Bouncy tables

[kumar]

I see many posts on this website complaining about bouncy tables.

The game of craps has changed in the last few years.More and more casinos have gone to bouncy tables resulting in long rolls being more difficult to sustain.

A few weeks back I interviewed 10 dealers,who I have known for 20 years, at Caesars in Vegas.They were not aware of a single noteworthy roll at their tables in the last month.

So what should a serious craps player do.My advice is hone betting skills and less on throwing skills.Make money on short rolls.

Last weekend at the Horseshoe,over 2 days,I had rolls of 42,33,26,24,22 on very bouncy tables.Prior to the trip I spent exactly 20 minutes in the last two weeks practicing my throwing.[ I see practicing too much a waste of time;it creates expectations that are hard to fulfill] As it so happened I got lucky plus I have been taught by some of the best on how to tackle bouncy tables. Others in our group had two 40 plus rolls a 38 etc however one must understand these guys play almost every week so somewhere one gets lucky.

My ideal team is a bunch of players who dont have an ego of their shooting skills and understand how lucky one has to be to have a long roll but know how to bet and stay in the game.

[dork]

I see many posts on this website complaining about bouncy tables.
...
So what should a serious craps player do.My advice is hone betting skills and less on throwing skills.Make money on short rolls.
...

Hello Kumar. Hope I'll see you at the next class down this way. I remember your delivery; you've got a pretty throw. It seems well-practiced, whether you keep up with it or not. As I recall, you're left-handed, (and shot from SL1?).

I couldn't agree more with your advice. One of the big reasons I didn't attend the last Biloxi class is I wanted to attend a 'betting-only' class and there wasn't one. (the other was that I'd really have to have moved some dates around to accommodate the scheduling)

I think betting schemes and ignorance about them are the biggest reasons, that most players lose. I think it's the one place where I can show that I've improved drastically. The best way to show that is to critique another player I saw actually last night.

I was dragged to the Grand by my wife after a winning session at IP. I was determined and successful about not playing (I was ahead by 95% of my buy-in). I decided to watch some guys play the crapless table. I kill time by attending tables where there's room to watch others bet; in a way, it's like a betting class... though sometimes I have a hard time determining if there's rhyme or reason to their "motives"...

For instance, yesterday, one guy I've seen several times missed a BIG opportunity. He was betting what I'd consider is the 'minimum requirement' to gamble... not win, mind you, but 'gamble'. He started out with $300. He placed the regular box numbers, skipping usually two numbers and sometimes one. For example, with 9 as the point, he bet 1 or 2x odds and he'd bet one unit ($5) on the 5, 6,8, and 11 (ELEVEN!??). I guess he's a hunch player. He held the dice for 15 minutes (2 shooters). I lost count but I think he hit > eleven ten's. I DID count five hard 10's, three in succession. He didn't have a nickel on the 10, though. Ever. He pressed all his other bets the first time they hit, took the second hits for these numbers and continued "up one unit" for the rest of his hand. He never hit an '11'. And he never got paid for his 10's.

For all his rolling, I'd estimate he only made $60-70 that one hand. Yes, his glaring omission cost him "hundreds"; the dealers even slowed the game down trying to get him to place the 10 for $5. THREE TIMES. Nope. Not even a "no, thank you" from him. Just a dirty stare, like they were trying to fleece him.

And why didn't I bet the 10 after about the 3rd or 4th occurrence? Because I'm stupid and Chicken-Little Maximus. I should have; hell it'd only been $5 or $10. But it required "thinking" not observing, and I had my mind locked in "learning mode". Hell, who expects ~eleven tens, anyway? But I was stupid...

I bet like that shooter when I first started, a couple years ago. If any of you have read my thread about "ever 'never' lose a bet", there's a lot of detail to it, but boil out the extraneous, and the the jist of my thread is my wonderment over winning in the beginning. I've just recently changed my betting style.

There was a time when I bet almost exactly like this guy--$26/27 across, take the first 5 payoffs to cover my action, parlay each number once, and "up one unit" from then on. Hell, that's a "solid plan"... my ass. My roll or anyone else's, it's an engineered grind, and it doesn't pay me until the 6th box number rolls (or maybe the 5th, if the 4/10 hits once or twice). I followed that betting scheme into oblivion, losing ~$6G's my first year. At the time, I thought, "that's acceptable" for ~2+ casino visits per month.

