A solid Baccarat betting strategy is going to be based on starting with the banker bet and switching to the player bet when it's called for. There are multiple ways to come up with this, but one of the most common is using some kind of card counting situation. Aug 02, 1999 How Much Should You Bet at Baccarat? Many table games have numerous and often bewildering options. Not baccarat! This game is the soul of simplicity. Each round offers three choices: 1) bet on Banker or Player, 2) do or don't augment the primary wager with money on. Nov 04, 2019 Bet against the run after a run of eight in a row. When you lose, you have to double your previous wager, add one unit and bet against the run again. You should have sufficient funds to get you through at least eight consecutive losses. You are not advised to bet against the runs if they start after the middle of the shoe.
- Card Counting the Dragon Bet in Baccarat Baccarat Score Boards Odds for baccarat dealt from 1 to 12 decks Baccarat Calculator. Here are the odds for each bet, broken down by both the Player and Banker total. Below is a comprehensive list of the return tables for.
- Aug 21, 2019 This analysis shows that in theory the Dragon Side Bet in EZ Baccarat is an advantage play opportunity using a card counting methodology. In my opinion, however, given the high variance and low return, card counting is not a practical threat to the game.
- In practice, imagine your bankroll for that evening for baccarat is 1000 and your bet is 20. If you set your goal to +100, you’ll leave the table as soon as that goal is reached and you won’t look back. At the point when you win 5 more decisions than you lose you’ll call it.
- Oct 21, 2016 Demonstration of a betting strategy that uses the Baccarat Roadmaps to help you bet smart. For further information please visit https://www.livecasinocompare.
Thread Rating:
rdw4potus
Before assuming or casting judgments, test the theory my friend!
Test the theory? That random bets of random sizes will lose in a random game? You haven't done anything to alter the house's edge on any one bet. The sum of a string of negative numbers is a negative number.
'So as the clock ticked and the day passed, opportunity met preparation, and luck happened.' - Maurice Clarett
EvenBob
What is HE? And thanks!
LOL!
'It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail.' Gore Vidal
EvenBob
The sum of a string of negative numbers is a negative number.
Near the equator that's not true on Tuesdays..
'It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail.' Gore Vidal
Avincow
I agree with you that I don't have a system. My system isn't a system, it's more like an approach. A method. A style.
...
But don't believe me, test the theory yourself. I won't give you my system, but, the idea is sound! Test it!
...
But don't believe me, test the theory yourself. I won't give you my system, but, the idea is sound! Test it!
So you admit that you don't have a system, but you also state that you are unwilling to share your system? Sounds a bit contradictory to me
Quote: letswin
Just think about what I have said. I bet every single hand. That means I am betting 72 hands per shoe, every single shoe. I'm not avoiding anything. I'm not hitting and running. I'm not using a progression. I am flat betting and winning long term. I have beaten the game. Random can beat pseudo random. And I have proven it.
It sounds like this is your entire 'system'. So you just randomly pick a bet, and flat bet through the entire shoe? Isn't that what most people are doing in the casino? Basically, you try to pick a 'hot' table and then bet. Isn't that what every gambler is trying to do?
How Do You Bet On Baccarat
All this leaves us with is betting banker or player. I guess you consider this to be the core of your 'system'. I assume this selection is random too...well if you are flipping a coin, picking heads each time or randomly choosing heads/tails will give you same result in the long run.
letswin
Test the theory? That random bets of random sizes will lose in a random game? You haven't done anything to alter the house's edge on any one bet. The sum of a string of negative numbers is a negative number.
No, the betting size stays the same.
However, the bet selections, the triggers, ....all random.
Test it. Before making statements, test it. Instead of staying closed minded, test it. I have been wildly successful. For a very long time. I have no reason to come here and lie to anyone, because I don't want anything from any of you. I just want to help you find a way to win!
Test the theory.
letswin
So you admit that you don't have a system, but you also state that you are unwilling to share your system? Sounds a bit contradictory to me
It sounds like this is your entire 'system'. So you just randomly pick a bet, and flat bet through the entire shoe? Isn't that what most people are doing in the casino? Basically, you try to pick a 'hot' table and then bet. Isn't that what every gambler is trying to do?
All this leaves us with is betting banker or player. I guess you consider this to be the core of your 'system'. I assume this selection is random too...well if you are flipping a coin, picking heads each time or randomly choosing heads/tails will give you same result in the long run.
