1. Welcome to the #1 Gambling Community with the best minds across the entire gambling spectrum. REGISTER NOW!
  2. Have a gambling question?

    Post it here and our gambling experts will answer it!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Discussions in this section are assumed to be EV- as they are outside of the Advantage Play section. For EV+ discussions, please visit the Advantage Play section.
    Dismiss Notice

Baccarat Oscar's grind + baccarat

Discussion in 'Baccarat Forum' started by BeJustRich, Apr 23, 2021.

  1. lemonade

    lemonade New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2018
    Likes:
    8
    Location:
    USA
    For all you folks that think my generated shoes are wrong, I dug up Jimske's data that he posted in 2018. There were (almost) 5 sessions worth of shoes in the data. The smaller the dataset the worse the accuracy, but the results line up with I got before.

    There was a 20% chance of doubling your 2000 unit bankroll before you lose it all.

    The data is a little B heavy, so should favor B only betting:
    Banker plays = 27371 (50.95%)
    Player plays = 26347

    Session 1
    Banker plays = 4357 (50.75%)
    Player plays = 4228
    Banker wins = 1072 (49.17%)
    Banker losses = 1108
    Max consecutive wins = 8
    Max consecutive losses = 9
    Ending profit for session 1 = -1871.75 units

    session1.png

    Session 2
    Banker plays = 4899 (51.33%)
    Player plays = 4646
    Banker wins = 984 (51.38%)
    Banker losses = 931
    Max consecutive wins = 10
    Max consecutive losses = 11
    Ending profit for session 2 = -1909.5 units

    session2.png

    Session 3
    Banker plays = 4976 (50.93%)
    Player plays = 4794
    Banker wins = 1120 (49.82%)
    Banker losses = 1128
    Max consecutive wins = 17
    Max consecutive losses = 8
    Ending profit for session 3 = -1918.55 units

    session3.png

    Session 4
    Banker plays = 2372 (51.03%)
    Player plays = 2276
    Banker wins = 509 (50.6%)
    Banker losses = 497
    Max consecutive wins = 10
    Max consecutive losses = 11
    Ending profit for session 4 = -1981.65 units

    session4.png

    Session 5 (data ended before the session completed but it was close so we'll call it a success)
    Banker plays = 10767 (50.86%)
    Player plays = 10403
    Banker wins = 1980 (52.11%)
    Banker losses = 1820
    Max consecutive wins = 10
    Max consecutive losses = 11
    Ending profit for session 5 = 1774.15 units

    session5.png


    The reason the number of B plays don't match B wins is because we're not playing every hand but waiting for OG to get to -20.

    The complete run is attached for you to check, and here is the link to Jimske's data: https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/5-column-statistics.9210/page-4
     

    Attached Files:

    Junket King and asymbacguy like this.
  2. Chip Magnet

    Chip Magnet Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2019
    Likes:
    31
    Location:
    NYC
    -7,824 units vs -164 units including commissions flat betting.

    Close.
     
  3. Jae

    Jae Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2018
    Likes:
    343
    Location:
    Connecticut
     
    Junket King and Mako like this.
  4. stephen

    stephen Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Likes:
    46
    Location:
    USA
    Oscar's grind was first documented by Dr. Alan Wilson in his 1965 book, Casino Gamblers Guide. He simulated craps decisions without waiting for -20 and showed that OG is a losing progression. Jae's progression is a little different. He waits for -20 and uses Banker bets (-1.06% HA) instead of Craps bets (-1.40% HA).

    I am wondering what happens if you simulate Banker bets without waiting for -20. Does it improve the performance over waiting for -20, or the same as waiting for -20. If it is not too difficult to simulate the five sessions without waiting for -20, it will be appreciated if the results are given.
    Mathematically no progression can overcome negative HA, but I thought that Jae has come with a progression that overcomes negative HA.
     
  5. fathead

    fathead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2018
    Likes:
    273
    Location:
    USA
    LOL! You gotta love Jae's sense of humor.

    Lemonade is an excellent programmer, much better than I could ever hope to be. If he says no way the -20 Oscar's works long term then I have to believe him. On the other hand Jae seems to be doing well. I guess Jae is the luckiest guy on the planet. Retire while you are on top, Jae!
     
