Possible simplification for 4D...

[winhuat88]

Hi Jaybird8521,

With refer to the table at post #86

I would like to check with you how to put the betting as below:-

1). after 1 win in play #22, you will check the low disparity again for the last 8 hands at paly #23 >>> PB

2). for play #24, how to you put the betting 1B at play #24?

3). How do you put the betting for play #26 and #27?

Please advice. Appreciate for your helps.

Winhuat88

[jaybird8521]

Hi Jaybird8521,

With refer to the table at post #86

I would like to check with you how to put the betting as below:-

1). after 1 win in play #22, you will check the low disparity again for the last 8 hands at paly #23 >>> PB

2). for play #24, how to you put the betting 1B at play #24?

3). How do you put the betting for play #26 and #27?

Please advice. Appreciate for your helps.

Winhuat88

Because I'm net betting p/b starting at hand 23 and again at hand 25. I don't mean to be abrasive but if you don't understand net betting then you're not ready for 4D. Ellis has written about this multiple times so go back and re-read his posts until you're up to speed: http://www.beatthecasino.com/forum/content.php?r=1856-Net-Betting-101

[jaybird8521]

I'm only posting my results with the 4D because Ellis asked me to (they were originally sent to him privately). Only a few people seem interested in working out the 4D rules and maybe that's because everyone else is waiting for the next big method to be unveiled. Adding to that, it seems more of the "I have it all figured out but I'm not sharing" attitude has been showing it's face lately. While I'm sure these members have their reasons (annoying questions, possible casino countermeasures, etc), it's incredibly discouraging to everyone else who has paid $600 to be part of a community.

That being said, I posted what I've been working on, not to "show off", but to get some help so we can eventually settle on a set of rules that consistently produces. Unfortunately, out of all of our members, only one has stepped up to help me and that says a lot. So I'm going to keep chugging away behind the scenes because I know we're close, but I'm bowing out of future discussions. If you guys want to do some testing, have at it (most of what I'm doing has been posted in this thread). I'd be curious to hear your results.

Results:

If we count a +2 or higher as a win and a -6 as a loss, then I only had 2 losses out of 32 shoes. Most of these shoes I stopped around 4 or 5 but I'm sure I could have scored higher if I kept going.

32 shoes

30 finished above 0

2 finished below 0 (both at -6)

Total average is 5.69 units (take this with a grain of salt because of the +17 and +14 and also because I stopped most shoes around +4 when I most likely would have scored much higher)

1. +3

2. +14

3. +5

4. +4

5. -6

6. +2

7. +8

8. -6

9. +3

10. +4

11. +6

12. +6

13. +9

14. +7

15. +11

16. +7

17. +9

18. +5

19. +6

20. +4

21. +12

22. +4

23. +7

24. +8

25. +8

26. +4

27. +4

28. +17

29. +6

30. +4

31. +2

32. +5

Update:

Going by my original parameters of considering a +4 or more a win and a -6 a loss, my updated rules have gotten me 35 wins out of the last 42 shoes I've played (all different shoe types) playing the rules mechanically while disregarding table selection.

[BigVic]

I'm only posting my results with the 4D because Ellis asked me to (they were originally sent to him privately). Only a few people seem interested in working out the 4D rules and maybe that's because everyone else is waiting for the next big method to be unveiled. Adding to that, it seems more of the "I have it all figured out but I'm not sharing" attitude has been showing it's face lately. While I'm sure these members have their reasons (annoying questions, possible casino countermeasures, etc), it's incredibly discouraging to everyone else who has paid $600 to be part of a community.

That being said, I posted what I've been working on, not to "show off", but to get some help so we can eventually settle on a set of rules that consistently produces. Unfortunately, out of all of our members, only one has stepped up to help me and that says a lot. So I'm going to keep chugging away behind the scenes because I know we're close, but I'm bowing out of future discussions. If you guys want to do some testing, have at it (most of what I'm doing has been posted in this thread). I'd be curious to hear your results.

Results:

If we count a +2 or higher as a win and a -6 as a loss, then I only had 2 losses out of 32 shoes. Most of these shoes I stopped around 4 or 5 but I'm sure I could have scored higher if I kept going.

32 shoes

30 finished above 0

2 finished below 0 (both at -6)

Total average is 5.69 units (take this with a grain of salt because of the +17 and +14 and also because I stopped most shoes around +4 when I most likely would have scored much higher)

1. +3

2. +14

3. +5

4. +4

5. -6

6. +2

7. +8

8. -6

9. +3

10. +4

11. +6

12. +6

13. +9

14. +7

15. +11

16. +7

17. +9

18. +5

19. +6

20. +4

21. +12

22. +4

23. +7

24. +8

25. +8

26. +4

27. +4

28. +17

29. +6

30. +4

31. +2

32. +5

Update:

Going by my original parameters of considering a +4 or more a win and a -6 a loss, my updated rules have gotten me 35 wins out of the last 42 shoes I've played (all different shoe types) playing the rules mechanically while disregarding table selection.

It's not the member's responsibility to develop a winning system. Paying members PAID their money upfront with the understanding that what they were getting for their money was a complete proven winning system. And to be fair NOR is that winning system that most of us payed $600 for.

What you're going on about is the $5000 super bet system. I guess $5000 doesn't go as far as it used to. My advice to anybody is to master NOR. Too many here fall to the trap of being " a jack of all trades, master of none."

[Guest]

It's not the member's responsibility to develop a winning system. Paying members PAID their money upfront with the understanding that what they were getting for their money was a complete proven winning system. And to be fair NOR is that winning system that most of us payed $600 for.

What you're going on about is the $5000 super bet system. I guess $5000 doesn't go as far as it used to. My advice to anybody is to master NOR. Too many here fall to the trap of being " a jack of all trades, master of none."

Well that was the 4D. Jaybird and the others are talking about the S4D which the members came up with. We are only trying to average +5 units. Preliminary rules have been posted. Jaybird has a little different slant on it. Members here are allowed to have ideas. We encourage that - some of us.

[uneek]

Jaybird,

Have you tried playing live yet?

[Guest]

Well I too think study should continue on this S4D project. It definitely has its place in our overall casino strategy. NOR's strength is derived from table selection. But we don't always have that option. Many members can only play weekends when just getting a seat anywhere can be difficult. And often local casinos have only one table open. Plus, most on line play leaves us with no table selection.

So we need a method that does not require table selection so that we have all bases covered. That should be obvious.

The 4D is simply too complex I finally admit, but the S4D is a different story altogether. And I think with just a little more effort we can perfect it to do what we want it to do - average +5 or more. When it can do that, it fills a slot we need to have filled to complete our overall casino strategy.

While Jaybird is net betting the Lo side, I like Glenn's idea of greatly simplifying our score card by eliminating the net bet cols. If it makes no difference, why not do it the simplest way. But I think we are better off to bet Opposites in tighter spreads and toward 0 in loser spreads.

I agree that a 1,2 prog performs better than flat betting both for Lo side and Hi side. We win most of our 2s and that should be the deciding factor.

I think we can eliminate the runs problem by simply stopping after losing a 1,2 on either Hi or Lo side but continuing the other side. Losing a 1,2 is not the end of the world particularly if the other side was winning meanwhile.

I think we need to be paying more attention to betting both sides at the same time. Lo side betting and Hi side betting are of equal strength. Away from 0 on the highest count is just as strong as toward 0 or opposites on the lowest spread.

The important thing is to avoid getting discouraged. Your work itself can be discouraging enough W/O having members casting aspersions on it or showing up once every two months expecting you to catch them up.

I think we are very close to having this thing nailed down. This is no time to quit.

I got discouraged on the 4D myself because it was so difficult to play at casino speed.

But then along came Glenn!

[Guest]

Yes, we still have a few decisions to make re Lo side betting. But Hi side is a done deal. Bet the high count will go higher. Plain and simple.

Betting the Hi side on the S4D is a lot like NOR on steroids. While NOR attempts to determind chop, streak or neutral from the OR count, the S4D is telling you the exact highest count of ALL FOUR counts. No interpretation is necessary. You are reacting to factual information. But you can't wait for the high count to get high before you start betting. You need to be betting it on the way up. That is why I say start your high side betting with the first count to hit 3. Sure, the highest count may change but that makes no difference. Change right with it. One thing is for absolute sure - the higest count MUST move upwards from 3. It will more than likely get to 8 or more. If we were betting it from 3, we already achieved our +5 on the high count alone.

We keep discussing the best way to bet the lowest spread. But the high count is the more sure thing of the 2. We don't need to determine any spreads. We don't need to net bet. We don't need to determine opposites vs toward 0. It is totally simple. Bet the highest count will go higher, period. It is a sure thing if you start at 3. Every shoe ever dealt the highest count went higher than 3 - usually a LOT higher. That half of the S4D is a done deal.

Sure we might get to +5 on the low spread alone. We are more likely to get to +5 on the high count alone. But our BEST deal is to bet BOTH at the same time.

[Quizzical1]

Thanks for the acknowledgement Ellis - I really appreciate it.

Here's my current dilemma with the S4D:

I have had shoes where betting the highest count would tend toward 0 worked better than betting that it would go higher. (See Big Vic's reply to my posted shoe on posts #73 and 74).

Again, I play differently than Jaybird (he records the actual + and - counts whereas I only record the net total at any given point) because I'm trying to keep the format to a std casino scorecard column width of 6 - 8 columns.

And yes, I have played it live already - BUT sparingly until the rules can be solidly nailed down.

[uneek]

If you lose on a 1,2 progression on a high/low count, when is the best time to resume it again? After a paper win? WW? WLW?

[Guest]

If you lose on a 1,2 progression on a high/low count, when is the best time to resume it again? After a paper win? WW? WLW?

Yes, after a paper win assuming the count is still within boundaries. Also after 3 additional losses again assuming the count is within boundaries - but not if you have been seeing long runs.

[Guest]

Thanks for the acknowledgement Ellis - I really appreciate it.

Here's my current dilemma with the S4D:

I have had shoes where betting the highest count would tend toward 0 worked better than betting that it would go higher. (See Big Vic's reply to my posted shoe on posts #73 and 74).

Again, I play differently than Jaybird (he records the actual + and - counts whereas I only record the net total at any given point) because I'm trying to keep the format to a std casino scorecard column width of 6 - 8 columns.

And yes, I have played it live already - BUT sparingly until the rules can be solidly nailed down.

Right, high counts eventually stall out, usually. This is why it is so important to get in on the ground floor - at 3.

I also thinK that is all the more reason to quit at +5 except for exceptionally good shoes.

This also means that you will often start betting on the high count BEFORE you start betting on the low spread.

It's like a race - the quicker you get to +5 and get out, the better. This also keeps commission to a min.

But thinking out loud, you know, I say when two counts tie, go with the new count because it has shown the most movement lately.

Hmm, I'm wondering if we should be paying more attention to "movement lately"??? Both lack of movement for low side betting and runs for high side betting. Runs always create the most movement lately. The 4 counts create 8 run types. I'm wondering if we should always bet on a run once it has gone 3??? We could even use the prog within a prog device for this. That would end the runs problem once and for all.

We could even say: anytime there are 3 Bs or Ps or 0s, we bet a 1 unit "override" bet on that run regardless of the count we happen to be playing. If we are wrong, we go right back to the count we were playing with a 1 bet but next 3 we bet 2, and so forth.

In excessively choppy shoes, we do the same thing except Against straight 3's.

Hey, it works well with BaS40 and the shoe doesn't know what system we are basing with.

That would eliminate the runs problem altogether.

Food for thought.

[MVSeahog]

One thing is for absolute sure - the higest count MUST move upwards from 3. It will more than likely get to 8 or more. If we were betting it from 3, we already achieved our +5 on the high count alone.

Chief,

OK, this is the thing I'm just not seeing.

Why must the highest count move upwards?

MVS (slightly behind the rest of the class)

[trbfla]

Ellis, jay bird, quiz

When playing s4d going for a goal of +5 what is everyone using as a stop loss per shoe?

Thanks

[BigVic]

Chief,

OK, this is the thing I'm just not seeing.

Why must the highest count move upwards?

MVS (slightly behind the rest of the class)

Because Ellis said it would. Shoes are less random when Ellis plays them.

[bluetri]

My take on it is IF that count IS the highest it will go up from there. Otherwise, another count will overtake it. Trying to get in on the high count run as it runs up. It may just be the high count at that point, not for the overall shoe

[Quizzical1]

My take on it is IF that count IS the highest it will go up from there. Otherwise, another count will overtake it. Trying to get in on the high count run as it runs up. It may just be the high count at that point, not for the overall shoe

Could be sometimes blutri, but I've got actual shoes that prove otherwise. Again, NOT ALWAYS, but I have enough of them where betting the highest count reverses (or goes towards 0) per row for the next hand has worked like a charm.

Can anyone explain why?

[bluetri]

If your highest count goes down from three and still remains the highest count, then it appears to be a pretty tight shoe and net betting would be a successful option.

[Guest]

Chief,

OK, this is the thing I'm just not seeing.

Why must the highest count move upwards?

Ha, good question!

Because the highest count can't possibly stay within 3. The lowest count might. Once all counts start every count moves up or down one every play.

Picture it: A shoe starts with a 3iar. Either P or B is already at 3. P or B is bound to be ahead at least 3 before the shoe goes very far. But if it doesn't, then OvR must and if it doesn't OvT Must.

Lack of movement in one count CAUSES major movement in another count.

For instance, take a ZZ run of 5. That causes PvB to to stand almost still like +1,0,+1,0,+1,0 BUT it causes the OR count to move 5!

When the lowest count moves upwards it causes the highest count to also move upwards and it was already the highest count.

You can have one count stay in jail. Sometimes even two for a while.

But you can't possibly have all 4 counts stay in jail BECAUSE lack of movement in one count causes movement in another count.

Now, that doesn't mean the highest count will move upwards every play. It means it will FAVOR moving upwards. Because if it doesn't it will no longer be the highest count.

If the highest count changes fine BECAUSE we are betting on the highest count no matter which count that is or changes to.

Why? Because the highest count, whichever count that is at the moment, MUST move upwards from 3. Hell, even the lowest count usually eventually gets to 3. That means the highest count must be more than 3 - usually much more.

The average count spread for a shoe is 8. That means some counts are more than 8, and some less. But what causes one count to stay low causes another count to go higher.

For instance every run whether straight or ZZ causes some counts to take off. That's easy to see.

BUT a lack of runs causes the O/T count to take off. See that?

No matter what a shoe decides to do, whatever it does causes some counts to stay low and others to go higher. You can't have one W/O the other.

So to bet that the highest count will go higher than 3 is a sure thing.

But suppose the very worst happens and the highest count only goes to 4 or 5. FINE, you still win at least half your bets and you're betting a progression.

But it also means your lowest count is forced to stay extremely low. So you kill the shoe with your Lo side betting.

See that? We have them in a cross fire. If the shoes goes one way, we've got em. But if it goes the other way we've also got em.

The idea is to allow them no means of escape.

Hey, we're only going for +5. It is virtually guaranteed. Just as it is with S40M1 in any shoe lo in 2s. See Jims shoe I'm posting.

