Quote from: AsymBacGuy on February 11, 2026, 03:44:50 AMSuppose we're the dumbest players in the universe by confiding that the very first pattern happening at MR and BYB will very soon produce an AS/AS parallel pattern.
Of course we'll cut off from the play the situations where the first sequence occurring at either line will be a S event. And maybe we'll fictionally wait that some levels of AS/S apparition will come out before betting.
Yes, some conflicting events negate a possible betting but we know that some converging events (dictating to wager the same side) will enlarge our probability of success.   

I'd guess we won't lose a lot of money...

as.

So what you explain can be a strategy to track (in my case i use an asym/sym of 4 hands per trigger) divided by 2 so example

BBBB IS / BB BB so is sym. and so on. BUT I track the W/L of the strategy I use firstly for this so isn't B/P but W/L.

Anyway you say to track first pattern on mr and byb, if both are A/A or S/S the best best will be to bet A, obviously can happen that mr and byb can conflict sometime or be agree.

this seems an old strategy i tested years ago, also because have the same back to back shoes / asym/sym should be less probable or anyway this should reduce the volatility and the bet shouldn't be so slow because of online casino with 10/20/30 table

Suppose we're the dumbest players in the universe by confiding that the very first pattern happening at MR and BYB will very soon produce an AS/AS parallel pattern.
Of course we'll cut off from the play the situations where the first sequence occurring at either line will be a S event. And maybe we'll fictionally wait that some levels of AS/S apparition will come out before betting.
Yes, some conflicting events negate a possible betting but we know that some converging events (dictating to wager the same side) will enlarge our probability of success.   

I'd guess we won't lose a lot of money...

as.

For simplicity let's consider just the very first pattern happening at each shoe dealt by the AS/S format displayed in my pages then registering the back-to-back shoe results.
We track just the Main Road.

We'll see that those first patterns will converge more and more towards the expected AS/S 3:1 ratio.
Mathematically we could concede the concept that long unlikely S patterns will take the lead by occurring consecutively, that is that the permutation issue will get us harsh times to define what's more likely to happen (A patterns).
   
In practice and since the very first pattern is completely randomly distributed, such S consecutive patterns aren't so probable to show up at multiple shoes, at least they'll get a conditional probability to come out by different levels.

So level 0 is any S pattern not happening at all, that is an AS pattern.

Level 1 is any S pattern happening being NOT followed by another S pattern (that is a S-A situation);

Level 2 is any S pattern happening two times in a row and followed by an AS pattern (S-S-A situation);

Level 3 is any S pattern happening three times in a row and followed by an AS pattern (S-S-S-A).

Levels beyond the 3 level aren't considered as they are so unlikely to show up, anyway they collect a loss at all 4 above classes.

On the same token we could register the various first patterns happening at each shoe in the AS format.

Level 0 is the absence of an AS pattern, that is a S pattern occurrence.

Level 1 is an AS pattern not followed by another AS pattern (AS-S).

Level 2 is an AS pattern coming out twice (AS-AS) not followed by a third AS pattern (that is an AS-AS-S sequence)

Level 3 is an AS pattern coming out three times in a row (AS-AS-AS) and not being followed by a fourth AS pattern.
So any AS-AS-AS-S sequence is a 3 level event and after this level we'll stop the level registration.

 
The important thing to know is that each level is working independently from the AS/S cumulative ratio, otherwise an unlikely long S sequence will make all levels to lose and the same happens at AS long successions where all S levels will lose.

Obviously greater is the S level considered and higher will be the probability of success, anyway considered by "ranges" of the same level.
On the other end, lower is the AS level considered and higher will be the probability of success, again considered by ranges of the same level.

Therefore our fictional players move by different levels of deviations where the winning probability is statistically shifted at our favor (mostly as we'll wait some deviations to fill diverse levels before we real betting).

Mathematically it sounds as another form of a fallacy, easily negated by evidence.

oOoOo

Now suppose we want to compare the very first pattern happening at Main Road with the same very first pattern occurring at ByB sequence.
Discarding some "conflicting events" where one line dictates to bet X and the other line the opposite Y, we want to assess how many first Main Road (MR) and BYB patterns produce a S/S simultaneous situation.

Actually while comparing MR and BYB first patterns and discarding conflicting events, we'll expect to get 4 different situations getting a different speed even though and generally speaking MR is faster than BYB road.

1- AS/AS

2- AS/S

3- S/AS

4- S/S

Naturally AS/AS events are more likely than other possibilities and S/S events are the least likely to happen.
Then it comes the S/AS pattern and finally the AS/S sequence.
Again each class should be assessed by how many times the same level of apparition comes out.

If you'd run those four possible successions infinitely and admitting some conflicting events to be discarded from our play, any wagering made towards AS patterns will be an EV+ play as symmetrical situations happening at both lines are less likely to happen anyway by a lower degree than the expected 3:1 ratio.

as.

Out of curiosity I report a weird strategy employed by a player following this random walk:
Anytime the first card dealt of each new hand is a red card and the next hand is a Banker she signs a W on her score card, otherwise she writes a L.
The same procedure is utilized whenever the first card is a black card so prompting the next hand to be Player (W) or a L when the opposite side wins.

According to her "theory" such simple registration will make easier to spot the W/L patterns lenght and shapes.
Since she always bet purple chips ($500) and betting very rarely, we were particularly interested to see her strategy that after many polite askings was revealed to us.

