I haven't heard Casino Wars being offered by the
U.S. casinos, specifically Atlantic City. I might write some software, some day.
. . Right now, I am a spam killer. As many visitors noticed, my forums
are subject to intense, hateful spamming sometimes.
Best of luck, axiomatic kokodrilos!
How about the casino game Sic
Bo? Any strategies can be generated by FFG?
Borgata Casino starts to offer 2 new games:
Casino War [new to Atlantic City casinos], and
Sic Bo [new to Borgata].
Card counting in Casino War is NOT worthwhile in Borgata Casino.
Borgata makes it harder to count cards on the game of Casino War.
6 cards are burnt whenever a tie occurs, i.e., when an aggressive player ties
with dealer, for the next round, the dealer pulls out 8 cards from the shoe. 6
cards are burnt, and 2 cards are used — 1 for the player and 1 for the dealer.
The tie hands occur more frequently as the table is filled with 6 players;
thus, more cards will be burnt, which adversely affect counting cards. For the
time being, a Borgata's supervisor watches the game like a hawk. As a result, I
didn't waste time to beat the new game.
However, the new game of Sic Bo in Borgata may be beaten. May I
ask you to run a simulation to confirm my gut feeling please?
Here's a picture of Sic Bo:
offers many betting options. Surprisingly, the house gets no edge on the
"Single Dice Bet". (a bet of one, two, three, four, five, or six.
Look at the bottom part of the picture above).
All the other bets give the house some big edges:
From the smallest edge of
(1) 3% on the bet of Big (dice score of 18 or more) or Small (dice score of 10
to the largest edge of
(2) 47% on the bet of Three Dice Total (i.e., 3 dice score of 5 or 16).
Hmm... Sic Bo offers the zero house edge to a
player when the player plays the Single Dice Bet.
Single Dice Bet is this: the specific number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 will
appear on one, two, or all three dice.
For example, the hot number 5 comes out more frequently than the other numbers.
I would bet on number 5. The odd of 5 comes out is 50/50 chance; i.e., the odd
of 5 to come out is 1/6 on each die. There are 3 dice, thus, the math goes like
Since there's no house edge on the Single Dice Bet (SDB), I think the
double up system works the best on this game of Sic Bo. Borgata allows $1 bet
on each SDB. The maximum bet is $3,000 on SDB. As long as the hot
number 5 comes up within 12 bets, I will be a sure winner. See the excel spread
Here is the money maker. Once a while, a triple hot 5s will come up on all the
3 dice. That means I will get paid triple of my double up bet! For example, say
this is the round #8. The triple 5s pop up. I will get paid $384 ($128 * 3). I
will get a net profit of $127 ($384 winning - $127 previous losses).
By the way, to circumvent the $3,000 bet restriction per player, I can call
(with a cellphone) extra partners for help when "emergency" comes up.
For example, more partners can keep me in the game from round #12 to round #20ish.
See info below.
16 $32,768 .
The critical question is: How many times a hot number (i.e., 5) will NOT pop up
in Sic Bo? 10? 15? 20?
Ion, please run some sims to find out an answer for me.
Probability not to catch any specific number is
5/6*5/6*5/6 = 125/216 ~ 0.5787 = 57.87%. Suddenly there are over 50% chances
for the house to win...
PS: the casino game with the lowest house edge is craps — buy bets (buy 4 or
10, buy 6 or 8, etc.) — you have the Internet — just look it up.
Gingle, axiomaticule, thanks for your answer on
the "probability NOT to catch any specific number". So... on
the other hand, the probability to catch a specific number (say #5) is 42.13% [100%-57.87%].
Ahh... I made a mistake on my logic. The math and commonsense don't go hand in
hand. The commonsense formula for catching a specific number (i.e., #5) is
this: 1/6 + 1/6 +1/6 = 3/6 = 50%, but the real math shows 42.13%, not 50%.
Now the next math question: what if I play a million hands of Sic Bo, how many
rounds in the row I will lose my bet on a specific number (say #5)? Will I,
just like the roulette bet on Red or Black, lose 18 in the row before I hit the
By the way, why not Craps or Roulette? I prefer to play the double up system on
Sic Bo because Sic Bo does pay 3 to 1 on a specific number (i.e., triple 5s may
come out after a long drought). Just think of this: what if I double up for 12
times consecutively with the bet of $2,048, and the triple 5s pop up? Something
to think about, right?
