I had an interesting idea for a betting strategy to implement at my local casino, Cache Creek. It involves just a don’t come bet, laying different odds multiples depending on the state of my bankroll. On the one hand, it increases the odds bet a couple of times at different amounts of net winnings; on the other hand, it also increases the odds bet a couple of times at different amounts of net loss. So, it has elements of two main categories of betting systems: increasing on wins and increasing on losses. So, it has the “back half” of the D’Alembert system, but increases on wins rather than decreases, as does the D’Alembert.

My strategy is not based on wins or losses, but rather bankroll benchmarks.
Here’s how it works:

start with $200
when a point is established, make one $5 don’t come bet
if it goes to a point number, lay single odds ($10 4/10, $9 5/9, $6 6/8)

if/whenever the bankroll gets over $250 or under $150, lay double odds ($20, $15, $12)
if/whenever the bankroll gets over $300 or under $100, lay 3, 4, 5X odds ($30 for all)

So, if I’m winning more than $50, I increase the variance with more odds, hoping to win even more. If I lose back to under $250, I go back to single odds.

If I’m losing more than $50, I increase the variance, hoping to come back. Of course, this increases the probability of busting, but it also increases the probability of coming back. Yes, this is what Sam Grafstein calls “chasing losses”, but I am only talking about $200, which I am fully prepared to lose. If I come back up to over $150, I go back to single odds.

I created a WinCraps auto-bet file to test this out. The parameters:

starting bankroll $200
sessions end when:
1) bankroll less than $35 (can’t make $5 + $30)
2) 200 rolls and last bet resolved
10,000 sessions

avg. num. rolls 197
avg. num. bets 53.5

avg. bet handle $523

avg. net result -$3.62

median net result -$3

mode of net result +$1 to +$7

standard deviation $90

avg. house advantage 0.69%

winning sessions 4844

breakeven sessions 47

losing sessions 5109

number of busts 701

lost more than $100 1228

lost more than $50 2892

won more than $50 2574

won more than $100 935

won more than $150 477

won more than $200 242

biggest win $438

So, it provides almost a 49% chance to break even or better, well under a 10% likelihood of busting and a 1-in-4 chance of winning at least 1/4 of my bankroll. Of course, things can go south pretty quickly - one session last only 42 rolls - but that’s true of almost any strategy. There’s always a sequence of rolls out there that will hammer any strategy, as well as a sequence that will suit it to a tea.

I plan on trying it out tomorrow night.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Optional add-on: if you’re behind, maintain odds you raised to at maximum point behind until you get back to even (buy-in amount). Set win goal at double your buy-in. (Slot machine craps might tighten up if it learns your strategy. Those computers always test your strategy points.)

ChumpChange - 09 March 2010 05:33 AM

Optional add-on: if you’re behind, maintain odds you raised to at maximum point behind until you get back to even (buy-in amount). Set win goal at double your buy-in. (Slot machine craps might tighten up if it learns your strategy. Those computers always test your strategy points.)

I never play slot-machine craps or any online games.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

goatcabin - 09 March 2010 09:17 AM

ChumpChange - 09 March 2010 05:33 AM

Optional add-on: if you’re behind, maintain odds you raised to at maximum point behind until you get back to even (buy-in amount). Set win goal at double your buy-in. (Slot machine craps might tighten up if it learns your strategy. Those computers always test your strategy points.)

I never play slot-machine craps or any online games.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

If I got up $200 (equal to starting bankroll), I’d probably put aside $300 and play with the other $100. I generally use an “extendable win goal” strategy, in theory, anyway? >

Cheers,
Alan Shank

goatcabin - 08 March 2010 06:05 PM

So, it provides almost a 49% chance to break even or better, well under a 10% likelihood of busting and a 1-in-4 chance of winning at least 1/4 of my bankroll. Of course, things can go south pretty quickly - one session last only 42 rolls - but that’s true of almost any strategy. There’s always a sequence of rolls out there that will hammer any strategy, as well as a sequence that will suit it to a tea.

I plan on trying it out tomorrow night.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Got sidetracked, so now it’s TOMORROW night, maybe.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

goatcabin - 15 March 2010 07:41 PM

goatcabin - 08 March 2010 06:05 PM

So, it provides almost a 49% chance to break even or better, well under a 10% likelihood of busting and a 1-in-4 chance of winning at least 1/4 of my bankroll. Of course, things can go south pretty quickly - one session last only 42 rolls - but that’s true of almost any strategy. There’s always a sequence of rolls out there that will hammer any strategy, as well as a sequence that will suit it to a tea.

I plan on trying it out tomorrow night.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Got sidetracked, so now it’s TOMORROW night, maybe.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Went out to Cache Creek last night, waited for the current shooter to finish, bought in for $200 and tried my don’t come, variable odds strategy. Fortunately, I was able to squeeze in next to the dealer, with good access to the “Don’t Come Bar 12” box. See initial post in thread for details.

The Midnight Skulker gave me the idea of playing don’t come instead of don’t pass to avoid betting directly against the shooter. Also, the DC box is pretty obscure, and some players probably aren’t even aware of it.

After the comeout established a point, I put my $5 down on DC, and a nine showed. The dealer moved my cheque behind the 9 and I gave him two reds and said, “Nine dollars odds don’t nine”. He changed a red, heeled my $9 and gave me a yellow back. “Seven out!” He put out two reds, stacked them up with the winnings on top, and set them in front of me. He also opened his hands a couple of times, like they do when they go off shift or move to another position. So I had two reds, four yellows and two more reds in the stack. This happened twice more on 5 or 9, so I was up $30. When the next DC point was six, I gave him $6 and he bridged the yellow across the two reds. I won that one, too, and on my next DC bet I threw out a “two-way 12”. I was thinking that if a 12 showed I would win my DC and the dealers and I would each get $31. It didn’t show. I won a couple more bets before I finally lost one, then won a couple more. I was now over $50 ahead, so I moved to double odds, laying $20, $15 and $12 to win $10. I made another two-way 12 that didn’t win. Finally, I got a 12 on my DC comeout; the dealer didn’t pay me, so I pointed to it. He just pointed to the very clearly displayed “Bar 12”. Duh!! I felt like an idiot! I’ve been playing craps since about 1978, but I don’t think I’ve ever played the don’ts before.

Just one time, I made a DC bet while I already had one behind a point. Naturally, the next roll was a seven, so I won the $20 but lost the $5. I got up as much as $80, so I put my original stake in my pocket and played with the rest. The table had gotten very quiet and several people had left as the seven-outs piled up. I switched to a two-way 2 next DC, so I would win both bets, but still no dice on that. I tried a two-way trey, giving us a little better chance to win, but still no dice. In almost two hours’ play, I only won a single DC comeout, on a 3, and I lost only a couple of times to a 7 or 11. After shooters knocked off a couple of my points, I fell back below +$50 so went back to single odds. Some people who had left came back to play some more. I had been declining to roll the dice, but finally when they came to me I decided to switch to pass. I tossed a seven, an eleven, then set a point, took single odds and sevened out.

I went back to DC, hovering around +$50, but I started to get bored. When I had $30 plus five yellows left I tossed the yellows and a red to the dealers and left with $25 plus my original. So, I won $40, left a $10 toke and another $5 in failed dealer bets.

Nobody said a thing to me about betting the “wrong” way.

It was a pretty interesting experience, so maybe I’ll try it again next time.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

goatcabin - 17 March 2010 03:21 PM

[The dealer] put out two reds, stacked them up with the winnings on top, and set them in front of me. He also opened his hands a couple of times, like they do when they go off shift or move to another position.

FYI this ritual with the hands is called “clearing”.

Also as an aside I finished my manual simulation of my Don’t method.  At one point I was up $500, but eventually busted a $1000 bankroll after almost 40 hours of play (at 120 rolls/hr with a $10 base bet).  When things went south they went way south, and in a hurry.

The Midnight Skulker - 17 March 2010 05:40 PM

goatcabin - 17 March 2010 03:21 PM

[The dealer] put out two reds, stacked them up with the winnings on top, and set them in front of me. He also opened his hands a couple of times, like they do when they go off shift or move to another position.

FYI this ritual with the hands is called “clearing”.

Yes, but I don’t recall seeing them do it when they pay off other bets, like place and come bets. Is it just with don’t bets behind points? Is it because those bets are set up close to the stacks?

Cheers,
Alan Shank

goatcabin - 18 March 2010 01:07 PM

... I don’t recall seeing [dealers clear their hands] when they pay off other bets, like place and come bets. Is it just with don’t bets behind points? Is it because those bets are set up close to the stacks?

I suspect the key is what the dealer did after paying you.  Whenever a dealer’s hands go anywhere near his/her person (e.g. scratching an itch) he/she is supposed to clear his/her hands.  I’ve been told by dealers that the action becomes so automatic that they find themselves doing it in supermarkets after adding an item to their grocery cart!