Baccarat System

Hello everyone, first post here...

I've been reading a lot of the posts on the forum and decided to sign up.. loving the site!

I've been playing around with Baccarat and came up with a strategy that I started testing not too long ago, but before I go any further, I figured I would share it here and maybe you guys can let me know if I'm wasting my time or not. I'm not a high limit player by any means, I wouldn't be looking to get rich or any of that, just looking for something that might be a little bit sustainable(even if just for the short term)

I would be playing through an online casino live dealer (not sure which one yet but I have been testing on betonline)

I'm most certain something like this has been done before but here it goes:

I would only place a bet a streak AFTER a streak of 4 has started for either bank or player. I would start with a $10 bet on the opposite side of the streak. If that loses go to 20, then 40 then 80. If the 80 bet loses, I start over at 10. I won't have a huge bankroll to chase and chase with the big bets and I also don't wanna go broke in 1 shoe. I've only done 20 shoes so far (takes about an hour per shoe) and I logged all the results and went back and pretended to play it.

After 20 shoes there has been 3 times where there was a run of more than 8, with the max being 11 ($450 in losses)
There were 74 cases of successful bets (approx $700 in wins after the house cut)
That is a $250 profit, is this sustainable? Is the math against me more than I realize and I've just been lucky? I know its only 250 i 20 hours but it's not so much about the time. This is something I was thinking about doing casually with my girlfriend at night while watching TV and relaxing. It's not something that would take a lot of effort to do while other things going on. I know the sample size is low.

Any info or comments are greatly appreciated!

Quote: keldog

Hello everyone, first post here...

I've been reading a lot of the posts on the forum and decided to sign up.. loving the site!

I've been playing around with Baccarat and came up with a strategy that I started testing not too long ago, but before I go any further, I figured I would share it here and maybe you guys can let me know if I'm wasting my time or not.

I'll just stop you right there. You are.

I appreciate the quick response but can you explain a little more please.

Hi Keldog, and welcome to the forums.

Sooooo, you're talking about doing a martingale in which you first wait for a "streak" to happen to try to give yourself extra levels, etc, etc, etc. This WILL NOT and DOES NOT work. Like the martingale (doubling your bet after a loss until you win) it will "appear" to work until you finally hit another 4-5 streak after, dumping your entire bankroll. You're not changing the house edge whatsoever. Thus every single bet you place, regardless if it's in streaks or not, has a negative expected value. Thus, you will lose in the long run.

Also, that would be really boring because you might only get a few bets per shoe, which during busy times could last a long time lol.

Others have also tried this with Roulette, waiting for 4 black or 4 red or 4 high or 4 low, etc, etc, before betting the opposite. Please, don't do this. Like all martingales, it works until it doesn't... and when it doesn't, you're going to lose everything. The big key is you're not changing the house advantage and you have a -EV associated with every bet. Thus, you will (with a mathematical certainty) be a loser in the long run.

Keep looking for other ways to beat the casino, but less to do with betting systems! =)

Thanks Romes!

What would be the way to play it? I heard counting is near pointless. Is baccarat a game I should just stay away from in general?

Quote: keldog

Thanks Romes!

What would be the way to play it? I heard counting is near pointless. Is baccarat a game I should just stay away from in general?

This is strictly for what it's worth, because the truth is, there is no bet you can place on baccarat that is in the player's favor. Systems don't work.

The conventional wisdom on streak betting is, bet WITH the streak. That way you can only lose once. Your money will last a lot longer.

Quote: keldog

I appreciate the quick response but can you explain a little more please.

As mentioned by others, systems don't work if your goal is to profit from -EV casino games.

This system is pretty good because the majority of the time you will not be betting, but in the long run you will still expect to lose. What you should do is count cards on blackjack instead.

I like to use a Kennedy Half Dollar. Bicentennial one preferably.

Quote: keldog

Hello everyone, first post here...

I've been reading a lot of the posts on the forum and decided to sign up.. loving the site!

I've been playing around with Baccarat and came up with a strategy that I started testing not too long ago, but before I go any further, I figured I would share it here and maybe you guys can let me know if I'm wasting my time or not. I'm not a high limit player by any means, I wouldn't be looking to get rich or any of that, just looking for something that might be a little bit sustainable(even if just for the short term)

I would be playing through an online casino live dealer (not sure which one yet but I have been testing on betonline)

I'm most certain something like this has been done before but here it goes:

I would only place a bet a streak AFTER a streak of 4 has started for either bank or player. I would start with a $10 bet on the opposite side of the streak. If that loses go to 20, then 40 then 80. If the 80 bet loses, I start over at 10. I won't have a huge bankroll to chase and chase with the big bets and I also don't wanna go broke in 1 shoe. I've only done 20 shoes so far (takes about an hour per shoe) and I logged all the results and went back and pretended to play it.

