Discount Gambling

Counting CSM Blackjack (+EV)

Posted in +EV, blackjack, csm by stephenhow on July 27, 2012

A few people have asked me about the countability of blackjack dealt from a constant shuffle machine (CSM). I’m a big advocate of counting the CSM, especially for card craps, because of the ease of the windowed count. Even if the dealer collects no muck (i.e., immediately shuffles completed hands back into the CSM), you’ll still be +EV more than 8% of the time for good BJ rules. It’s a lot easier to count a CSM than a shoe. I call it counting for the ADHD crowd. All you have to do is pay attention to the last 16 cards (or the collected muck) fed into the CSM before the hand is dealt. Plus, you’ll probably never get backed off from CSM blackjack, even when wildly varying your bets.

EV vs. Windowed Count

I use my model of the ShuffleMaster 126 (source) CSM in the blackjack simulations for this post. I’ve talked in detail about this model before, in my posts on card craps. Basically, there’s a buffer of at least 16 cards in the chute (so the dealer never waits for a card), which introduces state into the system. If the dealer collects no muck, you simply use the running count of the last 16 cards fed into the shuffler. Use the simple hi-lo count (2-6 are +1, 10-A are -1). If the dealer collects a lot of muck, and feeds it all into the shuffler right before the next hand starts, then use the count of the entire muck.

For these simulations, I used 6 decks in the CSM, and typical-good H17 blackjack rules (3:2 BJ, late surrender, re-split Aces 3-times, double-after-split). My blackjack analyzer calculates the ideal EV for these rules at -0.445% for 6 decks. I ran the simulator head’s up against the dealer, and kept track of the 16-card windowed count and the subsequent hand outcome. I plotted the next-hand EV vs. the windowed hi-lo count in the graph below.

The graph shows a very linear relationship between the 16-card windowed hi-lo count and the EV of the next hand. When the running windowed count is +5 or more, the next hand from the CSM is +EV. The windowed count is ≥ 5 about 8.2% of the time.

Frequencies of 16-Card Windowed Counts
Count Frequency Approx. BJ EV
0 11.5% -0.44%
1 10.8% -0.34%
2 9.36% -0.24%
3 7.46% -0.16%
4 5.46% -0.05%
5 3.67% +0.04%
6 2.25% +0.14%
7 1.25% +0.22%
8 0.627% +0.29%
9 0.280% +0.43%
10 0.111% +0.49%

Conclusions

Serious card counters will tell you you can’t count a CSM. But the data above shows that a CSM goes +EV more than 8% of the time. Plus, it’s infinitely easier to count a CSM than it is to count a shoe. You can lose track of the count for a hand or two. As soon as you regain attention, you’ll know what the count is. You can probably vary your bets wildly without attracting any attention or interest from the floor. You can probably even Wong hands when the count is bad. Or less than +5.

Counting a CSM is great for the casual counter. It’s basically short-attention span counting. If you see the last 16 cards into the CSM prior to the deal are low (have a running count of 5 or better), then you’re +EV for the next hand. Even if you just see a net +3 count for the last 16 cards, you still know the next hand will be better than average. You can start/stop paying attention on a per-hand basis (unlike a shoe, where you have to wait for the next shoe if you lose the count).

At it’s simplest, CSM counting will tell you when the next hand will be better-than-average (half the time), or worse-than-average (half the time). So, if you Wong half of the time, you’ll only play the better-than-average hands (EV better than -0.45%; the above curve to the right of count=0), and miss the bad hands. That’s a quick way to reduce the house edge from 0.45% to 0.22% (only play 53% of the hands; wait until the count is ≥ 0).

Improved CSM Craps Analysis @ Viejas Casino

Posted in +EV, card craps by stephenhow on September 27, 2009

After some debate and discussions with the (very cool) floor supervisors and dealers at Viejas Casino, I developed a much more accurate model for the CSM, and re-analyzed the effects of counting in the craps game. Initially, my model of the CSM was a conceptual one, and involved a random shuffling of cards in a reservoir, fronted by an continuous, 10 card deep buffer. In fact, after detailed discussions of how the CSM actually works, I re-modeled it after these mechanisms.

The CSM actually consists of an elevator shuffler, which uses 20 slots that holds from 0 to 14 cards. When the dealer feeds the muck into the hopper, it raises/lowers the elevator to select a random slot, then pushes a muck card into a random position within the chosen slot. The buffering consists of dropping an entire slot (of 0 to 14 cards) into the chute, from which the dealer pulls cards, until it empties. Then another random slot is dropped into the buffer for dealing.

Using this model, and the new, no accumulated muck dealing policy (the muck is fed back into the CSM after each roll), I determined that the actual window depth a counter should use is 4 rolls. I.e., your odds decisions should only be based on the last 4 rolls out of the CSM. Of course, if you could open the CSM and see how many cards are still left in the buffer (dropped slot), you’d know the exact distribution of the next roll. But, alas, that’s why there’s an opaque front panel cover, and we don’t know where we are in the dropped slot. So we just run simulations, and look for the best and simplest overall correlations we can devise.

I’m pretty pleased that a 4-roll windowed fair weighted count works out pretty well. The chart below shows an overall lower effect of the count, because we’re averaging in the variability of the buffer depth. But, the overall EV for laying 10x on a positive count is still +1.6% of the flat bet. It’s better than nothing, and the count is even simpler with the smaller window, and is still 100% fun.

CSM Craps Counting Advantage

CSM Craps Counting Advantage

Ultimate Casino War

Posted in Uncategorized by stephenhow on July 24, 2015

UCW_table cardI saw this new variant of Casino War at Barona Casino, where they player gets an option to swap his card and make a 1x Raise bet. Of course, the catch is the dealer gets two cards, and gets to use the highest one. I wanted to see what the strategy and house edge were, and to check if it was at all countable out of the One-2-Six CSM they use.

The rules are pretty simple. You’re dealt one card face up, and the dealer is dealt two cards face down. The dealer will use his highest card. You have the option to replace your card with the next card out of the shoe (CSM), but you must wager an additional 1x bet to do make this swap. Finally, you may wager an optional 1x Raise on your final hand.

The dealer reveals his hand, and all your bets receive action against the dealer high card. Wins win a Six or lower pay 2:1, else it pays even-money. Ties push, and there’s no “going to War”.

For a 6-deck CSM game, the house edge is a fair 2.56%.

The basic strategy is pretty simple. You should swap an Eight or lower card. You should Raise a Jack or higher final card.

I checked the countability in a CSM by assuming perfect play given 16 known cards before every hand. The EV barely changes by +/- 0.3%, and thus is never +EV.

Ultimate Casino War Optimal Outcomes (6 Decks)
Outcome Combinations Frequency Net Return
Win 3x bet with drawn A 165,477,312 0.035607 3 0.106820
Win 3x bet with drawn K 138,914,496 0.029891 3 0.089673
Win 3x bet with drawn Q 114,674,112 0.024675 3 0.074026
Win 3x bet with drawn J 92,756,160 0.019959 3 0.059877
Lose 3x bet with drawn card 163,441,152 0.035169 -3 -0.105506
Tie 3x bet with drawn card 97,187,328 0.020912 0 0.000000
Win 2x bet with drawn T 73,160,640 0.015742 2 0.031485
Win 2x bet with drawn 9 55,887,552 0.012026 2 0.024051
Win 2x bet with drawn 8 40,772,160 0.008773 2 0.017546
Win 2x bet with drawn 7 28,274,400 0.006084 2 0.012168
Win 2x bet with drawn 6 18,057,600 0.003886 4 0.015542
Win 2x bet with drawn 5 10,121,760 0.002178 4 0.008712
Win 2x bet with drawn 4 4,466,880 0.000961 4 0.003845
Win 2x bet with drawn 3 1,092,960 0.000235 4 0.000941
Lose 2x bet with drawn card 1,409,976,288 0.303394 -2 -0.606788
Tie 2x bet with drawn card 88,157,160 0.018969 0 0.000000
Win 2x bet with original A 306,488,448 0.065949 2 0.131898
Win 2x bet with original K 257,453,856 0.055398 2 0.110796
Win 2x bet with original Q 212,690,880 0.045766 2 0.091532
Win 2x bet with original J 172,199,520 0.037053 2 0.074107
Lose 2x bet with original card 301,682,880 0.064915 -2 -0.129830
Tie 2x bet with original card 179,437,536 0.038611 0 0.000000
Win 1x bet with original T 135,979,776 0.029260 1 0.029260
Win 1x bet with original 9 104,031,648 0.022385 1 0.022385
Lose 1x bet with original card 409,808,160 0.088181 -1 -0.088181
Tie 1x bet with original card 65,156,976 0.014020 0 0.000000
Total 4,647,347,640 1.000000 -0.0256406
Expected 4,647,347,640

According to Dan Lubin, there’s a version that pays 2:1 for a win with a Six, 3:1 for a win with a Five, 5:1 for a win with a Four, and 8:1 for a win with a Trey. For a 6-deck game, these payouts reduce the house edge to 1.27%. The basic strategy remains the same. Still, the game never gets +EV with only 16 known cards.

Ultimate Casino War Optimal Outcomes (6 Decks, 2-3-5-8 Pay Table)
Outcome Combinations Frequency Net Return
Win 3x bet with drawn A 165,477,312 0.035607 3 0.106820
Win 3x bet with drawn K 138,914,496 0.029891 3 0.089673
Win 3x bet with drawn Q 114,674,112 0.024675 3 0.074026
Win 3x bet with drawn J 92,756,160 0.019959 3 0.059877
Lose 3x bet with drawn card 163,441,152 0.035169 -3 -0.105506
Tie 3x bet with drawn card 97,187,328 0.020912 0 0.000000
Win 2x bet with drawn T 73,160,640 0.015742 2 0.031485
Win 2x bet with drawn 9 55,887,552 0.012026 2 0.024051
Win 2x bet with drawn 8 40,772,160 0.008773 2 0.017546
Win 2x bet with drawn 7 28,274,400 0.006084 2 0.012168
Win 2x bet with drawn 6 18,057,600 0.003886 4 0.015542
Win 2x bet with drawn 5 10,121,760 0.002178 6 0.013068
Win 2x bet with drawn 4 4,466,880 0.000961 10 0.009612
Win 2x bet with drawn 3 1,092,960 0.000235 16 0.003763
Lose 2x bet with drawn card 1,409,976,288 0.303394 -2 -0.606788
Tie 2x bet with drawn card 88,157,160 0.018969 0 0.000000
Win 2x bet with original A 306,488,448 0.065949 2 0.131898
Win 2x bet with original K 257,453,856 0.055398 2 0.110796
Win 2x bet with original Q 212,690,880 0.045766 2 0.091532
Win 2x bet with original J 172,199,520 0.037053 2 0.074107
Lose 2x bet with original card 301,682,880 0.064915 -2 -0.129830
Tie 2x bet with original card 179,437,536 0.038611 0 0.000000
Win 1x bet with original T 135,979,776 0.029260 1 0.029260
Win 1x bet with original 9 104,031,648 0.022385 1 0.022385
Lose 1x bet with original card 409,808,160 0.088181 -1 -0.088181
Tie 1x bet with original card 65,156,976 0.014020 0 0.000000
Total 4,647,347,640 1.000000 -0.0126955
Expected 4,647,347,640

7 Up Baccarat @ Marina Bay Sands, SG

Posted in baccarat, csm by stephenhow on June 16, 2012

In today’s Grail quest, I took a look at the countability of a Baccarat variant called 7 Up Baccarat, dealt out of a constant shuffle machine (CSM). If you’ve read this blog closely, you know that a CSM does not eliminate all countability in a game. This is because cards are in buffered in the exit chute of the CSM, so recently dealt cards have no chance of coming out soon. A windowed count may be effective against a CSM.

You can browse or download all the code for this post, if you want to see how I roll.

Anyway, here’s what I found for 7-Up Baccarat. Both the banker and player bets have very high sensitivities to removed cards (EORs). (Compare this to normal baccarat, where the EORs are effectively zero.) Simulations show a windowed count is strongly correlated to the EV of the next hand dealt out of the CSM. The figure below shows a 20-card windowed count tells you when its better to bet Player or Banker. Unfortunately, the count almost never gets good enough to be +EV. You can see if they made the game more “fair” (house edge only 1.3% instead of the chosen 2.6%), then you’d often find some +EV opportunities. I doubt they did this kind of analysis, but who knows.

Same thing with the Super-7’s side bet. If they made the nominal house edge closer to 5% than the 8.9% they chose, then it’d be very countable. The count is very simple. Any 7 you see is -12, and any non-7 is +1. I think everyone can imagine that it’s better to bet the Super-7’s when they haven’t seen any 7’s out of the CSM in the last few hands. And I’m sure no one bets Super 7’s just after seeing a bunch of 7’s come out. Simulation of the Super-7’s bet show a perfect linear correlation between the count and the EV of the bet. In all simulations, a minBufferDepth of 20 was used (minimum number of cards in the exit chute buffer).

Card Craps Simple Explanation

Posted in +EV, card craps, csm by stephenhow on June 10, 2012

I love the card craps at Viejas, not because I’m ever going to win any money there, but because it’s so obviously countable. However, it’s almost impossible to explain to anyone why the odds are different than dice, or why the game is countable. After all, they use a Constant Shuffle Machine (CSM) with 312 cards, right? So, once again, I’m going to explain how the card buffering in the exit chute of the CSM makes the game easily countable.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Example code and simulations are the proof of the pudding. All the code used in this example is available on github, where you can browse or download it.

You can read up on the details of card craps @ Viejas. Here’s how they play it. They use a normal craps layout, but replace the dice with two cards (1 thru 6), dealt out of a 312-card CSM. They take two cards out of the shuffler, call the roll, then muck the two cards back into the CSM. They allow 10x pass/dont odds on all points.

The reason why the CSM screws up the game (favors the dont’s) is that on the comeout, the two cards that just made the point have no chance of coming out on the next roll. Nor do they have any realistic chance of coming out in the next few rolls. This is because a CSM buffers a dozen or more cards in the chute where the dealer pulls the cards from. This buffer is necessary to deal blackjack. (Imagine the dealer waiting for the machine to drop one shuffled card at a time.)

Dice Baseline

Ok, so download the example code, compile and run it with the -d option for normal dice. The results are just as you’d expect. The pass line returns -1.42%, and the dont pass returns -1.36%, and odds and counting don’t make any difference:

>./cardcraps -d
using normal dice
...
1665000000 games:
pass flat: -0.0142, pass10x: -0.0144, pass w/count: -0.0142,
dont flat: -0.0136, dont10x: -0.0134, dont w/count: -0.0135

It takes billions of games to settle out the averages (especially when playing 10x odds), so don’t worry about the 1/100th of percents.

A) 36-Card Deck Is Same As Dice

At Pala Casino, they use a 36-card deck (one card per roll), and a simple deck shuffler. No buffer. Each card has a picture of two dice. The shuffler spits out one card from the red deck, one card from the blue deck. The player “roll” chooses between the blue or red card. Exact same odds as craps. At Pala, no one ever says anything like “How many cards are in there?”, or “This machine deals a lot of sevens!”.

B) 2-Card Roll Hurts Pass Odds

Now, let’s try the case B in the above diagram. We use the -c option to select an ideal shuffler, and -m 0 option to indicate no buffered cards in the chute.

>./cardcraps -m 0 -c
using CSM with 52 dice sets, and minBufferDepth of 0 cards
...
1265000000 games:
pass flat: -0.0137, pass10x: -0.0266, pass w/count: -0.0170,
dont flat: -0.0137, dont10x: -0.0053, dont w/count: -0.0075

This shows that even without a buffer, making a dice roll from two cards out of a perfectly shuffled 312-card shoe favors the don’t pass odds. You can use a simple spreadsheet to show this. The point is that you’ll distort the well-known dice roll distribution by using 2 cards dealt from a shoe. It’s a simple exercise to prove (a simple spreadsheet will give you the exact numbers).

