Quote from: KungFuBac on February 19, 2021, 04:06:09 PM
Congrats AsymBacGuy on your 1000 post above. 

This is a good thread /subtopic and I like the analogy with the outcomes profile in craps. I think you will agree there are many similarities when comparing craps to bac. A couple huge differences too(as u point out one above re: dependence)

I look forward to  your next post in the series.

Thanks KFB! :-)

Yep, besides the dependency factor, I totally agree that craps and baccarat tend to work by similarities.

When a craps shooter bet the pass line he/she has 2:1 odds to win as there are 6 ways to form a winning seven and 2 ways to form an eleven (8 winning ways); a sudden loss comes from rolling a deuce (1 way), a three (2 ways) and a twelve (1 way) totaling 4 ways to lose. 2:1.
The casino's ploy to reduce a sure math edge for the don't pass bettor derives from transforming a losing twelve for the pass bettor to a push.

After this very first roll not producing a sudden win or loss, the pass line bettor is underdog to win as in relationship of the number established his/her odds to win are 5:6 (six or eight), 4:6 (five and nine) and 3:6 (four and ten).

Thus basically there are two distinct asymmetrical probabilities to get outcomes on either pass or don't pass sides: a sudden win getting 2:1 (pass line) and 3:8 odds (don't pass line); after that the don't pass line is hugely favorite to win at various degrees.

In essence, the above mentioned multilayered betting scheme relies upon the difficulty to first roll sevens and elevens in series greater than 4 per each consecutive shooter.
Of course it could happen that such 7s/11s will be mixed with number repeaters, anyway it's very very very very unlikely to get four consecutive players winning 16 rolls in a row without showing at least one or a couple of immediate 7/11 wins.

At baccarat from one part math propositions are more intricated to grasp, from the other one there are additional factors that might orient our bet selection.

We know that "sudden win or loss" are determined more likely by the fall of strongest key cards (8s and 9s) on the initial two initial cards of a given side, then the side getting the higher two initial card point is hugely favorite to win the hand.

Of course such probabilities are symmetrical (thus undetectable) but the finiteness of the shoe and the key card liveness or shortage along with simple statistical features will help us to define how much such factors are going to produce valuable deviations from the expected line.
As there's no way a perfect key card balancement is going to act along any shoe dealt (even though many not key card situations can produce strong deviated spots), we can infer that most part of random walks are not going to form back to back outcomes totally insensitive to the previous card distribution.

Simply put, the vast majority of shoes dealt are surely affected by a kind of finite dependency deviating from the expected values.

Tomorrow practical examples about that.

as. 

That's my 1k post on this wonderful site, congratulations to this forum upgrade.

@Al: 1-3-2-6 betting approach is useful as long as we are sure we can get an edge by flat betting, thus it's just a profit scheme enhancer (more WW situations than WL spots, etc)

Win frequency

Most part of money won by casinos derives from an improper W/L assessment and not for the math advantage we must endure.
Take the 16-step betting scheme I was talking about above.

Say that after 8 bets that went wrong (that is a -$450 deficit) the plan dictates our next bet will be $30.
Basically we're betting only the 6.66% percentage of what we're losing.
Now tell me whether a -$450 losing player will place just a fkng $30 wager.

Actually that's the wisest move he/she can take (as long as we know to play with an advantage).
First, a huge deficit must be compensated slowly as the probability to get a quick kind of symmetrical WL ratio is very low, secondly risking too much money in order to get a fast recover will expose us to the fatal risk of losing our entire bankroll.

When our random walks-whatever running- reach some extremes, the probability to get a "balanced" or more likely status is generally small and quite diluted.

To get a vulgar example of this, think about how many times we'll face a BBBBBBBB sequence (we'd bet P every hand causing us eight losses) suddendly followed by a specular PPPPPPPP or PPPPPPP pattern (again we always bet P).
Yes, it could happen, the same way slots can give you a kind of little jackpot.

Actually, all baccarat systems rely upon the probability that things must change in player's favor with no regards about the important time factor (number of shoes dealt, or better sayed, number of hands really wagered).

Let me present a real example of this.

Several years ago, a bunch of japanese players joined one of the Vegas HS baccarat room, they managed to fill all the table seats.
A leader instructed all his peers to bet the same side he had chosen to wager and btw all bet were made at the maximum limit.
Things went out that a couple of consecutive shoes produced a very strong Player predominance, at the end casino lost the like of $1.4 millions.

