Pass-Odds Only has produced the best results for me.

Today have gone thru my results over the past several years of active play, and after playing many different betting schemes rangeing from pass--odds only to across betting, the following has produced 13 CONSECUTIVE winning day sessions, no losses thusfar. Now it is very difficult to have these good results as active players know as this is a volatile game. While it is by no means a sure winner as nothing is with craps, and I did quit playing it after a near loss but it did recover to the positive even on that bad day, wanted to share it with the craps diehards:

Session: First buy-in is $200 betting $5 pass and $10 odds. Win goal is $100. Level bets at this level until win $100 or lose the $200. If win $100 that concludes the session.
If lose the first buy-in of $200, now go to a second buy-in of $400 and the bet is now increasing to $5 pass and $20 odds. Keep betting $20 odds until win $100 net for the session or lose this $400. $600 bankroll per day session total per above. Will be going back to this scheme now, as it has performed very well.

May you keep sliding down the right side of the bell curve. I would never have that kind of patience. Betting on pass line and odds and then waiting.

If your goal is a 100.00 win doing only a PassLine 5.00 bet and an OddBet of 10.00, how long does it generally take for you to achieve this one hundred dollar win?

I envy you for your will power in being able to simply stand there and await the disposition of the PassLine bet without making any ComeBets or doing anything else.

The sessions length vary from 1 hr or less, up to 3-4 hrs. Granted it is not an exciting way to play and much more fun to play with the typical multiple bet schemes if the table is good. But it is my experience that it is VERY difficult for sustained success with multiple place bets along with the pass-odds, as the 7 is just too powerful. Those frequent short rolls are especially tough on multiple place bet schemes, much easier to recover after losing just one bet.

Here are my results per session: +$100, +100,+110,+130,+60,+120,+170,+100,+110,+100,+90,+150,+120,+210,+10. Have played 15 sessions total, a couple of days I played two sessions, for net win of $1680. I have not done nearly as well overall with my other multiple place and multiple come-odds betting schemes. Heading back to the casino today to start playing this pass-odds only scheme for another day session.

Quote: dwm

Granted it is not an exciting way to play and much more fun to play with the typical multiple bet schemes if the table is good.

Ah, yes! Various multiple bet schemes are great ..."If the table is good".

I recall my PassLine and Multiple ComeBets... I had the entire table covered, no number had repeated, the dealer said "You are all over the place" ... and then the shooter rolled a Seven! Knocking each and everyone of my bets off and all the odds off as well. Not one bet paid off. Exciting? Maybe I was excited. Right now all I remember was being pissed off at that Seven!

Good luck.

Been there and done that Flea, know that sickening feeling, unfortunately. I grew weary of come betting, then went to place betting and again my bankroll suffered. Overall I would have done much better in all likelihood with betting simply the pass-odds bet using the above betting scheme. The allure of craps is all the various bets that are possible and it is easy to get sucked in as we hate to miss the action. Just stick with one good bet per roll with a good money mgt scheme is my advice to all, I have learned the hard way...

Thanks for posting David, will be in Biloxi next week if you can make it!

Quote: dwm

Today have gone thru my results over the past several years of active play, and after playing many different betting schemes rangeing from pass--odds only to across betting, the following has produced 13 CONSECUTIVE winning day sessions, no losses thusfar.

Your newest style of betting is very easy to program in WinCraps or any craps simulator.

I show in 300 sessions a session win streak of 27 and one at 28.
The average win streak was 4.

Also back to back bankroll ruin happened 6 times
1 time 3 times in a row
Win streaks can be deceiving. My 300 only session simulation shows what is in store for you.

This system can be a grind at the table.

The average rolls per session were 812
median 418 (half above and half below)
mode 79 to 139 (most common outcomes)

On Win session only:
The average rolls per session were 682
median 301 (half above and half below)
mode 79 to 139 ( most common outcomes)

On Lost session only:
The average rolls per session were 1450
median 993 (half above and half below)
mode 615 to 649 ( most common outcomes)

Good Luck!
At least most of your money is on the odds bet.
and if you opt to lower your session win goal to $75 you would do slightly better on the bust out sessions.

So what. I've lost 10 out of the last 13 sessions playing pass/odds. It can go both ways.

Quote: dwm

The sessions length vary from 1 hr or less, up to 3-4 hrs. Granted it is not an exciting way to play and much more fun to play with the typical multiple bet schemes if the table is good. But it is my experience that it is VERY difficult for sustained success with multiple place bets along with the pass-odds, as the 7 is just too powerful. Those frequent short rolls are especially tough on multiple place bet schemes, much easier to recover after losing just one bet.

Here are my results per session: +$100, +100,+110,+130,+60,+120,+170,+100,+110,+100,+90,+150,+120,+210,+10. Have played 15 sessions total, a couple of days I played two sessions, for net win of $1680. I have not done nearly as well overall with my other multiple place and multiple come-odds betting schemes. Heading back to the casino today to start playing this pass-odds only scheme for another day session.

What you need to realize is that the reason you've done so well is not because your method is all that much better than the one you were using previously, but because you happened to get lucky at the same time you switched methods. Sessions that produce a lot of pass line winners will usually produce a lot of come bet and place bet winners, too.

The difference between the two methods is simply this: with pass line + odds and nothing else, only one bet per hand has a house disadvantage. With multiple bets per hand, that house advantage is several times greater (repeated with each non-odds bet). So the pass line-only method should lose relatively small amounts; a pass line with two place bets should lose three times as much; a pass line with two come bets and two place bets should lose five times as much; etc. By cutting down your total number of bets, you've decreased your potential loss by quite a bit.

Just returned from a relatively easy $120 win betting just the $5 pass and $10 odds at Silver Star in Philadelphia, Ms, did not have to go to the second larger buy-in as did not lose the first $200. Was in a range of about $300 total, +150 to -150 in a 5 hr session which is quite typical. Boring, yes, but it does give an excellent chance for a winning session for those interested more in winning than the action of multiple bets.

Well, you're bucking a house edge of .60% on your total bet, about the same as most blackjack games, with about the same variance as blackjack. So yeah, it is one of the better ways to wager your money, though by no means a guaranteed long-term winner.

Two aspects of my pass-odds scheme that I believe has helped with favorable session results thusfar:
1. Have a total of about a 30 bet session bankroll, including the two buy-ins. So first buyin of $200 at $15 per bet($5pass and $10 odds) is 13.3 bets. The second buyin of $400(if lose the first buyin), is 16 bets at $5 pass and $20 odds per bet. So the total is about 30 bets. Also the doubling of the odds bet, going from $10 odds to $20 odds per bet on the second buyin seems to help, have tried it with a 50% increase, and it did not do as well.
2. The cumulative odds aspect seems to kick-in after losing about 15-20 bets, and winning with the increased odds bet speeds the recovery.

Note I call it a scheme, not a system, as there is no winning system as everyone knows. Scheme is a better word to associate with gambling.

Today going to go with an initial larger odds bet of $15,16 for twenty bets for the initial odds bet. So $5 pass and $15,16 odds is about $20 total bet x 20 bets=$400 for the first buyin. If lose that, will go to $5 pass with $30 odds for $35 total bet x 10 bets for a second buyin of $350. Session bankroll increased to $750. Will report back, win or lose. Win goal increased to $150.

Wish I could make it, Demango..

Another good session for a $110 win with the larger odds bet per above, now the first buyin is using $15 odds and the second buyin(if necessary) is using $30 odds. Was in a narrow $-100 to +$150 range today. Now 17 winning sessions in a row with this pass-odds only scheme, BUT smallish wins in the $100 range. Win is the key word here as not getting rich by any means. It is starting to add up though, and help the ole gambing bankroll, a plus $100 win is still a good day's gambling as long as it is relatively consistent and it has been amazingly consistent thusfar.

For awhile now, have not gotten into the second buy-in, just wondering if it would be better to bet higher initial level odds with a 30 bet bankroll, and not doing the second buyin(if lose the first buyin) with twice the initial odds bet.
In other words, just buying in for $750 and betting level $5 pass and level $20 odds which is a 30 bet bankroll which would have produced a larger win per my recent sessions. You math experts, please chime in, thanks..

Quote: dwm

For awhile now, have not gotten into the second buy-in, just wondering if it would be better to bet higher initial level odds with a 30 bet bankroll, and not doing the second buyin(if lose the first buyin) with twice the initial odds bet.
In other words, just buying in for $750 and betting level $5 pass and level $20 odds which is a 30 bet bankroll which would have produced a larger win per my recent sessions. You math experts, please chime in, thanks..

Actually, your average bet with $5 pass, $20 odds is just $18 or so, since your passline bet is resolved on the comeout 1/3 of the times, so your $750 is roughly 40 bets' worth.

I ran 5000 sessions in WinCraps with $750 bankroll and $100 win goal and got a little over 85% winning sessions; however, of course, the losing sessions over-balance the winnings ones, leaving a mean net of -$12. The bust rate was almost 15%. The winning sessions averaged 341 rolls, the losing ones 1345, so in practice you would seldom have the stamina to lose the whole $750, although one session busted in just 238 rolls.

I tried it again with a 600-roll/next-roll-comeout additional stop condition for the sessions. This reduced the percentage of winning sessions to about 73%, and some of the winning sessions ended at 600 rolls, not +$100. At the same time, the losing sessions mostly did not bust, either (only 95 of 5000). Just over 50% of the sessions achieved the win goal. The mean net outcome was -$7.44, a bit lower due to the sessions not lasting as long.

Good luck,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA

Quote: dwm

For awhile now, have not gotten into the second buy-in, just wondering if it would be better to bet higher initial level odds with a 30 bet bankroll, and not doing the second buyin(if lose the first buyin) with twice the initial odds bet.
In other words, just buying in for $750 and betting level $5 pass and level $20 odds which is a 30 bet bankroll which would have produced a larger win per my recent sessions. You math experts, please chime in, thanks..

I ran a quick sim in WinCraps and had some results sent to a text file so they could be entered into Excel.
750 bank/$100 win goal/$5 pass and level $20 odds.

You can see your win streaks.
Longest was 23 sessions. 2nd longest was 15. You seem to be in that group.

You can also see your lose streaks.
You had 2 in a row once. but there was 3 out of 6 from sessions 16 to 21. That means you need to have a larger overall bankroll from where each $750 session bankroll comes from.

Sure you can show a profit in the short run with short sessions.
as goatcabin also pointed out, the lost sessions are big compared to the win sessions.

The relationship between one's bankroll, avg bet size and win goal is an interesting one with changing bet sizes.
Bet too much compared to bankroll and you bust out too soon, bet too little and you do not win as much when you do win so you still have higher bust rates.
Too high of a win goal in proportion to the bet size, your sessions can become very long ones and you still bust out too many times.
Simulations can show the better relationships and ranges.

Good Luck to you.
Ouch!
check out the high bank for sessions 10, 79 and 98!

and the lowest low-bank that still produced a winning session was session #24 at $103.

session	rolls	bank-low	bank-high	bank-end	session net	net-run
1	38	730	877	877	127	127
2	13	750	859	859	109	236
3	28	745	865	865	115	351
4	23	750	873	873	123	474
5	43	700	861	861	111	585
6	444	7	795	7	-743	-158
7	87	670	857	857	107	-51
8	2080	167	853	853	103	52
9	1265	198	861	861	111	163
10	1114	18	836	18	-732	-569
11	247	620	861	861	111	-458
12	1523	196	872	872	122	-336
13	214	656	863	863	113	-223
14	42	729	883	883	133	-90
15	172	605	863	863	113	23
16	575	23	750	23	-727	-704
17	109	695	850	850	100	-604
18	40	700	880	880	130	-474
19	525	21	759	21	-729	-1203
20	69	694	859	859	109	-1094
21	3385	15	779	15	-735	-1829
22	69	684	860	860	110	-1719
23	213	640	856	856	106	-1613
24	1464	103	876	876	126	-1487
25	17	745	854	854	104	-1383
26	171	584	864	864	114	-1269
27	607	481	850	850	100	-1169
28	37	710	863	863	113	-1056
29	59	665	860	860	110	-946
30	114	552	863	863	113	-833
31	212	569	875	875	125	-708
32	42	725	867	867	117	-591
33	537	5	750	5	-745	-1336
34	271	605	862	862	112	-1224
35	165	695	862	862	112	-1112
36	53	730	863	863	113	-999
37	29	725	858	858	108	-891
38	670	457	877	877	127	-764
39	74	715	869	869	119	-645
40	67	695	864	864	114	-531
41	23	750	884	884	134	-397
42	2137	164	866	866	116	-281
43	14	750	852	852	102	-179
44	266	529	872	872	122	-57
45	966	448	864	864	114	57
46	164	553	880	880	130	187
47	40	750	873	873	123	310
48	207	554	859	859	109	419
49	310	526	858	858	108	527
50	874	15	775	15	-735	-208
51	127	688	874	874	124	-84
52	661	502	862	862	112	28
53	1061	482	871	871	121	149
54	264	476	864	864	114	263
55	3852	5	807	5	-745	-482
56	410	610	862	862	112	-370
57	94	670	854	854	104	-266
58	33	750	873	873	123	-143
59	10	750	859	859	109	-34
60	51	680	851	851	101	67
61	52	717	880	880	130	197
62	610	336	856	856	106	303
63	707	412	857	857	107	410
64	43	725	877	877	127	537
65	793	545	851	851	101	638
66	21	750	854	854	104	742
67	247	544	852	852	102	844
68	705	424	850	850	100	944
69	158	608	881	881	131	1075
70	33	725	863	863	113	1188
71	90	634	881	881	131	1319
72	206	630	867	867	117	1436
73	139	710	865	865	115	1551
74	277	489	866	866	116	1667
75	70	740	871	871	121	1788
76	33	730	875	875	125	1913
77	912	387	873	873	123	2036
78	303	608	873	873	123	2159
79	909	2	846	2	-748	1411
80	1747	5	754	5	-745	666
81	369	505	855	855	105	771
82	100	710	851	851	101	872
83	73	725	850	850	100	972
84	2910	164	855	855	105	1077
85	2440	316	850	850	100	1177
86	206	595	854	854	104	1281
87	41	710	857	857	107	1388
88	203	537	852	852	102	1490
89	16	750	875	875	125	1615
90	396	620	852	852	102	1717
91	371	558	874	874	124	1841
92	120	674	877	877	127	1968
93	1057	413	853	853	103	2071
94	1470	8	764	8	-742	1329
95	654	428	864	864	114	1443
96	55	725	879	879	129	1572
97	330	663	860	860	110	1682
98	2221	17	845	17	-733	949
99	50	734	860	860	110	1059
100	873	431	858	858	108	1167

