FMR
Joined: Mar 16, 2016
• Posts: 4
October 25th, 2016 at 3:12:55 PM permalink
Wizard - thanks for such a wealth of info!

Serious question based on observed historical evidence as well as mathematics you have shared on your website. Conventional wisdom says to bet the 1.06% house advantage Banker, BUT the 5% commission appears to reduce the 1.36% straight-up (ignoring ties) advantage versus player to 3.64% in favor of the house.

Player wager disadvantage appears cheap by comparison when commission cost is factored. Betting Player Only based on your math predicts an extra Player loss versus Banker every 74 -80 outcomes (excluding ties).

A successful recreational Baccarat player veteran friend has shown me that he has bet Player-only profitably by overcoming that % disadvantage by varying his bets a modest 6% (rounded to nearest \$5), with either a "recovery" bet increase or "protective" decrease in the subsequent wager, a very muted negative progression.

To mitigate the inevitable lost extra hand and the upward bet bias tendency of the subtle negative progression, he carefully notes cumulative Player wins on his scorecard; when the total reaches 17 (17 X 6% = 102%), he reduces his next wager one additional 6% step, an event which the law of large numbers predicts occurs approximately every 35 hands.

He has deep pockets and has no concern when this muted negative progression leads to 25-30 net losses before the pendulum swings in his favor.

On the other hand, when he has won his way "down" to his self-imposed table minimum bet, he employs a modest win progression upon winning 2 in a row.

He has been a modest but highly consistent winner for three years representing more than 600 hours of actual Baccarat play utilizing this modest negative progression discipline in a variety of ways. He does NOT play to win big money, only humble but consistent profits to supplement generous casino comps including air fare, free play, shows, hotel suites, meals,name entertainment.

Although his average wager is \$250, his bets vary from \$5 to \$1M. Vocationally he is a multi-decade experienced financial professional with a mathematician in his family! He says he wouldn't bother playing if it were not a "profitable" enterprise, however small, and - I have seen the data - he has won over 60% of his 45 minute sessions (on average).

He has most recently embraced the Player-only endeavor, having been quite successful using the "follow the table" paradigm for a season. The desired change is due to the winning Banker bet only netting 1% of the 6% variation, thus forcing uncomfortably higher "recovery" wagers and greater volatility.

With 600+ hours of success under his belt, is he living on borrowed time, or is his counsel worth emulating? Are his assessments of Player net loss frequency correct (about 1 every 74 - 80 hands), and is "profit-sharing" wager reset protocol valid (more than twice as often)?

Thanks for any and all input!