Possible simplification for 4D...

[Quizzical1]

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.

I hear ya Vic! It worked well (better than Lo/Op to Hi / bet towards 0) on other shoes too - except for a B1221392. Still those damn runs seem to trip it up!

[LOU30]

Hey Vic,

Have you been playing this way(using 4D) and how long?

And what progression have you been using?

I know Ellis mentioned something similar earlier on in the program about this but I think it was if the count went up 2 bet it would go back towards zero...

Anyway I have just ran this through a few shoes and it went really well the beauty of it was that it only ran in to trouble on straight runs(iars) playing by betting on the highest count reversing,NOW if there is a run on the opposite side you win every bet until the run ends if you stay on that run!!!As it automatically reverses the count back to zero! Its just a matter of what your progression is or pausing after so many losses on the first run.

If the run stays strong side we also have the option of play F system,I know its only a few shoes but this just might be the answer to making the runs are friends and is definitely worth looking into.

Bacc A I thought that until i played it,as Vic said observe the current shoe trend not play it mechanically. Ellis/Glenn ?

Regards Lou.

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.

[BigVic]

Hey Vic,

Have you been playing this way(using 4D) and how long?

And what progression have you been using?

I know Ellis mentioned something similar earlier on in the program about this but I think it was if the count went up 2 bet it would go back towards zero...

Anyway I have just ran this through a few shoes and it went really well the beauty of it was that it only ran in to trouble on straight runs(iars) playing by betting on the highest count reversing,NOW if there is a run on the opposite side you win every bet until the run ends if you stay on that run!!!As it automatically reverses the count back to zero! Its just a matter of what your progression is or pausing after so many losses on the first run.

If the run stays strong side we also have the option of play F system,I know its only a few shoes but this just might be the answer to making the runs are friends and is definitely worth looking into.

Bacc A I thought that until i played it,as Vic said observe the current shoe trend not play it mechanically. Ellis/Glenn ?

Regards Lou.

I'm sorry Lou, I don't play the 4D. But if I did I would play the way I just showed and then maybe play to 2 or 3 losses in a row and then stop and wait for a win or two before continuing. I think getting to know your casino and their tables is much more important than being dogmatic about playing a system.

[Guest]

Here is a set of preliminary rules jaybird developed that just won 18 out of 19 with a single loss of -3. At least it is a good starting point. I'm sure we can make some improvements.

Jaybird, you need to tell us whether you started with opposites or net bet - I don't think it is the same???

Originally Posted by jaybird8521

Hi Ellis,

I have been testing out all combinations of rules and my latest ones seem to be working extremely well. I have been able to hit +5 on all but 2 of my past losing shoes (using a stop loss of -6) and I rarely lose 3 bets in a row. Please test this out and let me know what you think.

1. Start net betting on hand #8 with 1,1 using lowest disparity count (or simply bet opposites). Stop at a losing 1,4. If 2 counts tie, use left most count.

2: Stick with the same disparity until you make a winning bet. No switching each hand, even if another count becomes lower or ties.

3. After each win, choose the new lowest disparity count and begin at 1,1 (sit out that hand). ALWAYS go back to 1,1 after a win, even if you are sticking with the same disparity. I have found this gives me a bit of extra time to recalculate which new spread to choose plus it has really been helping me avoid 1,4 bet losses.

4. When you lose a 1,4 OR if the count you're using hits a spread of 5 (keep calculating the spread from hand #1 of the shoe), go on the highest run (it may not be the offending run) for 1 unit. If you win, flat bet the run until you lose.

5. After losing your last otr bet, sit out 4 hands. Then go back 8 hands, draw a line there and recalculate all the spreads. Begin net betting again at 1,1 with lowest spread. If all the spreads are now equal OR if none are less than 4, then either sit out another 4 or 5 hands, flat bet the highest count or exit the shoe (I have been sitting out 5 hands and waiting for another low count to emerge. Seems to be working well).

6. If after losing hand #9 (or both hands #9 and #10), if you see a straight run of 4 developing (hands 6,7,8,9 or 7,8,9,10 are all repeats) sit out until the run ends, then wait another 4 hands (as per rule #5) before recalculating and jumping back in. We may need to come up with other variations of this rule to avoid getting killed by a run at the start.

