When it comes to even chance betting, I switched from roulette to baccarat a little while ago. Changing to a lower HA game seem to make sense, plus there are more hands per hour than spins.
I've also come to appreciate the shoe-nature of baccarat, in that it offers a clear break in proceedings which can help psychologically if nothing else.


I didn't really expect to see any difference in the maths of the games, apart from a very slight advantage to Banker (Banker should win 51 out of every 100 hands due to the way the cards are dealt, but for this advantage you pay a 5% commission if it's a winning bet on Banker).


However, I've read a few mentions of the difference in results – roulette more streaky, baccarat choppier etc.. is this belief widely held? Or even provable?


Looking back over old shoes, I don't really see any difference in results between Banker/Player & Red/Black.. maybe in the long-term, the 50.7% edge for Banker shows itself clearly, but shoe to shoe, is there anything exploitable?

Quote from: Twisteruk on November 06, 2012, 06:54:07 PM

IF L hits I wait to see if it forms the full opposite Pattern, in this case LHL. IF HL do not follow I then wait until the next block of 3 starts and Im looking, again, for a H

Get me ?

& what do you do if HL does follow, so you have LHL?

cheers for this Victor - is there a certain number of spins in which you'd like to see the 3 numbers appear?
& would you hold the bet for a certain amount of time?

Quote from: Twisteruk on November 06, 2012, 05:28:30 PM

I also only play the 2nd and 3rd leg of the Selection so my stake is,

First EC 1,2

Second EC 4,8

hi Twister - is there any reason why you play the 2nd & 3rd leg, and not the 1st & 2nd?


say, the last remaining pattern is HLH, so you sit out the 1st leg, and it comes L, so you would've won, do you make the bets anyway?

Quote from: seykid31 on October 20, 2012, 02:39:11 PM
this is being played for real in a casino?

Online, live dealer.


Tonight had this:


PP
B
PP
B
P
B
PP
B
P
B
PP
B
P
B
P
BB
P
BBBB +1
P 0
B -1
P -2
BB
P
B
PPPPPP -1, 0, +1
B 0
P -1
BBBB -2, -1
P -2
BBBBB -3, -2, -1, 0, +1
PPPPP 0, +1, +2; could've carried on here maybe - still looking at win-goals etc..
BB <<<<played as series/singles bet +3
PPP <<<< i could've played this for a win, but decided not to push my luck here & was happy with +3.
B


as i said in my first post, I don't play strictly to the 'wait for an std3' before betting. I thought this looked a good opportunity so played.

Well just to finish this idea off, this is a real play example of how you might combine this PnF bet with a more normal Marigny type attack on series.


PnF bets are in bold; Marigny bets underlined & running totals in brackets.


B
P
B
P
B
PP
B
P
B
P
B
P
BB
P
B
P  14 singles/2 series of 2: STD3
BBB <<<<trigger for PnF bet 'BBB'
PP -1, 0
B -1
P -2   [-1]
BB -3 [-2]
P
BB
PP
BBBB <<<<trigger for PnF bet 'BBB', [-1] -2
PPP -3, -2, -1 [ 0]
BB -2, -1 [+1]
PP -2, -1 [+2 - END Marigny bets]
B -2
P -3
BBB -4
P
BBB <<<<trigger for PnF bet 'BBB'
PPP -5, -4, -3
BB -4, -3
P -4
BB -5, -4
PP -5, -4
BBBBB -5, -4, -3, -2, -1
P -2
BBB -3, -2, -1
PPPPP -2, -1, 0, +1, +2


END +4




I came to look at this mainly through real play, but i just did a quick 600 placed bets test (see attached) - flatbetting to +2, it always recovered & finished +62units, z-score 2.53.
A real grind at times though, & I don't doubt there would be sequences that would be even longer, possibly not to recover.
I would use a progression to try & recoup though.


That's the way i envisage it - a bet to double-up with Marigny opportunities.


Cheers & good luck

Dear Wannawin


The PnF chart is only to visually represent what happens before you have 5 changes in direction, ie. RRR/BB/R/BBB/RRRR


[attachimg=1]


To move across 1 cell, the average would be 2-3 singles, 1-2 doubles, & 1 three or more, 7-10 spins on average.


The rest you are right.


Any effect of the length of streak amongst the singles is the main area: whether shorter streaks can trigger an FTL bet, as well as the usual Marigny bet for the series to correct themselves..

This is regarding imbalance, waiting for a trigger to show possible correction & then betting thereafter.
In that respect it's broadly based on Marigny, however I'm not really a purist when it comes to this – for instance, I don't always wait for the 3STD, & I'm prepared to use progressions if needed (though not if I can help it), both negative & positive.


So the idea below is just 1 where the application is quite simple really, but the idea behind it may be worth looking at & may provoke new ideas/improvements.

