Favourite 68 Strategy

[Mad Professor]

Hi DicePops,

A $2000 buy-in for the MP $204-Across Regression would be reasonable.

No, I do not chart tables, nor do I chase micro-streaks, nano-trends, or butterflies.

The idea behind this approach was to find the most efficient way to make the most net-revenue off of most dice-influencers most of the time.

In doing so, it specifically avoids the notion of zigging and zagging your bets all over hell's half-acre, chasing just-happened outcomes. Instead, it seeks to pre-position wagers where they are most likely to collect a couple of payouts (at the fattest, most durably-sustainable end of the hand-duration curve)...while collecting even more profit should the hand survive past the regression-point.

The MP-$204 isn't the only way, but it is certainly one of the most steadily-profitable ways to do that.

Our good friend, Al_Falcons put all of this in easily-digestible chart form over on the Dice Institute m-board, under the Testing, Testing thread (where we took something like >25,000 in-casino rolls of several dozen skilled-shooters...including many from this site...and tested various betting-scenarios on a steady-state, same-approach for each shooter basis); the results were quite eye-opening for a lot of folks who believed up top that point, that their old tail-chasing streak-seeking, trend-finding, zigging-and-zagging methods were the way to go.


MP

[Dave73]

The point I am learning from this is these regression type plays are no good unless you have the bankroll to run through a few early 7s, otherwise you can soon get in a big hole and then may not have the stomach to keep the series going.
.

While I won't disagree, I think the above is MORE true for non-regression methods or methods with more bets on the table. With a regression, you get to the point that your hand is profitable with fewer rolls (and hits) than flat betting. This is true if you only have two wagers or an across play.

Bottom line, any DO method can get you in a big hole with multiple early 7s

[tonybugs]

Heavy, what do you do when the point is 6 or 8? Do you still play both? or do you just do sister number?

Thanks
Tonybugs

[heavy]

Heavy, what do you do when the point is 6 or 8? Do you still play both? or do you just do sister number?

If I have a Pass Line bet covering the number then I just take odds and bet the sister. Sometimes I'll "surround" the point by Placing the number next to it as well. I have combined Pass Line/Odds bets with Place Bets on a few occasions where I had my PL/Odds up to table max and wanted more money on a number - but that does not happen often enough to worry much about.

[tonybugs]

I didn't explain myself correctly. On all randies, I'll go with no pass line. If point is either 6 or 8, should I just go sister or place the point also? Or should I go with a 5 and 9 for 30 each and after 1 hit down to 15 apiece and add either the 6 or 8 for 12, which leaves me $0 exposure to 7?

Tonybugs

[Mad Professor]

On all randies, I'll go with no pass line. If point is either 6 or 8, should I just go sister or place the point also? Or should I go with a 5 and 9 for 30 each and after 1 hit down to 15 apiece and add either the 6 or 8 for 12, which leaves me $0 exposure to 7?

Tonybugs

I'm thinking that if a modestly-skilled shooter is willing to bet something like $30 each on the 6 & 8 in initial-exposure, on random-rollers, on an average of 6 or 8 RR's per lap as the dice cycle around the table; then they would have to be betting something like $350 to $500 on their own pos-ex shooting JUST TO BREAK-EVEN.

Add in another $15 to $25 each on the 5 & 9 when they "get the feeling" on let's say, an average of 3 or 4 random-rollers per lap, and the "just to break-even" amount that the modestly-skilled shooter would have to wager on himself when the dice finally work their way around to him, and that adds ANOTHER $90 to $200 he would have to bet when he is shooting (ON TOP OF the $350 to $500 he'd be needing to bet on himself)...again...JUST TO BREAK-EVEN.

That's all based on not betting that $60 Place-6/8 amount on every R-R, but rather being 'very selective' as to which random-rollers you bet on, and restricting it to a max of let's say 6 or 8 RR's per lap. Double-

I know this wasn't the question that was asked, but when I saw the phrase "On all randies"; I was struck by the DEGREE of D-I ability it would take for a skilled-shooter to consistently break-even on the seemingly-low house-edge on a $30 Place-6 and $30 Place-8 if he were to bet that on an average of 6 or 8 R-R's per lap.

