Bet Phoenix "Cutting it short"

[Mark_Ripple]

Great posts, boyz...Funny enough, I have aboot 30 relatives in Europe. Really great stuff! :)

[stanislaus]

If anyone is really interested in opening an on-line casino account for example at Dublin Bet, and needs a foreign address and bank account, there are many options. For instance, irishoffice.com offers a foreign address, phone answering and mail forwarding at rates starting at 125 euros a year. However, getting a foreign bank account is getting harder after the anti-terrorism laws went into affect. Many banks won't touch anyone living in the U.S. I said Many, not all. However, there are many foreign banks that do. For example, to open a bank account at The Bank of Cyprus, a reputable bank, you would call them and ask get an application (they may offer one on their Web site), fill it out and take the application with your ID to "ANY" Bank of Cyprus branch in the world. If you happen to live in or around New York City, you could take it to their branch there. Other banks have different ways on handling foreign accounts. For The Bank of Belize, you would have to fill out their application form and send it in with a letter of reference from your local bank or accountant. After you set up you foreign bank account, you could then change the address on the account to a virtual office like irishoffice.com. This gives you a foreign address for the on-line casino. You could then wire money to the on-line casinos. You could withdraw in the same way. Some banks even offer debit and credit cards. The credit cards may have a limit linked to the amount of money you have in your bank account.

[Mreteuya]

Hello Ellis

Thank you so much for your posts....

I was wondering if you could actually do a shoe for us to show it more clearly what you are saying etc...

( when you change systems and etc etc )

Thank You

Dazza

Yes I agree. I think we would all love to see how we can on a practical level seamlessly change and select the right system mulitple times during a shoe, analyzing after each event as you said, utilizing the most popular systems taught here. Lets say, Otb4l, Tb4l, SAP, Sys 40, F2, the System, Nu SAP, Net betting, Matrix, Matrix -A, RD-1, ADOT.

How should the score card be set up? What should we all be tracking? C/S count, O/T count, O/R count? SAP charts? What about the progression? U1D2, or maybe 2 Hi, to keep inline with U2Hi SAPs +6 avg and 80% win rate? Are we playing non-stop all the way through the shoe and changing systems after each event? Are we only playing the system that the SAP chart points to after an event change? What about table selection? Should we just walk around and look for only a certain type of shoe?

Edited July 12, 2010 by Mreteuya

[ECD]

Well I was remarking more in terms of ideas than actual rules. I have also always used a set no. of losses in all my systems as the signal to Go on the run, stop betting, switch or whatever. Mark has never seen any other approach because I have never used any other approach.

But I consider SAP a true breakthrough, a new technology that no one else has that can vastly improve on the certain number of losses signals for Maverick or any other system. I feel we are not using our new SAP technology to its full potential yet.

For instance: Suppose you find youself playing RD1 and you just won the last two bets of a 3 in a row. Your 2 or whatever loss rule is telling you to stay with RD1 because you just won the last two bets. But suppose your SAP chart is telling you that 3's are running well above normal while 4 or mores are running below normal???

Why would you ignore this information and stay with RD1? Why did you gather the SAP information? SAP is telling you very loudly NOT to bet that that 3 will go to 4. But, you haven't lost your set number of bets so you stick to RD1 and make a very stupid bet dead against your SAP chart. Get it? We aren't that stupid anymore, are we?

[Guest 400pounddaddy]

Hummm its been my impression to never bet against but bet for something....in other words, in Ellis's example where 3's are well above normal ( MC?) it would be ok to bet a 2 would go to 3 but not so smart to bet a 3 wouldn't go to 4.

I never bet against a run.

[Mreteuya]

Well I was remarking more in terms of ideas than actual rules. I have also always used a set no. of losses in all my systems as the signal to Go on the run, stop betting, switch or whatever. Mark has never seen any other approach because I have never used any other approach.

But I consider SAP a true breakthrough, a new technology that no one else has that can vastly improve on the certain number of losses signals for Maverick or any other system. I feel we are not using our new SAP technology to its full potential yet.

For instance: Suppose you find youself playing RD1 and you just won the last two bets of a 3 in a row. Your 2 or whatever loss rule is telling you to stay with RD1 because you just won the last two bets. But suppose your SAP chart is telling you that 3's are running well above normal while 4 or mores are running below normal???

Why would you ignore this information and stay with RD1? Why did you gather the SAP information? SAP is telling you very loudly NOT to bet that that 3 will go to 4. But, you haven't lost your set number of bets so you stick to RD1 and make a very stupid bet dead against your SAP chart. Get it? We aren't that stupid anymore, are we?

Well I'd be careful with that example. Its too out of context. What if that was the case and you are only in the first 20 plays of the shoe, and both of the 3s happened like a 1313 on the player side. So with maverick you are in F2-mode on the player side. Now you are on another 3 on the Player side. Player to Banker disparity is now something like at least 9 to 3. I would stay on the Player side. The example would make a little more sense if say we were in the 40th play or something and with a player with years of experience under their belt.

Playing with SAP like that can be very dangerous. Its been tried before. The theory was, bet that the least common events will remain the least common, and the most common events will remain the most common. Thats fine IF the rest of the shoe goes that way. But what if you start to lose to the Least common event and also to the most common. What are you to do now? then the idea was put out there that once the least common wins twice in a row, treat it like its now the Most common. Guess what happened inevitably after that? You got it, something else bacame the Most Common, and something else became the Least Common.

If you play differently everytime, you will always lose to different things. If you play consistintently at least the shoe is more of "stationary target" so to speak. You can sort of wait for it to come to you if youd like. Its a lot easier to know what to do, when you know the way you play will only lose to one thing isn't? Kind of like the saying "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything".

If you don't have a strong foundation to play from, its like you are trying to catch a chicken. You zig when you should have zagged. No matter where you place your bet, it always seems to be wrong.

This is why we need actual rules, at least to have something to base on. Something that will bring it all together. Don't you all agree?

Edited July 12, 2010 by Mreteuya

[ECD]

Well, you are half right 400 but remember that I said 4 or mores were below normal. We have learned through thousands of shoes using SAP charts that you are far better off to bet that abnormal will get more abnormal rather than catch up to normal. Shoes where all events hit normal expectancy are virtually non existent. They eventually catch up to normal over the course of many shoes but almost never over the course of a few shoes and NEVER over the course of a single shoe. Table and casino biases, therefore are a fact of life. But this is a GOOD thing because biases give us the only edge there is in Baccarat.

Mark understands this and therefore has designed Maverick to automatically follow a bias through the use of our SAP chart. Each of the component system function off one bias or another. There is a BEST system to play for every type of bias. Mark is trying to land on the right system at the right time throughout the entire shoe.

This is better than only following the strongest bias because even the strongest bias hickups now and then.

In my example, yes you probably WOULD bet that 2s would go to 3. You CERTAINLY would do that if 2s were running BELOW normal.

But you would not bet that the 3 would go to 4 because your SAP chart is telling you that 3s are staying 3 and not going to 4 in the shoe at hand.

So what I'm trying to get across is this: Why would we wait for a certain number of losses to switch systems when our SAP chart is already telling us to switch. Now, our SAP chart won't ALWAYS be telling us to switch on a win but when it DOES, why are we waiting for a certain number of losses? We seem to be wanting to prove our SAP chart was right by betting against it and losing hands virtually on purpose.

In my example our SAP chart is telling us to switch systems RIGHT NOW W/O waiting for losses. Why defy what it is telling us. Just because everybody else does that? Or because we have always done that? WE are the cutting edge of Baccarat. EVERYONE else loses because they don't know what we know. We know more so why aren't we ALWAYS using what we know to our best advantage? Why would we wait for 2 or 3 or 4 losses when our SAP chart is already telling us we are going to lose those hands. I'm saying that I think we can win more hands if we ALWAYS follow our SAP recomendations rather than only when we are already in trouble.

Mark, are you catching my drift here? I think we have room for improvement. Don't you?

[gablaw]

My 1 1/2 cents (probably not worth the full 2 cents). Maverick is for the average to good player while Ellis is talking about becoming a real pro. There's validity to both approaches.

I should become a diplomat!

[Norm A]

Sorry I can't make change, it will cost you 2cents

[gablaw]

Sorry I can't make change, it will cost you 2cents

Don't worry, Norm. I'm bound to have another opinion worth at least 1/2 cent!

[ECD]

Well, I think its a GOOD thing that our SAP chart is self correcting.

Whenever you lose a bet that you made according to your SAP chart it self corrects.

Lets say 3s are LC and you bet that a 3 will go to 4 because of that but the 3 stays 3. Right, 3s may well not be least common anymore. This stops you from making the same mistake again and you've only lost one bet.

Right, your SAP chart isn't always right but it usually is. But, when you force yourself to lose 4 bets in a row, those 4 bets were ALWAYS wrong. Sure, you can get the occasional shoe from hell that always does the wrong thing but that is what stop losses are for.

[Mreteuya]

Well, I think its a GOOD thing that our SAP chart is self correcting.

Whenever you lose a bet that you made according to your SAP chart it self corrects.

Lets say 3s are LC and you bet that a 3 will go to 4 because of that but the 3 stays 3. Right, 3s may well not be least common anymore. This stops you from making the same mistake again and you've only lost one bet.

Right, your SAP chart isn't always right but it usually is. But, when you force yourself to lose 4 bets in a row, those 4 bets were ALWAYS wrong. Sure, you can get the occasional shoe from hell that always does the wrong thing but that is what stop losses are for.

Okay, great idea. That was a good example for that specific situation. But again, thats assuming now that the 3s may not be LC. What are we supposed to bet next if that is our assumption? I am not saying to always wait for for 4 losses. I think you are taking one post I made under the Maverick thread and singling it out, where I was simply trying to make Maverick more 'mechanical' for newer players. Maybe that was a mistake. The original Maverick with its Evaluation Process which I have again emphasized in that thread, has us looking back every running 7 plays looking out for any trend changes. However, this not to decide on any single bet, but more to decide what trend or bias to play towards. This as you know, does involve the SAP chart mainly to decide whether to play F2 or F3.

So now in practical terms, in the real world, for the average player, how would you suggest someone play?

Are you saying that we should go back to SAP and start betting that the Least Common will remain that way as well as the Most common. Then changing every time those changed?

I think we would all appreciate it if you could simply put your great ideas into something that us mere mortals could play consistently. If it can be incorporated into Maverick, great, If not, thats great too.

But I think all would appreciate if you could put all of your great ideas into a practical form of play. If they can be incorporated into a system, what is the most practical way to do that is duplicatable so that everyone can be playing it instead of just one or two players.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Mreteuya

[Guest 400pounddaddy]

Isn't playing with SAP the way described U2HiSAP? If I want to make my play to play decisions based on the SAP count I won't be playing Maverick.

Not to beat a dead horse but it sounds like we're trying to morph maverick into something its not.

Did I miss something? I was unaware that Maverick needed fixing.

[Mreteuya]

Isn't playing with SAP the way described U2HiSAP? If I want to make my play to play decisions based on the SAP count I won't be playing Maverick.

Not to beat a dead horse but it sounds like we're trying to morph maverick into something its not.

Did I miss something? I was unaware that Maverick needed fixing.

No big daddy, Maverick has not changed. Until there is something obviously better I wouldn't change. Thats the problem everyone came into before here. Always switching to whatever new system popped up, and always adding rules to something just so it beats one particular shoe.

All I'm saying is ideas are great, but we need practical approaches. I'm all ears if there is anything new or better along those lines. If there is a way to apply the SAP chart on a more practical level with Maverick, that can win consistently AND is duplicateble so it can be played by the average player, then that would be great.

Otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[ECD]

Well I wasn't talking about the SAP system I was talking about the SAP Chart. There were occasions where you said stop and look over the previous hands and decide what is best. That is pretty subjective and maybe SAP could make that decision. But if everyone agrees that Maverick already makes the optimum decision every play based on the history of the shoe, then fine, I'm perfectly willing to leave it alone. Maybe you are right. Maybe its already as good as it can be.

[Baccplay]

No, Ellis, don't back out now. From our conversation today you said Maverick can be improved twice as good as is now. Please show us the improvement, we are always looking for something better. If you think the SAP chart can help the switch on Maverick or even switching to something better and avoiding losing 3, 4, 5 or more hands in a row, I think we are all dying to see this improvement.

[ECD]

Isn't playing with SAP the way described U2HiSAP? If I want to make my play to play decisions based on the SAP count I won't be playing Maverick.

Not to beat a dead horse but it sounds like we're trying to morph maverick into something its not.

Did I miss something? I was unaware that Maverick needed fixing.

No, we would still be playing Maverick with the exact same component systems and betting the same way. The only change I'm talking about is how you switch systems. I'm saying that instead of a certain number of losses, use the SAP chart to tell you when to switch and which of the component systems to switch to. Again, I think the main strength of Maverick is the particular base systems Mark decided to include. ALL that is fine but I think its switch methodology could be improved - when to switch and which to switch to. Maybe I'm wrong but it wouldn't take much to find out.

[Mreteuya]

No, we would still be playing Maverick with the exact same component systems and betting the same way. The only change I'm talking about is how you switch systems. I'm saying that instead of a certain number of losses, use the SAP chart to tell you when to switch and which of the component systems to switch to. Again, I think the main strength of Maverick is the particular base systems Mark decided to include. ALL that is fine but I think its switch methodology could be improved - when to switch and which to switch to. Maybe I'm wrong but it wouldn't take much to find out.

Wait, but that would mean after every play, (not losses) you are saying to consult SAP chart to look at what to switch to.

Not clear how you would continue to play any system as a base and then changing using the SAP chart,because it seems you will always be betting based on the chart.

Maybe I'm just too slow to catch on I guess. Because if you are looking at the SAP chart after every decision (not loss) you should be swtiching systems

or bets based on what just happened and how it affects or relates to the SAP chart.

So its either:

Option A

Always bet that whatever is the Most Common will stay that way, and whatever is the Least Common will stay that way.

And every play you make therafter is based on the 'running count' or 'running changes' in these Most Common and Least Common events.

So for instance, if 2's at that point are most common, we need to bet that the next play will be a 2.

What if the 2s are still most common, but there have been no 2's in the last two events and but we just had a two 3's in a row?

Now according to what you wrote, we STILL now bet, that it will go to 2. If it does go to 2, now we bet it will jump or be an opposite because 2's are still most common.

If we lose and it goes to 3, we bet opposite again and bet it will stay a 3. So basically Sys 40 or OTB4L. If we lose that so now its a 4 then we need to decide again if we

should go on the run based on preveious events. Check if 4s went to 5 etc. in the past. Then if we lose, we look at the SAP chart again and play towards whatever is Most Common again, correct?

OR

OPTION B

After every play (not loss or event) we use the SAP chart to decide what system to play instead.

Then one needs to learn at least 4 systems. OTB4L, TB4L, Sys 40, Net Bet, and of course Repeats. Then thats pretty much NU-SAP isn't it?

So basically your decision making process goes like this.

After EVERY play (not event or loss) look at your SAP-chart. If that very play creates a situation where:

• IF 1's and 2's are > than 3's and 4's, THEN Switch and play Sys 40 for that next play only.

• IF 1's and 4's are > than 2's and 3's, THEN Switch and play TB4L for that next play only.

• IF 1's and 3's are > than 2's and 4's, THEN Switch and play TB4L or Sys 40 for that next play only.

