REALLY blew out my bankroll

Quote: thecesspit

Is this actually a serious question? Do you not understand what an -expectation- means?

That someone is pregnant ?

Quote: Buzzard

That someone is pregnant ?

That's expectant. Not to be confused with expectorant.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Excuse me, but how do you have a simulation that runs a negative expectation game to show anything but a loss??

And with a bigger bankroll, doesn't that simply mean a bigger loss on a negative expectation game?

Because if we ran a simulation to infinity, we would be dead?

Quote: thecesspit

Is this actually a serious question? Do you not understand what an -expectation- means?

Forgive me but I don't have the math training the rest of you have. I'm just a guy who makes TV shows. But doesn't a negative expectation game mean that over time you will lose? And shouldn't a simulation of that negative expectation game show that over time you will lose? And the more you bet at a negative expectation game the more you will lose? Or is there something positive in a negative expectation game that I don't know about?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Excuse me, but how do you have a simulation that runs a negative expectation game to show anything but a loss??

And with a bigger bankroll, doesn't that simply mean a bigger loss on a negative expectation game?

Marbles in bag game.
My universe.
51 red and 49 blue marbles in a bag
Draw marbles with replacement.

You bet $1 and reach into the bag and pull out a BLUE marble, you win $1.
Sounds fair??
It is the only game that exists in the known universe and you must play it 10 times or you are killed.
So it is fair...
(2.0% HE) right? .51*-1 + .49*1 = -.02/1 * 100

If you remove a RED marble I win the $1.
Your expectation is to lose 2 cents per draw or 20 cents per 10 games.
But you bet $1

Do you really think you have NO chance of winning after 10 games??
But you do.
Your chances of losing is only ~40.2%

And when you break even or show a profit for the 10draw game
you must now play the same game for 1000 draws.
You still have your chances of winning, but they are now way less than at 10 games
Your chances of losing are now at 72.6%

Now at 1000 games your expected loss is $20.
But you only have about a 1 in 48 shot at losing exactly that.
Your actual results can be and most likely will be further from $20 (The EV or the mean)
How far? Advanced concept. Variance and standard deviation
Your total loss expressed this way
net$win or $loss / $total bet = HE
Your results will be close to that %
The more games you play that percentage converges even closer.

And every time you play you will lose?? Not
The longer you play, the less chances you have of winning.

Any one can learn probability and statistics.
Just need a very patient teacher or a good book, and there are many of both.

Quote: odiousgambit

Good post, R-Craps. You seem to be a straight shooter and when you say you have been winning lately, I believe you. We need to hear more from some Craps winners!

I had a couple of good wins, but while I started the Vegas trip off with a very good roll, I only booked a small win at that session. I booked a good win on my session New Year's day in the morning, but got destroyed the rest of the time. What did me in?
Exactly what we are discussing here. Betting too big for my bankroll, on tables that were experiencing too much negative results. And then when the better rolls showed up, I did not have the funds available to heal myself. In the end I gave back most of what I had won the previous few trips that I fought so darn hard to win. I was sort of due for a bit of a set back, but I certainly did not help myself.
I have been nasty sick since I got off the plane from Vegas, so I have not felt like pounding through my blog yet. Overall, my Pai Gow Poker was a winner this trip, and that is not normal for me. That game usually treats me like an atm for the casino.

Quote: odiousgambit

The latter part of this statement seems indisputable. But let's really ask ourselves what the math guys are saying. In ask-the-W when the Wizard is confronted with the statement "the free odds do not help you win more money" he does not dispute it. Yet the evidence seems to be that players are piling on the free odds trying to win more money all the time, and this I think is the ruin involved that we keep seeing posted. Players are looking at the low HE and thinking, that's got to be where I want to be. Problem is, adding the free odds to your bets can be a nonsensical action. I'd say it is revealed when someone says they are uncomfortable with a $100 bet in BJ and not necessarily Craps. Knowing they play 10x odds, that says to me they are playing out the fallacy that the Wizard himself does not dispute.

I too "have been trying for a year now to verbalize" something to little seeming effect. And that is, the free odds only make sense when you limit your total action. If it makes you increase your total action, you are falling into the fallacy, which basically revolves around the fact the odds can lower the HE but not the EV, meanwhile skyrocketing variance and chance of ruin. If a player doesnt say to himself that the free odds mean he has to make fewer bets overall, we are just going to keep hearing disaster stories. Less action on the Line while getting action in the odds is the only way the odds can also lower the EV.

I think some people have been preaching this for some time. I know Sally and 7 craps got upset with me at different points over some of these debates. To be fair, they never changed their arguments. What happened was, I read their arguments, but it was over my head. I was not comprehending the points they were trying to make. And I think they thought I was just disagreeing with them. Even now, while I mostly understand 7 craps posts, on many of them I know I am only grasping 80% of his intended information.
Too often though, you are right. Taking Odds is presented as the way you decrease the almighty House Edge on the 1.41% bet and drive it down to .5% or even better. Therefore, this makes it the best bet on the table, and ergo, the best way to play craps. And presenting only this, and not how you better be doubling your bank roll for every X in odds you plan to take, does leave out a big part of the picture that is going to be required to not go broke most of the time you play the game. But then again, if you are only presenting the edge of the different bets, do you really want to get into Bankroll requirements? Isn't that another topic?

