When a new shooter picks up the dice I place 4 units (the amount is irrelevant, but for this example I will use $25 per unit) in my hand. That is the total amount ($100) I will risk on any one shooter.

My betting pattern is as follows:

Bet one unit on the don’t pass

If the 7 or 11 come out I will then place one unit again on the don’t pass, however if the 2 or 3 come out I will place the unit won back in my rack Not in my hand

If the first roll establishes a “number” I will then bet a 2nd unit on the don’t come. Again with this 2nd bet if the roll is a 2 or 3 I will place the unit won in my rack Not my hand and leave both bets up. If it’s an 11 I will place another unit on don’t come. If it’s a 7 the shooters roll is over and I will have broken even and start again with 4 units in my hand for the next shooter.

If however the 2nd roll is another number, but not the first number, I will again place another don’t come bet. However, If I t’s the original pass number, at that point I will have lost a unit, again have a unit against that number from my don’t come bet and will place a unit on the don’t pass.

I do this until I am against three numbers or have no more units to play in my hand. If this happens without any decision being made, I will then still have one of my original units in my hand.

If for example the first three rolls come out 4,5,6, I will at that point be against those numbers. If one of these is hit before a crap out I will then make a new don’t pass or don’t come as appropriate with the one unit left in my hand.

In short I never risk more than four units total against any one shooter, never place any “craps” roll winnings in my hand or takedown any bets, nor do I lay behind. If however I win a bet(s) because a shooter has hit the pass number and I still have one or two don’t come bets on the board (regardless of whether or not I also have a unit placed on a new don’t pass bet) and a seven comes next (for the shooter it will be a come out roll) I will place those 2 or 4 units in my hand and continue to bet against the shooter as described above.

My question is what is the house edge against me playing this way. I will appreciate all relevant replies or if you have a question please ask.

BTW I have played this way for over 45 years and have won some and lost some and have been well comped throughput this time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craps

Quote:ijk01Thanks for replying. However, this does not provide me with information I am seeking as it only shows the house edge for each individual bet made, not the edge on the series of bets. Remember that if I have three bets on the table against three numbers and the shooter craps out, I collect on all three. However if I have three bets on the table against three numbers and the shooter hits one I am still alive against the other two and depending when in the sequence this occurs I may then have an additional wager still in my hand to bet the don’t pas/come on the next roll. What I am seeking is the overall house edge given the betting pattern I described.

link to original post

If I am reading your strategy right, all you are doing is making don't pass and don't come bets. The house edge is 1.36%.

Quote:ijk01What I am seeking is the overall house edge given the betting pattern I described.

link to original post

Welcome to the forum.

Betting patterns - or systems - do not alter the house edge.

The dice do not care if the chips were just warmed up by your hand, or if they've been sitting in the rail.

I'm glad you found a style of play you enjoy.

I hope it has generally done ok for you.

The bus ride home from AC went by in a flash as I dreamed about what to do with my new wealth, and how I had the power to change people's lives just by sharing my secret with them.

I had a customer who was allegedly a genius. He had worked for Bell Labs and supposedly created something that saved billions and had gotten a seven-figure bonus for it that let him retire early. He now worked tutoring rich kids. I figured he would be the perfect person to show my strategy to for verification.

He listened, smiled, and ripped the idea to pieces. I didn't understand his first explanation, nor his second but finally, he used fourth-grade math to show the formula was horribly flawed and he then proceeded to write out a huge formula that showed I was actually playing at a disadvantage identical to what every book said was the overall house edge. I was crushed but not entirely convinced he was right.

The strange thing was the formula worked as long as I believed it was correct, but after consulting this man, it didn't work anymore. My next three sessions were all losers and the only reason I didn't give back all my winnings was I cut the last session short.

To this day I'm baffled by how the formula worked when I believed in it but quickly fell apart when shown it did nothing to change the real house edge. To make matters worse, I'd occasionally run into the guy who showed me the formula and he would have a big bankroll he'd claim he just won.

Quote:DieterQuote:ijk01What I am seeking is the overall house edge given the betting pattern I described.

link to original post

Welcome to the forum.

Betting patterns - or systems - do not alter the house edge.

The dice do not care if the chips were just warmed up by your hand, or if they've been sitting in the rail.

I'm glad you found a style of play you enjoy.

