literature on Online Baccarat Games talks about streaks.
Casinos encourage players to record the results of
streaks by providing tally sheets and pens. Would
they do this if they thought it helped you win money
from them? No!
The most popular streaking system is known as the
The idea behind this system is simple: you simply
bet on the outcome of the sequence which showed up
two times before last, so a sequence of hands which
went banker, player, banker, player, player would
tell you to bet on the player.
There are many other trending systems. Sometimes they
are called "hot," "cold," or "impatient,"
styles of betting, where a gambler either waits for
a sequence of hands favoring the player or banker
and bets the opposite, while the other involves waiting
for such a sequence to occur and sticking with the
trend. These systems have their origin in a misunderstanding
of the law of averages.
Players who follow streaks do so on the assumption
that a sequence of wins for the bank, player, or tie
means that streak is more likely than not to continue.
In fact, after a win by the bank, player, or tie,
the subsequent chance of this bet winning again is
less likely, though by such a small fraction of a
percent that most modern computers are incapable of
calculating it. For all practical purposes, there
is no relation between the result of one hand and
the next. Buying into streaks, betting either for
or against them, only increases your chances of losing,
as gaining the best chance of winning all your bets
should be with the banker. This may come as a surprise
to experienced Online Baccarat Games players. It may
seem strange that simply continuously betting on the
bank is superior to any other strategy, but this is
undeniably the case. If you attempt to ride streaks
or follow trends, your expectation will be an average
of the three bets, which will give you greater losses
in the long run.
Gambling "authorities," such as John Patrick
in his series of gambling websites, continue to advocate
the use of trending techniques. Some shoes are apparently
player-biased, some are bank-biased, some are tie-biased,
and some are, intriguingly, not biased at all. Unfortunately,
there is no way of knowing if a shoe will remain with
the bias (if any) it started with, or if it will behave
completely differently. Streaks only arrive after
the event and are completely useless for predicting
future events. There is no truth at all in the popular
misconception that "Online Baccarat Games is
a game of streaks." If you were to purchase a
website on geography which told you the earth was
flat, you, might feel cheated. Nevertheless, this
is no less absurd than the advice offered by many
writers who claim expert knowledge of gambling, yet
do not appear to understand the law of independent
Streak players have developed their own interesting
array of special terms. A streak of six banker wins
is called a "dragon," while a shoe of alternating
bank and player wins is called "choppy,"
or a "Ping-Pong." Two consecutive bank or
player wins is known as a "pair."
It's human nature to try to make sense of our environment.
Unfortunately, this leads the gambler to detect patterns
where none exist. It's just like seeing faces in the
Take the example of a ten-hand series of wins for
the banker. On average, this will occur once every
512, hands. Sometimes it will occur more frequently,
sometimes less. If you play 512 hands you might well
get a ten-hand streak three or four times. Then you
might think you could buy into a series of bank wins
in the future and make a big profit. The next series
of 512 hands, however, just might contain no ten-hand
runs at all, and things will have evened out, while
you have lost your money.
Forgetting for a moment the important question of
card-counting, the best strategy for a player depends
on what he is trying to achieve. In a sense, it is
irrational to play Online Baccarat Games, or any other
casino games, as the player would have a higher expectation
by not playing at all. If a player wants to win a
small amount, he should use a system such as the d'Alembert,
which gives a good chance of winning over a session
or two, without too much risk. For the best chance
of success, the gambler should always bet on the bank,
regardless of the system he uses.
fact, he was a little proud of himself, which is pretty
pathetic when you consider how easy it is to stack
if you are allowed to shuffle, cut, and deal yourself
(I would have been more impressed if I had been dealt
a full house). Anyway I knew he wasn't colluding with
my opponent, and he tried to explain it as just fooling
around-although I have a hunch that this particular
person wanted to see me beaten at my own game. In
any case, this player apparently didn't consider it
unethical to spike a hand in which he wasn't involved.
In my judgment, this kind of "fooling around"
is the cheating you'll have to worry about most in
a home game. It is motivated by playfulness, ego,
or some other factor besides a crass desire to steal
money. To that extent, higher stakes in a home game
actually reduce the problem because players are much
less inclined to try to joke around with cheating
when real money is on the table.