Opinions please, if you're willing to read this LOONG post...

[dork]

Hi Guys,

Can this betting scheme survive a random roller??

I need ya'll's advice. I've war-gamed this betting scheme through two different random number generators:

.Net random class and
Cryptographic RNG (MD5 hash- FIPS 140-1) in a craps simulator on the PC.

I started with a buy-in of $2500. The stats I quote below are rigid in the sense that I NEVER played a hunch, nor 'doubled-down' when I got behind, etc. Nothing is fudged in these numbers I report; I don't turn off bets after 2-5 trash numbers, etc., I let ALL the bets stand until I get a resolution.

With the first generator, after 3800 rolls, I'm up $16,800.
With the second (RNG) generator, after 1366 rolls, I'm up $5430. I should explain my betting system and then pose the question.

I base the betting system on the assumptions that the 4/10 are rarer occurrences, and the chance of immediately repeating (bullfrogging) an inside point number before hitting a different point is slim. Accordingly, I don't ever take Odds (or make Place bets) on the 4/10. The bets start out this way:

$10 PL and wait for a point to be established. Let's say the '6'.

No PL Odds (consistent with the 'no bullfrog' idea) $70 -5/9, $72 -8 TOTAL BET: $222

When a Place bet pays (let's call it the '8'), move the $72-Place 8 bet to PL Odds as $70 (skim $2) and (add $6 to the $84 payoff) then divide the payoff $30/30/30 and add $30 each to the 5/9, and 6 so the table now looks like

$100 5/9, $10 PL w/$100 Odds ($70 from the '8' plus $30) but only 3 bets exist now.. On the next hit, regress to $10 PL w/10 Odds and $32 Inside.

If the Come Out establishes the Point as 4/10, bet $220 Inside (50/60/60/50), no PL Odds. On the first Place bet hit, take that Place bet down (either $50 or $60), add the payoff ($70), and divide the total 3 ways. It'll amount to about "$120". Divide $120 three ways, and add $40 to the remaining number 5/9 and $42 to the 6 or 8. So the table now looks like:

$90 5/9, $102 6 or 8 but only 3 Place bets exist now.

On the next hit, regress to $10 PL w/10 Odds and $32 Inside. This is the least rewarding scheme because of course, the Place bets are smaller than if an Inside number was the Point; if I survive to the ISR point and lose there immediately, the profits are at least $135 for hand where the point was 4/10. It means that the recovery rate is about 3-2. (Two $222 PSO losses could be 'almost' recouped with three $135 wins [short $39, but that's if the 3 winning hands consecutively only pay off on the 6/8 twice in a hand--a 'worst case' scenario].)

At multiples of $2500 (my stake), the bets increase by a factor of one... so that when I've got $5,000, if '6' is the point, the bets are $10 PL no Odds, $140 5/9, $120 Place 8; let's say the 9 hits--move the $140 from the nine to PL Odds, divide the $196 payoff 3 ways and spread $60 each, and now the table looks like:

$10 PL w/$200 odds, $200 Place 5, and $180 Place 8.

I wanna emphasize that this system postulates that the 4/10 and bullfrogs are rarer occurrences than "other point numbers", and that's why I take down the 'winning' place bet; in the hopes that I get paid bigger on another number sooner. Sometimes of course, the 6/8 reoccur sooner, but after almost 5,000 rolls the numbers seem to bear out the idea that this ISR takes 3x to pay off 2 PSO's, rather than some of the other 2-1/2 to one ISR schemes, AND seems to survive a random roller or a guy like me on a bad dice day.

With the $2500 buy in, I've survived 7 straight PSO's to recover to $5430 within 1366 rolls (the recovery from $1200 stake took about 15 hands as I recall); the other number generator hammered me as badly, but in two logs, I've not gone bust. It'd take 11 consecutive PSO's to bust out the $2500. Not unknown, but certainly, "rare", and with a 3-2 recovery ratio for an ISR, I wonder if this makes sense.

I'd really like it if someone was willing to wargame this system; if so, please post your results.

My question is, for the mathematicians--does this system hold any validity or (assuming you understand the # generators) do you think the two random number generators I'm using are too predictably patterned and are skewing the results? I wonder if 5,000 rolls is a large-enough sample...

Thank you for your patience!!

[House of Orange]

Sounds good! Maybe a programmer can get the "If this then that" loops working using a trusted RNG?

[memo]

Hey Dork,

Interesting strategy ...
When you discuss..Low probability to Bullfrog a number....
Do you mean repeating that number on the very next toss, or are you talking about setting a point and making that point in a series of tosses?

Also..This a pretty complex regression. How hard is it to keep track of while you are shooting...Have you simulated this while practicing your toss, or only with the RNG?

Memo

[220Inside]

Bullfrogging a number means to set it and them immediately hop it back on the next toss.

[dork]

Hi Guys, Thanks for the replies! Memo... for the purposes of the bet redistribution, I'm meaning "bullfrog" just as 220 says--to repeat that number consecutively. Sometimes it hits just as you described later--making it during a series of tosses--but I'm redistributing the bets hoping for a bigger payoff on another Inside number sooner than a reoccurrence on the first-paid number. That is, I'm expecting that I'd normally hit another Inside number before I bullfrog, so after a first Inside number payoff, I take that bet down and redistribute it along with the winnings, on the remaining three Inside numbers. On the redistribution, I'd include the previously no-Odds PL bet (the Point) only if the Point is an Inside number.

I haven't tried this while simulating a toss on my home table. As you said, it's complex, and I wanted to have the payoffs and raises in my head 'memorized' before I tried it at home on the table with BoneTracker.

Thanks again, Guys.

[bassdice]

Hey dork i don't think that is enough rolls should try 20,000 each and see the results.When i get time i will run it through some of my own in casino rolls.

[House of Orange]

Hey dork i don't think that is enough rolls should try 20,000 each and see the results.When i get time i will run it through some of my own in casino rolls.

Same table, position, grip and landing zone???

[Tgold]

Thx for sharing dork (& for stating enough details so we can submit some type of opinion).

I will preface my quick thoughts below with: Im not clear on your exact objective with this method (e.g., Win more than buy in($2500) prior to losing buy in, more times than not...etc. Other,

"... Can this betting scheme survive a random roller?? ..."

Yes, if you mean survive a random roller as:(meaning I shall get two paying hits on plc bets before a 7-out, more times than I do not).
The probability is in our favor to receive A hit within two tosses (providing we have >=11 ways to win vs 6 ways to lose), and in all of your examples for inside #s you do indeed have greater than 11 ways to win. So, if you or other shooter average greater than four tosses between 7s then you will receive the (two hits) more often than (not rec two hits).



"...When a Place bet pays (let's call it the '8'), move the $72-Place 8 bet to PL Odds as $70 (skim $2) and (add $6 to the $84 payoff) then divide the payoff $30/30/30 and add $30 each to the 5/9, and 6 so the table now looks like

$100 5/9, $10 PL w/$100 Odds ($70 from the '8' plus $30) but only 3 bets exist now.. On the next hit, regress to $10 PL w/10 Odds and $32 Inside. ..."

This IMO is one of its main attributes (i.e., After one hit reducing from 4 wagers to 3 and after 2nd hit regress everything.)


bassdice wrote: ↑Sun Jun 26, 2022 9:20 am
Hey dork i don't think that is enough rolls should try 20,000 each and see the results.When i get time i will run it through some of my own in casino rolls.

I would be in agreement with bassdice. I would suggest run it through 15,000 decisions and check its performance, If it doesnt survivve 15,000 decisions it still may be a valid method (if it satisfies your objectives). In other words it may bust (several times) prior to 15K decisions, yet on average win more than it loses prior to busting. This leads us into bankroll money management and what we do with our winnings.


:... At multiples of $2500 (my stake), the bets increase by a factor of one... so that when I've got $5,000, if '6' is the point, the bets are $10 PL no Odds, $140 5/9, $120 Place 8; let's say the 9 hits--move the $140 from the nine to PL Odds, divide the $196 payoff 3 ways and spread $60 each, and now the table looks like:

$10 PL w/$200 odds, $200 Place 5, and $180 Place 8.
..."

Personally, I would be cautious about increasing bet size that % just because the buyin doubled. Even a really solid wagering regime can bust a buyin several times in a row prior to winning multi times in a row. I like to view my buyin as (how many times can I make my buyin on average prior to losing it once). It's fine to increase our buyin in small % as a function of our overall bankroll growth.

In your example let's say you go to the casino with your 2500 buyin(Let's say you are disciplined and NEVER rebuy into a losing session), so the most you can lose in a really bad session is 2500. This is very important because u can only lose 2500 regardless if session is -3SD or -5SD against you. However, there will be some session you make greater than 2500 in those +2SD, +3SD, +4SD sessions.

Another bonus with a wagering regime such as yours (can withstand 11 consec PSOs i think you said), is that even on that really bad losing session of -2500, you may have had prior winning sessions of +1000,+800, +450). So although at NET-250 for that buyin, unless you are whacked in very first session with that buyin(very difficult with a low HE method like yours with a steep regression), then even your (losing-buyin-session) will not destroy your overall bankroll.

Just my opinion of course.

If its winning its winning /I would keep doing what you're doing until results suggest tweaks.

Thx again for sharing and we will wait for updates.TG

[bassdice]

HOA I worded that last sentence wrong the rolls would include all the rolls at the table when i was present.

[dork]

TGold said (in part),
"Personally, I would be cautious about increasing bet size that % just because the buyin doubled. Even a really solid wagering regime can bust a buyin several times in a row prior to winning multi times in a row. I like to view my buyin as (how many times can I make my buyin on average prior to losing it once). It's fine to increase our buyin in small % as a function of our overall bankroll growth."

I thought I'd report... It's been a month since my first post. In playing variations of this system (varying only the place bet amounts, not the system) after a 'book' of 2740 rolls, I quit "doubling" the bet every $2500 stake. Somewhere after an admittedly long period of better than average hands, around 2500 rolls I was up ~$18,400; but then I lost 16 of 19 hands, losing the initial bet each time. The largest payoff of the three winning hands was $837, not nearly enough to compensate for the two previous losses, not to mention the other 14. The winnings dwindled from $18,400 to $1,100 in those 19 hands. I never dipped below $1400 from my initial $2500 stake and once I broke $5000, I never fell below $3500. However, I looked over the statistics and found that after the regression to a basic "$44 Inside" idea (including Odds on the Point), a rough guess says that 75% of those bets didn't pay for themselves and maybe another 10% made a profit, so I reduced the final regression from three ("doubled") Place bets (after the first payoff) to only a Pass Line bet with 3x Odds. (further on this below)

I've started over with the intent of waiting to 'triple' my stake before doubling my bets. I'm just trying to see if there's any validity to the original betting idea--taking down the first-paying place bet and its' payoff, and dividing that sum 3 ways among the remaining Inside numbers... I'm now at 293 rolls, up $955. The random generator has only thrown better than 15 rolls four times in 30 hands; the longest roll was 26 rolls (twice). One included 10 non-paying numbers (4s, 10s, and junk #) and the second 26-roll hand only had 5 non-paying numbers.

As a point of interest I note that in the two 26-roll hands, the '5' was rolled 6x in one hand, and the '9' rolled 8x in the other hand. Against all expected stats, the 6/8 didn't outperform these "aberration" 5 and 9 rolls. Alas, I didn't have $44-Inside bet, as I mentioned before--only PL and 3x Odds... but so far, I'm ahead on a "random roller" betting scheme. And that's all I got.

[dork]

I thought I'd report on this. I was so bummed at the final conclusion that I stopped playing cold after my losses--BUT it was such an interesting "journey" I wonder how I might make adjustments so's to quit earlier at the warning signs.

I should preface by saying that I never answered Tgold when he asked:

I will preface my quick thoughts below with: Im not clear on your exact objective with this method (e.g., Win more than buy in($2500) prior to losing buy in, more times than not...etc. Other,

My goal was to win $150 per table session (one session/day).

Sooo... here's the replay: When I started out, I was unsure of the statistical validity of my scheme so I started out betting $10 PL no odds with $90 Inside (30/30/30) whenever I established an Inside point. I know my question dealt with ~224 Inside (70/72/72) but I wasn't completely sure the "10x around the table" rule would survive so I started out at "half" that. Amazingly, after 20 sessions I was up $3,441. In those 20 visits, I only had two losing sessions. Session #6 lost $22, and Session #14 lost $900 (7 STRAIGHT PSOs killed me); I stayed literally to test the theory that the system could withstand the consecutive PSOs, but at -700 (plus earlier scattered losses), I gave up the day. The largest win for any session was $496; I only broke the $400 threshold 4x.

