Baccarat Old ''Fathead'' Thread! PPPP bet B

Had a little break from testing this over Xmas.

Another 100 shoes here.

1st 20. M = +1 GM = +2
2nd 20. M = +8 GM = +15
3rd 20. M = -17 GM = -33
4th 20. M = +1 GM +21
5th 20. M = -5 GM = -11

That's -12 for the 124 Marty and -6 for the 137 Grand Marty.
Those first 100 shoes are more and more looking like a strong deviation in favour of LLW giving such a good return and I am inclined to agree with Asymbacguy. Still it's no biggie, I will continue to test up to 1000 shoes and see what happens. What I don't like about any strategy is when you feel that the results are very much in the lap of the gods and this is one of those.

 

So, you found soxfan secret sauce to flat betting B? Just play anti PPPP!!!

Right! And the 88+% also fits many other negative progressions and bet selections such as soxfan "Surewin" 12 step.

However the 1-3-7 is, IMO, an acceptable risk with a decent selection using made session profits. I use it on occasion even if I am only up 5-7 units in a shoe or session. But not if I am losing. A win on the 2nd or 3rd try will quit. The 11 unit loss just puts me in short recoup. Short term play.

J

 

The (huge) problem is variance.

Say you want to make three bets by placing 11 units.

With the 1-3-7 progression variance is:

1*1 + 3*3 + 7*7 = 59 units of variance.

If the same 11 units are splitted into three bets having the same value (3.666 each) variance is:

3*(3.666 * 3.666) = 40.31 units of variance.

It's a substantial difference that adds up per every set of three bets wagered.

as.

 

Thanks for the post. That's great. I suggest using Grand Martingale instead of Martingale. I never use Marty past 3 Steps. But if I do use it, I always use Grand Marty. Rarely is it not more profitable.

1) +1
2) -5
3) +7
4) +4
5) NO BET
6) +2
7) +2
8) +1
9) +7
10) +8
11) +6
12) +5
13) +1
14) +4
15) NO BET
16) +1
17) +5
18) +1
19) +2
20) +4

+56

 

hi, can you please send to me your shoe files.

 

Check your Inbox here at the forum.

 

Why do some cat wanna look the gifted horse in a mouth? This style is a long term winner on a flats bets basis so a ++++ev proposition. Yeah, it is a slim edge and maybe you can capture .2 units nets profits per shoe. Serious cats need to purge this scared, loser recreational player hits and run nonsenses. This style gonna allow you capture one units nets profits for every 5 shoe and a bit ya grind out. So this is a stay and play style, so best to to play online where you can grind say 18-20 shoe per day for 9-10 hours labors. But this is a long term ++++ev winings proposition so it's a million dollar style! If you play thislong enough woth a large enough bet size then eventually, inevitably you'll put a million dollars/quids/euro whatever profits in yer pockets. Not much risk of serious ----units downdraws but every then and now yer gonna buck up against stretch of say 80-90 shoe where ya just treads waters and breaks even but if yer grinding volume then less than a weeks worth of fulltimes play. And since this is a ++++ev proposition you can dispense with the grand marty and just buck up against it usin the Kelly style stakings plan to increase yer units bet size and more quickly increase profits! It ain't rocket science baby, hey hey!!!!

 

"maybe" is the operative word.

No it ain't. The math doesn't lie. Banker wins round about 50.7% while Player wins round about 49.3%. In order to gain a break even and minuscule profit after commission betting B after PPPP Banker needs to improve to 51.36% on this wager.

 

Ignore the math because sharp cats know how to come out ahead .

 

I put the retard and coconut on iggy cuz their retardations makes my heads hurt, hey hey.

 

How much would the banker percentage change if you bet B after PPPPP? Would it go up to the 51% that Jimske is referencing?

 

the short answer is the banker advantage will increase as the players increase. But it won't be exponential and there will be a point of diminishing returns whereby the increased advantage will be minuscule. And the reason is I think is because of the concept of regression to the mean

Even though every single flip has the same odds. Perhaps someone will pick up this and actually put some real numbers to give you a better idea.

The other part of the equation is time. How many opportunities are we going to see of say six players in a row compared to three or four players in a row. So we can Factor this in to see how valuable the potential increase is to the number of times we actually see the occurrence.

 

This attack was tested and tested and tested several years ago even at more potential Banker opportunities (PPPPPB or PPPPBPPPP-bet B and many other varieties of such kind) and it's a sure loser for the reasons explained by Jimskie.

If you'll bet Banker randomly 35 hands per shoe (or any other amount of hands) you'll get the same (losing) results as the asymmetrical strenght favoring B (8.6% of total hands, ties included) is placed too whimsically to be exploited.

We shouldn't forget that more than 9 times out of 10 baccarat hands do not involve a particular advantage of either side, yet the payment is very different.

as.

 

losing everything....
sure loser
Shall we stop playing baccarat...
what are we going to play?

 

Considering the average limits of B/P or r/b derived road 'complex' successions is the way to go.

as.

 

What Kelly style stakings plan are you referring to?

 

Are you saying that betting 35 hands randomly banker per shoe will have same result as betting B after PPPP only?

 

I just quick tests this fathead style against the 160 shoe in the Lyle Stuart book on baccarats. If you woulda bet b once after pppp pop then you woulda capture 17.1 units nets profits. Converse, you woulda got clipped for -18 units if you were retard enought to bet p once after pppp pop. Query do retard like the jimske and the asymbac ever tire of being made to look like the buffoon, hey hey????

 

Yup, that's what the retard on here would have you believe, and that's why they will NEVER comprehend how it's possible to capture profits, long terms on a strict, bets flat basis, hey hey.

 

Yes.
Otherwise the game wouldn't exist.
The problem is that a new hand stopping a previous opposite side streak (whatever it is) will be more likely to be a standing point or a natural than a asymmetrical hand math favoring Banker.
So per many bets made, such not asym hands whether they win most of the times are unnecessarily decurted in the payement (0.95:1) and vigs sum up.

Btw, only a pure i.diot could think to be ahead of the game by selectively flat betting and encountering a -9.5 or more units loss per shoe.

as.