Quote from: 8OR9 on May 23, 2019, 10:51:45 PM
  Thanx for the update.  Below is an old post of yours ....could you give and example of how you determined the W or L for 2nd's and 3rd's......seems like all the numbers were black.

8OR9, Here is a brief example using Heads and Tails to explain the 2nd and 3rd's concept.

[attachimg=1]

The idea is that you will isolate a point in time where you can capture a group of W in either the 2nd or 3rd's on one of the E/C's.
Greiner states in his book that these are not to be categorized as patterns such as FTL for example. He says a pattern is a group of decisions and / or a bet selection method which conforms to a format. By contrast the 2nd and 3rd's identify an exact point in time within the structure of the probability mode itself. Now maybe that's just all a nice play on words because as each decision is independent, then what else are you doing apart from looking for betting a FTL decision even if that means waiting several decisions and jumping around columns.

Don't get me wrong because I am not saying this stuff can't hold up for a long time along with his use of positive progressions. Betting every hand is not an ideal situation at times IMO and so timing your bets with MM which isn't suicidal could see your bankroll go along way and I can see how a lot of my own thoughts regarding successful play were shaped by Greiner's work.

Quote from: alrelax on May 24, 2019, 01:46:04 PM
I am hurting today, about 1 and a half hour sleep.  What a session, what a great session.  And I did this last night because of the great email I got from AsymB, thank you buddy!  Those few sentences sent me out with the song I love in my mind, Burning Down The House.

Reminds me of one of my favourites along similar lines.

Quote from: 8OR9 on May 23, 2019, 01:24:57 AM
If I understand this correctly and you make it to the top row of 4  4   8 and you lose all 3 bets, you will lose 16 units which can wipe out all your previous profits.

Well it's technically correct that you could lose all three bets from the top row (4a 4b 8c) totalling 16 units, you would however have gained units along the way from all the previous rows. So in this instance you can only lose a maximum of 4 units in total playing to the end.

Worst case scenario from a total wipeout in the different rows are as follows...

row 224 = 6.
row 244 = 6.
row 336 = 6.
row 366 = 6.
row 448 = 4.

Of course you could have suffered a few -2 losses (base bet) before proceeding to play the rows.

Option 2 and the rows are as follows.

2 (base bet)
2 4 4
2 4 4
3 6 6
3 6 6
4 8 8

With this option, winning the desired net units at any given level only requires winning the 'a' or 'b' bet at anytime. So not too much different from option 1.
There is an option 3 and an option 3 (sidewall version) I will leave them for another day.

If I had to choose from any of Greiner's progressions, it would be the Boxer which I have already shared. It packs a good punch for either short streaks or close knit groups of wins. It's close to the G3M1 from Koetsch which is my favourite.

Hello Bhumibol

First bet is 2 units. After winning the initial bet, you then jump up a row and the bets then proceed from left to right (a to c) on a loss and from right to left on a win should you need to do so.
So the next row after the initial 2 unit bet is 2 2 4.
First bet would be the 2a. If you win this bet, you would then jump up to the next row which is 2 4 4.
Your first bet in this row would be the 2a. If you lost the first 2a bet in the previous row, your next bet would be the 2b.

The examples on the other thread go through some winning and losing situations and pretty much explain things.

Hope it helps.

cheers

Author's summary:

As you can see, the merits of selectively increasing both winning and losing bets are substantial. The Bricklayer's Wall is particularly good at converting choppy or zig-zag results into sizable profits without sizeable risk. It's also satisfying to know that the Bricklayer's wall will profit nicely in streaky environments as well.

Game examples:

1. -2 -2 +2 +2a -2a -4b +4c +4b -3a +3b -3a -3b -6c
2. +2 -2a -2b +4c -2b +4c +2a -3a +3b +3a -3a +6b +4a
3. +2 -2a -2b +4c -2b -4c
4. -2 -2 -2 +2 +2a -2a +4b +3a -3a -6b +6c +6b -4a -4b +8c +4b
5. +2 -2a +2b -2a -2b +4c -2b +4c +2a -3a -3b -6c
6. -2 +2 +2a +2a +3a -3a -6b +6c +6b -4a -4b +8c +4b
7. -2 -2 +2 -2a +2b +2a -2a -4b -4c
8. +2 +2a -2a +4b -3a -3b +6c +3b -3a +6b +4a
9. -2 -2 -2 +2 -2a -2b +4c -2b +4c -2a +4b +3a -3a -6b -6c
10. +2 +2a +2a -3a -3b +6c +3b -3a +6b -4a -4b +8c -4b +8c

Bets won: 59
Bets lost: 63
Units won: 30

cheers

Hello Johno

I will post up some game examples in the Bricklayer's wall thread along with the author's summary.

cheers

Thanks Ozon!

