Baccarat Kotch G3M1 Style

For anybody who doesn't know the mongoose....





This is from Craig Greiner's book ''The Future Gambler''. He was mostly a Craps player.

 

LOL right Swami.

 

Here is a shoe from JK from the B+M shoes thread. I will show the G3M1 in action and then I will play the Mongoose with the same shoe.

This is just betting Banker all the way through 'Sox' style. The G3M1 likes choppy shoes such as this one because it keeps on picking up those 1 unit wins even if you can't get three in a row for the 7 unit win.

 

So as you can clearly see, the Mongoose doesn't really like choppy shoes.

 

I did notice that G3M1 Likes choppy shoes. Evidently Mongoose likes streaky.

My guaranteed losing strategy likes both and that's what I like about it. Got to watch out for the nemesis which happens often enough but it's easy to see it coming.

 

Agree I find the Kotch style to be superior to the mongoose style, hey hey.

 

Actually I think that the g3 part of the style is efficient cuz yer only risking one unit of bankroll with a shot at capturing seven units profits, hey hey.

 

I done some more testings with this Kotch style. Bucking up against another 186 shoe it captured 197 units profits with the worst downdraw for this sample bein 115 unit. So, total testings with this Kotch style give a profit of 1200 unit buckin up against 848 shoe, so about 1.4 units gross with the worst downdraw about 160 unit. Not a bad way to feed tha bulldog, hey hey.

 

I've got the Koetsch book ordered from Amazon. A deal for 10 bucks.

I wouldn't ignore B tax and blindly go forward expecting positive net results with a return as low as 1.4 gross units per shoe.
I'd add the total number of units won on B, calculate the commission and subtract it from total gross profit units.
36 banker and 35 player equal a net loss of .8 units. An increased gross win of 2u with a flat bet of 37 wins and 35 losses is only a net gain of .15 units.
1.4 units gross sounds a little light to produce a net gain for positive progression play.

I've done comparisons of flat, double, triple and quad parlays across many W/L registries and found that the majority of times double and triple parlays return very close to the same number of units, sometimes even exactly the same. And on these occasions, the triple parlay racks up more commission tax, and returns a lower net gain.

There are a minority of occasions that the triple returns a much larger gain than the double. But these are W/L strings with an overwhelming number of wins vs losses. Rare, in my experience and not to be relied upon.

It would not be a waste of your time to give it a look. At least you would have a more accurate expectation.

 

I'm a fan of the parlay. From a flat bettors perspective, if you can't win 2 in a row, you can't win any money. wlwlwlwlwl does nothing. Somewhere in there you've got to win 2 in a row, or more. You also need to have longer streaks of wins vs losses, which is a problem I feel the parlay has the potential to address.

 

It does worst than nothing, it costs you 5 units. worst than flat betting. Having spent a lot of time exploring all kinds of positive bet options years ago, came to the conclusion they offer little in regards to making money, not to mention the additional mental anguish of forfeiting prior wins due to Parlay failures.

 

I eye ball the result and 1.4 units gross still gonna give ya nets profit of a bit better than i units profits. And the Kotch style is not just a positive style cuz the martinagle 2 units bet will allow ya to pick off a lotta one units profits and that's the butter and bread of the thing. The seven units score is just gravy, hey hey.

 

Hold on there. If you "eyeballed" my post of 25 shoes above you see that gross win = 1.6 units a shoe while net win = (1.59) units a shoe. Loss of 40 units for the batch. No matter how you bet or slice and dice; whether you use "Kotch" or not you're going to have to increase your gross substantially to overcome the juice.

 

I didn't look at the results that you posted, as obviously you will not win with a shoe win rate as bad as that. I usually find that you lose about 205 of yer gross to vig, hey hey.

 

I'll check the W/L rate. I don't know if you're using the method as explained by Stephen with reversals and such or not. I just ran it straight down on B on those shoes. I came out with similar gross win as you did.

W 865 L 850

 

Yes, worse than flat betting, but there has to be a trade off. WWLLWWLLWWLL also produces 0 flat betting but nets three units with a 1-2 parlay. I am aware your string method would fare better, but without getting into a comprehensive comparison of MM's. The parlay doesn't dig a hole any deeper than flat betting with LLLLLL, many other MM's do indeed excavate quite the cavity in a BR with such a string of losses.

 

I disagree with your assessment.

You are talking about betting Banks only. Every hand. With a 124 positive parlay, and a 2u martingale bet.
Ignoring the parlay and martingale altogether leaves you winning, on average, 35 bets on Banker per shoe. Just flat betting produces a commission of 1.75 units. Which is greater than your stated 1.4 gross per shoe. Figure in either the martingale, the parlay or both, and the commission obligation only increases.

It will take 5 shoes to bring 1.4 gross units per shoe up to the first whole number of 7. 7 gross units after 5 shoes and you expect GREATER? than 1 unit of profit per shoe? Let's just consider exactly 1 u of profit per shoe. That works out to be 5 units of profit out of 7 gross units. Leaving 2u lost to commission. It only takes 40 won units on Banker to accomplish this. So I'm calculating 40 wins and 33 losses. A total of 73 bets over 5 shoes? Betting Banker every hand? It just doesn't add up.

You need to provide more comprehensive data to back up your conclusion.

 

Good point

Yes, but you must be winning in order to pay the vig.

I did watch somebody (one of the regulars) off and on, flat bet the banker with a sizeable bankroll, unfortunately he played a half price on any Banker 6 game, it took 4 days before he went broke. Losing many thousands in the process.

 

True, but he has to be winning to gross 1.4u profit.

Now that's interesting.
I'm undecided if I want to pay commission per bet, if I want to play with a push option, or a half pay option. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a half pay option.
I'm leaning towards a push option, and devising a way to overcome it. The commission on every single bet really erodes profits.

It makes little difference, but I'm curious. Did he bet Banker every hand and grind himself to dust? or did he pick his spots and still end up losing it all? You may not have paid that much attention. I'm just curious.

 

I don't view it that way, you have to making profit in order to wear the vig, it is still profit. If you set a goal target of xx units, you just keep playing until you hit it, despite the 5% vig. I have no qualms in paying the tax ever.

He was there from dawn till dusk, he bet every hand and yes, grinded himself to dust expecting to win more Bank hands in the long term.

Hey what's happened to our Stats / Maths debate, I disagreed with your last comments?