There are no wrong or right methods to beat (or not) this game itlr, there are only methods that do work.
Meaning that our method after a decent number of trials had to get profits by flat betting.
It's quite easy to confuse the steady probability of success with the dynamic long term WL probability typical of baccarat.
Itlr (and even in most short run situations) probability of success line tends to get the zero value, whereas WL dynamic probability must get an ascending line formed by "infinite" positive or negative short segments where positive segments are either longer or more frequent than the negative conterparts.
Probability of success is symmetrically placed no matter how deeply we've built our progression plan. No way a strict math progression without a valid bet selection could get the best of it for long. Itlr positive fragments will be equal in lenght and frequency as the negative counterparts, even though we know that B>P. Actually the B>P factor is quite volatile and restricted to rare situations (we well know this).
To beat this game itlr we need to find the unsteady situations where our plan might discard the potential B/P plan variance, exchanging it with the more regular A/B registration made on several steps.
Card speaking, it's like we are challenging the system to provide univocal math advantaged spots acting for long and at different degrees instead of a natural more likely balanced key card falling.
Our datasets show that dissecting the shoe into an average number of 4 or 5 key situations will make the highest player's edge. Yet remember that not every shoe is playable.
If any bet is insensitive to past decisions, why the hell a given flat betting plan will get a slow but steady positive ascending line?
as.
Meaning that our method after a decent number of trials had to get profits by flat betting.
It's quite easy to confuse the steady probability of success with the dynamic long term WL probability typical of baccarat.
Itlr (and even in most short run situations) probability of success line tends to get the zero value, whereas WL dynamic probability must get an ascending line formed by "infinite" positive or negative short segments where positive segments are either longer or more frequent than the negative conterparts.
Probability of success is symmetrically placed no matter how deeply we've built our progression plan. No way a strict math progression without a valid bet selection could get the best of it for long. Itlr positive fragments will be equal in lenght and frequency as the negative counterparts, even though we know that B>P. Actually the B>P factor is quite volatile and restricted to rare situations (we well know this).
To beat this game itlr we need to find the unsteady situations where our plan might discard the potential B/P plan variance, exchanging it with the more regular A/B registration made on several steps.
Card speaking, it's like we are challenging the system to provide univocal math advantaged spots acting for long and at different degrees instead of a natural more likely balanced key card falling.
Our datasets show that dissecting the shoe into an average number of 4 or 5 key situations will make the highest player's edge. Yet remember that not every shoe is playable.
If any bet is insensitive to past decisions, why the hell a given flat betting plan will get a slow but steady positive ascending line?
as.