MasterP

Hi fct_winatbac, Welcome to BTC. There is definitely lots to learn here. That hasn't happened to me at my casino. Typically, if a dealer makes a mistake the players usually make sure to let the dealer know that a mistake was made. So, most errors are caught. But, if you do decide to play NOR, just watch for the next 4 to 5 plays to see how the OR count is to know what to play or you can look at the next 5 events to see what the shoe is telling. As for MDB+ that would be harder to do, as it requires that the past history on events is accurate or the signals will not work properly. Another thing is go to a completely different casino if this is something that they are doing often. Hope that helps.

Thanks Ellis. Does that mean that the 4+'s have the original multiplier of 4. That would make the SAP scorecard easier to use.

Hi Brad, Thanks for the reply. The only advantage I see is that when you are playing OTB4LM3. When tracking the 4's you have a better indicator if M3 will work well or not. I do agree that with the other systems like S40, F or TB4L the count for 1's , 2's , 3's and 4's are the only ones needed. But, I have also been seeing more shoes with a combination of 3's and 4's which have been a nemesis for such systems as S40 ( when in the wrong mode ) and net betting and OTB4LM2 ( with the 4's ). There maybe an added benefit in knowing 4's and 5+'s. I'm just wanting to understand it better to utilize it better.

Hi Ellis, I see that the SAP count can be kept as only 1's, 2's 3's and 4+'s. But, I have seen that in other places in the forum that the SAP count be kept as 1's, 2's , 3's , 4's and 5+'s. Which is better to use ? What does the extra 5+'s help with? I want to make sure I'm performing the SAP count properly. Thanks.

SAP is a running count of events weighted based on frequency in a regular shoe. I've seen that when the two to three counts are equal and the other two counts equalize that is not a NOR shoe, but an MDB+ shoe. But, if one or two of the counts are a lot higher than the other 2 or 3 counts then it favors a NOR shoe, which is basic. Typically, I play S40 by default when using SAP as it is the most forgiving system once you know the mode. The mode typically will be decided by the SAP count for the 3's and 4's. If 3's outnumber the 4's, 3 to 1 , then Mode 3 is used. If the 4's then mode 2. Now the shoes with the variations on these such as 3's and 4's being both high, typically are more difficult to play. This is where the 1's , 2's and 5+'s come into play. If your count for 2's are the lowest then in a shoe with a lot of 3's and 4's default to TB4L. Now, comes the hardest shoe type, I think. Having SAP counts where there are 2's, 3's and 4's. This is telling us that the best system should be OTB4L mode 3, but there are times were the ZZ come and then it can hurt you. Hope this helps out. Let me know if you've seen this.

I agree that SAP is the key. I have been using it to predict the type of shoe that is at hand and then playing the system to best fit it. I have also tried some other variations of the SAP to see how to use it better.

Hi DeanJ, Looks like you use SAP also. How are you finding it? I also play in Canada.

Hi Ellis, Just a question about the SAP count. Is there a big difference in separating the 4's and 5+'s? I see that the weighting of the 4's had changed from a 4 multiplier to an 8 multiplier along with a 5+'s count being added. I've been wanting to understand the SAP count more. Anyway insight would be nice. Thanks.

Hi kachatz1, Curious to know what happened after? What trouble could have occurred? I can only think that the fun is only beginning.

Hi Oz, Just wondering which forum or area works for these types of questions? I would definitely like discussing this more. Point me in the right direction as I have been looking at this for a while now. Or should I start a new thread on this subject in a private forum area.

Hi Ellis, Thanks for the earlier explanation of SAP and Reverse SAP. What I was wondering though is does MDB+ override the SAP count when it comes to making specific bets at a specific time in a shoe? Also, another question, is there a way of using the difference in SAP counts between neighboring events to see when a shoe might change?

Hi trbfla, You have the right perspective. Having a win goal of +5 is the best way. Most shoes statistically could be won with a small goal. Even higher goals might win, but with changing shoes during play, a professional realizes that every small bit counts to eventually a larger goal. If you look at anything worthwhile it takes time and small incremental steps to achieve a goal. But, once you can accomplish it you realize that you have changed. So, to add a goal of 5 is great and a stop loss of -5 is also great. With this you can be on your way to being wealthy. To often people go for a higher goal and lose due to discipline, greed, or even misreading the board or scorecard. All these factors make it difficult to bigger goals. Hope this helps.

Hi trbfla, The rules that I have been using for testing are as follows : 1. Only start betting entries on a side under a circle. 2. Anytime losing 2 entries under a sporadic 1 or last 1 in a ZZ, STOP entries on that side until it produces a 2iar. 3. Anytime losing 1 entry under a 2+, STOP entries on that side until it produces a entry on that side. 4. Use 1-1-2-3 progression with a goal of 10 units ( a goal of 5 units is probably more reasonable ). When you win in the progression go back to start of progression. These were the key rules for betting. I had wanted to add switching to OTB4L with 2 confirmed 2's and then back to Ultimate Net Betting with 2 other confirmed events, but I have not tested this part yet. Also, looking at some of the other comments on this thread, I like Ellis's idea of keeping the net betting system simple. Switching to another system like OTB4L and coming back also adds complexity. I will work on the a 2Hi progression once the Ultimate Net betting Rules are solid. This way the only thing that could change is the unit goal amount. Hope this helps.

I agree about the drawdown with U1D2M2. Maybe the thing we can do is work on the optimal bet placement for the system to see if there are better rules and then add an optimal progression for 2Hi. I will simulate various progressions using only 2Hi with the existing rules and see where the rules can be changed when a shoe begins to loses to specific events. I think that having one system that can handle all types of shoes would be advantageous to all of us here at BTC.

Some more findings when testing. I have found that when using a U1D2M2 progression if any side has 2 losing entries under a 1 bet twice in a row, then that could result in a possible losing game. Usually the lone 1 bet or the last 1 bet of a ZZ should also count with the original rules for Ultimate. If you see this occurrence, just be careful and opt to either stop play or play for the next half decade or even. Hope this helps.