Sorry guys! It would have helped if I had posted the chart telling you what to bet and when.

I will go back and edit the first post with what I would have bet.

I will list all six bets for the even chances and they are all interchangeable.

RR, OO, LL =1.
RB, OE, LH = 2.
BB, EE, HH = 3.
BR, EO, HL = 4.

If 1/2 absent. Bet B1, E1 or H1. (1 means the first result of the pair)
If 1/3 absent. Bet the opposite of the first result on the second result of the pair.
If 1/4 absent. Bet B2, E2 or H2. (2 means the second result of the pair)
If 2/3 absent. Bet R2, O2 or L2.
If 2/4 absent. Bet the same as the first result on the second result of the pair.
If 3/4 absent. Bet R1, O1 or L1.

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.

Here is another quick one!

[attachimg=1]

Notice the chop effect on the RED's. Unfortunately, you can't take advantage of that on the E/C's.

Well, I will say it again and it's the only thing that works for me trending wise on the E/C's.

[attachimg=1]

I was just saying to a friend that I am up over 500 units playing this way since christmas. It brings home the bacon consistently for me. There are enough runs, streaks, call them what you like to get out in front more often than not.

Quote from: Jimske on March 05, 2015, 03:39:37 PM
  Look, if one can guess correctly to win more big bets than small than one can surely guess to win more hands than lose!

Well I can't really argue with that. I am tempted to come out and say a lot of stuff written about bet selection is a crock of ****! 

Renzoni talks about following patterns BUT he stops short of saying which ones. He would be in good company on this forum. Look, it's simple. Either you have an edge or you don't. The biggest danger to ourself is believing that we have an edge when in fact we don't. Now that's down right dangerous right there.

It's fair to say you can only get so much out of these books. Normally a bit of sound gambling advice would be worth more to the player than any system discussed, LoL.

Actually Jimske, your line that I quoted makes me think about RTM as well. If you are clever enough to pick winners from an extreme situation, then surely you could have picked winners as well from the rich stream of whatever it was that caused something else to go missing for so long. It's not a critique. I am just saying like.

''If I have got a thousand dollars to bet and I have just sat down at the baccarat table, here is the way I would manage my money. I would bet a hundred dollars at a time sticking to the low average of one tenth to one twentieth of my stake if I am just beginning or in a losing pattern-until I won two or preferably three wagers in a row.

Now I double my bet to 200. If I win again, I might add another 100 to make it 300.

Sounds simple doesn't it? Even if I lose more bets than I win, I will walk away a winner. Because the amount of each losing bet will tend to be small and the winning bet larger.

Now if I am losing while playing with an original 1000 stake, I try to do exactly what the losing pattern principle tells me to. I make low average bets of 100, then if I slip down to a 400 or 500 bankroll, I drop down to a 50 average bet, then to 35, then maybe 25 and then to the house minimum 20. That way I get anywhere from fifteen to twenty chances to begin winning again.

Whenever I start to win, even if I am down to my last 100, my last 40, I start increasing, because I know that I can get back to my original position or better very quickly by doing that.

Sometimes the cards are so bad I end up losing everything. But that doesn't happen often because on all but the very worst nights-when by the way, I will read the patterns and maybe just decide to quit when I am halfway through my bankroll-I am bound to pick up a win drift or two during those 15 to 25 decisions I guarantee myself.

It's true that sometimes all the win drifts-the short ones-do is delay the time it takes to lose everything. But for as many times as that happens, there are as many or more instances when the win drifts are long enough to put me ahead. Then I take stock and start all over again. I have been talking about the rough nights. The good ones are where you just can't seem to do anything wrong.

By the way, if you want to see the converse of this principle, just watch someone who bets consistently no matter what. Watch a 20 bettor make 8 passes in a row. He's delighted with himself that he's up 140. Now if he had played my system most conservatively, his wagers would have been 20,20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90. He would lose that last 90 wager. But instead of winning 140, he would have been ahead 370. And no time from the third wager on, could a losing hand have kept him from remaining a winner for the series. On the other hand, if one was feeling really lucky and feels that a streak has begun, he could wager 20,20,30,50,90,160,250,300,400. This is still wagering so that if he lost any decision after the second, he would have profits. Yet for exactly the same number of wins as the first player who ended up 140 ahead, this player ends up 920 ahead. Same 20 to begin with. Same number of winning hands.

Beginning to see the light?

It's a bit like poker. A good player can sit at a table all night with the most atrocious cards and end up losing a few hundred while a bad player with the same hands will lose thousands.

Next to luck, money management is the most important feature of any gaming session. Never forget that for an instant.

A big question in gambling is when do you stop?

You have to avoid the trap of continuing to gamble to long. Set your own loss limit.
Much of the decision will depend on whether or not you still feel lucky.
Winning can affect the way you are playing. You may not be any longer in total control. That should be enough to tell you to quit.

There is a casino saying ''don't go for the chandeliers''

Okay. But when to stop?  ''The next two bets I lose, I quit''

Or even...

''The first bet I lose, I quit.''

By far in my book, the most important thing to consider with regard to quitting well your ahead is whether or not you are really on a long, lucky streak. If you keep winning, despite a few reversals, and you keep adding money to your bankroll, I would say keep playing. Take advantage of the fact that you are lucky on a particular night. Stick to it until you see that your luck is reversing.  **(I have explained about reversals in my ''Conquer the Casino'' thread)**

I agree with a lot of what Renzoni says. It is just good common sense. All my big losses in casinos have been chasing a rigid bet which is just not appearing. So that also likely means that something else is streaking. The smart bettor would have been riding the streak increasing his bets well the **** bettor is escalating on his losing bets. It's kind of like a fear of losing and yet you end up perpetuating the losses. Most gamblers want things now and have little patience.

