Lovepreaks: I'll give you a detailed answer ASAP.
Thanks for the patience!

as.

Over 100 triple zero tables!!!!

Yes, most gamblers are clueless and are not students of the games.

The fact that there are more than two of those tables shows how poor the level of play really is with most people.

Simply incredible.

AD

Yes I also agree, not on ounce of liability on the casino's part IMO.  There are enough warnings up in all casinos about 'over' gambling and self banning options, etc.

What about people over spending and bankrupting themselves with mortgages they simply can't afford, businesses they can't run properly, and all other types of spending that leads millions upon millions to failure and their own personal disasters?  Never seen a poster up in a bank saying, "Be careful about over spending, over investing or applying for mortgages you might default on one day".

Where to Play Single Zero Roulette in Las Vegas.

I found this factoid concerning: "..It may seem like triple zero roulette has taken over Las Vegas. There are almost 100 triple zero tables in the market these days and over 200 double zero ones...."


More ways to win, 


The following was Written by John Mehaffey on Vegas Advantage.

https://vegasadvantage.com/single-zero-roulette/

I concur with the courts on this one. Any thoughts or opinions??

From the link below:

"...Court upholds that MGM Resorts isn't legally obligated to prevent compulsive gamblers from betting

Plaintiff Sam Antar lost nearly $25 million on MGM platforms

Lawsuit claimed MGM violated the Consumer Fraud Act by offering bonuses despite his addiction

A New Jersey federal appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling that MGM Resorts – and US casino operators in general – have no duty of care toward compulsive gamblers...."



https://www.casino.org/news/mgm-no-duty-of-care-towards-man-who-gambled-25m-court-affirms/

Thx Asym for your reply in post #1295 above.




Cheers,

#   Trigger Pattern   PB Sequence Example   Trigger Recognition Point   Last Result   Final Recommended Bet
1   Zigzag 4 times in a row   P B P B P B P B   Confirmed through the 8th card   B   Bet B (repeat)
2   2-line repeat for 3 consecutive sets   P P B B P P   Confirmed through the 6th card   P   Bet B (opposite)
3   3-3-3 cross-streak for 3 sets   P P P B B B P P P   Confirmed through the 9th card   P   Bet B (opposite)
4   Zigzag 6 times in a row   P B P B P B P B P B P B   Confirmed through the 12th card   B   Bet P (opposite)
5   2-line repeat for 4 consecutive sets   P P B B P P B B P P B B P P B B   Confirmed through the 16th card   B   Bet P (opposite)


For example, is this the right way to do it?

Thank you for your work on this asymmetric/symmetric baccarat strategy. As I continue to apply and study it, I'd greatly appreciate your insights on a few key points:

Do you have a defined probability model for pattern transitions—particularly from asymmetric to symmetric (A→S) or symmetric to asymmetric (S→A)?
For example, is a 0.75 probability for A→S transitions a reasonable estimate?

Given that the same P/B sequence can sometimes generate multiple A/B outcomes, what specific rule or method do you use to assign A or B in those ambiguous cases?

When identifying a potential betting spot, does the row position on the tote board (e.g., first row vs. deeper rows) affect your confidence or decision-making?
If so, how do you weigh that spatial factor?

How were the five betting trigger patterns developed and tested?
Were they based on statistical simulations, real shoe analysis, or other forms of data modeling?

Beyond the five primary triggers, have you developed any secondary filters or conditions to avoid high-risk zones or long losing streaks?

Your guidance would be invaluable as I fine-tune the way I apply your system.

Hi KFB!!

The most emphasis should always be put at row #1

as.

Hi AsymBacGuy.

re: "...Overall we could accept the idea that asym=sym, yet we should be more interested about how many sym events will shift into asym events or vice versa and, more importantly, at which level of asymmetry or symmetry. Per every shoe played.  ..."

Qs: Lets say you have tracked intra-shoe streams of info and concluded the next "spot" is a + bet. So you have concluded the current Sym patterns will change to Asym.
     So my Q is do you give more credibility to a "spot" if that very next potentially winning spot would be in row one (per tote board layout)  vs lets say that spot would be at say row four or six, eight, or whatever Non-One row,..etc. ??

Thx as always,