Universal stuff

[Keith Smith]

Team,

I have been messing around with the significance of B vs P | TBL vs OTB4L | OO vs TT | and of course O vs R |. This thought is just to get a conversation going and see what you think, as I do not have enough games laid out but initially I am finding that B vs Player is the strongest statistic and that each of the others are secondary to which side to play.

For example if I look at a game from a Banker or Players disparity side of things unless it is a game where there are 20 bankers then followed by 20 players. The point being that if you played 20 bankers in a row it would be hard to play 20 players right after that unless you are using the O | R as the primary indicator.

O vs R should be given the next weight as it determines the over all complexion of the game followed by tbl vs OTB4l which effectively tracks disparity between 2 and and 3s and oo | TT 3s and 4s. We do that in SAP and perhaps it maybe easier to track those two that way wouldn't it? Granted in a longer run it may not effect twos and threes and threes and fours but wouldn't the OR do the same thing?

Also in a real life game I can't help but notice that we should be given credence and track what side has a two card natural more often. We totally ignore it as not significant. I am wondering coupled with another statistical such as B vs P and OR we may get a more statistical significant metric.

As a final thought with the OR count wouldn't that give you an indication later is the game what the possibility that the game will change sides and offer a potential one in a row?

Just a few thoughts?

Keith

[Keith Smith]

Can someone see any difference in SAP and tracking disparity in otb4l anf tbl really?

[rond]

Keith can you explain how you are tracking disparity with otb4l and the sap tracking method mentioned above. Are you saying that since otb4l likes two and three in a rows with a progression. This is the same information the sap provides. Just need some clarity.

Thx

RonD

[rond]

Keith can you explain how you are tracking disparity with otb4l and the sap tracking method mentioned above. Are you saying that since otb4l likes two and three in a rows with a progression. This is the same information the sap provides. Just need some clarity.

Thx

RonD

[CdnChamer]

Team,

I have been messing around with the significance of B vs P | TBL vs OTB4L | OO vs TT | and of course O vs R |. This thought is just to get a conversation going and see what you think, as I do not have enough games laid out but initially I am finding that B vs Player is the strongest statistic and that each of the others are secondary to which side to play.

For example if I look at a game from a Banker or Players disparity side of things unless it is a game where there are 20 bankers then followed by 20 players. The point being that if you played 20 bankers in a row it would be hard to play 20 players right after that unless you are using the O | R as the primary indicator.

O vs R should be given the next weight as it determines the over all complexion of the game followed by tbl vs OTB4l which effectively tracks disparity between 2 and and 3s and oo | TT 3s and 4s. We do that in SAP and perhaps it maybe easier to track those two that way wouldn't it? Granted in a longer run it may not effect twos and threes and threes and fours but wouldn't the OR do the same thing?

Also in a real life game I can't help but notice that we should be given credence and track what side has a two card natural more often. We totally ignore it as not significant. I am wondering coupled with another statistical such as B vs P and OR we may get a more statistical significant metric.

As a final thought with the OR count wouldn't that give you an indication later is the game what the possibility that the game will change sides and offer a potential one in a row?

Just a few thoughts?

Keith

Interesting analysis Keith, but I have a question.....

Did you just take a shower?

CC

[CdnChamer]

Team,

I have been messing around with the significance of B vs P | TBL vs OTB4L | OO vs TT | and of course O vs R |. This thought is just to get a conversation going and see what you think, as I do not have enough games laid out but initially I am finding that B vs Player is the strongest statistic and that each of the others are secondary to which side to play.

For example if I look at a game from a Banker or Players disparity side of things unless it is a game where there are 20 bankers then followed by 20 players. The point being that if you played 20 bankers in a row it would be hard to play 20 players right after that unless you are using the O | R as the primary indicator.

O vs R should be given the next weight as it determines the over all complexion of the game followed by tbl vs OTB4l which effectively tracks disparity between 2 and and 3s and oo | TT 3s and 4s. We do that in SAP and perhaps it maybe easier to track those two that way wouldn't it? Granted in a longer run it may not effect twos and threes and threes and fours but wouldn't the OR do the same thing?

Also in a real life game I can't help but notice that we should be given credence and track what side has a two card natural more often. We totally ignore it as not significant. I am wondering coupled with another statistical such as B vs P and OR we may get a more statistical significant metric.

As a final thought with the OR count wouldn't that give you an indication later is the game what the possibility that the game will change sides and offer a potential one in a row?

Just a few thoughts?

Keith

Hey Keith,

Interesting analysis re: two card natural comment, but I have a question.....

Did you just take a shower?

CC

[Guest]

Interesting analysis Keith, but I have a question.....

Did you just take a shower?

CC

Hmm, in spite of rumors to the contrary, they actually do have showers here in Arkansas, but I still don't get it???

[CdnChamer]

Hmm, in spite of rumors to the contrary, they actually do have showers here in Arkansas, but I still don't get it???

Thought I'd help you out Ellis, what's the opposite of dry?

CC

[Keith Smith]

Well on the two card natural comment i think there are times when a natural 9 beats a natural 8 too often but that may be my imagination and reading things in that aren't there without statistics. In addition, those games seem harder to play. But of course that is not substantiated with evidence yet. It strikes me as pushing so many blackjacks while playing blackjack.

As for OTB4L and TBL I am working on a simpler way to track them and if in fact it is necessary to with 4d as I want to insure the statistic we are tracking has statistical significance to the outcome. In addition as I mentioned their relationship to SAP count of 2s and 3s. I think I can come up with a formula that will give us a single number for the relative hit rate of OTB4L or TBL. Then this number based on a scale whether your next bet is OTB4L bet or TBL. I am wondering if the comparison between those is the best one and of course if not why not and what would be better or what could be better its only a 50/50 game. Maybe we will have a no bet statistic.

If there is a bias that exists on repeats and opposites how is it synthesized and how does it come to fruition. Blackjack easy to see how, Baccarat not as obvious.

I also think while we look at games we need to keep better stats across casinos and change shoe games to look for a corelation

Edited April 3, 2014 by Keith Smith

[kramden]

Team,

I have been messing around with the significance of B vs P | TBL vs OTB4L | OO vs TT | and of course O vs R |. This thought is just to get a conversation going and see what you think, as I do not have enough games laid out but initially I am finding that B vs Player is the strongest statistic and that each of the others are secondary to which side to play.

For example if I look at a game from a Banker or Players disparity side of things unless it is a game where there are 20 bankers then followed by 20 players. The point being that if you played 20 bankers in a row it would be hard to play 20 players right after that unless you are using the O | R as the primary indicator.

O vs R should be given the next weight as it determines the over all complexion of the game followed by tbl vs OTB4l which effectively tracks disparity between 2 and and 3s and oo | TT 3s and 4s. We do that in SAP and perhaps it maybe easier to track those two that way wouldn't it? Granted in a longer run it may not effect twos and threes and threes and fours but wouldn't the OR do the same thing?

Also in a real life game I can't help but notice that we should be given credence and track what side has a two card natural more often. We totally ignore it as not significant. I am wondering coupled with another statistical such as B vs P and OR we may get a more statistical significant metric.

As a final thought with the OR count wouldn't that give you an indication later is the game what the possibility that the game will change sides and offer a potential one in a row?

Just a few thoughts?

Keith

The idea that the naturals, or other signs of "hand strength" is very significant, is valid. I actually posted about it a few weeks back.

And Katchatz1 mentioned looking at it on his Red Rock shoe.

How significant? hmm?

Its lucky that more people are coming up with this idea.

So, yes I agreed

[Wendel]

Can someone see any difference in SAP and tracking disparity in otb4l anf tbl really?

I played some baccaraat several years ago and don't recall noticing any unusual displays of hand strength. In the past year I have noticed this "phenomenon" and I have wondered if it was "orchestrated" by the casino to maintain a particular bias.

Wendel

[CdnChamer]

The idea that the naturals, or other signs of "hand strength" is very significant, is valid. I actually posted about it a few weeks back.

And Katchatz1 mentioned looking at it on his Red Rock shoe.

How significant? hmm?

Its lucky that more people are coming up with this idea.

So, yes I agreed

Sorry guys I can't say that I agree, I've studied this to great extent 10 years ago.... HOGG WASH!!

But hey?, if you want to waste time on it, be my guest, I have better things to study than this.

CC

[kramden]

CC,

i actually have not found the significance yet. Just theories. I just noticed how some

tens and naturals clump up many times.

I dont have any evidence on any of it. just was saying that i

mentioned it before.

its like we both have our ways, and i will bet that they are much different

i said "hmm" like a wisecrack.

[Keith Smith]

I'm not really saying hand strengh I am saying that they seem to to occur too often together a natural 8 against a natural 9 unless losing with a natural 8 just gets etched in your memory more. I am just wondering (and I emphasis just wondering ) if they could get 10s 8s and 9s to come out together then the game would be very hard to predict I would think.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Keith Smith

[kramden]

I'm not really saying hand strengh I am saying that they seem to to occur too often together a natural 8 against a natural 9 unless losing with a natural 8 just gets etched in your memory more. I am just wondering (and I emphasis just wondering ) if they could get 10s 8s and 9s to come out together then the game would be very hard to predict I would think.

Well let's hope they can't because then I am ruined!! LOL

[Sport]

Just something to think about!We all are made to believe that all the decks 52 cards each are just what they are supposed to be and what if 7's were replaced with 8 and 9's with a couple thrown in.Who ever even sees the cards fanned out anymore.I know you skeptics out there would say why would the casinos have to cheat?BAC is the biggest revenue of all table games.The bottom line is the bottom line.I was talking to some dealers in Atlantic CITY AND AS OF JAN 1,1914,all employees have pay for their own medical.They are forced to live on tips and minimum wage.Talk about comps,your lucky if your can get cheese sandwich these days the corporate machine has taken over.Years ago back in the 70's I worked in vegas,If you were playing table games for 20 minutes and ask to see one of the suits to give you and 2 friends steak dinners it would be no problem SIR.Oh by the way I took a shower!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sarrom]

Wow - massive synchronicity in my bacc experience this week!

In light of having fun with the riddling, I can attest to the table biases going beyond NOR. Many of my local sessions are like a game of 3 card monte. Most of the players fall prey to the trickery, but an astute one won't fall for the casino's sleight of hand.

I wonder how stacked, non shuffled cards would play out?

[BigVic]

Wow - massive synchronicity in my bacc experience this week!

In light of having fun with the riddling, I can attest to the table biases going beyond NOR. Many of my local sessions are like a game of 3 card monte. Most of the players fall prey to the trickery, but an astute one won't fall for the casino's sleight of hand.

I wonder how stacked, non shuffled cards would play out?

Care to provide an example of this? What does, "table biases going beyond NOR" even mean? That sounds like a big contradiction.

[kramden]

Wow - massive synchronicity in my bacc experience this week!

In light of having fun with the riddling, I can attest to the table biases going beyond NOR. Many of my local sessions are like a game of 3 card monte. Most of the players fall prey to the trickery, but an astute one won't fall for the casino's sleight of hand.

hallelujah!!

(since we are talking religion)

The most astute thing I have read in a month!!!!

Call me sarrom if you need a bunker to hide in.

[Sarrom]

Thanks K - you never know... If I do, I'll bring donuts!

Vic - it means exactly that. NOR is a shoe bias, not a table bias. When you're table searching, how often do you actually watch a shoe before hand to gauge the strength of the table bias?

Invest some time looking at completed tote boards and you will see far more than just neutrals, opposites and repeats. You can own more than just the shoe with table selection - you can own the table. Why do you think Ellis will hammer a specific baccarat table shoe after shoe if he's beating it? Strength of bias.

Lastly consider this: What else has Ellis taught us? He's taught us that an actual non bias is also a bias.

[Keith Smith]

Ok so back to my Natural 8 against a Natural 9 phenomena that I think may exist at some tables, anybody track it?

[Keith Smith]

This is not a sign of hand strength but a sign of too many naturals against naturals. Ellis has commented on it at a table with me many times and so have others.

As for hand side strength, if F is a valid system and the cards are non random at the core nothing other than a higher score average on either side can affect who won banker or player. If you know of anything else that determines the outcome of the game ( what side wins) let me know and I use that statistic. Disparity could but i'd be willing to bet that it would be a greater high side disparity in score that would be the winning side.

Opposite and repeats are a secondary statistic to the score which is primary. We rely on the secondary stat for an edge when the game is random with respect to score.

Edited April 15, 2014 by Keith Smith

[Keith Smith]

If you think about it for a moment the only thing that can happen is either an opposite or a repeat (let a tie). If a bias exists then in fact with rare exception, and (the exception being that a side would win 1 to 0 a few times and then the other side win by 9 to zero etc), the side with the highest average score would be the side with the most repeats in most cases. I think that the error some make is they track the statistic too long and thereby find it not to show a significant bias than what the card play allows on banker. In the end, even with process variation that has assignable cause, itwill normalize over time when the conditions change. In other words if there is a reason for non randomness, when condition change it will revert to the normal distribution.

Now with everything else we talk about disparity, if we track the last 5 hands and Banker won 3 of them with a 7, 8 and 5 against a Players 6, 2 and 3, the mean average of Banker is 6.7 and Players is 3.7 of the hands won. The difference of the mean average is 3.0 (perhaps 1 is not the best incremental base either I don’t know). Would it follow to say that we have a Banker strong side game and also that we may find evidence in the numbers to say it is not only strong Banker, but strong repeats or OTB4L. What if the Player’s two hands that won had a higher difference of the means. Maybe that would be an OTB4l Game. A closer mean disparity may indicate a choppy game. I don’t know but maybe we could put a number on it. I am suggesting as we said in World Class Blackjack that we do not dismiss anything without considering if it a valid statistic. Certainly we have to find or should look for the statistical number that justifies playing an opposite or repeat and the length of the runs or chops. Simply saying because it just happened for a scientist is not enough evidence.

Before you say hogwash and I did this or that perhaps you may want to look at it from another angle. In case you forgot or were unaware I do have a Master Black Belt in Six Sigma from Villanova which you can’t just buy online. Now I certainly need to put this up to experiments and prove with a confidence level and testing but I am simply trying to get people and myself thinking a different way. I need the data from real games to test and look. This is what the concept of continuous improvement in process improvement is about. A thought or idea may inspire others to think of something related or unrelated to further enhance the end goal.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Keith Smith

[MVSeahog]

Now with everything else we talk about disparity, if we track the last 5 hands and Banker won 3 of them with a 7, 8 and 5 against a Players 6, 2 and 3, the mean average of Banker is 6.7 and Players is 3.7 of the hands won. The difference of the mean average is 3.0 (perhaps 1 is not the best incremental base either I don’t know). Would it follow to say that we have a Banker strong side game and also that we may find evidence in the numbers to say it is not only strong Banker, but strong repeats or OTB4L.

Keith,

An interestng observation. I can see taking some time to review a group of shoes in my "downtime" to see if anything "stands out", so to speak.

MVS

[Plus One]

I have noticed sometimes when playing a shoe the cards are not shuffled completely and I'll get a shoe that is in preshuffled order and can guess which side will win based on the order in which the cards came out. Am I wasting my time trying to figure out if it gives you an advantage or not. A big red flag is when they are of the same suit. We don't have to count cards because we can write it down. If we use deductive reasoning will it help in our baccarat game?