Quote:MrVMoney won is sweeter than money earned.

"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned"

--Eddie Felson (The Color of Money 1986)

Example:

EV = (NumBets*AvgBet)*(HouseEdge)

1 DP bet of $10... HE is 1.36%... EV = (1*10)*(-.0136) = -$.14... so for every $10 DP bet you make, you can expect to lose 14 cents in "the long run." Of course there's variance in the game where you could be lucky or unlucky in the short term... just like while a coin flip is a 50/50 you could see 10 heads flipped in a row... but over the course of 1 million flips it'll balance out towards the 50/50. So we have things called Standard Deviations which takes the variance of the game in to account and gives you a "range" with a % of confidence your results will be in that range. 1SD is 68% confidence, 2SD is 95% confidence and probably used the most to project things (in my opinion). 3SD even is 99%.

SD of the DP in craps is .99 according to the wizard (https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/).

OriginalSD = .99*AvgBet, so in our case AvgBet is $10.... OriginalSD = 9.9

SD(x DP bets) = Sqrt(NumBets)*OriginalSD

SO in our example above... Let's say you place 3,000 DP bets at $10:

EV(3,000 bets) = (3,000 * 10)*(-.0136) = -$408

SD(3,000 bets) = Sqrt(3,000) * 9.9 = $542.25.... 2SD = $1,084.49

***NOTE: THIS DOES NOT TAKE IN TO ACCOUNT YOUR ODDS, SINCE THOSE HAVE NO PLAYER/HOUSE EDGE. THIS JUST LOOKS AT YOUR BETS THAT HAVE A HOUSE EDGE WHICH YOU ARE FORCED TO MAKE IN ORDER TO MAKE ODDS BETS.

So after 3,000 DP bets of $10, with 95% confidence, you'd expect to lose $408+/- $1,084.49... So you can see it's quite easy to be "UP" after 3,000 rolls just due to simple luck. You've played 84 sessions... in those sessions you play for 3 hours. Average number of rolls per hour let's say 90 (from this thread). So you play 270 rolls per day, but how many of them are new DP bets? Average number of rolls per shooter is 8.5 according to the wizard (https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/craps/probability/). So 270/8.5 = 31.76 bets per session... times 84 sessions = 2,668 bets...

So you see, it's quite plausible you could be up due to your odds bets... but in "the long run" (not sure for craps but a safe bet is like a couple hundred thousands bets) you're going to lose. Mathematically guaranteed.

Second, great formulas! My question is are these formulas based on the same bet? There will come a point when I'm down where I will make an all in or big bet when I'm down $1000 or more of my $3000 bank. Yesterday for example I was down $1100. I bet $300 against a 10 comes up so I lay $1600. I win the bet and I'm back even. However even after that win I had lost on more rolls than I had won but I won the most important bet. So I understand on the same bet over a course of many thousands of rolls I'm going to lose basically because of the 7 or 11 beating me but my bets early are perhaps big for my bank a small bet is $25 lay $150 regardless of number and average bet is $50 lay $300 regardless of number. Once I've reached my goal I am up and off the table. So I don't believe I'm giving the casino what they want and that is time (at least not on a single visit)

I guess to be a simpleton I'll ask a yes or no question to you. Are you saying after (blank amount of visits or rolls you fill in the bank) that there is no way I can be winning? I'm curious for you to give me based on what I've told you a number based on my visits when you believe I will be down. This is going to be a goal for me to say my time playing has been worth it. I'm not just talking about being up, I'm talking about being up and having it worth the time I spent going. After all why spent all this time just to spin my wheels in the long run.

Thank You so much for your analysis I appreciate the imput!

To answer your yes/no question.... YES, after X amount of bets (adding up to X amount of time in a casino) it will be mathematically impossible for you to be up. HOWEVER, if you're basing the massive majority of your action on your odds bets (which I'm sure you are) then you could add enough 0% HE variance to leave room for "luck." Even after a long enough time (aka enough bets) that would still be impossible to be up, but the more variance you add to the game the longer you have to have a chance to be lucky and still be up, if that makes sense.

For example, if you were JUST playing the $10 DP/DC with NO odds:

EV(1 million bets) = (1,000,000*10)*(.0136) = -$136,000

SD(1 million bets) = Sqrt(1,000,000) * 9.9 = $9,900... 2SD = $19,800

So after ONE MILLION Don't Pass / Don't Come bets (no odds) it would be mathematically IMPOSSIBLE for you to be up... You could expect to be DOWN -$136,000 +/- ~$20k... So even if you were lucky, the best you could do is -$136,000 + $20k = -$116,000.

What your odds bets do is add variance, which is going to make your SD's larger. So instead of +/- $20k it might be something like +/- $200,000... THEN if you were really lucky you COULD still be up because -$136,000 + $200,000 = +$64,000.

***Do note: Variance works both ways and you could just as equally be more unlucky and be -$136,000 - $200,000 = -$336,000... though with the variance at least this way you have a 'chance' of being up, mathematically speaking.

This is why the "tighter" casinos have LESS odds. They want to tighten that range so you'll be a loser over time for sure. This is why the house wins in the long run on games they have an edge on... Because you can't mathematically win. Which is why AP'ing is so nice because you can flip those odds on them and if you play long enough, you can't mathematically lose =).

anyway, doing simulations with wincraps, and staying totally away from any other betting than pass/dp with odds, I have found it takes many millions of rolls to see the long run kick in to the point that losing over it that long run is near certainty. This can definitely mean more rolls than many, probably most, players would see in a lifetime.

And the higher the odds multiple, the more it becomes anybody's guess how you might do in your lifetime.

Having said all that, you can also say that "you just do not want to be" one of the guys who wind up running bad over that lifetime.

And this last is pure superstition, but I subscribe to it as "the way of the world" ... if you really need the money, you are not going to 'chosen' as one of the winners. Count on it.

Quote:WatchMeWinAgree GWAE.... Thats why you have to hit and run.. Its the only way!

It's All One Big Session...And Then You Die

IAOBS...ATYD

tom p

Quote:WatchMeWinI have a simple "challenge" proposal for system players.

Bet the table the table minimum, or whatever you want however you want. Whatever you win Ill match, double, triple etc, whatever we agree on. Whatever you lose you owe me the same as to whatever we agreed on. You or I can quit and settle up whatever one of us wants to...

an excellent challenge, watchme!

you might want to be a little careful with it, though, depending upon the number of trials...there are "martingale-like" systems that win over 90% of the time...of course when the sh*t hits the fan, you might get all of your losses and then some back...heck you could even be in the chips big-time after but one trial...

were i to take up your challenge, it would neverthelessbe a martingale that i would employ.

isn't variance and luck fun?

tom p

Quote:Romes...So you see, it's quite plausible you could be up due to your odds bets... but in "the long run" (not sure for craps but a safe bet is like a couple hundred thousands bets) you're going to lose. Mathematically guaranteed.

Not Correct.

at least with the numbers you are using ("couple hundred thousands bets")

with sufficiently low -ev bets probability mathematics guarantees that some -- very few -- will win.

the lamentably long absent goatcabin ran some sims several years back (o how i wish he were around to verify what follows as it is strictly from potentially faulty memory! the gist of it is accurate however)....he simulated 10,000 players rolling a million rolls, each betting only the pass line with double odds, a -ev --correct me if i am wrong -- of about .8%.

something just under 5% were still ahead after a million rolls...a similar simulation betting only the 6 (or 8, i forget which), what? a negative ev of about 1.52%...after [b/]a million rolls i believe it was just under 2% were still ahead

however the HE does need to be sufficiently low...the same 10,000 players betting only the hard 6 (or 8, again i forget which) for a mil yielded ZERO ahead after the million rolls.

"theoretically" the math guarantees that all lose only at infinity.

tom p

Quote:betwthelines

however the HE does need to be sufficiently low...the same 10,000 players betting only the hard 6 (or 8, again i forget which) for a mil yielded ZERO ahead after the million rolls.

tom p

I just recently played my final craps game ever. I've given up the past time, but I had played for over 20+ years. Maybe once in all my years, I saw a hot hard 6/8 streak where a guy hit the hard ways three times in a row.

There's almost never a hot streak.

It hits rarely.

And when it does hit, it's not like the payout is enormous. Sure it pays 9-1 (or 7-1), but no one just bets one of the hard numbers, they bet all four. So when one does hit, it's more like a 2-1 pay out. And then you're always tossing out additional chips to put back up the number that just fell to an easy roll.

Does anyone here consistently play the hard ways bets?

Can someone explain why you play it?

Forgetting the high HE for a second, I do not understand why people play the hard ways bet. All gambling has a negative expectation, so a nongambler may ask the same question of any game. But with other bets on the craps table, there's enough frequency of reward, in the form of streaks and subsequent large payout, to create a Pavlovian reaction. I just don't see it in the hardways, which is just consistent punishment with minimal reward.

But almost everyone bets the hardways.

The horn bet makes even less sense to me.