This is the way that I figure it if my math is correct. Assuming you're the shooter if you're playing at a $5 minimum table, you put $5 on the pass line and then minimum bets on all of the numbers 2 through 12 would be a total of $49 correct? Obviously it depends on what point is established too but I'm just talking hypothetically here of course or theoretically. So, I guess my ultimate question is what if you just cover every single number and then roll once or twice after a point is established? Just as long as you don't roll a 7 during any of those 1-2 throws, you would profit every time, correct? What if you just took all of your place bets down after hitting any number other than 7 twice? Wouldn't this be a viable way of betting? You could also do something like increase the place bets to 6 times the minimum bets on every number would be a total of I think $264 out on the table at one time but as long as you don't roll a 7 the first roll then you're guaranteed to win at least $42 every throw just as long as you don't seven out, right? (Hopefully my math is correct) So I was thinking that you could just win $42 once, take all of your place bets down, and now you basically have enough in winnings to basically cover every single number. You're only $2 short actually assuming you still have your $5 pass up. What if you did this and then just used the $42 give or take win to just simply put up this amount of money for one or 2 rolls every time each new roll if that makes sense. Wouldn't you technically profit every single roll just as long as you don't seven out within the 2 rolls? Then after you hit 2 numbers, you just take all of your place bets down and roll until you seven out or hit the point number. Would this be viable in your opinion? If anyone is confused, the strategy I'm referring to is to make 2 wins and then take down all of your bets afterwards in order to capitalize on your profits. So, for example, you have every number covered after you establish a point. Let's say the point is 12, you then roll a 4 and 3 afterwards. The 4 and 3 are going to pay pure payouts on those 2 numbers, then afterwards you just collect your profit and take down all of your bets that way you don't risk losing everything out on the table. This is also of course assuming that every time I get up to roll the dice that I don't seven out 2 rolls after a point is established. I say this because I don't know how many times I've gotten up to roll ( I set the dice) and went at least 5 times without a 7 coming up. You're probably going to roll out the math on this one and give me the mathematics in the long run, and yeah I get it... blah blah blah, same old cliché Wizard of Odds mumbo jumbo... I get it....alls I'm saying is that with a consistent shooter, I think we'd have an advantage. I figured this with a $300 bankroll too. With a total of $264 out on the table, you wouldn't be doing this consistently, this would only be used to win $42-$44, and then use the profits to just then play on with minimum place bets if that makes sense. And yeah I get it that if you spend 2 hours to make $300 just to then make that $264 bet the next day or whatever and happen to lose it. On the first roll though, that doesn't happen to me often at all. I plan on getting a second job that would allow me to make an extra $300-$600 a month and then use this strategy. I think it would be hard for me to lose technically. If I won let's say $800 in profit, even with a $300 loss I'm still up $500 obviously. I just think it could be viable in the long run as long as you're consistent with your dice setting even if you don't believe in it. Which I highly doubt you do, but I'm just saying. Also, before you give me the typical "What if this.... what if that...if if if this and that speech.... 'If' a million dollars showed up on my front porch, I'd be a millionaire" mumbo jumbo... just save yourself the time and effort of saying all of that because trust me I get it. I realize that the dice can bounce off of the wall in any combination. I don't need that kind of talk honestly.

Quote:waterandiceJust wanted to say that my city has a crapless craps table. I'm not sure why they decided to switch but I'm guessing it's because of a bigger "house advantage." In my opinion there is one aspect about crapless craps that could offer an advantage to a consistent shooter though and that is the ability to put place bets on every single number. This is advantageous IMO since you don't have to make what I call "extra bets" like you do in regular craps to cover every single number. For example, in a regular craps game; you could have place bets on the 5, 6, and 8... but you would have to then make a field, horn bet, etc... in order to cover the rest of the numbers. The problem with this is that for example if you're betting the field along with the 5, 6, 8... you'll have to subtract the field from your winnings every time you roll a 5, 6, or 8. In crapless craps though, you could just cover every single number and you're guaranteed what I call a "pure win" as long as you don't roll a 7. So, I was just thinking what if I just put $5 on the pass and cover every single number after a point is established? Aren't you guaranteed a win no matter what just as long as you don't roll a 7 after you do this? You wouldn't have to make a field bet or horn or whatever in order to cover every number either since you would be putting up a place bet for every single number out on the table. Isn't this advantageous in and of itself?

This is the way that I figure it if my math is correct. Assuming you're the shooter if you're playing at a $5 minimum table, you put $5 on the pass line and then minimum bets on all of the numbers 2 through 12 would be a total of $49 correct? Obviously it depends on what point is established too but I'm just talking hypothetically here of course or theoretically. So, I guess my ultimate question is what if you just cover every single number and then roll once or twice after a point is established? Just as long as you don't roll a 7 during any of those 1-2 throws, you would profit every time, correct? What if you just took all of your place bets down after hitting any number other than 7 twice? Wouldn't this be a viable way of betting? You could also do something like increase the place bets to 6 times the minimum bets on every number would be a total of I think $264 out on the table at one time but as long as you don't roll a 7 the first roll then you're guaranteed to win at least $42 every throw just as long as you don't seven out, right? (Hopefully my math is correct) So I was thinking that you could just win $42 once, take all of your place bets down, and now you basically have enough in winnings to basically cover every single number. You're only $2 short actually assuming you still have your $5 pass up. What if you did this and then just used the $42 give or take win to just simply put up this amount of money for one or 2 rolls every time each new roll if that makes sense. Wouldn't you technically profit every single roll just as long as you don't seven out within the 2 rolls? Then after you hit 2 numbers, you just take all of your place bets down and roll until you seven out or hit the point number. Would this be viable in your opinion? If anyone is confused, the strategy I'm referring to is to make 2 wins and then take down all of your bets afterwards in order to capitalize on your profits. So, for example, you have every number covered after you establish a point. Let's say the point is 12, you then roll a 4 and 3 afterwards. The 4 and 3 are going to pay pure payouts on those 2 numbers, then afterwards you just collect your profit and take down all of your bets that way you don't risk losing everything out on the table. This is also of course assuming that every time I get up to roll the dice that I don't seven out 2 rolls after a point is established. I say this because I don't know how many times I've gotten up to roll ( I set the dice) and went at least 5 times without a 7 coming up. You're probably going to roll out the math on this one and give me the mathematics in the long run, and yeah I get it... blah blah blah, same old cliché Wizard of Odds mumbo jumbo... I get it....alls I'm saying is that with a consistent shooter, I think we'd have an advantage. I figured this with a $300 bankroll too. With a total of $264 out on the table, you wouldn't be doing this consistently, this would only be used to win $42-$44, and then use the profits to just then play on with minimum place bets if that makes sense. And yeah I get it that if you spend 2 hours to make $300 just to then make that $264 bet the next day or whatever and happen to lose it. On the first roll though, that doesn't happen to me often at all. I plan on getting a second job that would allow me to make an extra $300-$600 a month and then use this strategy. I think it would be hard for me to lose technically. If I won let's say $800 in profit, even with a $300 loss I'm still up $500 obviously. I just think it could be viable in the long run as long as you're consistent with your dice setting even if you don't believe in it. Which I highly doubt you do, but I'm just saying. Also, before you give me the typical "What if this.... what if that...if if if this and that speech.... 'If' a million dollars showed up on my front porch, I'd be a millionaire" mumbo jumbo... just save yourself the time and effort of saying all of that because trust me I get it. I realize that the dice can bounce off of the wall in any combination. I don't need that kind of talk honestly.

I stopped reading once you said 'as long as you don't roll a 7'. EVERY shooter will on average roll a seven 1 in 6 rolls. There is NO SUCH THING as a 'consistent shooter'.

Years ago on this very forum there was a guy who said he could roll fewer than the expected 1 out of 6. We bet. He paid me. There is no such thing as being able to set the dice in such a way that a legal roll gives you an advantage. Period. If you want to believe it go make the $300-$500 a month and report back to us.

Sorry to be so blunt.

The bluntness is entirely appropriate, I am certain each of these 'dice setters' have already been informed rather bluntly. Its a matter of "true believers" not wanting to hear an unpleasant truth.Quote:SOOPOOSorry to be so blunt.

Quote:SOOPOOI stopped reading once you said 'as long as you don't roll a 7'. EVERY shooter will on average roll a seven 1 in 6 rolls. There is NO SUCH THING as a 'consistent shooter'.

Years ago on this very forum there was a guy who said he could roll fewer than the expected 1 out of 6. We bet. He paid me. There is no such thing as being able to set the dice in such a way that a legal roll gives you an advantage. Period. If you want to believe it go make the $300-$500 a month and report back to us.

Sorry to be so blunt.

I don't believe you read the entire post then. I'm not talking about 6 rolls here. At the most I am talking about 2 . I'm not here to argue about dice control or consistency either. That's a whole different ball game. Maybe next time you need to learn how to not stop reading someone's post until you understand the entire point to what they're saying. If I was going to bet money on anything it's that you probably didn't even comprehend what I was even saying within the entire post. That's honestly just ignorant but I understand where you're coming from though. You probably just chalked it off of the board instantly like you do with any other strategy that anyone would post on here. You seem like the type that would / will dismiss 99.9% of "strategies" to begin with so I honestly don't even know why I'm bothering to waste my time replying to someone like you. It's probably just not even worth my time since you don't even have the decency to try and articulate someone's entire thought process, yet, here I am replying to you anyway. You're not the type of person I targeted this post towards anyways. I don't know why I'm asking this but I sincerely hope that you go back and read the entire post with an absolute open mind. Thanks.... like I said, probably just wasting my time....It also might be partly my fault explaining my post simply because it's easier to explain what I mean to someone in person rather than having to use words over the internet.

noQuote:waterandiceIn my opinion there is one aspect about crapless craps that could offer an advantage to a consistent shooter though and that is the ability to put place bets on every single number.

noQuote:waterandiceThis is advantageous IMO since you don't have to make what I call "extra bets" like you do in regular craps to cover every single number.

noQuote:waterandiceIn crapless craps though, you could just cover every single number and you're guaranteed what I call a "pure win" as long as you don't roll a 7.

the chance of a 7 on any 1 roll is 6/36 or about 16.67%

round that to 17%

so 17 times out of 100, on average, you lose, $52 each time, a total loss = $884

(for simplicity - place all the #s after a point is established to AVOID that high pass line house edge. There is NO PROOF anyone can change the dice roll probability by following the house rules. BOTH dice hit that back wall)

IF you could WIN $10 on every place bet win

(the inside #s -5,6,8,9- ruin that thought, and we KNOW those NEVER roll)

you win $830 for a

net LOSS (done 100 times) of ONLY $54 over 100 rolls.

"back to the drawing board"

no

Quote:Ace2You could also make roulette bets on both black and red. You have all the colors covered so it’s impossible lose money...unless a zero or double zero comes up on the next spin.

Totally unrelated. We are talking about crapless craps, not roulette. Did you even bother to consider my entire thought process? If you think it isn't viable then all you have to say is that you don't think that it's viable. Simple as that. No need to bring sarcastic remarks into this. If that's the case, then it makes me wonder why you're even on this site and what you do to gamble since you're so 'perfect' in all. Look, I'm not trying to argue. It's simple really. I posted a thread. People come to this site to read threads like mine. All I'm asking is whether or not people think this is viable or not. It's really not all that hard.

Making comments like this....

