Archive for U1D2M2

Does a Ph.D. Help in Baccarat?

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 4, 2010 by virtuoid

Dr. Young K. Lim, Ph.D., wrote an e-book entitled The Baccarat Code, published by MillionEbooks.com.  According to his ads, his method is the result of “thinking outside of the box,” which does not require a large bankroll or taking big risks, and which has never suffered any major losses for Dr. Lim.  It  originally retailed for $2,800 for the first 50 buyers when it was released in 2004, after which the price went up to $3,800.  Dr. Lim has also created and taught many methods for playing roulette, and in fact, his baccarat method is an application of the “Difference Method” in roulette.

Dr. Lim’s baccarat method involves grouping Player and Banker decisions into doublets.  There are four possible doublets:  PP, PB, BP, and BB.  (Similarly, in eirescott’s Birthday Paradox Grail, Player and Banker decisions are grouped into triplets, ref. Can Betting on Birthdays Make You Rich?.)  The frequencies of each doublet are tallied as they occur while playing a shoe.  Based on his experience, Dr. Lim has found that the most common doublet in a shoe will be more likely to reoccur.  So, his strategy involves repeatedly betting the most common doublet.  For example, if the PP doublet is the most common in the shoe,  then keep betting that PP will show up again.   Thus, Dr. Lim’s method is a trending method, which assumes the existing bias in the shoe will persist.  By considering decisions in doublets, Dr. Lim believes he has made a revolutionary breakthrough in the development of baccarat strategies.

A significant portion of Dr. Lim’s book is devoted to bet progressions.  He discusses the pros and cons of a variety of bet progressions, such as flat betting, Martingale, Labouchere, D’Alembert, Fibonacci, and Parlay.  Because his bet placement method is based upon the recurrence of doublets, Dr. Lim believes the 2-step Parlay is very well suited for his system.

I performed baccarat simulations of Dr. Lim’s method using flat betting, U1D2M2 (a modified D’Alembert), Martingale, and 2-step Parlay (ref. Series 16 Results).

In one set of simulations (“With Pause”), I followed Dr. Lim’s procedure regarding pausing if the first bet in a doublet loses.  For example, when betting PP and the first P lost because a B occurred, then do not bet for the second P in the doublet, since it is not possible for the PP doublet to occur anyway.

In another set of simulations (“No Pause”), I bet continuously, not pausing if the first bet in a doublet loses.  By the law of averages, it should not matter whether one pauses or not, since considering decisions as doublets does not change the fundamental odds for each decision.

As in all of my prior simulations, I also examined the effects of money management procedures.  To be consistent, I used the same money management procedure tested in prior simulations (ref. Money Matters).  As before, flat betting and U1D2M2 employed an initial stop loss of -20u.  However, for Martingale and Parlay, the initial stop loss was increased to -300u to -500u, which corresponds to about 9 to 10 levels in the progressions, to accommodate their more risky nature.

My results show that when using flat betting, D’Alembert, or Parlay, that is, everything except Martingale, with or without pausing, with or without money management, Dr. Lim’s method does no better than single side betting (ref. Series 1 Discussion) and does not overcome the house’s edge.

Despite the doublet nature of Dr. Kim’s bet placement procedure, a 2-step Parlay shows no significant advantages over any other type of bet progression.

With money management, all betting progressions including Martingale yield Player’s Advantages no better than single side betting.

When using Martingale without money management, the results are a bit more interesting.  When played with pausing, Dr. Lim’s method shows a +2.28% Player’s Advantage over 102,600 shoes.  However, to enjoy this win, one needs to be able to survive a -524,282u drawdown, which is the 20th level of the Martingale progression.  This is simply impractical, since it far exceeds the bankroll of virtually all players, and it definitely exceeds all casino table limits.

When the same simulation using Martingale was performed without pausing, a single, unrecoverable, catastrophic loss at shoe #54,327 of -8,388,578u (24th level in the progression) eliminated all prior gains and then some.  This simulation ended with a very negative Player’s Advantage of -11.24%, a loss far greater than the mathematical expectancy for the game, the cost of a runaway progression.

This indicates that pausing played a significant role in the simulation which had yielded the +2.28% Player’s Advantage.  Pausing effectively reduces the number of decisions played, and thus helps to delay a catastrophic loss.  True, it took over 54,000 shoes for the crash to occur in the simulation without pausing, but the important point is that it occurred at all.  In live play, catastrophe can strike any time.  Thanks to Murphy, if it can happen, it will.

In the simulations where money management routines limit the Martingale progression to a more practical (yet still quite steep) 9 levels, the resulting Player’s Advantages become comparable to any other betting progression or baccarat method tested to date.  Thus, the excessive risks of the Martingale progression is not warranted when playing Dr. Kim’s method.  Nevertheless, it is interesting that in principle, given limitless resources and no table limits, the simple Martingale can be demonstrated to win against the house edge over a significant number of shoes.

Overall, my simulation results suggest Dr. Kim’s method offers no true positive player’s edge, and in the long run will not perform any better than simple single sided betting.

Does a Ph.D. help in baccarat?  Unfortunately, not this time.

Disclaimer: The betting strategies and results presented are for educational and entertainment purposes only. Gambling involves substantial risks, and the odds are not in the player’s favor by design. The author does not state nor imply any system, method, or approach offers users any advantage, and he shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses whatsoever.

Baccarat Simulation Series 16 Results: The Baccarat Code

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 4, 2010 by virtuoid

Results from Baccarat Simulations Series 16 are presented below.

In this series, I examined The Baccarat Code by Young K. Lim, Ph.D.

A discussion of the results are posted: Does a Ph.D. Help in Baccarat?

With Pause Player’s Advantage % Shoes Win % Shoes Loss % Shoes Broke Even Best Score Worst Score
BC Flat A -1.30% 45.91% 48.36% 5.72% 33 -28
BC Flat C -1.30% 44.08% 47.50% 8.42% 30 -15
BC U1D2M2 A -1.29% 57.77% 40.24% 1.99% 58 -349
BC U1D2M2 C -1.27% 59.77% 37.39% 2.84% 49 -27
BC Marting A 2.28% 95.10% 4.76% 0.14% 45 -524,282
BC Marting C -1.18% 90.47% 8.57% 0.96% 36 -511
BC Parlay A -1.18% 87.42% 12.49% 0.09% 320 -5,746
BC Parlay C -1.53% 95.65% 4.35% 0.00% 218 -352
No Pause Player’s Advantage % Shoes Win % Shoes Loss % Shoes Broke Even Best Score Worst Score
BC Flat A -1.28% 47.05% 47.97% 4.97% 35 -35
BC Flat C -1.28% 49.71% 50.29% 0.00% 32 -20
BC U1D2M2 A -1.27% 58.50% 39.82% 1.68% 63 -565
BC U1D2M2 C -1.34% 63.24% 34.78% 1.98% 54 -27
BC Marting A -11.24% 97.41% 2.45% 0.15% 51 -8,388,578
BC Marting C -1.33% 92.07% 6.75% 1.18% 40 -511
BC Parlay A -1.30% 90.43% 9.50% 0.08% 353 -9,720
BC Parlay C -1.17% 95.78% 4.22% 0.00% 261 -352

Data Set: 102,600 baccarat shoes used, including Zumma 600, Zumma 1000, Wizard of Odds 1000, and Virtuoid 100,000 (ref. My Baccarat Shoe Factory).

Player’s Advantage is the net units won after commissions divided by the total units bet.

A, C refer to Money Management Procedures (ref. Money Matters).

BC = Baccarat Code by Young K. Lim, Ph.D.

With Pause = pause after losing first doublet bet
No Pause = bet every decision without pause

Flat = flat bet
U1D2M2 = modified D’Alembert (ref. Money Matters)
Marting = Martingale
Parlay = 2-step parlay

Money Management Note: For Martingale and Parlay simulations, the money management procedure uses an 9-step Martingale or -300u stop-loss, rather than the conventional -20u stop-loss when using flat betting or U1D2M2.
__________________________________________________________

Graphs of Net Units Won (after commissions) per Shoe:

With Pause

Baccarat Code (flat, U1D2M2, Martingale, Parlay), With Pause, Full Scale:

Baccarat Code (flat, U1D2M2, Martingale, Parlay), With Pause, Zoom Scale:

No Pause

Baccarat Code (flat, U1D2M2, Martingale, Parlay), No Pause, Full Scale:

Baccarat Code (flat, U1D2M2, Martingale, Parlay), No Pause, Zoom Scale:

Disclaimer: The betting strategies and results presented are for educational and entertainment purposes only. Gambling involves substantial risks, and the odds are not in the player’s favor by design. The author does not state nor imply any system, method, or approach offers users any advantage, and he shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses whatsoever.

Brannan’s Ultimate Baccarat: Dis-Advantaged Play

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 1, 2010 by virtuoid

C. Michael Brannan promises that his Ultimate Baccarat offers baccarat players a true edge.  In his advertisements and manual, he boasts Ultimate Baccarat is a true advantage method, yours for under $200 (ref. casinoedge.com).

In the past, I had already examined and demonstrated that Brannan’s Tie Count method yielded no genuine advantage in predicting ties (ref. Series 8 Results, The Ties That Bind).

Likewise, in my most recent simulations, I demonstrate that Brannan’s Ultimate Baccarat offers no true edge (ref. Series 15 Results).

Brannan’s Ultimate Baccarat method involves two modes of play, Minority and Majority betting.  The standard methods used in these modes are TB4L and OTB4L (ref. T and OT: Methods From Antiquity).  In Minority mode, the method which won the least in the past 3 decisions is used to make the next decision.  Conversely, in Majority mode, the method which won the most in the past 3 decision is used.  Minority mode is used when the shoe starts, because Brannan found it to be more effective than Majority mode.  If criteria for switching are met, Majority mode takes over in those shoes where Minority mode suffers.

A very comprehensive and complex money management procedure separates the Player and Banker sides.  The money management procedure attempts to cover all contingencies, taking considerations from each side independently, jointly, as well as from the entire performance of the shoe.  Rules for stop-and-resume, stop-losses, and trailing-stops are prescribed in detail.

Brannan’s money management procedures are by far the most complicated I have ever seen, and if any money management procedure can help boost performance, it would be his.  Indeed, programming his money management procedure required by far the most coding effort.

While Brannan allows for some subjectivity in the rules based on players’ experience, he claims his mechanical rules are sufficient to produce a positive Player’s Advantage.  Brannan claims his Minority and Majority modes for bet placement are in themselves advantaged methods, winning more than 50% of bets.  On top of that, he claims his money management procedure significantly increases performance and profitability.  His testing involving flat betting Ultimate Baccarat consistently yielded more than +2% Player’s Advantage over tens of thousands of decisions.

My results indicate that if Brannan truly found a 2% edge flat betting his method, his data set must have been highly biased in his favor.  My simulations show that in the long run Brannan’s Ultimate Baccarat yields Player’s Advantages no better than single side betting and is unable to overcome the house’s edge (ref. Series 1 Discussion).

Played by itself, Minority mode performed slightly better than Majority mode, if one considers a 0.02% difference significant, so on this point, Brannan is technically correct.  Switching between the two modes helped boost performance a smidgen more (by 0.06%).

Finally, despite its comprehensiveness and complexity, Brannan’s money management did not significantly boost performance; if anything, it slightly hurt it (by 0.02%).  As was found in my previous tests, money management is unable to help an inherently losing method to win.  All it can do is help it lose money slower, delaying the inevitable.

Overall, the Player’s Advantages of Brannan’s Ultimate Baccarat are no better than those of single-side betting and comparable to those of any other baccarat methods I have tested to date.

If there is anything “ultimate” about Brannan’s method, it is eventual ruin.

Disclaimer: The betting strategies and results presented are for educational and entertainment purposes only. Gambling involves substantial risks, and the odds are not in the player’s favor by design. The author does not state nor imply any system, method, or approach offers users any advantage, and he shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses whatsoever.

Baccarat Simulation Series 15 Results: MB Ultimate Baccarat

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 1, 2010 by virtuoid

Results from Baccarat Simulations Series 15 are presented below.

In this series, I examined Michael Brannan’s Ultimate Baccarat.

Read a discussion of the results in the post Brannan’s Ultimate Baccarat: Dis-Advantaged Play.

Player’s Advantage (Flat Bet) % Shoes Win % Shoes Loss % Shoes Broke Even Best Score Worst Score
MBU Min -1.27% 47.54% 47.81% 4.65% 36 -37
MBU Maj -1.29% 47.74% 47.51% 4.75% 37 -34
MBU Switch -1.21% 47.74% 47.60% 4.66% 36 -36
MBU Full MM -1.23% 50.06% 47.56% 2.38% 32 -14

Data Set: 102,600 baccarat shoes used, including Zumma 600, Zumma 1000, Wizard of Odds 1000, and Virtuoid 100,000 (ref. My Baccarat Shoe Factory).

