Posted by odiousgambit
Dec 11, 2012

Wincraps and Craps sessions

Wincraps and Craps sessions

Sticking with the formulas from the last post, I am now comparing EV divided by Standard Deviation for players who like various amounts of action as a session. A player can look at the consequences of longer sessions, and look at the percentage of games that produced a winner or a loser. It is certainly expected that it should be the less, the better, as it is said that the best chance comes from placing just one bet. My "thing" has been that a player can look at this EV / SD as a percentage.

I start here with a sucker bet, so betting on the line with odds is below this


Illustration: The Any 7 Bet

Purpose: to show that EV rapidly grows as a % of one SD with sucker bets, and the consequences, as session betting increases by number of bets.

Note: Couldnt manage to write an auto-bet file that stopped exactly at 10,000 games. One game = 2 bets or 5 bets as below.

View a session bet progression from 2 bets to 5 bets. Bet $1

Standard deviation for the any 7 bet: 1.86

First: 2 bets per session [yes, within two bets the EV is eating into the SD]
about 10,000 sessions

the math:
SD * $1 * the square root of the number of initial bets made in the session, that is

1.86 * 1 * 1.4142135623731 = 2.630437226013966

EV for 2 bet is 16.67% * $2 = -$0.3334

This theoretical loss divided by one SD is

0.3334 / 2.630437226013966 = 0.126746989703007591006

already at 12% plus
player wins about 30% of these 2 bet sessions


Standard deviation: 1.86
5 bets per session

SD * $1 * the square root of the number of initial bets made in the session

1.86 * 1 * 2.23606797749979 = 4.1590864381496094

EV for 5 bets is 16.67% * $5 = -$0.8335

This theoretical loss divided by one SD is

0.8335 / 4.1590864381496094 = 0.200404587015706931066

very high at 20%
player wins less than 20% of sessions.

PS: just noticed all the ties. What's up with that? Don't know.
PPS: turns out that if you have one win and 4 losses in a 5 bet session of "any 7" that is a break-even. Oddly, it is a common outcome, try it yourself.



I had Wincraps crunch out 10,000 games and log the results. The player would bet $10 on the pass line, and always take full 3x4x5x odds and make no other bets. There would be so many come-outs played per game, a game as defined by Wincraps, essentially a session as defined by me. I ran next an increased number of come-outs, to simulate a player who needs more action and stays at the table longer. As this number of come-outs got larger and larger, the program started to take forever to finish, with the last few looks taking overnight to finish. Bear in mind it would take me years to play the number of come-outs represented by 4 or 5 thousand trials, and surely there are no players who would do it in a day, so it starts to lose its meaning as a session.

The previous blog post established for my satisfaction that 180 come-outs bet in a session is not excessive, that a player still had good chances for getting the W. This kind of action is typical for me in a day.

I realize 10,000 games is not really enough, but see above; hopefully this will have value without producing total faith in the numbers.

All I have been basing this on is gut, not having too much to go on. It does seem to me that it should be clear that as theoretical loss equals the value of one standard deviation, the player has overdone it. This condition is certainly rapidly achieved with certain bets. For that player at that point, he has to be on the lucky side of one standard deviation to expect to break even! So to say one's EV must be less than one SD becomes common sense.

But where do you draw the line for a player playing smarter than that? Somewhat arbitrarily I arrived at the suspicion that theoretical
expectations exceeding the value of 10% of one SD could be a dividing line between smart play and not-so-smart. Since the smartest play is one bet, one can see the unclear nature of this.

Adding ties to the win side, the below shows a progression in win/loss % of approx:










If mentally graphing this, note that the first two are close to the same thing and towards the end I jumped out a bit. Nonetheless it is somewhat wobbly [more than 10,000 games would help?] and seems to be recursive [is that the term?]. I feel though it has probative value.

See first comment for the math for examining EV as a percentage of one SD for the various parameters. A work in progress, will finish later. However, my initial thought that a criterion of 10% means trouble, seems to be holding up. Perhaps it depends on the player. If a player likes bets like the "YO", perhaps also 1500 come-outs in a session is also in his tolerance, as the 45/55 ratio, if it were one bet, would mean an HE of 10% for one bet [if I have that right].

Your thoughts are welcome.


180 come-outs per game, 20k games [exception]

criterion = 3.9% (absolute value of EV divided by one standard deviation for one game i.e. session)

48.5/51.5 win/loss ratio with ties added to wins


500 come-outs per game, 10k games

criterion = 6.4%



1000 come-outs per game, 10k games




1500 come-outs per game, 10k games



2000 come-outs per game, 10k games




2500 come-outs per game, 10k games


3000 come-outs per game, 10k games


4000 come-outs per game, 10k games


5000 come-outs per game, 10k games


odiousgambit Dec 11, 2012


180 come-outs

this was determined in the prior post: EV / one SD = -25.45 / 659.50= -0.03858984078848 or about 3.9%


500 come-outs

using again SD * $10 * the square root of the number of initial bets made in the session

"SD is 4.915632" for the 3x4x5x game [see prior post]

sqrt(500) = 22.3606797749979

so that is,

4.915632 * 10 * 22.3606797749979 = 1099.168730437324771728

EV = 5000 * (-7/495)

EV / SD = -70.70707070707071 / 1099.168730437324771728 = 0.064327767656689600052365

6.4 % approx.


1000 come-outs

SD * $10 * the square root of the number of initial bets made in the session

"SD is 4.915632" for the 3x4x5x game

sqrt(1000) = 31.62277660168379

4.915632 * 10 * 31.62277660168379 = 1554.4593259208809200528

EV = 10000 * (-7/495) = -141.41414141414141

EV / SD = 141.41414141414141 / 1554.4593259208809200528 = 0.0909732014572757795009369

about 9.1%


1500 come-outs

SD * $10 * the square root of the number of initial bets made in the session

"SD is 4.915632" for the 3x4x5x game

sqrt(1500) = 38.72983346207417

4.915632 * 10 * 38.72983346207417 = 1903.8160872084257642544

EV = 15000 * (-7/495) = -212.12121212121212

EV / SD = 212.12121212121212 / 1903.8160872084257642544 = 0.111418961918872333653953

about 11.1%


2000 come-outs

SD * $10 * the square root of the number of initial bets made in the session

"SD is 4.915632" for the 3x4x5x game

sqrt(2000) = 44.72135954999579

4.915632 * 10 * 44.72135954999579 = 2198.3374608746490518928

EV = 20000 * (-7/495) =-282.82828282828283

EV / SD = 282.82828282828283 / 2198.3374608746490518928 = 0.1286555353133792243240909

about 12.9%

7craps Dec 12, 2012

the reason to calculate ev and sd is so you do not have to run lots of simple simulations.

Let the central limit theorem work for you.

Excel can then easily make many tables for the data you are simming.

goatcabin made a few posts about this as well as I.

I do not have links for them at the moment.

345X odds skews the results a bit but the ev/sd values are very close to actual calculations.

Steve Fry has a free craps sim that can run millions of sims way faster the WC. Just google.

It only does basic bets unless you know how to re-do his code and compile it yourself.

ev/sd = z score

that score is looked up or calculated to give a probability of being even or ahead after N trials. (normally 30 minimum)

In Excel one can easily find probabilities for any interval so desired.

more later on

My head cold does not let me go further

Excellent work BTW

odiousgambit Dec 12, 2012

>Excellent work BTW

thank you sir, that means a lot. Your help has been much appreciated.

Posted by odiousgambit
Nov 29, 2012

Revisit of Session Length

I admit the way I look at gambling differs from most gamblers. You might say I look at it like someone who plays a game, a game that has scoring, against better opponents. Maybe it was a loss last time, but when you walk out on the field for the next game the scoreboard says zero to zero. I am trying to win sessions and also get the W for the day, against the odds.

Better opponent? With negative expectation games that is one way to look at it.

