Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
April 27th, 2014 at 10:02:41 PM permalink
I always try the continuous come strategy because in theory it is the best way to go, but in practice it never fails that I need recovery time. Wait...wrong site.
TerribleTom
TerribleTom
Joined: Feb 18, 2014
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 319
April 27th, 2014 at 10:46:56 PM permalink
No offense intended.

What I mean by not useful is this: you will never see real life results that match the chart, and you can generate as many charts as you'd like in a very short time. Once you've looked at hundreds of charts you begin to realize that they'll all bust out eventually.

Graphing the results of a betting system vs. random numbers can be interesting but I'm not sure I'd call it useful.
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 86
  • Posts: 5106
April 28th, 2014 at 3:52:54 AM permalink
Quote: TerribleTom

Graphing the results of a betting system vs. random numbers can be interesting but I'm not sure I'd call it useful.



You aren't the first nor will you be the last who fails to find the usefulness of these graphs.

I anticipated someone would make a comment like yours.

And it's these types of comments in general that discourage my participation in these forums.
dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
April 28th, 2014 at 7:32:34 AM permalink
Terribletom




It is very difficult to determine if it is useful.

Also the same can be said for other records such as those produced by smartcraps. All
these records and displays of them are a record of "what has happened" not what will
happen.

In addition most of the data we record is from our home table, and that may or may not
be of use, unless you play at a casino table that is exactly like your home table.

IN terms of the original question regarding the value of constant come betting, all you
have to do is reflect on what you or others think about a system where you bet across
multiple units after the first roll. I think this is a very risky way to play, and can result
in staggering loses. But the results are no different than a player that would place
constant comes bets until each number is covered without a prior repeat hit.

Both result in the very potential to lose your entire bet before any return.

The only variance i see in the two betting systems is that a come better will lose less
on the 15% of the rolls that at are 7 outs, and less than an across better on rolls
2-4.

In that sense the come better has some of the protections of a system like the
5 count. On the other hand the across better has a chance of hitting one or
more of his bets prior to roll 6 or 7 sense he has a bet on all of them. There are
times when a come bets are better on some shorter rolls when the shooter
repeats right away. Trouble is you cant see that ahead of time.

In the end your going to lose with either system if your going to just throw money
at the table. You have to be able to throw in some manner to change the random
nature of the game, and that does not mean throwing the dice so hard they bounce
all the way back to you and think your a controlled shooter.

You certainly can win money on random rollers also if you manage your money well enough
to be at the table long enough to see a good roll.

But unless you have a good deal of money, constant come bets just as across betting will
place to large a portion of your buy in on the table to often.


dicesetter
TerribleTom
TerribleTom
Joined: Feb 18, 2014
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 319
April 28th, 2014 at 10:43:23 AM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

You aren't the first nor will you be the last who fails to find the usefulness of these graphs.

I anticipated someone would make a comment like yours.

And it's these types of comments in general that discourage my participation in these forums.



I can see the use in comparing two betting systems (no odds vs. odds, as you posted above).

I would caution anyone to start looking at charts of results based on random numbers and think that they represent potential actual results at a craps table. Some people will look at the posted chart and think that if they can manage to make it through the big trough in the middle that there's a pot of gold at the other end of the rainbow.

And please, don't let some random goofball like me run you off.
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
April 28th, 2014 at 11:45:08 AM permalink
They are potential actual results. They do appear misleading at a glance, but if examined closely, you notice the lowest trough is lower than the highest peak is high. It also shows that on average, you are still better off taking the no odds bet. In your defense, it was not couched in this way, seemingly advocating riskier betting styles. But the graph conforms to the math and is accurate. It is useful to know that the lowest edge bet produces no volatility, making it impossible to come out ahead, whereas variance rules the others. There may be a sense of exaggerated importance of these graphs, but if so, it may be a result of you misreading them.
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 287
  • Posts: 7908
April 28th, 2014 at 12:05:45 PM permalink
Quote: TerribleTom

Some people will look at the posted chart and think that if they can manage to make it through the big trough in the middle that there's a pot of gold at the other end of the rainbow.



There's certainly no guarantee of that pot of gold, and the person who really has the bankroll and guts to weather the "trough" is a whale. What whale gets interested gambling with 10x/20x odds? Even if he likes Craps, you don't hear much of that. From what I can tell, they want to be pampered with comps and fawning hosts. An HE around .002% won't get you those things.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
RaleighCraps
RaleighCraps
Joined: Feb 20, 2010
  • Threads: 79
  • Posts: 2501
April 29th, 2014 at 11:16:17 AM permalink
Quote: Sonuvabish

They are potential actual results. They do appear misleading at a glance, but if examined closely, you notice the lowest trough is lower than the highest peak is high. It also shows that on average, you are still better off taking the no odds bet. In your defense, it was not couched in this way, seemingly advocating riskier betting styles. But the graph conforms to the math and is accurate. It is useful to know that the lowest edge bet produces no volatility, making it impossible to come out ahead, whereas variance rules the others. There may be a sense of exaggerated importance of these graphs, but if so, it may be a result of you misreading them.



So, in summary, it sounds like you are saying PL with no Odds has much smaller swings in win/loss versus a player wagering PL with 10X Odds. Yup, that sounds about right.

Now, I think it was Alan (goatcabin) who had pointed out before that if you take TOTAL money wagered (so the PL with no odds player will need to play 10x as many PL bets), then the PL with no odds player will end up losing more money.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back ! Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
Sonuvabish
Sonuvabish
Joined: Feb 5, 2014
  • Threads: 29
  • Posts: 1342
April 29th, 2014 at 12:37:51 PM permalink
Quote: RaleighCraps

So, in summary, it sounds like you are saying PL with no Odds has much smaller swings in win/loss versus a player wagering PL with 10X Odds. Yup, that sounds about right.

Now, I think it was Alan (goatcabin) who had pointed out before that if you take TOTAL money wagered (so the PL with no odds player will need to play 10x as many PL bets), then the PL with no odds player will end up losing more money.



Yes, you are right. For some reason I was thinking odds was place bets and hard ways. Not taking odds is tossing money out the window.
Sonny44
Sonny44
Joined: May 13, 2013
  • Threads: 13
  • Posts: 216
April 29th, 2014 at 12:47:18 PM permalink
OP: Look. It just stands to reason that the more you have on the table any one time is the more you lose at 7 Out. This idea that you have a hedge with each Come bet doesn't apply when you have all box numbers covered with 1 Come bet pending. You lose whatever on the standing Come bets and win with the single Come pending bet, but what is that?

I'm beginning to realize that there are 2 factors in any game: (1) How the table is going; (2) What is the condition of my bankroll. You simply cannot slap up more box numbers, with, w/o odds, when the 7 can appear at any time. When you win, it's only on one number; when the 7 shows, you lose everything. If you have a deep bankroll, be my guest.

It gets back to, "Bet only what you can afford to lose." Putting more numbers up is no more a guarantee of wins than loading up on odds. Odds are valid only on a win; worthless on a loss. It all gets back to how the table is going and what is happening to your bankroll. I do not know what your buy-in is; I do not know the table minimum. I do not know if you're "hit and run," or seeking table time for comps or enjoyment.

You can look at all the charts in the world; they mean nothing when you're standing at the table. It all gets down to: "What was the number just thrown? Is it my number? Some other number?" Of course, if it's the 7, it doesn't matter how many numbers you've covered or whether or not you have odds.

  • Jump to: