Heavy's Axis Power Craps Forum

Yea, it seems like you just scare too many small joints AHigh, a combination of betting big and having a system that they don't know enough about probably scares em. Probably just have to take your play to some of the bigger places in the area, plenty around

You know, the Wynn hates me too. But I sort of started that. They have never taken the dice away from me or asked me to leave. But they give me an earful constantly even when both dice are hitting the back wall they HATE IT when I shoot when others have big money on the felt. I generally don't even bet on my own rolls there, and only bet on other shooter's rolls just to keep them off my back! And I lose while I am there with my own money (I think I am behind). But they really dislike how I shoot the dice and I sort of enjoy hearing them squeal when I am rolling good.

The Wynn is like the biggest crybaby there is when it comes to skilled shooters. I told them before that they were the worst, but that was before I found out how bad SouthPoint was. They are still not as bad as SouthPoint.

Some joints just plain sweat the cake, though that can change from shift to shift at times, hey hey.

The Wynn is like the biggest crybaby there is when it comes to skilled shooters. I told them before that they were the worst, but that was before I found out how bad SouthPoint was. They are still not as bad as SouthPoint.

Wynn is still over-reacting to getting whacked by the dice sliders and crooked dice dealers. All of this was (IMHO) a direct result of Steve Wynn's decision to take tokes from dealers (who were averaging $80K a year dealing dice there) and giving a portion of them to the pit floormen, who were only making around $60K a year. That set up a scenario I've seen many times in both retail and in the automotive business. Take a guy who has a $80K nut and cut his pay back to $60K and he's going to steal $20K a year from you - or move on to another place where he can earn the $80K he needs. What he is NOT going to do is change his lifestyle to benefit some clown he doesn't even like. In any case - THAT is the source of the heat at Wynn's.

As for Southpoint - those of us who had experience at other properties run by Michael Gaughan (Coast Casinos) remember EXACTLY how sweaty those joints were. Many of Gaughan's old pit people moved over to Southpoint with him when he purchased the property from Boyd and the attitude moved in with them. Meanwhile, a lot of the old Gaughan heat is still present in some of the Coast properties - where I often find myself getting heat I don't experience in ANY other Boyd Gaming property.

Heavy wrote:Wynn is still over-reacting to getting whacked by the dice sliders...

You know what? I've seen tables dump a quarter million dollars over there, and I've seen dealers steal about $5,000 worth of tips as the quarter million was being colored up. First hand!

The problem at the Wynn isn't that they were "hurt" by the dice sliders. $170,000 win at the Wynn is not a big deal, whether it was from cheaters or not really doesn't even matter, it should not affect the policy for folks who are playing the game legally, regardless of any player edge.

But the player edge from controlled shooting is generally 0.8% edge per roll or less. And when you take off a 0.4% edge per roll from the math, it's not a really big deal no matter how much is being bet.

In general, they should not sweat the people working on their shot over there if you ask me. Instead they should just ADVERTISE the really big wins somehow like they do with slot machines. I see people winning hundreds of thousands of bucks all the time. Even if they didn't use the person's photo, just even having a display showing the biggest win and an "alias" of who won the money on a daily basis would actually encourage others to play, I think.

It's a bigger problem where casinos just don't want anyone to win anymore. It shouldn't be like that!!

Instead they should just ADVERTISE the really big wins somehow like they do with slot machines. I see people winning hundreds of thousands of bucks all the time. Even if they didn't use the person's photo, just even having a display showing the biggest win and an "alias" of who won the money on a daily basis would actually encourage others to play, I think.

At last, something you and I agree on! Go back to the Benny Binion philosophy. No limit games but your first bet is your limit. I recall the days when I routinely played a $3 game with UNLILMITED odds up to a max of $500. That's 166.6X odds at that level. They allowed put bets and most mornings 80% of the guys at the table were putting ALL of the numbers at $3 with $500 odds. Yeah, the table dumped sometimes but I suspect that over the long run the was a winner. I know I followed the hold on tables on the "middle river" in Mississippi (read Vicksburg) and the hold on the four casinos there was higher than any other zone in the state.

