Post
by AlamoTx » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:06 pm
I don't get on here very often, and post even less.
One of the things I've noticed is that so many of these various strategies assume $5 tables. If you are a regular Vegas player, in my experience, you need to be prepared for $10 tables as the norm, and higher during busy times.
With that said, it seems to me that regression betting makes sense only when you hit a number or two after placing the bets out there before the second roll. After thousands of rolls in practice and sometimes at a live table, I've found that the short rolls clean the felt for you, and then you have such a big hole to dig out of that regression is no longer a good strategy. If any of you tell me you never have a point/7 experience or 4 or 5 junk rolls and then a 7, I'd like to be with you when you roll. Even somebody with an SRR of 10 is going to have a substantial majority of their rolls be under 15.
One strategy I'm working with in practice is this:
$10 table offering 3,4,5x odds.
Base strategy is PL with full odds, then a come bet, a basic strategy that lots of people use to tiptoe into a given game.
So, let's say you get the dice and your point is 6. Put $50 odds behind the number. If you roll a 7 next, your damage is only $50.
But, let's say the next number is a 9 following a successful come bet. With full odds on the 9, you now have $110 at risk. If you roll a 7 now, you are 'F'd' as they say in polite company.
But, let's say the next roll or two are numbers you don't have, or some junk, then you hit the 9.
Instead of coming off the 9 and making another come bet, you leave the 9 up as a $25 place bet and put a $12 place bet on the 8. Now, you are down $27 with a green chip on the 9, a $12 8 and a 6 with full odds. ( You could also cut the point of 6 down to $25 odds to be more cautious)
So, you hit the 8 next, throw $4 at the crew and bump it to $30. From now on, if any green number hits, rack $25 and place a number you don't have covered.
So, next, you hit the 9 again. It pays $35. Rack $25 and place the 5 for $10 and press the 5 up to $25 if it hits, etc.
Now you have a $10 5, a 6 with fulls odds, a $30 8 and a $25 9.
Next, the point of 6 hits. You get paid $70 (less if you've cut the odds in half after the 1st hit), but you now place the 6 for $30 and prepare to cover the next uncovered number with a $10 bet.
Come out roll is a 10. Put $10 odds behind the 10.
Now everything is ready to rock with only the 4 needing a $10 place bet off the next hit that pays $35.
You get the picture. You've made a little money by this point in the roll, but I haven't calculated it.
It is a form of piecemeal regresssion. The most you can lose is $120 ( if the 6 and 8 are the naturals) and all you have to do is hit one of your initial numbers in order to severely reduce the amount at risk.
This progression gets you into green chips across pretty quickly ( assuming you get a little roll going) without having to do something like $160 across and trying to get 2 or 3 hits before regressing down to $10 bets which you then have to build back up.
There are variations. You can do the PL with full odds, then place the sister for the same pay-off. You can come down on both of your initial numbers on the first hit on either. The goal of the strategy is to be playing all 6 box numbers with green chips and a substantial roll underway.
I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else is doing something like this and what you think the flaws might be in such a system. I also sometimes do this play using triple odds, and it works just about as well with a max exposure of $80.
Alamo
