The only demonstrable benefit of any shooter qualification scheme is the reduction of bet [changed by edit from "debt"] handle, money exposed to the house advantage (HA), per unit of time. Whether or not The Captain, who reportedly developed the 5-count, was a real person is irrelevant; what is relevant is that he (perhaps supposedly) observed that some shooters, whom he labeled "rhythmic rollers" and we now call DIs, were "better" than others. The source of this superiority (by skill, divine favor, Hawaiian apparel, kirlian aura, or something else) is also irrelevant, but if there is such a source then a player can gain an advantage by betting only on rhythmic rollers. Presumably through experimentation -- perhaps Mr. Scoblette can provide some illumination -- The Captain developed the 5-count as a way to identify rhythmic rollers. Of course casino craps is designed to be a game of pure luck so random rollers can qualify for being bet on regardless of the criteria used for qualification. Still, the assumption is that an imperfect filter is better than no filter at all, and Don Catlan showed that if there is a rhythmic roller at a table a 5-count user would bet more on him/her than on random rollers and could defeat the HA thereby. Why 5 and not 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, etc.? Clearly an any-number-counter could just as well be missing out on some wins as some losses while waiting for a shooter to qualify. Again through experimentation The Captain determined 5 to be the optimum number, striking a balance between losing to quick outs by a random roller and missing a hand by a rhythmic roller. YMMV. No rhythmic roller, no advantage.

Actually, Frank has given up defending the 5-count and cries "unkle" when faced that the math does not support it. read it here

As for the 5 count if you are looking for that great roll - it does work. All long rolls of course go past 5 rolls.However the 7 has that same chance of showing no matter what roll it is.

You need to re-read your article with Frank. It's apparent he said uncle not unkle because when it comes to math your mind is like a stone and he gave up trying to convince you of your math logic error not because of his five count.

The 5 count serves a purpose, you bet less, or take longer to bet, no problem with that part of it. It is when you use the decision resolution argument. If you wait for the 5 count then make a place line bet, or any other bet, that bet resolution average is exactly the same as if you made the bet on the first roll...period! Cumulative probabilities only apply to "before" the fact, once the dice are in play, you must start a new cumulative probability after each roll. If using the 5 count accomplishes your goal of delaying losses, or extending time at the table, I have no quarrel with that, but it gives you no overall advantage when it comes to the negative expectation of any bet.

Your last sentence is all the "truth" you need when playing bank craps! You could add...every bet carries a negative EV, and you have it covered!

Crapspooper please read OAP post. Frank said uncle because you could not grasp this fact. You were mistakenly using cumulative probability "after" the fact to justify the probability of a 7 showing is about 60% after the 5th roll to support your laying of numbers after the 5th roll. His uncle had nothing to do with his stupid 5 count.

And, that is about the extent of Franks argument in supporting the 5-count. Many players come to the table WAY UNDERFUNDED, and try to play a 3-point molly or insides with a 1/3 of the buy in they need. Frank proposed the 'delayed betting' as a mechanism for bad gamblers to hope to catch a hot hand. Perhaps for a complete noob who is new to the game and complains that they get busted out to fast, this may be a good recommendation. Though I tend to recommend The Dice Doctors Qualified shooters to newbies, that seems to help far better as they an sit out cold trends and get on hot trends. In some cases Frank was mealy-mouth about the 5-count implying it 'gave the player the advantage' then later only saying it was for new players to get them to slow down, and that there was no advantage. I am not mad or angry with Frank, I think overall his books are great for the inquisitive beginner though I recommend Gambling 102 by Michael Shackleford over anything Frank has written.

Not betting is always the best strategy, don't bet at all on the random rollers, and you would save 100% of your expected losses on them! A 6 count would save you more than a 5 count, and so on......EV x bet handle = expected loss. Seems like a "DUH" to me.

Actually, interesting enough Frank does imply that if you don't have an advantage, then don't bet. OK, fair enough because you hear this from guys like Bob Dancer and many Blackjack card counters where there is mathematical proof of an edge, provided you have the discipline and the knowledge to execute it. When it comes to Craps, Frank departs Reason and Logic, where Faith and Belief take over where this DI in his mind, is advantage play. That is why he says to 'Bet on yourself" and 'avoid random rollers' due to the delusions he has, where that simple dice setting and a particular toss delivers an advantage, and one that cannot be mathematically proven at all. Delusional and absurd is the only thing anyone can say about this. Craps house edge is based on the math where the seven comes every 6 rolls and the bets are left up. however, what happens to house edge when you remove your bets when they win or before the 6th roll, and what happens to house edge if you make lay bets after the 5th roll? I have provided this page as something to ponder as well as the book 'Craps by the numbers'.

Cumulative probabilities are ALWAYS computed before the fact! No matter how you interpret them, no matter when you place your bet....the EV of that bet NEVER changes! You are starting a new game every time you place a bet....that is a fact of bank craps. Cumulative probability is a thing of the past at that point.

The Gamblers Fallacy is often cited at this point when the discussion of odds and probabilities comes up, though it never seems to detours even the most die hard Craps player to bet the Hard Six when they have not seen it for a while. Though the seven has a 16% chance to show on any given roll, the probabilities of it not showing in a connected series of rolls has a mathematical equation that is interesting and should be understood. The Gamblers Fallacy often is when such a gambler does not take volatility in account where rolls can be short or long, and nobody knows how long or short THIS roll will be. But in 500 or 5000 rolls, we start to see that on AVERAGE the seven shows every 8.5 rolls. But in the end, it is about who gets the girl and who is on the LONG DRIVE HOME wondering what the hell happened to their bankroll.

You are a little off on the seven rolls on average every 8.5 rolls. If that were true, I would be a very rich man!

What is the average number of rolls until a shooter "sevens out"? I know that a 7 will appear every 6 rolls, but with come-out 7-11s and craps, plus the possibility of shooters making multiple points, I think the average number of rolls may be higher than expected. Is there any mathematical reference material on this? GRSHOOTER FROM KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI The average number of rolls per shooter is 8.525510. For the probability of exactly 2 to 200 rolls, please see my craps probability of survival page. Source

The EV of any available bet is a constant, it never changes. It remains the same while you are driving to the casino, at the table, and on your drive home. A lay bet made on the first roll of a shooter, has the exact same EV as the same lay bet made on the 6th roll of a shooter. You gain no advantage what so ever waiting for 5 rolls to lay a bet, none. Cumulative probabilities contain no information that can be applied to individual rolls of the dice! Nor can they be applied to any individual roll of the dice.

The average rolls per shooter includes come out sevens, points made, other numbers, and a seven out, and that figure is approx. 8.5. A totally separate "average" from the expected frequency of a seven rolling. You are trying to use cumulative probabilities to show that it somehow skews expectation of a given bet in some way. You really need to rethink this! Cumulative probability has no value, as to selecting when to place a bet, none! Clue: A new cumulative probability must be started before the next roll of the dice, every time. And it is always exactly the same before every roll of the dice! The seven always has a 16.67% chance of rolling on next roll of the dice, that never changes, ever! Cumulative probability tables / charts, often confuse people, and lead them to believe that there may be some validity to "numbers due" theory (Gambler's Fallacy). I too, walked that path at one time.

What's actually quite perplexing is that you have to explain that simplicity to seasoned craps players.

Well, gentleman, put me In the simplistic Category! However, i learn something new EVERY time That Onautopilot makes a post. Very detailed & Easy to understand explanations. Even for a dummy like me! Sad day indeed, if Onautopilot decides to take his knowledge to another Forum!