You will be redirected automatically to the site at http://www.geocities.com/sys170.
If you are not redirected automatically, please click here to continue.
or if you stuffed the inside covers with $100 bills!
For me, I think I might have to read it.
.. to understand that it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to achieve a positive expectancy through the summation of any possible positive weightings on any number of non-positive expectation bets. All I need to know is that the casino offers NO positive expectation bets at the craps table, which is certainly the case.
Again, since it's such a simple and elegant truth, I'll spell it out:
If, at a certain game, all you make are negative and zero expectation wagers, you CAN NOT BEAT THE GAME.
M.
There have been a variety of slot machines developed that have side jackpots. Probably the first one to gain notoriety was the original Piggy Bank slots. If three blanks showed on on the reels, then an amount equal to the number of coins bet on that spin was put into the "piggy bank." This bank continued to grow until a Break the Bank symbol was hit on any one of the three reels. After the bank reached a certain level, it was possible to play the machine, in this case one coin at a time, until the bank was busted and the player got the payoff from this bank. Alas, the original Pigs seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur and have been replaced by a new Pig machine that isn't as lucrative.
However, the same principle applies to a number of slots that hold side banks. Each one must be played slightly differently and they tend to change a lot, but for those who follow these machines, a profit is possible. You jump in when the game is favorable and get out when the jackpot is hit. In other words, "wonging slots."
How do you KNOW what Scoblete or Mays or Thomason wrote in their books? Word-of Mouth? Rumor? Intuition? Psychic Ability? Omnipotance?
Moose I have to say that I disagree with you on this. Now, don't get me wrong. I have a great deal of respect for you and enjoy reading your posts. You obviously have a great understanding of blackjack and poker (and stook :^)). However, I think it is a mistake to write off a game just because the casino is supposed to have an advantage. I would like to say right here that I do not advocate progression betting or some other nonsense. But...
You say that "it is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE" to achieve an advantage at craps. Yet, in Beyond Counting, Grosjean shows how to beat many negative expectation casino games including craps. Now, I realize that this book is the exception to the rule, but it proves my point that advantage players should always keep an open mind.
When I first started playing, I thought counting was the only proven way to defeat the casinos. However, reading John May's Get the Edge at Blackjack really opened my eyes. I began to learn about sequence tracking, shuffle tracking, ace location, front loading (in blackjack and other games), bonus hustling, and coupon hustling just to name a few. It became clear to me that there are many ways to exploit the casinos other than card counting. I think it is important for advantage players to keep their eyes open for opportunities at other places the blackjack tables.
Just my opinion,
MF
Neither side has an edge? Sounds like a toss of the coin to me, and 50% of the players will win in the long run, and the casino wouldn't make a dime.
But what if you could roll the dice in such a way that a miniscule house edge could be turned into a miniscule player edge... would you play this game? If you were able to recognize another player who had this talent, would you bet with him? Sort of like a Basic Strategy player who recognizes that a talented card counter is at his table, and bumps up his bet when he sees the counter increasing his bet. Same principle -- different game.
.. all the other ones have a respectable player disadvantage (1.4% and up). Since you can only make these odds bets after making a disadvantage bet, you have to play at least one bet at a disadvantage. I only separated the odds from the line bet so as not to get stoned by nitpickers.
But what if you could roll the dice in such a way that a miniscule house edge could be turned into a miniscule player edge... would you play this game?
Yes I would play this game. But no, it is not possible to meet the house requirements for a legal roll and influence the roll in such a way that the player gets a miniscule edge.
What you're saying looks convincing, but it's a vacuous truth. Yes, your statement is LOGICALLY true - "If someone at the craps table can roll the dice in such a way that the player has a miniscule edge, then I can beat craps" is a completely LOGICALLY true statement, just as "If the moon is made of green cheese, then I can beat craps." is also completely LOGICALLY true, but semantically, is completely unreasonable.
As is, I'm sad to say, your original point. But we're apparently doomed to disagree in this matter.
M.
I read your entire book at the Barnes and Nobel chair. Same goes for May.
Griffin, Schlesinger?
These need to be purchaesd and digested slowly.
"...it is not possible to meet the house requirements for a legal roll and influence the roll in such a way that the player gets a miniscule edge." This is an assumption on your part.
There's no logical reason to assume that the Moon's composition has anything to do with craps, but there IS a logical reason to assume that a player could learn to roll the dice in such a way that the "dastardly 7" won't pop up as often as predicted.
Would you trust a card counter who never practiced his trade, yet claimed that because he had blue hair he could be a successful counter? Of course not, nor would I trust a shooter who claimed that he won because the Moon was cheesy.
Admittedly, it's much more difficult to spot a talented shooter than it is to spot a talented counter... but there's a few of them around!
Beyond Counting, Grosjean shows how to beat many negative expectation casino games including craps.
If you use the word "beat" as in a technical possibility, and not as practical means, then maybe you are correct.
I didn't read Grosjean's book, but I can only speculate that it has to do with dice control and taking advantage of "last roll" calls (regarding craps). Being able to control the dice after hitting the back wall is nothing short of complete bullshit. Taking advantage of "last roll" calls, and the efforts to exploit them are a complete waste of time as well. This is self evident.
I read your entire book at the Barnes and Nobel chair. Same goes for May.
Its "Noble", as Don would probably say.
Your comment is ridiculous. You could not possibly digest the book in a single sitting. Care to explain to us, why:
a) Why certain extreme subsets of cards would produce very advantageous wagers on the tie even though any linear count system would recommend a negative bet in this situation?
b) Why traditional card location methods would be ineffective at baccarat?
c) The optimal drawing/hitting frequency on player totals of 5 at Chemin de fer?
These should be easily explained by anybody with a cursory understanding of the book. If you manage an explanation with your cheapskate bookstore hustling I'd be very impressed.
Griffin, Schlesinger?
These need to be purchaesd and digested slowly.
Yes, particulary Griffin's baccarat chapter which has seven (three major, four minor) errors in it.
An older archive with no pics exists at the link below. Unfortunately I don't really have time to keep the sites updated.
"Odds bets" aren't zero expectation bets... they still carry negative expectation because they are directly tied to Pass or Don't Pass bets, and all they do is reduce the house edge... but they don't eliminate it.
Cheers!
Walter
"How do you KNOW what Scoblete or Mays or Thomason wrote in their books?"
I read reviews. I talk to others about the content. I read threads on bj sites. Do you find it odd that one can know about the content of a book without reading it, page for page?
I find it even more odd that you would think such a silly thing.
For example, I have dozens of friends whose opinions I trust and whose knowledge of gaming is legendary. Suppose any one of them (or several) all make the mistake (call it curiosity) of reading your book and all report back to me that it is garbage, and contains a totally useless progression. Do you think those reports then inspire me to run out and buy a copy for myself?
How very weird.
Don
Being able to control the dice after hitting the back wall is nothing short of complete bullshit.
No, "complete bullshit" is not a scientific answer.
Throw a die with exactly the same trajectory and velocity each time and the outcome is completely deterministic. Such consistent delivery is not required to turn the odds decisively in your favour. Greg Limes published an analysis of just how little influence is required for an advantage, which I archived in the Gambler's Research & Development Newsletter below.
Many individuals have claimed to possess the ability to influence the dice in this manner over a large number of trials to a statistically significant extent-though actually that is not required. Provided you can throw the dice within certain paramaters associated with the initial release, then, regardless of your actual results, you have a positive expectation.
The controversial point is whether human ability can influence the dice to the extent that the house edge can be overcome. A strong body of anecdotal evidence exists to support this position-Marvin Karlins, John Scarne, Darwin Ortiz and Edward Thorp all testify to the existence of dice controllers. Individuals such as Steve Forte have demonstrated the skill publicly.
Two things may settle the issue publicly in the near future: a Canadian university has developed a dice-throwing machine and is running tests to assign precise values to acceptable error terms associated with die-throwing in order that a positive expectation may be achieved. Further, "Sharpshooter", author of the forthcoming "Get The Edge At Craps", one of the individuals who claims to be able to control the dice, claims to have footage of thousands of controlled throws. Presumably, you would accept this is as conclusive evidence of the efficacy of the method? If so, I could try to arrange the video footage to be made available online. If not, then I'd question whether your comments on this matter is personal or scientific.
.. that is, you either have a pass line bet of $X with EV of -1.4% and an odds bet of $2X with an EV of 0, *OR*, you have an OVERALL pass line bet of $3X with an EV of -0.4%
Make sense? You have to pay the vig on the pass line bet, but once you've made the pass line bet, then you can make an additional odds bet - the odds bet has an EV of 0, effectively "diluting" the overall advantage..
M.
I read reviews. I talk to others about the content. I read threads on bj sites. Do you find it odd that one can know about the content of a book without reading it, page for page?
Like who? Arnold Snyder, perhaps? Nope, wrote a nice review of my book and used to stock it. Your friends at GBC? No, they stocked it too (mind you, they'll sell anything, right?).
I very much doubt you received negative feedback about that book from anyone. It has never received a negative review from anyone who has actually bought it.
Face it, you're just sore because when you, ahem, betray your age, on some issue where are you are clearly lacking experience, for example your recent ridiculous paranoid comments on internet gambling, I call you on it, unlike some of the yes-men you prefer to surround yourself with. Deal with it.
