Basically we should be more interested about assessing what's the actual shoes production we're playing at instead of thinking that a general plan will get the best of it no matter what.

Casinos are not there to give the players easy solutions about beating baccarat and claiming that natural variance will make things unpredictable for long is a complete bighorn.sh.it statement.

Therefore most shoes are playable as long as the asymmetrical factor seems to be predominant or at least when the symmetrical counterpart is well restrained in its appearance.
When clustered symmetrical patterns tend to come out at the initial/intermediate portions of the shoe, we could safely assume that that shoe isn't playable.

Of course the cut card could provide valuable asymmetrical hands at the same fragments of any shoe dealt, so conceding the room for the unwanted S counterpart in the final portions of it.
Yet huge clumps of Symmetrical patterns are more likely to come out when..."they managed to really come out" as just one hand or few hands might transform a long sequence of As patterns into a back-to-back symmetrical patterns succession.

That means that symmetrical patterns surpassing the 1 (isolated) or 2 (1-step cluster) levels are more probable to provide more clustered sym patterns as the force slightly shifting patterns toward the asymmetry will be "consumed" by coincidental factors not belonging to a more likely distribution.

Summary

If most hands would be arranged by a kind of long symmetrical patterns distribution, the game wouldn't exist as the vast majority of players will rely upon a "human ability" of detecting outcomes by too much simple standards.
Surely this thing happens but not by degrees capable to overcome all other patterns formation and for sure not capable to erase/invert the HE.

Besides the obvious math edge and the bad attitude of many players, casinos rely upon a more probable "chaotic" world and the key word of such world is "asymmetry".
Thus they do not fear symmetry as they know it won't stand for long, collecting profits after the many more probable "undetectable" asym patterns naturally coming out along the way.

Baccarat card distributions are more likely to provide asymmetrical patterns of some lenght or getting symmetrical patterns to stop at more probable points.
This feature is strictly related to the actual shuffling procedure: RTM softwares instructing the machine to deal unrandom sequences will make less reliable the "average shoe" concept.
Yet RTM productions are so polarized that most of the times a searched outcome might be silent for longer frames than expected but then a more natural flow will be more entitled to show up than average. An additional reason to bet very few hands.

Assume that most part of symmetrical patterns are coming out coincidentally and not for natural reasons.
I mean that itlr random productions will more likely distribute by low levels of symmetry and moderate/high levels of asymmetry.
Unrandom productions could easily provide a larger than naturally expected back to back consecutive symmetrical patterns, but they someway must stop so conceding more room to asym situations.

Clustered symmetrical patterns of 3 or more most of the times are the by product of hands that had weirdly produced an unexpected symmetrical pattern whereas a more natural asymmetrical pattern was due.
The conclusion is that whenever a shoe shows symmetrical patterns longer than 2 or whenever the A/S patterns ratio is too much shifted toward the right S side, let the recreational players and tourists to make their betting. You are in a 100% better shape to stand up and drink something waiting for the next shoe.

See you in a couple of days.

as.

At gambling and in games in general asymmetrical results tend to be the norm and for that matter even the real life presents infinite situations where AS sequences predominate.
Itlr events are expected to equalize, providing the same conditions and parameters to run by the same force.

For example a poker tournament is the epitome of asymmetry.
No matter how long is conceived a tournament (the longest are some WSOP events), cards cannot be dealt by symmetrical standards thus some players will be kissed by more lucky hands than others (especially when certain inevitable key spots arise), otherwise the best poker players would win every tournament.
No doubt that itlr best skilled players will account more wins than the rest of the field and that's another important (decisive) form of asymmetry.

For sure cards dealt at a given poker tournament are an actual form of asymmetry and the different skills among participants are a potential form of asymmetry.

Differently than poker tournaments and just regarding the first factor, baccarat is a huge  democratic game as cards are dealt without favoring some players, so in some sense everybody's action is the cause of his/her own destiny.

Obviously the poker comparison was made to emphasize the second factor, uncontested at poker (itlr more skilled players will overcome less skilled players by a 100% level) but more debatable at baccarat.

So the question is: does it exist a "skill factor" at baccarat capable to get the best of the innumerable sequences every player must face along the course of his/her action?

If we were to take a possible positive answer, a good start would be to take for grant that most successions are the by product of a slight asymmetrical force affecting the results, the same way poker tourneys are expected to deal asymmetrical situations.
And when they are not and differently than poker tournaments where we have to put blinds and antes and passively accepting the asymmetry, at bac we can choose to stay away from the betting without losing a dime.

More later

as.   

It's very important to understand that bills are payed by hard work and baccarat makes no exception.

So we better approach the game by realizing that we have to fight with the aim of not losing instead of winning.

It's so hard to win at baccarat itlr that u tube abounds of "new geniuses in town" swearing that for just $50 or $500 you'll break down the house, not mentioning those i.d.iots wagering huge sums and telling us that they are ahead after months of play.

as.

Baccarat is a game of "ranges" that we may consider through infinite different random walks derived from the original BP sequence.

Since all bets are conceived as EV-, we might study how long and how's likely that a given searched situation will happen or not by a decent level of probability capable to erase or possibly inverting at our favor the HE.

So for the purpose of what we're talking about, we'll focus about the probability to encounter S or A patterns considered by their average distribution in terms of isolated or clustered patterns.
Our task is to demonstrate that S and A patterns will show up by a more "detectable" fashion than a pure random (or unrandom) chaotic world would dictate.

Since there's no a long term advantage to linearly betting S or A, we have either to "choose" the situations where A is more likely to show up again or to spot the events where S is more likely to make room to A patterns as in both cases A is the norm and S a kind of "incidental" event.

It's 100% impossible to win by betting all hands or most hands at any shoe dealt, unless you'll utilize a huge betting variation between EV- hands and the rare EV+ spots coming out along the way.

Math experts teach us that every bet is EV- no matter what, a total bighorn.sh.it.
For sure and while wagering a lot of hands, a possible EV+ situation will be diluted by the enormous natural impact of EV- situations.

It's not a coincidence that casinos will lure you into betting a lot of hands, thus enlarging at most their math edge and at the same time giving you the most confused picture of what is going on.

The perfect countermeasure to adopt is to join tables where the minimum wager is at least 10 times lower than your standard bet or, even better, to bet whenever you want.

Fortunately casinos are more worried about a black jack player suddendly raising his $20 bet than when a baccarat player wagering zero or the $1000 minimum bet all of a sudden will place a $10.000 or huger bet and then quitting after winning it.

Reasonably casinos think that a bj player could try to exploit a math edge whereas the bac player cannot spot situations to be more right than wrong by definition.

OoOoO

Suppose we're setting up a couple of players wagering a kind of sky's the limit approach, one wagering toward A-A (clustered A of any lenght) and the other one wagering toward A after a single  S.
Say that to enlarge a possible probability of success, we'll start to bet after a kind of negative deviation happening.
Since we're not i.diots, when a RNG production (unramdom) is in order we'll wait negative deviations (S events) to be clustered one time (S-S). That makes our S-S-A and A-A betting spots to get unmissable profitable opportunities.   

In the other scenarios (so when we'd think the production will be  random), S-A will slightly but constantly overwhelm the S-S counterpart, so  now the A clusters make a minor impact over the overall predictability.

as.

Regarding the symmetry/asymmetry how many first losing attempts come out per every shoe played?
More precisely how many patterns will deny a slight more probable asymmetry at the very first step considered along any shoe dealt?

A better question would be how much "gapped" are those first step asymmetrical patterns on average, a thing that could help us to define better the ranges of intervention.

Catching LONG consecutive first winning spots are more a matter of luck (intended as short term positive variance, of course) than a matter of skills, everything else belongs to a kind of an infinite educated guess about how an average shoe is more likely to show up.

That's especially true when RNG productions will arrange cards by somewhat denying a kind of "clumping" factor, a factor that generally speaking will either make more likely a line or the opposite line to be predominant or to be silent for interesting portions of the shoe.
A distribution typical of a true random movement, and we know beyond any doubt that RNG productions are not random distributions.

More later

as. 

The basic principle is that more hands we try to guess higher will be the probability to lose.

We want to get the lesser impact of symmetrical hands so enhancing the role of the asymmetrical counterpart.
Whenever at the shoe played symmetrical hands tend to be more clustered than average (more than two times in a row by different back-to-back qualities), we could think to stop our betting for that shoe waiting for a new one.

After all symmetrical patterns tend to deny a sure asymmetrical card distribution, in fact a large part of consecutive symmetrical patterns come out from unsound math results, so itlr it's easier to go broke by chasing S patterns than A patterns.

Moreover and differently to any other strategical method, S patterns and A patterns tend to be very well balanced, a thing that could lure us to adopt a (multilayered) progressive plan.

In order to get a sure and safe edge different approaches are to be taken, always by registering fictional losses before betting. Some of them were already discussed here.

1- Bet A one time after A

If you wait that A came out isolated two times in a row (no A clusters happening) then betting toward A-A one time, you'll humiliate the house. If such attempt is lost, wait for another opportunity. 
The edge is so great but so (relatively) rare to happen that you'll risk to get asleep at the tables before crossing it.


2- Bet A-A-A after A-A

Such trigger is so powerful that you need just one isolated AA pattern to happen before betting.
Be careful of RNG productions where it's more prudent to either bet for any AAA cluster no matter what or to wait that two A-A came out before wagering.


3- Bet A after a single S

No need to wait any fictional loss, betting A after a single S will always produce a long term edge, especially at the random walk we've devised (but it costs 8 million of bucks to know it  , so with some work you'll find it for free). Caution must be taken at RNG productions (see point #4)


4- Bet A after a S-S double

Such attack works at unrandom productions and at this point you know what I'm referring to.

5- Isolated A linked with clustered S

This point should be splitted into four categories:

a) A-S-S-A-S-S-A

b) A-S-S-S...-A-S-S-A

c) A-S-S-A-S-S-S...

d) A-S-S-S...A-S-S-S...

Such scenarios are quite rare to happen, obviously just one of them (d) will deny any W situation within a 6-betting range.
Nonetheless we've seen that when in doubt about the real nature of the production we could start to "limit" S events after they had come out twice in a row and even A isolated events could need a low deviation to happen before thinking to get them clustered.
Then and generally speaking, clustered S events tend to make more room to A clusters (so obviously denying subsequent S patterns to be isolated).

Finally "long" isolated A sequences (actually we are interested about lenghts of two not going to three or more) are way more probable to come out intertwined by S isolated events than S clustered events.

See you next week

as. 

Hi KFB! Thanks!

Among the side bets I think the only unbeatable one is the tie, so I admire the gentleman. It would be great if you can grasp some hints about his tie strategy.
For some reasons I'm pretty certain that he plays only at RNG shoes (new generation of shuffle machines), am I right?

About the first win I've read your posts and I agree on that.

It's obvious that we can't know precisely when we'll get that first win, yet the average distribution of the previous shoes (and the texture of the actual shoe) will help us to define the deviations of such attempt.

Here's a brief list of real shoes about the very first situation of each shoe eliciting a W attempt:

L
W
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
L
L
L
L
L
W
L
W
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
W
W
W

Total L=18 W=15.
Of course of those 18 L situations many will win at the second attempt of the same pattern.


Now the first W attempt made on the second pattern of each shoe:

W
W
W
L
L
L
W
W
L
L
W
L
L
L
L
W
W
W
W
L
L
W
L
W
W
W
L
L
W
W
L
W
W
 
L=15 W=18

That's an exact specular situation seen above for the first pattern.

Naturally W/L results were taken with no precise reason, so the permutation issue could provide a 18 L streak or a 18 W streak for each first or second pattern, underlying the importance that it's not how long a L or W consecutive streak happen at each pattern but what happens next in terms of doublets
(W-W, W-L, L-W or L-L).

We see that in the example displayed, even though W were inferior than L, the probability to get W-W is increased and the same is about L-W and such process could be evaluated for every subsequent patterns we wish to register.

Shoes presenting long L first attempt situations happen but they are well balanced by the shoes presenting long W first attempt situations and when we consider outcomes in form of doublets (for example) we could have a better picture of what is going on.

More later

as.

Just an example about first W attempt chasing the asymmetry. (37505, MGM Grand)

L, L, W, L, L, W, W, W, L, L, L, L, L, W, L, L, W

L=11, W=6.

A constant wagering toward W would be unprofitable, to say the least.

To simplify the issue we ignore vig.

Betting toward W clusters would result into a -1 loss.

Betting W after one L would result into a -4 units loss.

Betting W after L-L would result into a +2 profit.

Betting W after L-L-L would result into a -1 loss.

