Selecting same spots patterns at a multiple shoes succession

Suppose we are registering A/S patterns by assigning a progressive number per every shoe played and arranging them into columns.

Here a brief example of 20 shoes:

A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A
A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-S-S
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A
S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-S-A-A
A-S-A-A-A-A-S-S-S-S
S-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A
A-S-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-S-A
S-S-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A
A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S
A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A
A-S-A-S-A-S-A-A-S-A
A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-A-A
A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-S
A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A
S-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A
A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A
A-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A
S-S-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S

A= 233 and S=87 (x3=261)

Despite of being voluntarily taken by a kind of S innatural predominance (A:S gap=-28), we see that the above guidelines still stand even by a vertical registration.

For example column #1 (first pattern of every shoe) provides a A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S succession.

Column #2 a less appealing sequence as A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-S-S-S

Column #3 A-S-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A

Column #4 A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-A-S-A

Column #5 S-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A

And so on...

This simplified scheme (again...voluntarily taken from a moderate/strong negative standpoint) should get us some hints about approximating at best our action when we want to consider same spots at back-to-back shoes. Especially by assessing that bighornsh.i.t could happen for quite long (see the column #3 providing a cumulative -16 units loss before vig if we'd bet every pattern).
On the other end, A streaks longer than 3 must happen and of course they should be "chased" by selectively wagering and waiting that A patterns reach the 3 consecutive value (AAA).

Finally pretend to embody each column as a distinct player's destiny. There are no many columns getting "easy" A/S positive final returns, whereas more than one column experienced harsh times to endure.

Fortunately things will work way better than this example as in the real world the A/S ratio will be very close to the 3:1 expected ratio.
But being prepared to face negative variance is one of the best recipe to try to get the best of the game.

as.

Any symmetrical (S) pattern needs two hands in a row to be equally distributed as the previous pattern.
If cards are really randomly distributed, it's a simple task to ascertain how many clustered S patterns will show up as isolated or (more unlikely) as clustered.

No one serious bac player can miss the profitable spots a real random distribution (random.org, for example) will provide up to the point that a multilayered betting plan will be able to destroy every possible distribution in the world.
This fact counterfeits the idea that every hand is totally independent from the previous ones, thus if our plan is based upon S isolated events, we'll be in very good shape to get more wins than losses, especially if we wait for some fictional losses to happen.

Actually let the house to hope that S clustered events will happen for long but they can't as whatever the cards are arranged a kind of asymmetry will take the lead over the counterpart.

Since just one hand will break a more likely asymmetrical distribution (so producing a less likely S pattern), we need to restrict our field of intervention so waiting for a S pattern to stop independently of its consecutiveness.

Therefore once a S-S pattern shows up at the shoe we're playing at and knowing that more often than not long successions of S isolated events are more probable to come out, we might infer that S clustered patterns will be slight more likely followed by another S cluster. Especially when shoes are unrandomly distributed (machine shufflers, for example).

On the other end, S clusters will slight make more probable A clusters so in the end the only successions we should fear are A-SS...-A-SS... sequences.
And such situations aren't going to come out so often and whenever they'll show up they'll constitute an astounding trigger to get our future bets affected by a huge EV+.

Suppose we have four distinct a-b-c-d fictional players betting for us:

a) player will bet toward A-A just one time;

b) player will bet toward A one time after any single S;

c) player will bet toward A-A after any S clustered event;

d) player will bet to get a A-A-A (or longer) situation.

Our long term data told us that in the vast majority of the times isolated A (so negating an A-A sequence) aren't coming out by a level suprassing the 3-level.
Therefore way more often than not negating a fourth A isolated appearance.

Isolated S patterns are affected by a very low volatility, meaning that isolated S events are more likely to show up clustered than followed by a S cluster.

Once a S clustered event happens (S-S or S-S-S and so on) it'll be slight more likely to face an A cluster.

Clusters of A getting the exact two value (S-A-A-S) aren't going to get many back to back sequences without getting a more natural superior A succession.

Overall we won't face many situations getting ALL four players to lose for long.
Actually it's very likely that at least one or two (or more) players will get the fair amount of positive situations they're entitled to get.
It's just a matter of time and actula deviations, way better to be resolved by a strong diluted bet selection.

as.

Everything 1 billion % true providing the outcomes are really randomly produced.

Differently than roulette where only biased wheels will provide unrandom results (modern wheels aren't supposed to be biased), at baccarat there's a lot to investigate about the real randomness of the production and anyway 416 cards cannot produce infinite patterns once we want to classify them by endless random walk successions.

as.

Regarding your second question, KFB:

It depends.
For example a shoe per shoe registration will make plenty of opportunities to exploit an expectation/actual deviation ratio especially at the very first pattern happening at each shoe as being complete randomly determined.

Suppose we're constantly betting that the very first pattern will be an asymmetrical pattern (so not followed by a same quality second pattern and according to the guidelines decribed in my pages).
Obviously we'll expect a fair amount of AS first patterns or, at least, that S counterparts will be somewhat restricted in their back-to-back appearance. The AS/S pattern ratio (utilizing a 0.75 p) is 3:1 but even though it could be slight lesser than that (2,92:1 or so), itlr such ratio will approach the expected value, especially after having assessed the consecutiveness of the results.

But more importantly and besides the real numbers, it's the quality of such first patterns as single S or double S-S will be easily followed by an AS pattern and of course ranges of AS clusters will be particularly probable.
Obviously this first-pattern distribution translates into a permutation issue more insensitive of a possible symmetrical distribution bias of the entire shoe.

To get a better idea of that, let's try to adopt the reverse strategy, that is wagering toward first S patterns and everyone will see very soon that it's impractical to say the least.

Once we want to bet into an entire shoe, things will change a lot because the boundary between expectation and actual distribution becomes more subtle (yet more profitable with some experience).
I'm sorry but by now I have no time, see you next time.

as.

Hi KFB!

Q: Approximately how many events(i.e., Betting Spots) do you consider in most shoes?

This depends a lot about the actual texture of the shoe, sometimes we need a lot of hands before approximating at best the prediction.
So if the shoe is getting too many weird situations (mainly from an 'hand results' point of view) we prefer to stay put or wagering very few spots.
We think that it's slight more likely to cross a WW situation by diluting the betting than getting the same WW by a consecutive betting approach.
More or less the same about a LL sequence,  anyway those considerations are strongly linked to our specific approach.
Recently we have implemented a kind of additional (very diluted) strategy based just on this: so betting the very next hand toward a L after a single W and betting the very next hand toward a L after a single L.

Once WW and LL patterns had formed we take care of the actual and expected deviations basically by running two different lines:

1) W and L patterns (so "events") seem to get a 1-2 distribution (1 or 2 gaps);

2) W and L patterns seem to provide 3/3+ streaks and few 1 or 2 gaps.

Notice that I'm talking about W/L sub sequences coming out from a selected plan and not necessarily about B/P hands.
If we implement the asym/sym factor on such sub successions, more often than not we are not going to face 'many' symmetrical situations, meaning that WWW/LLL or WW/LL, etc won't be common findings.

It's now that "expected" values will help us to define whether the 1 or 2 line will be predominant at which level of apparition and the idea that per every shoe dealt a perfect balancement between two opposite situation patterns widely intended is out of order.

Q:What is your typical deviation-from-expectation requirement for betting into that spot? For example do you look for events that lets say occur four times per shoe. Then after say 60% penetration (with -0- occurrence) in the shoe you start wagering for that event to occur  after the first stages of said event have shown?
    OR
Are you more likely to only wager on events that lets say only occur every 3.5 shoes?

I'll answer this later.

as.

