@lovepreaks

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?

Since we need to place two bets to define the asymmetry (if the first bet was lost), yes we'll expect A to get a 0.75 p, so the A/S ratio should be 3:1.
That's in theory because in many RNG productions the number of S is way higher than 0.25(!).

Nonetheless S status is more frequent but tend to change faster than at other shufflings.
Maybe betting A-A one time is the safest pattern to look for, then betting A after S-S.
 

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?


Not sure if I intendend well your question.
Derived roads are still the simplest way to get A/B sub successions, as you know well only long streaks will make every random walk to be homogeneously shaped.

When in doubt to bet between two or more lines, I'm not betting at all. Anyway as a general rule of thumb I'll prefer the line presenting a triple and not singles and/or doubles.
Moreover the line featuring many streaks and few singles do not elicit any first bet (that would be a sudden win).
So the line that collected more first winning bets than second winning bets is priviliged.
Then there are other considerations to be made.   

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?


Space distribution of the outcomes is the most important tool to master IMO.
It's the CFS working at different velocities but with a kind of "average steps".
 
I know a couple of successful players adopting a pure anti-streak game (so basically toward a positive CF speed) capable to get rid of many long unfavourable streaks by making considerations about how hands went in that specific (so far short) streak.
They start to consider betting only from row #2 or #3, sometimes even #4 so the shoe is halved or  quartered or even more reduced. Then only three or four bets are placed. 


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?


We have never utilized simulators, just real live shoes listed by different forms of shuffling. We own a casino's shuffling machine too.   

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

There are 4/5 different strategies we currently use and of course we try to adopt the ones performing best at the actual shoe.

Unfortunately losing streaks happen and MUST happen.
We are sure to play with an edge but nobody knows how the actual shoe is arranged. That's why we make very few bets and play a lot of shoes.

We try to avoid to play at tie rich shoes or when many hands are resolved by 6 cards (it's the same math concept).

Another tool we look for is the number of naturals happening so far.
We prefer to face an average value of them (around 1/3 of total hands as you know).

Take care!

as.

@lovepreaks, regarding our post #1297

Each shoe will form a sequence of Asymmetrical (A) and Symmetrical (S) patterns; for each category  A could stand one time, two times or even for the entire shoe (a thing that happens not so rarely).
The same about S, but since we have chosen the 0.75 probability to define A and S, S successions are obviously way shorter and normally less clumped (so rarely going past three in a row).

Put into numbers and assigning A(+1) and S(-3), what we're basically looking for first is any +2 (+1+1, that is A-A) or -2 (-3+1, that is S-A) sums. Of course at both cases the first number is the unbettable trigger.

If a longer than two S sequence come out, we put a limit of interest at (S-S) meaning that so far we aren't interested about values more negative than -6.

Most players like to bet towards symmetrical patterns because asymmetrical ones tend to be perceived as "too chaotic" so more undetectable.
But it's not what we are betting but WHEN.

OoOoO

The simplest tool to ascertain the "average" distribution of an asym/sym pattern are doubles.
Doubles are the perfect pattern to look for as they are the most likely bac pattern occurrence.

If you think the actual production you're playing at seems to be "undetectable" try to register some hundreds of shoes, then take care of how many consecutive doubles had happened on average.
If isolated doubles and two consecutive doubles vs superior double clusters are accounting for at least a 76.5% you'll be in good shape. 

Consider more than one random walk before reaching conclusions.

You won't bet many hands for sure and a natural variance is expected but you know to play with an advantage.
Moreover since the primary goal for any serious bac player is to win money and not getting thrilled by the possible volatile favourable circumstances, you can easily track how many times a first/second/third or fourth bet had won and acting accordingly.

For example, at any level of the four progressive multilayered bets you could respectively raise the standard bet by a 10% after a win and by a 5% after a loss.

I could provide a list of casinos worldwide where such a simple strategy will 100% work so far (providing to take care of multiple random walks) where, of course, shoes are machine shuffled.

Notice that the slight double propensity toward asymmetry is the best situation to hope for among the three different patterns examined (single, doubles and triples) even if considered by two S steps.

as.

Suppose we are betting randomly the pattern #2, #5 , #8 and #15 of the Big Road. (two time pattern #15 hadn't come out):

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

What and when to bet at these successions?

If S= -3 and A= +1, before vig any line will get:

-4
+4
0
+4
+4
0
+4
+4
-9
0
-4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+4
0
0
-5

Total= +2

If adopting the strategy to play A-A one time and A after S one time we'll get:

(-3)(+1) = -2
+1
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
+1
-3
+2
(+1)(-3)(+1) = -2
+1
+1
(-3)(+1)(+1) = -1
+2
+2
+2
+1
+1
+2
+1
(+1)(-2) = -1

Total= +15

Therefore if we'd assume a A=0.75 p and S=0.25 p, the expected A/S ratio is 3:1. So it's the average more likely ratio while considering four A/S decisions (when applicable).
Thus when an average ratio shows up no possible permutation will deny us to make a +1 or more probable a +2 profit.

In fact a single S among three As cannot produce any loss.

Within sets of 4 resolved hands, losing streaks can only come out when two or more S happens.

Anyway 4 S are just a loss of -3
3 S produce a loss of -6, -6, -3, -2.
2 S produce a loss of -2, -5, -6, -1, -2; and a win of +2.

0 S are always a +1 win.

Paradoxically we are in less worse shape when 4 S are showing up than when 3 S are coming out.
2 S are really hurting us just in two out of six possible permutations; in the remaining cases we'll get a -2 or -1 controllable loss and even a win of 2 units.

Run this situation infinitely (that here were taken randomly even if some positive variance happened) and let's see how many 4-decision sets are getting the negative 3 S or, at a lesser degree, the 2 S negative enemy.

A more aggressive plan needing a very large bankroll would be to double the A-A bet and the S-A bet after two or three losses in a row with the addition of betting the A patterns until they'll stop and until the deficit is recovered.

A plan at least 50x fold better than betting Banker in whatever sauce.

as.