Hi Alrelax
Excellent P shoe. Thanks (as always) for taking the time to post these.
I think most of us would have caught 6-8 of that 10iar P run. However, in my efforts to catch another smaller P run immediately afterward I may have missed most or at least the first 3-4 of that 8iar single B1 streak that promptly showed next. re: the 8iar B1 streak---that's the kind of run that tends to slip up on us, as i sometimes look back in hindsight and wonder how I didn't see that (usually because i was overly focused on NOT that). 
Great shoe.

As my great uncle Confucius once said: "When in doubt just keep riding the horse in the direction its headed."



Continued Success To All,

Hi Alrelax

re: your sentence  "...Except player will and does have a better chance to form more clumps and runs then Banker does..."

Can you give an example of what u mean by clumps. For example are you referencing outcomes such as : PPPbPPPbPPPP for a (10-2) P-dom clump?? or say: PPPPPPP b PPPPPPPP ,...etc where two long runs are back-to-back,   or are you referring to something else ?  None of the above?

Thx in advance

Hi AsymBacGuy
Good post above.

I like this statement: "...Imo winning by flat betting means that after long trials our strategy got more winning clusters than expected and not because the strategy tried to contain in some way the losing clusters' counterpart, even though the latter could be inferior in number..."

AS: "...How many hands should we play per shoe to get the most of the above features?

Of course the "shoe presenting all winning spots" must be restricted within a relatively short bets amount, we've found out that on average one hand per every ten hands dealt are a good approximated ratio to look for.
That is 7-8 bets per playable shoe, of course this being an expression of average outcomes' distribution.
Naturally more often than not we need just one betting spot to be ahead when searching at a simple WW spot.
Losing spots coming out along the way (especially at the very first situation considered) reduce such ratio up to the point that we can simply get rid of that shoe without losing a dime..."[/b]

re:  The Bold Part.   I think I understand, however, could you give a specific example for the sentence in BOLD,

Thank you

Continued Success,

Hi AsymBacGuy

I hope to have explained better the issue.

Yes, perfect, & as always thanks for elaboration.

Cheers,

Hi Albalaha/thx for post /comments above. I can tell you have been working diligently on this latest project.

Q: So to clarify u are suggesting as an example: P wins only <=6 of 20, then you see PP or PBP, and the trigger is triggered, so you are confident (@ 90%) that expectation is that P will win >=8 of immediate next 20 decisions. ??

Thx in advance,

"...What luck is vs. what your skill is.
Anyone can win
Anyone can lose,..."

I agree. I also think the first one(luck vs skill) is often difficult to discern (For beginners as well as veterans).

Mainly because its difficult to determine if we just stumbled onto a streaky shoe and went with the flow--or-- did we use skill to make our  various-pattern selections/ that happened to also be in sync with the outcomes--or-- a person always wagered for one pattern and Variance raised up and smiled & granted favor for that one pattern in a 74-hand stint...etc.

     The above scenarios are often confusing and misinterpreted. IMO that misguided confusion is what often makes it difficult to see in the Luck vs. Skill dilemma because Luck and Skill are often blended and not clear.

*I recall very early on in my bac play I was wagering for P streaks and stumbled onto a P-Dom shoe that produced 9,8,6,6,5  Pstreaks. Im not sure why i was only betting for P streaks(prob read it in a book, saw a big bettor win big with P streaks,....etc or similar nonsensical thinking).

If I remember correctly I was doing a 1,2,4,8,8, then continuing with a cumulative 20% add on each compound to the end. I won almost 300% of buyin and felt really smart. I had noted two other neg-pro players bust in the shoe(so Im sure their perception of P streaks,variance, luck, skill,..etc  was different than mine)

Guess what I wagered  for in my next shoe, next shoe, next shoe: P streaks. I didn't feel so intelligent after a few more similar-wagered shoes.

In hindsight Im quite sure it didn't have anything to do with my superlative Bac skillset. Was it luck or skill?
Probably just luck, or we could say it was simply Variance and I was fortunate to be in sync.


Continued Success,

Alrelax: Low Ties=Presentment Consistency.
I have found this tip to hold water in many shoes. I had read this in an older alrelax post some time ago/started monitoring.

Im not fond of wagering for Ties, however, I do like to utilize them as a trigger and or indicator as mentioned above.

Does anyone utilize Tie Wagering as a major part of their betting regime??


Continued Success To All,

Hi Alrelax /Thx

Perfect list/ excellent ranking as that would be a difficult task. It makes one desire to return to the simple life of the 70s/80s.

