regression bet is where you initially start with a large wager on one or more
numbers and then reduce it to a lower level. The
usual trigger for lowering the initial big bet is if you get a paying outcome or if a
winning-hit doesnt appear within a certain number of rolls.
simple regression would be if you initially wagered $12 on the Place-6. A paying hit would generate a $14 payout. Upon collecting that, you tell the dealer to
reduce your bet to $6, so he returns $7 of your original bet. Since youve collected $14 and you now only
have $6 still active on the layout, youve got a guaranteed profit of $8 locked-up
for that wager.
are all kinds of bet-regression permutations, for example:
you made that same $12 bet on both the 6 and 8, and then regressed both of them down to $6
each after just one hit, you would still have a $2 profit locked up for that series, yet
still have $12 in action on the table.
could bet $88-Inside ($20 each on the 5 and 9, and $24 each on the 6 and 8); then after
just one hit which pays $28, you could regress everything down to $22-Inside and still
have a $6 profit to show for that series of wagers.
players like to keep their Initial (large-sized) wager in place for more than
one hit and regress them after two or three hits.
instance, starting with $88-Inside and collecting three hits at $28 each would gross $84
in revenue. After regressing that wager to
$22-Inside, you would have a net-profit of $62 in your rack while another $22 is still
active out on the layout.
higher your initial bet is compared to what you intend to regress it to; the
steeper that regression becomes.
The Steepness of Your Initial Regression
measure the steepness of your regression by the ratio of the initial bet compared to the
subsequent regressed amount.
$12 bet regressed to $6 is a 2:1 regression, and so is $44-Inside regressed to $22-Inside.
$66-Inside initial wager that is reduced to $22-Inside is a 3:1 regression ratio.
$66-Inside regressed down to a $6 Six and Eight would represent a 5.5:1 ratio.
Clearly you dont have to strictly stick with Inside or 6 and 8 wagers when you are
considering a regression-style wager.
could start with a pyramid-shaped bet-weighting like
$25 each on the bought 4 and 10, $50 each on the 5 and 9, and
$90 each on the 6 and 8, for a total of $330-Across.
Depending on which box-number arrives first, youd be looking at a
payout range of $50, $70, or $105. From there
you could take one more hit or regress everything down to something like $32-Across,
$44-Inside, or $40-Outside.
you had all the numbers evenly covered with $170-Across ($25 each on the 4, 5, 9, &
10, and $30 each on the 6 & 8); you could consider a regression as shallow as
$32-Across to as steep as just $6 each on the 6 and 8.
you can see, the higher your initial bet is compared to what you intend to regress it to;
the steeper that regression becomes.
Regression-betting Fits Into Dice-Influencing
a skilled player determines and fully validates his dice-influencing ability, he has to
support that skill with properly financed and sized wagers.
an Initial Steep Regression can actually support and enhance a dice-influencers current
skill by what I would call "adaptive betting" or enlightened and rational
viewed strictly from a math perspective, that doesn't at first appear to make good
economic sense. To an advantage-play BJ
card-counter; an advantage is an advantage, and therefore they believe that we should
never vary our bets when we have an overall proven advantage. That is, to their way of thinking, when we have an
advantage, we should never increase our bets when our shooting is doing well,
nor ever decrease them when our shooting is doing poorly...and by their
logic; since they dont know ahead of time when that will be; then no one should ever
use a Steep Regression nor any sort of bet-pressing either.
the one thing that advantage-play blackjack players fail to understand and acknowledge, is
that dice-influencing IS NOT a fixed and stable linear skill; which means that our
skill-advantage is NOT the same on each and every throw throughout each and every hand.
as astute dice-influencers, we recognize that we can extend some influence over the
dice, while concurrently recognizing that our influence is sometimes fleeting and
transient. Therefore by using an Initial
Steep Regression (ISR), we bet, strike, and collect a net-profit at the earliest
possible moment during each turn we get with the dice.
reality, the relative advantage we enjoy over the house, especially with novice to
intermediate players, is such that our dice-influencing proficiency-level fluctuates.
