Quite a few years ago, I wrote a Dicesetter.com article about “Lumberjack Mike” and the unique betting approach he used for wagering on qualified dice-influencers. That was back in the pre pixie-dust days of that message-board before the topics-du-jour were centered around sightings of unicorns-frolicking-in-mystical-forests and the magical healing-powers of dryer-lint.
“Lumberjack Mike” (so named for his penchant of always wearing a red and black check-pattern shirt at his local casino) was actually a carpet-layer who mastered the art of dice-influencing with marathon practice-sessions right before heading to the casino. This guy would practice for something like three to four hours right before jumping in his truck to head for the casino.
He actually developed a very decent shot from the SO (straight-out) table-position, where he threw hard line-drive type tosses that were aimed directly at the ‘crotch’ (where the felt meets the backwall rubber) of the far end wall. It was very similar to the 'Trap-Shot" toss that our friend, Operator, struggled to perfect for many years before abandoning the game completely.
Anyway, the reason I mention Lumberjack Mike is because of how he bet on other qualified fellow D-I’s. Having studied the shooting habits of other good shooters, Mike’s approach was to meticulously track and then bet on the ONE box-number that each shooter had historically most often or most consistently repeated over the course of many, many hands of play.
As he collected fresh data (he kept written tabs by way of hand-written roll-outcomes for each D-I on a stack of those free roulette tracking cards…using one card for each player he was assessing); he would update the card, but would rarely need to change the specific box-number he had selected after only tracking the first ten or fifteen hands for each player.
That is, even after tracking hundreds upon hundreds of a shooter's hands, the specific box-number that Mike selected for his ONE-Number betting-approach on that particular player would rarely have to be revised once he had seen that shooter's first 10 or 15 hands.
While the idea certainly fascinated me (which is why I wrote about it in the first place back around ’02 or ’03); I didn’t fully understand the absolute money-making value of that approach until I started doing pretty much the same thing (as chronicled in my six-part Clandestine Clocking of Skilled-Shooters series and then further discussed at length in my still-ongoing Set-Study series).
I think the reason the outright money-making aspects of that pared-down-to-the absolute-bone ONE-Number advantage-play betting-approach wasn’t immediately obvious to me back then, was because it seemed (at least at the time) to be way too narrowly focused. I mean, here he is, betting on just ONE box-number on what is obviously a very qualified set of shooters...while all kinds of other-number outcomes are flying by...and he’s only got money on one of them.
That idea seemed to be not only a little counter-intuitive to me, but it also looked to be very boring, despite the steady profits he seemed to be picking up nearly every time one of us picked up the dice.
And though he seemed to have an uncanny ability to often net far more per-hand profit off of someone else’s shooting than the shooter himself did (even when the shooter’s bet-values far exceeded those of Lumberjack Mike); it didn’t seem to be a very efficient way to play. Here it was, with all kinds of seemingly-good box-number outcomes flying by; Mikey had all of his per-hand betting-eggs in just one box-number basket.
Of course that was back in the ‘02/’03 era when I didn’t know anywhere close to what I know now about taking full advantage of a given D-I’s skill-set; but still, I wish the profit-making simplicity of Mike's approach had occurred to me a lot sooner.
Mike’s specific betting-regimen went like this:
~If he determined that you were most likely to throw at least two or three 6’s during your hand; he started off with something like $120 Place-bet on the 6.
~After one winning-hit, he regressed it down to $60.
~After one more winning-hit, he regressed his Place-bet 6 down to $30, and he’d leave it there for the duration of the hand.
~It didn’t matter to Lumberjack Mike if you threw twenty more 6’s during that hand; his single wager stayed at that same value for the entire duration.
~If the shooter 7’d-Out before Mike was able to pull the first or second regression-trigger; he would still come right back at that same initial $120 level the next time the dice came around to that same player.
~When it came to betting on me when I had the dice, Mike said that he preferred his single Place-bet money to be on the 9. When I pointed out that I produced far more 6’s and 8’s than I did of the 9’s; he pointed out, quite correctly, that even though that was true; I had shown a preponderance of producing at least a couple of 9’s very early on in most hands, especially on my shorter-than-normal hands that didn’t go very far.
Though I had known that back then; I hadn't fully documented it from a "what-ONE-box-number-is-most-likely-to-roll-at-least-once-or-twice-within-the-first-five-or-six-tosses-from-this-shooter?" perspective, as Mike was doing.
Unfortunately, in spite of Mike's uncanny ability to determine the one box-number that would produce the most profit most often, he also has one irritating feature about him, and that was that he would sometimes rub in the fact that his single-number approach often made more net-profit per hand than the shooter’s own higher-value multi-number betting-approach…and Mike was none too subtle about it. Although it didn’t bug me; it sure got under the skin of fellow D-I’s like an itch they not only wanted to scratch, but one they really wanted to kick the shit out of.
I can’t tell you how many times I had to suppress my laughter at the back-and-forth ball-breaking comments that started to get out of hand when Mike would say something along the lines of; “You threw a 20-roll hand…you made two PL-Points…you had almost $300 in action…and you’ve only got 90-bucks to show for it?!...I bet on just ONE-number and I made $285 clear in just five hits…whattsa matter with you?!”
Well you can imagine how that made him a popular fixture at the tables ☠. Notwithstanding his teasingly-belligerent style, Mike was actually on to something; and as I said in both of those two above-noted article-series; there is a lot of merit (and very little downside risk) to putting your money on a fellow dice-influencers single best-edge box-number, and letting his skills do the rest of the work for you.
It not only works surprisingly well, but it works with an almost shocking level of hand-after-hand-after-hand consistency.
Let me ask you this:
~How many times have you thrown a pretty decent 20-roll hand, but when you tallied things up at the end of it, you had very little net-profit to show for all your troubles?
~How many times have you bet on a fellow dice-influencer who throws a pretty decent 20-roll hand, but when you tally things up at the end of it, your net in-rack profit seems to have almost no correlation to the amount of money that you actually wagered on that guy?
The title of this piece is, “Other Than That Mrs. Lincoln, How Did You Enjoy the Play?”, and if you can’t figure out why it seems particularly apropos for this subject; then chances are you’ll continue to look at your meager net-profits at the end of a pretty decent 20-roll hand, and still wonder why there’s not more there.
Good Luck and Good Skill at the Tables…and in Life.
The Mad Professor
Copyright © 2009