[S40A Manual Q&A]

Ellis, please provide a synopsis of your current thinking regarding the finalization of the S40A manual and if feasible, your best projected date for release to all members.

Based on previous posts, you have indicated a strong desire to keep S40A as simple as possible while striving to cover all situations. It appeared that S40, F2, OTB4L and possibly 40/F2 would comprise the final package.

More recently, however, much discussion has focused on F3, RD1, and 40N ostensibly in conjunction with S40A. This is confusing, since it appeared that we were very near a decision point several weeks ago, but have veered considered off track. Your clarification would be appreciated. Thanks.

[S40A Manual Q&A]

Ellis, our thoughts and prayers are with you and your son.

Don

[S40A Manual Q&A]

I just noticed over on the Maverick forum that Mark says that RDh makes better sense than RD1. Well to each his own.

I suspect that of the 4 systems comprising S40A that RD1 will come up the least in actual play because it only has a slight advantage over F2 in only one situation which is straight runs following straight runs. But in that same situation (very rare) F2 does almost as well. Think about it - F2 LOVES runs following runs. We could drop RD1 altogether.

But the reason I chose RD1 over RDh is that RDh loses to the 212s - EVERY bet, and 212s is the most common pattern in Baccarat because it is comprised of the two most common events. Half of all events are 1's and a quarter of all events are 2s. You simply can't have a system that loses every bet to the 212's. For instance, in the Hollywood shoes we had a full col. of 212s TWICE. RDh would have lost every bet in BOTH cols. But RD1 has a built in 212 defense because it is a MUST. So, in my experience, RDh is the system that makes no sense - no sense whatsoever. And, while RDh has that huge DISadvantage, it has no redeeming ADvantage over RD1. So NO, I could never recommend RDh under any circumstances.

Now, you sharpies might be thinking "But wait a minute, F2 CAN also lose to the 212s when they start on the weak

side!"

True but the key word is "can". RDh ALWAYS loses to the 212's. F2 USUALLY beats the 212s soundly.

But we could eliminate the wrong side 212s specter from F2 altogether by adding an override rule. F2 is the simplest system in Baccarat and only has 2 rules. We could add a third rule W/O making F2 overly complicated. In fact, it would STILL be the simplest system in Baccarat.

Look, one of the biggest advantages of F2 is it is designed to ALWAYS be on the strong side - and it always is. EXCEPT when the 212s start on the weak side, however rare.

We could have a third override rule that simply says: Always switch to the strongest side of the last 5 plays. We are always on that side anyway except for half of the ZZ runs and the wrong footed 212s. Such a rule would cause us to win an extra bet in ZZ runs while making us always right footed in the 212s.

The question is, is it worth the added complexity? Well, since it adds to complexity only very slightly I think it is probably worth the effort to make F2 that much stronger. We will be playing F2 almost half the time.

What do you think?

I vote to eliminate RD1 ( infrequent use ) and strengthen F2 by adding the third rule. Based on the rationale offered above by Ellis, this change would appear to be beneficial for all of us.

[S40A Manual Q&A]

Ellis, would you provide the following, as listed below, and as your time permits?

1) Precise triggers for switching systems ( S40 to F2 etc. ) based on the OR and SAP count for a particular shoe. Approximations have been given but this allows considerable leeway for interpretation, so that no two people are likely to play the same shoe in the same way and obtain identical results. Hopefully, we can avoid the Maverick syndrome!!

2) Several shoes selected to illustrate the correct switching rules as well as the selecting the best progressions for the type of shoe at hand.

3) A recap of all the progressions and their pro's and con's for use in particular circumstances, as well as recommended money management rules ( required bankroll, win goals, stop/loss etc.)

4) Have you reached any definitive conclusions regarding playing SAP separately for player and banker?

Thanks Ellis !