Baccarat Sputnik's Notes on Baccarat

10 Shoe Charts
Now you can see the Highest, Current and Lowest results on each chart.












One Side - Banker Only

As banker has a slight advantage we can play this strategy on Banker only - one side ...
Another option is to lower the casino's house edge and only play Player side only ...

Cheers

 

Share one more discovery

In the previous post, you can see the explanation and results, but I don't explain the reason behind the positive results when reducing loses is only one part of the solution.

Results: 10 Shoes Flat Betting

Shoe 1 = +1 Units
Shoe 2 = -1 Units
Shoe 3 = +5 Units
Shoe 4 = -1 Units
Shoe 5 = -1 Units
Shoe 6 = +16 Units
Shoe 7 = +7 Units
Shoe 8 = +6 Units
Shoe 9 = +0 Units
Shoe 10 = -2 Units

Summary:

Won +37 Units
Loss -5 Units

Read this twice:

If you are -2 units you have to travel +4 units to end up +2 units flat betting, you have to win twice as much to win.
Assume you are -4 units you need to win +6 units to end up +2 units flat betting, you have to win three times more to win.
On second place comes break-even that reduces that negative part of the game.
And now I discover that the most clever way to tackle loses when the start to show is to accept and reduce them and keep them small.
The other side with strikes overcome that part of the game using Edge-Sorting, my opinion.

Lesson learned.

Cheers

 

Another 10 Shoes Flat Betting
Sputnik's March - Estimation Part 1 - Flat Betting

Shoe 11 = +8 Units
Shoe 12 = +5 Units
Shoe 13 = +3 Units
Shoe 14 = -1 Units
Shoe 15 = +3 Units
Shoe 16 = -2 Units
Shoe 18 = +0 Units
Shoe 19 = -1 Units
Shoe 20 = +8 Units

Summary:

Won +27 Units
Loss -4 Units

Cheers

 

Typ error 9 Shoes ...











Cheers

 

Good job Sputnik, unlike many, you're testing the hypothesis correctly (control + live data) and letting the results guide your conclusion (instead of the other way around, which most are guilty of).

It may all wind up being nothing, but at least you'll know definitively due to your disciplined approach.

 

Yes, you are correct in many ways - I sometimes create the hypothesis in my mental mind upon this concept and I know is working before and without testing.
+65 units flat betting 20 Shoes is very good results and you are right is to short sample to conclude anything, but is a very powerful indication towards something.

The following phrase will make many punters understand the strength behind this concept.
You catch two out of three sequences with two bets and if the third sequence show you accept a loss or break even.
But when you reach +1/+2 units you can continue playing until the third sequence show - this means that the third sequence sometimes sleeps or missing for 5 10 15 20 25 30 times in a row and reflect the flat betting results of +5 +10 +15 units and more as you can see with my examples above.
Loses comes when the third sequence show once or more times without missing or sleeping and you either break-even or accept a loss.

This is the reason for why, when, where the bias concept with Estimation 1 solution works very well.
Also, test the same procedure Scalping and getting the majority winning shoes, same as above samples.

Cheers Patrik

 

Here are some thoughts about loses

- The average losing sequence is -8 units playing 100 placed bets samples.
- The worst losing sequence is -35 units playing 100 placed bets samples.

- Now losses can some in chops and slowly increase the negative results you more placed bets we make.
- And we can get a straight line of losses in a row with no ups and downs during the path downwards.

Options

- We can aim to break even when we have a negative result, but that is more expensive and risky then accept losses.
Because we can become victims for a straight losing sequence with no ups and downs and we can have a losing sequence with up and downs without reaching break-even territory.

- We can avoid the two options above accepting losses when we have a negative situation.
Reason minimize losses into small chunks for each session is that we will only lose towards a straight losing sequence and accept -8 units.
But the majority of times with being an up and down losing sequence where we can HEDGE the situation not forcing us to break-even that is more expensive and risky because many losing sequences will have an up and down without reaching break-even territory.
And we talking about 17% of all played shoes with this scenario.

Edge-Sorting (Scalping) Sputnik's March

Now I correct my self - did a fun mode test using the Scalping variant and got very good results.
After 30 Shoes and session, I can see that the tendency capitalizing on strikes don't create the same large swings in our favour.
But you can control the loses in a more effective way then when Riding Strikes.

Will see if I can improve the Scalping variant ...

Scalping 30 Shoe Summary +45 & -25 Units
Very big difference versus Riding Strikes that end up +65 units

Shoe 1 = -2 Units
Shoe 2 = -2 Units
Shoe 3 = +3 Units
Shoe 4 = +7 Units
Shoe 5 = +5 Units
Shoe 6 = -2 Units
Shoe 7 = +1 Units
Shoe 8 = -3 Units
Shoe 9 = -3 Units
Shoe 10 = -2 Units

Won +16
Loss -12

Shoe 11 = -2 Units
Shoe 12 = +2 Units
Shoe 13 = +0 Units
Shoe 14 = +0 Units
Shoe 15 = +1 Units
Shoe 16 = +4 Units
Shoe 17 = -2 Units
Shoe 18 = -1 Units
Shoe 19 = +3 Units
Shoe 20 = +1 Units

Won +11
Loss -5

Shoe 21 = +2 Units
Shoe 22 = +5 Units
Shoe 23 = -4 Units
Shoe 24 = +2 Units
Shoe 25 = -1 Units
Shoe 26 = +1 Units
Shoe 27 = -1 Units
Shoe 28 = +1 Units
Shoe 29 = -2 Units
Shoe 30 = +7 Units

Won +18
Loss -8

Cheers Patrik

 

Is not what we win that matters is what we lose that matters

A small part of the 17% of loses will be straight losses with no wins along or within the losing sequence and with no reversal (reach back to even)

Let's talk loses

Assumptions - if I accept small loses then I avoid the sequence from hell and the average losing sequence.
The worst is -35 units and the average is -8 units.
I feel that we give back a large part of our winnings allowing such big drawdowns and feel we have to minimize the losses to a certain extent.

Is true that 83% of the play session end up with at least one reversal (back to break even after a negative result)
But we don't know when the other 17% will hit us.
And then we have to tackle and minimize and rescue ourselves from giving it all back to the casino.
When we reach 17% where there will be a loss no matter what we do - I discover and conclude that the majority of losing sequences have win's within them that can help us soften and reduce the worst or larger chunks of losses.

I come up with three solutions

The first one is that we accept that the worst-case scenario will be -8 units (flat betting) and that would mean 8 straight losing attempts with no win's within them.
That will happen less than once every 30/50 Shoes/Sessions (flat betting).
What we do after -2 units and accept losses is that we aim to win twice within 8 attempts.

Option two is the same as option one but we set the limit to -6 units.

The third is that we only apply the rule winning twice within the attempts after a certain degree of losses.
For example, after -2 units and a win with -1, there is no reason to continue, my opinion.
-3 and a win getting -2 you have to decide to accept or continue to catch two wins within the losing attempts.
Same with -4 with a win -3 you have to consider the situation, continue or accept the loss.

I just want to give John Patrick a comment during this topic.

JP is right when he claims and states that 80% of the punters will be ahead once during there casino visit.
JP is right when he claims and states that it is not what we win that matters is what we lose that matters.
JP is right when he claims and states that we should not waste more than three to four bets to jump on board any kind of trend/sequence.

Cheers Patrik

 

This helps tackle discipline and control mechanical and guessing combinations into estimate each individual IN-PLAY stats situation.
What kind of action in different situations.
Assume you winning and want to decide to press and push for more.
If not then you might be satisfied or not and be conservative and pocket the current profits.
When to accept loses and when to quit.

This concept is from Brett Morton's book "Playing To Win"

Loss limit -8 Units
Same as your Session Bankroll

Now let's say you set your Happy Point - the first level of win goal at +2 or +3 0r +4 units (flat betting)
Then you can never pass or get below - bottom-line target - a safety net to break even or accept +1 unit or more.

