My doppelganger played the RR's...

[dork]

I had a very fascinating session last Wednesday morning that I meant to report. I've always wondered how I'd do if I used my betting strategy on all the shooters at a "choppy" table--you know--PSO & PP/PSO rolls interspersed with a couple good hands. I found out during that session. The table was choppy' because of the RR's. I rolled pretty well; I had three hands that lasted at least 17 rolls each. (when I was 'hot', everyone passed the dice back to me)

I bet my usual scheme. For clarity--a variation of MP's 204 Across--$179/169/162 Across (depending on the point) with a $5 PL bet and 5x Odds. After two paying rolls, on each hand I regressed to $26/27 Across w/ 5x Odds, betting 'up one unit' on all the box numbers except for a "hero" number--the first box number rolled was parlayed 3x, and I would reduce that 3rd payoff-and-bet to a total bet of $24 (on the 5/6/8 or 9) or $25 on the 4/10. I bet the "MP-204" only on myself. I bet only a $5 PL w/2x-5x Odds on the RR's.

My doppelganger (as close as I've ever found who bets like I do, kind of) bet $180 Across WOTC w/ $5 PL. When the point was established, he go "place bet down" and use that money for his PL Odds. HE BET EVERYONE. He regressed after two paying numbers just 'like us', to $44 inside (or $32/34 depending on the point). He'd increase by 'up one unit' the first time, 'up 2 units' the second, collect once, and then go to $50 or $60 on the subsequent bet depending on the box number. He'd collect on his $50 or $60 bet, increase his next bet and stop the box number bet at $100. He never increased his Odds past 10x (by increasing his PL bet by 50%); I did. I also took down at least 2 parlays at the 3x, and lost a 9 parlay looking for the 5x.

Neither of us bet the Props, though we both bet the ATS. I hit the All Smalls twice. Couldn't roll a 12 or an 11 to finish off either ATS before the Red though. Argh. MP- I only had 2-2-2 on it every time I rolled. Two way 2-2-2s on every other shooter. He bet 5-5-5 on everyone with $2 C&E and $3 Hop the Red on the CO's.

I played for no more than 45 minutes. He came after I started, and colored up when I did. There were 4 shooters. I ended up up $450. He lost at least $2000; he bought in with $800, hit the ATM twice for the same amounts, and was paid after me--but I think he might have had between $200-300. He sure made money on my rolls; maybe not as much as I though, because he'd pay dearly with his place bets when the Red came. Those RR's just killed him; just as we would normally expect--I just didn't realize how MUCH they can hurt us. It was a vivid lesson.

I could feel his disgust; hell, I could almost smell the blood on the floor.

[London Shooter]

A great illustration of the view of betting a lot more on yourself than the randies......and if you do bet the randies just stick to the lowest vig bets.

One of the strangest things though seems that $5 total he placed each time on the come out roll on C&E and hopping the red. OK relative to bankroll, it looks like small beer, but what's he giving away there? 70c or so a time? That is certainly going to add up quick enough for each lap of the table and looks a simply awful play.

[dork]

I couldn't figure it, either, LS. I think the idea was to hedge the $15 spread on the ATS... maybe his thinking was something like, $3 hedges the ATS, and the C&E rounds out the bet to $5. Hell, it made no sense to me.

[Mad Professor]

For me, the big take-away lesson from that whole episode, is the fact that the more you bet on random-rollers (even when you think you are hedging your losses twelve ways from Sunday)...the more you will lose.

...and of course, the closer you can stick to betting on valid-advantage wagers (and the more you bet on them in the early-going of a hand); then, the more net-profit you will make.

Good lessons to instill, Dork! Thanks.


MP

[SHOOTITALL]

Dork: That fellow was the epitome of being underfunded for the amount he was playing. He did not stand a prayer. Take a lesson here from Grafstein: ten times your initial bet. That gives you one shot at every player around the table.

[dork]

Hmmm... is it a violation? Shootitall, I wonder. What's your recommendation?

I'll buy in with 500-700 with the intention of playing my version of MP's 204 Across. I'll usually buy in with those amounts, but I'll have a total of ~$1600 with me. My scheme's risk is $207 on a PSO with 6/8 as the point. Back-to-back PSO's and I'm done; my loss limit is $400. I've dug into the wallet for another $500, and once or twice, layed an additional $200-300 on the last ATS number, but with a $400 loss limit, I don't feel like I'm underfunded.

I base my buy-in on the regressed betting scheme, "ten times around the table"...$27Across plus $5 PL w/5x Odds; that's $57 x 10, so $600 should be my real buy-in, I think. I only bet the $204 on myself; and I never play at a table with more than 4 shooters anymore. With either loss version--2 PSO limit or $570 around the table, I think a $500 buy-in is satisfactory... I've chased two consecutive $204 PSO's with another $204 bet (on myself) and the sting was traumatic for me to say the least. So 2's my limit. (I've just gotten "comfortable" with betting that much [$204] as an initial venture--I'm a $54 Across or even better, $27 type of player--greed and the mathematics of leverage convinced me to tolerate the $204 exposure for 2 rolls to a regressed bet that's more my speed--$27Across. Truth be told, it took almost 2 years to convince myself to step into it and increase my PL Odds from 2x to 5x as a matter of routine in order to reduce the house edge to a 'minimum'. Before moving into $204 territory, I was always willing to tolerate the biased house edge in order to 'maintain' lower Odds losses if that makes sense.)

In any case, I don't see my $500 buy-in (with a $400 loss limit) as being underfunded in an ISR scheme, and therefore, applying the same logic to 'doppelganger', I don't know if I'd say his $180 Across is underfunded since he intends to regress to $44 inside; his $5PL usually stayed between 2-5x Odds. I never understood his Odds bet; he seemed to 'hunch', betting anywhere from 2x to 10x Odds depending on how the last point had fared and who had the dice. If the ISR is the qualifier, I think both he and I bought in with enough, though considering his "loss limit" (~$2000) maybe it wasn't(?) enough of a buy-in.

I welcome your reply; I don't mean any sarcasm... I'd really like to understand your view considering the numbers and the regression.

[SHOOTITALL]

Look, I am only regurgitating from Grafstein. Since I have played this game, underfunding causes more losses than over funding. Are your funds in line with what is commonly accepted norms? I would say close enough. If you start getting whacked, you can drop back a little. Generally with underfunding, one starts at the bottom and there is no place to regress. I am sure others have thoughts on this very important subject. It has been covered ad infinim on this board and MP's board.

[wild child]

S I A gives a conservative wager plan advice,,
.
I often start at $25 game level on a $5 or $10 minimum level table...
One or two hits and my wagers are STEEPLY REDUCED to the TABLE MINIMUM
$5 or $10 level...At that juncture I am a most happy fella to press to the moon
as long as I have funded the play out of winnings......
.
Has there ever been OPPORTUNITY LOST
I consider insurance paid and go on from there......

Just me saying

W C

[freak]

Hmmm... is it a violation? Shootitall, I wonder. What's your recommendation?

I'll buy in with 500-700 with the intention of playing my version of MP's 204 Across. I'll usually buy in with those amounts, but I'll have a total of ~$1600 with me. My scheme's risk is $207 on a PSO with 6/8 as the point. Back-to-back PSO's and I'm done; my loss limit is $400. I've dug into the wallet for another $500, and once or twice, layed an additional $200-300 on the last ATS number, but with a $400 loss limit, I don't feel like I'm underfunded.

I base my buy-in on the regressed betting scheme, "ten times around the table"...$27Across plus $5 PL w/5x Odds; that's $57 x 10, so $600 should be my real buy-in, I think. I only bet the $204 on myself; and I never play at a table with more than 4 shooters anymore. With either loss version--2 PSO limit or $570 around the table, I think a $500 buy-in is satisfactory... I've chased two consecutive $204 PSO's with another $204 bet (on myself) and the sting was traumatic for me to say the least. So 2's my limit. (I've just gotten "comfortable" with betting that much [$204] as an initial venture--I'm a $54 Across or even better, $27 type of player--greed and the mathematics of leverage convinced me to tolerate the $204 exposure for 2 rolls to a regressed bet that's more my speed--$27Across. Truth be told, it took almost 2 years to convince myself to step into it and increase my PL Odds from 2x to 5x as a matter of routine in order to reduce the house edge to a 'minimum'. Before moving into $204 territory, I was always willing to tolerate the biased house edge in order to 'maintain' lower Odds losses if that makes sense.)

In any case, I don't see my $500 buy-in (with a $400 loss limit) as being underfunded in an ISR scheme, and therefore, applying the same logic to 'doppelganger', I don't know if I'd say his $180 Across is underfunded since he intends to regress to $44 inside; his $5PL usually stayed between 2-5x Odds. I never understood his Odds bet; he seemed to 'hunch', betting anywhere from 2x to 10x Odds depending on how the last point had fared and who had the dice. If the ISR is the qualifier, I think both he and I bought in with enough, though considering his "loss limit" (~$2000) maybe it wasn't(?) enough of a buy-in.

I welcome your reply; I don't mean any sarcasm... I'd really like to understand your view considering the numbers and the regression.

From my perspective the most important thing in an ISR scheme is the regression ratio. It's more important to OVER-regress than under-regress and sometimes HOPE get's me leaving one more bet up than I should. The second thing is having a bankroll that will tolerate expected volatility. Losing 4/5ths of my bankroll in two hands is more than I can take right now so I scaled the play to $96. The third thing is stopping when you are ahead. You can expect, on average, about 30% of the rolls to be PSOs or PPSOs. I have gotten comfortable with this play and do pretty well with #1 and #2. But I still struggle with #3. If the session starts well (what we always HOPE will happen) I tend to want to play a few more hands rather than take that $90 - $110 win. If the session starts choppy I always stay and try to recover. I do a near perfect job of stopping after 2 straight PSOs. So what I am personally still working on is how to behave after four short but only slightly profitable hands and how to behave after a choppy session that goes up and down but slowly over time hits the loss limit. I would probably be even for the year if I had taken more of the smaller win opportunities. The process continues...