Posted by odiousgambit
Jul 22, 2021

No Succession, Super Simple 18-21 UTH

The discussion made it occur to me that there are certain things to be gleaned from the strategy where you use Succession, that you can use even if you are someone who has a great comfort level with counting the outs and want nothing to do with Succession. I have especially found that it is quickly picked up for the common situations where you 'play the board', and on this last statement I'd say if you don't agree, you're hard-headed. 


For the 'Can Outkick', 21+ outs:

Get this sequence down: K,Q,J,J 

Then get this one down: rainbow, pair, 2 pair, trips .......... Which represents unpaired rainbow board, board with 1 pair, board w/2 pairs, board w/trips, resp. 

Absent cards on the board that outrank, the K,Q,J,J cards, or better,  that respectively go along with the other are instant-decision bettable. In all other situations including the presence of outranking cards, count the Total Dealer Outs. 

Note that if you do have the K,Q,J,J for the respective situations, the presence on the board of out-ranking cards expands the possible bettable kickers. In other words, you don't have to count the outs unless you're checking for lower kickers than K,Q,J,J 


For the 'Can't Outkick' 'play the board',  18+ outs:

Get this down, A-J  ............... where A-J means Ace thru Jack in any combination

Then this: Board with one pair and Board with Trips

Absent those same same cards being present in the pair or trips, the cards that are not part of the pair or the trips need to be that A-J, otherwise fold. With the presence of A-J in the pair or the trips, count the outs, fold if 18+ . Any other scenario on the board, count the outs also

Note that the bettable cards never include anything more expansive than A-10 no matter what as long as we are talking about these two cases only. A 9-card or less as one of the kickers is an instant fold. 


There are exceptions but this is a simple strategy. I've tested very thoroughly with the Wizard calculator but will happily stand corrected if you can show it 

Posted by odiousgambit
Jul 22, 2021

UTH, the 21 *AND* 18 Outs

Here's a version of the 18/21 out strategy that allows a player to mostly eliminate the need to count the Dealer Outs to determine whether kickers are 'bettable' in Ultimate Texas Holdem [UTH]. You hopefully will find many of the indicated actions to take become automatic or second nature. You can also just adopt some of them now, then more later. See further below for definitions and fuller explanation.



You Can Outkick BoardAction Indicated (see other text also)
1 . Board = 4 card flush, open-ended straight Fold the kicker 
2. Unpaired Rainbow Board K is bettable, succession rule in effect.
3. Board has One Pair Q is bettable, succession rule in effect.
4. Board has Trips J is bettable, succession rule in effect
5. Board = Two Pair, Init-Bd 7 Outs J is bettable, succession rule in effect
6. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 4 outs!   10 is bettable, succession rule in effect.
7. Board has 4 OAK 7-card is bettable, succession rule in effect


You Can Not Outkick the Board Action Indicated (see other text also)
1. The board doesn't have a pair or better    "don't play the board" 
2. Board Has One Pair Unpaired 3 board cards, A-J, any comb, bettable, succession to A-10
3. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 7 outs Q is bettable, succession rule in effect
4. Board has Trips 2 board cards not in Trips, A-J, any comb, bettable; succession to A-10
5. Board has Two Pair, Init-Bd 4 outs!  Need one pair JJ+, count the outs! If 18+, fold.
6. Board has 4 OAK 10-card is bettable, succession rule is in effect.


Kicker definition The usage here is a little different from the normal usage in a poker game, where a kicker is a tie breaker in a showdown between otherwise equivalent hands. The usage here includes that, but also can mean the highest ranking card in what is usually referred to as a "high card only hand". Also, to determine you "can't outkick the board" means to dismiss your hole cards as if they don't exist, instead you "play the board". This means a decision about whether the board is likely enough to be a push so that you don't want to fold. 

Bettable Kicker definition In the tables to be just referred to as 'Bettable'. You do bet with the card shown; one of higher rank will also be bettable. Of course you can still lose, otherwise an out would not be an out! It is a matter of whether the kicker allows the dealer to reach sufficient outs or not, in order to fold or bet as best strategy. 

Initial Board Outs definition The outs that are counted by the cards on the board, which is a maximum of 15 outs coming from 5 cards which would have 3 cards each that could be an out. A pair reduces the Initial Board count to 11, etc. A distinction should be made with this and 'Dealer Total Outs' which take the Initial Board Outs and add the other Outs for cards not on the board and which add 4 outs each. Though you do not usually count the outs with this strategy being presented here, it is derivative from that process.  For the tables I am using the abbreviation Init-Bd for 'Initial Board'

Succession definition Determining a certain card in a certain situation is bettable will be modified by the presence of higher ranking cards on the board, increasing the bettable kickers. When one out-ranker is present, the succession rule maintains that the next lower kicker is also bettable. For example, in hole-card kicker situation 2, I indicate a King is bettable . If an Ace is present on the board that will mean a Queen is now bettable as well. If both Ace and King are present on the board, that's two out-rankers, and the succession rule says now a Jack is also bettable, etc. 


This is a simple strategy and incorporates Succession; this varies from the LVA simple strategy. The LVA strategy card says to fold if you have only a kicker against a 4-Flush or "Any 4-Straight", then count the outs in the remaining scenarios. This creates some scenarios where the kicker is eliminated before counting these outs, but could have been bettable. Using the Succession strategy, you do not fold against "any" 4-straight, only open-ended ones. This creates some scenarios where the kicker is indicated as bettable when instead you should fold. There is an Advanced Strategy to deal with that once you learn the simple strategy. I have put the Advanced Strategy at the bottom. 

One solution to deal with it all would be to have more tables with all the various scenarios, but I have not made such tables. If unhappy with the compromise you can instead send off for the LVA strategy card, which has no tables like this, or learn a full Grosjean strategy, which must be available somewhere. 

All situations below are for the 1X decision point where you have failed to get a pair or better and your final possibility comes down to kickers. You determine if you can outkick the board using a hole card, or whether you should determine if the board should be bet on its own, your best kicker unable to outkick the board. This is a matter of dealer outs as well. In the former case, which I will call a hole card kicker situation, 21+ outs indicate to fold, while in the other case usually 18+ outs indicate folding. No dealer two-card combinations are counted as dealer outs in the simple 18/21 outs strategy. The below is designed to avoid having to count the dealer outs, though you should note it is derivative of that strategy and in one case I have you count the outs. Such exceptions to the 18/21 Outs rules that might exist are not noted in the tables. 

When using the tables, refer to the numbered explanations below for fuller explanation. 

You Can Outkick the Board

Hole Card Kicker Situation 1 . Your kicker should not go up against a 4 card flush or open-ended straight on the board, fold instead of using kicker. 

Hole Card Kicker Situation 2. Unpaired Rainbow Board with Initial Board [Init-Bd] representing 15 outs. King is bettable, succession rule is in effect. With a low ranking kicker, a good alternative to the succession rule for situation 2 is to look for the out-ranking cards, there can only be one of that Set missing from the board for your kicker to be bettable. 

Hole Card Kicker Situation 3. Board has One Pair, Initial Board representing 11 outs. Q is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 

Hole Card Kicker Situation 4. Board has Trips, Initial Board representing 7 outs. J is bettable, succession rule is in effect, and we see a pattern here. 

Hole Card Kicker Situation 5. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing 7 outs, important. J is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 

Hole Card Kicker Situation 6. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing only 4 outs!! This is when the unpaired board card is lower than either pair, thus irrelevant when paired by dealer or player. 10-card is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 

Hole Card Kicker Situation 7. Board has 4 OAK, Initial Board representing 3 outs.  7-card is bettable, succession rule is in effect. note that counting to 21+ outs is not viable strategy here. Memorize this, don't counts outs.

Hole Card Kicker Situation 8. Board has *any* full house. Kickers and Outs are irrelevant, always bet. No table entry.

You Can't Outkick the Board

The following is for when your kicker can't outkick the board. The situation is different because a single card can't trump all other outs in some cases. Playing the board means your hole cards may as well not exist, you are playing for a push. 

Situation 1. If the board doesn't have a pair or better, "don't play the board" per LVA strategy card. 

Most of the other situations below use the 18+ rule. 

Can't Outkick Situation 2. One pair, Initial Board representing 11 outs, and there are 3 cards not in the pair. All 3 need to be Ace through Jack, any combination, otherwise there are 2 cards that the dealer could have that will add 8 more outs = 19. If the pair consists of AA, KK, QQ, or JJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is in effect. Note well, the Succession check for out-ranking cards only applies to the pair!

Can't Outkick Situation 3. Board has Two Pair, Initial Board representing 7 outs. Q is bettable, succession rule is in effect. 

Can't Outkick Situation 4. Board has Trips, Initial Board representing 7 outs, with two cards not part of the Trips. These two need to be Ace through J, any combo again, to keep the dealer from having enough possible outs. If the Trips consist of AAA, KKK, QQQ, or JJJ, succession to A through 10, any combination, is in effect. 

Can't Outkick Situation 5. Board has Two Pair, with Initial Board representing 4 outs! The one other card is lower again than the pairs, irrelevant when paired by dealer or player. This time the 2 pair need to contain a pair of Jacks or higher, otherwise dealer can have Ace through Jack and 16 more outs. Look for this situation and this time I finally agree to just count the outs! If 18+, fold. 

Can't Outkick Situation 6. Board has 4 OAK, Initial Board representing 3 outs. 10-card, for the other card, is bettable, succession rule is in effect. This seems to be a 21+ outs situation

Hole Card Kicker Situation 7. Board has *any* full house. Kickers and Outs are irrelevant, always bet. No table entry.


Qualified Straight definition [Advanced]: Actually certain 4-card straights and any 3-card straight flush. The 4-card straight is qualified if it has one gap, while the 3-card straight flush could have 2 gaps. 

Reverse-Succession definition [Advanced] The presence of qualified straights [as per definition] on the board is a reverse-succession condition. Instead of expanding the cards that are bettable, the presence of such means going up to the next higher ranking card. 

Strategy Explained [Advanced] For example, these could take the situation of an unpaired rainbow board that you can outkick from determining a Jack is bettable with the presence on the board of an Ace and King, reversing back to Q because there is a qualified straight [as per definition]. Having a K for kicker could also turn into "fold" with Reverse-Succession, since if that reverses to Ace bettable, you should have already played an Ace if you have one.

Posted by odiousgambit
Jun 27, 2021

UTH Brain Muscles

The last post of an unfortunately titled thread was more properly a blogpost, so here it is.


[I make the case that Ultimate Texas Holdem has to be played faster than best strategy really allows unless a player has gotten his brain trained to act fast.] This is why the UTH video machine I came across at Cherokee is calling me like a siren. I guess it's good that it's too far away for me to show up on a whim, but I miss being able to play on a regular basis thanks to some other casinos dropping it. I love the low minimum. It also may allow more time for decisions, though there must be a time limit as more than one person can play at a time and the video dealer puts the same hand to beat for everybody. I failed to check this out thoroughly, I was playing by myself, but never was warned to hurry up on the video game. Alas, it is either about to be repaired [3 out of 5 video terminals were dead] or it is on it's way out, so it might mean to play it's going to have to be the dealer-dealt game with much higher minimum and only certain hours.

Playing using the Wizard's game is good prep, not only do you get better with all decision stages, but it's almost impossible to make yourself slow down all that much. Maybe that's good, you do need to become a quick decision maker. The 4x decision needs to be something akin to muscle memory that I think the brain can develop, that is, it no longer involves 'thinking' if you know what I mean. The more each stage becomes that type to you, the better. One problem though is I can get click-happy, clicking on the 'check' icon when in my mind I'm thinking 'on to the next' , mentally I've already gone past the 4x decision and this easily might be clicking on the wrong thing. This never happens to me when it is dealer-dealt and didn't seem to happen the one time I got a chance to play on the video machine.

You want to get the 4x decision out of the way because it isn't just pair+ development you're looking for, but the development of straights and flushes. Speaking for myself anyway, by the time the flop comes you need to have determined what to look for. In regular 7-card poker, I get few straights compared to how many I potentially could get, because I fold something like 3h, 7d so quickly. But playing UTH you're not getting to a folding decision until you've seen the entire board, so that same hand should have you thinking 'possible straight'. If you want a confirmation that your straight if it comes can be overlooked, check out how often a so-so dealer can miss it amongst what can just look like a jumble. I suppose a flush is harder to miss, but my thinking is it is best to be the first one to spot that too, before the dealer evaluates your hand.

I'm always impressed by someone who never misses straights/flushes and the speed at which they spot them.

On the flop you're also facing the first kicker decisions too. The dealer calls every bet you make without knowing his hand, and you might win by out-kicking him. The advice comes down to what kicker you have when you have other good prospects, but not something made or nearly made. This requires memorization for the most part, and the closer it is to brain-muscle-memory, BMM shall we say, the better. A slight familiarity with a strategy card such as LVA has can be used for a quick glance should BMM be failing you. The dealer isn't going to be happy if you sit there and study it.

At the turn/river stage I think the number of decisions left can be underestimated. First you need to look hard at the board, while practically simultaneously possibly still determining if you have a straight etc. You can overlook your straight now for sure if it only uses one card in your hand and the straight you were looking for didn't materialize. That you have a flush, you should catch that even you started out unsuited quite a bit more easily ... still, you can be busy looking elsewhere. Again, that first good hard look at the board was essential.

You don't want to miss a paired board or see only one of two pairs on the board. If satisfied you have nothing, you rapidly need to determine if you have an 18 or 21 outs situation and which it is. I'm going to maintain that you do not have time to actually count these outs. After playing enough, I think most players develop a system. If the board is an unpaired, rainbowed jumble, K alone is a good kicker and you bet [with A you already bet]. If higher cards are present, there is an "order of succession" you might say. If there is A or K on the board, the Q is good; if both A and K, or K and Q, i.e. any two higher, then J is good. This can go down to a 10 or 9, but you might be running into a very high dealer straight.

In other situations, you need to recognize if the board represents not 15, but 11 or 7 outs. If 11, obviously 2 cards that outrank and are missing on the board mean 8 more outs taking you past 18, and 3 such missing take you past 21. I am still working on more BMM for these situations and I think I'll be there soon.

And you're not done yet. I suppose you can say shame on the player who has this happen, but let's say you have that 3-7 hand and instantly know on seeing the board you're dead for pairing, straights, flushes, and a decent kicker all. It sure is easy to fold that hand, forgetting to really study the board. You might miss, say, two pair with high kicker on the board. Though it looks like you're just sucking hind teat, that hand is heavily favored to push. You and the dealer are highly likely to have the same hand. If you have never accidentally folded that hand, my hat is off to you.

Finally, why am I saying there isn't enough time to count the outs? Well, I suppose you could keep telling the dealer to stop while you count them, but you're holding things up as far as the casino is concerned. If you did your due deligence on examining the board and your hand, you took a bit of time already. It is the job of the dealer to keep it moving, so he's going to worry about the pit getting on his case. It'd be similar to taking forever while you set the dice. Yeah, you can try taking all the time in the world, but you're going to get pushback. Sooner or later you won't be having fun, I've had some experience with this. There surely is also a time limit where you can find a video version of this game, at least if it is still going to be the same video dealer for each player, buxom though they might be.


ChallengedMilly Jul 26, 2021

Oh hey I've won a couple hundred on this UTH machine at Cherokee as well. It seems extremely exploitable from both times I've played it, especially if the progressive works the way I think it does. If I had hit my royal flush on it instead of the VP machine by the doors, I think I would have walked away with $40,000 last time I was there.

If you're at Cherokee in September please send me a pm! Would love to hang out and play a bit on it with you. Last time I was there they still only had 3 seats open, which is a marginal increase but still one of those nice to know what you're fellow players are drawing to.

Posted by odiousgambit
Jun 18, 2021

Online Sports Gambling Cont.

If I can flatter myself to think anyone pays much attention to my posts, I'll say that you may remember I said I wouldn't do online sports gambling after checking into it and risking $10 to see if I could get it back without a hassle. I did get a small hassle, a mysterious "reversal" of my request to withdraw. After a second request, though, it came through. And all they have for me is my name, address, and phone no. 

I have tested the withdrawal process once more, successful for about $30, and am now in the process of testing a withdrawal of $50. As far as my contributions, I have deposited, net, zero dollars now, so, yes, this is all money I have been able to accumulate from offers that they have floated. Remarkably enough, if you wait long enough in Virginia anyway, free bet offers will come along as will deposit match offers. Admittedly, what I've accumulated is chump change, but to some degree this is because I don't take full advantage. I fully expect that if the amount gets large enough, they may decide to give me a hard time on withdrawal. Plus, if you win cumulatively as much as $600, they say they are going to report it to the IRS. The wording makes it sound like if you won $12 a week that'd do it, and as far as I know, they might not even deduct your losses first. All in all, not betting very much sounds like a very sound decision. 

Meanwhile, it's been an education. There's something about the ability to 'gamble anytime' that's sobering for me, I can't see the purpose unless I gamble smart. At a brick and mortar sportsbook, I generally just pick a team, pay only a bit of attention to the odds, and make small bets for fun, expecting in fact to lose money more often than not. As online activity, constantly betting, nothing seems crazier than doing that same thing. 

That isn't to say I haven't tried to have fun with some bets, so this is how that has gone: 

*Learning the Ropes..............Man, everything has a learning curve. You just have to take the plunge, make your mistakes, and figure out what the hell they are trying to say half the time. One quirk to remember was a free bet I started with that got interrupted until I could get "location confirmation" downloaded and working, and for some reason it didn't at first. Then after it was working, I was informed, your free bet has already been used! So that went bye-bye. Learning curve for that, make sure you are all set to go before using offers. All kinds of things like that. 

*The Money Line..................... I had thought that the way it goes, the oddsmakers set up the beginning money lines and then see where the betting goes. If there is heavy betting on one end, then the line would move, and you might wait to see if it moves enough to be attractive. I've noticed though, with well-heeled outfits like I am betting at anyway, that it goes like this: Both the favorite and the underdog bets have a house edge [of course] but if the betting is heavy on one side, then the first thing that happens is that side only moves. The Yankees, say, might start at -120, and if the betting comes in heavy on that, it'll go to -125 quickly and soon worse. They want to limit the action somewhat with those bettors.  But their opponent's line that started at, say, +105, doesn't move at all for quite a while. Finally, as the game approaches start time, it might finally move. Or not. They have the wherewithal to cover the bets without needing the money to come in on the other side, that is clear. That the less heavily bet line moves at all might be just a hedge against the possibility the oddsmakers didn't get it right, I think. Basically, they want to maintain that if the oddsmakers did get it right, you lose in the long run betting either side, why should they move the line? Some of this I've learned too from what the Wizard has said. In any case, I don't waste much time trying to take advantage of heavy big city betting. 

*Live Betting........................ The live betting is where you want to be if you want to see some wild swings. I am not sure, but I think there may be opportunities here. If the underdog scores first, the reaction is very strong. In one game, the Yankees were the favorite, and I had bet on the Phillies line that was at +105. They did score first, in the first inning I think, and all of a sudden you could take the Yankees at +400 and I took it. That bet lost, but I had both sides at positive something and couldn't get hurt. I just felt that +400 was way too good odds, that the Yankees had better chances to still win than that suggested. I'll admit the problem is that the team that scores first does have the best chances to win by a pretty large margin. Maybe it's best to just stay with your bet and get the payoff, +400 doesn't cut it. To research that would really be a job. All I can say is, the Yankees almost won and my feeling at this point is, I'd do it again. I do think your original bet has to be something that makes sense, and if it is late innings, it's going to be best to stick with it. 

*Offers...................... I am such a piker that I can hardly believe they bother with any offers. But if you wait they will come. Most of it is the "parlay boost tokens" and they have this going all the time; the Wizard looked into it and confirmed, these reduce but do not eliminate the house edge. Hopefully this will show up in an ask-the-W. If you are betting on several games at once anyway, might as well use the boost, assuming you can emotionally stand long strings of losing waiting for the big hit. 

Also, though, I've been able to take advantage of free-bet offers, small though they might be, and recently took the plunge on a deposit match offer. This deposit was actually just a return of the money I had withdrawn as a test. I could have made a bigger deposit [$150 I think?] and gotten it matched, but I'm just not going to get that invested, none of it is going to be my money and if it is ever all gone, that'll be it. I still don't trust that a withdrawal might get some hassling, and then there's the matter of reporting to the IRS if I win hardly anything at all. It's not for me. In any case, the match required I play if off 5 times through, any sports bets:

*Deposit Match.................. This is how that went. I realized that what I thought I knew about this kind of thing wasn't going to work. Let's say it was $150 [it wasn't], so now I would have had to make $750 worth of bets. I believe it is true that the smartest thing to do is make one $750 bet. In order to do that, though, I'd have to deposit a chunk of change, the money is otherwise simply not there. Well, I'm not going to do that, as I explained. So, instead, I had to make a series of small bets and hope I kept winning half of them! 

I tested whether you could guarantee keeping about half: many games are at -110/-110 , and if you take both sides, you give up 9.1% of what you bet. That'd be $68 if you did it for the entire $750, guaranteeing you kept $82 of a $150 bonus. But I instead went about making the best bets I could find, un-hedged, mostly hockey bets. I wasn't scoring big on anything, so when I had about $20 to go I did do the doey-don't, so to speak, on such a baseball game, $10 each side, and it went through without a squawk, qualifying as $20 play-through. 

More posts to come perhaps.


odiousgambit Jun 18, 2021

Update: just got my $50. Maybe I can just stick with "no more than $50 and there'll be no hassle"?

Posted by odiousgambit
Jun 06, 2021

Handy Craps Math

I was explaining Craps math to somebody by email and got to this point. I want to preserve this so I don't have to do it again if explaining to somebody else!


I promised you some math. Here is how to come up with 1.41%. In gambling it is always the probability of the bet winning times the win amount, minus the probability of the bet losing times the loss amount. The final HE is the sum of the HE of each type of roll result in Craps

Michael Shackleford, who has a helpful set of websites, breaks down how to figure the house edge below. It's the prob. of winning minus the prob. of losing at one unit, which avoids having to multiply by the bet amount, since that would be 'times one'.

He then works it out to common denominator because he wants to get to 244/495, a well known ratio for chances of winning. That allows him to use 251/495 as the chances of losing.

"The probability of winning on the come out roll is pr(7)+pr(11) = 6/36 + 2/36 = 8/36.
The probability of establishing a point and then winning is pr(4)×pr(4 before 7) + pr(5)×pr(5 before 7) + pr(6)×pr(6 before 7) + pr(8)×pr(8 before 7) + pr(9)×pr(9 before 7) + pr(10)×pr(10 before 7) =
(3/36)×(3/9) + (4/36)×(4/10) + (5/36)×(5/11) + (5/36)×(5/11) + (4/36)×(4/10) + (3/36)×(3/9) =
(2/36) × (9/9 + 16/10 + 25/11) =
(2/36) × (990/990 + 1584/990 + 2250/990) =
(2/36) × (4824/990) = 9648/35640
The overall probability of winning is 8/36 + 9648/35640 = 17568/35640 = 244/495
The probability of losing is obviously 1-(244/495) = 251/495
The player's edge is thus (244/495)×(+1) + (251/495)×(-1) = -7/495 ≈ -1.414%."


Now here is each damn possible event you can put into an online calculator without using common denominator and the shortcut of -[251/495]. Instead the prob. of losing is crunched out same as prob of winning. As an exercise every once in a while I try to duplicate this.

[6/36] +[2/36] +[3/36]*[3/9] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [3/36]*[3/9] -[1/36] -[1/36]-[2/36]-[3/36]*[6/9]-[4/36]*[6/10]-[5/36]*[6/11]-[3/36]*[6/9]-[4/36]*[6/10]-[5/36]*[6/11]

it will equal -0.0141414141414141 if put in a calculator

Tuttigym, here is the distribution made by people who did it by actually rolling the dice and tallying the results. Hope this helps.

image from https://sakibaminwfe.commons.gc.cuny.edu/lab-report/


ChumpChange Jun 07, 2021

The overall probability of winning is 8/36 + 9648/35640

9648/35640 = So the probability of making a point is 27.07%?

odiousgambit Jun 08, 2021

9648/35640 is indeed 0.2707, [deleting what I wrote after that, not understanding something myself]

[3/36]*[3/9] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [5/36]*[5/11] + [4/36]*[4/10] + [3/36]*[3/9] is also 0.2707

for some reason though this does not seem to be the chances of winning when you get a point, since 0.2707 is 1 in 3.694 while in contrast, the chances if the point is 10 or 4, that is well known to be 1 in 3 chances of winning. The chances of winning should get better than 1 in 3 if sometimes the point is 5,6,8, or 9? no?

244/495 overall though, which you can see is close to 1 in 2 since 495 is close to 500

ChumpChange Jun 08, 2021

I'll be puttin' triple odds on the Don't Pass!

tuttigym Jun 18, 2021

Several years ago I started a thread regarding the above subject matter on the HE of the pass line bet. The thread lasted for months and had, I believe, hundreds of responses most of which were negative and/or unfriendly. The thesis I proposed was that (1) the actual pure math as shown above is absolutely accurate, (2) that a player's reliance on such a skimpy advantage is a fools errand in that no one has actually witnessed the above outcome, and (3) that the PL wager when employed during the course of "normal" play as used by most all "establishment" bettors, i.e., PL + odds + one or two other numbers + some form of progression is a losing strategy a vast majority of the time. Simply put, after a point is established the house's advantage jumps dramatically because there are more ways to 7 out than to convert any point, and the more numbers one bets on, the more non-point winners one must hit just to break even with the totality of bets placed on the table.

Before membership goes ballistic on the above assertions, I believe winning at the table on a regular basis is difficult only because it takes a "hot shooter" to provide point conversions and/or a long roll posting many numbers BEFORE a 7 out occurs.

So rather than attacking the messenger, I propose that responses try to provide direct evidence that PL bets overall are profitable in the normal process of play.


odiousgambit Jun 18, 2021

>>rather than attacking the messenger, I propose that responses try to provide direct evidence that PL bets overall are profitable in the normal process of play.

Profitable? Nope, agree, not attacking.

tuttigym Jul 01, 2021

Mr. O: Further down in this blog, I believe your calculations show an overall point conversion rate at 27+%. Does that mean the House wins approximately 73% of all hands where there is a point established? I am using simple math here. Are my assumptions correct? If so, how does the House's 73% winning advantage on point establishments square with a 1.41% HA.? Can you tell me, approximately, the percentage of outcomes of Come Outs vs Point establishments?


odiousgambit Jul 02, 2021

>> Are my assumptions correct? 

yes, as far as I can determine. Of course we all knew already it was going to be house advantage once it gets to resolving a point

>>  how does the House's 73% winning advantage on 

>> point establishments square with a 1.41% HA.

It's in the blogpost, I'll try to help. Quoting,

"The probability of winning on the come out roll is pr(7)+pr(11) = 6/36 + 2/36 = 8/36."

pr (7) that he uses means the chances that a 7 is rolled ... that's the 6/36

pr (11) means chances that 11 is rolled ... 6/36 there

combined 8/36

perhaps confusingly he is showing how to get to 244/495, so he can use 251/495 as chances of losing. So he doesn't show otherwise the chances of losing on the come-out, but I do in the number crunching that you can put in a calculator. Which is this part, 

-[1/36] -[1/36]-[2/36]

and that is probability of rolling 2, 12, and 3, resp.

If they didn't make you resolve your points, at this stage you're looking good. 8 ways to win, 4 ways to lose, 12 ways altogether. 8/12 is winning two-thirds of the time. 

So it has to be that once you have a point to resolve, chances are against you, and that is all represented in the rest of it. It all looks like a big jumble unless you recognize each part. 

Wizard's pr(4)×pr(4 before 7) means the chances of rolling a 4 is determined, then that is factored against the chances of rolling a 4 before 7. He shows that as (3/36)×(3/9) next.

That same thing is in the 'calculator equation' that I put in there as [3/36]*[3/9] , with the calculators you use * symbol for multiplying. And I also include the chances of rolling a 4 factored against the chances of rolling a 7 before 4, in other words the chance of losing, it's in there as, -[3/36]*[6/9], notice the minus sign. Wizard does not show this latter bit because he is going to use 251/495 as an overall chance of losing. 

If you followed me so far, I hope you can find the other point numbers

tuttigym Jul 02, 2021

Thanks for the response, however, you failed to answer, for me and perhaps the rest of the craps community, the most important query, what is the total percentage of those 2 to 1 PL wager wins against the percentage of point outcomes. The question may be a bit clumsy, but are point outcomes 90% of the totality of outcomes? Is it more or less? The reason these questions are so important is that "weighing" PL wins at Come out on equal footing with point conversion wins is, my words, misleading simply because a House win ratio of 73% to 27% totally skews what I call the "true" HA. By folding, let's say, 10% of the game into the total outcomes available and allowing such to be on "balance" with the vast majority of outcomes, disallows the proper mathematical valuation. or proportion.

One other thought: most players wager many more "right side" bets after point establishment. Those bets usually, in my experience, exceed the totality of the PL + odds bet combination. 1.) A 7 out wipes out all of those bets creating a large deficit in ones bank roll. 2.) A point winner only gives the right side bettor the PL + odds $$$ while leaving the other bets on the table to be at risk for the next point. 3.) That win/loss imbalance is unaddressed always when discussing the HA.

Please comment, and if you know the answer to the percentage of play question please enlighten me.


odiousgambit Jul 02, 2021

I did forget to say this has been analyzed as the percent of rolls that are come out rolls , "In craps 29.6% of total rolls are come out rolls, on average"


a little more than half way down

hope this helps

tuttigym Jul 03, 2021

Mr. OG: Thanks for the response and enlightenment. So, of that 30%, one can assume that the player will win 2 to 1 of those Come Outs only which are even money wins and usually at the table minimum, and then 70+% of the game are point decisions where the player is "expected" to lose 73% of the time at perhaps five or six times the money. Would that be a fair assumption? (the minimum of that assumption would be 2 times, i.e., PL + odds ). With that being the assumed case, how can one justify expressing such a low HA/HE when the reality is far more dire.

As a thoughtful and reasonable individual, wouldn't you tell or educate would-be craps players the reality of the above and forego the rhetoric of the, my words, misleading PL HA/HE math?


odiousgambit Jul 03, 2021

Pondering that.

I'm working myself up to asking you a great big question, but I'm going to do it at your thread in the forum. Soon but not immediately.

tuttigym Jul 09, 2021

Mr. OG: I read the above calculations as well as some of the others on pages 2 & 3. The lines of numbers, parentheses, math signs (+; -; =), and eventual resultant fractions which then are converted to decimal numbers which are then translated to percentile scores or such is, for me and perhaps others, beyond mind blowing and confusing.

You and others have done, and are doing a volume of work, and there is great preparation which is evident. As you know, perhaps heresy, I find the conclusions reached to be completely out of touch with the reality actual play. Mission146, Chumpchange, and a whole host of others embrace all of these calculations and concept. I am the outlier; I know. I have taken a lot of heat, which I can handle because I know that here is no real malice, but there is lots of frustration with my views. Basically, my feet are planted in cement as are yours and the others. From my point of view, that is okay.

The "final" question(s) for me: Is there ANY demonstrable real world craps play PROOF (emphasis) that any of the calculations presented throughout this blog have and/or can happen? Can anyone direct a naysayer, such as myself, to the "holy grail" of such documentation? Showing the math or the calculations are theories and, in your own words above, "PROBABILITIES" (emphasis) without substantiation. When terms such as "expected," "probability," and "variance" are used to describe results, what follows is vagueness and doubt.

What I have witnessed and experienced from others in their posts is, for me, an unreasonable certainly which they foist upon others who desperately want to win.

Thank you for your patience, intellect, and forum friendship. Perhaps, one day I might be able to return the kindness.


odiousgambit Jul 10, 2021

>The "final" question(s) for me: Is there ANY demonstrable

>real world craps play PROOF (emphasis) that any of the

>calculations presented throughout this blog have and/or

>can happen?

Proof? I guess step one is the distribution. Prove to yourself that 7s are the most common, 6 & 8s are next, and so on. Even kids playing board games learn an 11 or 12 is hard to roll. Then ask yourself, can a mathematician figure out exactly how likely it is to win or lose if you bet a 7 comes up rolling 2 dice, and someone takes your bet on some other number? I'm not being snide, to my way of thinking, I think the math can answer that question and the casinos rely on it too.

I felt your point was that for just a few rolls, the dice can take you anywhere, so 'quit talking about the math'. That's an OK point. I agree that a newbie can be led to think 1.4% means he can't lose much money. Ha.

>Can anyone direct a naysayer, such as myself,

>to the "holy grail"

>of such documentation?

I don't know. I can only point to the distribution. Look at this blog post again here [not these comments], I changed it and put in a pie distribution. It may not help but I'm trying.

tuttigym Jul 10, 2021

I absolutely get the "probabilities." What one cannot say is that these are "certainties" and can be considered "reliable." The uninitiated, the novice, the mathematically "challenged," and the gullible can only see a perceived HA/HE that is so miniscule, i.e., !.41% that their foray into the game would only result in small losses. Those who "push" the theorized 1.41% HA/HE, I believe, have an absolute responsibility to provide the complete picture that 73% of 7 outs due to non point conversions, which are predominant in the game, and will actually result in losing sessions a vast majority of the time.

The pie chart above is really interesting. How many actual dice rolls were tallied? Did the tally report all consecutive rolls or were they from different tables at different times? Did the tallies included consecutive hands and were the Come Outs distinguished from point play or was it all lumped together? For me, those are important questions that go to credibility.

There are several anomalies which I am sure you recognize and actually demonstrate why "probabilities," "expectations," and "realities" need to be emphasized and explained in greater depth. The "7" is right on; the "6" & "8" overperformed by about 4%; the "9" overperformed by 3%; and the "5" underperformed by 5%. So how does this chart "show" or "report" a HA/HE 1.41% when 84% of the numbers rolled were not a "7"? What the chart actually conveys is that there are 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose which is what I have stated a lot with associated caveats. The chart does not show a tiny HA/HE; it actually shows a gigantic player edge because there is NO context regarding the number distribution during play. If one were to ask you that question, how would you answer?


tuttigym Jul 10, 2021

Mr. OG: A small slice of my background. I was interested in sports science. While in graduate school, I was required to do some form of research and present a thesis to be presented to a committee for review, critique, and grade. When I went to the library and saw the volumes of research works (theses) that had been submitted by other students, I was taken aback by the length of the various works in the many disciplines.

My advisor informed me that the vast majority of papers were between 75 and 300+ pages in length because the topics, for the most part, were extensions of previously done research with a different "twist." I was a gymnast and my specialty was the still rings. In one of my classes, a low level engineering class, I ask the prof. how it could be determined how much strength it would be required of a gymnast to perform an "Iron Cross" on the still rings. He honestly replied that he could not begin to guess. I asked if that research would be an acceptable project for my thesis. The answer was in the affirmative.

In doing research to do my research, I found that there was none. Nine months later my project was completed and the paper was written. The bibliography was a page and a half. The completed thesis was 18 pages long. I received 6 hours of A (my grade). It was the shortest master's thesis in school history. That was 1963, and, I believe, it is still the shortest (no confirmation).

A professor mentor of mine told me, early in my educational experience: "Do not believe ANYTHING you hear or read, ANYTHING, unless your intellect tells you to do so." I have always lived by that.


odiousgambit Jul 11, 2021

Very impressive resume there, sir.

I too believe skepticism is a very valid part of Science.

If you took such courses, you may be able to comprehend OK the math of 'standard deviation'. This is a mathematical approach to the question "if the HE is only 1.41% , why did I just lose thousands of dollars playing Craps?"

Are you familiar at all with that math?

btw I have lost as much as $1000 playing Craps, but I always quit at that point. I have won as much as $1800 too though, and also tend to quit when going over $1k so as 'not to give it back'. Longterm I am behind as most will be, but it has been fairly cheap entertainment.

tuttigym Jul 11, 2021

"Standard deviation" may have been something of which I was aware, but it is not in my wheelhouse currently because there is no need to use such. However, anybody who has played our game has probably mirrored your experiences to some extent. I absolutely KNOW that you comprehend my firm positions concerning HA/HE and more than likely share my concerns.

The over whelming negative and harsh reactions to my position are unfortunate. I understand those that believe as they do because their indoctrination has never been truly challenged on any level. I personally can not process their blind acceptance of something that does not come close to actual reality.

Mr. ChumpC provided one outlandish "mathematical" example of an "equation" containing a fraction with 5 or 6 numbers on either side (numerator/denominator). He then translated that set of fractions into a percentile "score." Why? It is not even close to reality. Yet there will be some who will believe it is gospel. Very sad.

I did ask some questions about the pie chart which you did not address. That is okay, but if you do have any answers, let me know.


odiousgambit Jul 11, 2021

I just added a link you can click on right above the pie chart that talks about the chart. It shows the results of 100 rolls of 2 dice and I was actually looking for one that used maybe 100,000 rolls, but couldn't find one. 

Standard Deviation is not too easy 'to do' but is not too hard to understand. Basically it's a method that looks at that pie chart and asks how likely it was. For example, there were more 8s than 7s, and it would say what the chances were of that.

tuttigym Jul 11, 2021

Mr. OG: Thanks for the response. I think you will agree that 100 dice rolls is an inadequate sample size to determine much of anything one would consider credible. I will look at the link you posted. As you know, all casinos "monitor" each table with CCTV. Suppose one could review and calculate all the dice rolls and hands played from 4 tables for a period of say 3 weeks. All players would have their identities masked for confidentiality. There would probably be a real sample size of at least 100,000 rolls and perhaps 25,000 hands played all consecutive. Here is what will be uncovered:

1. A pie chart reflecting a true picture of the percentage of numbers as above.

2. A credible breakdown (percentage) of hands solved by Come Out and Point Establishment.

3. A means of determining the overall average wagers placed per hand.

4. The average wins per hand.

5. The average losses per hand.

6. The true difference of the above thus providing the actual "weight" of the PL wins or losses so that the overall "real" HA/HE is documented.

7. To determine if there is a reality of the 495 PL outcomes. (however, in Vegas that would be impossible). I can explain that statement later unless you can figure it out yourself.

8. There may be other mysteries uncovered I have not thought of but the above would be a great start.

Is it possible to accomplish? Yes Is it likely? No