Ask the Wizard:

Betting Systems (specific games and systems)

Asked & Answered

Specific Games

Baccarat

Bingo

Blackjack

Caribbean Stud Poker

Craps

Horse Racing

Keno

Let it Ride

Lottery

Pai Gow Poker

Poker

Roulette

Slot Machines

Spanish 21

Sports Betting

Texas Holdem

Three Card Poker

Video Poker

Other Casino Games

Non-Casino Games

TV Game Shows

General Topics

Betting Systems

Boyfriends

Casinos

Dealers

General

Online Gaming

Probability

Table Games in general

Taxes on Winnings

The Wizard himself

Back issues

See old columns

Ask the Wizard!

Submit your question...

Categories for Questions about Betting Systems

FAQ General Questions Martingale Specific Games & Systems Positive-Expectation Situations

Baccarat Betting Systems

Can you please, please, please put me out of my misery and answer a question that's been plaguing me for months and I just can't seem to find an answer to. I play baccarat mostly for leisure, and have created my own decision rules for when to bet Banker or Player, betting only 1 unit per hand (no betting systems for me). Out of curiosity I tried my decision rules on the both Zumma books (a total of 1600 shoes) and returned a tidy profit (betting an average of 60 hands per shoe). Zumma states that when betting this many hands, his shoes are enough to validate a strategy on a conceptual basis. Yet I've have read that 1600 shoes are not deemed a significant sample size given the large number of possible B/P combinations in a baccarat shoe. I thought about the effect of large populations when selecting sample size (where at a certain level increasing the population does not materially increase the required sample size), and after using different on-line sample size calculators, get around 2,400 shoes as being a significant enough sample for a population as large as the baccarat BP combinations (4,998,398,275,503,360 according to your calculations). So is it 2,400 or 1,000,000+? - Suzanne. P.S. Learning so much from your site, definitely the best I've found.

There is no magic number of when you enter the long run or when a sample size is big enough to prove a hypothesis. It is always a matter of degree. However we can say the standard deviation of the sample mean is inversely proportional to the square root of the sample size. Your question is rather vague so let me rephrase it to, what is the sample size required so that the sample mean will be within 1% of the actual mean with 95% probability? From my house edge section we see the standard deviation of the banker bet is 0.93 and of the player bet is 0.95. Since you go back and forth we'll use the average of 0.94. Now I'll wave my hands and get an answer of 33,944 hands. At 60 hands per shoe that comes to 566 shoes.

You say "No betting systems for me", but decision rules as to when to bet banker or player is definitely a betting system. But I'm still skeptical that you return a tidy profit over 1600 shoes. Sept. 7, 2004

I am thinking of taking the following strategies to play mini baccarat. I only bet after either the Banker or Player has appeared 4 times in a roll. I double my money if I don't win the first time. However, if the second time I don't win, I stop betting for the time being until the next 4 continuous appearance coming again. Once I win, I also stop betting until the next 4 continuous appearance coming. Please evaluate my strategy. Thank you! - Mandy from Gold Coast, Australia

Is there a progressive wagering system for baccarat? Is there a specific site for this? - Emi Mungcal from Manila, Philippines

There are lots of them, and they are all worthless. Mar. 6, 2002

Waiting for streaks of four in a row is not going to help. The cards do not have a memory. Doubling after a loss is also not going to help. I would recommend betting on the banker every time. Skipping hands is fine, in fact not playing at all is the best possible strategy. Feb. 10, 2001

My question concerns baccarat, is a 1,2,3,5,8,13,21,etc. progression a profitable method of play? I add the previous two bets and bet the sum on a loss and subtract one level of the progression on a win. Any two wins in a row and I go back to 1 unit. i always bet on banker. I've tried this online in several casinos (as well as your site's baccarat game), and it has worked great. Is it flawed? - Brantley of Waycross, Georgia

All betting systems are flawed. Progressive systems like yours usually do when but with occasional large losses. Over the long run you will do no better nor worse than the flat bettor or user of any other system. Nov. 4, 2000

Blackjack Betting Systems

Hi, I read almost everything on your site and all I can say is WOW and THANKS so much for all the help you bring to everyone. I have however a question which I think is interesting and should be added in your FAQ section. You say there is no betting system that can beat a game of luck. I am 100% on your side with that as I have tried dozens of them and with no results. You just can't beat the casino in the long run. HOWEVER, how come there are professional players? I mean, there are some people that are called 'Professional blackjack players' who make their living by gambling. Everyone sees them on television in tournaments and things like that where they bet thousands and thousands. How come they make a living out of it if there is no possible way to win in the long run, it's their job, so it's necessarily in the long that they are winning. How come?

You're welcome. It must have taken all day to read my entire site. You are confusing betting systems, which are worthless, to legitimate strategies that give the player an advantage. Two games that can be proven beatable with good rules and proper strategy are blackjack and video poker. So I call a system a worthless method of following trends in games with a house advantage, and a strategy something like card counting in blackjack that is mathematically proven to work. Video poker can be beaten by hunting down the best pay tables and then following a reliable strategy on which cards to keep and which to discard. March 6, 2004

What do you think about the strategy of adding 50% after second winnings in blackjack, ex, 2-2-5-7-11-15-22-33.... -KYK from Hong Kong

As I have said many times, in the long run all betting systems are equally worthless. Aug. 31, 2002

Craps Betting Systems

I'd like your thoughts on this craps strategy. I think it's a Patrick system for playing don't pass. Bet one unit on both pass and don't pass. Then lays odds on the don't side. You can stop here or then make a don't come bet. After the dc travels, take the odds off your don't pass bet (if you don't like to lay odds). So now you have a unit on the don't come that pretty much got there with less risk. I know you can never get the advantage over the house, but this seems like a great way to play the don't side. You eliminate the sevens on the come out roll. And only get hurt by the 12; or the 11 on your don't come bet. P.s. Your site is the greatest.

Thanks for the compliment on my site. The best thing I can say about this system is that it composed of low house edge bets. Yes, a 12 will lose the pass bet and push the don't pass on the come out roll, this is where the house edge is. By making the pass bet you are increasing the overall house edge. If you're afraid losing you shouldn't be playing at all. Never hedge your bets. So my advice is to stick to just the don't pass and laying odds. Yes, you'll lose some on the come out roll. However if you don't lose on the come out roll the don't pass bet will usually win. Jan. 2, 2002

I am a novice, just starting to play. My question concerns the "Five Count Doey/Don't" System. The way I understand the system:

1. Wait until the shooter establishes a point.
2. Play both come/don't come (same amount). Until you have a maximum of four numbers
3. After the shooter has rolled five times without rolling a 7, take odds on all your numbers on the front side.

The rationale: Limit your exposure until you find a "qualified" (five rolls without a 7) shooter. Only betting the odds so there is no "house edge"! Can you compare this system with just playing pass/come and taking the odds? -Don from Little Rock, Arkansas

As I stated in the other craps strategy question you are only mixing another house edge bet into the game by betting on both the pass and don't pass, or come and don't come. It is also not going to help to wait until a shooter hits five points. The probability of making a point is the same for me and you as it is for somebody who just threw 100 points in a row. In other words, the past does not matter. As I stated to the person who asked the other question (whom I think may also be you) don't make opposite bets, just stick to either the do or don't side and always back up your bets with the odds. Jan. 2, 2002

I love to play craps and would like your opinion on a conventional method of play. Pass line and two come bets with full double odds or with one come bet? Does having three different bets working superior to two? - Richard from Binghamton, USA

As long as you are backing up your pass and come bets with full odds it doesn't make any difference how many come bets you make. However it does help to keep the odds on your come bets turned on in the come out roll. March 11, 2001

In Craps, could one gain an advantage over the house by making both a Pass and Don't Pass bet (one unit) and then playing the Don't Pass odds. Although the occasional 12 would steal 1 unit here and there, it seems that the 7 would have an advantage over the point. At triple odds one could take 3x on the 4&10, 2x on the 5&9 and 1x on the 6&8. - Jon Moriarty from Danville, New Hampshire

No combination of bets can give the player an advantage. In your case the player would win more often on the come out roll but would lose often on the subsequent rolls. The probability of making a point ranges from 1/3 to 5/11. Dec. 31, 2000

What is the better system, or which gives me the better chance to win on craps? On the come out roll, I bet $10 on the don't and $10 on the do, and then when a point comes out I lay full odds against the number. Or is it better to just play the don't pass, and then lay the odds. I think getting passed the come out roll will increase my chances of winning. - Ray from Plainfield, USA

The better system is to bet on the don't pass only and take full odds. Yes, betting on both does increase you chances of winning on any one bet. However you are suffering a higher combined house edge by betting on both the pass and don't pass and it will cost you in the long run. Oct. 5, 2000

Roulette Betting Systems

Dear Sir, In a single zero roulette game, the PROBABILTY of winning increases if you place a portion of your money on fewer numbers for more spins versus covering more numbers per spin, an example: If you are willing to risk 500$ in order to win 250$ then you could: Option (A): place 250$ on any of two dozen and should you be a winner you will win 250$. The probabilty of that happening is 24/37=(.648648). Option (B): Place 125 on any one dozen and should you be a winner you will win 250$ and walk away. However, should you lose you can now bet187.5$ on the same dozen and should you be a winner you will win 375$ which will get you the 250$ and the 125$ you lost on the previous spin. Now should you lose on both spins you still have 187.5$ to play with and you can place 20.833333$ on any nine numbers and should you be a winner you will get 750$ which is equal to your 500 original capital plus 250$ in winning which was your goal. The probability of that happening meaning either hitting a dozen OR nine numbers at LEAST once in three spin is equal to[1-(25/37)x(25/37)x(28/37)]=0.65451. Hence, for the SAME capital and for the SAME payoff you are able to increase your PROBABILITY of success as in option (B) if you play fewer numbers with less money but for MAYBE more spins.(As you might win on the first spin) You can even improve your probability further if you play only six numberes at a time and try to win 250$. Any Explanation??!!!! Assuring you of my highest regards and awaiting the favor of your reply I remain.

You are correct that option B has the greater probability of success, although the goal and the capital are the same. The reason is the average amount bet in option B is less, thus your money is exposed to the house edge less, thus the probability of winning increases. The amount bet in option A is always $500. The average amount bet in option B is (12/37)*125 + (25/37)*(12/37)*(125+187.5)+ (25/37)*(25/37)*(125+187.5+187.5) = 337.29.

When I was on the Vegas Challenge, with a few minutes to go, I had about $8,000 and needed to get to at least $24,000. So I split my bankroll into four piles of $2000 each and bet each one on a 4-number combination, each of which would have paid $22,000. This way I was not necessarily exposing my entire stake to the house edge, which increased my probability of winning. April 17, 2003

Hello. I've been an avid roulette gambler for some years now and for the first time ever I'm thinking of trying out a roulette system...Now I know how you feel about these so called "systems" and the scammers behind them, and belive me, I feel the same way, but I've come across two systems which can't be ignored...

The first one is the 3q/A-strategy found in R.D Ellison's book "Gamble to win: Roulette", which has a verified win rate of 7.94% (7500 spins). The system was tested and developed in conjunction with" Spin roultte Gold" by Frank Scoblete and "Roulette system tester" by Eric St. Germain.

The second one is Don Young's roulette system which is verified to beat the Roulette System Tester from Zumma Publishing(15000 spins).

Now, I must say I'm still a bit sceptic about spending money on these systems, but since they've proved themselves over the long haul, I can¥t really see no reason why I shouldn't. I mean, beating these testbooks have to mean something...

What's your opinion on these systems? And do you think I should try them out??

Thanks alot! Have nice day. Best wishes -Johan

7500 spins? Is that it? Anyone can win 7.94% over 7500 spins if they bet aggressively. Same is true about 15000 spins. Most systems are designed to have a lot of small wins and small number of large losses. A system requiring a huge bankroll can easily go 15000 spins and show a profit. Eventually the losses will come in and it won't pass the test of time. The big losses might also come at the beginning. The true way to put a system to the test is to play it over billions of trials. My opinion about these systems is the same as all systems, they are worthless. I have no problem with you trying them out but I do have a problem with anyone putting one dime in the pockets of those selling them. March 21, 2003

Hi. You say all betting systems will fail. If you play roulette and bet one unit on number 1-12 and 2 units on number 13-24 wouldn't you then have 66.66% chance to break even or win. - Atle from Porsgrunn, Norway

Not quite. You would have a 12/38 chance of winning 3 units, 12/38 of breaking even, and 14/38 of losing 3 units. The expected value is [(12/38)*3 + (12/38)*0 + (14/38)*-3]/3 = (-6/38)/3 = -2/38 = -5.26%. This will be true of any combination of bets as long as you avoid the dreaded 5 number combo (0/00/1/2/3). If you only play for one spin and want to maximize your probability of winning then bet equally on 35 of the numbers. You'll have a 92.11% chance of winning 1 unit and a 7.89% chance of losing 35 units. Nov. 3, 2002

My co-worker D. insists that he has perfected a way to consistently win at Roulette. I'm not convinced. Is he just lucky or is there any system that works? - Tom Davey from Merritt Island, USA

He is just lucky. As I have said thousands of times, no betting system can pass the test of time. May 8, 2002

Say, wizard I was wondering about roulette. With the boss media software, you can spin the wheel without actually placing a bet. Isn't this in the player's favor? With some of the roulette betting systems I have seen, like the Martingale you double up when you lose and such. Can't you just watch the wheel without placing a bet and based on the previous spins place your bet. An example would be to spin the wheel 5 times before placing a bet. Suppose that all the numbers were odd. Wouldn't it make sense to begin playing the wheel by betting on even? I know this kinda buys in to the gamblerís fallacy and the wheel doesn't care what the last spin was, but also the probability diminishes with each spin that an odd number will continue to come up. Am I on to something or just going over an old theory? - Craig from Detroit, USA

You're just rehashing the gambler's fallacy. If the ball landed in odd 100 times in a row on a fair wheel the odds that the next spin would be even are still the same as every spin, 47.37% on a double zero wheel. So it does not help that you can spin without betting. Jan. 20, 2001

I read your page on systems and I have been telling people this for years! I deal roulette in a casino and I have seen all of the systems at one time or another. I have seen one system that, even though on a computer simulation might not work (probably won't), "seems" to work in real life. That means that I have seen it win more than lose. The way it works is a player will put $75 dollars on the 1 to 18 $50 dollars on the 3rd 12 and $10 dollars on the 0&00 split for a total of $135 dollars. This covers all but six numbers (19 through 22) and will yield a 15 dollar payout every time the ball misses those 6 numbers EXCEPT when 0 or 00 hits in which case it's 40 dollars. I know it sounds nuts!!! But trust me, I'm here to tell you I have seen it win more than lose. It also works in reverse (duh). I would love to know the true odds of this system, but it's hard to tell someone that it doesnt work when they are walking off my table 2 grand richer:-)

There are 30 ways to win $15, 6 ways to lose $135, and 2 way to win $45 (not $40). The expected return of this combination of bets is (30/38)*15 + (6/38)*-135 + (2/38)*(45) = -.0526, or 5.26%, the house edge on any one bet or combination of bets as long as the dreaded 0-00-1-2-3 combination is avoided. In your observations you have likely seen fewer than expected 19-24 occurrences, which accounts for the illusion that this method is sound. Jan. 14, 2001

Isn't it an even worse roulette betting strategy to bet multiple numbers on the inside during one bet (as most players do) vs. making a sequence of independent bets on one number? For example, if one had $100, betting 10 bets of $10 dollars on the number "8" would lose less than betting $10 on 10 numbers on one spin? It seems to me that "hedging" just guarantees that certain (in the above case 9 bets) will ALWAYS lose? You don't address "hedging" on your page? -Kevin Albright of Dallas, USA

See my Ten Commandments of Gambling, number six is to never hedge your bets. About your roulette question the probability of losing all ten bets by betting one at a time is (37/38)¹⁰=76.59%. The probability of losing all ten bets by betting them all at once on different numbers is (28/38)=73.68%. By hedging, or betting ten numbers at once, you lower your probability of a total loss but also limit your maximum win to $26. The player betting one at a time could win up to $350. Both these methods have the same total expected return of 94.74%. Jan. 14, 2001

Three Card Poker

In Three Card Poker would it be prudent to increase your bet after say 5 or 6 losses? I know the Martingale system is bad news but since in Three Card Poker you have bonus payouts for better hands I thought it might be worth a chance. Please think about this for a minute before you answer. - John Cameron from Crestwood, Illinois

In the long run it doesn't matter what you do. As I have said numerous times measured by long term results all betting systems are equally worthless. Systems in which you chase loses with bigger bets increase the probability of a modest short term win but at the cost of even bigger losses when your luck is at it's worst. June 29, 2001

Specific Betting Systems, any game, or general theory

Dear Wizard: Mathematically, why doesn't the cancellation system work? (The system goes by a lot of other names too. Just to be clear, I mean the system where you start with a series of number and bet the total of the outside numbers, canceling them out when you win, etc.) It seems that all you have to win is 1/3 plus two of you bets to come out ahead. In roulette you have about a 45% chance of winning. So you should win over the long haul, but you don't. Why not? Thanks, Nathan

As with most betting systems the cancellation system usually does result in a session win, at the cost of occasional huge losses. When the cancellation system does lose the results can be your worst nightmare. During those times when you just seem to lose almost all the time the bet sizes start adding up geometrically, which can quickly deplete a bankroll if the cards don't run your way. Dec. 13, 2004

In your last column you said anybody could create a roulette system that showed a 6.5% profit over 7500 spins. Well, I'm anybody and am challenging you to give me one.

You got it! Here is "Wizards 6.5% win system." Here is how to play it.

1. This system can be played on any even money game, including roulette, but craps is strongly suggested due to the lower house edge.
2. Player makes only even money bets. In roulette any even money bet will do and the player may change the bet at will (as always the past does not matter).
3. Player must be comfortable with a betting range of 1 to 1000 units.
4. The first bet is 1 unit.
5. After each bet the player will determine 6.6% (the extra 0.1% is a margin of safety) of his total past wagers. If his net win is less than this figure he will bet the lesser of the difference and 1000 units. If his net win is more then he will bet one unit.
6. Repeat until 7500 bets are made.

In roulette I did a computer simulation of this experiment 10,000 times and the player made his 6.5% 5380 times, or 53.8%. So the first time with live play it would be probable that the player would report a success story. In craps betting on the pass line using the same system resulted in 7484 wins and 2516 losses, for a success rate of 74.84%. Going back to roulette, if the spread is 1 to 10,000 units the numbers of wins was 8367 and 1633 losses. In all cases when the system doesn't hold up over 7500 spins the loss is big, more than 6.5% on average.

Of course this system is just as worthless as every other. The point I hope I have made is that it is easy to easy to design a system that usually wins. However when you do lose you lose big. Over the long run the losses will be more than the wins and the player will have a lot less money in his pocket. April 17, 2003

I've got a question about "progressive betting" (e.g. "Another Experiment", Player 2 on your Betting Strategies page). Obviously in normal bj play you experience streaks of wins and loses. Where is the faulty logic in "minimize your losing streaks by resetting at 1 unit, and increase your winning streaks by raising 1 unit after each win?" FYI, I actually play a little variation of that: 15, 30, 45, 50, 75, 100, 125, etc...Thanks for you time. And, please don't try to humiliate me like Ann {what's-her-name} on The Weakest Link :-) I really love your site!!! Thanks for all of the great info. - Chad R. from Memphis, Tennessee

Progressive betting systems, like yours, will turn a good session into a great one without the risk of catastrophic loss as with regressive systems like the Martingale. However progressive systems will turn a choppy neutral session into a bad one. Consider what would happen if you alternated between a win and a loss the entire session. The wins would all be at $15 and the losses at $30. Funny you should mention the 'Weakest Link.' I tried out for that show during the summer and didn't make it. It is probably just as well because I'm not that witty in real life and doubt I could come up with a good rejoinder to one of Ann's jabs. Oct. 30, 2001

Have you ever heard of the Ken Fuchs progression. If so, would you please e-mail me or post the details on your site. - John Forney from Baltimore, USA

I'm not familiar with it. Ken Fuchs co-wrote Knock-Out Blackjack so he can't be all bad. However I just hear the word progression and I'm immediately skeptical. June 13, 2001

Have you heard of the "Reverse Labouchere" method, described in detail in Norman Leigh's book "Thirteen Against the Bank"? - Greg from Ottawa, Canada

No, and I don't really care what it is either. All betting systems are equally worthless. June 6, 2001

My question revolves around the system Norman Leigh used in the 60s to break the bank in Nice. His team used a reverse Labouchere system, which involves absorbing a number of small losses before hitting a big win (based on the idea that instead of canceling out wins they are added to the sequence and losses are crossed out ensuring that each game can only lose a fixed amount but can potentially win the table limit). Other than Norman's book (and books based on it) I have not seen any analysis of the system. The book states that this approach uses the house edge against them and that in the long run the player will come out ahead. Is this nonsense or is there something in this idea? -Billy

I admit I don't know much about this incident. However I will say that if indeed they won it was because of luck and not because it was a winning system. As I have said a thousand times before no system based on a negative expectation game wins in the long run. Nov. 11, 2000

Q: I liked your article about the cancellation betting system. What sort of a cancellation system would you follow if instead of betting on either black or red, you placed a bet (of the same amount) on two of the three blocks that cover 12 numbers (e.g: 1 to 12 & 25 to 36) on each roll? - Bob Tam

A: Start the same way as I explained with even money bets. Each bet should be the sum of the left and right numbers. However following your two column strategy you should add double the amount to the right if you lose. Aug. 27, 2000

Q: I've always thought that the major flaw,(but certainly not the only one),in the Martingale system was that the return was simply too small to justify the risk. My question is, would a tripling of the bet which would yield a profit per win of approx. 50% of the winning hand justify the system. In other words would a bankroll of 1093 units playing through 7 betting levels produce an overall profit exceeding its loss, or is it doomed to eventual failure the same as the standard Martingale? Jack Barlow of Desoto, Texas

A: Every betting system based on a negative expectation game like craps is doomed to eventual failure. By tripling your bets you will have bigger single wins but you will reach your bankroll limit faster and have more losses. July 16, 2000