@whatwhats

Basically only a large number of complex approximate algorithms working together will get the best EV+ situations, where some of them ascertain the relative unrandomness (or real randomness) of consecutive shoes and the other part will take care of the "more likely" deviations every shoe is entitled to produce.
Mostly common bac successions we're destined to face are 'biased' in the sense that they seem to get a bit greater  number of univocal deviations than expected, yet the problem remains to understand if such deviations will come out from "natural" fluctuations (sd values) or artificially endorsed by the bias.

Obviously when in doubt betting towards the deviations will be a minor mistake than wagering to have that deviation to stop.
Anyway a steady betting plan directed to get deviations or moderate/strong deviations around any corner is destined to fail unless the asym/sym factor is implemented in the approach.

So any strict mechanical plan (unless suggesting over selected situations) will surely lose because we have no means to know if the shoe is randomly or unrandomly distributed.
I mean that even the 2nd bet could endure long consecutive losing situations, so waiting for a moderate/long fictional 2nd bet losing succession to show up before real betting won't make the job. Actually it should tell us that that shoe is either following a natural deviation or that it wasn't properly shuffled. So no hints.

What you call as "reverse" strategy is an interesting point, providing you'll put in a proper balance what is theorically more likely to happen with what is really happening and that is often best determined by the asym/sym patterns shape and lenght considered by each relative step.

For example, we've tested several thousands of real shoes dealt by a perfect "random" shuffle and we got no one complete asymmetrical pattern succession (that is up to 21 patterns had featured at least one symmetrical pattern per shoe) but in the real world the almost same sample got two shoes without any symmetrical pattern.
Conversely, the longest symmetrical consecutive sequence in our random sample was 6, but in the real world we've accounted a 7 and a 10 long sym succession, supporting the idea that actual real shoes are not properly shuffled.

Conclusion is that nowadays at most (say the entirety) of shoes dealt, the asym/sym feature considered by each step will be less likely to provide specular (so symmetrical) patterns than the opposite situation.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on January 07, 2026, 03:54:58 PMChime in here if it's okay please.

Finding and defining advantages from fallacy to tangible;

Applying a rock solid Money Management Method that works and you religiously abide by regardless of loss or win;

The ability to take uncertainty out of the picture.  Not easy but you have to. Taking uncertainty out of your conscious will allow a crucial skill for minimizing emotional chaos and allowing you an advantage to distinguish more between what is actually happening and presentments that have a much greater negativity of advantaged play.

The above 3 have proven themselves as great advantages IMO, in my actual brick & mortar play experience and allowing myself the ability to win far greater than what I lose. 

That's a very good list, indeed.

From fallacy to tangible:

That's the theorical key part of what we're talking about.
One thinks to play with an advantage: good, yet the advantage must be measured by running the same situations "infinite" times, thus B bets and P bets must get an EV+ return capable to overcome strong negative variance fluctuations, otherwise the advantage is fake or simply being the by product of unlikely positive volatility lasting for long.

Applying a rock solid Money Management Method that works and you religiously abide by regardless of loss or win;

In that regard we only trust the simplest MM: flat betting. Or, maybe, a very slow multilayered plan where the standard bet is increased by small percentages of it.

The ability to take uncertainty out of the picture.  Not easy but you have to. Taking uncertainty out of your conscious will allow a crucial skill for minimizing emotional chaos and allowing you an advantage to distinguish more between what is actually happening and presentments that have a much greater negativity of advantaged play.

That's the key practical part to consistently win at this game.
A sophisticated and long term successful plan must be always related with what is happening at the table we're playing at. Especially when we have strong reasons to doubt that actual shoes are real randomly shuffled (so not completely fitting those shoes we utilized in our tests).

@whatswhats
I'll answer you later

as.

Let's take the second pattern happening at every shoe dealt, BP registration still stands.

A
S
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
S
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
S
A
S
A
S
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
S
S
S
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
S
A
A
A
A
S
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
S
A
A
A
S
S
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
A
S
S
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
S
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
S
S
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
S
A
A
S
S
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
S
S
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
S
A
A
S
A
A
A
S
S
S
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
S
A
A

as.

