|
|
There are two types of trends that I understand, one is a locking trend, and the other is an escaping trend.
Take a piece of paper and a pen, draw a coordinate system on the paper, with the Y-axis representing the number of bankers and the X-axis representing the total number of bankers and players. Draw a straight line between (5068, 10000) and (0, 0). I call this the banker's standard line. Similarly, draw another straight line between (4932, 10000) and (0, 0). This results in the player's standard line. Any coordinates above these standard lines can be represented as (Xsn, Ysn), while the actual appearance of bankers (or players) can be represented as (Xn, Yn).
The activity trajectory of bankers (or players) has three characteristics:
1) For a period of time, it always stays within the range of less than or equal to (Xsn+a) and greater than or equal to Xn.
2) For a period of time, it always stays within the range of greater than or equal to (Xsn-a) and less than or equal to Xsn. Here, a=Xn-Xsn. (Of course, when a is very small, less than or equal to 1, it often exhibits behavior like (Xsn+a)>=Xn>=(Xsn-a), which can be understood in points 1) and 2)).
These two types of trends are referred to as locking trends.
3) Sometimes, there may be a sudden change, at a certain moment, it escapes the range of the above two trends, i.e., Xn>(Xsn+a), or it moves from 1) to 2), and vice versa. I refer to this as an escaping trend.
We often see that there may be a dozen more bankers than players, or it may transition from having a dozen more bankers to having more players. In the former case, it is not possible for bankers to suddenly have a dozen more; it must go through a process of being one more than the other, two more than the other, and so on. In this process, escaping trends often occur. The manifestation of escaping trends is often characterized by long streaks of bankers or players. The same applies to the latter scenario.
Of course, it can also accumulate slowly in the form of one banker and two players or similar. When faced with such a situation, this software has no choice but to accept it as bad luck. After all, there is no perfect solution. Besides, computers are fixed, while humans are adaptable. I don't yet know how to set up highly intelligent EXCEL formulas. Another thing I don't know how to set up is the transition from 1) to 2) or from 2) to 1). If I could set it up, the profits from 1000 shoes would be much more significant. But the principle is the same. I hope readers can comprehend it on their own.
To reiterate, trends cannot be predicted or judged. I am merely assuming that in baccarat, there may be occasional short-term patterns and momentary inertia in the appearance of bankers and players. I assume that, in a given set of shoes, X% has no regularity or inertia, as no matter what method we use to place bets, we have a 50% chance of success. So, we have a winning rate of (X/2)%. In the remaining (100-X)%, if we assume that our hypothesis is correct and that we have captured its pattern based on its brief inertia, our winning rate will inevitably be greater than 50%, which is [(100-X)/2+Y]%. Therefore, if the earlier assumption holds true, we can achieve an overall winning rate of (X/2+(100-X)/2+Y)%, and based on the definitions of X and Y provided earlier, we can achieve a positive winning rate. This is the fundamental core idea of the entire method. Of course, whether it can stand depends on whether the assumptions are valid. My mathematical skills are not high, and I can't think of a way to mathematically prove it. I can only use simulation and practice to verify it. Fortunately, so far, according to the methods I mentioned earlier, it has not been disproved.
Based on the previous understanding, when in a locking trend, it's like there are two fragile walls, and bankers and players bounce between these two walls like ping-pong balls. Once one of the walls is broken through, there will be a breakout.
So, when in a locking trend, at the moment it touches one of the walls, we predict that its trajectory will bounce back, and our strategy is to go against the trend. Many people believe that following the trend is the right approach, but in fact, going against the trend is also a form of following the trend. Conversely, when there are signs of a sudden breakout, our strategy, of course, is to follow the trend.
Of course, it could also be an accumulation in the form of one banker and two players or something similar. When encountering such a situation, this software has no choice but to accept it as bad luck. After all, there is no perfect solution. Besides, computers are fixed, while humans are adaptable. I don't yet know how to set up highly intelligent EXCEL formulas. Another thing I don't know how to set up is the transition from 1) to 2) or from 2) to 1). If I could set it up, the profits from 1000 shoes would be much more significant. But the principle is the same. I hope readers can comprehend it on their own.
To reiterate, trends cannot be predicted or judged. I am merely assuming that in baccarat, there may be occasional short-term patterns and momentary inertia in the appearance of bankers and players. I assume that, in a given set of shoes, X% has no regularity or inertia, as no matter what method we use to place bets, we have a 50% chance of success. So, we have a winning rate of (X/2)%. In the remaining (100-X)%, if we assume that our hypothesis is correct and that we have captured its pattern based on its brief inertia, our winning rate will inevitably be greater than 50%, which is [(100-X)/2+Y]%. Therefore, if the earlier assumption holds true, we can achieve an overall winning rate of (X/2+(100-X)/2+Y)%, and based on the definitions of X and Y provided earlier, we can achieve a positive winning rate. This is the fundamental core idea of the entire method. Of course, whether it can stand depends on whether the assumptions are valid. My mathematical skills are not high, and I can't think of a way to mathematically prove it. I can only use simulation and practice to verify it. Fortunately, so far, according to the methods I mentioned earlier, it has not been disproved. |
|
Post time 14-9-2023 15:01:01