|
Dodging Bullets as
a Darksider "Statistics
are like bikinis: what they show is important, but what they hide is vital." Anonymous The
Calm After the Storm
Ive
intentionally held off in presenting the second part in this series because of the
continued interest and discussion regarding
Part I. Ill readily admit that no single article of
mine has ever garnered as much E-mail, Instant Messages, and Message Board discussion as
that particular piece did. No
sooner had the furor died down here on Irishsetters site, then it re-ignited with an even
greater firestorm over on Heavys
Wrong Way Craps Forum. So
before we move on to the next phase of how to actually dodge MORE bullets, I want to
flesh-out the merits and the shortcomings of my Choppy-Table Short-Leash Method. Some
Perspective
I
usually try to present a balanced view of things in a casino-context. Of course, my opinion is always colored and
influenced by my own experience, knowledge and skill.
When you look at a betting-method, and Im talking about ANY method,
including (and especially) mine; you should look at it from every possible angle. Thats exactly what I do before I venture my
own money on any concepts that come down the pipe, and I strongly suggest that you do the
same. That is precisely why I
recommended that if you are interested in my darkside methods, that you run it through
some choppy table simulations on bug-free software like WinCraps. How
To Evaluate a Betting-Method
To
properly evaluate a gaming approach, you have to not only look at the math of
the idea, but also appraise its value and suitability to real-world situations. You have to ask yourself whether it is applicable
only in certain perfect situations where all the planets and stars have to
line up, or whether it can work in a variety of circumstances that you are likely to
encounter again and again and again at actual casino tables. Moreover,
you should look at the cautions or warnings that accompany one method or
another. If the author tells you that it will
only work if the table is icy cold, then you are putting yourself and your bankroll at
risk if you choose to ignore the advice. Likewise,
you should dry run any new radical approach against either a roll-simulator
like WinCraps, or use real roll-data that you or others have gleaned directly from the
tables. You
already understand that no single method will work every time that you play, nor will it
fit every situation. There is NO
betting-system WHATSOEVER that will beat a negative-expectation game in every situation. The
Math-Guys One Size Fits All Testing-Method
The
problem with appraising any betting approach is that the math-guys run their simulations
over millions and millions of rolls and refuse to acknowledge that there are certain
betting situations that provide triggers to either start or stop a betting sequence. Likewise,
they discard the concept of loss-limits or exit-points because they look at the long
run of the game, and refuse to acknowledge that a player can begin betting or stop
betting at any point of his choosing. Their
view is that you can only properly evaluate a method if you set it up to run for millions
upon millions of rolls, and you cannot say, Wait, I have made enough money today,
or Ive lost my limit for today, I want to stop now. Instead
their way of evaluating any betting-method is to disallow any stops or starts, and say
that you have to run the trial until your ideas are debunked. Obviously, if you run any method through that
never-ending, you cannot stop until you are broke meat-grinder, NO
betting-approach will EVER work. That is how
the math-guys PROVE that a negative-expectation game can never possibly be turned around,
and in that context they are always correct. Clearly
there are some betting-methods that will work much better than others. When you run those billion-roll trials, the
low-vig bets like PL with maximum Odds, or DP with full-Odds obviously will have the best
results (lowest losses) overall. To
their mind, streaks and trends have no place in the game, and such events can only be
viewed in hindsight. To the math-guys, ANY
method that even recognizes them, much less bets into them are doomed to total and abject
failure. Leaving
the Theoretical Lab and Entering the Real World
Needless
to say, my view of the game is slightly different from that of the math guys.
Ø
I
say that streaks and trends not only exist at the craps table, but that seasoned players
recognize them and bet into them with a better than average outcome.
Ø
I
say that you can start betting at whatever point that you choose and that you can stop
betting at an equally opportune time.
Ø
I
say that loss-limits and discipline are key factors in determining how much of your money
youll be able to keep, and also how much profit youll be able to make.
Ø
I
say that you can use triggers or key indicators to determine when to start a
betting-sequence, and contrary triggers that indicate when you should stop betting.
