+ Register

[KungFuBac]

Thx AsymBacGuy. Good thread.

In Post #1033 above:
"...Think about sections containing 6, 7 or more consecutive streaks without no singles and the exact opposite scenario.
Those are natural "strong" deviations that must be balanced along the way, otherwise the game would be easily beatable.

Anyway such balancement most of the time doesn't act symmetrically as the transitory deficit will be overcome by low or moderate changes of direction, privileging opposite short patterns than long patterns...."

For me this "MODERATE CHANGE" being detected early on is the key to seeing it just a split second sooner. This is one of many reasons I prefer to play a shoe from the burn onward/ not after the shoe has started.
Its no different then if someone tells you their blood pressure is 120/80 or their pulse is 72. The values become more important once we learn this persons historical average, and how much it has changed, and in which direction.
Its all about the change.




Continued Success,

[AsymBacGuy]

Multiple triggers vs single trigger

If we are able to stay put (no betting) for a lot of hands, a single trigger can get us an interesting statistical advantage as it's just a matter of time (number of shoes dealt) that the asymmetrical model will produce the clustered more likely distributions we're expecting for.
Technically itlr the number of clustered events will be equal to the isolated events, but we know that there's a constant slight force orienting the results towards short "less likely" sequences than long "less likely" sequences.

Nevertheless, any more likely clustered event of any lenght must come out clustered-clustered than clustered-isolated, then more clustered-clustered-clustered than clustered-clustered-isolated and so on.
On the other end we've seen that some random walks applied to less likely events (0.25 probability) are more probable to stop than expected after two clustered situations, so enticing the probability to get a 0.75 probability event.

Anyway if a 0.25 probability must catch up a 0.75 probability, it means that rarer situations sooner or later must involve a strong clustered (albeit unlikely) factor capable to erase most part of 0.75 clusters.

But as already sayed here, even though a 0.25 probability could show up consecutively even 6 times in a row (L=18 units), the 0.75 proportional counterpart is entitled to come out by way superior consecutive sequences up to 31 or even 35 (when proper random walks are applied).

So the cumulative losses vs cumulative wins (vig considered) will be constantly shifted towards the winning side.

Anyway those are just kind of positive or negative "jackpots" needing a lot of time (and patience) to be exploited, some people making a living at this game know that multiple triggers considered will accelerate the bet selection process.

Say there are four main triggers to simultaneously look for (1- singles considered by one/two lenght, 2- streaks lenght considered by 2/3 or 3/4 classes, 3- consecutive single or consecutive streak scenario happening at either side, 4- betting two times the same side whether the first was a losing bet.

Even if the house knows our plan and willing to voluntarily arrange cards to make us to lose (obviously a thing than never happens at serious premises) we'll get:

1- Singles distribution are affected by the streaks density, poor streaky shoes will make more probable long chopping sequences; since we do not want other than a clustered (or clustered/clustered) one/two single successions, in this instance we won't find ourselves in the position to make many bets.

2- More is streaky the actual shoe and greater will be the probability to get 2/3 or 3/4 streak classes clustered as the respectively 4/5 streaks enemy or 5 streaks enemy will be well defined in their average apparition.

3- This factor is strictly dependent on the random walk utilized, that is it raises the probability to get either relatively longer single or streaky sequences than expected.

4- Betting two times the same side is particularly powerful when the first (losing) bet was made at Banker side and not involving the singles one/two distribution. This is the only exception bypassing random walks suggestions.
Notice that after one/two chopping sequences were surpassed, the most likely streak happening is coming out at B side. Anyway by betting the same side two times in a row at moderate/long chopping sequences (and at many other successions), the probability to win within a couple of attempts is 100%.

See you soon

as.

[AsymBacGuy]

Thx AsymBacGuy. Good thread.

In Post #1033 above:
"...Think about sections containing 6, 7 or more consecutive streaks without no singles and the exact opposite scenario.
Those are natural "strong" deviations that must be balanced along the way, otherwise the game would be easily beatable.

Anyway such balancement most of the time doesn't act symmetrically as the transitory deficit will be overcome by low or moderate changes of direction, privileging opposite short patterns than long patterns...."

For me this "MODERATE CHANGE" being detected early on is the key to seeing it just a split second sooner. This is one of many reasons I prefer to play a shoe from the burn onward/ not after the shoe has started.
Its no different then if someone tells you their blood pressure is 120/80 or their pulse is 72. The values become more important once we learn this persons historical average, and how much it has changed, and in which direction.
Its all about the change.




Continued Success,

Hi KFB and thanks!

I can't agree more on that...

as.

[AsymBacGuy]

Single shoe totals

It's interesting to notice that a moderate number of selected bets per shoe using the 0.75/0.25 probability of success won't form the classical bell curve results after several trials, instead tending to produce a slight concave upwards curvature around the 0 (neutral) value.
For simplicity we ignore the vig that of course will slowly shift the results towards the left (negative) part of the graphic.

Thus per every shoe played at the end of it most likely total outcomes will be either moderately or heavily shifted towards one side or the another one.
IMO it's an important factor we should be aware when we want to approximate at best when and/or how many times to chase a pattern or to simply let the hands go without our intervention.

More later

as.

[AsymBacGuy]

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. 

[KungFuBac]

Thx Asym for your essays.

In post #1036 above Asym says:

"...4- Betting two times the same side is particularly powerful when the first (losing) bet was made at Banker side and not involving the singles one/two distribution.  ..."

    I like your suggestion of making only two swipes against an event. It seems many like something similar to a 1-2 negpro(i.e., $100,200). I seldom do a neg progression but when I do its for only two attempts and the first tier is typically 1.0 BU and then 1.05 BU.

The main attribute to this two-attempt approach is that we will often win that FIRST attempt. In cases where I lose the first two attempts @ (1.0, 1.05) my next two attempts going against another event would likely be: (1.7, 2.4). I typically don't chase after that (4 L against 2 events) and any type of negpro after the first few event(s) would be for partial recovery only(Or I would just abort the mission). My premise for not chasing is that I can make up most of the $ from these four failed attempts with a simple pospro on one or two parlays when Im in sync with the Variance.

I mostly live/die by Pos progression and compounding for the simple reason: I don't want to put more money on the table when Im losing.  So this "two-attempt negpro" in my mind is just the right length. Plus we will often get the W on that first attempt.
Just my opinion.


Thx again for your posts.