How to achieve a 100% win rate with MDB!

[Guest]

I had such a monumental idea yesterday I had to give myself time to think it all the way through.

I think very close to a 100% MDB win rate is mechanically achievabe. We might even use this idea to improve our expectancy from +5 to considerably higher which would make the whole Million Dollar plan go a lot faster.

Look, I realize how Leonard Bensonish this sounds but I can't help that. This idea came to me in my sleep a couple nights ago and I had to roll it over in my mind a little.

What triggered this was when gman posted that one shoe played all 3 ways. It won with both S40M1 and S40 but not OTB4L.

Then Glen posted about including S40M3 because of its super high win rate.

NOR depended almost entirely on system selection.

MDB, we often win with all 3 systems and nearly always with at least 2 out of 3.

First, I think we can make it 4 systems by including S40M3 which wins a LOT of units in the right shoes but at higher risk. But what if we knew exactly when to unleash it and exactly when to keep it caged???

What if we ALWAYS knew which system to play and we also had an early warning system on when its time to switch systems - a purely mechanical way to play dodge ball perfectly.

Well there IS a way! SAP not only tells us exactly which system is best but also by how much, as well as when to switch.

I've already mentioned that:

High 1's and high 1's and 2s is BaS40

High 2s and high 2s and 3s is BaOTB4L

High runs both ST or ST and ZZ is BaS40M1

Now we can add:

High 1's and/or 2s and/or 3s = BaS40M3

Eash system also has its dislikes, which I only posted about in the dodge ball post so I'll need to also list the dislikes of each system.

Each MDB player MUST know both the likes and dislikes of each system but that is easy because it is all also plain common sense.

OK, on our score cards we set up a SAP chart.

But instead of listing only 1's, 2s, 3s and 4+s, we add 4s, 5s, 6s and 7+s.

The weigted SAP multipliers are:

1's = 1

2s = 2

3s = 4

4s = 8

5s = 16

6s = 32

7+s = 32

For instance whenever we have a confirmed 3, we add 4 to the 3 column in our SAP chart.

Now, we not only know which system is BEST to play,

We also have precice evidence when to stay on and when to get off of runs of all lengths.

SAP averaged +6, 2 Hi. The only time we had a problem was when all events are running close to normal. (very rare)

BUT, when this occurs with MDB, all 3 systems win because there is no way to lose our secondary prog.

See, the only way we can possibly lose a secondary prog right now is when one event is extremely high.

BUT, in that event, SAP would be telling us to change systems to exploit the super high event.

I can't figure out anything wrong with this approach.

I won't say 100% like Leonard would. But I feel pretty darn comfortable saying 99%.

Think of it as automated, mechanical dodge ball.

While I already knew that MDB would have the highest win rate of all time, this trick jumps it straight up to the top floor.

Questions and comments?

[Quizzical1]

Ellis,

It sounds like what I could have used last Saturday LOL....

I personally never played SAP and am not familiar with how the weighting correlates to system selection. Can you post an example shoe on how it is played?

[newbacplayer]

Please do post an example of this idea. I don't know what you mean in terms of "multipliers" or the SAP count. Thanks, Greg

[Golfgirl007]

Please explain what a SAP count is and how to use it. I have never learned SAP before. The idea you have about adding a 4th system and using the SAP count to direct us is great. Please post what I need to know about SAP. Thank you.

[gman72]

I certainly can appreciate how SAP can help considerably, but if we open that can of worms here I'm afraid we may run the risk of another 4D disaster. From all I've read SAP is proven to work, but it can be complicated to teach and learn. The beauty of the 5+ MDB method was to simplify things. I'm not opposed if that's the way we go, I am just concerned it could bog things down. Maybe there is a simpler SAP method to incorporate?

[joeystyle]

I certainly can appreciate how SAP can help considerably, but if we open that can of worms here I'm afraid we may run the risk of another 4D disaster. From all I've read SAP is proven to work, but it can be complicated to teach and learn. The beauty of the 5+ MDB method was to simplify things. I'm not opposed if that's the way we go, I am just concerned it could bog things down. Maybe there is a simpler SAP method to incorporate?

Some of the oriignal contributors to this forum assisted Ellis to fine tune SAP as we know it today. They all had success in using it in one form or another, and have shared it openly here so people like myself can take advantage of it. NOT finding ways that we could use SAP to our benefit in the long run could be our nemesis. There is a tremendous amount of information that is being expressed here overall. I wish I knew how to do this myself, if there are other members who have time and know how, to sub divide the 3 MDB method presentations (including SAP) post shoes with explanations in separate sections, this would be so much easier to navigate and comprehend fully.

