Thread: The Maths behind "UnBal" bet selection

If you take a set of binary tables, you might notice over a given set of hands, their are more pathways for decisions "not to be equal (unbalanced)" than to be equal" (balanced).

Example; for a 4 set grouping.

BBBB = unbal
BBBP = unbal
BBPB = unbal
BBPP = bal
BPBB = unbal
BPBP = bal
BPPB = bal
BPPP = unbal

PBBB = unbal
PBBP = bal
PBPB = bal
PBPP = unbal
PPBB = bal
PPBP = unbal
PPPB = unbal
PPPP = unbal

The ratio is 5/3, this is simply not good enough.

Basically this works out at a 62.5% chance of not being balanced, again I emphasise it is not strong enough.

With the larger samples, the ratio improves.

Using groups of 6, the ratio is 44/20 or 68.8%
Using groups of 8, the ratio is 186/70 or 72.7%
Using groups of 10, the ratio is 772/252 or 75.4%
Using groups of 12, the ratio is 3172/924 or 77.4% **
Using groups of 14, the ratio is 12952/3432 or 79.1%
Using groups of 16, the ratio is 52666/12870 or 80.4% ~~
Using groups of 18, the ratio is 213524/48620 or 81.5%
Using groups of 20, the ratio is 863820/184756 or 82.4%
Using groups of 24, the ratio is 14073060/2704156 or 83.9%

** This is were I step in at a minimum, this is also my fav' Roulette method when playing all 3 EC'.

~~ This is one of my current complimentary betting options.

If it all looks complicated or your thinking, "you do more waiting than betting", this really need not be the case. The UnBal option I usually monitor no matter what-else I may be doing.

No apologies if you were expecting some "show me when to bet methodology". Effort should never be a barrier in the pursuit of taking money from casinos

Bal v's UnBal - one of the few bet selections were the continuity of something is clearly provable as unlikely.


[Edited and borrowed from RWCA]

égalité

this is really interesting! This could be on to a winning strategy. I noticed eriescott in another post talking about counting. Lets say you go into more deatail and count how many columns were balanced vs. Unbalanced. Do we always end up with more unbalanced? Because if so then every 4th hand that is played could be profitable. The way that I currently play be of good use to this method. I am going to try it out first and go through old results.

Originally Posted by CASH

this is really interesting! This could be on to a winning strategy. I noticed eriescott in another post talking about counting. Lets say you go into more deatail and count how many columns were balanced vs. Unbalanced. Do we always end up with more unbalanced? Because if so then every 4th hand that is played could be profitable. The way that I currently play be of good use to this method. I am going to try it out first and go through old results.

I just can't see how you can take advantage of this situation.

Originally Posted by LuckoftheIrish

I just can't see how you can take advantage of this situation.

If anybody has spent time evaluating "any / their" bet selection against an appropriate set of "binary tables" you will notice everything balances out 50/50. Betting the "UnBal" (as I refer to it), is the only approach that I am aware of that does not resolve to a 50/50 state and the only approach that offers a positive expectation (expectation is never a guarantee). You still need to use a negative progression for obvious reasons. I have usually included the "top end" expectation approaches as part of my game for the last few years.

Effort should never be a barrier in the pursuit of taking money from casinos.

Originally Posted by Egalite

If anybody has spent time evaluating "any / their" bet selection against an appropriate set of "binary tables" you will notice everything balances out 50/50. Betting the "UnBal" (as I refer to it), is the only approach that I am aware of that does not resolve to a 50/50 state and the only approach that offers a positive expectation (expectation is never a guarantee). You still need to use a negative progression for obvious reasons. I have usually included the "top end" expectation approaches as part of my game for the last few years.

Effort should never be a barrier in the pursuit of taking money from casinos.

Using groups of 8, the ratio is 186/70 or 72.7%

what would be the best time to place a bet if using this group ??????Im thinking in groups of 4 after a repeat PP we could start playing P for the next 2 bets hoping for unbalanced situation or if a PB is dealt then wait for the 4th hand to bet and bet what the 3rd decision was ex.PBP.... bet P

Originally Posted by gerard711

Using groups of 8, the ratio is 186/70 or 72.7%

what would be the best time to place a bet if using this group ??????

Having either played or monitored The "UnBal" option over the last three years, I can assure you, you have to aim higher than using groups of eight.

Regards you question, if you know "Condition A" is more likely than "Condition B", (not withstanding each remain only an expectation and expectation is never a see above). How can you use this information and construct a bet selection around it?" I suggest get a set of Binary Tables to figure out "how to take advantage of "Condition A" then apply that methodology to the groups which indicate the higher percentage figures.

If you haven't figured it out within a week, PM me and I will explain how to apply it, including the safety rule. Reward is proportionate to effort and I believe people should put effort into things, not saying doesn't apply to you.

Im thinking in groups of 4 after a repeat PP we could start playing P for the next 2 bets hoping for unbalanced situation or if a PB is dealt then wait for the 4th hand to bet and bet what the 3rd decision was ex.PBP.... bet P

Grab yourself a set of 4 grouping Binary Tables (they are are many board, including here), and compare your suggestion with the bet selection "Decision Before Last", and you will have your answer.

Originally Posted by CASH

Lets say you go into more deatail and count how many columns were balanced vs. Unbalanced. Do we always end up with more unbalanced? Because if so then every 4th hand that is played could be profitable. The way that I currently play be of good use to this method.

The answer to your first question is NO. If you were to count / monitor "Balanced" v's "UnBalanced" for groups of four, I would suggest simply wait for 3 or 4 Balanced columns before betting UnBalanced. It can get that "bad" when using the small groupings.

Would you be looking after every set of four to see if you are balanced or unbalanced or would it be a rolling set of four whereby after each outcome you would drop off the previous 1st decision and add the latest decision so you have a last set of four after each and every decision.

ultimately I could see how unbalanced would be the best bet since the odds are not right at 50/50

The thing is cash how do you bet that the next X decisions will be unbalanced?

I have looked at this way of betting in the past but only found negative results.

I always bet banker when using this strategy. but only when a banker win will unbalance the last three hands.
Ex.
bbb. Bet B
bpb. Bet B
Pbb. Bet B

Even if I see
ppp. Bet B

Since banker will win slightly more hands I always bet it will unbalance the shoe.

Originally Posted by CASH

I always bet banker when using this strategy. but only when a banker win will unbalance the last three hands.
Ex.
bbb. Bet B
bpb. Bet B
Pbb. Bet B

Even if I see
ppp. Bet B

Since banker will win slightly more hands I always bet it will unbalance the shoe.

CASH I fail to see what that has to do with the bet selection I posted above. Obviously we are to far apart when it comes to discussing gambling.

no no, I was just posting up how I have had the best results with unbal.
this system similar to my cousin.
my cousin swear by card count with system though,
10: -2
A: 0
2-9: +1
He say bet banker only and always wait til true count +8.

Egalite posted

The ratio is 5/3, this is simply not good enough. Basically this works out at a 62.5% chance of not being balanced, again I emphasise it is not strong enough.

Using groups of 12, the ratio is 3172/924 or 77.4% **


would it be worh look at if we saw over the past 12 hands 6 player and 6 Banker to start play with the first side that goes 7 to 6 with a mid progression so that as we work our way toward a group of lets say 20 if it is bal the progression should save us. if we happen to be on the dominated side then we of course win.

If yer gonna play this style then you need to figure out how many bites at the apple you will take. Maybe use a three step grand marty, or labby, etc.

Originally Posted by soxfan

If yer gonna play this style then you need to figure out how many bites at the apple you will take. Maybe use a three step grand marty, or labby, etc.

It might be better to avoid doing a three step grand marty, hey hey.

Originally Posted by CASH

I always bet banker when using this strategy. but only when a banker win will unbalance the last three hands.
Ex.
bbb. Bet B
bpb. Bet B
Pbb. Bet B

Even if I see
ppp. Bet B

Since banker will win slightly more hands I always bet it will unbalance the shoe.

I think it looks similar to pitty1's method.

What do you think, pitty1?

Well I was thinking that this is the math behind the ROHP system he uses a 30 unit buy in attacks when there has been a large number of Balance (groups of 12) and bets FTL but he also makes sure there are only one's and two's so no streaks of 3 so not only are you dealing this a balaned sample but one that has not had any long streaks in it so it is due to become unbalanced and or hit a streak due to no streak of 3 or more in the sample also no 2-1-2 So I guess you could say it is double qulified

I have played it live and it took too long for me to get a set but when I did it seem to do well. with a 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 if we started on bet 13 hand your 6-6 balance and then when it gets 7-6 start this would take us to 20 or and beyond

Using groups of 20, the ratio is 863820/184756 or 82.4%
Using groups of 24, the ratio is 14073060/2704156 or 83.9%


this is good info that Egalite posted but the question is how do we use this to help us the way I posted is just an idea I hope he will share his way of play anyway I could be way off base it is just a thought trying to use Egalite's info and how to use it.

