Why bac could be beatable itlr

[alrelax]

The above considerations might suggest what we name as "The right/wrong bettors strategy" knowing that baccarat is formed by an half part of frustration and an half part of patience. Obviously both factors being not perfectly balanced along any shoe we're destined to face.

More later.

as. 

Oh absolutely!  Just this morning I was discussing this very same topic with my regular playing peers!!!

So very very true. But for most players it is much larger than 'half' part frustration.  It really is.

[AsymBacGuy]

That's interesting, Al!

Since we're dealing with an astounding amount of uncertainty, the "frustration" part could bring us to be disjointed from what actually happens compared with what "should" happen and the last part belongs to "patience".

Patterns are there to be somewhat balanced, so the "right or wrong bettor" concept is related about how good or how bad a given strategy performs at the actual distribution.
Betting too many hands is the sure recipe for disaster as it tends to deny the "patience" impact so leading more to the frustration field where we are totally confused to know what to do.

It's reasonable to think that recreational players like to build a "sky's the limit" strategy by hoping that many univocal deviations will last for long and sometimes they succeed in their efforts. But not by long term values capable to erase and invert the HE, otherwise the game wouldn't exist.

After all is not the HE making players to lose a lot of money but the amount of "wrong" decisions aggravated by the standard bet increase right in the "frustration" fields that invariably happen along the way.
Conversely, most players are shy to wager (or possibly press the wagers) when things seem to be more oriented to go in their favor, a thing symmetrically shaped (before vig) with the frustration field where it seems we can't guess a single hand or a couple of hands for long periods.

Examples.

In the vast majority of the times S patterns are showing up as isolated or two clustered, obviously itlr S clustered patterns can come out up to 4 or 5 or more times in a row. And we don't want such rare situations to wipe out our previous profits albeit the fear of facing them is legitimate.
Obviously the most probable situation to encounter is S isolated events being clustered and technically this is one of the most reliable tool to rely upon especially after having faced S isolated events being intertwined by S clusters.
Notice that S clustered clusters (SS.../SS...) are not making any harm on us as we're not wanting to chase a more probable situation (S isolated events coming out as clustered) when things seem to dictate otherwise.

On the other end, A patterns are supposed to mathematically produce more A clusters (A-A-...) than A isolated events (A-S) and in the vast majority of the times A isolated patterns coming out in a row for "long" ranges come out when S isolated patterns show up as clustered. (SASASAS...)

Now if S events are naturally capable to get shorter than expected 1:3 situations, we know that A events being favored by a 3:1 probability to come out will get, sooner or later (patience factor), patterns longer than 3 and this constitutes a big edge over the house that cannot "control" infinite random walks producing exact A patterns 3 long for extended periods.

Same considerations could be made for other simpler pattern classifications and taken by other various angles.

Is this a new example of the innumerable forms of the gambler's fallacy?

No fkng way.

As long as cards aren't symmetrically distributed and results can be arranged into different random walks, the "uncertainty world" is not belonging to winning players.

as.