
Regression Avoids
Depression A
“regression bet” is where you initially start with a large wager on one or more
numbers and then reduce it to a lower level. The
usual trigger for lowering the initial big bet is if you get a paying outcome or if a
winninghit doesn’t appear within a certain number of rolls. A
Quick Example
A
simple regression would be if you initially wagered $12 on the Place6. A paying hit would generate a $14 payout. Upon collecting that, you tell the dealer to
reduce your bet to $6, so he returns $7 of your original bet. Since you’ve collected $14 and you now only
have $6 still active on the layout, you’ve got a guaranteed profit of $8 lockedup
for that wager. There
are all kinds of betregression permutations, for example:
Ø
If
you made that same $12 bet on both the 6 and 8, and then regressed both of them down to $6
each after just one hit, you would still have a $2 profit locked up for that series, yet
still have $12 in action on the table.
Ø
You
could bet $88Inside ($20 each on the 5 and 9, and $24 each on the 6 and 8); then after
just one hit which pays $28, you could regress everything down to $22Inside and still
have a $6 profit to show for that series of wagers. Some
players like to keep their “Initial” (largesized) wager in place for more than
one hit and regress them after two or three hits.
Ø
For
instance, starting with $88Inside and collecting three hits at $28 each would gross $84
in revenue. After regressing that wager to
$22Inside, you would have a netprofit of $62 in your rack while another $22 is still
active out on the layout. The
higher your initial bet is compared to what you intend to regress it to; the
“steeper” that regression becomes. Measuring
The Steepness of Your Initial Regression
You
measure the steepness of your regression by the ratio of the initial bet compared to the
subsequent regressed amount. For
example:
Ø
A
$12 bet regressed to $6 is a 2:1 regression, and so is $44Inside regressed to $22Inside.
Ø
A
$66Inside initial wager that is reduced to $22Inside is a 3:1 regression ratio.
Ø
However,
$66Inside regressed down to a $6 Six and Eight would represent a 5.5:1 ratio. For
example:
Ø
You
could start with a pyramidshaped betweighting like
$25 each on the “bought” 4 and 10, $50 each on the 5 and 9, and
$90 each on the 6 and 8, for a total of $330Across.
Depending on which boxnumber arrives first, you’d be looking at a
payout range of $50, $70, or $105. From there
you could take one more hit or regress everything down to something like $32Across,
$44Inside, or $40Outside.
Ø
If
you had all the numbers evenly covered with $170Across ($25 each on the 4, 5, 9, &
10, and $30 each on the 6 & 8); you could consider a regression as shallow as
$32Across to as steep as just $6 each on the 6 and 8.
As
you can see, the higher your initial bet is compared to what you intend to regress it to;
the “steeper” that regression becomes. How
Regressionbetting Fits Into DiceInfluencing
When
a skilled player determines and fully validates his diceinfluencing ability, he has to
support that skill with properly financed and sized wagers. Using
an Initial Steep Regression can actually support and enhance a diceinfluencers current
skill by what I would call "adaptive betting" or enlightened and rational
"affirmative wagering". When
viewed strictly from a math perspective, that doesn't at first appear to make good
economic sense. To an advantageplay BJ
cardcounter; an advantage is an advantage, and therefore they believe that we should
never vary our bets when we have an overall proven advantage. That is, to their way of thinking, when we have an
advantage, we should never increase our bets when our shooting is doing well,
nor ever decrease them when our shooting is doing poorly...and by their
logic; since they don’t know ahead of time when that will be; then no one should ever
use a Steep Regression nor any sort of betpressing either. Unfortunately,
the one thing that advantageplay blackjack players fail to understand and acknowledge, is
that diceinfluencing IS NOT a fixed and stable linear skill; which means that our
skilladvantage is NOT the same on each and every throw throughout each and every hand. Fortunately,
as astute diceinfluencers, we recognize that we can extend some influence over the
dice, while concurrently recognizing that our influence is sometimes fleeting and
transient. Therefore by using an Initial
Steep Regression (ISR), we bet, strike, and collect a netprofit at the earliest
possible moment during each turn we get with the dice. In
reality, the relative advantage we enjoy over the house, especially with novice to
intermediate players, is such that our diceinfluencing proficiencylevel fluctuates.
Therefore, using a Steep Regression to lock up an early profit; recognizes, compensates
for and ultimately, profitably exploits that variability. The
objective of regressionstyle betting when applied to diceinfluencing, is to:
Ø
Produce
a quick profit on as many hands as possible.
Ø
Reduce
the volatility and the amount of time (as measured by the number of rolls) over which any
given hand reaches netprofitability for our active bets. Stated
another way: Regressionbetting
lets diceinfluencers achieve a netprofit within a minimal number of rolls. Regressions
Aren’t Right For Blackjack, But They Are PERFECT For Craps In
the advantageplay blackjack world where a cardcounter can sit back and stoically wait
for the mathematical advantage to come to him; an ISR method is meaningless since the
nonplayer influenced deck of cards is the vehicle through which his advantage is gained.
The cardcounter merely has to react to the variability of the deckinduced count. Antipodaly,
the skilled diceinfluencer has to DIRECTLY produce and maintain his own advantage
through playerinduced physical skill as opposed to having it mathematicallyinduced by a
mechanicaldevice (through a deck of cards)
for him. Now, if the BJplayer was a cardmechanic
and the casino let him shuffle and deal; then the comparison to and the illbased
AP prohibition against diceinfluencing ISR’s would be valid. Clearly however, that
isn't the case. Regressions
let a diceinfluencing craps player reach profit much sooner, and with much more certainty
than the conventional need to achieve four or five or six paying hits before even reaching
the breakeven point of a multiwager hand.
The
intelligent PrecisionShooter has to adopt a bettingmethod that takes his variable
physical skill into consideration...instead of ignoring it. Recent
refugees from the ravaged battlefields of BJ advantageplay expect aloof machinelike
consistency from their newly developed DI skills. Sadly, many will be disappointed to
discover that even well developed physical skills are not imperturbable nor are they inert
like a deck of cards. Their
failure to recognize and address active human involvement in the whole skilltoprofit
process, and their entire "it doesn’t matter how much your skills vary from
your first roll to your eightmillionth roll; your skills will average out and will
ultimately be profitable in the long run" credo holds incredible amounts of
volatility...but extremely limited amounts of shorthand and mediumhand rollduration
profit. If
you don’t mind the volatility where you may endure twenty, thirty, forty, fifty or
even more losing sessions in a row despite the fact that you are winning a fair amount of
your individual wagers nearly every time you pick up the dice; then you are free to follow
that line of thinking. BJ converts appear to
love losing hundreds of sessions in a row because they “know” that eventually
their advantage will manifest itself for long enough to finally bail out those thousands
upon thousands of dollars of shorthand and mediumhand rollduration loses. To
their way of thinking, collecting “an early profit” on most hands is strictly
for fools, while “chasing losses” is what the big boys do…and that you
should unflinchingly be willingly to keep on making nonregressed, nonpressed
maximumaffordability bets right up until you lose every last cent of your bankroll. That
sure goes a long way to explaining why most talented cardcounters go bankrupt long before
they are able to profitably exploit their cardcounting skills with any degree of
consistency. Unfortunately
for them, finding out that Steep Regression betting really is valid and fully applicable
to diceinfluencing, coming so closely on the heels of "discovering" that
diceinfluencing really does work and that the world really isn't flat after
decades upon decades of impatiently and unwaveringly telling us that PrecisionShooting couldn’t
possibly work; would just be too much of shock to the system for their delicate
constitutions to handle. Perhaps
in another couple of decades or perhaps a century or two, the BJ advantageplay world will
finally come around on regressionbetting the same way they have on diceinfluencing;
thereby emerging from their comfortably smug pupaestage of blissful ignorance…but I
wouldn’t bet on it. Comparing
Apples to Antelopes
While
randomly thrown dice result in a game of independent trials, a diceinfluencers
skill is advantageously variable from hand to hand and even variable WITHIN any given
hand.
Ø
We
determine that variability by calculating the average number of 7avoidance throws we are
able to make.
Ø
When
surveyed over a statistically significant number of hands, we can draw some conclusions as
to how much influence we are able to exert, on average, over a various number of rolls per
hand.