The basis: if we have a PnF cell 5 chops across, on average it takes approximately 7-10 spins to cross a cell.
We can interpret the results from reaching an STD3 (specifically in this example with singles contra series) visually more directly to a 'point & figure' chart.

If we have an STD3 of singles contra series, with streaks no longer than 2 or 3, we know that it is has been taking fewer than expected spins to cross a cell, therefore, we are betting, after a trigger, for a correction in the number of spins it takes to cross future cells.
This is where the idea of the PnF chart will differ from the normal Marigny notion where any streak is worth 1. If we are looking at spins to cross a cell, then the length of those streaks do matter. For our play here, we want streaks of a short length, because then the number of spins to cross a cell would still be under-represented. A streak of 5 or 6, although still keeping within the STD3 framework, would not fit in with this premise.

At best we can have a good correction in our favour; more probably, an evening out producing low variance.
The worst – the deviation increasing. In this instance, no wild chasing & a sufficient BR to ride it out is needed.
We can't know the outcome of the next spin, but we can be prepared to take a sufficient sample size after our triggers that will hopefully bring about the correction we are looking for (remembering that 'correction' can just mean the deviation not continuing to grow).

Trigger is 3 in a row.
Play FTL until 3 losses in a row – stop, wait for next trigger, continue until you have +2 or -6.
If I reach -6, I would start to use a positive progression (contra d'alembert) to break even or get close. Another couple of losses & increase the base bet to 2units.

That's it – like I said, a lot of words to describe a pretty simple way of play – it's the correlation between imbalances & thinking of them in terms of a PnF chart that I thought might be interesting.

Thanks to Drazen for providing the samples. I've tried to pick a couple that are tricky, many will be a more straightforward +2.

EG1:

314: b
315: r
316: r
317: b
318: r
319: b
320: r
321: b
322: r
323: b
324: b
325: b
326: b
327: r
328: b
329: r
330: b
331: r
332: b
333: r
334: b
Red & Black
Singles=14 | Series =2 | Ecart =3.0
Formations = B RR B R B R B R BBBB R B R B R B R
Sequence|-->35 1 36 11 5 17 18 29 23 17 8 11 8 21 24 7 20 7 15 23 (8 ) @ SPIN NR-334


335: r
336: b
337: b
338: r
339: r
340: b
341: b
342: b    <<<<trigger 'bbb'
343: b    +1
344: r     0
345: b    -1
346: r     -2
347: r
348: b
349: b
350: r
351: b
352: r
353: r
354: r     <<<<trigger 'rrr'
355: r     -1
356: b    -2
357: b    -1
358: b    0
359: r     -1
360: r     0
361: b    -1
362: r     -2
363: r     -1
364: r     0
365: b    -1
366: r     -2
367: r     -1
368: b    -2
369: b    -1
370: b    0
371: b    +1
372: b    +2           END +2
373: b   
374: r     
375: b   
376: b
377: r
378: b


EG2:

453: l
454: h
455: l
456: l
457: l
458: h
459: l
460: h
461: h
462: h
463: l
464: h
465: l
466: h
467: l
468: l
469: h
470: l
471: h
472: l
473: l
474: h
475: h
476: h
477: h
478: l
479: h
480: l
481: h
482: l
483: h
484: l
485: h
486: l
487: h

Low & High

Singles=20 | Series =5 | Ecart =3.0
Formations = L H LLL H L HHH L H L H LL H L H LL HHHH L H L H L H L H L
Sequence|-->14 27 4 7 2 35 16 24 23 21 12 29 12 23 5 12 28 11 31 9 18 36 20 22 31 9 33 5 25 5 27 9 33 16 (33) @ SPIN NR-487

488: h
489: l
490: h
491: h
492: h    <<<<trigger 'hhh'
493: l      -1
494: h    -2
495: l      -3
496: h
497: l
498: l
499: l      <<<<trigger 'lll'
500: h    -4
501: h    -3
502: h    -2
503: h    -1
504: l      -2
505: h    -3
506: l      -4
507: l
508: l      <<<<trigger 'lll'
509: l      -3
510: l      -2
511: l      -1
512: h    -2
513: h    -1
514: l      -2
515: h    -3
516: l      -4
517: h
518: h
519: h    <<<<trigger 'hhh'
520: l      -5
521: h    -6
522: h    -5 [start contra d'alembert]
523: h    -3
524: l      -6
525: l      -5
526: l      -3
527: l      0              END 0
528: l
529: l
530: h
531: l
532: h
533: h
534: h
535: l
536: l
537: l
538: l
539: l
540: l
541: h

In the example above, in real play, once I reached the second -4, & then got back to -1, I probably would've stopped after another loss taking me to -2.

I would be happy to read any ideas people have for improving this, whether it be the triggers in & out, MM, stop-wins/losses etc...