Math Boys and simulations (including the Wizard) VS. the Real Craps players and reality!

from this thread that is being hijacked
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/10806-how-many-come-bets-are-optimal/

Try to keep the topic the same
Lets not have this thread hijacked by Dice setters.

Quote: 4andaKicker

I think you miss my point. The long term results are meaningless when you arrive to play a short term session. The dice have no memory right? They don't remember that you had good or bad results last time. There is no way to validate that you will do better or worse in a given set of results to eventually reach an average because you may never play enough to reach that point...good or bad. You can be sitting at a VP machine and have perfect play, great pay table, etc. etc., and lose your ass while someone next to you who has virtually no conception of how to play properly hits 2 Royals in half an hour. I agree with what the Wizard says about betting systems: they're all equally worthless. You can make almost any style of betting payoff in Craps if you have enough bankroll and want to run a million simulations and cherry pick the results. That's how people sell systems isn't it?

Strictly speaking, simulations AREN'T reality. They are a computer generated approximation of real world results and that's it. Real dice aren't being rolled, real cards aren't being dealt. Real human error isn't being factored in, but it's always there in real play. You trust that simulations are accurate, but flaws in the programming platforms have been discovered with relation to how RNG routines work in simulations and errors by programmers happen all the time. In the real world, people usually move when they've been getting a bad beat and play at a different table. Simulations just assume that makes no difference so there really is no emulation of that process. Does it make a difference? Would you agree that the sequence of rolls will be different from one craps table to another in the same period. I think you would. I saw a dealer get 5 blackjacks in a row one time. No one stayed at that table. But the simulator would just play on.

The average number of rolls to see a 7 is 6. This makes perfect mathematical sense because 6/36 possible rolls are 7s. How could the average number of rolls before a 7 is rolled not be equal to the Come Out roll plus 5?? That would be 6 total rolls. How can that not be correct? So, in the real world, you are on the plus side of the average after that fifth roll (after the Come Out) and are beginning to push your luck so to speak with regard to the average. I know, you would say that you should play as if a 7 will never come but the fact is it will always come. So doesn't it make sense to begin scooping bets in after that many rolls, or just to maintain a couple of favorable points rather than piling on and on to guarantee the maximum possible loss when the inevitable 7out happens?

Given that the Come Out roll wasn't a seven (or eleven, or craps), the average number of rolls after to see a seven is still six. Since we already know it's not a seven, there's no reason to subtract it.

"Piling on and on" will guarantee the maximum possible loss, but also the maximum possible wins, and they will, minus the house edge, exactly cancel. It's all about what you're willing to lose when the seven hits - if it hit every twelfth roll, or every fiftieth, it wouldn't matter to the number of bets you should make, which should only be made bearing in mind that it will hit.

Changing tables probably doesn't matter. The dice and tables have no memory; the casino keeps track of these things, and when they appear not to be true, in the real world, they make changes, and more often than not someone ends up in court.

Quote: 4andaKicker

Strictly speaking, simulations AREN'T reality.

They are a computer generated approximation of real world results and that's it.

Real dice aren't being rolled, real cards aren't being dealt.
Real human error isn't being factored in, but it's always there in real play.

You trust that simulations are accurate, but flaws in the programming platforms have been discovered with relation to how RNG routines work in simulations and errors by programmers happen all the time. In the real world, people usually move when they've been getting a bad beat and play at a different table. Simulations just assume that makes no difference so there really is no emulation of that process. Does it make a difference? Would you agree that the sequence of rolls will be different from one craps table to another in the same period. I think you would. I saw a dealer get 5 blackjacks in a row one time. No one stayed at that table. But the simulator would just play on.

Wow!
The truth is... Computer simulations ARE reality.

You are just one of a handful of doubters, the minority, that believe that way for what ever reason, empirical I am to guess.

But, You just love to slap the Wizard right in his face with every breath you take!
Great stuff.

Too bad for you it is all false, I did not read all of it,

You are a classic "playing scared' gambler. I like that line.

See, what a computer can't do is run a simulation in "scared mode".

You play scared so you turn chicken and want your bets down or off or what ever when you start to feel funny in your stomach.

Sorry dude, you got me on that one.
Not even the mighty Wizard himself can program a computer to remove bets when that "feeling" bites you.

continue playing scared, I love the entertainment value.

Computers rule, players only suck on straws

Hey, Math Gurls Rock!
Just ask the Wizard ;)

Quote: 4andaKicker

Strictly speaking, simulations AREN'T reality.

yes, silly, they are reality.

