Now the "battle" is not by guessing what happens next, just about comparing the two patterns considered in a specific position after running two different paced successions (BYB and SR, in our example).
This "trick" allow us to emphatize at most the natural asymmetrical features of the game, a thing that for sure will give us an edge.
After all the CFS cannot be homogeneous for long at two different sub sequences originated by a diverse pace (anyway not getting the common unbeatable binomial fluctuations), a kind of important proof that RVM and M. Von Smoluchoswki ideas are particularly effective in order to help us to define the baccarat problem.
Carefully studying two sub successions originated by the same sequence and getting a different pace will give us plenty of opportunities to take advantage and to restrict at most the biased limited values of relative frequency.
Of course natural and "coincidental" low level symmetrical patterns may happen for relatively "long" time, no matter which random walks we decide to utilize, yet the probability of success reamins higher than expected.
as.
This "trick" allow us to emphatize at most the natural asymmetrical features of the game, a thing that for sure will give us an edge.
After all the CFS cannot be homogeneous for long at two different sub sequences originated by a diverse pace (anyway not getting the common unbeatable binomial fluctuations), a kind of important proof that RVM and M. Von Smoluchoswki ideas are particularly effective in order to help us to define the baccarat problem.
Carefully studying two sub successions originated by the same sequence and getting a different pace will give us plenty of opportunities to take advantage and to restrict at most the biased limited values of relative frequency.
Of course natural and "coincidental" low level symmetrical patterns may happen for relatively "long" time, no matter which random walks we decide to utilize, yet the probability of success reamins higher than expected.
as.