The answer?

~If our intrepid shooter was to bet the same $30 Place-6 and $30 Place-8 on himself as he bets on an average of 6 to 8 random-rollers per lap; he would need something like a +9.5% edge over that wager...wait for it...wait for it...just to break-even.



MP

[tonybugs]

I always love how you break things down MP! So I'm guessing in your eyes I shouldn't be betting on ALL randies. But I'm an action guy, and don't have the patience to only bet when I roll. I don't have the bankroll yo do your $204 across, so the $60 6 and 8 regression seemed like a a good play where after 1 hit my seven exposure was either $1 or $0. The 5 and 9 thing was just a bad idea I guess.

Tonybugs

[Mad Professor]

Hi Tony,

I wasn't trying to give you a hard time, but rather, I was trying to illustrate how skilled-shooters often make things extra difficult on themselves (by placing a heavier-than-reasonable burden on their own shooting) when they bet rather heavily on random-rollers.

~You say you can't afford to bet the MP $204-Across two-hit Regression on yourself; and I'm perfectly willing to accept that at face-value.

But consider this:

~If you are wagering an initial-average of $60 on each random-roller, and there's an average of 10 RR's per lap; that means you are betting a total of around $600 in NEGATIVE-expectation wagers per lap.

~So when you say you can't 'afford' to wager $204 on your own POSITIVE-expectation bets; well, obviously it gives me pause.


MP

[tonybugs]

Once again your right, and I thank you for illustrating again how one can be miss the trees while walking through the forest!

So answer me this, what do I do when I'm not shooting?

Tonybugs
Btw- Give me a hard time, I need it every once and a while! Lol

[Mad Professor]

Hi Tony,

You probably won't like this answer any better than you liked the last two.

IF you have to bet on a random-roller (principally on the two or three RR's immediately preceding your table-position, in order for you to get the dice when they come around); a naked (no-Odds) table-minimum PL or DP bet is about it.

If you want more action, then you could make the same naked (no-Odds) table-minimum PL or DP bet on other RR's as the dice cycle around the table; but honestly, anything more than that, and you are placing an additional burden on your own skilled-shooting, because you not only have to beat the house edge on the wagers you make on yourself; but your shooting-skills also have to overcome the CUMULATIVE effect of the house-edge on all the bets you make on random-rollers while waiting for the dice.

So in effect, when you Place-bet the 6 & 8 on yourself after Place-betting it on all the other RR's around the table; your shooting not only has to overcome the seemingly small -1.5% house-edge on your current bet...it also has to overcome the cumulative-effect of ALL the other neg-ex bets that you've made on the RR's up to that point.

Unfortunately, most modestly-skilled shooters just don't have the overwhelming DI-advantage it would take to be able to beat the cumulative-effect of all the neg-ex RR bets that they make.

Then, add in the fact that the total-value of the neg-ex RR bets that they make, easily swamps the total value of their own validated-advantage pos-ex bets they make on themselves; and you have a sure-fire recipe for failure DESPITE the fact that the skilled DI does in fact have an actual edge over the house.

In a phrase:

The CUMULATIVE-effect of neg-ex random-outcomes usually swamps any INDIVIDUAL DI's validated pos-ex advantage.



MP

[London Shooter]

Fair point Irish.

I know this board is mostly about edges and advantage play (and that is how I have to approach my sports betting) but on the other hand I am sure I am not alone in just wanting to play craps.

Sure, I'd love to win every time, but I also like to be having fun, and for me having fun is being in the game.

[tonybugs]

Appreciate the advice Irish, and you bring up a get point which I nver thought about, with the other/my roll wagering %. With a pass line and odds, I'm probably around $100 out of the gate with my rolls. So maybe limiting myself to a $12 6 and 8, collect then press method should keep me out of harms way.

Maybe MP can give us the proper % we should wager on unknowns/ compared to a DI. And don't give us the simple answer- 0. Lol

Thanks
Tonybugs

[freak]

Fair point Irish.

I know this board is mostly about edges and advantage play (and that is how I have to approach my sports betting) but on the other hand I am sure I am not alone in just wanting to play craps.

Sure, I'd love to win every time, but I also like to be having fun, and for me having fun is being in the game.

I'm with you LS. I wish I had the skill to be pos-ex but i don't. So lately I have focused on betting strategies that give be a chance to score a quick win with only a fair amount of risk. Heavy's $30 6&8 gives me 10 ways to win and 6 ways to lose and 20 ways to get a push. Regressing allows me to keep playing for no risk that hand. Taking down completely after a trigger is reached (like 6 rolls without a win or 2 craps numbers in a row) will lengthen the game. Not because the next roll is expected to be bad, but because off will guarantee a profit for that hand. And I will kick myself if I leave it up there for ever when it's not producing. Some hands offer a rewarding 6 - 8 - 8 - 6... immediately after the point. Others go 4 - 10 - 3 - 2 - 9... Take the quick wins on the good hands and get out of the bad hands before they bite you. PSOs are always gonna bite. Get a few quick scores and you can survive the PSOs and keep playing the game you love, but only IF you are willing to take the winnings and your bets down before the 7out. And that means sometimes you have to watch a long roll go by. We practiced taking it all down this weekend and found it quite emotionally rewarding. If we had been just a tad more disciplined it would have been financially rewarding as well.

[Mad Professor]

Hi Tony,

I take the libertarian view of the "How much random betting is too much?" question.

For me, it's as little as possible; but as both you and London Shooter have said, you are principally in this for the juice of the action, and profit-making is several rungs lower in terms of gaming-priority.

So in effect, mine is:

1) Profit

2) Fun

3) Action

Whereas yours might be:

1) Action

2) Fun

3) Profit

I have no problem with that whatsoever.

What I was trying to illustrate was the simple fact that the more MONEY you bet on random-rollers, and the more OFTEN you bet on them; the better your own advantaged-shooting has to be just to break-even.

However, if you are principally in this for the fun, the action, and social interaction; then bet on RR's to your heart's content. As LondonShooter said above, and he likely echoes the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of members here; he's in it for the fun.

Again, I have no problem with that at all.


MP

[tonybugs]

My 3 in order are: action, profit, fun. There can't be fun without profit! But there also has be action to get a profit! So it's a fine line that I'm trying to walk. That's where regression comes into play, or sister numbers, or even a doey-don't play

[LeftyAJ]

However, you generally WON'T find me at a table full of randies, but I will play with a couple-few.

This idea that you're not a serious DI if you bet on any randies is ridiculous.

How true!

A couple of weeks ago a group of us from the board did a table takeover in A/C. Sprinkled in with us were a couple of randies who jumped into open spots as we all bought in. The first shooter of the day was a randie who was shooting from strait-out. He held the dice for almost half an hour and made multiple points. After a couple of repeat box numbers I was all over this guy. Down our end of the table, both $nakeye$ and I really cleaned up. I guess the smartest person at the table that day was the randie, he colored up and left after his roll.

As for randies, yea I bet them, but usually only after they make a point or hit repeat box numbers. As for this particular guy we never saw him before, but to me he looked like a rhythm roller and this wasn't his first rodeo.

Aj

[LeftyAJ]

However, you generally WON'T find me at a table full of randies, but I will play with a couple-few.

This idea that you're not a serious DI if you bet on any randies is ridiculous.

How true!

A couple of weeks ago a group of us from the board did a table takeover in A/C. Sprinkled in with us were a couple of randies who jumped into open spots as we all bought in. The first shooter of the day was a randie who was shooting from strait-out. He held the dice for almost half an hour and made multiple points. After a couple of repeat box numbers I was all over this guy. Down our end of the table, both $nakeye$ and I really cleaned up. I guess the smartest person at the table that day was the randie, he colored up and left after his roll.

As for randies, yea I bet some of them, but usually only after they make a point or hit repeat box numbers. As for this particular guy we never saw him before, but to me he looked like a rhythm roller and this wasn't his first rodeo. $18 ea 6 & 8 seemed like a good starting point.

Aj