Now we're taking care of the very first pattern coming out per every shoe dealt by an A (asymmetrical) or S (symmetrical) shape (according to the rules I've depicted in my post).
To make things easier let's consider just the BP sequence.

A
S
S
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
S
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
S
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
S
S
A
A
A
S
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
S
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
S
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
S
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
S
S
S
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
S
S
A
S
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
S
S
S
A
A
A
S
S
A
S
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
S
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A

Any decent bac soul will get the best of such a succession whatever the possible innumerable permutations such short list might produce (That's the beauty and the importance of assessing outcomes by a clustered or isolated parameter).

Anytime you'll register the very first pattern happening at every shoe dealt (providing to be really randomly shuffled), enlist it to a simple A/S table and let me know whether your findings are not correspondent to this brief list.


as.

Quote from: Whatswhats on January 05, 2026, 09:18:22 PMIn my test, probably is better to bet just one time, the second bet, so wait for a virtual loss on a 2 bet succession or in my way that use what b/p pattern succession is I and what is C, can happen that first bet isn't possible (because i use multiple player playing simultaneously with W/L succession so not B/P) and can happen that first bet isn't possible and second yes so I bet only on the second bet, and the entire shoes that I'm tracking is random 4 hands for shoes, so I enter in a shoes and 4 hands that is my amount of hand for I/C, and then I go next shoes to bet etc, so I work with Asym/sym on multiple shoes that together create a single shoes!

I'm not English so probably my explain isn't the best!

I understand what you've sayed, with your multiple registration you'll get some "conflicting" events where one line suggests a B bet and the other one the P bet.
Probably the second bet is best to assess a kind of asym/sym propensity, providing to abandon the plan after two-three losses happening at the same shoe (there's a reason for that I'll address in a future post).

KFB wrote:

However, my personal belief is that one can do both: Use expectations as a baseline or guide, yet, focus on the shoe at hand(currently right in front of us). IMO this is superior vs doing solely one approach.

Where I consider expectations-as-a-baseline a little more is when the shoe has significantly deviated from expectations(2-3 SD),...etc. Especially in the early part of shoe. Dependent on how extreme the limits have been approached.

I concur.

After all most players follow the shoe and all of them are long term losers and trying to exploit the "following the shoe" approach mixed with the expectation guidelines needs a lot of experience and study that surely KFB and Alrelax got in their arsenal.

Independently of the expectation, any moderate/strong deviation is the essence of the asymmetry, yet in turn asymmetry/asymmetry becomes a symmetrical situation, thus only asym/sym and sym/asym patterns remain asymmetrically placed. That's why, IMO, we need a fair amount of hands to possibly resolve the issue.

On the other end and as we've seen several times here, sym/sym patterns are way more likely to stop after short sequences as the game isn't symmetrical and independent by any means.

A question for KFB about this passage:

One of the easiest ways to approach an even-steven game: A) Play at EZ Bac tables, B)Side step 1 out of every 2 3c7 B wins.

Can you please elaborate the B) point?

Thanks in advance!

as.

Suppose your next bet will be Player.
You'll really lose money itlr only if the Player draws and Banker shows a 4 or 5 initial point (actually even if the Banker shows a 3 but by a way lesser degree).
At all the other possibilities, a P bet is not losing money and of course 6s, 7s, 8s and 9s initial points will get a perfect equal probability to show up but the payment will be different, being 1:1 all of the times at P side but less than that at B side at commission games.
On the other end no commission games will get an inferior ROI whenever a B 6 will win (Tiger/Lucky 6 tables) or when a B three card winning 7 will show up.

From a mere asymmetrical/symmetrical patterns point of view and besides the math implications, that means that we should have more reasons to bet P at Tiger/Lucky 6 tables and conversely to bet B at EZ baccarat tables.
That means that a possible symmetrical 'unwanted' pattern should be evaluated by an additional factor, for example about how the previous hand went by the asym/sym math propensity that, of course, is less likely to happen consecutively whether the previous hand was asymmetrical and anyway regardless of the actual outcome.

