The hoax that is the 1.41% house advantage on pass line bets
If the prediction is at 96.5% against the average, then players who are relying on such results need to be informed as such and be extremely cautious.
The 1.41% HA is not the Easter Bunny, but at 96.5% against is certainly enough to create a mirage of hope that is very close to unreal.
Most players and all casinos are heavily invested with this very "slim" HA. Most players use this strategy; all players who rely on this "slim" HA lose much more often than they win; those losses far exceed 1.41%; and the casinos love it.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymgoatcabin: In other discussions with knowledgeable people such as yourself, they also have offered similar percentages for winning the various established points. It puzzles me that the determination of those percentages disagrees with the calculations you have just used for winning the Come Out roll. First, I know how you made the calculations to get those percentages, so a re-hash would be unnecessary for me. I shall be specific:
WIN VS LOSES = PERCENTAGE and party advantage
Come Out Roll: 8 ways to win and 4 ways to lose = 2 to 1 or player advantage of 50%
This is incorrect. The player advantage is 33.3%. You have 12 combinations that resolve the bet on the comeout roll. If you take each bet as one unit:
8 wins = +8
4 losses = -4
---
+4 The player is expected to win 4 units out of 12 units bet, so it's 4/12 = 1/3 or 33.3%
Point 6 or 8: 5 ways to win and 6 ways to lose = 16 2/3% house advantage
5 wins = +5
6 losses = -6
---
-1 The player is expected to lose 1 unit out of 11 units bet, so it's -1/11 = -9.09%
Point 5 or 9: 4 ways to win and 6 ways to lose = 33 1/3% house advantage
4 wins = +4
6 losses = -6
---
-2 The player is expected to lose 2 units out of 10 units bet, so it's -2/10 = -20%
Point 4 or 10: 3 ways to win and 6 ways to lose = 2 to 1 house advantage of 50%
3 wins = +3
6 losses = -6
---
-3 The player is expected to lose 3 units out of 9 units bet, so it's -3/9 = -33.3%
The 1.4% figure is the weighted average of all these percentages, plus the comeout loss one (craps). The "perfect 1980", which includes all the possible outcomes along with their probabilities, expressed as integers, adds up to 976 wins and 1004 losses. That's a net loss of 28, and -28/1980 = -.01414, or -1.414%.
Quote: tuttigymWhy do you or the Wizard or anyone else calculate the Come out one way and the point conversion house advantage another way especially since the FO "true odds" payouts reflect the above and not the 4/10 of 67% house advantage? Why the lack of consistency in creating these calculations and "odds"?
tuttigym
There is no lack of consistency; I did each of those the same way; they are correct, I promise you.
Now, when you talk about free odds (FO), it's the same calculation, but the payoff is not even money:
6/8
5 ways to win 1.2 units (6:5) = 6
6 ways to lose 1 unit = -6
---
0
The expected value of a free odds bet (only the odds part, not including the flat portion) is zero, because the less-than-50% probability of winning is exactly balanced by the greater-than-even payoff in each case.
If you combine the flat and single-odds bets for 6 and 8, you get:
5 ways to win 2.2 units (1:1 and 6:5) = +11
6 ways to lose 2 units = -12
---
-1 The player is expected to lose 1 unit out of 22 units bet = -.045
For larger odds multiples the HA is lower.
Keep in mind, however, that this is all AFTER the comeout roll, where the player has the big advantage.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: DJTeddyBear...And isn't the average a HA of 1.41%?Quote: JBWhen it comes to gambling, the only thing you can rely on is averages.
If you're saying it a nearly impossible to hit the average, you're right. And that has nothing to do with craps. In any event of probabilities, it's hard for an individual to hit the statistical average.Quote: tuttigymLadies and gentlemen while the "hoax" does not really exist, the calculations posted by JB with the addendum clarification shown above basically throws the 1.41% HA on PL outcomes under the bus.
