Sevenshooter's Ultimate Craps Strategy
I've recently come aboard here as a member and enjoy reading through these threads very much. As you may already know, I am an advantage-gambler. I only play when I have a proven edge over the house.
It frustrates me to see day-in and day-out casinos scamming hard-working people out of their life savings. I'm sure we all know someone personally who's lost everything: money; family; job; self-esteem; even their lives after having been taken time & time again by the casino hucksters. Sucker bets; incorrect payouts; unfair odds; hidden vigs; high table limits; the list goes on. All under the pretext that it's, "entertainment".
This is why I've devoted my life to learning how to con the cons, turning the tables on the industry itself founded by hustlers and rip-off artists.
I used to count cards in Nevada during the 1990's vs. single deck games when conditions were ideal. After the game of Blackjack died, I turned to poker (it is my opinion that NL Hold'em ring games are not profitable no matter how tight-aggressive or loose-aggressive you play: Nine opponents and a rake to contest makes this at the very best a break-even game -- but good for the casinos). For years I focussed my attention on learning how to manipulate the dice in Craps and I have become a lethal precision shooter. I also lead a team of advantage gamblers in 3 Card Poker AP.
Now I pass along to you a simple way to kill the game of casino craps -- another game with a reasonably low HA. This strategy becomes even stronger when elements of dice setting and precision shooting are added but I'm sure you'll find random rolling profitable, as well, using 10-unit stop-wins and disciplined MM.
Sevenshooter's Ultimate Craps Strategy
Bankroll: 100 units. $10 units on tables with a $500 maximum or higher.
Comeout: Bet $10 on Pass Line and $10 on Don't Pass Line (Doey-Don't).
If dice control is your thing, use a preset with the sixes on the sides to avoid the roll of 12.
Point: After the point has been established, place $10 odds (or $12 odds for 5/9). Use the 'Flying V' preset for points of 6 and 8 and use the 'Mini-V' preset for points of 5/9 and 4/10 (Assuming you are able to control the dice so they remain on axis, this gives you an even money chance for a
6-5; 3-2; and 2-1 payoff).
Progression: Oscar's Grind. Your goal is to win one unit at the end of each progression. Whatever larger bet might be dictated by the other betting rules will be reduced to a bet size just large enough to gain ONE unit.
Each time a bet is lost, the next bet will be the same number of units.
Whenever a bet wins, one unit ($10 in this case) is added until you have won that progression ending in a one-unit win.
Oscar created this progression in the mid-1900s and never had a losing session. He only played the Pass Line, which was pretty close to even money odds and got paid 1-1. We do the same thing and get paid 6-5; 3-2; and 2-1. If you are able to manipulate the dice, you have even money odds of hitting your point before the seven shows. Also, the beauty of this method is often you will lose a bet when the point is 6/8 and win the next when the point is 4/10.
Now you have it. I do not believe in selling systems or profiting off of people already in dire financial straits. Completely free for all to use.
Try it out first using play money online. I recommend Bodog if you do this but start out with $5 units since bets are capped at $100 on that site. After you get through ten sessions using a 10-unit stop-win and a reasonable stop-loss, tell us how much you've netted.
Good luck and may you always have the edge!
Sevenshooter
Quote: sevenshooterUse the 'Flying V' preset for points of 6 and 8 and use the 'Mini-V' preset for points of 5/9 and 4/10.
...
Try it out first using play money online.
...how do you try throwing the dice a certain way, in an online practice game?
Quote:
It frustrates me to see day-in and day-out casinos scamming hard-working people out of their life savings. I'm sure we all know someone personally who's lost everything: money; family; job; self-esteem; even their lives after having been taken time & time again by the casino hucksters. Sucker bets; incorrect payouts; unfair odds; high table limits; the list goes on. All under the pretext that it's, "entertainment".
This is why I devoted my life to learning how to con the cons, turning the tables on the industry itself founded by hustlers and rip-off artists.
If I have my eyes open, if I am aware, and if I accept the odds and the rules and believe I am getting a fair (or even advantageous) return on my entertainment dollar, compared to, say, an afternoon whacking a small white ball around a bunch of scenery in the hot sun... how is that a scam, a ripoff, and a hustle?
Service industries are a dance. You learn to dance with your partner, you get your rhythms in sync, then you flow. The value of this is in the eye of the beholder. You gamble aggressively, for a profit. I gamble casually, for enjoyment. Of course it is more fun to win, but that has to be measured against the goal. I spend about 60 hours a week aggressively trying to separate people from their income (please, don't ask), and I'm good at it. In my off hours, I can afford to throw some chips and some dice and some cards and sometimes laugh, and sometimes shrug, and sometimes swear, and still pay the college tuition and the mortgage.
Keep in mind, I have no problems with your offering your system for winning. And I find the concept of dice-setting fascinating, but not something I'm interested in devoting much time to personally.
Quote: jeremykayI think it's been sufficiently proven on wizardofodds.com that no betting strategy can give the player an edge over the house. (If you really can control the dice, perhaps that's a different story.) However, just betting this system will cost you house edge * amount bet in the long run.
Have you even tried it?
Quote: JBI'm no craps player, but...
Quote: sevenshooterUse the 'Flying V' preset for points of 6 and 8 and use the 'Mini-V' preset for points of 5/9 and 4/10.
...
Try it out first using play money online.
...how do you try throwing the dice a certain way, in an online practice game?
"This strategy becomes even stronger when elements of dice setting and precision shooting are added but I'm sure you'll find random rolling profitable, as well, using 10-unit stop-wins and disciplined MM."
Re: Flying V; Mini-V Presets
I'm sure a little research online will clear this up for you.
Quote: sevenshooterHave you even tried it?
You're missing the point, which is that there is no need to try it to know what the outcome will be. Success in the short term does not imply success in the long term. Since craps is a negative-expectation game, in the long run you will lose the amount you are statistically expected to, regardless of how you size your bets or when you make them.
Quote: JBQuote: sevenshooterHave you even tried it?
You're missing the point, which is that there is no need to try it to know what the outcome will be. Success in the short term does not imply success in the long term. Since craps is a negative-expectation game, in the long run you will lose the amount you are statistically expected to, regardless of how you size your bets or when you make them.
I would hope others might avoid such self-defeating sanctimony and at least try this out for themselves first experientially. What do you have to lose? If you are timid about betting an "untested" strategy then why not make "paper bets" at a real craps table and judge for yourself.
Incidentally, I've also told others in this forum that I have the ability to influence the outcome of my rolls through years of practice at precision shooting. I suppose, JB, you wouldn't believe that, either. :)
Please remember, I have given out this "system" at no cost. It was my intention to give a little back to the community and share information with those who are facing an up-hill battle against the house.
Quote: sevenshooterQuote: JBQuote: sevenshooterHave you even tried it?
You're missing the point, which is that there is no need to try it to know what the outcome will be. Success in the short term does not imply success in the long term. Since craps is a negative-expectation game, in the long run you will lose the amount you are statistically expected to, regardless of how you size your bets or when you make them.
I would hope others might avoid such self-defeating sanctimony and at least try this out for themselves first experientially. What do you have to lose? If you are timid about betting an "untested" strategy then why not make "paper bets" at a real craps table and judge for yourself.
Incidentally, I've also told others in this forum that I have the ability to influence the outcome of my rolls through years of practice at precision shooting. I suppose, JB, you wouldn't believe that, either. :)
Please remember, I have given out this "system" at no cost. It was my intention to give a little back to the community and share information with those who are facing an up-hill battle against the house.
Sevenshooter, you are way too testy about this whole thing. Other than the possibility that you are able to influence the dice, how would one be able to beat the established house advantage over the course of thousands or millions of rolls? Unless the math is changed, it is a negative expectation game. That doesn't mean you can never win or even that you won't have long winning streaks, it just says to me the math is against winning in the long run.
Influencing the dice outcome COULD change things BUT you would control of that while others are rolling the dice.
I like to follow betting patterns/systems if they make sense in managing my bankroll; I may try yours to see how I do. The only thing is that I will know going in that the casino still has the advantage in the end. I am only gambling for my entertainment...
The math is the math. If you can influence the dice, and adding that amount to the math makes it positive, then you can use Kelly to figure out the rest; bankroll and bet size etc. Otherwise, as WOPR says, "The only winning move is not to play."
(Math people, please tell me if I don't have the idea right. My distillation of all systems comes down to streaks trumping bankroll.)
Quote: sevenshooterPlease remember, I have given out this "system" at no cost. It was my intention to give a little back to the community and share information with those who are facing an up-hill battle against the house.
But its always going to be an uphill battle against the house. Thats why the house is there. Otherwise the House would be just another vacant lot.
The point according to my interpretation is to enjoy what youre doing and not to gamble more than you can financially and emotionally afford to lose. Any system for bankroll management is welcome as someone said earlier, but even if you can control the dice, the vast majority of people cant, so may not be able to use your advice to full advantage. Taken as something interesting to try, hell I might even have a go myself, but as something to overcome the house edge, I just dont believe it.
Quote: sevenshooterIncidentally, I've also told others in this forum that I have the ability to influence the outcome of my rolls through years of practice at precision shooting. I suppose, JB, you wouldn't believe that, either.
That is the only element that could possibly give you an advantage over the house. I cannot comment one way or the other on your ability to throw the dice in such a way as to roll or avoid a particular outcome; it could theoretically be possible.
But if you are trying to convince others that betting in a certain manner will alter the house's advantage, then I think you'll find you have your work cut out for you, as the majority of the members here are already well aware that such notions are mathematical nonsense.
Quote: CroupierQuote: sevenshooterPlease remember, I have given out this "system" at no cost. It was my intention to give a little back to the community and share information with those who are facing an up-hill battle against the house.
But its always going to be an uphill battle against the house. Thats why the house is there. Otherwise the House would be just another vacant lot.
The point according to my interpretation is to enjoy what youre doing and not to gamble more than you can financially and emotionally afford to lose. Any system for bankroll management is welcome as someone said earlier, but even if you can control the dice, the vast majority of people cant, so may not be able to use your advice to full advantage. Taken as something interesting to try, hell I might even have a go myself, but as something to overcome the house edge, I just dont believe it.
Granted, when I play, I do have dice control working to my advantage. However, if Oscar himself never had a losing session only playing the Pass with an even money payout, what would the result be using the same progression when payouts are 6-5, 3-2 and 2-1 in the shooter's favor? I know this works for random-rollers, as well because not one of my students has ever taken a loss at the tables -- ever.
Additionally, I'd advise those interested in giving it a go to first experiment under real-world table conditions. Of course, the Bodog Free Play Craps simulation works well, too (I, personally, have never lost on that site) but it is a virtual world and just really not the same.
Further still, the Wizard (whom I greatly admire) recommends if you are to play a game such as craps, to risk your entire bankroll on one roll of the dice. I respectfully disagree -- sounds like the advice a boxman would give. :)
By the way, has anyone actually tried this method out other than just denouncing it as "nonsense"? An intelligent decision is based on the results of experimentation, not on blindly following what others have told you.
"It may appear a low-risk system, but our tests show that the Grind can get into a situation it would be difficult to get out of again. For that reason, we recommend it for medium-risk gamblers, those who can withstand small losses in pursuit of moderate gains." (Fortune Palace)
Quote: stephenSo how many millions did you make last year with your system? If it's never lost, it's a license to print money.
It's hard to detect sarcasm in type, but I sense a little passive-aggressiveness here. Hopefully, I am wrong. "Never look a gift horse in the mouth", is all I will reply.
Quote: Mosca"If the slow, steady nature of this gambling system appeals to you, our only warning is to bear in mind our overall gambling strategy [which says that the house always wins; Mosca] and set a limit to your losses. Although these will never be huge, the Oscar's Grind system does not allow a quick method of winning them back.
"It may appear a low-risk system, but our tests show that the Grind can get into a situation it would be difficult to get out of again. For that reason, we recommend it for medium-risk gamblers, those who can withstand small losses in pursuit of moderate gains." (Fortune Palace)
Yes, on even money payouts (and assuming no dice control).
What if, say, one were using Oscar's Grind with even money odds when the payout was 6-5 or greater? Have you considered this?
Quote: sevenshooterQuote: stephenSo how many millions did you make last year with your system? If it's never lost, it's a license to print money.
It's hard to detect sarcasm in type, but I sense a little passive-aggressiveness here. Hopefully, I am wrong. "Never look a gift horse in the mouth", is all I will reply.
Regardless of my intentions, it's a valid question. Even a tiny edge can be turned into large sums of money. If you've been at this on the order of ten years or more, you must have way more money than you know what to do with.
Quote: stephenQuote: sevenshooterQuote: stephenSo how many millions did you make last year with your system? If it's never lost, it's a license to print money.
It's hard to detect sarcasm in type, but I sense a little passive-aggressiveness here. Hopefully, I am wrong. "Never look a gift horse in the mouth", is all I will reply.
Regardless of my intentions, it's a valid question. Even a tiny edge can be turned into large sums of money. If you've been at this on the order of ten years or more, you must have way more money than you know what to do with.
Yes, but what's your point?
Quote: RonCQuote: sevenshooterQuote: JBQuote: sevenshooterHave you even tried it?
You're missing the point, which is that there is no need to try it to know what the outcome will be. Success in the short term does not imply success in the long term. Since craps is a negative-expectation game, in the long run you will lose the amount you are statistically expected to, regardless of how you size your bets or when you make them.
I would hope others might avoid such self-defeating sanctimony and at least try this out for themselves first experientially. What do you have to lose? If you are timid about betting an "untested" strategy then why not make "paper bets" at a real craps table and judge for yourself.
Incidentally, I've also told others in this forum that I have the ability to influence the outcome of my rolls through years of practice at precision shooting. I suppose, JB, you wouldn't believe that, either. :)
Please remember, I have given out this "system" at no cost. It was my intention to give a little back to the community and share information with those who are facing an up-hill battle against the house.
Influencing the dice outcome COULD change things BUT you would control of that while others are rolling the dice.
Not wagering on the rolls of others would safely solve that issue.
Quote: sevenshooterYes, but what's your point?
That no betting system can alter the house edge. If you had one that could you would just quietly be super rich with no skill whatsoever. I think your refusal to answer indicates how great the system is.
Quote: stephenQuote: sevenshooterYes, but what's your point?
That no betting system can alter the house edge. If you had one that could you would just quietly be super rich with no skill whatsoever. I think your refusal to answer indicates how great the system is.
Refusal to answer? I thought I just did.
I think you're forgetting I have given this away completely free.
Why are you treating me like it's for sale?
Still, no one has actually tried using it. Like the Dark Ages on this site... What are you afraid of -- that it just might work?
Quote: sevenshooterI think you're forgetting I have given this away completely free.
I have to give you credit there. You are probably the first person to ever sell a betting system for exactly how much it is worth.
Quote: sevenshooterQuote: Mosca"If the slow, steady nature of this gambling system appeals to you, our only warning is to bear in mind our overall gambling strategy [which says that the house always wins; Mosca] and set a limit to your losses. Although these will never be huge, the Oscar's Grind system does not allow a quick method of winning them back.
"It may appear a low-risk system, but our tests show that the Grind can get into a situation it would be difficult to get out of again. For that reason, we recommend it for medium-risk gamblers, those who can withstand small losses in pursuit of moderate gains." (Fortune Palace)
Yes, on even money payouts (and assuming no dice control).
What if, say, one were using Oscar's Grind with even money odds when the payout was 6-5 or greater? Have you considered this?
You still have your pass line bet out there but now with a negative expectation, right? And your don't pass bet paying less than full odds, right? Assuming no dice control, it appears to me that this system is the best chance to minimize large swings of income. But it doesn't look like it would be much fun. I would probably rather go to work, where I would be guaranteed good income for my time invested, than work this system. But that's just me.
Quote: mipletYou would lose a 100 unit bankroll betting oscars grid on the passline about one in 80 times.
I do not advise playing the Pass Line. I have recommended a Doey-Don't and playing the odds.
Plus: Julian Braun's computer studies showed the probabilities when the limit was 500 times the smallest allowable bet a complete loss would only occur once in 4,250 sessions. :)
Quote: JBQuote: sevenshooterI think you're forgetting I have given this away completely free.
I have to give you credit there. You are probably the first person to ever sell a betting system for exactly how much it is worth.
Still haven't even tried it, have you? One's own worst enemy is one's ego.
Quote: MoscaQuote: sevenshooterQuote: Mosca"If the slow, steady nature of this gambling system appeals to you, our only warning is to bear in mind our overall gambling strategy [which says that the house always wins; Mosca] and set a limit to your losses. Although these will never be huge, the Oscar's Grind system does not allow a quick method of winning them back.
"It may appear a low-risk system, but our tests show that the Grind can get into a situation it would be difficult to get out of again. For that reason, we recommend it for medium-risk gamblers, those who can withstand small losses in pursuit of moderate gains." (Fortune Palace)
Yes, on even money payouts (and assuming no dice control).
What if, say, one were using Oscar's Grind with even money odds when the payout was 6-5 or greater? Have you considered this?
You still have your pass line bet out there but now with a negative expectation, right? And your don't pass bet paying less than full odds, right? Assuming no dice control, it appears to me that this system is the best chance to minimize large swings of income. But it doesn't look like it would be much fun. I would probably rather go to work, where I would be guaranteed good income for my time invested, than work this system. But that's just me.
I don't think you've grasped the concept fully.
Quote: sevenshooterI do not advise playing the Pass Line. I have recommended a Doey-Don't and playing the odds.
The problem here is that you'll lose a unit on average every 36 rolls--everytime there's a 12. So that's a cost of about $0.28 on every $10/$10 bet. So that's 1.39%, which, no surprise, is the average of the house advantage on the pass/don't pass bets.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For all intents and purposes, these two wagers negate each other. Betting both ways helps decrease volatility.
The house advantage in betting both the pass and don't pass lines and full double odds is (7/495+27/1925)/(2+5*2/3) =0.528%. (Wizard's Calculations)
You are saying that a 10 unit stop win will occur more than half as often as a 5 unit stop loss. I'm saying that the dueling line bets aren't exactly equal to each other, and although they make the house edge very small, they do not make it 0. But let's assume that they do, for S&G. What we then have is a true odds game, and a system that wins one unit on each progression.
This doesn't sound like fun to me. It sounds like work. I already work.
Quote: MoscaNo, I think I have it. You bet pass and don't pass, and take odds on one unit. You play until you either hit a stop-loss of 5 units (you wrote "reasonable", but most OG lit I checked says 1/2 bankroll) or a 10 unit stop-win.
You are saying that a 10 unit stop win will occur more than half as often as a 5 unit stop loss. I'm saying that the dueling line bets aren't exactly equal to each other, and although they make the house edge very small, they do not make it 0. But let's assume that they do, for S&G. What we then have is a true odds game, and a system that wins one unit on each progression.
This doesn't sound like fun to me. It sounds like work. I already work.
Not quite, Mosca. I recommended playing a 100 unit session bankroll. $10 units = $1000 buy-in. Nowhere in my original post did I suggest a stop-loss of $50. A reasonable stop-loss would be more in the range of 60 or 70 units.
So, all bets are at true odds, except the P/DP, which has a house edge of .528%; am I right? So this system then fights a small house advantage, correct? Tell me how it changes those odds, assuming no setting of the dice. It seems to me that the burden is on you to show that it does that, rather than on us to show how it cannot.
Edit: actually, you wrote, "The house advantage in betting both the pass and don't pass lines and full double odds is (7/495+27/1925)/(2+5*2/3) =0.528%. (Wizard's Calculations)" That takes into account full double odds; your version of Oscar's Grind only calls for taking single odds, so the house advantage of your system should be greater than .528%. Assuming no ability to set dice, how can varying the amount bet change this house edge?
Quote: MoscaI'm sorry, my mistake. I mixed up my "units" and "dollars". I meant a stop loss of half the bankroll. So in your example you risk $500 to win $100, on the assumption that the progression will outlast the chance of hitting the stop-loss.
So, all bets are at true odds, except the P/DP, which has a house edge of .528%; am I right? So this system then fights a small house advantage, correct? Tell me how it changes those odds, assuming no setting of the dice. It seems to me that the burden is on you to show that it does that, rather than on us to show how it cannot.
