ANYTHING BUT 7

My last few trips, 9 to be exact, to the tables I have seen something unusual....please help with some numbers that might show me when I should expect to lose...
Using the Anything-But-7 method, waiting for the point to be established, then placing the 5 for $10, the 6&8 for $12 each, and the Field for $5 (Level 1). After the next roll, pull down and wait for the point to be hit OR the 7-out.
IF the point is hit, wait for the next point to be established and start over...
IF the the 7 pops and you lose the 39, Martingale to a $60 5, a $72 6&8 each, and a $40 Field bet (Level 2).
Next roll take all down and begin anew.
IF a 7 pops, then the next Martingale is a $425 5, a $510 6&8 each, and a field bet of $300 (Level 3).
My buy in is for 2,200 and only play once every other week or so, that may not be considered consistent play.
I have been to Level 2 more times than I can count, and Level 3 once a session, Two sessions I hit Level 3 twice.
I only play for 3 hours and I cash out. I guess the tables run 75-100 rolls per hour.
My sessions have netted 224, 238, 189, 259, 315, 203, 231, 238, 133.
I have not busted in these last 9 sessions??? Fascinating this has been. I'll have a month or so before I get by another casino again, but I couldn't wait to ask this question...can't wait till next session
Is it possible for the math guys out there to give some insight into the probability of seeing the 7 pop on that specific roll (immediately following an established point)? When should I expect it to happen three times in a row and bust me?

Quote: wrragsdale

IF the point is hit, wait for the next point to be established and start over...
IF the the 7 pops and you lose the 39, Martingale to a $60 5, a $72 6&8 each, and a $40 Field bet (Level 2).
Next roll take all down and begin anew.
IF a 7 pops, then the next Martingale is a $425 5, a $510 6&8 each, and a field bet of $300 (Level 3).

Is it possible for the math guys out there to give some insight into the probability of seeing the 7 pop on that specific roll (immediately following an established point)? When should I expect it to happen three times in a row and bust me?

That is a pretty complicated and poor strategy against house edges. First off, you start with a $39 bet. Let's say you 7 out, and now "martingale" your next bet on "Level 2" is $244. How did $39 double to $244?? That's question 1. Martingale is supposed to be a double up system. Level 2, according to that, should be Place 5 for $20, Place 6/8 for $24 each, Field for $10. For a total of $78 (39 x 2).

I am not surprised you have been to "level 2 and 3". First off placing the 5 is a poor bet (IMO). True odds for 5/9 is 3 to 2. In most casinos it pays 7 to 5 for an even house edge of 4%. (You will eventually lose $4 for every $100 wagered in the long run). You would be better off buying the 5 for $20 with a $1 vig if it wins, that pays true odds 3 to 2, and lowers the house edge to 2% (a 50% reduction!). The field, while it has a high house edge (5.56%) is still a fun one to play once in awhile.

I would be careful with your stepladder negative progression system (especially since yours looks exponential rather than an actual martingale doubling). But good job on the last few sessions.

As to your direct question, what is the probability of seeing a 7 popup on a specific roll? Following an established point? It doesn't matter, since each roll is an independent event, the probability for a 7 is 6 out of 36 total combinations, or 16.67%.

BTW the system you are using is also called the Iron Cross. If you bet $22 on the Iron Cross ($5 field, $6 place each 6/8, and place 5 for $5) it carries a house edge of 3.87% I think. Which isn't too bad. I would definitely consider getting rid of your martingale progression though.

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

BTW the system you are using is also called the Iron Cross. If you bet $22 on the Iron Cross ($5 field, $6 place each 6/8, and place 5 for $5) it carries a house edge of 3.87% I think. Which isn't too bad.

This figure is correct assuming that both 2 and 12 pay double to the Field. Now, since more and more casinos are featuring "Triple-Pay 12", the Iron Cross can be improved to just 2.48% lost. Plus, if you find a casino that, in addition, only collects commission from winning Buy bets, you might consider quadrupling your investment ($20, $24, $24, $21), as this would lower the expected loss to about 2.2%, which is about what most "beat Vegas" authors consider ideal.

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

First off, you start with a $39 bet. Let's say you 7 out, and now "martingale" your next bet on "Level 2" is $244. How did $39 double to $244??

Because there are four bets - and you need each of them to cover the losses of the previous level.

Personally, I think this is a terrible strategy. But anytime you invoke a Martingale, it's gonna be a terrible strategy.

Here's a question for ya: At what level will you exceed the table limits, or exceed your bankroll - preventing you from having the opportunity to "break even"?

I know a guy with a similar bet...although throughout the years, he's taken it up...he only does ONE ROLL, win or lose, then walks away. (he does this on average once per day, everyday)
He's up to $1000 now ($250 5, $300 6/8, $150 in the field)
I've often done a one-unit Iron Cross...but it gets boring really, when someone starts to hit a lot of 5/6/8 and all your collecting is like $2...

Hey I tried that my last session, as I was leaving I placed the 5 for $200, the 6&8 for $240 each and the Field for $140 (half the win of the 5,6,8) took one win and cashed out.
I keep telling myself that I'm going to do that with Level 3 money for a one-hit and cash out, but that's a ballsy move and haven't convinced myself yet =)

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Because there are four bets - and you need each of them to cover the losses of the previous level.

Personally, I think this is a terrible strategy. But anytime you invoke a Martingale, it's gonna be a terrible strategy.

Here's a question for ya: At what level will you exceed the table limits, or exceed your bankroll - preventing you from having the opportunity to "break even"?

I agree. But just because there are four bets means nothing. The total amount wagered is $39. Martingale calls for doubling that bet. If you want to "cover the losses". If you wanted to do something else, say try to risk enough money to make the theoretical profit that you missed out on, on your previous bet, that is not Martingale. That's just dumb.

Example: $20 bet on the field. (A win pays even money, ok lets assume the roll is not a 2 or 12). The roll is, FIVE no field!. You lose your $20 field bet. Martingale would say, bet $40 on the field to "cover your losses". Next roll is 4, easy four pay the field. You get paid an additional $40. So you were at a net loss of 20 (-20). Now you got forty back, so you are at +20. Why would you need to increase your lost wager by more than 2x?? That is insane. Even more insane than Martingale.

Quote: wrragsdale

Is it possible for the math guys out there to give some insight into the probability of seeing the 7 pop on that specific roll (immediately following an established point)?

Sure it is possible.
The math is quite simple.

The probability of establishing a point on any come out roll is 24/36
The probability of rolling a Seven is 6/36
We multiply the 2 values together since we want them both to happen and we arrive at the answer of 1/9.
So, 1 in 9 come out rolls will suffer, on average, the PSO event.
Also 1 in 9 shooters will have only 2 as the length of their hand.
(FYI: My stats also show that ~28% of all shooters will suffer the PSO as the final decision of their hand... not necessarily their only decision)

Back to the math.
Since you fear a run of 3 of these events (PSO) since you only have your wagers working on the roll after a point has been established, for any 3 come out rolls would be 1/9^-3 = 729. or 1 in 729 come out rolls.
Since streaks are a geometric progression, the "average number of come out rolls" for a run of 3 would be 1/9^-3+1/9^-2+1/9^-1 = 819 or 1 in 819 come out rolls.

A quick WinCraps sim (I already had an auto-bet file for the Iron Cross) shows that 31% of players (edit: 100,000 total players, almost 31,000 ended with a profit) with a $2200 bankroll ended with a net profit after playing your system and stopping once they experienced the 3 PSO in a row.
One lucky player even ended with a $15,888 bankroll... and comps!
Maybe that will be you.

(There are many other stats I could bring up, but really not worth the time. You can learn how to do this yourself in WinCraps. It is quite easy with a small learning curve, IMO and $20.)

Reality: (sim stats)
16.11% won $1100 or more. Yahoo!
8.7% won $2200 or more. Yahoo!!
2.39% won $4400 or more. Yahoo!!!

69% lost some of their bankroll
57.75% lost more than $1100
1.84% lost more than $2000.
.53% busted $2028... never won a freakin' bet.
Ouch.
Remember this was only playing until a run of 3 PSO happened.

Quote: wrragsdale

When should I expect it to happen three times in a row and bust me?

The 3 in a row will not neccessarily "bust you" as stats from my sim have shown.
Of course the more times you play the greater chance of busting out a starting bankroll of $2200.
Probability that a 3run PSO will already have happened at least 1 time:
by 568 come out rolls: 50.004994%
by 819 come out rolls: 63.234582%
by 5643 come out rolls: 99.900015%

It could also happen more than 1 time in 568 attempts.
~15% chance that it happens at least 2 times.

Number of trials	568
Run Length (X or more)	3
trial Probability	1/9
Event	Run Probability	1 in
0 runs of 3	0.499950057	2.00
at least 1 run of length 3 or more	0.500049942681155	2.00
at least 2 runs of length 3 or more	0.151973699549616	6.58
at least 3 runs of length 3 or more	0.032301427761508	30.96
at least 4 runs of length 3 or more	0.005213743022634	191.80
at least 5 runs of length 3 or more	0.000673175254594	1,485.50

My Final thoughts... you would not be called a "Craps God" by most that would attempt this style of play. But it is your money at risk. You are already in a winning streak. Ride it out!
The first time you hit that 3 in a row PSO, I would stop playing that system.
Spend your winnings!
Good Luck

7craps, does your auto bet file for the Iron Cross also show the cumulative odds with the higher than Martingale betting progression? I think it would show slightly less winners and slightly more losers.

Fascinating...the numbers to me are truly dazzling to see you break them down like that.
Now, I know that before I can even look to see a profit, I should win a minimum of my buy-in of 2,200.
Please keep in mind that the 2,200 is just play money so Level 3 is never given a second thought (I think you have to play that way OR don't play at all).

"Since you fear a run of 3 of these events (PSO) since you only have your wagers working on the roll after a point has been established, for any 3 come out rolls would be 1/9^-3 = 729. or 1 in 729 come out rolls.
Since streaks are a geometric progression, the "average number of come out rolls" for a run of 3 would be 1/9^-3+1/9^-2+1/9^-1 = 819 or 1 in 819 come out rolls."

Given your numbers, and I do respect them, does only playing for three hours ( I DO NOT exceed three) eliminate this number being met??? Could I play 5 or 6 hours????
Another question I had was that given your reality...was those that lost 69%, 57.75%, 1.84%, and .53 use the same method of exponentialing that I have been using???

"Reality: (sim stats)
16.11% won $1100 or more. Yahoo!
8.7% won $2200 or more. Yahoo!!
2.39% won $4400 or more. Yahoo!!!

69% lost some of their bankroll
57.75% lost more than $1100
1.84% lost more than $2000.
.53% busted $2028... never won a freakin' bet.
Ouch.
Remember this was only playing until a run of 3 PSO happened."

For you specifically, is the fact that I'm only working through 225-300 rolls a factor in it's working? Why nine in a row? I am 68.00 over where I started so I'm up 68 bucks?!?!
It just fascinates me that I keep standing there 3 hours at a time and keep cashing out more than what I bought in for which is always a plus...am I setting myself up for a bust soon???

If you woulda waited for 7Craps to respond you wouldn't have had an opinion. I wasn't asking if I had stumbled onto something no one else to include MIT mathemeticians haven't discovered...I was only asking for a reasonable response to something that I found interesting. Find another thread to respond to, I can do without your input!

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

7craps, does your auto bet file for the Iron Cross also show the cumulative odds with the higher than Martingale betting progression? I think it would show slightly less winners and slightly more losers.

I used the OP betting progression if that is what you mean.
Here is the section of code:
While . . .
Last roll was a come-out roll
A point is established on any number
Chip-Stack # 1 is equal to $ 1
then . . .
Bet $ 5 on Field
Bet $ 10 on Place 5
Bet $ 12 on Place 6
Bet $ 12 on Place 8
Go to "end"
While . . .
Last roll was a come-out roll
A point is established on any number
Chip-Stack # 1 is equal to $ 2
then . . .
Bet $ 40 on Field
Bet $ 60 on Place 5
Bet $ 72 on Place 6
Bet $ 72 on Place 8
Go to "end"
While . . .
A point is established on any number
Last roll was a come-out roll
Chip-Stack # 1 is equal to $ 3
then . . .
Bet $ 300 on Field
Bet $ 425 on Place 5
Bet $ 510 on Place 6
Bet $ 510 on Place 8
end

The auto-bet file is just to run the simulation.
WinCraps gathers way more stats than you can use, but at times I also print to a file so I can import into Excel for even more data crunching.
I did not do that for this simulation.
I found his method of playing the Iron Cross a bit interesting compared to other methods, so I threw a bit of my time at it.

I did not run a sim playing sessions like he does.
I was more into seeing the distribution of ending bankrolls and WinCraps shows all that in a Games Log file that one can save for later viewing.

Quote: wrragsdale

Given your numbers, and I do respect them, does only playing for three hours ( I DO NOT exceed three) eliminate this number being met??? Could I play 5 or 6 hours????

No.
You need to be only counting how many come out rolls you see, how many establish points and how many times you have action at each level.
rolls per hour or per session is really a non-issue.

Quote: wrragsdale

Another question I had was that given your reality...was those that lost 69%, 57.75%, 1.84%, and .53 use the same method of exponentialing that I have been using???

Yes. You can see my code in the above post. I think I duplicated your bet amounts correctly.

Quote: wrragsdale

For you specifically, is the fact that I'm only working through 225-300 rolls a factor in it's working? Why nine in a row? I am 68.00 over where I started so I'm up 68 bucks?!?!
It just fascinates me that I keep standing there 3 hours at a time and keep cashing out more than what I bought in for which is always a plus...am I setting myself up for a bust soon???

Again, a session of play is not a factor. It is all about how many bets you actually make. Since you only bet after a point is established and remove them after a win or loss, sessions and number of rolls really mean nothing.
You are on a winning streak. When will it end?
No one knows exactly when until it does.
I do not think you will bust your bankroll since 3 PSOs in a row will cost you $2,028 if I added that correctly. You already have profits built up.

Ride the Wave of winning until you lose, I say. Then be very careful to try again. I would not. But it is your money.

Amazing a simulation can be run to duplicate this method.
You did say above that you did not run a simulation for this method but where would I go to set up a simulation to duplicate this.
All of your info to this point has been more helpful than anyone else but I wouldn't want you burn a lot of time on me.

"I found his method of playing the Iron Cross a bit interesting compared to other methods, so I threw a bit of my time at it."
Isn't it funny the way it just keeps working.
I've also been playing an iPhone craps game while I have downtime and I'm 4,000 rolls in and averaging 90.00 per hour.
I know you wrote that rolls per hour is a non issue.
So ultimately it boils down to the simplicity of 6 in 36 versus 30 in 36.?

Quote: wrragsdale

Amazing a simulation can be run to duplicate this method.
You did say above that you did not run a simulation for this method but where would I go to set up a simulation to duplicate this.
All of your info to this point has been more helpful than anyone else but I wouldn't want you burn a lot of time on me.

I actually did program your system exactly the way you wager.
I did not run many short sessions the way you actually play since a bunch of short sessions of independent trials is actually one very long session. This is a concept most gamblers will never understand.
I had 100,000 different payers play your system and stopped playing the first time they actually hit 3 in a row PSO losing the 3 progressions.
Less than 31,000 showed a profit.
That is a very poor result IMO.

Quote: wrragsdale

"I found his method of playing the Iron Cross a bit interesting compared to other methods, so I threw a bit of my time at it."
Isn't it funny the way it just keeps working.

No, not really.
You still are missing the over all point on how fast any one can lose playing this way.

I played your system over the 35,097 Zumma Craps Tester Book actual dice rolls.
The 3 in a row PSO happened at roll 597.
The players loss was $1417.
He is way bummed. he has chosen never to play your system again.

The sequence of rolls were: (cor = come out roll)
shooterA: cor 5,8,9,6,9,2,5 winner, new cor 9,7(first PSO)
shooterB: cor 10,7 ouch!! (second PSO)
shooterC: cor 11 winner, new cor 8,7 (third PSO) (This shooter actually had 2 come out rolls in his hand)

The average number of rolls to see the 3 level losses (progressions of your system) with PSO looks to be ~ 1280.
That is because there actually can be come out rolls in between the 3 PSOs progressions that do lose.

So instead of an average of 819 come out rolls to see 3 level PSO as I stated earlier...

the stats show an average of 380 come out rolls for 3 in a row losing progressions.
as mentioned WinCraps tracks tons of information from games played.
I think that the most important stat is about 70% of players that play your method will end up a looser after losing their 3 progressions.
The 30% that do win (show a profit after losing 3 progressions) and try again...

Absolutely intriguing!!!
Sorry for the player's loss...

"The average number of rolls to see the 3 level losses (progressions of your system) with PSO looks to be ~ 1280"
I see what you mean by my not seeing the eventuality, but at 1280 I wouldn't ever get to 1280 rolls. At 100 rolls per hour I'd have to stand there 10 hours =(
Shooter A,B, and C...are they three different shooter's??? I didn't follow that sequence? Each one had one PSO?
Hey how does dice change on the next shooter affect outcomes? After each PSO, the next shooter has the choice of 2 of 5 dice.

Quote: wrragsdale

Absolutely intriguing!!!
Sorry for the player's loss...

I do not think 7craps lost money playing your system.
It was just played in a WinCraps sim using actual recorded dice rolls.

Quote: wrragsdale

"The average number of rolls to see the 3 level losses (progressions of your system) with PSO looks to be ~ 1280"
I see what you mean by my not seeing the eventuality, but at 1280 I wouldn't ever get to 1280 rolls. At 100 rolls per hour I'd have to stand there 10 hours =(
Shooter A,B, and C...are they three different shooter's??? I didn't follow that sequence? Each one had one PSO?
Hey how does dice change on the next shooter affect outcomes? After each PSO, the next shooter has the choice of 2 of 5 dice.

I see that you only make your bets after a point is established.
This happens on average every 5 dice rolls (557/110 to be exact)
If you play 300 dice rolls each session you play, then you are only making about 60 total wagers per session - right after each point is established.
To me it comes down to just seeing 3 7s in a row while your bets are actually made.

Now, your session misunderstanding.
If the average number of rolls is 1280 to lose your progression.
Day 1 you play 300 rolls
day 2 another 300 rolls... well
It only takes 4 days of play to see 1200 total dice rolls. And you would have about a 63% chance of losing your progression within any 1280 dice rolls.

It does not matter what dice you use from the 5 offered to you, each dice roll is an independent roll, so the sum of many independent dice rolls will start to converge towards the average. Just because you only see 300 dice rolls each day does not mean you will never lose 3 progressions.
I hope this makes more sense.

Most Iron Cross players also bet the pass line bet on the come out roll. Why not you?

For all:
There is a WinCraps auto-bet file named YASS

' YASS (Yet Another Spread System) as proposed by Stacy Friedman
' Goals:
' 1) Insure a bankroll increase on every roll until seven-out.
' 2) Insure a greater win as time passes.
' 3) Lots of action, all the time.
' 4) Playable at any table offering full 2x odds or better.
' 5) Progressively replace higher EV wagers with lower ones.
He adds come bets and takes down the place bets when hit to use as odds on the come bets.
His method has lots of action and a lower overall house edge.
Enjoy!

Quote: wrragsdale

Shooter A,B, and C...are they three different shooter's???

Yes. The book did not have their names :)

Quote: wrragsdale

I didn't follow that sequence? Each one had one PSO?

Yes.
the "cor" means come out roll.(example: cor 5 - point is a 5, next roll, next roll, next roll and so on)

shooterA: cor 5 - point is a 5, 8, 9, 6, 9, 2, 5 winner, new cor 9 - point is a 9, 7 out (first PSO)
shooterB: cor 10 - point is a 10, 7 ouch!! (second PSO)
shooterC: cor 11 winner, new cor 8, 7 out(third PSO)
Three progressions lost.
You won on the roll of 8 (2nd roll) by shooterA

You lost on the 7 out by shooterA (the 9th roll)
You lost on the 7 out by shooterB (the 2nd roll)
You lost on the 7 out by shooterC (the 3rd roll)

Just keep playing and let us know how much money you have left when you finally lose your 3 progressions in a row.




Go 49ers!

"I do not think 7craps lost money playing your system.
It was just played in a WinCraps sim using actual recorded dice rolls."

What was that outcome...so you don't think 7Craps lost money???

"Now, your session misunderstanding.
If the average number of rolls is 1280 to lose your progression.
Day 1 you play 300 rolls
day 2 another 300 rolls... well
It only takes 4 days of play to see 1200 total dice rolls. And you would have about a 63% chance of losing your progression within any 1280 dice rolls."
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if I'm adding the days together to get to the 1280 wouldn't I be making each day's numbers hinge on the other? I really play more off time than rolls. I get to the table, set an alarm on my phone for 3 hours and when it goes off I cash out.

So sorry, you asked me..."Most Iron Cross players also bet the pass line bet on the come out roll. Why not you?"

Is there an advantage I'm not seeing? I just choose not to but if I'm missing something?

So sorry, you asked me...
"Most Iron Cross players also bet the pass line bet on the come out roll. Why not you?"
No good reason. Is there something I'm missing by not betting the PL with the IC method I use?

Quote: wrragsdale

It just fascinates me that I keep standing there 3 hours at a time and keep cashing out more than what I bought in for which is always a plus...am I setting myself up for a bust soon???

No one can tell. But the math shows that you will lose in the long run no matter what. Only 68 up overall? Over how many sessions?

So you understand that the majority of the stats that were listed above, people LOST money.....right?

It's your money, do what you will, but your exponential Martingale is doomed to fail in the long term.

Quote: wrragsdale

So sorry, you asked me...
"Most Iron Cross players also bet the pass line bet on the come out roll. Why not you?"
No good reason. Is there something I'm missing by not betting the PL with the IC method I use?

You're missing the best odds in the entire game, the P/L and odds......

Over 9 sessions I've won a total of 2,268 so my original buy-in has been paid off plus 68.00.
I'm sure the stats are correct and at some point, possibly my next session, I'll see the three PSO's.

Quote: YoDiceRoll11

You're missing the best odds in the entire game, the P/L and odds......

so what do you think would be a reasonable amount to add to my buy-in to play the PL, at a $10 minimum table, to play a $10 PL bet with 1X odds?

Quote: wrragsdale

Over 9 sessions I've won a total of 2,268 so my original buy-in has been paid off plus 68.00.
I'm sure the stats are correct and at some point, possibly my next session, I'll see the three PSO's.

Right. Pass with odds offers the best odds at the table. Why throw it away?
How many odds? At least 1X.
More if your bankroll can afford it.

Now, say your 9 sessions were all 250 dice rolls long.
You have seen 2250 dice rolls.
That means you have seen about 444 come out rolls that you made bets on the very next roll.

You have not lost yet. That is fantastic.

I fired up WinCraps also and agree with 7craps on the ~1280 average rolls before losing your 3 progression bets in a row.
I only had 10,000 players play your system, my time was limited, and only 1725 made it past 2250 rolls.
Consider yourself very lucky.

I show over 6900 LOST money once the 3 progressions were lost.

added: Check out the 1 player that broke even.
Player #1071
roll 1210
he ended up exactly with his starting bankroll of $2200. He was at $4,228 before lightning struck! Major Bummer!


You are up $2268.
Keep going and I agree, let us know how much remains when you finally lose your progression.
Enjoy!

Added:
Oops. here are the overall results.
Looks like one player made $13,688 after losing his progression.

Who knows, maybe that will be you, and you can laugh at us all.
But be careful the more time you play. You may not stay so lucky forever.

ps
The casino made over $3 million from these 10,000 players. They LOVE system players.
Comps for everyone!

If you want a better chance to come out ahead you should be betting $10 P/L playing 2x odds on 6/8, 1x odds on 5/9, 1x or no odds on 4/10 (or you can if you feel like it, still a good bet). Maybe once every 3-4 shooters (after qualifying some) play your Iron cross. You should never be betting more than P/L with odds, maybe plus 2 numbers of action without qualifying someone. Otherwise you are throwing your money away by making things more complicated than they need to be.

Do that plus, stop this crazy non martingale negative regression, and you will win more money over a longer period of time.

Short term results and trends mean nothing. Your system will lose over the long term. You just have to decide if you want to "gamble" your money and get more in the short term, but lose in the long term. Or play the odds of the game, and perhaps have smaller short term paybacks, but have a chance of winning in the long run.

Quote: guido111

Looks like one player made $13,688 after losing his progression.

Who knows, maybe that will be you, and you can laugh at us all.

This is the type of thinking that most gamblers lose at craps. Advantage players will not ever bet 10,000 to 1 and use such a volatile betting strategy.

10,000 to 1 odds you will make over 6x your bankroll. Throw in real world variance, and those odds rise a bit as well.

The math speaks for itself as shown by guido. More players than not, will lose money. Time to take a look at simpler, more conservative strategies. Or have fun doing what I call, "Betting and sweating".