example of net betting on Opposites vs Repeats

[jerryczy]

I don't know why I can't reply on thread "OvR Net Betting for XDX".

on Witchygal's example, he just play net betting on P vs B not net betting on Opposites vs Repeats.

I try to play net betting on Opposites vs Repeats as below. comments?

[witchygal]

Hi Jerry,

I think you have mistaken. I am playing opposites vs repeats with an interchanging progression with red and blue pen. Example If the result is an opposite, the next hand will follow the winning color.

You are playing it P vs B with a straight down progression on individual player and banker side. For your play we do not need to have 2 color pen.

If you look at it carefully, you are actually playing S40 with a 121 progression and staying at mode 2 all the way.

For my play opposites vs repeats, it will be playing OTB4L with a 121 progression and also using mode 2.

I think net betting is nothing fanciful as it is only S40 and OTB4L with a mild 121 progression betting every hand. For TBL vs OTB4L and ADOT are also similar. So guys do you think you still wanna pay extra to learn what is already available in the forum? Lol

[witchygal]

Oh on a second look, I don't know what are you playing? Why do you have 2 columns with different shoe results? I am confused now.

[bluetri]

I see what he is doing, the col. to the right is the result of the col. on the left.(opposite vs. repeat) HE is playing the results i.e. Opposite vs. Repeat.

[jerryczy]

So nobody know what I am doing except bluetri? LOL

[Guest]

So nobody know what I am doing except bluetri? LOL

jerry, sorry, I was out yesterday.

Both methods are correct and arrive at the same bet. The score difference is because you were correctly betting down to 1 on a win and Witchy was betting down 1 on a win. Her score on her new shoe will be a lot closer to yours.

But so that we can do this at casino speed Witchy's color code method is simpler and therefore preferred. Her red entries are on opposites and her blue entries are on repeats. When we say win, we are not talking about the table bet, we are referring to whether the prog entry was circled (win) or not (loss).

Maybe your confusion is partially due to the fact that Witchy didn't color code her first opposite entry red at play 2. It really makes no difference since play 2 had no table bet.

While this can be a little confusing at first glance it is really very simple and I'm sure you'll see what she is doing with a little study. Once you've done a shoe or 2 that short cut way it quickly becomes 2nd nature.

When I first tried this 20 years ago I did it exactly like you did. But you'll soon see that you can avoid all that extra work by simply color coding your two progs. Same difference but MUCH faster.

I don't know why you are having trouble posting to that thread. Is anyone else?

Keith?????

[witchygal]

Hi Jerry,

Sorry for my mistake. Can you share with me how you play it? I just don't understand why your result on the right column is totally different from the shoe on the left?

Example from hand 17 to 23, the shoe has a choppy zz result but your playing result is a streaky straight run of 7 in a row? That's totally different result already. That is same for the entire shoe. Hah to me it's like i'm looking at 2 different shoes. I also couldn't get the result like yours no matter how i try to figure it out.

[Guest]

Witchy, I see no mistakes in either case. If I'm not mistaken Jerry is merely transposing the shoe by putting all the opposite circles on one side and all the repeat circles on the other side so that both progs can simply be bet straight down. This is clever and avoids color coding but it makes for a lot of additional work. I prefor that everyone do it the same way and just chart the shoe the same way as always and then color code the opposite prog red and the repeat prog blue like you did. You don't need to put in those bet columns. I'm sure that everyone can add and subtract proficiently in their head when only dealing with the numbers 0123.

BTW, I'm replying on your thread but I see no notifications of my replies. I'll check with Keith on that as well as Jerry's inability to post on your thread at all.

[bluetri]

One thing I like about Jerry's method is I can scan the OR column and see either a strong side or neutral OR count at a glance...

[Guest]

One thing I like about Jerry's method is I can scan the OR column and see either a strong side or neutral OR count at a glance...

Same with Witchy's. But when it comes to scorecards, the less work the better.

[witchygal]

Witchy, I see no mistakes in either case. If I'm not mistaken Jerry is merely transposing the shoe by putting all the opposite circles on one side and all the repeat circles on the other side so that both progs can simply be bet straight down. This is clever and avoids color coding but it makes for a lot of additional work. I prefor that everyone do it the same way and just chart the shoe the same way as always and then color code the opposite prog red and the repeat prog blue like you did. You don't need to put in those bet columns. I'm sure that everyone can add and subtract proficiently in their head when only dealing with the numbers 0123.

BTW, I'm replying on your thread but I see no notifications of my replies. I'll check with Keith on that as well as Jerry's inability to post on your thread at all.

Oh Ellis i see it now! Thanks for pointing it out.

Looking forward to your explanation on the play by play at the other thread soon.

[jerryczy]

I don't know why you are having trouble posting to that thread. Is anyone else?

Keith?????

Edited March 25, 2012 by jerryczy

[Keith Smith]

Start a new thread some of them are too long

[casno]

Hello All:

I played like this many times when Ellis first posted the net betting idea. A much more simpler way to play the O/R net bet, using no color at all, is to just always make a one unit bet under the last winning hand result and continue the progression on the opposite side where the count left off on that side, never proceeding past 3 units. There is no confusion at all on your eyes and no color code needed. I usually just follow the shoe after a 4 in a row pattern shows and continue until I lose 2 times in a row. Thereafter I continue the O/R net bet as before. Try it, it may be easier for you...it was for me. Flipping a pen back and forth from red to blue almost put my eye out at one time!

