Baccarat can't be beaten mathematically but by exploiting results by a frequentist statistical approach.
And one of the possible tool to utilize is to set up a kind of "boundary" plan getting room to more likely patterns of different levels.
The 5/5+ streaks distribution is just an example (see later).

Thus we can't rely upon certainty but upon probabilities and such probabilities become so overwhelming  vs randomness (or supposedly randomness) to assure us an edge.
Providing to wait for given situations to show up as we have verified that after a given event the subsequent event or class of events won't be proportionally shaped differently to what general probability laws dictate.

More hands we want to 'guess' greater will be the probability to fall directly into the random unbeatable world as the strong negative deviations will cause us a way greater damage than the symmetrical marked positive situations for the general EV- impact.

Streaks lenght and distribution

We've seen that per every shoe dealt long streaks (in our example 5/5+ streaks) are not coming out around any corner, but surely they will sooner or later show up by deviated values at either side (ranging from 0 to 4 or more).
Naturally some rare shoes make room to such long streaks without (plenty of singles and no inferior streaks) or intertwined by few inferior streaks coming out isolated.

In the former scenario and for the 'clustering' factor we always should get the advantage from, we won't bet a dime and in the latter case the consecutiveness of such isolated inferior streaks patterns will make a huge role in determining our edge.

Therefore if we assume as C= clustered inferior streaks and as I=isolated inferior streaks we know that itlr C=I.

Things change whenever we'd consider more complex distributions where the simplest is the back to back I occurence per any shoe dealt.

So after C or I anything could happen and the same after C-C, yet after I-I the most probable situation to face is to get a C and not another I. Obviously everything always related to the actual probability of success.
That is another I showing up after I-I sequence will be less proportionally probable than facing a I-I-C sequence.

In poorer words, we need quite of time to wait for such situations (I-I), but whenever they'll come out we can get an indeniable sure edge.
BTW, a propensity working at other similar pattern situations.

There are a couple of principal reasons to explain such streaks (and other patterns) propensity:

a) the general factor causing baccarat streaks to be shorter than at a perfect 50/50 proposition;

b) the finiteness of long streaks distribution, especially after coming out by a consecutive fashion.

In some way a kind of "conditional probability" is supposed to work, meaning that the room to get inferior streaks clustered at least one time is somewhat amplified after two "failed" attempts (that is after two consecutive isolated inferior streak classes happening).

It doesn't matter if our betting class is composed by 2s and 3s or 3s and 4s or even 2s and 4s.
Itlr I-I-C > I-I-I by values greater than the 3:1 cutoff ratio.

See you next week

as.

The number of 5/5+ streaks list provided above wasn't presented 'randomly': those numbers come from the same shoe shuffled by a machine and by an exact back-to-back order.

There are infinite ways to dissect such numbers presentation, one of the simplest (from a practical way of thought) is the probability to get consecutive shoes NOT getting 0, 1 or 2 'long' streaks:
at this very small sample we got a five and a four consecutive 3/4 streaks number per shoe.
The average probability (at least for this sample and taking care of a precise random walk action) any shoe provides 3 or more long streaks is around 18.3%.

So it's like losing 5 or 4 preflop all-ins in a row having AA vs any inferior pocket pair at NL hold'em.

What I mean is that at baccarat a supposedly propensity must always be taken very cautiously, even if considered by entire shoes.
It's obvious that consecutive "above average long streaks number" shoes do not deny a possible advantage but surely will make relative harsh times to deal with.
Moreover we have strong reasons to think that machines do not produce perfect random outcomes working for a same already distributed shoe, especially whether a sophisticated random walk will be able to pick up some "bias".

More later

as.

Hi KFB!!

Thanks for posting your experience and for your compliments.

Yep, single Ps and/or double PPs can last for quite long time, probably this is the best basic "clustering" effect to look for. Providing to be patient and being capable to discard the inevitable "isolated" P s/d sequences coming out at many shoes, a virtue not so commonly represented  among bac players 

as.

Now with this simple classification we can consider EVERY POSSIBLE PATTERN HAPPENING per any shoe dealt, going from  an all 5/5+ streak shoe (#1 scenario) to an all single hands shoe (#2 scenario).

Considering the worst (or best) case scenarios is the way to instruct our algos to do their job even at the most possible deviated situations.

Of course in our humanly miserable terms, we won't expect to cross such deviations as the almost totality of shoes dealt will present way lower levels of deviations and under our way of thought the only objective obstacle to be overcome is the 5/5+ streaks "density" happening per shoe: better sayed, the room those unlikely streaks will concede to more likely inferior patterns.

Such 5/5+ streaks density varies in direct relationship of the actual outcomes' source and we already know that whenever a shuffling machine is utilized, a significant LOWER amount of those streaks will show up (at least by using our random walks).

