Putting all of our wagers in their proper perspective and then keeping them there during the heat of battle is critically important
Relying on luck is perhaps the worst strategy a player can use in the casino. Sometimes it works out, but most times it won't.
That is what allows a company like to Boyd to implode the Stardust to build Echelon, or a company like Harrah's to recently announce their intention to do the same knock-it-down-to-build-it-up plan for the Imperial Palace, Bally's-LV, O'Shea's, and Harrah's-LV.
Keeping every bet that we make in its proper perspective is almost always the decisive factor in determining whether an advantage-player gets to properly exploit his own D-I skills...and still emerge from the casino with a overall net-profit or net-loss.
If you were Place-betting just the 6 or just the 8; then it would take a random average of 3.27 throws to resolve the bet with either a win or a loss. The house-edge on that single-number wager is 1.52%.
However, when you combine a Place-bet on the 6 with a concurrent Place-bet on the 8, it takes the random-roller a much-lower average of 2.25 throws to resolve those bets with either a win or a loss.
Taken on its own, the 6 has five ways of showing, while the 7 has six ways to occur; so in relation to the 6, the 7 has a 6-out-of-11 (54.5%) chance of showing up before the 6 does. However the 6’s appearance-rate does not mean it will show up the other 45.5% of the time. Instead, we have to multiply the 7’s 54.5% appearance-rate by the 6’s 6-out-of-11 appearance-rate (45.5%) to calculate our chances of rolling a 6 before a 7.
When we do that, we discover that our chances of getting one random-expectancy paying-hit on a solo Place-bet 6 is only 24.8%.
However, when we bet the Place-bet 6 in combination with the Place-bet 8; things start to look better in terms of hit-rate and the random-expectancy chances of getting one paying-hit on either the 6 or the 8 (when they are bet in combination with each other) is now 49.6%.
When we look a little deeper at how a two-number wager like the Place-bet 6 & 8, with ten chances to win and only six chances to lose can still produce an overall net-loss; the reason becomes immediately clear:
~Let’s say we Place-bet the 6 & 8 for $6 each. That’s a total 7-exposure of $12.
~In 36 random rolls, we’ll see an average of ten Place-bet 6 & 8 winners. Those ten wins of $7 each produce +$70 in total revenue.
~In those same 36 random rolls, we’ll also see an average of six 7’s losers which would wipe out both Place-bets at the same time. Those six losses at $12 each produce -$72 in total losses.
~Subtracting revenue of $70 from losses of $72 equates to a net-loss of -$2.
Most players look at that -$2 as a pretty insignificant loss while the slow almost pain-free a-couple-of-bucks-at-a-time erosion ends up taking their entire bankroll...and that's why the casinos can confidently build multiple billion-dollar resorts year after year after year.
Gamblers call that the 'cost of entertainment'...and they don't do anything about it.
Advantage-players call that a 'net-loss'...and the smart ones actually do something about it.
As dice-influencers we have to critically question EVERY bet that we make...though most players won't...which goes a LONG way to explaining why some of the most talented shooters in our D-I community are still net-losers despite their incredible talents.
Our validated edge can quickly and unnoticably be eroded back into negative-expectation territory by those same non-performing or under-performing wagers...a buck or two or three at a time.
EVERY chip that we wager should be sent out with explicit instructions to come back as soon as possible and to bring back as many of their friends as they can.
When gamblers become bona-fide advantage-play dice-influencers; they have to throw out a lot of the old stuff that they thought they 'knew' about craps before their skill turned it into a positive-EV game.
Obviously, I'm not talking about instantly forgetting how to make a Come-bet or how to lay proper odds on a DP-wager. Rather, I'm talking about discarding the superstitions, myths, old wives tales, and biases against a wide range of bets...as well as biases towards a whole bunch of others.
In fact, as our D-I skills progress and the knowledge-base state of the advantage-play art increases; we sometimes have to open our minds to certain concepts that seem to fly in the face of our initial understandings of this skill.
For example, many old-school set-theorists will still tell you that you can't consider any off-axis outcomes in your overall edge-calculations...even if the MAJORITY of your outcomes are off-axis...but thankfully most of us have progressed far past that kind of silly, blinders-on, flat-earth-society thinking.
In many cases, it involves having to first change your mindset about dice-sets in order to subsequently improve your edge oer the house…and then to subsequently increase your dice-influencing profitability.
For example, I can’t think of one active M-board member who wouldn’t be reluctant to switch to the All-Sevens dice-set despite BoneTracker having shown them that with their current throwing-skills, the A-7 is the way to go in order for that particular to optimize his advantage.
In sticking with the more conventional V-3 set and shying away from the A-7 set; he's indicating a willingness to forego a higher edge and a bigger advantage over the house, in favor of a lower-edged advantage that doesn't clash with his current mindset...and that's fine because, as players, we first really need to have some roll-stat validated faith in the decisions that we make about the dice-set we use.
Otherwise, if we don't believe in it in the first place, then chances are, any minor setback that wouldn't even bother us in the least while using our former 'comfortable set'; will be enough for most players to abandon any future use or consideration of a flies-in-the-face-of-logic dice-set...thereby erroneously 'validating' our initial reluctance to use it.
If a player knows that he would have a higher edge against the house if he switched bets or sets or both, but decides not to; that's fine.
The point of all of this is quite simple:
If you are a "confirmed 6/8 Place-bettor", you should be darn sure that you first have a confirmed edge over that bet...and then you can make subsequent decisions based around that advantage.
If you aren’t betting on the numbers where you have an edge, or you are spreading your money too thinly over too many numbers instead of concentrating it only on your strongest numbers; then there’s little chance of emerging with very much of a profit.
Copyright © 2007