and the crowd is silenced....

I agree that the house edge varies with each hand played in blackjack as cards are removed from those available for play.
I don't accept Mission's statement. Sorry. I learned it one way -- the house edge at craps doesn't change.
That the Wizard did some special project does not mean the math of craps has changed.

I think locking this thread is the way to go. Please Wizard, please.

Quote: AlanMendelson

RS you will have to explain to me how if the House Edge moves, why wouldn't it move for a "cold shooter" as well for a "hot shooter" or DI? Isn't the cold shooter good for the darkside players and doesn't that impac the House Edge?

My point is, if you are going to argue that the House Edge is variable then it has to be variable for "both sides."

A "cold shooter" and a "hot shooter" both toss the dice randomly.

If someone tosses the dice randomly, we expect a regular distribution of the dice (although, there will be variance with the numbers rolled from expectation).

A DI does not shoot the dice randomly.

If someone could control the dice (to be a "cold shooter") to throw less 7's than we normally expect with a random shooter on a come out roll, and be more likely to roll a 7 than we normally expect with a random shooter....then yes, the house edge would change for both the dark and right side -- good for dark side and bad for the right side.

If someone could control the dice in the opposite way (to be a "hot shooter"), like I believe most supposed-DI's do, then it'd be good for the right side and bad for the dark side players -- decreasing the HE on right-side and increasing the HE on the dark side.

But, neither of those two would be random/regular hot/cold shooters. Those would be DI's.


And yes, the HE would be inversely proportional (excluding 12's on CO roll) for dark side vs right side. When one goes up, the other goes down. But, that is not what is being discussed.


If a DI were to be able to change the probabilities of the numbers he throws, then the HE would change. Let's look at a quick example (I'll do some of the math, but not all of it).

Let's just say he has a "try to roll 7" set that he only uses for the come out roll. He expects to throw a seven 7/36 times and expects to throw a 6 5.5/36 and 8 5.5/36 times, 4 2.5/36, 10 2.5/36, and 12 0/36 times. The rest of the numbers are expected as normal/random. Once a point is established, he just uses a random toss (although, he could use a "try not to roll 7's set" when a point is established).

Number: Expected # of roll out of 36 * win/loss (or expected loss)
2: 1 * -1
3: 2 * -1
4: 2.5 * (-0.33)
5: 4 * (-0.2)
6: 5.5 * (-0.0909)
7: 7 * 1
8: 5.5 * (-0.0909)
9: 4 * (-0.2)
10: 2.5 * (-0.33)
11: 2 * 1
12: 0 * -1

Find the sum then divide by 36:

-1 + -2 + -0.825 + -0.8 + -0.4995 + 7 + -0.4995 + -0.8 + -0.825 + 2 + 0 = 1.751

1.751 / 36 = 4.863%




A random shooter:
2: 1 * -1
3: 2 * -1
4: 3 * (-0.33)
5: 4 * (-0.2)
6: 5 * (-0.09)
7: 6 * 1
8: 5 * (-0.09)
9: 4 * (-0.2)
10: 3 * (-0.33)
11: 2 * 1
12: 1 * -1

-1 + -2 + -1 + -0.8 + -0.454545 + 6 + -0.454545 + -0.8 + -1 + 2 + -1 = -0.5090909

-0.5090909 / 36 = -1.414141%

4.863% != -1.4141%

Quote: AlanMendelson

thanks Mission. And I guess this means that all of the books must be rewritten, or an asterisk must be placed next to the "house edge" for various bets indicating that it is based only on a random shooter?

But I have not been lucky at craps. In fact, I've never had a winning year playing craps -- never in my life. And so, I wonder if the opposite is true:

If a dice influencer can change the house edge in his favor, forcing the house to alter pays, shouldn't the house change the house edge for the rest of us schlubbs who lose and change the pays to keep the game fair?

After all, if a DI can theoretically change the House Edge and the pays, shouldn't the House Edge and the pays also be changed for the rest of us schlamiels?

I can imagine a computer at each table keeping track of each roll and computing a "rolling house edge" for the tables. After all, what's fair is fair -- and if the House Edge is not fixed, let's make sure it varies with the success or failure of shooters.

Sorry, had to quote the whole thing, no brackets on my phone.