[Audionut]

Casno, I think this is a GEM of a post!!! What a SIMPLE way to play!! Do you make consistent money with it?

[casno]

Audionut, Yes I have made money with it, but I do a slightly different net money progression now when I play it. Of course it does not win every shoe, but it is simple and does well when you find a table going your way. You still need other methods in your game plan and apply what will do best for you at the time...no method has ever won with every shoe, but close. I like simple grab and go when I can get it!

[ddbcinti]

Casno,

What is the money progression that you are using with net betting? I like your simple method.

db

[casno]

OK, Audionut, you are most likely going to really like this, because you can average 17 net units per shoe. As above, I begin my 1 unit bet following the last win result and go up one or down one unit on the opposing side to net bet...in this case, you bet 2 as your opposing net bet and the net bet tells you where to place your real money bet accordingly. Now, what I do is if I happen to win the 1 unit bet, I go into a positive progression and bet a 2 unit bet on the same side or follow the last. The opposing net bet would then be a 1 unit bet. If the 2 unit bet wins, my option would be to bet a 3 unit bet on the same result and my opposing bet would be a 2 unit bet, but I only do this 3 or more unit progression when the shoe has done well for me and is a running pattern. Otherwise, I am more conservative and just return back to a 1 unit bet after I have a win on the 2 unit bet side. If the 1 unit bet loses I am back to betting a 1 unit bet under the last winning hand result as before. I also tend to drop the progression on one side that has lost 3 times in a row and come back to that side once a win result returns. The opposing side - just continue betting 1 units or do a 1,2 unit bet on the run OTR until it breaks. I call this method of net betting the Wonder Method just to have a way of calling it by name. Anyway, give it a try! When everything is going your way this method does really well...it has for me, I have won many shoes in a row and playing the through each shoe can net 17 units, but be conservative and get out with a nice win by hand 50 and take a break before the next shoe starts. Good Luck! Give me a reply and tell me what you think!

[Audionut]

I'll run this on some shoes that I have... (going to Pittsburgh tomorrow to play some craps) but this looks VERY interesting!! Thanks for sharing!!

[casno]

Audionut:

I love Craps, but I am looking for any good conservative method. Do you have something to offer...do you use a method or just go by the gut??

[finas]

Hi Casno,

Can you play this shoe using your method:

P1 1 4 1 2 3 4 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 5 1 1 2 3 1 6 1

By the way, I like "Craps" too, but it takes too long to get paid.

Thanks.

[casno]

I played your shoe and the result was +12 units by hand 50, where I normally exit the shoe and a +20 gross units by hand 70 end of shoe.

I was never down any units in this shoe and my highest bet was only 3 units one time in a positive progression. All other bets were mostly 1 unit with some 2 unit bets to achieve this winning result. A very good shoe for net betting. The net betting method placed my bets well giving me a very high win percentage.

[Guest]

Don't know why it says "Junior Member" but casno has been with us a long time and has built an excellent peputation for honest posting and novel ideas that work!

Most of us oldtimers have long since learned to net bet W/O color coding. We can look at color coding as training wheels. But sooner or later you no longer need the training wheels to arrive at the correct bet on the right side. Color coding helps, at least at first, to understand the strategy behind your bets. It may also come in handy when we begin switching net bet systems mid shoe. It may help prevent those horrible episodes of getting "lost" in the middle of a shoe under the added stresses of hot casino play.

[casno]

Hello Ellis:

You are correct about color coding...I myself started out color coding before I could see what was happening! BTW, my status as Junior Member was kind of strange. It made me a newbie again, LOL!

[Jim Files]

Hello All:

I played like this many times when Ellis first posted the net betting idea. A much more simpler way to play the O/R net bet, using no color at all, is to just always make a one unit bet under the last winning hand result and continue the progression on the opposite side where the count left off on that side, never proceeding past 3 units. There is no confusion at all on your eyes and no color code needed. I usually just follow the shoe after a 4 in a row pattern shows and continue until I lose 2 times in a row. Thereafter I continue the O/R net bet as before. Try it, it may be easier for you...it was for me. Flipping a pen back and forth from red to blue almost put my eye out at one time!

Hi Casno,

Your post above was a few days ago but I'm just now getting a chance to ask a question about your method.

I'm sure I'm not doing something right but I don't get the same bets when I use your method as opposed to using the color coding net bet method. Hopefully you can explain what I'm doing wrong. Please take a look at my example below. On the left is the beginning of the shoe that was posted earlier. The one on the right is my attempt at following what you said in your post above. I followed each circle with a 1 bet and continued the other side with the next bet higher since that side lost. The 2 sides are the same until line 4 of left side which should match line 24 on the right side but as you can see it doesn't. Can you help me understand what I'm doing wrong?

[ATTACH]2311[/ATTACH]

Thanks,

Jim

Edited September 25, 2013 by Keith Smith