Thx  AsymBacGuy for your elaborate response.

This is good: "And naturally whenever an asymmetrical hand do not come out within a range validly surpassing the math expectancy, no Banker bet is EV+."


"...We'll bet toward getting at least one of the 1-1, 1-2, 2-1 patterns at Banker side, thus our play won't be affected by the vig as our bets will be placed only at Player side.
Anytime a 1 or 2 comes out at B side, we'll bet toward those three patterns. We'll stop the bet until we'll get one unit profit per shoe by utilizing a steady 1-2 progression.
. .."

     Can you clarify re: stop the bet until one unit of profit per shoe...etc.

Thx

All The Best,

Thx Albalaha

3. Bet limit on EC bet should be atleast 1-100. Although one seldom need to bet over 10 units.

My perception is that you work diligently to slow the acceleration of wager size(not how to increase wager size as many approaches seem to pursue). I hope your fine thread continues to shed some light on this issue.

I've designed a few methods of what I call periodic or perpetual type wagering methodologies that may or may not be similar to your examples.
I found the most difficult problem was(is--as im still working on it) how to handle the ratio of wager size change to buyin change. Though one wouldn't think at first glance that a continuous micro increase to the wager could compound so rapidly--I found that keeping this ratio optimally sized was the key to buyin survival(Easier said then done).

In other words: If wager grows too fast then buyin can get wiped out within fewer decisions. If wager grows too slow then buyin doesn't grow at a sufficient rate to handle future volatility...etc.

I've attempted at bac though mostly at craps utilizing a keyhole approach as I wagered only one spot and one spot only(DC3 wager), so for example after a comeout(dp), it was sent out on the fourth(dc3) spot. My main reason for choosing craps was the option for a $1 increment change.  One approach that has endured /performed reasonably well was starting at $25 and increasing/decreasing $1 at certain stages, triggers,as a f(x) of SD, # of decisions,....etc. However, regardless of trigger(s) the main issue kept returning: wager sizing: how to slow down growth yet continue to grow, be at the highest level when a pos run presented,...etc.

I will elaborate  more later on as I don't want to sidetrack your thread/ Im sure I will have additional questions as we move further into your post.

All the best,

Thx Asymbac

Your statement above:
"...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..."

In the following example: How is your decision tree designed? In other words what trumps all the thoughts/ideas running through your mind if you were required to wager the very next hand following: P:89 B:44 Bwins; P:98 B:35 Bwins.  So obviously P is getting the cards it wants, yet B is winning with the cards it wants/needs. What say you?

I know there could be dozens of things to consider. Im asking what would typically be at the top of your list that would over rule all the lower level considerations on the decision tree.

Thx in advance,

Thx Albalaha

re: #6 : "Stop Loss doesn't Help..."

Do you suggest a Stop Win? (e.g., % of BI, % of bankroll, % of monies or #bets wagered that session...etc, none of the above?)


Looking forward to part 2

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.

The new /improved version looks great.
Especially  like the new color scheme, layout,...etc .

Job well done/ thx to all involved.