Is the casino math of craps really that important?

[heavy]

Thought I'd cut to the heart of a lot of discussions and get your input. Those who go by math and know what they are talking about will tell you that without question the best way to play craps is to play the Don't Pass with odds and Don't Come with odds. They are followed closely by those who go by math and don't understand that there is a slight advantage playing the dark side versus the right way. They are the guys who say the way to play is Pass Line and Come Betting. Then there are the players who prefer to place bet and only be the Pass or Don't Pass when it is required to earn the right to toss the dice. And there are hybrid players who play the Don't Pass but then Place Bet. There are Regression players and Progression players. There are prop bettors and players who never venture a buck into the center action. There are ALL KINDS OF PLAYERS at the table. Most play differently but they play some variation of the above methods. Over the long run (for the typical player) does it really make any difference?

I'll give you a part of my answer. I believe that in the great scheme of things, most players are short tun players - even if they play once or twice a week. I believe anything can and will happen over the short run. I do not necessarily believe that adding the results of a bunch of short run sessions together will give you long run results. Hmmm. Perhaps I've said too much. Anyway, let's have a conversation here. What to you think?

[Golfer]

Have a plan and stick with it, uless it doesn't work. When that happens bet what is winning and working. Not a big deal. Of course, neither is cold fusion.


Golfer

[Kelph]

OK MP, enough of your sex foreplay photos.

Interesting question Heavy and I'd like to toss in my take on it.

The math is important because one needs to understand how probability, odds, casino payouts, volatility and frequency come together in the perfect casino world. This knowledge is every player's basis for comparison in the real "less than perfect" casino world. This is especially true for players like myself who use some form of charting and trends.

Irish stated in some thread (forgive me if I'm wrong in my quote Irish due to misunderstanding your point which is somewhat of a curse of mine) that when the results are choppy they are closer to true probability......everyone is suffering.

We all, with the exception of the totally drunk or hopelessly clueless, make decisions when betting - when, what, how much and how long - based on something. There's more than one approach that can win just as there are many ways to lose.

The math of the game is the math and it doesn't change even though it may appear so in the short term where we all play. Trends happen on both sides but I can't tell you why even though I use them in my decision making. Recognizing one is no guarantee it will continue nor is the identification a death signal that it will necessarily end. Like a DI with a nice 8:1 SRR making a calculated decision to bet big Across going two rolls and out..............nothing is for sure.

We know what should happen long term and how results can and do travel to the extremes in the short term without spitting in the face of the math. But it's knowing the math that helps us see, recognize and profit from such results. Sometimes it's more profitable to make certain bets or vary play a particular way in spite of the math.

While every game of Craps is basically similar there are many variations in each, not the least of which are the shooters at that table, that make them individually different. Players tend to have their specific method of preferred play and use it every game. Maybe they wait until certain conditions arise to use it but it is the same or a very close variation of their basic play. That use to be the way I played too.

Now I wait and watch to see how the game is going and yes games do change in strength and direction. I tailor my play to that game. My play fits within the specific game as it unfolds rather that trying to force the game to fit within the method I want to play. Hard to muscle a win.

Regardless of how one is playing you need to use the math and expectations to judge the results. On track or off track? Where is it going? Strong or weak? Worthy of risking a bet(s) or not? For a fast hit or for a limited number of rolls or ride to bitter end with or without presses and/or regressions? Spread out when winning or remain focused and concentrated for larger payouts?

The math says we will most likely lose long term based on every roll of the dice and random results even though things are not so back and white in the short term. Why would any math person play unless they could somehow alter the number results used in calculating? I guess pure entertainment value is one answer and being able to produce results better than random is another.

None of this includes the need for discipline to avoid turning too many short term wins into losses.

Kelph

[acpa]

I disagree with your statement that we all play in"the short term".

While I agree that compared to the casino we play at we are a ver small piece of the total rolls. However when I lived inArkansa my on rolls at the casino in a year averaged well over 5,000 and the rolls I was part of at the tables would be in the middle 5 figure numbers.

I don't think my play and probably the play of many posters here are "short term". so we are subject to the math of the game when we play craps.

What do you mean by Short Term.? 1,000 rolls, 5,000, 50,000, higher?

noah

[heavy]

I disagree with your statement that we all play in"the short term". While I agree that compared to the casino we play at we are a very small piece of the total rolls. However when I lived in Arkansas my on rolls at the casino in a year averaged well over 5,000 and the rolls I was part of at the tables would be in the middle 5 figure numbers. I don't think my play and probably the play of many posters here are "short term", so we are subject to the math of the game when we play craps.

Well, let me pry you out of your 5000 rolls a year defensive mode - or even the mid five figure (let's just go on and say 50,000 rolls a year) number - and get to the heart of the matter. At 50,000 rolls a year with what I deem a fairly aggressive rolls per hour number of 90 - you're looking at 555 hours at the table per year. That's essentially 14 weeks at the craps table. Or, if you're playing two days a week - that's around six hours a day on play days. I would submit that if you're playing that many hours a year you are not an advantage craps player. You're just another guy who likes to play craps and tries to reduce his losses on the strength of his own hands. Occasionally you'll catch a hand on a randy and make some money. Maybe you even have the good sense to quit when you're ahead. But even in my most aggressive play years - years when I was playing 300 plus sessions per year - my typical session was rarely over 90 minutes - and most of the time is was under an hour.

When I talk about the "long run" in casino math I'm generally talking about the numbers as they apply to the casino. The casino is there running the game 24/7/365. THAT is a long run. Playing two hours on Friday night, four hours on Saturday and another two hours on Sunday morning does not a "long run" make in my opinion. ESPECIALLY (and this is where I always piss the math people off) if you have the good sense to implement a little money management and maintain discipline and don't chase your losses. Play with a win objective and a loss limit. If you hit your loss limit disengage and try again after you've hit your "re-set button." If you hit your win objective you continue to play with your surplus chips until you have a loss. Then you pull the plug.

Now, those who go by math will tell you that it makes no difference when you pull the plug. The table doesn't know. The dice don't know. The universe doesn't know. Ah, but YOU know and 80% of DI is impacted by the crap between your ears.

The math guys say if you string together a couple of hundred of these short hit-and-run sessions you'll have something that approximates the "long run." Ahem. They'll say that until you string together around ten books of 720 rolls in BoneTracker and try to convince them that those are your long run results. Then, of course, they'll find all sorts of fault with the numbers and your conception of the "long run."

So, to clarify the question a bit - to a DI who limits his play on random rollers, implements a money management and discipline strategy and sticks to the best bets based on HIS toss profile as opposed to the random math profile of the game - does the math really make that much difference over the long run?

[acpa]

You make some good statements Heavy, I don't think we differ too much.

when I was living in Arkansa I probably average two days a week at least and preferred to play at a fairly empty table.

but unless a DI uses something to determine what his advantage is such as Bone Tracker he is a gambler. if he can influence the dice why not make bets that give him the largest percentage advantage. would you rather bet with a 3% advantage bet over 50,000 rolls or bets with a 1% advantage for him.

doesn't it take less of an influence to covert the house advance on an odds bet than on a big red bet.

I believe the math is very important because I believe over his lifetime a DI will make more money knowing what the math that the casinos base the payoff on. we don't have the same long term that a casino has, but with 50,000 rolls over a DI's playing life the math should be considered.

noah

[Roller123]

Heavy said "So, to clarify the question a bit - to a DI who limits his play on random rollers, implements a money management and discipline strategy and sticks to the best bets based on HIS toss profile as opposed to the random math profile of the game - does the math really make that much difference over the long run?"

No. If you have an edge, bet appropriately toward that edge, and don't waste your winnings on random rollers you will win money. Short term, long term, it doesn't make a difference, you will be a winner.

Roller

[Mad Professor]

Okay, how about this.

~If you think and randomly bet like you are always playing in the short-term; then you are destined to ALWAYS lose in the long-term.

~If you think and bet like the math of the game doesn't affect you (because you think you are always randomly betting "in the short-term"); then your results will almost always fall short of your win-aspirations.

~There is no magical point where the short-run turns into the long-run. The math of the game is in full force and effect 24/7/365. And unless you are effectively derandomizing the results (and betting that advantage in a compelling way); then you are destined to lose more money than you'll win.

~Relying on short-term positive-side variance, and trying to string together several random-based sessional-wins is quite possible; but the more sessions you play, the higher the chances that short-term negative-side variance will completely wipeout any (and all) gains you've made along the way.


In other words, if you think you can beat randomly-tossed outcomes because neither the math nor the long-run applies to you; then simply keep on betting the way you've always been betting...because the win/loss results you've gotten in the past, are pretty much the same results you'll be getting in the future.


MP

[acpa]

MP and Rolleryou two summed up heat I was trying to say better than I did. thanks.

Noah

[heavy]

Okay, so which is the better play for someone who spreads around $100 - $150 action?

Pass Line bet with 3-4-5X odds and 3 Come bets with 3-4-5X odds . . .

or . . .

$160 across for a couple of hits, then regress to $64 across and run a 33% progression?

[Roller123]

Depends on what numbers they throw. I saw your post elsewhere about the guy who bet 22K for one hit and down with 7K profit. I tried that (placing the 5,6,8,9 not 22K) and found I sometimes needed several rolls to hit one of those box numbers. I have changed to the Iron Cross where I get paid on every roll except the 7. If the 22K bettor was waiting four rolls to get one hit he could make twice the money in those four rolls betting 6,8, and field or make the same money (7K) in two rolls.

This erratic post is my answer to your question above.

Roller

[acpa]

Heavy,

If your questionis on a randy, no doubt the come/pass with odds are better in the long run.

And even for a DI, I know of no combination of control they would have that would make an across bet make sense.

I know a lot of people won't agree with me, but give me a betting scheme and what a pyramid of throws for the DI would look like and think about it.

Noah

[Kelph]

OK, just exactly do you mean by randomly bet? I can think of several different meanings so an explanation would be helpful.
Sorry MP we do play in the short term and while results may and in fact do mirror long term results they can and do deviate in either direction and sometimes do so to the extreme. That in no way says we are not still subject to the long term just that one cannot overlay the long term expectation of results like a straight jacket on what might occur in any give short term session.

This “you think and bet like the math of the game doesn't affect you (because you think you are always randomly betting "in the short-term" is one of the more constant comments that erroneously assumes that we somehow reject the math by noting that short term deviations occur without affecting long term results. The 24/7/365 math of the game does not need to cease for any of this to happen. Long term results are calculated based on every roll of the dice whose weight in sheer numbers dilutes any deviation into statistical insignificance…..over time.

However in the very real short term one may and I stress may, seek and profit from such deviations if patient, disciplined and not greedy. The worthiness of the method one uses to make such selections and decisions is another discussion. Once you step back from every roll and result and become selective the entire long term become gray. I’d like to see the study that shows a dedicated, disciplined, smart and selective player has to lose long term.

Yes I can string together wins because that’s my goal for every session, not my wishful intent. Some play to play, some to win which means a win goal or a substantial figure but I play to win each and every session no matter the amount but of course that doesn’t always happen.

The bad usually happens from the beginning until I cut the session having reached my LL. Other than that the loss will always be less than the LL or I’m into a guaranteed profit. Frankly I’ve seen very few players playing as if they are even aware of winning in the long term. Every short term sessions is played as an individual game to win or lose with the idea that they can always play another. Don’t all these independent short terms sessions add up to your long term results? Your long term is more than just the dollar figure on paper that has either a + or – in front.

If I take care of my short term sessions the long term will take care of itself mainly because I’m aware of the connection. I’ll gladly take my past results as my future results. Playing Craps as most are told means losing. Altering either the frequency of numbers or the results that affect you provides an opportunity to come out ahead. There are no guarantees.

Kelph

[Mad Professor]

Hi Kelph,

You put a lot of thought into your reply, and it shows.

Now obviously I don’t agree with much of what you said, but it’s so well-structured that I’ll try to keep my responses in the order that you presented your argument.

OK, just exactly do you mean by randomly bet? I can think of several different meanings so an explanation would be helpful.

If you are wagering on randomly-rolled outcomes, then you are said to be making random-bets. I know you aren’t going to take me to task and make me define every little word that we use here; so at least for this conversation, can we agree that “random-bets” mean non-advantaged negative-expectation wagers?

Sorry MP we do play in the short term and while results may and in fact do mirror long term results they can and do deviate in either direction and sometimes do so to the extreme.

Deviation from the mean, or in this case, variance from expectation, is part and parcel of the craps game; so we certainly agree on that. What we don’t agree on is whether or not random-outcome variance is sustainably exploitable and bankroll-accretive over a reasonable number of in-casino trials.

You say it is, and I say it isn’t.

This “you think and bet like the math of the game doesn't affect you (because you think you are always randomly betting "in the short-term" is one of the more constant comments that erroneously assumes that we somehow reject the math by noting that short term deviations occur without affecting long term results. The 24/7/365 math of the game does not need to cease for any of this to happen. Long term results are calculated based on every roll of the dice whose weight in sheer numbers dilutes any deviation into statistical insignificance…..over time.

Kelph, while you yourself may not reject the math of the game in terms of its role not only in affecting your randomly-wagered bets, but also in shaping the amount and amplitude of the game’s inherent variance; there are more than 100 quotes I can pull from your associates like SuperRick, where they clearly make those math-rejection statements. You accept the math of the game (and that is certainly laudable); but clearly many others in the SuperRick camp do not.

However in the very real short term one may and I stress may, seek and profit from such deviations if patient, disciplined and not greedy.

On the face of that statement, who could argue with it. I mean, if you bet on the 12, and a random-roller throws a 12; you win, and everyone thinks you are a genius. Now I’m not going to throw out some silly scenario where a gambler makes an every-roll wager on the 12; because we both know that that would be a straight-away stone-cold loser.

However, what if I throw out a slower-acting random-erosion poison, like the 6 & 8 Place-bet. Yes, your money will last longer, and you will no doubt enjoy some partially-recuperative deficit-reductions along the way…but ultimately (unless you prop-up your buy-ins with outside sources of funds); the bankroll death-rate is just the same…albeit quite a bit slower than when a random-bettor ingests the faster-acting Prop-bet poison.

Kelph, bankroll-death is bankroll-death. With random-betting, you only get to choose the how slowly and how painful your bankroll's death will be. That it will die, is inevitable. How fast you choose to kill it off is up to the types and frequency of negative-expectation bets that you make. The math of the game takes care of the rest.

Once you step back from every roll and result and become selective the entire long term become gray. I’d like to see the study that shows a dedicated, disciplined, smart and selective player has to lose long term.

Ah, the old ‘market-timing’ play where you think you can “step-over” bad-variance and time your betting-entry for the good-variance swings. Yep, I know that one. Frankly it doesn’t work often enough to be net-accretive to build compoundable bankroll-growth.

While I agree that you can get lucky on your timing more often than not; it’s the big-picture profit-growth that really counts isn’t it. I mean, it’s great if your timing is balls-on accurate 96-times-out-of-100; but if all that good-variance/bad-variance huffing-and-puffing isn’t contributing substantive bankroll-growth; then you are really just wasting your time in a casino (though admittedly, many gamblers would be more than happy to lose less than they are currently losing).

I’ll gladly take my past results as my future results.

I take that to mean that all of your past winnings, when subtracted from all of your past losses; nets out to a solid positive dollar amount. If that’s the case, then you are certainly to be congratulated.

I’m wondering then, is it possible for you to codify your random betting-methods so they could be applied to a WinCraps type program?

I assume there’s all kinds of start-bet, stop-bet, start-session, stop-session triggers in your formulation; but if you could list them, even if it includes activation-triggers such as, “Off for three-rolls once every 20-minutes for stick-changes” or “Bets-off for one-roll if a 3 rolls, but off for two-rolls if a 12 rolls”.

Again if your successful random-betting method can be codified; then we can share it with others…and all the de-randomizing nonsense that we’re doing here, can end.





MP

[Kelph]

MP,

We agree that “random-bets” mean non-advantaged negative-expectation wagers.
MP – “What we don’t agree on is whether or not random-outcome variance is sustainably exploitable and bankroll-accretive over a reasonable number of in-casino trials. You say it is, and I say it isn’t.”

That is certainly the case or specifically my case doing what I do the way I do it. Maybe it is the method, the patience, the discipline or all these with something else I do naturally in my decision making without being aware of it. Whether anyone one could follow my path and have the same results is pure conjecture on my part. I can only confirm my personal results as anecdotal they may be so I say yes. Please do not assume I always win but my losses are at worst my loss limit only if everything goes to hell in a hand basket from the first bet. Otherwise the loss is less or I leave ahead regardless of the win amount.

There’s nothing to be lauded in my accepting the math. It is the foundation of the game and to even have a chance at winning one must understand it. You don’t see that one can avoid ever roll and selectively pick those deviation spots, hot or cold, based on combining observable shooter results and table trending (yes, consistency is a concern and unpredictable and no doubt one of those internalized things I do when making decisions) as an exploitable method compared to de-randomizing the dice…..a method that many other find ridiculous (I am a believer even if I’ve veered away).

As they say timing is everything MP. I too am well aware of the “step-over” but I do it differently. First the bad variance for me is the pure choppy table which Irish once said is the closest the short term comes to mirroring the long term or close to that if I understood and remembered correctly (no doubt Irish will correct me if that’s inaccurate). So again we’ll disagree as timing, depending on what and the how of it, seems to be working for me.

I’m unsure why you think a bankroll has to die, quickly or slowly if not a DI. If that is a universal realistic non-DI possibility then such players have some serious deficiencies that need correction. There are not any “always” good bets. There are bets that win, sit there and do nothing and bets that lose………in the session you are currently playing. Every game is the same yet different. I sure there's room for disagreement there too.

I cannot begin to stress how important is to me to just watch and analyze what the table and shooters are doing. It takes time, is frankly mostly boring and at times extremely frustrating. As to Irish’s statement of players believing “the longer you play, the more "experienced" and "knowledgeable" you become and that "knowledge" and "experience" can overcome the math. THAT is really the gambler's fallacy” I say it depends on the knowledge, experience and how they are used. Whether that is overcoming the math is debatable because one could argue how one can define long term outcomes with any certainty when not including every result. The weight of numbers will even it all out I’m told. So my little anecdotal results managing losses at a seldom hit LL (more often the loss to stop is less), winning more sessions than losing by religiously accepting more small wins instead of turning them into losses, fair number of decent size wins and the rarer big win is my truth. That reality for me and the rest is talk.

There isn’t any approach to program into WinCraps. There isn’t any always bet this way, this much for this long. It’s defining the table and shooters at a particular table, watching the shooter, the results. It’s an ongoing process at a table that I could be played differently with a different group of shooters. A computer program or book of rolls is useless to me. I need to be there observing what is happening and all that entails.

All that mixed with what should happen compared to what is happening leads to bubbles of opportunity and I stay away when it’s unclear unless it comes into focus during a hand but I’m even then still cautious.

How many long term winning DIs are there? How many just regular long term winning smart players are there? I have no doubt that being a good DI is an advantage and a more certain approach than what I do. In either case there are a number of similar basics needed to be successful long term.

My intent is not to argue or try to sway anyone over……just presenting another view.

Kelph

[Mad Professor]

Hi Kelph,

You raise a couple of interesting points.

I actually think that anecdotal evidence can be useful if there’s enough of it; which I suppose is kind of like saying 3,000 similar-outcome anecdotes makes for a good statistical starting-point, but I think you know what I mean.

That is, one “Way back in 1972 I once rolled 17 Nine’s in a row” anecdote does not a statistical statement make. However, if you were to say, “I roll an average of two 9’s per hand based on the last 300 hands that I’ve thrown”; then I would say that ‘anecodal’ evidence start to merge into something akin to ‘statistical’ significance.

As you’ve shown, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

We certainly agree that past-outcomes that just occurred provide a rearview-mirror glance of what most recently took place; but we’ll continue to disagree about whether or not that rearward-look provides any forward-looking evidence or useful indication of what those randomly-tossed dice are likely to do next.

We also agree that “pure chop” is the closest to low-amplitude variance that the short-term comes in replicating what happens in the long-term…and that the outliers (especially the mega-long hands) are the ones that take us furthest away from expectation.

I think we also agree that the effect of any ‘longish’ hands (insofar as affecting the expected-norm); is often quickly offset by only a handful of PSO’s and near-PSO’s.

So for example, a 35-roll hand that is surrounded (either before or after, or both) by five or six PSO’s and near-PSO’s, results in a session where money is MADE on the longish hands, but subsequently LOST (or used to replenish earlier losses) incurred on the short unproductive hands…or at least that seems to be the lamenting refrain heard from nearly every random-bettor that steps up to the table.

If you have developed a highly-selective betting-regimen that allows you to step-over most of those non-productive hands, yet masterfully exploits most of those productive hands; then I would re-encourage you to at least try to codify some of it here, so that others may benefit from your insight.

For example, when you say you have to viscerally feel, sense, and see exactly what each shooter is doing and how they are behaving, in order for you to know which box-numbers to bet; can you give an example that doesn't include any of the R-R commonly-accepted stuff (like dice off the table, cocktail waitress in the same zipcode, stick-change, payout-dispute, 18 PSO's in a row, etc.).


MP

[Kelph]

MP,

This weekend when I have some time I'll sit, think, and write some of my basic "things to watch, note, analyze, define and decide, and what I do once the play(s) are in motion.

You've lumped a lot of things together under the RR stuff and while I don't personally buy all of it as gospel "some" does enter my play only because they fall under shooter focus, or lack of or disruption of. A noticeable break in an ongoing rhythm for whatever reason or cause gives me pause. How serious that break is or the affect it may have is one of those judgement calls I make in the situation.

Quick PSOs are a problem but I miss a great number of them because I'm not on the felt with every shooter and even when there not necessarily there until the bitter end with each shooter. That ties in to how I decide what, who, when, how much, and how long. Not a crystal ball as I'm wrong at times but loses are keep low while wins are allowed to grow in a controlled way. Every bet is made in consideration as to what has been happening, where I am right now and always aiming to leave ahead.

The correct numbers to bet or what I hope are the correct ones is from pure observation and at times the dreaded math. Either they hit or they don't within an allotted number of rolls.

To be completely honest MP, maybe my overall results would be somewhat different if I lived in Vegas and played every day. When I retire I'll find out.

Kelph

[Mad Professor]

Hi Kelph,

I think what you'll find when you start to codify all of the different non-math elements that go into each of your bet-decisions; you'll come to appreciate why DEFINING the non-tangibles ('table-energy', etc.) and the "soft-tangibles" (player's moods and body odours, chip-fills and suits glancing in your direction, etc.) are harder to delineate and classify as definitive on/off, increase/decrease bet-triggers than saying "Three losses in a row...time to go!"

I also think however that you might find it to be an exercise worth doing, if only because it helps you further narrow the bet-trigger parameters that work most effectively from the ones that are merely false-notion non-performers that have been picked up at various points along the profit-pursuit trail.


MP

[DeadCat]

Irish, you used a big word, what do you expect?


-DC

[DeadCat]

Well, here it is. An expose on casino chearing written by a former casino employee. I found it late last night and couldn't stop reading. It repeats itself at times but I didn't stop until I read it all. If you have ever wondered what the biased dice people are thinking and want an insight into their minds, it's well illustrated in this blog.



http://www.thecasinoindustryscandal.com ... -own-home-