Alright: On the comeout, I always employ the Anti-12 preset and I very rarely roll Boxcars (maybe once every few sessions). But we are proposing that precision shooting is not part of the equation here and the rolls are completely random, right?
First of all, I am a gambler, not a mathematician. I take from the "math guys" what I need and then learn from experience. So those of you with backgrounds in maths please refrain from belittling my attempts to explain. This is not my forte. Winning is.
So here goes: Let's correctly assume once every thirty-six COMEOUTS (not rolls) the random roller loses one unit on the 12. From my experience, depending on table conditions, that's about 2 UNITS per hour for the chicken-feeder. Let's also assume the shooter loses half of his odds bets. Rough it and propose 72 rolls per hour. A mere 6-5 payout on sixes and eights gives the shooter a loss of $360 and a win of $432 for a total win of $72 (minus the two units) to net $52. This example, of course, operates on the premise that only points of 6 & 8 have been made. In actuality, 5/9 and 4/10 are also heavily involved and the payoffs are at 3-2 and 2-1 so the net win is really greater than $52/hr.
You can't have it both ways. You state that you "only play when I have a proven edge over the house." OK, that's fine. But you are pushing a system which most definitely does not have an advantage over the house. So if your first statement is true and you are not even practicing what you preach by using this 'strategy', why are you telling others to waste their time on this pointless system? At least you are not selling it, but telling people they are guaranteed to win using it is still pretty disingenuous.
Quote: moscaThe problem here is that you'll lose a unit on average every 36 rolls--everytime there's a 12. So that's a cost of about $0.28 on every $10/$10 bet. So that's 1.39%, which, no surprise, is the average of the house advantage on the pass/don't pass bets.
This is correct, you did not need to correct yourself later here. The odds bets do not add or reduce the house edge on these initial wagers. The lower house edge of the combined pass/don't and odds bets only applies to the much larger sum of all the wagers. This system will lose $0.28 on average every time there is a come out roll.
Quote: sevenshooterFor all intents and purposes, these two wagers negate each other. Betting both ways helps decrease volatility.
Except when a 12 is rolled. If the goal is to reduce volatility, no odds bets should be made. Odds bets do not reduce the house advantage on a pass line or don't pass bet. If a person bets $10 on the pass, and another guy bets $10 on the pass and $100 on the odds, they are playing at the exact same disadvantage. The only difference is one has a lot more action out, and is playing at a lower house edge than someone who bet $110 on the pass. He would actually see more volatility in the short run than the strictly pass line player.
Quote: sevenshooterLet's also assume the shooter loses half of his odds bets.
Except you cannot assume this. Thats like saying "lets assume I get dealt lots of aces" when analyzing a session of blackjack. You cannot assume luck, and a shooter that only loses half his odds bets is lucky. Using real odds of no luckiness or unluckiness, rather than assumptions of 50 percent, your system will always show a loss of exactly 1.39 percent of your initial $20 wager.
Quote: pocketacesI don't understand sevenshooter - First, you specify that you are an advantage gambler with an understanding of the math behind the games and a large dislike of any game with a HA. Then you present a 'strategy' to 'kill the game of casino craps' which is no more than a simple betting system which will in the long run lose at the rate of exactly the house advantage of the bets.
You can't have it both ways. You state that you "only play when I have a proven edge over the house." OK, that's fine. But you are pushing a system which most definitely does not have an advantage over the house. So if your first statement is true and you are not even practicing what you preach by using this 'strategy', why are you telling others to waste their time on this pointless system? At least you are not selling it, but telling people they are guaranteed to win using it is still pretty disingenuous.Quote: moscaThe problem here is that you'll lose a unit on average every 36 rolls--everytime there's a 12. So that's a cost of about $0.28 on every $10/$10 bet. So that's 1.39%, which, no surprise, is the average of the house advantage on the pass/don't pass bets.
This is correct, you did not need to correct yourself later here. The odds bets do not add or reduce the house edge on these initial wagers. The lower house edge of the combined pass/don't and odds bets only applies to the much larger sum of all the wagers. This system will lose $0.28 on average every time there is a come out roll.Quote: sevenshooterFor all intents and purposes, these two wagers negate each other. Betting both ways helps decrease volatility.
Except when a 12 is rolled. If the goal is to reduce volatility, no odds bets should be made. Odds bets do not reduce the house advantage on a pass line or don't pass bet. If a person bets $10 on the pass, and another guy bets $10 on the pass and $100 on the odds, they are playing at the exact same disadvantage. The only difference is one has a lot more action out, and is playing at a lower house edge than someone who bet $110 on the pass. He would actually see more volatility in the short run than the strictly pass line player.Quote: sevenshooterLet's also assume the shooter loses half of his odds bets.
Except you cannot assume this. Thats like saying "lets assume I get dealt lots of aces" when analyzing a session of blackjack. You cannot assume luck, and a shooter that only loses half his odds bets is lucky. Using real odds of no luckiness or unluckiness, rather than assumptions of 50 percent, your system will always show a loss of exactly 1.39 percent of your initial $20 wager.
Sigh. Things are getting redundant here: As I've already indicated, as I play this method, I incorporate controlled shooting into it. Therefore I have even money odds of hitting the point before I seven-out and get paid 6-5; 3-2; and 2-1 for it.