It sounds like this is your entire 'system'. So you just randomly pick a bet, and flat bet through the entire shoe? Isn't that what most people are doing in the casino? Basically, you try to pick a 'hot' table and then bet. Isn't that what every gambler is trying to do?
All this leaves us with is betting banker or player. I guess you consider this to be the core of your 'system'. I assume this selection is random too...well if you are flipping a coin, picking heads each time or randomly choosing heads/tails will give you same result in the long run.
No, I was only agreeing with you. You have a good point about my not even calling what I do a system. A system would suggest a specific conditional thing being done over the course of a certain period of time. Which is not what I do.
I sit at a table, doesn't matter what's going on. And randomly bet, for a random reason, on a random spot. Of course, there is a 'method' to it. Which is my secret. However, I don't bet on streaks, or not on streaks. I just bet. I have done things no one else has been able to do. I have a dublinbet account that I grew to over $500k, using the max bet of $1600. I have grown my simulators to exorbitant amounts of money before heading to the casino to play live. And my live play? Has not only generated back the $500k I have lost over the years playing baccarat using losing methods, but MUCH more. I want people to win. Just test the theory before deciding anything! Open your mind, that's all I ask. And try.
letswin
So you admit that you don't have a system, but you also state that you are unwilling to share your system? Sounds a bit contradictory to me
It sounds like this is your entire 'system'. So you just randomly pick a bet, and flat bet through the entire shoe? Isn't that what most people are doing in the casino? Basically, you try to pick a 'hot' table and then bet. Isn't that what every gambler is trying to do?
All this leaves us with is betting banker or player. I guess you consider this to be the core of your 'system'. I assume this selection is random too...well if you are flipping a coin, picking heads each time or randomly choosing heads/tails will give you same result in the long run.
It sounds like this is your entire 'system'. So you just randomly pick a bet, and flat bet through the entire shoe? Isn't that what most people are doing in the casino? Basically, you try to pick a 'hot' table and then bet. Isn't that what every gambler is trying to do?
All this leaves us with is betting banker or player. I guess you consider this to be the core of your 'system'. I assume this selection is random too...well if you are flipping a coin, picking heads each time or randomly choosing heads/tails will give you same result in the long run.
Honestly, most people don't do that. Most people bet because of this. Or they bet because of that. Those are not random reasons. They bet for conditional reasons. They either bet on banker. Bet on twos. Bet in chops. Bet on streaks. Bet on player. Bet on card counting. Bet near the end of the shoe. Bet near the beginning of the shoe. Bet after every two players. Bet after every three bankers. Wait for their triggers to 'win' before betting. Whatever the case is, they are using conditional reasons to bet, that will LOSE to the house edge. Pit any of those bet selections against a simulator? And it will win and then eventually lose. They will NEVER make 1000 units. Flat betting. EVER.
Using my method? I have made 1000s of units against a simulator.
EvenBob
On gambling forums, we call it 'random against random'.Baccarat How To Win
It cannot work, does not work. If you make random bet
selections against a random game, it cannot change the
house edge by the tiniest amount.
'It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail.' Gore Vidal
letswin
On gambling forums, we call it 'random against random'.
It cannot work, does not work. If you make random bet
selections against a random game, it cannot change the
house edge by the tiniest amount.
It cannot work, does not work. If you make random bet
selections against a random game, it cannot change the
house edge by the tiniest amount.
![How to bet on blackjack and win How to bet on blackjack and win](/uploads/1/2/5/2/125215470/967801874.jpg)
Even just picking banker or player random, is not going to make you win. Why? You will fall prey to one side of the random deviation. And your 'random' bets will then fall to the same chops, streaks, three, fours, patterns as banker or player.
Baccarat is pseudo random because it uses cards and a declining element. It can be beaten by TRUE randomness. Again, I'm not asking anyone to believe a word I say, or to risk any of their money on the theory I suggest. I am only sharing my experience, and to give others the opportunity to then have the same success as me....take my advice and test my theory.
You beat a simulator? By the 1000th degree? You have beaten the game!
sc15
Before assuming or casting judgments, test the theory my friend!
Sure. I'll deal you a baccarat game, you place the bets.
I'll be more than happy to take your money.
- Page 2 of 26
Wizard Recommends
- €1500 Welcome Bonus
- €100 + 300 Free Spins
- 100% Welcome Bonus
On This Page
Introduction
On This Page
Introduction
How To Bet On Blackjack
I don't like to accept articles by other writers. Few writers out there freelance at the kinds of standards I expect of myself for this site. Until now, I believe the only outside page I have accepted is the one on Flip It, by Michael Bluejay. However, when Eliot Jacobson mentioned he had found the Dragon Bet in EZ Baccarat easily countable I was eager to cover it. As far as I know this topic has never been covered before. So I was quite happy when Eliot agreed to share the results of his analysis with my readers. Enjoy! — Wizard
Card Counting the Dragon Side Bet in EZ Baccarat
By Eliot Jacobson Ph.D., © 2011 The Dragon Side Bet for EZ Baccarat is simple to describe. This side bet pays 40-to-1 if the dealer’s three-card total of 7 beats the player, otherwise the bet loses. Analysis of the wager consists of a straight forward cycle through all possible hands. Table 1 gives the analysis for eight decks, with the house edge of 7.611% appearing in the lower right cell.
Table 1
EZ Baccarat Dragon Side Bet
Event | Pays | Combinations | Probability | Return |
---|---|---|---|---|
Winning Dragon | 40 | 112,633,011,329,024 | 0.022530 | 0.901350 |
Losing Dragon | -1 | 4,885,765,264,174,330 | 0.977470 | -0.977470 |
Total | 4,998,398,275,503,360 | 1.000000 | -0.076110 |
The key is that in order for the player to win the Dragon bet, the dealer has to draw a third card. This requirement trumps everything else. The cards that keep the dealer from drawing that third card most often are the 8 and the 9. As these cards are removed from the shoe, the edge moves quickly towards the counter’s favor. An excess of smaller cards is also helpful. The cards 1-7 are each cards that can move the dealer’s final total to 7 if he draws. Determining which of these low cards result in a final total of 7 most often is the key.
The methodology used in this study is familiar. The overall house edge for the game dealt from eight decks is 7.611%. By removing each card in turn from an eight-deck shoe, its effect on the house edge can be determined. This allows card counting systems to be developed. After arriving at candidate systems, computer simulations are run to see if these systems can generate an edge in practice. If there is an edge, the question then becomes if this is significant enough to become an opportunity for the advantage player.
Table 2 shows the number of winning and losing hands that result from removing one card from an eight-deck shoe, along with the house edge after removing that card.
Table 2
House Edge by Card Removed
Card Removed | Winning Dragon | Losing Dragon | Total | House Adv. |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 111,068,343,867,648 | 4,815,237,648,815,950 | 4,926,305,992,683,600 | -0.075620 |
2 | 110,900,807,733,248 | 4,815,405,184,950,350 | 4,926,305,992,683,600 | -0.077010 |
3 | 110,879,201,710,336 | 4,815,426,790,973,260 | 4,926,305,992,683,600 | -0.077190 |
4 | 110,686,449,371,648 | 4,815,619,543,311,950 | 4,926,305,992,683,600 | -0.078790 |
5 | 110,691,915,602,560 | 4,815,614,077,081,040 | 4,926,305,992,683,600 | -0.078750 |
6 | 110,618,934,007,296 | 4,815,687,058,676,300 | 4,926,305,992,683,600 | -0.079360 |
7 | 110,577,900,912,896 | 4,815,728,091,770,700 | 4,926,305,992,683,600 | -0.079700 |
8 | 111,654,703,169,536 | 4,814,651,289,514,060 | 4,926,305,992,683,600 | -0.070740 |
9 | 111,583,436,417,536 | 4,814,722,556,266,060 | 4,926,305,992,683,600 | -0.071330 |
10 | 111,112,191,215,104 | 4,815,193,801,468,490 | 4,926,305,992,683,600 | -0.075250 |
Table 3
Effect of Removal
Card Removed | EOR | EOR x 1000 |
---|---|---|
1 | 0.000500 | 0.5 |
2 | -0.000900 | -0.9 |
3 | -0.001080 | -1.1 |
4 | -0.002680 | -2.7 |
5 | -0.002630 | -2.6 |
6 | -0.003240 | -3.2 |
7 | -0.003580 | -3.6 |
8 | 0.005380 | 5.4 |
9 | 0.004790 | 4.8 |
10 | 0.000860 | 0.9 |
Looking at the values in the last column of Table 3, and adjusting slightly to make it balanced, we get card counting “system 1” with tags (0.5, -0.9, -1.1, -2.7, -2.7, -3.3, -3.6, 5.4, 4.8, 0.9). The reader will most likely consider it daunting to use system 1 in practice. However, as a baseline counting system, it is worthwhile to see how it performs. In an effort to simplify this unwieldy system as much as possible, I also considered the card counting system with tags (0, 0, 0, -1, -1, -1, -1, 2, 2, 0). I’ll refer to this as “system 2.” This latter system is easily implemented by a counter of average skill level.
To gauge the effectiveness of each, I wrote a computer program to simulate using these two systems in live play. The game I simulated has the following shuffling and cut card rules:
- The game is dealt from a shoe with 8 decks.
- At the start of each shoe, a card is burned. Based on the value of the burn card, an additional number of cards are burned, equal to the value of the card.
- The cut card is placed 14 cards from the end of the shoe.
- After the cut card is dealt, one more round is dealt before shuffling.
Table 4 gives the results of a simulation of two hundred million (200,000,000) shoes.
Table 4
Simulation Results: 200M Shoes
Item | System 1 | System 2 |
---|---|---|
Target Count | 10 | 4 |
Expected Value | 7.315% | 8.032% |
Standard Deviation | 6.456 | 6.567 |
Frequency of Bet | 10.698% | 9.163% |
Units Won per Shoe | 0.6361 | 0.5967 |
It is clear from the last row of Table 4 that system 2, with tags (0, 0, 0, -1, -1, -1, -1, 2, 2, 0), performs remarkably well in comparison to its optimal cousin.
The person who uses system 2 should make the Dragon bet whenever the true count is +4 or higher. If he does so, then on average he will have an 8.03% edge over the house each time he makes the bet. This counter will have the opportunity to make the Dragon bet at or above the target true count on 9.16% of his hands. Given that the average shoe yields about 80 hands, the counter should be able to make, on average, about seven Dragon bets per shoe with the edge.
In dollar terms, if the house allows a Dragon bet up to $100 (say), then on a per-shoe basis the counter will average about $59.67 profit. The counter will earn about $8.03 per $100 wagered on the Dragon bet.
It is worthwhile to check that the simulated results for system 2 make sense combinatorially. One way to get a +4 true count off the top is to remove eight 8’s and eight 9’s from the deck. This will leave 400 cards remaining in the eight-deck shoe, with a running count of +32, for a true count of 4.16. In this case, combinatorial analysis gives a player edge of 1.0227%. Using a single deck, one way to get a +4 true count is to remove one 8 and one 9 from the deck. This leaves 50 cards with a +4 running count, giving a true count of 4.16. In this case, combinatorial analysis gives a player edge of 1.3114%. Because the player is making the Dragon bet at a true count of +4 and above, not just at +4, these computations represent a secondary confirmation of the simulated results.
Cut card placement varies by casino, so it is worthwhile to investigate how the edge changes with the placement of the cut card. Table 5 gives statistics for all cut card placements from 14 cards to 52 cards, and then by half-deck increments up to four decks. A cut card placement at one deck, instead of at 14 cards, decreases the potential profit to the player by about 50%.
Table 5
Card Counting Statistics by Cut Card DepthExpand
Cut Card Depth | Trigger Count | Hands per Shoe | Expected Value | Standard Deviation | Bet Frequency | Percent of Shoes Played | Profit per Shoe (units) | Profit per Hour (60 hands) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12 | 4 | 81.69 | 8.30% | 6.575 | 9.31% | 67.31% | 0.631 | 0.464 |
