my question is, "Would simply sitting down to a Bacarat table
with a $1000 bankroll and betting on the Banker every turn produce
a
similar comp/cash-back level as VP, with possibly other perks?"
OK. First of all, you have to realize that the primary reason that
VP generates good comps in general is that even at the quarter level
(1.25/hand), we bet a fairly large amount of money per hour; a
reasonably fast player at 800 hands/hour bets $1000/hr. Baccarat
provides 60-120 decisions per hour depending on how crowded the
table is. So, to generate the same amount of ACTION as a .25 VP
player, you would probably have to bet $15/hand.
However, action is only half the story. All player tracking systems
compute a number known as the "theo", or theoretical win for the
house. It is a function of the house percentage and the estimated
amount of money bet over time. Baccarat, with its fixed house
percentage, has about a 1.4% advantage for the house. This is
immutable. If you bet $1000 at baccarat you will lose approimately
$14.
Video poker has a similar house advantage of about 2% when expressed
as the sum of all VP action during a given day. Some machines may
hold 6-7% with optimum play; others, as little as 0%. However, the
skill of the player now comes into account; a bad player may play at
a 5% disadvantage compared to an expert player. The house computes
VP "theo" based on the time played, and the amount played, asuuming
an "average" player. So VP play of $1000 generates a "theo" of about
$20, which may be actually too high if the player in question is
highly skilled (or for that matter, may be too low if said VP player
is a total idiot).
Now, the casino has a formula which it applies against the theo to
see what amoount in comps the customr is entitled to: they refund
from 20 to 40 percent of theo in comps. The fanciest Strip casinos
tend toward the low end of the scale; the less-well-known joints and
the "locals'" casinos give back more.
The reason why VP works as a comp generator (as so does blackjack
played with competent basic strategy) is that the computed theo
tends to be overstated in the case of the skilled player. Thus, he
gets more comps than he is "entitled to".
Slot cards quantify this, and the basic comp rate of 0.2-0.3% of
action is usually augmented by mailed cash or room offers, as well
as "discretionary" comps given by slot hosts.
So, to recap: to generate X dollars in comps at baccarat, assuming a
comp rate of 30% of theo: 1.4 x .3 = .42 or 42 cents for every $100
wagered. Roughing it out means you will have to bet $200 to get
a "comp dollar". So, if you want to get a $40 dinner comp, you would
have to bet $8000 at baccarat. This would net you a loss of $112.
In contrast, the same amount of action on video poker would net you
$48 (30% of $160 theo) in comps, but the purported house advantage
of 2% is not necessarily real. If you play the best games offered,
even in Strip joints where the VP is comparatively bad, you can pare
the house advantage down to 0.5% or less with skillful play.
Reversing the numbers means that you need to suffer one-third (or
less!) of the mathematical loss to get a comp of X size at VP
compared to baccarat.
I've visited the Wizard Of Odds page a number of times and run
through the scenario with a $1000 bankroll and both $10 and $100
bets
on the Banker.
Since it's practically a 50/50 game (excluding ties which are
pushed), I've noticed two outcomes:
1. Both the Player and Banker wins remain close together over
literally hundreds of hands. Hence the bankroll is virtually
break-
even.
2. Either the Banker or Player takes an unexpected lead and
remains
out in front by approximately 20-30 hands over the course of
hundreds
of hands.
Don't be too impressed by this. The human mind tends to look for
patterns---it's a hardwired survival skill back from our primate-on-
the-savannah days---and you are perceiving patterns that are
essentially meaningless because your sample size is too small.
Naturally, you will tend to sort the results into groups; this
sorting won't yield any meaningful conclusions, though.
I believe there was a calculation done some time ago regarding a
coin
flip and it was determined that if Heads or Tails took a lead,
probability favored that lead to remain intact over the long haul.
This is simply an adjunct the "Law of Large Numbers", the essence of
which is:
1. Over time, the actual result will tend to approach the
theoretical (mathematical result) more and more closely.
2. However, the size of the DIVERGENCE from the theoretical result
will tend to INCREASE, and the probability of reaching the
theoretical result will DECREASE.
Let's say that after ten coin flips, "heads" comes up eight times.
This is an 80-20 lead in a breakeven game. There is NO (realistic)
chance that after 1000 flips, this 80-20 lead will be maintained;
the percentage will in fact "regress" toward 50%. However, the
amount that the actual result differs from the 50% norm is extremely
likely to be GREATER than 3 after 1000 flips (the 8-2 result was
three "heads" "too many").
I'd really like to hear from the math wizards on this, as my
thought
is, if the goal is STRICTLY to build a comp balance, would this
not
be a good method of doing so, or are there already "rules" in
place
to prevent it?
The "rule in place" is the casino's awareness that even-money bets
on baccarat do not in fact make them a great deal of money. Even
$100 bets are only worth $1.40 each.
Even when the $100 Banker bet fizzled and the $1000 bankroll was
gone
when the Player got ahead on occassion, it lasted several hundred
hands, which would mean 20-30K in cash-in for comps.
And this $20-$30K would net you $100-$150 in comps. Not really worth
it.
Today, I had the pleasure of running through a quick simulation in
which the Banker took an early lead, and after 500 hands played,
was
up to $3550 (hence a $50,000 comp balance) and a lucky break in
actually winding up a WINNER!
Utterly irrelevant; insufficient sample size.
So, PLEASE let me know if this thought makes any sense, or if it's
old hat and won't work because ________ (fill in the blank).
It's been tried before; the house percentage is fixed and cannot be
altered by any player action; the house knows its elementary
mathematics; the casinos want to make a profit and have been dealing
baccarat for 300 years, so they know all the ins and outs of the
game.
True, it's not as entertaining, (unless you're winning) as there's
not real THOUGHT to the game, but if it can get the job done in a
few
hours with a "break-even" bankroll, loss or gain, it's certainly
worth investigating.
PLEASE do reply and let me know!
Well......it won't really work. You will lose money, and get about a
third of it back in comps. Sorry!
