The "Famous" Scoblete Five Count

[heavy]

Yeah, I know what you're thinking. Not again. But hey - this subject is always good to stimulate conversation. Scoblete claims that using the five count - waiting for the shooter to toss five numbers before placing any action - will eliminate 57% of the random rollers and set you up for more winning sessions. There was a time when he implied that this was an "advantage" method of play, although the guys who do math pretty much shouted that idea down. In any case, I know that some of you guys play the five count. I'd like to ask you to give us your opinion. I played it once upon a time and abandoned it - for what I believe is good reason. What are your thoughts? Here are a few random thought starters.

If the five count is good wouldn't a six count be better? How about a nine count? A twenty-two count? Or how about having it time-based instead of toss based. Make it a five minute count.

If you agree that random dice have no memory then how can you say the odds of the hand continuing are any better after five tosses than after the first one? The odds of the seven showing on the next toss are always one in six.

One of the theories put forth by Scoblete is that while you're doing your five count you are still on the comp clock and earning comp points. Is it your experience that that works? My experience has been that the pit critters figure out what you're doing fairly early on and adjust your rating appropriately.

John Patrick used to promote a strategy that was just the opposite of the Scoblete Five Count. His idea was to wait for five tosses - then lay against the point. If you subscribe to due number theory (the seven is due because it's been five rolls and we haven't seen it yet) doesn't that make more sense than Scoblete's Five Count.

Just as an aside, a fellow board member told me about a group of Five Counters playing at Bellagio who were all passing the dice to one or two shooters from their camp. They were all doing the five count on their own shooter. They'd wait until their guy got to roll five, then they'd all place their bets. Finally the pit critter got tired of having a full table with no action on the layout and told them all they were done for the day. Now, that's a second hand story so I don't know how accurate it is, but I suspect it's close to the truth. Thoughts on that?

Let's hear it, guys. Where do you stand on the five count.

[Dylanfreake]

As Shooter57 used to say, Scoblete got the five-count wrong . He should have used it for the Darkside which would mean making a DC or a DP( if the point was made on the fifth count), after the 5 count.

[raydice]

By using the 5 count they're avoiding the PSOs???? Just a thought. Maybe with the hardway set they 7 out early.

[heavy]

Well, I addressed a lot of this in my post on charting on another thread. IMHO everyone should invest some time (and thought) into qualifying shooters (which is what I use charting to do - qualify shooters - not tables).

Anyone else want to weigh in on this?

[heavy]

I knew a guy years ago who always set his digital watch to go off after a specific amount of time - say 45 minutes. He'd set it just as he bought in. When it went off he colored up and left - win or lose.

[heavy]

The point is simply this. The odds of the seven showing up on the next toss - on ANY toss - are one in six. As regards a random roller - what went before should have no impact on your betting strategy. He is just as likely to seven out on roll six as he is on roll two.

Here is the problem with strategies like the five count - or any other strategy that is (essentially) based on superstition as opposed to the math of the game. The human mind likes to connect the dots and is excellent at making connections that don't really exist. Take, for example, my proclivity for betting a horn number after a horn number appears. How often will a horn number appear after a horn number? Last time I did the math I think it was 16.67% of the time. But the human mind automatically tosses out those 83.33 times when a second horn number did not appear. It only remembers the 16.67% that validate its belief system.

Now that I've given everyone THAT argument I suppose I should qualify it by saying IMHO the see a horn - bet a horn rule only applies when betting on controlled shooters. I've explained this many times through the years but for the benefit of you guys and gals who are new to the forum I'll explain it again. Let's say my pal Irishsetter is tossing his mutant variant of the V-2 and I'm wagering on his hand. Irish tosses the V-2 with sixes and eights showing top/bottom/front/rear. If his toss is dead on he's tossing sixes and eights. If he's single pitching he's tossing outside numbers. If I see aces or the twelve he's got one die off axis. And if I see ace-deuce or yo he's double pitching. KNOWING that (and you learn that by stepping up to the table with a person many times through the years, observing what they are doing, and (of course) paying attention to the things they say about their toss. I know from observation that when Irish starts double pitching with that set you can usually expect a long string of ace-deuce yo's. I don't sweat it. I just bet it. Of course, that's not entirely true. I'd more than likely turn my place action off and throw out a $4 horn. Why? Because something's going on with his toss that's not good, and until he proves he can get back on track I am going to ride the wave.

