+ Register

[Babu]

I'm gonna pony up the streaks distribution stat for the 8 decks baccarats shoe in hopes some of you cats will find it useful, hey hey.

singles-17.8
doubles-8.7
triples-5.2
fours-1.9

fives or more-2.1

Any style of play will cause you to have serious downdraws. From my experience a cat could get clipped for 200-300 unit in the short term bucking up against the anti-streak style. But, over the long term the results using anti-streak smooth out and make it a good, but slow earner, hey hey.

That maybe be the distribution for a lot of 8 deck shoes but if you play 8 plus shoes a day, you will know that this not the distribution for all shoes.  There will be shoes consisting of two 5 streaks, 2 6 streaks and a few streaks greater than 6 for example.

Regardless of how you manage your money or use martingale for anti-streak, the end result is a fail if you play enough shoes.  This applies to those waiting after 4 or 5 streaks to do anti-streak or chop.  Here is the exact reason:

According to your distribution, singles, doubles and shorter streaks happen more frequent.  Here is where a lot of people don't see.  There are just the same amount of singles as there are doubles since streaks of 3s contain doubles, streaks of 4s contain doubles, streaks of 5 contain doubles and so on.  If you add all those doubles, it will very closely equal to singles.  You can also go up the later and compare doubles with streaks of 3s and so on.  This is why every bet is only a difference of a little over 1%. 

This is why those claiming to win anti-streaking is lying.  Same goes to those claiming success by following streaks and chops for the LONG RUN

[soxfan]

That maybe be the distribution for a lot of 8 deck shoes but if you play 8 plus shoes a day, you will know that this not the distribution for all shoes.  There will be shoes consisting of two 5 streaks, 2 6 streaks and a few streaks greater than 6 for example.

Regardless of how you manage your money or use martingale for anti-streak, the end result is a fail if you play enough shoes.  This applies to those waiting after 4 or 5 streaks to do anti-streak or chop.  Here is the exact reason:

According to your distribution, singles, doubles and shorter streaks happen more frequent.  Here is where a lot of people don't see.  There are just the same amount of singles as there are doubles since streaks of 3s contain doubles, streaks of 4s contain doubles, streaks of 5 contain doubles and so on.  If you add all those doubles, it will very closely equal to singles.  You can also go up the later and compare doubles with streaks of 3s and so on.  This is why every bet is only a difference of a little over 1%. 

This is why those claiming to win anti-streaking is lying.  Same goes to those claiming success by following streaks and chops for the LONG RUN

Wrong, the streaks distribution are AVERAGES that play out true over time. In the short term you can get clipped but over time the result smooth out and you can count on them. That's why anti-streak style is the only mechanical style that will win regular and well, hey hey.

[alrelax]

That maybe be the distribution for a lot of 8 deck shoes but if you play 8 plus shoes a day, you will know that this not the distribution for all shoes.  There will be shoes consisting of two 5 streaks, 2 6 streaks and a few streaks greater than 6 for example.

Regardless of how you manage your money or use martingale for anti-streak, the end result is a fail if you play enough shoes.  This applies to those waiting after 4 or 5 streaks to do anti-streak or chop.  Here is the exact reason:

According to your distribution, singles, doubles and shorter streaks happen more frequent.  Here is where a lot of people don't see.  There are just the same amount of singles as there are doubles since streaks of 3s contain doubles, streaks of 4s contain doubles, streaks of 5 contain doubles and so on.  If you add all those doubles, it will very closely equal to singles.  You can also go up the later and compare doubles with streaks of 3s and so on.  This is why every bet is only a difference of a little over 1%. 

This is why those claiming to win anti-streaking is lying.  Same goes to those claiming success by following streaks and chops for the LONG RUN

Exactly right!

That is why I have wrote extensively about 'following the shoe', which does not mean---to follow only a streak with repeats, etc.  It means--following the shoe no matter if it is strong, weak or in-between.  That is the way that the real money is made at the bac tables.

[Patience777]

Wrong, the streaks distribution are AVERAGES that play out true over time. In the short term you can get clipped but over time the result smooth out and you can count on them. That's why anti-streak style is the only mechanical style that will win regular and well, hey hey.

You are 100% correct soxfan!

I have had 5 step anti-streak martys win 156  straight times before on choppy tables. 

[Babu]

Wrong, the streaks distribution are AVERAGES that play out true over time. In the short term you can get clipped but over time the result smooth out and you can count on them. That's why anti-streak style is the only mechanical style that will win regular and well, hey hey.

That's only if you limit yourself to the number of anti-streak that you will be doing.  If you plan to ant-streak all the way, you'll meet your doom in the end.

One thing to remember.  Babu is never wrong.   

[Jimske]

Soxfan

singles-17.8
doubles-8.7
triples-5.2
fours-1.9
fives or more-2.1

Sputnik

I like the basic and the principal behind the NOR method from BTC

For those who may not know NOR follows the flow by ascertaining the run distribution as either Neutral, Opposite, Repeat (NOR).  Further, a suggested bet selection would be OTBL for N; OLD for O; FLD for R.  Simple enough.  Could also eliminate betting into N and wait for the imbalance to go to O or R. 

There are no leadng indicators.  It's just a benchmark to maintain focus.  The rest is betting and bankroll.  At some point guessing the bias to continue will pay off.

One might think that most shoes would show a significant bias but surprisingly many shoes end up very close to the averages.