Discussion in 'Baccarat Forum' started by soxfan, Feb 13, 2021.
I think yer onto the gist of it with yer testings and you know that wagerin on players is always a lousy, coconut proposition, hey hey.
That's encouraging. Think of it as a peer review. If you change your mind PM me. Results would be confidential if you wish.
Totally on point and I've followed most of your posts Jae which resonate with how I also approach gambling. Most methods will eventually fail, and that's totally expected AND PLANNED FOR.
To succeed one needs enough profitability in the short game to double the bankroll with just enough probability of success. After doubling the BR increase (double) the unit size and then double the original bankroll again in half the time, then you have 3 bankrolls. Split into primary and reserve bankrolls. Rinse and repeat growing both unit size and creating reserve bankrolls for sustability as you go . Any session blow outs are merely setbacks.
Once the cycle has been repeated a few times you can begin taking profit, but the longer one can hold out the quicker get to play with larger units plus have 4-5 reserve bankrolls for the setbacks.
I would say 3 shoes is no accident, any reliable method needs to work on a basis of multiple shoes as you indicate simply because of variance. The math says across 3 shoes (75x3 = 215 hands) we are all but guaranteed at least 66 bankers as a practical worst case to work with. That's caluclated from the binomial distribution of banker probability ignoring ties. Our "guarantee" has nine 9's of confidence (99.9999999%) or 1 billion to 1 which is "good enough". To put that in context, anyone living in a western country only has 2 nines of confidence that they wont die each year (death rate is around 8 per 1000 or 1 in 120-150). Helicopters are engineered with 6 nines on critical components, passenger jets have very high reliability requirements with nine 9's of reliability (which is higher than nuclear power plants) and as reliable as depending on 66 bankers in 3 shoes sans pilot error.
So design strategy around those limits and you have a winner, and from what I've read Jae has figured out to play somewhere within the above limits or similar.
Played out 50 shoes (had some time to kill) on Wizard and came out with -13u with max drawdown of -22. Although very short term, and to the left of the bell curve is completely different to the hand shuffled live dealer results, which are positive and slightly to the right. The RNG is so very different to hand dealt. Others have noticed a few things "off" with wizard's game, but I won't comment on that, suffice to say I'll stick with it being an RNG issue. Good luck in your quest.
"The RNG is so very different to hand dealt. Others have noticed a few things "off""
Funny that the people who say this cannot point to one parameter difference. Count decision totals, run lengths and patterns you find no real standard deviation difference.
Sucksfan pretends to keep records. It would be a simple matter for him to compute results from all those wizard shoes that he played to show what could possibly be different. Don't hold your breath. He can't point to one thing that might be even a hint that something is amiss with wizard RNG.
I don’t see the difference in RNG or live table play. If the drawing rules are the same, it should statistically be the same. If there were a difference it would be in table play as the casinos could tamper with randomness. But they don’t so it’s a non issue. They have no reason to be that way. The house edge is what it is. It pays for those big buildings.
I come in peace. Everyday, at a certain time, the Evolution casino baccarat tables break out new decks and shuffle the cards. On numerous occasions the next few shoes show many more than normal clumped cards, with very long streaks as opposed to what you would see in a b and m. After a few hours constant dealing and shuffling, the shoes resemble what one would see in a b and m. This is due to the online dealer lazy (intentional?) shuffling practices and could be used to your advantage at times. An RNG cannot replicate this.
The maths is the maths, I do not disagree, but I might add that I do like the law of diminishing probabilities.
After playing soxfan's theory (along side my own) for 10 shoes live yesterday (speed baccarat live dealer because using my the normal speed dealer with soxfan's theory would have sent me to sleep) using b after b, it was down 10 units which although negative, isn't a bad way if you just wanted to pass time with minimal losses if you were in a b and m casino (and completely bored out of your mind).
He mentions he's going to the b and m soon, using $1000 a hand, I strongly suggest he changes this and uses minimal value units until he knows for sure what's going on with the -/+. If he shows positive after a few hundred hours, good for him, but unless I see the data I cannot determine what's going on. The jury is open on this one. Sometimes people have spotted things over the years and it has actually turned out to be a very good AP.
All the best
The house edge is/has increased over here.
In the UK it is very rare now, to find a hand dealt BJ (excepting some high limit rooms). Bacc is going/has gone the same way, it's mostly CSM's. Card counting BJ has become impossible/not worth it. I don't bother with it anymore. I hear in Vegas that the 3:2 pay outs are now mostly 6:5, increasing the HE even further, it won't be long before that happens over here. My local casino's have changed the single zero for double zero roulette tables for f*ck's sake, which obviously increases HE. I thought that was just a Vegas thing, but behold, looking at Vegas they have introduced triple zero's FFS!
Stupidity, greed and degen's pay for those buildings. Stupid people play triple zero and 6:5 BJ. If they didn't and boycotted those games then the casinos would revert back to single zero and 3:2 sharpish.
They don't want people that can use their heads using their facilities, but they can't stop them, so raising the HE across all the games is what they are doing. Bacc is the last man standing and the best game in the casino over here ATM. (Craps is very rare here, and who wants to play Come/Don't come all day for the min HE?).
