Sevenshooter's Ultimate Craps Strategy
February 8th, 2010 at 5:11:25 PM
permalink
Rescinded -- see below.
Last edited by: JB on Feb 9, 2010
February 9th, 2010 at 4:44:12 AM
permalink
Admin note: I have reopened this thread for further discussion.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:21:56 AM
permalink
I asked JB to reopen this thread. It is my opinion that free speech trumps trying to keep a leash on repetitive and argumentative posts.
When JB asked me what categories I wanted in the forum, I knew there should be one for betting systems. I know that if I didn't establish a little area for that topic, then discussion of that would pollute the entire forum. I've spent 13 years trying to debunk them, and don't know what more I can add. Here is what my Wizard of Odds site looked like 13' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://mathproblems.info/gambling/]13 years ago, where I address betting systems in second item in the table of contents.
Regarding the question, "Have you tried it?", my answer is of course not. Computer simulations have shown that no betting system can even put a dent in the house edge. One doesn't need to test every single possible system to prove they don't work. Of course they usually result in a session win, that is how they are usually designed, to trade lots of small wins for a huge few losses. However, I think sevenshooter and I would agree that if you must follow a system, at least use a free one. I think it is a good thing if the believers trade systems amongst themselves rather than support the ilk that sell them.
To those arguing against this system, of course you are right. However, you will eventually realize that the more ridiculous a belief, the more tenaciously it tends to be held. True system believers are hopeless, and it is a waste of time to argue with them. This post will be a rare exception where I even bother with the topic of betting systems. For those who wish to keep posting, have fun, and try to behave.
When JB asked me what categories I wanted in the forum, I knew there should be one for betting systems. I know that if I didn't establish a little area for that topic, then discussion of that would pollute the entire forum. I've spent 13 years trying to debunk them, and don't know what more I can add. Here is what my Wizard of Odds site looked like 13' rel='nofollow' target='_blank'>http://mathproblems.info/gambling/]13 years ago, where I address betting systems in second item in the table of contents.
Regarding the question, "Have you tried it?", my answer is of course not. Computer simulations have shown that no betting system can even put a dent in the house edge. One doesn't need to test every single possible system to prove they don't work. Of course they usually result in a session win, that is how they are usually designed, to trade lots of small wins for a huge few losses. However, I think sevenshooter and I would agree that if you must follow a system, at least use a free one. I think it is a good thing if the believers trade systems amongst themselves rather than support the ilk that sell them.
To those arguing against this system, of course you are right. However, you will eventually realize that the more ridiculous a belief, the more tenaciously it tends to be held. True system believers are hopeless, and it is a waste of time to argue with them. This post will be a rare exception where I even bother with the topic of betting systems. For those who wish to keep posting, have fun, and try to behave.
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
February 9th, 2010 at 6:30:59 AM
permalink
I ran two simulations using random dice rolls (no dice-setting).
The simulation ran a "game" of 100 come out rolls.
The "games" were then ran 10000 times, to give 10000 "net win/loss" results.
The 10000 results were averaged.
The averaged results were then produced 5 times.
The first simulation ran a flat-bet of $5 on the pass line, no odds.
The second simulation ran SevenShooter's "Oscar Grind", with $5 on the pass and $5 on the don't pass, and taking $5-$25 odds. The odds were the "wager", and could not exceed $25 (5x odds table).
The Oscar grind would reset at a win of >= $5, and would stop after 10 wins at that rate.
The Oscar grind would also stop if the loss was >= $250.
The Oscar grind also stopped after 100 come outs.
Here are the average results of net win/loss, produced 5 times each:
The % of negative outcomes in flat betting was slightly above 50%, with lower net losses.
The % of negative outcomes in the Oscar progression was slightly below 40%, but with higher net losses.
So, it seems that SevenShooter's method loses versus simple flat-betting on the pass line.
Before throwing out the argument of "dice setting would make it work", note that if dice setting is used, then BOTH methods would see an increase in winnings.
I would need probabilities of dice setting hitting certain numbers.
The above does not make sense to me. How can one set have 16 results, and the other 20 results? A better explanation of what faces are showing on the dice when they are set, as well as probabilities of the dice:
A) Staying on axis
B) Rotating at the same rate
would be needed.
The simulation ran a "game" of 100 come out rolls.
The "games" were then ran 10000 times, to give 10000 "net win/loss" results.
The 10000 results were averaged.
The averaged results were then produced 5 times.
The first simulation ran a flat-bet of $5 on the pass line, no odds.
The second simulation ran SevenShooter's "Oscar Grind", with $5 on the pass and $5 on the don't pass, and taking $5-$25 odds. The odds were the "wager", and could not exceed $25 (5x odds table).
The Oscar grind would reset at a win of >= $5, and would stop after 10 wins at that rate.
The Oscar grind would also stop if the loss was >= $250.
The Oscar grind also stopped after 100 come outs.
Here are the average results of net win/loss, produced 5 times each:
| Flat | Oscar |
|---|---|
| -5.842 | -12.470 |
| -5.943 | -12.510 |
| -6.165 | -9.896 |
| -6.606 | -10.860 |
| -5.917 | -13.207 |
The % of negative outcomes in flat betting was slightly above 50%, with lower net losses.
The % of negative outcomes in the Oscar progression was slightly below 40%, but with higher net losses.
So, it seems that SevenShooter's method loses versus simple flat-betting on the pass line.
Before throwing out the argument of "dice setting would make it work", note that if dice setting is used, then BOTH methods would see an increase in winnings.
I would need probabilities of dice setting hitting certain numbers.
Quote: SevenShooterWith 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.
The above does not make sense to me. How can one set have 16 results, and the other 20 results? A better explanation of what faces are showing on the dice when they are set, as well as probabilities of the dice:
A) Staying on axis
B) Rotating at the same rate
would be needed.
-Dween!
February 9th, 2010 at 6:58:33 AM
permalink
SevenShooter omitted the results of the other numbers, implying that they hit with the normal expected rate out of the 36 combinations.Quote: DweenQuote: SevenShooterWith 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.
The above does not make sense to me. How can one set have 16 results, and the other 20 results?
You'll note that the normal expected rate of 6, 7 and 8 is 16 out of 36. Seven is saying that the 'Flying V' also produces 16 out of 36, but not in the normal distribution. Ditto for the 20 out of 36 hits for the five numbers in the 'mini v'.
Both reduce the number of times a 7 is rolled. Personally, if it can really be done, that's all the probability info I need.
Even if the Flying V shaved the normal for 6, 7, 8 from 5, 6, 5 hits to 5.25, 5.5, 5.25, that's still a heck of an advantage. Seven says it gets shaved all the way down to 6, 4, 6 hits? My only response is, Seven, can we meet at a craps table some time?
I invented a few casino games. Info:
http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ —————————————————————————————————————
Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
February 9th, 2010 at 2:02:36 PM
permalink
Quote: WizardI asked JB to reopen this thread. It is my opinion that free speech trumps trying to keep a leash on repetitive and argumentative posts.
While I agree with this, the OP began to attack the posters rather than the posts. Thus, I think a thread closing was in order. I guess now that it seems things have cooled down reopening it makes sense, for the reason you stated above.
Although there is pretty much nothing left to say on the subject...
February 9th, 2010 at 2:15:29 PM
permalink
Quote: DweenThe first simulation ran a flat-bet of $5 on the pass line, no odds.
The second simulation ran SevenShooter's "Oscar Grind", with $5 on the pass and $5 on the don't pass, and taking $5-$25 odds. The odds were the "wager", and could not exceed $25 (5x odds table).
Thank you for taking a good look at this.
In the Grind, the odds wager does in fact exceed $25. Thus the player must increase the Doey-Dont's from one unit upwards and then takes appropriate odds behind the Pass.
What your simulation has achieved, essentially, is to kill the Grind. Besides, with a $5 bet on the Pass there is no way to take $25 odds behind when the point is 5/9 or 4/10. In most casinos, at least where I play, rules are 3x4x5x odds.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:35:26 PM
permalink
I altered the simulation so that the do/don't linebet will be increased by $5 if the odds could not be covered at a 5x odds table. This made the 5 average runs turn out worse...
The number of negative outcomes have dropped a few percentage points, but the losses are bigger.
I will still try to put dice setting probabilities into it, and gauge that against flat bet pass line wagers.
| Oscar (fix'd) |
|---|
| -14.403 |
| -14.109 |
| -11.774 |
| -16.696 |
| -12.674 |
The number of negative outcomes have dropped a few percentage points, but the losses are bigger.
I will still try to put dice setting probabilities into it, and gauge that against flat bet pass line wagers.
-Dween!
February 9th, 2010 at 3:43:30 PM
permalink
Hmmm...I knew upping the Doey-Don'ts would have an adverse effect on the outcome. You did allow for bets exceeding the $25 level, right? Otherwise, it's like shooting yourself in the foot.
Strange -- I've been fooling around on Bodog lately using this method and so far I've had fourteen consecutive wins of 10 units plus...Just dumb luck?
Interested in seeing the results with dice setting factored into the simulation.
If possible, please remember to use a No-12 preset for all comeouts.
Strange -- I've been fooling around on Bodog lately using this method and so far I've had fourteen consecutive wins of 10 units plus...Just dumb luck?
Interested in seeing the results with dice setting factored into the simulation.
If possible, please remember to use a No-12 preset for all comeouts.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:41:32 PM
permalink
What a thread!
edit#4
edit#4
winsome johnny (not Win some johnny)
February 9th, 2010 at 8:12:21 PM
permalink
Quote: 7crapsWhat a thread!
I was away for a few days and it looks like sharpshooters Oscar Grind do/dont odds bet really got folks going.
I used this exact method way back in the 90s and it worked very well for me.
It is a grind and most players do not like grinds. I currently use many types of betting strategies since ALWAYS betting the same bet over and over causes me to lose consistently even in the short run.
The problem I see is why on earth even share something that works for yourself with 100s or 1000s of people you do not even know?? I never tell anyone how and why I play. I let them figure it out for themselves.
If anyone wants to share their money making gambling strategy, start a website and have members pay for the info.
The "Wizard of Odds" here should be charging at least $20 a year for all of us to use this forum on his site. We can afford that. And I know he would appreciate the extra cash. He has a wife and kids. LOL. I'm sure it cost him good money to run it.
Sure would hate to see this craps playing strategy get out in the world and everyone plays it and makes the casinos change the way craps is played. No more betting both the pass and the don't at the same. Table maximums down to $100. Did not card counting change the way blackjack is now played?
