Thanks Al!

Definitely and as long as the favourable conditions are met, the stop win or stop loss concept shouldn't be implemented in any EV+ attack as either we have verified to accumulate more Ws than Ls at those spots or we're just fooling ourselves.
At the risk of enduring some harsh and inevitable variance periods.

Fourth row

Deeper we're going down the rows, greater will be the probability to encounter wide empty ranges between the "boundaries" that now are 4s streaks or streaks superior than 4.
Even here consecutive 4th rows are not considered as what we should interested about is the clustering or isolated effect of lower pattern classes (singles, doubles and triples).

To restrict the field of intervention at 4th or superior rows, we may transform the s/d vs 3s plan into a double/triple vs 4s plan, so considering ininfluent the singles distribution.
Therefore we'll take care of the 2 and 3 streaks coming out clustered or isolated between two 4/4+ streaks. (Actually at the starting portion of the shoe we don't need any 4s streak to limit the 2/3 ranges).
As long as one or more double or one or more exact triple or a mix of the two shows up before crossing a 4/4+ streak, we'll get a number specifying a range and of course 1=isolated range, 2= a couple of doubles and or triples, etc.

For example a distribution as 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2 becomes 6/4

or a distribution as 2, 3, 7, 4, 3, 2, 4, 7, 4, 3, 2 becomes 2/2/2

That's the old streak clustering effect I was talking about in my previous posts.

Since the above shoes were randomly taken but too much "good" oriented, here's a voluntarily picked up 'bad' shoe forming 'less detectable' isolated ranges:

2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 6, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2 that is a 1/2/1/1/6 sequence.

I've stated one million of times here that itlr the proportional impact of such numbers will get a 0 sum (before vig), thus there're no math tricks involved.

Progressively betting 1-2 (for example) and ignoring vig for simplicity will get:

1 = -3,
2 = -1,
3 = break even
4 = +1
5 = +2
6 = +3
and so on

Hence the first shoe produced a 6(+3) and 4 (+1) situation, second shoe 2 (-1), 2 (-1), 2 (-1) and the last one 1 (-3), 2 (-1), 1 (-3), 1 (-3), 6 (+3)

Overall a -6 units situation.

Now say that instead of playing an already selected streaks plan we want to bet ONE TIME towards any number different than 1:

1st shoe: +1, +1 (6/4)

2nd shoe: +1, +1, +1 (2/2/2)

3rd shoe: -3, +1, -3, -3, +1 (1/2/1/1/6)

Overall a -2 units loss, so reduced by one third.

Going deeply in the selected process of picking up bettable spots we might think to spot clusters of numbers different than 1 per any shoe (W, W, L) totaling a -1 unit loss or to exploit the opposite side of the medal, that is wagering NOT to get consecutive 1s by different levels (one time, two times, etc). In this three shoe unrandom example we got a -2 unit loss by betting after one single 1 spot and +1 unit win by betting after a couple of 1 consecutive spots.

It's out of question that under the more restricted ways of considering outcomes, the worst multilayered progressive plan ever invented would get the best of it by a 99,999% accuracy.
Way better if we'd find such rare spots where A>B, that is when we'll play the game having a EV+.

W/L permutations when W=L

A thoroughful study made on thousands and thousands of live shoes dealt had shown us that even if the W/L probability remains constant itlr (obviously according to the expected math probability that B and P will happen), outcome permutations are biased in their apparition by more detectable levels affected by the average card distribution.
A thing already demonstrated (but not having sensible practical reflexes) at mere coin flip tosses when "time" (that is when a given sequence should come out first as opposed as to another one) matters.

Math laws instruct us that there are no profitable spots to bet our money at a EV- game, statistical findings applied to baccarat teach us otherwise beyond any shadow of doubt.

I'll elaborate the issue next week, now I'm giving you some real shoes just considering the 2-3 streaks distribution.

as.

Let's cut the chase and understand the power of influence. Bad influences will affect your wagering and profitability.

