It looks like after reading your posts, I have a big problem at baccarat. I want to play, and like every one here I developt my own strategy, and it is a simple one. Cand you please tell me what chance I have on long time bets?

My strategy is like this: i rise my unit with 5% after a loss, and decreese it of 5.3% when I win, starting ballance 10.000, starting unit 1, bet only on the Player, what are my chances?

So i make my bet of 1, lost next one 1.05, lost, next one 1.1025 win, next one 1.047 and so

And one more question, if i use card counting system, I know is not beating the casino, but it at least reduces the STDEV for baccarat?

Welcome, new user.Quote:BogdanI have just discover your forum and I like it :)

It looks like after reading your posts, I have a big problem at baccarat. I want to play, and like every one here I developt my own strategy, and it is a simple one. Cand you please tell me what chance I have on long time bets?

My strategy is like this: i rise my unit with 5% after a loss, and decreese it of 5.3% when I win, starting ballance 10.000, starting unit 1, bet only on the Player, what are my chances?

So i make my bet of 1, lost next one 1.05, lost, next one 1.1025 win, next one 1.047 and so

And one more question, if i use card counting system, I know is not beating the casino, but it at least reduces the STDEV for baccarat?

You would, in all probability, see your bankroll initially rise just a little and then go into terminal decline. There is no guarantee of the initial rise, but if you like, I'll guarantee the decline.

If you read a few posts here, you will be sure to find that belief in casino beating systems will draw howls of constructive criticism, if not downright hostility. Don't take it personally when your system is analysed and torn to shreds.

Do what you enjoy, if you can afford it.

Regards,

OD

long term loser. because of the house edgeQuote:BogdanCand you please tell me what chance I have on long time bets?

in other words

the casino does not pay you enough when you win a bet

something to compare to.Quote:BogdanMy strategy is like this:

i rise my unit with 5% after a loss,

and decreese it of 5.3% when I win,

starting ballance 10.000, starting unit 1, bet only on the Player, what are my chances?

say you try to gain just 100 starting with 10000

flat betting 1 unit would be this

[1] "Player bet"

[1] "Stake: 10000"

[1] "Target: 10100"

p(goal):

0.06328068 (yuck. only about 1 in 16)

p(ruin):

0.9367193 (yucks 2)

mean Trials:

678323.6

mean given Goal:

7246.377

mean given Ruin:

723658.6

same probabilities but the average number of hands played is 756,375.2

so I had 1000 close friends

play like you said, exactly

about 7.3% hit the target goal (about 1 in 14)

the other 92.7% lost all 10000

average number of games played was about 680,000

does not sound very good (here)

I think you need a better bet selection to win more, imho

Sally

Quote:mustangsallyI think you need a better bet selection to win more, imho Sally

here we go. bet selection. the poor sister of betting progressions.

why not just bring a little voodoo doll to the table and put a mild curse on the house. so the house loses money but just to you not to everybody.

so the casino will still be open when you come back.

BTW, what is the STDEV on Player at baccarat game?

Quote:BogdanAnd what abouth the second question, the STDEV?

BTW, what is the STDEV on Player at baccarat game?

0.95

from https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/

so, for my taste, you should do nothing to reduce the variance

as far as card counting reducing variance, I don't see how since the usual application involves betting more when the count is good. This jacks up the variance so much in BJ that players feel abused by it in a game which actually has low variance when flat betting.

Quote:odiousgambit0.95

from /gambling/house-edge/

so, for my taste, you should do nothing to reduce the variance

as far as card counting reducing variance, I don't see how since the usual application involves betting more when the count is good. This jacks up the variance so much in BJ that players feel abused by it in a game which actually has low variance when flat betting.

Not verry good at einglish, is this a yes or a no?

And from your opinion, what is the game with the lowest variance?

Quote:OnceDearWelcome, new user.

You would, in all probability, see your bankroll initially rise just a little and then go into terminal decline. There is no guarantee of the initial rise, but if you like, I'll guarantee the decline.

If you read a few posts here, you will be sure to find that belief in casino beating systems will draw howls of constructive criticism, if not downright hostility. Don't take it personally when your system is analysed and torn to shreds.

Do what you enjoy, if you can afford it.

Regards,

OD

You are right and wrong, there are systems that can beat casinos, and casinos know this, that is whi they have a min and a max bet.

