Thread: Tag Team Baccarat

This may seem silly but Im wondering if anyone has tried team play in Baccarat?? I have been playing two systems for the last month with diff triggers and diff money management etc......both win about 4-5 units a shoe on average,,,ive noticed that i get semi pissed when playing one system and start losing because the other one would have been kicking ass-lol....
i looked further into it and both systems are diametrically opposed to one another except against one or two patterns that the both do well against. Started testing and after minor testing like looking at 30 of my shoes it seems that if one system does great it wins like 15-22 units and the other loses about 13-15........if they both do average or my norm they both win about 5.....they can also do well in one shoe and both win 6-10 units. Im Talking to a Baccarat/Roulette buddy and if the results stay consistent for another 75 test shoes we might start playing at the same table with a common bankroll and diff play styles.....
anyone ever try anything like this?

Barstow always claimed that partnership play was the way to go, hey hey.

time for you to go enjoy a guinness!!!! thanks

Why don't you play both systems by yourself ?

i tried a variation of that last week but your going to have cross bets etc --probably doable but could get confusing etc

Originally Posted by tomla

This may seem silly but Im wondering if anyone has tried team play in Baccarat?? I have been playing two systems for the last month with diff triggers and diff money management etc......both win about 4-5 units a shoe on average

Not silly at all. Team play - more of a relay than a side-by-side situation as you describe - is extremely useful when you're betting a wide spread. Hard to maintain a low profile when you're betting the min to start and the max a few minutes later (if you suffer a really bad run) so you just can't do it all in the same place. Smart phones have made it much easier for team players to stay in touch and pass bet targets back and forth. I do the buddy thing now and then because sometimes it's good to have a friend beside you. When that happens (and it's too rare) we play different modifications of Target, one wussy, one aggressive, and split the profits.

Seth T.

blog
home

seth i understand why you do it lol (bet limits, staying under radar etc) but your looking at this just from your target betting angle---your in the zone focused on one thing!!!! nothing wrong with that and i do like your concept

You can play both systems at the same time, let say, system A call for a Banker bet of 2 units, and system B call for a Player bet of 1 unit, then you would make the NET BET of 1 unit on Banker, ring the bell?
if both system call for a 1 unit bet on different side, then there is NO BET, a wash, 1 on Banker and 1 on Player.

Originally Posted by Bacronin

You can play both systems at the same time, let say, system A call for a Banker bet of 2 units, and system B call for a Player bet of 1 unit, then you would make the NET BET of 1 unit on Banker, ring the bell?
if both system call for a 1 unit bet on different side, then there is NO BET, a wash, 1 on Banker and 1 on Player.

But why bother to play two opposing strategies? If you're using disciplined money management, aka progressive betting, aka...well, you know, there's no need to fuzz your focus. Just stick with what works. You'll lose a few more bets than you win, but if you bet right, you'll win more when you win than you lose when you lose.

Keep winning!
Seth T.

I think it is not play the opposite strategies, the man who start this topic, is asking if can play 2 systems at the same time.

Well, you can, each system have it's own betting selection and betting progression, just keep good tracking of your 2 systems, and make the NET BET on the felt.

Originally Posted by Bacronin

I think it is not play the opposite strategies, the man who start this topic, is asking if can play 2 systems at the same time.

Well, you can, each system have it's own betting selection and betting progression, just keep good tracking of your 2 systems, and make the NET BET on the felt.

I understand. And I'm simply asking why?


Seth T.

The reason is simple, if one system able to win 5 units per shoe, and other system can able to win 5 to 10 units per shoe, thus if play 2 systems at the same time would increase the winning.

Originally Posted by tomla

This may seem silly but Im wondering if anyone has tried team play in Baccarat?? I have been playing two systems for the last month with diff triggers and diff money management etc......both win about 4-5 units a shoe on average,,,ive noticed that i get semi pissed when playing one system and start losing because the other one would have been kicking ass-lol....
i looked further into it and both systems are diametrically opposed to one another except against one or two patterns that the both do well against. Started testing and after minor testing like looking at 30 of my shoes it seems that if one system does great it wins like 15-22 units and the other loses about 13-15........if they both do average or my norm they both win about 5.....they can also do well in one shoe and both win 6-10 units. Im Talking to a Baccarat/Roulette buddy and if the results stay consistent for another 75 test shoes we might start playing at the same table with a common bankroll and diff play styles.....
anyone ever try anything like this?

why didnt ya post the systems? asking what we think and ya didnt give us the full detail

i didnt ask if you can play two systems or not at the same time? i know you can and i know one person could do so if you want to make extra calculations . I just wanted to know if anyone else has done so?

Tomla, I trust all is well, my friend. First things first....I just want to let you know that the other thread that you started a couple of days ago did not go unnoticed....I did happen to see it, and I wanted to express my appreciation. It's members like you (and, there are others, they know who they are) that make me feel as if my time is well-spent here.

Now, about "partnership play".....