13 | 4 | 81.48 | 8.15% | 6.570 | 9.24% | 66.54% | 0.613 | 0.451 |
14 | 4 | 81.28 | 8.03% | 6.567 | 9.16% | 65.81% | 0.597 | 0.440 |
15 | 4 | 81.08 | 7.87% | 6.562 | 9.09% | 65.12% | 0.580 | 0.429 |
16 | 4 | 80.88 | 7.81% | 6.560 | 9.02% | 64.47% | 0.569 | 0.422 |
17 | 4 | 80.67 | 7.67% | 6.556 | 8.95% | 63.81% | 0.554 | 0.412 |
18 | 4 | 80.47 | 7.64% | 6.555 | 8.87% | 63.14% | 0.545 | 0.407 |
19 | 4 | 80.27 | 7.48% | 6.551 | 8.80% | 62.48% | 0.528 | 0.395 |
20 | 4 | 80.07 | 7.42% | 6.549 | 8.73% | 61.80% | 0.518 | 0.388 |
21 | 4 | 79.86 | 7.37% | 6.547 | 8.66% | 61.14% | 0.510 | 0.383 |
22 | 4 | 79.66 | 7.28% | 6.545 | 8.58% | 60.51% | 0.498 | 0.375 |
23 | 4 | 79.46 | 7.20% | 6.542 | 8.52% | 59.93% | 0.487 | 0.368 |
24 | 4 | 79.26 | 7.04% | 6.538 | 8.45% | 59.35% | 0.472 | 0.357 |
25 | 4 | 79.05 | 7.03% | 6.537 | 8.38% | 58.77% | 0.466 | 0.353 |
26 | 4 | 78.85 | 6.92% | 6.534 | 8.32% | 58.20% | 0.454 | 0.345 |
27 | 4 | 78.65 | 6.88% | 6.533 | 8.25% | 57.65% | 0.446 | 0.340 |
28 | 4 | 78.45 | 6.84% | 6.532 | 8.18% | 57.13% | 0.439 | 0.336 |
29 | 4 | 78.24 | 6.75% | 6.529 | 8.12% | 56.64% | 0.429 | 0.329 |
30 | 4 | 78.04 | 6.69% | 6.527 | 8.05% | 56.12% | 0.421 | 0.323 |
31 | 4 | 77.84 | 6.61% | 6.525 | 7.99% | 55.61% | 0.411 | 0.317 |
32 | 4 | 77.64 | 6.58% | 6.524 | 7.92% | 55.06% | 0.405 | 0.313 |
33 | 4 | 77.43 | 6.49% | 6.521 | 7.86% | 54.53% | 0.395 | 0.306 |
34 | 4 | 77.23 | 6.47% | 6.521 | 7.80% | 53.99% | 0.389 | 0.302 |
35 | 4 | 77.03 | 6.38% | 6.518 | 7.73% | 53.49% | 0.380 | 0.296 |
36 | 4 | 76.83 | 6.33% | 6.517 | 7.67% | 53.00% | 0.373 | 0.291 |
37 | 4 | 76.62 | 6.22% | 6.513 | 7.61% | 52.53% | 0.363 | 0.284 |
38 | 4 | 76.42 | 6.21% | 6.513 | 7.55% | 52.06% | 0.358 | 0.281 |
39 | 4 | 76.22 | 6.18% | 6.512 | 7.49% | 51.59% | 0.353 | 0.278 |
40 | 4 | 76.02 | 6.15% | 6.511 | 7.43% | 51.13% | 0.347 | 0.274 |
41 | 4 | 75.81 | 6.10% | 6.510 | 7.37% | 50.70% | 0.340 | 0.269 |
42 | 4 | 75.61 | 5.97% | 6.506 | 7.31% | 50.29% | 0.330 | 0.262 |
43 | 4 | 75.41 | 6.05% | 6.508 | 7.25% | 49.85% | 0.330 | 0.263 |
44 | 4 | 75.21 | 5.97% | 6.506 | 7.19% | 49.40% | 0.323 | 0.257 |
45 | 4 | 75.00 | 5.92% | 6.504 | 7.13% | 48.95% | 0.317 | 0.253 |
46 | 4 | 74.80 | 5.81% | 6.501 | 7.07% | 48.48% | 0.307 | 0.246 |
47 | 4 | 74.60 | 5.80% | 6.501 | 7.01% | 48.03% | 0.304 | 0.244 |
48 | 4 | 74.40 | 5.72% | 6.498 | 6.95% | 47.60% | 0.296 | 0.239 |
49 | 4 | 74.19 | 5.68% | 6.497 | 6.90% | 47.19% | 0.291 | 0.235 |
50 | 4 | 73.99 | 5.68% | 6.497 | 6.84% | 46.77% | 0.287 | 0.233 |
51 | 4 | 73.79 | 5.63% | 6.496 | 6.78% | 46.36% | 0.282 | 0.229 |
52 | 4 | 73.59 | 5.62% | 6.495 | 6.73% | 45.95% | 0.278 | 0.227 |
1.5 decks | 4 | 68.32 | 4.79% | 6.470 | 5.37% | 36.51% | 0.176 | 0.154 |
2 decks | 4 | 63.06 | 4.16% | 6.451 | 4.20% | 28.71% | 0.110 | 0.105 |
2.5 decks | 4 | 57.79 | 3.64% | 6.436 | 3.19% | 22.09% | 0.067 | 0.070 |
3 decks | 4 | 52.53 | 3.22% | 6.423 | 2.34% | 16.44% | 0.039 | 0.045 |
3.5 decks | 4 | 47.27 | 3.13% | 6.420 | 1.62% | 11.70% | 0.024 | 0.030 |
4 decks | 4 | 42.00 | 2.74% | 6.409 | 1.05% | 7.79% | 0.012 | 0.017 |