Bac is beatable in the short run. Focus on that and you'll win.

It's a negative expectation game so in theory you'll lose if you play. For example, if you're forced to watch 11 movies in a week and 6 of which are bad movies, of course you'll be watching more bad movies than good ones.

However, in Bac, you're NOT forced to play every hand. You can sit and wait for the one you want. The difference is you have a choice. The no-nonsense people will tell you you're still exposing yourself to the negative nature of the game in the long run. I think this is false. Long run expectation applies only when you play every hand or most hands.

Out of a 6-deck shoe, which typically has 60 hands, I play about 5 to 10 hands then I'm done. If I'm lucky enough to catch a run then I'll let it ride until the run is done, but I'm not actively thinking about what I'm betting at that point.

=======

A lot of people want a formula to prove or disprove through testing millions of hands. Winning at Bac doesn't work that way. If forced to play every hand, I think everyone eventually loses and all formulas fail.

There are two big fallacies in this post. The first is that you have a method to beat the game "in the short run". The method either works or it doesn't. Long run expectation is the sum of the expectation of every play made. What is correct is that in the short term, you can expect variance to alllow you to win almost as many times as you lose. But not quite as many, because the sum of all sessions will always have a negative expectation in a negative EV game. It doesn't matter if you sit out for the right time to play. That either works in both short and long run, or doesn't work at all.

The second is your comment about "runs". Runs are only recognizable in hindsight, and the next bet or next hand is not part of a "run". It is independent of whatever you did already, as if it never happened. The cards have no memory.

How do you know what hand you want?

Again, there is no method. I play based on my experience, instinct, and patience. If there was a method or formula then I would agree it should work in the short and long run.

About runs, yes, cards has no memory, but you missed the point completely. I play my game regardless of runs, when it happen and I happen to be riding one, I'll just let it happen.

Earlier, I mentioned using 3-1-2-3-4 as my up and pull pattern. If I win 3 units on the first hand, I will lock in 2 units and continue betting with 1 unit. Whatever happens with that 1 unit is just extra money.

Although, that's besides the point. Going on runs doesn't make or break my game.

======

Obviously no one here has any interest in actually discussing the game to get better. And regardless of how long I can win, it's still not enough for those that like to nitpick the game theoretically.

I can win for another week, but it won't be 2 weeks. I can win for another month, but it's not 2 months. A year, but not 2 years. Whatever the number, it's not enough for nitpickers.

I lose. You win. End of thread.

No, no I'm/we're interested we just need more details you can't blame us for being skeptical bacc is a hard game. I believe you can win hopefully we can all win.

When you play a slot machine, you put money in and a mathematical algorithm decides whether you win or not. Nothing you can do makes any difference, how hard you press the button, whether you have a lucky quarter in your pocket, if you say a prayer while putting the money in and so on. Once you place the bet the win is determined by the algorithm. The bells and whistles and flashing lights are just there to give you an illusion that more is going on.

Baccarat works exactly the same way, but instead of a mathematical algorithm it uses a deck of cards to determine the winner. But it has the same feature as a slot machine in that no decision you make during the game has an impact on your chances of winning. Discussing Baccarat strategy is like discussing slot machine strategy - it's just as ridiculous as saying "to beat slot machines you have to push the bet button hard on Wednesdays and soft on Thursdays, and make sure you always wear your lucky rabbit's foot." THERE IS NO STRATEGY TO THE GAME WHATSOEVER. THERE IS NOTHING YOU OR ANYONE CAN DO TO INCREASE (OR DECREASE) YOUR EXPECTATION. THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS BEING GOOD OR BAD AT THE GAME - SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THE RULES AND JUST PLACES BETS RANDOMLY HAS THE SAME CHANCE OF WINNING AS YOU DO, YOU HAVE THE SAME CHANCE AS THE SMARTEST MATHEMATICIAN IN THE WORLD WOULD. ANY SYSTEM YOU USE HAS EXACTLY THE SAME EXPECTATION AS PLAYING COMPLETELY AT RANDOM, AND ALL SYSTEMS HAVE A WORSE EXPECTATION THAN NOT PLAYING AT ALL, SINCE IT'S A NEGATIVE EXPECTATION GAME.

Note that by using certain betting systems (quitting when you're ahead) you can increase the likelihood that you will come out a winner in any given session, but you are doing so at the cost of exposing yourself to astronomical losses that, when they hit, will more than make up for the amounts you win when you win. Eventually there will be a session where you never get ahead and drop your whole bankroll chasing your losses.

That's all there is to it. Play the game if you enjoy it, but don't play with money you can't afford to lose and don't waste your time thinking about ways to beat it.

+1. OP must be a troll

I don't think the OP is a troll. I think he is just a typical naive gambler who still believes in variations of the Gambler's Fallacy, and that betting systems can affect expectations in a table game.

OP - as others have pointed out, baccarat is just a fancy way to bet on coin flips, but worse because you pay the house to play. So you can't learn to "get better". And some ribbing about saying you want to do this professionally is justified.

wat, turning pro in a negative expectancy game?

lol, let's just wait till OP busts his roll.

Donks,

He doesn't have to play every hand he gets to choose.

Baccarat wonging based on gut feel, intuition, and experience ftw!

In all seriousness this isn't right. There are things people can do to change the edge in bacc. Some have been talked about on this forum.

You can beat it if you can obtain information about the next cards to come and use that information to identify +EV bets. Just like you can beat slot machines by identifying machines with faulty software, or you can beat roulette by finding a biased wheel.

There's no way to gain an edge using the ideas that OP is talking about.

There are sometimes some available side bets that can be susceptible to card counting, but they are pretty iffy and not practical. But the basic game is not normally beatable because even with perfect counting and high penetration, advantage bets are too rare. One study concluded that with $1000 bet units you could make 70 cents per hour if the casino tolerated you betting about once every 5 or 6 hours on average. It just isn't doable. Baccarat is basically a coin flip game with a small premium charged to play (about 1% of all wagers).

And as pointed out, none of this has anything to do with the ideas presented in this thread.

OP should read Mason Malmuth on self-weighted strategies.

Keep the run going - this forum is just a bunch of guys grinding VP and pissed off that someone's figured it out.

Bacnerd, obviously you said you don't have a method, but that instinct, experience, and patience (IEP) has a large role.

Can you give an example or describe an experience you had playing bacc where you used IEP and then you won? Or maybe an experience where you lost? Be as descriptive as possible.

shocked that such advanced plays are being talked about so openly

The 70 cents figure is Peter Griffin's crappy system where the point-count values don't sum to zero. Computer-perfect analysis, deep penetration and a 40-1 spread gets you around a .5% edge. Baccarat AP can be very profitable given the much higher average stake sizes and generous rebates.

But, I know from long experience of these threads that the only exchanges you get will be between delusional compulsive gamblers and math geeks shouting at them endlessly about the gambler's fallacy. as if they would ever give a crap.

Thanks for that info. And your characterization is pretty accurate. Zinger for geeks like me.

I wanted the previous reply to be my last post because I had no interest in a "math geek vs delusional gambler" debate like someone else has coined it.

If you read my posts and think I'm delusional, that's fine there's no discussion between us to be had. For there to be a discussion, both sides has to believe the other is reasonable to an extent. If all you're interested in is throwing numbers at me without any experience to back it up, how can there be a discussion?

So far, I've shown a lot of constraint within the discussion, shown that I have a lot of experience playing Bac, and respect for the other side's opinion. Sadly, math geeks have no respect for real experience.

=======

There's some people that are actually interested in beating the game so I'll try to give a crash course of my perspective and experience here.

Instinct, experience, and patience are NOT measurable, but to completely dismiss them shows that you haven't played Bac long enough and you haven't spent time analyzing the game like I have.

Here are some basic examples:

Do NOT bet Banker at all blue/player table. Do NOT bet Player at an all Banker table. Anyone with just one day of Bac experience knows this. So already, the no-nonsense, math-based tip to just bet on banker every time goes out the window. It makes you question what else of the math stuff doesn't work.

Don't play choppy tables and don't utilize Martingale as a strategy. Typically, the players that claim they have a formula falls somewhere in this category/group of play style. When you see the table they're playing, it's typically very ugly tables that the general public has a hard time winning.

If you play long enough, you will see a lot of unbelievable stuff like 20 bankers in a row or the second column of every banker and player sticking for 10 columns in a row. The unbelievable stuff is what breaks every Bac formula. I think this is why no formula stands the test of a million hands. There's just too many scenarios to consider.

(Side note: when unbelievable stuff happens, sit out or bet with it, don't try to bet against it or you will regret it. I didn't know this at first so I blew away a couple of small bankrolls trying to bet against unbelievable stuff.)

In theory, I do agree that all formulas or strategies should work in the short term and long term, but if you play the game long enough you'd see that winning at Bac just doesn't work that way.

=====

In my experience, there's at least 6 different recognizable types of tables, but only in hindsight do you recognize them. When you're actually playing, you don't know what type of table you're playing so it's useless to even try coming up with 6 different strategies because what if you mix match your strategy at the wrong table type?

Sit and wait for things to happen in three. Here are some examples and what I would bet on (in bold):

• BBB, P, BB, P, BBBBBB
• B, P, B, P, BB, P, B, P, B, PP, B, P, B, P

In the first example, I was looking for the 2nd Banker to happen again. In the second example, I was waiting for the jump. The safest thing to do in Bac is look for the first example and bet on 2nd banker not 1st banker. If you have the patience to play that over and over again and nothing else, you will win more often than most people. Of course, the problem is everyone will get tempted to bet on many different things.

When I say wait for things to happen in 3, I don't mean to be superstitious. If a series or pattern repeated itself consecutively, it's likely to repeat itself for the third time and that's when I bet. Yes, cards don't have memories, but again patterns exist and if you play long enough you will see it again and again. I'm talking about very basic patterns like the ones above.

When looking for patterns, don't try to look too closely. Thinking that Player will never win 5 times in a row at a certain table because it hasn't so far is not looking for patterns. You're just being greedy and trying to come up with reasons to bet.

If I don't win, that's fine. I'll wait for something else. If I do win, I will lock in some of the money and continue betting on whatever I think is next.

For example, I'd bet $50 on the first hand. If I win, that's a $50 win. I will lock in $30 and continue betting with the other $20. Even if I lose the very next hand, I will have $30 to show for winning and losing one hand. Locking in money is very important. How else will you win one and lose one, but still turn a profit?

You should adjust how much money you're locking in depending on how easy it has been for you to win. For example, if it's super easy to win then try $50 then $25. If it's not so easy to win then be super stingy going with $50 and $10.

Locking in money is very important so I'd like to expand on this more. Let's say your very basic bet is $20. The popular up and pull or money locking pattern is:

1st bet: $20
2nd bet: $10
3rd bet: $20
4th bet: $30
5th bet: $40
6th bet: and so on...

Notice, at every hand after the $10 one, you're locking in some money, but are still able to play aggressively to take advantage of a favorable streak.

Personally, I think 2-1-2-3-4-5 and so on is too aggressive and should only be used when you're winning easily. I mentioned before that I will do at least 3-1-2-3-4-5. Why? Let's say out of every 10 opportunities, I'm hoping to win
at least 6. Let's see how that works out mathematically:

My base bet is $15 (3 multiples of $5). If I win the base bet, I will continue with $5 according to the 3-1-2-3-4-5 pattern. If I lose that $5 every time then I profit $10 from each series.

Winning 6 series out of 10 means I lost 4 of series (not four hands).

6 wins x $10 profit for each = $60
4 losses x $15 bet for each = $60

6 wins and 4 losses breaks even money wise. However, if in any of the 6 series, I get to win the $5 bet, that will be my profit.

Someone employing the 3-1-2-3-4-5 pattern to lock in money is simply sitting around waiting for a banker run or player run to happen because he knows even if he wins 6 first bets, it's just break even money.

For me, depending on how I'm reading the table or what my wins and losses at the table so far tells me, I will adjust to playing 3-1-2-3 or 4-1-2-3 or even 5-1-2-3.

You should be flexible in determining how much money to lock in to balance out when you're winning easily or not so easily.

=======

The more you play, the more you'll see repeatable stuff that are more advance than the examples I gave here. If you start playing the advance patterns, then you'll become what we call a shooter because shooters will look for any recognizable opportunity to shoot a big bet.

Personally, I don't like that because repeatable things are still not 100% repeatable and you need to remember that.

=======

Instinct - Everyone's instinct for the game is different. I personally will look for sticky tables. You might be interested in choppy tables. You need to play long enough to see what your mind naturally gravitate towards.

=======

If instinct, experience, and patience are not measurable factors that could outweigh the math then how come I lost again and again before? Simple, I'm human and I'm emotional. I lack the discipline professionals have. Usually, when I lost big is when I could not let go of the fact that I just need to take a break.

The more I play the I realize playing Bac is not about being productive. How much you earn can't be broken down to $ per hour or per day. If you think that way, you'll go on tilt once you lose. For example, if you're thinking I'm making $50 an hour playing Bac and all of a sudden you lose $100 in two minutes, you're going to want to make that $100 back as soon as possible and that's when everything goes to ****. So, don't count your money until it's over, which is easier said than done.

You can know exactly how to play, but actually playing is a different thing just like knowing mathematically formulas and theories isn't the same as playing the game.

======

In a very crash course way, that's all I have to say. This response is really my last for this thread. Whether I'll be back to make start another thread, I'm not sure. Goodluck to everyone, even the math geeks.

You've sort of missed the point again.
GBV was talking about card counting, which you have never referred to using. Betting systems on the other hand, can never change the negative expectation of the game at all.

I meant to say restraint, not constraint.

BacNerd,

Don't leave. People are just naturally skeptical but we want to hear what you have to say.

Bacnerd: Normally I'd agree with you about a lack of respect for experience. Unfortunately baccarat is a closed mathematical system. Experience will just tell you what combinatorial analysis will tell you, just much slower.

Baccarat and other casino gambling games have proved invulnerable to the type of reasoning you have used over hundreds of years. It can be reduced to and has been reducible to numbers.

I sometimes humor the anti-math types who try and attack these games because I like their creativity, and the close-minded inflexibility of math zealots winds me up. However, in this case they're right. You'll piss away every cent on this if you continue, and it will really ****ing hurt, I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy and I'd ask you to reconsider for *genuinely* no other reason than humanitarian concern.