Thanks Al!
Definitely and as long as the favourable conditions are met, the stop win or stop loss concept shouldn't be implemented in any EV+ attack as either we have verified to accumulate more Ws than Ls at those spots or we're just fooling ourselves.
At the risk of enduring some harsh and inevitable variance periods.
Fourth row
Deeper we're going down the rows, greater will be the probability to encounter wide empty ranges between the "boundaries" that now are 4s streaks or streaks superior than 4.
Even here consecutive 4th rows are not considered as what we should interested about is the clustering or isolated effect of lower pattern classes (singles, doubles and triples).
To restrict the field of intervention at 4th or superior rows, we may transform the s/d vs 3s plan into a double/triple vs 4s plan, so considering ininfluent the singles distribution.
Therefore we'll take care of the 2 and 3 streaks coming out clustered or isolated between two 4/4+ streaks. (Actually at the starting portion of the shoe we don't need any 4s streak to limit the 2/3 ranges).
As long as one or more double or one or more exact triple or a mix of the two shows up before crossing a 4/4+ streak, we'll get a number specifying a range and of course 1=isolated range, 2= a couple of doubles and or triples, etc.
For example a distribution as 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2 becomes 6/4
or a distribution as 2, 3, 7, 4, 3, 2, 4, 7, 4, 3, 2 becomes 2/2/2
That's the old streak clustering effect I was talking about in my previous posts.
Since the above shoes were randomly taken but too much "good" oriented, here's a voluntarily picked up 'bad' shoe forming 'less detectable' isolated ranges:
2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 6, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2 that is a 1/2/1/1/6 sequence.
I've stated one million of times here that itlr the proportional impact of such numbers will get a 0 sum (before vig), thus there're no math tricks involved.
Progressively betting 1-2 (for example) and ignoring vig for simplicity will get:
1 = -3,
2 = -1,
3 = break even
4 = +1
5 = +2
6 = +3
and so on
Hence the first shoe produced a 6(+3) and 4 (+1) situation, second shoe 2 (-1), 2 (-1), 2 (-1) and the last one 1 (-3), 2 (-1), 1 (-3), 1 (-3), 6 (+3)
Overall a -6 units situation.
Now say that instead of playing an already selected streaks plan we want to bet ONE TIME towards any number different than 1:
1st shoe: +1, +1 (6/4)
2nd shoe: +1, +1, +1 (2/2/2)
3rd shoe: -3, +1, -3, -3, +1 (1/2/1/1/6)
Overall a -2 units loss, so reduced by one third.
Going deeply in the selected process of picking up bettable spots we might think to spot clusters of numbers different than 1 per any shoe (W, W, L) totaling a -1 unit loss or to exploit the opposite side of the medal, that is wagering NOT to get consecutive 1s by different levels (one time, two times, etc). In this three shoe unrandom example we got a -2 unit loss by betting after one single 1 spot and +1 unit win by betting after a couple of 1 consecutive spots.
It's out of question that under the more restricted ways of considering outcomes, the worst multilayered progressive plan ever invented would get the best of it by a 99,999% accuracy.
Way better if we'd find such rare spots where A>B, that is when we'll play the game having a EV+.
W/L permutations when W=L
A thoroughful study made on thousands and thousands of live shoes dealt had shown us that even if the W/L probability remains constant itlr (obviously according to the expected math probability that B and P will happen), outcome permutations are biased in their apparition by more detectable levels affected by the average card distribution.
A thing already demonstrated (but not having sensible practical reflexes) at mere coin flip tosses when "time" (that is when a given sequence should come out first as opposed as to another one) matters.
Math laws instruct us that there are no profitable spots to bet our money at a EV- game, statistical findings applied to baccarat teach us otherwise beyond any shadow of doubt.
I'll elaborate the issue next week, now I'm giving you some real shoes just considering the 2-3 streaks distribution.
as.
Definitely and as long as the favourable conditions are met, the stop win or stop loss concept shouldn't be implemented in any EV+ attack as either we have verified to accumulate more Ws than Ls at those spots or we're just fooling ourselves.
At the risk of enduring some harsh and inevitable variance periods.
Fourth row
Deeper we're going down the rows, greater will be the probability to encounter wide empty ranges between the "boundaries" that now are 4s streaks or streaks superior than 4.
Even here consecutive 4th rows are not considered as what we should interested about is the clustering or isolated effect of lower pattern classes (singles, doubles and triples).
To restrict the field of intervention at 4th or superior rows, we may transform the s/d vs 3s plan into a double/triple vs 4s plan, so considering ininfluent the singles distribution.
Therefore we'll take care of the 2 and 3 streaks coming out clustered or isolated between two 4/4+ streaks. (Actually at the starting portion of the shoe we don't need any 4s streak to limit the 2/3 ranges).
As long as one or more double or one or more exact triple or a mix of the two shows up before crossing a 4/4+ streak, we'll get a number specifying a range and of course 1=isolated range, 2= a couple of doubles and or triples, etc.
For example a distribution as 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2 becomes 6/4
or a distribution as 2, 3, 7, 4, 3, 2, 4, 7, 4, 3, 2 becomes 2/2/2
That's the old streak clustering effect I was talking about in my previous posts.
Since the above shoes were randomly taken but too much "good" oriented, here's a voluntarily picked up 'bad' shoe forming 'less detectable' isolated ranges:
2, 4, 3, 3, 4, 2, 6, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2 that is a 1/2/1/1/6 sequence.
I've stated one million of times here that itlr the proportional impact of such numbers will get a 0 sum (before vig), thus there're no math tricks involved.
Progressively betting 1-2 (for example) and ignoring vig for simplicity will get:
1 = -3,
2 = -1,
3 = break even
4 = +1
5 = +2
6 = +3
and so on
Hence the first shoe produced a 6(+3) and 4 (+1) situation, second shoe 2 (-1), 2 (-1), 2 (-1) and the last one 1 (-3), 2 (-1), 1 (-3), 1 (-3), 6 (+3)
Overall a -6 units situation.
Now say that instead of playing an already selected streaks plan we want to bet ONE TIME towards any number different than 1:
1st shoe: +1, +1 (6/4)
2nd shoe: +1, +1, +1 (2/2/2)
3rd shoe: -3, +1, -3, -3, +1 (1/2/1/1/6)
Overall a -2 units loss, so reduced by one third.
Going deeply in the selected process of picking up bettable spots we might think to spot clusters of numbers different than 1 per any shoe (W, W, L) totaling a -1 unit loss or to exploit the opposite side of the medal, that is wagering NOT to get consecutive 1s by different levels (one time, two times, etc). In this three shoe unrandom example we got a -2 unit loss by betting after one single 1 spot and +1 unit win by betting after a couple of 1 consecutive spots.
It's out of question that under the more restricted ways of considering outcomes, the worst multilayered progressive plan ever invented would get the best of it by a 99,999% accuracy.
Way better if we'd find such rare spots where A>B, that is when we'll play the game having a EV+.
W/L permutations when W=L
A thoroughful study made on thousands and thousands of live shoes dealt had shown us that even if the W/L probability remains constant itlr (obviously according to the expected math probability that B and P will happen), outcome permutations are biased in their apparition by more detectable levels affected by the average card distribution.
A thing already demonstrated (but not having sensible practical reflexes) at mere coin flip tosses when "time" (that is when a given sequence should come out first as opposed as to another one) matters.
Math laws instruct us that there are no profitable spots to bet our money at a EV- game, statistical findings applied to baccarat teach us otherwise beyond any shadow of doubt.
I'll elaborate the issue next week, now I'm giving you some real shoes just considering the 2-3 streaks distribution.
as.