I know it's a Roulette forum but no doubt a good few of us also love the game of Baccarat. So if it's not a problem to Steve or the mods, how about we discuss a bit of Baccarat in here.
This shoe was posted up in Andre's thread and someone asked for some suggestions.....so it was an opportunity for me to do a quick test based on what well known member Nickmsi proposed regarding a non-random strategy for roulette/Baccarat.
It's pretty simple really! All you are doing is grouping the hands into 3 and betting for a chop to appear on either the second or third result of the three hands. Nickmsi did some tests over several hundred thousand spins and the results were positive flat betting.
The example below was just using a 12 negative progression and produced a +7 result from 25 bet hands less the tax.
welcome back wiggy
i visit your american wheel spins thread often
i could never explain what nickmsi was doing perhaps you can explain
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20148.0
i stopped with it
but maybe you can build on it
Hello Rich,
There are many variations regarding non-random and VdW etc... To me at least, the simple ones are just as good as some of the more complex!
We can break up a baccarat shoe into segments of three hands and pick our spots to play, now as Nick says... ''When you play with a GROUP OF SPINS a dependency can be created, they are no longer independent spins.''
An edge was found by taking three spins and betting for the opposite/chop of the first hand on the second or third hand (stopping at a win) and then starting the process over again.
I have some Baccarat software which produces real hands and I can test a lot of these ideas fairly quickly to see how they hold up.
The generated shoe here produced....
LW
W
W
LW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
LW
LL
LL
LW
W
For a +9 result (less tax) using a 12 negative progression.
Quote from: RouletteGhost on Aug 04, 04:29 PM 2018
link:s://:.rouletteforum.cc/index.php?topic=20148.0
i stopped with it
but maybe you can build on it
Cheers mate, I can't remember reading that thread, mind you, I think my memory's going! :xd:
im still quite not getting it
so if last 3 results were BBP then we bet for BBP not to occure again only on result 2 and 3?
Take the first hand (never bet on the first hand)
So suppose it's B.
Now bet it's opposite which is P. If you win here, stop and just let the third hand play out.
Suppose you lost and it was B again, bet for P.
The worst thing that can happen is either BBB or PPP because you will lose 2 bets whatever your MM.
So here are a few betting trigger examples.....
B comes first.....bet for P.
P comes....a win, now let the third hand play out and start again.
P comes first....bet for B.
P comes again....a loss, now bet for B which is the opposite/chop of the second hand.
P comes again.....another loss and the end of the three hand group, start again.
B comes first....bet for P.
B comes second....a loss, now bet for P which is the opposite/chop of the second hand.
P A win. Now start a new three hand group.
I think that should explain it.
cheers
thank you for the explanation
I am off to a craft beer/micro brew tasting for the night
I will re-visit this tomorrow
No worries mate, enjoy your night out, it sounds like fun! :thumbsup:
Quote from: wiggy on Aug 04, 04:08 PM 2018
I know it's a Roulette forum but no doubt a good few of us also love the game of Baccarat. So if it's not a problem to Steve or the mods, how about we discuss a bit of Baccarat in here.
This shoe was posted up in Andre's thread and someone asked for some suggestions.....so it was an opportunity for me to do a quick test based on what well known member Nickmsi proposed regarding a non-random strategy for roulette/Baccarat.
It's pretty simple really! All you are doing is grouping the hands into 3 and betting for a chop to appear on either the second or third result of the three hands. Nickmsi did some tests over several hundred thousand spins and the results were positive flat betting.
The example below was just using a 12 negative progression and produced a +7 result from 25 bet hands less the tax.
Thanks Wiggy for the info,but I can’t find any reasonable explanation why this betting pattern should win.
Kan@am@,
For a better idea, watch the second video in the opening post and then read reply 25.
link:s://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/use-mathstatistics-to-beat-roulettebaccarat-part-2/
cheers
Thanks Wiggy. I love the simplicity of Baccarrat.
This might be an easy way to grind out some comps.
What I’m wondering though is each of the 8 outcomes equally likely?
Good question Blueprint, so I am going to run some tests to find out!
I can run batches of 100 shoes and then compile the results.
It's maybe the sort of thing that 'imspirit' compiled results for on his blog as well.
The two pictures below represent 100 shoes.
The first picture shows how many times each triplet appeared over the 100 shoes.
The second picture as an example shows where the triplet BBB appeared in those shoes.
I will put up the other 7 lots of triplets as well just so anyone interested where they appeared.
The following in order are...
BBP
BPP
BPB
The following in order are....
PPP
PPB
PBB
PBP
The concept of this EC bet selection is very good because it is mechanical and certainly has an edge.
But he does not have the edge to beat the baccarat house edge playing flat.
You will need something more, or some extra concept for the bet selection.
Or very good MM
Some time ago I carried out tests and a delicate edge for the EC gave a short positive progression, but it would not work, becouse banker side pay less.
MM 4 step positive progression.
10
22
49
110
Quote from: wiggy on Aug 05, 05:24 AM 2018
Kan@am@,
For a better idea, watch the second video in the opening post and then read reply 25.
link:s://betselection.cc/roulette-forum/use-mathstatistics-to-beat-roulettebaccarat-part-2/
cheers
An interesting concept,but looks like just not enough power for any significant advantage unless someone run on very choppy situation.
Quote from: ozon on Aug 05, 12:55 PM 2018
You will need something more, or some extra concept for the bet selection.
Or very good MM
I think you are right Ozon. Author Philip Koetsch wrote an excellent book titled 'conquer the casinos' where he did some very in-depth computer analysis of different types of MM (both positive and negative) and came up with some interesting conclusions.
