$120 Regression play for success on average hands

[freak]

Finding a betting strategy that suits my personality and current position in my "craps life journey" is a continuing challenge. A puzzle that is ever changing as what I want from the game is always evolving. I've been thinking a lot about two statements from Heavy and Irish after our GAC adventure this summer. These may not be exact but the gist was:

Heavy: "With you're betting style you're never going to lose big but you're never going to win big either."
Irish: "Too much volatility is bad. Too little volatility is also bad."

I realized that I have been using fairly conservative strategies that won't allow me to lose quickly so that I guarantee myself a lot of table time relative to my bankroll. In essence one of my goals wass to play, win or lose, for a long time. As I slowly mature into this game, I find I am less interested in maximum table time and more interested in winning. Our last trip was going south and for the first time we pulled the plug and left a day early with 40% of our trip bankroll intact. Reviewing the stats I noticed there were many money making opportunities but my betting was so timid I rarely caught them.

Irish's statement really got me thinking about how my tendency to protect myself from volatility also meant that I was giving myself little opportunity to win. Only a really long 20+ roll could ever yield a profit if I start small and try to grow. If that great roll came too late it wouldn't recover the previous losses. Is there some kind of play that I could feel comfortable with that would give me a chance to win on average days with 4-8 roll hands??

After our trips I was always interested to see how our rolls WOULD have fared had we used the MP204. Often it won when we lost. I spent a whole week playing MP's 204 across play at home to see what would happen. What I noticed was that if I started the session with a fair-good hand and made a small profit, I had no trouble continuing the play, even though at times it felt like a bit of a grind to risk $204 on multiple rolls and profit only $50 - $70 on a fair hand. If I hit one PSO or PPSO I could maintain discipline, stick with it and grind my way back. But 2-3 PSOs and I would get mad. Sometimes I'd quit and do something else. Other times I'd try to "teach the table a lesson" and press thinking it can't possibly be 4 PSOs in a row right?!

As I see it there's two ways to press: A) more money on this roll of the dice or B) the same money on more rolls of the dice. So depending on my bankroll I'd either go $408 across for two hits or $204 for 3-6 hits. Sometimes both. Sometimes both and press every hit too constantly staying "all-in". A few times I made a miraculous recovery. Going all in on that fourth hand and staying across for 6 hits brought me right back. But more often I'd bust and feel dumb for trying the "all-in" press versus just keeping with it and grinding back.

What I learned from that is I just don't have the personality (or the stones) to use that play live. I'd be scared to death. And with my personality, if I lost I'd be likely to press to try and recover versus walking away as i should. But I was also frustrated with the "death by 1000 cuts" that often happened when I tried a PL + $12 6&8 grow up and out. Good rolls that started with 5 - 5 - 9 - 4 - 9 - 9 - 10... were SUPER frustrating. So I started searching for a play with an amount of volatility that I could stand. A loss that I could walk away from without being so angry I needed to "teach the table a lesson." Something that would give me a CHANCE to make money on the average length hands of 4 - 8 rolls. Not too much volatility. Enough volatility.

So I decided what I was willing to risk was $120 for one roll of the dice. If I designed a play around that and it failed three times I'd be out $360. An amount I've lost many times in a session. I just had to let go of the idea that $360 should buy me two hours of entertainment. $360 was going to be risked to buy me a decent chance to win. I might get 10 minutes or 5 hours. I needed to remove "time played" from the equation.

The play I devised is much like the MP204 scaled back by 50% in both the amount at risk and number of rolls. I would only risk my full across bet for one roll, not two. Less exposure means less volatility. But like Irish said, no exposure meant no volatility. And no risk of volatility means no chance to win. I want to win. Therefore I must accept volatility.

The Play:

Summary - Bet across two units. After one hit regress to one unit across. After a second hit regress to one unit inside. After a third hit regress to 3 units inside. 4th hit same bet. Fifth hit press/take up and out.

Detail - $700 buy-in. Minimum PL bet. Set the point and place $118 across. $15 each on the 4 & 10. $20 on the 5 & 9. $24 on the 6&8. A winning roll will pay $27 or $28. (Place PL odds to yield a PL win of $25 - $30).

