A New Baccarat System (Need stats help)

Can someone please help me with odds of this "system" I came up with.

I would be playing at a no commission table as either player or banker I suppose

I need to figure out the odds of my system working while taking into account the risk of hitting an exact pattern of "win, loss, loss" within the system.

By "working" I mean what would be the odds of a catastrophic failure (which I would define as losing on the 6th "tripled bet" aka the ninth overall bet).

Thank you!

Here is the system:


After 3 consecutive losses, begin tripling bet (5,5,5,15,45,135,405,etc.)

Net profits on triple bets will be the bet ("Y") minus initial bet ("X"), divided by 2 and then you subtract an additional ("X") from that remainder.

Payouts would be as follows:
Lose 5
Lose 5
Lose 5
Bet 15--> Net 0
Bet 45--> Net 15
Bet 135--> Net 60
Bet 405--> Net 195
Bet 1215--> Net 600
Bet 3645--> Net 1815

Deleted.

I don't remember the last time I saw a $5 baccarat table, let alone any $5 minimum table of any game that goes over $1000 table max.

Your "system" won't work; there is nothing to test.
Baccarat streak probabilities: https://wizardofodds.com/games/baccarat/appendix/4/

When you take this to the casino, see if you can get a video of it. I need a good laugh! You WILL crash and burn.

The system has another problem besides the usual "the amount that you would lose would more than wipe out the total winnings you would have up to that point" that goes with these "cover your losses" systems; if you lose your first two bets and then win, your net is -5.

You are just as likely to lose after eight consecutive losses of the same bet as you are after eight consecutive wins, or eight bets where wins and losses alternated, or any of the 252 other sets of eight consecutive non-tie results.
("Don't you mean 253?" No, as there are two sets of eight bets with alternating wins and losses - WLWLWLWL and LWLWLWLW.)

Sls casino Las Vegas has a 5 dollar min table with a 10k max. Verified today. You can call yourself to confirm if you like

The idea though is that winning is a good thing, so it doesn't matter how many consecutive wins you have, its more about how many consecutive losses you have. I am just wondering how this method would compare statistically with other doubling or tripling methods. The main issue is the WLL scenario, which could be eliminated if I started tripling after 2 consecutive losses, but that would require me to bet more on the consecutive hands, which I do not think would be worth it.

Quote: Dghyczy

The idea though is that winning is a good thing, so it doesn't matter how many consecutive wins you have, its more about how many consecutive losses you have.

You could have 30 consecutive small winning sessions in a row, but the 31st could be the one to wipe you out clean of profit plus initial stake. And if the system were so foolproof, why stop at any point and not keep playing?

No progression or betting system can overcome the house edge.
You're constantly betting at a disadvantage each time you bet banker or player.

Quote: Shadowless

You could have 30 consecutive small winning sessions in a row, but the 31st could be the one to wipe you out clean of profit plus initial stake. And if the system were so foolproof, why stop at any point and not keep playing?

No progression or betting system can overcome the house edge.
You're constantly betting at a disadvantage each time you bet banker or player.

But would it be more advantageous (using my system) to wait for two losses to begin tripling or wait for 3?

Waiting for three gives me one more hand as insurance against a catastrophic loss but also lessens net profits and risks the WLL scenerio.

I just want to know if that extra hand is more statistically advantageous than the alternative.

Thanks!

Quote: Dghyczy

But would it be more advantageous (using my system) to wait for two losses to begin tripling or wait for 3?

Waiting for three gives me one more hand as insurance against a catastrophic loss but also lessens net profits and risks the WLL scenerio.

I just want to know if that extra hand is more statistically advantageous than the alternative.

Neither has any advantage over the other.

You are just as likely to lose 9 bets in a row if you start betting after 3 losses in a row as you are if you start betting after 2, or 4, or 9, or 250, losses in a row.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Neither has any advantage over the other.

You are just as likely to lose 9 bets in a row if you start betting after 3 losses in a row as you are if you start betting after 2, or 4, or 9, or 250, losses in a row.

I know the pure odds explanation but the systems have to be different statistically because of the Win + Loss + Loss + Win scenario not triggering a triple bet in a "three loss before tripling" system.

Quote: Dghyczy

I know the pure odds explanation but the systems have to be different statistically because of the Win + Loss + Loss + Win scenario not triggering a triple bet in a "three loss before tripling" system.

Let's assume the maximum bet is 5000.
Look at the case where you have eight losses and then a win.
If you start tripling after 2 losses, the eight losing bets are 5, 5, 15, 45, 135, 405, 1215, 3645; you are now down 5470, but the maximum bet is 5000.
On the other hand, if you start tripling after 3 losses, the eight losing bets are 5, 5, 5, 15, 45, 135, 405, 1215; you are now down 1830, and your next bet of 3645 wins.

This is why neither has an advantage. You trade off making more if you win with reaching your losing stop point earlier.