Thread: ****************** old ******************

OLD? (Oldie but Goodie), Ripe old Age?

Time to discuss a viable table method!!! Who has spent time exploring or even playing this bet selection????

What's so special about OLD? What the heck is OLD. OLD is an acronym for "Opposite Last Decision", why is it special? Firstly there have been many commercial systems based around betting OLD. Dragon is probably the most well known, Ellis has released many systems based on OLD, certainly SYS40 is based on this, also his Zz and Dbl Zz, there have been many more systems based on OLD (more than any other approach). Sam Redman used to bang on about it at length back on the old VIP site. Why? Probably because mathematically it is proven via the Zumma data Baccara results follow normal maths expectation over time.

Somebody recently quoted "law of the third", this generally relates to Roulette and the fact in 36 trials approx 12 numbers will repeat rather than you seeing 36 individual numbers. In Baccara terms, it applies to the fact over a few hundred decisions, the bulk of which will consist of 1's, 2's and 3's. In the game of Baccara over a series of shoes, say between 4 through 8, you will see more occurrences of 1's, 2's and 3's more than streaks greater than 4. Barstow was also correct in his observation, that the longer the streak, it's continuance diminishes. It is fair to state over time 62% of all results will occupy the first three lines (holes) of a Baccara shoe when recording the shoe horizontally.

Certainly when I started playing Baccarat and after reviewing the Zumma books back in 2004 I had 65 winning sessions and 24 losing sessions playing AS "Anti-Streak", a 3-1 win ratio in my book isn't bad, yes I did make money. However the major problem with the bet selection OLD is an abundance of streaks combined with any negative progression. Then there are the many variations of OLD, such as "AS" or jumping on a streak after X losses, the latter simply doesn't work in my opinion.

More or less every shoe has it's series of Chops or Two's. Having explored many progression options for this particular bet selection over the years, from running one progression per side, to some rather bizarre such as Garcia's multiple banks approach (again designed specifically for OLD). You always hit the problem when one side is producing multiple streaks, or the shoe is streaking in general, sure you can switch, but I have found doing this simply introduces another set of problems for the player.

Decent Labby manipulation will allow you easily handle 6 losses in a row without getting anywhere near a double digit bet (more on that later, this is getting tiring).

I'm going to end this for now, this will either go straight over you head, or for those that have dabbled with OLD, you should be able to pick it up fast enough.

Just a quick note on Bankroll. I like to initially buy-in for 40 units, but generally an 80 unit bankroll should suffice, if you have to buy-in for any more than 80 units, either you are not taking defensive actions in regard to your Labby strings fast enough, either inpatient, gung-ho, or you are encountering the unheralded shoe from Hell. Other than that you are simply playing a proven statistical approach, while applying your money management skills to a game of random decisions, which calls upon every aspect that any decent player needs, patience, composure.



Borrowed from RWCA

égalité


Footnote, this is working way beyond expectation, sorry for the edits, you had a chance to read and participate, casino's probably couldn't stomach too many players playing this way.

As a long time lurker of BF. I must say Egalite you are the man. Money manipulation is the only way to play this 50/50 game. I recommend all new players wishing to beat this game read Egalite's posts. Keep up the good work.

I still think the best way to do anti-streak style is to use the Infallible method adapted for the baccarat. It is vastly superior to garcia style though that ain't bad either, hey hey.

I don’t know what Izaks’s infallible system is but I expect in terms of bet placements it performs no better than any other. IMO, the positive side of what Egalite is suggesting is that OLD is simple to play. Many other methods require too much concentration following the rules rather than paying attention to the game. But OLD performs no better than FLD or any other bet placement method that I have seen thoroughly tested. But even playing the first three spots using OLD will not win using even a Labby. But that doesn’t mean Egalite has not found a good starting point.

I used a variation of this playing OLD after a repeat of 2 in a row. The idea was to eliminate the 1’s altogether and extend my progression 4 places beating a 5 in a row that didn’t go 6. I did well with it BUT it doesn’t win using an up as you lose so don’t get carried away with it. The way to win, IMO, as Egalite alludes to is betting. IMO using a different prog each segment is not bad given the percentages of the first 3 lines as 62.5% but the devil is in the details of the progression design. I think if we simply increase that progression arithmetically we will lose. It is no different than just using a Martingale. Why?

Because of bankroll and table limits. The Labby is better than most due to its cancellation program and doesn’t get us into the stratosphere so quick but cancellations don’t win – just break even and pay the vig. The problem is that with most progs we get say to deep. Unless we have a huge bank and very big cajones we can be in trouble quick. Even a $5.00 table will force us to raise our bet at least 100% after a loss to gain a profit. But do we really need that kind of jump to profit? Heck, with a 5% vig all we need to win is a bet of $6.00 to gain. But we can’t bet $6.00! So my point is when we start looking at proper percentages we may have a better chance. For instance on a $25.00 table we can increase our bet $5.00 to $30.00 which is 20% OR for better dollar wins bet $100.00 and increase by 20% to $120.00.

Look, we all know that unless we flat bet and win more hands than lose we must raise our bet and win more big bets than small bets. So let’s say we use simple OLD and play a modified Labby using more appropriate bet increases to overcome the HA.

So to answer the question: “So how do we segment the shoe and what are our MM options?”

Change the bet progression to not get into the stratosphere and limit dollar losses in a row by stopping after x losses in a row OR changing our bet after same. Here are stats for OLD losses in a row courtesy of IMSPIRIT:

LIARS	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	N Bets per Shoe
Op A	19.1750	9.4633	4.6610	2.3016	1.1310	0.5579	0.2748	0.1347	0.0665	0.0336	74.73

FYI, 16 other bet placements showed the same basic statistics. You see? It is not about bet placement. Either about switch or betting. There is no switch that I know of. Ellis has been chasing that for 30 years!

I think the above can give us some ideas as to how to approach the betting to win. Basically reduce bet after a win and increase certain percentage after a loss. Don’t get too deep and structure the betting so we don’t get those winning streaks on our lowest bet. Using OLD is fine. So is trying to guess choppy shoes. Guessing may not help but it doesn’t hurt either!

Archer

Originally Posted by Archer

Basically reduce bet after a win and increase certain percentage after a loss. Don’t get too deep and structure the betting so we don’t get those winning streaks on our lowest bet. Using OLD is fine. So is trying to guess choppy shoes. Guessing may not help but it doesn’t hurt either!

Archer

I have long felt that this is the only possible way of winning for any extended amount of time...maybe.

I once tried to work what I called a "leveling" system-- meaning, we have something like a 1-2-4-8-16 prog, and always start at say betting at a 2 unit increment- if we are winning more than losing to a certain amount (that's where I got stuck) than we could slide back and start betting 1u increments- only raising bets after x number of losses, which would conversely require x number of wins, depending on previous levels' losses. Point is, after winning more at the 1u level as well, over time, we would slip back into the 2u level again. Like you mention, BR constraints and table limits make it frustrating to play. B/S just doesn't seem to cut it, only knowing when to adjust whatever MM we use.

We are going to win about half of our decisions over time. Reverting back to small progression like 1248. . . or 1234 (even U1D2M2) will not get us back in the game after taking a beating. Going back to the progression and "segmenting" can reduce our losses a bit while making a come back IF we hit some decent winning. Eventually we are going to get our good shoe even after losing an ugly shoe as long as we don't get washed out on that ugly shoe. But it takes bankroll. Maybe Egalite will take this ugly shoe below and run it through a segmented betting scheme like he is talking about. Likely it will lose money but not as much as restarting a prog like mentioned above. This shoe has 30 wins and 40 losses! I designed it that way.

LLLLLL WW LLLL W LLLLLL W L WWWWW L W LLLL W LL WWW LL W L WW L W LL WWWW LLL WWW LL WW LLL W L WWW

Archer

Originally Posted by mattman

I have long felt that this is the only possible way of winning for any extended amount of time...maybe.