We gamble then we enjoy life.
As you could tell, the overall reaction to my post could be summed up as disdainful disbelief.
No one even bothered to experiment with it because they considered it a foolish pipe-dream.
I've just won 10 units fifteen times in a row now online using play money and without dice control.
Furthermore, the gaming industry is more than incredulous about dice control, and this is why I'm still in the business of precision shooting.
As I mentioned previously, I do not condone taking advantage of people who are already the suckers of the casinos. There's no glory in that. I go for the casinos, themselves. So the system's free.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:14:37 PM
permalink
I've resimulated the Oscar Grind under this scenario, over 3,072 sessions of 200 come out rolls.
The system I've used is the following:
(1) Bankroll of 100 units.
(2) Start with a goal of winning one unit.
(3) Doey-Don't: Lose bet on a come out of 12. 2, 3, 7, and 11 results in pushes.
(4) Odds on Pass when point is made: 1 x bet, resulting in wins of 1.2 x bet (6 and 8), 1.5 x bet (5 and 9), 2 x bet (4 and 10). The point is lost if a seven is rolled before a roll.
(5) Keep the bet the same after a loss.
(6) After the win, add either 1 unit to the bet or change the bet to the bet required to meet the progression's goal of winning 1 unit.
(7) Fair dice. Odds of winning a point of 4 and 10 33.33%, 40% for a 5 and 9, and 45.454% for a 6 and 8). Odds of rolling a 12 at come out 1/36.
The results are the following:
Average loss per session: 10.71 units.
Ruin: 27.9% of sessions.
Average win when not in ruin: 23.77 units.
Here's yet another sample of my data. This system does not work. Certainly the system would have different results with different win goals, loss goals, and session lengths. But I cannot imagine a scenario that gives a winning situation short or long term.
The system I've used is the following:
(1) Bankroll of 100 units.
(2) Start with a goal of winning one unit.
(3) Doey-Don't: Lose bet on a come out of 12. 2, 3, 7, and 11 results in pushes.
(4) Odds on Pass when point is made: 1 x bet, resulting in wins of 1.2 x bet (6 and 8), 1.5 x bet (5 and 9), 2 x bet (4 and 10). The point is lost if a seven is rolled before a roll.
(5) Keep the bet the same after a loss.
(6) After the win, add either 1 unit to the bet or change the bet to the bet required to meet the progression's goal of winning 1 unit.
(7) Fair dice. Odds of winning a point of 4 and 10 33.33%, 40% for a 5 and 9, and 45.454% for a 6 and 8). Odds of rolling a 12 at come out 1/36.
The results are the following:
Average loss per session: 10.71 units.
Ruin: 27.9% of sessions.
Average win when not in ruin: 23.77 units.
Here's yet another sample of my data. This system does not work. Certainly the system would have different results with different win goals, loss goals, and session lengths. But I cannot imagine a scenario that gives a winning situation short or long term.
| Point | Result | Bet | Result | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -1 |
| 8 | Win | 1 | 1.2 | 0.2 |
| 5 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -0.8 |
| 5 | Win | 1 | 1.5 | 0.7 |
| 4 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -0.3 |
| 8 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -1.3 |
| 3 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -2.3 |
| 10 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -3.3 |
| 6 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -4.3 |
| 12 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -5.3 |
| 4 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -6.3 |
| 6 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -7.3 |
| 3 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -8.3 |
| 9 | Lose | 1 | -1 | -9.3 |
| 8 | Win | 1 | 1.2 | -8.1 |
| 6 | Lose | 2 | -2 | -10.1 |
| 10 | Lose | 2 | -2 | -12.1 |
| 6 | Win | 2 | 2.4 | -9.7 |
| 9 | Lose | 3 | -3 | -12.7 |
| 10 | Lose | 3 | -3 | -15.7 |
| 5 | Win | 3 | 4.5 | -11.2 |
| 5 | Lose | 4 | -4 | -15.2 |
| 10 | Lose | 4 | -4 | -19.2 |
| 9 | Lose | 4 | -4 | -23.2 |
| 8 | Lose | 4 | -4 | -27.2 |
| 10 | Lose | 4 | -4 | -31.2 |
| 9 | Win | 4 | 6 | -25.2 |
| 6 | Win | 5 | 6 | -19.2 |
| 12 | Lose | 6 | -6 | -25.2 |
| 8 | Win | 6 | 7.2 | -18.0 |
| 6 | Lose | 7 | -7 | -25.0 |
| 8 | Win | 7 | 8.4 | -16.6 |
| 6 | Lose | 8 | -8 | -24.6 |
| 9 | Lose | 8 | -8 | -32.6 |
| 8 | Win | 8 | 9.6 | -23 |
| 6 | Win | 9 | 10.8 | -12.2 |
| 9 | Lose | 10 | -10 | -22.2 |
| 4 | Lose | 10 | -10 | -32.2 |
| 9 | Lose | 10 | -10 | -42.2 |
| 9 | Win | 10 | 15 | -27.2 |
| 10 | Lose | 11 | -11 | -38.2 |
| 3 | Lose | 11 | -11 | -49.2 |
| 5 | Win | 11 | 16.5 | -32.7 |
| 6 | Lose | 12 | -12 | -44.7 |
| 8 | Win | 12 | 14.4 | -30.3 |
| 3 | Lose | 13 | -13 | -43.3 |
| 5 | Lose | 13 | -13 | -56.3 |
| 10 | Lose | 13 | -13 | -69.3 |
| 6 | Lose | 13 | -13 | -82.3 |
| 5 | Lose | 13 | -13 | Ruin |
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 9th, 2010 at 9:22:36 PM
permalink
(6) After the win, add either 1 unit to the bet or change the bet to the bet required to meet the progression's goal of winning 1 unit.
No. Never change the bet to meet the progression's goal of winning one unit unless you are decreasing and measuring out to a one unit win.
Always add one unit after a win and remain at that bet size even after a loss. Only reduce the bet size when you are in range of a win of one unit per progression. The Grind starts again with a one-unit bet.
Once again, thank you for taking a legitimate look at this method (without the dice setting).
No. Never change the bet to meet the progression's goal of winning one unit unless you are decreasing and measuring out to a one unit win.
Always add one unit after a win and remain at that bet size even after a loss. Only reduce the bet size when you are in range of a win of one unit per progression. The Grind starts again with a one-unit bet.
Once again, thank you for taking a legitimate look at this method (without the dice setting).
February 9th, 2010 at 9:27:31 PM
permalink
(6) meets that requirement. I do not change the bet after a loss. After a win, I increase the bet by one unit or change the bet to meet the 1 unit goal required (but never increase the bet by more than one unit).
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 9th, 2010 at 9:36:04 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimbo(6) meets that requirement. I do not change the bet after a loss. After a win, I increase the bet by one unit or change the bet to meet the 1 unit goal required (but never increase the bet by more than one unit).
Then I suppose I've just been lucky winning fifteen consecutive online sessions of more than ten units each...
Like I said, I've never lost using this method under real-world conditions. Perhaps then, the results of your simulation lend credence to the effectiveness of precision shooting.
I would be very much interested in a simulation running the exact same progression using the following presets:
1) No-12 Comeout Preset: Sixes on either side.
2) Flying V Preset: Used for points of 6/8 (5&1 face front; 3 and 3 in "V" formation on top)
3) Mini V Preset: Used for points of 5/9 and 4/10 (3&1 face front; 2 and 2 in "v" on top).
I appreciate you lending the skills that I myself lack. Perhaps we can all learn something from this after the dice setting sim results are released.
Thank you,
Sevenshooter :)
February 10th, 2010 at 6:16:50 AM
permalink
Quote: sevenshooter
1) No-12 Comeout Preset: Sixes on either side.
2) Flying V Preset: Used for points of 6/8 (5&1 face front; 3 and 3 in "V" formation on top)
3) Mini V Preset: Used for points of 5/9 and 4/10 (3&1 face front; 2 and 2 in "v" on top).
I appreciate you lending the skills that I myself lack. Perhaps we can all learn something from this after the dice setting sim results are released.
Thank you,
Sevenshooter :)
A preset does not determine a result. Only very skilled shooters can influence the dice. Therefore, you would need to tell me what the expected values of the dice are for each set. In otherwords, for each dice set, a table of results showing the number of each number thrown on each dice set based on your data.
But even an Oscar Grind with a ZERO house Advantage would result in ruin from time to time. In the table above, I have 14 wins and 36 losses. The odds of having fewer than 15 wins in 50 on a fair dice table is about 4.5%. The odds of having fewer than 15 wins in 50 in a dice toss is 0.13%. Generally, I "feel" that if you run into a streak of about 40 occurrences where you are only winning 1 of 3, you will be defeated by this system with a 100 unit bank roll.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 10th, 2010 at 6:44:28 AM
permalink
The chart above shows a 3 as losing, but it would push on the comeout roll. Reguarding oscars grind in a no house edge "coin flip", my sims show you will lose bankroll $x 1 in x+1 times
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
February 10th, 2010 at 9:03:56 AM
permalink
I added dice-setting probabilities to my simulations. This assumed dice control at a high level.
There is a 1/10 chance the roll is totally random.
There is a 3/10 chance the dice stay on axis, but rotate at different rates.
There is a 6/10 chance the dice stay on axis, and rotate together.
On come out, the dice are set for hardways. This may be slightly different that "Sixes on the outside", but the 12 is equally unlikely to show up.
If the point is 6/8, the 3V (aka flying-V) setup is used.
If the point is 4/5/9/10, the 2V (aka mini-V) setup is used.
This setup caused a disproportionately high number of wins. After running the events 3 times, the average wins were so close, I figured a 4th and 5th run would not be necessary.
Flat betting $5 on the pass line using the dice-setting caused an average win of $334 over 100 come out rolls.
The Oscar Grind, with $5 do and $5 don't, with a starting wager of $5 odds, caused an average win of $507. Note: I even lifted the restriction of 10 wins, to unlimited in 100 come outs.
Because the flat betting had no odds, it won less. So, I tried a flat bet of $5 with single odds. It had an average win of $829.
So, with dice-setting, here are the results I got:
So, it seems that the Oscar Grind does not benefit players when dice are random, nor when the are thrown by a super-expert dice setter.
There is a 1/10 chance the roll is totally random.
There is a 3/10 chance the dice stay on axis, but rotate at different rates.
There is a 6/10 chance the dice stay on axis, and rotate together.
On come out, the dice are set for hardways. This may be slightly different that "Sixes on the outside", but the 12 is equally unlikely to show up.
