A team of players in Las Vegas has been using a strategy to break the dealer and win money. They have found that playing with a consistent number of players and avoiding games with more than two low rounds in a row is effective. They have won five out of six games using this strategy. However, they need to figure out what to do if one player is losing while the others are winning. They also discuss the importance of finding type 1 games and the fluctuations in game types based on the number of players and the crowdedness of the casino.
This is NBJ, the weekend class on February 1 and 2 in Las Vegas. This is tape 3, side 1. Of course, he's just going to be making minimum bets, obviously. But then at the end, the rest of the team will split the winnings because we found that you can break the dealer a lot. They picked up $6,000 in one game playing with the Sacrifice players. Do you remember how long that particular game went on? Yeah. Yeah.
It was one game. The other game was $6,000, but they lasted longer, I think they went on for like an hour or something. 45 minutes. 45 minutes, yeah. So it is very effective. I mean, it's not $6,000 per player, but $6,000 for the team that they would have to split. I think it was like 45 minutes or an hour that they had to split. Altogether, we played six games with this type of strategy and we won five out of six, which I thought was pretty encouraging results.
Six sessions. Okay. Sometimes those games lasted for an hour, you know. Can I ask a question on that? Sure. What's the stop loss for team play? That's a little tough. I'm glad you asked that question because I shouldn't talk about that. I forgot about it. One of the problems with team play is what do you do if one is losing and the other three are winning? And I think that the team needs to settle this question amongst themselves.
Now, if two are losing, it's a good time to quit, okay? But suppose three are winning and one is losing. I think that the best thing to do in that situation is either for the losing player to go to minimum bet or to get out of the game and have one of the other players play his hand at minimum bet. It amounts to the same thing, okay? But then you need to have an agreement afterwards on what you're going to do about that.
You're either going to do nothing about it and the guy is going to accept that loss or you will split the money evenly. It's almost as if you were a sacrifice player because essentially he's acting as a sacrifice player. His job is to keep the game up to the right number of players. Many, many times, you know, when you're dealing a five-players team play, it goes from four, the game will go to hell. It goes up to six, the game will go to hell.
I love the rule, by the way, the new rule that's coming out with around several of the casinos that says that you can't get in in the middle of the shoe because it does keep the number of players constant throughout the shoe, which helps us in NBJ an awful lot. Okay, so that's essentially what we're doing. That's our big advantage, other than we're breaking the dealer a lot, is that we're keeping the number of players consistent and we're keeping it at the optimum number of players.
Now, one of the things that you might try in the team play is if five players is not working out, you might just drop it down to four players, which obviously is easy to do. You can control it at four players. It's as easy as you could control it at five players. But you need to drop out. I've forgotten just how to do it. You need to drop out a player. When you've got it at four players, I don't think that we can stop other players from getting in, but you can play with that number.
What is the optimum number of players, four players or five players, and play accordingly. We have, for instance, had when we weren't controlling the number of players in the game, in the high stakes games that don't tend to fill up, we've had a player sit there just play or not play to keep the number of players constant in the game. So that can be an advantage. We move into the 3 o'clock, Dallas. You're going to go over the assignments as well.
I went through the game type that you mentioned. Good. I'm going to put it right on tape so our listeners can hear what we're doing tonight. Jerry and I came up with an assignment. You know, when we had the June seminar here, the assignment during the seminar was to go out and see how many low rounds you could count in a row because people were a little bit skeptical that there would be more low rounds in a row than high rounds in a row, or that there would be more low rounds, period, than high rounds.
And so that's what we wanted to look at is low rounds versus high rounds. And we proved, I think we had 45 people doing that, and all the people came back and all of them easily found more low rounds than high rounds, and our number of 2 to 1 worked out pretty good. So that was some of the verification that we have in there. And some of you will see the humor in this. But what I'd like you to do tonight is see how many type 1 games that you can find and recognize what a type 1 game is.
A type 1 game is a game that has no more than two low rounds in a row in it. It's the only qualification for a type 1 game. It has no more than two low rounds in a row, low tens ratio rounds in a row. And I would like you to see, try to get some idea of percentage-wise. What we're looking to do is really verify our percentage of type 1 games in Las Vegas. Well, if we see one, should we play it? No, you have to go and look for more.
