Here's a couple of shoes producing all wins.
B
PPPPP
BBB
PP
BBB
P
BBBBB
PPP
BBB
P
B
PPPP
B
P
B
P
BBB
PPP
BBBBBB
P
BBB
P
BBBB
PPP
B
P
BB
P
BB
P
BBBBB
P
Again, ub#1 both sides: WLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWL
ub#1 on Banker side: WWWWWWWWWWWLWL
ub#1 on Player side: WWWWWWWWWW
ub#2: LW
Easy shoe, isn't it?
Here we can bet blindly and odds are that we can't lose, mainly for the relative absence of doubles.
The actual r.w. played got eight straight wins.
The second shoe is less polarized and more intriguing yet forming all wins (again eight wins):
P
B
PP
BBBB
PP
BB
P
B
PP
B
P
B
PPP
BBB
P
BB
PPP
BBB
PPPPPPP
B
P
BB
P
BB
P
B
P
BBBBBB
P
BB
P
BB
P
BB
PPPPP
B
ub#1 both sides: LWWWWWLWWLLWLWWWWWLWLWWWWL (-6 units before tax)
ub#1 Banker side: LWWLLLWWLL (-14 units before tax)
ub#1 Player side: WWWWLWWWWWWWWWWW (+12 units before tax)
ub#2: WWLWLL
Now differently than the previous shoe we don't have univocal winning lines on all "roads", actually the overall plan will provide a cumulative loss. And trying to only bet the positive Player side sequence is worthless itlr (imo).
This is the classical example where place selection and probability after events tools enlarge our expectation to win many hands consecutively.
To clarify a bit, I've inserted my ub plans just to show that in any case there's a kind of relationship between those roads and the actual r.w. utilized.
In the next post I'll show which bets I really wagered, even on the first "bad" (unplayable) shoe that provided a fictional profit but just by coincidence, meaning that itlr betting on a bad shoe (good shuffling) can only produce a loss.
And of course there are all those 'more likely' shoes that constitute the most likely scenario we have to face (or not).
as.
B
PPPPP
BBB
PP
BBB
P
BBBBB
PPP
BBB
P
B
PPPP
B
P
B
P
BBB
PPP
BBBBBB
P
BBB
P
BBBB
PPP
B
P
BB
P
BB
P
BBBBB
P
Again, ub#1 both sides: WLWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWLWWL
ub#1 on Banker side: WWWWWWWWWWWLWL
ub#1 on Player side: WWWWWWWWWW
ub#2: LW
Easy shoe, isn't it?
Here we can bet blindly and odds are that we can't lose, mainly for the relative absence of doubles.
The actual r.w. played got eight straight wins.
The second shoe is less polarized and more intriguing yet forming all wins (again eight wins):
P
B
PP
BBBB
PP
BB
P
B
PP
B
P
B
PPP
BBB
P
BB
PPP
BBB
PPPPPPP
B
P
BB
P
BB
P
B
P
BBBBBB
P
BB
P
BB
P
BB
PPPPP
B
ub#1 both sides: LWWWWWLWWLLWLWWWWWLWLWWWWL (-6 units before tax)
ub#1 Banker side: LWWLLLWWLL (-14 units before tax)
ub#1 Player side: WWWWLWWWWWWWWWWW (+12 units before tax)
ub#2: WWLWLL
Now differently than the previous shoe we don't have univocal winning lines on all "roads", actually the overall plan will provide a cumulative loss. And trying to only bet the positive Player side sequence is worthless itlr (imo).
This is the classical example where place selection and probability after events tools enlarge our expectation to win many hands consecutively.
To clarify a bit, I've inserted my ub plans just to show that in any case there's a kind of relationship between those roads and the actual r.w. utilized.
In the next post I'll show which bets I really wagered, even on the first "bad" (unplayable) shoe that provided a fictional profit but just by coincidence, meaning that itlr betting on a bad shoe (good shuffling) can only produce a loss.
And of course there are all those 'more likely' shoes that constitute the most likely scenario we have to face (or not).
as.