MIN BANK ROLL REQUIRED NOT TO GO BROKE!

[formula_2002]

At the risk of sounding like Yogi Berra, allow me to offer this.

The key to winning is not to go broke.
In order not to go broke, you need a lot of money.

And that is where the Yogi part ends.
Now, the question is, what a lot of money?.

Well that depends on how much you are trying to win.

To answer that question, I have set up a little test using casino craps.

For this test we are going to try and win $5.00 or more by simply playing the pass line.

The house advantage is 1.41%. Our probability of winning is 49.3% and our probability of losing is 50.7% in any single decision. We shall use a system OF gradually increasing our bets based upon some reasoning that will allow for some success. The minimum allowable bet will be $1.00, and the maximum bet will be $1,000.
Once $5.00 or more has been won, will revert to the minimum $1.00 bet

Here are the results for 200,000 decisions.
TOTAL BET $815,140
TOTAL WON $1577
NUMBER OF TIMES $5.00 OR WAS WON =274.
NUMBER OF TIMES WE COULD NOT WIN A MIN. OF $5.00=1
AVERAGE MIN BANK ROLL REQUIRED NOT TO GO BROKE WAS $1147

OF THE 275 TIMES THE GAME WAS PLAYED A MIN BANK ROLL OF $10 WAS REQUIRED 90 TIMES.
$100 WAS REQUIRED 123 TIMES
UP TO A $500 BANK ROLL WAS REQUIRED 39 TIMES
UP TO $1000 WAS REQUIRED 5 TIMES
UP TO $10,000 WAS REQUIRED 11 TIMES
OVER $10,000 WAS REQUIRED 6 TIMES.
THE MAX. BANK ROLL REQUIRED WAS $133,955

there were 200,000 decisions

[ranchwest]

Now all you need is a crap shooting horse and you're in business.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by ranchwest
Now all you need is a crap shooting horse and you're in business.

Or bet on 1-1 shots and cut down the effect of the take-out to 1 1/2"% . If only that was possible eh!

[osophy_junkie]

Originally posted by formula_2002
At the risk of sounding like Yogi Berra, allow me to offer this.

The key to winning is not to go broke.
In order not to go broke, you need a lot of money.

Money is not all, an advantage is also required.


And that is where the Yogi part ends.
Now, the question is, what a lot of money?.

Well that depends on how much you are trying to win.

To answer that question, I have set up a little test using casino craps.

For this test we are going to try and win $5.00 or more by simply playing the pass line.

The house advantage is 1.41%. Our probability of winning is 49.3% and our probability of losing is 50.7% in any single decision. We shall use a system OF gradually increasing our bets based upon some reasoning that will allow for some success. The minimum allowable bet will be $1.00, and the maximum bet will be $1,000.
Once $5.00 or more has been won, will revert to the minimum $1.00 bet

Here are the results for 200,000 decisions.
TOTAL BET $815,140
TOTAL WON $1577
NUMBER OF TIMES $5.00 OR WAS WON =274.
NUMBER OF TIMES WE COULD NOT WIN A MIN. OF $5.00=1
AVERAGE MIN BANK ROLL REQUIRED NOT TO GO BROKE WAS $1147

OF THE 275 TIMES THE GAME WAS PLAYED A MIN BANK ROLL OF $10 WAS REQUIRED 90 TIMES.
$100 WAS REQUIRED 123 TIMES
UP TO A $500 BANK ROLL WAS REQUIRED 39 TIMES
UP TO $1000 WAS REQUIRED 5 TIMES
UP TO $10,000 WAS REQUIRED 11 TIMES
OVER $10,000 WAS REQUIRED 6 TIMES.
THE MAX. BANK ROLL REQUIRED WAS $133,955

there were 200,000 decisions

My understanding of the house having an advantage of 1.41% is that it doesn't matter, in the long run you'll still loose money, you simply got lucky here. Without having anything to assign a probability of winning to, your betting strategy is irrelivent. Maybe there is something to your "reasoning that will allow for some success" that you didn't fully explain?


Ed

[JustMissed]

Hey Joe, don't mean to sound rude, but shouldn't you be posting
"off topic" or at least at a craps website. After all this is a horse racing site.

You said that you could not win at the horse races so why do you want to stick around and rub it in our faces.

If you have turned your back on playing horses and turned to craps why don't you spare us your misery.

See ya,

JM

[ranchwest]

I don't know, I saw a nag the other night and she had sorta snake eyes, ya know?

[Exactaman]

i was doing good but then i put it all on the 7.

[betchatoo]

Seems to me I always lose the hard way

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by osophy_junkie
Money is not all, an advantage is also required.



My understanding of the house having an advantage of 1.41% is that it doesn't matter, in the long run you'll still loose money, you simply got lucky here.

Ed
Of course you are correct, I got lucky. I also got lucky in the next 200,000 trials. In the 200,000 trials after that I was also lucky for a while..and then the luck ran out and I lost 1.7%

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by JustMissed
Hey Joe, don't mean to sound rude, but shouldn't you be posting
"off topic" or at least at a craps website. After all this is a horse racing site.

You said that you could not win at the horse races so why do you want to stick around and rub it in our faces.

If you have turned your back on playing horses and turned to craps why don't you spare us your misery.

See ya,

JM

JM, it doesn’t take too much to look beyond what I have written here and apply it to horse racing.
I have not "turner my back on horse racing". Rather I hope to describe some of it's misconceptions by way of less volatile risks; hopefully you will eventually see where this is all going.

So long as horse racing has to do with odds, this note is in the right place. I'm sure I've seen topics here about minimum bankroll size.

I certainly don’t object to having the note moved

[hurrikane]

Hmmm.....seems to me more like a horse shooting crap.

so, you gave up on a test that can be won to play at a test that cannot be won.

You're logic is perfect.

[Bob Allen]

Originally posted by formula_2002
Here are the results for 200,000 decisions.
TOTAL BET $815,140
TOTAL WON $1577
NUMBER OF TIMES $5.00 OR WAS WON =274.
NUMBER OF TIMES WE COULD NOT WIN A MIN. OF $5.00=1
AVERAGE MIN BANK ROLL REQUIRED NOT TO GO BROKE WAS $1147

OF THE 275 TIMES THE GAME WAS PLAYED A MIN BANK ROLL OF $10 WAS REQUIRED 90 TIMES.
$100 WAS REQUIRED 123 TIMES
UP TO A $500 BANK ROLL WAS REQUIRED 39 TIMES
UP TO $1000 WAS REQUIRED 5 TIMES
UP TO $10,000 WAS REQUIRED 11 TIMES
OVER $10,000 WAS REQUIRED 6 TIMES.
THE MAX. BANK ROLL REQUIRED WAS $133,955

there were 200,000 decisions

formula_2002,

Don't understand the flack you're taking. It's very easy to see where you are headed with this. It makes perfect sense. You are playing a negative expectation wager over a long period of time and it WILL get your money. It just illustrates why we, as horseplayers, must find and stay within wagering parameters that give us an edge, however small.

What would be interesting, to me at least, would be if you turned it around and gave the player a 1.41% edge over 200,000 rolls. How much bankroll would be required then?

Reminders like yours are good to keep a handicapper on course.

Thanks,

Bob

[bettheoverlay]

I have always regarded horse race wagering as an instinctual exercise rather than a statistical one. Databases are fine, and some software helpful, but when it comes time to lay the money down, if you don't have well developed instincts born from experience, you are probably between a rock and a hard place.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by bettheoverlay
I have always regarded horse race wagering as an instinctual exercise rather than a statistical one. Databases are fine, and some software helpful, but when it comes time to lay the money down, if you don't have well developed instincts born from experience, you are probably between a rock and a hard place.

I think that was very true of the "Robber Barons". The reason for their success is in the name.

[sjk]

You can build the instincts into the program. No need for human intervention at all if the program makes good selections.

Formula,

Here's something else that you could test:

I would say that if a player has a positive expectation (say +20%) the whole notion of bankroll and betting a percentage of bankroll goes out the window after a period of time.

The percentage of bankroll would soon be larger than the player's confort level would allow and/or more than a smaller track's pools could absorb without impacting the price and cutting the edge.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Bob Allen
formula_2002,

It makes perfect sense. You are playing a negative expectation wager over a long period of time and it WILL get your money.
Bob

Bob what is more important in my post is how long one can be ahead of a "negative expection wager".
I think that is why so many here and else where think they are winning at horseracing. They are in the winning end of what ultimately goes negative.

I'm running the 1.41 advantage play now and will let you know the results.. Thanks for your post.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by sjk
You can build the instincts into the program. No need for human intervention at all if the program makes good selections.

I find amazing all these programs are about inputs (Sartin stuff, hrh stuff, pace figures etc) and have little or no regard for statistically analyzing results.

I suggest that the reason for this lack of analysis is due to the compelling amout of data and trials required to prove the worth of any system.

[cj]

Originally posted by sjk
You can build the instincts into the program. No need for human intervention at all if the program makes good selections.



I guess you can build instincts into a program, but how long do you have to write code? I wouldn't want that job!

The Deep Blue chess program has taken how long to write? And its still pretty even when it comes to playing the top humans. How can the top humans ever beat such a complex program? Intuition and instict.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by cj
And its still pretty even when it comes to playing the top humans. How can the top humans ever beat such a complex program? Intuition and instict.

I think there is more room for improvement in the code.
But I also think that the human will improve against the improved code.

One of the unanswered question is "who has the greater resources?".

[sjk]

I guess you can build instincts into a program, but how long do you have to write code? I wouldn't want that job!


I found it interesting and challenging to develop a black box type of program. It takes a huge time investment up front, but you get a payback of your time when the program becomes usable.

I have bet 30,000+ races without looking at a page of PPs so I am pretty sure that I am ahead of the game in terms of time.

I would not compare my program with the Deep Blue chess playing program. Happily with a handicapping program you don't have to beat the best players in the world (I wouldn't know where to find them or how to compare). If you can beat a reasonably substantial percentage of the universe of players you can succeed.

I would never want to go back to the world of playing one track at a time and using eyeballs to analyze the PPs. Maybe laziness is setting in.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by sjk
I found it interesting and challenging to develop a black box type of program. It takes a huge time investment up front, but you get a payback of your time when the program becomes usable.

I have bet 30,000+ races without looking at a page of PPs so I am pretty sure that I am ahead of the game in terms of time.

I would not compare my program with the Deep Blue chess playing program. Happily with a handicapping program you don't have to beat the best players in the world (I wouldn't know where to find them or how to compare). If you can beat a reasonably substantial percentage of the universe of players you can succeed.

I would never want to go back to the world of playing one track at a time and using eyeballs to analyze the PPs. Maybe laziness is setting in.

A few things caught my eye here.
a. If you are not looking at PP's then I have got to assume three things;
1. You are downloading data from a service into your analysis programs.
2. You are looking at or otherwise downloading results charts and gererating your own data.
3. none of the above.

Care to say which of the above?

b. Were the 30,000 bets "Live" or were they back fitted.

c. A profitable handicapping program must beat the best handicappers in the world. I have writen hundreds of programs that don't beat those same handicappers.;)

[sjk]

Formula_2002,

To answer your questions:

a). I download charts, entries and odds (with exacta payoffs) as raw material for the program. I know that you have seen the many threads where means of downloading of data have been discussed so I'll leave it at that.

b). Live bets; real money.

c). Keep trying; maybe rethink how you have been approaching things. I positive attitude might help.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by sjk
Formula_2002,

To answer your questions:

a). I download charts, entries and odds (with exacta payoffs) as raw material for the program. I know that you have seen the many threads where means of downloading of data have been discussed so I'll leave it at that.

b). Live bets; real money.

c). Keep trying; maybe rethink how you have been approaching things. I positive attitude might help.

Thanks, but a bit further please;

a.) understood
b.) are you profitable in 30,000 win pool bets for final odds <=10-1
c.) So there is enough dumb money that would allow good handicappers to share in the profits.. OK.

ps.

Negitve outcomes and positive attitude are not mutually exclusive.

[sjk]

Formula,

To continue answering your follow-up post, most (95%) of my bets are exactas so of the races bet, only a relatively small portion would fall into the category you are asking about. I don't track types of bets or odds (no good reason not to; just never did) only amount bet and amount returned so I can't say what the return might have been for win bets at less than 10-1. If what you are asking is whether I have been profitable over the 30,000 races the answer is yes.

I am sure there is enough money for you to share the profits. If I thought everyone reading this post was going to go off on the quest of developing a similar program, I might have some concerns about encouraging it. Happily for me, the response to similar posts in the past have indicated that that is probably not going to happen.

[formula_2002]

SJK, my concern is always not to confuse luck with skill.

That is why statistical success in the win pool is so meaningful to my analysis. It's akin to an early warning alarm.

I'll grant that there overlays in exacta pool, but it is indisputable that the win pool odds must be used to calculate the fair exacta values.

Would you agree that the win pool odds must be used to calculate the fair exacta values?

One of the underlying uses of this post is to demonstrate how often one can be profitable in a proven negative game..

[sjk]

I bet exactas because that is where I find the greater value. At one time I looked at the formula for statistical significance on your site and applied to to my results. As I understand it the formula applies irrespective of what sorts of bets were made to achieve the results. I believe that I am OK from a statistical point of view and play accordingly.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by sjk
I bet exactas because that is where I find the greater value. At one time I looked at the formula for statistical significance on your site and applied to to my results. As I understand it the formula applies irrespective of what sorts of bets were made to achieve the results. I believe that I am OK from a statistical point of view and play accordingly.

Yes, it applies to any bet but, the key to using the stat test is;

" BREAK YOUR DATA UP INTO SMALL
SMALL ODDS RANGES (2-1 ,3-1 4-1 ETC)"

the stat test is less reliable when using excessively averaged odds. That is the main reason I use the win pool odds.

[sjk]

A vital ingredient of success is to step up to the window and open your wallet when you believe in what you're doing. As long as they keep paying me to play I'll press on with my methods and leave the statistical fine points to others.

Best of luck to you.

[hurrikane]

joe,

i absolutely dsagree with your logic. Go figure.

if you have a play that wins 25% of the time over years and years then going forward you know you need a return that will pay for the losers. 4-1(acutally more in exotics.

it doesn't really matter what the win pool says or what every little miniscule piece of odds data says. that is just one...and only one way of anlaysing the data. That is why you say the game can't be beaten. The way you do it...you are right apparently.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by hurrikane
joe,

i absolutely dsagree with your logic. Go figure.

if you have a play that wins 25% of the time over years and years then going forward you know you need a return that will pay for the losers. 4-1(acutally more in exotics.

it doesn't really matter what the win pool says or what every little miniscule piece of odds data says. that is just one...and only one way of anlaysing the data. That is why you say the game can't be beaten. The way you do it...you are right apparently.

Hurrikane, I look at what you state this way.
In general terms;
say you break even and win at a rate of 25%.
That amounts to track odd of 3-1.
The average 3-1 shot wins 21% of the time. Therefore you are outperforming the public by about 20%
That is way beyond my capability.

[Lefty]

If it required 113,000 once how can you state only $1143 or something like that was min br required? Sounds to me like min br required was $113,000.
You can't get an ov at the crap table so back to horses or maybe on to sports betting.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Lefty
If it required 113,000 once how can you state only $1143 or something like that was min br required? Sounds to me like min br required was $113,000.
You can't get an ov at the crap table so back to horses or maybe on to sports betting.

I have re-writen the program. the max br in this run was actually $23,000.. I'll have the comple figures posted asap..

[Exactaman]

Originally posted by formula_2002
SJK, my concern is always not to confuse luck with skill.

That is why statistical success in the win pool is so meaningful to my analysis. It's akin to an early warning alarm.

I'll grant that there overlays in exacta pool, but it is indisputable that the win pool odds must be used to calculate the fair exacta values.

Would you agree that the win pool odds must be used to calculate the fair exacta values?

One of the underlying uses of this post is to demonstrate how often one can be profitable in a proven negative game..

Why should win pool odds be used to calculate anything about exactas? win is win and exactas are exactas. two different pools.

don't confuse the nature of a dice roll with the nature of horse racing. two totally different animals.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Exactaman
Why should win pool odds be used to calculate anything about exactas? win is win and exactas are exactas. two different pools.

don't confuse the nature of a dice roll with the nature of horse racing. two totally different animals.

I find that most horse players are impervious to the nature of odds.

But unfortunately, horses run to their odds, and as such the exacta odds are a function of the win pool odds.

I think there may be less of a deviation in natural odds such as 50/50 coin flip when compared to horse racing odds of 1-1 (adjusted for take-out). Just how much of a deviation there is, is to be determined.

[cj]

Originally posted by formula_2002

...But unfortunately, horses run to their odds, and as such the exacta odds are a function of the win pool odds...



This just isn't true. Lets say horse A is the favorite to win at 7-5, and horse B is the second favorite to win at 3-1. Does this mean if horse A wins, horse B is the favorite to run 2nd? Sometimes he will be, but many times he will not. I'm sure if you take a large sampling, horse B will be the favorite to run 2nd a majority of the time, but I don't care about a large sampling, its each piece of that sampling individually that matters.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by cj
This just isn't true. Lets say horse A is the favorite to win at 7-5, and horse B is the second favorite to win at 3-1. Does this mean if horse A wins, horse B is the favorite to run 2nd? Sometimes he will be, but many times he will not. I'm sure if you take a large sampling, horse B will be the favorite to run 2nd a majority of the time, but I don't care about a large sampling, its each piece of that sampling individually that matters.

CJ On average, the 3-1 will place 42.85% of the time.
(lets say these odd shave been adjusted for take-out)

It's my intention to determine the STD deviation of that event compared to THE STD DEVIATION OF "A NATURAL WIN% OF 42.85%"

Why would I go through all this effort? Perhaps I can present another view of risk as it applies to horse racing.

[hurrikane]

Originally posted by formula_2002
That is way beyond my capability.

I dont' know about beyond your capablilty but if you could find some way to scratch and claw your head out the envelope for just a second..I'm sure your capability would grow exponentially.
.

[Exactaman]

indeed odds are the core of the matter. i look at it this way. an exacta is the chance of a certain horse coming first, and another second. (radical huh? :)) this event has its own probability of occuring and its own odds in its own pool. basing an exacta calculation on win pool odds seems unsound to me because it would undervalue or ignore the more relevant information readily found in the exacta pool. maybe comparing value between the two pools could be useful. i'm not sure exactly what you're trying to do.

again i am no statistician but it seems to me you can't compare a fifty/fifty dice roll to an even money shot. i'll tell you right now, if forced to randomly bet every even money shot that came along or take a fifty/fifty dice roll, i will choose the latter without even thinking. the point of horse racing is you have information available to base your decision on. i doubt the standard deviation matters too much, whatever that is :) i'm interested in learning more about it though if you care to elaborate more.

[MitchS]

Originally posted by Exactaman

don't confuse the nature of a dice roll with the nature of horse racing. two totally different animals.



I contend, and I believe this very subject matter or something similar was just presented that...50% of the race is out of your control. I believe this to be fact, and maybe even a higher percentage. If so, then where does the other 50 or so percent lie? I'll tell you where... TOTAL RAMDOM PROPERTIES. Exactly like the fall of the dice in a craps game. Once people start to realize this, then and only then can you move forward in your handicapping ventures..

Mitch

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Exactaman
i doubt the standard deviation matters too much, whatever that is :) i'm interested in learning more about it though if you care to elaborate more.

Ex, over a long number of trials;
The results of a 50/50 head/ tails coin toss could look like this:49.8% heads, 51.2 tails,and in the next equal number of trials may be 51.2 heads and 49.8% loss. Overall the odds are 50/50

In the same number of trials,a horse that is 1-1 (after adjusted for tke-out) may, and I dont know for certain, be 60% wins 40% loss and in the next equal number of trials may be 40% win and 60% loss. Thats what I mean by deviation. Overall the odds are 50/50.


This being the case, It would be fare to say there is more risk in horse racing then in flipping a coin when the odds are the same.

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by MitchS
I contend, and I believe this very subject matter or something similar was just presented that...50% of the race is out of your control. I believe this to be fact, and maybe even a higher percentage. If so, then where does the other 50 or so percent lie? I'll tell you where... TOTAL RAMDOM PROPERTIES. Exactly like the fall of the dice in a craps game. Once people start to realize this, then and only then can you move forward in your handicapping ventures..

Mitch

Mitch, I think that the betting public is accurate enough with their value of a horse's ability to win that the enter horse racing odds structure does approach a definition of randomness but with a greater deviation from corresponding mechanical or natural odds.

Joe M

[MitchS]

Joe, Yes I concur..

Since this thread is part... coin flipping, part craps, part Horseracing...I just thought I would through a little gambling dribble out there,lol..Most will disrobe as tripe but maybe some will benefit.. Its principles can be applied to most gambling, even though it speaks strongly to craps.



Craps, Roulette, And The Mysteries Of The Universe..

Everything in the universe strives for balance. The plant and animal kingdoms, the ecological systems of the earth, even down to the tiny atom. All systems in the universe when out of balance strive to come back into balance. That is the reason we have earthquakes. Pressure builds in one area of the earth and a tectonic shift is required to relieve that pressure and restore balance.

What has all this got to do with craps and roulette? Well, guess what! Each craps table is a universe to itself. The same can be said of each roulette wheel. They both tend to strive to restore balance when their balance is upset. Balance is upset by the natural properties of random numbers. Another factor is when that magician of probability decides to open his bag of tricks and really put on a show. He performs nightly at most craps and roulette tables, unfortunately he keeps no schedule whatsoever. If you want to catch his act, you just have to be there.

It is the fact that craps tables and roulette wheels tend to try to restore balance along with the effect of the general properties of random numbers that makes it possible to beat these games. If they were always completely random, no one would ever stand a chance. But fortunately for the aspiring gambler, they aren't. Some may argue this point, but every experienced craps player knows that craps tables tend to go through cycles. You here them talk about "hot" tables and "cold" tables. If all dice rolls were completely random, then this condition would never exist. The permanent state of all craps tables would be choppy. Admittedly, choppy seems to be the most natural state for a craps table, but stay there long enough and you will without a doubt see that table cycle through what we call a "cold" streak where shooter after shooter throws 1 to 6 numbers and 7's out. In addition, 7's are probably coming more often on the come out roll. In short, the 7 has completely taken over as the dominant number. On what is considered a "hot" table, usually the 7 has decided to take a little break from his never ending and obviously pleasurable job of taking the "do side" players' money. The 7 gets lost and only occasionally makes a token appearance on the come out roll. During this time on a hot table, lots of "box numbers" are rolling. Box numbers are the numbers 4,5,6,8,9, and 10. These numbers are the ones which can be established as points to which pass line and come bets go. They may also be placed or bought. It is upon these numbers that the do side player, for the most part, basis his hopes for profit.

Through out the remainder of this little treatise I'm going to be speaking primarily of craps but most of the basic principles apply to roulette as well. There just isn't time to go into detail about both games. But as you contemplate the principles conveyed, you will most likely see the application to roulette.

Craps tables are really amazing to me and I consider the goings on there one of the mysteries of the universe. I don't understand why things tend to work the way they do, I only know they do. For instance, consider this. A craps table may have as many as 16 players huddled around it each taking turns shooting (or throwing) the dice. But no matter how well a shooter has rolled the dice before, no matter how many numbers he rolled and no matter how many times he rolled without ever rolling a 7, when it is time for 7's to roll, they will roll no matter what the shooter does. I don't care if the dice have to hit the money, jump up and hit the rail, do a double back flip and hit someone in the eye, when they finally settle on the green felt they will be indicating a 7!! They take great pride in humbling the shooter who was once a giant in the eyes of his peers because of the long and prosperous roll he had the last time. They dearly love to bring him down from his lofty perch and rub his face in the fact that he is after all only a mere mortal. They were simply toying with him before when he had the good roll, lulling him into a false sense of security, letting him think that he could actually affect the outcome of each roll. They take ecstatic glee in making it clear who is in charge here at this table.

But are they really in charge, or is it that heavy wooden green felt lined monster on four legs who really calls the shots? Is the table the real unassuming devil in disguise and the dice just his energetic demon cronies who carry out his will? Consider this fact. I have seen tables go through cold cycles where 16 or more different shooters have failed to get anything going. And as I said before, some were probably the same ones who had very good rolls earlier when the table was going through a hot cycle. But the table was hot for a pretty long time and now it is time for it to come back into balance. The 7 may have goofed off for an hour or even longer, but now it is time for it to get back to work. Now, my question is, how do the dice know that it is time for sevens to roll? There are 5 or 6 dice in the tray from which each shooter chooses. These dice are interchanged in numerous different combinations yet with the same result. Different shooters are throwing the dice, yet when it is time for 7's to roll, they will roll. They will make up for lost time. This is also true with other numbers. Stand around and watch any craps table for awhile and you will see this phenomenon occurring. Suppose the 6 gets lost and doesn't roll for awhile. It is supposed to roll once in approximately every 7 rolls (about 13.9% of the time). Suppose it doesn't show for 30 rolls or so. Watch what happens when it does begin hitting again. You can pretty much bet that it is going to hit more frequently than it should in order to make up for being away so long. You may see three 6's in a row then a couple of other numbers then more 6's. And the funny thing is that if the 6 returns and begins to hit frequently with one shooter, when he sevens out it will continue with the next shooter even though the next shooter has chosen two totally different dice. How do the dice know it is time for 6's to roll? This is one of the great mysteries that when I get to heaven (yes craps players go to heaven) I'm going to ask The Lord about. (Editor’s note: Since this writing several years ago, I have since gotten some insight into why things tend to occur the way they do on a craps table. It is too vast a subject to tackle here, but it has to do with the very fabric and essence of creation.)

Here is an interesting experiment that I've performed a couple of times. At home, I took 10 dice and divided them into two groups to simulate two different craps tables. In my bedroom I designated the bed as one table and the floor (bouncing the dice off the wall) as another. I began to roll the dice and record the rolls. When I saw a definitive difference in the two simulated tables (i.e. the bed going through a cold cycle while the floor was either choppy or hot or vice versa), I then switched 2 or 3 of the dice from one simulated table to the other. Guess what! Each table continued in its current cycle without missing a beat. The cold table didn't immediately turn hot (although that certainly could have happened) and the hot or choppy table didn't immediately turn cold. Isn't that amazing? So, the conclusion that I must draw is that it is what is happening on that specific table, in that particular universe that matters, and not the dice, the shooters, or the fact that someone started playing the "don't" side instead of the "do". (Craps players are so superstitious.)

To prove this thing about table cycles, here is something interesting you can watch for on your next prolonged visit to the casino. If there are several craps tables in action, look for one with only one or two players, maybe even none. The reason there are so few players (provided it is a regular low stakes table) is because it is in a cold cycle. Most craps players hate to play a cold table. Now, watch it off and on for the next hour or so. You will probably eventually see 4 or 5 players at the table or you may see players coming and going. The table is probably still pretty cold. But when you see players coming to the table and staying, you know it is heating up. And eventually if you watch long enough, you will see the table jam packed with players hooting and hollering and cheering and giving high five’s. You know what is happening now. The table has cycled around and become red hot. If you can squeeze into the throng and get a spot on this table (you probably won't be able to), you can make some pretty easy money. But since you can never be sure when that table is going to get hot (it could take hours), you may have to suffer through some cold and choppy weather. You will also notice the reverse happening. When you arrive at the casino you may see a table which is red hot and laden with money, but before you leave it will either be totally unoccupied or there will be only one or two don't players and maybe a couple of frustrated do players trying to coax the table into getting hot again.

Now we've talked about table cycles and to some extent what causes them. But more down to cases the name of the game in craps is when will the 7 appear. There are a total of 36 different dice combinations and 6 of them make a 7. So, in a perfect world the 7 would roll once in every 6 rolls. But it is the devil's job to make things as difficult as possible and keep us guessing. But even though the 7 could roll at any time, overall you may see some patterns develop. As we discussed earlier, when a number gets lost and then returns, it will tend to hit much more frequently than normal in order to make up for being lost. Thus, after a shooter has had a long roll (30 to 40 numbers)without a 7 appearing, we can deduce that we will soon get more 7's than normal. That means that a very long hot roll may be followed by a couple of fairly short rolls because the 7 is going to hit again quickly. And the short roll may be preceded by one or two come out 7's. If you don't see more 7's hitting quickly, it may be that the 7 is taking an extended lunch break. In that case, the table will probably stay hot for awhile longer. But you can bet that if that table stays hot a long time, there will eventually be a corresponding cold spell. You may not be there to see it, but it will come because the table must seek balance. So watch out for short rolls following long rolls. Even if the overall state of the table is hot, you may still see from two to four short rolls in between the longer rolls.

When a table is in its normal state and behaving itself you will see patterns in the rolls. The reason for this is that regular random numbers tend to hit closer and closer together, then farther and farther apart. This produces a stair step effect. Observe the examples below.

6,8,8,9,5,9,4,5,12,10,3,11,7.
6,2,9,5,9,3,7.
9,8,7.

This is a classic pattern you will often see. It also works in reverse with the rolls starting short and gradually getting longer.

Then sometimes there are ocean waves.

5,8,9,7.
6,8,3,4,3,2,9,7.
11-5,9,8,3,6,8,4,9,7.
6,9,5,7.
4,10,8,8,6,6,10,11,2,12,3,10,7.
8,7.

The end of the ocean wave type pattern may be introducing another classic pattern. That is the long, short, long, short, short (I’m referring to relative lengths, not any specific number of dice rolls). This pattern may or may not be part of the ocean wave pattern. It could stand alone. It looks something like the one which follows.





6,6-8,5,9,11,4,9,11,8-8,7.
8,7.
4,6,8,8,6,9,5,3,3,5,7
9,3,12,7.
4,7.

Or you could see the long short pattern repeat again (long/short/long/short/long/short), but this is the most prevalent pattern.

There are many other patterns I could go into, but you will just have to learn to recognize them by experience. But the scourge of every craps player, even the very good ones, is the totally random choppy table. This type table is a dirty double crosser that may do anything at any time. And unfortunately most tables go through a cycle like this and some seem to stay in it almost forever. It is like they get stuck in this mode. They may go for hours and never get hot and never get real cold. They hit enough numbers and the dice pass often enough to keep some players interested, but you never know when a short roll or several short rolls are coming or when a longer roll punctuated by come out 7's and craps will sneak in. No matter how you look at it or try to chart it, there just seems to be no real rhyme or reason to it. Or just when you think you've got it figured out, it will do something totally different. An experienced craps player will quickly recognize this type of table and get off of it. I personally have a rule that I try to abide by. If a table double crosses me two or three times and I can't see any good reason for it to do what it did, I get off of it. There are plenty of craps tables out there. Go find one that knows how to behave. Following is an example of a choppy table.

6,8,5,6-12-7
5,6,6,4,6,2,11,4,8,6,4,8,7.
5,7.
12-7
6,7.
4,5,9,10,4-4,4-5,7
5,5-6,6-7
10,4,9,5,4,5,5,9,6,6,8,6,7.
7
2-11-3-6,3,6-11-6,8,6-6,6-10,6,10-7
7
7
10,7.

Anyhow, I think you get the idea. On the up side, however, even tables like this can often be played successfully by the experienced player. And another positive is that you will seldom see anything that messed up.

Most experts (by "expert" I mean most people writing about craps and devising systems and strategies) will tell you to make pass line and come bets with double odds or ten times odds if you can get them. This decreases the house advantage, which may be true on paper and calculator. But is it the best way to play? Is it really your best bet if you are trying to beat the game of craps on a long term basis?

Still others advocate playing don't pass and don't come. Is this the best way? Since one thing is for certain and that is that sooner or later every shooter is going to seven out, it would seem more logical that a system could more readily be developed around a certainty than an uncertainty. I mean a shooter may or may not roll a 6 or 8 during his roll, but he is absolutely going to roll a 7 at the end of his roll.

The best mechanical systems I've seen to date were all systems based upon playing the don't side. And you have more maneuverability on the don't side. You can pick up a don't bet at any time. Also, if you get a don't pass or don't come bet out there, you can put yourself in a position where you can't lose. (You can do this by placing the same number on the do side.) However, you still have to get a don't pass or don't come bet past the sheriff and his deputy (the 7 and 11). Mathematically the odds are in your favor once you get a don't pass or don't come bet out, but you have 8 combinations out of 36 that can beat you any time you make a don't pass or don't come bet. In other words, in order for you to get a bet out in which the odds are definitely in your favor, you have to buck a 22% chance of losing that bet to the 7 or 11 before it can even go to a number where you can possibly win. And besides, if you do get the don't come or don't pass bet onto a number, it is more than likely going to go to a number which is currently hitting. It may go to a number which is currently hot. In that case, it is very likely to get knocked down once you finally get it out there. So looking at these drawbacks it would appear that the don't side isn't a very good bet after all.

Man, if only there was a way to get a don't bet onto a number without having to get past the 7 and 11 and while doing that, get it on a number that is not as likely to be rolled before the 7. Well my craps playing friend, there is. It is called the "lay" bet. Some craps players don't even know about this bet. I've actually had players who seemed to be fairly experienced ask me what kind of bet I was making. I've even seen several novice dealers who didn't know how to pay these bets (they paid them at even money instead of the correct odds and deducting a 5% commission, bless their generous hearts!). A lay bet is a don't bet that can be placed behind any number the player chooses. You are betting that a 7 will appear before the number you are betting against rolls. The bet pays the same odds as the regular don't pass or don't come odds less a 5% commission when the bet wins. You can place the bet at any time and it is not exposed to the 7 or 11. With a lay bet the 7 always works for you and never against you. In addition, you can also pick it up any time you want. So if you think the shooter is going to have a short roll and you place a lay bet to cash in on it, then he continues to roll numbers and hasn't hit the number you laid against, you can pick it up. You have complete control of all lay bets and you can jump in and out as the situation dictates. Now, think about it. You only pay a 5% vig on winning lay bets, but you pay 22% to get a don't pass or don't come bet out. It is true you get paid even money on it once you get it out, but most players place small don't pass bets then lay larger odds on these bets once they get them to a number because of the 7 and 11. But they get paid the same amount on their odds bets as they do on a lay bet and the lay bet only has to pay a 5% commission or house vig. And if you place larger don't pass bets to take advantage of the one to one payoff and don't lay odds, then the 7 and 11 extracts their 22% from a much larger amount. So in my humble opinion (and it is just my opinion) it is much better to make lay bets than don't pass or don't come bets.

Now, many experts will also tell you that when playing the do side you should make pass line or come bets instead of place bets. It is true that you do have the 7 and 11 working for you when you are making these bets, but once the bet is out there on a number, mathematically the odds are against you. The 7 is more likely to roll than any other number. And once that come bet or pass line bet goes to a number, you can't pick it up. It is there until the number either hits again or it loses to the 7. Yes, the so-called experts talk about your having a 14% negative expectation on place bets. But that figure is based upon your leaving the bet out there until the 7 hits. For crying out loud, there is no law that says you have to leave a place bet out there until the shooter sevens out. At any time you can TAKE YOUR BETS DOWN!! That is the advantage of place bets over pass line and come bets. You have complete control of place bets. You can bet a number for one roll and take it down, or bet all the numbers for 5 rolls then take them down. You can make a place bet on a number that is hot rather than possibly having a come or pass line bet go to a number that is cold and just hit that one time out of the blue. So my council is, "For the most part forget pass line and come bets and use place bets."

So with the basic understanding which has been communicated so far, we have a foundation to begin to learn how to beat the game of craps (and or roulette) over the long term. Now all that is left is a few hundred hours of study and practice to hone our skills and learn to recognize patterns and cycles and generally how to "read the table". And that is really the summation and the key to success. In order to beat a craps table (or roulette wheel), you must be able to read it. You must have some pretty good idea of at least what is likely to happen and you must be right more often than you are wrong. When you can get to this point, you will be successful even if you do use pass line and come bets.

[formula_2002]

mitch,

"recognize patterns and cycles and generally how to "read the table". "

I dont think so!:rolleyes:

I test the crap odds, or any odds using several different random number generated data bases. I can generate 200,000 decisions in about 5 minuest. It's a sobering experience..

[Lefty]

Form, a near 1-1 shot at the ctaps is not nearly the same as 1-1 horses. You can cherrypick 1-1 horses, 3-1 horses, 5-1 etc, you can't cherrypick craps. You can't get an overlay at the craps table!
I think you get mired and blinded by your own stats.

[Pace Cap'n]

It is correct lay bets are paid on true odds.

What was not mentioned is that you are laying the odds.

You must lay 6/5 on the 6-8, lay 3/2 on the 5-9, and lay 2-1 on the 4-10.

In order to calculate and pay the 5% vig on the amount of the win, most casinos require a wager of an amount great enough for you to win 4 times the minimum bet at that table.


Say you lay the 6, on a $5 minimum table. You put up $24 to win $20. You then pay 5% of the $20 won, or $1 for the vig.

To lay the 5 or 9, you would need to put up $30 to win $20. On the 4 or 10, put up $40 to win $20.

No way would I attempt all the calculations to justify this next statement, but after all is said and done the EV (expected value) for lay bets is essentially the same as for place bets.

And you have gone from playing $5 craps to playing $20 to $40 craps.

Remember, over 100 separate bets on the crap table, every one in favor of the house.

PS: Has anyone ever actually laid eyes on a crap table paying 3/1 for the 2 and 12 on a field bet?

[formula_2002]

Originally posted by Lefty
Form, a near 1-1 shot at the ctaps is not nearly the same as 1-1 horses. .

Lefty---guess what! I agree with you. And that's what I have already said.

[Lefty]

Good, but I guess I didn't get that from your writings. If you agree then your efforts should be redirected back toward horses and craps should be a mild amusement or diversion. Luck and skill, to you

[MitchS]

Originally posted by Formula_2002

"recognize patterns and cycles and generally how to "read the table". "

I dont think so!
[/B]

Well Joe... First off I did not write that piece, but thought it would be interesting to some. To end this conversation, I will only say this....Mathematically, yes I know the numbers, but computer science can only take you so far, your biological computer must take you the rest of the way. If you can not achieve this you can not achieve period.:) (oh were having some fun now)..

Anyway, I have achieved success in both craps and baccarat utilizing some of the principals with the above post, and thought it might be useful to some...take it or leave it. If there was some way to program my baccarat method accurately I could prove my point, but I don't think thats possible.

[Exactaman]

2002: i'm sure that would be fair. a lot more things can happen to a horse than a coin after all.

mitch: naturally there are random elements in horse racing. that is obvious. the percentage does not matter. it is equally obvious to me that there are a significant percentage of predictable elements as well. understanding these is the only way to success at horse racing. they are the core of the game. i do believe though that you cannot fear, and have to accept, even embrace, the random aspect. over the long term that will balance out, your skill at predicting the likely course of events may not though :)