Quote from: soxfan on April 01, 2015, 09:20:21 PM
I agree with that Preston Bailey cat. Yeasr ago Itested double zz against craps decision P-Dp using star as written and it did seem to be efficient at capturing the back to back win, hey hey.

That's "Stetson"  not "Preston" but yeah he states himself that double wins seem to be more prevalent with this placement.  It does seem that he may have something there but I haven't tested it thoroughly.

Quote from: horus on April 02, 2015, 08:54:46 AM
Jimske, The whole shoe was a good one for trending IMO. It reminds me of what PerryB always said....''control the losses and the wins will take care of themself'' I use a basic template like the one above and then only get funky if need be. One thing I have noticed which is a bit strange and I have seen other posters on different forums comment on it before as well is how the last portion of the shoe can often just completely go against everything previous. I have noticed that testing from several different sources. Obviously there is an easy answer....just don't play the last portion, lol. But it's strange none the less. I think the same applies to Roulette a bit. Too much data/information is not always a good thing. My success seems to come in short spells in both formats.

I think Roulette a different animal.  Nevertheless, I agree (Gr8 as well) that for some reason the second half of the shoe seems to "unravel" or change.  Perhaps it's due to the normal change of card distribution as some cards become unavailable OR maybe just selective memory.  After all the deck tends to change all the time.
*******************************
Maybe this will kick off a discussion of bet selection.  Here are the questions.  I've tried to raise them before but doesn't seem to go anywhere.  Maybe Andy shoe will kick it off.  1.  Is there a bet selection that wins more hands than loses?  2. Do different bet selection change the flow of W and L even though the total W/L rate remains the same?

Let's take a look at TBL vs. XXOO vs. OTBL vs. ZZ for simple starters.  Choose favorite templates if you want.  Does one or the other produce choppier W and L?  Does one or the other produce longer runs of W and L?

It's often been said that it is important to match one's betting scheme with one's bet placement.  If there is truly a differential between placements as mentioned above then this would be a key to winning wouldn't it?  There is a reason why some achieve a higher win rate than the EV.  I'm not going to do any hinting like asymbacc.  People will have different opinions.

Take a shoe like Andy's for instance.  He didn't lose more than 3 IAR.  Suppose we play ZZ against that shoe.  What do the W and L rates and runs look like?  How do they compare?  Assymbadc said "progressions, progressions, progressions."  We all know that progressions don't change expectation but . . .would different progressions perform better with different placements?  Can we use the W and L rates and composition to actually win more hands than lose?

Anybody interested?

J

Quote from: Rolex-Watch on March 30, 2015, 12:44:21 PM
It is because the FoO which rings true on all data samples.

However I would suggest the frequency between "singles and doubles" are simply too close, you can get shoes were the second line hole gap is only happens twice in a shoe.  Which is great for second line players, those that bet FLD, however you can't see around corners, so don't sweat it..

A much better way for on-line players (can't do this in a bricks 'n' mortar joint without heavy bankroll), on-line you can bet a pittance.  So run a progression, I use my own form based on a Labby, you can construct your own. Run this progression after any three streak for three bets, if you lose a lot of bets (streaky shoe) who cares, but you will want this money back at some stage.

Next; run a higher progression for bets, say 5 times or more than the first progression, should you lose three bets you have run into a six streak.

Next; pull out the big guns and make bets that the current 6 streak doesn't run beyond 9, if it does then stop betting. 

Sure you will have the odd on-line streak greater than 9, doesn't matter unless they happen back to back and frequently, but it is very unlikely for that to happen.  This is a long term strategy, hit a bad (streaky) shoe, next one should be normal with lots of runs stopping at 3, 4, 5 etc. 

As for the singles and doubles, don't worry about them, too much headache, your still making money anyway.

BTW; hit the wrong shoe and your really low progression gets battered, round up he total and move the current draw-down to the higher progressions for means of recoup and restart the lower progression.

This is what I did about a month or so ago, but where I play have really sloppy shuffle procedures which results in a lot of clumping therefore long streaks, such as a 10 streak or more every fcuking shoe and you can become frustrated and sometimes don't feel like stopping and when you think you have won cos' your side is on 8, the other side stops at 9.  Then become even more angry and hammer away at the mouse button swearing and calling them a bunch of cheating %^$&$*'s.     

Basically you see mad runs on-line that you don't see in a real world casino, I put it down to the outfit simply wanting to keep the game going, so they call in some other trainee to shuffle the cards, who doesn't do the job properly because she earns less than peanuts for a wage, there are reasons why UK operations choose to be based in the Baltic states...

(FoO = frequency of occurrence)

I agree about the FoO being too close to do much with.  As regards waiting for 3 LIAR isn't it just a difference of event frequency?  By waiting for LLL we are simply betting less hands.  Not going to necessarily win more hands per 100 bets.  So we could do just as well betting OLD at every event.

So poor shuffles producing clumps and long streaks?  Now we are getting into what Ellis has been saying for years.  He adds that the casino does it on purpose to thwart the player.  We can go down that road forever but the point is IF you think or believe or if in fact shuffles producing more long runs than random would dictate why not change your bet strategy to accommodate the bias?  I digress.

One could do the same bet prog that spanky is doing using any number of fixed criteria and get the same successful results unless there is a bet selection that changes the LIAR.

J

I

1

...