In another post entitled, "Taking Advantage of Non-Random Rollers Part II by Frank Scoblete" there was an article Frank wrote posted by Melissa A. Kaplan. If you have not read that post, check it out under Franks articles.
This article has gotten me thinking again about something I have been mulling over from time to time. The sentence that triggered this thought in my head was when you said, "The 5-Count selected the skilled shooter 10.7 percent more often than it selected the random shooter." More about that later.
I have been agreeing with the statement about the 5-count that it does not alter the odds in favor of the player. It extends ones time at the table because one bets on fewer shooters by eliminating 57% of the players with the 5-count. But the house advantage, after the 5-count is completed, is the same on each and every shooter as it was before the 5-count was completed. Since one is betting on fewer shooters, one does not lose money on those 57% of the shooters who do not make it past the 5-count. This in turn helps the player to save some of his bankroll so he can stay at the table longer before hitting his loss limit. In addition to giving the player more playing time with the same bankroll, it also gives the player more comp time which will translate into additional dollars earned in terms of comps. This money also counts towards earnings for the player.
I remember reading a study performed by Dr. Catlin concerning the house advantage and the 5-count. As I recall, he analyzed the house advantage on a single pass line bet made on all players vs. a single pass/come line bet made only on those players who completed the 5-count. The results of the study showed the house advantage to be 1.4% on both populations. I do not know where I read that study and I do not recall all the details. I am now curious whether Dr. Catlin used a computer simulation of random shooters for his study or if he used actual data from live players in a casino? My reason for this question brings me back to your original statement, "The 5-Count selected the skilled shooter 10.7 percent more often than it selected the random shooter."
We know there are players who have passed the smartcraps tests and are able to determine they have a positive edge at the game of craps. Thru the skill they have developed we know for a fact they are able to alter the odds of the game so that they are playing with an advantage against the house when they shoot. By being able to reduce the appearance of the devil to a degree that can not be attributed to random flucuation we know they have altered the odds of the game. The house does not have an advantage over these players when they shoot. In the long run these controlled shooters, if they are able to keep their skill at the same level, will have an advantage over the house as determined by smartcraps. This does not mean they will win every time they play, but they will win whatever percentage edge they have in the long run over the house advantage of the bets they make on themselves.
By extending ones time at the table with the same bankroll through the 5-count, the player has more time at the table to find a "hot" shooter, rhythmic roller or controlled shooter. In fact we know, "The 5-Count selected the skilled shooter 10.7 percent more often than it selected the random shooter."
So doesn't this mean the 5-count WILL alter the odds of the game in favor of the player? We know from smartcraps, we have players who can alter the odds of the game in their favor. If we only bet on these players we will have altered the odds of the game in our favor. "The 5-Count selected the skilled shooter 10.7 percent more often than it selected the random shooter." Therefore, does not the 5-count alter the odds of the game in favor of the player who uses it? Will not a player who strictly uses the 5-count and makes bets with a low house advantage be able to have a more favorable win/loss percentage than that dictated by the house advantage in the long run? In other words isn't it possible to alter the house edge against a player by following the GTC advice on betting?
Doesn't Dr. Catlin's study show that you still lose on the CFers [i.e., random rollers] who pass the five count? If I'm right, then you don't have an advantage on CFers.
What am I missing, Skinny?
Your question goes to the heart of my question. It is exactly what I was wondering about.
I know the house advantage is still the same on all bets before and after the 5-count. The house still has a 1.4% advantage on all line bets at all times, etc.
In Frank's post he said, "By extending ones time at the table with the same bankroll through the 5-count, the player has more time at the table to find a "hot" shooter, rhythmic roller or controlled shooter. In fact we know, "The 5-Count selected the skilled shooter 10.7 percent more often than it selected the random shooter."
Therefore the 5-count is helping you to select players who are exerting an influence on the dice. These players are overcoming the house advantage one way or another.
This leads me to the conclusion that the 5-count does indeed alter the odds of the game in favor of the player even though it does not change the house advantage on any of the bets.
Convoluted? Perhaps. Nevertheless, if you follow the logic tell me what you think.
The value of 5-Count is, it lets us find the PLAYER that alters the GAME. It's not the 5-Count that alters the game.
Read the full article on Dr. Catlin proof that the 5 counts helps.
With 200 million shooters, one person betting all shooters for a $6 on the 6 and 8 and one person using the 5-Count and the betting a $6 6 & 8 when the 5 count is passed. The all shooter bettor waged (dividing the total by 1,000,000) bet $6,252 and lost $95. The 5 counter only bet $2,692 and lost $41.
I.e. the 5 counter was still a loser on the random shooter, but a significantly lower loser.
Hope this helps.
I agree with what you are saying as far as you go into the study done by Dr. Catlin. But I think you need to go further into that article into the 2nd experiment to understand what I am saying.
Yes, this is the study I remembered reading previously which I was talking about in my original post above. I thought Dr. Catlin used a pass line bet. In rereading the study I now see it was a place bet on the 6 & 8. But that is not relevant to what I am saying.
The issue is, in the first experiment, Dr. Catlin is looking at purely random rolls. Naturally the 5-Count player wages less than the Bet-All player and therefore loses less per all shooters at the table because he bets on less shooters at the table (57% less to be specific). Furthermore the house advantage is the same for both players for the amount of money they waged individually.
Note, Dr. Catlin's statement, "In fact, the loss for both players is approximately 1.5 percent of the total amount wagered, which is about what we would expect considering the 6 and 8 come in with a 1.5 percent edge for the house." He also states, "We would not expect the 5-Count to show a positive expectation against strictly random rollers; after all, no betting system can change a negative into a positive."
However, it is his 2nd proposition that interests me and goes to the crux of my argument. In the 2nd experiment he answers the question, Can the 5-Count Find Controlled Shooters?
One only needs to look at part of the description of that 2nd simulation which I will quote here.
The second proposition that the Captain stated was that the 5-Count was the best way to limit losses while waiting for the conscious or unconscious rhythmic roller or controlled shooter to appear. That it acted as a sort of "range finder" and that once it homed in on a controlled shooter, you could make craps a positive expectation.
Catlin did a simulation designed to find out whether the 5-Count could actually do this. He simulated 10 players (Player #1 through Player #10) with Player #1 being the player whose statistics are reported. The program assumed that Player #1 was a random shooter who uses the 5-count on others when he plays. Catlin has Player #1 always betting on himself right from the come-out, but for players #2 through #10 he waits for the 5-Count to finish and then he bets on the Come or Pass (whichever is available at that point) and takes double odds. As in the first simulation above, the odds are always working. The twist in this simulation is that Player #10 is a controlled shooter having an SRR [Seven-to-Rolls-Ratio] of 1 to 7. Random SRR is 1 to 6.
Catlin ran 10,000,000 rounds (which is over 100,000,000 games) and got the following results: Player #1 had an edge of 0.18 percent over the house. Player #1 bet on Player #10 5,632,885 times and on Player #9 5,084,975 times. The 5-Count selected the skilled shooter 10.7 percent more often than it selected the random shooter. While this did not prove that the 5-Count will, in general, reduce the house edge [in this simulation the 5-Counter needed a shooter with a SRR of 1 to 7 to flip it over], the simulation clearly shows that if there is a skilled shooter at the table the 5-Count will select him with a higher frequency than the rest of the players and will thereby reduce the house edge or, as in this case, give the player the edge. The simulation produced wins of $527,947.80 for Player #1 from total wagers of $292,716,290.
When I look closely at the conclusions based on that 2nd proposition I have the answer to my question.
While this did not prove that the 5-Count will ... reduce the house edge ... the simulation clearly shows that if there is a skilled shooter at the table the 5-Count ... will thereby reduce the house edge or, as in this case, give the player the edge. The simulation produced wins ... for Player #1...
I believe this 2nd simulation shows:
The 5-count does indeed alter the odds of the game in favor of the player even though it does not change the house advantage on any of the bets.