Ø
Armed
with that knowledge, we should be able to predict the number of PointthenOut hands we
will have versus the average number of three, four, eight, ten or twelveroll hands we
will generally produce…and therefore come up with a validated way to bet on our hands
while capitalizing on the fattest part of the rolloccurrence curve.
While
the houseedge against a bet remains constant in a game of randomlythrown independent
trials, the savvy diceinfluencer has to look at his skillbased variability over a number
of hands and determine how many will last for one pointcycle roll, how many will last for
two pointcycle rolls, how many will last for three pointcycle rolls…and so on. That is how we determine where the fattest
part of our rolloccurrence curve is. Trying
to draw worthless nonconnective associations between blackjack wagering and the enlightened
DI skillbased adaptive
method
of using an Initial Steep Regression is beyond an applestooranges comparison. Rather, the use of rationally
affirmative rolldurationbased ISR wagering versus traditional BJbetting is
like comparing apples to antelopes. What
isn’t even germane or relevant in their world, works with perfect utility and
practical function in ours. We’ll
be taking a close look at the math and science behind diceinfluencing rollduration
variability in Part Two of this series. In
the meantime… C’mon
Back Into the Real World of ProfitMaking
Using
an Initial Steep Regression to lock up an early profit doesn’t mean that everything
stays static once your bets are fully paid for.
Ø
Once
you are past the point of netprofit for this hand, your wagering flexibility actually
increases substantially.
Ø
Though
that doesn’t mean you can go crazy and start betting on everything in sight; it does
mean that you can vary your bets to reflect the nowextended profitexpanding potential of
your hand if and when it continues past your average handduration point. Since
we aren’t perfect automatonshooters with unwavering skills; we need to adapt our
bets to suit our current average rollproduction rate. Determining
AverageRoll Duration
While
you can't consistently predict how long each particular hand will last; intelligent
diceinfluencers have to look at how well they generally perform and how long their
average hand will last. You
have to honestly and accurately calculate, reason out and "cipher" your relative
skilllevel and its corresponding likely rollduration (by way of numberofrolls per
hand) like a savvy sports handicapper or derivatives trader might. That
analysis includes, but is not limited to:
Ø
Determining
how quickly you hit at least ONE InsideNumber before 7'ingOut; and then
determining how often you hit two of them and then three of them…and four
of them as well, and so on.
Ø
Determining,
on average, the duration (as measured by total number of rolls) of your hand as well as
your pointcycle SevenstoRolls Ratio (SRR).
Ø Determining how many PointthenOut hands you throw, on average.
Ø
The
difference in average when nonInsideNumber hands are both included and excluded in the
PointthenOut rollduration calculation.
Ø
The
difference in average, when long rolls (the mega hands and minimammoth ones) are both
included and excluded in that rollduration calculation.
Ø
The
difference in profitgeneration when various Steep Regressions ratios (ie. 3:1, 5:1, 6:1,
10:1, and their natural multiples, ie. 10:2 or 12:3) are applied and compared to
multiplehit rates (ie. 1, 2, or 3 or more hits at the initial bigbet level) before
regressing it when a hand is nearing its weightedaverage rollduration.
A
properly structured regressionstyle wagering approach truly reflects our current
diceinfluencing skills when they are affirmatively matched to our average rollduration. A
thorough and clearheaded examination of our skilllevel in context with how long, on
weightedaverage, each hand will last; is a common sense approach that hasn't yet caught
on, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t valid.
PrecisionShooters
have endured more than 45 years of the mathguys telling us that diceinfluencing
couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't work; so I think it's appropriate that we cut them some
slack in terms of letting them get up to speed on the efficacy of Steep Regressions too. Hopefully they won’t needlessly waste
another half century telling us that regressions can’t work before finally wising up
and “discovering” that ISR’s really are validly and profitably applicable
to diceinfluencing. Is
Regression Betting Applicable to YOUR DiceInfluencing Skills?
