Almost an Advantage
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/4tqqjs">
http://tinyurl.com/4tqqjs</a>
************************************************
This link is posted for informational purposes and doesn't
constitute an endorsement or approval of the linked article's
content by vpFREE. Any discussion of the article must be done
in accordance with vpFREE's rules and policies.
************************************************
Bob,
Taken from The Wiz's site:
--------------------------
Combined house edge on the
don't pass and laying odds
Odds House Edge
1X 0.682%
---------------------------
What was the edge on blackjack? Did you prefer craps because of fewer
decisions per hour?
Also, you wrote:
Laying odds ($75 on the 5, 6, 8, and 9 and $100 on the 2 and 4)...
I'm sure you meant 10 and 4, and wouldn't the odds on the 6 and 8 be
$60 for a $50 bet?
=====================================================
Almost an Advantage
You can get an edge if you learn how to throw the dice:
http://wongondice.com/
http://wizardofodds.com/craps/appendix3.html
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, "jeffcole2003oct" <jeff-cole@...> wrote:
Did you prefer craps because of fewer decisions per hour?
Night wrote: You can get an edge if you learn how to throw the dice
Possibly. Whether "Dice Control" works or not is IMO a theory that is under debate. There are many who believe this is a hustle by Frank Scoblete and others to sell the "how-to" course. Even if it can work for some, most people who take the course will never be successful at it.
I haven't mastered this technique (or even studied it at all) so even if others can do it, I can't. Even assuming it can be done under the proper conditions, whether the conditions on the ship were ripe for exploiting, I just don't know.
Interestingly, in his post Night cites articles by Stanford Wong and Michael Shackleford (aka the Wizard of Odds). Perhaps a year ago, there was a public experiment about dice control. Wong and Shack took opposite sides of the debate and the bets that went along with it, with Wong betting that "dice control works" and Shack betting the opposite.
Shack was discussing this bet beforehand among friends (including me) and I told Shack I'd take Wong's side. I had barely heard of dice control at this point, but it was basically a belief by me in Stanford Wong. Michael and I bet $2,000.
Apparently there was an agreed-upon number of decisions. If the players won a certain number of the decisions or more, Wong would win the bet. If not, Wong would lose. I recall Shack saying beforehand that even if dice control was a bunch of hooey and the dice were actually random, there was a 35% chance that Wong would win anyway. If Shack and Wong (among numerous others) thought this was a valid experiment, it was okay with me.
The experiment took place and Wong won, so I did too. Apparently, however, there was a longer experiment shortly thereafter (I didn't have a bet on this one) which was intended to reduce the chances of Wong's side winning "just by luck," and at this experiment, the dice control proponents (including Wong) lost. It was clearly strictly luck that the Wizard and I bet on the first experiment and not the second. But I'll take it!
Possibly (very likely) there have been experiments since but I don't know how they've turned out. So to me, this is still a theory that may or may not eventually turn out to be valid.
One thing I am very clear about is that if this technique does turn out to be valid and enough people learn how to successfully exploit it, casinos will change the tables or the rules or perhaps bar players so as to eliminate or reduce this advantage. We've seen casinos undertake "house-edge-protection" measures numerous times at video poker and blackjack. It's a no-brainer that they'll also do this at craps should they feel the need.
Bob Dancer
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]