Win goal per shooter??

[ntcoop]

So I was reading Wizard's recent posts in his betting thread and he brought up something at the end that made me remember a conversation I had with a fellow crapster.

The question I posed to my friend was "How much would you be happy to win on each shooter?" He didn't really have an answer, nor did I, but it did spark a long discussion. For example, assume there are 10 people at the table shooting and your win goal is $200 based on your buy-in. That's $20 per shooter, one trip around the table. You then try to construct a betting plan that will help you achieve that. Wizard's Iron Cross comes to mind: $25 5, $30 6&8, $15 in the field. For one roll, your net is $20 ($15 if a non 2/12 field number hits...but factor in the 2/12 and it probably averages out close enough for me use).

Could you do it? $100 at risk for one roll and down for each shooter for one lap. I don't think I could but it makes me think about it.

Any thoughts on this? Is it practical to have a win goal for each shooter? Does it help or hurt?

ntcoop

[freak]

We've been doing this a lot lately:

The +$28 per shooter play:
Skip the CO, place the 6&8 for $12 each and one other inside number for $10 after the point is set. Pick a pattern to determine the 3rd number, like the one closest to the point so you always do it the same way without having to think or second guess.
1st hit take down the outer number. 2nd hit take it all down. If you get two hits you make $28. One hit you lose -$10. No hits -$34.

One of my favorite plays is 3 hits full press and down:
Skip the CO, place $44 inside.
First hit press the 6&8.
Second hit - if it wins $14 press the 5 & 9 and place the hard ways $1 each. If the second hit wins $21 press the 5 & 9 and the hitting 6 or 8 and place the hard ways $1 each.
Third hit all down or all down except the hard ways.

What I like about that play is the max you can lose is $44. It sucks if you get only two hits and then 7out, but I figure if I was willing to risk $44 I want more than $14 in return. If the numbers hit just right you can win $49 - $72 with three hits. If the hard ways keep hitting you can build back into the hand with the profit locked up.

[Mad Professor]

Hi NTCoop,

Are all of the other players around the table random-rollers or skilled-shooters?

~For randomly-tossed outcomes, the blended house-edge on the Iron-Cross (as bet-weighted as above) is around -3.7% if the Field-12 pays double...and around -2.5 if the Field-12 pays triple.

~Your random chances of collecting any one paying-hit under the Iron-Cross regimen is 83.3%...the chances of collecting two winning-hits before a 7-Out is 69.4%...and collecting three I-C hits before a 7 would average around 57.9% of the time.

HOWEVER, for every +$550 that the I-C earns; it would lose an average of -$600 in the process (on a triple-pay-12 table)...or about -$1.39 per roll. It would fare even worse on a double-pay-12 table; losing around -$1.81 per roll.



MP

[dork]

I don't have the faith to bet on every shooter against the house. I see the RR's (and most self-touted DI's) as Don't plays. In another thread, I was pretty detailed--in 2-1/2 years, I've only seen 4 people I'd classify as DI's, and two were complete strangers. The only other we (4 of us students) saw who we thought could truly influence the dice were Heavy and one of the students at one of his classes.

I've never seen anyone consistently strong enough with the trash numbers to warrant playing an Iron Cross scheme when they're shooting. (Heavy's class attendee seemed like he could do it, but he's not local.) I guess I'd say my goal is to average $10-15 in Don't profits from each stranger 'cause I just can't envision $5DC with 30 odds winning enough to bank on it better. I think $10-15 be a nice long-term average goal--and with RR's, maybe too optimistic, still.

I can't see a $20 'per head' profit on 10 strangers at a table. That's $1000 buy-in, betting $100 per shooter, yes? I guess it's possible... I'd probably be looking for some kind of "one hit and down" box numbers bet. If $200 is the goal, though, I'd rather wait my turn and bet heavy on myself... $300 across with a PL w/ at least 6x odds or somesuch.

[Bankerdude80]

As long as the net winnings are a net positive, I would be a happy camper. The more, the merrier. However, we must remember Heavy's sage advice, "the best bet on a random shooter is no bet at all."

[heavy]

If you like that one roll per shooter concept you should read PerryB's looooooooooooong thread over on John Patrick's forum: http://roncen.websitetoolbox.com/post/q ... ng-6282426

[dork]

I've never seen anyone consistently strong enough with the trash numbers to warrant playing an Iron Cross scheme when they're shooting. (Heavy's class attendee seemed like he could do it, but he's not local.)

Ya dirty bastidge ... ya sent me over there to sort through all that s* even after I'd made my thoughts clear on the IC. An' ya did it on purpose, too--I know ya did. Don't laugh! After about 5 pages of the swill, I skipped to the end. Seems like he plays in a different universe than (y)ours... up $2600-something in a year's time... 'WAY better than 130 "one-roll winners" in a betting scheme fraught with faults, not to mention severe house advantage. It seems there are not enough 7's migrating from your universe to cause him trouble. He should author that stuff and sell it; he'd probably make more than he does with his grind.

I'll get even... I'mo axe him to join over here.

[shunkaha]

Generally speaking when on a table with a total of 10 people I work under the belief that there are between 7 and 9 too many people on the table. Using those numbers as my model I might see fit to in a best case scenario bet 3 or 4 including myself, I keep a modest win goal of any positive expectation on everyone but me and on myself I tend to be "ok" if I average as little as $50 when added with whatever I made from the others. Those are during less than optimal circumstances [think limited market, few tables, crowded conditions, poor table positioning, etc, etc], under optimum conditions I represent between 33% and 100% of the players at the table [obviously it requires a bigger, better market, or at least off hours play to be the only player... then the answer might surprise you. If I am the only player I am content with as little as $5 - 15 per hand due to the speed of the game.

In case anyone wants to do the math at that rate if I can average that across between 10 - 15 hands per hour [very short hands, think mostly comeout game] that is between $50 - $225 per hour. The average last time I was able to do it was about $80 per hour for the 90 minutes I had my own table... thus when I say I hate playing on a table with other people I mean I hate playing on a table with other people on those nights. Nothing spells misery like having a killer comeout game that could make you $150 an hour with almost no exposure turned into something like $20 per hour because everything with opposable thumbs wants a turn with the dice because they mistakenly believe the point of the game is to toss cubes around on a table, get drunk and obnoxious, or do anything and everything except make money. Obviously it doesn't work all the time and my desired goal fluctuates accordingly but ideally I try to bet on as few other people as possible unless 1] I know that shooter from past experiences and preferably 2] know that shooter is doing well that night.

During my last trip, none of those except the anything positive was achieved on average, the tables had too many random rollers and I'd have gone broke betting them... because it was painfully slow going around the table I had issues getting dialed in and staying that way so the expectations became very simple... 1] any win, 2] build comps, and/or 3] break even in a comp building scenario... and in answer to the $100 bet per player, unless that player can walk on water, turn water into wine and feed the multitudes with a couple of fish... odds are I am not willing to put that kind of faith in them.

[ntcoop]

MP - most likely shooters would be random rollers.

Freak - Your post is exactly what I'm talking about. A specific win goal per shooter and then down.

To be clear, I wasn't condoning risking $100 on a random roller for one shot at winning $20. Nor was my question about a one roll per player type of betting strategy. I was merely tossing out an example of a win goal per shooter. It could just as easily have been a $28 win goal per shooter, place $44 inside for two hits and then take it down.

I think we all know that the "best" bet on a random roller is no bet, but how many of us actually do that? Some do, I'm sure. I would think a lot of us do not for various reasons. I have read and heard personally multiple people from this site say that they chart/trend the table and then bet. No way that only happens when there are 14 believable DIs at the table. Or, for example, unknown shooter takes his time setting and tosses two nines in his first four throws - I know people who would be betting the nine at that point even though this shooter is more likely random than skilled.

[dork]

I think we as a forum believe as a consensus that an 'across' bet on every RR shooter is a very solid negative-expectation grind. Am I wrong about that? Obviously, '3 hits and down' reduces the volatility, but isn't that pushing the average RR box number per hand stats to its' ideal limits? I don't hold out a regression to the 3rd box hit on my own rolls; I think it's just too high to be survivable. Three box hits seems quite high even as a goal for "and down", on RR's, yes?

I wasn't trying to infer that Ntcoop had proposed a $100 commitment per RR shooter. I just meant to extrapolate the $200 win into buy-in dollar amount (in consideration of commonly-accepted win goals). I don't think anyone who studies the game like we do would routinely make that bet, though we've all seen RR do it routinely, especially after a few successful rolls have passed.

However, Ntcoop did ask

Could you do it? $100 at risk for one roll and down for each shooter for one lap. ...

While that shouldn't in the farthest be construed as a recommendation, it is a testimony that it's in consideration awaiting advice. I don't think my inference was taken too far.

