Baccarat unbeatable plan #1

[Blue_Angel]

We could even extend from 6 to 10 streak, betting against 11 streak to occur BEFORE any streak of 6,7,8,9 and 10 would happen.
As long as 1 up to 5 streaks occur we keep betting against the same side, when the first streak of 6,7,8,9 or 10 occurs quit or change sides.

[Sputnik]

Well 75% strike ratio give you two wins W W and one break-even LW and two loses LL
When the 3 in 4 ratio chop you get at least two wins in a row in most situations to allow you to use a very smooth staking plan.

I am testing this using a variant of the Star-progression, Carsh variant.

Cheers

[Blue_Angel]

Hi Sputnik, I believe 6 steps are sufficient, but if someone would like to extended it up to 10 steps that's perfectly fine with me.
However, I would never consider anything more than 10, on the end is NOT ONLY if it busts but how much profit has been gained overall.
Please share whatever you find, thanks.


Appologise from Asym for high-jacking his thread! 

[Eight Iron]

I am up net 60 units this year, flat betting.  I had similar results last year as well.

Was up net 74 units until yesterday, when two virtual machines beat me.  Lesson learned.

I buy in for ten units, and use a twenty unit bankroll.

Progressions, and systems such and Lebouchere and Oscars Grind, D alembert, and others, will destroy you. They add nothing to overall wins, and increase risk of ruin and variance exponentially.

That is why casinos love system players.

Unlike Blackjack, there is never any mathematical reason to justify using a progression in Baccarat.

[Sputnik]

I am up net 60 units this year, flat betting.  I had similar results last year as well.

Was up net 74 units until yesterday, when two virtual machines beat me.  Lesson learned.

I buy in for ten units, and use a twenty unit bankroll.

Progressions, and systems such and Lebouchere and Oscars Grind, D alembert, and others, will destroy you. They add nothing to overall wins, and increase risk of ruin and variance exponentially.

That is why casinos love system players.

Unlike Blackjack, there is never any mathematical reason to justify using a progression in Baccarat.

You just post words that add nothing to the subject, AsymBacGuy shows a very nice way to tackle even money bets and you just go on with nonsense.
I don't want to offend you, but I saw so many wannabes posting there success flat betting, but never have i seen anyone of those posting how they flat betting.

Hope you get the picture.
Next time you might want to add something with substance to the discussion.

[Eight Iron]

Yeah, I got the picture.

You want me to tell you how I do it.

I analyzed nearly one-hundred different flat bet variations over more than 1,000 shoes, before I settled on the one I currently use. 

After all that work, why would I tell anyone how I play?

I posted my numbers to show flat betting can win units, and discourage people from wasting their bankrolls progression betting.   My previous posts show FTP, and Banker Only can be effective flat bet strategies.

I did add something to the discussion, but you were not listening.

“Stay away from progressions and cancellation systems.”

Millions of players have been using them for the past 100 years.  If even one of them worked, the game would no longer exist.

Wannabes are the ones who waste their time and bust their bankrolls over and over on that nonsense.

There is never a mathematical reason to use a progression in Baccarat.

Even if a side is mathematically favored to win the next hand, it is only favored by a small fraction of a percentage. That is no justification for increasing a bet by 100% or more.

[Sputnik]

There is no need to tell anything, you are just like all the others.
Hello, my name is and I can flat betting and win more then I lose, nonsense.
You can not outguess 50/50 that is just ridiculous.

But I will not offend you and say that you are lying, I will just say that we can agree on that we disagree with each other.

Cheers

[Jimske]

Yeah, I got the picture.

You want me to tell you how I do it.

I analyzed nearly one-hundred different flat bet variations over more than 1,000 shoes, before I settled on the one I currently use. 

After all that work, why would I tell anyone how I play?

I posted my numbers to show flat betting can win units, and discourage people from wasting their bankrolls progression betting.   My previous posts show FTP, and Banker Only can be effective flat bet strategies.

I did add something to the discussion, but you were not listening.

�Stay away from progressions and cancellation systems.�

Millions of players have been using them for the past 100 years.  If even one of them worked, the game would no longer exist.

Wannabes are the ones who waste their time and bust their bankrolls over and over on that nonsense.

There is never a mathematical reason to use a progression in Baccarat.

  Not quite true.  Using progressions will ultimately have the exact same winning as flat betting the average bet size (ABS) of the progression utilized.  So if one can win flat betting one will also win with progressions.  Of course one must consider available bankroll, table limits and variance.  The advantage of progressions vs. flat betting is to win greater % of shoes.
*************************

60 units in 10 months?  That's not a lot but still a win is a win.  I'm not knocking it.  It would be helpful if you were to state how many bets per shoe and units won per shoe on average.  Stuff like that.  Surely that wouldn't be giving anything away.

[Blue_Angel]

  Not quite true.  Using progressions will ultimately have the exact same winning as flat betting the average bet size (ABS) of the progression utilized.  So if one can win flat betting one will also win with progressions.  Of course one must consider available bankroll, table limits and variance.  The advantage of progressions vs. flat betting is to win greater % of shoes.
*************************

60 units in 10 months?  That's not a lot but still a win is a win.  I'm not knocking it.  It would be helpful if you were to state how many bets per shoe and units won per shoe on average.  Stuff like that.  Surely that wouldn't be giving anything away.

Your reply IS ALL THE MONEY!!! 

[AsymBacGuy]

Nice replies on my humble board, thanks!

For one time I'd take the opposite direction, say we want to join a table with the purpose of losing the entire money we get at the table.
What's the speedest way to lose,  say a $1000 bankroll at a $10-$1000 limit table?

Is by betting the whole $1k in just on hand? No way. Actually this is the best move we can make to win, no matter the side we'll choose to wager on.
Same about splitting our one thousand in two parts, hoping to lose two more hands than we win. It's a difficult task, but we know that sooner or later will happen, especially by the HE disadvantage.
Splitting our bankroll in more portions (3, 4 or 10) won't do the job that easy, we need to lose more hands in the process.

Of course the slowest procedure we could think of about losing our $1000 is by flat betting $10, it will take a lot of time to win such "losing reward".

Idea!
We'll bet an important part of our bankroll hoping to lose, then raising the rest part of it hoping to lose again. After all, two losses in a row comes out quite frequently along the way.
Mmmhhhhh, if we bet $300 then $700 when losing the first wager we are increasing the overall probability to be temporarily ahead of $400 and the process repeats.
Mathematically and no matter how we'll split the money wagered, the more we'll proportionally bet after a loss the higher will be the probabilities to win.

Providing finite spots.

I mean that an infinite process of raising the bets from one part increases the probability to win and on the other hand raises the risk of ruin up to the point where either betting limits or our bankroll cannot sustain the action.

We may come up to the wrong conclusion that the best way to lose is the best way to win, that is to bet a lot at the start or an important part of the bankroll, then promptly hoping to get more immediate losses (or wins).

Anything different from that will just dilute the entire process and as we well know time goes in casinos' favor.

Therefore, the more we play (hands), the more we are entitled to lose and the more we raise the wagers the more are the probabilities to lose.

I mean that the more aggressive we are playing at the start and higher will be the probability to win but itlr such procedure will surely fail; on the other hand light progressions may work just on very diluted and well calibrated spots where the probability to win (or lose) is quite restricted and whether properly assessed will sum up.

Imo, we shouldn't want to guess every single hand but just aiming to get a positive outcome on a couple (or 3) of hands serially considered.

as. 
 

[Blue_Angel]

The most probable way to lose all your money on Baccarat is by going all in on every hand, eventually there will come 1 hand to smack your cheek!

[AsymBacGuy]

The most probable way to lose all your money on Baccarat is by going all in on every hand, eventually there will come 1 hand to smack your cheek!

Exactly, unless we go all-in with the maximum bet right at the start. That's why in my example I put the bankroll at $1000 with a $1000 maximum limit.

Imo this is an important concept derived from mentoring people who like to bet not less than half the maximum limit.
If we know to have at our disposal just two (50% or 100%) or three (75%) betting amounts, we'll have a clearer picture of what is going on with our selection.
Only 100% bets cannot be recovered mathematically as the vig will wipe out everything itlr, even though a good selection may hopefully invert the HE.

as.

   

 

[alrelax]

I do personally side with and like what Asym says, although it can be confusing and easily misinterpreted, IMO.

But, to go in and go extremely heavy is a favorite of mine.  It depends on many factors, too many for me to discuss here and now, as to the reason why I did go in heavy. 

However, my 'heavies' are usually with all win money or chips I put aside that already produced me an equal amount or nearly an equal amount and I see something unusually favorable to my style and liking. 

Then I have no problem to go heavy.  Meaning, maybe I started the session with $1,200.00.  Won, $1,000.00 already.  If something grab me, I would have to problem to throw in $750.00 to $1,500.00 on it. 

Or, I played for some time and it was fizzling out, or everyone left or I was just plain tired.  I still have no problem to risk everything I won on one wager or perhaps I did not win, just throw it in and wager for a double or nothing type of situation. 

[AsymBacGuy]

Thanks Al.

Actually I probably posted too many concepts. 

Anyway, it's widely known that casinos fear heavy bettors capable to win fast and quitting the table and not common mortals wishing to be right for a long time.

Imo we do not need to join a $5000 maximum table with the purpose to bet at least $2500.
We could easily set up our minimum-maximum betting standards from 1 to 2 and strictly adhering to this plan.

In a kind of taxed coin flip game we can't hope to be right after two levels of betting.

as.   
   

 

[alrelax]

It is the end of the day, 2 of the coldest days of the year, today and yesterday, but going back up tomorrow morning into the high 40's anyway.

Not much sleep last night.  Trying to close up to go home and watch some movies and cook.  But thinking about this for a few minuets, again without great detail, etc., I have won huge amounts of money in a shorter time or a smaller section of play, then extending and attempting to continue each one of those for those that I did extend. 

I hope that made sense.  Yes, I have gave lots of it back in my first say 15-20 years of play, at least lots more than I do now or have done for quite some time. 

Not that it is always easier to win real quick, at least enough to walk away and all that, but not matter what many say, I find it is easier to win in a much smaller play section, no matter what that section is, than it is to win and prevail with something sizable playing numerous shoes or all night, etc. 

However, the catch 22 sort of saying is, if you don't play or stop playing, you can not win.  (Win more?  Lose less?)  That is what is truly confusing, at least to the real players I have to add.