What a great thread! This is exactly what this forum is really all about -- exploring, discussing, testing in a supportive, courteous manner. 

Congratulations, split-monster, for all your hard work that you've so kindly shared.

Thank you esoito.

I have some time before I dash out to try and explain a bit about the Win Loss concept that I attatched above.

It is a little bit of a mirror image of what you see on the left hand side. One difference however is that you have to wait for two pairs to come out before you can record anything.

The Win Loss pairs are..

WW=1
WL=2
LL=3
LW=4

The first two results on the left hand side are a Loss and a Win (LW). So I put an X on the right hand side under the LW and a 1,1,1 under the 1, 2 and 3. So it's really just the same idea as you see on the left.

Looking at line 7. You can see that the WL and LL have both missed for three times each. If they continue to miss, I will have to put an X in either the WW or LW. So the dominant factor here is the second W. This means I will bet for the second pair on the left to be a Win.

Things ran well here for a few pairs because it was suggesting the second W and also B2 using the left hand concept. I picked this file out because it is pretty straightforward to follow. Things can get a lot more compex when figuring out the bets.

I will attatch another file below with another example for anybody who is trying to get their head around it. What it all boils down to is having the awareness to spot what is working the best between the left hand and right side. In the file I am attatching in this post, the LL is the missing pair towards the end on the right hand side. So this leaves me with WW, WL or LW. So that means at least one Win from the first or second pair on the left hand side. Those last few results on the left were Win, Win, Loss, Win, Win, Loss.

Probably the best thing I like about the whole idea is how it seems to throw wins up in clusters. This is important especially if you are using type of MM scheme because as we all know, you need those cluster of wins when things are getting a bit hairy or the bets just escalate out of control. I am testing this with GLC's 'Mongoose tames Trioplay' and it is working out really well. I just look for what appears to be the strongest triggers and go along with it. If it's all a bit out of kilter and I can't read it, I stop!

I wonder if we aren't getting a little too clever (read "complicated") now.  Complexity means errors. I think the point that Chef was making was that the key is low variance - or, if you prefer, low volatility - because it is this that makes for a winning strategy in the end. Reason - because you can't beat the probabilities long term but if you can keep the variance low then you can win money with the MM even when you lose in terms of wins versus losses. 

If you look at the example provided by Chef on one of your own sequences you can see that in terms of wins versus losses there were one or two more losses than wins but since the variance was low the MM would have ensured a profitable run.  Why try and aim for more wins than losses by being excessively clever (or complicated) when it is unnecessary? It just introduces potential for error during play which is usually costly.

Hello sqzbox, it maybe looks complicated with the Win Loss tracker thrown in, but in all honesty, I think it makes it a better strategy to play.

Here is one of my cards from my casino trip today. It all fits neatly on one page and I could manage to track everything without any mistakes. The spins were roughly every 60 seconds which I agree is not quick, but not too slow either.

Playing this way means I don't need to play all three even chances. They are all independent from each other anyhow and playing that way X 3 just makes for more work IMO. I feel it's better to beef up just one EC with the Win Loss tracker as well. That also brings back Baccarat into the equation.

I made a nice few units playing this today. It will take hours of practice and play to get better at reading all the signals for sure. But I really do feel this is something that will give me a good fighting chance of winning playing the EC's.

do you look at the prior 3 pairs then bet against?

example
if the show is:
PPBPBB your next bet you be PB?

Hello Rich,

BB    BP    PP    PB   
1,     1,     X,     1,
2 p2 X,     1,     2 p2
X,     1,     2 b1 3 b1

Your pairs were..

PP
BP
BB

The second rows indicates a bet on Player on the second result of the next pair. However I think it's wise to always see if the first bet is a Win or Loss. No point betting for Wins and getting a streak of losses.

This particular bet did indeed lose because the second result of the next pair was a B (Banker).

So although the next bet is pointing at a bet on Banker on the first result of the next pair, I would be inclined to go against that and look for another Loss which means I would bet Player on the first result of the next pair.