This is one of those things that is easy for me to see but very hard to explain.

But I'm hoping this gives you the idea of it.

It's like trying to explain a door knob. Eventually you give up and say "Just open the goddam door!"

[bluetri]

My take on it is IF that count IS the highest it will go up from there. Otherwise, another count will overtake it. Trying to get in on the high count run as it runs up. It may just be the high count at that point, not for the overall shoe

Could be sometimes blutri, but I've got actual shoes that prove otherwise. Again, NOT ALWAYS, but I have enough of them where betting the highest count reverses (or goes towards 0) per row for the next hand has worked like a charm.

Can anyone explain why?

I guess we are looking at two different things, Quiz. You are looking at one bet and I am looking at overall direction. Maybe it will go towards zero for one bet, but the direction is more important to me. Just headed to five....not to hard to get there

[trbfla]

Ellis,

This is an excellent post and great explanation of 4d or s4d.

Our goal is to try to see which count is moving where because like you said one movement causes movement in others.

With a progression-it may not always win the 3bet but often it does. Getting to only +5 is very attainable.

Is +5 good enough per shoe? I believe so. I think it's better to up your chip count than up your expected return. Is +5 per shoe betting black enough for me? That's 500 shoe. What about +5 purple that's 2500 +5 orange that's 5k per shoe

Ya I like +5 per shoe since it's attainable

But what's our stop ? -8?????

[bluetri]

Ellis,

This is an excellent post and great explanation of 4d or s4d.

Our goal is to try to see which count is moving where because like you said one movement causes movement in others.

With a progression-it may not always win the 3bet but often it does. Getting to only +5 is very attainable.

Is +5 good enough per shoe? I believe so.

I agree, and that was a great explanation of the philosophy of the approach

[Guest]

Could be sometimes blutri, but I've got actual shoes that prove otherwise. Again, NOT ALWAYS, but I have enough of them where betting the highest count reverses (or goes towards 0) per row for the next hand has worked like a charm.

Can anyone explain why?

Well I think you are both right. Usually when the highest count goes down significantly it is no longer the highest count because the same plays are causing another count to go up. But that is not always the case. That is why I'm suggesting our prog be only 1,2. So OK, you lose a 1,2 every now and then. Meanwhile, what happened with your Lo side betting. Usually what cause the high side to lose caused the Lo side to win - usually.

Maybe now you can see why I mentioned before that maybe we should change the polarity of one of the counts. We need to keep our eye on that. I'm not so sure it is in our best interest to always make the O side the + side. I'm wondering if it would help to change the polarity of the OvT count???

When we get dumped from one count to another, it would be nice if the new count put us ON the same run we were losing to. That's the idea. But also, when we are losing on one side we would like to be winning on the other side as much as is possible. Maybe reversing the polarity of the OvT count would help. It is something to watch.

Here is another thought that John came up with. Maybe we should only bet the high side when the highest two counts agree???

And one more. Maybe when the highest could falters we should go to the next highest.

Or maybe when the highest count falters we should do what we do with NOR - go on the run we are losing to.

All food for thought and things to watch.

Oh, and one other thing: Maybe when the highest count keeps reversing that is what we should bet???

[moneybac]

0+ to 1+ 0+ 1- 2- 1- 0- 1+ 0+on O/T.every time you hit 0 then you know which side won on 0 last time,was it OT or TB.sometimes you will see 2 or 3 sets of 0+,then a 0- pops up then it switches to tb4l.sometimes it stays on that 0- side 1 time then back to the 0+.it's funny how 1 little 0 can affect the game

[trbfla]

Ellis,

Drove down to south beach with the top down this morning for breakfast while the sun was rising and had a question for you.

If tracking 4d

1. Is p/b a stong d or can you drop it and track say Oott instead?

2. Also if you can at track at casino speed say 5 ds is there any benefit to doing this?

Thank you