+ Register

[roversi13]

I read very often that waiting for a strong deviation and then bet for the reduction of this deviation is a very clever bet.
NO!
Suppose that in a given shoe P has a strong deviation(4 SD) vs Bank,that is in 50 hands P occurred 38 times and B 12 times.
Very rare,but already seen.....
In the situation above ,you start betting B and here the next decisions:
PBPBPBPBPB...
SD reduced,but you have not won,you have lost 5% on Bank

[AsymBacGuy]

I read very often that waiting for a strong deviation and then bet for the reduction of this deviation is a very clever bet.
NO!
Suppose that in a given shoe P has a strong deviation(4 SD) vs Bank,that is in 50 hands P occurred 38 times and B 12 times.
Very rare,but already seen.....
In the situation above ,you start betting B and here the next decisions:
PBPBPBPBPB...
SD reduced,but you have not won,you have lost 5% on Bank

Hi roversi!

Exactly.

First, the B/P gap is the worst parameter to get any hint from.
Itlr B>P, still after dozens (or hundreds) of shoes we may easily get B<P.

After a 4 or higher sr deviation, there's no evidence that in the short run B or P will balance a previous deficit as most of the times B/P are fighting by a coin flip struggle. That's an unbeatable struggle.
We should say that the probability that a 4 sr deviation will increase to higher values is less pronounced than a RTM effect will take place.

But as you know very well, there's no a single possibility to get a 4 sr deviation on P 3+s vs P doubles after 10 or more shoes. No one, believe me.

And many other opposite situations are coming in handy for us.

as.