## Poll

4 votes (26.66%) | |||

1 vote (6.66%) | |||

4 votes (26.66%) | |||

1 vote (6.66%) | |||

6 votes (40%) | |||

No votes (0%) | |||

1 vote (6.66%) | |||

1 vote (6.66%) | |||

1 vote (6.66%) | |||

9 votes (60%) |

**15 members have voted**

Here is how it works.

- Player makes don't pass, don't come, and lays odds only.
- Don't pass and don't come bets should always be one unit.
- Player should lay the maximum odds allowed, which my simulation assumes is based on 3-4-5x (meaning the player always can lay 6x) the don't pass or don't come.
- Player always makes a don't pass or don't come bet on every rolls except if he already is on three numbers.
- Player quits on the seven out

Here are some results based on over 41 billion sessions played.

Average units bet per session = 30.313926

Average loss per session = .08315 units

Ratio amount won to amount bet = -0.002743

Probability session win = 67.98%

I know most player don't like to play this way, where there is usually a limited win and the worse case scenario can be very bad. Then again, the Martingale is much loved.

Here is a table of the count of each win in the simulation. I'm putting it in spoiler tags, because its rather big.

In case your wondering how the big wins are possible, the shooter might win on pass bets, preferably that the player didn't bet, and hit a seven on a come out roll, causing the player to win on other numbers previously established. For example shooter rolls: 4,5,6,8,9,10,8,7,.... In this situation, the player would win on the 4,5, and 6 and still be going.

Win | Count | Probability |
---|---|---|

-349 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-346 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-343 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-342 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-341 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-337 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-336 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-333 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-331 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-328 | 2 | 0.000000 |

