What is the loss ratio on this strategy? It can destroy my gambling addiction.

So far, I have not loss with this strategy, but it will probably only be a matter of time because 14 days is not a big sample size.

Playing on baccarat by the way.
I would wait until a table has a huge difference in win ratio.

Example
Bank won 20 hands
Player won 39 hands

or Player won 20 hands
Bank won 38 hands

Basically, if player won 19 hands more, I would bet on Banker to catch up
If bank won 18 hands more, I would bet on player to catch up.

Real life scenario:
if banker is winning by 18 hands, I would bet $20 on player
19 hands, I would bet $30 on player
20 hands, I would bet $40 on player
21 hands, I would bet $50 on player etc etc

if player is winning by 19 hands, I would bet $20 on banker
20 hands, I would bet $31 on banker ($1 to make up for comission)
21 hands, I would bet $42 on banker
etc etc

Thank you for your time and patience. I know that logic can help my gambling addiction. I haven't played for 10 years and hope to continue talking instead of playing.

Quote: exoxeris

Thank you for your time and patience. I know that logic can help my gambling addiction. I haven't played for 10 years and hope to continue talking instead of playing.

I guess you don't know it, but your post is a testimonial to the fact that a person can be educated well enough to write well [assumption: a smart person] and yet [evidently] take the experiences gleaned from years of gambling and still be wallowing in gambling ignorance.

Sorry to seem harsh. IMO this one is best left for you to answer on your own. I guess your best course of action would be to go the Wizard's other site and delve into his FAQ section and start boning up on what's there.

Basically, if player won 19 hands more, I would bet on Banker to catch up
If bank won 18 hands more, I would bet on player to catch up...."

That is good reasoning. You must admit, of course, that everything in life is square and even and that once you become alarmed that for some reason Banker has to "catch up" then the cards will immediately want to re-assure you that all is right and balanced with the world and that from the moment the cards learn of your worries, they will allow Player to catch-up. Therefore the next several wins will surely be Player because of your worries that things are somehow off kilter.

Quote: exoxeris

Playing on baccarat by the way.
I would wait until a table has a huge difference in win ratio.

Even if this strategy worked (it doesn't), you would have
to live in the casino waiting for this scenario to present
itself. You could go days without seeing it.

Quote: exoxeris

Example
Bank won 20 hands
Player won 39 hands

or Player won 20 hands
Bank won 38 hands

Basically, if player won 19 hands more, I would bet on Banker to catch up
If bank won 18 hands more, I would bet on player to catch up.

Example shoe. Shows the absolute difference between Banker and Player wins.
Player absolute wins are -
This shoe was dominated by the Player
x-axis is number of BP hands in the shoe
A few times the Player went past 19. Each time a progression would have produced a win on the Banker hand.
But that was still not enough time for the Banker to catch up in this one shoe.

So now you show another trigger to start a betting progression.
And your first bet amount in the progression is determined by the absolute difference between Banker/Player wins.
I gather you do not actually bet that the shoe will balance but are just betting a progression to hit at least one time the bet that is behind.

The bet that is behind really does not have time to actually catch up in one 8 deck shoe from your examples.
74 BP hands per shoe on average.

And since the Banker does win more times than the Player because of the draw rules of the game, the Banker will always eventually catch up given enough hands and many shoes, where the Player may never catch up given enough hands.

But your question has to do with just the results in one shoe.

(FYI: This has nothing to do with your probability of losing the next N hands of your progression.
8deck,14penetration
about 1.14% shoes end with Player wins 19 or more per shoe
about 2.06% shoes end with Banker wins 18 or more per shoe)

General formula for losing the next N hands in a row for 8deck Bac
Banker Win (given no tie) 0.50682483
Player Win (given no tie) 0.49317517
N = number of losing hands in a row
^ = "to the power of" or the number of times one needs to multiply the value by itself.

Player = 0.50682483^N
Banker = 0.49317517^N
Example:
Bank won 20 hands
Player won 39 hands
So, maybe 15 hands left in the shoe.
Are you betting a progression to win one time in the next 15 hands?
If so, you would hate to see the next 15 hands be Player.
Banker = 0.49317517^15 = to lose the next 15 in a row.

You should have enough tools to figure this out yourself if I understand how you would bet this.

Quote: EvenBob

Even if this strategy worked (it doesn't), you would have
to live in the casino waiting for this scenario to present
itself. You could go days without seeing it.

