Baccarat "tight spread" results are in, and it's not a tale of triumph, just another lesson in the wisdom of wideness!

_
Running target betting under tight restrictions is not something I relish because I know ahead of time that a hobbled horse can't win a race.

Still and all, limiting the spread to 1-200 ($5 to $1,000) resulted in 40,706 bets of $1,000 or more. Target betting spreading wide needed only 4,859...but with most of the recommended rules set aside, it lost anyway.

Baccarat is a frustrating game because somehow it is far "streakier" than blackjack. And since backing Banker is a bad idea because of the 95-100 payout on wins, I find it about as much fun as watching a deep puddle evaporate on a cloudy day!

With the rules fully intact, target betting handily beat a 1.6% house edge, but that was not the object of this particular exercise.

As we know, the target strategy bets more but less often. And the wiggle room it gets from its wide spread wraps up series faster.

Crippling the method with a $1,000 limit brought the final outcome in line with negative expectation (-1.6%) with an actual AV of -1.77%.

Turning off most of target betting's switches but leaving the $25,000 maximum in place gave us far fewer busts (4 vs. 26) but the hobbled version's failures were huge, and its overall AV was more than double expectation at -3.61%.

There was just one "bust" with all the rules in place, and next time I will post charts that again raise the critical question, Would a sentient being stand (or sit still) for a beating this bad...?

Here are the relevant summaries, "tight" first, then "wide." The third shot covers target betting with the recommended rules modified to compensate for baccarat's slower pace and its lack of doubles and splits or bonus payouts.

(Click on an image to enlarge it)



The experts who deny that the house advantage is vulnerable in the long term reject any data that indicate to the contrary, and these will be no exception.

Analysis of past outcomes (the only analysis that is possible!) is not ideal, but as with studying the weather, history is all we have.

That is why I recommend to anyone who wants to learn how to win that they apply target betting's rules to real-time play as soon as possible, preferably without risking any money until they know what they are doing.

Reality contradicts theory and analysis all the time, but that is in target betting's favor (actual conditions are almost invariably easier to handle than situations in which intuition and experience cannot be applied).

For example, table limits and the need to disguise the betting method from prying eyes make prolonged negative trends far less likely. And EOS bets have to be rounded up in real play, sometimes increasing exposure for a while, but always resulting in greater overall profits.

The summaries above all reflect the application of a rule requiring that an EOS bet cannot be less than the value of the successful bet that preceded it. In real play, that would be optional.

One thing you can take to the bank is that if the house edge was truly invulnerable, all of the results posted in this blog would be flat-out impossible.

They are real and accurate because winning more when you win than you lose when you lose is the only antidote to the house advantage.

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.
_