After 20 shoes there has been 3 times where there was a run of more than 8, with the max being 11 ($450 in losses)
There were 74 cases of successful bets (approx $700 in wins after the house cut)
That is a $250 profit, is this sustainable? Is the math against me more than I realize and I've just been lucky? I know its only 250 i 20 hours but it's not so much about the time. This is something I was thinking about doing casually with my girlfriend at night while watching TV and relaxing. It's not something that would take a lot of effort to do while other things going on. I know the sample size is low.

Any info or comments are greatly appreciated!

Give up baccarat and try the same system at the SicBo table or machine.
Wait for a few rolls of the three dice combinations and bet only on 1 dice number.

Example: If a six does not show up for 3 or 4 rolls in a row, then start betting your money on the 6 and only the six. Don't worry about any other bets. If 1 six shows you win 1:1, If 2 sixes show then your bet pays 2:1, if 3 sixes show then you get 3:1
Again, Do not play any other bets on the table.

Good luck to you.

Quote: CrapsGenious

If a six does not show up for 3 or 4 rolls

Good luck to you if you listen to that kind of crap

Well there are 3 dice in that game. Chances of a six showing is very high. Again, multiple sixes pay up to 3:1.

Quote: CrapsGenious

Well there are 3 dice in that game. Chances of a six showing is very high. Again, multiple sixes pay up to 3:1.

A member 4+ years? Want to go over again some basic stuff?

*dice do not have a memory

*the dice do not know that they haven't rolled a six

*the dice do not care whether or not some numbers were or were not rolled

*modern physics no longer entertains the theory that an invisible hand might reach down and make the dice roll a six. Do you believe that?

*am I too rough on you? I dunno but 4 years is a long time not to pick some of this stuff up.

One can not change the math on what is what, however given the circumstances of a six not showing up after 12 outcomes between three dice. Chances are they will show because it is so.

Probabilities win here in this case you are arguing.

Quote: CrapsGenious

One can not change the math on what is what, however given the circumstances of a six not showing up after 12 outcomes between three dice. Chances are they will show because it is so.

Probabilities win here in this case you are arguing.

The chances of a 6 showing up are high because you're rolling 3 dice. It has nothing to do with the 12 historical outcomes that the dice have no memory of...

hmmm, well, perhaps you are thinking of the law of large numbers, but the way that works is an anomaly like "not enough sixes" in the short run is overcome by the weight of normal random outcomes that dwarf the anomaly.... not by the dice taking on the task of correcting it as a matter of making the universe right.

That's all I've got for you. You can have the last word if you like.

Law states, It has to happen eventually,
What are the odds of rolling 3 dice 10 times in a row and not showing at least one six?

If I follow the OP's betting progression using the probabilities of a six showing up (Or even any other number) within the 10 rolls. Then I can easily say in confidence that I will win. either 1:1, 2:1, or 3:1 depending on how many eventually do show.

Quote: CrapsGenious

Law states, It has to happen eventually,

Law states, no it doesn't. Gamblers fallacy at is best.

Quote: CrapsGenious

Law states, It has to happen eventually,

Rubbish. And so what if it does happen eventually. There may be a 'sooner than eventually' when the gambler that is stupid enough to progressively increase his bet will become penniless.

Quote:

What are the odds of rolling 3 dice 10 times in a row and not showing at least one six?

1 in 237.3763138 Again, so freaking what?

Quote:

If I follow the OP's betting progression using the probabilities of a six showing up (Or even any other number) within the 10 rolls. Then I can easily say in confidence that I will win. either 1:1, 2:1, or 3:1 depending on how many eventually do show.

Very probably will win an insignificant amount. Very possibly will lose a MASSIVE amount. That's how Martingale and similar progressives (don't) work. Ultimately, the test is house edge. If the house has one, you have found a fun way to lose your money.

Keldog. I advise that you ignore anyone who calls himself a 'Genious' because at best he cannot spell.

Incidentally, with 3 dice, the probability of rolling at least one 6 is 42.129629629%
For the Sic Bo Single Bet the house edge is a MASSIVE 7.87% or 3.7% for Australian rules... A sucker bet.

Quote: CrapsGenious

One can not change the math on what is what, however given the circumstances of a six not showing up after 12 outcomes between three dice. Chances are they will show because it is so.

Probabilities win here in this case you are arguing.

What an absolute crock. Shame on you CrapsGenious*, encouraging a newbie to believe in such fairy-tale maths. And trying to argue the Gambler's Fallacy here of all places?

*
CrapsGenious
So not
CrapsGenius then? Pity you can't change your username, isn't it?

They won $500k playing Baccarat under her comp card. He took off with the cash, and she's stuck with the tax bill.

NY Post

Wow 4 years and he has fallen deep into gamblers fallacy.