There's a 66.66% chance the first roll will win $27-$28. (If it is a 7out PSO, I say "That's volatility. I accept volatility because I want to win." and try again. If the first roll is a horn, I try again but two horns and I take it down and live to fight another day). If that first roll after setting the point wins I'm on my way. I take the profit and regress to $64 across. Now my risk for the next roll is only $36 and I still have a 66% chance of winning on roll two. If that wins rack the $14 or $18 and take down two numbers. Generally I take down the 4 &10. But it depends on what I'm rolling. I tend to follow the trend. At this point I've won $41 - $46 and have $40 - $44 at risk. I'm essentially even with four working bets and about a 50% chance of winning on the third roll. Hopefully the third roll is a hit. Whether it is or not I regress to three numbers for roll four. The hand now has a guaranteed profit and still about a 38% chance of winning. From this point I rack the next hit as profit. Subsequent hits I press some and take some. I start playing by "feel" since I know everything is paid for. The only rule is nothing comes out of the rack. I can press or place winnings, shuffle bets to "hitting" numbers but never place more from the rack.

The heart of this play I think is getting to roll #3 and having the bets on the table paid for. I now have a chance to win and no risk to lose on this hand. If I do PPPSO is will be a break-even hand. I try try to see that as a do-over. Free play. Unlike the MP204 I won't have profit at roll 3, but I will only lose $36 for a PPSO, not $91 ($118 - $27). I'm trading early profit for reduced volatility. Sometimes it can be a grind and I get a little frustrated with 3-4 break even hands in a row. But I get to keep playing and I'm NOT dying a slow death or watching great hands go by. The big killer for this play of course is a PSO. Three in a row and my day is done. Nor will I last long if I have a lot of 2-3 roll hands. But looking at my stats 3 PSOs in a row is pretty rare. It happens. And if it does my session will be very short. But my average recorded experience is a choppy table. A few PSOs. A few 3-4 hands. Several 5-9 hands. In all of the rolls that I have recorded, 23% are the PSOs and PPSOs combined. 52% were 4-10 roll hands. 25% were 11 rolls or greater. If I can get a few average hands without a PSO I can easily win $25-$75 for an average hand.

I've been using this play all week on the home table. Like all plays it sometimes works, sometimes fails. Mostly it weaves between -$300 to +$200. The only time I busted was when I got frustrated and went all in. The time's I've stopped and come back later I was able to come back and regain my buyin.

One question I have for the experts is about how "cumulative probability" relates to this and other regression plays. My thinking is that since most hands are short I give myself a chance to win by placing a lot of numbers early and then regressing both the amount of numbers and the size of the bets as the roll progresses. The chance of a losing seven is 16.66% on any given roll, but isn't cumulative probability causing this to increase in some measured way as the roll progresses? I'd like to learn more about this.

I'd also like to see this play war gamed. Would anyone be willing to set it up in WinCraps and give it a whirl?

[memo]

Freak,

Awhile back, I was fortunate enough to spend some quality time with Wizard. One big take home lesson from him was..
If we shoot with an advantage....
Then, it should prove itself out over a duration over about 50 hands.

I like your analysis and your betting strategy. Sounds like it suits you. That is crucial.
I also like your willingness to loose three times in a row, then end the session.
This is also a large part of Wizard's approach. Walk from a loosing session. A rule.

He feels that on a trip, one must devise a plan so that you can play fifty hands, without varying the strategy. One needs a bank roll to match. (important, cant vary or fudge betting)

Not everyone agrees with this approach, but I was wondering...
Have you ever tested your system over 50 hands? Not all at once mind you, but as you may do on a casino trip. Continuous sessions, split up over a period of time, with rules and guidelines in place (Discipline) ....See what your overall results are.
Do that a few times. Kinda like a book of rolls, but a book hands in a session...Kinda like MP does with our session results. Except, it is only with you, as you practice and record only your results, with the same strategy, same rules. (Consistency)

Everything you describe is short term results. I may be off base, and 50 hands is not enough, but Wizard thinks so. Sounds good to me. The key here is to shoot with a positive advantage, no matter how small.

Memo

[Mad Professor]

One question I have for the experts is about how "cumulative probability" relates to this and other regression plays. My thinking is that since most hands are short I give myself a chance to win by placing a lot of numbers early and then regressing both the amount of numbers and the size of the bets as the roll progresses. The chance of a losing seven is 16.66% on any given roll, but isn't cumulative probability causing this to increase in some measured way as the roll progresses? I'd like to learn more about this.

Hi Freak,

I have posted literally dozens upon dozens (probably closer to a hundred or more if I really looked) of Cumulative Probability charts and Hand-Duration/Bet-Survivability studies over on the Dice Institute site. Do they not suffice?

Here is one small example:

http://www.diceinstitute.com/2007/01/re ... art_6.html



As to the "50-hands" question...

I tend to agree with the Wizard on this tact; but find it ironic that many of the same folks who would adjudge a 50-hand in-casino sampling as 'too small'; are usually the first ones to zig-and-zag their bets all over hell's half-acre chasing two-roll nano-streaks and one-hand micro-trends.



MP

[London Shooter]

Freak you make some great points in your post which describe me to a tee.

You've read my little piece on meeting VegasFan and hitting a 4 point firebet right after we first hooked up (I did not bet one single firebet all week by the way and must have saved myself a couple of hundred in the process just on my my own throw) well on that hand I did not make any money.

I threw some craps numbers at the wrong time, bet light on odds and place and even got in a hole where I changed tactics mid hand and then knocked myself off three come bets with a 7 on one of my come out rolls - the only consolation being I specifically didn't use my 7s set.

I bet timid because I want time at the tables and 9 days is a long time. My shot got much, much better by the end of the week due to all the practice, familiarity with the surfaces, feeling comfortable in my home casino, knowing and interacting with all the crews and establishing a shot from straight out which I could tell worked like a dream if I hit the right spot.

I now need to step onto the next level and begin to find a betting pattern that works for me. Up to now I have had little confidence that my shot is any better than a randy's, so to me there is no need to bet any different as I am in a -ve expectation game. Contrast that to 10 years of sports betting where I know long term I have an edge and I'll happily accept volatility genuinely believing that things will work out over the long term.

Of course the big shame for me now is that realistically there is only one game in my town

[London Shooter]

PS I totally agree with the 50 hands concept.

I read that as 2% of my bankroll bet per hand. If I genuinely believe I am a good shooter and cannot get an edge over 50 separate hands betting at a level comfortable to my bankroll then I really need to rethink my game subsequently.

[Riggs]

Very interesting freak ... one more thing that should be mentioned is that this betting method should get you much more in comps.
Comps should never by why you play or how but should be counted in what you get out of playing.

I've always been interested in what regressions get you in terms of ratings.

[freak]

Well we've war-gamed this strategy for 39 rolls now. Pretty interesting. It really reinforced that although getting several hits makes it feel like you are winning, you only make progress if you take your profit down. At first I wondered it I was counting wrong. I was generating a lot of low profit rolls. Several rolls with 3 -4 paying hits were showing only +$3 or +$7 profit. I looked over the stats and it appeared that I needed to take some additional risk and leave the full $118 across for two rolls. The regression after one roll seemed like a good plan, but it meant I needed a 10 - 12 roll hand to generate any profit. Better to accept the additional volatility from the second hit and get to profit sooner. That would, much like the MP $204, put me in a position of profitability at roll #3 with 3-4 bets still working. So after the first day (roll #19) I adjusted the strategy to go to two hits at the full $118 across before regressing. I also adjusted my "freestyle" play after reaching the regression point to work only 3 numbers not four, and on the longer rolls to put more money on just two numbers. If I had $44 to invest and the eight was hitting I put $24 on 8 and $20 on the point or the next best hitter if L was rolling. If my placed numbers weren't hitting I'd regress. There were several long rolls that I didn't get paid for a long streak of outside numbers. But then my $24 eight would hit and I spread out a little with profits and got nice profit on the remaining rolls. This felt better during play and also yielded better bankroll results. Here's the hands and profit/loss:

L........ $18 ___ 6 - 5 - 8H - 4 - 2 - 9 - 7out
Freak.. $138 ___ 9 - 4 - 8 - 9P - 7 - 7 - 2 - 8 - 9 - 3 - 6 - 9 - 6 - 6 - 8P - 11 - 3 - 7 - 8 - 8P - 6 - 8 - 10H - 12 - 5 - 7out
L........ -$120 ___ 10 - 7out
Freak.. $55 ___ 6 - 5 - 5 - 4H - 3 - 3 - 5 - 10 - 11 - 10 - 5 - 9 - 4H - 10 - 9 - 5 - 7out
L........ -$36 ___ 9 - 6 - 7out
Freak.. -$4 ___ 8 - 4H - 10H - 7out
L........ -$2 ___ 7 - 4 - 5 - 10 - 7out
Freak.. $4 ___ 4 - 11 - 10 - 8 - 8 - 7out
L........ -$31 ___ 9 - 5 - 7out
Freak.. $3 ___ 3 - 5 - 10H - 10 - 3 - 11 - 3 - 8H - 7out
L........ -$117 ___ 8 - 7out
Freak.. -$132 ___ 12 - 6 - 7out
L........ $27 ___ 5 - 5P - 10 - 5 - 3 - 6 - 4 - 8 - 9 - 6H - 10P - 6 - 12 - 7out
Freak.. $44 ___ 5 - 5P - 3 - 8H - 8P - 7 - 5 - 5P - 5 - 11 - 9 - 9 - 3 - 9 - 12 - 7out
L........ $7 ___ 9 - 6 - 9P - 6H - 8 - 7out
Freak.. -$105 ___ 9 - 7out
L........ $38 ___ 6 - 10 - 8 - 8 - 9 - 7out
Freak.. -$123 ___ 9 - 7out
Freak.. -$105 ___ 6H - 10 - 7out
L........ -$7 ___ 9 - 2 - 11 - 10 - 6 - 9P - 6 - 4 - 5 - 9 - 9 - 4H - 5 - 4 - 10 - 2 - 10H - 4 - 3 - 4 - 8 - 7out
Freak.. $213 ___ 4H - 8H - 8 - 8 - 4P - 10 - 6 - 9 - 5 - 2 - 8 - 3 - 9 - 5 - 6 - 11 - 9 - 5 - 10P - 6 - 6P - 6 - 8 - 6P - 8 - 6 - 5 - 7out
L........ -$120 ___ 7 - 5 - 7out
Freak.. $7 ___ 6H - 3 - 8 - 8 - 7out
L........ $9 ___ 2 - 6 - 10H - 8 - 7out
Freak.. -$130 ___ 5 - 7out
L........ $30 ___ 11 - 4H - 5 - 5 - 6 - 4P - 5 - 4 - 7out
Freak.. -$123 ___ 4 - 7out
L........ $10 ___ 4 - 9 - 7out
Freak.. -$103 ___ 10 - 7out
L........ -$44 ___ 7 - 6 - 9 - 9 - 10 - 7out
Freak.. $67 ___ 11 - 5 - 9 - 10 - 5P - 7 - 11 - 7 - 8 - 7out
L........ $281 ___ 9 - 8 - 10 - 8 - 10 - 6 - 5 - 6 - 4 - 4 - 6 - 5 - 2 - 8 - 5 - 8 - 10H - 11 - 6 - 6H - 9P - 7 - 7 - 8 - 8HP - 8 - 5 - 6 - 4 - 6 - 5 - 6 - 7out
Freak.. $42 ___ 7 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 6HP - 9 - 3 - 10H - 4 - 7out
L........ $119 ___ 8 - 8P - 6H - 4H - 9 - 4 - 8 - 12 - 8H - 5 - 9 - 11 - 4 - 10H - 3 - 11 - 5 - 6P - 7 - 6 - 10H - 5 - 2 - 7out
Freak.. $94 ___ 9 - 5 - 6 - 5 - 8 - 10 - 9P - 11 - 12 - 6 - 2 - 6P - 2 - 8 - 5 - 9 - 7out
L........ $40 ___ 11 - 3 - 6H - 9 - 9 - 6P - 6 - 2 - 4H - 6P - 4 - 7out
Freak.. $71 ___ 11 - 12 - 6 - 12 - 11 - 4 - 5 - 5 - 9 - 12 - 12 - 4 - 9 - 4 - 11 - 5 - 10 - 8 - 9 - 9 - 7out
L........ -$92 ___ 2 - 5 - 8 - 7out
Freak.. -$118 ___ 5 - 7out

Here's a chart of how the bankroll tracked against the hand length. The lower blue line is the length of the hand. The magenta line is the bankroll at the end of the hand. I started with $1400. The hands were longer in the second half of the exercise and of course that helped. But a 26 roll hand with the initial strategy earned $138 while a similar 28 roll hand after the adjustment earned $213. This is a good indicator that getting to profit sooner not only eeks profit out of average hands, it give more comfort to seek out higher profits on the long hands too.