I'm all for it. If you are able to find someone you can trust, someone who has your best interests at heart as well as his own; in that case, my friend, partnership play can be very rewarding. Two minds....two LIKE minds....are better than one. But they've got to be "like-minded". Same approach. Same goals. No egos.

thanks for the encouragement---i use two labbys with my first bet selection and your gr8 progression on the other.......

Originally Posted by tomla

seth i understand why you do it lol (bet limits, staying under radar etc) but your looking at this just from your target betting angle---your in the zone focused on one thing!!!! nothing wrong with that and i do like your concept

I take your point, Tomla, but since Target is the only strategy I believe in (based on many years of trial and costly error!) I'm hardly likely to look at any gambling proposition from a different angle. I try to keep an open mind, though, because in the end all any of us wants is to beat the house long-term, and if someone else has a better way, I'm on it.

I'm still hoping for corroborative data from Imspirit re the gazillion outcomes he claims beat Target to a pulp, because I'm concerned he may have inadvertently fudged the rules the way LOTI did in his "proof" that the Target method doesn't work. That and the 1,600 shoes that LOTI claims support his counting method's ability to win 0.15 units per shoe. Maybe one day.

Meanwhile, your team query prompted me to continue with a Banker test I started when LOTI called me a retarded clown/shill because I am against backing Banker and paying a tax that is closer to 30% than 5% (as in "5% commission" as in a load of old cobblers!).

What if...three players got together with one betting B all the time, the other betting only P, and the third betting what I call the Wobble (WBL for win before last, same as avant derniere and other terms).

Bad news for anyone willing to pay commission, I'm afraid.

No data set can ever be claimed to be definitive, we all know, but here's what I got:

LOTICRAP WLB vs B only and P only.jpg

This time, the commission gouge for WBL was 36% of overall winnings. For Banker only, it was close to 50%. Whatever happened to "5%"?

Anyone can dismiss a mere 57,000 rounds as anecdotal or irrelevant and anyone might be right. But there's a clear trend here, in each of eight blocks of about 100 shoes apiece.

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Target Betting: A baccarat trial to see what happens if the Target Betting ban on Banker bets is reversed, and the strategy backs Banker ONLY!
Target Betting: A special page inspired by a Baccarat Forums member's challenge that featured a Zumma outtake with almost a 50% house edge!

Originally Posted by Sethbets

and paying a tax that is closer to 30% than 5% (as in "5% commission" as in a load of old cobblers!).

Isn't this simply fudging the figures!!! Sure when a punter has finished a session which included banker bets, the total amount paid in tax may be greater than 5% of the total win, but that is reflective on the varying amounts placed on the Banker. $100 on Banker attracts $5 tax, $200 on the banker attracts $10 tax , $500 banker bet attracts $25 tax and so on, add them all up; $800 tax = $40 or 5%.

Isn't this the correct way to calculate the precise amount somebody has paid in tax, which will always resolve to 5% of each individual winning bet placed on the Banker.

Originally Posted by Egalite

Isn't this simply fudging the figures!!! Sure when a punter has finished a session which included banker bets, the total amount paid in tax may be greater than 5% of the total win, but that is reflective on the varying amounts placed on the Banker. $100 on Banker attracts $5 tax, $200 on the banker attracts $10 tax , $500 banker bet attracts $25 tax and so on, add them all up; $800 tax = $40 or 5%.

Isn't this the correct way to calculate the precise amount somebody has paid in tax, which will always resolve to 5% of each individual winning bet placed on the Banker.

Egalite - I promise you, you'll never catch me fudging numbers! Better yet, even if you're not looking, I won't do it. Makes no sense.

Most baccarat players think of the commission on Banker wins as "only 5%" and that's the way the house wants it.

The way the commission really works is more insidious, because it applies only to winning bets and doesn't leave 5% on your side of the table whenever a Banker bet loses.

If you look at the numbers in the screen snip below, you'll see how commission should really be tracked (no fudging!):

LOTICRAP WLB vs B only and P only.jpg

Take just the first block of Zumma shoes at top left (Sample L) and you will see that WBL, which switches from B to P and back throughout the shoe, collected $182,850 in winning bets on Banker. That gave him/her a 5% commission tab of $9,143 which is, of course, precisely 5%.

However, our concern must always be with our bottom line, not the house's, and we are obliged to look at that commission gouge as a percentage of our overall win. Pre-gouge, WBL was ahead $47,496 (about $475 per shoe) but $9,143 of that had to be surrendered in "Bank Tax." That's where the 19% "real gouge" number comes from, and that's the only one that counts.

You can simplify the concept by thinking of three $10,000 bets on Banker (we wish!), two of them winners (ditto!), the third a loss. End result: +$10,000, less commission due of 2 x .05 x $10,000 = $1,000 = 10%, not 5%.

Over the course of a few hundred hands, that "5%" becomes a monster, sometimes gobbling up so much of your winnings that you end up a loser.

