Zero risk Baccarat?

[KasinoKing]

Ive heard of no-risk Baccarat, which is why most casinos ban it from WR.
But I have never played the game myself, so I am wondering how it can be played with absolute zero risk?

The Wizards site says Player pays even money, and Banker pays 19/20. So betting on both can not be done at zero risk (especially as there is quite a high chance of ties as well).

So how do you do it?

 

[caruso]

You don't.

"Zero risk" is casino-speak for games with opposing bets, like player/ banker, red/black, pass/don't pass. One bet wins, the other loses, hence casinos think this means playing "no risk".

Trying to enlighten them why this is incorrect is a complete waste of time.

 

[GrandMaster]

Ive heard of no-risk Baccarat, which is why most casinos ban it from WR.
But I have never played the game myself, so I am wondering how it can be played with absolute zero risk?

The Wizards site says Player pays even money, and Banker pays 19/20. So betting on both can not be done at zero risk (especially as there is quite a high chance of ties as well).

So how do you do it?

Ties push in baccarat, it is not like roulette, where you can lose your bet if you bet both black and red but don't cover 0. If you bet 20 units on both banker and player, you lose 1 unit if the banker wins, otherwise you get your money back. A more sophisticated bonus abuser would bet 40 units on banker, 39 on player, this way he would lose 1 unit if either banker or player won, and he would get all his money back in case of a tie.

 

[MrWolf]

Ive heard of no-risk Baccarat, which is why most casinos ban it from WR.
But I have never played the game myself, so I am wondering how it can be played with absolute zero risk?

The Wizards site says Player pays even money, and Banker pays 19/20. So betting on both can not be done at zero risk (especially as there is quite a high chance of ties as well).

So how do you do it?

The problem is that the casinos don't actually understand the mathematics of the games they offer. In the early days of promos, where WR were less defined and you could get away with wagering one or two times your bonus and deposit, some people did exactly this 'no risk' betting, allowing them to keep most of the bonus. So simultaneious bets on banker/player, red/black, pass/don't pass.The fact that these games are banned by virtually all casinos still for sign up promos is a legacy from the early days, even though WR have now reached ridiculous proportions where this sort of 'no risk' strategy wouldn't be worthwhile.

 

[Gluten]

The problem is that the casinos don't actually understand the mathematics of the games they offer.

This is a very depressing accusation - especially if it was untrue. Sadly it is not.
Only the top-dogs in the industry seems to have a grasp of what games they actually offer. If one did not know better, one would think alot of these new casinos just copied their T&C's from other casino without even looking at them!

On the subject of baccarat and other silly prohibited games like roulette. These games will all make you lose in the long run if you bet "both sides". The only game I can think of where u can break almost even is craps - but that's the game with all them numbers and different calculations so I have no idea - but I'm not a casino operator so that's ok

 

[KasinoKing]

The problem is that the casinos don't actually understand the mathematics of the games they offer. In the early days of promos, where WR were less defined and you could get away with wagering one or two times your bonus and deposit, some people did exactly this 'no risk' betting, allowing them to keep most of the bonus. So simultaneous bets on banker/player, red/black, pass/don't pass.The fact that these games are banned by virtually all casinos still for sign up promos is a legacy from the early days, even though WR have now reached ridiculous proportions where this sort of 'no risk' strategy wouldn't be worthwhile.

That's what I kinda figured.
So all those casinos that ban Baccarat & Roulette, yet allow low edge games like BJ & VP in WR, are in fact screwing themselves. Good!

Thanks for all the feedback guys!

 

[sharpgambler]

The problem is that the casinos don't actually understand the mathematics of the games they offer

They understand the mathematics and that's why they cannot offer a 200 or 300% match bonus without imposing restricted rules. The bonus is intended to capture new clients and not for the player to deposit $100 and to withdraw $300 without risking seriously the money.

These games will all make you lose in the long run if you bet "both sides"

What they mean with "no risk wagers" is "no low variance bets". Betting on red and black at the same time or on 1 single number on roulette has exactly the same implicit payout. On European Roulette you are expected to lose $2.7 on every $100 played. The implicit payout is 97.3% no matter the bet you make. You can bet on red/black at the same time or on a single number. The expected payout is always 97.3%. What is different is the variance of the game. When you bet on red/black at the same time the variance is near 0. When you bet on 1 single number the variance is high.

This means that when you're playing defensively because your goal is only to try to keep the money at the level it is, what would be the case of a player who receives a $200 bonus with his $100 deposit, the best bet would be the red/black at the same time. If the wager requirements are, for example, 10X deposit plus bonus, you have to bet $300 X 10 =$3000. If you play on roulette you're expected to lose $81 with these wager requirements. In a low variance game you will lose almost exactly that value and will be able to make a profit of more than $100 with the bonus. On a high variance game, no one knows what the exact final outcome will be.

