Log-in members only
RE: How do you win at craps? page 9This is a discussion thread · 169 replies Mason: [nq:1]When it comes down to it, we all sorta believe in the same thing, don't we?[/nq]Ah, yes! The Teletubby Group. They stick together. Just one Happy Family. Onward thru the fog, Mason http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0929052dea1.html
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Mark Rafn: [nq:1]However, there have been enough studies done and simulations run, that the chances for a shooter to make a fifth pass or a sixth pass or a seventh pass drop dramatically.[/nq]Huh? Name one. The chart you mention from Wong's book shows no such dropoff. 1=40% 2=16% // 40% of 40% 3=7% // 40% of 16% 4=3% // 40% of 7% 5=1.2% // 40% of 3% 6=.5% // 40% of 1.2% No dropoff. Each one has 40% to win. Of course, 40% is a funny number to begin with (usually the chance to pass is given as 49.3%, including both comeout wins and points made). [nq:1]Theoretically (for you math guys) there is no difference roll to roll. In the real world, we know darn well there is.[/nq] So far, the real world has matched theory perfectly. I see no reason to believe that it will suddenly changed. [nq:1]I refer you again to Wong's book page 169 for "Distribution of Hand Length" which is based on a SIMULATION of ten million hands.[/nq] Wait. Is this the real world, or the math? Do you count simulations as evidence? I thought your whole gig was that there's some magic force that makes the statistics irrelevant. [nq:1]about 10% of random shooters have a hand of more than 17 rolls. A SIMULATION is different from the theoretical. ... of random shooters will roll the dice more than 17 times in their hand, only a SIMULATION can tell that.[/nq] So now there's a magic force that keeps 2+3 from equalling 5 in simulations as well as the real world? Please explain further. This simulation seems to match expectation reasonably well (I've only done back-of-envelope estimates, though - I don't know the actual prediction). I'd like to see your idea of how to calculate the theoretical chance of a shooter rolling more than 17 rolls. Or even what you think the percentage should be theoretically, if it's different than the simulation. [nq:1]This is an argument about apples (simulations) and oranges (theory).[/nq] Simulations match theory, for every simulation I've looked at in detail. Mark Rafn (Email Removed)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Cat_in_awe: [nq:1]When it comes down to it, we all sorta believe in the same thing, don't we?[/nq]We certainly all don't believe that because the shooter has made 6 points, that it is much more likely than usually that he'll fail on the 7th try. GPC
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Mr. V: "Yes, GPC I am a right way bettor, and I press. And Ive lost a lot of money. Only my wins at VP have bailed me out."A contrite admission of face; noted. "Part of the loss might be that I bet on other players inclluding random shooters." OK, so that's the reason: random shooters suck. "But I also admit that Ive had more winning hands with random shooters than I have had with controlled shooters, AND Ive only played with FOUR players who I would call bonafide controlled shooters and everyone else is just trying (me included)." OK, so it's not that random shooters suck, it's that they don't suck as bad as the bonafide precision shooters to whose wagon you hitched your craps betting star. Hell alan, I've said that dice setters suck for years. "When it comes down to it, we all sorta believe in the same thing, don't we?" I believe in death, taxes, and that the seven is always lurking in the woodpile. Other than that, no. roll dem bones
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Mr. V: "Yes, GPC I am a right way bettor, and I press. And Ive lost a lot of money. Only my wins at VP have bailed me out."A contrite admission of fact; noted. "Part of the loss might be that I bet on other players inclluding random shooters." OK, so that's the reason: random shooters suck. "But I also admit that Ive had more winning hands with random shooters than I have had with controlled shooters, AND Ive only played with FOUR players who I would call bonafide controlled shooters and everyone else is just trying (me included)." OK, so it's not that random shooters suck, it's that they don't suck as bad as the bonafide precision shooters to whose wagon you hitched your craps betting star. Hell alan, I've said that dice setters suck for years. "When it comes down to it, we all sorta believe in the same thing, don't we?" I believe in death, taxes, and that the seven is always lurking in the woodpile. Other than that, no. Choose your own delusion, I've already found mine. roll dem bones
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
alan: "We certainly all don't believe that because the shooter has made 6 points,that it is much more likely than usually that he'll fail on the 7th try." Actually, GPC, the shooter was an underdog on the first point, and the second, and the third... and yes on the sixth. So how many times do you think the shooter can dodge the bullet? After dodging six bullets, Im pretty skeptical of dodging the 7th. By the way, Ive been on a couple of monster hands where the shooter has made 7 or more passes, and let me assure you that I usually will regress my place bets one or more times during a hand like that.
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Cat_in_awe: [nq:1]After dodging six bullets, Im pretty skeptical of dodging the 7th. By the way, Ive been on a couple of ... me assure you that I usually will regress my place bets one or more times during a hand like that.[/nq]This decision certainly can't be bad, as it reduces your exposure. However, you are just a likely to miss out on this hot roll continuing as you are from benefiting from the shooter sevening out right now. Past performance has no effect on future results, but you still cling to the notion that they do, (even though you've written that they don't). GPC
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Mason: Clueless ..[nq:1]After dodging six bullets, Im pretty skeptical of dodging the 7th.[/nq] Fortunately, your degree of skepticism is completely irrelevant to anyone but you. How can you object to being labeled an innumerate moron when you insist on repeating known fallacies as "good ideas"? I guess Alan Shank is correct. You are trolling. Pitiful. Pathetic. Moronic. Onward thru the fog, Mason
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Mark Rafn: [nq:1]Are numbers do? Yes, the 7 is due. Thats the reality of the game, and if you don't recognize that you don't play with real money at real tables.[/nq]Just plain wrong. I know darn well the 7 isn't any more due than it was last roll or will be 10 rolls from now. And I play with real money at real tables. [nq:1]When it comes down to it, we all sorta believe in the same thing, don't we?[/nq] No. From what I can tell, we don't share very many beliefs, and we may even disagree in fundamental attitudes ABOUT the nature of belief. Mark Rafn (Email Removed)
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Richard: [nq:1](.) "The bar point prevents the don't pass from being complimentary to the pass. That is the purpose of the bar point." You loudly claim that both of these statements are wrong. Without justification. So correct me.[/nq]Well, since you asked, "complimentary" should be "complementary" as in "complementary angle". Regards, Richard
This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are to have been moderated by our community.
Show more
| Have a question? People are waiting to help. Interesting stuff |
All RSS Feeds