What is an acceptable win rate per game?

[fauzy]

I just tested this on 1000 8 deck RNG shoes.

There was a total of 12 122 placed bets (when you place a bet on Banker and tie hits, this does not count) and end result was -137.3 units.

LOTI thank you.
sum of both P+B=even value bet B,odd value bet P
08+09=17 bet p

[IamSamRedman]

I understand what you are trying to say, but there is no method out there (within table limits, with an average of at least 10 placed bets per shoe) that will be positive over 1 million shoes. Now if you had said, I can win 1000 shoes (or perhaps even 10 000) and then lose over the next 1000 (or 10 000) then I would definitely agree.

hi loti. ok lets this discuss this further. i think this is good insight and a take on perspective for all here. the main difference between our contentions is that you see this as 1 test of a million shoes. i see this as a multitude of million shoe tests. id like to ask you, what is the number or odds of winning 1,000,000 shoes? what is that number? million shoe test on a 50/50 game have no memory or bearing. to even achieve success over a million shoes does not prove anything. if we were talking about numbers on lets say the behaviour of a specific species of birds and their migration, with tests done over a million times, then there it is safe to assume and conclude a theory. consistency therein is nailed drawn. in baccarat we simply cant.

we are actually agreeing on a certain level here. you say no system can withstand a million shoes. im saying even if it did it doesnt matter and trying to beat that number is a waste of time.

however im still interested as to the why. id like to find out and learn why 1 million shoes is the number to beat in this game of 50/50. why and how will 1 million shoes matter in random? thanks loti.

[LOTI]

hi loti. ok lets this discuss this further. i think this is good insight and a take on perspective for all here. the main difference between our contentions is that you see this as 1 test of a million shoes. i see this as a multitude of million shoe tests. id like to ask you, what is the number or odds of winning 1,000,000 shoes? what is that number? million shoe test on a 50/50 game have no memory or bearing. to even achieve success over a million shoes does not prove anything. if we were talking about numbers on lets say the behaviour of a specific species of birds and their migration, with tests done over a million times, then there it is safe to assume and conclude a theory. consistency therein is nailed drawn. in baccarat we simply cant.

we are actually agreeing on a certain level here. you say no system can withstand a million shoes. im saying even if it did it doesnt matter and trying to beat that number is a waste of time.

however im still interested as to the why. id like to find out and learn why 1 million shoes is the number to beat in this game of 50/50. why and how will 1 million shoes matter in random? thanks loti.

Hi IamSamRedman. I use a million shoes simply because nothing I have ever tested comes close to beating 100 000 shoes, let alone 1 000 000.

There really is no "magic number". I suppose I could just say 100 000 shoes. It depends on your progression. If you are simply flat betting all of the time, if you can have 50 000 placed bets (if you bet on Player or Banker, and Tie hits, that does not count for obvious reasons) and come out positive, you probably do have a winning system.

I have tested hundreds of systems and the most number of decisions I could still come up positive was 20 000. The reason is that (level betting) after 50 000 placed bets, you should be at or around -530 units (at the best). Now if you could somehow be positive after 50 000 placed bets you really probably do have something worthwhile.

Now if you are betting between say 1 and 1000 units, I would need a test of much more than 50 000 placed bets, since with a progression you will last a lot longer. I have programmed systems that beat well over a million decisions with a max bet of less than 1000 units but eventually it goes negative and never comes back.

Beating a million shoes (especially flat betting) would mean that you have a positive edge in baccarat. You could then use Kelly betting, and grind your way to a million dollars in less than a year with smart play. I have essentially given up on finding the "holy grail", since I can not even beat a fair 50/50 game but will continue to help others by sending them systems and running some tests.

[IamSamRedman]

Hi IamSamRedman. I use a million shoes simply because nothing I have ever tested comes close to beating 100 000 shoes, let alone 1 000 000.

There really is no "magic number". I suppose I could just say 100 000 shoes. It depends on your progression. If you are simply flat betting all of the time, if you can have 50 000 placed bets (if you bet on Player or Banker, and Tie hits, that does not count for obvious reasons) and come out positive, you probably do have a winning system.

I have tested hundreds of systems and the most number of decisions I could still come up positive was 20 000. The reason is that (level betting) after 50 000 placed bets, you should be at or around -530 units (at the best). Now if you could somehow be positive after 50 000 placed bets you really probably do have something worthwhile.

Now if you are betting between say 1 and 1000 units, I would need a test of much more than 50 000 placed bets, since with a progression you will last a lot longer. I have programmed systems that beat well over a million decisions with a max bet of less than 1000 units but eventually it goes negative and never comes back.

