+ Register

[soxfan]

That Seth cat hasn't posted much lately, but the other day he did pony up a great blog entry. He share my philosophy thinking that to win regular at baccarats/dice you gotta use a deep negative progression with a large bankroll and you gotta have the balls to keep coming over the top making big bets to back up yer play. So cats might want to take a look, hey hey.
http://targetbetting.blogspot.ca/

[vo rogue]

Thx for posting sox, seth has the 3 b's of betting.
He bets player only, not keen on the 5% comm, i thought even with the comm, that banker came out slightly better. Anyone have the stats on this ?.

[Gerard711]

The stats are simple, you cannot beat this game playing one side that's the bottom line

[vo rogue]

Thx gerard7-11 ,i found on wov site, that despite the 5% commission on winning banker bets,
The banker bet has a lower house edge at 1.06%
And player is 1.24%.
cheers

[greenguy]

Vo Rogue beat a lot of champs too...

What a horsey!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S9acJ_gkLU

[sqzbox]

The question regarding whether it is better to play Banker only or Player only is complex - it isn't as simple as just looking at the so-called odds. First of all let's take the Tie out of the equation - they are not what we are talking about here and so are, for all intents and purposes, simply non-existent. So, Player probability is -1.24% - true, and true for all value bets no matter what size. So betting player only is a losing proposition according to the probabilities. Can't argue with that really can we?

So what about Banker? Now it gets tricky. The probability of a Banker is +1.24% - would you dispute that? Let's assume you accept that and move on.

This is the only positive probability bet in the house (I think - don't have craps where I live). But we don't make money on it because we pay commission on Banker (only) and that reduces the odds (note that I am now talking odds, not probability) to -1.06%. (As an aside note that that is only an estimate - the true odds for the modern system of 50% on Banker6 is slightly worse than that, calculated purely mathematically that is.)

Now you could argue that this is still the better bet because it is better than -1.24%. But you would be wrong. It MIGHT be better, but it depends on a number of factors such as: whether you are flat betting or not, whether you are mixing it up with Player from time to time, and at what percentage, and so on. The thing is, the -1.06% is calculated based on flat bets and based on a 5% commission charge on EVERY Banker win. If you progress so that your bet values change then the -1.06% gets worse - MUCH worse, but the player odds remain the same.

Also, I have a suspicion that if you bet ONLY Banker then the -1.06% is made worse by this fact because if, as is most commonly the case, you mix up the betting with Player and Banker then you only get hit by the commission charge when your win happens to be on the time you bet Banker. This is a result of the new way of charging commission. In the old days you would pay commission on EVERY win of Banker but nowadays you might get lots of wins on Banker and then when the Banker6 hits you happen to be on Player and so avoid the commission - you lose the bet but you haven't (and this is the point) won on banker and only got paid at 50%. But if you always bet Banker then you get hit by every win.

I have a theory that the change to the way commission is collected makes serious and long-reaching impacts on the money aspect of the game. To the extent that the calculation of the -1.06% Banker odds is just rubbish - it is actually MUCH worse because of the way it is done.

[HunchBacShrimp]

The problem with the Banker bet is it not an even money bet. Or an EC using some roulette terminology. It's a lay bet. The HE doesn't change for increasing the amount you have on Banker. It's just that it hasn't been increased enough.

You have to bet more than what you need to win. And if you are employing any sort of progression, you have to keep laying more and more. It gets out of hand quickly, and starts to resemble a grand marty as opposed to a regular marty.

As for getting half pay on a Banker 6. You're looking for a win, pile some chips on your bet placement and Push or Half pay. Now that's a problem. You just took a gamble and WON, now you have to win 2 in a row. Odds are against you, even tho the chances are the same. I don't like it.

Similar problem with parlaying winning Banker bets. You lose that last bet, and you still owe commission on all your previous wins even though you netted zero dollars.

