vegasrvp
Joined: Jun 15, 2010
• Posts: 53
March 7th, 2014 at 12:34:44 PM permalink
My thoughts exactly.......now that being said let's look at this potential option......I cannot believe i just said that. LOL

Based on his method of 1,1,1,2,2,4,4,8,8,16,16,32,32 & 64. This would fit within all table limits even with the double down.
It would also leave a total loss maximum of 191 units (@ \$10 that is \$1910).

The question is can you win small ones enough times to cover the few large losses.

With the dice game no history matters so trends are pure luck either good or bad depending on your side of the wager.

All math states odds are in our favor for no point vs point being achieved.

Do you believe that more times then not you could win 191 units between the big losses?

You can do things like never wager on a shooter that hits more then one number. You can change tables after every win or loss to eliminate a hit shooter (as if there is a real thing).

The two things I like about what he has proposed is there is a win on every session and also if you hit the two in a row in the right place it could be a multi-unit win which means your progress is increased exponentially.

If I were to try to argue the other side I am starting to see some small validity based on the knowledge that many small wins can and most likely will eventually get wasted by the big loss.

I messed around a little last night online and made 50 units in 16 sessions which in table time may have been about 2-3 hours. I had one session go to the second 8 unit wager and 2 times to the first 8. Otherwise 12 of the 16 wins came in the first 5 wager options.

If I were to build in stop losses and go at this I would probable do so with a stop loss after the first 32. That is a total loss of 95 units. Based on what I just did last night I won 50 of the 95 units needed to build a second bank.

Lastly, can you tell me why you would use a progression like the one you mentioned (1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5)? This to me makes no sense based on what I am looking at as once you pass the 3's you are now playing to achieve a loss? Unless I am not understanding your playing?
geoff
Joined: Feb 19, 2014
• Posts: 368
March 7th, 2014 at 12:41:23 PM permalink
Quote: sodawater

even that wont work long term

With an unlimited bankroll and a no limit table then martingale works. The issue is that in real life there are no tables without limits and an unlimited bankroll doesn't exist.
sodawater
Joined: May 14, 2012
• Posts: 3231
March 7th, 2014 at 12:58:32 PM permalink
Quote: geoff

With an unlimited bankroll and a no limit table then martingale works. The issue is that in real life there are no tables without limits and an unlimited bankroll doesn't exist.

in a negative game, it still doesn't work long term.
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
• Posts: 2463
March 7th, 2014 at 1:11:43 PM permalink
Quote: vegasrvp

With the dice game no history matters so trends are pure luck either good or bad depending on your side of the wager.

All math states odds are in our favor for no point vs point being achieved.

this information is useless to you because you said you (your friend) bet on the don't pass and that can lose when a point is not established and most time it does lose is on the come out roll.

Quote: vegasrvp

I messed around a little last night online

me too but not online ;)

I programmed a file to be run in WinCraps Classic and ran it 5000 times
a snap of the game log window

the file I used
When . . .
Initializing Auto-Bet
then . . .
Bet \$ 1 on Chip-Stack # 0
Bet \$ 1 on Chip-Stack # 1
Bet \$ 1 on Chip-Stack # 2
Bet \$ 1 on Chip-Stack # 3
Bet \$ 2 on Chip-Stack # 4
Bet \$ 2 on Chip-Stack # 5
Bet \$ 4 on Chip-Stack # 6
Bet \$ 4 on Chip-Stack # 7
Bet \$ 8 on Chip-Stack # 8
Bet \$ 8 on Chip-Stack # 9
Bet \$ 16 on Chip-Stack # 10
Bet \$ 16 on Chip-Stack # 11
Bet \$ 32 on Chip-Stack # 12
Bet \$ 32 on Chip-Stack # 13
Bet \$ 64 on Chip-Stack # 14
Bet \$ 64 on Chip-Stack # 15
Bet 100 % of Chip-Stack ref # 0 on Don't Pass
Go to "end"
While . . .
Don't Pass has lost each time
then . . .
Go to "loss"
While . . .
Don't Pass has won each time
then . . .
Go to "win"
else . . .
Go to "end"
loss
While . . .
Don't Pass has lost each time
Chip-Stack # 0 is less than \$ 15
then . . .
Add \$ 1 to Chip-Stack # 0
Bet 100 % of Chip-Stack ref # 0 on Don't Pass
Go to "status"
While . . .
Don't Pass has lost each time
Chip-Stack # 0 is not less than \$ 15
then . . .
Add \$ 1 to Chip-Stack # 0
Bet 100 % of Chip-Stack # 15 on Don't Pass
Go to "status"
win
While . . .
Don't Pass has won 1 time
then . . .
Bet 200 % of the last Don't Pass on Don't Pass
Go to "status"
While . . .
Don't Pass has won 2 times
then . . .
Bet \$ 1 on Chip-Stack # 0
Bet 100 % of Chip-Stack ref # 0 on Don't Pass
Reset wins / losses on Don't Pass
status
While . . .
Bankroll is equal to \$ 0
or while . . .
Bankroll is not less than \$ 510
then . . .
Add \$ 1 to Chip-Stack # 19
Bet \$ 1 on Chip-Stack # 0
Bet 100 % of highest bankroll on Chip-Stack # 17
Reset table (preserve Chip-Stacks)
Bet \$ 0 on Chip-Stack # 17
Bet 100 % of Chip-Stack ref # 0 on Don't Pass
When . . .
Chip-Stack # 19 is equal to \$ 5000
then . . .
Stop Auto-Rolling / Hyper-Drive
end
While . . .
Don't Pass has lost each time
or while . . .
Don't Pass has won each time
then . . .
Bet 100 % of bankroll on Chip-Stack # 18
Add 100 % of Don't Pass to Chip-Stack # 18
Subtract \$ 510 from Chip-Stack # 18
While . . .
Chip-Stack # 18 is greater than \$ 0
then . . .
Subtract 100 % of Chip-Stack # 18 from Don't Pass
Bet \$ 0 on Chip-Stack # 18

I used the 64 unit bet as tops for a 255 unit bankroll
I wanted to see what this could do with a nice bankroll

It can double that about 44% of the time (44 out of 100 or 56 times losing all 255 units)
the other times it lost all 255 units

so the math bears out (from simulations) another losing system but may be fun to play and should gain some nice comps.
This one looks to lose on average \$28 per session played, again an average over time for each session played
there are systems that do way worse and some better

I would think a progression on the odds bet for the don't pass would be more fun, thrilling and more profitable than
what you have explained.
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
vegasrvp
Joined: Jun 15, 2010
• Posts: 53
March 7th, 2014 at 1:20:52 PM permalink
Sally,

Thanks, that is so nice of you to do this.

I'm a little unsure about what you said regarding

"this information is useless to you because you said you (your friend) bet on the don't pass and that can lose when a point is not established and most time it does lose is on the come out roll."

Is this simulation based on playing the Pass or the Don't?
CrapsGenious
Joined: Dec 24, 2013
• Posts: 408
March 7th, 2014 at 1:25:34 PM permalink
Quote: vegasrvp

Can someone tell me the odds of back to back crap outs after points are established?

Need a little help with this one. Money on the line!!!!!

Simple answer to a simple question.

back to back = 3:14
back to back to back = 3:28

(Don't ask how I know, I just know).

Sorry I just read title "back to back 7's" I thought the question was back to back craps numbers.

carry on... :0
8 more years till retirement.
CrapsGenious
Joined: Dec 24, 2013
• Posts: 408
March 7th, 2014 at 1:36:02 PM permalink
Quote: vegasrvp

Clearification:

I'm looking to compare 7 out 7 out versus hitting the point.

look around the table for random shooters and your answer will be:

per table round of random shooters
11:14 will 7-out before a point is made.
2:14 will make a point or two before 7 out
1:14 will make enough points to win back a majority of losses incurred from the previous shooters.

(Sometimes photographic memory with 15+ years of live table craps experience is better than math)

Another good question would be:
How many numbers rolled between the "point" and "7-out"

if DI is the shooter then the answer is 4 both ways.

Again don't ask how I get these figures, but they are extremely accurate. :)
8 more years till retirement.
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
• Posts: 2463
March 7th, 2014 at 3:07:19 PM permalink
Quote: vegasrvp

Sally,

Thanks, that is so nice of you to do this.

I'm a little unsure about what you said regarding

"this information is useless to you because you said you (your friend) bet on the don't pass and that can lose when a point is not established and most time it does lose is on the come out roll."

Is this simulation based on playing the Pass or the Don't?

You are welcome. I said I was also fooling around too.
The sim was for the don't pass and can seen in the code I also posted
(I am sure the same results would also be with the pass line bet too)

now, I meant to say something different instead of
"... does lose is on the come out roll."
I say now
"... does lose is after the come out roll on average.
8/36 / 976/1980 = 55/122 or about 45.08197% of the times the don't pass has lost has lost on the come out roll
67/122 during the point round (54.91803%)"

But a system that can double a bankroll in 45% of its sessions can be fun for some, not for all who try
still has the short end of the stick
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
s2dbaker
Joined: Jun 10, 2010
• Posts: 3259
March 7th, 2014 at 4:28:37 PM permalink
Quote: hwccdealer

If you mean "point, 7, point, 7," one in 81. A point-7 is one in 9, happening back-to-back would happen once in 81 such scenarios.

I disagree. The first point-7 doesn't count because you can't have a second point-7 until the first is established. 1 in 9 is the correct answer.
Someday, joor goin' to see the name of Googie Gomez in lights and joor goin' to say to joorself, "Was that her?" and then joor goin' to answer to joorself, "That was her!" But you know somethin' mister? I was always her yuss nobody knows it! - Googie Gomez
TerribleTom
Joined: Feb 18, 2014
• Posts: 319
March 7th, 2014 at 4:47:55 PM permalink
Quote: sodawater

in a negative game, it still doesn't work long term.

Martingale is simple. Double your bet if you lose.

Craps, roulette, flipping coins - the game does not matter.

Bet 1, lose
Bet 2, lose
Bet 4, lose
Bet 8, win = net gain of 1, start over.

Whether you're betting black/red, pass/don't pass, head or tails, it matters not. If your bankroll is unlimited and there is no limit to the betting, eventually you're going to win and when you do you're going to be up by the original bet.

I guess one could theoretically flip a coin and get tails every time from here until eternity, but in reality you are eventually going to win and when you do you're going to be up \$1.

Even with roulette, the green won't matter. Bet on black every time and eventually it's going to come up black. When it does, start over at 1.

Of course nobody has an infinite bankroll and even no limit tables will eventually have limits when the casino realizes you're ready to wager \$5M to win \$1...

If I'm missing something, please enlighten me.