BaccaratForums.com  

Baccarat Online Discussion Forums


Baccarat Forums
Baccarat Casinos
Acronyms
Bookstore
Advertise
Contact
online casinos
Latest Forum Topics
Playersonly.com Casino

Go Back   BaccaratForums.com > Baccarat Forums Discussion > Baccarat Discussion


Baccarat Discussion Want to talk baccarat with top professionals and amateurs? Want to learn about the best baccarat gambling systems, strategies, tips, and techniques? Want to learn about the baccarat casino game and its history? Want crystal clear game winning ideas, both via baccarat software download and in real life vintage baccarat table action? Want to discuss playing baccarat for play money, real money, gambling, and betting? Want reviews of the hottest online baccarat card rooms on the internet? Discuss everything related to baccarat here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-09-2010, 04:30 PM
BaccaratForums Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 718
Default Some more USEFUL stats/tools... .

Something i've noticed lately, mostly from one system-seller's site to another, is the supposed effects of "stop-win/losses" (, or win/loss limits per shoe).

"Our system beats 88% of the shoes...", turns out to mean that each shoe is played only until some relatively-small number of wins is churned out... or that not nearly all of the shoe is played. But is an 88% game-edge over the house required to achieve such results shoe to shoe (, even neglecting the commission and/or in-built banker-bet's edge).

The best way to answer this is to work from the random-walk theory already laid out at https://acrobat.com/#d=dUaZa*i6TYme*urC8pGwNw . That work culminates with the function g(n) for the probability of no "catch-up" after 2n games... with the first outcome, whichever, setting the side to be caught-up to.

Continuing on from that work, let G be the chance of a catch-up after 2n games. Then G = 1 - g(n). Also, let G1L be the chance of a catch-up after a loss on the first game; and G1W be that for a fall-back after a win. (In general, the integer m in the GmL or GmW shall stand for the number of outcomes to be [caught-up/fallen back] to, after either side has followed/led, respectively, by a current total of m. Either side may and shall follow/lead by 1 win/loss, respectively, after one game. Furthermore, G = G1L = G1W because, eg, the ratio of catch-ups (beginning with an L) to the non-catch-ups beginning with an L (over the 2n games) remains the same as for G1W, and the latters combine to make up the former.)

Now suppose we want to know the chance of reaching 2 W's from the outset (, staying ahead the whole time), to quit the shoe before or at 72 P-B decisions (or n=36), on average. To do this, pretend that we had an L-outcome before the single (inherent) L to be caught-up with by G1L. This chance may now be expressed as G2L.

If we lose on the next outcome, roughly 1/2 of the time, we'd be left with a chance of G3L to succeed; but if it comes a W for us, we'd be left with a chance of G1L to succed. Which means that G2L(n) = 1/2 X [G1L(n-1/2) + G3L(n-1/2)]. Because this then holds for any integer m, G1L(n) = 1/2 [G0L(n-1/2) + G2L(n-1/2)]. Therefore, given that G0L(of any n) = 1 because no losses (existed/)remained to be caught-up with (, as we won the second game where G0L first occurred above), we may write GL(n) = 1/2 [1 + G2L(n-1/2)] ---> G2L(n-1/2) = 2G1L(n) - 1 = 2G(n) - 1 = 2(1 - g(n)) - 1 = 1 - 2g(n). Plugging the numbers into the approximated function for g(n), at the link provided, we find that the chance of leaving a shoe as soon as ahead by two wins (after up to 80 games) is 2(1 - g(36)) - 1 = about 0.8121 . (Note that the chance of leaving right away with only one win ahead is G1L(n) = G(n) = 1 - g(n), hence about 0.9094 for n=36.)

One may easily continue all this, putting 1/2 X [G1L + G3L] equal to 2G1L - 1, because both are G2L, to arrive at G3L = 1 - 3g(n); then G4L = 1 - 4g(n); etc... until realizing that likely, GmL = 1 - mg(n). (Anyone want to write out the general case?)

Anyway, we now see that on average, anyone can win 91% of the shoes if using a win-limit/shoe of 1 , and no loss-limit/shoe. And long as the loss-limit remains more than the win-limit, and the goals aren't too-lofty... anyone can "win more shoes than lose" by the averages alone.

Beyond that though, the above is a powerful tool by which to gauge many of the otherwise-tedious qualitative aspects of gambling, egs, when one is beginning to fall behind too far by "flat betting" (to reasonably expect to catch-up over a given period of play), and graylove's idea of how far ahead either side should be to remain in the lead throughout a shoe. And more importantly, a means to an even more-indepth understanding of gambling, in general.
__________________________________________________ ___________________


I'll add it to the thread, "Gambling" theory... , if it passes intact here to some further results.

Last edited by garnabby; 03-11-2010 at 06:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-10-2010, 08:51 PM
BaccaratForums Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 718
Default Re: Some more USEFUL stats/tools... .