I once tried to work what I called a "leveling" system-- meaning, we have something like a 1-2-4-8-16 prog, and always start at say betting at a 2 unit increment- if we are winning more than losing to a certain amount (that's where I got stuck) than we could slide back and start betting 1u increments- only raising bets after x number of losses, which would conversely require x number of wins, depending on previous levels' losses. Point is, after winning more at the 1u level as well, over time, we would slip back into the 2u level again. Like you mention, BR constraints and table limits make it frustrating to play. B/S just doesn't seem to cut it, only knowing when to adjust whatever MM we use.

Originally Posted by Archer

Maybe Egalite will take this ugly shoe below and run it through a segmented betting scheme like he is talking about. Likely it will lose money but not as much as restarting a prog like mentioned above. This shoe has 30 wins and 40 losses! I designed it that way.

LLLLLL WW LLLL W LLLLLL W L WWWWW L W LLLL W LL WWW LL W L WW L W LL WWWW LLL WWW LL WW LLL W L WWW

Archer

Are you able to post the actual shoe rather than the WL strings? Ta....

The shoe is irrelevant. If you say you cannot lose too many in a row then OK. I am not clear as to what your bet placement is. The point of the losses in a row test was that EVERY bet placement method tested so far has those same stats pretty much. Those numbers are average per shoe. So, yeah ten losses in a row is rare as we can see.

A

Thanks for the explanation. That is what I was looking for - just to understand how you are playing and your thought process. And, yes, the end of the shoe takes care of itself as if often the case. On a $25 minimum table we do get pretty large bets, no? And yes, defensive action is indeed necessary. One could continue with the betting scheme but just cut the unit size in half, for instance. This would curtail losses if continued to lose or reduce the overall loss if winning occurred. In this case we would still lose but not as much. Losing shoes are inevitable.

A

Originally Posted by Egalite

OLD has probably intrigued most thinkers of the game, more than any other bet selection. There has been more commercial systems based around OLD than any other method.

The quick answer for your "loss-win" string is the Fibonacci, it handles that run quite easily provided you don't regress, STAR also beats that string with less pressure. However that is not the point of this thread, rather it is how to play OLD without having to make silly bets.

So if we break down that "loss-win" string into say the bet selection OLD, let's see how it pans out.

Colour Coded for easier identification, I'm not doing the entire shoe, as it's too time consuming, besides the end of the shoe takes care of its-self.

LL (pre-stage loss -2, 8 units left in our pre-stage)

LL (2nd stage loss, 2 bets)

LL W (3rd stage even)

W L (pre stage still at -2)

LL (2nd stage 4 losing bets, next bet size is 4 units)

L W (3rd stage at +1 unit)

LL (pre-stage is at -4 "expendable" units)

LL (2nd stage 6 losing bets, next bet size is either 7 units or 8 units dependant how you've manipulated your Labby)

LL W (3rd stage sill at +1u, next bet size 3U)

L W (pre-stage is at -4 "expendable" units)

WW (finally 2nd stage wins, still -3u, next bet either 6u or 4u dependant how you manipulate the Labby)

WW (3rd stage at +4u)

L W (pre-stage is at -4 "expendable" units, see comments above)

LL (2nd stage losses, -17u, or -10u, next bet either 6u or 12u dependant how you manipulate the Labby)

LL (3rd stage at +1u, we lost 3u here)

W L (pre-stage is at -4 "expendable" units)

L W (2nd stage; -12u, or -15u, next bet either 8u or 12u dependant how you manipulate the Labby)

WW (3rd stage - fine)

LL (pre-stage is at -4 "expendable" units)

W L (2nd stage; is getting nuts, I really need to see the shoe, lost count, suffice to say, I would have gone defensive well before getting into the last state, however I really very much doubt the bet selection OLD would / could produce so many 2nd stage losses)

Thus far, no placed bet hits double digits. Also should I decide to do so, I can purposely manipulate / delay the 2nd stage to handle any amount of losses I assume would occur.