I had originally suggested that my, "system", as YOU would play it, would most-likely generate regular and steady profits even through random rolling. Again, as I've already stated, none of my students have ever had a losing session with this method.
I appreciate your skepticism as it is a sign of a healthy, analytical mind but I am growing weary of having to "defend" the strategy against people who haven't even bothered to give it a try. I'd say that's fairly ignorant.
1. People who think betting systems work; people selling them
2. People who are new to this stuff and thing they could work, but are not sure
3. Intelligent, statistical-minded people who have the common sense to realize that games like craps (without this mythical dice control), roulette, baccarat cannot be beaten.
It's pretty obvious to know who is who. And I'm kinda getting sick of reading "I think I've figured out a Martingale system that works" and then seeing all of us #3 types having to explain it every day.
I guess this is what the Wizard has/had to deal with in his inbox all the time....
Ok, I'm done with my rant.
You can go back to discussing how this betting system will never have a losing session, no matter how many twelves are rolled.
My sessions have the following (seven-shooter, please correct me if I am wrong). Your goal is to win one unit before restarting the regression. If you lose, you do not increase the bet. If you win, you increase the bet by one unit, unit you have won your units. The system is complicated because you are laying odds of one unit but when it wins, you either win 1.2, 1.5 or 2 x your bet.
Unresolved is the question of what you are to do if you are still down 2 units in the progression but your bet size is say, 10 units. Do you reduce to 3 units or do you bet 11 units? If I reduce it to 3 units (to make the goal one), I have ruin in 31.5% of sessions with an average win of 20.73 units for a total loss of 35,422 units.
Here's the issues (for non controllers).
(1) You lose on 1/36th of the come out rolls (12)
(2) The odds of winning a pass line bet after the point is established is 40.606%, not 50%. (6/24 * 3/9 + 8/24 * 4/10 + 10/24 * 5/11)
There are many instances where you land in such a hole that you have to win a number of points in a row to get out of it.
Here's a nice example of a 100 unit ruin (the bet is reduced after a win to make the progression end with a win of 1 unit) over 40 come out rolls (2, 3, 11, and 7 ignored as they result in pushes). Note of the 39 points made (one was a 12), 11 are winners and 28 are losers.
Now you say, well, this is improbable. Well, not really. The expected number of come out winners in 39 rolls is 39 x .40606 or 15.8 times. The standard deviation of this is sqrt (npq) = sqrt (39 x .40606 x .59394) = 3.04. So, 11 wins of 39 points only is out by 1.57 sigmas. The odds of having 11 points or less of 39 come out rolls is about 7.7%. Over a session of 200 rolls, it becomes more likely that this will happen.
| Point | Result | Bet | Win/Lose | Net |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -1 |
| 9 | Win | 1 | 1.5 | 0.5 |
| 4 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -0.5 |
| 8 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -1.5 |
| 6 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -2.5 |
| 8 | Win | 1 | 1.2 | -1.3 |
| 9 | Lose | 2 | -2 | -3.3 |
| 8 | Win | 2 | 2.4 | -0.9 |
| 9 | Lose | 2 | -2 | -2.9 |
| 9 | Lose | 2 | -2 | -4.9 |
| 6 | Lose | 2 | -2 | -6.9 |
| 4 | Lose | 2 | -2 | -8.9 |
| 4 | Lose | 2 | -2 | -10.9 |
| 10 | Lose | 2 | -2 | -12.9 |
| 9 | Win | 2 | 3 | -9.9 |
| 8 | Lose | 3 | -3 | -12.9 |
| 6 | Win | 3 | 3.6 | -9.3 |
| 10 | Lose | 4 | -4 | -13.3 |
| 8 | Lose | 4 | -4 | -17.3 |
| 10 | Win | 4 | 8 | -9.3 |
| 6 | Lose | 5 | -5 | -14.3 |
| 10 | Lose | 5 | -5 | -19.3 |
| 8 | Lose | 5 | -5 | -24.3 | 5 | Lose | 5 | -5 | -29.3 |
| 6 | Win | 5 | 6 | -23.3 |
| 5 | Win | 6 | 9 | -14.3 |
| 6 | Lose | 7 | -7 | -21.3 |
| 10 | Lose | 7 | -7 | -28.3 |
| 6 | Lose | 7 | -7 | -35.3 |
| 5 | Win | 7 | 10.5 | -24.8 |
| 8 | Lose | 8 | -8 | -32.8 |
| 4 | Lose | 8 | -8 | -40.8 |
| 9 | Lose | 8 | -8 | -48.8 |
| 6 | Lose | 8 | -8 | -56.8 |
| 12 | lose | 8 | -8 | -64.8 |
| 6 | Lose | 8 | -8 | -72.8 |
| 8 | Lose | 8 | -8 | -80.8 |
| 8 | Win | 8 | 9.6 | -71.2 |
| 6 | Lose | 9 | -9 | -80.2 |
| 5 | Win | 9 | 13.5 | -66.7 |
| 4 | Lose | 10 | -10 | -76.7 |
| 5 | Lose | 10 | -10 | -86.7 |
| 10 | Lose | 10 | -10 | Ruin |
Finally, your "claim" that you can manipulate the dice to a 50% win on all points:
You must manipulate the SRR in a 4 and 10 to 12:1, for a 5 and 9 to 9:1 and on a 6/8 to 7.2:1 or an average SRR of 9:1. I find this very hard to believe.
Quote: FinsRuleMy favorite part of the post is "None of my students has ever had a losing session". HA. This site is made of three types of people:
1. People who think betting systems work; people selling them
2. People who are new to this stuff and thing they could work, but are not sure
3. Intelligent, statistical-minded people who have the common sense to realize that games like craps (without this mythical dice control), roulette, baccarat cannot be beaten.
It's pretty obvious to know who is who. And I'm kinda getting sick of reading "I think I've figured out a Martingale system that works" and then seeing all of us #3 types having to explain it every day.
I guess this is what the Wizard has/had to deal with in his inbox all the time....
Ok, I'm done with my rant.
You can go back to discussing how this betting system will never have a losing session, no matter how many twelves are rolled.
You must be blind, deaf and dumb to have not yet recognized the fact that I am not selling any system here. My intention was altruistic and I never would have imagined this "gift" would be received with ignorant and disparaging remarks.
Nor am I "new to this stuff". Plus, I have nothing to prove to you. I know who I am and know my capabilities and limitations.
In the words of the immortal Achilles, "There are no pacts between lions and men".
Continue to gamble as you have in the past. Mediocrity suits you well.
Quote: boymimboI've plugged this in to my simulation. I ran 2,048 sessions of 200 come out rolls, which works out to 8 hour sessions. My simulator shows ruin in 44.1% of simulations, and of the other 55.9% an average win of 33.92 units for a total loss of about 51,484 units.
My sessions have the following (seven-shooter, please correct me if I am wrong). Your goal is to win one unit before restarting the regression. If you lose, you do not increase the bet. If you win, you increase the bet by one unit, unit you have won your units. The system is complicated because you are laying odds of one unit but when it wins, you either win 1.2, 1.5 or 2 x your bet.
Unresolved is the question of what you are to do if you are still down 2 units in the progression but your bet size is say, 10 units. Do you reduce to 3 units or do you bet 11 units? If I reduce it to 3 units (to make the goal one), I have ruin in 31.5% of sessions with an average win of 20.73 units for a total loss of 35,422 units.
Here's the issues (for non controllers).
(1) You lose on 1/36th of the come out rolls (12)
(2) The odds of winning a pass line bet after the point is established is 40.606%, not 50%. (6/24 * 3/9 + 8/24 * 4/10 + 10/24 * 5/11)
There are many instances where you land in such a hole that you have to win a number of points in a row to get out of it.
Here's a nice example of a 100 unit ruin (the bet is reduced after a win to make the progression end with a win of 1 unit) over 40 come out rolls (2, 3, 11, and 7 ignored as they result in pushes). Note of the 39 points made (one was a 12), 11 are winners and 28 are losers.
Now you say, well, this is improbable. Well, not really. The expected number of come out winners in 39 rolls is 39 x .40606 or 15.8 times. The standard deviation of this is sqrt (npq) = sqrt (39 x .40606 x .59394) = 3.04. So, 11 wins of 39 points only is out by 1.57 sigmas. The odds of having 11 points or less of 39 come out rolls is about 7.7%. Over a session of 200 rolls, it becomes more likely that this will happen.
[
Finally, your "claim" that you can manipulate the dice to a 50% win on all points:
You must manipulate the SRR in a 4 and 10 to 12:1, for a 5 and 9 to 9:1 and on a 6/8 to 7.2:1 or an average SRR of 9:1. I find this very hard to believe.
"My sessions have the following (seven-shooter, please correct me if I am wrong). Your goal is to win one unit before restarting the regression."
A progression, to be accurate.
"If you lose, you do not increase the bet. If you win, you increase the bet by one unit, unit you have won your units"
Until I have won ONE $10 unit, so if the previous bet was say, arbitrarily, $60 and I am now one unit below even, my next bet would be two units, not six.
"The system is complicated because you are laying odds of one unit but when it wins, you either win 1.2, 1.5 or 2 x your bet."
I never said anything about laying odds. I believe I had said TAKE odds behind the Pass Line.
"Unresolved is the question of what you are to do if you are still down 2 units in the progression but your bet size is say, 10 units. Do you reduce to 3 units or do you bet 11 units? If I reduce it to 3 units (to make the goal one), I have ruin in 31.5% of sessions with an average win of 20.73 units for a total loss of 35,422 units."
As stated above, you would reduce to 3 units.
"Here's a nice example of a 100 unit ruin (the bet is reduced after a win to make the progression end with a win of 1 unit) over 40 come out rolls (2, 3, 11, and 7 ignored as they result in pushes). Note of the 39 points made (one was a 12), 11 are winners and 28 are losers.
How is a 100-unit ruin possible when you're using a 50-60 unit stop-loss?
"Finally, your "claim" that you can manipulate the dice to a 50% win on all points:
You must manipulate the SRR in a 4 and 10 to 12:1, for a 5 and 9 to 9:1 and on a 6/8 to 7.2:1 or an average SRR of 9:1. I find this very hard to believe."
