Possible simplification for 4D...

[Quizzical1]

Here's the same shoe played betting strictly opposite last outcome for the lowest count using 123 4 progression. Anyone care to try a different prog still using S4D to improve the score?

[Quizzical1]

Here is the same shoe - Reverse Engineered.

I'm assuming a perfect score from hand 8 onwards and circle the counts that predicted the next bet.

You'll note two errors on hand 15 for counts 0 and 2.

See anything we can use? Please post here or PM me.....

[Baccarat A]

Here is the same shoe - Reverse Engineered.

I'm assuming a perfect score from hand 8 onwards and circle the counts that predicted the next bet.

You'll note two errors on hand 15 for counts 0 and 2. Only count 1 predicted hand 16 outcome correctly.

See anything we can use? Please post here or PM me.....

[ATTACH]2820[/ATTACH]

Hum, reminds me of full blown 4D. I thought that we were trying to simplify things.

[Baccarat A]

Here's the same shoe played betting strictly opposite last outcome for the lowest count using 123 4 progression. Anyone care to try a different prog still using S4D to improve the score?

I think that we are on the wrong track here. For one thing the lowest number is meaningless. Say a column ranges from +5 to -4. The disparity is 9 and if it is currently at 0 you have absolutely no reasonable expectation of what it is going to do. The first thing that we should do is look at the disparities. If a column has a disparity of 3 for the entire shoe, you are going to win the shoe if you bet the opposite in that column. Secondly we should look at what the numbers in the column are doing. Even if its 4,5,4,5,4,5,4,5 we win all those bets.

In this shoe at hand 7, the disparities are: PB 3, OR 2, OT 2 and OOTT 3. Just bet straight down each of the columns starting at hand 8. ALL 4 are winners! PB is 7, OR 5, OT 4, and OOTT 2. That's without doing any maneuvering at all.

[Guest]

I think that we are on the wrong track here. For one thing the lowest number is meaningless. Say a column ranges from +5 to -4. The disparity is 9 and if it is currently at 0 you have absolutely no reasonable expectation of what it is going to do. The first thing that we should do is look at the disparities. If a column has a disparity of 3 for the entire shoe, you are going to win the shoe if you bet the opposite in that column. Secondly we should look at what the numbers in the column are doing. Even if its 4,5,4,5,4,5,4,5 we win all those bets.

In this shoe at hand 7, the disparities are: PB 3, OR 2, OT 2 and OOTT 3. Just bet straight down each of the columns starting at hand 8. ALL 4 are winners! PB is 7, OR 5, OT 4, and OOTT 2. That's without doing any maneuvering at all.

Yes, I agree that we MUST use lowest disparity. It would have been simpler IF we could have avoided it but as I have often said: "in Baccarat disparity is everything" - we simply can't ignore it.

So, OK we go with lowest disparity.

So now the S4D is "Bet opposits against the lowest disparity"

That lacks two things: Ties and Runs.

Lets take ties first:

You can't play Baccarat just betting Opposites every play. Plain and simple. Because Baccarat has runs, no matter the disparity. We MUST have a way of handling them.

Just like with NOR or ANY Bac system, we MUST have a signal to bet Repeat. Otherwise runs defeat us. We can't allow that.

When a count ties the lowest disparity THAT is the count that is on the move. THAT might be a good place to bet a Repeat on the new low disparity.

But that won't solve the runs problem completely by itself because you can have a run on the lowest disparity too.

So the question is When do we bet Repeat???

We can do it after 1 loss, 2 losses or 3 losses - Mode 1, mode 2, or mode 3.

Been thinking about that all night long.

Look, I could be wrong but I'm thinking we should try Mode 2 first.

Whenever we lose our 1,2 on opposites we stop betting altogether and wait for the run to end. As soon as the shoe produces an Opposite or another disparity ties, we start over at 1,2 on opposites.

I'm going by the mathematical fact that to stay low disparity, a count must have more opposites than repeats. I am, in effect, betting on repeats but I'm betting 0 on repeats. Lets' try that first, see what happens and then go from there.

There are many other options but the best alternative I see at the moment is when we lose a 1,2 on opposites, bet 1 on repeats and if that loses next time bet 2 on R and then 3 and so forth. But I find it questionable to bet on R at all when we know that O is dominant.

Give it a try and see what you think.

[Quizzical1]

Hum, reminds me of full blown 4D. I thought that we were trying to simplify things.

We are trying to do that!

My rationale was to take a losing S4D shoe and back fill in all wins and circle the counts that "would have produced" the next win.

FYI - I posted this for pattern recognition only - IF there is one - NOT to play the shoe this way. No pattern worth using detected? No biggie, let's move on. Just trying to exhaust all possibilites here.

[kramden]

Hey Quiz,

Dont get upset. Talk to Mike and contact me.

As we say in Jersey (you know)... Talk to you later BRO

[Guest]

We are trying to do that!

My rationale was to take a losing S4D shoe and back fill in all wins and circle the counts that "would have produced" the next win.

FYI - I posted this for pattern recognition only - IF there is one - NOT to play the shoe this way. No pattern worth using detected? No biggie, let's move on. Just trying to exhaust all possibilites here.

Right Glenn, just a function of luck me thinks. But it is always good to find something that doesn't work so you can cross it off your list.

Brings us back to the same thing: Bet opposite the lowest disparity. But that is a great starting place.

[newbacplayer]

Here's the scan of the version I worked on a bit that was provided earlier. Hope it is clear enough. gb

[Quizzical1]

Here's the scan of the version I worked on a bit that was provided earlier. Hope it is clear enough. gb

Nice job gb!

Any chance you could explain why you started O/R then the switch to O/T? I just want to understand your rationale.

[Bobby]

Newbacplayer, why do you not have an OO/TT column on your score card? Do you not track those results?

[newbacplayer]

To Glenn: at play 7: the disparity is 2 for both O/R and O/T, so I chose the simpler to follow, the O/R. With the results at play 9, the disparity on O/R rises to 3, while the disparity for O/T stays at 2. I decided to switch to O/T for play 10, because it became the column with the lowest disparity. I believe the O/T column remains with the lowest disparity for the balance of the shoe.

To Bobby: I've decided to learn this and practice it without that 4th column until I can get the three columns combined with net betting up to casino speed. I'll consider adding in the fourth column OO/TT after I get the rest of it to the point of being over-practiced, so that I am comfortable with it. My sense is that trying to net bet on the OO/TT will take me longer to really get good at, so I'm going to make that a later step in my learning.

Hope that helps: Greg

[Baccarat A]

To Glenn: at play 7: the disparity is 2 for both O/R and O/T, so I chose the simpler to follow, the O/R. With the results at play 9, the disparity on O/R rises to 3, while the disparity for O/T stays at 2. I decided to switch to O/T for play 10, because it became the column with the lowest disparity. I believe the O/T column remains with the lowest disparity for the balance of the shoe.

I believe that the 3 bet on line 10 is a looser, not a winner and a score of -6. OT went from 0 to -1 calling for an OTB4L bet, or a repeat of the P. If you hadn't shifted columns, the OR also would have called for a P.

[newbacplayer]

From what I understood from the video of the 4D workshop, this would be a bet on Time before last which was a B, not OTB4L. The 4 side of the net bet is for T, the 1 side of the net bet is for O, thus 3 goes to T, not O. Hence winning. gb

[bigcash2002]

Has anyone tried using the 4D analyzer as a tool to use during play in an online (live dealer) casino?

It appears to track shoes perfectly and display the correct 4D counts, disparities, etc. I'm just wondering if we can somehow use it to do some damage online?

[Guest]

Has anyone tried using the 4D analyzer as a tool to use during play in an online (live dealer) casino?

It appears to track shoes perfectly and display the correct 4D counts, disparities, etc. I'm just wondering if we can somehow use it to do some damage online?

Good thought for those having trouble doing the counts manually.

[bigcash2002]

Thanks Ellis, I'm just brainstorming.

I'm wondering if members might select their favorite Live Dealer online casino

Next, use the analyzer as their 4D scorecard

and finally have a cheat sheet of 4D system rules and Netbetting tips

[Guest]

Thanks Ellis, I'm just brainstorming.

I'm wondering if members might select their favorite Live Dealer online casino

Next, use the analyzer as their 4D scorecard

and finally have a cheat sheet of 4D system rules and Netbetting tips

Right, that was Keith's initial intention. I think it was a good one.

For instance we still don't know for sure which is better: betting opposites against the lowest spread or net betting the lowest spread.

Granted, opposites is easier, but is it better?

A bunch of posted shoes on Keith's layout could tell us a LOT.

[Quizzical1]

Right, that was Keith's initial intention. I think it was a good one.

For instance we still don't know for sure which is better: betting opposites against the lowest spread or net betting the lowest spread.

Granted, opposites is easier, but is it better?

A bunch of posted shoes on Keith's layout could tell us a LOT.

FWIW - so far I've found that sometimes betting opposite what happened last for lowest count is better for certain shoes and sometimes betting lowest count will go towards 0 is better for other shoes.

[Guest]

FWIW - so far I've found that sometimes betting opposite what happened last for lowest count is better for certain shoes and sometimes betting lowest count will go towards 0 is better for other shoes.

Hmm, that is a thought provocker. We know that the tighter a spread is the more opposites it must produce.

We also know that the further a count gets from 0, the more likely it is to go toward 0.

I wonder if we could propose a rule based on those 2 math facts.

Something like 4 or less we bet opposites.

More than 4 we bet toward 0.

Just thinking out loud.

[Quizzical1]

Hmm, that is a thought provocker. We know that the tighter a spread is the more opposites it must produce.

We also know that the further a count gets from 0, the more likely it is to go toward 0.

I wonder if we could propose a rule based on those 2 math facts.

Something like 4 or less we bet opposites.

More than 4 we bet toward 0.

Just thinking out loud.

Ellis,

I think I have something here! After reviewing my Rev Engineered shoe and reading your last post I may have stumbled on to an answer.

Starting at hand 7 bet opp lowest count (yes, even 0 counts).

Keep betting this way until the 1st loss.

Now switch to betting Highest count goes to 0 until 1st loss.

Switch back to opp lowest count.

You should get a +5 by hand 13 and a final score of +9 at hand 20. Max bet was a 3 at hand 17.

THOUGHTS?

[BigVic]

This ought to rattle your brain somewhat. One rule was used for bet selection for all bets.

[Quizzical1]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2827[/ATTACH]

This ought to rattle your brain somewhat. One rule was used for bet selection for all bets.

And that rule was what?

[BigVic]

look for the highest entry across the columns, starting from left to right, regardless of + or -. Look at the direction the column was going in and bet that it reverses.

I caution you though on trying to find a magic set of rules to bet. Mechanical bet selections always lose. Better to be loose and free with your observations and bet the current shoe trends as they develop.

[Baccarat A]

look for the highest entry across the columns, starting from left to right, regardless of + or -. Look at the direction the column was going in and bet that it reverses.

I caution you though on trying to find a magic set of rules to bet. Mechanical bet selections always lose. Better to be loose and free with your observations and bet the current shoe trends as they develop.

Good observation BigVic. Try that rule on a strong streaky shoe or even TB4L shoe and I think that you would be in the deep brown stuff.