Thread: A betting strategy that beats 270,141 verifiable outcomes with a 3.3% "player edge"?

Thanks, Archer, for providing me with a link that then took me to 1,000 shoes posted on the Net by the Wizard of Odds. It took me half a day or so to run my Target Betting strategy against them, and given all I know about the Wiz (a nice guy, probably, but he makes his living protecting and promoting the gambling industry!) I wasn't optimistic. But Lo and Behold, the Wiz's 83,640 rounds of baccarat (from 1,000 sim-produced shoes) yielded to the might of progressive betting, Target-style. How could I have doubted it?

I used three versions of Target - the "bare bones" rules set, which is really just one rule, and "BB+" which is a tad more aggressive, then OPT (for optimum), which pushes harder still. The first two versions had a bumpy ride at times but powered through to a profit. OPT did great until the last 500 hands out of 83,640 and then crashed and burned. I'm sure the Wizard didn't plan it that way, hiding the equivalent of an IED in the 995th shoe. Well, maybe I'm not that sure...

The Zumma shoes have been around forever, and were first trounced by Target when I was a much younger man. I'm grateful to have had access to the "real shoes" data - ZP has done the betting fraternity a great service.

Some people seem to have problems reading data screen shots on the forum, so I have posted information on my website and will try to reply promptly to any requests for more. I'm not selling anything, folks, just passing on what I believe is the only reliable way to beat the house. Pity it can't be done on $500 and a bag of peanuts, but I never believed it could. I just set out to prove that the conventional wisdom is full of holes (and the casinos and their online shills know it!).

Keep winning!
Seth T.

A lot to take and and read. Just saw this bit

Target Betting is, in essence, all about accepting whatever comes down the pike with confidence that it's not how you play but how you bet that makes you a long-term winner.

Excellent advice.....

just read your blog very interesting stuff--good work

When are we betting player and when are we betting banker?

When are we betting player and when are we betting banker?

"We" (meaning me and my associates - what you do is up to you!) NEVER bet Banker. It's the arithmetic. Say you churn $100,000 in extended play and earn 3% as profit: $3,000. Then assume half your bets were on Banker, and half won (statistically feasible). Your tab for "5%" commission is .05 x $25,000 = $1,250. That's not 5%, it's 41% of your winnings. I figure I already pay enough in taxes, thank you very much. Then again, I know that most baccarat players love to bet the Bank and I wish them only joy and prosperity. Seriously though, it's a 50-50 game, near enough. Why back a proposition that doesn't pay even money?

Seth

I'm slowly reading your blog, the first thing that springs to mind, is that a seller known as Izak had "more or less" the same staking plan with all his early system. Basically it ran; flat bet then after a single win, bet the current loss figure +1 unit. I know Archer and others have eluded to this betting style, which to my eyes appears similar to a multi-level version of the STAR system.

Like I said, I'm slowly reading through it, I can deduce you advocate betting P only, so if this happens -$5, -$5, -$5, -$5, -$5, +$5, -$25, what is your next bet size?

Extended negative trends are statistical anomalies that do occur from time to time, but only very rarely back to back. Extended negative trends are statistical anomalies that do occur from time to time, but only very rarely back to back.

Have to agree with this, one thing I mentioned amongst the recent BS, is that single occurrences of player (and bankers) usually max out around the 7 mark. So it could be a fair assumption, to wait for a run of single players then reverting to your MM strategy. In fact this mode of play is part of my current arsenal.

i would guess $5 again?

Repeat after a mid-series loss until a win, then LTD+ again...

Originally Posted by Egalite

Have to agree with this, one thing I mentioned amongst the recent BS, is that single occurrences of player (and bankers) usually max out around the 7 mark. So it could be a fair assumption, to wait for a run of single players then reverting to your MM strategy. In fact this mode of play is part of my current arsenal.

I just pulled up my most recent (Zumma) worksheet, and the 1,255 completed series break down as follows: 2 (bets), 320; 3, 162; 4, 152; 5, 166; 6+, 455. So 64% of all series turned around in 5 bets or fewer, which makes us both right. O happy day! (I just varied the query and got 920 series at 6 and under (73%).

thanks for the reply but im not following 100% by repeat do you mean go back to the original 1 unit bet? or is the loss at step 7 in egalites example the new bet? i was assuming you went back to the original $5 dollar bet?

Originally Posted by tomla

thanks for the reply but im not following 100% by repeat do you mean go back to the original 1 unit bet? or is the loss at step 7 in egalites example the new bet? i was assuming you went back to the original $5 dollar bet?

Repeat means repeat! -5, -5, -5, -5, +5, -20, -20, +20, (40). If a win, next bet (5), if a loss, NB 40. Easy!

got ya all is clear now--thanks and may the sporting gods be good to ya today, if your still playing

Originally Posted by tomla

got ya all is clear now--thanks and may the sporting gods be good to ya today, if your still playing

Still playing?! Hell yeah - quitting while you're ahead is wussy. You'll find today's dog picks on the website.

Keep winning!
Seth T.

believe me i have so many sports schemes that its hard to keep track-lol
Shania Twain - I Ain't No Quitter - YouTube

i might have some gridiron tease theories that you guys might enjoy
"I need this game like you need plasma"

Originally Posted by tomla

believe me i have so many sports schemes that its hard to keep track-lol
Shania Twain - I Ain't No Quitter - YouTube

Shania: Great to watch, to listen to, not so much...
Sports schemes: I suggest you find one "scheme" that works and stick with it!

Keep winning!
Seth T.

Originally Posted by tomla

i might have some gridiron tease theories that you guys might enjoy
"I need this game like you need plasma"

I barely know a baseball stick from a hockey hoop, but I do know numbers, and that's all Target relies on in sports. Picks qualify by being dogs within a prescribed + range and we run separate lines using bet numbers (i.e., random selection) to determine which, when and how much. A few bumps (see the chart on the website) but we're way ahead. And still blissfully ignorant about gridirons and all that manly** stuff!

Keep winning!
Seth T.

** But we do like watching Shania doing that thing with her second-greatest asset...

Originally Posted by Sethbets

Seriously though, it's a 50-50 game, near enough.

No and NO.
Let no one go there with Enron Accounting fuzzy math "near enough" statements.
In an 8 deck shoe:
banker wins 0.5068248
player wins 0.4931752
Difference: 0.0136497
is that really "near enough"? 1.36% Is a very large number compared to .136%. Where do we draw the line?

Originally Posted by Sethbets

Why back a proposition that doesn't pay even money?

Since the Banker bet is the "odds on favorite" it can NEVER pay even money, but it still is the favorite.

The Banker bet EVEN with paying a 5% commission on a win, wins more than the Player bet the longer one plays because of the house edge.

Most do not understand what the house edge is or how it even comes into play.
It is the "short payoff" effect where the casino refuses to pay true odds of a bet. You are short changed on a win. simple as that.

Banker bet should pay 0.4931752/0.5068248 = $0.9730 per $1 bet
It only pays $0.95 per $1 bet
That small difference of $0.023 is the house edge (not counting ties). (.023/1.973)

Code:

       bet  win prob  pays  fair             difference
    banker  0.5068248  0.95  0.973068289  -0.023068289
    player  0.4931752    1    1.027677103  -0.027677103

The Player Bet is "short changed" even more than the Banker Bet.

But, if one lives by short run results and distributions, they can also die by them also.
Hey, the universe is a fair place to play.

IMO, this thread just proves that with a near unlimited bankroll, that most of us do not have access to, and near unlimited casino max bets allowed, one can find a short sample of Baccarat shoes to show a net win.

Remember in the short run variance dominates over house edge. A mathematical fact.
The longer one playes there comes a time when house edge dominates over variance and always to remain in the lead.

I would not use the Wizards actual Bac shoes, they are not real Baccarat shoes. He does not burn any cards and plays to 6 cards left in a shoe.
No casino anywhere would ever do this.

OP, to me, appears blinded by his short term results, possibly thinking they show what can actually be expected to happen in the long run.

But in reality, it is only by long run results and distributions can we accurately say what can be expected to happen in the short run.

2,600 shoes, "short run" samples. Nice data

260,000 shoes "a longer short run" samples. Priceless

Originally Posted by guido1

No and NO.
The Banker bet EVEN with paying a 5% commission on a win, wins more than the Player bet the longer one plays because of the house edge.

Most do not understand what the house edge is or how it even comes into play.
It is the "short payoff" effect where the casino refuses to pay true odds of a bet. You are short changed on a win. simple as that.

Banker bet should pay 0.4931752/0.5068248 = $0.9730 per $1 bet
It only pays $0.95 per $1 bet
That small difference of $0.023 is the house edge (not counting ties). (.023/1.973)
But, if one lives by short run results and distributions, they can also die by them also.
OP, to me, appears blinded by his short term results, possibly thinking they show what can actually be expected to happen in the long run.

But in reality, it is only by long run results and distributions can we accurately say what can be expected to happen in the short run.

2,600 shoes, "short run" samples. Nice data
260,000 shoes "a longer short run" samples. Priceless

Banker is a lousy bet, period. I have already offered an illustration that is uncomplicated but accurate. Those who disagree must be ignoring the math, fuzzy or otherwise.

Life is a short run.

Keep winning!
Seth T.

Originally Posted by Sethbets

Banker is a lousy bet, period.

I agree that the Banker bet is a lousy bet.
An ~1.17% edge is way to high for me. Many other casino games can be found with house edges as low as 0.5%.

But the Baccarat Player bet is even worse than the Banker bet. !.

100,000 Banker bets (a good lifetime of play)
50672 expected wins
$10 bets
$506,720 B4 comm.
$481,384 after comm
net loss -$11,796.00
1 in 13,570 players actually making this many banker bets would show a profit of $18.50 or more. The effects of house edge.

100,000 Player bets (a good lifetime of play)
49318 expected wins
$10 bets
$493,180 in wins
net loss -$-13,540
1 in 128,051 players actually making this many player bets would break even or show a profit. Again, The effects of house edge.

This shows that the challenge is to increase the winning percentage and/or the amount of wins when a win occurs. This is better accomplished by the Banker bet but both bets need to have the win percentage increased.
And not by that much.
Banker win %: 0.50682483
increase it to 0.512820513
only a difference of: 0.005996

Player win %: 0.49317517
increase it to 0.5
only a difference of: 0.006825

In the end, it is who can do a better job of increased winning percentages and/or average net winning that will show a profit in the end. (on my death bed that is)

Originally Posted by Sethbets

I have already offered an illustration that is uncomplicated but accurate. Those who disagree must be ignoring the math, fuzzy or otherwise.

Life is a short run.

Keep winning!
Seth T.

I choose (because I can) to ignore your very limited sample size data.

I wonder if you ran 2,600 shoes 1 million times would your results still be the same.
Like 1 million players playing 2,600 shoes. A very believable and possible scenario, IMO.

Oh, hey my computer Bac software, just completed that process.
I will view the results. They are for my eyes only.
Enjoy the short run!

Originally Posted by Sethbets

I just pulled up my most recent (Zumma) worksheet, and the 1,255 completed series break down as follows: 2 (bets), 320; 3, 162; 4, 152; 5, 166; 6+, 455. So 64% of all series turned around in 5 bets or fewer, which makes us both right. O happy day! (I just varied the query and got 920 series at 6 and under (73%).

I really don't trust the Zumma results that much. I know what I see at the tables, and run of 7 singles either side are not so rare, what is rare is a repeat of singles after a series of singles broke. A savvy player could build a decent trigger based system around all this (might even give it a shot). However I'm not a fan of the MM angle, like you said I can see the need for huge bankrolls. You bust a few $1000 buy-in's or go deep in the hole then clear everything with a "twin win", what's the profit for that $1000 draw-down? The initial bet? Doesn't seem worth it..

I would not use the Wizards actual Bac shoes, they are not real Baccarat shoes. He does not burn any cards and plays to 6 cards left in a shoe.
No casino anywhere would ever do this.

My casino does exactly this, no burn cards, cut card seven from the end, therefore entire six deck is dealt less a maximum of 6 cards to minimum of 1 card (assuming last had consists of 6 card draw).

Originally Posted by Egalite

However I'm not a fan of the MM angle, like you said I can see the need for huge bankrolls. You bust a few $1000 buy-in's or go deep in the hole then clear everything with a "twin win", what's the profit for that $1000 draw-down? The initial bet? Doesn't seem worth it...

Like it or not, it's the only way to win consistently. I have been trying for half a lifetime to find a method that pays big on limited exposure. Hasn't happened. Won't happen.

Seth T.

Thanks ,,I play each sport differently and don't bother watching much either lol also def lean dogs

Originally Posted by guido1

I choose (because I can) to ignore your very limited sample size data.

Oh, hey my computer Bac software, just completed that process. I will view the results. They are for my eyes only.

I deduce from line #1 that you have already developed a far superior strategy to beat an UNlimited sample size, and from line #2 that you'll keep it to yourself!

Seth T.

Originally Posted by tomla

Thanks ,,I play each sport differently and don't bother watching much either lol also def lean dogs

Def? Define? Defile? Deface? Defecate? Definitely? Leppard?


Seth T.

Sethbets.....Am I understanding your results of the Zumma test that you had instances of making bets of $25,000. If this is so, most tables I've been on won't let you bet anywhere near this large a bet. And this would prevent most gamblers from using your method since you could lose this amount first time out. Am I missing something here?

Originally Posted by Egalite

My casino does exactly this, no burn cards, cut card seven from the end, therefore entire six deck is dealt less a maximum of 6 cards to minimum of 1 card (assuming last had consists of 6 card draw).

Thanks for the info. I now stand corrected.
Too bad you have to put up with 6 deck Bac while most of the world is 8 deck.

Originally Posted by Sethbets

I deduce from line #1 that you have already developed a far superior strategy to beat an UNlimited sample size, and from line #2 that you'll keep it to yourself!

Seth T.

Still developing.
I like your idea of rare events following rare events, that it is rare.
There is sound mathematical reasoning behind that idea and my simulations show this to be a great starting point. But now to do more coding, and I hate doing that part, time consuming. because if you keep doing the same thing over and over again, the losses will overwhelm the wins and most all bankrolls end up sustaining a deathly blow. In other words, ruin.

I still personally do not like Baccarat because of the low variance of the two main bets. But I am too stubborn to stop since I can still find ways to win over the length of one's lifetime.

Ideas, no matter how they play out, still make the world go round.

Originally Posted by kadiddle

Sethbets.....Am I understanding your results of the Zumma test that you had instances of making bets of $25,000. If this is so, most tables I've been on won't let you bet anywhere near this large a bet. And this would prevent most gamblers from using your method since you could lose this amount first time out. Am I missing something here?

The purpose of this exercise (which goes far, far beyond the Zumma and Woo samples) has always been to discover whether or not the math that would seem to make the house invincible in the long run can be interpreted and exploited to undermine that invincibility. But of course, some provision has to be made for reality - otherwise we could declare a simple Martingale the perfect system by allowing it to bet into the millions when necessary. I picked a range from $5 to $25,000 years ago, when it actually was possible to find a $5 table in a joint that didn't have sawdust on the floor and dead drunks under the tables. Now, $10 is the minimum - but in Nevada (where I live and play) table limits have soared, and $25,000 is common at baccarat tables while rare for blackjack and craps.

I suppose you could argue that posting to a forum where nobody has the kind of money needed to back Target is a waste of everyone's time, but the truth is that progressive betting is the only way to win in the long run, and understanding and accepting that can greatly help anyone's game. I blogged recently about wasted wins, and they really are a critical factor in staying ahead of any casino game. The "twins" concept drives bet values high, for sure, but if you bet relatively fixed or random amounts, you are sure to lose if you don't hit an extended run of luck. You will lose more often than you win, in the long run, and therefore you must bet in such a way that you win more when you win than you lose when you lose.

As for recent posts about burns and penetration and shoe sizes (6 decks or 8, not 10E or 11W!), all that stuff is totally meaningless, in my experience, just as in blackjack it really doesn't matter whether or not you hit 13 against a 2. How you bet - how much and when - is the be-all and end-all of winning. The game doesn't matter, except to the extent that it really isn't smart to bet big bucks on a -5.26% roulette table when there's a -1.0% blackjack layout across the aisle. Target allows you to move from one type of game to another in mid-series in search of the first or second of those "twins" that are so important. Tough on shoe leather, maybe, but good exercise (who doesn't need that!) and profitable (ditto).

Sorry I couldn't provide you with a cheap and easy way to win consistently. Talk to guido1 - he's working on that!

Keep winning!
Seth T.

Originally Posted by guido1

I still personally do not like Baccarat because of the low variance of the two main bets.

I personally don't much like baccarat because it's not blackjack. But it's where the money is!


Seth T.