ur0pl
Joined: Mar 18, 2013
• Posts: 2
March 24th, 2013 at 4:23:37 PM permalink
I am going to try one of the two following betting strategies for Baccarat. Which one do you like more?

If i win, then I keep on betting 25.
A: If i lose, 25,15,30,60,120,240. The first 25 is the last from the winning streak.
B: If I lose, 25,15,15,30,60,120,240. The first 25 is the last from the winning streak.

Strategy B can absorb 7 loses in a row while Strategy A can absorb 6. However, if i play it too safe, like with Strategy B, then I might just keep on breaking even and eat up 25 all the time without making any profit at all.

I want the safest, but also that will have me profit.

6 loses in a row is 1 out of 64
7 loses in a row is 1 out of 128

What is your feedback?
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
• Posts: 3321
March 24th, 2013 at 4:29:56 PM permalink
Quote: ur0pl

I am going to try one of the two following betting strategies for Baccarat. Which one do you like more?

If i win, then I keep on betting 25.
A: If i lose, 25,15,30,60,120,240. The first 25 is the last from the winning streak.
B: If I lose, 25,15,15,30,60,120,240. The first 25 is the last from the winning streak.

Strategy B can absorb 7 loses in a row while Strategy A can absorb 6. However, if i play it too safe, like with Strategy B, then I might just keep on breaking even and eat up 25 all the time without making any profit at all.

I want the safest, but also that will have me profit.

6 loses in a row is 1 out of 64
7 loses in a row is 1 out of 128

What is your feedback?

You cannot expect to profit from any betting system. Baccarat is a negative game. All that the betting progressions can do is adjust the size and frequency of your wins and losses. If you're willing to chase a minimum profit with large amounts of money, then your first negative progression is more aggressive.

Personally, I like to chase large wins with small amounts of money in bacc. I might start with \$200 and try to get to \$1000, giving me a very high risk of ruin.

Some people like to flat bet and just enjoy the social aspects of the game.

It's all about taste.
MangoJ
Joined: Mar 12, 2011
• Posts: 905
March 24th, 2013 at 4:44:27 PM permalink
Quote: ur0pl

A: If i lose, 25,15,30,60,120,240. The first 25 is the last from the winning streak.
B: If I lose, 25,15,15,30,60,120,240. The first 25 is the last from the winning streak.
[...]
What is your feedback?

Strategy B is clearly better than A, because your average bet is less.

On the risk that you don't want to hear it:
The best strategy is "C: dont play."
If C is not an option for you (for whatever reason), you should try the second best strategy "D: bet table minimum on banker".
ur0pl
Joined: Mar 18, 2013
• Posts: 2
March 24th, 2013 at 6:36:59 PM permalink
I am going to rework this to maybe something better...
Lexinger
Joined: Feb 21, 2013
• Posts: 47
March 24th, 2013 at 8:37:03 PM permalink
Quote: ur0pl

I am going to rework this to maybe something better...

I think that gr8player has reworked the baccarat thing to about as good as you are ever going to find. I'm sure he'll be back as soon he gets on another roll at the casino.
Those who can, do; those who can't, teach. But those who confuse the two... they wind up on the internet.
gr8player
Joined: Mar 2, 2013
• Posts: 606
March 27th, 2013 at 11:16:39 AM permalink
ur0pl, I would not recommend either of your negative progressions, my friend. Much, much too steep; not only for my own personal taste, but for casino survival, as well. I'm afraid that you'll find those 6 and 7 loss streaks a bit too common to alleviate the inherent risk factors involved. Lastly, you'll never get used to putting forth that last "bail-out" bet associated with steep negative progressions such as yours; IOW, on papers these progressions look interesting, but when the time comes to push those huge chips across the felt, especially in the midst of such a losing jag.........it's no way to "live" at this game.

sodawater: >start with \$200 and try to get it to \$1000 w/high risk of ruin<

Yes, sodawater, a "high risk of ruin". Too high, IMHO. All a MM plan like that'll do for you is to "train you how to lose". That said, I do happen to like the way you think, my friend. Your premise is a good one. A good one until your greed kicks in and ruins it. Go ahead and start with that same \$200. Whenever you're successful at doubling that total, pocket half of those winnings. IOW, use the remaining \$100 profit to fund, hopefully, yet another run-up. Now if you see that impending variance correction, and those cards do turn a bit sour on you, at least you've secured a 50% win for the session. I trust that you can see it's still a rather aggressive approach....but not nearly as "suicidal". Nothing wrong with "walking a win", sodawater. Great habit to get into. But, an impossible one for those whose own greed inhibits their true chances for success.

MangoJ: >bet table minimum on Banker<

OK. Nothing wrong with that, assuming that's your bet selection of choice. But I hope it's not your bet selection strictly for that ever-so-slight Banker's advantage at this game. Because, in that shoe or two that you'll be there for, my friend, that one-fifth of 1% won't count for a hill of beans, I'm afraid. Nor will it at your next session, or your next, or next.....

If I were you, MangoJ, and I were serious about playing and, possibly, just possibly, getting a "leg up" on this closed-end, shoe game, rather than betting for one side only (and blindly), I'd seek to find a "domination", where one side is dominating the bulk of the decisions. Streaks are the best and most common examples of dominations, but also I'd learn to look for brief "blips", or "gaps", and then resume betting the same side: PPP B PP B PPP B P....not a long P streak, but a "dom" example just the same. After a while, MangoJ, you'll learn to pick up on these in your sleep. And, after even a bit more of a while, you might get your game to the point where you can anticipate these "doms" even before they unfold completely.

I much prefer my trending approaches to betting for one side only, ad infinitum.....

But, I just happen to believe in trending at this game called Baccarat......

I wish you all the very best of it.
98Clubs
Joined: Jun 3, 2010
• Posts: 1728
March 28th, 2013 at 10:24:20 PM permalink
Flat bet \$100 on banker.
Some people need to reimagine their thinking.
drjohnny
Joined: Sep 2, 2012
• Posts: 167
March 30th, 2013 at 2:39:04 AM permalink
I guarantee you will eventually get crushed using a negative progression.

Not too long ago I tried a 10,20,40,80,160,320,640 progression and I lost an unbelievable 8 hands in a row!

I've made several dozen casino trips during the past year experimenting with various systems and I never won more than \$300 in a day using a Martingale system, but I have lost up to \$1200 multiple times after losing 7 or more hands in a row.

Fortunately I was able to negate all of those devastating losses by using an anti-Martingale type strategy.

Instead of betting small during winning streaks and betting huge during losing streaks, I'd bet small or sit out during losing streaks and bump up my bets only during winning streaks.

If you start with a \$50 bet, you can quickly parlay that up to \$800 if you win 4 hands in a row.

Normally I don't have the guts to let all of my profit ride more than 3 times in a row, but I will bet up to 50% of my profit during a good winning streak.

It seems like almost every time I visit a casino now, I see a perfect chop or streak that lasts at least 7 hands!
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
• Posts: 8409
March 30th, 2013 at 3:50:55 AM permalink
Quote: 98Clubs

Flat bet \$100 on banker.

Flat bet something anyway. That is the way that makes sense, but it is crushingly boring. Even though I know I am indulging a fallacy, I have to alternate between punto and banco on hunches; the difference in HE means little to me, I don't think I would ever play much.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
teddys
Joined: Nov 14, 2009