Big losses
I have lost $8,000 over the past two weekends playing craps. $5 pass line, 10x odds, 2 $5 come bets with 10x odds. So I typically have up to $165 on the table. I play $1 Fire Bet on each shooter, sometimes $5 when I'm shooting. According to the Wizard of Odds site, craps with 10x odds give the house a .184% advantage. With no variance, if I wagered approximately $4.3 million dollars, my loss would approximate $8,000.
So how bad is my luck to have lost this much? How many standard deviations am I away from normal distribution?
Quote: HeadlockNo category for big losses, so I decided to use this one.
I have lost $8,000 over the past two weekends playing craps. $5 pass line, 10x odds, 2 $5 come bets with 10x odds. So I typically have up to $165 on the table. I play $1 Fire Bet on each shooter, sometimes $5 when I'm shooting. According to the Wizard of Odds site, craps with 10x odds give the house a .184% advantage. With no variance, if I wagered approximately $4.3 million dollars, my loss would approximate $8,000.
So how bad is my luck to have lost this much? How many standard deviations am I away from normal distribution?
How long were your sessions? The firebet has an edge of 20%, so you are giving up at least 20c for every firebet you make. The $15 in pass line come bets only gives up 21c.
If I assume 4 8 hour sessions, at 150 rolls per hour, you'll get 32 x 150 4,800 rolls. 1 in 9 will be come out rolls for a new shooter (give or take) : 533 in fire bets. Lets say 1 in 8 shooters are you, extra ~$300 in bets. = $833 in fire bets.
You get in resolution of a pass line for every 3.375 rolls = 1422 come outs. Lets double it for the come bets (you'll not always get three up). 2800 bets of $55 each. Total wager of 154,000. House took a whacking great 20% chunk of your stakes.
Hopefully you won your 3 card jackpot over the weekend?
Quote: rdw4potusAt $165/bet, 120 bets per hour, it would take about 220 hours to develop a $4.3MM handle. Over two weekends, I wouldn't think you'd actually play more than maybe, what, 20 hours? I won't attempt the standard deviation answer, but I can tell you definitively that your luck is very very bad to have lost this much.
Hopefully you won your 3 card jackpot over the weekend?
Thanks for remembering the 3CP question. My wife and I got to the casino about 10:30 Friday evening ready to play. The jackpot (which reached just over $24,000) had been won less than 2 hours before we got there.
Quote: HeadlockNo category for big losses, so I decided to use this one.
I have lost $8,000 over the past two weekends playing craps. $5 pass line, 10x odds, 2 $5 come bets with 10x odds. So I typically have up to $165 on the table. I play $1 Fire Bet on each shooter, sometimes $5 when I'm shooting. According to the Wizard of Odds site, craps with 10x odds give the house a .184% advantage. With no variance, if I wagered approximately $4.3 million dollars, my loss would approximate $8,000.
So how bad is my luck to have lost this much? How many standard deviations am I away from normal distribution?
You are misstating the house advantage--your odds bets don't count in that calculation. Pass line bets and come bets have a house advantage of 1.41%. The Fire bet is about 8% in favor of the house, so when you get that $165 on the table ($166, actually, with the Fire bet), the total negative EV for all your action is (15 x .0141)+ (.08), or about thirty cents. This is an amount per shooter, and assumes that you will get two come bets into play, which obviously doesn't always happen. So, looking at the negative EV of your play alone, your results should distribute themselves around an average modest loss.
However, that only refers to the middle of the bell curve. When your odds bets are so much larger than your pass line bets, you stretch that bell curve out dramatically. The highest point of that curve is above the same place on the line no matter what the size of your odds bets may be, but the flattened curve has many more "outliers", i.e., 2+ standard deviations to the right or left.
The point I'm trying to make is that your $8000 loss isn't all that unusual, given your action. You didn't actually supply enough information to answer your question about standard deviations, but I would guesstimate that you were about three standard deviations to the left, as in, this would happen about once every 100 sessions. But to be sure, we'd have to know just how long your sessions actually were.
Quote: thecesspitHow long were your sessions? The firebet has an edge of 20%, so you are giving up at least 20c for every firebet you make. The $15 in pass line come bets only gives up 21c.
If I assume 4 8 hour sessions, at 150 rolls per hour, you'll get 32 x 150 4,800 rolls. 1 in 9 will be come out rolls for a new shooter (give or take) : 533 in fire bets. Lets say 1 in 8 shooters are you, extra ~$300 in bets. = $833 in fire bets.
You get in resolution of a pass line for every 3.375 rolls = 1422 come outs. Lets double it for the come bets (you'll not always get three up). 2800 bets of $55 each. Total wager of 154,000. House took a whacking great 20% chunk of your stakes.
Thanks for the analysis. I did not play anywhere near 32 hours, so I conclude that my results were so poor as to be almost impossible.
This has nothing to do with my results (unless the casino was cheating), but when I was playing yesterday afternoon, the guy next to me was hopping the 7's for $3, $5 World, and $5 don't pass. If the World hit, he parlayed that to a horn bet, pressed the sevens if that hit. When a point was established, he took odds on the don't pass bet, then placed the other 5 numbers. He full pressed each number once, then took it down on the next hit. He was playing hardways, pressing them once. Sounds like a method to get action on every roll, but not necessarily make any money.
Well, as you can guess, he was making $100's of dollars while I was losing.
This was posted in the above thread by mkl654321.
"The "old-style" Vegas casinos had loaded dice that they could switch in and out of games (and for that matter, so did the players!), and most if not all casinos had one or more "bust-out" dealers who would be summoned into a game to quickly destroy a winning player. Practices such as these persisted well into the "corporate era", and the cheating floormen and dealers are now in upper management."
Could be your problem.
I play craps probably 8 hours a day on sat & sun, every weekend.
You play how I USED to play. I'd play a $5 pass with 345x odds, and a come bet with the same odds. I kept absolutely getting DESTROYED. Of course, my buy-in was only a few hundred, but it seems like I'd ALWAYS go bust before winning (my strategy was like yours, double-or-nothing)
Then I began to just watch the tables, rather than play...and it seems like no matter where I went, people would roll numbers, then 7-out (in other words, no repeaters)
So I began to just place 6 & 8, and that's it. Now, I get fairly good action, and I can usually make a profit or at least only lose half of my first bet.
Case in point, this weekend, I was over at Atlantis Casino in Reno...I was there about an hour, and everyone at the table was getting KILLED...load the bases with come bets, 7-out. This trend didn't bother me, because I was just playing my 6/8 and I'd at least get one hit (still losing, just not as bad)
So, in short, yes, 99% of crap tables are bad 99% of the time.
Quote: TIMSPEEDSo, in short, yes, 99% of crap tables are bad 99% of the time.
If by "bad" you mean you are playing with negative expectation at that table, then 100% of the tables are bad ... (unless you are past posting, or taking advantage of payout errors, or whatever else advantage play you are using).
--Dorothy
Assume minimum is $5. Put $5 with $25 odds. Get paid $30 on the odds and $5 on the put bet for a total of $35.
Place $30 gets you 5*7= $35. I don't know if once you put a put bet down if you can move it back to a place. I'm starting to think you can't, so you may only want to do this for >5X odds. I see people all the time placing $640 across at a $5 minimum table and I just cringe.
I like to make a Don't pass bet with $2x odds and put $6 or $12 (depending my mood) on the 6/8 and then just keep pressing it.
Worst case scenario, the person hits a few points without making any six or eights and then eventually 7's out(I also put a dollar on the fire bet). Today I was at the casino after work for less than 20 minutes. I stepped up, something like four 6's and 5 8's (never made the point of 5). Counted my money. I was up $150. Decided that $150 in 20 minutes was a pretty good wage.
Edit: This was written by a stupid person. Ignore it.
Quote: teddysI have been getting into craps more lately, trying out different betting systems with more action. I play $5 come bets every time with 5x odds on each--3x4x5x if that's what they offer. Last time I played I went down $650, then came back the next weekend and made it all back and more in one guy's roll. The first time I played that method I went down $1200, stayed and played until 7 AM the next morning, and made it all back again, and more. I could just have easily kept losing. I have an average of about $90 on the table at any time (say an average of 3 points established including the pass line). You are betting $166, plus your variance is higher because you are betting a bunch on the odds and not covering every number (that's not a bad method; it's just more volatile). My point is that craps with odds is HUGELY volatile. My experience is that if you play long enough, you WILL reach expectation, but it could take a while. I've been lucky enough to do it in a session or two. It might take you longer. But you WILL start getting your money back if you continue your play consistently. (Does that make me sound degenerate? I hope not.)