Therefore, using a Steep Regression to lock up an early profit; recognizes, compensates
for and ultimately, profitably exploits that variability.
objective of regression-style betting when applied to dice-influencing, is to:
a quick profit on as many hands as possible.
the volatility and the amount of time (as measured by the number of rolls) over which any
given hand reaches net-profitability for our active bets.
lets dice-influencers achieve a net-profit within a minimal number of rolls.
Arent Right For Blackjack, But They Are PERFECT For Craps
the advantage-play blackjack world where a card-counter can sit back and stoically wait
for the mathematical advantage to come to him; an ISR method is meaningless since the
non-player influenced deck of cards is the vehicle through which his advantage is gained.
The card-counter merely has to react to the variability of the deck-induced count.
the skilled dice-influencer has to DIRECTLY produce and maintain his own advantage
through player-induced physical skill as opposed to having it mathematically-induced by a
mechanical-device (through a deck of cards)
for him. Now, if the BJ-player was a card-mechanic
and the casino let him shuffle and deal; then the comparison to and the ill-based
A-P prohibition against dice-influencing ISRs would be valid. Clearly however, that
isn't the case.
let a dice-influencing craps player reach profit much sooner, and with much more certainty
than the conventional need to achieve four or five or six paying hits before even reaching
the break-even point of a multi-wager hand.
The BJ Math-Crowd View of Regression-Betting
intelligent Precision-Shooter has to adopt a betting-method that takes his variable
physical skill into consideration...instead of ignoring it.
refugees from the ravaged battlefields of BJ advantage-play expect aloof machine-like
consistency from their newly developed D-I skills. Sadly, many will be disappointed to
discover that even well developed physical skills are not imperturbable nor are they inert
like a deck of cards.
failure to recognize and address active human involvement in the whole skill-to-profit
process, and their entire "it doesnt matter how much your skills vary from
your first roll to your eight-millionth roll; your skills will average out and will
ultimately be profitable in the long run" credo holds incredible amounts of
volatility...but extremely limited amounts of short-hand and medium-hand roll-duration
you dont mind the volatility where you may endure twenty, thirty, forty, fifty or
even more losing sessions in a row despite the fact that you are winning a fair amount of
your individual wagers nearly every time you pick up the dice; then you are free to follow
that line of thinking. BJ converts appear to
love losing hundreds of sessions in a row because they know that eventually
their advantage will manifest itself for long enough to finally bail out those thousands
upon thousands of dollars of short-hand and medium-hand roll-duration loses.
their way of thinking, collecting an early profit on most hands is strictly
for fools, while chasing losses is what the big boys do
and that you
should unflinchingly be willingly to keep on making non-regressed, non-pressed
maximum-affordability bets right up until you lose every last cent of your bankroll.
sure goes a long way to explaining why most talented card-counters go bankrupt long before
they are able to profitably exploit their card-counting skills with any degree of
for them, finding out that Steep Regression betting really is valid and fully applicable
to dice-influencing, coming so closely on the heels of "discovering" that
dice-influencing really does work and that the world really isn't flat after
decades upon decades of impatiently and unwaveringly telling us that Precision-Shooting couldnt
possibly work; would just be too much of shock to the system for their delicate
constitutions to handle.
in another couple of decades or perhaps a century or two, the BJ advantage-play world will
finally come around on regression-betting the same way they have on dice-influencing;
thereby emerging from their comfortably smug pupae-stage of blissful ignorance
wouldnt bet on it.
Apples to Antelopes
randomly thrown dice result in a game of independent trials, a dice-influencers
skill is advantageously variable from hand to hand and even variable WITHIN any given
determine that variability by calculating the average number of 7-avoidance throws we are
able to make.
surveyed over a statistically significant number of hands, we can draw some conclusions as
to how much influence we are able to exert, on average, over a various number of rolls per
with that knowledge, we should be able to predict the number of Point-then-Out hands we
will have versus the average number of three, four, eight, ten or twelve-roll hands we
will generally produce
and therefore come up with a validated way to bet on our hands
while capitalizing on the fattest part of the roll-occurrence curve.
Your dice-influencing skill is variable, and that has a bearing on your 7-avoidance
outcomes because your ability to preserve and sustain your influence mathematically
declines with each and every subsequent roll that you make within a given hand. If it didnt, hands of several hundred rolls
each would be a common everyday casino occurrence for dice-influencers. Since that is not the case, we want to arrange our
bets so we can sustainably profit from as many of them as possible.
the house-edge against a bet remains constant in a game of randomly-thrown independent
trials, the savvy dice-influencer has to look at his skill-based variability over a number
of hands and determine how many will last for one point-cycle roll, how many will last for
two point-cycle rolls, how many will last for three point-cycle rolls
and so on. That is how we determine where the fattest
part of our roll-occurrence curve is.
to draw worthless non-connective associations between blackjack wagering and the enlightened
D-I skill-based adaptive
of using an Initial Steep Regression is beyond an apples-to-oranges comparison. Rather, the use of rationally
affirmative roll-duration-based ISR wagering versus traditional BJ-betting is
like comparing apples to antelopes. What
isnt even germane or relevant in their world, works with perfect utility and
practical function in ours.
be taking a close look at the math and science behind dice-influencing roll-duration
variability in Part Two of this series.
Back Into the Real World of Profit-Making
an Initial Steep Regression to lock up an early profit doesnt mean that everything
stays static once your bets are fully paid for.
you are past the point of net-profit for this hand, your wagering flexibility actually
that doesnt mean you can go crazy and start betting on everything in sight; it does
mean that you can vary your bets to reflect the now-extended profit-expanding potential of
your hand if and when it continues past your average hand-duration point.
we arent perfect automaton-shooters with unwavering skills; we need to adapt our
bets to suit our current average roll-production rate.
you can't consistently predict how long each particular hand will last; intelligent
dice-influencers have to look at how well they generally perform and how long their
average hand will last.
have to honestly and accurately calculate, reason out and "cipher" your relative
skill-level and its corresponding likely roll-duration (by way of number-of-rolls per
hand) like a savvy sports handicapper or derivatives trader might.
analysis includes, but is not limited to:
how quickly you hit at least ONE Inside-Number before 7'ing-Out; and then
determining how often you hit two of them and then three of them
of them as well, and so on.
on average, the duration (as measured by total number of rolls) of your hand as well as
your point-cycle Sevens-to-Rolls Ratio (SRR).
I personally like to look at three sets of numbers in this category:
how many Point-then-Out hands you throw, on average.
difference in average when non-Inside-Number hands are both included and excluded in the
Point-then-Out roll-duration calculation.
difference in average, when long rolls (the mega hands and mini-mammoth ones) are both
included and excluded in that roll-duration calculation.
difference in profit-generation when various Steep Regressions ratios (ie. 3:1, 5:1, 6:1,
10:1, and their natural multiples, ie. 10:2 or 12:3) are applied and compared to
multiple-hit rates (ie. 1, 2, or 3 or more hits at the initial big-bet level) before
regressing it when a hand is nearing its weighted-average roll-duration.
The amount of risk on our bets is reflective of our ability to influence the dice. For a
random-roller, that risk remains constant from one roll to the next. For the
dice-influencer, that is definitely NOT the case.
properly structured regression-style wagering approach truly reflects our current
dice-influencing skills when they are affirmatively matched to our average roll-duration.
thorough and clear-headed examination of our skill-level in context with how long, on
weighted-average, each hand will last; is a common sense approach that hasn't yet caught
on, but that doesnt mean that it isnt valid.
have endured more than 45 years of the math-guys telling us that dice-influencing
couldn't, shouldn't or wouldn't work; so I think it's appropriate that we cut them some
slack in terms of letting them get up to speed on the efficacy of Steep Regressions too. Hopefully they wont needlessly waste
another half century telling us that regressions cant work before finally wising up
and discovering that ISRs really are validly and profitably applicable
Regression Betting Applicable to YOUR Dice-Influencing Skills?
ISR is intended to get your at-risk money off the table as quickly as
possible, while maintaining action in the ensuing hand.
make ANY betting-method work consistently enough for the long-run, you have to have an
advantage...although the required player-advantage to actually do that can be absolutely
miniscule in size.
figure out whether regression-betting is right for you and your current dice-influencing
skills; simply figure out how many Point-then-7-Out hands you throw versus how many you
throw that includes at least ONE of the box-numbers that you plan to include in your
Initial Regression wager.
say that you generally throw three Point-then-Out hands out of every 20
turns with the dice. That equates to 15% of all the hands you throw.
this exercise, a "Point-then-Out" hand also includes any hands where your
intended ISR (Initial Steep Regression) bets are not hit.
let's say, you plan to only bet on the Inside numbers (5, 6, 8 and 9) for your ISR, then
even if you throw a 4 and/or a 10 (or any other non Inside-number) before you throw a
7-Out, but you don't hit any ONE of your planned ISR numbers; then that hand is also
included in the Point-then-Out count.
reason we need to know what our Point-then-Out rate is, is because we need to know, on
average, how frequently that will be happening and how much
our short hands will be losing BEFORE we figure out the ideal regression-rate (the
steepness of the ISR).
early-7-Out loss-rate dictates whether or not our dice-influencing skills are good enough
to justify the risk of having large ISR bets out on the layout in the first place.
say we were planning to start with $110-Inside and then regress to $22-Inside after our
first Inside-number hit.
this example, we know that, on average, we will throw three Point-then-Out hands where
none of our Inside-numbers hit before our hand ends. That means we'll have $330 of
expected losses to overcome before we even begin to talk about any kind of profit.
know that one winning hit on any of our $110-Inside bets generates $35.
plan to leave $22-Inside on the layout. That means that we have $13 to the good for each
of our remaining 17-out-of-20 average hands. That, in and of itself generates $221.
Obviously that isn't enough to cover the $330 in expected losses from those 3-out-of-20
That means we have some more work to do.
can and should look at how many hands we throw where we get TWO or THREE Inside-number
hits before 7'ing Out. That may tip the scales in our advantage. We can also look at an
even STEEPER ISR like $220-Inside regressed down to $22-Inside.
we should calculate how many hits that we would generally get AFTER triggering our Initial
Steep Regression, and figure out if the $7 that each one of those Inside-bets generates at
their new lower base-level is enough to put us into a profit position.
the above example, we would need at least sixteen more Inside-number hits at
$7 each to overcome the balance of the deficit of those three ISR's that DIDN'T hit.
That isn't as daunting a task as it may first appear. The sixteen required hits at the
regressed $7 payout value, works out to just one additional paying-hit per hand.
can also go back and consider the number of hits that we could viably keep our ISR at its
original $110-Inside level before regressing it, or like I just mentioned, we could look
at starting with a larger ISR like $220-Inside.
say that upon further review, we find that, on average, we actually get THREE
Inside-Number hits on 16-out-of-20 hands.
that means we'll now have a $440 deficit to overcome (four non-Inside Point-then-Out hands
out of the twenty hands that we throw); but it also means that we'll be able to generate
MORE money at the higher $110-Inside ISR rate before we drop down to the $22-Inside level.
math tells us that a three hits-per-hand average at $35/hit multiplied by sixteen hands,
will generate $1680.
then subtract the $440 expense of those four Point-then-Out non-Inside-hit hands where we
lost $110-Inside each time, and we are left with $1240.
still have to pay for the $22-Inside money that we intend to leave on the table once we do
our Steep Regression after collecting our first three Inside-hits. That will cost us $352.
our three-hits-at-$110-Inside-before-regressing-to-$22-Inside bet-sequence
over twenty average hands will generate a net-profit of $888 over twenty hands. That equates to an average profit of $44 per hand.
that doesn't include any additional money that our $22-Inside bets continue to generate on
the medium to long hands either, so our profit-per-hand average will likely climb
For those who haven't seen it, I highly recommend the original Can
Frequency Compensate For Shortness? study where we look at this subject in
even more detail.
in Part Two of this series well be looking a number of typical what
if scenarios, and determining the appropriate steepness-ratio, as well as the
most rational bet-spreads to use in each case. I
hope youll join me for that.
Luck & Good Skill at the Tables
and in Life.
to The Mad Professor Speaks Main Page!