My stake was $2500. With ~$3000 profit (at least $300 was left as tips) I decided to try the ~$224 Inside scheme that I outlined and practiced,(but I revised it to make counting easier because 70/72/72 was too complicated for the dealers--so I doubled from 90 to 180 Inside). It was my downfall.

Over 5 separate sessions, I had an aggregate "consecutive" 15 PSOs. My log says that only during this 5-session stretch, did I play at a stake of $180 Inside. In the first of the 5 sessions, I was up ~$90 when 3 consecutive PSOs sent me home. For the other 4 sessions, they all lost with some variation of 3-4 PSOs within 5-6 hands, which would set my losses for that day of at least $450--my new loss limit under the "$180 Inside" scheme. So, after five consecutive losing sessions, I was back to "even"-- about $2300 left of my orignal stake. But the 5 sessions took the wind out of me and I just quit cold. The BIG difference is, I only bet these times on myself--I didn't bet $180 on RRs. *I* PSO'd myself to death!!

I still wonder if it was the increased stake or table variance that got me; prolly a little of both I guess... there didn't seem to be a higher incidence of double-pitching on my part. L&R faces killed me too, almost indescriminately.

I'd love to hear all ya'lls thoughts... I wonder if the application of the $90 Inside actually worked with Random Rollers, because I played it with every shooter and it seemed to "prove" itself, albeit across only 20 sessions. Conversely, I wonder what I can/should do to adjust my loss limit or loss indicator to set a stop-play limitation. Maybe it was an anomaly, but a 3 PSO limit didn't seem to be enough across 5 hands.

In the meantime, I'ma start another thread... I wonder if practice actually makes any difference, and that'll be the title in "Betting Systems & Strategies".

[skasower]

Dork, This was certainly and interesting experiment. I am starting to think that the methodology you are using is completely based on betting strategies and really assumes that you yourself are a random roller. I am thinking that your methodology needs to be linked mathematically with your results from Bone Tracker. Essentially, I suspect that your real influence is closer to random and random rolling cannot overcome winning results from betting strategies in my technical opinion. That said, I may be missing some key statistical point here.

I am going to predict that you are going to have way better results in craps betting results with your proposed topic: Does practice make any difference? Be careful setting up your statistical analyses with that assumption. Practice will always beat random if the practice is productive and improves tossing accuracy. Good luck Dork. Thank you again for using yourself as the "guinea pig" in your experiment!

[kumar]

Dork
I am not sure I follow your methodology ;when things become complex I refer the analysis to TGOLD;he has a great mathematical approach to the game
You should have a separate side discussion with him
The only thoughts I would offer is dont limit your win and if you have increased your bankroll over a period of a year make an incremental increase in your bets with a willingness to go back to your original bets if you run into a negative streak[professional poker players do that all the time]

[dork]

Thanks very much for the replies!

Skasower, You hit the nail on the head--I did design the betting system with RRolling in mind--in consideration that my own hand's results sometimes deteriorated or seem to be "random". There were/are times when I can't seem to find my on-axis grip and delivery and I wanted to see if I could figure out a betting system that could survive AND make money in the "average" six rolls. My old BT results averaged an SSR of 7.22-7.57 with a CHI of ~1.48 but that didn't seem to prove itself "routinely" at the casino during my last sessions, and I haven't thrown at home since last year.

Kumar, thank you for your suggestion. I read these two replies on the 19th and have been pondering since then how to phrase my questions/ideas succinctly enough not to waste Tgold's time. I'm still trying to figure...

HOWEVER--your thought "don't limit your win" and "willingness to go back to your original bet if you run into a negative streak"-- what an EPIPHANY!!! (no sarcasm intended) Maybe I just realized I'm a novice gambler--though I've been "gambling" at craps since I found this website ~12 years ago (and played amateur poker weekly [before internet]) your two "thoughts" NEVER occurred to me. Obviously, I don't think like a "gambler". I mean, I've heard at the craps table to "let the streak" prove it has has died (to paraphrase; pocket the intended winnings and play on to see if the table's still hot) but I've never done it. I've always cashed in and fled on a big hand. And secondly, ESPECIALLY with this betting system of mine I've been too tunnel-visioned on the methodology to imagine reducing the bet during a negative streak because my focus has been "the system should/could bail itself out".

Thank you, Guys!