@KFB
*My hypothesis is they would find almost identical results if I proposed the same exercise for them to try and guess 3iar CORRECT.
With that large number of bets I'd agree.
Now let's pretend to make a similar challenge having this rules:
1- $100 are awarded if after the whole shoe is dealt, the number of CORRECT 3IAR decisions is higher than WRONG 3IAR decisions. Or vice versa.
2- Player must declare which side (Correct or Wrong) is taking before the shoe is dealt. Naturally he can't change along the way the side chosen at the start of the shoe.
3- Only 3IAR or multiple of 3 spots at either C or W side are worth to be classified (6IAR, 9IAR, etc).
4- Obviously player must bet at least 3 'resolved' hands per shoe.
5- We just face player's action, so paying him whether he accomplished his task otherwise he pay us $100.
6- A final equal number of correct and wrong decisions are just a push, so no money is changing hands.
My comments on such 'challenge'.
Naturally it's more interesting to take the player's part first, maybe could help us in some way our real play.
a) The best scenario to look for is to be right on the very first (possible) 3IAR spot (1/0), we'll win right away $100 not giving a damn about the rest of the shoe.
It's true that if we were wrong at that first 3IAR spot and even more after two or more 3IARs, we'll have almost nothing to lose so desperately betting around every corner of the shoe hoping to get 'right' 3IAR situations balancing or surpassing the previous uncorrect ones.
Later I'll make an additional aggravating rule about that possible approach.
b) The idea to look just for 3IAR spots (no matter if losing or winning ones) should endorse the 'clustering' impact assessment, that is the 2/8 random walk probability to take the strongest univocal direction after 3 resolved hands are dealt.
c) If we are temporarily right or wrong for two consecutive hands, we'll have more reasons to focus about the pivotal third hand making us winners or losers for that sequence half of the time, in the remaining half we'll have to restart the process.
But before that, WW or LL spots are the most important to look for.
d) Since we can't change the side declared at the start of the shoe and for the many times here mentioned difficulty to get a valuable 'balacing' factor acting along every shoe, let alone by values capable to get a kind of 'strong' opposite back-to-back strenght, we should evaluate with plenty of care about the room at our disposal offered by the actual shoe (and ties can only restrict such space).
Possible reflections about real play
Thinking about getting a final shoe award in terms of 3IAR right/wrong ratio is, imo, a fine aim to look for.
Especially if we are not forced to take at the start of the shoe the 'right' or wrong' side of the action influencing our strategy.
Thus meaning that in the vast majority of the times we need to be just one fkng point ahead to quit the shoe as winners.
Very rarely a player quits a shoe as winner after getting more losing 3IAR spots than the winning 3IAR counterpart. (And vice versa).
After all along any shoe dealt there are no many possibilities to cross 3IAR winning or losing spots.
And whenever a 3IAR spot comes out, well it's 1 point ahead (or behind) vs its counterpart in a way or another, so favorite to ending up as predominant.
The idea that the next same category outcomes (in our example 3IAR spots) should be more likely balanced than not cannot be applied at baccarat.
Otherwise a simple progressive plan oriented to get a full or more likely partial balancement of the already results happened so far will wipe out every casino's bankroll.
Casinos make their fortunes about the probability that homogeneous things cannot stand for long and/or that 'balancement strategies' at various forms cannot work for players.
Math edge is just an additional booster to get our money but not the main reason we are separated from our money.
Think in the same way.
Try to survive at the heterogeneous situations (best by not betting at all) and consider the spots where a given 3IAR line will more likely get the best of it vs its counterpart.
as.
*My hypothesis is they would find almost identical results if I proposed the same exercise for them to try and guess 3iar CORRECT.
With that large number of bets I'd agree.
Now let's pretend to make a similar challenge having this rules:
1- $100 are awarded if after the whole shoe is dealt, the number of CORRECT 3IAR decisions is higher than WRONG 3IAR decisions. Or vice versa.
2- Player must declare which side (Correct or Wrong) is taking before the shoe is dealt. Naturally he can't change along the way the side chosen at the start of the shoe.
3- Only 3IAR or multiple of 3 spots at either C or W side are worth to be classified (6IAR, 9IAR, etc).
4- Obviously player must bet at least 3 'resolved' hands per shoe.
5- We just face player's action, so paying him whether he accomplished his task otherwise he pay us $100.
6- A final equal number of correct and wrong decisions are just a push, so no money is changing hands.
My comments on such 'challenge'.
Naturally it's more interesting to take the player's part first, maybe could help us in some way our real play.
a) The best scenario to look for is to be right on the very first (possible) 3IAR spot (1/0), we'll win right away $100 not giving a damn about the rest of the shoe.
It's true that if we were wrong at that first 3IAR spot and even more after two or more 3IARs, we'll have almost nothing to lose so desperately betting around every corner of the shoe hoping to get 'right' 3IAR situations balancing or surpassing the previous uncorrect ones.
Later I'll make an additional aggravating rule about that possible approach.
b) The idea to look just for 3IAR spots (no matter if losing or winning ones) should endorse the 'clustering' impact assessment, that is the 2/8 random walk probability to take the strongest univocal direction after 3 resolved hands are dealt.
c) If we are temporarily right or wrong for two consecutive hands, we'll have more reasons to focus about the pivotal third hand making us winners or losers for that sequence half of the time, in the remaining half we'll have to restart the process.
But before that, WW or LL spots are the most important to look for.
d) Since we can't change the side declared at the start of the shoe and for the many times here mentioned difficulty to get a valuable 'balacing' factor acting along every shoe, let alone by values capable to get a kind of 'strong' opposite back-to-back strenght, we should evaluate with plenty of care about the room at our disposal offered by the actual shoe (and ties can only restrict such space).
Possible reflections about real play
Thinking about getting a final shoe award in terms of 3IAR right/wrong ratio is, imo, a fine aim to look for.
Especially if we are not forced to take at the start of the shoe the 'right' or wrong' side of the action influencing our strategy.
Thus meaning that in the vast majority of the times we need to be just one fkng point ahead to quit the shoe as winners.
Very rarely a player quits a shoe as winner after getting more losing 3IAR spots than the winning 3IAR counterpart. (And vice versa).
After all along any shoe dealt there are no many possibilities to cross 3IAR winning or losing spots.
And whenever a 3IAR spot comes out, well it's 1 point ahead (or behind) vs its counterpart in a way or another, so favorite to ending up as predominant.
The idea that the next same category outcomes (in our example 3IAR spots) should be more likely balanced than not cannot be applied at baccarat.
Otherwise a simple progressive plan oriented to get a full or more likely partial balancement of the already results happened so far will wipe out every casino's bankroll.
Casinos make their fortunes about the probability that homogeneous things cannot stand for long and/or that 'balancement strategies' at various forms cannot work for players.
Math edge is just an additional booster to get our money but not the main reason we are separated from our money.
Think in the same way.
Try to survive at the heterogeneous situations (best by not betting at all) and consider the spots where a given 3IAR line will more likely get the best of it vs its counterpart.
as.