Why bac could be beatable itlr

[alrelax]

You wrote, "Conversely, playing towards low levels of presentation will suffer from the inevitable strong deviations.
In the meanwhile HE adds more damage to our bankroll.

The same about betting half of the hands dealt or 1/3 (or more) of the hands dealt.

If you stay away from betting you are not losing anything, I don't recall any long term winning player betting more than few or very few hands per shoe."

I wrote,  "Expectations are extremely dangerous to a player. By expecting presentations to be a certain way you are removing yourself from the reality of the shoe. 

If you remove yourself from expectations of what should happen/ occur and how it should, you become impartial and more open to the possibility of what the shoe will produce.  You pay attention in a different perspective that will be to your advantage.

BAC is complex and your awareness is crucial to profitability. Expectations are great in planning and armchair quarterbacking, but at the table they are extremely dangerous and bankroll drainers in every aspect whatsoever."

More in my thread I wrote just before you wrote the above I quoted.


https://betselection.cc/index.php?topic=12019.msg73214;topicseen#msg73214

[AsymBacGuy]

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.

[Whatswhats]

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?