1).  Expectations that will prevent you from winning and might increase your losses greatly. There are plenty of expectations that players believe in, for example, believing that statistical averages will appear in their favor during the few shoes they play within a session. But there are plenty of other unrealistic expectations and you better define what they are and get rid of them;

2).  Oblivious states of mind, where as you convince yourself you can win and buy-in past initial risk capital buy-in over and over. You better come to grips with what the initial risk capital and your buy-in should be and look at it as your chance to win or call it an attempt to win and walk away;

3).  Continuously telling yourself excuses for losing hands or not wagering larger amounts on your winning hands. Very dangerous influences that will put you into a completely wrong state of mind you don't want to be in;

4).  Senseless play that only leads to grinding you down. There's no way I could define them all because we all have different expectations we believe in, therefore you better think about what grinds you down and how to avoid falling into senseless play.  If you think it doesn't happen to you, you are not ready to define it and improve your game yet;

5).  Have some type of MMM/PLAN, that you strictly adhere to, with 100% belief.

When winning, never walk away unless you used up the allocation for additional play within your MMM.

One thing I repeatedly tell myself when I get to my personal win amount and my MMM kicks in is that; "If I held onto my winnings with a plan as well as controlled my losses, I would have a hell of a lot of money that I gave back in reckless pursuit of winning more". I consciously say that during most all sessions when I get into the win status, when I do. 

Remember, you are responding to what you cannot control. Meaning you're facing a shoe that will produce anything and everything and not adhere to anything you believe in or not and in random order. Therefore results will affect your inner thoughts, with or without your conscious permission. Remember that while at the table!

MMM is not bet selection, such as 1-1-1-2-2-3, or wagering on any number of triggers, etc., etc. Those are bet selection and wagering beliefs. not MMM.

A true MMM Plan, is a solid concrete method that will dictate what to do with your winnings as well as limiting your play when you lose. Period. It also can allocate larger clump wagering with a certain portion of your winnings giving you an advantage, especially with positive progressions allowing you quick profitability in much larger amounts, that most do not engage in or find it difficult to. 

Think and think hard about what I am bringing forward here.

QuoteBut I will tell you my worst shoes, where as I lost by the end of the shoe I would average, that I wagered around 25 times.
The shoes that I won, I would average, that I wagered around 40 times.

Definitely this is an interesting thing to think about.
Obviously you should compare how many units you've lost at those 25 hands bet shoes and how many units you have won by wagering 40 times.

In some way we could reduce the 25 and 40 hands by, say a 5 factor, thus getting us 5 bet hands at losing shoes and 8 bet hands at winning ones.

as.

Asym,  I will wager a greater amount of hands when I am winning,  some are pos progression wagers and others might be just the win money at risk once again.  But I almost never do what so many claim, the 1-2 or 3 and stop win for a shoe. 

When I am losing, I am looking for the recouping trend and a winning recovery possibility.  If you do not play, you cannot win.  No matter what the visual/stay out until you see virtual wins, etc., if you don't have money up on the table in play, you cannot win.  True you cannot lose also, but your loss will not be recovered either. A wicked catch-22.

And I do have absolutely great, large wins after a period of losses in a shoe.  Let's just say at times, it was a 'warm up' period before the end of the 3rd quarter.

 So, it is over $71k already and rising.

Attack #2: singles/doubles clusters vs 3/3+ streaks

This attack studies the average probability to get singles/doubles clusters, meaning we need to get one "fictional" winning hand (that is a single or a double) in order that a s/d pattern will be classified as an "isolated" outcome (1) or a "clustered" outcome (any number superior than 1).

Thus consecutive 3/3+ streaks won't be classified as they're not conceding room to any single/double clustering effect.

Our long term live shoes data had taught us that on average shoes NOT presenting any isolated single/double (s/d) cluster show up by a 27.77% probability, so more than 3/4 of the total shoes dealt will include at least one isolated s/d sequence.
It's a quite obvious situation as we'd start to bet after a fictional winning situation happened.

Things are going to re-adjust when we consider the overall number of 1s (isolated s/d patterns) to opposing triples, now itlr the s/d value vs the 3/3+ value tend to remain constant.

