The hoax that is the 1.41% house advantage on pass line bets
Quote: tuttigymYou all seem to have such negative replies because you are so heavily invested in the PL/FO strategies.
Try this as it happens most times and that is why the false premise.
Player A puts $10 on the PL; shooter comes out with a 9; A FO bet of $50 plus $12 on each of the 6 and 8.
Player B (after the point is established) wagers $64 across the board including the point.
Shooter then tosses: 5; 6; 10; 8; 7 out
Player A wins $28 on the 6 & 8 and then loses all the bets still on the table - net loss $56.00
Player B wins $60 on the 5; 6; 8; & 10 and loses the bets on the table - net loss $4.00.
tuttigym
I ran some simulations to compare PL/FO with tuttigym's idea of placing all the point numbers. For the PL/FO, I did $10 flat bet, taking 3, 4, 5X odds, which results in an average bet of about $38. I ran two sets of three different simulations with place bets:
$64 across
$44 inside and buy 4 and 10 for $20 each (assumed vig paid only on win)
$38 across, to decrease the bet handle, and hence the "risk of ruin"
In one set, winning place bets were not replaced; in the other they were.
In each simulation, the session ended after 60 passline bets had been resolved. The bankrolls were all $500, and the session was ended and considered a "bust" if less than $40 remained. I ran 10,000 sessions for each scenario, and seeded the random-number generator with the same seed for each scenario. For the set in which winning place bets were NOT replaced, here's how they came out:
| parameter | PL/FO | $64 across | $44 inside+buy | $38 across |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| avg. num. rolls | 187 | 195 | 184 | 202 |
| avg. num. bets | 55 | 178 | 167 | 184 |
| avg. bet handle | $2090 | $1903 | $2326 | $1176 |
| avg. net result | -$7 | -$71 | -$48 | -$39 |
| median net result | -$10 | -$72 | -$62 | -$41 |
| mode of net result | -$485 | -$460 | -$480 | -$68 |
| standard deviation | $365 | $265 | $355 | $163 |
| avg. house advantage | .33% | 3.7% | 2.1% | 3.3% |
| winning sessions | 4864 | 3919 | 4366 | 4023 |
| breakeven sessions | 101 | 28 | 12 | 24 |
| losing sessions | 5035 | 6053 | 5622 | 5953 |
| number of busts | 2082 | 1246 | 2385 | 85 |
| lost more than $250 | 2898 | 2677 | 3316 | 954 |
| lost more than $100 | 4139 | 4571 | 4592 | 3515 |
| won more than $100 | 3827 | 2646 | 3372 | 2006 |
| won more than $250 | 2457 | 1196 | 2131 | 375 |
| won more than $500 | 890 | 158 | 723 | 3 |
| won more than $1000 | 45 | 0 | 36 | 0 |
| biggest win | $1310 | $968 | $1721 | $563 |
Not replacing winning place bets lowers the total amount bet, of course, so only the scenario with the buy bets exceeded the PL/FO in average total bet handle for a session. Those two scenarios had roughly equal volatility (SDs of $355 or more), and each had a significant (over 20%) risk of losing all or almost all of the $500 bankroll. However, each also had a much lower average loss than $64 across and a much better chance of coming out ahead. This is due to the lower house advantage and the higher volatility. Note, also, that the PL/FO significantly out-performed the place/buy strategy in average loss, house advantage and percentage of winning sessions. The $38 across strategy almost eliminated the chance of busting, but still had a higher average loss than PL/FO, despite a much lower bet handle, due to the HA being ten times higher.
Now let's compare the PL/FO with the place scenarios in which winning place bets were replaced, which is actually what tuttigym proposed:
| parameter | PL/FO | $64 across | $44 inside+buy | $38 across |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| avg. num. rolls | 187 | 189 | 174 | 202 |
| avg. num. bets | 55 | 221 | 204 | 236 |
| avg. bet handle | $2090 | $2371 | $2818 | $1529 |
| avg. net result | -$7 | -$88 | -$62 | -$51 |
| median net result | -$10 | -$104 | -$122 | -$57 |
| mode of net result | -$485 | -$476 | -$490 | -$ 5 |
| standard deviation | $365 | $314 | $415 | $199 |
| avg. house advantage | .33% | 3.7% | 2.2% | 3.3% |
| winning sessions | 4864 | 3804 | 4088 | 3882 |
| breakeven sessions | 101 | 23 | 7 | 25 |
| losing sessions | 5035 | 6173 | 5905 | 6093 |
| number of busts | 2082 | 2129 | 3275 | 247 |
| lost more than $250 | 2898 | 3456 | 4119 | 1585 |
| lost more than $100 | 4139 | 5027 | 5134 | 4142 |
| won more than $100 | 3827 | 2730 | 3342 | 2205 |
| won more than $250 | 2457 | 1499 | 2283 | 698 |
| won more than $500 | 890 | 437 | 1083 | 52 |
| won more than $1000 | 45 | 9 | 129 | 0 |
| biggest win | $1310 | $1510 | $1990 | $722 |
Since all the sessions were stopped after 60 passline bets were resolved, they represent about the same amount of time for each strategy; by replacing winning place bets, tuttigym actually ends up betting more per session than PL/FO player, with a corresponding increase in expected loss and probability of busting.
Rather than look at a particular sequence of rolls, as tuttigym did in his post, where the $64 across lost just $4 and the PL/FO $56, or my sequence, where the PL/FO bettor won $95 while the place bettor had no action, this simulation is unbiased, taking into account a huge sample of all the possible outcomes and providing a picture of their distribution. It provides the same kind of information relative to possible session outcomes as we have relative to dice outcomes and bet outcomes. Compare:
| dice | pass bet | place bet 6 | PL scenario |
|---|---|---|---|
| p(7)=.1667 | p(CO win)=.2222 | p(win) =.4545 | p(bust)=.2082 |
| p(6)=.1389 | p(craps) =.1111 | P(lose)=.5454 | p(lose >$250=.2898 |
| p(5)=.1111 | p(win 6)=.0631 | p(lose >$100=.4139 | |
| p(4)=.0833 | p(lose 6)=.0758 | p(win >$100)=.3827 | |
| p(3)=.0556 | p(win 5)=.0444 | p(win >$250)=.2457 | |
| p(2)=.0278 | p(lose 5)=.0667 | p(win >$500)=.0890 | |
| p(win 4)=.0278 | p(win>$1000)=.0045 | ||
| p(lose 4)=.0556 | p(ahead) =.4864 | ||
| p(win) =.4929 | p(behind)=.5035 | ||
| p(lose) =.5071 | p(even) =.0101 |
Most players who walk up to the table have the info in the first column, and many grasp the next two, but how many people have any more than the vaguest idea of what their next session has in store for them, in terms of probable outcomes?
Does that information make one a "winner"? Of course not. Does knowing the dice probabilities tell you what the next roll will be? Of course not. Tuttigym calls the 1.4% HA a "false promise", but it is not a promise at all, any more than the 11.1% probability of a craps on the comeout is a "promise" that it won't happen. You can draw a picture of the "dice pyramid" and know which outcomes are more probable; when you throw the dice, they "select" for you a sample from that distribution. WinCraps draws you a picture of the information in the fourth column, so you can visualize the distribution of outcomes; when you play the session, the dice "select" for you one of those outcomes.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: RaleighCrapsQuote: goatcabin
Let's define "hot" and "cold", so we all know what we're talking about. Which definition is closer to what you mean?
