Last time, I put up data that showed target betting flipping a $3 million LOSS betting Banker only into a $3 million WIN simply by compensating for the damage done by the 5% commission on Banker wins.
We have already seen that backing Player only against the same data set, avoiding commission entirely, would have been very profitable using the target betting technique.
So how about "the Wobble," my Americanized name for a bet-selection method the French call avant dernier (thanks, Google, for helping me discover the correct word order and spelling for "before last" en Francais)...?
The idea is that you catch streaks either way in baccarat or roulette by betting on whichever even-money option came up in the hand or spin before the last won, so P,P would call for a bet on Player, and B,R would indicate a bet on black.
It's not a bad way to go, because there is nothing more frustrating than zigging when the shoe or wheel zags (or vice versa!).
Given a six-bet Player streak at baccarat that was preceded by P,B you will catch 5 of 6 wins, or 4 of 6 if the streak was preceded by B,B.
Being right two-thirds of the time is certainly better than missing every switch in the kind of ping-pong pattern that is common in both baccarat and roulette.
Wobble comes from win before last (WBL), and it is a useful escape from brain strain for those players who need a break from blackjack or (horrors!) refuse to play it at all.
My reluctance to allow the house to withhold 5% of the win that just turned around a losing sequence and put me back in the black has kept me away from Banker bets for years.
I now accept that that was probably a mistake.
It is certainly true that when Player is getting hammered for hand after hand, the voice in my ear that whispers "just bet Banker" gets louder and louder until the only alternative is to stand up and walk away from the game.
I would like to be able to report that adding the 5% skim to target betting gave WBL a solid win against the baccarat data set, but it did not happen, and here are four good reasons why:
When I first posted my ideas on an Internet gambling forum a dozen years ago, target betting was quite a bit more complicated than it is today and I was repeatedly "flamed" (such a '90s term!) to a crisp when I suggested that players with more than half a brain do not stick around when the dice, deck, shoe, wheel or whatever turns against them.
Damage control is a non-viable concept, said the experts, because no one can ever know if backing away from a downturn will be jumping from the frying pan into the fire, or if the negative trend would have reversed itself if the evasion tactic had been ignored.
Overall, they say, it's a wash: a little less than half the time, damage control will help, and a little more than half the time, it won't.
The "experts," I want you to know, are full of it.
For a fixed-bet or random player, they may actually be right. But for a target bettor (a progression player is another way to describe him) they have it all wrong.
Take another look at the fatal four-pack above.
The experts tell us that when a prolonged spike in the house's favor occurs, pushing the HA far beyond standard negative expectation for the game, there is no reason to hope that it will be substantively offset in time to enable recovery of prior losses.
Again, that may (or may not) be true for a random punter. But for a player who can get out of the hole with two consecutive wins, and more than half the time can make a profit with just ONE win, ducking a potentially deadly downturn will prove right far more often than not.
Each of the killer streaks above was followed by offsets that would have handed target betting a turnaround in a heartbeat. They just didn't come soon enough for the robot player who opted to keep taking punches on the nose instead of picking up his chips and walking away.
Runaway sims "beat" any betting method ever devised by requiring the preposterous assumption that a player would not respond to a downturn like the ones you see above.
He would just keep on betting until his bankroll ran out.
Common sense does not support that conceit any more than science does.
Because of spread limits and the constant need to maintain a low profile to avoid casino interference with a winning method, a target player does not have to trust his own judgment to figure out the right time to bail out of a downturn. The strategy rules do the job for him.
I recommend a 1-5 spread limit in any one location, except at an opening layout (one where you started with a minimum bet), where 1-20 is probably OK.
In the "killer" series above, target betting would have been out of the first one 11 gets in with a $300 loss and a ($575) LTD.
The fatal series in #13 began with seven consecutive losses, and a move would have come before the 11th bet at -200 (-375).
In #20, we would probably have been out at -100 (-100) after four consecutive opening wins, and certainly after the next loss (-200).
Finally, #23's black hole would have ended after at most seven bets at -200 (-375).
Applying those strict rules would of course have affected countless other series and required a whole lot of healthy exercise and worn out shoe leather.
But one thing we know for sure is that on average, recoveries come in less than SIX bets, and series dragging on for TEN bets or more are substantially less than a 10% probability.
And let's face it, probability is what gambling in a casino is all about.
You have to know the numbers, and how to exploit them for consistent profit.
Usually, I figure at least a 99.992% win rate for target betting.
This time, the strategy delivered 99.989%, darn it.
Against a 1.35% HA game, a random punter's win rate will be 49.335%, giving him an expected 5,068 losses in 10,000 bets.
Target betting's performance betting the Wobble against the baccarat data set was ONE loss in 10,000 series (about 55,000 bets!).
You choose: 1 loss in 55,000 or 27,870 in 55,000!
OK, it's a trick question, because of course target betting will lose as many individual bets as any other method. The house advantage will see to that.
The 1 loss in 55,000 rounds is not just a loss, it is ruin, crash and burn, wipe-out or whatever else you might choose to call it.
What matters is that with target betting, more lost bets than won bets will not result in an overall loss of money 99.989% of the time.
The reverse, in fact.
Except once in 55,000 rounds IF you are dumb enough to sit still and suck it up when the house edge goes haywire.
Here are the data for the WBL "skim" run-through:
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