Heavy's Axis Power Craps Forum

The question is self-explanatory, I think. If you can roll longer than the average RR, should you bet the All Tall/All Small/ALL?

It sure seems like I'm a long way ahead when I bet on myself. I've only hit the ALL 3 or 4 times as the shooter (in 12-14 sessions-that's probably about 60-80 hands), but I'll hit one end with "fair regularity"--maybe once every 10 or 15 hands. I usually bet 3-4-3 from a $500 buy-in.

What percentage of your buy-in do you use to bet on the ATS?

$5 whenever I'm the shooter - 2 - 1 - 2. Like you, I've hit one end or the other many times. I've hit the ALL a couple of times. On other KNOWN DI's I'll toss out 1-1-1 if I feel like their toss is on. However, for MOST players it is a sucker bet.

It's also a great way to get the dealers into the game!

Heavy, you're betting $5 on yourself... what's your buy-in? Am I pushing too hard with a $10 stake on myself on a $500 buy-in?

Thanks! I originally started out playing it 4-2-4, but I got greedy, and slowly, as I was having some limited success, skewed the numbers the wrong way. I'd be 'WAY ahead on my ATS bets with 5-2-5... I'm gonna have to psych myself up to change.

I like the ATS. It is a fun bet, and more fun when it pays.

However I have always thought that it is a counter-intuitive bet for the DI as it is somewhat counter to the goals of the DI. What I mean is that the goal of a DI is for a consistent toss with repeating numbers, so having a toss that is spanning numbers, to me, indicates that the DI has a problem. Unless of course the DI is altering the set to try and "snipe" numbers which, again to me, is problematic within the context of the short run of a given hand.

That is not to say that a DI should avoid the bet. As noted, tossing a longer hand then expected also supports the probability that he will cover more numbers, but I think winning the ATS using DI techniques is more of a by-product, then an achievement.

Maddog wrote:I like the ATS. It is a fun bet, and more fun when it pays.

However I have always thought that it is a counter-intuitive bet for the DI as it is somewhat counter to the goals of the DI. What I mean is that the goal of a DI is for a consistent toss with repeating numbers, so having a toss that is spanning numbers, to me, indicates that the DI has a problem. Unless of course the DI is altering the set to try and "snipe" numbers which, again to me, is problematic within the context of the short run of a given hand.

That is not to say that a DI should avoid the bet. As noted, tossing a longer hand then expected also supports the probability that he will cover more numbers, but I think winning the ATS using DI techniques is more of a by-product, then an achievement.

Very thoughtful post Maddog.

The natural sevens hurt me. I do not put it back up after a natural.
Only played it a few times. Last time I hit the small in eight rolls.
Something like 3-2-4-6-6-8-8-5.

What about the effect that "always on" plays during your come out cycles? If you WOTCO your good to go, but bye bye to the come out natural 7. The parlayed natural is a beautiful thing and can be a serious profit center with a All7 set.

Maddog and Irish, I don't mean to set you opposite each other.. but you both make points that make sense, and seem 'contradictory'. And yet I throw the dice for both goals...

MD said

...the goal of a DI is for a consistent toss with repeating numbers, so having a toss that is spanning numbers, to me, indicates that the DI has a problem.

That's me when I roll-- a DI "with a problem". After the CO, I set for 6/3-6/2. I've always used this set to avoid the seven more than set for a number, but I get a lot of 5's and 9's, and try to repeat them... most times, not with shining success--I'd like a 5x repeater, but it's probably only happened 3x in all my hands over the last 2 years (averaging one casino trip per week). And I've usually chickened out on my parlay and regressed after the 3rd or 4th repeater. Hindsight says I've been right to regress at that point because I can accurately (by my log) show that 5x has only happened 3 times.

And Irish said

...Maddog's point is also well taken. Knowing you only have to hit X or Y to make the ATS tends to lead shooters to focus on a particular number instead of letting the numbers flow from the throw.

Aside from the assessment that we tend to remember our successes more than our failures (if I may paraphrase) and to which I agree, Irish suggests the ATS bet/frequency should be akin to the shooter's current performance. Something I'd not considered. But the quote above...

The phrase "tends to lead shooters to focus on a particular number instead of letting the numbers flow from the throw."--

doesn't that infer that the shooter is attempting just to 'let numbers flow'? Is that not the minimum goal of a DI--just to continue to roll "numbers" so long as s/he can hinder the Red?

That is to say, isn't the theory of "DI" avoidance of the 7? Isn't a refinement of that the hunt for a single number?

I seem to contradict myself even, with my CO goal of shooting for specific Horn numbers with the 1/5-1/5, and then setting the 6/3-6/2 for an 'endurance' roll. I always bet the ATS when I'm the shooter. I'm rolling for the Point and Box numbers, but I'm also shotgunning for the leftover Horn numbers. In theory, it's the 5's and 9's that would be nice (whichever rolled first) because I usually parlay 3x on the 2nd repeater and hopefully, I can replicate my 'home' signature number--but my goal is to 'let the numbers flow' attempting to maintain the biggest goal for me as a wannabe-DI-- to shoot for avoiding the 7. Any other number is my goal--to give me another chance at a paying number--or an 'unrolled' ATS Horn number.

Should I be practicing for more? I'm just fighting to stay off the double pitch most of the time. That's my biggest goal; I figure if I do that much, I'll keep the Big Red from visiting on a statistical average. Is all we're talking about between the two subjects--shooting for a number, or rolling 'for flow'--are they just different levels of DI capability, or does one define DI in exclusion of the other?

Thank you, Gents.

Is the ATS a sucker's bet for a DI?

Yes it is, but it's a fun bet. I took the advice of Alohajonny and now create a separate budget for "fun" or "entertainment" bets like the fire bet and the ATS.
I used to bet $5 on each (ATS), but lately I've reduced that to $2 ea, $6 total. $15 a session hand eats too much of the bankroll. I like the fire bet better,
so I always bet $5 or $10 on that, mostly only when I toss. Occasionally, I will make the bet on a known DI. My worst nightmare would be not having a
fire bet when I throw six to the fire!

I'm similar to banker. I will set aside a small portion of money just for ATS bets, say £20 max. Over here we have to do £2 min on each one, so I only ever do the small and tall, or just one of them but never the all as well as £6 a time for full cover can just be too much of drain when I am not hitting any of them. Unlike Banker though I prefer the ATS to the fire by a long way. I guess it all depends on what you recall doing the best on

Of course the brutal reality about an ATS is if you have the 2 and/or 12 left it leaves you feeling you had a "close" miss, but in reality you are one hell of a way from hitting it - works well for the casinos I guess as that near miss feeling has us reloading the next time, and the next time......

Dork, if you truly are a long way ahead on this bet then you really should be betting your max comfort level each time you throw. I think in reality though we gamblers always reckon we are further ahead than we are. Unless we keep accurate records of each session for these bets (and I certainly don't) I suspect the reality would be a bit of a shock.

I like the ats bet, just returned from tunica today. played a short session this morning played 4-2-4 hit small for a $140.00 pay.
was in tunica 2 weeks ago and hit ats all at hollywood also hit all of them again at gold strike. I do not set for specific #'s just my usual set trying to avoid the ugly one.

just my 2 centsworth.

hambone