Baccarat question. First, please read this:
Those who dabble in baccarat know that the bet on the banker hand is slightly better than the bet on player. Both are among the better bets in the casino, with a house edge of 1.06 percent if you bet on banker, and 1.24 percent if you bet on player.
The banker bet actually wins a little more often than it loses. With all hands considered, banker wins 45.86 percent of the time, player wins 44.62 percent, and 9.52 percent of hands result in ties. Since the ties push, banker wins 50.68 percent of the time when there is a decision, and player wins 49.32 percent.
Considering the bank wins a measly 1% of the time more than the "player", I'm having a hard time rationalizing why anyone would ever pay the 5% commission required to bet on "the bank". Wouldn't it be more prudent to bet on the player every time and skip the commission?
I would still really, really like to discuss this if anyone has baccarat experience.
Since that post last night, I have since learned from Wizard of Odds and others that backing the banker (despite the 5% commission) is the smart way to play, especially if you are playing a progression system, because the banker has the "last draw" - similar to 21 - but this is based on the player's cards.
Would like to hear anyone's personal experiences with the game. I don't want to go into the roped-off baccarat room where all the snooty people are. I'll be playing mini-baccarat, which has the same rules but encourages t-shirts, sandals and drunk people who haven't showered recently. Right up my alley.