If I understand the latest it would be the following. There has to be three or more repetitive winning hands and then you’re looking at the cut. If it makes one or two on the cut, then the following would have to cut again and your trigger would be on the third spot to be a repetitive hand.
Example.
BBBB
P or PP
BB —- >>>>(this spot) <<<< Is the hand to wager on.
So Asym, on a score card laid horizontally or the main road, it would look like the picture below. You are referring to the spot to wager where I put the X, CORRECT?
(Attachment Link)
Am I correct?
Yeah Al, you are perfectly correct.
Let math experts to say otherwise: 'it could happen that after a 3 streak and a 1/2 pattern, everytime a precise double instead of a 3s streak will show up clustered for long'.
My answer: 'Really, you fkng dumbas.ses?'
Second more polite answer:
-There's an average number of 3s happening at every shoe dealt in the fk universe. So if the number of 3s are going to get a lower value than average, it means that more singles and doubles clusters must happen. But only half of the times we'll find reasons to bet the above trigger.
On the other end, if a greater than avg number of 3s streaks is going to happen, it means that 3s are more likely coming out consecutively clustered and we won't bet a dime on that.
- Any card distribution (even whether manually and voluntarily placed knowing our strategies) will get a hard time to form 3s streaks followed by a single/double than by another double for long not fitting a kind of 'clustered' streaks pattern (collateral strategy).
In the meanwhile, 'non acute' players (99.9% of bac players at least) will bet toward streaks no matter what or to get a steady single/double line of some kind.
- Quite likely a possible 'losing' distribution is whenever 3s streaks are going to happen by a 1:2 improbable long occurence (average value is 1:3), that is when after a 3 streak a couple of 1/2 events show up making the above trigger as loser.
Anyway just a double is going to make us losers. Not mentioning that a 'clustered single/double player will be winning at all those spots.
- The more probable occurence of such trigger is 1 and not 0. At most situations, no need to chase unlikely trigger situations higher than 1 unless you've registered that too many '1' won't' be balanced by higher values.
Notice that a fair amount of times a single or a double happening at the start of the shoe won't be 1/2 clustered, so followed by a 3 streak, and again a 1 gap pattern happened.
Practical guidelines
if you like to set up a single/double strategy getting 3s limit 'walls' (so stopping or starting to bet up to get a single or a double happening), you know you'll get an avg amount of winning streaks vs losing streaks per shoe.
Of course it's way more likely to get a 1/2 line prolonging whenever a 3 streak will be followed by a single than by a double.
Consecutive 3 streaks do not interest us as being affected by a huge variance.
And obviously more likely (p=0.75) patterns will come out clustered and not singled or, at worst, as singled losers than multiple losers.
Nevertheless, this strategy will face the probability that most shoes are going to get at least one losing spot along the way (that is our beloved 3/1-2/3 trigger).
So we must choose to hope that something weird (albeit being 'natural') won't show up or that a relative unlikely scenario will come out sooner or later.
So let's go back to theory.
Differently than doubles, 3s are more consistent in their appearance (lower sd values): so itlr strong deviated values are more likely to affect doubles than 3s.
It's true that in rare cirucmstances such feature will be disappointed, yet if we'd make as a first condition to bet a 3 streak happening followed by a double (second condition), variance will be efficiently limited.
Now we get a random walk having its peaks of winning and losing hands distributed very differently than a possible 50/50 independent game and not necessarily taking into account the math edge favoring B side.
Instead of verifying such claim but following the scientifical method, let's try to falsify this hypothesis, for example setting up the same random walk now applied at doubles or whatever pattern you'd like to use.
as.
Topic: Why bac could be beatable itlr (Read 123671 times)