Baccarat Bet Selection Options

The number of losing streaks displayed is 56, the total number of losses is 233, meaning there were 177 single losses in a row. Despite my confidence with the bet selection, it's still is not guaranteed, but will come good, it simply has too. As I mentioned elsewhere in the thread, the premise of the bet selection which is maths probability based, as explained on page 1 of this thread, 3rd post, is to minimise the losses in a row.

Sure the figures for 1L, 2L, 3L are nothing special, but no 6L, 5Liar once. I've encountered worst in live play, as you usually do, but now have idea's and strategies in place to prevent some of this happening. My MM is fine and is outlined elsewhere in other threads.

Thanks for your interest, always good to interact with those good with numbers.

 

No, you've misunderstood what I'm trying to point out.

Total number of losing streaks displayed is 56, for a cumulative total of 148 losses. Number of total losses is 233. That leaves 85 losing streaks of 1 loss. You have performed a miscalculation determining you had 177 losses in a row.

The number of single losses, losses not in a row, losses flanked by a win, should equal the number of streaks of losses of every length greater than 1.
You have displayed 85 single losses vs 56 streaks of losses. You should have encountered 85 streaks of losses. Here, is a positive expectation to win more bets than you lose , betting that a single loss stays a single loss and does not become a streak of losses of 2 or more.
It is an area you can focus on to extract profit more efficiently.

No 6 liar and 5 liar once has less significance with such a small sample size as than an over abundance of 1 liar. In fact, if everything IS going to resolve to 50/50, those missing losses that should appear at the end of 5 liar creating liars of greater length have few places to go. You did not display an abnormal distribution of 2, 3, and 4 liar. You left off the display of 1 liar. I had to calculate it myself, and it is here where your bet selection appears to be dumping the losses you are shearing off of 5+ liars.

I didn't give any MM suggestions, nor did I criticize yours. I merely pointed out where your bet selection created a more vulnerable area for you to exploit. IF, you are confident the small sample size you provided will continue to produce the same results with ever increasing trials.

 

It's late. I'm decent with numbers, but prone to simple mistakes. But I'll give it a go.

Pick 1 ball out of 128, and it's number 99. Return it to the bag, and the odds of pulling number 99 back out of the bag on the very first attempt is 1 in 128. The odds of pulling it out once in 8 attempts is 8 out of 128, or 1/16. The odds of pulling it out twice in 8 attempts? I don't know the formula for that calculation.
But I do know that 1/128 x 1/128 producing odds of 16,384 to 1 represents of the odds of pulling number 99 out of the bag twice in a row. On the very first and the very second attempt. Not any two times given 8 trials. Armed with that information I will hazard a guess and say pulling number 99 out of the bag twice with 8 attempts is in the ballpark of 1 in 2340.

That leaves me to suggest that perhaps your calculations are off, and that you did not get hit with a 2,097,152 to 1 shot in a B&M casino. Not that getting hit with a 200,000 to 1 shot would be any less disconcerting.

 

Hi Baccaritic interesting post once again...

Sorry my bad, tired, wasn't thinking properly, yes you are absolutely right, James also made ref to the same in this thread.

Yes I did that, because 1LIAR doesn't concern me.

Yes, I agree, I wanted to design something that controlled and made more manageable the losses in a row, the bane of most bet selections options. I feel this this has gone a long way to achieving this.

I am, I've now played this for close on a few thousand shoes both online and at B&M casinos.

Interesting, 1/16 is not robust enough in this game, thankfully it's not what I'm doing.

Yes I agree, I retrieve similar info from a maths site from google, however, others have suggested the odds are 1/127 x 1/127, not 1/128 x 1/128. The figure of 16,384 applies to twice within 8 trials, not consecutive selections?

Actually I did in a B&M casino, using the same analogy, 128 balls in a bag, shake the bloody thing, returning the ball. The same ball selected 3 times within 8 trials , phenomenal!! 1/128 x 1/128 x 1/128 (2^21 = 2,097,152)

Suffice to say I can run into 1/256 x 1/256 (1/65,536), maybe once or twice per 20 or 30 shoes, thankfully these are now totally avoidable.

 

You stated that you are using additional bets as the 5.4 bets per shoe not practical. At 5.4 bets you must be using a 3 column. But I can't figure if you are using OLCD or what with this. Thanks.

 

Yes, I figured it was just fatigue that caused the error. It's easy to get all these numbers mixed up.

