Singles, 1's, Alternates . . .

[Jimskee]

. . .whatever you want to call them. The guy who posted the thing about singles is right on! When the 1's are distributed in around normal or average fashion they leave little room for a lot of long streaks. Though it can happen and does.

Example partial shoe from last week at MoSun

B2211411131211113111612121311 47 decisions. You'd like to see a few more 2's and less 4's and no 5 so it is not the best choppy shoe but you get the picture. I quit +7 for the simple reason that it had too many longish repeats and I don't like a shoe with so many 1's and not enough 2's and 3's. Could have been worse but I will wait for a better shoe.

What about the opposite? Low 1's - expect to see longer repeats, duh!

Jimske

[ECD]

. . .whatever you want to call them. The guy who posted the thing about singles is right on! When the 1's are distributed in around normal or average fashion they leave little room for a lot of long streaks. Though it can happen and does.

Example partial shoe from last week at MoSun

B2211411131211113111612121311 47 decisions. You'd like to see a few more 2's and less 4's and no 5 so it is not the best choppy shoe but you get the picture. I quit +7 for the simple reason that it had too many longish repeats and I don't like a shoe with so many 1's and not enough 2's and 3's. Could have been worse but I will wait for a better shoe.

What about the opposite? Low 1's - expect to see longer repeats, duh!

Jimske

There is much truth in what you say! A count of 1's vs norm is one of our strongest system selection indicators and nearly always right.

For instance: High 1's chop (+ O/R count) = S40 (That is what this shoe was)

High 1's Streak (- O/R count) = F2,3

Also High 1's whether streak or chop eliminates OTB4L consideration.

Following this simple system selection criteria, your shoe is calling for S40 right from the start.

Therefore:

Playing S40 U1D2 M2 with a PL of 3 (3 bets before going OTR for 1 bet only) The way I always start (and usually finish) S40, your ideal shoe marches right up to +20 at play 47 (last play) with a highest bet of 5 (only twice).

Granted, the early 4 gave you pause and monentarily brought your score down to -5 but well within our stop win/loss

(+20 -8) criteria. And you were back to even the very next play with no other dips into - territory.

+20 in only 47 plays is about as good as it gets given the average shoe is 72 plays + ties.

Chalk another one up for S40A!

What about the opposite? Low 1's - expect to see longer repeats, duh!

Jimske

Low 1's, neutral O/R count, high 2's and/or 3s = OTB4L.

Low 1's, - O/R count = F2,3

Low 1's + O/R count is impossible. (Fortunately)

There is ALWAYS a best system for the shoe at hand. When it is unclear it is best to find a better table but this particular table was about as close to ideal as it gets.

Recognize that for all low count events you must have equal high count events. You mathematically cannot have all events high or all events low. Fortunately. Because this is what makes your event counts such good indicators of system selection.

Are they always right? Of course not. But in Baccarat "usually" is the name of the game. Cash MGT and system switching takes care of the rest. I find that I initially select the right system first about 90% of the time using our system selection criteria. (S40A)

Edited March 9, 2011 by ECD

[ECD]

See Jim, what is "mumbo jumbo" to some is money in the pocket for the more enlightened who know how to use that munbo jumbo effectively.

[ECD]

Nikola Tesla was thought to be a scammer by most authorities right up until his death in 1943.

Today he is considered by experts in his field to be the father of the modern methods of electrical distribution.

Without Tesla the major cities in the world might still be powered by pneumatics as they were before his life.

Edited March 9, 2011 by ECD

[Jimskee]

There is much truth in what you say! A count of 1's vs norm is one of our strongest system selection indicators and nearly always right.

For instance: High 1's chop (+ O/R count) = S40 (That is what this shoe was)

High 1's Streak (- O/R count) = F2,3

Also High 1's whether streak or chop eliminates OTB4L consideration.

Following this simple system selection criteria, your shoe is calling for S40 right from the start.

Therefore:

Playing S40 U1D2 M2 with a PL of 3 (3 bets before going OTR for 1 bet only) The way I always start (and usually finish) S40, your ideal shoe marches right up to +20 at play 47 (last play) with a highest bet of 5 (only twice).

Granted, the early 4 gave you pause and monentarily brought your score down to -5 but well within our stop win/loss

(+20 -8) criteria. And you were back to even the very next play with no other dips into - territory.

+20 in only 47 plays is about as good as it gets given the average shoe is 72 plays + ties.

Chalk another one up for S40A!

Low 1's, neutral O/R count, high 2's and/or 3s = OTB4L.

Low 1's, - O/R count = F2,3

Low 1's + O/R count is impossible. (Fortunately)

There is ALWAYS a best system for the shoe at hand. When it is unclear it is best to find a better table but this particular table was about as close to ideal as it gets.

Recognize that for all low count events you must have equal high count events. You mathematically cannot have all events high or all events low. Fortunately. Because this is what makes your event counts such good indicators of system selection.

Are they always right? Of course not. But in Baccarat "usually" is the name of the game. Cash MGT and system switching takes care of the rest. I find that I initially select the right system first about 90% of the time using our system selection criteria. (S40A)

Any time a shoe maintains a decent degree of consistency it is easy to beat - choppy like this or streaky - doesn't matter. It's consistency that counts.

Yes, the shoe was okay, a winner so. . . both you and I have seen better. But that is neither here nor there. I don't like the O/R count as you use it. I don't think it is that effective but be that as it may.

The mumbo jumbo part:

S40A does not win if kept to your rules including stop loss and win. This has been documented. No big surprise since stop loss/win does not make a negative expectation game into a positive one. As far as rote mechanical stop losses go they don't hurt or help except for psychological reasons like staying fresh, maintaining discipline, etc.

Are they always right? Of course not. But in Baccarat "usually" is the name of the game. Cash MGT and system switching takes care of the rest. I find that I initially select the right system first about 90% of the time using our system selection criteria.

"Usually" is the operative mumbo jumbo word here. If we were "usually" right S40A would win!!!! That is what "usually" means, right? So why the need to employ "system switching?" If not then IF we were "usually" right then our "switch" would "usually" win. What's the switch rule?

Okay, fine. So teach your members how to switch because half of them win and half of them lose. Why do you think the whole world is NOT playing S40A or the other 20 systems you sell?

Jimske

[ECD]

Well. I tried being civil with this jerk, but that was obviously a mistake. Jim, That is exactly why you are banned from this forum. You lie as if you were some kind of authority. You aren't here to learn anything or teach anything. You are here for your singular purpose in life, to argue. That is what you do. That is ALL you do. Plus, your posts drip with jealousy.

S40A has never been tested or documented. You knew that was an outright lie when you wrote it. But you are being true to your nature - chronic habitual liar. I gave you a chance to withdraw your lie but instead you simply lied again.

S40A is a table selection / system selection approach to Baccarat. This cannot be tested using a pile of casino shoes. The best a tester could do is play all three component systems on every shoe and such a test would be completely meaningless. You don't even have anybody who knows how to play the 3 component systems let alone how to choose which to play on a given shoe or how to adjust PL for the shoe at hand or when to switch or how to adjust his betting strategy.

The guy on BF who played S40 against an RG did a lot better than I expected but this has nothing to do with S40A. Even when I wrote an early basic version of S40 on the BF forum I said right up front that it was a chop system for chop shoes. Yet he played it as a single overall system against an RG. You can't play a bias system against an RG. RGs have no bias. Yet he did so well that after many shoes he asked me if it were even possible to lose because he had won every single shoe betting U1D2 M2 every shoe no matter what. No table selection, no system selection, no betting strategy selection, no cash mgt.

A proper S40A test cannot be designed because there is simply no way to design a test for table selection.

If I were going to design an as close a test as possible I would take a pile of 1000 assorted complete casino shoes played at various casinos at various times of day. I would divide them into 3 1/3 piles by OR count. The highest + count third, the lowest - count third and the middle back and forth 3rd.

I would play the + third pile basing with S40 adjusting my PL (prog length) to my events count and adjusting my prog to the quality of the shoe. I would switch systems in the very few shoes (if any) that hit our switch criteria.

I would play the middle pile the same way except base with OTB4L

And I would play the - third pile the same way except base with F2,3

I'll win 80 to 95 % of the shoes W/O betting more than 5 units but I've still left out the entire component of table selection.

Is that what your fictional tester did? I sincerely doubt it. But that is about the fairest way a test could be conducted.

BTW, I'll bet you here and now that the OTB4L pile will favor the early hours of day, the chop pile will favor midday and the streak pile will favor night time.

Speaking of OR, the fact that you may not like the way I utilize the OR count is completely immaterial to me. I developed the OR count decades ago and have been using it successfully in casino for decades. You probably learned what an OR count was last month.

Look Jim, Keith convinced me to give you one more chance because you wrote a single sane post. OK, you've had your chance. You blew it catastrophically. Go back to BF where you can be a big frog in a little pond and play with your idiotic bogus odd even tie system. You are a complete waste of my time here and the member's time as well. If you like, we can take another member vote on it like we did last time. You might even get a vote or two this time. Let's see, there's Bacplay, perhaps Probac and there's.......there's .......

Edited March 10, 2011 by ECD

[ECD]

Members, since I mentioned the odd/even tie system I'll explain it here. Don't get hooked by this scam. A member of my forum designed it decades ago. When he designed it he meant well. But once he went into business selling this system AFTER I fully explained to him why it wouldn't and couldn't work, it became nothing more than a cheap scam.

The basic idea sounds good. 2 odds make an even and 2 evens make an even. Therefore you'd think that a high plurality of one or the other near the end of a waning shoe would increase the incidents of ties to something more than the normal 10% because the odd number totals are reduced. I told you. It SOUNDS good. In reality a high plurality of either odds or evens actually REDUCES the chance of ties.

Look, you can never have only evens left or only odds left. Too many cards left at the point of the last hand. About the best you could to is 3/4 of one and 1/4 of the other. Let's say a shoe somehow achieves this drastic count at the point of the last hand and 3/4 of the remaining cards are even number cards and 1/4 are odd. The dealer deals 4 cards. What are they MOST likely to be. 3 evens and an odd. Guess what. No matter how arranged, 3 evens and an odd CANNOT tie. It's impossible. I rest my case. It's a scam against the dim witted.

Oh, of course, when the author insisted on selling this bogus system anyway, I had to ban him from the forum and have nothing more to do with him.

Edited March 10, 2011 by ECD