I didn't mean that he'd proposed a 'one roll and down' strategy. I, too, was spitballing... it seems to me that a gambler set on winning $200 by betting on all 10 RR's once around a table would have to set a pretty high regression strategy to reduce his/her exposure to their volatility. I just threw the idea out for consideration and feedback--it seems to me that the best regression would be "one roll and down"... a 20% winning goal would mean $200 requires $1000 buy-in, and 10 shooters would be allotted $100 apiece.

[freak]

I think we all know that the "best" bet on a random roller is no bet, but how many of us actually do that?

Amen. No bet means no chance to win. We tried to only bet on ourselves and just couldn't do it. For one it's usually crowded where we play and getting the dice back takes too long. Waiting for dice is painfully boring. Plus it is torturous to watch someone catch a great hand when you have promised yourself you'll only watch other shooters. But the biggest reason is that some of our best wins have been on other shooters. L has rolled a few fire bets that have been good earners, but in my entire craps career I've only had one roll that exceeded 35 numbers. The plain truth is I'm just not exhibiting any DI yet, so if I'm willing to bet on myself I might as well bet on others non-DIs. I believe learning regression has been our saving grace. All of the variety of regression plays that are sound for DIs are also sound for randies. Yes there's a larger initial risk on randies but we have been having some success by reducing our goals per shooter and per session and respecting a strict loss limit. We are excited about our upcoming seminar with Heavy. Our approach may change after that. But for now the combination of a long drive to get there and limited table time has lead us to this "win goal per shooter" kind of approach.

[Mad Professor]

For those requesting links to my entire Regression Avoids Depression series; here they are:

Regression Avoids Depression - P-1

Regression Avoids Depression - P-2

Regression Avoids Depression - P-3

Regression Avoids Depression - P-4

Regression Avoids Depression - P-5

Regression Avoids Depression - P-6

Regression Avoids Depression - P-7

Regression Avoids Depression - P-8

Regression Avoids Depression - P-9

Regression Avoids Depression - P-10

Regression Avoids Depression - P-11

Regression Avoids Depression - P-12

Regression Avoids Depression - P-14

Regression Avoids Depression - P-15

Regression Avoids Depression - P-16

Regression Avoids Depression - P-17

Regression Avoids Depression - P-18

Regression Avoids Depression - P-19

Regression Avoids Depression - P-20

Regression Avoids Depression - P-21


MP

[freak]

If you like that one roll per shooter concept you should read PerryB's looooooooooooong thread over on John Patrick's forum: http://roncen.websitetoolbox.com/post/q ... ng-6282426

It's interesting how people convince themselves that their play is a good one even though the math is against them. Perhaps it all comes down to personality. This guy NEEDS a decision every time he bets and he NEEDS a trigger to tell him when to bet. I also find comfort in structure so I understand his approach. It is serving his personality well and there is a CHANCE it could win. We have often got excited about a new betting pattern and had wild success...for a while.

The iron cross holds little appeal to me. I think the most undervalued result in craps is the PUSH. Having money at risk and NOT LOSING is a really good thing. If you can get your mind to accept this as a positive, many bets have a much greater appeal. We teach a lot of people the game and inevitably they go through a "Field" stage. It's easy to understand a field bet. Less easy to understand a placed six that sits and sits until it's forgotten about. As players learn the game they begin to see the value in placing versus the field. The ladies I play with L and Svetlana, are REALLY good at short term bets. Svetlana won about $75 one night only betting the six. She bought in for $50 on a $15 table. She'd wait a few rolls after the point then place the 6 for $18. If it didn't hit in 1-2 rolls she'd come down. She was very patient and it paid off. +$75 for 2 hours playing on a crowded Saturday night. That kind of play is difficult for me, I want (need) more action. So I have settled on heavy action at first, then regress, then press if the hand goes well. This suits my personality and I've learned to accept the risk. It is also a big help that L is always at my side as the primary voice of reason on when to regress or come down. Neither of us has perfect instincts. But my desire to press lets us win more on the long hands and her desire to come down keeps us from giving it all away on the short hands. Perhaps our recent success is simply attributable to "two heads are better than one."

[dinero2005]

Limiting wins seem counter to the entire point of the game. I don't think it's realistic to expect one or two hits per shooter. If you don't take advantage of the hotter rolls you'll only take advantage of the cold ones.

What I mean is that assuming you can get one or two hits off every shooter isn't realistic. In a real setting of 10 random shooters you may get 3 with 2 hits, 3 with 1 hit, 1 with 10 hits, 3 with 0 hits.

I believe the theory is solid but the reality doesn't work that way.

