Hi KFB!

Say that in terms of different patterns extracted by infinite random walks the less likely situation happening for each shoe is a balanced or close to balanced ratio, obviously influenced by the various portions of it.
After all, gambling is a game of clusters at either way, meaning that what we have won at positive (clustered) situations will be easily lost at negative clustered sequences.

The trick is to adopt random walks capable to shorten the streaks lenght as, generally speaking, baccarat is a game where streaks are better defined in their average appearance than a 50/50 independent model along any shoe dealt (thus considering an infinite succession of 72-78 resolved hands).

Q1/A1: I wouldn't bet ever toward 5/5+ streaks as our two random walks eliciting the algos action   find very few occasions to expect them. As an interesting part of shoes do not present any such (long) streak.
So in such instances any streak is valuable to be attacked up to the point that even 4s sometimes do not happen for that shoe.

It's true that moderate streaks (as 3s or 4s) coming out consecutively (so without any inferior pattern intertwined) make a relative more room to expect a longer streak (a 5/5+ streak).
Sooner or later some shoes must come out by filling a way shorter than average number of columns and this can only happen by the shoe producing long streaks.

Q2/A2: Good question.
By far the best probability to get 5 or more wins in a row is by "hoping" that A or B or both will take a uniform clustered direction (singles in a row, singles/streaks or streaks/singles, etc).

More later

as.

Independently of the random walk utilized, longer streaks (say 5-5+) tend to dispose themselves by three different shapes:

a) Singularly interspersed between lower degree patterns (singles/doubles/triples and 4s)

b) Diluted or not showing up at all

c) Clustered (back to back) at various levels of consecutiveness and density.

Each shape of presentation has its merits with important practical reflexes.

Shape a) is the more likely course of presentation and could be applied at lower streak levels (4s or 3s).
Actually a (risky and unnecessary) multilayered progressive plan adopted to get 5s, 4s or 3s showing up as 'isolated' cannot be wrong for long as the isolated/clustered streak ratio tends to produce low sd values.
Problem is that by adopting this strategy we rely upon a "general" probability that could be voluntarily (virtually) altered once casinos know what we're doing.

Shape b) is not so rare to happen as we'll face more shoes presenting zero or one/two 5-5+ streaks and even 4 streaks than shoes producing a way larger number of expected 5-5+s.

Shape c) is very interesting as generally speaking, clustered 5-5+ streaks will make more room to inferior streak classes to happen in the next portions of the shoe.
Notice that whenever a 5-5+ streak cluster shows up, we're somewhat discontinuing a constant losing betting strategy as what we should interested in is to approximate the streak "ranges" per any shoe dealt getting rid now of the clustering effect (so we need a different event or a couple of different events to start or restart the r.w. action.

To get an idea about how our two algorithms work, instead of considering the filled BP spots (or every other either/or succession whatever intended) think about the empty areas shapes limited by the different columns lenght and rows interruptions.
Obviously deeper we go down in assessing such empty slots, greater will be the probability to get consecutive rows not filled by actual hands. Always considered by empty 'ranges'.

Even though algorithms work by numbers (probability after effects), with some practice such propensity could be geometrically ascertained up to the point that even a random betting at the proper times will pick up more wins than losses.

Someway algorithms base their action upon a ultra selected "negative" multishaped probability oriented to get something heterogeneous at one side and homogeneous at the other one.
At the end suggesting bets in order to get empty 'ranges' and not filled slots.

as.

Hi Al!

Actually there are many mechanical approaches getting a very slight advantage over the house but to really succeed they need several parameters to converge into univocal betting spots.
And such parameters are more in direct relationship of the actual shoe production than about long term statistical findings.

Long statistical data help us to understand the more likely random walks movements roaming or distancing from a 0 starting point.
Obviously most part of them consider small or moderate steps at either left or right direction, an issue best studied by "streaks" lenght (widely intended as a 6 or 7 chopping line is a streak).

Then even such streaks may be classified into "isolated" streaks, two back to back streaks (cluster of two), three streaks (cluster of three) and so on.
Naturally any specific streak will fight against superior patterns (that is for doubles singles are ininfluent, for triples doubles are ininfluent and so on)

That's now that the actual shoe production becomes the main succession to be interested upon as each card distribution is asymmetrically shaped by definition and itlr everything will be equaled (or close to it).

