|
|
A baccarat player proposed a strategy of betting consistently on the player side throughout the entire game to avoid being affected by the commission. Personally, I think the risk is relatively high and the feasibility is weak. Regardless of the betting method used, it will quickly reach a peak, leading to depletion of funds and defeat. The commission rate is indeed significant; for every 20 banker wins, one basic unit of your bet is deducted. In the long run, even players with a positive balance will find that the commission outweighs their winnings. How to avoid being affected by the commission and only betting on the player side is certain, but the specific strategy is worth studying. We all know that in baccarat, jumps and streaks are generally balanced. If we only observe the trend of the banker, we will find that single banker jumps and multiple banker jumps are generally equal overall. Of course, sometimes an entire shoe may have no single banker jumps, while another shoe may consist entirely of single banker jumps. Let's not dwell on that. If we bet on the player side as soon as the banker wins, and stop regardless of winning or losing, and wait for the next banker win to bet again.
For example: Gambling is never certain; light bets bring joy. BB-PPPBP+BP+PPBB-BBBPBP+BB-PBB-PBP+BP+ Gambling is never certain; light bets bring joy. The addition and subtraction at the end represent the outcome of each shoe. The first hand is a banker win, betting on the player side loses, and waiting for the next banker win before betting again. This method has the advantage of not being affected by the commission. In theory, jumps and streaks are equal, but in small sample sizes of actual games, extreme results may occur. I have encountered a shoe with only five banker wins but all were streaks, causing the loss of all five basic units. I have also encountered a shoe where a flat bet won over a dozen basic units. Due to this unpredictability, it is evident that conventional betting methods will only result in a draw in theory due to the lack of commission. Based on my repeated trials and practical experience, if we enlarge Bruce's five-star eight-game data sample, the effect is remarkable. This means: In each shoe, the first shoe is a flat bet of one basic unit. If we successfully reach our predetermined target value (I set mine at two units), we leave. If we unfortunately fail (in my experience, up to six units), the second shoe is bet with two basic units. If there is a slight surplus after chasing, we leave, and so on. Since there is no commission involved (hidden commission is not under discussion, so please don't split hairs), and it's not just placing bets blindly, combined with theoretical data support, winning two basic units per day should have a very high success rate. In practical experience, in 200 shoes, generally, we can break even and make a profit with the second shoe, and it's very rare to see the third shoe unless you are a master among masters. The logic is clear: if we lose by betting on jumps in the first shoe, it means betting on streaks will win, so if we win, we don't leave, we continue to fight, and generally, we will encounter a losing streak in the second shoe, and we'll give everything back!
Here is a summarized translation:
A baccarat player has proposed a strategy of consistently betting on the player side throughout the game to avoid commission fees. While this strategy theoretically balances jumps and streaks, the actual outcomes may vary due to unpredictable results. The suggested approach involves betting on the player side after a banker win and stopping regardless of the outcome, then waiting for the next banker win to resume betting. The strategy aims to minimize the impact of commission fees, but its effectiveness may vary in practice. It's essential to understand the inherent risks and unpredictability of baccarat outcomes when implementing such a strategy. |
|
Post time 16-4-2024 12:34:39