Panda-8 Co-Count with Dragon-7
With the simplified unbalanced count for the EZ-Baccarat Dragon-7, it’s occasionally fun to count a shoe and find opportunities to bet $25 – $100, to try to win $1000 – $4000. But overall, counting the Dragon gets pretty boring. It only takes a second to see the value of the hand, and to update your count. Then you spend a lot of time watching everyone think deeply about their next bets. Hopefully, the count gets to +32, so you can finally make a bet.
Counting the Dragon-7 would be pretty good if you could make about twice the +EV it offers (+52% of a fixed bet per shoe). Or at least it’d be fun if you could easily track the Panda-8 as well, to add some variety to the game. (I’ve previously posted a complicated Panda-8 count and a RCmin table that yields +22% of a fixed bet per shoe.)
Well, I can’t double the EV of the Dragon-7, nor can I easily get you the full +22% of the Panda. But, here’s an ultra-simplified Panda-8 co-count that you should be able to track alongside the Dragon-7. It’s an unbalanced count, for simplicity. It only has a few taps. The few (4) taps it has are equal to those of the Dragon-7 unbalanced count. Also, these are key taps (you focus on the +2 Nines for the Dragon; it uses the same +1 unbalanced Aces; finally, the -1 Fours and Fives are easy to remember, because they add up to 9). You should be able to track your main Dragon-7 count, then quickly scan the hand for its Panda-8 value.
| Card | Count Value |
|---|---|
| Ace | +1 |
| Four, Five | -1 |
| Nine | +2 |
Starting from a running count (RC) of 0, you should bet the Panda-8 when its count gets to +35. You’ll get an average of about 2 bets per shoe (when 16 cards are placed behind the cut card), and a profit of around +9.0% of a fixed bet per shoe. It’s not a whole lot, but it’ll make sitting around the baccarat table a little more fun/tolerable. Also, it’ll give you more cred with the degenerates watching their Player lines, Panda lines, and their second bankers 🙂
Thanks to Linus B for his initial work on the Panda co-count. I greatly simplified it here for us script-kiddies.
Discount Gambling 
It’s called “tags” not taps in card counting nomenclature.
Yeah, I know. But I’m so used to engineering terminology like coefficients and (digital filter) taps, that I just can’t help myself 🙂
Okay, I looked at both your Panda and Dragon counts.
The secret is what Newton stated (and why Apple, Inc. is so successful): natura valde simplex est et sibi consona; Simple and Harmonious.
You want a main (commonly called the primary) count that employs the “tags” for the Panda Count AND then add a secondary count for 6, 7 and 8, respectively.
Since both counts employ Ace, 4, 5, and 9 (i.e. these tags overlap or are shared by both counts), that will be the Panda or Main Count while you keep a separate side count of 6, 7, and 8.
So starting with an IRC of 0, you bet Dragon at 32 (adjusted by the secondary or side count), and bet Panda at RC of 35.
I hope this is slf-evident.
Ahhh … or you can transform Dragon-7 hand values to Panda-8 hand values via the 6/7/8 offset. That’s easy to remember.
Steve: You need to understand how card counters think. This concept is known as path dependency (think qwerty keyboard) — the path counters learn may not be the most efficient, but the tracks are already established in the brain. The Dvorak keyboard is far more efficient, but qwerty rules the land since qwerty created the “path.”
Counters have primary counters and side counts. The primary count gets the most power (i.e. information gain). Also, it is easier in math and in our heads to add numbers than subtract numbers (again, in card counting, we may add negative numbers so it’s addition by subtraction in those situations).
Basically, it’s whatever is more comfortable and effective for the individual. Personally, I think you should give credit to Linus B. for the Panda-Lite idea.
Cheers.
I see your point about subtracting. I often stumble when the count goes from positive to negative, especially for double-digit hand values.
Yes, props to Linus B for showing a simplified Panda-8 count still yields a good return. It encouraged me to see if a greatly simplified count would yield anything worthwhile.
stephen, I would like to propose an unbalanced count for dragon 7 :-
six(-5), seven/eight/nine(+2), IRC = 0, bet when RC >= +33
8 deck, 52 cards penetration, my simulation shown better EV/shoe = 0.504 unit !
Could you verify It ?
oops ! the above counting system is for Easy 6 side bet !
Yep, close enough:
shoes: 3700000, EV/shoe: +0.472732, bets/shoe: 10.1387, EV/bet: +0.046626, hands/shoe: 72.789273
I think the final hand rule you are using in your program is different.
The final hand rule :-
The cut card is placed 52 cards from the end of the shoe, after the cut card is dealt, one more round is dealt before shuffling. This will give hands/shoe : 73.59 instead of 72.789273. So, my bet/shoe : 10.405 and EV/shoe : 0.504
Stephen, the baccarat final hand rule for your local casinos is not same as what I mentioned above ?
I thought the final hand rule is standard for all casinos !?
There’s a lot of places that still place the cut card rather deeply in the shoe. It ranges from 1/4 to 1/2 a deck behind the cut card.
…but not for Easy 6 !
By the way, I looked at counting Easy-6 when dealt from a CSM. As usual, there’s a super-linear relationship between the windowed count and the EV, but it almost never gets good enough to bet 😦
How about counting 7 UP Baccarat when dealt from a CSM ?