Grafstein's Progressive Betting on PL

[Bankerdude80]

I started re-reading Grafstein's Dice Doctor as a refresher and see that he advocates qualifying shooters based on a shooter's ability to roll Come-Out naturals or hit their first point. He goes on advocating increasing (pressing) one's PL bet as naturals or points are made and the game progresses. Since craps is a negative expectation game, how effective is this? I would think that as each roll is made, the closer the shooter is to roll a seven. He has a chart in his book showing how each bet should progress.

My thinking is that it would be better to mix up the betting schedule. For example, start with a $10 minimum bet and qualify as Grafstein recommends. Once the point is made, boost the next PL bet 5x, then regress. Maybe a series like 1x-5x-4x-3x-2x-1x (x=table minimum). Once the shooter makes the six points and continues to roll, then embrace Grafstein's press routine. If the shooter seven-out, restart the series again.

I can't seem to wrap my head around increasing the contract PL bet knowing the seven is right around the corner. On place bets, I can regress or pick them up any time I want.

Thoughts?

[biloxa]

Maybe a series like 1x-5x-4x-3x-2x-1x (x=table minimum).
Thoughts?

Make sense to me. If one does regress the place bets, why not do it on PL? If betting on myself I would do 5x-2x-1x-2x-3x-4x and so on, and hedge the PL bet on come-outs if it's more than 2x.
I usually do similar regression, but on the free odds (and only on the tables i know well). How often a shooter keeps going beyond the second point made? Even the first one?

[freak]

When we first started playing the SG way we hit a string of CO winners and had $15 pressed to $120 on the PL and then hit the point. Do that a few times and the pl press makes perfect sense.

[bryfromtheharbor]

When we first started playing the SG way we hit a string of CO winners and had $15 pressed to $120 on the PL and then hit the point. Do that a few times and the pl press makes perfect sense.

Bingo

I have used SG Basic PL behind whatever I was doing on the box# plays. Like playing two different games. The completed parlay and progression always seamed a steady winner, while my inside number regress/press game were either on fire or cold as ice.

Look back at my Matchstick to Lumber Pile thread. I used the Tunica Seminar toss results and showed a surprising profit with little risk. The progression of moving to the next betting level worked out pretty sweet. Had I really been there I would have won on passline play and lost my arse on the place bets as you saw me do in person in LV.

[Bankerdude80]

Thanks guys for the vote of confidence in Grafstein's PL method. I may experiment at a low min table to get a feel for it.

[Mad Professor]

Does the “Stack ‘em, Don’t Rack ‘em” Approach Make Any More Financial Sense Today Than it FAILED to do Back in 2004 or 2006 or 2010?

Back in 2004 when I first wrote this piece, many student D-I's were taught to stack their instant (7 or 11) PL-wins back onto the Passline instead of taking full-Odds, partial Odds, or even ANY Odds at all. This was done under the guise of being a “mathematically-sound winning strategy”.

Unfortunately, it is not anywhere close to being a mathematically-sound strategy.

When I updated and 'freshened' this piece again in 2006 for reposting (around the time I started my Not-So-Random Thought thread); many players were still being taught that the Stack 'Em, Don't Rack 'Em method was a sound strategy, and that "scrimping on Odds would leave more money for a spreading widely across all the box-numbers".

Sadly, that is NOT anywhere close to being a mathematically-sound strategy; and so, many freshman and sophomore D-I students (as well as a surprising number of multi-year dice-influencers who have developed proficiency in most other aspects of their game) continue to see their D-I earning lag far, far behind their D-I skills.

Here's part of the problem:

If you still hold onto the notion that any money that you’ve just won is “the casino's money” and can be treated any differently than money that came out of your pocket; then I can see how this “parlay your PL-winnings back onto the Pass Line” approach for another instant-win or a subsequent now-larger-valued PL-Point win seems to make sense.

Many players who get ahead a certain amount during their session share the same “If I lose my winnings, I’m not REALLY losing because I’m playing with the casinos money” mentality…in which case I can see how some players and even a few dice coaches would want to somehow rationalize this “stack ‘em, don’t rack ‘em” approach.

However, to use this approach while somehow thinking (or worse yet, teaching) that it is a “mathematically sound winning strategy” as some have suggested; is to push the outer boundaries of veracity, or at least, altered reality.

The reality of dice-influencing is that the greater the difference between the money you bet on the Passline versus the amount of money you use to back that PL-bet with Odds; the more a dice-influencer is able to leverage his or her skills.