I used it at craps and the game was just too slow for this type of system

if the set of from a 7/6 stand point goes on to Bal don't you think the progression deals with that. If it goes unbal then FTL keeps us on the right side of that with a progression with no 2-1-2 in the sample a streak of some kind or a 2-1-2 is due and the progression will deal with that 2-1-2 in a very nice way. Eglight's post made me see some logic behind the system

Using groups of 14, the ratio is 12952/3432 or 79.1%
Using groups of 16, the ratio is 52666/12870 or 80.4% ~~
Using groups of 18, the ratio is 213524/48620 or 81.5%
Using groups of 20, the ratio is 863820/184756 or 82.4%
Using groups of 24, the ratio is 14073060/2704156 or 83.9%

unbal sets would be ueful as listed above if we started on hand 13 with a 7/6 count betting FTL

Originally Posted by Egalite

If you take a set of binary tables, you might notice over a given set of hands, their are more pathways for decisions "not to be equal (unbalanced)" than to be equal" (balanced).

Example; for a 4 set grouping.

BBBB = unbal
BBBP = unbal
BBPB = unbal
BBPP = bal
BPBB = unbal
BPBP = bal
BPPB = bal
BPPP = unbal

PBBB = unbal
PBBP = bal
PBPB = bal
PBPP = unbal
PPBB = bal
PPBP = unbal
PPPB = unbal
PPPP = unbal

The ratio is 5/3, this is simply not good enough.

Basically this works out at a 62.5% chance of not being balanced, again I emphasise it is not strong enough.

With the larger samples, the ratio improves.

Using groups of 6, the ratio is 44/20 or 68.8%
Using groups of 8, the ratio is 186/70 or 72.7%
Using groups of 10, the ratio is 772/252 or 75.4%
Using groups of 12, the ratio is 3172/924 or 77.4% **
Using groups of 14, the ratio is 12952/3432 or 79.1%
Using groups of 16, the ratio is 52666/12870 or 80.4% ~~
Using groups of 18, the ratio is 213524/48620 or 81.5%
Using groups of 20, the ratio is 863820/184756 or 82.4%
Using groups of 24, the ratio is 14073060/2704156 or 83.9%

** This is were I step in at a minimum, this is also my fav' Roulette method when playing all 3 EC'.

~~ This is one of my current complimentary betting options.

If it all looks complicated or your thinking, "you do more waiting than betting", this really need not be the case. The UnBal option I usually monitor no matter what-else I may be doing.

No apologies if you were expecting some "show me when to bet methodology". Effort should never be a barrier in the pursuit of taking money from casinos

Bal v's UnBal - one of the few bet selections were the continuity of something is clearly provable as unlikely.


[Edited and borrowed from RWCA]

égalité

may not necessarily be related to bal/unbal.... truth table facts...
a B comes up..follow with bets PPP.. you get 7 out of 8 chances ur row will win..Vise versa to a P bet BBB..still think it takes a jedi feel to balance ur strategy with a good ol singleton.

4 grouping is
Good strategy 5/3

Originally Posted by Egalite

If anybody has spent time evaluating "any / their" bet selection against an appropriate set of "binary tables" you will notice everything balances out 50/50. Betting the "UnBal" (as I refer to it), is the only approach that I am aware of that does not resolve to a 50/50 state and the only approach that offers a positive expectation (expectation is never a guarantee). You still need to use a negative progression for obvious reasons. I have usually included the "top end" expectation approaches as part of my game for the last few years.

Effort should never be a barrier in the pursuit of taking money from casinos.

Eglite
Yes ,you are great ! your system Unbal/bal (4 grouping) is not 50/50
6 grouping we should wait and bet pppbb bet p / unbal "top end "?
please advice
Regards

Originally Posted by CASH

this is really interesting! This could be on to a winning strategy. I noticed eriescott in another post talking about counting. Lets say you go into more deatail and count how many columns were balanced vs. Unbalanced. Do we always end up with more unbalanced? Because if so then every 4th hand that is played could be profitable. The way that I currently play be of good use to this method. I am going to try it out first and go through old results.

ppbb no betting 2:2
ppbbp no betting too 2:2
ppbbpp no betting too 2:2
ppbbppp betting p 1:3
True?

Originally Posted by Evo

Egalite posted

The ratio is 5/3, this is simply not good enough. Basically this works out at a 62.5% chance of not being balanced, again I emphasise it is not strong enough.

Using groups of 12, the ratio is 3172/924 or 77.4% **


would it be worh look at if we saw over the past 12 hands 6 player and 6 Banker to start play with the first side that goes 7 to 6 with a mid progression so that as we work our way toward a group of lets say 20 if it is bal the progression should save us. if we happen to be on the dominated side then we of course win.

we bet 2;3 not going to 3;3 ,you can easyly find 2;3,1;3,3;1,3;2
if we bet 6;7 not going to 7;7, how can you wait 6;7 in a shoe ?

Originally Posted by Egalite

If you take a set of binary tables, you might notice over a given set of hands, their are more pathways for decisions "not to be equal (unbalanced)" than to be equal" (balanced).

Example; for a 4 set grouping.

BBBB = unbal 3 bet win
BBBP = unbal 3 bet win
BBPB = unbal 21 bet win
BBPP = bal 21 bet lost
BPBB = unbal 21 bet win
BPBP = bal 21 bet lost
BPPB = bal 1;2 bet lost
BPPP = unbal 1;2 bet win

PBBB = unbal
PBBP = bal
PBPB = bal
PBPP = unbal
PPBB = bal
PPBP = unbal
PPPB = unbal
PPPP = unbal

The ratio is 5/3, this is simply not good enough.

Basically this works out at a 62.5% chance of not being balanced, again I emphasise it is not strong enough.

With the larger samples, the ratio improves.

Using groups of 6, the ratio is 44/20 or 68.8%
Using groups of 8, the ratio is 186/70 or 72.7%
Using groups of 10, the ratio is 772/252 or 75.4%
Using groups of 12, the ratio is 3172/924 or 77.4% **
Using groups of 14, the ratio is 12952/3432 or 79.1%
Using groups of 16, the ratio is 52666/12870 or 80.4% ~~
Using groups of 18, the ratio is 213524/48620 or 81.5%
Using groups of 20, the ratio is 863820/184756 or 82.4%
Using groups of 24, the ratio is 14073060/2704156 or 83.9%

** This is were I step in at a minimum, this is also my fav' Roulette method when playing all 3 EC'.

~~ This is one of my current complimentary betting options.

If it all looks complicated or your thinking, "you do more waiting than betting", this really need not be the case. The UnBal option I usually monitor no matter what-else I may be doing.

No apologies if you were expecting some "show me when to bet methodology". Effort should never be a barrier in the pursuit of taking money from casinos

Bal v's UnBal - one of the few bet selections were the continuity of something is clearly provable as unlikely.


[Edited and borrowed from RWCA]

égalité

this way ?
Thank you for your correction if you will.

Originally Posted by Egalite

If you take a set of binary tables, you might notice over a given set of hands, their are more pathways for decisions "not to be equal (unbalanced)" than to be equal" (balanced).

Example; for a 4 set grouping.

BBBB = unbal
BBBP = unbal
BBPB = unbal
BBPP = bal
BPBB = unbal
BPBP = bal
BPPB = bal
BPPP = unbal

PBBB = unbal
PBBP = bal
PBPB = bal
PBPP = unbal
PPBB = bal
PPBP = unbal
PPPB = unbal
PPPP = unbal

The ratio is 5/3, this is simply not good enough.

Basically this works out at a 62.5% chance of not being balanced, again I emphasise it is not strong enough.

With the larger samples, the ratio improves.

Using groups of 6, the ratio is 44/20 or 68.8%
Using groups of 8, the ratio is 186/70 or 72.7%
Using groups of 10, the ratio is 772/252 or 75.4%
Using groups of 12, the ratio is 3172/924 or 77.4% **
Using groups of 14, the ratio is 12952/3432 or 79.1%
Using groups of 16, the ratio is 52666/12870 or 80.4% ~~
Using groups of 18, the ratio is 213524/48620 or 81.5%
Using groups of 20, the ratio is 863820/184756 or 82.4%
Using groups of 24, the ratio is 14073060/2704156 or 83.9%

** This is were I step in at a minimum, this is also my fav' Roulette method when playing all 3 EC'.

~~ This is one of my current complimentary betting options.

If it all looks complicated or your thinking, "you do more waiting than betting", this really need not be the case. The UnBal option I usually monitor no matter what-else I may be doing.

No apologies if you were expecting some "show me when to bet methodology". Effort should never be a barrier in the pursuit of taking money from casinos

Bal v's UnBal - one of the few bet selections were the continuity of something is clearly provable as unlikely.


[Edited and borrowed from RWCA]

égalité

Hi EGALITE

only play 3;2/2;3 is going to 4;2/2;4 pppbb bet p unbalance,3;3 balance pppbbb
4;1 no betting how

Hi Egalite

which are you betting now? and win

When pppb occur you bet p for unbal
or when pppbb occur you bet p for unbal
hit 2 when pp bpp bet p
Hit 3 when ppbppp bet p

[quote=fauzy;41450]

When pppb occur you bet p for unbal or when pppbb occur you bet p for unbal

Both apply

hit 2 when pp bpp bet p
Hit 3 when ppbppp bet p

I understand that as much as you understand the "UnBal" bet selection despite my effort to explain it via PM.

First and foremost you have STATE WHICH SIZE GROUP you intend to use/track.

So which size group is swirling around in your mind? Groups of 4, groups of 6, which one????????????

Originally Posted by Egalite

Then it will be time for me to post on the boards I flat bet $1000 per hand and won 23 consecutive sessions, invested in houses from my casino winnings but am reluctant to meet anybody in LV. While at the same time either thanking everybody or requesting from everybody their method of play. Yep I can see how it works and to think one or two actually bought into that shit.

You're right nobody has to post jack, but you sure do a lot of grovelling behind the scenes don't you, a few have told me about it, all doubt your Walter Mitty stories, just thought I'd let you know.

Gentlemen:

Both of you are well respected members here, and may I suggest one thing to both of you please? I think that the disagreement between the two of you should end soon if not now because there is no use to keep disagreeing again and again. Forgive me that I have to interfere on this. Let's focus on the game and see who is better than whom? Having said that, may God bless us all.

Regards,
BH

Originally Posted by Egalite

Now your sounding like PunvitBoth apply
I understand that as much as you understand the "UnBal" bet selection despite my effort to explain it via PM.

First and foremost you have STATE WHICH SIZE GROUP you intend to use/track.

So which size group is swirling around in your mind? Groups of 4, groups of 6, which one????????????

yes I asked a lot, but I will bet 4,6,8 ,12 what group occur
I am clear thank you egalite,BUT YOUR LANGUAGE is elite,not spoken english,sometime

Originally Posted by fauzy

yes I asked a lot, but I will bet 4,6,8 ,12 what group occur
I am clear thank you egalite

The reason I asked you what group size you are contemplating, was to see if you understood my first post. Clearly you haven't, because you mention 4 grouping. As I state in the first thread, why would you want to use a group size of 4, and odds of 5/3 if DBL offers odds of 3/1. If you actually put some effort into it, you might also discover groups of 6 "UnBal" is also the poor cousin of a 6 col DBL approach.

When I stated;

Using groups of 12, the ratio is 3172/924 or 77.4% **
** This is were I step in at a minimum

I did so for a reason, I assume you missed or skipped that part, because you are considering groups of 4,6 and / or 8.

Obviously monitoring and betting a 12 hand grid, doesn't give you many betting options per shoe (I've also had a entire shoe Balanced), which is why you use this "UnBal" option as a trigger, one trigger of many that should be in your arsenal. So if "UnBal" loses, maybe "BP" will win, ditto for the 4 or 6 other triggers you should be using if you elect to play this way.

Why am I telling you this? I really don't know, I would be amazed if you managed to grasp the rationale of "bet selection redundancy" behind it.

BUT YOUR LANGUAGE is elite,not spoken english,sometime

Hopefully it is a sign of intelligence.

Incidentally, I do not recommend "rolling" of the grids after scoring a win. for any bet selection, "UnBal" / "BP", as you will "roll yourself" into every nemesis pattern of the bet selection you are using of any shoe.

So if you are using a 12 hand grid and win the 8th bet, WAIT for the 12 hands to complete before recommencing. Finally yes I have played, 1st to 2, 1st to 3, 1st to 4, 1st to 5 etc etc, I won for many sessions, then hit a shoe that was balanced for 24 hands. So I don't recommend it. Also you have to incorporate some gamblers common sense to avoid XXXXXX OOOOOO sending you to the cleaners.