Let's trace some technical elements again by considering streaks.
Streaks are patterns made by a multistep probability floating around the "back-to-back" same side (widely intended) apparition.
Nothing wrong by limiting the bac outcomes into streaks (so ignoring singles).
Then all possible streaks will be classified within the 2-5 range, so considering irrelevant all streaks superior than 5.
That's the range our algos are interested upon.
Now algos want to be instructed about the "maximum positive or negative value" every streak class (2, 3, 4 or 5) will appear per every shoe dealt.
Of course not giving a damn about previous shoes as each shoe is a world apart.
Say we'd assign a correspondent number to every streak belonging to the 2,3,4 or 5(5+) class.
If we'd sum up the two last streak numbers we'll get those three situations:
1) The value remains still (for example a 2-3-2 streak succession (sum=5) or a 2-2 (sum=4) or 3-3 (sum=6), etc.
2) The value will increase (any streak followed by a superior streak)
3) The value will decrease (any streak followed by an inferior streak).
Obviously not every situation will make the next sum belonging to every different category.
For example a 2 streak apparition must only produce an increasing or still sum.
3s and 4s will make any scenario possible and 5(5+) cannot increase their value (either they stay put or decreasing the sum), a banal specular situation happening at 2s.
Therefore we might think about how are the best and worst possible events making such sums to be decreased (2s if no 2 happened) or 5(5+)s (if no 5-5+ streak happened).
In addition, we want to get at our favor all the possible situations making a still sum (so a back-to-back same streak apparition).
The luxury tool we rely upon is that 5/5+ streaks are well determined in their apparition (that is by their density average apparition along any shoe dealt), 3s and 4s streaks are very common to show up and itlr doubles are the most likely streak shape any BP distribution will provide.
In a word, streaks distribution (providing a proper random walks action) will make more probable to get decreasing or still sums (5/5+ streaks aside) of two adjacent events than increasing values.
That's just a general propensity that must be evaluated by how the actual shoe is doing.
In fact most of the times sums are in direct relationship of the previous specific streak classes appearance, in the sense that we do not want to chase doubles when no double had come out so far and at the same time we must always be prepared to face the inevitable 5/5+ streaks erasing any decreasing or still sum (yet at an interesting portion of the shoes they won't come out a single time!).
Putting things into numbers
Since we have learnt here that it's way better to chase the model NOT to provide expected numbers (or situations) at two consecutive betting steps, we should assess how many decreasing/still/increasing sums will happen along any shoe dealt.
Obviously by betting (or fictionally betting) two situations out of three (when applicable), that is wagering towards still or decreasing sums, we'll get a better idea about how bac things work itlr.
Let's take the above presented shoe registered in real time at a online site.
As already sayed, we're just considering streaks as numbers.
First by the common Big Road sequence, then by our main algo and finally by our backup algo.
1) BR sequence
3,2,3,4,4,2,3,2,3,3,3,4,2,4,2,2,3,2.
Sums are 5, 5, 7, 8, 6, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 6, 6, 6, 4, 5, 5.
2) Our main algorithm:
3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 5, 2.
Sums are: 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 7, 10, 7.
3) Backup algorithm:
2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5+, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3.
Sums are 5, 5, 5, 7, 9, 10, 9, 8, 6, 5, 6.
This shoe (bad manually shuffled) was pretty good as no "boundaries" (5/5+ streaks) happened at BR sequence; moreover at our main algo registration the couple of 5/5+ streaks were fortunately coming around clustered giving plenty of room to inferior streak classes to show up (here by a consistent clustered doubles appearance).
Backup algo (despite of crossing just one 5/5+ streak, went more badly as most sums did increase their value than lowering it).
But it's not a coincidence that the main algo will get way better results than the backup one.
Anyway and putting the main and backup algos into the decreasing (D), still (S) or increasing (I) sums (stopping when a 5/5+ streak happened and waiting for an inferior streak class to show up) we got:
main algo: D, S, S, S, S, S, S, S, S, I (stop)
backup algo: S, S, S, I, I, (stop), D, D, D, D.
Just for curiosity let's see how the BR succession performed:
S, I, I, D, D, S, S, I, S, I, D, S, S, D, I, S.
Notice how different went the three different successions but focus about how's easy to spot what are the most likely occurences to look for.
Now we are quite sure best ATM in the world are casinos offering baccarat tables (at least as long as the global warming effect won't cancel the human species from this planet, and unfortunately this thing will happen very very soon)
as.