-325 | 2 | 0.000000 |

-323 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-322 | 2 | 0.000000 |

-320 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-319 | 3 | 0.000000 |

-317 | 2 | 0.000000 |

-316 | 4 | 0.000000 |

-315 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-314 | 3 | 0.000000 |

-313 | 6 | 0.000000 |

-312 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-311 | 6 | 0.000000 |

-310 | 7 | 0.000000 |

-309 | 6 | 0.000000 |

-308 | 2 | 0.000000 |

-307 | 4 | 0.000000 |

-306 | 6 | 0.000000 |

-305 | 4 | 0.000000 |

-304 | 1 | 0.000000 |

-303 | 6 | 0.000000 |

-302 | 3 | 0.000000 |

-301 | 4 | 0.000000 |

-300 | 4 | 0.000000 |

-299 | 5 | 0.000000 |

-298 | 5 | 0.000000 |

-297 | 2 | 0.000000 |

-296 | 8 | 0.000000 |

-295 | 6 | 0.000000 |

-294 | 11 | 0.000000 |

-293 | 9 | 0.000000 |

-292 | 7 | 0.000000 |

-291 | 12 | 0.000000 |

-290 | 12 | 0.000000 |

-289 | 10 | 0.000000 |

-288 | 11 | 0.000000 |

-287 | 6 | 0.000000 |

-286 | 15 | 0.000000 |

-285 | 19 | 0.000000 |

-284 | 18 | 0.000000 |

-283 | 20 | 0.000000 |

-282 | 19 | 0.000000 |

-281 | 23 | 0.000000 |

-280 | 18 | 0.000000 |

-279 | 29 | 0.000000 |

-278 | 24 | 0.000000 |

-277 | 25 | 0.000000 |

-276 | 30 | 0.000000 |

-275 | 30 | 0.000000 |

-274 | 29 | 0.000000 |

-273 | 33 | 0.000000 |

-272 | 42 | 0.000000 |

-271 | 41 | 0.000000 |

-270 | 38 | 0.000000 |

-269 | 36 | 0.000000 |

-268 | 40 | 0.000000 |

-267 | 45 | 0.000000 |

-266 | 36 | 0.000000 |

-265 | 34 | 0.000000 |

-264 | 51 | 0.000000 |

-263 | 72 | 0.000000 |

-262 | 48 | 0.000000 |

-261 | 65 | 0.000000 |

-260 | 76 | 0.000000 |

-259 | 74 | 0.000000 |

-258 | 71 | 0.000000 |

-257 | 94 | 0.000000 |

-256 | 118 | 0.000000 |

-255 | 73 | 0.000000 |

-254 | 101 | 0.000000 |

-253 | 118 | 0.000000 |

-252 | 109 | 0.000000 |

-251 | 129 | 0.000000 |

-250 | 132 | 0.000000 |

-249 | 141 | 0.000000 |

-248 | 159 | 0.000000 |

-247 | 146 | 0.000000 |

-246 | 163 | 0.000000 |

-245 | 143 | 0.000000 |

-244 | 186 | 0.000000 |

-243 | 186 | 0.000000 |

-242 | 229 | 0.000000 |

-241 | 194 | 0.000000 |

-240 | 269 | 0.000000 |

-239 | 266 | 0.000000 |

-238 | 287 | 0.000000 |

-237 | 279 | 0.000000 |

-236 | 356 | 0.000000 |

-235 | 328 | 0.000000 |

-234 | 378 | 0.000000 |

-233 | 357 | 0.000000 |

-232 | 370 | 0.000000 |

-231 | 400 | 0.000000 |

-230 | 441 | 0.000000 |

-229 | 482 | 0.000000 |

-228 | 532 | 0.000000 |

-227 | 604 | 0.000000 |

-226 | 584 | 0.000000 |

-225 | 591 | 0.000000 |

-224 | 619 | 0.000000 |

-223 | 717 | 0.000000 |

-222 | 747 | 0.000000 |

-221 | 842 | 0.000000 |

-220 | 802 | 0.000000 |

-219 | 885 | 0.000000 |

-218 | 916 | 0.000000 |

-217 | 951 | 0.000000 |

-216 | 1,129 | 0.000000 |

-215 | 1,213 | 0.000000 |

-214 | 1,259 | 0.000000 |

-213 | 1,320 | 0.000000 |

-212 | 1,351 | 0.000000 |

-211 | 1,432 | 0.000000 |

-210 | 1,569 | 0.000000 |

-209 | 1,695 | 0.000000 |

-208 | 1,889 | 0.000000 |

-207 | 1,975 | 0.000000 |

-206 | 1,962 | 0.000000 |

-205 | 2,129 | 0.000000 |

-204 | 2,169 | 0.000000 |

-203 | 2,372 | 0.000000 |

-202 | 2,703 | 0.000000 |

-201 | 2,822 | 0.000000 |

-200 | 3,021 | 0.000000 |

-199 | 3,169 | 0.000000 |

-198 | 3,350 | 0.000000 |

-197 | 3,431 | 0.000000 |

-196 | 3,717 | 0.000000 |

-195 | 4,043 | 0.000000 |

-194 | 4,535 | 0.000000 |

-193 | 4,790 | 0.000000 |

-192 | 4,974 | 0.000000 |

-191 | 5,129 | 0.000000 |

-190 | 5,446 | 0.000000 |

-189 | 5,729 | 0.000000 |

-188 | 6,372 | 0.000000 |

-187 | 6,958 | 0.000000 |

-186 | 7,289 | 0.000000 |

-185 | 7,526 | 0.000000 |

-184 | 7,974 | 0.000000 |

-183 | 8,266 | 0.000000 |

-182 | 8,913 | 0.000000 |

-181 | 9,956 | 0.000000 |

-180 | 11,109 | 0.000000 |

-179 | 11,685 | 0.000000 |

-178 | 11,577 | 0.000000 |

-177 | 12,107 | 0.000000 |

-176 | 12,669 | 0.000000 |

-175 | 13,866 | 0.000000 |

-174 | 15,458 | 0.000000 |

-173 | 16,954 | 0.000000 |

-172 | 17,733 | 0.000000 |

-171 | 18,425 | 0.000000 |

-170 | 18,539 | 0.000000 |

-169 | 19,472 | 0.000000 |

-168 | 21,452 | 0.000001 |

-167 | 23,866 | 0.000001 |

-166 | 26,470 | 0.000001 |

-165 | 27,854 | 0.000001 |

-164 | 28,335 | 0.000001 |

-163 | 28,487 | 0.000001 |

-162 | 30,177 | 0.000001 |

-161 | 33,426 | 0.000001 |

-160 | 37,550 | 0.000001 |

-159 | 41,555 | 0.000001 |

-158 | 43,705 | 0.000001 |

-157 | 43,810 | 0.000001 |

-156 | 44,389 | 0.000001 |

-155 | 46,779 | 0.000001 |

-154 | 51,776 | 0.000001 |

-153 | 58,871 | 0.000001 |

-152 | 64,193 | 0.000002 |

-151 | 67,643 | 0.000002 |

-150 | 67,928 | 0.000002 |

-149 | 67,985 | 0.000002 |

-148 | 71,347 | 0.000002 |

-147 | 79,793 | 0.000002 |

-146 | 90,808 | 0.000002 |

-145 | 100,786 | 0.000002 |

-144 | 104,743 | 0.000003 |

-143 | 105,155 | 0.000003 |

-142 | 105,227 | 0.000003 |

-141 | 110,273 | 0.000003 |

-140 | 124,010 | 0.000003 |

-139 | 142,640 | 0.000003 |

-138 | 157,332 | 0.000004 |

-137 | 164,308 | 0.000004 |

-136 | 162,050 | 0.000004 |

-135 | 159,953 | 0.000004 |

-134 | 170,158 | 0.000004 |

-133 | 192,443 | 0.000005 |

-132 | 223,194 | 0.000005 |

-131 | 246,656 | 0.000006 |

-130 | 254,875 | 0.000006 |

-129 | 250,895 | 0.000006 |

