Alternative to Lottery Tickets
| Step | Bet Amount | Bet on | Bankroll after Win | Bankroll after Loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5 | Player | 10 | 0 |
| 2 | 10 | Player | 20 | 0 |
| 3 | 20 | Banker | 39 | 0 |
| 4 | 39 | Player | 78 | 0 |
| 5 | 60 | Banker | 135 | 18 |
| 6 | 120 | Banker | 249 | 15 |
| 7 | 200 | Banker | 439 | 49 |
| 8 | 400 | Banker | 819 | 39 |
| 9 | 800 | Banker | 1579 | 19 |
| 10 | 1500 | Banker | 3004 | 79 |
| 11 | 2900 | Banker | 5759 | 104 |
| 12 | 5600 | Banker | 11079 | 159 |
| 13 | 10800 | Banker | 21339 | 279 |
| 14 | 21000 | Banker | 41289 | 339 |
| 15 | 40500 | Banker | 79764 | 789 |
| 16 | 79000 | Banker | 154814 | 764 |
| 17 | 146000 | Player | 300814 | 8814 |
I had to cut this off at $146,000 because the biggest Vegas casinos don't like to take more than a $150,000 bet in baccarat. If you can go 17 wins then $5 will turn into $300,814. This calls for stopping on any loss, even if there is some money left over.
The next table shows the expected win (not subtracting the original investment) on the initial $5 bet. The bottom right cell shows an expected return of $4.28. Dividing that by 5 and you get an expected return of 85.5%. That is a lot better than the lottery at about 50%.
| Final Outcome | Probability | Expected Return |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.93920589 | 0.00000000 |
| 18 | 0.02998214 | 0.53967860 |
| 15 | 0.01519570 | 0.22793543 |
| 49 | 0.00770156 | 0.37737623 |
| 39 | 0.00390334 | 0.15223025 |
| 19 | 0.00197831 | 0.03758788 |
| 79 | 0.00100266 | 0.07920985 |
| 104 | 0.00050817 | 0.05284980 |
| 159 | 0.00025755 | 0.04095105 |
| 279 | 0.00013053 | 0.03641916 |
| 339 | 0.00006616 | 0.02242763 |
| 789 | 0.00003353 | 0.02645566 |
| 764 | 0.00001699 | 0.01298353 |
| 8814 | 0.00000885 | 0.07801660 |
| 300814 | 0.00000861 | 2.59092797 |
| Total | 1.00000000 | 4.27504964 |
Again, I'm not saying anyone should go out and do this. A 14.5% house edge is still terrible. However, it is a lot better than the 50% house edge you'll face with a lottery ticket. This is kind of like saying that if you enjoy burning money it would be better to burn a $20 bill than a $100 bill.
Banker runs of 12 are certainly not unheard of. I've seen them up to 11 myself. Are we assuming the casino is letting you defer the commission, or taking it after every winning banker bet? (I guess we could play EZ baccarat).
For those of us bad at numbers, what is the probability of hitting the $300K win goal expressed in a "1 in XXX" notation?
Quote: WizardLet me start out with some caveats, lest anyone start saying that the Wizard has turned into a betting system hack. All the hype about the Mega Millions has caused me to think about a better way to gamble than on lottery tickets. This is absolutely not an endorsement of doing this. I'm just saying that if you must make a small bet, that has the possibility of winning a lot, then consider the following sequence of baccarat bets. It starts with a bet of $5, and has the chance to win over $300,000. With any tie, repeat the last bet.
[
I had to cut this off at $146,000 because the biggest Vegas casinos don't like to take more than a $150,000 bet in baccarat. If you can go 17 wins then $5 will turn into $300,814. This calls for stopping on any loss, even if there is some money left over.
The next table shows the expected win (not subtracting the original investment) on the initial $5 bet. The bottom right cell shows an expected return of $4.28. Dividing that by 5 and you get an expected return of 85.5%. That is a lot better than the lottery at about 50%.
[Again, I'm not saying anyone should go out and do this. A 14.5% house edge is still terrible. However, it is a lot better than the 50% house edge you'll face with a lottery ticket. This is kind of like saying that if you enjoy burning money it would be better to burn a $20 bill than a $100 bill.
How did you determine the banker/player choices?
Where are the $5 baccarat tables?
