Roulette Ask Me Anything About Betting the EC's (Even Chances)

It is a fact that in the game of baccarat Banker has a slight edge but will it be there if one needs it ?


ND

 

The Banker probability of doing ties is slightly more than 50.68% (0.506788499) whilst Player is 49.32% (0.493211501).

Factor in the commission and it's still a negative expectation but lower house edge than player.

Again ignoring ties with 75 bets a shoe.

The mean/average banker hits is 75×0.506788499 = 38.009

The variance is 75×0.506788499×0.493211501 = 18.75

The standard deviation = √18.75 = 4.33
The standard error = 2×4.32 = 8.66

With 99.73% of all results occuring within 3 standard deviations we expect the probability of seeing Banker to be 38 ± (3×8.66) = 38 ± 25.97

So close enough to 38 ± 26 meaning the number of Bankers with 99.73% confidence has a range of 12 to 64 per shoe ignoring ties.

For Player the mean is 36.99, let's just say 37

The expected number of hits with 99.73% confidence is 37 ± 26 so 11 to 63 per shoe ignoring ties.

So fuck all difference and enough variance for anything to happen in a session.

 

Strike that:

For banker you get this many hits in 75 hands:

38 ± (4.33×3) = 38 ± 13
25 to 51 hits
​

And for player you get this many hits in 75 hands:

37 ± (4.33×3) = 37 ± 13
24 to 50 hits
​

That covers 99.73% of shoes ignoring ties.

The large grey area in the middle it is niether here nor there if you bet player vs banker given the variance. Theoretically Banker pays lower house edge but Player and Banker can easily dominate a shoe without worrying about the poofteenth of a bees dick in the differences.

​

 

What I would like to see is if you can figure this out with math. Regarding one shoe, how many times will you see the pattern XOX appear, Banker, Player, Banker or Player, Banker, Player? And on average, how many hands between before this alternating pattern happens?

 

Ignoring ties.

Pr(BPB) =
0.506788499×0.493211501×0.506788499 = 12.67%

Pr (PBP) =
0.493211501×0.506788499×0.493211501 = 12.33%

And both together = 12.67+12.33=25%

So 1/4 of results will be XOX so on average you will witness it will see it after 4/1 = 4 attempts.

 

TwoUp pleeeeeesssssee don't fuck up another thread pleeeeesssee

 

Forget the house edge and concentrate on some winnings .


Penny wise and Dollar foolish .

 

Winners at the baccarat table should never mention their commission on Banker. Why give away

your MO .

 

Obviously you are a mathematics expert and therefore have an in-depth understanding of what's really going on in regards to the odds and the casino's edge. Does that help or cause you to shy away from gambling? I other words, does your understanding through math give you an edge or insists you don't have a chance?

 

One persons nonsense is another person's delight. So there.

 

I wouldn't say I'm an expert at math at all. I can apply math to problems with my background in software and cryptography.

It certainly helps to see through a lot of hand waving nonsense and understand things at a much deeper level.

The way the house makes its money is different to how the player needs to make their money.

I apply math in many aspects of risk, be it gambling, sports betting, or trading.

 

What thread are you talking about and how was it fucked? With facts?

 

hey spike what has been longest drawback for you with flat betting. - how many shoes you have played total and what is your average profit per month

 

Spike and Baccarat and drawdowns ? Too comical .

 

He will not reply to your request, it is private info or your questions are not specific enough. One or the other.

 

What is your take on this line of thinking. Patterns do exist in EC games. In Roulette for example, a physical ball rolls around a physical wheel and lands in a physical slot. Do this 100 times and a physical pattern has been created. The pattern created is as real as any thing else in life, but the past of course and has nothing to do with the next outcome. However, in actual life patterns are also formed. Take for instance our friends and family members whom we know real well. We observe the way they do things and the way they react to situations, they have a pattern about them which is also in the past. If a situation came up with one we know real well and we had to guess what they were going to do next, wouldn't our decision be based on their past reactions? I would call that a very good educated guess base on their pattern. However, their next move may not be as anticipated. But at least we guessed based on something we observed in the past. That's why I feel observing past patterns make for a fairly good decision for the future because the same thing does repeat over and over.

 

I remember a quotation which Spike made at G G " Never wise up a chump ."

 

well it is quite specific and harmless, if he really is winning he should know some stats if hes the real deal. He told he is not willing to say only how exactly to play and win

 

@SPIKE how many units you recommend to win then before doubling your unit size. you have 15 years worth of results you mentioned, so you should know most extreme variances

 

isnt this what forums are for and this topic headline here ask me anything :O