Thread Rating:

tuttigym
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 646
February 15th, 2010 at 10:18:34 AM permalink
DJTeddyBear: "...the fact that the average is a fair prediction of expected results."

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
goatcabin
goatcabin
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 665
February 15th, 2010 at 10:25:23 AM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

goatcabin: 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: tuttigym

Why 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
Cheers, Alan Shank "How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
goatcabin
goatcabin
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
  • Threads: 4
  • Posts: 665
February 15th, 2010 at 11:13:48 AM permalink
Quote: DJTeddyBear

Quote: JB

When it comes to gambling, the only thing you can rely on is averages.

...And isn't the average a HA of 1.41%?

Quote: tuttigym

Ladies 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.

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.



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: DJTeddyBear

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.



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
Cheers, Alan Shank "How's that for a squabble, Pugh?" Peter Boyle as Mister Moon in "Yellowbeard"
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 10551
February 15th, 2010 at 1:22:01 PM permalink
Quote: JB

Quote: DJTeddyBear

...And isn't the average a HA of 1.41%?


Yes.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

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.

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.

Thanks for the confirmation.

I assume the 'he' in your final statement is tuttigum.


Quote: DJTeddyBear

In any event of probabilities, it's hard for an individual to hit the statistical average.

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: goatcabin

Quote: DJTeddyBear

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.

A probability of .035 is hardly "nearly impossible to hit.

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: goatcabin

tuttigym is confusing one outcome with the average of all possible outcomes.

Yeah, I know it. How do we get HIM to understand it?
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ 覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧 Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
DJTeddyBear
DJTeddyBear
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 191
  • Posts: 10551
February 15th, 2010 at 1:33:10 PM permalink
Quote: tuttigym

If the prediction is at 96.5% against the average,...

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...



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.
I invented a few casino games. Info: http://www.DaveMillerGaming.com/ 覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧 Superstitions are silly, childish, irrational rituals, born out of fear of the unknown. But how much does it cost to knock on wood? 😁
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5994
February 15th, 2010 at 6:47:16 PM permalink
Why are we even bothering trying to convince that the HA is 1.41%? The math has been explained. The fact that it is a statistical average that comes to 1.41% over millions of trials has been explained.

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.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
tuttigym
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 646
February 18th, 2010 at 3:44:12 PM permalink
Mr. 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.

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
Mosca
Mosca
Joined: Dec 14, 2009
  • Threads: 181
  • Posts: 3833
February 18th, 2010 at 3:54:49 PM permalink
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.
NO KILL I
tuttigym
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 646
February 18th, 2010 at 3:59:32 PM permalink
goatcabin: 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 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)
tuttigym
tuttigym
Joined: Feb 12, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 646
February 18th, 2010 at 4:12:26 PM permalink
Mosca: 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.

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

  • Jump to: