Heavy's Axis Power Craps Forum

I read this latest betting iteration in the last newsletter and, it seems to me some observations can be made, philosophically, at least. At this point, I have played the strategy now, using $15 units, and my 1st 7 legs are 15/30; 15/30; 15/60; 15/90; 15/90; 15/150 and 15/210. Quite easy to remember and keep count on. I have not figured on many more legs for one reason. To get to a dozen or more without going back to square one, a shooter would have to witness some of the coldest table conditions I can ever recall. My plan would be to play until I got to 210 odds and then stay there a few more shooters before thinking about going higher. So, some observations....

First of all, I've only been through around 100 point cycles, random rolls only. I wouldn't do this on my own rolls. Too boring. Miss the point and hand the bones to the next guy. Of course, if you're alone at the table, set for the 4 and 10 on the come out and boost the odds if you need the adrenaline. After 100 random point cycles, I've only made it to 210 odds two times.

Second, when you pass on a shooter who busts you on a couple of naturals, you need to be prepared to sit and sometimes watch really long right way rolls. Nothing wrong with that, but if you suffer from the FOMO disease, it really can get to you. Those rolls can also be short too, telling you you would have won! Also, you need to be prepared to sweat while a shooter has a 15 roll hand where you're looking for the 'no 4 '!

Third, the strategy needs a $2K buy in, only theoretically. I was buying in at $500 and quitting if I got down $250. My conclusion based on admittedly a limited number of practice runs is that you can play the CFs for a long time doing this. Most often, you'll not get past leg 3, which will inevitably be a point of 4 or 10 which the shooter inevitably makes on the 3d roll! Also, if the table deals you a lot of 6s and 8s, it can be frustrating. The 6 and 8 are a mixed blessing just like they are on the right side. On the wrong side, they pay well when you 7 out, but they also bust your run many times on the Don't side.

Fourth--and I have not thought this through--what would be wrong with starting out with a doey don't? It seems a little superstitious to think that being busted by a couple of naturals necessarily leads to a long hand. With a doey don't the problem becomes the equivalent of a more broad 'lay' bet, since one would cancel the other on a point. But, if you took the don't side of, say, a 4, you could still collect a little on the odds on a 7 out. Or, would it make sense to take the first come out 7 on the chin but then on the next roll toss out a $3 hop 7? Worst case, you're in the game for $12 flat rather than $15. Or start with the doey don't and pull the 6 or 8 don't bet if it's the point. Like I said, I haven't mentally examined this idea in regards to comeout issues.

Finally, as with all craps strategies, I think ultimately you are looking for a wave that favors your setup. This don't progression only works on a really cold table, but it can also be a way to just play a lot when it's choppy. My thought would be to use this when the table is too crowded to get a good throwing spot. Ask the guy next to you how the play is going ( or the gal )...don't want to presume anything...if the person next to you says the table is red hot, why would anyone in his or her right mind go to the don't at that point. But, if the person says the guy on the hook just had a monster but that things have slowed down, that might be a good time to test whether or not the table wave has changed.

My conclusion is that I have a way I like to play on the right side and I prefer it. This strategy is, however, very interesting. If the shoe fits, I think this will easily let you be that guy in the overcoat and sunglasses sitting on a stool nearly into the pit, quietly putting your DP bets out there all night! Also, if you see 3 10s or 3 4s in a hand, immediately lay whichever one is the culprit!

Alamo

Here's a piece of information I borrowed from Mad Professor's Choppy Table Short Leash Strategy that might impact your thinking on this play. These numbers were provided to MP by Michael Shackleford, well known gaming writer and actuary.

The chance of a random-roller making multiple Point-winners in a row is as follows:

 There is a 40% chance that a player will make his 1st PL-Point.
 There is a 16% chance that a player will make a 2nd PL-Point in a row.
 There is a 7% chance that a player will make his 3rd Point in a row.
 There is a 3% chance that a random-roller will make a 4th winning PL-Point in a row.
 There is a 1.2% chance that a player will be able to make his 5th PL-Point in a row.
 There is a 0.5% chance that a player will eventually make six PL-Points in a row.

Armed with this information, it fortifies your spine a bit when it comes to pushing out those larger odds bets on various numbers on the dark side. Of course, if you don't want to go the Free Odds route as outlined in this play because, after all, the payouts vary significantly depending upon the point established, perhaps you'd like to just martingale your DP bet OR add a DC bet to your DP bet to get more action on the table. You could do either. But then you'd be playing MP's Choppy Table Short Leash Strategy - which isn't a bad way to play either. In fact, it's one of the strategies we teach in our seminars.

interesting. Very conservatively, one could wait for a shooter to make a point and then get on the don't. ( See the 16% chance of the shooter repeating again). I've never had much luck running progressions on the don't side or the right side. Also, it has never made sense to me to lay odds once I've got the flat bet across the DP line and into the box.

Just for fun, what are the similar chances on Field numbers repeating or following 5,6 or 8 a number of times before a field number should show?

Alamo

Just for fun, what are the similar chances on Field numbers repeating or following 5,6 or 8 a number of times before a field number should show?

Oh, I get it. This is the point where everyone dogpiles on old Heavy, who is decidedly NOT a math guy, and asks him to do the grunt work on calculating odds on all kinds of weird shit - stuff casinos hire statisticians to do. You know the old joke, right? If you took all of the statisticians in the world and stacked them end to end all the way to the moon it would be a good thing? Ba-da-boon.

But seriously. What you need is a formula for calculating the odds of an event happening. There are 16 possible combinations you can roll that are Field numbers. There are 20 you can roll that are not field numbers. Of those 20 - 6 are Sevens. Ten are Sixes and Eights. Four are Fives. So Fourteen are Fives, Sixes and Eights.

Now you want to know that are the odds of a 20 out of 36 possibility occurring compared to a 14 out of 36 possibility occurring back to back, so the Multiplication Rule comes into play. (I just gave you a huge hint there, but you are going to have to Google the Multpilication Rule in Odds Calculation and figure out just what the hell it means and how to calculate it.

Once you have that part of it sorted out you are well on your way to solving your question.

Now, I have - on many occasions - recommended you guys purchase a laymen's guide to casino math. I happen to have a very good one, Practical Casino Math, given to me by the math professor who wrote, Dr. Robert Hannum, for the class he teaches, I believe these days at the University of Colorado. Back years ago when I met him he was teaching out of the University of Nevada at Renot. The book retails new for around $250. Used for as low as around $45. Glad I got mine free. It helped me tremendously with basic odds calculations and related math-fu in just the first 30 pages. And I am decidedly NOT a math guy.

Now, as long as I'm on the subject of Martingales, negative progressions, and waiting for a few pass decisions before jumping on the Don't Pass - allow me to remind you guys of our long departed pal WWWWW's posts on the Neural Strategy with his own addition, and Lord help me I can't recall what he called it, but it was the Dark Side equivalent of the Five Count, only it was only Two or Three counts. You'd wait until a shooter had made Two or Three Passes - THEN you'd start playing a negative progressions utilizing the Neural strategy, which is an old "copyrighted" system with is nothing more than a Fibonacci play under a different name. So it's a 1 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 5 - 8 - 13 - 21 - 34 - progression. If you got a win at any level you stopped and made the same bet again. If you got two wins in a row you regressed back to a 1 unit bet and started the progression all over again. If you did not get two wins back to back you continued with the next bet in the progression.

In WWWWW's strategy you capped it at a certain level and did not proceed beyond that level. You started over with your "count" on another shooter, but when you started your Neural progression you started with a higher level bet. Example: 2 - 2 - 4 - 6 - 10 - 16 - 26 - 42 - etc. Essentially doubling up your bet size over the previous run. Or something to that effect.

The point is - BOTH strategies - WWWWW's and MP's Choppy Table Short Leash, depend on the declining odds of a player making consecutive passes beyond four to six passes without sevening out. And they rarely do so. On those occasions, by exercising stop limits - you can avoid catastrophic losses.

Are these plays for me? No. Why? I find them catastrophically mechanical and boring. I'm too much of an action player to deal with them. But for the person who LIKES mechanical plays - and may players are "wired" that way - it's not really that bad of a way to play.

University of Nevada at Renot ...

Not a fat finger . . . that's just my fingers running faster than my brain. But I gotta tell you. That book has been a lifesaver for me. I stared at some of those odds calculation formulas for hours and tried to figure out what the hell they meant. Literally thirty minutes into this guys book and I was breezing through the stuff. Well, maybe not breezing through it but I could get through it okay. At least I didn't have to ask someone like Wong to sort out the odds on something for me.

