The result of verifying the double-decker Dalambert → Surprising result? [Baccarat]

As the title suggests, this time I tried to verify the double-decker D'Alambert.
What kind of verification is that it can maintain the plus, and it is likely or unlikely that it can be maintained.
If you are interested, please see the continuation.

For the time being, it's a story of "assuming that both buildings can be built (premise)".
Since there is 0 in roulette, we will assume that the player will pay twice in live baccarat and the bunker will pay 2 times.
As I wrote in some article, you can see that both roulette and baccarat will be a loss if you build both flat beds. (See image below)

If it's flat and not good, what about betting that raises or lowers the bet amount?
How about D'Alambert because Martin and Monte Carlo have no choice but to be negative?So it is a verification.

It's a verification when you increase or decrease by 100 yen each time you win or lose at the start of a 100 yen bet.
* Set not to bet below the initial unit
* The top is the player and the bottom is the bunker.
* The result is 1 for hits and 0 for misses.
* Is it OK if you can see only whether the cumulative profit and loss at the bottom is positive or negative?

It's the best pattern in D'Alambert.It's a pattern that you can never lose if you win and lose alternately.

If there are two wins and losses, there is almost no difference, and as a result, it will increase, so this is also a winning pattern.

Even in the case of 4 to 5 consecutive hits, it is negative at first, but if you continue, it will gradually become positive, so even in this case you can maintain positive in a well-balanced manner (if the winning percentage converges). ..

In the case of irregularities, it will be a plus if the winning percentage converges (close to 50%) without first losing in a row.

If you lose 10 times in a row first and then win 10 times in a row, it will be negative as shown in the image above.
After that, even if I hit a wave of about 3 consecutive times and the winning percentage converged again, it became negative.
There was a moment when it became a plus, but if there was a bias that would keep the lowest bet, it would be difficult to recover, so I found that it would be quite severe if I lost 10 games in a row at the beginning.

From the conclusion, in this case, if there is a bias (mainly the occurrence of the first sword such as the first big consecutive defeat) that the bet with the initial bet amount is made several times or more, the probability will be converged until it becomes a plus. The road is tough, and in the first place, the commission is 0.05 times higher in the bunker, so it is not suitable for long-term battles.
To put it the other way around, if you don't have a bias of 10 times or more (around the initial bet amount) at the beginning or in the middle, it will be almost positive.It feels like you can make a plus at a level where you don't mind the bunker commission.Let's go next.

Supplementally, it is a case where the initial bet starts at 1000 yen and the unit of the upper and lower funds when winning or losing is 100 yen. (Is it difficult to understand?)
Let's look at the same pattern as before.

Oh?Of course it is a plus, but the profit is lower than the 100 yen bet start.In this case, there is a difference from the beginning, so the commission of the bunker has an effect and it is a plus, but it feels subtle.

In this case, it turned out that the final profit was larger than when starting at 100 yen.
Is this a feeling that the size of the initial bet amount is proportional?
Well, it's a pattern that can maintain a plus.

In this case, there isn't much difference, but the timing of turning positive is different, and the results after that are also slightly different.
However, this is also a pattern that keeps positive.

There is a timing that is positive, but in this case it seems that it will be difficult to become positive even if the probability converges.
After all, is it disadvantageous when there is a bias from the beginning?

By the way, in this case, it is a plus at the time of 10 consecutive wins after 10 consecutive losses, and as a result, even at the stage when the probability has converged, the result is a marginal plus range.
From the beginning, it turned out that if there is a difference in the amount of bets, it will be biased and if it converges, it will be positive.
So even if you lose the first big streak, if you can return the probability, it seems that you can make it positive as a result.

Compared to the 100 yen bet start, it was a bad plus if it was a light teleco or if it was not biased, but if a bias occurs and the probability can be returned, the initial bet amount ≠ 1 unit will be a plus. ..
I found that everything wasn't all bad (Konami)

This time, I tried to verify each roll pattern with two initial bet start patterns, but if the initial bet amount = 1 unit, most of them will be positive if there is no bias in the initial bet, and the initial bet amount ≠ In the case of one unit, it turned out that it is easy to make a plus when a bias occurs and the probability can be returned.
In other words, I think this is the summary.

So, in the first placeDalambert methodIt's an excellent method if you can converge the probability, but it turns out that you can use it even if you don't make a profit.
Of course there are patterns to lose, but there are more patterns to win, so I hope it will be helpful.
I was able to make a method that can win with a high probability instead of a method that originally had no chance of winning.Of course not absolutely.
Well, you can't build both live baccarat with one account, but if you can, "clear the withdrawal conditions for bonuses with less risk", "earn comp points", "just that with low risk in the first place" But I can increase it. "

I hope it helps.