If a distribution is asymmetrical even streak clusters will be asymmetrically grouped even though we do not know which streak classes will be clustered unless they came out at least one time.
The trick to consider two specific streak classes simply facilitates the problem as now we need each class to show up at least one time before making them to fight vs opposite streaks.

The beauty of baccarat is that streaks groups cannot show up isolated for long or, better sayed, that every shoe dealt in the universe is virtually destined to form at least one streaks cluster.
Sometimes such streak clusters are so long to prolong for the entire shoe and of course longer the streak classes considered, greater will be the probability to not cross an unfavourable streak not belonging to the classes wagered.

More later

as.   

Al, I believe you, wagering small sums between serious bets is a perfect reasonable way not to get any heat from casinos.

"Successful players" I was referring to are people who like to get the best of it on every cent they put the money at.
Mostly I'm talking about Vegas players who are well aware that casinos consider baccarat as a unbeatable game, so they do not need to camouflage their action being labeled as worthless.

Technically I'm deadly sure that unless a huge betting spread is adopted, wagering 12-15 bets per shoe strongly reduces/erase/invert the EV+ and actually such people is interested to know that some "rare" spots could be EV+.

I mean that it's almost impossible to convince a part of HS no-bac players that baccarat is beatable by being more right than wrong at 12-15 hands bet per shoe.
For the remaining part (best baccarat scholars), the answer is a sure "no", an answer we take as a papal bull, confirmed by our findings.

Several times I've publicly invited youtube geniuses, system sellers and forums "I can't lose" claimers to mentor some HS people gladly accepting to concede a percentage cut of the winnings (worth thousands of $$), but with the disturbing downside that to avoid consequences such "winning players" must be right beyond any shadow of doubt (say capable to overcome a possible 4 or 4.5 negative sd value).

So far, nobody accepted the challenge but us.
Let me know if some "Banker is the best bet no matter what" or "I got a 53% winning rate" or other fkng bullsh.it claimers want to get a formidable freerolling on their money (but only at their money).

as. 

Quote from: KungFuBac on January 18, 2024, 03:01:02 PMAsymBacGuy at the bottom of post #963: "...Now you might wonder why some "uninterested" players will patiently wait then betting 10k-20k after a couple of consecutive 1s came out in order to get any number different than 1..
.."
Like

Hi KFB! 

Actually not every successful player will bet as huge as 10-20k per hand, surely all successful players will bet very few hands per shoe, the best being just one-two (or zero) bets per shoe.

In fact, more bets we'll place, greater will be the probability to fall directly into the EV- world as the profitable spots are quite rare to happen.

Technically those spots are 'convergence of probability' situations where different parameters belonging to a given random walk do converge to a more probable statistical line.

It's like using a kind of "score" by assigning numbers to specific r.w. patterns. Whenever for each pattern the score is negative or neutral or too light positively deviated, we'll simply do not bet (even though we would have been winners). In the only other scenario a bet is suggested by the algorithm.

It's obvious that everything revolves around the clustering effect of various patterns elicited by the same BP succession.
More clusters of something are happening (that is more numbers different than 1 are showing up) dictating a same hand wager, better will be the probability to catch "prolonging" clusters.
In poor words we'are just "approximating" that clusters won't stop right at the spot considered worthwhile, always setting up the "minimum" profitable value, that is one step going forward.

After having reached that minimum cutoff point, we should not be interested to bet anymore as we will simply find ourselves in the position of gambling.
Such "gambling" attitude, providing to assess carefully the starting points of the clustering effect, could be a (minor) viable tool for those who are capable to manage a positive betting plan without risking to hope for too long positive sequences erasing previous losses.

Anyway if you'd measure large shoes data (enduring almost every possible variance deviation) you'll see that it's way better to win few spots than chasing (challenging) the inevitable short positive successions typical of baccarat.

More later

as.

