At the Jimske suggestion I eyeballed a coupla few recently played shoes applying the double zz style, hey hey.

1.llwlwllwwwlwwwwlllwllwllwwlwwlwlwlwllwllwlwllwwlwwllwwlllwwwlwlwllwwwwl
2.wllllwwwllwlwwwlwlllllllwllwwllwwlwwlllwlwwlwwlwllwllwwllllwwlwwllwlllllwl
3.lwwlwwlwwwlwlllwwwwwwwlllwwwlllwlwwwlwllwwlwwwlwwllwwlwwllwwllwwwwllllwlww
4.llwwwllllwwllwwwwwwwwlllllllwllwwlllwwlwlwllllwwwlwlwwwwwlwlwwll

Quote from: horus on April 03, 2015, 10:59:41 PM
Here is about 1000 hands worth of my idea. It did hit one sticky patch....but apart from that performed ok.

worst -2.
best +40.

It is not that simplistic, there are three bets involved in securing a win, therefore some sort of progression needed, which then leads to "how do you recover from any single failure". 

Example, bet against number #2, BBP involves betting PPB, you can't flat bet it. 

Horus, a year or so ago when we we discussing pairs.    BB = 1, BP = 2, PB = 3, PP =4

Written in columns of 2's. then betting that the same pair number would not repeat in the same two hand sequence every 8 hand group (I called it non-binary repeat).

Example

1-1-3-3
B-B-P-P-
B-B-B-B-

You now now bet the opposite of 1-1-3-3, so the bet sequence would run, PP (opposite of BB), etc, stopping after the first win.

The average win rate against my own 100 shoes came back at a massive 74%, I was staggered and the feeling of elation which lasted for 9 minutes was amazing.  In the 10th minute I realised the error of my ways, I simply looked at the results as pairs, as opposed to the bet technique requiring TWO BETS to snare any win, a crucial over-sight.  But hey, who cares, maybe if I do it properly it might come back at 55~60%, that still makes it a winner, or maybe I just need to be extra creative regarding MM?

Few years later the penny finally dropped, all I was in effect doing was taking an 8 hand sequence and betting it won't repeat, actually it isn't that bad but could get ugly (rare event).  Now for those that have long memories, you might remember Izak once describing a system of his, were he used the analogy of a white van driving past a spot at the exact same time and it is unlikely to happen that many times.   So I started applying that principal to this bet selection, for a specific spot as an additional bet option.  In other words you wait for an event to repeat, in this case a repeating binary number, then bet it won't happen three times, if it does, then it won't repeat four times.  The true beauty of it is every time you make a move, you have a 75% chance of grabbing a win and a 25% chance of losing both bets.   Pears are nice to eat. 

     

Thanks R-W for an interesting idea. I had to read through that a few times to get it. I will do some testing with that idea along with my new idea above and see how they go. The problem will be when that 'Black Swan' turns up I suppose. Maybe we need a gun, lol. I remember reading some of your posts where you used a kind of an inverted mirror effect and things could get particularly hairy with that as well.

cheers

Quote from: horus on April 04, 2015, 09:04:30 AM
Thanks R-W for an interesting idea. I had to read through that a few times to get it.

deliberate on my part.

Quote from: horus on April 04, 2015, 09:04:30 AMI remember reading some of your posts where you used a kind of an inverted mirror effect and things could get particularly hairy with that as well.

Betting against symmetry, off the menu after seeing a few 30+ hand reverse mirrors.  The problem with it is you need to win within three bets and having the discpline to stop when you don't, you can get sucked into thinking it becomes more due and continue betting into the oblivion.  More  importantly is that you are now anthropomorphizing the shoe / results, and I'm trying to wean myself off such modes of play, because they lack rational logic and don't make sense other than to yourself. 

Quote from: Tomla on April 03, 2015, 09:14:34 PM
FTL is too streaky, zigzag the same, my guess would be that TBL would be most compressed?

