Tracking roll outcomes
Quote: unJonI answered this question head on and in simple terms in the other thread it was brought up in. Don’t recall you responding, but if you want to then please do in that thread.
link to original post
Thank you Mr. unJon. Mr. Ace2 answered below quite adequately, and I shall read, digest, and respond or question at a later time. I have dinner on the table.
tuttigym
Quote: Ace2They did built a machine to throw the dice perfectly every time. It could not influence the dice to any statistically significant degree. See attached linkQuote: VegasriderYou would think someone could have created a mechanical device that would be able to toss the dice with the same amount of pressure and velocity and trajectory after setting the dice in a certain position to verify if this is even possible.
link to original post
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1415&context=grrj
But that is not going to stop believers from believing. Nothing will
link to original post
I'd like to see the video.
Rolling the dice is not the same as catapulting them. That machine looks like a catapult.
Junk in = junk out.
Quote: AlanMendelson
I'd like to see the video.
Rolling the dice is not the same as catapulting them. That machine looks like a catapult.
Junk in = junk out.
link to original post
I'm not impressed either. I've both reviewed and written peer-reviewed papers and this one is mediocre at best. The machine may have some superficial resemblance to how human arms work but it's very limited (e.g., only 3 settings for the speed of the toss). All they have really proved is that THEIR GIZMO failed the DI test.
To be honest, this "all mechanical" approach seems outdated and behind the times. If I had funding and a bunch of grad students to do most of the work I would:
- build a digital twin (i.e., interactive simulation) of a craps table
- use one or more robot arms coupled with hi-res motion sensors to verify that the physics of the twin match that of the real table in terms of stiffness, bounce, etc.
- hook the twin up to a machine learning algorithm to figure out what the optimal throw is
- then use the digital model to calculate the effect of any variability in the throw (e.g., being a1/8" to left of the perfect point on impact)
At that point we've finally got enough data to determine how good somebody has to be to turn craps into a +EV game.
Not that I would expect any rersults to change anybody's mind. I just think it would be a fun study to do and i wouldn't mind getting paid to do it :)
Results would absolutely change my mind…results are the ONLY thing that would change my mind. But, to my knowledge, no one has ever been able to demonstrate they can throw less than 1/6th sevens over the long termQuote: TumblingBones
Not that I would expect any rersults to change anybody's mind. I just think it would be a fun study to do and i wouldn't mind getting paid to do it :)
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: tuttigymQuote: AlanMendelsonI have seen it work... but with fewer than 5 shooters. That's five in my lifetime.
link to original post
Describe one session with a "successful" DI that you have witnessed, i.e., the number of hands played and the number of rolls/hand and the number of point conversions within those hands. How many sessions with that DI did you witness? Did the "successful" DI 7 out at any time on a "short" hand? How long was he or she at the table, and was the shooter playing with green and black chips?
tuttigym
link to original post
I played with a cardiac surgeon many times at Caesars. On two other occasions I played with different DIs once.
What you are asking for is some statistic that shows these shooters win more than random shooters. Well, I have also reported that the biggest/longest rolls I've been on were by random shooters.
DI is not measured by wins. DI is identified by the (for lack of a better word) look of the roll of the dice.
Let me give you an example.
Put a sheet of aluminum foil on your bed and throw your dice so they hit the aluminum foil. Now look at the marks on the foil.
If you see impressions from the dice corners you dont have a controlled throw.
But if you see impressions of the two dice hitting flat or on the edges and the dice land close to each other then you have a controlled throw.
No one controls the dice after they hit the table. But if you have a controlled throw you have a better chance of limiting the movement of the dice after they hit the table.
link to original post
You are really talking about “controlled tossing” as opposed to influencing the result for desired outcome.
The former, I see all the time. Rhythm rollers. The latter would require far far too many tosses to get a confirmable answer.
Controlled thrower is a bit different than dice influencer, no?
Quote: TDVegas
Controlled thrower is a bit different than dice influencer, no?
link to original post
My understanding is that a controlled set and a controlled throw are essential in the attempt to make the dice more likely to land one way than another.
If you can change how the dice land within the rules of the game, that's wonderful. More power to you.
I haven't seen anyone who can.
Quote: Ace2Results would absolutely change my mind…results are the ONLY thing that would change my mind. But, to my knowledge, no one has ever been able to demonstrate they can throw less than 1/6th sevens over the long termQuote: TumblingBones
Not that I would expect any results to change anybody's mind. I just think it would be a fun study to do and i wouldn't mind getting paid to do it :)
link to original post
Then you are one of the rare exceptions to the norm and there may still be hope for humanity.
