Craps Field Betting System, thoughts?

So I've read many times people say it doesn't matter if you wait, because the dice don't have a memory. Which is true. I've been playing this method for a bit now, and have never lost money. Here's my simple strategy:

I wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers to be rolled, then I bet the field for $25. If I lose, I bet $50, lose bet $100, etc.

So far I've encountered twelve consecutive non-field numbers, but stuck to my system and won on the 13th roll. Sometimes it's hard to even wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers, as this may take some time.

For the people who say waiting doesn't work, my response is, how often can you roll 8 or more non-field numbers in a row? Probably not very often. Sometimes it takes me 30 min or more for me to see eight non-field numbers rolled. But when it comes, I bet my $25. This strategy hasn't made me millions, but over the last month, I never left the table with less than I started with. Plus, I only hit 2 or 3 times then leave. I don't sit there for hours.

Now if I was playing the martingale field system on every roll, I would have been broke.

I truly believe waiting works, because if you play craps on every roll, it's sure to catch up with you and drain your bankroll.

Also, what is the most non-field numbers that you've seen rolled in a row? I've seen 12.

Appreciate all of your thoughts. Thanks.

It's just a Martingale with a much more restrictive starting point.

What is the probability of, say, 12 non-field numbers in a row? It's 5/4 times the probability of rolling 11 field numbers in a row followed by a non-field number. Not coincidentally, this is the ratio of the probabilities of rolling a non-field number to rolling a field number at any time.

It appears to work because the probability of losing an 8-step Martingale is high; the problem is, the amount you lose is still greater than the expected total of the amounts you win.
An 8-step Martingale on a field bet loses (5/9)^8 of the time, or about 1 time in 110. You have about a 5/8 chance of winning 50 times in a row without losing. The problem is, every time you win with a $25 8-step Martingale, you win $25, but when you lose, you lose $6375.
This is true whether you start each sequence immediately, or wait until there are 8 non-field rolls in a row. Since you have a waiting period between sequences, it will take that much longer in real time to see a loss.

You remind me of my Guaranteed Sure Fire Cannot Miss Gambling System:
1. Determine the maximum number of consecutive rolls where something can happen - for example, "There cannot be more than 16 consecutive non-field rolls."
2. Wait until that number is reached.
3. Bet everything you own, and a few things that you don't, the other way.
4. Did you lose? Don't look at me; you're the one that said that 17 consecutive non-field rolls was impossible.

Remember: the probability of tossing a fair coin heads 100 times in a row is the same as tossing heads 99 times in a row and then tossing tails.

Quote: BoxCars12

So I've read many times people say it doesn't matter if you wait, because the dice don't have a memory. Which is true. I've been playing this method for a bit now, and have never lost money. Here's my simple strategy:

I wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers to be rolled, then I bet the field for $25. If I lose, I bet $50, lose bet $100, etc.

So far I've encountered twelve consecutive non-field numbers, but stuck to my system and won on the 13th roll. Sometimes it's hard to even wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers, as this may take some time.

For the people who say waiting doesn't work, my response is, how often can you roll 8 or more non-field numbers in a row? Probably not very often. Sometimes it takes me 30 min or more for me to see eight non-field numbers rolled. But when it comes, I bet my $25. This strategy hasn't made me millions, but over the last month, I never left the table with less than I started with. Plus, I only hit 2 or 3 times then leave. I don't sit there for hours.

Now if I was playing the martingale field system on every roll, I would have been broke.

I truly believe waiting works, because if you play craps on every roll, it's sure to catch up with you and drain your bankroll.

Also, what is the most non-field numbers that you've seen rolled in a row? I've seen 12.

Appreciate all of your thoughts. Thanks.
link to original post

you are still vulnerable to a losing session even if you cancel out a stretch of 4 losing rolls right after you lost 8 bets, maybe you were in the hole to start those 8 for example. And you have made a disastrous session unlikely but not impossible

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Remember: the probability of tossing a fair coin heads 100 times in a row is the same as tossing heads 99 times in a row and then tossing tails.
link to original post

Good point, let me elaborate:

the likelihood that you will lose 4 or 5 more bets, and that's it, after 8 'no fields' is the *same* as the likelihood of the same thing happening if you waited for 20 such, or if you waited not at all and started your martingale immediately

if you don't believe that, then you believe the dice have memory

Quote: BoxCars12

So I've read many times people say it doesn't matter if you wait, because the dice don't have a memory. Which is true. I've been playing this method for a bit now, and have never lost money. Here's my simple strategy:

I wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers to be rolled, then I bet the field for $25. If I lose, I bet $50, lose bet $100, etc.

So far I've encountered twelve consecutive non-field numbers, but stuck to my system and won on the 13th roll. Sometimes it's hard to even wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers, as this may take some time.

For the people who say waiting doesn't work, my response is, how often can you roll 8 or more non-field numbers in a row? Probably not very often. Sometimes it takes me 30 min or more for me to see eight non-field numbers rolled. But when it comes, I bet my $25. This strategy hasn't made me millions, but over the last month, I never left the table with less than I started with. Plus, I only hit 2 or 3 times then leave. I don't sit there for hours.

Now if I was playing the martingale field system on every roll, I would have been broke.

I truly believe waiting works, because if you play craps on every roll, it's sure to catch up with you and drain your bankroll.

Also, what is the most non-field numbers that you've seen rolled in a row? I've seen 12.

Appreciate all of your thoughts. Thanks.
link to original post

Hahahaha. You solved craps.


ZCore13

.
no one has ever proved or demonstrated that a negative expectancy gambling game could be beaten in the long run by any type of betting progression no matter how or when the progression takes place

there are thousands of brilliant minds out there that have analyzed gambling games

if it was possible a winning method using betting progressions would have been proven

but it's just not possible

.

Quote: BoxCars12

So I've read many times people say it doesn't matter if you wait, because the dice don't have a memory. Which is true. I've been playing this method for a bit now, and have never lost money. Here's my simple strategy:

I wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers to be rolled, then I bet the field for $25. If I lose, I bet $50, lose bet $100, etc.

So far I've encountered twelve consecutive non-field numbers, but stuck to my system and won on the 13th roll. Sometimes it's hard to even wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers, as this may take some time.

For the people who say waiting doesn't work, my response is, how often can you roll 8 or more non-field numbers in a row? Probably not very often. Sometimes it takes me 30 min or more for me to see eight non-field numbers rolled. But when it comes, I bet my $25. This strategy hasn't made me millions, but over the last month, I never left the table with less than I started with. Plus, I only hit 2 or 3 times then leave. I don't sit there for hours.

Now if I was playing the martingale field system on every roll, I would have been broke.

I truly believe waiting works, because if you play craps on every roll, it's sure to catch up with you and drain your bankroll.

Also, what is the most non-field numbers that you've seen rolled in a row? I've seen 12.

Appreciate all of your thoughts. Thanks.
link to original post

How much are you willing to lose? Tell us that, and it will be easy to tell you how often you will lose it all versus winning $25 if that is your unit to bet.

Let’s say it’s $800. You of course will win $25 way more often than you will lose $800. Probably 28 or so wins of $25 for each rate loss of $800. Just an approximation.

And welcome to the forum.

I completely understand what you are saying. But I do believe waiting to either see or not see certain numbers plays a factor in a craps strategy.

This field strategy i mentioned so far has worked well. But would you believe me when I say that I've been working on a different strategy that has so far never lost. I have rolled it out on my practice table 310 times. It has not won 310 times, but it has never lost. Ever. It requires to wait a certain number of rolls before betting. I will be testing it 500 times to make a conclusion on whether this strategy will be worth it, because it requires a lot of money. But the point is, if I did not wait a certain number of rolls, this strategy would have already failed. It's the waiting that has made it successfully thus far.

Quote: Zcore13

Quote: BoxCars12

So I've read many times people say it doesn't matter if you wait, because the dice don't have a memory. Which is true. I've been playing this method for a bit now, and have never lost money. Here's my simple strategy:

I wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers to be rolled, then I bet the field for $25. If I lose, I bet $50, lose bet $100, etc.

