Welcome back.

You are not losing anything by not attending other forums, that's for granted....

as.

Very interesting and valuable thread Al!

as.

Thanks again KFB!

There are several experiments to make, one of them is to compare the flow of two-card initial situations with the corresponding flow of actual final results.

From a strict math point of view each hand's winning probability is polarized at the start, only few hands will be affected by the third card/s impact, namely two-card situations being equal and both needing the third card (asym hand rules besides, of course).

Thus we should focus our attention about how many times higher two-card points on the same side will come out in a row on average.
The fact that many two-card higher points won't produce the math results we're looking for shouldn't bother us at all: as long as we are able to catch a superior than expected amount of those spots, itlr the probability to get more W than L is sure as hell.

I mean that we do not want to be right at single spots, just adopting a bet selection at spots where the probability to be right is cumulatively enlarged.
A necessary condition that cannot be applied at every shoe dealt.

In some way after having placed our bet at a given side, we should consider W and L just in terms of superior or inferior two-card point, regardless of the real outcome.


But it's about your second quoted "sentence" that baccarat is scientifically beatable.

A random succession cannot be beaten by any means, there's no fkng way to do it.
Successful long term bac players do not need luck, actually they hate it. And of course recreational players and "I know to win" claimers need it and like it.

The game is beatable as each possible betting spot does not correspond to the expected probability dictating that each hand is independently and randomly placed. (that is EV-)

Simplifying, some portions of most part of the shoes (not every shoe) provides unrandom sequences at different levels. Not every unrandom sequence will get the player a profitable level.
This feature is more evident when considering multiple random walks running on the two-card higher point probability.
Normal players are focused about BP real outcomes, strong bac players do not give a fk about those results, they are willing to risk their money about the probability that something "favourable" is going to happen again or is going to shift. And those probabilties are restricted about finite numbers.

Tomorrow our "bac walker" example.

as.

Without any doubt itlr we'll win because the side we have chosen to bet presents more two-card initial points higher than the opposite side.
Although it happens frequently that third card/s will invert this strong advantage, hoping to be ahead for long by guessing repeatedly that the unfavorite side will win is pure illusion.

For example, if we had bet Player getting 2-K and Banker shows 3-T, third card to the Player is a picture and Banker catches a 7 we win the hand but actually we have lost from the start.

Third card/s, besides the important asymmetrical hand factor, are just there for entertainment and to confuse things.
Naturally there are some equal two-card initial points that may need the third card draw, in these situations no one side is advantaged from the start (again besides the asym factor when working).

In the vast majority of the times any new hand dealt in form of two initial cards on each side will entice the formation of very different probabilities: cumulatively the higher two-card points will be almost 2:1 favorite to win the hand. It's like playing two dozens vs one dozen at roulette but by wagering just one unit and being payed 1:1 or 0.95:1 and not 0.5:1.

If we're here is because we are trying to dispute the randomness of the card distributions or any other bac feature that might get us a kind of an edge.
Surely we can't dispute math situations once they have appeared.

Hence a long term winning player is anyone capable to get a greater share of two-card initial points at the right side. Real outcomes are just a by product of such strong math propensity.
On the same token, we know that certain higher points will be so favorite to win up to the point they're eventually unbeatable (natural 9s) and going down with other high points.

It remains to define whether a supposedly random but surely finite card distribution will provide valuable betting spots by taking the problem by two different way of thoughts that actually constitute the same issue.

a- average lenght of uniformed one side favorite segments;

b- average number of gaps between favorite situations happening at the two opposite sides.

Obviously greater is the lenght of uniformed one side situations lower will be the number of gaps and vice versa.

Nonetheless we ought to remember that not everytime a favorite side is going to win the hand, but we have to accept this kind of error as any situation getting nearly 2:1 cumulative odds to win must eventually get a double number of wins than losses.
That means that we're allowed to get a fair amount of wrong "guessing" that we could easily reduce by selecting at most our action.

So a shoe is going to produce several "favorite initial two card states" at various degrees, try to register those situations regardless of the final outcomes.
To get precise registrations, deal the hands as bac rules dictate, nothing will change itlr.

Now in order to find out our possible long term edge we need a further adjustment, that is comparing what could happen more likely in relationship of what really happened in the past taken at different paces.