Yes, overlooked because it's easy to overcome 1 liar. You should have displayed it. It provides you with a more complete picture of what your bet selection is doing. In this particular instance the increased frequency of 1 liar provides you with a greater advantage than a reduction in liar equal to and greater than 5.

I disagree and say it is 1/128 for a single trial. It is 1/128 x 1/128 for two consecutive trials.
I had some time at work to think this through.The following is going to be a bit wordy trying to explain this neatly. Here we go....

Given a Grouping of 8 Columns of 7 Decisions each. You have a 1 in 128 chance of pulling your 7 Decision Nemesis pattern on the first try. You have a 8 in 128, or 1 in 16 chance of pulling your Nemesis pattern in 1 Grouping of 8 Columns of 7 Decisions.

The Odds I posted last night of 1 in 2340 represents your chances of encountering your Nemesis pattern once in the very first Column of 1 Grouping and a second time anywhere between Column 2 and 8 of the same Grouping. There is a 1 in 18.285 chance for your Nemesis pattern to reappear once more in the remaining 7 Columns. 128 x 18.285 is 2340.

The odds that your Nemesis pattern will appear twice anywhere is a single Grouping of 8 Columns is 1 in 16 times 1 in 18.285 = 1 in 293. Given 293 Groupings of 8 Columns of 7 Decisions. One of those Groups will have your Nemesis pattern in it somewhere twice. Quite a big difference than 1 in 64,000. And may help explain why you encounter/ed it so readily.

The odds that you encounter your Nemesis pattern three times in a row is 1/128 x 1/128 x 1/128 = 1 in 2,097,152. The odd that you encounter your Nemesis pattern three times anywhere inside of 1 Grouping of 8 Columns is 1 in 16 x 1 in 18.285 x 1 in 21.33 = 1 in 6,240.

That is to say, given 6,240 Groupings of 8 Columns of 7 Decisions, one of them will posses your Nemesis pattern 3 times. Doesn't seem as robust as it should, I agree.

see above. Not as phenomenal as it seems.

It's getting late again and I'm tired. I'll work out the odds and expected number of shoes tomorrow.

 

I've read you post a few times, I'm probably going to have spend some time with it.

Firstly, I can't lose the 1st column, so that leaves 7 trials remaining.

Where are is that figure 2340 coming from? I know you mentioned it earlier,

It would actually be 7 attempts..

But I'm still not clear how 2340 has come about. The way I view it, for a 7 hand sequence to repeat, that equates to 2^14, 16,384/1

Like I say, I'll re-read it tomorrow..

 

For those that know

Was doing okay yesterday, slowly but surely. Rapidly running out of patience, betting on the Player which pulls an 8, Banker pulls a 9, happened way to many times for my liking. When these banana's shuffle the cards, they move them in sections, leaving grouping of cards together, so you end up with a lot of clumping. 4 cards together consisting of 8 & 9 plus two face cards. Ditto, I've never seen so many Ties on 2.

Bet Player, pulls natural 9 Bank gets a 9, ditto too many ties on 8, lose the next hand 7 to the player (decent enough) 9 to the Bank, again way too often. I usually hedge the Tie when 8 units or more is bet on the either side (I add 1's to my strings, regardless if the Tie wins or not, I'm greedy like that ) 10u bet on the table, didn't take the Tie, tie came in twice WTF. SOB Murphy's Law

Then I noticed a table were a shoe had started with a 7 Banker streak, absolute perfection, any shoe starting with a streak of 7 or even 6 is the perfect scenario!!. You can literally mortgage the farm and put your foot to the metal starting at Col' 3.

So that is exactly what I did, no more pussy footing around grinding, straight into top gear over-drive, L1u W2u L1u L2u, so I'm down 3u, no worries, maths (probability) states wins are guaranteed, literally, you just have to place the required bet amounts I've got 3 bet opportunities going into the 4th column, even if I lost them all, it simply builds confidence for column 5!! W4u, L1u, W2u and I still have 2 bet opportunities going into the 5th column, perfect!!! I dislike single bet opportunities, they are vulnerabilities.

5th Column W1u, (okay, now protect, if I lose this bet, it would mean 1 bet opportunity for column 6, which may not be resolved (had a few of those in earlier shoes), so fuck it, halve the bet to protect the prior win, Lose .5u (smart move if I may say so myself )

Column 6 was a bit unfortunate, walked into 3 OLCD losses (L1, L2, L4), but had geared down by 50%, but those 3 losses presented an Col ABR opportunity, feeling apprehensive because if I now get an entire failure, it's going to result in a many losses in a row. Win the first bet (W6u) phew, thank fuck, Resolve the outstanding column opportunity (W4u), then it's change down to first gear to put some icing on the cake. End of shoe, I'm done, 260 base units inside 10.5 shoes, +80u from the last shoe alone. You can't beat table experience

Have requested a withdrawal of a decent chunk of change, leaving a decent residue to continue playing with, might ask glenda if I can borrow his wheel-barrow

8 to the Player ----- 9 to the Bank

LOL

 

Just finished playing 4 shoes, while I was waiting around for the start of a my first new shoe, I noticed this overtly choppy beast. Didn't play it, but took a screenshot, as it's good for stress testing MM options against. One for the "out of the box" thinkers


Close to as bad as it gets for a choppy shoe. After looking at it, I would actually beat this shoe betting FLD. Yep betting FLD only, no wild crazy bets either, using the exact same strategy I used down-under few years back during which I won approx 34 sessions on the bounce, until the casino in question introduced Angel Shuffle Master technology on all the tables, while I was interstate playing at another casino which also had those horrible Angel machines, of which I simply couldn't handle.

I did get hit while I was away and made a post at the time on the WoV message board (it's still there under the user ID egalite), enquiring about any book recommendations for regaining ones composure. Which came to attention of GR8, in the said thread, Roberta aka Walter Mitty decided it was a good opportunity to rip me a new arsehole and the envious ball-bag decided to milk my misfortune for all it was worth, you do actually come across envious gloating F**kfaces like this on forums. A small insight why I don't get along with the resurrected one.


Anyway back to the present, taking things real easy, trying to stay in 1st gear

1st shoe - this shoe starts BBBBB I'm thinking here we go, same as my final shoe from last night LOL!! Followed by PB, not bad, not perfect, ahead 22u end of shoe.

2nd shoe - it was a real struggle, many options simply not resolving in a timely fashion and I'm betting my Labby strings aggressively, it wasn't working, had to change to top gear, skipping 2nd. Ended the shoe losing 3 units, which was to be honest pretty bad considering the risk factor.

3rd shoe - Not so great, same as above, certain options not resolving, basically this was a recoup shoe, as my strings were a bit of mess, again top gear, made 5 units in total, fuck me. While ahead on the day, I'm not making much headway on the last two shoes.

4th shoe and final shoe, then break time, as my patience was wearing thin, again too many 8-8 stand off's, lose the next hand, lose 7-9 while betting Player, you become frazzled pretty quickly.



What a interesting introduction???? Kinda enforced a change of game plan doesn't it While not ignoring ABR, betting ran like this;

WWLWWWW W(one & only top gear bet placed) WWLW L(bet wrong bloody side, fume) WWLLWLWWLWLWWW

W = 19 (should have been 20)
L = 7 (should have been 6)

Yep, extracted 60 base units from that beauty of a shoe, a dream shoe.

 

1 in 2340. This is the odd that your seven hand Nemesis rears its head twice inside of 8 Columns of 7 decisions. It makes its first appearance as Column number 1, and once again at random between Column 2 and 8. The odds of it appearing in Column 1 is 1 in 128. The odds of it appearing once more for the remaining 7 Columns is 7 in 128. 128 divided by 7 is 18.285. So we multiply 128 x 18.285 and get 2340.

Ok, I think I may be on to how you are calculating incorrectly.

The odds for a seven hand sequence to repeat is 1 in 16,384. This is correct. But you MUST determine the 7 hand sequence BEFOREHAND. This is your error. Once you wait for a seven hand sequence to develop, it only has a 1 in 128 chance to repeat. This is why you said you can't lose the 1st Column. You are using it to define your Nemesis, and falsely thinking it is a 1 in 16,384 chance to repeat.

To put this in perspective. What you are thinking is.... There is a 25% chance to get BB or PP. So if you wait for one decision, and it is B, then there is only a 25% chance it will be B again, and 75% of the time it will be P. This falls in line with the Gambler's Fallacy. Where after 32 Reds in a row, it couldn't possibly be Red again. The odds are to high against 33. Except, it has already gone to 32, the odds of Red again is still 50%.

The odds of any 7 hand sequence is 1 in 128, After it appears, the odds of it repeating, remains 1 in 128.