yes, after 100 sim sessions you have a $1167 net profit.

Quote: dwm

For awhile now, have not gotten into the second buy-in, just wondering if it would be better to bet higher initial level odds with a 30 bet bankroll, and not doing the second buyin(if lose the first buyin) with twice the initial odds bet.

Computer simulations can answer your question.
The more you wager on the odds bet, the more increase in variance, and that can work both ways.
You win more (hit your win stop) or lose more...ruin. And you would want to know how large of a session bankroll is needed to handle the increase in that greater variance.

Quote: dwm

In other words, just buying in for $750 and betting level $5 pass and level $20 odds which is a 30 bet bankroll which would have produced a larger win per my recent sessions. You math experts, please chime in, thanks..

With the few sessions you have played, of course you would have won more.
Larger bets do not always mean larger guaranteed wins.
Your bankroll may or can bust out more often with the increase in your resolved average bet.

Odds factor	pass	odds	total	avg bet
0	5	0	5	5.00
1	5	5	10	8.33
2	5	10	15	11.67
3	5	15	20	15.00
4	5	20	25	18.33
5	5	25	30	21.67
6	5	30	35	25.00
7	5	35	40	28.33
8	5	40	45	31.67
9	5	45	50	35.00
10	5	50	55	38.33

For your pass line bet, since you are increasing your odds after losing $200 in bankroll again does not guarantee a session win.

Here is another short 100 session bankroll results.
$750 session bankroll
$5 pass with $20 odds
$100 win goal
session stop when can not make a $5 pass line bet.

WinCraps RNG#1 seed #56
100 session win/lose streaks

win streaks	lose streaks
11	1
5	1
2	1
7	1
5	1
2	1
3	2
1	1
5	3
20	1
26	.

With an 85% session win rate it is easy to get large win streaks.
But those few session ruins will cause you to scream as you need more bankrolls to continue.
The below table shows over a $4000 total bankroll was needed just to eek out a $158 profit.

I also wish you good luck in your current win streak.

session #45 showed your bankroll to be at $849 then you busted out....$1 away from your $100 win goal!
and as goatcabin also pointed out, many sessions are massive in length... you would have to play those extra long sessions over a period of days just to end up losing your bankroll or getting a small session win.

