First of all, how about suspending disbelief for once and accepting my word that I had nothing whatever to do with the compilation or order of the outcomes summarized below (more than two years of play for a full time gambler!).
I have said in some of the related material that Lee Jones sent me the data as a set from two "systems tester" books put out by Zumma Publishing. Today I turned up some more archival material that tells me my memory played me false: the Jones data were packaged as "real-play shoes from casinos around the world."
What matters is that I did not originate the data set, and it can be verified by contacting Mr. Jones directly - he has his own proprietary method for winning at baccarat which I know nothing about other than that, unlike silly me, he's selling it rather than giving it away!
Another friendly statistician, Lorenzo Rodriguez, sent me the Zumma Publishing data, and I will post the results from his material next time. Years ago, I keyed in all the Zumma outcomes myself, then lost them in one of too many computer crashes (thanks a lot, Gateway).
I will let the screen shot panels speak for themselves...
There is an awful lot of material here, too much for most people to want to study, and a powerful turn-off for those looking for an easy way to get rich in a casino without risking real money.
That's a good thing. In the 30-plus years I have spent on this challenge, I have learned that consistent winning does not come easy, and that whoever first said that it takes money to make money (it wasn't King Midas, that I know - he had it way too soft) was, er, right on the money.
I also learned that anyone who says "progressive betting can't work" is either a liar or an idiot. Think about it! Losing is by its nature (because there are always more losses than wins for even the smartest player in the long run) a progressive process.
When you are, say, five bets behind the house, you will not recover prior losses by betting the same amount or less unless your luck flips and at some point the ratio of losses to wins reverses.
Catching up on a losses-to-wins basis is, at best, unlikely and the probability is that you will continue to lose more often than you win as you struggle to recover.
So, betting less or betting the same won't save you. Betting more might do the trick, but not if you do it randomly, because you're up against the rule that says any amount bet against a negative expectation must eventually have a negative result.
All that's left, then, is money management and its objective to minimize losses and maximize wins so that the deficit between the number of wins and the number of losses overall does not translate to money down the drain.
I have in previous posts spent some time on the Martingale or double-up method, and dismissed it solely on the grounds that casinos will not permit its use for long.
It serves primarily as an example of what can be achieved by the disciplined application of a rule or set of rules. Mythematicians deride it because of the certainty that however long the odds, at some point it will encounter a losing streak long enough to push the next bet above the table limit.
In fact, that's not a problem for a player with balls and a bankroll to match: table limits are progressive, too, and you just have to keep moving within escalating limits until you hit that critical single win!
Most of the time, a Martingale will keep raking in profits with a bet ceiling of $5,000 and a variation on the standard double-up: 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 250, 500, 1000, 2500, 5000 and favorable odds of better than 1,000-to-1.
House-trained academics tell us that 10 losses in a row does not mean 10 wins in a row is "more likely" or that the number of wins will ever catch up with the number of losses. But because of the gentle influence of the house edge, which is always a very small fraction of 100%, the longer you play, the more likely it is that your negative and positive numbers will come substantially closer to balancing out.
When a positive trend arrives, you will be betting your maximum, which you did not reach until you were nine bets behind. You always want your average win value to exceed your average loss value by a percentage that is greater than the house edge for the series and this is one way to do it.
I say again, you will have to keep moving because no casino will let you bet a Martingale in one location for long. And if pit staff pick you out as a double-up punter even after you have tried to cover your tracks, they will steer you towards the nearest exit as quickly as possible.
Target betting is a better way to win.
An important reminder: The only person likely to make money out of this blog is you, Dear Reader. There's nothing to buy, ever, and your soul is safe (from me, at least). Test my ideas and use them or don't. It's up to you.
_
No comments:
Post a Comment