    Junket King likes this.
  6. Jimske

    Jimske Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Likes:
    671
    I can probably put together another couple thousand shoes if you're interested. Same Excel format.
     
    lemonade likes this.
  7. Jae

    Jae Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2018
    Likes:
    343
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Agreed. He is a good programmer. A very valuable member to the forum and I recognize that and appreciate it.

    While the results of the sim did indeed surprise me a bit, i spent some time racking my brain on why and how I consistently overcome such terrible odds.

    The best explanation I can even fathom is one that will most likely come off as superstitious, but since I play my game in this fashion—it’s not just a superstition, it’s part of my method.

    When I start a grind out in any series, I finish that grind, on those shoes, those cards. The observational side of me that would make most math heads cringe, has seen a behavior/a personality to shoes in sessions. While simulations can produce pretty similar shoes based off of the percentages, edges, etc. They always lack that real flow we see everyday in the real play. The regressions are different, I mean… so many things. I cringe at myself by even thinking such things, when I compare two different casinos as having different personalities with bac shoes, I usually attribute their shufflers, the methods that the dealers are trained to perform cuts and shuffles, and so on. I understand that it sounds stupid, and I even hate that I believe it. It’s years and years of observation.

    When it comes to simulations, I have a good feel for them as well. I have multiple triggers that work well with beating them. I can and have beat them even with martingale triggers, patience and money management. When you play them and you consistently see whatever system you are using lose to them right around the house edge or more, you can utilize that information and apply a more patient approach to attack that very thing. Turn around and use the very same tactics in the real world and it bites you in the ass, over and over. And vice-versa.

    On the subject of the most recent simulation using real cards from Jimske sessions, those don’t mean anything to me. And not because of where they came from. I respect Jimske and know that all
    Of his shoes are real and I like where they came from. The end results just don’t mean anything to me. They aren’t shoes that were recorded in chronological order playing out the grind. I have nearly 20,000 real shoes played in chronological order with OG. I already know what would happen if this data was entered into a simulation… I would have a 100% probability of doubling my bankroll. That doesn’t mean that I think I’ve overcome any house edge. I’ve said countless times that this is not a guaranteed winner every time, and I respond to that with saying, but I believe that you will make more than you lose. Based off of real world evidence, I have no reason to not think that way.

    Mix my shoes up randomly and run a simulation and it will not surprise me at all if OG loses, it will not surprise me if the simulation comes back with similar numbers and it says I only have a 23% chance of doubling. and you still have the same house edge working against you. I think you could randomize my real world games in millions of ways and it will almost always come back negative; therefor validating that OG does not work in the way that I use it.

    If it did show consistently positive results in a simulation, then I wouldn’t care about switching shoes in the middle of a grind, or stopping and picking up where I left off the next day. Because it wouldn’t matter; but it does matter.

    There’s a flow and a type of mid-range regression in a session that just consistently happens so often that I’ve learned I can actually count on it.
     

  8. stephen

    stephen Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Likes:
    46
    Location:
    USA
    Jae is a winner because he has developed the "Knack" of switching shoes in the middle of a grind, or stopping and picking up where he left off the next day. His method mathematically and by simulation is a loser. But he is a winner because of this "Knack".

    Others who want to emulate Jae are advised to proceed with caution. 2000 units for most of us is money that we can not afford to lose.
     
