Some minor health issues have kept me up here in the cold this winter. But the silver lining is that I've been pouring over different ideas. This thread has been thought provoking and has allowed me to look at a whole different perspective. But more on that later.
Start with Assym advocating betting VERY few hands. How many on average I'm not sure but he does suggest that some shoes are not playable. This means visual inspection and visual inspection means looking for certain outcomes to decide if the shoe is worth placing a couple bets. Somewhere back there Assym suggested betting B after a previous P single or double. I showed the results on two of Alrelax shoes as examples. But after looking through my "test" data of 50 shoes it appears that it doesn't work too well unless one looks for certain "patterns" or outcomes. It works better if you look for sections of a shoe that has 1's and 2's - then make the bets he describes. His comments about groups of singles seem to corroborate my assumptions. Maybe Assym will opine on that theory?
However, for me that would be a tiresome way to play. Particularly because where I play there are no back betting, the tables are full and many don't have screens. But the whole thing got me thinking about patterns and groups.
Then Alrelax enters the conversation and "seems" to agree with Assym. But, Al plays way more hands than Assym suggests and he uses Turning Points to change bet placement. Looking for changes in the shoe is nothing new. Defining them and exploiting them for profit a whole other problem. I'll move over to Al's thread for further comments.
J
Start with Assym advocating betting VERY few hands. How many on average I'm not sure but he does suggest that some shoes are not playable. This means visual inspection and visual inspection means looking for certain outcomes to decide if the shoe is worth placing a couple bets. Somewhere back there Assym suggested betting B after a previous P single or double. I showed the results on two of Alrelax shoes as examples. But after looking through my "test" data of 50 shoes it appears that it doesn't work too well unless one looks for certain "patterns" or outcomes. It works better if you look for sections of a shoe that has 1's and 2's - then make the bets he describes. His comments about groups of singles seem to corroborate my assumptions. Maybe Assym will opine on that theory?
However, for me that would be a tiresome way to play. Particularly because where I play there are no back betting, the tables are full and many don't have screens. But the whole thing got me thinking about patterns and groups.
Then Alrelax enters the conversation and "seems" to agree with Assym. But, Al plays way more hands than Assym suggests and he uses Turning Points to change bet placement. Looking for changes in the shoe is nothing new. Defining them and exploiting them for profit a whole other problem. I'll move over to Al's thread for further comments.
J