Re: An example of BS777's "math"
- From: Alan Shank <goatcabin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:20:10 -0800
On 12 Dec 2005 14:53:23 -0800, "Doc Dice" <steve.johnson8@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
>Alan Shank -> This is an outstanding explanation. You are indeed the
>man!
Thank you.
>However, If I knew this much about the outcome of dice I honestly
>believe going near a craps table would scare the hell out of me.
On the contrary, the more you know the less "mysterious" it all is. If
man fears the unknown, then you might as well know as much as you can.
As I've stated many times, as have others, it doesn't mean you will
get "good" dice rolls. Compare it to a really good bridge player - all
his/her knowledge will not help with the draw of the cards. The bridge
player has to apply skill to what the random deal provides. The craps
player's knowledge is the same in that it won't help with the dice
rolls. It's different in that the knowledge is not a "skill" at all.
It's just knowledge.
I can walk up to a craps table and visualize a graph from WinCraps of
10 or 20 thousand simulated sessions. I know what my chances are of
losing my stake, of winning x amount of money, of playing for 2 hours,
or whatever. I can visualize someone throwing a dart from across the
room at a big paper graph taped to the wall, selecting the one outcome
of those thousands that I will experience tonight. But it's much more
fun to let the dice be the dart thrower.
>
>When you go to a table. How do you apply your knowledge? I do not mean
>for this to sound facetious if it does. I really would like to know.
I apply it before I go to the table. Once I'm there, I just play the
way I planned to play. I rarely change anything during a session,
except that once in a while I get a "wild hair" up some orifice and
make one of those horn-high 12 bets or a midnight. Once in a while I
will change my odds multiple up or down during a session, but rarely.
I have also played a little system I made up where I start by not
betting any odds; after making a point I take single odds on the next
one, adding an odds multiple each consecutive point made (without
regard to comeout decisions). This way, I am at least partially
"financing" odds bets with prior winnings.
This whole odds bet issue is not that complicated, really. Odds bets
add volatility; the more you bet on the odds, the more volatility you
add. High volatility is sort of like smoking dope - it intensifies
whatever is happening, which can be good or bad. High volatility means
good luck is better rewarded and bad luck wipes you out faster. This
is true whether the volatility comes from the bets themselves or the
amounts of those bets. Pressing adds volatility. Longshot bets are
very volatile. The thing about odds bets is that the volatility comes
without increasing your expected loss. If you press your bets, you are
subjecting a higher amount to whatever HA applies to that bet. If you
make longshot bets, you are making bets with HA's of 9-16%. If you
make odds bets, you just get volatility. Remember what the University
of Nevada at Reno professor said on that History Channel program: "the
gambler is buying variance." Variance is what allows some people to
win, while all the players, taken as an aggregate, are losing and the
casinos are winning. The variance from odds bets is the only free
variance; all the other variance you "buy" by subjecting your money to
the house advantage. The fact that it's free doesn't mean the variance
will be positive; it doesn't guarantee anything, but it means you
don't have to be as lucky to break even or better, because there's no
handicap to be overcome like there is with other bets.
I got hammered the other night at Cache Creek because I chose to take
max odds, getting lots of variance, and the variance went against me.
Tough. If I didn't know what I know about craps, I might conclude that
that's a bad way to play. People are always posting stuff like, "this
system has worked well for me," and it turns out they're talking about
just a few sessions. Well, that's ignorance. Although I hadn't
specifically simulated that play, as I did afterwards, I was aware
that $200 is not a very "robust" bankroll with which to bet $20-$30 on
every point. My simulation showed a 20% chance to bust before 45 bets,
but it also showed about a 33% chance to win $150 and walk before 45
bets, too, and over a 50% chance to come out ahead. My "financed odds"
system that I described above is very conservative, because if you
don't win points you don't take odds. The chances of busting $200 with
that system within a couple of hours are almost nil, but the chances
of winning $150 are also very low and the chance of coming out ahead
is considerably less (about 42%).
Those two methods are pretty different, yet both have the same
expected value for the same number of bet, because the difference is
all in the odds. So, depending on how I feel when I go to the casino,
I might choose either or neither. I've got a good idea what the
effects of different odds multiples are, so I can fit my play to what
I want to get out of that session.
I'd much rather have that knowledge than not have it, even though it
doesn't make me lucky, than play in a fog of confusion and
superstition like MoneyLA and BS777.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An example of BS777's "math"
- From: Doc Dice
- Re: An example of BS777's "math"
- From: alan
- Re: An example of BS777's "math"
- References:
- An example of BS777's "math"
- From: Alan Shank
- Re: An example of BS777's "math"
- From: Doc Dice
- An example of BS777's "math"
- Prev by Date: Re: Question for JB re: 'Shooter Due Theory'
- Next by Date: Re: An example of BS777's "math"
- Previous by thread: Re: An example of BS777's "math"
- Next by thread: Re: An example of BS777's "math"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
