Mathematically our long term EV is in direct relationship between asym and sym betting ranges.

For example, say a portion of the shoe presents eight straight sym hands and the actual outcomes of those sym hands are producing an eight Banker streak.

If we were betting Banker each hand belonging to this streak we may think to be lucky or geniuses. Actually we are severely losing money.

On the other hand, the same sym 8-hand pattern could form a Player streak of the same lenght and now a steady Player betting cannot get us other than a zero negative edge at least.

Since the probability to get one of the possible 256 different BP patterns on those sym situations remains the same, it's quite obvious that there's no point to bet Banker at any of those eight sym hands.

Thus the Banker side should be wagered just about the probability to form or not an asym hand among a very restricted range of hands.

This one is the only wise math approach working itlr as the math advantage must overcome the negative HE.

We should remember again that most asym hands edge comes from 5s and 4s Banker initial points and, at a lesser degree. from 3s.

Think that many Banker 5s and 4s initial points will cross standing/natural Player situations, therefore transforming potential shifted events (that is asym hands) into mere symmetrical circumstances.

In some way we could infer that the probability to form a 4 or 5 Banker initial point is somewhat dependent about the previous situations and we should always be focused about the mere asym/sym probability.

Let's say that as long as no 4 or 5 (and, at a lesser degree a 3 point) Banker initial point will be formed, we are betting a close to zero negative edge game when wagering P side.

In any case, we want to add a further parameter, that is how asym hands went in our shoe.

Say we know for sure that the actual shoe is presenting such sequence (S= symmetrical hands and N= non symmetrical hands):

S-S-S-S-N-S-N-S-S-S-S-N-N-S-S-S-S-S-S-N-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-N-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-N-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-N-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

The are no other perfect plays than wagering Banker at hands #5, #7, #12, #13, #20, #28, #42, #64.

For now we cannot care less about the real BP outcomes, after all the winning probability of such sequence is a long math proposition of 0.5 (S) and 0.5793 (N) events.

Quite likely not every N spot will form a Banker hand, not mentioning that at S spots everything will be possible.

Now let's compare the same deck N or S situations with the new distribution.

Of course the probability to get the exact N or S distribution will be zero and, by an obvious higher degree, the same results.

Nonetheless, the clustering N or S effect will seem to remain the same as cards tend not to be properly shuffled.

It's like playing a game where we might be very very slight favored or hugely favored at various degrees, totally getting rid of the potential situation to find ourselves facing the exact counterparts.

as.