July 16th, 2015 at 3:32:42 PM
permalink

Quote:MathExtremistAll absolutely true, but I submit that virtually nobody thinks about total action when playing craps.

I'm sure nobody, except maybe people like us, would calculate that exactly, but players can feel how much they are betting. This gets to the question of why people gamble in the first place. For those who do it for the excitement or satisfy an addiction 3-4-5x odds will buy more of what they want. For those who just want to be in the game, I agree, just bet the minimum on the pass, or both ways, and 0x odd the odds.

It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.

July 16th, 2015 at 3:51:07 PM
permalink

Quote:Eric721No, no, no.

This mentality is easy to fall into because most people ignore the come-out roll, which is a ridiculously large part of craps and can't (or at very least shouldn't) be ignored.

Odds serve no purpose whatsoever except to increase your variance. That has exactly one effect: you reach your loss limit faster. Odds in no way affect the expectation; they have none. The line bets retain their original expected value, and the odds carry zero expectation, thus 1.41% (or 1.40%) plus zero is still 1.41%. (or 1.40%.) So when you play odds, all you are doing is shortening your lifespan at the table. Yet countless other gamblers love to tell me about how I'm failing to take advantage of the odds, without realizing that they are the ones being taken advantage of.

As I was getting at earlier, the most favorable position in the casino is the come-out roll on a pass or come bet. Betting odds minimizes this position. I'd much rather put my money on the line for the come-out than I would leaving it behind the line with an expected value of nothing.

If minimizing losses is the highest priority, you can't gamble in the first place. For all practical purposes, in order to minimize losses you absolutely must define your session bankroll, win limit, and loss limit, and then tailor a system within those criteria. Debating without those ideas at the forefront is irrelevant and often misleading, since real-world limitations change what is or is not the best strategy. As a general rule, though, there is no such thing as "minimizing losses." Whatever your loss limit is for a session, that's what you have to plan to lose.

Hi Eric721 (and welcome),

"Odds serve no purpose whatsoever except to increase your variance. That has exactly one effect: you reach your loss limit faster."

I agree that odds increases your variance, but I completely disagree that the ONLY effect is you reach your loss limit faster. It happens that way most of the time, BUT, full 10x odds have also allowed me to win $3k to $6k in a single session, whilst never going above a $25 PL bet. When the dice are hitting points for every shooter, full odds is the sweetest nectar in the casino.

Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!

July 16th, 2015 at 4:27:39 PM
permalink

Right, and to ahiromu's point, the reason I qualified "nobody" with "virtually" is to exclude well-informed gamblers like your readers. Once you've played for a while, you learn to identify the bet level where it's exciting but not terrifying. I don't really feel $5+3/4/5x, in the same way as I'd suppose Phil Ivey doesn't really feel $100+3/4/5x.Quote:WizardI'm sure nobody, except maybe people like us, would calculate that exactly, but players can feel how much they are betting.

"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563

July 16th, 2015 at 5:15:57 PM
permalink

Are we still arguing over the expected loss on 2x vs 3/4/5x odds in this day and age? Of course the guy betting $61 will be losing less than the $100 bettor. But no one calculates the odds and places a pass/don't-pass based on if the table is 2x, 3/4/5x, 10x, or 100x, in a way such that they have the same average bet on each game.

Nothing wrong with betting on the true odds bet.....but please don't include those and come up with some "combined HE" BS.

Nothing wrong with betting on the true odds bet.....but please don't include those and come up with some "combined HE" BS.

"should of played 'Go Fish' today ya peasant" -typoontrav

July 16th, 2015 at 5:18:58 PM
permalink

Quote:RaleighCrapsHi Eric721 (and welcome),

"Odds serve no purpose whatsoever except to increase your variance. That has exactly one effect: you reach your loss limit faster."

I agree that odds increases your variance, but I completely disagree that the ONLY effect is you reach your loss limit faster. It happens that way most of the time, BUT, full 10x odds have also allowed me to win $3k to $6k in a single session, whilst never going above a $25 PL bet. When the dice are hitting points for every shooter, full odds is the sweetest nectar in the casino.

You can also get hot without playing odds, so the "hot shooter" argument doesn't favor either side in this debate.

Let me backtrack a little and say that I am not against playing odds in general, however, I am against playing anything greater than 2x (MAYBE 3x) odds. Does anyone here advocate going to a casino that allows a $1 minimum and 100x odds and actually playing a $1 pass line bet and $100 behind? I would certainly hope not, because that shooter can go 1-1 to the pass line yet you're down $100 immediately.

