i believe Steve Wynn has a full plate between Macau and Boston among others, i doubt very seriously that his latest concern lies in what odds his dice pit offers. i am sure that if he knew the damage that was being done to his name, that he'd stop it.
One word: INFLATION!!!! How many on this board would want to live on your salary from 10 years ago and still have to pay today's cost. It doesn't help that for Nevada the amount won from craps has gone down 25% since 2000. Any businessman as smart as Mr. Wynn knows that when revenue goes down and cost goes up, you need to change how things are done. How much you want to bet that there has been research done that shows that average bettors will move some of those no longer allowed odds bets to higher house edge prop. bets.
I will take that bet. The guy I met at the Wynn to play with was with was convinced the Pass line bet wasn't worth it any more and moved all his action to the Place Bets. Except when he rolled and he didn't place odds. I took his odds. Seemed like there was more Numbers action than normal but maybe Relle can comment on that from a dealers point of view.
Define "smart bet" and then you'll be able to tell whether it is or is not. You don't need me to convince you, you're capable of figuring it out on your own. Did you read the paper I linked to or did you just skip over it?Quote: Eric721
Then in purely mathematical argument, can you convince me that playing 100x odds is a smart bet?
Your idea of "smart" appears to be "maximize the player return at all costs." That's not a very smart idea of "smart." In other words, your notion of "the purely mathematical argument" is absurdly narrow.Quote:
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.
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.
the odds are an important factor in our game, more importantly to our brand. we, as dealers were shocked when we implemented 6:5 blackjack, we never thought it would come to our property. it's shameful, it's embarrassing and it most certainly isn't what a top tier casino should offer... no one consulted us though. it's a decision made by a bean counter who looks at numbers on a spread sheet and has never spent a day living in the trenches of what our business model is or should be.
The intelligent person who doesn't want variance just realizes that in the long run it likely won't matter and just stops.
Yet the difference in Craps to me just goes back to the $55 bettor at the $5 minimum table. I just don't see how it can be argued that it doesnt matter if the player plunks down that $55 on the line every time, or if he instead makes the $5 line bet and adds $50 in odds every time. Yet this thread is proving again that when presented with this argument the former player goes back to his argument about EV and the latter player goes back to his argument about unneeded variance. It's hard for me to picture either as liking to play Craps.
You haven't understood the discussion.
This isn't meaningful in a practical way because you never reach the long term expectation in a session. There is no functional difference between the two proposed systems ($55 pass vs $5 pass with $50 odds every point with no other bets) in any given session. You are just as likely to win or lose with both systems, though they win their money differently. (With odds, you have to hit a bunch of <50% chance occurances. Without odds, you have to have more ~50% occurances happen than not.)
Define "smart bet" and then you'll be able to tell whether it is or is not. You don't need me to convince you, you're capable of figuring it out on your own. Did you read the paper I linked to or did you just skip over it?
Your idea of "smart" appears to be "maximize the player return at all costs." That's not a very smart idea of "smart." In other words, your notion of "the purely mathematical argument" is absurdly narrow.
Neither. If I'm gambling, I'll find a better coin flip. Even black on roulette would be better. If I'm investing $10,000, it won't be in something with zero ROI. In short, your example is a terrible analogy and it is a poor comparison to my original question (based on equivalent wager sizes). Would you bet $1,000,000,000 on a 1/10000 chance to win $50,000,000,000,000? Of course not, even though you'd have a +400% edge. Even if you had a billion dollars, you'd never risk it at such long odds to win $50 trillion. You would do well to appreciate that money does not have a constant marginal utility. $50 trillion is exactly as useful as $1 billion to virtually everybody.
Invoking the royal "we" and the "real world" is pretty ridiculous for someone who started with the example of a $1+100x odds table. That's like arguing about whether unicorn race jockeys should be elves or hobbits. In the "real world" there are no $1+100x odds tables.
In the same real world, someone who comes to one of the handful of 100x craps tables in the country with $10,000 and wants to play would be far better served -- and probably have a more exciting time -- by making $5 passline + 100x bets than they would $500 pass bets with no odds.
It's poor advice to increase the odds bet if that puts a player above their overall comfort level on a per-wager basis. If Jim happened to be at the $5 + 100x table at the Casino Royale, and he was betting $5 + $20 odds each roll (4x odds), it would be poor advice to suggest increasing those odds to $500 per roll if his bankroll couldn't support it. I would certainly never suggest that. But you appear to suggest that Jim should not play $5 + $20 odds and should bet $25 flat instead. That's also poor advice.