Heavy's Axis Power Craps Forum

OK, well 100% of people are at least even at some point during a session of Craps. When they buy in!

I've seen a bunch of guys win 10k in one hour cuz they were gambling a shitload and got lucky. And I also saw guys play 4 hours on a 5$ table and get raped 500$. You can't control the game, your luck and your throws 100%. But when you're badlucked, play carefully and when you're in luck, take chances! Not stupid one but...if you have been lucky, starting to parlay some bets isn't a bad move! It's what's going to bring fun and excitement!

I have learned to lose less on random shooters, saving that money to win more on my own shooting.

That depends on how many sessions one plays. For 99.9% of players, regressing after one hit will be way more profitable. Especially if they play more than five or six sessions a year.with a 25 roll showing up about once every 25 rollers, and no guarantee that that roll will have enough repeaters to make money, a player will have to have superior luck to make any money at all,and most likely will lose all of their buy ins.for the well bankrolled, and well disciplined player ,who plays more than one or two weekends a year, then a pressing routine will probobly net a bit more, as they would be at the table to get a few 40-60 rolls over enough time. The percentage of players falling into this catagorie however, is probobly less than 10% of the total player population.

It seems to me that the " losing less " player never gets a big win. Lots of little ones though. That's OK as long as there are little losses and not big ones.

I guess it depends what level you regress to. If your standard bet is $12 6&8 and you go down to $6 6&8 after two hits then I would have thought on average that will make you more profitable (or lose less) as you are reducing your average bet exposure per roll from its normal amount.

However, if part of your regression plan is to start bigger, then regress to your normal bet size, then you are exposing more on average to the house edge so that is going to affect your bottom line.

The above assumes a random game with no edge. If you truly have an edge then it's a different story.

I would tend to err on the side of cause-based regressions. Of course, if you go that route the you have to believe in things like streaks, trends, and positive (or negative) energy at the table. Irish will probably say that negative energy is nothing more than the realization that you're getting your ass handed to you. But I tend to see cause and effect in play there. I recall a session played in Vicksburg at the former Isle of Capri back about 20 years ago. There was a group of "regulars" who played there every morning. I was at the table when one of them shouted something to the effect of "Oh, shit! Here comes Mr. Jones. Everybody turn your bets off." Everyone did, and the next roll was a seven. The table turned ice cold and remained that way until Mr. Jones left the building. Hey, it is what it is. Totally unrelated events, right? But what the hell. If my bets are off I've reduced my exposure, and that in and of itself is probably a good thing.

I dont' want to bang the gong on that bell curve too much, but it seems logical to me that if you limit losses but do not limit wins then you're likely to win more. But logic and math don't always go hand in hand in my book.

Thoughts?

Irish or anyone: What do you do on those days when you walk up to a table and your toss looks like a wounded duck? Bet less and try to work out the kinks is what I usually do. If it's an empty table I switch to the don't until I'm warmed up. I was just curious what others do.

If you try to tell me you never have days like that I call BS.

irish wrote:I'd never say that I don't have days like that. But let's make sure we divide things into two categories. Playing with negative EV = random game, and playing with positive EV = successfully influencing the dice. We're posting this under betting strategies, so the original post was presuming a random game.

If your shot looks like wounded ducks, you probably shouldn't play until you've rectified the issue, but for people who play less frequently, what you're doing mssthis1 is just fine. We are drifting into interesting turf though. How does money management and discipline (discipline to quit, discipline not to play, discipline not to chase etc) impact profitability?

As far as "table energy" goes, I want to play at a table that I'm comfortable at. So, if the dealers are grumpy and the players are assholes, I won't play. I have no doubt that those things impact my shooting. However, on the flip side, a table full of happy drunks does not mean it's more likely to be a profitable table. In fact, I've seen more huge losses from happy players with a beer in their hand, then on tables with grumpy players.

Money management and discipline would make for an interesting thread. On your last paragraph I agree 110%.

Wounded duck toss had a little too much drama in the description but there are plenty of days where either my toss or mind aren't in the right place when I first step up to a table. That's one of the reasons I prefer empty tables.

Heavy: That reminded me of the movie, "The Cooler", Wm H. Macy, Alex Baldwin. Really liked that movie.

Although I have no doubt that the math says that regressing will not win as much as in the long run,Mir does pass the sight test at the table.there are damn few players, even on this board, who are willing to go in the hole for thousands of dollars of losses , before getting out of the hole and making a profit. Now I may be out of bounds here, as this is a dice influencing board. But statistically speaking, the number of players that can make money over their limited number of trips each year, using any sort of press as you go up method, approaches zero. It must be so, or the casinos would go out of business. Even if you regress your bets, that does not mean you will not make any money, just not as much on the monster roll.myou will however make many more hands profitable of the ones you play. Many small wins of one to three units , will for most players be much more enjoyable than one $1000 win. Especially if they make 5-600 on that monster hand themselves. Of course getting that monster roll is another whole can if worms. I personally have played 160 sessions this year and have seen one 60, one 50, and four 40 rolls so far. Good luck being there when those happen. Also thanks for reading my threads over on the other board, it is nice somebody reads them. They are for the 99.9% of players who play this game and find it difficult to impossible to win at it.you do not need to be a DI to beat the house, you just need the right mental makeup.also in my humble opinion, if those of you reading this were to begin regressing, Probobly 95% of you would be net positive for your total sessions each year.I imagine that if you really have an edge, then you would win 90-95% of all of your sessions played. Now wouldn't that be fun....your friend...Seattle rick

Now I may be out of bounds here, as this is a dice influencing board.

