Jim, you can safely assume that the WL sequences are very different depending what you are registering.

Some players, as gr8player, prefer to get some hint on the actual trend and side domination (well knowing what theorically happens most), others prefer to base their play just on relatively rare long term findings (me and many others), others prefer to utilize progressions giving to the bet selection a minor or zero impact.

IMO, there's no way to get any hint without observing/registering a decent amount of outcomes.

So, for example and imho and providing a simple BS, it's better to wait a WLLLW to bet than wagering on simple W or L or WL or LW or LL sequences.

The problem is to grasp the BS providing better reliable outcomes than others.

If the game would be a 50/50 game, any sequence (I can't use anymore the word disposition) will form identical results, so the number of a sequence like WWWLL will be equal to the identical counterpart of WWWLW.
That's not the case for many situations.

as.   






   















   

 




   

A big question in gambling is when do you stop?


Much of the decision will depend on whether or not you still feel lucky..


Keep playing because "we are feeling lucky" or quitting the table because "we are feeling unlucky" are really surprising words coming from a professional player.


Maybe Renzoni had an extraordinary talent to "control" the game and after all his book is an enjoyable reading.


Jimskie, thanks for the quote but there are no mystery bets.

The bets are coming after having selected some sequences and everything follows the expected, so no mystery involved.
 

as.



 







 








   

Hi Sputnik.
Just a question.
How do you manage the tax issue when the game will provide the invariable "stagnation" periods at a given same level?

For example, if your MM dictates to bet 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 and the deviations are included in such space, you are losing money as the vast majority of any WL sequence or other "proportional" sequences will provide a small loss (banker vig at baccarat, zero/double zeroes at roulette).

Thanks in advance

as.

Quote from: Bayes on December 31, 2014, 05:05:03 PM

Every time we try to force the next hand/spin to conform to a sequential probability (as we often do when creating systems) we end up assuming that trials are dependent, which they're not, so we have committed the gambler's fallacy.

Hi!
This is totally true at roulette, 100% absolutely wrong at baccarat.

as.

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on September 20, 2014, 02:28:52 PM
But in Baccarat there is never any edge, it is a money game. 

LOL.



as.

For once, I agree with my beloved buddy Rolex. 

Deviation is the norm, balance is the exception.

Other than what the common experience dictates, many brilliant works demonstrated it.
Anyway, imho, roulette is totally unbeatable.


as.