Taking the same shoe sample let's see how third row gaps went (practically those are single/double streaks sequences):

2-2-1-1-9-5-(2)
1-4-7-5
11-1-2-6
1-4-6-10
4-14-6-5
4-1-1-5-4
1-11-3-2
2-5-3-1-1
6-3-9
1-2-7-13-1
4-1-2-1-6-1-1
1-11-3-4
4-1-4-3-1-4-3
3-2-3-8
2-2-9-5-4-(2)
2-13-1-1-(2)
14-5
2-1-4-2-1-1-4
3-7-6-3-4-6
1-2-2-9-1-5
6-1-1-3-6-5
3-5-1-15
1-6-1-2-8-3-3-4
3-8-7-5-3-3
1-10-5-1-2-5-3
4-4-1-4-4-2-(3)
3-4-6-2-4-1-6
1-4-4-5-10-1
1-1-2-2-4-1-3-3
4-2-1-4-5-1-4-1
5-2-15-2-1-4
5-4-2-2-13-4
9-3-10-1-8
2-2-4-7-3-1-1-2
2-1-4-6-2-5
2-1-1-4-2-2-2-1
1-2-2-13-1-1-4-2
4-8-5-11
7-2-2-13-1-5
12-1-3-2-8-1
1-11-3-4-5
10-1-1-5
9-5-1-8-2-4
3-1-16
3-4-2-3-1-5-8
1-7-1-2-1-1-6
3-2-6-1-17
4-2-1-6-3-3-(3)
1-4-5-4-1-3-5
3-2-5-5-2-1
1-4-2-5-16
2-4-1-3-1-13
10-6-9
4-1-9-1-9
2-13-8-7
2-1-1-5-2-5-5
1-1-3-1-2-1-4-5
8-6-6-2-5
4-2-1-1-1-1-1-6
16-2-2-5-6
-2-3-2-5-8-4
2-1-2-2-1-7-1
1-2-2-7-16
4-11-4-5-8
6-4-3-1
7-10-7-9
9-5-3-5
1-2-2-3-6-1-5
2-2-4-3-1-4-1
1-1-2-8-1-4-2-3
3-3-3-19
7-2-2-3-2-1-3
3-5-1-4-9-7-(2)
7-9-3-6-1
16-4-4-1
1-1-5-3-3-4
3-12-4
2-5-3-7-1-3-1-2
4-1-1-5-2-1-4
2-7-3-8-2-2
9-13-5-1
1-1-2-2-3-3-3-3
3-2-10-3-5
2-6-1-4-2
4-6-6-2-2-1-(2)
8-1-4-2-4-4-4
1-1-3-1-2-4-4
4-1-1-2-3-1-1-3
4-4-7-4
1-1-4-5-1-1-3-2-1-3
1-1-5-2-5-2-5
2-5-1-2-4-4
7-3-3-4-8-3
2-4-3-2-3-2-1-2
3-1-2-3-1-1-4
7-1-1-4-4
4-4-3-1-1-1-3-4
2-9-3-4-4-(2)
1-22-2-1-6
4-5-3-1-2-6
5-2-5-6-6-4
6-3-1-3-7-(2)
2-1-4-1-9-5-4
7-3-2-1-2-4
2-1-7-2-2-1-(2)
3-1-2-1-1-4-5-2
1-3-1-4-2-1-2-10
6-1-3-5-5-10
2-7-7-3-2
4-8-5-8
3-2-3-2-1-6-6
6-4-1-5-1-4-2-(3)
2-1-3-4-2-8-1
6-4-2-3-2-1-3
10-1-4-18
2-3-6-5-1-1-1

Now you might wonder why some "uninterested" players will patiently wait then betting 10k-20k after a couple of consecutive 1s came out in order to get any number different than 1.
Are they gambling?

as.

Streaks gaps and the permutations issue rule algos action

Consider an A/B finite sequence (e.g. 12 steps) where (p)A = 0.75 and (p)B=0.25.

An 'ideal' distribution would be something like AAABAAABAAAB..etc
Actually this is the least likely scenario to get through as a perfect balanced A/B ratio came out, furthermore by a "perfect" pace.
In this case we are not worried about the HE as we know that the probability of success will be so defined that even if our winning bets we'll be payed 0.50:1, we'll crush the game.

Notice that here we're not trying to get a kind of positive variance as W=L.

Problems arise when:

a) The FINAL A/B ratio deviates too much from the expected values at either side (for example 2:1 or 2:2, etc) and obviously we do not know whether A or B are priviliged to show up;

b) Despite of a decent (low sd) final A/B ratio, temporary A (or B) situations are so clustered or so whimsically distributed that we won't know what and when to bet.