If the point is 6/8, the 3V (aka flying-V) setup is used.
If the point is 4/5/9/10, the 2V (aka mini-V) setup is used.
This setup caused a disproportionately high number of wins. After running the events 3 times, the average wins were so close, I figured a 4th and 5th run would not be necessary.
Flat betting $5 on the pass line using the dice-setting caused an average win of $334 over 100 come out rolls.
The Oscar Grind, with $5 do and $5 don't, with a starting wager of $5 odds, caused an average win of $507. Note: I even lifted the restriction of 10 wins, to unlimited in 100 come outs.
Because the flat betting had no odds, it won less. So, I tried a flat bet of $5 with single odds. It had an average win of $829.
So, with dice-setting, here are the results I got:
| Flat | Oscar | Flat+Odds |
|---|---|---|
| $334 | $507 | $829 |
So, it seems that the Oscar Grind does not benefit players when dice are random, nor when the are thrown by a super-expert dice setter.
-Dween!
February 10th, 2010 at 10:50:51 AM
permalink
Quote: DweenI added dice-setting probabilities to my simulations. This assumed dice control at a high level.
There is a 1/10 chance the roll is totally random.
There is a 3/10 chance the dice stay on axis, but rotate at different rates.
There is a 6/10 chance the dice stay on axis, and rotate together.
The issue with that is what happens to the dice after they bounce (yes they do) and hit the back wall (they should). That's why I doubt that the results above are realistic...
But a great analysis otherwise. This is the problem I have with "Advantage Craps players".
Why bother with the doey-don't if you know you can throw sixes and eights or fours and tens to your heart's content? If Seven's claim that he can hit the 4 and 10 with the same probability as the seven, why doesn't he just take a line of credit out against his house, hit the 200 or so craps tables in Vegas, buy the 4 or 10 for Purples ($500) take his 42.86% (39*.5 - 21*.5)/21 Player Advantage and run for the hills? That's an expected value of $214/resolved bet. Since a bet would be resolved in 6 rolls, that's an expected income of $3,571/hr.
On the other hand, do I believe that there are players who can truly manipulate the dice to get an advantage? Yes, I do. Is the advantage 43%? Very likely not... I think it's realistic that with lots of time, patience, classes, software, a home craps setup, and good physical skills, as well as a tendency not to become a problem gambler / drinker, you could probably get a 5-10% advantage. Is it worth it?
Are there players who have good luck at the tables with random rolling that over 10,000 rolls of the dice, they come out as if they are able to manipulate dice. Yes, probably about 10% of players have this luck, just as much as another 10% seem to seven out more than others. It's just the grand ol' binomial distribution at work. For example, to gain an advantage on 6 and 8, you simply need to throw a 7 1/36ths of the time less. So in 10,000 rolls, you should throw a 7 1,667 times. To get a zero house advantage on the 6 and 8, you throw the "Seven" 1,620 times or less on 10,000 rolls. The probability of doing this, randomly over 10,000 rolls, is 10.75%. So there are 11% of craps player, who, if they just bet the 6 or 8, will be winners over the long run.
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
February 10th, 2010 at 3:27:25 PM
permalink
Oscar's Grind is just one method of play out of a vast arsenal of strategies I employ at the craps table.
Thinking it over last night, it makes more sense to nix the Doey-Don't on the comeout. Better to use the All-Sevens preset with sixes on the sides. As long as the dice remain on axis, this ensures no roll of craps and high sevens.
Boymimbo:
"Why bother with the doey-don't if you know you can throw sixes and eights or fours and tens to your heart's content? If Seven's claim that he can hit the 4 and 10 with the same probability as the seven, why doesn't he just take a line of credit out against his house, hit the 200 or so craps tables in Vegas, buy the 4 or 10 for Purples ($500) take his 42.86% (39*.5 - 21*.5)/21 Player Advantage and run for the hills? That's an expected value of $214/resolved bet. Since a bet would be resolved in 6 rolls, that's an expected income of $3,571/hr."
Thanks for the tip! :)
Since no one here, nor anyone else in the gaming industry, has an ounce of faith in precision shooting, I feel it is safe for me to talk candidly about what I can do. As a teaser (and not that you even deserve it) I'm letting you in on a move that has never before been made public. It's quite surreal -- I can give away my biggest secrets and as you all consider me a, what was the word, "kook"?, I still have free license to chip away at the tables with an enormous edge. Life is funny.
Hard 6/8 Preset: 4&4 on top; 1&1 facing; 2&5 on sides
Bet $100 on Hard 6 (or Hard 8)
Lay $240 against the 6 (or 8)
4 Sevens; 1 Hard 6; 1 Hard 8; 1 Two; 2 Fours; 2 Fives; 2 Nines; 2 Tens; 1 Twelve
Calculate the edge on that!
Decided from now on to only reply to serious questions.
Thinking it over last night, it makes more sense to nix the Doey-Don't on the comeout. Better to use the All-Sevens preset with sixes on the sides. As long as the dice remain on axis, this ensures no roll of craps and high sevens.
Boymimbo:
"Why bother with the doey-don't if you know you can throw sixes and eights or fours and tens to your heart's content? If Seven's claim that he can hit the 4 and 10 with the same probability as the seven, why doesn't he just take a line of credit out against his house, hit the 200 or so craps tables in Vegas, buy the 4 or 10 for Purples ($500) take his 42.86% (39*.5 - 21*.5)/21 Player Advantage and run for the hills? That's an expected value of $214/resolved bet. Since a bet would be resolved in 6 rolls, that's an expected income of $3,571/hr."
