Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Craps Discussion' started by KokomoJoe4, Jan 29, 2015.
I'd hate to have to debate you. This guy is good.
What I don't understand though is why he is going to such lengths to try to discredit 777... Seems a bit over the top.
Perhaps Goat could write his own book if he isn't satisfied with the contents of 777's.
Unfortunately I haven't read the book so I can't comment on it...
...maybe others who haven't read it should take a similar approach.
At one time I think Alan was writing a book, or planning on it. If he does, I will be honored to be his first customer. I'm not positive, but I believe the discussion with 777 has a long standing history.
I don't think he's trying to discredit anyone but rather using sound principles to make an argument. Certainly the math doesn't say you will lose---people do go into the casino and even with the math against them, they do win. Short term variance allows for that. Over time, that constant wave of house edge whittles away like a stream over a rock.
If I just play the 12 over and over....am I losing over time?
Make an argument or cause an argument? Just an observation of an outsider looking in.
The math of the game is solid. I know it, you know it, Goat knows it and 777 knows it. Fact is everybody plays to win, most play for fun but not everyone plays to minimise the house edge.
If players are making what I might consider a stupid bet (high HA). It's just them paying a higher premium for a what to them is more exciting way to play.
In my experience, they sometimes have the last laugh.
Any strategy is fine if you are happy with it. I just look at it from a point of view that for me the casino is 5 minutes away and I can play regularly. My goal is to enjoy the play and minimize the losses. Maybe not the best "mindset" to have, but it is what it is. We have far too many people here in Vegas going broke with positive attitudes about their gaming strategies. Positive attitude is a great thing, but in gaming there is a hitch...a real big hitch.
People with strong opinions are going to butt heads. If anything, it's lively and entertaining. I always enjoy watching a good boxing match in written form. I don't think it's over the top.
We're in the same boat TD. I like to play long periods and focus much more on losing less as opposed to winning more. The dark side is definitely the right side to be on for that I would think.
If I was flying into Vegas 2-3 times a year, I think my mindset would be different about things like progression betting, hitting numbers harder, bigger odds bet, etc.
I was intrigued by Alan's numbers for progression betting where 97% of those players will lose more than single bet players. I would have never thought the numbers were so lopsided.
Positive attitude is good for career, relationships, family....as far as gambling goes, it gets dicey, IMO.--but that's just me talking.
I like to "tease" peoples around the rail (certain fellow patrons, the crew etc) that I win alot more when I have my sour and negative attitude than with this positive attitude stuff: "that positive attitude stuff is just dissing the dice", I say sometimes...then I laugh but sense that I am the only one who thinks it's funny...lol...actually i am a big fan of "counter-superstitions" in general--but that's just me talking...tom p
Goatcabin.....Your math says a 7 may not be rolled in a million tosses. That is either a true statement or not a true statement. When the math doesn't suit you , you try to wiggle out of it.........when you use it against my position(s) you hammer it home. It is what it is.....no more no less.
Your math says you will be paid less than true odds on every bet. Per the MATH it is impossible for you to be a winner. You may be a winner due to luck, however, if probability plays out, the math says you cannot be a winner. There is zero doubt, per the MATH, you will lose every dollar you bring to the table if you play long enough.
You can have the math....I'll take voodoo.
RE: WOMEN. .......If I said....ALL women are a pain in the ass.....that might be a sexist remark, but what I said, I think most people would agree with, even women.
This really is not as difficult as we are making it.
A 6:3 nine should show 1 in 36 rolls, There are three other ways to roll a nine, so that with nine rolls of the dice we expect to see one nine. Anyone disagree?
During one's play, there will be many sets of nine rolls. Some of these sets will show no nines. Others will show somewhere between one and nine nines. Agree?
Perhaps one would state that the nine is due when it hasn't been observed in a long while. In reality, results are random so nothing is due. However, expectations with respect to outcomes are governed by the construction of the dice, this is why we expect to see the nine one time in nine rolls, but are not surprised when we do not, because of the concept of randomness/chance.
I think with this concept, we can and in fact do have it both ways.....
My version of this idea: It is good to walk into a casino with a positive attitude; it can be disastrous to walk into a casino with a positive expectation.
The same argument is in progress over on Roulette Forum.
It's not MY math. That statement is a "hidden lie". It's like saying, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The math says that the probability is so small that you can't fit it into a "double double" variable on a computer. That's not a "wiggle".
No, you are paid at true odds on the odds bet you take or lay. Per the math, it is possible to be a winner. You keep repeating this falsehood. What do you mean, "if probability plays out"? The math simply says that, the longer you play, the luckier you have to be to break even or be ahead. Most people will never play long enough to have virtually no chance of being ahead.
777, you simply do not understand probability and the concept of random, independent events.
Very good. I would agree. Actually, Las Vegas ranks just about bottom barrel for people who don't save enough money and suffer more than the fair share of bankruptcies, foreclosures and poverty into retirement age. I suspect our industry has a lot to do with that as well as a "positive expectation"--among others. Living here, you do see the plight of a casino on every corner.
I walk in happy--knowing I will not win or lose much of anything, regardless of my "vibe". The day I start getting positive about my outcomes is the day I catch myself. I don't see that happening.
Actually, I started writing a book on craps many years ago, but never have completed it. My interest in craps comes and goes, along with my interest in astronomy, while my interest in music and baseball is constant.
I haven't read 777's book, of course, but from his posts I assume it's full of misinformation about probability, and as such promotes ignorance on the part of its readers.
I would be glad to read and review the book, but I'm certainly not going to buy it! >
I got a copy of "The Dice Doctor" several years ago and wrote a review of it on rec.gambling.craps; I think I posted it here, as well, and probably on the Wizard's site.
OK, so now we get down to brass tacks. It sounds like what you're saying is that numbers are not "due" either because they have not rolled recently or because they have rolled recently, but that you can "sense" the future.
Is this a fair statement?
It's not that the probability of a roll is any different than any other time, because it's "due" or because it follows a trend, it's that you claim you somehow "feel" it coming. IOW, the event is random, you just have foreknowledge of it.
Why don't you just come out and say that, instead of spouting a bunch of pseudo-math that has been proved wrong time and again?
No, no, no! That's not what I said. Please re-read. It said that "So, we expect that 97% of the play will favor the flat bettor over this progression system."
That is from the fact that it takes five wins in a row before the progressive player is ahead of the flat bettor, and the cumulative probability of zero to four wins in a row is .97. At five wins in a row, OR MORE, the progression wins more, and a lot more, money.
I did not draw any conclusions about which player would do better, overall.