I hope it has generally done ok for you.

link to original post

I think everyone is missing the point. He gets the single bet HE, but doesn’t know how to calculate how many bets, on average, he has in play. It’s a modified dark side three point Molly problem. Maybe Ace2 could solve it or Don could sim it, if either were so inclined.

No one ever craps out. They 7 out.

But was it *because* he talked to a math guy?Quote:poli2k01During the time you were winning, you happened to be on the positive EV spectrum. And after talking to the mathematician, the odds eventually evened out on you.

link to original post

Maybe this is what Tuttigym has been getting at all along. Say you have a disease, but you start taking XYZ superfood and by god you start to get better! Then you talk to a doctor who says it's impossible it would help. Next thing you know, your improvement vanishes. You gotta hate that guy!

Tuttigym?

Quote:odiousgambitMaybe this is what Tuttigym has been getting at all along. Say you have a disease, but you start taking XYZ superfood and by god you start to get better! Then you talk to a doctor who says it's impossible it would help. Next thing you know, your improvement vanishes. You gotta hate that guy!

Tuttigym?

link to original post

Hi Mr. OG. I had to LOL. I don't believe that I have that kind of sway or psychological influence, but thanks for the mention. You are very kind.

I have thought of a betting strategy on the Don't side that with some loose math application might work. Should I present it here in this thread or start a new one?

tuttigym

This thread will do. We have to see if Mission backslides on his vow and posts some math to show you wrong. Of course he may do it just because now he is pondering if he can play the "doctor who tells patient the quinoa diet isn't going to do crap for his terminal cancer" ... and spoil in advance your chancesQuote:tuttigymHi Mr. OG. I had to LOL. I don't believe that I have that kind of sway or psychological influence, but thanks for the mention. You are very kind.

I have thought of a betting strategy on the Don't side that with some loose math application might work. Should I present it here in this thread or start a new one?

tuttigym

link to original post

Quote:odiousgambitThis thread will do. We have to see if Mission backslides on his vow and posts some math to show you wrong. Of course he may do it just because now he is pondering if he can play the "doctor who tells patient the quinoa diet isn't going to do crap for his terminal cancer" ... and spoil in advance your chancesQuote:tuttigymHi Mr. OG. I had to LOL. I don't believe that I have that kind of sway or psychological influence, but thanks for the mention. You are very kind.

I have thought of a betting strategy on the Don't side that with some loose math application might work. Should I present it here in this thread or start a new one?

tuttigym

link to original post

link to original post

I'm not posting a g*^&$%^& thing that has anything to do with what Tuttigym posts. I also hate the game of Craps and am no longer fielding Craps Math questions of any kind for at least six months.

Tuttigym clearly understands the math behind Craps better than I do. He's got the fourth grade arithmetic to back him up...even though his fourth grade arithmetic doesn't even recognize that 66.7% is a lower number than 73%. I don't know what the education system was like in the 1800's, but he apparently did not get as much into advanced math as I did in fourth grade...things such as addition and recognizing when one number is bigger than another.

Quote:Mission146Quote:odiousgambitThis thread will do. We have to see if Mission backslides on his vow and posts some math to show you wrong. Of course he may do it just because now he is pondering if he can play the "doctor who tells patient the quinoa diet isn't going to do crap for his terminal cancer" ... and spoil in advance your chancesQuote:tuttigymHi Mr. OG. I had to LOL. I don't believe that I have that kind of sway or psychological influence, but thanks for the mention. You are very kind.

I have thought of a betting strategy on the Don't side that with some loose math application might work. Should I present it here in this thread or start a new one?

tuttigym

link to original post

link to original post

I'm not posting a g*^&$%^& thing that has anything to do with what Tuttigym posts. I also hate the game of Craps and am no longer fielding Craps Math questions of any kind for at least six months.

Tuttigym clearly understands the math behind Craps better than I do. He's got the fourth grade arithmetic to back him up...even though his fourth grade arithmetic doesn't even recognize that 66.7% is a lower number than 73%. I don't know what the education system was like in the 1800's, but he apparently did not get as much into advanced math as I did in fourth grade...things such as addition and recognizing when one number is bigger than another.

link to original post

For the record, I am NOT insulted because his first sentence above is quite accurate. Please do NOT think of any kind of suspension either from "self reporting" or mod decision.

tuttigym

Tuttigym, thanks for not taking it personally.

Classy all the way around; I appreciate that.

Quote:Mission146

I'm not posting a g*^&$%^& thing that has anything to do with what Tuttigym posts. I also hate the game of Craps and am no longer fielding Craps Math questions of any kind for at least six months.

Tuttigym clearly understands the math behind Craps better than I do. He's got the fourth grade arithmetic to back him up...even though his fourth grade arithmetic doesn't even recognize that 66.7% is a lower number than 73%. I don't know what the education system was like in the 1800's, but he apparently did not get as much into advanced math as I did in fourth grade...things such as addition and recognizing when one number is bigger than another.

link to original post

Warning. The above post was intended to insult and the forum does not tolerate personal insults. You are not being issued a suspension, in part because tuttigym says he does not feel insulted. But, stop insulting people.

By the way, I personally applaud the idea of you curtailing or eliminating your interactions with Tuttigym. Good move.

Quote:gordonm888Quote:Mission146

I'm not posting a g*^&$%^& thing that has anything to do with what Tuttigym posts. I also hate the game of Craps and am no longer fielding Craps Math questions of any kind for at least six months.

Tuttigym clearly understands the math behind Craps better than I do. He's got the fourth grade arithmetic to back him up...even though his fourth grade arithmetic doesn't even recognize that 66.7% is a lower number than 73%. I don't know what the education system was like in the 1800's, but he apparently did not get as much into advanced math as I did in fourth grade...things such as addition and recognizing when one number is bigger than another.

link to original post

Warning. The above post was intended to insult and the forum does not tolerate personal insults. You are not being issued a suspension, in part because tuttigym says he does not feel insulted. But, stop insulting people.

By the way, I personally applaud the idea of you curtailing or eliminating your interactions with Tuttigym. Good move.

link to original post

Yeah, well, it was that or start drinking again. I don't know why I waste my time ever trying to help people; one day I will learn it's not worth the effort.

Mr.Change had previously stated that 73% of all point play in craps are winners for the House. He has since revised that figure somewhat, but the overall "probability" for the House is 73%. I am going to assume that percentile number would increase if one were to calculate the House wins on just the 4, 5, 9, & 10. (Perhaps, Mr.Change could do those calculations and provide that number or percentile.)

This strategy will require only a very modest buy-in ($200) so a vast majority of players might like to try it if they believe there is a validity to the plan.

All wagers are one unit. First, a one unit each simultaneous PL/DP bet at CO. Only possible loss is a 12; a one unit loss easily overcome in point play and by definition occurs once in 36 CO rolls.

If the point is a 6 or 8, no further action by the player; the point plays out; the player breaks even.

If the point is a 4, 5, 9, or 10, place one unit on the DP odds. Let the hand play out. Worst case scenario; the point is converted and the player loses one unit otherwise 73+% of the time ---- 7 out and the player wins the reverse odds $$$ of the DP odds bet.

This type of play would take great discipline especially if the table action is "hot" because the other players might be capitalizing on their own action and play.

Comments, additions, subtractions?

tuttigym

Quote:tuttigymMr.Odiuosgambit and Mr.ChumpChange are the inspiration for this strategy, so if this works, the credit is theirs, and if it fails, my shoulders are broad enough to take the attacks.

Mr.Change had previously stated that 73% of all point play in craps are winners for the House. He has since revised that figure somewhat, but the overall "probability" for the House is 73%. I am going to assume that percentile number would increase if one were to calculate the House wins on just the 4, 5, 9, & 10. (Perhaps, Mr.Change could do those calculations and provide that number or percentile.)

This strategy will require only a very modest buy-in ($200) so a vast majority of players might like to try it if they believe there is a validity to the plan.

All wagers are one unit. First, a one unit each simultaneous PL/DP bet at CO. Only possible loss is a 12; a one unit loss easily overcome in point play and by definition occurs once in 36 CO rolls.

If the point is a 6 or 8, no further action by the player; the point plays out; the player breaks even.

If the point is a 4, 5, 9, or 10, place one unit on the DP odds. Let the hand play out. Worst case scenario; the point is converted and the player loses one unit otherwise 73+% of the time ---- 7 out and the player wins the reverse odds $$$ of the DP odds bet.

This type of play would take great discipline especially if the table action is "hot" because the other players might be capitalizing on their own action and play.

Comments, additions, subtractions?

tuttigym

link to original post

I am NOT ANALYZING this for the benefit of Tuttigym. In fact, without Tuttigym being here, I wouldn't have to analyze this garbage.

I am analyzing it for anyone who might be foolish enough to read this system and think it's winning.

Okay, we start off we total bets of $30, which reflect $15 on Pass Line and $15 on Don't Pass. As was correctly pointed out, the Come Out Roll only suffers a loss of one unit on Come Out Rolls of 12. All other Come Out deciding rolls become a push:

1/36 * -$15 = -0.416666666667

Come Out Roll pushes would be on Come Out Rolls of 2, 3, 7 and 11...because of the rules of this system, Come Out rolls of 6 and 8 effectively become a push.

21/36 * 0 = 0 (If you don't know where 21/36 comes from, too bad, I don't care.)

That leaves 14/36 results that resolve either as a win, or as a loss, given the rules of this system.

6/36 (Points of 4 or 10) will result in Laying $15 Odds to try to win $7.50.

(7.5 * 6/9) - (15 * 3/9) = 0

Because the Odds Bet has no House Advantage.

8/36 (Points of 5 or 9) will result in Laying $15 Odds to try to win 15 * 2/3 = $10

With that:

(10 * 6/10) - (15 * 4/10) = 0

Because the Odds Bet has no House Advantage.

With that, we have an expected loss of -0.416666666667 which reflects the loss of $15 for every 1/36 total bets we make. When we look at the expected loss (per attempt) relative to the total we bet each attempt, we get:

-0.416666666667/30 = -0.01388888888

Which reflects a House Edge of 1.3888888889%, which is approximately what happens when you combine the, "Bet Made," house edge of the Pass Line and the Don't Pass.

The critical flaw is in this paragraph:

Quote:Mr.Change had previously stated that 73% of all point play in craps are winners for the House. He has since revised that figure somewhat, but the overall "probability" for the House is 73%. I am going to assume that percentile number would increase if one were to calculate the House wins on just the 4, 5, 9, & 10. (Perhaps, Mr.Change could do those calculations and provide that number or percentile.)

Because nobody should ever take Tuttigym's Craps posts seriously due to the fact that his posts tend to ignore all math.

If ChumpChange revised this number (assuming he ever said this in the first place) it's because I have provided the correct math elsewhere.

It is impossible for the House to win 73% of all Point Play because the most favorable possible condition for the House (or the Don't Pass bet), when it comes to a Point being Established, is a Point of 4 or 10. When the point is Four or Ten, the probability of Don't Pass going on to win is 66.666666667%...so given that is the best possible scenario, the overall probability cannot be more than this. That's just rudimentary logic.

If anyone is interested what the overall probability of Don't Pass winning is when we isolate Points of 4, 5, 9 and 10, here is how you would do it.

Points of 4 or 10: Don't Pass---.66666666667, Pass---.33333333333333

Points of 5 or 9: Don't Pass---.6, Pass---.4

Okay, we are ignoring Points of 6 and 8 for the purpose of this system, so with that, we have to compare how frequently points of 4 and 10 happen to points of 5 and 9:

Total Possibilities: 14

Point 4 or 10: (6/14) = 0.42857142857

Point 5 or 9: (8/14) = 0.57142857142

Okay, so with that, we can now multiply the probabilities of the Don't Pass winning based on these points and simply add them together:

(0.57142857142) * .6 = 0.34285714285

(0.42857142857) * .6666666667 = 0.28571428542

0.28571428542 + 0.34285714285 = 0.62857142827

Having isolated only results in which a point of 4, 5, 9 or 10 is established, we see that the Don't Pass will win 0.62857142827 or 62.857142827% of the time.

That means the Pass Line will win 1- 0.62857142827 = 0.37142857173 or 37.142857173% of the time.

With that, we can reanalyze the expected loss (there won't be one) on Odds Bets overall. If the DP Odds bet of $15 loses, it always loses $15, thus:

0.37142857173 * 15 = 5.57142857595

In order to determine how much it wins, we simply look at how much it wins in each individual case and multiply by the probability of that happening, then add the two together:

(10 * 0.34285714285) + (7.5 * 0.28571428542) = 5.57142856915

As you can see, the two numbers are the same with small differences due to rounding.

System Conclusion

1.) Is it a winning system?

-Of course not.

2.) Is the probability of a win (assuming a point is established) playing according to these rules, "73%+?"

-Absolutely not.

3.) What is 'good' about this system?

-While you can only lose money on the Come Out Roll (1/36), at least this system calls for only the three lowest House Edge bets (Pass, Don't Pass + Odds) to be made.

I think he sees other posters who regularly overcome the maths and are making thousands of dollars per trip and has decided he too can ignore it. When in Rome, and all of that.........

Quote:billryanMr T doesn't ignore all the math, only the stuff that shows he is wrong.

I think he sees other posters who regularly overcome the maths and are making thousands of dollars per trip and has decided he too can ignore it. When in Rome, and all of that.........

link to original post

He's playing the wrong game, then. As I understand it, that can only happen on Baccarat.

(This post is meant as a joke and is not a comment as to any individual who posts here, but rather the fact that routinely beating Baccarat is a hot button topic)

Again, no insult here; just Mission talking the talk but failing to even walk the walk.

tuttigym

Quote:tuttigymMission146's math is unprovable and unworkable. He continuously contradicts previous posts (which there is no need to link to) and fashions his math to confuse and obscure the simplest concepts.

Again, no insult here; just Mission talking the talk but failing to even walk the walk.

tuttigym

link to original post

QFP

Speaking of walking the walk; I believe that your posts are 0-FOR-LIFE in actually demonstrating any of mine wrong.

Quote:Mission146Speaking of walking the walk; I believe that your posts are 0-FOR-LIFE in actually demonstrating any of mine wrong.

link to original post

Cute, but my life is not over yet.

tuttigym

Quote:billryanIs there some unwritten rule that if you say no insult intended you can insult someone?

link to original post

It's blatant trolling. It would be one thing if he would at least produce an argument against my work. This would be like someone asking you to mow their lawn as a favor, then you do it and they spit in your face to thank you for your efforts.

Expert? No, I'm probably not an expert. Skilled? Absolutely. Thus, he is getting a skilled analysis for free.

Quote:Mission146Quote:billryanIs there some unwritten rule that if you say no insult intended you can insult someone?

link to original post

It's blatant trolling. It would be one thing if he would at least produce an argument against my work. This would be like someone asking you to mow their lawn as a favor, then you do it and they spit in your face to thank you for your efforts.

Expert? No, I'm probably not an expert. Skilled? Absolutely. Thus, he is getting a skilled analysis for free.

link to original post

At this point, it is more like you've been mowing your neighbors' lawn for weeks, he has spit in your face every time but you keep hoping for a different result. You keep hoping to make the forum more like the WOV2017, but that train has long left the station.

Adapt or die.

Quote:tuttigymMission146's math is unprovable and unworkable. He continuously contradicts previous posts (which there is no need to link to) and fashions his math to confuse and obscure the simplest concepts.

Again, no insult here; just Mission talking the talk but failing to even walk the walk.

tuttigym

link to original post

What part of "no personal insults" do you not understand? Suspended for 7 days. Term and suspension subject to review by the other moderators.

Quote:gordonm888Quote:tuttigymMission146's math is unprovable and unworkable. He continuously contradicts previous posts (which there is no need to link to) and fashions his math to confuse and obscure the simplest concepts.

Again, no insult here; just Mission talking the talk but failing to even walk the walk.

tuttigym

link to original post

What part of "no personal insults" do you not understand? Suspended for 7 days. Term and suspension subject to review by the other moderators.

link to original post

I support the 7 day suspension, with the opinion that this is as much a trolling exercise as it is a personal insult. Up-thread Mission took a lot of trouble to lay bare the mathematical flaws in Tuttygym's own analysis. A noble effort by Mission, which was met by tuttygym's total derision. I believe that tuttygym is baiting Mission and unfortunately Mission is feeding the troll.

A good description of how tuttygym is trolling.Quote:Mission146

It's blatant trolling. It would be one thing if he would at least produce an argument against my work. This would be like someone asking you to mow their lawn as a favor, then you do it and they spit in your face to thank you for your efforts.

link to original post

I'm just going to assume you've started drinking again!Quote:Mission146just preserving the link

link to original post

the oft quoted 73% comes from the sequence [3/36]*[3/9] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [3/36]*[3/9] .......... which is the chances of rolling a 4 on the come-out times the odds of winning, then the chances of rolling a 5 times the odds of winning ETC until all the point numbers are included. It does come to approx 27% , thus the 73% chance of losing

Tuttigym asked me a long time ago if this was the chances of winning *ONCE* the the point was established. I fumbled the answer, getting confused myself, though I did say 'this does not seem to be the chances of winning when you get a point' ... But I take the blame, I was too slow to understand where the error in thinking was.

Quote:ChumpChangeIt makes a difference if your choice is to bet the PL knowing there won't be a 7-11 on the come-out because the shooter has some bias against throwing 7-11's on the come-out, or making a PB 6 or 8 instead. You're more likely to hit your PB 6 or 8, than waiting for any other PL number to hit a second time.

link to original post

If that’s the case you should bet the don’t pass not the PB 6/8

Quote:odiousgambitI'm just going to assume you've started drinking again!

the 73% comes from the sequence [3/36]*[3/9] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [3/36]*[3/9] .......... which is the chances of rolling a 4 on the come-out times the odds of winning, then the chances of rolling a 5 times the odds of winning ETC. It does come to approx 27% , thus the 73% chance of losing

Tuttigym asked me a long time ago if this was the chances of winning *ONCE* the the point was established. I fumbled the answer, getting confused myself, though I did say 'this does not seem to be the chances of winning when you get a point' ... But I take the blame, I was too slow to understand where the error in thinking was.

link to original post

Okay, let's look at that:

[3/36]*[3/9] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [3/36]*[3/9] = 0.2707070707

But, why does that NOT mean a 73% chance of losing?

The answer is because the probability of a Come Out Winner is: .22222222222 (8/36)

The probability of a Come Out Loser is: .111111111111 (4/36)

Okay, so that gives us the probabilities for the following things:

A.) Establishing a point and winning.

B.) Winning on Come Out.

AND:

C.) Losing on Come Out.

What does that leave unanswered? I know. Establishing a Point and Losing, so, we add the probabilities we have already established and subtract from 1 as follows:

1 - (.2222222222 + .1111111111 + 0.2707070707) = 0.395959596

Which yield the following probabilities:

Come Out Winner: .2222222222

Come Out Loser: .1111111111

Point Established + WIN: 0.2707070707

Point Established + LOSE: 0.395959596

For reference, let's see what happens when we add the different types of outcomes together:

COME OUT RESULTS: .2222222222 + .1111111111 = .3333333333

POINT ESTABLISHED RESULTS: 0.395959596 + 0.2707070707 = 0.6666666667

Why do these things add up this way? The reason is because 1 of 3 (12/36) decisions for the Pass Line are resolved on the Come Out with rolls of 2, 3, 7, 11 or 12 and 2 of 3 (24/36) are resolved by way of Point Established either being Made or Seven Out, so Come Out rolls of 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 or 10.

Another thing that you will notice is the difference in probabilities between Come Out Winners and Losers and Point Established Winners and Losers:

COME OUT Results: .2222222222 - .1111111111 = .11111111111 (Pass More Likely to Win)

POINT ESTABLISHED Results: 0.395959596 - 0.2707070707 = 0.1252525253 (Pass More Likely to Lose)

When we look at the difference between these two:

0.1252525253 - .1111111111 = 0.0141414142

Voila! The House Edge on the Pass Line...to everyone's surprise but mine.

I've already calculated the probability of the Pass Line losing *ONCE* the point is established and it's *NOT* 73%.

Specifically, if the Point is Four or Ten, then the probability of the Pass Line losing would be 66.66666667%---which is the worst case scenario (relative to Pass Line) for an established point.

With that, if 66.66666667% to lose is the *WORST* thing that can happen, how could the probability of a loss with the point established be greater than that overall?

What Tuttigym isn't doing is that he's not accounting for the results that are decided on the Come Out. With that, if you want to know how often the Pass Line loses *ASSUMING* there is a Point Established, then you have to *INDEX* that to the .6666666667% probability of a point ever being established.

Please go back up and look at the point established probabilities and then do this:

0.395959596/.6666666666 = 0.59393939405

0.2707070707/.6666666666 = 0.40606060609

Which add up to almost 100% with errors far to the right of the decimal point due to rounding.

In other words, *ASSUMING A POINT IS ESTABLISHED, BUT IGNORING WHAT SPECIFIC POINT IT IS* the probability of the Pass Line losing is 0.59393939405 and the probability of the Pass Line winning is 0.40606060609.