Quote: RaleighCraps

Taking Odds is presented as the way you decrease the almighty House Edge on the 1.41% bet and drive it down to .5% or even better.

Therefore, this makes it the best bet on the table, and ergo, the best way to play craps.

And presenting only this, and not how you better be doubling your bank roll for every X in odds you plan to take, does leave out a big part of the picture that is going to be required to not go broke most of the time you play the game. But then again, if you are only presenting the edge of the different bets, do you really want to get into Bankroll requirements? Isn't that another topic?

The Wizard shows the house edge and in another place the standard deviation for the bets in Craps. He even in another place shows how to use this info.
Does he show any Risk of Ruin tables for common ways to play Craps.
No.
I think he even said he would not in a column because there are too many ways to play Craps. OK. His choice.

HE and EV may be just fine for everyone.

The truth is bet sizing and Bankroll is 99% of the game.
What gaming writers and math gurus talk about needed bankroll for the bets you make?
I think none.

goatcabin has run some sims here, as Sally and I, but that is it as far as I can see.


The reason why the experts don't show bankroll requirements?
Simple IMHO.

Craps is a -EV game and everyone in the long run will lose.
Look at AlanM's latest posts.
Where did he get those ideas??

The gaming writers!

What a great universe of crap, craps

Quote: AlanMendelson

Forgive me but I don't have the math training the rest of you have. I'm just a guy who makes TV shows.

Yeah, I saw your interview with Rob Singer.

But you've made various statements about the odds and math's of craps before so I did figure you knew what expectation means. It's a future looking word. It means something should happen. Expected value is just an average value. Obviously craps with it's -1.41% expected value doesn't take 1.41c when you bet a dollar on a single come out roll. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The expectation is to lose, but once the dice are rolled, you have an ACTUAL value. Over several iterations your results will move around. Add up enough of those, and the overall pattern looks something like the expected value... with in some constraints, defined by the variance.

Quote:

But doesn't a negative expectation game mean that over time you will lose?

No, it means over time you are more likely to lose than to win. Just like a positive expectation doesn't mean you will always win. Your just expected to. You play for a while, you might be up, you might be down. The EV and variance tells you the likelihood of being up or down.

Quote:

And shouldn't a simulation of that negative expectation game show that over time you will lose? And the more you bet at a negative expectation game the more you will lose? Or is there something positive in a negative expectation game that I don't know about?

Variance. Any game that has a potential net win can result in a win after X iterations. The likelihood gets smaller. In a high variance game like craps, this likelihood can be higher than you might expect (as shown previously) that even a LOT of rolls you can be up. Or down a LOT more than the expected value. See: author of this thread.

Also, if you have a hard loss limit (your bank roll) this doesn't mean that no-one can end up "positive" after a long period of time. It might lessen the chance, but the over all Actual Loss for the big pool of all players looks like the calculated EV, and the distirbution of winners and losers looks like the calculated variance.

Variance is as important as Expected Value when picking a game, and this is why the odds bet can be a bad one... people expose themselves to more variance than they are actually comfortable with, because they think it's a low EV bet.

Well Teddys
Did you read what you just wrote? Do you even know why the free odds bet were developed? Do you think for on moment that the casinos are going to give you any bet that is good and in your favor?

Quote:

Alan M. and supperick: I entirely disagree with you on the free odds bet. I love the free odds bet, and will never make any other bets besides PL/odds. It is just a matter of how I want to scale them. I have to bet less because the max odds right away just crushed me.

I will leave you with just one quote that tells it like it is!!!!!!!

Quote:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Quote: 7craps

The reason why it "does not work" is the players fault. almost 100%
Too small a bankroll! Yep, you got it right.

They are underfunded. BIG TIME and it ain't no funny...

Most do not show proper bankroll needed to play different methods in Craps.
Math or simulation data.
The Wizard does not. Not even a simple RoR table available.
A few have, like Sally, but the waves have washed them all out to sea.
To show the math just goes over most people's heads.
.
.
.
As you understand bankroll requirements, many do not.
Look how many BJ card counters fall by the way side complaining they just do not win and they lose too much during sessions.
problem: Too small bankroll and not understanding the possible bankroll swings that can and do happen.

The other problem is Craps players have won and sometimes BIG with over-betting small bankrolls.
Now they just think it should continue because they are great Craps players.

Crap

FACT: Only a very few gamblers will ever play with the proper bankroll for their selected bet sizes.
The others will just bitch and moan and blame all the math gurus for their misfortune, that they mostly brought onto themselves.

Good Luck to all, with a proper bankroll,
and the rest you need lots of Good Luck.

I would believe there are MANY craps players who have won way more than we should have with the bankroll we had invested in that game. And all that does is reinforce the risk, and sets us up for harder and harder falls later. Even now, I am still guilty of this, but at least now I understand exactly what I am doing wrong and what I am risking.

I should add 7 craps, that it has taken me a long time to understand your points. The concepts you talk about are second nature to you. I know you can't possibly understand why some of is don't grasp it. Even now, I sometimes feel your posts are written in Greek, and I have to go find my translation dictionary and start parsing my way through your posts. That certainly is not your fault. I am getting engaged in conversations that are over my head. But boy, am I learning because of it, and that makes it all a very very good thing for me, and hopefully there are others on here that benefit too.

Quote: superrick

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Unlikely Einstein said that, comes from a Narcotics Anonymous text book.

It's also a fallacious quote... there's many things we do over and over again and expect different results, AND it's not insane to do so. For one thing... roll dice down the green baize of a crap table... I expect a different result most times I make a roll. Is that insane? Lots of mad people out there if it is.

Quote: thecesspit

Variance is as important as Expected Value when picking a game,
and this is why the odds bet can be a bad one...
people expose themselves to more variance than they are actually comfortable with,

or have a bankroll for.
And most ALL do not know they are doing this.

Only a fewX in this world really understands variance in gambling.

Quote: thecesspit

because they think it's a low EV bet.

It may be really a low EV bet. OK.
The EV showing the center of the distribution (all the possible outcomes)

HE, EV only shows a small part of the picture. It has it's importance, but not all for many gambling bets

Add Variance, now we see the whole picture


Pretty as

yes, I understand most have no clue about the Bell curve or Normal Curve.
They heard of it but...
start here if interested
http://stattrek.com/probability-distributions/normal.aspx?Tutorial=Stat

Good Lucks

Good example. I am aware of the bell curve. After your session, you are some dot on that curve. Before it, you have the potential of being anywhere on the curve. It's like collapsing a wave after opening the box on Schroedinger's Cat... (I know I am mangling quantum mechanics badly).

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Wasn't the point I was making.

And I'll say it again, gambling is not entertainment to me. You have "fun" losing money at craps in a casino and I'll have "fun" playing it at home for free.

No one said it was entertaining to you. But it's entertaining for some people. And, for them, it's worthwhile to find an optimum way to play, so that they can have the most fun for the least amount of money. The fact that you don't like to gamble at -EV games isn't really relevant.

It would be like, if someone asked me whether it was cheaper to drive or fly from SF to LA, and I responded that they shouldn't go to LA because I don't like it there. Completely irrelevant and unhelpful.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

My original point wasn't about any fun factor, but a pure math point. Obviously for those that play for entertainment, then yes, always minimum bets is "optimal."

Also not true. Someone might not get any enjoyment out of betting $5 per hand, but might get a thrill out of betting $100 per hand. In this case, betting $5/hand is clearly terrible, since they are playing a -EV game and getting no enjoyment out of it. The real question is, once we have established that they get enjoyment out of betting $100, how should they bet it? In a game like craps, this is an important question because there are a lot of ways to get $100 on the felt and they have very different expected losses and variances.

Quote: thecesspit

Good example.
I am aware of the bell curve.

After your session, you are some dot on that curve.
Before it, you have the potential of being anywhere on the curve.

Technically, the curve is also, with data, just a number of columns, sometimes with different widths, that appears to take the shape of a Bell, the curve.
Use your imagination here!

Here is 10 coin flips and the number of heads distribution.
It really just shows data.
One can flip coins at home and make a histogram (their own curve from actual data) and compare it to expectation.
11 possible outcomes and the height of each column can be the count or frequency of that interval or the number of times heads showed from 0 to 10 inclusive or the relative probability.

The first pic below has the overlay connecting the top of each column.
A bit hard to see the curve just using the columns but you can see the basic outline there.


Now Try 10,000 flips
Now the curve shows in all it's glory just with columns.


10001 possible outcomes, but now we can not really see the widths of each individual column
unless we make each column a width we can see and expand the photo's width.

This is called a normal curve, because the mean (average),
the mode (the most common outcome or highest column)
and the median (the center point where 50% is above or below a value are really the same. All 5000.
There are many different kinds of distributions and types.
Too much for a lesson here.

Quote: thecesspit

Yeah, I saw your interview with Rob Singer.

But you've made various statements about the odds and math's of craps before so I did figure you knew what expectation means. It's a future looking word.

First of all, I think I did a pretty good job challenging Rob about his beliefs. Of course, there are many who say I should never have interviewed him in the first place. But the interview put his thoughts and comments on the record -- on the web -- on Youtube -- and on my website -- for all to see and make up their own minds.

Now, about expectation. Of course I know what expectation means. So if you know up front that a game has negative expectation then you can only expect to lose. To think otherwise and you are... forgive me... thinking like Rob Singer.

Craps is a negative expectation game. And as I said before the only way to win is not through betting, or bankroll, or even by getting lucky (variance). The only way to win is by somehow altering the random distribution of the rolls of the dice. This is why the "dice influencing crowd" gives us some "chance of hope" but alas, no one has proven they have the ability.

