+ Register

[21 Aces]

How Much Should You Bet at Baccarat?
By Alan Krigman

'Unfortunately, the bankroll sufficiency and win goal criteria conflict with one another.'

http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/article/how-much-should-you-bet-at-baccarat-5470



Fun and (Table) Games: Try Baccarat
By Alan Krigman

http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/article/fun-and-table-games-try-baccarat-14833

[DoctorSudoku]

Wish he had covered the dragon side bets to make it a more complete discussion.

[Mars Rocks]

How Much Should You Bet at Baccarat?
By Alan Krigman

'Unfortunately, the bankroll sufficiency and win goal criteria conflict with one another.'

http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/article/how-much-should-you-bet-at-baccarat-5470

I went to my local casino yesterday, and behold there's lots of food deals including steak which I like.  Cheap red wine again this month too.

I got around to watching the baccarat, as I do when I go there.  Four tables going.  Is anyone betting the maximum bet? A: No!  Is anyone betting near the maximum bet? A: No!  Is anyone betting 1/2 the maximum bet? A: No!  Does anyone bet more than a few chips anytime? A: No!
THEY'RE ALL PLAYING CHICKEN, they put a couple of small chips here and there and squeeze the cards and hope that they can look like they're a smart bettor this time.

Does that tell you anything?
Do you think a winning player would bet anything other than the max?
If you can predict the outcome with certainty, you would bet THE MAX.
If you can predict the outcome with 51% accuracy, your betting would slowly move towards THE MAX because you would do some sort of bankroll management to move it up there.  Given that my casino has been open for over 20 years, you can surmise that this isn't happening with anyone.

The answer is simple...Bet with play money, enjoy the casino specials, the free entertainment and socialize with your friends.  Forget about winning anything.

[21 Aces]

I went to my local casino yesterday...

Do you believe that everyone has a lot of money and/ or has zero expenses or that big players got into that position solely through winning?  Let's take your argument to the bigger casino - the financial markets where even central banks haven't cornered the market entirely.

The answer to winning gambling is go all in every opportunity otherwise you are not a winner?

[Mars Rocks]

Do you believe that everyone has a lot of money and/ or has zero expenses or that big players got into that position solely through winning?  Let's take your argument to the bigger casino - the financial markets where even central banks haven't cornered the market entirely.

The answer to winning gambling is go all in every opportunity otherwise you are not a winner?

I'm more than happy to study the financial markets with you.  I'm all-in.

[alrelax]

Wager what you are comfortable with.  Other peoples suggestions, styles, formulas usually don't work for most, those are self thought up and apply to particular formulas and test shoes.  Shoes are random and generally with the highest ratio of failure, no 3 or 5 or 10 or 15 shoes when you are playing will match those that, someone else's 'test results' finished at.

[soxfan]

Most cats should just stick to playin for fun and entertainments, hey hey.

[Joe]

Do you believe that everyone has a lot of money and/ or has zero expenses or that big players got into that position solely through winning?  Let's take your argument to the bigger casino - the financial markets where even central banks haven't cornered the market entirely.

The answer to winning gambling is go all in every opportunity otherwise you are not a winner?

What level of bettor are you, 21 Aces?

[21 Aces]

What level of bettor are you, 21 Aces?

Far in excess of what is warranted by my bank roll at times.  Where I play, 4 figure bets are going off all of the time with 5 figure bettors often enough.  This is not the high limit space of my house. 

Lately, I have not been able to hold discipline.  Odds are the house will be there tomorrow.  The only question is whether you play in a way that gives you the option to be there as well.  I think a real problem for most players is that as you get experience and skill in the game, you lose respect for the risk.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4a7SpxtqmE

[Joe]

Far in excess of what is warranted by my bank roll at times.  Where I play, 4 figure bets are going off all of the time with 5 figure bettors often enough.  This is not the high limit space of my house. 

Lately, I have not been able to hold discipline.  Odds are the house will be there tomorrow.  The only question is whether you play in a way that gives you the option to be there as well.  I think a real problem for most players is that as you get experience and skill in the game, you lose respect for the risk.

I apologize.  I meant what is your base bet? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000?

[21 Aces]

I apologize.  I meant what is your base bet? 10? 100? 1000? 10,000?

At this time it's below $50, but I have put down some very large bets for my situation.  My best sessions did not require large bets at all.

[21 Aces]

How Much Should You Bet at Baccarat?
By Alan Krigman

'Unfortunately, the bankroll sufficiency and win goal criteria conflict with one another.'

http://krigman.casinocitytimes.com/article/how-much-should-you-bet-at-baccarat-5470

Does anyone have more in depth information on this?  Comments?


The following players seem to have the following logic:  ALMOST EVERYONE

- I make $25/ hour on average working.
- Major banks are paying 0.01% Annual Percentage Yield.
- Long term investments in the financial markets should make 3-5% per year - maybe better.
- With a $1,000 I should make $2,000 - $3,000 in 4-6 hours playing baccarat.


Most experienced players have performed like the last bullet at times, but also experienced very rough sessions.  In the outside world of institutional investments in the financial markets, commercial real estate, etc., it's all about consistency of returns and safety of principle...

[Sputnik]

- - - - - - - - - -

Math Professor Posted 03/20/06
John Patrick forum board

- - - - - - - - - - 

Someone quoted John Patrick as saying I don't win much but I don't lose much either.
Now he was critical of this statement but there is a reason for it.

We who have lived with gambling all our lives understand the relationship between what we win and what we lose.

The Equation is simple enough .
Magnitude of profit is usually a function of magnitude of wagering.

One of the most common failures in gambling is progressive betting.
Several small wins are satisfying but  when the next small win does not happen and it turns into a progression which often recovers the day but sometimes results in ruination.

Giving up on a progression is hard because losing can mean the erosion of several days work.

The gambling flaw is inherent in this.
Christopher Pawlicki highlighted this fact.
The equation for winning small returns often calls for a progression .
The progression  ultimately however snatches away the prevous wins.

For example 20 + 20 +20 +20 +20 has been achieved with 50 + 100 + 80 + 120 + 100  The final destructive act is a 100  that does not recover .
Even without a progression 100 absorbs the 5  sets of 20 + wins.

I call this the 20/100 flaw.

20 is therefore 20% of 100.
A good result by any standards.

In order to control the erosion of previous wins the ratio of win to wager
needs to be as close to parity as possible.

Say 80 + 80 +80 +80 + 80  with 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100

If the 100 goes then we still have nearly 4 days work intact.
We can walk away and get them again another day.
Not many gamblers can achieve 80%.

This is the flaw.

There must be plenty of gamblers here who understand this but any replies should be better than 3 and out .
The math does not work.

- - - - - - - - - -

JOHN PATRICK Posted 03/20/06
John Patrick forum board

- - - - - - - - - -

excellent point but go back to your opening paragraph and it is not clear ............You said      "he was critical of this statement ................"

I THINK you meant he was CRITIZIED  for this statement ...............

and you're right..................there were a couple of people who laughed at it as meaning I was content with small wins..........adn that ALL I wanted to do was lose a little each day.........

I am glad you picked up on what I really meant by saying that (naturally) I would like to win more, but I am more interested in holding losses down.........

and THAT point that you made about people who do NOT gamble every day , not realizing this is the total and complete point I try to embellish in their minds every day............

Someone else (I think it was Rick K., a few days ago), also touched on that fact .................how really hard it is to win..........and that you HAVE to somehow, someway, condition yourself to win small to ensure you don't lose big ..........to be able to stay alive in this journey called gambling..........

You showed the SERIES you use ..........

What is the LOSS LIMIT and WIN GOAL you advise...........(percentage wise)

- - - - - - - - - -

Math Professor Posted 03/20/06
John Patrick forum board

- - - - - - - - - -

" What is the LOSS LIMIT and WIN GOAL you advise...........(percentage wise)"

Well that is my question to everyone ! 
What I am doing here is highlighting the problem we have with the percentage we go for.

The greater the difference between the amount we wager and the amount we accept ,as a win ,the more of a problem we have.
Lets say (as you have stated) that 5% is a professional aspiration. So we wager 100 for 5 .

That might seem reasonable but look at the result say over 5 days.
+ 5 +5 +5 +5 +5 = 25 . that's great we are winning 5 each day and we haven't lost. Now on day six we wager 100 and bust out !

We are now - 75 !   

We were going up and down with our 100.
But then we hit a bad spell and it eroded to 0.

The problem here is that we often have to go down to nearly zero
to make the continuous flow of 5's.

if our 5 day win was +60 +30 +20 + 120 +40  and this can be achieved with 100 and the 100 busts after 5 days we have .
won +170.  (270 - 100) .

I often work on 100 or 70 from 200. That is I am prepared to lose 200 for these great returns and if I can manufacture 70 od chips every day with a wager of 200 chips then I am going to survive if the cumulative value exceeds 100 after bust out.

What I would like to know from yourself is what your wager is in relation
to what you accept for that session and how do you overcome this flaw.

This is where Pawlicki is making the case that the crash will come and steal away your cumulative gains. Its the problem that haunts all gamblers.
Gamblers ruin.

[21 Aces]

Thank you Sputnik for this note.

___________________

Can you please clarify if he is speaking about profit/ loss from each hand here:

For example 20 + 20 +20 +20 +20 has been achieved with 50 + 100 + 80 + 120 + 100  The final destructive act is a 100  that does not recover .
Even without a progression 100 absorbs the 5  sets of 20 + wins.

I call this the 20/100 flaw.

20 is therefore 20% of 100.
A good result by any standards.



That is
Hand 1 = +$20
Hand 2 = +$20
etc.

Then a much bigger bet of $100 that loses will wipe out a lot of lower sized wins?  Because if that is the case, isn't the player winning the other larger bets listed?

___________________


I have been looking at positive progression with ranges of 1 - 3 units with moreso 1 - 1.5 units.  I think it is important to look at the specific hand and make a judgement.  For example, if you have a set positive progression approach and it calls to go big on a very uncertain hand, then you have a choice to make.  Go big on a highly uncertain hand or wait for a hand that looks better.

[alrelax]

If you tell yoysrlf what you have to win, you are signing your bankroll/buyin money's death sentence.  I promise that to you.  So easy to say and think in practice or theroy, but the wrong thing to do for real.

It will work against you for numerous reasons.