A probability of .035 is hardly "nearly impossible to hit", as it is expected to occur once every 28 trials or so. If you put 28 players at 28 different tables and had them play 495 pass decisions, there's a 64% chance that at least one of them would come out 244-251. See below:
p(244-251) = .0358 (I think that was the figure)
p(other than 244-251) = 1 - .0358 = .9642
The probability of all 28 trials NOT coming out 244-251 is .9642 raised to the 28th power, or .3603. The complement of .3603 is .6397.
Quote: DJTeddyBearBut that doesn't change the fact that the average is a fair prediction of expected results.
How can you agree that the hoax doesn't exist and still throw the 1.41 HA under the bus?
FYI: The only thing under the bus is your argument.
tuttigym is confusing one outcome with the average of all possible outcomes.
Another possible confusion arises from the fact that the 1.4% figure applies to the TOTAL AMOUNT BET, not just the amount of a player's buy-in. If a player buys in for $200 and plays for two hours betting nothing but $5 pass, the total amount of his/her bets is going to be, on average, almost $300, due to re-betting winnings. The expected loss, then, is 1.414% of the (approximately) $300, not of the $200 buy-in. The expected loss is very close to one unit, or just $5. I ran a simulation of 64,000 such sessions; of those, 3,267 came out exactly $5 down, which is about 5%. However, almost 28,000 came out between -$20 and +$20, 4 units. 348 won $100 or more, while 473 lost $100 or more.
Simulations like give one information that is similar to the basic knowledge of the "perfect 36":
12, 2 .0278
11, 2 .0556
10, 4 .0833
9, 5 .1111
8, 6 .1389
7 .1667
You know the probabilities, and the dice pick one of the outcomes for you. The results of that simulation, in significant part:
>= + 100 348 (.054)
>= + 50 5956 (.0931)
>= + 5 27331 (.4270)
0 3306 (.0517)
<= - 5 33363 (.5213)
<= - 50 8490 (.1327)
<= - 100 473 (.0074)
So, in broad terms, those are the probabilities of outcomes of two hours' of $5 pass play. If two million people all played like that for two hours, at different tables and times, those percentages would be pretty close, just like the percentages of sevens, sixes, etc., would come out pretty close to the above if you rolled a two dice two million times.
Despite knowing the dice probabilities, you cannot predict the next roll; despite knowing the probabilities of various outcomes of two hours' pass play, you cannot predict the outcome of any given session. However, in my view, having that knowledge is preferable to not having it.
You can answer questions like:
1) What's the probability of busting my bankroll before a certain amount of time?
2) What's the probability of busting my bankroll before winning a certain amount?
3) Given a starting bankroll (or a loss limit), what's my probability of winning a certain percentage of it within a given number of decisions?
4) What's the effect of progressing my bets, rather than flat betting?
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Thanks for the confirmation.Quote: JBQuote: DJTeddyBear...And isn't the average a HA of 1.41%?
Yes.Quote: DJTeddyBearIf you're saying it a nearly impossible to hit the average, you're right. And that has nothing to do with craps. In any event of probabilities, it's hard for an individual to hit the statistical average.
But that doesn't change the fact that the average is a fair prediction of expected results.
How can you agree that the hoax doesn't exist and still throw the 1.41 HA under the bus?
FYI: The only thing under the bus is your argument.
I agree with all of the above. I'm not sure what he was trying to prove.
I assume the 'he' in your final statement is tuttigum.
I should have said "hit, or even approach," and followed it up with "...but it's easy for a casino to rack up enough play so the average approaches the statistical average."Quote: DJTeddyBearIn any event of probabilities, it's hard for an individual to hit the statistical average.
---
You're absolutely right. It was a poor choice of words brought on by my frustration to get tuttigym to 'get it'. I should have said "It happens infrequently."Quote: goatcabinA probability of .035 is hardly "nearly impossible to hit.Quote: DJTeddyBearIf you're saying it a nearly impossible to hit the average, you're right. And that has nothing to do with craps. In any event of probabilities, it's hard for an individual to hit the statistical average.
Yeah, I know it. How do we get HIM to understand it?Quote: goatcabintuttigym is confusing one outcome with the average of all possible outcomes.
If you played 10000 trials of 495 PL bets, and you did not have 350 of those trials result in 244 wins and 251 losses, are you gonna complain that THAT's a hoax too? I'd bet real money that it WON'T be 350...Quote: tuttigymIf the prediction is at 96.5% against the average,...
And the only reason people lose more than the house advantage says they should is because they don't know when to quit. They may win some, but they continue to gamble, risking, and sooner or later, losing, those winning.
Yes, anyone who understands statistics understands that polls are not accurate because they are a sample. Anyone knows that when you try to resolve 990 come bets, that the odds of getting to exactly 1.414% is about 3.5% and that there will be a variance on both sides of the house advantage. Does that mean that the 1.41% HA is gone? No, because the HA is theoretical and can be calculated, just like a coin toss.
The fact that the NFC has won the coin toss in 13 super bowls in a row doesn't mean that the odds that the NFC will win the next one is not 50%. It's a statistical anomaly.
Women do not play and most others will not play because of the confusion the table cloth and the multiple bets. However, if I or you or anyone were explain the game and the simplicity of the math or arithmatic based only on wins vs losses, we can increase table population and play.
If novice players understand that for the most part the 7 is their enemy and can be overcome w/o your units and presses and sucker bets, they might indulge more and learn the more advanced methodology of the game later on.
One cannot continue to state that the FO bet pays "true odds" on the one hand and then create a divisive and, yes, inaccurate statement that the "real" odds of losing is something other than the "true odds" payouts.
So guess what, when the Wizard or any of you proponents of the "units" method of calculation of winning and losing states something other than the "true odds," you are just plain WRONG.
Heresy, not really. It is simplicity and truth. Deal with it.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigym.
So guess what, when the Wizard or any of you proponents of the "units" method of calculation of winning and losing states something other than the "true odds," you are just plain WRONG.
Heresy, not really. It is simplicity and truth. Deal with it.
tuttigym
LOL!!!
When are you going to show us your perpetual motion machine? Have you found the last digit of pi yet? How about a prime number theorem? Will you show me your proof for squaring the circle?
Tell you what; try to publish your heresy in a mathematics journal, see what happens.
It just kills me. It really does. I don't know why I even care that you can't figure it out; I guess it's because you truly believe that the entire sum of mathematical knowledge from the past 3000 years is wrong, and you are right. I just have to take shots at that; it is part of my nature. I apologize, not for how I feel, because that won't change, but that I did it. I couldn't help myself.
You can continue to show your mathematical gymnastics and gyrations, but you cannot provide any such documentations or real proof. All you are doing is obviscating what is:
A FLAWED PREMISE, i.e., the 1.41% HA 96.5% AGAINST SUCH occurances.
and
A FALSE PROMISE -- 49% EXPECTED WINS VS 51% AGAINST EXPECTED LOSSES (rounded off)
What you seem to be missing here is the fact that I know how the 1.41% HA is calculated, and I know that the 244/251 "perfect math" can happen somehow, but that the liklihood of such is so remote as to provide a false promise of reality.
So remember when you "teach" your children or grand children the game of craps, and you tell them that the PL/FO bets are the best opportunities to win, make sure to tell them that the 1.41% HA is based on a mathematical calculation that is 96.5% against the reality of ever happening at any time. I am sure that those youngsters will run not walk to the nearest exit.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymMosca: I will show you my perpetual motion machine when you provide the actual data and documentation that the perfect 495, i.e., 244/251 has been achieved.
What you seem to be missing here is the fact that I know how the 1.41% HA is calculated, and I know that the 244/251 "perfect math" can happen somehow, but that the liklihood of such is so remote as to provide a false promise of reality.
tuttigym
I don't have to show you anything; there are 6 pages of posts trying to explain to you why you are wrong, and nevertheless you continue to see what you want to see. It is time for you to ask yourself: Am I really right, and all the other people who have devoted their entire lives to studying mathematics and statistics and probability wrong, or have I just not looked at this long enough to understand it? And proceed from there. You believe as you will, but you are going to have to do a lot more than simply say that you don't believe it to make ME not believe it, because that is the sum total of your argument: that it isn't so because you don't believe that it is so.
It is your intellect that will allow you to believe or not. Perhaps you or any one of the others who have devoted their lives to math and statistics and probabilities and odds could answer these very simple questions:
How much strength does it take to hit a 90 mph fastball 410 feet and how does one measure that
"strength"??? These two questions deal with another FALSE PREMISE.
tuttigym
tuttigym
Suppose you go to the casino each day for 30 years (N ~ 10000). Suppose that each day you play 495 exactly pass line decisions each of those days.
One day, you have 300 PL wins vs. 195 PL Loses (High Player advantage), another day you could have 195 PL wins vs. 195 PL Losses (High House Advantage), while another day you have 247 PL wins vs. 248 PL losses (Slight House Advantage), while another day you have 248 PL wins vs. 247 PL Losses (Slight Player Advantage).
Now, let's say you record all of your PL outcomes for each day during lose 30 years. If you take the average per day of all PL wins during the 30 years, you will see that the average will be very close to 245. If you take the average per day of PL losses during the 30 years, you will see that the average will be close to 251.
When everyone is talking about a 1.41% HA, they are talking about an average of many events occurring.
Just think about it, when you have a really good day at the craps table, you could say there was a player advantage, cause heck you won! But when you lose your bankroll at the table during a given session, then you could say that the house had a bigger advantage than 1.41%.
But in the end of the day, those advantages, albeit player advantages or house advantages average out to a HA of 1.41%.
Odds and house advantages are just measures of probability. Let's turn the question around. Prove to me that out of 495 craps come out rolls, on fair dice, the most probable outcome IS NOT 244 wins and 251 losses. Lets even keep it simpler. Prove to me that out of 2 tosses of the dice, the most probable outcome is not one heads and one tails.
That's what house advantage measures; it is a theoretical measure of probability which can be calculated using math and statistics. The premise of craps is that each die appears one time out of six times and that of course is subject to fluctuations over time that average out.
On 50% of sessions, you will win 244 times or more, and on 50% of sessions, OVER time, you will win 244 times or less.
Quote: boymimboGee whillakers. ] Prove to me that out of 2 tosses of the dice, the most probable outcome is not one heads and one tails.
Think you probably mean COINS here. :D
Yeah, it's the most probably SINGLE outcome. But it happens only 3.5% of the time. It is more probable that the results will be something else.Quote: boymimboProve to me that out of 495 craps come out rolls, on fair dice, the most probable outcome IS NOT 244 wins and 251 losses.
Tuttigym's problem is he can't understand how the most probable outcome is also very unlikely to happen.
It makes me wonder why he accepts the fact that a 7 is the most probable outcome of a roll of two dice.
First, while we are speculating because your set-up is wrong, the table has ten players which is very possible. All random shooters; so the SRR is 6.0. If there was between 45 seconds and one minute between rolls, it would take approximately 38 hours of continuous 24/7 play to complete the 495 PL outcomes.
Second, how many diapers will be soiled? And what is to prevent a premature death at the table?
And are you the only shooter or do the dice rotate between players?
Third, JB, in general terms, what is the liklihood that any given set of 495 PL outcomes will have wins in excess of 251 - very unlikely; somewhat unlikely; likely; somewhat likely; or
very likely??
Fourth, JB, do you know WHO and WHEN this 1.41% HA on PL outcomes was first produced??
Mosca seems to think it was over 3000 years or so ago,and that I am trying to change all that has come before kinda like when the earth was thought to be flat.
tuttigym
Wow your interpretations of my posts need a little more critcal thought. But that is OK, I will continue to correct the errors as they appear.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymDJ: The most probable outcome of two rolled dice is any number other than a 7.
tuttigym
Not correct. If you are phrasing it as "any number other than", the most probable outcome is tied between any number other than 2 and number other than 12. You are twisting the math to suit your argument.
I can't believe this is still raging.
Quote: tuttigymdarnits: 495 PL decisions in a day for 30 yrs?
First, while we are speculating because your set-up is wrong, the table has ten players which is very possible. All random shooters; so the SRR is 6.0. If there was between 45 seconds and one minute between rolls, it would take approximately 38 hours of continuous 24/7 play to complete the 495 PL outcomes.
tuttigym
Ok...Let's change how you get your 495 PL outcomes. Say you have four craps tables at your local casino. Now, record each PL outcome on each table and take the first 495 PL outcomes for 30 years. Then, the calculation of the HA would be the same as I said before.
Quote: tuttigymWe all know that the 7 can be rolled more time than any other number...
From Page 7, post 9, paragraph 1:
Quote: tuttigymThe most probable outcome of two rolled dice is any number other than a 7.
Can't make up your mind?
It sounds like you're bending the facts to fit your skewed argument as you, and you alone, see fit.
This simple table shows how to arrive at the 1.41% HA.
Col 1 shows the total of two dice.
Col 2 shows the combinations out of 36.
Col 3 shows the odds of hitting that number on a Come Out roll, i.e. Col 2 divided by 36.
Col 4 shows the odds of winning if that number is the Come Out roll. For points, this is calculated as Col 2 / ( Col 2 + 6 ), i.e. the chance that a roll is the point out of the options that it is either the point or a 7. Other values don't matter.
Col 5 is the overall combied odds, i.e. Col 3 * Col 4.
Add Col 5 up and you get the total PL Win shown.
Subtract from 1 and you get the total PL Loss shown.
Subtract those two numbers to get the HA shown.
| 2 Dice | Combos | Odds | Win Odds | Comb Odds |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 1 | 0.027778 | 0 | 0 |
| 3 | 2 | 0.055556 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 3 | 0.083333 | 0.333333 | 0.027778 |
| 5 | 4 | 0.111111 | 0.400000 | 0.044444 |
| 6 | 5 | 0.138889 | 0.454545 | 0.063131 |
| 7 | 6 | 0.166667 | 1 | 0.166667 |
| 8 | 5 | 0.138889 | 0.454545 | 0.063131 |
| 9 | 4 | 0.111111 | 0.400000 | 0.044444 |
| 10 | 3 | 0.083333 | 0.333333 | 0.027778 |
| 11 | 2 | 0.055556 | 1 | 0.055556 |
| 12 | 1 | 0.027778 | 0 | 0 |
| PL Win | 0.492929 | |||
| PL Loss | 0.507071 | |||
| HA | -0.014141 |
If you'd like to examine the formulas I used, here's the Excel document:
Admin note: removed link to www.djteddybear.com/stuff/craps_calc_ha.xls
Quote: tuttigymFirst, while we are speculating because your set-up is wrong, the table has ten players which is very possible. All random shooters; so the SRR is 6.0. If there was between 45 seconds and one minute between rolls, it would take approximately 38 hours of continuous 24/7 play to complete the 495 PL outcomes.
Or even better: take all of the 158 craps table on the strip and record all of the results for a given Saturday and see how we do.
The odds of getting 244/495 come bets resolved to a win or more is 50%. the odds of geting 251/495 come bets resolved in a loss is also 50%.
Once again, someone, prove to me that the most probable outcome of 495 come out rolls is not 244 wins and 251 losses. Tell me that it's 241 wins, or 238 wins.
Equally, prove to me that the most probable outcome of four tosses of a coin is NOT 2 heads and 2 tails.
Quote: DJTeddyBearMaybe I can get to the bottom of this, and show how "3000 year old math" still applies....
If you'd like to examine the formulas I used, here's the Excel document:
Admin note: removed link to www.djteddybear.com/stuff/craps_calc_ha.xls
DJ, Excel did not exist 3,000 years ago, so this math does not apply!
tuttigym is Joe, everyone else is the BaseballProspectus/BillyBeane/OnBase% Intelligentsia.
ACT 1 Scene 1
tuttigym/Joe: Stolen Bases are great.
EveryoneElse: Not all the time, the reward doesn't always equal the risk.
tuttigym/Joe: Then why did Dave Roberts stolen base work in the '04 playoffs? The RedSox won the World Series because of that steal! Stolen Bases are great.
EveryoneElse: That's too small a sample size!
tuttigym/Joe: Great ballplayers don't care about sample sizes! Stolen Bases are great!
etc. etc. ad infinitum
Sure it does. They could have figured all that out using an abacus.Quote: boymimboDJ, Excel did not exist 3,000 years ago, so this math does not apply!Quote: DJTeddyBearMaybe I can get to the bottom of this, and show how "3000 year old math" still applies....
Quote: tuttigymMr. Shank: It is the simple math or arithmatic that should be the focus of the player. By showing or creating units is setting up confusion within the mindset of players. The greatest reason casino patrons shy away from the craps tables are their perception of multiple bets and the fast "action" surrounding the table play.
Women do not play and most others will not play because of the confusion the table cloth and the multiple bets. However, if I or you or anyone were explain the game and the simplicity of the math or arithmatic based only on wins vs losses, we can increase table population and play.[\q]
I don't understand your point, if any. The "perfect 495" or my "perfect 1980" is simple arithmetic. It doesn't matter whether you express it in units or in actual money amounts. I don't see what this has to do with multiple bets or the table cloth. We've been talking just about the pass/come.Quote: tuttigymIf novice players understand that for the most part the 7 is their enemy and can be overcome w/o your units and presses and sucker bets, they might indulge more and learn the more advanced methodology of the game later on.[\q]
Overcome how? As far as the passline is concerned, of course the seven is their friend on the comeout, then becomes the "enemy". I agree that this is confusing to novices; in fact, many advocates of place betting seem to ignore the big advantage a come bet has on its comeout roll.Quote: tuttigymOne cannot continue to state that the FO bet pays "true odds" on the one hand and then create a divisive and, yes, inaccurate statement that the "real" odds of losing is something other than the "true odds" payouts.[\q]
Huh? Do you know how to quote from a post. Please quote my statement to which you're responding here. I don't know what you're talking about.Quote: tuttigymSo guess what, when the Wizard or any of you proponents of the "units" method of calculation of winning and losing states something other than the "true odds," you are just plain WRONG.
Heresy, not really. It is simplicity and truth. Deal with it.
tuttigym
What do you think the actual house advantage is on the pass, by the way? And how do you derive it?
Cheers,
Alan ShankCheers, Alan Shank "How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
Quote: tuttigymgoatcabin: If you put 28 players at 28 tables there odds of success would still be 96.5% against each one. Your analogy or plan would fail. Your speculations as to the success of one of the 28 is just that spectulation.
You are defining "success", apparently, as coming out exactly 244-251, i.e. losing 7 units. As far as I know, that is not the goal of any player. You are still hopelessly confused over the mean of the 1.4%; it is NOT A PREDICTION of any single decision or series of decisions, yet you persist in interpreting it as such.
Quote: tuttigymYou can continue to show your mathematical gymnastics and gyrations, but you cannot provide any such documentations or real proof. All you are doing is obviscating what is:
A FALSE PROMISE -- 49% EXPECTED WINS VS 51% AGAINST EXPECTED LOSSES (rounded off)
As far as I know, no such experiment has been conducted, so no documentation is available. Have you ever heard of the concept of a "thought experiment"? Albert Einstein used thought experiments to come up with his theories of relativity, I believe. The 28 players at 28 tables is a thought experiment.
OK, what do you believe is the probability of winning any given passline bet? I'm interested to hear your idea on this.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: tuttigymMosca: I will show you my perpetual motion machine when you provide the actual data and documentation that the perfect 495, i.e., 244/251 has been achieved.
What you seem to be missing here is the fact that I know how the 1.41% HA is calculated, and I know that the 244/251 "perfect math" can happen somehow, but that the liklihood of such is so remote as to provide a false promise of reality.
You may know how it is calculated, but you don't understand what it MEANS. Not only that, but you seem to believe that a probability of .035 is a "remote likelihood", whereas it converts to odds against of under 28 to 1.
Quote: tuttigymSo remember when you "teach" your children or grand children the game of craps, and you tell them that the PL/FO bets are the best opportunities to win, make sure to tell them that the 1.41% HA is based on a mathematical calculation that is 96.5% against the reality of ever happening at any time. I am sure that those youngsters will run not walk to the nearest exit.tuttigym
More utter confusion, tutti. The probability of any SINGLE session of 495 passline decisions coming out 244-251 is .0358. The probability of it "ever happening at any time" is about the same as the probability that the sun will come up again tomorrow. By the way, you seem to accept the .035 figure; do you know that it is based on the probability of a passline bet being won of .492929? Whoops!! >:-)
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: tuttigymThird, JB, in general terms, what is the liklihood that any given set of 495 PL outcomes will have wins in excess of 251 - very unlikely; somewhat unlikely; likely; somewhat likely; or
very likely??
The probability of more than 251 wins in 495 passline bets, i.e. 252 or more wins, is .25; the probability of exactly 252 wins is just .0277, which, by the way, is the same as the probability of any hardway dice combination, 1/36.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: cclub79I can't believe this is still raging.
from Wikipedia: "In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."
Among the characteristics of trolls is that they do not present any rational argument of their own.
I asked tuttigym to post his/her belief in the probability of winning any given passline bet. I also ask him/her to answer these questions:
Do you consider it impossible for a player to win one passline bet, and hence be ahead?
Do you consider it impossible for a player to win two of three passline bets, and hence be ahead.
...
...
At what number of bets do you believe it is not possible for a player to still be ahead.
And, finally, what do you believe is the MOST LIKELY outcome for a player making 495 passline bets. Please also provide a rational for your answer.
Thanks,
Alan Shank
Quote: goatcabin
And, finally, what do you believe is the MOST LIKELY outcome for a player making 495 passline bets. Please also provide a rational for your answer.
Thanks,
Alan Shank
I can tell you right now, tg's answer is going to be, "All the outcomes that are not 244/251."
tuttigym
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymMosca: Almost everywhere I have played, the dice land on the wrong side or upside down, sometimes in the chip trays or against a stack of chips that are wagers on their corners or they actually lean on an edge. However, I am told that some casinos will not allow such and shelter their patrons from the obscene characteristics as above. You must be a visitor to those "G" rated casinos, and that is a good thing.
tuttigym
And so that means that they will not probably land on a face, because sometimes they don't? 3000 years of dice being rolled says that they will probably land on a face (unless you are a dice setter and can make them land on an edge or an axis, whereupon all probabilities are off).
The Wizard is a math professor; maybe he could get some students to do the charting and give us all the results and give the students an "A" for their trouble.
tuttigym
Quote: DJTeddyBearSure it does. They could have figured all that out using an abacus.Quote: boymimboDJ, Excel did not exist 3,000 years ago, so this math does not apply!Quote: DJTeddyBearMaybe I can get to the bottom of this, and show how "3000 year old math" still applies....
Just joking, DJ. The point is that you'll have to prove your theory using math that existed 3,000 years ago. Perhaps you could post an video of you demonstrating your "theory" on an abacus. Wait a second: videos certainly didn't exist 3,000 years ago and neither did the internet for that matter. :)
Quote: tuttigymdarnits: I am an old, short, fat, dumpy, guy who does not have 30 years left, and who has better things to do with my time than to chart PL outcomes in groups of 495. Perhaps you could entice the government to give an endowment or grant to do the study to some Ph.D candidate for the completed research. Otherwise, your suggestion is beyond off the wall.
The Wizard is a math professor; maybe he could get some students to do the charting and give us all the results and give the students an "A" for their trouble.
tuttigym
I wasn't necessarily saying you had to it. Let a casino chart each of 495 PL outcomes and then take 10,000 of those experiments and the averages will be around 245/251.
It seems you just want to find excuses to not accept any scenario given to you and not give any mathematical or statistical proof for your excuses.
JB came up with the 3.5% which is what I have been referring to. I did not say that I accepted that calculation, but it does convey how remote the possibilities are of the perfect 495. To toss a 12 or 2 or a Hard number is a 36 to 1 shot, so I have a real problem wraping my arms around a 28 to 1 shot with 495 possible outcomes. Look at it this way, in the infiniteness of time, it could be possible to have 494 winners vs one loser, right? What did Einstein call it, "thought......" something or another? So to put the other comment to rest about the 49 vs 51 -- for me, that is also a false premise giving rise to the false promise of the same 1.41% HA.
tuttigym
see page here
And,
A system that will give the player a 5 to 1 advantage... WOW.
tuttigym:
"My book is a non-fiction book about the game of craps. It is intended for those who already know how to play. As a niche book, it will have limited appeal however, its message is about the mathematics of the game and how players can create betting schemes that will provide them with up to a 5 to 1 edge over the house on any given roll of the dice.
"The player is treated like an athlete and must practice the skills of betting so that when at the tables, like an athlete, his moves become natural and automatic."
see page here
Quote: MoscaApparently this has bothered you for a while...
see page here
And,
A system that will give the player a 5 to 1 advantage... WOW.
tuttigym:
"My book is a non-fiction book about the game of craps. It is intended for those who already know how to play. As a niche book, it will have limited appeal however, its message is about the mathematics of the game and how players can create betting schemes that will provide them with up to a 5 to 1 edge over the house on any given roll of the dice.
"The player is treated like an athlete and must practice the skills of betting so that when at the tables, like an athlete, his moves become natural and automatic."
see page here
As was said a few pages ago...it seems like sevenshooter all over again! haha
I do admit to some extraeous comments wrapped in some sarcasm, but only because of comments about the "3000 years" of craps something or another. I have offered some "humor," such as it is, to keep things a little light.
I have really not been "off-topic" in that the centerpiece of this thread is the 1.41% HA.
The only thing I seem to be disrupting, and it is not the topic, is the status quo and maybe some thoughts about this game that should create some doubts about how one wagers and loses more often than wins in more disproportionate numbers than the 1.41% HA on PL outcomes.
Now to answer those pesky questions:
1. Winning PL bets along with their FO partners is just simple arithmetic and players actually win some of those bets.
Come Out naturals - one roll - Player advantage 2 to 1 or 8 ways to win and 4 ways to lose.
Point Conversions - players actually win these bets too and with the added bonus of the FO play.
6 or 8 -- five ways to win and six ways to lose - HA or edge is 16 2/3%
5 or 9 -- four ways to win and six ways to lose - HA or edge is 33%
4 or 10 -- three ways to win and six ways to lose - HA or edge is at 50% or 2 to 1.
Notice here I deal only with the simplicity of the math and the consistency of winning and losing based not on probabilities or odds, but strictly on the unforgiving reality of what I might be faced with as a player at the table. For me, the PL/FO bets offer the short end of the stick, and to wager 5X or more on one number when the percentages, which renew with every new point, are so strong against me as a player makes no real sense.
Questions 2 & 3 are basically the same about winning multiple times and getting ahead: Absolutely yes. The problem: craps players have a mind set that they must play every point with every shooter, and they play the same way virtually every time. The only way they win with PL/FO is with the OCCASIONAL "hot" shooter converting multiple points and throwing lots of numbers w/o a quick 7 out. They fall into a casino and craps trap that says if you play the PL you MUST also wager that FO to get that big win. It just does NOT happen often enough to get ahead and stay there. The simplistic math above absolutely reeks havoc with the bankroll.
tuttigym
Very professional and pretty chart. Does Mr. Excel toss the dice with his right or left hand?
Do you suppose that a casino manager would allow someone to review all the video recordings for a given period of time of craps play in order to chart the PL outcomes? Probably not.
tuttigym
