| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:05 pm Post subject: Will anyone here dare . |
 |
|
Will anyone here dare give any clue as to how to be a winner for just
one $200 buy in. Math, Superstition, System, Method. You name the time
at the table. Conditions before you start playing. What ever. If it
makes half way sence. I will throw $200 at it. Not looking for flames or
bull Sh-t. Do you have something that has worked for you over a peroid
of time. I'm not looking for the mystic," I have one but if I TOLD YOU i
would have to kill you" shit. Any body here got any thing working! Or
are we all just looking for the luck to kick in from time to time. If so
we a are wasteing a lot of band width. Rex |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Midnight Skulker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 3:01 pm Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
| Quote: | Any body here got any thing working! Or are we all just looking for
the luck to kick in from time to time. If so we a are wasteing a lot
of band width.
|
I wouldn't call discussing betting strategies that fail in the long run
a waste of bandwidth. All betting strategies fail in the long run
absent non-random dice. The purpose of such discussions, then, is (or
should be) to match an individual's utility and risk profiles to a
strategy that will provide the best chance of minimizing risk while
maximizing utility, which could be stated as getting the biggest bang
for the buck.
1 2
| The Midnight Skulker
9 * 3 aka Van Lewis
aka [email protected]
6 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Shank
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 14:31:18 GMT, The Midnight Skulker
<[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | Any body here got any thing working! Or are we all just looking for
the luck to kick in from time to time. If so we a are wasteing a lot
of band width.
I wouldn't call discussing betting strategies that fail in the long run
a waste of bandwidth. All betting strategies fail in the long run
absent non-random dice. The purpose of such discussions, then, is (or
should be) to match an individual's utility and risk profiles to a
strategy that will provide the best chance of minimizing risk while
maximizing utility, which could be stated as getting the biggest bang
for the buck.
|
I taped the re-run gambling programs on the Travel Channel last week.
The section on DI was poorly done, IMO. They didn't present any
explanation of why it would work if the dice could be kept on axis,
and they didn't even discuss keeping them on axis. The few shots of
people tossing the dice were certainly not supportive of the idea.
Some of them showed the entire flight of the dice; others did not. I
watched every throw in slow motion, and in no case did the dice stay
on axis.
The second program contained the most intelligent statement about
gambling that I've ever seen on TV. The "Wizard of Odds" stated that
in Blackjack, good play could reduce the house advantage to less than
..5%, so for every dollar you could expect to get $.995 back, "on
average." Then the announcer actually explained the concept of
variance! A UNLV "Professor of Gaming," Jim Kilby states that people
are actually buying variance when they gamble. This is exactly right.
He points out that, if there were a slot machine that returned exactly
90 cents of every dollar you put in, you'd never play it. People are
buying the OPPORTUNITY to win.
I have harped on this principle on this NG for years, that the
mathematics of probability do not say that you cannot win, but rather
guarantee that some people will win, not because they are influencing
the dice or have some betting system that gives them an advantage, but
simply because they experience positive variance, which is my
definition of good luck.
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MODiceDealer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
On Apr 15 2005 11:35 AM, Alan Shank wrote:
| Quote: | I have harped on this principle on this NG for years, that the
mathematics of probability do not say that you cannot win, but rather
guarantee that some people will win, not because they are influencing
the dice or have some betting system that gives them an advantage, but
simply because they experience positive variance, which is my
definition of good luck.
|
I understand this point (you've made it before), but how does expectation
fit in? If someone makes ten -EV bets, chances are fair that they may end
up a winner. Make 100 -EV bets and that chance declines dramatically.
Are you talking about "long term" winner, or being a winner in any
individual session?
I suppose it's possible for a player to experience more than his or her
fair share of positive variance, but the longer one exposes oneself to the
house edge, however slight, the greater one's chance of ending up a long
term loser, and/or giving back whatever windfall one's positive variance
has given.
MDD
________________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Midnight Skulker
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:02 pm Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
| Quote: | If someone makes ten -EV bets, chances are fair that they may end up a
winner. Make 100 -EV bets and that chance declines dramatically.
|
The chance of being a winner in a negative expectation game does indeed
vary inversely with the number of trials, but it is always greater than
zero (providing the number of trials is finite). Hence, of all the
players who have ever gambled and will ever gamble, a few of them are
expected to be lifetime winners.
1 2
| The Midnight Skulker
9 * 3 aka Van Lewis
aka [email protected]
6 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Shank
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:02 pm Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 05:17:49 -0700, "MODiceDealer"
<[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | On Apr 15 2005 11:35 AM, Alan Shank wrote:
I have harped on this principle on this NG for years, that the
mathematics of probability do not say that you cannot win, but rather
guarantee that some people will win, not because they are influencing
the dice or have some betting system that gives them an advantage, but
simply because they experience positive variance, which is my
definition of good luck.
I understand this point (you've made it before), but how does expectation
fit in? If someone makes ten -EV bets, chances are fair that they may end
up a winner. Make 100 -EV bets and that chance declines dramatically.
Are you talking about "long term" winner, or being a winner in any
individual session?
|
I am talking about both; the only difference is the number of bets
involved. Of course, the more bets you make, the less likely you are
to be ahead. The reason for this is that the expectation (negative)
increases linearly with the number of bets, while the standard
deviation (variance, which gives you a chance to win) increases only
with the square root of the number of bets. For a small number of
bets, the SD is much greater than the ev, but that relationship
changes as more and more bets are made. At the point where the ev
equals the standard deviation, you must be 1 SD better than
expectation to break even. The probability of that is .1587. As more
and more bets are made, the probability of any given player remaining
ahead gets smaller and smaller. However, there are millions and
millions of players.
| Quote: |
I suppose it's possible for a player to experience more than his or her
fair share of positive variance,
|
Not only possible, but certain.
| Quote: | but the longer one exposes oneself to the
house edge, however slight, the greater one's chance of ending up a long
term loser, and/or giving back whatever windfall one's positive variance
has given.
|
That's absolutely true. The longer you play, the less likely you are
to be ahead, but people DO win the lottery, don't they, against odds
of millions to one?
I ran a few numbers for you.
For 20,000 $5 passline bets, taking 3,4,5X odds, the ev is -$1414 and
the SD 3475, so you only have to be about .4 SD above expectation to
break even, probability .3446.
Every time you double the number of bets, you double the negative ev,
but the SD only goes up by a factor of 1.414 (square root of two). So:
# bets ev SD need probability
40,000 -2828 4914 .575 .2810
80,000 -5656 6949 .814 .2090
160,000 -11312 9827 1.151 .1251
320,000 -22624 13897 1.627 .0516
Well, you get the idea. Playing like this, you still have about a
1-in-20 chance to break even or better after over 10,000 hours of
play. The reason is twofold: you are only exposing about 1/4 of your
bet handle to the small 1.4% house advantage, and your variance
(actually SD) per bet of almost five times your bet amount. This is
what keeps the ev/SD ratio, which is what determines the probability
of breaking even, down. However, don't forget that it also means your
negative variance will be greater. That .0516 probability of breaking
even is balanced by the same probability of being down 45,000 or more!
High variance cuts both ways.
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:13 pm Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
Any shooter is more likely to make their first point than any subsequent
points. By reducing the wager for subsequent points - down to nothing for a
3rd point - you will make money on shooters who actually make their first
point. For example, place the line for $18 on the 6 or 8 for the first
point. Then only place the line for $6 for the second point, if it is a 6
or 8. If the second point loses, you'll still be up $15.
There is usually plenty of time to play the Don't Pass or Don't Come. These
can help to maintain are more stable bankroll. Just use the table minumu
and single odds or use Doey Don't for Don't Pass, unless you have a system
for Don't. In my view, if your system doesn't allow for playing the Don't,
then you should definately not bet on anything for some of the points. For
example, you might choose not to bet on people who often throw the dice off
the table, against the mirror, on into the layout. Just pick a few people
that you hate, and remain consistent.
The primary reason people lose a bankroll is that they overbet. I define
overbetting as having more than 5% or your bankroll on the table at any
time. With only 1 bet on the table at a time, you will need to spend more
time at the table to reach a target win or loss. In this time you will
observe a wider variation of play for whatever "system" you play.
Stick with whatever system you are using. If you are beating yourself up
for not following your own rules, it can affect your concentration. You'll
only be able to evaluate a system after you have played it correctly for
many sessions. You should be able to mentally review a session and remember
the few times that you did not abide by the rules in effect for your
"system".
Don't play a half-empty tables or tables where people don't have any money.
With people coming and going all the time, you may have less certainty about
when to bet. These are poor conditions for testing any system, except
perhaps "precision shooting". It is always better to play at full tables
where people have the intention of playing craps for a while, and you will
have the opportunity observe a high number of decisions during the session.
If you are betting less money on each point, you need more points per hour
to reach your target win or loss.
Thanks
"Alan Shank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 05:17:49 -0700, "MODiceDealer"
[email protected]> wrote:
On Apr 15 2005 11:35 AM, Alan Shank wrote:
I have harped on this principle on this NG for years, that the
mathematics of probability do not say that you cannot win, but rather
guarantee that some people will win, not because they are influencing
the dice or have some betting system that gives them an advantage, but
simply because they experience positive variance, which is my
definition of good luck.
I understand this point (you've made it before), but how does expectation
fit in? If someone makes ten -EV bets, chances are fair that they may
end
up a winner. Make 100 -EV bets and that chance declines dramatically.
Are you talking about "long term" winner, or being a winner in any
individual session?
I am talking about both; the only difference is the number of bets
involved. Of course, the more bets you make, the less likely you are
to be ahead. The reason for this is that the expectation (negative)
increases linearly with the number of bets, while the standard
deviation (variance, which gives you a chance to win) increases only
with the square root of the number of bets. For a small number of
bets, the SD is much greater than the ev, but that relationship
changes as more and more bets are made. At the point where the ev
equals the standard deviation, you must be 1 SD better than
expectation to break even. The probability of that is .1587. As more
and more bets are made, the probability of any given player remaining
ahead gets smaller and smaller. However, there are millions and
millions of players.
I suppose it's possible for a player to experience more than his or her
fair share of positive variance,
Not only possible, but certain.
but the longer one exposes oneself to the
house edge, however slight, the greater one's chance of ending up a long
term loser, and/or giving back whatever windfall one's positive variance
has given.
That's absolutely true. The longer you play, the less likely you are
to be ahead, but people DO win the lottery, don't they, against odds
of millions to one?
I ran a few numbers for you.
For 20,000 $5 passline bets, taking 3,4,5X odds, the ev is -$1414 and
the SD 3475, so you only have to be about .4 SD above expectation to
break even, probability .3446.
Every time you double the number of bets, you double the negative ev,
but the SD only goes up by a factor of 1.414 (square root of two). So:
# bets ev SD need probability
40,000 -2828 4914 .575 .2810
80,000 -5656 6949 .814 .2090
160,000 -11312 9827 1.151 .1251
320,000 -22624 13897 1.627 .0516
Well, you get the idea. Playing like this, you still have about a
1-in-20 chance to break even or better after over 10,000 hours of
play. The reason is twofold: you are only exposing about 1/4 of your
bet handle to the small 1.4% house advantage, and your variance
(actually SD) per bet of almost five times your bet amount. This is
what keeps the ev/SD ratio, which is what determines the probability
of breaking even, down. However, don't forget that it also means your
negative variance will be greater. That .0516 probability of breaking
even is balanced by the same probability of being down 45,000 or more!
High variance cuts both ways.
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Shank
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:58 pm Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 02:57:20 -0700, "Coy" <[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | Any shooter is more likely to make their first point than any subsequent
points.
|
This is nonsense. Why would that be true?
| Quote: | By reducing the wager for subsequent points - down to nothing for a
3rd point - you will make money on shooters who actually make their first
point.
|
No, you will make more money on shooters who make their first point,
then seven out. You will make less money on shooters who make several
points.
| Quote: | For example, place the line for $18 on the 6 or 8 for the first
point.
|
What are you talking about? Place the line on the 6 or 8? What does
that mean? Do you know how to play craps?
(snipped a bunch more superstitious bullshit)
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 12:58 am Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
The dice passes away from any shooter that doesn't make their first point.
They don't get to shoot for a 2nd point. again until the dice complete a
clockwize rotaation around the table. You can generally count on one hand
the number of shooters who get to make 3rd, 4th, 5th points during a
session. Most people bet the same or press their Pass Line bets for
subsequent points. This means they are less likely to keep profits until
after the third pass.
Of course if people aren't making their 1st points, it may be appropriate to
bet on the Don't. Anyway, I was trying to make the point that you don't
need to bet on subsequent points when you can get out with a profit after
the 2nd or possible 3rd point. That should be an okay strategy for choppy
tables where someone is risk adverse, especially for people who are learning
the game. It works okay, although it doesn't make a lot of money quckly.
Try this if you play craps: put $18 on the white line that is the edge of
the Pass Line if the number is 6 or 8. You will be placing the point! You
can also take this bet down later, unlike a Pass Line bet.
Blackjack players don't care which table they play at. This is not true for
craps, at least not for all strategies. If your system requires steady play,
full tables are better than half-empty tables. If you don't believe you get
more decisions per hour out of a full table, go watch one for an hour. Then
go watch a half-empty table.
I need a lot of decisions for my sessions, so I consider this a benefit.
If I felt I could shoot dice well, I might feel differently about such
issues. However, when I play like this I am able to buy in one time, and
stay at the table for several hours. In that time there are usually several
good shoots. If I came and died in and hour, I would not be around to
particiapte that actiion. I'm somewhat risk adverse, so this is also a
factor in how many chips I have on the table.
"Alan Shank" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 02:57:20 -0700, "Coy" <[email protected]> wrote:
Any shooter is more likely to make their first point than any subsequent
points.
This is nonsense. Why would that be true?
By reducing the wager for subsequent points - down to nothing for a
3rd point - you will make money on shooters who actually make their
first
point.
No, you will make more money on shooters who make their first point,
then seven out. You will make less money on shooters who make several
points.
For example, place the line for $18 on the 6 or 8 for the first
point.
What are you talking about? Place the line on the 6 or 8? What does
that mean? Do you know how to play craps?
(snipped a bunch more superstitious bullshit)
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mason
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:58 am Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
"Coy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: |
Blackjack players don't care which table they play at. This is not true for
craps, at least not for all strategies. If your system requires steady play,
full tables are better than half-empty tables. If you don't believe you get
more decisions per hour out of a full table, go watch one for an hour. Then
go watch a half-empty table.
|
Can you explain the mechanism that exists at a full table that causes more
decisions per hour than a half-empty table?
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 5:58 pm Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
Losing tables fall apart with regularity, and can stay empty for several
minutes. This is sometimes easy to observe at the top of the hour, when
people were planning to leave, with other players. The remaining players
may simply perform a mass exodus if other tables are available. I will
leave, because I generally pass the dice anyway.
On half-empty tables, people who bet on shooters have more uncertainty, so
the game proceeds more slowly. The dealers can try and speed up game, but
not everyone will appreciate it. If points aren't being made, eventually
enough people lose hope and the table collapses. People think they know
what the same shooters are going to do, the next time. More people are
passing the dice, which also slows down the rhythm somewhat.
On full tables, people will put their money down in unison after every
decision, like robots. If the table is or was recently "hot", people will
keep playing, waiting for some shooter, just around the hook, they think
they know will shoot well. There is a more stable rhythm and pace. I don't
know, but I believe the dealers like being in this zone, because it is less
interruptive for them. Of course the speed of the dealers also affects the
rhythm and can be a reason to change tables. Also, if there many
proposition bets in play, the stickman can be a choke point for payoffs and
affect the rhythm.
"Mason" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | "Coy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Blackjack players don't care which table they play at. This is not true
for
craps, at least not for all strategies. If your system requires steady
play,
full tables are better than half-empty tables. If you don't believe you
get
more decisions per hour out of a full table, go watch one for an hour.
Then
go watch a half-empty table.
Can you explain the mechanism that exists at a full table that causes more
decisions per hour than a half-empty table?
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Shank
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:11:17 -0700, "Coy" <[email protected]> wrote:
| Quote: | The dice passes away from any shooter that doesn't make their first point.
They don't get to shoot for a 2nd point. again until the dice complete a
clockwize rotaation around the table. You can generally count on one hand
the number of shooters who get to make 3rd, 4th, 5th points during a
session. Most people bet the same or press their Pass Line bets for
subsequent points. This means they are less likely to keep profits until
after the third pass.
|
Hmmm, I smell the one of the Gambler's Fallacies in there. The
probability of a player making two points is not the same after he/she
has made one point. The average probability of making a point is .406,
the weighted average of the probabilities of making a 4/10, 5/9 and
6/8. So, the probability of making two points is .1648. However, this
DOES NOT mean that, after a player has made a point, the probability
is .1648 of making another one.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!!!
The probability of making two points, having made one is ----------
..406
Cheers,
Alan Shank
| Quote: | Try this if you play craps: put $18 on the white line that is the edge of
the Pass Line if the number is 6 or 8. You will be placing the point! You
can also take this bet down later, unlike a Pass Line bet.
|
OK, this is NOT a line bet at all.
Cheers,
Alan Shank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gregg Cattanach
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:58 pm Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
Coy wrote:
| Quote: |
Blackjack players don't care which table they play at. This is not
true for craps, at least not for all strategies. If your system
requires steady play, full tables are better than half-empty tables.
If you don't believe you get more decisions per hour out of a full
table, go watch one for an hour. Then go watch a half-empty table.
|
If you want to get the maximum number of decisions per hour, you want the
maximum number of dice rolls in an hour. The simplest way to achieve this is
to play alone. The more players, the more bets have to be made and paid
off, thus the fewer rolls per hour.
You're mistaken and have it exactly backwards.
The table can't 'collapse' unless you stop playing as well.
--
Gregg C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mason
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:58 am Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
"Coy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | Okay on the odds, so look what happens with a distribution. The odds help
explain a distribution where 5 in a row always happens less than 4, 3, 2 in
a row. Don't you agree? Why shouldn't I take advantage for this.
|
You shouldn't take "advantage for this" because you can't take "advantage for
this". Past rolls have NOTHING to do with the odds of the current roll of the
dice or with the probablity for making a new pass. There is nothing in past
events that gives you an advantage in current events.
NOTHING!
Focus on what you can bet on! You can't bet on past events. Drop them from
your thinking. The house makes no referance to past events when it books your
bet, does it? You should try very hard to be at least as sharp as the house
when it comes to understanding the game that they offer.
That's only common sense. You should always look very carefully and become
knowledgeable of the dynamic which drives the bets when the bookie sets the
game.
--
Onward thru the fog,
Mason |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coy
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:58 am Post subject: Re: Will anyone here dare . |
|
|
Okay, so you're getting more decisions per minute by shooting by yourself.
However, you won't be alone for long. You'll may have to move to a similar
table very soon after you start hitting making your points. You could play
in the middle of the night or early morning and more easily find empty
tables. This won't work for people, who want to play in the evening and
late night. At night times almost all tables would have several players,
certainly wher I play and probably in Las Vegas. I think the realistic
operational choice is between tables that are full, building, or collasped.
I'd always choose a full table unless I'm playing with some friends.
For my part, I think I could throw dice for about an hour before my arm got
tired. Not a bad idea for some experiment, but I could also use the
computer for that.
"Gregg Cattanach" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Quote: | Coy wrote:
Blackjack players don't care which table they play at. This is not
true for craps, at least not for all strategies. If your system
requires steady play, full tables are better than half-empty tables.
If you don't believe you get more decisions per hour out of a full
table, go watch one for an hour. Then go watch a half-empty table.
If you want to get the maximum number of decisions per hour, you want the
maximum number of dice rolls in an hour. The simplest way to achieve this
is
to play alone. The more players, the more bets have to be made and paid
off, thus the fewer rolls per hour.
You're mistaken and have it exactly backwards.
The table can't 'collapse' unless you stop playing as well.
--
Gregg C.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.11 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