Note the pass line player loses more by taking odds. The don’t pass player improves his return by laying 10x odds. That doesn’t happen in a regular dice game. In a dice game, taking or laying odds is fair (0 EV).

C) CSM Is Countable

At Viejas, they use a ShuffleMaster 126 CSM loaded with 312 cards. If you ever open the top (used to happen a lot when they had jams), you’ll see a buffer of approximately 16 cards in the exit chute. This distorts the game, and in general favors the Don’t Pass odds. Sometimes, a good count makes the pass odds +EV.

We’ll run the simulator for the CSM with a minimum buffer depth of 16 cards:

>./cardcraps -m 16 -s
using model of ShuffleMaster 126 CSM with 52 dice sets, and minBufferDepth of 16 cards
using window size of 6 rolls
...
2083000000 games:
pass flat: -0.0147, pass10x: -0.0420, pass w/count: -0.0011,
dont flat: -0.0126, dont10x: +0.0042, dont w/count: +0.0130

Now you see the pass line player is severely penalised for taking odds. I don’t think someone taking 10x odds on every point would think they’ve increased the house edge from a nominal 1.4% to a whopping 4.2% (of the flat bet). And we see that a don’t pass player laying 10x odds on every point now has a small 0.4% advantage over the house. Of course, there’s a lot of variance laying 10x odds to win an average (0.4%)(flat bet). Using a simple (and fun!) count, the don’t player has a 1.3% advantage over the house.

You can use the -v option in the cardcraps program to generate the statistics on the odds bet vs the count for each point. I ran the program, and plotted the results (don’t pass odds advantage; pass odds are inverted):

The correlation between the count and the next roll out of the CSM is clear. The count is simple and important! Quite often, you have a +/- 1-2% advantage in laying odds or taking odds. Where else can you play a craps game where the previous 6 rolls have a significant effect on the next roll?! The graph was generated with a fair simulator (using a Mersenne Twister 64-bit PRNG with a period of 2^19937-1).

Even though the game is +EV, the edge is small relative to the variance. No one will grind out any money from this game. However, it is a lot of fun to watch the rolls, know the count, and guess the outcome. Plus, the game is dealt on a table, so you get to sit and watch the rolls. And it’s probably 10x faster than a craps game with dice. You could get a roll every 5 seconds if you’re heads up with the dealer.

The count provides a fun, small predictor of the next roll out of the CSM. If you like counting, and/or predicting the next roll in craps, then you have to check out the card craps game. Here’s a video that shows how I play the game @ Viejas:

New Card Craps Practice Game

Posted in +EV, card craps, csm by stephenhow on February 21, 2011

The best way to understand counting for card craps is to see it in action. I wrote a new practice game to demonstrate counting against the point, and when it’s correct to lay odds with your Don’t Pass bet. The game is configured with the Viejas parameters (10x odds, 312 cards in a ShuffleMaster 128 CSM) so if you’re planning to check out the game, practice here first! Sometimes I just like watching the rolls, so I also included an “Auto” mode to continuously play by itself. This might give you an idea of session variance, and what to expect if you actually decide to play 10x odds.

Click on the screenshot below to play:

I like watching all the animation and highlighting. It’s a lot more fun to run the game in a browser window, and occasionally see how it’s doing, than it is to sit and grind it out at Viejas all day 🙂

Card Craps Source Code

Posted in +EV, card craps by stephenhow on February 3, 2011

If anyone is interested in verifying the CSM card craps edge (e.g., @ Viejas), I’m making the Java source code for the simulator/analyzer available here. You just need the Java SDK installed to compile and run the program. If your Unix environment is already set up for Java development, just follow these steps to get up and running:

>curl http://imadegen.com/cardcraps/card_craps.tar | tar zx
  % Total    % Received % Xferd  Average Speed   Time    Time     Time  Current
                                 Dload  Upload   Total   Spent    Left  Speed
100 24576  100 24576    0     0  67205      0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:--  105k
>cd card_craps
>make
javac -Xlint Analyzer.java CSM.java Roll.java Window.java Average.java PointStats.java
CSM.java:13: warning: [unchecked] unchecked conversion
2 warnings
>java Analyzer
don't pass, 10x odds, 14 card min buffer depth, 6-roll window
0 rolls: net +1.0, EV/roll +Infinity%, EV/game +100.00%
1000000 rolls: net +2828.0, EV/roll +0.28%, EV/game +0.95%
2000000 rolls: net +9921.0, EV/roll +0.50%, EV/game +1.67%
3000000 rolls: net +12754.0, EV/roll +0.43%, EV/game +1.43%
4000000 rolls: net +24592.0, EV/roll +0.61%, EV/game +2.07%
5000000 rolls: net +36467.0, EV/roll +0.73%, EV/game +2.46%
6000000 rolls: net +47067.0, EV/roll +0.78%, EV/game +2.65%

There are several options to the program, so you can experiment with the different CSM model parameters:

>java Analyzer -h
usage: Analyzer <options>
where options include:
 -n <number of rolls>             specifies number of rolls to simulate (default 100 million)
 -d                               play Don't Pass line (default)
 -p                               play Pass line
 -o <max odds>                    specifies odds to take/lay for good count
 -b <buffer depth>                specifies minimum reservoir depth (default 14)
 -w <window depth>                specifies count window depth (default 6)
 -a                               print per-point statistics
 -h, --help                       display this usage
Place a space between the option and parameter value.

The program shows the game is +EV, but it’ll also show you the huge variance for any given session. You can use the -n 1000 option to simulate a session (1000 rolls is possible in a few hours, heads up).

Card Craps Source Code

Posted in card craps by stephenhow on September 5, 2010

The card craps players at Viejas definitely lean towards Don’t Pass now, even when I’m not at the table 🙂 The astute players understand that the game is unlike dice craps, and the rolls aren’t quite independent of each other. Yesterday a Don’t player I’ve never seen before started to lecture me on this point before I could tell him I agreed. Then a young couple came and started playing DP and laying odds, like they knew what was going on. When the regulars are playing, at least half the table plays Don’t.

Anyways, I decided to clean up and post my Java source code for card craps, including the CSM model, the roll window, etc. You can download my source code, inspect the models, experiment with the parameters, and verify my results (+1.5% of the flat bet @ 10x Dont’ Pass odds using 3-roll count for the current Viejas shuffler; -3.6% for 10x odds Pass Line player!). I’m posting the source code to show how simple the CSM effect is on the craps game. I.e., given a simple but accurate model of the CSM, the Don’t Pass edge follows:

package net.discountgambling.cardcraps;

import java.util.Vector;
import java.util.Random;

/**
 *
 * @author show
 */

public class CSM {
    // params approximate the ShuffleMaster 126 model Constant Shuffle Machine
    static final int NUM_SLOTS = 40;
    static final int DICE_SETS = 52;
    static final int MIN_BUFFER_DEPTH = 4;  // minimum cards in chute
    protected Vector[] slot = new Vector[NUM_SLOTS];    // card slots in "wheel"
    protected Vector chute = new Vector();  // cards are dealt from chute
    protected Random random = new Random();

    public CSM() {
        for (int i=0; i<NUM_SLOTS; i++) {
            slot[i] = new Vector();
        }
        // load dice
        for (int i=0; i<DICE_SETS; i++) {
            for (int d=1; d<=6; d++) {
                shuffleCard(d);
            }
        }
    }

    // shuffle roll back into CSM
    public void shuffleRoll(Roll roll) {
        shuffleCard(roll.getDie1());
        shuffleCard(roll.getDie2());
    }

    public Roll dealRoll() {
        return new Roll(dealCard(), dealCard());
    }

    // deal card from chute
    protected int dealCard() {
        // drop a slot if chute is running out of cards
        while (chute.size() < MIN_BUFFER_DEPTH) {
            // select a random slot of cards from the "wheel"
            Vector randomSlot = slot[random.nextInt(NUM_SLOTS)];
            // drop slot of cards into the chute
            chute.addAll(randomSlot);
            randomSlot.clear();
        }
        return (Integer) chute.remove(0);
    }