Nope. If he plays tomorrow, he starts at $0 profit loss and will trend towards the Expectation of the game. There's no reason he'll "make his money back". You are restating the gambler's fallacy by expecting the trend line to go any other direction that -1.41% on pass line bets.
Quote: thecesspitNope. If he plays tomorrow, he starts at $0 profit loss and will trend towards the Expectation of the game. There's no reason he'll "make his money back". You are restating the gambler's fallacy by expecting the trend line to go any other direction that -1.41% on pass line bets.
The breathtaking silliness of "you WILL start getting your money back" is the implication that being behind will make you more likely to start winning.
There is also a fundamental misunderstanding--a fallacy--in the statement "you WILL reach expectation". In point of fact, the Law of Large Numbers says that the longer you play, the LESS likely it is that your results will be the same as your mathematical expectation.
NO series of independent trials makes things "even out in the long run". This is why life is unfair, lightning hits the same guy twice, the Cubs will NEVER win a World Series even if Major League Baseball still exists when the earth spirals into the sun, and that guy in college who got laid ten times a week also married someone much hotter than your present spouse.
There's some crap tables that just CAN NOT make points. Now, you can't play the DON'T pass on these tables either, because the tables roll 7/11 on the come-out so much that it HURTS you, BEFORE you even get behind a number.
I've spoken with a few actual legimate craps professionals (people who make their LIVING off of playing craps)
and they play the doey-dont when they shoot, and just place bet on their signature numbers (or simply take the odds if their point is their signature number)
So, myself, I've began to do the same thing. I simply bet VERY conservative on "foreign" shooters, however, people that I know and see shoot week in and week out, I bet what I believe they're going to roll (heavy).
If you've read or spoke with Frank Scoblete, he himself does the same thing (bets small on other people, while bettign HEAVY on himself and people who he knows how they shoot)
Quote: TIMSPEEDExactly.
There's some crap tables that just CAN NOT make points. Now, you can't play the DON'T pass on these tables either, because the tables roll 7/11 on the come-out so much that it HURTS you, BEFORE you even get behind a number.
I've spoken with a few actual legimate craps professionals (people who make their LIVING off of playing craps)
and they play the doey-dont when they shoot, and just place bet on their signature numbers (or simply take the odds if their point is their signature number)
So, myself, I've began to do the same thing. I simply bet VERY conservative on "foreign" shooters, however, people that I know and see shoot week in and week out, I bet what I believe they're going to roll (heavy).
If you've read or spoke with Frank Scoblete, he himself does the same thing (bets small on other people, while bettign HEAVY on himself and people who he knows how they shoot)
I have never seen a crap table make a point. When I've been watching or playing, it's always been the shooter who does so. They may be making a crap table that throws it own dice though. I would expect it to cheat.
If there was such a table that "couldn't make points", but it rolled enough 7/11s on the come-out to "hurt you" if you played the Don't Pass, then logically, you could still win at that table by betting the Pass Line. All those 7s and 11s that "hurt" the Don't bettor, presumably to the point where he was losing, would result in enough wins on the come-out to make a profit for the Pass Line bettor even if "the table" never made a point.
The only "craps professionals" in existence are those who write How-2-Win books and manage to sell them.
If a person makes 345,602 passes in a row, his chance of making a pass on his next attempt is...slightly less than even money. Past results are NO indication of future results. Sorry, they aren't. No, they aren't. No, really. No. Sorry.
Frank Scoblete is a complete fraud, and as an authority, he ranks right up there with President Nutjob of Iran as an authority on Jewish history, or Mike Tyson on How To Control Your Temper. Sorry, it's true. Really. His books are a complete waste of time--and of course, he knows that. But a book that said "you can't beat casino craps" would only be one page long, and wouldn't sell very well.
How do you figure? I thought it was just the opposite.Quote: mkl654321There is also a fundamental misunderstanding--a fallacy--in the statement "you WILL reach expectation". In point of fact, the Law of Large Numbers says that the longer you play, the LESS likely it is that your results will be the same as your mathematical expectation.