You know, I'm just realizing, you are basing a lot of your play on incorrect odds if this is how you are figuring them. It isn't making much of a difference because your MM is the key to success. But, it may do your head less in if you realize you aren't getting hit with astronomical odds. It may better prepare you mentally with a more accurate expectation of bad runs.

 

Thanks for that, now I understand.

I do understand that aspect. Suffice to say, it is not predetermined.

This part gets me, what you have stated, and I'm not disputing it, because mathematically it is correct. Why in that case, I've played close on 3000 shoes online and a few thou' in B&M casinos, have I only seen the same specific 7 hand pattern repeat 3 times in any given shoe within 8 trials, why haven't I seen the same 7 hand pattern repeat 5, 6 or 7 times? Sure it's mathematically possibly, but simply doesn't happen. And you can apply the same logic to streaks, why as every hand is 50-50 do we not see 20 hand runs on either side (Ties or otherwise), we don't, or they are once in a life time event.

There is an element of maths, which is beyond me at play here, based around "diminishing probability". What you have presented, is what I would expect from those over at WoV. I'm not disputing it, however, if you place 128 balls into a bag, and somehow within a four picks have selected the same ball twice. You now have 4 more trials, for sure there are 128 balls in the bag, and the chance of selecting any one of them is 128/1, however to select one which has already shown twice, within the remaining 4 trials!! There is some element not being considered here "diminishing probability". I'm not saying the maths is wrong, given the close on 5000 shoes played, I've only (touch wood) only seen a triple repeat the once. I will confess "diminishing probability" is beyond my scope.

Correct.

Incorrect and yes for the 1 in 16,384 chance.

Noooo, please, to have a 75% of winning a bet, you have to place 2 physical bets.

As above "diminishing probability", each spin maybe 50-50 and the ball doesn't know about prior spins, however, I suggest the current 32 spin run is less likely than more likely to make it to 40, 50 Reds in a row. A branch of maths which I profess to not understanding.

See my thoughts above..

I've always stated MM is the priority, however I do think on this occasion bet selection and how it is being implemented is playing it's part.

Absolutely, which is why I like this engagement. You've just joined here, I've a sneaking feeling I know who you are already

 

Can't hack no more, dog tired, burnt out, the issue when I win and get closer to my goal, is that I want to protect too much. Playing way to cautious. fatigue kicking in, calling it night.

Played half of a shoe, it was a decent shoe too.



4x 3 streaks followed by 8 chops, a funny kind of symmetrical random!!!

WWWWWWWLW for another 11u, sod it, damn never realised how good my hit actually was until I just typed it out. First bet hand 15, I joined late.

I did have a few what I call lucky wins.

I'm on the Player, originally on 5 against B4, fuckin' come on Picture, damn down to 1, getting ready to write a loss, then LOL



Few hands later

Again on the Player, 1 against 2, promote to 5, still weak, LOL

 

Hey Baccaritic, I've just been mulling over that statement. Something doesn't sit right.

Applying the logic above, let's just as an example say we use the first seven hand sequence of a shoe and we bet that it won't show again for the remainder of the shoe.

The odds of that happening is 1 chance in 128. We will have 7 trials left, so from the above 128 divided 7 is 18.285 as you point out.
However applying the same logic, the closer we get to the end of the shoe when say we only have 2 trials left, the odds would surely now become, 128 divided by 2 = 64. Multiply 128 x 64 and we get 8192

So by using this logic, it is far less likely to see a repeat the closer we get to the end of a shoe (I assure you this is not the case), doesn't using this logic kind of muddle the 1 in 128 odds??

 

Further to the post above, there is something fundamentally wrong here. I'm struggling to figure what is it, at a guess I would say applied division is not appropriate.

I'm going to make a guess and state the odds of a 128/1 appearing twice within 8 trials, not necessarily consecutively or predetermined remains 1/128 x 1/128 = 16,384.

Otherwise the odds would be different between a repeat of column 1 if it repeated against on the 8th trial, compared to column 6 repeating on the 8th trial, and we know that isn't correct.

 

OK, I didn't see this. I was still thinking about diminishing returns, and the fact that you don't see 80 Bankers and no Tie in a shoe, or that standard deviation starts to get strangled around 3 and dies at 5.

I think we are still in Gambler's Fallacy territory. Just because a seven hand sequence hasn't repeated in 7 attempts, that somehow it is more likely to appear in the remaining 2 attempts now, than it was 7 attempts ago.

With 2 attempts left, the odds are 2 in 128, which is as you calculated 1 in 64. And that's it.

128 x 64 represents the odds of the seven hand sequence to appear twice in the next 3 attempts. Immediately upon the first attempt, and 1 more time, either on attempt 2 or attempt 3.

So a six deck shoe. 56 outcomes. 8 columns of 7 decisions. Using the first 7 columns to define a Nemesis pattern. With 7 columns left, there is a 1 in 18 chance it will repeat before the end of the shoe. After each column goes by, there are less and less opportunities for the Nemesis to appear. Until finally, there is one chance left, and we are back to 1 in 128.

I feel that that is somehow wrong. That after 6 failed attempts to repeat, that we are now closer to seeing a repeat. And we are closer, but the odds don't change. They are an average. Sometimes you will get a repeat inside of 8 attempts, and sometimes you will not get a repeat after 250.

 

No, 128 x 128 is two in a row.

Why would it be in 8 trials? Where is 8 trials represented in your calculation? Without it represented I can just as easily say it to 10 trials.

Time to eat.

 

You've interpreted that wrong. According to the maths you provided in earlier posts, the division part, it should be more likely to occur, not less likely. What I'm saying is that your division is a red hearing and not applicable.

Yes, but it is a bit off-topic and only applicable if you were triggering off the first column.

That kind of twists things, it's like picking a ball from a bag of 128 balls, and taking 7 more picks to see if the first ball is selected again, whereas my teaser was, pick 8 balls (returning them to the bag each time) what are the odds of picking any duplicate ball, not necessarily consecutively, yes every time you put your hand in the bag it is 128/1, but there is an branch of maths which I do profess to I do not understand that makes it extremely improbable that I will select the same ball 3 or more times within 8 trials.

I dispute this. the odds remain 128/1 x 128/1 = 16,384. To disagree, it would mean that it would be more probably for the 5th ball you chose, is more likely to be a match in the proceeding 3 remaining trials. I can't agree with that, it would still be odds of 16,384.

That's impossible, if there are only 128 balls, you will get repeats long before you select all 128 balls, same principle as Roulette Law of the Third, there was a recent topic posted here, 37 unique numbers of non-correlated independent spins, yet to see 37 different numbers, the odds ran into the Trillions, yet the mathites, especially those at WoV won't accept that!!!

Simply the odds of selecting a 128/1 shot twice. Doesn't matter when, it is still 128/1 x 128/1, no matter when they occur. The bigger the sample the more likely it will happen, but in a small set of 8 trials!!

 

I said it was the Gambler's Fallacy that after several missed trials an event becomes more likely. Nowhere did I provide math that supported the chance of getting a repeat increasing as the number of remaining trials diminishes.



Are we not using the first 7 hands to define a Nemesis? Have I misunderstood? Are we using a rolling nemesis where it is redefined every seven hands?

The odds of you picking a 7 hand sequence before it has developed is 1 in 128 picks. The odds of a 7 hand sequence repeating itself AFTER it has developed once, is 1 in 128. The odds of you picking a 7 hand sequence before it has developed and guessing it will repeat itself immediately ( a 14 hand sequence) is 128 x 128.

1 in 16,384 is a 14 hand sequence. You can't get half of it ( 7 hands) and then get 21 random decisions, and then get the other half of it ( the final 7 hands) and call it a 1 in 16,384 chance.

....after 6 failed attempts.... Yes, we are closer to a successful attempt, but the odds haven't changed. It may be 200 attempts, or it may be 15 attempts, but there are six less attempts of an unknown total number of attempts before this repeat gets here.

Consider decision Banker. A single B. A 1 in 2 chance. The odds that B repeats itself is a 1 in 4 chance. But it has to happen on the very next decision, not anytime over the course of the next 7 decisions.

BB a 1 in 4 chance ( 2x2) because there is a 1 in 2 chance to get B, and a 1 in 2 chance to get B again.

PBPBPBP, PBPBPBP a 1 in 16,384 chance ( 128x128) because there is a 1 in 128 chance to get PBPBPBP and a 1 in 128 chance to get PBPBPBP

PBPBPBP, bbbpppp, bbppbbp, pbpbpbp, bpppbbp, PBPBPBP This is not a 1 in 16,384 chance. It is 1 in 1 attempt with 128 possible combinations x 1 in 5 attempts with 128 possible combinations. 128 x (128 divided by 5) = 128 x (25.6) = 3276.

If you see a 7 hand sequence repeat itself after 5 attempts, it has satisfied the odds of 1 in 3276. It has not satisfied the odds of 1 in 16,384.

As for 250 failed attempts. You put the ball back in the bag every time. There are always 128 balls in the bag. It is possible to not repull that same ball out of the bag in 250 attempts. Law of the Third. The ball you drew out may be a sleeper. No guarantee to draw out that same ball at the very least on the 128th attempt. It is possible that seven hand sequence doesn't repeat itself for more than 128 attempts.

Considering roulette has 38 pockets and it is widely known a number can sleep for up to 200 spins, than your 1 in 128 shot could sleep for 600 or more. It is not impossible.


We've got to get passed this.....
Simply the odds of selecting a 128/1 shot twice. Doesn't matter when, it is still 128/1 x 128/1, no matter when they occur. The bigger the sample the more likely it will happen, but in a small set of 8 trials!!

It does matter when. 128 x 128 is back to back. The same way 2 in a row is 2x2.

 

I never said that, my ball analogy summed it up.

Not relevant.

again not relevant.

Now we are getting somewhere, but it doesn't really address why is it so improbable that we would never see;
PBPBPBP, PBPBPBP, PBPBPBP, PBPBPBP, PBPBPBP, PBPBPBP,

I just pulled up a couple of shoes from my B&M action. 16,384 occurring twice within 8 trials. Another shoe (applying your maths) produced, odds of 16,384, then odds of 299,593/1, to my eyes having played the bloody thing, it was staggering.

Ok.


While I can accept that, I find it difficult to accept that any 7 hand sequence (or single ball) the odds of it repeating varies depending on the number of trials left, when it is duplicated, excluding any consecutive pick, which we both agree is a 1 in 16,384 shot.

I will attempt to explain.

Select ball from a bag, it is number 99, select next ball from bag, it is number 99, a 16,384 shot. fine with that.

Select first ball from bag, it is number 99, the next 4 balls, are 100, 89, 74, 12 the fifth ball out of the bag is number 99 again, a 1/128 shot, which has odds of 128 x (128 divided by 5) = 128 x (25.6) = 3,276.

The 6th ball out of the bag is number 12, which just happened to be the 4th ball out of the bag, therefore;
128 x (128 divided by 2) = 128 x (64) = 8,192

Going by that logic, the number 99 ball duplication had over 50% better odds of occurring than than the duplication of ball number 12.
I don't wish to sound deluded or anything, but to me, it simply doesn't make any sense.

I wanna say thanks for staying with me regarding this, no doubt I would have been severely lambasted and ridiculed posing this on WoV. Also it may prove beneficial down the line having a better understanding of the odds, which may possibly lead to more consideration on how I approach a shoe.

Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of a never-ending selection, omitting the within 8 trials.

Yes I know, but according to the maths which you have posted, once it happens, those odds differ according on when it was duplicated.

Cheers

 

"Are we not using the first 7 hands to define a Nemesis?" I asked.
"I never said that, my ball analogy summed it up." You replied.

Alright, I feel like we've been reading a different chapter in the same book. I'm'a defend myself here and say you were not clear with what you meant. The ball analogy did not clearly define your parameters.

Choose a ball, return it, and there is a 1 in 128 chance you will extract the same ball from the bag. Then you ask, "what are the odds of selecting the same ball twice in 8 trials." I read this to mean, what are the odds to extract the first ball chosen, once in 8 attempts. Except, this appears not to be what you meant to ask.

We are talking about what I referred to as a rolling nemesis. I thought using some terminology you are familiar with would help out our communication some.

So. You are asking what are the odds of any two balls being the same back to back with 8 attempts?
You are asking what are the odds of seeing a 1 in 16,384 shot in 8 Columns of 7 decisions?
You are asking what are the odds of seeing Column 1 and 2 match, or 2 and 3, or 3 and 4, or 4 and 5, or 5 and 6, or 6 and 7, or 7 and 8?

If so, then you are looking at 7 opportunities for a 1 in 16,384 shot to manifest. That would be 16,384 divided by 7. Which is once again coincidentally enough 1 in 2340.

In six deck shoe, with about 56 outcomes excluding ties. Creating 8 complete columns of 7 decisions. Only 1 out of every 2340 shoes should you witness a repeating 7 hand sequence back to back.

I would wager your consternation is seeing it more often.