Hit and Run Baccarat for a Living

Hello fellow players,

I'm new and joined this forum ask and discuss this topic/question.

Would it be reasonable to say one can make a living by making (setting a target of) ie $100 per day using a bankroll of $50,000, perhaps even $12,800?
(Using perhaps one of the many betting systems or a mixture there of)

Although the one thing I've learned is NO BETTING SYSTEM WORKS, I've also learned the only strategy that HAS helped me is within bankroll management.
In other words in a game of marbles, if I bring 1,000 marbles vs my opponent with 10 marbles, "most likely" I will walk away up 1 marble than losing all.

Although coin flips won't have memory, statistically there seems to be a "very very good chance" you won't lose 8+ coin flips in a row using ie martingale
1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2= 1/128 = 0.00390625%
Sure stupid unlucky can happen at a given day, but at what "goal to bankroll ratio" can be considered "safe" or perhaps "safe enough"?

I am thinking of testing this project for a year.

I've read things like this: 98% of Vegas gamblers are ahead at some point in their sessions but only 2% leave with a profit. (The actual percentages may not be correct.)

So I think yes, you stand a chance of quitting when ahead.

But if you want to quit with a $100 profit you'll need to make $100 bets. Making $10 bets to win $100 requires a big winning streak.

If you're making $10 bets your goal should be a $10 profit.

Thank you for your response, and yes I agree and plan on $100 = 1 unit

Quote: jc333

...Would it be reasonable to say one can make a living by making (setting a target of) ie $100 per day using a bankroll of $50,000, perhaps even $12,800?
(Using perhaps one of the many betting systems or a mixture there of)
...

Sure stupid unlucky can happen at a given day, but at what "goal to bankroll ratio" can be considered "safe" or perhaps "safe enough"?

I am thinking of testing this project for a year.

I answer this in this blog post
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/6/#post1370
Applies to whatever money management system you can dream up.
Any safe enough 'goal to bankroll' is pretty pointless, except as a fun exercise, since you will, on average, lose everything as often as you double your bankroll.
Your analogy with marbles is sort of correct, but you underestimate how often 'stupid unlucky happens.

Finger in the air estimate, if you start with a bankroll of $36,500 and each day you aspire to either make $100 or lose everything, on a coin toss marty with starting wager of $100, then you can expect to lose 36500 approximately once in the year.
All it would take would be
Lose 100
Lose 200
Lose 400
Lose 800
Lose 1600
Lose 3200
Lose 6400
Lose 12800
Lose 11000

I.e lose 9 wagers in a row..... That's highly likely once per year a 1 in 2^9 event or 1 in 512.
Don't think that's better than 1 in 365, because winning that last toss does not get you back in pocket.

Of course, with baccarat, you also lose into the house edge, making your chances a fair bit worse..

See also https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/betting-systems/21359-debunking-roulette-marty-with-pictures/
Which shows how a nice steady 'staircase' bankroll increase can hit oblivion with marty.

Quote: AlanMendelson

But if you want to quit with a $100 profit you'll need to make $100 bets. Making $10 bets to win $100 requires a big winning streak.

If you're making $10 bets your goal should be a $10 profit.

Not quite. If he martied with a base bet of $100, that WOULD minimise his daily time at the table and minimise his action exposed to the house edge. But he wouldn't need a streak to make $100 with $10 wagers. Even if he was just flat betting, he'd simply need to win any 10 more than he lost at any point in time, or he could marty with a base bet of 10 multiple times and just pray to his brass monkey that he stepped forward 10 times before hitting a losing streak that knocked him back. Or he could ebb and flow in any number of other ways with any other type of progressive.
Ultimately it's just an amusing way of passing the time.
I do this messing about occasionally, where I aspire to make £50 per daily session with a starting bankroll of typically £600. It's fun until the gradual staircase of my bankroll chart hits a cliff. Within my daily sessions, I make great use of 5,10,15,20 progressives multiple times.
https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/#post2245
But just a health warning. I do that for amusement and even after 45 consecutive winning sessions, I got wiped out. I just don't plot the oblivion on the chart: Selective reporting at its finest.

Seems table minimums are $100 in some parts so without a Marty you could set a win goal of $1,000-$2,000 a day just flat betting the table minimum.

