Simple test of a baccarat system for sale on Amazon.

[Sputnik]

A simple test of a baccarat system for sale on Amazon.

I run 50 samples with 100 random bits. Flat betting. Win target +3 units and loss limit -6 units. If you reach half the way of the 100 random bits and you not have reach you win target, then you aim to break even or hit loss limit. One more additional rule that i did not apply was to push for more when you reach +3 units and if you fail stay at +2 units. One other member did some hand testing with real baccarat results and end up with +44 units after 50 shoes (Flat betting). My result was +24 units ( but i did not apply the rule to push for more or stay at +2 units ).

This system is following the shoe and are similar towards S40. My opinion is that the selection method is to simple to work, but still i can not say the results are bad so that is a reason why i will continue to test the method. I was thinking to use Stats For Profits and test 100 shoes. I reckon that should give a hint if there is something to it or just variance.

Cheers

 

 

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by Sputnik

[johnnycs1]

What system is it Sputnik ?

Is it still listed there ?

Be interesting to look it over .

Thank You 

 

Edited June 20, 2017 by johnnycs1

[Sputnik]

Send you a PM

Cheers

[Sputnik]

As we deal with 50/50 - then i assume it should perform with RNG - to speed up things i use my Roulette Software using Red & Black. Here is the results for 100 samples with 100 random bits each using La Partage Rule. First 50 samples end up with +24 units and the other 50 samples end up with -2 units. So i would say that the author of the book is not telling the truth about hes method. 100 sessions flat betting is significant to get a hint about a method and how it perform. When i test i want to end up with a small profit each week of play or seven days and this method does not cut it. So i don't understand how the other member could end up with +44 units using 50 shoes. I will write him and check that we have done the testing in the same way.

 1. +0
 2. +2.5
 3. +3
 4. +2.5
 5. -6
 6. +0
 7. +3
 8. -0.5
 9. +2.5
10. +3

 

+16.5
-6
TOTAL +10.5

 

 1. -5.5
 2. -6
 3. -0.5
 4. +0
 5. +2.5
 6. -5.5
 7. +0
 8. +3
 9. +3
10. +3

 

+11.5
-17.5
TOTAL -6

 

 1. +3
 2. +2.5
 3. -5.5
 4. +3
 5. +3
 6. +3
 7. +3
 8. +3
 9. +0
10. +3

 

+23.5
-5.5
TOTAL +28

 

 1. +3
 2. -6.5
 3. +0
 4. +3
 5. -6
 6. -6
 7. +0
 8. +2.5
 9. +3
10. +2.5

 

+14
-18.5
TOTAL -4.5

 

 1. +3
 2. +0
 3. +3
 4. +2.5
 5. +0
 6. +3
 7. +3
 8. -6
 9. +3
10. -5.5

 

+17.5
-11.5
TOTAL +6

 

11 BREAK EVEN
31 WON
 8 LOSS

 

+83 UNITS
-59 UNITS
+24 TOTAL

 1. +2.5 
 2. -6  
 3. +0  
 4. +0   
 5. +1.5 
 6. +0.5 
 7. -0.5 
 8. -0.5 
 9. +0  
10. +0

 

+4.5
-7
TOTAL -2.5

 

 1. +2.5
 2. +2.5
 3. +3
 4. +3
 5. +2
 6. -6
 7. +3
 8. +3
 9. -6
10. +3

 

+20
-12
TOTAL +8

 

 1. +2.5
 2. +0
 3. +3
 4. +2.5
 5. +3
 6. +3
 7. +3
 8. +3
 9. -6
10. +0

 

+20
-6
TOTAL +12

 

 1. -5.5
 2. -6
 3. -5.5
 4. +2
 5. -5.5
 6. +0
 7. +3
 8. +0
 9. +3
10. +3

 

+11
-22.5
TOTAL -11.5

 

 1. +3
 2. -6
 3. -5.5
 4. +3
 5. +3
 6. +0
 7. +0
 8. -6
 9. -6
10. +2

 

+11
-23.5
TOTAL -12.5

 

13 BREAK EVEN
25 WON
12 LOSS

 

+68 UNITS
-70 UNITS
 -2 UNITS

 

[Sputnik]

The other member who made the test with +44 units was saying the following:

I would have to say that making the change to "leaving at neutral or slightly down" anytime past about mid-shoe made a difference.

Now i can see that if you not reach the win target and not break even at mid-shoe he did not continue until you break even or hit loss limit and stop before that with any unit value close to zero. That would make the loses less overall. So i will test that way. Also this time i will  push for more when i reach +3 or stop at +2.

I will make another 100 samples.
This made me think about what OZ wrote: try to catch the sweet spot or end with small profit or break even, very similar towards this subject and i reckon it could change things to the better side of things.

[Sputnik]

It does not matter how you try to improve a losing strategy, in the end it does not make any difference. I run another 40 samples with additional improvement, but nothing change to the better. First 50 samples +24, second 50 samples -2 and another 40 samples end with -1. The author talking about mechanical trigger and comparing the playing style towards day-trading. I will write a negative verdict at Amazon making negative review of hes book.

Cheers

 

[Sputnik]

I talk to the Author today and he mention step by step how to place the bets and he was missing one part of it in hes book. This means the testing is wrong and i have to do it all over again with the new information. Getting back with new results.

Cheers

 

[Sputnik]

I made the loses small and around -4 -3 -2 -1 +0 based upon the new tweak and +3 or more or stop at +2. After 50 samples i made +35 units and lose -10 units. And add the new betting march that he not mention in the book, what a error (LOL) ...

 

 1. +2
 2. +2
 3. +4
 4. -3
 5. +2
 6. +5
 7. -4
 8. +2
 9. +6
10. -4

 

+23
-11  =  +12

 

 1. -4
 2. +4
 3. +7
 4. +4
 5. +2
 6. -2
 7. +2
 8. +3
 9. -4
10. +2

 

+24
-10  =  +14

 

 1. +3
 2. +2
 3. +3
 4. -4
 5. +2
 6. +0
 7. -4
 8. +2
 9. +4
10. -4

 

+16
-12  =  +3

 

 1. -4
 2. +2
 3. -3
 4. +5
 5. +4
 6. +4
 7. -4
 8. +2
 9. +2
10. -2

 

+19
-13  =  +6

 

 1. -4
 2. +2
 3. +2
 4. -4
 5. -4
 6. +2
 7. +2
 8. +2
 9. -4
10. -4

 

+10
-20  =  -10

Edited June 22, 2017 by Sputnik