Three point Molly is the best beginner strategy?
Meet me at Red Rock. Be prepared to hang out at the craps tables for four hours, and let's see how often the ALL gets hit.
Okay?
Then I'll buy lunch and we'll tally up the number of shooters.
1 in 190?? No way.
Quote: AlanMendelsonTell you what...
Meet me at Red Rock. Be prepared to hang out at the craps tables for four hours, and let's see how often the ALL gets hit.
Okay?
Then I'll buy lunch and we'll tally up the number of shooters.
1 in 190?? No way.
link to original post
I'll tell you what
once again you bumble up a wrong explanation based on personal observations and anecdotes
anyone reading and believing your posts risks having a terrible experience on the gambling floor due to all the misinformation that pours out of you
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: AlanMendelsonTell you what...
Meet me at Red Rock. Be prepared to hang out at the craps tables for four hours, and let's see how often the ALL gets hit.
Okay?
Then I'll buy lunch and we'll tally up the number of shooters.
1 in 190?? No way.
link to original post
I'll tell you what
once again you bumble up a wrong explanation based on personal observations and anecdotes
anyone reading and believing your posts risks having a terrible experience on the gambling floor due to all the misinformation that pours out of you
.
link to original post
I'm asking you to meet me and see for yourself. I'm even willing to buy lunch. No money involved. No risk. And no need to be nasty about it.
Okay... you dont want to do it.
Anyone else interested in watching four hours of craps to keep score on the number of shooters and how often the ALL is hit?
Lunch included.
Quote: AlanMendelson
And no need to be nasty about it.
link to original post
wasn't being nasty - was being truthful - you know the old saying - "the truth hurts"
consistently post erroneous info and you will get straightened out - every time
.
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: AlanMendelson
And no need to be nasty about it.
link to original post
wasn't being nasty - was being truthful - you know the old saying - "the truth hurts"
consistently post erroneous info and you will get straightened out - every time
.
link to original post
What erroneous info?
All I want to do is see if the ALL is hit in fewer than 190 shooters. I'm willing to buy lunch if anyone else wants to come along and count.
That's erroneous?
You are nasty. You're picking a fight and I'm just interested in counting.
I figure Red Rock usually has three open tables on Saturday... six players per table. Four hours should be more than enough time to see 190 turns.
I want to see you (Alan Mendelson) post that the Wizard's link stating that the House Advantage on the bet is 20.61% is wrong too
I'm waiting
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/side-bets/bonus-craps/#:~:text=In%20the%20past%2C%20some%20tables,a%20house%20edge%20of%2020.61%25.
do you really believe that if we went and watched craps and the bet hit after 45 rolls that that would prove you are right___________?????
is your lack of knowledge about probability really so large____________?????
.
1. Does the player always back up his numbers will full odds? Various web sites contradict each other on how much odds to take.
2. Are the odds on come bets kept off on a come out roll?
3. Does the player quit (or restart) when the shooter 7-outs only?
Anything else I might be missing?
I've actually played this many times, but didn't know there was a name for it. Also have played the opposite version on the dark side.
Thank you!
Quote:
anyone reading and believing your posts risks having a terrible experience on the gambling floor due to all the misinformation that pours out of you
This is very true. As a semi-lurker it took me a long time to figure out that his posts are mostly baloney. His use of his real name and his ability to write coherently make him seem credible. Alan, your Red Rock offer is laughable. Have you ever heard of the term "sample size?"
Average rolls per session = 8.525470
Probability net win = 0.304783
Average win per session = -0.086295
Ratio money won to money bet = -0.004048 (If this seems high, it's because the player turns off the come bet odds on a come out roll)
Average units bet per session = 21.318409
In the 32,342,500,000 sessions simulated, the largest loss was 28 units and the largest win was 345 units.
Here is my usual return table, clumping just wins, ties, and losses.
| Event | Probability | Average Win | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Win | 0.304783 | 15.880052 | 4.839970 |
| Break even | 0.021929 | 0.000000 | 0.000000 |
| Loss | 0.673288 | -7.316730 | -4.926265 |
| Total | 1.000000 | -0.086295 |
The following table shows the probability of wins from -25 to 100.
Any questions or comments? Does anyone claim I don't correctly understand how to play the Three-Point Molly? Should one hyphenate Three-Point?
Not sure there's an official definition, but I believe a 3PM means you always make come bets until you have three total numbers covered. It's continuous...you don't ever quit/restart. Odds and keeping them on is always your option whether or not you play 3PMQuote: WizardI'm running a simulation of the Three Point Molly. However, I'm not 100% sure I understand it correctly. Could it be said the player makes a pass or come bet every roll until he covers three numbers? If so, here are some questions on the fine points:
1. Does the player always back up his numbers will full odds? Various web sites contradict each other on how much odds to take.
2. Are the odds on come bets kept off on a come out roll?
3. Does the player quit (or restart) when the shooter 7-outs only?
Anything else I might be missing?
I've actually played this many times, but didn't know there was a name for it. Also have played the opposite version on the dark side.
Thank you!
link to original post
Might be overthinking this a tad!Quote: Wizard
Should one hyphenate Three-Point?
link to original post
This reply is quintessential AlanM. He is a math denier and his gaming statements are mostly based on feelings and anecdotes.Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: Ace2It's a sucker bet period. You will, on average, hit it about 1 in 190 times and get paid 150 to 1 when you hit
link to original post
Sorry. But I hit it more often. And as I said, Bellagio got killed by a group of better shooters.
Edited to add:
You must have this statistic of 1 in 190 confused with something else. I've been at tables at Red Rock and Sam's Town where two or more shooters have thrown the ALL in less than an hour.
I think I see it thrown once in every two trips.
I've seen players hit the ALL without making a single pass.
1 in 190?? Too far out.
link to original post
But, not unlike MDawg and tuttigym, his posts do carry entertainment value sometimes
Quote: lilredrooster_____________
I want to see you (Alan Mendelson) post that the Wizard's link stating that the House Advantage on the bet is 20.61% is wrong too
I'm waiting
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/side-bets/bonus-craps/#:~:text=In%20the%20past%2C%20some%20tables,a%20house%20edge%20of%2020.61%25.
do you really believe that if we went and watched craps and the bet hit after 45 rolls that that would prove you are right___________?????
is your lack of knowledge about probability really so large____________?????
.
link to original post
Why would I challenge it?
I also don't challenge that the house edge is 1.4% on the passline, yet there are players who have better or worse results.
I'd like to count how many times the ALL is thrown and I'm inviting someone from the forum to join me and then have lunch.
Geeze. Tough crowd here.
Quote: Ace2It's continuous...you don't ever quit/restart. Odds and keeping them on is always your option whether or not you play 3PM
link to original post
If you never quit or restart, what are you supposed to do when the shooter sevens-out?
I only meant that if you are playing a 3PM then you are always playing it. You will always have between zero and three numbers covered but the method is always to keep adding bets until you have three.Quote: WizardQuote: Ace2It's continuous...you don't ever quit/restart. Odds and keeping them on is always your option whether or not you play 3PM
link to original post
If you never quit or restart, what are you supposed to do when the shooter sevens-out?
link to original post
Quote: Ace2But, not unlike MDawg and tuttigym, his posts do carry entertainment value sometimes
link to original post
"SOMETIMES"? I resemble that. MDawg? hardly. No grandiose claims here, just 4th grade arithmetic.
tuttigym
Quote: WizardQuote: Ace2It's continuous...you don't ever quit/restart. Odds and keeping them on is always your option whether or not you play 3PM
link to original post
If you never quit or restart, what are you supposed to do when the shooter sevens-out?
link to original post
After 32 billion sessions, just drop dead.
tuttigym
Quote: WizardI ran a simulation of over 32 billion session using the Three-Point Molly. I assume 3-4-5x odds and the player turns off the odds on come bets on a come out roll. Here are some results:
Average rolls per session = 8.525470
Probability net win = 0.304783
Average win per session = -0.086295
Ratio money won to money bet = -0.004048 (If this seems high, it's because the player turns off the come bet odds on a come out roll)
Average units bet per session = 21.318409
In the 32,342,500,000 sessions simulated, the largest loss was 28 units and the largest win was 345 units.
Here is my usual return table, clumping just wins, ties, and losses.