Whereas a) factor can't be resolved other than from a long term statistical point of view (huge variance), b) factor could be easily evaluated by "more probable" lines where streaks lenght make a decisive role in the betting options.

One of the main tools our algos rely upon is the probability any shoe dealt will fill (or not) certain rows (that is the streaks lenght) but always by "gaps", meaning that consecutive streaks filling second or third rows are not included in the process as no gaps could be classified here.

If you'd consider geometrically second, third and so on rows BY GAPS, you'll see that empty slots will be more and more asymmetrically shaped up to the point that it's a child's joke to "guess" when consecutive empty slots will take place, almost always by a different shape happened so far.

Providing a proper random walk, of course.

In fact every row is in direct relationship of the long streaks probability: further we consider rows, greater will be the probability to get higher than 1 gaps, at the same time getting rid of the consecutive long streaks making no room to form gaps.

More later.

as.

Thanks KFB!

Back to the 3-4 streak clusters (We've already classified 2-3 and 2-4 streak clusters).

L-L-L
L-W
W
W-W
W
L-W
W
W-L
W
W
W-W
W-W
L-W
W-W
W-L
W
W-W
L-W-W
L-W-W
W
L-W-W
W-L
L-W
W
W
W-W
W-W
W-W
W
W
W-W-W
W
L-W
W
W-L
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-W
L-W
W-W
W
L-L-W
W
W
W-W
W
W-W
W
W-W
W
W-L
W-W
L-W
W-L
W-W
W-L-L
W-W
W
W
L-W
L-W
W-W
W-W
W-L-W
L-W-W
W-W
L-W-W
W-W
L-L
L-W
W-W
L-W
L-W
W
W
W-W
W-L-L
W-L-L
W-W
W
W
W-W
W-W
L-W
W
W-W
W-W
W-L
W-L
W
W
W-W-W
W
L-W
L-L
W
W-W
W
L-W
L-W
L-W
W-W
W
W
W
W-W
W

W=147 L=47 (x3=141)

Nothing extraordinary, even though single Ws include several back-to-back wins and no loss (an obvious consideration happening at other streak clusters).
Out of 107 shoes, single Ws = 35 (nearly 1/3 of the total outcomes).

Comparing this small sample with 2/3 and 2/4 streaks we got:

2/3 streaks: W=249, L=92 (x3=276)  -27

2/4 streaks: W=188, L=41 (x3=123)  +65

Of course those data could easily change with other samples, the common denominator is that 5(5+) streaks remain less likely than what a binomial model dictates.
More importantly is the fact that doubles (2s) are more likely to produce a way higher amount of winning spots even if they could endure the variance.

Then, if a slight (but important) propensity is going to happen, the only obstacle we have to overcome is the permutation issue , best assessed by the old clustering effect.

After all, what happened could repeat once or more times but if it didn't happen so far it just remains in the 'potential world' we shouldn't give a fk about.
And this thing keep showing up at the various levels of clustering probability as 'isolated' patterns are the less likely to happen.

More later

as.

Now let's consider the same CSM sample from a specific lenght clusters factor.

Algo #1 random walk will suggest a bet towards 2-3 streaks clusters vs 2 or 3 streaks isolated situations.

W-W-W
W-W-W
W-L-W
W-L-W-W
W-W-L
L-L-W-W
L-W-W
W-W-W
W-W-L-W
L-W-L-W
W-W-W
W-L-W
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-L-W
L-W-L
W-W
W-W-W
W-W-L-W-L
L-L-W
L-L-W-W-W
W-W-L
W-W-W-L
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-W-W
W-W
W-W
L-W-W
W-W
L-L-W-W-L
W-L
W-W-W
W-L-W-W
W-W-W-W
W-W-W
W-L-W-W
W-L
W-W-W
W-W-W
L-L-W
W-W
L-W-W
L-W-L-W
W-L-L-W
W-W-W
W-W-W
L-W-W
W-W-W
L-W-W-W
L-W-W-W
W-W
W-W-W
W-L-W-L-L-W
L-L-L-W-W
W-W
W-W
W-L-L-W
L-L-L-W
W-W-W
L-W-W
W-W-W-W
W-W-L-W
W-W
W-L-W-W
W-W-W-W
W
W-W-W
W-W-L-W
W-W-L-W
W-L-L-W
W-W-L
W-W
W-L-W-L
W-L-L-W
W-L-W
W-W-W-W-W
W-W-W
W-W-W
W-L-L-W
W-W-W
W-W-W-W
L-W-W-W
W-L
W-W
L-L-W-W
W-W-W
L-L-W-W
W
W-W-W-L-W
W-W
L-W-L-L
L-L-L-L-W
L-W-W
W-W
L-L-L-W
W-W
W-W-L
L-W
W-L-L-L
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W-L-W

