United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: May 1, 2013, 3:16 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on April 30, 2013

"You're making it sound like betting $799 to win $1 is a really good bet. Will all your probabilities help you pay off a $5000 bet at 799 to 1 odds?"

This sentence makes it clear that you don't intend to use logic, you're just here to argue with everything I say. I obviously would never take a 5000 dollar bet. The lottery can, because there pockets are deep enough to take losses if a huge bet has to be paid off. And some lotteries still restrict sales on individual numbers to prevent these giant swings, but they still have a giant edge. Personally I don't think that the caps need to be anywhere near as low as they are in some states, but that's their decision.

"My first post on LP questioned why an Online lottery site would pay $900 to 1 when any player is getting 3 to 2 odds by betting $1 on 600 numbers. It's exactly the same as Free Odds bets on the 5 and 9 on any Crap table. The casinos pays even money on Pass Line bets that favor the house by 3 to 2 while the Online sites were paying 50% more on virtually the same type of bet."

It's not the same bet as free odds. I did the math for 5/9 on the the Pass Line's odds/payouts and the example you gave, (If you meant the don't pass, the math would be reversed, but have the same answer.) and as you can see below, the pick 3 bet has a house edge while the odds on craps don't. And the math behind the pass line is more complex than that, and casinos do allow odds bets. It appears you don't know how to play Craps.

Odds on 5/9 in Craps, you have a 60% chance to lose 2 units, and a 40% chance of winning 3. (note that you have 3 AND your original 2) The math is expressed as (-2*.6)+(3*.4)=0. The expectation is that you'll break even in the long run. (Short term luck is what makes these games entertaining, but that's the math) If you placed this bet with your described 600 dollars, then winning will pay you 900 AND you keep your 600.

On the Pick 3 bet, you will have a 60% chance to gain .5 unit, and a 40% to lose 1. The math is ((.5*.6)+(-1*.4))=-.10, giving the house a 10% edge.

"By betting $1 on five different numbers, a pick-3 player is getting a 0.5% chance of winning $500. By betting $5 on one number another player is getting a 0.1% chance of winning $2500. The implications are simple, by taking a slightly less chance and 0.004 is a slightly less chance, the second player can win $2000 more."

This is an interesting comment, in that what you're stating is obvious, but not thought of by too many gamblers. If you're hope is to win big, and you're playing against a negative expectation game, the best chance you have is take whatever budget you have and play for a single shot to score big rather than many shots to score relatively small. This isn't an investment strategy I would recommend, and personally, I don't find the Pick 3 any more entertaining than I'd imagine picking a random stock would be.

"It's easy enough to figure the probabilities of any three digit number being drawn in the next 1000 drawings, but the results of the last 1000 drawings show many of the three digit numbers weren't drawn and several were drawn multiple times. Why is it your probabilities never match the facts?"

I have tried to explain standard deviation (variance) to you in the past, but I will leave it at that. Variance.

As for your criticism of Jimmy's simulation, you have to realize that it's intention is to show that if you play for many years, you are very unlikely to be ahead. If the game had 0 house edge, you'd be just as likely to be ahead by 1000 as down by 1000. But because there is an edge, and because it is so huge, there is a giant disparity in the number of winners and losers, and the amount they won or lost.

There are many other simulations you can do based on betting strategies and the like. Having studied the effects of variance a decent amount in my free time (mostly in pursuit of understanding how to manage risk) I can tell you how individual strategies are likely to look on a similar chart, but I can also tell you now that introducing elements like rising bets, or bigger bets is going to create a few more winners, and way more - bigger losers. It makes you more likely to win, sure. It also makes you way more likely to lose more quicker. Mathemetically, all your bets only have the SAME edge, but in reality you are betting it quicker and with more variance. I'm not gonna say that's wrong, since I actually think if you have X bankroll and you have to play a game like Pick 3 until you lose it or win Y amount, the best way to achieve it is probably to bet big, assuming Y is large compared to X. But since that's a pretty unrealistic and strange hypothetical, I'd recommend to people that the Pick 3 is really a waste of time unless you find it really fun, and worth the cost of a ticket.

"Betting the Field in Craps is a bad bet and betting the "2" and/or "12" are the worse bets on the table, but I saw a guy starting with $100 while I was rolling the dice, parlayed enough in winnings by making those bets to make a $500 bet on the "12" and win $15,000. We all know the probabilities and the odds and so did the Pit Boss, but he still had to explain that huge loss to his bosses."

Just because you saw something once doesn't matter. Obviously people wouldn't gamble if variance didn't allow them to get lucky sometimes and win. I'm sure the Pit Boss wasn't blaimed for anything, as long as there was no cheating involved they're fine. Casinos know there are possibilities of big losses, but they are more likely to win than lose so they don't care. And most gamblers keep on gambling against that edge after winning big, often moving up in stakes. So they actually like many people who win big, because so many of them are "free" advertizement in that they give it all back.

"it's possible with a betting strategy to profit much more from the unexpected."

No, it's not, because the probabilities of any betting strategy can be quantified down to it's probabilities in any number of draws. It's all mathemetically solid. I don't know quite how to put this - if something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. It means that it's only going to happen to X amount of people. In the Pick 3, which was the example I originally used because it's easier to demonstrate the point, you can calculate (because that's insanely taxing, most people use simulations instead) the probabilities of anything happening with any betting strategy. And no strategy has ever outperformed the mathemetical edge. Perdiod. Some have made it more likely to win any amount at the risk of losing larger, and vice versa. NONE have ever changed the edge.

Kentucky United States Member #32652 February 14, 2006 7500 Posts Offline

Posted: May 1, 2013, 3:19 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on April 30, 2013

"You're making it sound like betting $799 to win $1 is a really good bet. Will all your probabilities help you pay off a $5000 bet at 799 to 1 odds?"

This sentence makes it clear that you don't intend to use logic, you're just here to argue with everything I say. I obviously would never take a 5000 dollar bet. The lottery can, because there pockets are deep enough to take losses if a huge bet has to be paid off. And some lotteries still restrict sales on individual numbers to prevent these giant swings, but they still have a giant edge. Personally I don't think that the caps need to be anywhere near as low as they are in some states, but that's their decision.

"My first post on LP questioned why an Online lottery site would pay $900 to 1 when any player is getting 3 to 2 odds by betting $1 on 600 numbers. It's exactly the same as Free Odds bets on the 5 and 9 on any Crap table. The casinos pays even money on Pass Line bets that favor the house by 3 to 2 while the Online sites were paying 50% more on virtually the same type of bet."

It's not the same bet as free odds. I did the math for 5/9 on the the Pass Line's odds/payouts and the example you gave, (If you meant the don't pass, the math would be reversed, but have the same answer.) and as you can see below, the pick 3 bet has a house edge while the odds on craps don't. And the math behind the pass line is more complex than that, and casinos do allow odds bets. It appears you don't know how to play Craps.

Odds on 5/9 in Craps, you have a 60% chance to lose 2 units, and a 40% chance of winning 3. (note that you have 3 AND your original 2) The math is expressed as (-2*.6)+(3*.4)=0. The expectation is that you'll break even in the long run. (Short term luck is what makes these games entertaining, but that's the math) If you placed this bet with your described 600 dollars, then winning will pay you 900 AND you keep your 600.

On the Pick 3 bet, you will have a 60% chance to gain .5 unit, and a 40% to lose 1. The math is ((.5*.6)+(-1*.4))=-.10, giving the house a 10% edge.

"By betting $1 on five different numbers, a pick-3 player is getting a 0.5% chance of winning $500. By betting $5 on one number another player is getting a 0.1% chance of winning $2500. The implications are simple, by taking a slightly less chance and 0.004 is a slightly less chance, the second player can win $2000 more."

This is an interesting comment, in that what you're stating is obvious, but not thought of by too many gamblers. If you're hope is to win big, and you're playing against a negative expectation game, the best chance you have is take whatever budget you have and play for a single shot to score big rather than many shots to score relatively small. This isn't an investment strategy I would recommend, and personally, I don't find the Pick 3 any more entertaining than I'd imagine picking a random stock would be.

"It's easy enough to figure the probabilities of any three digit number being drawn in the next 1000 drawings, but the results of the last 1000 drawings show many of the three digit numbers weren't drawn and several were drawn multiple times. Why is it your probabilities never match the facts?"

I have tried to explain standard deviation (variance) to you in the past, but I will leave it at that. Variance.

As for your criticism of Jimmy's simulation, you have to realize that it's intention is to show that if you play for many years, you are very unlikely to be ahead. If the game had 0 house edge, you'd be just as likely to be ahead by 1000 as down by 1000. But because there is an edge, and because it is so huge, there is a giant disparity in the number of winners and losers, and the amount they won or lost.

There are many other simulations you can do based on betting strategies and the like. Having studied the effects of variance a decent amount in my free time (mostly in pursuit of understanding how to manage risk) I can tell you how individual strategies are likely to look on a similar chart, but I can also tell you now that introducing elements like rising bets, or bigger bets is going to create a few more winners, and way more - bigger losers. It makes you more likely to win, sure. It also makes you way more likely to lose more quicker. Mathemetically, all your bets only have the SAME edge, but in reality you are betting it quicker and with more variance. I'm not gonna say that's wrong, since I actually think if you have X bankroll and you have to play a game like Pick 3 until you lose it or win Y amount, the best way to achieve it is probably to bet big, assuming Y is large compared to X. But since that's a pretty unrealistic and strange hypothetical, I'd recommend to people that the Pick 3 is really a waste of time unless you find it really fun, and worth the cost of a ticket.

"Betting the Field in Craps is a bad bet and betting the "2" and/or "12" are the worse bets on the table, but I saw a guy starting with $100 while I was rolling the dice, parlayed enough in winnings by making those bets to make a $500 bet on the "12" and win $15,000. We all know the probabilities and the odds and so did the Pit Boss, but he still had to explain that huge loss to his bosses."

Just because you saw something once doesn't matter. Obviously people wouldn't gamble if variance didn't allow them to get lucky sometimes and win. I'm sure the Pit Boss wasn't blaimed for anything, as long as there was no cheating involved they're fine. Casinos know there are possibilities of big losses, but they are more likely to win than lose so they don't care. And most gamblers keep on gambling against that edge after winning big, often moving up in stakes. So they actually like many people who win big, because so many of them are "free" advertizement in that they give it all back.

"it's possible with a betting strategy to profit much more from the unexpected."

No, it's not, because the probabilities of any betting strategy can be quantified down to it's probabilities in any number of draws. It's all mathemetically solid. I don't know quite how to put this - if something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. It means that it's only going to happen to X amount of people. In the Pick 3, which was the example I originally used because it's easier to demonstrate the point, you can calculate (because that's insanely taxing, most people use simulations instead) the probabilities of anything happening with any betting strategy. And no strategy has ever outperformed the mathemetical edge. Perdiod. Some have made it more likely to win any amount at the risk of losing larger, and vice versa. NONE have ever changed the edge.

"This sentence makes it clear that you don't intend to use logic, you're just here to argue with everything I say."

You said you "I'd give you 749 to 1 against you for any Pick 3 straight number anyday. Hell, I'd even give you 799 to 1." If you want to talk logic, what is logical about betting $799 to win $1?

It is logical for a state lottery to give 500 to 1 to thousands of $1 bettors betting on 1000 different numbers. I see no logic behind putting up that much against one bettor. An Online player is betting $600 to collect $900 and win $300. They could bet on 800 numbers and win $100 which is still much better than betting $799 to win $1.

"It's not the same bet as free odds."

The odds are the same, 3 to 2 whether it's 6 ways to roll a seven and 4 ways to roll a 9 or 5 or 600 ways to win and 400 ways to lose. Because the odds favor the a Don't pass bettor by 3 to 2 they lay $600 to win $300 and they have $900 worth of chips. By betting 600 numbers the odds favor the Online pick-3 player by 3 to 2 so they are also laying $600 to win $300 and the payoff is the same $900.

"And the math behind the pass line is more complex than that, and casinos do allow odds bets."