Event Probability Average Win Return Win 0.304783 15.880052 4.839970 Break even 0.021929 0.000000 0.000000 Loss 0.673288 -7.316730 -4.926265 Total 1.000000 -0.086295
The following table shows the probability of wins from -25 to 100.
Any questions or comments? Does anyone claim I don't correctly understand how to play the Three-Point Molly? Should one hyphenate Three-Point?
link to original post
I believe that 32 billion sessions are unlikely to be performed or happen in one's lifetime to actually validate those results. Otherworldly numbers produced by computer SIMULATIONS (emphasis) are...............
tuttigym
Quote: Ace2I only meant that if you are playing a 3PM then you are always playing it. You will always have between zero and three numbers covered but the method is always to keep adding bets until you have three.
link to original post
Thanks. Was there something I wrote that made you feel I had a different understanding of how to the 3PM?
In other news, here is the net number of points the player can expect to win. This only counts fully winning, including the odds. Winning a come bet with the odds turned off on a come-out roll does not count.
| Net Points Won | Probability |
|---|---|
| -3 | 0.114039 |
| -2 | 0.236719 |
| -1 | 0.356293 |
| 0 | 0.113150 |
| 1 | 0.066998 |
| 2 | 0.041946 |
| 3 | 0.026353 |
| 4 | 0.016556 |
| 5 | 0.010399 |
| 6 | 0.006530 |
| 7 | 0.004101 |
| 8 | 0.002574 |
| 9 | 0.001616 |
| 10 | 0.001015 |
| 11 | 0.000637 |
| 12 | 0.000400 |
| 13 | 0.000251 |
| 14 | 0.000158 |
| 15 | 0.000099 |
| 16 | 0.000062 |
| 17 | 0.000039 |
| 18 | 0.000024 |
| 19 | 0.000015 |
| 20 | 0.000010 |
| 21 | 0.000006 |
| 22 | 0.000004 |
| 23 | 0.000002 |
| 24 | 0.000002 |
| 25+ | 0.000003 |
| Total | 1.000000 |
I have calculated the expected result of a 3PM using a single passline bet as a reference point. Relative to single PL bet, continuously playing a 3PM increases your total bets made by a factor of 2.4 (easy to calculate) and your standard deviation by a factor of 1.91 (obtained via simulation). You might assume that the SD would increase by 2.4^.5 =~ 1.55, but it goes up more since the 3PM bets are correlated, especially when a seven-out happens with multiple numbers covered.Quote: WizardI ran a simulation of over 32 billion session using the Three-Point Molly. I assume 3-4-5x odds and the player turns off the odds on come bets on a come out roll. Here are some results:
Average rolls per session = 8.525470
Probability net win = 0.304783
Average win per session = -0.086295
Ratio money won to money bet = -0.004048 (If this seems high, it's because the player turns off the come bet odds on a come out roll)
Average units bet per session = 21.318409
In the 32,342,500,000 sessions simulated, the largest loss was 28 units and the largest win was 345 units.
Here is my usual return table, clumping just wins, ties, and losses.
Event Probability Average Win Return Win 0.304783 15.880052 4.839970 Break even 0.021929 0.000000 0.000000 Loss 0.673288 -7.316730 -4.926265 Total 1.000000 -0.086295
The following table shows the probability of wins from -25 to 100.
Any questions or comments? Does anyone claim I don't correctly understand how to play the Three-Point Molly? Should one hyphenate Three-Point?
link to original post
For example, let's say you play a single PL bet with 3/4/5 odds for three hours and expect 100 bets resolved in that period. Your expectation is 100 * -.0141 +/- 100^.5 * 4.92 = -1.41 units +/- 49.2. With a flat bet of $100 that's -$141 +/- $4,920. If instead you play a 3PM over that same period using the same flat bet amount, your expectation is -$141* 2.4 +/- $4,920 * 1.91 = -$338 +/- $9,397. If a single $100 flat bet with 3/4/5 odds is your comfort level, then you would probably reduce your flat bet to $50 for a 3PM since that would give you a similar expectation of -$169 +/- $4,699
Quote: tuttigymQuote: WizardI ran a simulation of over 32 billion session using the Three-Point Molly. I assume 3-4-5x odds and the player turns off the odds on come bets on a come out roll. Here are some results:
Average rolls per session = 8.525470
Probability net win = 0.304783
Average win per session = -0.086295
Ratio money won to money bet = -0.004048 (If this seems high, it's because the player turns off the come bet odds on a come out roll)
Average units bet per session = 21.318409
In the 32,342,500,000 sessions simulated, the largest loss was 28 units and the largest win was 345 units.
