Baccarat Oscar's grind + baccarat

That is not correct.

Lemonade showed, you only have a 28.68% chance of doubling before losing if you play P only.

This is not flat betting. OG Bets on the P, fluctuate more than they do on B. The total amounts bet on each side are different. Playing OG, a 23% chance of doubling, before losing your bankroll, betting on B does not translate to a 77% chance of doubling your bankroll before losing, betting on P. Lemonade proved that.

Flat betting the whole bankroll with a single bet on either side, provides a much better, nearly 50% chance of doubling before losing it all.

 

It is correct, you just aren’t grasping Jae’s press (reverse OG). But it’s okay, you’re not the first person unable to figure it out.

The concept is very simple: all the rules are the same, but instead of betting what you are supposed to bet on banker, you just bet it on player.

To put it in an even simpler way… imagine I’m playing OG, and you are betting the opposite of everything I bet on, so if I have a 5 unit bet on banker, you put a 5 unit bet on player. When I lose 2,000 units, you’ll make 2,000 units.

According to lemonade, I would have a 23% chance of winning 2,000 units and you’d have a 77% chance of winning 2,000 units.

 

I understand that you are hung up on flat betting, and that you think it outperforms OG. Take $300 and turn it into 2.8 million in 3 years and I’ll drink your kool-aid.

I made $39,000 and some change last night at Foxwoods with less than 2 hours of work with OG. I’ll make a similar amount today or tomorrow with no sweat.

 

i just can't comprehend that you only have a 23% chance of doubling bankroll before gettin clipped for 2000 unit! I have to question the "artificially" created shoe what provide the data set. In past I've tested style against legit data, really had dealt eight deck shoe and perform well but same style test badly against computer generated garbage result from zumma and the wizard site, hey hey.

 

Like I've said before......"If you say it's Easter, I'm dying the eggs."

 

If that were true, it would turn us both in player bettors. For every bet you’d normally make on banker using OG, bet it on player instead for a 77% chance of a full return on your investment.

 

You're not considering commission, which is the main reason B doesn't have a good chance of doubling. Note what I said in my post:

Even if it were just as simple as betting the opposite of B every time, this would mean that P would have a 32% chance of doubling, not a 77% chance.

 

Is it safe to say that in your findings that the 5% banker commission eats up 45% of the probability of banker doubling?

 

Correct. I wasn't going to post, no need as I rely on my own findings above anything produced by the board, but in my mind something is wrong with how the simulation is executing. The expected win rates and overall performance numbers are no where near my own after evaluating this version of OG through 1600 actual played shoes. This doesn't mean that a simulation CAN'T produce exactly the same results as real-world play, it absolutely can, but it does suggest to me that something in this specific simulation isn't on point.

There are other problems with applying OG successfully in a real world environment that make it something best left to extremely disciplined players who don't let emotions rule them (both positive AND negative), and who aren't prone to unforced errors while attempting it, but poor performance isn't one of them.

 

You know what the difference between you and lemonade is?

Lemonade is smart and respectable and capable of bringing real value to the forum. And you have nothing. You remind me of a city, Detroit.

 

This might sound superstitious, but I sometimes have conversations with other baccarat players about how different casinos almost have different personalities with their baccarat games. When you play at a particular casino very often and go to a different one, the types of shoes you are used to can be completely different. I don’t know why this feels that way, and again—I’ll just link it up to superstition, but I’ve been around long enough to truly feel like I see a major difference.

With that said, I definitely get a different personality from computer generated shoes. I’ll go ahead and mark that up with superstition as well, but it is rather odd.

Nearly 7 years ago, I found a trigger that beat all 1,000 shoes on the wizard of odds page and it lost on the second live shoe I played at my local casino. The very next day it lost twice in that session. I see it lose on average once in every twenty shoes I play since then (when I’m noticing it).

Then the opposite happened, after I had obtained about 1,100 real world shoes, I found a trigger that only failed once in all of those shoes, but on the wizard shoes it would fail about 1 in 50.

1,600 shoes is a relatively small amount, probably sitting at around 100,000 hands when compared to computer simulations that can run years of real world play in several seconds.

Ultimately, even the nearly 18,000 shoes I have saved on my phone from real play are small potatoes compared to computer simulations. It’s still extremely hard to believe that I’m THAT LUCKY to have survived this many shoes if the mathematical odds are weighed that heavily against me. If what lemonade is saying is indeed correct, I can only compare my luck to someone that just walked into the game and let it ride on banker and is now sitting at 20+ banks in a row. That’s just not probable to accept.

I do think the numbers are off somehow, but I have great respect in lemonade and his ability to run simulations.

I’m curious as to what his simulation results show for other bankrolls, 5,000 units, 10,000 units, even 100,000 units.

 

Jae, wow your 2 OG threads caught my attention. I haven't yet watched the video you presented, but I am very briefly aware of the counting and MM in play.

Just wanted to ask you a couple of questions:
For somebody who hasn't had a lot of experience playing baccarat, and would only prefer to play safe BR (considering the casino B&M offers the minimum bet of $10 per hand, increment of $5, at a no commission table) how would you suggest the game play with regards to BR, increment of $5 and the count being -10 for example, before betting? Using your method. Thanks.

 

True, honestly the way I look at what you're doing and have done in terms of luck after seeing OG play out through the shoes I tested is that it's similar to having the probability of say an 18 or 20 step martingale, but you're only betting units equivalent to 10 or 11 steps.

Meaning that OG is 'giving' the same throughput and effectiveness of a 20-step marty, but at a far lower overall cost. Which means that it absolutely can lose, and in fact it can lose three times in quick succession, just as it's possible to see a 20-player run three times in a given week...but the probability of it actually happening? Extremely small.

So you're right Jae, it is luck to a certain degree. But as a way to play, OG puts a lot more "luck" on the player's side versus just about any other progression I've seen.

 

How much is your bankroll, and out of curiosity, what is the side bet on your ex bac table? Dragon 7 and panda 8 or big six?

 

That’s an analogy I can get behind. When craps compared it to an 11 step Marty, I disagreed because I think OG has way more staying power, but I would absolutely make a similar comparison to what you just said, maybe even embellish a bit and say it’s the equivalent of a 22-25 step Marty at the cost of an 11 step.

 

There is a ytube video of some old guy playing both sides at once, I try and dig it up. Cheers

 

Agree , something not quite right about wizards baccarat. Cheers

 

Yes 1/2 price banker has coped a bad rap , interesting post of yours, cue humsup and his results of 1/2 play. Cheers

 

This is a good post re quantify luck. This is what drives the math savvy poster crazy. Put simply when the “luck” factor kicks in it can be akin to sitting in the front seat of a car as you careen off the cliff , all in slow motion, there’s nothing you can do but enjoy the moment until it ends. In all probability you are about to be dead , but here you are still breathing, still texting and you may still survive the impact.
Yet in the car next to your car crash all die, that’s what drive the math crazy.
Hard to explain, but skim from the profit and continue until you stop. Cheers