Today was a good day for me betting against Wins. They were a lot of Loss sequences and I captured a lot of them.

I am in the process of testing this against the Wiz's Baccarat shoes (6 decks).

I will upload each file as I complete a shoe.

The first shoe was a breeze with a Loss appearing on the first result of a pair six times.

Then it did a u-turn producing six Wins on the first result of the next six pairs.

on that wiz shoe how much were you up in the end?

Rich, I would have made between 8-10 units if I was flat betting that shoe.

It was a fairly predictable shoe using my strategy. I am a firm believer nowadays that less is more when it comes to gambling. That would have been a nice shoe just to sit back and recharge the batteries.

Shoe 2 was much more complex in comparison. I am just finishing that one now.

The Wins and Losses were all over the place, however because of the information at my disposal, it was not insurmountable.

Have a look at the Win Loss groups so far..

2 3 2 1 4 4 2 2 4....so mostly 2's and 4's which are represented by either WL or LW. You can see the LL on the right hand side has been missing seven times in a row up till now. So one thing you know with 2's and 4's is that the second result of the pair will be the opposite of the first.
So if the first result is a Win, the second result is a Loss. Alternatively if the first result is a loss, the second result is a win. The last 5 pairs have played out like this.

One other notable trend which is also sticking out is the PP went missing for 17 pairs. So the first or second result of a pair has to be a B.

So even though Shoe 2 was more complex than Shoe 1, it was certainly ripe for the picking.

You need options when dealing with randomness and plenty of them. These concepts allow you to have a very broad perspective of what's going on.

Here is Shoe 2 finished.

There was another WL and LW to add to the 2's and 4's making a run of seven.

I will give this another shot at the Baccarat table tomorrow and see how things pan out.

Shoe 3 was a good one for throwing up a few different things to point out.

The Win Loss groups on the right hand side were mostly throwing up Losses early on. There were enough to make a few units.

Another thing to note about these four groups. I will write them out in order as they appeared.

4
1
2 (so the missing one is 3)
3 (the 3 appears. Now the furthest back one is 4)
2
4 (the 4 appears. Now the furthest back one is 1)
1 (the 1 appears. Now the furthest back one is 3)
3 (the 3 appears. Now the furthest back one is 2)

The furthest back one can appear in clusters like above. You can play for these furthest back groups to appear using a parlay. If you play for the 1, bet for WW to appear. If you play for the 3, bet for LL to appear etc.

Other notable streaks in this shoe were the missing BP early and towards the end.

Also the WW and LL were missing towards the end for a time leaving either WL or LW to appear. This accounts for the five consecutive *2* and *4* groups towards the end.

Certainly not an easy shoe to read and the most difficult of the three so far. However it would have been a profitable one.

Shoe 4 was pretty similar to Shoe 3. A lot of Losses on the Right Hand side.

Shoe 5 was a belter.

The Win Loss groups came out as follows...

4,2,2,4,4,4,4,4,2,2,1,3.  Eight consecutive wins on the Right Hand side.

I like the idea of playing this on Baccarat as opposed to a continuously spinning roulette wheel with the zero added on. It should roughly produce around 10-15 bets per shoe. The break in between shoes is a good time to think about any adjustments that may need making with regards to MM. It's certainly not something I could play online because of the speed of some of the baccarat games.

I think that's me done with this one. Not saying it's the HG or anything like that, but I think it's a winner with some disciplne to not go chasing bets and to just let the runs come by themself.

Thanks for reading and for all the comments and suggestions.

split-monstar your write on the money now.   This is what I've been trying to tell you!

I've recorded about 20 shoes live and it doesn't matter what happens in the game.  The patterns stick!!

Hello . . .

With permission of Split Monster, I am attaching his 2 trackers for EC Intervals.

The first tracker is blank so you input your numbers into Column A to get the intervals.

The second tracker (RNG) comes with a built in RNG function so all you need do is press Function Key F9 to get another set of RNG numbers.  This will give you a good idea of the intervals.

Cheers

Nick