|
Regression Avoids
Depression I
Shouldnt Be Surprised, but Im Still Amazed Ill
tell you quite frankly, I find it funny when a player says that he tried using a
regression-style bet a time or two, but it didnt work out, so he decided to never
try it again. I
wonder to myself if that same player abandoned Passline-wagers, Place-bets, Odds bets, and
Come-bets just as quickly when they lost a time or two, but I know better than to ask. Ø Without doubt, the cost of losing one big initial pre-regression bet can cause a momentary twinge of pain, yet many players will endure countless Place-bet losses and Come-bet losses for many times more money over time, and gladly endure that with a smile.
Ø
When
asked how much profit their current flat-bet Place-wagering or Come-betting is making for
them, they usually reply that its not yet net-profitable because it usually takes
too many hits for those wagers to consistently get over the profit-making hump despite
the multiple winning-hits that their dice-influencing skills currently yield.
Ø
When
I point out that their current SRR justifies the use of an appropriately sized Initial
Steep Regression (ISR) that would turn their mediocre break-even bet-results into
consistently profitable ones; they simply state that they cant afford to take one
big loss; yet theyll continually let the casino slowly chisel and erode their entire
bankroll on multi-hit-requirement bets despite their obviously significant
dice-influencing edge over the house. Like
I said, some people like to gamble, and some people like to win. In most cases, the difference between
winning and losing, regardless of whether you are the worlds GREATEST
Precision-Shooter or just slightly better than a random-roller; STILL comes down to how
you wager your money.
Ø
If
you have an edge, you have to bet it in an exploitable way.
For a modestly skilled dice-influencer, Steep Regressions offer a tangible
way to turn some of the casinos money into YOUR money. If
you are steadily losing money with flat or pressed-up Place-bets or Come-bets, yet you
know that you almost always hit at least one of your normal Place-bet wagers during
most hands; then you can afford an ISR that is tailored to suit your skill-level, your
SRR-rate, your bankroll limitations, your win-objectives and your
personal bet-comfort level. Winning
the most money for the least risk is what this series is all about. The
Iron-Cross
In
a random outcome game, the Anything-but-7 Iron Cross wager constitutes 83.33% of
all possible outcomes. The Iron Cross (also
known as the Umbrella bet) covers all the numbers on the table (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,
9, 10, 11, and 12) except the 7. In this
scenario, you would bet one unit each on the 5, 6, 8 and Field. In
the ongoing You
Cant Shine A Cow-Patty
Or Can You? series, we look at the Iron
Cross in a wholly unconventional money-winning way. Right
now though, we are going to investigate whether the Iron Cross can benefit from the use an
Initial Steep Regression. There
is:
Ø
One
way to make the 2, and in most casinos it pays out at 2:1 on the Field.
Ø
Two
ways to make the 3, and it pays even-money on the Field.
Ø
Three
ways to make a 4, and it pays even-money on the Field.
Ø
Four
ways to make a 5, and the Place-bet pays 7:5, but when it hits, your Field-bet loses so it
has to be replaced.
Ø
Five
ways to make a 6, and the Place-bet pays 7:6, but when it hits, your Field-bet also loses
so it has to be replaced.
Ø
Five
ways to make an 8, and the Place-bet pays 7:6, but when it hits, your Field-bet loses so
it too has to be replaced.
Ø
Four
ways to make a 9, and it pays even-money on the Field.
Ø
Three
ways to make a 10, and it pays even-money on the Field.
Ø
Two
ways to make the 11, and it pays even-money on the Field.
Ø
One
way to make the 12, and in most casinos it pays out at either 2:1 or 3:1 on the Field. For this exercise, well calculate its
winning payouts at 3:1. Therefore,
the Iron Cross wager constitutes 30-out-of-36 (83.33%) of all randomly-expected outcomes,
and its average weighted-payout for a $5 ($22 Iron Cross) bettor is $4.10 per hit. Why
is the payout less than even-money when you have so many winning hits? Well,
even though you have single-unit wagers on the 5, 6, and 8; their net-payout (after you
replace your Field-bet which loses when the 5, 6, or 8 wins), is a paltry $2 for each
non-Field outcome. Since the 5, 6, and 8
constitute fourteen out of your thirty winning Iron Cross outcomes, the steady replacement
of Field-bets has a pernicious way of diluting your overall per-hit win-rate. Still though, lets see how that $4.10 average
weighted-payout for the Iron Cross fairs in the hands of a dice-influencer. As
with every Rightside bet, how often the 7 appears is dictated by your skill-based
SRR-rate.
Anatomy
Of An Iron-Cross Wager
As
with any other bet, a random-roller still has a greater chance of 7ing-Out than he
has of hitting enough Iron Cross bets for it to pay for itself on a consistent basis. That is the nature of ANY randomly-based
bets that you make. As
a flat-betting advantage-player, it takes an average of six winning same-bet hits
before this $22 Iron Cross wager breaks into profitability.
Fortunately, in the hands of a modestly skilled dice-influencer, the Iron
Cross can be a steady profit contributor to your bankroll, even if you do decide to
strictly adhere to flat-bets. Take a look:
As
with Inside-Numbers, All-Across, Outside, and Even-Number global-type wagers; your
Sevens-to-Rolls Ratio largely determines the average roll-duration of your Iron Cross bet
too. Equally, your SRR also determines the
bet-survival decay-rate of your validated edge against any given wager and therefore
establishes the optimal time to regress your initially large bet into a smaller,
lower-value one. As
weve seen in previous chapters, the per-roll decay-rate is different for each
SRR-rate as well as for each type of global wager.
Your
Mileage May Vary
As
your Sevens-to-Rolls Ratio (SRR) improves, the appearance-rate for the 7 declines.
Ø
The
less the 7 shows up within a given sampling-group, the more other non-7 outcomes
will take its place. In the case of the Iron
Cross, you get 100% efficiency with that reduced-7s replacement-rate simply because
the Iron Cross includes all of the other possible non-7 outcomes.
Ø Therefore, a reduced 7s appearance-rate means an increased winning-bet rate, and that holds especially true for such an all-encompassing wager like the Anything-but-7 Iron Cross.
Ø
To
give your dice-shooting skills the best opportunity to prosper, you should determine
exactly which numbers are taking the place of those diminishing 7s. Since the Iron Cross covers every number
except the 7; the beneficial impact of less 7s is much more direct for the I-C than
it is for less-encompassing (less-inclusive, fewer covered numbers) types of global bets
like the Inside, Across, Outside or Even-Number wagers.
Ø
In
the samples that Ive used in this series, Ive evenly spread those replacement
numbers across the entire outcome spectrum. As
such, your expectancy-chart may look somewhat different than the generic ones here.
If
you ignore or dismiss your SRR-rate; you are not only overlooking your best indicator of
average hand-duration, but you are also rejecting the best gauge by which to successfully
structure a consistently productive multi-number betting-method. Intelligent
advantage-players arent so quick to turn their backs on such an important
profit-patterning benchmark. If
you ignore what your skill-based sevens-appearance-rate is trying to tell you; then
dont be surprised if consistently produceable profit ignores you too. As
weve discussed before:
Ø
If
we know how long our hand generally stays in positive-expectation territory for the Iron
Cross wager; then we can easily determine a way in which to use an initially large
starting-level wager, and then calculate when the ideal time to regress it
down to a still productive post-regression value is.
Ø
Even
though advantage-play Kelly-style flat-betting can produce a net-profit for us; in most
cases, the use of ISRs substantially increase our same-skill profit-rate.
Ø
The
closer your SRR is to random; the faster you will have to regress your bets in order to
have the greatest chance of making a profit during any given hand; and obviously the
higher your SRR is, the more time (as measured by the number of point-cycle rolls) you
will have in which to fully exploit your dice-influencing skills.
Therefore,
the expected roll-duration hit-rate for the Iron Cross correctly factors in the modified
sevens-appearance-rate for any given SRR; which in turn then produces the optimal
regression trigger-point for each skill-level.
Ø
Once
we know where that positive-to-negative transition point is, we can use it as the
trigger-point in which to optimally regress our large initial wager down to a lower level. In doing so, we concurrently lock-in a net-profit
while still maintaining active but lower-value bets on the layout in the event that our
hand-duration does exceed and survive that positive-to-negative transition point, as it
often will. A
Practical Comparison
Lets
look at how this works when we compare flat-betting $110 on the Iron Cross versus the use
of an initial $110 Iron Cross wager that is steeply regressed to a $22 Iron
Cross at the appropriate trigger-point. For
greater clarity, a $110 Iron Cross is spread out as follows:
Ø
$25
on the Field.
Ø
$25
on the Place-bet 5.
Ø
$30
on the Place-bet 6.
Ø
$30
on the Place-bet 6. A
$22 Iron Cross is spread out as follows:
Ø
$5
on the Field.
Ø
$5
on the Place-bet 5.
Ø
$6
on the Place-bet 6.
Ø
$6
on the Place-bet 6.
I
deleted any further references to SRR-6 random betting in the following charts simply
because it always remains in negative-expectation territory. Using
an Initial Steep Regression (ISR) permits even the most modestly skilled dice-influencer
to achieve a net-profit much sooner and on a much more consistent basis than if he is
making comparably spread flat Kelly-style bets. The
following ISR chart utilizes the optimum SRR-based trigger-point at which the
Large-bet-to-Small-bet regression should take place.
Heres
a summarized comparison between flat-betting the Iron Cross versus the use of an Initial
Steep Regression:
Using
Different Steepness Ratios
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. Take
a look at how various steepness ratios affect your profitability.
The
risk of using too shallow of a regression demonstrates itself with the SRR-7
shooter who uses an initial $44 Iron Cross that gets regressed down to a $22 I-C. However, by simply increasing his ISR
steepness-ratio from 2:1 to 3:1, he immediately regains profitability. Once again, we see how critically important it is
to structure our bets properly. Better
that random does not automatically mean better profit. Having
an edge over the house does NOT mean that money will start to automatically flow in our
direction. We have to intentionally divert it
that way through the use of properly structured wagers.
As
your SRR-rate improves, so too does your return on investment, even when you are using a
shallow 2:1 regression ratio.
Again,
as your SRR improves over random, the higher your rate of return 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. It
is important to note that each SRR-level forces a different bet-reduction trigger-point. While the SRR-7 shooter has to immediately regress
his large initial bet after just two hits; the SRR-8 dice-influencer can reasonably
keep them up at their initial large size for the first three point-cycle rolls
before needing to steeply regress them. In
the case of a SRR-9 shooter using the Iron Cross bet that weve been discussing
today, hell generally get the benefit of four pre-regression hits before
optimally reducing his bet-exposure.
Good
Luck & Good Skill at the Tables
and in Life. Sincerely, The Mad Professor
|
|