1. A "hot" table is one where the last (insert some number) of post-comeout rolls has had relatively few sevens and lots of point numbers, resulting in long rolls for all or most shooters.
2. A "hot" table is one where the last (insert some number) of post-comeout rolls has had relatively few sevens and lots of point numbers, resulting in long rolls for all or most shooters, and there is some reason to believe that this condition will continue into the future.
.
.
.
A "hot" table has no guarantee of continued "heat", nor does it imply that the table is "due" to turn cold. People are very good at detecting patterns in data; too good.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
I define a "hot" table as one that is very favorable to the right side players.
Does that mean you believe the TABLE is somehow more conducive to rolling point numbers than to sevens? IOW, do you believe the probabilities are different at this "hot table"?
Quote: RaleighCrapsA shooter who makes 3 or 4 points, is "hot", even if they did it in as few as 12 rolls and then 7 out. A shooter who makes no point, but executes 30 rolls is also "hot". Even though my PL/FO bet lost, the money made from place/buy bets means a positive outcome.
From a purely arithmetical perspective, past rolls have no bearing on future outcomes. And I am sure we all have seen one shooter throw for 20 minutes, and then the next one 7 outs on the first roll of the point. But, my experience has been that it generally doesn't end that quickly, and the next shooter gets a couple of points, or at least hits enough place/buy bets to break even on the roll.
No offense, but your experience is next to worthless, as is mine, in drawing a general conclusion about this issue.
Quote: RaleighCrapsI have observed the following over my last 9 craps trips (each trip lasts 2 to 7 days, and I will average 4 to 7 hours a day). EVERY trip I have been at the tables when there has been a "hot" streak, meaning 5 or more shooters out of 8 have had exceptional rolls. On the trips where I have come out ahead, I have been actively playing when that streak occurs. On the trips I have lost money, I have usually been getting killed and have already dropped into some ultra-conservative mode (no PL - only place 6/8,,, or only PL/some odds, and no other bets), and thus missed out on the majority of the roll, and the chance to heal my bankroll. The continued bleeding eventually breaks my bankroll.
You have to understand that hot and cold streaks are bound to happen, just as "choppy" periods are bound to happen. Probability predicts that they will happen, just not when. The fact that they do happen is not evidence that the probabilities change. Ask yourself, "how would that happen?" "How would it change?"
Quote: RaleighCrapsI realize there is no science to back this up, but the alternative is to concede to the fact that the house has an unbeatable edge that can never be overcome, and this is all futile. That is just too depressing to even consider. Instead, I believe that all of my sessions are just a blip on that long time frame that is required for the statistical averages to work out, so because I am dealing with short time frames, any outcome is possible.
Your last statement is correct, but it is not dependent on any nonsense about "hot" tables. The house has an edge, but in craps it is quite small, and can definitely be overcome for a session, even many sessions, even a lifetime's play. Variance makes this possible. When you bet, you are buying variance from the casino, and, in general, the more variance you buy, the more it costs. That is why the proposition bets have such high HAs, the pass bet the lowest.
Examine those results I posted for you. Note how many sessions came out ahead? How did that happen? "Hot streaks." I promise you that the probabilities in WinCraps do not change, yet hot and cold streaks occur, just like in the casino.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
This trip was NOT a success for me. There were five sessions of craps played. I lost in three of them which overcame the wins established in the winning sessions. The totality of losses were in the range of $650 net. I had a great time and watched all around me lose also. The tables were so very choppy that one could not build on any wins, so that when anyone got ahead their re-emergence into the game created enough losing points to take away from the short lived victories.
I decided to take the dice in hand one time (I usually do not toss). I wanted to run my own 1.41% PL/FO test and do 495 PL outcomes. I was the only shooter (real early in the a.m. and no one at the table but me). My first seven points were quickly turned into 7 outs. I knew I had the casino by the b.....s. And lo and behold the next 244 PL outcomes were winners. There is a new casino owner now. Just kidding!!!!
Alan, could you do the math as you showed with the 285/210 using the figure of 270 wins vs 225 losses? The calculations you posted on the 285/210 are absolutely mind numbing, and I will comment later.
When I get back at it a little later, I will comment on some other posts.
tuttigym
And tutti..before you question my manhood...don't.
Quote: joenunzI enjoy reading the knowledgeable posts on this site but I cannot take the pandering to the nonsense postings of fools like sevenshooter and tuttigym. My wish is that the smart folks stop responding to these trollish losers...
And tutti..before you question my manhood...don't.
What a wonderful contribution you have made, joenunz, not only to the thread itself, but to the distinguished fields of logic, math and science alike. I'm sure the forum wouldn't be quite the same without the presence of your profoundly insightful commentary.
Explain patiently, over and over, until it makes sense.
Systems are systems. They are all losers according to the math. That doesn't mean you won't be a net winner; it just means they will all lose over time. Call it luck, call it whatever...some will do better than others...
If someone is truly and "Advantage Player" and can actually control the dice even enough to negate the house advantage, more power to them. There is no need to be nasty; some just doubt that anyone has that skill enough to make it pay off. A 1% advantage on a $162 spread over 60 rolls is about $97...but you could lose all of that pretty easily if you lost concentration, etc.
I just go to the casino to have fun. Sometimes I win big, sometimes I win little, sometimes I lose little, and I will continue to refrain from losing big!!
Have fun out there!!
I get the $64 across, as well as the $44 inside with buy, but I don't get the $38 across. I suppose you selected $38 to match the PL/FO average, but how did you spread it? I gotta assume you used non-standard units....Quote: goatcabinI ran some simulations to compare PL/FO with tuttigym's idea of placing all the point numbers. For the PL/FO, I did $10 flat bet, taking 3, 4, 5X odds, which results in an average bet of about $38. I ran two sets of three different simulations with place bets:
$64 across
$44 inside and buy 4 and 10 for $20 each (assumed vig paid only on win)
$38 across, to decrease the bet handle, and hence the "risk of ruin"
On a side note, in your tables, you used [ col ] tags. Those produce those harsh, bold, yellow on black cells. They're fine for headings, but not for the entire table. [ dat ] tags produce the more eye-pleasing black on beige cells. (Note: Spaces added to prevent the forum software from interpreting the text as tags.)
Quote: tuttigymGoat:
Alan, could you do the math as you showed with the 285/210 using the figure of 270 wins vs 225 losses? The calculations you posted on the 285/210 are absolutely mind numbing, and I will comment later.
tuttigym
The probability of exactly 270 wins in 495 passline decisions is .00234. The probability of 270 OR MORE wins is .01092, so the probability of FEWER than 270 wins is .98908.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: DJTeddyBearI kinda lost interest in this thread, but something caught my eye (in addition to the garish colors of the tables).
