Ganchrow: Question About Craps

BuddyBear · 03-27-07, 12:36 AM

I don't know anything about except that craps is not beatable......anyone who tells you it is beatable is lying or is the person running the craps table. It has a negative mathematical EV. There is no point in going near a craps table.

tacomax · 03-27-07, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by TLD

He didn’t deny the mathematical flaws in his approach, but insisted that mathematics is only relevant to theory, whereas he’s concerned with winning in the real world and he has the empirical evidence of his own experience to know that his system accomplishes just that.

Without even reading the thread, I know he's onto a loser. Unless he can gain some advantage due to something like weighted dice where he gains an advantage (and hence this wouldn't be a random game) then his "theory" is nothing. And if there is a mathematical flaw in his approach, there is a real world flaw in his approach.

Originally posted by TLD

But isn’t there an obvious problem here? Why wouldn’t he just do some Martingale type thing to make it almost certain he’d win? Betting strategies like that don’t change the long run negative EV, but surely they affect the likelihood of winning or losing a given session.

There is no certainty that Martingale will make you a winner. This has been discussed time and time again here. Raiders thinks it's a 100% winning system in theory but that shows how much he knows. I'm sure that Ganch will provide you with the maths. Assuming he's not working out the finer points of the bet with the person in question, that is.

Originally posted by TLD

Or is there something else going on in how you worded the challenge that I’m just missing?

Again, I've not seen the challenge. But I'm pretty damn sure that if Ganchrow worded a bet, it would be a sure fire winner.

TLD · 03-27-07, 01:03 AM

Originally posted by tacomax

There is no certainty that Martingale will make you a winner.

Absolutely true. And in the long run it's just as negative EV as any other way of structuring your bets.

But if the challenge is about whether one will do better than break even in one session, and it is at even money, you don't need certainty for it to be a good bet.

So i'm just trying to figure out the "trick." Does "your returns will be statistically no better than break even" mean something other than winning or losing the session? Is it intended to be something other than an even money bet?

If the challenge was "I can prove mathematically that your strategy has a long run negative EV," I know what side I'd want to be on. But this is different. This is "Let's meet at a craps table in Vegas, and I bet you'll break even or lose." Surely a Martingale approach can give you a better than 50% chance of winning a short run session like that.

DrSlamm · 03-27-07, 01:12 AM

pretty sure you are misunderstanding the challenge.. its certainly not.. i bet you cant win 1 dollar at craps

tacomax · 03-27-07, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by TLD

Absolutely true. And in the long run it's just as negative EV as any other way of structuring your bets.

But if the challenge is about whether one will do better than break even in one session, and it is at even money, you don't need certainty for it to be a good bet.

It is all about the length of the session - that is the key variable. Here's a good thread about betting "systems".

The Truth about Betting Systems - Wizard of Odds

http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

The Wizard of Odds explains why betting systems won’t make you a winner in the casino.

The key bit of the text is this:

Originally posted by wizardofodds.com

Usually the Martingale bettor would show a profit represented by the bell curve on the far right, peaking at $51; however, on the far left we see those times when he couldn't cover a bet and walked away with a substantial loss. That happened for 19.65% of the sessions. Many believers in the Martingale mistakenly believe that the many wins will more than cover the few loses.

If the maths isn't with you then over the long term, any craps system is a crap system.

Originally posted by TLD

So i'm just trying to figure out the "trick." Does "your returns will be statistically no better than break even" mean something other than winning or losing the session? Is it intended to be something other than an even money bet?

If the challenge was "I can prove mathematically that your strategy has a long run negative EV," I know what side I'd want to be on. But this is different. This is "Let's meet at a craps table in Vegas, and I bet you'll break even or lose." Surely a Martingale approach can give you a better than 50% chance of winning a short run session like that.

Playing Martingale, your winning sessions will be generally bigger that a flat bettor. But your few losing sessions will more than make up for that and give you a negative player edge equal to the house edge.

tacomax · 03-27-07, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by DrSlamm

pretty sure you are misunderstanding the challenge.. its certainly not..

I probably am misunderstanding the challenge - I've not seen it. What is it?

sportsfan · 03-27-07, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by BuddyBear

I don't know anything about except that craps is not beatable......anyone who tells you it is beatable is lying or is the person running the craps table. It has a negative mathematical EV. There is no point in going near a craps table.

I disagree here, if you take full odds on the passline you can cut the house edge down to less than a half of a percent. Add a good controlled dice-setter and some patience and you can make money.

TLD · 03-27-07, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by tacomax

Many believers in the Martingale mistakenly believe that the many wins will more than cover the few loses.

I certainly don't.

Originally posted by tacomax

It is all about the length of the session - that is the key variable.

I'm guessing this is indeed what Ganchrow intends to manipulate to make himself the favorite in this bet, but I'm curious just how long it would have to be to get the likelihood of winning down to 50% or less. In the example you cite from the Wizard of Odds article, 80.35% of the sessions were winners, so clearly it would have to be a lot longer than the length of their sessions (or the range of allowable minimum to maximum bets would have to be significantly more restrictive, or both).

And really, when you think about it in context, that likelihood would have to be far, far below 50% for Ganchrow to like his challenge. 50% or below is enough for him to have a positive EV bet, but we're talking about a situation where he's basically said he'll acknowledge that this guy is capable of supernaturally violating the laws of mathematics if he wins. I don't think he's going to set it up in such a way that there is any realistic chance of his having to make that admission. So he must have something in mind where the true likelihood of the guy doing better than break even will approach zero.

And that--I would think--would require so long a run or such severe restrictions that the fellow could wriggle out of it as being too implausibly artificial a set of conditions compared to how he plays craps in real life.

Originally posted by tacomax

Playing Martingale, your winning sessions will be generally bigger that a flat bettor.

I assume you meant to say something like "more frequent" rather than "bigger," but if so then you too should be puzzled by Ganchrow's confidence that the guy will break even or worse for the challenge session.

Originally posted by tacomax

I probably am misunderstanding the challenge - I've not seen it. What is it?

I quoted it in the opening post:

“I'd propose a minimum amount of bets you'd need to make, based on some total maximum bankroll you could spend. I'd be betting you that your returns would be statistically no better than break even.”

pags11 · 03-27-07, 02:19 AM

being that I live near a lot of casinos, I think the thing that entices people to play crap is the excitement and team mentality of trying to beat the book...seems like the craps tables are busiest on Friday and Saturday nights (like most table games I guesss), but there's always yelling and crap coming from over there...

raiders72002 · 03-27-07, 05:10 AM

The only way to beat craps is through dice control and there are a couple of people that claim to be able to do it.

I don't know if they can or they can't but there are some with craps tables in their house that try to perfect it.

There was a friend of Fezzik's that claimed to be able to control the dice. Fezzik took him up on a $5k challenge and the guy beat Fezzik.

The bet really doesn't mean much since the house hold on craps is so low that one two hour session doesn't mean much.

What they do is throw the dice very hard against the back wall in such a way that they can make one of the die hit on high numbers or the low numbers depending upon the outcome that they want.

Ganchrow · 03-27-07, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by TLD

But I am curious about your challenge even if he isn’t. You said: “I'd propose a minimum amount of bets you'd need to make, based on some total maximum bankroll you could spend. I'd be betting you that your returns would be statistically no better than break even.”

But isn’t there an obvious problem here? Why wouldn’t he just do some Martingale type thing to make it almost certain he’d win?

Certainly Martingale would be a good choice if his were to strictly come out ahead using an arbitrarily large bankroll over a sufficiently small betting requirement (I talked about most recently in my last post on the Martingale.)

Originally posted by TLD

Betting strategies like that don’t change the long run negative EV, but surely they affect the likelihood of winning or losing a given session. Instead of having a slightly below 50-50 chance of winning, with the winning and losing sessions being about the same size on average, you can easily structure your bets to have a 70% or 90% or 95% or whatever chance of winning, just with the drawback that when you do have a losing session, it’ll be many times bigger on average than your winning sessions. But if you’re talking about an even money bet that he just has to do better than break even to win, it doesn’t seem like he’d have much trouble collecting.

You're definitely asking a very interesting question (although probably not so interesting to those who missed the original thread -- not that I'd recommend anyone head to the RX, but hey you know where to look). I really do wish I had come across your question earlier in the "night" before I had gotten hung up on some new project.

Anyway, I'll give you the very quick answer that probably won't be all that satisfying, but it was certainly what I had in mind in anticipation of what I assumed the slim possibility that Mr Ohio (wasn't he on some VH1 reality show, btw?) would have accepted.

So here's what I said, "I'd be betting you that your returns [would] be statistically no better than break even.”

Now this isn't to say that he would lose a lot of money, or even any money, what it's saying is that he'd be unable to produce enough evidence that to reject null hypothesis that his strategy has positive expectation. Obviously, we'd need to agree on a certain level of significance and I'd certainly have settled for 2 standard deviations above the mean, meaning that if he actually were expected to break even, then strictly by chance we'd see him pass the test 2.275% of the time.

So does that mean he's fairly be a roughly +4,296 dog to win the bet? No. Not even that.

Remember, he's not expected to breakeven he's expected to actually lose (the house edge). And the more stake he were to risk, the more of it he'd expect to lose. That itself would serve as an additional fail-safe mechanism. As the notional size of the bet were to increase so too would the requirement as to how much he'd need to wager in order to complete the meta-bet. In that manner, while he'd only to perform 2 sigmas better than breakeven, he could very well be battling to attain a 2.5, 2.75, 3, or even higher sigma occurrence. While you're certainly correct that the Martingale is effective at transforming small, frequent losses into large infrequent ones, the limiting factor will still be the bankroll.

So in terms of a generic testing structure, it would look something like this: he would need to wager a certain amount (all else being equal, ideally a collar ... rather than a one-sided limit) at a certain table and when he finished the wagering requirement he'd need to have won a certain amount.

But how to determine the wagering requirement?

Put simply, the more he were allowed to bet the higher his requirement would be. If he were playing at an $X max table with an $X bankroll, he'd have a higher wagering requirement than if he were playing at $0.1X max table with an $X bankroll.

So if he were to give me a bankroll and a table limit, then I'd come back to him with a wagering requirement.

Originally posted by TLD

I assume you would block a strategy like that in the way you specify the details of the “minimum amount of bets” and the “total maximum bankroll,” but how? Could those things be restricted so radically that no strategy would be more likely than not to do better than break even?

Obviously so. Look at a limiting case: you're playing at a table with $1,000 limits and you need to wager $295 centillion dollars. Good luck. The idea here is that while $295 centillion is clearly ridiculous, what about $14 quadrillion? Or $9 trillion? Or $6 million? At some point we get to a figure where the probability of betting through that amount and coming up 2 sigmas ahead of breakeven is right around a 2.5 - 3 sigma event.)

Originally posted by TLD

And if so, wouldn’t that make just about any strategy people like him believe in unavailable for the challenge, and hence result in him crying foul at your arbitrary rules? (“I just said I can win betting my way. I never said I can win with all these silly restrictions on my bets that no casino in the world places on its customers,” etc.)

Probably. But that's the nature of the beast. Just ask James Randi. You wouldn't believe some of the excuses people to avoid his challenges.

But the truth is that the rules really are rather open. He could bet any way he wanted and could take as many "good luck" breaks as he needed. I'd make every effort to structure the test to meet whatever requirements he had. The only stipulation would be that he come out ahead to a statistically meaningful extent -- and that benchmark would of course vary as function of the test itself. We're not testing whether he can get lucky after all, we're testing whether he can perform in fashion superior to what we might expect through chance alone.

Ganchrow · 03-27-07, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by TLD

I'm guessing this is indeed what Ganchrow intends to manipulate to make himself the favorite in this bet, but I'm curious just how long it would have to be to get the likelihood of winning down to 50% or less. In the example you cite from the Wizard of Odds article, 80.35% of the sessions were winners, so clearly it would have to be a lot longer than the length of their sessions (or the range of allowable minimum to maximum bets would have to be significantly more restrictive, or both).

You're operating at completely the wrong end of the spectrum. If his bankroll were $255, his wagering requirement would be a orders of magnitude more than $100.

Originally posted by TLD

And that--I would think--would require so long a run or such severe restrictions that the fellow could wriggle out of it as being too implausibly artificial a set of conditions compared to how he plays craps in real life.

The idea is to set to set up a statistically relevant test based upon the nature of his ... it would be up to him whether or not he'd ultimately be willing to accept. I'd even be willing to relax some of my statistical criteria, althogh as the test became increasingly less statistically relevant, the amount I as a risk averse individual would be willing to wager would drop commensurately.

Originally posted by TLD

“I'd propose a minimum amount of bets you'd need to make, based on some total maximum bankroll you could spend. I'd be betting you that your returns would be statistically no better than break even.”

Rereading this, it certainly would have made matters easier had I both used better grammar as well as mentioned a minimum dollar wagering requirement (as I've mistakenly been misrecollecting throughout these past two posts). Nevertheless, that wouldn't ultimately change the feasibility from my perspective. I would just need to denominate the wagering requirement in terms of number of minimum-sized bets as opposed to in dollars. Problem solved.

Remember, the point is to come up with a statistically meaningful test of his abilities. It doesn't really matter how he might he want to structure the test, he could almost certainly be accommodated. My goal would just be to come up with appropriate testing parameters such that a pass would imply statistical relevance.

TLD · 03-27-07, 12:29 PM

Thanks for the clarification.

As you state, the conditions need to be structured to fulfill two conditions:

1. It has to be statistically meaningful such that it’s highly unlikely he’d win unless he really is somehow violating the laws of mathematics, and

2. It has to be something he would agree to because he recognizes it as a relevant test of what he’s convinced he’s already proven himself able to do.

And I would still maintain that precisely by structuring it in such a way as to satisfy 1, you’d lose almost any chance of satisfying 2. (Of course I’m cheating in a sense, because we already know he balked at the challenge when you didn’t specify any conditions, so naturally he’s not going to be receptive to a more restrictive version.)

You would certainly be on solid ground arguing “But it needs to be set up this way in order for it to really prove anything,” but by hypothesis he doesn’t understand stuff like that and so would be unswayed. If he understood such mathematical matters, he wouldn’t be convinced of the merits of his “system” in the first place after all, and so the challenge could never arise.

A mathematically unsophisticated layman (e.g., heatohio) is going to reason it out something like this: “With this system, I win a lot more craps sessions than I lose. If some guy bets me even money that I’ll lose a given session, I like my chances. But only if it means what it would mean to any normal person and not some egghead—I walk into a casino, I play in my usual fashion, and I either walk out with more money than I started with or I don’t. All this mathematical mumbo jumbo is just some trick he’s trying to set up; I just care about winning.”

And a public forum challenge is about the audience as well. The majority of readers can’t follow the math either. So let’s say he were to accept the challenge, then you spring the conditions on him, and he says, “No, I play the way I usually play (and win) or forget it,” and you aren’t able to come to an agreement. In the court of public opinion (not that you care about that or particularly should), you would come across as the one who reneged, not him.

(Then again, maybe not. In that thread, there seemed to be more people convinced he was an idiot than not, so maybe more people than I think would understand why the test has to be set up a certain way to be meaningful.)

But anyway, just out of curiosity as far as the math, say I start with $1,000 at a $1 minimum table. What restrictions would you have to put on my play to make my likelihood of winning the challenge drop below the 2.275% line of statistical significance?

Doug · 03-27-07, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by raiders72002

The only way to beat craps is through dice control and there are a couple of people that claim to be able to do it.

I don't know if they can or they can't but there are some with craps tables in their house that try to perfect it.

There was a friend of Fezzik's that claimed to be able to control the dice. Fezzik took him up on a $5k challenge and the guy beat Fezzik.

The bet really doesn't mean much since the house hold on craps is so low that one two hour session doesn't mean much.

What they do is throw the dice very hard against the back wall in such a way that they can make one of the die hit on high numbers or the low numbers depending upon the outcome that they want.

The guy referenced is Stanford Wong

Wong on Dice is his book, haven't read it, as I don't think I can learn the technique, and I'm not going to buy a craps table and try to.

raiders72002 · 03-27-07, 07:00 PM

The guy referenced is Stanford Wong

I read Sharp Sports Betting by Wong. It has some nice charts but isn't advanced enough for many of the guys here.

Doug · 03-27-07, 07:13 PM

Wong's strength is Blackjack, try Professional Blackjack, plenty technical.

SSB isn't bad at all.

Ganchrow · 03-28-07, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by TLD

You would certainly be on solid ground arguing “But it needs to be set up this way in order for it to really prove anything,” but by hypothesis he doesn’t understand stuff like that and so would be unswayed. If he understood such mathematical matters, he wouldn’t be convinced of the merits of his “system” in the first place after all, and so the challenge could never arise.

I think most people at least intuitively understand that it requires a sufficient number of trials in order to judge experimental results meaningful. Other than refer him to Google, there wouldn't be much I could do for some who refused to accept this.

Originally posted by TLD

A mathematically unsophisticated layman (e.g., heatohio) is going to reason it out something like this: “With this system, I win a lot more craps sessions than I lose. If some guy bets me even money that I’ll lose a given session, I like my chances. But only if it means what it would mean to any normal person and not some egghead—I walk into a casino, I play in my usual fashion, and I either walk out with more money than I started with or I don’t. All this mathematical mumbo jumbo is just some trick he’s trying to set up; I just care about winning.”

Had that been the case then we would indeed have been at an impasse. But I'd refer you to James Randi Educational Foundation. They deal with statistically-based challenges all the time and in general their challengees are considerably less than astute.

Originally posted by TLD

And a public forum challenge is about the audience as well. The majority of readers can’t follow the math either. So let’s say he were to accept the challenge, then you spring the conditions on him, and he says, “No, I play the way I usually play (and win) or forget it,” and you aren’t able to come to an agreement. In the court of public opinion (not that you care about that or particularly should), you would come across as the one who reneged, not him.

I really can't overly concern myself with what RXers might potentially think. I can just make my case and I can respond to criticism on mathematical grounds. If a given individual refused to accept that a large number of trials were necessary to show significance ... well I'm sure he and I would be able to have a more in-depth conversation at the next intelligent design rally.

Originally posted by TLD

But anyway, just out of curiosity as far as the math, say I start with $1,000 at a $1 minimum table. What restrictions would you have to put on my play to make my likelihood of winning the challenge drop below the 2.275% line of statistical significance?

Just to way ballpark it, assuming he were betting $1 hands on the pass line with no odds, and he were willing to roll over his starting bankroll exactly 5 times, I'd probably want to see him up somewhere in the neighborhood of $250. Allow him to take odds, play some of the more exotic bets, or substantially vary his bet and these numbers would obviously change. The way I'd come up with a number like that would be to run a few Monte Carlo simulations and see what came out.

Always_Over · 03-02-08, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by tacomax

It is all about the length of the session - that is the key variable. Here's a good thread about betting "systems".

The Truth about Betting Systems - Wizard of Odds

http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/bettingsystems.html

The Wizard of Odds explains why betting systems won’t make you a winner in the casino.

This was a great read. I just lost a lot of money because of the gambler fallacy. I lost five hands of BJ in a row, so I bet really high, thinking the odds wont let me lose again. So I bet again, and again, I lost 8 on a row and couldnt come back.

I forgot what I learned about independent events. The odds only balance out over 1000's of events. Otherwise each hand or roll is independent of the previous one.

You may flip a coin and get 20 heads in a row. Only after over 1000 flips will it balance out to 499 to 501 or close.

yahoonino · 03-02-08, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by sportsfan

I disagree here, if you take full odds on the passline you can cut the house edge down to less than a half of a percent. Add a good controlled dice-setter and some patience and you can make money.

yea but if the dice dont roll foorgheetaboutit

raiders72002 · 03-02-08, 08:33 PM

If you can get 100x odds then it's as close to 50/50 as you can get.

pico · 03-02-08, 10:27 PM

why is this thread in the think tank?

operaman · 03-03-08, 05:24 PM

I agree with Pico. The mods should move this to the thunk tank.

p.s. Randi Rulz!

Ganchrow · 03-03-08, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by picoman

why is this thread in the think tank?

Originally posted by operaman

I agree with Pico. The mods should move this to the thunk tank.

It's actually linked between both forums. I think Pico was expressing his opinion that it shouldn't be in the Think Tank.

It's hard to always keep everyone happy.

Originally posted by operaman

p.s. Randi Rulz!

You are correct.

LVHerbie · 03-03-08, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by raiders72002

If you can get 100x odds then it's as close to 50/50 as you can get.

I remember a reading a old quote from Benny Binnion's saying that if everyone took full odds everytime and bet nothing else that they wouldn't even be able to pay their eletric bill...

Is there any place that offer 100x odds or better odds anymore?

curious · 03-03-08, 08:26 PM

The only "strategy" that has any chance with craps is the Devil's Staircase. It won't change the -EV, but it can at times take advantage of the fact that craps is a streaky game. When the math Nazis talk about craps being a -EV game they are talking in the "long run", to be in the "long run" you have to be in the law of large numbers. Anything can happen in the short run. One of three things will happen on a craps table. A table can have long streak of wins betting with the shooter, a table can have long streak of wins betting against the shooter, and a table can be choppy, meaning that a point is established, a couple of place numbers hit and then the shark comes. The Devil's Staircase maximizes the profit on the streaky table assuming you are on the right side.

The reason that the Devil's Staircase is the only strategy that has any chance of "winning" at craps is simple. Because craps is a -EV game you have to hit your win goal in the fewest number of trials possible.

The Devil's Staircase is straightforward. You establish a win goal for the session and then you bet (win goal - (total possible win/odds factor)) or total possible win / odds factor whichever is lower. Since you won't know ahead of time what the point is you can just use an odds factor for a 5 times odds table of 1.311. This factor assumes paying off the passline at 1-1 and paying the true odds at an average of 1.38.

For example, if your win goal is $12,000 and you have a bank of $1000 and you are at a table of 5 times odds and you use the Devil's Staircase you will hit your $12,000 win goal in 3 consecutive wins. Here is a table showing the growth of the bankroll:
Bankroll pass odds # of trials
1000 167 835 1
2321 387 1935 2
5379 897 4485 3
12468

Here is a table which shows the odds of winning up to 6 times in a row on the pass line.

Win Chances on the pass line
Wins Percentage One in
1 49.293% 2.028
2 24.297% 4.115
3 11.977% 8.349
4 5.903% 16.937
5 2.910% 34.361
6 1.434% 69.708

Obviously if your win goal is your bank * 1.311 you only need to win 1 trial. By far your best bet.

LVHerbie · 03-03-08, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by LVHerbie

I remember a reading a old quote from Benny Binnion's saying that if everyone took full odds everytime and bet nothing else that they wouldn't even be able to pay their eletric bill...

Is there any place that offer 100x odds or better odds anymore?

Doing my own research looks like you can still get 100x odds at the always classy Casino Royale (on 5 dollar max bet)... http://www.nextshooter.com/vegas Sounds like a good SBR field trip during the get together this summer

raiders72002 · 03-03-08, 09:07 PM

Is there any place that offer 100x odds or better odds anymore?

10x is the highest the last time I was in Vegas. Some years back Horseshoe and Frontier both had 100x.

raiders72002 · 03-03-08, 09:08 PM

LVHerbie- I missed your post when I wrote the one above

raiders72002 · 03-03-08, 09:09 PM

Sounds like a good SBR field trip during the get together this summer

Only two tables there and they are always crowded.

alangrus · 03-03-08, 11:39 PM

Sure you can win at Craps

Craps is the best game in the house as regards house advantage, less than 1 percent on mainstream bets. Its also the only game in the house you can bet on the shooter to win or lose. Would I love to be able to bet on the Dealer in BlackJack!

You can win with or against the dice, but need to control your emotions and respect the randomness of the 11 numbers and realize the Seven is King.

Shooters lose (Seven-Out) 60-70% of the time. You might have a nice little run of a few points in the 30-40% side, take your winnings and buy stuff as the Seven is coming. The shooters give you Sevens - you make Seven-Ade.

My Craps Game is a great way to practice as its a non-gambling simulation.

operaman · 03-04-08, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Ganchrow

It's actually linked between both forums. I think Pico was expressing his opinion that it shouldn't be in the Think Tank.

It's hard to always keep everyone happy.

Thunk not think.

What an unusual confluence of letter(s) today.