tell me I'm wrong

I'm relatively new to craps. I think about it and run wincraps files more than I actually play. I've been overseas for awhile and my brain is going crazy. I only have my mac and I can't test this (wincraps is windows only dur) . So- here's my question/theory. Are cumulative odds a thing or aren't they? For example, if the odds of winning a field bet in a single roll are 44.4% (i think?) . the odds of hitting the field at least once in 2 rolls is 60%. At least once in 3 rolls - 83%? roughly. So what's to stop someone from betting after each sequence of 2 non field rolls? Wouldn't that bet pay out 83% of the time? This seems ridiculously simple. Please tell me how I'm wrong here. Thanks! Oh, and if you have access to wincraps could you run it for me?

You’re wrong. Google “gambler’s fallacy.”

Ain't got a computer, just a recalcitrant tablet that drives me crazy.

Ain't got WinCraps.

Ain't got no idea what you are talking about.

A Field Bet at 44 % ??? Its nowhere near that high.
Now you be talkin' something 'bout Field Rolls and No-Field Rolls, so i'ze want to asks you "do the dice know the difference and remember what they've recently rolled? If so, do the dice know that you are lurking nearby and are about to make a field bet?

googled it. good reading. but then how do cumulative odds work? and what are they worth?

Quote: sarah.hruby

So what's to stop someone from betting after each sequence of 2 non field rolls? Wouldn't that bet pay out 83% of the time? simple.

2 non field rolls didn't make the 3rd roll more likely to win
those percentages are based on the long run - thousands or millions of rolls

each roll is an independent trial - 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒅𝒊𝒄𝒆 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒏𝒐 𝒎𝒆𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒚

each roll carries the same disadvantage - the same negative expectancy

your thought has been around forever - it even has a name - the patience or waiting system - it has zero validity


if something seems too good to be true it probably isn't true



have fun playing craps - even with a disadvantage you can sometimes win
Good Luck

'those percentages are based on the long run - thousands or millions of rolls

each roll carries the same disadvantage - the same negative expectancy

your thought has been around forever - it even has a name - the patience or waiting system - it has zero validity'

so on the one hand "those percentages" work "over thousands or millions of rolls"

but for a short period of time they don't work? that makes absolutely no sense

Quote: sarah.hruby

so on the one hand "those percentages" work "over thousands or millions of rolls"

but for a short period of time they don't work? that makes absolutely no sense

it makes perfect sense

imagine if it were true that 1 out of 25 people your age had cancer

the Doctor lines up 25 people to take a blood test to determine if they have cancer

the first 24 don't have cancer - you're next - do you think that means you're very likely to have cancer?

good news - you're not likely to have cancer - the same 4% chance applies to you - again, those percentages are only valid for the long run

OK, but if you lined up 75 people, and you had a chance to bet weather one of them had cancer out of all 75, I'd take that bet. (assuming 4 percent cancer rates) Especially if I could make it over and over again

Quote: sarah.hruby

OK, but if you lined up 75 people, and you had a chance to bet weather one of them had cancer out of all 75, I'd take that bet. (assuming 4 percent cancer rates) Especially if I could make it over and over again

yes, and if a bookie or casino priced that bet they would price it so that when you win you would get paid less than the true odds indicate


if you bet $100 and got paid back even money it would be a great bet
but it won't be priced that way

if you bet $100 and win only a very small amount when you win (the book or casino would figure it out exactly so that the bettor has a disadvantage) it would not be a good bet

We digressed, and you missed my point. That's ok, I take yours, and concede the likelihood that you are right. However, id like to see the wincraps results on it. It'd be easy enough to run.

there are some ways to win at gambling that some of the very knowledgeable and experienced players here know about
it requires a lot of work and discipline to acquire and profit from these skills
these players refer to themselves as APs or advantage players
it is difficult, and many who try it do not succeed for various reasons






these are the bogus ways of winning at gambling that are all over the internet and are recommended by scammers and other ill informed people as being winning methods



stop loss - the false belief that this will reduce your losses - it can't unless you decide to never come back and play

stop win - the false belief that limiting your win size for the day can in any way help you - it can't unless you never come back -

betting progressions - altering the size of the bet to recover losses or increase wins - cannot survive the long run - the house edge will eventually get you

betting based on patterns - bet selection - the false belief that patterns from the past will continue in the future - i.e. baccarat decisions have been alternating so they will continue to alternate

winning by intuition - the false belief that you can "know" when you are going to start winning and should then increase the size of your bets or leave the table if you "know" you are going to lose

falsely believing that something is due to happen i.e. - if the first dozen hasn't hit in roulette in 15 spins then it is "due" to come out next





these are some of the main ones - I may have missed a few

Quote: sarah.hruby

I'm relatively new to craps. I think about it and run wincraps files more than I actually play. I've been overseas for awhile and my brain is going crazy. I only have my mac and I can't test this (wincraps is windows only dur) . So- here's my question/theory. Are cumulative odds a thing or aren't they? For example, if the odds of winning a field bet in a single roll are 44.4% (i think?) . the odds of hitting the field at least once in 2 rolls is 60%. At least once in 3 rolls - 83%? roughly. So what's to stop someone from betting after each sequence of 2 non field rolls? Wouldn't that bet pay out 83% of the time? This seems ridiculously simple. Please tell me how I'm wrong here. Thanks! Oh, and if you have access to wincraps could you run it for me?

You aren’t betting that you would hit the field bet in three rolls. You are betting that it would happen after two of the rolls have already been made. That is a different proposition.

Quote: sarah.hruby

OK, but if you lined up 75 people, and you had a chance to bet weather one of them had cancer out of all 75, I'd take that bet. (assuming 4 percent cancer rates) Especially if I could make it over and over again

The key here is that you're betting on all 75 people - not just the last 25. In your craps example, you'd have to bet on all 3 rolls. Even if the 3rd one was more likely to win (it isn't), your losses on the first two rolls would still offset any wins on the 3rd.

Let me put it this way. Instead of a field bet in craps, suppose you're betting on heads on the toss of a coin.

The probability of tossing five heads in a row is (1/2)⁵ = 1/32.
However, the probability of tossing four heads in a row and then tossing tails is (1/2)⁴ (for the first four tosses) x 1/2 (for the fifth toss) = 1/32.

Quote: lilredrooster

there are some ways to win at gambling

By definition, the only way to win at gambling is to stop while you are ahead.

Gambling is defined by negative expectations, and you will lose given enough events for every form of gambling that there is.

Once you have a positive math expectation, all of a sudden it has a new name: investing.

This leads to the following conclusion: stop gambling and start investing.

Good day.

Quote: lilredrooster

it makes perfect sense

imagine if it were true that 1 out of 25 people your age had cancer

the Doctor lines up 25 people to take a blood test to determine if they have cancer

the first 24 don't have cancer - you're next - do you think that means you're very likely to have cancer?

good news - you're not likely to have cancer - the same 4% chance applies to you - again, those percentages are only valid for the long run

Minor thread hijack.... When I did labor epidurals I would quote 1% as the chance of getting a spinal headache. I would jokingly add my last 99 patients were headache free!

Quote: FleaStiff

A Field Bet at 44 % ??? Its nowhere near that high.

Public perception only
I asked many at Craps tables, over the years, about the winning probability of the Field bet and MOST said about 20%.
Their opinions based on what they have seen - so they said.
2 out of 10 or about 20 out of 100 rolls.

asked the winning probability on a PLace 6 (not counting the pushes) and got
the probability of 60%

Field win probability = 16/36 = 44.44%
Place 6 win probability = 5/11 = 45.45%
a difference of 1/99 or about 1%

OP can run Wincraps on a Mac as there are many programs, free ones, that make it possible.

Quote: sarah.hruby

I'm relatively new to craps. I think about it and run wincraps files more than I actually play. I've been overseas for awhile and my brain is going crazy. I only have my mac and I can't test this (wincraps is windows only dur) .

many run windows programs on a Mac

Quote: sarah.hruby

So- here's my question/theory. Are cumulative odds a thing or aren't they?

they are a 'thing' so is cumulative probabilities
(Odds and probabilities are not the exact same but are closely related)

Quote: sarah.hruby

For example, if the odds of winning a field bet in a single roll are 44.4% (i think?) .

16/36 to be exact or close to 44.44% probability of winning on any 'one roll'

Quote: sarah.hruby

the odds of hitting the field at least once in 2 rolls is 60%.

close
1-(20/36)^2= 56/81 = close to 69.1358%

Quote: sarah.hruby

So what's to stop someone from betting after each sequence of 2 non field rolls?

nothing really unless not enough to make the minimum table bet.

Quote: sarah.hruby

Wouldn't that bet pay out 83% of the time?

You mean the very next roll after 2 non-Fields?
No. that is where you are wrong.
the 83% is for the next 3 rolls (or any 3 rolls), not the very next roll.

just think about it
next, roll

sarah.hruby, this article explains why odds aren't "cumulative", as you put it.

When I was 17 I was skeptical that after two heads in a row, heads and tails were equally likely. So I wrote a computer program to simulate it. Conclusion: After two heads, heads and tails are equally likely. In your example, if the odds of winning a bet are 44.4% on one roll, they're always 44.4% on the next roll. The article I linked to explains why.

Quote: sarah.hruby

. At least once in 3 rolls - 83%? roughly. So what's to stop someone from betting after each sequence of 2 non field rolls? Wouldn't that bet pay out 83% of the time?

Assume the last 2 rolls were “non-field”. Or assume the last 2 rolls were field. Or assume 1 of the last 2 rolls was field and the other was non-field. Actually, assume anything you want about any previous roll.

Regardless, you will have an ~83% chance of winning the field bet at least once in the next 3 rolls

To the OP,

I ran WinCraps on my Mac.

I don’t remember the program I used but it was a cheap program.

Also, if you own a copy of windows, MAC used to be able to boot in Windows.

yes, ok

You're wrong.

Who is>?

Quote: Leonel777

Who is>?

Knock, knock.

Sarah wanted someone to tell her that she was wrong, so I did.

I did too

I'm on a diet
Ate scrambled eggs