Baccarat How regression towards mean (RTM) could help you escape the worst

We all know about gamblers' fallacy. It tells that expecting good wins after bad stretch is fallacious. I agree to this 100%. Even the worst of the worst stretch doesn't guarantee good times ahead. One can still get bad moments and below average hit rates for long. Historical wins/losses do not help in any manner to decide the future, even slightly is also as true. House edge/house fees guarantees below average hit rate or payout for all bets in a casino thereby killing most players, hands down.
But hang on, this is not all. One can win with 1 extra loss per 100 hands still with slight use of a negative progression. What kills us then?
There are two things that kill all progression players:
1. One long stretch of no hit
2. Below average(too much of below) hit rate for very long.

While first one kills Marty players, second one kills rest of all smarta## MMs created so far.
When the worst of worst hits, nothing can help us. Variance is unpredictable and its stretch is unpredictable too. Negative Variance could eat away all the players and specially progression players.

Now, how can Regression Towards Mean help:
First understand what it says, It says that after a very skewed/tilted stretch, subsequent stretches are more likely to go towards mean/average.
Now, let us break it in parts as I propose to use it:
1. A very skewed stretch: A stretch of losses(we only consider variance in negative for our cases) wherein, the hit rate goes at half or worse for 15 or more cycles. In case of EC bets, If in 30 hands, we get 7 or lesser wins, we can safely presume it to be a very skewed/tilted bad stretch. Hang on, this is not enough yet.

2. Watch out for a regression after the very skewed stretch: We do not start to bet even at a 7/30 case but watch out for a regression trend in further last 30 hands, forgetting the worst stretch that alerted us that a betting phase is to come. We do forget subsequent stretches going below the statistical average still and we start to bet only when our last 30 hands go to 12/30 or better.

3. Additional safeguard: Pause at three subsequent losses and wait for a virtual win to resume betting.

This way, we do not need to face the worst of the worst ever and whenever RTM starts working, we do well with an MM meant for long run. We can use the same strategy for any bet of roulette as well but for non EC bets, we need to configure numbers accordingly.

Now, anybody can bring one of the worst EC data from real casinos and evaluate this basic strategy oneself.
More to come...............

 

Very interesting concept. Now when you are talking about the 7/30 to move to 12/30, I assume you are creating a rolling 30-block of hands? In other words let’s say with the 31st hand there is a win, and a loss drops off at the front therefore you are at 8/30 and so on. This is how you are stating this? A lot of people would automatically assume that you would wait for 30 more hands and not until you have a situation that I described.

 

Yes, a rolling 30 block of hands or last 30 hands will be seen to find the running average. Once there is a clear regression towards 15, i.e. 12 or more in our case, it will be time to start to bet. If hit rate goes below 12, we keep it paused and another type of pause is also used this way.
I have provided with some of the worst recorded EC performances in this thread: https://www.gamblingforums.com/threads/worst-stretches-in-baccarat.15221/

Let us evaluate the first case this way:
If player is our bet, see horrible it is all over:
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
B
P
P
P
P
P
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
P
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
P

 

It will go like:
P
B
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
P
P
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
P
P
B
B
P
B
B
P
B
P
B
P
B
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
P
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
B
B
B
B
B
B
P
P
P
P
P
P

Isn't it easier to handle?

 

It is easy to comprehend that the worst cases could get us 1 win after 20+ successive losses or worse easily. It could also give us 30/100 cases, where nothing can win. Use my methodology and a sensible way to utilize the RTM could lead you to relatively safer zone and can surely safeguard from the worst possible, in any manner. For regression to work properly, we do need absolute harsh phases, not normal deviations.
While, it is possible to get one Win after even 25 successive losses, is it even possible that such events reoccur one after another? No, it is too remote to ever happen in our lifetime. Even for the sake of arguments, it happens, we are still safe and rather laughing at that with my RTM based safeguards.
This is one of my strategies to avoid the worst of variance. I can even play it all over without losing my pants and then recover back all later, thanks to RTM guiding me.

 

Am I missing something albalaha or does this require a LOT of waiting and few bets placed to be successful?

 

It is just a hint of how RTM can help you getting rid of the worst and could be configured in many ways.