Heavy's Axis Power Craps Forum

I've cut (maybe out of context) two parts of different posts that you authored. I'm not sure if they "contradict" each other, or, if because of the difference in initial bets vs. regression rate, I should expect them to be different.

In your post last night in "The Experts Speak", you opened your post with this:

I've designed a betting-method for a $500 buy-in SRR-7 shooter whose validated-advantage is spread evenly across all six box-numbers.

~It starts with $118-Across...taking three paying-hits at the pre-regression level...and then regressing everything down to $54-Across...and then applying a Passive-Aggressive press-schedule from there.

Let me elaborate:

~I assume that your $500 buy-in is there to be invested in a positive-expectation manner, and does not come pre-burdened with any kind of psychological-trickery where you apply an artificial 50% loss-limit (wherein your effective buy-in is really only $250, and not its actual $500 face-value).

~$118-Across is set up as $15 each on the 4 and 10...$20 each on the 5 and 9...and $24 each on the 6 and 8.

~The $118-Across pays either $27 or $28 per Across-number hit.

~Generally speaking, an SRR-7 shooter will throw an average of 4.6 Across-hits per hand.

~My approach for this shooter would be to have him collect three (3) paying-hits at the $118-Across; which in turn would generate around $84 in pre-regression gross-revenue.

~After collecting three pre-regression Across-hits; I would have him regress everything down to $54-Across ($5 each on the 4, and 10...$10 each on the 5 and 9...and $12 each on the 6 and 8). ...

In "Regression Avoids Depression Part 16", you wrote:

... Optimal Regression Trigger-Point SRR-7 (Regress the following schemes after:)

1 HIT: Inside.....Across.....Outside.....Even.....Iron Cross.....6 and 8....5 and 9.....4 and 10
2 HITS: Across....Iron Cross....6 and 8 (All other schemes should have been regressed after one hit)

The SRR-7 shooter does not stay in positive-expectation territory for very long during his point-cycle roll and should therefore optimally regress his bets after just one or two hits (depending on which global bet-type he has wagered on). ...

(for the reader: I've had to reformat the table [with my own italicized comments] that MP created because the APC format wouldn't preserve it coherently [and I don't know how to insert an .xls file])

I use a variation of the $204 Across... mine is actually $5PL w/5x 0dds 4/10, 6x Odds 5/9, or 8x Odds 6/8 and $179/169/162 Across for two hits, then regress to $5PL w/$20 Odds and $26/27 Across (rarely, I'll go $54 Across if the throw feels really grooved, or if I'm ahead more than ~$120). My regression point is almost exclusively the 2nd paid roll. (Twice I failed to regress. Once I forgot, and the other time the roll felt to good.) My SSR hovers in the mid-7's to 8.0-something on my good days. It seems that a 2-roll payoff is pretty accurate for me--about 50% of the times that I survive to the trigger point, my rolls would have paid for a 3rd time.

However, when I read your post about the $118-Across system, it seems that the trigger point, at the 3rd payoff, contradicts my practice and the $204 ISR scheme, which, if properly regressed, drops to $44 at the 2nd payoff, and not ~$54 (as my adaption does). I'm not sure what the prescribed SSR should be for a $204 Across scheme, but does that matter, or is the discrepancy from one advised trigger point (3 rolls) to the other (2 rolls) based on other additional considerations?

Thank you.

Hi Dork,

Good question.

You are correct about the seeming contradiction, but let me explain why that is.

I designed that regression quite specifically for BobbyLee and his unique advantage-distribution and tight-bankroll parameters.

bobbylee wrote:Could you please recommend a wagering strategy given:
-$500 BR-SRR 7:1 then also for 8:1(if any significant differences).
-no significant edge on any Inside number over the others , nor the 4/10
-Hardways Set

I'm thinking $64A , racking profits and taking down one/any Outside Place bet each hit for three or four hits, while assuring the 6&8 remain. Then maybe an ISR of the two or three remaining bets; I'm thinking here of, if and when I get to your $204 strategy level. Typically, no number better repeats for me than the 6's and 8's, but "often" 5&9's are the rule instead of the exception.
As you state for many DI's,, I'm one who fits your stated category of hating to miss any hit due to no bet. So this approach helps out in that regard,and also minimizes early 7out losses by racking and picking up.

bobbylee wrote:MP, I have to confess,I haven't tossed practice shot #1 since my operations in Jan, this year.
From past records, my edge on the four Inside numbers gave weight to each one. From my current casino tossing, I believe I would have about the same practice edge results today. I determine my edge multiplying the frequencies X 1.16, or 1.4, or 1.9+, seeing which are the higher results.

The overriding reason, I use Hardways has been longevity - records are consistent in that it best avoids the 7.

I've used and compared valid sampling of V2 and V3, but records of those trials are aged.
I recall all Inside edges being competitive, and that the 4or10's were preeminent sometimes.
So I can't or couldn't claim any Signature Number(s)
Sure smarts to see any of the four Outside numbers hit without a bet, several and just one time before getting back to the core 6&8s; one wasted toss closer to a 7 - reason I like to think of not wasting an initial toss on an Outside.

Now ideally, an SRR-7 skilled-shooter would have a large sampling of in-casino roll-stats from which to cooper up a highest-focus-on-highest-advantage betting-method (perhaps even including an optimized regression-point); however, that isn't always the case.

Given that, I work with what I am given, and try to stay within the relative confines of that player's bankroll and stated betting-preference as much as possible.

Is the one I came up with for Bobbylee ideal for all SRR-7 shooters?

No, not at all, but I think it does address most of the wants and needs that Bobblylee expressed in seeking a betting-method that suited him.

As I mentioned in the closing paragraph of my reply to Bobbylee:

The math on this play is quite strong. If any of you folks have any interest in seeing it; please let me know.


MP

Ach zo... I knew that. Somewhere in reading the 'Experts' post I knew you were replying to BobbyLee, I just didn't realize the play was tailored. I misunderstood it to be a generic design. Thank you for taking the time to explain it.