|
Regression Avoids
Depression The
main reason I wanted to share the mathematically-based efficacy of Steep Regression
exploitability in this series, is so that other players who are still a little skeptical
about its use might finally be able to bridge the frustratingly difficult advantage-play
chasm between their validated dice-influencing skill and the inconsistency of their
redeemable profit. The
concept of regression-betting is nothing new; John Patrick has been writing about it for
years. Even in the Precision-Shooting context, consistently profitable ISRs have
been widely used by talented players for close to two decades now. Utilizing
the fattest, most frequently occurring part of your roll-duration expectancy-curve allows
to you capture your rightfully earned profit much sooner and more often. Its
Your Edge, Its Your Money, and Its Your Opportunity
and
what you do with it is entirely up to you. Lets
say that you have a validated Sevens-to-Rolls Ratio of 1:7 (SRR-7), and your properly
financed bankroll indicates that either a $110-Inside bet (covering the 5, 6, 8, and 9) or
a $110-Even (covering the 4, 6, 8, and 10) would be an appropriately-sized wager to make. To
determine which of those two bet-types will provide the best return on investment, you
should do a side-by-side comparison of Initial Steep Regressions (ISRs) versus
Flat-betting. Lets
take a comparative look at how each of those bets stack up against each other for a SRR-7
shooter:
Although
the use of Initial Steep Regressions are clearly superior to comparably-sized Flat-bets,
an advantage-player still has to look at the specific bet-type that will provide the best
return-on-investment too. So,
not only does the savvy dice-influencer do a side-by-side comparison of Initial Steep
Regressions (ISRs) versus Flat-betting, but he also does that same side-by-side
comparison between each of those two ISR bet-types as well. For
example, in the SRR-7 chart we see that although the $110-Inside-regressed-to-$22-Inside
wager provides a nice average-profit of $19.92 per-hand; the same money wagered on
$110-Even-regressed-to-$22-Even provides an even better average-profit of $25.77 per hand. Needless to say, a 29% R.O.I. difference per-hand
has a definite way of building session-revenue in a measurably significant way. Take
a look at how SRR-rates not only affect the broad difference between Flat-betting and
Steep Regression betting, but also note the difference between each bet-type when the dice
are in the hands of an SRR-8 shooter:
There
is a ton of hidden value in these charts, for example:
Ø
Notice
what happens (or rather, doesnt happen) when this SRR-8 shooter flat-bets
$110-Inside compared to flat-betting a $110 Iron Cross.
Both of those bets generate the same average per-hand profit of $33.50 each. Now
compare those same two bet-types in the hands of a similarly skilled ISR-bettor.
Ø
Not
only does each ISR bet-type now make more money than the flat-bets do, but there is also a
dramatic difference between the money that those two bets make in their respective
ISR-modes
$89.69 in average per-hand net-profit for the
$110-Inside-regressed-to-$22-Inside bettor
compared to only $41.90 for the
$110-Iron-Cross-regressed-to-$22-Iron-Cross bettor. So
although each of the two flat-bets made the same money ($33.50 average net-profit
per-hand) on the Inside and Iron Cross wagers; the use of an Initial Steep Regression not
only boosted net-profit performance by a significant margin (by over 62% in the case of
ISR-Inside vs. Flat-Inside bet, and 20% in the case of ISR-Iron Cross vs. the Flat-Iron
Cross); but there was also a dramatic difference between the two ISR wager-types
themselves. The
point of all this of course is to illustrate once again that you have to carefully
consider not only whether or not ISR-betting is appropriate for you, but also whether one
particular bet-type is more suited to your validated skill-level than another. As
your dice-influencing skill improves, that bet-type/average-profit disparity reveals
itself more and more. Take a look
Each
of these charts clearly illustrate how superior an ISR Steepness Ratio of 5:1 compares
when matched up against a similarly sized flat-bet; so lets look at how the
steepness of any given regression-bet can also affect each bet-types overall
profitability. Defining
Steepness Ratios When
we talk about ISR Steepness Ratios, we are really talking about the difference of size
between the initial pre-regression LARGE wager and the subsequent post-regression
SMALL wager.
Ø
For
example, if you wagered $12 each on the 6 and 8 Place-bet, and then after one paying-hit
regressed both of them down to $6 each, then you have used a 2:1 ISR Steepness Ratio.
Ø
If
you started with $18 each on the 6 and 8 and then regressed them to $6 each then you have
employed a 3:1 ISR Steepness Ratio.
Ø
Some
players even use a two or three-stage regression. For
example, if you started off with $220-Inside and regressed it down to $110-Inside after
one hit, and then further regressed it down to $44-Inside after the next hit; then you
have used a 10:5:2 regression.
Ø
For
simplicity of understanding I always use the basic $5-or-$6-per-number-wagered amount to
signify the :1 of the ratio. For
example the standard $22-Inside wager constitutes the :1 when we are talking
about that bet-type, so a 5:1 ratio would indicate a $110-Inside-to-$22-Inside regression. Likewise, a $330-Inside-to-$66-Inside regression still
represents a 5:1 ratio. Steepness
Ratio Comparison As
you can see on this first chart for SRR-7 shooters, a shallow steepness ratio of 2:1 for
both the Inside-ISR and the Iron-Cross ISR leaves this player in a negative position even
though he has a substantial edge over the casino. By
simply sharpening the steepness-ratio to 3:1 or higher, the SRR-7 shooter regains per-hand
profitability.
Ø The steeper the regression-ratio is; the higher, earlier and more often a net-profit will be secured.
Ø
The
shallower the regression-ratio is; the less frequent and lower your net-profit will
be.
When
you take that concept to the extreme and dont use ANY regression at all
(theoretically a 1:1 steepness ratio); then your comparable shooting-skill profit takes a
lot longer to get, and the chase certainly becomes less consistent and more
volatile.
Again,
the higher your SRR improves over random, the higher your rate-of-return on each of your
validated-edge wagers will be. Obviously, the
better funded your session bankroll is, the better youll be able to take full
advantage of your current dice-influencing skills.
How
ISRs Offer Better Profit Dependability
Ø If a player has a fairly good dice-tossing consistency, yet he has a hard time getting to any level of revenue-consistency; then chances are, he hasn't properly matched his shooting prowess with his betting prowess.
Ø
ISRs
are especially useful to players who have developed a modest ability to influence
the dice, but haven't yet been able to turn their skills into steady earnings. With
the use of Initial Steep Regressions, a novice player can reap a larger degree of the
rewards that his de-randomized throws are offering; while an advanced player can extract even
more income from his current skill-set on a much more predictable basis...with each
player accomplishing his profit-objectives more often and with less overall risk
than flat Kelly-style wagering does. Good
Luck & Good Skill at the Tables
and in Life. Sincerely, The Mad Professor
|
|