-128 | 247,073 | 0.000006 |

-127 | 260,710 | 0.000006 |

-126 | 297,807 | 0.000007 |

-125 | 348,598 | 0.000008 |

-124 | 385,362 | 0.000009 |

-123 | 396,886 | 0.000010 |

-122 | 386,098 | 0.000009 |

-121 | 378,076 | 0.000009 |

-120 | 399,790 | 0.000010 |

-119 | 461,508 | 0.000011 |

-118 | 542,355 | 0.000013 |

-117 | 606,451 | 0.000015 |

-116 | 619,362 | 0.000015 |

-115 | 596,253 | 0.000014 |

-114 | 579,807 | 0.000014 |

-113 | 614,138 | 0.000015 |

-112 | 716,824 | 0.000017 |

-111 | 849,465 | 0.000021 |

-110 | 949,523 | 0.000023 |

-109 | 964,534 | 0.000023 |

-108 | 919,200 | 0.000022 |

-107 | 885,786 | 0.000022 |

-106 | 942,423 | 0.000023 |

-105 | 1,113,293 | 0.000027 |

-104 | 1,333,139 | 0.000032 |

-103 | 1,485,696 | 0.000036 |

-102 | 1,504,049 | 0.000037 |

-101 | 1,412,457 | 0.000034 |

-100 | 1,349,589 | 0.000033 |

-99 | 1,441,825 | 0.000035 |

-98 | 1,725,585 | 0.000042 |

-97 | 2,090,861 | 0.000051 |

-96 | 2,335,996 | 0.000057 |

-95 | 2,336,960 | 0.000057 |

-94 | 2,173,303 | 0.000053 |

-93 | 2,060,412 | 0.000050 |

-92 | 2,208,374 | 0.000054 |

-91 | 2,678,764 | 0.000065 |

-90 | 3,282,556 | 0.000080 |

-89 | 3,670,435 | 0.000089 |

-88 | 3,646,581 | 0.000089 |

-87 | 3,333,674 | 0.000081 |

-86 | 3,125,240 | 0.000076 |

-85 | 3,378,054 | 0.000082 |

-84 | 4,159,761 | 0.000101 |

-83 | 5,169,380 | 0.000126 |

-82 | 5,774,776 | 0.000140 |

-81 | 5,679,152 | 0.000138 |

-80 | 5,110,291 | 0.000124 |

-79 | 4,742,732 | 0.000115 |

-78 | 5,155,616 | 0.000125 |

-77 | 6,469,426 | 0.000157 |

-76 | 8,141,988 | 0.000198 |

-75 | 9,093,149 | 0.000221 |

-74 | 8,840,044 | 0.000215 |

-73 | 7,809,482 | 0.000190 |

-72 | 7,164,587 | 0.000174 |

-71 | 7,863,075 | 0.000191 |

-70 | 10,063,019 | 0.000245 |

-69 | 12,849,179 | 0.000312 |

-68 | 14,334,094 | 0.000348 |

-67 | 13,776,483 | 0.000335 |

-66 | 11,922,391 | 0.000290 |

-65 | 10,791,886 | 0.000262 |

-64 | 11,959,468 | 0.000291 |

-63 | 15,664,666 | 0.000381 |

-62 | 20,299,422 | 0.000493 |

-61 | 22,621,260 | 0.000550 |

-60 | 21,448,092 | 0.000521 |

-59 | 18,147,199 | 0.000441 |

-58 | 16,189,989 | 0.000393 |

-57 | 18,163,881 | 0.000441 |

-56 | 24,374,015 | 0.000592 |

-55 | 32,152,120 | 0.000781 |

-54 | 35,739,302 | 0.000869 |

-53 | 33,401,907 | 0.000812 |

-52 | 27,542,783 | 0.000669 |

-51 | 24,187,100 | 0.000588 |

-50 | 27,552,095 | 0.000670 |

-49 | 37,968,841 | 0.000923 |

-48 | 50,990,211 | 0.001239 |

-47 | 56,508,926 | 0.001373 |

-46 | 52,002,969 | 0.001264 |

-45 | 41,642,600 | 0.001012 |

-44 | 35,945,342 | 0.000874 |

-43 | 41,677,542 | 0.001013 |

-42 | 59,153,276 | 0.001438 |

-41 | 80,971,038 | 0.001968 |

-40 | 89,444,790 | 0.002174 |

-39 | 80,984,922 | 0.001968 |

-38 | 62,779,226 | 0.001526 |

-37 | 53,125,188 | 0.001291 |

-36 | 62,893,192 | 0.001528 |

-35 | 92,113,076 | 0.002238 |

-34 | 128,847,712 | 0.003131 |

-33 | 141,704,041 | 0.003444 |

-32 | 126,120,841 | 0.003065 |

-31 | 94,141,256 | 0.002288 |

-30 | 77,840,920 | 0.001892 |

-29 | 94,505,017 | 0.002297 |

-28 | 143,361,839 | 0.003484 |

-27 | 205,391,652 | 0.004991 |

-26 | 224,815,834 | 0.005463 |

-25 | 197,062,105 | 0.004789 |

-24 | 141,479,917 | 0.003438 |

-23 | 114,400,372 | 0.002780 |

-22 | 141,937,586 | 0.003449 |

-21 | 222,893,289 | 0.005417 |

-20 | 327,625,530 | 0.007962 |

-19 | 356,565,298 | 0.008665 |

-18 | 306,893,201 | 0.007458 |

-17 | 208,617,391 | 0.005070 |

-16 | 162,538,120 | 0.003950 |

-15 | 210,664,910 | 0.005119 |

-14 | 345,995,246 | 0.008408 |

-13 | 525,862,376 | 0.012779 |

-12 | 575,094,059 | 0.013976 |

-11 | 506,186,057 | 0.012301 |

-10 | 355,267,152 | 0.008633 |

-9 | 287,758,280 | 0.006993 |

-8 | 328,454,031 | 0.007982 |

-7 | 536,504,683 | 0.013038 |

-6 | 838,154,135 | 0.020368 |

-5 | 903,714,844 | 0.021961 |

-4 | 757,019,526 | 0.018397 |

-3 | 451,972,081 | 0.010984 |

-2 | 324,182,693 | 0.007878 |

-1 | 470,993,547 | 0.011446 |

0 | 862,177,144 | 0.020952 |

1 | 1,475,802,637 | 0.035864 |

2 | 1,966,020,072 | 0.047777 |

3 | 3,134,801,174 | 0.076180 |

4 | 3,227,145,242 | 0.078424 |

5 | 2,925,595,450 | 0.071096 |

6 | 1,070,503,000 | 0.026015 |

7 | 1,328,049,870 | 0.032273 |

8 | 2,245,337,384 | 0.054565 |

9 | 2,437,755,805 | 0.059241 |

10 | 2,001,363,460 | 0.048636 |

11 | 900,248,512 | 0.021877 |

12 | 383,862,607 | 0.009328 |

13 | 534,359,330 | 0.012986 |

14 | 947,140,171 | 0.023017 |

15 | 1,444,149,683 | 0.035095 |

16 | 1,084,274,535 | 0.026349 |

17 | 632,653,447 | 0.015374 |

18 | 164,648,522 | 0.004001 |

19 | 45,249,571 | 0.001100 |

20 | 16,597,713 | 0.000403 |

21 | 6,458,485 | 0.000157 |

22 | 2,274,071 | 0.000055 |

23 | 762,051 | 0.000019 |

24 | 261,002 | 0.000006 |

25 | 91,611 | 0.000002 |

26 | 32,066 | 0.000001 |

27 | 11,170 | 0.000000 |

28 | 3,924 | 0.000000 |

29 | 1,397 | 0.000000 |

30 | 480 | 0.000000 |

31 | 177 | 0.000000 |

32 | 49 | 0.000000 |

33 | 23 | 0.000000 |

34 | 11 | 0.000000 |

35 | 3 | 0.000000 |

36 | 2 | 0.000000 |

The question for the poll is what do you think of this strategy?

Average loss per session = 08315 units

So 4 DP with odds bets and two DP bets per 7-out on average.

