I am a man of science.  I believe in the law of averages, not ‘hot shooters’.  I play the don’t pass line because it offers a small advantage over the pass line, no matter how many times a point has been hit.  I am a staunch believer in the “gambler’s fallacy” and will never change my bet based on previous rolls, even if I am the shooter and am bankrupting myself by playing the don’ts.

That was me when I first learned to play.  But the underlying question was, why was I even playing if I firmly believe the house has an overall advantage?  My rationale was that it’s an ‘entertainment expense’, the same way people spend money to watch movies or sports games, I pay money to roll and watch dice, and get free booze.

But the reality is I play because I think I can beat the house.  That ‘leap of faith’ goes against all my fundamental beliefs, but I have seen things that make me believe there is more to craps than simple statistics.  I’ve bet big on female ‘craps virgins’, placed bets on ‘hot numbers’, make come bets whenever a die bounces off the table, and never play the don’ts against myself anymore.

Why do you play?  Is it for entertainment, to make money, or both?  Dice setting aside, do you think there is more to it than simply random rolls?

I’ve resolved my belief in statistics and superstition by knowing that just because science hasn’t discovered something, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  X-rays and microorganisms have always been around and have affected mankind in fundamental ways, even before we or science knew they existed.

And so too, perhaps there are forces just as legitimate affecting our craps rolls in ways that have yet to be realized.  After all, nothing is truly random.  There is a cause and effect for everything.

I play for entertainment.  But it would not be entertaining if I lost every time.  I don’t. 

In fact, I have neen playing with the same $1000 I set assigned for gaming over 6 months ago.  I lost a session or two, then I won a couple, then I won about $2000 over a two day stretch.  Then I lost a few sessions.  Then I hit a firebet for a net $3600 win. Since then I have lost a bunch and won a few. Usually when i lose, I lose $300 or $400, my usual buy in for a session.  My wins can be anywhere from a couple of hundred to a $1000 I have had a nice little run lately and my gambling bankroll sits at about $1100.  So easily I have gambled 40 times in the last 6 months and essentially have broken even.

SO how does this jive with the math of the game and the negative expectations of a house advantage?  It works because the house advantage is evident over a long run of results.  But we do not play in the long run - we play in a series of short runs - 2 or 3 hours at a time. What would that be, maybe 200 or 300 rolls of the dice? There can be a lot a variation from the expected result over that relatively short time frame. Everytime I go, I am prepared for losing all of my buy in.  HOWEVER, everytime I go, I believe this session can be a positive variation of the long term trend.  This belief - and the occassions when it comes true - is why I play.

JHPA - 09 April 2012 02:58 PM

Everytime I go, I am prepared for losing all of my buy in.  HOWEVER, everytime I go, I believe this session can be a positive variation of the long term trend.  This belief - and the occassions when it comes true - is why I play.

My favorite way of expressing this thought: It is good to walk into a casino with a positive attitude; it is bad to walk into a casino with a positive expectation.

I second your feeling completely.

I’m a statistics major and know I can’t beat the game in the long term. However, the human brain likes to remember (notice) the hot streaks and like to register certain superstitions. Such as after a few point-7 shooters, next one will be hot; or like you’ve mentioned, virgin female shooter has better luck, especially these false expectations are reinforced by past events—and they do occur, quite frequently.

Another reason is the game has huge variance comparing to the negative expectation, you can easily win/lose 1000 bucks besides having -$10 expectation. And what we focus in the short term. When you win $3000 by hitting 4 numbers, who gives a &^%& about the -10 negative expectation, you feel like you’ve beat the game, and it should happen again. Why not, because it seems so easy.

Walking away from the excitement of winning big easily is difficult, it takes a huge amount of discipline, and most people won’t. That is how the house makes money.

Craps god.

Darth Shooter - 09 April 2012 11:12 AM

I am a man of science.  I believe in the law of averages, not ‘hot shooters’.  I play the don’t pass line because it offers a small advantage over the pass line, no matter how many times a point has been hit.  I am a staunch believer in the “gambler’s fallacy” and will never change my bet based on previous rolls, even if I am the shooter and am bankrupting myself by playing the don’ts.

That was me when I first learned to play.  But the underlying question was, why was I even playing if I firmly believe the house has an overall advantage?  My rationale was that it’s an ‘entertainment expense’, the same way people spend money to watch movies or sports games, I pay money to roll and watch dice, and get free booze.

But the reality is I play because I think I can beat the house.  That ‘leap of faith’ goes against all my fundamental beliefs, but I have seen things that make me believe there is more to craps than simple statistics.  I’ve bet big on female ‘craps virgins’, placed bets on ‘hot numbers’, make come bets whenever a die bounces off the table, and never play the don’ts against myself anymore.

Why do you play?  Is it for entertainment, to make money, or both?  Dice setting aside, do you think there is more to it than simply random rolls?

I’ve resolved my belief in statistics and superstition by knowing that just because science hasn’t discovered something, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  X-rays and microorganisms have always been around and have affected mankind in fundamental ways, even before we or science knew they existed.

And so too, perhaps there are forces just as legitimate affecting our craps rolls in ways that have yet to be realized.  After all, nothing is truly random.  There is a cause and effect for everything.

Uh oh, it feels like one of you are about to break out into some Broadway musical song about craps.  Heck, they are doing some stupid show about Bird and Magic, why not craps with all of its ups and downs..

  I agree too, about waiting too long to leave.  It’s amazing how you enter a casino thinking, ‘it would be nice if’...Then, when you are in that ‘hot table’, you somehow think it will just continue for hours….Somehow, we think retirement is just a few hours away, if the next 10 shooters each throw 5 points each(or something like that)....It’s a romantic idealism that every player has about this silly dice game. 

  The only exception to leaving is if you are close to rolling, or you can’t leave, because you are glued to the table….It’s also very true about the ‘short term’.  Take for instance this:  I’ve seen a lady roll 5—high/lows in a row, and another guy next to me, rolled 5 out of 6 high/lows(not long ago and at the same casino)....Now if you started with $5 on each high/low and pressed to $25, $50, $100, and $200 each during just those 5 rolls=around $10000…..
  Short term understanding is the key…All these long term strategies are trying to beat a long term house edge…

Can it be true to say…......the casino has the edge long term and the player has the advantage short term ?

777

A while back Allen ran some simulations.  I think the scenarios were something like $100 buy-in, $5 PL with and without 1x odds, 2x odds, and the ground rule was quit when up $50 or lose the whole $100. 

It turns out your chance of winning $50 are greater than losing $100, and if I recall by a surprisingly high percentage.  So in the short term you seem to have an advantage, although it’s a false advantage because you’re risking $100 to win $50.  I believe the simulation also showed that the chances of winning the $50 decrease as you increase the odds because it’s much more likely that a cold streak will wipe you out.

I guess im an adrenallin junky in as much as a paunchy old guy can be. With the dice you can turn up the action to insanity level, or turn it down to a snooze. But like anything fun, you gotta learn how.

basicstrategy777 - 17 April 2012 07:43 AM

Can it be true to say…......the casino has the edge long term and the player has the advantage short term ?

The casino certainly has the advantage long term because the game is rigged mathematically to give it that advantage.  Short term, the player’s betting strategy and bankroll-to-win-goal ratio determine his/her advantage or disadvantage (i.e. chances of leaving the table with a profit).

I was thinking along those lines MN…..To enter the game with a 10% win goal should be very do-able. 10% is 10% , and than it becomes just a matter of how many zero’s is in our buy-in.

The chance of a someone walking away a winner under these conditions will be well over 50%.

777

basicstrategy777 - 17 April 2012 07:43 AM

Can it be true to say…......the casino has the edge long term and the player has the advantage short term ?

777

I would not go that far….on every individual play there is a house advantage. The player ‘s only “advantage” is knowing that the dice do not always react in the way that is most likely.  If they did, every throw would be a seven because - after all - it is the number most likely to be rolled.

The throw of a single die is random and the long term expectation is that each of the six numbers will appear approximately equally.  The combination of two random dice gives a long term distribution of outcomes of a perfect pyramid.

In the short term, the variation from the expected is evident.  The shorter the term, the more likelihood the body of results will vary from the expected distribution. But even in the shortest term,  - a single roll - the most likely single outcome (a seven) may still occur. The longer the term, the more likelihood the body of results will approach or mirror the expected distribution.

Having a bet on the correct variation (or non variation) when it occurs is what I define as “luck”.

So the player has no advantage on his side - only luck.

basicstrategy777 - 18 April 2012 09:28 AM

I was thinking along those lines MN…..To enter the game with a 10% win goal should be very do-able. 10% is 10% , and than it becomes just a matter of how many zero’s is in our buy-in.

The chance of a someone walking away a winner under these conditions will be well over 50%.

777

If your goal is 10% you will certainly reach that more than 50% of the time but it will be offset by some big losses.  In my opinion this is the worst strategy because 1) in the long run you’re almost certain to come up short, and 2) there can’t be very much enjoyment in this approach.

If you’re gambling to make money then you should be in something you have some control over. Poker is the obvious choice because you can play against a human with inferior skills.  In theory inside informatin can give you an edge in sports betting or horse racing but it has to be a big edge to overcome the take outs.  If dice is your thing then backgammon is an obvious choice if you can find opponents.

In horse racing they have a term called Bridge Jumpers.  These are bettors that place a big number ($10,000) on a heavy favorite to Show.  If the horse finishes first, second, or third it pays a minimum of $2.10 for $2.00 bet ($10,500).  If the horse doesn’t finish in the top 3, the bettor jumps off a bridge.  You can get away with this a few times but over the long term you need your horses to finish in the top three 20 out of 21 times just to break even.  There are too many things that can go wrong in a horse race to make this a winning proposition.  Plus it’s not very sporting so where is the enjoyment factor?  All this would make one believe that people with $10,000 in cash are smart enough not to make these bets, but then you look up at the tote board and see a huge show pool all bet on one horse.  So there are plenty of people who feel differently than I.

JHPA - 18 April 2012 10:15 AM

In the short term, the variation from the expected is evident.  The shorter the term, the more likelihood the body of results will vary from the expected distribution. But even in the shortest term,  - a single roll - the most likely single outcome (a seven) may still occur. The longer the term, the more likelihood the body of results will approach or mirror the expected distribution.

Having a bet on the correct variation (or non variation) when it occurs is what I define as “luck”.

So the player has no advantage on his side - only luck.

What I—and I believe Basic Sevens also—was referring to is the difference between the probability of showing a profit for a single session vs. the probability of showing a profit over the course of many sessions.  For example, a simple six-level Martingale on the Pass Line is expected to win around 98.3% of the series, so short term, a single series, the player is a huge favorite to show a profit—but of only one unit.  The other 1.7% of the time the player will lose 63 units for an overall expected loss of .018 units (by my hasty calculations) per series.  With a bigger bankroll a player could add more levels to the Martingale and have a better chance of winning a series, but the even rarer losses would still be expected to exceed the one-unit wins overall.

I recently met a retired professional gambler.  He made millions with a method of playing Craps that he spent 2 and a half years working on.  This included 200,000 rolls of the dice which he recorded individually and in order from which he extrapolated the odds of any dice combination, which he than applied to the game of Craps.  He came up with 11,000 betting combinations 127 of which are now stored in the library of congress.

He just found out that he has advanced prostate cancer and is coming out of retirement.  He is teaching me his method.  You play the don’t pass line.  It is remarkeably simple considering the amount of time, thought, mathematics and effort that went into devising it.  He guarantees that you will win every time as long as you do not deviate from the method which requires some self control.  Don’t drink while you play.  Treat it like a job and you will know you are going to win before you ever even set foot in the Casino.  You can average $100 to $200 an hour playing the minimum $1 bet method.  If anyone wants more information feel free to email me

and I will send you some info.  Good luck.

Wayne

wwayne2 - 18 April 2012 02:24 PM

I recently met a retired professional gambler.  He made millions with a method of playing Craps that he spent 2 and a half years working on.  This included 200,000 rolls of the dice which he recorded individually and in order from which he extrapolated the odds of any dice combination, which he than applied to the game of Craps.  He came up with 11,000 betting combinations 127 of which are now stored in the library of congress.

He just found out that he has advanced prostate cancer and is coming out of retirement.  He is teaching me his method.  You play the don’t pass line.  It is remarkeably simple considering the amount of time, thought, mathematics and effort that went into devising it.  He guarantees that you will win every time as long as you do not deviate from the method which requires some self control.  Don’t drink while you play.  Treat it like a job and you will know you are going to win before you ever even set foot in the Casino.  You can average $100 to $200 an hour playing the minimum $1 bet method.  If anyone wants more information feel free to email me

and I will send you some info.  Good luck.

Wayne

Why did you just post the same exact post in two different threads? How much are you selling the system for?

HAHAHA.

craps god

wwayne2 - 18 April 2012 02:24 PM

I recently met a retired professional gambler.  He made millions with a method of playing Craps that he spent 2 and a half years working on.  This included 200,000 rolls of the dice which he recorded individually and in order from which he extrapolated the odds of any dice combination, which he than applied to the game of Craps.  He came up with 11,000 betting combinations 127 of which are now stored in the library of congress.

He just found out that he has advanced prostate cancer and is coming out of retirement.  He is teaching me his method.  You play the don’t pass line.  It is remarkeably simple considering the amount of time, thought, mathematics and effort that went into devising it.  He guarantees that you will win every time as long as you do not deviate from the method which requires some self control.  Don’t drink while you play.  Treat it like a job and you will know you are going to win before you ever even set foot in the Casino.  You can average $100 to $200 an hour playing the minimum $1 bet method.  If anyone wants more information feel free to email me

and I will send you some info.  Good luck.

Wayne