Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Why do some craps players "chart" the table?

  1. #1
    I never understood this -- charting the table at craps. I don't really understand it either. It seems that there are players who will keep track of rolls and numbers as if to forecast how the table or the player will do in the future.

    I'm all for technical analysis (following charts) in the stock market where the "the trend is your friend." But I don't understand how one player with a long roll, or several players with short or long rolls, can have any impact on the next shooter?

    Yet, there are players who will take notes of the results of the dice looking for a trend or a point to start betting -- or to stop betting.

    Here are some of the "charting strategies" I've heard about which make no sense to me, and why:

    1. "The Five Count" This is when you wait for a shooter to throw five numbers before you make a bet on him. The theory is since most shooters never get past five or six numbers you avoid wasting chips on a shooter who will seven out quickly.

    My response to the "Five Count" -- bet on the shooter's first few rolls and that call your bets "off" or take them down since the 7-out is inevitable with everybody.

    2. Waiting for a shooter to "prove himself" or "validate himself" or you "validate the shooter." This is when you wait for a shooter to make a pass or maybe two passes before you start betting on him.

    My response to the "prove himself" strategy -- wow, what makes you think after making two passes that the shooter will make a third pass? And the payoffs on the first two passes weren't good enough for you?

    3. Waiting for the shooter to "make a pass." This is when you wait for a shooter to make just one pass before you start betting on him.

    My response to the "make a pass" strategy -- and this is a true story. There was a player who came to a $10 craps table and bought in for $200. He was given two stacks of red ($5) chips. He was there when a new shooter got the dice. The new player was asked if he was going to make a bet on the new shooter and said "no, I'm okay."

    The shooter on the come out roll threw a point of 6. Other players at the table made their bets. The dealer asked the new player, "care to make a bet?" And the new player with the $200 of red chips said "no, I'm okay."

    To make a long story short, the shooter went on to throw the dice for the next 25-minutes or so pounding away the numbers -- 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 but never hit the 6! He never hit the point. Yet, the other players betting saw their initial bets of red chips on "the numbers" turn to green ($25) and then to black ($100) as the numbers were thrown again and again.

    And with just about every number thrown, the dealer would ask the player with the two red stacks "care to make a bet?" And each time the player said, "no, I'm okay. Waiting for a pass."

    Well, the pass never came but the other players made hundreds off of this shooter's "no pass roll."

    4. This is a "cold table" so I won't play strategy. This is very familiar. Players will see shooter after shooter throw a point and then seven out and deem the table "cold" so they don't bother betting.

    My response to the "cold table" strategy: so you think this "cold" is a virus that gets passed from one player to the next? I love being the shooter at a "cold table" because it means I won't embarrass myself when my turn with the dice is no worse than what the last couple of shooters did. And if I get lucky and throw some passes or just a lot of numbers, I can be the hero!

    5. This is a "hard way" table strategy. This is where players will start betting the hard ways (2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5) because they've been hitting.

    My response to the "hard way" table strategy: How often are we reminded that the dice have no memory yet if the dice are showing hard ways we are supposed to think that the dice will know to keep showing hard ways? There is a reason the paired dice are called "hard ways" -- it's hard to get those results.

  2. #2
    Alan, you got the 5-Count wrong.

  3. #3
    Originally Posted by FrankScoblete View Post
    Alan, you got the 5-Count wrong.
    Don't stop there Frank. Set me right.

  4. #4
    To me, charting at craps is ridiculous and I usually laugh when I see it being done.

    Alan, and Frank correct me if I'm wrong (and thanks for the book--enjoying it)--in the 5 count, I believe that after you hit 4 in the count, the next number, i.e. the 5th count has to be a 4,5,6,8,9,10, otherwise you stay at 4 until a qualified 5 count number hits (or 7 out).

    I have found that playing locally rather than in Vegas, you know almost all the players and you know that most of them just never have a hand. I watch those shooters and only play those that I know can throw the dice effectively. I am only rarely surprised by one of the lousy random shooters having a hand. But I also have had "good shooters" murder me. But it s very effective overall to just avoid the bad shooters. In Vegas, since I don't know anyone, you can't do this.i

  5. #5
    The best hands -- and the hands that gave me the biggest wins -- came from "random shooters" who picked up the dice and threw them. I've played with many shooters who either control or attempt to control the dice, and while their throws are very pretty the dice just don't happen to give them or me the desired winners. I think the DI/DC crowd calls that the "luck factor."

    Well, if it still comes down to luck I guess there can't be that much control in the throw of a dice controller or dice influencer.

    But to remain on topic -- why would past results which come from charting past results have an indication on future results? That's really what I would like to know.

    In video poker, because you have just gone through 40,000 hands without a royal flush does not mean you have a greater chance of hitting a royal on your next play. So what is it in craps that is or may be different with charting?

  6. #6
    Here's where I always question the long term and ER. Let's take the coin flip. Let's say that after 100 flips, you have 75 heads and 25 tails. I understand that every flip has the same 50-50 chance, but if you believe in the long term, you may feel that eventually it will even out and so you start betting tails till it does so. Arci will say there is no regression to the mean, but I have trouble reconciling the no regression with the long term ER. If there is no regression and no "even out", then what does long term ER mean.

    So I guess you could take the approach in craps that if there haven't been enough 6's, although you and I know the odds of a getting a 6 on any roll are 5/36 (as distinguished from the payoff on the 6 of 6-5), the charter could feel that the 6's have to come because over the long term, it all evens out.

    Not for me--but that could be the thinking.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    If there is no regression and no "even out", then what does long term ER mean.
    Aha!! This is where "math speak" does not match the English language or what I would call "people speak." You see, there is no long term expected return. It doesn't exist. Expected return is the value of each individual play on each individual hand or each individual roll or spin. One play, roll or spin has no impact on future rolls, plays or spins.

    When they say the return on 9/6 Jacks is 99.54% that is the return based on all of the possible combinations for that single play of the game. All ER is based on what happens with one single play.

    What is often done is the single play ER is extrapolated over a lifetime of plays -- and this is really wrong. There is no extrapolation and it shouldnt be allowed, but it is. It is this extrapolation that is the cause of players who play positive expectation games who go broke -- because they think if they mathematically have an advantage on one play that it automatically carries through to all plays -- and it doesnt.

    The best proof that the extrapolation is "bad math" is that players can walk away winners from negative expectation video poker machines.

    Now, I'd like to see the math guys argue this!!

  8. #8
    HALLELUJA--you put it way better than I was leading you to above. I can't agree more.

    But you are correct--the math guys will kill ya.

  9. #9
    Actually regnis the math guys know that the "expected return" is based on a single play. But they all make the same extrapolation and turn that extrapolation into a rule saying "if a game returns 99.54% on one hand it will on every hand." And that's where we fight it out between the differences of expected return and actual return.

    So to sum it up: yes on each individual hand the expected return on 9/6 Jacks is 99.54% but that doesn't mean you will have a return of 99.54% over the life of the game.

    But getting back to the original point of this thread-- if charting shows the past (and if your return on a video poker game shows the past) what impact will that have on the future?

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
    But getting back to the original point of this thread-- if charting shows the past (and if your return on a video poker game shows the past) what impact will that have on the future?
    Just more tsuris-lol

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by regnis View Post
    Just more tsuris-lol
    Yiddish Alert: tsuris = grief, aggravation, pain, suffering

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •