See the top rated post in this thread. Click here

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 18

Thread: Baccarat egalite side bet

  1. #1


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Baccarat egalite side bet

    Tie 0
    160-1 payout
    8 decks

    Average edge: 17%
    Bet frequency: 20% of hands
    (This is referenced from Eliot Jacobson's 'Advanced Advantage play' 2013). However, his sim used 14 cards cutoff.

    Is anyone able to tell me if a player advantage still exists at shallower penetrations, i.e. 52 cutoff and 78 cutoff? And if so, how much?
    Also, if bet frequency drops too low?
    Last edited by Jacblacc911; 02-01-2023 at 01:01 PM.

  2. #2


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacblacc911 View Post
    Tie 0
    160-1 payout
    8 decks

    Average edge: 17%
    Bet frequency: 20% of hands
    (This is referenced from Eliot Jacobson's 'Advanced Advantage play' 2013). However, his sim used 14 cards cutoff.

    Is anyone able to tell me if a player advantage still exists at shallower penetrations, i.e. 52 cutoff and 78 cutoff? And if so, how much?
    Also, if bet frequency drops too low?
    Egalite bets are directly related to tie bets. Positive tie bets only appear at the bottom of the shoe, 52 cards remaining or less. If the cut is greater than 52 cards, you will hardly find a positive tie. The ideal is 30 cards or less.
    I imagine that your question is related to online casinos, so my advice is: forget it.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  3. #3


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Cacarulo View Post
    Egalite bets are directly related to tie bets. Positive tie bets only appear at the bottom of the shoe, 52 cards remaining or less. If the cut is greater than 52 cards, you will hardly find a positive tie. The ideal is 30 cards or less.
    I imagine that your question is related to online casinos, so my advice is: forget it.

    Sincerely,
    Cac
    Thanks for your reply.

    My question refers to land based casinos, where the average pen is around 52 cards.
    So would I be right to assume that at 52 cards cut-off, there is still a player advantage, but there will simply not be enough betting opportunities to make it worthwhile?

    regards

  4. #4


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacblacc911 View Post
    Thanks for your reply.

    My question refers to land based casinos, where the average pen is around 52 cards.
    So would I be right to assume that at 52 cards cut-off, there is still a player advantage, but there will simply not be enough betting opportunities to make it worthwhile?

    regards
    The advantage is practically non-existent. You will probably find a couple of subsets with positive advantage but the only way to detect them is through combinatorial analysis.
    Counting systems are also useless as betting opportunities are also non-existent. Casinos know this and continue to offer side bets that pay out fortunes you'll never see.
    If the cut were in 14 cards then it would be another story.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  5. #5


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    I counted before with two decks cut off hardly find a positive tie is incorrect but is it worth to wait whole shoes for five bets of 1 EV is another Qs

  6. #6


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    @ Cacarulo: These were my initial thoughts too.

    @ Iwantmoney: I have had multiple betting opportunities as indicated by the count, but whether there was an edge or not (since the pen was 1.5), I can't say for sure.

    I guess one point of confusion was that Eliot states at the end, that the only way to protect against this is to use csm or offer it electronically with infinite decks, which indirectly suggests shallower penetrations can still be advantageous. But it just wasn't quantified.
    However, like you both hint, is it worth having a large edge if you only get to bet once every 100 shoes...

  7. #7


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    You misquoted me, I said there are few bets per shoe, not unsure of the edge.

  8. #8


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacblacc911 View Post
    @ Cacarulo: These were my initial thoughts too.

    @ Iwantmoney: I have had multiple betting opportunities as indicated by the count, but whether there was an edge or not (since the pen was 1.5), I can't say for sure.

    I guess one point of confusion was that Eliot states at the end, that the only way to protect against this is to use csm or offer it electronically with infinite decks, which indirectly suggests shallower penetrations can still be advantageous. But it just wasn't quantified.
    However, like you both hint, is it worth having a large edge if you only get to bet once every 100 shoes...
    I don't think so. Even if you only played positive EV bets, they are so rare that you would be waiting forever for that event. Unless there are only cards of equal value left in the shoe, in which case the EV would be 800% for a tie bet.
    Of course, you will never see that event with cuts of more than 26 cards.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  9. #9


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Iwantmoney View Post
    I counted before with two decks cut off hardly find a positive tie is incorrect but is it worth to wait whole shoes for five bets of 1 EV is another Qs
    With a cut of 104 cards you can find (using combinatorial analysis) one or two positive bets (player, banker or tie) every 100,000 shoes.
    Any counting system that says otherwise is leading you straight to failure.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

  10. #10


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No

    Sim Results

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacblacc911 View Post
    Tie 0
    160-1 payout
    8 decks

    Average edge: 17%
    Bet frequency: 20% of hands
    (This is referenced from Eliot Jacobson's 'Advanced Advantage play' 2013). However, his sim used 14 cards cutoff.

    Is anyone able to tell me if a player advantage still exists at shallower penetrations, i.e. 52 cutoff and 78 cutoff? And if so, how much?
    Also, if bet frequency drops too low?
    Jacblacc911,

    I ran a 10-million-shoe sim with an initial 52 cards cut off (following Eliot's procedure of burning additional cards determined by the first card and playing one additional round after the CC appears). Using Eliot's tags for the 0 tie bet but with a payout of 160:1 (I believe Eliot's tags were for a 150:1 payout), I got the following frequencies and EV's:

    TC Tie 0
    Play% EV%
    15 1.776% 52.170%
    14 0.411% 31.625%
    13 0.456% 27.825%
    12 0.656% 24.062%
    11 0.737% 21.093%
    10 0.945% 18.513%
    9 1.144% 14.182%
    8 1.478% 11.935%
    7 1.791% 10.339%
    6 2.329% 7.371%
    5 2.915% 4.922%
    4 3.842% 2.260%
    3 4.858% 0.330%
    2 6.512% -2.096%
    1 8.577% -4.356%
    0 13.190% -6.531%
    -1 10.066% -8.732%
    -2 8.495% -10.860%
    -3 6.349% -12.967%
    -4 4.966% -15.347%
    -5 18.504% -24.077%

    Thus, betting the 0 tie for all TC's of +3 and up, you'll play the SB a bit over 23% of the time, with an average EV of 11.2%.

    If instead you wait for a TC of +4 & up, you'll play nearly 18.5% of the rounds with an average EV of a bit over 14%.

    Hope this helps!

    Dog Hand

    Note: in the table, +15 means +15 and up, while -5 means -5 and below.

  11. #11


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Dog Hand View Post
    Jacblacc911,

    I ran a 10-million-shoe sim with an initial 52 cards cut off (following Eliot's procedure of burning additional cards determined by the first card and playing one additional round after the CC appears). Using Eliot's tags for the 0 tie bet but with a payout of 160:1 (I believe Eliot's tags were for a 150:1 payout), I got the following frequencies and EV's:

    TC Tie 0
    Play% EV%
    15 1.776% 52.170%
    14 0.411% 31.625%
    13 0.456% 27.825%
    12 0.656% 24.062%
    11 0.737% 21.093%
    10 0.945% 18.513%
    9 1.144% 14.182%
    8 1.478% 11.935%
    7 1.791% 10.339%
    6 2.329% 7.371%
    5 2.915% 4.922%
    4 3.842% 2.260%
    3 4.858% 0.330%
    2 6.512% -2.096%
    1 8.577% -4.356%
    0 13.190% -6.531%
    -1 10.066% -8.732%
    -2 8.495% -10.860%
    -3 6.349% -12.967%
    -4 4.966% -15.347%
    -5 18.504% -24.077%

    Thus, betting the 0 tie for all TC's of +3 and up, you'll play the SB a bit over 23% of the time, with an average EV of 11.2%.

    If instead you wait for a TC of +4 & up, you'll play nearly 18.5% of the rounds with an average EV of a bit over 14%.

    Hope this helps!

    Dog Hand

    Note: in the table, +15 means +15 and up, while -5 means -5 and below.
    I apologize. After seeing Dog Hand's post I checked my numbers and verified my mistake. Everything I said before was referring to the TIE BET.
    The Egalite bets do not follow the same guidelines as the Tie bet. This means that even if the expected value of the tie bet is negative, one or several egalite bets can be positive.
    The following is an example of a subset with 214 cards remaining:

    Code:
      A  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  T
     20 18 12 16 20 13 14 15 14 72
    
    | 214 | P = -0.012 | B = -0.011 | T = -0.160 | E0 =  0.009 | E1 =  0.046 | E2 =  0.084 | E3 = -0.130 | E4 = -0.086 | E5 =  0.080 | E6 = -0.188 | E7 = -0.160 | E8 = -0.208 | E9 = -0.213 |
    Notice that even though the expected value of the Tie Bet is negative, the bets on E0, E1, E2 and E5 are positive!

    Sorry for the confusion.

    Sincerely,
    Cac
    Last edited by Cacarulo; 02-08-2023 at 09:47 AM.

  12. #12


    Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    @Dog Hand

    Thank you very much for this. It is just what I was looking for
    Just to clarify, the payout is definitely 160-1. (The 150-1 is for a very similar, but not the same, side bet). The tags are identical in both.
    On another note, I believe the variance is around 148 with SD = 12.2, which frightens me a bit.

    @Cacarulo
    Is the 214 card subset random, or must it contain the exact proportions of the cards stated in order to match your results for E0, E1, E2, E5?
    i.e. Did you have to use any tags for each individual egalite bet along with the specific payout schedule for each egalite? Or are you simply saying that there is a positive EV situation on the bets mentioned when this specific proportion of cards are left?

  13. #13


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Did you find this post helpful? Yes | No
    Quote Originally Posted by Jacblacc911 View Post
    @Dog Hand

    Thank you very much for this. It is just what I was looking for
    Just to clarify, the payout is definitely 160-1. (The 150-1 is for a very similar, but not the same, side bet). The tags are identical in both.
    On another note, I believe the variance is around 148 with SD = 12.2, which frightens me a bit.

    @Cacarulo
    Is the 214 card subset random, or must it contain the exact proportions of the cards stated in order to match your results for E0, E1, E2, E5?
    i.e. Did you have to use any tags for each individual egalite bet along with the specific payout schedule for each egalite? Or are you simply saying that there is a positive EV situation on the bets mentioned when this specific proportion of cards are left?
    Yes, the subset was taken random and I used the classical payouts (0-9): [150, 215, 225, 200, 120, 110, 45, 45, 80, 80]. Of course, the exact EVs are for that specific subset.
    No tags were used, just CA.

    Code:
                      EV           VAR          PROB  
    Player    :  -0.01164343   0.90653630   0.44751422
    Banker    :  -0.01131445   0.86177598   0.45915765
    Tie       :  -0.16004678   6.85405754   0.09332814
    Egalite 0 :   0.00876542 151.30597148   0.00668057
    Egalite 1 :   0.04553411 224.74222588   0.00484044
    Egalite 2 :   0.08441259 243.90129433   0.00479829
    Egalite 3 :  -0.13020689 174.07187584   0.00432733
    Egalite 4 :  -0.08599986 109.75862089   0.00755372
    Egalite 5 :   0.07990347 118.70309327   0.00972886
    Egalite 6 :  -0.18836720  36.67636113   0.01764419
    Egalite 7 :  -0.16004136  37.93256702   0.01825997
    Egalite 8 :  -0.20828725  63.50192332   0.00977423
    Egalite 9 :  -0.21263582  63.15655607   0.00972055
    
    Take a look at the variance on column #2.

    Sincerely,
    Cac

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

About Blackjack: The Forum

BJTF is an advantage player site based on the principles of comity. That is, civil and considerate behavior for the mutual benefit of all involved. The goal of advantage play is the legal extraction of funds from gaming establishments by gaining a mathematic advantage and developing the skills required to use that advantage. To maximize our success, it is important to understand that we are all on the same side. Personal conflicts simply get in the way of our goals.