Correct, Tomla, good job.

Singles and threes...the filet mignon of TBL...played correctly...let me repeat that...played CORRECTLY...and that means patient and disciplined triggers only...is absolutely GOLDEN.

The loss gaps, or losing streaks, or even the variance downturns, are at once both manageable and, even more importantly, readily recoverable.

You see, my friends, it's all in the "how you approach and, ultimately, manage" your preferred bet selection process.....that will serve as the ultimate solution to all of your Baccarat puzzles.

Just to say guys....after testing the idea a bit more (both ways), it bombed out.

Oh well, live and learn I suppose. Sorry if I got anyone's hopes up.

cheers

Singles and threes...the filet mignon of TBL...played correctly...let me repeat that...played CORRECTLY...and that means patient and disciplined triggers only...is absolutely GOLDEN.
[/quote]

It seems to me that singles and threes are more of an otbl trigger than anything else....

Quote from: soxfan on April 03, 2015, 10:20:32 PM
At the Jimske suggestion I eyeballed a coupla few recently played shoes applying the double zz style, hey hey.

1.llwlwllwwwlwwwwlllwllwllwwlwwlwlwlwllwllwlwllwwlwwllwwlllwwwlwlwllwwwwl
2.wllllwwwllwlwwwlwlllllllwllwwllwwlwwlllwlwwlwwlwllwllwwllllwwlwwllwlllllwl
3.lwwlwwlwwwlwlllwwwwwwwlllwwwlllwlwwwlwllwwlwwwlwwllwwlwwllwwllwwwwllllwlww
4.llwwwllllwwllwwwwwwwwlllllllwllwwlllwwlwlwllllwwwlwlwwwwwlwlwwll

So in this small sample the parlay on a win produced 11 more wins than losses from my count.      Question still is the same .  Can one bet placement produce significantly different run lengths (LIAR) than another.  If not then we are barking up the wrong tree.  If so then we can tailor our bets accordingly.

Quote from: Trbfla on April 05, 2015, 03:48:40 PM

It seems to me that singles and threes are more of an otbl trigger than anything else....

WEll, no, singles for TBL and 3+ also for TBL.  OTBL likes 2's and solo 1's or what I call Alternate 2 (A2's) PPP B PP.......

Does anyone understand what asym is saying?

Say it ain't so, AsymBacGuy....please enunciate your true intentions.  I am always leery of members that delete their own posts, and so I'd prefer to read some clarification from you.

Quote from: Jimske on April 06, 2015, 03:47:23 PM
So in this small sample the parlay on a win produced 11 more wins than losses from my count.      Question still is the same .  Can one bet placement produce significantly different run lengths (LIAR) than another.  If not then we are barking up the wrong tree.  If so then we can tailor our bets accordingly.

The LIAR is not so important for me cuz I can withstand 10L and capture my coup of back to back win for a nice profit. I still maintain that different bs style offer up different w/l cluster. Some bs style are better than other for capturing back to back wins. So it isn't a one size fit all proposition as far as matching bs style with progression/mm plan, hey hey.

1+3
1+2
1+1
2+3
3+4
3+1
4+1
6+3
8+3
10+1
39 units in all      simple parlay clears out a lot ************

Quote from: soxfan on April 08, 2015, 12:41:43 AM
The LIAR is not so important for me cuz I can withstand 10L and capture my coup of back to back win for a nice profit. I still maintain that different bs style offer up different w/l cluster. Some bs style are better than other for capturing back to back wins. So it isn't a one size fit all proposition as far as matching bs style with progression/mm plan, hey hey.

That's another way of looking at it -clusters of wins and losses.  That as opposed to losses in a row.so with clusters were talking about frequency of events in groups. I think maybe even asym said something about that.   Rare events.  Defining clusters and predicting them by understanding their frequency is the task.  But as far as matching up that selection with the clusters how does that work?