......................................

Alrelax is right. What didn't happen so far is less likely to show up as a finite shoe is always a card dependent proposition and vice versa.

Actually and after millions of shoe tested,  the number of situations when consecutive B doubles are followed by single or 2-in a row B doubles are out numbered by the same opposite events.

What didn't happen could happen but what did happen could more easily happen again. Providing a careful classification of what we are registering.

as.     
       

In fact, the presentments (results) are not so clear cut.  Sure--at times the are and that is when you 'pounce on it and pounce, fast & hard' and yet--other times, probably better than 50% of the times you actually play--they are not so clear.

Problem is, we confuse ourselves, with the way I play or even if you have a 'set method' you sit there and watch people winning huge--on long streaks of repeating hands or long and beautiful chop-chop or an extra long doubles, etc.  People get influenced, period.

In so many cases, the match between observations and expectations do not (DO NOT) equal the reality that comes about.  It might for a few hands and then once your confidence builds and builds, it bites you and your mind begins to tell you, "Wager the opposite of what you think and you will certainly win" or, follow the PHO eating chubby Viet guy speaking in broken English about how the dragon's tale is going to be so long, it is a females 'love you long time dream'!!", etc., etc., etc.  You laugh and you place your $100.00 wager and the Viet dude places table max of $5,000.00 and wins.  Then you follow him....................end of my morning story.

Three. four players, experienced or not--talking at the baccarat table.  Right then and there, the smart one will hear only, "We talked and talked and pointed and played.  We won and lost.  We lost and won.  What does it all mean?  We compared different expectations to the same observations and reality produced what some of us thought and as well, produced what some of us did not think". 

BTW, there was this Viet dude at the casino a couple of weeks ago, and he points to the tail forming on the appropriate road on the score board and starts saying, "Love you long time--just like the song--Banker love you long time---wager on it".......

Asym,

Something I wrote elsewhere on the board:

" allowing other players to Influence you. however works both ways and I've had some of my largest wins with camaraderie and unofficial Partnerships where we followed each other at the table and we made consistent wins and avoided losses But be forewarned that easily backfires and causes ill will and a fast decent to losing a buy in as well."

Hi ABG!
What news from LV, getting warmer?
I remember when I was there I was wearing t-shirts on the middle of February and was wondering what happens there during Summer months...I guess you could fry eggs at the desert electricity free!


Back to the topic, I know a lot of things and I want to share them, but why, have you wonder?
It is because I prefer to help persons who, I might don't know personally, but I could walk on their shoes, much better you rather than the casinos.
So yes, I want to rub your victories into their arrogant faces and noses!
All you have to do is to show a little bit of faith, not in me, but mostly in you and what you are doing!


We could summarize the winning rules in 3 sentences}


1) There are 2 kind of probabilities, the sequential which has to do with the order of the results, and the general probability which dictates the averages for every possible event.
When you are talking about steaks & chops then you are speaking about the sequential probability, but this is only half of the whole, the other half has to do with quantities, how many times this event happen, how many times the other...and this is how we determine the degree of deviations from the mean/average.
Here comes the important part so pay attention;
When these 2 kinds of probabilities meet, in other words a single bet would satisfy both of them, this is the strongest bet.
You have 2 categories, in 1 one you count total of streaks VS chops and on the second you count how many times each side (P & B), find the bet which would satisfy BOTH of the requirements SIMULTANEOUSLY!


2) What I consider as the best pattern bet, when we're talking about patterns it means that we are expecting sequences to conform in a certain order of results, is the ANTI-Decision Before Last.
Ain't all patterns, permutations, sequences the same, you might wonder, my answer is no and I'm going to provide you a brief but convincing explanation;
The DBL is expecting to win by finding 1 streak after the other, also 1 chop after the other, thus if sequences don't bring them in bunches it fails, usually that's the case.
We witness a few repeats here, a few chops there and all those 2-3 sets are the most frequent event before eventually a large streak comes, but when it happens is already late!
Therefore, according the sequential probability, a streak of repeats or chops has half chances to reach 3 in a row rather than remaining on 2 in a row.
Of course if we'd accounted for ALL possible streak ranges (3,4,5,6...etc) we would see that are equal to the total streaks of 2 in a row.
In order to have an advantage and not confirm the HE, we HAVE TO assume that after EVERY lost bet, that could be the beginning of 5,10,15,20...etc loses in a row!
This is how we conclude that we must stop immediately after 1 single loss, this way, no matter how long a streak might be, we lose only once per bet occurrence, but the situations which will be wins are twice as much from the 3+ streaks.
That's why ODBL is superior to DBL.