In other words, and like I said before on another forum:

You have a river and a man who wants to cross to the other side. He is 1.80 meters tall and the river is on mean 1.50 meters deep. The man can't swim.

What means this?

Oh man, you're expected to cross the river without problems. Expected ???!?

Well he is expected to cross but this is not certain. Why? Because saying that the river is 1.50 meters deep on mean does not say anything about the exact deep of the river on the place the man is expected to cross it. It may be the case the river is 3.00 meters deeps on that place and still being 1.50 meters deep on mean. If the variance is high , it is very likely.

So, the man would be best of with a 1.50 meters deep river with low variance.

The expected payout is a mean and the variance is the degree of uncertainty of that mean (or volatility). If playing you are on mean expected to make a profit after fulfilling the wager requirements, then the casino would want to increase the degree of uncertainty of that result. that means prohibiting games with low variance.

 

[KasinoKing]

If playing you are on mean expected to make a profit after fulfilling the wager requirements, then the casino would want to increase the degree of uncertainty of that result. that means prohibiting games with low variance.

Nice answer.
But why do they ban Baccarat & Roulette, yet allow Blackjack & Video Poker - games with much lower house edge & variance?

Swim your way out of that!

(Rivers are VERY dangerous - especially in poker! )

Anyway, if bonus hunters wanted to use these games to hang on to as much of the bonus as possible, they might just as well only bet on one side (eg. Red or Player). If the casino is dealing a fair game, the probability is their losses would be exactly the same as betting on both sides. And they could even get a lucky run and make a profit!
Oh no! I forgot. Can't do that. That would be gambling!

 

[Oebro]

My guess is that it has nothing to do with house edge. It is to avoid 'no risk' bets. Even though the player might actually loose, he will never win more than the bonus and is therefore by difinition an abuser.

Roulette, baccarat and craps are the only casino games where it's possible to place 'no risk' bets. Intead of reviewing each and every game of roulette, baccarat and craps to look for no risk wagers the casinos just bans these games.

Either that, or the casinos knows that bj and vp takes some skill and some training to get the lower HE. This doesn't make it to easy for a newbie to become a bonus hunter.

Would be nice to hear some casino rep's explanation.

 

[caruso]

Sorry, "Sharpgambler" (LMAO), but your post is a litany of nonsense and misconception.

The reason casinos don't offer "300% bonuses without rules" is because they would go under. They would, however, go under slower if they made their promos roulette/bacc/craps "no risk" only, because they'd lose less. Variance, as a short-termism, is a non-issue unless they have nothing in the bank. And if they have nothing in the bank, they will go under just the same, no-risk play or any other kind. Variance is nothing to do with anything other than in the clueless worlds of the majority of casino operators and, it seems, one or two webmasters. It is a short-termism.

I recall talking to "Alan" at Forty Plus a while back. I asked him the same question and got the same "no risk" answer - followed by the following gem: that he had "substantial mathematical qualifications" and I would just have to take his word for it. I, and a few others, gave him a couple of free lessons - at which point he promised to go away and think about it a bit. LOL. I would imagine most other operators believe themselves qualified thus, hence the continuance of the "no risk" rule, long after it became irrelevant.

Long may they continue to prohibit play on those games that noone in their right minds would play.

 

[GrandMaster]

Roulette, baccarat and craps are the only casino games where it's possible to place 'no risk' bets. Intead of reviewing each and every game of roulette, baccarat and craps to look for no risk wagers the casinos just bans these games.

And sic bo. It should be possible to stop the player from betting on the player and banker, or pass and don't pass simultaneously, or have a little box pop up and warn him that what he is doing makes no sense and if he playing with a bonus, it won't count towards the WR. Roulette is a bit more complicated. The review would not have to be done by hand, once the casino defines what is considered abusive, it can be done automatically.

Either that, or the casinos knows that bj and vp takes some skill and some training to get the lower HE. This doesn't make it to easy for a newbie to become a bonus hunter.

I would agree with this. I remember reading somewhere that land based casinos have 1.5%-2% actual edge at blackjack due to players playing less than perfectly, I would assume it is similar online.


Some casinos are paranoid beyond belief. Here is an extract from the T&C for a promotion at Virgin Games: "Only bets on the Baywatch Heatwave slot game count towards this bonus promotion. A Non Lose wager will result in disqualification from the promotion." Someone please tell me how you can hedge your bets on a slot machine.