Let's summarize.

Since we're talking about s/d clusters, we shouldn't be interested about HOW LONG such s/d patterns will last, we'd just bet toward the least profitable s/d cluster happening and this is a 2 value (that is a single and/or double back to back pattern) after one single or double event had shown up.
In a word, just isolated s/d events represent our "enemy", so we should be interested about how many isolated patterns will come in a row per any shoe dealt.

Surprise!!

Proportional outcomes become one side shifted when we start to consider the average distribution of such isolated enemies by a consecutive distribution point of view.
A thing negated by mathematicians or "experts of our a$$" losers.

In fact whether proper random walks are in action, double consecutive isolated events are nearly 87% favorite NOT to produce superior isolated situations, meaning they are way more likely to stop there.
That means that at super selected situations we'll get a nearly 24% edge (before vig) over the house.

In numbers the average probability to benefit of such wonderful edge is one time per every 4.3 shoes dealt.

Even though such EV+ pots are quite diluted and anyway splitted within two consecutive bets (directed to deny the 3/3+ apparition), you should start to consider casinos as your free ATM machine.

That's just the third row (s/d vs superior streaks) of considering outcome ranges, next we'll see the fourth row.

as.

But I will tell you my worst shoes, where as I lost by the end of the shoe I would average, that I wagered around 25 times.
The shoes that I won, I would average, that I wagered around 40 times.

Definitely this is an interesting thing to think about.
Obviously you should compare how many units you've lost at those 25 hands bet shoes and how many units you have won by wagering 40 times.

In some way we could reduce the 25 and 40 hands by, say a 5 factor, thus getting us 5 bet hands at losing shoes and 8 bet hands at winning ones.

as.

BRICS now holds 32% of the world GDP and its own cryptocurrency which has been proposed for quite a time will hit the USD monopoly by and large. India is proposing its own cryptocurrency too for digital banking. India launched a Rupay payment processor 10 years back at par with Visa and MasterCard. With emerging crypto technology, Fiat currencies, it's exchanges and monopoly will become a laughstock.
  Do not underestimate crypto power. Decentralized finance is the future.Add these ammunitions in your arsenal too, for future.

Albalaha in post#1 above:

"... Bitcoin etc are alternative currency for the world and I believe it is here to stay. No govt. can eliminate it completely. It has already been accepted worldwide. ... "

I agree it is likely here to stay.

However, only a very few individuals currently own BTC. Though it is not illegal in many countries(i.e., permitted). However, it has only been accepted as a currency in very few(e.g., El Salvador). In China it has been deemed illegal in any form.

IMO the USA will allow it(BTC) to progress, at least in USA and markets controlled by U.S.
Its my opinion there are many underlying factors and parties involved that will have a hand in BTC survival (or its dissolve) and possible worldwide use as a possible standard form of payment transaction.

USA recently approved Blackrock and others Bitcoin ETF. The U.S. Government has a need to control the value of the USD as well as other countries' currencies and other forms of payment. Part of this need is because its imperative the USA props up the USD (or at least as a ratio to other countries' currency's value). I think a country like El Salvador was wise to drop their currency and go with Bitcoin in 2021(they were up over 40% last I checked). It will be interesting going forward to see if other countries try to implement BTC or a similar digital token or payment method as  a replacement for their currency.

The U.S. Gov also likes the idea  of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). The USA is >33Trillion in debt with outrageous inflation. The USA has a need for propping up the USD. Plus in recent years also had to deal with the expansion and objective of the BRICS nations. The BRICS nations are interested in creating a new currency to compete with the US dollar. The BRICS are contemplating a basket of currencies that will allegedly include values from (Gold, Oil, Yuan, Rubles, ...etc) so that countries no longer have to buy/sell with only the USD. Possibly an option for the world to move into digital currency as well and move away from the USD.

Just my opinions / I may very well be incorrect.



Many things to consider for all things crypto.

Hi XXVV

Good to hear from you again/I hope this finds you doing well.


What are your price projections for BTC et al more widely held cryptos??


Thx in advance,