Along the flow of the game some hands are more important than others
From a practical point of view, the vast majority of bac hands shouldn't be considered at all.
Those numerous hands constitute the 'side' but we should only be interested about the 'main dish'.
I know this statement totally collide with common sense and math teaching us that any hand will get the same general probability to appear. True, providing a random source of results. Along with other features that have shown to be decisive in our process of winning.
It's a sure fact that you won't see a single long term winning bac player betting more than two or (very rarely) three consecutive hands either when winning and especially when losing.
Such players do not give a damn about dragon tails, long trends or stuff like that. (Actually sometimes we do but always by not endangering a previous profit).
If they think to be able to select profitable spots to bet into they want to win immediately or on the next hand at worst. If they win they collect, if they lose they go away.
It's like that a possible edge didn't appear in that selected circumstance so they think it won't come again along the same shoe.
Such repetitive process is made infinitely, hopping from table to table so watching a lot and wagering little.
Without knowing what they are really looking for, mathematically this procedure remains an unsound strategy; anyway and assuming they are not APs, they'll fill casinos' pockets by a very low frequency.
After all to get a long term edge over the house our single bets must get at least a 51.3% probability to win when betting Banker and at least a 50.1% probability to win when wagering Player.
Betting multiple hands in a row or many bets per shoe cannot achieve that important cutoff probability percentages as profitable spots (if they really exist) comes out few and far between.
Naturally it's easier to compute the actual w/l percentages happening at the different sides when betting one or two hands per shoe.
For example, an average two hands betting per shoe means to play 35 different tables as compared to a player betting 70 hands at a single shoe.
Again, mathematically things doesn't change but maybe practically they do.
In fact, a player betting 70 hands per shoe is going to challenge several times in a row a single card distribution. This shoe could be profitable (easy detectable patterns) or not (weird undetectable patterns), yet the house is going to get the same expected amount of money at just one table than the player betting two hands at 35 different tables.
Even if the two-hands per shoe bettor plays randomly, he/she'll get more 'free' informations than the 'bet every hand' player that is forced to 'guess' everything happening at that single shoe.
In addition, the rare bettor could track easily what happened in that selected wagered situation/s shoe per shoe and acting accordingly, the other player cannot remember his/her w/l line as more forced to consider a shoe as a total world apart.
There's a big substantial difference by hoping that a 'more likely' pattern will come out by playing 35 shoes (meaning 35 different card distributions) than by playing one shoe.
Always remembering that if our bets are not getting at least 51.3%/50.1% percentages, itlr we're not going anywhere and this thing can only happen when a fair number of 'average' card distributions show up.
I understand it's hard to play a couple of hands per shoe but without this attitude you'll invariably belong to the losers category.
(Of course nothing prevent us to bet many hands per shoe by a 10x or 20x lower amount than the 'key' bet, but consider this approach as an additional vig to face).
Next week some practical guidelines we use to attack side bets.
as.
From a practical point of view, the vast majority of bac hands shouldn't be considered at all.
Those numerous hands constitute the 'side' but we should only be interested about the 'main dish'.
I know this statement totally collide with common sense and math teaching us that any hand will get the same general probability to appear. True, providing a random source of results. Along with other features that have shown to be decisive in our process of winning.
It's a sure fact that you won't see a single long term winning bac player betting more than two or (very rarely) three consecutive hands either when winning and especially when losing.
Such players do not give a damn about dragon tails, long trends or stuff like that. (Actually sometimes we do but always by not endangering a previous profit).
If they think to be able to select profitable spots to bet into they want to win immediately or on the next hand at worst. If they win they collect, if they lose they go away.
It's like that a possible edge didn't appear in that selected circumstance so they think it won't come again along the same shoe.
Such repetitive process is made infinitely, hopping from table to table so watching a lot and wagering little.
Without knowing what they are really looking for, mathematically this procedure remains an unsound strategy; anyway and assuming they are not APs, they'll fill casinos' pockets by a very low frequency.
After all to get a long term edge over the house our single bets must get at least a 51.3% probability to win when betting Banker and at least a 50.1% probability to win when wagering Player.
Betting multiple hands in a row or many bets per shoe cannot achieve that important cutoff probability percentages as profitable spots (if they really exist) comes out few and far between.
Naturally it's easier to compute the actual w/l percentages happening at the different sides when betting one or two hands per shoe.
For example, an average two hands betting per shoe means to play 35 different tables as compared to a player betting 70 hands at a single shoe.
Again, mathematically things doesn't change but maybe practically they do.
In fact, a player betting 70 hands per shoe is going to challenge several times in a row a single card distribution. This shoe could be profitable (easy detectable patterns) or not (weird undetectable patterns), yet the house is going to get the same expected amount of money at just one table than the player betting two hands at 35 different tables.
Even if the two-hands per shoe bettor plays randomly, he/she'll get more 'free' informations than the 'bet every hand' player that is forced to 'guess' everything happening at that single shoe.
In addition, the rare bettor could track easily what happened in that selected wagered situation/s shoe per shoe and acting accordingly, the other player cannot remember his/her w/l line as more forced to consider a shoe as a total world apart.
There's a big substantial difference by hoping that a 'more likely' pattern will come out by playing 35 shoes (meaning 35 different card distributions) than by playing one shoe.
Always remembering that if our bets are not getting at least 51.3%/50.1% percentages, itlr we're not going anywhere and this thing can only happen when a fair number of 'average' card distributions show up.
I understand it's hard to play a couple of hands per shoe but without this attitude you'll invariably belong to the losers category.
(Of course nothing prevent us to bet many hands per shoe by a 10x or 20x lower amount than the 'key' bet, but consider this approach as an additional vig to face).
Next week some practical guidelines we use to attack side bets.
as.