Hi whatswhats, it's me to thank you for sharing your ideas that many will appreciate here.

Besides people writing here, I personally know at least four pro players seriously getting profits from this game in years; three of them are asians.
When I've asked "how can you overcome the EV-?", all of them responded with a "betting very few hands, no side bets". Not precise insights but simple answers I tend to agree with.
Another question was: "do you think that setting up an only Banker wagers plan is the best way to exploit the game?"
Two of them answered for a sure "yes", the remaining two disagreed.   

More later

as.

Suppose our random walk will dictate to bet that a S pattern will come out as isolated (so followed by an A pattern) and we choose to consider just the very first S pattern occurring per every shoe dealt.

Itlr not only we can't lose any money at such series of bets but actually we can improve our EV by waiting that a first S pattern went as clustered (S-S...), then wagering at the next shoe toward the first S coming out as isolated.
If you'd think that most of the times the common derived roads are mutually exclusive in producing S patterns, you'll see that "S isolated random walks" are getting a good level of prediction capable to erase and invert at our favor the HE.

This very first pattern betting placement is the only one enticing a kind of constant wagering being less affected by possible strong variance issues and the reasons why this should be true are beyond the scope of these writings.

Then the next patterns are more sensitive to the actual shoe distribution, mainly being a by product of the first pattern propensity.
Those are patterns we want to classify by a kind of RTM factor, so orienting us to wait for fictional losses to show up before wagering.
Moreover some shoes will deny a second S pattern, making the second S pattern trigger a more difficult spot to take care of.

Same thought could be applied at very first A isolated patterns vs A clustered patterns (privileging the clustering effect) anyway being affected by a slight greater volatility we do not want by any means.
So it seems we'll be in better shape by wagering that something less due will come out as isolated than confiding that a more likely probability will get its fair share of results because more probable events will more likely come out in the form of long clusters than by a constant clustered form.

Here a brief sample of Big Road (first row) and ByB Road (second row) first patterns in the form of S isolated and S clustered patterns after an initial S patterns occurred:

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-S

S-A
S-A

S-A
S-A

S-S
S-A

Whenever those patterns dictate to bet an opposite hand in order to get an A pattern, do not bet and wait for the next shoe (I'm talking about the very first S pattern).

Let's casinos hope that card distributions will make many first S patterns being clustered at each random walk we decide to consider (we can easily set up an infinite number of random walks  besides the common derived roads), in the meanwhile we to take the profits by exploiting a purest form of gambler's fallacy (LOL).

as.

Thanks for your detailed and interesting replies.

Maybe the common denominator is patience/discipline and efforts made to reduce volatility,  things that converge by playing very few hands.

The only way, IMO, to reduce volatility is by considering opposed selected events roaming the most around the 0 point.
Mathematically this kind of reasoning is a pure fallacy as everything happens anywhere and anyhow and odds just follow the math probabilities (all bets are EV-).

But in reality some situations are more likely to get restricted variance values than others, so the points of intervention matter.
Then any shoe is a world apart, many times not fitting the long term values we are expecting so we shouldn't chase the unchasable especially within a single shoe or a couple of shoes.
In fact and after extensive studies made upon different SINGLE shoe productions we've got the conclusion that baccarat predominantly is a game of clusters but (from a strict EV+ point of view) it's almost impossible to realize which events will take the clustering or silent line. And of course the lenght of such clusters that most of the time we take care of only when they are strongly negative.

Back to the A/B events roaming around the 0 point.
That is not a cut and dried recipe for long term success, but it's a good starting point to base our strategy.

Basically the hands we'll win are balanced by an almost same number of losing hands, so we have to discard from our betting more losing hands than we can, especially if losing hands seem to be clustered.
The opposite situation (apparent clusters of winning hands) is more intricate to be assessed as we don't know how many bets we'll win consecutively, a thing particularly important when our plan is devised by two-bets ranges.

More later

as.

Thanks whatswhats.
 
The plan is conceived to deny a simultaneously symmetrical situation happening at both the Big Road and the Big Eye Boy road right at the very first pattern coming out at each road or to get a A-A pattern at both lines.

For example say the first sequence is BBBBPBPPBBB (first pattern is A). The BR is A but the ByB road is S (brbbrb).
That's a loss.

The next shoe formed a BPPPBBBBP initial succession getting an A pattern at BR and an A pattern at ByB road. That's a win.

Next shoe went as BBBBBBBPPPBPP, so a S pattern showing up at BR but a A pattern coming out at ByB road (rrbbbbbb), that's a win.

Next shoe went as PBPBPBBBBBB, Byb is rrrrbrrrr, thus an A-A simultaneous A pattern at both lines. It's a win.

Then the next shoe: BPPPPPPPPBBBBBPBPB, ByB is brrrrrrbrrrr. Another A-A pattern situation. Another win.

Then a PPBPBBPBB shoe, ByB is brbbbbbbb, that is an A pattern happening at BR and an S event happening at ByB, it's a loss.

Then a PBPBPPPBPP shoe, ByB is rrrbrbbb, so a A-A pattern showing up at both sides. Again a win.

This shoe went as BPBBPBBBB..., ByB is rbbbbrr that is a S pattern (BR) followed by an A pattern at ByB. It's a win.

To cut a long story short, A or S first events happening at BR and ByB are obviously more likely to produce the same result (A) or to get an S followed by an A at the other road (most likely at ByB as this one starts its action after some hands are dealt at BR).
Such propensity is so worthwhile that whenever the first hand negating a S pattern should be placed at P side, the possible edge becomes more interesting.

Naturally S-S first BR and ByB patterns happen (or, more likely, A-S patterns) but they are strongly restricted in their appearance.
In fact to get a S-S pattern happening at both lines we need an exact proportional number of BP hands dealt coming out at a portion of the shoe (initial part) springing out from a total random source (the cut and the first card rank dictating how many cards are to be discarded from the play).

Actually the professional guy didn't take care about asymmetry or symmetry, just betting that parallel sub-sequences applied to the same BP succession won't get the same quality results at two or more lines.
Smart guy.

as.

Good description of the game indeed.

Especially about the "camaraderie" topic...

as. 

This finding (there are quite more of them) emphasizes the importance of studying shoes coming out from the same source and that around the globe there are very acute players trying to get a kind of an edge whatever intended as the person we've met during our sessions.

It's way more interesting to assess that this finding promotes an unsound math plan as all bets are placed at P side.

Shoes are coming out from the same shuffling machine brand, even if working at different casinos (!).

That's not the only finding promoting a kind of univocal betting placement, just one of the easiest.

Unfortunately (and probably this is a possible added value of it) a nearly half of the shoes dealt are unplayable at least for this specific attack. Then only one bet is suggested per every playable shoe.
Needless to say and since it's an unsound math strategy, it cannot work at other shoe productions.

More later.

as. 

Here additional real shoes coming out from the same source (3s are only considered at B side):

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

Total:

3-X = 114

3-3-X = 31

3-3-3-..= 10

We see that 3-X vs 3-3-.. sequences are still unfavorite to win (W=114, L= 41x3= 123) and 3-3-X vs 3-3-3.. events are almost equal (+1, 31 vs 30).

Nonetheless notice that 3-3-X sequences do not involve any vig as all bets are placed at P side.
Moreover, the 3-3-X/3-3-3-.. ratio is so balanced that we could even think of adopting a multilayered progressive plan without worrying about the vig.
Yes, the only substantial obstacle will be a permutation issue, so let's pretend to face an hypothetical unbelievable scenario to distribute all losing patterns consecutively or strongly clustered.
But when the "bad" is clustered and we know the proposition had demonstarted to be harshly balanced or shifted at one side, chances we'll cross a win or multiple wins are approaching the certainty.

Next week we'll see how to exploit at a maximum level the AS/S patterns feature.

as.

Quote from: Whatswhats on January 27, 2026, 11:55:51 PMOnline with 30 table, find pattern is faster

Probably it is, but maybe exploiting the derived roads distribution will make a similar job without internet issues, and we know there are plenty of them to overcome.

as.

@Alrelax: lol, I haven't deleted a single reply in years let's figure out if I'd delete one of yours..

The purpose of presenting this trigger was to give the idea that running the same situation for many times could present some non linear probability values as cards are finite, rules are fixed and a kind of "average" distribution will work providing the outcomes are really randomly produced.

@whatswhats:

Overall we got:

3-X= 103 times;

3-3-X = 41 times;

3-3-3 (or longer successions) = 10 times.

Since X is any pattern different than 3 (so 1 or 2) it's obvious that we have to assess an average probability to get or not to get another consecutive 3 and this needs a two-step betting.
The general odds of any 3 vs (1-2) are 1:3, since itlr B>P we shoudn't be surprised that 3-X will lose money against 3-3-...
In my example and assuming a 3:1 unit W/L ratio (before vig), 3-X won 103 times and lost 51 times (51 x 3= 153).
Clearly by wagering toward another 3 after a 3 happened (now by an inverse positive 1-2 progression) will get the best of it even though long streaks of 3-X can naturally show up along the course of the shoes dealt (that's why Alrelax pointed out his legitimate doubts about these findings).     

Then after a 3-3 succession came out things seem to change as betting toward 3-3-X got a kind of propensity to produce more 3-3-X patterns than 3-3-3-... patterns.
In fact 3-3-X patterns have shown up 41 times and 3-3-3-... patterns just 10 times (10x3=30).

Notice that I've presented the very first (or when applicable) the second or third B 3 streak happening per each shoe dealt, supposing those are more "randomly" placed results than others.

My conclusion is that a bac player should be interested about what happens most now AND itlr or, it's the same concept, that things could distribute by huge levels of volatility but always and invariably following more likely probability values.
And one of the best tools we should employ to get the best of the "actual" related to the "expected" is betting very few hands (for example think how's unlikely to wait for 3-3 to come out)

as.

Suppose our trigger is the very first B 3/3+ streak happening at every shoe dealt and we want to register what pattern happens at the second B hand dealt. We'll keep registering such 3/3+ streaks (so the third, fourth B pattern, etc) until a B single/double will show up.
For simplicity we name any B 3/3+ streak as a "3" and everything different than that (so any B single or B double) as "X".
Any line is corresponding to any shoe dealt at the same shuffling conditions.

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X  (1261)

Overall we got:

3-X= 103 times;

3-3-X = 41 times;

3-3-3 (or longer successions) = 10 times.

Since X=+1 and any back to back 3 is -3 (and no vig is acting here as ALL bets are placed at P side) it seems that best bets should be oriented to bet B after any SECOND B hand dealt following a previous B 3/3+ streak (no need to  "chase" another B 3/3+ streak, just any kind of streak---any double---will be good), then after a 3/3+ back to back streak came out, the best bet should be a two-step P bet negating a third (or longer) 3/3+ B streaks succession.

Actually a P double-step wagering after any back to back 3/3+ B streak cannot lose any money itlr, or at least we're dealing with a way better B/P proposition the game mathematically provides in B/P winning probability terms.

Now let's consider the P side under the same shoe conditions.

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-...

3-X

3-3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-X

3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-3-X

3-X

3-X

3-3-3-X

Surprisingly now we don't get "shifted" situations proportionally favoring the more likely math advantaged B side for long for the simple reason that asymmetry will reign supreme over the outcomes.

as

No matter the strategy employed, at baccarat there are two shapes of pattern presentation.

1- Clusters

2- Alternating movement

We've seen that for "cluster" we should consider any same event happening more than once. The simplest (worthless) cluster is B-B or P-P. The problem of those simple clusters is that they are coming out from a consecutive succession (ties ignored).

More interesting, at least theorically, are those patterns considered by a NOT consecutive succession.
For example how many BBB... or PPP... events (3/3+) are coming out in a row when intertwined by a given number of respectively P or B patterns.
Therefore BBB(P...)BBBB is a cluster of two, BBBB(P...)BBB(P...)BBB is a cluster of three and so on.

Since we want to restrict at most the variance impact, we should put a "limit" at those binomial "fights" between a given level of clustering and the superior one. (For example 3/3+ B clusters of two as opposed to 3/3+ B clusters greater than two).

The alternating movement acts in the same way, that is no clusters at level 1 (one alternate pattern then a cluster arrives), no clusters at level 2 (two alternate patterns then a cluster arrives) and so on.

Both different 1 (clusters) or 2 (alternating) pattern shapes will mix up in any shoe dealt by making relatively difficult to get homogeneous situations lasting for long.
On the other end, slight more likely low levels of clustering or alternating shapes in turn constitute a form of clustering and it's here that casinos will get plenty of opportunities to catch players' money as players aim is almost always directed to get univocal lines lasting for long.

More later

as. 

Selecting same spots patterns at a multiple shoes succession

Suppose we are registering A/S patterns by assigning a progressive number per every shoe played and arranging them into columns.

Here a brief example of 20 shoes:

A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-S-S
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A
S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-S-A-A
A-S-A-A-A-A-S-S-S-S
S-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A
A-S-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-S-A
S-S-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S
A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A
A-S-A-S-A-S-A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-A-A
A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S
A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A
S-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A
A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A
A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A
S-S-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S

A= 233 and S=87 (x3=261)

Despite of being voluntarily taken by a kind of S innatural predominance (A:S gap=-28), we see that the above guidelines still stand even by a vertical registration.

For example column #1 (first pattern of every shoe) provides a A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S succession.

Column #2 a less appealing sequence as A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-S-S-S

Column #3 A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A

Column #4 A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-S-A

Column #5 S-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A

And so on...

This simplified scheme (again...voluntarily taken from a moderate/strong negative standpoint) should get us some hints about approximating at best our action when we want to consider same spots at back-to-back shoes. Especially by assessing that bighornsh.i.t could happen for quite long (see the column #3 providing a cumulative -16 units loss before vig if we'd bet every pattern).
On the other end, A streaks longer than 3 must happen and of course they should be "chased" by selectively wagering and waiting that A patterns reach the 3 consecutive value (AAA).

