Thread: Let's squash the "bet Banker" myth with some accurate math and start winning at last!

I never said betting banker all the time is the only way to win long term. I have never said there is a way to win long term.

I said betting banker all the time INSTEAD of playing player all the time will make you LOSE LESS long term. And that is a fact.

If you can not accept that fact, you are either a casino shill or retarded.

OK, I stand corrected. The author of the above later changed his position and said he meant that if you bet flat against Banker, you'll lose less than if you bet flat against Player.

Only an idiot (or someone who really, really wants to lose) bets flat against any house game, and tossing that "what if?" into a discussion about progressive betting is about as relevant as asking "What if the current POTUS wore red tights to the polls next year and voted Republican?" Won't happen, so it's just another nonsensical smoke-screen.

Because I need funny material for the best-selling book I'm writing, I'm going to work my way through the WOO shoes posted online and demonstrate once again why backing Banker is almost always a bad idea.

Looking first at WOO 1-90, which you can find at the Google Docs link below, let's get the flat-bet irrelevance out of the way and give Banker's Boy a round of applause for being uselessly, meaninglessly correct. He doesn't often get his sums right, so make it a great big hand, please.

Betting Banker, the flat-bet outcome was +112u or +1.48%. A win! But no, commission on 3,447 winning Banker bets (out of 7,544 rounds total) was -172.35u, obliterating that "win" and replacing it with a net loss. That's what the "5%" commission is designed to do, so there's no surprise there.

Now let's examine the widely-held belief that however you bet, Banker is the better of the two primary propositions in baccarat.

(If you sit down at a full-size baccarat layout and ask the table captain or caller which is the better bet between Banker and Player, he will tell you, "Banker, because it wins more often." He's just doing his job. Our friend Banker's Boy is just doing his, too, I guess).

As always, full corroborating data will be published online and you'll find a summary too, if you don't want to scroll down through 7,544 bets.

But here are some facts:

Using Target Betting, and backing Player only, the total win was $58,140 and a switch to Banker achieved a gross win of $63,115.

Player's win was +4.16% of total action, and Banker's was +10.26%.

Score one for Banker's Boy? Er, no. Commission lopped $15,903 off Banker's win, dropping the net win to $47,213 or just 81% of the Player-only profit.

So the statement that "betting Banker all the way will lose less than betting Player all the way" is demonstrably false.

I said betting banker all the time INSTEAD of playing player all the time will make you LOSE LESS long term. And that is a fact.

Tell me, did I misunderstand Banker's Boy?

Watch this space for info about all the other blocks of shoes from the WOO 1,000.

Yes, it's tedious, I know. But too many people on this board make wild statements without corroborating data, and I really think that's wrong.

Banker's Boy will probably respond that 90 shoes is "not representative" or "not long term" but the statement I quoted above is unequivocal. If it doesn't apply to 90 shoes, it probably doesn't apply at all.

Our mutual friend says he has Imspirit's full backing for his statement, which leads me to conclude that either Imspirit and Banker's Boy are the same person, or they're on the same psychotropic drugs.

Either way, take some good advice: Don't bet Banker unless for some reason you can't avoid it. It's what the house wants you to do.


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

LOL

Wow you sure showed everyone...not. You can never prove that player is a better bet, because it is something that can never be proven. You really don't know anything do you?

Your problem (one of many I might add) is that you use such a small sample of shoes. Player can stay ahead of banker for tens of thousands of consecutive decisions, but long term BANKER IS THE BETTER BET. You should take a reality pill you clown.

Again, I must say that one has to wonder why you simply do not release your spreadsheet. I think we all know the answer to that though

Originally Posted by LOTI

LOL

Wow you sure showed everyone...not. You can never prove that player is a better bet, because it is something that can never be proven. You really don't know anything do you?

Your problem (one of many I might add) is that you use such a small sample of shoes. Player can stay ahead of banker for tens of thousands of consecutive decisions, but long term BANKER IS THE BETTER BET. You should take a reality pill you clown.

