I have read that on a "50-50" chance of winning game, i.e, craps, baccarat, etc (and I know your odds are NOT exactly 50-50 on any of these games) math says you should win at approx. 1 out of 3 decisions 87% of the time.

Knowing this, what would be the BEST way to play for a consistently winning system? Progressions would be probably needed? I know flat betting will win 87 out of 100 (that would be 87 groups of 3), but I'm greedy :) and would like to maximize profits.

And yes I know there are NO winning systems that exist, just looking for the BEST way to play this???

Define 'Best'Quote:audionutI'm just curious about this for those of you better at math then I am (which would be everybody)..

I have read that on a "50-50" chance of winning game, i.e, craps, baccarat, etc (and I know your odds are NOT exactly 50-50 on any of these games) math says you should win at approx. 1 out of 3 decisions 87% of the time.

Knowing this, what would be the BEST way to play for a consistently winning system? Progressions would be probably needed? I know flat betting will win 87 out of 100 (that would be 87 groups of 3), but I'm greedy :) and would like to maximize profits.

And yes I know there are NO winning systems that exist, just looking for the BEST way to play this???

If 'Best' is to get the max amount of playing time and free coffees, bet table minimum as infrequently as you can get away with. This approach also maximises profits, ( or more strictly minimises average loss per hour )

If 'Best' is to get the most convincing and sellable system, get some other suckers to bet their money and only ever post results from those fans that win.

If 'Best' is maximum adrenaline, Martingale to your hearts content, but set aside the bus-fare home.

If 'Best' is a reasonably amusing session with approx probability of 50% of going bust, how about each wager is approx 5% of the chips in front of you till you go bust, double your bank, or get bored.

https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/5/#post1370

Quote:sabreBet a lot the time you're going to win and bet nothing the times you're going to lose.

I used to do that, but then a bunch of russians noticed and tried to strong arm me. Now I vary my bet wildly. If I'm up ten, i might bet six, or four on winning hands and three on the losers.

The casinos aren't the only ones watching your play. Win too much and you might find yourself with some savory, unwanted partners.

Stay under the radar and hydrate often.

Quote:audionutI have read that on a "50-50" chance of winning game, i.e, craps, baccarat, etc (and I know your odds are NOT exactly 50-50 on any of these games) math says you should win at approx. 1 out of 3 decisions 87% of the time.

Knowing this, what would be the BEST way to play for a consistently winning system?

First of all, you have a 7/8 (87.5%) chance of winning at least 1 out of 3 decisions - however, this changes within the particular set of 3 based on the previous results.

If your first play wins, then obviously the chance of winning at least 1 out of 3 is 100% - but if it loses, it drops to 75%.

Similarly, if your first play loses but your second play wins, the chance of winning 1 out of 3 is also 100% - but if they both lose, it drops to 50%.

In short, the fact that you have an 87.5% chance of winning "at least 1 out of 3" becomes meaningless after the first result of the three.

The answer you seek also depends on how you define "consistently winning system." Is, say, a system where you win $10 99% of the time, but lose $1000 the other 1%, considered "consistently winning"?

Quote:audionut..................................𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐲𝐞𝐬 𝐈 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐍𝐎 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭

make more money then I lose.

you've obviously made 2 contradictory statements here

there are winning systems but none that involve simple martingale type style stuff or betting based on patterns

it's just not that easy - learning the few winning methods out there for a few games takes a lot of hard work

there are some jokes on this thread but just about everybody here knows you can easily construct a method that wins more often than it loses.........but that it will lose more when it does lose so it loses more overall

your 87% thing - if it's accurate - is no big deal - almost everybody here could easily construct a method that wins much more often than that - more than 99% of the time

but it would still lose much more when it did lose and lose in the long run

there are a very few on this site who will tell you they have ways to win than cannot be proven

they're dead wrong

they're no big deal either

if you go out on the web beyond here there are thousands making false and laughable claims about winning systems

gamblers are notorious liars or have fantastical fantasies about what they're capable of

and you would be wise to ignore these types of outrageous claims

*

One way of doing (iii) is using Place bets, e.g. bet £6 on 6 (pays £7) press by £3 (£9 pays £10.50), press by £3/£6 etc. Thus if there aren't too many 6s you coming out losing on that shooter. (In the US I assume you would probably have to bet multiples of $6. if they don't use 25c chips.) btw Placing $6 is slightly cheaper way to "watch" than $5 pass. as your bet doesn't work on come outs.

So it's choose the way that's most entertaining for you given the expected long term loss.