The Grosjean study, (Stewart N. Ethier and William R. Eadington, eds. Optimal Play: Mathematical Studies of Games and Gambling. Reno: Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, 2008. ) is very amateurish. For example it cites the aforementioned Thorp study as providing proof that the tie bet cannot be counted, when, in fact the Thorp study predated the existence of the tie bet. There are only two references cited at all in fact despite numerous allusions to uncredited sources.
There are myriad methodological problems with the Grosjean study which would take me a month to cover in detail, but one of the biggest problems is that, as Grosjean admits, he has no idea at all how to improve the returns from his card-counting simulations by selectively leaving packs. Imagine someone programmed a series of computer simulations at poker or blackjack which totally ignored the advantages of game selection: they would conclude both games were a waste of time for the professional.
There are a few dozen people I know of around the world who have made a professional salary counting baccarat in one form or another. Essentially what are you looking for is very extreme concentrations of cards at the end of the pack on the last hand or the penultimate hand (the all-tens remainder being the classic example). These can produce very large advantages.
Those situations are very rare, so in order to make the thing practical you have to constantly make calculations as to whether a shoe is likely to produce a favourable subset as it is being dealt out, and very often leave for a fresh pack (or actually request a shuffle). Particulary when you add in the value of rebates, which are very easy to obtain at baccarat, you can make a good living doing this.
The Grosjean study, (Stewart N. Ethier and William R. Eadington, eds. Optimal Play: Mathematical Studies of Games and Gambling. Reno: Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming, 2008. ) is very amateurish. For example it cites the aforementioned Thorp study as providing proof that the tie bet cannot be counted, when, in fact the Thorp study predated the existence of the tie bet. There are only two references cited at all in fact despite numerous allusions to uncredited sources.
There are myriad methodological problems with the Grosjean study which would take me a month to cover in detail, but one of the biggest problems is that, as Grosjean admits, he has no idea at all how to improve the returns from his card-counting simulations by selectively leaving packs. Imagine someone programmed a series of computer simulations at poker or blackjack which totally ignored the advantages of game selection: they would conclude both games were a waste of time for the professional.
There are a few dozen people I know of around the world who have made a professional salary counting baccarat in one form or another. Essentially what are you looking for is very extreme concentrations of cards at the end of the pack on the last hand or the penultimate hand (the all-tens remainder being the classic example). These can produce very large advantages.
Those situations are very rare, so in order to make the thing practical you have to constantly make calculations as to whether a shoe is likely to produce a favourable subset as it is being dealt out, and very often leave for a fresh pack (or actually request a shuffle). Particulary when you add in the value of rebates, which are very easy to obtain at baccarat, you can make a good living doing this.
Yes Thorp. My error.
Rebates of course have NOTHING to do with counting. Conditions exist on many games where people could earn profit through rebates, promos, comps, coupons, dealer errors, marked cards, and cheating.
Several respected mathematical minds have tested counting at bacarrat and I have yet to see a single dessenter amongst them. Their findings all conclude counting is not a practical approach to beating the game. If you know baccarat "pros" they are not relying on counting the game to pay the bills.
-Brock
Rebates of course have NOTHING to do with counting. Conditions exist on many games where people could earn profit through rebates, promos, comps, coupons, dealer errors, marked cards, and cheating.
Several respected mathematical minds have tested counting at bacarrat and I have yet to see a single dessenter amongst them. Their findings all conclude counting is not a practical approach to beating the game. If you know baccarat "pros" they are not relying on counting the game to pay the bills.
-Brock
Rebates have everything to do with counting. Any time the rules change, for whatever reasons, the effects of removing a given card change on expectation and variance also, over and above effects pertaining to the house edge. The two things are not independent.
That said, it is possible to make good money at baccarat without rebates, it is just considerably easier.
The respected mathematical minds you refer to essentially all repeated the same study: they looked at the change in EV arising from the removal of a card from a full pack, determined the change in EV was small, then extrapolated on that basis to conclude counting bac was a waste of time.
No one is arguing that these "linear" systems work, they don't.
However, you can improve on this approach significantly with the tie wager by looking at specific extreme end-deck subsets instead of off-the-top card removal. Note for example that any linear system will recommend a negative bet with an all-ten valued card subset, yet this subset has an 800% edge on the tie.
That said, it is possible to make good money at baccarat without rebates, it is just considerably easier.
The respected mathematical minds you refer to essentially all repeated the same study: they looked at the change in EV arising from the removal of a card from a full pack, determined the change in EV was small, then extrapolated on that basis to conclude counting bac was a waste of time.
No one is arguing that these "linear" systems work, they don't.
However, you can improve on this approach significantly with the tie wager by looking at specific extreme end-deck subsets instead of off-the-top card removal. Note for example that any linear system will recommend a negative bet with an all-ten valued card subset, yet this subset has an 800% edge on the tie.
Rebates do not change the rules of the game, all they can do is generate a potentially positive EV situation with the rebate. Perhaps you can share your non-linear system or the game you are playing. The typical game has a cut card 14 cards from the end of a 416 card shoe and burns 'X' number of cards off the top. Are you playing with 100% pen? How often do you find an all-ten valued subset? I would think to come across it or a subset with an 800% edge and being able to bet into it once in ones lifetime for the game I described would be quite unlikely.
-Brock
-Brock
If you can see (and count) all of the burn cards at the beginning of the shoe (which is not ALWAYS possible because some houses burn them face down) and if the penultimate hand starts one hand before the cut card comes out,and if it contains exactly 6 cards, there will be exactly 9 cards left when the last hand is dealt. The chance of them ALL being 10's is 128/416 X 127/415 X 126/414 X 125/413 X 124/412 X 123/411 X 122/410 X 121/409 X 120/408; or one out of every 50478 shoes.
The average shoe takes about 1.5 hours to play, so you should be able to obtain one of these 800% tie advantages about once for every 75717 hours of play. If you play 2000 hours a year (40 hour work week), it should only take about 38 years before you hit one of these babies.
I must say, if the average person's career is 40 years, your guess of "once in a lifetime" ain't all that bad!
The average shoe takes about 1.5 hours to play, so you should be able to obtain one of these 800% tie advantages about once for every 75717 hours of play. If you play 2000 hours a year (40 hour work week), it should only take about 38 years before you hit one of these babies.
I must say, if the average person's career is 40 years, your guess of "once in a lifetime" ain't all that bad!
Rebates do not change the rules of the game, all they can do is generate a potentially positive EV situation with the rebate.
Rebates alter the game by effectively changing the payout. If you are getting a 10% rebate on the tie then, for one hand (or in this case, one very large bet), your payout is not 8 to 1, but mathematically equivalent to 8.88 to 1.
If a casino offered a payout of 8.88 to 1 on the tie we would call this a rule change.
This, in turn, reduces variance and changes the effect of removal of a given card.
In fact rebates rarely give you an edge by themselves at baccarat. You usually need to count also.
Perhaps you can share your non-linear system or the game you are playing. The typical game has a cut card 14 cards from the end of a 416 card shoe and burns 'X' number of cards off the top. Are you playing with 100% pen? How often do you find an all-ten valued subset? I would think to come across it or a subset with an 800% edge and being able to bet into it once in ones lifetime for the game I described would be quite unlikely.
The all-ten scenario is one often used for illustrative purposes. There are many other subsets. For example, virtually any combination containing only three ranks has a huge edge, or combination of even-valued cards.
There is no "system" as such. You either memorize all of the significantly positive card subsets or you get very good at mental combinatorial analysis.
Try it out yourself with this calculator:
http://www.reviewpokerrooms.com/casino-games/baccarat/odds-calculator.html
You'll see that inputting card subsets heavily depleted of ranks often creates an advantage>50%.
Rebates alter the game by effectively changing the payout. If you are getting a 10% rebate on the tie then, for one hand (or in this case, one very large bet), your payout is not 8 to 1, but mathematically equivalent to 8.88 to 1.
If a casino offered a payout of 8.88 to 1 on the tie we would call this a rule change.
This, in turn, reduces variance and changes the effect of removal of a given card.
In fact rebates rarely give you an edge by themselves at baccarat. You usually need to count also.
Perhaps you can share your non-linear system or the game you are playing. The typical game has a cut card 14 cards from the end of a 416 card shoe and burns 'X' number of cards off the top. Are you playing with 100% pen? How often do you find an all-ten valued subset? I would think to come across it or a subset with an 800% edge and being able to bet into it once in ones lifetime for the game I described would be quite unlikely.
The all-ten scenario is one often used for illustrative purposes. There are many other subsets. For example, virtually any combination containing only three ranks has a huge edge, or combination of even-valued cards.
There is no "system" as such. You either memorize all of the significantly positive card subsets or you get very good at mental combinatorial analysis.
Try it out yourself with this calculator:
http://www.reviewpokerrooms.com/casino-games/baccarat/odds-calculator.html
You'll see that inputting card subsets heavily depleted of ranks often creates an advantage>50%.
This book portends to advance a counting scheme to the game...
... but I beleive the system was denounced by Thorp (I think)
Thorp doesn't "denounce" stuff, that really isn't his style. We had the benefit of a protracted correspondence on baccarat and his only comments on "Baccarat for the Clueless" was that it was "well-written and entertaining", which may have been damning with faint praise but I think falls short of a denunciation.
There is no counting system as such in the book for the reasons I explained above, though there is a lot of detail as to how to go about finding and betting on advantageous subsets.
... but I beleive the system was denounced by Thorp (I think)
Thorp doesn't "denounce" stuff, that really isn't his style. We had the benefit of a protracted correspondence on baccarat and his only comments on "Baccarat for the Clueless" was that it was "well-written and entertaining", which may have been damning with faint praise but I think falls short of a denunciation.
There is no counting system as such in the book for the reasons I explained above, though there is a lot of detail as to how to go about finding and betting on advantageous subsets.
There are a few counting systems in the book, but they are derived from or come from other people. They are linear systems designed to limit losses rather than actually win money.
I made a few observations about certain card subsets which have large advantages eg all-evens subsets have a 60% edge. Some interpreted these as full-blown recommendations for a count system. However, in practice it would be difficult to get a meaningful edge just betting the subsets I discussed.
I included those subsets for illustrative purposes rather than as end in itself, to show how non-linear systems can outperform the linear approach that Thorp Griffin found fruitless. To get a big edge, as I said above, you need to basically memorize all of the significantly favorable card subsets you will encounter at deep penetration, and leave games where the card distribution indicates they are not likely to occur.
I made a few observations about certain card subsets which have large advantages eg all-evens subsets have a 60% edge. Some interpreted these as full-blown recommendations for a count system. However, in practice it would be difficult to get a meaningful edge just betting the subsets I discussed.
I included those subsets for illustrative purposes rather than as end in itself, to show how non-linear systems can outperform the linear approach that Thorp Griffin found fruitless. To get a big edge, as I said above, you need to basically memorize all of the significantly favorable card subsets you will encounter at deep penetration, and leave games where the card distribution indicates they are not likely to occur.