Quote: jc333

1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2*1/2= 1/128 = 0.00390625%

A bit wrong
(1/2)^8 =1/256
Probably encountered AT LEAST ONCE within the year.

How confident would you be after losing, say 5 hands consecutively, with say a Marty. 5 losses is not at all unlikely.

Lose 100
Lose 200
Lose 400
Lose 800
Lose 1,600
Confidently wager another 3,200? That's 6,300 for the day so far.

.............................


long live the marty - best info indicates it first appeared in France in the 1700s as a way to beat roulette
just about every day someone posts somewhere about a winning marty strategy




"Originally, martingale referred to a class of betting strategies that was popular in 18th-century France.[1][2] The simplest of these strategies was designed for a game in which the gambler wins their stake if a coin comes up heads and loses it if the coin comes up tails. The strategy had the gambler double their bet after every loss so that the first win would recover all previous losses plus win a profit equal to the original stake. As the gambler's wealth and available time jointly approach infinity, their probability of eventually flipping heads approaches 1, which makes the martingale betting strategy seem like a sure thing. 𝗛𝗼𝘄𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹y 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗿𝗼𝗹𝗹𝘀.

The concept of martingale in probability theory was introduced by Paul Lévy in 1934, though he did not name it. The term "martingale" was introduced later by Ville (1939), who also extended the definition to continuous martingales. Much of the original development of the theory was done by Joseph Leo Doob among others. Part of the motivation for that work was 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗴𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲"




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(probability_theory)




*

Thanks for all your detailed replies, its 4:30 am here so I am half awake but will read in depth later. Not that this changes much but I am planning on experimenting with Marty except lose 100, bet 100 (instead of 200) for the first loss only.

I kinda did this recently, but much riskier and complex, perhaps stupid but I started with a bankroll of 10k and targeted 333 per day. after hitting the 333, I would carefully keep playing to reach a few hundred more, pocket the 333, and just play with the few hundred without any definite plan. I told myself "theres no such thing as a second second chance, or it would be called third chance" so if I fell under the initial goal, once I hit the 333 mark the second time around, I would just be happy and walk. i probably just got lucky (although i had my own psuedo science techniques like only betting with long streaks or against tilted players, which I know is BS but hey its free) but I averaged about 1.2k per day, (I would go twice per day) and lasted about 46 days. on the 46th day I didnt follow my own plan, got drunk and just went crazy and lost most of it. the good thing is on my spreadsheet I filled out daily, I left a space for daily expenses so I forced myself to pay bills ahead, buy gold, or give money to my family, etc. so although I lost a ton, I also spent a ton (about 30k+).

This was a big learning experience but I would like to experiment with this again, except more conservatively. oh and crazy enough, I wouldnt have a problem (at all) making big wagers if it was 5 or 6 losses in a row. my bankroll is my ammunition and I'm a firm believer in "focus on the process, not the results" mindset.

I'll be documenting my daily grind and well, whatever happens happens. planning for Baccarat and UTH only. btw UTH where I am, us players can share with each other our cards, and we can play as many hands as we want (although not sure if theres a benefit in playing multiple hands)

Welcome to the forum, jcc. Keep us informed. So is your goal $333 per day? But if you hit that goal you keep playing to get to $533? And then take $200 to keep playing but don’t touch the $333?
And you walk into the casino with $50k in cash?

And you have no parameters with when you will stop if up on the $200?

And you may play two different games?

I am hoping you are playing ‘rated’ and at least get some comps/free play out of this!

With my previous play, I didnt have a definite plan. I just wanted to make 333 per day. I shouldve created a stop loss maybe, but I didnt have one. I was playing willing to lose the 10k. if I hit the 333, went on a losing streak, and struggled to hit it again, I would walk with the 333. if I was doing well, I just played until I hit 1k more or less, like I mentioned no solid plan which was dumb. I probably just got lucky.

in terms of walking in and out with cash, i usually take home higher denominated chips like 5k or 1k chips. this is a local card room so I'm technically playing against a gaming corporation rather than against a casino. I do pay $1 juice per each $100 bet. No comps, no host, but everyone pretty much knows me there and treats me well. no commission baccarat.

however I do have hosts and get nice comps when I visit nevada

Just remember, losers leave when they're up. Winners just "pretend" to leave when they're up, the keep playing and win more. That resets everything and keeps the winning going. If you're just going to leave all the time you're going to spend all your time not gambling and not winning.

