# OR count for modes

## Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I've been out of the bacc loop for a while but am ready to jump back in!

As I was perusing the site, I came across a post where Ellis mentions using the OR count for mode selection. I haven't been able to find the post again, nor have I been able to find the original post.

Can someone post a refresher?

If I had to take a guess, I would say that anytime the OR count is positive, the mode selection would be conducive to the first opportunity to play and opposite. If the OR is negative, then we would play the quickest opportunity for a repeat.

ex1) S40/+OR count/3iar: we would play mode 3... a negative count would result in mode 2

ex2) OTB4L/+OR count/4iar: we would play mode 3... a negative count would result in mode 2

Now, as I was beginning to provide an example with F play, I realized that F, if selected properly, would almost always be a - OR count, and as such, the same logic would apply to a +OR count for S40 and pretty much negate an entire mode. I'm quite confused... if somebody could clarify.

Perhaps we play a the trending OR count over the last 10 or 15 hands?

##### Share on other sites

Hi all,

I've been out of the bacc loop for a while but am ready to jump back in!

As I was perusing the site, I came across a post where Ellis mentions using the OR count for mode selection. I haven't been able to find the post again, nor have I been able to find the original post.

Can someone post a refresher?

If I had to take a guess, I would say that anytime the OR count is positive, the mode selection would be conducive to the first opportunity to play and opposite. If the OR is negative, then we would play the quickest opportunity for a repeat.

ex1) S40/+OR count/3iar: we would play mode 3... a negative count would result in mode 2

ex2) OTB4L/+OR count/4iar: we would play mode 3... a negative count would result in mode 2

Now, as I was beginning to provide an example with F play, I realized that F, if selected properly, would almost always be a - OR count, and as such, the same logic would apply to a +OR count for S40 and pretty much negate an entire mode. I'm quite confused... if somebody could clarify.

Perhaps we play a the trending OR count over the last 10 or 15 hands?

Logical thinking, but...

The problem being solved is using the 3rd bet rule for mode selection, while logical, it can be wrong every time and keep switching you just in time to be wrong again. You would have been much better off to stick to one mode. But which?

The other problem solved is our illogical habit of starting shoes in a given mode. When you think about it, this makes no sense.

Our new rule for mode selection is to go by the OR count including your starting mode.

A + count = Mode 3.

A - or 0 count = Mode 2.

This way you are right more than half the time which is the whole object of Baccarat. And it works in all 3 NOR systems more than half the time.

You are a good thinker so think about it:

In streaky shoes you want to get ON runs quicker So "Mode 2 is our STREAK Mode." (- OR Count)

But in choppy shoes you want to outlast the chop So "Mode 3 is our CHOP Mode" (+ OR Count)

Bingo, you are right more than half the time either mode and you are more in tune with the shoe - You tend to score higher and easier because you are not fighting the bias of the shoe.

It seems backwards until you think about it. But after you THINK about it you'll be asking: Why didn't we think of this before?

Well, better late than never. It is a huge improvement to all NOR systems and NOR in general.

While you are at it here is another NOR contribution you likely missed. Hell, half the people that WERE here missed it.

F is the best possible way to play Strong Side shoes (more than a 2 to 1 ratio).

But F is NOT the best way to play streaky shoes with runs on BOTH sides, including ZZ runs especially when such shoes are low in 2s, which they usually are.

Those are TB4L shoes. The 4D pointed that out.

BUT, another topic you likely missed is S40M1. This is even better than TB4L for streaky shoes with straight runs on both sides including ZZ runs. Think about it: You are ON ZZs from the beginning and you are on Straight runs from the 3rd circle. When playing this way we simply stay on all runs until we lose because we got ON them so early. You HATE 2s! So when you lose the bet under a 2 you stop betting until the TTs end. Another big improvement to NOR.

OK, now you are up to date at least as far as NOR is concerned.

##### Share on other sites

Chief,

Hey! That's a nice recap for sure and it makes sense, especially if you understand the background and "thought process" that went into NOR.

Thanks.

MVS

Edited by MVSeahog
Spelling again
##### Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification.

With my first go at NOR, I went about the play very mechanically. I dont think I made a great enough effort to really internalize the concepts. This time around, I'm trying to better absorb the ideas so I can better play to the conditions and also evaluate the quality of the conditions at time of play.

Question: what if we encounter a zz run while playing OTB4L and a +OR? Wouldn't we rather play M2? you mention that we want to out last the chop, but if zz are common, wouldn't we want to play on those as quickly as possible?

In regards to the S40m1, if we wait out the TT's after losing a 2nd bet, does that mean the moment it breaks is when we jump back on? If playing u1d2, would I continue to progress? It seems to me that this particular play style is more fitting of a 2 high betting strategy, where we would not count the eventual 1 bet loss OTR as part of the progression.

It just dawned on me, that since we are playing to shoe biases, for a beginner who may not be comfortable with Mode play, they could simply skip the Modes entirely, and just finish off their progression after the 'spike' had finished. A consistent shoe bias would be enough to make them a winner on the shoe. I know it's mentioned that we can flat bet or skip the Modes. In the past, I thought it was weak to pass, but would get frustrated when I chose the wrong one. I have some different ideas now on how I would go about M play now.

Ex). If I chose to play tighter, so I was confident with every bet, I could pass on the first couple of M plays, and by the third, begin applying both the OR count and LC to my M plays.

Ellis, please don't think that I'm trying to convert the NOR in any way. I am merely just expressing some ideas on how I could build my confidence most quickly, with the least amount of variance. Playing to biases is brilliant, but in the past, whenever replaying my shoes, my greatest area of opportunity was deploying the modes properly.

##### Share on other sites

• 1 month later...

Ellis,

Would we also select modes through OR count when playing NOR+, or would our decisions be event driven like the examples provided in the NOR+ thread?

Also, when playing s40m1, after losing a 1 bet on the run, would you support making a 2 bet to recover the 1 bet loss?

Thank you,

SS

Logical thinking, but...

The problem being solved is using the 3rd bet rule for mode selection, while logical, it can be wrong every time and keep switching you just in time to be wrong again. You would have been much better off to stick to one mode. But which?

The other problem solved is our illogical habit of starting shoes in a given mode. When you think about it, this makes no sense.

Our new rule for mode selection is to go by the OR count including your starting mode.

A + count = Mode 3.

A - or 0 count = Mode 2.

This way you are right more than half the time which is the whole object of Baccarat. And it works in all 3 NOR systems more than half the time.

You are a good thinker so think about it:

In streaky shoes you want to get ON runs quicker So "Mode 2 is our STREAK Mode." (- OR Count)

But in choppy shoes you want to outlast the chop So "Mode 3 is our CHOP Mode" (+ OR Count)

Bingo, you are right more than half the time either mode and you are more in tune with the shoe - You tend to score higher and easier because you are not fighting the bias of the shoe.

It seems backwards until you think about it. But after you THINK about it you'll be asking: Why didn't we think of this before?

Well, better late than never. It is a huge improvement to all NOR systems and NOR in general.

While you are at it here is another NOR contribution you likely missed. Hell, half the people that WERE here missed it.

F is the best possible way to play Strong Side shoes (more than a 2 to 1 ratio).

But F is NOT the best way to play streaky shoes with runs on BOTH sides, including ZZ runs especially when such shoes are low in 2s, which they usually are.

Those are TB4L shoes. The 4D pointed that out.

BUT, another topic you likely missed is S40M1. This is even better than TB4L for streaky shoes with straight runs on both sides including ZZ runs. Think about it: You are ON ZZs from the beginning and you are on Straight runs from the 3rd circle. When playing this way we simply stay on all runs until we lose because we got ON them so early. You HATE 2s! So when you lose the bet under a 2 you stop betting until the TTs end. Another big improvement to NOR.

OK, now you are up to date at least as far as NOR is concerned.

##### Share on other sites

Ellis,

Would we also select modes through OR count when playing NOR+, or would our decisions be event driven like the examples provided in the NOR+ thread?

Determining mode by the OR count is a relatively recent development which came after the NOR+ thread. Usually both methods arrive at the same bet, but not always - esp in back and forth games.

For instance suppose you were playing OTB4L and the first run of the shoe was a 4, the next run 5, the next run 4, and the next run 5, and so forth. Going by events, you could be in the wrong mode on every run. But going by the OR count, you will likely be right half the time.

In the +5 million dollar program we essentially replace the 3 bet with a 1 bet, And should that 1 bet lose, next run we bet 2. If we are right half the time we always win that 2 bet.

The lesson here is: Sure, we would like to win every bet but we only NEED to win half the bets. Using the OR count to determine mode usually accomplishes that.

Look, we are playing OTB4L for a reason. The OR count is not favoring minus (S4OM1 or F). It is not favoring + (S40).

It is hovering 0 - sometimes wandering + a little and sometimes wandering - a little.

Such an OR count means the shoe is favoring single 1s, 2s, and 3s. OTB4L beats all of the above at either the 1 bet or 2 bet level.

So we are going to win most of our 1 and 2 bets which, by themselves, win the shoe.

So why risk 3 and 4 bets??? We don't need them and they could cause us to lose an easy shoe. So instead of betting 3, we start a seconday prog of 123 at 1. This secondary prog only bets after 4 iars. Now we use the OR count to determine whether to bet our secondary prog OTR or ATR (Against the run). The OR count makes us right most of the time. There is an average of only 4.5 4 or mores in a 72 play shoe. We very seldom play more than 60 plays in a shoe so we seldom need our secondary prog more than 2 or 3 times. Going by the OR count it is next to impossible to lose our entire 123 secondary prog. In fact, the whole prog seldom fits within a shoe. But even if we did manage to lose the whole 123 prog. We more than likely STILL win the shoe.

Losing a 123 is a whole lot better than losing 3 3s or 3 4s isn't it.

So, OK, look at the worst case scenario - we lose the entire 123 secondary prog. Big Whip - that is only -6 units. But remember, we won on all the single 1's (they average 9 per shoe), We won on all the 2s (they average 9 per shoe) and we won on all the 3s (they average 4.5 per shoe). So, see that? Even if the worst happens and we lose 6 units on the 4 or mores - we can easily afford that.

Recognize that if 4 or mores were more than normal the OR count would be decidedly minus and we wouldn't be playing OTB4L in the first place.

Also recognize that going by the OR count it is highly unlikely that we could lose the entire secondary prog of 123. HIGHLY unlikely.

Look, the OR count can do only one of 3 things: It can favor +, it can favor minus, or it can favor 0. That's all she wrote.

So:

IF we play OTB4L only in shoes favoring a 0 OR count

IF we abide by the +5 rules and deploy the secondary prog correctly

If we use the OR count to determine whether to bet our secondary prog ON or AGAINST the run

We virtually can't miss hitting our goal of averaging +5 or more on all OTB4L shoes.

The same is true of BaS40 (plus OR count) and S40M1 (minus OR COUNT).

This post is a good preview of the upcomming +5 \$1,000,000 OTB4L Chapter.

Also, when playing s40m1, after losing a 1 bet on the run, would you support making a 2 bet to recover the 1 bet loss?

No, not a good idea. This could screw you up on 2 iars. As is, we lose 3 units on 2iars. Such a bold move could cause you to lose 5 units to a 2iar.

Although I confess I sometimes do this but only on exceptioally good S40M1 shoes that have produced no 2s thus far and I'm way ahead.

Once you've won your 2 bet on the 3rd circle of all runs, half will stay at 3, and half will go more than 3. But the half that go more than 3 can go to any number. That puts you ahead on 1 bets OTR long run (no pun). So we can afford losing our one bet under all straight runs of 3 or more. We can afford it as long as we don't start risking 2 bets. It is an unnecessary risk.

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
• Forums

• #### Support

×
• Create New...