    Nathan Detroit likes this.
  9. Rinad

    Rinad Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2020
    Likes:
    122
    Location:
    colorado
    what I heard from a previous post from Jae reasoned with me and is hard to anderstand.
    I have witnessed countless systems able to do well in a certain environment for hundreds and thousands of hands,spins or whatever else you can play.
    the minute you go and play live is a total massacre and it shakes you to the core, really. like what the F. Happen ???
    and I think we very soon call those systems "trash", or scammers, or other names, when really it was just a regular Joe playing his own created system that worked wonders for him, no lies, no tricks, the guy honestly shared or even sold his system as a "gold mine", it really worked for that guy.
    but there is that strange "thing" ,or I dont know what to call it, that happens and has been happening since the game was created, that thing that makes players argue because they try and try and cant make the system work, why,why???
    I was stunned years back looking at baccarat shoes from all different places and casinos that a friend sent me.
    why? they were so different !!! one casino had shoes filled with streaks over and over for pages and pages, while another was just so weird and choppy .
    yes it is hard to practice anything on anything when the personality of shoes can vary so much .
    and not just in bacc, blackjack as well.
    I remember testing a system for a very long time on baccarat that looked so promising for hundreds of shoes, and then, all of a sudden, it was like the shoes were completely reversed and I mean to the extrem ! I was disgusted with the all thing, how could that be ?
    maybe as Jae pointed out it could be with little minor "changes they do with shuffling "or some other strange variances I dont know.
    but it sure is still a puzzle to me and it does makes you wonder if practicing means anything at times???
    anyhow I am just blowing a little steam here, because it has been a long journey for many of us, and yet we still only know in part of what seems to be such a "simple game", a coin flip, and it would be a treasure to find out what have we been missing ?
    of course I am only speaking for myself or a few of us who are still at time still amazed by this little game we play,lol.
    Cheers,
     
    Jae likes this.
  10. fathead

    fathead Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2018
    Likes:
    273
    Location:
    USA
    Yes, please!
     
  11. Jae

    Jae Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2018
    Likes:
    343
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I think lemonade said it didn’t make a difference with waiting for a trigger versus betting every hand.

    I probably concur with that.

    We don’t wait for -20 to particularly gain any edge. It does feel like we pay slightly less in commission overall, but according to the sim, perhaps not.

    A couple good reasons I advocate for a trigger:

    you have ample time to refresh your brain between series.

    we used to play two games simultaneously, so a lot of the time it gives us the ability to focus on one at a time when we are grinding.

    The pay off is a little more satisfying when you finish a series plus 15 or more versus one at a time (although, it truly wouldn’t matter as you’d still have a similar amount of chips anyways).

    Technically it adds a little more power to your bankroll. 20 units isn’t a lot, but a better example would be our newest model.

    We are waiting for around -500 as a trigger.

    We’ve beefed up our bankroll to 5,000 units, so this really gives us the potential of around a 5,500 unit bankroll. We have a few people we pay $25 an hour to to sit at two casinos for two six hour shifts, they
    Mmm… quite the opposite my good man. I never stop in the middle of a grind and pick up where I left off another day or in another shoe. The very few times I’ve had to stop in the middle of a grind, I just counted off as a small loss and never picked up from that point again. I ALWAYS complete a series in the same session on the same table. I explained it in my previous comment, but it might have came off confusing.
     
  12. Jae

    Jae Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2018
    Likes:
    343
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I still write this up with superstition, but it’s so strangely observable in my opinion. Even throughout the day I see strange shoe formations based off of the time.

    When a dealer starts out with all brand new cards, they of course mix them up, shuffle, put them through the automatic shuffler a couple times I believe, and yet… the first few shoes always have the strangest formations. Sometimes the shoe will just start out with runs of 7 bankers 9 player, 6 bankers, 5 players, 10 bankers, and then chop throughout the rest of the shoe.

    I’m not saying this can’t happen at any point in time, it just seems to be odd in a way that I can’t fully describe without sounding batshit. After about 5-6 shoes, they start feeling more normal and giving me a more normal formation that works well for what I do.

    There’s something I commonly mention to my team that I’ve never mentioned on the board before, it’s what I call an “axis point.”

    Since I regularly see 20 shows a day, I feel like I have enough experience to notice these events. The axis points that I speak of are basically just a gradual shift in shoe results. For instance, shoes I played from earlier today:

    36 players -30 bankers

    37 players - 31 bankers

    34 players - 29 bankers

    33 players - 32 bankers

    31 players - 39 bankers

    30 players - 37 bankers

    This was a great example of the axis points I notice, and what I mean by that is seeing player heavy shoes start to flip over and then go the other way. It doesn’t always happen so perfectly like that, but happens consistently in a broader sense. This obviously works great for me because it’s the player heavy shoes that give me my starting triggers and ideally benefits me when things gradually come back around.

    it’s not silky smooth, but smooth enough.

    If I were to start off right after fresh cards I get results like:

    43 bankers - 24 players
    37 players - 31 bankers
    35 bankers - 35 players
    41 bankers - 28 players

    it’s just wonky and I can’t explain it.

    similar things happen near the end of a night with well played and well shuffled cards. It seems to either go in extremes or smooth and dull. But either way, lacks the personality that I like.
     