I'm gonna have to assume the 08315 units is missing the decimal place, so it's either -.08315 units or -0.8315 units per 7-out. (If I multiply 0.0138 by 6 DP bets per 7-out, no odds, that about equals the -0.08315 units number)

If you can lose 70 bets before a 7-out, that'd be 10 DP with Odds bets at 6X odds.

If you can lose 350 bets before a 7-out, that'd be 50 DP with Odds bets at 6X odds.

There's a never-ending supply of losers in this Dolly, versus the Molly which was capped at 3 losses per 7-out.

You will lose less with the Dolly (or any form of Don't Pass) compared to Molly. Lower edgeQuote:ChumpChangeThere's a never-ending supply of losers in this Dolly, versus the Molly which was capped at 3 losses per 7-out.

link to original post

At triple odds, I have a 300 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at 3X odds) for the 3 Point Molly.

At 5X odds, I have a 450 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at 5X odds) for the 3 Point Molly.

At 6X odds, I have a 525 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at 6X odds) for the 3 Point Molly.

I've heard the variance is lower too. I'm not sure about that... Lay bets might tend to have that effect, but the average bet is higher too due to the way the odds are doneQuote:Ace2You will lose less with the Dolly (or any form of Don't Pass) compared to Molly. Lower edgeQuote:ChumpChangeThere's a never-ending supply of losers in this Dolly, versus the Molly which was capped at 3 losses per 7-out.

link to original post

link to original post

If I were a betting man I'd say that slight difference is due to the half bet being returned when 12 is rolled during DP come-out.

So instead of $10dp and two $10 DC, I have a $30 DP/Max odds.

Mathematically, it's the same.

But how is my variance compared to 3point Dolly?

you are increasing your variance. With these things, where the EV is the same, and the total action is the same, the way I look at it is that you are 'allowing the variance to work' ... that the EV is the same can be confounding.Quote:100xOddsInstead of 2 min DC bets at max odds, I take that amount of $ and put it into the DP.

So instead of $10dp and two $10 DC, I have a $30 DP/Max odds.

Mathematically, it's the same.

But how is my variance compared to 3point Dolly?

link to original post

The player who bets 20 $10 pass line bets has the same EV as the player who bet $200 on one pass line bet ... yet the latter is considered smarter IF that is also his total action [which typically perhaps it is not!]

That variance can go against you too, instead of helping you. But if the EV is negative, variance is the only hope

Quote:Ace2You will lose less with the Dolly (or any form of Don't Pass) compared to Molly. Lower edgeQuote:ChumpChangeThere's a never-ending supply of losers in this Dolly, versus the Molly which was capped at 3 losses per 7-out.

link to original post

link to original post

Chump Change is correct.

House edge has nothing to do with it. A monster roll will kill a don't player.

to avoid that you just pick up your bet when the point turns out to be 6 or 8 ... or better yet, keep them up and sell them to meQuote:AlanMendelsonQuote:Ace2Quote:ChumpChange

link to original post

link to original post

Chump Change is correct.

House edge has nothing to do with it. A monster roll will kill a don't player.

link to original post

House edge has everything to do with it if you're able to think beyond the next five minutes and comprehend basic math of dice rollsQuote:AlanMendelsonQuote:Ace2Quote:ChumpChange

link to original post

link to original post

Chump Change is correct.

House edge has nothing to do with it. A monster roll will kill a don't player.

link to original post

Quote:WizardHere are some results based on over 41 billion sessions played.

The question for the poll is what do you think of this strategy?

To 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 (emphasis) or TOO DIFFICULT (emphasis) to calculate directly (performed)(inferred). Posted 5-10-22 3 Point Molley Pg. 24

And to paraphrase billryan: It will work until it doesn't.

tuttigym

Quote:Ace2

House edge has everything to do with it if you're able to think beyond the next five minutes and comprehend basic math of dice rolls

Wait a minute. Is that 4th grade arithmetic you are suggesting?

tuttigym

Quote:Ace2House edge has everything to do with it if you're able to think beyond the next five minutes and comprehend basic math of dice rollsQuote:AlanMendelsonQuote:Ace2Quote:ChumpChange

link to original post

link to original post

Chump Change is correct.

House edge has nothing to do with it. A monster roll will kill a don't player.

link to original post

link to original post

The edge on bets is wonderful to believe in. If only I had the bankroll to let the math do its thing.

That says it all. Like your cohort tuttigym, you view the house edge as something to believe in (or not). You have your own beliefs that don't necessarily conform to very basic mathQuote:AlanMendelson

The edge on bets is wonderful to believe in. If only I had the bankroll to let the math do its thing.

link to original post

From what I know you have been a craps player for decades. In that case, your total result over that period is quite close to the house edge.

Quote:Ace2That says it all. Like your cohort tuttigym, you view the house edge as something to believe in (or not). You have your own beliefs that don't necessarily conform to very basic mathQuote:AlanMendelson

The edge on bets is wonderful to believe in. If only I had the bankroll to let the math do its thing.

link to original post

From what I know you have been a craps player for decades. In that case, your total result over that period is quite close to the house edge.

link to original post

If the house edge is 1.4% on the passline on every bet, over time you'll lose a ton.

Quote:Ace2That says it all. Like your cohort tuttigym, you view the house edge as something to believe in (or not). You have your own beliefs that don't necessarily conform to very basic mathQuote:AlanMendelson

The edge on bets is wonderful to believe in. If only I had the bankroll to let the math do its thing.

link to original post

From what I know you have been a craps player for decades. In that case, your total result over that period is quite close to the house edge.

link to original post

The difference between your approach and mine is that you actually believe the computer simulations are real even though they are "done (produced) when something is IMPOSSIBLE (emphasis) or TOO DIFFICULT (emphasis) to calculate directly." (perform) (Ace2 5-10-22)

Apparently, your assumption of Mr. Mendelson's actual play is well off the mark too.

tuttigym

Quote:ChumpChange

Average loss per session = 08315 units

link to original post

You're right, I left out a decimal point. It should have been 0.08315 unit average loss per session.

Quote:100xOddsBut how is my variance compared to 3point Dolly?

link to original post

Let me work on that.

He switched to the 2 Point Dolly after the first two 7-outs, and now he's knocking his Don't Points down with repeat rolls. His Don't odds pay $100, so the odds bets are 12X, 15X, or 20X depending on the point.

CRAPS! $2000 Buy In! Which Side Will Pay Me!? - All Casino Action - 197K subscribers - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmfuecsj-jQ

Quote:WizardQuote:ChumpChange

Average loss per session = 08315 units

link to original post

You're right, I left out a decimal point. It should have been 0.08315 unit average loss per session.

link to original post

Mr.W: What does that even mean?? Why not put real play context to that ridiculous "unit average"? Why won't you translate those hypothetical unreal fractions into actual playing $$$? In other words, give us a player buy-in, then the wagering play, then, perhaps, four or five hand outcomes, then session outcomes reflective of the buy-in? IMHO real players need to SEE and digest what you are proposing not some charted number progressions that will never be duplicated at the table.

tuttigym

Quote:ChumpChangeEven at single odds, I have a 150 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at single odds) for the 3 Point Molly. I don't know how to convert that to the Dolly.

At triple odds, I have a 300 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at 3X odds) for the 3 Point Molly.

At 5X odds, I have a 450 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at 5X odds) for the 3 Point Molly.

At 6X odds, I have a 525 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at 6X odds) for the 3 Point Molly.

link to original post

If I were Vic, I'd be playing single odds ($10 line bets) with such a low buy-in of $1,500-$2,000. He seemed really skittish about being down $1,000 in half an hour. He's severely overbetting.

But his play does make me ponder that the buy-in for a 3 Point Molly could be the same as a buy-in for a 2 Point Dolly. The average odds on the two Don'ts that he had of $150 each on the 5/9 would equal the average odds on the 3 Do odds of $100.

A 3 point Dolly would have average odds of $450, then add $30 on the line, so there'd be nearly $500 on the felt at one time. 25X $500 = $12,500 buy-in.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at single odds, the odds would average $15 x 3 or $45 and the line would be another 3 x $10 or $30, so the total on the felt would be $75.

25X $75 = $1,875 buy-in. So just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 1.25 for single odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 2 Point Dolly at single odds, there'd be $50 on the felt. 25X $50 = $1,250 buy-in.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at 3X odds, the odds average would be $45 x 3 or $135 and the line would be another 3 x $10 or $30, so the total on the felt would be $165.

25X $165 = $4,125. So I should just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 1.375 for 3X odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 2 Point Dolly at 3X odds, there'd be $110 on the felt. 25X $110 = $2,750 buy-in.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at 5X odds, the odds average would be $75 x 3 or $225 and the line would be another 3 x $10 or $30, so the total on the felt would be $255.

25X $255 = $6,375. So I should just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 1.4167 for 5X odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 2 Point Dolly at 5X odds, there'd be $170 on the felt. 25X $170 = $4,250 buy-in.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at 6X odds, the odds average would be $90 x 3 or $270 and the line would be another 3 x $10 or $30, so the total on the felt would be $300.

25X $300 = $7,500. So I should just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 1.42857 for 6X odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 2 Point Dolly at 6X odds, there'd be $200 on the felt. 25X $200 = $5,000 buy-in.

Quote:ChumpChangeQuote:ChumpChangeEven at single odds, I have a 150 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at single odds) for the 3 Point Molly. I don't know how to convert that to the Dolly.

At triple odds, I have a 300 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at 3X odds) for the 3 Point Molly.

At 5X odds, I have a 450 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at 5X odds) for the 3 Point Molly.

At 6X odds, I have a 525 unit buy-in (25X expected betting rounds per 7-out at 6X odds) for the 3 Point Molly.

link to original post

If I were Vic, I'd be playing single odds ($10 line bets) with such a low buy-in of $1,500-$2,000. He seemed really skittish about being down $1,000 in half an hour. He's severely overbetting.

But his play does make me ponder that the buy-in for a 3 Point Molly could be the same as a buy-in for a 2 Point Dolly. The average odds on the two Don'ts that he had of $150 each on the 5/9 would equal the average odds on the 3 Do odds of $100.

A 3 point Dolly would have average odds of $450, then add $30 on the line, so there'd be nearly $500 on the felt at one time. 25X $500 = $12,500 buy-in.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at single odds, the odds would average $15 x 3 or $45 and the line would be another 3 x $10 or $30, so the total on the felt would be $75.

25X $75 = $1,875 buy-in. So just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 1.25 for single odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 2 Point Dolly at single odds, there'd be $50 on the felt. 25X $50 = $1,250 buy-in.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at 3X odds, the odds average would be $45 x 3 or $135 and the line would be another 3 x $10 or $30, so the total on the felt would be $165.

25X $165 = $4,125. So I should just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 1.375 for 3X odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 2 Point Dolly at 3X odds, there'd be $110 on the felt. 25X $110 = $2,750 buy-in.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at 5X odds, the odds average would be $75 x 3 or $225 and the line would be another 3 x $10 or $30, so the total on the felt would be $255.

25X $255 = $6,375. So I should just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 1.4167 for 5X odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 2 Point Dolly at 5X odds, there'd be $170 on the felt. 25X $170 = $4,250 buy-in.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at 6X odds, the odds average would be $90 x 3 or $270 and the line would be another 3 x $10 or $30, so the total on the felt would be $300.

25X $300 = $7,500. So I should just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 1.42857 for 6X odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 2 Point Dolly at 6X odds, there'd be $200 on the felt. 25X $200 = $5,000 buy-in.

link to original post

Since the Wizard calculated an average bet of 30 units in his calculations per 7-out at 6X odds, which about equals 4 DP/DC with odds bets plus 2 DP/DC bets, I'll have to recalibrate my above calculations.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at single odds, the odds would average $15 x 4 or $60 and the line would be another 6 x $10 or $60, so the total on the felt would be $120.

25X $120 = $3,000 buy-in. So just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 2.00 for single odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at 3X odds, the odds average would be $45 x 4 or $180 and the line would be another 6 x $10 or $60, so the total on the felt would be $240.

25X $240 = $6,000. So I should just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 2.00 for 3X odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at 5X odds, the odds average would be $75 x 4 or $300 and the line would be another 6 x $10 or $60, so the total on the felt would be $360.

25X $360 = $9,000. So I should just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 2.00 for 5X odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

If I was doing a 3 Point Dolly at 6X odds, the odds average would be $90 x 4 or $360 and the line would be another 6 x $10 or $60, so the total on the felt would be $420.

25X $420 = $10,500. So I should just multiply my regular 3 Point Molly buy-in by 2.00 for 6X odds on the 3 Point Dolly.

Sorry if my question a stupid(my bad English), I want to clarify about the strategy.

Did I understand correctly, the gambler should make flat-bet series before winning = 3xBET(three bets)?

Quote:tuttigymMr.W: What does that even mean?? Why not put real play context to that ridiculous "unit average"? Why won't you translate those hypothetical unreal fractions into actual playing $$$? In other words, give us a player buy-in, then the wagering play, then, perhaps, four or five hand outcomes, then session outcomes reflective of the buy-in? IMHO real players need to SEE and digest what you are proposing not some charted number progressions that will never be duplicated at the table.

tuttigym

link to original post

It is a simple ratio of money lost to money bet. I don't see what is so complicated about it. It should be every gamblers goal to maximize that ratio. It is not a hypothetical fraction, but accurate to at least six decimal places.

I plan to make a video where I'll give some play the Three Point Molly on my demo game, for those that need to see it to understand it.

Quote:WizardQuote:tuttigymMr.W: What does that even mean?? Why not put real play context to that ridiculous "unit average"? Why won't you translate those hypothetical unreal fractions into actual playing $$$? In other words, give us a player buy-in, then the wagering play, then, perhaps, four or five hand outcomes, then session outcomes reflective of the buy-in? IMHO real players need to SEE and digest what you are proposing not some charted number progressions that will never be duplicated at the table.

tuttigym

link to original post

It is a simple ratio of money lost to money bet. I don't see what is so complicated about it. It should be every gamblers goal to maximize that ratio. It is not a hypothetical fraction, but accurate to at least six decimal places.

I plan to make a video where I'll give some play the Three Point Molly on my demo game, for those that need to see it to understand it.

link to original post

So for every $1000 wagered, I am only going to lose $83.15 roughly? That is my goal? Wow, who knew? So the video will show us all that at the end of the session, the dealer will provide us with chips representing pennies, nickels, dimes, etc. or the play will be to buy in at $10,000 and lose only $832? How long do you suppose a session like that would last? One other thing, how many real sessions would it take to come out averaging the $832 in losses that would provide such "certainty" to validate the .08315 loss ratio?

tuttigym

The numbers are:

Average units bet per session = 30.313926

Average loss per session = .08315 units

.08315 / 30.313926 is an average loss of 0.27%, which is the overall house edge when betting don't pass with 3-4-5 odds. So the expected loss on $1000 wagered is $2.70

This is actually 5th grade level arithmetic so don't even bother trying to understand

Careful analyses of Dolly in this thread are appreciated.

The gambler should build up to 3 'points', not 3 'bets' .... a point is when 4,5,6,8,9, or 10 is rolled on the come-out roll, which means something was rolled that has to be resolved, as I hope you knowQuote:DobrijTopics like this very interesting!

Sorry if my question a stupid(my bad English), I want to clarify about the strategy.

Did I understand correctly, the gambler should make flat-bet series before winning = 3xBET(three bets)?

link to original post

so the gambler playing this will quit making line bets if he has 3 points unresolved. What this does is limit how much he has in action. And that is all! There is no change in the house edge, no magical increase in the chances of winning!

Making come bets with big odds is just risking too much money. Worse is that you need to roll a number twice to collect.

Come betting works only when you have a long roll and my crystal ball was smashed in the Northridge earthquake.

Quote:Ace2Tuttigym,

The numbers are:

Average units bet per session = 30.313926

Average loss per session = .08315 units

.08315 / 30.313926 is an average loss of 0.27%, which is the overall house edge when betting don't pass with 3-4-5 odds. So the expected loss on $1000 wagered is $2.70

This is actually 5th grade level arithmetic so don't even bother trying to understand

link to original post

I want to assure you that I won't "bother to understand" how one can lose $2.70/$1,000 wagered because it absolutely CANNOT happen at the tables. I also know that you or anyone else cannot PROVE or PERFORM the precision (1 millionth of 1%) "average loss per session." Especially since the calculations are a result of computer SIMULATIONS which are "only done when something is IMPOSSIBLE or TOO DIFFICULT to calculate directly." (Ace2 5-10-22; Three Point Mollie pg.24)

Do you suppose Mr. W. will answer my questions directly or will your post satisfy?

tuttigym

Quote:Ace2This is actually 5th grade level arithmetic so don't even bother trying to understand

link to original post

That was a low blow. Warning issued for making a personal insult.

My post upstream was not well worded and probably caused his confusion.

Below is a genuine response. Please don’t read it as condescending or snide in any way, as that honestly is not my intention.

You are correct that one cannot be down by exactly $2.70 after any amount of betting, as this amount would be smaller than any payout, and thus impossible. This ($2.70/$1000) is a ratio and isn’t intended to be taken as a literal outcome. However, since it is a ratio, one could inflate both numbers equally until one sees numbers that make sense, such as losing roughly $270.00 (yes, I rounded) for every $100,000.00 in total bets, or losing roughly $2,700.00 for every $1,000,000.00 in bets. Can you see how I arrived at those numbers? First, I multiplied both figures by 100, and next, I multiplied both by 1,000. I could use any number that makes the smaller number a multiple of the bet or payout amounts, and as long as I apply I that same figure both numbers, the ratio remains intact. Furthermore, this is a valid way to look at such numbers, as the bigger they both get, the closer one’s real life results should get (Law of Large Numbers from the field of statistics).

The reason that we use the smaller numbers is that we are trying to view long term results in way that demonstrates how they average out during a series of shorter sessions. You may still find these figures impractical or difficult to understand. That doesn’t make them useless to the majority of the rest of us. If you would like help understanding figures presented like the “$2.70 for every $1,000” please just ask. I think you’ll get a better response than shooting it down and demanding a different analysis.

Sincerely,

camapl

I just read that a US family has an average of 1.93 children. Sounds reasonable, but according to your logic that figure must be wrong since it's impossible to have 1.93 children. Averages are averagesQuote:tuttigym

I want to assure you that I won't "bother to understand" how one can lose $2.70/$1,000 wagered because it absolutely CANNOT happen at the tables. I also know that you or anyone else cannot PROVE or PERFORM the precision (1 millionth of 1%) "average loss per session." Especially since the calculations are a result of computer SIMULATIONS which are "only done when something is IMPOSSIBLE or TOO DIFFICULT to calculate directly." (Ace2 5-10-22; Three Point Mollie pg.24)

Do you suppose Mr. W. will answer my questions directly or will your post satisfy?

tuttigym

link to original post

We don't blindly rely on simulations. Usually we have a good idea of what the answer should be (reasonable range) but might use a simulation to confirm a number or get a higher level of precision. For the 3 point molly, I easily calculated the increase in bet volume relative to a single PL bet (increases by a factor of 2.4). However I did use a simulation to get the increase in standard deviation (increases by a factor of 1.91) since I could not come up with a way to directly calculate that number. You could estimate the increase as 2.4^.5 = 1.55, but the actual increase is higher since the results of the 3PM bets are correlated, especially when there's a seven-out with three numbers covered. Since the increase in SD could not be more than 2.4, we have a range of 1.55 - 2.4, so 1.91 seems quite reasonable.

How many trials are needed in a simulation varies. Yes, it does sometimes take millions of trials (or more) before the answer converges to three significant digits, which is usually enough. Not sure why you continue referencing my prior statement about simulations... it's like you think it invalidates my comments

I never understood this.Quote:AlanMendelson

Making come bets with big odds is just risking too much money. Worse is that you need to roll a number twice to collect.

link to original post

If you compare someone who always covers all the numbers with place bets to a someone who always makes come bets, the latter will take much longer to get multiple numbers covered but his average loss will be much less when the seven-out happens. And the latter will come out far ahead of the former since the edge on come bets is much lower than the edge on place bets (and even much lower when 3-4-5 odds are taken)

other players and the dealers constantly make the comment that the problem is that you have to roll the number twice, and they do so sincerelyQuote:Ace2I never understood this.Quote:AlanMendelson

Making come bets with big odds is just risking too much money. Worse is that you need to roll a number twice to collect.

link to original post

If you compare someone who always covers all the numbers with place bets to a someone who always makes come bets, the latter will take much longer to get multiple numbers covered but his average loss will be much less when the seven-out happens. And the latter will come out far ahead of the former since the edge on come bets is much lower than the edge on place bets (and even much lower when 3-4-5 odds are taken)

link to original post

Quote:Ace2I never understood this.Quote:AlanMendelson

Making come bets with big odds is just risking too much money. Worse is that you need to roll a number twice to collect.

link to original post

If you compare someone who always covers all the numbers with place bets to a someone who always makes come bets, the latter will take much longer to get multiple numbers covered but his average loss will be much less when the seven-out happens. And the latter will come out far ahead of the former since the edge on come bets is much lower than the edge on place bets (and even much lower when 3-4-5 odds are taken)

link to original post

No comps for odds bets, man.

Thing is, you have to roll a number and a seven to lose that number with a PL/come bet. But with a place/buy bet it only takes a seven to lose it. So I guess you could say you win twice as often with a place/buy bet, but you also lose twice as often...Quote:odiousgambitother players and the dealers constantly make the comment that the problem is that you have to roll the number twice, and they do so sincerelyQuote:Ace2Quote:AlanMendelson

Making come bets with big odds is just risking too much money. Worse is that you need to roll a number twice to collect.

link to original post

If you compare someone who always covers all the numbers with place bets to a someone who always makes come bets, the latter will take much longer to get multiple numbers covered but his average loss will be much less when the seven-out happens. And the latter will come out far ahead of the former since the edge on come bets is much lower than the edge on place bets (and even much lower when 3-4-5 odds are taken)

link to original post

link to original post

I believe that's true in most casinos. However, what sounds like a better deal:Quote:JimRockfordQuote:Ace2Quote:AlanMendelson

Making come bets with big odds is just risking too much money. Worse is that you need to roll a number twice to collect.

link to original post

If you compare someone who always covers all the numbers with place bets to a someone who always makes come bets, the latter will take much longer to get multiple numbers covered but his average loss will be much less when the seven-out happens. And the latter will come out far ahead of the former since the edge on come bets is much lower than the edge on place bets (and even much lower when 3-4-5 odds are taken)

link to original post

No comps for odds bets, man.

link to original post

1) get comped 30% of your 4% edge place bet (net edge 2.8%) or

2) get comped nothing on a zero edge bet (net edge 0%)?

Quote:camapltuttigym,

Below is a genuine response. Please don’t read it as condescending or snide in any way, as that honestly is not my intention.

You are correct that one cannot be down by exactly $2.70 after any amount of betting, as this amount would be smaller than any payout, and thus impossible. This ($2.70/$1000) is a ratio and isn’t intended to be taken as a literal outcome. However, since it is a ratio, one could inflate both numbers equally until one sees numbers that make sense, such as losing roughly $270.00 (yes, I rounded) for every $100,000.00 in total bets, or losing roughly $2,700.00 for every $1,000,000.00 in bets. Can you see how I arrived at those numbers? First, I multiplied both figures by 100, and next, I multiplied both by 1,000. I could use any number that makes the smaller number a multiple of the bet or payout amounts, and as long as I apply I that same figure both numbers, the ratio remains intact. Furthermore, this is a valid way to look at such numbers, as the bigger they both get, the closer one’s real life results should get (Law of Large Numbers from the field of statistics).

