Online Roulette and Baccarat Systems that work ?

[bpb]

All the pessimists say that if you keep going with any system, you will lose in the end. This is undeniably true. But in any given session, you will nearly always be ahead at some point the trick is to quit at this point, before the maths takes your winnings away!

Its tough to tell if you're joking or not. My sarcasm detector isn't that great.

If you aren't joking, I'd suggest that you head down to your local Borders or B&N, find a copy of David Sklansky's "Getting the Best of It", get a cup of coffee and a slice of cheesecake, sit down, and read this book for half an hour. Theres a section near the back of the book that discusses the fallacy of "money mangement" in gambling.

In general, this is one of the best gambling texts I've ever read. I'd strongly recommend it to anyone interested in gambling for profit vs gambling for recreation. Hopefully, your local bookstore will carry a copy. It's probably located in the gambling section between "How to win at craps ... guaranteed!" and "What the casinos don't want you to know!". Truly a diamond in the rough.

 

[KasinoKing]

Its tough to tell if you're joking or not. My sarcasm detector isn't that great.

I am absolutely not joking. Most of my profit in the last 3-4 years has been made by quitting when I am ahead and switching to a different game. It's not rocket science, just will power.
However, I do admit that sarcasm is my forte, whereas reading books is not. Why would I need to read a book anyway, when I am happy with my systems which already work?
Enjoy your coffee & cheesecake - I'll stick to English tea & crumpet!

 

[bpb]

I am absolutely not joking. Most of my profit in the last 3-4 years has been made by quitting when I am ahead and switching to a different game. It's not rocket science, just will power.

"Money Management" helped build Las Vegas.

It really is a very very good book.

Here's a little problem to ponder from one of Sklansky's other books.

4 brothers each play craps every day. They each religiously follow their own betting system.

Brother A - Bets $1 on the pass line 3 times, then quits.
Brother B - Bets $1 on the pass line 3 times. If he wins all three, he makes a 4th $1 bet then quits, regardless of the outcome of the 4th bet.
Brother C - Bets $1 on the pass line 3 times. If he wins all three, he makes a 4th $2 bet, then quits, regardless of the outcome of the 4th bet.
Brother D - Bets $1 on the pass line 3 times. If he wins all three, he makes a 4th $2 bet. If he wins that one, he makes a 5th $3 bet. If he wins that one, he makes a 6th $4 bet. So on and so forth. He continues to up his bet by $1 until he loses once, then quits.


10 years go by. The brothers get together to compare their results. Which brother should have performed the best? Next best? 3rd Best? Which brother will have done the worst?

What is the significance of this question?

 

[nafanny29]

A,B,C then D?

But they would all be down overall

Enlighten us please :notworthy

 

[KasinoKing]

A,B,C then D?
But they would all be down overall
Enlighten us please :notworthy

Interesting! My guess would be the exact opposite D C B then A.

This is because that's how I play most games - increase my bets when I win. It works for me!

I await the answer with interest....

 

[Vesuvio]

A,B,C then D?

But they would all be down overall

Enlighten us please :notworthy

Agreed. A does the least badly because he bets the least, and so on. They all lose the amount the house edge predicts overall. Whoever bets the most loses the most.

No-one should ever gamble at a casino

p.s. but who knows what their results will be on-line - this is one for the corrupt programmers among us to answer

 

[bpb]

Agreed. A does the least badly because he bets the least, and so on. They all lose the amount the house edge predicts overall. Whoever bets the most loses the most.

No-one should ever gamble at a casino

p.s. but who knows what their results will be on-line - this is one for the corrupt programmers among us to answer

Bingo

Imagine that A,B,C,D are all playing at the same table, and that the chance of winning the pass line bet is 49% (its a little lower).

