A lot of the strategies presented make me nervous because they are so different from recommendations I've read on the Wizard's site or other craps books. They also use some terms like "iron cross" which for many is a huge trigger and red flag. Please try not to be reactionary; take the time to read the whole post and strategy. I'm not looking for knee-jerk snark, but constructive thoughts and opinions.

Premise: Jackson and Medansky are clear that their strategies are not for the purpose of playing craps for entertainment, but for the explicit purpose of making money. To them, that means that play time may be short and the style is very different from players who are used to playing for hour after hour. They recommend a starting bankroll of $5k and buy-in of $1,500. With this bankroll size your goal is to be up $300/day, which is made over 3 short, separate playing sessions. If at any one of those sessions you lose more than $875 you stop and walk away for the day. If in any one of those sessions you hit your $300 goal you stop and walk away for the day. Much of the book is dedicated to discussing discipline and hard stops after reaching specific, reasonable win goals and also hard stop goals for losses. They are clear in pointing out that you will not win every day. Much of the philosophy around limiting yourself to 3 short sessions per day seems to be about reinforcing self-control so that you don't go overboard and get wiped out with greed and pressing bets nor from indefinitely chasing losses until ruin. I think It's also based on the idea that over long periods of play the house edge will always eat at you, so short periods lead to better long term outcomes. (I'm not sure if that last point is actually true.)

Betting: For each of the 3 daily sessions, you don't bet on the pass line, but wait for the shooter to establish a point then make a modified iron cross bet for at total of $125 ($10 on 4, 9, 10 & field; $25 on 5; $30 on 6 & 8). You take your bets down after the shooter rolls twice, no matter your winnings from that shooter (based on the idea that 1/6 rolls is a 7, so the longer your bets are out there the more likely a 7 will hit). Then you repeat this again with a second shooter. If you've won, then you should be up about $100. You walk away from the table for the session. You repeat this again for 2 more sessions in the day.

Point Seven Out: If during the playing session your bet gets wiped away because there is a seven out during one of the two shooter's rolls after you've bet the $125, then you wait until the next shooter and you double your modified iron cross bet to $250 (think Martingale). If you lose that, then you once again double the bet to $500. If you lose that then you leave the table for the day and start over tomorrow. The authors write that if you are not comfortable doubling your bet and would like a more conservative approach you can leave it at the base $125 unit until you make up your losses and hit your session goal or hit your loss cap for the session.

"Cold" table bet: The authors suggest that if the table is running "cold" then on the come-out roll you lay ("no" bet) all of the numbers at $30 each and a $5 horn high yo bet (a total of $185). On a 7, this bet will net you $109. On a point number roll, this bet would lose $35. You leave these bets out for a maximum of two wins or two losses before taking them down.

One, two, two bet: Instead of a pass line bet, a player can bet $1 yo, $2 any craps, and $2 any seven (for a total of $5). The authors rationalize that although this bet won't win if a point number is established, a $5 pass-line bettor isn't guaranteed to win on a point number even if one is established, and the pass-line bettor is also at risk of losing any additional odds (s)he puts behind the pass line if a seven comes out before the point is made.

My thoughts: This book is a conundrum for me because although I can recognize several fallacies in it, there are also some ideas that seem to make sense to me. Then again, I've just begun studying craps theory and I'm not a statistician so I'm far from an expert, and it's very possible that what seems reasonable to me actually doesn't make any sense when you do the math. I'm hoping that some of you more experienced players can help clarify.

Some things that I realize are false: there's no such thing as a "cold" table since previous roles do not affect the likelihood of future roles. I also don't think it matters if you break your play into three sessions or not or multiple days or not; it seems to me that that if you follow one consistent strategy and play 20 minutes 3 times per day for 10 days (10 hours) that is no different than following the same betting strategy but playing 10 hours straight in one day. Am I wrong?

Some things that seem reasonable to me... or not?: The authors prefer the place bets over pass line/come bets because of the ability to take them down after short periods of play. It is true that the odds of rolling a 7 are 1/6, so it does seem to hold for me that leaving your bets up for shorter periods of time puts you at less risk. However, now that I think about it... the odds of the 7 are always 1/6. Just because a shooter goes 2 rolls without a 7 doesn't mean that the 7 is any more or less likely to come up on the next roll than it was on the previous two. If you take the bets down or turn them off and wait for a new shooter before turning them back on then that new shooter still has a 1/6 chance of rolling the 7. Therefore... your money is at no more or less of a risk now then it was before? So what's the purpose of waiting for a new shooter? (I think this is like above with the 20min x 3 x 10 days vs 10 hour play... it's the same odds no matter how long you spread it out?)

As for the actual bets themselves... I know statistical work ups have been done on the high house advantage of the (modified) iron cross and propositions bets and that the lowest house advantage is on the pass/don't pass/come/don't come/odds bets. Yet I wonder if there is anything to these authors' particular combination of bets that would be wise to adopt...

Thoughts?

Quote:Xtina

Thoughts?

It seems like you already realize it is a steaming pile of ...... You can adopt any of these modes of betting as long as you realize with each and every bet you are more likely to lose money than win money.

Quote:XtinaI'm not looking for knee-jerk snark, but constructive thoughts and opinions.

I have sworn off trying to give constructive advice to those who, it turns out, were not actually looking for such. In your case you have come across as sincere. But I fear you are vulnerable to some really bad ideas, you are showing signs of it. So I'll try to point out things when I think you should be picking up on them, things you will pick up here if you stick around this site and pay attention.

I would hope in future, you will immediately know you are going down the wrong road just with this first point. Craps is called a "negative expectation game". Unless you think you can influence dice throws, we automatically know there is no combination, no system, no combination of bets offered by the House that can change that fact. This is a fact. Likely, the authors know this. You should have contempt for them.Quote:Premise: Jackson and Medansky are clear that their strategies are not for the purpose of playing craps for entertainment, but for the explicit purpose of making money.

This is only true if it means you are not letting the house advantage eat away at your bankroll. If you have the same amount of 'total action' one way compared to the other, it doesn't matter.Quote:... short periods lead to better long term outcomes. (I'm not sure if that last point is actually true.)

It is easy to think a player is making the appearance of a 7-out more and more imminent, however, as long as the past does not matter and the future is random, it can't matter when you place your bets or when you pick them up.Quote:... the idea that 1/6 rolls is a 7, so the longer your bets are out there the more likely a 7 will hit

The dice do not know if you won or lost when you return to the table. This concept that the dice have no memory is one that you need to take to heart. Once it sinks in, it'll be much harder to buy into these faulty ideas.Quote:You walk away from the table for the session.

again, the dice have no memory. There is no point in waiting for anything in order to get the dice to make you well again. The dice don't know. They don't care. If stalling makes you bet less, that works. Betting less is good.Quote:Point Seven Out: If during the playing session your bet gets wiped away because there is a seven out during one of the two shooter's rolls after you've bet the $125, then you wait until ...

A table is only hot or cold in the past. A table cannot be hot or cold at the present or in the future, this hot or cold business does not affect the results of the next roll.Quote:"Cold" table bet:

Can't you see this is a non-mathematical evaluation? These bets have probabilities and odds, why aren't the authors using these things?Quote:One, two, two bet: Instead of a pass line bet, a player can bet $1 yo, $2 any craps, and $2 any seven (for a total of $5). The authors rationalize that although this bet won't win if a point number is established, a $5 pass-line bettor isn't guaranteed to win on a point number even if one is established, and the pass-line bettor is also at risk of losing any additional odds (s)he puts behind the pass line if a seven comes out before the point is made.

I'm glad you recognize the fallacies, and they are indeed just trying to appeal to you otherwise by what might sound good in your gut. Believe me they are not introducing a single new idea that hasn't been thoroughly discredited.Quote:My thoughts: This book is a conundrum for me because although I can recognize several fallacies in it, there are also some ideas that seem to make sense to me.

The thing is, very simple concepts will save you if you internalize them. Do you need to analyze bet combinations? No, because no bet combination can beat the house edge, mathematicians not needed. Do you need to learn to fine tune when to bet and when to quit? No, because the dice have no memory.Quote:Then again, I've just begun studying craps theory and I'm not a statistician so I'm far from an expert

I hope I reinforced those things.Quote:Some things that I realize are false: there's no such thing as a "cold" table since previous roles do not affect the likelihood of future roles. I also don't think it matters if you break your play into three sessions or not or multiple days or not; it seems to me that that if you follow one consistent strategy and play 20 minutes 3 times per day for 10 days (10 hours) that is no different than following the same betting strategy but playing 10 hours straight in one day. Am I wrong?

They are dissing the bets with the lowest house edge. Do the authors work for the casino?Quote:Some things that seem reasonable to me... or not?: The authors prefer the place bets over pass line/come bets because of the ability to take them down after short periods of play.

No. Internalize this.Quote:... Yet I wonder if there is anything to these authors' particular combination of bets that would be wise to adopt...

There were definitely other parts of the book that I didn't bother to take the time to describe that were additional red flags. However, I was intrigued by the strategy since I find the possibility of it more exciting than repeat pass line/come/odds. I loved playing craps for the very first time a few weekends ago, and I want to play it smart, but I'm also finding that playing it smart isn't quite as fun. That being said, it's also not fun to lose money. I want to make money, but there are no guarantees.

So really, I'm trying to decide which I value more: playing conservatively but being a bit bored or not playing at all. If there's a way I can play to spice things up a bit more but not be at terrible risk then I'd like to learn it. One option for me might be playing the dark side. I'm trying to learn WinCraps to test out different styles and see what I like.

Oh, one more thing... I'm not sure what you meant by this [in regards to the house edge wearing you down over time]: "This is only true if it means you are not letting the house advantage eat away at your bankroll. If you have the same amount of 'total action' one way compared to the other, it doesn't matter. " Can you please explain?

Thanks!

Quote:XtinaHey, thanks for your thorough response--I really do appreciate it. I am sincere in my desire to learn, that's why I'm taking the time to read all these books--good and bad. There were definitely other parts of the book that I didn't bother to take the time to describe that were additional red flags. However, I was intrigued by the strategy since I find the possibility of it more exciting than repeat pass line/come/odds. I loved playing craps for the very first time a few weekends ago, and I want to play it smart, but I'm also finding that playing it smart isn't quite as fun. That being said, it's also not fun to lose money. I want to make money, but there are no guarantees. So really, I'm trying to decide which I value more: playing conservatively but being a bit bored or not playing at all. If there's a way I can play to spice things up a bit more but not be at terrible risk then I'd like to learn it.

Full odds on pass/come or don’t pass / don’t come gives the best chance of still being ahead after X rolls. Variance if your friend (and foe) in negative expectation games.

You have given bankroll, say $750. If a player is at that table for hours, most of us will have bet $750 in total pretty soon, maybe $50 at a time or so. You might not realize it, because you might have $750 at that time still in your bankroll, give or take, or maybe $500 or whatever. But when you continue to bet, you are going back through a second time, "grinding it". When you continue to do this, the longer you do it the more likely you are to come away a loser. If the edge is 2%, on average you will have 98% return one time through. When you go back through, 98% of that, or about 96% ... "grinding away" ... about $720 left in that scenario. Of course we know nothing goes that smoothly, you could even be ahead.Quote:XtinaOh, one more thing... I'm not sure what you meant by this [in regards to the house edge wearing you down over time]: "This is only true if it means you are not letting the house advantage eat away at your bankroll. If you have the same amount of 'total action' one way compared to the other, it doesn't matter. " Can you please explain?

So when someone suggests a stop in play, even with faulty reasoning, they may be suggesting something that will prevent this grinding so much. But they probably aren't mentioning any of this.

And if your *total action is the same*, though, say betting the $750 one time through: if you do it in small sessions or if you do it in one big session, what's called the 'expected value' , EV, is the same. So usually this suggestion of small sessions is viewed as a canard, session size is not what matters.

The way you bet also can affect your variance, which is not the same as EV. But I wouldn't want to get into that just yet.

Quote:ChumpChangeIf I was going to try to win $300 a day. I'd buy-in for $300 and bet the PL for $30 until I was 10 bets ahead, or 10 bets behind. #SimpleStuff

This is the graphical output of my craps software that I just dusted off for the first time in probably six years.

See that red line? That's pass line without odds over a six-figure number of randomly generated roll data.

Quote:ChumpChangeIf I was going to try to win $300 a day. I'd buy-in for $300 and bet the PL for $30 until I was 10 bets ahead, or 10 bets behind. #SimpleStuff

Or just make 1 bet of $300 and have the least exposure to the HA.

Quote:MrVI found John Patrick's two books on craps, called "Craps" and "Advanced Craps" to be helpful for a newbie.

whatever happened to him and the sky pilot?????

First one is, isolating one variable as a problem (the HA) and forgetting about the 10 other important one.

Second one, if it works he’s going to try again and screw up your mad scientist calculations.

Third one and not the least, risk of ruin % compared to bankroll probably isn’t respected and is favoring the casino a lot more then the HA ever could.

There is only one way to win at this game on the long run, playing to ensure you have won more then you invested on average before 6 rolls, within your playing bankroll capacity.

Just up a unit twice on a win. Don’t take more then 3 bets, stay within your limits...and you should get a bankroll raising instead of going down over time. If you don’t stick around too much when it isn’t working.

Another day another battle is the smartest play in a casino when things go wrong.

Quote:DanF

There is only one way to win at this game on the long run, playing to ensure you have won more then you invested on average before 6 rolls, within your playing bankroll capacity.

?

Quote:DanFLol there’s three problems with this way of thinking.

First one is, isolating one variable as a problem (the HA) and forgetting about the 10 other important one.

Second one, if it works he’s going to try again and screw up your mad scientist calculations.

Third one and not the least, risk of ruin % compared to bankroll probably isn’t respected and is favoring the casino a lot more then the HA ever could.

There is only one way to win at this game on the long run, playing to ensure you have won more then you invested on average before 6 rolls, within your playing bankroll capacity.

That's okay, but my method is slightly more refined and evolved over time.

Bet more on the rolls you win and less on the others. Every so often, inverse this.

1. on losing days you will lose no more than $500

2. on winning days you will win $1,000 and then leave the table

3. it's very important to have the 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐜𝐭 same number of winning days as losing days

here's the math:

1. 30 days in a month

2. 15 losing days losing $500 for a loss of $7,500

3. 15 winning days winning $1,000 for a total win of $15,000

4. now this is where the math gets tricky - you subtract $7,500 from $15,000 and that is your net monthly win - $𝟕,𝟓𝟎𝟎

5. okay, now we're going to do some more math - 12 months in a year - 12*7500 = $𝟗𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 - that is your win every year

6. some more math - 12 years of winning $90,000 every year means you will have won 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 😄 😄 😄 😄

here I am enjoying my winning system...................................I'm the shooter:

the greatest craps guru? it's me. I call myself 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐣𝐢 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐬

Quote:FinsRuleOk, officially blocking all craps threads.

And we start caring? Not

Quote:lilredroosterthis is my winning craps system:

1. on losing days you will lose no more than $500

2. on winning days you will win $1,000 and then leave the table

3. it's very important to have the 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐜𝐭 same number of winning days as losing days

here's the math:

1. 30 days in a month

2. 15 losing days losing $500 for a loss of $7,500

3. 15 winning days winning $1,000 for a total win of $15,000

4. now this is where the math gets tricky - you subtract $7,500 from $15,000 and that is your net monthly win - $𝟕,𝟓𝟎𝟎

5. okay, now we're going to do some more math - 12 months in a year - 12*7500 = $𝟗𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 - that is your win every year

6. some more math - 12 years of winning $90,000 every year means you will have won 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐬 😄 😄 😄 😄

here I am enjoying my winning system...................................I'm the shooter:

the greatest craps guru? it's me. I call myself 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐣𝐢 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐬

g]

Dude why give it up for free, write a book and be rich in a year!

Day 2: Win $2000

Day 3: Win $4000

Day 4: Win $8000

Keep winning $8000 a day (no CTR's), or go bigger.

Day 5: Win $16K

Day 6: Win $32K

Day 7: Win $64K

Go to AC or LV for higher table maximums.

Day 8: Win $128K

Day 9: Win $256K

Keep winning $256K a day, or quit & pay your taxes.

It must be really unsettling when you have a streak of winning days early in the month: Knowing that you must keep coming back to lose or your system will breakQuote:lilredrooster

3. it's very important to have the 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐜𝐭 same number of winning days as losing days

$:o)

Quote:DanFDude why give it up for free, write a book and be rich in a year!

thanks for the encouragement. I definitely was overly generous in giving it away

but I'm coming out with a new hardback priced at $89.95 with my winning stock market system

here's the title and a sneak peek at the cover:

here I am pointing out a winning trade: