Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 176
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ECD

    78

  • res

    18

  • nizm0racer

    11

  • TomM

    10

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi All,

I think RD1/N is good in for choppy shoes but it will still have the BIG problem for Sporadic 1.

Ellis, how would you resolve this without adding another system?

Baccplay

Link to post
Share on other sites
PaPaJoe

Isn't hand 3 incorrect it should be 1 black which make the other incorrect That is the RD1 rule. I think you will have to redo the shoe.

Say it ain't so res!

Well actually it ain't so..

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.

Hand 2 would be a bet under a 1, and would have lost. RD1 bets straight down when you lose a bet under a 1. So, at hand 3 the RD1 bet would be on Bank.

At least, I hope I'm reading it right.

PJ

Edited by ECD
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry PaPaJoe I did not remember seeing that from Ellis I better find it and read and see if I have made anymore mistakes before I start testing.

What would be your stop loss since you hit -8 on the 35 th hand?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Baccplay. Well we could say that RD1 should not bet twice under a 1 when the last 1 on that side was a sporadic 1.

That way the third bet wins. But looking back at the sporadic 1's in the samples, I'm not seeing a big problem yet.

Lets wait a bit and see how big a problem it is. Also, it would seem that a series of sporadic 1's would make RD 1 the

weak prog. Its still all guess work at this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I noticed at play 23-24 you only did a 4 bet then skipped twice instead allowing two losing bets then resuming at D2 (3) I noticed at play 23-24 you only did a 4 bet then skipped twice instead allowing two losing bets then resuming at D2 (3)

From the updated Manual: (post #25)

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

This is a good rule to have!

PJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All,

I took MVS's shoe #2 that he posted today and try playing RD1/N with it, but with all the sporadic 1s, I just got killed so badly in the first column.

Shoe #2

P14121313121

B61612211

B251116121

P21216312

Anyone please be my guest to play this shoe using the current rules.

Baccplay

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fiona,

You're right the sporadic 1's are all over the place, but RD1/N seems to handle them well. I played to the published rules (post #25) and I generally used a 10 hand look back to determine the strong/weak prog.

Let me know if I have mistakes.

PJ

Edited by ECD
Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all members

well i just played the 1st column from Bacplays shoe #2 .....

from how i understand the rules and i was at +8 units after 20 hands...

i played the original rules......

Dazza

Edited by Dazza
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hit a shoe where the anti was on the weak progression but there was a 5 unit bet by itself. Has anyone else run into this? Now if we do should we just run with the 5 unit bet by itself and it'll be a 5 hi system?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem impossible if when your resume bet lost, you stopped betting again???

But maybe it can happen somehow??

But to answer your question, No I don't think we should make it a 5 Hi.

Better to fix the problem. For now just start a 1 bet on the other side.

Thinking about sporadic 1's. I'm wondering about this possibility:

The RD1 prog always loses the 1 bet under a straight run. The only way it can win its 2 bet

is if we have runs following runs right at that point such as the TTs or 3,4 or something like that.

I'm wondering how much we would give up if instead of going to 2 right there, we make the RD1 Prog

1123 instead of 123. That way the 3 bet would always hit in the sporadic 1's. It solves the sporadic1's

problem but at what expense??? We could try it and see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I need to update the posted sample shoes to reflect the new manual in post #25.

This is the first example (Example #1) replayed to the new rules. The original ended +28, not bad at all. The new rules pulled 6 more units from this shoe.

I'll redo the others as time permits, but al least those who want to compare can do so.

PJ

Hi PapaJoe

On play #34 the red bet should be 4 because we lost the 3 . is that correct? Thanks-Kostas

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also occurs to be that playing RD1N it is extremely simple to slip right into SKOR when a need arises.

Hey Nizm, are you catching PJ's rule that if your resume bet loses, you suspend immediately again?

And don't forget that we always have the option of dropping the offending prog altogether in a

particularly lopsided shoe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We tend to get shoes in two extremes with RD1N:

We can get low disparity shoes where the two progs run neck and neck and we seldom suspend a prog.

Those are easy wins.

Then we get high disparity shoes Where one prog or the other is virtually always suspended. Here we are making our money betting unopposed. We do OK in these but I see a way to do a whole lot better:

What if we borrow a page from SAP? In a high disparity shoe (only) whenever one prog is suspended the other flat bets at 2 and when it loses it goes back to 1. That gives us a double whammy in high disparity shoes. Not only do we make a lot more on suspensions, we also give our prog an extra low risk bet. Hey, it worked with SAP!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi PapaJoe

On play #34 the red bet should be 4 because we lost the 3 . is that correct? Thanks-Kostas

That's right Kostas, I'll make the change in the example and re post it soon.

What if we borrow a page from SAP? In a high disparity shoe (only) whenever one prog is suspended the other flat bets at 2 and when it loses it goes back to 1. That gives us a double whammy in high disparity shoes. Not only do we make a lot more on suspensions, we also give our prog an extra low risk bet. Hey, it worked with SAP!

Yep! I'll add it to the rules. (That's done!)

Thinking about sporadic 1's. I'm wondering about this possibility:

The RD1 prog always loses the 1 bet under a straight run. The only way it can win its 2 bet

is if we have runs following runs right at that point such as the TTs or 3,4 or something like that.

I'm wondering how much we would give up if instead of going to 2 right there, we make the RD1 Prog

1123 instead of 123. That way the 3 bet would always hit in the sporadic 1's. It solves the sporadic1's

problem but at what expense??? We could try it and see.

Why don't we do a little testing on this. If it improves performance, we can add it. I just don't know if overall, we will gain a little or lose a little doing it this way.

That leads me to the next point. Can we get some volunteers to start testing. You can test with or without the sporadic 1's suggestion, just let us know which way you tested when you post. If you need help putting up an example, just e-mail it to me and I'll post it for you.

We have a very good system so far. Now lets take it to the dragstrip.

PJ

Edited by ECD
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey PJ,

I don't understand why in the beginner you are betting opposite RD1 on banker unopposed? Isn't on hand #4, RD1 hand should be on banker and you should actually make a 1 unit bet on player? I'm kinda confuse on how you suspend bet sometimes when it loses to 2 and sometimes it loses to 3. Don't get me wrong, I understand the rules, but not sure what is wrong with it at this point.

Baccplay

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bacplay,

This is why.

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.

Using the 0 vs 0 start, player doesn't start betting until it wins the circle at hand 6. Bank wins the circle at hand 2 and bets unopposed until hand 7 when player begins betting.

As for suspending bets, if the weak side loses 2 in a row it hibernates, the strong side must lose 3 in a row to hibernate. I just look back the last 10 or so hands, If I see more black circles, then black is the strong prog and red is the weak prog. If I see more red circles, then red is the strong prog and black is the weak prog. All this is in the manual in post #25.

Hope this clears it up.

PJ

Edited by ECD
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi PapaJoe

On play #34 the red bet should be 4 because we lost the 3 . is that correct? Thanks-Kostas

This shoe no longer applies. I have removed it.

PJ

Edited by ECD
Link to post
Share on other sites
PaPaJoe

On example 1a hand 48 black only won once why on hand 49 you go to black 5 on banker I thought you have to win 2 in a row or 2 out of 3?

Due to a rule correction, this shoe no longer applies. I have removed it

PJ

Edited by ECD
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...