I buy the book yesterday and read it and done some testing.
But i can not produce the same results as Adulay got, so i would like to ask if i am missing something.
Maybe the reason is that i run RNG with Red & Black with La Partage Rule.

Could see a link to wizards of odds baccarat results, maybe i should test them?

1) Win Taget +3 units and Loss Limit -6 units.
2) When you reach half the shoe without hitting your Win Target you break even or hit loss limit.
3) When i you reach +3 you can push for more and if you lose stay at +2 (did not apply this with my testing)

Quote from: ADulay on June 16, 2017, 11:41:03 PM
Stephen,

  I plugged the 50 shoes (616 thru 666) into the box and using the "new and improved" rules it came out with a +42 units for the run.   That's not bad.

  But, being the detail man that I am, I had to manually check that my calculations on the spreadsheet were giving me valid results so I ran those 50 shoes MANUALLY.

  Yep, it came out with +44 after those 50 shoes.    18 losing shoes (of -5 or less) and 32 winning shoes of +2 or more.

  I would have to say that making the change to "leaving at neutral or slightly down" anytime past about mid-shoe made a difference.

  Let me run back and check that first batch with the "new rules" and see if it made a difference overall.

  AD

50 SAMPLE OF 100 RANDOM BITS.

11 SAMPLE OF 100 RANDOM BITS BREAK EVEN
31 SAMPLE OF 100 RANDOM BITS WON
  8 SAMPLE OF 100 RANDOM BITS LOSS

+83 UNITS WON
-59 UNITS LOSS
+24 TOTAL NET GAIN

1. +0
2. +2.5
3. +3
4. +2.5
5. -6
6. +0
7. +3
8. -0.5
9. +2.5
10. +3

+16.5
-6
TOTAL +10.5

1. -5.5
2. -6
3. -0.5
4. +0
5. +2.5
6. -5.5
7. +0
8. +3
9. +3
10. +3

+11.5
-17.5
TOTAL -6

1. +3
2. +2.5
3. -5.5
4. +3
5. +3
6. +3
7. +3
8. +3
9. +0
10. +3

+23.5
-5.5
TOTAL +28

1. +3
2. -6.5
3. +0
4. +3
5. -6
6. -6
7. +0
8. +2.5
9. +3
10. +2.5

+14
-18.5
TOTAL -4.5

1. +3
2. +0
3. +3
4. +2.5
5. +0
6. +3
7. +3
8. -6
9. +3
10. -5.5

+17.5
-11.5
TOTAL +6

Adulay, thanks for the test ...

Cheers

Stephen Tabone why would you say you need to place two bets to catch imbalance. I reckon if some one want to catch imbalance you need to have a window of events in front of you to determine the variance. Let me illustrate this with one simple example, 14 reds and 2 blacks is 3.0 STDV. Assume i have 7 reds and 1 black in any combination, then if i get two more blacks during the next 7 results i would not reach 3.0 STDV and would have "Regression towards the mean". But if i would bet for imbalance then i would bet against a minimum of three blacks to see the STDV grow stronger.
All of this happens within a window of 16 events.

I assume when you talk about imbalance you might want to define what would be optimal Entering point and for how many attempts or what kind of window of event you talking about to catch imbalance within. That would make things more easy to understand as you would define the variance going for regression or growing stronger based upon your particular march. And you could pin point out exactly what happens if you get regression or the imbalance to grow stronger and explain in detail what happens and what to bet with or against depending you aim to catch regression or imbalance to grow stronger.

Cheers

Stephen Tabone have you tested to win 1 unit each day or break even.
What a feeling placing 100 Euro units and know that you can quit and walk home with +1 units each day.
Is something magical about it.

I can stay ahead with my testing and being in front of loses, but i don't know for how long it will last.
This is RNG with La Partage Rule.

+17
-8

1. +1
2. +0
3. +1
4. -0.5
5. +0
6. +1
7. +1
8. +1
9. +0
10. +1
11. +1
12. +1
13. +0
14. +1
15. +0
16. +1
17. +1
18. +1
19. -1
20. +1
21. -1
22. +1
23. -2
24. +1
25. -2
26. +1
27. +0
28. -1.5
29. +0
30. +1

Just want to show you a slight better option using the old classical strategy.

Here is a old one, a reel classical for the even chances.
The principal of tracking is 1/3. You write down the result in lines of 3.

The bet selection is to catch series of 4. There is 2 patterns that we are going to use.
The first pattern: RBR BRB - this pattern alternate for 3 times and we will play that they will continue to do so for 4 times.  
The second pattern RRR BBB a serie of 3 and we will play that they continue to become 4 in a row.