The generally accepted logic is that because they are true odds, they are great, but once you start raising the limits on odds, it suddenly becomes unwise. If odds are so great, that would not be the case. I could wholeheartedly recommend single or half odds, but once you begin increasing your high expectation bet by a factor of three when it has become a low expectation bet, you have dangerously (to your session limit) increased your variance. That's the exact reason I feel 10x odds are getting into crazy territory. I draw the line at anything more than double/triple odds. In fact, since the comeout is far and away the most favorable position in the casino, I say keep all your action there.

July 16th, 2015 at 5:45:04 PM
permalink

$1+100x odds is basically like getting contingent free buy bets on any number (contingent only on rolling it first). Nothing wrong with that; if there were free buy bets I'd be all over those. It'd be no different than placing across except the payouts would be better.

You don't get to bet on just the comeout, you have to make the whole bet. Looking at the comeout as a favorable position is an inaccurate way to think about how the bet works.

You don't get to bet on just the comeout, you have to make the whole bet. Looking at the comeout as a favorable position is an inaccurate way to think about how the bet works.

"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563

July 16th, 2015 at 6:20:14 PM
permalink

Quote:MathExtremist$1+100x odds is basically like getting contingent free buy bets on any number (contingent only on rolling it first). Nothing wrong with that; if there were free buy bets I'd be all over those. It'd be no different than placing across except the payouts would be better.

There's nothing wrong with it besides the fact that the variance is astronomical.

The point of gambling is not variance, it is action. The thrill of the ride. If all you wanted was variance, you could do any number of other things. Why go to a casino at all when you could just buy scratch-offs at the local gas station. Because it's fun to gamble at a casino. The main attraction of table games is to be there with other people. The main attraction of craps is that it is a social game, where you often get entire tables cheering, clapping, and whistling for a hot shooter. Gambling is not about variance; good gambling tries to minimize variance in the effort of extending bankroll and extending fun. If you want a high return, like odds has, then you are already setting yourself up for many more losses than wins. Why is that fun?

Quote:MathExtremistYou don't get to bet on just the comeout, you have to make the whole bet. Looking at the comeout as a favorable position is an inaccurate way to think about how the bet works.

You're a math guy, right?

Take a look at this:

How do you win at the Pass Line? Let me show you a little chart of the possibilities. Note: To keep everything in integer form, I multiply every one of the 36 possible rolls by 55. So instead of going through every possible roll once, it's every possible roll 55 times each.

Roll | Ways | Ways x55 | Ways to Pass | Ways to Don't |
---|---|---|---|---|

2 | 1 | 55 | 0 | 55 |

3 | 2 | 110 | 0 | 110 |

4 | 3 | 165 | 55 | 110 |

5 | 4 | 220 | 88 | 132 |

6 | 5 | 275 | 125 | 150 |

7 | 6 | 330 | 330 | 0 |

8 | 5 | 275 | 125 | 150 |

9 | 4 | 220 | 88 | 132 |

10 | 3 | 165 | 55 | 110 |

11 | 2 | 110 | 110 | 0 |

12 | 1 | 55 | 0 | n/a |

Total | 36 | 1980 | 976 | 949 |

The chart shows us that there are 536 ways to win odds. (55+88+125+125+88+55=536) It also shows us that there are 440 ways to win on the comeout. (330+110) This gives a total of 536+440=976 ways to win, which checks out.

When you ignore the comeout, you are ignoring 45%, almost half, of all possible winners. That's why I play without odds. I count on all winners.

Said another way, there are only 536 ways to win odds. That's a paltry 27.07% of possible rolls. (536/1980=.270707...) Not a very promising wager, eh?

I can't stress this enough. 45% of all Pass Line winners happen on the come-out roll. That's just nuts. Why in the world would you want to minimize 45% of your winners by taking odds?

July 16th, 2015 at 6:46:27 PM
permalink

Quote:Eric721There's nothing wrong with it besides the fact that the variance is astronomical.

The point of gambling is not variance, it is action. The thrill of the ride. If all you wanted was variance, you could do any number of other things. Why go to a casino at all when you could just buy scratch-offs at the local gas station. Because it's fun to gamble at a casino. The main attraction of table games is to be there with other people. The main attraction of craps is that it is a social game, where you often get entire tables cheering, clapping, and whistling for a hot shooter. Gambling is not about variance; good gambling tries to minimize variance in the effort of extending bankroll and extending fun. If you want a high return, like odds has, then you are already setting yourself up for many more losses than wins. Why is that fun?

If you only ever made one at a time, sure you'd lose more times than you won. But what if you make two or more? If you have a 4 and 10 working, now you're at 50-50. Any other two odds bets working means a greater than 50% chance (relative to 7) of hitting and therefore a lower variance than one at a time.

You should run a sim of 1, 2, and 3 odds bets and get a sense of how the variance changes. It goes down and that may be counterintuitive. If you don't want to run a sim, look at the Elliott paper, table 6, first two rows:

http://www.conjelco.com/downloads/elliott-paper.pdf

Because it's important to focus on the edge, not just the probability of winning. The cost of a pass bet is 1.4% of the bet. The cost of odds is zero.Quote:I can't stress this enough. 45% of all Pass Line winners happen on the come-out roll. That's just nuts. Why in the world would you want to minimize 45% of your winners by taking odds?

What would you rather bet on?

a) A coin flip where you bet $1 and if it's heads I pay you back $1.90 (5% house edge), or

b) A dice roll where you bet $1 and if it's a six I pay you back $6 (0 house edge)

"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563

July 16th, 2015 at 7:19:41 PM
permalink

Quote:MathExtremistBecause it's important to focus on the edge, not just the probability of winning. The cost of a pass bet is 1.4% of the bet. The cost of odds is zero.

What would you rather bet on?

a) A coin flip where you bet $1 and if it's heads I pay you back $1.90 (5% house edge), or

b) A dice roll where you bet $1 and if it's a six I pay you back $6 (0 house edge)

Then in purely mathematical argument, can you convince me that playing 100x odds is a smart bet?

Going off what I said earlier, assume a $303 bankroll at a $1 minimum table with 100x odds. According to the purely mathematical argument, since this reduces the house edge to virtually nil, it should be a smarter bet. But I would argue that it is not as smart as playing no odds at all, for many reasons.

This is exactly like people's absolutist arguments about odds always being the smartest bet and how not taking max odds is illogical. You're not grasping any possible aspect of betting other than EV (or, diminishing the house edge).

I'll answer your coinflip question with one of my own. Which would you take:

1) Heads, win $95; Tails, lose $105

2) Heads, win $10,000; Tails lose $10,000

Most of us in the real world would take bet 1) every time because we can't afford to lose ten grand. There's just too much variance there. If you came along and scolded us that our choice was illogical due to the EV, we'd rightly laugh in your face.

July 16th, 2015 at 8:12:22 PM
permalink

Quote:Eric721There's nothing wrong with it besides the fact that the variance is astronomical.

The point of gambling is not variance, it is action. The thrill of the ride. If all you wanted was variance, you could do any number of other things. Why go to a casino at all when you could just buy scratch-offs at the local gas station. Because it's fun to gamble at a casino. The main attraction of table games is to be there with other people. The main attraction of craps is that it is a social game, where you often get entire tables cheering, clapping, and whistling for a hot shooter. Gambling is not about variance; good gambling tries to minimize variance in the effort of extending bankroll and extending fun. If you want a high return, like odds has, then you are already setting yourself up for many more losses than wins. Why is that fun?

You're a math guy, right?

Take a look at this:

How do you win at the Pass Line? Let me show you a little chart of the possibilities. Note: To keep everything in integer form, I multiply every one of the 36 possible rolls by 55. So instead of going through every possible roll once, it's every possible roll 55 times each.

Roll Ways Ways x55 Ways to Pass Ways to Don't 2 1 55 0 55 3 2 110 0 110 4 3 165 55 110 5 4 220 88 132 6 5 275 125 150 7 6 330 330 0 8 5 275 125 150 9 4 220 88 132 10 3 165 55 110 11 2 110 110 0 12 1 55 0 n/a Total 36 1980 976 949

The chart shows us that there are 536 ways to win odds. (55+88+125+125+88+55=536) It also shows us that there are 440 ways to win on the comeout. (330+110) This gives a total of 536+440=976 ways to win, which checks out.

When you ignore the comeout, you are ignoring 45%, almost half, of all possible winners. That's why I play without odds. I count on all winners.

Said another way, there are only 536 ways to win odds. That's a paltry 27.07% of possible rolls. (536/1980=.270707...) Not a very promising wager, eh?

I can't stress this enough. 45% of all Pass Line winners happen on the come-out roll. That's just nuts. Why in the world would you want to minimize 45% of your winners by taking odds?

Yes, the point of gambling is action, but it depends on variance to be exciting! If there was no variance you would lose 1.4% of your pass line bet every time you bet. That's no fun. No one would gamble without variance. The fact that you will either win or lose your bet is what is exciting and is due to variance. 100x odds is exciting.