When we study a game we want to find possible flaws capable to build a long term winning plan, that is dissecting every aspect of it.
In essence, there are two main targets to look for:
1- some patterns exhibit a long term one-sided slight propensity capable to erase/invert the HE
2- W/L ranges of some attacks move by sd values lower than expected.
The best #1 example not needing any study is the B>P math propensity (which of course doesn't erase/invert nothing), so B bets are better than P bets.
Unfortunately, in reality B bets are "less worse" than P bets and sometimes that's not even true (no commission tables with B being payed half when winning by a 6).
Trying to forecast a more likely B apparition than expected based upon precedent patterns is a worthless effort. Verified one million of times.
The B propensity is mostly based upon the B4 and B5 initial points meeting a P drawing hand and those situations aren't going to come out so frequently. Meaning that the majority of B bets are just a waste of money (even though less money is wasted than at P bets).
Therefore if some patterns are long term more likely than others and capable to erase/invert the HE, they must also incorporate P hands.
That should be the effect of the average key cards impact and in turn of the average shoe shuffling.
Most "random" results show up when 6 cards are utilized to form a final hand, "curiously" the same situation where a tie is way more probable to come out.
It's like that situations needing 6 cards to form a hand tend to disrupt a more normal flow of the game, that is a kind of "restricted" ranges apparition.
In some way and after one or more 6 card hands, we could even think to restart the deviation values, being quite limited by definition.
Moreover even the asymmetrical/symmetrical patterns are affected by this, so more likely sinking into the undetectable ocean.
There are infinite ways to ascertain the asymmetrical hands/patterns distribution, one of the easiest is to look what happens at back to back columns.
Obviously we have reasons to limit the field of intervention by stopping the registration when a symmetrical pattern happened twice then waiting for a different pattern to show up.
Again, each pattern is considered by a 0.75 probability.
Here's some examples (A=asymmetrical pattern, S=symmetrical pattern)
S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A (easy shoe)
S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A (medium shoe)
A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S (difficult shoe)
A-A-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-S-A-S (difficult shoe)
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A (medium shoe)
A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S (difficult shoe)
S-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-A (difficult)
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A (easy)
S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-S (medium)
as.
In essence, there are two main targets to look for:
1- some patterns exhibit a long term one-sided slight propensity capable to erase/invert the HE
2- W/L ranges of some attacks move by sd values lower than expected.
The best #1 example not needing any study is the B>P math propensity (which of course doesn't erase/invert nothing), so B bets are better than P bets.
Unfortunately, in reality B bets are "less worse" than P bets and sometimes that's not even true (no commission tables with B being payed half when winning by a 6).
Trying to forecast a more likely B apparition than expected based upon precedent patterns is a worthless effort. Verified one million of times.
The B propensity is mostly based upon the B4 and B5 initial points meeting a P drawing hand and those situations aren't going to come out so frequently. Meaning that the majority of B bets are just a waste of money (even though less money is wasted than at P bets).
Therefore if some patterns are long term more likely than others and capable to erase/invert the HE, they must also incorporate P hands.
That should be the effect of the average key cards impact and in turn of the average shoe shuffling.
Most "random" results show up when 6 cards are utilized to form a final hand, "curiously" the same situation where a tie is way more probable to come out.
It's like that situations needing 6 cards to form a hand tend to disrupt a more normal flow of the game, that is a kind of "restricted" ranges apparition.
In some way and after one or more 6 card hands, we could even think to restart the deviation values, being quite limited by definition.
Moreover even the asymmetrical/symmetrical patterns are affected by this, so more likely sinking into the undetectable ocean.
There are infinite ways to ascertain the asymmetrical hands/patterns distribution, one of the easiest is to look what happens at back to back columns.
Obviously we have reasons to limit the field of intervention by stopping the registration when a symmetrical pattern happened twice then waiting for a different pattern to show up.
Again, each pattern is considered by a 0.75 probability.
Here's some examples (A=asymmetrical pattern, S=symmetrical pattern)
S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A (easy shoe)
S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A (medium shoe)
A-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-S-A-A-A-A-S (difficult shoe)
A-A-A-A-S-S-S-A-A-S-A-S (difficult shoe)
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-A (medium shoe)
A-A-A-S-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A-S-S-A-S (difficult shoe)
S-S-S-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-S-A-A (difficult)
A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-A-A-S-A-A-S-A-A-A-A (easy)
S-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-S-A-S-S-A-A-A-S (medium)
as.