HBS

[sqzbox]

There's no HE in baccarat. It is a completely fair game - one or the other will win and you are paid 1:1. But there is a commission built in to pay the house and it just so happens that it is paid on the banker 6. It used to be paid at 5% on all banker wins. This is a commission - or vigorish.  This is completely different to roulette where the odds are not fair odds - that is, you do not get paid according to the chances.

[Gizmotron]

There's no HE in baccarat. It is a completely fair game - one or the other will win and you are paid 1:1. But there is a commission built in to pay the house and it just so happens that it is paid on the banker 6. It used to be paid at 5% on all banker wins. This is a commission - or vigorish.  This is completely different to roulette where the odds are not fair odds - that is, you do not get paid according to the chances.

With conditional probability, Roulette can have large stretches that are truly 50/50 both in chances of hitting odds and pay off odds. The zeros sleep just like the D/C & EC's do. I see it all the time. If you track the sleepers you can trade out two sleepers from the inside layout and substitute them with the two zeros, while they are wide awake, while still covering only 18 numbers. This little bit of logic confounds the frequentist camp of probability fans, but to those of us that play current conditions it makes perfect sense. Sometimes the greens pop up when they should, once every 19 or 37 spins respectively. So you can substitute when you come close to those steady intervals. It's just a casual form of playing what you are getting.

To take that one step further, you can use substitution to give yourself a pseudo house's advantage with this technique. Sleeping numbers being substituted for hottest numbers in all your otherwise groupings type bets slightly improves in the big picture of hundreds of bets.

I've never written a sim to see if playing the red/black, 50/50 game could be improved by substituting hot for cold numbers in the sets. In a large number of spins theory kind of a test I mean. It's easy to see if the greens are sleeping or wide awake. It's not so easy to see the other numbers the same way. Perhaps the sim should be looking at every number the way I do for the greens? There must be a way to watch for hot and cold numbers in my hand written charts.

[XXVV]

With conditional probability, Roulette can have large stretches that are truly 50/50 both in chances of hitting odds and pay off odds. The zeros sleep just like the D/C & EC's do. I see it all the time. If you track the sleepers you can trade out two sleepers from the inside layout and substitute them with the two zeros, while they are wide awake, while still covering only 18 numbers. This little bit of logic confounds the frequentist camp of probability fans, but to those of us that play current conditions it makes perfect sense. Sometimes the greens pop up when they should, once every 19 or 37 spins respectively. So you can substitute when you come close to those steady intervals. It's just a casual form of playing what you are getting.

To take that one step further, you can use substitution to give yourself a pseudo house's advantage with this technique. Sleeping numbers being substituted for hottest numbers in all your otherwise groupings type bets slightly improves in the big picture of hundreds of bets.

I've never written a sim to see if playing the red/black, 50/50 game could be improved by substituting hot for cold numbers in the sets. In a large number of spins theory kind of a test I mean. It's easy to see if the greens are sleeping or wide awake. It's not so easy to see the other numbers the same way. Perhaps the sim should be looking at every number the way I do for the greens? There must be a way to watch for hot and cold numbers in my hand written charts.

This entire quote is 'worth a read' but in the context of roulette - so as not to spoil the context and flow of this thread ( thanks soxfan) I will respond in due course on my Blog Roulette section - thanks for these helpful ideas/ suggestions Gizmotron and will attempt to contribute to this line of thinking.

[soxfan]

I would never bet one side only at the baccarats; but I would and have made good cake bettin the don't only at the dice tables, hey hey.

[soxfan]

If yer gonna run a deep negative progression at the baccarats you should buck up against the ez-bac game where no tax due on winning bankers bets. I say that from personal experience you can get clipped ofr 20-25 percents of profits cuz of tax paid on winning bankers bets, hey hey.

The problem with the Banker bet is it not an even money bet. Or an EC using some roulette terminology. It's a lay bet. The HE doesn't change for increasing the amount you have on Banker. It's just that it hasn't been increased enough.

You have to bet more than what you need to win. And if you are employing any sort of progression, you have to keep laying more and more. It gets out of hand quickly, and starts to resemble a grand marty as opposed to a regular marty.