I wonder how long before they change the Bacc rules? Stupid people will accept the higher HE if they do change it. I think Bacc is the hill we will die on. However I do love a variation of the old Brett Morton 22 on the online live single zero roulette (I know the issues, but I love a spinny wheel lol) just for sh1ts and giggles, in and out in 15-30mins, lovely jubbly. I will probably lose over the long run, but still good after a few years as I'm definitely on the right of the bell curve...but understand the neg will come, with the black swan smiling sweetly whilst it's staring into my eyes holding those blood chip soaked knives.
All the best
Well said. And they will change it. It’s just a matter of time.
You might get me on your side if you're talkin about a game that does not use the factory wash and any mechanical Shuffle machine just just hand wash and hand shuffle. Go back in the day clumping was prevalent certain casinos. But then they wised up because us blackjack players we're taking advantage. So they began to plug the shoe and use more pics on the Shuffles which tended to randomize the cards more. But at some point they became random pretty early after he Shuffles.
So your comments are anecdotal. They have no basis in fact. So I'll say it again that it would be pretty easy for sucksfan to document some discrepancy.
So soxfan told you is that selection? He has every right to keep it to himself of course but I'm just wondering because you said your playing his method.
Yes, not using mechanical shuffling machines is advantageous, but as you say if clumped they become pretty random soon after a few more shuffles.
soxfan hasn't disclosed anything to me, but he mentioned the selection earlier in the thread somewhere. I may be wrong, but I'm sure he's only flat betting banker, just betting banker after a banker shows. What I don't know is if he continues to bet b in a streak, but I did.
I deducted the following after 10 live shoes: that betting b only after b shows, then wait a hand, if b shows again then bet b again and so on.... this on reflection produced less profit than if I had just got one win, waited for a p win then resumed. I estimate that the 10 live shoes would have been a total of 0 to -2u instead of -10. The shoes, to be quite frank, were absolute dogsh+t and dominated by player with lots of chop in-between, apart from one but it did OK (ish).
I may play another 10 shoes (if Im bored enough) and see what happens if they aren't dogsh1t. Would be interesting to see what happens in a streak of banker dominated shoes. The only banker dominated shoe out of the 10 had a +7 unit at one point, before dropping to +4.
10 live shoes = Small run, I know, but waiting to see if soxfan has any comments to add. The bankers commission is basically what kills the method, which is exactly what it is designed to do.
I don't follow systems as a rule, and play my own way, but when I saw this I thought I'd give it a try as the drawdown is pretty minimal (so far).
Who knows, maybe soxfan would like to add? If not, then it's a down the rabbit hole into a world of fairies and pixie dust interspaced with flying unicorns and hopium.
All the best
You know, actually that doesn't really effect baccarat on the RNG stadium, hey? I've only skimmed this last page, only the issue regarding card shoe shuffling changes came to my abrupt attention.
I guess in the long run, it really wouldn't make any considerable difference, if you followed your game play exactly....
Exactly, it won't make a difference in RNG stadium. In the long run, as you say, it all balances out.
All the best
PS As I said in my above comment, the bankers commission is basically what kills this method, which is exactly what it is designed to do. I am going to stick to my conclusion that this method is a loser, obviously. If soxfan has a way of beating the banker commission, I am all ears.
I ain't been testing much lately but I'm back at now and the party poker no longer the evolutionngaming. Instead they now offer baccarats provided by some outfit called the pragmatic-play, and they offer the fat spread of 1$-20,000$. Back to testing and buckin up against 8739+ live dealt online shoe am lookin at 10870.7 units nets profits. Atesting against my own data of b+s am lookin at +4797.6 inits nets profots buckin up against 4736 tested shoe. And last still testing the bet b after ppp style and it's shown a nets profit of +329.25 units buckin up against 1088 tested shoe. It ain't rocket science baby, hey hey.
Oh Wow, many thanks for keeping us all updated, real good to know "yer still testing".. Sure does feel like you spend a long time testing, maybe you'll get to a trillion shoes in time. Do you ever do anything else other than testing and muttering "hey hey", to nobody in particular, like stepping outside for fresh air? Anyway Hugo, it's real good to know "yer living the dream", with all this on-paper money you making.
Maybe one day there will be a computer glitch and you'll get two welfare payments then you can take a bus to the casino and you can become a millionaire once again and let Social Services yer moving out and they no longer need to subsidise yer rent.
When "yer" finished testing and muttering "hey hey", you might be able to sniff this one day too, baby!!
The above image is posted to incentivise Hugo to complete his testing, it is not shared with the intent to cause envy, jealousy, rage or stir up any feelings of inadequacy and failure.
I wonder if the john-O/squishy-bits will EVER post up a replicable, winning style what can show profit buckin up against a minimum 1000 tested shoe? Oh well, he can always keep posting random picas of chips and bank notes to convince others and himself that he is anything other than a chickens-shits, scared loser recreational player, hey hey.
Buckin' up against 1000 shoes, sure fire winning, so why are you stone cold broke then?
Who posts random pictures from the net then obscures the facial image? I didn't post the above image to make you feel bad, rather to get you to spend even more time testing, every waking minute needs to be spent testing, testing, testing and more testing.
Would this be enough to "buck up against the trend", for a recreational well travelled player? Asking for a friend LOL
Each of those chip stacks are £2k sterling, thought you might like to know.
Separate names with a comma.