Here is my usual return table, clumping just wins, ties, and losses.
Event Probability Average Win Return Win 0.304783 15.880052 4.839970 Break even 0.021929 0.000000 0.000000 Loss 0.673288 -7.316730 -4.926265 Total 1.000000 -0.086295
The following table shows the probability of wins from -25 to 100.
Any questions or comments? Does anyone claim I don't correctly understand how to play the Three-Point Molly? Should one hyphenate Three-Point?
link to original post
I believe that 32 billion sessions are unlikely to be performed or happen in one's lifetime to actually validate those results. Otherworldly numbers produced by computer SIMULATIONS (emphasis) are...............
tuttigym
link to original post
Don't you understand that the math decides if you will win or lose? If the math says you will lose 1.4% of your passline wagers you must do so. If the math says you will hit the ALL only once in 190 shooters you must do so. The math controls everything. There is no variation. Give it up. Comply.
(But if you actually gamble in a casino and experience something different, say nothing, or you'll be labeled a math denier. And if you see a casino do something that you don't think should happen say nothing or they'll call you a liar.)
Just a question of semantics. You view a 3PM in terms of quitting/restarting and I don't. You could say that immediately after a seven-out a 3PM bettor is the same as a single PL bettor since they both have one bet on the table, but it's not necessarily true since the 3PM bettor has probably reduced his bet amount by 50% to counter the higher bet volume/variance of the 3PM.Quote: WizardQuote: Ace2I only meant that if you are playing a 3PM then you are always playing it. You will always have between zero and three numbers covered but the method is always to keep adding bets until you have three.
link to original post
Thanks. Was there something I wrote that made you feel I had a different understanding of how to the 3PM?
Don't jump all over me. I'm asking a question.
Actually, there is variance from expectations, and this variance can be easily calculated to any degree of confidence you like.Quote: AlanMendelson
Don't you understand that the math decides if you will win or lose? If the math says you will lose 1.4% of your passline wagers you must do so. If the math says you will hit the ALL only once in 190 shooters you must do so. The math controls everything. There is no variation. Give it up. Comply.
(But if you actually gamble in a casino and experience something different, say nothing, or you'll be labeled a math denier. And if you see a casino do something that you don't think should happen say nothing or they'll call you a liar.)
link to original post
Statistics 101: If you play just the passline for a weekend then anything can happen. 1.41% isn't even that relevant for a short period (focus more on variance). But after many years of playing, your loss with be fairly close to 1.41%. Unless you play 3/4/5 odds...then it will be closer to 0.37%, almost nothing!
Yes, 3 points total. So you stop making additional bets when you have 1 PL bet and 2 come bets have travelled to numbersQuote: AlanMendelsonDoes a 3 point molly include the passline?
Don't jump all over me. I'm asking a question.
link to original post
If you play long enough to see 190 ALL bets made, your expectations are:Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: lilredroosterQuote: AlanMendelsonTell you what...
Meet me at Red Rock. Be prepared to hang out at the craps tables for four hours, and let's see how often the ALL gets hit.
Okay?
Then I'll buy lunch and we'll tally up the number of shooters.
1 in 190?? No way.
link to original post
I'll tell you what
once again you bumble up a wrong explanation based on personal observations and anecdotes
anyone reading and believing your posts risks having a terrible experience on the gambling floor due to all the misinformation that pours out of you
.
link to original post
I'm asking you to meet me and see for yourself. I'm even willing to buy lunch. No money involved. No risk. And no need to be nasty about it.
Okay... you dont want to do it.
Anyone else interested in watching four hours of craps to keep score on the number of shooters and how often the ALL is hit?
Lunch included.
link to original post
0 wins 37%
1 win 37%
2 wins 18%
3 wins 6%
4+ wins 2%
Using a poisson distribution
Quote: Ace2If you play long enough to see 190 ALL bets made, your expectations are:Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: lilredroosterQuote: AlanMendelsonTell you what...
Meet me at Red Rock. Be prepared to hang out at the craps tables for four hours, and let's see how often the ALL gets hit.
Okay?
Then I'll buy lunch and we'll tally up the number of shooters.
1 in 190?? No way.
link to original post
I'll tell you what
once again you bumble up a wrong explanation based on personal observations and anecdotes
anyone reading and believing your posts risks having a terrible experience on the gambling floor due to all the misinformation that pours out of you
.
link to original post
I'm asking you to meet me and see for yourself. I'm even willing to buy lunch. No money involved. No risk. And no need to be nasty about it.
Okay... you dont want to do it.
Anyone else interested in watching four hours of craps to keep score on the number of shooters and how often the ALL is hit?
Lunch included.
link to original post
0 wins 37%
1 win 37%
2 wins 18%
3 wins 6%
4+ wins 2%
Using a poisson distribution
link to original post
Gee... I guess I'm not a math denier after all. And, maybe not a liar either.
You are a denier, because you claim the bet will be won much more often than 1 in 190 times. This is according to your experience and beliefs (and possibly the phase of the moon), but disregarding mathQuote: AlanMendelson
Gee... I guess I'm not a math denier after all. And, maybe not a liar either.
link to original post
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: Ace2If you play long enough to see 190 ALL bets made, your expectations are:Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: lilredroosterQuote: AlanMendelsonTell you what...
Meet me at Red Rock. Be prepared to hang out at the craps tables for four hours, and let's see how often the ALL gets hit.
Okay?
Then I'll buy lunch and we'll tally up the number of shooters.
1 in 190?? No way.
link to original post
I'll tell you what
once again you bumble up a wrong explanation based on personal observations and anecdotes
anyone reading and believing your posts risks having a terrible experience on the gambling floor due to all the misinformation that pours out of you
.
link to original post
I'm asking you to meet me and see for yourself. I'm even willing to buy lunch. No money involved. No risk. And no need to be nasty about it.
Okay... you dont want to do it.
Anyone else interested in watching four hours of craps to keep score on the number of shooters and how often the ALL is hit?
Lunch included.
link to original post
0 wins 37%
1 win 37%
2 wins 18%
3 wins 6%
4+ wins 2%
Using a poisson distribution
link to original post
Gee... I guess I'm not a math denier after all. And, maybe not a liar either.
link to original post
read carefully what he posted Alan - and nobody called you a liar
𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼 𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗻 𝟳𝟰 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝟭𝟵𝟬 𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗹𝘀 (in the long run by adding the % of 0 and 1 together)
you will 2 get wins in 190 trials only 18% of the time
you will get 3 wins in 190 trials only 6% of the time
you will get more than 4 wins in 190 trials only 2% of the time
by considering it all together it 𝙖𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙪𝙩 to be about one win in every 190 trials
because of the power in the equation of 𝗴𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗼 𝘄𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝟯𝟳 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲
.
Quote: Ace2You are a denier, because you claim the bet will be won much more often than 1 in 190 times. This is according to your experience and beliefs (and possible the phase of the moon), but disregarding mathQuote: AlanMendelson
Gee... I guess I'm not a math denier after all. And, maybe not a liar either.
link to original post
link to original post
I never made such a claim. But I did say I've been at craps tables when the ALL has been thrown 2, 3, 4 times in a session. I dont know what happened when I wasnt at the table and maybe that's when the numbers average out?
I have been accused of being a math denier only for saying what I've seen. And not because I ever challenged any math.
Get off my case.
Quote: AlanMendelson
I have been accused of being a math denier only for saying what I've seen. And not because I ever challenged any math.
link to original post
no Alan, you are distorting what you stated when you wrongly called Ace2's post incorrect - here is exactly what you stated:
"You must have this statistic of 1 in 190 confused with something else.
1 in 190?? Too far out."
that is from your post of today at 12:37 a.m.
.
Nope. And you will see three consecutive snake-eyes if you play enough.Quote: billryanThe math says you will roll snake eyes once every 36 rolls. If you witness someone roll three snake eyes in a row, does that mean the math is wrong?
link to original post
Quote: lilredroosterQuote: AlanMendelson
I have been accused of being a math denier only for saying what I've seen. And not because I ever challenged any math.
link to original post
no Alan, you are distorting what you stated when you wrongly called Ace2's post incorrect - here is exactly what you stated:
"You must have this statistic of 1 in 190 confused with something else.
1 in 190?? Too far out."
that is from your post of today at 12:37 a.m.
.
link to original post
I was wrong about this statistic. Repeat: I was wrong about this statistic.
But I do not deny the math. If that's the statistic than that is the statistic.
But it's not my exoerience.
You too: get off my case with your nickeling and diming everything I say. It's old.
Your implication still being that "it's just a statistic"Quote: AlanMendelson
I was wrong about this statistic. Repeat: I was wrong about this statistic.
But I do not deny the math. If that's the statistic than that is the statistic.
But it's not my exoerience.
You too: get off my case with your nickeling and diming everything I say. It's old.
link to original post
I'll repeat: Go to a casino only once in your life and your expectation really is just a statistic. But for regular players, which most of us are, your long-term results will end up being quite close to expectations.
Quote: Ace2Your implication still being that "it's just a statistic"Quote: AlanMendelson
I was wrong about this statistic. Repeat: I was wrong about this statistic.
But I do not deny the math. If that's the statistic than that is the statistic.
But it's not my exoerience.
You too: get off my case with your nickeling and diming everything I say. It's old.
link to original post
I'll repeat: Go to a casino only once in your life and your expectation really is just a statistic. But for regular players, which most of us are, your long-term results will end up being quite close to expectations.
link to original post
Are you serious? This has gone beyond nickeling and dime-ing to trolling.
Stop.
Quote: Ace2Nope. And you will see three consecutive snake-eyes if you play enough.Quote: billryanThe math says you will roll snake eyes once every 36 rolls. If you witness someone roll three snake eyes in a row, does that mean the math is wrong?
link to original post
link to original post
I saw four in a row in a Monopoly game. Three by one player and the first roll by the next guy.
Simulations are taken into the billions to provide a very high level of precision and confidence. And usually only done when something is impossible or too difficult to calculate directly.Quote: tuttigymI believe that 32 billion sessions are unlikely to be performed or happen in one's lifetime to actually validate those results. Otherworldly numbers produced by computer SIMULATIONS (emphasis) are...............
tuttigym
link to original post
But you will notice your results approaching statistical expectations with far fewer trials...in the low thousands. Many of us play several thousand hands in one year.
You and Mr. AlanM should hit the craps table together sometime since you share a similar belief system a.k.a Math Doesn't Apply to Me
Quote: Ace2Simulations are taken into the billions to provide a very high level of precision and confidence.Quote: tuttigymI believe that 32 billion sessions are unlikely to be performed or happen in one's lifetime to actually validate those results. Otherworldly numbers produced by computer SIMULATIONS (emphasis) are...............
tuttigym
link to original post
But you will notice your results approaching statistical expectations with far fewer trials...in the low thousands. Many of us play several thousand hands in one year.
You and Mr. AlanM should hit the craps table together sometime since you share a similar belief system
link to original post
So have you lost EXACTLY 1.4% of your passline bets? I think that's the point being made. No one really makes or reaches the mathematical expectations.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYONE DENIES THE MATH.
Quote: AlanMendelsonQuote: Ace2Simulations are taken into the billions to provide a very high level of precision and confidence.Quote: tuttigymI believe that 32 billion sessions are unlikely to be performed or happen in one's lifetime to actually validate those results. Otherworldly numbers produced by computer SIMULATIONS (emphasis) are...............
tuttigym
link to original post
But you will notice your results approaching statistical expectations with far fewer trials...in the low thousands. Many of us play several thousand hands in one year.
You and Mr. AlanM should hit the craps table together sometime since you share a similar belief system
link to original post
So have you lost EXACTLY 1.4% of your passline bets? I think that's the point being made. No one really makes or reaches the mathematical expectations.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYONE DENIES THE MATH.
link to original post
What is the difference between denying the math and claiming it is irrelevant?
