Just a Thought about OR count

[harrican]

I've been thinking, I could be wrong due to my lack of experience. But hear me out.

Think most of us struggles with this, when things are not going well, do I switch system now?

I thought of an idea, not sure if someone thought of it before.

We do OR count from the beginning of the shoe right?

perhaps we can have another OR count just beside it for comparison. I call it the OR5 count, it is the difference between Current OR count vesus 5 hands ago (I'm using 5 just as an example, it could be any number)

For example at hand 20, the OR count is 5, we look back and compare it with hand 16 the OR count is 3.

So the OR5 count is (hand 20) 5 minus (hand 16) 3 = 2

Ok, what does this means , to me it means that the shoe is still heading the same direction (both are +ve OR count), if I am using S40 I should be safe.

Another example, at hand 60, the OR count is 13, at hand 56 the OR count is also 13.

So the OR5 count is (hand 60) 13 minus (hand 56) 13 = 0

Ok, to me this is a warning. S40 likes +ve OR count , our OR5 is 0 , something is not right?

maybe we should bail with the profit at hand since OR is 13, we should be making some profit with S40.

Ok.. not sure if its actually a useful indicator, perhaps someone can comment?

Cheers,

Andy

ps. I just realized, for this to work, the initial OR count must be accurate, I just went thru my exercise and spotted mistakes and it created chaos.

[Guest]

I say again, this is very quick for Andy to be coming up with such ideas.

Our score is our main governing factor. Say you went from +6 back to 0. If it were your first shoe of the day you might have well got out at +1 to look for an easier table. We like to start the day ahead, even if it is just 1 unit.

The purpose of the OR count is to determine the MAIN bias of the shoe because shoes usually change back to their main bias.Therefore also keeping a recent OR count may not be in your best interests. The biggest mistake made is letting the last several plays over influence you. You can't chase every whim of the shoe. That is what the other players do.

Main biases can change but they USUALLY don't.

The next biggest mistake I see our players make is staying in shoes too long. They may lose a shoe trying to get from 9 to 10. A goal is just a reasonable target. If we are struggling to get there we go by the shoe at hand. Maybe it's a + 6 shoe.

On the other hand we may hit +10 at play 17. Here we might say well I'm going to capture 8 and go for 15. We might get there real quick and then say well hell I might as well capture +13 and go for 20.

The idea is to play according to the quality of the shoe at hand. Get out of tough shoes but stay in the easy ones.

I noticed at the last 3 seminars I was always the first to get out of shoes. I ended up playing the least but doing the best overall.

We are not there for fun. We are there to get the money.

[harrican]

Aye, agreed. Upon closer examination, perhaps at best I could be used as an indicator to exit the shoe, but then my score will also tell me exit when I am up and not try to chase any fantasy..

Cheers!

[MVSeahog]

We are not there for fun. We are there to get the money.

I do believe that particular statement needs to be printed in bold letters and taped to everybody's computer!

MVS

[joeystyle]

The idea is to play according to the quality of the shoe at hand. Get out of tough shoes but stay in the easy ones.

I noticed at the last 3 seminars I was always the first to get out of shoes. I ended up playing the least but doing the best overall.

We are not there for fun. We are there to get the money.

I got back from Atlantic City this morning. I should have the words of getting out of tough shoes, but stay in the easy ones tattoo on my hands and forearms for good measure. I played at a table where it was the very first shoe of the day, the shoe was all over the place. And of course I was down 8 units, I got back to 2 units in the negative. I am a hard headed Calabrese, where I should count my blessings and cut the losses there. Ended up going back to -8, which then of course I left the table.

Conversely, at a different table (No Commission) later in the day, I rolling along smoothly in a SB40 oriented shoe and hit 10 (32nd decision), this is where I exited. After cashing in my chips I go back to the table to see how the rest shoe played out. Of course upon further review had I carried on I would have made an additional seven units without having to give back any. One thing I have observed over several nights over the past 4 months at this Casino there, one particular table seems to be more NOR friendly than during the morning or afternoon. I have kept score cards where I recorded actual money play or just jotting results. I find that fascinating as to reason that night time its easier to play at that table.

I need to find the discipline within me to cut my losses short, or shorter. And, at the other end of the spectrum, to allow my wins to run on a extremely favorable shoe. Otherwise, over the course of time I will be some steps above the guys sitting at the table with me. But, I won't achieve elite status. Yes indeed, we are not there to have fun, its about making money!

Ciao

Joey

[CdnChamer]

I have experimented with starting an additional OR count at the starting point of placing my first bet with a reference of "zero" and moving it up and down and have toyed with the idea of switching systems based in the secondary OR count. So far it has worked but still in early stages of testing. The only problem is that it can have a bias swing in mid shoe and then change back to original bias but like I said it is too early to validate this as a reliable indicator.

Perhaps this has been tried before?