The
ISR is intended to get your “atrisk” money off the table as quickly as
possible, while maintaining action in the ensuing hand. To
make ANY bettingmethod work consistently enough for the longrun, you have to have an
advantage...although the required playeradvantage to actually do that can be absolutely
miniscule in size. To
figure out whether regressionbetting is right for you and your current diceinfluencing
skills; simply figure out how many Pointthen7Out hands you throw versus how many you
throw that includes at least ONE of the boxnumbers that you plan to include in your
Initial Regression wager.
Ø
Let's
say that you generally throw three PointthenOut hands out of every 20
turns with the dice. That equates to 15% of all the hands you throw.
Ø
For
this exercise, a "PointthenOut" hand also includes any hands where your
intended ISR (Initial Steep Regression) bets are not hit.
Ø
If,
let's say, you plan to only bet on the Inside numbers (5, 6, 8 and 9) for your ISR, then
even if you throw a 4 and/or a 10 (or any other non Insidenumber) before you throw a
7Out, but you don't hit any ONE of your planned ISR numbers; then that hand is also
included in the PointthenOut count.
Ø
The
reason we need to know what our PointthenOut rate is, is because we need to know, on
average, how frequently that will be happening and how much
our short hands will be losing BEFORE we figure out the ideal regressionrate (the
steepness of the ISR).
Ø
Our
early7Out lossrate dictates whether or not our diceinfluencing skills are good enough
to justify the risk of having large ISR bets out on the layout in the first place.
Ø
Let's
say we were planning to start with $110Inside and then regress to $22Inside after our
first Insidenumber hit.
Ø
In
this example, we know that, on average, we will throw three PointthenOut hands where
none of our Insidenumbers hit before our hand ends. That means we'll have $330 of
expected losses to overcome before we even begin to talk about any kind of profit.
Ø
We
know that one winning hit on any of our $110Inside bets generates $35.
Ø
We
plan to leave $22Inside on the layout. That means that we have $13 to the good for each
of our remaining 17outof20 average hands. That, in and of itself generates $221.
Obviously that isn't enough to cover the $330 in expected losses from those 3outof20
Pointthenout hands.
Ø
We
can and should look at how many hands we throw where we get TWO or THREE Insidenumber
hits before 7'ing Out. That may tip the scales in our advantage. We can also look at an
even STEEPER ISR like $220Inside regressed down to $22Inside.
Ø
Additionally,
we should calculate how many hits that we would generally get AFTER triggering our Initial
Steep Regression, and figure out if the $7 that each one of those Insidebets generates at
their new lower baselevel is enough to put us into a profit position.
Ø
In
the above example, we would need at least sixteen more Insidenumber hits at
$7 each to overcome the balance of the deficit of those three ISR's that DIDN'T hit.
We
can also go back and consider the number of hits that we could viably keep our ISR at its
original $110Inside level before regressing it, or like I just mentioned, we could look
at starting with a larger ISR like $220Inside.
Ø
Let's
say that upon further review, we find that, on average, we actually get THREE
InsideNumber hits on 16outof20 hands.
Ø
Though
that means we'll now have a $440 deficit to overcome (four nonInside PointthenOut hands
out of the twenty hands that we throw); but it also means that we'll be able to generate
MORE money at the higher $110Inside ISR rate before we drop down to the $22Inside level.
Ø
The
math tells us that a three hitsperhand average at $35/hit multiplied by sixteen hands,
will generate $1680.
Ø
We
then subtract the $440 expense of those four PointthenOut nonInsidehit hands where we
lost $110Inside each time, and we are left with $1240.
Ø
We
still have to pay for the $22Inside money that we intend to leave on the table once we do
our Steep Regression after collecting our first three Insidehits. That will cost us $352.
Ø
Therefore
our threehitsat$110Insidebeforeregressingto$22Inside betsequence
over twenty average hands will generate a netprofit of $888 over twenty hands. That equates to an average profit of $44 per hand.
Ø
Obviously
that doesn't include any additional money that our $22Inside bets continue to generate on
the medium to long hands either, so our profitperhand average will likely climb
substantially.
Further,
in Part Two of this series we’ll be looking a number of typical “what
if” scenarios, and determining the appropriate steepnessratio, as well as the
most rational betspreads to use in each case. I
hope you’ll join me for that. Until
then, Good
Luck & Good Skill at the Tables…and in Life. Sincerely, The
Mad Professor

