Posted by odiousgambit
Apr 05, 2021

Well, Well, Well !

After applying for it again, this showed up this morning in my paypal account:

+ $13.00 
April 4, 2021Payment received
Paid byBetMGM LLC
Transaction ID [deleted]

Looks like I have to take back what I said. Partially. Though these at-heart nefarious people can't resist messing with you... and I am sticking with the reasons they have for doing it as I outlined... as you can see I finally got my 13 bucks and $3 profit. BetMGM-VA was entitled to decline paying me according to the T&C I did read, but they paid me anyway. Good for them, considering the amount. 

To be sure, I'm not going to be depositing any more money. The question "will possibly they try to mess with me?" has been answered. I will take advantage of any further freebets offered, however. Surprisingly enough, they are still coming. Currently a $5 freebet that may have only come my way because the withdrawal request was reversed at one point. That is delicious, and I won't decline just because it makes me look greedy. I'm a gambler and when it comes to gambling, it's all about seizing the moment, you see, some of the rules are unwritten. Of course, it's only $5, not worth my time or their attention either, so I won't try to cash out winnings unless these keep coming. Possibly that ultimate cashout will be denied unless I deposit $10 again, fair enough. But they are letting me make the bet. 

I'll keep you posted. T&C on the $5 bet is below. 

tip on 'joke' in previous title: connect the *two previous* titles.  

Terms & Conditions
1.1 These Terms and Conditions apply to the specific promotional offers in our sports betting and live betting line-up called and displayed as "FreeBet".
1.2 In addition to these FreeBet Terms and Conditions, our General Terms and Conditions and our Standard Promotional Terms and Conditions apply.
1.3 In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between these FreeBet Terms and Conditions, the Standard Promotional Terms and our General Terms and Conditions, these FreeBet Terms and Conditions shall prevail, followed by the Standard Promotional Terms and Conditions and then the General Terms and Conditions but only to the extent necessary to resolve such conflict or inconsistency.
2.1 Where offered, a "FreeBet" entitles You to place a bet without prior deduction of the stake from Your account balance. The amount that is used for the calculation of the possible winnings of this bet ("FreeBet Value") will be displayed as "Stake".
2.2 FreeBets can be subject to certain restrictions: they can be e.g. only valid for certain sports or leagues or for bet placement on specific devices. In such cases, the respective restriction will be displayed in the FreeBet overview.
2.3 If the selection in your bet slip can be played with a FreeBet, the respective FreeBet will be offered to you automatically in your bet slip. You can then play the selection as a FreeBet or use the FreeBet at a later point in time.
2.4 Available FreeBets are displayed on the website above the bet slip. By clicking on this area, you can open the FreeBet overview which lists all of your Freebets that can still be used.
2.5 Unless otherwise stated FreeBets will only be available to real-money players and you are required to make an initial deposit of at least $10 into your account in order to participate.
2.6 Where a FreeBet is settled as "won", you will be credited with FreeBet winnings which will be equal to the FreeBet value multiplied by the odds stated on the bet slip minus the FreeBet value.
2.7 If a bet placed using a Freebet is settled as ‘cancelled’, that Freebet will be deemed invalid.
2.8 If a FreeBet is settled as a ‘dead heat’ (d/h) and the corresponding dead heat odds become < 1.0, no funds shall be deducted from You.
2.9 A FreeBet can be placed as one straight bet or one parlay but the FreeBet value cannot be split between various bet placements. Multiple straight bets, Round Robin bets and bankers are excluded from FreeBets.
2.10 Where offered, a FreeBet can only be used once and within the time frame displayed on screen. If the validity time expires without the FreeBet being used, the FreeBet will become invalid.
2.11 A FreeBet can only be used for our sport betting or live betting line-up. All other products are excluded.
2.12 Where there are specific conditions that apply for selected betting options, for example minimum odds, parlay restrictions etc., these restrictions will also apply for FreeBets.
2.13 Where the player's betting limits are less than the FreeBet value, the FreeBet will have to be forfeited. 
2.14 The company does not guarantee the availability of FreeBets on all devices and browser versions.


OnceDear Apr 05, 2021

Oh. I got the song reference. Not sure how it relates to the thread.

You remind me that some 50 years ago, I was in the Mikado in the school play. I recall being late for my cue and in my haste to get on stage I stomped on the headmistress's foot. I never did apologise. Sorry Miss Austin if you are reading this.

I also remember the red-head star of the show. Kathleen Cartlidge (Yum Yum).

odiousgambit Apr 06, 2021

>I got the song reference. Not sure how it relates to the thread

It doesn't relate. You might think I'm putting on airs, all cultured and all that, but it's just that for some reason the song "A Wandering Minstrel I" has been on my mind. It's always bugged me that it isn't " I, a wandering minstrel" ... I think someone who 'gets' poetry sees why it is the way it is. I'm afraid I don't have that facility much

definitely had to put the Gilbert & Sullivan reference in there to avoid 'a pondering gambler I' meant a post about such a gambler, *part one*. I'm sure someone did anyway LOL.

So you get the Hearty Hiyo Silver , Sir! 


Posted by odiousgambit
Apr 03, 2021

Mik Ado About Nothing

Nothing but 10 bucks anyway. 

A hearty "hiyo silver!" to anyone who gets the joke in the title. It's a convoluted path to it, and of course having to explain your joke is the sure sign of a bad joke. 

After my previous blogpost about why I had decided against getting in on the goodies offered by the competing online gambling venues newly authorized in my state, highlighting MGM in particular, I decided it was only right to go back and see just what they were up to recently.  The initial $500 freebet offer had timed out, but they replaced it with a $50 freebet offer that required a player to deposit $10... just deposit it, you didn't have to bet it, the 50 bucks was yours to use [though you didn't get to keep that portion, only any winnings]. Additionally there was an assortment of $2.50 freebets up for grabs, and all of these freebets had T&C clearly spelled out, with no play-through to do. 

At this point I felt I might as well just see what happens, I'm thinking blowing $10 just to satisfy my curiosity is worth the price. And it will be $10 down the drain if they hit me with a withdrawal hassle, something they have already said they reserve the right to do. But I paypal them this amount in the hope that since it is paypal, I'll get no hassle when withdrawing, while honestly fully expecting that they will pull that stunt. Yes, I repeat, I think it is a complete scam to freely allow deposits while demanding scrutiny only on withdrawals. 

I was more interested in having more than $10 to cash out than making a 'good bet'.  I figured the trial withdrawal needed to have winnings included or they might OK it without scrutiny if it was only the amount I deposited. I picked a -250 hockey moneyline bet for my $50 freebet.  Hockey this year has featured a few teams at the top of a division winning 75% of their games, while the teams on the bottom have been correspondingly awful. But the day I picked was a good day for upsets and sure enough the $50 freebet went bye-bye. Fortunately not all bets bombed, so I had $13 in the account after all bets were settled. 

I was now ready to test the withdrawal experience and started the withdrawal request March 30th in the morning. An email acknowledgement indicated I might have to wait 5 days for a response. Well, on the morning of April 1st, April Fools, I see the indication that the withdrawal has been "reversed" ... this took 2 days.  This is the way I would expect my account to show if I had cancelled the request myself, since they wanted to give me every opportunity to change my mind every time I checked up on the request, constantly posing for me the icon to click on with the word "reverse" prominent. But I had not clicked on 'reverse'. 

I have a very strong suspicion that this was done in order to claim that I activated the reverse myself. Or perhaps to get an employee's boss off the underling's back. I can easily imagine this going on in such an organization: "you're granting too many requests!"

That no email was received as explanation* amounts to support for my theory. Or perhaps this is even standard procedure, a way of denying my request without having to explain. Might go like this, "Reverse that, just see if the guy drops it, most of them do for that amount, and he might just keep on gambling, many go ahead and deposit more money. When and if he ever wins big and wants his money, that's when we'll finally reveal all of his winnings were just a pipe dream." At least a dream when it comes to getting it without a big hassle. 

Well, as of now, I have put the request in again, it isn't tagged as un-withdrawable, a category that evidently exists. Should it go through this time maybe I'll revisit the whole matter.

*as of 4 days past request date, 2 days after reversal


Mission146 Apr 03, 2021

You'll probably have to go into the Live Chat and see what they want from you. Most likely a copy of your driver's license or a picture of the bank account or card associated with your Paypal account. If it gets, "Reversed," again, you'll almost certainly NOT be offered an explanation unless you go to Live Chat or send an E-Mail and ask for one. This is pretty standard. CET did the same thing on a withdrawal I had.

odiousgambit Apr 03, 2021


if it's standard procedure while at the same time saying they'll email you, that's another strike.

odiousgambit Apr 03, 2021

I should make it clear they definitely say they'll email you if they reject your request. They didn't.

>unless you go to Live Chat or send an E-Mail and ask for one

I also hope I made it clear I'm not doing that. If I do that, the terrorists won.

And for a final clarification, to get my $10 worth, I am going to do my best to let any gambler I know just how wrong, totally wrong this is and list the reasons why. Please bear in mind if they made making a deposit just as hard as making a withdrawal I would not have any complaints.

Posted by odiousgambit
Mar 27, 2021

A Pondering Gambler I

A Pondering [Online] Gambler I ... or actually, An Abstaining Gambler Me [that loses something though].

Apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan in any case

So now there are half a dozen different outfits offering online sports betting in Virginia, generally with fairly lucrative joining offers. Yet I have declined to participate ... so far. 

I've mentioned before I fit the profile for a typical gambler in some ways, but not so in many others. I certainly have a list of types of gambling I simply have no interest in, notably lotteries, and a list of 'just-not-going-to-do' as a matter of self-control. Pertinent here: online casino gaming , ain't doing that. However, though I admit sports betting should make me hesitate for all the same reasons, I confess I'm willing to take that particular plunge. Ummm,  'Depending'. 

I suspected my first problem was going to be that I am a holdout against getting a smartphone. Since I really don't want one, I resent the current trend towards apps exclusive to them. I discovered, however, that even though these outfits favor the use of phones, at least some of them realized there were a few old coots out there without one who might give them some business. Investigating MGM's Virginia venture first, I did see they were attempting to do business using just a home computer.

I signed up with "Bet MGM Virginia", giving name, address, d.o.b., and phone number. Quite eager were they to get a deposit immediately, and boy was that going to be easy, multiple ways to do it. But thanks to paying attention to what people have said at WoV, I knew I was going to have to be happy with terms and conditions. So I did spend some time pouring over them; you know, really, with most internet things I just skip doing this, so it was almost like a new experience. Most of the time just trusting that the other side isn't up to something works fine. But this is gambling, and we know the nature of that. 

As I suspected, there it was, the deal-breaker. They reserve the right to give you a hard time when it comes to withdrawals. Name, address, phone no., some claim about d.o.b., that was fine for deposits, but withdrawals? It seems they need more, a lot more. The perversity of that is remarkable. You might want to defend them and say they need to be sure you are who you say you are, and that you're not fraudulently accessing funds. In order for me to buy this explanation, though, I'd like to find out why they don't insist on this level of scrutiny right from the beginning. That they *do not* suggests a special kind of casino perspective: it's no problem to take in fraudulent funds if you refuse to pay winners. All those winnings, in this case, are just pipe dreams, not affecting the house. When it eventually is revealed the player shouldn't have had access to the funds he used, overall losers included, then there is the possible pain of returning those funds, but it was all make believe money anyway for any wins. But there is also the percentage of those funds that will never have to be returned, almost for sure a nice hefty slice. There's the expression 'easy come, easy go' but this is switched to, 'easy come, ain't gonna go'.  Not all of it anyway, maybe not even most of it, these funds that the online gaming should never have received in the first place. Far be it for Virginia to have insisted all scrutiny be in place for deposits as well as withdrawals, they've just plunged into this allowing the gambling interests to do whatever they want, bringing with them much of the nefarious doings they learned from overseas operations. 

There will be plenty of guys who provided funds legally just deciding to postpone withdrawing in the face of onerous identification demands, while continuing their betting. This means increased likelihood the money will dwindle away in the meantime, of course. Don't think that isn't a known factor. 

I couldn't find anything indicating I might not get the withdrawal scrutiny if I used Paypal. But I did wonder if that might not be the case. A betMGM offer for a free $10 no deposit bet came up, so I thought that might be a good test to see if I'd be hassled if I won the bet and tried to withdraw the winnings. I started the process and found I had to download something to verify my location. My operating system completely rejected this download, with a big warning, and giving no option to bypass the rejection. I waited a couple of days and the problem had been fixed. Unfortunately I was then informed I had already used up my free bet, which I never was able to make. Well, well. 
I've read accounts of players getting into it with casinos over disputed this and that on WoV, and sometimes prevailing, but I have to say it is the last thing I want to find myself doing. Depending on the amount, I'd likely be happier kissing the money goodbye rather than going through something like that. It would totally destroy my enjoyment, the only reason I would be betting in the first place. I think this also separates me from many other gamblers. 

A certain person, not a gambler I think, might ask why bother with withdrawing when it is -EV in the long run. Well, I do know that in the long run my bankroll is likely to dwindle away. But I don't know if I'll stick to a particular outfit. But more than that, to decide something like that is just too much, too much. I'd suggest to such a person that if they can make a decision like that to give up any gambling they do or dont start. It's just wrong!

In case I didn't make it clear, if they did have you give extraordinary evidence you are who you say up in front, before making a deposit, I would decline to do so. I don't want them to have that much information on me. I just like the way that is done that is still available at some times in some places. You walk in and anonymously place your bet, keep your slip, and anonymously collect any winnings too. It may be they open such betting parlors in various places near me. Looks like I'll be waiting for that.


OnceDear Mar 27, 2021

For UK regulated casinos, deposits take seconds. But before making a withdrawal, they insist on imposing 'Know your customer' and 'Anti Money Laundering' processes. This is mandated by UK government and gets ridiculous. With one long standing account, I had to explain and prove my source of funds just to withdraw £50. For a retired guy whose 'source of funds' was a lifetime of savings from 40 years continuous employment, it was a big ask. I could show them paypal statements where incoming money had come from my bank, but then I'd need to show them a bank statement showing matching deposits... and if they came from cash deposits, transfers in from elsewhere, etc. then how far back could I go to prove that £50 wasn't originally from selling drugs or bitcoin or whatever on the street corner. My funds float around god knows how many accounts of many types. I couldn't audit myself if I tried. To shut these AML queries down, I just send them one private pension statement and say "This will be my source of funds". So far that is enough. Maybe they would ask again if I start depositing larger amounts.

I understand that in the fast de-regulating US market, you guys need to establish which state you are stood in at that moment. Hence their pushing of geolocating mobile Apps. I never needed to do that and never gamble on my phone.

ODG, if you think that's a PITA, try selling bitcoin on Coinbase. They have you take selfies holding up your passport or a hand written note and that's seldom enough.

I must Say, ODG, that both regulated and unregulated casinos have some big 'gotchas' in their terms, but the regulated ones seem keen to behave well while they establish themselves. So don't necessary baulk at the restrictions.

odiousgambit Mar 27, 2021

thanks for the info, oncedear. Sorry to see that same practice of 'easy to deposit, hard to withdraw'.

A picture of you holding your passport? wow

didn't think about the money laundering thing. still, I deplore that no matter how much sense it makes to do it, that the same rules don't apply to deposits as withdrawals

Posted by odiousgambit
Dec 08, 2020

Not Loving It

Two developments with the dice-setting:

* It must have been noticeable that I was getting different results than the Wizard with the 6.04 shooter. Then it occurred to me that the Wizard was using a modified formula that incorporated the lower HE you get with full odds using the 3x4x5x free odds. I had dismissed that, thinking someone with skill would not want to use the free odds, since they add variance without changing the EV. That was stupid: if you can shoot with less 7-outs, the free odds benefit from it enormously in fact, in the player's favor that is ... it's no longer the same matter of not changing the EV. So this explains the difference and why such a small change as one less 7 rolled in a thousand rolls can pretty much take away house advantage as the Wizard shows. Though he doesn't put it that way and we are having to rely on my conclusion that 6.04 means one seven rolled per 6.04 rolls, which no one has confirmed.

* I have arrived at the Greenbrier. The Craps minimum has been raised to $25, yuck. And they have decided that a max of three players are allowed, one on each end and one just to the *left* of stick. All this including the $25 min due to the virus I guess. I mentioned it's nuts to think you can accomplish anything from one end of the table [12 ft here] and my new throw is too hard to pull off left-handed [for me] and would be even worse to try right handed from left of stick [it's quite different]. So after getting all worked up over it I can't try it. Great. And the new minimum means minimal time at the Craps table as well ... I've never wanted to spend much time at a $25 Craps table.

Posted by odiousgambit
Dec 03, 2020

Don't You Just Love It Record

the below is from the "don't you just love it" thread and I want a handy record.



I want to check some assumptions that I am not sure are correct, and my math could be wrong too

the question does come up, how much would a shooter have to deviate from random in order to have an advantage? So I go to the Wizard's pages, see first link, and find that the ratio that is used is called rolls to sevens, and the first increment seems to be a ration of 6.04 versus 6 for random. It strikes me right away as odd, since the change is noted in the denominator, ie 1/6 versus 1/6.04 ............ This is one thing I'm trying to check, can someone confirm that I am interpreting that right?

However if we try to put such a small change in the numerator, I can see why this is done. We get 0.99337748344/6 ........... yeah, that's awkward. 

In the meantime it must be noted that the chart in the link shows player advantage at 6.04. For one thousand rolls, 166.667 [1000/6]would be random and 6.04 [1000/6.04] gets you 165.5629 per thousand, or about 1 roll of seven less, per thousand rolls! That's not much for sure. 

So I am trying to see if I am interpreting it all correctly, or not. 



I'm at the point of being satisfied that my assumptions have been correct, rereading the link about rolls to sevens and also noting 1 divided by 6.04 and 0.99337748344 divided by 6 both equal 0.1655629139, so that has to be right. I also have to say the bit about 166.667 versus 165.5629 per thousand rolls is right, can't see how it would be wrong. 

I'm still befuddled a bit by 'skill factor', not so much the idea but the ability to apply the math, so ... Well, anyway, one thing I note in the Wizard's pages on this is that somehow there is no mention of the 'flying V' dice set. If you can stay on axis with that set it rules out a roll of 7 using 5+2 or 6+1. If staying on axis, a big 'if' ha ha, the only possible rolls [will have] 2 sevens out of 16, or 1 out of 8 versus random's 1 out of 6. You can check this out yourself with a pair of dice. I wish we had a chart, then, with the effect of using even a random roll in the comeout and then following up with the flying V after a number is marked to be resolved. This has been my practice, but the Wizard's chart uses hardways sets for some reason. 

Craps dot com image for the flying V  
Actually any dice that are set as identical pairs, but then have one die turned 180 degrees like that, might produce the 'less 7s' effect, as far as I can tell; it can certainly be flying 2s instead of flying 3s.  


I was thrown for a bit by realizing you can get different sets of numbers, 'depending'. It is easy to intend to start one die rotating and the next thing you know you've got the other one rotating and get lost. 

OK, so with a die with 2 and 5 as the axis, giving the axis a right and left side by facing the 6, say, the 2 is on the left and the 5 is on the right, call it the 2-5 die. For the other die with 6 and 1 as the axis, arbitrarily facing the 5, the 6 is on the left and the 1 is on the right. The 6-1 die call it. 

With the 2-5 die unchanged after throw, the four numbers we get with the spin of the 6-1 die are 8, 7, 5, 6, the last through double-pitch.
2-5 die making a rotation on axis that 6 comes up, making the four possibles 11, 10, 8, 9 same way. 
2-5 die making another rotation the 4 comes, and the four possilbes are 9, 8, 2, 7 ...
2-5 die making last rotation, the 1 comes up and the four we get are 6, 5, 3, 4

we encountered two 7s out of 16

However, there can be a 5-2 die if we choose to face the 1 on the die, that is, 5 on the left, 2 on the right.
Going through the same way with the 6-1 die, 8, 7, 5, 6.... 6,5,3,4... 9,8,6,7... 11,10,8,9............. two 7s

There can be a 1-6 axis die if you choose to face the 2. Against a 2-5 die that does the rotation on axis:
1-6 die unchanged, 9,7,4,6 
1-6 die has the 2 come up, 8,6,3,5
1-6 die has the 4 come up, 10,8,5,7
1-6 die has the 5 come up, 11,9,6,8.................... process also has two 7s

1-6 die now needs the numbers from a 5-2 die. Somebody may tell me these are not the only possibles but I hope this is it......................4,7,9,6... 3,6,8,5... 5,8,10,7... 6,9,11,8            ....................... two 7s

So there are 16 possibilities, but only for each of four scenarios, making 64, which has nearly killed me. Note that a player does not need to decide anything but to have the flying V, or even flying 2s, all of which is quickly set.


I'm still going with this. 

I wanted to see just how many less 7s a player needs to roll before it's +EV in rightside Craps. So, I came up with this, and maybe you'll tell me it can't be done this way, but it seems to offer an insight unless I am very much mistaken. So I took the following, 

the familiar figures for each number that can be rolled:
2....1/36   rolled and  loses 1 unit
3.....2/36  rolled and loses 1
4.....3/36  rolled and wins 3/9 of the time  
10.....3/36  rolled and wins 3/9 of the time 
5...4/36  rolled and wins 4/10 of the time 
9...4/36  rolled and wins 4/10 of the time
6...5/36 rolled and wins 5/11 of the time 
8...5/36 rolled and wins 5/11 of the time
7    6/36     wins 1
11  2/36    wins 1
12  1/36     loses 1

I put it in a calculator as 
for the winning combinations, in order those are 4,10,5,9,6,8, when winning, then 7,11 in come out

for the losing combinations, 
which is 4,10,5,9,6,8 when losing, then 2,12, 3 in come out

the sum of the winners is +0.4929292929292929
the sum of the losers is -0.5070707070707071
and the sum of both is the familiar -0.0141414141414142 house edge

So after pondering this quite a bit, decided what it would look like if the shooter rolled one less 7 in about one thousand rolls, and chose 972 rolls, a multiple of 36. I then postulated that if the shooter rolled one less 7, it would be when he set the dice for that in numbers to be resolved, while rolling without setting dice in the come outs. So in the equation, only the chances when resolving did I want to alter. To make the shooter slightly more unlucky, what is rolled instead of 7-out will be deemed to be a roll that does not resolve, so only the part of the equation that gives the wins is unchanged while the chances of a loss do indeed decrease slightly for each. 

So when rolling to resolve, instead of the ratio 162 per 972 rolls [1/6] such shooter enjoys a mere 161, while the chances, say, for rolling an 8 stay at 5/36 or 135 per 972 rolls. This makes 161 ways to lose and 135 ways to win, 296 total ways, and 161/296, the chances of losing, now to be 0.5439189189189189 instead of the 6/11 that comes with random results, or 0.5454545454545455, a difference of 0.0015356265356266 which seems to fit. So in the losing equation above, the same process for each takes place and I get:

for the 5s and 9s, 4/36, or 108/972, 161 ways to lose vs 108, total of 269, 161/269 checks as 0.5985130111524164 chances instead of the 0.6 of random's 3/5

for the 4s and 10s, 3/36 = 81/972, and 161+81 = 242 total ways, 161/242 = 0.6652892561983471 which is mighty close to 2/3 and 67%

-[1/12*161/242]-[1/12*161/242]-[1/9*161/269]-[1/9*161/269]-[5/36*161/296]-[5/36*161/296]-[1/36]-[1/36]-[1/18] = -0.5060841337666279

that is reduced from -0.5070707070707071 however, 
+0.4929292929292929-0.5060841337666279 = -0.013154840837335

I get a house edge of -1.31% for the 6.04 shooter versus -1.41% and that is definitely progress but the shooter has to be better it seems. 

Now I do realize that this process is a little wonky, but to me it does not seem totally flawed. Or can somebody tell me that it is? If not totally flawed I am going to continue with it.


Trial and error continues, to see at what point rolling less 7s in an unknown way gets a player to +EV. The next level of skill noted by the Wizard is a 6.08 rolls to sevens shooter which indeed means we go to about two missing 7s after 1000 in theory if continuing with the assumption this means one 7 per 6.08 rolls, 1/6.08 instead of 1/6. I'll continue with the above stipulations, that the come-out rolls are without setting the dice and random results, and that rolling less 7s helps avoid 7-outs but does not increase the number of wins. That latter stipulation will have to change when we go to higher rolls to sevens, and that is going to give me a headache it looks like. I'm not expecting much change but let's see. 

Sticking to the admittedly deviating 972 rolls, again instead of the ratio 162 per 972 rolls [1/6] such shooter enjoys a mere 160, while the chances for rolling a 6 or 8 stay at 5/36 or 135 per 972 rolls, total of 295 possibles for resolving. 

for the 5s and 9s, 4/36, or 108/972, 160 ways to lose vs 108, total of 268 possibles. 

for the 4s and 10s, 3/36 = 81/972, and 160+81 = 241 total ways. 

-[1/12*160/241]-[1/12*160/241]-[1/9*160/268]-[1/9*160/268]-[5/36*160/295]-[5/36*160/295]-[1/36]-[1/36]-[1/18] = -0.5050902973936376

-0.5050902973936376+0.4929292929292929 = -0.0121610044643447

-1.22% ; so we are getting somewhere but not to +EV

How do I solve the need to adjust the winning side of the equation if I go to, say, 6 less rolls than random of seven, per 972? Help accepted!