Similarly, if you scrimp on Odds when you are shooting in order to have more money to spread All-Across the box-numbers; then you are going to short-change your skills to a point where your D-I earnings will lag far behind what they could and should be putting directly into your pocket.

The Stack 'em Don't Rack 'em strategy didn't make sense back in 2004 when I first wrote about it; nor did it make sense in 2006 or 2010 when we revisited this whole issue because of its curriculum popularity; and I can tell you again that it still doesn't make any better sense today than it did back then.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a strategy like that actually robs you and your family of the money that your D-I skills could and should be producing.

Don't take my word for it; here’s the math:

Pass/Come

The probability of winning on the come out roll is pr(7)+pr(11) = 6/36 + 2/36 = 8/36.

That’s how we come up with the 22.22% chance of producing an instant PL-win.

The chances of an instant PL-loser is 4/36 or 11.11%; and therefore as I mentioned previously, the PL does indeed enjoy the prospect of a 2:1 instant-win/instant-lose ratio.

The probability of establishing a point and then winning is pr(4)*pr(4 before 7) + pr(5)*pr(5 before 7) + pr(6)*pr(6 before 7) + pr(8)*pr(8 before 7) + pr(9)*pr(9 before 7) + pr(10)*pr(10 before 7) =
(3/36)*(3/9) + (4/36)*(4/10) + (5/36)*(5/11) + (5/36)*(5/11) + (4/36)*(4/10) + (3/36)*(3/9) =
(2/36) * (9/9 + 16/10 + 25/11) =
(2/36) * (990/990 + 1584/990 + 2250/990) =
(2/36) * (4824/990) = 9648/35640

The overall probability of winning is 8/36 + 9648/35640 = 17568/35640 = 244/495

The probability of losing is obviously 1-(244/495) = 251/495

Which means that the random-wagering PL-bettor will win 49.29% of the time and lose the other 50.71% of the time.

Therefore the player's edge is (244/495)*(+1) + (251/495)*(-1) = -7/495 = -1.414%.


Combining Your Passline-bet with Odds

The player edge on the combined Passline bet with Odds is the average player gain divided by the average player bet.

The gain on a randomly-wagered Passline-bet is always -7/495 and the gain on randomly-wagered Odds is always 0.

The expected bet depends on what multiple of Odds you are allowed. Lets assume full double-odds where the Passline-bet is $2, and the Odds on a 4, 5, 9, and 10 is $4, while the Odds on a 6 or 8 is $5.

The average gain is -2*(7/495) = -14/495.
The average bet is 2 + (3/36)*4 + (4/36)*4 + (5/36)*5 + (5/36)*5 + (4/36)*4 + (3/36)*4] =
2 + 106/36 = 178/36

The player edge when he takes full double-Odds is (-14/495)/(178/36) = -0.572%.

If you use the "stack 'em don't rack 'em" approach of parlaying instant PL-wins back onto the Passline; then the house edge obviously remains at -1.41%.

Instead, if you take those same instant PL-wins and used them as single-Odds behind your Passline, then the house-edge against you drops by about 40% to -0.848%.


When a skilled dice-influencer adds more Odds in relation to the amount of his Passline wager; the more his edge over the house is multiplied and the more his D-I skills are leveraged and over-weighted in his favor.

Unfortunately doing the opposite (making the PL-to-Odds ratio lower), acts to minimize your advantage over the house.

If you've worked hard to develop a skill; then why let the house off the hook?

If you have the skill; then use as much leverage to fully exploit it. It's an advantage that is rightfully yours. You've worked hard to develop it. Don't unwittingly surrender most of your edge right back to them. That would be foolish.


Here’s the math regarding…

Place Bets

Place bet on 6 or 8: [(5/11)*7 + (6/11)*(-6)]/6 = (-1/11)/6 = -1/66 =~ -1.515%

The house-edge difference between this wager and one where a non-parlayed instant PL-win is used instead as single Odds is 1.79 times HIGHER.

Place bet on 5 or 9: [(4/10)*7 + (6/10)*(-5)]/5 = (-2/10)/5 = -1/25 = -4.000%

The house-edge difference between this wager and one where a non-parlayed instant PL-win is used instead as single Odds is 4.72 times HIGHER.

Place bet on 4 or 10: [(3/9)*9 + (6/9)*(-5)]/5 = (-3/9)/5 = -1/15 =-6.667%

The house-edge difference between this wager and one where a non-parlayed instant PL-win is used instead as single Odds is 7.86 times HIGHER.