Thanks for the tip! :)
Since no one here, nor anyone else in the gaming industry, has an ounce of faith in precision shooting, I feel it is safe for me to talk candidly about what I can do. As a teaser (and not that you even deserve it) I'm letting you in on a move that has never before been made public. It's quite surreal -- I can give away my biggest secrets and as you all consider me a, what was the word, "kook"?, I still have free license to chip away at the tables with an enormous edge. Life is funny.
Hard 6/8 Preset: 4&4 on top; 1&1 facing; 2&5 on sides
Bet $100 on Hard 6 (or Hard 8)
Lay $240 against the 6 (or 8)
4 Sevens; 1 Hard 6; 1 Hard 8; 1 Two; 2 Fours; 2 Fives; 2 Nines; 2 Tens; 1 Twelve
Calculate the edge on that!
Decided from now on to only reply to serious questions.
February 10th, 2010 at 4:03:33 PM
permalink
So, with dice-setting, here are the results I got:
Flat Oscar Flat+Odds
$334 $507 $829
So, it seems that the Oscar Grind does not benefit players when dice are random, nor when the are thrown by a super-expert dice setter.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Dween!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your written conclusion that Oscar does not benefit dice setters is confusing... According to your own results it clearly out-performs flat betting.
What your calculations demonstrate is that it really doesn't matter where on the craps board a precision shooter bets, as long as the wager coincides with the preset. Granted, some wagers are more profitable than others....
Flat Oscar Flat+Odds
$334 $507 $829
So, it seems that the Oscar Grind does not benefit players when dice are random, nor when the are thrown by a super-expert dice setter.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you, Dween!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your written conclusion that Oscar does not benefit dice setters is confusing... According to your own results it clearly out-performs flat betting.
What your calculations demonstrate is that it really doesn't matter where on the craps board a precision shooter bets, as long as the wager coincides with the preset. Granted, some wagers are more profitable than others....
February 10th, 2010 at 5:38:50 PM
permalink
Ok I finally got around to simming this. I simmed 1,000,000 final outcomes of winning atleat 1 unit, and a bankroll of 50 using doey/dont random shooter.
won: 946,914 total 1,731,643.5 ave win 1.8
lost: 53,086 total -2,460,136.2 ave loss -46.8
total: 1,000,000 -728492.7 ave -.7
won: 946,914 total 1,731,643.5 ave win 1.8
lost: 53,086 total -2,460,136.2 ave loss -46.8
total: 1,000,000 -728492.7 ave -.7
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
February 11th, 2010 at 6:58:50 AM
permalink
Quote: sevenshooterCorrect me if I'm wrong, but your written conclusion that Oscar does not benefit dice setters is confusing... According to your own results it clearly out-performs flat betting.
What your calculations demonstrate is that it really doesn't matter where on the craps board a precision shooter bets, as long as the wager coincides with the preset. Granted, some wagers are more profitable than others....
Well, yes, the Oscar Grind does out-perform flat betting under my simulation, but I find the reasoning to be because of the higher payouts. Your statement that "some wagers are more profitable than others" is where the results skew one way or another. Just like when I said "flat bets with single odds outperform Oscar's Grind," you could put up any series of bets with any series of theoretical dice-setting probabilities, and they would win at different rates.
I think perhaps arguing what betting method is best for a dice-setting situation is a moot point. If you can roll the dice with enough precision to affect the probabilities, then you'll win by betting the right spots.
I also believe that arguing that Oscar's Grind works for random dice rolls is ineffective. It, along with flat-betting, or flat-bets with single odds, all lose in the long run. Again, it's a matter of how much is bet and on what.
These simulations are also looking at average runs. Oscar's Grind may end up "winning" 5, 10, or 15 times in a row. So might "flat betting". It all depends on the semantics of the win/loss situations.
"I stop when I profit $10, or I stop when I lose $1,500. I have met my winning condition 30 times in a row, so it must be unstoppable!"
There are so many ways to word it, coating it with sugar, twisting it just right... but in the long run, the only thing we can do is get lucky when dealing with random probabilities.
-Dween!
February 11th, 2010 at 8:28:47 AM
permalink
If you could influence the dice so as to make the chance of hitting a point of 4 or 10 more likely, why not max out your odds when on those points? If you could turn a 2:1 underdog into an even money favorite and still get paid 2:1 odds ...
In regards to controlled dice shooting, I've worked at casino and have spent time in the crap pit. We don't bother the large majority of players who fail to "hit the back wall" but we all know about the guys who stand right next to the stickman, spend a solid minute arranging the dice and then just limp toss them as short as they can so they land well short of the pyramids on the back wall. Those shooters generally have two more rolls to correct their behavior before the bowl is dumped and we find a new shooter. Shooting the dice in such a way that would not attract this attention will always result in a fairly randomized roll as no "flying vee" will stay on axis after a tumble against the rubberized pyramids.
In regards to controlled dice shooting, I've worked at casino and have spent time in the crap pit. We don't bother the large majority of players who fail to "hit the back wall" but we all know about the guys who stand right next to the stickman, spend a solid minute arranging the dice and then just limp toss them as short as they can so they land well short of the pyramids on the back wall. Those shooters generally have two more rolls to correct their behavior before the bowl is dumped and we find a new shooter. Shooting the dice in such a way that would not attract this attention will always result in a fairly randomized roll as no "flying vee" will stay on axis after a tumble against the rubberized pyramids.
March 16th, 2010 at 10:18:03 AM
permalink
Quote: sevenshooter
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).
Right here, you are giving the casino an extra $.14 per decision, of course.
Quote: sevenshooterPoint: 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.
Oscar's Grind is actually made for an even-money-bet situation. When you use it to take odds on the right side, you increase the probability of consecutive losses very substantially.
Quote: sevenshooterTry 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.
So, you would stop after winning $100. You said to start with 100 units, so that would be $1000, but you recommend a "reasonable stop-loss", whatever that means, so why start with $1000? Over on "Gaming Guru" Larry Edell describes Oscar's Grind, using $5 passline bets. He recommends stopping after winning $250 or losing just $50.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
March 16th, 2010 at 12:37:56 PM
permalink
Quote: goatcabinOscar's Grind is actually made for an even-money-bet situation. When you use it to take odds on the right side, you increase the probability of consecutive losses very substantially.
I wrote a program to simulate Oscar's Grind, which is best defined this way:
rule #1 After a win, increase bet one unit
rule #2 After a loss, same bet
rule #3 Never bet more than enough to get a net win of one unit
Rule #3 trumps Rule #1
In my sim, the unit is $5 passline bet, the bankroll is $300 and the win goal is $100. The session is 60 bets, but never ends on a win. If the win goal is reached, save 80% of it and set a new win goal of 50% more.
I ran 100,000 such sessions. The bankroll was busted 13.9% of the time, and the win goal was reached 9.6%, so the session went to 60+ bets 76.5% of the time. When the session "went the limit" the average result was to win $25.
winning sessions: 68.9%
breakeven sessions: 1%
losing sessions: 30.1%
overall mean outcome was -$9.57, standard deviation $122, skew -1.36
The "Achilles Heel" of the Grind is a series of WLWLWL where you lose the increased bets.
I will try the doey-don't odds using the Grind next.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
March 16th, 2010 at 2:35:30 PM
permalink
Quote: goatcabinI wrote a program to simulate Oscar's Grind, which is best defined this way:
rule #1 After a win, increase bet one unit
rule #2 After a loss, same bet
rule #3 Never bet more than enough to get a net win of one unit
Rule #3 trumps Rule #1
The "Achilles Heel" of the Grind is a series of WLWLWL where you lose the increased bets.
I will try the doey-don't odds using the Grind next.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
OK, I ran 10,000 sessions using 7-shooter's Grind on the doey-don't with rightside odds.
The starting bankroll was $500 and the extendable win goal was $100. If it reaches the win goal, it makes a new win goal of another $50 and saves off 80% of the profit. The ending conditions are: 1) BR below $100 2) reach one or more win goals then lose back to the "floor" established by the 20% of the profit you're risking OR 3) 60 bets reached and lose a bet. Here are the results:
| parameter | |
|---|---|
| mean net result | -$13.79 |
| median net result | +$54 |
| mode of net result | +$80 |
| standard deviation | $167 |
| winning sessions | 6732 |
| breakeven sessions | 21 |
| losing sessions | 3247 |
| number of busts | 931 |
| lost more than $250 | 1232 |
| lost more than $100 | 1990 |
| won more than $100 | 1427 |
| won more than $200 | 53 |
| biggest win | $273 |
I put the output into Excel and had it draw a graph of the net outcomes. It has a very big "spike" right at +$80, where the "player" reaches the $100 win goal, sets a floor at $80 and loses the $20 risked. The best sessions (just six of them) reached four win goals.
So, this strategy seems to provide a pretty good chance to win $100, a 2:1 ratio of winning to losing sessions and less than a 10% chance to bust (I defined "bust" as not having $100 left, since when you get down that far it's usually because you have just lost a large bet, so your next bet will also be large. You're putting $20 on the doey-don't and if you're at more than 4X odds, you can't follow the progression.
Of course, you need a casino allowing high odds multiples to do this. One thing I didn't keep track of, which I will add later, is the maximum odds multiple reached.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
March 16th, 2010 at 2:44:07 PM
permalink
Here are a couple of quotes from this thread:
"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."
"None of my students has ever had a losing session"
So, do you teach your students for free, in order to "give a little back to the community"?
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"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."
"None of my students has ever had a losing session"
So, do you teach your students for free, in order to "give a little back to the community"?
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
March 16th, 2010 at 3:06:28 PM
permalink
Are you trying to "goat" a comment Alan?
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
March 16th, 2010 at 7:09:56 PM
permalink
The reason Oscar never lost was a large bankroll, the willingness to use it, and a small opening bet. 99.99% of gamblers or maybe more, are not that patient. I'll take Julian Braun's sims over those posted here. And then factoring in the variance, it seems very conceivable that he never lost.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
March 17th, 2010 at 7:03:35 AM
permalink
I would like suggest a fourth type of person. Someone who knows betting systems wont work in the long term because of the house edge, but might like to use them for either bankroll management, or to vary their gambling for entertainment.
