🎉 Happy New Year to all the fine members of this community! 🎉

May 2026 bring prosperity and success at the table 🃏🎲 with personal fulfillment in your lives, for you and your loved ones.

Wishing everyone perfect health, happiness and memorable moments throughout the year ahead.
🤗
Vic

 In 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!

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.

Wishing everyone a happy new year.





May the wind always be at your back[/i], KFB

Hi 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?

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.

The 2 states I am between the majority of the times, there are no Waffle Houses.

Although when I am in or around Kansas City for work or casino, there are!  And in fact I/We will even break from a casino to go one nearby to eat! 

Love them, always did and always will!