The .270707070707 is the probability of the Pass Line winning *AFTER* a point has been established that takes the probabilities of Come Out *WINNERS* and *LOSERS* (.333333333) into consideration already. If we ignore *COME OUT WINNERS* and *LOSERS* the probability is 0.40606060609.

That's why the 73% of Points Established to resolve in the Pass Line losing is wrong. That number basically says that here is the probability of Establishing and Making a point and *EVERYTHING ELSE* is a losing result. Everything else is *NOT* a losing result; 22.222222% of rolls are *COME OUT WINNERS*.

Which is why you will notice: .2222222222 + .270707070707 = .49292929292929

Which is the overall probability of the Pass Line bet winning.

Points of 4 or 10: Pass .33333, Don't Pass .66667

Points of 5 or 9: Pass .4, Don't Pass .6

Points of 6 or 8: Pass .454545~, Don't Pass .545454~

Okay, so if those are the probabilities for individual points that can be established, then how could the overall probability of Don't Pass winning assuming Point Established ever be ~73%?

Answer: It can't. In fact, it's just under 60%. Why is it just under 60%? Because 6 and 8 are the least beneficial for Don't Pass and are the most common points whilst 4 and 10 are the most beneficial for Don't Pass and are the least common points.

Quote:Mission146The worst part is that I strongly suspect that Tuttigym is quite well-aware of all of this and, for reasons beyond my comprehension, is making misleading comments that would lead people to believe that the Don't Pass has a ~73% probability of winning once a point has been established. That is simply not true. Here are the probabilities:

Points of 4 or 10: Pass .33333, Don't Pass .66667

Points of 5 or 9: Pass .4, Don't Pass .6

Points of 6 or 8: Pass .454545~, Don't Pass .545454~

Okay, so if those are the probabilities for individual points that can be established, then how could the overall probability of Don't Pass winning assuming Point Established ever be ~73%?

Answer: It can't. In fact, it's just under 60%. Why is it just under 60%? Because 6 and 8 are the least beneficial for Don't Pass and are the most common points whilst 4 and 10 are the most beneficial for Don't Pass and are the least common points.

link to original post

Agree all. Doing same thing in my other thread where I coined the Rule of 36.

Quote:unJonI find it endless entertaining how tuttygym can drag Mission into this same discussion in every craps thread.

Here’s how I think about a pass line bet.

There are 36 CO rolls. 4 are losers (2, 3, 3, 12). 8 are winners (7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 11, 11). And 24 are continue playing (point established).

Of the point established:

6 of them are 4/10 and those win 1/3 of the time. So 2 winners and 4 losers.

8 of them are 5/9 and those win 2/5 of the time. So 3.2 winners and 4.8 losers.

10 of them are 6/8 and they win 5/11 of the time. So 4.545 winners and 5.455 losers.

So in total I have:

Losers: 4 + 4 + 4.8 + 5.455 = 18.255

Winners: 8 + 2 + 3.2 + 4.545 = 17.745

(Note total winners plus losers adds up to the 36 possible CO rolls).

All good so far?

So house edge is simply the difference between winners and losers divided by the sum of winners plus losers.

Difference is 18.255 - 17.745 = -0.51

Total is 36

In other words you lose about half a unit every 36 times you make the pass line bet.

-0.51/36 = 1.416% (note the rounding issue because I rounded the 6/8 to three digits).

Hopefully this was helpful to someone in this thread. I fell like it was my penance for enjoying the conversation so much.

link to original post

3 ways to get seven

1 way to get eleven

2 ways to get craps

6 x 2 equally weighted ways to roll points

So 4/18 + 12/18 * 2/5 = 22/45 chance of winning a pass line bet

Not exactly right due to equal weighting of points, but a very simple calculation that’s close enough for most applications

this is something close to obvious due to the glaring 1 in 3 chance to win once the point is established as 4 or 10, as you've pointed out repeatedly. Can't get worse than 66.67% chance to lose. I should have realized the mistake at once and nipped this in the bud. Instead I allowed T-gym to go on and on about that ... too lazy to just make the effort to see that what he pounced on was going to be a big problem. SorryQuote:Mission146The worst part is that I strongly suspect that Tuttigym is quite well-aware of all of this and, for reasons beyond my comprehension, is making misleading comments that would lead people to believe that the Don't Pass has a ~73% probability of winning once a point has been established. That is simply not true. Here are the probabilities:

Points of 4 or 10: Pass .33333, Don't Pass .66667

Points of 5 or 9: Pass .4, Don't Pass .6

Points of 6 or 8: Pass .454545~, Don't Pass .545454~

Okay, so if those are the probabilities for individual points that can be established, then how could the overall probability of Don't Pass winning assuming Point Established ever be ~73%?