Not sure if this question has been answered in any of the threads pertaining to MDB, will there be a video version offered for sale regarding the June 24th Vegas Seminar? Some of us may have scheduling conflicts and will not be able to attend.

[no3bet]

Dear Ellis,

Personally I concur with you 100% with the necessity of tracking SAP. From my first day of joining BTC it was your theory on “Shoe Bias†that I or we all believe and have been following. That’s the whole principal and reasons of playing the NOR way. No other gambling theory or website in this world teaches the way you have been teaching us. In my mind or we all know that there would be no system that can beat any shoe without tracking bias. Otherwise it would be similar as you have just said recently such a system is like a gun without the need of aiming. In Baccarat we can only play “Follow†as any prediction system will just not work.

Now that whether it is necessary to create a SAP table in real time or not is just a matter of experience in playing NOR. Most of us (at least myself) do not need a SAP table as you can simply follow the tote board real time that already told us all the information. However inside our mind the SAP method of play has always been used and followed. Whether people follow them by road map or superstitious, what’s important is that it is yourself who has systemized the Baccarat events trend into SAP table that counts and it's a Science by itself.

The problems of today’s pre-shuffled cards are that BTC old style SAP table has been outdated. The counting up to 5’s is just not reliable anymore. Whether we shall upgrade our counts to 6’s or 7’s or shall we separate B&P counts into separate columns will rely on your professional experience with advice and teach us. I remember there was a post earlier asking about whether to quit or stay after achieving +5, it immediately came into my mind that the only reason to stay after +5 will depend upon how consistent MC counts have been and that was my response to it. In today’s shoes, MC is simply unstable and our old SAP table counting up to 5’s can neither predict nor is it as useful as before. And it is probably the reasons and needs behind for your creation of this MDB program with set up of secondary prog for the countering. In my view the casino in addition to sporadic one’s and two’s have also done a real good job on creating inconsistent MC events.

Now that at BTC our entire betting concept is on events rather than just P and B. Inconsistent MC events is what exactly taking our bank rolls away. They are worse than sporadic one’s and two’s as our F system may just barely handles them as we often cannot predict where the hell is our SS going.

Anyway my suggestion is that we must contemplate and design a system using SAP as our guide to handle both streak and ZZ runs for MDB. SAP will systemize the MDB +5 program and completes it. It seems annoying to track at a first glance. However it would just be the same as you have meant to say before that after some cycle of practice there is not even a need of using score card to play the MDB systems. Nevertheless we do need the rules of system defined. The addition of tracking SAP counting is just not the same as 4D. We can all track them in our heart after practicing as recordings have all been done by the tote board already.

Good Luck to all the BTC members…

Very Best Regards,

AYS

[no3bet]

Please explain what a SAP count is and how to use it. I have never learned SAP before. The idea you have about adding a 4th system and using the SAP count to direct us is great. Please post what I need to know about SAP. Thank you.

Here is some of my collection on SAP. It is unfortunate that such system is almost forgotten nowadays.

AYSSAP Tracking.pdf

[newbacplayer]

I'm curious as to whether the concept of a SAP count in a random shoe is as meaningful? It seems to predict the opposite of what the secondary bet progression is designed to take advantage of the the +5 systems. In other words, the secondary bet is for the previous event to be different than the current event, whereas SAP appears to suggest that perhaps the previous event will repeat. Any thoughts? Greg

[no3bet]

I'm curious as to whether the concept of a SAP count in a random shoe is as meaningful? It seems to predict the opposite of what the secondary bet progression is designed to take advantage of the the +5 systems. In other words, the secondary bet is for the previous event to be different than the current event, whereas SAP appears to suggest that perhaps the previous event will repeat. Any thoughts? Greg

The Secondary prog is set up more like a short implementation of Matingale. Same as the 1,2 primary prog. We are counter betting events that is not likely to happen again. SAP would tell us one way or the other.

AYS

[ECD]

I'm curious as to whether the concept of a SAP count in a random shoe is as meaningful? It seems to predict the opposite of what the secondary bet progression is designed to take advantage of the the +5 systems. In other words, the secondary bet is for the previous event to be different than the current event, whereas SAP appears to suggest that perhaps the previous event will repeat. Any thoughts? Greg

This is the fundamental problem with mixing SAP with the +5 approach. SAP works when there is a shoe bias. +5 is designed for no bias (random). Don't see how you can use SAP to tell you one thing when the entire approach for the secondary progression is based on the opposite of what SAP would tell you. I have used SAP in my play, and when there is a consistent bias it is awesome. But +5 for random shoes is a different animal.

[no3bet]

This is the fundamental problem with mixing SAP with the +5 approach. SAP works when there is a shoe bias. +5 is designed for no bias (random). Don't see how you can use SAP to tell you one thing when the entire approach for the secondary progression is based on the opposite of what SAP would tell you. I have used SAP in my play, and when there is a consistent bias it is awesome. But +5 for random shoes is a different animal.

Pardon me if I am wrong. We can only win when the shoe is bias. When our PP is winning the shoe is bias and when our SP is winning the shoe is also showing a bias. Even when we go for Runs and win is a result of bias as well. What is causing us to lose are inconsistence MC. To me the +5 is just trying to sort out bias and separate betting them after either first, second or forth liners. Have a try with this shoe:

B 111153136

P 1114112213

P 4131113113142

Do you think this is random? Now try to beat it with the 3 +5 programs.

AYS

[Guest]

In reply to all 4 of you:

Yes, all excellent, sharp eyed observations:

A Martingale would be 1 2 4 8 16 etc. A 0123 secondary prog is hardly in the same league.

"Random" is a term I used for preshuffled cards because they are closer to random than regular cards after a card prep. I should not have used that term. Random is random. There is no such Mathematical concept as "close to random."

A much better term is "fixed" with strong biases artificially removed. Long runs are also removed.

Another term not found in Math but decidedly found in the real world is "super random". In BJ such a condition produces the very best player condition.

I believe it can also be exploited in Bac.

My observations of preshuffled cards is that on average, 1's 2s 3s 4s and 5s occur at greater than true random would permit, at the expense of 7+s. 6s seem about normal. 15 or mores have been completely removed for all practical purposes. Hence, we have "super random" - a highly exploitable condition just as it is in BJ.

Here is how I see it:

MDB has two obstacles:

1.) Choosing or switching to the best system, or at least avoiding the worst system. Our primary prog is totally determined by what 1's, 2s and 3s are doing.

2.) Our secondary prog must simply avoid the situation of one target event occurring 4 times before its neighboring event occurs once.

At any point in a shoe one event(s) MUST be higher than normal while other event(s) must be correspondingly lower than normal - a simple rule of math.

If all events are running exactly normal (rare) we win by default no matter which system we are playing - Because there is no way to lose our secondary prog under that condition.

So, is there anything that says a condition will persist? No, correct, there is none. Fortunately, there is also nothing that says we must stick to the same system. Checkmate!

All is dependant on an accurate count of events relative to one another.

Any avid player can do this in his head at the beginning of a shoe. But what about column 3? Even 2? By then most players have lost track of events.

They may know full well what to start with. Fine but we also need to know what to switch to later in the shoe.

When an event(s) is high we want our primary prog to include it. We ALSO want our secondary prog to avoid it.

See, we are using SAP for virtually the exact opposite of the purpose I origionally designed it - what to avoid rather than what to bet on.

Our primary prog choice takes care of itself. We know when we made a bad choice or when its changing from its hit rate.

With our secondary prog all we need to avoid is an event occurring much higher than normal and/or much lower than normal.

Even this some players can do in their heads. But when so close to random, all of us may need the dead accurate count that SAP provides.

I intend to sell this method to the world market. Most will need a mechanical way to determine which system to use. I want to make it available for those who want to use it.

Whether you guys think you'll use it is completely up to each individual.

[newbacplayer]

Thanks, Ellis. That makes sense. I would very much like to see a sample shoe scored in this way, with marked decision points regarding system of choice and change of system! Thanks, Greg

[LOU30]

I think this SAP tracking idea is a fantastic idea and I am really looking forward to some more information on the concept!

Thanks Ellis.

Regards Lou.

[newbacplayer]

I calculated some SAP values for several older shoes I'd played and found the information quite revealing in terms of what systems would be weak in playing the shoe. Question: what are the multipliers for? Can you explain what they are communicating, as opposed to simply a count of 2s, 3s, 4s, etc. ? Thanks.