Quote: TIMSPEEDExactly.
There's some crap tables that just CAN NOT make points. Now, you can't play the DON'T pass on these tables either, because the tables roll 7/11 on the come-out so much that it HURTS you, BEFORE you even get behind a number.
I've spoken with a few actual legimate craps professionals (people who make their LIVING off of playing craps)
and they play the doey-dont when they shoot, and just place bet on their signature numbers (or simply take the odds if their point is their signature number)
So, myself, I've began to do the same thing. I simply bet VERY conservative on "foreign" shooters, however, people that I know and see shoot week in and week out, I bet what I believe they're going to roll (heavy).
If you've read or spoke with Frank Scoblete, he himself does the same thing (bets small on other people, while bettign HEAVY on himself and people who he knows how they shoot)
Previously you stated you only bet the 6&8, now you state that you watch the shooters and follow the ones you know.
Which is it?
Quote: teddysOkay, maybe my original post was fallacious and over the top. I was speaking from experience rather than from a logical position. The OP is not more likely to win in the future than lose. But I still hold that he is more likely to perform better than he performed last time he played -- if only because his result was so horrendous. What do you suggest for the OP: stop playing and take the $8,000 loss, or continue playing the same way and maybe win some of the money back?
How do you figure? I thought it was just the opposite.
I guess I subscribe to the gamblers fallacy, explaining why I could lose as much as $5,000 in a weekend. I just can't believe that the bad luck will continue; there's got to be a winning session coming up.
I play craps almost every weekend. I have not won since the last weekend in June, when I came home a $200 winner. Since then I've lost $10,000.
Before these recent discussions about cheating, I really did not believe casinos in general were cheating. My contention was that it was unreasonable to believe casinos WOULD NOT cheat simply because they always have the house edge. Also, I believe current economic conditions increase the likelihood of cheating by casinos. Further, if there was cheating I would expect the casino employees on the floor would not be aware of it. If there was cheating, I would suspect it's perpetrated by management; the people you never see on the casino floor. And if there was cheating by the casino at craps, I think it would be a juiced table.
I'm out of time. Long post coming later on how I have convinced myself I have been cheated at craps.
Quote: teddysOkay, maybe my original post was fallacious and over the top. I was speaking from experience rather than from a logical position. The OP is not more likely to win in the future than lose. But I still hold that he is more likely to perform better than he performed last time he played -- if only because his result was so horrendous. What do you suggest for the OP: stop playing and take the $8,000 loss, or continue playing the same way and maybe win some of the money back?
How do you figure? I thought it was just the opposite.
It all depends. If he can't handle that 8,000 loss, then yes, he needs to cut his losses and work on making money the old fashioned way.
If he has another 8000 to lose, then yes, I would say he should try again or maybe tweak what he does if he doesn't like it. There seems to be some general consensus with craps that PL with 2 come bets with full odds is the best strategy. I would agree that it has a low house edge, but I don't know if that makes it best strategy. Most bests are resolved in an average of 4 rolls. More than not, a 7 causes the bets to be resolved.
I know that pressing your bets seems to be a bad strategy, however I would argue that on a hot roll, it can make you some real money.
It seems like I see it all the time (for what that's worth) that a person will throw a combination of 10+ 6/8's but never make a point.
In the end, I think people to need to realize that gambling is gambling, and you should never gamble more than you can afford to lose, and never chase your losses. Much better to cut your losses then chase your losses.
Three weeks ago I lost $2000 at the craps table. I was pretty disgusted. Didn't gamble for a week. Went back out with my friends and hit a 6-point firebet for $1,000. I can chalk that up there as dumb luck, because the results are definitely not typical. I probably made close to $350 on the roll alone, so I would have only been down 650. Instead of cutting my losses, I tried to make it back. Spent the next couple of days going up and down. At one point I was within $400 of my losses. The next night, I lost it all, plus another $1000. How do you think I feel now?
So just remember that.
Quote: mkl654321The breathtaking silliness of "you WILL start getting your money back" is the implication that being behind will make you more likely to start winning.
There is also a fundamental misunderstanding--a fallacy--in the statement "you WILL reach expectation". In point of fact, the Law of Large Numbers says that the longer you play, the LESS likely it is that your results will be the same as your mathematical expectation.
