Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Advanced Craps' started by Dicedoctor, Nov 8, 2016.
Ok, I did see Midnights analysis of the method...
Interesting but I would like to see it in action.
I really enjoy all the names people have given their products, strategy, method, this system, that system....when I write my first book on craps, Im going to call the book "the Solution"
I think that would be a catchy title for a craps system.
When I was in real estate in California, my brother-in-law, who owned a book binding company, sent me a book. It was a beautiful book, fancy binding, and gold leaf letters, the title....."Everything I Know About Real Estate"....by (my name).
500 blank pages!
Reminds me of some of the craps books I have seen.
But I do like your "title"!
Hunter craps method and try this pattern s-s-o and stay on the same side that wins catch the streak
Any "pattern" is just one of all possible patterns, each as likely to happen as any other one!
Take three consecutive decisions, all possible outcomes:
PPP, PPD, PDD, PDP, DDD, DDP, DPP, DPD
Pick any one of them, and it has exactly the same expectation as any other one......1 in 8
Run it out as many decisions as you like, same scenario!
I have never used the "method" though I know a couple of people that do.
They tend to stick to it, though I never really ask how they are doing because to
be honest I really don't care and it is none of my business..
This and the Hunter system and we all know there are many other systems and
betting patterns one can use. I don't feel any of them are "the" answer because
you just cant bet your way to the promise land.
I do feel though that some type of a system may have the benefit of placing more
discipline on a player.... and over a years time, that could have a good affect on
controlling ones loses.
I believe that to win you have to throw the dice and that contains its own set of
But in the end I am for anything that gives you a better chance against the
Nothing wrong with playing a system or strategy, I think everyone that plays the game goes to the table with some "plan".
But I also think one should know what the probabilities of success are with those plans.
Most every scheme for playing craps has been offered, and if one does some research, they can find that knowledge for free, or in a low cost book.
But I suppose if someone wants to spend their money searching for the "goose", there are plenty of people willing to accommodate them.
This assumes one can know or sense certain results (streak) are upcoming. All fine if that's how you feel but you're simply guessing...unless precognitive abilities are in play.
I thought this method was simply a sort of martingale play where one hopes not to incur 8 straight losses.
I believe some here can outline guaranteed win rates of 90% or greater (9 of 10 Winning sessions---maybe even more?)...but the thought is eventually the axe will fall. Can you avoid the axe? I assume the probabilities can be worked up showing you can't....in all likelihood.
"Since a gambler with infinite wealth will, almost surely, eventually flip heads, the martingale betting strategy was seen as a sure thing by those who advocated it. Of course, none of the gamblers in fact possessed infinite wealth, and the exponential growth of the bets would eventually bankrupt "unlucky" gamblers who chose to use the martingale."
"The gambler usually wins a small net reward, thus appearing to have a sound strategy. However, the gambler's expected value does indeed remain zero (or less than zero) because the small probability that he will suffer a catastrophic loss exactly balances with his expected gain. (In a casino, the expected value is negative, due to the house's edge.)"
"The likelihood of catastrophic loss may not even be very small. The bet size rises exponentially. This, combined with the fact that strings of consecutive losses actually occur more often than common intuition suggests, can bankrupt a gambler quickly."
I understand it's good (has no harm and adds to our enjoyment) to have a positive mindset on our gambling habits...but lets not just drop common sense, reality and factual data in that pursuit.
On Lou and those incredible win streaks.Could it be that when he is behind he resorts to a Martingale type betting strategy to recoup those losses and end up with a small profit.I do not see any other way.Nobody can have a winning streak like he has without a way of avoiding an expected loss.
Some (I think Supperick) thinks he stashes hidden chips in his other pockets and magically switches tables when he gets behind then later comes back to his original table with his bankroll intact. Since I have watched Opie play twice and I will not say anything negative about his play (he looks like a Philadelphia boxer to me), he has a lot of chips in play on every player although most are large hedge bets until he gets that special feeling on how the table will most likely proceed. Consequently, I am more inclined to contribute his unbelievable craps success to his genius like grasp of math and astro physics. Opie is probably the most numerate gambler I have ever seen play.
this is certainly true...there are any number of strategies mostly one as good as the other or do no harm (though those incorporating high HA bets less so IMO) and if steadfastly stuck-to by definition exhibit "discipline"...
OTOH it is important, imo, that whatever your strategy or system might be, that you not only have an explicit objective(s) or goal(s) but also that your strategy be in agreement with or in accord with those objectives...in this a basic understanding of the math and knowing what your chances/prospects actually are of attaining those goal(s) is also important.
"controlling one's loses" is one such goal and of course always a desirable outcome...it is not however necessarily one of those goals...it is not, for example, one ot the explicit objectives of the Tough Craps player, whose primary goal is to win gigantically huge...secondary objectives exist---get plenty of action and get plenty of time at the table or, put another way, have your stake last a long time (tangentially related to "controlling one's losses" of course though not positively incorporated in the betting: it is more like just a hope or wish...lol)---but these secondary ones are more often than not sacrificed on the altar of the primary one.
just sayin' and blubbering on as usual, is all.
the greatest craps player on earth will always take second place to the one who chooses not to play craps.
Yes..I would assume he HAS to incorporate some type of martingale play when he is losing (he has denied any Marty play but something is not adding up). There is no other way to account for (if true) the catastrophic session loss of $25,000...and then a possible 'nuther $23,000. Lou (or Obie) hasn't confirmed or denied the loss...which is strange because he has been VERY forthcoming with his numbers before. (weekly gains, initial wagering levels, bankroll)
yes, there is that but "catastrophic losses" are possible under any scheme...No.,,more than that methinks there are the phenomenal "winning streaks" that have been put forth... frankly with a martingale or marty-like play such tremendous streaks are actually quite plausible and credible...without it? hm. not so much.
yet i believe obie has consistently stated that it is NOT a marty...i could be mistaken in that however...
I'm just trying to reconcile the type of wagering noted above with a $25,000 single session loss..
I'm at a loss....unless I consider Marty or some other reckless play.
I also believe he stated a place bet (say 6) could be as low as $6 and as high as $6,000. The extremes give me pause...maybe he's not defining it as the true meaning of a martingale---buts it's certainly a wild fluctuation.
Let us look at reality.Nobody wins 167 or so sessions in a row- Not Happening.Thete is no other way than when you are losing you resort to larger and larger bets to bail you out.Yoh do not have to call it a Marty which follows a certain progression.Why not on a " hunch " throw out a huge " get me back" bet? Of course if you guess wrong at those junctures a gigantic loss may occur. All to keep that streak going.
As I have noted earlier (in the diceprofits.com thread) "Martingale" seems to have become a generic label for all losing/negative progressions, ones where bets are increased after a loss. Upon further review I would now classify as a "true" Martingale any losing progression that at least recoups all prior losses for a series with a single win. Based on comments from Strategists, specifically the mention of indicators, I do not think The Strategy qualifies as a true Martingale.