My buddy told me about a strategy he thought of for baccarat which sounds very effective, only way to pull this off of course is if you have a very large bankroll. You choose the amount your planning to win, lets say $20.

Once you win that amount, you either stop or repeat the process over again, for example, it doesnt matter if you bet on banker or player, or both , but lets say we only bet on banker.

First you bet $20, if you win, stop and repeat. If no you double up to $40.

Then 80, 160. Say if you win at 160. You stop and take the $20 profit. and restart the whole process again. Say your goal is to make a bill a day this seems liek it would be very easy. And honestly obviously this would only work if you had a HUGE bankroll, but it seems like the winrate would be 100%. Say your betting pattern is banker, player, banker , player, banker , player, and you have enough money to be able to do it 40-50 times. I can't see anyone losing with this strategy

i wish your buddy the best.

long time system, cant think of the name off the top of my hand.

seems like a good system till 12, 13, 14, 15.... bankers come in a row... and busto or hit table max and cant double the next bet.

It's called martingale and you're about to be laughed at

It doesn't work. You'll eventually hit the table maximum before you win a hand, which will completely crush your win rate

Betting patterns don't make -EV games +EV

What do you guys mean table max? I'm a poker player so i dont know much about house games.

'fraid not my friend. Ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

Each game had a minimum and maximum bet per hand. For instance a $10 blackjack table might have a $300 max bet. Once you lose enough hands you'll reach the max, meaning you can't double you bet anymore and your winrate gets crushed

daamn so if tables didnt have a max bet rule this would atualy work

Tell your buddy that Martingale is nothing new, and is not a profitable system.

The temptation to send people like this casino affiliate links is sometimes overpowering....

No, a table maximum is irrelevant. It is very likely that if you reached the table maximum you could ask them to increase the limit for you. If they didn't, you could go to another table or another casino and continue your progressive betting. This betting system doesn't require you to bet on the same thing - it only requires you to double the amount you bet. It could be on a football game if you wanted. It doesn't work because you are placing bets in which the odds are against you. Nothing you bet changes that simple fact. You will stop when either 1) you run out of money, or 2) you don't have the nerve to place the huge bet that is required of you to continue; or 3) you want to quit with a small win.

I find it funny that people who think the table maximum is relevant are trying to talk down to OP.

I get a seriously good laugh every time someone posts these. Especially because I thought I created the martingale many years ago.

Unless you are playing some kind of No Commission Baccarat, the winning Banker bet pays a 5% commission on every win.

Re-think your method to include the 5% commission.

Most here enjoy the entertainment value.

You just won a $160 Banker bet
You owe $8 in commissions.
Your net is only $12

Loss = 20+40+80 = 140
Net Win after commission = 160-8=152
Your true net is $12 and you thought it should be $20.

I think one can see where this is leading to.

5 losses in a row = -$620
(20,40,80,160,320)
Next bet $640 is a win.
$32 commission
Net win is $608
Hey, you won but you really lost $12

Haha true.

It works well, just like in poker -- every time you lose a tournament just enter one that costs twice as much.

Especially when they had those double or nothing SnGs.

LOL. Table maximum has everything to do with it. Even at a slightly -EV game, the martingale would be profitable IF a player had an infinite bankroll AND was playing at a table with no cap. Unfortunately neither of this are true, ever.

A casino floor will not increase a table limit indefinitely, and probably not at all to a martingaler. They sometimes increase for known whales who want to place big bets straight away.

You do realize you can always get up and go to another table right?

The return on investment on an infinite bankroll is nothing. You would be condemned to play for all eternity and never increase your bankroll to any extent.

There aren't many casinos that will let people bet more than 300k per hand, which can be reached in 12-15 hands of martingale which is also a pretty easy run of variance

Any gambler (Martingaler or not) can't just say 'I want to bet more money' and it's a done deal, let's bring out the chips

-EV games will always be so, but in a world of infinite bankrolls and someone willing to give the action it would work, but that isn't the world we live in.

I spoke of a 300 table max above as an example but obviously this is redundant, you could just move to a bigger table until you reach the biggest

do you have that much money?

Few casinos have posted limits of 300K or greater. It isn't difficult to get past those limits.

As I said there arent many but there are a small few, but even then, if your up to 300k, then 600k then 1.2m are they still just going to keep going?

How many casinos are offering 1.2m limit on someone who is going to hit and run?

then 2.4?

Aside from people not having the bankroll or balls to martingale through a small bad run, casino maximums are the second biggest hurdle.

I'm pretty sure that with infinite money, which is a prerequisite to using this strategy, you could make those limits disappear. Just give the casino 95% of the betting amount and you're good to go. It's not like we need to turn a profit. We already have infinite money.

But that's like saying, "Aside from me sucking at basketball, so few nba scouts recruiting at my university is the 2nd biggest hurdle to me playing professional basketball"

whereby, the 1st thing is so far and away more important that the 2nd thing is completely irrelevant.