[Guest]

I calculated some SAP values for several older shoes I'd played and found the information quite revealing in terms of what systems would be weak in playing the shoe. Question: what are the multipliers for? Can you explain what they are communicating, as opposed to simply a count of 2s, 3s, 4s, etc. ? Thanks.

Gladly, and you won't be the first to ask that question:

The 50% rule is a mathematical fact of life. It says that 2s will nomally occur half as often as 1's; that 3s will normally occur half as often as 2s and so forth.

Therefore, a simple count of events does us little good because it would greatly favor the shorter events - by 50% in fact. It would give us misleading information.

What we actually need to know from a betting standpoint, is which events are occurring MORE than their NORMAL frequency and which events are occurring less.

Recognize that by mathematical law, for every event(s) occurring more than normal we MUST have corresponding event(s) occurring less than normal by an equal amount. This tells us which events to bet ON and which events to bet AGAINST.

But from an MDB perspective it tells us which of the 3 +5 systems is the best to play thus far in a shoe AND perhaps more importantly, which is the worst.

We know that basically:

High 1's is BaS40

High 2s is BaOTB4L

High 3s is BaS40M3

High 4s is BaS40M1

Well if we leave it at that, we would virtually always end up playing BaS40 because virtually all shoes have higher 1's than any other event.

But we KNOW from shoes posted thus far that BaS40 is not always best. It nearly always wins, mind you, but often one of the other systems would have been a surer thing or would have won better.

OK, the SAP multipliers give each event the correct weighting to make it DIRECTLY comparable to the other weighted events.

So when we read the weighted events across the bottom line of our SAP chart we are correctly comparing apples to apples.

So when SAP says 2s are high, for instance, you know full well that you should be playing BaOTB4L even though an ACTUAL count of 1's would be telling you to play BaS40. It is telling you that 2s are high RELATIVE to their normal frequency of occurrence.

And it is giving you PRECISE comparisons vs simply guessing. And it gives you an early warning system when system selection is starting to change mid shoe. It is a very mathematically astute heads up way of playing.

Now that we have eliminated modes altogether, system selection becomes our single source of trouble. BUT SAP can completely mechanize system selection so that you are always selecting the best system for the shoe at hand, or at least eliminating the worst. This has a direct bearing on shoe win rate.

You may not totally get it at first but once given the chance to roll it over in your head a little, I'm sure some light bulbs will begin turning on.

[Guest]

I'm convinced that adding SAP to MDB as a mechanical way of mathematically optimum system selection is a natural.

But I'm having second thoughts about the value of carrying SAP past 4+ iars. Taking SAP only to 4+iars already tells us everything we need to know for system selection and switching systems. Carrying it further gives us info about whether to stay on runs vs where to get off but I'm not sure that info is any better than the way we currently do runs.

The important thing to know about runs is whether to stay on them until we lose or not. SAP carried only to 4+s already tells us that.

When 4+s are high, we want to stay on all runs until we lose.

I'm thinking we want to keep SAP as simple as possible and therefore take it only to 4+s just as we did before.

This would make our SAP multipliers:

1's = 1

2s = 2

3s = 4

4+s = 4

[ztomsk]

And it is giving you PRECISE comparisons vs simply guessing. And it gives you an early warning system when system selection is starting to change mid shoe.

I am usually able to get out of a shoe early enough with profit. But I must say the most trouble I've gotten into wasn't shoes "all over the place", but shoes that go from one clear bias to another midshoe. Its basically like 2 separate shoes. It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen enough to take notice.

When would you make the switch? Literally when the SAP numbers indicate? Or after a certain spread/time?

Some shoes change and stay that way and some change only to change right back. Right now I've just been riding it out and can usually win a unit or two or break even. But I don't like doing that and know I gotta switch. I like the idea of SAP but fear switching too early because some shoes do return to how they started.

[Guest]

OK getting back to Glenn's question: How do you actually do this?

First, it is EXTREMELY simple:

You can keep track by adding 4 SAP columns to your score card: P# P B S 1 2 3 4+

But I think that is the bulkier way of doing it.

I think you are best off with a separate SAP chart with the headings 1 2 3 4+.

Every time your shoe produces an opposite it produces a confirmed event length the prior play so you need to fill in your SAP chart after every opposite only.

For instance, a shoe begins with BBB P. Fine, play 4 confirms a 3iar. The multiplier for 3s is 4. So you would add 4 to your 3 column.

So if that was the start of a shoe you would fill in the firt line of your SAP chart with 0 0 4 0. See that?

Now lets say the shoe continues so that from the beginning your shoe goes BBB P BB P. Fine, 5 confirms a 1 and play 7 confirms a 2. So now you can fill in the 2nd and third lines of your SAP chart. The first line remains 0 0 4 0. Your second line will be 1 0 4 0. The 3rd line will be 1 2 4 0.

So so far, 2s and 3s are high and 1's and 4+s are low. THIS is telling you point blank to play BaOTB4L. No if, ands or buts about it. AND when the shoe changes to favor a different system, your SAP chart lets you know immediately. Pretty darn sharp, isn't it?

And, as you use SAP, you get better and better at it!

[Wendel]

So, when SAP indicates a change of systems, would we end the shoe there ,draw a line on the scorecard,

abandon any on going sp's & reset everything as though we were beginning a new shoe ?

[Guest]

I am usually able to get out of a shoe early enough with profit. But I must say the most trouble I've gotten into wasn't shoes "all over the place", but shoes that go from one clear bias to another midshoe. Its basically like 2 separate shoes. It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen enough to take notice.

When would you make the switch? Literally when the SAP numbers indicate? Or after a certain spread/time?

Some shoes change and stay that way and some change only to change right back. Right now I've just been riding it out and can usually win a unit or two or break even. But I don't like doing that and know I gotta switch. I like the idea of SAP but fear switching too early because some shoes do return to how they started.

Good! Your question indicates you are catching on quick. When you first start it is probably best to go by actual SAP comparisons.

BUT, as you use SAP you can't help but notice changing trends early. You will find yourself noting things like: Well 2s are still high but 1's are catching up fast at the expense of 3s. So I think I will change from BaOTB4L which likes 2s and 3s, to BaS40 which likes 1's and 2s. You might do this even before SAP demands that you do it. You are reacting to the constant snap shots SAP is giving you of trend changes. Like I say, you can get better and better at this. SAP is the next best thing to outright cheating.

Right, you can't be changing systems with every SAP count. You can't be jumping the gun. Give the shoe room to maneuver. Eventually you will know the difference between normal fluctuations and true trend changes. This is a new concept for you. Give it a chance to focus.

[newbacplayer]

Thanks Ellis. All of this additional explanation today is helping quite a lot. Greg

[Guest]

So, when SAP indicates a change of systems, would we end the shoe there ,draw a line on the scorecard,

abandon any on going sp's & reset everything as though we were beginning a new shoe ?

Hmm, excellent questions!

First, sp's (secondary progs) have huge odds in their favor before they start. But not so huge when we get to the point of awaiting a 3 bet.

We should be looking for ANY good reason to abandon a secondary prog that is awaiting a 3 bet. Such as, our score meanwhile hits +4 or more.

OR SAP is telling us to change systems.

S40M1 means our sp is a duel between 2s and 3+s. Therefore we get the most secondary progs.

BaS40 puts the sp duel between 3s and 4+s. We get about half as many sp's.

Ba0TB4L puts the sp duel between 4s and 5s but both ST and ZZ so we get just as many as S40.

But ANY time we change systems we change the sp combatants.

So, often that is the reason we changed systems.

For instance, suppose we are playing BaOTB4L but we note high 4s. Thats a double whammy against us, Not only does high 4s give us more sp's but it makes a duel between 4s and 5+s too lopsided for our comfort.

Best to drop everything and back off to S40M1 which not only likes 4s but changes the sp duel to a more comfortable 2s vs 3+s..

Other than pending sp bets, the only time I can see your question coming up is when SAP is telling you to change systems right after a losing primary 1 bet. Do we bet 2 where the new system would bet or do we start over at 1?

See that's where a goal of only +5 gives us a big advantage. We can AFFORD to start over at 1. Suppose SAP is telling us to go to S40. WHY did SAP tell us that? The only reason is because 1's are either high now or catching up fast. We are in a chop section. Suppose the next 4 events therefore were the very common 2112? Well that's +4 right there. Probably more than enough to put us over the top.

See, fortunately each of the 3 +5 systems has TWO things it likes. Gives us a little leeway. Gives SAP a pretty big target.

S40 likes 1's and 2s

OTB4L likes 2s and 3s

S40M1 likes 1's and 4+s

S40M3 BTW likes 1's, 2s and 3s. That's why it wins so often.

[gman72]

Here's a shoe for practice: image2014_05_21_11_13_260001.pdf

See how you would play it out different ways based on the SAP counts and the trend directions.