I don't agree with the assumption that all random rollers are bad either. I've made a lot of money off random rollers. The key word there is RANDOM. If they all went point-seven then we'd call them predictable rollers and play one DP. I could go on and on but it always comes down to money magement. Minimize the losses, maximize the wins and get out when ahead.

Obviously if we can truly influence the dice then we have an advantage but IMHO we shouldn't avoid everyone else. Scared money is dead money.

[freak]

I hear you Dinero. I guess what we came to realize is that we were losing on EVERY hand except the monsters. We were getting one or two hits frequently, but since we left two - four placed bets up, most of those hands were net losers. Two hits and regress to $12 6&8 followed by the seven is only a +$4 play. We could have had +$28.

We looked at the data and the most consistent thing was that there are usually only a handful of short PSOs and PPSOs. Also only a handful of nice 18+ hands. Lots of 4 - 9 roll hands. A few 10 - 17 hands. So now we try to get a few hits and down for a guaranteed win and build our rack to a positive. From there we can apply a bit more pressure and hope to catch one of the longer rolls. Another move we often use when we are completely down and the shooter keeps on going is that we place two numbers and a come bet. If the devil shows we only lost $12. If a placed number hits we have two numbers working and one is "paid for". If a non placed number hits we take down the placed bets and hope the come bet will return. It's a $10 investment of the $28 profit to see if we can grow that hand. It keeps us in the game without risking all our profit. I see so many players lose money on a nice 4 - 6 hit hand because they lose as much or more than they won by leaving everything up. Taking it ALL down is a great way to mentally reset. Having a set "Two hits and down play" takes a lot of "deciding pressure" off of my brain and helps me relax and not be so anxious. Then seeing the profit and bets all back in the rack has an influence on my brain and makes me reluctant to put much of it back up. Maybe I'm just doing psychology tricks on myself but it seems to be working.

[Mad Professor]

I don't agree with the assumption that all random rollers are bad either. I've made a lot of money off random rollers. The key word there is RANDOM. If they all went point-seven then we'd call them predictable rollers and play one DP. I could go on and on but it always comes down to money magement. Minimize the losses, maximize the wins and get out when ahead.

Obviously if we can truly influence the dice then we have an advantage but IMHO we shouldn't avoid everyone else. Scared money is dead money.

Avoiding random-rollers as much as possible isn't 'scared money'; it's actually 'smart money'.

I have no doubt that you've made a lot of money off of random rollers; but I also have no doubt whatsoever that you've also LOST a lot of money on random-rollers too....and there's the problem...losing more on RR's than you win.

The more money you bet on RR's, and the more often you bet on them; the more you'll lose...and yes, it really is as simple as that. Now obviously you can try to 'manage' your bets and your bankroll as much as you want; but the overall trajectory is almost-unfailingly downward when you look at a reasonable number of sessions.

Sure, you'll encounter a few tantalizing upspikes here and there (which will keep your hopes up just enough to keep you betting on them); but overall, without an edge, the walk is downward, no matter the time nor the money-management between or during each walk.


MP

[ntcoop]

Dork - I don't think your inference was taken too far in the way I phrased that question. I see now that my original post was a little unclear and may have drifted toward the trees when I was really bringing up the forest. Apologies on that.

MP - I have read most of your series on that topic, but it's been a while. I need to revisit.

It seems that we've all come to some conclusion that an individual bet (field bet, e.g.) is not a good strategy...but use of that same individual bet at strategic times is okay. As a semi-newbie at this, are we conflicting ourselves?

If one could be happy trying to win $XX per shooter, one should do that in the quickest (smartest) way possible and then stop for that shooter regardless of what they continue to do. If an 80 roll hand comes to pass and you met your shooter goal on roll 4, that's a long time to watch others make money and be content with your $XX win. If you aren't content during that 80 roll hand, then $XX isn't the right number for you.

BTW, I do not play this way at all. I'm a start small and build guy at the moment. But, I'm convincing myself that I need to regress. Just trying to start conversation.

ntcoop

[freak]

ntcoop - It sounds like we may be in a fairly similar place in our craps "journey." Regression was a totally new concept to me just last year. I was a "bet small and hope to build" kinda player. But I seemed to often watch my bankroll die a slow "death of a thousand cuts." I never lost big, but I never won enough to make up for it. In the beginning I just couldn't stand much volatility. Then we got more brave. Then came the fateful weekend we were brave and lost. So we got more brave and lost even more. We chased and got hammered. Valuable lesson. The play has to be consistent and within our bankroll. John Patrick once said "If you wanna place bigger bets get a bigger bankroll." True that!

