QuoteWhat's this (I mean the numbers)?

1-10 (Strong and Follow whatever is appearing)

11-16 (Stronger or Immediately turning weak and follow)

as.

The numbers represent Hands 1-10 and Hands 11-16 (although probably should be 11-20). 

I have witnessed the highest amount of strong hands/events occurring from jump street within the shoe, as well as subsiding.

Also in addition, Fortune 7s appearing.  At least for 1 or 2.

That is where I get those two sets of numbers and what they designate. 

Ok thanks!!!
It's an issue we agreed with KFB too.

as.

Limiting the field of operations is one of the key to try to beat this game.

Suppose you want to only consider doubles vs superior streaks so singles and 3+ streaks won't be included in our plan.

Is it a good move to hope that doubles or superior streaks simply considered will be distributed in such a controllable way that some unlikely successions won't knock out our plan sooner or later?

That's impossible.
We can't allow those natural (albeit unlikely) card distributions forming endless double or superior streaks successions capable to destroy our plan.
On the other end trying to stubbornly get the best of those unlikely univocal successions will make the casinos' fortune as they are too rare to be exploited.

Example.

Say we want to bet that the very first pattern of every shoe dealt will be a double OR a superior streak. It's not important the real nature of such streak, we want to check how many times a double or a superior streak will start the shoe distribution at any of the innumerable sub successions.
Since doubles=superior streaks and as math teaches us that no matter when we consider a 50/50 spot the probability remains the same, sooner or later we should encounter a 12-15 or greater homogeneous streaks distribution getting a 12/0, 15/0 or even 20/0 ratio.

Now let's consider what happens next after a starting double or a starting superior streak situation per every shoe dealt. That is we want to assess the very second streak nature limited within the "double/superior streak" category.
Our data suggest that the probability that the second streak will be completely independent from the previous one (so getting the common sd values applied to an independent 50/50 proposition) is not so unguessable as many experts keep stating.

More later

as.

Let's consider the doubles/superior streaks patterns regarding the first and the second situation showing up per every shoe dealt. 2= double, 3=superior streak
Here's a brief real shoes sample. First sequence is the natural B/P succession, second succession is our main random walk:

01) 3-3; 3-2

02) 2-2; 3-2

03) 2-2; 3-2

04) 3-2; 2-3

05) 3-3; 3-2

06) 3-2; 2-3

07) 2-3; 2-3

08) 3-2; 3-2

09) 2-2; 3-2

10) 3-2; 2-3

11) 3-2; 3-3

12) 2-2; 3-2

13) 2-2; 2-3

14) 3-2; 2-3

15) 3-2; 2-2

16) 2-3; 2-2

17) 3-3; 2-3

18) 3-3; 3-2

19) 2-2; 2-3

20) 2-2; 2-2

21) 2-3; 2-2

22) 2-2; 2-2

23) 3-2; 3-2

24) 3-3; 2-2

25) 2-3; 3-2

26) 3-3; 2-3

27) 2-3; 3-2

28) 2-2; 3-3

29) 2-3; 3-2

30) 3-3; 3-2

31) 3-3; 3-2

32) 2-2; 2-3

33) 2-2; 2-3

34) 3-2; 3-3

35) 3-3; 3-2

36) 3-2; 2-3

37) 2-2; 3-2

38) 3-2; 2-2

39) 3-2; 2-3

40) 3-2; 3-2

41) 2-2; 3-2

42) 2-2; 3-2

43) 3-3; 2-2

44) 2-3; 3-2

45) 3-3; 3-2

46) 3-2; 2-3

47) 3-2; 3-2

48) 3-3; 2-3

49) 2-2; 2-3

50) 2-3; 2-3

51) 2-2; 3-2

52) 3-3; 3-3

53) 3-2; 3-2

54) 3-2; 3-2

55) 2-2; 3-3

56) 3-3; 3-2

57) 2-2; 2-3

58) 2-2; 2-3

59) 2-3; 2-3

60) 3-2; 3-3

61) 2-2; 2-2

62) 3-2; 2-2

63) 3-3; 3-2

64) 2-2; 2-3

65) 3-3; 3-3

66) 2-2; 3-3

67) 2-3; 3-2

68) 2-2; 2-3

69) 2-2; 3-3

70) 3-3; 3-3

71) 3-3; 3-3

72) 2-2; 3-3

73) 2-2; 3-3

74) 3-2; 3-3

75) 2-2; 3-3

76) 2-2; 3-2

77) 2-2; 3-2

78) 2-2; 2-2

79) 2-2; 3-2

80) 2-3; 3-2

81) 3-3; 2-3

82) 3-3; 3-3

83) 3-3; 2-3

84) 2-2; 2-3

85) 2-3; 3-3

86) 3-3; 3-3

87) 2-2; 2-2

88) 2-3; 3-2

89) 2-2; 3-3

90) 3-2; 3-2

91) 2-3; 2-2

92) 2-3; 3-3

93) 2-3; 3-3

94) 3-2; 2-3

95) 3-2; 2-3

96) 2-2; 3-3

97) 2-2; 2-2

98) 3-3; 3-3

99) 2-3; 3-2

100) 3-3; 2-2

101) 2-3; 2-3

102) 3-3; 2-2

103) 3-2; 3-2

104) 2-3; 2-3

105) 3-2; 2-2

106) 3-2; 3-3

107) 3-2; 2-3

108) 2-2; 3-2

109) 2-3; 2-3

110) 3-2; 2-3

111) 3-2; 3-2

112) 3-3; 3-3

113) 2-3; 2-3

114) 3-3; 2-3

115) 2-3; 3-2

116) 2-3; 3-3

117) 2-3; 3-2

Out of 117 couple of doublets, the first succession formed 63 homogeneous patterns (D-D or S-S) and 54 heterogeneous patterns (S-D or D-S); the second succession formed 43 homogeneous patterns and 74 heterogeneous patterns.

Overall there are 26 situations where BOTH doublets will get an homogeneous pattern (2-2, 2-2 or 3-3, 3-3), thus the remaining 91 events will present a heterogeneous pattern more probable at our random walk.

Obviously there's no a guaranteed rhythm to rely upon, but if a kind of propensity is entitled to show up it'll be by longer positive sequences than negative ones and of course by shorter negative events than expected by a "unguessable" proposition.

The concept could be applied to any BP sequence linked to the CR road or, at a lesser extent, to the small road.

As long as any new hand will not be supposed to provide a conflicting event among different roads, heterogeneous events will cumulatively (slightly) overwhelm the remaining possibilities.

as.

QuoteFirst sequence is the natural B/P succession, second succession is our main random walk:

What you mean by "our main random walk"?

You observe the first pair of series of 2 Vs Larger Series, and the pair after that is what you consider to be, more often than not, different from the first pair formed?

Hi AJ!

There are infinite ways to consider a coin flip succession: of course no matter how we operate, itlr everything will follow a 50/50 statistical probability. Thus no way to beat it, EV=0. If the game is taxed (what happens at every casino game), EV will be negative.

But at baccarat the card distribution is asymmetrical and finite, rules dictate that sometimes one side is more probable than the other one and the asymmetrical pace of key cards will affect a large part of the more likely patterns distribution.
That means (at least in our opinion) that bac successions (shoes) are "biased" at some points, so the idea that each new hand is completely independent from the previous one(s) is totally wrong.

Most hands are unguessable but not EVERY hand is unguessable. More precisely, many hand ranges MUST follow sooner or later a kind of propensity. A thing that we had discovered by running infinite random walks (mechanical betting) applied to the same shoe successions in order to dispute the common knowledge stating that baccarat results follow a kind of 50/50 INDEPENDENT proposition.
Our "main" random walk is the best practical way to get EV+ spots, well knowing that for sure there are better random walks to exploit (yet needing a lot more time to be used).

 
You observe the first pair of series of 2 Vs Larger Series, and the pair after that is what you consider to be, more often than not, different from the first pair formed?

Yes, this might be a relatively exploitable kind of propensity (at least from a sd values point of view), there are many others applied to the class of pairs belonging to the same category.

More later

as.

A proficient random walk must falsify the hypothesis that each new hand will be totally independent from the previous ones.
The doubles vs superior streaks distribution is one of the best examples to provide.

The common denominator is that to be really profitable any random walk must show up more superior streaks than doubles, of course knowing that doubles must come out anyway.
So we must restrict them by a 0 (no apparition), 1 (an isolated double) or 2 (a couple of doubles).

Whenever doubles show up clustered three (or more times) in a row, we'll wait for another double coming out after a superior streak.
And so on.
Superior streaks need to be assessed by a back to back scenario, meaning that isolated superior streaks will be less likely than clustered superior streaks.

Among the four common roads (BR, byb, sr and cr) some roads are better than others in doing this.
It's this difference that counts, the element that helped us to devise what to look for.

as.

So, not chasing anything, looking for most common situations.

 
"meaning that isolated superior streaks will be less likely than clustered superior streaks.-"

Is not in fact the opposite?