If we are talking that we are less likely to hit actual expectation numbers after starting $7500 below expectation, you are right. However, over time his relative expectation as a percentage will trend towards the -1.41% as over time the $8,000 in 2,700 rolls becomes a smaller and smaller part of the trend.
Quote:
NO series of independent trials makes things "even out in the long run". This is why life is unfair, lightning hits the same guy twice, the Cubs will NEVER win a World Series even if Major League Baseball still exists when the earth spirals into the sun, and that guy in college who got laid ten times a week also married someone much hotter than your present spouse.
There's a difference between averaging out and never happening. The Cubs never winning a World Series is different from them averaging 1/30th of the titles over the (very) long haul. A series of independent trials that is long enough will show odd results over a narrow period of those trials. Like losing $8,000 quickly, or the Cubs finally celebrating (or my own personal wish, the Detroit Lions getting to the big game).
Quote: thecesspitPreviously you stated you only bet the 6&8, now you state that you watch the shooters and follow the ones you know.
Which is it?
I only bet 6/8 on shooters I know who can make it. I will also SOMETIMES buy the 4 or 10 for $25 simply because I believe it's going to hit (that and they collect the vig after the win; which gives it only a 1.04% HA) But that's a very rare occasion (the one guy who I could almost gurantee to hit a 10 each time, I haven't seen in a few months)
For those people who are quoting the math on these games...you're the kind I like to have playing at my table...while I watch you go broke playing the "mathmatically good bets".
Quote: teddysOkay, maybe my original post was fallacious and over the top. I was speaking from experience rather than from a logical position. The OP is not more likely to win in the future than lose. But I still hold that he is more likely to perform better than he performed last time he played -- if only because his result was so horrendous. What do you suggest for the OP: stop playing and take the $8,000 loss, or continue playing the same way and maybe win some of the money back?
How do you figure? I thought it was just the opposite.
"Approach" mathematical expectation, but get farther and farther away from it in absolute terms. Flip a coin 100 times and the results might vary quite a bit from 50% heads and 50% tails. However, flip it a million times and the results will be much closer to 50-50 on a percentage basis, but the ABSOLUTE difference in the results will be far greater than whatever the difference was for the 100-flip trial, and that absolute number will continue to grow even as the absolute percentage converges on the expected result.
Quote: thecesspit
There's a difference between averaging out and never happening. The Cubs never winning a World Series is different from them averaging 1/30th of the titles over the (very) long haul. A series of independent trials that is long enough will show odd results over a narrow period of those trials. Like losing $8,000 quickly, or the Cubs finally celebrating (or my own personal wish, the Detroit Lions getting to the big game).
Of course. I was being facetious. The Cubs and the Lions will eventually win it all, SOMETIME. My point was that their past record of failure does not make them "due" in any way, just as a losing gambler doesn't accumulate psychic fate credits that make it more likely to win after a severe beating.
Actually, in the fullness of time, stretched out over infinity, the CUBS WILL WIN THE SUPER BOWL and THE LIONS WILL WIN THE WORLD SERIES! (no, that wasn't an error)
Quote: TIMSPEEDI only bet 6/8 on shooters I know who can make it.
You KNOW this? Why are you wasting your time here with us peons instead of being out there at the tables, cannily betting the minimum until one of those shooters comes along?
At the very least, you could write a book about your foolproof system and make gazillions THAT way.
(See: discussions on religion)
Quote: mkl654321"Approach" mathematical expectation, but get farther and farther away from it in absolute terms. Flip a coin 100 times and the results might vary quite a bit from 50% heads and 50% tails. However, flip it a million times and the results will be much closer to 50-50 on a percentage basis, but the ABSOLUTE difference in the results will be far greater than whatever the difference was for the 100-flip trial, and that absolute number will continue to grow even as the absolute percentage converges on the expected result.
So you're saying that the more and more you toss a coin the more and more it HAS to even out? What if you flipped it 1 million times and EVERY time it was heads...what would you do then? Flip it another million because it HAS to even out eventually?
Quote: TIMSPEEDSo you're saying that the more and more you toss a coin the more and more it HAS to even out? What if you flipped it 1 million times and EVERY time it was heads...what would you do then? Flip it another million because it HAS to even out eventually?