In this limited trial ("only" 57,000 hands or 800 shoes or maybe 700 hours of play!) BANKER+Target netted $157,000 in winnings, WBL+Target cleared $154,000 net of commission, and PLAYER+Target won $288,000.

Hence my advice that you should never, ever bet on Banker.

And speaking of fudging, I'm looking forward to some nice fudge-free numbers from Imspirit regarding his gazillion-bet trial which he says thrashed Target into bankruptcy. He applied a 1-10,000 spread, double the spread I recommend or have ever used in my tests, and I can't help wondering why. Maybe he made some other rules changes that we all need to know about?

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Target Betting: A baccarat trial to see what happens if the Target Betting ban on Banker bets is reversed, and the strategy backs Banker ONLY!
Target Betting: A special page inspired by a Baccarat Forums member's challenge that featured a Zumma outtake with almost a 50% house edge!

Seth, I do struggle with some of your charts (descriptive column headers would be nice) , however you have explained it clearly with your 10k example, basically you are accumulating the 5%. Which quite rightly will add up the longer you play and the longer you keep winning those Banker bets. It still works out at 5% per bet, but not 5% of total winnings, obviously from our side of the table, it is the latter which we need to concern ourselves with.

I've read IMspirit's article and what he states, by using a wider spread also makes sense, assuming you have the bankroll and stomach. As you no doubt noticed from his charts, with no limit applied to the spread, betting either Player or Banker, results were positive, however he did take into consideration allowances for the 5% banker tax. Which is why the Banker won more than betting Player using Target betting. So rightly or wrongly there was a bit of juggling involved.

It also makes sense reading IMspirit blog (at this stage) why a 1 > 5000 limit, would fair worst than a 1 > 10000 ratio. That's for you two to sort out, suffice to say, it is a very interesting concept / topic and a shame it remains a non-viable playing approach, I could see some scary draw-downs and for what? A one unit profit.

Generally as most of us only focus on the short term, i.e making money from the current session which we are playing, maybe there is scope to play this way, the potential draw-downs, which I appreciate you did mention, remain a turn-off for me. So while not a fan of "Target Betting" the consideration of accumulative Banker tax is a bit of an eye opener. That Banker tax will cost us once we start thinking in terms of lumping all those 5% together into one long session, I do see your point. However some are happy to receive .95 on the dollar than no dollar at all.

I have two questions for you; first have you ever considered applying the brakes against Banker streaks once you are betting more than 1 unit, to protect yourself against potential long banker streaks (I realise the implications of this, but a little self preservation never hurt anybody) and secondly, have you ever risked real money using target betting, if so how have you got on?

Thanks....

could you two get out of my thread please? this one is titled "tag team Baccarat" , you guys are looking for the banker commission dept-lol ,, just kidding i dont give a diddly

Originally Posted by Egalite

Seth, I do struggle with some of your charts (descriptive column headers would be nice) , however you have explained it clearly with your 10k example, basically you are accumulating the 5%. Which quite rightly will add up the longer you play and the longer you keep winning those Banker bets. It still works out at 5% per bet, but not 5% of total winnings, obviously from our side of the table, it is the latter which we need to concern ourselves with.

I've read IMspirit's article and what he states, by using a wider spread also makes sense, assuming you have the bankroll and stomach. As you no doubt noticed from his charts, with no limit applied to the spread, betting either Player or Banker, results were positive, however he did take into consideration allowances for the 5% banker tax. Which is why the Banker won more than betting Player using Target betting. So rightly or wrongly there was a bit of juggling involved.

It also makes sense reading IMspirit blog (at this stage) why a 1 > 5000 limit, would fair worst than a 1 > 10000 ratio. That's for you two to sort out, suffice to say, it is a very interesting concept / topic and a shame it remains a non-viable playing approach, I could see some scary draw-downs and for what? A one unit profit.

Generally as most of us only focus on the short term, i.e making money from the current session which we are playing, maybe there is scope to play this way, the potential draw-downs, which I appreciate you did mention, remain a turn-off for me. So while not a fan of "Target Betting" the consideration of accumulative Banker tax is a bit of an eye opener. That Banker tax will cost us once we start thinking in terms of lumping all those 5% together into one long session, I do see your point. However some are happy to receive .95 on the dollar than no dollar at all.

I have two questions for you; first have you ever considered applying the brakes against Banker streaks once you are betting more than 1 unit, to protect yourself against potential long banker streaks (I realise the implications of this, but a little self preservation never hurt anybody) and secondly, have you ever risked real money using target betting, if so how have you got on?

Thanks....

With my spread limit, I restricted myself not only to numbers that were mathematically viable but numbers that reflect real-world conditions, 1-5,000 translating to $5-$25,000, both ends of which were once readily acceptable in Nevada casinos. I suspect that Imspirit may have adjusted the test to a 10,000u max for his benefit rather than for fairness' sake, especially since he claims he used the Zumma data set and I can prove very easily that Target dances through those shoes with relative ease.

