Yep Al! Still many players like to wager via strong progressions.
Back to the subject.
When we consider two opposing events A and B having the same (or almost the same) probability to appear, we'll expect deviations according to the binomial model.
Such events could be as simple as a Banker or Player hand or highly complicated specific situations (for example what's the next winning hand after a side had won with a natural 7 vs a drawing hand, etc)
No matter how sophisticated is our approach to select two opposing A and B situations, itlr everything will equalize with the well known unbeatable deviations (burdened with the vig).
This is true whether the game is perfectly randomized and it's very difficult to negate that shoes do not present such feature.
Thus in order to try to demonstrate that shoes are not that random, instead of assessing the randomness by statistical tests (chi-square, etc), we should work more empirically, say thinking in more practical terms as it's what really counts.
If I'm able to find out the spots when two opposing situations do not adhere to the common deviations (that is they are more "restricted") I'm on cloud nine.
In fact, there's no way I could spot favourable situations per se, the only hope is to get what I name "limited random walk", a sort of pendulum which moves from the left to the right and vice versa within a restricted range and crossing several times the 0 point.
Since I do not think I'm a genius capable to dispute math laws, the only explanation is that cards distribution of every single shoe couldn't be that random as we think.
Therefore and thanks to my long analysis I dare to state that not every A/B opposing situation will produce the same expected deviations and, more importantly, that not every shoe is playable as some shoes are so polarized at the start that we better get rid off them without betting a dime.
I mean that we can't try to be right on every shoe dealt as many times the possible unrandom effect can't be properly grasped by human eyes.
And this is proven by the fact that no matter how many random walks we wish to set up, a given card distribution will present similar lines on each of them.
Now the question is how to classify a "not playable" shoe.