• IF 2's and 3's are > than 1's and 4's, THEN Switch and play OTB4L for that next play only.

• IF 2's and 4's are > than 1's and 3's, THEN Switch and play OTB4L for that next play only..

• IF 3's and 4's are > than 1's and 2's, THEN Switch and play Repeats for that next play only.

• IF all events are = or tied, then don't play until an event occurs, OR Switch and play Net Bet OR look at the last few plays to determine which system to play for that next play only.

After every play repeat process.

Then the only other decision you need to make is that once you see a 4 in a row, you need to decide if you are to stay on the run betting it will go to 5+ or betting it will stop at 4, based on what happened in the past events.

Game start is another story since you have no SAP events to refer to. So you might as well wait for 4 events, or start betting after three plays trying to guess which system the shoe will be based on either past shoes, or table surroundings.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Which were you thinking? Option A or Option B?

I'm wondering if anyone has tried to play this way before. Both options sound familiar.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Mreteuya

[ECD]

OR

OPTION B

After every play (not loss or event) we use the SAP chart to decide what system to play instead.

Then one needs to learn at least 4 systems. OTB4L, TB4L, Sys 40, Net Bet, and of course Repeats. Then thats pretty much NU-SAP isn't it?

So basically your decision making process goes like this.

After EVERY play (not event or loss) look at your SAP-chart. If that very play creates a situation where:

• IF 1's and 2's are > than 3's and 4's, THEN Switch and play Sys 40 for that next play only.

• IF 1's and 4's are > than 2's and 3's, THEN Switch and play TB4L for that next play only.

• IF 1's and 3's are > than 2's and 4's, THEN Switch and play TB4L or Sys 40 for that next play only.

• IF 2's and 3's are > than 1's and 4's, THEN Switch and play OTB4L for that next play only.

• IF 2's and 4's are > than 1's and 3's, THEN Switch and play OTB4L for that next play only..

• IF 3's and 4's are > than 1's and 2's, THEN Switch and play Repeats for that next play only.

• IF all events are = or tied, then don't play until an event occurs, OR Switch and play Net Bet OR look at the last few plays to determine which system to play for that next play only.

After every play repeat process.

Then the only other decision you need to make is that once you see a 4 in a row, you need to decide if you are to stay on the run betting it will go to 5+ or betting it will stop at 4, based on what happened in the past events.

Game start is another story since you have no SAP events to refer to. So you might as well wait for 4 events, or start betting after three plays trying to guess which system the shoe will be based on either past shoes, or table surroundings.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Which were you thinking? Option A or Option B?

I'm wondering if anyone has tried to play this way before. Both options sound familiar.

Excellent! I think we are starting to get on the same wave length.

First, no I don't think anyone has ever attempted to use a SAP chart as a switch signal. Nu SAP may to some degree and Old SAP too to some degree but not so much just as a switch indicator and certainly not for the specific systems in Maverick. But basically we are in uncharted waters. Nobody else has SAP. Hell, most have no idea how many 3s should be in a shoe on avg.

I suspect that if you won the last bet you are likely already ON the right system according to SAP - just not always. So I'm not expecting this to change very many plays from the way you are playing right now. But I do think it will change a key play now and then.

Maybe we should wait for a loss before we consult SAP. Maybe we will find that is best. I don't know.

Basically what I'm trying to do, as much as possible, is to stay ahead of the shoe, to anticipate trouble BEFORE it happens and attempt to avoid it instead of only reacting to trouble that has already occured.

I think your chart above is very good for a first attempt. I'm thinking in terms of something very similar. Maybe it is perfect but if not I don't think it would take much to get it perfect.

We are trying to avoid 4 losses in a row. What I'm saying is any system will have 4 losses in a row if you stick to the same system throughout those 4 losses. I'm hoping that we will hit 4 losses in a row less often if we consult our SAP chart at some point. Maybe after one loss, maybe after no losses and maybe after two losses. We just don't know because nobody has ever tried this before. Everyone uses a certain number of losses but that doesn't make that the best way.