(To interrupt myself, LOTI claims I "reverse-engineered" the Zumma data to come up with a winning strategy, which is demonstrable nonsense, especially since the strategy records wins betting B, P and WBL. And like most defenders of the status quo, LOTI deliberately mis-applied the strategy rules as published in order to "prove" that you can't win, sucker! I'm hoping Imspirit did not do the same, because there are a surprising number of people out there who will do whatever it takes to prevent a long term winning strategy from becoming widely known and - worse! - widely used. Who knows why?)

And yes, I most certainly do use Target for real money at real casinos, but the best BR I can ever manage (except on the very rare occasions when I can play longer than a few hours at a time, one day a week) is $5,000. Because of actual conditions, which differ greatly from simulated play (even unbroken play against "real" shoes such as the Zumma data set), I do very well with that, and have not had a losing year in at least a couple of decades. I dimly remember 1989 being difficult, but that's somewhat fuzzy. I have been banned from playing blackjack at a couple of local joints, but I really don't care because Target works almost as well for baccarat and craps, and sports betting too. Roulette? Sure, when bets are low - but when a series drags on, safer havens - 21 @ 1.0% HA, baccarat at 1.35% - make better sense.

I find it frustrating that people place so much faith in billion-bet sims that require the "player" to take what ever comes his way, betting on and on against lousy luck and never taking a break or applying any kind of defensive damage control. Ask yourself if you would bet against a machine that simply said YOU WIN or YOU LOSE without cards, dice, a wheel or whatever, and the rule was that you couldn't walk away from a losing streak - you had to play on without potty breaks, meals or sleep until you ran out of money. Wouldn't happen, couldn't happen.

There are two things I'd keep in mind when considering any form of progressive betting - and if you want to win long term, you're going to have embrace the concept at some point. On the negative side, there's the need for a large BR and the stomach to place big bets. The flip-side of that is that in real-play conditions, where you can quit a negative shoe, switching tables or games when you feel threatened, the BR builds very rapidly and big bets become less scary.

The second thing is the mathematical reality that a wide spread requires much less long term risk than a narrow spread. That's evident in all the summaries (grey area, top right) but no one seems willing to take that into account. They're not calling the numbers "fudged," either, so I suppose that's something!

Brakes are great in principle, but they are exactly what the house needs you to apply so that you will greatly diminish your chances of recovery from a prolonged downturn.

I'm sorry you have a hard time reading the summaries, but they do require a little time and patience, and once you get the hang of it, all of them follow the same format and present the essential information in the same way.

Gamblers as a breed are not generally much interested in reality and truth, and certainly not in raw numbers. It makes too much hard work out of something they are brainwashed into believing is meant to be "fun." You'd think winning consistently would be more fun than losing, but apparently not.

Your comment "for what - to win just one unit!" is a classic case in point, although you are far from the first to say the same thing and I bet won't be the last. You're not winning "just one unit"! You're winning back in one or two bets all the money you lost in a far greater number of bets. And since you know going in to any game that you will probably lose more often than you win in the long run, you'd better be certain that you learn the trick of winning back in one or two bets what you lost in three, four or five bets and keep repeating it until the dealing's done!

Winning isn't about hunches or making the right choice between several propositions, it's about having the right amount on the table at the right time. Period. You could bet Target starting with one hand of blackjack, one of baccarat, a couple of rolls of the dice, an outside bet at roulette, and losing more bets than you win won't bother you one bit. What you need is two consecutive wins, so you can make a little money, then drop back to a minimum bet and start over.

Here's a picture of how often "twinned" wins come up in one of those "unreal world" sims I dislike so much:

Twinned wins wear green.jpg

That's the good news. But gambling's about good news and bad, so let's take a look at both together:

Twinned wins wear green n red.jpg

The red blobs are isolated wins, which can rock the boat pretty hard at times...and then "twins" put you back on an even keel.

Basically, you're constantly quitting while you're ahead and then starting over, which is why in spite of all the howls of protest, the truth is that progressive betting is, in the long term, the safest option. It's also the only winning option, which is why casinos do everything they can to discourage it.

Casinos hate to see someone who just won, say, a $1,000 bet walk away from the table, then start up somewhere else with a $5 wager. That's not how people having "fun" are supposed to behave! The profile says they'll swig "free" booze and bet dumber and dumber the more bombed they get, and keep pushing out money until they have "made their contribution." Any player who covers his losses, making a nice profit, and then falls back to low-level betting is a casino's worst enemy, believe me.

The message I have learned is that cautious play is the deadliest play there is, and the best news for the house. But it's how most gamblers approach the game (any game) - they believe primarily in something called luck, and they always start out hoping that this time, luck will go their way and never stop. Truth is, luck doesn't work all the time for the house any more than it does for us good guys. That's why you have to be willing to put in a little time if you want to be a long term winner.