7. When you hit a +6, keep going but make +5 your stop loss. If you reach +5 and lose a 1 bet, exit the shoe with a +4. I know this is very conservative but it seems to be working more consistently for me than anything else.

8. After reaching +3, don't make a bet that takes you below 0 (this may actually be too conservative so let's test it out).

You'll find that it takes longer to hit a +5 than before but this way really seems to minimize our risk. You will rarely lose a 1,4 bet if the count stays in jail (less than 5) but it's possible. If the spread goes to 4, you can lose but if it stays within 3, you'll never lose your 1,4 bet. That being said, I still think we need to stick with a 4 spread but definitely go on the run when it hits 5.

Another tip: I've found I can recalculate the spreads even faster when using your original 8 column count scoring method which uses 2 columns for each count (placing positive numbers on the left column and negative numbers on the right column). You might want to test this, as well.

All in all, I know all the guys want things to be simplified, but I feel we should nail down rules that work consistently before we worry about simplification. Please let me know your thoughts.

-Jay

Hi Ellis,

I have an update for you. My 4D rules have won 16 out of the last 19 shoes I've played (I consider a win to be +5 or more) and of the 3 shoes I've "lost", I scored a -3, a 0 and a +4 (which I count as a loss). Also, I'm playing exactly as the rules suggest with no deviation whatsoever.

I really think you should test this out yourself because I'm having trouble finding shoes that it loses to. And I'm refraining from posting this publicly because after what happened with Oz, I'd rather not stir everyone up until we know for sure we're on to something. It might just be dumb luck.

[Guest]

Changing the subject a little I had to take a couple days off which gave me some time to stand back and think. I think we are real close but not quite there yet.

Glenn et al, you said previously that some shoes like opposites while others like toward 0.

The testers tested with toward 0 and did very well so my question to myself was "why might toward 0 work better?"

Something dawned on me:

Back to the problem of runs:

Recognize that at least half the runs are mostly toward 0. That is what I wasn't seeing..

Take a -3 to +3 spread for instance:

A run of 5 or 6 can only occur toward 0 at least for the first part of the run. Because a run of 5 or 6 away from 0 would increase the spread, disqualifying the count. Do you see that?

So how can we use this info?

I'm not sure yet but it's a good subject for discussion and thought.

It explains why the testers did so well.

Certailly we would stay on runs going toward 0.

But what do we do when that run goes through 0 ???

Do we stay on it and force an eventual losing bet?

Right now, betting toward 0, we bet against the run once it goes thru 0. But is that best?

Hmm, maybe that will give someone an idea.

Maybe toward 0 is best after all???

Or maybe there is an optimum time to bet "away from 0" ???

[LOU30]

While we are off subject.

Just look at the over all strength and versatility of the 4D score card!

We have so many options of play through out the counts its unbelievable,with everyone looking at different ways to tackle the counts and all having varying degrees of success no matter what approach we are taking,I can't see it being long before we have the optimum way to play.

Keep up the good work guys it's all appreciated.

Regards Lou.

[Quizzical1]

Excellent work Jaybird!

Can you post your shoes and scores - not the cards necessarily, but the BTC notation and your final scores. I'd like to compare to what I'm working on and see how it stacks up.

So far, with BigVic's revelation of only betting that the highest count will tend toward 0 I have the following results:

For:

B312211132121 I got +9 at hand 20 (+5 at hand 13)

P42111214111

B211133352 I got +16 at hand 38 (+5 at hand 14)

There IS still the problem on when runs occur and it "seems" to be when a count rises above 5 or so - maybe we should reverse logic and bet it will go away from 0 until a loss then revert back?

But think about it - we're only following ONE parameter here: the high count, and got this performance!

Just pondering here....Thoughts?

[jaybird8521]

Here is a set of preliminary rules jaybird developed that just won 18 out of 19 with a single loss of -3. At least it is a good starting point. I'm sure we can make some improvements.

Jaybird, you need to tell us whether you started with opposites or net bet - I don't think it is the same???

Hi Ellis,

To me, it's the same thing but maybe I'm just confused. I start net betting 1,1 on hand #8. My progression is 1,2 then 1,3 then 1,4 and I go back to 1,1 after each win. If I lose the 1,4 (3 unit bet) I flat bet the run until I lose. But it's the same as betting opposite whatever happened on hand 8 with a 1,2,3 prog.

