Re: Parlaying the DC and Come and DP and Pass on comout
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:48 pm
Does the “Stack ‘em, Don’t Rack ‘em” Approach Make Any More Financial Sense Today Than it Did Back in 2004 or 2006 or 2009?
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 this 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 casinos 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 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 as possible 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
Copyright © 2009
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 this 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 casinos 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 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 as possible 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
Copyright © 2009