Let's say we set the bottom-line target at +1 Unit and the Happy Point at +3 Units.
Then when reaching Happy Point you can only risk 2 Units to reach second win target Gold-Top.
Let's say we set Gold-Top at +5 Units.

Now you can not lose below Happy Point (below +3 units)
You can now decide to risk 1 or 2 units to reach Jackpot Territorium.

If you lose in this situation you will pocket +3 or +4 Units.
Sometimes you will catch strikes and end up +10 and +16 Units reaching for Jackpot Territorium.

This is the principal and concept behind the chart above.
You can use any amount for each loss limit, bottom-line target and safety nets and win goals levels.

What I like and love about this concept is that (if you push and press for more when you reach the first win goal level) you will never go down back to the beginning of reach loss limit, you either break-even or make +1 unit and had a shot to make more.
That is how you control guesswork or estimations of IN-PLAY stats of the current situation.
Mechanical and not mechanical, just a helping tool to control when to hold back and when to push and press for more.

And that is how I see and tackle loses - better to accept many small loses and catch small, medium and large strikes that overcome them because we quit when we are ahead - then getting large drawdowns that eat up all our profits that we been fighting for spending many hours in front of the tables.
This theory is based upon my opinions and how to tackle solutions when it comes to flat betting.

Cheers Patrik

 

Here are 10 sessions using the Fund Management Targets
Test Scalping variant

- Summary +10 versus -6 = +4 Units (push and press in each situation)
- Summary +9 versus -6 = +3 Units (quit and conservative first win target)

Maybe there should be all in rather than accept small loses, further testing

-1
+1 (( Bottom Line Target - Reach +3 but drop back - could pocket +3 units ))
-1
+4 (( Reach +3 and push and press and won +5 and risk 1 unit for Jackpot ))
-1
+1 (( Reach +3 and push and press and drop back to +1 bottom-line target ))
-1
-1
+4 (( Reach +5 and push 1 unit for Jackpot and drop back ))
-1

Cheers Patrik

 

Theory Estimation - Singles and series of two WITH Singles and series of three and higher

I write down this as one detail and note.
Now I have been partly wrong with my assumptions that reducing the attempts and catch two sequences is better than using three attempts and catch two sequences.
Also that we can have -8 as loss limit and aim to reach +3 or above or drop back to +1 using Fund Management Target versus accepting small loses.

There are two ways to get singles, one single outcome or one single series, that make wounders when betting three attempts to catch one to either win or break even or end up -1 or -3 units and continue to reach +3.

Amazing results

Summary +33 Units +0 Losses
10 Sessions - Flat Betting

+7 (( Reach +5 and push/press with 2 more units ))
+3 (( Reach +5 and push/press and drop back ))
+1 (( Reach +3 and push/press and drop back ))
+3 (( Reach +5 and push/press and drop back ))
+1 (( Reach +3 and push/press and drop back ))
+4 (( Reach +5 and push/press with 2 more units ))
+8 (( Reach +5 and push/press with 2 more units ))
+4 (( Reach +5 and push/press with 2 more units ))
+1 (( Reach +3 and push/press and drop back ))
+1 (( Reach +3 and push/press and drop back ))

Cheers

 

The last example was just luck, could not repeat the same results again.

Cheers

 

I will mention one variant - the comfort explaining this to Asymbac is that no further explanation is needed because of he also explains some methods in public, like me and hes knowledge and experience, is beyond mine, so I have great respect for him.
Just details like two sequences can hit ten or more times in a row make him understand the quality and importance of what I discover and try to explain because he like me could see the potential ways to explore that and take advantage.

And this variant is in the same category, so either you get it or not.
When you get a series of two or a series of three or higher, you count the singles until the next event show.
I think Frank Barstow in hes book mention someone making a living playing and win to catch two in a row.

Assume you get three singles and a series of two at the beginning of the shoe.
Then count the number of singles until a series of three or higher show.

Assume you get a series of three or higher at the beginning of the shoe.
Then count the number of singles until a series of two appears.

Every single outcome is a loss.
Every present series is break-even.
The missing series is two wins in a row.

You get it and now look at the intervals.

