Crushing Wiz's free bacc game

.
I realize that this post might make me look ridiculous or foolish but I'm trying to learn WHY

I'm hoping you guys can help me understand why I've been winning so much for so long - much beyond what luck could accomplish

of course I know that betting progressions can't overcome the HA

for many years I've fooled around with them on the bacc game and I've always lost

until recently - this one combined with my bet selection - I've just kept winning - it's very astonishing to me

on the Wizard's page on the D'Alembert progression he tests it betting on Player with 65 billion hands and found it to lose exactly the HE -

but I play it differently and with a certain bet selection

on the first shoe there is no bet on the first hand and from then on I bet whatever came last - Banker or Player (no ties) - (of course I know that the payout on a winning Banker bet is less - it doesn't seem to matter)

is it possible that this bet selection method is the reason that it is winning so much? - using it you cannot get creamed by one side Banker or Player dominating

you do get creamed when it flips back and forth between Player and Banker - I handle that with a stop loss

my initial bet is $25 - and from there I increase by only $5.00 after a loss and decrease only $5.00 after a win -

if I lose a bet at $65 that is a stop loss and I start a new shoe - if a bet is won at $5.00 the next bet is also $5.00

I record the results after a shoe or after the stop loss

so, the largest bet is $65 and the smallest bet is $5.00

the largest loss I take for any one shoe is usually at the stop loss and is about $350

the largest win for any one shoe is about $225 - there are many smaller wins in between

My results - I haven't recorded the exact number of hands or shoes but after playing for a very, very long time I am up by $3,200

I'M HOPING SEVERAL OF YOU GUYS WILL PLAY 4 OR 5 SHOES EXACTLY AS I HAVE INDICATED AND REPORT YOUR RESULTS

or if you can do a sim (which I can't) that would be great - but it has to be with exactly these amounts for the initial bet and the increases and decreases - and there has to be a stopping at the stop loss I indicated

so why don't I go to a real casino and play this-? - I don't need $ anymore or really care about making $ and the nearest casino is a long way from me

and table games such as this are not legal for online gambling in my State

I do enjoy trying to figure out winning methods - I almost always fail to do that - this time is the exception - if it isn't just luck or something else that can be explained

please note - my OP was incorrect - I corrected it - here is the correct way to increase or decrease

"my initial bet is $25 - and from there I increase by only $5.00 after a loss and decrease only $5.00 after a win - "



https://wizardofodds.com/play/baccarat/

.

I can only play $50 minimum tables, which I haven't won the bankroll for yet. Max bet would be $2K, or $3K depending if I move to the $100 table.
So initial bets of $250 that go up or down by $50 on a win or loss. Top bet of $650. Stop loss for any shoe is $3,500. Largest win for any one shoe is around $2,250. If I was playing with your luck I'd be up $32K.

Well, you're barely 9 shoes ahead with your $3,500 stop loss in place. The bad luck I get can ruin that lead in about 9 shoes.

Quote: ChumpChange

I can only play $50 minimum tables, which I haven't won the bankroll for yet. Max bet would be $2K, or $3K depending if I move to the $100 table.
So initial bets of $250 that go up or down by $50 on a win or loss. Top bet of $650. Stop loss for any shoe is $3,500. Largest win for any one shoe is around $2,250. If I was playing with your luck I'd be up $32K.

Well, you're barely 9 shoes ahead with your $3,500 stop loss in place. The bad luck I get can ruin that lead in about 9 shoes.
link to original post

you can play exactly as I indicated on the free bacc game which is linked

that's what I am hoping you will do - play 4 or 5 shoes and report the results here - please note the correction I made


https://wizardofodds.com/play/baccarat/

.

On the first shoe after 47 hands with 20 Player, 21 Banker, and 6 Ties I hit the maximum bet and lost and I'm down the stop loss.




My 2nd shoe was a winner. I restarted at $10K for this shoe. I started with a $250 bet on Player on the first hand on both shoes I believe. I quit before the last hand was dealt so I could screengrab the stats board. I won the near $2,250 limit advised. I ended up with a $50 bet on Banker as Banker was the last one to win. There was a tie of 37 Player/Banker wins and 8 Tie hands. There wasn't an extended run of choppy hands this time around running up my bets amounts. There were some 2-4 in a row wins to bring the bet amounts down.

($250 + $300 + $350 + $400 + $450 + $500 + $550 + $600 + $650 = $4,050); so a run of 9 choppy hands can make me go bust for more than the stop loss from the start. There was a run of 7 choppy hands in a row in this shoe and several 4-5 in a row choppy hands in the first shoe.




If you win $2,250 40X for a $90K win and lose $3,500 20X for a $70K loss, you'll be +$20K. You'll have a phantom $7K profit to pay taxes on next year because you can only deduct 90% of your losses.

deleted


.

Quote: lilredrooster

.
I realize that this post might make me look ridiculous or foolish but I'm trying to learn WHY

I'm hoping you guys can help me understand why I've been winning so much for so long - much beyond what luck could accomplish

of course I know that betting progressions can't overcome the HA

for many years I've fooled around with them on the bacc game and I've always lost

until recently

now you've been losing?

Quote:

- this one combined with my bet selection - I've just kept winning - it's very astonishing to me

on the Wizard's page on the D'Alembert progression he tests it betting on Player with 65 billion hands and found it to lose exactly the HE -

but I play it differently and with a certain bet selection

on the first shoe there is no bet on the first hand and from then on I bet whatever came last - Banker or Player (no ties) - (of course I know that the payout on a winning Banker bet is less - it doesn't seem to matter)

is it possible that this bet selection method is the reason that it is winning so much? - using it you cannot get creamed by one side Banker or Player dominating

you do get creamed when it flips back and forth between Player and Banker - I handle that with a stop loss

my initial bet is $25 - and from there I increase by only $5.00 after a loss and decrease only $5.00 after a win -

if I lose a bet at $65 that is a stop loss and I start a new shoe - if a bet is won at $5.00 the next bet is also $5.00

I record the results after a shoe or after the stop loss

so, the largest bet is $65 and the smallest bet is $5.00

the largest loss I take for any one shoe is usually at the stop loss and is about $350

the largest win for any one shoe is about $225 - there are many smaller wins in between

My results - I haven't recorded the exact number of hands or shoes but after playing for a very, very long time I am up by $3,200

Very long time is years? Daily or near so?

Quote:

I'M HOPING SEVERAL OF YOU GUYS WILL PLAY 4 OR 5 SHOES EXACTLY AS I HAVE INDICATED AND REPORT YOUR RESULTS

or if you can do a sim (which I can't) that would be great - but it has to be with exactly these amounts for the initial bet and the increases and decreases - and there has to be a stopping at the stop loss I indicated

so why don't I go to a real casino and play this-? - I don't need $ anymore or really care about making $ and the nearest casino is a long way from me

and table games such as this are not legal for online gambling in my State

I do enjoy trying to figure out winning methods - I almost always fail to do that - this time is the exception - if it isn't just luck or something else that can be explained

this maybe fits a type of statistical study mistake with data clumping called " clustering error" or something like that. Some very smart people, scientists etc, fall into it, going to their grave convinced about it. Just saying.

Quote:

please note - my OP was incorrect - I corrected it - here is the correct way to increase or decrease

"my initial bet is $25 - and from there I increase by only $5.00 after a loss and decrease only $5.00 after a win - "



https://wizardofodds.com/play/baccarat/

.
link to original post

It does sound remarkable, I hope to do what you asked ... but won't be today

.
no, I'm not losing now

I know I've played at least 100 shoes - prolly quite a bit more

daily for several months - playing at least one shoe day

I'll repeat this from my op - because this is the very intriguing question -

"is it possible that this bet selection method is the reason that it is winning so much? - using it you cannot get creamed by one side Banker or Player dominating"

if that is not the answer - then I have no clue as to why I've been winning so much

.

Bet selection is not the reason, or if it is, you'll astound us all. Who knew?

I think it has been shown that a betting system can go for a long, long time , like 100 shoes, without being a casino beater in the end. I don't know enough to be good at demonstrating

As for clustering error, this comes up in cancer neighborhood data. There was a case years ago in the news in Alexandria VA where a cul-de-sac with maybe 20 houses had a bunch of people come down with a type of cancer. That it was way past expectations was clear. They did all kinds of testing and finally concluded it was a cluster. This cluster stuff in cancer with neighborhoods has been repeated elsewhere. In the one I followed, the residents of the zone were largely still convinced it wasn't just chance.

The thing to note is if you conduct many, many searches for neighborhood data, not only is a cluster possible, it is inevitable. So I am comparing what you said, that you have tried this, that, and the other thing over and over, that maybe a cluster phenomenon is at work. Someone better informed than me about statistics might say this doesn't fit that, so I could be wrong.

.
another possible reason it has been effective is that the chase of the losses is so small (just a $5.00 increase after a loss) - less chance of a large loss - there has been no gigantic loss in any shoe - mostly because of the stop loss - of course, it would be possible to have 5 or 6 large losing shoes in a row - that hasn't happened - it hasn't even come close to happening - I don't even recall large losses in 2 shoes in a row

I think you are suggesting that it has just been extreme luck
I guess that is possible
I plan to keep playing about 1 or 2 shoes per day
it only takes a few minutes to play a shoe
today is Sept. 9 - I will report again in 3 months, around December 9
by then I should have played at least about 100 more shoes
if it continues to win for another 100 shoes will you still suggest it has just been luck?
I don't think that I would be able to accept that if it continues to win at this astonishing pace

.

200 more shoes and you keep increasing, I'll claim it is all luck, don't try this anybody! Meanwhile you will see me at the casino putting into action

Quote: lilredrooster

.
I realize that this post might make me look ridiculous or foolish but I'm trying to learn WHY

I'm hoping you guys can help me understand why I've been winning so much for so long - much beyond what luck could accomplish

of course I know that betting progressions can't overcome the HA

for many years I've fooled around with them on the bacc game and I've always lost

until recently - this one combined with my bet selection - I've just kept winning - it's very astonishing to me

on the Wizard's page on the D'Alembert progression he tests it betting on Player with 65 billion hands and found it to lose exactly the HE -

but I play it differently and with a certain bet selection

on the first shoe there is no bet on the first hand and from then on I bet whatever came last - Banker or Player (no ties) - (of course I know that the payout on a winning Banker bet is less - it doesn't seem to matter)

is it possible that this bet selection method is the reason that it is winning so much? - using it you cannot get creamed by one side Banker or Player dominating

you do get creamed when it flips back and forth between Player and Banker - I handle that with a stop loss

my initial bet is $25 - and from there I increase by only $5.00 after a loss and decrease only $5.00 after a win -

if I lose a bet at $65 that is a stop loss and I start a new shoe - if a bet is won at $5.00 the next bet is also $5.00

I record the results after a shoe or after the stop loss

so, the largest bet is $65 and the smallest bet is $5.00

the largest loss I take for any one shoe is usually at the stop loss and is about $350

the largest win for any one shoe is about $225 - there are many smaller wins in between

My results - I haven't recorded the exact number of hands or shoes but after playing for a very, very long time I am up by $3,200

I'M HOPING SEVERAL OF YOU GUYS WILL PLAY 4 OR 5 SHOES EXACTLY AS I HAVE INDICATED AND REPORT YOUR RESULTS

or if you can do a sim (which I can't) that would be great - but it has to be with exactly these amounts for the initial bet and the increases and decreases - and there has to be a stopping at the stop loss I indicated

so why don't I go to a real casino and play this-? - I don't need $ anymore or really care about making $ and the nearest casino is a long way from me

and table games such as this are not legal for online gambling in my State

I do enjoy trying to figure out winning methods - I almost always fail to do that - this time is the exception - if it isn't just luck or something else that can be explained

please note - my OP was incorrect - I corrected it - here is the correct way to increase or decrease

"my initial bet is $25 - and from there I increase by only $5.00 after a loss and decrease only $5.00 after a win - "



https://wizardofodds.com/play/baccarat/

.
link to original post

Variance is real and most people vastly underestimate it. What you think is impossible by luck alone might actually not be all that unlikely.

