Baccarat Playing (and Winning) Baccarat Over The Long Term

Let's see. 52%. That means 2% ahead of break even . 2% of 3000 hands that you keep track is 60 hands. If you bet $1000 on each, it would be 60k. Are you confident that you will get ahead 2% all the time? You mentioned this is the frequency of wins over losses and not the money won. Have you any idea this is a BOLD claim? I am not disputing your results but guessing right more than wrong by a 2% margin is HUGE. B only outplay P by 0.68%.

 

I like the way Craps puts the " tochas " om the table. He says as it it is.

 

If you cover your face with your hands and then reveal your face to a baby and say “peek-a-boo,” babies tend to like that as well; but just liking something doesn’t show a higher capacity for intelligence.

Even if someone does have a bet selection that grants them a 2% break ahead, it doesn’t mean that by flat betting $1,000 a hand that they would be up tens of thousands after so many shoes. They are most likely using some type of progression—but even if they aren’t using a progression and flat betting instead and their claims of a strike-rate are in the +50% area, 2-5% isn’t much and swings can go both ways. In order to feel comfortable betting $1,000 a hand they would need a bankroll of 1,000-5,000 units.

Not a lot of people are able to bring a million to 5 million dollar bankroll to the casino and play $1,000 a hand.

If they were $5 bettors and consistently built their bankrolls up in dollar increments as their profits allowed them to, they could be betting $1,000 units in a few years. Unfortunately, even the $5 bettors aren’t typically equipping themselves with 1,000+ unit bankrolls and are settling for smaller rolls and taking stop losses that force them into an even slower grind. According to at least one player here that plays like this (gr8), if the claims are possible and that he is grinding away at a positive profit, then even by doing that, they would probably be looking at 10-15+ years of bankroll building before they were in a position to bet $1,000 units if they were only funding the majority of their bankroll with casino winnings and not an outside source such as their job.

 

I was talking to CRAPS but not to a scammer and loser.

 

Hey now, let’s not bring up losers. I never once mentioned your father or the worthless contribution he made to society with his genetical lineage.

 

@Craps. What Jay said is exactly right. But to answer your question specifically the answer is no I don't feel comfortable that I can win 52 or 53% continually. I'm as surprised as you are. I come up thinking I'm going to definitely lose more hands then I'm going to win. So that's how I play the game. I play it basically like a hit and run guessing game. On a rare shoe I could be down to about 43% or so. In the past I've done worse than that. I think my worst ever was 38%. But also I have shoes where I hit 57 60%. Do I make a kill on the 60% shoes? No not really. Because I never know when they're going to happen. I don't plunge huge bets just because I won three four five six seven in a row. Yesterday I won nine in a row in one shoe. That happens like almost never. But it sure helps my win-loss registry. LOL right?

Playing a guessing game is a whole different mindset then playing a mechanical method.


.

 

Please be aware that I made those comments based on WIN FREQUENCIES and NOT $$$ wins. Progression is used to grind out profits EVEN when there are more losses than wins. By claiming 52% win rate in terms of accuracy is by no means conservative and that is why the $1000 a bet example is presented. If the claims were for every $50 lost, $52 were won then it is acceptable. For 50 hands lost, 52 hands were won? No way unless it is only one session.
Anyway I don't think Jimske meant what he said regarding winning 52% of hands in the long run.

This is what he said previously.

So for example in the last 600 some Wagers I've been tweaking my selection and therefore I'm keeping track and that's why I know I have one 52.9% of the last I think 620 wagers or something like that.

But like I said before sometimes I don't bother so much with the wind lost because I'm more concerned with the profit. But I have kept track for something like 3,000 wagers and I think that's a pretty good representation of my style.

If you play you can do the same thing. Then you'll know how many you win or lose.

 

A positive strike rate, while desirable is not the be all and end all.

Rather the Win Loss sequence is more significant, ending a shoe with a 55% strike win sounds great, not so good if you had to endure a LLL LLL or worst achieving it.

As Jim said a long time back, something that still resonates, you need to (as best as) control those Loss strings, obviously this is not possible in a random coin toss game, so the next best thing, is to controlling the bet amount when such a run rears it's ugly head. Then you need the confidence to know how you are playing will bounce back.

 

And don't forget when domination continues to occur that the weak side or the strong side also comes in patterns like singles on the weak side. Sometimes there's an absence of triples or larger on the strong side. You can use that information, even though it is just a coincidence.

Or don't use it because you are just using magical wishful thinking and making a fool out of yourself. The brain trust around here will hold you with contempt and you risk your stature as a savvy gambler. Remember to keep your pose.

 

Yup. Loss strings and LIAR most critical to keep escalation down. How do you do it if you don't want to bet to the Moon? Simple. You got to backup at appropriate times. Whether it's putting a new string together or using halfbacks or cutbacks. Maybe not so simple timing is everything.

You can't lose forever.

 

Yes. What they’re referring to is the win rate also called hit rate or strike rate. It’s defined as the number of times you “won” a wager divided by the number of times you “made” a wager. For example, lets say you made 42 bets in a shoe, and you won 23 of those bets. So it’s 23/42 which is 54.7%. It’s saying you won 54.7% of all the bets you wagered on.
It has nothing to do with the dollar amount of your bets.
It has everything to do with the accuracy of your bet selection (P or B).

 

Easier said that done, or is it?

Just been perusing an old shoe of mine, it returned a low 35% win rate, shit happens when dealing with random outcomes.

Biggest loss string = 4 (last 4 hands of the shoe) otherwise 3LIAR. There is no requirement to profit from a shoe like this, rather you just don't let a shoe such as this 35 percenter, take you to the cleaner.

Fact is, I never focus on profiting from any shoe, maybe I should, just isn't that way I approach things. I've looked back at glorious shoes and wonder why I made so little. But that's the way it goes, I can't see round corners. So I'd rather focus on limiting BR damage if and when I hit a bad shoe. Otherwise the profits take care of themselves and will accumulate nicely by themselves. no need to be counting my chip stack every couple of hands, making snap decisions how much I'll bet next.

From my own vast table experience, the more you bet, the closer you'll end somewhere around the 40~60% mark at the end of the majority of shoes. Yet the loss strings will swing more wildly, 6~8 losses in a row, 4LIAR single W, another 4LIAR, more difficult to manage.

If I arrived at a gaming table and my first shoe was this 35% it's not a problem, I already know it's an odd-ball once in 6 month (1000's of shoes) occurrence. If I've been grinding away for a few hours, through good & mediocre shoes, then hit it, well that is an entirely different scenario.

Tried, mind half on the exit, closing time looming, brain awash in serotonin, the 10 coffees has you wired, flawed judgement, impatient.

 

What a great post, I totally agree with everything you said.

Wewin2222

 

So why are these people talking about MM. Flat bet in the millions!

 

@Craps. I'm glad someone else has the patience to explain this stuff you. You are almost as tedious as soxfan.

 

I am not arguing here. I need to understand. If someone can win 52% of all his bets, that means he has beaten the House with his Bet Selection method . Therefore , why not just Flat Bet with a high wager ?
Winning 52% of your bet is only short term. You are supposed to lose to the House Edge of 1+% EVERY HAND!
It is ONLY through the Gambler's Edge that we can win a tad above 50% from the House. IMO, nobody can claim a 2% win frequency over the House in the Long Term. Even the B can't claim a 2% edge over P.

 

That is the reason why we need to varied our bets or use a progression to win in case our hit rate goes below 50%.

 

OK, it's become rather imperative that we get some clarification here:

Yes, Craps, it most certainly IS "ONLY through the Gambler's Edge that we can win a tad above 50% from the House". More succinctly, it is our ability to "no-bet" (read: sit-out hands) combined with that same ability to place our wagers into our perceived advantages (read: preferred trends) when compelled to do so. Make no mistake of it, my friend: if I were somehow "forced" to bet each and every hand dealt, I could not maintain my bet selection advantage. Better said, I'd refuse to play this game.

Now please allow me to clarify my "bet selection advantage". My long-term strike rates vary, dependent upon which of my preferred trends I'm on and which side the bet is placed, between 52 and 54 percent. (Sidenote: I use 54 a bit freely; it's more like "high 53's"...54 just makes it easier than getting to exact percentages on each and every time I report it.) But, that all well and good, one must remember the house's edge as well. In other words, each and every bet I make, my advantage notwithstanding, is negatively affected by the built-in house edge.

What does that mean? Simple. I am not paid at true odds. None of us are, regardless of strike rate. We are paid at LESS THAN even money at each and every winning bet. How? Again, simple. Every Player's bet has a less chance of hitting than the Banker's bet, all because of the unique "drawing rules" in the game of baccarat. And every Banker's bet is disadvantaged because of the 5% commission that is charged on each win. So whether we win a bet on Player or we win a bet at Banker, we are paid out at LESS THAN the true odds on that win.

And that is why, Craps, even though my strike rates appear as a strong advantage over the house, they are STILL disadvantaged by the built-in house's edge. And so my 52-54 percent becomes, IMHO, rather imperative for me to even stand any chance at all at getting the better of the casino at this game.

And you speak of "betting with very high flat bets into my advantage" as well. That's a non-starter for me, as well. Why? Two main reasons:

1.) Comfort zone. Spit happens, and I'd never want to put myself into the unenviable position of having to "over-bet" my advantage. Over-betting, especially with my more "subjective" style of trending, could have me hesitating or "second-guessing" as my bets grow higher and that could never, ever be called any kind of advantage for anyone other than the casino. Makes no sense to put any undue pressure on yourself when we're already taking the worst of it due to the house edge; much better to KNOW your limitations.

2.) Variance. Ahh, there's the word that every player....me, everyone...absolutely HATES. But, hate it all you want; it's imperative that your play has some sort of answer for it. Especially players such as myself that take a long-term view of this game. What is variance? Simply stated, it is the "drift". The "highs and lows" of any bet selection process. I've said it before and it certainly bears repeating now: My 52-54 percent doesn't mean a thing in certain shoes (or portions thereof), most especially where the "negative variance" is rearing its ugly head.

Now, that all said, Craps, you are correct when you posted: "That is the reason we need to vary our bets or use a progression to win in case our hit rate goes below 50%." This is true. But that shouldn't be used as an excuse to raise our bets just because we lost our last hand or two. Unfortunately, that's exactly what most "linear progressions" do...they have us raising our bets INTO our negative variance. Not a good strategy, IMHO. Especially if you're trying to best this game over the long term.

I raise my bets too. Heck, I even lower my bets sometimes. Don't get me wrong, I mostly flat-bet. But I also keep track of my strike rates on each of my preferred trends, and I'm very familiar with the "variance statistics" (read: avg win and/or loss streak as well as avg uptick...clumped wins...and avg downturn...clumped losses) and I'll adjust the size of my flat-bet accordingly. Sidenote: Never, ever within the same session; rather, any adjustment I make to my bet size will come ONLY after an abnormally high winning strike rate or an abnormally low losing strike rate. All done separately on each and every one of my preferred trends; even which side (P or B) it had occurred on.

I trust this post will serve as some clarification for those that may think that a winning strike rate is, somehow, the "keys to the kingdom". It most assuredly is not. That said, I must say as I said before; if I didn't hit more that 50% of my bets over the long term I wouldn't even attempt to play this game. Why would I? I'd be a slave to the house's edge; a lesson in futility. Can't let that happen. Much better to play to some sort of advantage and, even then, just grind out profits as best you can.

As always, I wish it for all of you. Take care and stay well.

 

Good explanation.

Very true about paying rent no matter player or Banker.

And I also agree about people who say they're flat betting also tend to adjust that up or down depending upon different variables.

I don't flat bet but I keep my bets as close as possible to reduce escalation.

 

That means your over the 50 % claim is not solely based on win frequencies but also on timing of higher wagers. That will clear up the question I am asking but some people still claim otherwise. More Right bets than Wrong bets in the long run WILL NOT pass the +/- 1% mark.