When they lose one of the first 3 rolls, all brothers walk away with the same total. But when they win the first 3 rolls,

Brother A quits with $3 won
Brother B plays one more $1 bet, and walks away with $2 51% of the time, and $4 49% of the time .... therefore, he on average will lose more than A
Brother C plays one more $2 bet, and walks away with $1 51% of the time, and $5 49% of the time .... therefore, he on average will lose more than B
Brother D plays one more $2 bet, loses and walks away with $1 51% of the time
The other 49%, he plays $2 again, loses and walks away with $2 51% of the time
The other 49% he plays $2 again, loses and walks away with $3 51% of the time
The other 49% he plays $2 again, loses and walks away with $4 51% of the time.
etc etc etc


Its a little harder to see in the case of Brother D, but his expectation is worse than brother C, which is worse than B, which is worse than A.

As Vesuvio pointed out, your expectation is solely a result of the house advantage, and the amount that you wager. And the next wager you place, is the next wager you place. Doesn't matter if its today, tomorrow, next week, or next year. If you don't have the best of it, adjusting your betting won't do anything. You are going to lose in proportion to the amount of your total wagering.


What does this all mean? When you don't have the best of it, gamble for fun ... not profit. Online, bonus whoring is about the only way to have the best of it.

 

[Dreamer]

Just thought I would add my 2 cents here... I can't verify any of this onfo, nor am I suggesting anyone use it.

This evening on the Travel Channel, there was a repeat of a show I had previously seen called "Sucker Bets". One thing that was mentioned was to always bet on the banker when playing baccarat. It did not say why, only mentioned that the banker has a slight edge. I tried the strategy for play money at InterCasino and it seemed that the player was always winning. Not to mention that when the banker wins, you need to pay a commission... Of course, I only played a few games, so that is not a fair trial. I suppose this would be good to use with casino bonuses, however, all the bonuses I have seen exclude baccarat.

Another system I have seen on the net, I forget where, is to play the same one number. If it does not win in 37 plays, double your bet until it comes in. This is probably similar to the Martingale system, which is proven to be less profitable than even bet amounts. I am not really interested in it myself, just passing along the info... I am a red, black, even, odd type... LOL!

 

[dickens1298]

Just thought I would add my 2 cents here... I can't verify any of this onfo, nor am I suggesting anyone use it.

This evening on the Travel Channel, there was a repeat of a show I had previously seen called "Sucker Bets". One thing that was mentioned was to always bet on the banker when playing baccarat. It did not say why, only mentioned that the banker has a slight edge. I tried the strategy for play money at InterCasino and it seemed that the player was always winning. Not to mention that when the banker wins, you need to pay a commission... Of course, I only played a few games, so that is not a fair trial. I suppose this would be good to use with casino bonuses, however, all the bonuses I have seen exclude baccarat.

Another system I have seen on the net, I forget where, is to play the same one number. If it does not win in 37 plays, double your bet until it comes in. This is probably similar to the Martingale system, which is proven to be less profitable than even bet amounts. I am not really interested in it myself, just passing along the info... I am a red, black, even, odd type... LOL!

Because of the structure of the game - where the determination of whether the Banker has to draw a card is dependent upon the Player's cards - Banker has a slight edge. Even with the 5% vig on wins, the house edge with Banker is still lower than that of Player, so it's still an ideal bet.

Keep in mind that a "sucker bet" is really determined by how closely the house pays you true odds. According to the program, for example, tie bets are sucker bets - simply because the true odds of a tie is something like 12 to 1, whereas the payoff is 9 to 1. But I've seen tie bets pay off big, although the house edge WILL grind you over time.

The Martingale system is simply flawed because of a gambler's fallacy. Put another way - you and your friend flip a quarter, and it lands head for 2 straight times. You wager that it will land tails on the next toss, because for it to land heads three times in a row, you've calculated that the odds are 12.5% that it would do that, so you assume you have a 87.5% advantage. But what are the odds of it landing hands on the next - the third - toss? 50%.

Blackjack players are notorious Martingale users. They assume they're due, so they up their wager. But they are simply exposing increasing amounts of money to a negative expectation game.