Let's put this in another realm. My pal SIA tosses a lot of fives, eights and tens. So we step up to the table and he gets the dice. His first toss is a five (which he hopped). I place the eight and ten. He tosses a four. What do I do? I IMMEDIATELY buy the four. Why? Because I've stood at the table and seen him throw a dozen or more in a hand - sometimes three or four in a row. And I am going to continue to press that four (and collect) until I get somewhere in the vicinity of . . . oh, let's say table max.

Now let's say I'm standing at the table with Crimson Tide. On the come out roll CT has a $5 Horn High Midnight. I have a $4 World plus $2 on the high low. Close to the same bet but I like a buck on the Any Sevens and Aces as well as the Horn High. Anyway, I do that because I know from years of experience that CT tosses a bucket-load of Horn number on the Come Out. He ALSO tends to get hung up on Horn numbers in the middle of his hand. Why? It might have something to do with that crossed sixes set he's firing down the table at 90 miles per hour. My point is - with CT there's a REASON to play see-a-horn - bet-a-horn. Scoblete has long taken my comments on this out of context and used them against me - which (IMHO) shows you a lot about the character of the man. Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

Whew.

Now, with all that said. I'll use my own qualifying rules for who to bet on and who not to bet on when it comes to shooters. Those rules are based on observing the shooter's toss and tracking results. But they're also based in my own superstition set - like now putting any action on the table until the player has established a point and rolled one of the inside numbers I like to bet on. If he rolls fours and tens then he needs to roll a repeater before I'll get on it. If his crack-ho girlfriend distracts him I'm going to turn my bets off. If the dice go off the table I'm going to turn my bets off. I'm going to take an early regression to lock up some sort of profit for every shooter who gets through a couple of rolls. And I'm going to live by my loss limits and win goals.

Is the five count an okay way to play? Sure, if that's what melts your butter. Just don't believe Scoblete's position that it is an advantage way to play. It's not.

[heavy]

Well, as the majority of the board members can tell you (since I've stepped up to the table with most of them at one time or another) I am the PSO King. If you're setting the dice and attempting a controlled toss - PSO's are just goint to happen. Let's say your SSR is 7.7 - 1. Your average number of tosses before the big ugly is 7.7. But an average is made up of many numbers, and youy may seven out on our second toss - or your seventy-second toss. But the nature of the game is that you're going to have many more short hands than long ones. At the end of the day you have to settle on what works for you. There is no Holy Grail of betting strategies because everything works at one time or another - and nothing works all the time.

[Kelph]

And I'm amazed at how much contempt many DIs have for those they label random rollers. I play, bet and remain on the plus side betting random rollers. Not on every randie because I don't bet every every shooter, not even on all the ones I do bet but regardless I'm still ahead on them.

If you don't want to bet on them, to only bet on yourself that's fine but don't try to make it sound as if it's hopeless to even consider betting on random rollers because it's not. Maybe you can't do it for whatever reason but don't extend that to mean nobody can. Reminds me so much of those who can't become a good DI so they say nobody can. I've seen a fair share of DIs bomb. Did they make it back later at that table or some other game elsewhere? Maybe, I don't know. All I know is that if they did it didn't make any difference to everyone who bet and lost on them earlier. Maybe other players just chalked them up as a wannbe DI.

I qualify every shooter because there is no certainty playing Craps. All I need is a really good or bad shooter to make money and I don't really care what type they are. I work at what I do, especially to be good at it. I stopped my DI routine because I didn't see the practicality of investing the amount of time I required to be decent and still manage my other obligations. I went a different way and it too requires work and study but in a different way that better suits my time.

Craps is not rocket scientist stuff. You learn the rules, the what, how, and why things work or don't, the influences, develop discipline, learn to analyze, cap your emotions and have a basic plan that is adaptable. While every game is similar they are still different. The mistake I see most often and suffered from for many of my beginning years of play was that I had my way of playing and I was always trying to overlay it on every game. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't.

Things improved once I stepped back and watched a game and got some track on it and shooters. If I did I'd enter and play that game with an adaptable plan. Doesn't mean I'm always right or even win but when losses come it's minimal.

I'm of the opinion that a lot of DIs see themselves as the Craps Elite rather than players with a skill, albeit an off and on one at times. My charting of tables and shooters and trends may be dismissed as pure BS which is fine since my results don't depend on what anyone else thinks.

I really didn't intend for this to come off as a DI downer. I guess when I read posts overtime saying DI is a fake or one can only lose on randies as absolute truth I just get the urge to reply in either case.

Kelph

[memo]

Kelph,

Interesting post.
Much as I dislike having to say it...but I believe you to be correct in most if not all levels of what was stated. So is Heavy, Little Joe, Snake eyes...Yes, maybe even Scobe Do.
By the way Snake Eyes.... It is not so much contempt for the 5 count as it is the condesention and scorn that is shown for anyone with differing opinions to his Holy Grail. If we do not come away with anything else in this thread, it is that there are many ways to approach this game.

What I have observed over the years is that anyone that comes away a winner more often than not, do one of two things
A. They have a very narrow and strict betting pattern that they will modify slightly according to what they observe...They know their toss so well that results give indications on what to change in order to stay ahead...I do not see them bet much on anyone they don't know well. They combine incredible skill with incredible understanding and evaluation of their toss through BT.
Think..Irish, MD
B. They have a much broader betting scheme, and that, combined with keen observation skills are able to make adjustment literally on the fly. Their edge comes from keen understanding of DI and how it manifests itself as well as table awareness that is present DI or not. I see them betting on more players and making more adjustments. Think..Heavy, Beau, Boxcars.
And then of course there is Dave of SA whose regimented approach will payoff because of his skill and dicipline. Never wavering. (not many of those out there)

Kelph, you seem to be a combination of the two with more emphasis on B. Seems like you may have, in the past (possibly on an old board) and I just did not quite understand....
But, would you give a discription of how you approach the game...I am always curious, especially if you can do it without DI entirely.

Oops, I kinda got onto a rant here...don't mean to hijack Heavy's thread,,,might have to do it elsewhere.

Memo

[heavy]

Memo? Rant? Well I never!

Actually, quite a good thread, guys. You are correct. There are many ways to attack the game. If I never bet on the randies then I'd miss out on some huge wins. But they have to give me a reason to bet on them first! Otherwise, $10 DP - lay $30 and just keep on pushing out the DC's and lays.

[Kelph]

memo,

Happy to describe my basic approach that works for me at the tables. Much is founded on John Patrick’s ideas even though many like to poke fun at him, his approach and view of math boys. Can’t say I’m a disciple purest but I don’t subscribe to the accept it all or reject it all school. I can take, modify and build on what rings true and solid to my ears especially when backed up by results.

OK, I believe in trends. For whatever reason or reasons they happen. Yes one cannot predict the beginning, end or duration of a trend and yes just because an observable something has occurred it is not a prediction that it will continue. Therefore many reject trends as a viable approach to a game. I understand. It’s the old math of the game or the art of playing the game. Both may be the same most of the time but sometimes I’ve found the better play to be counter-intuitive to what the math says.

I like tables with four to six players who appear to be serious enough to stay awhile. This is because I chart the tables and shooters. One of the first things I learned way back in my early years of Craps was table temperature. The concept back then was very simple and straight forward…..Hot, Cold or Choppy. I still believe that a table has a temperature or trend but today I see what I use to call Table Trend as the combined result of a table’s true trend and the specific shooter’s trend and now call it the Result Trend because it is the combination of both. Shooters can have their own trend or none at all which I call neutral rather than choppy. The Result Trend is not necessarily the true Table Trend.

This is the reason I like a smaller and player stable table. I need to see the shooters in action more than once to define them because consistency or lack of it is extremely important. Once each shooter is labeled even if neutral I can look at the tracked Result Trend and define the Table Trend. The shooter is the most fragile part of the analysis for me.

Just for fun make two columns with Hot, Neutral, and Cold listed in each and make all the combinations you can combining them and the expected result or possible results if more than one. You will see that some of the combinations make very obvious trends while others are less certain with several possibilities (some good & some bad) and others with just no guess possibilities. How many of those combination can end in Neutral (Choppy) either as the expected result or at least a possibility? This is why I say Choppy is one of the most misunderstood results and why table results seem to bounce around so much. I stress that this isn’t a guarantee what will happen just a reading of trend strengths as they combine or fight each other. Some will say this is all mystic crap. Obviously not me.

Note that I’m working with the big picture trend here. Do I think it will be a good roll with numbers thrown or a short hand with even a possible PSO. I’m establishing a level of confidence based on what I think will occur. Will I bet with or against the dice or is it so uncertain I won’t even bet?

If I’m betting Do (I only Place unless shooting as control over all money I’ve bet) I usually start with two numbers. Does a shooter have any favored numbers repeating (very specific trend). Betting amounts could be based on 1, 2, or 3 units depending on the level of my confidence which also helps me decide whether I regress and continue, spread out or quickly come down. If staying up I need two locked up hits on a number before I press it on the third hit though I may consider a total of two hits on a sister combination and press the last winning hit. I tend to turn off during any table negative events especially if the shooter’s focus wavers, maybe regressing everything if I turn back on or I may just come done. On the Don’t it’s the DP and maybe a DC.

Nothing is in concrete memo and I no longer believe in mechanical systems. Too rigid and they tend to dull one’s own ability to analyze and react….at least for me. I move as I see and feel the flow based on the info I’ve gathered. The info gathering and defining is quite mechanical but it’s the initial and ongoing analysis that makes every hand played as an individual. I could play two hands with similar numbers differently depending on what my confidence and ongoing analysis shows me.

I play to win and to win now. Sometimes that means good money and sometimes it’s barely a profit. My goal is to get out ahead and not to stay until I turn a win into a loss. Once ahead I’ll only lose back a certain amount before I color up. Conservative? Yes. I don’t win as much as I could sometimes but when I lose it usually for a lot less than those around me. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve colored up to take a break from a turning uncertain table only to stop back later and have some of the same players still there say “I should have left when you did.” Yeah, well it took me a long time to learn that myself.

I don’t worry about the long term. If I handle myself well in the short term the long term will take care of itself. What I told you requires practice. I’ve found that anything that worth anything requires work and effort. I’ve chosen this over DI (I haven’t completely abandon it) but it’s work too, just a different kind.

Hope I was somewhat clear and helpful memo.

Kelph

[memo]

Obviously this analysis takes some time..What is the initial time frame.
Do you wait for a lap..or two before putting money at risk
Or do you have a 'pet' bet to use while sizing up the table
Or do you stand back and observe for awhile...(admittingly,something that is very difficult for me)


Memo

[Kelph]

memo,

I watch first. maybe from a VP or slot seat near the table then move in for a buy-in. You are correct that I watch the shooters for at least two rounds and yes it is hard to just stand there watching. Identifying any shooter consistency of results whether on a blind luck steak or DI skill is important. After many years I've learned to choose between playing to win and just playing.

This is why I look for tables that are only a quarter to half full. Even then memo not all the tables I choose and chart turn out to be playable, at least for me and my approach. Of course I'm in no rush to lose money.