WW L W LL WWWW LLL WWW LL WW LLL W L WWW

Quote from Egalite:

1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 (8 units goal target) after 4L will look like this; 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3, I'm not going to say should you lose the 5u bet, should you either increment into the string or add to the right, that's entirely up to you. If you're bankroll is extremely limited, you can build the string up via flat bets, before you attack it (a'la STAR). However if you sometimes feel if bet selection can be a lottery, you can see by building a string via losses, so mechanical betting options including the one posted in this thread soon become very viable table options.




Borrowed from RWCA

égalité[/QUOTE]

Egalite...alot of good advice here. Suppose however, rather than betting the two end figures in the row, you just add them into the row:
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2/ L1
1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2/ L2
1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2/ L2
1-1-1-2-2-2-2/ W2
1-1-1-2-2-2/ W2
1-2-2-2-2-2/ L2
2-2-2-2-3-3/ L2
2-3-3-3-3-3/ L3
2-3-3-3-3/ W3
2-3-3-3/ W3
3-3-4-4/ L3
3-3-4/ W4* *At this point -2 units. Could restart with new string: 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2

The point is, if you have a string of say, 1-1-1-1-1-1, by adding the losses into the string but at a more gradual rate, you can clear the string with six wins regardless of the number of losses within reason considering bankroll. Or can break down and make second string. T101

One more important thought: The longer the initial string ie: 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 the better able to withstand an initial shoe from hell.

T101

Originally Posted by Egalite

The Labochere also referred to the Cancellation System



Construct a single Labby string; 1-1-1-1-1-1

First bet is 1 unit (not 2u as per a normal Labby)

If the bet is won, you can either cross off one of the 1's or simply do nothing (the latter will add to your profit later on, I prefer to do nothing, so I always have room for loss absorption).
If I lose the bet, I increment into the string, so the string becomes;

1-1-1-1-1-2 The next bet is 2 units, (note so far we are betting the right hand side only)

If we win the next bet, the string becomes, 1-1-1-1-1, or should we lose again, 2 losses in a row, the string becomes;

1-1-1-2-2-2 and the next bet is now 3 units.

Note* the Labby at the early stage is using increasing at the same rate as a Fibonacci.

The difference lies in the back end, the Fibonacci can get ugly fast, the Labby presents a lot more visual options to control your bets.

Let’s assume 3L on the bounce;

2-2-2-2-2-2 Next bet is 4 units.

I like to maintain a left hand side digit of 1, this signifies the increment value, it appears a bit like the D’Alembert, yet it recovers a lot faster. By incrementing a few early losses, we can nibble away a little bit at the 33%+1 Labby win rate, or in our case 33%+6 win rate. Otherwise the required win rate is unrealistic.

I normally quit incrementing at this stage, however everything is dependant on bankroll.

A further loss (4L) could either be;

2-2-2-2-2-2-4 or 2-2-3-3-3-3 if the latter, any losses after that are definitely not incremented into the string.




1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 (8 units goal target) after 4L will look like this; 2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3, I'm not going to say should you lose the 5u bet, should you either increment into the string or add to the right, that's entirely up to you. If you're bankroll is extremely limited, you can build the string up via flat bets, before you attack it (a'la STAR). However if you sometimes feel if bet selection can be a lottery, you can see by building a string via losses, so mechanical betting options including the one posted in this thread soon become very viable table options.


Borrowed from RWCA

égalité

Egalite...my Casino has a minimum bet of $15. If my target goal is 10 units, or $150, will my "row" look like: $15-$15-$15-$15-$15-$15-$15-$15-$15-$15 ?

T101

Some casinos like mohegan sun in connecticut, have a minimum bet is $ 15......but they will let you bet $ 20 on one side and $ 15 on the other for a net of a $ 5 bet.

If your next bet is $ 10, then bet $ 25 on one side and $ 15 on the other side.

If your next bet is $ 15, then bet the normal $ 15 on your selection.

This makes your minimum bet $ 5....maybe your casino will let you do this.

Foxwoods also has this, but the minimum bet is $20.......but this can be very dangerous foxwoods has a dragon bet and if the dragon bet wins ( banker wins on a three card total of 7,) then your banker bet pushes and your player bet loses.)

101 - (assuming they won't won't let you bet $15 one side and $25 the other), so you need to get 3 chips on the table, I would pre-construct a string 1-1-1-2-2 each digit represents $5 and play the Labby as normal, or 1-1-2-3-3 and bet the right hand side. Basically you need 2's and 1's to play a normal mode Labby, or 3's if you are going to play it as I outlined above, with each digit representing $5. Playing it where each digit represents $15 and considering you are only trying to win $150, it may get expensive, because 2 = $30, 3 = $45 etc.

Originally Posted by Egalite

101 - (assuming they won't won't let you bet $15 one side and $25 the other), so you need to get 3 chips on the table, I would pre-construct a string 1-1-1-2-2 each digit represents $5 and play the Labby as normal, or 1-1-2-3-3 and bet the right hand side. Basically you need 2's and 1's to play a normal mode Labby, or 3's if you are going to play it as I outlined above, with each digit representing $5. Playing it where each digit represents $15 and considering you are only trying to win $150, it may get expensive, because 2 = $30, 3 = $45 etc.

Okay...this is what I wanted to have you clarify because as you have illustrated, to increase by $15 units each loss would really mount up. I had already considered making my rows represent $5 units. My thought is, if wanting to win 10 units @ $15, The row would be 30 $5's ie $5-$5-$5>>30 times. If the losses are added into the row rather than at the end, the resulting bet is smaller than betting the two end bets combined.

1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 (ea "1" representing $5) Four consecutive wins would look like this: V

>1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1 Followed by four consecutive losses: V

>1-1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 Four wins: V

>2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 Four losses: V

>3-3-3-3-3-3-4-4-4 Two wins: V

>3-3-3-3-4-4-4 Four losses: V

>4-4-4-4-5-6-6 At this point we are @ -33 subtracting the original 30 units equals -3 units. The 6 unit bet is $30 and still manageable, or the row can be restarted. If the flat bet of $15 is maintained, it would be interesting to see how this could play out. T101

Just a thought: Supposing your row consisted of 100 1"s. This could take several shoes to play out, but would certainly absorb any drawdown with the least amount of damage, and provide adequate opportunity to recover. Keeping track of W's Vs L's would allow you to exit play at any time you were up.

Originally Posted by Egalite

You would never expect to clear it. All you end up doing it doing a too much absorbing then at the end you have some big bets to make. Besides it would still cause issue trying to bet the table min of $15.

I probably have not made my post clear. I would be betting the table minimum the whole time. That is why one win cleared 3 1's:

1-1-1-1-1-1 Win 1 and the row becomes:

1-1-1

My bet selection is so strong it is always close to 50/50. Trying to win any significant number of units is ludicrous. Played four shoes yesterday and was down 1 unit for all the action. Hence the interest in a modified Labby. T101

Feeling OLD?

Lifted from elsewhere to save me the bother.

Stat's are from a sample of approx 50~ish shoes, approx 4000 hands

Streak Length:

1000 1's
500 2's
250 3's.
125 4's
63 (rounded) 5's
32 (rounded) 6's
16 7's
8 8's
4 9's
2 10's
1 11's
1 12's and more (average 15)

Presented as the number of hands for which each of these streak occurrences represents.