I try to have a little something for everyone here on the forum, Rick. Yeah, we approach craps from a DI point of view. But if we all went to the tables and only bet on the shooters who had a proven positive EV we'd be standing around the tables with our thumbs up our asses 99% of the time.

I have said many times that I'll bet a six and eight on anyone. If the dice are passing then I'll get out there with a Pass Line and run a negative progression on the odds to work into a profit position if I start out with an early loss. I'll switch to the Don'ts if the dice dictate it. I think that understanding different approaches to the game is one of the keys to profiting from it. The guy who only bets the right side is destined to lose roughly half of the time. The guy who bets only the dark side is destined to lose roughly half the time. The tough part, from a mathematical stand point, is that the guy who bets back and forth - right way and wrong way - is also destined to lose roughly half of the time.

Of course, one of my favorite sayings is that the key to winning is to quit while you're ahead. But first you have to GET ahead. That's the tough part.

H will also tell you one of the keys to winning is being OFF at the right time.

I'm having a hard time with the math, or just feeling good after I regress, I don't know.

Irish, are you saying a $30 6/8 each 1 hit regress to $12 each is more volatile than an straight $18 6/8? My math says I'm +$17 after 2 hits, I always press the hit $12 to $18. Your way seems that after 2 hits the $18's paid out $42-$36= $6. Or say you press both after first hit to $24 each, then +1. Or even if 1 was pressed to $30 net +$8. Maybe my math is all wrong?

Is it the extra $24 that I start with on 6/8 that over the long haul is the wrong play? It sure makes me all fuzzy inside when bets are "paid" on the table. I'm 2nd guessing my play and when I shoot have zero advantage on DI, so let's take that out of play. Not trying to start an argument just looking for an experts opinion. I know my money and way I bet is my personal choice, but if the math makes zero sense...why get beat by HA at the starting gate? Man, I have so much to learn about this damn game! It is a game correct? It feels like work work work at the tables!

Thanks in advance,

Backstroker

DaveGct
Agreed...and do that often. Take a break, count my chips, rehash some previous bets, etc. I've re-read this thread several times and believe my questions are answered, regression over time is the wrong play. If one is at the table and always practicing good money management with each buy-in, how does regression hurt you? I don't know.

Playing longer benefits the house. That's why we hit and run. Question I have is..since the idea is to regress to lock in a profit and then start pressing
with winnings doesn't that obviate the idea that we lose less, but win less? We are not standing there constantly regressing, right? It's a means to an end. We actually win to win more.

Dave,
I think Irish may have been stating what "SRT" meant for the rest of us who had no clue--or at least I didn't. This is a very lively discussion with some very good points and questions by all. Let's get back to it!

Here is my opinion on this and my opinion only. Sorry, I am not mathematically gifted enough to show my work. I use regression betting a lot and will continue to use it but I do agree that losing less does not mean winning more. It seems logically correct to me that if you regress and then have to build bets back up by pressing that it will mean less winnings on a few bets to get them built back up. And on a long roll you will never get back to the size of bet you could have had by pressing from the beginning and thus not winning as much. While I agree with Irish when he shows the amount I could be winning over many hands and how large it could be I still feel comfortable with cutting both tales off the bell curve as it fits my betting personality better but this is just personal choice.

If plans remain the same and we move to Las Vegas in the next 2-3 years then I may have to rethink my betting strategy as I will be playing a LOT more sessions per year than I do now. Even though I do not like Come betting I may have to rethink my aversion and accept the volatility of that type of play. Still to be determined. These types of discussions here really help me to consider or reconsider all sides so thanks to Heavy for this forum and all who post!

Irish,

I appreciate your replies. Glad to see the regression play is one you use as well. With me being a Randie who even Heavy may not bet a 6/8 on, regression seems like my only chance at times to make any headway.

Thanks for your expertise

I will bet a six and eight on anyone who touches the dice. I may bet a Don't Pass in combination with it, but . . .

If I go home with a part of my bankroll for my Las Vegas trip, I am a happy camper. I don't get to go as often as I used to so losing less means winning more for me now.
One thing I find it hard to do is regress whenever I feel the table is trending hot. Perhaps I need to look for triggers to regress.
I don't have the discipline to stick to the CPR when everyone else is pressing.