Baccarat Neural Strategy

Google

Just Google it will pop up.

 

Well I was thinking just flat-beti

sure, the deeper the progression the greater shoe win percentage you're going to get. But that doesn't necessarily mean you'll come out as a winner. Primarily because of table limits and commission.

everything until you get a win and then play a positive progression. The flatbreads are all 50/50 so you're relying on the long runs and streaks for profit.

 

Play the few more games using this and lost one while winning two. Problem I have cuz I'm so used to getting the trend of the shoe it's really difficult for me to bet, for example, 4 goes 5 when never been a 5 in the entire shoe.

 

I'll wait for you to program it before I play this anymore. I just go back to my own style.

 

OMG! It's 121 pages. I'm intrigued. This is going to take a while and the index implies all kinds of notions.

Link Found at: http://www.silverthornepublications...y/dnSNS9281rfi8l/SuperNeuralStrategy-book.pdf

"If you are tired of having the casinos eat your lunch, I want to share with you my
"ultimate weapon" for creaming the casinos!"

With this much work I'm going to search for anything that I like the most unless you guys can suggest a primary section to look at in the index.

 

LoL! Maybe you get a free Charles Atlas Bullworker sent with every copy!

 

That is how trends break down. The secret to using trends is actually in loss management. My best advice is to get off quick. Don't hang on to any trend unless it is displaying as 85% or better but still continuing.

By example you might see a strong side occurring when the weak side only hits as singles. But then once in a while the weak side hits as a double. It's erratic. This same strong side will always hit as a double or greater but once in a while a single on the strong side will occur. The trick is to read the biggest picture and take the first change to the strong side. You can see an even bigger picture too. You can see when the absence of singles dominates. Your chart just shows doubles or larger with no singles. You want to just take one win after a change. Sit out or low bet the holes.

 

Yes, that has always worked out very well for me. You just pound the shit out of the dealer.

 

Getting somewhere:
"With the NBS System, our goal is to match whatever the table is doing and to quickly react to changing conditions.
If decisions are repeating, we will bet for a repeat.
If decisions are alternating (chopping), we will bet on a chop.
And, if either of these patterns fails three times in a row, we will change to a ReverseRepeat Pattern for the next wager. "

 

i think i used it once, sounded familiar, i remember i lost 3 bankrolls and stopped playing

 

I can see why you want it programmed. This might be a monster once virtual bets are introduced. I know for a fact that obfuscation does not protect you from seven losses in a row. But the step one back in series of steps on a win trick is quite interesting. I'm going to change step two and three by rounding them up to mod 5, computer lingo, so the steps will be 5, 10, 15, 20, 35, 50, 75. Some dealers won't let you mix red chips and white chips in Roulette. But Craps this is OK. So these step levels let you use red chips all the way.

Like I said, I would try to make this better. I know that seven steps based on any bet selection process will still hit the lost sequence of death enough to wreck the system. But this steps back down on win streaks. It does not just drop back to step one on a win. I like this. This slow walk back down on win streaks just might be useful. What needs to be power tested is not the bet selection process but power testing the step up and step down outcomes. $206 is a small enough bankroll and I actually think this looks promising. Imagine it in my hands with far better bet selection scenarios of conditional awareness and Reading Randomness. My practice software allows me to enter the steps for each bet as I go. So I can try this out right now. I will compare 5, 8, 13 vs 5, 10, 15 for the first three steps.

You just have to trust me that I have tested obfuscation to death. You can't avoid the sequence of death of seven losses in a row. You can't even avoid it with virtual bets. You will lose once in a while. But you might just lose a little less than expected.

This is good stuff. For me it's a new idea. It's got me thinking.

 

OK Should be interesting.

 

This was fun. I really mean fun. I ran my practice software at the starting point of 1. That's 1, 2, 3, 5, 8,10,15 according to the recommendations for starting at 1. But my software automatically places 18 bets as if all selections were made up of a single chip on a single number straight up. So a bet on Red would be all the red numbers, all 18 of them. In this way I can use my pet sets and groupings. So 1 = 18, 2 = 36. 3 = 54, ...etc. This would cost about 4 times the normal bankroll for $5 bets as the starting point. So instead of a $200 bankroll I would need $800 for a single session.

Here are the results and graph:

Code:

 W | B  R | O  E | L  H | 0  6 | P | S |  --  SN  --  SP 
 nb|    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  01  --  23 
 nb| X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  02  --  08 
 nb|    X |    X |    X | X    |   |   |  --  03  --  36 
 nb| X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  04  --  08 
 nb|    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  05  --  12 
 nb| X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  06  --  04 
 nb|    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  07  --  01 
 nb| X    | X    |    X | X    |   |   |  --  08  --  29 
 nb| X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  09  --  28 
 nb| X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  10  --  31 
 X |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  11  --  21 ( $ 18 ) High
 X-| X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  12  --  13 ( $ 18 ) Low
   |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  13  --  34 ( $ 0 ) Low
 X |    X |    X | X    |    X | X | X |  --  14  --  12 ( $ 36 ) Low
 X | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  15  --  24 ( $ 54 ) Even
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  16  --  28 ( $ 35 ) Not Primes
 X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  17  --  16 ( $ 69 ) Not Primes
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  18  --  08 ( $ 51 ) Red
  -|    X |    X |    X |    X | X | X |  --  19  --  32 ( $ 51 ) Black
   |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  20  --  37 ( $ 15 ) Even
   | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  21  --  15 ( $ -39 ) Even
 X |    X | X    |    X | X    | X | X |  --  22  --  23 ( $ 51 ) Specials
   |    X | X    | X    |    X | X |   |  --  23  --  05 ( $ -3 ) Black
 X | X    | X    | X    | X    |   | X |  --  24  --  13 ( $ 87 ) Odd
   |    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  25  --  14 ( $ 33 ) Specials
 X |    X |    X | X    |    X |   |   |  --  26  --  16 ( $ 118 ) Six's
 X | X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  27  --  11 ( $ 172 ) Black
 X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  28  --  25 ( $ 208 ) Red
   | X    |    X | X    |    X |   | X |  --  29  --  08 ( $ 190 ) Red
 X |    X |    X | X    | X    |   |   |  --  30  --  14 ( $ 224 ) Not Primes
   | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  31  --  06 ( $ 206 ) Odd
   |    X |    X |    X | X    |   | X |  --  32  --  30 ( $ 170 ) Odd
   | X    |    X |    X | X    | X |   |  --  33  --  28 ( $ 116 ) Odd
   |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  34  --  37 ( $ 26 ) Odd
 X |    X | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  35  --  07 ( $ 170 ) Odd
   |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  36  --  34 ( $ 80 ) Odd
 X | X    | X    | X    |    X |   | X |  --  37  --  15 ( $ 224 ) Odd
   |    X |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  38  --  18 ( $ 134 ) Odd
 X |    X | X    |    X | X    |   | X |  --  39  --  25 ( $ 278 ) Odd
 X | X    | X    | X    |    X | X | X |  --  40  --  11 ( $ 368 ) Odd
 X |    X |    X |    X |    X |   |   |  --  41  --  34 ( $ 419 ) Six's
 X |    X | X    | X    | X    | X |   |  --  42  --  01 ( $ 455 ) Red
   |    X | X    |    X |    X |   | X |  --  43  --  21 ( $ 437 ) Black
 X | X    |    X | X    | X    | X |   |  --  44  --  02 ( $ 473 ) Black
   | X    | X    |    X |    X | X | X |  --  45  --  31 ( $ 454 ) Not Specials
 X | X    |    X | X    |    X | X |   |  --  46  --  06 ( $ 488 ) Not Specials
 X |--------------------| X    | X | X |  --  47  --  37 ( $ 506 ) Zeros

This I must research more. I have found that I can outperform AI or VR sims as I'm trained in this stuff to see trends. In this first practice session I went to blind guessing and just hammered the steps just to see how they would do. You can see it in the chart where I just bet on "Odd." Anyone can power test this with by playing against live spins from Germany. I have earned enough to pay more than half of a total loss at $800. When I take this to a casino I will use the $200 bankroll technique at $5 for the entire bets. This could also be upped to $6 base value by betting three double streaks at a time with $2 on each double street.

Thanks for turning me on to this. I think it might be a game changer.

 

I bet it is full of padding, where Baccarat came from, the drawing rules.

 

Gizmo there are 8 bets not 7. So this sim is just betting odd or same side. Not the placement as per the Neural Strategy?

 

I get this: $5, $8, $13, $20, $35, $50, $75, What are the eight bets?

This practice session shows what I bet on at the end of each line of the chart. I'm all over the place on a Roulette table, both inside bets or outside bets. There is just a small section of spins where I went lazy and bet only Odd. That occurs from spin 31 to spin 40. Each line in the chart is a spin. " - " designates a virtual bet selection located on the far left of each line where a Win has an "X-" or is blank space with a " - " to indicate a virtual loss with no money placed on the bet. The graph shows these as a flat horizontal parts of the graph.

"Not the placement as per the Neural Strategy?" This is my reading randomness placement. It is not the NS strict rules.

 

Jimske, It would be easier to program the strict and very simple rules of the Neural Strategy. They are good, but they are a far cry from a true pattern hunter's capability. The key to this is the steps, both up and down. You can power test this by just picking a side randomly, not using any virtual bets, and marching through the steps. It will eventually tell you a long run win / loss ratio. So is there an 8th step? I get 206 when I add up my 7 steps.

If there is another example of the Neural Strategy published somewhere I would like to see it. This is the Super Duper Neural Strategy published at the link I provided above. He does say that this version has a cheaper bankroll of 200 as apposed to one that I didn't see that was 300. Perhaps I read past it? 121 pages of B-Roll was a bunch of fluff.

 

Jimske is talking of Neural Strategy which has 8 bets, 5,8,13,20,35,50,75,100
Gizmotron is testing Super Neural Strategy that is unstoppable with a smaller bankroll as per Siverthorne.

 

Actually I know to ditch the Neural Strategy's bet selection altogether. This must be Gizmotron's Super Stupendous & Spectacular Reading Randomness bullshit.

 

Is this idea of walking up and down the steps a new or already well tried method? If I get to +150 before a full seven steps loss occurs then I'm just -44 after it hit.