Pressed Place Bets after Multiple Made Points

[LeftyAJ]

Need a little solid advice on how to handle additional place bets that have been pressed up. Here goes…. Yesterday I was playing at a $15 table and was the shooter. I had an initial point of nine and I placed the six and eight for $18ea. After making one initial regression on the six and eight I started to “up a unit” pressing. After making my 3rd point I was sitting with $42 ea on the six and eight and also another $25 placed on the five. (I was banging 5’s too) After the next come out roll I had another $30 (including odds) of action on the new point of four, for a total of $139 at risk. My question is; based on my betting levels and $500 buy-in would you have regressed at this time OR since I was rolling plenty of numbers just continue to press and pull until the devil shows. In this case I hit two more times on the eight, then sevened out. I did not press because I was getting the $49 payout and was happy at that level. But after hitting that third point, there was a huge amount of time being wasted as two more players were buying in and tons of prop bets were being placed. It gave me an eternity to think about ….should I regress? Darn this is sure taking a long time, am I going to cool off and POS right away? How do you all handle this “break in the action” do you re-evaluate the amount of money you have at risk OR do you leave all bets up and continue to roll? Seems to me that immediatly after you make a point is a very key spot regarding money maagment in your overall roll. What's your "game plan" if any, at this particular point? I racked a fair amount of chips but also left plenty on the table. Certainly, all here have experienced this. Any thoughts?

A.J.

[heavy]

Any time that little voice in your head asks "Should I regress?" you already have your answer.

Anytime there is a break in the action I give serious thought to regressions, turning my bets off, or just taking it down and focusing on bringing backthe poing. Likewise, I keep my bets turned off for a roll or two after establishing my second, third, fourth, etc. point. Let's make sure everything is still "on track" before we risk a lot of action.

[LeftyAJ]

I’ve only been playing this game for a couple of months but I’ve consistently seen guys (and myself) throw 7-outs immediately after the second or third points are established. If my place bets aren’t exceedingly pressed up I like to just keep rolling. But when they are double, triple or more than my original bet turning them off or regression will go into my playbook. BTW…..what % of the time do you actually turn off your bets in an instance like this or is it more a “feel” of the game type thing.

It’s funny I’ve been trying to read all the craps literature I can dig up but nowhere do I remember seeing much on how to game plan your betting strategy once a future point is established. There are a million and one charts out there on “pressing schedules” but nothing on this very critical point of an overall roll.

[heavy]

It’s funny I’ve been trying to read all the craps literature I can dig up but nowhere do I remember seeing much on how to game plan your betting strategy once a future point is established. There are a million and one charts out there on “pressing schedules” but nothing on this very critical point of an overall roll.

That's because whenever any of the so-called experts write a book on craps they adopt the mathematical approach to the game - which states that (1) the dice have no memory and (2) they "re-set" after every toss with a 1 in 6 chance of the seven showing. If you were to actually track rolls in this situation you might find that to be the fact. However, I've lost too much money on the first or second roll after a new point is set through the years, so I'm going to base my decision on history instead of math. By the way, I was not particularly good in either subject in school, although I much prefer history.

I believe that pretty much anything that interrupts the shooter's rhythm - especially when you're talking about DI's - is sufficient enough of a trigger for me to turn my bets off. Let's face it - our psyches are fragile as hell - mentally tough DI's are few and far between IMHO.

[LeftyAJ]

You got that math thingy right H.

Just like last week two DC bets in a row knocked off with twin Yo's...... go figure.

Thanks for the reply.

A.J.

[realtime]

Yep, and then there are those that after all the hooping and hollering and high fiving after a point is made think that their focus is where it was when they made that last point and......................

WOTCO!!!

[Golfer]

Many DI's will turn off the place action on the 1st roll after a new point is set. One time in Vegas with Beau & Hard 6 (Ramon) at a full table at the GN it was a riot to see 14 players turnoff their bets for 1 rol and then back on. Dealers were piling up tokes so they went with the flow.


Later

[Mad Professor]

But is the number of first point-cycle tosses that are 'burned' (used up by having your Place-bets turned off) worth the opportunity-cost.

That is, has anyone studied whether the monies saved (by having your Place-bets turned off for each first point-cycle roll) out-weighed by the monies you would have won had they been on?

Further, if having them 'off' for one-roll is good; would having them off for two, three, or four rolls be even better?

If we look at the collective hit-rate of a multi-number Place-bet strategy; has anyone sat down to calculate how many "uncollected hits" it would take to equal one PSO (not including your PL wager or anything else except your Place-bets)?

In other words, are we doing this based on anything other than gut-feel, hunch, and superstition? I mean, anecdotes are great, but wouldn't it be even better to actually know what your first-roll 7-Out rate actually is?


MP

[heavy]

What I'm looking for is the shooter to demonstrate he has not lost his edge over the "recess" between passes. I want him to toss a box number before I get back "on" with my bets. I like it when the seven shows and the guy next to me turns to me and says "you must have gotten a phone call."

[Kelph]

Further, if having them 'off' for one-roll is good; would having them off for two, three, or four rolls be even better?

Beyond the discussion of whether this works or doesn't I'd consider the psychological benefit of the one roll as oppose to the mechanical self inducing semi-paralysis of turned off Place bets for multiple initial rolls after each new Point is established. One cools the nerves the other feeds into fear IMHO.

If we look at the collective hit-rate of a multi-number Place-bet strategy; has anyone sat down to calculate how many "uncollected hits" it would take to equal one PSO (not including your PL wager or anything else except your Place-bets)?

This assumes one is always making the same bets for the same amounts. I guess this means no presses or regressions too as that would really muddy the calculations. Of course one may be playing a constant number/amount game I suppose.

In other words, are we doing this based on anything other than gut-feel, hunch, and superstition? I mean, anecdotes are great, but wouldn't it be even better to actually know what your first-roll 7-Out rate actually is?

How consistent is that first-roll 7-Out rate? Is it unchanging? Even if it's fairly consistent wouldn't each individual game's ongoing results do more in determining the affect of first-roll 7 outs? I mean the psychological and financial results from a losing session with some first-roll 7 Outs, depending on severity, to some extent influences the next session I would think in most normal players.

Kelph

[Mad Professor]

Kelph brings up a couple of interesting questions.

Let's start with the premise of what Kelph calls a 'normal' player and the way they let prior-hand results affect current-hand betting-decisions.

Are 'normal' players net-winners or net-losers?

I would say that 'normal' randomly-betting players are overall net-losers. Now that doesn't automatically disqualify the methodology of their betting-decisions; but their overall-losing-ways certainly doesn't serve to validate them either.

That is, if the bet-decisions that 'normal' randomly-betting players make prove out to be largely net-dispossessive (instead of net-accretive); then it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to infer that whatever superstitions, hunches, and false notions they employ in their bet-decision thought-process, do not help them one single bit in their randomly-bet outcomes (other than to assuage their feelings when they lose).

Kelph, my prior answer related ONLY to dice-influencers, and NOT to randomly-wagered outcomes. If you maintain that there's no difference between the two, nor that influence can't be quantified; then there's no discussion to be had.


MP

[dork]

I 'turn off' like Heavy does; I didn't started that practice because of anything I read, I do it that way because of the "experience" of getting burned when I haven't. It's all 'hunch'. When I used to get that feeling (that someone might have lost their rhythm) I'd sit in a ponderment as the dice rolled and 7'd. I've done that enough to regret losing my bets.

When I hear that phone call or there's a big disruption (time-consuming buy-ins, prop bets, pay-off arguments, etc.), I'll turn my bets off immediately. My new "logic" is, I think of the principal of opportunity cost in reverse--I've got a chance to be 100% sure I "win" about 3-1/2x the possible reward (a WAG on the "average" payoff) by turning off my bets--when in doubt, "safety first". I'll give the shooter a few rolls to prove he can stay off the trash numbers and resume, and if s/he does, I'll turn back on. I look at it this way--I've saved 'way more money sitting 'off' than I've won by defying the hunch. And even if I haven't, it sure feels that way.

Incidentally, if my 'calculation' of 3-1/2x is the correct ratio with which to measure investment versus potential reward, that ratio is even more against me than the cost to show a profit on a lost 'no 4 (10)' bet, so I don't mind sitting out for a coupla rolls. I wasn't very good at the subject of math, but that's my logic.

[Mad Professor]

I don't think Dork's 3.5 estimate is that far off the mark in terms of opportunity-cost (depending on how many active Place-bets you have in action), and I agree that turning your bets off after a payout-dispute breaks out often helps more than it hurts.

However having said that, doesn't the "Off for one-roll after the come-out" routine re-beg the "If off for ONE roll is good; then is off for TWO rolls even better?" question.


MP

[heavy]

My trigger - off until the shooter demonstrates he can roll an box number (as opposed to a trash number). If he comes out tossing 2's, 12's, 11,'s etc. I'll stay off on the place action. Of course, I'll probably toss in a horn bet, hoping for a parlay score.