Player or Banker?


Dormant account
Jun 19, 2004
According to
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
, the BANKER has about 1.2% more "winning" combination than that of PLAYER. But BANKER has 5% commission, therefore is it wiser to bet on PLAYER or BANKER?

Banker is the better bet.
If you are betting everything with a 100% sticky bonus, player is a better bet.
If you are running a negative progression, Player is by far your better bet.
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Do you think Michael Shackelford and the rest of the world's gambling authorities have got it wrong and you've got it right? I already explained in another thread the fault in your reasoning - go back and try to work it out and stop misleading people. Progressions have no effect on the value of the bet, this is complete voodoo.

Of the two SUCKER bets, banker is the better one. I have no idea what hhc means about 100% sticky bonuses, either. Banker is the better bet under ANY circumstances.
caruso said:
. I have no idea what hhc means about 100% sticky bonuses, either. Banker is the better bet under ANY circumstances.
Banker bet offer lower house edge. Player bet offer higher variance. That's why when you get 100% sticky bonus and want to bet them all in one hand, player bet is a better bet.
Come to think of it, tie bet is even better due to even higher variance. That's too much variance for my tiny stomatch anyway.
Other than that, when you bet with your own money banker bet is always a better bet. The only exception is that when you play with RTG, they charge more than 5% commission unless you bet in $5 increments.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
The ever increasing wagers of a negative progression would have the commission of the Banker bet eat away at the final profit of the result. A simple illustration would be the Martingale. After a few losses, you will not get a profit on your original bet after a win. There are many milder progressions but the results will be the same.
You're really stuck on this one, aren't you? Yes, the escalating wagers result in greater commission but this has nothing to do with the return on the bet. If you "martingale" for a session, add up your cumulative wagers: the return on banker will always be more favourable, because the commission doesn't over-compensate for the more generous drawing rules of the banker bet. If you want to go on trying to defy the figures in the privacy of your own home that's fine, but please don't keep posting these misleading statements.
We agree to disagree. I would however ask you to consider that all the figures from the Wiz and others, such as SD, EV, ROR are based on flat betting. I will leave it go at this point and will someday get back to you.
Looking at the stats for 6-deck cards provided by the abovementioned page, I see that speaking of probablility, BANKER has 45.87% chance of winning, while PLAYER have 44.63%, the remaining 9.50% TIE bet being no event.

Does that mean that if I flat bet $100 for 10,000 times on BANKER, and it does win 45.87% of the time, my balance would be $435,765 ($458,700 * 0.95) plus original bet of $458,700 and $9,500 Tie bets, for a total of $903,965.

Then if I bet on PLAYER flat bet $100 for 10,000 times, winning 44.63% of the time, I would have $446,300 + $446,300 + $9500 = $902,100!

Therefore, BANKER is the better bet! Is my logic correct?

The house edge on banker is 1.06%.
The house edge on player is 1.23%.

On a million dollars wagered, Banker loses $10,600 and Player loses $12,300.

None of the above is dependent on playing wearing green socks, howling at the moon or whilst viscerating a chicken.

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings