Ed Tice: Enough with the craps voodoo

[Ed Tice]

Okay, I wanted to work out more numbers before this post, but I am too tired to get them right. Anyway, I don't want to offend anybody here and I'll try not to. So try not to have easily hurt feelings

The idea of taking over a "no action" don't pass bet is a great idea. Its just like putting up the rest of a double down for somebody who doubles for lest. Well at least the same principle.

This is more like a guy who has 20v16 and lets you buy his bet for his original amount!

As far as the craps odds. the house advantage is about 1.5% on the pass line / don't pass line / and placing of the 6 and 8.

The odss bet has no house advantage (but you have to have a pass/dont pass bet to make it).

All other bets are carnival game bets.

As far as dice control, and "Sharpshooter" I have to call BS. (And I don't mean basic strategy).

Do I think its possible to control the dice? Yes! If a guy can throw a baseball over the plate he can throw craps dice with some control.

But before you believe the voodoo that goes along with the dice control guys, consider this. The basic tenet of the principle is that you prevent the dice from rotating in a particular plane.

For example you hold the dice with the fours up, ones to the left, sixes to the right. You throw the dice such that the 1/6 wont come up because the dice don't rotate on that particular axis. This sounds really good.

But the guys who advocate dice control always talk about getting on a "long roll". Everybody loves a long roll in craps. The table dumps out and the players make a fortune. (Well except the don't pass guys but they never seem to be having fun anyway)

But if you look at what the advocate, if you keep the 1 and six out of play you *increase* the number of sevens, not decrease them. It goes from 1/6 to 1/4. Now this definitely helps you as far as the come-out roll! In fact just being able to increase the number of 7s on the come-out roll to 1/4 from 1/6 would be enough if you could do it. Then just throw the dice normal for the rest of the roll.

This would definitely give you an advantage over the casino. However it would not put you on any "long rolls".

Trying to control the dice to *reduce* the number of sevens (which is what puts you on a long roll) would be much harder than to increase the number of sevens. In order to have any effect on the number of sevens you must control *both* dice.

The probability of getting a 7 is normally 1/6. If you control just one die and the other is random its still 1/6. (For any result of one die the other can make a sever).

To reduce the number of sevens you'd have to throw the dice exactly the same way each time so that you never throw a seven (unless youmake a mistake).

To *increase* the number of sevens, you just have to keep the dice from rotating in one plane and set them up appropriately.

But what "sharpshooter" advocates is to control the dice so that you prevent them from rotating in one plane... and that this will result in *less* sevens. And that doesn't work.

If you want to play craps for cover, great. If youre a craps addict, get help. If you play for fun, great. If you think you can increase your number of sevens, or want to try, have fun, you can't make things worse!

But don't get caught up in the voodoo.

The biggest problem is that even if you can throw sevens 1/4 times on the comeout roll, you'll only make money on your throw. You have to either wait out the other throws or bet minimum (just like a negative count). Since you will have only a small advantage on your throws and since they will be short, you will have to bet HUGE. Especially if you cant wait out the other throws. And this assumes you are successful controlling the dice.

Is it possible? I don't see why not. But are you going to go on long rolls forever. Well that seems much harder than getting on short rolls that make money. Hence I don't believe the voodoo.

Sorry

[bfbagain]

negative! You may play craps for fun, cover, entertainment....but not for profit. Regularly. Can you get lucky? Of course.

When I "play" craps, I'm gambling. It's like being at the track for me, I'm still gambling. When I'm at a blackjack table, I'm not gambling.

cheers
bfb

[Ed Tice]

But its not that I completely disagree that craps can be made a positive expectation game. If you can get an edge through "hand interaction" (which could be large if somebody is making bit 'no action' bets), thats great.

If you can control the dice well enough to have an advantage until you get caught, thats great.

My point is only that all of the craps literature I've seen talks about controlling the dice to get on a "long roll". Trying to get on a "long roll" is just about impossible, because it would require great precision throwing the dice, beyond what woudl be possible for all but the most physically skilled.

On the other hand, being able to get an advantage by controlling the dice enough to throw extra sevens on the come out roll, seems reasonable. The problem with this, of course, is that you will be throwing only for a very small percentage of time and it still would be a difficult skill.

Obviously, betting strategies don't get you anywhere. We all know that. But I am a believe that the physical skill could be possible. But I've never seen anything supported by math that made sense. Only vodoo. And hence I treat craps as a negative expectation game.

On the occasions that I do play I bet the pass with max odds and try to throw extra sevens on the come out roll, by hodling the dice with the fours up ones to the left, sixes to the right.. I try to have them land just short of the wall. As I throw them I start them spinning forwrd so that the gyroscopic action tends to keep them from rotating sideways. I've even tried to practice this at home.

I'm not good enough at this technique to make the game profitable even if I'm the only guy at the table. But the point is that, even if I could throw extra 7s on the comeout, the advantage would be low and the roll would be short, so that if a table were full, even if I threw with an advantage I wouldn't be able to "survive' the other rolls.

The other part of this is that once a point is set, I d'ont try to control the dice since doing what I did on the come out would result in *more* sevens. And as I said earlier, trying to decrease the frequency of sevens would be near impossible compared with trying to increase the frequency.

Ed

> negative! You may play craps for fun, cover,
> entertainment....but not for profit.
> Regularly. Can you get lucky? Of course.

> When I "play" craps, I'm gambling.
> It's like being at the track for me, I'm
> still gambling. When I'm at a blackjack
> table, I'm not gambling.

> cheers
> bfb

[Dr M J Seele]

> Trying to control the dice to *reduce* the
> number of sevens (which is what puts you on
> a long roll) would be much harder than to
> increase the number of sevens. In order to
> have any effect on the number of sevens you
> must control *both* dice.

> The probability of getting a 7 is normally
> 1/6. If you control just one die and the
> other is random its still 1/6. (For any
> result of one die the other can make a
> sever).

> To reduce the number of sevens you'd have to
> throw the dice exactly the same way each
> time so that you never throw a seven (unless
> youmake a mistake).

> To *increase* the number of sevens, you just
> have to keep the dice from rotating in one
> plane and set them up appropriately.

> But what "sharpshooter" advocates
> is to control the dice so that you prevent
> them from rotating in one plane... and that
> this will result in *less* sevens. And that
> doesn't work.

> If you want to play craps for cover, great.
> If youre a craps addict, get help. If you
> play for fun, great. If you think you can
> increase your number of sevens, or want to
> try, have fun, you can't make things worse!

> But don't get caught up in the voodoo.

The point of the dice control method on the post come-out roll is to increase the sevens to rolls ratio, not to simply reduce the number of sevens. By controlling a die in one plane you would increase the chances of making a point. Assuming you can actually do this, you could obtain a positive expectation on your post come-out rolls without the neccessity to control both dice.

Whether this is possible is another matter. Daniel Murray at Okanagan University College in Kelowna, BC, Canada, is trying to solve this problem.

[Ouchez]

> But its not that I completely disagree that
> craps can be made a positive expectation
> game. If you can get an edge through
> "hand interaction" (which could be
> large if somebody is making bit 'no action'
> bets), thats great.

> If you can control the dice well enough to
> have an advantage until you get caught,
> thats great.

> My point is only that all of the craps
> literature I've seen talks about controlling
> the dice to get on a "long roll".
> Trying to get on a "long roll" is
> just about impossible, because it would
> require great precision throwing the dice,
> beyond what woudl be possible for all but
> the most physically skilled.

> On the other hand, being able to get an
> advantage by controlling the dice enough to
> throw extra sevens on the come out roll,
> seems reasonable. The problem with this, of
> course, is that you will be throwing only
> for a very small percentage of time and it
> still would be a difficult skill.

> Obviously, betting strategies don't get you
> anywhere. We all know that. But I am a
> believe that the physical skill could be
> possible. But I've never seen anything
> supported by math that made sense. Only
> vodoo. And hence I treat craps as a negative
> expectation game.

> On the occasions that I do play I bet the
> pass with max odds and try to throw extra
> sevens on the come out roll, by hodling the
> dice with the fours up ones to the left,
> sixes to the right.. I try to have them land
> just short of the wall. As I throw them I
> start them spinning forwrd so that the
> gyroscopic action tends to keep them from
> rotating sideways. I've even tried to
> practice this at home.

> I'm not good enough at this technique to
> make the game profitable even if I'm the
> only guy at the table. But the point is
> that, even if I could throw extra 7s on the
> comeout, the advantage would be low and the
> roll would be short, so that if a table were
> full, even if I threw with an advantage I
> wouldn't be able to "survive' the other
> rolls.

> The other part of this is that once a point
> is set, I d'ont try to control the dice
> since doing what I did on the come out would
> result in *more* sevens. And as I said
> earlier, trying to decrease the frequency of
> sevens would be near impossible compared
> with trying to increase the frequency.

> Ed

with some great insites and out of the box thinking.

Good work Ed.

I have always been of the opinion that it is much better to be able to influence for more 7's than the other way around. This is a strategy for us "Dark Siders". Once up go for the 7. When the casino allows you to cut the table and not hit the back wall you can do amazing things.

I once did this at a Canadian casino just after craps was introduced, I teamed with 2 big bettors of Middle Eastern descent, and we did not let on that we were together. We did this for a day and a half with stunning results before I was banned from throwing and had my picture taken on the casino floor by security without my consent. It was one of those sterling weekends, I won at the HS BJ, back counting and finding weak dealers and wonging out at the right times.

But because of 911 and some nasty border episodes I have not been back.

Ouchez.

[jgalt1]

...either reduce or increase the likelyhood of rolling a certain number.

Rolling fewer ones reduces the amount of craps rolls and 4's 5's and 6's, so one would bet more 8's 9's and 10's on the layout. If controlling for more ones you'd bet the opposite side of the layout.

Sure the likelyhood of rolling a 1/6 would be less, but the other combinations would be slightly more frequent.

with some great insites and out of the box
> thinking.

> Good work Ed.

> I have always been of the opinion that it is
> much better to be able to influence for more
> 7's than the other way around. This is a
> strategy for us "Dark Siders".
> Once up go for the 7. When the casino allows
> you to cut the table and not hit the back
> wall you can do amazing things.

> I once did this at a Canadian casino just
> after craps was introduced, I teamed with 2
> big bettors of Middle Eastern descent, and
> we did not let on that we were together. We
> did this for a day and a half with stunning
> results before I was banned from throwing
> and had my picture taken on the casino floor
> by security without my consent. It was one
> of those sterling weekends, I won at the HS
> BJ, back counting and finding weak dealers
> and wonging out at the right times.

> But because of 911 and some nasty border
> episodes I have not been back.

> Ouchez.

[T-Bone]

There are many ways to obtain an edge at craps assuming you can control just one die using the plane rotation method.

For example, assume you can eliminate the 3 or 4 from rolling on one die. This would result in a player edge of 12.5% on the field bet, using the typical Vegas payout schedule.

Here's another example. Suppose you can eliminate the 1 or 6 from rolling on one die. This would make placing the 6 or 8 a 50/50 proposition, giving the player an edge of 8.3% on those place bets or an edge of 10% on pass line odds after the point (6 or 8) is established.

[John Wesley Powell]