Here are my updated rules:

(my rules have since been modified. I plan on posting them soon).

Edited April 6, 2014 by jaybird8521

[jaybird8521]

Excellent work Jaybird!

Can you post your shoes and scores - not the cards necessarily, but the BTC notation and your final scores. I'd like to compare to what I'm working on and see how it stacks up.

So far, with BigVic's revelation of only betting that the highest count will tend toward 0 I have the following results:

For:

B312211132121 I got +9 at hand 20 (+5 at hand 13)

P42111214111

B211133352 I got +16 at hand 38 (+5 at hand 14)

There IS still the problem on when runs occur and it "seems" to be when a count rises above 5 or so - maybe we should reverse logic and bet it will go away from 0 until a loss then revert back?

But think about it - we're only following ONE parameter here: the high count, and got this performance!

Just pondering here....Thoughts?

Hi Glenn,

I will do my best to post some shoes tomorrow. When you do your testing, remember that we’re not trying to figure out what set of rules gets us the highest scores, but which wins the most shoes (while keeping losses to a minimum). The best way to test is to play 20 random shoes (ideally a mix of s40, s40 Mode 1, F, OTBL and shoes that go all over the place) with 2 different sets of rules, attempting to hit a +5 with a -6 stop loss. Anyone can glance at a previously played scorecard and pick the system that WOULD have beat the shoe, but we need to find one set of 4D rules that fares the best against every possible shoe type. Otherwise, we should just stick with NOR+.

Also, you might find that my rules will help you with runs, as I rarely lose a 1,4 bet and I do my best to avoid early runs as much as possible.

Betting that the count will move away from 0 after the spread hits 5 is exactly what I've been doing. I have not been watching the high count at all (except after losing a 1,4) but BigVic might be on to something. Please let us know if it works out consistently. Thanks.

[Quizzical1]

Hi Glenn,

I will do my best to post some shoes tomorrow. When you do your testing, remember that we’re not trying to figure out what set of rules gets us the highest scores, but which wins the most shoes (while keeping losses to a minimum). The best way to test is to play 20 random shoes (ideally a mix of s40, s40 Mode 1, F, OTBL and shoes that go all over the place) with 2 different sets of rules, attempting to hit a +5 with a -6 stop loss. Anyone can glance at a previously played scorecard and pick the system that WOULD have beat the shoe, but we need to find one set of 4D rules that fares the best against every possible shoe type. Otherwise, we should just stick with NOR+.

Also, you might find that my rules will help you with runs, as I rarely lose a 1,4 bet and I do my best to avoid early runs as much as possible.

Betting that the count will move away from 0 after the spread hits 5 is exactly what I've been doing. I have not been watching the high count at all (except after losing a 1,4) but BigVic might be on to something. Please let us know if it works out consistently. Thanks.

I agree 100% Jaybird,

That's been part of the problem for a while here - testing already played shoes where you know the outcome already. Sure, hindsight is 20/20 and so on...

When you post your shoes (or just the BTC notations) I will play them hand-by-hand applying the latest rules only. Then we can compare and see where improvements can be made. That's the only way we can tell what really works on live shoes and what doesn't.

[jaybird8521]

A couple of guys have pm'ed me for a scorecard, saying my rules were a bit confusing. I really thought I made everything as easy to follow as possible but I guess not. Now I know how Ellis feels on a daily basis. lol

Regarding the card below, my normal exit point would have been hand +21 with a +4 but I played the entire shoe so you guys could see more of the switches, etc. Continuing on scores you a +14 by hand #48. Since I never lost a 3 unit bet (and my counts never broke out of jail) there were no OTR bets made which makes this shoe easy to follow along with. Ignore the horizontal lines in the spread column because I always draw a line 8 plays back from each restart point.

And I forgot to add that I started at hand #10 because a 4iar was developing at hand #8 so I waited for it to end before starting. And if the shoe is tough to read on your screen, just right click it and select "view image" from the drop down menu to blow it up. Not sure what the equivalent action is on a mac, though.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Edited March 23, 2014 by jaybird8521

[uneek]

jaybird,

Here's my question.