Finally pretend to embody each column as a distinct player's destiny. There are no many columns getting "easy" A/S positive final returns, whereas more than one column experienced harsh times to endure.

Fortunately things will work way better than this example as in the real world the A/S ratio will be very close to the 3:1 expected ratio.
But being prepared to face negative variance is one of the best recipe to try to get the best of the game.

as.

Any symmetrical (S) pattern needs two hands in a row to be equally distributed as the previous pattern.
If cards are really randomly distributed, it's a simple task to ascertain how many clustered S patterns will show up as isolated or (more unlikely) as clustered.

No one serious bac player can miss the profitable spots a real random distribution (random.org, for example) will provide up to the point that a multilayered betting plan will be able to destroy every possible distribution in the world.
This fact counterfeits the idea that every hand is totally independent from the previous ones, thus if our plan is based upon S isolated events, we'll be in very good shape to get more wins than losses, especially if we wait for some fictional losses to happen.

Actually let the house to hope that S clustered events will happen for long but they can't as whatever the cards are arranged a kind of asymmetry will take the lead over the counterpart.

Since just one hand will break a more likely asymmetrical distribution (so producing a less likely S pattern), we need to restrict our field of intervention so waiting for a S pattern to stop independently of its consecutiveness.

Therefore once a S-S pattern shows up at the shoe we're playing at and knowing that more often than not long successions of S isolated events are more probable to come out, we might infer that S clustered patterns will be slight more likely followed by another S cluster. Especially when shoes are unrandomly distributed (machine shufflers, for example).

On the other end, S clusters will slight make more probable A clusters so in the end the only successions we should fear are A-SS...-A-SS... sequences.
And such situations aren't going to come out so often and whenever they'll show up they'll constitute an astounding trigger to get our future bets affected by a huge EV+.

Suppose we have four distinct a-b-c-d fictional players betting for us:

a) player will bet toward A-A just one time;

b) player will bet toward A one time after any single S;

c) player will bet toward A-A after any S clustered event;

d) player will bet to get a A-A-A (or longer) situation.

Our long term data told us that in the vast majority of the times isolated A (so negating an A-A sequence) aren't coming out by a level suprassing the 3-level.
Therefore way more often than not negating a fourth A isolated appearance.

Isolated S patterns are affected by a very low volatility, meaning that isolated S events are more likely to show up clustered than followed by a S cluster.

Once a S clustered event happens (S-S or S-S-S and so on) it'll be slight more likely to face an A cluster.

Clusters of A getting the exact two value (S-A-A-S) aren't going to get many back to back sequences without getting a more natural superior A succession.

Overall we won't face many situations getting ALL four players to lose for long.
Actually it's very likely that at least one or two (or more) players will get the fair amount of positive situations they're entitled to get.
It's just a matter of time and actula deviations, way better to be resolved by a strong diluted bet selection.

as.

Everything 1 billion % true providing the outcomes are really randomly produced.

Differently than roulette where only biased wheels will provide unrandom results (modern wheels aren't supposed to be biased), at baccarat there's a lot to investigate about the real randomness of the production and anyway 416 cards cannot produce infinite patterns once we want to classify them by endless random walk successions.

as.

Regarding your second question, KFB:

It depends.
For example a shoe per shoe registration will make plenty of opportunities to exploit an expectation/actual deviation ratio especially at the very first pattern happening at each shoe as being complete randomly determined.

Suppose we're constantly betting that the very first pattern will be an asymmetrical pattern (so not followed by a same quality second pattern and according to the guidelines decribed in my pages).
Obviously we'll expect a fair amount of AS first patterns or, at least, that S counterparts will be somewhat restricted in their back-to-back appearance. The AS/S pattern ratio (utilizing a 0.75 p) is 3:1 but even though it could be slight lesser than that (2,92:1 or so), itlr such ratio will approach the expected value, especially after having assessed the consecutiveness of the results.

But more importantly and besides the real numbers, it's the quality of such first patterns as single S or double S-S will be easily followed by an AS pattern and of course ranges of AS clusters will be particularly probable.
Obviously this first-pattern distribution translates into a permutation issue more insensitive of a possible symmetrical distribution bias of the entire shoe.

To get a better idea of that, let's try to adopt the reverse strategy, that is wagering toward first S patterns and everyone will see very soon that it's impractical to say the least.

Once we want to bet into an entire shoe, things will change a lot because the boundary between expectation and actual distribution becomes more subtle (yet more profitable with some experience).
I'm sorry but by now I have no time, see you next time.

as.