+ Register

[Jimske]

Gr8 said: Not so "terrible" for me, however, as I do very well to "side-step" them.  How?  By utilization of my "no-bet" option....in other words, I sit out those times when the 2's are besting the 1's and/or the 3's.

So I know my nemesis, I recognize my nemesis, and I react to my nemesis by "standing down".

So you side-step the 2's, and only playing for the chops and 3 streaks which you hope to capture  Absolutely amazing, darrn, never realised the game was so easy, golden in fact, utterly amazing..

Stay well, wishing you the best of it, my friend, blah blah

There's another post I never read from Gr8.  Okay, if you want to "side-step" whatever pattern then by definition you are looking for groups of decisions to conform to a certain distribution you want to bet into.  Gr8 doesn't say how many decisions would constitute a "new" pattern to get a signal to begin betting.  This can be problematic.  First, the "new" pattern may never arise and you miss all those decisions by simply betting the opposite and second, by the time the new pattern arises and you start betting that pattern disappears.

IMO the likelihood of gaining a real advantage by no bets in this scenario is nil.  One would do just as well by changing the bet selection for the group of decisions that exist.  Either way you got to hope that the pattern will continue long enough to profit.  Perhaps the only real advantage is simplicity.  It's much less confusing to have only one thing to look for.

Me?  No.  I bet pretty much every hand with a variety of placements based on the trend.  I do pause sometimes if I am confused but basically if I stop betting I am looking for an exit.  Example last 3 shoes.  Made exactly 100 bets, won 52% which is a typical % for me.  I made 30-35 bets each shoe then left each with +5, +2, +8.

[mahatma]

If you read the full post, he is trying to win against the chops and the three streaks, so how the hell can he side-step the twos??  I doesn't make sense, like a lot of what he posts.  Of course he might mean he stopped betting after losing a few bets repeating two's.  Contradictory slippy character is the boards Walter Mitty Roberto .