1000 x 1 1000 hands
500 x 2 1000 hands
250 x 3 750 hands
125 x 4 500 hands
62.25 x 5 = 312 hands
31.25 x 6 = 187 hands
15.62 x 7 = 109 hands (3 staged attack will win against streaks up to 7, you could take it further is you wanted to)
7.81 x 8 = 63 hands
3.905 x 9 = 35 hands
1.9525 x 10 = 20
0.963 x 11 = 11 hands statistics
0.963 x (12+)avr 15 = 15 hands

Notice that the total of hands represented by first four streaks of 1,2,3 and 4 is the bulk of the hands played.

Total hands in 1,2,3 & 4 streaks = 3250 hands
Total hands in 5 and more streaks = 752 hands (81.2%)

You can't flat bet it and you need to ride out not only 4 by 4 streaks, but also back to back streaks greater than 4.


Take it one step further.

Total hands in 1,2,3,4,5,6 & 7 streaks = 3858 hands
Total hands in 8 and more streaks = 144 hands (96.4%)

The MM scheme posted here allows you to do this without your bets hitting the stratosphere (Martingale / Fibonacci), you only need each stage to resolve to a 50/50 state, which it will in time and you will win, unless somebody else has another option!

Streak Length: 1000 1's play 1s only win 500 hands 500 2's play 2s only win 250 hands 250 3's. 3s only 125 4's 4s only 63 (rounded) 5's 32 (rounded) 6's 16 7's 8 8's 4 9's 2 10's 1 11's 1 12's and more (average 15) So easy ?

Originally Posted by Egalite

Notice that the total of hands represented by first four streaks of 1,2,3 and 4 is the bulk of the hands played.

Total hands in 1,2,3 & 4 streaks = 3250 hands
Total hands in 5 and more streaks = 752 hands (81.2%)

Hence I always stop and restart after losing 5 in a row to OLD :-)

A

Originally Posted by Egalite

This is what the game IMO should be about, maximum flexibility. Watched the Chinese drop some wedge, then a few full parlay's then they are back in the game and profit, but they struggle with when to quit.

Nice on Egalite..gotta go to work now but i'll come back on this one and read thoroughly when i can sit with a nice cold beer in my hand...thanks much...

This looks most interesting.

Thank you for sharing Egalite!!

Egalite, I am curious about something,

Why do you put an edit on every post? And why the gibberish? I.E. Last edited by Egalite; Yesterday at 12:52 PM. Reason: The Sheep wus labled Black by the kettle

Are you touched in the head?

Originally Posted by df1969

egalite, i am curious about something,why do you put an edit on every post? And why the gibberish? I.e. Last edited by egalite; yesterday at 12:52 pm. reason: the sheep wus labled black by the kettleare you touched in the head?

lmfao......

Hello Egalite,

You use some kind of a stop loss? I mean if your buy in is 40 units and it is gone, would you quit or keep playing? And if so, for how much longer?

Thanx

johno you have always been a bullshit hijacker since days of gg. no one is buying your bullshit anymo. all serious chatters in chat room sees thrus your drivel. you are not in the level of senlung and dragoon. eidiots like you make good comedy.

the members from dragon's baccarat buster club will put you to shame.

you are a joke.

dragon level 2 with modification has proven positive winning average thru and thru. you do not understand the power of dragon because you are a filthy lying hijacker with no actual proof of winnings like senlung. you use free as tool to lure in newbie chatters in chat room not to help people serious to learn. you are no different from ediots like gr8storyteller and garnaby. you cry foul and accuse when you are questioned because you have no actual proof. you are absolute bastard.

Here is what some might consider a "horror" shoe for the bet selection OLD (one of my actuals).

BBBBB
P
BBBBB
P
B
P
BB
PPPP
BBBB
P
BBBBB
P
B
PPPPPPP
B
P
B
PP
BBBBB
PPPPPP
B
PP

Looks good for FLD, which is okay if you had a crystal ball. plus lets not forget you have to cater for those chops.

Admittedly my MM has evolved since the original inception. However running a 8 Pre-stage version of E-STAR and multiple Labby strings, yes it was a losing shoe, albeit an 8 unit losing shoe, biggest bet 6 units (anything less than 10u suits me fine). E-STAR did not bust and ended at -4 units, therefore I still have a 4 unit pre-stage which to start the next shoe. Next bet size for the next shoe are; Flat, 2u, 5u and 6u against a streak of 6 respectively.

