50 50 question Hypothetical 50/50 hand Question ECD Group February 9, 2013

[ECD]

My reason for asking what many of you may consider "DUMB" questions is just so I can clear a few concepts in my head

If I toss a coin (heads one side and tails the other) ...no matter how far the count varies...how far one side falls behind the other...eventually there will be a catchup and the heads/tails count will even up. This will happen no matter how many times the coin toss is interrupted (possibly for months) or even if I pass the coin to others...or even use different coins because a coin toss is the ultimate 50/50 proposition.

OK...My question is: with Baccarat being a 50/50 proposition as well (near as matters) ...we can assume that despite the manipulations by the Casinos...eventually the Player/Banker count would even up (goodness knows how many shoes it would take...but my limited knowledge tells me that it should happen...Do the same rules as a coin toss apply?...Would the Player/Banker count still even up for me eventually... no matter the vagaries of the different shoes...the time differential...different dealers and even different Casinos.

I've most likely got this all wrong because I am far from being a mathematical Wiz...but I would sure appreciate it if someone could explain this to me (in simple terms lol)

Oz

[HotCooler]

This is my reply, not the only or the best reply, it may not be entirely right either.. but what I believe..

When a person toss his coin 100 times and records the statistics of head and tail, he will find a bias count towards 1 side and later find that bias count even up, and then bias again right after that even count occurs.. now.. the number of times he find that even count occurring may be different from the next 100 times he toss that coin.. and also on which toss did that even count occurs..

There is a very small chance that in the 100 coin toss, the count NEVER even up at all for once, but it can happen! If the number of coin toss goes to 10000 instead, the permutation and chance of having a never even occurrence may be the same technically but different physically when you consider tiredness, environment, disturbance and other external factors..

Putting Casino's 50/50 proposition is like this, when you are traveling from your home to say... the airport, you may take more left turn than right or otherwise, and you can put a bias count and even count on the statistics.. but the way of manipulation by Casino.. it means that instead of doing 1 left turn.. they can force 3 right turns instead..

So why do I still play Baccarat? Because to me it's similar to a detective investigation or chess game, just predict what your opponent is doing and try to counter it.. and the reward will be your wager..

Statistics being statistics.. when you win.. the % towards you as a win is 100% and like wise you lose.. when somebody lost 10% of his bankroll.. it's still a lose despite of any probability or percentage.. statistics help to chance your future.. not your past.. so becareful whenever you convert your future to your past..

Hope my 2cents help..

[Guest]

Banker has a slight edge so its closer to 51% Banker, 49% Player. But aside from that, yes they will essentially even up at some point.

A better example would be Opposites vs Repeats. Mathematically they are dead even. I know of no way, short of outright cheating in the dealing of the cards, that the casino can influence the Player Banker ratio.

But I strongely believe that the casino has nearly total control over opposites vs repeats. You would believe that too if you saw first hand:

a.) how impossibly streaky the cards were in the early '90's when we saw 20 in a rows on a daily basis.

b.) how impossibly choppy the initial factory shuffle attempts were with 1 and 2 in a rows running more than twice normal.

I learned much about casino card preps and shuffles studying BJ. The casinos used BJ shuffle technology to also influence Bac.

Whether by machine or hand casinos have the ability to shuffle against the way the players are playing. This is how, I believe, casinos average close to 26% of the drop in Bac, a supposedly 50/50 game, while commission accounts for only 1.25% of the money bet.

Think about it: If the game were truly 50/50 all the players put together would end up breaking even. + commission, would they not? But that is NOT what happens. The players end up losing on average, many times the amount they pay in commission.

But in the very long run yes P vs B will end up nearly even and O vs R will end up exactly even.

Fortunately we play the game in single shoes where long term normalities tend to run in short term abnormalities.

This is why you are far better off to bet WITH whatever you see than AGAINST what you see as most players do.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Guest

[BigVic]

My reason for asking what many of you may consider "DUMB" questions is just so I can clear a few concepts in my head

If I toss a coin (heads one side and tails the other) ...no matter how far the count varies...how far one side falls behind the other...eventually there will be a catchup and the heads/tails count will even up. This will happen no matter how many times the coin toss is interrupted (possibly for months) or even if I pass the coin to others...or even use different coins because a coin toss is the ultimate 50/50 proposition.

