My normal strategy is to play a steady amount on the DPL, with max odds.  I usually put up an extra point or two with Don’t Come bets, but the problem is, I can’t find a solid strategy for doing so.

I was advised by one player to ALWAYS have THREE points going at any given time (the come-out point, and two points from your DC bets). 

Frequently, though, when I do this, almost every roll kills a point, then I have to make another DC bet to replace it.  As a result, I burn up a lot of money replacing points, which eats up the gain when I finally roll a 7.

I would greatly appreciate any comments or advice any of you have on using the DC bet, and the notion of “always have X number of points going at once.”  I’m wondering if I would be just as well off playing a straight DPL bet with max odds, and forgetting the DC bet.

Thanks a heap, and good luck at the tables!

Ruark

If the shooter knocks off 2 DC points get off him and wait till next shooter.

Try to have at least 1 DC bet up so that it will act as hedge for DPL bet on new come out roll.

Number of DC bets you make will be function of buy in. Not much money, reduce # of bets. You will make more money laying odds, don’t just make flat bet.

Consider only making DPL bet and after 3 wins,  keep increasing odds on each subsequent bet as you will be in no lose situation at that point.

777

basicstrategy777 - 25 July 2011 05:29 AM

If the shooter knocks off 2 DC points get off him and wait till next shooter.

Try to have at least 1 DC bet up so that it will act as hedge for DPL bet on new come out roll.

Number of DC bets you make will be function of buy in. Not much money, reduce # of bets. You will make more money laying odds, don’t just make flat bet.

Consider only making DPL bet and after 3 wins,  keep increasing odds on each subsequent bet as you will be in no lose situation at that point.

I have a hard time thinking about a cold shooter. Craps dice rolls are independent events. 

Having one DC bet up might be a compromise approach.  If you have 2 or more points going at once, the probability of hitting one of them is GREATER than that of rolling a 7.

Yeah, well, I’m asking this question assuming that the bankroll isn’t an issue.  Say you have $2000 and you’re playing $10 units, something like that.

Seems like playing DPL only wouldn’t be advisable, because the house has a greater edge. The house edge disappears on odds bets, which should always be at max.

Thanks, though…

“Advise is what we ask for when we already know the answer.”

From your post,it appeared you have a problem with the way you play i.e. losing money quickly,  and was looking for alternatives. I gave you some.

Who said it was advisable to make the flat bet only…..I never said that in my response ; I said..“You will make more money laying odds, don’t just make flat bet.”

You are confused about the house advantage and laying odds. The casino earnings are based on the flat bet not the odds. The expected loss remain the same no matter how much odds you lay. You see…....the odd payout is based on true odds, hence, the casino has no edge on the odds bet. The theoretical win for the casino on a 10 dollar DPL bet is 14 cents; it will make 14 cents no matter the odds you lay.

If you have further questions or would like further advise feel free to post as there are many here with good knowledge and good ideas and they would be very willing to share them with you.

777

basicstrategy777 - 25 July 2011 01:22 PM

Who said it was advisable to make the flat bet only…..I never said that in my response ; I said..“You will make more money laying odds, don’t just make flat bet.”
777

Trust me, I appreciate the reply, and apologize if I misunderstood it.  I was reacting to your comment, “Consider only making DPL bet and after 3 wins,  keep increasing odds on each subsequent bet as you will be in no lose situation at that point.”  That seems to contradict what you just said.

Also, you said, “If the shooter knocks off 2 DC points get off him and wait till next shooter.”  As even a rookie like me knows, there’s really no such thing as a “hot” or “cold” shooter or streak, because dice rolls are independent events. So there’s no point in getting off of him.  Unless again, I’m misunderstanding your meaning. 

But I really get the picture now that the DPL bets and the odds bets are really like playing two separate games.  You have even chances on the odds bet, but the casino’s advantage on the DPL bets pull you down.  That’s why just play a steady, minimum DPL bet, making most of my action on the DC odds bets.  My problem, as I said, was that when I had 3 points going at once, almost every roll kills a point, so I lose my odds bet on that point, and lose money replacing it on a new point. This cancels out my gain when a 7 is finally rolled.

I’m wondering if it’s a viable strategy to play ALL the points at once, with max odds, on the don’t side. This is assuming you have enough bankroll to accommodate huge win/loss swings, the idea being to walk away when you’re on an upswing.

Ruark - 24 July 2011 07:58 PM

My normal strategy is to play a steady amount on the DPL, with max odds.  I usually put up an extra point or two with Don’t Come bets, but the problem is, I can’t find a solid strategy for doing so.
I was advised by one player to ALWAYS have THREE points going at any given time (the come-out point, and two points from your DC bets). 
Frequently, though, when I do this, almost every roll kills a point, then I have to make another DC bet to replace it.  As a result, I burn up a lot of money replacing points, which eats up the gain when I finally roll a 7.

I would greatly appreciate any comments or advice any of you have on using the DC bet, and the notion of “always have X number of points going at once.”  I’m wondering if I would be just as well off playing a straight DPL bet with max odds, and forgetting the DC bet.

Thanks a heap, and good luck at the tables!

Ruark

Ruark -

  Craps is a tough game to beat -

  If one analyzes the stats - a shooter is likely to 7 out shortly after / on / or before their 7th roll -

  i.e.  That’s how the odds are calculated in a game without influence -

  Assuming that is the likely occurance - which in reality it is definately NOT - we will anyhow use that a starting point on our venture -

  Statistics also reveal that the likelyhood of a random roller / shooter hitting a point more than once is significantly unlikely -

  Also the average roll length until a decision is made - win or loss - is in the vicinity of +/- 6 rolls of the dice -

  Assuming that the shooter will throw 3, 4 or possibly 5 numbers ( non-point #‘s also included ) before 7’ing out -

  Would in not behoove the average player to bet ” with ” the shooter on the first few rolls -

  Go with the flow - could be an apropos attitude -

  After those 5 throws - one needs to make a learned determination here -

  If this person a ” shooter ” who is setting and delivering the dice in a ” controlled ” manner -

  Or is this a shake, rattle and roller - who has no inkling as to what is occuring in the real casino world -

  With the S,R and Roller - I would venture that this would be time I would start to bet against him -

  The approach I would take would be to either Place against the point / and/or make a DC wager- max 3 - with this shooter -

  If on the other hand -

The shooter exhibits finesse in his/her setting and delivering the dice -

I would either bet with him/her -

Or pass on this player altogether -

For a DarkSIde bettor - this type of shooter can break you in one hand !

Just my opinion .............

Another strategy is to wait for the S,R and R shooter to make his/her point - if this happens prior to the 5th roll -

Then after another point # is established - BET AGAINST THIS SHOOTER !

Odds are in your favor that the shooter will not make the 2nd point #.

$nakeEyes - 25 July 2011 07:20 PM

  If one analyzes the stats - a shooter is likely to 7 out shortly after / on / or before their 7th roll -

What “analysis of the stats” do you perform to reach this conclusion? Dice rolls are independent events. The likelihood of rolling a 7 is the same on any roll, regardless of what has been rolled previously. Just like if you flip a coin and get tails 10 times in a row, the probability of the 11th flip being tails is still 50%.

$nakeEyes - 25 July 2011 07:20 PM

  i.e.  That’s how the odds are calculated in a game without influence -
Assuming that is the likely occurance - which in reality it is definately NOT ...

So you’re saying that it’s MORE LIKELY (i.e., the majority of games) that a game is being “influenced”? Please explain. Do you mean that in the MAJORITY of craps games, the shooter is controlling the dice?

Thanks,
Ruark

Ruark - 25 July 2011 08:44 PM

$nakeEyes - 25 July 2011 07:20 PM

  If one analyzes the stats - a shooter is likely to 7 out shortly after / on / or before their 7th roll -

What “analysis of the stats” do you perform to reach this conclusion? Dice rolls are independent events. The likelihood of rolling a 7 is the same on any roll, regardless of what has been rolled previously. Just like if you flip a coin and get tails 10 times in a row, the probability of the 11th flip being tails is still 50%.

You, as well as I, know fully well as to how the ” odds ” are established in the game of craps -

Regardless of the ” independancy of one roll from another ” in the long term -

a 7 will appear 1 time in each 6 rolls of the dice -

This statistic, is of course, averaged over a multitude of rolls -

This is based on the premise that the rolls are ” random ” -

Not having someone intentionally set the dice for a particular outcome -

And then attempting to deliver same in a controlled manner in order to minimize or negate the effects that the pyramids would normally have over the throw -

And that is the hard cold truth of the matter -

Also, the foundation / premise of all craps books prior to the advent of the ” controlled throw ” notion

.

$nakeEyes - 25 July 2011 07:20 PM

  i.e.  That’s how the odds are calculated in a game without influence -
Assuming that is the likely occurance - which in reality it is definately NOT ...

So you’re saying that it’s MORE LIKELY (i.e., the majority of games) that a game is being “influenced”? Please explain. Do you mean that in the MAJORITY of craps games, the shooter is controlling the dice?

On the contrary - most shooters exhibit little to no knowledge as to how to set, handle and/or deliver the dice in an effective and consistent manner to offset the randomness of the game.

Even ” practiced ” dice controllers / influencers have short rolls on too many occasions -

Thanks,
Ruark

$nakeEyes - 25 July 2011 10:13 PM

Regardless of the ” independancy of one roll from another ” in the long term -
a 7 will appear 1 time in each 6 rolls of the dice -

.

Actually, that’s not correct. If you made, say, 10,000 rolls, 1,666 of them would be 7s. That’s different from saying “1 out of 6.”  Try running a simulation in 10,000 rows on an Excel spreadsheet, then sit back and look at it.

$nakeEyes - 25 July 2011 07:20 PM

On the contrary - most shooters exhibit little to no knowledge as to how to set, handle and/or deliver the dice in an effective and consistent manner to offset the randomness of the game.

I PERSONALLY don’t believe it is possible to “set” the dice to cause a certain roll to show up more frequently.  There are simply too many variables affecting the roll (actually, the “throw”). The palm contact, grip, speed of throw, the stiffness of your arm at the moment, the trajectory’s height above the table, distance from the end (which will vary depending on where you’re standing), etc. And of course, nobody can control exactly, precisely which part of the “square” pattern in the foam it will bounce off of, which will dramatically affect the dice’s trajectory afterwards.  Also, the end of the table is curved, not flat, so the dice will not strike it at the exact same angle every time, nor would it strike it at the precise same spot. The tiniest, tiniest, most minute FRACTION of variation in ANY of these variables would effectively erase any non-randomness, real or imagined.

I think some dice-setters observe what appears to be a non-random pattern, then interpret that as evidence that their dice-setting has an effect. “Hey, I rolled three 7s in a row, it must be working!”

Additionally, even if you COULD affect, to whatever tiny extent, the randomness of a dice throw, remember that you’re one of perhaps 10 dice-throwers at the table, which would negate any effect, real or imagined, of your dice-setting. Conclusion: the possibility of somebody dice-setting is not something to seriously consider when making craps play decisions.

Again, this is just my personal conclusion.

Thanks,
Ruark

Ruark says :  ”  Also, you said, “If the shooter knocks off 2 DC points get off him and wait till next shooter.”  As even a rookie like me knows, there’s really no such thing as a “hot” or “cold” shooter or streak, because dice rolls are independent events. So there’s no point in getting off of him.  ” ................Ruark, the point I was trying to make here is , not to lean into the punch and to back off, back off. That you should change something if what you are doing is not working. If you are losing playing a particular way, lofty comments about mathematical certitude and independent rolls will not save you. The art side of the game will save you. As a rookie you probably don’t understand ; this is just my opinion.
 
So…..because dice rolls are independent events there are no ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ tables or streaks. The next thing you are going to tell me is the 7 is never due.

Anyway…......good luck to you at the tables. My guess is your game will evolve the longer you play.

777

basicstrategy777 - 26 July 2011 08:34 AM

So…..because dice rolls are independent events there are no ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ tables or streaks. The next thing you are going to tell me is the 7 is never due.

Because dice rolls are independent events, there are no ‘hot’ or ‘cold’ tables or streaks. The 7 is never due. You can not provide me with concrete evidence otherwise.  Yes, there IS such a thing as a hot or cold sequence, but it’s always PREVIOUS rolls, not FUTURE rolls. Again, it’s like flipping coins.  You can flip tails 10 times in a row, and say “wow, I’m on a ‘tails’ streak!” but the probability of the 11th flip being heads or tails is STILL 50%.  Heads is not “due.” You can NOT deny that. If you do, you’re talking about a Martingale, which everybody knows is total hogwash.

Concrete evidence the 7 is due….....hummm.

The probability of a 7 showing on 6 tosses of the dice is 1 in 6. That’s what the math says. That is what the casino’s stake their financial life on.

If I give you the 5….will you give me the 1 .  If you give me the 1 and no 7’s have been rolled, this means you owe me. The math says you owe me at least 1. And you will have to pay me, or else the 1 in 6 is a make believe story.  The pressure for payment builds and when you pay me the pressure is released. A constant cycle. I may not get my payment right away but you are going to have to pay me my 7 sometime….you have to for the math to hold. Sometime my 7 is not only due, but it is overdue.

So the question is…..are you going to believe your lyin’ eyes or some fuddy-duddy math book. That book never shot dice.

Are we having fun yet ?

777

basicstrategy777 - 26 July 2011 03:05 PM

Concrete evidence the 7 is due….....hummm.

The probability of a 7 showing on 6 tosses of the dice is 1 in 6. That’s what the math says. That is what the casino’s stake their financial life on.

If I give you the 6….will you give me the 1 .  If you give me the 1 and no 7’s have been rolled, this means you owe me. The math says you owe me at least 1. And you will have to pay me, or else the 1 in 6 is a make believe story.  The pressure for payment builds and when you pay me the pressure is released. A constant cycle. I may not get my payment right away but you are going to have to pay me my 7 sometime….you have to for the math to hold. Sometime my 7 is not only due, but it is overdue.

So the question is…..are you going to believe your lyin’ eyes or some fuddy-duddy math book. That book never shot dice.

Are we having fun yet ?

777

I could be wrong, but I’m thinking the issue between the views on seven being due is a matter of what the word “due” means, rather than should we expect seven to show in x number of rolls.  Do we mean due as in its more likely, or due as in when a baby is due.  Baby shows up in 9 months, give or take a few days.  Seven may show up next roll or in a couple of hours.  In my view of “due”, seven is never due on the next roll, neither is 2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11 or 12.  However, you can bet the bank that one of the numbers is going to show.

Ruark - 25 July 2011 11:24 PM

$nakeEyes - 25 July 2011 10:13 PM

Regardless of the ” independancy of one roll from another ” in the long term -
a 7 will appear 1 time in each 6 rolls of the dice -

.

Actually, that’s not correct. If you made, say, 10,000 rolls, 1,666 of them would be 7s. That’s different from saying “1 out of 6.”  Try running a simulation in 10,000 rows on an Excel spreadsheet, then sit back and look at it.

$nakeEyes - 25 July 2011 07:20 PM

On the contrary - most shooters exhibit little to no knowledge as to how to set, handle and/or deliver the dice in an effective and consistent manner to offset the randomness of the game.

I PERSONALLY don’t believe it is possible to “set” the dice to cause a certain roll to show up more frequently.  There are simply too many variables affecting the roll (actually, the “throw”). The palm contact, grip, speed of throw, the stiffness of your arm at the moment, the trajectory’s height above the table, distance from the end (which will vary depending on where you’re standing), etc. And of course, nobody can control exactly, precisely which part of the “square” pattern in the foam it will bounce off of, which will dramatically affect the dice’s trajectory afterwards.  Also, the end of the table is curved, not flat, so the dice will not strike it at the exact same angle every time, nor would it strike it at the precise same spot. The tiniest, tiniest, most minute FRACTION of variation in ANY of these variables would effectively erase any non-randomness, real or imagined.

I think some dice-setters observe what appears to be a non-random pattern, then interpret that as evidence that their dice-setting has an effect. “Hey, I rolled three 7s in a row, it must be working!”

Additionally, even if you COULD affect, to whatever tiny extent, the randomness of a dice throw, remember that you’re one of perhaps 10 dice-throwers at the table, which would negate any effect, real or imagined, of your dice-setting. Conclusion: the possibility of somebody dice-setting is not something to seriously consider when making craps play decisions.

Again, this is just my personal conclusion.

Thanks,
Ruark

Ruark,

  Perhaps somehow, somewhere, at sometime I missed something _

  When I calculate my Seven to Rolls Ratio ( SRR ) -

  I take my total throws / tosses / rolls and divide that sum by how many 7’s were thrown in that total -

  Let’s use your numbers for this example -

I have thrown 10,000 times -

Out of those 10,000 throws 1,666 were 7’s -

When I divide 10,000 by 1,666 - I arrive at 6.00+

Funny, but that number is right on the money as far as casino odds are concerned -

Now matter how you slice it -

It still comes out to ” 1 of 6 rolls ” or ” 1 in 6 rolls ”  -

It is still the same regardless of how high you want to take it to -

Math is pure and simple -

No superstitions or second guessing here !

Ruark - 25 July 2011 11:24 PM

$nakeEyes - 25 July 2011 10:13 PM

Regardless of the ” independancy of one roll from another ” in the long term -
a 7 will appear 1 time in each 6 rolls of the dice -

.

Actually, that’s not correct. If you made, say, 10,000 rolls, 1,666 of them would be 7s. That’s different from saying “1 out of 6.”  Try running a simulation in 10,000 rows on an Excel spreadsheet, then sit back and look at it.

$nakeEyes - 25 July 2011 07:20 PM

On the contrary - most shooters exhibit little to no knowledge as to how to set, handle and/or deliver the dice in an effective and consistent manner to offset the randomness of the game.

I PERSONALLY don’t believe it is possible to “set” the dice to cause a certain roll to show up more frequently.

I DO !

There are simply too many variables affecting the roll (actually, the “throw”). The palm contact, grip, speed of throw, the stiffness of your arm at the moment, the trajectory’s height above the table, distance from the end (which will vary depending on where you’re standing), etc.

  You have only touched on a few of the variables - there are many, many more -

And of course, nobody can control exactly, precisely which part of the “square” pattern in the foam it will bounce off of, which will dramatically affect the dice’s trajectory afterwards.

Precisely why the intent is to minimize the effect that the ” pyramids ” might exhibit on the outcome of the throw -

  Also, the end of the table is curved, not flat, so the dice will not strike it at the exact same angle every time, nor would it strike it at the precise same spot. The tiniest, tiniest, most minute FRACTION of variation in ANY of these variables would effectively erase any non-randomness, real or imagined.

Which is exactly why we strive to avoid the curve at table end and endeavour to strike the rubber at the lowest point on the flat lower portion of the pyramids - hopefully, just running the dice up to that juncture - thereby satisfying the ” casino rule ” that the dice must strike the back wall -

I think some dice-setters observe what appears to be a non-random pattern, then interpret that as evidence that their dice-setting has an effect. “Hey, I rolled three 7s in a row, it must be working!”

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion -

Additionally, even if you COULD affect, to whatever tiny extent, the randomness of a dice throw, remember that you’re one of perhaps 10 dice-throwers at the table, which would negate any effect, real or imagined, of your dice-setting.

Depends on your betting strategy(s) -

Conclusion: the possibility of somebody dice-setting is not something to seriously consider when making craps play decisions.  Again, this is just my personal conclusion.

To reiterate - everyone is entitled to their own opinion !
 
”$nakeeyes “

Thanks,
Ruark

$nakeEyes - 26 July 2011 05:06 PM

It still comes out to ” 1 of 6 rolls ” or ” 1 in 6 rolls ”  -

Those are simply English language expressions of a mathematical relationship.  One-sixths of the rolls will be a 7. But that is different from saying, “every 6th roll will be a 7.”  Run an Excel simulation and look through it. There will be some places where it goes 40-50-60 rolls without a 7. But each time, the probability of a 7 is STILL 1 out of 6. It is not valid to say, in so many words, “every time a non-7 is rolled, the odds of the next roll being a 7 increase.”  Um, no. That’s the basis of a Martingale system, which is obviously hogwash, or every casino in the country would be bankrupt.