I've observed that in most shoes approx 75% both P/B c get out 2+
For example though not allowed in many casino to bet both P/B (not that you'd want to, but hear me out) P or B tends to go in the lead at some point from start of shoe. If you were to be on both, (stay with me on this) get out on one side then on the other. only rule when one side hits 3 in a row you stop that side, the other side tends to fight back. Dos not occur on all shoes, 25% of the time one side goes into the lead and the other side does not catch up, though stopping when one side goes 3, you can still get 2+ on both sides on about 10% of the 25%.

This is the first observation. Now I'm not saying to do this it just forms what I've noticed. This could well well with two people, one taking one side and the other person the other side, but consider the following first. In this thought experiment, since one side will go ahead 3+ at some point, you are sure to get out one side.

The second thing I've noticed about 65% of the time is that whatever P/B comes on the first result of a shoe that side tends to take the lead. This is important because it does give you an edge if you wanted to bail out at 2-3+ on that side. Again by applying the stopping at 3 rule though other side may fight back, you can hold in there for 2-3+ easy.

Generally the average one side goes in front is 4+ and you often see 10+ and sometimes more when long runs occur. Thus opting for a fast 3+ on a shoe is realistic.

Now that said, if you dismissed the first result as the side you will stay with, then you have to consider if you opt to go with B all the way to gain your 3+ you have to account for the tax you will have to pay each time you win on B. While this is not a lot over the short term, it does add up over the long term. You might want to go B all the time with about half the time B will be the first result of a shoe, but in any case you might want to go B for the fact that it has a slight edge. But this is only true if you were to say like play 10, 20 or more shoes in a row or non stop one after the other. If you were to just play a few shoes then it's more or less 50/50, I mean the shoes you play could all prove to be P strong ones.

I have thought about this and if I were to opt for one side I would opt the P. why? well first over the long run I'd be saving a lot of tax which will all add up. Also as I wrote in the short term P is just as strong as B, it goes ahead 50% of the time as does B from the start of a shoe. Then it is very easy to remember what to do, you just bet P save when there are three Bs. And P does go ahead of B even by 10 or more. so I would bet for P r the first result. and continue until I got my 3+ units on that shoe. Then I can play the next shoe.

The good thing is about this mode of play is that as I wrote at the start of this post both side tend to go in front on most shoes, this means that even if you went down at the down of a shoe, by sticking with it and using the stop at three rule when the other side B runs, you will stand a very good chance of coming back from loses and going in front.

You could check the first result and go with that side on the bases of what I've written above rather than just taking the side of B or P.

What do other think of the likely hood of success would be?

Glen, Jimske!! This is getting too much! Wth! We having someone who plays the investment markets full time and analyses the baccarat game part time and writes his dreams when he sleeps teaching the fishes how to swim and we indulge his discussions?

Quote from: Lungyeh on June 19, 2017, 02:40:03 AM
Glen, Jimske!! This is getting too much! Wth! We having someone who plays the investment markets full time and analyses the baccarat game part time and writes his dreams when he sleeps teaching the fishes how to swim and we indulge his discussions?

Be that as it may, however contrary to what you state, I do take strategy forming very seriously The fact that discussions are side tracked away from this fact by some including yourself that provoke and engage in mindless comments that are only intended to steer away from baccarat chat. Your post is a typical example of this. It should serve the community better if you and others like you were to concentrate on baccarat if you are even that interested in the game. This is a serious forum intended to discuss all aspects of baccarat and gambling games in general. By continuing to degrade this forum you are therefore damaging it.     

Just FYI. 

Quote from: Lungyeh on June 19, 2017, 02:40:03 AM
Glen, Jimske!! This is getting too much! Wth! We having someone who plays the investment markets full time and analyses the baccarat game part time and writes his dreams when he sleeps teaching the fishes how to swim and we indulge his discussions?

LOL,  Hi BL!  Yeah, just trying to keep it real in my own fashion!  Off for the summer - going to float around a bit.

Stephen Tabone why would you say you need to place two bets to catch imbalance. I reckon if some one want to catch imbalance you need to have a window of events in front of you to determine the variance. Let me illustrate this with one simple example, 14 reds and 2 blacks is 3.0 STDV. Assume i have 7 reds and 1 black in any combination, then if i get two more blacks during the next 7 results i would not reach 3.0 STDV and would have "Regression towards the mean". But if i would bet for imbalance then i would bet against a minimum of three blacks to see the STDV grow stronger.
All of this happens within a window of 16 events.

I assume when you talk about imbalance you might want to define what would be optimal Entering point and for how many attempts or what kind of window of event you talking about to catch imbalance within. That would make things more easy to understand as you would define the variance going for regression or growing stronger based upon your particular march. And you could pin point out exactly what happens if you get regression or the imbalance to grow stronger and explain in detail what happens and what to bet with or against depending you aim to catch regression or imbalance to grow stronger.

Cheers

Stephen was attacked by Jimske many times as everyone can see on other threads. Then Lungyeh jumps on the band wagon. Stephen is a sponsor as others have commented and therefore has the right to promote his book. If some people don't like it then take it up with admin. alrelax, I do not think it right or fair of you to ignore this and support the attackers instigators of chaos. Supporting a charity is neither here nor there, the fact that Lungyeh supports Jimske's childish behavior is the point I believe from reading what Stephen is not happy about. So it it not helpful of you to support those that are not sticking to baccarat and gambling on this forum. Please stop it because you're making yourself look bad.

My latest book is out!!! 2.1 edition which makes my Strategy, Silver Bullet Proof.

You just got to read this book people!!  Get the Kindle guys from here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0741PX6JK/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1500441816&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Ultimate+Silver+Bullet+Proof+Baccarat+Winning+Strategy+2.1

You can get the paperback too from here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1548900613/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1500441816&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=The+Ultimate+Silver+Bullet+Proof+Baccarat+Winning+Strategy+2.1

Amazing stop losses and when to bet again triggers and fantastic cleverly developed tweaks and new chapters on systems and mathematics etc. Happy reading.

Surely will take a look on that !