 

[sharpgambler]

Dear Caruso, I'm sorry but I did not understood very well your post. Anyway I would like to make some comments,

Variance is nothing to do with anything other than in the clueless worlds of the majority of casino operators and, it seems, one or two webmasters. It is a short-termism.

As long as I know variance and reward are closely connected as is an x-axis with an y-axis. variance is as important as an average. If you say to me that you have 3 brothers, on average 30 years old, it does not mean much to me. You may have 3 brothers each 30 years old, or one with 15, other with 30, and the last one with 45. So, variance plays an important role.

In the long run, with infinite trials a player is expected to lose when playing any casino game. It does not matter if he plays on red/black at the same time or only on one single number. The house edge is always the same. It's easy to use math and statistics to prove that.

The best chance a player has to win some money at a casino is on the short term, I mean, if he plays only a few hands. Why?

The expected payoff of the games is still the same, but what gives him a possibility of winning is the uncertainty of this result. The degree of uncertainty is the variance, and it plays a very important role on the short run. When you play 2 hands on red and win both, you end up beating the house, and what makes that possible is exactly the variance. Wizard of Odds have very good explanations on the role of variance (he not always refers to that as variance, sometimes he uses terms like risk and others).

When the casino gives you a bonus you're playing with money that is not yours. There is a very good reason to impose wager requirements and game restrictions. I can show you using math that a player with a bonus of 200% can systematically beat casinos, if casinos don't impose correct wager requirements and game restrictions. When I say systematically, I mean, every time. He receives the bonus, plays on a very low variance game to fulfil the requirements, and then withdraw a profit. Then, he repeats the same strategy at every casino.

I can assure you that variance plays a very important role. When you are in good position , the best bet is to play low variance games, when you are in a bad position, the best bet is on high variance games. This can be easily understood. When things are good you want no uncertainty, when things are bad, uncertainty plays on your side. When I refer to the story of the man and the river I was trying to explain that but I think it was not very well explained.

 

[Mugwump]

SharpGambler,

I think what Caruso is saying is correct if you view the odds from the Casino's perspective. What you are saying is correct (to some degree) from the players perspective.

For the casino: If they take one million bets on a roulette wheel, they are going to take 5.25 percent of the total bet, give or take a little bit. Variance plays very little role when the number of events gets large enough.

For the player: If I can find a bet that guarantees a 5% loss on every event, and find a bonus with 19x wagering requirements, I can automatically keep 5% of the bonus.

However: As far as I can see, there are very few bets that guarantee a 5% loss on every event. The bacarat example, I suppose, but I didn't realize ties push in that case. Craps and roulette both have bets that would hedge each other, but in both cases there is an event where you can still lose. (in craps you can push one and lose one if the roll is a 12, in roulette a 0 loses both bets if you bet red and black, or odds and evens).

I think the key is for the casino to figure out what the best odds they offer are, and then set a wagering requirement that cancels that out. Because of blackjack and video poker, this would result in 200x playthrough requirements though (which some sites do have). Perhaps if they figured out what the best odds they offered on low variance games was (roulette, craps, bacarrat) then they could set a playthough of 25-30x without limiting the games played.

By limiting the games however, the casinos do have the benefit of complicating their T&C's, giving them more excuses to deny cashout requests.

 

[sharpgambler]

I agree with you Mugwump.

The problem is, if the casino impose lower wager requirements, it has the problem of experienced users that can go to low variance games and keep the bonus. If they impose high wager requirements, they are penalizing users that not even care about that.

A ban of roulette play is derived from the fact that there are some bets with very low variance - the case of red and black at the same time. (off course if the casino sets a 200X playthrough it is not needed any game exclusion, and variance isn't so important). The reason variance plays a role is because a casino wants to impose a WR as low as possible. Then it has to exclude some bets.

The casino would have two options here: 1. completely forbid the play on the game, or 2. complicate the T&C's saying that roulette is allowed but you can't play on red/black at the same time,.....They have a trade off here.

Sometime ago, players were less refined and there was no need for these impositions, but now because of some players, everybody suffers.

Nowadays a bonus offer is a big issue not only for casinos but also for players.
Some casinos, like RTG, have different bonuses for different needs, like 200% on slots with 15X playthrough, 40% blackjack, with 20X playthrough, and others.

 

[jpsartre]

This means that when you're playing defensively because your goal is only to try to keep the money at the level it is, what would be the case of a player who receives a $200 bonus with his $100 deposit, the best bet would be the red/black at the same time.

True, except no casino offers that kind of bonus anymore. The wagerrequirements are more likely to be twice or triple the number you give.