Quote: 4andaKicker

They are a computer generated approximation of real world results and that's it.

their approxamations from a simulation are way more accurate than any HUMAN, that includes you and me, can come up with.

Quote: 4andaKicker

Real dice aren't being rolled, real cards aren't being dealt.

That is the trick.
They do not have too. That makes them even more powerful than a human.

Quote: 4andaKicker

Real human error isn't being factored in, but it's always there in real play.

Sure it can be factored into a simulation. Just makes for more coding.

Hunches and funny feelings can not.

Quote: 4andaKicker

You trust that simulations are accurate, but flaws in the programming platforms have been discovered with relation to how RNG routines work in simulations and errors by programmers happen all the time.

Silly
Errors do not happen ALL the time.
This world be be in an awful mess if errors happened ALL THE TIME.

Quote: 4andaKicker

In the real world, people usually move when they've been getting a bad beat and play at a different table.

Easily simulated.
Simple line of code does the trick.
Player suffers bad beat "A2" move to another table and keep playing.

Quote: 4andaKicker

Simulations just assume that makes no difference so there really is no emulation of that process. Does it make a difference?
Would you agree that the sequence of rolls will be different from one craps table to another in the same period. I think you would. I saw a dealer get 5 blackjacks in a row one time. No one stayed at that table. But the simulator would just play on.

The sequence of events are different, but after about 100 events or so, either back to back in sequence or one here and twelve there and 25 next week and 33 next month...
they are looking very normal.

The math and computer simulations shows what to expect from any number of bets under any number of situations, all at the same time even.
A human can not do that error free.

X result plus or minus A 68% of the time.
Learn about the normal distribution, it really is easy.
You bring up good points, but only show one side of the coin.

I think with a little effort you would be a great math student.
But then again, you may already have all the answers you need, even if they are not the correct ones, but you think they are..

Math Gurls and Computer simpuations Rock!
Sally M

The fact is, I am a certified computer programmer. When I say that programming errors happen all the time, I don't mean that literally. I mean that I have never examined a full application and not found errors in the code. They happen on a regular basis because the review of code is very often done by people with less expertise than those who originally wrote it.

Because I know the potential exists to make quite meaningful errors in coding that are not caught before production, and sometimes not for years after, I am a bit leery about fully trusting simulations to do a near perfect job of performing to accurately duplicate the real world. You say modifications can easily be made to make the simulation more "human" in the process, but has that been done in the cases we are talking about?

I don't believe I said anything relating to hunches or bad feelings. I tried to relate a strategy to a factual average. And I'm being ridiculed for it. I even have people arguing that 7s don't come out 1/6 once the come out roll is made the fraction somehow changes to 1/8.5.

I do think computer simulations are a good representation of potential results. But I'm not convinced they are super accurate to perfection. I do appreciate your compliment about my possiblities as a Math student. I have tremendous respect for people with that expertise. My expertise is in logic, verbal and written communications, and so I guess I made sort of an unlikely programmer. But I have been very successful at it for a long time, so I learned enough to be supervising the pups these days.

Quote: 7craps

Wow!
The truth is... Computer simulations ARE reality.

You are just one of a handful of doubters, the minority, that believe that way for what ever reason, empirical I am to guess.

But, You just love to slap the Wizard right in his face with every breath you take!
Great stuff.

Too bad for you it is all false, I did not read all of it,

You are a classic "playing scared' gambler. I like that line.

See, what a computer can't do is run a simulation in "scared mode".

You play scared so you turn chicken and want your bets down or off or what ever when you start to feel funny in your stomach.

Sorry dude, you got me on that one.
Not even the mighty Wizard himself can program a computer to remove bets when that "feeling" bites you.

continue playing scared, I love the entertainment value.

Computers rule, players only suck on straws

I haven't made any reference to the Wizard being wrong whatsoever. You have absolutely no concept of how I play live in a casino and I would appreciate you not making any slanderous assumptions about that.

I'm not a "dude". If you want to call me something, how about "sir"?

I never said anything about "feelings" or "starting to feel funny in your stomach". Those are your empty statements not mine.

I'm still waiting for you to defend yourself and show how the law of averages gets changed for the come out roll to make 7s a 1/8.5 average. What? Nothing to say? Crickets...

Quote: 4andaKicker

I don't believe I said anything relating to hunches or bad feelings.

Then you should know.
I brought up hunches and feelings because many, many, many, many, many...

did I say many,

gamblers play by hunches and feelings.
I see it all the time and ask them why did they do that?

They raise their bet because they "feel" lucky. or something to that effect.

You and I both know we can not program a computer to do something different when we feel lucky.

But as to modeling (?) the real world casino games by a computer,
that is so easy to accomplish with error rates lower than .000001


AS to the OP's original question in this thread,
about optimal number of come bets, I also agree there is no optimal number.
Do what your bankroll and bets can afford.
In order to do that, you need to learn the math behind the bets you are making.

Some play just to have fun and stay at a table for 4 hours.
A $300 bankroll making pass/come bets with 345X odds will not make that player happy most times.

IF one asks the optimal way to play craps, he would still have to state that might mean winning the most and losing the least, that can be also answered.

I freak out just making a $5 pass line bet.
Yes, I play scared. But I really only buy-in for $20.
I guess I have a lot of learning to do.

Sally

Dude... if you think that a seven coming on average every sixth roll means that it will follow a point, on average, after five, programming a computer might not be the best line of work. That's a classic gambler's fallacy, which translates into all sorts of probabilistic messes in the real world as well as the casino. When you say "the fraction somehow changes to 1/8.5," I assume you're referring to the people who quite sensibly point out that, excluding come-out rolls, a seven will come on average once every 8.5 rolls. Those people are right. You're wrong. When you have something that occurs one roll in six, and don't count all occurrences, you get a number less than 1/6. Somehow.

The reason computer simulations match reality is that they match a simple mathematical model, and the casino is doing everything in its power to make its reality match that model, since on that model their bottom line rides. If it doesn't match the simulations, the casino has a problem.

Quote: 24Bingo

Dude... if you think that a seven coming on average every sixth roll means that it will follow a point, on average, after five, programming a computer might not be the best line of work. That's a classic gambler's fallacy, which translates into all sorts of probabilistic messes in the real world as well as the casino. When you say "the fraction somehow changes to 1/8.5," I assume you're referring to the people who quite sensibly point out that, excluding come-out rolls, a seven will come on average once every 8.5 rolls. Those people are right. You're wrong. When you have something that occurs one roll in six, and don't count all occurrences, you get a number less than 1/6. Somehow.

The reason computer simulations match reality is that they match a simple mathematical model, and the casino is doing everything in its power to make its reality match that model, since on that model their bottom line rides. If it doesn't match the simulations, the casino has a problem.

I think you misunderstood my whole premise because of the question in the other thread related to Come bets and you need to establish a point before Come bets are played. Please check my post in the original thread about this because I was necessarily excluding the Come Out rolls of 2,3,7,11, 12 for the purposes of answering that question.

As far as you insulting my programming skills, I really couldn't care less what you think. I'm quite successful in my line of work and they wouldn't be having me vet other people's work if I didn't have the skills to pay the bills.

If what we're talking about is, as it seems to be, how many rolls after a point is established until, on average, a seven comes up, the answer is six, not five, because the point has already been established. You keep saying "five," and that's the gambler's fallacy. My defense of the number 8.5 does seem to be based on this misunderstanding, but the statement you've made several times in both threads - that the come-out roll counts as one of the six, so a seven will come in five rolls on average - is fallacious.

And again, it doesn't matter if it's five, six, or a hundred, since the clock resets with every roll.

Quote: 4andaKicker

I do think computer simulations are a good representation of potential results. But I'm not convinced they are super accurate to perfection.

Almost every statistical simulation is a far(!) better approximation to the game than the physical implementation on the floor. How often do you see stories of misspays ? Look at this forum, you will find tons of them.

Physical dices or cards are never perfectly unbiased. Dices have different pips on each side which makes them intrinsically unsymmetric and thus potentially biased.

Face cards have different printings than non-face cards which may make them heavier. Since they have a different color they even may acquire a different temperature when exposed to the floors light. Heavier or stickier cards perform different when shuffled...

All of those tiny details will influence the game more than the difference of two different numeric-statistical implementations of the game.

I would just like to point out that after the point is made, the chances of rolling three more numbers before a seven rears it's ugly head is less than 50%.

I think it was much ado about nothing as far as the number of rolls before 7out. I was only interested in measuring from the point established because no Come Bets could be made before then. The rest of the group was referring to the number of rolls from the Come Out. You can make 30 rolls before a point is established, but that had no bearing on the Come Bet question. I stick to my guns and say it is a total of six rolls I've been talking about and the only argument has been the perspective taken on when I started the count. Point establishment roll is roll one. And no Come Bet is made until the next roll. I stated you would see the 7out on average on or before 5 more rolls. That's 6 in total. Everyone agrees a 7 comes 1/6, so there really is nothing to argue about. I'm finished here.

Quote: 4andaKicker

I think it was much ado about nothing as far as the number of rolls before 7out. I was only interested in measuring from the point established because no Come Bets could be made before then. The rest of the group was referring to the number of rolls from the Come Out. You can make 30 rolls before a point is established, but that had no bearing on the Come Bet question. I stick to my guns and say it is a total of six rolls I've been talking about and the only argument has been the perspective taken on when I started the count. Point establishment roll is roll one. And no Come Bet is made until the next roll. I stated you would see the 7out on average on or before 5 more rolls. That's 6 in total. Everyone agrees a 7 comes 1/6, so there really is nothing to argue about.

I'm finished here.

You gots your facts all out of whack. You keep changing your statements.
The proof is in your writings but your selective memory has let you down.

You started by making a FALSE statement
August 1st, 2012 at 2:13:53 PM
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/10806-how-many-come-bets-are-optimal/2/#post168934
"I think the good reason to stop at 3 Come bets, and just maintain that number as they roll in is because the average number of rolls to a sevenout is 5"

You were told and shown why that number is wrong and you continue to believe only yourself.
Then you state not to count the first roll.

August 2nd, 2012 at 10:26:35 AM
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/10810-math-boys-and-simulations-including-the-wizard-vs-the-real-craps-players-and-reality/2/#post169140
"And no Come Bet is made until the next roll. I stated you would see the 7out on average on or before 5 more rolls. That's 6 in total. "
This is still an error.

But in another post in this thread you say this, and this is different from all your other "points"
"Please check my post in the original thread about this because I was necessarily excluding the Come Out rolls of 2,3,7,11, 12 for the purposes of answering that question. "


We all lost credibility in any of your statements after your classic 8.5 rolls can not be an average statement.
August 1st, 2012 at 5:28:10 PM
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/10806-how-many-come-bets-are-optimal/4/#post169000
"You have to be kidding me!! You really seriously want to argue that a 7 doesn't come out once every 6 rolls on average no matter what? The average number of rolls to hit a 7 can never be more than 1/6. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Fair dice will yield 7 one time out of 6. It doesn't matter where in the sequence of things you want to look, the average number of trials to get the roll will never change. How do you reason that the 7out won't happen on average by the 6th roll. That's all I'm saying.

There is no "8.5" rolls. How do you make half a roll? But I'd be most intrigued if you could explain how the dice are immune to the Law of Averages once one takes them up for the Come Out roll. Somehow the chance is less than 1/6 then and in fact goes to 1/8.5. Wow, interesting!"



Well, now we should really only be concerned about counting the "point" rolls per shooter.
These are the only rolls a come bet can be made on. A non-come out roll.
I really think this is what you want.
6 rolls on average is the answer.
It comes from the average number of rolls per shooter 8.5 and
The average number of come out rolls per shooter 2.5

or exactly (watch out, math coming!!!!!)
(1671/196) - (495/196) = 6
But that is only the average
The median (the 50% mark) is only 4 point rolls before the 7out
But 1 in 10 shooter make 14 or more point rolls where a come bet can be made.
It is these longer rolls that make up for the shorter rolls by coming every roll.

shooter point rolls before 7out (# or rolls a come bet can be made)	relative	cumulative
1	0.166666667	0.166666667
2	0.138888889	0.305555556
3	0.115740741	0.421296296
4	0.096450617	0.517746914
5	0.080375514	0.598122428
6	0.066979595	0.665102023
7	0.055816329	0.720918353
8	0.046513608	0.767431961
9	0.03876134	0.806193301
10	0.032301117	0.838494417
11	0.026917597	0.865412014
12	0.022431331	0.887843345
13	0.018692776	0.906536121
14	0.015577313	0.922113434
15	0.012981094	0.935094528

The math for this table is very simple.
First column
(1/6)*(5/6)^N-1
Second column is just the totals of X and less.
There is a simple formula for that too (column 2 cumulative).
1 - (5/6)^N

==========================================================
Of course, making come bets every roll has a lower variance than just making 2 come bets ($ to $ total bets being equal)

But, still answering the OPs question.
There is no number of come bets that is optimal.

No one has shown that 2 or 3 is optimal
and can never show that its is by math or simulations because each bet is it's own separate bet that wins 49.3% of the time.

I'm done here too.
Back to my vacation