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.