Difficult to answer without getting enough informations.
I think a predetermined plan must be set up simply by precise arithmetically solutions related to actual situations. Without those we're not going anywhere, imo.
Say I want to bet Player two times at resolved hands #35 and #36 after hands #1 and #23 have all shown Banker.
General probability will dictate that my probability of success will be 0.4932 x 0.4932, that is I'll lose both bets 25.68% of the times.
But if such hands will not involve an asym situation math favoring B side, the probability to lose is no higher than 25% and probably some card distributions favoring P side are lowering such percentage, hence my two consecutive bets will be EV+.
Is this predetermined plan going to get me an advantage? Of course it isn't.
Maybe those trigger hands were not involving an asymmetrical situation, thus slight enlarging the probablity to get one right on my selected bets, thus lowering my p.o.s. And vice versa.
Taken the problem by another perspective I could argue that the probability to get all Bankers on hands #1, #23, #35 and #36 is quite lowered as I'm considering distant outcomes.
Thinking this way I could build infinite random walks just to see whether my many 4 hand-patterns will confirm or not the general probability to happen.
But it's only the quality factor on the triggers chosen that makes the difference and not a relationship between two very different models not considering the "how".
as.
I think a predetermined plan must be set up simply by precise arithmetically solutions related to actual situations. Without those we're not going anywhere, imo.
Say I want to bet Player two times at resolved hands #35 and #36 after hands #1 and #23 have all shown Banker.
General probability will dictate that my probability of success will be 0.4932 x 0.4932, that is I'll lose both bets 25.68% of the times.
But if such hands will not involve an asym situation math favoring B side, the probability to lose is no higher than 25% and probably some card distributions favoring P side are lowering such percentage, hence my two consecutive bets will be EV+.
Is this predetermined plan going to get me an advantage? Of course it isn't.
Maybe those trigger hands were not involving an asymmetrical situation, thus slight enlarging the probablity to get one right on my selected bets, thus lowering my p.o.s. And vice versa.
Taken the problem by another perspective I could argue that the probability to get all Bankers on hands #1, #23, #35 and #36 is quite lowered as I'm considering distant outcomes.
Thinking this way I could build infinite random walks just to see whether my many 4 hand-patterns will confirm or not the general probability to happen.
But it's only the quality factor on the triggers chosen that makes the difference and not a relationship between two very different models not considering the "how".
as.