The 4S Manual Questions Thread

[jerseyslim]

I think I get it. If you're using OTB4L then you go OTR after the lowest LC. Is that correct

What are you saying is the connection between LC 3's, 4's, and 5"s with OTB4L. Under what situation are we using OTB4L with one of these s's?

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?

[res]

Ellis

This is getting confusing now. I thought you were coming up with the 4S Manuel and now we have RD also playing with SAP or no Sap. This is getting confusing. I think I getting to know how to play one way and now we are looking into another way. I hope everything interwine together and we can see the exact rules and also sample games. I have been playing around with Maverick and it seems a little easier to play and I thought you were going to come up with a easier way of playing. Your ideas are great but some of us are confused. I want to get one system like Maverick or your 4S but it seems to change each message. I hope you understand what I am saying plus I am a visual learner.

[maxfli52]

I agree with Res; but let me ask the question in a different way - Ellis are you done with Sys 40 and therefore are moving on to RD?

Ellis

This is getting confusing now. I thought you were coming up with the 4S Manuel and now we have RD also playing with SAP or no Sap. This is getting confusing. I think I getting to know how to play one way and now we are looking into another way. I hope everything interwine together and we can see the exact rules and also sample games. I have been playing around with Maverick and it seems a little easier to play and I thought you were going to come up with a easier way of playing. Your ideas are great but some of us are confused. I want to get one system like Maverick or your 4S but it seems to change each message. I hope you understand what I am saying plus I am a visual learner.

[ECD]

Hi Res and Maxfli. Yes, essentially I am finished with System 40. But that does not mean that if anyone sees an improvement we can't go back and implement it. Remember that 4S stands for the 4 systems approach. This includes 40, RD, F2 and OTB4L. Therein we can play the best system for ANY shoe type. THAT is our 4S long range goal. Those are our best 4 systems. Together, they give us the best way to play every shoe type. I'm trying to unclutter your mind by sticking to only our best 4 systems.

Right now I'm looking at the possibility of combining the two streak systems RD and F2 so that in streaky shoes we end up deciding between the two at the earliest possible point in the shoe.

40 is a great system and you can do well with 40 alone. BUT it is decidedly NOT the BEST way streak shoes can be played. There will be a manual for 40 alone which is the same as the System 40 chapters in the 4S Manual. Keith is working on the construction of that stand alone manual. You may want to go with just that. After all it is a highly viable way of playing.

But, for the guys who want the best of all worlds the 4S manual must move on to the next system. I selected RD. But now I'm looking at the possibility of combining RD and F2 to arrive at a super streak system while simplifying the overall 4S approach. I think that can be done.

[ECD]

OR, you could look at 4S a totally different way. You could look at it as an attempt to improve on Maverick. Once you change the name of Anti back to its original name, Sys 40, we are talking the same exact 4 systems Mark E eventually ended up with for Maverick. All 4 are long standing BTC systems. I created all four many years ago. I know the strengths and weaknesses of all 4 after tons of casino play with each of the 4 and tons of computer testing provided by Aegis. Mark also used our time honored switch signals - a certain number of losses which I also originated.

But now I'm saying that is not the best switch signal to use. It seems to me that I should be allowed to say that since it was my invention in the first place. We SHOULD be switching as soon as we have identified the best system regardless of the number of losses incurred. Why design in losses in your approach? I'm saying, for instance, that the time to decide between RD and F2 is after ONE loss because that is exactly where the two systems part company. Mark got miffed at my attempts to improve Maverick which he saw as interference and went his own way. Sure, I'm sorry to lose Mark. He's a very sharp guy, esp for only 2 years experience. But at least now I'm free to make the improvements I see fit.

There are other disappointments I see in Maverick. One is that it tends to lose sight of the strongest bias of the shoe. When in doubt we should be defaulting to the strongest bias of the shoe. The last 7 plays may or may not arrive at the same conclusion. Somtimes the last 7 plays tell us exactly what to do correctly. Just as often they tell us exactly what NOT to do. But the strongest bias is right more often than it is wrong. That is why proper identification of LC, for instance, works so well in System 40.

So you could look at 4S as a systematic, ground up redesign of Maverick. In my view the FIRST consideration is to get everyone playing the 4 component systems the BEST way each can possibly be played. From there we need to identify the best possible switch mechanisms. To do that I believe we are best off to take the whole shoe into consideration rather than the shoe's latest whim.

Bare with me. I think we can get this to the BEST and simplest way it can be played with everyone playing to the same rules and ending up with the same result.

Oh, and lets not forget Net Betting. Maverick leaves that out entirely. But In neutral shoes it is the best way to make the most money while betting the least money. Right now, Neutral shoes are Maverick's weakness. Let's make them 4S's strength. Maverick is a strong system. No question. But let's make 4S even stronger. We need to put our head's TOGETHER. Self pride is good in most things, but not in Baccarat. We want the BEST ideas. Who's they originally were is of no importance. Lets not make the same mistake twice. EVERYTHING can be improved.

Edited September 2, 2010 by ECD

[ECD]

I think I get it. If you're using OTB4L then you go OTR after the lowest LC. Is that correct

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?

[ECD]

What are you saying is the connection between LC 3's, 4's, and 5"s with OTB4L. Under what situation are we using OTB4L with one of these s's?

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?