James, the Perfect Unit is part of Craig Greiner's set of progressions.
I have pretty much covered them all now in my blog. They include the Mongoose, Bricklayer's Wall and the Boxer. All up as you win progressions. Based on some of the reviews I have read around the internet, people who say they have studied them / used them / modified them claim they are more robust than some of the more traditional classic progressions.

I prefer the G3M1 myself and think Koetsch's material in general is more down to earth than Greiner's.

Your WLWLWL scenario with the G3M1 allows you to keep picking up 1 unit with the martingale element stacked on the end should you keep encountering WLW.

cheers

1st Part:

W3 W5
OR
W3 W7

then

2nd Part:

W4
L4 W3 W5
L4 W3 L5  W3 W7

So you will already recognize the 1st part as being a successful shared parlay. The 2nd part appears a lot like a shared parlay because of the possibility of a 5 and/or 7 unit bet. However, it is not treated entirely the same.

Naturally, if you win the 4 unit bet, the series (won) starts over. If the 4 unit bet is lost though, then the next bet is 3 units. If lost, the series (lost), starts over. If won, the next bet is 5 units. If the 5 unit bet is won, the series (won), starts over. If lost, the next bet is 3 unit. If the 3 unit bet is lost, the series (lost), starts over. If won, the final bet for the series is 7 units. The win/loss disposition of the series is then decided with this 7 unit bet.

The reason that the 2nd part is not like the 1st part (besides the 4 unit bet) is that (a) that the 2nd part doesn't cycle itself and (b) it doesn't affect the cycle of the 1st part. In other words, every time that you start a new series, you begin with the 3 unit first bet, and a 5 unit second bet. This clean start with the cycle allows each new series the beginning order of a 5 unit, then 7 unit bet respectively.

So let's look at some decisions to demonstrate.

1. -3 +3 -5 +3 +7 -4 +3 +5
2. -3 -3 +3 +5 -4 -3
3. -3 -3 +3 -5 +3 +7 +4
4. +3 -5 -3 +3 -7 +3 -5 -3 +3 +7 -4 +3 -5 +3 +7
5. +3 -5 +3 +7 -4 -3
6. -3 -3 +3 -5 -3 -3 -3 +3 +7 -4 +3 -5 +3 +7
7. -3 -3 +3 +5 -4 -3
8. -3 -3 -3 +3 +5 -4 +3 +5
9. -3 -3 -3 -3 +3 +5 +4
10. + 3 -5 +3 +7 -4 +3 -5 +3 -7
11. +3 +5 -4 +3 -5 -3
12. +3 -5 -3 -3 +3 +7 +4

Bets won 49
Bets lost 50
Units won 9

So this is purely an up as you win progression (bets are only increased after wins) It's easy to learn and easy to play. Just follow the examples.

cheers

The basic component of the Perfect Unit is called the Shared Parlay. To understand what a Shared Parlay is, let's review what a regular parlay is. A regular parlay is a bet where all the winnings of the first bet are added to the second bet. For example, if we won a 3 unit bet, then the parlay bet would be a 6 unit bet. As we know though, with even chance bets, we have a 50/50 chance of winning each time. As this affects a parlay, it means that once we have won the first bet, that we will only win the second bet (the parlay attempt) on average every other time. (ie. 50/50).

How this looks in play can be summarized as +3 +6 (for a net win of +9) one time, and +3 -6 +3 +6 (for a net win of +6) the other time. So the collective profit for the two ways that we are going to achieve a successful parlay is +9 +6 = +15. This demonstrates a regular parlay.

Now our objective with a shared parlay is to (A) balance the amount won by each of the two different ways, thereby giving us more uniform results over the course of our play, (B) to increase the collective profit of the two ways, and (C) reduce our risk on unsuccessful parlay attempts. The accomplishment of these objectives thereby awarding us much more winning power overall.

If we were to re-allocate the winnings used for the second bets in the parlay attempts, we can accomplish all of our objectives at the same time!

Not possible you say? Well let's do this. Let's share 1 unit of the winnings used for the second bet in our first parlay attempt, and add it to the second bet on the second parlay attempt. Now the two ways that we are going to achieve a successful parlay can be summarized like this: +3 +5 (for a net win of +8) one time, and +3 -5 +3 +7 (for a net win of +8) the other time. What were our objectives again?

(A) balance the amount won by each of the two different ways, thereby giving us more uniform results over the course of our play. (B) to increase the collective profit of the two ways, and (C) reduce our risk on unsuccessful parlay attempts.

