Thread: Core-theory.

This post is a continuation of the work at Baccarat system design .

The following method will require the observations:

1. As much as adding/removing only a single card here or there in the shoe can, and often does dramatically change the P-B sequence to follow... there's also a stubborn tendency for it to eventually return to the original sequence, usually well w/i about ten games (or about half of a 52-card deck).

2. The shoe which is dealt is really only one of the 416 "cut" possibilities after the shuffle. And, for a number of mostly-esoteric reasons not included here, it would be a mistake to ignore the other 415... instead of working with the deck as a whole, wrapped in an "uncut" circle.



Therefore, after the 8-deck shoe has been "cut", ie, disturbed as in #1 above, we could then reasonably begin to expect its (stable) core of outcomes sometime after say the 5th game. To determine the core-outcomes before then would require dealing-out and following the outcomes past the shoe's end, to the beginning (again).

Re-emphasizing, the core-outcomes are the ones which will eventually be "found out" after a number of games in the "wrap" after any given "cut". It's simply a different way to at least presume to compare a shoe through a shuffle. In fact, given all the aspects of the game of baccarat which are constantly evening out, perhaps even a way to compare one shoe to another, regardless of "blue deck, or red deck"... and perhaps the constant to which "galo" was reaching (in all shoes). And the important question here is, "Could such a core usably "survive" the shuffler; or yield some basic, intrinsic patterns to all the shoes?"

The simplest manner of employing the above observations and conjectures would seem to be to: chart the outcomes of the "blue deck", omitting the first 5 to 10 boxes, but allowing for 85; and then best "matching up" the first 5 to 10 (core) outcomes from the next "blue deck" with a part of the P-B sequence from before; then follow that past the 85th box to fill in the first 5 to 10 core-outcomes; and lastly, repeat the process to get a better and better fit for that shoe's core (, it such exists through a shuffler).

************************************************** ******

One more thing while i'm at it, any method (or means to that) which works for most of us is a good one. I, myself, have always been very-amenable to any "foreign" suggestions, etc, at least until those were conclusively shown to be of no import... or became "farces" of themselves. (This board isn't "Ellis' way or no way".)

Originally Posted by ayuinca

LHCrdDltAmnt__________Player__________Banker______ ______Tie_______
4_______________138001(44.54%)____142185(45.89%)__ __29638(9.57%)
5_______________110683(44.89%)____112739(45.72%)__ __23152(9.39%)
6_______________115438(44.60%)____118930(45.95%)__ __24475(9.46%)

Thanks for your way of expressing my thoughts about the remaining-cards effect on the next game (, after those "LHCrdDltAmnt" games). The cards removed in producing those 4/5/6 -card outcomes just don't change much... though i thought the tiny changes in ayuinca's computer-simulations above should've all gone the other ways.

Originally Posted by garnabby

Four-card outcomes, which involve no draw-card(s), favor the player-holding... by eliminating the banker-holding's edge over it. (Either side may have the winning two-card holding.)

Five-card outcomes, which involve one draw-card to the player-holder, favor the banker-holding... by not drawing a (favorable) card which would force the banker-holding to draw when the latter has a 4 or 5 total. Namely, by drawing a 0, 1, (2/3), 8, or 9, the then player-holding will likely lose to the banker-holding of 4 or (5).

All non- 4 or 5 holdings for either side will remain unchanged regardless the number of cards required for an outcome... including those of the ties. And the above-listed draw-cards for the 4 or 5 -situation will much favor neither player/banker nor tie -holdings. (Sofaras an analysis of the card-values.)

Six-card outcomes will favor the player-holdings because then the banker-holdings of 4 or 5 must draw against a likely-better holding.

The first case happens much-less frequently; and the last case happens slightly-less frequently (, at 1/13 th the rate?) than the penultimate (second-last) case... to account for overall banker's edge over the player's remaining intact.

Just goes to show how a little though can often accomplish a lot... perhaps even beyond the scope of ayuinca's above; or below, by applying some random-walk theory to those results.

Originally Posted by ayuinca

-6____107___(29)____121 means that at the 1/3 shoe count is -6, there are 107 times(shoes) the count turn to <-6 at the end shoe and 121 times(shoes) go >-6. 29 times remain the same count.

Ok, now the data.

-8_____14_____(6)_____14
-7_____57_____(9)_____50
-6____107____(29)____121
-5____223____(30)____225
-4____298____(52)____338
-3____387____(80)____444
-2____498____(74)____544
-1____477____(84)____556
0____505___(102)____501
1____428____(89)____497
2____398____(62)____422
3____316____(49)____348
4____212____(42)____269
5____170____(29)____187
6____110____(14)____127
7_____73____(19)_____72
8_____36_____(4)_____59

From the data I don't see following the trend of 1S will yield any advantage. Of course we can see the last digits is more than the 2nd ones but it's just because the 2nd digits are count at 1/3 shoe while the last ones count at the end (having 1/3 more shoe in count). Therefore if I do this at the 1/2 shoe and compare it to the end shoe there should be even. I may deduce that any kind of Streak trend at any where could not determine the trend in the rest shoe.

Originally Posted by John

not a lot of interest!!!

Maybe it's because Is totally wrong. Having played many sims at home with lots of card removed, it didn't make a lot of difference to the end result.

Unfortunately there is no reward for effort, only substance, as you will discover next time you play.

In the above context, in my post, that was not what was meant by, "As much as adding/removing only a single card here or there in the shoe can, and often does dramatically change the P-B sequence to follow... ."

I meant the change from the old order of the deck to the new one, after say removing a card here and there (by shuffling). NOT THE EFFECTS ON SOME CARD-COUNT, which clearly is not being employed in this article.

And yes, some effort is almost always necessary in any endeavor... but even a lot may not be sufficient here for most, at baccarat.

As for substance, you'll have to keep trying. Lol.