 

[bpb]

This is probably similar to the Martingale system, which is proven to be less profitable than even bet amounts.

After wagering X dollars, your expected result using a martingale system is exactly the same as flat betting. It is not less profitable, but rather as profitable as any other betting strategy.

 

[Mugwump]

While your expected loss per $$$ is the same with Martingale as it is with flat betting, I believe that the martingale system does change the volatility of the game, and I imagine it changes it for the worse by exposing you to the very likely possibility of catastrophic losses.

This can occur either by blowing your bankroll and being unable to make the final bet in the series, or by running into the table limit, which effectively does the same thing.

 

[big_mac]

Blackjack players are notorious Martingale users. They assume they're due, so they up their wager. But they are simply exposing increasing amounts of money to a negative expectation game.

I propose that it can actually be a sensible thing to do!

Not because the cards will turn in your favour, but by increasing the bets you actually end up putting less money across the table, and so reducing the average amount that the house takes.

 

[jpsartre]

by increasing the bets you actually end up putting less money across the table, and so reducing the average amount that the house takes.

How is that? I would have thought that bigger bets meant bigger turnover and thus a bigger average loss...

 

[big_mac]

It would do if you were going to play the same number of hands, but people don't usually play that way - I certainly don't.

When I deposit, I do so knowing that I will either lose it or make a profit. If I have lost money, I am not likely to withdraw less than my original deposit, so I will keep playing.

If, say, I am not going to withdraw until I have increased my balance by $100, then to do this at $1 a hand will probably take over 1000 hands. Doing this at $50 a hand will be quick, and will involve a much lower overall amount staked.

My exposure to loss is the same, because I was only every risking the same amount.

This doesn't mean that I think it's a good idea, but gambling at all isn't really a good idea in the first place!

 

[bokske]

...exposing you to the very likely possibility of catastrophic losses.

This can occur either by blowing your bankroll and being unable to make the final bet in the series, or by running into the table limit, which effectively does the same thing.

Totally true.
Everyone who plays Martingale on even bets must have gone through this experience. The fundamental solution to this problem is to reduce the coverage of the wager - going from an even bet to double streets, squares, single streets, pairs, or even single-number bets. A Martingale progression is essentially an exponential curve (of the form f(x) = a^x), slightly disrupted by the effect of the rounding to integer betting units. It's about the same mathematical behavior as the world population, also headed for a catastrophic encounter of the "house limit". You want to reduce the slope of this curve as much as possible, so as to put this encounter with the bankroll or table limit as far away in the progression as possible. Obviously, by betting on smaller chances, the waiting time before the wager wins gets longer too.

My computer can only do 25 billion simulated roulette spins a day, but its temporary best result leads me to believe that the optimal choice is pairs or triples. I'm not sure yet what the best initial coverage of the table should be - in manual play, I'm starting with 50% now (9 pairs or 6 triples). All those wagers run as individual, independent progressions. I think the key might be in not chasing every single wager until it finally wants to hit at the end of times (... and definitely at the end of my bankroll) ; just let it slide and count on the gains that have built up in the meantime, with wagers that were more successful.

An unexpected advantage came from a little thought I had when I launched these simulations. Instead of making all the progressions strictly independent, I built in a "discount" feature where the accumulated loss of due wagers is alleviated by the gains of other wagers that have already hit. Instead of the typical exponential curves, I now get a "plateau" characteristic during each session, where the stakes rise to a certain level while wagers remain due; then as some wagers pay out, the other hopeless ones profit from this "discount" figure and they linger on with very small stakes, not hurting the bankroll too much.

The subtleties of probability theory are always hard to "feel intuitively". It's difficult to accept that when a coin-toss has come up Heads ten times in a row, the chances for Heads in the eleventh toss are still 50%. It might be more clear with roulette. Imagine that some numbers have come up plenty, and some are long due. Now think about that little ball, bouncing along the metal studs and then over the frets between the numbers. How would it possibly "know" that it shouldn't land in the undesirable spaces ?