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/
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 ?.
The stats are simple, you cannot beat this game playing one side that's the bottom line
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
Vo Rogue beat a lot of champs too...
What a horsey!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S9acJ_gkLU
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.
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
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.
Quote from: sqzbox on January 08, 2016, 12:48:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Gizmotron on January 08, 2016, 02:56:09 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: HunchBacShrimp on January 08, 2016, 12:23:10 PM
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
Soxfan-thanks for the link. It certainly is "worth a read".
Does anyone understand what he means by "pattern betting" ?
Thanks
Quote from: soxfan on January 08, 2016, 01:46:02 AM
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. :thumbsdown:
I'm having a hard time with this
Quote from: sqzbox on January 08, 2016, 12:48:50 PM
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
Quote from: sqzbox on January 08, 2016, 10:16:54 AM
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
My apologies Soxfan for getting way off topic.
I've read this before, and it is a very interesting read. It does appear to be (to me anyway) some sort of marty. I think it resembles the Great Grandfather of Martys.
Trying to play off of your W/L string. I never understood the reason to keep betting one unit until a single win, and then put down a massive bet. Better to just wait for a single virtual win and then place the wager. Which would be much smaller cause the draw down was limited.
I know some people think that virtual losses don't matter unless you actually put money down. Maybe he adheres to that school of thought. I'm surprised it wasn't a revised version, to cut down on the necessary spread. 1-2500? That's just ridiculously massive.
I'm unaware of any advantage in trying to capitalize on the Double Win. Yeah, it's pretty common. But the same method could have been set up against a single loss, which is more common than a double win. In a casino environment, with less than 50/50 odds, one could argue that the single win is more common than any other occurrence. This, in my opinion, would be a better target, or perhaps the double loss?
HBS
One thing that always botherd me about Seth stuff is his comment that no real player would sit through a horrendous losing streak. Some how he uses that point as one reason his methods are viable. As if that should make a difference. Why would it?
Seth's 5000 subset example of losses in a row (LIAR) seems to be significantly different than ImSpirit's study using multiple bet selections. That's a curious thing and seems to suggest that Baccarat is not the 50-50 proposition we assume but has statistical limitations which promise a win if played properly.
Seth also ignores bet selection as meaningless. This is likely true with over all W/L numbers but different selections will achieve different nemesis patterns which can possibly be exploited by educated guesses and virtual loss concepts.
Even though I personally achieve more wins than losses over what I consider a significant number of trials I still believe that increasing ones bet (progressive betting) is the key to winning. However, an alternative to deep progressions may be keeping bet units tight in a 50-50 game which allows for moderate increases which are more easily able to recoup losses as long as you don't go too deep. In my trend play I generally bet no more than 2 units with a max goal of 4 units. But I recognize at rare times and under the appropriate circumstances I have to go deeper than that and do.
Some time ago I taught myself to play Turnaround. It wouldn't be easy live but doable I'm sure. The hard part was doing the % math in your head quickly to ascertain the proper bet. Not impossible though. I haven't learned and compared Target 3 Player yet. The obstacle for me is simply risk aversion. Instead I studied Stetson Bailey's Win $1k a Day at Craps which looks at the flaw of D'Alembert and has a lot of similarities to Turnaround. Another good read for principles of betting in a guessing game. I still use some of both Seth and Bailey concepts. Particular the ideas of locking up a profit after most wins and using a cut back in unit size when the going gets too rough.
Seth writes: "Stop-loss limits seem oh so sensible in theory, but in truth, scared money never wins." Certainly scared money will alter your game for the worse but I still believe that appropriate stop losses (and wins) within a closed shoe makes sense as long as they are tied to a specific bet criteria. Again, statistical realities exist just as in progressive betting.
Experienced players obviously win using concepts differing from Seth's formulation but not so much different than the principles he is applying.
J
It should also be noted that if Seth (the author) had been successful with this system, he would be extremely wealthy, and be able to show proof of using his system for long-term profit by now many times over.
Perhaps he just want to be right instead of actually having a winning system..................seen this too many times...........all hat, no cattle. :no:
Seth claims to have been winning since 1989, and I believe him. He seems like a straight shooter and he used to make his sports bet picks available for all to see and showed how he won using his target style betting sports in real times, hey hey.
Quote from: TheLaw on January 10, 2016, 01:54:33 AM
It should also be noted that if Seth (the author) had been successful with this system, he would be extremely wealthy, and be able to show proof of using his system for long-term profit by now many times over.
Perhaps he just want to be right instead of actually having a winning system..................seen this too many times...........all hat, no cattle. :no:
Quote from: soxfan on January 10, 2016, 02:36:56 AM
Seth claims to have been winning since 1989, and I believe him. He seems like a straight shooter and he used to make his sports bet picks available for all to see and showed how he won using his target style betting sports in real times, hey hey.
Ok.
So let's say his system works for Roulette.
How much would he be worth now conservatively? Tens of millions? More?
Remember, he has a full-proof system that wins consistently over a long period of time that can be easily executed at any live wheel without any extra attention. Why wouldn't hedge fund managers be using this to make billions with teams of players?
Here's my problem with his whole presentation: He clearly wants to prove that the game can be beaten................so why not do just that instead of posting charts and simulations. Don't get me wrong, those are great, but why not actually show proof of winning just a million...........that's all it would take. Just imagine if he posted deposit receipts from dozens of casinos totaling over a million in winnings.............that would definitely be a first for this or any other Roulette forum.
We have yet to see anyone show proof of a system long-term, and as Seth presents it on his blog, the method fails............I know because I used live spins from Spielbank to see for myself. It looks really impressive until that certain pattern hits, and then it's just a Martingale........nothing more.
I think the system might work on other games, and Seth may even have won on those, but on Roulette it tanks.
From the TargetBettingblog :
"Whenever you feel uncomfortable or threatened in a given location, move and take your NB/LTD numbers to a new layout ("the math" will be unaffected).".
"Anyone who has ever gambled in a casino for more than an hour or two knows the value of taking a break when a prolonged losing streak sets in, and listening to a combination of experience and gut feelings that signal when a change of scene is needed."
............so yet again Faith rears it's ugly head in the face of reason/evidence.
Might as well pull out the Tarot Cards!!! >:D >:D >:D
One last
red flag about the blog: notice how much time he spends waxing poetic about the fact that that game can be beat, but never takes the opportunity to put the system into action over a long period of time. Look at the massive amount of space given to his opinions vs the actual proof.
Man who talks loud.........says nothing :nope: :nope: :nope:
Seth has proved his style. He used to make his cake at the blackjack but now he seem to concentrate on the horses racing and betting sports. And he did say to avoid roulettes cuz of the large house bite and the zeros, hey hey.
@Law: I also had a problem with the rationale of leaving "bad tables" as making any mathematical difference but in fairness I don't think he is making that as a mathematical claim as part of his method. He introduces it as psychological "protection" for real play. It is interesting that he also refutes stop losses as meaningful yet leaving a situation from a bad run is exactly that, isn't it?
My personal viewpoint is that leaving a situation in a closed game like Baccarat has merit. Sure it's a guess that the next shoe will be better but in a 50-50 game deep re-occurring losses in a single shoe is pretty rare so the "probability" of the next closed game being even a tad better is great IMO.
Finally, Law, we should be careful about assuming that just because one has not accumulated a fortune means the method is invalid. Making a substantial income at the casino as ones life work can be awfully draining, unsatisfying and boring leading to all manner of pitfalls both physical and psychological. Perhaps Seth plays just enough to meet his own interests.
(sidebar)What I'd like to see Seth do is make a comparison between the outcomes of several bet selections in the same manner that ImSpirit did to ascertain whether or not different selections actually perform differently. I accept that Seth has problems with Dave's results but I do have confidence in Dave's results when comparing the different methods.
J
This is what I believed.
To win at baccarat you must :
1. Have more wins than losses.
2. If your bet selection couldn't do that, progression is your back up plan.
I prefer numero uno. :cheer:
Quote from: Jimske on January 10, 2016, 06:00:07 PM
@Law: I also had a problem with the rationale of leaving "bad tables" as making any mathematical difference but in fairness I don't think he is making that as a mathematical claim as part of his method. He introduces it as psychological "protection" for real play. It is interesting that he also refutes stop losses as meaningful yet leaving a situation from a bad run is exactly that, isn't it?
My personal viewpoint is that leaving a situation in a closed game like Baccarat has merit. Sure it's a guess that the next shoe will be better but in a 50-50 game deep re-occurring losses in a single shoe is pretty rare so the "probability" of the next closed game being even a tad better is great IMO.