(A) (+8 +8) with the shared parlay versus (+9 +6) with the regular parlay....mission accomplished!
(B) +16 with the shared parlay versus +15 with the regular parlay....mission accomplished!
(C) +3 -5 = -2 and +3 -5 +3 -7 = -6 / = -8 with the shared parlay versus +3 -6 = -3 and +3 -6 +3 -6 = -6 / = -9 with the regular parlay....mission accomplished!

For anybody who thinks a 1 unit gain on 15 isn't substantial, it translates to just under a 7% increase on our winnings. Not too bad when you consider the average commission on even chance games is around 2%.

So to recap....5 unit second bets are made until one is lost. Once a 5 unit second bet is lost, a 7 unit second bet is used on the next parlay attempt. Regardless of whether the 7 unit second bet is won or lost, the cycle returns to a 5 unit second bet when the next parlay attempt comes up. Obviously, neither a 5 or 7 unit second bet comes into play until a 3 unit bet is first won preceding it.

This Shared Parlay is the first part of the Perfect Unit bet. I will type up the second part in the next post.

Here is a comparison between flat betting and using the G3M1.

A round is 100 decisions and 600 rounds (60,000) decisions were tested for each of the following examples in the Koetsch book.

Flat betting...

[attachimg=1]


G3M1....

[attachimg=2]


There are some interesting findings such as the percentage of times you will be ahead by 20 units flat betting = 2% compared to 47% using the G3M1. Also the percentage of times you will be ahead by 30 units flat betting = 0% compared to 29% using the G3M1. Now you may say OK, it's not that surprising that you aren't going to get ahead by 20-30 units flat betting over 100 decisions but then you need to look at how the average loss per round is 1.38 units flat betting compared to 3.96 units using G3M1. So if you go to 'gamble' and try and maximize your winnings / potential winnings, you can see why Koetsch prefers the G3M1.

Hello Asym,

Take Al's turning points/sections as an example. Looking at his examples, you might get on average 4/5 of these throughout a shoe. They don't appear one after the other in short order, rather they appear spread out. So here you have several opportunities to attack and also know that one particular characteristic has given way to another. I think this is a worthwhile way to look for that 'certainty' where you have some information to help/guide you.

Quote from: alrelax on April 16, 2019, 03:45:00 PM
  By the proper definition of the word 'lazy' as in physically lacking output, etc., I am not referring to that.  But what just happened with this type of worker, is he just became a bit hard-headed, egotistic and in fact, a bit overconfident.  Probably not much different than the highest majority of all bac players that have 'been there and done all that', as the saying goes.

That's where maturity and wisdom as alluded to by CT70 can be so important. As a former keen roulette student, I can relate to the above quote and cite roughly 1,000 posts on this forum alone where I talked with a self perceived understanding of how to beat the game of roulette. That false belief is a killer. Ironically, I hardly post on the game of baccarat and prefer to read others instead realizing that there is a bit of truth and common sense in mostly what everyone has to say if you are prepared to look for it. To put it bluntly, we have two ears and only one mouth and I find/found that you don't learn as much and are not as receptive to other ideas if as Alrelax said above that you are a bit egotistical, hard-headed or over-confident. Wise words indeed.

Flat betting is my personal preference. On saying that, I will use a positive progression if a section of the shoe looks like it's heading for a run of a streak/chop or what I would define as a 'staggered' chop. Obviously nobody knows what's coming out beforehand, but you do need to have something in your armoury which can identify the switches quickly if you want to profit from flat betting. It's no good losing a few units at the end of one section just to possibly win one unit on the next few decisions before another couple of losses if you hope to be successful. Asym is right in one respect! You better know your 'first bet' is going to be a winning one the majority of the time because then you have some wiggle room.

I noticed the original post was missing and so nobody would really have the foggiest what it was all about.
Here is the 'wayback' link so anybody can read what was originally said in the opening post.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170420212412/https://betselection.cc/even-chance-8/how-to-get-an-edge-flat-betting-(in-theory)

edit: The URL link is not archived or something along those lines, however you can still access it manually if that makes any sense!

If you are a member of Amazon, you get to read as many stuff gambling books as you like because most of them come under the 'kindle unlimited' umbrella which are free to read. All of the Tabone books were there last year. The roulette books are no better than the baccarat ones. It's obvious that he had limited knowledge and soaked up most of his ideas from the forums. He reminds me of what I used to do as a kid! I would go down to the golf course and pick up all the loose balls around the river and rough grass, clean them up and take them back to the golfers and sell them, lol. It's called enterprise!