Craps Grindin The Don'ts!

Yeah, so that's the thing. So easy to mislead people with the game of Craps.

To be clear. Craps has two stages to each bet. First stage (Come Out) is to roll the dice to check for an instant winner (Natural, 7 or 11) or an instant loser (Natural, 2,3 or 12). Failing to roll an instant winner or loser, a Point number will have been rolled.(4,5,6,8,9,10) The shooter now continues to roll the dice until the Point number is re rolled. A 40% chance ON AVERAGE, before rolling a 7 ( 7 out). Two bets. The Pass Line bet, and the Don't Pass Line bet. Natural Winner or rolling a point is a Pass Line Winner, Don't Pass Loser. Rolling a Natural Loser or Sevening Out is a Don't Pass Winner and a loser on the Pass Line.
The Mad Professor purposefully misleads the reader. This Don't Pass "Line" bet is exposed to more than just a 40% chance (on average) of being lost, it is also exposed to being an instant loser. This instant loser will make up the 10% difference. Albeit awkwardly, because there are a couple of moving parts here that fill in the gaps of ON AVERAGE. The Don't Pass "Line" bet is an even chance bet, every time, without an increase in odd/chances to win after each consecutive loss.

The Grand Marty possesses no function capable of overcoming those natural losses.

The math....

100 shooters. 40 of em will make one Point. That represents a 40% chance to reconcile a Point. 16 of them will make two Points consecutively. That is 40% of 40. 6 shooters will make three points consecutively. That's 40% of 16. And so on.
The Mad Professor states this, and then refutes it! Some nonsense about trees and the forest.

It isn't 16% of 40 shooters that make 1 Point, that successfully go on to make a 2nd Point. It is 16% of the original 100.

It is no different than even chance bets. After 33 reds in a row, what are the odds red is the very next decision, going to 34? It ain't 1 in 34, it is 1 in 2.

Same with making a Point. What's the odds of making your 6th point after after making 5? Exactly the same as when you were attempting to make your first point. The odds do not change. 40% of the time you roll 3 Points, you will succeed in rolling a 4th. 40% of the time you roll 6 Points, you will roll a seventh. The other 60% of the time you will not. ON AVERAGE.

Like I said, Craps has a lot of action that can easily get veterans of the game confused that don't have a solid grasp of the math of the game. So it is an easy target for Liars, Cheats, and Frauds.

You can straight up Lay the shooters next point. But this is not an even chance bet. The casino offers true odds with a 5% commission. You will win the bet more often than losing, but not more money than losing.

Hope that helps, if you don't have a solid grasp of the math of the game, then explanations can get chaotic because there is just so much different action available on the Craps felt.

Baccaritic

 

I’m not here to defend MP or his position. I just expressed my knowledge about MP, gambler and writer.

I’ve played the game long enough to know Craps is a game …. where you are always going against the house.

You can call him a liar, fraud, cheat if that’s your gripe point. But all these systems and methods have a flaw and some are outrageous.

I believe all players should be doing their own testing before risking money. I like to think even newbies have enough sense to … not just blindly jump into the unknown.

I’m sure you’ve read a lot of the posts on the different boards about players who feel they have a method and/or system to beat the house. . Some of it is BS and others are dealing with the ups and downs. So be it.

However, I tend to get my “dandruff up” when players wants to sell their BS… can’t lose methodology.
That’s crossing the line in my book.

 

So, I'm glad we are we reading the same book if not on the same page. No sense beating a dead horse, but I'm gonna kick it a few more times...

I feel like you are undervaluing the flaw in his method. It isn't my gripe. Don't trivialize it. It is much more than that.
I really have to question the thought process that thinks newbies lured by the hopes and dreams of unrealistic goals, supported by casino advertising, from all walks of life and education, would all posses enough sense to not just blindly jump into the unknown. Have you been to Earth, met people?
It is the charge of the intelligent, wise and Honest to be stewards to those of us not fortunate enough to possess the mental facilities to protect themselves from the predatory behavior of the intelligent, wise and Dishonest. If we as humans do not do this, how are we different from animals? It is a dog eat dog world, for dogs.
How is a claimed 900+% Player Advantage system, not a can't lose methodology? Did he not charge money for his seminars? classes? books? And that was just the tip of it. The rest of it was making 4 times that much betting on his own precision shooting.