Do your research.

If you are playing a game with the best possible strategy and the house still has the edge, then you should only wager money on that game as a form of entertainment. Unless you are counting cards, edge sorting, etc, you will lose your $50,000 if you play long enough. If you have an extra $50,000 laying around, it might be an interesting experiment to see how long it takes to lose it (and all winnings that were built up along the way). I apologize if this is not the answer you wanted.

Quote: oboylere

If you are playing a game with the best possible strategy and the house still has the edge, then you should only wager money on that game as a form of entertainment. Unless you are counting cards, edge sorting, etc, you will lose your $50,000 if you play long enough. If you have an extra $50,000 laying around, it might be an interesting experiment to see how long it takes to lose it (and all winnings that were built up along the way). I apologize if this is not the answer you wanted.

In my opinion , The more plops the merrier . ; ). sorry this may not be the answer he is looking for .

I appreciate all these responses, this is what I am here for.

Quote: sabre

Just remember, losers leave when they're up. Winners just "pretend" to leave when they're up, the keep playing and win more. That resets everything and keeps the winning going. If you're just going to leave all the time you're going to spend all your time not gambling and not winning.

Do your research.

Sorry I didn't quite understand what you are saying. The purpose of me hitting and quitting a session at a time vs one long sessions is to prevent the state of tilt or numbness from a given sitting. Is this what you are referring to? Yes I am currently doing research thats why I am here, thank you.

Quote: OnceDear

I answer this in this blog post
/member/oncedear/blog/6/#post1370
Applies to whatever money management system you can dream up.
Any safe enough 'goal to bankroll' is pretty pointless, except as a fun exercise, since you will, on average, lose everything as often as you double your bankroll.
Your analogy with marbles is sort of correct, but you underestimate how often 'stupid unlucky happens.

Finger in the air estimate, if you start with a bankroll of $36,500 and each day you aspire to either make $100 or lose everything, on a coin toss marty with starting wager of $100, then you can expect to lose 36500 approximately once in the year.
All it would take would be
Lose 100
Lose 200
Lose 400
Lose 800
Lose 1600
Lose 3200
Lose 6400
Lose 12800
Lose 11000

I.e lose 9 wagers in a row..... That's highly likely once per year a 1 in 2^9 event or 1 in 512.
Don't think that's better than 1 in 365, because winning that last toss does not get you back in pocket.

Of course, with baccarat, you also lose into the house edge, making your chances a fair bit worse..

See also /forum/gambling/betting-systems/21359-debunking-roulette-marty-with-pictures/
Which shows how a nice steady 'staircase' bankroll increase can hit oblivion with marty.

ONCEDEAR, thank you for sharing your blog post and info, it looks very interesting and so far very very insightful!

Regarding my original question, in your opinion at what point or ratio does this become realistically "safe enough" to execute..

Well, all in all, from the statistical and technical standpoint, I am learning from this forum that this will just not work, even with an extreme $100 goal to 100k bankroll ratio, as long as the bankroll if finite. I'll give the $100 per day a try with "a rack of whites" or 10k bankroll, and hey if I lose the 10k, well hey I won't do it again. :)

I'm planning to start this daily experiment Apr 7, ironically the day I return from my Vegas trip

Quote: jc333

Well, all in all, from the statistical and technical standpoint, I am learning from this forum that this will just not work

As always, the devil is in the meaning of 'work'
If 'work' means that you are likely to get a meaningful increase in your starting bankroll at reasonable risk, then no. It won't work.
If 'work' means that you will have some fun and some amusing anecdotes, then it probably will work. But at significant risk.

Possibly the worst case scenario is that you have initial success: Maybe double your bankroll without major loss. Then you can get REALLY addicted. Such addicts often continue with their anecdotes but go a bit quiet about devastating losses.
If you pay attention to my blog, you see the anecdotes: 25 consecutive winning sessions: 45 consecutive winning session, etc. etc.
Though true and amusing, there is a flipside which I seldom post where my bankroll gets slaughtered by the same money management. PLEASE do not be fooled. What you plan to do IS NOT A WINNING PROPOSITION. It has modest risk of losing money at the outset, but serious risk of addiction developing.

