Investing For CONSISTENT Profit
Let’s determine why you have to judge which bets pay off with the most consistency, and which ones are actually costing you money.
The best way to do that is to keep an accurate, on-going record of the bets that you have made, and then track how much you have won or lost off of each of them. In doing so, you get to accurately and honestly appraise which bets are making the most money, and which ones are costing you dearly.
An honest assessment of your current betting enables you to make more profit in the future. Failure to do so usually results in very little forward momentum as far as your winnings are concerned. That means that even if your shooting-skills improve, but your betting-skills stay stagnant, your profit (or lack of profit) may stay the same.
To achieve more profit, does not mean that you have to increase your wagers. Rather, it takes an honest appraisal of your current skills, and then a redistribution of WHERE, WHEN and HOW you make your future bets.
The Power of Regression
In previous articles, we looked at the charts and graphs that chronicle a random-rollers actual chances of winning. A Precision-Shooter has to keep these numbers in mind when planning their bets, simply because they are the “base” from were we launch our efforts to gain an advantage over the house. We need to know where we are starting from (random dice distribution), to determine where and how far we have to go to reach dicesetting advantage-play. The value of knowing what “true random” really means, comes into very clear focus when we use steep-regression betting methods to achieve net-profit in the quickest, lowest-risk manner.
I’ll tell you this right now.
Using a steep regression is the fastest, lowest-risk, and most consistent way for a Precision-Shooter to get to an early profit at the craps table. Though it isn’t guaranteed to work every time, it is the most consistent one out there.
With that in mind, lets take another look at just HOW and WHY Regression Methods work the best when combined with our Signature-Numbers.
Why Regressions Work…
In a random game, here’s what typically happens to our Place-bets on the 6 and 8 (once the PL-Point has been established):
- 55% of the time, you won’t get ANY hits before the 7-Out appears.
- 25% of the time, you’ll get one hit before the random-roller 7’s-Out.
- 11% of the time, you’ll get two hits before the “7” ends that hand.
- 5% of the time, those bets will ring the bell three times before the hand finally ends.
With a random-roller, we have a very high expectation of losing, so you can see why I’m not a huge fan of betting on unqualified players.
Yes, you can sometimes catch a great hand from a lucky chucker, but they are few and far between. On the hot-rolls, you’ll find me there with bets on the table, but at other times, and those “other times” are MOST OF THE TIME, you’ll find me with virtually NO MONEY bet in favor of random-rollers.
On a random-roller, the 6 and 8 Place-bet is still statistically, a loser. As a Precision-Shooter, we seek to re-cast those numbers so they appear more frequently when we throw the dice, and therefore result in a positive, advantage-play outcome.
For a Precision-Shooter who determines that the 6 or 8 is one of their dominant power-numbers, it presents a definable profit opportunity. If you reduce the exposure-time (as measured by the number of rolls) for your bets; you increase the likelihood that you’ll have a net-profit instead of a net-loss at the end of most hands that you toss.
When you weigh the relative merits of various betting-methods (including Steep Regressions), you have to compare your current skills against the benchmark of what a random-roller is expected to do in the same situation. That way, you can accurately measure where your strengths and weaknesses are, and what threats and opportunities are uncovered through the accurate, on-going tracking of your Signature-Numbers.
Can we expect a better 6 and 8 performance from our own dice-tossing efforts?
Well, the answer lays in your own individual skills, and how accurately we track them.
Precision-BETTING Compliments Our Precision-Shooting
We not only have to determine IF our shooting is better than random, but also by HOW MUCH better (as in, x% better), and we are then able to ascertain how frequently we can expect our betting-plan to generate a net-profit, and how often we’ll have to endure shorter, less profitable hands. In that way, we can fashion a betting-plan that is tailor-made to our current skill-level. That makes our tracking-efforts pertinent, and our profits more predictable. You can still pray for luck, but if all else fails, you can always fall back on your bankable skills.
This is why we have to determine WHAT our Signature-Numbers are, which will then help us decide WHEN, WHERE and HOW we make our betting decisions. It takes most of the guesswork out of the betting-equation, and replaces it with solid evidence based on our current shooting-skills. This also has a way of increasing our shooting-confidence, simply because we have seen the concrete proof and validation of our ever-improving Precision-Shooting efforts.
In that sense, we are using Precision-BETTING to compliment and augment our Precision-Shooting talent. By combining those two elements, we take our game to a whole new level of predictable and consistent profit.
Adjusting to the Situation
Our friend, Shooter57, asked an excellent question about how I handle and adjust to various situations:
“What happens when you don't see your usual Signature-Numbers during a particular hand? Do you adjust your set, change sets entirely, or just simply play the numbers you are getting?”
- When I'm not seeing my usual Signature Numbers, BUT lower echelon Box-numbers are repeating; I'll simply cover them with bets.
- However, if for example, the 3 and/or 11 start to show when I'm using the 3-V set; I realize that I'm double-pitching on-axis. While the 3 and 11 provide a good profit potential either bet "straight-up" on their respective Prop numbers, or diluted as part of a Horn-bet; it also presents a dangerous 7-Out possibility. In that case, I'll forego the Prop "potential" (and the 7-Out RISK), and make a simple set adjustment (usually by way of a 1/4-face rotation).
- By making that simple ?-face rotation, I work with what I’m currently getting (by staying on-axis, but double-pitching into a highly dangerous 7-Out possibility), and I turn it to my advantage by doing that ?-face rotation “away” from a likely on-axis 7-Out. I stay conscious of what the dice are doing, compared to what I want them to do; then I might make minor adjustments to compensate.
- I'll rarely change sets in mid-hand (from 3-V to X-6 or 2-V, or one of their permutations) simply to snipe out a particular PL-Point. I find that the most consistently predictable profit comes from Place-bets that have been paid for very quickly (through a steep regression after one hit), and then steadily advanced through an alternating Press/Same Bet/Press/Same Bet sequence.
- One of the few times when I will actually change sets completely in mid-hand, is when I’ve been rolling for quite a while and I want to take a much needed break/pause that a PL-Point winner will bring. That is, I want to take a short “intermission” while the dealers pay a table full of bets, and I can relax and refocus on the continuing task at hand. To achieve that, I’ll sometimes change my set to actually snipe out the PL-winner, but again, I don’t do that very often, and I can tell you that it doesn’t work successfully every time. In fact, it sometimes results in a LONG, unintended intermission, simply because a 7-Out shows up just after the transition from one set to the other. To my mind, greed sometimes has a perverse sense of humor.
- The percentage of times when I'll throw 30+ roll hands without ever repeating my non Signature-Number PL-Point continues to astound me, even to this day. In that case, if I happen to roll a non-SN, PL-Point winner; then all the better, but I don't go out of my way to achieve it.
- You have to remember that my Come-Out set (usually a modified S-6, P-6 or straight All-7) may spawn PL-Point numbers that don't necessarily correspond with my strongest Point-cycle Signature-Numbers. For that, I usually choose the Point-cycle set (3-V, 2-V or X-6, or one of their variations) which most closely match the new PL-Point.
- For those situations, you have to realize that different sets will deliver a different set of S-N's, or at least a different weight of distribution of your Signature Numbers. When you look at Heavy's distribution chart for various sets, you'll see what I mean here .
- If I notice that one dice is repeatedly going off-axis, but I'm still getting a good outcome (a non-7, Place-bet result), then I'll just keep tossing EXACTLY the same way, to EXACTLY the same target, with the intention of getting the EXACT same result. I take the profit, and I don't "over-think" or try to over-correct that specific problem while the dice are in my hand. When that particular hand ends, it is a "trigger" for me to end that session, and then figure out WHY I was getting the results that I was getting.
- Now, if one dice is repeatedly going off-axis, but the outcome is a non-7 Horn-number, I will make a “light” bet on the Horn. That is, I’ll wager $4 on the Horn (2, 3, 11, & 12). If it immediately repeats, I’ll Press it (but not Parlay it). If it hits again, I’ll be more aggressive with my Pressing, but I’ll concurrently steeply reduce my Place-bets, and possibly reduce my PL-Odds. Though I won’t turn them “off” completely, I want to have minimal exposure for my “consistent” off-axis performance. Again, when that particular hand ends, it is a "trigger" for me to end that session, and then figure out WHY I was getting the results that I was getting.
That brings us around to the subject of:
If you use the X-6 for your Point-cycle, and you get a lot of single-die off-axis Hard 8’s and 10’s (just like Heavy and I both do); then you have to take advantage of them even though they are in fact, still off-axis.
We call outcomes like that: Off-axis Dominants.
Similarly, if an off-axis Hard-4 or Hard-10 shows up when I’m tossing my 3-V Point-cycle toss, I immediately throw in a bet on both the H-4 and H-10. If either of them hits, I’ll use about half of the Hardway profit to Press my action on both of them.
If you know what your chief Signature Numbers are, and you know what you on-axis percentage is; then you’ll also quickly learn what your OFF-AXIS Dominant Numbers are.
In some cases, you won’t be throwing enough of them to make the betting effort worth your while. However, if a strong percentage of your off-axis throws result in the same predominant numbers time and time again; then there is certainly something that you can do about them…and that is to bet into the opportunity.
Here’s the thing.
If your turn with the dice is continuing, but your Signature Numbers have gone on vacation, you are STILL IN THE GAME. As long as the stickman keeps sending the dice back to you, you are still in the game, still in action, and you still have a chance to bring in a profit.
By making too many mid-course (mid-hand) corrections, you have just as good of a chance of shooting yourself in the foot and watching your betting-action go down in flames, as you do of salvaging a win. You’ll sometimes find that if you maintain a consistent toss, the reliability of your S-N’s will happily return at the most unexpected time. If you are continually tweaking, changing, and adjusting your throw during mid-hand, you’ll have a harder time nailing down the correct change before the 7 appears.
So in the alternative, if you are seeing a high number of mid-hand off-axis dominants; you still have the opportunity to salvage profit without having to make radical mid-course corrections and adjustments which may or may not work. As I mentioned earlier, this is a “trigger” for me to take a break from the action as soon as my current hand ends. That way, I can take a closer look at what the cause was, and what the likely correction should be.
Dangerous Assumption or Common-Sense?
A fair, but rhetorical question from another reader asked:
“Do we start making dangerous assumptions when our SRR (Sevens-to-Rolls Ratio) finally starts to stay above the 6:1 mark? Are we blinded by the “big picture” and assume that if our SRR is “better-than-random”; we WILL make money, most, if not all of the time?”
There is lots of insight loaded into that particular question.
Just because our SRR is above the 6-to-1 random mark, it DEFINITELY DOES NOT guarantee more profit. In fact, it usually engenders over-confidence, over-betting and reduced discipline on the part of the player.
In and of itself, an SRR of “6+” does us no good if our bets aren’t tailored to take advantage of the NUMBERS THAT DISPLACE THE 7. That is, if we reduce the number of times that a 7 will occur in 36 rolls of the dice; we need to know which number or numbers have taken its place. That is a simple, but nonetheless quite effective method for determining the new pecking order of dice-outcomes.
We shouldn’t let an SRR that is marginally higher than 6:1 encourage us to bet arbitrarily and haphazardly; nor should we permit a lower than 6:1 ratio, discourage us. Rather, we use our most frequently occurring power-numbers to determine and shape betting-methods which will drive our profits.
It makes sense to tailor our entire betting-regimen to suit our CURRENT dicesetting skill level. The strength and profitability of what it is we do as Precision-Shooters, can be found and measured in how, when and where we place our bets.
For maximum profitability and minimum risk, Signature-Numbers have to be the driving force behind all of those How, When, Where, and Why decisions.
Good Luck and Good Skill at the Tables…and in Life.
The Mad Professor
Copyright © 2007-2008