We've done a hell of a lot of new things on this forum. We are way ahead of anyone else. No other forum even has any consistent winners. We have lots. Why? Because we are innovative.

We introduced the C/S count.

We introduced a practical scoring system.

We introduces the SAP count

We introduced net betting

We introduced OTB4L, Sys 40, RD1, F2-3,

We introduced U1D2 M2

And a hell of a lot of other stuff.

If there is a better switch signal than a certain number of lost bets, it will be US who discovers it.

But only if we look.

[ECD]

And remember that we only renew our SAP chart after an event is over. So we aren't looking every play. The most we could look is after every event. And there are an avg of 36 events. The only time you are looking after every play is during a ZZ run. BUT maybe we SHOULD be looking during a ZZ run if we aren't already on it.

[Mreteuya]

Excellent! I think we are starting to get on the same wave length.

First, no I don't think anyone has ever attempted to use a SAP chart as a switch signal. Nu SAP may to some degree and Old SAP too to some degree but not so much just as a switch indicator and certainly not for the specific systems in Maverick. But basically we are in uncharted waters. Nobody else has SAP. Hell, most have no idea how many 3s should be in a shoe on avg.

I suspect that if you won the last bet you are likely already ON the right system according to SAP - just not always. So I'm not expecting this to change very many plays from the way you are playing right now. But I do think it will change a key play now and then.

Maybe we should wait for a loss before we consult SAP. Maybe we will find that is best. I don't know.

Basically what I'm trying to do, as much as possible, is to stay ahead of the shoe, to anticipate trouble BEFORE it happens and attempt to avoid it instead of only reacting to trouble that has already occured.

I think your chart above is very good for a first attempt. I'm thinking in terms of something very similar. Maybe it is perfect but if not I don't think it would take much to get it perfect.

We are trying to avoid 4 losses in a row. What I'm saying is any system will have 4 losses in a row if you stick to the same system throughout those 4 losses. I'm hoping that we will hit 4 losses in a row less often if we consult our SAP chart at some point. Maybe after one loss, maybe after no losses and maybe after two losses. We just don't know because nobody has ever tried this before. Everyone uses a certain number of losses but that doesn't make that the best way.

We've done a hell of a lot of new things on this forum. We are way ahead of anyone else. No other forum even has any consistent winners. We have lots. Why? Because we are innovative.

We introduced the C/S count.

We introduced a practical scoring system.

We introduces the SAP count

We introduced net betting

We introduced OTB4L, Sys 40, RD1, F2-3,

We introduced U1D2 M2

And a hell of a lot of other stuff.

If there is a better switch signal than a certain number of lost bets, it will be US who discovers it.

But only if we look.

Ummm, but I don't think that there is anyone smart enough here to figure that out. I know I'm not. That is why we signed up here on the forum, so we could get the answer from you masters.

Do you think you could take some time to hammer it out, as it seems you said we are so close?

[ECD]

Sure, I'll give it a shot.

[Baccplay]

Ellis, for you to start, here's a shoe from my live casino. It can easily score +30 to +40 playing both Maverick and Maverick Ultimate without losing 3 hands in a row. Please use this shoe as a start to demonstrate how you can switch consulting the SAP chart. Visual is always better than words.

B1122171131

B5121121214

B21113151212

P123

[Norm A]

Ellis, for you to start, here's a shoe from my live casino. It can easily score +30 to +40 playing both Maverick and Maverick Ultimate without losing 3 hands in a row. Please use this shoe as a start to demonstrate how you can switch consulting the SAP chart. Visual is always better than words.

B1122171131

B5121121214

B21113151212

P123

Hi Baccplay

You are 100% correct visual is better then words.

I am still haveing trubble with Maverick, could you please post the score card for this shoe.

Thanks

NornA

[Baccplay]

I don't have a scanner so I won't be able to post any shoes.