If you want to suggest that some people will win at craps, then yes, I accept that. Over the years I've won some sessions. But honestly can you name one person who can prove that over a lifetime they have a net gain playing craps (except for the occasional player who may have gotten lucky one or two times)??

I might want to do a TV show about such a player.

Quote: AlanMendelson

So if you know up front that a game has negative expectation that you can only expect to lose.

Over the long, long term, sure this is the best line of realization, but in the short term, there is still a significant chance to come home a winner. So over these time frames, many people "hope" to win. If you were guaranteed to be a loser over all sessions, casino gaming would be pointless. I feel like people have jumped on you here because you seem to dismiss of any possibility of a win over a lengthy period, like 10k rolls or more. The possibility is always there, it just gets smaller and smaller the longer you play.

The amount of craps I have played lifetime, there would be a reasonable chance I would be a lifetime winner, but I am on the left-end of the bell curve...lol

Quote: tringlomane

Over the long, long term, sure this is the best line of realization, but in the short term, there is still a significant chance to come home a winner. So over these time frames, many people "hope" to win. If you were guaranteed to be a loser over all sessions, casino gaming would be pointless. I feel like people have jumped on you here because you seem to dismiss of any possibility of a win over a lengthy period, like 10k rolls or more. The possibility is always there, it just gets smaller and smaller the longer you play.

The amount of craps I have played lifetime, there would be a reasonable chance I would be a lifetime winner, but I am on the left-end of the bell curve...lol

You've actually made my argument here. The longer you play a negative expectation game, the greater the likelihood that you will lose. In the short term anything is possible.

I was once at a table where six points on the fire bet were made. I threw five points twice for the fire bet payoff of $2500. I've thrown four fire bet numbers at least half a dozen times. Once, before the fire bet, I had a hand with no less than 17 passes. Yet, I am a lifetime loser at craps. I have had variance on my side a few times and had winning sessions. But the math of the game cannot be beaten. And again it doesn't matter how you bet or what your bankroll is. Eventually the math will win out.

Quote: AlanMendelson

First of all, I think I did a pretty good job challenging Rob about his beliefs. Of course, there are many who say I should never have interviewed him in the first place. But the interview put his thoughts and comments on the record -- on the web -- on Youtube -- and on my website -- for all to see and make up their own minds.

Probably not the thread to get into it, but I do agree it's good that you put it up there for all to see and make up their own minds.

Quote:

Now, about expectation. Of course I know what expectation means. So if you know up front that a game has negative expectation then you can only expect to lose. To think otherwise and you are... forgive me... thinking like Rob Singer.

Referee! That's a 14 day suspension for an insult! (joke, joke).

Knowing I may win $100 (40% of the time) or lose $80 (60% of the time) might be something I'm happy to take a gamble on (a -$8 expected loss). You do it yourself by playing the fire bet. Hoping I will win is different from expecting to lose :) And that's not Rob Singer thinking :p

Sure. But that's not what I was pulling you up on. You said a negative expectation game HAD to lose and a simulation couldn't end up positive. That's not true at all. The ACTUAL value of a series of negative expectation bets can end up positive.

Quote:

Craps is a negative expectation game. And as I said before the only way to win is not through betting, or bankroll, or even by getting lucky (variance). The only way to win is by somehow altering the random distribution of the rolls of the dice. This is why the "dice influencing crowd" gives us some "chance of hope" but alas, no one has proven they have the ability.

No. The only way to EXPECT to win is to mess with the distribution of the dice. You can still ACTUALLY win. Very different statements to look before and after. Beforehand you only have a set of probabilities you can model and see a range of possible results (and probabilities as someone previously posted). After playing, you have an single actual value. Which may be positive or negative.

Quote:

If you want to suggest that some people will win at craps, then yes, I accept that. Over the years I've won some sessions. But honestly can you name one person who can prove that over a lifetime they have a net gain playing craps (except for the occasional player who may have gotten lucky one or two times)??

I might want to do a TV show about such a player.

Why do you except the player who may have gotten lucky? It's EXACTLY those players I am talking about. Just like the gambler who says "I would have been even, but I had this bad losing streak". You have to accept there will be some lucky players who come away with a big score occasionally. I have seen a couple of people say they are net winners on Craps here. I have a friend who thinks he's a net winner. But many people don't keep accurate records to know if they are or not.

I will also agree the more you stray into the really bad bets (centre action, come out yo's and all that stuff) the number of net, lifetime hardcore craps winners will start to decline as well. But this doesn't diminish the fact that playing multiple come out bets with full odds CAN end up positive over time, despite it being a negative expectation game... which is something you said was not possible, and took issue with the simulation (I've done similar simulations myself, on this and other games like roulette).

Then pretended not to know what expectation was, but suddenly seem to know understand it again.

Shrug.