session	rolls	low bankroll	high bankroll	end bankroll	session net	net-run
1	38	738	872	872	122	122
2	281	539	850	850	100	222
3	36	710	850	850	100	322
4	78	710	851	851	101	423
5	125	674	853	853	103	526
6	40	750	863	863	113	639
7	651	509	860	860	110	749
8	90	748	871	871	121	870
9	184	697	863	863	113	983
10	631	593	863	863	113	1096
11	22	750	853	853	103	1199
12	2225	3	750	3	-747	452
13	242	528	853	853	103	555
14	59	750	872	872	122	677
15	568	350	865	865	115	792
16	62	695	854	854	104	896
17	27	750	874	874	124	1020
18	4955	4	825	4	-746	274
19	509	529	851	851	101	375
20	31	750	877	877	127	502
21	1147	0	765	0	-750	-248
22	20	730	865	865	115	-133
23	666	427	866	866	116	-17
24	29	750	855	855	105	88
25	106	743	872	872	122	210
26	122	696	869	869	119	329
27	34	744	851	851	101	430
28	20	750	854	854	104	534
29	964	0	799	0	-750	-216
30	1648	229	884	884	134	-82
31	94	704	861	861	111	29
32	149	725	855	855	105	134
33	21	750	854	854	104	238
34	67	695	867	867	117	355
35	865	0	819	0	-750	-395
36	647	606	866	866	116	-279
37	148	685	878	878	128	-151
38	743	0	795	0	-750	-901
39	114	575	891	891	141	-760
40	219	593	866	866	116	-644
41	61	665	877	877	127	-517
42	632	0	843	0	-750	-1267
43	2634	1	760	1	-749	-2016
44	1022	339	858	858	108	-1908
45	1555	0	849	0	-750	-2658
46	215	564	850	850	100	-2558
47	140	667	873	873	123	-2435
48	241	510	873	873	123	-2312
49	29	750	853	853	103	-2209
50	96	710	878	878	128	-2081
51	2786	0	833	0	-750	-2831
52	1209	0	816	0	-750	-3581
53	664	0	769	0	-750	-4331
54	162	639	853	853	103	-4228
55	115	590	870	870	120	-4108
56	219	623	864	864	114	-3994
57	17	740	875	875	125	-3869
58	77	714	873	873	123	-3746
59	76	714	861	861	111	-3635
60	500	459	853	853	103	-3532
61	3203	75	867	867	117	-3415
62	47	750	862	862	112	-3303
63	219	654	894	894	144	-3159
64	3378	50	860	860	110	-3049
65	49	733	873	873	123	-2926
66	60	750	852	852	102	-2824
67	37	750	871	871	121	-2703
68	80	660	856	856	106	-2597
69	105	647	875	875	125	-2472
70	85	690	860	860	110	-2362
71	1353	295	862	862	112	-2250
72	25	750	878	878	128	-2122
73	82	724	865	865	115	-2007
74	927	1	750	1	-749	-2756
75	125	604	858	858	108	-2648
76	187	655	850	850	100	-2548
77	900	408	855	855	105	-2443
78	60	700	852	852	102	-2341
79	154	560	860	860	110	-2231
80	21	725	868	868	118	-2113
81	61	749	869	869	119	-1994
82	46	715	854	854	104	-1890
83	665	285	864	864	114	-1776
84	163	681	854	854	104	-1672
85	200	548	869	869	119	-1553
86	16	725	850	850	100	-1453
87	424	576	877	877	127	-1326
88	124	689	872	872	122	-1204
89	101	666	854	854	104	-1100
90	105	700	891	891	141	-959
91	1342	247	853	853	103	-856
92	8	750	859	859	109	-747
93	142	729	866	866	116	-631
94	161	650	875	875	125	-506
95	123	657	855	855	105	-401
96	642	537	858	858	108	-293
97	527	474	892	892	142	-151
98	172	645	858	858	108	-43
99	88	704	850	850	100	57
100	1054	376	851	851	101	158

Here is another short 100 session bankroll results.
$150 win goal...Now a 50% increase from the last $100 session win goal. I think you now use it as your win goal.
$750 session bankroll
$5 pass with $20 odds
session stop when can not make a $5 pass line bet.

WinCraps RNG#1 seed #56
100 session win/lose streaks

win streak	lose streak
7	1
4	1
1	1
5	1
4	1
1	1
3	3
4	1
3	1
1	2
14	1
26	1
3	1
1	1
3	2
1	.

Almost a 50% increase in bankroll ruin sessions. Ouch.
again...I also wish you good luck in your current win streak.

750	rolls	low bankroll	high bankroll	end bankroll	session net	net-run
1	52	738	907	907	157	157
2	301	504	905	905	155	312
3	183	720	904	904	154	466
4	62	725	923	923	173	639
5	667	509	903	903	153	792
6	231	705	901	901	151	943
7	658	633	903	903	153	1096
8	2313	0	853	0	-750	346
9	150	655	902	902	152	498
10	56	725	906	906	156	654
11	597	394	909	909	159	813
12	66	695	928	928	178	991
13	5131	0	875	0	-750	241
14	356	578	900	900	150	391
15	1552	0	892	0	-750	-359
16	66	665	908	908	158	-201
17	242	608	916	916	166	-35
18	46	745	914	914	164	129
19	212	714	917	917	167	296
20	42	750	931	931	181	477
21	994	4	868	4	-746	-269
22	1633	284	939	939	189	-80
23	144	704	904	904	154	74
24	109	693	902	902	152	226
25	254	703	909	909	159	385
26	669	2	791	2	-748	-363
27	725	575	914	914	164	-199
28	839	4	844	4	-746	-945
29	106	630	901	901	151	-794
30	221	638	911	911	161	-633
31	65	665	912	912	162	-471
32	599	0	808	0	-750	-1221
33	2611	0	795	0	-750	-1971
34	2636	1	896	1	-749	-2720
35	208	614	900	900	150	-2570
36	373	633	937	937	187	-2383
37	36	745	907	907	157	-2226
38	100	715	918	918	168	-2058
39	1667	1	798	1	-749	-2807
40	23	750	909	909	159	-2648
41	42	750	911	911	161	-2487
42	371	633	922	922	172	-2315
43	1083	0	781	0	-750	-3065
44	16	750	904	904	154	-2911
45	820	0	750	0	-750	-3661
46	638	0	750	0	-750	-4411
47	257	664	914	914	164	-4247
48	224	707	904	904	154	-4093
49	28	720	919	919	169	-3924
50	79	714	902	902	152	-3772
51	568	541	926	926	176	-3596
52	3221	84	911	911	161	-3435
53	240	731	916	916	166	-3269
54	3392	105	915	915	165	-3104
55	52	733	908	908	158	-2946
56	92	734	903	903	153	-2793
57	172	695	907	907	157	-2636
58	31	750	924	924	174	-2462
59	1422	340	907	907	157	-2305
60	43	750	902	902	152	-2153
61	1014	0	841	0	-750	-2903
62	86	700	915	915	165	-2738
63	210	694	923	923	173	-2565
64	953	374	923	923	173	-2392
65	169	560	909	909	159	-2233
66	47	750	901	901	151	-2082
67	567	426	911	911	161	-1921
68	320	684	913	913	163	-1758
69	207	583	904	904	154	-1604
70	26	725	913	913	163	-1441
71	533	513	901	901	151	-1290
72	129	701	901	901	151	-1139
73	1229	376	909	909	159	-980
74	203	560	932	932	182	-798
75	285	729	908	908	158	-640
76	69	750	905	905	155	-485
77	1216	570	903	903	153	-332
78	70	725	900	900	150	-182
79	205	699	924	924	174	-8
80	1068	390	904	904	154	146
81	946	483	919	919	169	315
82	1251	239	917	917	167	482
83	1384	192	900	900	150	632
84	351	598	912	912	162	794
85	349	572	903	903	153	947
86	334	564	903	903	153	1100
87	602	540	908	908	158	1258
88	1081	0	845	0	-750	508
89	216	710	922	922	172	680
90	1211	341	915	915	165	845
91	33	750	928	928	178	1023
92	951	0	841	0	-750	273
93	1854	273	915	915	165	438
94	970	0	839	0	-750	-312
95	81	695	904	904	154	-158
96	592	568	936	936	186	28
97	263	523	910	910	160	188
98	3512	0	889	0	-750	-562
99	594	0	755	0	-750	-1312
100	410	540	927	927	177	-1135

Quote: goatcabin

I tried it again with a 600-roll/next-roll-comeout additional stop condition for the sessions. This reduced the percentage of winning sessions to about 73%, and some of the winning sessions ended at 600 rolls, not +$100. At the same time, the losing sessions mostly did not bust, either (only 95 of 5000). Just over 50% of the sessions achieved the win goal. The mean net outcome was -$7.44, a bit lower due to the sessions not lasting as long.

Good luck,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA

I also duplicated Alan's results.

The longest win streaks were: 21,20,19 twice,17 and 16. Way shorter than those with ruin or win goal reached.

About 26% of the sessions ended at 600 rolls. Other roll stops from 400 to 800 had the same 26-30% sessions ended with the roll count.
And only 6.5% of those that ended to a roll count ended in a winning session.

The longest losing streaks were: 5 (4 times) 4(16 times) 3 (42 times)

Again this all goes to show how important bet size, bankroll and win goal all work together at maximizing winnings and minimizing the losses.

Quote: teddys

So what. I've lost 10 out of the last 13 sessions playing pass/odds. It can go both ways.

I do not think it can go equally both ways betting the way dmw does.
The reason why is this:
dmw uses bets to bankroll to win goal ratios. also know as "risk of ruin"
The Wizards math site:
www.mathproblems.info, see problem 116. explains a simple example IF all the bets are the same. It gets messy when using average bets, easier to run a few simulations to get a reliable answer.
and here:https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/roulette/
1/3 of the way down
"If I have a $200 bankroll that I don't mind losing, and keep playing $10 on one single number on European (single-zero) roulette, what are the probabilities of winning, $200, $500 or $1000? Assuming I'll stop after reaching the target. Thanks, great site, you wanted me to keep this short :) – Andy from Amsterdam"

Member goatcabin has shown many simulations of why this type of betting not only increases the session win rate but lets you know what to expect along the way as to time of play, bankroll needed, average size bets etc.
Most win rates are around the 80-85% area when using the pass line bet and taking the odds.
Your 77% loss rate would be a very very short term outcome using dmw's method. He could easily have 30 to 40 winning sessions in a row. Granted his winning sessions do not win as much as his losing ones will, but that is gambling.
The down side is the large losses when he does lose.

He still places most of his money on the odds bet. One can not go wrong with that.

Everyone and their Grandma has their way of playing craps.
Some like the higher session winning rates by setting win goals to bet sizes and bankrolls, some do not.
I say as long as you are gambling with your money, you can play as you please and have fun doing it.

Quote: teddys

So what. I've lost 10 of the last 13 sessions playing pass/odds. It can go both ways.

Quote: guido111

I do not think it can go equally both ways betting the way dmw does.


Member goatcabin has shown many simulations of why this type of betting not only increases the session win rate but lets you know what to expect along the way as to time of play, bankroll needed, average size bets etc.
Most win rates are around the 80-85% area when using the pass line bet and taking the odds.
Your 77% loss rate would be a very very short term outcome using dmw's method. He could easily have 30 to 40 winning sessions in a row. Granted his winning sessions do not win as much as his losing ones will, but that is gambling.
The down side is the large losses when he does lose.

I don't think teddys is referring to playing with a similar betting strategy, just the type of bets. If one plays pass/odds with a sufficient bankroll to last the session and does not stop when reaching some win goal, then it will "go both ways", more-or-less symmetrically on either side of the ev (not the breakeven point). Losing 10 of 13 sessions, in that case, is unfortunate but not that unlikely.

Quote: guido111

He still places most of his money on the odds bet. One can not go wrong with that.

Well, one can certainly get hammered betting high odds multiples. To minimize risk-of-ruin and extend table time (if that's one's goal), play minimum pass line, no odds. The outcome is dependent only on one's W-L record; no pattern of wins/losses, comeout-vs-point win/losses, etc., matters. This reduces volatility (and, for many, fun) to its minimum. One's chances of a winning session are much lower without odds, balanced by very low risk-of-ruin.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA

Some more info on how I play: I buy in for $200, $250 or $300, depending on the amount of time I plan to spend at the table. I play the passline for $5, and take odds of $10 on any point. I make a come bet after the point is established and take $10 on that point as well. If a point hits (rarely!), I make another come bet with odds to replace it. I never have more than two points working unless the table is on a real hot streak in which case I'll make another come bet or two. I've never gotten to this point, though.

I'll play for an hour or two, or if the table is crowded, a couple orbits around the table. I have busted out I think 8 out of the last 13 sessions, or lost badly, anyway. I had one winning session at Hollywood Tunica for $35, and another at Sams Town Tunica for about $85, I think. At Ameristar East Chicago I lost $200 before the dice even got to me! (No points). So, no, I don't play a super-high volatility system, but when it goes bad, it goes bad.

Quote: teddys

Some more info on how I play: I buy in for $200, $250 or $300, depending on the amount of time I plan to spend at the table. I play the passline for $5, and take odds of $10 on any point. I make a come bet after the point is established and take $10 on that point as well. If a point hits (rarely!), I make another come bet with odds to replace it. I never have more than two points working unless the table is on a real hot streak in which case I'll make another come bet or two. I've never gotten to this point, though.

I'll play for an hour or two, or if the table is crowded, a couple orbits around the table. I have busted out I think 8 out of the last 13 sessions, or lost badly, anyway. I had one winning session at Hollywood Tunica for $35, and another at Sams Town Tunica for about $85, I think. At Ameristar East Chicago I lost $200 before the dice even got to me! (No points). So, no, I don't play a super-high volatility system, but when it goes bad, it goes bad.

Do you set any win goals? Or do you just play for that 1-2 hours?

Say you are up $50. Do you pocket that and start over with your starting bankroll?
$200-$300 bankroll with average bets around $23 seems to me not a very good formula for any consistent success at having winning sessions.

dmw's average bet of $18.33 is 2.4% of his bankroll.
yours is between 7.6% and 11.5%

there is a bet size to bankroll to win goal relationship.
risk of ruin does not get any better if your bet is too large and goes way up if your bet is too small to your bankroll and your win goal. The win goal is also important.
simulations can show the best ratios.

Thanks for the good replies. Last night decided to play with level odds of $20, i.e. $5 pass and 4x odds and it was a mistake. $750 session bankroll. Finally gave up -$600 in a marathon session. IF I had stuck to the original scheme, would have made a recovery into the plus, as had the usual good results after being down 15-18 bets. However, with level odds bets it did not recover whereas with doubling of my odds bet on the second buyin it would have recovered into the plus before reverting back into the negative.

Anyway, this was an expensive lesson. So next session, $5 pass and $10 odds betting level bets for the first buyin of $250(16 bets). Win goal is at least $50 at the end of the latest shooter's hand, lowering the win goal to reduce session length and increasing the probability of a session win. If lose the first buyin without reaching the win goal, then second buyin of $350 for $5 pass and $20 level bets(14 bets), with same win goal. May play two sessions per day if the first session is easy.

Quote: dwm

Thanks for the good replies. Last night decided to play with level odds of $20, i.e. $5 pass and 4x odds and it was a mistake. $750 session bankroll. Finally gave up -$600 in a marathon session. IF I had stuck to the original scheme, would have made a recovery into the plus, as had the usual good results after being down 15-18 bets. However, with level odds bets it did not recover whereas with doubling of my odds bet on the second buyin it would have recovered into the plus before reverting back into the negative.

Anyway, this was an expensive lesson. So next session, $5 pass and $10 odds betting level bets for the first buyin of $250(16 bets). Win goal is at least $50 at the end of the latest shooter's hand, lowering the win goal to reduce session length and increasing the probability of a session win. If lose the first buyin without reaching the win goal, then second buyin of $350 for $5 pass and $20 level bets(14 bets), with same win goal. May play two sessions per day if the first session is easy.

I think you are focusing WAY too much on "session" results. You need to realize that a "session" is an arbitrary and largely illusory construct. If you will gamble tomorrow, or for that matter at any time in the future, then what's the difference between your next bet being ten seconds from now, and it being 24 hours from now?

You need to consider what your overall goal is. Do you want to extend your playing time as much as possible? Then you should be taking either single or no odds. Do you want the best chance to make money while fighting the lowest possible house edge? Then bet maximum odds. Do you have an OVERALL win goal? Do you have an OVERALL loss limit? These considerations should determine your bet sizing.

Quote: dwm

Thanks for the good replies. Last night decided to play with level odds of $20, i.e. $5 pass and 4x odds and it was a mistake. $750 session bankroll. Finally gave up -$600 in a marathon session. IF I had stuck to the original scheme, would have made a recovery into the plus, as had the usual good results after being down 15-18 bets. However, with level odds bets it did not recover whereas with doubling of my odds bet on the second buyin it would have recovered into the plus before reverting back into the negative.

I don't think you should draw any conclusion from one session where one method "failed" and you can tell another would have done better. That sequence of dice rolls that you experienced favored the method you weren't playing, but the next sequence might very well favor the one you played last night. It's really the same issue that you face when switching back and forth between pass and don't pass. You are "chasing a pattern". If you experienced a period of good results after being down, then, yes, you would have, with perfect hindsight, done better had you raised your bets. OTOH, if the poor results continued, then you would have lost a lot more if you raised your bets.

Quote: dwm

Anyway, this was an expensive lesson.

There is no lesson there!

Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA

Quote: mkl654321

I think you are focusing WAY too much on "session" results. You need to realize that a "session" is an arbitrary and largely illusory construct. If you will gamble tomorrow, or for that matter at any time in the future, then what's the difference between your next bet being ten seconds from now, and it being 24 hours from now?

You need to consider what your overall goal is. Do you want to extend your playing time as much as possible? Then you should be taking either single or no odds. Do you want the best chance to make money while fighting the lowest possible house edge? Then bet maximum odds. Do you have an OVERALL win goal? Do you have an OVERALL loss limit? These considerations should determine your bet sizing.

I think these remarks make a lot of sense if we're talking about sessions during a trip to a casino or city, where you have a certain gambling budget. In fact, I think mkl had a post about splitting the "trip bankroll" up into "session bankrolls" in another thread; or maybe it was someone else. In any case, unless you believe in "hot" and "cold" tables, DI's, etc., you shouldn't have any different (gambling) expectations between continuing to play here/now and going somewhere else/later. OTOH, there are very good reasons to split your play into sessions for physical/mental considerations.

OTOH, I think there is quite a relevant difference between these sessions and separate gambling trips, separated by time and, we hope, INCOME. If you go to Vegas and gamble, go home and work, earning some additional "discretionary" income, and then return to play some more, your gambling expectation is no different than if you just stayed the first time, but you have "refreshed" your bankroll, so the money has a different meaning.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Woodland, CA

Quote: goatcabin

I think these remarks make a lot of sense if we're talking about sessions during a trip to a casino or city, where you have a certain gambling budget. In fact, I think mkl had a post about splitting the "trip bankroll" up into "session bankrolls" in another thread; or maybe it was someone else. In any case, unless you believe in "hot" and "cold" tables, DI's, etc., you shouldn't have any different (gambling) expectations between continuing to play here/now and going somewhere else/later. OTOH, there are very good reasons to split your play into sessions for physical/mental considerations.

Yes, that was me, and the reason for doing that was to meet a goal: of not going broke during a given trip. Artificially breaking one's play up into "sessions" helps to meet that goal. For many recreational players, it's not about winning; it's about having a good time. And one of the worst things that can happen in Vegas is to run out of money before your trip is over, so a "session bankroll" approach helps to prevent that worst-case scenario. Of course, to do that, one has to have a cognizance of an overall "trip bankroll", as well as the willingness to play no more than a fixed number of "sessions", of limited duration.

It is, in any case, a mistake to pay very much attention to the result of a single "session", and the successes the OP has had so far (or his failures) have nothing to do with the efficacy of his varying betting methods (i.e., sometimes he was lucky, and sometimes he wasn't--period).