How many come bets are optimal?
My question is simple. When betting with the shooter, is there an optimum number of come bets that I should make? Theoretically I can't see a reason not to be always coming with full odds, and hoping for a long roll. Of course, I lose a lot of money if the table is loaded up. Is this dumb? And if so, why? Many shooters bet only the first 3 or 4 points and stop.
There is no optimal number.
This thread
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/1130-how-many-come-bets-is-too-many/5/
This post
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/1130-how-many-come-bets-is-too-many/5/#post9322
Many shooters only make a few bets and stop because the fear of losing their bankroll.
Their fear is unfounded unless they are playing with too small of a bankroll.
With a limited bankroll, now one can find a certain number of bets at an average bet size that will lower or increase the Risk of Bankroll Ruin.
But you did not ask that question
Enjoy
One does get the impression on the 7-out that having had 5-6 points with full odds going was foolish, but the effect of all going down on one roll just makes a big impression. The real impression to get is to count how much money you are betting in a short period of time.
In the past I have asked the Wizard if it is the same as, say, approaching having a bet on each of the numbers on the roulette wheel. That is a type of betting that just assures the casino a win [all numbers covered] so as you approach that condition you also are working against yourself [hedging]. But he has clearly said not to be concerned, it is not the same.
2.2374 is only optimal with a certain bankroll.Quote: FleaStiff2.2374 is optimal. Which sort of leaves you with a practical choice of either 2 or 3.
Maybe for $300 with $X bets but not optimal for a $3,000 bankroll (with equal $s bet)
And what is optimal for?
For hitting a win goal only,
or risk of ruin only
or length of time only at a table
or length of time and risk of ruin together?
This is easily shown in any craps computer simulation.
From the above link
"So what is the perfect answer? Three point Molly?
Perfect answer for whom? I don't believe in any "one-size-fits-all" answer"
You also asked about come bets as a hedge in this threadQuote: odiousgambitIn the past I have asked the Wizard if it is the same as, say, approaching having a bet on each of the numbers on the roulette wheel. That is a type of betting that just assures the casino a win [all numbers covered] so as you approach that condition you also are working against yourself [hedging]. But he has clearly said not to be concerned, it is not the same.
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/853-argument-about-hedging-in-craps/
Sorry, I just had to.
With only a 40% chance of making a point in the first place, it would seem that betting the dark side would be the only way to fly. But once again, reality is much different than long term statistical analysis. Last session, I personally devastated my own bankroll by shooting 5 sevens in a row while on the dark side. What are the chances of that? I don't know, but this is the kind of stuff I see in actual play. It is the diabolical mixture of right and dark side plays that make this game so frustrating imho.
I've tried the Wizard's strategy in practice runs and can never make any headway following the continuous Come Bets and max odds on them when using a realistic bankroll number (i.e. what I would really risk in live play). I've had the most success when right way betting in taking full odds on 6 and 8 on the pass line, and placing 2 Come bets in the hope of landing on 6 or 8 with them. If I do, I take full Come odds for those numbers. Otherwise, I just let the 3 numbers be covered and replace them if/when they get rolled. If I do get on both 6 and 8, I will keep the Come bets going to try to keep the "off and on" train going. I do this even if betting the dark side, because it just plain sucks to have someone rolling 5 eights in a row when the point is 10 and you aren't cashing on anything. But hey, what do I know?
This is where you are wrong.Quote: 4andaKickerThis is one of the cases where reality and math seem to defy each other. All the long run calculations say, nah, it doesn't matter, because X BILLION rolls say these things come out to certain percentages. Unfortunately, we don't play in terms of billions, or even thousands of rolls in an actual craps session.
If you play 100 rolls in one session and do it for every day for 30 days.
You have just played one session of 3,000 rolls.
It is because you are playing a game of independent events.
This is the biggest pot hole for those that say they never play 1,000 rolls at a time.
But you and everyone does.
It makes no difference if you play 100 rolls every session one time a month for the next 30 months.
Same results (expectation) and variance If you play 100 rolls in one session and do it for every day for 30 days.
or
played one session of 3,000 rolls
Nothing any player can do to change that.
The math and computer simulations proves these type of false statements are just flat out wrong.
I have had no problem winning many many sessions with pass/come every roll with a proper bankroll for the size of my bets.Quote: 4andaKickerI've tried the Wizard's strategy in practice runs and can never make any headway following the continuous Come Bets and max odds on them when using a realistic bankroll number (i.e. what I would really risk in live play).
I have actual game results and computer simulations showing this to be true.
Now who to believe?
I believe my results before I believe yours since I have proven it to myself and that is all I need.
I can show the math of this for any size session but it really is a waste of time since the OP did not ask that question.
Maybe you will
Enjoy!
It also comes down to the average player not understanding ALL the math... not just part of the mathQuote: 7crapsThis is where you are wrong.
If you play 100 rolls in one session and do it for every day for 30 days.
You have just played one session of 3,000 rolls.
It is because you are playing a game of independent events.
Sure the 7 rolls on average 1 in 6.
But what is the variance?
Most ask "What is variance?"
I asked "What is the variance"
Calculating and understand an average is grade school stuff.
Understanding averages and variance is graduate work.
We should all be there.
It really is simple. The Wizard shows his math in many questions answered.
If you make one bet one day, and 5 bets next Sunday, and 10 bets the next Monday and 84 bets 6 months later on the 3rd Thursday in June, you have made a total of 100 independent bets.Quote: 4andaKickerThis is one of the cases where reality and math seem to defy each other. All the long run calculations say, nah, it doesn't matter, because X BILLION rolls say these things come out to certain percentages. Unfortunately, we don't play in terms of billions, or even thousands of rolls in an actual craps session.
The order does not matter.
Your results will follow the normal curve.
You can easily teach yourself about the normal curve.
There are free sites everywhere.
And it will place you way to the right under the curve. That is good.
From the Rational Gambler (a free pdf)
345X odds can be devastating to a bankroll in a few bets.
As time goes on, the expected results are actually quite very normal.
Now we know what to expect from the range of possible outcomes
Each come bet is an independent event, and each independent event has (approximately) the same chance of success no matter what other of my bets are on the table. That said, is there a mathematical reason to stop at, say, 2 or 3 come bets as suggested by one of the first responders, or is there the same odds of losing or winning as I load up the table?
Nobody has made a good mathematical argument for stopping at a certain number of come bets except "you will win or lose faster and may eventually run out of money more quickly with more money on the table". No offense, but that could happen if I bet one $1000 bet with full odds and lost it.
If anyone can give additional help, please do so.
Thanks again for the help.
You original question was very general.Quote: Grebnesoris there a mathematical reason to stop at, say, 2 or 3 come bets as suggested by one of the first responders,
I say NO, without knowing any other parameters involved.
What is your definition of "a mathematical reason" in the context of the statement?
Those that say to stop after having X bets working will never be able to show any "mathematical reason" for doing so unless one takes in other parameters.
Like, win goal, time to play etc.
For each pass/come bet you make, each bet in the two stages of it's existence, has the same probability of winning at exactly 244/495.Quote: Grebnesoror is there the same odds of losing or winning as I load up the table?
What you are doing by making more bets is increasing your negative expected value and your variance.
The variance increases even more by taking the odds. That is good.
More bets does nothing to each individual bet's winning or losing probability.
Some says it does, they are not correct, because the bets are independent events.
They all resolve at different times and with odds, at different rates.
Quote: GrebnesorThanks to all of you for your comments. I am not going to go broke at my rate of play, so it would take an enormous string of bad luck for me to really be hurt. Assuming that, my question really could be better defined:
Each come bet is an independent event, and each independent event has (approximately) the same chance of success no matter what other of my bets are on the table. That said, is there a mathematical reason to stop at, say, 2 or 3 come bets as suggested by one of the first responders, or is there the same odds of losing or winning as I load up the table?
Nobody has made a good mathematical argument for stopping at a certain number of come bets except "you will win or lose faster and may eventually run out of money more quickly with more money on the table". No offense, but that could happen if I bet one $1000 bet with full odds and lost it.
If anyone can give additional help, please do so.
Thanks again for the help.
I think the good reason to stop at 3 Come bets, and just maintain that number as they roll in is because the average number of rolls to a sevenout is 5. Yes, each roll is independent, the dice have no memory, blah blah, but the more rolls you persist, the more likely you will be losing a ton of money off all those loaded points when the inevitable 7out happens. I think the biggest difference of opinion here might be what someone considers acceptable bankroll. Craps seems extremely volatile to me, so you seem to need substantially more to ride out the nastiness than you might first think. Try running some tests with the Wizard's system with a $200 buy in and see how it goes. I find it to be a bloodbath. At a $10 min table, you'll get your clock cleaned but good. Sure you can do fine with$1000 buy in, but most people don't have that kind of money to throw away on a regular basis. So, you have to balance the exposure of your bankroll with giving yourself a reasonable chance to win.
I personally don't see simulations matching real life results. Simulations make assumptions that don't apply to real life: perfect play, endless or very high bankrolls, and the assumption that changing tables never makes a difference, or that there is no such thing as luck. I'm a college educated man, and I know what I've seen with my own eyes. I play the same games as some of my friends and relatives at the same skill levels for say VP. Some of these people do considerably better by sheer virtue of luck than I do. How do you explain that? Not through simulations. What it boils down to is all these games are negative expectation and the ONLY way you win and come out ahead is via luck. That's why it is so frustrating at times to see people who know nothing about the games they are playing hit some ridiculous sucker bet about 5 times in a row and cash out thinking they are a genius in the world of gambling. Luck.
Simulations do not make the assumption that there's no such thing as luck, since in these simulations, if you do multiple players, you'll see some get lucky and some get unlucky. Run another simulation, and the lucky ones might get unlucky and the unlucky get lucky, or the lucky stay lucky and the unlucky unlucky.
Quote: 7crapsToo bad this poster has lost his way to understanding.
"Once a loser always a loser"
is what I heard when I was going to school from teachers.
Those teachers were and still are aholes in my book.
Anyone can learn the truth.
Even me, 4aaK and the Wizard himself.
Just playing for about 100 hours does not give on the truth one all the possible ranges of outcomes.
All simulations do NOT make any assumptions,
what they do is to show the possible outcomes from a series of independent events in Craps with stated parameters.
Those parameters are very important.
Not all players will play the same way. Who cares??
I can test anything for any style or length of play.
I'm pissed off at these type of blind general "simulation results are not reality" statements.
This is Craps not crap.
I'm going to go jump in a lake
I think you miss my point. The long term results are meaningless when you arrive to play a short term session. The dice have no memory right? They don't remember that you had good or bad results last time. There is no way to validate that you will do better or worse in a given set of results to eventually reach an average because you may never play enough to reach that point...good or bad. You can be sitting at a VP machine and have perfect play, great pay table, etc. etc., and lose your ass while someone next to you who has virtually no conception of how to play properly hits 2 Royals in half an hour. I agree with what the Wizard says about betting systems: they're all equally worthless. You can make almost any style of betting payoff in Craps if you have enough bankroll and want to run a million simulations and cherry pick the results. That's how people sell systems isn't it?
Strictly speaking, simulations AREN'T reality. They are a computer generated approximation of real world results and that's it. Real dice aren't being rolled, real cards aren't being dealt. Real human error isn't being factored in, but it's always there in real play. You trust that simulations are accurate, but flaws in the programming platforms have been discovered with relation to how RNG routines work in simulations and errors by programmers happen all the time. In the real world, people usually move when they've been getting a bad beat and play at a different table. Simulations just assume that makes no difference so there really is no emulation of that process. Does it make a difference? Would you agree that the sequence of rolls will be different from one craps table to another in the same period. I think you would. I saw a dealer get 5 blackjacks in a row one time. No one stayed at that table. But the simulator would just play on.
The average number of rolls to see a 7 is 6. This makes perfect mathematical sense because 6/36 possible rolls are 7s. How could the average number of rolls before a 7 is rolled not be equal to the Come Out roll plus 5?? That would be 6 total rolls. How can that not be correct? So, in the real world, you are on the plus side of the average after that fifth roll (after the Come Out) and are beginning to push your luck so to speak with regard to the average. I know, you would say that you should play as if a 7 will never come but the fact is it will always come. So doesn't it make sense to begin scooping bets in after that many rolls, or just to maintain a couple of favorable points rather than piling on and on to guarantee the maximum possible loss when the inevitable 7out happens?
Gambling is about winning AND losing.Quote: 4andaKickerthe more rolls you persist, the more likely you will be losing a ton of money off all those loaded points when the inevitable 7out happens.
What about all the winnings from those loaded bets.
I get them all the time. ALL the time.
When the place bettors have ALL busted out their bankrolls and have left the building crying like a baby because they wanted action on 6 numbers every roll, they lost 6 bets on every 7out. Not me. Most times just one or 2. That kept my bankroll around for the good roll of the day that always comes.
And I win more, because I was able, along the way, to lose LESS. :)
You also make it sound like every roll one has 5 to 6 bets always working. Not as a line bettor.
Maybe as a place bettor. (playing scared Craps players)
You are talking about the losing side only as though the pass/come does NOT win at 49.3%.
They do. on average. That is the key.
You need to know what the possible range is. Is it 49.3% +/- 2% or 2.5% or 3.45%
Do the math.
Place 6 and 8 can only win at a 45.45% rate.
Do the math.
That is it... on average. Place bettors lose more than line bettors.
That makes the casinos very happy.
If ALL Craps players were line bettors, the game could not make money for the casino, they would have to have $100 min tables.
Quote: 4andaKickerthe biggest difference of opinion here might be what someone considers acceptable bankroll.
This is only partly correct.
It is about bet size to the bankroll.
Bankroll units and average number of bets.
But if you want to double a $300 Craps bankroll the fastest.
All on the line. You pick what side.
Now it does not matter how big your bets are.
Bet it all.
Do the math.
No they are not.Quote: 4andaKickerI think you miss my point. The long term results are meaningless when you arrive to play a short term session.
Short term results add up to long term results. That is the mathematical fact you refuse to study.
You have now successfully, with my help, hijacked the OPs thread.
Move kindly your ideas to another.
Here is the title
"Math Boys and simulations (including the Wizard) VS. the Real Craps players and reality!
You are correct there.Quote: 4andaKickerThe average number of rolls to see a 7 is 6. This makes perfect mathematical sense because 6/36 possible rolls are 7s.
How could the average number of rolls before a 7 is rolled not be equal to the Come Out roll plus 5??
That would be 6 total rolls. How can that not be correct?
But NOT every 7 thrown by a shooter in Craps is a 7 out.
You need to go back to Craps math 101.
There is a link in another post in this thread showing the Wizard doing the math.
Go and learn
Quote: guido111Gambling is about winning AND losing.
What about all the winnings from those loaded bets.
I get them all the time. ALL the time.
When the place bettors have ALL busted out their bankrolls and have left the building crying like a baby because they wanted action on 6 numbers every roll, they lost 6 bets on every 7out. Not me. Most times just one or 2. That kept my bankroll around for the good roll of the day that always comes.
And I win more, because I was able, along the way, to lose LESS. :)
You also make it sound like every roll one has 5 to 6 bets always working. Not as a line bettor.
Maybe as a place bettor. (playing scared Craps players)
You are talking about the losing side only as though the pass/come does NOT win at 49.3%.
They do. on average. That is the key.
You need to know what the possible range is. Is it 49.3% +/- 2% or 2.5% or 3.45%
Do the math.
Place 6 and 8 can only win at a 45.45% rate.
Do the math.
That is it... on average. Place bettors lose more than line bettors.
That makes the casinos very happy.
If ALL Craps players were line bettors, the game could not make money for the casino, they would have to have $100 min tables.
This is only partly correct.
It is about bet size to the bankroll.
Bankroll units and average number of bets.
But if you want to double a $300 Craps bankroll the fastest.
All on the line. You pick what side.
Now it does not matter how big your bets are.
Bet it all.
Do the math.
I have never advocated Place bets in any posting I've made. I believe a limited number of Come bets gives your bankroll a necessary limited exposure at the start and also a reasonable chance to win. I don't see how you're right about line betting. Neither side has a favorable expectation. Right side bettors hit less than 50%, and the advantage of the dark side is obliterated by the 7s and 11s on the Come Out roll.
He swore to everyone it was the only way to play the game of craps....
Quote: 7crapsYou are correct there.
But NOT every 7 thrown by a shooter in Craps is a 7 out.
You need to go back to Craps math 101.
There is a link in another post in this thread showing the Wizard doing the math.
Go and learn
You don't need to be patronizing to me. I'm fully aware that not every 7 rolled is a 7out. So there are 7s on the Come Out roll. What bearing does that have on my statement that the average number of rolls before a 7out is 5. Exactly zero bearing. So defend your point, if you will, that you should just keep piling out Come Bets and odds like 7 will never show. I think the size of your bankroll vs the bet size is the best determination of how wacky you may want to go with Come Bets at the beginning of your sessions. If you have a large session bankroll, you aren't that vulnerable to getting all the numbers loaded and a devastating 7out. If you have a smaller, more vulnerable bankroll, I think it is a better play to limit the number of Come Bets until/unless you get ahead enough to withstand more volatility. Hopefully we discuss this without you feeling the need to insult my intelligence.
You still are missing the point that the OP needs to understand also.Quote: 4andaKickerI believe a limited number of Come bets gives your bankroll a necessary limited exposure at the start and also a reasonable chance to win.
It is ALL about the size of your bets and the bankroll and the number of bets made.
The pass/come has a 49.3% win rate.
so does the don't pass/come...right there at 49.3%
It makes no difference in the short run what side you bet on.
Pick a side and go with it.
(In the long run the difference, favoring the don't is something like 1/1980)
Calculate the ev and sd per bet, but do not add them all, since they do not all resolve at the same time.
Simulations can find the correct values for making multiple line bets.
This also assumes that you know what to do with ev and sd values.
This can make for a great thread on bet sizing, bankroll and number of bets
vs.
playing goals
being time only
win goals only
time and win goals only
My plane leaves in 2 hours
Happy Vacation
I have seen a man and his wife win over $220,000 making only pass and come bets every roll during a 6 hour session.Quote: CrapsForeverPersonally saw a man LOSE $30,000 betting $25 Pass Line, 5X Odds, Continuous $25 Come Bets with 5X Odds in 15 hours spread over 3 days.
He swore to everyone it was the only way to play the game of craps....
The Golden Nugget March 5, 1994 Las Vegas
They had the table Rocking!!
I win way more $$$ and lose less $$$ making pass and come bets than place betting.
My best. $15,000 on that same day.
That is why I always mention it about place bets.
Place bets win more per bet but LOSE more per bet as does any line bet.
Do the math.
The math also agrees with me on that one.
Quote: guido111You still are missing the point that the OP needs to understand also.
It is ALL about the size of your bets and the bankroll and the number of bets made.
The pass/come has a 49.3% win rate.
so does the don't pass/come...right there at 49.3%
It makes no difference in the short run what side you bet on.
Pick a side and go with it.
(In the long run the difference, favoring the don't is something like 1/1980)
Calculate the ev and sd per bet, but do not add them all, since they do not all resolve at the same time.
Simulations can find the correct values for making multiple line bets.
This also assumes that you know what to do with ev and sd values.
This can make for a great thread on bet sizing, bankroll and number of bets
vs.
playing goals
being time only
win goals only
time and win goals only
My plane leaves in 2 hours
Happy Vacation
I agree that the number of bets matters. That is the only question the OP had. I say that matters in relation to how much bankroll you have and how vulnerable you would feel about flinging alot of Come Bets out there.
Quote: 4andaKickerI think you miss my point. The long term results are meaningless when you arrive to play a short term session. The dice have no memory right? They don't remember that you had good or bad results last time. There is no way to validate that you will do better or worse in a given set of results to eventually reach an average because you may never play enough to reach that point...good or bad. You can be sitting at a VP machine and have perfect play, great pay table, etc. etc., and lose your ass while someone next to you who has virtually no conception of how to play properly hits 2 Royals in half an hour. I agree with what the Wizard says about betting systems: they're all equally worthless. You can make almost any style of betting payoff in Craps if you have enough bankroll and want to run a million simulations and cherry pick the results. That's how people sell systems isn't it?
An analogy - let's say every day, you play a single number at Keno, a single time, for a 1 in 4 chance of hitting. Every day, you should sit down expecting that it won't come up, but if after two weeks of this, it had never come up, you'd be rightfully cursing your bad luck. It doesn't matter that it's been 14 separate sessions, you've played 14 times, and not hit a 1 in 4 shot. Of course, you're no more or less likely to hit it the next time, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an improbable stroke of bad luck to miss it 14 days in a row, just like it would be an improbable stroke of good luck to hit it seven days in a row.
What you're saying about long term results being meaningless is the equivalent of "it was only to be expected you'd miss 14 days in a row, since you were so likely to lose each session."
That statement is 100% wrong.Quote: 4andaKickerYou don't need to be patronizing to me.
I'm fully aware that not every 7 rolled is a 7out.
So there are 7s on the Come Out roll.
What bearing does that have on my statement that the average number of rolls before a 7out is 5.
Not counting the come out roll, the average number of rolls for a 7 out is 7.5....
NOT 5.
not 5.
Go back to Craps class and do the math.
You still have it wrong.
PM the Wizard.
He will tell you the same thing and maybe put sugar on top of it for you.
Who cares?
I am right and you are wrong.
I win
You lose.
next
Too late. That poster does not understand or wants to learn anything about variance.Quote: 24BingoAn analogy - let's say every day, you play a single number at Keno, a single time, for a 1 in 4 chance of hitting. Every day, you should sit down expecting that it won't come up, but if after two weeks of this, it had never come up, you'd be rightfully cursing your bad luck. It doesn't matter that it's been 14 separate sessions, you've played 14 times, and not hit a 1 in 4 shot. Of course, you're no more or less likely to hit it the next time, but that doesn't mean it wasn't an improbable stroke of bad luck to miss it 14 days in a row, just like it would be an improbable stroke of good luck to hit it seven days in a row.
What you're saying about long term results being meaningless is the equivalent of "it was only to be expected you'd miss 14 days in a row, since you were so likely to lose each session."
He lives in his "average" universe, where ALL shooters average 5 rolls and they are out!
Sad?
Not!!
Quote: 7crapsThat statement is 100% wrong.
Not counting the come out roll, the average number of rolls for a 7 out is 7.5....
NOT 5.
not 5.
Go back to Craps class and do the math.
You still have it wrong.
PM the Wizard.
He will tell you the same thing and maybe put sugar on top of it for you.
Who cares?
I am right and you are wrong.
I win
You lose.
next
You can't have a 7out without a Come Out roll. That means the average number of rolls before a 7out is 5 after the Come Out. I think I clearly said that the first time I explained how I got that number. You agreed with me. Can we move on and have you actually defend your position that you should keep the Come Bets flowing regardless, or are you unable to do that?
Quote: guido111I have seen a man and his wife win over $220,000 making only pass and come bets every roll during a 6 hour session.
The Golden Nugget March 5, 1994 Las Vegas
They had the table Rocking!!
I win way more $$$ and lose less $$$ making pass and come bets than place betting.
My best. $15,000 on that same day.
What was the couples' ($220,000 Profit) average bet?
What was your average bet?
Quote: 7crapsToo late. That poster does not understand or wants to learn anything about variance.
He lives in his "average" universe, where ALL shooters average 5 rolls and they are out!
Sad?
Not!!
It is you who doesn't want to learn anything here. What are you trying to teach me oh wise one? You can correct me if I'm wrong since you're obviously a blooming genius, but doesn't everyone live in the same world with the same averages applying? I still have yet to see one person make any kind of good argument about limiting Come Bets because that very real average is out there. Fairly often the 7out is before 5 rolls for that matter.
@24Bingo
I don't think you see my point either. What I'm saying is the long term statistics are meaningless because there are no guarantees about the results of any particular session. In other words, just because you lost 14 days in a row (as in your Keno example) you have no way of knowing if you will now lose 14 more days in a row. Yes it is unlikely, but the general expectation in your example would be to lose 75% of the time. We have no way of knowing when the 25% will be there. I think someone documented elsewhere on this forum playing over 1 million hands of near flawless VP and not hitting a single Royal. Other people get 2 a day it seems. This shows variance in their extremes.
I agreed with you that the average number of rolls to see a 7 IS 6.Quote: 4andaKickerYou can't have a 7out without a Come Out roll. That means the average number of rolls before a 7out is 5 after the Come Out.
I think I clearly said that the first time I explained how I got that number. You agreed with me.
Can we move on and have you actually defend your position that you should keep the Come Bets flowing regardless, or are you unable to do that?
I say the average number of rolls to see a 7out is 8.5
After the come out roll it is 7.5
Averages do not mean ALWAYS.
You are still wrong with your average of 5 rolls to see a 7out. period.
You do not believe me so ask the Wizard. He needs good questions for his articles.
I keep making pass/come every roll because I know that on average,
31.9% (or 319 out of 1,000) shooters will 7out way past 8.5 rolls and I play with a proper bankroll for my bet sizes.
I chicken out for no one.
I do not play scared.
The long rolls easily make up nicely for all the short ones.
pass/come bets every roll requires a proper bankroll for the size of bets made.
I have not provided any numbers because the OP did not ask for them.
having only 3 bets working at one time requires a different bankroll compared to the the every roll player.
Sometimes I personally have the bankroll for one and not the other.
If the OP asks for specific number of bets based on a starting bankroll, I can easily give results for that kind of play.
He was not specific on exactly how he plays in regards to bet sizes and bankroll.
These have value.
Nothing else does.
silly
Quote: 7crapsI agreed with you that the average number of rolls to see a 7 IS 6.
I say the average number of rolls to see a 7out is 8.5
After the come out roll it is 7.5
Averages do not mean ALWAYS.
You are still wrong with your average of 5 rolls to see a 7out. period.
You do not believe me so ask the Wizard. He needs good questions for his articles.
.
You have to be kidding me!! You really seriously want to argue that a 7 doesn't come out once every 6 rolls on average no matter what? The average number of rolls to hit a 7 can never be more than 1/6. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Fair dice will yield 7 one time out of 6. It doesn't matter where in the sequence of things you want to look, the average number of trials to get the roll will never change. How do you reason that the 7out won't happen on average by the 6th roll. That's all I'm saying.
There is no "8.5" rolls. How do you make half a roll? But I'd be most intrigued if you could explain how the dice are immune to the Law of Averages once one takes them up for the Come Out roll. Somehow the chance is less than 1/6 then and in fact goes to 1/8.5. Wow, interesting!
silly
Quote: 4andaKicker@24Bingo
I don't think you see my point either. What I'm saying is the long term statistics are meaningless because there are no guarantees about the results of any particular session. In other words, just because you lost 14 days in a row (as in your Keno example) you have no way of knowing if you will now lose 14 more days in a row. Yes it is unlikely, but the general expectation in your example would be to lose 75% of the time. We have no way of knowing when the 25% will be there. I think someone documented elsewhere on this forum playing over 1 million hands of near flawless VP and not hitting a single Royal. Other people get 2 a day it seems. This shows variance in their extremes.
...I think you may be at least be right that I don't see your point. People get lucky, people get unlucky, even for some time. How does this make long-term statistics meaningless? It's a slight paradox - standing in the middle, the past is irrelevant to the future, but at the beginning or the end, long-term statistics are of the utmost importance, and it certainly doesn't matter into how many sessions your play is divided, or how many tables.
I mean, if you are right about someone playing a million hands, literally a million (I suspect you're not; I can't find it, at least), and never getting a royal, in JoB that's a one in a trillion chance, which does, indeed, seem like a lot, even given the number of gamblers out there... until, that is, you realize just how many ways there are to be that unlucky that would elicit the same reaction; it just so happens one of the ones that hit is (if it did) this one.
Quote: mustangsallyTha average number of rolls to see a 7 is 6.
This is simple math. 1 / (1/6)
The average number of rolls to see a 7out is 8.5. The math is not simple at all.
Yes, 8.5 rolls IS THE AVERAGE.
What do you not understand about the average?
One shooter 7outs on the 2nd roll
Another on the 15th roll.
2 shooters, 17 rolls
AVERAGE = 8.5 rolls.
What I don't understand is how you don't see this defies the simplest of logic about the dice. The chance of rolling a 7 is once in six. That applies all the time! This proportion doesn't change just because we are starting on a Come Out roll. I had a Math professor in college do a scientific proof that everyone in the class agreed with (except me) that 2 = 1. We all know that isn't true....don't we? Don't we all agree that the chances of rolling a certain number never change? Sure if you want to take a sample size of 2 I guess you could come up with just about any average. But how can you realistically say that of 6000 shooters, you wouldn't get a number very close to 1000 plus or minus a small margin sevening out after 6 rolls? This reasoning has to be flawed if true dice yield a 7 one time in 6.
You will roll a seven one roll in six. Some of the sevens you roll won't be seven-outs. Therefore, a seven-out will hit one roll in (some number greater than six). It so happens that number is 8.5. What defies logic about that?
Or if we're going to look at it your way, you're dismissing the eventuality that there's no point to seven out on, so if a seven comes up on the next roll it won't be a seven out, and this means more rolls on average until you seven out. Or that you hit your point, so if a seven comes up immediately after it won't be a seven-out, so that increases the average rolls until you seven out. (And, again, even if these things weren't true, it would one in six, not one in five, since a seven on the come-out roll isn't a seven out.)
Quote: 24Bingo...I think you may be at least be right that I don't see your point. People get lucky, people get unlucky, even for some time. How does this make long-term statistics meaningless? It's a slight paradox - standing in the middle, the past is irrelevant to the future, but at the beginning or the end, long-term statistics are of the utmost importance, and it certainly doesn't matter into how many sessions your play is divided, or how many tables.
I mean, if you are right about someone playing a million hands, literally a million (I suspect you're not; I can't find it, at least), and never getting a royal, in JoB that's a one in a trillion chance, which does, indeed, seem like a lot, even given the number of gamblers out there... until, that is, you realize just how many ways there are to be that unlucky that would elicit the same reaction; it just so happens one of the ones that hit is (if it did) this one.
I didn't make up the stat about the million hands. I think it is somewhere in the VP forum but I can't recall precisely where I read it. If memory serves, this fellow claimed he had actually played significantly more hands than that but was lowering his estimate just to be sure he wasn't overstating his bad luck. I do believe long term statistics are meaningless because we go to the casino and play a short term session of x trials. The variance which can be encountered in that small session is very extreme vs a lifetime number of trials. We're playing with a session bankroll, today and the limitations of that bankroll can and do affect wagers in this session. What I don't think anyone in the math oriented world would ever admit is this: winning in gambling is all about being in the right place with the money at the right time. If being successful in gambling had anything to do with mathematical certainties, then a whole lot of people would be slaughtering the casinos today. But if you are at a table in craps where every shooter sevens out without making a point, and the table next to you is winning fire bets, you have to admit being at a different table would make all the difference in the world. When you sit down at a VP game and play with perfect strategy and lose lose lose, only to see someone sit down next to you and draw 3 to hit a Royal in their first 10 hands of play, you have to think you were in the wrong place.
Quote: 24BingoHow does it defy logic about the dice?
You will roll a seven one roll in six. Some of the sevens you roll won't be seven-outs. Therefore, a seven-out will hit one roll in (some number greater than six). It so happens that number is 8.5. What defies logic about that?
