- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
OT Math Gurus -- Craps Statistical Question
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:05 pm
I need an opinion on craps strategy, which will settle a side bet with one of my jackass friends. Here it is.
I contend that you can nearly always walk away from the craps table ahead or even if you have a big enough wad and are willing to invest the time.
The house edge on a high odds table is only about .02%. But the volatility in craps is very high, with the gambler going up and down very quickly.
If you have enough money, you can weather the downs. If you have enough time, you can roll the downs back to at least even. If you have the discipline on the upswings -- walking away when you have hit a preset win amount -- you can walk away with money before your upswing turtles and heads back down.
Putting it all together, I say that with a big enough roll of cash, enough time, and a little discipline, you can always walk away even or ahead.
Any math folks wanna weigh in?
Here's a WOWYHI for your trouble.
I contend that you can nearly always walk away from the craps table ahead or even if you have a big enough wad and are willing to invest the time.
The house edge on a high odds table is only about .02%. But the volatility in craps is very high, with the gambler going up and down very quickly.
If you have enough money, you can weather the downs. If you have enough time, you can roll the downs back to at least even. If you have the discipline on the upswings -- walking away when you have hit a preset win amount -- you can walk away with money before your upswing turtles and heads back down.
Putting it all together, I say that with a big enough roll of cash, enough time, and a little discipline, you can always walk away even or ahead.
Any math folks wanna weigh in?
Here's a WOWYHI for your trouble.
This post was edited on 7/30/16 at 6:06 pm
11
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:06 pm to Boagni Swamp
A straight flush handles craps issues.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:08 pm to soccerfüt
quote:
A straight flush handles craps issues.
Not bad. And I always follow my craps with a roll.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:10 pm to Boagni Swamp
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:12 pm to Boagni Swamp
The house wins because people don't follow logic in casinos, and if it works at a small amount, then it can work at a big amount, and that's where it starts to get dicey. Pun intended.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:12 pm to Boagni Swamp
288
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:14 pm to Titus Pullo
quote:
288
Dafuq does that mean?
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:14 pm to Boagni Swamp
The time in which you dont weather the down will outweigh the gains I think. You're not guaranteed to always go in the positive at a long enough time span.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:15 pm to Boagni Swamp
It's the answer to any OT math question.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:17 pm to LSUsuperfresh
quote:
You're not guaranteed to always go in the positive at a long enough time span.
Seems like you are if you are willing to stand there long enough. Statistically, the big down swings should be balanced by the big upswings.
I guess your point is that you can hit a downswing and still be days of rolling away from the offsetting upswing. I can roll for 24 hours or so straight, but that's about my limit. Maybe he is right.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:19 pm to Boagni Swamp
I was thinking this kind of falls in line with the double down blackjack method where you just keep doubling down until you win. The problem is that when it goes wrong, its catastrophic and the wins are minor gains.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:21 pm to LSUsuperfresh
That betting strategy is called the martingale. It doesn't work in the long run because most tables have bet limits
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:26 pm to Boagni Swamp
You could make that argument for any casino game.
Take roulette. Just betting Black or Red you could double or quadruple your winnings by doubling down every time. You'll have to statistically win eventually.
Take roulette. Just betting Black or Red you could double or quadruple your winnings by doubling down every time. You'll have to statistically win eventually.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:35 pm to Boagni Swamp
288?
This post was edited on 7/30/16 at 6:57 pm
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:36 pm to Boagni Swamp
If you're willing to stop playing the moment you get positive, then yes your chances of walking away with a tiny win are pretty good.
But how many people are willing to stop playing once they get $1 ahead? You're there for entertainment, not to quit and watch TV in your room. Alone. All alone.
But how many people are willing to stop playing once they get $1 ahead? You're there for entertainment, not to quit and watch TV in your room. Alone. All alone.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:41 pm to foshizzle
quote:
But how many people are willing to stop playing once they get $1 ahead?
You play a $100,000 roll for $5 minimum and 100x odds. (That's $505 a bet, or $3540 to load the table). You walk when you are $500 up, or when you seven out on the upswing (whichever comes later).
You've made enough to cover dinner, and I personally find it entertaining to roll, shoot the shite with the dealers, and watch the people.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:43 pm to NYNolaguy1
That's some pretty simple shite right there.
24 x 12 = 288.
48 divided by 24 = 2.
I don't get it. That's like kindergarten stuff.
24 x 12 = 288.
48 divided by 24 = 2.
I don't get it. That's like kindergarten stuff.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:46 pm to Boagni Swamp
quote:
Statistically, the big down swings should be balanced by the big upswings.
This is what is referred to as the Gambler's fallacy. The assumption that you are taking for granted is that the statistics rely on an infinite sample.
Eta: also, the contributing mistake is the idea that past results affect future results. Just because you had 4 heads in a row doesn't mean that you are any more likely to get a tails on the next flip.
This post was edited on 7/30/16 at 7:10 pm
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:46 pm to Boagni Swamp
I will tell you this. My little Bro wins every time he plays. He goes to Vegas and will sit at a table for 10 hours a day. He walks away with gains every time
I have awful gambling luck so I don't.
I have awful gambling luck so I don't.
Posted on 7/30/16 at 6:48 pm to Boagni Swamp
Yup.
This post was edited on 7/30/16 at 6:58 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News