One thing I need to work out is what to do about hands that trigger a take down but then continue. L started with point - horn - horn and I followed my rule to take down after two non-paying numbers. But then she started banging box numbers. She ended up rolling a nice 22 hand. I went up on the PL after she hit her first point and ended up losing -$7. I need a strategy for that. I really suck at just waiting for the next roll when she's catching a great hand. Otherwise I'm happy with the results and getting more and more comfortable with the volatility.

[memo]

Not so sure about the "50" hands Memo! IF, & that's a BIG If, You Average Let's say 6 rolls per Hand, Your Only looking at 300 Rolls. That may be Too Small of a sample to make a Decision. Maybe Heavy, Maddog or Irish can enlighten us on This one. Inquiring minds would like to know.

I am not sure there is any way to prove DI, let alone 50, 150, even 15000 hands. Frankly, I hope there is not.
Heck, even when Wong made his famous bet about DI and won....No one was convinced that it proved anything.

What I was referring to with the '50' hands, is more of a concept followed with a precise strategy and betting plan, with well defined rules. The idea is that if one is convinced they have an edge(skill), and they are properly bankrolled, and do not stray from the plan (zigging and zagging, a la MP)...
Then over the duration of a trial (50 hands) one could expect it to 'prove out'....Er, did I say that? What I meant was, one could believe that a positive result would occur, even taking into account variance and volatility.

A couple of givens are that the strategy is sound. Freaks sounds pretty good. The shooter must be stable enough to toss at the casino with the same consistency as the environment where he gained his edge. The betting should not be outside the shooters normal comfort zone. This is why I suggested spending a lot of time in non casino conditions to test it out.

One of the huge weaknesses in using BT to devise a betting plan is that is doesn't take into account the dispersal of sevens in a hand and how it affects the outcome of a betting strategies profitability. It can't. (Yeah, stand down, I know there are some projections, but that is what might happen based on edge).

Heavy is fond of saying that every successful hand has several fortunately placed sevens.
Well, that being true, every short hand has one poorly placed seven.
Irish says that the third roll is most likely to see the seven occur (Hope I paraphrased that one correctly. Irish is one guy I do not wish to suffer from misquoting)
Any strategy must be able to make up for the short hands.
Can a betting strategy survive these sort of conditions and survive, even thrive?

Mine can. (most of the time) Can you prove it? Me thinks not. Can you believe it...I can't, not without proper testing. BT tells me I have an edge. Not if my strategy works.
This may be the underlying reason why we see so many shooters go 'Lone wolf'.

Memo

[freak]

From logic and my own data I conclude that the reason the third roll is most likely to be a 7 is because the FIRST roll is also the most likely to be a seven. Two roll hands can't start with a 7 but three roll hands can. In my own book of live recorded rolls I find:

180 PSOs were two roll hands
35 PSOs were three roll hands
37 PSOs were four+ roll hands

163 PPSOs were three roll hands
59 PPSOs were four+ roll hands

There were 180 two-roll hands and 198 three-roll hands. There were 252 total PSOs and 222 PPSOs.

Therefore the most likey hand length is three rolls, even though the most likely type of hand to roll is a PSO. The length of a PSO hand can be 2 or greater rolls. The longest PSO I have personally recorded is 10 rolls.

[heavy]

Irish said:

...my statement was too much volatility management is bad, too little volatility management is also bad.

You're going to hurt yourself straddling that fence, Irish. I fully expect to see your new betting strategy - The Goldilocks Volatility Management System - on the market and available for our Veteran's Day Craps Reveille in November. Not too much volatility management. Not too little volatility managaement. Irishsetter's Goldilocks Volatility Management System is Just Right!

LOL.

[gargoil]

Should I mention the wheel was already discovered a long time ago and the holy grail is a made up children story!!!!
NAH.... Keep on chasing your tails doggies.