The next shoe ran like this;

BB
P
BB
P
B
P
BBB
P
BB
PP
B
PPPP
BB
PPP
BB
P
BB
P
BB
PP
BBB
P
BBB
PP
BBB
PPP
B

Strings cleared, profit obtained, start afresh shoe 3. Now if you can obtain better results playing via second guessing, trending, triggers, FLD, betting 50%, 25%, 10% of hands, then congrats. I play the way I feel most comfortable with, I suggest whatever works for you, stick with it.

Next shoe;

BBB
P
BB
P
B
P
BBBB
P
B
P
BBBB
P
BB
P
B
PP
B
P
BBBB
PP
B
PP
BBB
PPPPP
B
PP
B
P
BB
P
BB
PP
B
PP
B

Subsequent shoe;

B
P
B
P
B
P
B
PP (real money maker when you automatically increase by 1 unit after a win)
BB
P
B
PPP
B
PPP
BB
PP
BBBB
PP
BB
P
B
PPPP
B
P
B
PPP
BBBB
P
BBB
P
B
PP
BB
PPP

Goal target achieved, close to 100% profit of buy-in, head for cage then home, job done.... Be my guest to count occurrences of various streak lengths as a comparison, I didn't bother, but it sure looks like an abundance of 1's & 2's compared to the rest and I certainly don't mind placing bigger bets to clear Labby strings so long as those bets don't call for double digit figures. Pay the price of TIME, not the COST of bankroll

"Strings cleared, profit obtained, start afresh shoe 3. Now if you can obtain better results playing via second guessing, trending, triggers, FLD, betting 50%, 25%, 10% of hands, then congrats. I play the way I feel most comfortable with, I suggest whatever works for you, stick with it."

Good post. For fun I ran a trending bet placement that I have been fooling with and have played a little live recently. Just straight through. The bets wait 5 hands then begin. I thought players might be interested in the W L strings. As far as betting? Well, how would your prog method fair on these strings? Shoes are consecutive as you listed them.

1. L WWWWW L W L WW LL WW LL WW L WWWWW L W LL WWWWW L W L WW LL WWW LL WWWW L WW 59% WIN RATE

2. L W L WWW L WW LL W LLL W LL WWW LL W LL W LL WW LLLL WWW LL WWW LLLL 40% WIN RATE

3. LLL W L WWWW L W L WWWW L WW L W LL W L WWW LL WWW L WW L W LLL WW LL W LL W 51% WIN RATE

4. L W LL WW L W LLLL WWW LL WW LLL W LL WW L W LLL W L W L W L WWW LLL W L WWW L W LL WW LLL 40% WIN RATE

107 WINS OUT OF 226 DECISIONS = 47% WIN RATE

I counted the OLD bets starting at decision 6 as well. 103 WINS OUT OF 226 DECISIONS = 45% WIN RATE

Hope I counted correctly. I didn't count the run lengths either. Point is simple trending can follow the shoe whether it chops or streaks. Doubling your bank at either win % is very good with lower win rates. We can expect to gain as the law of large numbers catch up to the 49% level. Just a matter of betting, not placement.

Archer

PS. Happy Thanksgiving All.

I hope I counted correctly - I think so. Just to show that OLD no better than FLD. W L ratio playing FLD on above 4 shoes showed a 48% win rate so actually did better than OLD and a trend method in this subset. So I ran another follow the shoe trend for kicks and got a 53% win rate.

Point is bet placements do not really matter. Egalites betting OLD no better than guessing or trending as much as he wants to condescend and laugh his ass off at them. Trending may POSSIBLY do better than OLD or FLD but will NOT do worse. IMO, its better to play a straight OLD or FLD or any bet placement that requires the least concentration so we can focus our attention on the betting and MM.

Archer