(Tomla - Sorry about drifting off point. I was sort of on topic when I posted results from 800 shoes played by three team members betting Target the same way against three different propositions. They all won, but commission battered both Banker and WBL and Player came out more than 80% better off than his pals. Let's imagine that he shrugged it off and split his prize evenly! From my experience, teams fall apart pretty quickly because someone gets greedy or careless or both. It's a tough way to play, for sure. Does that get me out of trouble with you? I hope you will agree that beating 800 shoes three different ways is quite a feat of "reverse engineering"!)


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Target Betting: A baccarat trial to see what happens if the Target Betting ban on Banker bets is reversed, and the strategy backs Banker ONLY!
Target Betting: A special page inspired by a Baccarat Forums member's challenge that featured a Zumma outtake with almost a 50% house edge!

all is forgiven---lol ,,,,,,,,,carry on

Many thanks Seth, you made many excellent points in your response. I've communicated with LOTI for many years and found him fair minded, yet like a few of us, he can be prone to shooting from the hip. I am sure he (or IMspirit) would be willing to iron out any issues with the progression used, the data set and run the tests again. He doesn't have an agenda "just to prove you wrong". He would welcome I'm sure a winning system just like the next person, although like a lot of us scepticism does come first in this game.

Originally Posted by Sethbets

Gamblers as a breed are not generally much interested in reality and truth, and certainly not in raw numbers.

Winning isn't about hunches or making the right choice between several propositions, it's about having the right amount on the table at the right time. Period.

So very true.

Casinos hate to see someone who just won, say, a $1,000 bet walk away from the table, then start up somewhere else with a $5 wager. That's not how people having "fun" are supposed to behave! The profile says they'll swig "free" booze and bet dumber and dumber the more bombed they get, and keep pushing out money until they have "made their contribution." Any player who covers his losses, make a nice profit, and then falls back to low-level betting is a casino's worst enemy, believe me.

Yup I know, been there done that, I do enjoy getting up the noses of the pit staff (subtly of course).

Do you have any expectation figures of busting a $5k bankroll starting at $5 per hand.

Originally Posted by Egalite

Many thanks Seth, you made many excellent points in your response. I've communicated with LOTI for many years and found him fair minded, yet like a few of us, he can be prone to shooting from the hip. I am sure he (or IMspirit) would be willing to iron out any issues with the progression used, the data set and run the tests again. He doesn't have an agenda "just to prove you wrong". He would welcome I'm sure a winning system just like the next person, although like a lot of us scepticism does come first in this game.

Do you have any expectation figures of busting a $5k bankroll starting at $5 per hand.

I'll leave LOTI to you, Egalite! Don't know about Imspirit, although his dismissal of my recommended spread limit concerns me. I posted the rules here just after I joined BF and LOTI ignored them. Maybe Imspirit did too.

I'm in a bind here, because often when I point out the obvious drawbacks of relying on sims that require unbroken play, come what may, I am accused of whining because my method has been "debunked." That's the reason I repeatedly recommend that skeptics learn the rules (it's not hard - there aren't many!) and try them out in real time against a real game. The results are always dramatic.

As I said before, I'll make my Zumma/Woo results available round-by-round to anyone who requests them. Perhaps the best approach is to start work on loading them into a values-only Excel file and then post an announcement here when it's ready. It will take a while, because in both data sets, I eliminated shoe numbers and shuffle breaks, simply because they are irrelevant to Target (you keep betting as long as you're winning, you switch shoes/tables/games when a prolonged negative trend starts hurting, etc. etc.).

Re your BR question, any pronouncement I make will be shot down by some simpleton whose math skills stop at counting from one to ten, but I usually play for two hours at most, win $300 to $500 each session, and bust out maybe one session in 20-25. Because I have time constraints, as well as a family and a life outside casinos (don't we all!?), I sometimes have to roll over an unrecovered LTD for days on end, resuming at the strategy level next time. That means that I don't win every session, but I don't concern myself with losers if there's a "dangling LTD" awaiting resolution.

As I said, the key to winning consistently in real play is knowing when to walk away, in mid-series or after a recovery. Sims can't think. Most humans can.

Here are the bare bones strategy rules (again!):

Start each new series with your preferred minimum bet.
Win or lose, repeat the bet until a mid-series win.
After a mid-series win, bet the lesser of PBx10 (previous bet x10) and LTD+Target (loss to date in the current series, plus one unit in the BB rules)**
If the turnaround (ta) bet loses, repeat it, and continue to the next mid-series win.
If the ta bet wins, fall back to a minimum bet and start a new series.
If the ta bet wins but did not cover the full LTD, bet LTD+Target.

** If the Target bet exceeds the table limit, hold the LTD until you can make the bet elsewhere.
If it tops the house limit, switch houses.
If it exceeds the permitted max...pray.

In the summaries posted here, the rules panel looked like this:

BB rules panel.JPG

You can ignore the "actual max" number because it applies only to the data set under review (the "Y" block of 100 shoes from Zumma). Worth noting, though, is the win/loss percentage for the sample: considerably more losses than wins (the house edge for the block was well over 2%) but the average win value exceeded the average loss value by 19%, upending the HA.