As for getting half pay on a Banker 6. You're looking for a win, pile some chips on your bet placement and Push or Half pay. Now that's a problem. You just took a gamble and WON, now you have to win 2 in a row. Odds are against you, even tho the chances are the same. I don't like it.

Similar problem with parlaying winning Banker bets. You lose that last bet, and you still owe commission on all your previous wins even though you netted zero dollars.

HBS

[Trbfla]

Soxfan-thanks for the link. It certainly is "worth a read".

Does anyone understand what he means by "pattern betting" ?

Thanks

[TheLaw]

That Seth cat hasn't posted much lately, but the other day he did pony up a great blog entry. He share my philosophy thinking that to win regular at baccarats/dice you gotta use a deep negative progression with a large bankroll and you gotta have the balls to keep coming over the top making big bets to back up yer play. So cats might want to take a look, hey hey.
http://targetbetting.blogspot.ca/

For anyone interested, I did some testing using his exact method over @ rouletteforum.cc several months back.

It failed long-term, as it just turns into an extended Martingale at some point............not to mention his betting range of 1-5000 betting spread (about 25,000 unit bank to start). The one thing he counts on is for you to win more bets than you lose after you hit your 5000unit limit. Using Spielbank results, I found that this is simply not the case.

Having said that, he claims to have run tons of simulations using software, but always talks about moving to another table if things go south.

The blog is a great read, but ultimately it's a failed system as he presents it.

[HunchBacShrimp]

I'm having a hard time with this

There's no HE in baccarat. It is a completely fair game - one or the other will win and you are paid 1:1. But there is a commission built in to pay the house and it just so happens that it is paid on the banker 6. It used to be paid at 5% on all banker wins. This is a commission - or vigorish.  This is completely different to roulette where the odds are not fair odds - that is, you do not get paid according to the chances.

and this

The question regarding whether it is better to play Banker only or Player only is complex - it isn't as simple as just looking at the so-called odds. First of all let's take the Tie out of the equation - they are not what we are talking about here and so are, for all intents and purposes, simply non-existent. So, Player probability is -1.24% - true, and true for all value bets no matter what size. So betting player only is a losing proposition according to the probabilities. Can't argue with that really can we?

No, I won't argue Player having a negative expectation. But apparently you are prepared to make that argument. I'm interested in hearing it......


Again with the half pay on Banker6. If you flat bet it 9 times and get the Banker 6 on the tenth bet then the HE on Banker is exactly the same. So, 1 in 10 works out perfectly. If the actual odds are anything less than say 10 in 95. Then the HE on Banker side starts to climb.
Certainly, if you play Banker only and vary your bet sizes then when Banker 6 hits (assuming a perfect 1 in 10 chance) then you have effectively just paid the HE for 9 winning bets of that same bet value. And if you don't routinely place bets of that value, then yes, you are going to lose a larger percentage of your lower average wager.

In the long run it will work itself out. But in the short run, you will either play a game with positive expectation and never get hit with a Banker 6. Or you will get hammered with several Banker 6's on the majority of your larger bets. Evil machinations of the casino? Maybe. But craps has a similar positive expectation on the Don't, but using a PUSH on the come out 12 to maintain a 1.4 HE. Nobody is up in arms about this.  Soxfan grinds away on the Don'ts using a very deep progression. You can ask him if he feels like he is going up against a HE larger than 1.4.

As for mixing your bets up on Player and Banker and avoiding a Banker6 payout because you are on Player. Keep in mind two things. 1. You were on Player and lost 100% of your wager. 2. You will be making a Banker wager again, just cause you caught a B6 on a player bet doesn't mean you are going to get a free ride for 18 commissionless  banker bets before you get caught by a B6.

Perhaps in the short run, the casino can bust out some players with limited bank roll. But, it isn't that bad of a deal, you still get paid. Better than a push, and far far better than forfeiting half your wager on a Zero in French Roulette.

Presently, the profit casinos make on Baccarat far exceeds expectations. Punters do it to themselves with 100 times the efficiency. The Banker 6 isn't going to make a large impact if any.

HBS