But the more I read on this forum, (and saw on Heavy's short excerpt in his DVD about betting) the more I was convinced there had to be a better way--His "get in, get up, get gone" is a great adage, but in and of itself, it doesn't describe how to. From all my reading, the best methodology is--'to not grind'... this is, after all, "gambling". By definition, ya gotta take a chance, so...

I came to the conclusion I had to alter my betting scheme. Betting the "DO", this is my betting scheme nowadays (viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2702&sid=60ae87b8aa ... 458#p37184. I need two "big" payoffs to cover my action with a 'leftover' acceptable risk ($15-20) with all numbers covered for 2 units each (w/2x odds). This scheme 'reduced my losses' the second year to $3300. (That includes a disastrous trip that year where I lost $6G's in the span of almost 4 weeks...everything I was ahead with, in April 2013... yes, I was AHEAD $6G's by 4/13. I was in a psychological depression brought on by a death in the family; I couldn't face the daily grind and hid at the casino. That was one hell of a lesson, and I'm glad it only cost money. MY money that I'd taken from the casino--not the "casino's money".)

The point is, there are ways to adjust profit possibilities. But even that betting scheme hurt me because I couldn't stay out of the 'action'. When I had a hunch that someone would have a good roll, I bet them, too. THAT lesson took a long time and lots of play to sink in--there are 'way fewer DI's out there than it looks. LOTS of guys set the dice. DAMN FEW can hit a target repeatedly and shouldn't be bet on.

The odds are stacked against the player; we all know that. I doubt any of us walk right up to the table and drop our cash outright, with a blustery, "$150 Across" on our first roll, without at least getting a couple rolls in first before raising our bets.

That newly-embraced logic postulates that the random roller usually doesn't have staying power. So instead of betting with them, I bet with the house on most shooters with a modified "Dave's Don't". Yeah, it's a Don't grind, but with the odds in my favor because I'm with the house, it pays just enough better to put me in the black sooner with my first bets, and "holds" until I get the dice myself. Of course, one has to accept that starting in one direction ('Do' or 'Don't') doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't change directions if you think the shooter's too hot the other way. A couple times, rather than sit and just wait for a long roll to 7, I've bet the other way from my Come-Out bet.

And remember that when it's profit (and it's "profit" even when it's a bet on the table), it's yours until and unless you let the casino take it back. Just because you hit the hard 6 with a $10 bet doesn't mean that the "casino's $90" payoff should be 'spent' spreading it all on the table somewhere. That $90 is yours now. How do you usually use $90 of your money at the table?

There are a lot of nuances to betting craps; like poker, betting is the essence of the game. I'm starting to really grasp the 'critical mass' of that idea, finally. Take what the table gives (in its' statistical sense)... most rolls will be short; we all grasp the idea that 'the goal is to have as little of "your own" money on the table'. For that, you need a workable betting scheme that pays quickly, as Kumar advises.

Sorry for the long wind... I guess I had a lot to spew.

[amish dude]

I think it was a good spew !

[freak]

