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.

Hi Asym.

"...Obviously when in doubt betting towards the deviations will be a minor mistake than wagering to have that deviation to stop..."

    I think this is the optimum approach for most events. 


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


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?


Thx in advance.

Hopefully they will fix this(i.e., revert back to previous rules).

Good news for slot players is the $1200 cutoff(for jackpot payouts generating a form) has been raised to $2000 >1/1/26. This change doesn't affect me as I don't play slots (or if I do its only when required for free play).


https://cdcgaming.com/brief/house-rules-committee-blocks-fair-bet-act-leaving-2026-gambling-tax-reform-uncertain/




Continued Success,
Continued Success,

@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.

Excellent!

Those were great!!

I'm the one in the blue pants when we have our annual "Fun Shoot" at the range.

Team Waffle House!!

AD

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.

ASYM, you said that statistically you get more win on second attempt then first right?

If we do a reverse strategy?

If using the concept you explain we get

LW > WL /

and obviously WL/WW at this point because after a W stop.

If we reverse it shouldn't we get better results?

Obviously in this the 2 step didn't exist anymore because is just one step bet so the first one.

Had an interesting session this morning.

Up until today the longest stretch of a single dozen not hitting that I had personally dealt with was 26, which I caught the tail end of while running a Fib progression.  It almost wrecked my day for sure.

However, this morning's session saw a whopping 39 misses in a row on the 3rd dozen about 10 spins into my session.  This was actually good for me as I was running a reasonably safe "following" dozens mode of play and caught a nice streak of 28 wins in a row on that run.

I did start a modified Fib progression after 10 wins and actually got up to a few $100 wagers (the last one lost, obviously) on a $5 table!  (I know, last of the big time gamblers on the $5 table).

Anyway, it was a good morning and watching the lack of the 3rd dozen was fascinating to see.

AD