    Rinad and asymbacguy like this.
  13. Jimske

    Jimske Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Likes:
    671
    Doesn't surprise me . But I guess there's a difference between various criteria for RNG shoes? But there's also ways to simulate casino shuffles and present accurate data.
     
  14. Jimske

    Jimske Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Likes:
    671
    ???I really cannot envision waiting for P to hit a -500. Waiting for a -20 can, many times, be a long wait. I had to cherry pick 3 shoes just to get to a consecutive -130. I think some clarification is in order.

    I suppose if you start using $100.00 units as a base and hit 5 Players that's a -500, right? Something doesn't make sense to me.

    J
     

  15. Jimske

    Jimske Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Likes:
    671
    Game changer. Given JAE's comment and Lemonade's sims one could conclude JAE success is all about luck. If there is no edge using an imbalance of -20 or now -500 (!!!) then why bother waiting around for a playable shoe? Sure, the wait gives an initial bigger hit but also passes up a LOT of easy 1 unit wins. Probably a wash ITLR. If you want to refresh just sit out a shoe here and there.

    So far my bet selection using P and B; playing every hand fares better than JAE waiting for -20. Small sample. I'll do more at some point.

    Cheers

     
    Rinad likes this.
  16. Rinad

    Rinad Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2020
    Likes:
    122
    Location:
    colorado
    perhaps it would make more sens for lower bankrolls just to forget about the -20 , begin playing banker or switching to player if player gets heavy, have a profit target of "50"units and take a loss at -100 ,200 ?
    then if we need to recoup starting over with a double units until we recover the loss ?
    maybe have a 5 banks total ?
    just a idea that could accomplish the same results for solo players.
    Cheers,
     
  17. Jae

    Jae Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2018
    Likes:
    343
    Location:
    Connecticut
    I can clarify: yes, we are waiting for -500 units, not -5. We’ve brought on a few hourly helpers that are working out of our two local casinos. They send photos of the shoes every twenty hands unless notified to do more (which is usually when we start seeing -300. This is also the point where 3 of us start to mobilize and meet at our hotel room and gather funds. 1 member stays back keeping the results current in a spread sheet so that the 3 of us know exactly what we are getting into, ideally a situation that’s already more than -500.

    So far we have played 9 triggers that have all recovered, our highest one started at -941 and our lowest at -425.

    We’re still somewhat experimenting with our operation, so we already have a few changes in the next week and we’ll have a better sense of how often we will hit our trigger in our two 12 hour sessions at the two casinos and be able to compare our results as far as money made versus time spent against our old business plan.
     
  18. Jae

    Jae Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2018
    Likes:
    343
    Location:
    Connecticut
    It’s really hard. Playing every hand in a shoe will rarely ever net you more than 10 units. Seeing -50 or more in 5 shoes is very common.
     
  19. judge

    judge Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2019
    Likes:
    138
    Location:
    Texas
    Look out here come the haters!!! But Jae don't take any shit! Should be interesting.
     
  20. Jimske

    Jimske Well-Known Member Founding Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2014
    Likes:
    671
    Agreed. And also agree that seeing -50 is common. Not usual, just that it happens often enough. I still think the advantage lies in waiting for the imbalance.

    -500 ?? Okay. attached 3 shoes (cherry picked from shoes played within 1 week - I don't watch ten shoes go by). But, yeah, looks like it can happen often enough if you're watching a ton of shoes. These finally hit -509 by my count at a 36 unit bet. So now pick your poison, right? OG resolves at 509 units won. Do you play black at $3,600.00 a hand to get $50,000 less commission? Or. . . just play $10.00 units at $360.00 to get $5,000.00? LOL

    @Rinad. so if you got some bankroll and time (a lot of time :)) you could start solo at even $5.00. Could you see -500 at least once every 40 shoes? Go ahead and play them out to get a feel if you want. Play them in any order.
    ***********************

    @Jae What seems amazing is that you were using a -20 trigger prior. Choosing -500 because you saw too many go -500? -20 has to be pretty hairy!

    Cheers.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jun 28, 2021
    Trainer likes this.

Share This Page