Beating a million shoes (especially flat betting) would mean that you have a positive edge in baccarat. You could then use Kelly betting, and grind your way to a million dollars in less than a year with smart play. I have essentially given up on finding the "holy grail", since I can not even beat a fair 50/50 game but will continue to help others by sending them systems and running some tests.

thanks for your reply loti. thanks for clarifying. there is really not much for me to add on to what you said.. what im driving at, between 10 shoes to a million, to even a billion, there is no advantage to beating those, or any other number of shoes. what happens, with the more shoes you test, the bigger the ratio or scale of the already given disadvantage, what more if you are really down on your luck. . that is all. if i had been positive after 50,000 placed bets, it is still an event that happend to me, in my scenario, in my set of 50,000 decisions, and definitely not applicable to another individual using the same system with his own set of shoes laid before him. in baccarat, the very variable that we are trying to test is not constant. that is the problem.

yeah man keep it up. continue to try to help others. good luck to all.

[LOTI]

thanks for your reply loti. thanks for clarifying. there is really not much for me to add on to what you said.. what im driving at, between 10 shoes to a million, to even a billion, there is no advantage to beating those, or any other number of shoes. what happens, with the more shoes you test, the bigger the ratio or scale of the already given disadvantage, what more if you are really down on your luck. . that is all. if i had been positive after 50,000 placed bets, it is still an event that happend to me, in my scenario, in my set of 50,000 decisions, and definitely not applicable to another individual using the same system with his own set of shoes laid before him. in baccarat, the very variable that we are trying to test is not constant. that is the problem.

yeah man keep it up. continue to try to help others. good luck to all.

Thanks and good luck to you as well.

[thecomebackkid]

It is good to read some different points of few but sometimes I just think the conversation goes around in circles.
Let's face it! Unless you can predict results more accurately than 50/50, you are pretty much a goner!
How much more than 50/50 is the $64 question. 52-48 per 100 bets and you are still a loser. 55-45 and you are waving goodbye to half of your winnings in taxes assuming. Some of you guys must really love this game or you would still not be around arguing the toss if you really don't think it can be beat. I agree with IamSamRedman that testing can be a fallacy in itself. It means nothing if you don't have a winning game and you would almost certainly know that after testing 100,000 placed bets flat betting in my opinion. Good luck guys.

[Egalite]

Yeah but you can overcome "having to win more bets than lose", via MM, either betting negative or positive. Also with short term sessions, long term stats are na.

[LOTI]

It is good to read some different points of few but sometimes I just think the conversation goes around in circles.
Let's face it! Unless you can predict results more accurately than 50/50, you are pretty much a goner!
How much more than 50/50 is the $64 question. 52-48 per 100 bets and you are still a loser. 55-45 and you are waving goodbye to half of your winnings in taxes assuming. Some of you guys must really love this game or you would still not be around arguing the toss if you really don't think it can be beat. I agree with IamSamRedman that testing can be a fallacy in itself. It means nothing if you don't have a winning game and you would almost certainly know that after testing 100,000 placed bets flat betting in my opinion. Good luck guys.

Actually if you won an average of 52 bets in 100 tries, you would have it made. Assuming the worst case and all you do is bet on banker. You would win 52-(52*0.05)= 49.4 units. You would lose 48 units, so on average for every 100 bets you would gain 1.4 units. That would be astounding.

Now if you won 55 bets in 100 tries this would be every more extraordinary. This amounts to 7.25 units every 100 bets. Do you know how fast you could become a millionaire making over 7 units every 100 bets?

[thecomebackkid]

Here is an update on my testing results and some thoughts.

Firstly, I have tested over 1000 games now. It is holding up well at just under 2 units per game.
I have also started playing for real at both some of the live online casinos and my regular land casino.
I have only played a total of 12 games between the two and have made 26 units. It is reassuring to know that the testing and real live play match up to each other in certain aspects. I am only flat betting at the moment however and not using the 1-2-3 negative progression I used in most of my testing. It is important for me to try and build up my bank and take as few risks as possible because I don’t have a huge bankroll to fall back upon.

My method is a complex one. It involves keeping two different scorecards. One tracks the results and indicates if there is a bet. The other tells me if I should carry on with the game or abandon it and start over. Now I could be ahead 2 units and abandon the game or I could be behind 1 unit and abandon the game. Every situation is completely different. I will only play up to the 20^th decision in any event. Any more than that is way too complex for me to take everything into account. Sitting through a whole shoe is not a good idea in my opinion unless you are waiting for some kind of mechanical triggers that you follow. Good luck if that’s what you do. My stop loss for any game is 6 units and I will also on most occasions abandon a game after 3 straight losses. These are all ideas that anybody could look into and see if it improves things for them.

A lot of people on this board don’t believe that you can predict more accurately than 50-50. LOTI proved above that you only need to hit a ratio of 52-48 and you will come out with a minimum of 1.4 units per hundred bets placed. This is entirely achievable and would give me roughly 7 units a week if I played 5 games a day over 5 days. I would expect to do slightly better than that myself. Now 7 units a week could be anything you wanted it to be if you had the finances to back you up.

So back to the 50-50 argument. It is my strong opinion that most people are incapable of thinking for themself. It is a malaise that spreads right throughout society and most of us have being conditioned that way. It is much more easy to take someone else’s ideas and run with them than it is to come up with our own original thoughts. So someone ends up spending half a lifetime testing someone else’s ideas and then comes to the conclusion that nothing works. It is important to get away from everything you have ever read about the game concerning mechanical systems and MM. The casino’s would have gone out of business years ago if any of this was able to give the player a true edge. Now we all know this but it is just too comfortable to change tack for most people. You have to think. Read science journals. Turn things inside out and upside down. The ideas will start coming to you. Now it could take 5 years or it could take 10 years. It may never come. But I will tell you one thing. It will be far more rewarding than spending the next 20 years going over the same crap that never could work and never will work.

I hope I have given some of you the confidence to think a little bit different and follow your own path. It strikes me that if there is one way to win at the game, then it also reasonable to assume there are others. My dream has always being to earn a living as a player. After years of hard work and paying my dues, I feel now is the right time to put what I have learned into practice. I can’t teach that. I can only share my thoughts. Everyone has to do it for themself. Good luck.

[mattman]

Here is an update on my testing results and some thoughts.

I am only flat betting at the moment however and not using the 1-2-3 negative progression I used in most of my testing. It is important for me to try and build up my bank and take as few risks as possible because I don’t have a huge bankroll to fall back upon.

I'm glad you decided to stick with the flat approach, versus the 1-2-3. If you really have something, flat is a much more 'stable' indicator. And you also decrease your chances for larger drawdowns in the long run, given things fall apart, which they have a tendency of doing.

[thecomebackkid]

The flat approach will do for now because my priority is to stay in the game. I could think of a good reason why it may be in my best interests to revert back to the 1-2-3 once I get my feet under the table. If my method is a true winner and does end up replicating my testing results, it will certainly be a good camouflage to employ the 1-2-3. It will make me look like some schmuck who is just having a lucky spell. I would imagine a player who constantly makes more winning bets than losing ones flat betting would eventually draw some unwanted attention from one of the pit critters. I played a flat bet game today and came away with 1 unit after the first 19 decisions. Using the 1-2-3 would have given me +6. Don't get me wrong, I see the logic perfectly well for flat betting but how does it all pan out if you are playing with a positive expectation. My results show me nearly 2 units a game playing the 1-2-3 over 1000 games. There are very few games playing that way that end up in a total loss of -6. Many of those games result in maybe a 1 or 2 unit loss. A lot result in a +6 win before the cut off point. It looks like more testing to really convince myself one way or the other.

[thecomebackkid]

After a lot of thought, it is apparent to me now that flat betting is indeed the king. I spent the last few days going back over all of my 1000+ games and just flat betting gave me more than 1 unit for every 20 decisions. And that's after the 5% vig. Now that's not bad at all. After playing for real money, I can see how betting flat requires a certain mind set. There are times when you think you are going no place quick and then a few wins join together and you are on your way again.

My results at dublinbet are encouraging. Luck is certainly on my side as well. I have doubled my starting bank after 279 decisions. That comprised about 15 shoes worth over 3 days. No wonder I am enjoying the flat betting. But I am prepared for the grinding periods as well. I prefer playing at night when there are other players at the table. It just gives me that bit more breathing space to think as opposed to just hand after hand coming out pretty quick. Some of you may find that strange thinking it's all about getting in as many hands as possible to turnover the money. I don't think it's a good idea to get into a robotic state when gambling. It is certainly more relaxing when things are going at a more gentle pace. Anyway, those are my thoughts and I will keep you all updated on my progress.

[thecomebackkid]

I should have added that my starting bank was 40 units. It is not like I have won loads or anything like that. But now I feel comfortable with 80 units behind me. My goal is to reach 1000 units by the end of the year. I think that is realistic over the next 5 months or so. By setting a target like that also allows me to think more long term and not get into a mindset of making quick profits. That is certainly not going to happen going down the flat bet route.