One other thing I left out of my earlier general comments of my approach.......consistency doesn't just apply to the table and shooters. Consistency also applies to me. I have a basic approach to how I chart, what I'm looking for, what it means when I see it and the varying playing options I can use knowing the unpredictability of any shooter's results. In other words I have my mechanical way of gathering data and a consistent way to define what I see from game to game. That's always my foundation rather than looking for such and such in this game or something different in the next and changing what results means from game to game. The detail specifics and how I use my options based on analysis may differ in each game but my foundation remains consistent.

memo, my experience and watching countless other players leads me to believe that many players are not playing to win. They may say they are and may even think they are but they appear to play to play while aiming for that big win. I've seem too many players who are ahead continue playing when the table turns from their preferred playing approach and they won't adapt, they won't color up, they won't alter the amount or number of bets, they won't bet how the dice are playing, and they continue until winnings are drained and far too often their buy-in too.

I've heard comments like their profit was too small to color up and leave, that they were there to win and I guess that meant win big. There is no shame leaving with a small win in fact it's quite smart compared to losing. You haven't put a dent in your BR when you start your next session. Breaking even may make one feel as if time has been wasted but how do you feel when looking at the other players who have lost their buy-ins?

No, winning is not easy but it's not so hard as to be the reason many players lose. Many are winners that just can't stay a winner. They lose it back by choice and they can color and wrap it up how ever they like but it remains true that they took themselves from being ahead to losing.

If all they want is to play for the fun of it and maybe come out ahead that's their choice and I wish them good luck but that's far different then entering a game seriously intending to come out ahead.

Kelph

[Golfer]

You nailed it Kelph.

[Michael]

Kelph,
How long have you been playing craps?

[wild child]

Question:

Has any one seen the guy who authored "Beat The Craps........5 Count play recently ?

Is he and his gold Group actually using THE FIVE COUNT ?
Further are they using " The Do/Do Not " thing in conjunction with the five count ?

Other Questions :
While the dice have the same potential each toss,is it not more likely to see a SEVEN out
the longer a shooter tosses ? Is the percentage of shooters making P/L number three is far smaller than making P/L number one. The percentage of shooters having a WIN on P/L # four is far less than P/L ONE or P/L number TWO or P/L # 3 and so on.

With that in mind,would not it be more profitable to LAY against each subsequent number as it is established? So far the WORLD RECORD IS SOME 147 ROLLS if we can accept published reports.
Most hands last far fewer than that 147 or whatever the reported number is. Guess there was some low standard established as AVERAGE or TYPICAL for us to attempt to get over.

Just me pondering

[Mad Professor]

Hi Wildchild,


While the single-event probability of a random-roller tossing a 7 on any given roll is always 16.67% (1-out-of-6); cumulative probability shows that long strings of non-7's are relatively rare. However, I'll quickly add that cumulative odds are easy to misunderstand, especially in the heat of casino-battle.

~The randomly-tossed point-cycle averages 6 rolls in duration.

~The randomly-tossed start-to-finish hand (including come-out rolls, PL-Point repeaters, etc.) lasts an average of 8.5 rolls in duration.

~The randomly-thrown prospect of tossing one point-cycle non-7 is 83.3%.

~The randomly-thrown prospect of tossing two point-cycle non-7's in a row is 69.4%.

~The randomly-thrown prospect of tossing three point-cycle non-7's in a row is 57.8%.

~The randomly-thrown prospect of tossing four point-cycle non-7's in a row is 48.1%.

That is cumulative probability at work. So while the single-event probability of a 7 remains 16.67%; the cumulative odds of rolling a 7 increases with every non-7 outcome. HOWEVER, that assessment can only be made before a hand begins, and CANNOT be applied once any given hand starts. So at roll #12, you can say something like, "There is only a 1-in-8.96 (11.2%) chance that a randomly-rolled hand will get this far; so I'm going to start Lay-betting against the shooter now."

Why not?

Well because that would be based on the faulty gambling fallacy of "due number" theory.

Here's why:

With randomly-tossed outcomes; the dice don't know how many times they've been tossed without a 7 showing; so when you decide to start Laying against them (hoping for a 7); it is only then that that wager's roll-duration clock starts ticking...meaning that the non-7 rolls that occurred up to that point in this hand, don't matter in terms of what will likely happen next.

So again, those cumulative-probability odds only kick in at the beginning of a hand, and therefore cannot be made during the middle any given hand (once the hand has actually started); nor can a hand's roll-duration survival-rate be accurately used as a bet-initiating trigger on randomly-wagered outcomes.



MP

[wild child]

Let us take it from a static to a dynamic model.
My take on the greatest propensity of a live game may differ a static mathematical model.
In my world,every roll brings the shooter one roll nearer to terminating the hand.
I the case of the 147 roll hand , I may have been on the incorrect side had I decided on static betting.
My choice may be typically to follow the dynamics of the hand as observed and adapt to the game ongoing as I see .
How about the case of a hypothetical typical hand :

Let us start out with by passing the C/O roll(s) and once the Pass Line is established we Lay each subsequent number until ,let us say,roll # 4.
What if at that juncture we transition/switch to either make COME BETS with ODDS or PLACE all BOX NUMBERS rolled until the end of the hand ?

There are times when the most prudent choice would be to suspend further bets and wait to wager on another hand. We may guess the results with differing duration of hand ( rolls) and differing game plan.

Now this is a typical hand or if you prefer the average hand.

To make it more sporting,you or your assign may shoot the dice.
Let us examine the probabilities of our hypothetical hand roll by roll.

May even be educational to select hypothetical rolls of different duration(s)

May I suggest hands of 6 , 7 , 10, 20,40 and a new WORLD RECORD 150 ROLLS rolls.
Since I have only suggested you may have other choices to make a point.

It may be even more interesting if you may wish to choose the hypothetical table minimum and table maximum for the virtual game. That would be a nifty method of keeping score.

Input from the AMEN CORNER most welcome.

W C

[Kelph]

25 years Michael, longer than some and less then others.

As to MP's comment.....based on every roll of the dice and a large enough sampling so the physical limitation or advantage of the means of generating specific numbers (the dice) can, in the long term, overcome and right, though not necessarily exactly, the short term aberrations we players all experience.

Craps is set up based on long term probability which suits the casinos and is designed for players to lose. If, other than depending of the luck of variance as many players do, you wish to to seriously attempt to be a winner more often than a loser one must shake up the set-up. DIs hopefully nudge probability outcomes and learn how to bet any advantage properly in a disciplined manner.

Players like me do not play every roll or shooter which potentially could make things better or worse. Many think what I do is futile and meaningless. As I've said before, my results support what I do and thankfully it's independent of what others may think.

The serious try to find their own way whether is is strictly by the math, trying to alter the math through manipulating probability or trends (that is not a single homogenous idea). Sometimes my best plays have been against the math and not because I thought something was due but because it's what's happening/trending right now at a specific table/shooter combination. One can call it luck, variance or whatever you want but I don't make such bets on a whim.

Guess you could say I respect the math but I'm not ruled by it and choose not to play Craps in the manner the casinos have determined is the way for players to lose unless favored by variance.

As far a the 5 Count goes.....losing less because you're betting less frequently is not a news flash. However the 5 Count is merely a mechanical crutch that lends nothing to analysis of the table or shooter. I say this because back when it was new and I tried it I did avoid some 7 Outs but I could have just as easily made small profits and been off when the 7 came. For me the 5 Count is a substitute for analysis and discipline. Good for newbies learning the ropes but at some point the training wheels have to come off the bike and unless that happens you'll never be ready for a Harley in your future.

Kelph

[heavy]

Wild Child - an unsubstantiated rumor has it that those guys were essentially ordered off a table at Bellagio earlier in the year. The pit reportedly got tired of watching everyone at the table take up space without betting (using the five count) and passing the dice to the two designated shooters. If this is what happened, I wouldn't call it a "barring," but it does sound like their play is not welcome at B anymore.