I’m waiting for Skinny to respond.

Catch you later!

I forgot to mention:

On the 6/8 : -.91 / $40 is a HA of 2.275%
On the 5/9 : $2 / $40 is a HA of 5.000%
On the 4/10: $3.33 / $40 is a HA of 8.325%

Placing the $44 inside: .42 / $44 is a HA of 0.955 %

My SSR is just above a Cfer so way would I go up that much when I dont do it on myself ? After the 5 count THEY are passed their SSR . That seems a lot to risk on some one that you know nothing about .
Skinny will or can tell you more about what you want . Just my .01 worth for now .
Good Rolling. 😀 😀

Remember that you only win one bet at a time but you lose ALL if you are a right side bettor when a 7 shows. Seems like lots of risk for little reward unless a long hand develops. And you would need about four hits or a little less just to cover the initial $44. Of course, if the Come bet number never repeats then that is a loser too. Maybe on random rollers go one hit and then come down totally or regress. At least you are only at risk for a toss or two. I know this doesn’t answer the math questions and the math is still the math but this is just my two cents worth.

I’m no math whiz, but I think I see a slight flaw.

For the 5 and 9: 4 ways each to win $14 times 8 = $112.
For the 6 and 8: 5 ways each to win $14 times 10 = $140.
For the 7: 6 ways to lose $44 for a total of $264

The expected value for 6 or 8 is: 5 ways to win times $46 = $230. 6 ways to lose times $40 = 240. Expected value = -10 / 11 = – $ .91
The expected value for 5 or 9 is: 4 ways to win times $55 = $220. 6 ways to lose times $40 = 240. Expected value = -20 / 10 = – $2.00
The expected value for 4 or 10 is: 3 ways to win times $70 = $210. 6 ways to lose times $40 = 240. Expected value = -30 / 9 = – $3.33

When you are calculating $44 inside, you are only counting the 6 times 7 appear once for all 4 inside wagers. For the come bet you calculate the EV based on the chances of winning or losing the bet. You have the 6/8 come bet winning 5 and losing 6, but the 6/8 place bet winning 10 and only losing 6. Total potential losses for $44 inside are 18 wins vs 24 losses.

Again, I am not a math whiz, but something just doesn’t look right. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will chime in.

First of all House Advantage (HA) and Expected Value (EV) are the same thing. One is expressed as a percentage and the other is expressed in the monetary units that you are wagering.

HA represents the percentage the house can expect to win or lose on a given wager in the long run.
EV represents the amount of money the house can expect to win or lose on the same wager over the long run.

For example, if the HA on a given wager is 5%, the house can expect to win 5% of all the money that is made on that bet over the long run. The EV on that wager would be 5% of all the money that is made on that bet over the long run.

Thus if the house has a 5% HA on a given bet and the folks wager $100,000 on that bet over a long period of time, the house has an EV of $5,000 on that wager from the $100,000 that is bet on it. That is because 5% of $100,000 is equal to $5,000.

Second of all there are numerous flaws in your calculations which may be why you concluded that HA and EV are two different things. Sevenout pointed out one of the flaws. Another one is that your denominator is not correct in your calculations for $44 inside. Then there is the fact that you completely ignored the EV of winning your come bet on the come out roll. You only calculate the EV after the point is made. Another point is that you can not look at the EV for the come bet the way you do on each point separately and then try to claim that it is one $40 wager. Actually, I have no idea what your calculation is calculating.

If you want to look at calculating the HA/EV on a come bet by looking at all the possible outcomes, there are 1980 possible situations that can occur. You have to look at each one of those. I can explain that for you if you want but so as not to belabor this response I am going to give a simpler explanation. If you want me to justify it, I can go over the 1980 situations to prove what I am going to say is indeed accurate and factual.

If you were to make a $10 come bet with $30 in odds, the only money that would be at risk would be the $10. That is because the house does not pay the true odds of winning that bet. But the house does pay the true odds on the odds portion of the come bet so you will not win or lose any money on the $30 odds that you wager. The EV on the odds portion of the bet is 0. We know that the HA on a come bet is 1.41%. Thus the EV on a $10 come bet is -$0.14.

If you make a $10 come bet with $30 in odds your EV is to lose 14 cents and the HA would be 0.47%.

When you wager $44 inside the EV would be calculated as follows.

You can expect to win your wager on the 5 or 9, 40% of the time and lose 60% of the time.
Your expected value on the 5 and 9 is 40% of $28 or $11.20 minus 60% of $20 or $12 which equals -$0.80.
Your expected value on the 6 and 8 is 5/11 of $28 or $12.73 minus 6/11 of $24 or $13.09 which equal -$0.36.
The EV on the $44 wager is the sum of the minus 80 cents and minus 36 cents or -$1.16.

When you make a $10 come bet with $30 in odds you can expect to lose 14 cents (-$0.14).
When you bet $44 inside you can expect to lose one dollar and 16 cents (-$1.16).
Clearly it is better to make a $10 come bet with $30 in odds than betting $44 inside.

The HA on a $10 come bet with $30 in odds is 0.47%.
The HA on the $44 inside bet is 2.64%.
The HA is much less on the come bet with odds than on the place bets.

I decided to demonstrate how to arrive at the HA/EV for a come bet by showing the 1980 possible situations that can occur in a separate response for those who are interested. Let us say that the dice roll exactly according to their probabilities in every situation. I will make 1,980 come bets of $10 each. Following is how much I can expect to win or lose for each of the possible outcomes in those 1,980 wagers.

I can expect to see the following results if the dice perform exactly according to their probabilities.
I will roll exactly:

055 twos losing $550
110 threes losing $1,100
165 fours winning $550 and losing $1,100
220 fives winning $880 and losing $1,320
275 sixes winning $1,250 and losing $1,500
330 sevens winning $3,300
275 eights winning $1,250 and losing $1,500
220 nines winning $880 and losing $1,320
165 tens winning $550 and losing $1,100
110 elevens winning $1,100
055 twelves losing $550

Adding the winnings (550+880+1250+3300+1250+880+550+1100) = 9760
Adding the losings (550+1100+1100+1,320+1500+1500+1,320+1100+550) = 10040

The EV when wagering $19,800 in come bets is $9,760 – $10,040 = -$280.
Since this is looking at making 1,980 $10 come bets, if I want to calculate what my EV would be for a single $10 come bet I have to divide my EV for the 1,980 $10 come bets by 1,980.
That calculation results in -$280/1980 = -$0.14
This is the same 14 cent loss that I showed in the previous post above for a $10 come bet with $30 in odds.

If you want me to prove that the $30 odds portion of the bet has a 0 EV all I have to do is add in a $30 odds bet to each of the above point numbers that can be thrown and determine how much will be won or lost. I will only show it for the points of 4,5 and 6 since it will yield the identical result for the sister numbers of 8,9 and 10.

Looking at only the odds portion of the bet I can expect the following:

165 fours will win $60 55 times for $3,300 and lose $30 110 times for -$3,300. EV = $3,300 – $3,300 = 0
220 fives will win $45 88 times for $3,960 and lose $30 132 times for -$3,960. EV = $3,960 – $3,960 = 0
275 sixes will win $36 125 times for $4,500 and lose $30 150 times for -$4,500. EV = $4,500 – $4,500 = 0

This shows how the odds portion of the bet has an EV of 0.

To determine the HA I want to look at the number of wagers I win or lose divided by the total number of wagers made times 100 to express the result as a percentage.

If I make 1980 come bets I can expect to win 976 and lose 1004. I will have a net loss of 28 wagers out of the 1980 that I made. The percentage of wagers I can expect to lose is (28/1980) X 100 = 1.41%.
The result is a positive 1.41% HA for the house.

Thus for a $10 come bet with $30 in odds:
EV = negative 14 cents
HA = 0.47%

I just knew it would be worth waiting for Skinny’s post.
Thanks Skinny

Catch you later!

Wow! I used this calculation for years and this was the first time someone was able to punch a hole in it.

I stand corrected. Skinny is the master. <I bow to you,> I will admit that I am wrong and thank you for teaching me something new.

You’re right I missed the first roll and never realized how powerful it was. I won’t argue with the math.

This reminds of the following proof:

1. Let a = b 1. Given
2. a^2 = ab 2. Multiply both sides by a
3. a^2 – b^2 = ab – b2 3. Subtract b^2 from both sides
4. (a + b)(a – b) = b( a- b) 4. Factoring (sum and difference on the left), pulling out the b on the right
5. a + b = b 5. Divide both sides by (a – b)
6. b + b = b 6. A and B are interchangeable (Statement 1)
7. 2b = b 7. b + b = 2b
8. 2 = 1 8. Divide both sides by b

There’s a flaw in this because will all know 2 = 1 is false. Can you find it?

Since a = b, (a – b) = 0

In step 5 you are dividing both sides of the equation by zero.

The result of anything divided by 0 is undefined.

Step 5 is not correct. Instead of a + b = b it should state:

Undefined = Undefined

You are good. 😀

Thank you. :geek: :geek: :geek:

Now that we have the math I just want to know if this is a better bet after the 5 count or before since it is on a CFer that we no nothing about .
Also does the HA change any in extended rolls ?
Is there vary many out there that bet this much on CFers ? I use to bet more on them before I took the class but now I bet vary little if any .That has helped my BR a lot .
RFink I wonder if you use the 5 count on yourself or do you just go up right off the get go ?
I think we all got some from this post .
I agree with Getagrip that it seems that you need to win a lot of rolls after the 5 count to get your money back on a CFer .Which is way past their SSR .’
Good Rolling. 😀 😀

From WarGames (1983)

[after playing out all possible outcomes for Global Thermonuclear War]

Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.

Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.

Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

That is your answer for betting on CFers.

The only winning move is not to play.
You will not lose any money on CFers if you do not make any bets on them.

The next best move is to 5 count them (or more) and then make one single come bet on them (with or without odds – it does not matter).

The worst possible bet on a CFer is to bet on them right away and/or to make several other bets on them.

Now that we have the math I just want to know if this is a better bet after the 5 count or before since it is on a CFer that we no nothing about .

You will lose less money if you make this bet after the 5 count. You can not win money in the long run betting on CFer’s, you can only control the amount you lose by betting less on them.

Also does the HA change any in extended rolls ?

No, the HA is the same on every roll of the dice regardless of the number of rolls that have been made before. The dice do not know how many rolls have been made. They have no memory.

I use to bet more on them before I took the class but now I bet vary little if any .That has helped my BR a lot .

Congratulations, I am extremely proud of you for changing your habits. It could not have been easy for you since that was an old habit from many years of playing the old way. It is rewarding to hear that it has helped your BR. That is the ultimate goal.

Skinny because I set the dice does this make me better than a cfer?

Or could it make me worse?

I believe that very few dice setters have any control and a lot of them at times influence the dice in a negative way because they developed bad habits fail to listen at class.

Isn’t negative control still control? Honestly, I am not one who believes in negative control but it will be interesting to see what Skinny and others think. I do believe in no control which equals a random roller and that certainly has negative expectations.

I did not say negative control I said negative influence.

With negative influence you have no control.

Influence being the grip the release the arm swing how you do it all.

Thumb off center causing the perfect looking seven.

turning your wrist under causing the perfect seven.

None parallel flight causing the dice to go east and west not north and south.

opening the hand causing the big bounce o the perfect looking shoot.

turning the backswing in towards your body causing the side wards hop.

so on and so on every shoot has the ability to look great Get a grip you remember when we played we had a group member that had issues with the wrist twist he threw the best looking sevens the shoot looked perfect until you looked at it closely, my point is you must listen to what you are taught by all the instructors so you take home all the tools to make your shoot your own.

Each instructor will give you different advice some of it will help some wont at this point and time but keep it all knowledge of the shoot and what it is to do is the key you must have a great understanding of the shoot and how it works to make it work.

Now you can always just have fun with it to, but do not kid yourself into thinking that it is not work and I mean work.

You both seem to be asking me to answer the following question:

Is it possible for individuals to be able to influence the dice in such a way as to have what could be termed "negative influence" on a regular basis?

In theory I suppose it is possible for someone to develop a poor grip or bad technique in the execution of a controlled throw that can be "perfected" with practice so that the end result is one that consistently results in tosses that are much worse than random. I say in theory because I do not know of anyone who has proven that they do this.

I believe in science and math when it comes to gambling and controlled shooting. While I have anecdotal evidence from personal experience and observations with friends to feel that it is possible to get a positive advantage over the house with a controlled throw, I don’t give a lot of credence to that information. However I know of enough people who have been able to pass all three tests in smart craps to know without a doubt that a controlled throw can be developed and executed. Smart craps tests your ability to keep the dice on axis, avoid double pitches and throw hard ways using the hard way set. In order to pass each one of those three tests you have to be able to execute a throw that is 3 sigma away from the mean in each of those categories. What that means in English is that you are able to statistically demonstrate that you can perform each of those elements better than 99.85% of shooters throwing the dice randomly. In other words there is only a 0.15% probability that you are doing this by accident rather than by skill. Only 15 people or fewer out of 10,000 could do what you are doing with a random throw.

So in order for me to know with almost certainty that such a thing as "negative influence" exists I would have to know of a good number of people who had FAILED the three smart craps tests in a similar fashion. They would have to be able to throw the so many off axis shots, numerous double pitches and very few hard ways that they are 3 sigma away from the mean on the negative side in each of those categories. There are lots of people who fail all three smart craps tests. But in order to say that you are influencing the dice negatively on a consistent basis you have to be able to fail each test by 3 sigma. I know how hard it is to pass all three smart craps tests. It would be equally difficult to fail all three tests by such a degree as to be worse than 99.85% of random rollers in each of those elements.

Thus while I believe it is possible for "negative influence" to exist in theory, I highly doubt that there are folks who practice enough to actually achieve such a distinction. I think it is more likely that folks who develop bad habits or do not pay enough attention in class to have a throw that is simply random or slightly worse than random on occasion. But actual "negative influence" on the dice requires a lot of work that I don’t think these folks are doing. It requires just as much work to be consistent in throwing the dice poorly as it does to develop a good controlled throw.

"brothelman" wrote: …..
turning your wrist under causing the perfect seven.
…..

BM, I learn very much from the various posts on this forum,
including your valued posts.
In this post where you mention ‘turning your wrist under’,
exactly what do you mean?
May I ask you to elaborate on the process described here?
I have many ‘perfect seven” in my throws.
Hence my moniker.

7×7

while your arm swing is moving in the up motion your wrist rotates inwards toward the stick man instead of staying on plain with the table, you twist your wrist instead of keeping it straight the biggest tell of this is that the dice take an immediate hop to the left or right instead of straight into the wall

At times this is caused by turning your hand in towards your body on your backswing in stead of going straight back.

Do this without the dice in your hand start your back swing very slowly turn your wrist in towards your body so the dice are now at a slight angle facing more towards you than the back wall then swing them straight forward you will find that the dice at the release point are not parallel to the table it seems to put some form of English on them causing a sharp right or left bounce depending which way you twist.

There is a false sense of security here because the dice hit the wall and stop but it causes one of the dice to double pitch east of west.

BM,
Thanks for the explanation.
Will look into my throw for the fault.
7×7

"brothelman" wrote:
….
Thumb off center causing the perfect looking seven.

BM,
Here’s another question for you.
I still get faithful sevens before reaching the five count.
Like clockwork.
(Which issue I hold is good as a basis for later correction.
More of this later, under "Doing the same thing over and over
and expecting a different result …")

My thumb is centered between the two dice for sure,
but the contact is only on the edge (top back corner) of the dice,
the thumb not making a ‘wiping’ contact on the faces of the dice,
as would be evident using the fingerprinting process.
This grip is very comfortable and it makes a good looking
together soaring throw with the fingers pointing down
through the release where the dice drags out from under the fingers.
Do you think this style grip is problematic, even though looking good,
resulting in the ever so often seven, good ones and bad ones?

At my last Tune-up and Refresher I was told my throw was good,
but in the No-Sevens competition later, my first throw was a seven.
Then on a second round of trial, my first throw was, you guessed it,
a seven.

What do you think? Anyone else see this grip faulty?

7×7

"brothelman" wrote: I did not say negative control I said negative influence.

BMan,

In most camps Dice Control=Dice Influence and the terms are used interchangeably. I misunderstood your intent. My bad! Do agree with you. Lots of work with the dice and a quest that never ends.

I did get you to post more than a one or two line post though. 😀 😆

Skinny,
I absolutely respect your opinion—always. My definition of random is haphazard—that is the word I always think of in my mind when I hear the word random. Can’t quite come to terms with how it is even possible that anything can be more negative than haphazard. I am sure you have a math definition in your mind that you think of when you hear the word random. This is certainly not a biggie if we agree to disagree. I enjoy dice and betting theory and wish we talked about it more here on the forum. Just always want to make sure I am understanding terminology correctly. See my response above yours to BMan as an example of my misunderstanding a term. Thanks for your response!

7×7 what happens when you throw glued together dice?

You have diffidently put in the time would love to answer but without seeing I could not give you a honest one.

Get a grip LMAO.

BM,

You must sense that I have been perusing the gems of expertice
you offer in your posts. I appreciate your offerings.

On the glued dice:
Do you have a set? What percentage of times
do they look good in the air in your throw?
Is your performance with it indicative of your throw?

Anyone else on this forum, do you have a set and do you use it?
Do you find practicing with it useful? Does it improve your throw?

7×7

when I can keep them from fluttering in practice I can rip the casino if I can keep my adrenaline in check, see at this point I know I can win.

I can get them to the point that they do not wobble an ounce and land in the same spot on my table almost every time sometimes they have a slight wobble.

Then there are day where they wobble some, I always check my throw with this every time.

I gonna bet we have taken some of the same classes I do not remember you have we ever played together?

If you are twisting your wrist in any fashion it will show big with the glued dice and yes I use them every practice.

I really enjoy reading everyone’s input/discussions, and I love the way Skinny can explain game, the betting, and the math. You have helped me greatly.

Also, on the glued dice topic:
When my dice were not a team in the air, Alligator Rose helped me by suggesting my thumb needing to move more onto the die touching my index finger. That worked wonders, but as we all continue to try and improve our results, I searched the archives and found practicing with the barrel. So guess what, I started practicing with the glued dice — that really took my control to the next level. When I get the barrel doing what I want, that’s when I know I’m ready for the tables.

Thanks to all for you conversations.

The Real Deal

what took my shoot to the next level is a little 10 by 10 receiving station a friend made me I learned to hit it every time and then I learned to make the dice stay in it almost every time my personal best 57 tosses that hit it and stayed in it.

Yes there is pyramids on the back wall and it is felted.

"getagrip" wrote:

My definition of random is haphazard—that is the word I always think of in my mind when I hear the word random. Can’t quite come to terms with how it is even possible that anything can be more negative than haphazard. I am sure you have a math definition in your mind that you think of when you hear the word random.

I was responding mostly to what Brothelman asked, specifically the part of his question I underlined and highlighted in red.

Skinny because I set the dice does this make me better than a cfer?

Or could it make me worse?

I believe that very few dice setters have any control and a lot of them at times influence the dice in a negative way because they developed bad habits fail to listen at class.

I am not one who believes in negative control … I do believe in no control which equals a random roller and that certainly has negative expectations.

Of course you were saying something entirely different, specifically the parts of your comments I underlined and highlighted in red.

To answer your question, I do have a mathematical definition in mind when I think of random. I would agree that it is haphazard as well. You see a random game of craps is one in which the dice perform very closely to the exact probabilities for each number over a long period of time. Anything can happen in a short time period. But over the long run, casinos are betting their bankroll on the dice being random (or haphazard if you will) and following the laws of probability for the end results.

When Bman asked if a dice controller could be worse than a cfer, I had to think hard about what that could mean. I finally decided that would mean someone who could consistently perform worse than the probabilities of the game. In other words someone who could consistently over time throw more than 1 seven out of every 6 throws on average. A player who also threw more 2,3 and 12’s than the laws of probability dictate on a consistent basis.

In other words, someone who had so perfected a bad grip, back swing, forward swing or release, ie. technique that this individual would consistently throw significantly more bad numbers (2,3,7 or 12) and fewer good numbers (4,5,6,8,9,10 or 11) than the probabilities of the game dictated.

Then I tried to figure out how one could achieve such an ability. I expect one would have to have developed flaws in ones technique and practice them for a long time to ingrain the bad technique into the throw. To prove that he was worse than random the individual would have to fail all three Smart Craps tests by 3 sigma or more. That would mean the poor results were not produced by a random toss. In fact 99.85% or more of random rollers could not produce such poor results.

I am guessing this is what Bman meant when he asked if it were possible for one to be worse than a cfer. You see in order to be worse than a cfer it has to be often enough or bad enough so that ones results are far worse than a cfer over the long haul. Because if it is only an occasional thing that happens and then at other times the toss is equivalent to that of a random roller or slightly better once in awhile, then that is no different than random. So it has to be consistently bad otherwise one is just random. Furthermore one would have to be able to demonstrate that one is worse on a consistent basis than 99.85% of the random rollers. Otherwise one is just another random roller.

Have you figured out the flaw in this situation yet?

If a dice setter is able to be worse than a cfer, ie. not a random roller but worse than one, then this person does have control over the dice. Albeit "negative control" or influence if one prefers that word. I also consider control and influence to be synonyms when it comes to tossing dice. Still this individual then could take advantage of the "negative influence" he has over the dice by betting accordingly. For example, one could bet the don’t pass and follow it up with don’t come and lay bets. One could also bet the 2, 3 and/or 12. This would be a winning strategy for someone who had developed the poor technique to such an extent that it could be replicated fairly consistently.

As I said above, casinos want a random game. That is when they make the most money. If one can control the dice positively it is possible to overcome the HA and make money over the long run. If one is worse than random on a consistent basis, one is also controlling the dice negatively and able to make money over the long run by betting in a way that is consistent with the "bad" numbers that one throws that far exceed the probabilities of throwing those numbers.

In the end I think I agree with getagrip. There is nothing worse in craps than random. If you are able to produce better or worse results than random to a degree that exceeds 99.85% of the random rollers, you can exploit that ability by betting accordingly.

"brothelman" wrote: what took my shoot to the next level is a little 10 by 10 receiving station a friend made me I learned to hit it every time and then I learned to make the dice stay in it almost every time my personal best 57 tosses that hit it and stayed in it.

Geez, BMan! Anyone could hit a 10 foot x 10 foot deck and keep them on! 😆 😆 😆 That is another iteration of the bowl test and such, but with proper "surroundings" of the felt, pyramids, etc, it’s a better test of controlling the whole landing. I love it.

Skinny, while reading the last 24 hours of posts, those thoughts came into mind exactly, I love your explanation. I asked myself, "Why would you not fix a knowingly bad throw?" And the answer of course is that you could load up the dark side bets and toss your 😈 Short but profitable rolls, but you indeed would be influencing the dice. I’m not about to go that route, but it’s intriguing.

On the barrel dice, I’ve glued up a dozen, but I really don’t use them often enough. I WILL NOW. I am going to make that a part of my daily routine. And if I enter into SmartCraps, my stats will go through the roof!!! 😆

Great thread all!!!

I knew people that had great influence all though it b be in a negative fashion over the dice they where sending me their results daily all we did is alter there sets and document the new set with thousands of throws bam they had it srrs 9 + amazing the funny thing they would not use the set at thee table.

I have seen way to many people as of late using a 2v or the 3v that really should go home and document the results they would be really surprised at how much better they would be using the hardway set.

When using the hardway set people see the double pitches because they are obvious so they switch not realizing that they throw far more single pitch sevens then they ever threw double pitch sevens.

The moral is to fix the shot not the set

I have only seen one person in my nine year gig with this that changing the set was the answer to fixing his bad habits yes he had serious fatal flaws so engrained that no matter what we tried the only answer was to change the set.

We documented this with thousands of throws to prove out the theory to.

Skinny,
Thanks for the great post! Perfect explanation. I know it takes some of your time to produce these posts for us and it is much appreciated! And I feel so vindicated that you agreed with me. 😀

BMan,

I was also going to mention the change in sets as a way to perhaps consistently produce a number that is more HA friendly. I would guess maybe Skinny didn’t mention it as the fear becomes people trying to change their set to match whatever their current flaw in the short run is. People don’t do this as you will end up in a world of hurt and be so confused! However, as BMan said, statistics over thousands of throws is the key to understanding your own shot. Improve your shot with classes and practice, practice, practice. You have to have really improved your shot to the best it can be.

Some people may have physical things to overcome and may never have a pretty shot but if it is consistent then it can be exploited. Be careful though in just assuming this consistency or what it might be. There is no easy road for this thing we do. You either have the passion or you are just kidding yourself.

In the end my ego wants me to have a pretty looking and money producing shot but if Money producing is all I can get then I’ll take it!

Now after much consideration I to agree that negative influence on a consistent basis is control

RFink,

It was certainly good to have you in the class this past weekend. I did not get the opportunity to work with you much, but what I saw you certainly have the ability to become an advantage player.

I enjoyed visiting with you after the class down by the craps tables when you told me you had made a post concerning $44 inside vrs. a $10 bet with $40 in odds. You will remember I said that Skinny would give you a definite response–probably disputing your $44 inside bet. Your comment to me was and I quote "I am counting on it." And you got your response.

I do want to say thank you for posting your idea in order to have it proven correct or incorrect. We like to encourage students in their journey to becoming advantage players to ask questions. There are never any stupid ideas stated or questions asked. I applaud you stating your idea, reading the response from Skinny and seeing where you simply did not have all the facts. We need students like you to keep us on our toes. So thank you.

Rose and I look forward to seeing you in the casinos from time to time.

Doc

"Dr Crapology" wrote: RFink,

It was certainly good to have you in the class this past weekend. I did not get the opportunity to work with you much, but what I saw you certainly have the ability to become an advantage player.

I enjoyed visiting with you after the class down by the craps tables when you told me you had made a post concerning $44 inside vrs. a $10 bet with $40 in odds. You will remember I said that Skinny would give you a definite response–probably disputing your $44 inside bet. Your comment to me was and I quote "I am counting on it." And you got your response.

I do want to say thank you for posting your idea in order to have it proven correct or incorrect. We like to encourage students in their journey to becoming advantage players to ask questions. There are never any stupid ideas stated or questions asked. I applaud you stating your idea, reading the response from Skinny and seeing where you simply did not have all the facts. We need students like you to keep us on our toes. So thank you.

Rose and I look forward to seeing you in the casinos from time to time.

Doc

Being proven wrong is the best way to learn something. I’m writing a computer program to simulate Dom’s method of betting against my $44 inside method. I expect Dom’s method to win, I’m curious about the margin of victory. Will it be close or a massacre?

"RFink13" wrote: I’m writing a computer program to simulate Dom’s method of betting against my $44 inside method. I expect Dom’s method to win, I’m curious about the margin of victory. Will it be close or a massacre?

I am not sure what you will be programming for Dom’s method. But for $44 inside, I expect you will lose approximately 2.64% of all the money you wager on the $44 inside.

I will program it the way he taught it in class. Pass line + 2 come bets. Add a come bet after every other hit and press a number if it hits three times.

I expect the $44 inside to get clobbered, but I want to see the margin of defeat. Since I’m "betting" $10 flat / $50 odds for Dom’s system, I’ll use $110 inside to make the numbers as close of possible.

My shooter module can shoot as random shooter or a skilled shooter at various skill levels. I plan on running the simulation for 1 million shooters (not rolls) for random (444/111/111) , (skill level 1) 482/121/121, (skill level 2) 500/125/125 and (skill level 3) 600/150/150. The numbers are on axis, double pitch, and primaries per thousand rolls.

I took the numbers for the various skill levels from "Cutting Edge Craps".

For the random roller you can expect to lose 0.326% of all the money you wager on the $10 flat / $50 odds bets that you make. When you add place bets you can expect to lose a bit more on those wagers in accordance with the HA on each of the box numbers that you place.

I ran the dice shooter simulator for four shooters at various skill levels, the results were not what I expected but I guess they make sense:

Each skill level had 1 million shooters. The actual rolls are written to a file so I can use them later.

Shooter 1 (Random shooter, 444, 25% DP, 25% Primaries)

Total Rolls: 8,586,334
Average Hand: 8.59
SRR: 6.00

Shooter 2 (Skill level 1, 482, 20% DP, 30% Primaries)

Total Rolls: 9,408,812
Average Hand: 9.41
SRR: 6.76

Shooter 3 (Skill level 2, 500, 20% DP, 30% Primaries)

Total Rolls: 9,307,312
Average Hand: 9.31
SRR: 6.67

Shooter 4 (Skill level 3, 600, 20% DP, 30% Primaries)

Total Rolls: 8,797,530
Average Hand: 8.80
SRR: 6.23

The part I didn’t expect is after a certain point the hardway set hurts you. I guess that’s part of the "Hardway set Anomaly" in "Cutting Edge Craps" chapter 4.

Tomorrow I plan on running the betting simulator on the two systems.

I can also run simulations using different sets (3-V, 2-V). If there is a specific set you want to run, let me know.

One more piece of information.

For random rollers, the average number of rolls per shooter is 8.53.

Your simulation came up with 8.59 which is certainly well within the margin of error.

For 1,000,000 shooters you could expect around 8,525,510 rolls.

Your simulation came up with 8,586,334 rolls.

That is only 60,824 rolls or 0.71% more than the expected number of rolls.

I’m willing to accept any result plus or minus 1 percent . i.e. 8.4447 < x < 8.6153. I’m not using a military grade random number generator. 😀

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.
—Robert R. Coveyou