As an aside, 0 expectation games do not make the casino money due to bank roll sizes being different (yours being small compared to the casinos). The net sum of all players bankrolls is actually probably bigger than the casinos. A zero sum game has 0 expectation in the long run (of course). There will be some winners, and some losers (sometimes the casino will be a net loser on the odds bets only it books. In fact for it to be a truly 0 EV bet, which it is, some casinos must have lost money on the odds).

Quote: AlanMendelson

You've actually made my argument here. The longer you play a negative expectation game, the greater the likelihood that you will lose. In the short term anything is possible.

But your previous posts didn't convey this very clearly, imo, hence debate spiked up. :) If anyone tells me that they can win at craps in the longterm given average expectation, I'll think their nuts without some experiment to prove otherwise.

deleted

Quote: AlanMendelson

I'm just a guy who makes TV shows.

Speaking of which, what ever happened to the X-Train?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHW5TgWVlLQ

I just read this thread and Teddy, I hope you have a bright future. One thing puzzles me though. You recently moved to LV? I hope it wasn't because you thought the casinos were there for the taking. I've read about way too many people who thought their positive play pot of gold was in Clark County, only to leave wiped out, sick, or both.

Best of luck on the exam.

Quote: AlanMendelson

...
If you want to suggest that some people will win at craps, then yes, I accept that. Over the years I've won some sessions. But honestly can you name one person who can prove that over a lifetime they have a net gain playing craps (except for the occasional player who may have gotten lucky one or two times)??

I might want to do a TV show about such a player.

Alan,
I admit I have not kept close enough track to know for certain I am up after 5 years of craps play, but I know I am pretty close.
I go on a 3 day casino trip an average of 3 times a year, and I may get a 1 day session in once or twice more.
Early on, I had an amazing year where I got up over 10k. I am sure I have lost all of that, but the recent wins may have had me close to even, which means I am back down now since Vegas. But this is not totally square either since I have probably donated over 1.5k to my wife's slots over this time.
If you read my reports, you will see I am not a shy player. I play long sessions (6 hours), and I can end up with a lot of money on the table at times, for someone who buys in at 1k.
I will be the first to admit I have been extremely lucky during this time frame, but I also know I have left a shitload of possible wins on the table, and I could, and probably SHOULD be, in a much better position.

I don't think I am that rare. So I am fairly confident that there are others out there who play more than occasionally, who could be up for a lifetime. If you are cautious, but are willing to press bets, and you happen to make a move on the right table, you can make a ton of money. You know that. And if that same person is cautious and only presses rarely, they could easily be a lifetime winner. Certainly they are the far far right of the distribution, but they are out there.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Everybody knows that the optimal bet at a disadvantage is zero dollars.

I'll bet you there are millions of slot players will not immediately agree with that statement. And you would fail to convince thousands of them of that statement. And a zero bet is only optimal if your goal is only to maximize money (worthy goal, obv). If you want to get comped drinks, then the optimal play is the min pass/don't pass bet on the come out roll only, or buying certain numbers at certain casinos with even lower edges.

tring...

Comp drink optimal play is sit down @ a bar slot (where they comp drinks for slot play and without max bet required) put $1 in machine tip $5 upfront sit back relax and enjoy (don't get wasted).

edit double post

Quote: AlanMendelson

Forgive me but I don't have the math training the rest of you have. I'm just a guy who makes TV shows. But doesn't a negative expectation game mean that over time you will lose?

I've followed this sub-thread with interest. As far as it goes, my [unoriginal] advice to anyone, anytime, is to expect to lose in the long run with negative expectation. And calmly accept losing, even real beat-downs, in the short run too. Call it the Sane Expectation about casino game mathematical expectation.

Quote: AlanMendelson

shouldn't a simulation of that negative expectation game show that over time you will lose?

Ah. Perhaps this is a surprise to most of us when first able to run simulations. Fact is, any HE lower than 1%, simulated, will show some overall winners for shockingly long periods of time. HE close to zero will show winners over more trials than are possible in a Lifetime. Yet, anecdotal evidence, such as in this forum, seems to say reality trumps the simulation of the ivory tower. (R-craps let me down but 100X still gives me hope [g]).

If we say math can't lie, where is the explanation?

Here are my guesses:

*very few craps players can stick to low HE betting. Very few seem to have any desire to do so.

*those determined to do so, smart guys like Teddy too, get slapped around early on in the variance. Simulation does show this!. When I run simulations, the lifetime winners all seem to have at least one period where they were losing. And if it is 10x odds or similar, losing BIG. Very few exceptions. In real life who survives that? Will Teddy not alter his play in future?

*As discussed here, the bankroll problem. A Whale with a giant bankroll who really does go somewhere and stick to playing 20x odds or similar, or any kind of game with something close to 0% odds, just must be rare as hell. Really, just has never existed most likely. It isn't going to be their game. From what I can tell they need the comps, that limo ride, a host sucking up to them, etc, not the diss from the casino that they will get instead.

*Thus the guy who can win in the long run at craps, with the kind of bankroll and iron nerves needed, is rare to find in the first place. If you do find him, who is to say he is going to be lucky? Luck is still required.

