Table Games System Paid Off - Baccarat

Since I started gambling regularly a few months ago I've read a lot about betting strategies. I decided I would bet flat playing Baccarat and at first it worked for me because I felt I had more control. Sometimes I would quit while ahead and leave happy, and other times I would quit after losing a little, but never too much.

Over time I've been a bit more adventurous, doubling my bets here and there, trying for bigger wins, or quicker ways to recover losses. I've done ok, nothing I can't handle. I've pretty much been going on intuition, but I was itching to try one of the betting systems.

So this weekend I tried the Martingale. I was nervous, but I started to double my bet everytime I lost. This was working out great! Then I started the Reverse Martingale and began increasing my bets every time I won.

I want to keep this short, but I won the biggest amount I've won yet playing Baccarat! I quit while I was WAY ahead! I understand that one reason I won so much this time is because I brought more money to the table, and the other, I guess, was luck? Or does the system actually work???

I keep reading that betting systems don't really work, but I'm wondering what you guys think. And if you think systems work, which do you use?

I've decided to preserve this big win by bringing less money to the table next time and going back to betting (mostly) flat. Lately I've been gambling with more and more (nothing I can't handle, I'm not being irresponsible) I just want to stay ahead for as long as possible!! It feels great!

Honestly though, I'm very tempted to try the same system again. It was so exciting to win that much that I want to do it again and again.

But I know, eventually the casino will take it all back. Maybe not?

I'm stuck between reason and excitement, logic and impulse, common sense and euphoria.

A friend of mine told me to just stop gambling, then I'm forever a winner. Not a chance. I enjoy it too much. I'm just looking for a way to continue to have fun, stay ahead (in the long run), while keeping my sanity (haha) and staying responsible.

Please share your thoughts on whether systems work or not, your preferred systems, experiences, etc. Thank you!

 

Of the two, a positive progression is far better than the standard martingale.
Increase your bets when winning, as opposed to doubling up on any loss.
Don't know about bacc, but in blackjack, there have been plenty of times I've lost 8 or more hands in a row. This is significant because you will reach the table max-bet limit playing martingale after the 7th lost hand.
A positive progression still has the same limits, but it's on the upside, so no risk-of-ruin there.

Personally? I never routinely play betting systems, except with craps.
I do play a positive progression at blackjack from time to time, but I never go for more than 3 or 4 hands in a row - then I always go back to my base-bet.
I stay away from martingale like the plague.

PS - one story: at Circus, many years ago, I was dealt 12, twelve times in a row versus a dealer 7 of better. On all twelve of them, I drew a ten.
I was flat betting $5, so I lost $60.
Had I been playing martingale, I would have lost $15,360 if the casino had no max-bet limit.
Even with their $500 max-bet limit though, I would have still lost $960, plus another $2000 betting the max four times.
Losing $60 versus $15,360 or even $2960 was far preferable.

 

Ugh. Betting systems. Let's keep it simple: betting systems do not work in the long run. For me, the best "systems" are ones that involve good bankroll management. Use whatever system you are comfortable with, but keep in mind that they all fail. For me, pure martingale is one of the worst, if only because one bad run can wipe you out so quickly. You're risking a lot to win very little. I incorporate negative progression betting into my strategies, but not pure martingale. Think about it this way. If you play that system and site down at a $5 table, one bad run can cost you over $1200 (losing eight hands in a row, which happens to everyone if you gamble long enough). You're risking that much to try and win $5

 

I always see this type of example when people talk about martingale but its just not true. In your example you're not risking $1200 to win $5, you're risking $1200 to win $1200 just like any other bettor using any system or non-system would be doing. For some reason, I guess because of the way martingale is described, people only talk about it in terms of the overall net win. But if someone is down 5k and they bet 1k, that's like me saying why are you only betting 1k since you'll still be down 4k if you win? Or telling someone who flat bets 1k and is down 1 unit, that on their next 1k bet they are risking 1k to win 0. Etc. etc.

It doesn't make sense to talk about a single bet in that context but for some reason martingale (which I'm not advocating) gets viewed in that way.