The simple truth is that if you use the “Stack ‘em, Don’t Rack ‘em” approach, somehow thinking that it makes financial sense; it is an ERROR of monetarily significant proportions.

As always,

Good Luck and Good Skill at the Tables…and in Life.

The Mad Professor

[acpa]

Not that I think I can improve on the points Irish or MP made but to expand on a thought i have and expressed before.

Grafstein has been on both sides of the table, both a casino person and a player. But craps is not actually the same game now than it was in his time. Odds were originally one times but had moved up to double odds.

But Grafstein never saw the odds level we see at casinos now. I have asked and never got an answer, but do you think his stack um don't rack um is what he would have used at 5 times, or 10 or 100 times odds.

Just a thought.

Noah

[heavy]

I think so, because he was looking largely to profit from the Pass or Don't Pass parlays, not an odds parlay. I frequently do a pass line parlay on the come out going 10-20-30-10. Difference is I'll almost always take at least single odds on the parlayed bet.

[biloxa]

Once you've got a large pass line bet after a couple-few natural winners, you also lose some control. Let's say you've pressed your pass line bet to $25 when the point is established. In addition to a much larger wager being held up against the HA, let's say the shooter is a DI, and in the middle of what looks like a decent hand, he/she gets heat or there is a disturbance. You now call all your place action off or down, but that line bet is stuck, whereas, I could call off all my bets AND pick up my odds as well. Just a different POV....

That's exactly what happened to me at the Golden Nugget in AC last weekend. I was having a very decent hand, close to 20 rolls at the moment, then an a-hole came up to the table in the middle of my roll and spread his 10 benjamins all over the table's bed and even covered my place bets. I immediately called my PB off but couldn't do anything about the PL I'd parlayed to 4 units by that point. Two rolls later - seven out.

[London Shooter]

You could have laid the point.

[heavy]

Thinking on dead European betting strategies - the Paroli is similar in concept to what we're talking about here. No partial units, though. Up a unit on a win. Back to the base bet on a loss. I use a Paroli strategy all the time when playing blackjack. Incorporate it perfect strategy and a simple count system and the fact that you're varying your bets on every hand makes the occasional big (the composition of the deck is in my favor now) "get back" bet. You have to learn how to play the "role" to be under the radar but it can be effective.

[Bankerdude80]

I always confuse Paroli with Pacioli and with Pierogi.

[bryfromtheharbor]

It is not as simple as stack 'em don't rack them, but it so simple it is elegant. If we look at just the stack'em don't rack'em; yeah up as you go means generally means you go broke.

1. If you are playing single odds (playing odds ) you are only doing single completed parlays. This enables the modest bankroll some leverage. After the completed parlay you are moving up at the 50% progression and racking the $.

2. Modest bankroll requirements on a $10 table $200 is needed to play the SG. If you make enough to move up to the next level you need only $400 to play at $15. Using other well discussed strategies $200+ is needed each hand. The money management is the real power having the house chase the steam. Your money tracking is on auto pilot.

3. It is only the pass line portion of the game. Most players aren't maximizing the come out portion of the game. CO can be a huge bonus if 7,11 are leveraged SG style. In my experience keeping PL play separate in the rack it is a winner in that portion of the rack. Now I don't bet on every TDaH, and I shoot an all7 set for the comeout.

4. SG advocates taking odds, "And so, my fellow dice authorities, don’t you think it’s about time you stopped conning John Q. Public into believing they’re getting something free when they take or lay the odds? Except on my parlay moves on Naturals or “Live Crap Rolls,” you may bet your sweet life that I recommend you taking or laying the odds. You’ve certainly paid for the privilege!"

Grafstein, Sam (2011-11-14). Dice Doctor (Kindle Locations 1138-1141). Cardoza Publishing. Kindle Edition.

When I see the merits of the Dice Doctor Basic Strategy discussed the strategy is usually misplayed in their analysis.

Look over the Tunica weekend results and the Dice Doctor Basic Strategy here. $420 to $1610
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3303&p=45309&hilit= ... cks#p45309

[Bankerdude80]

Not sure how I missed that thread. Thanks Bry. It seems the SG PL play has some merit.

[Dylanfreake]

I like parlaying Pass Line wins . The Pass Line Wager has an 8:4 chance of winning on the comeout. After the comeout that same Pass Line Wager is a 6:5, 3:2 or 2:1 dog.

I think rightside players should think twice about taking odds and darkside players , since the above is reversed, should never hesitate to lay odds.