Alan described a well-known way to show that one has a level of control over the toss using a simple sheet of aluminum foil over a flat
surface. While that does show some control, it is a far cry from dice influence (ie: getting a non-random result). The huge grey areas
of control are simply not easily visible to the naked eye.
Example: While dice may strike the surface without hitting their corners, they still react from surface impact and any slight difference
in force towards one side of the horizontal plane of a die's contact to the table-surface, will cause the ensuing motion of that die to
accrue random behavior as it travels to a stop.
My point is that while the control looks good and the foil shows a good landing, the invisible level of forces upon the dice are still
wreaking havoc upon the reliability of actual results. The physics of a huge mass with the muscular forces of an arm controlling
the relatively gossamer dice are daunting.
Controlled throw and landing are probably not even getting close to the demands of real influence.
1.) If DI were possible, then it would be a matter of employing precise physical mechanics that would cause the dice to operate...and they would still be operating randomly...but sufficiently and in a reliable way that the natural probabilities of a, "Random and Unbiased," roll of the dice is sufficiently altered to have a slight bias.
2.) When it comes to, "Precise physical mechanics," anyone who has ever attempted to play any sport in an organized, or even informal, way knows what I am talking about. It's the same reason that you can have a skilled foul shooter in the NBA, but nobody has ever been 100% lifetime from the free throw line. Other individual pursuits. Whatever example you want.
3.) So, you would have to have someone that has either proven or believes that the, "Natural," probabilities can be altered to one extent or another. Combine with that they would have to have the physical ability to do this in a reliable way long-term. It's obviously easy to toss a pair of dice, but to do it in a way as to sufficiently alter the probabilities such that the house edge (any bet) turns into a player advantage, even if someone wanted to assume that it's possible, to assume that it would be easy is fantasy land.
Like a foul shot, you're doing a precise physical action that is, in theory, roughly repeatable...but I think the precision would have to be even more than this. By a lot.
With all of that, I think it's maybe possible...in theory. Whether or not anyone actually does it successfully I have seen no evidence that would convince me as yet.
Maybe we should take up the challenge as a WoV community project? I'm sure there's more than one WoV member with access to a craps table. Anybody out there with the hardware chops to build the sensor rig to collect the verification data? I could do the AI/ML part. We would still need somebody to program the simulation engine, maybe someone with experience writing video games and programming a game engine.
Quote: Mission146Also, if someone were out to prove the theory...I think the best way to do so would be to start with a mechanical device and go from there.
link to original post
I disagree. I like TB’s idea of modeling it.
I would also break it into levels:
1) DI on a hard felt surface rolling dice a few inches.
2) DI on a hard felt surface rolling dice several feet.
3) DI on a springy felt surface rolling dice several feet.
4) DI on a springy felt surface rolling dice several feet and hitting a flat wall.
5) DI on a springy felt surface rolling dice several feet and hitting a diamond bumpy wall.
And see where DI breaks down.
Quote: unJonQuote: Mission146Also, if someone were out to prove the theory...I think the best way to do so would be to start with a mechanical device and go from there.
link to original post
I disagree. I like TB’s idea of modeling it.
I would also break it into levels:
1) DI on a hard felt surface rolling dice a few inches.
2) DI on a hard felt surface rolling dice several feet.
3) DI on a springy felt surface rolling dice several feet.
4) DI on a springy felt surface rolling dice several feet and hitting a flat wall.
5) DI on a springy felt surface rolling dice several feet and hitting a diamond bumpy wall.
And see where DI breaks down.
link to original post
I don't think Mission's take is entirely incompatible with mine. Collecting real-world data is a necessary step or you can't validate the digital simulation has having the correct physics. I do, however, suspect that use of a mechanical device is not required, although it would be helpful.
The way I see it the goal is to eliminate, or at least minimize, all the arguments about sample size, the consistency of the sample throws, and is it all BS due to the variability of the human in the loop. Instead I propose a analysis in which the set of sample throws can be highly inconsistent and where there is no need to even make controlled throws. Instead the only purpose of the sample throws would be to collect enough data to validate the model. This would directly address unjohn's "levels" (e.g., dice hitting close to the wall vs several inches out). As long as the dice are closely monitored at the point of impact in terms of velocity, rotation, angles, etc., the data collected should let the AI/ML figure out the rest.
