Possible simplification for 4D...

[Quizzical1]

Hi All,

THIS IS A WORK-IN-PROGRESS but, please feel free to critique and let me know your thoughts ok?

I've been having pretty good luck with using this for about 2 months now and it reduces your "calculations" by roughly 20% or so.

Give it a whirl and let me know.

In a nutshell:

Score card heading: Still PB0123 S (score)

We all know what this is correct?

If you just keep track of the 4 counts as we always have - which I think is attainable - you can remove the net betting 1 v 1 columns and just bet OPPOSITE the last decision of the count closest to zero (remove the +/- signs) for up to 5 using the same 1234 progression on a loss. Then bet SAME AS on counts that break above 5, flat betting until a loss.

For example, for a count like this:

Column 0=1, Col 1=-2, Col 2 = 0, Col 3 = 2

You would bet the OPPOSITE of what column "2" (O/T) last result just did. So, if last hand was an O (OTB4L) bet next result will be a T (TB4L).

Same goes for all other counts:

If 0 column has the lowest current value, bet OPPOSITE last decision (if P, bet B; if B, bet P).

Repeat for other 3 columns.

I've been able to easily perform this at casino speed by cutting out the 1 v 1 columns.

You follow the same 123 4 betting prog - writing the bet value in the P/B outcomes.

I love the mechanical nature of the 4D, but feel we still need to find that "golden value" of when to switch to SS flat betting (seems to be near the 4 or 5 value) since iar streaks are the Achilles Heel of this method. BUT, if we only need to get to +5.......

Ellis to the rescue?........

[Guest]

Right Glenn! As I explained to the testers, net betting is the same as betting a count will go toward 0.

You might take a look at this: It might work better but be careful because it might not - for some reason I'm not yet seeing:

Instead of always betting opposite the lowest count, bet it will go toward 0. That MIGHT improve your hit rate. At least it did well in testing.

Try it and let me know your findings. We never tried only opposites but who knows, that might work better???

[Quizzical1]

Right Glenn! As I explained to the testers, net betting is the same as betting a count will go toward 0.

You might take a look at this: It might work better but be careful because it might not - for some reason I'm not yet seeing:

Instead of always betting opposite the lowest count, bet it will go toward 0. That MIGHT improve your hit rate. At least it did well in testing.

Try it and let me know your findings. We never tried only opposites but who knows, that might work better???

Excellent point Ellis!

I'll try a few shoes - comparing the two and see.

Dumb question - what about a count that's AT 0? Do I bet opposite last decision on those? Or, bet it follows its trend from previous decision?

UPDATE:

Sample shoe ref: B312211132121

Yes Ellis, when I reran my shoe using your "approaching zero" method the results were better. I was able to hit a +8 vs +4 in 20 hands.

Seems like a toss-up for solving the "at 0" decision, though.

For my 20 hand sample shoe that had 10 "0" counts in it I got 6 that followed thru (-1 to 0 to +1) and 4 that "bounced off" (-1 to 0 to -1 or +1 to 0 to +1).

[Guest]

Right, "at 0" would be a no bet.

You might have just got lucky betting toward 0. Try some more.

The choice is a real brain teaser. If you picture a count that crosses 0 now and then like the lowest count does, it seems to me that it can only be going toward 0 half the time. In fact it would HAVE to go toward 0 half the time.

So toward 0 you are guaranteed a win half the time - perfect for a negative progression.

But, a count that hovers 0 MUST change direction a LOT. So betting opposite also makes a lot of sense.

Consider a count that goes +2+1+2+1+2+1. Betting opposite you win every bet. And the lowest count usually does that a lot.

It's giving me a headache.

[Quizzical1]

Right, "at 0" would be a no bet.

You might have just got lucky betting toward 0. Try some more.

The choice is a real brain teaser. If you picture a count that crosses 0 now and then like the lowest count does, it seems to me that it can only be going toward 0 half the time. In fact it would HAVE to go toward 0 half the time.

