i]A streak of anything, does not have to be a banker or player run. [/i]
This is one of the best quote ever made regarding baccarat.
Streak= any event happening back to back (at various lenghts)
No streak= any event NOT happening back to back (at various lenghts)
Strategy #1.
Betting to get streaks of something, probability to win at least once at every shoe is 100%.
Strategy #2
Betting to get NO streaks of something, probability to win at least once is <100%.
Obviously the words 'at least once' will take a way different impact whether the number of bets per shoe are 72 or 10, for example.
Say we want to consider 'doubles' gaps, that is events not belonging to 'double' category within the 1 gap and >1 gap (so consecutive doubles are not included in this classification as belonging to the 0 class).
Even if the number of doubles in the actual shoe is quite huge, we can't refrain the shoe to produce >1 gaps and at the same time back to back precise 1 gap cannot get values greatly deviating from an average number.
So and proportionally considering their greater probability to happen than 3+s streaks, itlr double/no double/double patterns (1-gap) are coming out by a slight lesser probability than 3+/no 3+/3+ patterns.
For an obvious reason as they are more likely to show up clustered (0-gapped) than interspersed by just one 'no double' event.
Another reason why it's quite difficult to spot a shoe not showing up at least one 3+/x/3+ pattern is because cards are strongly asymmetrically placed (and for general asymmetrical game features) thus endorsing at least a transitory 6/1 B/P or P/B ratio or a 6/2 B/P or P/B ratio happening along any shoe dealt.
No need to employ fkng virtual edge sorting techniques, any shoe dealt in the universe will make more probable to get at some point at least one 1-gap 3+ streak (any 3+ streak followed by a no 3+ streak then followed by another 3+ streak).
Some variance will act (some rare shoes won't show any pattern as this) so virtually waiting to get many 'losing' spots will only raise your EV.
On the other end, selectively betting towards not getting certain doubles gaps is one of the best way to bringing down the house as we're just comparing general probabilities to actual asymmetrical card distributions.
Doubles and 3+ streaks flows are just an example, Al names such 'streak' opportunities as playable 'sections' or unplayable 'sections', the important thing to realize is they do come out on the vast majority of shoes and of course they do stop at some point.
as.
This is one of the best quote ever made regarding baccarat.
Streak= any event happening back to back (at various lenghts)
No streak= any event NOT happening back to back (at various lenghts)
Strategy #1.
Betting to get streaks of something, probability to win at least once at every shoe is 100%.
Strategy #2
Betting to get NO streaks of something, probability to win at least once is <100%.
Obviously the words 'at least once' will take a way different impact whether the number of bets per shoe are 72 or 10, for example.
Say we want to consider 'doubles' gaps, that is events not belonging to 'double' category within the 1 gap and >1 gap (so consecutive doubles are not included in this classification as belonging to the 0 class).
Even if the number of doubles in the actual shoe is quite huge, we can't refrain the shoe to produce >1 gaps and at the same time back to back precise 1 gap cannot get values greatly deviating from an average number.
So and proportionally considering their greater probability to happen than 3+s streaks, itlr double/no double/double patterns (1-gap) are coming out by a slight lesser probability than 3+/no 3+/3+ patterns.
For an obvious reason as they are more likely to show up clustered (0-gapped) than interspersed by just one 'no double' event.
Another reason why it's quite difficult to spot a shoe not showing up at least one 3+/x/3+ pattern is because cards are strongly asymmetrically placed (and for general asymmetrical game features) thus endorsing at least a transitory 6/1 B/P or P/B ratio or a 6/2 B/P or P/B ratio happening along any shoe dealt.
No need to employ fkng virtual edge sorting techniques, any shoe dealt in the universe will make more probable to get at some point at least one 1-gap 3+ streak (any 3+ streak followed by a no 3+ streak then followed by another 3+ streak).
Some variance will act (some rare shoes won't show any pattern as this) so virtually waiting to get many 'losing' spots will only raise your EV.
On the other end, selectively betting towards not getting certain doubles gaps is one of the best way to bringing down the house as we're just comparing general probabilities to actual asymmetrical card distributions.
Doubles and 3+ streaks flows are just an example, Al names such 'streak' opportunities as playable 'sections' or unplayable 'sections', the important thing to realize is they do come out on the vast majority of shoes and of course they do stop at some point.
as.