Sarrom
-
Posts
72 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Sarrom
-
-
When playing a strong sided shoe, I know that our default mode is 3.
Rather than switching strong sides based on how the shoe was playing out (ie - 4+iars), wouldn't it make more sense to play the modes based on the difference between the aggregate totals of P's and B's?
Therefore, if we had a Banker dominant shoe, we would play m3 vs player runs and m2 vs banker runs. In the NOR manual, it mentions the that the dominant side could switch back and forth... I think this principle is reflective of the same logic as playing modes by OR count.
Thoughts?
-
Ellis,
Thanks for last post.
To recap:
+OR count = mode 3
- OR count = mode 2
What if we're playing OTB4L and we encounter a zz run? Would the same rule apply? Wouldn't the modes reverse?
Thanks.
-
Thank you for the clarification.
With my first go at NOR, I went about the play very mechanically. I dont think I made a great enough effort to really internalize the concepts. This time around, I'm trying to better absorb the ideas so I can better play to the conditions and also evaluate the quality of the conditions at time of play.
Question: what if we encounter a zz run while playing OTB4L and a +OR? Wouldn't we rather play M2? you mention that we want to out last the chop, but if zz are common, wouldn't we want to play on those as quickly as possible?
In regards to the S40m1, if we wait out the TT's after losing a 2nd bet, does that mean the moment it breaks is when we jump back on? If playing u1d2, would I continue to progress? It seems to me that this particular play style is more fitting of a 2 high betting strategy, where we would not count the eventual 1 bet loss OTR as part of the progression.
It just dawned on me, that since we are playing to shoe biases, for a beginner who may not be comfortable with Mode play, they could simply skip the Modes entirely, and just finish off their progression after the 'spike' had finished. A consistent shoe bias would be enough to make them a winner on the shoe. I know it's mentioned that we can flat bet or skip the Modes. In the past, I thought it was weak to pass, but would get frustrated when I chose the wrong one. I have some different ideas now on how I would go about M play now.
Ex). If I chose to play tighter, so I was confident with every bet, I could pass on the first couple of M plays, and by the third, begin applying both the OR count and LC to my M plays.
Ellis, please don't think that I'm trying to convert the NOR in any way. I am merely just expressing some ideas on how I could build my confidence most quickly, with the least amount of variance. Playing to biases is brilliant, but in the past, whenever replaying my shoes, my greatest area of opportunity was deploying the modes properly.
-
Hi all,
I've been out of the bacc loop for a while but am ready to jump back in!
As I was perusing the site, I came across a post where Ellis mentions using the OR count for mode selection. I haven't been able to find the post again, nor have I been able to find the original post.
Can someone post a refresher?
If I had to take a guess, I would say that anytime the OR count is positive, the mode selection would be conducive to the first opportunity to play and opposite. If the OR is negative, then we would play the quickest opportunity for a repeat.
ex1) S40/+OR count/3iar: we would play mode 3... a negative count would result in mode 2
ex2) OTB4L/+OR count/4iar: we would play mode 3... a negative count would result in mode 2
Now, as I was beginning to provide an example with F play, I realized that F, if selected properly, would almost always be a - OR count, and as such, the same logic would apply to a +OR count for S40 and pretty much negate an entire mode. I'm quite confused... if somebody could clarify.
Perhaps we play a the trending OR count over the last 10 or 15 hands?
-
A very intelligent question Sarrom!
Personally, I and the 3rd bet rule go by the latest information at least until/if that proves wrong. When it does, which is usually rare, the best thing to do is stay in the mode showing the highest propensity.
For instance, if the third bet rule has kept me in the right mode for half a shoe or so and then suddenly tells me to switch modes based on one lonely event, I'm likely going to ignore that last event until my ignorance proves wrong.
The idea with modes in NOR+ is to USUALLY be right. That way U1D2 can take up the slack. With OTB4L I freqently stay in the same mode for a whole shoe unless that mode is wrong more often than it is right. The chopier a table is the more I favor Mode 3 and the streakier it is the more I favor Mode 2.
But F is really a different creature because you are only interested in the run length on the weak side. Sometimes when the weak side is VERY weak, I'll stay on the SS all the way to a 4 bet. (I sort of create a Mode 4 for that particular shoe.) Of course that backfires now and then.
One OTB4L shoe in Vegas Zebra found himself saying to me: Why are you betting P will go 3 when it stayed at 2 the last 12 times?" I replied: "That's just too many 2s!" I was right!......That time!
Have you ever considered making the decision based on the OR count or trending of. Ie) a neg trend in the OR count goes mode 2, and vice versa. Also, would you consider different modes for different sides?
Thank you.
-
Lets say for example that there are 3 2's and then 1 3 when we enter mid shoe. Would you suggest playing m3 because 2 are most common, or m2 because the last streak on the weak side was a 3?
-
No one betting U1D1M2 is being overly cautious - more the opposite.
But come on! Saying I can play OTB4L but not F is like saying I can play pool but not marbles.
I could teach a roo to play F.
You "follow" the most recent 2 for mode 2 - F2, or the most recent 3 for mode 3 - F3.
If you are seeing more 2s on the other side than 3+s, you play F3.
If you are seeing more 3+s on the other side, you play F2.
If you change sides and lose the first bet, you change right back.
You play F when you are seeing mostly long straight or ZZ runs.
And you play F when one side is much stronger than the other.
just play one practice shoe by the above instructions and you should have it.
F is Baccarat for idiots - but it often makes you look like a genius.
You can get shoes where you never change sides and you automatically score in the 30s or 40s.
The more you are changing sides the less you want to play F.
Start by playing on the strongest side.
F2 change sides when the other side wins 2. (You lose 2 bets)
F3 change sides when the other side wins 3. (You lose 3 bets)
Sometimes you are playing F2 on one side and F3 on the other.
It is especially designed for people our age. Just try to stay awake.
BTW, yes I often go back and look over table I rejected. Sometimes they have turned good by then - and sometimes worse.
Having said that about F - if you walk by a table that has dealt about 20 hands and its clearly B dominant, but just ran off 4 Players in a row, would you jump on the Player streak, as if you've been playing since the beginning, or, jump on the dominant side?
-
Thanks for the clarity Ellis.
When you are referencing most common, do you mean most dominant occurrence within the shoe at hand, or occurrences vs their expected probability?
-
I too am looking for a SAP breakdown, with LC/MC and how to implement them.
I'm assuming it is a way to count frequencies of occurrences?
Any link or explanation is much appreciated.
Thanks.
-
Hi Steve,
Great post on the trending of the OR count!
I'm new to NOR, and have come across this situation countless times in my live shoes as well as my practice shoes.
The info seems solid and logical, but having gone through many posts and the NOR manual, Ellis points out that fundementally,
it's not good practice to change approaches within the shoe.
As such, my question to the vets would be, can you win using basic NOR alone?
I'm a big believer that if you want to become a master, you must master the basics. My challenge
with the application of this principle is that the basics here don't seem to be cutting it. There is a derivative play to every
situation. This provides a challenge to the newbies like myself.
If we were continuously assessing shoes throughout, would it not make more sense, to break the shoe into
equal parts, and make a small win target for each segment? Our shoe goal could remain the same, but our approach
could be different. The strategy would be a function of OR count and current trend - say, the last 8 hands.
Any thoughts to the above are appreciated.
-
Thanks for the reply Ellis. I'm still new to NOR and am trying to hone in on the basics before moving forward with the advanced stuff. My impression is that if we become good with our table selection, the most basic approaches S40/F and OTB will be enough to create consistent wins.
As such, in the manual, you mention that if you can't decide what to play by the 12th hand, you should just pass as the bias isn't strong enough. However, I have come across many tables that have gone 30 to 40 hands deeps that would be profitable with 2 of the systems. Ex) shoe starts choppy, then goes streak, and then choppy again. Would you consider jumping in playing the more profitable of the 2 systems? Or, would you pass because you couldn't define the right approach, or the starting approach didn't hold?
Thanks
-
Hi Guys,
A question for the Pros...
I understand that we are encouraged to be selective with our shoes... My question is what is the average number of shoes you play for every 10 shoes/tote boards you come across?
Thanks!
-
Ahhhh - that makes sense. Thank you.
-
Hi All,
I hope everyone is kicking butt!
I'm new to NOR, and have a question regarding 'On The Run' play while playing the OTB4L.
If we start encountering chop, while playing OTB, do we bet opposite to the OTB bet, meaning we hit the play as a chop? I had assumed that OTR meant we play on the streak. But, regardless of Mode, that would be same as continuing with OTB.
Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
OR Count Correct?
in BeatTheCasino.com Q and A Baccarat and Blackjack
Posted
Looks good to me