With the "Flying V" preset, there are actually 6 sixes and 6 eights: 4 sevens.
The "Mini-V": 4 fives; 4 nines; 4 fours; 4 tens: 4 sevens.
So the win rate is actually higher than 50% -- I was truncating.
Quote: sevenshooter
Sigh. Things are getting redundant here: As I've already indicated, as I play this method, I incorporate controlled shooting into it. Therefore I have even money odds of hitting the point before I seven-out and get paid 6-5; 3-2; and 2-1 for it.
I had originally suggested that my, "system", as YOU would play it, would most-likely generate regular and steady profits even through random rolling. Again, as I've already stated, none of my students have ever had a losing session with this method.
I appreciate your skepticism as it is a sign of a healthy, analytical mind but I am growing weary of having to "defend" the strategy against people who haven't even bothered to give it a try. I'd say that's fairly ignorant.
Controlled shooting could very well make swing your bets into a positive expectation. Meaning you should win in the long run, although over a shorter time period you could easily still lose. I am not debating the merits of that, and if you are truly good at controlling the dice, I am impressed with your skill.
But I do take exception to the idea that we all need to go to a craps table and try your system (without the dice setting) as an absolute defense to all of the facts presented here. The beauty of calculating odds is that you do not need a million people to go try your system in a casino, and there are no alternate answers. There is only one answer, and it has been presented to you.
I have no need to personally try this system out at a craps table. A small sample like this doesn't come close to proving anything, and the answer we are all looking for can be calculated very easily. If I did try your system and won (or lost), it doesn't change the numbers in any way. Anecdotal evidence of your students always winning doesn't change the numbers in any way either. They have either been lucky or this is a false statement.
I do not subscribe to superstitions, which is the only way that one could come to the conclusion that your system is a guaranteed win. I subscribe to mathematical proof (ie 'facts') and this is in no way ignorant. Blindly ignoring them, or inventing your own fuzzy math, could be considered to be.
Quote: sevenshooterMy intention was altruistic and I never would have imagined this "gift" would be received with ignorant and disparaging remarks.
You have got to be kidding me. While there have been no remarks that fit either definition, but rather a reasoned debate of your system, what did you think a forum created by the 'Wizard of Odds' was going to do? Embrace your betting system for the guaranteed win you say it is? If you are looking for validation, you are clearly in the wrong place. I can't stress this enough.
Boymimbo: excellent job.
Quote: sevenshooter
I appreciate your skepticism as it is a sign of a healthy, analytical mind but I am growing weary of having to "defend" the strategy against people who haven't even bothered to give it a try. I'd say that's fairly ignorant.
As long as the world follows the math, there is no need to try it. Your defense boils down to, "It works because I say it does, regardless of the math." I believe that trusting the science is smart, and not trusting the science is the definition of ignorant. I don't mean to offend you with that, but not trusting the proven mathematical description of reality is what the word means. You're ignoring reality on purpose.
Quote: MoscaQuote: sevenshooter
I appreciate your skepticism as it is a sign of a healthy, analytical mind but I am growing weary of having to "defend" the strategy against people who haven't even bothered to give it a try. I'd say that's fairly ignorant.
As long as the world follows the math, there is no need to try it. Your defense boils down to, "It works because I say it does, regardless of the math." I believe that trusting the science is smart, and not trusting the science is the definition of ignorant. I don't mean to offend you with that, but not trusting the proven mathematical description of reality is what the word means. You're ignoring reality on purpose.
44 replies and just one person, Boymimbo, has actually made an attempt to put this to the test.
And still, not one of you has even taken the time to give it a shot. If you had only invested the energy you chose to apply toward refuting my method (with no trials or experimentation to speak of!) into actually performing the progression, I'm sure each and every one of you would now be up at least ten units.
Just for s**ts and giggles, I offer you this challenge:
You and I are both given a $500 bankroll. Each time you play, you must follow the math and your own "theoretically-sound" notions of what constitutes a "smart" bet by wagering 100% of your bankroll on the Pass Line. I'm sure you will all agree that this is the best chance a player has to double his bank playing a game with a negative expected value. How could you argue against this? I, on the other hand, will play my own system. Each of us must play a total of 100 Comeouts. At the end, we will see who is ahead. No simulations, no theorization. Care to leave your bubbles and take me up on this for real?
I think what we're witnessing here is an encounter between egg-heads and actual pro gamblers.
Quote: sevenshooterI think what we're witnessing here is an encounter between egg-heads and actual pro gamblers.
If you are capable of discussing the subject at hand without resorting to insults, now would be a good time to start doing so.
If you wish to continue trolling, please do so at another forum.
Quote: JBQuote: sevenshooterI think what we're witnessing here is an encounter between egg-heads and actual pro gamblers.
If you are capable of discussing the subject at hand without resorting to insults, now would be a good time to start doing so.
If you wish to continue trolling, please do so at another forum.
Please show us evidence of my inappropriate behaviour and I will be happy to do so.
Is this an allusion to the term, "egg-head"?
Noun, 1. egghead - an intellectual; a very studious and academic person.
Or perhaps a reference to, "You must be blind, deaf and dumb to have not yet recognized the fact that I am not selling any system here."
Dumb, Adj. - Lacking the power of speech.
