I vote for Bet Selection, timing and MM in that order.

The timing of bets doesn't get that much mention on forums. Most people tend to stick to Bet Selection or MM. Fair play to Victor who did talk about dispersion surfing many years ago.

cheers.

I am thinking of buying this and was wondering if anybody already had it and what's it like.

http://www.bjrnet.com/catalog/BacBuster.htm

It seems like it's the 'daddy' of them all and comes with a lot of bells and whistles. It supposedly recreates shoes from a live casino scenario to good effect.

Any advice welcome.

cheers

This thread will be looking at some of Kimo Li's work. I had never really looked at any of it up until a few days ago when a few threads popped up on different forums. So I made the effort to trawl through a lot of old stuff and see what I could dig up. I will need to order his book tomorrow and have a study of it.

One thing I found really interesting was Kimo's matrix with the pies and stars. It's both simple and complex at the same time. There was a very good tracker on another forum which I will upload here for anybody who wants to have a look.

This isn't going to turn into a bash Kimo's work thread. I have read the posts where people are saying Kimo never told anyone where to place the bets. It's obvious to me at least from what I have already digested that Kimo must have spent many years researching this game. Nobody would  go to the trouble of writing a book about their research unless they had a real passion to share their ideas. (Don't confuse what I just said with some huckster selling the martingale Version 3,256. There is a huge difference)

Anyway, hopefully this can be a productive thread where anybody already using some of Kimo's work can share some of their findings/strategies as well and we can all learn something new.

cheers

Hello guys,

Not been around much lately what with one thing and another. Sorry about not continuing on with my ec challenge for anybody that was going to follow. It was a bit complicated and so I rejigged the idea to something a bit easier to operate and play.

As some of you will know, I really like the idea of using pairs.

I used to look at them like this......RR, RB, BB, BR....OO, OE, EE, EO....LL, LH, HH, HL to cover all of the 3 even chances. But to be honest, it can all get a bit stressful checking 12 pairs like this in live conditions if you don't have much time.

So what I do now is to look at them like this....

RO (red odd)
RE (red even)
BO (black odd)
BE (black even)

and I also incorporate the 4 groups 1-9, 10-18, 19-27, 28-36.

So there are only two sets operating instead of the three sets using all three e.c's.

I have enclosed a book at the bottom to show you all how this thing works.

Using 4 groups like this produces some long absences. They can go 20+ at times. But quite often you get runs of 9,10,11 etc......

If you look at the book from spin 19 through to spin 26, you can see that group 19-27 is absent and looking across to the right, you can also see that the BE (BLACK EVEN) is absent. So that would leave you with any numbers that are not BLACK EVEN in groups 1-9, 10-18, 28-36.

These numbers would be 1,3,5,7,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36. (you can throw in the 0 if you like as well)

You get some really good runs like this.

One thing that I have noticed is how sometimes you will get two of these pairs going absent in a set.

So in those same spins that I just showed you....19-27 and 28-36 both went missing at the same time for a while.

So now let's suppose you leave out 19-27, 28-36 and BLACK EVEN.

That only now leaves you with 1,3,5,7,9,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18 = 13 numbers (14 including the 0)

So it always pays to watch what is going on among these two sets of pairs.

I like this concept because like I say, it's not as complicated as some of my other ideas and is relatively easy to track and see what's unfolding as the game goes along.

There are a few other things that I have noticed which happen with a degree of frequency using these two sets however at the moment I am not sure if it is just some variance from the norm or not. So I will do some more testing and live play with it to get a better idea.

I will ask Nicksmi if he has the time to make a tracker for this and upload it so anybody else interested can test it / play it as well.

cheers

This book came yesterday and I was looking forward to reading it.

There are a few interesting chapters.

Cycles and Patterns.
Wagering Plans.
Capitalization.

I will read through those three a couple of more times and then do a review.

cheers

I have set myself a challenge on Dublinbet to see how many wins vs losses I can get in 500 placed bets playing the E/C's using a combination of my 'pairs' ideas.