Has anyone ever won 17 hands in a row?
However, I don't know what the maximum a casino will take on an inside number is.
Quote: only1choice
Has anyone ever won 17 hands in a row?
there is a story alleging that famous australian billionaire whale Kerry Packer once won 20 hands in a row at $250,000 per.
but as with most fish stories, it is hard to discern fact from fiction...
Quote: FinsRuleHow would that compare to hitting a roulette number 3 times in a row on a single 0 wheel starting with a $5 bet?
However, I don't know what the maximum a casino will take on an inside number is.
assuming you were playing at a high limit table that would book the bet,
the probability of hitting a single number 3 times in a row on an american wheel is 1 in 54,872
the probability of hitting a single number 3 times in a row on a european wheel is 1 in 50,653
Yes, Michael Bluejay's strategy achieves the same kind of thing. However, as he admits, most casinos won't take half million dollar bets in roulette. I was trying to keep my strategy more realistic.
Regarding switching between Player and Banker, I had to balance the lower house edge on the Banker and keeping wins evenly divisible by $1. So I started out with Player wins to avoid loose change. Then I switched to Banker for a while. The last bet is on the Player, to get past the $300,000 point.
Fair question about the $5 baccarat tables. I will look around, but I think some tables are that low. If not, the same kind of thing could be achievable by making the first bet on the don't pass in craps.
Regarding betting on a single number in roulette, that is a good idea. I know you can bet only so much on a single number. Let's assume the larger casinos will take a bet of $6,480, which I think they would. Here is my idea. First you bet $5 on any number on a double-zero wheel. If you win you'll have $180, which should be enough to bet a single number on a European wheel, which offer half back if the ball lands in zero. If that happens, take that half and walk away. Bet everything on any number twice at the European wheel, for a maximum of three total bets. The following table shows the possible outcomes.
| Outcome | Probability | Return |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.999250 | 0.000000 |
| 90 | 0.000711 | 0.064011 |
| 3240 | 0.000019 | 0.062281 |
| 233280 | 0.000019 | 4.484257 |
| Total | 1.000000 | 4.610549 |
Dividing 4.610549 by 5 results in a return of 92.2%, which does beat my baccarat strategy. The probability of winning the $233,280 is 1 in 52,022.
Yes, Michael Bluejay's strategy achieves the same kind of thing. However, as he admits, most casinos won't take half million dollar bets in roulette. I was trying to keep my strategy more realistic.
Regarding switching between Player and Banker, I had to balance the lower house edge on the Banker and keeping wins evenly divisible by $1. So I started out with Player wins to avoid loose change. Then I switched to Banker for a while. The last bet is on the Player, to get past the $300,000 point.
Fair question about the $5 baccarat tables. I will look around, but I think some tables are that low. If not, the same kind of thing could be achievable by making the first bet on the don't pass in craps.
Regarding betting on a single number in roulette, that is a good idea. I know you can bet only so much on a single number. Let's assume the larger casinos will take a bet of $6,480, which I think they would. Here is my idea. First you bet $5 on any number on a double-zero wheel. If you win you'll have $180, which should be enough to bet a single number on a European wheel, which offer half back if the ball lands in zero. If that happens, take that half and walk away. Bet everything on any number twice at the European wheel, for a maximum of three total bets. The following table shows the possible outcomes.
| Outcome | Probability | Return |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.999250 | 0.000000 |
| 90 | 0.000711 | 0.064011 |
| 3240 | 0.000019 | 0.062281 |
| 233280 | 0.000019 | 4.484257 |
| Total | 1.000000 | 4.610549 |
Dividing 4.610549 by 5 results in a return of 92.2%, which does beat my baccarat strategy. The probability of winning the $233,280 is 1 in 52,022.
Also, sorry for the double post. I forgot to put in the table tags the first time, so I don't get the "flag" button on that post.
sure $150k is alot of $ to most, but you cant retire for life on that.
Quote: 100xOddsthe difference between lotto and your system is that the lotto is a life changing expereince if you win.
sure $150k is alot of $ to most, but you cant retire for life on that.
Not all lottery tickets are like Mega Millions. For example, California's Fantasy 5 game is a pick 5 out of 39 game. The last jackpot was $151,787.
Speaking of that, the Fantasy 5 web page says, "Play your five lucky numbers today. The odds might just be in your favor." This bothers me. For the odds to be break-even the jackpot would need to be $333,847. Granted, the record jackpot was $729,505, so the odds can swing to the player's favor. However most of the time they are not. Furthermore, it is easy to tell when they are. Personally, I would call this false advertising, and the California lottery should be ashamed.
Quote: WizardNot all lottery tickets are like Mega Millions. For example, California's Fantasy 5 game is a pick 5 out of 39 game. The last jackpot was $151,787.
Speaking of that, the Fantasy 5 web page says, "Play your five lucky numbers today. The odds might just be in your favor." This bothers me. For the odds to be break-even the jackpot would need to be $333,847. Granted, the record jackpot was $729,505, so the odds can swing to the player's favor. However most of the time they are not. Furthermore, it is easy to tell when they are. Personally, I would call this false advertising, and the California lottery should be ashamed.
do you take taxes into account?
or is the odds of winning 1:333,847?
Quote: 100xOdds
or is the odds of winning 1:333,847?
according to calottery fact sheets
the odds of winning with 5 of 5 is 1 in 575,757
Quote: WizardThe odds might just be in your favor." This bothers me.
Its about the same as all those signs "we sold a six thousand winner here" (implying better chances at this particular vendor).
Or "somebody has to win" (therefore YOU should spend your money on it).
Heck, many grocery stores sell lotto tickets only at the tobacco counter.
someone who plays that game should probably file a complaint citing this:
The California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.)
prohibits vagueness, unfair business practices, and deception by declaring unlawful
"methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person
in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer".
Cal. Civ. Code § 1770.
Quote: WongBoaccording to calottery fact sheets
the odds of winning with 5 of 5 is 1 in 575,757
They are. My $333,847 figure the jackpot at which there is zero house edge. It is less than $575,757 because of the smaller prizes.
Quote: FleaStiffIts about the same as all those signs "we sold a six thousand winner here" (implying better chances at this particular vendor).
That would likely be factual statement, unless an outright lie, so I'm not going to raise a fuss over it. Yes, they are clearly trying to imply they are luckier than other locations. If the buyer falls for that then caveat emptor. However, for a progressive lottery to stay the "odds may be in your favor" is like me doing a weather report in Las Vegas and saying "It may snow today" every single day. Clearly that would be a lousy forecast on the fourth of July.
As I read the first post, I was thinking, "caveat or not, just what sort of snake-oil is the Wizard not selling?"Quote: WizardLet me start out with some caveats, ...
Not only is 17 wins a very unlikely outcome, finding a player who is willing to parlay nearly the entire amount is equally unlikely. Oh, sure, a $5 player will have no trouble parlaying the first couple wins, but even the $400 bet would be considered too big for their comfort. You want them to go to $146K? Fuggedaboudit!Quote: WizardIf you can go 17 wins...
And that is the biggest "gotcha" in the gambling world. Nobody stops until they are dead. Even lottery jackpot winners continue to play the lottery. Why? Because they heard about this one crazy lady who won, continued to play, and won again.Quote: WizardThis calls for stopping on any loss, even if there is some money left over.
Not for nothing, but if forced into that kind of situation, I'd burn singles.Quote: WizardThis is kind of like saying that if you enjoy burning money it would be better to burn a $20 bill than a $100 bill.
Quote: WizardAgain, I'm not saying anyone should go out and do this. A 14.5% house edge is still terrible. However, it is a lot better than the 50% house edge you'll face with a lottery ticket. This is kind of like saying that if you enjoy burning money it would be better to burn a $20 bill than a $100 bill.
It's at least a good example for pedantry.
It you went home to your wife and said, I bet $5 and I was up to $149K after winning 16 times in a row, but I lost all but $8K because I wanted to bring home $300K, she would scream at you for hours.
On the other hand if you go home and say "Honey I spent $5 on lottery tickets" for even worse odds at $300K, she would probably say "Well, you have to play to win".
Quote: rudeboyoiwhy didnt you just use the banker bet in EZ baccarat to avoid commissions and having to switch back and forth between banker/player?.
Long time no see. I wanted to use a popular game as an example. I also think that EZ Bac is not going have limits as high as regular baccarat.
It would be a lousy forecast if you were selling weather forecasts rather than entertainment. The people who would believe that "the odds may be in your favor" probably want to believe it. And just might be desperate enough to believe your Fourth of July forecast or at least desperate enough not to condemn you for it. The lottery sells hope to the desperate, foolish or flighty. Next Jackpot is X, Winners sold here in the past, etc. are all foolish lies that the desperate willingly fall for. They do not want to be a critical advertising audience.Quote: WizardHowever, for a progressive lottery to say the "odds may be in your favor" is like me doing a weather report in Las Vegas and saying "It may snow today" every single day. Clearly that would be a lousy forecast on the fourth of July.
Even my email to Tuscany Suites criticizing the old "the odds are in your favor" slogan on their website surely did not suddenly awaken experienced casino executives to what the truth was. And quite frankly, I don't think the players who read that slogan really believed it, they just liked hearing it.
Quote: FleaStiffThe people who would believe that "the odds may be in your favor" probably want to believe it.
I draw the line at statements that are untrue or can't be substantiated. If the lottery made the claim "the odds may be in your favor" on a non-progressive game, I would do whatever I could to make them stop saying that.
Quote: WizardI draw the line at statements that are untrue or can't be substantiated. If the lottery made the claim "the odds may be in your favor" on a non-progressive game, I do whatever I could to make them stop saying that.
Perhaps the Tuscany refers to the crazy people who roam the street near outside as "The Odds." In that case, I bet 'the odds' would be in your favor... there are enough of them out there.
Quote: WizardLong time no see. I wanted to use a popular game as an example. I also think that EZ Bac is not going have limits as high as regular baccarat.
redrock has EZ Bac now with both the panda and dragon bets.
Quote: WizardQuote: FleaStiffThe people who would believe that "the odds may be in your favor" probably want to believe it.
I draw the line at statements that are untrue or can't be substantiated. If the lottery made the claim "the odds may be in your favor" on a non-progressive game, I do whatever I could to make them stop saying that.
ive always wondered how meaningful geico's slogan really is: "15 minutes could save you 15% or more on car insurance by switching to geico". technically if anybody has switched to geico and saved 15% or more the statement is true but if only like 5% of the actual people that switch to geico save money its not very meaningful.
Quote: WizardLet me catch up here.
Yes, Michael Bluejay's strategy achieves the same kind of thing. However, as he admits, most casinos won't take half million dollar bets in roulette. I was trying to keep my strategy more realistic.
Regarding switching between Player and Banker, I had to balance the lower house edge on the Banker and keeping wins evenly divisible by $1. So I started out with Player wins to avoid loose change. Then I switched to Banker for a while. The last bet is on the Player, to get past the $300,000 point.
Fair question about the $5 baccarat tables. I will look around, but I think some tables are that low. If not, the same kind of thing could be achievable by making the first bet on the don't pass in craps.
Regarding betting on a single number in roulette, that is a good idea. I know you can bet only so much on a single number. Let's assume the larger casinos will take a bet of $6,480, which I think they would. Here is my idea. First you bet $5 on any number on a double-zero wheel. If you win you'll have $180, which should be enough to bet a single number on a European wheel, which offer half back if the ball lands in zero. If that happens, take that half and walk away. Bet everything on any number twice at the European wheel, for a maximum of three total bets. The following table shows the possible outcomes.
Outcome Probability Return 0 0.999250 0.000000 90 0.000711 0.064011 3240 0.000019 0.062281 233280 0.000019 4.484257 Total 1.000000 4.610549
Dividing 4.610549 by 5 results in a return of 92.2%, which does beat my baccarat strategy. The probability of winning the $233,280 is 1 in 52,022.
dumb question:
Bacarrat has a house edge of ~1%.
european roulette is higher @ 1.35%
Why is your bacarrat system at 14% house edge overall whereas the roulette system is only 8%?
edit:
and why not use blackjack as the example?
it's the game w/the lowest house edge (~0.5%) that u easily double again and again.
(unlike craps where your 17wins will be spread over 6 numbers.)
Quote: 100xOddsdumb question:
Bacarrat has a house edge of ~1%.
european roulette is higher @ 1.35%
Why is your bacarrat system at 14% house edge overall whereas the roulette system is only 8%?
I am not the wizard but the roulette system is lower for the entire progresion because there are fewer total bets so you are exposing the money to the house edge fewer times.
