AssymBacGuy I have a method based upon this principals, it dictates to wait for two doubles to hit, then bet for 3+ for the next three coming doubles.
So you betting against five doubles to show in a row without hitting a 3+.

Now I want to grasp your method and fully understand your concept.
You say that we should use a 1-2 progression, what do you mean by that, should we wait for two doubles to hit before attacking against four in a row or do you mean we should start after one fictive double and bet against three doubles not becoming 3+.

Cheers

So AS, I am still confounded as to what you mean by wait for a 12 or 21 on P.  Now Sputnik seems to  interpret your meaning a little different.

Do you mind clarifying?

J

Jimski I am not talking about P single or double P after 3+ I talk about the doubles method.

Quote
PPP (LL)
B
PPPP (LL)
BB
PPPPP (LL)
BBB
P (W)
B
PPPPPPP (LL)
BB
P (W)
B
PP (LW)
BBBB
P (W)
BB
P (W)
BBBB
PPPP (LL)

My note ...
Lugi post this shoe and AsumBagGuy give a clear explanation and I follow and understand.

Quote
In the shoe you posted Lugi (thanks for your interest) and not taking into account additional important shoe per shoe long term statistical situations, I would have won every hand with my #2 plan.

First BB is followed by BBB (W)

Second BB is followed by B (W)

Third BB is followed by BBBB (W)

This is just a "normal" deviation as a fictional player betting after any B double against another B double is W=3 and L=0

When I read this I understand that he only played for three doubles in a row, one double as a trigger and the other two should become 3+
Using 1-2 progression or multilayered progression.

Quote
Notice that a second fictional player betting against a BB, BB sequence hadn't the opportunity to bet and the same is true for a fictional player betting against a third BB, BB, BB sequence.

After the cutoff point of BB, BB, BB my plan is over, I'm not chasing or hoping to get situations coming out very unlikely. (Strings of 5, 6 or more B doubles could come out sooner or later.

Quote from: Sputnik on October 06, 2018, 01:08:14 PM
AssymBacGuy I have a method based upon this principals, it dictates to wait for two doubles to hit, then bet for 3+ for the next three coming doubles.
So you betting against five doubles to show in a row without hitting a 3+.

Now I want to grasp your method and fully understand your concept.
You say that we should use a 1-2 progression, what do you mean by that, should we wait for two doubles to hit before attacking against four in a row or do you mean we should start after one fictive double and bet against three doubles not becoming 3+.

Cheers

Hi Sputnik!

Think as any single shoe as a matter of "space". Yoiu won't necessarily know which side will be winning next. Who cares?
We only need to "guess"  the lenght of W/L spaces.
What not happened so far could present next at various degrees of probability, depending how and how much such deviations had valued in the past.
Therefore, if we want to adopt a 1-2 progression we need to know that a larger quantity than 50% must be winning on the very first step of the progression. I mean the second bet is just a back-up.
Of course, adopting a 1-2 progression will put the house at a math disadvantage as itlr 75% is larger than 25%.
Trying to get more profitable winning opportunities (for example adopting a 1-2-4 progression) will put us at a logarithmic larger risk as now we're betting after two consecutive losses. And it's more difficult to get back 7 units than 3 units.

The average probability to get certain patterns is always the same, but notice that whenever a given pattern had come out it tends to repeat in the same shoe more often than not.

In a perfect world, 3+s should come out by a 1/3 cadence, a thing that almost always never happens.
Yet card distributions favoring 3+s at the start of the shoe are more likely to produce certain patterns not just by quality but by quantity.

The consecutiveness of patterns wasn't studied in detail by anyone and all "bac experts" forgot to assess the general probability to consider any single shoe as a distinct entity from the whole. As every single shoe is a finite and card dependent shoe.

I mean that some previous dispositions could tell us what's the future more likely distribution any shoe will take.

Thus there's no one single and univocal trigger plan to follow.

as.

Quote from: Sputnik on October 06, 2018, 06:55:00 PM
Jimski I am not talking about P single or double P after 3+ I talk about the doubles method.

My note ...
Lugi post this shoe and AsumBagGuy give a clear explanation and I follow and understand.


When I read this I understand that he only played for three doubles in a row, one double as a trigger and the other two should become 3+
Using 1-2 progression or multilayered progression.

I wasn't clear.  Not asking about the progression.  Was a little confused as to the P12 pattern.  Re-reading I see that we wait for a confirmed P1 or P2 and only a 3+ breaks the pattern. 

Small sample 30 shoes using 12 prog gains .87 units/per shoe and 66% shoe win rate.  It's apparent that this little method will do real well when singles are about average or more than average.  Conversely a shoe with a dearth of 1's will fair poorly generally.