We may safely consider the 'baccarat problem' into the average probability to get two-card higher initial points as this is, by far, the main math feature affecting the final results.
How many fkng times two-card higher initial points are presenting clustered or isolated?
Surely not following a mere 50/50 independent proposition, this being typical of roulette outcomes or every other independent proposition.
Unfortunately, most bac players think baccarat as a game of outcomes and not about situations.
In addition, most of the times long profitable spots cannot come out clustered for long, unless those 'incidental' spots that are supposed to break a flow tend to prolong a trend.
Say that three hands went 'normally' at B side, meaning that math propensity acting at those 2-card initial points went as expected (for simplicity we consider both sym and asym hands).
Now the fourth hand was as:
B (3-2)
P (7-J)
Banker draws and wins by catching a 3.
Is this hand forecasting a possible long Banker streak?
No way.
The 'flow' was interrupted by a more likely math advantaged hand, thus we should interpret this hand as a kind of new 0-point 'trigger' even though it seemed to prolong a given univocal pattern.
Now you should ask about those 'long' B or P streaks happening along the way.
Most of the times such streaks are coming out by breaking math features (or following or not them at asym hands) as the probability to get long sequences of two-card higher points at the same side is really low.
The same about getting many asym hands coming out in a row or shortly sequenced.
Since singles and doubles are the more likely occurences at baccarat, it's like that 'streaky' rich shoes are neglecting a math propensity acting at various degrees.
That's why I strongly recommend to stop the pattern classification within 1s, 2s and 3s classes.
Test your shoes and register how many two-card higher initial points will happen at the same side and how is the 'incidental' strenght acting along any shoe.
Independently of the actual results.
as.
How many fkng times two-card higher initial points are presenting clustered or isolated?
Surely not following a mere 50/50 independent proposition, this being typical of roulette outcomes or every other independent proposition.
Unfortunately, most bac players think baccarat as a game of outcomes and not about situations.
In addition, most of the times long profitable spots cannot come out clustered for long, unless those 'incidental' spots that are supposed to break a flow tend to prolong a trend.
Say that three hands went 'normally' at B side, meaning that math propensity acting at those 2-card initial points went as expected (for simplicity we consider both sym and asym hands).
Now the fourth hand was as:
B (3-2)
P (7-J)
Banker draws and wins by catching a 3.
Is this hand forecasting a possible long Banker streak?
No way.
The 'flow' was interrupted by a more likely math advantaged hand, thus we should interpret this hand as a kind of new 0-point 'trigger' even though it seemed to prolong a given univocal pattern.
Now you should ask about those 'long' B or P streaks happening along the way.
Most of the times such streaks are coming out by breaking math features (or following or not them at asym hands) as the probability to get long sequences of two-card higher points at the same side is really low.
The same about getting many asym hands coming out in a row or shortly sequenced.
Since singles and doubles are the more likely occurences at baccarat, it's like that 'streaky' rich shoes are neglecting a math propensity acting at various degrees.
That's why I strongly recommend to stop the pattern classification within 1s, 2s and 3s classes.
Test your shoes and register how many two-card higher initial points will happen at the same side and how is the 'incidental' strenght acting along any shoe.
Independently of the actual results.
as.