I still don't bet across, but I will go inside for a few rolls. It sucks when a PSO happens, but it also feels good when a roll starts off: 5 - 5 - 9 - 9 - 9... We were doing only the 6&8 for a while there. Less risk, but got frustrated by those hands that danced outside our bets. We always start with a set play now. Always. If we win we allow a few more risks. If we start losing we stay the course until we get too bummed out or hit our loss limit. Whichever comes first. It has made casino trips more fun and less stressful. We haven't had any HUGE wins, but we've had two small losers and 3 small winners. We're up slightly for the year so far and headed back this weekend for another adventure.

[dork]

Dork - I don't think your inference was taken too far in the way I phrased that question. I see now that my original post was a little unclear and may have drifted toward the trees when I was really bringing up the forest. Apologies on that. ...

No worries, NT. I understood there was some confusion generated just because of our writing styles.

BTW, I do not play this way at all. I'm a start small and build guy at the moment. But, I'm convincing myself that I need to regress. Just trying to start conversation.

A smarter player than I. The strategy never occurred to me until I'd stumbled on MP's Regression Series. I had almost given up the game. I didn't need 'convincing'--I paid for my lesson with 18 months of neophyte faith and dogged determination. I persevered with wrong-and-conservative betting schemes because of caution until I'd proven to myself beyond any doubt that an 'across' bet and PL w/2x odds was just an extremely strong house grind against my buy-ins. In my first 18 months, my "not scared" money got hammered. Indiscriminately, I gave ALL shooters a chance to make me money, and paid with dollars for my faith in ("long-term") statistics. Even my "scared money" got lost... if you're familiar with Heavy's Heatseeker, that was my favorite play when funds were dwindling and I'd decided to tread water on the optimistic side until it was my turn. Good RR hands just didn't occur often enough for the overall Heatseeker scheme to provide (either) enough profit nor action--when the big hands came, as with all other schemes, it 'just' paid for previous losses. (but what can one expect when 3 units is the maximum degree of jeopardy?) Then again, it's meant as a very "affordable" slow, and table-testing, grind. Now I understand the occurrence of trends/streaks within the "averages".

Dunno if you're like me... (I really did stumble on MP's series--I was looking for something else; can't remember what, but I remember Google found Part III and I back-tracked from there.) It took a lot of psychological girding up ("Brace up, Dork!" ) to swallow the idea that I had to increase my buy-in to $300 or $500 and start out with an initial bet 3-5x larger than I was comfortable with, to play this game with a real chance at winning.

Early on, whether or not my throwing ability had any influence on the dice, the losing trend at least slowed to a crawl. I attribute most of that winning trend to Regression. Now, with LOTS more practice and some (maybe not undeserved) confidence, I'm betting those '3x-5x' larger amounts much more easily and my logbook says I'm gaining ground steadily.

[dork]

... In the beginning I just couldn't stand much volatility. Then we got more brave. Then came the fateful weekend we were brave and lost. So we got more brave and lost even more. We chased and got hammered. Valuable lesson.

You learned something!?? I didn't. I just came back and tried again.

I still don't bet across, but I will go inside for a few rolls. It sucks when a PSO happens, but it also feels good when a roll starts off: 5 - 5 - 9 - 9 - 9... We were doing only the 6&8 for a while there. Less risk, but got frustrated by those hands that danced outside our bets. We always start with a set play now. Always. If we win we allow a few more risks. If we start losing we stay the course until we get too bummed out or hit our loss limit. Whichever comes first. It has made casino trips more fun and less stressful. We haven't had any HUGE wins, but we've had two small losers and 3 small winners. We're up slightly for the year so far and headed back this weekend for another adventure.

If I may say, THAT is when I came to believe I 'understood' craps. And maybe, how to play it.

Oh, sure, there's plenty of guys who'll claim they 'had fun'. I don't when I'm losing. Commiserating with other losers at the table ain't my idea of fun. Keeping a handle on my losses certainly reduces the stress, and thankfully, I can afford my losses--and there've been a few times when I did have fun while I was losing $300... which brings me to my point--I've been at tables where $3-5,000 buy-ins join in, have to leave for the ATM or marker window within 20 minutes, come back with another $2,000, and then buy a 3rd time for a couple more G's. Where is the "soul" in that kind of action? Does anyone know what I mean? How can (either) an addict or someone "super"-wealthy (in my book) have fun if it takes that much to search for it? Then again, I bet the true penny-slot players regard the guys who play in my amounts the same way.