[This space is intentionally left blank]
March 19th, 2010 at 6:41:09 PM
permalink
Quote: sevenshooterI 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. :)
So that would require a table limit of $5000. Did Julian Braun simulate the doey-don't plus odds?
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
March 19th, 2010 at 6:43:03 PM
permalink
Quote: sevenshooterThank you for taking a good look at this.
In the Grind, the odds wager does in fact exceed $25. Thus the player must increase the Doey-Dont's from one unit upwards and then takes appropriate odds behind the Pass.
Of course, that means increasing the expected loss, doesn't it?
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
March 19th, 2010 at 6:53:30 PM
permalink
Quote: DeMangoThe reason Oscar never lost was a large bankroll, the willingness to use it, and a small opening bet. 99.99% of gamblers or maybe more, are not that patient. I'll take Julian Braun's sims over those posted here. And then factoring in the variance, it seems very conceivable that he never lost.
Are you familiar with Julian Braun's sims? Did he actually simulate the doey-don't with odds combined with Oscar's Grind? On another post, SevenShooter said s.t. about Braun's simulation using a table maximum 500 times greater than the minimum, but he didn't mention what the bankroll was. It is unlikely that Braun's sims are actually relevant to the question here.
BTW, in my sim the odds went up to 20X at the highest, so the better was laying $400. At a table not allowing more than 3, 4,5X, you would have to increase the flat bet, adding to the expected loss in doing so.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
March 20th, 2010 at 8:41:16 AM
permalink
No, I was simply talking about pass line only, not the doey-don't and certainly not adding odds. It was a simple system and it worked, for him anyway.
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
March 20th, 2010 at 8:57:26 AM
permalink
Quote: DeMangoNo, I was simply talking about pass line only, not the doey-don't and certainly not adding odds. It was a simple system and it worked, for him anyway.
Worked for whom? Are you now talking about "Oscar"? I was asking about Julian Braun's simulation(s). You touted them over mine and others' here, but I want to know the details of Braun's.
Thanks,
Alan Shank
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
March 20th, 2010 at 10:55:31 AM
permalink
I read this several years ago. Just now googled "Oscars Grind Julian Braun" Here is one quote taken from an article on progressions by Mike Lea;
Oscar's Grind
Oscar's Grind may be the ultimate in maximizing the number of small wins in relation to the large losses. The originator, only known as Oscar was a craps player who told reporters he gambled a lot and had never had a losing trip. This is not inconceivable. According to Tom Ainsley (and much of this discussion has come from Mr. Ainslie's "How to Gamble in a Casino") Julian Braun's computer studies showed the prababilites a house limit when the limit was 500 times the smallest allowable bet would only be once in 4,250 sessions. Braun's calculations also showed that bucking a $1.00 to $500.00 house limit, the average loss (because the progression would reach the house limit) would be over $13,000.00
Oscar's Grind
Oscar's Grind may be the ultimate in maximizing the number of small wins in relation to the large losses. The originator, only known as Oscar was a craps player who told reporters he gambled a lot and had never had a losing trip. This is not inconceivable. According to Tom Ainsley (and much of this discussion has come from Mr. Ainslie's "How to Gamble in a Casino") Julian Braun's computer studies showed the prababilites a house limit when the limit was 500 times the smallest allowable bet would only be once in 4,250 sessions. Braun's calculations also showed that bucking a $1.00 to $500.00 house limit, the average loss (because the progression would reach the house limit) would be over $13,000.00
When a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that yells the loudest is the one who got hit.
March 20th, 2010 at 12:28:23 PM
permalink
Quote: DeMangoI read this several years ago. Just now googled "Oscars Grind Julian Braun" Here is one quote taken from an article on progressions by Mike Lea;
Oscar's Grind
Oscar's Grind may be the ultimate in maximizing the number of small wins in relation to the large losses. The originator, only known as Oscar was a craps player who told reporters he gambled a lot and had never had a losing trip. This is not inconceivable. According to Tom Ainsley (and much of this discussion has come from Mr. Ainslie's "How to Gamble in a Casino") Julian Braun's computer studies showed the prababilites a house limit when the limit was 500 times the smallest allowable bet would only be once in 4,250 sessions. Braun's calculations also showed that bucking a $1.00 to $500.00 house limit, the average loss (because the progression would reach the house limit) would be over $13,000.00
So this has basically nothing to do with the actual subject of this thread, which is Oscar's Grind using the doey-don't and odds, with a much more limited bankroll. I don't think Braun's sim is relevant at all. I stand by my sim as it relates to this issue.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Cheers,
Alan Shank
"How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
May 23rd, 2010 at 4:35:03 PM
permalink
You get what you pay for. Nothing. That is what this information is worth. End of thread.
May 23rd, 2010 at 4:53:28 PM
permalink
well, it does have some entertainment value, albeit very limited
winning streaks come and go, losing streak never ends.
May 24th, 2010 at 2:57:04 PM
permalink
Three things:
1) This thread was fascinating even before the Wizard chimed in.
2) The Wizard is the MAN for his actions in the spirit of free speech.
3) You're all a bunch of egg heads and I wouldn't know how to gamble without you, betting-system freaks included.
1) This thread was fascinating even before the Wizard chimed in.
2) The Wizard is the MAN for his actions in the spirit of free speech.
3) You're all a bunch of egg heads and I wouldn't know how to gamble without you, betting-system freaks included.