Look, my fault. I know. I shoulda let it go. I don't mean to be so assertive. Er, I do, I just dislike how clumsy I am at it.

Baccaritic

 

I must say you are persistent in trying to make a case for your cause. But I believe you underestimate a lot of players.

Your cause may be honorable, but not worth arguing about.

If that’s your goal …good luck. Because you haven’t changed my mind about the game or my opinion.

Your math is based on theoretical probably which doesn’t always stand up to short-term play. Isolated brief sessions do not emulate the overall probability model.
I sometimes wish the dice knew math.

 

Persistent. Humbled by your kindness.
No I don't under estimate a lot of players. Not sure where I implied that. I've seen some remarkable things at the dice table, and I recognize the amazing human ability to interact with objects with impossible control.

I'm not arguing his ability to make money on his own shots. I'll argue dice control bouncing off the felt 8 inches from the back wall, striking the back wall 4inch off the felt at 22.5 degrees. Separating after contact with the diamonds and land back on the felt.

But that has not been what I've been doing. It has nothing to do with Precision shooters. The Mad Professor said to bet against random rollers, non Precision Shooters. My theoretical probability stands up against random shooters. I didn't pit it against the Mad Professor's non random shooting.

Doesn't change the fact there is no bet placement that offers even chances against a shooter making his point. Doesn't change the fact the Mad Professor stated the correct math, and then in black in white, told all of his readers the math was wrong, and that he was right, and that a diminishing percent of people will make succeeding points. Except it does not. That isn't theoretical math. Their is no diminishing possibility.
Doesn't change the fact that a Grand martingale has no mechanism that can overcome lost bets on come out winners. It is specifically mentioned that the Grand martingale will cover those losses. What difference between the grand marty and the regular marty that offers the grand marty the ability to overcome prior losses but the regular marty cannot?

And I disagree, as you would expect, that isolated brief sessions do in fact emulate overall the expected probability. One session? no, but as time goes on, as the number of isolated brief sessions played continues to grow, the closer you will get to expected wins and losses. The action accumulates. There is no reset, hit and run doesn't work. Or maybe it does. But no one as of yet has been able to define how or what force is being acted upon that makes it work, to change the mathematical expected outcome of random decisions.

You can say it works and show me money, but you can't say it works and show me how. But you don't seem like a guy blindly walking into a five step grand marty.

There are a lot of decent people, under stress, looking for answers easily fooled by such a professional presentation like what the Mad Professor presents. Even if he had no intent to be misleading at the time because he was ignorant, it was still misleading, is still misleading, and should be labeled as such.

I'm aware of losing against the odds. Frustrating playing the dont's when you don't win. It is all part of standard deviation. It happens, for and against. No different that watching B single 40 times out of its last 60 showing spanning across three shoes.

again I'm too assertive. Don't take it personal, I'm not trying to hammer you.

Baccaritc

 

Your statement …” again I'm too assertive. Don't take it personal, I'm not trying to hammer you.” …seems egotistic like I really care about your assertiveness.

Here is another beauty … “Have you been to Earth, met people?

Unfortunately, we have major differences not only in the choice of words but also in opinions. I’ve also noticed you are not happy with my choice of words, like liberties, skeptics.
Perhaps you can tell me when short term sessions equates to long term probability.
Yeah … it’s nit-picking, but I have to admit you are good at it.

Saving gamblers from unscrupulous liars, cheats, and frauds may be your calling. Perhaps when you are finished with the gamblers … you could look at the casinos who have been taking gambler's money under the guise of entertainment, and supplying free cheat liquor, free gifts, t-shirts and other incentives to gamble.

Before I forget I have to congratulate you on your clever and witty writing style, I’m a little slow, but I’m getting the hang of it.

“May the force be with you.” on your quest to expose gamblers who are liars, cheat, and frauds.

THG

 

Tinhorn,

"Your statement …” again I'm too assertive. Don't take it personal, I'm not trying to hammer you.” …seems egotistic like I really care about your assertiveness."

Insulting should have been the word. I was hiding from it, I expect you to care about me being respectful.

"Here is another beauty … “Have you been to Earth, met people?""

See, that was unnecessary, that's the kinda stuff I'm talking about, I should have cleaned that up. It isn't helping me make my point.

"Unfortunately, we have major differences not only in the choice of words but also in opinions. I’ve also noticed you are not happy with my choice of words, like liberties, skeptics."

Words are important, they can have similar but profound differences in meaning. One of the reasons I struggle with my writing. Trying to find just the right word, or phrase.

"Skeptic", subtly implies I don't believe in the truth, and that your position is the correct one by default.

"Liberties", subtly implies a small acceptable bending of the rules, and that my objection to a departure from honesty is an over reaction.

"Perhaps you can tell me when short term sessions equates to long term probability."

I can tell you but I do not posses the skill necessary to illustrate the math of it. I will focus solely on the Pass Line bet. This is not an even chance bet, you have less than a 50% chance to win. You play a short session, 100 bets, win 51 lose 49. You know should have lost 1 more bet instead of winning one more bet, so you end your session.

I think, and I could be wrong here, that a Short Session Player returns at a later date, hoping to once again be reset to EVEN.

Zero losses, zero wins. Dismissing the prior win, ignoring the fact that standard deviation has moved in your favor, if only very slightly. You can keep this up. Maintain a high level of pressure, focus on just picking that Pass Line bet correctly for just one more win over your losses.
But every session you do that, you are stretching deviation out from 1.1 to 2.0 to 2.7 to 3.0 to the limit. There is a limit, doesn't make sense to me. Pure random, infinite trials, but no standard deviation value of 42? anyway...

Eventually, those multiple short sessions will stretch out deviation in the long run. And it will snap, or work its way back slowly against you.

The only way it cannot, is if you are somehow successfully trending. Which you can claim, but the accurate selection criteria is uniquely subjective to you, and you alone. So you can not show on paper why the bets are there yielding you positive expectation against the House in a manner reliably repeated by anyone. (Unless you are doing something the person Craps from Baccarat is doing, but that isn't how people approach the game of CRAPS.)

You can only relay the conditions you are winning in, you cannot express the means by which you win more bets than you lose. This leaves nothing left to describe your winning ways except, "short sessions".

And we hear things like, " a choppy table ", or " a random roller ". Those are subjective conditions. Trending a bet selection, trending a table, trending a random roller. It is all up to the subjective decision of each bettor to decide if those conditions are present. There are no clear black and white, wait for 'x', bet' y' instructions. Nor explanations how it works over half the time because of 'z' calculations. None that are accurate that I've seen.

From the Mad Professor's perspective, random rollers didn't even have the mathematically guaranteed chance to make points randomly, a 40% chance. (on average)

"Yeah … it’s nit-picking, but I have to admit you are good at it."

Heh, ' thanks, I think. Again not what I consider one of my better qualities.

"Saving gamblers from unscrupulous liars, cheats, and frauds may be your calling. Perhaps when you are finished with the gamblers … you could look at the casinos who have been taking gambler's money under the guise of entertainment, and supplying free cheat liquor, free gifts, t-shirts and other incentives to gamble."

Definitely not my calling, present crusade notwithstanding. As for casinos..... well, without getting too deep....

The future of the human race depends upon the absence of those who prey upon others using Hope as a weapon...

We have a long way to go before that happens. It's a fight too big for me, so I just chip away at the edges where I can.

"Before I forget I have to congratulate you on your clever and witty writing style, I’m a little slow, but I’m getting the hang of it."

Thank you very much. I appreciate the compliment.
Well met.

Sincerely,

Bacarritic