A friend of mine claimed about this method:
- after a natural shows (so a 8 or a 9 with two cards) bet the side that won, once. Won or lost wait for another natural.
- MM at will, he deploy a marty of 4 terms but you can use different ones. accept the -15 loss.
- expect +10/15 units per shoe on winning ones
GL
Andrebac,
Did he give an explanation as to how or why a natural 8 or natural 9 would affect the next decision?
Is this something he's observed via data mining or is there another theory at work here?
AD
I must say that's not mine so I can't give a qualified answer.
IMO I can imagine that you're betting the side that's "MORE IN LUCK" at the moment.
Anyway I start checking this pattern, along my play, and sometimes it's interesting, it's giving some units with a low drawdowns. I need more shoes before giving an update...
hi Andrebac (from BaccaratForums? - nice to see you posting here)
I've always wondered about those claims to be able to take meaning from the cards as they fall rather than just play a simple even chance game.
You do see runs where one side's luck appears to be in for a few hands, 8's 9's etc..,
I'll maybe keep a closer eye on it for a while, though my mind tells me it shouldn't mean anything or happen with any greater regularity..
cheers
Hi Monaco, it's me! Unfortunely BF is dead and there are no baccarat forums around...
I start checking this pattern and it's nice. I watch it and when the bet called is according to the mine, I bet one unit more. I keep it under investigation, lucky side mostly hold on...
OK, I've seen this method mentioned many times and evidently there are a few who swear by it.
In an attempt to at least see if it has any viability to it, I am willing to go into my extensive database of LIVE decisions, at least the one database that also shows individual hand results, and extract a minimum of 100 placed bets on this theory.
This is to at least see if it holds any water at all.
What I would like from the first person to respond, is a random number from 100 to 10,000 and that will be my starting point in the data.
I will run 100 placed wagers and see how they would result, at least from this dataset.
AD
Thanks ADulay
1952
Quote from: monaco on May 31, 2013, 08:16:53 PM
Thanks ADulay
1952
Thanks. 1952 will be the starting line for the run. I should be able to get most of it done on Saturday.
AD
OK, hopefully you'll see that attached Excel spreadsheet subset at at the bottom of this message with the intial test run of 100 placed wagers from my dataset.
I will mention that this "test" is slightly different from the original plan as my data does NOT show natural wins but winning hands with an 8 or 9 as the total. This, of course, is not what the author of the system had intended, but we'll have to live with it for now.
I took each winning 8 or 9 and wagered that it would repeat. In the case of a tie as the next outcome, the bet was placed until a decision was made. There was only one case where two ties came up which made the "decision" play two more hands down. I believe it won.
This data is taken from the live Malta bacarrat table as they used to update the information on a hand by hand basis.
The long losing streak was a single run of 5 in a row. A long win streak of 14 was obviously a large deviation in the short term, but it's gambling. Deal with it.
AD
Andy,
as you said it's different betting after a natural or after a winning 9 or 8 formed with 3 cards.
I tried a dozen of shoes and the longest losing run is 4. I never consider it a main system but if you track this during your usual play, you can place a couple of bets after 2 losses in a row.
You can catch few units at a low risk.
There was another baccarat forum where this particular system play came up several times and was debated long and loud by several people.
No one could actually give a reason for the choice of wagers and it eventually just went away.
I don't normally monitor the natural 8/9 wins (although many Asian players do) but I may jot down some notes during future play if I have the time.
However, with most systems, if you can't find a reason for the placed wager, it's just gambling superstition.
And this one is as good as any as it has some kind of structure to it!!
AD
Andy,
what I really think we should focus is on finding a BS that has a tight variance. It's certain that there are no bet selections that give you a math. advantage. Instead there are many BS with different kind of variance, the tighter are our resource. IMO
Thanks AD. Good study!
Just a quick update.
Ran another 1500 hands, right from the top, and the long loser is 6 (once) and three instances of 5 losses in a row.
Wins are outpacing losers 378 to 328.
I'll continue on with this dataset and try to finish another 2000 tomorrow "after my chores".
AD
AD,
thanks for your work!
I also noticed that longest runs of losses happen when there is a ZZ run "running". is it true also for your experience?
Quote from: andrebac on June 04, 2013, 09:43:49 AM
AD,
thanks for your work!
I also noticed that longest runs of losses happen when there is a ZZ run "running". is it true also for your experience?
Yes, I saw that too.
At this point in testing, I'm interested mainly is just how far out of whack the W/L can go.
For a Marty player, waiting for three losses might be a good way to go on a black table.
AD
All,
OK, an update on this 8/9 testing.
After 20,000 hands dealt, flat betting, the play is up 113 units.
I figure there is no need, at this time, to run the full 40,000 hands so I'll start to build a few basic charts and see if there is any other data that can be gleaned from this sub-set of decisions.
If one attempted to play this way, it would be terribly boring, but then we're not there to be entertained, we're there to take money out of the casino with the least amount of risk.
More later once I find some time to work with the spreadsheet.
AD
ADulay,
Out of those 20k hands, how many bets were actually made?
Quote from: Big EZ on July 21, 2013, 03:21:32 PM
ADulay,
Out of those 20k hands, how many bets were actually made?
Had to go pull up that spreadsheet but the totals looked like this....
20,000 hands dealt. Wagering was on 9049 hands.
4582 wins and 4467 losses.
I think the longest losing streak was something like 14, give or take a few. At least I remember that particular number when I counted it during the run.
AD
Thanks for the info!
Hi Guys,
I just saw this post, haven't any of you heard of Sniper Baccarat?
Adulay I'm sure you must have heard of it.
Thanks
malcop