*I did comb through this list twice and realized you accidentally left one off (Eagles,Take it the limit one more time, w Randy Meisner). Im guessing you simply didn't have any more room at 1A .   

Thx Albalaha
"...I tried my hands on over 200 online casinos..."

Alb do you have a TopTen list or lets say 3 best/3worst?  Why?
Thx in advance.

Though I haven't considered online(mainly paranoia ),  plus the fact Im fortunate to  have 100+ casinos 4min--4hours driving within a 3-state area.

However, I can see some may like the 24/7 idea, no driving, no smoke, no inebriated players...etc. I do agree the casino environment can indeed seem taxing at times.
On the flip side I think most also enjoy being catered to with free play, free food, free toasters, blenders, TVs, ....etc, as well. At least I do. Plus they make great "regifting" ideas in late December.



Continued Success To All,

Good Morning  Asym/thx

"...Only a team could approach the 7-tier system in the original aggressive version having a "leader" instructing when to bet and sharing an enormous bankroll..."

Yes, we might could get a 3-member team to agree on the benefits of diluting the effects of variance across our wagers/buyin.  However, that same 3-member team may not be as enthused when it came time to split the profits (33/33/33%). :)
Anyway, i get your point.

Asym: "...Obviously when considering an odd number of patterns, most winning situations come out after knowing the very first W or L result nature as there are more winning patterns starting with a W than the opposite situation..."

     *Im not sure what you mean by this phrase.


Continued Success,

Hi Albalaha Thx for updates.

What type of bet spread do you anticipate needing(as a minimum?) for this latest system?

How many shoes do you consider a session?

thx,
kfb

Hi Albalaha

"..Since my current way of playing is looking for only one session a day, I can wait for 1.5SD below mean or worse to start from..."



Thank you

kfb

I agree AS.

A very good post/thread.



Continued Success To All,

Hi AsymBacGuy

Thx for clarifying RickK inquiry as I also had questions re:  the levels above that 2nd tier if one is losing after the first tier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with your concluding comments on the 7-tier method:

AsymBacGuy

Math aspects

Even though we could be the worst bac guessers in the universe, per every 7-hand cycle bet our winning probability will be 72.66% as among the possible 128 WL patterns, 93 of them will be winners and just 35 losers (as we'd stop the betting after getting a W amount overcoming Ls).

Notice that differently to a common martingale, those bets are less susceptible to the negative variance and table limits, as they are assessed by 7-hand same amount steps.

This system is so powerful and math wise that just 2 or 3 people playing as a team will get enormous profits, after all itlr a 72.66% probability cannot be wrong for long.

Anyway most players like to play on their own and it's easy to assume that this system could get the bets so high to make in jeopardy everyone's bankroll and peace of mind.

Therefore we want to introduce the "scale reduction" factor, an important strategic tool capable to control the variance and at the same time keeping the benefit of a math advantage.

_________________________________________________________

I guess it goes back to: What Is Ones Objective.

In other words how do we want to slice our buyin, how often can we tolerate losing buyin, how much do we want to earn as a f(x) of buyin, as a f(x) of bankroll,...etc.

Anyway most players like to play on their own and it's easy to assume that this system could get the bets so high to make in jeopardy everyone's bankroll and peace of mind.


I think we can expect a majority of  Negpro methods will eventually escalate bets too high (reach Tmax, bust buyin,...etc) --its just that this particular method seems to escalate immediately. However, at first glance I do agree it will handle most shoes by the 2nd or 3rd stage. So the abrupt increase in wager size will in all likelihood be less damaging to buyin than we would initially guess. My main reservation would be not knowing if that really bad (-3.5SD) shoe was the very first one.

I like the beginning stages and the idea of 1/7ths at the initial level. However, it abruptly shifts from a low/slow curve to the trajectory of a rocket.

I've never played this method  so just a quick thoughts/opinion. If I was required to do a similar Negpro my personal preference would be to add a few more tiers to that 7-wager Level 1, and  prior to the recoup-or-throw the towel in  stage(s) .

How many Tiers? Levels? This is where it gets back to my initial sentence:

What Is Ones Objective.

Asym, do you play a similar approach. Do you have any data from others that have played it? ROI?

How would you improve it?

Many Thanks,



Its not how fast you win, its how well you win fast

Hi Albalaha
Thx as always for offering your opinions.

re:your previous statements:

"...That is why -1.5 SD or worse could work as a valid and helpful trigger my way. .."

"...In a normal EC session, I do not expect more than -1.5SD though..."


Was there a particular reason why u chose : (-1.5 SD) for your trigger, instead of let say (-1.0 SD or say -0.5 SD)?
thx