2 LLWW
3 LLLWW
0 WW
3 LLLWW
0 WW
2 LLWW
3 LLLWW
4 LLLLWW
3 LLLWW
2 LLWW
5 LLLLL
0 WW
3 LLLWW
3 LLLWW
1 LWW
1 LWW
1 LWW
0 WW
7 LLLLL
2 LLWW
1 LWW
1 LWW
2 LLWW
0 WW
1 LWW
1 LWW
0 WW
3 LLLWW
2 LLWW
1 LWW
0 WW
2 LLWW
2 LLWW
3 LLLWW

I don't give advice on how to play, but understand that losing ten attempts take several hundred placed bets and losing three times ten attempts is a lifetime solution where you probably never will bust, where first stage profits and the other two recover.
This should also work as one side only, but I find a distinct difference in variance being more complex and erratic using both sides that is to our favour using solutions like this one.

This solution and concept are based upon Sputnik's March.
This is one example playing against the bias.

Cheers Patrik

 

At the end of the day what it comes down to is coming up with a strategy that will maximize your winning on good shoes, like this

or this

or this

if whatever strategy you employ ensures that you take advantage of good shoes, AND ensures that you minimize losses on random, choppy shoes, then you will do fine.

I am never the guy who loses money on a shoe and looks back at it, remarking, "I can't believe I lost money on that shoe." I lose money only on bad shoes. I win on all the good shoes.

And if you don't believe that there are such things as good or bad shoes, then you shouldn't play Baccarat.

 

My opinion is that you contribute with guesswork lingo that has no value.
You will never show why, where and when to place bets!
The only thing you do is posting screenshots on Baccarat Shoes that don't contribute for members to grow as gamblers.

But it has no impact on me other than I just accept that you are a punter who likes to post screenshots on Baccarat Shoes and argue and claim that you won money.
Just hoping that the majority of members don't take you seriously.

I have seen many punters like you the past ten years on gambling forums that like to talk about how much they win and how successful they are at the tables.
But when others raise the question of why, where and when the placed bets are made on the fancy screenshots there will be silence.
That is pure nonsense, I regard all punters who show fancy Baccarat Screenshots with weak comments, not helping members growing as gamblers.

What is the purpose to hang around on gambling forums and self proclaim how good you are without proving that your claims have value.
There has to be a reason behind a placed bet and all ways tackle betting and wagering can be explained.
Either you guess based upon one estimation on IN-PLAY stats or you have a mechanical approach, and if not then you betting randomly.
A good shoe, not necessary has to be a good shoe for all punters, same regarding bad shoes.
There are many different gambling personalities and different ways to tackle the game.
And there are several ways to win one and same shoe.
Grind, conservative, push & press, bet against or with, patterns, trends, sequences, swing-waves, odds-stats, math & probability.
The list is long.

Cheers Patrik

 

I don't pretend or offer anything other than actual results. I have posted in my thread both play by play results of sessions, and videos of win statements that corroborate the actual wins. This is more than anyone else in the history of these forums has offered, because it covers two years of play, and win statements that back up the figures.

Also, I am not saying that your methods work or do not work. I am just saying that in order for them to work, they must work to have made a lot of money in shoes such as the ones I posted above. Those are real winner shoes that Baccarat players dream about. Not the best ones I have encountered by any means, but good ones.

 

Patrik,

I just read in a European publication that Sweden is faced with an increase corona virus cases and has begun instituting certain protective measures for the population.


Hoping for the best and keep well with smooth sailing through this storm .



NDE

 

Sputnik, you have no business giving advice to anyone on baccarat. I know you from the "BeattheCasino.com" days, and you haven't changed. You make things way more complicated than they need to be and yYou haven't a clue of reading the shoe. You love the attention, mostly from the players on here who also don't have a clue. You're the perfect example of "the blind leading the blind".

 

Good guy? Probably. Contributor? definitely. But what has he contributed that has helped you win? Most people that have been playing this game for tens of years think they have nothing to learn and are in fact the worst players.

 

Roubac,


Who taught you the game of Baccarat ?


ND