I'm so math challenged, I don't know what this means. I started this thread re: the 1:6 vs. 6:36, but I don't really understand odds. Oh, I know the difference between 1:1, 6:5 on the 6/8 odds, or even 2:1 on the 4/10 odds. I know on 1:1 you win the same amount, on the 6:5, you win $6 for $5 bet, on 2:1, you win double your bet. Then, there are the horse-racing odds, all over the place: 5:2, 15:8, etc. How can I know one set of odds are better than another set of odds? So, what does 2:3 mean? Like if you bet $3, you'll win $2? That's like playing the don't on a number. Anyway, where do you get the 2:3 odds, or maybe you're just showing the unlikelihood that OAP will stick by what he said. 777, in his book had a good intro to understanding odds, but the book is buried in my packing, which I will not unpack, due to another move in another year. I think he said something like the first number shows the chances vs. the second number. So, the larger the first number, the smaller the second number, the more the odds show the least chance of winning, but a higher payoff if the horse/dice/number, whatever, wins? I think 777 said odds always show "against." IOW, 6:5 shows six chances of loss vs. 5 chances to win. So, 15:8 shows 15 chances to lose, vs. 8 chances to win? Man, how do I know a horse w/ 15:8 odds is a better bet than a horse w/ 32:15 odds, not that I want to play the horses? In this vein, do not KJ4's odds signify that OAP's abiding by his words signify OAP will not? If I'm correct, KJ4, good call. Maybe I understand odds more than I think.

Hello Grizz. Hope to see you next spring in Vegas. Pretty sure you won't be coy like some of the others were this year. As you know true odds on the five and nine (the odd numbers) is 3:2, or 2:3, depending on how you're playing. I was just messing w/ OAP by giving him the short end of our hypothetical wager.

One time in my younger days, I was at a little league game, and one of the umps didn't show up. They recruited me to ump...everyone else refused. I was behind the plate, and the count went full, I said the count is "2 and 3". The kid batting looked around at me and said, "It's 3 and 2, are you a real ump?".

"Constricting the possibilities for actual situations. Here is where the math fails." I like this statement! When you begin recognizing dice bias and dice influence you are not restricting your craps play by statistics associated with hundreds of rolls.

I can't believe I'm about to say this so here goes...the math does not fail in any circumstance. In my opinion the math in craps acts just like a scouting report in baseball. It gives you information that you must figure out how to use to suit you best. Baseball is made up of statistics. Some GM's run their entire organization by what is called sabermetrics. There is a statistic for everything in baseball. It is up to the manager to decide how to use the information. Sometimes he may go exactly by what the stats are telling him. Sometimes he goes on a hunch. It is the same in craps. Math provides you the scouting report for the game. It is up to each player how to use it. The math is not a failure or a success, it is the player who is the success or the failure. Man, I think I've come a long way hanging around this forum...maybe not.

First time I have seen a comparison between craps and baseball that makes good sense...usually it some "skill" level comparison by a DI. Good thought analysis!

LOL... I like what you have to say but there are some people on this forum that do not like to compare craps with any kind of sports analogy.....but I understand the gist of what you are saying and completely agree.....kind of like "thinking outside the batter's box". .

I believe a DI "skill" can positively affect the "short term statistics" of a craps game. Three hard eights in a row with balanced dice may be considered random by some on this forum but I would argue otherwise...especially when the other 5 numbers thrown in that same roll are 54, 54, 54, 42, 52. That to me that demonstrates influence, not random shooting.

You can't compare it to sports from a skill point of view and I don't think black3car was doing that in his analogy. It's a random game which is why none of the "pros" will take the monkey challenge. Statistical analysis in baseball or football, golf, tennis can be applied. Statistical analysis can be applied to craps. You cannot apply skill analysis to craps, IMO---as it's likely a futile task involving thousands of rolls. Tables are different. Bounce is different. Strategy? Yes. Skill? No.

Utter nonsense. Short term variance can lead to just about any outcome. I rolled four 12's in a row on bubble craps two weeks ago. What does it mean? Absolutely nothing. If you believe rolls of 54,54,54,42,52 means something beyond random short term variance...you'll believe anything.

Bubble craps is a different beast. You aren't tossing those big bones in the bubble. That's like comparing apples to cantaloupe. There is no physical way that you can influence those giant dice from the push of a button unless of course you have "special powers". I do agree that short term variance can lead to any outcome BUT what happens when you put together a multitude of short term variance rolls that demonstrate repeat numbers, repeat die faces that are defying the statistics of the game? I track the numbers and can see an obvious trend that at first I might think is short term variance but then it continues to occur with a high frequency outside the expected norm. This advantage is especially obvious when you use the same dice set and same shooting conditions. That to me is more than variance. I would call it direct influence.

TD- your monkey challenge is whacked. Why don't you make the monkey challenge a realistic challenge and actually show up at one of the Vegas craps table to see how your statistical analysis actually will blow my dice influence belief out of the water. You say it is a futile endeavor but what do you have to lose?

If you are going to tell me 5 rolls of 54,54,54,42,52 is some kind of indication of bias dice and you're going to point to me and say "aha, told you these dice are bias".....then we live on different planets. I think most here with common sense would agree with me that 5 rolls of anything means absolutely nothing. You're confusing short term variance (I've seen six 6's in a row--among many other short rolls way off the "expected" scale) with bias or trend or control or whatever you want to call it. The game allows for LOTS of strange, repeating rolls. You're not controlling anything. Nor is there any way to show that.

The example I gave: 54, 54, 54, 42, 52 is taken from an actual roll that I had recently while using a hard way dice set. I also rolled three back to back 44, 44, 44 in that same roll. The point I was alluding to with the stated numbers was not that this was an indication of bias dice but of dice influence. You say these numbers mean absolutely nothing and that they are part and parcel of short term variance that the game allows for. My common sense tells me something other than "LOTS of strange, repeating rolls". There is a way to control and there is a way to show repetition and dice influence. That is why I track my rolls.

Well my 2 cents worth reminds me of the time I started rolling hard tens. Refer to my trip report. I was as new to the game as I could possibly be. I threw the dice off the table 3 to 4 times during the session. However, I kept hitting hard tens. The guy next to me was betting on me and was going nuts. I however, being the brand new player wasn't aware of what was going on and didn't bet on the hard ten but I was very proud that this guy was excited about my throws. My point is, it was one of the first times I 've ever played and was as out of control as you can get throwing the dice and was still able to be consistent for the short term. Dice control, sorry, I just don't buy it.