Finally, Law, we should be careful about assuming that just because one has not accumulated a fortune means the method is invalid. Making a substantial income at the casino as ones life work can be awfully draining, unsatisfying and boring leading to all manner of pitfalls both physical and psychological. Perhaps Seth plays just enough to meet his own interests.
(sidebar)What I'd like to see Seth do is make a comparison between the outcomes of several bet selections in the same manner that ImSpirit did to ascertain whether or not different selections actually perform differently. I accept that Seth has problems with Dave's results but I do have confidence in Dave's results when comparing the different methods.
J
My issue with anyone claiming a winning system is simple - With a foolproof winning method you now have access to massive amounts of money.
Now you can choose to just take a little here and a bit there, and leave the rest. But when you claim to have something that has never been proven in over a hundreds years of play, not to mention over a decade of online forums............great claims require great evidence.
This is the real problem with any method presented to the public...................proof. But every time............yes....every time.........someone has an excuse.
So now it's- "perhaps he's not in it for the money". The same guy who figures out how to beat the "unbeatable" game, is not interested in money? ???
I think he's run the numbers using simulations, and comes out ahead. So why not put this to rest?
How about just taking a small bankroll and doubling it several times.........or better yet, why not take say 5000 units and turn it into 100,000 units? That would shut people up faster than any "simulation chart".Seth could prove the system easily if that was his goal, but it's not. He just wants to glory without the risk. :zzz:
Gotta admit, I'm with TheLaw on this one.
Look, Seth's method, while looking absolutely wonderful "on paper" and "in sims", is, for all intents and purposes, rendered unplayable in real casino time.
Simply ask yourself this question?:
Who, in their right mind, will bet upwards of hundreds of times their base bet on any even chance outcome?
Quote from: Garfield on January 10, 2016, 06:12:05 PM
This is what I believed.
To win at baccarat you must :
1. Have more wins than losses.
2. If your bet selection couldn't do that, progression is your back up plan.
I prefer numero uno. :cheer:
I like many other replies but this is my preferred one.
Of course having more W than L would be to play an EV+ game, a pure contradiction in terms.
The game remains an EV- game. Wholly considered.
Actually and imo baccarat provides some EV+ situations dispersed along the way.
We could use many tricks to raise the W/L ratio, of course we know that itlr the final ratio will be W=L, more or less of course as some patterns will have a higher probability even if this one will be erased and inverted by the vig.
Fortunately we know that many patterns and the distribution of such patterns are limited in some way in a direction or another.
It's a sure statistical fact that the SD of many patterns will be more contained than other simpler opposite events as the B/P ratio, for example. But we ought to let the time working for us and not acting in the exact opposite way.
The use of a progression should be a second step tool, that is after having assessed that in some situations the SD will be more contained and we could evaluate such deviations by many ways.
Nothing wrong if some players wish to take advantage of short term deviations, always considering that a large portion of shoes won't get the player any valuable hint.
as.
Quote from: gr8player on January 10, 2016, 07:59:12 PM
Gotta admit, I'm with TheLaw on this one.
Look, Seth's method, while looking absolutely wonderful "on paper" and "in sims", is, for all intents and purposes, rendered unplayable in real casino time.
Simply ask yourself this question?:
Who, in their right mind, will bet upwards of hundreds of times their base bet on any even chance outcome?
......and that's not even the half of it!
Seth presents a Martingale (called LossToDate on the blog) up to 5000 units x your base bet..............and then............keep betting the 5000 units until you're ahead! :no:
Quote from: gr8player on January 10, 2016, 07:59:12 PM
Gotta admit, I'm with TheLaw on this one.
Look, Seth's method, while looking absolutely wonderful "on paper" and "in sims", is, for all intents and purposes, rendered unplayable in real casino time.
Simply ask yourself this question?:
Who, in their right mind, will bet upwards of hundreds of times their base bet on any even chance outcome?
I'm not advocating Seth's methods. Dismissing deep progressions out of hand is a narrow viewpoint. There are lots of ways to approach and there are people who would and do entertain deeper risks than most would. Also, as Seth mentions there is room for reduced escalation.
All progs have ways to reduce escalation. Of course such reduction also reduces profit but progs like Seths reap pretty big returns at the higher bet levels which allow for reductions in bet size and still provide reasonable profit. BTW, there is also room for increased escalation after wins.
Gr8, even with your play you also reduce and increase escalation by reducing a bet after a win and parlay after a win. So the % are different but the concepts are the same.