So toward 0 you are guaranteed a win half the time - perfect for a negative progression.

But, a count that hovers 0 MUST change direction a LOT. So betting opposite also makes a lot of sense.

Consider a count that goes +2+1+2+1+2+1. Betting opposite you win every bet. And the lowest count usually does that a lot.

It's giving me a headache.

Sorry Ellis, didn't mean to cause you additional agony.

Will do, I'll try a few more shoes, but I know from past history (so far) that I can at least get to +5 "sometime" in the shoe.

Again, my main concern is long iar's (streak or ZZ) since they kill any profit made very quickly. We need to define the cutoff / switching point from net betting the opposite to strong side betting so that runs of formidable length (5+) can be handled as they come up.

[kkriats]

Thanks Glen to share your approach with us. I was also experimenting something more simple in 4D. As you said I like the mechanical way of 4D. I see if I can include your thoughts in my way of seeing 4D. I was thinking to go with the trend whenever this possibility comes up. How? I am tracking the 4 counts and I am focus on the last 3 values. If I see for example +3, +4, +5 in the OT/TB count there is a tendency to OT so my next bet will be on OT. If I am in a minus count lets say -7,- 6,-5 I am going to bet again OT despite the fact that I am in - count and normally I have to bet on TB. If I have -2,-1,-2 I am not betting at all. It should be 3 different numbers. If you have 2 count that indicates opposite bets I stop. If I have 2 counts that indicates the same side I will double my units.THIS IS ONLY MY TRAIL PLAY AND I DON'T RECOMMEND TO ANYONE FOR LIVE PLAY BEFORE EXTENSIVE TESTS. The key word for me is tedency, direction or whatever you name it. Ellis?

Kostas

[kachatz1]

Tendency and Direction.

Couple with the biggest disparity so far in the shoe, bet accordingly ( often, you will decide to "sit out" , as nothing-is-clear.)

In point of fact, this is Nor +/4D combo....

Not sure why we gave up on this, but somehow, coupled with the TWIST, I am winning my highest PA ever....

Maybe +5 Million even better??

No matter, I wish for all of you to be THE BIGGEST WINNERS!!

[Quizzical1]

Thanks Glen to share your approach with us. I was also experimenting something more simple in 4D. As you said I like the mechanical way of 4D. I see if I can include your thoughts in my way of seeing 4D. I was thinking to go with the trend whenever this possibility comes up. How? I am tracking the 4 counts and I am focus on the last 3 values. If I see for example +3, +4, +5 in the OT/TB count there is a tendency to OT so my next bet will be on OT. If I am in a minus count lets say -7,- 6,-5 I am going to bet again OT despite the fact that I am in - count and normally I have to bet on TB. If I have -2,-1,-2 I am not betting at all. It should be 3 different numbers. If you have 2 count that indicates opposite bets I stop. If I have 2 counts that indicates the same side I will double my units.THIS IS ONLY MY TRAIL PLAY AND I DON'T RECOMMEND TO ANYONE FOR LIVE PLAY BEFORE EXTENSIVE TESTS. The key word for me is tedency, direction or whatever you name it. Ellis?

Kostas

Thanks Kostas,

I'll give your suggestions a try and report back.

[Quizzical1]

Tendency and Direction.

Couple with the biggest disparity so far in the shoe, bet accordingly ( often, you will decide to "sit out" , as nothing-is-clear.)

In point of fact, this is Nor +/4D combo....

Not sure why we gave up on this, but somehow, coupled with the TWIST, I am winning my highest PA ever....

Maybe +5 Million even better??

No matter, I wish for all of you to be THE BIGGEST WINNERS!!

Kevin,

Are you saying that a good idea would be to bet only when the highest and lowest disparities - and possibly the Twist all point to the same bet?

[kachatz1]

Quiz-

Call me and I will explain.

I apologize there is no 1-size-fits all cicumstance, but there IS an answer for every circumstance

Nor+/4D is simply the best answer to the game I have found in almost 20 years of playing.