Quote: TumblingBonesThose "grey areas" are the reason I suggested the digital twin approach. Those "invisible level of forces" would no longer be invisible.
Maybe we should take up the challenge as a WoV community project? I'm sure there's more than one WoV member with access to a craps table. Anybody out there with the hardware chops to build the sensor rig to collect the verification data? I could do the AI/ML part. We would still need somebody to program the simulation engine, maybe someone with experience writing video games and programming a game engine.
link to original post
We did this already. Ahigh graciously offered his craps table for the challenge. A member, it's so long ago I don't remember his name, claimed he could roll less than 1/6 7's by some amount. I bet him he couldn't. I won the bet for I think it may have been $200? Ahigh made some sort of mechanical thrower which was also unable to alter the random nature of dice outcomes.
Someone can dig up that thread....
Quote: SOOPOOQuote: TumblingBonesThose "grey areas" are the reason I suggested the digital twin approach. Those "invisible level of forces" would no longer be invisible.
Maybe we should take up the challenge as a WoV community project? I'm sure there's more than one WoV member with access to a craps table. Anybody out there with the hardware chops to build the sensor rig to collect the verification data? I could do the AI/ML part. We would still need somebody to program the simulation engine, maybe someone with experience writing video games and programming a game engine.
link to original post
We did this already. Ahigh graciously offered his craps table for the challenge. A member, it's so long ago I don't remember his name, claimed he could roll less than 1/6 7's by some amount. I bet him he couldn't. I won the bet for I think it may have been $200? Ahigh made some sort of mechanical thrower which was also unable to alter the random nature of dice outcomes.
Someone can dig up that thread....
link to original post
Ahigh was not and never was a DI.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThat's right... because you've never been at a table with a true DI.
You've never seen a player do it so you repeat what you've read by others who also have never seen it.
DI is not something supernatural. However it is a very rare skill in part because few have actually learned or practiced it.
If DI were taught in public schools beginning in the fourth grade there would be enough professionals to fill up the tables at casinos. But it's not taught or practiced and few have the basic physical abilities to even make a decent attempt at it.
Sorry, Mr.Mendelson, wrong answer. Those selling this "snake oil" of DC/DI were and are scammers fleecing the desperate, gullible, and easy entrapped to enroll in their classes and seminars for big $$$. Neither they or their "students" have ever been successful at real play, but they can tell some wild, tall tales of fantasy successes.
tuttigym
p.s. I played craps with DeMango who has the most consistent and accurate toss imaginable that I have ever seen, and his success is marginal at best. BTW he told me that he used to practice for hours. Not sure about that now. It has been a while
My main claim is that purely statistical experiments based on repetitive throws of dice, whether by humans or machines, are of little if any practical value:
- the time and effort it would require to generate statistically irrefutable data set is to great
- even if DI was validated, the experiment will not result in any strategy of use to a practitioner of DI (e.g., optimal trajectory, EV for a given set, strategy for adapting to an individuals shooting style/limitations)
Rather that a statistical experiment I am proposing the use of AI and machine learning. The key is the digital twin component:
Quote: wikipediaA digital twin is a virtual representation that serves as the real-time digital counterpart of a physical object or process..... A digital twin also can be used for monitoring, diagnostics and prognostics to optimize asset performance and utilization. In this field, sensory data can be combined with historical data, human expertise and fleet and simulation learning to improve the outcome of prognostics.
Using the approach should allow us to get answers to questions the "mechanical arm" approach can't deal with, such as:
- assuming someone is a "perfect" shooter, for a given combo of impact point, trajectory, and set, what are the various EV for each bet on the table?
- what is the impact on EV for a given level and type of inaccuracy (e.g., shooter undershoots optimal impact point by 1" on 50% of throws)?
- for a given shooter's individual style and capabilities, what is the optimal strategy?
Unlike either a human or mechanical shooter, an AI shooter can address all of these questions by making 100s of millions of throws and then analyzing the resulting data sets. The only use of data from human and mechanical throws would be to tune the model during the set-up phase.
