Why bac could be beatable itlr

[AsymBacGuy]

@whatwhats

Basically only a large number of complex approximate algorithms working together will get the best EV+ situations, where some of them ascertain the relative unrandomness (or real randomness) of consecutive shoes and the other part will take care of the "more likely" deviations every shoe is entitled to produce.
Mostly common bac successions we're destined to face are 'biased' in the sense that they seem to get a bit greater  number of univocal deviations than expected, yet the problem remains to understand if such deviations will come out from "natural" fluctuations (sd values) or artificially endorsed by the bias.

Obviously when in doubt betting towards the deviations will be a minor mistake than wagering to have that deviation to stop.
Anyway a steady betting plan directed to get deviations or moderate/strong deviations around any corner is destined to fail unless the asym/sym factor is implemented in the approach.

So any strict mechanical plan (unless suggesting over selected situations) will surely lose because we have no means to know if the shoe is randomly or unrandomly distributed.
I mean that even the 2nd bet could endure long consecutive losing situations, so waiting for a moderate/long fictional 2nd bet losing succession to show up before real betting won't make the job. Actually it should tell us that that shoe is either following a natural deviation or that it wasn't properly shuffled. So no hints.

What you call as "reverse" strategy is an interesting point, providing you'll put in a proper balance what is theorically more likely to happen with what is really happening and that is often best determined by the asym/sym patterns shape and lenght considered by each relative step.

For example, we've tested several thousands of real shoes dealt by a perfect "random" shuffle and we got no one complete asymmetrical pattern succession (that is up to 21 patterns had featured at least one symmetrical pattern per shoe) but in the real world the almost same sample got two shoes without any symmetrical pattern.
Conversely, the longest symmetrical consecutive sequence in our random sample was 6, but in the real world we've accounted a 7 and a 10 long sym succession, supporting the idea that actual real shoes are not properly shuffled.

Conclusion is that nowadays at most (say the entirety) of shoes dealt, the asym/sym feature considered by each step will be less likely to provide specular (so symmetrical) patterns than the opposite situation.

as.

[KungFuBac]

Hi Asym.

"...Obviously when in doubt betting towards the deviations will be a minor mistake than wagering to have that deviation to stop..."

    I think this is the optimum approach for most events. 


Q: Approximately how many events(i.e., Betting Spots) do you consider in most shoes?


Q:What is your typical deviation-from-expectation requirement for betting into that spot? For example do you look for events that lets say occur four times per shoe. Then after say 60% penetration (with -0- occurrence) in the shoe you start wagering for that event to occur  after the first stages of said event have shown?
    OR 
Are you more likely to only wager on events that lets say only occur every 3.5 shoes?


Thx in advance.