Jump to content

Vegas Shoes 6/20 to 6/25


Recommended Posts

  • Baccarat Hall of Fame Member

6/20 Hard Rock Preshuffled

P181112111151117113311333211111111

6/20 Aria Reused Friday at 9PM

B3141121213212111416511236321111

6/20 Aria Preshuffled

B5111311111111211427221121215121111321216

P1111212111111112112111122112112

B13631122211121113222227361241151

P3512231232211611119111411149

B212114313111241111142133232112119221

6/21 Hard Rock Preshuffled

B2211312211111349552211221311221

P13312211123313226113151113154112131

B2413114318112221541221112213121

P2412413223113333511221111111111221111

B12151121152112144225221221221411

6/23 Aria Reused 9AM

B222422614122421223113211

6/23 Aria Preshuffled

P1211111212111111112313111341112121111111231

B21312135242

B111314112111124312

B221111133221111111132131312253112

6/24 Hard Rock Preshuffled

P12311231171211234212211111

B3123131211351 --- This was the first MDB Seminar Shoe... I had to leave the group to take some phone calls so I missed some shoes after this

6/24 Rejoined Group at Palace Station

B222314312

6/24 Aria Reused -- After group disbanded

P2112125413112111115112144423223521

6/25 Aria Preshuffled

P11653312521111141152118241414

B1211311311342252314331211123127211

P711121131315621

B1411223

My play for this trip was very unusual. I was tired upon arrival to Vegas, having been up all night for 2 nights prior. On Sunday 6/22 I was up all night again. I didn't sleep more than 3 hours in a row any night this trip so my concentration continued to deteriorate every day. I won't be posting my scorecards because they are not indicative of typical MDB play due to my extreme sleep deprivation but I believe everyone at the seminar learned from my experience and was able to see based on the actual shoe data that MDB works.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.  Figure out a way to win at baccarat that fits your lifestyle, you don't have to eat fish anymore!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why the Baccarat Crawl is going to be big and a reason to attend.

Pampano Mike, Speculator9 and Gman will be there.

K

Edited by Keith Smith
You can tell the winners and honest players by how many times they admit they lost 
not by how many times they say they won.

Need Information Messenger

https://m.me/beatthecasinodotcom

司奇士

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6/20 Hard Rock Preshuffled

P181112111151117113311333211111111

6/20 Aria Preshuffled

B5111311111111211427221121215121111321216

P1111212111111112112111122112112

B13631122211121113222227361241151

P3512231232211611119111411149

B212114313111241111142133232112119221

6/21 Hard Rock Preshuffled

B2211312211111349552211221311221

P13312211123313226113151113154112131

B2413114318112221541221112213121

P2412413223113333511221111111111221111

B12151121152112144225221221221411

Attached is how I played the first eleven pre-shuffled shoes Mike posted.

image2014_07_01_17_56_180001.pdf

My results were: 7 wins for a total of +63 units and 4 losses for -20 units, for a net win of +43 units.

For those that attended the seminar, take a look and let me know what you think. For the starting rules I waited for two events or in the case of a 4+ I waited until there was at least 4iar to confirm a 4+, regardless of how the run continued. You should be able to see that in the plays.

Also as a note, I played S23 when 2's and 4+'s were highest in the SAP count. There is some conflicting instruction on this, in the early posts of MDB we played it that way, but in the final MDB rules sticky thread it shows playing S4. Some clarification on this may be needed.

I'll be playing the rest of the 25 shoes Mike posted, but this is all I've got to so far. Anyone else have comments, let's hear them. Got to get fully prepared for the Vegas Crawl in August.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gman,

Thanks for posting the shoes. It was very helpful to see the application of MDB. ELLIS's posted rules uses the highes count only to determine the MDB system, giving options in cases of ties. You use the two highest counts it appears. I've had mixed success with both so I'm wondering if it is better to use both high counts to guide play or just the highest count per the posted rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gman,

Thanks for posting the shoes. It was very helpful to see the application of MDB. ELLIS's posted rules uses the highes count only to determine the MDB system, giving options in cases of ties. You use the two highest counts it appears. I've had mixed success with both so I'm wondering if it is better to use both high counts to guide play or just the highest count per the posted rules.

You're right about the rules stating that you go with the highest SAP count. I got used to going with the highest two and have just got into the habit of following that. My opinion is that it doesn't make too big of a difference which way you go on this. For all the times one way worked better, you'll have times when the other would. Just my opinion based on my practice.

Following MDB rules strictly as posted is the correct way to play until Ellis says different. But again, I don't think my approach is really changing the method in any significant way and it would be easy for me to follow highest count more strictly if my practice proves out it would work much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6/23 Aria Preshuffled

P1211111212111111112313111341112121111111231

B21312135242

B111314112111124312

B221111133221111111132131312253112

Here is another four shoes I played out from the ones Mike posted.

image2014_07_02_11_32_410001.pdf

As a note, I choose the system to play based on the highest two SAP counts. This was pointed out in a previous post below.

Edit: I don't want to steer anyone in the wrong direction about how to play MDB. Please take these posted shoes as just me posting how I play and not gospel on the exact mechanical MDB rules as currently posted by Ellis. I can certainly post some shoes played that way, but these played shoes are not exactly that. Sorry for any problems caused by this, it's not my intention to be confusing.

These shoes really bring out a couple of good/tough situations to discuss.

In shoe #1, this is a common dilemma I come across. You are up immediately +5, right from the start, in your first five plays. Now you are really thinking, ok, SAP has obviously got me in the right system, it’s early in the shoe, so I’m going for it. Bam! The next play you lose and you’re at +4, what to do now? Follow MDB rules and capture +4 right there? Or keep going since it’s early in the shoe and you are 5 for 6 in placing the correct bet so for? I’m of the opinion you go for a bigger win. It could turn against you, but it’s so early in the shoe, would we really jump out that fast? I’d like to hear other’s thoughts on this. In this particular shoe it worked out great and you captured +15 at play #23.

Shoe #2 just never got going. The early SAP count pointing to S1 quickly backfired and got you down too early to recover. But, going by the highest SAP count only, you would have started S23 and hit +5 at play #12. This is an instance where going by the highest two SAP counts worked against me. But for every time this happens, my way works when the other wouldn’t have. This is based on my experience. I’m open to hearing why this is not a good way to play.

Shoe #3 hit +4 but couldn’t jump over before the shoe ended +1 at the last recorded play.

Shoe #4 is one of those where if I don’t make the switch to S1 at play #7 and would’ve stayed with S23, it looks like it would have done much better. Possibly could have changed to S4 at play #14 with the tie in the 2’s and 3’s SAP count and the 1’s highest, but usually I don’t change systems at the tie for the second highest count. What would everyone else have done here? Playing highest count here would have fared better I think in this one as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here are the same four shoes I just posted below, except I played them out following exactly the MDB mechanical rules posted by Ellis in the rules sticky thread. I don’t want to make things more confusing by posting this, I really hope it helps.

image2014_07_02_16_14_460001.pdf

With the previous way I posted, I was following all the rules correctly in playing the primary and secondary progressions with each system, I just used a slightly different trigger to switch systems. (Highest two SAP counts, instead of just the highest) That should be pretty clear if you want to compare the shoes.

It shows slightly different results. In the first post the results were +15, -5, +1, -5 for a total of +6. Played by the exact MDB mechanical rules I got +4, +5, -5, -5 for a total of -1.

The first three shoes start at play #5 and the fourth at play #6, this is so I have confirmed at least four plays and also at least two events before starting. This is the only part that is not in the sticky rules thread yet, but I believe similar new start rules will be incorporated into MDB based on recent posts.

In shoe #1, I start at play #5 after the 2’s are the high SAP count after play #4. After play #5 the 1’s and 2’s SAP count are equal so the next play is S1 based on the rules showing a tie of high 1’s and 2’s is S1. 1’s stays the high count after play #6 so I stay with S1. I hit +5 at play #12 which is only the 8th hand since I started betting, and is before my 15th played hand, so I continue with the intent to capture +4 if I lose. I do lose at the very next hand so I’m out of the shoe at +4 at hand #13 per the MDB rules.

Shoe #2 starts S23 as the 2’s SAP count is highest. After hand #6 the 3’s are highest, but that’s still S23. S23 holds for the rest of the shoe even as 2’s and 3’s are tied for highest. Again I hit +5 within 15 played hands and continue till hand #16 where I capture +5 because I’m facing a two bet at hand #17 that would take me below my capture of +4.

Shoe #3 is awful. I lose the first five bets and hit the -5 stop loss at play #9.

Shoe #4 just never got going and hit -5 at play #14. After play #9 when I was still OTR from the S23 ZZ secondary progression, the 1’s and 2’s SAP count tied pointing to S1 so I switched. Which by the way would keep me on the ZZ run if it continued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gman, thanks for posting your shoes. Could you please post the same 4 shoes you just put up with the MDB+ system to compare? Thanks.

I'm not up on MDB+ yet. I'm still focusing on playing MDB strictly by the rules. I better leave that to Ellis or Keith to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an FYI,

I replayed the 21 pre-shuffled shoes in this thread from Mike's original post below. I replayed them following the MDB rules to the T, and starting after 2 events are confirmed to establish a SAP count. I never started before hand #4 or after hand #8 in any of the shoes.

The results are not good. 8 winning shoes, 13 losing shoes for a net loss of -7 units. This loss is despite one shoe at +10 and another at +20.

Oh, and another thing, in one shoe I lost the whole secondary progression.

I'm going to have a hard time accepting changing systems based solely on the highest SAP count based on these results, even though it is only a tiny sample.

Edit: I just went back and read this post http://www.beatthecasino.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8119&p=44444#post44444

I remembered there was a reason I wasn't going with just the highest SAP count. I'm just going to be one who tweaks the rules a little. Keeping in mind the overall MDB strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an FYI,

I replayed the 21 pre-shuffled shoes in this thread from Mike's original post below. I replayed them following the MDB rules to the T, and starting after 2 events are confirmed to establish a SAP count. I never started before hand #4 or after hand #8 in any of the shoes.

The results are not good. 8 winning shoes, 13 losing shoes for a net loss of -7 units. This loss is despite one shoe at +10 and another at +20.

Oh, and another thing, in one shoe I lost the whole secondary progression.

I'm going to have a hard time accepting changing systems based solely on the highest SAP count based on these results, even though it is only a tiny sample.

Edit: I just went back and read this post http://www.beatthecasino.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8119&p=44444#post44444

I remembered there was a reason I wasn't going with just the highest SAP count. I'm just going to be one who tweaks the rules a little. Keeping in mind the overall MDB strategy.

Right gman. That is why we are not considering MDB for the upcoming Vegas high stakes play session. Using the highest SAP count in new preshuffled touch games - near random cards, makes no sense as you have just demonstrated. The lowest SAP count makes a lot more sense. But we are not concerned about that right now. We have a high stakes trip coming up very shortly.

That is why we are concentrating on MDB+. By the current rules the only way it can lose is 5 3+s W/O a 2 or 5 2+s W/O a 1 or 5 4+s W/O a 3.

That is simply not going to happen in new preshuffled cards. And it would be very rare in any cards.

Nevertheless, we are trying to improve on those rules before the play session and we could use all the help we can get.

The win rate of MDB+ has been extremely high to say the least. So high that we will likely completely replace MDB with it.

It is a single system instead of 3 and it is purely mechanical and extremely simple. A player of your caliber can learn it in ten minutes.

Time is of the essence. Please help us try to improve it in time for the play session. Forget MDB at least for now. We can fix that later if we still want to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right gman. That is why we are not considering MDB for the upcoming Vegas high stakes play session. Using the highest SAP count in new preshuffled touch games - near random cards, makes no sense as you have just demonstrated. The lowest SAP count makes a lot more sense. But we are not concerned about that right now. We have a high stakes trip coming up very shortly.

That is why we are concentrating on MDB+. By the current rules the only way it can lose is 5 3+s W/O a 2 or 5 2+s W/O a 1 or 5 4+s W/O a 3.

That is simply not going to happen in new preshuffled cards. And it would be very rare in any cards.

Nevertheless, we are trying to improve on those rules before the play session and we could use all the help we can get.

The win rate of MDB+ has been extremely high to say the least. So high that we will likely completely replace MDB with it.

It is a single system instead of 3 and it is purely mechanical and extremely simple. A player of your caliber can learn it in ten minutes.

Time is of the essence. Please help us try to improve it in time for the play session. Forget MDB at least for now. We can fix that later if we still want to.

Anybody else just throw your arms up and say WTF!!!!! after reading this? I just have to laugh. So the last three months of work was for sh*t I guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baccarat Hall of Fame Member

Gman,

Your last 3 months was not lost. Nor was mine. I'm replaying my shoes as well based on some simple tweaks and tying to get together with a programmer locally to build an automated system to test and log this data as well. I think MDB does work and I'm not ready yet to drop it for a system that spends 1/2 the shoe sitting waiting for an event. I can tell you that wouldn't work in South Florida because they won't deal any free hands after play 5 and I would prefer something that works locally and in Vegas.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.  Figure out a way to win at baccarat that fits your lifestyle, you don't have to eat fish anymore!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anybody else just throw your arms up and say WTF!!!!! after reading this? I just have to laugh. So the last three months of work was for sh*t I guess?

Not at all. It is YOUR hard work we are reacting to. Your MDB shoes with preshuffled cards lost the primary prog too often but you almost never lost the secondary prog. Others confirmed that we virtually never lose the secondary prog.

So our natural reaction is drop the primary prog altogether and only bet the secondary prog, hence MDB+. We already know that this works extremely well so now our discussion is about how best to do this exactly.

Look, we already know that with MDB the secondary prog can only lose to 4 of one event W/O 1 of the neighboring event. Which neighboring event was determined by whether the 0 bet won or lost.

Fine but with MDB+ we can make it 5 of the same event instead of only 4 which doubles our chances of winning. We can also eliminate the 0 bet entirely and eliminate the need to have 3 systems.

So instead of a 0 bet we simply wait for an event to occur twice, confirmed.

For example, lets say a shoe just produced its second confirmed 3 of the shoe (a 3 followed by an opposite) Fine, we can bet a 123 that the next 3 goes to 4. This is an extremely high % prog because the only way it can lose is if the shoe produces 5 3s W/O a single 4+ which is darn near impossible since all shoes contain a 4+. But it is even more impossible in NEW PRESHUFFLED cards where events strongly tend to hit their mathematical norms. You could easily bet that prog on 4+s all day long and never lose it - perhaps all month long. THAT, therefore, is the basis of MDB+. That alone pretty much guarantees us one or two units a shoe, especially in new preshuffled cards.

But, at the same time we can also bet a second 123 prog that the shoe can't produce 5 3+s W/O a 2. Once we have 2 confirmed 3s, we simply bet that 2s stay 2. Likewise the only way we can lose that 2nd prog is if the shoe produces 5 3+s W/O a 2 - also darn near impossible especially in new preshuffled cards.

But we still don't have enough bets in to get to +5. So far we are only at +2 or 3. Maybe we should settle for that like Keith says and which he also went to the casino and proved with REGULAR cards.

By the same token we can also bet our 123 that the shoe can't produce 5 4+ W/O a 3.

BTW, I don't think we should bet that the shoe can't produce 5 4s W/O a 5+ with regular cards because shoes with no 5+s are too common with regular cards. BUT, 5+s are VERY common with preshuffled and even more so with new preshuffled. So that's a good bet with new preshuffled.

That gets us up to about +3 or 4 and again, maybe we should settle for that???

Or, we could react to two confirmed 2s exactly the same way we reacted to 2 confirmed 3s. We are thinking our odds are not quite as good with 2s as they are with 3s but still pretty darn good - again, esp in new preshuffled cards - touch games.

We can bet there won't be 5 2s W/O a 3+.

We can also bet there won't be 5 2+s W/O a 1. That SOUNDS a little scary but think about it. Lets say there are no 1's between the first and second 2. The pattern might be the common 22 or it might be 232.

5 2+s takes about 15 plays. So we are actually betting there won't be 15 plays with no 1's. That's a pretty darn safe bet- again esp. in new preshuffled cards.

Then there is the question of what progression is best??? Yes, our 123 sounds conservative. But a 124 gurantees us 1 unit on all winning bets and can only lose to 5 of a kind W/O a winning bet.

All of the above ways are good, The question is which is best - and that is the best kind of problem to have.

Another question is what should trigger which way to play or should we simply make all of the above bets and quit at +5. I think that is the way way2fast is leaning at least at the moment.

Gman, the reason we test is to determine if our system has validity. Some do and some don't. But if we don't abandon a system that doesn't, then why did we bother testing??? Your own testing demonstated that MDB is very questionable in preshuffled cards. It might be fine in regular cards where the primary prog has a good hit rate. But, we are about to play Vegas! We need to concentrate on what beats Vegas.

It is not bull to abandon systems that aren't proving out. It is the duty of all good designers no matter the product. I've been a Designer all my working life. I wish I had $100 for every design I abandoned. I'd be a multi millionaire! On the other hand, if I never abandoned any, I'd be a complete failure. Designing is about determining what works best and abandoning everything else. THAT is what we are doing here and we could definitly use your continued help and support. You are one of the best of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baccarat Hall of Fame Member

I must disagree. Evidence we have shows MDB worked very well as reported by people at various casinos across the country, Vegas included. While it might not be 90% I would be interested to see the results by using differing shoe starts, and differing stop win rates. Purely mechanical is the ultimate goal, but there needs to be enhanced rules to ensure that such as quitting a shoe at x positive count after x negative count. If we get to -4 and then rebound to +3, that's a 7 unit gain. If we start to slide do we really need to go all the way to -5? That can still be built into rules. I shudder to think that one report of 21 shoes showing a -7 net is reason to abandon a system that earlier showed double digit PA. I think tweaking that system can be done to reduce risk and fix the system.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.  Figure out a way to win at baccarat that fits your lifestyle, you don't have to eat fish anymore!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must disagree. Evidence we have shows MDB worked very well as reported by people at various casinos across the country, Vegas included. While it might not be 90% I would be interested to see the results by using differing shoe starts, and differing stop win rates. Purely mechanical is the ultimate goal, but there needs to be enhanced rules to ensure that such as quitting a shoe at x positive count after x negative count. If we get to -4 and then rebound to +3, that's a 7 unit gain. If we start to slide do we really need to go all the way to -5? That can still be built into rules. I shudder to think that one report of 21 shoes showing a -7 net is reason to abandon a system that earlier showed double digit PA. I think tweaking that system can be done to reduce risk and fix the system.

Mike, I totally agree! I have thought about to make a stop win after a 5 Unit gain. Let's say we hit -3, stop at +2 and so on. It's a very coservative way to play but we could go trough samples and see how it's doing? It's relative common to hit +2 or +3 after a minus run too see that it all goes bad again. In many shoes there are no strengh to hit a +7,+8-run before it turns bad again. A run of +5 are far more common.

/Fred

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your MDB shoes with preshuffled cards lost the primary prog too often but you almost never lost the secondary prog. Others confirmed that we virtually never lose the secondary prog.

Almost never loosing the secondary progression is the headline -- but be careful in buying in too quick. It is likely the main reason we have seen so few losses of the progression in MDB was because we keep switching systems and re-starting the secondary progression! Yes, I believe the odds are in our favor playing MDB+ as Ellis describes, but you should also expect 6 unit losses on the progression. There are plenty of shoes where 2s and 3s (especially 2s) continue to repeat over and over in new preshuffled cards. You can see it in a large number of Norm's 60 shoes. So the question is, should we also be playing something else in the shoe in addition to the secondary progression? I'm not sure yet, but like the idea of exploring ideas - especially OT/TBL, one of which will win every shoe -- perhaps selectivly playing either OT or TBL during highly biased portions of the shoe. Because of BTC, I have been trained to be keenly sensitive to identifying events as they occur. There will nothing more madnening than sitting through a suburb OT run of 2s and 3s and not capiralizing on it because I am only waiting to play the secondary progression (which by the way I would probably be loosing 1 or 2 of those progressions during the strong OT bias). Lots of questions -- few answers yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I shudder to think that one report of 21 shoes showing a -7 net is reason to abandon a system that earlier showed double digit PA. I think tweaking that system can be done to reduce risk and fix the system.

Correct. Abandoning the system was not at all my intention in posting those results. It was just to show that one way wasn't showing results as good as another way. I wasn't giving up on MDB, just reporting some of my testing results. I believe MDB still works, we just need to find the right tweaks to get it working optimally to meet our +5 goals.

As far as MDB+ goes, I see it as something that can possibly be incorporated into our MDB play. Just my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost never loosing the secondary progression is the headline -- but be careful in buying in too quick. It is likely the main reason we have seen so few losses of the progression in MDB was because we keep switching systems and re-starting the secondary progression! Yes, I believe the odds are in our favor playing MDB+ as Ellis describes, but you should also expect 6 unit losses on the progression. There are plenty of shoes where 2s and 3s (especially 2s) continue to repeat over and over in new preshuffled cards. You can see it in a large number of Norm's 60 shoes. So the question is, should we also be playing something else in the shoe in addition to the secondary progression? I'm not sure yet, but like the idea of exploring ideas - especially OT/TBL, one of which will win every shoe -- perhaps selectivly playing either OT or TBL during highly biased portions of the shoe. Because of BTC, I have been trained to be keenly sensitive to identifying events as they occur. There will nothing more madnening than sitting through a suburb OT run of 2s and 3s and not capiralizing on it because I am only waiting to play the secondary progression (which by the way I would probably be loosing 1 or 2 of those progressions during the strong OT bias). Lots of questions -- few answers yet.

Now I know why they are called Terrible Twos. I primarily played OTB4L for the longest time and I always loved seeing TT runs. I must say playing MDB and MDB+ are great but the losses I had were almost always due to TT runs. I like the idea of picking a system based on twos (OTB or TB4L). I replayed some shoes switching due to SAP vs. not switching and sometime one worked better than the other and vice versa. Can't find any consistent trigger for a TT run. Tried incorporating every count imaginable in varying degrees. Even using 4D.

I'm staring to go mad. Maybe things are as good as they are gona get and just take the inevatable loss here and there?

OTB4L - race to get out of the shoe with a win before a straight run into a ZZ run.

TB4L - race to get out of the shoe with a win before a TT run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Baccarat Hall of Fame Member

That's the problem I had when I replayed the shoes on paper over the weekend. I had 4 shoes in a row that were strong TB4L, then hit a TT run and I got murdered. I even played it on paper to end of shoe and in most cases it only got worse and the SAP count didn't help. On the other hand, when I looked at the shoes again, by using 2 highest SAP counts it made a difference. There will always be losing shoes, but it seemed to point back to 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 losing shoes. Either way we are still talking about a 15-25% advantage which is enough for me.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.  Figure out a way to win at baccarat that fits your lifestyle, you don't have to eat fish anymore!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use