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.
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.