For they who have plodded through some of the numbers above, here are a couple of things i omitted in my haste to write something about this subject. (Not too surprising that Ellis couldn't fill in some my oversights for me, lol.)

Sometimes when "pulling seemingly-unrelated bits of information out of thin air", you miss one. I prefer that sort of approximation-approach to most sorts of problems, as opposed to grinding things out the non-analytical way... the latter which often leads to so much more of the tedious, non-elegant "show your work" stuff.

1. First, though it's true that, "If we lose on the next outcome, roughly 1/2 of the time, we'd be left with a chance of G3L to succeed; but if it comes a W for us, we'd be left with a chance of G1L to succed. Which means that G2L(n) = 1/2 X [G1L(n-1/2) + G3L(n-1/2)]..." ... to avoid the linearity of that which won't play out at the higher levels of m, note that the distances between the Gm-pairs on the righthand side of that equation become closer by the ratios 0/2, 1/3, 2/4, 3/5, 4/6, and so on to 1.

2. Second, G1L(n) = [1 - g(n + 1/2)] (, not [1 - g(n)],) because if 2 X (n - 1/2) games could result in ending up ahead by one win (, for the "equivalent" catch-up over 2n games), then the full n for G1L(n) shall be better reflected by the full g(n + 1/2) -value.

__________________________________________________ ___________

Hopefully, this will allow for a fuller conclusion of the actual numbers, and some other applications... as i go.

Last edited by garnabby; 03-11-2010 at 06:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-10-2010, 11:45 PM
BaccaratForums Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 58
Default Re: Some more USEFUL stats/tools... .

Garnabby. If I'm reading this right, basically you are saying that given a stop-win of 1 and no stop-loss you will succeed around 9/10 times.

Say I stop at 1 for 9 shoes in a row.

I am now +9 all up (not including commission)

On the 10th shoe I lose a huge amount (for example: more than 9) and thus I lose overall. Is that what you are saying?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-11-2010, 12:09 AM
BaccaratForums Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Florida
Age: 62
Favorite Casino: BetPhoenix
Posts: 286
Send a message via ICQ to ADulay Send a message via AIM to ADulay Send a message via MSN to ADulay Send a message via Yahoo to ADulay Send a message via Skype™ to ADulay
Default Re: Some more USEFUL stats/tools... .

Plasia,

What Garn is attempting to explain, in his own simple words (and a tad of mathematical obsfucation), is why some people from BTC, who "claim" to have won 15 or 19 or 20 shoes in a row, most probably did it by winning 1 unit and calling it a winning shoe.

Of course his premis is all wrong, as is his motive, but what he appears to be trying is to tell everyone that only by making 1 unit could you possibly run 20 shoes in a row as winners.

I'd would beg to differ, but then I'd be on the losing side of any argument with "The Appointed One" as anything I would say on the matter would be total lies.

The best I could come up with was 19 out of 20. I can assure the G man that it was more than 1 unit per shoe.

As I now tend to just ignore G's message posts, he'll have to talk to you or himself about it.

AD
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-11-2010, 06:55 AM
BaccaratForums Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Age: 49
Posts: 718
Default Re: Some more USEFUL stats/tools... .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plasia View Post
Garnabby. If I'm reading this right, basically you are saying that given a stop-win of 1 and no stop-loss you will succeed around 9/10 times.

Say I stop at 1 for 9 shoes in a row.

I am now +9 all up (not including commission)

On the 10th shoe I lose a huge amount (for example: more than 9) and thus I lose overall. Is that what you are saying?
Yes, playing by a system w/o any statistical basis, on average you will lose the amount bet X the house-edge on each game.

And incidentally, over many games and hence plays of the same bet-money, the house's edge will be compounded... until it only seems as though that edge must have been higher, to have reduced one's session-BR by so much more, perhaps by cheating, etc. (Another concept which Ellis "doesn't get".)

Beyond that, these sorts of calculations are/will be useful in maximizing the benefits of any logically-progressing and grounded-to-begin-with systems.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-14-2010, 04:29 PM
BaccaratForums Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 487
Default Re: Some more USEFUL stats/tools... .

Quote:
Originally Posted by garnabby View Post
Yes, playing by a system w/o any statistical basis, on average you will lose the amount bet X the house-edge on each game.

And incidentally, over many games and hence plays of the same bet-money, the house's edge will be compounded... until it only seems as though that edge must have been higher, to have reduced one's session-BR by so much more, perhaps by cheating, etc. (Another concept which Ellis "doesn't get".)

Beyond that, these sorts of calculations are/will be useful in maximizing the benefits of any logically-progressing and grounded-to-begin-with systems.
The operative words here are "statistical basis." Of course G is absolutely correct. Particularly he is correct about the compounded house edge making the edge "seem" higher. In terms of a single finite bankroll one might see that the house edge is 100%!

The above is not to say that a player can go an awful long time picking spots and winning. An awful long time.

It also assumes random trials but that is another thread.

A
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.