Quote: OnceDear

As always, the devil is in the meaning of 'work'
If 'work' means that you are likely to get a meaningful increase in your starting bankroll at reasonable risk, then no. It won't work.
If 'work' means that you will have some fun and some amusing anecdotes, then it probably will work. But at significant risk.

Possibly the worst case scenario is that you have initial success: Maybe double your bankroll without major loss. Then you can get REALLY addicted. Such addicts often continue with their anecdotes but go a bit quiet about devastating losses.
If you pay attention to my blog, you see the anecdotes: 25 consecutive winning sessions: 45 consecutive winning session, etc. etc.
Though true and amusing, there is a flipside which I seldom post where my bankroll gets slaughtered by the same money management. PLEASE do not be fooled. What you plan to do IS NOT A WINNING PROPOSITION. It has modest risk of losing money at the outset, but serious risk of addiction developing.

Very good post OnceDear! jc333 pay attention you are getting good advice.

Quote: jc333

Would it be reasonable to say one can make a living by making (setting a target of) ie $100 per day using a bankroll of $50,000, perhaps even $12,800?
(Using perhaps one of the many betting systems or a mixture there of)

The math shows that this is true. Making $100 per day at baccarat would be $36,500 per year. That is the equivalent of earning a living at a job that pays $17.50 per hour; it is reasonable to say that is making a living. The baccarat player would have not days off, nor employee funded health care, social security benefits, or other things that come with the other ways people make a living. But the advantage would be, that after one years, instead of making $100 per day off of $50,000, the baccarat player would have $86,500 and could make $173 per day. They year after it would be even more. There are some people who do earn six figures from baccarat.

I saw a $5 Stadium Baccarat game on the internet. That's one way to play so you don't lose $1,000 to win $100 daily at the $50 tables.

Quote: TomG

The math shows that this is true. Making $100 per day at baccarat would be $36,500 per year. That is the equivalent of earning a living at a job that pays $17.50 per hour; it is reasonable to say that is making a living. The baccarat player would have not days off, nor employee funded health care, social security benefits, or other things that come with the other ways people make a living. But the advantage would be, that after one years, instead of making $100 per day off of $50,000, the baccarat player would have $86,500 and could make $173 per day. They year after it would be even more. There are some people who do earn six figures from baccarat.

Until they Don't!
C'mon TomG. In the absence of [sarcasm] tags, at least make clear the MASSIVE risk of ruin. The OP came here with a reasonable proposition. Not a realistic one.
.. After one years, instead of making $100 per day off of $50,000, the baccarat player could have $0

today is day 10, way too small sample size but just wanted to update. smooth sailing so far with extremely little time commitment. I havent been using a particular betting system.

curious if anyone on this board is from ca?

Do you work for a casino? Playing everyday for a year , one is very likely to lose their 100k ( theoretical bankroll) . sure , there may be 1/1000 player that escape R.O.R. What your are claiming are those people that probably have close to a million bankroll /cash to gamble and haven lost it all yet and they are spilling these nonsense . If it is that simple, any one with 3rd grade math can just go in and follow a simple 1/2/4 /8 /16... etc martingale system and don't need to work . Why would casino kick out card counters and advantage players If card counting and other Advantage play don't work. Get real dude ! I find it mind boggling that someone can find a source of info like here and still don't understand what makes casino win . IMO there are people that " WIN" 6 FIGURES FROM CASINO PLAYING BACCARAT FROM GUESSING/ PREDICTING BANKER / PLAYER , NOT MAKE 6 FIGURES FROM THE CASINO ! PALM ON FACE..... p.S. They are just winning temporarily and they will lose with a very high certainty if they keep playing

Quote: jc333

today is day 10, way too small sample size but just wanted to update. smooth sailing so far with extremely little time commitment. I havent been using a particular betting system.

curious if anyone on this board is from ca?

Come back and tell us about it in 3 months . i know a guy that won for 6 months , then lost it all in 3 days claiming his system worked but lost due to bad luck. LOl. i never heard of the casino lose due to bad luck at least in the long term and the grand scheme of things. Anyway GOOD LUCK. ; )

lol well geese man take it easy it's just an experiment like I said. I never said it will be a success, just want to see how far I can take it that's all