It's really simple, bet $10 on the Pass Line, you have 8 ways to win on the come out roll, have 4 ways to lose, and any other number becomes the point. On the come out roll the odds against winning or losing is 2 to 1 in favor of the Pass Line player and when you win on that roll, you're paid even money. If that roll was paid off in true odds, the better would win $5. When there is no win or loss on that roll, the odds shift in favor of losing and are different depending on the point. The Don't Pass line is opposite and favors the house on the come out roll and favors the bettor when a point is established. Both bets are paid in even money because of the odds shift.

"The expectation is that you'll break even in the long run."

Comments like that is exactly why you get zero credibility.

A long run standing at a crap table is under two hours when the dice are "hot" and more likely under one. There is no predictable expectations because you can't calculate short term. Pass Line bettors with come bets with odds or with Place bets are betting on the next 20 to 50 rolls. It takes about 2 seconds to pick up the dice and fling them across the table to get the outcome of the roll and usually takes over a minute and probably much more with a full table to complete all the transactions that result before the dice are given to you for your next roll.

There is an expectation on the next 100,000 rolls, but it's unlikely the average Craps player will see the next 100 rolls. Their chances of winning or losing are confined to when they decide to play. The house has an expectation because they are open 24/7, but the average player is betting more numbers without a seven showing up at the wrong time will be rolled. It's irrelevant if the house won or lost thousands an hour before they play at the table.

"On the Pick 3 bet, you will have a 60% chance to gain .5 unit, and a 40% to lose 1. The math is ((.5*.6)+(-1*.4))=-.10, giving the house a 10% edge."

On a Craps Don't Free odds bet, you have a 60% chance to win 50% of the bet ($600*.5=$300) and a 40% chance of losing 100% ($600). By wagering on 600 numbers, an Online pick-3 players has a 60% chance to win 50% of the bet ($600*.5=$300) and a 40% chance of losing 100% ($600). When both bets win, both players have $900 and when both bets lose, both players lose $600. The only difference is to get those odds, a Don't player must make an initial bet that pays even money.

"It appears you don't know how to play Craps."

Both bets look the same to me and maybe you can elaborate on why they are different. The Wizard of Odds calulated the house edge for making a $6 Line bet with 100 times odds at 0.00004. Are you saying all the casinos that offer Free Odds bets are lying because there is actually a 10% house edge on those bets and not the 0.004% the Wiz calculated?

"If you're hope is to win big, and you're playing against a negative expectation game,"

And that's why I said it's possible only a few players are making an income from the winnings.

"This isn't an investment strategy I would recommend, and personally, I don't find the Pick 3 any more entertaining than I'd imagine picking a random stock would be."

LMAO @ investment strategy! Do you know any stocks that will increase their value by 5000% by the end of the day?

"Casinos know there are possibilities of big losses, but they are more likely to win than lose so they don't care. And most gamblers keep on gambling against that edge after winning big, often moving up in stakes. So they actually like many people who win big, because so many of them are "free" advertizement in that they give it all back."

That's very true, but my point was on the unexpected and gave an example of something I witnessed that was very unexpected and how one player took advantage with a betting strategy and benefited by the situation. I have no idea if that is how he always plays. I'll occasionally make a "YO" bet after the point is made on the next come out roll, but that is the extent of my betting on any of the Prop bets.

Players betting the Pass Line with Place bets don't expect to see "number, number, seven" on the next few rolls, but a player betting Don't Pass with one Don't Come bet can make some serious money in the short run.

"I'm sure the Pit Boss wasn't blaimed for anything, as long as there was no cheating involved they're fine."

Coin Toss knows more about Pit Boss superstitions than I do, but I saw many of them doing extraordinary things during "hot rolls".

Take a look at today's KY Midday Pick-3 results. The cost of playing all 6 combos $.50 straight/box (we'll call it $1 straight on the triple) for the next seven days from when you posted the picks was $84 to win $266, $316, or $516.

I can't wait to hear the critics explain how Keith Price is scamming people out of a buck.

United States Member #128790 June 2, 2012 5431 Posts Offline

Posted: May 1, 2013, 3:39 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on May 1, 2013

Take a look at today's KY Midday Pick-3 results. The cost of playing all 6 combos $.50 straight/box (we'll call it $1 straight on the triple) for the next seven days from when you posted the picks was $84 to win $266, $316, or $516.

I can't wait to hear the critics explain how Keith Price is scamming people out of a buck.

Nice, I may want to purchase some numbers, but i emailed him and asked him to do Florida, but never got a response. Looks like we have another Peter St. Pierre on our hands.

u$a United States Member #106665 February 22, 2011 19967 Posts Offline

Posted: May 1, 2013, 3:50 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Stack47 on May 1, 2013

Take a look at today's KY Midday Pick-3 results. The cost of playing all 6 combos $.50 straight/box (we'll call it $1 straight on the triple) for the next seven days from when you posted the picks was $84 to win $266, $316, or $516.

I can't wait to hear the critics explain how Keith Price is scamming people out of a buck.

United States Member #93947 July 10, 2010 2180 Posts Offline

Posted: May 1, 2013, 4:34 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by Boney526 on April 30, 2013

"You're making it sound like betting $799 to win $1 is a really good bet. Will all your probabilities help you pay off a $5000 bet at 799 to 1 odds?"

This sentence makes it clear that you don't intend to use logic, you're just here to argue with everything I say. I obviously would never take a 5000 dollar bet. The lottery can, because there pockets are deep enough to take losses if a huge bet has to be paid off. And some lotteries still restrict sales on individual numbers to prevent these giant swings, but they still have a giant edge. Personally I don't think that the caps need to be anywhere near as low as they are in some states, but that's their decision.

"My first post on LP questioned why an Online lottery site would pay $900 to 1 when any player is getting 3 to 2 odds by betting $1 on 600 numbers. It's exactly the same as Free Odds bets on the 5 and 9 on any Crap table. The casinos pays even money on Pass Line bets that favor the house by 3 to 2 while the Online sites were paying 50% more on virtually the same type of bet."

It's not the same bet as free odds. I did the math for 5/9 on the the Pass Line's odds/payouts and the example you gave, (If you meant the don't pass, the math would be reversed, but have the same answer.) and as you can see below, the pick 3 bet has a house edge while the odds on craps don't. And the math behind the pass line is more complex than that, and casinos do allow odds bets. It appears you don't know how to play Craps.

Odds on 5/9 in Craps, you have a 60% chance to lose 2 units, and a 40% chance of winning 3. (note that you have 3 AND your original 2) The math is expressed as (-2*.6)+(3*.4)=0. The expectation is that you'll break even in the long run. (Short term luck is what makes these games entertaining, but that's the math) If you placed this bet with your described 600 dollars, then winning will pay you 900 AND you keep your 600.

On the Pick 3 bet, you will have a 60% chance to gain .5 unit, and a 40% to lose 1. The math is ((.5*.6)+(-1*.4))=-.10, giving the house a 10% edge.

"By betting $1 on five different numbers, a pick-3 player is getting a 0.5% chance of winning $500. By betting $5 on one number another player is getting a 0.1% chance of winning $2500. The implications are simple, by taking a slightly less chance and 0.004 is a slightly less chance, the second player can win $2000 more."

This is an interesting comment, in that what you're stating is obvious, but not thought of by too many gamblers. If you're hope is to win big, and you're playing against a negative expectation game, the best chance you have is take whatever budget you have and play for a single shot to score big rather than many shots to score relatively small. This isn't an investment strategy I would recommend, and personally, I don't find the Pick 3 any more entertaining than I'd imagine picking a random stock would be.

"It's easy enough to figure the probabilities of any three digit number being drawn in the next 1000 drawings, but the results of the last 1000 drawings show many of the three digit numbers weren't drawn and several were drawn multiple times. Why is it your probabilities never match the facts?"

I have tried to explain standard deviation (variance) to you in the past, but I will leave it at that. Variance.

As for your criticism of Jimmy's simulation, you have to realize that it's intention is to show that if you play for many years, you are very unlikely to be ahead. If the game had 0 house edge, you'd be just as likely to be ahead by 1000 as down by 1000. But because there is an edge, and because it is so huge, there is a giant disparity in the number of winners and losers, and the amount they won or lost.

There are many other simulations you can do based on betting strategies and the like. Having studied the effects of variance a decent amount in my free time (mostly in pursuit of understanding how to manage risk) I can tell you how individual strategies are likely to look on a similar chart, but I can also tell you now that introducing elements like rising bets, or bigger bets is going to create a few more winners, and way more - bigger losers. It makes you more likely to win, sure. It also makes you way more likely to lose more quicker. Mathemetically, all your bets only have the SAME edge, but in reality you are betting it quicker and with more variance. I'm not gonna say that's wrong, since I actually think if you have X bankroll and you have to play a game like Pick 3 until you lose it or win Y amount, the best way to achieve it is probably to bet big, assuming Y is large compared to X. But since that's a pretty unrealistic and strange hypothetical, I'd recommend to people that the Pick 3 is really a waste of time unless you find it really fun, and worth the cost of a ticket.

"Betting the Field in Craps is a bad bet and betting the "2" and/or "12" are the worse bets on the table, but I saw a guy starting with $100 while I was rolling the dice, parlayed enough in winnings by making those bets to make a $500 bet on the "12" and win $15,000. We all know the probabilities and the odds and so did the Pit Boss, but he still had to explain that huge loss to his bosses."

Just because you saw something once doesn't matter. Obviously people wouldn't gamble if variance didn't allow them to get lucky sometimes and win. I'm sure the Pit Boss wasn't blaimed for anything, as long as there was no cheating involved they're fine. Casinos know there are possibilities of big losses, but they are more likely to win than lose so they don't care. And most gamblers keep on gambling against that edge after winning big, often moving up in stakes. So they actually like many people who win big, because so many of them are "free" advertizement in that they give it all back.

"it's possible with a betting strategy to profit much more from the unexpected."

No, it's not, because the probabilities of any betting strategy can be quantified down to it's probabilities in any number of draws. It's all mathemetically solid. I don't know quite how to put this - if something is unlikely doesn't mean it's impossible. It means that it's only going to happen to X amount of people. In the Pick 3, which was the example I originally used because it's easier to demonstrate the point, you can calculate (because that's insanely taxing, most people use simulations instead) the probabilities of anything happening with any betting strategy. And no strategy has ever outperformed the mathemetical edge. Perdiod. Some have made it more likely to win any amount at the risk of losing larger, and vice versa. NONE have ever changed the edge.

Boney526,

You've been doing a great job explaining these issues in your last few posts. It's wearying, isn't it?

When you concluded that "Stack47" is "...just here to argue with everything I say.," I think you're beginning to understand what's going on here. I went back and looked at his earliest posts - he's been at this for 7 years and there's no sign he'll give it up any time soon. When he says his first LP post questioned why an online site would pay $900 for a straight Pick-3 hit when you can get 3/2 odds by playing 600 numbers, it's clear that he either REALLY does believe certain numbers are more likely to be drawn, OR, he is a fraud, and merely assisting in the efforts here to propagate innumeracy. Regardless of his purpose, I've had about enough of the crudeness that eminates from some of these posters. It would be interesting to know what line of work "Stack47" engages in [or did] by day, but I doubt if he'll tell us the truth about that.

At various times I have stated my "agenda," to help improve critical thinking skills and undertanding of probability. When someone goes to all the trouble that "Stack47" does to obfuscate our efforts, THEIR agenda becomes suspect in my mind. His "double talk" is far beyond annoying, and TOTALLY unnecessary IF he were merely here to look for winning methods.

United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: May 1, 2013, 4:45 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on May 1, 2013

Boney526,

You've been doing a great job explaining these issues in your last few posts. It's wearying, isn't it?

When you concluded that "Stack47" is "...just here to argue with everything I say.," I think you're beginning to understand what's going on here. I went back and looked at his earliest posts - he's been at this for 7 years and there's no sign he'll give it up any time soon. When he says his first LP post questioned why an online site would pay $900 for a straight Pick-3 hit when you can get 3/2 odds by playing 600 numbers, it's clear that he either REALLY does believe certain numbers are more likely to be drawn, OR, he is a fraud, and merely assisting in the efforts here to propagate innumeracy. Regardless of his purpose, I've had about enough of the crudeness that eminates from some of these posters. It would be interesting to know what line of work "Stack47" engages in [or did] by day, but I doubt if he'll tell us the truth about that.

At various times I have stated my "agenda," to help improve critical thinking skills and undertanding of probability. When someone goes to all the trouble that "Stack47" does to obfuscate our efforts, THEIR agenda becomes suspect in my mind. His "double talk" is far beyond annoying, and TOTALLY unnecessary IF he were merely here to look for winning methods.

United States Member #116268 September 7, 2011 20244 Posts Offline

Posted: May 1, 2013, 4:51 pm - IP Logged

Quote: Originally posted by jimmy4164 on May 1, 2013

Boney526,

You've been doing a great job explaining these issues in your last few posts. It's wearying, isn't it?

When you concluded that "Stack47" is "...just here to argue with everything I say.," I think you're beginning to understand what's going on here. I went back and looked at his earliest posts - he's been at this for 7 years and there's no sign he'll give it up any time soon. When he says his first LP post questioned why an online site would pay $900 for a straight Pick-3 hit when you can get 3/2 odds by playing 600 numbers, it's clear that he either REALLY does believe certain numbers are more likely to be drawn, OR, he is a fraud, and merely assisting in the efforts here to propagate innumeracy. Regardless of his purpose, I've had about enough of the crudeness that eminates from some of these posters. It would be interesting to know what line of work "Stack47" engages in [or did] by day, but I doubt if he'll tell us the truth about that.

At various times I have stated my "agenda," to help improve critical thinking skills and undertanding of probability. When someone goes to all the trouble that "Stack47" does to obfuscate our efforts, THEIR agenda becomes suspect in my mind. His "double talk" is far beyond annoying, and TOTALLY unnecessary IF he were merely here to look for winning methods.

New Jersey United States Member #99032 October 18, 2010 1439 Posts Offline

Posted: May 1, 2013, 6:40 pm - IP Logged

"The odds are the same, 3 to 2 whether it's 6 ways to roll a seven and 4 ways to roll a 9 or 5 or 600 ways to win and 400 ways to lose. Because the odds favor the a Don't pass bettor by 3 to 2 they lay $600 to win $300 and they have $900 worth of chips. By betting 600 numbers the odds favor the Online pick-3 player by 3 to 2 so they are also laying $600 to win $300 and the payoff is the same $900."

Well that's just not true. If you lay 600 on the odds for Don't Pass on a 5/9 you will be paid 400 if you win, plus you will keep the 600 you bet. That adds up to 1000 dollars, which is different than the 900 you end up with playing Pick 3 online.... Your math is wrong dude. I don't know what else to tell you.

"A long run standing at a crap table is under two hours when the dice are "hot" and more likely under one. There is no predictable expectations because you can't calculate short term."

The short term expectations' probabilities absolutely CAN be calculated. It's just so math intensive that statisticians use simulations instead. And while you'd have some small point if it was true that most people only play games of chance one or twice in their lives, that's not true of most gamblers. It doesn't matter if you take a break, and then play another short session. Mathemetically - you're life is one long session as long as you don't decide to stop gambling altogether.

"but it's unlikely the average Craps player will see the next 100 rolls."

If the average craps table gets in 40 rolls per hour, then I'd imagine the "average craps player" is getting around 100 hours of play in a year, and that's 4000 rolls. Say they play the game for 25 years. Then you'll have seen 100000 rolls. I don't have the math in front of me, for confidence levels and the such in craps to "define the long run" but I'm positive that you can get there in a lifetime. In fact, I'm sure that if most "average" players recorded their results and their number of rolls, they'd be really - really close to the house edge. Especially because Pass/Don't Pass have pretty small variance.

Oh and way to ignore, when saying that my math indicating that you will break even in the long run, that I said short run variance is what makes these games FUN for people.

Or you can use your logic, which is ignore the math and just argue with it as if it's stupid to even think about. You can talk about my credibility if you want, but you're response was filled with "facts" that aren't true. Anybody with an hour to kill can look up your claims and will realize they are false....