He's saying the complete opposite of that.
If we got a weird result and had a 900,000-100,000 split over a million tosses. Say the next million went 475,000-525,000. It's gone from 90/10 to ~55/45.
If I got a million heads in a row, I'd be reasonably sure I gaffed coin though.
Quote: mkl654321Of course. I was being facetious. The Cubs and the Lions will eventually win it all, SOMETIME. My point was that their past record of failure does not make them "due" in any way, just as a losing gambler doesn't accumulate psychic fate credits that make it more likely to win after a severe beating.
Actually, in the fullness of time, stretched out over infinity, the CUBS WILL WIN THE SUPER BOWL and THE LIONS WILL WIN THE WORLD SERIES! (no, that wasn't an error)
No worries, there was just a difference between 'not due to happen' and 'will eventually happen'. The Lions are about 50/50 to make a Superbowl in the next 25 years (I'd probably take the under on 25, just).
Quote: thecesspitIf I got a million heads in a row, I'd be reasonably sure I gaffed coin though.
What would you find more believable...someone throwing the dice 103 times before rolling a 7 (at all)
Or
someone rolling the exact same hard way, six times in a row.
OTOH: Graphs I've seen of many simulated craps rolls look like a sine wave: Down, down, down, then up, up, up. There is something to this that I either don't know the math of or can't get my head around.
Quote: teddysThis is all very informative. So the trials never approach equality, they just approach proportionality. Why is it never explained this way, seems so simple.
OTOH: Graphs I've seen of many simulated craps rolls look like a sine wave: Down, down, down, then up, up, up. There is something to this that I either don't know the math of or can't get my head around.
I agree that it is mysterious how this seems to be true, but can't be counted on.
When the market isn't behaving the way it "should", traders will trot out, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
Quote: teddysThis is all very informative. So the trials never approach equality, they just approach proportionality. Why is it never explained this way, seems so simple.
OTOH: Graphs I've seen of many simulated craps rolls look like a sine wave: Down, down, down, then up, up, up. There is something to this that I either don't know the math of or can't get my head around.
There's this statistical law called the Law of Large Numbers. I'm not as big a stat geek as others on the site, so correct me if I'm wrong ... which I most certainly will be.
The LLN says something like, over infinity trials, the average result will approach the expected result. A corollary is, the ratio of differences over events will approach zero.
For example, over a billion coin flips, the average result will approach the expected 50-50. Also, the ratio of differences (heads minus tails) over a billion will approach zero (from whichever side).
As best I understand things, the reason for the "down, down, down then up, up, up" sinewave you mention lies in the numerator of that ratio. In other words, say that over a billion flips, there are 500,001,000 heads and 499,999,000 tails. The result certainly approaches 50-50, and the ratio certainly approaches zero ( 2 / 100,000 ), but there's that difference of 2,000.
If you bet in sync with this 2,000, say, betting that a coin will land heads 2,000 times in a row, you will WIN. A. FORTUNE. On the flip side, if you bet on tails 2,000 times in a row, you lose a fortune.
Another way (as I understand it) is this: if you look at the result of a billion coin flips, you're almost certainly going to find a stretch of, say, 100 consecutive flips where the ratio is 10:1 heads. If you just so happen to bet in sync with this 100-in-a-billion stretch, you will WIN. A. FORTUNE.
100 flips seems like a lot, but in the big scheme, it's nothing. In other words, the "down, down, down, then up, up, up" only comes about because you're looking at an INFINITESSIMAL piece of the overall picture.
I once heard that the earth is smoother than a billiard ball. The only reason we think the earth isn't smooth is that we're too small to see how smooth it is.
Since I started playing $5+10x odds in craps, I am on a $6000 negative variance swing -- an obscenely cruel streak of cold tables. I mean, really, do I have to experience all the negative variance first? How about a positive swing to start out with once in a while? I need to start betting on Ahigh's rolls at Silverton ...
Quote: teddysAnd ... we have another loser!
Since I started playing $5+10x odds in craps, I am on a $6000 negative variance swing -- an obscenely cruel streak of cold tables. I mean, really, do I have to experience all the negative variance first? How about a positive swing to start out with once in a while? I need to start betting on Ahigh's rolls at Silverton ...
well, you know Wizard's commandment #3, Thou shalt expect to lose. Boy can it kick in when a guy has a bankroll that ... well, I can't assume that $6k is a big chunk of yours, but supposing it was, the Laws of That's Just How it Is mean the dice are going to go after it like crazy.
Since I just quoted the Wizard I should probably add that he does not endorse such superstitions as this last. [g]
Quote: teddysAnd ... we have another loser!
Since I started playing $5+10x odds in craps, I am on a $6000 negative variance swing -- an obscenely cruel streak of cold tables. I mean, really, do I have to experience all the negative variance first? How about a positive swing to start out with once in a while? I need to start betting on Ahigh's rolls at Silverton ...
sorry to hear that :(
i got lucky in getting positive variance b4 the negative came.
i started playing my new strategy of a single big Dont Pass. (ie: $25dp/150 odds)
I doubled my $1000 bankroll every session for a month. (1session a week.)
now i went bust every session for the past 3 sessions.
Quote: teddysAnd ... we have another loser!
Since I started playing $5+10x odds in craps, I am on a $6000 negative variance swing -- an obscenely cruel streak of cold tables. I mean, really, do I have to experience all the negative variance first? How about a positive swing to start out with once in a while? I need to start betting on Ahigh's rolls at Silverton ...
Sorry to hear about your mean streak teddys. I had a full year of losing sessions before I broke out with a huge win in Sept.
I am really starting to shy away from PL w odds bets, except when I am shooting. I'll take the extra hit on HE just to be able to Place/Buy the numbers that I want to play. After you keep seeing people going PSO, or tossing 4 throws and then SO, with no repeat numbers, those FREE ODDS don't seem so free.
Don't forget the power of positive thinking! When you are getting crushed every time, it is easy to come to expect your next session will also be a beating. But don't let it happen to you. Visualize yourself getting paid on your bets before you go to the casino. Visualize yourself completing a fire bet. Visualize your bankroll getting bigger. Visualize doubling your buy in. I am really starting to believe this makes a difference.
May the bones be with you.
:)
Quote: teddysUPDATE: All I can visualize is money going down the toilet...:)
Ah yes, Dame Fortuna can be such a cruel mistress.
I'd have dumped the fickle bitch long ago, except when she's hot, she's hot.
I had a $600 loss ($1100 session) in four hours a little over a month ago and I'll be getting back to the tables this weekend or next. You have me second guessing my decision, waiting another month to pad my bankroll a little bit more.
I play super-high variance, so I expect big losses. I just didn't expect this many in a row! I think you play slightly less, but still, be prepared.Quote: ahiromuYou guys are scaring me.
I had a $600 loss ($1100 session) in four hours a little over a month ago and I'll be getting back to the tables this weekend or next. You have me second guessing my decision, waiting another month to pad my bankroll a little bit more.
I'm taking a break for a while. Think my next session will wait until Nick gets on craps at XXXX Station. Maybe I can get him to overpay me some place bets ;)
Quote: teddysI play super-high variance, so I expect big losses. I just didn't expect this many in a row! I think you play slightly less, but still, be prepared.
I'm taking a break for a while. Think my next session will wait until Nick gets on craps at XXXX Station. Maybe I can get him to overpay me some place bets ;)
how is $3 flat/10x odds super high variance?
Quote: teddysAnd ... we have another loser!
Since I started playing $5+10x odds in craps, I am on a $6000 negative variance swing -- an obscenely cruel streak of cold tables. I mean, really, do I have to experience all the negative variance first? How about a positive swing to start out with once in a while? I need to start betting on Ahigh's rolls at Silverton ...
I feel you man...I love that when we were recently playing the dice at MSS, I decided that I was going to go "all in" - $5 Pass/Come with full 20X odds. And what was left of my buy-in was promptly eaten up even more quickly than before....
Quote: 100xOddshow is $3 flat/10x odds super high variance?
Maybe it doesn't make you a high roller, but any 10x game is high variance.
Maybe we have to assume he is a dice-slider instead [g]
So far many players dipping deep into the red thousands of dollars. Looks like 10s of thousands is not the needed bankroll,but it seems only the more lucky players are not getting killed at some point. EDIT: just started this and I take it back. 10s of thousands in bankroll needed per further experimentation. [just a few players so far]
