Good choice, KFB!
Are we sure to play with an edge?
In every asymmetrical proposition (itlr a side is advantaged over the other one, say our plan) it's natural to expect a W>L ratio, but there are more important tools to consider, that is the winning streaks shape and their distribution.
Obviously to exploit an edge, itlr W clusters must be superior than W isolated events meaning that very often it's not the actual W streaks lenght to shift things in our favor.
That's because the variance will put a strong obstacle to expect homogeneous situations featuring all of the time a greater amount of W clusters than W isolated situations.
In fact, W isolated events may easily come out clustered, so if you have a plan that went through a 4 or 5 or even 6 W isolated series without reaching superior values you can safely assume you were just lucky.
Even worse are the L sequences that cannot be 'controlled' by their lenght as under normal circumstances the edge remains small.
The trick to raise the probability of success is just a ploy to more likely catch the W clusters, well knowing that it can be valid only when fitting an 'average card distribution'.
Algorithm action
The algorithm is set up by two levels:
a) a mechanical classification about the probability of getting this or that by math features applied to a coin flip proposition;
b) an evaluation of the above results by statistical standards more or less deviating from an 'average' card distribution so enticing or not the betting.
I've utilized the word 'evaluation' (a topic already touched in a previous post), as the actual action must be calibrated upon the goal the players aim for: there are people who wants to play a quite number of hands (I hope mainly for comp reasons) and there are players who want to be right at very selected situations by wagering huge sums.
At any rate, the algorithm gets the best of it no matter what as it was instructed to take care of average card distributions, frequently stopping its action when things tend to not conform to those distributions.
Another important and counterintuitive issue is that the a) classification provide many shoes featuring an overall unit loss, so enhancing the concept that very often it's not important what we bet but 'when' we bet.
Obviously the (over) 'balanced' part is made of shoes providing ALL wins, it's just a matter of (few) time we'll exploit our edge.
The backup algorithm
Say that for some reasons the average card distribution is disregarded for long or for the entire shoe(s), so tossing into the trash our algorithm.
Besides the fact that such distributions will likely make the fortune of recreational or gambling players (so the almost entire baccarat community), we still have the tool to get our profits.
It's sufficient to postpone the algorithm A by a 1 factor, so building an algorithm B getting a different scheduled a) pace but a same b) rhythm.
Unlike the derived roads where the same Big Road will contemporarily produce quite diverse patterns at the three lines, algorithm A and algorithm B will produce the almost same number of expected spots but just by different permutations.
Since itlr the edge is mathematically insensitive of the permutations issue (as long as the card distributions fall into the average field) but relatively susceptible of short-intermediate variance, we may find reasons to put in action the algorithm B when the algorithm A stalls for long without suggesting any bet.
Now and in no way we're playing a kind of 'opposite' plan, we're just playing the probabilities under a 50% different pace plan.
So the only real problem to face is not about the probability to win but to properly set up manually the algorithms as it's quite easy to make mistakes, even if we just use the main algorithm A.
See you next week
as.
Are we sure to play with an edge?
In every asymmetrical proposition (itlr a side is advantaged over the other one, say our plan) it's natural to expect a W>L ratio, but there are more important tools to consider, that is the winning streaks shape and their distribution.
Obviously to exploit an edge, itlr W clusters must be superior than W isolated events meaning that very often it's not the actual W streaks lenght to shift things in our favor.
That's because the variance will put a strong obstacle to expect homogeneous situations featuring all of the time a greater amount of W clusters than W isolated situations.
In fact, W isolated events may easily come out clustered, so if you have a plan that went through a 4 or 5 or even 6 W isolated series without reaching superior values you can safely assume you were just lucky.
Even worse are the L sequences that cannot be 'controlled' by their lenght as under normal circumstances the edge remains small.
The trick to raise the probability of success is just a ploy to more likely catch the W clusters, well knowing that it can be valid only when fitting an 'average card distribution'.
Algorithm action
The algorithm is set up by two levels:
a) a mechanical classification about the probability of getting this or that by math features applied to a coin flip proposition;
b) an evaluation of the above results by statistical standards more or less deviating from an 'average' card distribution so enticing or not the betting.
I've utilized the word 'evaluation' (a topic already touched in a previous post), as the actual action must be calibrated upon the goal the players aim for: there are people who wants to play a quite number of hands (I hope mainly for comp reasons) and there are players who want to be right at very selected situations by wagering huge sums.
At any rate, the algorithm gets the best of it no matter what as it was instructed to take care of average card distributions, frequently stopping its action when things tend to not conform to those distributions.
Another important and counterintuitive issue is that the a) classification provide many shoes featuring an overall unit loss, so enhancing the concept that very often it's not important what we bet but 'when' we bet.
Obviously the (over) 'balanced' part is made of shoes providing ALL wins, it's just a matter of (few) time we'll exploit our edge.
The backup algorithm
Say that for some reasons the average card distribution is disregarded for long or for the entire shoe(s), so tossing into the trash our algorithm.
Besides the fact that such distributions will likely make the fortune of recreational or gambling players (so the almost entire baccarat community), we still have the tool to get our profits.
It's sufficient to postpone the algorithm A by a 1 factor, so building an algorithm B getting a different scheduled a) pace but a same b) rhythm.
Unlike the derived roads where the same Big Road will contemporarily produce quite diverse patterns at the three lines, algorithm A and algorithm B will produce the almost same number of expected spots but just by different permutations.
Since itlr the edge is mathematically insensitive of the permutations issue (as long as the card distributions fall into the average field) but relatively susceptible of short-intermediate variance, we may find reasons to put in action the algorithm B when the algorithm A stalls for long without suggesting any bet.
Now and in no way we're playing a kind of 'opposite' plan, we're just playing the probabilities under a 50% different pace plan.
So the only real problem to face is not about the probability to win but to properly set up manually the algorithms as it's quite easy to make mistakes, even if we just use the main algorithm A.
See you next week
as.