An AS/S study applied to this weird rw is under investigation.

More later

as.

@Alrelax:

As far as "sessions", again I found that each 'time' I play, once or twice a week on the average, each time is a session.  That allows me to seclude and focus more on what is happening. 

That's a good, a very good concept of "session". 

@whatswhats:

I understand and appreciate some points you have written, yet the volatility could be only reduced by a valid bet selection and not by manipulating the betting amounts.
If you win consistently and I believe you do is because you would win anyway by flat betting.


as.
 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/two-indian-american-men-indicted-for-allegedly-using-3000-stolen-identities-to-defraud-online-gambling-sites-of-3-million/articleshow/128077490.cms#

Quote from: AsymBacGuy on February 09, 2026, 02:16:19 AMInteresting bankroll managements, yet we personally don't consider the word "session" simply because by flat betting all of the time we take the game as a kind of "infinite" proposition that cannot be splitted by how many shoes or hands we play at a given day other than by a long term winning probabilities schedule.

Anyway the fact that a given entire bankroll cannot be wasted within multiple "sessions" should be interpreted as a possible sign of an EV+ strategy.

as.

was about my post?

I use word session because I don't use flat betting.
buy in and bankroll, bet selection and mm + a plan fixed is the way for me to make it.

Losing buy in arrive obviously but like said before, before that happen we are in profit or will be next.
and yes for me this is the ev+ plan.

the continue research/create of strategies/mm is always then to reduce volatility not for make more money etc.. if you think.

in this case with my plan I reduce the volatility not in a single session but in example, 10 sessions.
(I play online so it's easier and faster)

Asym, I highly respect you and your long term standing here as "one of the best", without any doubt whatsoever!

However, personally and in my 4 decades plus of live B&M play experience all over the USA on all kinds of tables.  I could never engage in flat betting protocol as a mechanical and set wager amount.  I do flat bet, but for a few/several hands at most. 

As far as "sessions", again I found that each 'time' I play, once or twice a week on the average, each time is a session.  That allows me to seclude and focus more on what is happening.  The same with this subject as flat betting for myself.  Better focus, less remembrance of past loss, patterns, trends, and all the other things that go along with our play, admittedly or not.

So I have a definitive play scheduled limited to each and every time I play.  Win, lose or draw.  Half a shoe or three shoes.  My play continues of course, but I am more aggressive and clearer frame-of-mind when each and every "session" is brand new and secluded with a new beginning and a finite ending. 

As far as the Bankroll and Buy-in.  I learned a long time ago the following.  Risk approximately 10-15% of a Bankroll and replenish any previous losses immediately, maintaining the same Bankroll. 

If I go out of town, I would take several days Buy-in from my Bankroll to allow continued play if I had losing sessions.

Among the two players particularly liking the B side, one who collected astounding winnings in nearly 4 years eventually went "broke" (meaning he lost two times his enormous bankroll) by crossing a very very very unlikely 5.1 sigma deviation (basically it's like facing a 28-29 P consecutive streak and similar B/P strong deviated situations).
Nevertheless and considering that this player was able to bear huge negative sigma values and anyway knowing he's abundantly ahead by thousands of bucks, we still consider him as a kind of excellent baccarat player.
A good additional note about this player is that he bet around 1/4 of total hands dealt.

The other B aficionado one is a very patient player roaming at multiple tables and waiting that the first 10 hands occurring per every shoe dealt will produce a P/B 8:2 or greater gap, then progressively wagering the B side until getting a profit.
This is a more risky strategy (in the sense that it's unlikely to bear strong sigma deviations) but involving a lot of wins before an inevitable losing sequence will happen.

The remaining players seem to bet that an average amount of streaks must happen at every road considered, no matter the side.
For example, we'd guess that their strategy is based upon a kind of one side predominance that is more due after many multiple "balanced" situations.
We took this concept in the same way we consider the asymmetrical/symmetrical pattern distributions getting some limits in their appearance.

OoOoO

Most of the times players will try to exploit just two situations:

- symmetrical patterns;

- moderate/strong predominance of one side over the other one.

Besides the constant HE they're getting advantage from, casinos are forced to take the opposite part: that is confiding that patterns are more likely to come out asymmetrically shaped (so more undetectable) or that a fair predominance won't take place for long (again orienting towards a sort of long term undetectability).

We see that a low or moderate predominance will make more probable symmetrical patterns to happen and moderate/strong predominances will provide asymmetrical patterns.
So when we bet toward symmetrical patterns we are just playing the opposite situation casinos will aim for.
Conversely, strong predominances are a natural occurrence that casinos cannot do anything to prolong, unless hoping that such a predominance will stop sooner than later.

A possible edge comes out from estimating how much syncronized asymmetrical or symmetrical patterns show up at different roads at the same pattern positions, a thing we'll discuss in a couple of days.

as.

Interesting bankroll managements, yet we personally don't consider the word "session" simply because by flat betting all of the time we take the game as a kind of "infinite" proposition that cannot be splitted by how many shoes or hands we play at a given day other than by a long term winning probabilities schedule.

Anyway the fact that a given entire bankroll cannot be wasted within multiple "sessions" should be interpreted as a possible sign of an EV+ strategy.

as.