BRR                          
RRR                                                   
BRR L                                             
BRB                                           
RBR w                  
BBB                
BBR W                                              
BBB          
BRB W            
BRR L                         
RBB                     
BBB                    
RBR L                                           
BRB W             
RBR                         
BBR W                      
BRR                                           
RRR                                
BBR L                  
BRB                   
BBB L                        
BRB W                                                  
BRR       
RBR                                     
RBB L       
BBR                                  
RRR               
RBR W                          
RRR L                    
RRR W               
RBB W       
RRB  
BBB             
BBR W               
BRR        
RBR             
BBB W       
BRR W      
RBB              
BBR             
BRR       
BRR       
RBR  
RRR L                   
RBB W                                
RBB              
BBB                 
BBB W                    
BRB               
RRR W            
RRB W                   
RRR              
RBR W      
BRB W                          
RRB  
BBR       
RRR        
BBB L                     
RBR                     
BBR W                                  
RBB  
BBB  
BRR W                     
BRB       
RBR W                   
RBR       
RBR L                    
BBB                
RBB L                   
RRR             
BRR L                    
RBR       
BRB W
RRB  
BBR               
RRB             
RBR       
BRB W             
RBB  
RRR        
BBR L       
BRB        
BBR L                  
RRR              
RBR W       
BBB              
RBB L
RRB              
RBB      
RRR             
RBR W       
BBB        
RBB L       
RBR        
RBR L              
BBR        
RBB
BBB         
BBR W      
RRR
RBB W
BBR  
RRB  

Jimske Stephen Tabone is sponsor of this forum board and have the right to talk about he book and opinions.
The issue i have and i don't know if Stephen Tabone have overcome this or not.

When i test variants of my method i make a list of 100 sessions all flat betting and try to get winning sessions to overcome losing sessions.
At the end of the 100 session i am even with most of my different methods.

I don't feel is hard to flat betting and win +2 units on regular basis, but at some point you give it all back and end up even.
It has to be the same for Stephen Tabone with his method.

I read he aim to win +3 units and have a loss limit of -6 units.
Then the minimum is winning two session out of three to break even.

Now if Stephen Tabone would claim that he could win more then two session out of three using his methodology flat betting, then i would considering to buy his book.
But other members from this forum board have made some testing and not getting similar results towards that.
Should also mention that the testing from forum members has not been 100% correct as they aim to win +3 units or lose -6 units without counting all shoes where  you would break even (does would make the -6 result less) as Stephen Tabone mention that if he lose some and win some and not reach his win target during half the shoe he aim to quit and break even.
The members who test his method or mention that they did - did not include this option and therefor the results is not true picture of Stephen Tabone method.

Cheers

Stephen Tabone we can measuring your method to see how the variance and STDV develop. What you mention is a old classical method that i post around 2008 at VLS forum board.

This is the playing model and the values for each event using the law of series.

Series of three has the value of 1
Series of four has the value of 0
Series of five has the value of 1
Series of six has the value of 2
Series of seven has the value of 3
Series of eight has the value of 4
Series of nine has the value of 5
And so it continues...

Now what can happen is that you get 14 series of three and 2 series of five and reach 3.0 STDV
Then you will only win and lose catching series of four in a row and there exist no progression that can cover that many attempts.

So the option to betting once is actually worse then to aim to win two in a row.
Let me show you another playing model based upon the same principal.

Singles has the value of 1
Series of two has the value of 0
Series of three has the value of 1

Now you can calculate the periodic events or cycles before a serie of three or higher hit.
Notice that we don't need to calculate the series of two as you win and break even and can bet again (once more) with out losing you bet when you aim to win two in a row.

2 singles before a serie of three or higher hit
0 singles before a serie of three or higher hit
3 singles before a serie of three or higher hit
4 ...
0
1
1
2
0
10
2

Here we have the option to divide progression into parts or different levels and Entering points can be after two strikes at 3 or above if some one would like to play higher unit values.
Another solution is to analys the periodic events to develop some kind of march.

This is how you calculate STDV and i make a chart of the variance with overrepresented events and underrepresented events.



The french word for STDV is Ecart

First you have to get the Absolute Ecart when you calculate.
So lets assume you have an sequence with 14 series alternating with two singles present.

Then you take 14 - 2 = 12

Now we want to get the statistical ecart so we continue with...

14 + 2 = 16

Now we take the sqr of 16 = 4

And finally we divide the absolute ecart whit the sqr

12 sqr 4 = 3,00

The Statistical Ecart 3,00

Quoteif you want another FREE strategy let me know and I will post.

Yes i would like you to post more free strategy, but they need to include more advance information and material, most members of this forum has much more experience then talking about three in a row.

Cheers

Quote from: Jimske on June 17, 2017, 07:24:55 PM
Correct, NOR is always looking at the past so Ellis then combined using S40 and S40A which I think Andy mentioned your method a lot like S40 but without the OTR (On the Run).  Sputnik is incorporating the LC and MC but don't forget that these are "weighted" proportionate to their average frequency.  Soxfan recently posted a more accurate event average for consideration.  The hope is to get a more accurate picture of the bias.  But that still leaves one with a choice.  Bet for the bias to continue or against it to not!

Jimske can you provide a link to the Soxfan recently post you mention.
Many Thanks

Cheers

Stephen Tabone everything has to lose to something and i got a big surprise when i join BTC because i had develop the same method as NOR but based upon different principals.
I am no longer member and stay for a short time, but i think to join again as the speak the same languish i do when it comes to 50/50 decision making.

I look forward for you 3th edition.

Cheers

I agree to some point but not all.
For example the majority of states are bias when observing any given shoe.
Then some one can skip medium and large waves and only ride short term bias.
But the issue here is the Entering points not the Exit points.
Assume you hit one bias state alternating like 123 then you lose three bets flat betting.
Then it take three short bias state to break even and more to gain positive results.
I reckon that is the issue all face to get the gain to overcome the attempts or let me put it like this - winning two session or more out of three where the gain of two sessions equal or overcome the losing session.

I am not saying NOR is a working solution - i am saying that is the direction and perspective we should look into when developing a flat betting strategy.

Cheers

 I have a working betting march based upon this and i earn real money using it.

The playing model is based upon Marigny.

Singles has the value of 1
Series of two has the value of 0
Series of three has the value of 1

Series of two break even and allow you to place same bet again so you only count the singles until a serie of three or higher hit.

1 single contra 1 serie of three
2 single contra 1 serie of three
1
4
1
0
1
0

As you can see you can apply periodic events and cycles when to hit two in a row.

Cheers
If you make your home work you will see the frequence come in waves.

What i am missing is the debate about using states or waves and not patterns as they come by them self.
I am missing the debate about the "most common" & "least common" events.

For example if i have one single and follow them to strike and lose, then i have a serie of two that can become anything from two in a row to many more.
In this situation some one should hold his bet and wait and observe what happens next before making conclusion about what the next bet should be.

Assume you get singles and a serie of two, then does two event are "most common" and recent present events so you might follow does and assume that series of three or higher has fall into sleep.
This way you can strike two events for 20 to 30 times in a row, a real bias.
But most common is short term bias where two events hit three to four times in a row in any given combination.

Now using waves or states you can make other conclusion then using your common patterns and this happen when two waves or states overlap.
Then one out of two events from the past bias state will be part of the further state.

For example assume you get singles and series of two hitting five times and you now get a serie of three or higher, then next you will have series of three or higher with singles or series of two that was part of the past wave state. This make decision making fun and you make probability calculation in your favour.
This kind of debate about decision making and using waves or state of events to strike with short, medium, large bias is missing.

Patterns get a new function and a new probability when you use waves or states when you deal with random bits.
For example one option can be to use 1 in 3 probability if you use the "most common" & "least common" methodology that i mention above.
And it works with different layers of clustering when betting.

This kind of material of information is not discussed in the public.
That is one reason i join Beat The Casino to read about NOR among other things.
They use both count systems when charting to see how the waves or states unfold into different direction to make decision based upon that charting methodology.
That is also one thing you don't see in public discussion.

Majority of waves has a short or medium bias during one shoe and one shoe can be dominated with only two event during 30% of one particular shoe.
My opinion is that is what we have to look into and stop talking about betting with or against a pattern of three in a row as isolated event that is part of the hole and one particular state or wave.

Cheers

 
The last reply answear my question so i delete my quetion with this reply ....

Cheers

http://betselection.cc/gambling-library/''conquer-the-casinos''-by-philip-koetsch/

The authors view with 12 million games lead him to believe that you can quit a winner up to 90% with even odds.
The statistical analysis are based upon 600 rounds of 100 placed bets or games - equal to 60.000
He use following paramters:

1) what are the absolute worst and best things that could theoretically happen?

2) what were the worst and best things that actually did happen in 600 rounds?

3) what were the average worst and best things that did happen?

4) what typically happens if you don't get out while your ahead , but instead play the full round of 100 games?

5) during a round, how often can you expect to get ahead by at least 10, 20 or 30 chips?

6) in a 100 game round, how many times does your bankroll net-status typically reverse from losing to winning?

7) how often does this net-status never reverse but remains losing throughout a 100 game round?



And further information ...



Cheers

Mike you would like this book - Conquer The Casino - By Philip Koetsch - Computer Analysis Of Successful Gaming Strageys.

He code and run 100 placed bets sample until he reach 60.000 placed bets and all simulations with fictive 1.7% house edge.
My opinion the results are amazing and the best book i buy for money, i am using it for all my further development with EC bets and comparing results.

Cheers