Introduction to Million dollar Bac @ +5

[no3bet]

Ellis, I didn't get a reply the first time so I'll ask again.

I Have a few questions about +5.

When talking about +5 you mention "mechanical play" and playing "purely mathematically". I thought mechanical play and mathematics doesn't win or only breaks even at best?

Also you say with +5 we don't need to do table selection. Then why are there three (bas4o, baotb4l, bas40m1)+5 systems? If there is no table selection then can't we go to any table and sit down and just play one system? If we have to choose between the 3 systems then we must be looking for a bias that fits that particular system aren't we? How and why would you play one system over the other if there is no need for table selection? Thank you.

Before Master Ellis would give us an official response to those questions you have raised, I wish to submit my own thinking for other member’s discussion also. Perhaps Master Ellis when have time to response may correct any of my “wrong†thinking as below such that I may have a clarification of my own mind as well.

With the casino pre-shuffled cards nowadays, there is no better tricks they could introduce rather than mixing the three bias namely NOR into one single shoe. The worst kind of pre-shuffled cards would come depend upon frequency of sporadic one’s and two’s they may inject among the three bias and ruin our MC counts by varying the length of streaks that would kill us. The way I play have been trying to switch between systems of which is not recommended in order to handle them. After all we all have the basic techniques we have already learned from BTC and they are just S40, F, OTB4L and SAP as well.

So S40 and F may be combined into playing S40 alone by varying methods of handling runs using modes. However no matter what system or mode we play we always lose to a culprit whether it would be 2s, 3s or 4s. Progression betting let us try to overcome culprit loss but we never know how the game may go with culprits showing up that would cause us to lose. Losing could be so easy as we exhaust a full progression bets but winning them back is such a tiring job of no fun at all. So there has been arguments whether progression plays are useful or not compare to flat betting. Nevertheless what Master Ellis has always been good to us was to teach not to try winning by high bettings – whether with progression or not!

The way I see it difference among BaS40 and S40M1 (BaOTB4L has not been taught yet) from NOR is that the two playing systems try to amalgamate S40 and the handling of sporadic one’s and two’s such that any shoe may be handled within a deck of cards filled with all three NOR bias. And it is this S40M1 or BaS40 with the secondary prog set up that would function in a way just like jumping and winning over the sporadic 1’s with grouping of 2’s together and beat them under one mixed NOR method causing NO TABLE SELECTION possible. The formulation of a ZERO bet after an unconfirmed 2’s would allow us hitting the sporadic one’s with riding over sporadic 2’s culprit and beat it using a secondary progression set up.

S40M1 is indeed a primary flat betting system when playing under the 1st prog alone. Whether we should quit upon +5 reached will depend upon our own mood during plays with money management. For myself as a gambler I wouldn’t bother in switching table after +5 as Baccarat is supposed to be random and a 50/50 games itself as long as we continue to play. But for a Baccarat Mentor like Master Ellis he who must well define a stopping point such that a system like the +5 can be tagged SUCCESSFUL and WORKING with achieving goals.

So down to the bottom, my feeling is that BaS40 and S40M1 are basically the same. We choose among them to play just because any of us may wish to play a bit different on culprits handing. They should apply equally well to any of those so call random pre-shuffled cards with +5 goal easily achieved. And BTW would Master Ellis think it might be feasible to introduce yet another third split progression for the handling of 3’s and 4’s as well. But then we might be betting ZERO all over places instead of gambling.

Over the one year period of my joining the BTC, I have tried many times programming a spread sheet with planning onto a betting device that would allow beating the Baccarat game mechanically. I guess many of the BTC members were doing the same thing as I was. However none of those previous systems at my limited learning experience would work perfect or near well. Hopefully I may do this after the +5 systems could be completely learned from time to come! Look here Keith may begin chasing after me for royalty now.... LOL

Finally good luck to all the BTC members…

Very Best Regards,

AYS from Hong Kong

[Guest]

Hmm, lot's of questions - Good

Let's take "mechanical" play first.

Correct, I said all mechanical systems break even, long term.

Here we are talking purely mechanical systems such as the most common TB4L or TBL wherein you do the same thing regardless of what the shoe does.

Here, the known culprit is 2s. For instance TB4L losses every single bet to a TT run.

With normal 2s, TB4L breaks even. High 2s it loses. Low 2s it wins. No decisions.

The same with S40:

Now the culprit is 3s and we have to decide whether to bet ON or AGAINST 3s. That is why NOR has modes.

With NOR, we are taking 3 break even mechanical systems and making them win by matching them each to their favorite shoe type and then selecting the best mode for the shoe at hand. We can do this because regular cards often produce reliable biases. So the trick of it is following the bias. THAT is what gets you playing the right system in the right mode. BUT, that also causes lot's of decision making: Which system? Which mode? And how long do we stay on runs? Any mistake on any decision can cause you to lose. Changing biases can also cause you to lose.

F also has culprits. F2 the culprit is 2s on the weak side. F3 the culprit is 3s on the weak side. So again, a decision.

Now lets compare that to BaS40. The way Ann and I played it, it was not purely mechanical. We had to decide whether to bet ON or AGAINST 3s.

3s was the culprit. A 0 bet had simply not occurred to us. Our 6 bet prog was 121235.

Now lets compare all that to the +5 version of BaS40: Our 6 bet prog is now 120123.

First, we don't have a simple culprit like 2s or 3s or 4s.

We have one of two culprits: either 4 3s W/O a 4+ or 4 4+s W/O a 3. Either way, our culprit is FAR harder to hit than a simple culprit of 2s or 3s or 4s. It is darn near impossible to hit our culprit. Because instead of being able to hit our culprit in only 2 or 3 or 4 plays. It takes a minimum of 12 plays going exactly wrong to beat us in the one case and a minimum of 16 plays in the other case. Darn near impossible. See that?

Then we totally mechanized the decision making process by adding the 0 bet. If the 0 wins we do one thing. If it loses we do a completely different thing.

See, it is not mechanical because we don't play every shoe the same way. But instead of US making the decision which way to go, we let the 0 bet make the decision for us. Therefore it plays purely mechanical to us even though we are not playing all shoes the same way. See the difference?

Why do we have 3 systems? Again: Perhaps I wasn't clear the first time.

Mostly because we will not always be playing preshuffled cards. We want the +5 strategy to cover ANY shoe we decide to play whether preshuffled, regular or on line. I do NOT want to make NOR a prerecquisite of +5. Remember my saying that before? I want +5 to be stand alone.

But also because we are not always playing against NEW preshuffled cards. Sometimes the cards are several shoes old and biases are beginning to appear. Once cards are several shoes old it no longer matters how they started out. We will see streaky shoes and choppy shoes and neutral shoes. An example is the 18iar ZZ I got dealt at Sands B with older preshuffled cards.

Even with preshuffled cards, casinos will throw in a ringer now and then. For instance as soon as they see no one at a given table is betting on runs, they will throw in a shoe full of runs. Remember, the bundles are numbered. That is WHY they are numbered.

Next, note that while 2s is normally a devastating culprit to S40M1, the +5 version eliminates 2s as a culprit. The shoe posted has 8 2s - no problem.

The same is true of BaS40. 3s is no longer a culprit.

The only culprit of each is virtually impossible to hit.

Random: Sometimes I interchanged the term "random" with "preshuffled" cards. I shouldn't do that because preshuffled is not purely random. I should always call preshuffled "fixed". Yes, they are usually closer to random because they usually don't sustain biases. But, in general, we can expect preshuffled, on average, to be high in all events up to 6s and low in 7+s. That is what is influencing our system design. That is why we make the culprit 7s or 8s while favoring 1s thru 6s.

Now, to demonstrate that system selection is not nearly as important with +5 as it is with NOR, I'll play the same exact shoe, except I'll play it BaS40. You'll see it does almost as well and gets to +5 by play 31.

However Keith just called, 6:30AM, and asked me to start a new thread so he can see who can see it vs who can't to help him get the new forum private to the right members.

So I'll post the S40 shoe on a new S40 thread.

BTW, thanks for sending me your user names. I'll work on that list later today and if I'm still missing anybody I'll let you know.

Except, now each of the 3 +5 systems has another culprit. It is either a late 7 or a late 8 depending on how long we are staying on runs. That is why, if we have been seeing normal or high 7+s, we stay on all runs until we lose. And, of course, long runs of 7+ are only a problem if they strike before we get to +5. Once we hit +5 the first time we are guaranteed winners of at least +4. So, while 7+s are normally low with preshuffled cards, they wo't always be.

[gman72]

Question:

In the corrected S40M1 shoe, why is play #18 a 1 secondary progression bet if the zero secondary progression bet right before it at play #14 was a winning bet? Wouldn't we still be betting a zero secondary progression bet each time until it loses and then the next secondary progression bet would be a 1 bet?

Same question on the B361 example shoe played? The first zero secondary progression bet won, so why is the next secondary progression bet a 1?

[LOU30]

Hi gman,

The zero bet indicates if we go OTR or ATR with are progression depending on if it won or lost,it might help you if you go over the rules again.

Hope this helps you.

Lou.

[gman72]

Hi gman,

The zero bet indicates if we go OTR or ATR with are progression depending on if it won or lost,it might help you if you go over the rules again.

Hope this helps you.

Lou.

You are so wise to remind me to read the rules again. Thanks for that sound advise. (cue major sarcastic voice while reading).

[SteveO]

Sorry guys. I have another question and I can't figure this one out on my own.

At hand 3 after 2iar we start the secondary progression 0123 with the 0 bet. It loses so now we're looking for all 2iar's to become 3+iar's.

Shouldn't the bet at hand 14 be the second bet of our secondary bet progression, a 1, instead of a 0 (betting that this 2iar would go at 3+iar as determined by losing hand 3 with a 0 bet).

Or..

Why is the bet at hand 14 a 0 instead of a 1?

[gman72]

Why is the bet at hand 14 a 0 instead of a 1?

I think because the secondary progression bet of 1 at play #5 won, so you are starting the secondary progression over with a zero bet the next time it comes up at play #14. I think. But don't listen to me, I've been told to reread the rules, so I better do that.

[ztomsk]

I think because the secondary progression bet of 1 at play #5 won, so you are starting the secondary progression over with a zero bet the next time it comes up at play #14. I think. But don't listen to me, I've been told to reread the rules, so I better do that.

Yea that's right. It resets after any win after 0 on your secondary prog. Think of it as starting over once you clear your secondary prog with a win.

Try not to think of "winning" or "losing" the 0 bet. It's not really a bet... It just determines to go OTR or ATR with your secondary (123) bets.

[SteveO]

I think because the secondary progression bet of 1 at play #5 won, so you are starting the secondary progression over with a zero bet the next time it comes up at play #14. I think. But don't listen to me, I've been told to reread the rules, so I better do that.

Well I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed. I just didn't see that red 1 at hand 5. I think you've got it but I need to reread the rules.

Thanks.

[SteveO]

Hey Ellis, can we get more than one worked shoe to go with each +5 system?

[Bobby]

Thanks for the reply Ellis. I understand now that it's "mechanical" according to the zero bet and different every time. But I'm still not sure how we choose which of the three +5 systems to play at the start of a shoe at hand #2? When I sit at a table and the cards are about to be dealt at the start of a shoe, what makes me play bas40, bas40m1 or baotb4l?

Hmm, lot's of questions - Good

Let's take "mechanical" play first.

Correct, I said all mechanical systems break even, long term.

Here we are talking purely mechanical systems such as the most common TB4L or TBL wherein you do the same thing regardless of what the shoe does.

Here, the known culprit is 2s. For instance TB4L losses every single bet to a TT run.

With normal 2s, TB4L breaks even. High 2s it loses. Low 2s it wins. No decisions.

The same with S40:

Now the culprit is 3s and we have to decide whether to bet ON or AGAINST 3s. That is why NOR has modes.

With NOR, we are taking 3 break even mechanical systems and making them win by matching them each to their favorite shoe type and then selecting the best mode for the shoe at hand. We can do this because regular cards often produce reliable biases. So the trick of it is following the bias. THAT is what gets you playing the right system in the right mode. BUT, that also causes lot's of decision making: Which system? Which mode? And how long do we stay on runs? Any mistake on any decision can cause you to lose. Changing biases can also cause you to lose.

F also has culprits. F2 the culprit is 2s on the weak side. F3 the culprit is 3s on the weak side. So again, a decision.

Now lets compare that to BaS40. The way Ann and I played it, it was not purely mechanical. We had to decide whether to bet ON or AGAINST 3s.

3s was the culprit. A 0 bet had simply not occurred to us. Our 6 bet prog was 121235.

Now lets compare all that to the +5 version of BaS40: Our 6 bet prog is now 120123.

First, we don't have a simple culprit like 2s or 3s or 4s.

We have one of two culprits: either 4 3s W/O a 4+ or 4 4+s W/O a 3. Either way, our culprit is FAR harder to hit than a simple culprit of 2s or 3s or 4s. It is darn near impossible to hit our culprit. Because instead of being able to hit our culprit in only 2 or 3 or 4 plays. It takes a minimum of 12 plays going exactly wrong to beat us in the one case and a minimum of 16 plays in the other case. Darn near impossible. See that?

Then we totally mechanized the decision making process by adding the 0 bet. If the 0 wins we do one thing. If it loses we do a completely different thing.

See, it is not mechanical because we don't play every shoe the same way. But instead of US making the decision which way to go, we let the 0 bet make the decision for us. Therefore it plays purely mechanical to us even though we are not playing all shoes the same way. See the difference?

Why do we have 3 systems? Again: Perhaps I wasn't clear the first time.

Mostly because we will not always be playing preshuffled cards. We want the +5 strategy to cover ANY shoe we decide to play whether preshuffled, regular or on line. I do NOT want to make NOR a prerecquisite of +5. Remember my saying that before? I want +5 to be stand alone.

But also because we are not always playing against NEW preshuffled cards. Sometimes the cards are several shoes old and biases are beginning to appear. Once cards are several shoes old it no longer matters how they started out. We will see streaky shoes and choppy shoes and neutral shoes. An example is the 18iar ZZ I got dealt at Sands B with older preshuffled cards.

Even with preshuffled cards, casinos will throw in a ringer now and then. For instance as soon as they see no one at a given table is betting on runs, they will throw in a shoe full of runs. Remember, the bundles are numbered. That is WHY they are numbered.

Next, note that while 2s is normally a devastating culprit to S40M1, the +5 version eliminates 2s as a culprit. The shoe posted has 8 2s - no problem.

The same is true of BaS40. 3s is no longer a culprit.

The only culprit of each is virtually impossible to hit.

Random: Sometimes I interchanged the term "random" with "preshuffled" cards. I shouldn't do that because preshuffled is not purely random. I should always call preshuffled "fixed". Yes, they are usually closer to random because they usually don't sustain biases. But, in general, we can expect preshuffled, on average, to be high in all events up to 6s and low in 7+s. That is what is influencing our system design. That is why we make the culprit 7s or 8s while favoring 1s thru 6s.

Now, to demonstrate that system selection is not nearly as important with +5 as it is with NOR, I'll play the same exact shoe, except I'll play it BaS40. You'll see it does almost as well and gets to +5 by play 31.

However Keith just called, 6:30AM, and asked me to start a new thread so he can see who can see it vs who can't to help him get the new forum private to the right members.

So I'll post the S40 shoe on a new S40 thread.

BTW, thanks for sending me your user names. I'll work on that list later today and if I'm still missing anybody I'll let you know.

Except, now each of the 3 +5 systems has another culprit. It is either a late 7 or a late 8 depending on how long we are staying on runs. That is why, if we have been seeing normal or high 7+s, we stay on all runs until we lose. And, of course, long runs of 7+ are only a problem if they strike before we get to +5. Once we hit +5 the first time we are guaranteed winners of at least +4. So, while 7+s are normally low with preshuffled cards, they wo't always be.

[LOU30]

You are so wise to remind me to read the rules again. Thanks for that sound advise. (cue major sarcastic voice while reading).

LoL that reminds me of that blonde joke AGAIN!!!

[no3bet]

Since we are trying to get to +5 in each shoe, when would you quit this shoe. The 1st, 2nd or even the 3rd time we hit +5. I realize in practice it doesn't matter if we play to the end of the shoe, but, in the real world when would you quit?

I think I may have a better suggestion to answer of this question. For myself I would stay on playing as long as MC counts remain consistent.

AYS

[SteveO]

Could someone play and post this shoe? It's shoe No. 1 from the 60 Vegas Shoes PDF

B13211241221

P1421111212211

P233121112211

B323

Here is my shot. Note this is my first try with S40M1 and all my initial bets were supposed to only be one unit (other than hand 27)

[gman72]

Could someone play and post this shoe? It's shoe No. 1 from the 60 Vegas Shoes PDF

B13211241221

P1421111212211

P233121112211

B323

This blank copy may help get others to play and post. image2014_05_06_14_35_560001.pdf

Here is my copy played out. As you'll see I ended up much different than your play.

image2014_05_06_15_06_470001.pdf

Reached +5 at play 31. The wheels fell off starting at the bottom of the second column. I lost my secondary progression so started it over at play 42.

[gman72]

Here is my copy played out. As you'll see I ended up much different than your play.

[ATTACH]2929[/ATTACH]

Reached +5 at play 31. The wheels fell off starting at the bottom of the second column. I lost my secondary progression so started it over at play 42.

Here is what I did for reference. Please feel free to critique the play and point out mistakes. Thanks.

(PP=primary progression, SP=secondary progression, OTR=on the run, ATR=against the run)

Play by play of Shoe #1: S40M1 +5 version

4. 0 bet under the first 2iar.

5. Since the 0 bet won, stayed OTR.

6. Lost play 5 so back to PP betting opposites.

7. Lost PP at play 6 so SP bet is ATR because the 0 bet won at play 4.

8-10. Back to PP.

11. Lost PP at play 10 so a new SP starts with a 0 bet under the 2iar.

12. 0 bet loses so back to PP bet.

13. PP bet loses at play 12 so SP bet OTR since the 0 bet at 11 lost.

14-15. OTR bet since the SP OTR bet won at play 13.

16-17. Back to PP since OTR bet lost at play 15.

18. 0 SP bet under the 2iar since PP lost at play 17.

19. Back to PP bet since 0 SP bet lost at play 18.

20. SP OTR since the PP bet at play 19 lost and the 0 bet at play 18 lost.

21-23. Back to PP since SP bet lost at play 20.

24. SP 2 bet OTR since the PP bet at play 23 lost and the 0 bet at play 18 lost and the SP 1 bet lost at 20.

25. OTR bet since the SP 2 bet won at play 24.

26. Back to PP. Didn’t continue the OTR since the last run was a 4iar at plays 11-14.

27. PP bet.

28. 0 SP bet under the 2iar since PP lost at play 27.

29-33. Back to PP bets after the 0 bet loss at play 28. (Hit +5 score at play 31!)

34. SP 1 bet OTR after the PP lost at play 33 and the 0 bet loss at play 28.

35-36. Back to PP after SP loss at play 33.

37. SP 2 bet OTR after the PP lost at play 36 and the 0 SP bet loss at play 28 and 1 SP bet loss at play 34.

38. Back to PP after SP loss at play 37.

39. SP 3 bet OTR after the PP lost at play 38 and the 0 SP bet loss at play 28 and 1 SP bet loss at play 34 and 2 SP bet loss at play 37.

40-41. Back to PP after the SP loss at play 39.

42. Restart the SP over with a 0 bet after the PP loss at play 41.

43. OTR bet since the SP 0 bet won at play 42.

44. Back to PP bet.

45. SP 1 bet since the PP bet lost at play 44 and it was bet ATR because the SP 0 bet won at play 42.

46. Went back OTR after the ATR loss at play 45 for one more play to see if run would go to a 4iar.

47. Back to PP bet after OTR loss at play 46.

48. SP 2 bet ATR since the PP loss at play 47 and the 0 SP bet win at play 42 and 1 SP bet loss at play 45.

49-51. Back to PP bet after SP 2 bet loss at play 48.

52. SP 3 bet ATR since the PP loss at play 51 and the 0 SP bet win at play 42, the 1 SP bet loss at play 45 and the 2 SP bet loss at play 48.

53-56. Back to PP bet after SP 3 bet win at play 52.

57. 0 SP bet under the 2iar after PP loss at play 56.

58. PP bet after 0 SP bet loss at play 57.

59. SP 1 bet after the PP bet loss at play 58, the SP bet is OTR since the 0 SP loss at play 57.

60-61. Back to PP bet.

62. SP 2 bet after the PP bet loss at play 61, the SP 2 bet is OTR since the 0 SP loss at play 57 and the 1 SP bet loss at play 59.

63. OTR bet for one play after the 2 SP bet win at play 62, seeing if run will go to 4iar.

64-65. Back to PP bet.

66. 0 SP bet since PP bet at play 65 lost.

67. Back to PP bet since 0 SP bet lost at play 66.

68. 1 SP bet OTR since 0 SP bet lost at play 66.

[newbacplayer]

Here is my attempt using BaSB40M1: I've labeled each bet as to whether first or second progression. gb

This blank copy may help get others to play and post. [ATTACH]2927[/ATTACH]

Here is my copy played out. As you'll see I ended up much different than your play.

[ATTACH]2929[/ATTACH]

Reached +5 at play 31. The wheels fell off starting at the bottom of the second column. I lost my secondary progression so started it over at play 42.

[SteveO]

Thanks Mates! This will help me a lot.

FYI to the general public..Don't use my work as an example!

[stevep]

Several questions for Ellis:

1 - Can you please post a set of rules for each of the three systems with an example and explanation of each play?

2 - When do you quit a shoe (for real) not in practice, the first time you get to +5?

3 - What is the loss per shoe you would allow -5?

4 - Which system would you start a shoe with, if you start playing at the beginning of the shoe and have no information regarding the table?

5 - How long would you wait to start the shoe so you can determine which system to play?

[dinosaur331]

Great questions stevep, I would love to know some of the answers to those questions since I was about to ask some of them as well.

[joeystyle]

great questions stevep, i would love to know some of the answers to those questions since i was about to ask some of them as well.

when the students are ready, the master will appear.

[Guest]

Here is my attempt using BaSB40M1: I've labeled each bet as to whether first or second progression. gb

[ATTACH]2930[/ATTACH]

Well, not bad. I'm not sure where you went wrong. I'm guessing you just got confused. To fix that I suggest:

Get some 1/4" grid tablets at Walmart

Get a red pen

Always work in cols of 20 so you always know where you're at in the shoe

It is purely mechanical so there is only one right way:

Newbacplayers BaS40M1

Notes:

Play 15 determines how long you stay on next run of 4+.

Now, look at all the 1's and 2s at the beginning. Had you not started with BaS40 which is perhaps your best default system, you would definitely switch to it as follows:

[Guest]

Several questions for Ellis:

1 - Can you please post a set of rules for each of the three systems with an example and explanation of each play?

Again, the rules are the same for all 3 systems: I'll try different wording

1.) When you lose your primary prog and there is no secondary prog in progress bet 0 OTR

2.) When the 0 loses bet the rest of your secondary prog (123) OTR. When 0 wins, bet ATR. When you complete your secondary prog, start over.

3.) Each run of 4 or more determines how long you stay on the next run. Stay on the first run until you lose.

Note:

Your primary prog is:

BaS40M1: 1 on opposites

BaS40 : 1,2 on opposites

BaOTB4L: 1,2 on OTB4L

Your secondary prog in all cases is 0123. You might very rarely need a 5 and 8 but such a shoe has not come up yet and 5 and 8 are optional.

I'm posting as many shoes as is possible.

2 - When do you quit a shoe (for real) not in practice, the first time you get to +5?

Again, if you get to +5 by play 15, capture 4 and keep going.

3 - What is the loss per shoe you would allow -5?

-5 is max but if you are really struggling, change to the right system or try to quit at 0.

4 - Which system would you start a shoe with, if you start playing at the beginning of the shoe and have no information regarding the table?

I would NEVER ever do that. Playing in the blind is for complete amateurs. Always start a session mid shoe so that you already know what to play.

Preshuffled cards is the same cards every shoe. Start with the system that was best last time - unless they come out with new cards. That's when you want to wait until you know what to play. I think BaS40 will turn out to be our best default system but that can change from casino to casino.

Recognize that +5 is designed for preshuffled cards. NOR is still best for regular cards - unless you don't know it.

5 - How long would you wait to start the shoe so you can determine which system to play?

No set number. Start when you know which events are dominating.

High 1's or high 1's and 2s = BaS40

High 2s or high 2s and 3s = BaOTB4L

High runs either ST or ZZ or both = BaS40M1

SS is still F3

[newbacplayer]

Again, the rules are the same for all 3 systems: I'll try different wording

I would NEVER ever do that. Playing in the blind is for complete amateurs. Always start a session mid shoe so that you already know what to play.

Preshuffled cards is the same cards every shoe. Start with the system that was best last time - unless they come out with new cards. That's when you want to wait until you know what to play. I think BaS40 will turn out to be our best default system but that can change from casino to casino.

Ellis: First, thanks for the quick and clear rules posted above which apply to all three systems. However, in the discussions for the +5 system, the concept was that with a modest chip goal, +5, that the system could be applied to virtually any table and the mathematics would make the secondary betting progression a winner for a shoe without much in the way of table selection. In this MDB group, though, there are continual references back to basic NOR which does require table selection, and the statement above which suggests there should always be table selection. The +5 approach was initially discussed as a means of not needing strict table selection due to the secondary progression. Can you please clarify this? At my level of understanding these posts appear to contradict themselves. Thanks for your time. gb

[gman72]

Well, not bad. I'm not sure where you went wrong. I'm guessing you just got confused. To fix that I suggest:

I suggest double checking the original post of the shoe and transcribing it correctly would really help for comparing play, but that's just me. It's still a good example of how to play a shoe using the two systems, it's just not the shoe that was posted and worked by the original poster, SteveO at post #89, or me at post #90 with play by play at post #91, or by newbacplayer at post #92. The transcribing error at play 33 throws the rest of the shoe out of whack for comparison to the shoe played by others. Just saying.