I will attempt to explain the methodology behind it all if I hit around 55% after the 500 placed bets otherwise there is no real point. 

I am also going to compare how the 'Mongoose' MM fares opposed to just flat betting.

Game 1. W W L L L W W L L W W W W

8 wins vs 5 losses.

Flat bet= +3.  Mongoose= +4.

42 spins observed.
----------

Game 2. W W W L W W L

5 wins vs 2 losses.

Flat bet= +3.  Mongoose= +4.

23 spins observed.
----------

I will likely play 1 or 2 games a day.

Do I think I can win on the E/C's?  I honestly don't know yet. I have an inkling that I might be able to doing what I am doing and should get a better idea after the 500 placed bets. I am only placing bets on roughly one third of the spins. I have to play it on Roulette because they deal too fast at Baccarat when there are no players at the table.

My whole philosophy around gambling has kind of changed lately. Variance is a double edged sword when you bet on the inside. It can kill you as quickly as take you to the moon. I have really made an effort to study the E/C's in depth. It's my belief that one or two triggers are pointless. There are too many variables constantly changing that you really need something that is adapting to what the current state is. So I suppose you could call it a form of trending. Anyway, enough about that for now. The results will show if I am on the right track or not.

cheers

How about posting up some screenshots from Dublinbet of any shoes you are testing/playing with.

I was reading that the Zumma shoes are biased in favour of one side (can't remember which one) and even that they may not be genuine shoes from live play.

Here are 3 to get the ball rolling.

[attachimg=1]


[attachimg=2]


[attachimg=3]


cheers

I am going to share a bet selection out of Craig Greiner's book 'The Future Gambler' for ties.

Yes, I know the ties are considered a mug bet if you are not 'counting' them aka The  your Way Egalite side bet. But something AsymBacGuy said does ring true regarding the obscure stuff hitting in purple patches. I am noticing it myself again with some things that I am testing at the moment.

Anyhow, it reminded me of Greiner's tie strategy......so here it is.

Because the tie-bet is considered a 'proposition' bet, it is frequently overlooked as fertile ground for opportunity. As with every other relationship in gaming, the Law of Disproportionate Occurence makes its presence felt here also.

A tie hand is expected on average on a 9-1 basis. The casino then pays off the tie-bet on an 8-1 basis. Now we may go 14 to 35 hands without a single tie and then get 3 ties in the next 15 hands. In fact my actual casino records indicate that in an almost countless number of Baccarat shoes, that nearly 80% of the tie hands are compacted into a 65-70% time frame or window. In other words, once a tie hand does occur, the frequency of another tie hand within the next 6 hands is inordinately high. Therefore, the following tie bet progression has exceptional merit.

[attachimg=1]


As you can see with this progression, a tie hand only needs to appear within any one of the next six hands for a substantial profit to be realized.

cheers

 If I see a marquee with 6 unique numbers at the top, the probability is 55% that there will be no 7 consecutive numbers. I will play the last 6 numbers, expecting a repeat number with a probability of 55%. I lose that bet. Now, the probability to see an 8th unique number is: 64%. If I play the last 8 roulette numbers, I expect a repeat roulette number with a 64% probability. Still lost? If I play the last 9 roulette numbers, I expect a repeat-number with a 73% probability. By now, I should have won almost every time. If not, if I play the last 10 roulette numbers, I expect a repeat-number with an 80% probability.

Let's figure out a cost: 6+7+8+9 units = 30 numbers. Keep in mind that a martingale is possible after this point (a bad-case scenario). I have an 80% probability to win 36 units. If I randomly play one roulette number for 38 spins, my winning probability is 65%. If you randomly play one roulette number for 30 spins, the winning probability is 55%.

Playing 6+7+8+9 units = 30 numbers leads to an 80% winning probability. Think about it next time you are at a roulette table. You can afford to play exactly 30 roulette bets. You are cautious and you play one number at a time for the next 30 roulette spins. The probability that you will lose all your money in 30 spins is: 45%. That is, the chance (degree of certainty, actually) is 45% that you will NOT win a single time. Playing 4 (four) wheel spins 6+7+8+9 units = 30 numbers: Your chance to lose all your money is: 20%. Your degree of hope is twice higher than in the first case scenario. You be the judge!

