|
|
"""Baccarat winning begins with a change in mindset! It is well known that no matter how many styles of negative progression betting are used in baccarat, they all end in failure. This 'win a little, lose a lot' suicidal approach has been strongly resisted by many experts. Hence, there is the 'when the cable breaks, victory is certain' principle. I fully support this concept, but how to oppose it? How many styles to oppose? It's indeed a thought-provoking question.
Brother 'Cable Must Break' proposes that as long as you get a six-style in one shoe, you won't lose. Betting on the banker when it's winning and the player when it's winning too, this will require at least seven consecutive long streaks to win. This process is quite painful and can be endured only by those with exceptional self-control. If you encounter a shoe with a maximum of only three long streaks, you will lose more than 60 base units. Due to limited personal funds, prolonged battles will naturally affect your mentality and lead to psychological breakdown and chaos.
Adding the 'Cut Green' strategy to reverse the cable can achieve long-term success. We can make a theoretical assumption: We all know that in one shoe, there are about 22 sequences of three. So we need to hit three sequences of three at least to make a profit. 22-3-(3*7)=-2, with 22 sequences, 3 sequences of three, and 7 long streaks, you will be down 2 units. Of course, this is an idealized state from start to finish. What if you only hit one out of the 22? Wouldn't that be a definite loss? Not necessarily. If this one comes in the first 1-8 sequences and you use the 'Cut Green' strategy, you can at least break even or make a small profit (excluding commission). In theory, you would be down 14 units because you need to win 3 out of 22-1-(1*7)=14 sequences. However, in reality, you might break even.
You might ask, what if none of them hit? Wouldn't you lose 22 units? Well, if your betting strategy allows you to hit all seven long streaks without breaking a sequence, it's basically a winning bet. For those betting against the cable, this situation can also happen. So, what reverse bettors need to find is a sequence of three that breaks frequently.
How to find a sequence of three that breaks frequently? Based on my personal research, I have some insights and highlights to share with everyone. The worst-case scenario in our betting is when we start a shoe with an immediate sequence break. At this point, we are extremely angry, thinking that there won't be any more breaks in this shoe. But, contrary to our expectations, breaks keep happening throughout the shoe, especially in the latter part. However, we also notice that there are times when we hit a long streak and, due to the 1-8 wave rule, we stop betting after winning the first unit. Subsequently, there are continuous breaks, which means we really only win one and lose seven, which doesn't make sense. The truth is, we should have been winning one and losing only two.
So, negative progression betting is sure to fail. If we start with a particular sequence and bet accordingly, we will win consistently, but this is an ideal scenario. We can observe that if we encounter a sequence break at the very beginning, breaks continue to happen later, and this pattern repeats about 80% of the time. If we stubbornly continue to bet after the first sequence break and increase our bets, we will end up losing significantly. The point is that we can't predict the future. So, let's give up on betting against the cable and switch to betting against the 'two-style' instead. If you see a sequence, bet on the same side; if you see a break, bet on the opposite side. In this case, the overall situation in the shoe will be stable and profitable.
For example, the sequence in a real shoe might look like this: bbp bpb bpp bpb bbp bbp pbb ppb ppb bpb bbb ppb bpb bpb pbp ppb bpb bbb pbp bbp ppb pbp. If we start with the sequence b, we bet 1 unit on b, and if we lose, we stop. In the third sequence, if we start with b and bet 1 unit on b, we lose, but in the fourth sequence, if we start with p and bet 1 unit on p, we win everything back. This pattern of alternating b and p will continue, and we can see that if the first sequence breaks, the subsequent sequences will continue to break. So, betting against the 'two-style' is less prone to large negative swings than betting against the 'three-style,' and the 'two-style' is the easiest to break.
In conclusion, betting against the 'two-style' is less prone to large negative swings compared to the 'three-style.'" |
|
Post time 30-9-2023 13:35:18