So far I've encountered twelve consecutive non-field numbers, but stuck to my system and won on the 13th roll. Sometimes it's hard to even wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers, as this may take some time.

For the people who say waiting doesn't work, my response is, how often can you roll 8 or more non-field numbers in a row? Probably not very often. Sometimes it takes me 30 min or more for me to see eight non-field numbers rolled. But when it comes, I bet my $25. This strategy hasn't made me millions, but over the last month, I never left the table with less than I started with. Plus, I only hit 2 or 3 times then leave. I don't sit there for hours.

Now if I was playing the martingale field system on every roll, I would have been broke.

I truly believe waiting works, because if you play craps on every roll, it's sure to catch up with you and drain your bankroll.

Also, what is the most non-field numbers that you've seen rolled in a row? I've seen 12.

Appreciate all of your thoughts. Thanks.
link to original post

Hahahaha. You solved craps.


ZCore13
link to original post

I definitely did not solve this game lol

Quote: BoxCars12

I completely understand what you are saying. But I do believe waiting to either see or not see certain numbers plays a factor in a craps strategy.

This field strategy i mentioned so far has worked well. But would you believe me when I say that I've been working on a different strategy that has so far never lost. I have rolled it out on my practice table 310 times. It has not won 310 times, but it has never lost. Ever. It requires to wait a certain number of rolls before betting. I will be testing it 500 times to make a conclusion on whether this strategy will be worth it, because it requires a lot of money. But the point is, if I did not wait a certain number of rolls, this strategy would have already failed. It's the waiting that has made it successfully thus far.
link to original post

Whenever a poster gives a large number (310) that has NEVER lost, I just wonder….. what are you waiting for? I could try and explain to you why it is more likely to fail than succeed, but you won’t listen. So I ask again, what are you waiting for?

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: BoxCars12

I completely understand what you are saying. But I do believe waiting to either see or not see certain numbers plays a factor in a craps strategy.

This field strategy i mentioned so far has worked well. But would you believe me when I say that I've been working on a different strategy that has so far never lost. I have rolled it out on my practice table 310 times. It has not won 310 times, but it has never lost. Ever. It requires to wait a certain number of rolls before betting. I will be testing it 500 times to make a conclusion on whether this strategy will be worth it, because it requires a lot of money. But the point is, if I did not wait a certain number of rolls, this strategy would have already failed. It's the waiting that has made it successfully thus far.
link to original post

Whenever a poster gives a large number (310) that has NEVER lost, I just wonder….. what are you waiting for? I could try and explain to you why it is more likely to fail than succeed, but you won’t listen. So I ask again, what are you waiting for?
link to original post

Like i stated above, I'm testing it 500 times. That way it'll give me a gauge on whether I should play this strategy for real money. The field strategy that I mentioned previously I have played for real money.

Quote: BoxCars12

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: BoxCars12

I completely understand what you are saying. But I do believe waiting to either see or not see certain numbers plays a factor in a craps strategy.
link to original post

Whenever a poster gives a large number (310) that has NEVER lost, I just wonder….. what are you waiting for? I could try and explain to you why it is more likely to fail than succeed, but you won’t listen. So I ask again, what are you waiting for?
link to original post

Like i stated above, I'm testing it 500 times. That way it'll give me a gauge on whether I should play this strategy for real money. The field strategy that I mentioned previously I have played for real money.
link to original post

Only your own real life experience of that 'lose it all' wager will persuade you that you are wrong, so I wont try too hard. You won't get past that broken belief that waiting makes a difference.
You are just oh so very wrong.

Consider, instead, this. What percentage increase in your bankroll do you aspire to achieve over your time on this earth? 10%? 100%? 1000%?
By bankroll, I mean every cent that you have available to wager at any moment in time.
Then plug that number into a simple equation and derive the probability of success.

https://wizardofvegas.com/member/oncedear/blog/8/#post1370

As you spend your waiting time, you are simply delaying the inevitable in TIME, whether that inevitable is success or going bust.

Testing 500 times is more likely to see you apparently succeed, because for a small percentage increase in bankroll, you are LIKELY to succeed. If you fail, you will just shrug and call it a 'outlier' and congratulate yourself on getting that once in a lifetime event out of the way.

Quote: BoxCars12

I wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers to be rolled, then I bet the field for $25. If I lose, I bet $50, lose bet $100, etc.

So far I've encountered twelve consecutive non-field numbers, but stuck to my system and won on the 13th roll.
link to original post

That’s over $100K ($102,400) bet on the 13th roll.

What casino lets you bet that on the field?

At a 3X possible pay off that’s beyond even the typical $250K special limits that you need a $5M (or higher) line to bet at Baccarat.

In Mississippi Grind they put $285K on the field…but that’s a movie.

Quote: MDawg

Quote: BoxCars12

I wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers to be rolled, then I bet the field for $25. If I lose, I bet $50, lose bet $100, etc.

So far I've encountered twelve consecutive non-field numbers, but stuck to my system and won on the 13th roll.
link to original post

That’s over $100K ($102,400) bet on the 13th roll.

What casino lets you bet that on the field?

At a 3X possible pay off that’s beyond even the typical $250K special limits that you need a $5M (or higher) line to bet at Baccarat.

In Mississippi Grind they put $285K on the field…but that’s a movie.

link to original post

I guess he's including the eight rolls where he sat out.
roll 9 : $25
roll 10 : $50
roll 11 : $100
roll 12 : $200
roll 13 : $400 : Phew

Either that or he was 'virtually' betting.
Either way, he's the classic victim of Gamblers' Fallacy thinking.

I take it you accept that it doesn't matter how long you wait till you start your martie, the chances of it working or not are the same as if you didn't wait at all. By 'working' I mean not blowing past some pre-determined amount you don't want to bet

All you do with that is decrease the number of times you put the martie into play. So with 500 rolls, you get a decreased chance to observe the martingale in action, and you may get a false sense that it is working because the dice have remembered 8 losing rolls and the dice gods then decrease the chances that another losing roll will take place ... no longer random!

the idea that the past in Craps matters is hard to shake off, I find myself shaking it off frequently, wanting to pick up my odds bet, say, 'because the 7 is getting more and more likely to come'.

Take this to the bank, if the dice have no memory, and the future is random, it doesn't matter when you start your martingale

you can reduce the number of times you put it into play, sure, you can do that, but it is gambler's fallacy to think you are getting an edge

Quote: OnceDear

Quote: MDawg

Quote: BoxCars12

I wait for eight consecutive non-field numbers to be rolled, then I bet the field for $25. If I lose, I bet $50, lose bet $100, etc.

So far I've encountered twelve consecutive non-field numbers, but stuck to my system and won on the 13th roll.
link to original post

That’s over $100K ($102,400) bet on the 13th roll.

What casino lets you bet that on the field?

At a 3X possible pay off that’s beyond even the typical $250K special limits that you need a $5M (or higher) line to bet at Baccarat.

In Mississippi Grind they put $285K on the field…but that’s a movie.

link to original post

I guess he's including the eight rolls where he sat out.
roll 9 : $25
roll 10 : $50
roll 11 : $100
roll 12 : $200
roll 13 : $400 : Phew

Either that or he was 'virtually' betting.
Either way, he's the classic victim of Gamblers' Fallacy thinking.
link to original post

You are correct. I'm waiting 8 rolls (non-field numbers) then bet.

Quote: odiousgambit

I take it you accept that it doesn't matter how long you wait till you start your martie, the chances of it working or not are the same as if you didn't wait at all. By 'working' I mean not blowing past some pre-determined amount you don't want to bet

All you do with that is decrease the number of times you put the martie into play. So with 500 rolls, you get a decreased chance to observe the martingale in action, and you may get a false sense that it is working because the dice have remembered 8 losing rolls and the dice gods then decrease the chances that another losing roll will take place ... no longer random!

the idea that the past in Craps matters is hard to shake off, I find myself shaking it off frequently, wanting to pick up my odds bet, say, 'because the 7 is getting more and more likely to come'.

Take this to the bank, if the dice have no memory, and the future is random, it doesn't matter when you start your martingale

you can reduce the number of times you put it into play, sure, you can do that, but it is gambler's fallacy to think you are getting an edge
link to original post

Appreciate your response. And I do understand what you mean, and I agree, the dice have no memory. But, if I bet you $100 to roll one 7 in twenty rolls, you would most likely take that bet, because it would be a good bet. But if I said, I'll bet you $100 and you have to roll five 7's in a row within 20 rolls, are you still going to take that bet, knowing the odds of rolling a 7 are same on every roll? You most likely will not take that bet. For example, when I play craps, whenever I see four 7's in a row, I bet heavily on the next bet, knowing that a fifth 7 is unlikely (not mathematical unlikely). And again, it's paid off well.

I guess people will disagree with me, but I'll say this. I've been playing craps for over 15 years. And I've lost a lot more than I've ever won. I recently have been on a winning streak because I learned to wait for certain numbers to roll, then bet. Maybe it's just luck, but this field strategy, along with other waiting strategies, have been working well.

Quote: BoxCars12

Quote: odiousgambit

I take it you accept that it doesn't matter how long you wait till you start your martie, the chances of it working or not are the same as if you didn't wait at all. By 'working' I mean not blowing past some pre-determined amount you don't want to bet

All you do with that is decrease the number of times you put the martie into play. So with 500 rolls, you get a decreased chance to observe the martingale in action, and you may get a false sense that it is working because the dice have remembered 8 losing rolls and the dice gods then decrease the chances that another losing roll will take place ... no longer random!

the idea that the past in Craps matters is hard to shake off, I find myself shaking it off frequently, wanting to pick up my odds bet, say, 'because the 7 is getting more and more likely to come'.

Take this to the bank, if the dice have no memory, and the future is random, it doesn't matter when you start your martingale

you can reduce the number of times you put it into play, sure, you can do that, but it is gambler's fallacy to think you are getting an edge
link to original post

Appreciate your response. And I do understand what you mean, and I agree, the dice have no memory. But, if I bet you $100 to roll one 7 in twenty rolls, you would most likely take that bet, because it would be a good bet. But if I said, I'll bet you $100 and you have to roll five 7's in a row within 20 rolls, are you still going to take that bet, knowing the odds of rolling a 7 are same on every roll? You most likely will not take that bet. For example, when I play craps, whenever I see four 7's in a row, I bet heavily on the next bet, knowing that a fifth 7 is unlikely (not mathematical unlikely). And again, it's paid off well.

I guess people will disagree with me, but I'll say this. I've been playing craps for over 15 years. And I've lost a lot more than I've ever won. I recently have been on a winning streak because I learned to wait for certain numbers to roll, then bet. Maybe it's just luck, but this field strategy, along with other waiting strategies, have been working well.
link to original post

So, why not wait 6 rolls with no 7 and then hop the 7 for the next 5 rolls? The 7 is a one in 6 roll by the basic math. The return is higher than an even money field bet and one could Marty from there. If the table is "choppy," which most times it is, winning would be a given big time.

tuttigym

OP, your logic is flawed. You asked for thoughts and you are being told UNANIMOUSLY that you are wrong. Yet you continue to respond with "but but but..."

If validation is what you seek, walk up to literally any craps table in America and you will find plenty of gamblers and dealers who agree with you.

Quote: BoxCars12

I completely understand what you are saying. But I do believe waiting to either see or not see certain numbers plays a factor in a craps strategy.

This field strategy i mentioned so far has worked well. But would you believe me when I say that I've been working on a different strategy that has so far never lost. I have rolled it out on my practice table 310 times. It has not won 310 times, but it has never lost. Ever. It requires to wait a certain number of rolls before betting. I will be testing it 500 times to make a conclusion on whether this strategy will be worth it, because it requires a lot of money. But the point is, if I did not wait a certain number of rolls, this strategy would have already failed. It's the waiting that has made it successfully thus far.
link to original post

The waiting appears to make it work because you have played it far fewer times because of it. The fact that some of your plays break even also has something to do with it. I would like to see a description of this new system of yours.

Note that your 8-step field Martingale has about a 50-50 chance of winning 76 times in a row.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: BoxCars12

I completely understand what you are saying. But I do believe waiting to either see or not see certain numbers plays a factor in a craps strategy.

This field strategy i mentioned so far has worked well. But would you believe me when I say that I've been working on a different strategy that has so far never lost. I have rolled it out on my practice table 310 times. It has not won 310 times, but it has never lost. Ever. It requires to wait a certain number of rolls before betting. I will be testing it 500 times to make a conclusion on whether this strategy will be worth it, because it requires a lot of money. But the point is, if I did not wait a certain number of rolls, this strategy would have already failed. It's the waiting that has made it successfully thus far.
link to original post

The waiting appears to make it work because you have played it far fewer times because of it. The fact that some of your plays break even also has something to do with it. I would like to see a description of this new system of yours.

Note that your 8-step field Martingale has about a 50-50 chance of winning 76 times in a row.
link to original post

Winning what? What is the buy-in? What is the $$$ goal to quit? If one buys in for $1000, can you guarantee yourself at least a $300 win at the end? Is that a sufficient number?

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Quote: BoxCars12

I completely understand what you are saying. But I do believe waiting to either see or not see certain numbers plays a factor in a craps strategy.

This field strategy i mentioned so far has worked well. But would you believe me when I say that I've been working on a different strategy that has so far never lost. I have rolled it out on my practice table 310 times. It has not won 310 times, but it has never lost. Ever. It requires to wait a certain number of rolls before betting. I will be testing it 500 times to make a conclusion on whether this strategy will be worth it, because it requires a lot of money. But the point is, if I did not wait a certain number of rolls, this strategy would have already failed. It's the waiting that has made it successfully thus far.
link to original post

The waiting appears to make it work because you have played it far fewer times because of it. The fact that some of your plays break even also has something to do with it. I would like to see a description of this new system of yours.

Note that your 8-step field Martingale has about a 50-50 chance of winning 76 times in a row.
link to original post

Winning what? What is the buy-in? What is the $$$ goal to quit? If one buys in for $1000, can you guarantee yourself at least a $300 win at the end? Is that a sufficient number?

tuttigym
link to original post

"Winning" as in, showing a profit since the betting run started, at which point, you pocket the one unit you won and start over. That is how Martingale operates.

Quote: BoxCars12

I completely understand what you are saying. But I do believe waiting to either see or not see certain numbers plays a factor in a craps strategy.

It doesn't matter. This misunderstanding is so common it has a name: The Gambler's Fallacy. I have a whole article on it.

Quote: BoxCars12

But would you believe me when I say that I've been working on a different strategy that has so far never lost. I have rolled it out on my practice table 310 times. link to original post

Of course I would, because 310 is a pitifully small number to test. You could be ahead after a thousand rounds out of dumb luck, not because your system has an edge. You need a simulation of thousands of *sessions* (so at least hundreds of thousands of rounds total), so you should either learn how to write the code or hire someone to do it for you. Your approach of manually checking is common and wrong; I have another article on the right and wrong way to test betting systems.

Quote: BoxCars12

I'll bet you $100 and you have to roll five 7's in a row within 20 rolls, are you still going to take that bet, knowing the odds of rolling a 7 are same on every roll?

indeed the chances of rolling a 7 are the same on every roll, but that is 1 in 6 so of course I'm not taking a bet that I can roll them in a row and just get paid even money, or even a bet that the *next* roll after four 7s in a row is another 7, not for even money [it should pay 5:1, casinos pay 4:1 to get an edge].

I guess you are thinking that if four 7s in a row is significant, and it is unusual, this is opportunity that everyone can see. But if it was, the pit boss would come around and say 'no more bets on 7!!!' ...But he doesn't ... he is more than happy to take your bet after four 7s were rolled and still pay 4:1 till the cows come home. Because the odds of rolling a 7 are still the same and the house is going to get rich.

Eventually you will come around, will you go broke first?

link to original post

Your system will lose less in a day at the casino than the same system that doesn’t wait for 8 non-field rolls first. Congrats.

Quote: FinsRule

Your system will lose less in a day at the casino than the same system that doesn’t wait for 8 non-field rolls first. Congrats.
link to original post

And win less.