I have been asked to comment on The Captain's 5-Count Method for Craps, which is a shooter qualification criterion. It basically says that a player should wait until the shooter makes a certain number throws before betting. The original article can be found here:
http://s113152270.onlinehome.us/proof.shtml After reading about the method and the "proof" given by some advocates, I am now ready to give an explanation of my point of view regarding this strategy.
Firstly, the data given in the article is somewhat incomplete/misleading. Total wagers are given for the "Bet-All" and "5-Counter" players, but it is not explicitly stated if these are on a per roll, or per resolved bet basis. However, after stating that the loss is approximately 1.5% after making Place bets on the 6 and 8, we can assume that the total wagers are calculated on a per bet resolved basis, as opposed to per roll.
Additionally, the average loss per shooter is given for both types of players, but the number of shooters used in each of the calculations is not shown clearly. The simulation used 200 million random shooters, so total losses were divided by 200,000,000 in order to come up with the average loss per shooter. The problem with this is that the 5-Counter did not bet on all of the shooters, so the comparison of averages at this point is meaningless. It should be obvious that the less often you play, the lower your average loss per
all shooters will be.
So, you think this strategy helps avoid the Point-Seven-Out (PSO), or the Point-get-a-few-rolls-then-Seven-Out shooters? Well, sure it does... and according to the article, that's 50% of all shooters - 100 million in the given example. But once you enter the game on the shooter's sixth roll, guess what happens? Using the same mathematical basis, 50 million of those shooters should still seven-out within five rolls - again, 50% of shooters you bet on. So what will you use to avoid the P+5SO or Point-get-a-few-rolls-plus-5-then-Seven-Out shooters? Use a 10-Count method?
It is irrelevant how many throws a shooter makes without a Seven-Out if you're not betting, and you do not have a better chance of winning if you use the 5-Count method. The article admitted that the losses per money wagered for both the "Bet-All" and "5-Counter" players were about 1.5%, and this should signal right away that you are probably going to lose the same amount of money if you are using this method... just at a slower pace.
What of the claim of making Craps a positive expectation game? This claim is actually true... sort of. The method proposes that a player can expect to win playing Craps as long as comps are factored in. Well, the article states that the casino rates a 5-Count player as if he/she had bet on every shooter, and this is not always the case. Some supervisors are aware of betting frequency, and they can lower the rate at which a 5-Counter receives comps. But
IF the 5-Counter is rated as if he was betting all the time, it is at least possible to have a positive expectation on the game after factoring in the comps.
But you don't need a 5-Count method for this to be true - you could simply bet on every other shooter and achieve basically the same effect.
Then there's the issue of controlled shooters. Supposedly, if there is a shooter on the table that is able to deliberately influence the outcome of the dice, then the 5-Count method will have you betting on them more frequently than if you were not using the method. Again, this is probably true. I don't want to get into a discussion about dice controllers/influencers at this moment, but IF (big "if" there) it is possible to influence the dice AND there just happens to be one of these people on your table, you actually would have a better chance of winning (contrary to what I said before)... but I'd think that you wouldn't need a 5-Count method to figure out when to bet. That's just my opinion.
So is the article in question full of lies? Absolutely not. The only issue I see is with how people tend to interpret it. Some Craps players say it works, but have fooled themselves into thinking that they have avoided the shooters that seven-out within five rolls, or that they have better chances of winning because they only jump in during the longer rolls. Unfortunately, long rolls have very little importance to you if you are not betting, and when you jump in, you might as well toss your count out the window, because your chances of avoiding a quick seven-out have not improved.
Do you have a topic or question related to casino gaming that you'd like to see discussed on this blog? Send me an email at
FogOfGambling@gmail.com and let me know!
