This is not a post about bet selection, even though at baccarat there are better BS than others as some events are long term mathematically shifted.
So for example and generally speaking wagering to break P 4s is a better selection than wagering to break ANY 4s and the worst option is a plan intended to break B 4s.
This because itlr B4<B4+ and P4>P4+.
In reality, the intermediate situation (wagering to break any 4s) may give us interesting statistical features as globally taken the 4s class will go more likely back and forward around the zero (equilibrium) point (at the same time giving a theorical lower probability to get strong one side deviations). That is a perfect situation to set up a very diluted progression.
The above statement is a sort of paradox, as many times we'll be forced to bet the mathematical disadvantaged chance (breaking B 4s), but globally taken such strategy will give us a slight lesser impact of variance as now we're wagering to not get two simultaneous opposite relatively high deviated situations for long time.
Imo the idea to include some breaking streaks strategy in our plan is well placed at baccarat for several reasons.
I want to mention only one here.
Let's take the casino war game, a st.upid game where the highest card between players and house will win (unfortunately giving the house a pretty high edge for the same card value rule).
Unfold several times a multi deck shoe, register the simple A or B outcomes (ignoring ties) and itlr you'll see that some events will be more likely than others.
Good, so why casino war game cannot be easily beaten?
There are several reasons for that: we have to play every single hand, the house edge is quite high, we can get a precise situation only playing heads-up with the house, but foremost we don't have the opportunity to bet the house side (obstacle overcome in some way by a large spread betting). Then now casinos are using continuous shuffling machines or cutting large portions of the deck.
Still the basic principle remain the same.
At baccarat things are more complicated as there are four different class of ranks having the same value (10s and pictures) and not only any side is getting a point adding two cards value but there's even a third card intervening with some structured rules advantaging B side.
The overall effect made by those particular features will produce a kind of slight specular baccarat situation than the casino war game produces.
Back to the progression topic.
No one progression can control the game (no matter how high is the bankroll utilized compared to the table limits offered) whenever we start the progression at a zero level.
Not even a so called flat betting winning strategy unless it was proven to get an astounding high edge on player's favor (we all know there's no way to do that).
What we can do, imo, is setting up a rigid plan on multiple economically connected situations where either multiple strong deviated and unexpected events had taken place within short periods of time and/or some multiple expected situations had stalled around the zero point within too large periods of time.
We see that there's no a precise direction to be followed: either wagering toward multiple expected deviations and/or waiting the appearance of multiple unexpected events roaming around the zero point for long time.
In a word, we shouldn't want to get mere single RTM or single deviation effects as any random world can't be controlled by those features.
Imo the key word to work on is "multiple".
Multiple events can't stall or deviate forever and ever but at the same time we cannot know when and how much such events will get their expected probability to "balance" the previous features in a way or another.
Therefore, imo, if we don't want to wait some rare favourable flat betting circumstances to bet, we must be prepared to set up a low and multilayered progression starting at a point different from zero. In a way or another (RTM or expected deviation), of course.
And the word "multiple" cannot act other than improving our expectation.
as.
Topic: A progression that can't lose (Read 27570 times)