Quote: AlanMendelsonThanks. I'm not disagreeing with you, and my terminology and choice of words may not be correct. My point is that a DI throw has special characteristics that limit the movement of dice.
link to original post
So what, hitting the back wall with those pyramids disintegrates any toss. Proof? Unlike the card counters, DI/DC's have not been banned or targeted by the casinos.
tuttigym
This is the first time I fully agree with Tuttigym.Quote: tuttigym
Sorry, Mr.Mendelson, wrong answer. Those selling this "snake oil" of DC/DI were and are scammers fleecing the desperate, gullible, and easy entrapped to enroll in their classes and seminars for big $$$. Neither they or their "students" have ever been successful at real play, but they can tell some wild, tall tales of fantasy successes.
link to original post
DC/DI “teachers” are like all other snake oil salesmen. If their “product” actually worked, they would be out applying it and making TONS of money. But, since it’s a BS scam, their only way to make any money is by selling the fantasy to suckers
Quote: Ace2This is the first time I fully agree with Tuttigym.
Wow!! One in a row.
tuttigym
Quote: Ace2This is the first time I fully agree with Tuttigym.Quote: tuttigym
Sorry, Mr.Mendelson, wrong answer. Those selling this "snake oil" of DC/DI were and are scammers fleecing the desperate, gullible, and easy entrapped to enroll in their classes and seminars for big $$$. Neither they or their "students" have ever been successful at real play, but they can tell some wild, tall tales of fantasy successes.
link to original post
DC/DI “teachers” are like all other snake oil salesmen. If their “product” actually worked, they would be out applying it and making TONS of money. But, since it’s a BS scam, their only way to make any money is by selling the fantasy to suckers
link to original post
I also agree with Tuttigym. Even if I accept that it's maybe possible, in theory, I very much doubt that there is anyone doing it successfully...much less that you could teach just anyone to do it successfully. The physical precision required would be off the charts and only those who could perform the function at elite levels would have a chance.
That said, Tuttigym is also the one who advocates that combinations of bets that give the player a greater probability of profit on a single roll are enough to cause the house edges of each individual bet to be overcome, so, he's not exactly batting 1.000 here. He also came up with some bizarre rationale for the belief that the PL House Edge is much higher than people claim it is.
Quote: tuttigymQuote: AlanMendelsonThat's right... because you've never been at a table with a true DI.
You've never seen a player do it so you repeat what you've read by others who also have never seen it.
DI is not something supernatural. However it is a very rare skill in part because few have actually learned or practiced it.
If DI were taught in public schools beginning in the fourth grade there would be enough professionals to fill up the tables at casinos. But it's not taught or practiced and few have the basic physical abilities to even make a decent attempt at it.
Sorry, Mr.Mendelson, wrong answer. Those selling this "snake oil" of DC/DI were and are scammers fleecing the desperate, gullible, and easy entrapped to enroll in their classes and seminars for big $$$. Neither they or their "students" have ever been successful at real play, but they can tell some wild, tall tales of fantasy successes.
tuttigym
p.s. I played craps with DeMango who has the most consistent and accurate toss imaginable that I have ever seen, and his success is marginal at best. BTW he told me that he used to practice for hours. Not sure about that now. It has been a while
link to original post
Gee, the 3 DIs I played with and the fourth person who I saw play and had a meticulous toss, weren't selling anything. The three just practiced their skill including the cardiac surgeon from Seattle.
These are not people who sell those courses.
Quote: tuttigymQuote: AlanMendelsonThanks. I'm not disagreeing with you, and my terminology and choice of words may not be correct. My point is that a DI throw has special characteristics that limit the movement of dice.
link to original post
So what, hitting the back wall with those pyramids disintegrates any toss. Proof? Unlike the card counters, DI/DC's have not been banned or targeted by the casinos.
tuttigym
link to original post
DIs havent been banned?
The dice were taken away from me at both NYNY and MGM for winning but only having the appearance of a DI and at Bellagio I was thrown off a table and the crew refused to pay my winning bets... and again for only appearing to be a DI.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: tuttigymQuote: AlanMendelsonThanks. I'm not disagreeing with you, and my terminology and choice of words may not be correct. My point is that a DI throw has special characteristics that limit the movement of dice.
link to original post
So what, hitting the back wall with those pyramids disintegrates any toss. Proof? Unlike the card counters, DI/DC's have not been banned or targeted by the casinos.
tuttigym
link to original post
DIs havent been banned?
The dice were taken away from me at both NYNY and MGM for winning but only having the appearance of a DI and at Bellagio I was thrown off a table and the crew refused to pay my winning bets... and again for only appearing to be a DI.
link to original post
Correct. ‘DIs’ have not been banned. Just like unicorns have not been banned. Your example is perfect. Just because a casino bans someone for being a DI (YOU!) doesn’t mean that someone is a DI, or a unicorn for that matter. This forum is rife with stories of casino personnel not knowing WTF they are doing. You being banned is now added to the list.
If the dealers take the dice away from you for not hitting the back wall, do they ban you from throwing the dice for the rest of the night, the rest of the week, the rest of the month, or just one circle around the table until it's your turn again?
At Bellagio the issue was the dice didnt bounce off the back wall far enough.
At NYNY the issue was only that I was winning and I was told I could not set the dice. When I arranged my set in just seconds they tossed me.
At MGM Grand I was told I could play but could not shoot.
And I wasn't a DI. I was just lucky.
I reported these events using my own name and years ago using the handle MoneyLA.
Point being, just because the casinos think that dice setting is viable does not make it viable. I was told that the dice had to hit the back wall, in the air, at Binion's. That's insufficient to prove that dice setting is capable of changing the house edge. As you mentioned, you were just setting the dice and did not believe you were having any real effect.
Can't imagine very many people (if any at all) find themselves databased on the grounds of purely dice setting. Even then, that's just people letting what is, so far, a myth, influence their actions. Not altogether unheard of.
Quote: DieterI don't speak for everyone.
I'm actually pro-DI.
Unfortunately, like perpetual motion, I haven't seen it work yet.
So, does anything work for you?? Ace2 says it cannot happen. Is he correct??
tuttigym
Quote: ChumpChangeI think my throws are more results orientated than means orientated, same with winning or losing at a gambling session.
Outstanding. There you have it all. Mr.CC is a PLAYER. So, I will ask you--is Ace2 correct? When you play are the vibes for you "negative expectations"? Does those thoughts even control your play?
tuttigym
Quote: Mission146Oh, good. We'd gone far too long here without nonsensical arguments being made. Glad to have you back, Tuttigym.
I ask reasonable question(s), and you reply with inflammatory rhetoric. Love it.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: Mission146Oh, good. We'd gone far too long here without nonsensical arguments being made. Glad to have you back, Tuttigym.
I ask reasonable question(s), and you reply with inflammatory rhetoric. Love it.
tuttigym
link to original post
No need to thank me; it's enough that I keep myself entertained.
Quote: Ace2Negative expectation is when the probability of winning times the winning payout is less than 1. If you are betting that the next roll will be a 7 (1 in 6 chance) then any payout less than 6 for 1 (6.00) is negative expectation. Over the long run, you will roll a 7 almost exactly 1 in 6 times, so you will lose money with any payout less than 6.00. Guaranteed
First, thank you for answering my question. Unless I am misunderstanding, your "Guaranteed" does not hold up in that players many times walk away from the table winners and therefore have beaten the perceived "negative expectation." What I am trying to convey is that "negative expectation" is not necessarily an automatic outcome which is what I am interpreting from your definition. However, your second paragraph does, in part, address that perception.
Quote: Ace2There is no AP in craps. It’s 100% a game of chance and every bet on the table is negative expectation. The most profitable strategy is to not play, the second best option is to play only the lowest house edge bets…which are pass/DP with max odds
Here is where we part ways, and of course, will drive many members of the forum ballistic. (You will tell by their frantic and possibly hysterical rebuttals.) After the point is established there are 30 ways to win a bet and only six ways to lose the bets placed. That translates to a 5 to 1 advantage over the house of winning A BET on any given roll of the dice thereafter. Is that win guaranteed? Absolutely not, but is a win more likely to occur? Yes.
$600 across ($100 place bet on each number) plus a $20 horn gives me that coverage. Two rolls without a 7 will usually net just over $200. (Oh yes, a 7 out wipes the player out but that is gambling.) Bringing all the bets down and playing $64 across will be AP because the PLAYER cannot lose the hand even with an immediate 7 out. If the hand continues, the player continues to reap the rewards of that AP.
While the assertion "100% ..game of chance" is correct (what gambling venues is not?), my depiction above does not provide the dire consequences you have portrayed with one exception as noted.
I obviously disagree with your last sentence about strategy.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymQuote: DieterI don't speak for everyone.
I'm actually pro-DI.
Unfortunately, like perpetual motion, I haven't seen it work yet.
So, does anything work for you?? Ace2 says it cannot happen. Is he correct??
tuttigym
link to original post
Does anything work for me? Nope! I don't like dice.
I just think something might be possible, even if nobody has mastered it yet.
I have a hunch that reducing the number of sevens rolled is the wrong approach; just try to win a long series of pass line bets on the come out.
I think that a lot of people will find that less interesting than going for the longer odds.
Quote: tuttigymAfter the point is established there are 30 ways to win a bet and only six ways to lose the bets placed.
“After”…?
You don’t have to wait for “after”. You can make that bet anytime you want. Are you accounting for the fact that you are risking $620 to win a LOT less on one roll and that one bad roll is also the most common combination and wipes out everything?
Quote: tuttigym$600 across ($100 place bet on each number) plus a $20 horn gives me that coverage. Two rolls without a 7 will usually net just over $200. (Oh yes, a 7 out wipes the player out but that is gambling.) Bringing all the bets down and playing $64 across will be AP because the PLAYER cannot lose the hand even with an immediate 7 out.
It’s still a negative expectation. Why only $600? Make it $6,000…if it works. It doesn’t work, long term.
If you are ahead and you bring your bets down to a lower denomination…you’re an AP player? Huh?
In this type of thinking, if true…the only viable play would be to max out every place bet. If it works for $5, it works for $50 or $500 or $5,000. (Kelly criterion). It’s simply a factor of building bankroll over the long term AND, obviously, establishing that this “system” works.
Anything can happen in the short run. But over the long run, your results will match expectations almost exactly. Guaranteed. And since every bet on the table is negative EV, that means guaranteed loss
Having more ways to win than lose does not automatically translate into positive EV. Each one of your wins will pay less than fair.
Quote: TDVegasYou don’t have to wait for “after”. You can make that bet anytime you want. Are you accounting for the fact that you are risking $620 to win a LOT less on one roll and that one bad roll is also the most common combination and wipes out everything?
That is true. I just prefer playing after the point is established. I showed an example, and I stated the obvious bad outcome. You did read the post, right?
Quote: TDVegasIt’s still a negative expectation. Why only $600? Make it $6,000…if it works. It doesn’t work, long term.
Only if you say so. $6,000? When you play, do you buy in for thousands or millions? It is an EXAMPLE which might be used for players that can afford that range of wagers or less perhaps $300 across plus an $8 horn. It is not a strategy that might be used on every hand or even several hands in a row. Like all of the naysayers, you always turn or use "long term." Before one uses such, why not specifically define it. Oh, I know, you can't.
Quote: TDVegasIf you are ahead and you bring your bets down to a lower denomination…you’re an AP player? Huh?
Yep. The player is ahead and cannot lose the hand. What would you call it? Oh, I know -- a fortuitus experience.
Quote: TDVegasIn this type of thinking, if true…the only viable play would be to max out every place bet. If it works for $5, it works for $50 or $500 or $5,000. (Kelly criterion). It’s simply a factor of building bankroll over the long term AND, obviously, establishing that this “system” works.
Maybe for your type of thinking. My approach is more conservative and practical. I do not live in the "long term" as it is not real. "Building a bank roll" is not my goal; winning is. It is not a "system"; it is an isolated play among other potential isolated plays one might employ during any given session. Like most "establishment" players, it seems you lack flexibility, creativity, patience, and focus.
tuttigym
Quote: Ace2Anything can happen in the short run. But over the long run, your results will match expectations almost exactly. Guaranteed. And since every bet on the table is negative EV, that means guaranteed loss
Having more ways to win than lose does not automatically translate into positive EV. Each one of your wins will pay less than fair.
Mr. Ace2: First, I want to thank you for the reply. It is courteous, professional, and forthright.
For me, there is no "long run." That term is undefined and vague. However, if you agree with the IRS, they define "long term," as in capitol gains, one year and a day, I believe. I do not know if you play craps, but if your experiences at the table mirror your written text above, the game is not for you. My personal results have been quite positive and do NOT reflect the above. So that "guarantee" is actually void with me.
tuttigym
If you flat bet $50 a hand times 5,000 hands, your total bet would be $250,000, so 1% of that would be $2,500 or down 50 x $50 bets.
Assuming proper basic strategy, the standard deviation is about 1.6%. So most likely your results won’t be more than a couple percent off the expectation of about -0.5%Quote: ChumpChangePlay 5,000 hands of Blackjack and see if you can get your total loss within 1% of your total bet.
If you flat bet $50 a hand times 5,000 hands, your total bet would be $250,000, so 1% of that would be $2,500 or down 50 x $50 bets.
link to original post
Quote: tuttigymQuote: TDVegasYou don’t have to wait for “after”. You can make that bet anytime you want. Are you accounting for the fact that you are risking $620 to win a LOT less on one roll and that one bad roll is also the most common combination and wipes out everything?
That is true. I just prefer playing after the point is established. I showed an example, and I stated the obvious bad outcome. You did read the post, right?Quote: TDVegasIt’s still a negative expectation. Why only $600? Make it $6,000…if it works. It doesn’t work, long term.
Only if you say so. $6,000? When you play, do you buy in for thousands or millions? It is an EXAMPLE which might be used for players that can afford that range of wagers or less perhaps $300 across plus an $8 horn. It is not a strategy that might be used on every hand or even several hands in a row. Like all of the naysayers, you always turn or use "long term." Before one uses such, why not specifically define it. Oh, I know, you can't.Quote: TDVegasIf you are ahead and you bring your bets down to a lower denomination…you’re an AP player? Huh?
Yep. The player is ahead and cannot lose the hand. What would you call it? Oh, I know -- a fortuitus experience.Quote: TDVegasIn this type of thinking, if true…the only viable play would be to max out every place bet. If it works for $5, it works for $50 or $500 or $5,000. (Kelly criterion). It’s simply a factor of building bankroll over the long term AND, obviously, establishing that this “system” works.
Maybe for your type of thinking. My approach is more conservative and practical. I do not live in the "long term" as it is not real. "Building a bank roll" is not my goal; winning is. It is not a "system"; it is an isolated play among other potential isolated plays one might employ during any given session. Like most "establishment" players, it seems you lack flexibility, creativity, patience, and focus.
tuttigym
link to original post
As I said, if at this point you’ve been doing this for 5-10-15-20 years and you’ve determined it’s a successful EV play…Then yes, you should be maxing out bets. It’s nothing more than a percentage of winnings that’s you’ve already banked. Using a Kelly criterion. As a craps player, you shouldn’t face scrutiny like a card counter on large wagers.
The ONLY sticking point is does it work? It doesn’t does it? ;-)
Your other points are basically mumbo jumbo….”don’t live in long term”. “Not real”. “Building bankroll isn’t my goal”. “Isolated play”….etc, etc.
Your short term play simply adds up to one long term play. As my friend tomp (the tough craps player) would say “it’s one long session and then you die”.
Enjoy.
Quote: Ace2But over the long run, your results will match expectations almost exactly. Guaranteed.
link to original post
You misspoke here. Actually nothing is guaranteed. Expected is expected, but it's not guaranteed.
Over the long run the house edge is expected to be reflected in the player's results. It is not guaranteed.
Quote: Ace2Tuttigym, if you believe a game is positive EV for you because you win sometimes, then you are the casino’s favorite kind of player. Have fun, just don’t go wagering more than you can afford. People get ruined that way
link to original post
Loved the above post. I do have fun, and the wagering advice is well taken and always followed. The casino I frequent seems to love me as they provide me with comps for R&F. My beverage of choice is Sharpes NA beer.
tuttigym
Quote: TDVegasAs I said, if at this point you’ve been doing this for 5-10-15-20 years and you’ve determined it’s a successful EV play…Then yes, you should be maxing out bets. It’s nothing more than a percentage of winnings that’s you’ve already banked. Using a Kelly criterion. As a craps player, you shouldn’t face scrutiny like a card counter on large wagers.
The ONLY sticking point is does it work? It doesn’t does it? ;-)
Your other points are basically mumbo jumbo….”don’t live in long term”. “Not real”. “Building bankroll isn’t my goal”. “Isolated play”….etc, etc.
Your short term play simply adds up to one long term play. As my friend tomp (the tough craps player) would say “it’s one long session and then you die”.
Enjoy.
link to original post
"Maxing out bets" What does that mean exactly? Buy in for $100,000 and what? Something else? Please provide a realistic reference. I am confused by your "mumbo jumbo."
So far, so good in the results department. Of course, there have been infrequent setbacks but nothing in the catastrophic neighborhood.
Which mumbo or jumbo are you unclear about? I can further define, but I am pretty sure you and others know what I am referring to.
I do not do "long term play." If a session is being unproductive with isolated strategies, I do not pile on; I color what I have left and leave. It is called discipline and the reality of the moment. Perhaps that is more mumbo/jumbo, but I can live with that.
tuttigym