That's why RVM theories and Smoluchoswki studies help us to 'solve' baccarat.
Any random succession must provide independent results on every step of the original sequence and on every other possible subsequence derived from the original one, that is for each step whatever considered and for every random walk considered a x result will be proportionally equal to the expected probability.

Expected probability? Rattlesnakesh.i.t from the start.

as.

That's good KFB! :-)

Think as baccarat as a game of a slight biased 12-face tossing dice getting 6 B faces and 5 P faces where the remaining 1/12 side prompts the toss of a further hypothetical dice getting 7 B faces and 3 P faces.

If each one-step or two-step toss will be independent from the previous ones, no way a profitable strategy could be applied as the asymmetrical probability will come out proportionally as expected.

I mean that 11 out of 12 possible first dice toss outcomes are differently payed, one side getting 0.95:1 payment and the other one 1:1 payment.
It's just about that nearly 1:12 odds probability that things substantially change by math terms.

Thus Banker bettors will be hugely right just one time over 12 attempts and Player bettors will be hugely wrong just one time over the same 12 hands range.

In a sense Banker bettors are hugely right rarely and Player bettors are hugely wrong rarely.
At the same token, Banker winners are more likely id.iot 5% contributors, whereas Player bettors feel as idi.o.ts just one time over 12 bets. 

The common suggestion dictating to wager B side in order to lower the HE is completely unsound as long as we decide to select at most our bets.
Following this "B always betting" strategy, we see most B bets are hugely unfavorite as the asym strenght happens rarely, mainly as they are not taking into account the whimsical finite key cards impact.

It's interesting to notice that a careful selected betting plan will get more profitable opportunities at Player side than at Banker side, meaning that a 1:1 payment will crush a supposedly 0.95:1 payment diluted at more likely expected math B spots.

Remember that we just need a 50.1% probability on our P bets to get a long term edge.
We shouldn't care less whether we could find ourselves in those rare 42.07%/57.93% disadvantaged asym spots, consider them as a kind of zero happening at roulette now getting a substantial degree of success.

After all it's only the key card distribution who cares itlr, isn't it?

as.

So our goal is to get one of these precise B patterns: 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 and 2-2.
Of course we start the betting when a 1 or a 2 happen.
Since we utilize a mini progression as 1-2 or 100-150 or 100-120, etc. to be ahead of something we need to win right at the first attempt; if we lose this very first attenpt, odds are strongly shifted toward NOT getting any kind of profit as the average number of the searched patterns is four.
(for example, after a L we can only break even with a subsequent WWW sequence)

Nonetheless, we can choose to make our first bet right on the second searched pattern when the first pattern produced a loss, that is betting to get a LW situation.

Since itlr the overall number of L outweigh the number of W (in term of units won/lost), we could test large datasets to see what's the most likely losing pattern distribution.
After all, Banker 3+s are more likely because asym hands come out in finite numbers, mostly clustered.
Hence we do not want to fall into the trap of looking for a positive pattern whenever the first two patterns are LL or risking to cross an unfavourable WL spot.
This is not a stop loss or stop win concept, just a cumulative study on what are our best chances to win at EV- propositions.

After all we can't win less than one unit (or a portion of it) and since we're flat betting we do not want to chase losses when the actual shoe had shown a "negative" propensity from the start. (As we need at least a triple number of W to balance a single L)

On average and choosing to adopt a super selected strategy (waiting shoes forming a first L), we are going to bet nearly 25% of the total shoes dealt.
Moreover, not every shoe will form a four (or greater) WL pattern, some of them stops at two and three (and sometimes only one W or L situation arises).

Why such strategy should enhance our probability to win?

Like other binomial games, most part of bac results are formed by singles and doubles, In three hands dealt, only two patterns over eight form triples (odds 2:8.), the remaining part includes singles and doubles.
Bac rules from one part raise the probability to form 3+s (Banker) and the opposite is true at Player side favoring singles and doubles.
Anyway, this math propensity comes out just one time over 11,62 hands dealt and sometimes it will shift the results very slightly. Not mentioning that some card distributions favor Player side even in asym spots.

Many bac players tend to emphasize too much the less worse 0.18% Banker return, this simple strategy (along with some additional adjustments I do not want to discuss here) shows that we can concede the house the higher advantage; let the house hope everytime we'll make a rare bet an asym hand will come out precisely on that spot.

as.

Thank you KFB!!

Any baccarat player needs to find the spots where his/her bets are EV+ as the idea to restrict the negative expectancy by utilizing some kind of progressions or balancement factors are completely wrong both theoretically and practically.
I could be the best disciplined person in the world but a EV- bet remains a EV- bet.
We can't do anything about that mathematically, yet we can do a lot statistically.

Along any BP finite succession, whatever considered, some spots are EV+ at the Banker side and some spots are EV+ at Player side.
This way of thinking totally contrasts with the common concept that every bet is EV- no matter what.

At baccarat, 91.4% of the outcomes are simply following a coin flip probability, just 8.6% of the results are Banker oriented.
Those coin flip situations mainly rely upon the key card distribution, they are not perfect independent spots, yet one side is payed 1:1 and the other one 0.95:1.

Thus a slight dependent coin flip probability tends to provide many "limited" random walks (as key cards are limited both in number and distribution) where a given event is more likely than the counterpart.
Just on 91.6% of the results, of course.

The remaining 8.6% of the outcomes hugely favor Banker side, providing a neutral card distribution, meaning that third cards must belong to a "random" world where each rank is equally probable.

Really?

No fkng way.

A baccarat shoe is formed by a sure asymmetrical rank card distribution, we can't estimate precisely which cards will help a side or not, but we can get a clearer picture whenever we'll consider many kind of  back to back probabilities as the asymmetrical features will dilute more and more up to the point where a reversed strenght will take place.
Even though it could happen to disregard the fact that one side is math advantaged over the other one.

Tomorrow about the B single-double attack.

as. 

Hi KFB!!

I like very much your "decision tree" words.

First, let's consider your example.
Obviously a banker bettor would be very happy to win those hands and conversely a player bettor quite disappointed.
Nonetheless itlr such specific spots are EV- for Banker bettors and EV+ for Player bettors.
As a standing 7 on P side is favorite to win (and payed 1:1) whereas a winning natural on B side is payed 0.95:1.

If you were to know exactly the first card of the next hand, which side would have you bet?
I guess Player's.
And naturally whenever an asymmetrical hand do not come out within a range validly surpassing the math expectancy, no Banker bet is EV+. 

Since we can't know how cards are distributed but we surely know the average card distribution impact, definitely some ranges of distribution will be slight more likely than others.
The more we're going deeply in the process of classifying the actual results, better will be the long term profitability.

Let's take a very simple approach made on big road.

We'll bet toward getting at least one of the 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 patterns at Banker side, thus our play won't be affected by the vig as our bets will be placed only at Player side.
Anytime a 1 or 2 comes out at B side, we'll bet toward those three patterns. We'll stop the bet until we'll get one unit profit per shoe by utilizing a steady 1-2 progression.

Of course itlr we'll be in the negative as B>P then B1 < B2 < B3+.

That's ok.

But how many times we'll get two or more consecutive set of losses without getting at least one winning pattern we're looking for?

as.

Quote from: KungFuBac on February 19, 2021, 04:06:09 PM
Congrats AsymBacGuy on your 1000 post above. 

This is a good thread /subtopic and I like the analogy with the outcomes profile in craps. I think you will agree there are many similarities when comparing craps to bac. A couple huge differences too(as u point out one above re: dependence)

I look forward to  your next post in the series.

Thanks KFB! :-)

Yep, besides the dependency factor, I totally agree that craps and baccarat tend to work by similarities.

When a craps shooter bet the pass line he/she has 2:1 odds to win as there are 6 ways to form a winning seven and 2 ways to form an eleven (8 winning ways); a sudden loss comes from rolling a deuce (1 way), a three (2 ways) and a twelve (1 way) totaling 4 ways to lose. 2:1.
The casino's ploy to reduce a sure math edge for the don't pass bettor derives from transforming a losing twelve for the pass bettor to a push.

After this very first roll not producing a sudden win or loss, the pass line bettor is underdog to win as in relationship of the number established his/her odds to win are 5:6 (six or eight), 4:6 (five and nine) and 3:6 (four and ten).

Thus basically there are two distinct asymmetrical probabilities to get outcomes on either pass or don't pass sides: a sudden win getting 2:1 (pass line) and 3:8 odds (don't pass line); after that the don't pass line is hugely favorite to win at various degrees.

In essence, the above mentioned multilayered betting scheme relies upon the difficulty to first roll sevens and elevens in series greater than 4 per each consecutive shooter.
Of course it could happen that such 7s/11s will be mixed with number repeaters, anyway it's very very very very unlikely to get four consecutive players winning 16 rolls in a row without showing at least one or a couple of immediate 7/11 wins.

At baccarat from one part math propositions are more intricated to grasp, from the other one there are additional factors that might orient our bet selection.

We know that "sudden win or loss" are determined more likely by the fall of strongest key cards (8s and 9s) on the initial two initial cards of a given side, then the side getting the higher two initial card point is hugely favorite to win the hand.

Of course such probabilities are symmetrical (thus undetectable) but the finiteness of the shoe and the key card liveness or shortage along with simple statistical features will help us to define how much such factors are going to produce valuable deviations from the expected line.
As there's no way a perfect key card balancement is going to act along any shoe dealt (even though many not key card situations can produce strong deviated spots), we can infer that most part of random walks are not going to form back to back outcomes totally insensitive to the previous card distribution.

Simply put, the vast majority of shoes dealt are surely affected by a kind of finite dependency deviating from the expected values.

Tomorrow practical examples about that.

as. 

That's my 1k post on this wonderful site, congratulations to this forum upgrade.

@Al: 1-3-2-6 betting approach is useful as long as we are sure we can get an edge by flat betting, thus it's just a profit scheme enhancer (more WW situations than WL spots, etc)

Win frequency

Most part of money won by casinos derives from an improper W/L assessment and not for the math advantage we must endure.
Take the 16-step betting scheme I was talking about above.

Say that after 8 bets that went wrong (that is a -$450 deficit) the plan dictates our next bet will be $30.
Basically we're betting only the 6.66% percentage of what we're losing.
Now tell me whether a -$450 losing player will place just a fkng $30 wager.

Actually that's the wisest move he/she can take (as long as we know to play with an advantage).
First, a huge deficit must be compensated slowly as the probability to get a quick kind of symmetrical WL ratio is very low, secondly risking too much money in order to get a fast recover will expose us to the fatal risk of losing our entire bankroll.

When our random walks-whatever running- reach some extremes, the probability to get a "balanced" or more likely status is generally small and quite diluted.

To get a vulgar example of this, think about how many times we'll face a BBBBBBBB sequence (we'd bet P every hand causing us eight losses) suddendly followed by a specular PPPPPPPP or PPPPPPP pattern (again we always bet P).
Yes, it could happen, the same way slots can give you a kind of little jackpot.

Actually, all baccarat systems rely upon the probability that things must change in player's favor with no regards about the important time factor (number of shoes dealt, or better sayed, number of hands really wagered).

Let me present a real example of this.

Several years ago, a bunch of japanese players joined one of the Vegas HS baccarat room, they managed to fill all the table seats.
A leader instructed all his peers to bet the same side he had chosen to wager and btw all bet were made at the maximum limit.
Things went out that a couple of consecutive shoes produced a very strong Player predominance, at the end casino lost the like of $1.4 millions.

Such players kept playing baccarat for the next few days of their trip, and not surprisingly they'd lost some of the money won, anyway they quit Vegas as huge overall winners.

The question is about how many days this casino had managed to recover such a loss: many.
Despite of the sure math advantage, the casino needed several days to recover that loss and we are talking about players getting a win by playing the strongest uphill percentages.

Back to the 4 step x 4 step betting sequence.

At baccarat and differently to craps, when utilizing a proper bet selection the probability to be wrong 16 times in a row is not existent at all, and I'm not referring to the probability to cross a 16 streak in various shapes.

The main probability to get wins is about the first 4-step wagering, subsequent steps will just proportionally raise the probability to recover previous losses.

And we can safely assume that even adopting a "risky" progressive approach, the probability to lose our 150 unit bankroll is almost zero.

I'll prove this on my next post.

as. 

THis is a quite long post, please read carefully not reaching quick conclusions.

Let's talk about a specific bac method derived from an old craps interesting system very few people know about.

Craps system

The system works against the probability that four consecutive craps players will make 4 or more passes each (pass=wins on the pass line bet).
Whenever each player reaches the four pass level, we are not interested anymore on what happens next about this shooter, we'll wait the next shooter. 