CC

[Guest]

I have experimented with starting an additional OR count at the starting point of placing my first bet with a reference of "zero" and moving it up and down and have toyed with the idea of switching systems based in the secondary OR count. So far it has worked but still in early stages of testing. The only problem is that it can have a bias swing in mid shoe and then change back to original bias but like I said it is too early to validate this as a reliable indicator.

Perhaps this has been tried before?

CC

Not exactly. We've tried capped OR counts before but ended up discarding the idea. But your idea shows promise.

One problem we have had over the years is to try to take a good system one step further and thusly ruin it. I see that as a present and current danger. We need to be very careful and weigh every thought carefully. NOR, played by the current manual, is winning a record % of shoes. We need to be careful not to screw that up. On the other hand, we need to be equally careful to give every new idea our focused attention - such as adding SAP and 1/2 counts to our NOR decisions.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Guest

[CdnChamer]

Well I played countless shoes tonight on my computer using a secondary OR count and is helpful I did notice the weakness of OBT4L with SAP but the secondary OR helps to Decide When to place the appropriate bet. It seams to work near the early part of the shoe when it crosses zero but I also noticed something else. When the secondary OR count crosses -3 or lower and same for when it crosses +3 you need the shoe becomes volatile and is difficult to determine the movement of patterns as they change that will swing the OR count in either direction. By the time it swings back to zero you have lost to patterns that the systems are weak on. So here is my thoughts on that, if the Secondary OR count swings to a -6 or +6 the #'s 6 should be replace with 3 I'm either side of the integer and can assist to predict the system to adjust to.

In the way I was using it I could climb up to 10 units within 25 hands or less and I think an adjusted OR may help to get to the ten unit mark faster

I will keep experimenting with this to see to validate it as a useful indicator

Thanks Ellis

CC

[Guest]

First, where are these shoes on your computer coming from?

[CdnChamer]

The shoe data was sent me by a previous baccarat buddy who claimed they are live shoes approx 5 years ago I can assure you that they are not zumma shoes. I don't find the zumma shoes reliable anymore and besides every other baccarat system writer out there curve fits their system to beat it and then claim they have done it ... Yeeeeeeaaahhhhhh. Right ! Bunch BS to me.

I can do some testing on recent shoe data as well.

CC

[Guest]

The shoe data was sent me by a previous baccarat buddy who claimed they are live shoes approx 5 years ago I can assure you that they are not zumma shoes. I don't find the zumma shoes reliable anymore and besides every other baccarat system writer out there curve fits their system to beat it and then claim they have done it ... Yeeeeeeaaahhhhhh. Right ! Bunch BS to me.

I can do some testing on recent shoe data as well.

CC

OK good! I, BTW, used to make that same mistake of designing systems to a certain set of shoes. What you always end up with is a system that beats those particular shoes. Ha, but those aren't the shoes we end up playing against.

I also made the mistake of saying: "Show me a system that beats the Zumma tester and I'll show you a streak system."

I made that mistake because the original Zumma tester favored streak because the casinos favored streak when those shoes were recorded. But newer editions of the Zumma tester no longer contain that bias.

But when you design to the Zumma tester you are still designing to that set of shoes. That is still a mistake because the Zumma testers are not recorded in sequential order. So you totally miss table biases. And designing to table biases is the ONLY way to design winning systems. Otherwise beating the odds of the game is a mathematical impossibility no matter how high you make your bets.

The problem for the designer is that the casino landscape you are trying to defeat keeps changing. First the casinos went through the streak era. Then as soon as the players began to conquer that bias, the casinos reversed and went through the chop era and caught the players playing streak systems. Right now the casinos are going through the OTB4L era and we are seeing shorter runs both straight and ZZ.

But I think there is a good chance the casinos will stick with that particular landscape because their profits are at an all time high. Right now we commonly see 26% of drop casino Baccarat profit rates. Back in the mid 90's their Bac profits were only 3% of drop. What is that, an 867% increase in per capita profits. That is totally impossible with random cards.

Either the players got a whole lot dumber or the casinos got a whole lot smarter. Which do you think it is???

Let me give you a hint: Nobody beats OTB4L shoes but us. Nobody!

Just don't make the mistake of always playing OTB4L. Play to the bias at hand. It is the ONLY way to beat this game.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Guest

[CdnChamer]

Nice post Ellis, I think the "curve fit" to Zumma is a huge mistake and in past when I see statements to beat Zumma I t shoes I garret clear from their system. Ha Ha... I have found this all too many times Let's Talk Winning Forum as more like I call it... "Let's Talk Loosing". H Ha Amateurs!

CC

[Guest]

Nice post Ellis, I think the "curve fit" to Zumma is a huge mistake and in past when I see statements to beat Zumma I t shoes I garret clear from their system. Ha Ha... I have found this all too many times Let's Talk Winning Forum as more like I call it... "Let's Talk Loosing". H Ha Amateurs!

CC

Right, Let's Talk Winning is an accident looking for a place to happen. The guy means well but simply doesn't have the experience. Maybe in another 25 years.

[CdnChamer]

Sadly to say but in 25 years from now Izak may be six feet under by then

CC