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.