> But its not that I completely disagree that
> craps can be made a positive expectation
> game. If you can get an edge through
> "hand interaction" (which could be
> large if somebody is making bit 'no action'
> bets), thats great.
"hand interaction" do you mean scooting or sliding the dice? There are teams of craps players out there who do exactly that.
> If you can control the dice well enough to
> have an advantage until you get caught,
> thats great.
"Get Caught" there has been no successful prosecution of dice scooters in the state of Nevada, ever. Why? Because even the most inept drunk can accidentally slide the dice. I know I've seen it happen.
> My point is only that all of the craps
> literature I've seen talks about controlling
> the dice to get on a "long roll".
> Trying to get on a "long roll" is
> just about impossible, because it would
> require great precision throwing the dice,
> beyond what woudl be possible for all but
> the most physically skilled.
There are skilled shooters out there. Some very well known, some not so well known. There are a handful who can shoot so well that they can kill a die off the puck.
> On the other hand, being able to get an
> advantage by controlling the dice enough to
> throw extra sevens on the come out roll,
> seems reasonable. The problem with this, of
> course, is that you will be throwing only
> for a very small percentage of time and it
> still would be a difficult skill.
Practice makes perfect!
> Obviously, betting strategies don't get you
> anywhere. We all know that. But I am a
> believe that the physical skill could be
> possible. But I've never seen anything
> supported by math that made sense. Only
> vodoo. And hence I treat craps as a negative
> expectation game.
It is negative but craps is still the second best game in the casino to play for the player.
> On the occasions that I do play I bet the
> pass with max odds and try to throw extra
> sevens on the come out roll, by hodling the
> dice with the fours up ones to the left,
> sixes to the right.. This is voodoo!
I try to have them land
> just short of the wall. Any good dice crew will warn you and then call no roll if you contune to throw short of the wall.
As I throw them I
> start them spinning forwrd so that the
> gyroscopic action tends to keep them from
> rotating sideways. I've even tried to
> practice this at home. Sounds like you need to keep practicing.

> I'm not good enough at this technique to
> make the game profitable even if I'm the
> only guy at the table. But the point is
> that, even if I could throw extra 7s on the
> comeout, the advantage would be low and the
> roll would be short, so that if a table were
> full, even if I threw with an advantage I
> wouldn't be able to "survive' the other
> rolls.

> The other part of this is that once a point
> is set, I d'ont try to control the dice
> since doing what I did on the come out would
> result in *more* sevens. And as I said
> earlier, trying to decrease the frequency of
> sevens would be near impossible compared
> with trying to increase the frequency.
The old MGM (Bally's now) used to have thin pieces of wood called rails under the felt near the prop boxes. These were put here to cause the dice to tumble. Anti scooter device you might call it.
> Ed

[Ed Tice]

Just to clarify for everybdoy, I have never said that dice control is not possible. I have just said that all of the literature is surrounded by voodoo. I have also said that it would be easier to increase the number of sevens than to decrease the number. Most of my comments were specific to the free portion of "Sharpshooter's" work that is available on the web. It calls for holding the dice as I described and keeping them from rotating in one particular plane. This would actually increase the number of sevents. Increasing sevens can be very positive! But it wont ever put the shooter on a "long roll," which is what the craps ploppies love to see. I am not one to belittle others' advantage plays. Some people may be able to beat the game. But the text from "Sharpshooter" is, from a mathematical persepctive, bullshit... and I'll stick by that statement!

Ed

> There are many ways to obtain an edge at
> craps assuming you can control just one die
> using the plane rotation method.

> For example, assume you can eliminate the 3
> or 4 from rolling on one die. This would
> result in a player edge of 12.5% on the
> field bet, using the typical Vegas payout
> schedule.

> Here's another example. Suppose you can
> eliminate the 1 or 6 from rolling on one
> die. This would make placing the 6 or 8 a
> 50/50 proposition, giving the player an edge
> of 8.3% on those place bets or an edge of
> 10% on pass line odds after the point (6 or
> 8) is established.

[Mr_S]

>
> Here's another example. Suppose you can
> eliminate the 1 or 6 from rolling on one
> die. This would make placing the 6 or 8 a
> 50/50 proposition, giving the player an edge
> of 8.3% on those place bets or an edge of
> 10% on pass line odds after the point (6 or
> 8) is established.

Actually, if you eliminate the 1 from one die, you change the game from a seven being 6 in 36, to a game where the seven is 5 in 30. This retains the same house advantage as before.

Of course all of this is academic as the dice cannot be controlled due to the energy dissipated during the dice' landing. The physics for disproving dice control are relatively simple.