Thus we'll place our bets only on the don't pass line.
When such thing will happen we'll lose our entire bankroll.

The betting multilayered progression is:

$10, $20, $40, $80

$20, $40, $80, $160

$30, $60, $120, $240

$40, $80, $160, $320

Total bankroll at risk = $1500

Anytime we lose a bet we'll step forward the next progressive amount, when we win a bet at any level we'll go back to the first original progressive line ($10, $20, etc)

To lose the entire bankroll we need a 16-consecutive losing sequence, and this thing surely will happen but at a very very low degree of probability.
In any case, even when this nasty thing happens, we could be in the positive field as it's likely we have accumulated many wins on the more likely positive situations.

Comments

You can notice that wins made on a given level will cancel just the previous same level losing bets.
For example, after getting 6 losing hands in a row followed by a win ($80 bet on second level), we are still behind $130 that in a way or another must be recovered by the first level progression.

Actually only the first level progression will make us pure winners, subsequent levels diminish the deficit just by small loss percentages.
Per each level we're proportionally win $10, or recover from the overall losing situation respectively $20 (second level), $30 (third level) and $40 (final level).

It's a long waiting process as it could take several rolls to produce either a single win or a single loss. Not mentioning that placing progressive don't pass bets will arise other players hostility.
Who gives a fk about other players, but prolonging too much our betting frequency is a bigger issue.
Moreover, it's quite difficult to accept the idea that after a $450 loss (two full progressions that went wrong) the system dictates to wager just $30 (first step of the third progression level).

Believe it or not, the probability such system will bring us in the positive side are quite interesting, even though we know that sooner or later s.hit will happen. (but even in this scenario we could be winners).

Finally it's obvious to state that craps is just made by endless independent random successions.
Therefore, odds to lose our entire bankroll are nearly 1 : 65.536. 

Modeling this system to baccarat

Good news are that baccarat isn't an independent and random game, moreover is a finite card game.
Bad news are that each bet isn't following precise probability percentages, as a strong dynamic probability could affect the outcomes in either a positive or a negative way.
And of course the irregular asymmetrical BP probability and the constant asymmetrical payment will make a huge role along the way.

Nonetheless, I see a common important trait between our strategies and this craps method inventor: when considering gambling games, after a cutoff point is surpassed and incorporated into a finite field, we shouldn't be interested anymore to register the results.

In addition, notice the important parameter assumed by the craps expert: he or she didn't want to challenge a single player getting a 16-passes streak in some way, he preferred to split his/her strategy by spreading it on consecutive different limited random sources.
In a nutshell, the probability a single craps shooter will get a 16-pass streak is higher than the probability that four distinct consecutive shooters will get 4 passes each.
Scientifically speaking this craps method inventor indirectly doubted about the place selection and probability after events tools confirming or not the perfect randomness of the results.

Back to baccarat.

We have to choose the procedures to transfer at baccarat those craps ideas.

First, we should define any single craps shooter as a first B or P appearance.
Any new shooter won't act as long as a new BP shift come out (an exception is about the very first B or P result).

Therefore we need a 5 same streak apperance happening on either side to lose our first level progression. (First hand is just a non-bet signal to classify a new player) 
Say the first hand is B. Now we'll play against a B streak of 5+, stopping if a 5-streak happened.
The same about P. And so on.

In a word, we're challenging every shoe dealt to produce back to back 5+ streaks happening consecutively and we need four consecutive 5+ B/P streaks to lose our entire bankroll.
Notice that at craps each sevening-out shooter will make a end of his/her winning streak, now at baccarat we'd classify as a new shooter the next BP shift.

Even though we're classifying mere BP results (and you well know there are greater better random walk lines to wager into) the probability to get four or more 5+ B or P consecutive streaks is almost not existent.
Now we know that the losing bankroll probability won't happen at humanly considered ranges. 

But wait.

In order to get an edge, we need that first level progression will get more wins than expected. In poorer word that streaks are cumulatively not reaching the 5+ degree level.
Not mentioning that every B result is burdened by a 5% vig.

If a simple B/P consecutive winning streak pattern should be affected by a lack of proper randomness and/or affected by the bac rules, is any distinct back to back B or P succession following more detectable patterns?

A thing we'll consider on the next post.

as. 

Given the astounding asymmetrical and finite features working at baccarat, the only possibility to lose is whenever the card distribution remains so hugely polarized for long that no betting plan could get the edge we're looking for.

Curiously those last are the bread and butter situations that recreational players are looking for: a kind of endless jackpots, in the meanwhile trying to survive into the most likely non-jackpot successions.

Actually I have nothing against it: in some casinos, cards are so badly shuffled that peddling a long streak gets a way larger probability than expected.
Such casinos use a same shoe that is manually shuffled very quickly only by halves.

The problem is that most casinos where some serious money might be wagered at, apply more deep "independent" shuffles.

Anyway and without any shadow of doubt, real advantage players know that the average probability to get a given event along certain portions of the shoe is well greater than expected.
Not a serious threat for casinos as the remaining 99.9% of players (quite probably more than that) will be eager to get their money separated from them.

That means that per every shoe you'll decide to play at, the more you want to be right higher will be the probability to be wrong. 
Especially if you'd force the probability to be right by adopting a betting progression without a proper and very diluted bet selection.

Low and high asymmetrical distributions can't get us any edge, our edge comes out from more likely moderate asymmetrical distributions.
The 'low' world could be easily get rid of by starting our registration after a given deviation had started to appear.
The 'high' world must be restricted by trying to put a stop by wagering a very limited amount of bets up to a point.

Think that in order to get an edge itlr, we must prove that after adopting a given discontinued registration (limited random walks), there will be a finite number of either increments or decrements not corresponding to the expected values.


as.

Comparing our live shoes dataset with either pc simulated shoes and deeply shuffled manually shoes, we've seen that the former category differs from the latter by two specular probabilities:

- the probability to get long streaks (it was demonstrated to be greater at live shoes)

- the probability to get long "chopping" patterns (it was demonstrated to be lower at live shoes)

That doesn't mean that live shoes tend to produce more streaks than singles, just that our significance statistical tools informed us that after some cutoff points were surpassed, live shoes need a lesser amount of hands to form, say, an 8 streak or conversely a greater amount of hands to produce an 8 chopping pattern.

Given the relative mediocrity of our live shoes sample compared to the endless pc simulated and self manual shuffled shoes samples, we were interested to find whether such peculiarity would be present in every live casino shoe registration.
And we were impressed to get an affirmative answer. (Even more when other scholars have found the same feature).

In essence, many live shoes are affected by a bias acting at various degrees and we think the reason belongs to the difficulty to shuffle key cards in a proper randomly fashion.

Of course not every live shoe is shuffled badly and there's always the probability that a biased shoe will produce seemingly "random" results.

Since live shoes tend to produce a proportional lesser amount of long chopping lines and a greater amount of long streaks than expected, we might set up a betting plan that doesn't involve the short chopping situations and the streaks that surpass a given lenght.
Now we are playing at a restricted field, from one part getting rid of many short single sequences and from the other one by considering streaks after x and up to y.

Nonetheless, only a derived AB plan could further restrict the variance as it gets rid of many unpolarized situations enhancing the uncertainty.

as.

Imo, it's of paramount importance to know that the baccarat model can be beaten ONLY in selected circumstances capable to enhance the probability to get a more likely card distribution.

We can't beat every shoe dealt and let alone we can't think that those deviated shoes will get us a greater amount of wins than the more likely losing counterparts.

Either we discard from our play the more likely world or we discard those very deviated shoes.
I guess we'll do better by adopting the latter line.

Btw: since this fkng covid-19 won't get away so fast, we're ready to set up an online team to teach the world how things really work at baccarat so anyone can see for free how to win at this game.
Without utilizing those ridicolous idi.o.t fkng utube videos.

as.

Definitely true what you have posted Al, but in the process of getting an edge we must discard some shoes from the play as no section or no portion of some single shoes will get the room and/or the possibility to get valuable card combinations to bet into.

For example, when almost every 8 and 9 had shown and no longer available, next outcomes will be affected by a huge degree of volatility, say a huge degree of randomness.

No 8 or 9 available = more hands will involve the use of six cards, the highest degree of randomness.
And it's not a coincidence that ties are well more likely when hands got to use six cards.

It could happen that very talented players might get the best of it by ascertaining valuably those rare deviated shoes, we prefer to bet toward the remaining more predominant part of shoes where an event A is a long term favorite over the counterpart B.
After vig, of course.

as.