Jimskee

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. "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

. . .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

To the poiint of S40A. It is my opinion that it is best to have a guideline method to play with and S40A is as good as any. BUT - it DOES NOT perfrom any better than Ellis' previous dozen methods when played by the strict rules. Every method needs to be adjusted according to the shoe conditions. How? You guess the trend and change the bet pattern and hope you win and use MM and discipline to stay ahead. Jimske

Ellis, please, did you just not say or intimate in "Attention Ellis" post that flat bet is not viable unless you discover certaiin "triggers" in individual casinos as per Paul Starr? Seriously, you have consistently ridiculed me for, well, a long time (Aegis, too) for advocating the viability of flat betting and now. . .??? Yes, you do have to win more hands then lose in flat bet - that's academic and also have to overcome the juice. Also academic. Is flat betting really harder then progressions? We still have to win more of the big bets than small bets and overcome the juice. It's simple really, for every bet that you lose in a progression you have to make another bet that is bigger than that losing bet to make a profit and pay the juice! Yeah, progressions can win more shoes but not necessarily a greater % of dollars bet. Jimske

Anyway this is all mumbo jumbo. Here is why! Casinos chanage their shuffle habits and quipments all the time. Any reasonable person understands that there is not a common pattern that any single casino delivers for any length of time. To think that a particular casino has stayed with the same biased shuffle for "years" is just beyond logic.It "may" be that certain shuffles at one time (before the sophisticated shuffle machines) were prone to exhibit predictable patterns but these days are over. What is more likely is that Paul wins flat bet or mostly flat bet the same way I do. Watching and guessing trends plus good MM and discipline. As far as S40A goes it has been tested against thousands of live shoes and has shown not to produce a win - this with or without MM. So how do you teach winniing? What is the rule to switch methods, stop betting, only bet certain shoes when you see a certain pattern(s)? It is just as you state above about Paul - 'not teachable." Jimske

Oh, so Paul Starr has what may be called "advantage bets?" So how come you ridiculed me for saying the same? The only things that are truly teachable are purely mechanical methods - which - don't work as you ahve stated many times. I think this goes for everyone or are you insinuating that with S-40A you don't need to be quite so disciplined? Can S40A win without table selection, MM, and Stop W/L goals?Also, regarding my deleted post above can you please explain my question about progressions? Is it not true that if a short progression like U1D2M2 going 4 or 5 deep works well then why the same progression going 6, 7, 8 or more deep won't work even better? Jimske

Deleted by Ellis for the same old reason, name calling. Some just never mature.