craps going to lay only 6 and 8
Edit: I'm a little confused. Why don't you just use place bets to lose?
Quote: ruascottI'd have to agree. You are making 2 bets with 4% HA and I don't even see for what reason. The probabilites say that it more than likely that a 6 OR 8 would be rolled before a 7, and therefore you lose. That's just me though. I HATE betting more than I will win.
1) The HA depends heavily on the rules at the particular casino. If they collect
the vig only after a win, that lowers the HA, but not as much as on buy bets,
since lay bets have >50% chance to win. Also, you are really betting $24 to win
$20, right? If they collect only on a win, they will pay you $19 for a win, take
the $24 if you lose. At this level, the HA is then 2.27%. However, you need to
find out the maximum bet for which they still charge only $1 vig, which may be as high as $36.
2) You are seriously under-capitalized at $200 with $50 on the table. Your risk of ruin is very, very high, about 44% in a sim I ran on WinCraps, 10,000 sessions of up to 60 bets. About 25% of the sessions turned $100 profit or more, up to $774.
I tried an alternate strategy, laying no 6 for $36, assuming a $1 vig collected
only on a win. This yields an HA that is the same as placing the six (1.515%). So, you have a lower HA and less money at risk on each comeout. The bust rate was still high, about 33%, but almost 30% of the time it won at least $100, up to $895, in 60 bets.
The trend towards collecting buy/lay vigs only on a win really tips the scale in favor of buy bets, because they win less than 50% of the time, only 33% for buy 4/10.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: goatcabin1) The HA depends heavily on the rules at the particular casino. If they collect
the vig only after a win, that lowers the HA, but not as much as on buy bets,
since lay bets have >50% chance to win. Also, you are really betting $24 to win
$20, right? If they collect only on a win, they will pay you $19 for a win, take
the $24 if you lose. At this level, the HA is then 2.27%. However, you need to
find out the maximum bet for which they still charge only $1 vig, which may be as high as $36.
2) You are seriously under-capitalized at $200 with $50 on the table. Your risk of ruin is very, very high, about 44% in a sim I ran on WinCraps, 10,000 sessions of up to 60 bets. About 25% of the sessions turned $100 profit or more, up to $774.
I tried an alternate strategy, laying no 6 for $36, assuming a $1 vig collected
only on a win. This yields an HA that is the same as placing the six (1.515%). So, you have a lower HA and less money at risk on each comeout. The bust rate was still high, about 33%, but almost 30% of the time it won at least $100, up to $895, in 60 bets.
The trend towards collecting buy/lay vigs only on a win really tips the scale in favor of buy bets, because they win less than 50% of the time, only 33% for buy 4/10.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
I'd agree. I guess that's why he said if the table was hot he'd be dead. I wouldn't even think it would need to be hot. Just luke warm and he could be done real quick. Could be an incredibly short session.
If you do try this out, please post and let us know how it went.
Quote: teddysEdit: I'm a little confused. Why don't you just use place bets to lose?
I don't believe place bets to lose are accepted at many places. The Wiz says only a single casino in Australia and some internet casinos have it.
Quote: FleaStiffThis seems a very unwise strategy. If your bankroll is so limited, I would avoid the dark side. If you do want the dark side but have a limited bankroll then a simple DP with one or two DC bets seems more sensible. Laying odds may eat up a good chunk of your bankroll.
I don't think the problem is with the "side", but rather the size of the bankroll relative to the size of the bets. With a $200 stake and $48 on the table, it doesn't take a whole lot of negative variance to wipe you out. The skew is opposite to the right-side skew, but you expect more winning bets than losing ones. Obviously, that didn't happen. Any strategy can get hammered by the wrong dice rolls - that's gambling!
The original poster might consider making one lay-no-4 bet for $40 or $50 (if $1 vig); that way, you'd expect to win 2 of 3 bets, so you'd have to be even more unlucky to wipe out, but it also means they'd collect the vig more often. Squeeze the balloon on one side, and it bulges out on the other!!!
As FleaStiff says, with only $200, you might be better of betting DP, where you can bet the table minimum and pay only 1.4% vig. I recommend laying single odds rather than making Don't Come bets, because they do not increase the expected loss, whereas DC bets do. At a $10 table, you can bet $10 DP and lay $12, $15 and $20 odds; you never have more than $30 on the table and your average bet is just about $21. That would reduce your chance of busting within a couple of hours to about 20%.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: DeMangoAnything more than 10% of your session bankroll on the table is financial suicide. Change your handle to Ilovegivingmymoneytothecasino.
Nonsense! The best chance to double your money is to put it all on the pass or don't pass - .493 probability of winning. If you win, you now have twice as much to play with.
Playing with a short bankroll, one that, combined with your bet spread, gives you a high "risk of ruin", puts a premium on being lucky early on.
Just for fun, I ran two simulations, using a single lay-no-4 bet for $40, $1 vig collected only on wins. The sessions were to last for 60 bet resolutions, or reach a win goal of $600, or bust. I ran 10,000 sessions each, starting with a $200 bankroll or a $400 bankroll. Results:
$200 BR $400 BR
busts: 4776 1195
reach WG 17 21
mean net -$29.27 -$38.68
SD $178 $213
wins 3779 4206
losses 6221 5794
max win $767 $778
I used the same seed for both sims.
Basically, having a short bankroll is just having a tight loss limit, which many players advocate. Obviously, it prevents you from losing more than $200, in this case.
I don't advocate anything except understanding what one's goal(s) is/are and picking a strategy that gives you the best chance of realizing it/them. For me, that means keeping the expected loss low and the variance fairly high, which translates into minimum line bets with whatever odds I feel I can afford. That combination maximizes my probability of winning, by minimizing |ev/SD|.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
And if you lose that very first roll you have zero opportunity to ever recoup the loss or even approach the plus column. Often, you won't even be able to get a free drink if you are not actively gambling.Quote: goatcabinThe best chance to double your money is to put it all on the pass or don't pass - .493 probability of winning. If you win, you now have twice as much to play with.
Its always great to have those first few wagers work out to be winners, but not always likely to happen. I once had a blackjack session wherein I had three Black Jacks in my first four hands and the dealer made some comment to the other players about it. It sure helps stave off the inevitable a while longer. Its the same with the fairly large bets against the six or eight rolling. He is using up quite a chunk of his 200.00. With a more conservative strategy he might get to a position in the plus column wherein he felt that action on his desired Laying of the 6 and 8 was now going to represent a lesser chunk of his bankroll.
Mathematically, you are quite correct: One Roll. Win or Lose. Let the House Edge work against you but once!
As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!"
Quote: DeMangoYup math boy, variance don't mean a thing, after all that's all smart people do, go to the casino and bet everything on one roll.
As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!"
If you've read and understood anything that I've posted here over the past few weeks, you'd know that I know that variance means A LOT. In fact, the reason that the best chance of doubling your money is to bet it all on one even-money bet is that the variance is maximized that way. If you bet half your bankroll twice, the expected value is the same, but the variance is less, because it increases only with the square root of the number of decisions. That fact is specifically why the longer you play, the less likely you are to win.
Take a gander at my blog "More About Variance".
Cheers,
Alan Shank
Quote: DeMangoYup math boy, variance don't mean a thing, after all that's all smart people do, go to the casino and bet everything on one roll.
As John McEnroe would say, "You can't be serious!"
The Wizard has said the same thing before, to have the greatest chance at winning, the highest winning percentage is to bet it all on one bet.
Of course you and I do not see the fun in that style. We will take our chances on luck and the better bets.
But to each his own!
Take that a step forward. You took the plunge and won, what next? Another plunge, then another? Or take the winnings and go back to "normal" betting. No, the OP presented a case where too much % of bankroll was at stake. The solution is to increase bankroll or cut back the bet, not bet it all in one plunge.
Quote: DeMangoI can't think of one gaming writer, particularly those that favor advantage play, that would reccomend a one bet appearance at the casino..
What about the guy whose name is at the top of this page?
Quote: DeMangoSorry, not good enough. I can't think of one gaming writer, particularly those that favor advantage play, that would reccomend a one bet appearance at the casino. The exception, possibly, of a remote occurance, say a 2:1 blackjack promotion. In this case you would bet a healthy chunk of your bankroll, in accordance with the Kelly criterion. Indeed the math doesn't lie, but a one roll deal is foolish.
Take that a step forward. You took the plunge and won, what next? Another plunge, then another? Or take the winnings and go back to "normal" betting. No, the OP presented a case where too much % of bankroll was at stake. The solution is to increase bankroll or cut back the bet, not bet it all in one plunge.
Every bet you make at the casino has a house edge. The more often you bet, the more often you are destined to lose.
It is as simple as that.
One bet would be the best option, assuming you can stomach losing it all on 1 play.
I wouldn't go this route personally, since I enjoy the time spent playing. But if I had to double my bankroll by noon, or risk having my legs broken by my lender, then I would go for the 1 play double my money.
LOL. And a quick resolution could give more time in which to skip town, just in case that one shot didn't work out!Quote: RaleighCraps...But if I had to double my bankroll by noon, or risk having my legs broken by my lender, then I would go for the 1 play double my money.
Quote: DeMangoSorry, not good enough. I can't think of one gaming writer, particularly those that favor advantage play, that would reccomend a one bet appearance at the casino.
Ah, an "advantage" player. First, I am not "recommending" a one-roll bet; I am simply stating the fact that, if your goal is to double your bankroll, that is the most likely way to do it. Second, if you really WERE an "advantage" player, that would not be the case. It's the fact that the player is at a disadvantage that maximizes the doubling probability at one bet. Just like the house advantage, a player advantage would compound itself.
Quote: DeMangoIndeed the math doesn't lie, but a one roll deal is foolish.
What's "foolish" is to make that judgement for anyone except yourself. If a player has 1/2 x, needs x more than he/she needs to hold on to 1/2 x, one bet is the most likely way to get x. This is using the utility of the win amount vs. the utility of the bet amount to drive the bet strategy. Of course, this is an unlikely scenario. You are trying to make it sound like I advocate this as a regular thing, which is, of course, far from the case. Your statement that putting more than 10% of the bankroll on the table is "financial suicide" is what I was objecting to.
Quote: DeMangoTake that a step forward. You took the plunge and won, what next? Another plunge, then another? Or take the winnings and go back to "normal" betting.
OK, you doubled your money. What now? It depends. What's the value of that money compared to what you might win? How much would it hurt to lose it? Since the poster is presumably not an "advantage" player, any further play carries with it an expected loss. Each player has to decide, and the best decision is an informed one.
Quote: DeMangoNo, the OP presented a case where too much % of bankroll was at stake. The solution is to increase bankroll or cut back the bet, not bet it all in one plunge.
As I said, I never proposed that as a "solution" at all. I suggested either making one lay bet or using the lower-variance, lower-bet DP. However, as my study showed, doubling the bankroll, although it keeps one in the game more often, actually results in losing more money, on average. The level of "risk of ruin" a player tolerates is up to him/her.
Cheers,
Alan Shank