You guys are probably getting sick of me talking about these pairs by now 

I am just trying to look at all the different options and see if I can create a low variance trending strategy with these things. So I will put all my pairs ideas here in the one place.

One pattern that I know I have not mentioned before is the following.


[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

The HL is the longest absent pair in the above pictures which I will call pair 2.

Pair 1 is HH, Pair 3 is LL and Pair 4 is LH.

The absent pair (2) goes missing for a further 22 spins. So that's 11 pairs that are going to follow without the HL.

I will write down the pair numbers in which these 11 pairs appeared.

4
1
4
3
1
3
1
3
4
3
1

Interestingly enough, every number alternated from a previous number.

So HL (2) is the longest absent pair and I would leave that out. I will write out the two alternating pairs from the one that just appeared and there should be a run of 9 winners.

4
1 (play 3+4 next)  So if pair 2 is missing and it alternates from 1, bet for first result to be LOW.
4 (play 1+3 next) Pair 2 missing and alternate. Bet same as first result on second result.
3 (play 1+4 next) Pair 2 missing and alternate. Bet for second result to be HIGH.
1 (play 3+4 next) Pair 2 missing and alternate. Bet for first result to be LOW.
3 (play 1+4 next) Pair 2 missing and alternate. Bet for second result to be HIGH.
1 (play 3+4 next) Pair 2 missing and alternate. Bet for first result to be LOW.
3 (play 1+4 next) Pair 2 missing and alternate. Bet for second result to be HIGH.
4 (play 1+3 next) Pair 2 missing and alternate. Bet same as first result on second result.
3 (play 1+4 next) Pair 2 missing and alternate. Bet for second result to be HIGH.
1 (play 3+4 next) Pair 2 missing and alternate. Bet for first result to be LOW.
2  LOST. end of streak. +8.

It's something to look for across the three E/C's.

I was reading up on 'regression to mean' tonight having not really looked at it before.

The one thing that struck me is that you could be in for a long wait if you played for it in a traditional sense and didn't have any software that could look for a lot of different opportunities.

So I was thinking how I would attack it if I was sitting in a B+M casino.

One way to speed things up could be to look for missing pairs.

So you have BB, BR, RR, RB.  OO, OE, EE, EO.  LL, LH, HH, HL.

[attachimg=1]

In the picture above, the OE went missing for 17 pairs before a hit and then it went W,W,W,L,W,L,L during the next 14 spins. So suppose you hit it after the first W until you hit two consecutive L's. It returned 6 units profit.

What I like about this idea using all 12 pairs across the 3 e/c's is that you will regularly see pairs going missing for 15+ times which equates to 30 spins. So I suppose that's roughly the same as just a single e/c going missing for 7/8 spins on the bounce which seems to be an acceptable number of missing spins to start looking for 'regression to mean' opportunities.

It's just a suggestion as an alternative to look out for. I will see how it goes next time I am at the casino.

This is a pretty good book and worth a review/discussion.

The authors views on betting strategies are based on his analysis of more than 12 million games. His findings lead him to believe that you can quit a winner in up to 90% of the rounds of nearly even odds games.

His results show that progressive betting can trump flat betting. I think a lot of us try all kinds of different kamikaze progressions early on in our quest and then mistakingly start to think that we have to find a winning flat betting strategy instead. The key really as the book shows is knowing when to quit and what are reasonable expectations to have.

I will try and cover things in detail a bit at a time.

Here is one of the most detailed explanations on the 'penny ante' concept that I have found.

It deals with triples and quadruples.

You will find this in Chapter 5 titled 'Nontransitive Paradoxes'

Chapter 6 titled 'Combinatorial Card Problems' is interesting as well.

Here is the link to the book.

http://www.logic-books.info/sites/default/files/k12-time_travel_and_other_matematical_bewilderments.pdf

The question is can you find a way to make penny ante work in roulette?