Anyway and no matter the source, it's unlikely to get many 5/5+ streaks per shoe (otherwise and knowing the bac players propensity to bet towards streaks than towards any other pattern, HS rooms would not exist), say they move within a range going from 0 (no such streaks) to very low numbers.

In addition, we have shifted to our favor the clustering 5/5+ streaks effect as they do not give room to inferior (possible bettable) patterns being clustered at least one time as what didn't happen cannot come out clustered (and neither as isolated).

Actually the permutation factor makes a decisive role about our long term results as it tends to confuse the "density" issue with the distribution issue. 

Following data show how many 5/5+ streaks happen per shoe by adopting our main random walk
(some final patterns are undefinied in their lenght). This small sample tends to reproduce what could happen after thousands and thousands of shoes dealt.
Since our random walks start and stop their action after some hands are registered or discarded at the starting/final portions of each shoe, such numbers reflect lesser numbers than by registering every outcome at a 8-deck shoe: 

1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
2
0
3
4
1
0
1
1
3
0
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
0
1
1
0
2
3
1
0
1
4
1
1
2
0
2
2
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
1
3
0
1
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
1
3
3
2
4
1
2
1
3
0
1
0
1
0
2
3
2
0
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
0
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
0
3
1
2
0
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
1
0
3
0
2
0
2
2
0
1
0
0
2
2
3
0
0
2
2
1
4
3
3
3
0
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
3
0
1
2
2
1
0
3
1
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
4
3
3
2
1
2
2
0
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
0
1
1
2
1
0
1

Totals

0 = 33

1 = 79

2 = 61

3/4 = 38

So out of 211 shoes dealt, the most probable situation belonging to the 5/5+ streaks is to expect just one such streak (37.44%), next comes the situation to face two 5/5+ streaks (28.9%).
Then there are the most deviated situations (0 and 3/4 streaks) globally accounting for 33.64%.

If we'd get rid of the 0 streaks scenario (15.33%), one and two streaks vs 3/4 streaks account for a 140/38 probability, that is a 3,68:1 ratio instead of an expected 3:1 ratio.

Numbers we should be interested about.

as.

Hi KFB!

It's the first option you described.

More simply for any 'cluster' (value 1) I mean any single-single or double-double or single-double or double-single situations. 

On the other side, isolated s/d events are just two: single-triple (3/3+) and double-triple (3/3+).

The remaining possibility is to cross a triple-triple pattern without any single or double intertwined, a situation we are not interested about.

A further pattern plan is to consider the singles as neutral, so now the s/d plan shifts into 2/3 streaks plan having 4/4+ streaks as "enemies" (boundaries).

Again we can only have four 'cluster' possibilities: 2/2, 2/3, 3/2 and 3/3.
And just two isolated sequences: 2/4-4+ and 3/4-4+

Even here back to back 4/4+ streaks do not account.

The final pattern "analysis" made on a clustering/isolated basis is extracted by comparing triples (exact triples) and 4s (exact 4 streaks) vs 4+ streaks (that is streaks long 5 hands or more).
Now either singles and doubles are considered as irrelevant.
Same "rules": 3/3, 3/4, 4/3 and 4/4 are clusters and 3/4+ and 4/4+ are isolated patterns.

We can safely stop our streak analysis by setting up a cutoff limit when any streak longer than 4 happens, that is this is the maximum boundary where inferior pattern ranges are more likely to act.

Now we can examine the most deviated situations any shoe might form after trillions and trillions of trials.

1) A shoe entirely formed by 5/5+ streaks: no bet

2) A shoe entirely formed by singles: the s/d plan works

3) A shoe mostly formed by 5/5+ streaks: a relative big obstacle to the above plans.

Obviously it's a lot more likely to get a #3 possibility than a virtual all 5/5+ streaks shoe (#1) or a virtual all singles shoe (#2), but you can test your shoes (even by common random walks) and you'll see that the average 5/5+ streaks distribution is well defined by more probable numbers that very often account for a 0 value than for numbers superior than the expected probability to happen.

More later

as.

Numbers refer to double (2) or three (3) streaks, any streak superior than 3 is labeled as S.
Each row is a real dealt shoe when a fair portion of the final end was discarded from the registration.
Patterns are formed by our main mechanical random walk action.
Numbers in brackets at the end of each shoe are "undefined" streaks for a lack of more hands.

S,3,3,3,2,2,2,S,2,3,2,S,2,3,2,S,S,2

2,2,S,3,S,S,S,2,3,2,2,3,2,2,3,S,3

2,2,S,3,3,3,3,2,2,3,2,S,S,3,3,2,S

3,3,S,2,3,2,3,2,3,3,3,S,3,2,2,S,S,(3)

3,2,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,S,S,S,2

2,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,2,3,2,2,S,2,2,3,3,2,S

S,3,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,S,S,S,S,2,3,2

S,2,3,2,2,3,3,2,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,S,S

3,S,3,S,2,3,S,2,3,2,3,2,S,S,2,S,(3)

S,3,2,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,S,2,3,(3)

2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,S,2,S,S

2,2,3,3,S,3,S,2,2,2,2,S,S,2,3,3,2,2,(3)

2,2,S,2,3,3,2,S,3,3,2,S,2,3,S,(3)

2,2,2,2,2,S,2,S,2,2,S,3,3,2

3,3,3,S,S,2,3,2,2,3,S,2,2,2

2,2,2,3,2,2,3,3,2,2,S,S,3,S,S

2.3.2.3.S.2.2.S.2.2.2.2.3.2.2.3.2

2.2.2.2.2.3.3.S.2.3.S.2.3.3.3.2.S

S,3,S,3,3,3,2,S,2,3,2,3,S,(3)

S,3,3,S,3,2,2,2,3,2,3,2,2,3,3,S,2

3,S,S,S,3,S,2,2,2,2,2,S

3,S,S,2,3,2,S,2,S,3,2,2,2,2,3,S,S,(3)

4,3,3,2,2,2,2,S,S,2,S,2,S,2,2,3,S

2,2,2,S,S,S,S,S,3,S,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,(3)

S,3,3,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,S,S,2,2

2,S,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,S,2,2,3,2,2,2,2

2,2,2,S,3,2,2,S,S,S,3,3,S,S,S

2,S,S,S,2,3,2,S,S,2,2,2,S,3,3,S,(3)

S,2,S,3,2,2,S,2,3,2,3,2,2,S,2,3,2

3,3,S,3,3,3,S,3,3,S,S,S,2

2,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,3,2,S,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,S

S,3,2,S,3,S,3,2,S,2,S,2,S,2,2

3,S,3,S,2,S,2,2,2,3,S,2,3,2,3,S

2,2,3,2,3,3,2,2,S,2,2,S (7310)

as.

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.

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.

Before thinking to adopt a progressive multilayered betting scheme we should understand some basic statistical tools applied to long term live shoes data.
Differently than black jack, we reached the conclusion that at baccarat we do not need millions of shoes data, few dozens of thousands are more than sufficent to realize the ranges of intervention of our plan.

Modal value at attack #1, singles vs streaks

By applying a 0.75% probability of success (that is looking for a win within a couple of attempts) and discarding a subtantial portion of initial (foremost) and ending hands, the most frequent number of bettable spots per shoe (considered as a win or a loss) is 8.

Since a two-step continuous wager is working and thinking by average values, we reckon to bet around 12 times per shoe (isolated singles and two singles in a row).

Worst situations are whenever we won't win a single two-step hand, that is when the shoe will present ALL single clusters superior than 2.
Knowing the modal value, on average the worst event we'll expect it'll be to get 16 losing bets in a row.
But since the shoe is finite and by applying a "clustering" factor, such scenario could be easily discarded, mostly as distributions wholly negating a more likely 1-2 single steps almost always cannot reach the 8 modal value (stopping well before).

In any instance, shoes NOT presenting at least one winning spot are showing up around 1% of the times. In the almost all cases the number of bettable spots (and disregarding the important clustering effect) is 5 or 6.

On the other end, shoes presenting ALL one-step and two-step single situations account for a nearly 10% of total shoes dealt.

Therefore after 100 shoes dealt and ignoring the vig for simplicity, at such most deviated situations on average we'll expect to win 4 units (1-1.5 progression) or 8 units (1-2 progression) ten times and to lose from 12.5 units (1-1.5 progression) to 18 units (1-2 progression) one time.

In a word and after 100 shoes dealt, most possible deviated outcomes at either side will get a 40 units profit (by adopting a 1-1.5 progression) to 80 units profit (1-2 progression) or a 12.5 units loss (1-1.5 progression) or 18 units loss (1-2 progression).

Then it remains to assess the most likely intermediate situations where one or more positive (most likely) or negative (less likely) event will affect the overall ratios.

Positive situations (that is isolated or two-step singles) will account a nearly 77% probability (expected value = 75%), the remaining 3-step sequences are equally distributed betweeen 3s or superior than 3s steps.

That's where our edge comes from.

Results are always shifted to our favor, it's just a matter of time that things will take a more likely profitable course of action.
It's a slow process capable to get rid either of the negative variance and of the permutations issue, both factors easily manageable by a simple clustering way of considering things.

Next week I'll give you the details about the average clustering streaks distribution.

as.

It's important to say that algorithms are particularly sensitive not only about the specific streaks formation but also about their relative position in the actual shoe dealt as they were instructed to suggest the best move after having implemented thousands and thousands of real shoes.

The clustering (or isolated or no showing up) effect is just one parameter (even though being the most important) they would look for.

See you later

as.

KFB: I misworded my initial question. I meant to ask about CSM (Continuous Shuffle Machines)in Vegas.

Besides the Venetian Theater (where almost nobody plays there), I do not know any Vegas casino offering bac shoes shuffled by a CSM.
For that matter we have never seen CSM working at baccarat tables worldwide.

Anyway and unlike black jack where ' no hint' people keep betting at CSM decks, I'm pretty sure that no serious bac player would risk the money at those CSM tables.
I strongly discourage anyone to play when a CSM is involved.

Machines I was referring to are produced by the famous SHFL brand.
Perfectly randomly shuffled or not, once a shoe is ready to be played we must be sure the succession to remain untouched.

Thanks for the link and for the couple of real life situations you presented.

as. 

First, if A<B (that is we're betting an A math disadvantaged proportion) we're supposed not to go anywhere yesterday, now and in the future.
Yet, at baccarat A/B successions are more dependent that many would think about, schematically we could split such successions into three different categories:

1) Slight/moderate fluctuations at either side;

2) Strong fluctations at A side (positive);

3) Strong fluctuations at B side (negative).

Obviously itlr 1 > 2 and 3 and of course 2 < 3.
The proportional damage of 3 will overwhelm the advantage of 2, but 1 category still includes the vast majority of situations, meaning that they are easily controllable by a progressive betting scheme.

In some way, both strong positive and negative situations (2 and 3) should be avoided by putting the most emphasis to the more likely "intermediate" world.

Obviously a more likely world cannot get rid of a basic statistical assumption that a given propensity must come out more clustered than isolated, thus setting up a kind of negative pattern "boundaries" (stop) along the way.
Such boundaries are naturally counterbalancing a more likely flow, but differently than this one, are way more finite in their apparition as at baccarat key cards cannot disappear from a shoe especially if we'd consider the model as an infinite (!) multistep battle between two sides.

To be worthwhile a progressive plan shouldn't be oriented to get a positive outcome around any corner, just focused to classify the possible negative boundaries permutations happening along any shoe dealt, always privileging the lower classes of apparition by a clustered fashion.

We know very well that very often possible "more likely" scenarios will come out intertwined by less likely boundaries patterns but this thing cannot last for long, so the boundaries problem shifts to the different levels of profitable patterns probability, ranging (for example) from singles to 4 streaks.
Or, it's the same concept, from single isolated sequences to two or three single runs.

Pretend to take the casino's part

Casinos do not give a fk about their math edge (besides side bets), they rely upon more likely pattern distributions belonging to the 1) class, considered "undetectable" by most.
After all, bac players like to hope for strong deviated scenarios constituting the lesser amount of total hands dealt.

Technically casinos must concede some room to such strong deviating opportunities, knowing very well that things will change sooner or later toward a more likely "mixed" distribution.

Well, it's the same thing we should aim for.

Some examples of our progressive plans

Say we want to evaluate the 5th row EMPTY RANGES happening per every shoe dealt.
Ignoring singles and doubles, 3s and 4s streaks will make some empty areas and since 5/5+ streaks are well defined in their average apparition, we'll expect some 3rd and 4th rows to be empty at least two times, obviously this is the same thing that wagering toward clustered 3s and 4s streaks.
The plan has a so high probability of success that we can also add to our wagering options even doubles.

The same about singles successions: 3rd or 4th columns not giving room to any row formation (always considering the clustering effect) are quite rare to happen, giving plenty of room to the more likely 1 or 2 step singles formation.

Obviously some random walks will make those scenarios way more likely to happen, anyway at the end what seems to limit (or not) outcomes' distribution gets an esponential probability to succeed.

It's like that either the actual distribution will form a more likely number of streaks or that such streaks will belong to low classes being clustered.

as. 

Later I'll try to discuss some points about progressive plans.

as. 

Quote from: alrelax on February 28, 2024, 05:04:49 AM"Of course when in doubt we won't risk a cent".


You are being facetious, right?

Or is that your rock solid m.o.? 

Almost always r.w. 1 takes the lead over r.w. 2 but it could happen that that shoe is more consistent with streaks limited by r.w. 2.
Now if at a given hand r.w.1 dictates to bet Banker but r.w. 2 dictates to bet Player, we simply don't bet.

Taken the issue from a general point of view, yes, we are always in doubt...it's the nature of the game

as.