1.) Nothing needs an asterisk because, for that to be necessary, someone would have to conclusively prove that DI gives them a long-term advantage. Even then, I'm sure, "Random roller," would be the default for calculating HE.

2.) If you've never had a winning year, I suggest you start next year with a $1 Pass Line bet at Railroad Pass and then Martingale (Switching houses for a higher maximum, if necessary) and then quit as soon as you win once, don't play again that year. If you can make it to a table limit of $10000, then I believe you would have to lose fourteen consecutive decisions to fail. That's if your goal is specifically to have a winning year, it doesn't seem worth the risk, but if I only cared about having a winning year, that's probably what I and Brian Boitano would do.

3.) The House never changes the pays at any point in my theoretical, only the DI changes the probabilities, again, theoretically.

4.). Nobody is changing the pays.

5.) For my money, it is fixed. You did notice I used the word, 'Theoretical,' about 2,789 times in this thread, right?

I'm sorry but I think BBB had it right: there is one fixed HE in craps and if a DI beats it then he beats it.

Wow, well this is interesting. Wizard and Mission146 are wrong?

Quote: Dalex64

Wow, well this is interesting. Wizard and Mission146 are wrong?

I'm personally not unaccustomed to being wrong. That being said, the one time I tend to be right is when I happen to be in agreement with the Wizard.

Quote: Dalex64

Wow, well this is interesting. Wizard and Mission146 are wrong?

Alan is just trolling, now.

Alan is not trolling, he's just a little (lot) stubborn. When he takes a stance he digs in his heals and the discussion is over.

I'd like to know what his position is other than, "You're wrong." With a change in the probabilities comes a change in the edge, given the same pays. Are we in some sort of bizarre disagreement that, if DI were theoretically possible and viable, the probabilities would not be changed?

That's what dice influencing, you know, is: Trying to change the probabilities to something other than what is expected from a random pair of dice.

Quote: DeMango

I think locking this thread is the way to go. Please Wizard, please.

the title of this thread has become very ironic.

Quote: Mission146

Are we in some sort of bizarre disagreement

I think so? But I can't tell who is winning. I can barely tell who is playing, I don't even know what the point is.

I think there is confusion. I think I am rooting for the Babs/ Mendelson team. Like you have said, almost three thousand times "it is theoretical". There were no actual dice harmed determining the HE. Probably no table either.

Where on the other hand, a theoretical DI is something altogether different. For every DI that exists, there also exists an anti-DI of equal but opposite proportions.

It is not the dice that are being controlled, it is perception. Even in a parallel universe, the house still has the edge.

Quote: Mission146

I'd like to know what his position is other than, "You're wrong." With a change in the probabilities comes a change in the edge, given the same pays. Are we in some sort of bizarre disagreement that, if DI were theoretically possible and viable, the probabilities would not be changed?

That's what dice influencing, you know, is: Trying to change the probabilities to something other than what is expected from a random pair of dice.

From what I can tell, he seems to think that DIs have an effect on variance, not probability.

Quote: Mission146

I'd like to know what his position is other than, "You're wrong." With a change in the probabilities comes a change in the edge,

You ask a valid question about why I disagree. And I think beachbumbabs shares my opinion.

I think the probabilities are defined by what happens when you roll two dice -- and the combinations of the faces on those two dice. That, I believe, is the only way to see the probabilities.

If there is a DI who somehow can influence the dice to show more numbers than what happens in the normal "pyramid of results" (we've all seen the pyramid showing the various combinations of two dice) that is not a change in probabilities but is merely a shooter doing better (or worse) than what the probabilites are.

So my difference of opinion, and I think BBB's difference of opinion, is that the probabilites are only from the combinations of the dice (fair dice, of course) and any shooter who can alter those probabilities hasn't changed the probabilities at all but just has beaten the probabilities.

That's really all I'm saying. I'm not trolling. I just don't believe that the skill of any shooter is part of the determination of setting the edge or the probabilites of two fair dice. If someone has a skill, well, good for them. But otherwise when you have two fair dice the probabilites are set.

So the difference is simply this: does the skill of a human become a factor in setting probabilities for the rolls of two dice -- or should it just be the fair dice. I believe it should be just the fair dice. And if someone happens to do better than what those probabilities are then good for him/her -- but the probabilities are the probabilities and should come from the fair dice alone.

Quote: AlanMendelson

So the difference is simply this: does the skill of a human become a factor in setting probabilities for the rolls of two dice -- or should it just be the fair dice. I believe it should be just the fair dice. And if someone happens to do better than what those probabilities are then good for him/her -- but the probabilities are the probabilities and should come from the fair dice alone.

Does Peyton Manning have a better chance of completing a pass using the same, "Fair Football," than I do? If so, and Manning and I were to both throw passes to NFL receivers against NFL Defenses (all things otherwise equal, in other words) then Manning is going to have a greater probability of completing passes than I do.

The football, in and of itself, does not dictate the probability. I personally accept that the dice, in and of themselves, dictate the probability, but we're talking about a theoretical DI who, to some extent, generates a greater likelihood of causing the dice to yield a desired outcome in the long run. If the DI is more likely to succeed, the probability of success goes up, and that changes the house edge, just in terms of pure definition.

Sure, I might complete one pass that Manning misses in 1,000 attempts if he sees a Papa John's Pizza and gets distracted, or something, but the probability of him completing any given pass will always be greater than my probability. If you were getting even money on my completing a pass as well as Manning completing a pass in substantially the same situation, Manning is a much better bet because of the higher probability of him completing it. Therefore, your edge would be greater taking the Even Money on Manning...and you'd likely have an edge working against you taking even money on me.

I have to reject your quarterback analogy. Because not all quarterbacks have the same skill or the same lucky breaks with wind conditions or the ability of receivers to catch the ball.

Unfortunately if you start adding the human condition (skill) to determining the house edge in craps, you would have to rank each and every DI for their particular skill. So then how do you determine the house edge? Does it become the HE of John, or the HE of Larry, or the HE of Sally?

Is there a HE at roulette? Well, what if theoretically the dealer can target four slots on the wheel? What does that do to the house edge? Do you now want to start defining the house edge in roulette based on the ability of a dealer to target a section of the wheel? (Theoretically of course.)

Until this forum I have never heard of the house edge in craps being defined by anything more than the distribution of results from two fair dice. How do you justify making the definition of House Edge different here?

Quote: AlanMendelson

You ask a valid question about why I disagree. And I think beachbumbabs shares my opinion.

I think the probabilities are defined by what happens when you roll two dice -- and the combinations of the faces on those two dice. That, I believe, is the only way to see the probabilities.

If there is a DI who somehow can influence the dice to show more numbers than what happens in the normal "pyramid of results" (we've all seen the pyramid showing the various combinations of two dice) that is not a change in probabilities but is merely a shooter doing better (or worse) than what the probabilites are.

So my difference of opinion, and I think BBB's difference of opinion, is that the probabilites are only from the combinations of the dice (fair dice, of course) and any shooter who can alter those probabilities hasn't changed the probabilities at all but just has beaten the probabilities.

That's really all I'm saying. I'm not trolling. I just don't believe that the skill of any shooter is part of the determination of setting the edge or the probabilites of two fair dice. If someone has a skill, well, good for them. But otherwise when you have two fair dice the probabilites are set.

So the difference is simply this: does the skill of a human become a factor in setting probabilities for the rolls of two dice -- or should it just be the fair dice. I believe it should be just the fair dice. And if someone happens to do better than what those probabilities are then good for him/her -- but the probabilities are the probabilities and should come from the fair dice alone.

Alan is correct that I share his understanding of what the HE is. I still think folks are talking past each other on this, perhaps some deliberately at this point, but certainly not trolling as someone accused. There's a difference in understanding and perspective.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I have to reject your quarterback analogy. Because not all quarterbacks have the same skill or the same lucky breaks with wind conditions or the ability of receivers to catch the ball.

Precisely, and if there were legitimate dice influencers, not all would have the same level of skill. Same thing with Blackjack card counters, some might have a more innate understanding of Index Plays than others given a certain set of Rules, thus, the ones with more knowledge have the greater advantage all other things being equal.

Quote:

Unfortunately if you start adding the human condition (skill) to determining the house edge in craps, you would have to rank each and every DI for their particular skill. So then how do you determine the house edge? Does it become the HE of John, or the HE of Larry, or the HE of Sally?