The reason that we use the smaller numbers is that we are trying to view long term results in way that demonstrates how they average out during a series of shorter sessions. You may still find these figures impractical or difficult to understand. That doesn’t make them useless to the majority of the rest of us. If you would like help understanding figures presented like the “$2.70 for every $1,000” please just ask. I think you’ll get a better response than shooting it down and demanding a different analysis.

Sincerely,

camapl

link to original post

Mr.camapl: Thank you. Your response is well taken. Just imagine a newby, "ploppy," unsophisticated, uninformed, gullible, group of individuals that want to learn and play craps. They read stuff written by math savants that show ridiculously impossible loss numbers such as .08315 and jump headfirst into the casino and just get slaughtered at the table. All or almost all of HA/HE numbers that are bandied about here and elsewhere are generated by computer simulations which are impossible to duplicate at the tables. In other words, IMO, they are beyond misleading. Those math folks say: "Oh no, it all works out in the "long term/run." More misdirection in that that phrase is vague and non-specific or worse one might have to play and wager $100k to $1million to actually find out that the "ratios" are in fact true, but they do NOT KNOW for sure. They do the "math," but the "math" is IMPOSSIBLE to perform. Even the "Law of Large Numbers" in the insurance world have been challenged and proven wrong during catastrophic events that have bankrupted many insurance companies.

I know how the ratio above is conceived, but as you have pointed out, one must play and wager stratospheric numbers to "make them work." Maybe!!

I have stated this before: Nobody but nobody has performed, at the tables, any of it, and to that end, for me, those numbers are misleading at best.

tuttigym

Place bettor bets $54 across

Double odds on passline

Total outlay $84

3 point molly player with double odds bets a total of $90

After two numbers for the 3 point molly player, the place bettor has won back at least $24 lowering his exposure to $60.

If there's a 7-out on the 4th roll, molly player has lost $90 but place player has lost $60.

This is just one scenario. You can pick other scenarios.

As for doing a 2 Point Dolly, I might put a 5 count before putting up the 2nd bet on the DC. It would slow down on how many Don'ts get lost per shooter. I sometimes go 15-20 rolls before a decision on the DP, so I might go through a few DC bets by then. I'll put up a 2nd or 3rd DC bet if they don't lose by the time the 5 count expires.

Here's a scenario based on your example. Player A plays 3PM for $10 plus 3-4-5 odds. New shooter establishes 4 as point. Now Player B bets $54 across. Next roll is a 4 so player A wins $70 on his PL+odds and his come bet travels to the 4. Next roll is a 4, Player A wins $10 on his flat bet. Next roll is 7, player A wins $10 on his come bet and loses $40 on his 4 bet. At this point Player A is up $50 and Player is down $54.Quote:AlanMendelsonLet's say you're at a $10 table.

Place bettor bets $54 across

Double odds on passline

Total outlay $84

3 point molly player with double odds bets a total of $90

After two numbers for the 3 point molly player, the place bettor has won back at least $24 lowering his exposure to $60.

If there's a 7-out on the 4th roll, molly player has lost $90 but place player has lost $60.

This is just one scenario. You can pick other scenarios.

link to original post

But so what. The average edge on place bets is about ten times the edge on a PL/Come bet with 3-4-5 odds! And such a player will lose ten times as much

Tuttigym: This is why we calculate standard deviation. For example, lets say you make 400 passline bets (about 13 hours of play). Your expectation is to lose 400 * 1.41% = 5.64 units and your standard deviation is 20 units. This means that about 68% of the time your result will be within 20 units of -5.64.Quote:tuttigymMr.camapl: Thank you. Your response is well taken. Just imagine a newby, "ploppy," unsophisticated, uninformed, gullible, group of individuals that want to learn and play craps. They read stuff written by math savants that show ridiculously impossible loss numbers such as .08315 and jump headfirst into the casino and just get slaughtered at the table. All or almost all of HA/HE numbers that are bandied about here and elsewhere are generated by computer simulations which are impossible to duplicate at the tables. In other words, IMO, they are beyond misleading. Those math folks say: "Oh no, it all works out in the "long term/run." More misdirection in that that phrase is vague and non-specific or worse one might have to play and wager $100k to $1million to actually find out that the "ratios" are in fact true, but they do NOT KNOW for sure. They do the "math," but the "math" is IMPOSSIBLE to perform. Even the "Law of Large Numbers" in the insurance world have been challenged and proven wrong during catastrophic events that have bankrupted many insurance companies.

I know how the ratio above is conceived, but as you have pointed out, one must play and wager stratospheric numbers to "make them work." Maybe!!

I have stated this before: Nobody but nobody has performed, at the tables, any of it, and to that end, for me, those numbers are misleading at best.

tuttigym

link to original post

This is not hocus-pocus. If you played many 400 bet sessions (can be over multiple days) then you would see that about 68% of them fall into that range. You could even use a (god forbid) simulation to show this.

400 bets is a very small sample size. Most of us will play tens or even hundreds of thousands of hands in our gambling "careers". And at that volume you can be confident that your total loss will be pretty close to the expected edge %. Sure you will have some huge wins and some horrific losses along the way...and variance is what makes gambling fun...but in the long run it will all net out to the house edge, or close to it

The people who don't understand the basic numbers, thinking they can beat the house etc, are usually the ones that get in big trouble

Quote:tuttigymThey read stuff written by math savants that show ridiculously impossible loss numbers such as .08315 and jump headfirst into the casino and just get slaughtered at the table.

link to original post

When did they quit teaching the concept of an average in schools?

Regarding Come bets, simple algebra reveals that 45.082 percent of all their revenues will be gained from wins on their first roll. This non-trivial result is derived in the idealized world of mathematics. Practical results may vary. The notion that a Box number must be rolled twice before revenue is realized is patently ridiculous. The opinions of dealers are not necessarily useful.

Come bettors win more with a hot roll.