gman72

I don't want to start an argument, this is Ellis’ world, I'm just a visitor in it. I paid for NOR, I've won Baccarat playing NOR, more than enough to cover the cost. I posted about it last year. I believe in NOR. But...my opinion, and it's just that, an opinion, is that +5 is not a new system, it is mostly just an adjustment to NOR betting, with a few tweaks about modes and betting ATR or OTR. That's it. It follows the same three systems S40, OTB4L, F(SS/S40M1) as NOR. You are just changing the betting progression and calling it BaS40, etc.... I get that you don't agree, but I'm guessing that most NOR members on here following the +5 discussion would agree with most of what I've stated. And as far as I'm concerned, preshuffled cards are nothing that hasn't been talked about on the NOR forums by you extensively and how to play NOR against them with smaller win expectations than against regular cards. Your statement below about NOR soon being obsolete is not very encouraging, especially since I've been a NOR member for less than a year. I really feel sorry for anyone thinking about purchasing NOR. Wouldn't that be something. Pay for what you think will be a successful approach to Baccarat and then find out its creator thinks it will be obsolete soon. Ouch! Maybe they'll get started soon enough to win their cost back like me. None of what I said should take away from the great instruction and discussion I get in the forum currently. I think it's great. What I've said, in this post and the last one I posted, are just my small gripes with the idea of charging current NOR members for the +5. I'm happy to pay for a webinar for additional instruction on the +5, just not happy to pay more to get access to something that I feel I've already paid for. I’ll see how things play out in the next week or so on this and then make a decision.

FYI in case anyone is interested: I just unregistered for the webinar after reading the above. I was ok with paying a small one time fee to watch the webinar, but after seeing there would be a recurring charge to get in on everything else, I'll save my hard earned money. Besides, after reading reviews on how the new 4D system seminar turned out, I'm thinking I made the right call. I'm pretty discouraged that the thinking is to charge more for this +5 discussion. It appears to me to be just some adjustment to NOR concepts and has been a part of the NOR forum discussion we paid for. Not sure why it has to now be an additional cost. Call me a cheapskate if you will, but when I pay $600 for something that says I'll have access to the forum and all that's discussed there, and then to have concepts born out of and based on those discussion, go to a new forum that will cost more, well, that just doesn't sit well with me. I'm sure the cost could be recouped easily employing the new concepts, but that's not the point for me. Is it a lot of work and effort by others to provide the information, sure, but that's what you sold me already in my view. Gman

This statement has me baffled??? I thought OTB4L liked 3iars.

For the more visually inclined, here is the shoe played out as Ellis describes:

Just for clarification, when you say you bet just straight opposites, do you mean you forget about S40 and modes and just bet the progression straight opposites without any OTR bets?

We're always hearing about those great tables in Tunica, how about putting that up for consideration.

While I obviously don't have much experience, I do like to see how you observed this shoe and started betting opposites aggressively. I didn't get aggressive with my progression, but I did recognize by the middle of the second column that I should probably be in a different system and my switching to S40 (opposites) worked well. Your observation reinforces my thinking on this shoe and helps validate my reasoning for switching. Thanks as always.

Isn't it going to be hard to do the live casino play session next month at Hollywood if they removed their baccarat table? So is it only for Roulette?

Ok, here's how I played it. Started out OTB4LM3 at play #2 and by mid-way through the second column I just couldn't get things going. After my 5 bet at play #32, I decided to switch to S40M2 at the next play and played the rest of the shoe out that way. You can see where I pointed out my mistake at play #57 where I should have been in M2 and not M3. It cost me some units, but I still ended up +13 units for the shoe. Any questions? I'm just posting these practice shoes to spur any discussion about proper NOR(NOR+) play and mode changes if anyone is interested.

Here's another good practice shoe for discussion by anyone interested. (This is a repost of a post lost during the server changeover.) History: This is a red shoe that you just couldn't get a handle on the first time through. You jumped in mid shoe the last time through in what looked like a pretty good OTB4L table, but just couldn't get a handle on it and after about 20 plays you couldn't get anywhere and stopped playing with a -1 loss. Now the red shoe is up again after just playing a pretty good blue shoe. Here it is: P241123112111 P21411211211111 B11315114111 P22121142 How would you play it? When did you get out? Why? I'll post how I played it in a little while. This is a real shoe played live at a casino.

In OTB4L, my play varies a little here from yours as well. 1st column is the same, it's the 2nd column where the difference comes in. Your 2nd col: p123 b4 p21 b11 p1231 b11 p2 b1 My 2nd col: p123 b4 p21 b11 p12 b3 p4 b21 p2 b1 At play 30 I thought I was in M2, since I lost the 3rd bet at play 23 when we were in M3. I thought this should switch me to M2 which then affects the decision at play 30. My way still ends +9, for a win.

Apparently I don't have the same kind of access as other's do, because I don't have an edit button in my posts. For the record, I'm not that stupid that I wouldn't see an edit button next to the reply button and figure it out. I asked Keith about editing posts a while back, and I was told I couldn't get edit privileges without everyone getting it. I see that's not exactly the case. Maybe it's because I'm a "Junior Member" and not a "NOR Baccarat Player", whatever.

Join the club. That's what happens when three days of posts disappear.

How are you able to edit your posts?

I should just let this go, but the accountant in me just has to try and understand it perfectly and get it right. I went back to your play by play post and saw that you changed the plays to reflect the correct transcription of the shoe. I compared it to my play of the shoe and I found where the difference was. In your post you say "we never lose a third bet". Well, based on the way you played it that is correct, but the way I played it we lose the third bet at play #25. Since we are still in M2 I assumed the bet should be an OTR b3, but you made the bet as P3, which would appear to me to be an M3 bet, but I thought we were still in M2 at that point in the shoe. What am I missing or doing wrong? BTW, this NOR3 idea sounds interesting.

Don't shoot the messenger, but I still see a transcription problem. I don't want to be negative, but that's not the shoe as originally posted. It's a good play by play to follow for the shoe you transcribe, it's just different from EE's. EE's: B1112112 Ellis: B1112122 See the difference. It's interesting how my post from yesterday is gone, which showed all this and played it out as EE posted it originally. If I played it correctly, S40 gets killed in the second column of the shoe.

Wendel, I haven't incorporated M1 into my NOR+ play yet, but looking back at the shoe sequence I played out OTB4L, and remembering the 2nd bet rule as I understand it for M1, my losing 2 bets never exceeded my winning 2 bets for ST runs and I had only one losing 2 bet on a ZZ run early, which I wouldn't have made a decision based on that one event and also there not being a 5iar, I would not have seen a reason to switch to M1. That's just me though. I'm not experimenting with plays outside the rules yet. After I get NOR down cold, maybe then I'll think about experimenting.

Timely shoe post EE, based on the information we have just been discussing in another thread here about which system to choose based on shoe starts. After the first four plays of 112, I would be thinking chop, so S40M2 all the way. If I jump in at play #5 with S40M2, I'm stopped out at play #14 with a -6 facing a 5 bet. I'm gone. Now if I just played this shoe straight NOR+(OTB4LM3,U1D2), I start at play #2, hit my lowest score of -3 at play #3 and finish the sequence at +11. I never switched to F. My reason for that is that the SS bias never gets above 2 to 1, even after the 7iar it's still only 15-9 in favor of banker. Yes, it gets streaky, but I don't think any of the events are something that OTB4L can't handle well (ie: a 5iar). This is just my take on the shoe sequence you've posted. Others may disagree. I'd like to hear, it helps us all learn.

Jared, I'm a fairly new member myself (just a couple of months), but the best way to get the information you're looking for is to read as much of the forum as you can. The answers to most of your questions are answered in here. I've found that Ellis and the more experienced members are glad to help out once you've put in the effort to absorb the knowledge already provided in the manual and on the forum. Best of luck.

You may be on to something. Here's a quote from an article I just read about baccarat play in Macau. It's not Vegas or AC, but the article was talking about Wynn's place there, so I'm sure it translates here as well. "Yet another explanation could lie in accounting practices. In spite of the game's simplicity, producing figures that track the action on baccarat tables can vex even the most seasoned casino executive." http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wynns-abnormal-lucky-streak-baffles-analysts

Thanks Ellis. You're right about the common sense. Now that I see it written out, it does appear to be pretty simple and straightforward. In fact, I'm sure each one of those start scenarios is discussed in one post or another I've printed out. It's great to have them all in one place though. This is a must print post for reference.

I was reading back through my binder and came across this quote that I had marked to check on later. I guess now is later. It was from post #327 by Ellis in the NOR+ thread: "....in fact, at the first PA seminar I put all the possible 4 play shoe starts on the board and told the attendees which system to start with for each possible start..." My question is: Does anyone still have this information and if so would you be willing to share? I suppose it's possible that it was only available to the seminar attendees and they are not allowed to share with anyone who didn't attend, but I'm hoping that's not the case. This would be a really great tool to have to study. It would especially make the process of scouting the tote boards in the casino easier. You could look at the 4 plays at each shoe start and know exactly what system that sequence favors and then see if the shoe is still playing out that way up to the point where you are observing, and if so, you could jump right in feeling more confident about what system to use.

Read the Executive Summary of that last report I just posted. It's an interesting trend I'm reading in all these reports, and that is that apparently baccarat, especially high-roller play, has a significant impact on casino revenue. Didn't I just read a trip report from the last Vegas seminar where one of the members hit the MGM high limit room for a good haul. LOL!

I take that back, I did find this: http://gaming.unlv.edu/reports/NV_june.pdf It shows the month of June 2013 baccarat hold was down to 7.44% statewide in Nevada. This is just one month though. Couldn't find current AC data.