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

Glenn: Thanks for asking. Not a stupid question at all! Greg

Here is a shoe that I worked on in each of the three +5 methods. I created a column for primary progression and a column for secondary progression to clarify where the bets came from. I followed Ellis' recommendation in terms of not betting on the bet after the secondary progression in the OTB4L. This is clearly a shoe where OTB4L didn't do so well, unless I made a terrible mistake along the way. Anyway, it is a chance to compare the three +5 methods on the same shoe. BaOTB4L +5.pdf BaSB40 +5.pdf BaSB40M1 +5.pdf

Well done, Gman. I've just started working on some old shoes with this method today trying to keep the secondary progressions straight for both straight runs and ZZs. Arrived at exactly the same question as you. Whether to continue on the run in situations like that. gb

Ellis: First, thanks for the quick and clear rules posted above which apply to all three systems. However, in the discussions for the +5 system, the concept was that with a modest chip goal, +5, that the system could be applied to virtually any table and the mathematics would make the secondary betting progression a winner for a shoe without much in the way of table selection. In this MDB group, though, there are continual references back to basic NOR which does require table selection, and the statement above which suggests there should always be table selection. The +5 approach was initially discussed as a means of not needing strict table selection due to the secondary progression. Can you please clarify this? At my level of understanding these posts appear to contradict themselves. Thanks for your time. gb

I think this does relate to the discussion as to whether a variant of SB40M1 +5 is the best way to deal with neutral shoes, as mused about in a previous post. This suggests that some variant of OTB4L +5 will be a necessary tool in the arsenal. gb

Note: this is my attempt at S40M1: each line highlighted in yellow is the secondary progression. Tough shoe for this approach because certain shoe events repeated when we are betting against them repeating. Let me know what errors I've made so I can improve. Thanks, gb

Here is my attempt using BaSB40M1: I've labeled each bet as to whether first or second progression. gb

I believe, if I've understood, is that because the first run lasted for 9 plays IAR, plays 3 through 11, that determines that you will follow the next run for up to nine: hence going OTR at play 16. Because this loses, in the future, use 4 Plays IAR to determine how long to stay on runs [Plays 12-15 determine this]. Please correct me if I'm wrong in this understanding.

Nice job. gb

agree wholeheartedly with gman's comment in terms of great format to learn at one's own pace. gb

Thanks for clarifying that. gb

RE: need for three systems in a random shoe. This is also a key question on my mind. Look forward to more information on this point. gb

I hope the class will be preserved in some video format and placed on the forum, since many people are on different time zones, et. gb

Hope you are feeling better! gb

Signup went smoothly a few moments ago. Look forward to the information and ideas. gb

Yes: can someone clarify whether these will be taped and available for later view, whether each day is a repeat, or whether each day is a separate topic! Would love details on this! Perhaps a new thread with a detailed announcement. Given the time of day, hope there would be flexibility on actual viewing time.

This is what I'm hoping to get some insight on from Ellis in the +5 system as it unfolds. gb

You may wish to examine some of the more recent comments about using the O/R count to decide modes rather than losses, and some of Ellis' more recent comments about the proper starting modes for each of the three systems.

I think this was also my general question. Perhaps to be answered later. If we are to start one of the three systems from NOR on play 2, and require no table bias due to the mathematics of the progression, does it matter which of the three systems we start with at play 2. If it does, how do we know which system so early in a shoe? Intriguing tidbits from Ellis!

I'm not entirely sure what went so sour on this thread, but the civility I've expected and always found on the site was certainly lost. I greatly appreciate Keith and Ellis, and especially the newer higher technical quality videos of recent. I'm still learning, but it is obvious that the casinos will always attempt to adjust play to their advantage so any plan of a perfect system that lasts forever is obviously a fantasy. As Ellis, Keith, and others devise ways of staying ahead of the casinos, we should expect additional costs over the course time to continue learning these pearls of wisdom. In any other business model, any of us would expect to have routine costs for new skills and new expertise, and it seems odd that such deep anger would arise when Keith and Ellis suggest some cost for learning a new system or a newly honed subset of a system. Given the amount of money being discussed as potential profit, the pittance suggested to go towards costs would seem to me to pretty reasonable, either in the form of making the presentation and/or video cost higher to cover the website or to have some ongoing fees for website access. It's certainly fine if someone disagrees with me, but I would at least hope that disagreement could be expressed in a manner short of the seething anger noted in the last couple of days. We all want to win, so let's work together, learn, share, and make the most of the information.

Hamster: Ellis did answer the question on 3/6/2014 on his post. Greg

Keith: Very clearly presented. And high quality audio video. Thanks. Greg

From what I understood from the video of the 4D workshop, this would be a bet on Time before last which was a B, not OTB4L. The 4 side of the net bet is for T, the 1 side of the net bet is for O, thus 3 goes to T, not O. Hence winning. gb

To Glenn: at play 7: the disparity is 2 for both O/R and O/T, so I chose the simpler to follow, the O/R. With the results at play 9, the disparity on O/R rises to 3, while the disparity for O/T stays at 2. I decided to switch to O/T for play 10, because it became the column with the lowest disparity. I believe the O/T column remains with the lowest disparity for the balance of the shoe. To Bobby: I've decided to learn this and practice it without that 4th column until I can get the three columns combined with net betting up to casino speed. I'll consider adding in the fourth column OO/TT after I get the rest of it to the point of being over-practiced, so that I am comfortable with it. My sense is that trying to net bet on the OO/TT will take me longer to really get good at, so I'm going to make that a later step in my learning. Hope that helps: Greg