"You could also make roulette bets on both black and red. You have all the colors covered so it’s impossible lose money...unless a zero or double zero comes up on the next spin."

Is pretty useless honestly and doesn't solve anything.

The concept you need to understand is simple.

"No combination of negative EV bets will ever be positive EV".

All the bets you describe are negative EV. if you can show a single positive EV bet (you didn't) then you could be on to something.

In BJ, depending on the "count" there are periodically positive EV bets available.

On slots, depending on must hit jackpots, or special symbols left over from a previous player, there are occasionaly positive EV bets available.

On video poker (Ultimate X) there are occasionaly multipliers left over from a previous player that make your game positive EV.

In 3 card poker, and other card games as well, if you are able to see the dealer's hole card, that will make the game positive EV for you.

Sadly, craps, and crapless craps never have a positive EV bet. The only way to make craps positive EV is if you find a casino that 'overcomps' you for your play. The base game will still be negative EV.

I'll repeat. No combination of negative EV bets will ever be positive EV.

Quote:SOOPOOYou seem like a nice guy. Confronted with a few naysayers you kept your cool.

The concept you need to understand is simple.

"No combination of negative EV bets will ever be positive EV".

All the bets you describe are negative EV. if you can show a single positive EV bet (you didn't) then you could be on to something.

In BJ, depending on the "count" there are periodically positive EV bets available.

On slots, depending on must hit jackpots, or special symbols left over from a previous player, there are occasionaly positive EV bets available.

On video poker (Ultimate X) there are occasionaly multipliers left over from a previous player that make your game positive EV.

In 3 card poker, and other card games as well, if you are able to see the dealer's hole card, that will make the game positive EV for you.

Sadly, craps, and crapless craps never have a positive EV bet. The only way to make craps positive EV is if you find a casino that 'overcomps' you for your play. The base game will still be negative EV.

I'll repeat. No combination of negative EV bets will ever be positive EV.

Ok, so you don't think it's viable then? Thanks but you're not speaking my language at all. Speak English. I would appreciate it that you could at least show that you understand what I'm even talking about first of all while also not bringing other table games into the equation. Have a good day/night. Do you always speak to other people like they're mentally retarded?

i.e.

You said, "the concept you need to understand is simple."

No, sir, I need not to understand any "concepts," I just need people to tell me why it's not viable or why it is.

Also, your reply was rather undetailed considering that you seem like you care a little, only up until a certain point though.

I feel like you have the most trolling comment ever set up in a well thought out disguise.

It is quite baffling to me too.

Unrelated? Actually it’s the same exact concept as yours. This roulette strategy will work as long as zero/double zero don’t come up. Yours will work if seven isn’t rolled.Quote:waterandiceTotally unrelated

Quote:Ace2Unrelated? Actually it’s the same exact concept as yours. This roulette strategy will work as long as zero/double zero don’t come up. Yours will work if seven isn’t rolled.

I'll take my chances and wait for a more sensible reply. I'm not here to argue about who has the biggest dick. If anything, your reply helps my thread gain more popularity, so I should probably be thanking you. Take it easy.

On a side note though, it looks like you've been brushing up on roulette common sense aspects real well. That is quite impressive, sir. I am amazed at how well you can interpret the game, unlike the rest of us.

In 6 rolls there’s a 66.5% chance at least one seven will be rolled. In 2 rolls the chance is 30.6%. So if you try this 100 times it will fail about 30 times, on average.Quote:waterandiceI don't believe you read the entire post then. I'm not talking about 6 rolls here. At the most I am talking about 2.

Same problem for both scenarios...because quite often a 7 WILL be rolled.

Quote:Ace2In 6 rolls there’s a 66.5% chance at least one seven will be rolled. In 2 rolls the chance is 30.6%. So if you try this 100 times it will fail about 30 times, on average.

Same problem for both scenarios. Quite often a 7 will be rolled.

Deleted. Irrelevant.