Lower variance bet baccarat?

If while playing baccarat I was only to place a single bet for the streak to end (opposite side) after any time there had been a run of 4 player or bankers- would this reduce variance over a comparable number of bets, compared to just betting player or banker everyhand?

Gambler's fallacy strikes again.

No, each hand is independent. (It doesn't matter if you bet after a streak of 4 or 400)

Quote: Beethoven9th

Gambler's fallacy strikes again.

No, each hand is independent. (It doesn't matter if you bet after a streak of 4 or 400)

The longest known streak is 23 Bankers in a row, I believe.……that doesn't mean anything? Just asking, no fight here.

Wondering what the largest Player/Banker spread in a shoe is………65 Banker, 15 player?………that's out on the extreme tails of the Bell Curve, I'm guessing.

Quote: treetopbuddy

The longest known streak is 23 Bankers in a row, I believe.……that doesn't mean anything?

Nope.

Quote: treetopbuddy

Wondering what the largest Player/Banker spread in a shoe is………65 Banker, 15 player?

Don't know. All I can say is that the most I've personally seen is a difference of about 27 or 28.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Gambler's fallacy strikes again.

No, each hand is independent. (It doesn't matter if you bet after a streak of 4 or 400)

I understand that each bet in this scenario is just as likely to lose as win, just interested in the variance side of things, would it have the same variance as betting either player or banker everyhand over the same amount of bets?
Eg going to get closer to expected 50% strike rate with less swings?

If you make a set number of bets, it doesn't matter if they're on consecutive hands or if they're all spread out. It's all the same (assuming that you're making the same bet each time and betting the same amount).

Quote: Walkinshaw30t

I understand that each bet in this scenario is just as likely to lose as win, just interested in the variance side of things, would it have the same variance as betting either player or banker everyhand over the same amount of bets?
Eg going to get closer to expected 50% strike rate with less swings?

Same variance per hand bet. You would be betting way fewer hands per hour (~12%), but same variance over 100 hands both ways.

heard punters yapping about a 26 bank streak and have read about a a 50 hand difference for the player over the banker in a single shoe, shoe ended with 11 bankers in total and humongous players streaks. Played a shoe were there was 6 ties in a row. not bad for a 14% HE, casino didn't pay a single cent because nobody was betting them. I'd think twice about this banker edge, you need to spend more time playing or watching.

While every hand is 'fify fify', observation tends to point to less varience betting against a streak of 4 than B and P every hand, so long as ya stop after so many losses, you never know when it might end.

Quote: RolexWatch

heard punters yapping about a 26 bank streak and have read about a a 50 hand difference for the player over the banker in a single shoe, shoe ended with 11 bankers in total and humongous players streaks. Played a shoe were there was 6 ties in a row. not bad for a 14% HE, casino didn't pay a single cent because nobody was betting them. I'd think twice about this banker edge, you need to spend more time playing or watching.

While every hand is 'fify fify', observation tends to point to less varience betting against a streak of 4 than B and P every hand, so long as ya stop after so many losses, you never know when it might end.

I would agree that the variance does seem to be alot tighter on this bet in my experience.