3. When you lose a 1,4 or if the count you're using hits a spread of 5 (keep calculating the spread from the last starting point which was 8 hands before you began your 1,1), go on the highest run (it may not be the offending run) for 1 unit. If you win, flat bet the run until you lose.

For this is it just for the last 8 hands (running spread count) or total hands in the shoe so far?

You mention spread and disparity count but I'm having a hard time distinguishing the two in your rules. Overall spread we know is the difference between the two counts and then the actual count is what is happening currently. Can you please be a little more specific cause it's a little confusing seeing that you interchange the two terms in your rules. Thanks.

[jaybird8521]

jaybird,

Here's my question.

3. When you lose a 1,4 or if the count you're using hits a spread of 5 (keep calculating the spread from the last starting point which was 8 hands before you began your 1,1), go on the highest run (it may not be the offending run) for 1 unit. If you win, flat bet the run until you lose.

For this is it just for the last 8 hands (running spread count) or total hands in the shoe so far?

You mention spread and disparity count but I'm having a hard time distinguishing the two in your rules. Overall spread we know is the difference between the two counts and then the actual count is what is happening currently. Can you please be a little more specific cause it's a little confusing seeing that you interchange the two terms in your rules. Thanks.

Sure, not a problem.

So you have to keep your eye on the 4 counts which are p/b, o/r, ot/t, OO/tt and the spread of each count (let's say they are -1/2, 2/7, -3/3 and 1/-12). Each time you restart with a 1,1 bet after a win you need to recalculate all of the spreads for each of the 4 counts but you only look at what happened the last 8 hands - any numbers in your count columns from more than 8 hands ago should be ignored. It's essentially like starting the shoe again from scratch at hand #9 - you have 8 prior plays to use to calculate the spreads of the 4 counts.

Getting back to the 4 sets of numbers I gave you, the count with the lowest spread is p/b (-1/2 is a spread of 3) so I will start net betting p/b. So let's say I am about to start again on hand #20. I sit out this hand and wait for the result. If it's banker, I will bet 1 unit on player for hand #21. If that wins, I sit out the next hand and recalculate the spreads. If banker wins, I will bet 2 units on player. If I win the 2, I sit out the next hand. If I lose the 2 bet, I go to 3 units on player. If I lose the 3 bet, I will flat bet the run until it ends. Now if the p/b spread hits 5 before I lose a 3 bet, I will jump on the run earlier than normal at that point, also flat betting until I lose. I will keep watching the spread from where I last calculated it (if I began net betting at hand #20, that means you need to look at all the numbers in your count column from hand #12 to the current play but only in the p/b column since I don't concern myself with the other counts while in the middle of a progression.) If you're about to place a 3 bet on hand 23, this means you are still calculating the spreads from hand #12 which was 11 hands ago.

Let's say you win a 3 bet at play 23. You then recalculate the counts from hand 16 (the last 8 plays only) and begin net betting again on hand 24 (sit out this hand).

And finally, let's say you lost the 3 bet on hand 23, went on the run for 3 bets and lost the third one. This means you lost at hand 26. Now you sit out 4 hands and begin net betting again on hand 31 (always sit out 4 hands after losing an Otr bet). You also need to recalculate the counts from 8 hands back (beginning at hand 23) and choose the count with the current lowest spread.

Does that make sense?

Edited March 24, 2014 by jaybird8521

[uneek]

I understand what you're doing now. Thanks for the clarification.

Another question for you regarding runs.

If you run into another zigzag/straight run that's not in the beginning but mid shoe, do you wait until the run ends as you would if it were to occur in the beginning? Or would you play it normally with the lowest spread until you lose a 1,4 or the spread hits 5?

Lastly, what's your shoe win rate so far in your testing?

[jaybird8521]

I understand what you're doing now. Thanks for the clarification.

Another question for you regarding runs.

If you run into another zigzag/straight run that's not in the beginning but mid shoe, do you wait until the run ends as you would if it were to occur in the beginning? Or would you play it normally with the lowest spread until you lose a 1,4 or the spread hits 5?

I only avoid runs at the beginning of the shoe. Since my stop loss is -6, I want to mitigate the possibility of losing a 1,2,3 prog from the start. But after I get going I always play the runs.

The shoe below has a 12iar so you can see how I handle that as well as how I sit out 4 hands after my losing 1 bet. Why? Because after a long run (like a 12 iar in this example) our counts become useless and can't be trusted unless you want to keep betting the highest count. But that would often be a mistake, like in this shoe which is a straight s40 mode 3 with one long run in the middle (OTBL would do just as well).

My normal exit point would have been at hand #29 with a +3 since I went down to -3 twice. In fact, depending how I was feeling, I might have exited when I lost that 1 bet at hand #19 since I was down -3 and climbed back to +3 before the loss (I'll gladly take a consistent +2). But I ignored these two stop wins to give you guys more examples of betting/switching etc, and was able to hit a +7 at play #46 (after I hit a +5, I keep going until I lose a 1 bet).

Lastly, what's your shoe win rate so far in your testing?

I believe I won 25 out of the last 29 shoes I played but I will have to go back and count up all of my scorecards. I'm not sure this is entirely accurate because it's quite possible I made some mistakes with my scoring and count spreads. In fact, I completely botched the counts in the shoe below but it didn't make much difference (I corrected the counts afterwards so they wouldn't confuse anyone).

[jaybird8521]

Here's an example of a tough shoe that I couldn't beat. I started at hand 10 instead of 8 because I was concerned about the initial ZZ and my gut told me to wait a few more hands. It was a good call since the 6zz went right into a 5iar. Not fun.

Starting at play 10, I lose a 1 bet at hand 11 and immediately jump on the run with another 1 unit bet because p/b broke out of jail. Just an fyi, having to jump on the run this early happens very infrequently (I think this is the first time in the last 30 shoes I've played). If you always pick the lowest count, it will rarely break out before your losing 3 bet and if it does, it will break one hand before that.

So I lose my otr bet (hand 12) and then sit out 4 hands before I restart at play 17. Now you might say, "You violated your rules by not starting at play 8." And you would be correct. So starting at play 8, you'd be net betting pb. You would lose hand 9 and hand 10 and then sit out because hand 10 was the tail end of a 4 iar. If you didn't, you would have lost the 1,2,3 and the 1otr and be down -7 by hand 12. If you sit out, you're only down -3.

So technically, I should be down -3 by hand 17 instead of -2. Moving on...

I start to slowly climb back up and take another time out at hand 27 for 4 plays because 3 counts are tied for lowest. At hand 31, o/r becomes the low count so I start net betting again. I would normally exit at hand 34 after hitting +3 and losing the next 1 bet (because I was down from the get-go and it took me 20 hands to get to +3) but I kept going to show you guys what can happen if you get greedy when playing these rules.

If you don't exit at hand 34, you will then lose your 2 bet, your 3 bet and an otr bet (1 unit) and hit -4 at hand 37. You're now too far in the red to risk another progression (even though you will rarely lose a 3 bet more than once per shoe). My prog at hand 41 scores me another unit but the prog that starts at hand 43 brings me down to my stop-loss (-6) at hand 45. Even though I win the next 3 bet, I had to risk 9 units at that point. After a ton of work, I finally exit the shoe at hand 55 with just 1 unit.

So this is a good example of how 4D can weather a tricky shoe. And even though it was a losing one (I consider anything less than +4 a loss) walking away with a +2 isn't that bad at all. I'm quite sure I can score even higher on most shoes if I drop my stop-loss to a -8 or -10 but for now I'm happy with a near guaranteed +4.

Questions are welcomed.

[uneek]

What I personally would have done Jaybird in your tough shoe is skip that first zigzag from plays 3-7 since it's just another run but in chop form. Then I would've waited for the run to end at play 8 and wait 4 new hands after that. Since a new streak developed I would've skipped that as well and waited another 4 after it ended at play 12. So starting at play 17 at 1,1 and hitting a high of +5 at play 32 with ending at a +4 at play 34.

[Guest]

Questions are welcomed.

What about answers?

Jaybird, this is a designer shoe. It started with a 6ZZ followed by a 5 straight, lol

You did extremely well to get out of it with ANY plus score.

But guys, just because you are studying S4D does not mean that you are limited to it.

Yes, you CAN play with no table or system selection but why in hell would you in a real casino.

Any shoe starting with a confirmed 2,1, I'm in with S40 right then and there.

So, I start at play 5 with BaS40.

I get to +3 only to lose it to the 5iar.

I attempt my 1 ATR and lose that as well at play 10.

I start over at play 11 with a 1 bet and lose that.

But I win my 2 at play 12.

I'm out with +5 at play 18.

[LOU30]

I agree 100% with you Ellis,we have so many options on how to play why limit our selfs and ignore obvious opportunities.

I like the S4D method and I appreciate the work the guys are putting in but I would also like to see the BaOTB4L chapter so we can also add that system to our armoury,could you please post it so we can study it and put it to good use.

Thanks in advance.

Regards Lou.

What about answers?

Jaybird, this is a designer shoe. It started with a 6ZZ followed by a 5 straight, lol

You did extremely well to get out of it with ANY plus score.

But guys, just because you are studying S4D does not mean that you are limited to it.

Yes, you CAN play with no table or system selection but why in hell would you in a real casino.

Any shoe starting with a confirmed 2,1, I'm in with S40 right then and there.

So, I start at play 5 with BaS40.

I get to +3 only to lose it to the 5iar.

I attempt my 1 ATR and lose that as well at play 10.

I start over at play 11 with a 1 bet and lose that.

But I win my 2 at play 12.

I'm out with +5 at play 18.

[jaybird8521]

Thanks for the replies. I guess I'm a bit confused about the concept of the 4D. From my understanding, it was originally conceived as a way to capture a guaranteed +1 by choosing only a few select bets per shoe (without the need to cherry pick the best tables).

But to this day, we still do not have a solid set of rules that allows us to achieve this. I've been playing every possible combination of rules that we've considered so far (u1d1, u1d2, betting opps, going otr after 2,3 and 4 losing bets, etc) and the way I'm playing now is the closest I've come to hitting a +4 80% of the time (playing mechanically with zero guess work) across all shoe types with complete disregard for table selection.

But since nobody seems to be interested in this and would rather keep pointing out how NOR would have killed a particular shoe in retrospect, then let's just stick with NOR and the new variations that Ellis is coming up with.

[Quizzical1]

Thanks for the replies. I guess I'm a bit confused about the concept of the 4D. From my understanding, it was originally conceived as a way to capture a guaranteed +1 by choosing only a few select bets per shoe (without the need to cherry pick the best tables).

But to this day, we still do not have a solid set of rules that allows us to achieve this. I've been playing every possible combination of rules that we've considered so far (u1d1, u1d2, betting opps, going otr after 2,3 and 4 losing bets, etc) and the way I'm playing now is the closest I've come to hitting a +4 80% of the time (playing mechanically with zero guess work) across all shoe types with complete disregard for table selection.

But since nobody seems to be interested in this and would rather keep pointing out how NOR would have killed a particular shoe in retrospect, then let's just stick with NOR and the new variations that Ellis is coming up with.

I see the same frustration Jaybird.

I've been playing your shoes -and other's - behind the scenes "three ways from Sunday" using different methods to see if there's one method that is albeit NOT perfect, but playable enough to generate modest wins (up to 5 units) as mechanically as possible.

The problem I see with retrospect-playing of shoes is: You already know the outcomes!

Sure, I can look at ANY shoe and see how it COULD HAVE been played - but that's not REALITY!

We need a system that can produce the "best guess" with at least a 33% hit rate (25% for 1234 prog). If it's NOT the 4D, then let's go with what the majority think it should be (i.e. BaS40, etc).

I'll live with whatever the decision is.

[LOU30]

Jay, Glenn,

Guys please don't take any offense and don't think for one minute that what you guys are doing is not appreciated because it is,no doubt i can speak for all of the forum members in saying that!

So please continue with your work.

Every member of my family and all my friends think i have gone completely bonkers at the amount of time they see me sitting here surrounded with papers full of little circles(as they say), with files full of notes and old shoe history's scratching my head deep in thought, as if nothing else in the world matters...

Jaybird your posts and shoes have been fantastic and very easy to follow so thank you for that.

The reason I have asked Ellis for the BaOTB4L chapter was not to disrespect your work it was because of an on going project I am working on and I would like to finish it but I will need all the Basic series for that.

No offense intended sorry guys.

Lou.

Thanks for the replies. I guess I'm a bit confused about the concept of the 4D. From my understanding, it was originally conceived as a way to capture a guaranteed +1 by choosing only a few select bets per shoe (without the need to cherry pick the best tables).

But to this day, we still do not have a solid set of rules that allows us to achieve this. I've been playing every possible combination of rules that we've considered so far (u1d1, u1d2, betting opps, going otr after 2,3 and 4 losing bets, etc) and the way I'm playing now is the closest I've come to hitting a +4 80% of the time (playing mechanically with zero guess work) across all shoe types with complete disregard for table selection.

But since nobody seems to be interested in this and would rather keep pointing out how NOR would have killed a particular shoe in retrospect, then let's just stick with NOR and the new variations that Ellis is coming up with.

[Jim Files]

Thanks for the interesteplies. I guess I'm a bit confused about the concept of the 4D. From my understanding, it was originally conceived as a way to capture a guaranteed +1 by choosing only a few select bets per shoe (without the need to cherry pick the best tables).

But to this day, we still do not have a solid set of rules that allows us to achieve this. I've been playing every possible combination of rules that we've considered so far (u1d1, u1d2, betting opps, going otr after 2,3 and 4 losing bets, etc) and the way I'm playing now is the closest I've come to hitting a +4 80% of the time (playing mechanically with zero guess work) across all shoe types with complete disregard for table selection.

But since nobody seems to be interested in this and would rather keep pointing out how NOR would have killed a particular shoe in retrospect, then let's just stick with NOR and the new variations that Ellis is coming up with.

Hi Jaybird and Glenn,

I am following your posts with a lot of interest and im sure a lot of others are following as well

And all your hard work is much appreciated.

Please continue and dont get frustrated.

Thanks

Jim

[Abby N]

jaybird8521 quote: But to this day, we still do not have a solid set of rules that allows us to achieve this. I've been playing every possible combination of rules that we've considered so far (u1d1, u1d2, betting opps, going otr after 2,3 and 4 losing bets, etc) and the way I'm playing now is the closest I've come to hitting a +4 80% of the time (playing mechanically with zero guess work) across all shoe types with complete disregard for table selection.

But since nobody seems to be interested in this and would rather keep pointing out how NOR would have killed a particular shoe in retrospect, then let's just stick with NOR and the new variations that Ellis is coming up with.

-------------- jaybird: I have been doing the same thing - playing every possible combination - and your method is similar to how I have been playing. I stop betting for a few hands when I see a streak - so your rules make sense to me and I will be practicing with them. Thanks for posting and for explaining so well!

Quizzical1 quote: I've been playing your shoes -and other's - behind the scenes "three ways from Sunday" using different methods to see if there's one method that is albeit NOT perfect, but playable enough to generate modest wins (up to 5 units) as mechanically as possible.

--------------quizz: I agree and I wish to thank you for the Simplified 4D! Great stuff! I think you and many of the members of BTC are geniuses! (including Prof Ellis and Keith!!)

LOU30 quote: So please continue with your work.

Every member of my family and all my friends think i have gone completely bonkers at the amount of time they see me sitting here surrounded with papers full of little circles(as they say), with files full of notes and old shoe history's scratching my head deep in thought, as if nothing else in the world matters...

------------- Lou: My family thinks the same of me!! Ha ha - little circles and notebooks and deep in thought and laptop with baccarat website open ...... Please keep the posts coming!

--------------Note to Ellis and members: I haven’t been posting or asking questions lately - there has been a ton of new information these past few months - and I agree completely that if new members read the NOR manual and understand net betting, then this all makes sense.

I am so glad to be a member. I still practice every night - I am going to Vegas in few weeks. I will be tracking all my sessions and will post my progress.

One of the first things I do after I get home from work is to log onto BTC and view the new posts for the day..so keep ‘em coming!!

Abby N

[uneek]

Jaybird,

I appreciate your posting of your rules and so far it's the most consistent I've seen 4D being played so far. Keep us informed on any progress. My main concern now is it's shoe win rate. How's that coming along? I've done some testing of my own and my win rate is a little lower than yours (probably in the 70's) and most of my shoes weren't complete so I can't consider them for the full test.

Once again good work and keep it coming! If I see anything that I can help improve on I'll definitely post it.