Well alrighty…brain started thinkin’ again! (kudos to eastcoast who has really got me examining things again lately)
I’m not quite sure why I hadn’t thought of this newest stat and why it hasn’t surfaced in this thread before. As I was in the casino the other day, I found myself counting the number of Banker runs that actually resulted in a back-to-back “Target Betting” result, as opposed to those that didn’t. That prompted me to suddenly realize something.
What if I went back and got some percentage stats/ratios on the actual amount of Player/Banker runs that actually resulted in a back-to-back “Target Betting” result. This might give us a clue as to what we should expect in a shoe AND an indicator once into any specific shoe. Make sense? Here is what I found going back through actual and testing (Baccarat Buster2 app) shoes. These are samplings from roughly 300 shoes. I found NO difference in averaging all 300 or just picking 50 shoes at a time. Thus, I feel no need in trying to test samples of hundreds of thousands of shoes. It just is what it is and no huge amount of data is going to prove anything different IMO.
First, let me qualify a Player or Banker run. It is ANY amount of one or more consecutive results of a Player or Banker. In other words, anytime the Big Board switches from Player to Banker to Player to Banker…back and forth…follow?
The overall average amount of Player OR Banker runs was 17 each. This is roughly based on the average shoe sample of 75 hands. The FEWEST amount of runs for either Player or Banker was 13. The MOST amount of runs for either Player or Banker was 21.
On average, Player “Target Bet” results happened 7.9 times per shoe, for an overall average of 47%.
On average, Banker “Target Bet” results happened 9.4 times per shoe, for an overall average of 56%.
Lowest/Highest Player “Target Bet” percentages were, 24% and 76%
Lowest/Highest Banker “Target Bet” percentages were, 31% and 80%
Now I don’t really find any of these figures that surprising for what I typically see of shoes in the casino. What I DO think this information reveals is when you see a shoe that is lopsided FROM these figures. What do you think?
To illustrate what I am saying here is this. I’ll use a shoe I saw the other day. Now this is from memory and not factually written down but, as I say an illustration. I realized that I see several of these types of shoes nearly every outing.
See where this is going? Four of the first four Player runs are “Target Betting” premium Winning bets to only one out of four for the Banker. VERY lopsided results early on AND Player has quickly used up 4 of its average 7.9 “Target Betting” opportunities. Let's continue...
Suddenly, the Player runs stagnate and Banker runs appear. Now in this sample scenario, and what I had noticed in the casino, was that either Player or Banker ran off a “Target Betting” string of back-to-back Winning runs. Call it the law of averages or what-ever, most shoes will generally balance out by the end of the shoe. YES, there are absolute runaway shoes with Player or Banker killing it BUT, I just don’t see that happening very often. With an average shoe of 75 hands, this leaves plenty of time for things to equalize. If shoes averaged say 35 hands…what do you think the chances are for things to equalize themselves, if one side or the other jumped off to a big head start? See my point? I tend to think the only reason I have noticed this, is because there are plenty of hands stretched out in the shoe to observe the phenomenon.
I don’t think it is really much different than seeing a lot of chop then suddenly, long back-to-back runs show up. On average, what I see, is things changing/reversing themselves…because they have enough or ample time (number of hands in the shoe) to do it in.
I think we tend to only remember what really stands out, rather than the average, mundane happenings. I remember that shoe one time with the 21 result Banker streak or the one/two only chop that stretched all the way through the entire shoe. Or the one where there were 20 Ties.
What do YOU see at the casino, most of the time? Thoughts?
What Heavy said...
"Get in, get up, get gone"