Baccarat world moves from deviations and equilibrium points and we know that some events tend to be deviated infinitely whereas others won't, those last touching many many times the zero (equilibrium) cutoff.
Nonetheless we know that such features may easily disappoint this assumption, let's think about B/P gap favoring the right side, B singles overcoming B streaks and many other related issues.
Anyway we know that thanks to the bac features, the ranges of intervention of certain events will be more restrained than others by 100% accuracy.
Which movements should help us most in order to control the outcomes?
Of course those events touching more likely the zero point several times so that the progression presented can "cover" the slight expected deviations going toward a side or another.
We see that in such effort we don't want to classify a given event as good or bad, we want just to pick up the situations where some deviations are more likely to go back to an ideal zero point.
Let's call it a kind of "equilibrium" goal, but it really isn't as every event slightly going back and forward to a point different to zero will allow us to get a profit by a very slow MM.
So we know that even aiming to points different to zero we could find possible valid spots to start our betting.
In reality, most part of authoritative gambling experts of the past had stated that searching for deviations is the best tool to try to get the best of it.
A perfect opposite thought of what just discussed.
Since I'm not in the position of confuting such claimings, I'll take for grant this thought.
Better going toward deviations than hoping for a return to equilibrium.
Still the problem is posed about how much to look for deviations. In a word, when to stop the betting or, better, when to start the betting?
Good questions.
Yet we get answers.
Without a doubt, the probability to get deviations toward a given side and per any event considered will be increased after many equilibrium points will be crossed, and of course we know that we don't necessarily need to reach zero eq. points to win.
On the other hand, a lot of equilibrium points (widely considered) crossed must be considered as a deviation itself.
Then our strategic plan should be focused about deviations. Period.
Easy to say it, but what about the practice?
Actually there are no positive or negative deviations. There are deviations. Each deviation will get its peaks in a way or another. It's just a matter of time.
Some deviations are more likely than others, nevertheless even an unexpected deviation (multiple clusters of B singles vs B streaks, for example) will reach high points. We can't do anything to prevent such occurence if we have chosen to bet toward B streaks.
But we know that this unlikely occurence cannot last for long.
Imo, the probability to get simultaneous high deviations on multiple events (deviations also intended as many equilibrium spots reached) is so small to allow us to set up a profitable plan.
as.
Nonetheless we know that such features may easily disappoint this assumption, let's think about B/P gap favoring the right side, B singles overcoming B streaks and many other related issues.
Anyway we know that thanks to the bac features, the ranges of intervention of certain events will be more restrained than others by 100% accuracy.
Which movements should help us most in order to control the outcomes?
Of course those events touching more likely the zero point several times so that the progression presented can "cover" the slight expected deviations going toward a side or another.
We see that in such effort we don't want to classify a given event as good or bad, we want just to pick up the situations where some deviations are more likely to go back to an ideal zero point.
Let's call it a kind of "equilibrium" goal, but it really isn't as every event slightly going back and forward to a point different to zero will allow us to get a profit by a very slow MM.
So we know that even aiming to points different to zero we could find possible valid spots to start our betting.
In reality, most part of authoritative gambling experts of the past had stated that searching for deviations is the best tool to try to get the best of it.
A perfect opposite thought of what just discussed.
Since I'm not in the position of confuting such claimings, I'll take for grant this thought.
Better going toward deviations than hoping for a return to equilibrium.
Still the problem is posed about how much to look for deviations. In a word, when to stop the betting or, better, when to start the betting?
Good questions.
Yet we get answers.
Without a doubt, the probability to get deviations toward a given side and per any event considered will be increased after many equilibrium points will be crossed, and of course we know that we don't necessarily need to reach zero eq. points to win.
On the other hand, a lot of equilibrium points (widely considered) crossed must be considered as a deviation itself.
Then our strategic plan should be focused about deviations. Period.
Easy to say it, but what about the practice?
Actually there are no positive or negative deviations. There are deviations. Each deviation will get its peaks in a way or another. It's just a matter of time.
Some deviations are more likely than others, nevertheless even an unexpected deviation (multiple clusters of B singles vs B streaks, for example) will reach high points. We can't do anything to prevent such occurence if we have chosen to bet toward B streaks.
But we know that this unlikely occurence cannot last for long.
Imo, the probability to get simultaneous high deviations on multiple events (deviations also intended as many equilibrium spots reached) is so small to allow us to set up a profitable plan.
as.