+ Register

[AsymBacGuy]

This system (FS) originally invented for roulette several years ago is a mix between a mechanical betting (MB) method and a trend following (TF) method.
It produced a 4800 winning units over 200.000 real observed/played hands by flat betting.

It involves 5 different attacks.

1- After any 3+ series interrupted by the other chance, the system dictates to bet the dominant chance just one time.
So after a BBBP or PPPB sequence (and longer first streaks) we have to bet the dominant chance just one time (respectively B and P) . Winning or losing we stop the bet.

2- Everytime we'll look at a 3 streak, we'll bet just one time on the same side, hoping to get a 4+ streak.
If we win we'll stop the betting, if we lose we bet again the same side as the #1 attack will dictate.

3-  Whenever any symmetrical pattern will take place, we'll bet to get more symmetrical patterns but the lower symmetrical patterns will get the priority over the larger ones.

Examples:

after BBPP we'll bet B;

after PPBPBPP we'll bet B

after PPBBBPP we'll bet B

after PPPBPBPBPPP we'll bet B;

after BBBPPP we had to bet B but if we lost (BBBPPPP) and whenever we have a BBBPPPPBBB sequence we'll bet P chance.

So any previous exact 3 streak apperance we'll bet toward another exact same side 3 streak apperance and so on.

4- Two's consecutive sequences.

Everytime we'll look at two consecutive doubles we'll bet toward the 2s apperance.
Examples:

BPBPPBB now we bet P and then P. Whether a PP comes out we'll continue to bet toward BB then PP and so on.

Everytime we'll lose a bet we stop the betting unless we'll get a 3 sequence where we utilize the attack #1. If we get a single we'll wait another possible 2-2 sequence or a 3 streak dictating to bet the #1 attack.

5- If we'll encounter a single-double occurence we'll bet toward having more single-double occurences. The betting stop will be established after a double apperance on the "wrong side".
Then we'll restart the betting if the doubles and singles are coming up on the opposite side betting accordingly. Of course after a 3+ streak, we go back to the #2 attack.

Examples.

PPBPP we bet B then PP and then B PP B PP and so on.

In a word, we hope to get:

- More dominant patterns after any 3+ streak followed by a single counterpart had come out;

- More 3+s than 3s streaks on either side;

- More symmetrical patterns than other asymmetrical ones;

- More doubles consecutive apperance than any other pattern (if the doubles are followed by a 3+ streak we'll get almost even)

- More one side shifted singles-doubles apperance than any other patterns.


In a word, the original author assumed that some 50/50 patterns will get a clustered slight higher deviation amount than the opposite counterparts.

We all know that he was wrong and that he got positive results just by a short term working factor.

Yet and regarding baccarat his study might be of some help, as we all know that #1 and #2 attacks will show a slight better expectancy on one side, #3 and #4 attacks are more difficult to happen but sooner or later they will; and that the #5 scenario is by far the most likely occurence on one side.

Imo this could be a decent way to register and assess the possible results, as the whole system couldn't be disappointed for long on the five different multiple attacks. Especially if simultaneuosly considered. 

as.   
     

 

   

 


   

[AsymBacGuy]

We easily see that adopting this system and its invariable fluctuations we might grasp the spots where we could get some betting hints.

We know that itlr 3 streaks are more or less likely than 3+ streaks on one side; we know that a dominant side sooner or later will take place; we know that 2s are coming more often than singles on one side and more often than 3s on the other one; we know that some symmetrical spots will take the place along the way; we know that singles and doubles are more prevalent than any other pattern on one side and many other times also on the other one (along with certain other events).
The perfect equilibrium of multiple spots isn't the rule by any means.

as.   

 

[Garfield]

There some thought I always think about regarding trending. Why should we observe only the main road? We also have derived roads.

The derived roads also might show some pattern/trending/one side dominant as the main road. Then do we only focus to main road only? Because some time the derived roads pattern will lead to random result in the main road.

I believed Lung Yeh have some opinion about this. Also would like to hear the XCalifDealer have to say.

[AsymBacGuy]

Yep, of course. Any shoe could provide an almost infinite amount of derived roads. 

Once I encountered a player who registered the outcomes related to the color of the first card dealt. Hence he classified the results into four distinct columns: red-banker, red-player, black-banker, black-player.
In her opinion such registration would help her to spot the "hot and cold" columns.

The tricks invented to get something from the game are endless.

as.   

     







 

[mahatma]

The tricks invented to get something from the game are endless.

Yes indeed and all equally meaningless.