Player’s Advantage is the net units won after commissions divided by the total units bet.

Flat betting only.

MBU = Michael Brannan’s Ultimate Baccarat

Min = Minority betting
Maj = Majority betting

Switch = Includes switching between Min and Maj

Full MM = Min, Maj, Switch, and Brannan’s full money management procedure

% Shoes Won, Lost, Broke Even, and Best and Worst Scores are from shoes using flat betting

__________________________________________________________

Graphs of Net Units Won (after commissions) per Shoe:

102,600 Shoes

MB Ultimate Baccarat (flat betting, Min, Maj, Switch, Full MM):

Disclaimer: The betting strategies and results presented are for educational and entertainment purposes only. Gambling involves substantial risks, and the odds are not in the player’s favor by design. The author does not state nor imply any system, method, or approach offers users any advantage, and he shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses whatsoever.

24 Karat Fool’s Gold Beats Both Zummas

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 29, 2010 by virtuoid

In his advertisements, Lorenzo Rodriquez describes how he kept losing at baccarat using a method which cost him $5,000, how when he later tested it, it failed to win even the Zumma shoes.  This motivated him over the next 6 months to program every baccarat method he could find, but all failed to win even the Zumma shoes.  Finally, he had an epiphany, and the result was his 24 Karat Baccarat method, which he proclaims in his manual to be just short of a miracle.  His method wins both Zumma 600 and 1000, and he reportedly used it to win real money playing it at casinos.  Now, he sells his holy grail for less than fifty dollars (ref. 24karatbaccarat.com)

At least Rodriguez told the truth:  his 24 Karat Baccarat method does indeed win both Zumma 600 and Zumma 1000 shoes.

However, testing his method over 102,600 shoes shows that in the long run, Rodreiguez’s method offers no actual positive edge, yielding Player’s Advantages no better than single-side betting (ref. Series 14 Results, Series 1 Discussion).

Interestingly, the above score-vs-shoe graph shows localized stretches of positive performance which can occur over many thousands of shoes.  A most remarkable run of 12,000+ shoes from roughly shoe #19,000 to #31,000 showed a generally positive trend.  However, the overall trend is quite clearly negative.

Rodriguez’s method assumes an existing shoe bias will tend to normalize (thus committing the gambler’s fallacy).  It bets only in 3 groups of 5 decisions in the last half of the shoe.  It uses a 5-level Martingale based on 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 units.  In my simulation, I reduced this Martingale progression to the equivalent of 1, 2, 4, 8, and 16 units.  I also used U1D2M2 and flat betting.  The results show that when flat betting is generally break-even or positive, negative progressions enhance performance, but when flat betting is negative, then negative progressions only lose money faster.  This has been a common theme in all of my simulation results.

As is true for Scott’s (eirescott) Birthday Grail method (ref. Can Betting on Birthday’s Make You Rich?), Rodriquez’s method bets relatively infrequently.  Hence, the ups and downs in the score simply become stretched out over a longer period of time, making the fluctuations more prominent on an inter-shoe chart basis, fluctuations which would be just as apparent on an intra-shoe chart basis for methods betting every decision.

This is another good example why a sufficiently large sample size is crucial to accurately access a method’s long-term performance.  Because any kind of shoe may arise during live play, a sufficiently large testing sample is needed to cover as many variations as possible.

This is also a good example why beating Zumma shoes isn’t nearly enough to establish whether a method truly has a positive edge.  The number of possible baccarat shoes is in the quintillion, and even 100,000 shoes is barely scratching the surface.

Being able to beat Zumma is a good start, but it is definitely not sufficient to declare one’s method, in Rodriguez’s own words, “just short of a miracle” (his emphasis).  It is very short of such.

Baccarat Simulation Series 14 Results: 24 Karat Baccarat

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 29, 2010 by virtuoid

Results from Baccarat Simulations Series 14 are presented below.

In this series, I examined Lorenzo Rodriguez’s 24 Karat Baccarat Method.

Read a discussion of the results in the following post: 24 Karat Fool’s Gold Beats Both Zummas.

