Best way to track disparity

[Keith Smith]

On Sunday night I thought about better way to track disparity at the table and I thought of my statistics class and remembered the stem and leaf graph. I did a count using dots. I used this format at a Midi Bac table at Palace Station and had more than enough time to track in 4d.

After the hand you simply place a dot after the appropriate row. At a glance you can see the disparity by how many dots are in each row.

Questions?

We could over lay the bet on the rows and simply change rows when you are playing a different disparity but that may get cumbersome

Keith

[kingfisher]

Keith - I just tried tracking this way and agree it might be a lot easier than the plus/minus system. It got rather confusing when I was far down in a shoe and tried to get the disparity figured out. This seemed easier. Following is a shoe from Vegas that I played and stopped at -8 units. Please check and compare scores. P361122131

[Jim Files]

On Sunday night I thought about better way to track disparity at the table and I thought of my statistics class and remembered the stem and leaf graph. I did a count using dots. I used this format at a Midi Bac table at Palace Station and had more than enough time to track in 4d.

After the hand you simply place a dot after the appropriate row. At a glance you can see the disparity by how many dots are in each row.

Questions?

We could over lay the bet on the rows and simply change rows when you are playing a different disparity but that may get cumbersome

Keith

[ATTACH]2801[/ATTACH]

Very interesting Keith, so based on the disparity shown above, we should be net betting P V B, right?

Certainly would be quicker to track this way.

Thanks

Jim

[Keith Smith]

Yes, you could place the bets over top of the appropriate row and change if you change to a different disparity.

So the rows would be labeled like this. Now I just placed in plays for example purposes. Give each row two labels the disparity metric and the banker and player label.

At this point in the bet tracking the dots wouldn't be extended this far but I think you get the idea. We had discussion at the seminar for best pracitces for record keeping at the seminar and I was trying to figure out a way. i like the dots because you can then track disparity and make the bet over top of them , record who wins and then update disparity .

Just a few thoughts

K

[Keith Smith]

Keith - I just tried tracking this way and agree it might be a lot easier than the plus/minus system. It got rather confusing when I was far down in a shoe and tried to get the disparity figured out. This seemed easier. Following is a shoe from Vegas that I played and stopped at -8 units. Please check and compare scores. P361122131

Ok let me make a pic of the shoe and the bets and 4 disparities etc

[kingfisher]

Keith - are you still tracking disparities this way or are disparities going to be a thing of the past? If so, could you please post my shoe and see if your scores are different? Thanks

[Guest]

Keith - are you still tracking disparities this way or are disparities going to be a thing of the past? If so, could you please post my shoe and see if your scores are different? Thanks

Like I said the other day, I don't think the disparities are worth the extra trouble. I think we can go by the lowest count. Half the time it is the lowest disparity anyway.

[Quizzical1]

Like I said the other day, I don't think the disparities are worth the extra trouble. I think we can go by the lowest count. Half the time it is the lowest disparity anyway.

Ellis,

By lowest count you are referring to WRT 0 right? Not the actual numerical +/- value.

For example, for choosing between a +3 or -2 = -2 is lowest count. And conversely, a +1 and -3; the +1 is lowest count.

Correct?

[Guest]

Ellis,

By lowest count you are referring to WRT 0 right? Not the actual numerical +/- value.

For example, for choosing between a +3 or -2 = -2 is lowest count. And conversely, a +1 and -3; the +1 is lowest count.

Correct?

Correct Glenn - the count closest to 0 no matter its sign, + or -. For instance a +2 vs a -2 would be tied for lowest count.

When 2 counts are tied for lowest I think most of us will go by lowest disparity. But I'm trying to get away from subtracting positive and negitive numbers because I learned at the seminar that that loses some people.

So you don't change from the count you are playing until another count has a lower numerical value.

And if 2 counts are tied when you want to start go with the futhest to the left.

We should always start by play 7 but any 0 count before that is a good starting point next play. We always start with 1v1 anyway so if another count goes lower on our first play, it's a simple thing to switch counts at that point.

I checked out a LOT of different net bet progs but none seemed to work any better than a simple 1234 pause. Go back to 1 on a winning 4. I checked out going to 2 after a winning 4 but that seemed to cause more problems than it solved.

For SS betting the high count I think it is best to go by how high the count is. A 6 or 7 we probably want to stick with 1234 but above that I'm thinking U1D2. We still need to look to take advantage of good situations with the high count.

Some low count shoes we can likely just net bet all the way through. But we will also have shoes where all 4 counts take right off. These we want to stop net betting early or none at all and put our money on the high counts.

This first shoe I'm working on has BOTH - low net bet counts right along with high SS bet counts. I don't look at the 4D as a high scoring system. But in those shoes that have both high and low counts to take advantage of, we can do pretty good. + 20 maybe a little more.

[Quizzical1]

Correct Glenn - the count closest to 0 no matter its sign, + or -. For instance a +2 vs a -2 would be tied for lowest count.

When 2 counts are tied for lowest I think most of us will go by lowest disparity. But I'm trying to get away from subtracting positive and negitive numbers because I learned at the seminar that that loses some people.

So you don't change from the count you are playing until another count has a lower numerical value.

And if 2 counts are tied when you want to start go with the futhest to the left.

We should always start by play 7 but any 0 count before that is a good starting point next play. We always start with 1v1 anyway so if another count goes lower on our first play, it's a simple thing to switch counts at that point.

I checked out a LOT of different net bet progs but none seemed to work any better than a simple 1234 pause. Go back to 1 on a winning 4. I checked out going to 2 after a winning 4 but that seemed to cause more problems than it solved.

For SS betting the high count I think it is best to go by how high the count is. A 6 or 7 we probably want to stick with 1234 but above that I'm thinking U1D2. We still need to look to take advantage of good situations with the high count.

Some low count shoes we can likely just net bet all the way through. But we will also have shoes where all 4 counts take right off. These we want to stop net betting early or none at all and put our money on the high counts.

This first shoe I'm working on has BOTH - low net bet counts right along with high SS bet counts. I don't look at the 4D as a high scoring system. But in those shoes that have both high and low counts to take advantage of, we can do pretty good. + 20 maybe a little more.

Thanks Ellis - that makes perfect sense.

If 4D is not supposed to be a high scoring system, then all you have to do is scale up your unit bet amount accordingly. So a 20 unit WG with green chips for NOR becomes a 5 unit WG with black chips 4D.

[LOU30]

Ellis,

Just to clarify its nearest to and not actually zero.

So if the counts are: +1 0 -2.

The +1 is are play?

Regards Lou.

[Guest]

Ellis,

Just to clarify its nearest to and not actually zero.

So if the counts are: +1 0 -2.

The +1 is our play?

Regards Lou.

No Lou, zero counts. You would net bet the zero count. In fact 0 is the best net bet count.