Baccarat Learn something from old "flat betting" systems like FLEX

Learn something from old "flat betting" systems like FLEX.
There are free PDFs to download.

One simple thing that strikes me was using both sides separately.
I test one simple selection (not the original) and get pretty good results.

+33
-8

- - -

+3
+2
+5
+2
+3
+0
+0
+0
+0
+2
+2
+2
+2
+0
+5
+0
+5
+0
-8
+0

I play to win and if -2 units I aim to break even and stop and lose a limit of -8 units.
If -1, +0, +1, +2, I continue towards +3 and let the last bet ride until the first loss and stop.

Is not rocket science to win flat betting.
I Will upload the video next.

 

I agree flat betting is a great way to play but unless you’ve had years of “seat time” observing tote boards, it’s next to impossible for “most” players. Likewise, if you can win consistently flat betting, then you can win more with just a mild negative progression.

 

Where do you find this download?

 

Here's a copy of the FLEX strategy.

 

Let's go in more detail. On a good day, where WIAR a plenty, Flat Betting works. One even laments had he gone aggressive, he would have broke the Bank. On a day where there are lots of back and forth, flat betting is most practiced by many. It's the below average and the bad days that is asking too much from a Flat Bettor. What do you do? You are down double digit units. Still flat bets? When can you recoup and get ahead. This is where deviation starts coming in and all it needs is one successful comeback. If a flat Bettor thinks he can just comeback with flat betting, then why not timed his bets like what LungYeh suggested. It's not the flat betting that matters. It's the accuracy of the bets because flat betting and bet accuracy are tied together with NO room to spare. So how to take care of bad days? I disagree with bet accuracy and not flat betting. Flat betting is only a tool and this tool has very limited functions.

 

That "tote board" and score cards are there to make you lose MORE! This is known FACT.

 

Ever noticed Bet accuracy is widely used by system sellers to push their products. They will derived a bet selection that beats certain test books like Zumma. If they can't, they incorporate a progression like Martingale and others to beat it.
Is it stupid to buy those systems.?
No, it's not. Buy it for the design if it is not too expensive. I would pay for one if it's not over $25. The approach with the right mindset and seeking for small returns can make them work.

 

I totally disagree.

 

This reply is a draft from John Patrick's forum board that no longer exists.
I share this because i regard this to be the core to master when it comes to flat betting.

- - - - - - - - - -

Math Professor Posted 03/20/06

- - - - - - - - - -

Someone quoted John Patrick as saying I don't win much but I don't lose much either.
Now he was critical of this statement but there is a reason for it.

We who have lived with gambling all our lives understand the relationship between what we win and what we lose.

The Equation is simple enough.
The magnitude of profit is usually a function of the magnitude of wagering.

One of the most common failures in gambling is progressive betting.
Several small wins are satisfying but when the next small win does not happen and it turns into a progression which often recovers the day but sometimes results in ruination.

Giving up on a progression is hard because losing can mean the erosion of several days of work.

The gambling flaw is inherent in this.
Christopher Pawlicki highlighted this fact.
The equation for winning small returns often calls for a progression.
The progression ultimately however snatches away the previous wins.

For example 20 + 20 +20 +20 +20 has been achieved with 50 + 100 + 80 + 120 + 100 The final destructive act is a 100 that does not recover .
Even without a progression 100 absorbs the 5 sets of 20 + wins.

I call this the 20/100 flaw.

20 is therefore 20% of 100.
A good result by any standards.

In order to control the erosion of previous wins the ratio of win to wager
needs to be as close to parity as possible.

Say 80 + 80 +80 +80 + 80 with 100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + 100

If the 100 goes then we still have nearly 4 days work intact.
We can walk away and get them again another day.
Not many gamblers can achieve 80%.

This is the flaw.

There must be plenty of gamblers here who understand this but any replies should be better than 3 and out .
The math does not work.

- - - - - - - - - -

JOHN PATRICK Posted 03/20/06

- - - - - - - - - -

excellent point but go back to your opening paragraph and it is not clear ............ You said, "he was critical of this statement ................"

I THINK you meant he was CRITICIZED for this statement ...............

and you're right..................there were a couple of people who laughed at it as meaning I was content with small wins..........adn that ALL I wanted to do was lose a little each day.........

I am glad you picked up on what I really meant by saying that (naturally) I would like to win more, but I am more interested in holding losses down.........

and THAT point that you made about people who do NOT gamble every day , not realizing this is the total and complete point I try to embellish in their minds every day............

Someone else (I think it was Rick K., a few days ago), also touched on that fact .................how really hard it is to win..........and that you HAVE to somehow, someway, condition yourself to win small to ensure you don't lose big ..........to be able to stay alive in this journey called gambling..........

You showed the SERIES you use ..........

What is the LOSS LIMIT and WIN GOAL you advise...........(percentage-wise)

- - - - - - - - - -

Math Professor Posted 03/20/06

- - - - - - - - - -

" What is the LOSS LIMIT and WIN GOAL you advise...........(percentage-wise)"

Well, that is my question to everyone!
What I am doing here is highlighting the problem we have with the percentage we go for.

The greater the difference between the amount we wager and the amount we accept,as a win, the more of a problem we have.
Let's say (as you have stated) that 5% is a professional aspiration. So we wager 100 for 5.

That might seem reasonable but look at the result say over 5 days.
+ 5 +5 +5 +5 +5 = 25 . that's great we are winning 5 each day and we haven't lost. Now on day six we wager 100 and bust out !

We are now - 75!

We were going up and down with our 100.
But then we hit a bad spell and it eroded to 0.

The problem here is that we often have to go down to nearly zero
to make the continuous flow of 5's.

if our 5-day win was +60 +30 +20 + 120 +40 and this can be achieved with 100 and the 100 busts after 5 days we have .
won +170. (270 - 100) .

I often work on 100 or 70 from 200. That is I am prepared to lose 200 for these great returns and if I can manufacture 70 od chips every day with a wager of 200 chips then I am going to survive if the cumulative value exceeds 100 after bust out.

What I would like to know from yourself is what your wager is in relation
to what you accept for that session and how do you overcome this flaw.

This is where Pawlicki is making the case that the crash will come and steal away your cumulative gains. Its the problem that haunts all gamblers.
Gamblers ruin.

 

I storied before about some guy I met in the casino who had a strategy of making 10% on each trip to the casino. So happy to call me that his strategy had been winning 7 days in a row. On the 8th day, he lost back everything and more.

My MM asks for at least 70% return on the session bankroll. If that is achieved within the gaming period of 4-6 hours, continue play and stop either on first loss or when lost back 30% of peak earning.

 

The Professor is correct. The solution in my view is twofold. Reduce the progression increments and implement an up as you win component to the progression. Louie attempted to accomplish the former with his progression he posted. I find it not having enough torque. John-O modified Labby strings accomplishes this. I do something similar with a staged and stuttered progression using 20% increments. Add timing up as you win and you have the best of both worlds.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!

Still, you are accumulating small wins unless you hit that occasional win streak. But keep in mind that win streaks do NOT have to be continuous. Consider the Guetting whereby one doesn't always retreat after 1 loss. So for example WW L WWWL W can still keep you on an upward spiral.

 

I really liked this flex method.
I find it strange why this topic has not been extended.
We could debate about flat bets!