fibonacci, paroli, martingale baccarat betting hybrid??
So, with a minimum bet of 10 $ on a baccarat table, and to lose the same bet 8 times in a row, while winning on the 9th would need 2560$. Now, the odds of losing the same bet 8 times in a row, though small, happens.
The paroli progression, though nice, is a little too long for me, and I like to cut it at a single doubling of the initial bet, where it stays until it loses again. So here's how it would look.
begin by betting 10 on both dealer AND player with the dealer winning the first time. From there, it may look something like this (in theory)
D-10,20,20,20,20,20,20,20(Lose last hand)
P-10,20,40,80,160,320,640,1280(win last hand)
upon the win, it would switch back, and the progression would continue on the otherside, with the winner doubling the initial bet, and the other continuing to cancel. the above won 130 dollars. In fact, any back and forth between D and P results in a 10 dollar win every time.
The issue is clearly the unpredictability involved with the martingale system. Having one hand feed the other, though a more consistent strategy also is still subject to chance. So, I was thinking of a different approach. what if instead of doubling the losing bet indefinitely, you progressed it 4 times, and then entered a martingale, which once back down to that 4th double, could be canceled out with a single win. The idea is to be able to stretch your bankroll a little farther than you would with the martingale. So that 8 losses wouldnt wipe out your cushion.
So, instead the losing hand would look like 10,20,40,80,120,200,220,420
This is a very rough idea, but I do like the concept of double betting, so that every hand can be capitalized upon. The General idea is to stretch the bankroll a little farther than you could otherwise with a simple martingale, as well as using your constant winnings to extend it further. instead of having to cancel the whole thing back to 0, you could get it back to 80, which with one win could set you back to baseline.
Quote: karxI understand that all betting strategies eventually fail, but this one has been on my mind alot.
So, with a minimum bet of 10 $ on a baccarat table, and to lose the same bet 8 times in a row, while winning on the 9th would need 2560$. Now, the odds of losing the same bet 8 times in a row, though small, happens.
The paroli progression, though nice, is a little too long for me, and I like to cut it at a single doubling of the initial bet, where it stays until it loses again. So here's how it would look.
begin by betting 10 on both dealer AND player with the dealer winning the first time. From there, it may look something like this (in theory)
D-10,20,20,20,20,20,20,20(L)
P-10,20,40,80,160,320,640,1280(win)
upon the win, it would switch back, and the progression would continue on the otherside, with the winner doubling the initial bet, and the other continuing to cancel. the above won 130 dollars. In fact, any back and forth between D and P results in a 10 dollar win every time.
The issue is clearly the unpredictability involved with the martingale system. Having one hand feed the other, though a more consistent strategy also is still subject to chance. So, I was thinking of a different approach. what if instead of doubling the losing bet indefinitely, you progressed it 4 times, and then entered a martingale, which once back down to that 4th double, could be canceled out with a single win. The idea is to be able to stretch your bankroll a little farther than you would with the martingale. So that 8 losses wouldnt wipe out your cushion.
So, instead the losing hand would look like 10,20,40,80,120,200,220,420
This is a very rough idea, but I do like the concept of double betting, so that every hand can be capitalized upon. The General idea is to stretch the bankroll a little farther than you could otherwise with a simple martingale, as well as using your constant winnings to extend it further. instead of having to cancel the whole thing back to 0, you could get it back to 80, which with one win could set you back to baseline.
There is no reason to be betting both sides here. Take the 20 40 level if D wins you win 19 on dealer and lose 40 on player for a total loss of 21 dollars if player wins you win 40 and lose 20 for a win of 20. Instead you could have just bet 20 on player and won 20 if player won and lost 20 if banker wins hence you win the same amount if player wins and lose less if banker wins. With a 10 on each you end up winning losing 50 cents if banker wins and breaking even if player wins you literally can only lose money with this strategy.
if it is not you then read this thread
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/15164-baccarat-partner-betting/
Quote: TwirdmanThere is no reason to be betting both sides here. Take the 20 40 level if D wins you win 19 on dealer and lose 40 on player for a total loss of 21 dollars if player wins you win 40 and lose 20 for a win of 20. Instead you could have just bet 20 on player and won 20 if player won and lost 20 if banker wins hence you win the same amount if player wins and lose less if banker wins. With a 10 on each you end up winning losing 50 cents if banker wins and breaking even if player wins you literally can only lose money with this strategy.
I dont really understand how you can only lose money....Unless yeah you lose the 8 in a row, considering one side is covering its previous losses and the other is slowly accumulating..
Quote: karxI am not varmenti, but I understand what you're saying. A partner betting system was where I started, until it dawned on me, that yes, one person can make two different bets lol.
if you read that thread you will see that a partner betting system and betting it on your own is the same thing. There is absolutely no point in making a bet on both sides. If you are going to bet 20 on banker and 40 on player then you should just bet 20 on player. Why would you want to pay commission on a bet that cancels itself out.
However, if it were me, I'd say, "Instead of winning $10 for every 'streak', I'd rather win $10 for every hand." In that case, I'd bet something like:
10, 30, 70, 150, 310, 430, 670, 1340, 2690, etc.
If I did the math right, then if you win the first hand, you win $10. If you win the second hand, you lose $10 and win $30 for a net of $20, or $10 per hand. If you win the third hand, you lose $40 from the first two, win $70 on the next, for a net win of $30, or $10 per hand. If you win the 4th hand, then you've lost $110 the previous 3 hands but win $150, for a net win of $40, or $10 per hand. etc...
Quote: OnceDearand if you lost the 12th hand ? 13th hand.... Play this in your brown trousers with bicycle clips :)
Easy tiger. As mentioned, talking theoretically up to 8th hand. I also understand there is no edge
Quote: karxI dont really understand how you can only lose money....Unless yeah you lose the 8 in a row, considering one side is covering its previous losses and the other is slowly accumulating..
Why is it better than just betting the bigger side for the net amount? What is the benefit of the second bet on the same event?
Quote: karxI am not varmenti, but I understand what you're saying. A partner betting system was where I started, until it dawned on me, that yes, one person can make two different bets lol.
I believe (as I'm not about to sit down with paper and pen again to prove it) that any winning sequence where you partner bet would be improved by not having the partner bet on the other side all the time. And any losing sequence would have a smaller loss if you didn't partner bet on the other side.
In short betting 10 player/20 bank is worse than betting 0 player/10 bank. As every bet is negative expectation, betting more has more negative expectation. Hedging lowers your variance, and when you don't have the advantage you generally don't want to lower your variance.
But you might get a nice meal with special house sauce on it (old joke about Varmenti's comps).
10,20,40,10,20,20,40
10,20,20,40,80,160,10
something like that, where you are winning, and canceling each bet.
Quote: karxThis was all just a general idea though. I'm new to this whole thing, and have been playing around on the free ones before I put any money into it. So far though I've had the most benefits with this vs. many other strategies
Don't put any money into it. Free or not, they are all bad.
Quote: karxconsidering you never know which side is going to win, it would give you a chance of winning every hand by canceling out the loss through the martingale system. so either breaking even or doubling with your losing hand, and whatever hand wins...well your up.
10,20,40,10,20,20,40
10,20,20,40,80,160,10
something like that, where you are winning, and canceling each bet.
Your not canceling out anything though. I showed you there is no reason to bet 20 banker and 40 on player because no matter which wins you are no better of then if you had just bet 20 on player. Same goes with any of the other steps in your ladder. If you feel like you absolutely must play this system, which I strongly advise against since you will lose, than just in your head take how much you would bet on both player and banker and subtract the 2 numbers so say you wanted to bet 40 banker 10 on player bet 30 on banker instead. Want 80 on player and 40 on banker just bet 40 on player. You achieve the exact same thing with having to lose less money on commision thus you are better of this way.
Quote: karxconsidering you never know which side is going to win, it would give you a chance of winning every hand by canceling out the loss through the martingale system. so either breaking even or doubling with your losing hand, and whatever hand wins...well your up.
10,20,40,10,20,20,40
10,20,20,40,80,160,10
something like that, where you are winning, and canceling each bet.
WINING a hand doesn't matter if your not making money, or actually losing overall.
Hopefully you now understand due to reading what others have explained and not after a test run and losing.Quote: karxI have since the original post come to further understand what you guys have been saying.Thanks for the patience.
