Baccarat Fathead and Jae Challenge

Jae, correct me if I'm wrong...but it seems your "flat" betting method is just a modified Foolproof Bailey strategy...as opposed to betting 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10, etc into infinity, your betting looks more like 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5 etc. at a much slower progression that doesn't escalate you quickly.

Fathead, if you have the time or desire, want to test this escalating betting 1, 20 times in a row, 2, 20 times, 3, 20 times, 4, 20 times etc., reseting anytime you are even or in profit and see what results?

 

Would look a little something like this...

 

20 1's, then 20 2's, and so on? Up one level each hand? What is the Bankroll?

 

Table limit is $5-$30,000.

20 1's, 20 2's, 20 3's etc. Resetting to 1 anytime there is profit or breaking even.

Not up one level each hand, its up one level after 20 hands are exhausted at 1 unit or exhausted at 2 units without profiting or breaking even

 

You can see my other thread on the bailey foolproof method for more examples on what it looks like on paper.

 

That's what I meant. You would have 20 levels of 1 unit, then 20 levels of 2 units. This is so slow table limit would not matter, just bankroll.

 

Exactly

 

I like trying to learn something but this is way beyond a one off

 

Okay I played around with it. Even with unlimited bankroll and 5 to 30,000 table limits it came down to luck. It depended upon where you started in the database. You might bust hopelessly in less than 100 shoes, or you might survive for 1000 or more shoes. It was just random.

 

Hmmm interesting...thanks for testing it out. I'll try it out in the casino and see how it goes.

Maybe you know Fathead, but isn't this similar to Jaes "flat betting" method? Very slow escalation?

I wonder if the results would be the same if it was 80 hands at the same level unit (length of a shoe) or be as same as the 20. It does seem, there is something to slow escalation..especially if it can last 1000 shoes in simulation before failing...more then luck?

 

Where can I read on this? I remember him doing Oscar's Grind B only after a virtual -20 or more trigger?

 

https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/is-there-any-strategy-can-win-the-house.24209/#post-153147

 

The only length that survived the whole 4000 shoes was '2' (1,1 2,2 3,3 4,4 5,5) but you would need a 700,000 unit bankroll and your ending profit was only 70,000 units (you spent a lot of time in the negative betting the table limit until you finally recovered). So a lot of work and investment for a 10% gain.

4000 shoes is not infinity. A different set of 4000 shoes and it might have busted.

Thanks for the idea but there are better ways, I think.

 

Thanks again for testing the idea, what was the best method that you tested that survived the 4000 shoes? Was it the wait 4 players bet banker 11 step martingale or another?

 

Commission baccarat is unique in that one side wins a lot more than the other (Player = 49.3% ... Banker = 50.7%). The best ideas focus on some sort of Banker bet, even if you don't bet every hand. I know you bet EZ Bac with Banker pushes but even then Banker is the best bet.

Your biggest nemesis is losses in a row. Think about it, if Player wins less often than Banker, what is the shortest losing streak available to the bettor? The answer is any string of Players (PPPPPPP). Even adding one Banker into the series (let's say you bet Player after every 3 losses ... PPPBPPP) lengthens the maximum losing streak seen in testing.

I probably have hundreds of ideas that I have played around with. Let me think about it and I will post a new one that I have not posted before.

 

Yep, banker bet seems like the logical choice. Look forward to seeing a method you haven't posted already.

 

I don’t think I’ve ever claimed or promoted anything that looks like what you described. I’m more known for my Oscar’s Grind variations. What you are describing is something that most likely could work, but you’d need an incredibly large bankroll and a lot of patience as that would really be a grind. I think it sounds good for someone just getting their feet wet with even chance games as it’s pretty conservative.

 

I applied your Oscar's Grind B only with a -20 trigger and 2000 units bankroll with the shoes I have, and I saw a lot of times you can stay at -600 up to -1500 betting 60-130 units which is pretty uncomfortable for someone like me. And I read that you can encounter a losing series as well but you dodged it. Have you thought of other money management that is much less volatile than Oscar's Grind?

 

Gotcha, thanks for the reply and clarifying