so you just use fancy -ev systems and gamble and in the long run lose money or do you somehow think you're profitable at whatever it is you're describing

Asymbac - every theory and strategy you've ever described here is based on the fallacy that there is some relationship between past outcomes and future ones in random systems. You should accept that there is none. Every roll and every deal and every spin, are just like time starts over. There are no "streaks" or patterns that connect the past with the future.

Ok, but we are talking here about asymmetrical situations so the past won't influence the future but the different probabilities will be constantly affected in their presentation.

For example, we can safely assume that itlr each pass line bets category opposed to don't pass bets category will form streaks of different lenght on almost every point checked (streaks of one, streaks of two, etc.). And such disparity will increase more and more with the hands played or observed.


I mean that after certain events have occurred, some situations will be more likely than others, not necessarily meaning that it will be so easy to win by a simple flat betting strategy.

Make your own tests if you wish and let me know if I'm wrong about this.

Actually we took an original idea given from another gambling expert. He was right. Probably we were lucky. And knowing we consistently and mainly bet the don't pass line in the situations where the table was hot we risked to got beaten several times. No jokes.

This belief is my point exactly, and it is an absolute fallacy with a well-known name.

The long run expected distributions you describe are exactly equally true from every starting point and are forward-looking only. What happened last doesn't change the expectations at all. Any "gambling expert" who believes otherwise, is not.

Ok, let's make a simple experiment.
We bet $100 10000 times everytime any two consecutive don't pass lines had occurred. I'll bet that two will get to three or longer while you take the opposite side.
After 10000 attempts we will come close to breaking even, right?

I don't quite understand your bet, but the chance a "Don't Pass" bet wins (or loses) is not exactly 50%, so this is not a fair wager. The streak before the bet is irrelevant in any case.

Actually you are right, I badly expressed my idea.

Say we want to consider craps just in term of two bets, pass line and don't pass line altogether forgetting any other possible bet.
We know their EV is quite similar but built on different features as the rules dictate so. Anyway, we could consider PB and DPB each opposed to the other one like a 50/50 taxed model typical of other games.
Indeed the house will counterbalance our PB or DPB action with a 1:1 payment, so it's forced to take the other side when we bet one (naturally mathematically getting the best of it no matter what).

Nonetheless we know that along the way any single outcome will be affected by different probabilities having each a certain degree of variance and volatility.
We also know that in the whole pass line bet will get 244 ways to win and 251 ways to lose and don't pass line bet will get 2847 ways to win and 2928 ways to lose.

And in our opinion the variance of those different probabilities could affect the long term streaks' formation happening on each side, getting the Craps game more a choppy game than a streaky one.

PS: it seems that the fkng Interblock company which set up the famous automatic Craps or roulette machines spread everywhere do not allow to wager certain bets (speaking about Craps let's guess which kind of bets I'm referring to). Besides that, many times they tell the player "bet not allowed, too low volatility". .

LOL.

I love how craps constantly gets put down for being a negative ev game, when if you use the odds bet you can get the house edge to far below 1 percent and pretty close to break even in the long run, but people here regularly comment on playing tournaments for 25-30 percent rake and it's all good.

There is so much wrong with this post that you should probably just quit gambling.

If you get in 100 bets per hour at a $25 table, playing the pass or don't pass without any odds bet added, then you will lose about $35 per hour. Long term average, forever.

If you play the same bets but then add on any amount of odds bets you like when available, then you will still lose about $35 per hour. The odds bets are just coin flip side bets that have no effect at all on the initial bet or expected loss from them. You expect to break even only on the odds bets.

And then comparing this to poker, where you are playing against other players and not against the house, is just nonsensical. In craps you have zero chance to have an edge in the game, ever. In poker, a good player's edge can easily exceed the rake. And does for many people.

Lastly, I doubt any 25% rake game exists. Most online sites average around 5% before the cap. Less with the caps, and less at higher stakes.

Play craps for fun if you like, and consider it an entertainment expense. But some people actually do play poker to make money.

This is the wrong BBS for poking poker players in the eye with a stick. Every poker player is convinced any game he sits in is +EV. So do all the rest of the players at his table

Ok, well a couple things wrong with that post, one most people who are going to max odds won't be playing at a 25 dollar table, so the average person would be at a 10 dollar table, which right off the bat brings that to an expected loss of 14 dollars an hour even with the overly simplified math you used. Now you are also saying every roll of the dice is a 1.41 percent house edge, which is wrong 1.41 percent is the house edge for the resolved bet, what the house advantage is when you made the bet, your not paying the pass line on every roll, and your definitely not getting nearly two resolved bets every minute. So let's say you get 25 resolved bets every hour on average, your at less than 4 dollars expected loss an hour.

I am going to vegas in a few weeks and I have been all over poker atlas, and 25 percent isn't the high rake tournaments, that is the average rake I am finding, and yes I am sure if you go up to the extremely high limits it can be less, but a lot more people play the lower-mid limits. I am not trashing poker, I love poker, I just find the constant arrogance of poker players to every other game ammusing, they act like everybody else is throwing there money away while they are investing in an etf, poker after you take the rake, tips, and other skilled players into account is negative ev game for most people, although after 10 years every player I met at the table swears they are ahead in the long run

I said bets, not rolls. You're right that 100 decisions per hour isn't realistic, but it was an easy example.

Well, in the long run how many tournament poker players will be so skilled to beat an 11% rake at $1500 or less buy-in WSOP tourneys?

Answer: no one.

everyone is solid in under $1,5K buy-in tournaments. no money in poker confirmed

Oh and to the OP, I think this is actually an illegal strategy, when you hit the 6 and 8, you can't press the the pass line bet, it's a contract bet and can not be changed once the point has been established. Your best bet in the long run is the 3 point molly strategy with max odds, it would give you the lowest house edge.

Oh and to the OP, I think this is actually an illegal strategy, when you hit the 6 and 8, you can't press the the pass line bet, it's a contract bet and can not be changed once the point has been established. Your best bet in the long run is the 3 point molly strategy with max odds, it would give you the lowest house edge.