The core of the problem is not hoping to get a 0.75 A probability standing for long or arranged within too easily detectable terms vs a 0.25 B probability, but trying to approximate the more likely movements happening along any shoe dealt after having ascertained that the bac model is asymmetrical.
A perfect world would consist of endless sequences of AAABAAABAAAB...
In this case the A/B sums will be 0 (before vig) as expected. Yet the less acute player in the world would win a lot of money at this succession.
A nearly perfect world would consist of all A clustered events of different lenght (e.g any AAB sequence would be good), and/or B isolated events (ABAABABAAAABA..etc)
Notice that in both examples the expected equal sum won't be 0 as the B altered pace impact produces negative totals.
Actually most part of shoes dealt will present longer or shorter A sequences than expected by average values (that is 3) and of course B events will pose a real threat when they tend to come out clustered than isolated.
Since the game is surely asymmetrically distributed, the vast majority of the times any single shoe will produce A/B ratios not belonging to a 3:1 ratio, and more often than not the final sum will diverge by 2 or greater positive or negative values.
Naturally such values are in direct relationship of the number of hands dealt so far, so just to speak, we can't expect heavy balancements after a strong deviation especially if we'd get rid of many hands not belonging to the 1,2 and 3 category.
More importantly, we should know that a fair portion of shoes dealt will take a homogeneous direction or a heavily shifted direction from the start to the end of the shoe, providing to place a moderate amount of bets. It's when A>>>B or B>>>A
In this instance we have reasons to keep betting the clustered scenario but knowing that it'll be slight more likely to get long A clustered sequences than proportional long B clustered sequences.
So when B predominates, it's better not to bet a dime.
At the other vast majority of occurences, a good rule of thumb would be to place a bet towards A events coming out clustered at least one time, knowing that a strong profitable long term spot will be to wait two isolated A events to show up then starting to wager.
Such probability (along with many correspondent others) will raise esponentially after one, two or more failed attempts, so enticing the use of a progressive plan for people not wanting to wait and having at their disposal a proper bankroll.
Naturally a plan like this works as it wins by a mere flat betting scheme too, maybe encountering some harsh variance times but getting the best of it itlr.
Say that at most situations it's like playing an average 54/46 proposition long term game whatever the side wagered.
as.
A perfect world would consist of endless sequences of AAABAAABAAAB...
In this case the A/B sums will be 0 (before vig) as expected. Yet the less acute player in the world would win a lot of money at this succession.
A nearly perfect world would consist of all A clustered events of different lenght (e.g any AAB sequence would be good), and/or B isolated events (ABAABABAAAABA..etc)
Notice that in both examples the expected equal sum won't be 0 as the B altered pace impact produces negative totals.
Actually most part of shoes dealt will present longer or shorter A sequences than expected by average values (that is 3) and of course B events will pose a real threat when they tend to come out clustered than isolated.
Since the game is surely asymmetrically distributed, the vast majority of the times any single shoe will produce A/B ratios not belonging to a 3:1 ratio, and more often than not the final sum will diverge by 2 or greater positive or negative values.
Naturally such values are in direct relationship of the number of hands dealt so far, so just to speak, we can't expect heavy balancements after a strong deviation especially if we'd get rid of many hands not belonging to the 1,2 and 3 category.
More importantly, we should know that a fair portion of shoes dealt will take a homogeneous direction or a heavily shifted direction from the start to the end of the shoe, providing to place a moderate amount of bets. It's when A>>>B or B>>>A
In this instance we have reasons to keep betting the clustered scenario but knowing that it'll be slight more likely to get long A clustered sequences than proportional long B clustered sequences.
So when B predominates, it's better not to bet a dime.
At the other vast majority of occurences, a good rule of thumb would be to place a bet towards A events coming out clustered at least one time, knowing that a strong profitable long term spot will be to wait two isolated A events to show up then starting to wager.
Such probability (along with many correspondent others) will raise esponentially after one, two or more failed attempts, so enticing the use of a progressive plan for people not wanting to wait and having at their disposal a proper bankroll.
Naturally a plan like this works as it wins by a mere flat betting scheme too, maybe encountering some harsh variance times but getting the best of it itlr.
Say that at most situations it's like playing an average 54/46 proposition long term game whatever the side wagered.
as.