Having said that I didn't actually do any math on your specific betting progression. But I don't need to do the math to tell you that your EV is exactly your edge on one hand (which is negative) multiplied by the amount of money you bet. That's just a mathematical fact, and it's quite easy to prove. Any difference between this expected result and your actual result is due to variance.

Another possibility is that there is some bug in the game. That seems less likely though.

Wrote a post that got lost due to too much traffic at WoV, didn't post. Bottom line, lost $65 right away on the Wiz game and couldn't tell you how many games that was, too hard to keep track. I was supposed to quit when losing 65, right?

PS how do you know you have played a shoe?

Quote: odiousgambit

Wrote a post that got lost due to too much traffic at WoV, didn't post. Bottom line, lost $65 right away on the Wiz game and couldn't tell you how many games that was, too hard to keep track. I was supposed to quit when losing 65, right?

PS how do you know you have played a shoe?
link to original post

if you lose a bet at $65 (8 $5.00 increases above the initial bet of $25) that is your stop loss - usually when that happens there will be a net loss of around $350

the game gives you a written notice that the next hand is the last hand of the shoe - that's how you know the shoe is over

I'm assuming you don't mean that you had a total loss of $65 -

.

I was doing it wrong, maybe still doing it wrong.

I tried again, determined to finish a shoe. I lost $240 and found it pretty boring, but if it had been real money that would have been different.

Running bad, I was often down to $5 but just kept betting $5, I guess that was right. In my thinking, this was when you would deploy stop loss, but it is quite different thinking to say I'll stop at lsoing a $65 bet, this would be when you were running really good, but just gave back a little. Why would you be down $350? So it seems I'm not following the instructions still

Quote: odiousgambit

I was doing it wrong, maybe still doing it wrong.


Running bad, I was often down to $5 but just kept betting $5, I guess that was right.

yes, you are doing it wrong

it seems like you are decreasing by $5.00 after a loss and increasing by $5.00 after a win

that is the opposite of the system which is:

increasing by $5.00 after a loss and decreasing by $5.00 after a win

the first bet at the start of a shoe after the first hand which is no bet so you know which way to bet is $25.00

this is the way D'Alembert is played - from the Wizard's page on it:

"The only thing that everybody seems to agree on about the d'Alembert is that the player increases his bet by a unit after a loss and decreases by a unit after a win"

you and SkinnyTony who have posted that my winnings have just been extreme luck have pretty much convinced me that that is likely to be the case

I will keep playing until I have played another 100 shoes and report back

.

Quote: Davelee

Betting systems cannot by themselves overcome the house edge. It is a simple mathematical fact. Get over it.

What you really want is for someone to say "No you weren't lucky! YOU ARE A GENIUS!" You are not. YOU ARE A COMPULSIVE GAMBLER who got lucky

no, I don't think I'm a genius and I am not in any way suggesting that - what I have done is not in any way original - I just put a few different things together

and I've always accepted your first statement - and I don't deny it now - just trying to figure out why - and as I just stated - I am now pretty sure it has just been extreme luck

as far as being a compulsive gambler - THAT IS NONSENSE - as I indicated in the first post - I DON'T GAMBLE AT ALL ANYMORE -

the Wiz's game is a FREE GAME - no money changes hands

I just enjoy trying out different systems to see what happens

gambling, for me, is all in the past - I don't need it and I don't want it

this is what I stated in my first post in this thread "of course I know that betting progressions can't overcome the HA"

I kinna knew my thread would get this kinna reaction - but I wanted to learn and find out why - so I thought it was worth it to post even if it made me look foolish

.

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: odiousgambit

I was doing it wrong, maybe still doing it wrong.


Running bad, I was often down to $5 but just kept betting $5, I guess that was right.

yes, you are doing it wrong

it seems like you are decreasing by $5.00 after a loss and increasing by $5.00 after a win

that is the opposite of the system which is:

increasing by $5.00 after a loss and decreasing by $5.00 after a win

the first bet at the start of a shoe after the first hand which is no bet so you know which way to bet is $25.00

this is the way D'Alembert is played - from the Wizard's page on it:

"The only thing that everybody seems to agree on about the d'Alembert is that the player increases his bet by a unit after a loss and decreases by a unit after a win"

you and SkinnyTony who have posted that my winnings have just been extreme luck have pretty much convinced me that that is likely to be the case

I will keep playing until I have played another 100 shoes and report back

.
link to original post

This is a progressive betting system. Progressive betting systems basically give you a high probability of a small win and a small probability of a big loss. So winning streaks are common. You are going to be ahead until the big loss hits. This is akin to laying huge odds on massive favorites at sports betting.

The D'alembert is actually considered a negative progression system. All betting systems are new to me, so it was easy for me to get things backwards. I’ve got it down now and done 3 shoes now for the rooster and am ahead a couple hundred.

It’s kind of interesting to experience, it seems to be a very good way for seeming to maintain bankroll, in fact maintaining it very well most of the time.

I decided to try with craps. The Don’t didn’t go well since rough periods in the comeout are common. I thought a one roll bet might be better anyway, and tried the field. That did not go well at all, but we have to note it wasn’t much of a trial. So finally I went with the pass line starting with $200 and used $25 for going up or down and was up $1000+ right away, not too unusual even if not using a betting system.

Red or Black with roulette next
PS, broke about even with the roulette , got bored, quit

Quote: odiousgambit

Red or Black with roulette next

I'm sure you know this but just in case:

the HE on roulette is very high - 5.26% on a 2 zero wheel and 2.70% on a one zero wheel

and my understanding is it's very hard to find a one zero wheel in the U.S.

your pass line and don't pass bets on craps were a much lower HE - only about 1.4%

baccarat is the lowest - 1.06% on the Banker and 1.24% on Player

just sayin' - I personally would never play roulette if I was doing this -
.

Quote: lilredrooster

Quote: odiousgambit

Red or Black with roulette next

I'm sure you know this but just in case:

the HE on roulette is very high - 5.26% on a 2 zero wheel and 2.70% on a one zero wheel

and my understanding is it's very hard to find a one zero wheel in the U.S.

your pass line and don't pass bets on craps were a much lower HE - only about 1.4%

baccarat is the lowest - 1.06% on the Banker and 1.24% on Player

just sayin' - I personally would never play roulette if I was doing this -
.
link to original post

the WoO game I found is European roulette with one zero. The higher HE with the field in craps might have helped that go south. I broke about even with red/black roulette but didn't play long

Quote: odiousgambit

The D'alembert is actually considered a negative progression system. All betting systems are new to me, so it was easy for me to get things backwards. I’ve got it down now and done 3 shoes now for the rooster and am ahead a couple hundred.

It’s kind of interesting to experience, it seems to be a very good way for seeming to maintain bankroll, in fact maintaining it very well most of the time.

I decided to try with craps. The Don’t didn’t go well since rough periods in the comeout are common. I thought a one roll bet might be better anyway, and tried the field. That did not go well at all, but we have to note it wasn’t much of a trial. So finally I went with the pass line starting with $200 and used $25 for going up or down and was up $1000+ right away, not too unusual even if not using a betting system.

Red or Black with roulette next
PS, broke about even with the roulette , got bored, quit
link to original post

Of you increase after a loss and decrease after a win isn't that progressive? Or do I have the definitions backwards?

The point is that when you chase losses by increasing after a loss it usually works and you win a little. But the rare time it doesn't, it's a disaster.

It's basically a more mellow version of Martingale. And we know how that ends.

.
the link has the best description of betting systems I've ever seen - it's pretty interesting

they acknowledge that no betting system can overcome the HE

they state that these systems came from the 18th and 19th centuries

the systems were often touted by casinos to encourage more gambling

they don't claim that the D'Alembert is a winning system - but they indicate that in certain ways it is better than other systems - which is why I tried it

they compare one system to another

the math portion of it is very deep - highly intellectual - too deep for me - but there are others here who may enjoy it

from the link:

"In this article, we compare some systems on their return on investment and
their success in hiding their pitfalls. Systems that provide a moderate gain with
a very high probability seem to accomplish this by stopping when they are
ahead and more generally by betting less when they are ahead or at least have
just won, while betting more when they are behind or have just lost. For historical reasons, we call this martingaling. Among martingales, the d’Alembert
seems especially good at making an impressive return on investment quickly,
encouraging gamblers’ hope that they can use it so gingerly as to avoid the
possible large losses, and this may explain why its popularity was so durable.
We also discuss the lessons that this aspect of gambling can have for evaluating success in business and finance and for evaluating the results of statistical
testing."


https://www.probabilityandfinance.com/articles/57.pdf

.

The late* Mission146 put it well, I thought, when he said something like "gamblers will accept not winning, what they really want is to just keep playing". I think that describes anybody who knowingly plays a negative expectation game ... you want to win, sure, but you absolutely have to accept you won't in the long run. But can you stay and play as long as you wanted?

The combination of baccarat and d'Lambert seems to work for this secondary goal, that intrigues me a bit

With Martingale, you just kind of know the hammer is coming down due to overbetting. With d'Lambert what is it that looms exactly? I guess it must be the same thing, but for any given session, it appears unlikely

* 'late' in the sense that he appears to be unable to rejoin the living *here*. He most likely is still alive

the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!”   She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder

Quote: odiousgambit

With Martingale, you just kind of know the hammer is coming down due to overbetting. With d'Lambert what is it that looms exactly? I guess it must be the same thing, but for any given session, it appears unlikely

if you have a stop loss - as I do, when there is a losing bet at $65 - you won't have a gigantic loss in any one shoe

you could do it differently, and maybe it would be better - by just using a stop loss of for example $300 - then starting another shoe

that would not a gigantic loss but it would be a large loss -

but of course it's very possible to have several large losses in several shoes in a row

that hasn't happened to me yet - but I guess it will happen sooner or later

.

Quote: odiousgambit

The combination of baccarat and d'Lambert seems to work for this secondary goal, that intrigues me a bit

With Martingale, you just kind of know the hammer is coming down due to overbetting. With d'Lambert what is it that looms exactly? I guess it must be the same thing, but for any given session, it appears unlikely

link to original post

The hammer is a smaller and it comes more frequently. That's really all you can do -- trade size for frequency. In the end your losses have to outpace your wins, by exactly your volume times the house edge. There no way around this. The losses can be very rare and massive, or frequent and small, or something in between.

I did 9 total shoes and wound up losing $437.50 overall

Just guessing $10,000 at the least was bet in those 9 shoes, so perhaps lost more than the EV, but like I said, just guessing on total amount bet

too boring to do more. Running bad on the last shoes influences that, so an element of bias there [did not set out to do x amount of shoes, which would be more fair]

Quote: odiousgambit

I did 9 total shoes and wound up losing $437.50 overall

Just guessing $10,000 at the least was bet in those 9 shoes, so perhaps lost more than the EV, but like I said, just guessing on total amount bet

too boring to do more. Running bad on the last shoes influences that, so an element of bias there [did not set out to do x amount of shoes, which would be more fair]
link to original post

I'm surprised you made it through 9 shoes. You have more patience than I do.

This is the perfect thing to simulate. It will tell you exactly how rare swings of a certain size are.