Please remember! These are archives! The Dice Setter message board was shut down. What is published here are just a few of the threads documenting the early days of dice setting strategies and opinions written by the pioneers of dice influencing.
Irishsetter
Hey guys, thought I’d post some links of interest.
First of all, is yesterdays “Winning Ways” e-newsletter by Alan Krigman. If you aren’t subscribed to it, you should be. His articles run the gammet of all casino games, but yesterdays piece was particularly interesting. http://www.iconworldwide.com/winningways/
Click the link to the “What Shift in the Instances of Sevens…” article.
Very interesting! First you’ll see that it’s actually more difficult to overcome the house advantage on a line bet than it is for placing the insides. Second of all, if my calculations are correct, it shows if you wager prudently, you need only to reduce the appearance of the seven by 10% to overcome the HA on those bets. (A SRR of 7.3 is approx an 18% reduction)
basicstrategy777
irish
I came to a different conclusion then you after reading the article.
The article was basically useless.
My conclusion from reading it was………if sevens appear different than probability says ( more times or less times ) the do side or the don’t side will benefit accordingly; that you have to be lucky to win; that if you happen to be betting in such a way that a disproportionate number of 7’s (alot of them or a few of them) help you, than you will win.
Are you saying the article supports your statement that betting the 6 & 8 is a better bet than the pass line or don’t passline ?…………..careful.
Jeffrey47
Gents:
It seems to me maybe the apparent discrepancy is explained by the fact that Kingman’s analysis is based only on the reduction of sevens, that is, apparently, ignoring the “comeout game within a game.” Seems to translate to only using a 7-reducer point set, even on the come out. . . not maximizing the potential for overcoming the house edge both in the comeout game and in the point cycle.
So, I think basicstrategy777’s got a valid point . . . If you take into consideration the comeout benefit to the player of the winning seven then Kingman’s numbers probably don’t prevail. It would seem that a lower PC overall passline bet still has a slightly less differential to overcome than the 6 and 8.
So the lesson being: If you play the line, as we must to shoot the dice, then use a comeout set for seven with place-bet action off, unless the passline bet is merely token and with no odds, and you’re just concentrating on the placed action and don’t have come action locked in.
Good news. I guess you’re both right. Right?
irishsetter
Basic,
Mathematically(Long Run) the line bet is better, but from a precision shooter’s point of view, it’s not. I’ve always contended that a precision shooter (when shooting) will make a great deal more on place bets than they will on their pass line bets…. both on long and medium length hands. Of course with odds, the h/a is further reduced, and I’m guessing Mr. Krigman’s number is based on an aggregate of all point numbers. However, my point is that you have control on which numbers you placed whereas you don’t have control of the point number established. As far as the flat portion of the pass line wager, well, that’s somewhat moot as you HAVE to have a line wager to shoot the dice.
The chart in the article shows just how little one must reduce the number of sevens occurring to overcome the house advantage.
Mostly, I found the article interesting coming from someone OUTSIDE the dice control arena, it wasn’t meant to open the old pass line versus place bet debate…..
aparadim
Kingman’s article of “What Shift in Instances of Sevens Gets You the Edge at Craps? ” is implicitly based on LARGE NUMBERS of dice experiments (or dice experiences).
Kingman points out that a player could see House Advantage(s) calculation’s) reductions if the player were somehow able to experience reduced occurrences of “7”s less than 6 per 36 in LARGE NUMBERS of the player’s dice experiments.
Patterson and Sharpshooter have made similar House advantage projections in their writings to promote their viewpoints.
Kingman’s bet :Flat Pass or Come payoff:1-to-1 no of sevens: 5.496 is probably derived from the traditional 1.414% HA equation based on LARGE NUMBERS of all the win / lose possibilities of comeout 7/11’s, craps, points made and not made where the overall probability of winning = 8/36 + 9648/35640 = 17568/35640 = 244/495 when and if a LARGE NUMBER based experiments sees a “7” qty = 6 per 36.
