Variance

[LOTI]

So is this correct?:

1	1	B	1	BET
1	2	B	2	B
1	3	B	3	B
1	4	B	4	B
1	5	P	3	B
1	6	B	4	B
1	7	B	5	B
1	8	B	6	B
1	9	P	5	B
1	10	P	4	B
1	11	P	3	B
1	12	P	2	B
1	13	P	1	B
1	14	P	0	B
1	15	P	-1	B
1	16	B	0	P
1	17	B	1	P
1	18	P	0	B
1	19	B	1	B
1	20	B	2	B
1	21	B	3	B
1	22	P	2	B
1	23	P	1	B
1	24	B	2	B
1	25	B	3	B
1	26	B	4	B
1	27	B	5	B
1	28	P	4	B
1	29	B	5	B
1	30	P	4	B
1	31	P	3	B
1	32	P	2	B
1	33	B	3	B
1	34	B	4	B
1	35	B	5	B
1	36	B	6	B
1	37	P	5	B
1	38	P	4	B
1	39	B	5	B
1	40	B	6	B
1	41	P	5	B
1	42	B	6	B
1	43	B	7	B
1	44	P	6	B
1	45	P	5	B
1	46	P	4	B
1	47	P	3	B
1	48	P	2	B
1	49	B	3	B
1	50	B	4	B
1	51	B	5	B
1	52	P	4	B
1	53	B	5	B
1	54	P	4	B
1	55	P	3	B
1	56	P	2	B
1	57	B	3	B
1	58	B	4	B
1	59	B	5	B
1	60	P	4	B
1	61	B	5	B
1	62	B	6	B
1	63	P	5	B
1	64	P	4	B
1	65	P	3	B
1	66	P	2	B
1	67	B	3	B
1	68	P	2	B
1	69	B	3	B
1	70	B	4	B
1	71	B	5	B

[LOTI]

2	1	p	-1	bet
2	2	p	-2	p
2	3	p	-3	p
2	4	b	-2	p
2	5	p	-3	p
2	6	b	-2	p
2	7	p	-3	p
2	8	p	-4	p
2	9	b	-3	p
2	10	p	-4	p
2	11	b	-3	p
2	12	p	-4	p
2	13	b	-3	p
2	14	p	-4	p
2	15	b	-3	p
2	16	b	-2	p
2	17	b	-1	p
2	18	p	-2	p
2	19	b	-1	p
2	20	b	0	p
2	21	b	1	p
2	22	b	2	b
2	23	p	1	b
2	24	p	0	b
2	25	p	-1	b
2	26	b	0	p
2	27	p	-1	p
2	28	b	0	p
2	29	b	1	p
2	30	b	2	b
2	31	p	1	b
2	32	p	0	b
2	33	b	1	b
2	34	p	0	b
2	35	p	-1	b
2	36	b	0	p
2	37	b	1	p
2	38	p	0	b
2	39	b	1	b
2	40	p	0	b
2	41	b	1	b
2	42	b	2	b
2	43	p	1	b
2	44	p	0	b
2	45	b	1	b
2	46	b	2	b
2	47	p	1	b
2	48	b	2	b
2	49	b	3	b
2	50	p	2	b
2	51	p	1	b
2	52	b	2	b
2	53	p	1	b
2	54	b	2	b
2	55	b	3	b
2	56	p	2	b
2	57	p	1	b
2	58	b	2	b
2	59	p	1	b
2	60	b	2	b
2	61	b	3	b
2	62	p	2	b
2	63	b	3	b
2	64	b	4	b
2	65	p	3	b
2	66	p	2	b
2	67	b	3	b
2	68	b	4	b
2	69	b	5	b
2	70	b	6	b
2	71	p	5	b
2	72	b	6	b

[LOTI]

I tested it on 1600 shoes and it ended at -1118.3 units.

[Egalite]

Yes that looks correct to me. Let's all hope you come back and say it works "flat betting" or it doesn't lose, because not losing can be just as good as winning

I tested it on 1600 shoes and it ended at -1118.3 units.

LOL
Oops, you beat me to it.

Would you mind posting the worst performing shoe, let's see what tweaks if any, we can apply.

[LOTI]

Yes that looks correct to me. Let's all hope you come back and say it works "flat betting" or it doesn't lose, because not losing can be just as good as winning LOL
Oops, you beat me to it.

Would you mind posting the worst performing shoe, let's see what tweaks if any, we can apply.

No problem. Will paste in next post.

[LOTI]

1334	1	p	-1	bet	0	0
1334	2	b	0	p	-1	-1
1334	3	b	1	p	-1	-2
1334	4	p	0	b	-1	-3
1334	5	p	-1	b	-1	-4
1334	6	b	0	p	-1	-5
1334	7	b	1	p	-1	-6
1334	8	p	0	b	-1	-7
1334	9	p	-1	b	-1	-8
1334	10	b	0	p	-1	-9
1334	11	p	-1	p	1	-8
1334	12	b	0	p	-1	-9
1334	13	b	1	p	-1	-10
1334	14	p	0	b	-1	-11
1334	15	p	-1	b	-1	-12
1334	16	b	0	p	-1	-13
1334	17	b	1	p	-1	-14
1334	18	p	0	b	-1	-15
1334	19	b	1	b	0.95	-14.1
1334	20	p	0	b	-1	-15.1
1334	21	b	1	b	0.95	-14.1
1334	22	p	0	b	-1	-15.1
1334	23	b	1	b	0.95	-14.2
1334	24	p	0	b	-1	-15.2
1334	25	b	1	b	0.95	-14.2
1334	26	b	2	b	0.95	-13.3
1334	27	p	1	b	-1	-14.3
1334	28	p	0	b	-1	-15.3
1334	29	p	-1	b	-1	-16.3
1334	30	b	0	p	-1	-17.3
1334	31	b	1	p	-1	-18.3
1334	32	b	2	b	0.95	-17.3
1334	33	p	1	b	-1	-18.3
1334	34	p	0	b	-1	-19.3
1334	35	b	1	b	0.95	-18.4
1334	36	p	0	b	-1	-19.4
1334	37	p	-1	b	-1	-20.4
1334	38	b	0	p	-1	-21.4
1334	39	b	1	p	-1	-22.4
1334	40	b	2	b	0.95	-21.4
1334	41	p	1	b	-1	-22.4
1334	42	p	0	b	-1	-23.4
1334	43	p	-1	b	-1	-24.4
1334	44	p	-2	p	1	-23.4
1334	45	p	-3	p	1	-22.4
1334	46	b	-2	p	-1	-23.4
1334	47	p	-3	p	1	-22.4
1334	48	p	-4	p	1	-21.4
1334	49	b	-3	p	-1	-22.4
1334	50	b	-2	p	-1	-23.4
1334	51	p	-3	p	1	-22.4
1334	52	b	-2	p	-1	-23.4
1334	53	b	-1	p	-1	-24.4
1334	54	b	0	p	-1	-25.4
1334	55	b	1	p	-1	-26.4
1334	56	p	0	b	-1	-27.4
1334	57	p	-1	b	-1	-28.4
1334	58	b	0	p	-1	-29.4
1334	59	b	1	p	-1	-30.4
1334	60	b	2	b	0.95	-29.5
1334	61	p	1	b	-1	-30.5
1334	62	b	2	b	0.95	-29.5
1334	63	p	1	b	-1	-30.5
1334	64	p	0	b	-1	-31.5
1334	65	p	-1	b	-1	-32.5
1334	66	p	-2	p	1	-31.5
1334	67	p	-3	p	1	-30.5
1334	68	b	-2	p	-1	-31.5
1334	69	p	-3	p	1	-30.5
1334	70	b	-2	p	-1	-31.5
1334	71	b	-1	p	-1	-32.5
1334	72	p	-2	p	1	-31.5
1334	73	p	-3	p	1	-30.5
1334	74	b	-2	p	-1	-31.5
1334	75	p	-3	p	1	-30.5
1334	76	b	-2	p	-1	-31.5

[LOTI]

Trust me guys, this is a dead end. I have extensively tested this type of variance play with different bet selections (betting for AND against) and have never yielded a system that outperforms betting banker. Imspirit ran tens of thousands of different combinations where you start betting on A (Player or Banker) after B number of hands, where there was C number of players or bankers, for D amount of hands. I also had a different programmer do this months ago, and he ran hundreds of thousands of different combinations. We came to the same conclusion.

[Egalite]

I recall you had posted you had tested "variance" a while ago. Thanks for the info and low-down. Regarding your programmers coming to the same conclusion, were they in agreement nothing beats betting "banker only"? Just curious...

[LOTI]

I recall you had posted you had tested "variance" a while ago. Thanks for the info and low-down. Regarding your programmers coming to the same conclusion, were they in agreement nothing beats betting "banker only"? Just curious...

Pretty much. We came to the unanimous conclusion that so far nothing we have tested beats betting banker only. Now of course I could never test every bet selection possible, so I can not say with 100% certainty that nothing will ever beat betting banker only. Someone out there might very well have found a way to beat a random game. It is possible.

[Edwincheng]

HI Loti,

Have u deducted bank com frok your results? Cos judging by the samples you have posted, it looks like even if the shoe shows positive results, the player would still lose money after com.

[Egalite]

Pretty much. We came to the unanimous conclusion that so far nothing we have tested beats betting banker only.

In which case, as we are well aware we can hit extreme Player dominated shoes, the issue is not Player dominated shoes, rather it's the use of a negative progression.

[Therapy101]

Variance 9252011.pdf

1334	1	p	-1	bet
1334	2	b		p	-1	-1
1334	3	b	1	p	-1	-2
1334	4	p		b	-1	-3
1334	5	p	-1	b	-1	-4
1334	6	b		p	-1	-5
1334	7	b	1	p	-1	-6
1334	8	p		b	-1	-7
1334	9	p	-1	b	-1	-8
1334	10	b		p	-1	-9
1334	11	p	-1	p	1	-8
1334	12	b		p	-1	-9
1334	13	b	1	p	-1	-10
1334	14	p		b	-1	-11
1334	15	p	-1	b	-1	-12
1334	16	b		p	-1	-13
1334	17	b	1	p	-1	-14
1334	18	p		b	-1	-15
1334	19	b	1	b	0.95	-14.1
1334	20	p		b	-1	-15.1
1334	21	b	1	b	0.95	-14.1
1334	22	p		b	-1	-15.1
1334	23	b	1	b	0.95	-14.2
1334	24	p		b	-1	-15.2
1334	25	b	1	b	0.95	-14.2
1334	26	b	2	b	0.95	-13.3
1334	27	p	1	b	-1	-14.3
1334	28	p		b	-1	-15.3
1334	29	p	-1	b	-1	-16.3
1334	30	b		p	-1	-17.3
1334	31	b	1	p	-1	-18.3
1334	32	b	2	b	0.95	-17.3
1334	33	p	1	b	-1	-18.3
1334	34	p		b	-1	-19.3
1334	35	b	1	b	0.95	-18.4
1334	36	p		b	-1	-19.4
1334	37	p	-1	b	-1	-20.4
1334	38	b		p	-1	-21.4
1334	39	b	1	p	-1	-22.4
1334	40	b	2	b	0.95	-21.4
1334	41	p	1	b	-1	-22.4
1334	42	p		b	-1	-23.4
1334	43	p	-1	b	-1	-24.4
1334	44	p	-2	p	1	-23.4
1334	45	p	-3	p	1	-22.4
1334	46	b	-2	p	-1	-23.4
1334	47	p	-3	p	1	-22.4
1334	48	p	-4	p	1	-21.4
1334	49	b	-3	p	-1	-22.4
1334	50	b	-2	p	-1	-23.4
1334	51	p	-3	p	1	-22.4
1334	52	b	-2	p	-1	-23.4
1334	53	b	-1	p	-1	-24.4
1334	54	b		p	-1	-25.4
1334	55	b	1	p	-1	-26.4
1334	56	p		b	-1	-27.4
1334	57	p	-1	b	-1	-28.4
1334	58	b		p	-1	-29.4
1334	59	b	1	p	-1	-30.4
1334	60	b	2	b	0.95	-29.5
1334	61	p	1	b	-1	-30.5
1334	62	b	2	b	0.95	-29.5
1334	63	p	1	b	-1	-30.5
1334	64	p		b	-1	-31.5
1334	65	p	-1	b	-1	-32.5
1334	66	p	-2	p	1	-31.5
1334	67	p	-3	p	1	-30.5
1334	68	b	-2	p	-1	-31.5
1334	69	p	-3	p	1	-30.5
1334	70	b	-2	p	-1	-31.5
1334	71	b	-1	p	-1	-32.5
1334	72	p	-2	p	1	-31.5
1334	73	p	-3	p	1	-30.5
1334	74	b	-2	p	-1	-31.5
1334	75	p	-3	p	1	-30.5
1334	76	b	-2	p	-1	-31.5

Hey LOTI. Thanks for the testing. There is one critical error in your testing. A Positive or Negative Variance is not established until there is one decision either Banker or Player. When the Variance falls to zero, the same rule applies. Therefore, there would be no bet as I have notated in red above. This is the tightest Variance I have ever seen, but as you will note from the attachment, -12 units is hardly a catastrophe. Testing is a valuable tool. It cannot however, take into account corrective actions taken by the Bettor. If this is the worst case scenario, bring it on. T101

[Therapy101]

Variance9252011-1.pdf

101 - do you have a specific bet selection in mind?

I was wondering when you would get around to Bet Selection. In a PM to a Forum Member I discussed this very topic. I find betting B Vs P to be too tight a Variance. It is obvious from the Testing LOTI performed, although somewhat inaccurate, that a tight Variance is undesireable. That's why I mentioned that shoe from hell you posted recently. If there is a Bet Selection that always loses dramatically, that's the one to use. I use a FL5. (Follow Last Five). Record the 1st 5 decisions. Bet the 6th decision will match the 1st decision. Cross off the 1st decision and use the 2nd thru 6th for the five decisions. There are several long streaks, both Neg and Pos, of which resetting the Variance will be beneficial. T101
I'm including a shoe for your inspection. You will see the shoe is almost entirely Negative. How cool is that? T101

[Egalite]

Not sure what "shoe from hell" you are referring to? It all depends how you tackle it. DBL IMO is a shit bet selection!!!
It's interesting you can run this with a 5 Column SO method, as Dbl Zz would probably be another good candidate. I agree with the "too tight variance" between B and P.....

[soxfan]

Again, people are looking to bet selection when it is all about mm. All bs will, over time boil down to about 50/50. I track all of my real money placed bets in clusters of ten. and while not every cluster will give 5 w/l, the vast majority of the time it will be a w/l 4/6 proposition. It is very rare to win/lose 8/9/10 ou of ten. And for my bet selection I've noticed that once every three shoes I'll win six bets inn a row, like clockwork. That's why I reset my +progression after six wins on the bounce. Lastly, I would say that betting one side only, betting every hand will cause the most extreme "variance".

If you experience losing more than 50% of your bets over a good chunk of time you WILL experience a "reversion to the mean", but you need to have the stones and the bankroll to keep from gettin knocked outta the game in the mean time, hey hey!