I get the $64 across, as well as the $44 inside with buy, but I don't get the $38 across. I suppose you selected $38 to match the PL/FO average, but how did you spread it? I gotta assume you used non-standard units....Quote: goatcabinI ran some simulations to compare PL/FO with tuttigym's idea of placing all the point numbers. For the PL/FO, I did $10 flat bet, taking 3, 4, 5X odds, which results in an average bet of about $38. I ran two sets of three different simulations with place bets:
$64 across
$44 inside and buy 4 and 10 for $20 each (assumed vig paid only on win)
$38 across, to decrease the bet handle, and hence the "risk of ruin"
The $38 across was using $12 on the 8, minimums on the other points, as you surmised, to match the PL/FO average. I should have clarified that. Thanks.
Quote: DJTeddyBearOn a side note, in your tables, you used [ col ] tags. Those produce those harsh, bold, yellow on black cells. They're fine for headings, but not for the entire table. [ dat ] tags produce the more eye-pleasing black on beige cells. (Note: Spaces added to prevent the forum software from interpreting the text as tags.)
OK, I will try that in the future. Again, thanks.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
(1) The House Advantage is indeed a measure of the outcome of a bet based on random dice over infinite numbers of occurrences. This has been proven over and over again my math and through simulations that Mr. Shank has graciously provided. The best bets are those with the lowest house advantage.
(2) Hot streaks and cold streaks do indeed exist as part of the random flow of the dice. However, you never know when a cold streak will start or when a hot streak will end. Therefore, when you put the money down on the table, your expected loss is the dollars bet times the house advantage. Period. This has been proven once again by math and by simulations.
(3) There is no system that exists that will overcome the house edge given a random shooter and a random set of dice.
My advice is that you take out what you can afford, have fun, and play in a manner that's comfortable to you with the betting system (the mix of bet size, house advantage, and volatility) that makes you happy. Hope that a hot streak that is advantageous to your betting system hits when you're betting. A $1 hard 6 or 8 has the same expected loss as a $6 6 or 8 with 6 times the house advantage but with alot more volatility. Backing up a $10 pass line bet with max odds eight carries an expected loss of $.14 which is about the same expected loss of betting $12 on the six or eight ($.18) but with alot more volatility.
Quote: MoscaI have taken the opportunity to mock some of the ideas posted, but I'm not interested in attacking the posters. tuttigym and sevenshooter seem to me to be sincere. The only way to counter bad science is with good science. Attacking the people just makes enemies.
Explain patiently, over and over, until it makes sense.
Bad "science"? Mosca, I appreciate your view that they seem sincere, and I apologize for offending anyone, but their "science" seems like "I can make 2+2=5 because I said so!"
As for "explaining patiently, over and over"...yeesh! That's what I do when I help my 9 year old with his homework...
Quote: joenunzQuote: MoscaI have taken the opportunity to mock some of the ideas posted, but I'm not interested in attacking the posters. tuttigym and sevenshooter seem to me to be sincere. The only way to counter bad science is with good science. Attacking the people just makes enemies.
Explain patiently, over and over, until it makes sense.
Bad "science"? Mosca, I appreciate your view that they seem sincere, and I apologize for offending anyone, but their "science" seems like "I can make 2+2=5 because I said so!"
As for "explaining patiently, over and over"...yeesh! That's what I do when I help my 9 year old with his homework...
Yeah, I know. I agree; I've stated the exact same in this thread, that tuttigym's entire argument boils down to, "Because I say so."
But since everyone keeps answering, I have to figure that they're getting something out of it, too. People post on forums for their own reasons, not for others' reasons. I think the math folks are offended by the impurity of tg's and ss's arithmetic, and reply with pure incontrovertible mathematical truth; out, damn spot! That should have worked, and I'm surprised it didn't. I've taken some decent swings at the logic, mostly because we've been slow at work and I felt like constructing some rebuttals but don't have the math skills to do it that way and anyhow I'd just be repeating the established points (hehe)... But still, no need to revile a guy for not getting it. Revile his ideas, not him.
Your calculation for 270 wins vs 225 losses shows that there is a 99+% against this occurrance or a 1% chance of this outcome happening? Is that about correct? Can you tell us how many sets of 495, as above, would give us that 99.5% chance of experiencing the 270/225 ratio?
Thanks again.
tuttigym
If so, and if you have the time and/or inclination, I would like to propose an experiment.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymAlan: In the example of 285/210, you stated that it would require 17,403 sets of 495 to have a 99.5% chance of experiencing 285 wins vs 210 losses or, somewhere within the 17, 403 sets of 495, one could have a 99.5% chance of having 285 win vs 210 losses. Is that correct?
No, I said that it would require 17,403 sets of 495 passline decisions for there to be a .5 (50%) probability of getting a session of 285 wins, 210 losses. To get a 99.5% chance (probability of .995) of getting a 285-210 session would require over 133,000 sets of 495.
Quote: tuttigymYour calculation for 270 wins vs 225 losses shows that there is a 99+% against this occurrence or a 1% chance of this outcome happening? Is that about correct? Can you tell us how many sets of 495, as above, would give us that 99.5% chance of experiencing the 270/225 ratio?
tuttigym
No, you mis-quote me again. I said there is a 0.233% chance of getting EXACTLY 270 wins in 495 passline decisions; the chance of getting 270 OR MORE wins is 1.09%, because there are non-zero probabilities of sessions with more than 270 wins.
So, it would take 296 sets of 495 passline decisions to have a 50% chance of getting one at exactly 270-225, but 2264 sets to get a 99.5% chance of having one occur. For 270 OR MORE wins, it takes just 63 trials for a 50% chance, 483 for a 99.5% chance.
Keep in mind that a 99.5% chance is not the same as a certainty; a probability of .005 is only 199-to-1 against, in terms of odds. Would you want to fly if every 200th flight crashed? >:-)
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: tuttigymAlan: How sophisticated is the Smart Craps program? Suppose one wanted to, for simplicity sake, maintain the exact same bets but change from right side to dark side after a loss on the opposite side bet and maintain that the bet until there was a loss. Could Smart Craps do that?
If so, and if you have the time and/or inclination, I would like to propose an experiment.
tuttigym
It's WinCraps, not Smart Craps. Check it out at www.cloudcitysoftware.com.
That would be "child's play" for WinCraps. You can program just about anything you can think up, as long as you actually understand your own system, which I find lots of people do not.
So, propose your experiment.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
tuttigym
Buy in is $5,000 ( This is an arbitrary amount for the purpose of executing 10,000 POINT CONVERSIONS or 7 outs )
Every Come Out roll bet $10 PL AND $10 Don't Pass
If there is a natural winner or loser, just replace the bets; if a 12 shows just replace the bet.
After the point is established (any point) lay $60 odds on the DP.
If there is a 7 out, take the win and start again and repeat ($60 lay) until there is a point conversion.
After the point conversion, the next point the bet will be a FO for $60. Continue to play the FO as long as points are converted. Once there is a 7 out, then go back to the lay of $60 on the next point.
The lay bets or the FO bets are to continue as long as the string stays in tact. Once the string is broken, the bet then goes to the other side.
I hope that I have made myself clear. If there are any questions, please ask and I will try to clarify to your satisfaction.
tuttigym
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymAlan: I am NOT "mis-quoting" you; I am asking for clarifications so that your calculations are completely understood. Please note the question marks after each request. I am not in a pissing contest with you. I am exacting responses that will give me clarity and education.
tuttigym
OK, but why don't you quote my post to which you're responding? It clearly says: "The 17,403 is the number of sets of 495 passline decisions that have to take place before there is a .5 probability (50% chance) that one of those sets came out 285-210."
When you go to respond, click the "Quote" button instead of the "Reply" button.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: tuttigymAlan: Your Post 55 has provided some rather large numbers to create exact winning PL outcomes at the 99.5% level. However, I do not believe there has been a similar recitation for the 244/251 outcome other than the 28 to 1 odds (96.5 against) offered by JB. So could you state the number of sets of 495 necessary to reach the original objective at the 99.5% level of certainty (not the 50% level)?
tuttigym
OK, I will demonstrate how this is done.
First, the probability of an event NOT occurring is equal to 1.0 minus the probability of it occurring. Second, probabilities are expressed in decimal form between 0.0 (impossible) and 1.0 (certainty), but can be converted to percentage by multiplying by 100. So, a probability of .995 is the same as a 99.5% chance.
So, the probability of getting exactly 244 wins in 495 passline decisions is .035847716. That means that the probability of this NOT occurring is 1 - .035847716 = .964152284.
Now, the more trials one runs, the higher the probability of any given outcome occurring. The way to figure how many trials are necessary for there to be a 50% chance of something occurring is to figure the cumulative probability of it NOT occurring until that is reduced to 50% (.5). If we know the probability of an event in one trial, we calculate its probability in multiple trials by raising the one-event probability to the power of the number of trials. For example:
p(heads on flip of fair coin) = .5 (50%)
p(two heads in a row) = .5^2 = .25 (25%)
p(four heads in a row) = .5^4 = .0625 (6.25%)
So, we want to know how many trials it takes to reduce the probability of 244/251 NOT occurring down to .5.
Let n equal the power to which we raise .964152284
.964152284^n = .5
We take the base 10 logarithm of each side of the equation:
log(.964152284^n) = log(.5)
The "power rule" gives us:
n * log(.964152284) = log(.5)
Dividing both sides of the equation by log(.964152284) gives us:
n = log(.5) / log(.964152284)
n = -.30103 / -.01585 = 18.98720
So, if we run 19 trials of 495 passline decisions, we have just over a 50% chance of getting one of exactly 244-251.
But you asked for 99.5%. If the probability of getting 244-251 is .995, then the probability of NOT getting it is .005, right? So, we have to solve for .005.
n = log(.005) / log(.964152284) = -2.30103 / -.01585 = 145.13542
To test our result, we raise .964152284 to the power of 146 = .004845.
So, if we ran 146 trials of 495 passline decisions, we'd have a 99.5% chance of getting at least one with exactly 244-251.
Once again, I caution you about equating a 99.5% chance with "certainty"; that's only 199 to 1 against something NOT occurring. It only takes 138 trials to get a 50% chance of an event with a probability of .005 occurring, or an event with a probability of .995 NOT occurring.
Hope this helps.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
I should apologize for not reading your previous posts more carefully. I did go back and re-read them and noticed that what you had stated just did not register. I also recognize that the .995 does leave the miniscule possibility of the 1/2 point of occurance.
tuttigym
I intend to go back through this thread and make some individual responses. My particular bias against the PL/FO bets has been actually reinforced by the entries of JB and Alan Shank (Gee what a surprise). I am sure that for most if not all, being heavily invested in the PL/FO strategy will not change, but perhaps you now have a better mathematical view and understanding of what I believe to be a "flawed premise" (not a hoax) and the "false promise" of the 1.41% HA of the PL wager.
Specifically:
1. The 1.41% HA based on what I have called the "Rule of 495" will occur only 3.5% of the time
(courtesy of JB). The probability of 96.5% against the proposition of 1.41% happening actually reappears with every roll of the dice since play at any given table is a continuous running 495.
My simplistic sense of winning or losing just will not allow me to risk wagers that are always on the short end of the 7.
2. Alan stated that that there is a 99.5% chance the 1.41% HA would occur with "146 trials of 495 decisions." I believe in his formula and superior math skills to the point that such a wager for the purposes of consistent winning will not happen.
3. Alan then showed that a ratio of 285 wins vs 210 losses could be close to impossible of happening. His math disclosed that it would take 133,000 sets of 495 for the 99.5% "certainty" (my word not his) to achieve 285 wins. The simple math of the 285 wins over the base number of 244 wins is a modest 16.8%. What I inferred was that winning at the rate of only 16.8% of PL outcomes cannot happen with the very least amount of consistency.
4. 270 wins vs 225 losses or a very modest 10% over the 244 basis was also a considerable longshot at 2264 sets of 495 PL decisions for that 99.5% "certainty."
5. It has been stated over and over again in many ways that the 1.41% HA is just an average based on millions of rolls and points and PL outcomes. The 495 is just a number that is the smallest common denominator for the all the ways points can be made. The math does not lie and on and on. Apparently for many or most the 1.41% HA is "reliable" and offers the best chance for success because it IS so low. But for me, Alan and JB have proved how flawed the premise and how false the promise.
Those are some of my conclusions; I am sure there will be descent, and that is okay.
tuttigym
I don't get it. What is false? That the house advantage is not 1.41%?
For me, when I gamble, and when we all gamble, knowing the house advantage gives us a measure of the chance of success. Over time, you will be more successful at a game that has an minimal expected loss. At craps, that bet is the Pass line at 1.41% with an expected loss of $.14 / $10 bet. If I knew that I was going to lose $.14 / $10 bet then I wouldn't go to the casino at all! I go hoping that the variance will swing in my favor.
Your expected loss at a pass line with any Free Odds is still $.14 on a $10 PL bet, $.18 on a $12 six or eight, $.40 on a $10 5 or 9, and $.67 on a $10 4 or 10. That's the odds that are quite calculable. That's the definition of odds. That doesn't mean you will have that experience when you go to the casino... quite the contrary.
I don't get surprised when I go to the casino and bet 100 $10 pass line bets and come down $200 instead of $14.14 as I should.
Quote: tuttigymMy particular bias against the PL/FO bets has been actually reinforced by the entries of JB and Alan Shank (Gee what a surprise). I am sure that for most if not all, being heavily invested in the PL/FO strategy will not change, but perhaps you now have a better mathematical view and understanding of what I believe to be a "flawed premise" (not a hoax) and the "false promise" of the 1.41% HA of the PL wager.... [F]or me, Alan and JB have proved how flawed the premise and how false the promise.
If this is the case, then you really do not understand. I have the exact same mathematical view I've had from the beginning, which has been pounded repeatedly by everyone here but you; that in the short term the bets with the best chance to overcome the relentless onslaught of the odds are the PL/FO, because of the low house edge to be bucked. And I think everyone else holds the same view, too.
Quote: tuttigymSpecifically:
(much incomprehensible nonsense deleted for brevity's sake)
tuttigym
tuttigym. I think you are a good guy, and I would probably have a great time shooting dice at the same table with you. But frankly, everything that you wrote is irrelevant. It's like saying that an airplane can't fly because it's so heavy and its wings don't flap. That is all true; it is heavy, its wings don't flap... look up and see airplanes. The only thing that matters is the math; the odds and the edge. What the long term results tell you is what the best chance for a favorable short term result will be. Look at it this way: every new roll starts another set of 495. They all overlap. You can't pick and choose. Using your logic, taking one set of 495 to make a decision will mean that a different set of 495 is giving you a different decision.
Everything that ISN'T PL/FO is less likely to occur, regardless of what 495 you pick.
Quote: boymimboTutti:
I don't get it. What is false? That the house advantage is not 1.41%?
For me, when I gamble, and when we all gamble, knowing the house advantage gives us a measure of the chance of success. Over time, you will be more successful at a game that has an minimal expected loss. At craps, that bet is the Pass line at 1.41% with an expected loss of $.14 / $10 bet. If I knew that I was going to lose $.14 / $10 bet then I wouldn't go to the casino at all! I go hoping that the variance will swing in my favor.
Your expected loss at a pass line with any Free Odds is still $.14 on a $10 PL bet, $.18 on a $12 six or eight, $.40 on a $10 5 or 9, and $.67 on a $10 4 or 10. That's the odds that are quite calculable. That's the definition of odds. That doesn't mean you will have that experience when you go to the casino... quite the contrary.
I don't get surprised when I go to the casino and bet 100 $10 pass line bets and come down $200 instead of $14.14 as I should.
It is undenyable that success for the PL player is totally dependant on a shooter who converts many points in a row and rolling lots of covered numbers during that run. That success must continue on a scale of at least three to one during the totality of the player's session. When players stick around after filling their chip tray with that good run and experience several consecutive losses or the table becomes choppy, the wins diminish greatly or just go away.
Casinos want players to win; they count on the fact that the vast majority of wins turn dramatically in favor of the house; they count on greed, poor money management; and simply outlasting any win streak.
We all are going to make choices when we play, sort of like having a "plan." For the most part, my "plan" excludes the PL/FO.
tuttigym
p.s. I still have not gotten the hang of including a quote in my post --help?
Your posts reveal that you are heavily invested in the PL/FO strategy and that you really understand the math. Yet your self proclaimed experience of very poor successes should indicate to you that you should explore and possibly practice other strategies that might give you more opportunities to win more often.
The possibilty that many or most disagree with my approach, strategy, or plan does not impact my play just as my rebuttals will probably not change your play. However, closing one's mind and not experimenting or giving consideration to alternatives, prevents the flexibilty necessary to achieve greater success.
I am sure that playing side by side would be great fun, and maybe someday that will happen.
Airplanes fly on math??? Do not tell the Arabs; they have been using jet (petroliem) fuel.
tuttigym
Each post has "Quote", "Reply" and "Flag" buttons. If you are the author, it also has an "Edit" button. NOTE: Things get confusing if you edit an old post. Many message boards put a time limit on editing.Quote: tuttigymp.s. I still have not gotten the hang of including a quote in my post --help?
"Flag" is used to alert the administrator about particularly bad post. I.E. Abbrasive attitudes, and/or foul language, etc. (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of the posts in this thread have been flagged...)
"Reply" is just that, and that's what you've been using most of the time.
"Quote" opens a reply window, but it includes the post that you are quoting, as well as "tags" which mark the beginning and end, as well as who said it.
You can then edit parts out (as I have done above).
You just need to be careful not to screw up the tags.
If you quote a post that is already quoting a post, then it gets easy to confuse the tags, so go slowly in those situations.
Note: Above the post window, there's a link for Click here for formatting codes. It explains a lot of this stuff, including how to properly post links, make bold or italic text, etc.
And once you learn, it's useful knowledge, because all forums use most of the same codes. (There are minor differences in some of the lesser used tags).
Hope that helps.
It's pretty clear that tutti came in here with his opinion already formed and nothing is going to change that. The argument is clearly laid out there, and it is what it is. The people that "believe in" the 1.41% edge are going to continue believing in it and those few that don't will continue to tenaciously reject it. We are just yanking each others chain at this point.
edit: but don't let me stop you.
Believe? Nah. We try to ignore it, try to beat it, and try to get around it.Quote: teddys...people that "believe in" the 1.41% edge...
Duh. We're gamblers.
We DO, begrudgingly, accept it.
Well, some of us accept it.....
Quote: tuttigym
Specifically:
1. The 1.41% HA based on what I have called the "Rule of 495" will occur only 3.5% of the time
(courtesy of JB). The probability of 96.5% against the proposition of 1.41% happening actually reappears with every roll of the dice since play at any given table is a continuous running 495.
My simplistic sense of winning or losing just will not allow me to risk wagers that are always on the short end of the 7.
Well, the only other method you have proposed is also subject to the seven, so what's the difference? I showed what you could expect from that method. You persist in mis-interpreting what the 1.4% means - it is not a prediction, and it is lower than the HA on any of the place bets.
Quote: tuttigym2. Alan stated that there is a 99.5% chance the 1.41% HA would occur with "146 trials of 495 decisions." I believe in his formula and superior math skills to the point that such a wager for the purposes of consistent winning will not happen.
This is a meaningless statement. A W-L of 244-251 for any 495 decisions is not winning. If you want to talk about winning, here are some facts:
For 495 PL decisions (this relates only to PL, not any odds), the probability of 248 OR MORE wins is .376; in other words, a player betting just the PL for 495 decisions, never varying the bet amount, has better than a 1 in 3 chance to be ahead.
Quote: tuttigym3. Alan then showed that a ratio of 285 wins vs 210 losses could be close to impossible of happening. His math disclosed that it would take 133,000 sets of 495 for the 99.5% "certainty" (my word not his) to achieve 285 wins. The simple math of the 285 wins over the base number of 244 wins is a modest 16.8%. What I inferred was that winning at the rate of only 16.8% of PL outcomes cannot happen with the very least amount of consistency.
Here again, your focus on a single, specific W-L record is misleading. You are also equating "close to impossible of happening" with "taking 133,000 sets for a .995 probability of it occurring". The probability of having 285 OR MORE wins out of 495 passline decisions is .000133, or odds of 7512 against. Here again, consider how many PL bets are made every day, in casinos all over the US. Also, 285 wins are a lot. That's almost two standard deviations better than expectation. Keep in mind that going in the other direction, winning just 203 out of 495, is equally unlikely.
Quote: tuttigym4. 270 wins vs 225 losses or a very modest 10% over the 244 basis was also a considerable longshot at 2264 sets of 495 PL decisions for that 99.5% "certainty."
None of this really says anything about the relative advantage of PL betting versus place betting. Let's talk about placing the 6 (or 8). The probability of winning that bet is .4545, lower than the probability of winning a passline bet (.4929). Suppose we take 495 place bets on the 6; the probability of winning 270 or more of those would be .0000308, compared to .010916 for the PL. Of course, this is not comparable, because the place 6 pays 7 to 6, but the idea of the unlikelihood of various outcomes is the same. It applies to any bet.
Do you think the 1.52 HA on place 6/8 is also a "false promise" or "flawed premise"? How about the 4% HA on place 5/9, or the 6.67% HA on place 4/10 (those should be bought, of course)?
Quote: tuttigym5. It has been stated over and over again in many ways that the 1.41% HA is just an average based on millions of rolls and points and PL outcomes. The 495 is just a number that is the smallest common denominator for the all the ways points can be made. The math does not lie and on and on. Apparently for many or most the 1.41% HA is "reliable" and offers the best chance for success because it IS so low. But for me, Alan and JB have proved how flawed the premise and how false the promise.
Those are some of my conclusions; I am sure there will be descent, and that is okay.
tuttigym
Your conclusion does not follow from the facts.
I refer you to my post of February 22, 4:03 PM, in which I compared results of simulating your $64 across suggestion (3 different variations) with PL/FO in similar amounts. As far as I know, you have not commented on these figures or responded to that post. I showed that your proposed method, at the same betting level, had higher risk of ruin, less chance of coming out ahead and more than 12 times the expected loss.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: tuttigymAlan: Win Craps OK.
Buy in is $5,000 ( This is an arbitrary amount for the purpose of executing 10,000 POINT CONVERSIONS or 7 outs )
Every Come Out roll bet $10 PL AND $10 Don't Pass
If there is a natural winner or loser, just replace the bets; if a 12 shows just replace the bet.
After the point is established (any point) lay $60 odds on the DP.
If there is a 7 out, take the win and start again and repeat ($60 lay) until there is a point conversion.
After the point conversion, the next point the bet will be a FO for $60. Continue to play the FO as long as points are converted. Once there is a 7 out, then go back to the lay of $60 on the next point.
The lay bets or the FO bets are to continue as long as the string stays in tact. Once the string is broken, the bet then goes to the other side.
I hope that I have made myself clear. If there are any questions, please ask and I will try to clarify to your satisfaction.
tuttigym
This is the (in)famous "Doey-Don't", from "The Captain" in one of Frank Scoblete's books, right?
The idea is to get past the comeout roll even, most of the time, and then lay or take the odds. You realize, of course, that you are essentially increasing the HA from 1.4% to 2.8% by doing this, since BOTH bets are subject to their own 1.4% HA. You are also decreasing variance on the flat bet, then increasing variance by laying/taking odds.
The twist you've added is the flip-flop. Do you believe that a seven-out provides a rational reason for switching from taking to laying odds? Do you believe that the shooter's making a point provides a rational reason for switching from laying to taking odds?
A clarification. You are laying $60 odds behind a $10 DP bet, which implies 3, 4, 5X odds, i.e lay 60 to win 30 on 4/10, lay 60 to win 40 on 5/9, lay 60 to win 50 on 6/8. However, when you switch, you say bet FO for $60. This would not be possible on a 3, 4, 5X table. In taking the odds on such a table, the PAYOFF is always $60, the bet being $30, $40 or $50, depending on the point.
I will go ahead and simulate this, but I can tell you in advance that the results will look more-or-less like this:
For 10,000 bets the expected loss is $2778, standard deviation $4085, which means that about 70% of the time you would comeout between winning $1308 and losing $6864, while about 5% of the time you would win at least $3923 or lose at least $9479. The probability of breaking even or better would be almost .25, or 1 in 4. That is actually quite good, relatively speaking, for such a large number of bets.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Bet $10 on pass and $10 on don't pass. If the 12 shows you lose $10. The 12 shows 1/36 come out rolls. The house advantage is $20 x (0 x 35/36 - $10 x 1/36) / $20 = 1.3889% or an expected loss of $.2778 which is, conveniently and predictable, precisely 1/2 way between the Don't Pass at 1.364% and the Pass at 1.414%.
Free odds on either the don't or pass don't matter as the HA on this individual bet is zero. Of course you are betting twice as much money where as an exclusive pass or don't at $10 carries an expected loss of $.1414 or $.1364.
The doey-don't isn't a bad betting system as you once you get past the 12, your house advantage is zero, and you can bet the pass odds or don't pass odds as you see fit. Maybe you get rated as a $20 player instead of a $10 player. It's worth trying on a $5 table if you're used to a $10 table I guess.
Quote: goatcabin
I will go ahead and simulate this, but I can tell you in advance that the results will look more-or-less like this:
For 10,000 bets the expected loss is $2778, standard deviation $4085, which means that about 70% of the time you would comeout between winning $1308 and losing $6864, while about 5% of the time you would win at least $3923 or lose at least $9479. The probability of breaking even or better would be almost .25, or 1 in 4. That is actually quite good, relatively speaking, for such a large number of bets.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Alan,
Can you explain the math that gets you to the conclusion above? Since your numbers are precise I assume there must be standard math functions that provide this data, or perhaps you have a spreadsheet where you can plug in the known HAs for the bets and calculate the above numbers.
Gordy
Quote: DJTeddyBearEach post has "Quote", "Reply" and "Flag" buttons. If you are the author, it also has an "Edit" button. NOTE: Things get confusing if you edit an old post. Many message boards put a time limit on editing.Quote: tuttigymp.s. I still have not gotten the hang of including a quote in my post --help?
"Flag" is used to alert the administrator about particularly bad post. I.E. Abbrasive attitudes, and/or foul language, etc. (I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some of the posts in this thread have been flagged...)
"Reply" is just that, and that's what you've been using most of the time.
"Quote" opens a reply window, but it includes the post that you are quoting, as well as "tags" which mark the beginning and end, as well as who said it.
You can then edit parts out (as I have done above).
You just need to be careful not to screw up the tags.
If you quote a post that is already quoting a post, then it gets easy to confuse the tags, so go slowly in those situations.
Note: Above the post window, there's a link for Click here for formatting codes. It explains a lot of this stuff, including how to properly post links, make bold or italic text, etc.
And once you learn, it's useful knowledge, because all forums use most of the same codes. (There are minor differences in some of the lesser used tags).
Hope that helps.
Anecdotally, I watch all players around me at the table play, and it seems very accurate to say that they do play the same way with every player and every point with the possible exception of them throwing in some "junk" bets to get lucky or spice up a possible extra win.
They lack flexibility, creativity, discipline, and patience. The "Don't" players do the same thing. The PL/FO players do the same thing. They seem to do it on every point. Hold'em players rarely play every hand. They fold w/o even one bet if their pocket hand sucks. For some reason, craps players have to play every shooter/every point AND they have to win on every roll for fear they may lose out on a good roll or point. That attitude is disasterous.
I have never read any of Scoblete's books, and for me dice control or influence is something to be very skeptical of for a myriad of reasons. A California organization called Media Productions did some super slow motion analysis of the dice in motion and determined that if the dice were subject to the double "splash" of the legal toss (hitting the table bed then bouncing off the back wall with the sponge pyramids), all "influence" is lost.
The requested "experiment" is only for the purpose that over any given period of play, a table may have tendencies that in the short term (40-50 point conversion attempts) would allow for some winning outcomes. It would take into account streaks of 7 outs which happen with a great deal more frequency than streaks of point conversions. If a table is choppy and alternates conversions with 7 outs, the player will just plain lose.
Your PL + Place bets is way too risky and allows for quick losses of the total bank roll buy in when shooters have short rolls and points are not converted early in a session. If one has a PL/FO with 4X odds + 3 Place bets, it is too much to overcome for a net win unless the point is converted. Every Place bet must be hit twice before a 7 out to give the player a net win. That is very difficult to create and sustain. The math menutia I see here is a way to excuse consistent losses under the pretext of a low HA or edge. It is true that I came to this discussion with a PL/FO bias, and your math has strengthened that bias. There are obviously more patrons of this discussion who will continue to follow the your path. They will enjoy some successes, but like Mosca, will lose much more often and in greater amounts than they win.
tuttigym
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigymThey lack flexibility, creativity, discipline, and patience. The "Don't" players do the same thing. The PL/FO players do the same thing. They seem to do it on every point. Hold'em players rarely play every hand. They fold w/o even one bet if their pocket hand sucks. For some reason, craps players have to play every shooter/every point AND they have to win on every roll for fear they may lose out on a good roll or point. That attitude is disasterous.
No, that attitude is what I like about craps. I have played a ton of poker and actually picked up craps as something to do when I got sick of just folding my garbage for hours on end, which you sometimes get stuck doing during a cold streak.
However, the difference is that with poker, you actually have some idea of how the hand will play based on your starting cards. You get information that allows you to make an educated guess about the future. In craps, you do not. You never know if a shooter will be hot and roll for an hour or if he will just get you a come bet painted on every number and throw it away with a 7.
Sitting out hands in craps will definitely reduce the amount you lose over the long run. But if you follow that logic far enough, you shouldn't even play. If your strategy is "Play less to lose less" then I agree but don't really care.
Quote: tuttigymYour PL + Place bets is way too risky and allows for quick losses of the total bank roll buy in when shooters have short rolls and points are not converted early in a session. [...] The math menutia I see here is a way to excuse consistent losses under the pretext of a low HA or edge. It is true that I came to this discussion with a PL/FO bias, and your math has strengthened that bias. There are obviously more patrons of this discussion who will continue to follow the your path. They will enjoy some successes, but like Mosca, will lose much more often and in greater amounts than they win.
Uhm... yes? We all know -- with the exception of those who have a progression system that has literally never had a losing session! -- that we are going to be long-term losers. What we're trying to prove to you, tuttigym, is that playing PL+FO is actually the way to lose the least given the amounts wagered.
The math isn't minutia at all, and for you to write it off as nonsense means you have not followed it. Since you make no claims of being a math/computer guy, I am curious why you think the rest of us who understand the logic are tricking ourselves. This is all easy to simulate and the simulations all show that, over a large number of rolls, playing the line bets + full odds loses the least amount of money compared to the total amount at risk.
Why do you think that the rest of us are biased or emotionally invested in the system? Don't you think we'd love it if you could show that there were a better bet?
Your strategy is to essentially bank on future results based on past performances. If you see a streak, bet the streak. If you see the opposite of the streak, bet the opposite. The problem with that notion is that you never know whether is streak is going to start or end. Just like a roulette ball, dice have no memory. So if you see ten reds in a row, the next one still has a 18/38 probability of being red. The same goes with dice.
I still maintain the notion that unless you have come back in time or have psychic powers or have managed to load the dice, the best bets at the table are Don't Pass with full odds, followed by Pass with full odds, followed by placing the 6 and 8. Of course when you play with full odds, you are risking more money and playing with more volatility. You run into a greater likelihood of running out of bankroll because you are playing with more of money and can run into a number of 7 outs in a row. Similarly you can run into a table where points are made over and over which kills the don't pass player. Or you can run into a table that makes one point then sevens out. There is no strategy to overcome any of this. Playing trends is as useless as betting the opposite of trends. There is no predictive "hot" and "cold". All that placing bets do is lower your volatility because you are playing with less, but I would maintain, always, that putting $12 on the pass line or don't pass line with no odds is better than any other $12 bet anywhere on the table.
But with that said, I would encourage anyone who plays the game to try a variety of bets when playing. Playing against 1.414% versus 1.364% versus 1.52% has little effect during a gaming session. Even the person who rides the middle of the board where the HA starts at 9.1% and go up from there can have successful sessions from time to time.
Quote: stephenHowever, the difference is that with poker, you actually have some idea of how the hand will play based on your starting cards. You get information that allows you to make an educated guess about the future. In craps, you do not. You never know if a shooter will be hot and roll for an hour or if he will just get you a come bet painted on every number and throw it away with a 7.
Exactly. You can bet according to the cards in your hands and make good predictions about your odds of winning based on the flop, turn, and river. Of course, it's possible to be beat, and you can certainly calculate what your expected value is based on the two cards drawn and the number of people at the table.
With blackjack, you know what to do and how to increase your bet or split based on the cards in your hand versus the dealer's up card.
With craps, you can't know what the future performance of the dice is going to be. You may see a string of seven outs in a row, and then run into the hot shooter who throws a run of 10 points before busting. It's unpredictable, and to bet that way is just a system that will net you the expected loss based on if there was no streak to begin with.
For us who do understand the math and the odds, it doesn't necessarily mean that we play the game that way (though we should). However, I go in to the game hoping to win and knowing that if I do win, it's because I was lucky and bet the right amounts at the right times and not for any other reason. Because I know the math and the odds, I know that the likelihood of winning is better by playing the best bets at the table, just like basic strategy at Blackjack.
of course cannot be predicted with any certainty. The point being that if such a trend does surface with a couple or three immediate 7 outs resulting in the loss of a third or more of ones buy in, why not wait a couple of shooters to see if the trend continues?
The statement that the PL/FO "bet" actually dimishes losses and is the "best" bet with the lowest HA by definition is absolutely untrue. The cumulative 1.41% HA is based on the totality of the Come out plus point conversions. Once the point is established do you not recognize the plain and simple fact that the HA immediately jumps geometrically depending on the point to be converted? Every number thrown after a point establishment that is not the point, although neutral in effect, mathematically brings that 7 out closer than any winner will ever be.
It seems that everyone, everywhere states as a "positive" rebuttal that the "simulations" of the millions of rolls, bets, and points are out and out proof of the 1.41% HA. I do not know about you, but I do not have the time or funds to experience millions of rolls and outcomes to find out if the "simulations" are actually correct. Some people have actually written (not here) that if one had $495; bet $1 on the PL for 495 PL outcomes; that they could "EXPECT" to experience the 1.41% HA and lose only $7.00. Does anyone here subscribe to that statement. How could one "EXPECT" or even experience such when there is a 96.5% odds based negative (coutesy of JB)?
Simply put, my approach is to set up betting patterns that will provide more ways to win than to lose for a specific number of rolls of the dice, and win or draw, bring down those bets and half them. Comparing this type of strategy with the PL/FO bets may not win me as much on a single bet compared to a PL/FO winner, but any hit prior to a 7 out will create smaller losses compared to simlar amounts wagered on the PL/FO, and winning anything and reducing the bets allows for a long term continuous winning status within the point contested. The player with the PL/FO bet may never experience any gain within that point. Any 7 out produces losses for both. Does it work all the time - HELL NO, but if I lose, I lose slower than the PL/FO player because we BOTH succomb to that 7 out at the same time.
tuttigym
Quote: tuttigym
The statement that the PL/FO "bet" actually dimishes losses and is the "best" bet with the lowest HA by definition is absolutely untrue. The cumulative 1.41% HA is based on the totality of the Come out plus point conversions.
Actually, the 1.41% is just the pass line, no odds. The "cumulative" HA goes down ("dimishes", sic) from there as you add odds. I know you won't be convinced ever, but I just wanted to correct an actual misstatement. If you don't trust the math, what do you think the HA is on the Pass Line, and how would you calculate it?
Quote:Every number thrown after a point establishment that is not the point, although neutral in effect, mathematically brings that 7 out closer than any winner will ever be.
Oh boy...I need to just stop reading this thread. One question...does every Red in Roulette "mathematically" bring a Black closer?
Quote: tuttigymHowever, the "hot" shooter arrives much less frequently than the continuous "cold" or "choppy" conditions that will take away, prematurely, ones bankroll.
That's your 1.41% in action, tutti. Whether a guy is hot or cold depends on what part of the table you are betting. The worse you get away from the 1.41%, ie any bets other than pass/don't, odds, and place 6/8, the less frequently the hot (from the bettor's perspective) shooter arrives.
Quote: tuttigymEvery number thrown after a point establishment that is not the point, although neutral in effect, mathematically brings that 7 out closer than any winner will ever be.
That... RIGHT THERE... is where your thinking is flawed. looking forward, there is NO DIFFERENCE.
And airplanes are powered by jet fuel. But they fly because the math says they must.
Ya know, I never really understood how air flowing faster over the curve of the wing creates lift. Doesn't the air flowing slower under the flat underside cause drag?Quote: MoscaAnd airplanes are powered by jet fuel. But they fly because the math says they must.
But seriously, you're trying to explain casino math by using aerodynamics in a conversation with Tutti?
You just gotta know that he's afraid to fly....
Quote: tuttigymThe point being that if such a trend does surface with a couple or three immediate 7 outs resulting in the loss of a third or more of ones buy in, why not wait a couple of shooters to see if the trend continues?
Why play at all if you're terrified at losing? You could wait, see the "trend" is over, and get in only to join the start of a new "trend" of lots of early outs. In craps, all trends are illusory, existing only in the rearview mirror. What happened last roll has no effect on what will happen this roll.
Quote: tuttigymThe statement that the PL/FO "bet" actually dimishes losses and is the "best" bet with the lowest HA by definition is absolutely untrue. The cumulative 1.41% HA is based on the totality of the Come out plus point conversions. Once the point is established do you not recognize the plain and simple fact that the HA immediately jumps geometrically depending on the point to be converted?
As somebody else pointed out, the 1.41% HA is only on the line bet -- the odds carry literally no HA. And what you're not getting is that the 1.41% HA on the line bet already takes into account the probabilities of each point being converted. As a line bettor, a lot of your value comes from getting paid immediately on a 7 on the come out roll. Nobody argues that the chance of getting paid diminishes once a point has been established.
But the 1.41% HA already takes this into account. If you could take your bet back once a point was established, the line bets would have a gigantic player advantage. Instead, we describe the bet as having a slight house advantage because the probabilities of having to convert the point have already been factored into it. It's a fully loaded number, to borrow a bit of business speak.
Quote: tuttigymEvery number thrown after a point establishment that is not the point, although neutral in effect, mathematically brings that 7 out closer than any winner will ever be.
This is really, really, really wrong. So let's say a shooter establishes a point of 4. On the first roll after the come out, the chance of rolling a 7 is 1/6. Shooter rolls a 12.
Next roll (second after come out): chance of rolling a 7? 1/6. Third roll? 1/6. And so on. The past does not matter. The chances of rolling a 7 are always the same.
Quote: tuttigymIt seems that everyone, everywhere states as a "positive" rebuttal that the "simulations" of the millions of rolls, bets, and points are out and out proof of the 1.41% HA. I do not know about you, but I do not have the time or funds to experience millions of rolls and outcomes to find out if the "simulations" are actually correct.
You don't trust the simulations? Why not? Maybe you don't understand how trivial these simulations are to build or how relatively straightforward the math is, but there is no reason to suspect they are wrong, given that everybody who understands the subjects agrees they are right.
Dismissing the simulations (to say nothing of the math) is just insane. If you agree that there is a 1/6 of any particular number showing up on a single six-sided die, then there is no argument. The computers can accurately simulate this event. And you know what? The simulations reach exactly the same conclusion that the math says they should. It is very basic science -- we have a hypothesis from the math that we back up with experimental data.
Quote: tuttigymSome people have actually written (not here) that if one had $495; bet $1 on the PL for 495 PL outcomes; that they could "EXPECT" to experience the 1.41% HA and lose only $7.00. Does anyone here subscribe to that statement. How could one "EXPECT" or even experience such when there is a 96.5% odds based negative (coutesy of JB)?
You don't understand the use of the word "expect" here. I understand that; statistical expectation is a little different than the normal everyday use of the word expect.
Here's the thing. When we talk about expectation, we mean that if you were to run the same experiment over and over and over, the average win or loss will approach the expected value. Think about this: if we flipped a coin 10 times, how many times would you expect to get heads? 5, right? But lots of times you wouldn't get 5 heads. Plenty of times you would 6 tails or 7 heads. Every now and then you would get 10 tails.
But if we flipped a coin 10 times a day every single day for a decade, the total number of heads we got would approach 18,250 heads, or 50% of the total number of flips. On any given day the number of heads we got would vary, but overall we would "expect" to get 18,250 heads. Any given year we might be at more heads than tails or vice versa, but for the decade we'd be pretty close to 50-50. We still probably wouldn't get exactly 18,250 heads (it might be a little more or a little less), but it would approach that number. The longer we flipped the coin, the closer and closer the number of heads would approach 50% of the total flips.
Would you say that in 10 coin flips, you wouldn't expect to get 5 heads? What number would you pick? Do you think that the 50% number is a hoax?
Quote: tuttigymDoes it work all the time - HELL NO, but if I lose, I lose slower than the PL/FO player because we BOTH succomb to that 7 out at the same time.
You'll also win slower, and in the long run you will lose more than the PL/FO player given identical amounts at risk.
And that's fine if that's what you prefer. PL/FO has a ton amount of variance with insane streaks both up and down. In the long run, though, they average out to be a 1.41% loss on every PL bet and a 0.0% loss on each odds bet.
It has been stated here and elsewhere that because the PL/FO PAYS "true odds," the HA goes away.
That is just pure BS. If you want to believe that to be so, there is no way and no simple arithmatic that will convince you that as long as the house has more ways to win than to lose or as long as the player has more ways to lose than to win on any given bet, you are ALWAYS on the short end of the stick. Payouts are meaningless when it comes to winning and losing. It would be similar if an athletic team that wins by 10 points vs a team that wins by 1 point. They have the same won/loss record. The standings show a winning % 1.000. If your PL/FO bet and my equal wagered Place bet on the same number wins, we both win, however, I do realize that your win will be a greater return; conversely a 7 out will still be a loss for both.
As far as the 7 getting closer than the point, I guess the "simulations" you all keep railing about must not be true after all. I mean the 7 is suppose to show once every six tosses right? Maybe Smart Craps is wrong after all even after millions of simulated rolls.
You folks can hammer away at me but the inconsistency of rebuttal does not serve you well.
Does the 1.41% HA for PL wagers, after the point is established, stay the same or increase or just go away?
tuttigym