That's what progressive betting is all about: winning more when you win than you lose when you lose so that losing more often won't hurt you. And, of course you will almost always lose more bets than you win.

I'm not being flippant with the "pray" note above. The $25,000 max is a 0.14% reality in the Zumma/Woo data set of 250,000 or so rounds - that's the percentage of bets that exceeded $5,000, the level that I consider my "red zone." Max bets represent a considerably smaller percentage that I don't have to hand and won't guess at. I'll report back on that. No fudging!

I should add that I don't play BB (bare bones). I spice things up by at least doubling the bet after an opening loss, to catch all the "switch" situations that are common in any game (-1, +1 and +1, -1 are the most common pairs, as we all know from long experience!). I also apply a win progression (say, +$10, +$15, +$25, +$50, +$75, +$125 and so on) with the losing bet repeated and creating a new LTD if there were less than eight consecutive opening wins (continuing the sequence above: -$200, -$200, +$200, +$200) but with the series ending if the ninth bet fails.

Again, this is about the difference between sim play and the real thing. If I hit a winning streak, I can't abide betting flat...it's a bloody waste of a golden opportunity!


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Target Betting: A baccarat trial to see what happens if the Target Betting ban on Banker bets is reversed, and the strategy backs Banker ONLY!
Target Betting: A special page inspired by a Baccarat Forums member's challenge that featured a Zumma outtake with almost a 50% house edge!

Seth,

Thanks for the info, I think you have shown a way to consistently win, given some stomach churning criteria along with the right playing conditions. Yet the same could be said for a few methods along with a $5k bankroll and starting at a table minimum of $5 or $10.

With $5k at your disposal and are willing to use it, you can take a Martingale to 9 steps (give or take) a Fibonacci progression to 14 steps, "Sure-Win" a lot further than that. There is nothing preventing anybody factoring in Banker tax (after the event) or potential Banker tax (before the event) once bets reach a certain level, I already do just that when using either a Fibonacci or the Labochere.

It is my opinion many of these brute force type approaches can win for a long time and providing you have bankroll left after any bust, you can recoup pretty fast as well (within 3 sessions was the norm for me), however my preference and suggestion would be to play cautiously, only bring out the heavy artillery as a last resort. While you are correct in your findings regarding Banker tax, that doesn't mean it can't be compensated for.

If I wanted to make $300~$500, then that is my goal target, I am not counting or even considering the amount of wins (or shoes even) required to get me there. Banker tax does play a significant part during recoups for me. If I need to recoup 80 units, I take them 20 per time, when I'm done, provided I get there, I might find (yet expect) I'm 10 units short due to Banker tax paid along the way, so I now have to gun for another 10 units, its no big deal, I'm happy to accept .95 on the dollar than no dollar at all. For me preservation of my bankroll is foremost, I am constantly looking for ways to keep bets low (I can live with an ever extending win requirement ratio, "paying the cost of time and not bankroll"). It is a scary thought having to possibly bet 5 units say 5 times, then you hit a single win, never mind take things further than that.

I can't help but conclude that betting one side only, will be more problematic more often when multiple wins are required to clear draw-downs compared to standard betting options such as FLD (follow last decision) or OLD (opposite last decision), not withstanding the Banker tax hit, just my opinion...

Originally Posted by Egalite

Seth,

Thanks for the info, I think you have shown a way to consistently win, given some stomach churning criteria along with the right playing conditions. Yet the same could be said for a few methods along with a $5k bankroll and starting at a table minimum of $5 or $10.

With $5k at your disposal and are willing to use it, you can take a Martingale to 9 steps (give or take) a Fibonacci progression to 14 steps, "Sure-Win" a lot further than that. There is nothing preventing anybody factoring in Banker tax (after the event) or potential Banker tax (before the event) once bets reach a certain level, I already do just that when using either a Fibonacci or the Labochere.

It is my opinion many of these brute force type approaches can win for a long time and providing you have bankroll left after any bust, you can recoup pretty fast as well (within 3 sessions was the norm for me), however my preference and suggestion would be to play cautiously, only bring out the heavy artillery as a last resort. While you are correct in your findings regarding Banker tax, that doesn't mean it can't be compensated for.

If I wanted to make $300~$500, then that is my goal target, I am not counting or even considering the amount of wins (or shoes even) required to get me there. Banker tax does play a significant part during recoups for me. If I need to recoup 80 units, I take them 20 per time, when I'm done, provided I get there, I might find (yet expect) I'm 10 units short due to Banker tax paid along the way, so I now have to gun for another 10 units, its no big deal, I'm happy to accept .95 on the dollar than no dollar at all. For me preservation of my bankroll is foremost, I am constantly looking for ways to keep bets low (I can live with an ever extending win requirement ratio, "paying the cost of time and not bankroll"). It is a scary thought having to possibly bet 5 units say 5 times, then you hit a single win, never mind take things further than that.

It seems we're agreed that progressive betting is the only way to win in the long term. The entire objective for Target is to ensure that the average value of all winning bets exceeds the average value of all losing bets by a percentage that significantly out-matches the prevailing AV/HA. To win more when you win than you lose when you lose, in other words.

A Martingale is unplayable, unless you limit yourself to 2-3 losses at any one layout (a method that's widely used, I should add). But even doing that, you will be quickly spotted by casino personnel, and in time will be barred. That is an actual, factual fact! Been there, had that done to me...

Target is in effect a cautious Martingale, since at a certain point, the bet value "freezes." One big difference in real play is the win progression: If Bet #1 wins, increase it by 50% (rounded up as needed, obviously). Keep doing that until a loss, then make the loss value your new LTD and play on until it is recovered. Unless the loss comes after win #8, in which case you give thanks for your tidy 8-bet profit and fall back to a minimum bet (usually not at the same table for the reasons mentioned above).

Compensating for the "Bank tax" by upping the bet is a very dangerous game, one that I modeled and abandoned because of its explosive potential. Spreading an LTD load further than "twins" (two consecutive wins) is also something that I have modeled using verifiable outcomes in their hundreds of thousands, and I don't recommend that either. However, it can be successful as long as you progress your bet value so that a quck recovery is possible and not the stuff of fantasy.

A player who falls 10u behind and keeps betting 1u each round has a very slim chance indeed of getting out of the (bleep). In real play, I apply a rule of thumb that says my next bet (NB) should not be less than 1/5 of my target LTD. That means that the increase in response to a mid-series win will be relatively modest - hopefully not enough to start sirens blaring in the pit!

I just dug out a sim that makes an honest attempt to play the way real people play, because I refute the silly idea that a sim that makes the "player" bet on without a break through even the worst downturn has anything to do with real conditions.

It's deceptive and the people who write these things know it.

They rely on them because suicidal play under unreal rules and conditions will defeat any betting strategy after a few million hands.

You said in an earlier post that this isn't done "just to prove you wrong." Sorry, but it is. There are many, many people looking in on BF and other gambling groups around the world every hour of every day whose interests lie with promoting and preserving the "You Can't Win" myth.

Just like a casino confronted with a progressive bettor who keeps taking bites out of the house's bottom line, they will do whatever it takes to neutralize that player. Including cheating. Been there...

I'll be posting details of the "honest, fair and accurate sim" on BF later today. And if you have Excel 2010 and would like a copy of the file (it "deals" 30,000 rounds at a time) e-mail me and I'll send it to you. It's a small, unfussy RNG, but it "plays" like you or I would.


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Target Betting: A baccarat trial to see what happens if the Target Betting ban on Banker bets is reversed, and the strategy backs Banker ONLY!
Target Betting: A special page inspired by a Baccarat Forums member's challenge that featured a Zumma outtake with almost a 50% house edge!

Originally Posted by Sethbets

It seems we're agreed that progressive betting is the only way to win in the long term. The entire objective for Target is to ensure that the average value of all winning bets exceeds the average value of all losing bets by a percentage that significantly out-matches the prevailing AV/HA. To win more when you win than you lose when you lose, in other words.

A Martingale is unplayable, unless you limit yourself to 2-3 losses at any one layout (a method that's widely used, I should add). But even doing that, you will be quickly spotted by casino personnel, and in time will be barred. That is an actual, factual fact! Been there, had that done to me...

I think everybody agrees flat betting simply won't cut it. Progressive betting swings both ways, it wasn't until I visited your site, did I realise in which manner you are using the term. Which was via the use of a "negative progression" (increase after loss or losses). "Progressive betting" can also be applied to increasing bets after a win and down after a loss, "positive progression". I don't know about US casinos, however I've never had any issue playing Martingales beyond 3 steps at Baccarat tables, nor using betting spreads of 1 > 150 units.

Target betting is an option, it can be played around with, rather than betting LTD, one could bet 50% of LTD +1, or even +2, or if things get really bad, 33% of LTD. However this has already been done, GR8's progression which is a variation of the 25 step progression, STAR, even Lanky's 6 point divisor method which you can find on Roulette sites.

It is not necessary to recoup prior losses in two bites, because attempting to do so will increase bets exponentially when you are not successful, I prefer to play a safer game than have to dig deeper. Compensating for Banker tax does not have to be performed during the current draw-down (losing run), you have the option of adding or playing for extra units after the losing run has been resolved, which is how I tackle it.

I would personally limit the draw-downs for approx 7 increases of betting. 7 single players and unknown amount of bankers in-between, would ordinarily put you in shit street, after that I would ramp up the action, just my take based on my own observations.

A player who falls 10u behind and keeps betting 1u each round has a very slim chance indeed of getting out of the (bleep). In real play, I apply a rule of thumb that says my next bet (NB) should not be less than 1/5 of my target LTD. That means that the increase in response to a mid-series win will be relatively modest - hopefully not enough to start sirens blaring in the pit!

Agreed (except for the sirens bit, we are talking Baccarat here and not BJ), however recouping 10 units can be recouped easily either by positive or negative progressive betting.

I just dug out a sim that makes an honest attempt to play the way real people play, because I refute the silly idea that a sim that makes the "player" bet on without a break through even the worst downturn has anything to do with real conditions.

Ok, but you gotta realise, I'm sure you do, prior decisions have no bearing on future decisions, you are just as likely to snare that double P just as you decide to leave the table. Then just as likely to hit another run of single P's when you return or sit elsewhere. My defensive moves don't have me quitting a shoe or table, rather they are monetary based, I simply back off the amounts bets.

I can't speak for everybody, but so many people on sites like this, find or design themselves a progression and play it until the bitter end. I say sites like this, because most players I share a game with, don't use a "written in stone" progressions at all. Then again most are Asian and definitely don't bother with English language gambling sites either.

They rely on them because suicidal play under unreal rules and conditions will defeat any betting strategy after a few million hands.

Anybody who has a fair amount of gambling under their belt will realise 8 or more losses in a row will happen, the smart ones will not let losing 8 decisions send them to the wall or having them digging that deep. I abandoned those type of progressions years ago, the add no real value, they only give a false perception and delay the inevitable crash.

You said in an earlier post that this isn't done "just to prove you wrong." Sorry, but it is. There are many, many people looking in on BF and other gambling groups around the world every hour of every day whose interests lie with promoting and preserving the "You Can't Win" myth.

Just like a casino confronted with a progressive bettor who keeps taking bites out of the house's bottom line, they will do whatever it takes to neutralize that player. Including cheating. Been there...

For sure, but IMSpirit is definately not one of those, simply reading this early blogs, where he had ample opportunity to call various sellers, systems scammers, scams etc, he was objective and very discrete with his choice of words not to overly offend anybody.

I am well versed in some of the under handed tactics casinos will employ to stop players they feel are winning too much, some of which are fairly blatant.

OK, Egalite, we're on the same page and definitely in the same game, with the usual variations you'd expect from our individual freedom to play as we choose.

The ancient saw, "the cards (or whatever) have no memory" is in everyone's mind, I'm sure, and certainly does not need to be mentioned here.

Progressive betting as most people define it means increasing your bets in response to growing losses. And since I also use the term "win progression" I think that explains itself.

Target does not require anyone to believe that they have a "better chance" of winning a second time after a mid-series win interrupts a losing trend. That's a given. What it does remind players is that "twins" are half as frequent as isolated wins and twice as frequent as trips, triples, threes or whatever else you choose to call them. That's a statistical fact regardless of card memory etc.

Here's a reminder about "twins" frequency:

Twinned wins wear green.jpg

If you are able to bet a Martingale multiple times without hassle, you're obviously not in the USA (although I guessed that from your Queen's English and the time-stamp on your posts!).

Lastly, play safe by all means - player's choice rules. But the safer you play, the less likely you are to win.

I take it you're not recommending CSCasino...?

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Target Betting: A baccarat trial to see what happens if the Target Betting ban on Banker bets is reversed, and the strategy backs Banker ONLY!
Target Betting: A special page inspired by a Baccarat Forums member's challenge that featured a Zumma outtake with almost a 50% house edge!

Originally Posted by Sethbets

Target does not require anyone to believe that they have a "better chance" of winning a second time after a mid-series win interrupts a losing trend. That's a given. What it does remind players is that "twins" are half as frequent as isolated wins and twice as frequent as trips, triples, threes or whatever else you choose to call them. That's a statistical fact regardless of card memory etc.

Something dawned on me, which I will share and I would like your opinion on it.

Variation of Target Betting,
like you said, double wins are more frequent than triples and if you are betting "one side only", will occur sooner or later and most definitely within a shoe.

Your method

LLLLLL (normal target betting all flat at 1u)
W (now bet LTD +1, so we bet 6u next and let's say we lose the next subsequent bet)
LLLL (each of those bets are at 6u, yet they clear nothing, all they really achieve is to push the next bet series even higher after the next win)

So what if we ran it like this;

Alternative method

LLLLLL (normal target betting all flat at 1u)
W (now bet LTD +1, so we bet 6u, let's say we lose the next subsequent bet)
L (we bet 6u and lose)
LLL (why not simply drop back to the base bet of 1u)

W (we win at 1u, so our next bet is LTD +1, which would be 14 units, compared to 30 units with the version above.

Both methods have the reliance of "twins" both methods results in a 1u profit, both methods avoid the banker tax, one has you betting 30u the other has you betting 14u, one method requires a formidable bankroll and cast iron stomach, the other is a bit more palatable.

I take it you're not recommending CSCasino...?

Never heard of it, just the way acronyms are picked up by the board.