The OP in his other thread mentioned 10 Bac tables in action where he plays.
So over an 8 hour period there would be about a 72% chance of seeing at least 1 shoe with such a large B/P difference.

Most heavy Bac players have many methods of play and even are involved in team play to take advantage of many Bac tables in action at one time.
Maybe he enjoys his gambling problem. As long as he can afford it.

I remember that over an 8 hour period, I would see 2 tables with a large B/P difference of 18 or more
I actually can't afford to gamble anymore and haven't played baccarat in 10 years, its so far working for me to just talk about it instead of playing.

I understand that previous hands do not determine the next hand because cards do not have memories but I also understand this:
The probability of a big difference in B/P win ratio like 18 or greater is very very unlikely. So both facts actually contradict each other.....

Thank you guido, i have better understanding now.
in the last scenario, I would usually bet the 10 of the last 15 hands.

Example:
Bank won 20 hands, Player won 39
I bet $20 on banker

Bank won 21 hands, Player won 39
I wait

Bank won 21 hands, Player won 40
I bet $20 on banker

Bank won 21 hands, Player won 41
I bet $31 on banker

Bank won 22 hands, Player won 41
I bet $20 on banker

etc etc and sometimes it will be
Bank won 22 hands, player won 45
I bet $64 on banker

Bank won 23 hands, player won 45
I bet $53 on banker

The simple idea is that bank will catch up and even out the win/loss ratio.
Even if I lose 5 bets but win 4, I would have a gain.

Example:
Lose $20, $31, $42
win $53, $42
lose $31, $42
win $53, $42

End result: $190 - $146 = $44 profit subtract commission of $9.5.

i won 4 hands, but lost 5 hands, and still gained a profit of $34.50
According to statistics, banker has a slight advantage over player.

What is the flaw in my concept and betting strategy?

Quote: exoxeris

I understand that previous hands do not determine the next hand because cards do not have memories but I also understand this:
The probability of a big difference in B/P win ratio like 18 or greater is very very unlikely. So both facts actually contradict each other.....

If you run into a distortion from a percentage point of view: let's say you walk up to a craps table and 4 out of the first ten rolls you see are 12s. Well, we know that fair dice are not going to maintain the 40% rolls for boxcars over even a fairly small set of numbers... as a gambler one could only wish that some fallacy-inflicted gambler would bet you that boxcars would appear 10% of the time over any number of trials he would pick... or, actually, not appear again in the next 100 trials, I am sorry to say, because that would seem to be the bet you would be inclined to make. Being able to take the other end of either bet would mean risking as much as you could possibly bear to risk.

Yet we know 40% is not going to be maintained in the long run, the laws of the universe are more likely to be voided! So how will that be played out? The data from the next ten thousand and the next million rolls that hew more to 1/36 will drown the significance of the 10 rolls first seen. The dice will not be compelled to start rolling 12s at a 1/37 ratio lest God blow them up! If I understand what you are thinking, the simple answer is there is no way to take advantage of the past even though the pattern of the past can correctly be seen as unsustainable.

BTW Guido lost me instantly and I have no idea what his number crunching means.

Quote: odiousgambit

BTW Guido lost me instantly and I have no idea what his number crunching means.

I'm not certain it's "number crunching" since his graph shows no ties. You just can't toss out the tie results.

Quote: exoxeris

I would wait until a table has a huge difference in win ratio.



Basically, if player won 19 hands more, I would bet on Banker to catch up
If bank won 18 hands more, I would bet on player to catch up.

The law of large numbers is of objective nature, that means that nothing catches up anything, just 1% of 250.000 is not the same as 1% of 100.

Can you dig it?

Quote: s2dbakerodiousgambit

BTW Guido lost me instantly and I have no idea what his number crunching means.

Quote: s2dbaker

I'm not certain it's "number crunching" since his graph shows no ties. You just can't toss out the tie results.

The graph is only about the difference between Banker wins and Player wins. (B-P is the formula I used)
Ties are not included since we only consider BP hands.

At 35 hands, the Player had won 19 more hands than the Banker. That is what the graph is all about.
The value graphed is called the absolute difference.
It does not show how many hands each won. (actually P=27,B=8)
That can be figured out but for the OP's question, that is not a concern.

He is after winning X out of 10 hands or so and showing a profit using a progression betting method. That comes later.