Or if we're going to look at it your way, you're dismissing the eventuality that there's no point to seven out on, so if a seven comes up on the next roll it won't be a seven out, and this means more rolls on average until you seven out. Or that you hit your point, so if a seven comes up immediately after it won't be a seven-out, so that increases the average rolls until you seven out. (And, again, even if these things weren't true, it would one in six, not one in five, since a seven on the come-out roll isn't a seven out.)
I'm looking at it this way: if the come out roll is a 7 then you have made a 7 and no point is established, therefore, no count toward the 7out has begun. If the come out is any point number, that is the first number toward the count to 7out. I'm looking at this from the perspective of making Come Bets because that was the subject that this thread spawned from. You can't have Come Bets until a point is established. So, point is established, that's roll one without a 7. My contention is that on average, that shooter will 7out by the sixth roll. It is a sequence of 6 rolls and you are arguing with me that instead of having the agreed upon chance of 1/6, the chance now goes to 1 in 8.5. Perhaps you are considering rolls which don't count in the 7out because they are 2,3,7,11,12 on the Come Out roll. That doesn't matter in this discussion because the subject was on placing Come Bets, which you cannot do until point is established.
First, I agree that from a pure mathematical standpoint, PL and CB has the lowest house edge (ignoring Don't Play).
BUT, I contend that Place/Buy bets do not give up that much in the short term session that will be my lifetime rolls in craps.
Ultimately, what really determines the outcome of my next craps session (two of them this Friday) will be whether or not the shooters hit the numbers I am playing! Whether they are CB, PL, Buy, or Place is really irrelevant.
I understand I am giving up some small house edge by making a place bet, but so what if the shooter rolls my Place 9. I have played on tables where the Place bettors and the CB got killed, while the guy next to me played the stupid Horn High Yo, and Horn High 3 every roll for $5 to $25 and tripled his buy in! Arguably the worst bets on the table, but the horn numbers were coming out way above what the math dictates, so he cleaned up. Try and tell him that was really stupid betting.
I am sure he gets his butt kicked if he plays that way all the time, but 'perhaps' he is a trend player, and decided he was seeing too many horn numbers, so he 'played the trend'. Who knows. All I know is he was a winner, and the rest of us playing by the math, got smoked.
I was playing at the Beau last September and guy 2 to my right is playing $320 across, but not playing the PL nor the point. I was slightly down, playing PL with odds (mostly 4 or 5x) and Inside bets (Beau has vig AFTER the win on the Buy 5/9 and 4/10, making it a 2% and 1.67% HE bet). He was holding his own, while I was slightly down, due to no one making points, but they were throwing inside numbers.
Shooter is the guy between us. He lights it up. Sets a point, makes the point. Does it again. I swear, he made 4 points on about 12 total throws. The guy playing $320 across has not gotten paid once, since he is not playing the point! By the 4th point I decided to start putting down the full 10x odds. He made 8 or 9 points in total. I made out pretty well. The Across bettor got killed, but only because he was not playing the point at all. If he had been, he would have made out good too.
I think we get too hung up on the math of the game, and lose sight of the fact that it matters less what you are betting on, and more about whether or not your bet is getting paid.
I now declare it open season on Raleigh. begin firing at will. ;-)
The subject of the OP thread was he makes pass with odds and come bets with odds.Quote: 4andaKickerI'm looking at this from the perspective of making Come Bets because that was the subject that this thread spawned from.
(A come bet is just really another pass line bet but not made on the come out roll.
It is made on its own come out roll)
That is how he plays.
It is a very common way to play craps.
Somewhere in his thinking he thinks there is an optimal number of come bets to make.
The fact is... There is no optimal number of come bets to make.
The reason is because each and every come bet is a game by itself.
They are independent events.
One come bet has no effect on another.
This is easily proved by computer simulations or looking at Zumma's 35.097 actual casino dice rolls and counting all the rolls and events.
WinCraps does all this in less than 15 seconds.
The counting for a 7out by any player starts on her first roll.
and continues counting until the 7out roll.
If the OP plays for 300 rolls, he makes 300 bets and will win, on average, 49.3% of them.
Way better than any place bet that comes in winning at either 33%, 40% or 45.45%.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now, when a pass/come bettor makes only 3 max bets, a pass always and just 2 come point numbers, we get a change in the variance, this is because we now limit the number of bets to be made. Less bets with odds has more variance because there are less possible outcomes to deal with.
This is prob/stats 101 basic stuff.
Set the sample space
count the number of successful ways and divide to get the probability.
This works both ways depending on the size of the bets and the bankroll if we want to compare the differences of the 2 styles we can only do this comparing the total action of the two when the total action (the total bet) are equal.
This is the only fair way to do it.
Computer simulations only take a few minutes to arrive at the correct answer.
Those that say the average number of rolls for a 7out is 6 or 5 or anything other than 8.52 are wrong.
They do not understand the math, they only understand it the way they want to understand it.
The Wizard says the average number of rolls for a 7out is 8.52.
I say let us sue him for stating wrong information, after you or anyone proves he is wrong.
BTW the average number of rolls for a 7 is 6 rolls
but the median is only 4 rolls. (median being the 50/50 mark)
Half of all 7s show up by the 4th roll.
The average number of rolls for a 7out is 8.52
The median is 6 rolls.
Out of 6,000 shooters, slightly more than 50% will 7out by that 6th roll.
I have proven it.
Prove me and the Wizard wrong on the above values
with math formulas or calculations and computer simulation results that can be verified
and I am CERTAIN my rich Uncle Steve will pay you at least $1 million dollars for you effort.
He will be impressed that someone after 300 years discovered a new and more accurate way to calculate probabilities and averages.
(I love spending his money on good causes)
My suggestion to all the doubters, download WinCraps, it is free to use.
Play Craps, it keeps stats for you.
Do your studies and prove.
test...not guess.
Sally
Quote: mustangsallyThe subject of the OP thread was he makes pass with odds and come bets with odds.
(A come bet is just really another pass line bet but not made on the come out roll.
It is made on its own come out roll)
That is how he plays.
It is a very common way to play craps.
Somewhere in his thinking he thinks there is an optimal number of come bets to make.
The fact is... There is no optimal number of come bets to make.
The reason is because each and every come bet is a game by itself.
They are independent events.
One come bet has no effect on another.
This is easily proved by computer simulations or looking at Zumma's 35.097 actual casino dice rolls and counting all the rolls and events.
WinCraps does all this in less than 15 seconds.
The counting for a 7out by any player starts on her first roll.
and continues counting until the 7out roll.
If the OP plays for 300 rolls, he makes 300 bets and will win, on average, 49.3% of them.
Way better than any place bet that comes in winning at either 33%, 40% or 45.45%.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now, when a pass/come bettor makes only 3 max bets, a pass always and just 2 come point numbers, we get a change in the variance, this is because we now limit the number of bets to be made. Less bets with odds has more variance because there are less possible outcomes to deal with.
This is prob/stats 101 basic stuff.
Set the sample space
count the number of successful ways and divide to get the probability.
This works both ways depending on the size of the bets and the bankroll if we want to compare the differences of the 2 styles we can only do this comparing the total action of the two when the total action (the total bet) are equal.
This is the only fair way to do it.
Computer simulations only take a few minutes to arrive at the correct answer.
Those that say the average number of rolls for a 7out is 6 or 5 or anything other than 8.52 are wrong.
They do not understand the math, they only understand it the way they want to understand it.
The Wizard says the average number of rolls for a 7out is 8.52.
I say let us sue him for stating wrong information, after you or anyone proves he is wrong.
BTW the average number of rolls for a 7 is 6 rolls
but the median is only 4 rolls. (median being the 50/50 mark)
Half of all 7s show up by the 4th roll.
The average number of rolls for a 7out is 8.52
The median is 6 rolls.
Out of 6,000 shooters, slightly more than 50% will 7out by that 6th roll.
I have proven it.
Prove me and the Wizard wrong on the above values
with math formulas or calculations and computer simulation results that can be verified
and I am CERTAIN my rich Uncle Steve will pay you at least $1 million dollars for you effort.
He will be impressed that someone after 300 years discovered a new and more accurate way to calculate probabilities and averages.
(I love spending his money on good causes)
Sally
Sally, did you take into account what I was saying above about not considering the Come Out roll to matter if it was anything other than a point number? You can't make a Come bet till point is established. This was the perspective I took when considering whether there is an optimal number of Come bets. I think it is better to start with only 2 active Come bets and if you get some wins, leverage it up to continuous coverage if you have a light session bankroll. If you have a grand to pop, then by all means, have at it full bore from the start. As an example of how I looked at this: on my last roll at the casino, I rolled 5 consecutive 7s before establishing a point. Then I rolled a 5. Now you can make the first Come bet. One roll toward the 7out gone (not 6). Next roll was a 7. So there was opportunity for only one Come bet, and only 2 rolls to the 7out. I'm not making any argument that includes the Come Out roll, because none of that includes Come bets, which was what I was trying to focus on here.
Quote: 4andaKickerBut if you are at a table in craps where every shooter sevens out without making a point, and the table next to you is winning fire bets, you have to admit being at a different table would make all the difference in the world. When you sit down at a VP game and play with perfect strategy and lose lose lose, only to see someone sit down next to you and draw 3 to hit a Royal in their first 10 hands of play, you have to think you were in the wrong place.
Think? Yes. Admit? No. The tables and machines themselves are irrelevant. The tiniest gust of wind could have caused those dice to land differently. Depending on the RNG, it might be the same for the VP machines. If you change tables or machines, the tables and machines could change just as quickly - or they might not. The pattern-seeking human mind, if it continues, will see its observation of a "hot" table or machine confirmed, and the phenomenon reinforced. If it turns, it will be instinct to blame oneself, and more often than not, it will be forgotten the next time a "hot" or "cold" table or machine is sighted. In both cases, it's pure chance.
Quote: 24BingoThink? Yes. Admit? No. The tables and machines themselves are irrelevant. The tiniest gust of wind could have caused those dice to land differently. Depending on the RNG, it might be the same for the VP machines. If you change tables or machines, the tables and machines could change just as quickly - or they might not. The pattern-seeking human mind, if it continues, will see its observation of a "hot" table or machine confirmed, and the phenomenon reinforced. If it turns, it will be instinct to blame oneself, and more often than not, it will be forgotten the next time a "hot" or "cold" table or machine is sighted. In both cases, it's pure chance.
Pure chance. Yep. Luck. And all the mathematical modeling in the world can't and won't help a bit with that. Some people don't want to admit that luck is the only factor that matters, but it is. You can choose any game in the casino, and everyone who has ever played it will have a hundred stories about how they saw people making the dumbest possible decisions and coming out on top because of luck.