I think I have more knowledge of how bankrolls travel with various craps strategies than anyone.

It is clearly visible (the edge) with any strategy that has 1.0% edge per roll or higher.

Even a single passline bet with an edge of 0.4% has a very visible line that tracks the edge as long as you are flat betting.

I have seen Teddy make $5 bets with less than 20x odds at Sams town and then increase his odds bet to 20x as he starts winning.

Martingale works if there is an infinite bankroll and no edge.

In the case of pressing your bets, the house is using a strategy against you (when they lose, and you press, they are chasing .. which is an effective use a bankroll to recoup losses when there is no limit on the bankroll and no edge).

Their edge is zero and their bankroll is more unlimited than yours.

IE: increasing your bets on losses, rather than wins, is the correct way to do it if you are going to do it to prevent from losing (rather than exchanging a risk for a faster win), and have the resources to employ. Otherwise you are just using a martingale strategy against yourself. And even if you have zero edge against you, the house's martingale against you (employed by the betting style) has a negative effect on your bankroll.

A betting system translates a bankroll into an edge assuming that you don't hit any limits of the table or your own funds. Most betting systems (besides bold play) use repetitive betting practices that increase bets on losses. When you press, you are putting the house into the position of using a betting system AGAINST you.

Quote: Ahigh

I have seen Teddy make $5 bets with less than 20x odds at Sams town and then increase his odds bet to 20x as he starts winning.

More truth comes out?
That was my other thought that the OP had made bets some larger, and probably more often,
odds bets than just 10X with way too small of a bankroll.
That too small of a bankroll syndrome
that RC talks about

I just want to know what you have been smoking to make a statement like below. Weren't you the guy that blew out his bankroll a few weeks ago?

Quote:

Ahigh

I think I have more knowledge of how bankrolls travel with various craps strategies than anyone.

Didn't you start this thread back in November? So now you’re the self proclaimed expert that is telling everybody to bet more when they are losing?
I know, I know I'm picking on you again!

https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/craps/12072-blew-out-my-bankroll/

Did you just rewrite all the books on the game of craps when you wrote this?

Quote:

Their edge is zero and their bankroll is more unlimited than yours.

How did you come to the conclusion the house has a 0 edge on you?

Quote:

Ahigh

IE: increasing your bets on losses, rather than wins, is the correct way to do it if you are going to do it to prevent from losing (rather than exchanging a risk for a faster win)

Do you think that for one moment just because you started betting more the dice are going to magically change and you are going to start winning?
Your losing, throwing more money at it is not going to change what is happening to you, the casinos must love you, if you are using that reasoning. The martingale strategy has been around for years and I hope that you have some how confused me in the way that you have written your last post. Increasing your bets when you are losing is just plain stupid. The house have table limits for a very good reason, even the whales can beat the house when it comes to playing a martingale.

Then you always have to look at just how foolish someone is that is playing a martingale, their down lets just say $500 and they get their money back and are now back to even, they got they world by the nuts. What's the next thing they do, they go right back at losing because all they know is stupid betting! They think that their little system is going to bail them out every time they get down money, well it won't, that is why we love players that make those kind of stupid bets. There are always going to be casinos for other to play it, that don't play the game for the fun of it!!!!!!!!

" I have seen Teddy make $5 bets with less than 20x odds at Sams town and then increase his odds bet to 20x as he starts winning.
"

The very same teddys that lost his bankroll, can I safely assume ?

Quote: Ahigh

Even a single passline bet with an edge of 0.4% has a very visible line that tracks the edge as long as you are flat betting.

The passline bet has a 1.41% edge. The odds bet has a 0% edge.

Quote:

Their edge is zero and their bankroll is more unlimited than yours.

The size of the casino bankroll is meaningless to their profits when there is a 0% edge. Players might get wiped out, but as a whole the casino makes 0 dollars on the odds bets. For each player wiped out due to the odds, there's a player who makes a profit on the odds. 0% edge means that no-one has an overall edge, so there is no profit for either side to make.

In fact, I've made this statement before, but the casino does NOT have a bigger bank roll than the players as whole. There is more money in all the player bankrolls than in casino floor limits. There's an large (but limited) supply of players coming in the doors, betting some or all of the bank rolls every day. Those rolls add up to more than the casino has. The casino has their house edge though, and this works to transfer the money from the pool of players to the casino's pockets.

Quote: thecesspit

The passline bet has a 1.41% edge. The odds bet has a 0% edge.

Counting the odds bet as having a 0% edge is part of the craziness of craps math. What you are talking about, of course, with "edge" is strictly the payoff. Not the chance of winning.

Every odds bet for rightway players is more likely to lose. The infamous 0% edge has nothing to do with the chance of winning.

I really wish the phrase "the odds bet has a 0% edge" was wiped from all discussions. Instead say, the passline bet has ___ chance of winning. Because that's really all that matters -- is it going to win or not.

