Saw an interesting dice vid on Utube by Color Up.When place betting inside like $22 or $44 inside you are better off taking 2:hits and then taking your bets down.Say you are playing $22 inside. Two hits and down equals a $14 profit with original wager intack. Taking 5 hits and then the 7 showing realises only a $13 profit. Why risk the extra rolls especially when betting on all shooters! Not worth it. Now I am not bringing any regression moves into this discussion but keeping it simple. Nor am I bringing in the press press suicide off the cliff plays. Hey it is a negative expectation game. Use MM with loss limits.Called surviving.

Five of those, and you've "made wages" Dave. But you know, sooner or later, you will expose the $22 for a third, forth, and fifth hit, so, nothing has really changed. Whatever your comfort zone is, I guess.

You are wrong Duckstir! Five times $7 equals $35 - $22 equals $13 less than the $14 you get after 2 hits

DGCt, You know Dave, that's the heart of why so many Players bust out at the table in under roughly 30 minutes. They don't take their PayDays when they hit!! Everybody (nearly) seems to be All In looking for the 100+ roll Monster that's going to pay for their entire trip, all in 1 shot. It's by far much easier to chip away with 3 or less hits at a time... Once you're up a couple hundred, then you can try to time jumping on a moving train. Right?

By five times I meant 5 of the "two and outs". That's 14 X 5, for $70 and it's so fast you'll save your $5 lunch money, netting you that magic number $75.

Bullshit!!! James says to bet Across, & press the first 4-5 hits. Every number tossed they ya don't have wagered brings you closer to the Seven Out. Craps ainy no negative expectation game for a REAL STEPPER. REMEMBER....if you lose $42....that's not considered as a loss, because ya " Stepped" away until a later day/time. LTSOQ...Learn to step or quit. LYAABINCALFARS....Losing your all across bet is NOT considered a loss for a REAL STEPPER.

Dave I believe this 2 is better than 5 comes from the book written by Zeke, he is an advocator of the place bet after charting a Table I have his book some where in my library which is buried some where in the garage

When two is greater than five: Make your choice, but no responses should be made before EE2 weighs in on the matter. Answer A, B or C: (A) 2 > 5 (B) -2 > -5 (C) 2 + 5 = 7

I play regressions from time to time and find them them a good way to play for myself. The thing to remember is if you have a few PSO's or hands with no hits in quick succession, you have dug a hole that will be hard to get out of because you lost large bets and are trying to recoup with smaller bets. You then need a plan B, or catch a hand of 20 or more with decent texture. By decent texture, I mean few horn numbers or repeaters if you're pressing after the regression. My plan B is to increase my initial bets. Your plan B may be different.

Das ist Herr Max Planck, Falscher Herr Eagles Scheiße. Laut meinem besten Freund, der 1927 den deutschen Physiker Werner Heisenberg erstmals vorstellte, erklärt er, je genauer die Position eines Teilchens ist, desto weniger genau kann sein Impuls bekannt sein und umgekehrt. Die formale Ungleichheit bezüglich der Standardabweichung der Position σx und der Standardabweichung des Impulses σp wurde später von Earle Hesse Kennard und 1928 von Hermann Weyl hergeleitet: {\ displaystyle \ sigma _ {x} \ sigma _ {p} \ geq {\ frac {\ hbar} {2}} ~~} \ sigma _ {x} \ sigma _ {p} \ geq {\ frac {\ hbar} {2}} ~~ wobei ħ die reduzierte Planck-Konstante ist, h / (2π). Die Antwort darauf, dass die beiden größer sind als die fünf, ist manchmal der Fall und meistens nicht.

You almost got it , you left out the important part in your haste to judgement. "EVERY BOX NUMBER THAT HITS you don't have a bet on is a missed opportunity for profit AND moves you one roll closer to a seven. Though your statement was made based in sarcasm there is an element of truth to this. Once the ,"STEPPER" as you put it is playing on house money it is almost impossible for him to lose. This would be some convoluted thought process dreamed up by some random player in an effort to justify his losses. Surely you don't believe that or are you the one who dreamed this up??? Losing your all across for a stepper in not a regular occurrence Three hits of a 6 or 8 brings in $52 which would return his $42 plus a $10 profit , The 4 or 10 brings in $75 which would return your $42 plus a $33 profit. he is now playing on house money and as earlier pointed out it becomes almost impossible to lose.

LID, I can appreciate the wisdom of Der Great Max Planck, unfortunately, like all great modern Germans, have been shamed into abandonment of their heritage and language to the point of where I speak better Spanish than Deutsche. At least the appreciation for the Accordian wasn't lost! Lol.

[QUOTE = "lone irish digit, post: 246515, member: 191605"] This is Mr. Max Planck, Wrong Mr. Eagles shit. According to my best friend, who first introduced the German physicist Werner Heisenberg in 1927, he explains that the more accurate the position of a particle, the less accurate its impulse can be known and vice versa. The formal inequality regarding the standard deviation of the position σx and the standard deviation of the momentum σp was later derived by Earle Hesse Kennard and in 1928 by Hermann Weyl : {\ displaystyle \ sigma _ {x} \ sigma _ {p} \ geq {\ frac {\ hbar} {2}} ~~} \ sigma _ {x} \ sigma _ {p} \ geq {\ frac {\ hbar} {2}} ~~ where ħ is the reduced Planck constant, h / (2π). The answer to the fact that the two are larger than the five is sometimes the case, and usually not. [/ QUOTE] Herr LID, Sie erweisen Dr. Planck einen Bärendienst, indem Sie den numerischen Wert und die Einheiten von Planck es Konstante nicht auflisten. Bitte korrigieren Sie das, und ich danke Ihnen, kommen Sie wieder.