Quote from: soxfan on April 03, 2015, 10:20:32 PM
At the Jimske suggestion I eyeballed a coupla few recently played shoes applying the double zz style, hey hey.

1.llwlwllwwwlwwwwlllwllwllwwlwwlwlwlwllwllwlwllwwlwwllwwlllwwwlwlwllwwwwl
2.wllllwwwllwlwwwlwlllllllwllwwllwwlwwlllwlwwlwwlwllwllwwllllwwlwwllwlllllwl
3.lwwlwwlwwwlwlllwwwwwwwlllwwwlllwlwwwlwllwwlwwwlwwllwwlwwllwwllwwwwllllwlww
4.llwwwllllwwllwwwwwwwwlllllllwllwwlllwwlwlwllllwwwlwlwwwwwlwlwwll

So in this small sample the parlay on a win produced 11 more wins than losses from my count.      Question still is the same .  Can one bet placement produce significantly different run lengths (LIAR) than another.  If not then we are barking up the wrong tree.  If so then we can tailor our bets accordingly.

Anyway, getting back to MY discussion.  Some people thing that a bet style should conform to the bet selection.  What do you think?  Are there discernible differences in bet selections?  Gr8 seems to equivocate; Asym seems to agree.
[/quote]

Quote from: gr8player on April 02, 2015, 03:52:14 PM
All good questions, Jimske.

And they're all questions that every serious player has tackled, some multiple times.

The bottom line, IMHO, Jimske, is that all bet placements will perform relatively similarly.  Same W/L patterns and/or streaks and/or strike rates; so if one is looking for the "magic formula" bet placement, one will find only frustration.

BUUUTTT, let's not "throw the baby out with the bath water", shall we?  Just because all bet placements, OVER THE LONG RUN, will perform the same, does not preclude one from using their preferred bet placement strategy to their own advantage.

Look, everyone here (me, you, Soxster, Horus, Adulay, even Johno...EVERYONE) has their preferred bet placement strategy.  Why?  Because that's their own personal comfort zone, where they are MOST FAMILIAR with their BP's actions, both good and bad.  And then, given that familiarity, they build their own personal entry and exit strategies (read: to either bet or "no-bet") and their own personal MM strategy; all built around their familiarity with their preferred BP's and preferred attacks (read: playing) on same.

That, in a nutshell, is how this game is to be beaten, especially long-term wise.  By learning to master their own personal play, those characteristics, those necessities, will serve to overcome the house edge in the long run.  Not any one of them alone....no, it will take it all; the BP, the MM, the "bet vs no-bet", the entry/exit strategies, the LONG TERM VISION....it'll take it all, collectively, to put you over the top in this game.

The operative words in your post are "relatively similarly."  So by that you mean there may be differences, albeit, small differences.  Let's not forget that this is a game of small percentages and small differences can mean a great deal.

J

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

I