Ø
I
say that this isnt voodoo or hocus-pocus; its just a matter of recognizing a
betting opportunity and betting into it, or acknowledging a streak or trend where you
choose to keep your betting-dollars safely stowed in your rail. I
make the lions share of profit from my own skill-based Precision-Shooting. Waiting for the dice to cycle back around to me is
usually time-consuming at busy tables, so I wanted a betting-approach that would have
low-risk, low-volatility, and a high expectation of profit. Tables
are Choppy More Often Than Not
Since
most tables are choppy about 60% of the time, it made sense for me to look at possible
avenues to pursue when I was waiting for the dice to come back to my shooting position,
especially since the tables where I mostly play (about 200 different casinos across North
America) are generally choppy at least 60% of the time. While
it doesnt take a genius to figure out how to take maximum advantage of a searing
hot, or a frosty cold table, it seems to take almost super-human strength to even hold on
to your money when the table is choppy, let alone make ANY MONEY at all. That
is where my Choppy-Table Short-Leash Method comes into play (see
Part I
if you are unfamiliar with it). Verities
versus Bullshit
The
only thing you know for sure in craps is that every shooter will eventually roll a 7. We
dont expect the 7 to show up once every six rolls as it mathematically
should. In fact, we know that
there will be long periods when it will disappear off of the radar screen. What we do know, is that VERY FEW players will
make six Pass-Line Points in a row, and we know that at a cool or choppy table, that
concept seems to prove itself out even more so. We
know that once in awhile, a random-roller will come along and throw a hand that will take
us to our Choppy-Table
Short-Leash Method $285
session loss-limit (on a $5 table). Although
we may not necessarily applaud his excellent luck, we accept that loss because we realize
that we are in a casino, and we are indeed still gambling. My
Choppy-Table Short-Leash Method only seeks to eke out a profit on the random swings, flux
and gyrations of what the dice will do at any particular point in time. With that in mind, I thought it would be a good
idea to share my personal experience with this method thus far. My
Current Results
Does
the Choppy-Table Short-Leash Method work, and if so, how well? Yes
it does work, and it works especially well on cool or choppy tables. Let me give you my own results when using this
method over the past 18 months or so:
Ø
In
that time I have put in ~2300 hours of play.
Ø
At
~100 dice-rolls per hour (90 to 120 rolls/hour is the North American average), that means
that I witnessed ~230,000 rolls.
Ø
As
a side note, it would take a 40-hour per week player about fifty (50) years of full-time
play to witness the minimum 10-million dice-rolls that the math-guys say are necessary to
validate or debunk any method.
Ø
In
those ~2300 hours of play, I was able to find 9470 qualified betting situations where a
player made their first PL-Point winner (during a choppy-table or cool-trending
dice-cycle) which triggered the C-T/S-L Method into action.
Ø
Keep
in mind that I DO NOT include the results of my own Precision-Shooting into whether
or not the table is trending cool or choppy.
I take my own skill contribution out of the equation, and only
consider how the random-rollers or unqualified dicesetters are fairing with their own
throwing efforts.
Ø
Of
the 9470 times when I began betting against the shooter (after they made their first
PL-Point), it bombed-out (the shooter succeeded in throwing at least five more PL-winners)
312 times.
Ø
That
equated to 312 times when I lost $285 (my session loss-limit for this method on a $5
table) for a total loss of $88,920.
Ø
Of
the remaining 9158 times when my C-T/S-L Method won, it generated $119,512 in winnings.
Ø
Overall,
I had net-profits that totaled $30,592.
Ø
That
works out to a net-win of $13.05 per shooter that I bet against.
Ø
The
break-even for this method is ~22 shooters.
That means that you need to bet against and win on ~22 players between each
session loss-limit where a shooter does make all six PL-winners in a row. The
Deputy and The Sheriff Sometimes Get Their Man
As
you can see from my above-noted results, one of the shortcomings of my method is that the
strength and tenacity of the Sheriff (the Come-Out 7) and his Deputy (the Come-Out 11) do
work against you, and sometimes contribute to its downfall. I
would guesstimate that of the 312 times that it failed (out of 9470 attempts), the
principal reason was that the shooter threw a number of Come-Out 7 and/or 11 winners
(losers for us). I
stated this in the first Dodging Bullets article, but it bears repeating again. Sometimes the random-roller will throw enough
Come-Out 7 or 11 winners, that it will knock us out of the betting process by hitting our
$285 loss-limit. HOW
it Works and WHY it Works
The
entire basis of using this Choppy-Table Short-Leash Method is that there are very few
times when a random-roller will be able to throw six PL-Point winners in a row, or
intersperse enough 7 and/or 11 Come-Out winners that it will knock us out of the game. Yes, it DOES happen, but it doesnt
happen often
and on a CHOPPY or COOL-TRENDING table, it seems to happen even
more infrequently.
Ø
A
Pass-Line player has about a 40% chance of completing his first Point, and only a 16%
chance of completing his second Point. If he
is still holding the dice at that juncture, he has a 7% chance of making his third
PL-Point in a row, and then a ~2.8% chance of making his fourth, etc. That "diminishing-probability" is the
entire basis for this method. While each roll
is independent, we have to look at the totality of the series that we are currently in,
and judge whether it is a viable betting situation.
Ø
Now
the math-guys will confirm that a shooter does indeed have a 40% chance of making his
first point and only a 16% chance of making his next point in a row, but then they go on
to state, "We CANNOT say that just because he made his first point, that he only
has a 16% chance of making the 2nd. You can only say the shooter has a 16% chance of
making two points in a row BEFORE he starts a series of throws...once he picks up the dice
all bets are off as far as predicting what may happen."
Ø
They
acknowledge the numbers, yet say the diminishing-expectation (40%/16%/7%/2.8%/1.2% and
0.5%) of a long hand no longer continues to be true the moment a hand begins; and it is
therefore IMPOSSIBLE for those numbers to hold true simply because these figures only
apply in theory. Therefore they
opine, you cannot look at the big picture or at a string of rolls, simply
because it is made up of numerous, yet independent throws.
Ø
Their
logic is to Ignore the rainstorm and just consider that it is single droplets
of water that are flooding your basement. It
doesnt matter if it is pouring cats and dogs; a storm is only made up of individual
drops of water. Therefore, storms only
happened in the past-tense, and whatever is happening now can only be considered as
individual raindrops. You have to overlook
and disregard the totality of the deluge, no matter how much damage is being wrought. Obviously, their logic is just plain FLAWED, and
they dont use the brains that God gave dogs, to have enough sense to come in out of
the rain.
Ø
They
will tell you that streaks are only something that we can look at as a past event, and
that if someone throws twenty or thirty 12s in a row, it would be absolutely foolish
for anyone to make a bet on the 12, simply because the odds are still 1-in-36.
Ø
They
opine that what has happened in the past, even the immediate past, and what is happening
right now, has no relevance or bearing on what may happen on the very next roll. Therefore, their best bet is for you to keep your
money safely tucked in your pocket, and that betting on a streak or a trend is,
well
gambling. Ive got to tell you
that since we are in an actual casino, we do acknowledge that there is some element of
risk in each bet that we make. Our task is to
minimize that risk in relation to the reward that we are seeking.
Ø
While
everyone agrees that each roll is separate and distinct, craps veterans will tell you that
you can bet into a trend or you can stay on the sidelines.
They know that streaks happen, and the very fact that you are in a casino
indicates that you are prepared to take some chances with your money. To my mind, this is as good a time as any to make
a wager on that streak. Although it
doesnt guarantee success, it sure seems like an appropriate time to put some money
into action.
Ø
What
my method does; is to recognize each individual roll, but also view each throw in context
to what is happening at the current time. We
then match our bets to best suit the situation, by recognizing the overall strength and
likelihood of a possible 7-Out. We maintain
that perspective, and we continue matching-our-bets-to-the-relative-likelihood-of-a-7-Out
as a particular hand progresses.
