We've seen that every shoe in the universe can be considered just as a 2-3-4 sequence of runs.
In my example I've chosen to consider the simple hand to hand registration, meaning that every resolved hand will be eligible to be listed.
Moreover hands are considered by a simple B=1 and P=2 registration.

Now say we do not want to simply assign the 1 value to B and 2 value to P, instead 1 to an identical situation and 2 to an opposite situation taken at a given mechanically preordered pace.

If the results succession will be really randomly placed, we know this tool won't affect the dispersion values. Technically speaking, we want to disprove the common knowledge that any mechanical preordered plan will be insensitive to every place selection strategy. The only way to prove this game is beatable.

There are infinite ways to set up random walks trying to disprove a perfect randomness, being the runs distribution the common denominator.

Any bac hand/pattern distribution is a complex result made of three finite different forces acting along a slight dependent model:

1- asymmetricity favoring B side

2- very slight propensity to get the opposite result just happened

3- key cards distribution (low cards should be considered as key cards as 8s/9s)

Taking those three factors together some r.w.'s are more inclined to provide a higher number of runs.

as. 

Some studies show this fkng virus tends to spread more in high polluted areas (Wuhan, Northern part of Italy, Madrid, N.Y.C., L.A., etc).
Moreover warm wheather and high humidity seem to lower the COVID-19 virulence (Singapore, Malaysia) no matter how huge is the population density.
Probably Lungyeh could say something about this. 

In Vegas we must hope the warm factor will overcome the humidity one...:-)

as.   

Yeah....

Sadly the mortality rate of this COVID-19 is a lot higher (up to 5%)

as.

No surprise, this virus is extremely dangereous as very often goes unnoticed.

Probably some casinos will increase the number of stadium baccarat where players remain at a decent distance among themselves and from the dealer and no chips are involved.

as.

Next why some random walks applied to baccarat are better than others. The decisive tool to destroy this fkng beautiful game.

as.

Those new derived subsequences are not forming random successions as 2 cannot go to 4 and 4 cannot go to 2 without crossing the 3 step.
Moreover no matter how whimsical is the original BP succession, any shoe will produce a given number of  2-3 / 3-2 or 3-4 / 4-3 steps.

Notice that we shouldn't give a damned fk about the lenght of same level values, let alone the exact or approximated final number of runs. We instead should focus about the actual probability to get one or a couple of runs on different portions of the shoe.

If the original succession is perfectly randomly placed, the subsequent derived collectives cannot give us profitable betting spots as in order to get an advantage we must put in action certain random walks anyway.
I mean that a perfect random original sequence cannot form low dispersion values on derived situations no matter how sophisticated they are intended, what we really need to set up an unbeatable plan.

as.

Suppose we want to classify BP outcomes assigning 1 to any B result and 2 to any P result.
Thus a sequence as BPBBBPPBPBP becomes 1-2-1-1-1-2-2-1-2-1-2

Now let's add the number on the left with the adjacent number placed on the right in a way to build another subsequence.
In our example, we'll get 3-3-2-2-3-4-3-3-3-3

The number of "runs", that is situations where a number stays at the same level are transformed from 7 in the original sequence to 5 in the new one.

Before continuing let's see what happens on strong streaky BP situations as

BBBBBPPPBBPPPPPPPBBBBBBPPPPP =

1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2

then

2-2-2-2-3-4-4-3-2-3-4-4-4-4-4-4-3-2-2-2-2-2-3-4-4-4-4

here the number of runs is 6 on the original sequence and 11 on the new one.

or a "choppy" sequence as

BPBPBPPBPBBPBPBPBPPBPBPB

1-2-1-2-1-2-2-1-2-1-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-2-1-2-1-2-1 =

3-3-3-3-3-4-3-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-4-3-3-3-3

Number of runs shifts from 21 to 7.

Let's try to fictionally build a shoe getting many runs on our new sequence.
Easy to do, we need many different sums coming in fast succession.
Example:

BPPBBPPBBPPBBPPBBPPBB =

1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1-2-2-1-1  (runs= 9)

3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2-3-4-3-2 (runs= 16)

Nothing special so far, it's just another way to consider the hands distribution taken from a simple B/P point of view. A wrong point of view. But...


as.   

Let's see what happens with this fkng Coronavirus disease...it's not the thing US Health System wants to deal with.

as.

Putting things in a simple way, bac is beatable itlr as it's made by continuous asymmetrical propositions, most of them not easily detectable by common standards.
We are here to (partially) demonstrate that such constant asymmetricity (rules, card distribution, key cards concentration/dilution, finiteness of the shoe) will be endorsed by the paramount inference of unrandomness.

More practically speaking, profitable spots arise from a strict scientifical convergence of probability measure where different r.w.'s dictate or not to wager the same B/P result being the  reflex of a I/O situation.

as.

Before going into details of what a multi-level random walk is, let me know how the fkng fk you can lose by MM assessing three simple different one-step r.w.'s working on B double consecutiveness considered at the levels #1, #2 and #3. Where #1 and #2 scenarios take an astounding primary role.

Even if casinos know such B doubles detectable distribution, thus maybe voluntarly fixing outcomes to get a lot of consecutive B doubles, we can easily build many other r.w.'s collecting results by undetectable ways, mainly by coding results as I or O results thus negating a random distribution.

as.

Thanks Lungyeh, I hope to give you very soon a direct demonstration of what I'm talking about.

@Fran7738, you took the point.
I guess many casinos know that bac is beatable, the game is still alive as most players like to gamble.
At the winning rate you've suggested the probability of success is very very very close to 1.

as. 

What's what I name as a multi-level random walk?

It's a mechanical preordered betting scheme made by building one of the several subcollectives derived from the original BP succession. Not necessarily considering each outcome of the original succession.

As long as the attributes to build such subcollectives remain constant, we know that a supposedly random source must produce the same features on every new collective we had built. Regardless of place selection and probability after events features that definitely will confirm or not the real randomness of the sample. 

Next week more about the construction of such r.w.

as.

Another excellent contribute.

as.

That's why a multiple multi-level random walks distribution will help us to restrict the variance at the lowest limits.

Whenever different random walks would elicit to bet the same side, we know our probability of success will get astounding values, a strong undeniable proof that shoes are not randomly produced or that a kind of detectable dependency works on most part of shoes dealt.
Technically it's what we call a "convergence of probability", a term coined several years ago by a roulette expert.

Theorically at any independent or very slight dependent proposition, any random walk (no matter how many r.w.'s we want to launch simultaneously) each spot we decide to bet will get the expected deviations considered at a kind of 50/50 game, say at a 0.5068/0.4932 p values.

Practically things go in a different way, as many spots MUST happen within a restricted range of hands dealt.

All depends on how we want to classify outcomes, and you know the worst tool we can utilize is by considering hands as B or P simple successions.
Actually casinos offer those st.u.p.id roads displayed on the screen as they know very well they are totally worthless.
Even considering those 5 different derived roads as 5 random walks, no way a convergence of probability may happen as they are taking into account EACH resolved hand (3 roads) or real BPT results (remaining 2 roads).

Remember, I'm here to disprove the real randomness of shoes dealt or the general undetectable slight dependency, it's not a coincidence that my plans get rid of many hands that tend to confuse the whole picture.

Say that after certain conditions are met, we could set up a simpler unb plan #3, one which could wager against the multiple formations of 3+ streaks on both sides.

It's not the final solution to beat this game, nonetheless it's a good start.

as. 

I remember one occasion where I was railbirding a couple of asian players at an off Strip casino.
Knowing the minimum limit was $10, they got a hell of bankroll something like $20.000 or more.
They used a violent martingale like 1-4-10-25 and of course they started to accumulate chips.
It seemed they used a weird selection the like of wagering alternatively for the repeat and for the cut.
I stayed there and of course they lost their composure (and they money) after having crossed an "unlikely" losing streak of ten hands.
Curiously in each hand they've lost but one they got the best two-card hand, third and fourth cards made the disaster.

Ask those players about the importance to start with the best two-card hand, 

as.