Player’s Advantage (Flat Bet) Player’s Advantage (U1D2M2) % Shoes Win % Shoes Loss % Shoes Broke Even Best Score Worst Score
24 All -1.26% -1.14% 64.95% 18.75% 16.29% 3 -25
24 Z600 1.72% 3.31% 66.67% 16.50% 16.83% 3 -20
24 Z1000 -0.01% 1.02% 65.90% 19.00% 15.10% 3 -20
Player’s Advantage (Martingale) % Shoes Win % Shoes Loss % Shoes Broke Even Best Score Worst Score
24 All -1.09% 85.09% 6.96% 7.95% 3 -31
24 Z600 5.72% 84.83% 5.83% 9.33% 3 -31
24 Z1000 2.33% 87.00% 5.90% 7.10% 3 -31

Data Set: 102,600 baccarat shoes used, including Zumma 600, Zumma 1000, Wizard of Odds 1000, and Virtuoid 100,000 (ref. My Baccarat Shoe Factory).

Player’s Advantage is the net units won after commissions divided by the total units bet.

Flat betting, U1D2M2, and Martingale (5 level:  1, 2, 4, 8, 16 units) betting progression.

24 = 24 Karat Baccarat Method by Lorenzo Rodriguez

Z600 = Zumma 600
Z1000 = Zumma 1000

% Shoes Won, Lost, Broke Even, and Best and Worst Scores are from shoes using U1D2M2 and Martingale.

__________________________________________________________

Graphs of Net Units Won (after commissions) per Shoe:

All 102,600 Shoes

24 Karat Baccarat Method (flat, U1D2M2, Martingale):

Zumma 600

24 Karat Baccarat Method (flat, U1D2M2, Martingale):

Zumma 1000

24 Karat Baccarat Method (flat, U1D2M2, Martingale):

Disclaimer: The betting strategies and results presented are for educational and entertainment purposes only. Gambling involves substantial risks, and the odds are not in the player’s favor by design. The author does not state nor imply any system, method, or approach offers users any advantage, and he shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses whatsoever.

Maverick and Maverick Ultimate Simulations Summary

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 28, 2010 by virtuoid

I have thoroughly examined Mark’s Maverick and Maverick Ultimate using baccarat simulations:

1.  Disparity Version (ref. Series 10)
2.  Lazy Man’s Version (ref. Series 11)
3.  Modes Version (ref. Series 12)
4.  Triggers Version (ref. Series 13)

There are interesting rationales and histories behind each of these versions.  Briefly, the Disparity Version focuses on global and local disparity counts, the Lazy Man’s Version is the approach simplified to its bare essence, the Modes Version considers the frequency of events counts to find the best mode of play, and the legacy Triggers Version is the original, most comprehensive, most complex version based on specific triggers of action.  All use Maverick’s trademark evaluation process, and all attempt to exploit the present shoe bias and trends.

However, in terms of results, all yield Player’s Advantages comparable to any of the other baccarat methods tested to date.  None perform better than simply single-side betting (ref. Series 1).

As is true for all methods tested to date, money management and a negative progression U1D2M2 did not significantly improve performance (ref. Money Matters).

To those presently enjoying success with Maverick, Maverick Ultimate, or any other baccarat approach tested to date, I hope I have provided some objective evidence why you would be wise to avoid overconfidence in your betting based on these methods.

To those presently struggling with Maverick, Maverick Ultimate, or any other baccarat approach tested to date, I hope I have provided you with some concrete cause for comfort, which should assure you that your difficulties are not due to any ineptitude on your part, being cursed, or possessing negative attitudes.

Rather, Maverick, Maverick Ultimate, and any other baccarat approach tested to date simply offer no objectively demonstrable positive edge, so you will win some, and you will lose some, and over time, you should expect to lose a little more than you win.  This is just the simple truth of the game, the way the game works.

To those presently contemplating learning and playing baccarat using Maverick, Maverick Ultimate, or any other approach tested to date, I hope I have provided you with plenty of information to help you make informed decisions regarding whether the risks justify the rewards, and so that you can allocate your resources most efficiently and effectively.

Only you can make the best choices for yourself, and hopefully by standing on the shoulders of some who have gone before you, you’ll be able to see a little farther, sooner.  Hold fast to the truth, and you will find your way.

