Does anyone have blackjack rebate calcaultor?

[Archvaldor]

[Hint: you can make a lot of money doing this. ]
Wondering how?
I know that if I Ten count the bac shoe in UK, I might get all pictures left in the shoe with a guaranty tie, about once a year.

In Macau, usually 8 decks cut 1 deck. Never reuse, new decks every shoe, pre-shuffle by the card manufactory. Some mini-bac use 4th gen CSM.

Some years back in London, simple shuffle at the bac table, sequencing possible, I made 5k pounds sure-win bets twice in a week. Then a (east?)european team copied me and burned the game by using 9 players to bet 9 boxes 5k each.

Rebates and other forms of kickback can be positive expectation if a session is short and/or effective session size (big bets) is short. This is relatively well known and there is some evidence people like the billionaire Kerry Packer exploited this on a grand scale.

Card counting at baccarat makes this easier. It lowers the house edge. So more bets can be made before the value of the rebates is eliminated. There is literally no reason not to do this. The casinos do not understand this.
Unfortunately with one deck cutoff you describe in Macau the house edge reduction from flat betting won't be that fantastic. It could still be significant if you can get down more money at the end of the deal and this does not impact your rebate qualification.

The all-tens scenario unfortunately would not be once in a year-it would take an eternity to materialize. You need a much deeper deal for that.

Wd for the sequencing play. That's very impressive. I knew about the potential for sequencing in bac since the 90's but finding game conditions where it could be pulled off like that were rare.

[Archvaldor]

I don't get what you're saying at all

please give an example of what kind of deck composition would favor the bank and what kind of deck composition would favor the player

some have beaten bacc with edge sorting - certainly not easy - and probably very few opportunities

but if you know from markings on the back of the card that the first card out will be an 8 or 9 and you jam your bet up on Player you have a large advantage

this has been done - most famously by Phil Ivey - it caused him enormous problems - an unknown smaller stakes player could probably get away with it for a fair amount of time - see link

the general point of view is that edge sorting is neither illegal or in any way unethical - but the casinos who tried to recover funds from Ivey claimed otherwise and had some success in court

it was a long back and forth in several different courts

what a mess it was

I wouldn't do it or try it - no thanks - all that time and effort to find a few good bets - no way



https://highstakesdb.com/news/high-s...nds-a-timeline

There is a small effect of removal caused by 0-4 (bank favourable) and 5-9 (player favourable). This can be utilized for card counting purposes.

People have beaten baccarat using multiple approaches. Steer play and sequencing were the most common.

A bit off topic but I never found the Ivey thing that interesting. First he basically intimidated the casino into offering him a stupidly
favorable set of conditions. Normal people can't generally do that, to some extent this is just another "celebrities get special treatment"
story. Second he was far too aggressive. He had quite a large advantage. The priority with that type of situation is to maintain your cover
,not obtaining extra advantage when your expected value is hundreds of thousands of dollars per hour.

In particular betting big with foreknowledge of an 8 or 9 is going to cause problems. They will suspect you of marking cards or cheating in
some way if that happens a lot, regardless of the technique you are using.

Had Ivey been more subtle - perhaps teling his confederate to order a smaller % of the cards or sometimes making smaller bets on the wrong
option-he'd still be in the baccarat business today and might have cleared quarter of a trillion dollars by now.


Btw One thing I am extremely grateful to Ivey for is spreading the misconception sorts can only be exploited by manipulating the cards physically
as Ivey's confederate did.
If any one knows of a game where sorts exist but the cards can't be touched they might want to get into touch.

[peterlee]

Btw One thing I am extremely grateful to Ivey for is spreading the misconception sorts can only be exploited by manipulating the cards physically
as Ivey's confederate did.
If any one knows of a game where sorts exist but the cards can't be touched they might want to get into touch.

There was a court case that the player did not have to touch the card.

[peterlee]

The all-tens scenario unfortunately would not be once in a year-it would take an eternity to materialize. You need a much deeper deal for that.

Wd for the sequencing play. That's very impressive. I knew about the potential for sequencing in bac since the 90's but finding game conditions where it could be pulled off like that were rare.

Casinos in London and in some European countries, used to cut 7 cards for the last game (are they still there?). Bottom card can be seen most of the time, and sometimes the 8th cards as well, sometimes even with the 9th. I estimate the chance of having all tens in the last game this way.

As long as they shuffle at the table, sequencing is still possible.

[Archvaldor]

There was a court case that the player did not have to touch the card.

Not sure what you mean there could you clarify?

[peterlee]

Not sure what you mean there could you clarify?

There was a court case...a player gained an advantage in the game by using information from the non-perfectly manufactured cards, without touching or manipulating the game. The casino sued him for cheating. The player won the case.

[Archvaldor]

There was a court case...a player gained an advantage in the game by using information from the non-perfectly manufactured cards, without touching or manipulating the game. The casino sued him for cheating. The player won the case.

Wow. Weird that they would even try. Fascinating.

[Norm]

That has gone both ways in the courts. Point is, if you ask the dealer to turn the cards and do so in a foreign dialect not known to the floor, you may have legal difficulty as you are sorta, kinda influencing the card positioning going back into the tray favoring your ability in the next shoe.

[Archvaldor]

That has gone both ways in the courts. Point is, if you ask the dealer to turn the cards and do so in a foreign dialect not known to the floor, you may have legal difficulty as you are sorta, kinda influencing the card positioning going back into the tray favoring your ability in the next shoe.

I imagine a clever lawyer would agree that a form of social engineering ie the one employed by Ivey's confederate, is tantamount to physical manipulation of the cards. I also imagine an equally clever lawyer for the defense could successfully argue the defendant presented a contract/verbal agreement to the casino and they assented.

That aside from an AP perspective there is no absolutely no reason to use any form of ordering at all. The mere fact sorts exist at all is highly exploitable.

In fact, ordering of any kind makes it very easy to work out what was going on by studying the tapes, so is a negative when you consider longevity.

[Archvaldor]

Casinos in London and in some European countries, used to cut 7 cards for the last game (are they still there?). Bottom card can be seen most of the time, and sometimes the 8th cards as well, sometimes even with the 9th. I estimate the chance of having all tens in the last game this way.

As long as they shuffle at the table, sequencing is still possible.

You could also find extremely deep deals in the earlier incarnation of live action internet games on the web, Evolution software especially. 7 deck subsets were possible. They got hit pretty hard and changed the procedures.

[acw]

That has gone both ways in the courts. Point is, if you ask the dealer to turn the cards and do so in a foreign dialect not known to the floor, you may have legal difficulty as you are sorta, kinda influencing the card positioning going back into the tray favoring your ability in the next shoe.

This is exactly where I thought Ivey failed in his court case.