My kinda guy!

But I don't want to leave - I want to see what the next outcome is and then decide what to play. That's what I would do anyway.But I realize this is just a little fun thing and not to be taken seriously. All good.

Where's the no bet option?

Just record in groups according to convenience. As soon as you get a win reset using the last decision as a starter. The theory says ANY group of maximum 9 so you can restart your series from any suitable point - but obviously a place where there has not been an AP yet.

The trouble is, there is no guaranteed win anywhere in the series.And if we get to the 9th bet that is always a mutual bet. I think - if I remember correctly.

Yep - that is also true.  I was just trying to point out that the 1-5-9 possibility does exist. But I guess that it will always be a dual possibility - I get that. It can be quite mend-bending this stuff can't it?

True. So I missed a combo. Try this. PPBBPPBBP. The point is, because the theorem states within 9 then there will be a 1-5-9 possibility.

There is also a 1-5-9 possibility.  PPBBPPBPP

Firstly, ignore ties. I assume you are talking about the baccarat tie? Ties are a push - it is as if they don't exist when you are only playing B or P.

The guarantee is only that an AP will definitely occur somewhere. If it hasn't arrived by the 9th then yes, it will happen then but as you say can be either outcome as both will complete an AP.

Good point. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to back up further. Theoretically anyway. If you have completed an AP that is, for example, PPP, then why can't you start a new series with PP? What about PBPBP? Could you go right back to BPBP? According to theory it would seem that you can. But I wonder if that is pushing the limits and the result will simply be a fallback to standard expectation? Actually I'm not at all sure that there is any advantage in playing this way. Because of the situation where either of P or B would complete an AP I suspect that the result over time is going to come back to the basic probabilities of the game. Maybe the advantage is in the selectivity, or perhaps it somehow reduces the extremes.

If you are using a VdW strategy then it is perfectly valid to use the hand that just completed a cycle as the first hand in a new cycle. This is because the theorem applies to any consecutive 9 outcomes. It is perfectly valid maths-wise and reduces your wait time a little.

Thanks zuffle. I noticed a comment from Denzie somewhere (can't remember where now) that after a lot of work he was finding that it wasn't up to much. Was he wrong? I stopped following it to be honest.

Nice analysis. But I don't think anybody here is expecting that this approach will yield an actual edge against the probabilities in the game so no surprises with your results really.

What I think is being studied here are the LIMITS presented by this type of bet selection. "There will always be ..."  and "within such and such x will happen" and so on. This is the nature of the so-called non-random events. And, of course, how these limits can be utilised to advantage. Can a safe progression be worked out to match a certain property such that failure is unlikely - or even impossible? That is the real question here because, in my view anyway, a progression will be mandatory for long term profitability. So how can we make it safe?

Or perhaps can a combination of several bet selections from a palette of non-random methodologies be combined into a cohesive strategy together with a "safe"progression be profitable long term?

Works on others as well. For example the magic number is 27 for trinary such as dozens and columns. But after that the number really gets too big.

How about dealing with the ambiguous ones by betting both? That is, run a bank on both B and R, say, and use a simple D'Alembert net betting the two. That will halve the cost of zero as well.

So - Denzie/Tomla - how is it going? Curious how this is working out for you. Is it still alive on the other forum? Could you post a link perhaps? thanks.