I agree that "place across , get 5 hits then press" is a doomed way to play. I see so many guys do it at the casino. It's like their brain is hardwired to only consider the monster roll as a profit opportunity. I also agree that watching others helps hone betting strategies. When we deal and just watch people play with no bets on the line ourselves, we always gain insights about what to do...well, mostly what NOT to do. But I don't agree that either of you were stupid for not betting the 10. Of course you wish you had now, but how many hands do we see that happen? If a 10 rolls once is that the beginning of a streak? If you have a plan going in I say it's better to stick to it. Your plan was to observe. His was to bet his numbers. If 3 tens roll in a row is that a sign three more are coming? I used to bet the 4 a lot. It was my "signature" number. I once turned a single $10 four bet into $150 on one of L's rolls. But I wasn't winning on it often so I changed my plan. Mostly now I play inside for a few hits and down. Or establish one don't number then place inside and hope the good numbers hit and the don't number doesn't. At least with this play I do get something back when the devil shows. That can keep me in it for a long time. The two hardest parts for me have been 1) gaining the courage to risk large bets for brief periods of time and 2) regressing, or better yet, taking it all down after a few hits. On almost any book of rolls I see posted or that I record myself the most money is made with a "place 6 & 8, one hit and down" strategy. The problem is that's boring. And for me a big reason I go is I enjoy being in the game. I think most of us do. A lot of people say they are just in it to win, that it's all about the money, not entertainment. But the trip reports after a Heavy seminar are 90% about the fun, food and camaraderie - not the money. I bet most DIs would make more profit (or less loss) with a "few hits and down" strategy. But that's not very fun. Nothing is more fun than catching a long roll , locking up a profit early and then doubling or tripling that with a 20-40 roll hand. My guess is that most craps players care more about HOW they win the money than the money itself. If you walked in and went to check your rewards points and they gave you $300 free cash, how many of us would say "Well, no need to play craps today, I just hit my win goal!" I bet 99% of us would want to turn that $300 into $600 by our own hand. That's very similar to taking down. Many times I have $50 - $150 in "additional profit" on the layout but I'd rather risk turning it into more than taking the sure thing. "One more roll..." To a craps player, two birds in the bush nearly always has more appeal...

[dork]

...
The two hardest parts for me have been 1) gaining the courage to risk large bets for brief periods of time and 2) regressing, or better yet, taking it all down after a few hits.
...

I agree with most everything that you've said; your insight into the "non-bet" 10 requires strong consideration, but one of the canons of my own betting scheme is to 'let the dice pick a number, any number' when I'm throwing; which ever non-point box number reoccurs first after my action is covered, I'll anticipate that number as my "signature number" and chose it as the parlay-multiple-times before harvesting it. (That's my way of "engineering" a monster payoff from what might be just an "average" long roll of 10-15 numbers.) With that as my own standard, I should have bet the 10; it would have cost me a whole $5 or $10. (My own 'reasoned' logic to this betting scheme is that, when my action is paid off, I can afford to lose one units' worth 'chasing a pipe dream'--hell, it's paid for, why not see if I can make a mountain out of a free molehill?)

As to your two bigger "challenges"--gutting it through large bets for short amount of time (whatever "large" denotes), and 2) regressing...

I don't have any trouble regressing... I itch all over with "large" amounts out there. In my early craps days, I traded lots of emails with Heavy, in which he advised me about my impressions and thoughts about what the ratios between my stake, buy-in, and before-regression initial bets should be; all with an eye on 'survivability'--both psychological, and financial. I hate having big amounts of money bet out there, ESPECIALLY my money. Casino's, okay, not so much because it means I'm ahead, healthily.

But--"gaining the courage to risk large bets for brief periods of time"...
I started as a $2- and $300 buy-in player. Most every serious shooter I've read, and most dealers told me that $300 is about as little as I should start with, to have any chance of surviving initial losses with enough reserve to come back. Conventional wisdom says I should then divide that stake 10x in order to survive through the "ten shooters", one of whom should be 'mystical and legendary' enough to make my table session theoretically profitable.

I agree with your assessment of the "grind" betting scheme-- I've found that $30 just isn't enough to 1) keep me "in the action", but more importantly, 2) it doesn't allow for much 'coverage'. If I'm at a $5 table, $30 is just enough to bet the PL with 2x odds and a $6 six and eight. That scheme gets me killed.

How 'bout doubling the bet, or halving the numbers of shooters from ten, down to five? If I bet $60 initially, I could PL w/ $10 odds, and then go $44 inside, even if the point is 4/10. Three hits and down; or $22 inside, and I'm covered w/$15's profit. That's not much leeway--$15 spread across the incidence of five losing shooters.

For my own personality, that was too much 'exposure' for the wishful winnings I wanted to harvest. I was hoping for $100 per session profits; DAMN stiff on a $300 buy-in. "Five around the table" at $60 per shooter, and most times, I was broke. Lots of times, the shooters didn't last 4 box number rolls. But some lasted three and even more lasted two. Occasionally, somebody would roll 15 or 20 times. There had to be money there, if only I could be "paid up" when it started...