Streaks are patterns made by a multistep probability floating around the "back-to-back" same side (widely intended) apparition.
Nothing wrong by limiting the bac outcomes into streaks (so ignoring singles).
Then all possible streaks will be classified within the 2-5 range, so considering irrelevant all streaks superior than 5.
That's the range our algos are interested upon.
Now algos want to be instructed about the "maximum positive or negative value" every streak class (2, 3, 4 or 5) will appear per every shoe dealt.
Of course not giving a damn about previous shoes as each shoe is a world apart.
Say we'd assign a correspondent number to every streak belonging to the 2,3,4 or 5(5+) class.
If we'd sum up the two last streak numbers we'll get those three situations:
1) The value remains still (for example a 2-3-2 streak succession (sum=5) or a 2-2 (sum=4) or 3-3 (sum=6), etc.
2) The value will increase (any streak followed by a superior streak)
3) The value will decrease (any streak followed by an inferior streak).
Obviously not every situation will make the next sum belonging to every different category.
For example a 2 streak apparition must only produce an increasing or still sum.
3s and 4s will make any scenario possible and 5(5+) cannot increase their value (either they stay put or decreasing the sum), a banal specular situation happening at 2s.
Therefore we might think about how are the best and worst possible events making such sums to be decreased (2s if no 2 happened) or 5(5+)s (if no 5-5+ streak happened).
In addition, we want to get at our favor all the possible situations making a still sum (so a back-to-back same streak apparition).
The luxury tool we rely upon is that 5/5+ streaks are well determined in their apparition (that is by their density average apparition along any shoe dealt), 3s and 4s streaks are very common to show up and itlr doubles are the most likely streak shape any BP distribution will provide.
In a word, streaks distribution (providing a proper random walks action) will make more probable to get decreasing or still sums (5/5+ streaks aside) of two adjacent events than increasing values.
That's just a general propensity that must be evaluated by how the actual shoe is doing.
In fact most of the times sums are in direct relationship of the previous specific streak classes appearance, in the sense that we do not want to chase doubles when no double had come out so far and at the same time we must always be prepared to face the inevitable 5/5+ streaks erasing any decreasing or still sum (yet at an interesting portion of the shoes they won't come out a single time!).
Putting things into numbers
Since we have learnt here that it's way better to chase the model NOT to provide expected numbers (or situations) at two consecutive betting steps, we should assess how many decreasing/still/increasing sums will happen along any shoe dealt.
Obviously by betting (or fictionally betting) two situations out of three (when applicable), that is wagering towards still or decreasing sums, we'll get a better idea about how bac things work itlr.
Let's take the above presented shoe registered in real time at a online site.
As already sayed, we're just considering streaks as numbers.
First by the common Big Road sequence, then by our main algo and finally by our backup algo.
1) BR sequence
3,2,3,4,4,2,3,2,3,3,3,4,2,4,2,2,3,2.
Sums are 5, 5, 7, 8, 6, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7, 6, 6, 6, 4, 5, 5.
2) Our main algorithm:
3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 5, 2.
Sums are: 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 7, 10, 7.
3) Backup algorithm:
2, 3, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5+, 4, 4, 2, 3, 3.
Sums are 5, 5, 5, 7, 9, 10, 9, 8, 6, 5, 6.
This shoe (bad manually shuffled) was pretty good as no "boundaries" (5/5+ streaks) happened at BR sequence; moreover at our main algo registration the couple of 5/5+ streaks were fortunately coming around clustered giving plenty of room to inferior streak classes to show up (here by a consistent clustered doubles appearance).
Backup algo (despite of crossing just one 5/5+ streak, went more badly as most sums did increase their value than lowering it).
But it's not a coincidence that the main algo will get way better results than the backup one.
Anyway and putting the main and backup algos into the decreasing (D), still (S) or increasing (I) sums (stopping when a 5/5+ streak happened and waiting for an inferior streak class to show up) we got:
main algo: D, S, S, S, S, S, S, S, S, I (stop)
backup algo: S, S, S, I, I, (stop), D, D, D, D.
Just for curiosity let's see how the BR succession performed:
S, I, I, D, D, S, S, I, S, I, D, S, S, D, I, S.
Notice how different went the three different successions but focus about how's easy to spot what are the most likely occurences to look for.
Now we are quite sure best ATM in the world are casinos offering baccarat tables (at least as long as the global warming effect won't cancel the human species from this planet, and unfortunately this thing will happen very very soon)
as.