Unfortunately, the math for the probability to catch a specific number is not
that simple subtraction. Here are chances for what can occur:
Number on one die: probability = 0.347 (34.7%)
Number on two dice: probability = 0.069 (6.9%)
Number on three dice: probability = 0.005 (0.5%)
Dealer wins: Probability = 0.5787 (57.9%).
To answer your second question, if you play a million sic bo hands at
the specific number bet (probability to lose 57.87%), you have
0.999999999799845 (that is over 99.99%) chance to lose 18 or more in a row at
Gingle, what an eye opener! Based on your math,
the game of Sic Bo is for suckers. Hmm... that's why Borgata gave me a free
room while I was testing out Sic Bo. Gingle, thankyou very much. I'll not waste
any more time on Sic Bo.
Here's another question for you. Will the double up system work profitably on
the game of EZ-Baccarat?
I ask this question because I've seen a professional gambler (CGG) doing
it for about 1.5 years.
CGG bets on banker only because there's no commission on the game of EZ
Baccarat. Note: the gambler does pay a hidden commission indirectly… a
casino will not pay on a Banker's winning hand of 3-card-7. For example, say
you bet $1,000 on banker. The banker beats player when the banker's hand is 007
against the player's 006. The dealer treats this outcome as a "push"
and will not pay the winner, thus, the $1,000 is a hidden commission for the
CGG starts from $15 and doubles up all the way to $10,000. A floorperson said
that CGG made averagely about $300 a day, and the casino still awaits CGG to
hit a long drought to wipe him out of his huge bankroll. The casino is so
certain that CGG will get wiped out... so much so that casino plays dumb even
though CGG uses partners to circumvent the $10,000 bet limit.
I do not know anything about the EZ baccarat game (rules etc.), but as
long as there is a house edge, you will require more steps in order to double
up your money.
Now in the given example of CGG, I can tell you that his chances not to
go totally bankrupt have increased. However i would bet on the casino, don't
you have a hunch that maybe they're right waiting for his losing streak?
PS: now that you waste no more time at Sic Bo, I hope no casino will
come after me :-))
I looked a little bit at this game. Looks like it is a game with very small
If I'm correct, the bets should have the following probabilities:
Banker wins = 0.458 (45.8%)
Player wins = 0.446 (44.6%)
Tie = 0.095 (9.5%)
That gives a total house margin of 1.1%, which is little compared to roulette
or other games.
Still, there is no skill involved in playing the game.
I hope I could help you.
Last edited by gingle; 08-14-2011 at 07:27 PM.
Gingle, thanks again. OK I'm sold. No Sic Bo nor
EZ-Baccarat for me. You just rescue me from the jaws of casinos. Hey you should
run some math seminars in casinolands to save some souls such as CGG's.
Oh, casinos will not come after you, and you're protected under the Good
Samaritan Law. However, if casinos ever find out who you're, they'll just
blacklist you and keep you comp-less. So long!
The Only Winning Gambling Strategy Founded on Mathematics
Gingle: “PS: now that you waste no more time at Sic
Bo, I hope no casino will come after me :-)) ”
You mean, you will come after . . . yourself?! You are the casino, crocodilule!
My antennae tell me that in English and . . . Romaneste! BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
I figured you out myself rather quickly, axiomaticule.
As of Orestes, he is also a casino guy. His latest IP just confirmed very
closely the IP of another casino guy that I had run-ins with (both by email and
in my previous BBNow forums).
But I offered you both the courtesy of having been treated as kokodrilos—
Free advertising, especially for entities such as Lizard of Odds, is not
accepted here. All casino guys always refer to their favorite mole: “the wizard
of odds”. He has been on casino payroll for decades! Would he ever offer real
gambling systems?! NOT! I put the “wizard-of-odds” issue to rest in the early
2000s. Let him keep trying to get those 200 heads in a row . . .
Wizard of Odds: Gambling Challenge in Casinos and
Testing for Exorbitant Fees
The Wizard of Odds: Phony Gambling Author Paid by
On one hand, Lizard's Web site appears on the Internet as:
“Wizard of Odds: The last word on gambling strategy. The Wizard of Odds offers
the mathematically-correct strategies for every casino game for both
land and online casinos.”
On the other hand, Grand Lizard has always stressed his take on the gambler's
fallacy (ad litteram from his websites):
“The Wizard of Odds explains why betting
systems won't make you a winner in the casino.”
If that is not schizophrenia, I don't know what is!
The real issue here is the infamous gambler's fallacy. That's what
Gitser and Oritser want to stress here. That's how you automatically spot
casino agents. They pretend that one guy teaches gambling mathematics to the
other guy. Then they kiss each other's cheeks!
Gitser is mathematically correct. If he would play 1,000,000 (one million) Sic
Bo hands, uninterruptedly, he could lose 18 consecutive hands at
least once (if playing NOT to catch any specific number).
But both guys avoid the very important issue of the fallacy of gambler's
fallacy (what I also call reversed gambler's fallacy). If
Gitser would play 1,000,000 (one million) Sic Bo or Casino Wars hands,
uninterruptedly, he could WIN 15 consecutive hands at least once
(if playing NOT to catch any specific number).
Gitser and Oritser also refer to a mysterious casino winner, identified as CGG.
Who knows who that guy is? If he continuously won so far, the reversed
gambler's fallacy would make CGG win forever! In truth, both the
gambler's fallacy and the reversed gambler's fallacy simply
represent mysticism. It is extremely opposite to mathematics.
Mathematically, the streaks occur according to mathematical
formulas. Software can easily and precisely calculate the number of
consecutive hits, in a number of trials, for a given probability. My software, Streaks.exe, has been available for years now.
There is also that issue the casinos and their lizards of odds bluntly throw in
the face of kokodrilos and all gamblers. It's about millions of trials (blackjack
hands, roulette spins, etc.) Evidently, no human can play 1,000,000 hands
uninterruptedly. What the moles do is to extrapolate to all gambling trials
ever played all over the world. Then, they assign all those millions of trials
to one kokodrilo. You enter a blackjack game, and you already have played
millions of hands. Therefore, you are going to lose 18 hands in a row, and then
again … and again …
One cannot mathematically take into account simultaneous or
parallel gambling events. I play at one roulette table. Meanwhile, thousands of
spins take place at roulette tables in dozens of casinos around the world. I
only take care of (keep records, etc.) the roulette spins at the table I am
And that's the hottest issue that rattles all them casino moles
and agents. As soon as I write down in my notebook the first roulette spin, or
BJ hand, the casino honchos jump at my throat. They yell you out the casino —
the faint at heart will abide by the screams immediately!
That's the real issue here: Mathematics
of streaks. There is no
other way to beat the casinos. No skills can beat the casinos — only recording
the streaks can. Even a true game of skills, poker, can turn obsolete if
recording the hands would be allowed. The so-called masters of poker would be
exposed after a few hands. The skilled bluffers can be exposed really easy:
They tend to bet as if they always get the strongest hand!
As of our common friend CGG, he is already ahead in his gambling. Gitser
sez: “Now in the given example of CGG i can tell you that his chances not to
go totally bankrupt have increased.” Correct, amice: CGG's chances to go
bankrupt have decreased. He grew his bankroll. Therefore, he can
withstand some long losing streaks. Or, Gitser, did you mean to say that CGG's
chances of bankruptcy have increased? It would be truthful to your word
. . .
CGG (or any gambler, for that matter) doesn't have to apply a dumb martingale.
CGG should continue to record all his streaks and bet according to mathematics.
There are only two types of parameters: winning streaks and non-winning
streaks. It is always gonna be win some, lose some. Only the degrees of
certainty are different at different points in the succession of trials.
If an event (like a gambling streak) has a degree of certainty equal to 90% to
take place within a number of trials, that event will show a statistical
appearance in parity with 90%. The casino lizards will always tell you that the
favorable event will never occur. Only the unfavorable opposite will take place
— although it has only a 10% degree of certainty!
Best of luck to all kokodrilos and to all true gamblers! You see, the Gitsers
and Oritsers of the world will never accept my challenge and gamble at the same
casino table where I gamble! The casinos will not allow them to …
Catch Casino Moles: Intentionally-Losing Gambling Systems.
Greetings Ion, I've forgiven you and many other
APs who have accused me of being a casino spy! Most accusing APs have thought
that I know too much... like a casino insider. For example, I was able to get
my hand on a casino floorperson's handbook. I scanned some juicy pages and
shared with some APs. Bang — that's my mortal sin — being a nice guy! I was
banned from the chatroom and accused of being a casino spy. That's OK. We're
all human & sinners. I love your site, and I've still learned something
here. By the way, I'm in AC right now. I'll look for you, and I'll treat you
for a comped-dinner.
Best regards, Carl's friend for over 3 decades.
Sic Bo: Correct House Advantage for One-Number
I apologize if I wrongfully assigned you an official casino status. Of course,
there is no absolute certainty, as FFG proves. But I always rely
on high degrees of certainty. I rely on patterns. In most cases, I've been
right. Indeed, other people, who are NOT associated with me, come to the same
conclusion when it comes to so-called casino moles or agents.
One strong indication is the infamous gambler's fallacy. The readers
receive the strong message that mathematics in gambling is worse than futile:
It is bankruptcy-prone.
Oritser, you start with a good feeling regarding the One number bet in
Sic Bo. Right there, you do seem an authentic kokodrilo. I read a little more
about Sic Bo. Most bets are really NO-NO for a kokodrilo. The only exception is
this one-number bet. I hope I understand the wager correctly.
The Player bets on one number. Three dice are cast. If Player's number shows on
any one of the 3 dice, Player wins 1 to 1, or 2 to 1, or 3 to
1. The OR operand is of the essence here.
We use that great piece of mathematical software known the world over as SuperFormula.exe. We will run two functions for this analysis:
E = EXACTLY M successes in N trials
L = AT LEAST M successes in N trials.
If we assume that we bet 1 dollar on number 6 and number 6 comes out at least
once on three dice, then Gitser's calculations were correct. In fact, most
calculations for this Sic Bo bet are the same. We run the function L: AT
LEAST 1 success in 3 trials (dice faces). Result: 42.2%. The chance to lose
is the complementary probability: 57.8%. Or, we can employ function E:
EXACTLY 0 successes in 3 trials (dice faces). The result: 57.8%.
But here is the subtlety. The casino pays bonuses. If Player's
number (6 in this example) shows up on two faces, the house pays 2 dollars. If
Player's number shows up on all three faces, the house pays 3 dollars.
Evidently, those bonus situations must be added to total winning
situations for the kokodrilo.
We apply again the function L: AT LEAST 2 success in 3 trials (dice
faces). Result: 7.4%.
Throwing N dice represent the numerical set case known as Saliusian sets or
exponential sets. The total number of possibilities when throwing 3 dice:
6 ^ 3 = 216. You can run another great piece of mathematical software
(combinatorics): PermuteCombine.exe. It generates all 216 dice faces in seconds. You
can count by hand all lines (set elements) where #6 occurs exactly once, or at
least once, or at least twice, or exactly twice, etc.
That percentage, 7.4, applied to 216 leads to around 16 lines that are paid
extra. And one more extra situation: When the triple shows up (6-6-6), the
payout is 3 to 1. Thus we have now 17 cases that are paid extra. If those lines
were NOT paid extra, the probability to win will always be the same: 42.2%.
Therefore, the casino would have a 7.8% house edge.
The casino, however, is very generous in this game! They add 17 winning cases
to Player! The gambler should expect around 216 * .422 = 91 winning situations.
The 17 extras will lead to 108 winning situations. The real winning
chance for Player is now virtually 50%. That figure is in relation to
the house edge.
The correct casino advantage for the one-number bet in Sic Bo is
virtually 0%. Indeed, NO house edge! Don't scream, casinos — and,
especially, don't change a thing!
You was right, kokodrilo … you was right! That Sic Bo bet looks like the
best in the casino right now. Remember: You don't pay extra IF you lose the
bet. Neither do you pay extra to participate in the 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 payment
The calculations resemble blackjack a lot. The winning probability is that
percentage. But, then, you add the extras: double-down situations, splitting
pairs, blackjacks (naturals). The BJ Dealer may not double down, or split
pairs, or get paid 3 to 2 for a natural.
Have I ever played Sic Bo? NOT! I dislike cumbersome games. Sic Bo is one of
them. Craps is another one. You have to wait for all kinds of conditions to take
place. Besides, you stand up at craps — keeping records is very hard. I don't
like baccarat at all. Mini baccarat seems to be more attractive and it is
faster. But the game is too cold. I hate when many players sit at the table and
watch one another. They place bets, then they takes back their bets, then place
their bets again . . . I hate them mini-baccarat tables!
Orestes: “Best regards, Carl's friend for over
I will appreciate a clarification. The name Carl doesn't
ring a bell. I vaguely remember a Carl with whom I worked as a temp some 12
years ago. I didn't know he was interested in gambling. Or, are you referring
to … Carl Sagan? I did write about him recently — mostly I am very appreciative
of his ideas and work.
Thanks for inviting me to Atlantic City. I'm still tied to home somehow, at
least for a while. I want also to try the Pennsylvania casinos first. It's my
home state, so I have better chances. I mean legal chances, in case the PA
casinos would treat me as those in AC.
Again, I would not give up my little notebook and keeping record of blackjack hands,
or roulette spins … or Sic Bo one-number bets! Especially given my bankroll, I
must play the best way possible. Mathematics is my only chance …
Best of luck to you in Atlantic City!
How about a 4-dice Sic Bo with a similar one-number bet?
You bet on one die face; e.g. 6. If 6 appears on one die, you get
paid 1 to 1; if 6 appears on two dice, you get paid 2 to 1; if 6 appears on
three dice, you get paid 3 to 1; if 6 appears on all four dice, you get paid 4
Total elements of 4 dice: 6 ^ 4 = 1296.
We run the function L: AT LEAST 1 success in 4 trials (dice faces).
AT LEAST 2 successes in 4 trials (dice faces). Result: 11.6%.
AT LEAST 3 successes in 4 trials (dice faces). Result: 1.5%.
EXACTLY 4 on 4 (6-6-6-6) = 1 situation that pays 3 extra units.
Winning situations without bonuses: 1296 * .386 ~ 500
2-in-4 situation: 1296 * .116 ~ 150 extra winning cases
3-in-4 situation: 1296 * .015 ~ 19 * 2 ~ 38 extra winning cases
4-in-4 situation: 3 extra winning cases.
Total winning cases: 500 + 150 + 38 + 3 = 691.
Winning chance in rapport to house edge: -53.3%.
Therefore, the Player has the edge: 3.3% advantage!
Great idea, you had, Orestes! We discovered new gambling mathematics rules! We
both deserve … big comps! Would I be afraid of … poisoning? You betcha! I am
listening right now to Black Sabbath's Ironman (Paranoid) … BRRRRRRRRAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Greetings Ion, Casino Guy, me? Hell no! Carl will
vouch for me as a legit player. Here are the keywords: New York City Pistol
License. Ask him about me---the crazy gambler with a New York City Pistol
License. Carl mistook me a NYPD cop, lol! He knows whom I'm---Hurry, hurry,
hurry. He's back to AC from Florida for this Summer. Best regards, Orestes.
You wanna shoot me now, Carl? After all I've done for
you? I gave you the best gambling odds ever: 50-50, with NO casino edge! Or,
that's the whole point! I destroyed a casino game — the casinos got really mad
at me beginning this day!!!
Serious, who's that mysterious Carl? You can email me some details. I googled
on those keywords — lots of links to the laws of NYC for getting firearm legal
permission. Apparently, the license for a gun in New York City costs an arm and
a leg! And you say you are gambler who is licensed to bear firearms. I assume
you enter a casino with a gun in your hand … like Joe.
But, if you talk about
$262,144 and $524,288 bets
you must be some big … shot on Wall Street!
I wanna know more about that Carl, who, you say, knows me and I know him.
Sounds like Carlos The Jackal, the Venezuelan terrorist who executed
scores of assassination plots, abductions, and bombings.
I will post here a streak rundown for one number (57.8% and 42.2%) in Sic Bo,
similar to the table on the blackjack page:
Enjoy your comps and the best of luck to you at Sic Bo!
Ion “Don't-Call-Me-Carl(os)” Saliu
I had to delete your quotations because of duplicate content — the search
engines don't like it. I got enough headaches with spamming . . .
I can see where you are: Atlantic City Free Public Library. You are
afraid to use your laptop from your free room at Borgata, right? Honestly, I
don't think I'd ever accept a free-room offer by the casinos — regardless of
national location or jurisdiction.
I can tell you, your nickname is fearsome alright. That inference to Greek
tragedies, with brother Orestes and sister Electra killing their mother,
Clytemnestra, as revenge for her killing their father, Agamemnon … Geez!!!
Best of luck, Oritser!
Strange thing: The last 7 posts here were marked as
Moderated. It happened overnight, automatically. The anti-spam function didn't
even ask me, the administrator! I don't like that!
As a result, unregistered members were unable to read those messages,
especially the one with the latest calculations regarding the Sic Bo NO-edge
EDIT: BEER IS NOT GOOD FOR A WINE/COGNAC MAN!
I did make a mistake in my calculations regarding the Sic Bo
game, specifically the Single Dice Bet (SDB).
Indeed, the odds of NOT-WINNING (losing) are calculated as EXACTLY 0 successes
in 3 trials for probability p = 1/6; result: 57.87%. No arguing here. That
translates to 216 * 0.5787 = 125 situations. THAT'S A GIVEN. Nobody can change
that negative result for the Player: 125 losing situations out of 216.
The winning situations for the player are calculated as at least 1 success in 3
trials for probability p = 1/6; result: 42.13%. That translates to 216 * 0.4213
= 91 situations.
IF the casino would ALWAYS pay 1 to 1, the house edge would be: (125 – 91) /
216 = 34 / 216 = 15.74%.
But the casino tries to sweeten the deal for this particular bet. They do add
17 situations to the original 91 winning situations for the player. Now, the
house odds calculations changed to:
(125 – 108) / 216 = 17 / 216 = 7.87%.
This is DEFINITELY the correct house edge at the casino game of Sic Bo, the
Single Dice Bet (SDB).
IF the casinos would pay 12 to 1 for the triple (as I saw on some Sic Bo
layouts), the edge would be even better for the player: (125 – 117) / 216 =
3.7%. But it would not be 0% even then. Still, Sic Bo remains a little worse
than French roulette.
Still, Sic Bo is NOT that bad of a game. I proved mathematically
that blackjack is, in truth, worse than roulette. See the new blackjack odds
Dealer Bust: New Software to Calculate Odds, House Edge
Odds Analyzed by Binomial Standard Deviation
That's what science is all about. The truth is above
anybody and anything. Shame has no place in searching for TRUTH.
Curious how Cyber World functions! As wrong mathematically as my latest
writings here were, my website BENEFITTED! I noticed a serious increase in
traffic and in advertising earnings! But, no, thanks! I wouldn't make mistakes
intentionally in order to get an increased Web traffic!
Indeed, I was wrong … but for the
right reason. I saw immediately that number: 108 favorable situations. Also,
immediately, I reported them to total number of cases, 216.
Rather, I should have compared that new “favorable” number to the inflexible
number of unfavorable cases: 125. 125 is a given, it never changes.
The house edge would have come all the way down to 0% only if the casino would
have added enough extra favorable situations to 108 to equal 125; e.g. the
triple paying 19 to 1. In that case: 91 + 15 + 19 = 125.
Gambler's Fallacy was the first bullet shot at yours truly, as it were. I was
promoting the Fundamental Formula of Gambling (FFG) and potentially winning
gambling systems derived from the FFG. My opponents, most of them vociferous
and aggressive, posed me with this “mathematical” situation:
“You lose once; the probability that you will lose next time is the same as
before. You lose twice; the probability that you will lose the third time in a
row is the same as before.... and so on.... ad infinitum, if you
will....” It's like a god of odds will always “create” losing outcomes for the
player (always winning situations for the gambling house)!
I created a special page dedicated to the gambler's fallacy and the reversed
Gambler's Fallacy, Reversed Gamblers Fallacy,
"A good man is an axiomatic man; an axiomatic man is a
happy man. Be axiomatic!"