Now the same strategy using 2 s and 4s (3s considered irrelevant)

W
W
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W
L-W-L
W-W
L-W
W-W
L-W
L-W
L-W-W
W-W
W-L-L-W
W
W
W-W
W-L-W
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
L-W-W
W-W
W-W-W
W
W
W-W
W-L-L
W-W
W
W
W-W
L-W
W-W
W-W
L-L-W
W-W-W
L-W-W-W
W-W
L-W-W
W-W
W-W
W-W-W
W-L-W
W-L-W
W
W-W
W-W-W-L-W-W
L-W
W-W
W-W-W
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W
W-W
W-L-W
W
W-W
W-W
L-W-W
W-W-L-W
W-W-W
W-W
W
W
W
L-W-W
W
W
W
W-W
W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-W
L-W-W
L-L-W
W-L-W
W-W-W
W-W
W
W-W
W-W
L-L-W
W-W
L-L-W-W
W-W
W-W
L-W-L-W
W-W
W-L-W
W-L
L-W
W-W
W-W-L
W-W-W
W
W-W
L-W-W

Now 3s and 4s (next)

as.

Quote from: alrelax on January 09, 2024, 10:54:00 PMOn the lighter side, if girls with big boobs work at Hooters, where do girls with only one leg work at?  IHOP.
(International House of Pancakes).

LOL 

What about IHOP hiring girls with one leg but getting big boobs?
 
as. 

The CSM statistically insignificant sample (but we played such shoes) provided:

Out of 124 shoes, 36 shoes haven't shown up a single 1 (29.03%, expected range=25%) and 88 of them one or more 1s (70.96%, expected range 75%).

Out of the classificable isolated or clustered 1s (91), 66 1s came out as isolated and 25 1s as clustered.
At this CSM sample the slight propensity surpassing the 3:1 ratio at the previous sample evaporated as a proportional greater amount of 1s clusters came out (27.47% vs an expected range of 25%; isolated 1s 72.51% vs 75%).

Positional events (1s vs superior numbers) went like this:

First number = +10 units

Second number = -14 units

Third number = +6 units

Fourth number = +32 units

Fifth number = +7 units

Sixth number = -31 units

Overall a +10 units

The point is that regardless of the shuffling method, a general propensity (1s<than superior numbers) constantly acts, all other intermediate patterns need evaluations made on the previous patterns.
It's the card clumping factor. In fact at this sample, a way greater amount of huge numbers than the previous sample came out that must be balanced in some way along the same shoe.
Not everytime but most of the times.

Algos do recommend to play towards huge numbers (up to 6-8) only at the CSM productions: at this sample just 25 shoes haven't provided at least a 6 or superior number (nearly 20% of all shoes dealt).

Moreover each positional column roaming far from the 0 sum will be more likely followed by a column providing a positive sum, no matter what's the actual shuffle.

Then there's the specific streaks lenght tool.

as.

Here another sample of real live shoes coming from a CSM transformed into codes:

2-3-6-5-1-1
10-1-4-12
6-4-2-3-2-1
2-1-3-4-2-8
6-4-1-5-1-4
3-2-3-2-1-6
4-9-5-8
2-7-7-3-2
6-1-3-5-5-5
1-3-1-4-2-1-2
2-1-7-2-2-1
2-1-4-1-9-5
6-3-1-3-7
5-2-5-6-6-4
4-5-3-1-2-7
1-21-2-1-6
2-9-3-4-4
4-4-3-1-1-1-3
7-1-1-4-4
3-1-2-3-1-1
2-4-3-2-3-2
7-3-3-4-8
2-5-1-2-4
1-1-5-2-5
1-1-4-5-1-1-3
4-4-7-4
4-1-1-2-3-1
1-1-3-1-2
8-1-4-2-4
4-6-6-2-2
2-6-1-4-2-2
3-2-10-3-5
1-1-2-2-3-3-3
9-14-5-1
2-7-3-8-2
4-1-1-5-2-1
2-5-3-7-1-3
3-12-4
17-4-3-1
7-9-3-6-1
3-5-1-4-9
7-2-2-3-2-1
3-3-3-20
1-1-2-8-1-4
2-2-4-3-1-4
1-2-2-3-6
9-5-3-5
6-10-7-9
6-4-3-1
1-2-2-7-11
2-1-2-2-1-7
3-2-3-2-5-8
17-2-2-5-6
4-2-1-1-1-1
1-1-3-1-2-1-4
2-1-1-5-2-5-5
2-13-8-7
4-1-9-1-9
10-6-9
2-4-1-3-1-9
1-4-2-5-15
3-2-5-5-2
1-4-5-4-1-3
4-2-1-6-3
3-2-6-1-14
1-7-1-2-1-1
3-4-2-3-1-5
3-1-17
9-5-1-8-2
10-1-1-5
1-3-2-4-2
13-1-3-2
7-2-2-13-1
4-8-5-10
1-2-2-13
2-1-1-4-2
2-1-4-6-2
2-2-4-7-3-1-1
5-4-2-2-13
4-2-1-4-5-1
1-1-2-2-4-1-3
1-4-4-5-11
3-4-6-2-4
1-10-5-1-2
3-8-7-5-3
1-6-1-2-8-3-3
3-5-1-16
7-1-1-3-6
1-2-2-9-1
3-7-6-3-4
2-1-4-2-1
14-4
2-13-1-1
2-2-9-5-4
3-2-3-6
4-1-2-1-6-1
1-2-7-13
7-3-9
2-5-3-1-1
1-11-3-2
4-1-1-5-4
5-14-6
1-4-6-10
11-1-2-6
1-4-7-5
2-2-1-1-9

Thanks for your thoughts Al!

I've always thought that to ascertain a possible advantage, we have to measure it even though it could be affected by levels of imperfection due to several causes (variance, shuffling procedures, etc).

IMO only numbers could help to understand if there are vulnerable spots to take advantage from and of course the numbers I've provided are real numbers as those were shoes we put our money at.

As already sayed, algos 'approximate' a supposedly more likely flow of the outcomes at certain (few) determined spots by comparing several parameters that must converge into an univocal B or P bet placement.

as.

You've seen those outcomes, so it's relatively difficult to spot the "more likely" patterns coming around and definitely some shoes are collecting huge sd values (e.g. consider the 1-1-1-1-8-4-3 shoe or the 4-1-1-7-1-2 shoe).
Naturally I'd assume that you consider 1s as negative situations and greater than 1s as positive events.

Thus we have instructed our algos to "understand" that we can't rely upon a "general" more likely line as each shoe is a world apart, so when a 1 come out their action will be somewhat restrained or stopped.

Let's measure such real live shoes codes:

34 times out of 123 scenarios (shoes) no one 1 came around, so 27.64% (instead of 25%) of shoes dealt formed all winning numbers. It means that way more than 1/4 of the spots haven't provided a single loss.

22 times 1s came out clustered (1-1..) and 85 time as isolated (1-greater number than 1), so even here the expected 1:3 ratio wan't respected (79.43% instead of 75%).

Even by taking into account a 'positional' back-to-back shoes featuring a given number and assuming 6 steps at a 6-possible number code we got:

First number being 1 (-3) and every other number (+1) = +27 units

Second number: +15 units

Third number: -55 units 

Fourth number: +16 units

Fifth number. +8 units

Sixth number: +27 units

Overall it's a +38 unit profit (before vig) where algos entice our action.

It's important to notice that algos are sensitive to positional results, in our example not suggesting any bet at the third number being too deviated from the norm.

In addition, note that here 5 out of 6 positional spots will make us a profit and of course when a proper random walk is acting we'll be more entitled to get a win than a loss as more numbers greater than 1 are expected to show up than the counterpart.
(A good idea would be to get rid of the positional number getting worse results, but I do not want to complicate the issue).

Next I'll present other shoe samples belonging to the same shuffling category transformed into codes.

as.

Transforming bac shoes into codes

This is one of the most important tool we rely upon.
I'm presenting a short sample collected at a LV casino HS room.

After having applied a mechanical random walk stopping the action after some 'boundaries' and restarting it after one positive spot happened (and so on), we transform shoes as sequences of numbers.
Numbers refer to the lenght of clustering effect gaps.
So 1= no cluster, 2= just one cluster (a single back-to-back apparition), 3= a cluster of two consecutive apparitions and so on.
Numbers in brackets mean the last number wasn't precisely defined for the shoe ending up.   

Of course those sequences are not corresponding to an actual play, they just constitute a derived number succession.
Obviously each row is any shoe dealt.

4-6-5-2-1
9-4-1-1
3-3-2-3-3
4-1-2-8-(2)
1-2-1-1-1-6
2-3-1-3-2-(2)
2-2-2-2-1
2-8-7-6
3-2-3-14-2
2-11-2-1-2-7
2-1-2-10-1-5
1-1-1-1-3-2-2
7-2-1-6-5
1-6-1-7-3
13-3-3-1-1
2-1-3-2-8-3-(2)
3-9-1-3
6-1-9-1-9
1-1-13-2-1-4
4-5-2-2-5-5
6-4-1-4-4
2-1-1-2-1-7
6-5-2-1-3
1-8-1-2-6-3
6-2-4-5-5
2-2-5-1-2
3-10-6-8
13-1-1-1
14-16
1-10-7
5-13-1-9
3-3-5-5
7-2-6-3-9
1-8-3-6-5
2-4-16-3
1-6-1-2
3-1-5-1-4
1-1-1-1-1-12-3
2-3-1-1
1-2-5-11
3-2-3-2-1-4
7-10-5-7
5-8-2-1-2-3
7-3-3-2-4-1
2-4-1-5-5-4
6-5-1-3-3
2-3-9-6-2
1-5-5-3-6
3-3-1-5-2-6
3-3-1-6-1
1-2-5-2-2-(2)
6-2-3-3-3-12
3-2-2-4-3-3
2-3-1-10
15-1-3-5-2
11-4-5-4
2-3-2-3-5-1-2
2-1-2-3-2-1-2
6-1-3-6-6-3-4
3-1-1-18
1-5-5-5-1-4
8-1-1-3-2
3-2-1-3-4
4-3-1-2-2
13-1-14
4-4-5-5-(2)
5-4-2-2-5-6
2-10-7-4
7-2-10-2
2-6-5-2-8
1-4-5-10-2
2-2-5-4-2-1-2
4-2-1-2-1-7-1-2
2-1-1-3-1-4
5-2-1-10-2
7-8-8
1-9-7-6
3-4-3-4-7
3-5-1-6-5
1-3-1-6-5-3
8-7-8-4
10-1-1-2
1-6-3-1-3
3-7-14
8-3-2-2-2-2
2-4-6-10
3-1-1-8
2-3-1-7-1-2
11-1-8-5
1-4-3-1-7
3-7-3-2
3-2-2-4-2-6-2
8-2-1-3-1-2
2-1-2-5-5
4-13-2-1
3-2-2-1-4
2-4-3-2
6-1-5-5
3-5-6-2
1-1-1-1-8-4-3
3-2-1-8-2
1-4-4-1-4
2-9-3-6
2-1-1-1-2-3-4
7-3-2-6
2-5-1-1-1-3
7-3-2
12-6-8
7-6-1-5-4
4-4-1-15
2-1-9-6-2
1-4-3-2-2-6
1-2-1-1-5-5
4-1-1-5-5
4-1-1-7-1-2
3-2-2-2-11-2
4-3-1-3-6
15-4-2-1-4
1-1-12-1-1-5
2-3-1-3-2-5
5-2-3-2-2
3-7-1-2
2-3-5-1-1-4
1-3-4-5-9-4

Anyone familiar with my pages knows that I'm assuming a 0.75%/0.25% W/L probability and to simplify the issue we consider the number 1 as -3 unit loss and any other number different than 1 corresponds to +1 unit win.

Despite of being a ridiculous short sample, we think that it could give an idea about how the variance will act and about how to extract an edge.
In poorer words, we'are deadly sure to expect worse or better scenarios, yet this is what happened at the premise we've played at.

More later

as.