rd1 RD1 | N Discussion and Rules ECD Group February 22, 2010

[ECD]

THESE ARE NOT THE CURRENT RULES - SEE POST #25 FOR LATEST REVISION.

Here's the system Ellis and I were talking about.

It's called RD1/N because it net bets RD1 vs RD1 losers.

It's RD1 vs anti-RD1.

I used U1D2 No M2 for the prog, capped at 5. (Table bet of 4)

The Rules

Start with 0 vs 0

Net bet RD1 vs ant-iRD1

When a side loses 3 bets in a row, it hybernates until it wins 2 in a row, or has a W-L-W. When it resumes, it picks up where it left off in it's progression.

The progressions are capped at 5. If it loses that 5 unit bet, it resumes at 1.

The example shoe follows. I am famous for mistakes, so check it twice and let me know if you see any.

I'll ask Ellis if he will help me asnwer questions.

PJ

p.s. One great thing about this one is it totally side steps the 1,2,2,1 losing pattern of RD1!!

[ECD]

Another advantage is its equally strong in chop and streak.

In highly biased shoes where one prog completely dominates the other you have the

option of dropping the offending prog altogether and going solely with the winning prog.

Waiting for 2 winning bets to resume is often strong because meanwhile the other

prog can't lose. But I don't think we should always do this. We should note in the shoe

at hand which works better, resuming after 1 winning bet or 2. In other words, always

go by what the shoe at hand is telling us.

I also don't think its right for every shoe but is a viable option. It seems to do better

than net betting either O vs R or OTB4L vs TB4L. This may be because standard RD1

also bets on opposites. Therefore BOTH progs are betting BOTH streak and chop.

We don't have the usual streak vs chop routine. See what you think!

[res]

PaPaJoe

If the black in RD! and Red is Anti RD! then from hand 9 on it is incorrect because on hand 9 it should of been 2 on player( RD1) and 1 on Banker (anti RD!) there are mistakes from then on. That is the way I interpret the rules. If I knew how to post a shoe I would redo this one if I am correct?

Also would this be played as a seperate system or part of Mike system instead of RD1?

[ECD]

Hi res,

Hand 9 IS a 2 on player. I had it wrong, but corrected it. Try refreshing your screen Everybody that sees a 2 on bank at hand 9 refresh your screen. Thanks,

PJ

Edited February 23, 2010 by ECD

[Plasia87]

What are the losing pattern(s) for this system?

[ECD]

We don't know yet. This is brand new and we will have to do a lot of testing to find out. Rest assured, there will be one.

We need testers! Anyone who does any testing on this, please report your results and any noticable losing pattern.

Thanks,

Pj

[ECD]

Example #2.

I'm getting the feel for this now, maybe I won't have too many mistakes.

Highest table bet was 4 units three times, hands 53 68 & 71. Other than that, pretty mild. I find it helps to focus just on the black circles and just fill in the numbers on the red prog.

PJ

Edited February 23, 2010 by ECD

[ECD]

Example #3

Here's a very tough shoe. It was sent to me by uneek. I played it using Mreteuya's system, and NU SAP it ended negative in both cases.

One rule I did add/change starting with this shoe, If you lose a 5 bet (net bet) which would be a 4 bet table bet, reset the losing prog to 1. In the examples this rule starts with this shoe. Example #2 does show a 6 unit bet at hand 53, but that was before I made the rule change and I don't see the need tp redo that entire post. I did change the stated rules in post #1.

This change in the rules still provides the advantage of net betting, but lowers the "pucker factor".

PJ

Edited February 23, 2010 by ECD

[wolfat]

Hi all,

PJ: at a 1st approach I like it so much, tx!

Just an advice for the newbies:

the easiest way to track this system is firstly to make the RD1 bet and THEN the anti in the blank remained square with the correct bet.

Obviously you must manage RD1 rules correctly.

ciao

andrea

[ECD]

Thanks PJ. First, I think what makes RD1N so interesting is that it is our first net bet system where both progs

share in the streakiness or chopiness of a shoe. SKOR is net bet but strictly opposites vs repeats. Matrix is net

bet but is OTB4L vs TB4L which is STILL basically chop vs streak. SAP is net bet Bank vs Player.

Ordinarily Net Bet likes low disparity. I believe that the major thing casinos can control is chop vs streak.

Whether shop vs streak is casino orchestrated or occurs naturally somehow is really beside the point and not

worth arguing about. IT HAPPENS regardless of how. We've ALL seen choppy tables and choppy casinos and

choppy days. The same with streak. Disparity is the nemesis of Net Betting. We must deal with it regardless of

how it happens.

To date all net bet systems have dealt with Disparity by either skipping bets on the weak side (SKOR) or

suspending bets on the weak side (Matrix). We hope to avoid runaway progressions that way. Sometimes it

works, sometimes it doesn't.

RD1 is different. RD1 switches to betting opposites after every 1 in a row and 1 in a rows are half of all events.

Therefore RD1 is betting on repeats basically half the time and opposites half the time. But, standing alone RD1 is

basically a streak system because it gives priority to straight runs by getting on straight runs quicker at the

expense of getting on ZZ runs slower.

But, as soon as we Net Bet RD1 we are giving EQUAL coverage to both straight and ZZ runs. This eliminates the

inherent weakness of RD1 and eliminates its losing pattern of 1221.

Now, I'd like to draw your attention to the last sample shoe. It starts with the RD1 losing pattern of 1221. What

PJ SHOULD have done was left the RD1 prog at 0 until it won a bet (standard 0 start rules) PJ didn't do that

because playing straight RD1, we don't look at a starting 1 as a 1 because we don't know what came before it.

But when net betting we must forget that and treat all 1's the same, even starting 1's. Had PJ done that the

shoe would have jump started because the anti prog would have won every bet while the RD1 prog was still

looking for a winning 0. That is the whole point of a 0 start. This would have greatly improved the overall result.

Perhaps we can get PJ to replay it.

We haven't dealt with this type of Net Bet system before so we have to "feel" our way at this point in time. I like

the idea of capping our actual bets at 4 or 5. Since we get to these bets less often with both progs betting both

repeats and opposites, we can afford to play safer. I'm thinking maybe we can afford to stick to U1D2 rules.

For instance, lets say be cap at a highest entry of 5. This makes our highest table bet 4. BUT, when the 5 loses,

instead of going all the way back to 1, lets try sticking with "down 2". So a losing 5 goes to 3. But we still suspend

after a prog loses 3 (?) bets. Maybe we'll find that is enough. AND MAYBE NOT but it is worth trying.

Speaking of that, I'm not so sure that ALWAYS allowing 3 bets before suspending is always a good idea. We should

be letting the shoe tell us that. In tough shoes maybe we should be suspending after 2 losing bets. OR, maybe the

weaker prog should be suspending after 2 losers while the stronger prog suspends after 3. That would be ideal if

we could manage it.

Likewise, we should not ALWAYS be waiting for 2 winners to resume a prog. YES, waiting for 2 wins is good some

of the time because meanwhile the other prog CAN'T lose. BUT it also means you are ALWAYS giving up two

winning bets. Do you see that?

Sometimes waiting for two is best. Other times all a weak prog can muster is 2 winning bets and we end up missing

both of them. Again, we should be letting the shoe decide. The more we let the shoe decide the more we are playing

the shoe at hand. The less we let the shoe decide the more we are playing mechanically. All mechanical systems break

even in the long run. Our WHOLE advantage is we play the shoe at hand. We must NEVER lose site of that advantage.

Another question is M2??? Should we be playing Mandatory 2. The advantage of M2 is we make more while one prog is

suspended. But the disadvantage is that half the time we lose the 2 after a winning 1. Not good BUT we can always

alieviate the problem the same way we do with SAP. When we win the 1 and lose the 2 we go back to 1 instead of 3.

Now we are pretty much getting the best of both worlds.

Look, I realize it is a lot of work. New systems always are. But I see an inherent advantage of RD1N that we never had

before. I think it will end up being worth the effort to perfect it. I realize some of the new guys are getting their

first taste of net betting and are wondering if it is worth the effort. Look, net betting is the best betting system in

the world. It reduces your avg. bet size and your commission. It's well worth the effort and we are starting you

off with the simplest of all systems - RD1.

[ECD]

I'm not sure why the frame of the above post went all haywire when it was fine the last time I looked at it.

I must have a setting wrong someplace. Can anyone enlighten me?

[Audionut]

:cool:Frame looks fine on my end..

[res]

PaPa Joe

Example 2 starting with hand 21 it should be 1P2B which would make hands 22-26 incorrect. It turns out on hand 27 your are +4

[ECD]

Now, I'd like to draw your attention to the last sample shoe. It starts with the RD1 losing pattern of 1221. What

PJ SHOULD have done was left the RD1 prog at 0 until it won a bet (standard 0 start rules) PJ didn't do that

because playing straight RD1, we don't look at a starting 1 as a 1 because we don't know what came before it.

But when net betting we must forget that and treat all 1's the same, even starting 1's

Thanks for spotting that Ellis.

All I can say is It was LATE!

I made the change and reposted the shoe.

PJ

[Mreteuya]

PaPa Joe

Example 2 starting with hand 21 it should be 1P2B which would make hands 22-26 incorrect. It turns out on hand 27 your are +4

PaPaJoe,

Is this correct?

[ECD]

Example 2 starting with hand 21 it should be 1P2B which would make hands 22-26 incorrect. It turns out on hand 27 your are +4

Thanks res,

Like I said It was late. I'll make the correction. The final score is the same.

PJ

Edited February 23, 2010 by ECD

[Audionut]

Wow, I thought I had understood RD1... but maybe not...

PJ, in your example #3, on play 4, why wouldn't you have a red 1 (or 2 if playing M2) under player since P won right above it? I know your net betting, just confused here...

Also, what do the "dots" mean? 0? Showing my ignorance AGAIN (thanks for your patience)

[ECD]

PJ, in your example #3, on play 4, why wouldn't you have a red 1 (or 2 if playing M2) under player since P won right above it? I know your net betting, just confused here...

Also, what do the "dots" mean? 0? Showing my ignorance AGAIN (thanks for your patience)

At play #4 the Red prog (which is anti-RD1 is winning. RD1 hasn't entered the game yet. The RD1 prog has to win a circle before it can begin. At play 4 we are only betting anti-RD1. Remember when we say anti-RD1, we mean what RD1 would lose to.

The little "dots" are my visual way of tracking whichever prog is hybernating (not betting).

Hope this clears it up for you.

PJ

[ECD]

I think I've made the 2 corrections. Only 2 mistakes.... I'm getting better!! (I hope)

Everyone, please refresh your screen. This will give you the corrected version. Or just wait till the next time you sign on to the forum and that will take care of it.

PJ

[ECD]

Speaking of that, I'm not so sure that ALWAYS allowing 3 bets before suspending is always a good idea. We should

be letting the shoe tell us that. In tough shoes maybe we should be suspending after 2 losing bets. OR, maybe the

weaker prog should be suspending after 2 losers while the stronger prog suspends after 3. That would be ideal if

we could manage it.

I see what you mean! Then, all we need is to agree on what is a weak/struggling shoe. Ellis, you're the MAN, what will we use? Our score declining by "x" number of units? A certain WL pattern? A running score of wins vs losses? Just looking back in the column to see the "trash"? Or, simply "are we losing money on this shoe"?

If we have a good way of determining when we have a tough shoe at hand, then it would be good I think, to allow only 2 losing bets on the weak side and still allow 3 losing bets on the strong side. That part is not hard to determine, just look back in the shoe. If you see more black (circles), then antiRD1 is the weak prog, if you see more red, then RD1 is the weak prog.

How about this? If our score is declining, look bach 6 or 7 hands. If the score has declined more than 4 units, we consider this a tough shoe/section. Now we determine the weak prog and only allow 2 losing bets on that side before suspending betting on that side.The stonge side continues and only suspends if it has 3 losing bets.

Ellis?

PJ

Edited February 23, 2010 by ECD

[Audionut]

Thanks, PJ for the explanation... I need to play a couple of shoes this way to "get the hang" of it...

This forum CONTINUES to innovate and excel!!

[res]

PaPaJoe

Try this shoe with RN1N

B1232411114

B112412122211

P11311321322

P11131

This was not a good shoe and we might learn from it. I had a tough time with this shoe.

[ECD]

OK res,

I'll give it a try. Here are the rules I'll use. This uses the latest comments from Ellis:

Net bet U1D2 No M2 (we may go to M2 later testing will tell)

The strong prog will hybernate after 3 losing bets. The weak prog will hybernate after 2 losing bets.

When a prog resumes, it resumes where it left off, but if it loses the resume bet it goes back to into hybernation.

When a prog resumes after a losing 5 bet, it resumes at 2 (D2)

I think that's all. Now I'll get busy testing your shoe.

Oh Yeah, I'll be looking back 10-20 plays to determine the weak prog.

Thanks,

PJ

[ECD]

OK res, here is your shoe played with the rules stated in the last post. This is a really tuff shoe and these rules saves us from a bad loss.

Let me know if I have mistakes. If you don't see any, I'll do a manual for this system.

PJ

[ECD]

RD1/N Rules Last Updated 02/25/2010

Start at hand 2 with 0 vs. 0 (put a black zero under the winner from hand 1 and a red zero on the other side)

Net bet RD1 vs. anti-RD1 U1D2 No M2

First table bet is at hand #3.

When net betting, there is always a strong prog and a weak prog. In RD1/N we use 2 colors to track the progs. The RD1 prog is black and the antiRD1 prog is Red. This makes it simple to see which is which and help eliminate mistakes. In order to identify the strong and weak progs, just look back 10 hands, if you see more black circles than red circles, you know that black is the strong prog and red is the weak prog. If you see more red, then red is the strong prog and black is the weak prog.

Another way is to keep a count giving +1 to each black circle and -1 to each red circle.

Hibernation Rules:

A prog hibernates and suspends betting as follows:

The strong prog will hibernate after 3 losing bets. The weak prog will hibernate after 2 losing bets.

A hibernating prog resumes when it wins 2 bets in a row or has a W-L-W. When a prog resumes, it resumes where it left off.

When a prog resumes after a losing 5 bet, it resumes at 3 (D2)

OPTION: Whenever one prog is hibernating, the other flat bets at 2 and when it loses it goes back to 1.

That’s it.

Edited February 26, 2010 by ECD