 

I hate to say this, but you sound like a compulsive gambler in the making.

You can't beat the casino with any system. It's all in the math. If it were possible to beat the casino over time, they wouldn't be in business.

 

Continue having fun is the easy part. Staying ahead in the long run? Yeah, good luck with that.

As someone said before (sorry I forgot who I'm stealing this from) but: "That's the thing about mathematics. It's always changing."

Any sort of "system" you're using will eventually result in a loss. Time and math aren't on your side for long term. If you've found a way around that, start applying for those theoretical gaming jobs...you'll land one in a heart beat.

 

Betting systems increase the variance of a given game without impacting the house advantage.

Some systems are engineered to create a lot of moderate winning sessions, except on a very bad run of the cards would result in a very large loss (Martingale). Others aim for a large winning session but accept a lot of small losing sessions as part of the process (reverse martingale or positive progression).

If the player had an infinite amount of money and the casino accepted infinitely large wagers, this wouldn't really matter. However, neither of these reflect reality.

To use the previous example, using the martingale, if you start at $5 and lose, you bet $10. Then $20, $40, $80, $160, $320. For low-limit games, a $5-$500 betting spread is common among games. Even if you sat down with over $1200 to make the next $640 bet, the casino wouldn't let you. You could likely go hours, perhaps days without a 7-hand losing streak. But it happens to all of us. A completely fair 50/50 game (calling a coin toss) will experience an 0-7 streak approximately 8 out of every 1,000 sessions (0.8%). This means that you will net small wins on the other 992 sessions! But, across all 1,000 sessions, you will still not win or lose any money at all because the game is 50/50.

It's worth noting that the odds of any casino game are worse than 50/50 for the player, thus making the percentage of losing sessions higher. That means that instead of breaking even, you will lose money using the martingale system - the same amount of money you'd have lost by flat betting.

At the end of the day, none of these systems make any casino game more profitable for the player and are only profitable for the casino because of table limits and the inherent limit of funds a player can bring to the game. If you're comfortable with both the positive and negative effects that a system has on frequency and size of wins and losses, then go for it! It's your money.

 

Martingale won't be fun anymore when you've hit the table limit and can't dig yourself out of a huge loss. If you are fine with that than go for it. As others have said, math is not on your side over time.

 

Are you always betting banker? always player?

If you are switching it up, then it is pure luck that you are winning...

If you are always betting the same side, then you will eventually hit a bad run and hit the table make and Martingale is busted... I remember someone (I think Shifter) posting a pic of two crazy Bacc runs...11 and 17 in a row seperated by 1 "wrong"

 

Found it

https://www.vegasmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=846320&postcount=10

 

Thank you guys for replying.

I don't always bet Banker or Player in Baccarat, I mix it up. I pay attention to emerging patterns and my intuition. I know most of you think that's silly, but I do it anyway. The way I see it there's patterns in everything from shells to a drop of paint, and math. So why not in a Baccarat shoe? Either way, it's fun, a creative way to play Baccarat, and it seems to work for me when I'm focused and paying attention.

This is the second time someone has mentioned the possibility of me being a "compulsive gambler in the making". I do appreciate the warning and I'm being careful not to overdo it. I really enjoy going to the casino and I really enjoy playing Baccarat and Pai Gow Poker. I don't think I'm going to stop any time soon. I have a rule that I will never use an ATM in the casino, so I gamble with what I take with me. I've been taking more and more to the casino with me, but that's a decision I make before I leave the house, so I'm able to think clearly (away from the temptations) and decide how much I can afford to lose just in case I lose it all, which hasn't happened yet, I tend to stop before that.

 

I hear what you're saying. I guess it is all a matter of perspective. There are different ways to view any individual wager or system. Personally, this is how I view a pure martingale system (not the individual wager, but the system)

 

Well, the goal of the martingale system is to win a single unit with every bet. So, on a loss, the goal is to cover all losses since the last win and win a single unit.

In the context of the "system," saying you're betting $1k to recoup your losses and to win $5 would be correct. At least to me it would be.

 

OR, just as likely.... "If you are always betting the same side, then it is pure luck that you are winning..."

OR, just as likely.... "If you are switch from Player to Banker, then you will eventually hit a bad run and hit the table limit..."

First, Baccarat is the 'right' game if you insist on playing some kind of progression. No loss on the ties (like the 0/00 in roulette). And you can 'progress' your bets and still play 'guess the side', just the same.

But look: $10, $20, $40, $80, $160, $320, $640, $1280.... Are you really willing (or even ABLE) to put $1280 on the table to chase those 7 losses and ultimately win $10? Let's say you chicken out after losing the $640 bet. You're in the hole for $1270. You now need to have 127 more successful Martingale series in a row (without chickening out once) just to break even! That's after only losing 7 bets in a row, (which is trivial at any game).

No real gambler does this. Many have tried it once or twice. Please stop, no more Martingale. Raise your bets if you're ahead if you want, but stop this progression nonsense. They're all doomed.

 

Yes, as others have said, most people think of it as a system, not the individual bet. However I suppose if you think of it as a system, it gets even worse. At $1200 bets (really $1280 if you're starting at $5 and doubling), you're really risking $2555 (sum of all of the original bets) to win the original value bet. The point I'd make with regards to your way of thinking, though, is that if you use Martingale, you would be betting more than you normally would flat betting, so you're not making the $1280 bet to make $1280, you're doing it because the system had you lose $1275 that you wouldn't normally have bet and lost.

 

Yes and no. I agree that the biggest reason not to martingale is because you'll likely end up betting more than you could do comfortably. But you can say this about any positive or negative progression. I don't agree with thinking about it in terms of a "system" though because everything is a system. Flat betting is a system, if someone is down $1000 flat betting $100 a hand their "system" is going to require them to net 10 wins in order to break even.

A martingale player could argue that they are the only ones who are always in the black after they win any single hand. I bet all of us have had sessions or even entire trips where we were in the red and could never climb out. While a martingale player is usually in the black and only ever in the red until they win a single hand. Of course, they can blow up before that happens and that's the big risk in any negative progression.

It all comes down to your risk tolerance and what you're looking for. None of these betting systems is better or worse than the other, depending on your preferences positive progressions can be just as silly as negative ones. In the investment industry we have something similar, on one extreme there are black swan funds that expect to lose money year after year until a major catastrophe at which point they should make a ton. On the other end you have leveraged arb funds that try to make near "risk-free" profits but will blow up during those black swan events.

Positive progressions are like the former, they are chasing black swans while negative progressions are like the latter, they are hoping to avoid them.

 

Lucky

Whew....there's been some good advice/comments in this thread....thankfully, you never encountered 6-7 consecutive losses....personally, I've suffered thru 14 misses in a row (the Don't players made a killing)....I wasn't betting any form of "catch-up betting system.....if I had been, I wouldn't have lasted past the third or fourth shooter.....the lesson I learned was, I lost my buy-in, but the amount of the buy-in was what I was "comfortable" with.....I wasn't interested in chasing after the loss because I knew I would be back the following week....if you are going to play, only gamble with what you are comfortable losing and view it as the cost of entertainment for the week.....

 

Imho the biggest reason for not employing a Martingale (or similar negative progression) system is that it increases risk of ruin when one takes into account Table Limits. At least with positive progressions one is ideally taking something off the table at each stage thus helping build/rebuild the bankroll rather than increasingly depleting it with every move up the progression until either the win occurs or the system is no longer viable (Table Limits).

As for why most people would consider the Martingale system as always betting to win one unit regardless of what point one is at in the progression and the corresponding size of the bet - I would say that is because the entire system is predicated about that single premise, it's whole purpose is to try and increase one's bankroll by a single unit each cycle. Any other system with a similar type of aim where bet sizes need to increase to do so would also be regarded in the same way by me.

Furry

 

We need a "Like" button here on VMB!

 

Telling someone not to martingale is like telling a kid not to touch a hot stove. Sooner or later, they just have to learn from experience.

And then once you've had your entire bankroll wiped out in 5 minutes, you never do it again.