After much experimentation (mostly on the computer), I realized my profit goal of $100 required an initial bet of ~ $120, twice what was barely palatable. On the other hand, I reasoned that if one of two shooters hit a paying number just once, I could "stand" two losses and be at my loss limit--IF I took down the paying place bet. True, I had to consider that two consecutive shooters could bust me out and send me home... and in those days, to me, table time was the enjoyment just as much as the action. (now not hardly; especially with more'n 4 shooters at the table)

Anyway.. the first coupla months, I accepted that I should bring $500 with me to buy-in with $300. I'd buy in with 3, pick my shooter or bet on myself, and throw "$85 Across" w/ PL & $30 odds, and hope for two payoffs before the red. It worked out enough for me to gain confidence; barely. Win some, lose some--like they say. Mostly 'lose some'... but that steady regimen of 'bring 5, buy 3, risk ~$120 on the opening roll' got me psychologically used to the amount while I lost no more than I'd lost before with other betting methods.

THAT 'treading of water' kept me comfortable until two things happened... I got better with my DI, and I hit a winning streak. Having extra money (that added and made the "stake" theoretically larger) took a lot of the psychological pressure off the before-regression bet.

I'm not so far ahead that I can now dismiss initial $120 losses back-to-back; that'd still finish me for the day... but only because I wanna be strict in discipline. But it's been a LONG time since I opened with two consecutive $120 losses, and as long as I keep an eye on the loss limit, how it's lost doesn't matter to me, with the proviso that I've adhered to my betting strategy and table limits. (in that sense--I wanted to reply--I'm the 1%... gimme $300 free cash and I'm history)

[freak]

I like your idea of parlaying a signature number to harvest a big win from a modest hand. I think this works IF you are on that number the first time it hits. The difference with that ten in your story (as I see it) was two fold: 1) YOU weren't throwing the dice 2) you weren't on it for the first hit. The best win I ever had on a 4 was when it was the only number I was on. If I wanted to press I had no choice but to press that one. I was down to my last $10 and I put it on a 4. It's easy to see in retrospect what the signature number of a roll was. Sometimes it's easy to see half way through. You strategy of picking it right away as the first repeater is excellent. No guarantee it will become the signature, but it has the best chance at that point. I also applaud you taking that $60 six back to $12. In live casino play I've only seen two other players besides myself regress. And one of those was copying me after I was consistently surviving short hands on a choppy table. It's a logical move, but one I still have to force myself to do in live play.

If I ever get rich I'll test you on that free cash win. I still say it would be hard to resist playing if you've driven to the casino and have yourself all pshched up to play. Kinda like getting to the baseball game and learning the other team forfeit. The win is nice but...DAMN! I was ready to play!

[dork]

...
If I ever get rich I'll test you on that free cash win. I still say it would be hard to resist playing if you've driven to the casino and have yourself all pshched up to play. Kinda like getting to the baseball game and learning the other team forfeit. The win is nice but...DAMN! I was ready to play!

Aah, the difference between an employed person who "gambles" (or maybe more accurately, 'plays for entertainment'), and a retired coupon man... Don't side bet me about that $300.

My discipline is getting better; I'm more content now to quit after 5 or 10 or 20 minutes and go home having won, than 'testing the table to see if I'm still hot'... Some dealers thought I'd quit them because I won "large" sums in short time periods ($1100 in 20 minutes, $500 in 5 minutes, $700 in 20 minutes), but when I colored up after 5 minutes ahead $277, they couldn't believe I was ready to drive home (70 minutes' drive) after I'd just arrived. They agreed I should go, they just didn't think I would. 'Nother shooter said something like, ain't you gonna try one more hand? Nope. I be's retired. Mr. Obama's tryn' ta kill my Social Security; I gotta make do.

[shunkaha]

...
The two hardest parts for me have been 1) gaining the courage to risk large bets for brief periods of time and 2) regressing, or better yet, taking it all down after a few hits.
...

But it's been a LONG time since I opened with two consecutive $120 losses, and as long as I keep an eye on the loss limit, how it's lost doesn't matter to me, with the proviso that I've adhered to my betting strategy and table limits. (in that sense--I wanted to reply--I'm the 1%... gimme $300 free cash and I'm history)

I'll one up you on that I am in the fraction of 1% because I'd suggest as a labor saving device they mail me the check so I save my gas and driving time and they don't have to pay a cashier to hand me that money. A $300 sure win is $300 I did not have previously and it is without risk. The first thing anyone should learn for advantage play or even gambling, after they learn math, it is the act of risking the money that made the extra money to begin with. There would be no profit without the risk, and in that sense every single time you walk into a casino and play you are risking YOUR money, when they give you money it is merely money that you either decide to continue to risk or not risk... once you leave it is your money but until you do it is on loan. I tend to think of it this way, if I withdraw it from the bank or deposit it in the bank it is mine... when I walk through the casino doors it is in a state of flux, I have to be willing to risk it to make more of it, once I make more I have to determine how much of my new found money I will risk if any.

Primarily my motivating factor in that determination is how much time and money did it cost me to get here, interestingly it leads to some odd paradoxes. For instance sometimes I find I am more tolerant of a loss than a small win, the reason being I came with the intention of risking money to make more money and therefore I could and should be prepared to sometimes leave with less than I walked in with, whereas if I am willing to walk in with a goal of driving round trip for nearly 16 hrs and spending $130++ in fuel to make $100... then I see that as me telling myself I am no brighter than a dashboard indicator light. I say this because even if my time were free and I was going to live forever [neither of which are true], if I spend $130 to get $100 dollars I have in fact said from the word go that I am setting a $30 loss goal, not a limit but a goal to lose only $30 and leave, which effectively means I should drive from my house to the Mississippi casino of my choice then circle it once or twice and drive home so that I don't risk losing more than that $30 since a win is not guaranteed. Thus the paradox, that I am willing to risk a loss outright rather than accept that I could or would willingly make such a flawed judgment as to eagerly fritter away $30 each trip under the guise of "winning" $100. Odd how that paradox works out though, If I set aside an amount that is dedicated to travel expense and Bankroll rather than footing the bill for the one while claiming the other as profit, it forces me to either 1] win more money, or 2] stop losing it because my funds are depleted.

I would imagine it sounds convoluted but simply put, when it used to cost me $60 round trip to go to the casino if I broke even it could be considered a win in the sense of I got free food, a very nice room, and as my comps went up I do it all out of money the casino provided via free bets... at the $130 costs that same $60 win would mean I spent $70 more than I made and if I went 20x a year [sometimes I did depending on where my job had me travel] that would mean a "win" of $1,200 a year which is great until you figure out it cost $2,600 to do it. If I pooled the Bankroll and trip expense money and decided I had $700 I could make 10 trips before I'd be broke and be forced to save another $700, or by not pooling it I could fritter away $1400 a year more than I won due to travel costs, thus either I could win more to continue or lose it and not be back for awhile. More often than not I could break even or eke out enough profit over expenses that all was well, sometimes I was hit hard enough that I had to save for a couple of months to lick my wounds. You could call it something of a self-limiting loss limit that extends to the frequency of trips rather than merely the fiscal pain tolerance for a trip or session. Obviously that approach isn't for everyone but the problem is when people use accounting tricks to make themselves think they are doing well, its like when the government says they are going to increase spending in a program from $10M to $20M the next year then decide they will spend $18M and claim they cut spending by $2M instead of stating the fact they increased it by 80% instead of 100%. The difference is at some point the trip expense/gambling losses if they are pronounced enough have to show up somewhere, I just chose to make mine instantly transparent rather than hiding one or the other from myself.

Also as a sidenote fewer casinos are offering straight cash bonuses to come to them as opposed to free bets, for one the free bet has to be played and thus could cost the casino nothing, the free money... I know people that have driven to the casino got the money and walked away with it. There is an interesting statistic for those that care to know it, approximately 70% of all patrons in any casino at some point in their trip are a winner and could leave with more money than they came with, the corollary to that is only 10% chose to do so... meaning that while 70% started out winning at some point only 7% actually leave as winners, the other 93% lost money.