The record here of my journey with Maverick and Maverick Ultimate:

At Best A Flip of the Coin
Maverick Ultimate Mentorship
Introducing Maverick Ultimate
Maverick’s Black Swan

Disclaimer: The betting strategies and results presented are for educational and entertainment purposes only. Gambling involves substantial risks, and the odds are not in the player’s favor by design. The author does not state nor imply any system, method, or approach offers users any advantage, and he shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses whatsoever.

Baccarat Simulation Series 13 Results: Maverick & Maverick Ultimate (Triggers Version)

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 28, 2010 by virtuoid

Results from Baccarat Simulations Series 13 are presented below.

In this series, I examined Mark Teruya’s Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Triggers Version.

Read a discussion of the results in the following post:  Maverick and Maverick Ultimate Simulations Summary.

Player’s Advantage (Flat Bet) Player’s Advantage (U1D2M2) % Shoes Win % Shoes Loss % Shoes Broke Even Best Score Worst Score
PB Mav4a A -1.18% -1.17% 57.35% 40.61% 2.03% 59 -263
PB Mav4a C -1.14% -1.14% 60.38% 37.05% 2.57% 55 -27
PB Mav4b A -1.28% -1.27% 57.23% 40.64% 2.13% 59 -320
PB Mav4b C -1.23% -1.24% 59.55% 37.70% 2.76% 51 -27
RA Mav4a A -1.23% -1.15% 57.31% 40.67% 2.02% 61 -286
RA Mav4a C -1.29% -1.23% 60.01% 37.35% 2.64% 53 -27
RA Mav4b A -1.32% -1.30% 56.97% 40.92% 2.12% 64 -273
RA Mav4b C -1.33% -1.33% 59.33% 37.92% 2.75% 50 -27

Data Set: 102,600 baccarat shoes used, including Zumma 600, Zumma 1000, Wizard of Odds 1000, and Virtuoid 100,000 (ref. My Baccarat Shoe Factory).

Player’s Advantage is the net units won after commissions divided by the total units bet.

A, C refer to Money Management Procedures (ref. Money Matters).

Flat betting and U1D2M2 betting progression (ref. Money Matters).

P = Player
B = Banker
R = a derivative of PB
A = a derivative of PB

MAV4a = Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Modes Version a (with OTR)
MAV4b = Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Modes Version b (w/out OTR)

% Shoes Won, Lost, Broke Even, and Best and Worst Scores are from shoes using U1D2M2.

__________________________________________________________

Graphs of Net Units Won (after commissions) per Shoe:

P/B Results:

Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Triggers Version Strategy a with OTR (with MM and without MM, flat bet and U1D2M2):

R/A Results:

Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Triggers Version Strategy a with OTR (with MM and without MM, flat bet and U1D2M2):

Disclaimer: The betting strategies and results presented are for educational and entertainment purposes only. Gambling involves substantial risks, and the odds are not in the player’s favor by design. The author does not state nor imply any system, method, or approach offers users any advantage, and he shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses whatsoever.

Baccarat Simulation Series 12 Results: Maverick & Maverick Ultimate (Modes Version)

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 27, 2010 by virtuoid

Results from Baccarat Simulations Series 12 are presented below.

In this series, I examined Mark Teruya’s Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Modes Version.

Read a discussion of the results in the following post: Maverick and Maverick Ultimate Simulations Summary.

Player’s Advantage (Flat Bet) Player’s Advantage (U1D2M2) % Shoes Win % Shoes Loss % Shoes Broke Even Best Score Worst Score
PB MAV3a A -1.28% -1.28% 57.76% 40.43% 1.81% 62 -412
PB MAV3a C -1.26% -1.28% 62.52% 35.41% 2.08% 54 -27
PB MAV3b A -1.27% -1.26% 57.34% 40.87% 1.79% 62 -358
PB MAV3b C -1.17% -1.21% 61.64% 36.12% 2.24% 54 -27
RA MAV3a A -1.27% -1.28% 57.68% 40.59% 1.73% 61 -452
RA MAV3a C -1.24% -1.26% 62.42% 35.39% 2.19% 56 -27
RA MAV3b A -1.26% -1.30% 57.16% 41.07% 1.77% 63 -332
RA MAV3b C -1.29% -1.35% 61.17% 36.43% 2.40% 53 -27

Data Set: 102,600 baccarat shoes used, including Zumma 600, Zumma 1000, Wizard of Odds 1000, and Virtuoid 100,000 (ref. My Baccarat Shoe Factory).

