Baccarat 5 column statistics

What had me curious about betting Player in this situation, was the 1,2,4 triggers you tested. Obviously 3 is not a trigger, so I don't know if Player occurred more in this position or Banker didn't appear enough times without losing commission.
Anyhow, thanks for all your testing and suggestions. We have a few more that look to be advantage plays than we had at the start of this thread. If you have any more ideas, feel free to post. I will be thinking of other ways to make this better possibly with a few more plays.
BTW, thanks for the link. I remember messing around something like that back at Gamblers Glenn.

 

So upon the premise of betting against Player streaks 4 or longer. Would this play be viable?

1 P
2 P
3 P
4 P
5 < bet Banker here

A one and done play. Win or lose.
Testing against your shoes, does this hold any advantage?
I remember testing this, but it was so long ago that I don't remember the results.

 

Yes that did well flat betting. Definitely worthwhile.

 

Do you know the percentages of that play?

 

Betting Banker in this situation at sequence #5 in the Column of 5 won at 52.77%.

1 P
2 P
3 P
4 P
5 < bet Banker

 

Awesome. That's a great percentage.

 

Hey Fathead. Was thinking this would be an excellent way to ride Banker streaks with the right money management. Can't remember how often a Bank streak of 10 or more occurs, but I think it usually occurs once within 10 to 20 shoes. So I was thinking about applying some type of positive progression upon a winning Banker bet on the 1,2, and 4 slot of the column.
Ex:
P
P
P
B
B
/
B +2 +2
B +3 +5
B +4 +9
B +5 +14
B +6 +20
/
B +7 +27
B +8 +35
B +9 +44
B +10 +54
P -2 +52 units
Betting parameters would be too add a chip to your bet upon every winning bet, betting the Banker streak. Maybe reducing the bet to a 2 unit bet upon winning a 10 unit bet on the Banker streak.
Do you think it would be a viable play?

 

Or may be a 2,2, 3, 4 positive progression so you don't lose a unit in a WL situation.

 

It made money but you made much more money with less volatility by just flat betting 2 units each bet instead of one.

 

So on paper did the PPPPB on 90 live shoes...results
(-78,+71) flat betting

Did BBBBP on 100 live shoes....results
(-97,+105) flat betting

Small sample, but about what you would expect from normal flat betting. Was surprised to see PPPPB perform worse then BBBBP.

 

If you keep going it will eventually flip the other way. How are you testing? Using the "Column of 5"? Or just BPPPP< bet B once? Or BPPPP keep betting until you have a B win?

 

Not using columns, just waiting for 4 Players in a row, then betting Banker one time and then, to compare, waiting 4 Bankers in a row, then betting Player just flat bet one time, then waiting for next event.

I understand if you wait it will flip...but thats a veryyyy long wait..100 or 200 shoes and still showing a negative is tough...100 shoes could be 100+ hours (unless of course your playing online). Is it worth the time? Also did you try a progression in your testing such as 1,2,4,8,16 after the 4 Players in a row, betting on banker?

 

Flat betting made more money than using a positive progression betting the streaks? Interesting. Do you know the difference in the amount of units won?

 

How often does that occur in a shoe? I wouldn't think there are many opportunities to bet.

 

Can i know how do you record columns of 5? Use paper?

 

Can i know how u write down the columns of 5? In paper?

 

You are right, not the most practical method. It seems like it is that way whenever you find something that wins flat betting. As far as progressions, yes, go back an read the post in the link that I gave you. I have charts for martingale and grand martingale.

 

Got it. Ill check it out, thanks

 

What I was testing was this:

1 P
2 P
3 P
4 P
5 <start betting banker here until a loss is seen (P)

(a) Adding +1 unit to each win until a loss = +181.95 with drawdown of -121

(b) But if you just flat bet 2 units until a loss was seen = +238.1 with a drawdown of -82

 

Less than 2 times per shoe on average.