October 23rd, 2011 at 10:27:59 PM
permalink
I have a friend who recently returned from a cruise where he played craps everyday and did pretty well. He said similar guys and girls played craps everyday and he based betting on the pass line or don't pass line based on the shooters history. There were some people who consistently were good shooters and there were some people who were consistently bad shooters (he included himself in the category of people to quickly seven out). I play craps quite often, but rarely do I ever play with the same people, especially for a week at a time.
Is there any statistical backing that could support this theory? In other words, how many throws would it take to statistically prove someone is a better shooter than another shooter. If out of a 100x a shooter averaged 3 rolls before sevening out, could someone be succesful betting the don't pass when this shooter was throwing? Or, if out of a 100x a shooter averaged 15 rolls before sevening out, could someone be succesful betting the pass line and come bets when this shooter was throwing?
Thanks in advance for any comments.
Is there any statistical backing that could support this theory? In other words, how many throws would it take to statistically prove someone is a better shooter than another shooter. If out of a 100x a shooter averaged 3 rolls before sevening out, could someone be succesful betting the don't pass when this shooter was throwing? Or, if out of a 100x a shooter averaged 15 rolls before sevening out, could someone be succesful betting the pass line and come bets when this shooter was throwing?
Thanks in advance for any comments.
October 23rd, 2011 at 11:12:07 PM
permalink
It's fun to think there might be, but no. Dice shooting is not a skilled exercise (except for the very, very, few. And even that's debatable). Your friend was just witnessing some short term bias. But, as long as you win...
"Dice, verily, are armed with goads and driving-hooks, deceiving and tormenting, causing grievous woe." -Rig Veda 10.34.4
October 24th, 2011 at 6:19:58 AM
permalink
On my bankroll it wouldn't take many throws at all. The trouble is: how do you define better. If I'm on the don'ts PSO is good. If I'm on the PassLine its bad.Quote: SONBP2In other words, how many throws would it take to statistically prove someone is a better shooter than another shooter.
But even if someone was at the table all day... better shooter is short term. How many times has a person been a winner and then had things turn bad? Even an all day better will have streaks of good and bad.
I try to avoid unhappy shooters or loud drunks... but I don't really think a loud obnoxious drunk can't make his point. Many a loud obnoxious drunk has made his point while I'm on the Don'ts.
October 24th, 2011 at 10:55:21 AM
permalink
Well, where I play, it's usually the same group of people..
I definitely think certain people are better shooters than others...
However, on randomers, like the word..it's random (and can be GOOD, or can be BAD)
Hell, the other night, I walked up to the table and rolled 5 points..random girl next to me (who I advised to KEEP the same dice I was using) rolled EIGHT points, and she had no idea what she was doing!
I ended up turning $40 into $400 on just her and I.
I definitely think certain people are better shooters than others...
However, on randomers, like the word..it's random (and can be GOOD, or can be BAD)
Hell, the other night, I walked up to the table and rolled 5 points..random girl next to me (who I advised to KEEP the same dice I was using) rolled EIGHT points, and she had no idea what she was doing!
I ended up turning $40 into $400 on just her and I.
Gambling calls to me...like this ~> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nap37mNSmQ