Such players kept playing baccarat for the next few days of their trip, and not surprisingly they'd lost some of the money won, anyway they quit Vegas as huge overall winners.

The question is about how many days this casino had managed to recover such a loss: many.
Despite of the sure math advantage, the casino needed several days to recover that loss and we are talking about players getting a win by playing the strongest uphill percentages.

Back to the 4 step x 4 step betting sequence.

At baccarat and differently to craps, when utilizing a proper bet selection the probability to be wrong 16 times in a row is not existent at all, and I'm not referring to the probability to cross a 16 streak in various shapes.

The main probability to get wins is about the first 4-step wagering, subsequent steps will just proportionally raise the probability to recover previous losses.

And we can safely assume that even adopting a "risky" progressive approach, the probability to lose our 150 unit bankroll is almost zero.

I'll prove this on my next post.

as. 

THis is a quite long post, please read carefully not reaching quick conclusions.

Let's talk about a specific bac method derived from an old craps interesting system very few people know about.

Craps system

The system works against the probability that four consecutive craps players will make 4 or more passes each (pass=wins on the pass line bet).
Whenever each player reaches the four pass level, we are not interested anymore on what happens next about this shooter, we'll wait the next shooter. 

Thus we'll place our bets only on the don't pass line.
When such thing will happen we'll lose our entire bankroll.

The betting multilayered progression is:

$10, $20, $40, $80

$20, $40, $80, $160

$30, $60, $120, $240

$40, $80, $160, $320

Total bankroll at risk = $1500

Anytime we lose a bet we'll step forward the next progressive amount, when we win a bet at any level we'll go back to the first original progressive line ($10, $20, etc)

To lose the entire bankroll we need a 16-consecutive losing sequence, and this thing surely will happen but at a very very low degree of probability.
In any case, even when this nasty thing happens, we could be in the positive field as it's likely we have accumulated many wins on the more likely positive situations.

Comments

You can notice that wins made on a given level will cancel just the previous same level losing bets.
For example, after getting 6 losing hands in a row followed by a win ($80 bet on second level), we are still behind $130 that in a way or another must be recovered by the first level progression.

Actually only the first level progression will make us pure winners, subsequent levels diminish the deficit just by small loss percentages.
Per each level we're proportionally win $10, or recover from the overall losing situation respectively $20 (second level), $30 (third level) and $40 (final level).

It's a long waiting process as it could take several rolls to produce either a single win or a single loss. Not mentioning that placing progressive don't pass bets will arise other players hostility.
Who gives a fk about other players, but prolonging too much our betting frequency is a bigger issue.
Moreover, it's quite difficult to accept the idea that after a $450 loss (two full progressions that went wrong) the system dictates to wager just $30 (first step of the third progression level).

Believe it or not, the probability such system will bring us in the positive side are quite interesting, even though we know that sooner or later s.hit will happen. (but even in this scenario we could be winners).

Finally it's obvious to state that craps is just made by endless independent random successions.
Therefore, odds to lose our entire bankroll are nearly 1 : 65.536. 

Modeling this system to baccarat

Good news are that baccarat isn't an independent and random game, moreover is a finite card game.
Bad news are that each bet isn't following precise probability percentages, as a strong dynamic probability could affect the outcomes in either a positive or a negative way.
And of course the irregular asymmetrical BP probability and the constant asymmetrical payment will make a huge role along the way.

Nonetheless, I see a common important trait between our strategies and this craps method inventor: when considering gambling games, after a cutoff point is surpassed and incorporated into a finite field, we shouldn't be interested anymore to register the results.

In addition, notice the important parameter assumed by the craps expert: he or she didn't want to challenge a single player getting a 16-passes streak in some way, he preferred to split his/her strategy by spreading it on consecutive different limited random sources.
In a nutshell, the probability a single craps shooter will get a 16-pass streak is higher than the probability that four distinct consecutive shooters will get 4 passes each.
Scientifically speaking this craps method inventor indirectly doubted about the place selection and probability after events tools confirming or not the perfect randomness of the results.

Back to baccarat.

We have to choose the procedures to transfer at baccarat those craps ideas.

First, we should define any single craps shooter as a first B or P appearance.
Any new shooter won't act as long as a new BP shift come out (an exception is about the very first B or P result).