 

[KasinoKing]

The casino would have two options here: 1. completely forbid the play on the game, or 2. complicate the T&C's saying that roulette is allowed but you can't play on red/black at the same time,.....They have a trade off here.

There is at least one casino I've seen that does this. You can play Roulette, but the software will not let you spin the wheel if you bet on Black & Red etc....
I think it might be Casino on Net?
Anyway, it's about time the others caught up with this idea.

 

[555YY]

In other words, and like I said before on another forum:

You have a river and a man who wants to cross to the other side. He is 1.80 meters tall and the river is on mean 1.50 meters deep. The man can't swim.

What means this?

Oh man, you're expected to cross the river without problems. Expected ???!?

Well he is expected to cross but this is not certain. Why? Because saying that the river is 1.50 meters deep on mean does not say anything about the exact deep of the river on the place the man is expected to cross it. It may be the case the river is 3.00 meters deeps on that place and still being 1.50 meters deep on mean. If the variance is high , it is very likely.

So, the man would be best of with a 1.50 meters deep river with low variance.

The expected payout is a mean and the variance is the degree of uncertainty of that mean (or volatility). If playing you are on mean expected to make a profit after fulfilling the wager requirements, then the casino would want to increase the degree of uncertainty of that result. that means prohibiting games with low variance.

sorry, your analogy is incorrect. in your example the man crossing the river will NEVER derive any positive benefit from variance, his sole goal is crossing the river, thus variance in this case is indeed bad.

however, gambling is not the same, variance in player's favor equals higher payout, therefore variance in this case is not as bad since it can swing both ways, whereas in your example variance can only be negative

 

[sharpgambler]

Dear ezc3m,

I said that variance does not play as an advantage to the player in this case.

thus variance in this case is indeed bad.

Yes, it is bad, I said that:

So, the man would be best of with a 1.50 meters deep river with low variance.

And:

however, gambling is not the same, variance in player's favor equals higher payout

Not true, it does not equal higher payout, just an uncertain payout.

therefore variance in this case is not as bad since it can swing both ways

yes, it can swing both ways. But the best chance for this man is with low variance.

whereas in your example variance can only be negative

Yes, in my example variance is absolutely negative for the man.

I can show you the same example with the contrary situation in which variance is good for him.

 

[555YY]

hi sharp,

i don't think you're getting my point, i'm not saying that your math is incorrect or your analogy is logically unsound. i'm stating that your reasoning for using this as an analagous example to the current casino bonus situation is flawed. i study lsat all day and this what i do, pick apart arguments

your man surviving the river scenario correctly correlates to the following: the casino has a stipulation that no matter what your balance is at the end of the wr, you can only cashout a sum that is no greater than your orginial deposit + credited bonus. in this particular situation, yes, variance is bad, because if the player manages to win big, he can only cashout a restricted amount. hence variance in this situation has no upside for the player.

the casino bonus situation discussed currently is not in that particular category, b/c if you win a large amount after wagering at a high variance game, you get to cashout the entire winning balance. a correct analogy in this case is say the following: a man has two routes to return home each day after work. one route is a small road that no one else uses and it would always take him 40 minutes to reach his house by that route. the second route is the highway which is more unpredictable and is based on traffic conditions, if traffic is good it takes him 20 min to get home, if traffic is okay it would take him 40 min, if traffic is bad it would take him 60 min. there is no way to tell ahead of time what the traffic condition would be for the highway. now which route does the man prefer? this decision is dependent on his disposition and attitude

 

[martinrossbrown]

Microgaming Baccarat has three buttons to press for 'Player' 'Banker' and 'Tie'. When this button is pressed the game begins so it is impossible to bet on more than one outcome.

But the game is barred on 99% of casino bonuses.

 

[HKGambler]

I should add that as for Baccarat, betting every time on both Banker & Player at the same time has a higher expected loss than betting every bets on Banker alone.
HA for Player = 1.36%. HA for Banker = 1.17%. Supposing 5% commission..
Never bet on Ties under any circumstances. Ties HA = 14.4%. Supposing 1:8.

Its unwise for casinos to exclude Baccarat and the likes for bonus play. They should tighten the WR instead of banning. I know Piggs Peak is doing this. Then the rest of players who lack the skill or interest to play Blackjack or Slots have more options. Asians are relatively higher rollers and are very much keen on Baccarat so that the casinos are actually giving up a large potential market.

I agree with sharpgambler that low variance is an important element to players who aim at bonus hunting. Low variance means greater steadiness to achieve each & every pre-calculated bonus goals.