Hi klw and ty!
Yep. the game is quite complicated to learn (imo), patterns are important but rank cards distribution matters...
You won't find many REAL LIVE shoes samples that consider ranks; best way is to deal shoes by yourself then registering everything.
Let's go back to my unb #2.
The basic strategy is quite simple: we'll only take care of B patterns in form of singles, doubles and triples (3+s) distribution.
So we'll start the betting (better sayed, the registration) after a new B hand comes out.
People who have read that thread know that in some way B doubles clusters are considered as a constant 'enemy', so we'll classify the B1 (singles) and B3+s distribution happening along each shoe dealt in terms of 'profitable' sections.
For obvious reasons, the probability to get the whole shoe providing just 1s and 3s at B side is well higher than the probability to get only 1s and 2s, not mentioning the very distant probability to get all the shoe showing 2s and 3s without any single in between.
Mathematically speaking, B1<B2 but B2<B3, overall the 1-3 vs 2 probability is very close to the expected 0.75 value.
Hence to get a long term profitable plan either we should raise the 1 percentage or the 3+ percentage.
In some way we should evaluate how many times 'coin flip' situations must shift toward one side or the another and how huge is the actual finite asymmetrical strenght favoring B side.
Moreover we must take into account the very slight propensity to get the opposite outcome already happened (good when wagering toward B singles and bad when wagering toward B 3's).
Let's randomly take a 10-shoes sample from my live shoes datasets:
1,1,3,2,2,1,3,1,2,1,1,3,2,3,3
1,1,1,1,2,2,2,1,2,3,2,3,3,1,1,1,2,1
3,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,3,1,2,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,3
1,1,1,3,1,1,1,2,1,3,1,1,2,3,3,1,1
1,2,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,2,3,1,3,2,1,1,1,3,2,2,1,1
1,2,1,1,1,1,3,1,3,1,2,2,2,1,2,2,1,3,1,1
2,2,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,2,1,2,1,2,2,2,3,1,1,1
1,1,1,1,1,1,3,3,1,1,3,3,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,3,2,1
1,1,2,2,1,3,3,2,3,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2
3,1,2,3,3,3,1,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,1,3
Taken as 1s and 3s as wins and as 2s as losses and adopting a 1-2 mini progression (W=+1 and L= -3) we'll get an overall - 12 units loss (vig ignored for simplicity) so no short natural positive variance was involved here.
Nevertheless, a careful 'sections' W/L distribution will help us to define that an asymmetrical (yet mathematically proportional) betting made on a sure asymmetrical and dependent production cannot reach the unbeatable limits typical of pure symmetrical and independent situations.
Even at shoe #7 (10 2s and 10 1s/3s, a statistical abnormality) W streaks must come out, after all just one B 3+s streak had come out there (test your shoes and see how's unlikely is this happening).
It's like that profitable spots are surely happening along the way and of course they're not coming up when opposite situations seem to show up clustered at various degrees.
More on that next week
as.
Yep. the game is quite complicated to learn (imo), patterns are important but rank cards distribution matters...
You won't find many REAL LIVE shoes samples that consider ranks; best way is to deal shoes by yourself then registering everything.
Let's go back to my unb #2.
The basic strategy is quite simple: we'll only take care of B patterns in form of singles, doubles and triples (3+s) distribution.
So we'll start the betting (better sayed, the registration) after a new B hand comes out.
People who have read that thread know that in some way B doubles clusters are considered as a constant 'enemy', so we'll classify the B1 (singles) and B3+s distribution happening along each shoe dealt in terms of 'profitable' sections.
For obvious reasons, the probability to get the whole shoe providing just 1s and 3s at B side is well higher than the probability to get only 1s and 2s, not mentioning the very distant probability to get all the shoe showing 2s and 3s without any single in between.
Mathematically speaking, B1<B2 but B2<B3, overall the 1-3 vs 2 probability is very close to the expected 0.75 value.
Hence to get a long term profitable plan either we should raise the 1 percentage or the 3+ percentage.
In some way we should evaluate how many times 'coin flip' situations must shift toward one side or the another and how huge is the actual finite asymmetrical strenght favoring B side.
Moreover we must take into account the very slight propensity to get the opposite outcome already happened (good when wagering toward B singles and bad when wagering toward B 3's).
Let's randomly take a 10-shoes sample from my live shoes datasets:
1,1,3,2,2,1,3,1,2,1,1,3,2,3,3
1,1,1,1,2,2,2,1,2,3,2,3,3,1,1,1,2,1
3,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,2,3,1,2,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,3
1,1,1,3,1,1,1,2,1,3,1,1,2,3,3,1,1
1,2,1,1,2,2,1,1,1,1,2,3,1,3,2,1,1,1,3,2,2,1,1
1,2,1,1,1,1,3,1,3,1,2,2,2,1,2,2,1,3,1,1
2,2,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,2,1,2,1,2,2,2,3,1,1,1
1,1,1,1,1,1,3,3,1,1,3,3,1,1,1,1,1,2,1,1,3,2,1
1,1,2,2,1,3,3,2,3,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,2,2
3,1,2,3,3,3,1,1,2,1,2,1,2,3,1,3
Taken as 1s and 3s as wins and as 2s as losses and adopting a 1-2 mini progression (W=+1 and L= -3) we'll get an overall - 12 units loss (vig ignored for simplicity) so no short natural positive variance was involved here.
Nevertheless, a careful 'sections' W/L distribution will help us to define that an asymmetrical (yet mathematically proportional) betting made on a sure asymmetrical and dependent production cannot reach the unbeatable limits typical of pure symmetrical and independent situations.
Even at shoe #7 (10 2s and 10 1s/3s, a statistical abnormality) W streaks must come out, after all just one B 3+s streak had come out there (test your shoes and see how's unlikely is this happening).
It's like that profitable spots are surely happening along the way and of course they're not coming up when opposite situations seem to show up clustered at various degrees.
More on that next week
as.