Jump to content

The 4S Manual Questions Thread


Recommended Posts

Jersey,

If you think you're going to have more free time now that you're retired, you're in for a rude awakening!!

I retired (actually forced out) at 60 and thought I'd have all kinds of free time due to the nature of my previous work keeping me away from home about half of the month.

WRONG!

I think I've got less free time now and I can't even imagine how in the heck I got anything done at home when I was still working!! My dad told me that same "no free time" thing when he retired and I thought he was making a joke or something! He was right!

So, welcome to the ranks of the "retired folk" in the neighborhood and try not to run out of free time now!

MVS

Same story here, but injoy your Free Time.

NormA

Norm A

FOLLOW THE SHOE

WHEN IN DOUBT WAIT IT OUT

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ECD

    58

  • jerseyslim

    19

  • aaron0900

    11

  • MVSeahog

    6

jerseyslim

MVS........I know one thing I'll be doing a lot more of than I did before and that's go to the casino. It only takes about 1/3 of the time it used to take me to get to A.C. One hour vs almost 3 hours. I did all my work from home so for a change, I'll be able to get out of here and enjoy it. And I'll enjoy my home more now since I won't see it as my work place other than of course spending time studying bac. shoes. Thanks for the welcome and I'm enjoying meeting new people here from this group. So many give of their time with no compensation here and I find that very refreshing. So it's good to have joined the ranks of the retired and just as good joining this group of players.

Jersey,

If you think you're going to have more free time now that you're retired, you're in for a rude awakening!!

I retired (actually forced out) at 60 and thought I'd have all kinds of free time due to the nature of my previous work keeping me away from home about half of the month.

WRONG!

I think I've got less free time now and I can't even imagine how in the heck I got anything done at home when I was still working!! My dad told me that same "no free time" thing when he retired and I thought he was making a joke or something! He was right!

So, welcome to the ranks of the "retired folk" in the neighborhood and try not to run out of free time now!

MVS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I retired my professorship (S.U.N.Y.) in '92. That's when your true identity begins. Before that you were always who somebody else wanted you to be.

Got voted the most popular professor in the school that same year.

That's because whenever I caught the kids smoking the weed, I'd join them instead of reporting them. Made for some pretty far out Math classes.

I always taught Calculus from a gambling perspective. Made it a WHOLE lot more interesting.

I was the only Professor who came from the Corporate world. So I put a real life perspective on everything. The rest of the Professors knew nothing of real life. They'd been in school one way or another their whole life.

Edited by ECD
Link to post
Share on other sites
Right Slider and good thinking. But will the avg player have time to do all that at casino speed? Maybe, in that way, we should be happy that the game is slower today.

Check this out:

I'm thinking to conform to the way we count repeats

The first circle of a ZZ run which is actually a repeat should be 1 point

The second circle 2 points

the third circle 4 points

the 4th 8 points

Consider that a 2112 is actually a 4 in a row ZZ

3 repeats in a row gets 8 points

so 3 Ops in a row should also get 8 points

What do you think?

Well if you want to score the 1 cluster in a 2112 (3 ops) as 8, then I think you would have to score a 1 cluster in a 21112 (4 ops) as 16 and a 1 cluster in 212 (2 ops) as 4. Is this what you're suggesting?

Edited by slider8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well if you want to score the 1 cluster in a 2112 (3 ops) as 8, then I think you would have to score a 1 cluster in a 21112 (4 ops) as 16 and a 1 cluster in 212 (2 ops) as 4. Is this what you're suggesting?

Yes except we wouldn't go past an 8 multiplier (3 ops) just as we don't go passed an 8 multipier in Sys 40 because we are identifying least common.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

Ellis how does this RD1 one approach compare to what was used in Maverick? And by the way folks, get a copy of the Zero Proximity manual for the reduced priced of $150 now as it will be going up as we have struck an aggreement from a major blackjack author to offer it to his clients. The price will be going up.

You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

Need Information Messenger

https://m.me/beatthecasinodotcom

司奇士

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellis how does this RD1 one approach compare to what was used in Maverick? And by the way folks, get a copy of the Zero Proximity manual for the reduced priced of $150 now as it will be going up as we have struck an aggreement from a major blackjack author to offer it to his clients. The price will be going up.

This is the key RD1 Question. Playing basic RD1 the way I origionally designed it or playing RDH, You are betting repeats and going ON ZZ runs after they already went 3 plays (RD1). So you are finally betting OTR to hit the 4th circle of a ZZ run. This is OK IF you are in a high 1's situation. BUT, RD is a streak system in that it primarily bets repeats (75%). Streak systems SELDOM have high 1's. As designed, RD1 and RDH lose to sporadic 1's which are half of all 1's. BUT, as soon as you say bet straight down after your FIRSTt Repeat bet loss, voila, you beat ALL sporadic 1's and you are already on ALL ZZ runs at the third circle rather than the 4th. That Doubles your ZZ hit rate. Then your SAP Chart tells you whether to stay ON the ZZ run or not. This is a FAR better way of playing RD. Much better than RD1 or RDH.

