Eliot Jacobson did a a card counting analysis of the EZ Baccarat Dragon 7 side bet that was published on the Wizard of Odds site in 2011 https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/dragon-bet/. Using a linear count simulation, Jacobson concluded a shoe depleted of more eights and/or nines than normal provided an advantage for the Dragon 7 side bet which pays 40-1. I upped the ante by including the JSTAT Count (2-9=+1 and 10-K=-2) with a side counting of 8/9's and have been very successful playing in casinos. It only makes sense that a winning three card banker 7 cannot happen with a ten card (on plus JSTAT Counts) along with the 8/9's as a third card in this non-linear count.

As an additional bonus, I discovered the JSTAT Count with the side counting (and the lack of) of 8/9's remaining in the shoe with minus counts works very well with Player Bets in conventional baccarat.

Side counting the 8/9's are just as effective in blackjack as it is in the EZ Baccarat Dragon 7 side bet or conventional baccarat. At blackjack, on plus JSTAT Counts with more 8/9's remaining than normal, our double downs will approve on 10/11 and the dealer will bust more often than average. In my opinion, the side counting of 8/9's with the JSTAT Count enhances card counting at blackjack and baccarat.

Yep.

A deck particularly poor of 8s/9s and ten value cards diminish the power of the third card rule favoring the Banker side.
Because any 8 or 9 and ten card value as third card deterrmine many times the standing Banker action where the Banker takes the most of its advantage.

Moreover whenever a deck is poor of 8s,9s and 10s frequently it means that more small-medium cards are available to catch for Player side as third card.

Obviously the (slight) main effect favoring the Player side is due to the second issue, along with the fact the P bets are payed 1.1 and not 0.95:1.

In my opinion your stupidly complex counts and complete lack of simulation results showing their efficacy leads me to think no serious player should ever listen to you.

While the dragon bet is beatable the long shot nature of the wager severely restricts the % of your bankroll which you should wager; inevitably there are better opportunities on blackjack tables.

Given the same bankroll even a relatively unexciting blackjack game without exceptional rules or pene will be several times more lucrative than this side bet.

Maybe you are right, anyway a perfect Dragon bet counting will have nearly a four fold edge than what a perfect bj card counting would do.
It's not my assumption, just mathematics.

what?

Forget what I could say about it or baccarat in general, let's take Eliot Jacobsen findings:

In an 8-deck shoe with the cut card placed at 14, whenever you'll find the proper Dragon bonus triggers you'll get an average edge going from 7.315% to 8.032%. (200.000.000 shoes tested two times)

Knowing that at bj the average edge will be included from 1% to 2% or at most 2.5%....

A note about betting frequency of both games:
Baccarat Dragon bet triggers come out about 10% of the times, whereas favourable bj situations will be spread, at best, about 13% of the times.

Of course a lot of patience is needed but nobody is going to kick you off from playing because you are counting side baccarat bets giving the house an astounding edge of 7.611%.

In addition, at bj we have to play every single f hand knowing that a favourable deck will come out just about 13% of times, while at baccarat we can bet whenever we like and whatever we want.

The same about bonus pairs, Panda bets and almost every other baccarat side bet along with the "unbeatable" BP hands.

Just mathematics...

That is not at all what Eliot Jacobsen says.

https://apheat.net/2012/08/12/card-c...arat-side-bet/

" When the AP makes a DB wager, his average edge will be about 1.70%. "

But because of the longshot nature of the bet you can wager only a tiny fraction of your bankroll. With a BJ edge of 1.7% you can wager around 1% of your bankroll "safely".

This sidebet is worthless.

The link you provided from Eliot Jacobson is for the Dragon Bonus bet, not the EZ Baccarat Dragon 7 side bet! Here is the correct Dragon 7 link from Jacobson https://apheat.net/2014/10/13/card-c...arat-side-bet/. Jacobson wrote in the link, "The key is that in order for the player to win this wager, the Banker hand has to draw a third card. This requirement trumps everything else. The cards that keep the Banker hand from drawing that third card most often are the 8 and the 9. As these cards are removed from the shoe, the edge moves quickly towards the counter’s favor...Intuitively, a shoe that is rich in the cards 4, 5, 6, 7 and poor in the cards 8, 9 will favor the counter."

Thanks!
Actually we were talking about this side bet from the start of your post.

touche

I wouldn't use Eliot Jacobsen as a source, he is kind of a joke in the AP community.

"Average edge" means nothing.

Solve by experiment:

Imagine game A: 1% edge on every hand.

Compare with game B, 100% edge 1% of the time, nothing otherwise.

Both have the same average edge, game B is 100 times more profitable to the gambler.

Repeat after me, average edge means nothing.

I've tried to explain this very simple concept politely to him on numerous occassions, but he really is a very stupid man. Garden variety nerd that can't think outside the box, thinks endless tables and numbers validate poor conceptual thinking, tedious.

why would you try to explain anything at all to that goofy idiot?

I was more tolerant in my youth. I'm naturally sympathetic to weird people. In this case the weirdness is not the issue: it is him being a creepy sell-out arsehole that can't analyze for ****.

No one is perfect, but Eliot Jacobson was the first to publish that the lack 8's and 9's were beneficial to one winning the EZ Baccarat Dragon 7 side bet. I just added the JSTAT Count (2-9=+1, 10-K=-2) with his findings to enhance the Dragon 7 advantage for us players. Jacobson deserves praise for assisting advantage players to win at this side bet. I've had my disagreements with him, but will not address them here.

The purpose of this thread is to announce that the Player bet at conventional baccarat can be exploited via card counting. This is also a first!

No it isn't

A 3 word post! Have you read the analysis of beating the Player bet at baccarat with card counting in this thread? Are you referring to Henry Tamburin, Peter Griffin, and Michael Hall's ancient work during the last century? The JSTAT Count protocols cannot be computer simulated due to the side counts and the counting of cards played. It is not on the market yet! The Player bet card counting advantage has passed scrutiny on the Wizard of Vegas board. Again, everything is explained in the video...

Oh really? Lol

That was a real gem even by JSTAT standards.

Trying to think of a reasonable bet he'd accept/make good on wrt that statement but doubt it's worth the effort.

I'm just astounded that someone who seems reasonably intelligent would make such a boneheaded statement. It definitely takes away from his general credibility.

Do you know where one can buy baccarat card counting software that is capable of tracking the JSTAT Count, side counting of the 8's/9's, and the number of cards played to perform the edge we will need for the Player bet?

Your claim said nothing about what might be commercially available. I could take any of the open-source card dealing programs and modify them in a few hours to do what you want and there are probably people on here that could create a specific simulation in less time than that, with perl or something simple. This is just counting cards, not rocket science.

Saying that something you can physically count in your head, can't be done by a computer simulation, was just stupid.

It is stupid to trust a complete stranger to be trusted with computer simulating a baccarat count. I will approve of a computer simulation if I was there to witness and have the simulation documented on paper.