Thread: Transposing results into S&O (GTG part2)

[moved]

Well, I think I can add a couple of thoughts for contemplation:

It is very easy to drown in semantics when discussing Baccarat. While I don't see where either has any advantage over the other, I always teach from the standpoint of a vertical scorecard just so that we can talk in consistent semantics. Then, instead of talking in terms of opposite or same as last decision, we can talk in terms of "D" Down or "A" Across from either last decision or in terms of last bet.

This becomes very compatible with a simple 1,2 prog.

For instance If you always bet Across after a Repeat and Down after an Opposite, you always win your 2 bet in both straight or ZZ runs.

You also win every bet in the the TTs, (Terrible Twos) PP BB PP BB - where every win is across from a Repeat or Down after an Opposite.

This compares very favorably to playing TB4L which, starting at the third circle, wins every bet in straight and ZZ runs only to lose every single bet in the TTs.

I've often said you can't win if you lose to the TTs. They are too common.

But the above betting approach beats all straight and ZZ runs as well as the TTs. VERY few systems do that.

We don't have a system here yet but perhaps we have the starting basis for a system.

OK, now we are right back to John's question: What can you make of that? - Food for thought.

Ha, see we are already into a semantics problem. You made my point already.

OLD (Opposite last Decision) and Across Down (AD) are two completely different things. BTW, what you call OLD we simply call O or Betting Opposites. Same with R or Betting Repeats. You might do this at an extreme chop or streak table.

AD, no pun, (Across Down) is entirely different. You bet Across after a Repeat and keep betting Across (ZZ) until an opposite occurs and you bet straight Down after an Opposite until a repeat occurs. Therefore you win every other bet against a straight or ZZ run and every bet in a TT run. It doesn't matter how long a run goes. So on a straight or ZZ run you keep losing your 1 and winning your 2 with a 1,2 neg prog. On TTs you are right on it every single circle from the beginning. Get it? It's actually pretty neat.

But it isn't a true system until you add protection from your losing patterns. I would suggest that when you lose your 1,2 prog, you wait for a paper win to resume at 1. Since your dual objective is to either win your first bet or every other bet a highest bet of 2 would seem appropriate. Are you guys understanding my lingo?

Originally Posted by John

I do realise you are describing Twister. I consider 3 streaks common, back to back 3 streaks are not rare. I can almost guarantee their repeat appearance every session I play.

If you play around with Binary tables, groups of 4, 5, 6 and beyond. You will see why inserting a stop loss after 1L or 2L offers no advantage.

3 Col; FTL/OLD performs better than DBL in regards to pathways to win or lose. Insert any kind of switch = same outcome.

Want to find out why your favourite 3 column approach fails in real world conditions. Want to find out why something that has such a small losing footprint can fail while at the tables. Then I suggest you use a 6 group binary table and work through the results.

Is there an advantage to switching between DBL (TB4L) and ODBL (OTB4L) and capping or not capping the progression. It's easy enough to TEST, play around with groupings of 8. Then tell us there is an advantage in what you are doing, you would now be in the position to easily prove it.

I'm understanding your lingo very well. Eliminating potential losing patterns can offer limited benefit, although very difficult to achieve, I have only found one myself and have posted that in another thread. Inserting a stop loss, waiting for a virtual win, trying to secure the 2u bet as a winner, is near impossible, reverting back to a base bet of 1u etc (you now need 3/1 ratio in wins just to get even "less tax"), such tactics offer no real advantage, this can be easily proven by working through the appropiate sized binary tables.

Well said John! Sometimes you astound me. Correct, the problem with twister is its purely mechanical. In the end, no amount of safeguards can really fix it no matter how clever. As I keep saying, purely mechanical systems simply can't win long term. Worse, it doesn't really lend itself to a particular shoe type. Low threes might help a little but, by itself, that's pretty weak. So table selection is not a real option.

On the other hand, it is a different betting scheme and might give someone a better idea. But as is, its just a betting scheme like TB4L, nothing more.

Verdict is not in for me yet..GTG come up with good research..just don't think it would be so easy to duplicate a muti grid template exactly like his..Hope one day they show up to prove or disprove.Until then I guess it goes into the X files.

Hi John, i tried something similar to this using a 1,1,1 - 2,2,2, - 3,3,3- etc MM. It worked great about 80% of the time. The other 20% really mucked it up when the L/W registry recorded a series of L-L-L , L-L- W and L-W-L.

Though it came up ahead, some of the losses were hard to stomach.

I would give yours here a closer look. Thanks for posting John .

yeah i kind of split the shoe in three 0-9 grid on the scorecard..track in the regular manner most do.He mentions his multigrid template of 3...normal/streaks/chops.All three of these modes are a average normal cycle and dare i say clusters per shoe.What i haven't tried yet and will have to go back to.. is his basic trigger in which to determine which to bet..and i think it's stuffed in that thread somewhere.U get 3 shots at trying to figure out if u used the right tiggers(is this 0-9 grid a streak mode,or a chop mode or a normal mode?) per shoe.

Well u guys win rate seems to match GTG's strategy..He did write it not being 100% foolproof ...what is? I'll try posting a scorecard of my example in jpeg(post never lines verticals well)..
GTG made grids..3 of em..A centerline or neutral grid based on response for average shoe and 2 deviation grids...chop and streaks..but he never post them.required readers to design own parameters.GTG states on avg.the grid changes maybe 2 or 3 times a shoe..The whole secret is analiysing the degree or frequency of hand changes.GTG always suggest looking back at last 5 of 10 hands.So my grid design is designed around the shoe itself..tracking by scorcard..TOP ROW sequence 1 to 0(0=10) as the centerline(neutral)ZZ..50/50 whatever u want to call it and yes on average u'll get 3 what i call sequences per shoe 8 deck (and maybe 6 deck?).The red represents the player and black is banker.I numbered them instead of x's and 0"s typically used to track.here u'll see the chops/streaks following the centerline(top row,real actuals).Number 6 of each sequence is the DP.then cross reference the last 5 vertical rows to johnos F/O conversion that was posted on GTG's thread. then play out 6-10(or 0) to follow for a hit.,,win is exit parameter.This is the big picture of my scheme of play..As well..few losses...lots of hits.

Runthru of jpegs...Look at the first block to the left of scorecard top row 1-0.I'm tracking a shoe..but using numbers instead of x's and o's.no need to pay attention to the streak counts(don't apply here)..just pay attention to the top row of numbers... the top row going across the scorecard..This babys the neutral line..so by the time it hits 6..this is the DP to look back at the last 5..whad we see here..1to2 is "O" ...then 2 starts to streak (as u see the vertical line going down)...this is a"F"..3 is a streak or F..4 (is a streak) a "F"..4 to 5 is a "O"..then we hit the 6..u have 0FFF0. now the next bet after 6 We will bet opposite bet"0" (a Banker)..to follow the newly created F/0 pattern..would have been a hit on 7(Banker)..Look at center block 1-0...u get a 0000F when u look back from DP6 there...play to follow new pattern.next bet after 6(player)a opposite bet"0"..another player(streak)..loss..wait for the streak to end or when u get to 7 then bet opposite again(player)...hit..This is just the big non complex example..have not practiced tracking additional last 5 all the way thru the shoe..just want to post the simple aspect of the scorecard.