Thanks a lot KFB!
There's an advantage of taking into account 'back to back' situations as multiple different patterns will merge toward one of the three (or more) categories.
For example:
BB
P
BBB
P
BB
is 1-1-1-1...
or
B
P
B
P
B is just a 3
as well as
BB
PPP
BBBB
PP
BB
(another 3)
Thus every shoe will be formed by a succession of numbers where there's a kind of relationship between numbers of different values, shoe per shoe.
We will get several classes of number clusters that by no means are getting the high variance typical of 'binomial' independent propositions.
Now we could serenely give a fk about the Banker propensity as acting too lightly here and there.
It's the average card distribution that counts (especially key cards) and we know that things vary enormously between shoes.
For example, say we want to track 1-1 patterns at a given random walk.
It doesn't take to be a rocket scientist to see that 1s tend to be more clustered than isolated as a kind of steady unbalancement must come out sooner or later.
Cards can produce whatever whimsical results somebody will think of, but 7s, 8s and 9s remain the main forces orienting the results.
Moreover when a given number category tend to be silent for a fair percentage of the shoe, generally odds that it'll 'catch up' in the next portions of it are lower than expected.
That's why we need to see at least one category to show up before starting the actual classification. (An exception was made about the very first 3 as opposed to 2).
Under selected situations happening at certain random walks, 3s variance will be so low that you'll be bored to play and win at baccarat.
But before thinking to quit baccarat consider to make investments as buying a Lamborghini Huracan or one of the Andre Agassi houses at Spanish Hills, Las Vegas ($2.2 M is the price but maybe it's already sold).
as.
There's an advantage of taking into account 'back to back' situations as multiple different patterns will merge toward one of the three (or more) categories.
For example:
BB
P
BBB
P
BB
is 1-1-1-1...
or
B
P
B
P
B is just a 3
as well as
BB
PPP
BBBB
PP
BB
(another 3)
Thus every shoe will be formed by a succession of numbers where there's a kind of relationship between numbers of different values, shoe per shoe.
We will get several classes of number clusters that by no means are getting the high variance typical of 'binomial' independent propositions.
Now we could serenely give a fk about the Banker propensity as acting too lightly here and there.
It's the average card distribution that counts (especially key cards) and we know that things vary enormously between shoes.
For example, say we want to track 1-1 patterns at a given random walk.
It doesn't take to be a rocket scientist to see that 1s tend to be more clustered than isolated as a kind of steady unbalancement must come out sooner or later.
Cards can produce whatever whimsical results somebody will think of, but 7s, 8s and 9s remain the main forces orienting the results.
Moreover when a given number category tend to be silent for a fair percentage of the shoe, generally odds that it'll 'catch up' in the next portions of it are lower than expected.
That's why we need to see at least one category to show up before starting the actual classification. (An exception was made about the very first 3 as opposed to 2).
Under selected situations happening at certain random walks, 3s variance will be so low that you'll be bored to play and win at baccarat.
But before thinking to quit baccarat consider to make investments as buying a Lamborghini Huracan or one of the Andre Agassi houses at Spanish Hills, Las Vegas ($2.2 M is the price but maybe it's already sold).
as.