Now let's consider the second W attempt at the same shoe:

L, L, W, L, W, W, L, L, W

L=5, W=4

Betting toward W clusters would result into a break even situation

Betting W after one L would result into a -1 loss

Betting W after L-L would result into a +2 profit

No L-L-L situations happened at second W attempts.

as.

Any shoe is supposed to deal a fair number of first winning situations at different ranges (gaps): 

1- Immediate or back to back clusters of first W patterns (from W-W to multiple long W-W-W-W-....patterns)

2- A W after a first L attempt (1-gap)

3- A W after two first L attempts (2-gap)

4- A W after three first L attempts (3-gap)

5- And so on...

Obviously every bac player's aim will be to get an immediate win or back-to-back W events, but constantly chasing such opportunities will expose the bettor to a lot of natural variance.

Furthermore, if each class of first W patterns will be proportionally distributed by a kind of random coin flip succession (W/L instead of H/T), we aren't going to nowhere as what we earned previously will be erased later and what we've lost previously cannot get a sensible chance to be balanced soon by future counter patterns.

Actually at baccarat things are quite different, meaning that each step will be efficiently balanced by a kind of propensity not happening at real random coin flip tosses, meaning that what's more likely to happen remains more likely to happen; we just let the number of shoes to increase after having classified some negative deviations considered at every category.

For example, if we are looking for a FIRST W after having considered each range category failure, the probability of success belonging to the same category will be more and more oriented toward our favor as symmetry is not the norm but a kind of "exception".
Providing to set up a limit of negative deviations as at baccarat many hands can get a weird direction just for one card impact.

I've written several times here that just one hand could transform a more probable expected heterogeneous pattern into a long unexpected homogeneous one (so breaking a sure more natural flow): Pros rely upon betting toward more probable situations, recreational players and tourists like to wager toward "endless positive patterns".

The vast majority of shoes will produce patterns belonging to the 1, 2 and 3 categories, those we're really interested to classify.


Anyway categories #1 and #2 are so strong that after a couple of negative deviations, a simple multilayered progressive plan will make the job, even knowing that some productions need the #4 category to happen before betting.

Once a category reaches the #4 or #5 category we're not interested to bet at that shoe as what was more natural to happen was transformed into "strong S deviations" just by coincidental factors (more often than not, of course).

Next time some examples extracted by real shoes.

as.

Best bac players are capable to estimate how many first or second (or whatever) winning/losing ranges are more likely to show up in relationship of the actual shoe texture.

Regular bac players however only rely about long or steady univocal situations that anyway must happen sooner or later.

But the most important difference between the two populations is that the former category will bet a way inferior number of hands than the latter category, in some way teaching us that W/L ranges are more limited than we might think of.

Taking the issue from another perspective and over simplyfing it, on average winning situations are shorter and far between than what regular players hope for, whereas losing situations happening at some shoes cannot be limited by any method/attack/procedure/philosophy for intrinsic statistical features.

"Sh.i.t" often happens in clusters and thinking to try to bet toward such "stuff" (so inverting a normal method) is one of the major mistake why many bankrolls go directly in the casinos' trays.

That's why we must set up empirically some limiting values of relative frequency in order to bet what should be more probable to happen at the same situation running infinite times.

More later

as.

A possible strategy applied to shuffle machines allegedly using a RNG software:

1) Bet A after A one time and bet A after S-S one time.

2) Be careful when two or more derived roads will get plenty of S situations.
In fact and more often than not a real random model will deny simultaneous S clusters happening at more than one random walk.

3) Tie rich shoes should be treated with a lot of caution. The same about shoes resolving hands by utilizing 6 cards.

4) More S patterns had come out in the initial/intermediate portions of the shoe and lesser will be the probability to encounter LONG A events.

5) Register how many consecutive times you have lost (for real or fictionally) by chasing an A pattern.

6) Nothing wrong by gambling for long A clustered patterns (lower than standard unit), yet at RNG productions they are relatively rarer than at other form of shufflings.

7) A progressive multilayered plan betting toward A-A (one time) and toward A after crossing S-S cannot lose by any means.
I mean there's no natural negative variance capable to overcome such propensities, especially if we'll wait for a kind of negative deviation to happen.

It's possible that knowing this, the RNG is instructed to deal a lesser number of A clusters and a superior number of S isolated events. So mimicking a real random model.
In this instance, privilege the A event to be bet after one or two isolated A patterns happened.

9) To get a strong advantage we need to win more hands at the first betting attempt than at the second one. So meaning that what we're really looking for is a "first bet" winning cluster.
Therefore consecutive wins at the second betting attempts should be considered as a kind of "backup" plan

as.

The last passage of my previous post is:

...we can safely conclude that we're dealing with pseudorandomness rather than with supposedly "normal fluctuations" dictated by a pure randomness.

OoOoO

Knowing that long term data extracted by the same production will approach more and more to the B=50.68% and P=49.32% winning percentages doesn't necessarily mean that we're dealing with a perfect random world.
It's the common mistake almost every expert will conclude after being asked whether baccarat could be a beatable game.

Those conclusions are biased as:

A- They assume for certain that ALL bac productions are perfectly random;
B- They take for granted that every single spot coming out along the course of each shoe will present the same independent features.

Actually once we have approximated at best the real random or not random nature of the shoe we're playing at, bac productions will form huge or moderate "jumps" in winning probability even though  the majority of hands dealt are EV-.


#A point cannot be resolved by taking care of the final results, it needs more complicated issues to be evaluated as there are various "imperfect" form of shufflings employed to deal bac shoes.

#B point had found solid evidences (according to RVM and M.v.Smoluchoswki works) that various situations aren't so randomly placed, so making more probable the apparition of some patterns than others.

Both points rely upon the average probability of the S or A patterns distribution at the infinite random walks we can build from the original BP sequence.
Such probability could be estimated by "levels of apparition" (1, 2) in relationship of the actual production we're dealing with.
Since the shoe is a finite S/A proposition, we have plenty of opportunities to detect how much and foremost when things are more likely to change (OR NOT).


Professor Spiegelhalter wrote that "Most random number generators are entirely deterministic and contain no randomness at all".

So it could happen that at the casino you're playing at, a RNG software connected in the shuffling machine will distribute cards by NON RANDOM parameters.

Therefore treat every shoe dealt with a lot of caution, it's like betting a negative count shoe at black jack.

Good news is that at "no random" RNG productions, things tend to be more clustered than isolated, meaning that the "bad" tends to come out more clustered than average but giving more room to "good" clustered events.

When in doubt and whenever "unnatural" symmetrical patterns come out consecutively in quantity and especially in quantity, consider that shoe as unplayable.
Unfortunately at most RNG productions S>A, as cards are not clumped but distributed by a "number scheme" not fitting the random requisites.

Never ever change your betting scheme, play for A and never for S.
Itlr you'll make a lot of money.

as.

As professor emeritus of statistics at University of Cambridge D. Spiegelhalter stated in his book, random is often "clumpy", so lacking of "regularity".
 

Hence whenever things seem to be "too regular" for long (multiple shoes), we should raise our suspicions that the production isn't random.

Obviously we might think that a kind of "regular model" could be easily beaten but it's not the case at baccarat.

A coin flip study found that per every 20 tosses, there's a 78% probability of getting at least a 4 streak.
And the probability of getting streaks not superior than two (a double streak) is just 2%.

Now I'm figuring out what you are thinking about the last finding: "Hey, at baccarat there are a lot of sequences producing singles/doubles for many hands, we can't believe of that 2% percentage".
And actually bac hands are not coin flip successions.

Remember that among all patterns, at baccarat doubles are the most likely occurence, then there's always the "random" factor to be examined at both coin flip and bac productions.

Then "clumpy" could be interpreted as the dynamic propensity of getting things either more slight concentrated than diluted by an exact or near expected probability to appear.
And at baccarat doubles (for their high probability to appear) could be easily come out clustered (that is by a back-to-back fashion).

Therefore symmetry and asymmetry could be viable tools not to simply ascertain what's more probable to come out next, but to make an estimate about the effective randomness of the production.

As sayed numerous times here, paradoxically we are in better shape to guess "more due situations" when the production is supposed to be either perfectly random or affected by a huge unrandom bias then in the other miriad of intermediate possibilities.

Moreover at baccarat random clumpiness gets an average probability to appear in terms of quantity and frequency and when such values tend to be disregarded for long we can safely conclude that we're dealing with pseudorandomness othan with supposedly "normal fluctuations" dictated by a pure randomness.

More later

as.

For obvious reasons concepts examined here are quite simplified. 

Every soul knows that RNG provides pseudo random successions as they need an initial "starting seed" to properly work.
Real random RNG sequences are generated via atmospheric noise and frankly we can safely rule out their role at baccarat productions.

So whenever cards are arranged by a RNG software, we know that the subsequent card distribution will be pseudo random, so virtually presenting a kind of bias.
It's not an easy task to detect when and how a supposedly more likely situation should be entitled to come out, so we could start to study how different sub successions would perform on average at those pseudo RNG sequences.

In our opinion one of the tools that would help us most is the detectability to  spot "more likely" A or S patterns as key cards or math advantaged two-card situations cannot be symmetrically or asymmetrically distributed for long unless for short term variance issues.

Here a brief list of RNG shoes coming out from the same source (as always A=+1 and S= -3)

1) A=13, S=5

2) A=19, S=5

3) A=16, S=4

4) A=11, S=6

5) A=12, S=5

6) A=12, S=5

7) A=22, S=4

A=12, S=5

9) A=13, S=6

10) A=6, S=5

11) A=13, S=5

12) A=13, S=6

13) A=18, S=4

14) A=10, S=6

15) A=13, S=2

16) A=5, S=3

17) A=9, S=6

18) A=11, S=6

19) A=17, S=3

20) A=20, S=2

21) A=13, S=5

22) A=18, S=3

23) A=13, S=5

24) A=18, S=5

25) A=16, S=4

26) A=19, S=3

27) A=16, S=3

28) A=11, S=5

29) A=14, S=4

30) A=6, S=5

31) A=16, S=8

32) A=9, S=7

33) A=17, S=2

Total number of A= 451, S= 154 (x3= 462)

As sayed above, the S events will slightly overcome the A events counterpart, anyway the A/S model is well balanced (as expected).

Now let's see HOW those S patterns had shown up:

-75 times as isolated (singled)

-29 times as clustered (two or more times in a row)

About those 29 times S patterns came out:

20 times they came out double clustered and 7 times clustered by a more than two level (2 S patterns haven't limited for coming at the end of the shoe)

Now about the A patterns:

- 97 times as clustered

- 25 times as isolated.

Even though this sample is insignificantly small, we see that RNG software productions will differ from other form of shufflings where a kind of "clumping card factor" works more extensively, so privileging the A events.

Nonetheless, when we deal with pure numbers (no matter how random or unrandom placed) we're getting a very strong advantage, providing to carefully selecting the spots we'll we wager at.

RNG productions tend not to elicit any S isolated situation, maybe to make a multilayered progressive scheme at S-S vs S-S-S-...patterns that will be surprisingly balanced along the course of the shoes encountered.

On the other end and due to a kind of "unnatural" S clustering effect, RNG productions will make way more probable to cross A clustered patterns of any lenght, especially when one or two A isolated situations came out.

Even knowing this, there's no possibility to set up a RNG software capable to get rid of the A clustering effect happening at the infinite random walks we can build from the original BP succession.

Summarizing:

When finite RNG sequences are taken as a form of randomness, more probable situations are spottable along the way.
In fact, RNG successions are totally incapable to fit the RVM definition of randomness and without any effort to prove otherwise, RNG can't provide real random productions by definition.

Actually we can't give a lesser fk about complicated statistical/math formulas swearing that what we have to deal with is a constant perfect random model.

Perfect randomness doesn't exist and for that matter even the "probability" concept doesn't exist.

See you in a couple of days.

as.

In his must read post ("wagering smart"), Alrelax written this:

* Because you can only win a smaller amount of wagers in any session unless it is a rare session.

That's one more reason to consider every session as totally independent from the previous ones.
Or more precisely that the "very good" is quite rare to happen and of course that the most likely expectation we'll get is to lose (in absence of a carefully conceived plan).

We've seen one million of times that the "session" concept doesn't exist, unless for actual conditions we suspect to be "too random" or "not random".

In fact casinos' profits come out from:

-HE
-negative variance (NV) for the players

players profits could only comeout from:

-positive variance (PV)

Since NV=PV and the HE works only for the house, NV+HE > PV yesterday, now and in the future.

The only tool we could exploit at our advantage is to someway restrain the NV by taking care of the actual "random" conditions and this can't be done by stopping an attack after one or two losses or by modifying the betting amount but to  register and classify several results springing from the allegedly same production and to adhere at most at the actual situation we're dealing with.

More later about S/A ratios.

as.