This may not work, Jerry. I don't know. If you see one, call me. Go ahead and get a show of hands first for the casino assignment last night. First, let's get a show of hands of anyone who might have remembered the casino assignment last night. Okay. Now, let's do it this way. In your search for type 1 games, how many people found less than 10% type 1 games? Okay. How many people found less than 10% type 1 or 2 games? Okay.
In other words, if it was a type 1, it was a type 2. How many people found type 3 games? Four. Okay. Five. And six. Okay, so I would guess that we could easily say that the majority of the games are type 1 and 2. Is there anyone that would disagree with that from the search last night? There are. Most of the games are type 1 or 2. I wouldn't agree with that. You would not agree with that.
What would you say they are? Let's say it a different way. How many would agree that most of the games are type 1 or 2? Yeah. Okay, how many would not agree with that? Okay. Now, let's take the first group, type 1, 2, and 3, which is up as you lose, versus 4, 5, and 6, which is up as you win. How many found most of the games to be in the first group, the up as you lose group? Okay, how many found most of the games to be in the up as you win group? About even.
Okay, you people that just raised your hand. We could see everything you were playing in. Were they crowded? Just give me a verbal, okay. Okay, we have most, almost all yeses and one no. Where were you playing? I played at the theaters in Washington, D.C. The more crowded the theaters, the tighter the tables were. The tables were about half full. And you were playing type 4, 5, and 6 games, sir? Yes. You were seeing more than four low-ratio rounds in a row? Yes.
Not every time, though. Yeah. Okay, not in every game, but you did see some. I beg your pardon? Not in every game, but you did see some. Yes. The reason I ask is, at the fans last night, I didn't see any games at all in the second category. A lot of the games that came really close to it, they were almost all in the first category, but the difference is it was very uncrowded. And this is late, this is like after midnight.
What will happen is, as the casino gets less and less crowded, or as the tables get less and less crowded, the games will move up in game type number for the simple reason that a certain number of low cards will cover more rounds with three people playing than it will with five people playing. But I don't know. I saw in almost all the games that I saw there were game types one and two. I did see one game type three.
It only became a game type three because everybody went home and there was only three people playing. I don't really count that as a viable thing I'm talking about under normal casino conditions. In other words, what is that shuffle and that number of decks, what game type is it producing? And from what I saw where I was, it was still a majority group one, game type one, two, and three. I saw 30 games that had more than four, four ratio rounds in a row, unless all the people happened to go home or jump out of the game.
Of course, if you only got one player playing, it's going to be a game type six. Now, of the people that saw most games as offers you win games, how many people saw offers you win games with more than five players in them? With more than four players? A couple. With more than three players? A couple. So I take it that most of these games have at least three players in them. Is that right? Does that sound really too late at night, or is it? Within about an hour and a half now.
Yeah. So here's what I suspect is going on. When I was here a year ago, the casinos were a heck of a lot more crowded than what I saw last night. And I think that anytime the casinos become uncrowded for whatever reason, depending on the time of the year or whatever, that the number of game type warnings is going to decrease. It's going to fluctuate through the year. It does up in Atlantic City as well, although we have the opposite problem there.
We have the casinos crowded all the time, the tables are crowded all the time, so we find very few game type warnings. To me it seems like so many, because I'm contrasting it to Atlantic City where I normally play, where it's very difficult to find. I have no problem finding game type warnings at all. But anybody who has any trouble finding any game type warnings, if anybody could find one, if your goal is to play a game type warning, you just find one.
I think in the manual I said 35% here I can't remember game type warnings, and maybe it's lower than that right now. But at least there's plenty of game type warnings, and there's plenty of room in the game type warnings to get in them. So I don't see where it makes a whole lot of difference as long as we can find these games and get in them. I'm going to back up to yesterday. John gave us a casino session, and we ended at the Flamingo, and I was telling Ellis about this this morning.
After the casino session, and we all left at about 7 o'clock, just before we left that session we had all watched and scoped out a table that had a fellow dealing what looked like a pretty good game. There were three or four people there, and then it just suddenly dissolved. And so we went away, discussed it, left, broke up. I went back in to eat, and there was a fellow here. Bob, do you remember his name? One of the California guys.
One of our players. Yes, one of our players who was here the day before, in the very first day on Friday. And when I went back to the casino, he was sitting there playing head-to-head with this guy because, of course, everybody else at the table had left because their game had been wiped out. And our guy was sitting there, and the game was the fastest game I've ever seen. I've never seen the cards come that fast.
And he was playing one to five units, and he was betting up with that one piece of information that Ellis gave us that day about, gee, if you're 10 and you're playing heads-up, raise your bet after you see that 10. And he walked away. He did this with three different tables. He told me because I watched him, and then I talked to him afterwards. And he walked away with $500 from each of those tables that day playing heads-up.
It was fast, it was quick, and it was over. Five to 25 spreads? Yes. Okay, good. And he didn't stay long. Ellis had said, you know, don't stay for what was one, two, one and a half sheets, something like that. And that's about as long as he stayed. And when things just started to slow down, you know, he just got out. And that was it. I don't know what he did after that. I saw him still wandering around.
This is a first-base strategy. Yeah. I mean, let's use head-to-head. Yeah, head-to-head. Sorry. Just a flamingo. Any other good reports? Any other reports that we haven't covered? Any other casinos? Well, no, it's just reinforcing that one. Bob was playing first base, and we were watching him, and Eric was standing in the middle, and he saw the pens running the same way, and he just jumped in. What was it, once or twice, Eric? Twice. Twice, and the same thing occurred.
Bang, bang, and that's it. Done and out. Okay. Okay, good enough. I'll get back to Ellis and the review. Okay, I'd ask Sandy to relate that theme to you for the people that were not here Friday. We talked about head-to-head play. I want to talk about that briefly again while that game is fresh in your mind before we get into the primary indicator. But we have discovered, and the reasons for it are pretty obvious when you think about it, that the first-base system simply reacting to the first-base system has worked extremely well in head-to-head play, playing one hand against the dealer's hand, and all we're reacting to, you can't really go by Huygens' ratio because you're not looking at enough cards.
All we're reacting to is whenever the card, the last card in the prior round was a 10, you increase your bet and you play this 5-to-1. Whenever it was not a 10 or a high 8 or a 9, you can react to those. You play your low bet. See, the reason it works so well is in a normal game, when you're playing the first-base system is the problem that we had here last night. You get your first 10, but several cards are going to go down the tubes before you get your second card.
So, there's going to be certainly a certain percentage of the time that you're going to get a low card. You'll be at 10. However, when you're playing head-to-head, there aren't any cards between your first card and your second card except the dealer's one card. So, you're going to, when you get the first 10, you're going to get the second 10 a much higher percentage of the time in head-to-head play. Now, what happens is you are going to push a lot playing that system against the dealer, but you've just got to think in terms of pushes make no difference.
Pushes, maybe they waste a little time, but they make no difference. So, it is a very viable system. Now, the reason we caution you not to play too many shoes is that when you play head-to-head, you work just like a filtering system and you will unclump the cards very, very quickly. So, your advantage will dissipate over two or three shoes. Now, we suggest when you play head-to-head in this manner that you start out playing dealer's strategy because you're going to look at a tremendous amount of clumping.
You know, clumping, if the game was clumped with five or six players, when you play it with two players, it's going to seem extremely clumped. You're going to have seven, eight, ten high rounds in a row followed by very many low rounds. So, it very much favors dealer strategy. You will find that as you play the game to one or two or three shoes, that the favorability of dealer strategy will also dissipate because you're filtering the cards into a random situation.
And you go from dealer strategy right back down to variable strategy as you stay in the game. So, we recommend that if you don't stay in those games too long, maybe two or three shoes, if things are going well, but watch for the game to turn sour on you as it goes into a random condition. So, by playing, if you're someone that can play head-to-head, remember that the cards are going to be random. So, for you people that count, now if you can get a game going at that table, you're going to be playing with random cards for a few shoes.
It's a good counters game for a while. Okay, any questions on head-to-head play? Okay, then let's get right into the... One more question, I think. It sounds to me when you're playing head-to-head like that, often what my experience is that most players will call you into the game. Yeah. So, if you can get a shoe or two done head-to-head, when you say you're randomizing the shoe, in player's interest, if you're sitting at the third base position, you're probably now into a type one or two game.
Yeah. So, change those attitudes rather than answers. By the way, one little trick. Maybe Matt's girlfriend could explain why this works. I certainly don't know. But, you'll find if you're playing head-to-head and you want to be the only one in the game, that if you stand up, if you stand up and just play the game standing up, there's much less chance of other people getting in the game with you than if you sit down. Now, why that is, I don't know.
But, it's just human nature. They don't want to play alone. They figure you want to play alone, yeah. They figure you want to leave. They don't want to play head-to-head. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But, that works if you want to try that. I'm looking for an opinion or comment on your spending. Do you have a resume or something? Give me something to watch. Did you take even money or? Candles on the bottom plate. You got a blackjack, you mean.
I have a blackjack. Do you have a resume or something? Yeah. That's in your manual. The answer is you take the even money. Mathematically, if everything was random, you'd be a little bit of money behind by taking the even money. But, when you consider the fact now that you have a 10, particularly if you're in third base, that you have a 10 and an 8, and the 8 may be a high card as well, and the dealer has an 8, at least you know you're in a part of the shoe where there are 10s.
You know that for a fact because you have one. That's what made you a blackjack. And that sways the odds a little bit. Okay? That's the mathematical reason. But there's a much stronger statistical reason. I'm sure that each of you who are playing 1-4-6 have had situations maybe on the one bet or the four bet where you wish you had done something a little differently and you would have won those bets. Now you end up playing the sixth bet because of something, maybe it was a 50-50 choice and you just chose the wrong way.
But now you find yourself playing the sixth bet because of a decision that you made back on the one bet or a decision that you made on the four bet. Okay? You've forced yourself into the sixth bet and you lose the sixth bet. Now you've lost the whole progression based on something that happened back on the one bet. Okay? So whenever you take even money, this is your thing. You're a sure winner. Okay? There's no way you can lose this bet.
All right? I see what I'm getting at. If you don't take even money, you can very easily end up in a situation where you're losing a whole progression because of that decision not to take even money. But sometimes that decision is going to cost you 11 chips. And when it does, you will always take even money again for the rest of your life. One thing that I noticed, I was playing insurance before in my life, that you have to get your bet out there quick.
They just boom. Yeah, yeah. They boom and buy. And you get very strange reactions with low hands. But yeah, you have to get that bet out quick because I never played insurance before. Yeah, I just gotta wait. And by the way, if they don't give you enough time and you pull up your insurance that way, they will usually accept it. As a matter of fact, they will usually, not all the time, they'll count on it, but usually they will.
And by the way, here's what I figured. Here's what I figured. You don't have to have the money exact. Like, you know, if the rest of your betting priorities, you want insurance, just throw a quarter up there, you know, and they'll keep your money going and they'll change it when they get around to you. Just trying to play a little trick on you. A little trick. Turn the mic on. What about playing two players against a dealer? Yeah, two players against a dealer or one player could play two or three hands against a dealer.
It is my experience that if you're going to play head to head, you're better off playing head to head just those two hands. The next best game is with four players, particularly with six deck. Three player games and two player games I've not found to be very favorable. Up in Atlanta City where you're playing with Apex or here when you're playing with Apex, sometimes you can get away with three players, but when you get below four players, I haven't found the games to be very good.
The reason that we suggest that head to head with two players is it maximizes your advantage with one player. As you add more players, you're stealing that advantage away from you. Now instead of one card between your first and second card, there's two cards or three cards between your first and second card and it just dilutes your advantage. So we say one player or go all the way to four. One, four, five or six. Okay, any other questions before we get into the primary indicators? I would like you to do this while I'm talking about the primary indicator.
I would like you to think of a topic, not just a question, but a topic that you would like to hear discussed, whether it be insurance or what have you. You know, it's very difficult for me to know what general topic you may be having trouble with. So if we have the opportunity, we can open up the discussion to a topic of your preference rather than mine and we'll just vote on what topic, a show of hands of what topic you would like to hear about.
Okay, now we'll go into the primary indicator situation. I think the best way to look at it, or did you want to do a little break first before we do that? Yes, let's go. Let's start at about 15 minutes. You want to break it up? Yeah, during the break, I was talking with a few of you about the question that Ellis posed and this is just a partial list, but give you something to think about. These are the topics that we've got so far that we can get to discuss given the amount of time.
Surrender, over-under, which we discussed on Friday. I'd like to see that mentioned again. I thought the strategy that you, Ellis, related to that is simple and elegant and effective. No whole card. We do have a few Canadian friends here that we should at least comment on the approach when you don't have a whole card. Vacationers, right. Double on 12. I won't say who brought that up. They said don't mention my name, but still, you know, if you've got a 12 and no cards are running and a stiff end, we'll get Ellis' comment on it.
Review. First base, game type switch. We've covered this before. Third base, which game type is best. And then the attitudes and training and characteristics and program for professional play. So this is a partial list and we'll get a few more from you a little later as we get into some of these topics. I'd like to make one observation. I used to be as tall as Jerry and I shrunk. And so label selection for me is very difficult.
I think if you're going, all these people are saying they're going to casinos, they're not doing any winning activities, they're leaving. If I did that, I'd never play the damn game. I think that if you see no winning activity and they're playing basic strategy, you've got a damn good place to sit down and play and start winning. And I know it goes against target, but I can't use target either. But I go in like the man in the phone conversation with you did.
I think they're missing an awful lot of good tables by just looking for winning activity because you're there and you can do better than that and you can win from that table. Well, that is a very good point. I think I mentioned that briefly in the manual. At least my personal preference is to play more games and maintain a lower game-one ratio versus game-loss ratio. And I think I threw some numbers in the manual that indicate that that can very often be to your advantage by the end of the day.
If you only play three games during the day and you win two out of three, you're a lot less kind to yourself. And that's a very, very good win ratio, two out of three. But I'm going to beat you if I'm going to win more money than you do with a 50% game-one ratio for the simple reason that I've played more games. I do search. Like I mentioned yesterday, you go all over the place. But I don't spend a lot of time in it.
My objective is to get in the game. And I may be in the game. I remember in Atlantic City, I was playing with Keith one night not long ago. And we walked into the sand and Keith said, He said, I've got to hit this, John. I was on the way to the casino from the front door. And I said, Okay, I'll meet you on the floor. I'm not going to wait for him. And by the time he got to the floor, I was already $700 ahead in the game that I was playing first base at.
And Keith jumped in the same game, played over my shoulder, just topped off all of my high bets with a quarter and won a considerable amount of money. In fact, he was behind going in and he was ahead coming out of the game, just topping off my bets with a quarter, just my high bets in the first base strategy. And we made an absolute killing. We went four shoes in that game without ever losing a high bet.
Or you could spend time in John or searching for tables. I mean, it's personal choice, you know. If you have a, like Jen here, Nemo started out, remember, with a $50 bankroll. Now, John says, don't bother with table searching. But he didn't say that when he had a $50 bankroll. John was the most avid table searcher that we had. I mean, he studied tables to the point of ridiculousness. He would be out in the aisle and he would have, he would know exactly how many hands for several shoes he would have won and lost before he gets into the game.
And then he would get into the game. And John had virtually no game losses. Now that he has a very large bankroll compared to what he played for, he's still a very, as you could call it, a very low stakes player. Although he has a very large bankroll. And, you know, one of these days it will curtail him that he should play black chips. You know, when you're not losing, ever. You should think about playing black chips.
But now, of course, he throws table selection right out the window. And you tend to do that as your bankroll gets larger and larger. Again, is that not only a function of bankroll, but confidence from having had the win? Yes, absolutely. It's a function of confidence. For instance, if you play a certain city all the time, if you play Las Vegas all the time, or if you play Atlantic City all the time, it isn't very long before you know what you can do.
You know what to expect. You know what your win-win ratio is going to be. You know how many buy-ins you can afford to lose. We had a conversation out here in the hall, and I mentioned to one of the players that for quarter chips, I never bring more than, and something I don't talk about in the manual at all, I never bring more than $2,500 or $3,000 for a three-day trip to play quarters. And he said, well, geez, that doesn't sound like very much money for three days of playing quarters.
But it's more than sufficient. In fact, I virtually never, I can't remember a time where I got down below $1,000. But here's my reasoning. If $2,500 or $3,000 isn't a sufficient bankroll for that casino city the time that you're there, you shouldn't be there. Okay? You don't bring $6,000 just because the conditions are so bad that you can't win. I mean, think about that. That's very dumb. If you can't win with that amount of money, you shouldn't be there.
You're not getting in enough winning games. There aren't enough winning games in the town. Maybe there's something wrong with you, or there's something wrong with the casino town like Atlantic City in the summertime where in some sense, it's virtually impossible. But that's, I think, a good rule $2,500 or $3,000 for a quarter play for a three-day trip. And by the way, I found this my own self. This is true for me. You may want to determine what your threshold is.
But my records, as I went over them, I used to have a lot of records. And I found that my win ratio or my win percentage or my play advantage was trailing off after the third day. The fourth day, I consistently did worse than I did on the first day. And so what I did with that information is just curtailed all of my trips to three days or three days max because I know that on the fourth day, I'm just not a very good player.
The fourth day, I'm going to start making mistakes. It's just a question of being burned out or overtired or what have you. Now, when you're in a casino town, your adrenaline does some strange things and it makes you feel like you're alive when you're really dead. Okay. Back into the the primary indicator. I think the way to look at these, the first way to look at the primary indicator is to compare our way of playing cards to basic strategy.
In other words, why are we bothering with this primary indicator? What is it doing for us? What are we getting out of it? You need to recognize that there's such a thing as a strong dealer hand and a weak dealer hand. And whether the dealer's hand is strong or weak, has a lot of bearing on how you play your cards. You are not going to take a highly risky hit, for instance, against a dealer hand that's weak anyway.
And on the other hand, you're not going to stand with less than 17 against a very strong dealer hand. It just makes no sense to do so. That's what the game is all about. And that's what the game is all about our way. And that's what the game is all about basic strategy-wise. Basic strategy-wise. When the dealer is weak, you want to take advantage of it. And when the dealer is strong, you need to get a better hand than the dealer hand in order to win.
If the dealer has a strong hand, you're not going to bet that the dealer breaks. But the dealer is going to break. Okay? Because the dealer has a strong hand. The whole idea of skill in blackjack is exactly that. Determining if the dealer has a strong hand or a weak hand. That is what always determines how you are going to play your cards. Okay, now, then that's the information that we're trying to determine with skill. We would like to be able to determine that information as accurately as we can.
Because it's the whole game of blackjack. Now, the way basic strategy does it is very simple. They only look at one indicator, the dealer's upturn. And basic strategy says that if the dealer has an up card of seven or more, she has a strong hand. If she has an up card of six down through deuce, she has a weak hand. So they say against a weak hand, you do not take a risky hit. For instance, basic strategy will tell you you're not going to hit a 15 against a six.
Okay? You don't take a risky hit against a weak hand. That's just common sense. On the other hand, you don't, in basic strategy again, you don't stand with less than 17 any time the dealer has a strong hand, which they define as an up card of seven up through eight. And if you just remember those two things, you've got 80 percent of the basic strategy chart memorized. And you've got 80 percent of the variable, or maybe 70 percent of the variable strategy chart memorized.
However, when we look at it, we just don't buy the way basic strategy does it. And I'll show you why, or I'll tell you why. Consider what basic strategy says. If the dealer has an up card of seven through eight, the dealer has a strong hand. Now think about what that means. There are just as many high cards in the game the way they do it, as there are low cards. So, if the dealer has a high card up, her chances of having a high card in the hole with it are 50 percent.
Her chances of having a low card with it, well actually they're not quite 50 percent because of the neutral cards. But let's just call all cards above seven high and all cards below seven as low the way we do it for the moment. If the dealer has a high up card, her chances of having a high hole card are 50 percent and her chances of having a low hole card are 50 percent. Okay? So that means it's 50-50.
Therefore, the fact that she has a high up card is meaningless. It means she has a 50 percent chance of having a good hand. Plus she also has a 50 percent chance of having a bad hand. So when you stop and think about it, that's not very strong evidence to base every single play decision that you make on it. It's like basing your play decision on a 50-50 composition. Now, 50-50, that's like flipping a coin. Okay? On the other hand, let's look at it the other way.
On the other way, basic strategy says that when the dealer has a I just gotta get a drink of water here. When the dealer has a low hole card, she has a weak hand. Well, that's not always true either, is it? Because if she has two low cards, she has a pretty good hand usually. I mean, she could have a pair of deuces and have a four. But generally speaking, if she has two low cards, she has a pretty strong hand.
She has a drawing hand. That's a drawing hand, but it's a fairly strong hand. So many, many times the dealer, the basic strategy says that we are in a bad situation when the dealer has a six up. And we are, provided she has a ten with the six or a nine. This is the end of MDJ Weekend Class Tape 3, Side 1. Fast forward to the end in preparation for playing Side 2. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
