Has anyone had good success playing runs and using parlays. I'm interested in where they stop the parlay. I was trying something on my own program. Starting at $15. If it missed the $15 or $30 I just replaced the bet and continued the parlay. I found this didn't work too well when it got to $60. Have to admit I only tried this as a test. I'm interested in making over $1000 a night without crazy risk. Does anyone have some good methods.

Systemhunter,

Normally, i would say use creativity and finesse (against a much-larger and more-stationary opponent) to double your casino bank-roll a few times (over a longer period of time) to then bet ever less of that, relatively, than putting all of your initial br on the line each night.

But if you're looking for the "sanest way to be crazy", then i suggest starting your runs at about $100, bet ONLY the banker, wait for about 4 or 5 players. Stop your (single) parley after the win of ($100 + ) $200; if you lose the parley bet, then take the $100 loss and start over. And chase using 1,1,2,5-00$. (For each player-run of 8, if i recall, there is a banker-run of 9. You're just hoping that additional banker shows up to break the long player-runs before 7 or 8, or for the parlay bet. Commission is not a concern... losing your br is.

I really SHOULDN'T be advising anyone in such crude terms because i'm eventually going to complete my own system(s) in the private forum. The "logic" applied here is pretty "messed-up", when the action gets that big wrt br it's not about feelings anymore, you just really win, or really lose. And that i'm in NO WAY further involved with it. I'm cringing here, wondering do i hit post or not. I guess if you see it i did. I wonder what the seasoned Archer is going to say about this??????)

systemhunter

Here is an important consideration. If you are going to employ an "up as you win" approach you must be up first with flat bets.

This is bacause you'll spend most of you time loosing and the worst will happen at some point - your overall success depends on understanding this.

A 3 step parlay looks like this
LLL -1
LLW -1
LWL -1
WLL -1
WWL -1
WLW -1
LWW -1
WWW +7
You will win 7 chips once every 8 attempts

Some people flat bet $25 and add $5 with each win to a max. of $50.

lll___ -3
llw___-1
lwl___-2
wll___-2
wwl__-1
wlw__ 0
lww__+2
www_+7

I'm thinking something is amiss here.

You won't sit at the table and bet that LLW comes up as you'll be out of that "streak" at the first "L".

The only valid starting streaks would be:


WL = -1
WWL = -1
WWW = 7


Anything else is an L at the start which negates the progression.

Or did I miss the entire idea altogether?

AD

Sorry for the confusion guys

remember: what happened before you start betting is of no consequence all that matters is the bets you make.

Perhaps it is earier to look at it this way

L** = -1 Any series starting with a loss is -1 because there's nothing to parlay and you must start anew

www = +7 Of the 3 bet combinations starting with a win only 1 yields a profit, we are looking at all possible outcomes because we don't know if we will loose or win the first bet.

Since we are parlaying we can only loose 1 chip or win 7 there is no other outcomes.

We will succeed once every 8 attempts.

I was doing some research on "parando's paradox", most people try to apply it to craps but I was looking for a way to apply it 50/50 wagers.

Alternating between
1. A 3 step martingale with an 86.5% chance of winning 1 chip ( 7 chips risked to win 1). Wins 7 of 8 attempts
2. A 3 step parlay with a 14.2% chance of winning 7 chips (1 chip risked to win 7). Wins 1 of 8 attempts.

Perhaps someone reading this has an opinion.

For the others, here's a good thread which describes that "paradox", Parrondo's paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . (I will fully post it in the "Gambling theory" thread iff (if and only if) it is of use to us.)

gamblinggrant, i've not heard of that being advantageous for craps; nor did i think to (try to) apply to baccarat.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. For now i can say only that i think most of the further-reaching approaches like that are best applied to where at least one overall advantage (over an opponent) already exists in at least one aspect of a game, or that advantage can otherwise be unearthed by more-basic means first.

gamblinggrant,

A few free minutes to copy a thread from the "sub-alternate" private forum of mine to here.

It relates more to your idea of countering betting progressions, but may as well (or not) be applied to the bet-selection.

Actually, for a while now i have been looking at a true sort of "net betting" concept(s) which would work as you proposed. (I have some strategies "over there" already a bit about that, but nothing per-se refined to any one particular "big hammer". I will be moving more of those posts here when i have the time.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Beating Bacc with MM?
« Thread Started on Jun 29th, 2009 at 3:08pm » HI All


i just thought about that there are sooo manny bac systems and strategys wich deals with streaks and chops .. trends.. and patterns..

but actually now system that looks at the game with a sort of distance... like lets say i dont care waht the next hand will be .. i got a great money management .. like in stock tradings .. or something..


so i just thought about that .. lets say

we have tewo bankrolls one for betting always on banker and one for betting always on player ...


with for example a pluscope progression ...

now my question is would one BK wins enough to even out the loses of the other bankroll ? .. and even lift u up into profit.. ?

any thoughts and comments on this


thnx cheerz

« Last Edit: Jul 7th, 2009 at 11:08am by garnabby »Link to Post - Back to Top 88.117.17.163

Re: Beating Bacc with MM
« Reply #1 on Jun 30th, 2009 at 5:45am » I Just came accross this post on GG ..



Greetings All,

I was recently married and as a result I have been absent from the forums and gambling in general.

While in Germany visiting my new in-laws I met an older gentleman and the conversation turned to gambling in general and baccarat in particular. This fellow told me that he and his partner have been playing for years and with much success. He ountlined the method as follows:

both team members play an up as you win progression of 3-7-11 units, returning to the 3 unit bet on a loss and staying on the 11 unit bet as long as you are winning

also, one member of the team plays using the FTL bet selection, and the other plays DBL, seems simple enough.

I have not tested this partnership method yet but it seems at a glacne to have some merit. During choppy shoes the partner playing the DBL would be making profit at the 11 unit level while the oher guy/girl would be only losing at the minimum 3 unit level.

Conversely, during steaking shoes, both team members would be making profit fist over hand!

Of course the terribles two's are always problematic but could be countered with a stop loss of some sort.

Lastly, with any partnership type of endeavour the issue of trust is paramount inregards to niggling issues such as bankroll contibution, dividing of the profits and reliability!

As usual, all input is welcome!


So its very interresting .. and i guess i wrap my head arround this
to improve it here and there ...

with some help from u guys...

please tel me waht u think.. and how we could beat bacc with team play ... or betting two different methods at the same time .. combined with a good MM plan..


thnx ..

cheerz Link to Post - Back to Top 62.47.231.189

Re: Beating Bacc with MM
« Reply #3 on Jul 2nd, 2009 at 6:43pm » Okay, this wasn't too hard after all.

First, it's the same idea as Ellis' "net-betting" principle except using streakiness instead of side for the bet-selection criterion; and, with a postitive progression instead of negative one. No matter which bet-selection method, there exists its (exact) opposite which is expected the other half of the time: choppy versus streaky; player versus banker; and the more complicated combinations and/or permutations (or arrangements) of P's and B's. Because each such selection-method leads to a P-B sequence which has an inverse the other half of the time at each step. Furthermore, for each type of bet-selection, there are only two ways to apply it... can't have more than two such "betting partners" for any selection-approach.

Second, and as with Ellis, there's no need for another player. Remove the overlapping bets to avoid the commission but w/o any real advantage. "Net-betting" only tends to average out the betting approaches for shallow progressions, hence less is not bet, risked by it. And two partners betting separately would risk no more because the overlapping amounts would hedge each other, except still paying the commission there. Incidentally, it now appears that "net betting" wasn't even Ellis' creation... apparently he stole it from earlier editions of some other popular baccarat-texts, not to imply he never actually had anything of his own (or an other) published.

Third, over a session usually one of the two selection-approaches (or partner-parts) will win more and/or lose less than the other depending on the type of betting employed (because of only the two options for each selection-approach); less often, both will win or lose a lot. Both selection-approaches together (by net-betting) win when either's betting level happens to be higher than the other upon its own winning selections; both lose when either's higher betting level occurs with the losing selection. When applying a negative betting progression, the one selection-approach will usually steadily win more than the other approach intermitently wins until the other finally loses all the way up (or its limit repeatedly, or not if then restarting); but both eventually lose all the way up (or the limit repeatedly, or not) faster for the one selection-approach to steadily win more. And when applying a positive progression, both selection-approaches will usually steadily lose until one finally rarely wins all the way up (or its limit repeatedly, or not if then restarting); and one eventually wins all the way up faster when the other steadily loses more. The combined smaller losses of the latter waiting for a streak are cancelled when both eventually win, as are the combined smaller winnings of the former when both eventually lose, which then happens twice as fast. (During rare streaks the former loses a lot more than wins while the latter wins a lot more than it loses; but usually otherwise, the former steadily wins while the latter steadily loses. Two doomed selection-approaches can't be combined to win even if both together can win (big) for a short while.)

Fourth, in an even contest all the betting styles of progession, stop-loss/start-win, etc, are irrelevant. All styles will neither help nor hurt winning or losing. Eg, a one-time parlay bet will: (+)win 3 units 0.25 of the time; and (-)lose 1 unit (0.50 + 0.25) of the time... to even out to 0 units 1.00 of the time. Progressive betting has no inherent advantage (on its own).

Fifth, nor can generally combining the different types of betting progressions with the different types of net-betting approaches yeild any type or degree of that sort of money-management advantage. (Just other combinations of paragraph three.)

Sixth, asfaras i have researched this, the only ways to use MM only to win casino-games is to reverse their methods for doing so. More on this in the "closure sections" when i get around to it. « Last Edit: Jul 6th, 2009 at 11:56am by garnabby »Link to Post - Back to Top LoggedLike every thing else... immortality goes to every one who figures it out.

I know a guy who plays 2X parlays with $100 chips.
And thats pretty much all he plays.
But you have to have lots of patience to play like he does.

When there is 3 banks in a row then he bets $100 on a 4th bank coming up.
Win and then he lets the $200 ride.
Win and then he is out the door with a $300 profit never to be seen again that day.

Risk $100 to win $300 (minus the juice)

Monkey 7