Trying to come up with a system focus on distribution

Hi all,

Below is my "planning" system for mini baccarat

Start betting on banker when both satisfied:
1. total games >= 20
2. banker is at least twice as many as player (10 to 4, 10 to 5, 11 to 5, 12 to 6, 13 to 6...)

Money management:
Double down after 2 hands ahead, apply whenever start winning, even when bankroll is still behind
1 1 2 3
Stop doubling down when got 4 wins in a row (~ 7 units) or the run breaks in between, re-start with 1 unit again

Flags:
Moving to different shoes if total loss are 3 games (not unit) (even when we are ahead 1 or 2 units but 3 games down is time to move on)

Looking forward to see if you run my system successfully in your simulation!

My simulation:
Shoes: 10000000 (10 mils)
Hands (games) dealt: 775870616 (775 mils)
Wins: 6506018
Loss: 5805260
Draw: 870835
Hands played: 13182113 (13 mils)
Profit: 0.69% (after 5% commission on banker)

simulation was wrong (facepalm)

Problem in reality is consecutive loss, if it exceeds our bank roll (very very limited) then we are FCKED

let me know if i got into any "fatal" fallacy for my system

why all this trouble? cause i still believe we can squeeze an edge over unequal distribution in short time frame (1 shoes) over and over again

Quote: ddbaccarat

let me know if i got into any "fatal" fallacy for my system

I'll give it a whirl, with trepidation.

welcome to the forum btw. Did you know there are few baccarat players that stick around here? Most are not here to learn. You say you are.

Problems:

*It is meaningless to keep track of how often banker or player has won. Your first fatal fallacy is some misconception, probably related to the law of large numbers. In Craps it is said "the dice have no memory" and banker vs player is simply similar: the cards do not know or care and do not try to correct the ratio of wins/losses.

It is possible to count cards in bacc, but the smart money says it is a waste of time too ... and in any case it has nothing to do with banker/player win records.

*varying bet size based on simply the past is your second fallacy.

Quote:

why all this trouble? cause i still believe we can squeeze an edge over unequal distribution in short time frame (1 shoes)

sure you can. It all depends on the distribution you get by chance over which you have no control.

Quote:

over and over again

You just contradicted yourself, short time frame versus 'over and over'. Last fallacy to examine.

I suggest you go over to wizard of odds dot com and look up baccarat there for an authoritative rebuttal of these ideas

Quote: ddbaccarat

simulation was wrong (facepalm)

what type of code are U using for your Bacc sims?
are you sure it is coded exactly as you want it to be?

I did NOT understand how and what your bet is
after your 2 conditions are met.

like this
"Double down after 2 hands ahead"
what is that?
what IS your first bet, why and how much??
*****
I have simulated and calculated the margin (difference) between Banker and Player bets as the shoe plays out and at the end of the shoe.
(I can post the results here after I clean up the excel sheet)

now,
from any point during the shoe, the future remains the same for the margin (can easily be calculated)
even with card counting!
That bummed me out to find that out.

but my Q to U is
what U bet and how much and when to stop and rebet
after 2 conditions R met

Sally