Parrondo's Paradox as it applies to craps -- anyone tried this yet?

I'm new here so I wouldn't know, but I'm sure everyone here is familiar with Parrondo's Paradox.

In the novel "God Doesn't Shoot Craps," the author proposes a system using Parrondo's Paradox, all the while acknowledging that the Parrondo's dynamic probably is not enough to overcome the house edge, particularly the come-out roll on the don't side.

However, it's quite intriguing, and I wonder if anyone here tried it. Thoughts?

As you might know, one key part of Parrondo's Paradox is having a bet that has a winning component. Meaning one bet in which you are guaranteed to win with a slight edge over the long term.

And we know there is no such bet in the casino. However, craps is interesting in that the come-out roll on the do side is in your favor until the point is established (7/11 you win, 2,3,12 you lose.)

And of course, if you survive the come-out roll on the don't side, you similarly have a winning edge against any point that might have been established. (The 7 is more common than any point number.)

I know you can't really separate the two "parts" of the line bet like that, but I keep wondering if there was some way to make Parrondo's work within that framework.

It is because you cannot separate the two parts of the line bet that Parrondo does not apply. Further, the "paradox" in Parrondo required some interdependence between two different wagers, a behavior that does not exist in casino games. Each passline bet is independent of each other and is not related to whether some prior bet wins or loses.

From Wikipedia: "Parrondo's paradox does not seem that paradoxical if one notes that it is actually a combination of three simple games: two of which have losing probabilities and one of which has a high probability of winning. To suggest that one can create a winning strategy with three such games is neither counterintuitive nor paradoxical."

Quote: Scoop

I'm new here so I wouldn't know, but I'm sure everyone here is familiar with Parrondo's Paradox.

In the novel "God Doesn't Shoot Craps," the author proposes a system using Parrondo's Paradox, all the while acknowledging that the Parrondo's dynamic probably is not enough to overcome the house edge, particularly the come-out roll on the don't side.

Can't help even slightly. The most common statement Parrondo's "paradox" wrongly treats one's bankroll as an acceptable source of randomness, so when one controls one's bankroll via a -EV game, the fact that the other game, with a negative expectation under the absurd assumption one's bankroll is random, takes on a positive one bears hardly any comment. All statements of it have a similar issue, that they're treating something as random that isn't random. Only if you found a game that similarly relied on one's bankroll, or found a way to link the outcome of the dice to some other game*, could it be applied to craps.

*EDIT: I suddenly realize this could be taken the wrong way. What I meant was, have the outcome of some other game influence the dice, not that the dice were being used in another game (which, of course, they are). As long as the outcome of the dice doesn't depend on the outcome of some other game in some concrete way, Parrondo's paradox doesn't apply.

Quote: MathExtremist

the "paradox" in Parrondo required some interdependence between two different wagers, a behavior that does not exist in casino games.

Well, the author of that novel did create an interdependence between two different wagers at the craps table. It's not admittedly perfect, and like I said previously, there's no getting around the comeout problem on the don't side, but I was curious how it performed in real play. Sounds like no one here has heard of it.

Quote: Scoop

Sounds like no one here has heard of it.

What!
I have heard of it and I am not a 'no one'
maybe a nowhere man

Quote: Scoop

Well, the author of that novel did create an interdependence
between two different wagers at the craps table.
It's not admittedly perfect, and like I said previously,
there's no getting around the comeout problem on the don't side,
but I was curious how it performed in real play.

why not set this up yourself and run the simulations.
I did this and many others a few years back and I ain't
nobody special.

This has been simulated in Excel using functions and vba based from
HUMBERTO BARRETO
(I learned mucho about vba coding from his many worksheets)

his website and files are still free and available
The simulator's name will remain anonymous
unless you can find it as I did.

As to the book's method,
one can do better by just betting at least 5X odds or more every roll
on ANY line bet available.
Believe it?
Prove it to yourself.
Why not download all the data and do the simulations yourself
(after changing the current code)
and see the EV and SD from that type of play.

Yes, do not feed the trolls.

"Of course, Parrondo’s paradox does not say that randomly mixing any two losing games automatically yields a winner,
so the paradox is not a secret for success in a casino.
It is clear that under certain conditions, however,
the paradox does hold and a winning game can be created from two losing games."