Answer: It can't. In fact, it's just under 60%. Why is it just under 60%? Because 6 and 8 are the least beneficial for Don't Pass and are the most common points whilst 4 and 10 are the most beneficial for Don't Pass and are the least common points.

link to original post

Quote:odiousgambitthis is something close to obvious due to the glaring 1 in 3 chance to win once the point is established as 4 or 10, as you've pointed out repeatedly. Can't get worse than 66.67% chance to lose. I should have realized the mistake at once and nipped this in the bud. Instead I allowed T-gym to go on and on about that ... too lazy to just make the effort to see that what he pounced on was going to be a big problem. Sorry

link to original post

I strongly suspect that his statements were written in a way to obfuscate the issue, and even if they weren't, that's what they ended up doing in your case. You had no need to apologize, but I accept your apology all the same.

I picture Mission smiling and pouring into the sink that drink he poured.Quote:billryanGroup hug !!!!!!!

link to original post

Quote:odiousgambitT-gym criticized the content, not the person

link to original post

Quote:tuttigymjust Mission talking the talk but failing to even walk the walk.

Quote:tuttigymMission146's math is unprovable and unworkable. He continuously contradicts previous posts (which there is no need to link to) and fashions his math to confuse and obscure the simplest concepts.

Those comments are about Mission. Mission fails to walk the walk, not his post. Mission himself continuously contradicts previous posts. Mission fashions his math to confuse and obscure....

Quote:odiousgambitT-gym criticized the content, not the person

link to original post

I disagree. I didn't see any reference to any post that Mission wrote, or to the specific content of any post. The examples above are clear, tuttigym was criticizing Mission for his behavior and for his alleged malicious intent to confuse and obscure . . . and for Mission's alleged failure to walk the walk.

If there are some of you who truly can't tell their a$$ from their elbow on this issue, here's a common-sense helpful test:

Does the post you are writing have the name of another member in it? In fact, is your post primarily about that other member?

If your answer is Yes and you are angry, or frustrated with that other member, then there is a decent chance that your post may rise to the level of a personal insult. I would advise you to stop writing that post and find an impersonal subject to write about, perhaps on another thread. Please write about the new BJ sidebet, or the great buffet you found, or about the binomial distribution or that rare rainy day in Vegas. But avoid writing about other forum members.

However what I have a hard time getting my head around is that this holds for the whole pattern since:

if at the point where I have three “don’t” bets on the table and a seven is rolled I win all three;

If I have lost two bets on a roll and have two still on the table “against” and a seven out is rolled I have broken even on the players roll; etc.

Are you saying that these multiple bets have nothing to do with the house edge?

Btw thanks for replying to my question, as it appears later replies veered into a restrained shouting match amongst folks that did little, at least to me, to answer my inquiry.

Quote:ijk01I understand that all individual DP/DC bets have a negative statistical outcome. As you stated it was 1.36% I will accept this.

However what I have a hard time getting my head around is that this holds for the whole pattern since:

if at the point where I have three “don’t” bets on the table and a seven is rolled I win all three;

If I have lost two bets on a roll and have two still on the table “against” and a seven out is rolled I have broken even on the players roll; etc.

Are you saying that these multiple bets have nothing to do with the house edge?

link to original post

I answered this one very early in the thread - the "short answer" is, since every one of your bets has a house edge of 1.36%, the overall system has a house edge of 1.36%.

One problem I see is this: your statement that, "If I have lost two bets on a roll and have two still on the table “against” and a seven out is rolled I have broken even on the players roll," is incorrect as your wins are paid off at less than even money.

Also note that, if you have three bets on the table, but they consist of at least two different numbers (and at least one is not a 4 or 10), then you are more likely to roll one of those numbers, and lose that bet, before you roll a 7. For example, suppose the first three rolls are 4, 5, and 6, so you have DC bets on those numbers. The shooter is twice as likely to roll one of those numbers as they are to roll a 7, and even if a 6 was rolled, that still leaves 4 and 5 up, and the probability of rolling one of those before a 7 is 7/13 (it is 8/13 with 4 and 6, and 9/13 with 5 and 6).