Jump to content

Dunwerken

Users
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dunwerken

  • Birthday 04/21/1956

Profile Information

  • Location
    Victoria, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Dunwerken's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Thanks for the response. I'm encouraged to learn that you confirmed my suspicions about the auto-shufflers. You mention only the first base and anchor positions, so I'm wondering if it wouldn't make sense to have a team of NBJ players, taking the whole table, or in the alternative, playing all 7 squares, solo? I'm just thinking that if everyone at the table has this information and is taking advantage of it as a team, everyone wins, or do we want 'basic' players on the table, to keep the advantage on first and third base?
  2. I for one, LOVE the martingale system! It's just like my 3-step plan for financial independence... First, go get a million dollars... My system works every day, all day. The only thing is, it can't be tested against books or cards of live play, unless you know all the cards and the order they were dealt. I only need to know that information for one hand and I can tell you which side has the advantage in the hand to come, so it can only be tested live, although it can be tested without making a bet. And yes, zero risk.
  3. I understand where you get the numbers and I also agree that the wizard is very often out to lunch, but I think it's because he's a mathematician only and not a player. As such, he's not inclined to believe that casinos can be beaten, so he starts all investigations with that premise. The only point you missed in your calculations is the fact that bank will actually win 1.47% more hands than player and when you add the assumption that you will ALWAYS bet on bank, the house vig really is 1.15%, due to commission. This is where the casino gets their number, as it's always based on perfect play, which would exclude all bets on player (like the pass line in craps). House odds, in the long run, have very little to do with the outcome of any game, but at least in baccarat, we are in control of every aspect of our play, so we don't have to succumb to any assumptions.
  4. The vig isn't actually calculated based on the assumption that you will make half your bets on Bank and that you will win half of those. The bank wins 1.47% more hands than player, based on the rules of card draw, so with the 5% commission, the house has a 1.06% edge on bank and 1.24% edge on player... overall house edge (vig) is 1.15%. The reason the drop is higher (as in all games) is because of poor play, along with the tie (14%) and either or both of the dragon side bets (9% & 7.6%). With regard to 'pattern' betting, having recorded over 2 million live hands, I can tell you unequivocally that there is no pattern-style betting strategy that will work ALL the time. And every negative wagering system has one thing in common; you will trade lots of small wins for the occasional HUGE loss.
  5. Can't remember where I saw it on here, but someone mentioned that they play $25 on 'Player' and $50 on the dragon side bet, also on 'Player'. The flaw I see in this strategy is two-fold. First; you will still need to win substantially more 'Player' bets, than 'Bank', to make up for the double bet on the side. Second; if you check your cards (assuming you keep track of the actual game result), you will likely discover what I did. When I LOSE a hand, I very often lose by more than 4 points. What that means is, if instead of betting WITH your hand on the dragon, add 1 unit to your regular table bet and also bet 1 unit on the OPPOSITE dragon. Now, when you win the table bet, your side bet is free. When you lose the table bet, your opposing dragon bet will often cover the loser and occasionally pick up a sizable win. Using this method, I added 7 units per shoe, although I don't play it much because we don't have these tables in my home casino. Note: this side bet must be consistently a FLAT-BET ONLY!
  6. Thanks for the response. BTW, the reason baccarat is generally considered a negative expectation game is that like all other casino games, the house has a vig. Although the true vig is only 1.15%, the actual table drop is substantially more. The addition of the 'Dragon 7' has increased casino profits by 40-60%, simply because people do not understand how to play it. I watch players putting $10-$75 on this side bet EVERY hand, but if played like 'half-price commission' (on bank bets only), it keeps the vig very close to traditional bac. Hope this helps anyone playing on a dragon table.
  7. I win just over 65% of the hands I bet and I play approximately 56% of the hands in a shoe. I make 9 units per shoe on average and never less than 3 or 4. I have played hundreds of shoes where I only get 5 or 6 hands wrong and I've recorded over 2,000,000 hands of my own live casino play. If I use a progressive bet on losses, my net units per shoe are much higher, but there is no point, since I've already turned a negative expectation game into one with a 15% player advantage by FLAT-betting. As a result, I never need to carry a large bankroll and I never have to stress over making big bets near the end of a shoe (as in most progressive betting strategies). Imagine how it feels to successfully flat-bet and win, while all around you other players are suffering through gut-wrenching swings in their bankrolls (usually going broke, in the end). The funny thing, is that the crazier the board 'pattern' looks, the better I do. When no one can figure out which way to bet, I am usually over 80%. Everyone comes to me when they're stuck 4 or 5 grand, asking me to help them get their money back. I help a lot of people but I never teach anyone how I actually do it. People ask me all the time if they can pay me to teach them, but I really don't see the point. I always question those who make wild claims in order to sell a 'system' because what makes sense to me, is that if you have a winning system, you'll likely make more money using it than selling it. At one point, I made my program available to a number of players online, with the promise that they would send me 10% of their winnings when they hit $50,000. Unfortunately, those people all received a million dollar gift from me and never sent a dime. That pretty much killed my philanthropic mind-set. If you're ever in my neck of the woods, I'd be happy to let you watch me play and you're always welcome to match my bets (can't stop anyone from placing a bet, right?). Good Hunting The greatest thing about Baccarat, is the fact that you're never affected by anything any OTHER player does; you are in total control of your wager and decision-making strategy. This separates it from every other game in the casino, along with the fact that you do not need to play every hand. Most people and ALL casinos, believe the game cannot be beaten and that card counting does not apply, but the game CAN be beaten and the cards CAN be counted, using a very simple math formula. It took me several months and $140,000 to figure it out, but I have been winning ever since (I always joke that I was half way to my first million before I realized I was going the wrong way).
  8. I read with great interest, the sample you made available of NBJ and became quite excited. I have been arguing for years with people about card 'randomization' so it was relieving and refreshing to discover that I have not been insane all this time. Where I live (Canadian west coast), we have a few differences in the way Blackjack is dealt and played. The first, is auto-shufflers. All our casinos have switched to 'continuous' shuffle machines, meaning that every TWO rounds of play, the cards are plucked out of the discard stack and added to the shuffler, where they are re-shuffled. (busted hands and blackjacks are added to the discard pile, as they are played out, in order from first base) Most people believe that these machines are the cause of their losing play and I have to admit, at first I was concerned that they might be giving the house a bigger edge. But after looking at the math, I realized three things: First, the odds are identical to a complete shuffle, EVERY time the cards are added back to the shoe and reshuffled, which actually reduces the house edge slightly, because all the cards are still in play. Second, the casinos make more money with them because of two things; people still play poorly AND they see many more hands per hour, since they don't have to stop the game while the dealer shuffles. In addition, people are less likely to change tables or simply walk away, as there are no breaks in play (I like to tease new players by asking them to wait for the end of the shoe). The third thing was that at first, I thought the new shufflers were designed to thwart card counting, but then I realized that this was only a secondary benefit to the other, more profitable reasons for switching. There are two other major differences here. The first is that the shoes are made up of 5 decks, with NO cut card and obviously no end-of-shoe. The other, is that there is no dealer 'down' card that we have to 'guess' at, as the dealer's first card is dealt face-up and they do not take another card until the table has played out. This means we not only get the dealer's 'down' card information up-front, but we also have some control over what cards the dealer is YET to receive. Try explaining that concept to someone who believes in 'RANDOM' card delivery! I'm very excited about the concepts you teach in NBJ and WCB and I suspect they will work, even in a continuously shuffled shoe, but I wanted your opinion and/or thoughts on the matter, before getting ahead of myself. Incidentally, we have 100:1 bet ratios on most lower tables ($5 - $500) and 40:1 on the $25 and up tables. I look forward to your thoughts and comments. Rob PS: Baccarat is my main game as I have 65% win advantage (which equates to 9 units per shoe, flat-betting, since I actually bet only 56% of the hands dealt). I enjoy Blackjack on occasion, as a change of pace, but am often frustrated by the play of others. I've never understood how people will study a company for months before investing a dime in their stock, but will throw thousands of dollars at a game they know nothing about.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use