Roversi.

Of course we can set up a "only banker" strategy. The problem is the extreme variance related to any "one side betting".

Since the game is an almost coin flip succession imo we should define better the actual picture by adding the slight less likely counterpart (Player).

We could even wager PBB (it's the same) but not BPB as this 3-hand fragment doesn't include a B streak (yes, successions of BPB-BPB-BPB constitute a B streak but not now)

The purpose to adopt the BBP betting plan is not to catch endless winning sequences but to allow the random flow to enter into a mechanical no brainer plan.

I couldn't care less if the actual shoe is producing a lot of consecutive PPB sequences (just to respond to another member). I simply don't chase consecutive negative patterns.

Surely itlr for every PPB pattern there will be a higher amount of BBP counterparts.

We can even write a perfect losing shoe as PPB, PPB, BPB, PPB, PPB, BBB, PPB, PPB, PPB, PPB....

That is: - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - + + - - - - - - - - - - - - -

30 hands, 3 W and 27 L. It's a 4.89 sr deviation.

If we cut off the very first hand, now the shoe will show as:

PBP, PBB, PBP, PBP, PBB, BBP, PBP, PBP, PBP, PB....

That is: - + + - + - - + + - + + - + - + + + - + + - + + - + + - +

29 hands, 18 W and 11 L.

Look at the number of doubles: they are equal on both scenarios (actually first sequence contains 9 vs 8 because of a supplemental hand).

We see that the removal of just one hand has affected a lot of the actual outcomes.

Let's see if the shoe is particularly "strong" on one side.

If Banker strong, no problem no matter how is the point we start to register our 3-hand patterns.

As we'll get a lot of consecutive winning hands anyway.

Now a Player strong shoe portion as:

PPP, PBB, PPP, PPP, PPB, PPP, BPP, PPB, PPP, PPB, PPP, PBP (Venetian, 02/22/2016)

- - + - + - - - + - - + - - - - - + + - + - - - - - + - - - - - + - + +

One would wonder how many bets could be won just betting P side.

However and since such kind of shoes are not the rule (otherwise everyone would be easily wealthy), I'd think the opposite way.

My chart suggests that after a + sign the most likely hand is a - sign. Notice that there are no consecutive ++ patterns.

Moreover a winning sequence must start with a winning hand and no matter how you dissect this shoe there are very few of them.

Again, we can't humanly interfere with a random process and we can't be good by simply following patterns either.

The truth may be right in the middle.

You have seen that just a single hand had completely changed the outcomes, yet the hands succession was identical.

The easiest way to win at this game without any expertise (if it exists) is by hoping to catch long streaks, strong dominances or HUMANLY detectable patterns. Those are only fallacies as the game is just a random machine with ups and downs.

Unfortunately statistics tell us that after 4-5 shoes almost every player is down. But not down by a mere 1.2% or so cut.

If our strategic plan would dictate to be ahead after 4-5 shoes played, nobody would wager a lot of bets. And such 4-5 shoes could be considered as one session or as 4-5 distinct dayly or monthly sessions.

Think about the probability to be ahead after 50, 100 or more sessions.

as.

.