There are some good charts in his book comparing different MM strategies and their effectiveness. I am going to try his favourite (G3M1) against the idea above to see how it fares. G3M1 is allowing a winning bet to ride 3 times and betting 2 chips after losing any 1 chip bet.
Examples for that would be as follows....
1 w
2 w
4 l
2 w You have won a unit here.
1 l
2 l lost 3 units here, start again.
1 l
2 w won a unit here, start again.
1 w
2 w
4 w won 7 units here, start again.
His book shows the average chips you can expect to win with a 100 unit bankroll using the different MM strategies and importantly something he calls reversals which tells you roughly how many times you can expect to go in the red and back into the black over a session.
Exactly.
If we combine this bet selection, with something that will raise the edge in a small degree, we will have a very strong strategy.
An example of a quick game I just recorded using the G3M1 with the triplets strategy.
cheers
Hi Kan@am@
Yes, you are correct, the EDGE created by the Triplets is very small indeed, but an EDGE none the less.
Have you or anyone previously seen a real honest to goodness mathematical EDGE in NZ Roulette, Baccarat or Craps or any other binary game?
Probably not and neither did I, until now.
What I am exploring is my theory of Group of Spins that create a DEPENDENCY rather than the INDEPENDENT single spin theory.
You can create a DEPENDENCY with a Group of 2 Spins (Doublets), a Group of 3 Spins (Triplets) or a Group of 9 Spins (VDW).
This DEPENDENCY created by the Group of Spins is the only way that I have found in the last 10 years that creates a truly mathematical EDGE.
So the question becomes would you rather continue to test systems that have a built in EDGE for the Casino (Single Spin Independence) or would you rather develop systems that have a built in EDGE for the player?
Although the EDGE is small you can still capitalize on it with smart progressions or by combining several other Group of Spins to run together or separately, etc.
In my opinion, we should be using the Group of Spins theory as a foundation for developing winning systems.
Cheers
Nick
Hello Nickmsi,
The boss has arrived! :thumbsup:
Nick I've been following your "Math" posts on the other board, great job, keep up the good work and thanks for the effort.
nick is a horse! good man
this peaks my interest because it is actual math
obviously the better choice is baccarat due to the lower house edge with no zeros
but the lower payout on banker bites the arse
The grouping of spins is not something new, the old win3m or constant winning bet is based on groups of spins. This all boils down to cluster analysis. But sadly it doesn't give any edge, I've tested doublets and triplets on all ec's, doz and col. It's all the same losing against the 2.7 HE.
Scissorhands, Some people will look at Nick's stuff and other non-random concepts (not necessarily VdW or cycles) and find what they are looking for.....others will look and find nothing (like yourself) and come to the conclusion that It makes no difference.
The 'HG' if you want to call it that is out there and anybody who has it isn't in a desperate need unlike some others on here to reveal all.
Hi Junscissorshands
Yes, I used to think that way too until a recent mathematical study proved otherwise.
Both Lisa Goldberg, PHD UC Berkeley and Joshua Miller and Adam Sanjurjo in their dissertation attached “Surprised by the Gambler's and Hot Hand Fallacies? A Truth in the Law of Small Numbers†have concluded:
“We prove that in a finite sequence of data that is generated by repeated realizations of a binary i.i.d. random variable, the expected proportion of successes, on those realizations that immediately follow a streak of successes, is strictly less than the underlying probability of success.â€
This means that a “finite sequence of data†is a Group of 3 Spins/hands.
“binary random variables†is Red or Black, Banker or Player, Pass or Don’t Pass.
“immediately follow a streak of successes†is Red following Red, Player following Player etc.
“is strictly less than the underlying probability of success†is the bias or EDGE.
That’s the math of it.
Cheers
Nick
I know it was merely my opinion/observation and tests, nonetheless very good effort and always interesting subject.
Also look up hans' thread about the Linus sequence it might help some of you guys even more. Good food for thought.
QuoteScissorhands, Some people will look at Nick's stuff and other non-random concepts (not necessarily VdW or cycles) and find what they are looking for.....others will look and find nothing (like yourself) and come to the conclusion that It makes no difference.
The 'HG' if you want to call it that is out there and anybody who has it isn't in a desperate need unlike some others on here to reveal all.
good one
There is an edge in EC,but its created by Money Management and delivers win rate of 1 unit per 3.8 spins.It is not progression.
Its not a flat bet either.
Quote from: Nickmsi on Aug 05, 04:26 PM 2018
Hi Kan@am@
Yes, you are correct, the EDGE created by the Triplets is very small indeed, but an EDGE none the less.
Have you or anyone previously seen a real honest to goodness mathematical EDGE in NZ Roulette, Baccarat or Craps or any other binary game?
Probably not and neither did I, until now.
What I am exploring is my theory of Group of Spins that create a DEPENDENCY rather than the INDEPENDENT single spin theory.
You can create a DEPENDENCY with a Group of 2 Spins (Doublets), a Group of 3 Spins (Triplets) or a Group of 9 Spins (VDW).
This DEPENDENCY created by the Group of Spins is the only way that I have found in the last 10 years that creates a truly mathematical EDGE.
So the question becomes would you rather continue to test systems that have a built in EDGE for the Casino (Single Spin Independence) or would you rather develop systems that have a built in EDGE for the player?
Although the EDGE is small you can still capitalize on it with smart progressions or by combining several other Group of Spins to run together or separately, etc.
In my opinion, we should be using the Group of Spins theory as a foundation for developing winning systems.
Cheers
Nick
No doubt there is potential in this concept.
The edge for group dependency is large. Just that you are scratching the surface
As a baccarat enthusiast, I would love to see more discussions on advanced strategies or perhaps a deeper dive into the historical aspects of the game. Are there any specific strategies or historical anecdotes you find particularly interesting?