The question actualy is: is there a system that work in theyr margins?

for the casino it would, imoQuote:DeMangoWould betting banker, using same betting progression , not produce much better result?

for they player??

Banker bet of 1 and it lost.

down 1

next bet = 1.05 (per rules of progression)

bet wins

1.05 * 0.95 = 0.9975 = net win after commission

so a win produced a net loss of

0.0025

a net win of (-0.0025)

need to find a commission free game. Maybe EZ or pay 1/2 type games would be better.

back to draw board.

bet selection and money management needs to do way better for the player.

*****

IF bet selection and money management

is not

your thing

to having more fun playing (sucks)

try betting more to hit a target win goal.

trying to win just 100 units betting 1 unit starting with 10000 units is really ugly and no fun at all, imho

Sally

Quote:BogdanYou are right and wrong, there are systems that can beat casinos, and casinos know this, that is whi they have a min and a max bet.

The question actualy is: is there a system that work in theyr margins?

It depends on how you define the word 'system'. There may be comps, loss rebates, special offers that could turn an always bad game for the player such as baccarat into a winning game. Just altering how much you bet, or whether you are betting on player or banker is not a 'system' that would win.

It is NOT because of systems that they have minimum and maximum bets.

Minimums exist because they need the wager amount to be high enough to make it profitable for the casino after paying it's expenses.

Maximums exist for many reasons, Limiting exposure (and reducing variance), security concerns, cheating concerns, etc.... Fear of someone's system to beat baccarat is not one of them.

it is a 'no' ... standard deviation is derived from variance and sometimes as a concept you can use either word. I said 'no' because what is the point of counting cards if you aren't going to increase your bet?Quote:BogdanNot verry good at einglish, is this a yes or a no?

look at the link, it seems to be Pai Gow and Pai Gow Poker at 0.75 st. dev. Perhaps flipping a coin would be lower.Quote:And from your opinion, what is the game with the lowest variance?

Quote:SOOPOOIt depends on how you define the word 'system'. There may be comps, loss rebates, special offers that could turn an always bad game for the player such as baccarat into a winning game. Just altering how much you bet, or whether you are betting on player or banker is not a 'system' that would win.

It is NOT because of systems that they have minimum and maximum bets.

Minimums exist because they need the wager amount to be high enough to make it profitable for the casino after paying it's expenses.

Maximums exist for many reasons, Limiting exposure (and reducing variance), security concerns, cheating concerns, etc.... Fear of someone's system to beat baccarat is not one of them.

I can mathematicly prof you that baccarat can be beat by alternating how much you bet.

And you can prof yourself in an excel with a random monte carlo simulation.

Quote:odiousgambitit is a 'no' ... standard deviation is derived from variance and sometimes as a concept you can use either word. I said 'no' because what is the point of counting cards if you aren't going to increase your bet?

look at the link, it seems to be Pai Gow and Pai Gow Poker at 0.75 st. dev. Perhaps flipping a coin would be lower.

Then if it is proof that makes you no advantage, what is the point of counting cards at all?

Quote:BogdanI can mathematicly prof you that baccarat can be beat by alternating how much you bet.

And you can prof yourself in an excel with a random monte carlo simulation.

Then why are you not doing it in real life, and instead arguing with strangers on an internet forum?

You are of course wrong. The only thing to be determined is how long it will take you to figure it out, if ever.

Quote:BogdanThen if it is proof that makes you no advantage, what is the point of counting cards at all?

Advantage? Variance is a concept separated from advantage.

My understanding is that the advantage from counting in baccarat is so small it is not worth it. And I think you have to bet on the 'tie' bet- but I am not sure.

Quote:SOOPOOThen why are you not doing it in real life, and instead arguing with strangers on an internet forum?

You are of course wrong. The only thing to be determined is how long it will take you to figure it out, if ever.

I don' have the resurses for that, and they are protected annyway.

I am not arguing, you have a difrent opinion than mine and I have a diferent opinion than yours. But i can hug you if you like :)

Ok, for the proof, take a monte carlo random situation btw 0,1 where 1 will be the player; multiply it for 100.000 cels. Then add a bankroll of 100.000.000 and an unit of 0.01$ or one cent, and then run it with the basic martingale system and see what hapens. Then refresh the excel as manny tims you like. You will be verry rich at the 100 refresh :)

Quote:BogdanI don' have the resurses for that, and they are protected annyway.

I am not arguing, you have a difrent opinion than mine and I have a diferent opinion than yours. But i can hug you if you like :)

Math is not an opinion.

Quote:gamerfreakMath is not an opinion.

That means one of us is wrong, than the other is right.

Proof me wrong, with the math.

P.S. my goal is to find out mathematicly if the casino can be beat or not.

I say the game baccarat can be beat, and i show you the proof.

I want your help, but is ok for me even if you take it agresivly, but let's just stick with the subject.

Quote:BogdanI can mathematicly prof you that baccarat can be beat by alternating how much you bet.

And you can prof yourself in an excel with a random monte carlo simulation.

How much money is needed?

Quote:BogdanI don' have the resurses for that, and they are protected annyway.

I am not arguing, you have a difrent opinion than mine and I have a diferent opinion than yours. But i can hug you if you like :)

Ok, for the proof, take a monte carlo random situation btw 0,1 where 1 will be the player; multiply it for 100.000 cels. Then add a bankroll of 100.000.000 and an unit of 0.01$ or one cent, and then run it with the basic martingale system and see what hapens. Then refresh the excel as manny tims you like. You will be verry rich at the 100 refresh :)

You are new here, and possibly open minded enough to learn. It may be your 'opinion' that a triangle has 4 sides, but it will never be correct. Just as it is your 'opinion' that you can beat baccarat.

As far as your simulation you suggest, you will win one cent quite frequently, and lose $100,000,000 very infrequently. But if you are trying to double your money, and thus need to win 1 cent 10 billion times, yes, you are more likely to lose the entire $100,000,000 before you win 1 cent 10 billion times.

There is a section on this site which discusses Martingale in depth. Read it!

I'll pass on the hug by the way.....

Quote:IbeatyouracesHow much money is needed?

More that 3 of my generation will see, but here we talk math not resurses. If there is a math way to beat with exagerated resurses, mabe there is a way to make money with less resurses.

Quote:SOOPOOYou are new here, and possibly open minded enough to learn. It may be your 'opinion' that a triangle has 4 sides, but it will never be correct. Just as it is your 'opinion' that you can beat baccarat.

As far as your simulation you suggest, you will win one cent quite frequently, and lose $100,000,000 very infrequently. But if you are trying to double your money, and thus need to win 1 cent 10 billion times, yes, you are more likely to lose the entire $100,000,000 before you win 1 cent 10 billion times.

There is a section on this site which discusses Martingale in depth. Read it!

I'll pass on the hug by the way.....

Can you math proof, or is just your opinion?

Quote:BogdanCan you math proof, or is just your opinion?

The proof is easy. Each bet you make has a negative expectation. The sum of negative numbers will always be negative. Therefore all baccarat bets, one or many, have a negative expectation.

The above uses very simple mathematical concepts. If you cannot understand them I can't help you, but I have tried my hardest..

You haven't tried your hardest since you turned down the hug.Quote:SOOPOOThe proof is easy. Each bet you make has a negative expectation. The sum of negative numbers will always be negative. Therefore all baccarat bets, one or many, have a negative expectation.

The above uses very simple mathematical concepts. If you cannot understand them I can't help you, but I have tried my hardest..

Quote:AxelWolfYou haven't tried your hardest since you turned down the hug.

I'd love to get a hug after a losing day. Instead my other half laughs at me.

Quote:SOOPOOThe proof is easy. Each bet you make has a negative expectation. The sum of negative numbers will always be negative. Therefore all baccarat bets, one or many, have a negative expectation.

The above uses very simple mathematical concepts. If you cannot understand them I can't help you, but I have tried my hardest..

Sry for the delay, I only have 10 posts a day. :)

As i sed in the private message i sent you, is there a positiv expectation?

Quote:BogdanSry for the delay, I only have 10 posts a day. :)

As i sed in the private message i sent you, is there a positiv expectation?

No, because the casino takes commission.

Quote:BogdanOk, for the proof, take a monte carlo random situation btw 0,1 where 1 will be the player; multiply it for 100.000 cels. Then add a bankroll of 100.000.000 and an unit of 0.01$ or one cent, and then run it with the basic martingale system and see what hapens. Then refresh the excel as manny tims you like. You will be verry rich at the 100 refresh :)

You were extremely rich when you entered the casino. In all likelihood you will still be extremely rich when you leave the casino, with some few extra dollars to buy a celebration drink.,

The test for this in the real world, is what is the probability of making a reasonable profit. E.g. maybe double your initial bankroll.

Without any doubt whatsoever, in a -ev game, your probability of doubling your initial bankroll before losing it is less than 50%.

With even the most stupid of betting patterns, you can reasonably expect to turn $1,000,000 into $1001,000 on approximately (1000,000/1001,000)=99.9% of attempts.

See how and why here...

https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/4/#post1370

Of course, house edge ruins things a little.

Quote:BogdanThat means one of us is wrong, than the other is right.

Correct. You are wrong. Absolutely and completely wrong.

Quote:OnceDearYou were extremely rich when you entered the casino. In all likelihood you will still be extremely rich when you leave the casino, with some few extra dollars to buy a celebration drink.,

The test for this in the real world, is what is the probability of making a reasonable profit. E.g. maybe double your initial bankroll.

Without any doubt whatsoever, in a -ev game, your probability of doubling your initial bankroll before losing it is less than 50%.

With even the most stupid of betting patterns, you can reasonably expect to turn $1,000,000 into $1001,000 on approximately (1000,000/1001,000)=99.9% of attempts.

See how and why here...

/member/oncedear/blog/4/#post1370

Of course, house edge ruins things a little.

And what is the probability to turn 1.000.000 into 1.001.000

I just darned well told you. Is your English comprehension really so poor? ( I doubt it )Quote:BogdanAnd what is the probability to turn 1.000.000 into 1.001.000

Approximately 99.9% of the time you will turn 1,000,000 into 1,001,000 (less, of course after house edge)

and when you fail, you will turn 1,000,000 into ZERO.

Martingale is no more than a fun way to lose money.

Big chance of making small profit coupled with small chance of making big loss. The more enormous the bankroll you put at risk is, the greater your chance of success... But the smaller the significance of your success.

Don't try to say there is any merit to Martingale. There isn't.

Martingale is no more than a fun way to lose money, or maybe win an insignificant amount at significant risk.

Instead of Martingale and the massive complexity of Baccarat, why not...

Just take your million bucks into a casino that has double zero roulette. Put $1,000 onto each of the numbers 1 to 35.

If you win, you will have 1,001,000

Easy. What could go wrong? 92.1% chance of success. Nice easy, quick and extremely likely profit!

Baccarat: Pah! With my system and a million bucks in your hand, you can be rich in minutes. Oh. You already had a million bucks. That was handy.

Quote:BogdanAnd what is the probability to turn 1.000.000 into 1.001.000

Slightly under 99.9%. But the key word is 'under'.

Quote:OnceDearI just darned well told you. Is your English comprehension really so poor? ( I doubt it )

Approximately 99.9% of the time you will turn 1,000,000 into 1,001,000 (less, of course after house edge)

and when you fail, you will turn 1,000,000 into ZERO.

Martingale is no more than a fun way to lose money.

Big chance of making small profit coupled with small chance of making big loss. The more enormous the bankroll you put at risk is, the greater your chance of success... But the smaller the significance of your success.

Don't try to say there is any merit to Martingale. There isn't.

Martingale is no more than a fun way to lose money, or maybe win an insignificant amount at significant risk.

Instead of Martingale and the massive complexity of Baccarat, why not...

Just take your million bucks into a casino that has double zero roulette. Put $1,000 onto each of the numbers 1 to 35.

If you win, you will have 1,001,000

Easy. What could go wrong? 92.1% chance of success. Nice easy, quick and extremely likely profit!

Baccarat: Pah! With my system and a million bucks in your hand, you can be rich in minutes. Oh. You already had a million bucks. That was handy.

Ok, the point is this: firts of all we just talk math, the milion is a brain made number. The point is that mathematicly Theodor GAME baccarat can be beat. If the risk matters is another discution.

So sticking just to the math point of view let's make some calculation:

You have 1.000.000 units. You use the mart progresion and you make your unit 0.1

So you have 1.000.000 and espect to make 1.000.000,1

The math says this: from your formula: 1.000.000/1.000.000,1; you have 99.9999% chance.

Lets say you are lucky and you make the .1 expected unit profit. Of course you have 0.000001% chance of loosing the milion, but that is the probability that you drink to much saliva and you day, it's a risk we take every day, mabe this one is even biger. So we are here and we just drink enough saliva so we don't dye. Lucky us!

So let's get back to our milion.

Now we have 1.000.000,1 and we espect to make another .1 unit so:

1.000.000,1/1.000.000,2 we have a litle more chanches than wehn we only had 1 mil.

So you say that you have less than 50% chance to doble your milion.

I say that you have at least 99.99999 chance to doble it

Beacouse when you reach 1.999.999,9 and you espect to make 2 mil the math is this:

1.999.999,9/2.000.000 you have 99.999995% chance, so even more.

Like the univers dose not know that the last bet was banker it dosent know that you took chances before you reach 1.999.999,9, so your chance remains 99.999995% even you got this far.

So my conclusion is that i have bigger chance of daying of cancer before my saliva kill me.

So the math metter, the risk you take metter, beacouse you realy have a chance of 0.000001 % of loosing the mil, but I have greater chance that it will not happend in my life time. :)

The conclusion is that when you make a bet you take a chance, but you take chances when you go shoppyng, and bigger when you drive (mathematicly speaking) but you stil go shoping, and you stil drive, and you are stil here. :) You are a lucky bastard, you shood gamble more :)

Quote:BogdanOk, the point is this: firts of all we just talk math, the milion is a brain made number. The point is that mathematicly Theodor GAME baccarat can be beat. If the risk matters is another discution.

So sticking just to the math point of view let's make some calculation:

You have 1.000.000 units. You use the mart progresion and you make your unit 0.1

So you have 1.000.000 and espect to make 1.000.000,1

The math says this: from your formula: 1.000.000/1.000.000,1; you have 99.9999% chance.

Lets say you are lucky and you make the .1 expected unit profit. Of course you have 0.000001% chance of loosing the milion, but that is the probability that you drink to much saliva and you day, it's a risk we take every day, mabe this one is even biger. So we are here and we just drink enough saliva so we don't dye. Lucky us!

So let's get back to our milion.

Now we have 1.000.000,1 and we espect to make another .1 unit so:

1.000.000,1/1.000.000,2 we have a litle more chanches than wehn we only had 1 mil.

So you say that you have less than 50% chance to doble your milion.

I say that you have at least 99.99999 chance to doble it

Beacouse when you reach 1.999.999,9 and you espect to make 2 mil the math is this:

1.999.999,9/2.000.000 you have 99.999995% chance, so even more.

Like the univers dose not know that the last bet was banker it dosent know that you took chances before you reach 1.999.999,9, so your chance remains 99.999995% even you got this far.

So my conclusion is that i have bigger chance of daying of cancer before my saliva kill me.

So the math metter, the risk you take metter, beacouse you realy have a chance of 0.000001 % of loosing the mil, but I have greater chance that it will not happend in my life time. :)

The conclusion is that when you make a bet you take a chance, but you take chances when you go shoppyng, and bigger when you drive (mathematicly speaking) but you stil go shoping, and you stil drive, and you are stil here. :) You are a lucky bastard, you shood gamble more :)

I'm not going to correct or criticise your poor English. I reckon you put a lot of effort into making it as good or as bad as it is.

Since you call me 'a lucky bastard' in jest, I'll say that what you have written is complete bull5h1t. I hope neither of us gets banned. ;o)

The flaw in your thinking is that taking a slight risk repeatedly only bears the risk of taking that risk once.

Let's do some simple maths. I'll be incredibly generous and pretend there is no house edge.

You create a bet that gives you two possible outcomes, lose $1,000,000 or win $0.10. No other possible outcomes considered. You won't chicken out when you have lost 500,000 Martingale is your chosen betting pattern. Presumably when you don't have enough to double your bet, you just go all in.

Probability of success = 1,000,000/1,000,000.10 = 0.9999999 That's 7 number 9s you see there. 99.99999%

Sounds good yeah?

Now, you want to make a profit of $1,000,000. so, you need to repeat your wager session 1,000,000/0.10 times

That is, you need to repeat your martingale experiment 10,000,000 times.

Your probability of succeeding every one of those 10 million sessions is...

0.9999999^10,000,000 =0.36787944967 or 36%

Notice that is less than the 50% stated probability of success, because you might ( extremely probably ) have made some profit before going bust. I really cannot be bothered to show you how having that initial profit leads to the 50% true answer, because I've already responded enough to this nonsense.

You can believe that 'I say that you have at least 99.99999 chance to double it'

Believing it doesn't make it true. You could try demonstrating it mathematically, but you can shout it to the wind because we have wasted more than enough of my time.

Quote:OnceDearI'm not going to correct or criticise your poor English. I reckon you put a lot of effort into making it as good or as bad as it is.

Since you call me 'a lucky bastard' in jest, I'll say that what you have written is complete bull5h1t. I hope neither of us gets banned. ;o)

The flaw in your thinking is that taking a slight risk repeatedly only bears the risk of taking that risk once.

Let's do some simple maths. I'll be incredibly generous and pretend there is no house edge.

You create a bet that gives you two possible outcomes, lose $1,000,000 or win $0.10. No other possible outcomes considered. You won't chicken out when you have lost 500,000 Martingale is your chosen betting pattern. Presumably when you don't have enough to double your bet, you just go all in.

Probability of success = 1,000,000/1,000,000.10 = 0.9999999 That's 7 number 9s you see there. 99.99999%

Sounds good yeah?

Now, you want to make a profit of $1,000,000. so, you need to repeat your wager session 1,000,000/0.10 times

That is, you need to repeat your martingale experiment 10,000,000 times.

Your probability of succeeding every one of those 10 million sessions is...

0.9999999^10,000,000 =0.36787944967 or 36%

Notice that is less than the 50% stated probability of success, because you might ( extremely probably ) have made some profit before going bust. I really cannot be bothered to show you how having that initial profit leads to the 50% true answer, because I've already responded enough to this nonsense.

You can believe that 'I say that you have at least 99.99999 chance to double it'

Believing it doesn't make it true. You could try demonstrating it mathematically, but you can shout it to the wind because we have wasted more than enough of my time.

My einglish is worse than this :) but I am using google translate and that is whi we can comunicate :) I bet your hungarian is even worse :p

So, you are saing that when I start betting, the first sesion with the goal of .1 unit is .999999999 , and I need 1.000.000 sesions complited.

My questen is, after I complited the 100.000 sesion, my chances of compliting the rest drops? Do the sesion know eachother, dose sesion 100.001 know that I have complited 100.000 sesion befor of it?

Your English is better than my Hungarian.Quote:Bogdan

My einglish is worse than this :) but I am using google translate and that is whi we can comunicate :) I bet your hungarian is even worse :p

So, you are saing that when I start betting, the first sesion with the goal of .1 unit is .999999999 , and I need 1.000.000 sesions complited.

My questen is, after I complited the 100.000 sesion, my chances of compliting the rest drops? Do the sesion know eachother, dose sesion 100.001 know that I have complited 100.000 sesion befor of it?

Since when did google translate introduce spelling errors? That is hard to understand.

"Do the sessions know eachother.... " No and Yes...

The probability for each session is the same, but if you need to succeed x times, then you raise the probability of one success to the power of x. Raising any positive number of less than 1 to a very high power will tend towards 0.

If you lose all your money on session 3 after you made your 20c profit then session 4 will know that you only have 20c left to stake. When you have lost all of your bankroll, then all subsequent sessions will have zero probability of success, because you have zero bankroll left to stake.

You need to consider some much smaller numbers, lets say 3 tosses of a fair coin.

Toss a coin once and it has 50% probability of coming up heads. No argument there, I hope.

If you need to toss the coin 3 times and have it land heads every one of those times, then you will succeed with a probability of 0.5x0.5x0.5 = 0.5^3 = 0.125 or 1 in 8

If you call incorrectly at call 1, you don't get to play for toss 2 or toss 3. If you call incorrectly at toss 2, you don't get to play toss 3.

Your probability of calling correct all three times is 1 in 8. It's of no significance that your chance of toss 3 is 50% if you are not going to last that long.

Quote:OnceDearYour English is better than my Hungarian.

Since when did google translate introduce spelling errors? That is hard to understand.

"Do the sessions know eachother.... " No and Yes...

The probability for each session is the same, but if you need to succeed x times, then you raise the probability of one success to the power of x. Raising any positive number of less than 1 to a very high power will tend towards 0.

If you lose all your money on session 3 after you made your 20c profit then session 4 will know that you only have 20c left to stake. When you have lost all of your bankroll, then all subsequent sessions will have zero probability of success, because you have zero bankroll left to stake.

You need to consider some much smaller numbers, lets say 3 tosses of a fair coin.

Toss a coin once and it has 50% probability of coming up heads. No argument there, I hope.

If you need to toss the coin 3 times and have it land heads every one of those times, then you will succeed with a probability of 0.5x0.5x0.5 = 0.5^3 = 0.125 or 1 in 8

If you call incorrectly at call 1, you don't get to play for toss 2 or toss 3. If you call incorrectly at toss 2, you don't get to play toss 3.

Your probability of calling correct all three times is 1 in 8. It's of no significance that your chance of toss 3 is 50% if you are not going to last that long.

Correct, and my chance to make .1 unit profit is 99.999999%. i have the same chance every time I start a new sesion. So my chances of compliting one sesion is 99.999999% and it aplyes for every sesion.

If marhematicly your chances drops if you your expectation is to make 1 mil sesions and it comes to 36% or close, then if you pick player as your bet, the chances to hit banker consecutiv for n times is 0.

But then you sayd that the univers dose not know that you hit banker n-1 so you stil just have 49.5% even if you complited n-1 sesions of only banker. Dose math work only that way?

Quote:Bogdan

I've given up on you and will not reply further.

If you want to believe that Martingale is a winning system or that you have a system that beats baccarat, then who am I to argue with you.

If you want to believe that the earth is flat or that a triangle has 4 sides, then good for you.

If you want to make absurd mathematical proofs using (deliberately) flawed maths and logic, then give it your best shot.

You are wrong on so many levels, but then I believe that that is deliberate.

I would get banned if I used the words that I'd like to use here, and then you would have succeeded.

Not happening. Goodbye.

Quote:OnceDearI've given up on you and will not reply further.

If you want to believe that Martingale is a winning system or that you have a system that beats baccarat, then who am I to argue with you.

If you want to believe that the earth is flat or that a triangle has 4 sides, then good for you.

If you want to make absurd mathematical proofs using (deliberately) flawed maths and logic, then give it your best shot.

You are wrong on so many levels, but then I believe that that is deliberate.

I would get banned if I used the words that I'd like to use here, and then you would have succeeded.

Not happening. Goodbye.

Please don't take it personatly, I apologyes for everithing, but the truth is that I need some math proof that it can't be beaten, beacouse I personaly use a "system" and turned 190 into 2900, and then i rise my unit and take bigger risk and loose it all, and it was a verry poor "system" and I am here (even if you think it can't) I realy want someone who understand beter then me to help me calculate smalest risk for few profit.

And all the risk and chance will be mine. I know that there is no way to 100% make profit but i setle with enithing close.

Can annyone will spare their time to help me?

However, the following positive betting progression you may find to be interesting:

1. The goal for each series of bets is to win one unit.

2. After any win, the next bet is one unit more than the previous bet.

3. After any loss, the next bet equals the previous bet.

4. Never place a bet that would result in a win for the series of more than one unit.

Example:

bet unit(s) | bet result | total | rule number |
---|---|---|---|

1 |
W |
1 |
1 |

bet unit(s) | bet result | total | rule number |
---|---|---|---|

1 |
L |
-1 |
3 |

1 |
L |
-2 |
3 |

1 |
L |
-3 |
3 |

1 |
W |
-2 |
2 |

2 |
W |
0 |
2,4 |

1 |
W |
1 |
1 |

bet unit(s) | bet result | total | rule number |
---|---|---|---|

1 |
L |
-1 |
3 |

1 |
L |
-2 |
3 |

1 |
W |
-1 |
2 |

2 |
L |
-3 |
3 |

2 |
L |
-5 |
3 |

2 |
W |
-3 |
2 |

3 |
W |
0 |
2,4 |

1 |
W |
1 |
1 |

ad infinitum, ad nauseum...

WARNING: The aforementioned betting progression, like all betting progressions, does not change the probabilities of an unfair game with a negative expectation. On the average, in the long run, you will lose money using this system in an unfair game with a negative expectation.