If this is not the way you look at gambling, you should skip this post, which is the beauty of blogging.


A look at the proper length of a Craps session, and chances for the W in a day.

Hopefully I have all this right.

"The standard deviation of the final result over n bets is the product of the standard deviation for one bet (see table) and the square root of the number of initial bets made in the session. This assumes that all bets made are of equal size"

from http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/

3x4x5x: "The standard deviation per pass line bet is 4.915632."

from http://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/craps/probability/

My assumption for such a statement is that the original pass line bet has to remain the same amount. Good, that is typical for me.


2 sessions of Craps for myself usually means 4 hours and 180 bets on the line with full odds [with my typical come betting].

3x4x5x and a $10 table; experience has shown this pushes my tolerance for risk, with a feeling of reduced chances for the W.


Edited figures by the correction to the formula:

SD * $10 * the square root of the number of initial bets made in the session

Thanks Pappa Chubby and 7Craps

"SD is 4.915632" 3x4x5x

sqrt (180) = 13.41640786499874

13.41640786499874 * 4.915632 = 65.95012382623948630368

65.95012382623948630368 * $10 = one SD for four hours playing $10 Craps = $659.50

EV = $1800 * (-7/495) = $-25.45

range: up 634.05 or down $-684.95 [this in particular sounds more like it]

Odi Criterion = EV / one SD = -25.45 / 659.50= -0.03858984078848


*To deviate by one SD is a matter of luck itself, it would seem. I guess that makes sense.

*I have come across nothing else to go by. Is no one else interested, or is it too personal from player to player to be a broad application? I dunno, seems to me there is a point at which foolishness enters the picture with session length.

*In any case, the number crunching here seems to correlate with my experience in the following way: as EV approaches 10% of one SD a player starts damaging his chances for getting the W.

*Since this is still [edit: well less!] less than 10% I will accept that the 2 session thing I like to do is not in the realm of foolishness.

a rare case of finding a figure for the SD of Craps with odds btw


Buzzard Nov 29, 2012

Your wife occasionally has Gracie Allen moments. Reading your blog I was reminded of George Burns.

I believe both quotes apply to this blog : I honestly think it is better to be a failure at something you love than to be a success at something you hate.

Everything that goes up must come down. But there comes a time when not everything that's down can come up.

odiousgambit Nov 29, 2012

Buzzard, they do fit.

>a failure at something you love

That's me and Craps alright [g] But that's also EV

RaleighCraps Nov 29, 2012

Hi odiousgambit. That is an interesting and informative way of looking at your session length. Since I only play about 6x a year, I have a hard time playing a 'short' session, even though I know the longer I play, the more likely I come out on the losing end. Even with that, 6 to 8 hours session is not abnormal for me, or 10-12 hours in a 24 hr period. I just love the game, no matter how badly she treats me.

I can also note though, that many of my wins or break even sessions have come at the end of 4+ hour sessions. Had I quit after an hour or two, I would have booked a loss. So a long session can work for you as well as against you.

What I have noticed is almost every session I have ever played has had a good to great roll by someone. The sessions I make money, I am active on that good roll. The sessions I lose money, I am low on chips and am just trying to not go broke, so I don't get much benefit from the roll.

PapaChubby Nov 29, 2012

You didn't calculate your session SD right. Correct method is 4.915632 * sqrt(180) = 65.95

7craps Nov 29, 2012

Yes, more work on your session SD is needed

SD is 4.915632

This is also just for a one unit bet.

You need to multiply this by the bet amount.

Total Bet SD =

SD * $10 * the square root of the number of initial bets made in the session (180) = $659.50

EV = 180 * $10 * (-7/495) or -$25.45

There is your picture

About 5X more likely to be $625 or more ahead after the session (assuming a bankroll large enough)

than falling between $0 and -$50 (EV of $25 +/- $25)

Good luck losing exactly $25 every session as most EV pushers want everyone to believe.

One can expect to bust a EV + 2SD bankroll every 1 in 20 sessions or so on average,

meaning it could happen 2 times in 20 sessions 25% of the time.