[Therapy101]

Trust me guys, this is a dead end. I have extensively tested this type of variance play with different bet selections (betting for AND against) and have never yielded a system that outperforms betting banker. Imspirit ran tens of thousands of different combinations where you start betting on A (Player or Banker) after B number of hands, where there was C number of players or bankers, for D amount of hands. I also had a different programmer do this months ago, and he ran hundreds of thousands of different combinations. We came to the same conclusion.

Finding three consecutive shoes with very tight Variance, I must come to a similar conclusion. Not entirely ruling out opportunities with Variance, but I can not recommend the Strategy as presenented. Just FYI, the three shoes were down at -10, -10, -11 units. Perhaps a different MM, I just don't know. Have always felt if Flat Betting doesn't do it, it isn't for me. T101

[Egalite]

I had a look at this with the bet selection DBL Zz, results not good. Personally I can't see this working, flat betting sounded good, but applying some other criteria to determine where and when to bet, such as running a count or transposing decisions into something else such as some SO relationship or patterns, all have the same inherit weakness, there is nothing which can be used to better determine which hand will win next. It is my belief "pattern capturing" with a self declared nemesis pattern or streak length for all it's weaknesses fairs better.

[Archer]

Again, people are looking to bet selection when it is all about mm. All bs will, over time boil down to about 50/50. I track all of my real money placed bets in clusters of ten. and while not every cluster will give 5 w/l, the vast majority of the time it will be a w/l 4/6 proposition. It is very rare to win/lose 8/9/10 ou of ten. And for my bet selection I've noticed that once every three shoes I'll win six bets inn a row, like clockwork. That's why I reset my +progression after six wins on the bounce. Lastly, I would say that betting one side only, betting every hand will cause the most extreme "variance".

If you experience losing more than 50% of your bets over a good chunk of time you WILL experience a "reversion to the mean", but you need to have the stones and the bankroll to keep from gettin knocked outta the game in the mean time, hey hey!

I'm with you on this. As of yet after all the BS stuff I have seen they all come out about the same given equal trials.

When to "guess" loss recovery is the $64,000.00 question. My idea of waiting for 5 losses in a row (5LIAR) stopping until a paper win could be a decent way since when betting every hand in a shoe one 5 LIAR is quite common, 2 LIAR frequent but doesn't happen all that much, 3 LIAR rare but will happen. Maybe something like this a good guideline for recoup. Perhaps after the 1st 5 LIAR make bets to recover half only or if recover half quick with normal prog then bump up. IOW, MM according to need and based on averages.

A

[Edwincheng]

From my observation, 50% of the shoes i encountered are +/- 5 hands leading by either side, 25% of the shoes leading by +/- 10 hands and the remaining 25% leading by >10 hands. So if the variance is set at say 5 hands, I would think that we would win50% of the time, while setting the support line too high would further restrict our betting opportunities.

It would be very difficult to determine in the midst of the game if it is going to be a runaway shoe favoring 1 side or an average shoe with an even distribution.

Having said so, I think this method of play is a good way of hedging exposure.

Where mm is concerned, I do not agree that it is the only thing that matters in the game. It is a very important aspect but without a certain rule for bet selection to follow, many of us would have no basis for betting decision and hence affect the consistency. Without a basis for consistency, one cannot be expecting to win consistently.

[Egalite]

If bet selections resolve close to a 50/50 state over time, then we would expect for example clusters of both wins and losses. It kinda defeats the purpose to lose many units on the losing clusters due to a negative progression and win single units on the winning clusters. While negative progressions do serve a purpose such as cancelling losses (few wins can eradicate many losses), the player really needs to be exploiting winning runs, by means of pressing, this is not always necessary if you have figures to resolve when playing a Labby. However my point being, sometimes LLL = 6u and WWW = 3u, doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

The best way to achieve strings of wins IMO is by either being on streaks or being on chops. It may be difficult to achieve using the other myriad of bet selections as most revolve around winning within a series of bets. When you break everything down, you are either betting the same as the last decision (FLD) or the opposite of the last decision (OLD). Wrapping a bet selection around some other convoluted betting mechanism, you need to ensure it is adding value, while realising the cards have no awareness nor care about prior decisions. Not betting every hand can simply be catered for by the introduction of virtual bets after any given criteria.

[steve6969]

i wonder if we can use this variance idea for second line bets

[gr8player]

"Wonder" no longer, Steve6969, for, believe me, you surely can use "this variance idea" on "second line bets". Wait...sorry, as I'm typing this, I'm realizing where we might be getting a bit confused here...not "this particular variance idea".....what I was trying to imply was that, yes, one can use variance stats to assist in capitalizing on the "second" (and even third, fourth, fifth) lines.

You see, guys, Edwincheng said it correctly just above, when he stated "without a certain rule for bet selection to follow, many of us would have no basis for betting decisionand hence affect the consistency. Without a basis for consistency, one cannot be expecting to win consistently".

Please read that quote again. Great job, Edwincheng, and thank you for sharing. I've been saying exactly that forever in these Forums.

Bet selection is 50/50. We get it. We all get it. They'll ALL resolve to 50/50 (maybe, with some tweaking, a bit above); but basically 50/50.

BUUUT, it's the REALIZATION that if we remain CONSISTENT in our strategy (read: bet selection combined with a custom MM plan around it), it'll see us WINNING MORE while LOSING LESS.

And, that, my friends, is the VERY DEFINITION OF WINNING.

Now, how can we, over the long term, win more whuile losing less?:

BY adjusting our bet sizes (and even our MM process) BASED UPON OUR CURRENT VARIANCE ON THAT PARTICULAR BET SELECTION.

But if you're "all over the board" in your bet selections, and if you cannot remain consistent in your plays, both bet selection- and MM-wise, you'll NEVER get there.

I can only hope that you understand my point here. I'm not sure that alot of you guys do, however, because I've been espousing the importance of patient, disciplined, consistent, variance-based play for as long as I can remember, and STILL see the "blank stares" right through my computer screen. Is this theory such a difficult one to grasp?

I don't think it is. I am quickly coming to the realization that THIS SORT OF PLAY, quite simply, IS NOT FOR EVERYONE.

There are gamblers out there, my friends. Gamblers. They don't give a hoot about patience and discipline and variance and, frankly, winning consistently. For they all prefer to GAMBLE. It's simply too much trouble, or too much pressure, or too much thinking, or, frankly, whatever excuse they're using this week, to TRY TO WIN CONSISTENTLY. With a proven plan. They're there for a totally different purpose than I'm there for: the adrenaline "rush". But, my friends, you know what the problem with gamblers such as those really is: after a while, that "rush" becomes harder and harder to satiate, until they're finally laying it ALL on the line. Just a terrible cycle. There isn't a trip that goes by that I don't see it somewhere, and it's really a waste. A waste of time, money, and emotions (read: lives).

If you're reading this, and you feel you might fit that mold, give it up, man. Stop it, now.

If, however, you're reading this, and you feel as if the words "consistency" and "variance" might mean something to you; well then, my friends, you're on the right track.

Here's hoping you see it through.

[steve6969]

gr8 player your posts are gr8 i changed my style of play from reading your posts before i use to bet every hand with a neg progression with no patience know i use mild prog when choppy and a parlay when clusters are comming so far i have made more money then ever i also keep track how many 1, 2, 3..... in a shoe to see how i should approach it i think we can do something with this variance

[gr8player]

Stevie, I know you're doing well, and I thank you for sharing it with this Forum. Great job, my friend.

Even the "basics", where you're witnessing alot of "non-starters" (read: no "FTL cluster" triggers), will get you, with enough patience (to await the "turn") and discipline (to remain consistent in your play), to the point of consistently winning by betting when those triggers DO APPEAR.

I'm so happy to hear of your success. I wish you continuance.

[Archer]

If bet selections resolve close to a 50/50 state over time, then we would expect for example clusters of both wins and losses. It kinda defeats the purpose to lose many units on the losing clusters due to a negative progression and win single units on the winning clusters. While negative progressions do serve a purpose such as cancelling losses (few wins can eradicate many losses), the player really needs to be exploiting winning runs, by means of pressing, this is not always necessary if you have figures to resolve when playing a Labby. However my point being, sometimes LLL = 6u and WWW = 3u, doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

Yes, academic. When and how to begin to recover is the question. I thought you were on a good run when you were explaining your Labby and/or Star approach. I'd like to hear more about that. I have mentioned that I like to stop at 5 losses and restart after a paper win to hopefully control the depth of units bet to recover. We can't lose forever.

The best way to achieve strings of wins IMO is by either being on streaks or being on chops. It may be difficult to achieve using the other myriad of bet selections as most revolve around winning within a series of bets. When you break everything down, you are either betting the same as the last decision (FLD) or the opposite of the last decision (OLD). Wrapping a bet selection around some other convoluted betting mechanism, you need to ensure it is adding value, while realising the cards have no awareness nor care about prior decisions. Not betting every hand can simply be catered for by the introduction of virtual bets after any given criteria.

Sorry to say but you are contradicting youself - again. "X" wins in a row as chop or streak are not more frequent then one or the other. 6 wins as chop, streak, 3/3, 2,2,2, etc. makes no difference. We will get just as many 6 in a row wins for instance when betting any of those patterns. That's the genius of this game. If it were not so there would be a predictable bias and the game would not be 50-50. You disagree so what is the bet selection that outperforms all others?

Archer

[Edwincheng]

This is 1 of the method i adopt from time to time with regards to variance and is derived from egalite's thread I've read on OLD.

Basically I track the variance of fld vs old.

I would wait for a paper win of 5 fld (eg, a streak of 6 on any side) and flat bet on old thereafter. When I do win 3 units, I will retain the profits and do a 1-2 parlay on subsequent bets until the streak ends. I will then reset the number to 0 and start over again. My stop loss is set at -5 units for the shoe.

Typically I will adopt this method for shoes that looks streaky after the first 20 hands.

The reason old is favoured over fld is for obvious reasons that it should have a higher occurence over fld as other than 1s, any end of 2s, 3s and 4s above is also a win for old.

This is not a sure win method but I have had some positive results. I believe variance tracking will work well with labby and star but personally I prefer to flat bet and parlay on wins with this method as it requires me to play many hands in the shoe. I do not have a stomach for a big drawdown in the event this is a runaway shoe.

[Egalite]

Sorry to say but you are contradicting youself - again. "X" wins in a row as chop or streak are not more frequent then one or the other. 6 wins as chop, streak, 3/3, 2,2,2, etc. makes no difference. We will get just as many 6 in a row wins for instance when betting any of those patterns. That's the genius of this game. If it were not so there would be a predictable bias and the game would not be 50-50. You disagree so what is the bet selection that outperforms all others?

Archer

I can only speak from my own experience, to win against a series of 2's, you would have to be playing something such as ODBL, or change very quickly to catch a quad (or more) set of 2's, this is going to fail a lot more than succeed. To win every bet with a set of 3's, again it is going to fail more often than succeed, and you would have to be betting 3COL Min and betting every hand, be wearing X-ray glasses, or be extremely lucky.

Say we have

B (L)
B (W)
B (W)

Why would anybody now bet player or stop betting? Because the prior banker streaks stopped at three or went to four a few times so we are expecting equal distribution?

That BBB streak has just as much chance of streaking to 6 as it has of being followed by a 3 player streak. What bet selection will put you on BBBPPP where you win the last five bets then bet B? How often do you see streaks of 3 repeat a minimum of 4 times, and how many times would this bet selection fail compared to succeed?

Nobody knows when a streak or long chops will materialise, if you are gauging the shoe, more often than not, you will act retrospectively and miss. Whereas if your playing for something in advance, you will ALWAYS hit, every time it occurs. In-between you end up with clusters of L's and W's.