So let's get to Heavy's Perfect World Casino where we have $5 minimums - $1000 max odds - $7500 table limits - $1000 max bet on props - easy comps - setters welcome - $1000 bonus to the hot shooter of the week every week - craps wall of fame with photos of big winners holding the "hot dice" they tossed at the table - and (of course) free craps lessons daily and plenty of shills to keep the game going. As long as the dice get past the "C" in Come on the far end of the table it's a legal roll. Add in a "feature" bet or two, including "The Shocker" - that's the ace-deuce for those of you not familiar with the sexual connotations of that phrase - and (of course) the "Sinatra Special" - Frank and Nancy - the Five and Nine combo bet. I'll let one of you guys figure that one out. Bring 'em on. If I were in charge of the craps pit that's very close to the game I'd run, and I'd pretty much guarantee the table would make money over the long run.

Heavy wrote: I'll let one of you guys figure that one out. Bring 'em on. If I were in charge of the craps pit that's very close to the game I'd run, and I'd pretty much guarantee the table would make money over the long run.

Is that your opinion or the math talking ?

I thought 2/5 was the minivan - 2 in the front and 5 in the back.

And don't forget the Colombian special - 2 lines (3/3)

Is that your opinion or the math talking ?

Even with the liberal game I described, the house had the edge on every bet. Yeah, the game might be a little soft with those limits when it comes to systems players who understand traditional press moves like the martingale, Fibonacci, et al. But I'd take the risk if I were the casino.

Should I remind you that my pal Shootitall, who has been around DI about as long as anyone, will start off on the Don'ts regardless who the shooter is. And that includes me.

Yeah, I know a lot of us play with a positive EV. But Craps is still the strongest game in the casino and the hardest to beat over the long run. It is what it is, right?

Going back to the poster's original question, from my recorded rolls (3400 of them) here is the BEST CASE theoretical edge using various sets for various goals. If you have a consistent enough shot, the theory is that your edge per roll is highest when you consolidate your most common outcome in one place. IE: for these numbers the higher the theoretical percentage the better. You can see that until I get into buying the 2, 3, 11, or 12, my maximum edge per bet is under 25%.

It stands to reason that crapless buys are a good way to turn a biased throw into more profit if you have a consistent enough shot.

Think of the 2 and 12 on the buy like a hardway that has no easy (one way to win and 6 ways to lose instead of 8 or 10 ways to lose), and a house edge of 0.5174% with vig on the win for a $25 buy (compared to an edge of 11.11% for a hard 8).

You just have to change your set to roll aces and twelves to get the best deal.

2 0.22 +0.06 +34.46%: 1212
2 0.13 +0.04 +21.78%: 1265 (lay)
3 0.44 +0.11 +31.87%: 1223
3 0.28 +0.06 +17.40%: 1532 (lay)
4 0.62 +0.12 +24.63%: 2126
4 0.42 +0.08 +16.36%: 2653 (lay)
5 0.79 +0.13 +18.97%: 1346
5 0.57 +0.09 +13.85%: 3562 (lay)
6 0.99 +0.15 +18.24%: 3136
6 0.72 +0.11 +13.27%: 3245 (lay)
8 1.03 +0.19 +23.09%: 4245
8 0.72 +0.11 +13.66%: 6215 (lay)
9 0.81 +0.14 +21.05%: 1413
9 0.57 +0.09 +14.10%: 5314 (lay)
10 0.62 +0.12 +24.63%: 5453
10 0.42 +0.08 +16.36%: 5326 (lay)
11 0.44 +0.11 +31.87%: 5664
11 0.28 +0.06 +17.40%: 5146 (lay)
12 0.22 +0.06 +34.46%: 6262
12 0.13 +0.04 +21.78%: 6215 (lay)

Pointing out confusing terms is a productive thing. But I'd suggest you clean up your back yard before you complain about mine.

What is an SRR of 7.0, for starters? It confuses me that my Seven to Roll Ratio is 1/7 not 7/1.

If you de-randomize a shot, it still has randomness. It's not gone. That's pretty confusing.

We can definitely agree to disagree on what terms are confusing to whom. I use the terms that make sense to me, and if I confuse somebody, I can explain my terms.

By I never talk about SRR and I never talk about de-randomizing my shots. You can do that, but I never will.