I just wish I had thought of that when I originally designed RD1. I bet Mark E. does too.

Edited by ECD
Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on Ellis. Let's get it on!

Wearing too many hats at the moment but getting there. I'll be glad when our new format is complete. We will have 4 BJ manuals and 4 Bac Manuals. New members will need to buy a manual to get in and then only be able to see the manual they bought plus its support thread. All existing members will be grand fathered. Existing Bac players will see all 4 Bac Manuals. That should make everything a lot easier both for the members and the teacher.

The 4 BJ Manuals are now complete. The 4 Bac Manuals will be 4S, OTB4L, ADOT and Net Betting. Each manual will be stand alone complete. Then a new member won't need to search the whole forum to find everything. Everything he needs to see will be in ONE place. Then my job is reduced to answering questions about each manual.

Edited by ECD
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, RD1 loses to sporadic 1's. Yet, I've often said you can't have a winning system that loses to sporadic 1's. To make matters worse RD1 is a streak system. Streak shoes are usually short of 1's. When shoes are short of 1's most of the 1's are usually sporadic (singles 1's rather than double or triple 1's). In RD 1 we don't attempt to go on a ZZ run until the 4th circle of the ZZ run. We lose to ALL sporadic 1's.

So, it seems to me that in RD we need to address the fact that overall, 1's are half of all events. RD1 nearly completely ignores 1's. By the time we attempt to jump on the 4th circle of a ZZ run we've already missed the boat. How often will we get a 3rd opposite in a row in a shoe favoring Repeats? It would seem we should make the decision earlier.

RD1 loses the bet under all straight runs. That much can't be helped because we are betting repeats and all straight runs end sooner or later. But that is only ONE losing bet and it is almost always only a 1 or a 2 bet.

We are playing RD because the shoe favors streak. There are 3 types of streaky shoes:

1. Straight runs following straight runs

2. Straight runs separated by singles 1's (sporadic 1's)

3. Straight runs separated by multiple 1's

We can beat all 3 types if we can identify which type is at hand.

Type 1 we beat by saying: bet Repeats until you lose two repeats in a row.

Type 2 and 3 we can beat by saying: When you lose the Repeat bet under a straight run bet straight down.

That way we beat ALL sporadic 1's plus we are on the 3rd circle of every ZZ run. Draw out a 3113 and you'll see what I mean. By betting straight down we ALWAYS hit the 2nd 1. At that point we can look at the previous 1. Was it sporadic or multiple? And bet accordingly.

Sporadic 1's OFTEN come in bunches. With that process we beat ALL of them.

Now, once we have bet straight down successfully what if we say continue betting straight down until we lose 2 bets in a row?

That way we beat ALL sporadic 1s and ALL ZZ runs.

Draw out a 31113 as well as a 313. Start with a 1 bet on the 2nd circle. We beat both scenarios W/O ever losing 2 bets in a row. In fact we win ALL of our 2 bets and half of our 1 bets.

Check it out!

All we need know is: is it a runs following runs game or not.

I think we can do this W/O an SAP chart and still get the best of both worlds. Or ALL 3 worlds.

What do you think? Should we give this way of playing RD a shot?

It's certainly is a lot easier than an SAP chart.

Edited by ECD
Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Smith

Ellis for it to be a sporadic 1 it has to move over to the weak side. Have you given any thought to playing any strong side banker or player options when in a game like this rather than assuming the repeats will continue on both bank and player sides at the same frequency. I am thinking that you may be able to exploit the strong side rather than a repeat strong bias

You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

Need Information Messenger

https://m.me/beatthecasinodotcom

司奇士

Link to post
Share on other sites
jerseyslim

It would seem to me the better way to go is by looking at the history of the shoe and see which side is throwing out the most 1's. Let's say ist's P. Then whenever you are on a streak with B and it goes over to the P side, that's when you would want to bet for it to come back to B. Just because B is the dominant side, it wouldn't necessarily mean that P doesn't have a lot of 2's.

Ellis for it to be a sporadic 1 it has to move over to the weak side. Have you given any thought to playing any strong side banker or player options when in a game like this rather than assuming the repeats will continue on both bank and player sides at the same frequency. I am thinking that you may be able to exploit the strong side rather than a repeat strong bias
Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, once we have bet straight down successfully what if we say continue betting straight down until we lose 2 bets in a row?

That way we beat ALL sporadic 1s and ALL ZZ runs.

Perhaps I'm being a bit simplistic here but wouldn't that be the definition of "F2" ?

MVS (I just know I've missed something in the previous explanation)

Link to post
Share on other sites
jerseyslim

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am wrong, but where are we thus far. If we have a negative count, we're betting syst40. If we have a neutral count we net bet sys40. Now the $64,000 question is if we have a positive count we bet???????? I think it's some version of RD but I'm not sure since we threw in this thing about 1's and a sap count on 1's. Ellis.........why don't you clear this all up because things are being thrown around and I'm not sure whether you are saying this is what we should consider if the count is X. At this point do you have some preliminary rules. It appears things are getting scattered and I'm not sure if you are intentionally doing this or what. Please give us something to work with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I probably am wrong, but where are we thus far. If we have a negative count, we're betting syst40. If we have a neutral count we net bet sys40. Now the $64,000 question is if we have a positive count we bet???????? I think it's some version of RD but I'm not sure since we threw in this thing about 1's and a sap count on 1's. Ellis.........why don't you clear this all up because things are being thrown around and I'm not sure whether you are saying this is what we should consider if the count is X. At this point do you have some preliminary rules. It appears things are getting scattered and I'm not sure if you are intentionally doing this or what. Please give us something to work with.

No no, study up. Sys 40 is chop, + count, Primarily bets opposites. goes OTR on straight runs

RD is streak, - count, Primarily bets repeats, Goes OTR on ZZ runs.

Neutral shoes is net bet Sys 40 or OTB4L if you know it.

All you need remember is how a system starts and you know what its for.

40 always starts opposites

RD always starts repeats

Net bet starts with both = neutral

When I say "discussion" I'm opening the RD system up for discussion. The name of this chapter is RD Discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm actually feeling a little stress thinking about what this system's rules are going to look like summed up in 1 post? <gulp> ;)</gulp>

Nah, RD is the simplest system in the world. Bet repeats UNTIL you lose under a 1 in a row. I'm just questioning the "UNTIL". The standard RD1 rule means exactly the same if I said bet repeats until you have 2 losses. But that means your 3rd bet is going to always bet ON the 4th circle of a ZZ run.

What I'm asking is do we really want to be making our largest bet in the game thus far that a ZZ run of 3 in going to 4 in a STREAKY shoe? It just doesn't seem too bright.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I'm being a bit simplistic here but wouldn't that be the definition of "F2" ?

MVS (I just know I've missed something in the previous explanation)

No, you are right. Said in a different way. I'm saying this:

RD1 only favors the first streaky shoe type: straight runs following straight runs.

F2 favors both the other 2 types, straight runs separated by sporadic 1's and straight runs separated by multiple 1's. The bet that changes is the bet that comes up after ONE losing bet. I'm saying THAT is the time to make the decision. After 1 losing bet we ask is this a runs following runs shoe or not? That way we give our second bet its highest possible hit rate.

Its like the complaint I had re Maverick. Why are we waiting for 2 or 3 or 4 losses in a row before we react? Both RD1 and F2 lose the bet at the bottom of a run. The next bet is the crucial bet! One side is RD1. The other side is F2. It seemes to me it would behoove us to make the RD1 vs F2 decision right then and there - after 1 losing bet. Up to that time both RD1 and F2 are exactly the same. Doesn't that make good sense? When you look at it like that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

MVS, Condider the question carfully because I greatly value your opinion.

Also, after one losing bet, if we can't yet make a clear F2 vs RD decision. I think we should either skip the bet or just bet one unit. The next time the decision comes up at least we will have the advantage of one indicator.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi! Is there something more we need to know about the "4s" except for the RD-chapter and the extended MM chapter?

Thanks

Fred, only one thing comes to mind: other than we need to know when confirmed 4s are LC in system 40.

We don't really care about 4s with RD1 or F2 because we are always already on the run at that point and with those two streak systems its always best to stay on all straight runs until they end.

But I've been toying with the idea of declaring the LC between only 3s, 4s, and confirmed 5s with OTB4L. Right now we ALWAYS make 4s LC. That is pretty lazy and goes right back to my complaint about waiting for a certain number of losses. We should take what we've learned and also apply it to OTB4L and choose the lowest LC between 3s, 4s and 5s. Why not get every bit of advantage we possibly can?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Both RD1 and F2 lose the bet at the bottom of a run. The next bet is the crucial bet! One side is RD1. The other side is F2. It seemes to me it would behoove us to make the RD1 vs F2 decision right then and there - after 1 losing bet. Up to that time both RD1 and F2 are exactly the same. Doesn't that make good sense? When you look at it like that?

BINGO!

If we can solve that "problem" more than 50% of the time correctly, we are all home free!!

MVS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use