A better approach is reversing the mentality and playing not to lose. It can make you a more careful and strategic player just looking for the right opportunities to get in and out. There is no harm taking a unit loss now and again waiting for a run to appear. It doesn't happen all the time but it beats the alternative.

Thanks.

''I have seen more fortunes lost by people who became emotionally committed to one position that went against the trend than through any other folly in gaming!''

LoL....SO TRUE!! I wish I had this etched on my hand for all the times I have undone a lot of good work.

I am sure I can add on the final chapter to complete this thread. [smiley]aes/beer.png[/smiley]

So there we have it. All that leaves left for me to do is a few examples.

What I will do is use the first 100 spins from the Spielbank Casino for a few days starting from tomorrow. I will stick to Table 2.

It's just a case of picking your poison depending on your comfort zone with regards to risk.

I like L3M2 (linear x3 with mart x2)

The worse net loss in 600 rounds (60,000 results) came in at -84. So that's less than 100 chips.
There is just over a 10% risk for your game to be always in a net loss. The peak net win average per round is nearly 3 times that of flat betting. It offers the most amount of average reversals of the lot with 3.7 (so remember that's a losing position turning into a winning position nearly 4 times.) What's not to like about it, LoL.

And all of this assumes you have no bet selection which just might cut down on the variance a bit. And who says you need to bet every spin either?

I hope you enjoyed the review.  I would recommend buying the book. I have condensed things a lot whilst still trying to get across the most important parts. Even chances are not really my speciality and I am 100% certain there are loads of insights in the book which I have not put across.

So good luck to anyone who gives this a workout and let us all know how you get on.

Thanks

Here is a type of master chart with all the pertinent figures at a glance.

Tables for Geometric + Martingale bets.

[attachimg=1]


[attachimg=2]


All that leaves left is the chart which highlights the strongest points for each strategy.

Here are the tables for the Linear + Martingale bets.

[attachimg=1]

[attachimg=2]

I will be back shortly with the Geometric + Martingale table.

It's all interesting stuff for sure Jimske. I am trying to figure out if RTM (regression to mean) could be used in conjunction with these stats. If we know how many reversals on average to expect and what the average peak wins are, then can we use that as a kind of cheat sheet and profit by using some kind of RTM strategy? It's a thought anyhow!

Martingale and linear bets +Martingale and geometric bets.

These are the final strategies in the book and a little more complicated than the others.

I have already looked at a linear x3 bet. This would be 1,2,3,4 increasing on a win and reverting back to 1 on a loss. Now I am going to add a martingale element to things. This could be a martingale x1, x2 or x3. I will show an example of the martingale x1 in conjunction with the linear bet.

Hand 1. Bet 1.  win +1.
Hand 2. Bet 2.  lose -1. (you are in linear mode here)
Hand 3. Bet 1.  lose -2. (you are still in linear mode here but because you lost, you now switch to martingale mode)
Hand 4. Bet 2.  lose -4. (now because it's only a martingale x1 strategy and I just lost, I need to revert back to the linear mode)
Hand 5. Bet 1. win -3.
Hand 6. Bet 2. win -1. (still in linear mode going up the x3 scale, this was the first step of x3)
Hand 7. Bet 3. win +2. (this was step two of the linear mode)
Hand 8. Bet 4. win +6. (this was step 3 of the x3 linear mode and now the linear mode gets reset)

The above small example was the linear x3 with mart x1. You can increase the martingale to x2 or x3.

Now let's look at the Martingale and geometric bets.

The geometric bet x3 was a let it ride 1,2,4,8 bet and reverting back to 1 on a loss. Now again, you can add a martingale x1, x2 or x3 into the mix.

Here is a example of the geometric x3 with the mart x1 in play.

Hand 1. Bet 1. lose -1. (you were in geometric mode here to begin with and now switch over to martingale mode.)
Hand 2. Bet 2. win +1. (That was a win on the mart x1 and now you reset and go back into geometric mode. A loss here would have put you back into geometric mode as well because you are only using mart x1.)

Working this out was a bit of a headscratcher and was the one letdown in the book because Koetsch explained the linear and geometric strategies earlier in the book along with the martingale and then just assumed you would be able to work out how to combine the linear and martingale as well as the geometric and martingale strategies. There was no real clear instructions for this.

I will say now that the favourite strategy of Koetsch was what he terms G3M1 for short. That's the allowing of any winning bet to ride three times (1,2,4,8) and betting two chips after losing any 1 chip bet.  In other words, a geometric x3 with the mart x1 added on.

I will put up the final tables in the next post. Also I will do a few examples with the different strategies in action.

jimske, your post makes no sense! what did you post already?

If you are meaning the shoe. I didn't take it from anywhere else. It's an original one mate.

It's stubborn in the sense that there were no reversals from negative territory into positive territory using the three different strategies that I tried, however I am going to try one more later and see how that fares.

Curiosity got the better of me and so I decided to run the martingale x2 against the shoe from above and compare it to the flat betting and geometric x3.

The average peak loss for the martingale x2 is 16.4 and my worst drawdown was 90. So that was pretty much bang on the nail.

I will test the authors favourite against this shoe when I am finished and see how that ends up.