OK...My question is: with Baccarat being a 50/50 proposition as well (near as matters) ...we can assume that despite the manipulations by the Casinos...eventually the Player/Banker count would even up (goodness knows how many shoes it would take...but my limited knowledge tells me that it should happen...Do the same rules as a coin toss apply?...Would the Player/Banker count still even up for me eventually... no matter the vagaries of the different shoes...the time differential...different dealers and even different Casinos.

I've most likely got this all wrong because I am far from being a mathematical Wiz...but I would sure appreciate it if someone could explain this to me (in simple terms lol)

Oz

You need to google "the law of large numbers".

Just because bank wins 51% of the time doesn't mean the numbers of bank vs player decisions will be anywhere near even or close to each other. Let me explain.

Take 100 hands of baccarat. And say bank does win 51% of the hands. So you have 51 hands to bank and 49 to player.

Try 10 million hands of baccarat. 5.1 million hands to bank and 4.9 million hands to player. That's a difference of two hundred thousand hands.

The more shoes you play the closer the banker/player percentages will approach their true odds, while at the same time the wider the gulf in terms of decisions between them.

[ECD]

Thanks guys...Your replies helped clear up a few muddled thoughts in my head

Decent of you to spend the time to assist.

Thanks

Oz

[MVSeahog]

Fortunately we play the game in single shoes where long term normalities tend to run in short term abnormalities.

Chief,

You beat me to it.

MVS

Edited February 10, 2013 by Ellis

[Guest]

You need to google "the law of large numbers".

Just because bank wins 51% of the time doesn't mean the numbers of bank vs player decisions will be anywhere near even or close to each other. Let me explain.

Take 100 hands of baccarat. And say bank does win 51% of the hands. So you have 51 hands to bank and 49 to player.

Try 10 million hands of baccarat. 5.1 million hands to bank and 4.9 million hands to player. That's a difference of two hundred thousand hands.

The more shoes you play the closer the banker/player percentages will approach their true odds, while at the same time the wider the gulf in terms of decisions between them.

All true. In fact mathematicians are always trying to point out to me that because of the long term outcomes over thousands of shoes, the game is impossible to beat. BUT, we don't walk into a casino to play 10 thousand shoes! We play one shoe at a time. In that glimpse of time long term expectancies are TOTALLY meaningless. Single shoes DEFY long term expectancies. Therefore we bet on what the shoe at hand is doing, NOT on long term expectancies. You would therefore be better off to google the law of SMALL numbers. You'll see that short term runs opposite to long term. Over the course of single shoes we bet on what each shoe is doing. We bet on what IS, not on what is supposed to be long term. Most Bac players bet on long term expectancies. That is precisely why they lose at the incredible average rate of 26% of their buy in money in a 50/50 game.

Many players play Bank only because Bank has an edge. They don't realize that Player could win the next 100 shoes completely wiping them out. NOR bets on the biases we see in single shoes. It bets on short term oddities because THAT is what happens in the real world of Baccarat. That is the ONLY way to beat this game.

I'm discussing this very subject with a player named Lee Evans over on ImSpirit. He bets Bank only. He buys in for $10,000 and plays DIMES! That is all he can afford to play with his progressions that are 20 bets long or more. He thinks he's doing great averaging $80 a shoe before commission which takes half his profits because he's betting huge bets on Bank only. He ends up risking $10,000 to win $40. You've got to be kidding me! It is just a question of time before he gets a few Player shoes in a row. Watch my lips: The long term Bank edge is totally meaningless over the course of single shoes.

Bet on what IS. Not on some long term pipe dream.