Quote: billryanQuote: AlanMendelsonQuote: Ace2Simulations are taken into the billions to provide a very high level of precision and confidence.Quote: tuttigymI believe that 32 billion sessions are unlikely to be performed or happen in one's lifetime to actually validate those results. Otherworldly numbers produced by computer SIMULATIONS (emphasis) are...............
tuttigym
link to original post
But you will notice your results approaching statistical expectations with far fewer trials...in the low thousands. Many of us play several thousand hands in one year.
You and Mr. AlanM should hit the craps table together sometime since you share a similar belief system
link to original post
So have you lost EXACTLY 1.4% of your passline bets? I think that's the point being made. No one really makes or reaches the mathematical expectations.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYONE DENIES THE MATH.
link to original post
What is the difference between denying the math and claiming it is irrelevant?
link to original post
Irrelevant is a very strong word. I never said it's irrelevant.
The math gives you a projection or estimate for how a bet will perform. I dont think that's irrelevant.
https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/side-bets/bonus-craps/#:~:text=In%20the%20past%2C%20some%20tables,a%20house%20edge%20of%2020.61%25.
Quote: Ace2It's a sucker bet period. You will, on average, hit it about 1 in 190 times and get paid 150 to 1 when you hit
link to original post
Denial of math:
Quote: AlanMendelson
Sorry. But I hit it more often. And as I said, Bellagio got killed by a group of better shooters.
Edited to add:
You must have this statistic of 1 in 190 confused with something else. I've been at tables at Red Rock and Sam's Town where two or more shooters have thrown the ALL in less than an hour.
I think I see it thrown once in every two trips.
I've seen players hit the ALL without making a single pass.
1 in 190?? Too far out.
link to original post
Math denier. Case closed
Quote: WizardPosts illustrating Alan's stubborn misunderstanding of probability in the two dice problem have been moved to Two Dice Puzzle -- Part Trois.
link to original post
What a masterfully crafted editorialized comment. You should have been a tabloid writer.
Quote: Ace2
Simulations are taken into the billions to provide a very high level of precision and confidence. And usually only done when something is impossible or too difficult to calculate directly.
Exactly, The math is hypotheses "impossible or too difficult to calculate directly." No one has performed the math as calculated even with your "several thousand hands in one year." For example: have you performed, at a $10 table, several thousand PL hands and only lost $1410 while wagering a total of $1.000,000 on the PL bet only? So why don't you "hit the craps table together" with Mr. W., since you share a similar belief system a.k.a Math Does Apply to All.
I am quite confident your results won't even come close to those statistical expectations plus your physical and mental well being might suffer dire effects.
Another words, hypotheses PROVE IT. PERFORM IT.
tuttigym
Quote: Ace2I have calculated the expected result of a 3PM using a single passline bet as a reference point. Relative to single PL bet, continuously playing a 3PM increases your total bets made by a factor of 2.4 (easy to calculate) and your standard deviation by a factor of 1.91 (obtained via simulation). You might assume that the SD would increase by 2.4^.5 =~ 1.55, but it goes up more since the 3PM bets are correlated, especially when a seven-out happens with multiple numbers covered.
For example, let's say you play a single PL bet with 3/4/5 odds for three hours and expect 100 bets resolved in that period. Your expectation is 100 * -.0141 +/- 100^.5 * 4.92 = -1.41 units +/- 49.2. With a flat bet of $100 that's -$141 +/- $4,920. If instead you play a 3PM over that same period using the same flat bet amount, your expectation is -$141* 2.4 +/- $4,920 * 1.91 = -$338 +/- $9,397. If a single $100 flat bet with 3/4/5 odds is your comfort level, then you would probably reduce your flat bet to $50 for a 3PM since that would give you a similar expectation of -$169 +/- $4,699
link to original post
I'm not motivated to bet 3X, 4X, 5X odds because of table max limits at this time. But I am wondering about these numbers for 1X, and 2X, and 3X odds.
I'm also wondering if my downside would be less at 1X odds because $20 PL with $20 Odds and a $20 Come only loses $20 on a point 7-out, whereas with $40 odds, I'll be down $40, and $60 odds I'll be down $60.
$30 PL + $30 Odds + $30 Come, lose $30 on P7-out; $20 PL + $40 Odds + $20 Come, lose $40 on P7-out
$40 PL + $40 Odds + $40 Come, lose $40 on P7-out; $20 PL + $60 Odds + $20 Come, lose $60 on P7-out
Those losses double for hitting the 7-out on the 2nd Come bet winner.
Sure I reduce the HA by betting more odds, but I'm getting whiplash by short handed shooters.
I don't think your math adds up since the expected loss on $1,000,000 would be $14,100, but I can tell you that if you made 1,000,000 passline bets there is a 95% chance your result will be within -1.21% and -1.61%. Your chance of being up on the casino after a million PL bets is effectively zero since that would be about 14 standard deviations above expectations...roughly the same chance as your house being struck by a meteor every night this week.Quote: tuttigymQuote: Ace2
Simulations are taken into the billions to provide a very high level of precision and confidence. And usually only done when something is impossible or too difficult to calculate directly.
Exactly, The math is hypotheses "impossible or too difficult to calculate directly." No one has performed the math as calculated even with your "several thousand hands in one year." For example: have you performed, at a $10 table, several thousand PL hands and only lost $1410 while wagering a total of $1.000,000 on the PL bet only? So why don't you "hit the craps table together" with Mr. W., since you share a similar belief system a.k.a Math Does Apply to All.
I am quite confident your results won't even come close to those statistical expectations plus your physical and mental well being might suffer dire effects.
Another words, hypotheses PROVE IT. PERFORM IT.
tuttigym
link to original post
This is not just theory. You can calculate it directly/exactly with a markov chain. Try it sometime instead of just stating your superstitions
You might be overthinking it. No such thing as a short handed shooter.Quote: ChumpChangeQuote: Ace2I have calculated the expected result of a 3PM using a single passline bet as a reference point. Relative to single PL bet, continuously playing a 3PM increases your total bets made by a factor of 2.4 (easy to calculate) and your standard deviation by a factor of 1.91 (obtained via simulation). You might assume that the SD would increase by 2.4^.5 =~ 1.55, but it goes up more since the 3PM bets are correlated, especially when a seven-out happens with multiple numbers covered.
For example, let's say you play a single PL bet with 3/4/5 odds for three hours and expect 100 bets resolved in that period. Your expectation is 100 * -.0141 +/- 100^.5 * 4.92 = -1.41 units +/- 49.2. With a flat bet of $100 that's -$141 +/- $4,920. If instead you play a 3PM over that same period using the same flat bet amount, your expectation is -$141* 2.4 +/- $4,920 * 1.91 = -$338 +/- $9,397. If a single $100 flat bet with 3/4/5 odds is your comfort level, then you would probably reduce your flat bet to $50 for a 3PM since that would give you a similar expectation of -$169 +/- $4,699
link to original post
I'm not motivated to bet 3X, 4X, 5X odds because of table max limits at this time. But I am wondering about these numbers for 1X, and 2X, and 3X odds.
I'm also wondering if my downside would be less at 1X odds because $20 PL with $20 Odds and a $20 Come only loses $20 on a point 7-out, whereas with $40 odds, I'll be down $40, and $60 odds I'll be down $60.
$30 PL + $30 Odds + $30 Come, lose $30 on P7-out; $20 PL + $40 Odds + $20 Come, lose $40 on P7-out
$40 PL + $40 Odds + $40 Come, lose $40 on P7-out; $20 PL + $60 Odds + $20 Come, lose $60 on P7-out
Those losses double for hitting the 7-out on the 2nd Come bet winner.
Sure I reduce the HA by betting more odds, but I'm getting whiplash by short handed shooters.
link to original post
Anyway, the multiples listed above of of 2.4 and 1.91 apply to any odds amount.
Quote: ChumpChangeWhere'd you get the 4.92?
link to original post
It’s easy to calculate but it’s also posted on the Wiz site.
General rule: the SD is the odds amount + 1. So for 2x odds the SD is about 3, for 3x odds it’s about 4, for 3/4/5 odds (average around 4) it’s about 5
This is one of the Ace2 Conjectures