Player’s Advantage is the net units won after commissions divided by the total units bet.

A, C refer to Money Management Procedures (ref. Money Matters).

Flat betting and U1D2M2 betting progression (ref. Money Matters).

P = Player
B = Banker
R = a derivative of PB
A = a derivative of PB

MAV3a = Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Modes Version a (with disparty)
MAV3b = Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Modes Version b (w/out disparty)

% Shoes Won, Lost, Broke Even, and Best and Worst Scores are from shoes using U1D2M2.

__________________________________________________________

Graphs of Net Units Won (after commissions) per Shoe:

P/B Results:

Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Modes Version Strategy a with disparity (with MM and without MM, flat bet and U1D2M2):

Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Modes Version Strategy b without disparity (with MM and without MM, flat bet and U1D2M2):

R/A Results:

Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Modes Version Strategy a with disparity (with MM and without MM, flat bet and U1D2M2):

Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Modes Version Strategy b without disparity (with MM and without MM, flat bet and U1D2M2):

Disclaimer: The betting strategies and results presented are for educational and entertainment purposes only. Gambling involves substantial risks, and the odds are not in the player’s favor by design. The author does not state nor imply any system, method, or approach offers users any advantage, and he shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses whatsoever.

Baccarat Simulation Series 11 Results: Maverick & Maverick Ultimate (Lazy Man’s Version)

Posted in Life with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 26, 2010 by virtuoid

Results from Baccarat Simulations Series 11 are presented below.

In this series, I examined Mark Teruya’s Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Lazy Man’s Version.

Read a discussion of the results in the following post: Maverick and Maverick Ultimate Simulations Summary.

Player’s Advantage (Flat Bet) Player’s Advantage (U1D2M2) % Shoes Win % Shoes Loss % Shoes Broke Even Best Score Worst Score
PB MAV2a A -1.33% -1.32% 57.61% 40.48% 1.91% 63 -362
PB MAV2a C -1.30% -1.27% 61.59% 36.20% 2.20% 57 -27
PB MAV2b A -1.33% -1.33% 57.55% 40.43% 2.02% 61 -365
PB MAV2b C -1.31% -1.30% 60.54% 36.73% 2.73% 57 -27
RA MAV2a A -1.39% -1.38% 57.43% 40.70% 1.88% 63 -326
RA MAV2a C -1.46% -1.43% 61.34% 36.39% 2.27% 51 -27
RA MAV2b A -1.36% -1.38% 57.37% 40.69% 1.94% 63 -326
RA MAV2b C -1.38% -1.38% 60.38% 36.86% 2.76% 51 -27

Data Set: 102,600 baccarat shoes used, including Zumma 600, Zumma 1000, Wizard of Odds 1000, and Virtuoid 100,000 (ref. My Baccarat Shoe Factory).

Player’s Advantage is the net units won after commissions divided by the total units bet.

A, C refer to Money Management Procedures (ref. Money Matters).

Flat betting and U1D2M2 betting progression (ref. Money Matters).

P = Player
B = Banker
R = a derivative of PB
A = a derivative of PB

MAV2a = Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Lazy Man’s Version a (JS)
MAV2b = Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Lazy Man’s Version b (JJS)

% Shoes Won, Lost, Broke Even, and Best and Worst Scores are from shoes using U1D2M2.

__________________________________________________________

Graphs of Net Units Won (after commissions) per Shoe:

P/B Results:

Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Lazy Man’s Version Strategy a JS (with MM and without MM, flat bet and U1D2M2):

Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Lazy Man’s Version Strategy b JJS (with MM and without MM, flat bet and U1D2M2):

R/A Results:

Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Lazy Man’s Version Strategy a JS (with MM and without MM, flat bet and U1D2M2):

Maverick & Maverick Ultimate, Lazy Man’s Version Strategy b JJS (with MM and without MM, flat bet and U1D2M2):

Disclaimer: The betting strategies and results presented are for educational and entertainment purposes only. Gambling involves substantial risks, and the odds are not in the player’s favor by design. The author does not state nor imply any system, method, or approach offers users any advantage, and he shall not be held liable under any circumstances for any losses whatsoever.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 138 other followers

%d bloggers like this: