Baccarat Martingale math
Thread Rating:
Given the odds that any given hand being the first in a streak of 16 consecutive Banker is 1:71,479
We begin our Martingale by betting one unit on Player once we see 8 consecutive Banker. We have a total of 8 bets in our bankroll ergo the 16th Banker would bust us. Following the logic above there's a 1:71,479 chance we go broke rather than winning one unit on a single run.
So this is where I wanted to know what the odds are for striking out before winning 600 units if we always follow the metrics above.
My calculation is simply 71,479 divided by 600 which roughly equals 1:120 or 0.8% chance.
This result can't be right though since we all know that Martingale is a losing strategy, so what am I doing wrong?
Your feedback will be much appreciated, thank you!
**** UPDATE ****
I realize that in my example above I am using an 8 bet loss (255 units) where many would say it should be 16 bets lost (65K units) - I argue that this is a matter of perspective. Regardless though, even if I use 65K units lost, the system still comes up a winner. assuming that we win 600 units 118 times (70,800 units) for every 65K strikeout = 5,800 units profit. This leads me to believe my calculation on the cumulative wins (72K/600) is wrong simply because it would mean that Martingale in this scenario is winning.
Quote: IbeatyouracesRead up on Gamblers Fallacy.
Or maybe you should read up on long term variance.
Quote: J3h33Given the odds that any given hand being the first in a streak of 16 consecutive Banker is 1:72,479
How you get the number 72479 ?
Quote: supergrassHow you get the number 72479 ?
Ignoring ties and assuming the odds of banker per hand is 45.843%
Quote: J3h33Ignoring ties and assuming the odds of banker per hand is 45.843%
Which casino can I find this!?
Quote: J3h33This result can't be right though since we all know that Martingale is a losing strategy, so what am I doing wrong?
Your feedback will be much appreciated, thank you!
Very well...
To make it easier to explain, allow me to change the probability of winning any particular hand to 1/2. Note that the probability of losing 16 in a row is now 1/65536, but that shouldn't change the discussion.
Quote: J3h33Given the odds that any given hand being the first in a streak of 16 consecutive Banker is 1:71,479
We begin our Martingale by betting one unit on Player once we see 8 consecutive Banker. We have a total of 8 bets in our bankroll ergo the 16th Banker would bust us. Following the logic above there's a 1:71,479 chance we go broke rather than winning one unit on a single run.
Your first statement lists the odds of a hand being the first in a streak of 16 losses. However, your second says that you don't start betting until the ninth hand in the streak, where the odds of the 16-loss streak finishing are no longer anywhere near 1/65536.
In the probability 1/2 example I am using, the probability of 16 banker wins would be 1/65536 - but the probability of 8 banker wins followed by any other specific run of 8 results (for example, 8 player wins, or PBPBPBPB, or PPPBBPBP, or BBPPBPPB) is also 1/65536. Once you start betting, the odds of the next 8 bets all being losers is 1/256, not 1/65536.
Quote: J3h33Or maybe you should read up on long term variance.
Quote: ThatDonGuy
Your first statement lists the odds of a hand being the first in a streak of 16 losses. However, your second says that you don't start betting until the ninth hand in the streak, where the odds of the 16-loss streak finishing are no longer anywhere near 1/65536.
In the probability 1/2 example I am using, the probability of 16 banker wins would be 1/65536 - but the probability of 8 banker wins followed by any other specific run of 8 results (for example, 8 player wins, or PBPBPBPB, or PPPBBPBP, or BBPPBPPB) is also 1/65536. Once you start betting, the odds of the next 8 bets all being losers is 1/256, not 1/65536.
As I've written above I am well aware that many share this view but it is one of philosophical proportions. I argue that there is no difference in me sitting at a table observing the beginning of a streak from hand one and not betting until hand 9 rather than betting from hand one. This topic has been beaten to death already and its not what I came here to discuss. Let's stick to my Updated example above which is 16 bets. in case of a loss it would be 65,535 units. My question is how likely a strikeout would be before winning 600 units.
Lets say we sit down and start betting every hand with our 15 bets bankroll. What would the most appropriate math be to calculate probability of a strikeout before winning 600 units? Is it as simple as (.5068)^16 / 600 ?
More like they are drinking the kool aid
Quote: WizardofnothingNot another one of these baccarat nonsense post - it just never ends that these people think you can beat it and just discovered the secret sauce
More like they are drinking the kool aid
What are you doing in the subforum betting systems then? This is exactly what this forum is about. And who the f are you calling me "these people" you dont have a clue who I am. I'm most likely up more in Baccarat than your net worth son.
Quote: J3h33As I've written above I am well aware that many share this view but it is one of philosophical proportions. I argue that there is no difference in me sitting at a table observing the beginning of a streak from hand one and not betting until hand 9 rather than betting from hand one. This topic has been beaten to death already and its not what I came here to discuss. Let's stick to my Updated example above which is 16 bets. in case of a loss it would be 65,535 units. My question is how likely a strikeout would be before winning 600 units.
This is why a previous poster said you should read up on gamblers fallacy, because this is exactly what it is. Your odds of winning next hand is exactly the same no matter how many win/loss you have observed in previous hand.
Let's take your example to an extreme. Assuming losing 16 hands in a row has a probability of 0.5^16, by your logic, you can just sit out for the first 15 hands, and bet on the last, which you'll have only 0.5^16 chance of losing and almost 100% chance of winning. This is obviously not true, as the chance of you losing the 16th hand is still 0.5.
Same math can be applied to your example of waiting until the 9th hand. The chance of you losing the next 9 hands is no longer 0.5^16, but 0.5^8.
As for your question at the end, it can't be calculated because the math you assumed to begin with is flawed.
Quote: J3h33What are you doing in the subforum betting systems then? This is exactly what this forum is about. And who the f are you calling me "these people" you dont have a clue who I am. I'm most likely up more in Baccarat than your net worth son.
Well other then the fact that you will be banned in about 30 minutes- you sound foolish - your SYSTEM WONT WORK - and as far as what you are up in baccarat I'll take that bet anyday- you don't have any real idea what you are talking about so it's better left unsaid
Quote: J3h33Lets say we sit down and start betting every hand with our 15 bets bankroll. What would the most appropriate math be to calculate probability of a strikeout before winning 600 units? Is it as simple as (.5068)^16 / 600 ?
The probability of a strikeout before 600 wins = 1 - the probability of 600 wins before a strikeout.
The probability of a win before 16 losses = 1 - 0.506816, so the probability of 600 wins before a strikeout is (1 - 0.506816)600 = about 89/90.
Every 90 times you start, expect to win 600 units 89 times (a total of 53,400) and lose at least 64,936 (65,535 - the number of units won before the loss) once.
Quote: MarkJacobsHow you get the number 72479 ? I don't understand where you get it?
72479 was wrong. The real probability of banker winning a resolved hand is .5068 as pointed out earlier in this thread.
Quote: WizardofnothingIt won't matter because your premise of this working in fundamentally flawed
I wasn't asking anyone to tell me if my system beats the house. I'm up millions in Baccarat and dont need feedback on the outcome of a negative expectation game, I'm aware that it'll always be just that.
I simply want input on the most appropriate math to figure out probability of a 16 bet strikeout, betting 600 hands in a row that is.
Anyone who can't come up with the correct answer to that question please spend your time on anything else than responding to this thread.
Thanks.
Quote: J3h33I simply want input on the most appropriate math to figure out probability of a 16 bet strikeout, betting 600 hands in a row that is.
Isn't this what you are looking for?
However I doubt it
Quote: WizardofnothingAnd if you are up millions clearly your unit size must be 500 or higher so what would you want with a martingale system that you can implement because the casino will not allow limits as high as you would need
Of course you doubt it and of course you dont expect it to be possible. Who cares what you think, you're a nobody.
Quote: Wizardofnothingthere isn't a single person here that believes you are up millions-
I believe him, I would even be willing to pay a lot of money to learn the details of the system he uses to win