[BigVic]

All true. In fact mathematicians are always trying to point out to me that because of the long term outcomes over thousands of shoes, the game is impossible to beat. BUT, we don't walk into a casino to play 10 thousand shoes! We play one shoe at a time. In that glimpse of time long term expectancies are TOTALLY meaningless. Single shoes DEFY long term expectancies. Therefore we bet on what the shoe at hand is doing, NOT on long term expectancies. You would therefore be better off to google the law of SMALL numbers. You'll see that short term runs opposite to long term. Over the course of single shoes we bet on what each shoe is doing. We bet on what IS, not on what is supposed to be long term. Most Bac players bet on long term expectancies. That is precisely why they lose at the incredible average rate of 26% of their buy in money in a 50/50 game.

Many players play Bank only because Bank has an edge. They don't realize that Player could win the next 100 shoes completely wiping them out. NOR bets on the biases we see in single shoes. It bets on short term oddities because THAT is what happens in the real world of Baccarat. That is the ONLY way to beat this game.

I'm discussing this very subject with a player named Lee Evans over on ImSpirit. He bets Bank only. He buys in for $10,000 and plays DIMES! That is all he can afford to play with his progressions that are 20 bets long or more. He thinks he's doing great averaging $80 a shoe before commission which takes half his profits because he's betting huge bets on Bank only. He ends up risking $10,000 to win $40. You've got to be kidding me! It is just a question of time before he gets a few Player shoes in a row. Watch my lips: The long term Bank edge is totally meaningless over the course of single shoes.

Bet on what IS. Not on some long term pipe dream.

I think you might of missed my point. The law of large numbers GUARANTEES that there will be biases and oddities in the short term. I thought that was obvious and was trying to point that out to our OP.

[ECD]

I think you might of missed my point. The law of large numbers GUARANTEES that there will be biases and oddities in the short term. I thought that was obvious and was trying to point that out to our

OP

.

Again...thanks to each of you for taking the time to explain...I think I've now got it clear in my head why utilizing long term probabilities in Baccarat is a recipe for disaster.

Every bit of info helps...even though my brain seems ready to explode from "overload" as I try to absorb all the info from the manuals and the forums. For such an easy game to play...there seems so much to learn.

BTW: "OP"...I don't recall seeing that abbreviation in any of the manuals. Is that short for "Old Person"?...Next question..."Is it that obvious"?

[MVSeahog]

BTW: "OP"...I don't recall seeing that abbreviation in any of the manuals. Is that short for "Old Person"?...Next question..."Is it that obvious"?

The use of "OP" in a message thread generally refers to the "Original Poster".

MVS

[ECD]

The use of "OP" in a message thread generally refers to the "Original Poster".

MVS

Thanks for the explanation...I was taking the piss out of myself a bit...We Aussies are renowned for our twisted sense of humour.

Take care young fella

Oz

[Guest]

BTW: "OP"...I don't recall seeing that abbreviation in any of the manuals. Is that short for "Old Person"?...Next question..."Is it that obvious"?

Be careful who you're calling old, mate.

[Guest]

I think you might of missed my point. The law of large numbers GUARANTEES that there will be biases and oddities in the short term. I thought that was obvious and was trying to point that out to our OP.

Right Vic! And I'm merely pointing out that the law of small numbers may explain short range oddities in more detail. That is what NOR is based on. No argument.

[ECD]

Be careful who you're calling old, mate.

That brought a smile to my face ...lol

Methinks that your use of the vernacular means one of 2 things...either you have visited our wonderful country...or you have watched a few reruns of Crocodile Dundee

BTW: I'm relying on you to change my direction in life so I'd appreciate it if you would avoid dangerous pursuits like Basejumping...hangliding...abseiling etc...if you get my drift...

Take care Mr Davis

Oz

[Guest]

That brought a smile to my face ...lol

Methinks that your use of the vernacular means one of 2 things...either you have visited our wonderful country...or you have watched a few reruns of Crocodile Dundee

BTW: I'm relying on you to change my direction in life so I'd appreciate it if you would avoid dangerous pursuits like Basejumping...hangliding...abseiling etc...if you get my drift...

Take care Mr Davis

Oz

Methinks this means I won't be going on walkabout anymore.