It's funny how my opinion of math guys has changed over the years - and then again in many ways it hasn't. For example, the old discussion about what the odds are of the seven rolling on the next toss of the dice.

Actuary answer: One in six.

My answer: One in six . . . but . . .

Remember, Mr. Actuary, your answer about the decreasing odds of a player hitting repeating points:

 There is a 40% chance that a player will make his 1st PL-Point.
 There is a 16% chance that a player will make a 2nd PL-Point in a row.
 There is a 7% chance that a player will make his 3rd Point in a row.
 There is a 3% chance that a random-roller will make a 4th winning PL-Point in a row.
 There is a 1.2% chance that a player will be able to make his 5th PL-Point in a row.
 There is a 0.5% chance that a player will eventually make six PL-Points in a row.

So clearly there is a brick wall down there in the dark somewhere that marks the end of the road. "Here there be Sevens" reads the sign on the wall. And with every roll of the dice you are getting one roll closer to that wall. So . . . Mr. Actuary . . . perhaps the answer is NOT one in six. It may be one in four . . . or one in two . . . or it may be the very next roll. We just don't know. BUT, the REAL math says you ALWAYS have a one-in-six chance of tossing a seven on the next roll of the dice in a random toss. IF you are a pessimist. If you are an optimist you have a five out of six chance of NOT tossing a Seven on the next toss. I kind of like those odds. Not bad. Which is why, if I start getting a little heat at the table sometimes, I'll just pick up the dice on an axis that is not sevens rich and toss them more or less randomly down the table to get the heat off me. I still have a five out of six chance - at LEAST - of tossing a good number. And if I toss them at the right angle and a little too hard at least one die will bounce off the table and that's okay too. I can stop the game by asking for the same dice and just kill the action while they look for the die. Doesn't bother me. Bothers the house because they're losing money when the dice aren't rolling. But now I'm off topic.

My point was - Math guys talk at crossed purposes. There is a duality in casino math. There's real world mathematics and there's casino world mathematics. They are not the same.

Thanks Heavy! My comment was not on the book or professor who wrote it. It sounds like a great book! I was laughing as a booster of college sports and teams that we like and dislike because of geography, etc. I know sports is quite secondary to the education that is provided by each school but it is fun to follow for me! Thanks for the idea of seaking out useful math books. I had a minor in mathematics in college and could still use a math book to brush up!

I'm the last guy in the world to talk sports to. I have a great disdain for professional athletes in general. College sports - not so much, but still, they're all getting a cakewalk. Someone taking their tests for them. School covering up their arrests and keeping them out of jail for everything from drunk and disorderly to rape. Getting paid by alums under the table for "part time jobs" off campus that they never have to show up for - a job that includes a company car that happens to be the latest model sports car or pickup. I could go on and on. All this because they can run fast and hit hard. I could not care less. John Patrick has been trying for over 20 years to get me to bet sports - his primary source of income. But you have to be a fan to bet sports IMHO, so I'd never make a buck at it.

Math? I was strictly a Business Math guy. Never took Statistics or any advanced math to speak of beyond a little High School Algebra, which I barely passed. But I can dope out some basic stuff if I have the formula to do it, and that's what that particular book gives you. Casino math for non math people. Great idea. Ridiculously expensive. But that all adds up, right? LOL.

This is kind of an 'aside' comment, but both Martingales and sports were mentioned in this thread.
A couple of things: First, with study and discipline and good choices, you can get an edge in sports betting. Second, you can win quite nicely betting a progression in sports.

Personally, I use a 10, 20, 20, 30, 40, 60, 80 ( with sports, you modify this a bit for the vig, e.g. 11 to win 10, etc., but it isn't always consistent; sometimes you'll bet an underdog with + vig ). Any time you win a bet, you parlay the next bet. If you win 2 in a row, you go back to the beginning. This works very well over the course of the season. My sport is football. I only go 7 levels, because, as you know, any progression can get you in trouble if you try to follow it too far on a losing streak.

Just a comment on the 'progression' idea. I would add to Heavy's previous post about boredom, that betting on CFs is a proven loser, so waiting on a shooter to make a couple of points is not a terrible way to stay at the table for quite a long time, especially if it is crowded and you're waiting for a turn with the dice. A progression will also allow you to look good for comps from time to time, especially if you are trying to parlay a back to back win. Just sayin.

Peace and prosperity to all!

Alamo