You can lose $20 in a session, lose $10 in a session and win $100 in a session. You are a 333 hitter. But you have won $70. I think the sports analogies are only analogies to give us an understanding but I wouldn’t do any complex math based on them.

"BarnabusD" wrote: You can lose $20 in a session, lose $10 in a session and win $100 in a session. You are a 333 hitter. But you have won $70. I think the sports analogies are only analogies to give us an understanding but I wouldn’t do any complex math based on them.

That’s hardly complicated. It just barely goes beyond adding and subtracting. Are you familiar with the axioms "Make your money on the 10+ to 20+ rolls" and "How much should I be winning at the tables?"

"Agame" wrote:
Is the math wrong?

You missed the part of the article that said, "Over 56 sessions, the player has 23 winning sessions and 33 losing sessions.". You see I got this data from a controlled shooter. So this is actual data for a player, not a theoretical analogy. Try your math on this data.

"Skinny" wrote: [quote="Agame"]
Is the math wrong?

You missed the part of the article that said, "Over 56 sessions, the player has 23 winning sessions and 33 losing sessions.". You see I got this data from a controlled shooter. So this is actual data for a player, not a theoretical analogy. Try your math on this data.

I did… and over 56 sessions, at a losing rate of 70%, that controlled shooter would have lost 39.2 sessions (round to 39—I really can’t complicated math.)

However, I didn’t know you had obtained that data from an actual live person. I stand corrected on that.

Question, though: Over how long a period of time was that data gathered? From how many sources (shooters)? I’ve seen you discourage assumptions and beliefs gathered from limited sources and over anything other than the long run (as you properly and duly should), as they are not scientific.

I must still be doing something wrong.

23 winning sessions and 33 losing sessions.

This is not a 30%/70% win/loss ratio. It is a 41%/59% win/loss ratio for 1 shooter over the course of 1 year. But if you look at the units of wins and losses in the article you will see that most of the wins are moderate with a handful of larger wins. More importantly, the losses are relatively small with a lesser amount of large losses.

23 X $240 = $5520

33 X $105 = $3465

I am not saying this is a scientific study. The point of the article is to give everyone a realistic expectation of wins and losses in terms of how much they wager. It is unrealistic for a player who has a $60 initial amount at risk to expect to walk away with thousands. You also should not be frustrated with several small wins. Your objective as a controlled shooter should be to play under optimal conditions when you are in the best position to take advantage of your skill. Then limit your time at the table so as to optimize your effectiveness. Consistency over the long run is the name of the game. Discipline and control will win out in the end.

"Skinny" wrote:

This is not a 30%/70% win/loss ratio…
Consistency over the long run is the name of the game. Discipline and control will win out in the end.

The above is well understood by me. The same goes for realistic expectations and etc.

My point is that taking into account the .300 hitter analogy so often repeated and defended in the past, as well as the 4 x initial amount at risk for a realistic win, and lastly the 1.75 x initial amount at risk for losses, the player will come out a loser.

I don’t see the "automatic loser" as automatic.

rember when he talk about the 300 hitter he says that one out of three time you will get a hit which is actually 333.

what about the winning hands where the win is bigger how are you factoring for that?

Are you just trying to say that there number do not work, hence busting there balls.

lmao

really sounds like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Or should i say looks like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What is your srr?

So you have the shot that a ten percenter has?

Wondering because you have the wants of a ten percenter.

Maybe a tune up and alot of practice away from it.

Do you think the 3oo hitter is used to point out the fact that very few will achieve success in this, when i took the classes that is how i took it that very few of us will prosper at this.

So there is 15 300 hitters in the al this year so far as of today

there is 10 in the nl

25 total out of 500 plus players not including pitchers that is 5%

This is a very difficult thing we do.

So there are 15 300 hitters in the American League this year, as of today.

There are 10 in the National League.

25 total out of 500 plus players(not including pitchers) that is 5%.

This is a very difficult thing we do.

One of my favorite casinos know these statistics and know that there are many shooter attempting to be dice controllers.

They encouragr them because they still believe that there will be enough losers.

Analogies are just analogies. The real thing, winning money, is the real thing. I think we are confusing the two.

"CharlesL" wrote: Analogies are just analogies. The real thing, winning money, is the real thing. I think we are confusing the two.

That would be a GREAT thing to say to Skinny.

"brothelman" wrote: rember when he talk about the 300 hitter he says that one out of three time you will get a hit which is actually 333. what about the winning hands where the win is bigger how are you factoring for that? Are you just trying to say that there number do not work, hence busting there balls.

Sorry, I actually don’t remember that that was factored into craps as well. Meaning, that .333 was mathematically or at least empirically supposed to mirror a craps player’s experience (in the long run). Was I supposed to use .333 instead of .300 completely? When does the .333 happen instead of the .300?

Do you remember Dan Pronovost’s article about hand legth? I won’t offer up a variable based on my beliefs or short-term observations because this forum believes that to be unwise, and with good reason. I can’t seem to find the post now, but if you do and paste the link after you’re done reading it, it will hopefully bring you up to speed and disavow you of the "ball busting" opinion you have formed. No worthwhile intellectual exercise should be put off on account of that.

"brothelman" wrote: lmao
really sounds like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or should i say looks like it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It looks like the math doesn’t add up to you as well? You know, these two pieces of wisdom can’t be offered up, repeated and defended every time they cast positive light, and then dismissed when they are questioned or found to be in contradiction with one another, or with other accepted wisdom that was offered, repeated and defended before.

"brothelman" wrote: What is your srr?
So you have the shot that a ten percenter has?
Wondering because you have the wants of a ten percenter.
Maybe a tune up and alot of practice away from it.

I didn’t write a novel about my wants and desires, I took two oft-repeated pieces of wisdom and did some basic math—with a calculator, as I have no math skills. I have yet to hear something this patronizing from even the people I have actually played with and that have seen my shot and flubs. This sort of passionate "yes-manship" instead of cool reasoning, accompanied by derision that is totally uncalled for as well as uneducated guesses offered up in a superior, unkind manner, leaves you in constant need to be reined in and does not foster dialogue. The ‘buddy-up’ system that emerges right after someone writes a paragraph like this is also distracting.

I am also a craps player and my continued presence on this website for years now, with trip reports to boot, should be some indication of my opinion. I saw no dismissive attitudes when those posts first came up. No one said, "These are just analogies, making money is the real thing." Because that’s what I thought when they first came up. Very little is involved in the actual money-making aspect of craps and overly analytical views don’t appeal to me, though they don’t seem to bother the usual suspects when they come up. I shone a simple calculator on numbers and hypothesis repeated ad nauseum before and I get this??? I shouldn’t have to appease the Gods of Dissenting Points of View with a disclaimer before posting so that I can get something other than biased dismissals.

Starting point: .300 Hitter performance vs Win Expectation vs Loss Expectation = ??? Missing something, maybe???

Mid Point: Do the math on this (it was done, hence the post). Subtle Condescension. Dismissal. Put downs.

End Point: Total and utter garbage of a post, with some communication breakdown for dessert.

Enjoy.

"CIII" wrote:

One of my favorite casinos know these statistics and know that there are many shooter attempting to be dice controllers. They encouragr them because they still believe that there will be enough losers.

Smart casino!! 🙂
Remember when they would let people have card counting books on them while playing? 🙂
And it seemed that for a while they encouraged card counting because they knew they’d still make a ton of money on the losers?
I think it’s the same principle.

My point there is only 5% of all batters that hit 300 and they all make money at this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My take on the 300 hitter thing is this they are few and far between so very few of us will make money at this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So in a nut shell i am saying you are looking at it all wrong.

I do agree that very and i mean very few succed at this.

I see the 300 hitter as the top 5% who are making money.

I do not see the 300 hitter as one who wins 3 out of every 10 times he plays.

In all the classes i took Frank says a 300 hitter gets on base 1 out of 3 times

So the question is are they blowing smoke up everyones ass, or are they offering hope and encouragment to all who want to beat the casinos?

Please do not discount the fact that a 300 hitter gets walked constantly because of his skills and a walk is as good as a hit but it doesn,t get reflected in his batting average.

So when you factor in the walks a 300 hitter gets on base371 times out of 1000

So using a calculator for the simple math we take
371*240=89040

629*105= 66045

That is a positive number of 22,995 is that what you get?

Oh yes where did i get my numbers from i looked up all 300 hitters as of today added their walks to there hits, then i divided the new total into all there at bats including walks and came up with the number of times they reach base.

Now i took all of the new averages of the 300 hitters added them all togather and divided them by the total of 300 hitters and came out with a average of 371, why because a walk is as good as a hit.

Hitters are paid to get on base so they can score runs because runs win the game it is a stat called an on base percentage all great hitters get walked muched more often than normal hitters it is a fact, so when figuring wheather the pitcher ie the casino won or the hitter ie the shooter won you have to add these numbers in.

Wow now i am really showing my brown nose lmao, or is it just simple math with all the facts.

Now keep in mind there is ony 5% of all players in the game doing this.

Hitting 300 or better [ie a ob% 371 aka winning trips to the plate].

brothelman,

May I count my comps as walks???

CIII, Thanks!! 😀 😛 😎
And that’s an interesting question about the walks = comps. I think in craps, whatever helps is good.

Brothelman, that was a lot of info I actually didn’t know about. But yes, if the number now becomes .371, for all ends and purposes of my initial post, the outcome is a positive one! Thanks.

No i believe that comps are pure bonus money.

Now do not kid yourself the house keeps a tight eye on the comps, i believe that when the boys got asked to leave the fountain joint that it was due to the amount of comps they where earning at the pai gow table by taking the house edge away from the house by playing the way they teach.

Yes the way they play the house edge is basically 0 at the paigow table.

So now take a 0 house expectation and a comp value of200 dollars daily that is big!

Skinny can tell you what the exact amount is or n2s or the pointman or stick any of you help me out here please.

Agame,
I love this post, it asks the hard question. I look at this GTC thing as a way to make it a neutral game, get the odds back to even and then try to take advantage of that shift. w/o this "policy" of play, we would still be way in the red. Again, great post and good replies!
Happy to roll with you any time! THAT is the fun part… get a few of us at a table, with an even game… GAME ON!
good luck this Fall,
Tom/Griz

This thread cracks me up. I think it is pointless to run craps numbers in a theoretical way like this.

Craps is not blackjack. You can not run a simulation to give you meaningful statistics. It is simply not possible because the numbers change based upon your personal skill and many other factors.

The best thing to do is gather a reasonable amount of your own test rolls at home and then extrapolate from that data what you may or may not expect. This .300 hitter analogy is just that and should not be used to to try to calculate expectation.

Trying to glean meaningful data from this logic will drive you nuts.

If you have 1000 or best 5000 rolls then we can get all kinds of great data for you but not much without that.