That doesn't mean that betting P after an asymmetrical hand had shown up will get us an advantage (it would be too an easy task), just that the 'general' asymmetry will take care even of this factor when deciding the side to wager upon.

Our tests have told us that it's a minor mistake to chase asymmetry while betting two consecutive steps at P side than by wagering two consecutive steps at B side. A kind of paradoxical finding we should be aware of.

oOoOo

Back to the S successions considered by isolated (I) and clustered (C) shapes now at their SECOND appearance per every shoe dealt. Again first registration follows a specific random walk then we'll take care of the mere BP successions.

I
C
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
C
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
C
C
I
I
C
C

Now the BP registration:

I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
C
C
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I

Maybe there's nothing to guess, just to exploit such probabilities...

as.

Besides of the different approaches anyone would like to adopt, at the end what really counts is the proven math edge our bets will get (or not) over the course of our action.

Since it's impossible to play with a real advantage by simply varying the betting amounts, we're compelled to run long tests and see whether our single bets are really surpassing the well known winning cutoffs of 51.3% at B bets and 50.1% at P bets.
That is the bet selection is of paramount importance.

Regarding those winning probabilities, we know that B bets are affected by the actual rules, so at "Tiger/Lucky 6" tables we need a way higher winning probability than 51.3% to be ahead itlr as we must endure a greater HE (1.46% instead of the common 1.06%); on the other end EZ baccarat tables reduce the HE by a 0.05% (1.01% instead of 1.06%).
Obviously HE at P bets remains at -1.24% at all tables.

If we think our approach will dictate to place half of our bets either at B or P side (even by running complicated other forms of random walks), we see that our B winning probability will be enlarged by few situations (ranges) whereas P winning probability will get "less unfavourable" successions (from a math point of view) as the asymmetrical math probability to have B math advantaged hands is 91.4/8.6.

This consideration could be particularly important anytime we choose to bet very few hands, especially whenever our plan will instruct us to bet two hands in a row.

After all situations really favoring the Banker side are distributed by a 8-9 hands range per each 8-deck shoe (and of course some of those situations-around 10%-resolve in a tie).

More later

as.

A Wonderful New Year to everyone!

as. 

Quote from: Whatswhats on December 29, 2025, 11:26:01 PMHi asym, hoping everything is fine!

I have two question.

1.
First sequence every I/C is a shoes right?

2.  With B/P successions what you mean exactly? Any B/P successions or what?

Hi!
Exactly!

as.

Exactly, but more often than not patterns will prolong or stop at some detectable points especially if we'd run the same situation infinite ways.

For simplicity say we're taking care of the very first S pattern happening per every shoe dealt.
We'll stubbornly bet that that first S pattern will be come out as isolated (A-S) instead of being clustered (S-S...)

Here's a "short" list of real shoe results (I=isolated S pattern, C=clustered S pattern) according to a specific random walk:

I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
C
I
C
I
I
I
C
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I

I'd guess that it wouldn't be so difficult to get an advantage of such succession even if you are changing the sequence by all the possible permutations coming out in your mind.

Make things easier and let's see what'll happen at the same shoes just considered by mere BP pattern sequences:

I
C
C
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
C
I
C
I
C
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
C
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
C
C
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
C
I
I
C
C
I
I
C
I

Such "simplest" succession seems to be quite similar to the previous one, but in the process of building it we accounted for a way higher number of 2-step winning situations than 1-step situations, so suggesting that BP asym/sym feature needs a relative higher number of hands dealt to privilege the asymmetry.
This finding should suggest us that whenever we take the simple BP succession as the "main line" to rely upon, most asymmetrical impact will show up, on average, at the second step meaning that we'll get more wins at the 2-step than at the 1-step.

as.