Denzies Parlay Happy Hour

[bobby]

Anyone try this parlay playing Banker in Bac?

[DoctorSudoku]

Anyone try this parlay playing Banker in Bac?

I think Denzie discussed something similar for baccarat over here:

link:://betselection.cc/baccarat-forum/denzies-parlay/

[denzie]

I can only say that it doesn't work. But if you try you will find out. 


You have a better shot using a parlay after BBBB or PPPP .... (this you should try. I've tested the 100k hands of scammer over there. It came out winning )

But on the long run.........

[DoctorSudoku]

I can only say that it doesn't work. But if you try you will find out. 


You have a better shot using a parlay after BBBB or PPPP .... (this you should try. I've tested the 100k hands of scammer over there. It came out winning )

But on the long run.........

Denzie,
Any streaks-based method for the EC chances in roulette should work equally well in baccarat (in fact, it should work better because there is no equivalent of the zero in baccarat).

Also, the B-streaks and the P-streaks seem to occur slightly more frequently than do their roulette EC counterparts , so you would also get more opportunities to apply such methods in baccarat (whether or not that is healthier for your bank roll is a fair question, given that baccarat is still a negative EV game).

[Thunder Pants]

Just a quick feedback. Had a go with the Denz original/Paroli-ish in the weekend & in avbout 3 and a half hour i trippled my bankroll pretty much. Mainly on the 12 "hot" red number vs 12 "hot" black number (blacklight) that technically is a EC bet but with smaller bets so its outputs 3:1 like a dozen but sadly also sometimes looses a lot more. But when you do see like a BBBBB or RRRRR .. and hit it then the winnings is a staggering 36 108 324 972 units (aka 3 9 27 81 if compared to a 1 unit dozen Paroli). Alas i chicken'd out way to often and didnt go for the 3rd bet. But that also shows how powerfull it is when all it takes is 2 bets to gain a sizeable win big enough to continue. Also physical time limits kinda blocked me .. butting down 108 units on 12 numbers (aka 9 each) takes times that i do not have even with a "double up" button.

A bit more dangerous to det on single dozen i feel unless you have a hot/cold or pattern or similar strategy. Simply as Dozens is placed on the wheel for maximum variation i guess. However i do feel Denz/paroli could also be applied to sector bets and perhaps even something as small as 6 number line bets.

Also had a go with a bit of regular double dozen paroli at very low units as it seemed harmless to attempt. It may not seem logic to bet 2 dozens as the progression is so low that it sometimes require you to add (or substract) a unit for the bet to work. Also you really need to win at least 3 bet in a row just to win another 2 bets. Again remembering dozen placements is most likely for max variation i used the provious the last spin dozen as trigger and kept betting the 2 other dozens. It did work however with a very little profit & very slow. Ran into a 11332211 that took me back a bit but all it all it pulled ahead thanks to paroli constant low starting bet.

Blackjack: a bit off topic but hey, potato tomato. Had a bit of reflection on blackjack & paroli but i cant see it working without some large changes. Clever people may claim that BJ if played right can yield a close to 50% favorable player odds .. however the truth is for normal (non genius) people its much much less. I can barely recall the last time ive (if ever) won at BJ 5 times in a row. That and the fixed 2:1 output, the usually crippled BJ (to make you think you have won something & make you keep playing), the insurance, the double up/down (to make you think you have a choice/chance but really to rip you off even more) and the "player first choice" will make you bust out way too often for a paroli to work. Unless you spike the paroli & then we are already deep into low/high, ladder or Marty territory.

[DoctorSudoku]

TP,
Even if one were a genius, that person would still find blackjack to be a difficult proposition under current casino playing conditions.

Card counting does not really help most individual players because nowadays you usually have 8-deck shoes and, to make matters even more difficult, the shoe penetration is usually about 70%.

In the US, gambling authors and experts (like the Evil Wizard and his boot-licking minions over at the WofV web site) continue to over-promote (and over-glorify) blackjack even though current conditions do not justify it.

I think they are doing a great disservice to the gambling public by spreading misinformation about the true prospects that players face while playing this game.

[RouletteGhost]

Speaking of blackjack, using basic strategy the HE is what .4 or .5%

Hard for a progression to even overcome that

That's why I see roulette as recreation and fun

[Thunder Pants]

...
In the US, gambling authors and experts (like the Evil Wizard and his boot-licking minions over at the WofV web site) continue to over-promote (and over-glorify) blackjack even though current conditions do not justify it.

I think they are doing a great disservice to the gambling public by spreading misinformation about the true prospects that players face while playing this game.

Ah yes, i always wonder how anyone can stand up and put their face in the public adverticing Blackjack like its easy. Its not like Poker dosnt have people too but that game also has more skill involvement than pure card luck. Slot & roulette also has a couple of faces but at least they tend to stress how much/often they loose & if they are affiliated with a Casino.

Speaking of blackjack, using basic strategy the HE is what .4 or .5%

Hard for a progression to even overcome that

That's why I see roulette as recreation and fun

Well the HE is a bit complicated when it comes BJ. Because simply "what is best" is up for interpretation and it depends on how many sets of cards is mixed in the deck. There is a bunch of BJ calculators online for calculting the HE and whatnot. If i recall right a single card set can have as low as 0,18-ish and pops up instantly to 0,50-ish with 2 sets of cards shuffled. 8+ shuffled card sets is 0,65+ up. But that is with doing everything "100% math right" so i would assume that "basic strategy" is much much higher. Also if you have ever seen a young lady try to not break her fingernails while manually shuffling 16+ sets for 10 mins online & not think that they probably removed or replaced a couple of high cards to improve the HE, lol. Its not that the internet casino police is gonna strike down on them & its virtually impossible to detect.

[kampfgolem]

I was reading this topic and noticed it got revived recently.

I conducted a test last night betting on 2 ECs (HL/RB) with a moderate stoploss (60u) just as a countermeasure since I was testing, after all.
119 spins:

5  27  33  33  6 7 6 25 11 36 28 19 7 8 2 7 20 6 22 31 3 16 8 25 1
32 14 35 27 12 30 24 14 29 10 7 13 24 26 29 16 12 34 26 34 10 29 30 26 23
31 13 34 3 34 32 23 31 28 22 3 30 35 3 19 25 5 22 26 26 9 9 18 29 22
19 28 30 18 4 33 16 4 26 32 21 14 18 18 23 25 33 7 6 19 9 25 9 31 14
21 3 27 23 31 4 34 24 1 19 34 21 13 11 16 36 5 20 33

I played for simple parlay, without any investing and, unsurprisingly, hit my stoploss within 45 spins or so.

However, after the fact I tested for different "goals" and so far the fastest, most succesful one would have been to
aim for 7 steps, investing after an unsuccessful 3rd step and bailing after 2 losses in a row.

In short, with a 1u starting bet, the steps would be 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64
- When/if you reach a bet of 4 and you lose, invest 8u on the streak happening.
- If you lose, bail on that streak happening. Otherwise, continue betting until you hit the 64u bet. If you win, that's it.

I did try aiming for higher steps in the streak, but it didn't really end up that well. I still need to continue testing.

Any feedback would be awesome.

Cheers.

[DoctorSudoku]

- When/if you reach a bet of 4 and you lose, invest 8u on the streak happening.


Cheers.

Investing your own money to "make" the streak continue is the most bothersome aspect of this method -- and which, in the long run, would make it fail.

Just my .02 cents' worth of opinion.