Ø
The
math-guys will also tell you that you cannot look at a string of sequences (dice outcomes)
no matter how long or short, and that if you consider the effect of anything more than one
roll at a time, it is just utter nonsense and complete foolishness. To their way of thinking, you must restrict your
view to each separate roll as though nothing came before it and nothing will come after
it. It is with this myopic and narrow-minded
view that they want you to appraise any and all bets, and they will tell you quite
candidly that to do anything contrary to that advice would be quite foolhardy on your
part.
Ø
However,
some astute craps players including myself; look at the game as a whole. Instead of just considering individual and
independent rolls, we look at how they are strung together. We look at the big picture of
trends and streaks instead of the minutia of each separate roll. That being the case, we
consider the overall expectation of the 7, and integrate it into a workable
betting-method. The
Strength of the Seven
Ø
Everyone
readily acknowledges that each roll is independent, but seasoned craps veterans also know
that the dice are inexorably drawn to the 7. My
Choppy-Table Short-Leash Method seeks to take advantage of that. The dice are not drawn there (to the 7) by way of
magic, magnetism, or mysticism. They are
drawn to it by the math. There are more
possible 7s on a pair of dice than any other combination. We simply take that fact
into consideration, and we apply it to choppy tables (through my Choppy-Table Short-Leash
Method) with the hope (and VERY high likelihood) of making some money.
Ø
Please
understand that progressive betting methods are nothing new, and I certainly didnt
invent any of them. Rather, I
looked at what the chances of any random-shooter throwing six PL-winners in a row were;
then I applied a low loss-limit to a method that works quite well, especially on those
frustratingly annoying choppy tables. Its
not voodoo, its not magic
its just a reasonable prospect of winning.
Ø
My
Short-Leash Choppy-Table Method takes the expectation of the 7 into consideration and
says, "Hmm, the table has been choppy, and 7-Outs are occurring with some
frequency...I think this may be as good a time as any to venture some of my money...but I
also want to limit my exposure in the event that this random-roller gets really hot."
Ø
When
there is a 1-in-6 chance that any one roll will present a 7, no one in their right mind
can say that it doesn't figure into the game, nor that a bettor cannot take advantage of
the fact that only 1-in-200 shooters will make six PL-Points in a row.
Ø
Yes
there is a chance that any player, on any given day, in any particular casino, may throw
six PL-Point winners in a row; however the odds are 200-1 against it happening. Personally, I LIKE those odds.
Ø
As
craps players, we cannot ignore the fact that long hands are few and far between. The reason we don't see that is because of the
power of the 7 is such that the math prevents it from happening very often. Yes, we will occasionally see some long hands
where a player does make at least six in a row, but the math of the game is strong enough
that we won't see it VERY OFTEN.
Ø
In
fact, we won't see it often enough to turn the Choppy-Table Short-Leash Method into a
losing approach when we employ it at cool or choppy tables.
Dont take my word for it. Prove
it, or DISPROVE it for yourself.
Ø
While
everyone agrees that each roll is indeed independent, if the dice weren't mathematically
skewed towards the 7, then we would have many more long hands in the 100 to 800
roll-range, without EVER seeing a 7. At the
tables that I play at here in this craps-universe, they are choppy about 60% of the time. The choppiness of the tables at your end of the
solar system may be skewed somewhat differently, so I suggest once more that you run my
method through numerous trials BEFORE you venture dollar-one of your own money on it. Dont take my word for it, I WANT YOU to
prove it to yourself.
Ø
My
Choppy-Table Short-Leash does not try to beat expectation with fluctuation." Instead, it uses the EXPECTATION of the 7 over the
random FLUCTUATIONS of each independent roll.
Ø
By
waiting for a player to make his first PL-Point, the darkside bettor has a leg-up (based
on expectation) that the shooter only has a 16% chance of repeating his second PL-Point,
and a 7% chance of repeating his third. There
will always be FLUCTUATION with a random game, but sooner or later, the 7-Out will appear.
Ø
My
method says that only 1-in-200 players will get to complete six PL-Points. If you only start betting against that player
after he has made his first Point, you are deeper into the expectation-curve than
someone who randomly bets against any and all players who picks up the dice.
Ø
The
universal crap-players question is: Can you capitalize on those numbers, knowing
ahead of time what the dice are expected (but NOT guaranteed) to do? My answer is that, on a cool-trending or choppy
table, the answer is, YES YOU CAN! My
Short-Leash Choppy-Table Method is NOT a never-fail approach to the game. Instead, it is
one approach that usually pays off handsomely; and when it fails, it does so to a degree
that its losses are easily outweighed by its consistent wins. The
whole basis of my approach is that when properly applied to choppy tables, the wins
generally outweigh the losses time and time and time again. That is how I accomplished the
above-noted results, and how I continue to profit from choppy table
situations. A
Mechanical Example of How This Method Works
Let
me give you an analogy that will perhaps make it easier to understand:
Ø
Let's
say that you have a simple mechanical machine.
Ø
It
has one moving part, and that part has a failure-rate of 60% for every one hour of use.
That means that there is a 40% chance that that machine will still be working after one
hour.
Ø
Now
let's say the same machine has two moving parts, and each part has the same INDEPENDANT
60% failure-rate. That means that there is only a 16% chance that that machine will still
be working after one hour. Of course there is an 84% chance that it WILL NOT continue to
work.
Ø
If
we add one more 60% failure-rate moving part to that same machine, it means that there is
only about a 6.5% chance that that machine will still be working after one hour. In the
U.S. Air Force they call this declining rate of reliability, Mean Time Between Failures
(MTBF).
Ø
If
we add another similar 60% failure-rate moving part to that same machine, it means that
there is only about a 2.5% chance that that machine will still be working after one hour.
Ø
When
we add five unreliable parts (each with an INDEPENDANT 40% reliability rating), we end up
with a machine that only has an approximate 1% chance of making it through one hour of
operation.
Ø
When
we add the final sixth unreliable part to an already very undependable and erratic
machine, it lowers its Mean Time Between Failures to a wholly untrustworthy 0.4% chance
that that machine will still be buzzing along after one hour.
Ø
If
that machine was the aircraft that you just bought a ticket on, how safe do you think you
would feel?
Ø
If
you knew that your one-hour flight had less than a one-half of one-percent chance of
successfully making it to its destination, just how safe would your ass be?
Ø
Is
that the kind of aircraft that you would send your wife and children on? Wait don't answer
that...the MATH-GUYS are CONFIDENT that it WILL make it to it's destination because EACH
part has a 40% reliability rating and NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND would consider the
overall reliability of the sum of all the parts...that would just make too much sense for
them.
Ø
So
would you happily and blithely put your family on that plane because each moving part has
a 40% chance of making it to their destination? To do that, you have to completely IGNORE
the fact that it really only has a 1-out-of-200 chance that it will actually make it there
because you have your sight firmly locked on to each individual piece that is
independently reliable 40% of the time.
Ø
If
you were a frequent flier, how many times do you think you could actually dodge the bullet
and continually make it safely to your destination?
Ø
The
math-guys call that way of thinking the Gamblers Fallacy. Okay, but what do you call the
guy who thinks that he's going to make it safely to his destination on that wonky 99.6%
failure-rate aircraft. Now THAT is GAMBLING! A
Final Thought and a Challenge
If
you have a copy of WinCraps I would challenge you to try this out for yourself. Simply define what you would characterize as a
choppy table, and then start running the dice-rolls manually. When the outcomes satisfy your definition of what
a cool-trending or choppy-table is; then apply the first phase of my C-T, S-L Method
(after the player completes his first Pass-Line Point) and let the dice roll. Dont
just run the test once or twice. Really PROVE
it to yourself whether it works or not. Then you can make an informed decision as to
whether or not this betting approach holds any merit for you, and whether it might figure
into your future wagering-methods. Coming
Up
In
Part Three of this series, well return to where we left off in Part
One, and take a detailed look at:
Ø
How
Progressive-Thinking can beat Progressive-Betting.
Ø
Why
Betting
More
to Win Less is not right for everyone.
Ø
How
Progressive-Odds can figure into your game-plan.
Ø
How
Odds-Only bets affect your likelihood of winning.
Ø
And
as they say
much, much more. Until
then, Good
Luck & Good Skill at the Tables
and in Life. Sincerely, The
Mad Professor |
|