NORA - My first thoughts

[Guest]

You know, we have no competition on the internet. Not bragging, just stating an obvious fact. We are the best there is. NOR is the best there is. NO one will ever do better, except maybe us.

We are our own competition. If anyone ever improves on NOR, it will be us.

I see two possible areas for improvement.

One is SAP and the other is first vs second liners.

Let's take SAP first.

We invented SAP. It is solely ours. No one else even understands it.

OK lets take a good OTB4L game. OTB4L likes single or double 1's and 2s and either 3s or 4s.

What if we have a game that hits 2 out of 3? It is high in both single 1's and 3s but low in 2s. Very common and still a very good OTB4L shoe. Let's call it a 31313 shoe. That is what it is mostly doing.

OK, OTB4L is telling us once the shoe goes 2, bet against the run.

Ha, but SAP is telling us wait for 3 and THEN bet against the run because 3s are MC and 2s are LC.

Right now we would likely not even notice this because we are winning. But the FACT is, we COULD BE winning twice as much just by paying attention to what we already know - what we already invented. That is ONE thing NORA could do for us.

Another is second liners:

Look, the OR count can only do 3 things:

It can run +

It can run -

It can hover around 1

Sure, there are cases an OR count takes off in one direction only to return to Zero later in the shoe but those cases are so few and far between that they are essentially ignorable. Sorta like 10 in a rows.

When we say + count, we could just as well say high in 1's because they are one and the same.

When we say - count we could just as well say high in 2+s because they are one and the same.

They say that there is no such thing as an advantage bet in Baccarat. The mathematical FACT is, there IS.

A - count game MUST be high in 2 or mores and low in 1s. MATHEMATICAL FACT.

Therefore, in BOTH respects betting a 1 will go to 2 becomes an advantage bet. If the count remains minus (and it usually does) THAT is the bet we will win the most.

Why? Because you can't have an "or more" W/O first having a 2. Plain as freaking day.

But the same thing is true in reverse.

A + count game MUST be high in 1's and low in 2 or mores. So now the advantage bet becomes bet 1's will stay 1's. That is the bet you MUST win the most often in + count.

So what is NOR doing wrong?

In BOTH cases we are making our smallest bets on the very bets we mathematically win the most often.

Well maybe we are smarter than everyone else. But then, WHY are we being so stupid?

Ha, I know what you're thinking. You are thinking: Why are YOU being so stupid?

I say this: We gotta fix that!

If we are going to be the cutting edge in Baccarat, let's be the cutting freaking edge!

So how do we fix those two things? Well the first step is to recognize the problem!

Now, for step 2:

Edited January 3, 2012 by Guest

[wolfat]

Hi Ellis,

talking about SAP I can't avoid enter this post. SAP, IMO, is the most powerful tool invented in the history of bac. Obviously it has advantages and disadvantages but, used properly, it gives you edge. By properly I mean under the right conditions; like NOR you must find a biased shoe where an event (1s, 2s, 3s, 4s+) is appearing much more than its normal average OR when an event is appearing less than its avg. In this situation YOU CAN'T LOSE! Like Ellis said there's room for improvement; I could suggest to watch P side and B side separately: when there's a dominant side the MC/LC event can vary a lot if you consider P side only or B side only (when there's no domination it doesn't worth make this job). A smart eye take care of this phenomenon.

But where's the dark side? I prefere talk more about the difficulties you'll meet; when things goes well, no advices needed!

There are 2 kind of problems and if you know and recognize them you can decrease the damage.

As said before, when a shoe is not biased, the events tend to appear closed to the normal avg: HERE YOU HAVE NO EDGE! Avoid betting this situations basing your bets on SAP.

Another problem you'll find is when an event LC or MC start to recover its normal avg (appearing more or less than avg after a biased part of the shoe). Under this condition you have a high (or low) SAP count but this count don't reflect the actual situation; you must take adequate countermeasures, don't bet blindly just checking the count but start cautiously reconsidering the new situation.

Comments or questions are welcome!

ciao

[Guest]

See that! Now you know why Wolfat won the BF Bac tournament!

[Guest]

I'm thinking PJ was right. There is a count we can use for 1st vs 2nd liners that would be much more accurate for that precise purpose then the OR count. We could call it simply the 1,2 count and it would only count 1st vs 2nd liners - what happens only after opposites. This is a balanced count (it averages 0 in the long run.

Suppose we had a shoe start P1171111. The OR count is 0 so we don't get a clue from it.

But the 1,2 count is +6 telling us to bet first liners and so far there have been 7 first liners vs 1 second liner. Betting first liners, as the 1,2 count is telling us, we already would have won 5 out of 6 bets.

I'm beginning to zero in on such a strategy and I can already see that it would be rather easy to add to NOR. This would give us 2 more common shoe types that we could kill.

At least so far, I'm not seeing any down side to it.

[Keith Smith]

After an opposite, bet opposite after a repeat, bet repeat.

[ECD]

I'm thinking PJ was right. There is a count we can use for 1st vs 2nd liners that would be much more accurate for that precise purpose then the OR count. We could call it simply the 1,2 count and it would only count 1st vs 2nd liners - what happens only after opposites. This is a balanced count (it averages 0 in the long run.

Suppose we had a shoe start P1171111. The OR count is 0 so we don't get a clue from it.

But the 1,2 count is +6 telling us to bet first liners and so far there have been 7 first liners vs 1 second liner. Betting first liners, as the 1,2 count is telling us, we already would have won 5 out of 6 bets.

I'm beginning to zero in on such a strategy and I can already see that it would be rather easy to add to NOR. This would give us 2 more common shoe types that we could kill.

At least so far, I'm not seeing any down side to it.

I'k glad to hear this Ellis,

I still refer to it as S/G count, because it doesn't just count 1s and 2s, it counts 1s (singles) vs. 2+s (groups). It is a singles vs. groups count. The advantage to this count (whatever we call it) is as you pointed out it gives a good indication when a high advantage bet is at hand.

Also, it is important to have the most current info so I suggest capping the count at +/-3 and perhaps only betting 1st or 2nd lingers when the count is "3". That means if we're betting 2nd liners when we lost 1 bet we wait for the count to return to 3 and this helps confirm the clumping of the 2+s (as well as the 1s) For 2nd liners I also like to see three 2+s in a row. It's just a visual confirmation that I like when betting heavy for the next 2nd liner.

I've been betting 5 units on 2nd liners and doing very good, but it's assuming more risk than some want to take. I have a suggestion. Since the

S/G (or 1/2+) count tells us when it is favorable to bet for 1st or 2nd liners, why not use the 4-5-6 prog for 1st or 2nd line exploits. That way we would be using our higher bet prog when it is most favorable for a win. This would follow along with the prog within a prog concept and applying it under the very best conditions.

What do you think?

PJ

Edited January 5, 2012 by ECD

[joeystyle]

I'm thinking PJ was right. There is a count we can use for 1st vs 2nd liners that would be much more accurate for that precise purpose then the OR count. We could call it simply the 1,2 count and it would only count 1st vs 2nd liners - what happens only after opposites. This is a balanced count (it averages 0 in the long run.

Suppose we had a shoe start P1171111. The OR count is 0 so we don't get a clue from it.

But the 1,2 count is +6 telling us to bet first liners and so far there have been 7 first liners vs 1 second liner. Betting first liners, as the 1,2 count is telling us, we already would have won 5 out of 6 bets.

I'm beginning to zero in on such a strategy and I can already see that it would be rather easy to add to NOR. This would give us 2 more common shoe types that we could kill.

At least so far, I'm not seeing any down side to it.

If I may make a suggestion. I believe many of the neophytes like myself would benefit greatly by having the inventors,forefathers and successful users of SAP create an entire thread of postings dialog of how each uses SAP to make critical play decisions. I think the responses from each of you as the discussion furthers would prove to be invaluable to members who have not truly or effectively incorporated SAP in their play. In addition, Andrea brings up a very valid point that one needs to be aware of as far the MC & LC vs norm for 1's,2s,3s and 4s. In addition, to the fact that as a shoe progresses that our calculations could be scued due to that certain occurrences are more prominent now than earlier in the shoe. For example 3's are LC and had NOT occurred in the first 40 decisions, then in the next 10 decisions it popped up twice. How does that change our approach towards utilizing SAP? Also, what are the disadvantages of using SAP? What are the danger signs of being lulled into using it in comparison to abiding to one of play methods within NOR?

Hope I am not being a nuisance.

Ciao

Joey

[johnMalaysia]

Hi Uncle Ellis,

Your idea of Nora is the Best in the World!

Some Chinese Pro here usually bet larger on second liners and upon winning take half and let the other half on the run in streaky shoes. As soon as they lose twice, they will be gone!!!

Yeah, some tend to follow Keith's idea of bet repeat on a repeat and bet chop on a chop, you only lose to tt...

Uncle Ellis, may be we can*explore Nora by your basic principles of winning baccarat.

Bet Placement:

How about exploring the horizontal counts of Sap as brilliantly suggested by you before?*

It seems to be the 'Black Hole' of Baccarat, which sucks in everything in Baccarat! 'Astronomically'???

For example, otbl w 5 zz runs counted correctly can change trends to 40!*

Repeat shoe w zz runs can change trends to F!*

40 shoe w 4s 5s may go F!

May be we ought to have all the Sap counts, vertically, horizontally, 'bankerly' and 'playerly'.

I think it may be a great break through if the 'Black Hole' of Baccarat can provide us answers to signs of changing trends!*

Sorry uncle, F is great but not capable of handling rd1, repeat or 'NupSap' shoes, especially in the beginning of streaky shoes.

Irregular 2/3 suck! It burnt my ass so many times over here!!! Do we want to re consider rd1/ repeats for Nora to be conclusive rather than simplistic? I am sorry, uncle Ellis, I do not mean to be a smart ass but just want to cover it from further burning that's all!

Uncle can you please share your expert ideas on those Exploit Bets, LC, MC, 4s otr, 4zz otr, 3 rows 2+s go Repeats, 221 go Otbl, etc? Are they any good, can I earn on those? Do you want them into your brilliant NORA now?

Progression:

Could we use 234 or 345 on second liners and 123 on others with Nor Otbl?

Yeah, may be like you suggested, bigger bets on 1st and 2nd liner bets according to the 12 Counts.

Discipline:

This is probably most important after having Nor, how can we psychologically capable of being a pro? Self control on -8, taking wins, etc?!

How can we stop chasing losing shoe?!

Uncle Ellis, you sure can say it again, 'only us, and may I add, especially you and your brilliant leadership can lead us to new heights of NORA = 'Avatar' Winning Baccarat???

[Guest]

I'k glad to hear this Ellis,

I still refer to it as S/G count, because it doesn't just count 1s and 2s, it counts 1s (singles) vs. 2+s (groups). It is a singles vs. groups count. The advantage to this count (whatever we call it) is as you pointed out it gives a good indication when a high advantage bet is at hand.

Also, it is important to have the most current info so I suggest capping the count at +/-3 and perhaps only betting 1st or 2nd lingers when the count is "3". That means if we're betting 2nd liners when we lost 1 bet we wait for the count to return to 3 and this helps confirm the clumping of the 2+s (as well as the 1s) For 2nd liners I also like to see three 2+s in a row. It's just a visual confirmation that I like when betting heavy for the next 2nd liner.

I've been betting 5 units on 2nd liners and doing very good, but it's assuming more risk than some want to take. I have a suggestion. Since the

S/G (or 1/2+) count tells us when it is favorable to bet for 1st or 2nd liners, why not use the 4-5-6 prog for 1st or 2nd line exploits. That way we would be using our higher bet prog when it is most favorable for a win. This would follow along with the prog within a prog concept and applying it under the very best conditions.

What do you think?

PJ

PJ, we are thinking exactly along the same lines. One way to do this is to bet only on either 1st or second liners when we have a high 1/2 count. H1 + we bet only on first liners - whenever we have an opposite we bet on another opposite but we don't bet after a repeat at all. Conversely in a hi - count we again only bet after an opposite but now we bet on repeat. After the 2, we don't bet at all. This way we are ONLY making the advantage bets which ever way our 1/2 count tells us to make them. We would only be betting a little over half the time but our hit rate would be determined by the size of our count whether it be + or -.

Yes a low slope prog like a 567 would make a lot of sense. So would simply flat betting at 3 to 5 times our normal unit. So what if we only make 3 to 5 units if our unit is 5 times its normal size! I'm thinking extremely low risk but high dollar wins.

But I'm also seeing it this way: Suppose we are playing OTB4L mostly because of high 2s and low 1's. Sure the OR count is hovering 0 telling us to play OTB4L. But also we have a high - 1/2 count telling us to bet 2nd liners.

Ok, fine: We play OTB4L normally but also, after every opposite we add a bonus to the second liner bets because BOTH counts are telling us that this shoe contains more 2 or mores than 1's.

I'm thinking this will be mumbo jumbo to most of the guys at this point. But you have been working with this so I'm thinking you will see what I'm trying to get at, right?

[Guest]

Hi Uncle Ellis,

Your idea of Nora is the Best in the World!

Some Chinese Pro here usually bet larger on second liners and upon winning take half and let the other half on the run in streaky shoes. As soon as they lose twice, they will be gone!!!

Right John, that is what they do. The difference is our count would tell us when to bet on 2nd liners vs when to bet on 1st liners. So I'm thinking we would be a lot more successful at this than they are.

[ECD]

Ok, fine: We play OTB4L normally but also, after every opposite we add a bonus to the second liner bets because BOTH counts are telling us that this shoe contains more 2 or mores than 1's.

I'm thinking this will be mumbo jumbo to most of the guys at this point. But you have been working with this so I'm thinking you will see what I'm trying to get at, right?

Exactly right!

The OTB4L thing is what I was talking about a few posts back. OT is the very best time to bet more on 2nd liners. When I see the OT signal (which for me is a 2-2-1), I have been betting 1 unit on the 1st line and 5 units on the 2nd liner.

These's still a lot to learn but I really like the 2nd liners. I also appreciate the NOR basic system, but my personal style is to bet the SAP exploits. That way I bet less, pay less comm, but win at a much higher PA with less risk.

For Johnmalaysia and our other asian friends who only play the horizontal card, I've developed a Horizontal card with the sap event count integrated right into the card. I'll post a sample and blank scorecard that they can download it in a new thread shortly.

Thanks,

PJ

[Guest]

Joey, yes SAP is a very good system especially when we have high disparity among event counts. But I'm thinking about using it as a tool to augment our betting along the same lines that we would use 1st vs 2nd liners - to create super bet opportunities in high disparity situations. This way we can take advantage of SAP in high disparity situations W/O paying a penalty in low disparity situations. I'm thinking this would give us the best of two worlds. In fact, I'm thinking that combining all 3 would give us the best of 3 worlds.

Like PJ and Andrea, I already see that this would create a hugh improvement to the effectivness of NOR. The question now is how to we physically do this W/O making NOR overly cumbersome so that ALL the members can actually keep up with it at casino speed? It doesn't do us any good to have the best system in the world if nobody can actually play it right. We are absolutely in totally uncharted waters now. NO ONE has ever looked at this stuff before.

[Guest]

Exactly right!

The OTB4L thing is what I was talking about a few posts back. OT is the very best time to bet more on 2nd liners. When I see the OT signal (which for me is a 2-2-1), I have been betting 1 unit on the 1st line and 5 units on the 2nd liner.

These's still a lot to learn but I really like the 2nd liners. I also appreciate the NOR basic system, but my personal style is to bet the SAP exploits. That way I bet less, pay less comm, but win at a much higher PA with less risk.

For Johnmalaysia and our other asian friends who only play the horizontal card, I've developed a Horizontal card with the sap event count integrated right into the card. I'll post a sample and blank scorecard that they can download it in a new thread shortly.

Thanks,

PJ

OK thanks PJ and that reminds me, could you also post a generic vertical blank card. I lost all mine when my old computer bit the dust.

[Guest]

Jeez, just when you think you've got everything as perfect as it can be, up jumps the devil!

[zebra]

If I may make a suggestion. I believe many of the neophytes

like myself would benefit greatly by having the inventors,forefathers and successful users

of SAP create an entire thread of postings dialog of how each uses SAP to make critical play

decisions. I think the responses from each of you as the discussion furthers would prove to

be invaluable to members who have not truly or effectively incorporated SAP in their play.

Good suggestion Joey. Here is a quick summary of how I incorporate the SAP count

into NOR play. First, let me say that this works best when a shoe is well underway.

You can't tell too much from the SAP count early. I always like to enter a shoe

after it has established its patterns, just as Ellis preaches. I will write all the plays

onto my card and do a quick SAP count. I start my play with the system that best

suits the shoe. I am looking for disparity as shown by the LC and MC. The greater

the disparity, the surer my bet. So if my SAP count is 3,6,0,8 I am going to jump all

over a 2 no matter which of the systems I am playing. If I see BB I am betting P even

if the system calls for a B bet. What we are doing is betting that a 2 will not go to 3.

If it does go to 3, I will now be betting that it will go to 4 to again try to take

advantage of the 3 being LC. In certain situations my bet will be above the normal bet,

just like PJ does on his second liners. Anthony likes to call them "boom bets".

Just another way of exploiting a good shoe so you can get out faster. Keeping a SAP

count may seem difficult, but it will become easy very quickly and I consider it well worth the effort.

Paul

[ECD]

OK thanks PJ and that reminds me, could you also post a generic vertical blank card. I lost all mine when my old computer bit the dust.

Here is a link to my standard vertical card. It's in excel file format (.xls). Just download it and print however many you need.

http://www.mediafire.com/?zf61lt3jyx8x6ei

PJ

p.s. I posted the Horizontal card with SAP event chart in a new thread under "Universal Baccarat" thread

Edited January 6, 2012 by ECD

[johnMalaysia]

Hi BJ,*

Truly you are a genius in Baccarat.*

I like your Exploits, S/G Counts, Horizontal Scorecards (HSC)....

Yes, in Asia, no body uses Vertical Scorecard but Horizontal one.*

Speaking of Asia, BTW, you are quite popular over here! I know of BTC members here using your NupSap manual, including myself...

Do you think we want to include average counts on 2s, 3s, 4s as well, besides the 1s? Just an idea.

PJ, I wonder if you can improve your HSC to help us on the disciplinary aspect of Baccarat, such as -8, taking target wins, estimate target wins, etc., by providing those data column?

BTW, I think we need BTC pro to come over Malaysia, Singapore and Macau for friendship, network and teamwork on Baccarat... Can anyone make it here? You have a lot of baccarat tables to select here!

Thank you so much for your HSC, you are so kind, thoughtful and helpful.

Best Regards,*

JM

[ECD]

Do you think we want to include average counts on 2s, 3s, 4s as well, besides the 1s? Just an idea.

Thanks for the compliments, I never thought anyone knew my name in Asia. lol

As for the event counts, on the vertical card the little numbers show the normal occurrences for all events not just the 1s. For example if you are at hand 48 you will see the little number "12". If all events were exactly AT there normal occurrences the SAP info would be 12-12-12-12

so if at hand 49 we see the SAP numbers 14-8-4-16 we immediately know that 1s and 4+s are above average and 2s and 3s are below avg. We can also easily see that 1s are the MC event and 3s are LC event. (we only count 1s,2s & 3s for MC & LC, we just don't consider 3s MC if the 4+s have a higher number)

This is killer information because if we get a 1 air, 1s are MC and we would bet for opposite to keep it MC. If we see a 3 iar we would bet for a repeat to keep 3s LC.

So whatever hand you are at compare all the SAP events to the little number printed every 4 hands and you can easily see what is LC, MC etc.

Like Andrea said and I agree totally. SAP is the best tool in the history of Baccarat.

PJ, I wonder if you can improve your HSC to help us on the disciplinary aspect of Baccarat, such as -8, taking target wins, estimate target wins, etc., by providing those data column?

I'll leave that up to those who use the horizontal card. You just need a row at the bottom to show your running score. I suggest marking this row every time there is an opposite just add units won or subtract units lost from the previous cell. This way you would be able to see your score after every opposite and know if you have reached your stop loss or win goal. It's a little easier on the vertical card, but should be no problem on the horizontal card.

PJ

Edited January 6, 2012 by ECD

[Echo4Wiske]

Ellis, is there any news on when we can expect NORA to be presented to the forum?? With all the buzz around XDX, I think that it is clear that the members are looking for a more complex approach.. NOR can be for those looking to keep it simple, while NORA can be for those who want more of a in-depth approach.. The best of both worlds.. Thanks again for this forum Ellis, I am quickly developing a reputation at the casino I play at as a really good player.. It is awesome being at a table and everyone is waiting to see where you place your bet so they can follow suit!!!

[Guest]

Ellis, is there any news on when we can expect NORA to be presented to the forum?? With all the buzz around XDX, I think that it is clear that the members are looking for a more complex approach.. NOR can be for those looking to keep it simple, while NORA can be for those who want more of a in-depth approach.. The best of both worlds.. Thanks again for this forum Ellis, I am quickly developing a reputation at the casino I play at as a really good player.. It is awesome being at a table and everyone is waiting to see where you place your bet so they can follow suit!!!

Yes Echo, many members have experienced that feeling and it is awesome! It is also an awesome feeling for their teacher.

As I mentioned before NORA will be first introduced at the AC seminar.

More complexity does not necessarily mean better. Often simpler is better. I think anyone who has mastered NOR is already over the complexity hump even though I tried to keep it as simple as possible. I think NORA can be accomplished with simple, straight forward additions to NOR. The idea is to add advantage wherever we can W/O adding complexity.

We will get into the full swing of NORA after the seminar. I want to use the seminar to bounce it off of players to get an idea of how best to present it.