The above A/B situations were deeply studied after having measured the sd values of many two opposed "complex" patterns reaching quite different values than expected, so the idea so loved by mathematicians that each new hand is EV- no matter what is a total completely bighorn.sh.it.

The sd value is the watchdog of randomness, thus whenever two opposing events will show lower than expected sd values after large trial samples, well we know that sometimes the game stops to be random (that is unbeatable) as some sequences become unrandom (so beatable).

Hoping to get an endless series of unrandom spots (no matter how long we've waited for them) is an utopy; confiding that an infinite series of "same situations" will stop before reaching the common expected sd values is a sure fkng certainty.

Streaks

Start to consider ALL streaks as belonging to just four categories:

a) doubles

b) triples

c) 4s

d) 5/5+ streaks

Obviously itlr a = b+c+d, b=c+d and finally b+c=d.

Good.

Since we are talking about a 0.75 probability, we might converge two adjacent streak classes fighting against any superior class (for example a+b vs c+d, or b+c vs d).

Say a+b =A or b+c=A.

At those both A events, the common maximum losing factor is d (5/5+ streaks) and we know that in the vast majority of the times d factor will be well limited per any shoe dealt going from a 0 range to a 5 or 6 range.
For sure itlr such 0-5/6 "d" range is constantly shifted toward the left side, meaning there will be dealt a lot more shoes belonging to the 0 or 1 category than belonging to the 4 or 5/6 class.

Such "unlikelihood" to form many long streaks should make more room to inferior streak classes happening clustered, but sometimes long chopping lines intertwined by those long streaks somewhat deny their apparition.
In the sense that a double, a triple or a 4 streak could come out isolated between steady chopping lines and longer streaks.

Actually and after having assessed that such inferior streak classes came out as isolated more than two times in a row, it's time to raise our standard bet as such unlikely shoes cannot stand for long.
I mean the reasons to raise our standard bet after finding such unlikely situation are greater than crossing two mere isolated A events showing up in a row that became three in a row.

In fact the propensity to get inferior streak classes clustered is in direct relationship of the total number of streaks happening per any number of hands dealt, therefore when few streaks of any kind happened so far (meaning many singles had shown up) the clustered inferior streaks factor will lose a lot of its value.

I'll try to better schematize that within a couple of days.

as.

Managing the inevitable harsh losing situations

Any strategy (especially when a progressive plan is adopted) will be susceptible to fail when very unlikely sequences will show up at consecutive shoes.
That's why is so important to play at a machine shuffled same shoe (MSSS).

In fact our long term data suggest that the average shoe's texture is more likely to come out at MSSS than at every other shuffling procedure.

Anyway and assuming A as positive (p=0.75) and B as negative (p=0.25), it's natural to expect very low values of A and huge densities of B.

For example B despite of its low probability to appear could show up consecutively clustered up to 6 or even more times in a row (anyway a very very unlikely event) and we know that we should be interested to bet toward A only after a single B or best two back-to-back B apparitions, then let it go whatever happens.

On the other end, the A-A category (the least possible clustered class) cannot be silent for long, so constantly managing to fight with the A-B opposite event (now forming an A isolated event).
Even here (B)A-B events may be classified by steps: one isolated step, two isolated steps, etc.
Itlr most A isolated situations will distribute by one or two levels, when not let them go.

Summary

AA = a natural mathematically more likely situation, yet belonging to a random world;

AB = same as above

BA = same as above

BB = same as above

ABAA = a natural math more likely situation, now beloging to a kind of very slight unrandom world

ABABAA = providing the use of a proper random walk, that's the situation we're really looking for as the cumulative number of ABABAA patterns will overwhelm the opposite ABABAB events by degrees capable to erase and easily invert the HE. Unrandom world, that is.

BAA and BAB = random world

BABAA = here there's a long term very slight propensity to get this pattern than the opposite BABAB scenario.

BABABAA = again the real edge we're really looking for (when a proper random walk is acting) as BABABAA patterns are way more likely than BABABAB scenarios. Another unrandom world.

The concept gets one of the best proof by arbitrarily putting cutoff values at streaks (for example streaks of 5/5+ being B) vs inferior streaks, as there are no many shoes dealt forming many 5/5+ streaks.
The sole problem is whenever such long streaks will be intertwined by long chopping sequences without no or few inferior streaks, a thing we'll see later.

as.

Among all the cryptos at an ATH in 2021, only BTC touched a next level ATH. Halving is closer and so is $80K level.

Thx 8POR9
Awesome story/thx for posting.

--------------------------------------

Great auto photos from the past. It is obvious why most are no longer around.
*I remember the first time I ever saw a Yugo. Probably late 1980s and they had one on display in a shopping mall. The hot model that was standing near the car was explaining to passerby's what a great car. It seems like this base car was approx. $4900 or so without a radio. That was extra.
The main things I recall about it(besides I had never seen a car without a radio) was the tires were tiny and looked like a spare (doughnut). The bumper was mostly plastic and only about 3" wide.


Thx for photos

Had to snap a picture of this RV.  The Jetson's?.

When I was young, I drove a Ford Pinto up to Montreal, Canada from New York City and then back down to New York City and then drove it cross country from New York City to Los Angeles.....about 4000 miles and slept in the car........and this was the Ford Pinto that exploded when the gas tank blew up if you were hit from behind..................also me and a buddy of mine  drove  from Oxford England across on a ferry to Holland and then drove to Belgium Germany Luxemburg Denmark .....put the car on another ferry and drove up to Stockholm Sweden and then back all the way to Oxford  England......about 2500 miles .......all this in an English 10 year old Anglia car where you could not get car parts or even a spare tire anywhere in Europe .........bought a tent and a small propane stove and  about 30 cans of food to cook on the stove and slept in the tent.....and this was before cell phones, the internet, personal computers etc etc....absolutely no way to contact anyone if the car broke down or something bad happened...............this is what young men do when you are 21 years old and do not have any functioning brain cells.

Remaining pictures.  The second to last picture is the Cadillac CIMARRON.  The last picture is a 1st generation white in color, Chevrolet Cavalier.  Come on dude, a CIMARRON is a Cavalier with a Cadillac logo badge!  Lol.

A few of us (that regularly play baccarat together) met for dinner at a steak house tonight and we got talking about weird and strange autos that were produced a while back. 

It was actually a nice change for us, as we didn't talk a word about baccarat or the casinos.  We all had steaks with those huge old school shrimp cocktails.  We all enjoyed a superb glass or two of some great cognac as well.

Here the are with some pictures attached for your reference. 

Ford Pinto
Chevrolet Vega
VW Bus
AMC Pacer
AMC Gremlin
AMC Rambler
AMC Concord
1974 Ford Mustang II
Yugo
Chevy Citation
Chevy Chevette
Chevy Corvair

And the Baker's Dozen special stupidity award goes to Cadillac for their, "rebadging of a Chevrolet Cavalier" into a CADILLAC CIMARRON!

From Motor Trend: "The compact Caddy was touted as "a new kind of Cadillac for a new kind of Cadillac owner" in its day. Certainly. Cimarron by Cadillac was built on GM's J platform at plants in South Gate, California, Lordstown, Ohio, and Janesville, Wisconsin between 1981 and 1988. Depending on the model year, Cimarrons were powered by 1.8- or 2.0-liter four-cylinder engines good for 86-88 horsepower. But if you were really livin' large—as one did in the Eighties—there was a 125-hp 2.8-liter V-6 available. Transmission options included a sad three-speed automatic for the V-6 and a sweet four- or five-speed manual for fours. Not impressed yet? Have you seen the Cimarron's thirteen-inch wheels and seriously classy hubcaps?

The Cimarron, introduced for the 1982 model year, became an instant icon of badge-engineered mediocrity, a mean stew of cynicism and desperation tinged with the sour stench of wheezy four-bangers and cheap velour," is howAutomobilesang its praises, adding, "In the early '80s, Cadillac still stood for a certain large-scale American bombast, but the Cimarron drove an 88-hp, four-cylinder stake straight through the heart of Cadillac's brand identity.

Inside, the front-wheel-drive sedan came standard with a leather-wrapped steering wheel, a tachometer, perforated leather bucket seats, hand lever parking brake (sporty!), air conditioning, Trianon deep-pile carpeting, and an AM/FM radio—with four whole speakers! The cabin offered 89 cubic feet of passenger volume, per the EPA, which also pegged the Caddy's mileage at a decent 26 mpg city, 42 mpg highway."

The average shoe's texture

The average shoe is any shoe dealt where a given probability to be ahead of something will be very close to 100% as some patterns MUST happen (as their probability to happen roams around low/moderate levels of deviation): It's just a matter of time that trigger patterns will happen; technically this is just a permutation issue artificially emphasized by raising the probability of success and by taking care of the "clustering/isolated" effect.

Suppose we have two different patterns: A having a 0.75 probability and B getting a 0.25 probability to appear.
Say that per any shoe belonging to this category there are 12 possible patterns we're interested at.
Thus out of 12 fighting situations, 8 will be A and 4 will be B.

Arrange the A/B successions whatever you want and you'll see that it'll impossible to build a sequence not getting at least one clustered A event.

Now we want to decrease the number of A by one point, that is now A=7 and B=5.
Again AA must come out at least one time and whether this is the case we'll get a lot of B isolated results.

Let's take a further step, now abandoning the "average" category: i.e. A=6 and B=6.
In this example A could show up everytime as isolated (as well as B) so forming only those two  successions out of 4096 possible combinations:

1) ABABABABABAB or 2) BABABABABABA

So just those two combinations prevent the AA formation.

Going down one more step: A=5 and B=7.

Now it's sure as hell that B will come out at least one time clustered, but this doesn't deny the possibility to get A clustered.

Assuming an average 12 fighting pattern range, shoe situations where A=4 or less and=8 or more can be safely discarded from the possibilities panorama.

Naturally I haven't mentioned the positive deviation counterpart, that is when A=9 and B=3, or A=10 and B=2, or A=11 and B=1, or finally when A=12 and B=0.

It's of particular interest to understand that wholly considered and itlr the number of A will be equal or even inferior to the number of B, underlining again that it's the average distribution that matters and not the numbers.
More precisely, the sd values of the distribution's shape of certain patterns.

as.

KungFu, When I am playing and the wins come quick and consistent, I admit, I push aside all MMM protocols I have.  I stack it up, hit them hard and keep winning. 

When it slows down and I start losing say, 2 out of 3 or 3 out of 4, then I totally forget my win, I play my 'normal' again and employ my MMM which would be 1/3rd, 1/3rd, 1/3rd. 

Then I lock up my total buy in.  Then I lock up 2/3rds of my win.  I will continue with what is left.  Whatever happens, happens.  If I lose whatever I had on the table in and above my buy-in and the locked up 2/3rds win, end and go home.  If I win again, then my MMM comes into play once again.

But unlike the highest majority of all players, my original buy-in and at least 2/3rds of my win I had, is not going to be given back to the rack!

For myself, there is no other way.