    // shuffle card into random position of random slot
    protected void shuffleCard(int card) {
        Vector randomSlot = slot[random.nextInt(NUM_SLOTS)];
        if (randomSlot.isEmpty()) {
            randomSlot.add(card);
        } else {
            int randomPosition = random.nextInt(randomSlot.size());
            randomSlot.add(randomPosition, card);
        }
    }
}
 

Simplified Card Craps Counting

Posted in card craps by stephenhow on August 26, 2010

Lately, I’ve been drawn back to the card craps (PlayCraps™) game at my local Viejas Casino, mostly because I’m willing to lay more odds now with my newfound bankroll. They’ve changed the constant shuffle machine (CSM) to the ShuffleMaster® 126 model, which has a lot more internal slots than the previous shuffler. I thought this might hurt the don’t pass advantage, but I updated my simulator parameters (now 40 slots, and 312 cards) and the results remained as good as before. Most importantly, I added a MIN_RESERVOIR_DEPTH parameter, which is the minimum number of cards in the chute (reservoir) before the CSM drops another slot. I set it to 5 cards, and experimented with various counting window depths, and max odds to find a strategy I was comfortable with.

I found that a window size between 3 and 6 rolls prior rolls didn’t make much of a difference. This was a nice result, because it’s practically impossible to remember more than two prior rolls, and the management won’t let me record rolls with paper and pen anymore 😦 I also found that laying 5x odds is enough to gain about +0.25% over the house. (10x odds yields an 1.8% edge.) Again, this is nice, because 5x is the limit of my comfort zone. So, I’ll bet $5 on the Don’t Pass line, and use a 3-roll window to determine when to lay 5x odds.

Don’t Pass Strategy for 3-Roll Window
Point Roll Values Lay Conditions Notes
4 +4 if both die <= 3 (“low”)
-4 if both die >= 4 (“high”)
0 otherwise (“neutral”)
count >= 0
in last 3 rolls
Lay when #(low rolls) >= #(high rolls) in window.
5 -4 if both die 5 or 6 (“ugly”)
-1 if one die 5 or 6 (“bad”)
+2 otherwise (“good”)
count > 0
in last 3 rolls
Lay if two of last three rolls are “good”.
(Two “good” + one “ugly” = no edge.)
6 -5 if boxcars (“ugly”)
-2 if one die 6 (“bad”)
+1 otherwise (“good”)
count >= 0
in last 3 rolls
Lay if at most one “bad” roll in last 3.
(At most one six-spot in last 3 rolls.)
8 -5 if snake-eyes (“ugly”)
-2 if one Ace (“bad”)
+1 otherwise (“good”)
count >= 0
in last 3 rolls
Lay if at most one “bad” roll in last 3.
(At most one Ace in last 3 rolls.)
9 -4 if both die 1 or 2 (“ugly”)
-1 if one die 1 or 2 (“bad”)
+2 otherwise (“good”)
count > 0
in last 3 rolls
Lay if two of last three rolls are “good”.
(Two “good” + one “ugly” = no edge.)
10 +4 if both die >= 4 (“high”)
-4 if both die <= 3 (“low”)
0 otherwise (“neutral”)
count >= 0
in last 3 rolls
Lay when #(high rolls) >= #(low rolls) in window.

Note that a simple counting scheme emerges from the roll types (“good”, “bad”, “ugly”) and the small window. The 4/10 are very easy to play (i.e., know when to lay DP odds). A neutral count for the 4/10 still yield a +0.15% DP odds edge. If the count gets to +12 (e.g., all three rolls “low”), the DP odds edge averages about +0.5%.

The 5/9 points also work out easily. You need 2 out of the last 3 rolls to be “good”. If there’s one “ugly” roll (-4) and two “good” rolls (+2) in the window, you’re DP odds are neutral. The 5/9 points are “fair” in that a neutral count yields no bias against the point. If all three rolls in the window are “good”, then your +6 count yields about a +0.2% DP odds edge. If you have two “good” rolls (+2), and one “bad” roll (-1) in the window, the +3 count yields about a +0.1% DP odds edge.

Finally, the 6/8 points are very easy to play as well. If two of the last three rolls are “good” (+1) and one is “bad” (-2), the neutral count still yields a DP odds edge of +0.1%. If all three rolls are “good”, the +3 count yields a DP odds edge +0.2%.

You don’t have to worry about being perfectly exact on all your counts. Usually, when I play, I pay attention to how the previous hand ended. That way, I know the roll before the come-out. The important thing is to have an adequate bankroll, and the will to lay against all points when the count is good. You’ll find that things average out well, and a game is enjoyable with enough bankroll and a +0.25% (@ 5x) tailwind.

(Was) Best Promotion Ever @ Viejas!

Posted in +EV by stephenhow on July 29, 2010

I just enjoyed a month of free money from my local Viejas Casino, where they offered a “Hot Hand Bonus” on table games during selected times in July. They intended to give away these prizes (up to 720 envelopes from $20 to $100) fairly to players at their table games. However, they overlooked an angle that allowed me (and my friends) to collect the majority of them. While they didn’t give away all the prizes, and I didn’t take advantage of every opportunity, I still collected approx. $7000 of prize money (plus $2500 from a Royal Flush!). I can get used to this kind of winning, but this type of vulnerable “promotion” doesn’t come along very often.

They tried to fairly balance the prizes between the different table games by making the cost per prize (in house edge) the same. So they gave a prize (an envelope containing from $20 to $100) for the following Hot Hands:

  • 7-7-7 or 6-7-8 in Blackjack, min $10 bet
  • straight or better in Three Card Poker, min $10 Ante
  • trips or better in Four Card Poker, min $10 Ante
  • win with As in Casino War, min $10 bet
  • $5 Ace-Deuce or `Yo in craps
  • etc.

The average house edge per Hot Hand varies between $8.50 – $12.50 per hand, so with a minimum prize of $20, they’re all +EV. However, when you take into account the speed of the game, and the fact that there are only 45 prizes/shift for the morning and swing shifts, it becomes obvious to play craps for the prizes. At Viejas, the craps table is often empty, and one morning during the promotion, I had the table to myself. I simply played $5 Ace-Deuce and $5 `Yo each roll, as fast as possible. It didn’t take much more than an hour for me to win all 45 prizes, and net a $1650 profit, after $275 in dealer tokes. The poor floor supervisor had to write my name, player card number, table, hand, and drawn prize in a log book each time I hit a Hot Hand (Ace-Deuce or `Yo). Luckily, they could just use the quote symbol all down the page.

I was really shocked that they didn’t change the rules of the promotion after that incident. After all, they did change the rules mid-promotion after my friend and I cleaned out all the Hot Hand bonuses on the craps game when the requirement was any $10 hard way bet. (We bet each hardway $10, every roll.) The following week they changed the rules to a $5 Ace-Deuce and `Yo. Of course, this just made things easier, because it kept the average cost per prize the same ($10/prize), but greatly reduced the variance ($10 risk per roll, compared to $40 risk per roll)! Anyway, they didn’t change the rules a second time, probably because they realised the promotion was about to end, and they’d fix it the next time. So yesterday was the last day of the promotion, and I won $900 and $800 from the craps Hot Hands during the morning and swing shifts, respectively. I didn’t get all the prizes, because someone would occasionally bet with me and win a prize, or prizes went to other tables.

This was the best promotion ever. It’ll never happen again, at least not at Viejas. Since the average prize was somewhere around $40, that’s like a $5 Ace-Deuce or `Yo bet paying (15+8)-to-1. Normally, this bet pays 15-to-1, where 17-to-1 are true odds. It’s pretty easy to see how the Ace-Deuce and `Yo paying 23-to-1 is heavily in your favor. Still, I was the only one doing it, because the variance is high enough to scare people off. All they see is me betting $10 per hand, and only occasionally hitting. They just see me throwing $10 at the dealer every roll to put my bet back up, which is lightning fast in a heads-up CSM card craps game. If you don’t have a deep enough bankroll, you can go bust quickly. (It unfortunately did happen to a player who reads this blog, when no Ace-Deuce or `Yo came out for almost 20 rolls.)