I did not check my math

go for it

odiousgambit Nov 30, 2012

preserving incorrect math for comparison

"SD is 4.915632" 3x4x5x

4.915632 * 180 = 884.81376

sqrt (884.81376) = 29.74581920203241

so, $297.46 deviation = one SD for four hours playing $10 Craps

EV = $1800 * 1.41% = $25.38

range: up $272 or down $-322.84

imbalance of range: $50.84 [difference]

Odi Criterion = EV / one SD = 25.38 / 297.46 = 0.08532239628858

odiousgambit Nov 30, 2012

thanks for the help! I trust the look of these numbers better too, not to mention it is obvious I bow to superior knowledge in this [g]

R-craps, yep, know what you mean. In fact it strikes me that there is always only one guy, if there is anyone, who just gets the lucky 5 or 6 or more points made on his hand. It never seems to be we all win by one guy making 2-3 points, next guy same, one guy pso, next guy 2-3 points. It's always just one guy or gal!

odiousgambit Nov 30, 2012

please note that the blog post now contains the corrected math

Posted by odiousgambit
Nov 16, 2012

My Gambling Problem Raises its Ugly Head Again

My old gambling problem is bugging me again: I just don't gamble enough.

That statement of course is my little joke, but actually I take this quite seriously. I suspect many of you are bored by this seriousness [in which case skip this paragraph]; or at least wondering if I have enough bankroll to be a player. When I view that last consideration, I keep thinking to myself that the bankroll I am comfortable with is completely in line with the type of action I seek. So what's the problem? Well, Lately the problem has been exacerbated by being on a losing streak. I am determined not to play to chase losses, rightly one assumes. On the other hand, a player wants to play. Somebody at this site recently quipped "you can't win, but you also can't quit" and I think that is about the size of it. But really my bankroll, till now kind of vague, is fairly intact. What's been giving me pause has been that actual losses can be 30 to 40 times theoretical in a session, and I can't seem to find what to expect in the long run. If it is plausible to lose like that in the long run, then such a rate could ruin a pretty hefty bankroll in short order. Note I do not use the word "possible" as of course, the answer has to be that it is possible; but how about plausible? Although not unbroken, the bad streak started about 18 months ago and I am currently at about 14 times theoretical EV for that period, which is been bad enough. If I adjust EV with the freeplay I got recently, though, it starts to look astronomical. So I guess I just won't figure freeplay in; but 14 times theoretical losses still sucks and is bankroll threatening. I've laid off playing lately. Did I really needed to?

I have become a player that nearly entirely plays Craps only. I wondered if Wincraps could help with the question. I figure I have seen the equivalence of about 1500 rolls of the dice per year lately. Not much! but hey I don't live in Vegas! I figured 25,000 rolls would be at least a serious chunk of a lifetime of Craps for me, even if I pick up the pace, so I ran Wincraps for this 25k rolls, $10 table, 3x4x5x taking full odds, and repeated this 100 times; I like to consider these 100 different players.

The below shows the results. The number for each file is the final status of the player's losses compared to his theoretical final losses, shown as the multiple of this EV, for example the last on the list lost 9.5 times theoretical loss. The first bunch did the best, bearing in mind that a negative times a negative is positive. Although this is nearly half, the idea that I could wind up there I just have to dismiss; for one thing, for current purposes I am carrying that '14 times EV' with me. Checking a few of these, quite a few that wound up just fine at some point were as much as 40 times EV for their early-on losses btw. I'd say about 10% of these players wound up in a zone I would just as soon avoid, the rest I could live with.

Contemplating all this has made me focus on bankroll instead of my old method, which was to look at actual losses compared to an arbitrary amount I had decided I was comfortable losing in a year. By chance this was similar to 0.1% of readily cashable assets and I started using that as a hard figure for "losses not to exceed". I still have an idea of what I like to see in terms of losses per year, but this is a sea-change for me. I am switching to a bankroll method instead of a "losses put on the brakes" method. It just seems now, experimenting, that the fact of the matter is, I havent seen enough rolls of the dice to even know what my play might do to that bankroll. I am going to roll the bones till I have a more sizable portion of 25,000 rolls experienced.

So what bankroll? I guess I am comfortable discussing the amount. At 18 months ago a $10,000 bankroll was fairly much what was in my thoughts it seems. You have to say you would be OK with losing it, it is not just a matter of raising it. The answer to that for me is yes, however, not in a short period of time like 20+ times EV might do.

We will see what happens to that bankroll with the losing streak already taking a small piece of it. I figure a player should grow the bankroll 4% per year on the 10k, to keep the roll from vanishing by definition eventually, doing negative expectation. Note that the worst outcomes are short of 10 times EV, so I am concluding that 20 or more times EV after 25,000 rolls is in the realm of the most unlucky. This as it is represents 2.5 million rolls of the dice! Maybe if I looked at 1000 players some poor guy would hit 20 times EV, but I have to gamble that it won't be me, surely the odds are pretty good for that.

Final matter: my old method was keeping me out of trouble with excessive gambling losses. I just don't want to be that guy who has that problem. So a fair question for me is, am I deluding myself with faulty rationalization so I can get my fix like some dope fiend? One reason I think I can say no to that is because no one else seems to talk much about the utility of some arbitrary loss per year; a bankroll is always what is discussed. However, any comments are welcome, thanks in advance.


RaleighCraps Nov 16, 2012

Every player goes through extreme droughts, so bad as you have it now, it is not atypical. You knew that, but it is still nice to hear. I myself just broke out of a 2 year slump at craps, that had me losing most of my session bankroll that I took on every trip. And I broke out with my biggest craps win ever!

Coincidentally, I had also been advised that I was developing a 'losers' attitude when I headed to a casino, so I was conscious to be upbeat this trip. Did it help? Hell if I know, but it certainly couldn't hurt, and I WON. Power of Positive thinking? Well, I am positive I am going to win the Lottery, but it ain't happened YET. :-)

I tend to save up money for a trip and then take what I can afford to lose. If I bust out that trip, I have no bankroll to speak of until I rebuild it. Not really a good way, but it matches well to my tendency to play above my bankroll limits (I take enough to be a $10 craps player, but will have way more than that in ACTION). I need to compartmentalize it in this fashion. Otherwise, I would just 'borrow' against the bankroll I did not have with me on a given trip, and over bet it.

Your money management system, with the % of bankroll is a much smarter system, IF you stick to it. But if you were to lose $3,000, staying within your % criteria, and then feel like throwing up over it, that is not good. No matter how you look at it, if you later regret losing the money, you should not be playing it. I got to that point in my losing streak, and walked away for 6 months. No Forum, no play games, no WinCraps, NOTHING gambling, other than a home poker game or two. It was a great sanity check for me. After 6 months, I started missing craps and came back, but I also started really analyzing my craps play.

I think you need to decide if you can accept losing the whole $10K bankroll, AND over what time frame would you accept that outcome. You also need to decide if you have other things you would rather do with that money. Those answers will guide you in the right direction.

TIMSPEED Nov 16, 2012

Quit playing craps...you can never win.

You can't even begin to understand why the numbers come up like they do.

I have realized the best bet is just to flat bet the DP and hope for the best (as I've watched the tables be COLD MUUUUUUUCH more than they're hot.)

If you absolutely HAVE to play..take $100 and just bet $5 on the DP and however long it lasts, it lasts..

Trust me, you're better off taking that $100 bill and lighting it on fire.

odiousgambit Nov 16, 2012

Yep, R-craps, from what I hear the droughts with advantage play are even more maddening. I was dickering with +EV in Wincraps for a bit [altering the dice] and with 10x odds you could go 10s of thousands in the red before seeing results way down the road. 0.55% advantage and this could happen.

as far as losing the $10k, yep, prepared for that and would just hope it would take years. As it is, the 'growth' of 4% on it has helped too. But I am thinking about restricting my play less than I have been. A continuance of 14 times EV will mean periods of forced inactivity nevertheless, like you describe. But no forum? [g]

T-speed, yessir, I cannot dispute it. It's eerie sometimes how the dice just seem in the employ of the casino!

teddys Nov 17, 2012

I am on the mother of all craps losing streaks. I don't even want to say how much I have lost, because it's embarrassing for someone who purports to be a disciplined player. I just haven't been even able to break even, let alone win. Be prepared to ride out an enormous storm of variance.

7craps Nov 18, 2012

"What's been giving me pause has been that actual losses can be 30 to 40 times theoretical in a session, and I can't seem to find what to expect in the long run."

What is your total net loss and your total resolved action?

Yeah, EV and EV just do not show the whole picture.

Learn EV and Standard Deviation.

No math person worth his salt uses EV and EV.

In this thread you claimed to have a clue. What changed??


""Your total winnings do not converge to your EV as the sample becomes large.

That's a common misconception.

The difference between your actual winnings and your EV becomes infinitely large,

and it actually makes larger and larger fluctuations above and below your EV.

But if you divide that difference by your actual EV, that goes to zero. (A ratio or percentage)

If you divide your total winnings by the number of hands to get winnings per hand, that will converge to your EV per hand."

Concept: Relative Vs Absolute Frequency"

Learn EV and SD and all the rest will fall into place.

Good Luck at the tables

odiousgambit Nov 19, 2012

Teddy, seems like you and I wind up on the wrong side of the bell curve on the same games too much. If we played at the same table it might be synergy, but which way would it go? A negative times a negative is a positive!

7craps, I appreciate your input.


In this thread you claimed to have a clue. What changed??

I thought about that thread, where I acknowledge the dice feel no obligation to reverse your losing streak on the basis of "the long run". Yet it also seems to be true that 40 times EV is not realistically to be seen in the long run.


Learn EV and Standard Deviation.

No math person worth his salt uses EV and EV.

OK, that'd be a great way for another look at this. But I have problems. The standard deviation in Craps is close to "one" without the odds. Fine. Craps without odds is not my game.

We know variance increases dramatically when free odds enter the picture, thus also SD. What change, exactly, do we expect? Where is the chart or calculator that shows the value for SD in craps with free odds? Where is the statement that says what the SD is for the most common game offered, 3x4x5x taking full odds?

I guess my jaw might drop when you or someone tells me the calculator is at http://i'llbedamned.com/SD/Craps and the chart is on the ask-the-wizard page xyz. [g]

biggins Nov 23, 2012

Teddy- I can cure your drought!

I have now had two people from the forum accept my formal craps challenge......where I assure them 1k/day earnings with a bankroll of 10k.

For the record both of these players showed up with 5k (instead of 10k) and we hit our goals each day.

Let me be more specific, 'John", who flew out last Wed & Thursday went home with 2.3k (meaning we won 4.6k with his bankroll) ...and then 'John' returned again from Missouri for a 24 hour visit on Sunday and he left Monday with 1.6k (meaning we won 3.2k since we split all earnings 50/50).....even more impressive we each bought in with 2k (1k in reserve) and never went greater than 25% deep into the bankroll first visit and 40% second visit.

The second person is still here and has plans to relocate from CA to Vegas permanently. I need say no more on this client. With their permission I will post their 'handle' to contact as referrals.

I also have three others pending in early December. I am confident you will not find one negative posting on me ever.

Another interesting stat.....the table was so cold/choppy....never hot during first visit...there was not one other winning player besides us. During his second visit.....some regulars who were getting their butt handed to them finanlly approached us asking for 'assistance'......picked up three additional clients (2 local) who have played with me daily since Monday.

Here is the secret.....first of all, my expertise is blackjack....craps is more fun but less predictable because there is no effect of cards played as history to determine probability of furture outcomes. In craps, all you players with 'systems' may win...you may not win.

The ONLY way to win EVERYTIME (yes, I have ZERO losing sessions ever with clients) is to treat the game no different than 'Waging Business Warfare'. One may have a strategy or system(s) but one MUST be able to tactically adapt to table conditions and player conditions at the table vs just on paper.

What that means is one must be fluent in pre-game preparation...I have a detailed guideline I teach my clients addressing that issue. In addition, one must understand the complete rules & guidelines of 'Being a Professional'. I wrote an SOP detailing everyting from Discipline to Behavior to Money Management to Systems...very important and available to my clients.

Furthermore, one must understand the mathematics of craps, be fluent in SEVERAL 'Off the Shelf' Systems, as interum offset to adapt to changing conditions BUT most important understand that altering play or betting strategy with tactical field changes is ONLY done for reason and/or information and NOT emotionally. Also, remember that if you want to win the war you MUST have the bullets (BANKROLL). The confidence of having far more than you need is key to winning because you cannot win if you do not feel you can win. Don't show up to the gunfight battle with a knife or BB gun.

Simply put, let me say this. If you cannot win 1k per day consistently with a 10k bankroll (5k players $500 per day) you should take up lawn bowling, croquet, or perhaps knitting.

For those interested in winning PM me and I will make it happen.

And FYI, you will be privvy to why I do this for people and what the BIG picture entails.

odiousgambit Nov 24, 2012

Mr. Biggins, you can use your own blog ya know.

goatcabin Jan 14, 2013

"OK, that'd be a great way for another look at this. But I have problems. The standard deviation in Craps is close to "one" without the odds. Fine. Craps without odds is not my game.

We know variance increases dramatically when free odds enter the picture, thus also SD. What change, exactly, do we expect? Where is the chart or calculator that shows the value for SD in craps with free odds? Where is the statement that says what the SD is for the most common game offered, 3x4x5x taking full odds?"

Couldn't find i'llbedamned.com or the table on Wizard.com. Just so they're here where people can see them, for $10 pass with different odds multiples:

no odds SD $9.99

single odds SD $19.58

double odds SD $23.34

3, 4, 5X odds SD $49.16

10X odds SD $108.08

Of course, all have the same ev or -$.1414.

25,000 rolls, at 3.375 rolls/comeout would be around 7400 decisions. Since the ev goes up with the number of decisions, ev would be -$1046.36; the SD goes up with the square root of the number of decisions (~86), so the SDs would be:

SD ev/SD

$859.14 1.22

$1683.88 .62

$2007.24 .52

$4227.76 .25

$9294.88 .11

So, with 3, 4, 5X odds, one SD on the "wrong" side would be losing $5274, -2 SD would be losing $9502, which is about 9ev, with a probability of .0228. 20 times ev would be 4.7 SD worse than ev, which is extremely unlikely (my Z table only goes up to 3.49, p .0002).

When the ev/SD is 1.00, you have to have one SD's worth of good luck to break even, p = .1587. That's at 5000 decisions for pass, no odds.


Alan Shank

Posted by odiousgambit
Oct 21, 2012

5 Players Risk $1M, Then Go Back in Time Machine

Right bettors, and roughly $1 Million, that is. Each player risked a total amount of money, as if making bets from a bankroll, but not returning any winnings to that bankroll. The players would go with max odds at a $10 table, 10X odds, and go with 44,000 rolls of the dice, plus enough rolls to finish an unresolved bet. With Wincraps the same player then was able to use the same RGN and go 350,000 rolls with no odds! In this case, of course, only the first 44,000 rolls were the same, but I wanted to look at that too. Bear in mind there is a variation in the dollars actually bet, the consistency is in the number of rolls.

See the thread post,

Clearly we have too few trials, so there is going to be sampling error. But I think this has probative value. It is not surprising that in each case, the free odds meant a better HE in actuality, not just in theory. With 44,000 rolls I'd say that would be a trend only and not a guarantee.

In one case, the Max bettor had positive results after 44,000 rolls. I checked it out and after 350,000 rolls he is up $6010. Want some bad news? At one point he was down $6020. Survivable but would he be so bummed at that point that he would give up? Quite possible.

Note the parameter that only $1 million, roughly, is risked. Thus it still cannot be said that free odds benefit, unless there is such a parameter. This is just not the same as spending the same amount of time at the table as a player would anyway, but adding the free odds to the bets. That is a matter of increasing the amount you are betting.

In regards to "calling out the Wiz" I would have to say none of this would surprise Michael. And it is not a test that tries to show that a betting system does help win or lose; he didn't make it clear he wasn't addressing the expectation by dollar amount?

This does illustrate that a player should not expect the EV by dollars to be consistent with free odds; also, it indicates that variance is a monumental factor with free odds.

Player Win/Loss with max odds Win/Loss with no odds % with max odds % with no odds
#1 -$6530 -$17,020 -0.66% -1.65%
#2 +$16,350 -$12,290 +1.66% -1.18%
#3 -$12,500 -$14280 -1.24% -1.37%
#4 -$5040 -$18,040 -0.50% -1.74%
#5 -$6970 -$17,920 -0.70% -1.74%


teddys Oct 22, 2012

I wish I could be player #2. I'm more like players 1,4, and 5.

AcesAndEights Oct 22, 2012

I'm not sure if I've ever been down 6 grand, but I have been in a 5 grand hole and climbed out of it. I was bummed but I didn't give up! Clearly the best way to make up losses is to continue playing a -EV game.

Posted by odiousgambit
Sep 27, 2012

Another Gracie Allen Moment?

Buzzpaff recently related such a moment by his wife, but she is not the only one.

Maybe I should have titled this "a glimpse into the modern young mind" , I wonder if it isn't fair to say it is just the ditzy female mind that gets silly when it comes to cell phones and I-phones and social networks.

My wife and I both recently have been reading various articles about how the up and coming generation is so into their I-phones and such, that they spend so much money on it that [the articles have it] this must be cutting into their disposable income to the degree that it is a choice to do that at the expense of something else. One article said that the housing industry and the car industry both are seeing huge changes with the younger bunch, the latter trending away from fancy cars and houses [but don't think of taking away constant access to the internet!]

Anyway, while we were discussing this, I mentioned that on my irritatingly high but comparatively inexpensive cell phone plan that goes along with buying a phone [for years I was issued a phone by my employer, a thing of the past it seems]. I am shocked to the core when I hear what the typical person is paying.

Anyway, I mention to my wife that I could be paying even another $10 to get unlimited texting. That I go long periods without texting, and that an enormous amount for me would be 20 texts per month, at 20 cents a text. My wife, a pretty sharp girl really, has a Gracie Allen moment and instantly suggested I pay the $10 and get unlimited! It really is her instinct to go for the hokie-doke on these things. I call this interchange a glimpse into the female mind when I talk to other guys.

I just changed my cell phone plan, which took away an hour of my life on the phone I can never get back. But I own the phone now and can pick my plan. Verizon didn't make it easy to change, and I hate using the phone to set stuff like this up [required!] But they actually have some pay-per-use plans that are really about as cheap as anyone's, and they probably have the best service. I signed up for paying for each minute and each text!

I predict this will cut my cost to 1/3 of what it was for 10 out of 12 months; a few months might be 2/3 instead. This for the simple reason I don't use the phone that much. I might go a week without using it at all! I told my wife I signed up for a cheaper plan without giving her the details, she probably would shake her head to think I have no set number of free minutes or "unlimited" anything. One Gracie Allen moment was enough! [g]


1BB Sep 27, 2012

Track Phone for me. All I want all I need.

buzzpaff Sep 27, 2012

I am always amazed at women who rush in to buy a pair of shoes because the second pair is half off. But turn their nose in the air

at a mere 3)5 off on one pair.

Plus where is the second one in a pair of panties ?

TIMSPEED Sep 27, 2012

LOL, I'm an IT director...and people look at me crazy because I don't own a SmartPhone (I have a phone from StraightTalk for Talk and Txt a little)

When I need computer access I have my Acer Netbook...