Naturally, the same with Blackjack card counters and knowledge of Index Plays. The ones with more knowledge play, overall, at a greater advantage.

Quote:

Is there a HE at roulette? Well, what if theoretically the dealer can target four slots on the wheel? What does that do to the house edge? Do you now want to start defining the house edge in roulette based on the ability of a dealer to target a section of the wheel? (Theoretically of course.)

If we accept that a croupier could do such a thing, then the House Edge on any bets related to those numbers, which would be most of them with only rare exception, would change, yes.

Quote:

Until this forum I have never heard of the house edge in craps being defined by anything more than the distribution of results from two fair dice. How do you justify making the definition of House Edge different here?

Asked and answered.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Alan is correct that I share his understanding of what the HE is. I still think folks are talking past each other on this, perhaps some deliberately at this point, but certainly not trolling as someone accused. There's a difference in understanding and perspective.

I'll stipulate that, maybe a couple more posts apiece just to see if we can all find some common ground, but if not, no big deal. We're discussing an EXTREMELY theoretical question, anyway.

I mean, I got into a bit of Math and specifics and this and that to demonstrate and defend my point, but my point can be summarized simply:

If a theoretical dice influencer is playing at a quantifiable and consistent advantage by altering the probabilities of the outcomes of two dice to such an extent that he is expected to win, given those new probabilities, then the House Edge of the game has changed. If the House Edge of the game was not changed, then he could not be a winner in the long-run because his bets would have a negative expectation.

When a dice influencer tosses the dice, they are no longer fair.

Let's say I have a coin and flip it (randomly). The coin is fair because both sides have 50/50 chance of landing. A coin influencer who can toss more heads than tails, in the long run, changes the probability of throwing a heads from 50% to 55% and tails from 50% to 45%. That is no longer fair.


And yes, each DI would have their own house edge.

It's not in books because DI isn't even possible.

It's like me saying, "theoretically, if a car engine could run on water instead of gasoline, all things being equal, it'd be significantly cheaper to drive" then someone coming in saying, "that's not true!!! I'm a total car junky and know everything about cars, but I've never read that in a book!! Why don't books have the cost of travel for water or orange juice or air or fire or dirt then huh huh huh???!! It costs me $0.20 per mile I drive. So using water, it still costs $0.20 per mile."

Beachbumbabs is correct about one more thing: we really are just talking past each other.

Quote: RS

When a dice influencer tosses the dice, they are no longer fair.

Really, the dice are no longer fair? Did the dice influencer shave the dice? Did he make them off balance? No. The dice are still fair, but the DI manipulated the dice (influenced the roll, the bounce, the rotation) to his advantage. But the physical dice did not change and are still fair.

Another example of how we are talking past each other:

Quote: Mission146

If a theoretical dice influencer is playing at a quantifiable and consistent advantage by altering the probabilities of the outcomes of two dice to such an extent that he is expected to win, given those new probabilities, then the House Edge of the game has changed.

Here it's a matter of deciding what is the House Edge and how it is defined. Mission and others believe that the skill of the shooter is involved in determining the House Edge. And I said it isn't, and I never heard it discussed before anywhere else except on this forum, and I've only heard that the House Edge is strictly from the combinations of two fair, six sided dice and what the probabilities are for rolling those two fair, six-sided dice.

In fact -- I've never read in any of the books or web articles from any in the "DI camp" that a DI can change the House Edge. Sharpshooter's book discusses the House Edge and never says you can change the House Edge. The PARR group never said you can change the House Edge. I don't think Scoblete's crowd ever said you could change the House Edge. For all of them the House Edge is the probabilities of rolling two fair dice. But here it changes? I'm going to scratch my head over that for a long, long time.

So I think it's all been spelled out. I think we have covered all of the issues. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Which is why I have been asking the Wizard himself to comment. If there is anyone who knows the definition of house edge it would be the Wizard. As I mentioned, what he has written before about the edge of various bets in craps does not include any mention, footnotes or variables based on whether or not a shooter rolls more or less of any number.

Quote: wudged

https://wizardofodds.com/games/craps/appendix/4/

He gives the edge/player advantage for various bets and rolls-to-seven ratios for specific dice sets.

Notice how as the skill/RSR goes up, the "edge" changes from negative to positive, indicating player "advantage"

Alan, did you miss this post? Wizard clearly uses the words "house edge"on that page.

Quote: page

The following table shows the player advantage on the pass line bet, with 3-4-5X odds, according to skill factor. I measured the house edge two different ways.

Emphasis added.

Unfortunately I believe that page on the Wizard's site is out of date. It says: "Still some people I respect do believe in it, mainly Stanford Wong, who trained under Golden Touch Craps."

Well, Wong has reversed himself on the subject of DI and DC, hasn't he?

But more importantly, when the Wizard discusses "house edge" he talks about the "player advantage" over the house edge. So I have this question: is he talking about an actual advantage over the house edge without the house edge changing, or is he saying the DI changes the house edge?

From the page:

"Pass Line with 3-4-5X Odds
The following table shows the player advantage..."

And this gets back to the original statements made by beachbumbabs and myself: the house edge does not change, but a DI could theoretically beat the house edge.

So what is the Wizard saying? That a DI beats the house edge or the house edge changes? There is a difference.

I think we have gone through this. No sense talking past each other anymore.

Video poker has a house edge that differs with each player. If you think casinos give away money on FPDW or 10/7 DB your dreaming. I for one don't play anywhere close to perfect strategy nor do I want to. I don't make stupid moves but I've seen others hold a deuce with one high card for instance. What's the house edge on that person? I shudder to think.

Quote: pew

Video poker has a house edge that differs with each player.

Really? I thought it varied with the game, as in 9/6 Jacks has a return of 99.54-percent? When was the hold/payback/return in video poker ever expressed in terms of player ability?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Really? I thought it varied with the game, as in 9/6 Jacks has a return of 99.54-percent? When was the hold/payback/return in video poker ever expressed in terms of player ability?

You're getting it wrong, yet again (surprise). The return is 99.54% with optimal play. The return in FPDW is 100.76xxxx% with optimal play. 9/6 JOB has a return with 99.46xx% with Wizard's simple strategy.

When strategy is part of the game (BJ, UTH, MS, Pai Gow, Video Poker, etc.), when the House Edge is represented, it is done with respect to a given strategy.


Look on one of those VP machines, some say "100%+ payback" or "up to 99.8% return" or "optimal play". I'm sure there are others. I don't remember which one(s), I believe all of them, though, have an asterisk on the side saying "using optimal strategy".

Quote: AlanMendelson

When was the hold/payback/return in video poker ever expressed in terms of player ability?

Every sign I've seen in a casino advertising VP return always says "with optimum play" (or something similar) in the fine print, thus stipulating that the payback is dependent on player ability.

I've been following this discussion, and it seems to come down to this: If the House Edge does not change when the theoretical distribution of the game's outcomes changes, then the term "House Edge" loses all meaning.

If I could roll a 7 every time I tossed the dice, you could say that the House Edge of my PL bet was 1.41%, but what significance would that number have?

Okay, I'm finished. You guys win.

Quote: DeMango

I think locking this thread is the way to go. Please Wizard, please.

Seriously ? Other than everybody asking Alan if he was drunk and a few trolling comments this seems to be a interesting discussion about gambling and math.

I'm not sure Alan is wrong depending on interpretation.

It's obvious there's things a player can do to change the odds/edge/advantage/ disadvantage. What does that change?

Quote: AlanMendelson

Really? I thought it varied with the game, as in 9/6 Jacks has a return of 99.54-percent? When was the hold/payback/return in video poker ever expressed in terms of player ability?

Now you tossed in the word HOLD. Thats a different discussion.

The ones who try to reduce kinetic energy would have a better overall results when compared to chicken feeders. This is not the question. Will they have an edge? And the answer is no. The point is to hit the desired number. You'll have more fun and your bank roll will last a bit longer when betting on stick right or stick left, but that is about it. You will never get rich by betting on "soft landing" people.

Quote: AlanMendelson

But more importantly, when the Wizard discusses "house edge" he talks about the "player advantage" over the house edge. So I have this question: is he talking about an actual advantage over the house edge without the house edge changing, or is he saying the DI changes the house edge?

From the page:

"Pass Line with 3-4-5X Odds
The following table shows the player advantage..."

If the player has the advantage, then the house doesn't have the edge. If the House had the edge, then the player couldn't have an advantage.

You're using, "Advantage," and, "Edge," like they mean two different things, and they don't. You could refer to the House Edge as the House Percentage Advantage and it would mean exactly the same thing.

If the Player Edge on a bet is a positive number, then the House Edge is a negative number and vice-versa.

For instance, with respect to the usual House Edge on a Pass Line bet, there are a couple different ways you could phrase it:

A.) The House Edge is 1.41%, the Player Edge is -1.41%.
B.) The House Edge is 1.41%, which means the Player is at a 1.41% disadvantage.
C.) The House has a 1.41% advantage over the player.
D.) The player is at a 1.41% disadvantage to the house.

...and all of those statements mean the same exact thing.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Okay, I'm finished. You guys win.

Praise you Jesus!

Quote: Mission146

You're using, "Advantage," and, "Edge," like they mean two different things

Yes I do.

Quote: AlanMendelson

Yes I do.

Wittgenstein says we have nothing further to discuss and neither of us is wrong or right, then. Disagreement in terms, like speaking two different languages, and, "Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent."

Quote: Mission146

Wittgenstein says we have nothing further to discuss and neither of us is wrong or right, then. Disagreement in terms, like speaking two different languages, and, "Whereof one cannot speak, one must be silent."

Exactly. We have not come to terms on terms. :)

Quote: Mission146

Wittgenstein says

Is this an anti-semitic remark? You should suspend yourself.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, philosopher primarily in mathematics and logic

Mission has a Master's in Philosophy; I think it was a compliment to the quality of the argument. Definitely don't think he was mocking you in quoting Wittgenstein, if that's how you read it.

If it was a compliment, thank you. But Jewish people are very sensitive about being referred to with "other names" ending in "stein" or other European-sounding name as that is often done as an insult.

I think calling someone by their correct name is a fine compliment.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Mission has a Master's in Philosophy; I think it was a compliment to the quality of the argument. Definitely don't think he was mocking you in quoting Wittgenstein, if that's how you read it.

I have a Master's in nothing, but I appreciate the compliment! I have a Bachelor's in Economics, I just happen to be low-moderately well-read in Philosophy.

Quote: AlanMendelson

If it was a compliment, thank you. But Jewish people are very sensitive about being referred to with "other names" ending in "stein" or other European-sounding name as that is often done as an insult.

I think calling someone by their correct name is a fine compliment.

It was neither a compliment, insult or Anti-Semitic remark. As BeachBumBabs pointed out, we simply have a disagreement on the definition of terms, which for all practical purposes, is comparable to arguing in two different languages.

Wittgenstein's greater point in the Tracatus Logico-Philosophicus, his most notable work, is that everything that exists (or does not exist) in the world can be broken down into facts and discussed using factual statements.

When we define a word a certain way, we tend to treat our definitions as facts, which is why neither of us are wrong. You are most certainly correct pursuant to the way you are defining the terms, and I am definitely correct pursuant to the way that I am defining the terms.

However, when we define our terms in different ways and cannot come to an agreement in how terms should be defined, the two of us are debating using a different set of facts. To the extent that we have determined you cannot understand my set of facts from my perspective, nor I yours, it is impossible to have a debate that is going to make sense to both parties because each party views the most fundamental aspects of the debate coming from the other person, as fundamentally flawed.

Advantage = Edge---Mission's Perspective
Advantage Does Not = Edge---AlanMendelson's Perspective

We cannot even get into supporting argument because we are defining our very theses differently. I cannot speak to your theses nor you mine because we don't understand what the other person is saying, and the quote, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent," comes from the Tracatus.

This is interesting. I came out of the Maxwell School at Syracuse. Urban and Regional Economics. My professors were the ones who designed the Big Mac bailout of NYC in the 1970s.

You can agree to disagree about whether or not it's raining but you'll both still be wet.

Quote: DeMango

Praise you Jesus!

It was only a matter of time. Then that feeling or display of being cleansed. All is well again.

That's what's so entertaining with these forums. You can see it coming a mile off, but it matters not an iota.

If this were really the the 1800's, as most act out here, we'd all be dead by now.