He could have made this derivation by changing the overall probability of winning to 0.5000 along with having the LARGE NUMBER based experiments “see” a 7″ qty =5.496 (rounded off from 5.49636467910617461) per 36.
It is nice math. Some might use it to persuade others. I suggest that aspiring dice influencing throwers stick to improving their dice tossing abilities and results. Let your throwing skills influence your betting strategies.
basicstrategy777
irish
the passline is a very good bet for alot of reasons; however, as you know, the real money is made on the point numbers , not the passline, where you only win once if it hits.
I agree, if you can influence the dice you can win more ;……….if you cannot influence the dice, you have no advantage and you are playing a game of chance, in which to win you must be lucky.
It’s ‘scary’ to think there are precision shooters that forgo the passline bet; that they do so because they believe other bets are more productive for them; that they are so confident in their ability to skew probability.
Before I bet like that I would have to be SURE I have the edge…………But, you are the expert in this area and I am not………………
goodluck at the tables
heavy
Well, seems like some math bully beats me up everytime I stray into these types of discussions – but I’ll just fall back on what I’ve said for years (and essentially what was said in the article as well). If you roll one less seven in thirty-six rolls – some other number takes that sevens place. Whatever that numbers is – you have an advantage on that number for that series. Say it’s the six. There are supposed to be 5 sixes in 36 rolls versus 6 sevens. But with this change you have 6 sixes versus 5 sevens. Advantage six. Plus – you are getting paid 7 – 6 on your place action – which makes it even sweeter.
The problem with place betting (and don’t get me wrong because that’s primarily what I am) is the potential outcome of the roll after the first die stops – but before the second die quits rolling. Let’s go with the place six as an example. The first die stops rolling and the number facing up is six. It is impossible for the six to be the call when the second die stops – but it is VERY possible that the seven will be the call. Move on to the uptown numbers and assume you have a buy bet on the ten. The first die stops rolling and the 2 is facing up. Since there is no “8” on the second die it is impossible for the ten to show that roll – but the five can certainly pop up and bit you with a 5-2 seven. Combine this with the fact that when you have two place bets working – say the six and eight – and the seven shows – it kills both of them. You have to WIN one bet at a time – but you can LOSE both bets at the same time.
Frankly, I’m of the opinion that’s about all the math most of us need to know at this game.
basicstrategy777
Heavy
That’s funny……it seems like everytime I stray into these kind of discussions, the guys that believe in their homespun, trust me logic beats the hell out of me.
It’s a wonderful game and its allure is we are always courting, chasing ‘her’ but she will never be ours and always just out of our reach.
BBMW
My $00.02:
For a precision shooter to have the dice in his hand, he has to have a line bet. Now you can play a minimum line bet an pump up the place bets, but you still have to be on the line in some form (do or don’t). Obviously, this isn’t the case in team play, but then you have to trust someone else’s throwing.
Even you your playing the pass line, that isn’t really where the action is. The pass line is just the price of admission to the odds bet. That’s where the real money is to be made.
Now lets glue these issues together. You’re on a table, you want to shoot. After all precision shooting does nothing for us if we don’t have the dice. You can shoot from the do or the don’t, but being on the dark side doesn’t do anything for you, because you want to set to make the pass and keep the dice. So, almost by definition, a precision shooter should be on the right side. So we have a pass line bet to start.
The dice are thrown, and we get a point. Do you not play the odds? Of course you play them. It’s the only no vig bet you can make in a casino. It’s patently stupid to play anything else before you make that bet. So you now have a line bet with some odds behind it.
Do you start placing numbers? I venture to guess that the answer given by most of the people reading this would be yes. I’m not so sure. Why? you need to hit multiple numbers to win, but the same seven will kill you on all your bets. I would like to know if someone has the formula for combining the house advantage on multiple bets against the same seven. Someone suggested weighted average, which to me doesn’t sound right, but it could be.
Even if the overall house advantage is not higher, your volitility is higher. Volitility is a big a adversary as house advantage. The house can always weather the swings better than we can. I get my best success playing straight pass line and full odds, and nothing else. When your throwing well, there is a big temptation to get on other numbers, but one point-seven, usually cures me of the at.
irishsetter
I’m quite enjoying all the responses to this. In my case, I only lay odds initially if the point number is a signature number for the set I’m using. Otherwise I use winnings from my place bets to add odds to my line bet.
It goes without saying that for my first few hands in a trip, I may only go with a flat line bet to get a feel for how “on” my shooting is.
BBMW mentioned volatility which is indeed the killer of many-a-bankroll… which as always goes back to bankroll issues in general. For the weekend warrior (as someone put it), is it better to play 2 weekends a month with a $1000 stake each time, or 4 weekends each month with a $500 stake? My take, (which is neither correct nor incorrect) is to play less frequently with a stronger bankroll. You are more prepared to absorb fluctuations this way.
As far as only having a line bet with odds, I’d say that would never be my M.O. as there have been many times that I’ve had hands in the mid teens where I’ve pulled a couple hun off the table… and never made a pass. On the flip side, I’ve also had times where I’ve established a point and bullfrogged it right back while it was still bare of odds…. The thing I like about the game is that in the short run, there are no absolutes about wagering… the best bets are the ones that win. And in the long run, we’re all dead.
Jeffrey47
Come on Irish, here I’ve been thinking the whole point of ALL THIS BLOOMIN’ EFFORT to develop a skilled shot is to essentially remove ourselves from the impact of the long-run outcome otherwise implicit in the percentages.
Are we to conclude that the real impact of dice influencing is so tenuous that the long-run reality is we’re still dead nonetheless?
BBMW’s post made some sense to me. Given that it is really the SHORT-TERM fluctuations that can kill us in any given session, perhaps the best play for most of us is to minimize exposure with less action and just play longer (as long as we feel in the groove) in order to allow whatever skill level has been achieved a better opportunity to play itself out (as long as our skill level has a tested advantage over random, of course) and thus minimize the opportunity for short-term trouble to develop.
Over-eager short-term play can significantly diminish our bankroll due to the normal “aberrations” within otherwise long term winning play and then ruin our confidence and lead to disaster. . .
Perhaps its “angels dancing on the head of a pin” as we say in my profession, but it’s a lot of food for thought.
By the way, my friend Ric and I are meeting with the Dicecoach for a class session in a couple of weeks. Very excited about that.
Regards to all.
irishsetter
Jeffrey,
When I said, in the long run, we’re all dead, I meant LITERALLY. You know “eating a dirt sandwich,” “pushin’ daisies” etc. The long run is an esoteric issue as it pertains to individual players in my humble opinion.
Dice influencing is intended to bend the advantage in the shooters favor. That will not however guarantee anything. Let’s take it out of the dice influencing arena for a sec. If I have a don’t pass wager on a point of 4 and a don’t come wager on a point of 10, I’d be in a pretty solid position wouldn’t you say? The odds are in my favor, but that’s not to say that Joe-Random-Roller doesn’t knock down my bets. The same goes for dice influencing, we are trying to put ourselves in a solid position.
You and your pal will both learn a great deal AND have a great time when you meet up with the dice coach. He’s not only an excellent teacher, he’s an all-around good and honorable guy. Let us know how it goes. Logged
Jeffrey47
Sorry I missed your intended sense of the term “longrun” in your earlier post. I guess that’s certainly something none of us can readily dispute.
And thanks for clarifying, as I thought you were introducing a very different tangent as to how influencing might best be used to gain the edge. This is an interesting topic. I guess betting methods, even with the benefit of some skill in influencing, will never be a perfect science. I especially like your comment, the best bets are the ones that win. . .