The math of THE TWIST is not my invention, but is ir-refutable( is that a real word?)

Kevin

850-687-3128

[Quizzical1]

Right, "at 0" would be a no bet.

You might have just got lucky betting toward 0. Try some more.

The choice is a real brain teaser. If you picture a count that crosses 0 now and then like the lowest count does, it seems to me that it can only be going toward 0 half the time. In fact it would HAVE to go toward 0 half the time.

So toward 0 you are guaranteed a win half the time - perfect for a negative progression.

But, a count that hovers 0 MUST change direction a LOT. So betting opposite also makes a lot of sense.

Consider a count that goes +2+1+2+1+2+1. Betting opposite you win every bet. And the lowest count usually does that a lot.

It's giving me a headache.

Ellis,

Good call - I did run a few more shoes and yes, some perform better betting opposite like I was doing while others better with the "approaching zero" strategy.

[Quizzical1]

Thanks Glen to share your approach with us. I was also experimenting something more simple in 4D. As you said I like the mechanical way of 4D. I see if I can include your thoughts in my way of seeing 4D. I was thinking to go with the trend whenever this possibility comes up. How? I am tracking the 4 counts and I am focus on the last 3 values. If I see for example +3, +4, +5 in the OT/TB count there is a tendency to OT so my next bet will be on OT. If I am in a minus count lets say -7,- 6,-5 I am going to bet again OT despite the fact that I am in - count and normally I have to bet on TB. If I have -2,-1,-2 I am not betting at all. It should be 3 different numbers. If you have 2 count that indicates opposite bets I stop. If I have 2 counts that indicates the same side I will double my units.THIS IS ONLY MY TRAIL PLAY AND I DON'T RECOMMEND TO ANYONE FOR LIVE PLAY BEFORE EXTENSIVE TESTS. The key word for me is tedency, direction or whatever you name it. Ellis?

Kostas

Kostas,

After re-running my test shoes using your method I find it works about as well as my "bet opposite lowest count" version.

Maybe that's as good as it gets?

[Quizzical1]

FWIW - there STILL seems to be something special about when one of the counts goes above 4 or sometimes 5 to switch to SS flat betting. It would be nice if we could nail that # down (IF possible, of course).

Also, it's becoming more evident to wait at least 7 hands to start betting and don't rely on the OO/TT count until at least hand 10.

[kkriats]

Kostas,

After re-running my test shoes using your method I find it works about as well as my "bet opposite lowest count" version.

Maybe that's as good as it gets?

Glen for me it works good up to now. I am trying to include in my mode of play some thoughts from Kevin's and your approach

[Quizzical1]

Glen for me it works good up to now. I am trying to include in my mode of play some thoughts from Kevin's and your approach

Awesome! Please let us know if you find any improvements - I'm eager to know.

[kachatz1]

4D is NOR+ on steroids.

In some circles, they will look at you playing, and think you are on drugs.

In others, they will comment you are THE BEST PLAYER they have ever seen.

There simply is no magical simplification.

But, you want to W.I.N., NOR+/4D is without doubt, the best system ever" invented"

Ellis just gave up on it too soon...like trying to tell a 10th -grader..." don't worry, Calculus is EZ"

For Ellis, it is.

For the rest of us, keep it 5th grade math and we are all in.

4D is 5th grade math.

Anyone wants to continue this dialogue, let's do it.

[kachatz1]

There is no simple, simplification for 4D

Read the entire NOR forum, beginning to present, and you understand " RomeWasNotBuiltInADay"

You don't understand NOR?

----hard to " get"/ understand 4D

You are an NOR " expert" ??

-----you will understand 4D in about 15 minutes

( oh, and PS, you are not an NOR expert, it might take you a long, long time to understand 4D,,,,)

Either way, NOR will lead you to the Golden Gate

4D is like icing on the cake...

But first , make sure you have a cake-pan, and you know how your oven behaves...

[kachatz1]

Quizzy-

You, or anyone , calls me I will give them 'the skinny' on how/ why/when I win with Nor+\4D

And tell you the truth, why you cannot/ will not win every time.

Ouch.

The Trurh hurts

.( but you CAN win 7-out of -10 shoes )

Shhhh.. Let's keep this a secret......

[Guest]

Kostas,

After re-running my test shoes using your method I find it works about as well as my "bet opposite lowest count" version.

Maybe that's as good as it gets?

Glenn, you are definitely on to something big. I gave this a lot more thought. I bounced those thoughts off John B. He concurred and decidedly so.

I don't know if all you guys can see numbers in your head as I can. But you are playing in accordance with a solid mathematical rule that I simply never noticed before. No one ever has.

"The lowest spread MUST have the most opposites of all 4 counts." That is a mathematical FACT of life. THAT is what is giving you your wins.

Picture in your mind a spread of +1 to -1. In order for the count to stay within those confines it MUST have far more opposites than repeats. See that?

It must have an opposite at both +1 and -1 and it will have an opposite at 0 half the time. That's like 5 opposites for every repeat.

Now picture -2 to +2. It MUST have an opposite at both -2 and +2. +1, 0 and -1, it must have an opposite half the time. Again, far more opposites than repeats.

Picture -3 to +3. Still far more opposites than repeats.

OK, prior studies indicate the average spread of all 4 counts is about 7.

Therefore we know the avg spread of the lowest count MUST be less than 7 - probably closer to 6.

And we know a spread of 6 MUST have more opposites than repeats. Voila!

Plus, since we are simply betting opposites, we don't care where 0 is. We don't care what the axis is. -3 to +3 is just as good as -1 to +5. See that?

If 2 counts are tied for low we can simply go with the lowest spread.

But the more you think about it the better it gets:

We can use the spread to dictate our progression!

For instance: A spread of 4 or less we should definitely be betting U1D1 on opposites.

A spread of 5 we back off to U1D2

A spread of 6 we need to go with NOR, betting on the HIGHEST count.

Runs, right, so far they are a major problem.

BUT we can take care of that the same way we take care of runs with Basic S40. We can use the prog within a prog feature.

When the counts reaches its outer limit, either + or - , we bet ONE unit that the count will break out of jail. That means we are betting 1 unit on the run.

If that 1 bet wins, fine, we can stay on the run until it loses. That puts us ON all runs and eliminates runs as a problem.

But if that 1 bet OTR at the outer limits of the spread loses, fine, next time we are at the outer limits we bet 2. Next time 3. then 5, then 8. You are betting that sooner or later the count will break out of jail. Chances are you will never get to the 8 bet - maybe once every 50 shoes or so.

Now Glenn, I doubt everyone here understands your terminology of always betting opposites:

If the lowest count happens to be PvB fine, you are always betting opposite the last circle. I'm hoping everyone understants that.

But lets say the lowest count is count #3 - OTB4L vs TB4L.

This means if the last circle was OTB4L, you bet TB4L and if the last circles was TB4L, you bet OTB4L. Right Glenn?

Now you are taking advantage of the FACT that the lowest count is also the count with the MOST opposites. Does everybody see that?

Now we already have ALL the rules for the whole system. We will likely need some clarifications so that everyone completely understand the rules but all the rules are already there.

Glenn, you said a mouthful when you said I always get to at least +5.

I think with the above rules you WILL close to always get to +5. Simply BECAUSE the lowest count has the most opposites and THAT is your primary bet.

So, big whip, maybe once in a blue moon you get to -5 first. Inevitable. But to average +5 or more is also pretty much inevitable.

So you tie right back into the million dollar plan with a very simple system anybody could learn.

Does everybody see that? And you are betting on sound mathematical fact. You are betting WITH the odds. See that?

John, what do you think?

[Dazza]

Oh please can we get some examples of all this stuff

It is so much easier to learn.

And also the other system you were doing the basic s40 one as well

Or will there be new threads for these methods

Thank you

Dazza

[Guest]

Oh please can we get some examples of all this stuff

It is so much easier to learn.

And also the other system you were doing the basic s40 one as well

Or will there be new threads for these methods

Thank you

Dazza

Right Dazza, concrete easy to learn systems that can all average +5. And if we can do that, the sky is the limit. And yes, we can have shoes and play by plays for all of this. Everyone can choose for themselves whether they want to go the Basic way or the simplified 4D way. I'm no longer sure which you might find easier.

The Basic way was averaging +5 20 years ago. Then we went to SAP that averaged +6 but only for the few that could play such a complex way.

But I think every member here can learn Basic Baccarat and/or Simplified 4D (lets call it S4D). Both are simple.

Sure, we will still get really good shoes where we can go to +20 - such as an S4D shoe that never breaks out of jail or super streak shoes where the high count goes to 15 or 20. And we'll get super chop shoes that BaS40 kills or super neutral shoes that BaOTB4L kills. Those will take careof the occassional -5 or even -8 shoes.

We've never had a clear cut objective before but now we do "Average +5 or better". It is so much easier to get there when you know where you are trying to go. So OK we'll have 2 different routs to follow. But isn't 2 better than 1?

I am totally convinced that Glenn has stumbled onto a Baccarat breakthrough that NOBODY ever saw before. But the FACT is that the lowest count MUST have the most opposites of all 4 counts. Pure math. And we know exactly how to take advantage of that fact.

[Guest]

Kevin, I want you to think about something:

Re your super bet - your twist:

I think you are being too arbitrary on choosing what to bet it on.

I'm sure you have found out by now that the way you are doing it, it doesn't always work.

But it could have a MUCH higher success rate, very easily.

Why be arbitrary when we are collecting so much shoe data?

There is ALWAYS a highest count.

It might be P or B or Ops or Reps or OT or T or 00 or TT.

But there is ALWAYS a highest count.

What does that mean?

It means that in the shoe at hand THAT is what is happening the most.

THAT makes it the safest bet with the highest hit rate.

All you need is a 50% hit rate.

The highest count ALWAYS has a hit rate higher than 50%.

Kevin, are you catching my drift?

Well then, fix it! THEN you'll be very close to can't lose - as close as it is possible to get.

[Quizzical1]

Glenn, you are definitely on to something big. I gave this a lot more thought. I bounced those thoughts off John B. He concurred and decidedly so.

I don't know if all you guys can see numbers in your head as I can. But you are playing in accordance with a solid mathematical rule that I simply never noticed before. No one ever has.

"The lowest spread MUST have the most opposites of all 4 counts." That is a mathematical FACT of life. THAT is what is giving you your wins.

Picture in your mind a spread of +1 to -1. In order for the count to stay within those confines it MUST have far more opposites than repeats. See that?

It must have an opposite at both +1 and -1 and it will have an opposite at 0 half the time. That's like 5 opposites for every repeat.

Now picture -2 to +2. It MUST have an opposite at both -2 and +2. +1, 0 and -1, it must have an opposite half the time. Again, far more opposites than repeats.

Picture -3 to +3. Still far more opposites than repeats.

OK, prior studies indicate the average spread of all 4 counts is about 7.

Therefore we know the avg spread of the lowest count MUST be less than 7 - probably closer to 6.

And we know a spread of 6 MUST have more opposites than repeats. Voila!

Plus, since we are simply betting opposites, we don't care where 0 is. We don't care what the axis is. -3 to +3 is just as good as -1 to +5. See that?

If 2 counts are tied for low we can simply go with the lowest spread.

But the more you think about it the better it gets:

We can use the spread to dictate our progression!

For instance: A spread of 4 or less we should definitely be betting U1D1 on opposites.

A spread of 5 we back off to U1D2

A spread of 6 we need to go with NOR, betting on the HIGHEST count.

Runs, right, so far they are a major problem.

BUT we can take care of that the same way we take care of runs with Basic S40. We can use the prog within a prog feature.

When the counts reaches its outer limit, either + or - , we bet ONE unit that the count will break out of jail. That means we are betting 1 unit on the run.

If that 1 bet wins, fine, we can stay on the run until it loses. That puts us ON all runs and eliminates runs as a problem.

But if that 1 bet OTR at the outer limits of the spread loses, fine, next time we are at the outer limits we bet 2. Next time 3. then 5, then 8. You are betting that sooner or later the count will break out of jail. Chances are you will never get to the 8 bet - maybe once every 50 shoes or so.

Now Glenn, I doubt everyone here understands your terminology of always betting opposites:

If the lowest count happens to be PvB fine, you are always betting opposite the last circle. I'm hoping everyone understants that.

But lets say the lowest count is count #3 - OTB4L vs TB4L.

This means if the last circle was OTB4L, you bet TB4L and if the last circles was TB4L, you bet OTB4L. Right Glenn?

Now you are taking advantage of the FACT that the lowest count is also the count with the MOST opposites. Does everybody see that?

Now we already have ALL the rules for the whole system. We will likely need some clarifications so that everyone completely understand the rules but all the rules are already there.

Glenn, you said a mouthful when you said I always get to at least +5.

I think with the above rules you WILL close to always get to +5. Simply BECAUSE the lowest count has the most opposites and THAT is your primary bet.

So, big whip, maybe once in a blue moon you get to -5 first. Inevitable. But to average +5 or more is also pretty much inevitable.

So you tie right back into the million dollar plan with a very simple system anybody could learn.

Does everybody see that? And you are betting on sound mathematical fact. You are betting WITH the odds. See that?

John, what do you think?

Exactly, Ellis.

I play it the same way it has always been intended, but I eliminate the extra accounting used to track the Net Betting 1 v 1 columns.

Guys, just do this:

- Label you column headings P B 0 1 2 3 S (for score). No net betting columns needed

- Record the outcomes as usual - circles in the P or B columns

- Fill in your counts as you go like we always have

- Wait until hand 7 MINIMUM, now look at your counts

- Whatever count is closest to 0 - on either side, + or -, bet the next outcome will be OPPOSITE that count's current one. NOTE: If two counts are lowest, choose the left-most one

- Stay at 1 unit on all wins, use the 1234 prog on all losses

Here is the shoe (excuse my "chicken scratch penmanship"):

[Bobby]

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for posting a score card. Just wanted to ask about hand #15. Should that bet be on column 3 instead of the O column since column 3's count is a zero and the O column that you picked is at a -1 count?

Could you please also post another score card with a full shoe or most of a shoe just to see how it would play out? Thanks again.

[Quizzical1]

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for posting a score card. Just wanted to ask about hand #15. Should that bet be on column 3 instead of the O column since column 3's count is a zero and the O column that you picked is at a -1 count?

Could you please also post another score card with a full shoe or most of a shoe just to see how it would play out? Thanks again.

Good catch Bobby!

Yes, it should have been on Column 3 instead, but as you can see the result would have been the same.

These "slight" accounting errors that can - and are - easily made is all the more reason to forgo the 1 v 1 net betting columns - less writing.

I have no full shoes yet since I've only played to +5 and then quit - could care less what happens after that. But I can tell you if a 6+ iar run is hit things start to get sketchy as far as decisions go.

The main goal should be to get to +5 as quickly as possible before any of the counts get above 5 or so. If this version of 4D is to survive it will need a definitive solution as to how to proceed when counts run high.

The sample shoe I posted was "prettied up" from what my score cards look like LOL. So what you see is my BEST....sorry I can't do better.

I have played around with Wizard of Odds Baccarat game - set to auto deal - and is a great practice tool to help get your count recording speed up to snuff. And I've noticed it produces A LOT of iar streaks which the 4D - with present rules as I understand them - cannot beat.

This could be a GOLDMINE to see if the 4D strategy can be fine tuned to beat shoes on that site!