Advantage-play dice-influencing really comes down to putting your money on a skilled-shooter’s strongest-edge bets, and then letting their pattern-of-influence do its thing.
To make the most out of the money that you put on the table though, you really have to restrict the number of bets that you spread that money over.
In most cases, that exposure should be limited to just one or two box-numbers. I personally usually bet on a tracked-shooter’s top two numbers, but if you want to increase your profit-potential even further; then you could limit your money to just his top single-most-strongest box-number.
When it comes to profitably exploiting the tosses of other skilled shooters; putting your money on anything more than two box-numbers can have the unintended consequence of actually lowering your return-on-investment and diluting the overall advantage that your roll-tracking efforts offer.
Admittedly the temptation to cover additional box-numbers is usually quite strong, even for me.
When I see a skilled-shooter popping off all of the box-numbers with Gatling-gun shooting-gallery rapidity, instead of producing a nice tight one or two-number clump of multiple back-to-back-to-back repeaters; the enticement to spread-out my wagers is strong…and it becomes even stronger with each subsequent box-number outcome that I don’t have money on.
The attraction of being able to collect on each and every box-number that a skilled shooter throws, is a highly desirable one. In most cases though, it’s almost always an unrealistic (and unprofitable) one.
Yes, you can tell me about the time a couple of years back when one guy you know threw every one of the six box-numbers at least 200 times each in the same hand; but please admit (at least to yourself) that that kind of All-Across recurrence-rate doesn’t happen often enough to make it net-profitable for most shooters.
Yes, multi-number global-wagers (like Inside, Across, Outside, Even, etc.) do increase the chances that one of the covered-numbers will hit on any given roll of the dice; however, doing so also increases the likelihood that your payouts won’t get as far onto the net-profit side of the betting-ledger as they would if you had limited the number of wagers that you covered, and instead put that same amount of 7-exposure money on just his one or two hottest numbers.
The other thing you have to acknowledge as a savvy advantage-play bettor, is that most of the payouts you are able to collect from multi-number global-bets go to paying for the total cost of the initial bet…and on most hands, very little of your winning-payouts go towards overall net-profit.
That is, when you take a close look at the percentage of your payouts that go towards paying for the cost of the bet, versus the percentage that goes towards real honest-to-goodness net-profit; you’ll discover a huge disparity that is NOT in your favor.
For example, for an SRR-7 shooter using the All-Across wager, about 85% of his winning payouts finance and cover the base break-even cost of his initial bet…while only about 15% actually contributes towards his net-profit.
~ When it comes to profitably exploiting the tosses of other skilled shooters; we have to direct our wagers onto the bets where he has a demonstrated advantage, and if we want to maximize our net-profit (instead of the just trading back-and-forth betting-dollars with the casino in a zero-sum game); we really should limit our wagers to his top one or two best performing box-numbers.
The fewer the number of wagers that you spread your money over, and the bigger the tracked-shooter’s advantage is on the one or two numbers where you wager your money; the MORE you will make…and the QUICKER you will make it.
What If a Shooter's Advantage is Evenly Spread Across Multiple Numbers?
This is one of those situations where we have to balance bet-spread, bet-value exposure, and the number of winning-hits it will take to pay for all of that spread-out exposure.
My solution is to employ what I call a Shrinking-Spread Double-Regression.
~That's just an ineloquent way of saying that I start out my wagering on some skilled-shooters (who have a validated and almost evenly-spread advantage on four or more numbers) with a multi-number global-bet (like Inside, Across, Outside, Even, etc.).
~After one paying-hit I regress the value of the wager, and then on the very next paying-hit that I collect on, I reduce (regress) that value even more.
~Concurrent with all that regressing, I also narrow the number of active wagers that I have bets on.
~For example, if I start out with let's say $440-Inside on a skilled-shooter (who has an in-casino FF-tracked validated-advantage over all four of those Inside-numbers); then after one paying-hit I'll usually regress it down to $110-Inside.
~After one more paying-hit on any of those four numbers, I Shrink the Spread by eliminating the two weakest (but still positively advantaged numbers) from my betting mix.
~So for example, I might eliminate my Place-bets on the 5 and 9, while concurrently letting the $30 bets on the 6 and 8 ride until that DT-targeted shooter 7's-Out.
That's the entirety of my Shrinking-Spread Double-Regression strategy which addresses the dilemma of dealing with skilled-players who have a fairly evenly-spread advantage over multiple box-numbers.
Though it's far from perfect, it at once satisfies both the DESIRE to get an early winning-payout as quickly as possible...and the NEED for entry onto the net-profit side of the betting-equation as often as possible.
Real-World Tracking = Real-World Opportunity
Let’s take a look at the roll-stats from two skilled-shooters whose shooting-intentions couldn’t be more different; yet they share very similar profit-potential profiles.
*Please note again that the order I track F-F’s in is: PF…then DP…then SP, as opposed to PF, SP, then DP.
I’ve suggested to Hooker Ashley that her shooting is more than adequate to turn to pro-craps if she ever decides to give up her burgeoning call-girl career in favor of one that offers the same high-end luxuries that she’s recently become accustomed to…but without all the attendant hassles and risks that go along with her current high-risk lifestyle.
Take a look at her roll-stats and see if you see why my Place-bet money gets as lathered up when Ashley has the dice, as she does when she’s servicing a high-rolling no-credit-limit customer:
My betting on Ashley kind of contradicts what we just talked about a moment ago when we discussed limiting our bets to a target-shooter’s top two box-numbers only.
Let’s see if there’s any cohesion in my Shrinking-Spread Double-Regression strategy…or at least find out if I can even begin to reconcile what I say, with what I do.
~How I handle my betting on Ashley is to start the point-cycle with a fairly large $440-Even bet ($100 each on the 4 and 10, plus $120 each on the 6 and 8; regardless of what the PL-Point is).
~After collecting the first winning payout (regardless of which one of those four numbers hit); I regress my wagers down to $220-Even ($50 each 4 and 10, plus $60 each 6 and 8).
~After collecting one additional winning payout (again, regardless of which one of those four numbers hits); I again regress my wagers down to just $25 each on the Buy-bet 4 and 10…and I let those two wagers ride it out until she 7’s-Out (never pressing nor regressing those wagers, nor Place-betting any additional wagers either).
With Ashley having such a high-advantage on all of those Even-numbers, it might appear that my bets are firmly on the chicken-shit side of the risk-equation; however, my objective is betting-profit, not betting-machismo. In fact, that's exactly why I developed my ".
Of Ashley’s 428 hands that I’ve tracked thus far, I’ve bet on just under 400 of them…and the profit-picture is as pink and rosy as her uhhh…
Our next shooter has a very similar "pattern-of-influence" over the dice as Ashley does (thanks again to Maddog for coining that perfectly-apropos term); in $20-Bob’s case though, he is shooting from the Darkside and intentionally trying to 7-Out…but mostly doing an extremely lousy job of it. In fact, $20-Bob is gaining fame for being able to routinely manufacture strings of 20 and 30-roll multi-Point-repeater hands.
Take a look to see why my Rightside Place-bets pin their ears back and get ready to race as soon as the dice come around to $20-Rob:
This a perfect case of a skilled-shooter choosing a dice-set based on what it is 'supposed' to produce as opposed to what it actually produces based on his own toss-dynamics pattern-of-influence Foundation Frequencies.
I have seen so many skilled-shooters using a dice-set that they’ve been told should produce the results they are hoping for…all based on the false premise of an On-Axis model that just doesn’t come close to corresponding to their actual skill.
In other words, they use a sub-optimal dice-set that they hope will produce the outcomes they are looking for; but in fact, Rightsider's often wrongly choose O-A modeled theoretical-sets that produce shorter hands…fewer bet-payouts…less-than-desired results…yet they are frustratingly surprised that they can’t seem to get over the profit-hump often enough to produce a tangible amount of net-profit over a reasonable number of sessions.
As I said, $20-Rob is a prime example of that kind of shooter. In his case as a Darkside-shooter, we are talking about him choosing a 7-dominant dice-set for his anti-point-cycle shooting, that achieves just the opposite of what he is looking for.
When Rob’s got the dice trying to intentionally 7-out, that is the point where my Place-bets start to salivate in long-hand anticipation.
Again, my betting on $20-Rob contradicts what we talked about at the top of this article about limiting our bets to a target-shooter’s top two box-numbers only; but that's where the cohesion in my Shrinking-Spread Double-Regression strategy does end up reconciling itself with what I SAY as well as what I DO.
Let me show you how:
~How I handle my betting on $20-Rob is to start the point-cycle with a fairly large $480-Across bet ($75 each on the 4, 5, 9, and 10, plus $90 each on the 6 and 8; regardless of what the PL-Point is).
~After collecting the first winning payout (regardless of which one of those six numbers hit); I regress my wagers down to $200-Outside ($50 each on the 4, 5, 9, and 10).
~After collecting one additional winning payout (again, regardless of which one of those four numbers hits); I again regress my wagers down to just $25 each on the Buy-bet 4 and 10…and I let those two wagers ride it out until Rob 7’s-Out (never pressing nor regressing those wagers, nor Place-betting any additional wagers either).
~By Shrinking the Spread from six bets down to four bets, and then finally down to his top two best-advantage numbers; I satisfy the desire for a quick winning-hit and my need to get to the net-profit side of the ledger as soon as possible.
Again, the shooting intention of Ashley is to have a long and prosperous Rightside-targeted hand, and she does an admirable job of it. $20-Rob’s shooting-intention is to have a short but prosperous Darkside-directed hand, and he does a truly lousy job of it.
From an advantage-betting standpoint, the profit-potential from the bets that I wager on them (that are DiceTool derived through the clandestine tracking of their Foundation Frequencies) is quite similar.
Though neither one of them realizes that I ardently trace their F-F’s, both are fully aware that I routinely make much more money off of their hands than they do…not just on a total dollars-won basis (which obviously is a direct reflection of bet-size); but more importantly, on a net-return-on-dollars-risked (ROI) basis.
Surprisingly though, of the two, H-Ashley’s own wagers are quite a bit closer to the optimal mark than $20-Rob’s own bets are…which continue to be miles and miles away from being favorable to his Darkside intentions.
Part Five of this series looks at that rare breed of animal that is able to make my Field-Harvest strategy a strongly-positive one. I hope you’ll join me for that.
Good Luck and Good Skill at the Tables…and in Life.
The Mad Professor
Copyright © 2008