3) Establish a balance checkpoint per 100 results, increase or decrease the amount of bet according to the profit or loss during last 100 decisions.
For 0 change in your balance don't increase/decrease your bets
From  1 up to and including 5 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 10% your bets (for next 100).
From  6 up to and including 10 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 20% your bets (for next 100).
From  11 up to and including 15 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 30% your bets (for next 100).
From  16 up to and including 20 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 40% your bets (for next 100).
From  21 up to and including 25 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 50% your bets (for next 100).
From  26 up to and including 30 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 60% your bets (for next 100).
From  31 up to and including 35 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 70% your bets (for next 100).

From  36 up to and including 40 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 80% your bets (for next 100).

From  41 up to and including 45 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 90% your bets (for next 100).

From  46 up to and including 50 more losses/wins (during last 100) then increase/decrease by 100% your bets (for next 100).


For table minimum 1$ the base bet will be 10$ and recommended BR 1,000$.
For table minimum 5$ the base bet will be 50$ and recommended BR 5,000$.
For table minimum 10$ the base bet will be 100$ and recommended BR 10,000$.
For table minimum 25$ the base bet will be 250$ and recommended BR 25,000$.
For table minimum 100$ the base bet will be 1,000$ and recommended BR 100,000.

After addition/deduction of the percentage which reflects the difference in the base bets, round it up/down to the nearest whole number, for example 14.4 would become 14 and 16.6 would become 17 units base bet.

ABG,
Your bet selection of following 1s and 3+s is nothing more than the avant dernier or Decision Before Last, whether you use for Banker or Player it doesn't really matter.
As everybody with a bit of experience knows the 2s will kill your selection, my suggestion is of common sense because it bets for the 2 streak not to become 3 and according sequential probability the favorable situations will be double from the ones which will reach 3+ and will make us lose.
Still if we would continue betting after the 1st loss till the streak breaks that would be a fatal mistake which would bring us to the House Edge sphere!
But by stopping after the 1st lost bet, every first, we'll have just a reduction of our profit equal approximately to half, this means 50% gain from the total wagering minus Banker's commissions when Banker is bet and wins!
We could apply the same principle with 1s against 2+, again we have double the winning chances, the key is to stop after the 1st loss, every first!


The other selection which I've suggested needs charting rather than a mechanical betting pattern, that's because it counts which side is behind and in combination with which of the Streaks VS Chops is trailing, it selects the bets which cover both trailing categories in one unified bet!
If you go this way then you should also determine what must be the minimum deviation before you start betting, if you'd asked me I'd recommended to be 20 times less accumulatively (from both), or even greater deviation and each one to have at least 10 less difference from the one which is ahead.
If for example there is 20 less difference accumulatively but 1 of them has less than 10 shows difference from the leading, then it would be ok because most important is their accumulative total and not their separate totals.


If you'd asked me which of these 2 selections I consider better, I'd prefer the first for practical convenience, it doesn't need charting, also it doesn't have to wait for something to become "due" before starts betting, it could also be profitable even without Money Management.
This truth doesn't have to be confirmed by playing results because after all is what sequential probability indicates, fact and not opinion.


However, if you still think that your selection is better, then all I've to say is that what you are doing is similar to Sputnik's march and Avant Dernier (DBL) which are failures, are not new, regardless if they can be disguised in new descriptions.
So many persons in this forum and others consider Decision Before Last as the best bet and I'm suggesting you to reconsider it!
It's NOT as good as you think!

In my point of view the anti-DBL is better, in other words the streaks of chops and repeats NOT to exceed 2 in a row.
I'd like to emphasize that it wouldn't be better if we would continue betting till the streak breaks!


Regarding your approach, instead of betting against 2 in a row streaks why not bet against an event which has 1 in 32 probability?
This is 5 in a row streak, while 2 in a row has 1 in 4 probability, thus more frequent and more possible to encounter clustered doubles.
But if you've waited for one 5 in a row streak and then bet against it, that would have much better probability to win.
If the 5 streak occurs on Player bet that the next time the Player will have whether less or more than 5 in a row, this is applied by betting for Banker the first 4 bets (1,2,4,8) and the final 5th bet (16 units) for the player.
The same goes for the Bankers side too, it's not the same like if we were betting from the start against any 5 streak because we are betting against two 5 streaks to happen consecutive times on the same side (any side).

But if you've waited for one 5 in a row streak and then bet against it, that would have much better probability to win.
If the 5 streak occurs on Player bet that the next time the Player will have whether less or more than 5 in a row, this is applied by betting for Banker the first 4 bets (1,2,4,8) and the final 5th bet (16 units) for the player.
The same goes for the Bankers side too, it's not the same like if we were betting from the start against any 5 streak because we are betting against two 5 streaks to happen consecutive times on the same side (any side).

As much as I'm into probability and expectation.  Back to back five by five, or indeed six by six streaks are also not uncommon.  The question is, when they do inevitably happen, 'how many losing bets' will such an event cost me?

By the way, a Martingale should never be considered as a staking option at the Baccarat table.