Therefore we need a 5 same streak apperance happening on either side to lose our first level progression. (First hand is just a non-bet signal to classify a new player) 
Say the first hand is B. Now we'll play against a B streak of 5+, stopping if a 5-streak happened.
The same about P. And so on.

In a word, we're challenging every shoe dealt to produce back to back 5+ streaks happening consecutively and we need four consecutive 5+ B/P streaks to lose our entire bankroll.
Notice that at craps each sevening-out shooter will make a end of his/her winning streak, now at baccarat we'd classify as a new shooter the next BP shift.

Even though we're classifying mere BP results (and you well know there are greater better random walk lines to wager into) the probability to get four or more 5+ B or P consecutive streaks is almost not existent.
Now we know that the losing bankroll probability won't happen at humanly considered ranges. 

But wait.

In order to get an edge, we need that first level progression will get more wins than expected. In poorer word that streaks are cumulatively not reaching the 5+ degree level.
Not mentioning that every B result is burdened by a 5% vig.

If a simple B/P consecutive winning streak pattern should be affected by a lack of proper randomness and/or affected by the bac rules, is any distinct back to back B or P succession following more detectable patterns?

A thing we'll consider on the next post.

as. 

Given the astounding asymmetrical and finite features working at baccarat, the only possibility to lose is whenever the card distribution remains so hugely polarized for long that no betting plan could get the edge we're looking for.

Curiously those last are the bread and butter situations that recreational players are looking for: a kind of endless jackpots, in the meanwhile trying to survive into the most likely non-jackpot successions.

Actually I have nothing against it: in some casinos, cards are so badly shuffled that peddling a long streak gets a way larger probability than expected.
Such casinos use a same shoe that is manually shuffled very quickly only by halves.

The problem is that most casinos where some serious money might be wagered at, apply more deep "independent" shuffles.

Anyway and without any shadow of doubt, real advantage players know that the average probability to get a given event along certain portions of the shoe is well greater than expected.
Not a serious threat for casinos as the remaining 99.9% of players (quite probably more than that) will be eager to get their money separated from them.

That means that per every shoe you'll decide to play at, the more you want to be right higher will be the probability to be wrong. 
Especially if you'd force the probability to be right by adopting a betting progression without a proper and very diluted bet selection.

Low and high asymmetrical distributions can't get us any edge, our edge comes out from more likely moderate asymmetrical distributions.
The 'low' world could be easily get rid of by starting our registration after a given deviation had started to appear.
The 'high' world must be restricted by trying to put a stop by wagering a very limited amount of bets up to a point.

Think that in order to get an edge itlr, we must prove that after adopting a given discontinued registration (limited random walks), there will be a finite number of either increments or decrements not corresponding to the expected values.


as.

Comparing our live shoes dataset with either pc simulated shoes and deeply shuffled manually shoes, we've seen that the former category differs from the latter by two specular probabilities:

- the probability to get long streaks (it was demonstrated to be greater at live shoes)

- the probability to get long "chopping" patterns (it was demonstrated to be lower at live shoes)

That doesn't mean that live shoes tend to produce more streaks than singles, just that our significance statistical tools informed us that after some cutoff points were surpassed, live shoes need a lesser amount of hands to form, say, an 8 streak or conversely a greater amount of hands to produce an 8 chopping pattern.

Given the relative mediocrity of our live shoes sample compared to the endless pc simulated and self manual shuffled shoes samples, we were interested to find whether such peculiarity would be present in every live casino shoe registration.
And we were impressed to get an affirmative answer. (Even more when other scholars have found the same feature).

In essence, many live shoes are affected by a bias acting at various degrees and we think the reason belongs to the difficulty to shuffle key cards in a proper randomly fashion.

Of course not every live shoe is shuffled badly and there's always the probability that a biased shoe will produce seemingly "random" results.

Since live shoes tend to produce a proportional lesser amount of long chopping lines and a greater amount of long streaks than expected, we might set up a betting plan that doesn't involve the short chopping situations and the streaks that surpass a given lenght.
Now we are playing at a restricted field, from one part getting rid of many short single sequences and from the other one by considering streaks after x and up to y.

Nonetheless, only a derived AB plan could further restrict the variance as it gets rid of many unpolarized situations enhancing the uncertainty.

as.

Imo, it's of paramount importance to know that the baccarat model can be beaten ONLY in selected circumstances capable to enhance the probability to get a more likely card distribution.

We can't beat every shoe dealt and let alone we can't think that those deviated shoes will get us a greater amount of wins than the more likely losing counterparts.

Either we discard from our play the more likely world or we discard those very deviated shoes.
I guess we'll do better by adopting the latter line.

Btw: since this fkng covid-19 won't get away so fast, we're ready to set up an online team to teach the world how things really work at baccarat so anyone can see for free how to win at this game.
Without utilizing those ridicolous idi.o.t fkng utube videos.

as.

Definitely true what you have posted Al, but in the process of getting an edge we must discard some shoes from the play as no section or no portion of some single shoes will get the room and/or the possibility to get valuable card combinations to bet into.

For example, when almost every 8 and 9 had shown and no longer available, next outcomes will be affected by a huge degree of volatility, say a huge degree of randomness.

No 8 or 9 available = more hands will involve the use of six cards, the highest degree of randomness.
And it's not a coincidence that ties are well more likely when hands got to use six cards.

It could happen that very talented players might get the best of it by ascertaining valuably those rare deviated shoes, we prefer to bet toward the remaining more predominant part of shoes where an event A is a long term favorite over the counterpart B.
After vig, of course.

as.

A baccarat shoe is formed by a finite amount of two-card 'states', that is high card situations math  favoring remarkably the side where the highest point will fall at. 
By far this is the main factor directing the final outcomes.
Some two-card points will be equal on either side, so the outcome is based upon the third and/or fourth card quality, of course according to the bac rules of asymmetricity favoring B.
And naturally many different two-card points need the third/fourth card intervention to address the results.

Even though the third (and/or fourth) card whimsically invert the initial math advantage, itlr and also in the shortest runs the side getting the highest point will be a sure winner.

We do not know which side will be kissed by such highest two-card point, but we can estimate how long a side should be more likely than the other because we can't erase key cards from the shoe or hoping that the side we didn't bet get a key card combined with a low card.

Anyway this feature cannot be assessed by the mere B/P distributions as a dynamic probability, typical of baccarat, can't be validly estimated actual result by actual result as too severely affected by variance.
We need advanced techinques to really ascertain the states movements working at the shoe we're playing at.
Simply put, we need to build a scheme where the states changements must follow more likely lines at the same time getting very low degrees of variance.
Most of the times they do, other times they don't but just for a lack of space factor along with other statistical issues.

The states changements reliability can be so high that playing at shoes very bad shuffled we can even afford to set up plans oriented to get multiple winnings per shoe by adopting a kind of "sky's the limit" attitude.

How to get the full value of probability after events at baccarat

Regardless of the techniques utilized, itlr BP results will form the same number of AB opposite situations.
Therefore A=B.
We see that no side will be advantaged in term of A or B quantities, even though an acute and very experienced player could get the best of it by exploiting some actual A or B deviations.

Now we take a step further.
We want to discard some A or B events according to a precise plan. If the game is perfect randomly dealt and/or perfect flawless at any spot, the resulting registration shouldn't be affected by any means, and actually itlr A=B yet.
It remains to assess the very important AB distribution that should be insensitive to our place selection artifice that must confirm the randomness. That is increment steps of A or B. 

A simple combinatorial analysis show that whenever some spots are not included in our chosen data, some patterns are more likely than others. That is we can get a sure edge over the house.
I mean a great edge, not that miserable bj card counting edge.

The reason why discarding hands from our data is proven to produce a sure unrandom world is given by the difficulty to arrange key cards proportionally along any shoe dealt.

Hint: we must use a plan capable to discard the greatest number of more likely BP events.
Notice I mentioned BP events and not AB events. 

as.

Let's compare baccarat with two casino games that have demonstrated to get players an edge.

First game is black jack.
How the hell bj was considered a beatable game?
By running millions of pc shoes to test whether high card and aces concentration (theory) really goes to player's advantage by a hi/lo card counting.
The theory was verified by practice. Bj is a math beatable game by card counting (providing a valuable penetration, etc).

Second game is craps.
Some shooters after having practiced for long at home think to be "dice controllers", meaning that they can throw the dice unrandomly thus producing profitable situations. For example, lowering the "sevens" rate or enhancing the 6 appearance on either cubes. That is to transform a random model into a wanted unrandom model.
To test the possible "unrandom" profitability such players would run thousands of throws, that means to study the limiting values of relative frequency that must deviate from common math  expectancy applied to random outcomes.
If after a given amount of trials (of course the greater the better) the "sevens" percentage was lower than expected and/or the "6" appearance was greater than expected, those players might think to get an edge at different degrees (this not necessarily capable to invert the house edge in their favor) and now we talk about "statistical significance" (again restricted within certain levels).
Now theory can't be 100% ascertained by practice for two reasons: first, there's always a tiny probability to have registered unrandom results by coincidence; secondly, the dice throws sample is way more restricted than bj numbers.

Nonetheless, those dice controllers can't give a lesser damn about millions of throws proving or not their confidence to beat craps. They just collect the money won or accept the losses, assigning the possible temporary failure to a umproper technique due to several disparate causes.

Imo baccarat stays in the middle of those two extremes.

From one part certain very rare math distributions will favor B or P, but we know this feature isn't exploitable.
Yet, itlr key cards will affect the real outcomes not in the way studied so far (one side should be mathematically more likely than the other one) but in term of gaps probability intervening between two different situations not belonging to B and P.

From the other part, we must challenge the "baccarat model" to always provide perfect randomly situations regardless of when we decide to bet, a thing scientifically proven to be wrong at least in the live shoes dealt sample that any human can collect.
Now it's the dealer or the SM to really make the desired unrandom world we want to get.

In fact it's virtually impossible that at an 8-deck shoe a human or a physical shuffle machine will be able to arrange key cards proportionally for the entire lenght of the shoe, our datasets strongly state otherwise.

Again the probability after events tool will get us the decisive factor to beat baccarat.
Without any doubt.

Tomorrow we'll see why.

as.

Quote from: alrelax on January 19, 2021, 12:12:01 PM
Prior to all the scoreboards being installed which was in the late 90s right around 2000 the highest majority of the players did keep score on a manual scorecard of course but there was a much higher ratio of playing for what was being presented rather than the highest concentration on what has happened in the shoe because of the scoreboard being right there and everyone pointing to it and  most everyone basing their decisions on what has happened rather than what is happening. It is much harder for the new baccarat player to concentrate on the actual presentments rather than the constantly illuminated scoreboard with the many different sections of it being visually overwhelming.

In my opinion the scoreboards are used improperly by the highest majority of the players at the tables.

True, yet the derived road inventors had made the first primordial attempt to use the important probability after events tool, one of the two statistical parameters that could get us a real edge.

Of course most players make a bad use of those roads, trying to win an endless number of hands around any corner by hoping that "trends" must remain univocal for long.
In a word, they just gamble.

I agree with you that just one type of registration will make things simpler for many experienced players, especially for those capable to promptly recognize that some shoes cannot be played at all.
Now baccarat becomes more an art than a science, but imo we must find ways to scientifically prove the game is beatable by every person in the world.

as.

Btw, I highly suggest you to read this book:

Thinking in Bets: Making Smarter Decisions When You Don't Have All the Facts by Annie Duke


as.

Clustering effect

Baccarat is a game of clusters of different lenght and thickness.
And of course at baccarat there are no real symmetrical situations: for example, a 9 falling on the first two Player cards doesn't get the same power than a 9 falling on the two first Banker cards.
The probability to get that 9 falling on either side is equal but the effects are not symmetrical.

This concept could be applied to many other key card ranks, 8s and 7s of course but even 5s and 4s follow the same principle.

Any shoe dealt is formed by different "states" that eventually equal the rank number but the situations forming outcomes and player's ROI start asymmetrically, stay asymmetrically and end up asymmetrically.
The main reason conditioning the outcomes itlr regards the key card distribution getting different powers depending upon the side cards will fall at.
Most of the times key cards determine those outcomes. Not every time but most of the time.
When the outcomes seem to be too whimsically produced (see next post), it means that the shoe is not playable (that is unprofitable). We name that as "a very low clustered shoe".

Baccarat outcomes are not B or P results. Yes, we need a B or P to show up in order to register our random walk lines as there are no other betting options.
In reality baccarat is a game of states and not an endless B/P sequence.

We've seen that there are tools to derive unrandom successions from a primitive random sequence, our task should be focused to assess when one or more unrandom successions will take just one step forward toward the clustering world.
To maximize the reward risk ratio, per each shoe played looking for just one step is more than enough to battle versus a sure EV- math game.

By far and without any doubt, our EV will be greater and affected by the most ridiculously low variance when we'll try to find out just one profitable state per every playable shoe.
This means to discard a lot of unplayable situations and naturally to possibly witness "all winning" shoes without betting a dime.
It's not a coincidence that those rare long term winning players after winning or losing their "key hands" simply quit the table.

Deciding to be ahead of more than one step per playable shoe is a sure risky move to put in jeopardy the actual edge we get over the casinos.
On average clustered states are slight more likely than expected and that is mainly due to an imperfect shuffling.

Consider baccarat in the same way as black jack works for card counters even though by totally different reasons.
At bj profitable card counting situations cannot last for long. The same happens at baccarat.
We want to play by concentrating at most our edge, challenging the bac system to show its flaws within very few spots.


as.

As sayed several times here, we want to play baccarat with you Al, it's very very likely our hyper selected betting plan will correspond to your methodology taken at different degrees.

Few bac players reached the experience level to ascertain what is worth to bet and what it isn't, that's why we need a strong measurement of our possible edge to verify this game is really beatable. Or not.

There are general and specific means to lower, nullify or invert the house edge. 

General means to lower the casino's edge

Reducing at most our betting rate is not only the best tool to lose less money but to define at most what the fk we're really going to accomplish.
If it's literally impossible to define a betting model capable to win at a fair coin flip proposition, let's think about what are our probabilities to win at a EV- kind of coin flip model.
Zero.

Naturally and to give the casinos the idea we're pure losers we can adopt a spread betting range wagering one standard unit per every hand dealt and betting 3, 4 or 5 x bet in the selected profitable spots.
They do not care a bit about it, every our bet will be EV-. At their eyes.

Of course casinos are simultaneously thrilled and worried about those rare maximum limit bets as the actual bet or next bets cannot be more wrong than the math negative edge applied (after comps and/or rebates).
I mean that no 5k or 20k bet can cross a real -1.06%/-1.24% negative edge as some lost money is given back to the player no matter what.

Conclusively, bac players that are proportionally losing less money are maximum limit bettors, at
the same time constituting a real threat over casino's pockets as the edge remains quite small.
Ask any supervisor casino you want whether he/she would be really enthusiastic about facing an occasional univocal and rare 90K euros bet coming from three different players.
They should have been happy but actually they didn't. Especially after the outcome.

Specific means to invert the house edge

Arrange the cards in the fkng way you want. You can put all same rank cards consecutively or alternatively or whatever you'd like, a most likely distribution or most likely arrangement will come along the way providing previous results are considered by a strict scheme.
A kind of profitable clustering effect will come out along the way by a stastical sensitivity and specificiity rounding 100%.

And we need just one clustering step to be ahead.

as.

There are no wrong or right methods to beat (or not) this game itlr, there are only methods that do work.
Meaning that our method after a decent number of trials had to get profits by flat betting.

It's quite easy to confuse the steady probability of success with the dynamic long term WL probability typical of baccarat.

Itlr (and even in most short run situations) probability of success line tends to get the zero value, whereas WL dynamic probability must get an ascending line formed by "infinite" positive or negative short segments where positive segments are either longer or more frequent than the negative conterparts.

Probability of success is symmetrically placed no matter how deeply we've built our progression plan. No way a strict math progression without a valid bet selection could get the best of it for long. Itlr positive fragments will be equal in lenght and frequency as the negative counterparts, even though we know that B>P. Actually the B>P factor is quite volatile and restricted to rare situations (we well know this).

To beat this game itlr we need to find the unsteady situations where our plan might discard the potential B/P plan variance, exchanging it with the more regular A/B registration made on several steps.
Card speaking, it's like we are challenging the system to provide univocal math advantaged spots acting for long and at different degrees instead of a natural more likely balanced key card falling.

Our datasets show that dissecting the shoe into an average number of 4 or 5 key situations will make the highest player's edge. Yet remember that not every shoe is playable.   

If any bet is insensitive to past decisions, why the hell a given flat betting plan will get a slow but steady positive ascending line?

as.

However the negative will generally be produced and held much longer than the positive experiences within the subconscious reservoir and that is what makes it so dangerous especially at the gaming tables.

True, and it's a fact proven scientifically several times. So you can safely erase the adverb "generally" :-)

as.