1) Edge per roll guys. Those correcting me not knowing the edge per roll b please
B) Edge per roll of zero -- just isolating the changing on bet amounts on the free bets only
2) Teddy is effectively my home boy. I can talk trash without you needing to get involved if I feel like it, but if you think I was talking trash you got some of your own issues. Just making a point
3) OMG what-evah -- and yeah I am the smartest person on the planet, alright? And just 'cause I am *the* ahigh doesn't mean it's a reference to pot. It's my name home boy. Aaron Hightower.

I don't need the wacky tobaccy to get wacky, just ask those who I hang out wit.

The idea of arguing how I came up with an edge of zero with someone who thinks the passline is a sucker bet is hilarious.
I often tell dealers "that's a sucker bet" when they attempt to goad me into it, but it's for the laugh, not to make a point (unlike *the* superrick).

And don't even THINK about telling me how to count, b/c u b1 sad sorry abc 123 mother if you think I didn't notice. MMkay.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Counting the odds bet as having a 0% edge is part of the craziness of craps math. What you are talking about, of course, with "edge" is strictly the payoff. Not the chance of winning.

Every odds bet for rightway players is more likely to lose. The infamous 0% edge has nothing to do with the chance of winning.

I really wish the phrase "the odds bet has a 0% edge" was wiped from all discussions. Instead say, the passline bet has ___ chance of winning. Because that's really all that matters -- is it going to win or not.

Where have you been?
HE and EV can and do work together
House Edge IS the sum of the product of the payoff
and the $bet
and the probability of winning and losing and all this divided by the total bet
on and on and on

Get this
HE = (ProbWin * Payoff *$Bet) + (ProbLoss * -Bet) / Bet

Odds bet on 4 or 10
pays 2 to 1 but only has a 1/3 chance of winning

Say one takes $10 odds
(1/3 * 2 *$10) + (2/3 * -$10)
(1/3 * $20) + (-$20/3)
($20/3) + (-$20/3) = 0 This is the EV of that bet

0/$10 = 0 (EV / Bet = HE)
Now the HE as a percentage, the math gurus multiply that value by 100.
0 * 100 = 0% house edge.

try the math on the 6&8 and 5&9

Not that difficult to understand.

But no where is the variance talked about.

more craps

" and yeah I am the smartest person on the planet, alright? " Hard to argue with that statement, as least where craps is concerned !

Quote: AlanMendelson

Counting the odds bet as having a 0% edge is part of the craziness of craps math. What you are talking about, of course, with "edge" is strictly the payoff. Not the chance of winning.

Well, duh. Yes, that's what the edge means. It has nothing to do with the chance of winning. It tells you how 'fair' the pay off is when it does win.

This is why I keep alos talking about variance. How likely, over time, will your bets and pay off mean you are wildly away the mean expected value.

Quote:

Every odds bet for rightway players is more likely to lose. The infamous 0% edge has nothing to do with the chance of winning.

Who claims it does?

Quote:

I really wish the phrase "the odds bet has a 0% edge" was wiped from all discussions. Instead say, the passline bet has ___ chance of winning. Because that's really all that matters -- is it going to win or not.

No... both matter. The pay off on a winning bet matters just as much as the odds of it winning. If I offer you a coin flip, but only pay back half your stake as profit when you win the flip, it's matters a lot, even though you can say it's a 50% chance of winning.

0% edge on the odds bets means OVER TIME you will neither win or lose money making it. There is no expectation to be up or down. You probably will be either up or down, and by quite a lot depending on the size of your odds bets. But it's a 50/50 split between the over and the under.

Didn't we just cover expectation?

" Didn't we just cover expectation? " Input a pregnant pause in the conversation here !

Quote: Buzzard

" Didn't we just cover expectation? " Input a pregnant pause in the conversation here !

Rasping, chesty cough.

Quote: Ahigh

I think I have more knowledge of how bankrolls travel with various craps strategies than anyone.

I think.
Sounds like a weasel word with I think at the beginning.

Quote: Ahigh

... I have more knowledge of how bankrolls travel with various craps strategies than anyone.

Yes, I agree.
I think I like that one ways better.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Counting the odds bet as having a 0% edge is part of the craziness of craps math. What you are talking about, of course, with "edge" is strictly the payoff. Not the chance of winning.

Every odds bet for rightway players is more likely to lose. The infamous 0% edge has nothing to do with the chance of winning.

I really wish the phrase "the odds bet has a 0% edge" was wiped from all discussions. Instead say, the passline bet has ___ chance of winning. Because that's really all that matters -- is it going to win or not.

Is it helpful to consider the odds bet a completely separate action than the passline? Although you need to make the passline bet in order to make an odds bet, and the maximum size of the odds bet is dependent on the passline bet, once a point is established, the line bet is essentially, "a ship that has sailed". You cannot take it down until it is resolved.

Sort of like figuring "pot odds" in poker. The amount of your prior action is included in the calculation because your choices in the face of a raise, are to fold, or bet. You cannot retract your prior bets.

You do not have to make the odds bet.
You can change the amount of the odds bet, including taking it completely down, anytime the dice are not out.
In these respects, it sounds more like a place or hardway bet (but with much fairer odds than either of these two).

Alan, I'm a "lifetime winner" at craps...a few thousand and probably 20 or 30 sessions total. I'll look up my spreadsheet when I get home. May seem like a paltry number of sessions to those who have been playing longer than me, but I only started playing craps in 2010. I don't attribute it to anything other than dumb luck, aka variance.

There have to be people on the right of that curve! I'm sure I'm not the only one on this forum.

<grin> great fun, huh?

AcesAndEights, I've been on the right side of the curve too, here and there, but I've been playing craps for closer to twenty years and there was a time when my son and I would get in the car every Wednesday after work and drive up to Caesars to play craps for the evening and then drive right back. Over time the math catches up to you.

Sorry, just give it time and the math will catch up to you, too.

I have nothing against the game of craps. I love it just like everyone else does. But I know that over the long term it's going to get 'cha.

I also think that the negative expectation pay tables are going to get cha too if you keep playing for the long term.

Now, if you want to talk about a hit and run strategy to maximize the variance well then Im with you. And if you want to talk about the possibility (however slim) of using dice influencing to beat the game then Im with you.

But to preach that full odds or any betting strategy or scheme is going to make you win is ridiculous.

So let's talk about hit and run strategies -- because at least that makes sense. Who can tell me when the shooter will get hot and cold?

Quote: Headlock

No 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?

Thought this from the Big Losses Thread was relevant as someone with similar bets experienced similar losses over a very short period of time. You are not alone.

Quote: AlanMendelson

AcesAndEights, I've been on the right side of the curve too, here and there, but I've been playing craps for closer to twenty years and there was a time when my son and I would get in the car every Wednesday after work and drive up to Caesars to play craps for the evening and then drive right back. Over time the math catches up to you.

Sorry, just give it time and the math will catch up to you, too.

I have nothing against the game of craps. I love it just like everyone else does. But I know that over the long term it's going to get 'cha.

I also think that the negative expectation pay tables are going to get cha too if you keep playing for the long term.

Now, if you want to talk about a hit and run strategy to maximize the variance well then Im with you. And if you want to talk about the possibility (however slim) of using dice influencing to beat the game then Im with you.

But to preach that full odds or any betting strategy or scheme is going to make you win is ridiculous.

So let's talk about hit and run strategies -- because at least that makes sense. Who can tell me when the shooter will get hot and cold?

I'm not disagreeing with you - the edge will most likely catch up with me, and everyone. But there are lifetime winners out there that have played more than me - they're just rare. Preaching that everyone, 100% of everyone who plays, will lose, is just incorrect.

This is why for my WinCrpas simulations, I now run games with MY session parameters. I don't need to run a 10,000 roll scenario because I WILL NEVER play a 10,000 roll scenario.
I may play 1,000 ---- 100 roll scenarios though, so that is a valid parameter that I do run against now.

My usual parameters for my WinCraps now is I play for 100 shooters, or until my $1k buy in is crushed. And then I will play that scenario for 1,000 times. And that to me, is potential realistic results. I will probably never get to 1,000 craps sessions of 100 shooters in my lfe, but I might.

Quote: RaleighCraps

This is why for my WinCrpas simulations, I now run games with MY session parameters. I don't need to run a 10,000 roll scenario because I WILL NEVER play a 10,000 roll scenario.
I may play 1,000 ---- 100 roll scenarios though, so that is a valid parameter that I do run against now.

The concept you are describing, betting on independent random events, right - craps rolls are random events - or are they
as you make more and more bets and rolls, the sum of all those results looks very much like the old Bell curve,
is the Central Limit Theorem
We just can not get away from that.

In other words, this has been said B4, and many will just never agree,
A 1,000 roll session 10 months ago, another 9 months ago, another 8 months ago... and another last month for the last 10 months.

You have just finished one, 10,000 roll session.
Yep. It don't feel like it, but that is exactly what just happened.

You can simulate this in WC.
The rolls or events do not have to be sequential.
There can be long time gaps in between bets and sessions played as they are in real life.
It took me years to finally see that truth.
Many will never, because one session is never like another.

This is the basis for the Central Limit Theorem, a mathematically proven concept that goes hand in hand with
that Law of Large Numbers thing that many speak of but few really understand how it works.

But, your sim methods are good. Just do not run one or two sessions with the same parameters, you and many others may get a false picture of what to expect from the many possible outcomes.

I just tossed a fair coin 10 times and got 6 heads.
Does that mean the real probability of Heads IS 60%.
I just did it again. This time I got 7 heads.
I did it one more time, got that same 6 heads.
So then, in a coin toss from my 3 simulations I say heads shows about 60% of the time.

A larger Sample size could give me more results and averages that are closer to reality
for many experiments.
But I am now bored flipping a coin.

Time to eat
keep up the good work
WinCraps Pro in Beta test this week. Nice.
It tracks way more data, that slows down the simulation speed.