A Negative Progression Baccarat Study/Strategy

[KrapsNovice]

You lost me. If they both bet the same amount you just even out. Can you please explain this with an example of how player 1 & 2 would bet.

[Knick111]

April 27 2018,
when i can figure out how to Email or pm you on my system/computer...i will answer your guestion.
Aaron and you will recive the rest of the system. The reason i will pm you the rest of the system is because the casinos spys on [ Heavys ] board.
example, IF the casino pays the team 4 quarters for every 3 they play THEN it stands to reason that you will win one unit every time one member wins.

when i said one player will cover the others bet, i did not mean dollar for dollar. Jaime.

[KrapsNovice]

Jamie, if I understand Aaron's response to you he is not interested as he said in the "holy Grail". I answered your question so if you figure out how to PM or email do respond. I sent you a PM on this board. Thanks for your time.

[stratocasterman]

Send Heavy am email!

[London Shooter]

Come on Jamie just post your system on here. The casino aren't frightened. There is no betting system that can beat a negative expectation game. You are just rearranging win and loss deckchairs on a virtual Titanic-like deck before the good ship Bankroll goes down.

[Knick111]

April 29 2018,

you came into the game to late, london shooter.

but if you want a system to beat the silver market i will give it to you. i made alot of money with it.
I will give you a clue today, up and down.
Jaime.

[stratocasterman]

Starting to drift OFF the thread topic here...

[London Shooter]

Yes OK I won't get into discussions about silver, stock markets or whatever which is in no way comparative to a casino market. Anybody should be able to make money in commodities and shares which give you prices on average that appreciate over time. They are not by default a negative expectation game.

[heavy]

Well, it seems to me like this discussion is circling the drain.

The reason you can't send an e-mail through the forum is that I have that function turned off. It is off to prevent board members whose purpose is to sell some strategy or another from spamming the other board members trying to peddle their crap. The PM function does work. Using it is not rocket science.

Let's get back on topic. Tell us about your negative progression baccarat strategy.

[crapsjourney]

I think it’s already been laid out by SCM before the thread went sideways.

[stratocasterman]

I think it’s already been laid out by SCM before the thread went sideways.

Aaron, SteveO, Anyone...have you utilized Target Betting by just betting the second Target Win bet only, then upon a loss, just continue in that betting fashion with your negative progression (Loss to Date +)??? In other words, just completely cutting out the "T3P" or three loss part of it and focusing on just Target Wins.

Seems like it would cut down on the amount of individual losses but, doesn't allow for much of a LTD to build up. Suppose it really depends on the Next Level Bets made if the losses progress.

I suppose it could backfire just as well. (BPBPBPBPBPBPBP) would kill you! Plenty of streak run results in the 3+ range (BBBBBPPPBBBPPPPPP) would be good.

Potentially look for a streaky shoe, jump in real quick and ride it until the streak runs stop. Seems like this may be more in line with Heavy's suggestion earlier about betting Banker streaks after two Banker results. "Seeing" the Target Win, then attacking it.

Think I'll drop back into my real shoe data and try that specific Target Win betting and make a comparison.

[crapsjourney]

Whichever approach you choose there is always a weak spot.
Which if the shoe hits it you will suffer.

It’s about knowing that weak spot and knowing when to pull out and try again another time.

I find this applies to any system play.

[stratocasterman]

So true...

Early testing data seems to favor just reacting with a second Target Win bet, after any single Target Win and skipping T3P or three losses. Little bit less bet $ layout for similar amounts of Profit $s. Where I used the three individual 1U bets that included losses, I just used a 3U bet for the Targeted second or "back to back" Win bet.

As I progressed, after a second loss and progressing forward, my Next Bet was my Loss to Date + 10% + 3U (any/every Unit level bet).

My regular T3P bet structure is 1U, then 1U, then 1U, STOP at three losses, then bet LTD + 10% progressively.

Seems this would be a very grinding time play (at any one table) and less than a third the normal progression betting. The one GOOD thing about this play is that you can just go from table to table...SEEKING your opportunities. This was usually how I played Baccarat for years (with a completely different approach/system of play)...just seeking an opportunity, here and there. At least you can move around and don't have to sit for long periods of time at any one table.

[SteveO]

Hey Strat.

I have played around some with simply trying to bet for a second play instead of playing by the normal Target betting method. However, this just becomes a Martingale betting on a repeat. Whereas Target protects you in a WLWLWLWLWLWLWL situation, the go-for-the-repeat has you at 64 units in this particular WL sequence. I think I like your lose 3 in row and switch or maybe L2 W1 L2 (one in five).

I have worked through 500 craps decisions in 35 - 45 decision blocks, betting Don't Pass and letting the shooter beat me once. Final results are (in units):

9 Won High Bet 18
10 Won High Bet 36
18 Won High Bet 4
10 Won High Bet 18
12 Won High Bet 28
10 Won High Bet 8
6 Won High Bet 96
8 Won High Bet 24
12 Won High Bet 8
6 Won High Bet 16
11 Won High Bet 16
13 Won High Bet 16
5 Won High Bet 16
5 Won High Bet 8

135 units won, 9.64 units average and there were 9 deviations from my bet selection method. I got 4 right and 5 wrong.

Please note I am not really sure I have the balls to make a 96 unit bet to win one unit. I can do 24 or 36 but 96???? just not sure about that. I think this may make a good case for finding a high bet you actually can make and not going over it.

Now for some anecdotal data.

I have a Baccarat database of about 126 Baccarat games (one big spreadsheet) and I can test some bet selection methods. The following is just anecdotal and is not a hard ball, mathematical analysis of these shoes. It’s just “eye-ball”, kinda looks this way but maybe…. kinds of stuff.

I don’t see a lot of difference between betting Banker or Player.

Decision Before Last (DB4L) SEEMS to get a few more doubles but also has more losses in a row to a double than just following one side.

Max losses in a row before a double betting Player is 20
Max losses in a row before a double betting Banker is 22
Max losses in a row betting DB4L is 26
All of these in a purely mechanical method with absolutely no deviation to the bet selection method.

There may be some validity to starting with DB4L and then switching to one side betting since the nemesis of DB4L is doubles (terrible twos) BUT we want doubles and repeats while using traditional T3B. I’m about to start testing this but it is all hand testing.

So nothing above that’s going to make us rich but does show that this is gambling and there are no sure things. But I guess there actually are three things you can count on in life, death, taxes and the house advantage.

[crapsjourney]

That could be someone’s new Tagline.

Death, taxes and the house advantage.

[stratocasterman]

Great info SteveO!

As I do like automated things/results, there is a LOT to be said about really getting our hands dirty with crunching the data shoes manually. You get to see the "little things" that do occur in a lot of shoes. While these occurrences are no guarantees of things to come, they do offer very good insight to the betting picture.

I think you may be correct on the Martingale effect...just targeting the second "back to back" Win. The T3P three loss does protect you in a lot of run away situations with no more damage than doubling up bets.

What I would like to try and figure out, with just doing a second target Win betting scheme, is if it is more lucrative to "roam" from table to table or shoe to shoe, rather than just sticking to one particular shoe. I don't know if this is actually attainable as you would never know what an exact entry point would be on any given "next" roamed to shoe. Maybe averaging 50-100 shoes of the max number of Loss levels per shoe, might provide a guide as to the worst case scenario of switching from shoe to shoe. Think I'll crunch some more and see what happens.

My data shoe testing with this method...staying with one shoe through it's entirely, has shown to take me to the 4-6 level of doubling up losses before a Win on average. That sure is costly, as you stated, when staring down a next Banker bet of 8U, 14U, 30U, 66U, 137U, 274U and 550U for a 62U overall Win in the end (one of my most recent shoes). That shoe's overall results were:
Banker Wins = 28
Player Wins = 38
Tie Wins = 5

Total bets were 1164U for a 62U Profit, or 5% ROI (not good). My regular T3P play on that shoe was Total bets of 96U for a 16U Loss.

Now I would NOT have hung around to make those bets but, I decided to force my way through one failure shoe to see what really might happen. My regular T3P play was completely recoverable. If I lost that 550U bet, I would have been dead in the water for sure, not very recoverable!

If I understood the craps results right, seems it would be profitable. I do agree about the 96U bet and putting a ceiling on it. I think this is exactly what Aaron does and plays for...a few or multiple wins (instead of just one Win-Win bet) sometimes when the betting units get to high/too many losses.

Keep the info coming...eventually, several things are bound to click and work out. Finding thresholds, entry point and lucrative betting patterns are revealing themselves I believe.

[stratocasterman]

That could be someone’s new Tagline.

Death, taxes and the house advantage.

Yes hahahaha, possibly even on my Tombstone. "Here lies the man who definitely got beat by one of these, and continually tried to beat the other two!"

Hey Aaron, I might have asked this before but, don't recall what the answer may have been. What is your T3P loss "ceiling" or number of consecutive losses before you resort to just a standard bet or, maybe call it a partial recovery bet, until you get back to a Profit?

I have been playing this/"your" method in my test data shoes lately with great success! What seems to work best for me is leveling off at the plus/minus 25U level, getting back to the minimum 1U bets and just continue making the occasional 25U bet or less, until I get back in the money. This plus/minus 25U level is usually hit on the sixth loss for me mostly.

The absolute cool thing I like about this, over any other Target/Negative progression method so far, is that I am VERY confident going up against ANY shoe and riding it until I want to STOP and move on to the next. What I see over and over again is that I eventually get back in the money with a decent 25% ROI (per total amount bet) Profit within 3-4 shoes.

Being a Banker betting man, I have noticed, on average, that I can play three shoes to a 150U Win. The most highly interesting thing about those three shoes is that two out of three of them, the total shoe results were a predominately PLAYER shoe. So as long as I follow a STOP at the 25U level or so, just play in "recovery mode" until I get back in the money, I can survive shoes that were NOT in my favor and STILL pull out a decent win.

Seems the farther I hammer away at this, the more interesting this seems to play out...

Aaron, let me know your average loss or level limit.

SteveO...let me know yours too.

[SteveO]

Through some trial and error, it is like looking like getting out with a 25 to 40 unit drawdown is working okay. I am thinking that bailing at 25 - 30 units lost may be better for my recovery but I need to work through a few more (dozens) shoes. And I think I could comfortably make a 40 - 50 unit bet and not suffer a heart attack. Well maybe a 50 unit bet at a $5 table. Somehow 50-$5 units seems a lot easier than 50-$25 units.

[mssthis1]

Through some trial and error, it is like looking like getting out with a 25 to 40 unit drawdown is working okay. I am thinking that bailing at 25 - 30 units lost may be better for my recovery but I need to work through a few more (dozens) shoes. And I think I could comfortably make a 40 - 50 unit bet and not suffer a heart attack. Well maybe a 50 unit bet at a $5 table. Somehow 50-$5 units seems a lot easier than 50-$25 units.

I'm late to the party and need to read the whole thread when I have more time but you could set a pull the plug point at $5 units and start over using a larger bet unit size until you recover.

You are right on the $25 unit size. You need to start out extremely conservative so you have room and bankroll to dig out of bad runs. I've learned this lesson the hard way in the past.

[stratocasterman]

Through some trial and error, it is like looking like getting out with a 25 to 40 unit drawdown is working okay. I am thinking that bailing at 25 - 30 units lost may be better for my recovery but I need to work through a few more (dozens) shoes. And I think I could comfortably make a 40 - 50 unit bet and not suffer a heart attack. Well maybe a 50 unit bet at a $5 table. Somehow 50-$5 units seems a lot easier than 50-$25 units.

Thanks for the input SteveO! I think you are right and this has seemed to be a very comfortable level for me testing my real shoe data. I am still hammering away at it until I have my method down with a reasonable, comfortable consistency.

What I found was even when I splurged for the occasional 40-50U bet and lost it, I still recovered well and had a Profit by the end of the shoe or into the next shoe. I have never had to go more than two or three consecutive shoes to gather a decent Profit. Then again, about 50% of the time, I did Win the 40-50U bet. That is great satisfaction for a total recovery and a nice Profit. Most of the time in live casino play with the same 40-50U Win, I think I would do a Heavy..."Get In, Get Up and Get Gone!"

I'm late to the party and need to read the whole thread when I have more time but you could set a pull the plug point at $5 units and start over using a larger bet unit size until you recover.

You are right on the $25 unit size. You need to start out extremely conservative so you have room and bankroll to dig out of bad runs. I've learned this lesson the hard way in the past.

Good catch mssthis1! Hadn't really thought about do-overs at an elevated bet size. May do some testing on that as well.

Yes, starting out low and slow has seemed to show the way best, in my testing overall.