Again, I must say that one has to wonder why you simply do not release your spreadsheet. I think we all know the answer to that though

And there we have it, once again! The moment a little accurate math disproves his sweeping but nonsensical proclamations, Banker's Boy wants to move the goalposts.

As for not publishing the algorithms for my models, the answer to that is obvious to anyone but an opportunistic loser hoping to score off someone else's hard work.

You told me in a recent off-board e-mail...

Now when Guido, Imspirit AND myself have proven to you that betting banker will LOSE less than betting player in the long run (with a capped max bet or flat bet), and you vehemently deny it without any proof, this is called a delusion.

and...

My name is Benn and I am LOTI (formerly LuckoftheIrish) on baccaratforums. I am also Teorulte on gamblersglen message board, and LuckoftheIrish on a few others.

I have a collection of around 2000 systems, and have tested hundreds of them over the last 6+ years. I have also tested people's system for them using Excel. I have basically an unlimited amount of 8 deck RNG shoes to test systems with. If you want, I could help test your system for you over the long run to see if it really is a winner. I would guarantee you my confidentiality and would give your system a fair and extensive test. I have been looking for the holy grail for a long time, but have never come close.

and...

Nice try Seth. I have debated and made fools of men much, much smarter than you. You see I don't go spouting my mouth about a winning, long term system and say absolute falsehoods such as betting player is better than betting banker!

Hell's bells, Banker's Boy. It's clear, from your boasts and from the high quality of your posts that your intellect is far superior to mine. So what do you need my formulas for?

Seems the Excel file that begins the task of chipping away at the "Bet Banker Myth" is a tad too detailed for Google Docs, and attaching it runs up against a "table limit." I'll be glad to e-mail it to anyone who requests it.

The screen snap summary with charts and all is at Untitled 1.


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Seth is quite the comedian. He has Imspirit and myself in stiches.

The guy takes a few thousand shoes, uses a 5000 UNIT MAX BET, and claims he has the holy grail

LOL

I have beaten around 1.5 million PLAYED DECISIONS, which equates to around 20 000 shoes with a max bet of less than 1000 units. And of course it is a system based on betting banker, because betting banker will lose less in the long run than betting on player. Now do I go around spouting my mouth saying I have the holy grail? No, because I am not a fool like Seth.

Here is the funniest thing:

Dear LOTI,

Sethbets has requested that you become friends. You can approve or deny this request by visiting:

http://baccaratforums.com/profile/friends/

All the best,
Baccarat Forums

I think the guy is starving for attention. He is obviously a deluded fool. I mean who else is willing to risk 5000 units or MORE to win 1 unit. That is insanity!

Originally Posted by LOTI

I mean who else is willing to risk 5000 units or MORE to win 1 unit. That is insanity!

More to the point. Who would continue to play a losing game if they knew Target was a way to come out ahead in the long run. Even if that meant on the odd occasion laying out a few big bets.

Here in the Phils, the player is really the very best bet because they play Super Six here. No banker commission, but you only get paid half of your bet on a winning banker 6. However, you can hedge that because there is a table bet for the banker 6.

Everybody squeezes the cards here and acts like an a hole if they produce a winner. I guess they think they have some special magic with the cards. But, the people here in Davao are the most loving, friendly, open people I have ever lived with, directly opposite of the Thais. Davao is a great place to retire. The women are gorgeous and wonderful, and old age is respected.
love,swami

Your location is still listed as Thailand, and needs to be changed to Phillippines. Thanks for the insight about Davao.

Originally Posted by LOTI

Seth is quite the comedian. He has Imspirit and myself in stiches.

The guy takes a few thousand shoes, uses a 5000 UNIT MAX BET, and claims he has the holy grail

LOL

I have beaten around 1.5 million PLAYED DECISIONS, which equates to around 20 000 shoes with a max bet of less than 1000 units. And of course it is a system based on betting banker, because betting banker will lose less in the long run than betting on player. Now do I go around spouting my mouth saying I have the holy grail? No, because I am not a fool like Seth.

Here is the funniest thing:



I think the guy is starving for attention. He is obviously a deluded fool. I mean who else is willing to risk 5000 units or MORE to win 1 unit. That is insanity!

The way I was brought up, when you see a conflict growing and you can't divine the cause, you make a friendly offer to talk about. Banker's Boy finds that funny. I find his response rather sad.

Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Originally Posted by LOTI

I have beaten around 1.5 million PLAYED DECISIONS, which equates to around 20 000 shoes with a max bet of less than 1000 units. And of course it is a system based on betting banker, because betting banker will lose less in the long run than betting on player. Now do I go around spouting my mouth saying I have the holy grail? No, because I am not a fool like Seth.

Hmmmm... My inferior brain is having problems figuring out why Banker's Boy doesn't see that he's SO smart, he can outsmart even himself. He has a "winning system" that beats the house against a data set equal to 15 lifetimes of play, but says he bets Banker because "Banker will lose less in the long run than betting on Player." So the winning system didn't win after all?

Let's do the math again:

1,000,000 rounds of baccarat, flat-betting 1u, Banker only.
+458,600u from Banker wins
-22,930u 5% comm.
+435,670u net Banker win
-446,200u from Banker losses
-10,530u Banker's net loss (-1.16% of all action incl. ties)

Target betting, avg loss -1u, avg win +1.1u

1,000,000 rounds of baccarat, flat-betting 1u, Player only.
+446,200 Player wins @ 1.1u = +490,820u
(-0u 5% comm.)
+490,820u net Player win
-458,600u from Player losses
+32,220u Player's net win (> +2.0% of all action incl. ties)

Now, Banker's Boy is so very, very smart that he's going to say Target cannot deliver an average win that's 10% greater than its average loss, and of course, being so smart, he's right: In the tough WOO 1,000 it was +11.16% and in the Zumma 1,600 it was closer to +15%.

The ability of progressive betting to deliver an average win value that greatly exceeds its average loss value is mathematically indisputable. For example, -1, -2, -4, +8 gives us an AWB of 8u and an ALB of 2.33u, although that's a simplification for the benefit of people who are not as smart as Banker's Boy (which means everyone).

Also simple: Over time, you are certain to lose more bets than you win, so you have to bet in such a way that you win more when you win than you lose when you lose.


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Originally Posted by Sethbets

Seems the Excel file that begins the task of chipping away at the "Bet Banker Myth" is a tad too detailed for Google Docs, and attaching it runs up against a "table limit." I'll be glad to e-mail it to anyone who requests it.

One can place an Excel worksheet on the web.

Try Windows Live Skydrive. Excel Web App.
Windows Live SkyDrive - Online document storage and file sharing
It is free, you just have to set up a free Microsoft account and you can upload your Excel files for viewing and downloads.
here is an example for one in a webpage.
Streak Calculator- Enter streak number
The lower right of the iframe has a download link and a link to view the complete worksheet.

I have not used it much yet. I think it is way better than Google Docs as it does not alter or convert the original Excel document.

I read the above and I saw in the rapid blink of an eye, flat bet Banker versus Target Betting Player. That is not comparing apples with apples.

Then I read

Originally Posted by Sethbets

1,000,000 rounds of baccarat, flat-betting 1u, Banker only.
+458,600u from Banker wins
-22,930u 5% comm.
+435,670u net Banker win
-446,200u from Banker losses
-10,530u Banker's net loss (-1.16% of all action incl. ties)

Target betting, avg loss -1u, avg win +1.1u

1,000,000 rounds of baccarat, flat-betting 1u, Player only.
+446,200 Player wins @ 1.1u = +490,820u
(-0u 5% comm.)
+490,820u net Player win
-458,600u from Player losses
+32,220u Player's net win (> +2.0% of all action incl. ties)

which I find interesting because you included the TIE, which disadvantages both sides, not that Seth plays the Tie or would anybody play 1,000,000 hands of Baccarat. Why don't as you say "let's run the test", this time exclude the tie. Posting flat betting Player after 1M hands, is positive, that is an amazing trick...

Originally Posted by Egalite

I read the above and I saw in the rapid blink of an eye, flat bet Banker versus Target Betting Player. That is not comparing apples with apples.

Then I read
which I find interesting because you included the TIE, which disadvantages both sides, not that Seth plays the Tie or would anybody play 1,000,000 hands of Baccarat. Why don't as you say "let's run the test", this time exclude the tie. Posting flat betting Player after 1M hands, is positive, that is an amazing trick...

Not just an amazing trick but an impossible trick, and the trial would still be irrelevant.

I have heard people say that bets on Ties don't count towards total action because there was no decision. Bollocks! If you have money on the table, no decision means no risk only after the fact, and since casinos don't let us bet on the outcome of a round after it's been dealt, that money was at risk and in play until the Tie showed.

I have already demonstrated Target betting Banker but you blink so much you probably haven't noticed!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Originally Posted by guido1

One can place an Excel worksheet on the web.

Try Windows Live Skydrive. Excel Web App.
Windows Live SkyDrive - Online document storage and file sharing
It is free, you just have to set up a free Microsoft account and you can upload your Excel files for viewing and downloads.
here is an example for one in a webpage.
Streak Calculator- Enter streak number
The lower right of the iframe has a download link and a link to view the complete worksheet.

I have not used it much yet. I think it is way better than Google Docs as it does not alter or convert the original Excel document.

Thanks, Guido1 - I use SkyDrive for work files. Dohhhhh - easy enough to set up a separate account and post Excel files without the annoying reformatting. See, I really am dumber than Banker's Boy!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Seth what game are you playing HERE, you seem to be fudging at every opportunity.

1,000,000 rounds of baccarat, flat-betting 1u, Banker only.
+458,600u from Banker wins
-22,930u 5% comm.
+435,670u net Banker win
-446,200u from Banker losses
-10,530u Banker's net loss (-1.16% of all action incl. ties)

Target betting, avg loss -1u, avg win +1.1u

1,000,000 rounds of baccarat, flat-betting 1u, Player only.
+446,200 Player wins @ 1.1u = +490,820u
(-0u 5% comm.)
+490,820u net Player win
-458,600u from Player losses
+32,220u Player's net win (> +2.0% of all action incl. ties)

Why compare flat betting Banker with flat betting Player at 1.1u Where I play a player win pays even money. If you are going to introduce a .1 progression to flat betting player, why not do the same for flat betting banker. I knew your figures didn't make sense, took me a while to notice how 446,200 player wins could net 490,820 units. Yeah right, do they tip player wins where you play?

If you want to compare flat betting B with flat betting P, then apply the same criteria to BOTH sides. Ditto, if you want to apply "TB" to the P side, then apply it to the B side. This way everything is fair an equal, then people can make up their own minds, if that's ok with you.

This thread was suppose to be about dispelling the Banker myth, all you have done is applied a progression to betting Player and left the banker at flat betting, shifty or what??

Originally Posted by Egalite

Seth what game are you playing HERE, you seem to be fudging at every opportunity.



Why compare flat betting Banker with flat betting Player at 1.1u Where I play a player win pays even money. If you are going to introduce a .1 progression to flat betting player, why not do the same for flat betting banker. I knew your figures didn't make sense, took me a while to notice how 446,200 player wins could net 490,820 units. Yeah right, do they tip player wins where you play?

If you want to compare flat betting B with flat betting P, then apply the same criteria to BOTH sides. Ditto, if you want to apply "TB" to the P side, then apply it to the B side. This way everything is fair an equal, then people can make up their own minds, if that's ok with you.

This thread was suppose to be about dispelling the Banker myth, all you have done is applied a progression to betting Player and left the banker at flat betting, shifty or what??

Oh, come ON, Carl Lund - flat-betting and progression can't be in the same sentence, unless you're trying to fudge English.

See, I provide you with examples and links and charts and all that good stuff, and like your pal Benn Gunn you ignore them because, as you have told us all, you "don't know and more to the point, don't care."

I have posted numerous direct comparisons between Target playing Banker and Target betting Player against the same data sets. But of course, you blinked.

I'm tired of this. From now on I'm only going to play with the grown-ups.

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Who's Carl Lund? Ian" turnaround" Harmer. Don't get your knickers in a twist, this thread was all about dispelling the banker myth, all you have done, is use a progression when betting player and flat bet the banker, to prove your wacko theory. Instead of proving a point, you have shown how far you will stretch and bend things to suit your belief.

Instead of only "pay" with the grown-ups, how about risking some real money in a casino with this fudged comparison, maybe the casino will fudge the results and let you add to your wealth. I am assuming you desire other board members do this, so be a devil and eat your own dog food first.

BTW - I'm sure I've seen "coldfusion" try his best trying to out fox somebody called "Carl Lund" over at GG many years ago, maybe that is where your confusion stems from?

Originally Posted by guido1

One can place an Excel worksheet on the web.

Try Windows Live Skydrive. Excel Web App.
Windows Live SkyDrive - Online document storage and file sharing
It is free, you just have to set up a free Microsoft account and you can upload your Excel files for viewing and downloads.
here is an example for one in a webpage.
Streak Calculator- Enter streak number
The lower right of the iframe has a download link and a link to view the complete worksheet.

I have not used it much yet. I think it is way better than Google Docs as it does not alter or convert the original Excel document.

Thanks again, Guido - For once, MS has done a better job than Google. By far. The files look the way they're supposed to, although only those outside the "don't know, don't care" category will bother to open them, I know.

I have great admiration for the way you seem (as far as I've seen recently) to stay out of the way of posters like Who's Carl Lund and Benn Gunn, whose years of dedication to lowering the tone of every gambling forum that allows them access testify to their long-term goals. And helping other people play better and win more often is definitely not one of those goals!

I don't share my work files with anyone, so I'm new to that side of SkyDrive. I'm hoping the link below will give access to the WOO files to those who care! This has been a big help. Why didn't I think of it? Because I'm dumber than Benn Gunn, who never posts detailed information about anything he does, never explains his thinking so that people dumber than him can follow what he's on about, and never pays attention to useful information provided in good faith by other people. That's really, really smart, because that way you never get caught out. Doesn't matter to Benn Gunn that behaving the way he does in public makes him look really, really dumb because he knows he's smarter than the rest of us and doesn't have to prove it.

Target on SkyDrive


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Originally Posted by Sethbets

Hmmmm... My inferior brain is having problems figuring out why Banker's Boy doesn't see that he's SO smart, he can outsmart even himself. He has a "winning system" that beats the house against a data set equal to 15 lifetimes of play, but says he bets Banker because "Banker will lose less in the long run than betting on Player." So the winning system didn't win after all?

Let's do the math again:

1,000,000 rounds of baccarat, flat-betting 1u, Banker only.
+458,600u from Banker wins
-22,930u 5% comm.
+435,670u net Banker win
-446,200u from Banker losses
-10,530u Banker's net loss (-1.16% of all action incl. ties)

Target betting, avg loss -1u, avg win +1.1u

1,000,000 rounds of baccarat, flat-betting 1u, Player only.
+446,200 Player wins @ 1.1u = +490,820u
(-0u 5% comm.)
+490,820u net Player win
-458,600u from Player losses
+32,220u Player's net win (> +2.0% of all action incl. ties)

Now, Banker's Boy is so very, very smart that he's going to say Target cannot deliver an average win that's 10% greater than its average loss, and of course, being so smart, he's right: In the tough WOO 1,000 it was +11.16% and in the Zumma 1,600 it was closer to +15%.

The ability of progressive betting to deliver an average win value that greatly exceeds its average loss value is mathematically indisputable. For example, -1, -2, -4, +8 gives us an AWB of 8u and an ALB of 2.33u, although that's a simplification for the benefit of people who are not as smart as Banker's Boy (which means everyone).

Also simple: Over time, you are certain to lose more bets than you win, so you have to bet in such a way that you win more when you win than you lose when you lose.


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Well, case closed!! NOT

I wonder which casino in the world will give you back 1.1 units when you bet 1 unit on Player. Does anybody know of any off hand?

This is too funny. The guy tests a few thousand shoes and then magically takes the result and tries to apply it to 1 million rounds of baccarat! LOL Too funny.

You should actually TEST against 1 million rounds of baccarat you charlatan! LOL

Oh boy as far as charlatans go, you sure are quite the amateur.

Does anybody know why Seth is wrong when he says he can "bet in such a way that you win more when you win than you lose when you lose"?

The answer is actually very simple, like Seth.

Originally Posted by LOTI

Well, case closed!! NOT

I wonder which casino in the world will give you back 1.1 units when you bet 1 unit on Player. Does anybody know of any off hand?

This is too funny. The guy tests a few thousand shoes and then magically takes the result and tries to apply it to 1 million rounds of baccarat! LOL Too funny.

You should actually TEST against 1 million rounds of baccarat you charlatan! LOL

Oh boy as far as charlatans go, you sure are quite the amateur.

I think we can all appreciate how generous it is for a self-proclaimed genius to spend so much time repeatedly demonstrating the downside of a very, very, very high IQ. Benn Gunn aka LOTI aka WhoCares? and Who'sCarlLund aka Egalite aka John_Baccarat aka JJ aka Etc struggle with a lot together, and we can almost envy the depth of their kinship and feel for their shared problems with elementary arithmetic.

The ability of progressive betting to deliver an average win value that greatly exceeds its average loss value is mathematically indisputable. For example, -1, -2, -4, +8 gives us an AWB of 8u and an ALB of 2.33u, although that's a simplification for the benefit of people who are not as smart as Banker's Boy (which means everyone).

I know I was safe in assuming that every adult who subscribes to BF would find the above sentence and the "win more" concept readily comprehensible. But sometimes I forget that there are some contributors to BF who are here simply to disrupt the proceedings and to make themselves look foolish. (I can count on having that quote turned back on me and will relish the next example of the inanity of genius!).

The ability of any method of progressive betting to deliver an average win value that is higher than its average loss value is demonstrated repeatedly in the WOO 1,000 files now accessible to all via SkyDrive (thanks again, Guido1!).

But in case there are others who have trouble with clicking on links and opening files, then reading what's in 'em, here's another kindergarten demonstration: -1, -2, +4, -1, -2, +4, -1, -2, +4 gives us an AWB of +4 and an ALB of -1.5.

As I said some time back, if you don't win more money when you win than you lose when you lose, you'll be in trouble at the end of the day unless you somehow manage to win more bets than you lose.

That's a concept that adults have no trouble with, but perhaps that's not true of children with short attention spans, and self-proclaimed geniuses who have given away thousands of systems to hundreds of people (or was it the other way around?), knowing that all of those systems were bogus.

Odd that both Dum and Dee, the twin terrors of the sandbox, got the idea that I play at a casino where they pay 110% on every Player win. That would be nice if it applied to each individual bet, but I doubt I'll be able to persuade my local joints to change their rules.

Ironically, when all Player wins are added together and all the Player losses are added together, the average win is always worth at least 10% more money than the average loss. But you need to be able to count on the fingers of both hands to grasp that idea.

Target on SkyDrive


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

LOTI, this is better coming from you, you may already have the data.

Let's do the math again:

1,000,000 rounds of baccarat, flat-betting 1u, Banker only.
+458,600u from Banker wins
-22,930u 5% comm.
+435,670u net Banker win
-446,200u from Banker losses
-10,530u Banker's net loss (-1.16% of all action incl. ties)

Target betting, avg loss -1u, avg win +1.1u

1,000,000 rounds of baccarat, flat-betting 1u, Player only.
+446,200 Player wins @ 1.1u = +490,820u
(-0u 5% comm.)
+490,820u net Player win
-458,600u from Player losses
+32,220u Player's net win (> +2.0% of all action incl. ties)

Run those tests again, this time using 1u for every player win, subtract the Banker tax on Banker wins.

So we can see the true figures, which Ian didn't want to post....

Originally Posted by Egalite

LOTI, this is better coming from you, you may already have the data.

Run those tests again, this time using 1u for every player win, subtract the Banker tax.

So we can see the true figures, which Ian didn't want to post....

Who's Ian?

Carl Lund should know better than to play in a casino where there's a "Banker tax" on Player wins - or maybe that's why he needs Benn Gunn to "run those tests again"?

No need to run anything again. No one here has ever disputed that flat-betting Banker will "lose less" in the long run than flat-betting player. Only a genius of Benn's standing would think of betting flat against any game.


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home
Target on SkyDrive


New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

So you never really dispelled or squashed the "bet banker" myth Ian.

If my name was Carl, do you think I would have told you? Wise up & turnaround Mr Harmer.... My name is égalité

Originally Posted by Egalite

So you never really dispelled or squashed the "bet banker" myth Ian.

If my name was Carl, do you think I would have told you? Wise up & turnaround Mr Harmer.... My name is égalité

Come on, Carl Lund, put the nice bouncy ball down and pay attention. The "bet Banker" myth has been dispelled in dozens of examples that have been posted online so you can learn something.

Ask your Mummy to show you how to find them, there's a good little man.

And as for your real name, that's the whole point, isn't it: You're now saying that you are happy to make mischief for someone else, but demand the right to your own privacy and anonymity. Must make you feel very grown up.

Bad boy.


Seth T.

Blog
Home
Target on SkyDrive


New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Originally Posted by Egalite

Maybe the reason Seth calls LOTI a casino shill, because the same accusation was thrown at him by the BJ community "back in the day".

Here is an interesting viewpoint from GG (click to view the full thread) Slight delay, but now he's resurfaced..

Good point Egalite. I figure he might be some sort of casino shill as well.

By the way here are some REAL stats, not some made up by Seth:

10 000 8 Deck RNG shoes tested.
737 465 played decisions. (You of course do NOT count ties, only clowns count ties as placed bets if you are betting banker or player LOL)

Playing banker 1 unit per decision, INCLUDING 5% commission: -8 486.75 units
Playing player 1 unit per decision, winning 1 unit and not 1.1 (LOL): -10 205 units

So you tell me WHICH is the better bet? Losing 10 205 units, or losing 8 468.75 units?

Which magical casino does Seth play at where you get bet 1 unit and win 1.1 units for every player win? ROFL

Funny story about that money business (not to be confused with monkey business, which is what I'mNotCarlLund and Benn Gunn are enjoying so much at everyone else's expense).

But first, a comment about hypocrisy. Carl Lund has demanded that I stop mentioning his name in my posts, which is odd, since he keep's mentioning Ian's. He also calls himself Egalite here, a French word that means equality. But of course, he only means equality for him and to hell with everyone else. Pitiful? I would say so.

And no doubt Carl Lund would, in 2011, feel that he has made great progress in the many years since he first began attacking any post anywhere that tells people up front and with verifiable proof that it really is possible to consistently beat the house advantage at games of chance. Except that he hasn't made progress at all, because his arguments remain sloppy and incoherent, his grammar and typing are still a mess, and he still has no respect for anyone, including himself.

I know for sure that I have moved way ahead of where I was when I first put a progressive betting strategy on the Internet for free in 1997. Oops, did I just say I?

Way back in the late '90s, I took on a couple of partners who insisted, with some convincing arguments, that my much more complex and confusing progressive betting strategy, then called Turnaround (tested on the computers that were available in the early to mid-90s, remember!) be treated strictly as a business. By then, the rules had been in free-and-easy circulation for a long while, but I went along with it just to get the backers off my back.

The most aggressive of the two backers had contractually guaranteed to put up $100,000 to bankroll a series of real-play trials. Third night in, he got totally hammered on "free" booze (something specifically forbidden per our contract), sat down at the wrong end of a blackjack table, playing without me (also against the contract!) and proceeded to lose $15,000 before deciding that maybe he should have tried to follow at least one of the strategy rules before emptying his wallet. "Couldn't remember them," was all he had to say about that. We agreed not to work together again. The other guy? Another story.

You have to work pretty hard to find any record of TA being "sold" to anyone, and I have been sent copies of the "freebie" strategy (the only strategy back then) in numerous languages from all over the world down the years. Now, why would Carl Lund work so hard to dig up dirt, not just on me but on anyone who has threatened the casinos' "unbeatable" house edge in recent years? Could it be his job, I wonder?

Carl Lund or whoever he is (I have some pals in the media business in London working on that!) writes frequent rambling attacks on all manner of people (his rants against Gr8player are a pathetic disgrace, for example) so I don't feel singled out or in the least bit concerned. I do understand why he doesn't want his real name used, though. He has nothing to be proud of.

Deliberately deceptive math from Carl Lund and his pal Benn Gunn is something else, so I offer this:

Target on SkyDrive - Some honest numbers that examine the Banker myth

Carl Lund won't look at the facts, because he has made it plain that he "doesn't know...doesn't care." What a guy! Benn Gunn won't either, because even though he says he's smarter than all the rest of us put together, he has a really hard time getting past the concept of flat betting.


Seth T.

Blog
Home
Target on SkyDrive


New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Does anybody know of a casino where you can place a 1 unit bet on player and if player hits, you win 1.1 units?

LOL

Originally Posted by Sethbets

OK, I stand corrected. The author of the above later changed his position and said he meant that if you bet flat against Banker, you'll lose less than if you bet flat against Player.

Only an idiot (or someone who really, really wants to lose) bets flat against any house game, and tossing that "what if?" into a discussion about progressive betting is about as relevant as asking "What if the current POTUS wore red tights to the polls next year and voted Republican?" Won't happen, so it's just another nonsensical smoke-screen.

Because I need funny material for the best-selling book I'm writing, I'm going to work my way through the WOO shoes posted online and demonstrate once again why backing Banker is almost always a bad idea.

Looking first at WOO 1-90, which you can find at the Google Docs link below, let's get the flat-bet irrelevance out of the way and give Banker's Boy a round of applause for being uselessly, meaninglessly correct. He doesn't often get his sums right, so make it a great big hand, please.

Betting Banker, the flat-bet outcome was +112u or +1.48%. A win! But no, commission on 3,447 winning Banker bets (out of 7,544 rounds total) was -172.35u, obliterating that "win" and replacing it with a net loss. That's what the "5%" commission is designed to do, so there's no surprise there.

Now let's examine the widely-held belief that however you bet, Banker is the better of the two primary propositions in baccarat.

(If you sit down at a full-size baccarat layout and ask the table captain or caller which is the better bet between Banker and Player, he will tell you, "Banker, because it wins more often." He's just doing his job. Our friend Banker's Boy is just doing his, too, I guess).

As always, full corroborating data will be published online and you'll find a summary too, if you don't want to scroll down through 7,544 bets.

But here are some facts:

Using Target Betting, and backing Player only, the total win was $58,140 and a switch to Banker achieved a gross win of $63,115.

Player's win was +4.16% of total action, and Banker's was +10.26%.

Score one for Banker's Boy? Er, no. Commission lopped $15,903 off Banker's win, dropping the net win to $47,213 or just 81% of the Player-only profit.

So the statement that "betting Banker all the way will lose less than betting Player all the way" is demonstrably false.



Tell me, did I misunderstand Banker's Boy?

Watch this space for info about all the other blocks of shoes from the WOO 1,000.

Yes, it's tedious, I know. But too many people on this board make wild statements without corroborating data, and I really think that's wrong.

Banker's Boy will probably respond that 90 shoes is "not representative" or "not long term" but the statement I quoted above is unequivocal. If it doesn't apply to 90 shoes, it probably doesn't apply at all.

Our mutual friend says he has Imspirit's full backing for his statement, which leads me to conclude that either Imspirit and Banker's Boy are the same person, or they're on the same psychotropic drugs.

Either way, take some good advice: Don't bet Banker unless for some reason you can't avoid it. It's what the house wants you to do.


Keep winning!

Seth T.

Blog
Home

New file
WOO 1,000 summaries
WOO files on Google Docs

Would you like to prove your assertion with a bet? We could wager, say, $10,000, that bank would win more money than player over, say, 1000 hands in a randomly chosen casino by an independent arbitor. We could make the wager much larger if you prefer.