Explaining EV to Wellbush

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Fourth grade arithmetic? I can do that. From my personal perspective, I find nothing challenging in roulette or cards with the exception of poker. So for me, getting into some form of math (EV) depth holds no interest or compelling discussion. The wagers are straight forward and uncomplicated and not subject to any real "creative" approaches. I personally struggle with the overall concept because "probability" and "value" are necessarily in conflict with one another. Proponents of the EV concept do not care or factor in the overall "probability" of winning if for some reason the return on investment falls short of some imaginary perfect $$ return. Therefore, they can continuously move the goal posts if logic and fourth grade arithmetic overcomes the prevailing definitions. Like this forum, casinos and games have RULES (emphasis) that predetermine payouts. So for "math purists" to generate arbitrary illogical definitions to suit the status quo, is disingenuous and flawed.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Fourth grade arithmetic? I can do that. From my personal perspective, I find nothing challenging in roulette or cards with the exception of poker. So for me, getting into some form of math (EV) depth holds no interest or compelling discussion. The wagers are straight forward and uncomplicated and not subject to any real "creative" approaches. I personally struggle with the overall concept because "probability" and "value" are necessarily in conflict with one another. Proponents of the EV concept do not care or factor in the overall "probability" of winning if for some reason the return on investment falls short of some imaginary perfect $$ return. Therefore, they can continuously move the goal posts if logic and fourth grade arithmetic overcomes the prevailing definitions. Like this forum, casinos and games have RULES (emphasis) that predetermine payouts. So for "math purists" to generate arbitrary illogical definitions to suit the status quo, is disingenuous and flawed.

tuttigym

Let me try a new angle. Here’s a new craps bet, which we call “No Red!”

It’s a one roll bet that wins if the next roll is anything except a 7. It pays 1:6. You have to bet $6 to win $1.

You like this bet? It wins the vast majority (83.3%) of the time.

Quote: unJon

Let me try a new angle. Here’s a new craps bet, which we call “No Red!”

It’s a one roll bet that wins if the next roll is anything except a 7. It pays 1:6. You have to bet $6 to win $1.

You like this bet? It wins the vast majority (83.3%) of the time.

The bet you suggest mirrors the Iron Cross, so yes, even though you call it a one roll bet, I presume the bet could be renewed again and again. And like the Iron Cross, were I to play it, I would not leave that bet on the table for six rolls to break even with the totality of the bet. After two or three rolls or hits or wins, I would bring my wagers down. Could I get stung with a "premature" 7 out and lose? Absolutely, and I have, but I am willing to "accept" and handle the risk. Many are not and that is OK. But for me, that perceived 5 to 1 advantage over the house of an "expected" win allows for a truly positive outlook.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Fourth grade arithmetic? I can do that. From my personal perspective, I find nothing challenging in roulette or cards with the exception of poker. So for me, getting into some form of math (EV) depth holds no interest or compelling discussion. The wagers are straight forward and uncomplicated and not subject to any real "creative" approaches. I personally struggle with the overall concept because "probability" and "value" are necessarily in conflict with one another. Proponents of the EV concept do not care or factor in the overall "probability" of winning if for some reason the return on investment falls short of some imaginary perfect $$ return. Therefore, they can continuously move the goal posts if logic and fourth grade arithmetic overcomes the prevailing definitions. Like this forum, casinos and games have RULES (emphasis) that predetermine payouts. So for "math purists" to generate arbitrary illogical definitions to suit the status quo, is disingenuous and flawed.

tuttigym

I have to question how much you have been reading the posts responding to yours for you to have made this post. If you have been thoroughly digesting responding posts, then there is no question in my mind that you are capable of understanding them. Particularly, this statement of yours:

Quote:

Proponents of the EV concept do not care or factor in the overall "probability" of winning if for some reason the return on investment falls short of some imaginary perfect $$ return.

Probability is a necessary component of Expected Value. You cannot arrive at Expected Value without an absolute, or assumed, probability. It's not possible. It would be like trying to remove all water from a human being...you wouldn't have a human being anymore.

"Logic," I must assume, is not a word that we have been using the same way. "Simple logic," to me, just means, "Weak logic." For many people, Expected Value analysis is not a simple affair. My advice to them is to listen to those who know more about Expected Value analysis than they do and for whom Expected Value analysis is a simple affair.

There's no shame in not understanding something. I don't understand much about---let's say, biology. That said, there are people out there who would consider some biological facts and understanding that I will never fully grasp to be, "Simple." I would tend to defer to biologists what is right or wrong about biology and only see the need to seek out more information where biologists disagree.

I don't want to call myself a, "Mathematician," because that would be praise that I am unworthy of. That said, I do have a better than average understanding of gambling math. I would say that nobody with a better than average understanding of gambling math would ever disagree with the concept of EV and its application. All things gambling rely on the concept. Casinos rely on the concept.

The concept of EV as relates those who understand gambling math is as if all scientists in a particular field universally agreed as to a scientific matter. For you to be correct, all gambling mathematicians would have to be incorrect. Chew on that. It really is that simple.

The notion of, "Logic and fourth grade arithmetic overcomes the prevailing definitions," is no different than asking, "What happens when fourth grade science overcomes the prevailing definitions of professional scientists?" Spoiler Alert: It doesn't.

Quote: tuttigym

The bet you suggest mirrors the Iron Cross, so yes, even though you call it a one roll bet, I presume the bet could be renewed again and again. And like the Iron Cross, were I to play it, I would not leave that bet on the table for six rolls to break even with the totality of the bet. After two or three rolls or hits or wins, I would bring my wagers down. Could I get stung with a "premature" 7 out and lose? Absolutely, and I have, but I am willing to "accept" and handle the risk. Many are not and that is OK. But for me, that perceived 5 to 1 advantage over the house of an "expected" win allows for a truly positive outlook.

tuttigym

Are you bringing your wagers down to never be made again as long as you live? If not, then I don't see the difference between bringing them down and leaving them up.

I mean, even ignoring the 16.9% House Edge that such a bet would have, there's no practical difference between leaving them up and taking them down only to be made again at some point in the future.

Quote: unJon

Let me try a new angle. Here’s a new craps bet, which we call “No Red!”

It’s a one roll bet that wins if the next roll is anything except a 7. It pays 1:6. You have to bet $6 to win $1.

You like this bet? It wins the vast majority (83.3%) of the time.

Mr.unJon: Let me ask if you think a PL bet with 10X odds and a 73% chance of losing, even though the odds bet is 0 EV, is a good bet?

tuttigym

Quote: Mission146

Are you bringing your wagers down to never be made again as long as you live? If not, then I don't see the difference between bringing them down and leaving them up.

I mean, even ignoring the 16.9% House Edge that such a bet would have, there's no practical difference between leaving them up and taking them down only to be made again at some point in the future.

Lets say I won $100 on those two rolls, I would also have a DP bet on the table, and If I want I could reduce my bets on two numbers and ride out the hand. I do not play every hand or identical bets. The prevailing assumptions are that one must, if they do any gambling at all, play exactly the same way each and every time. For many, I have observed, that is true, and for the most part, they lose .... often.

You have said that you do not play the game, and that is fine, but to suggest that my play or anyone's play is static is not real. The object for me is to be up and adjust my game accordingly. BTW, if I reach my $$ win goal for any given session, I color and leave. I am not there to break the bank. My gaming process does not depend on huge wins; that is not real.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Mr.unJon: Let me ask if you think a PL bet with 10X odds and a 73% chance of losing, even though the odds bet is 0 EV, is a good bet?

tuttigym

So I have the PL bet and the odds bet? If so that’s not 0 EV, it’s overall negative.

Quote: tuttigym

Lets say I won $100 on those two rolls, I would also have a DP bet on the table, and If I want I could reduce my bets on two numbers and ride out the hand. I do not play every hand or identical bets. The prevailing assumptions are that one must, if they do any gambling at all, play exactly the same way each and every time. For many, I have observed, that is true, and for the most part, they lose .... often.

You have said that you do not play the game, and that is fine, but to suggest that my play or anyone's play is static is not real. The object for me is to be up and adjust my game accordingly. BTW, if I reach my $$ win goal for any given session, I color and leave. I am not there to break the bank. My gaming process does not depend on huge wins; that is not real.

tuttigym

I think Mission was trying to say “there is not such thing as a session.” Your life is one long session. Whether between one bet and the next is (I) an instant, (II) a bathroom break, (III) three years, does not matter.

Quote: tuttigym

Lets say I won $100 on those two rolls, I would also have a DP bet on the table, and If I want I could reduce my bets on two numbers and ride out the hand. I do not play every hand or identical bets. The prevailing assumptions are that one must, if they do any gambling at all, play exactly the same way each and every time. For many, I have observed, that is true, and for the most part, they lose .... often.

You have said that you do not play the game, and that is fine, but to suggest that my play or anyone's play is static is not real. The object for me is to be up and adjust my game accordingly. BTW, if I reach my $$ win goal for any given session, I color and leave. I am not there to break the bank. My gaming process does not depend on huge wins; that is not real.

tuttigym

You would have a Don't Pass for what purpose? Effectively, the DP bet would be a partial hedge on the CO in the sense that a seven would cause the DP to win and your other bets to lose. PHRASED WRONG—-I meant after the CO…on the CO 7 still loses.

I don't know what you mean by the, "Prevailing assumptions." Prevailing, according to whom?

For me, here is a list of possible bets that can be made on Craps---probability of winning---probability of losing---house edge. Bet whatever the hell you want to. Your post is either debating strawmen or ghosts, but it isn't debating me. If you want to know what the Expected Loss is on a particular series of bets, then I am happy to help you with that information. If you want to run a system and want to know single trial probability of success, can do!

What is the best bet on Craps? None. They all have a House Edge against you, so none of them are good bets. The Odds bet is neutral, but requires you make a bet with a House Edge (usually) against you; you might find a player who allows you to bet their odds, so that's a possible exception if the casino will permit it.

But, if you think I'm concerned with what/how people actually bet, you're wrong. I just want people to know the House Edge so they can compare that to whatever they are betting and know how much each bet costs them in the long run. I want slot machines to have their return percentages, on all of them, if I had my way.

You seem to be misinterpreting my goals. I don't think anyone, "Must," play any particular way. Play however you want. I just want people to be making an informed decision.

I hate losing money overall on Come Out rolls, for example; consequently, I make a $1, "Crap Check," bet knowing that it has an expected cost of 11.11 cents per Come Out roll. Terrible bet. Terrible house edge. But, it's a bet that enhances my enjoyment of the game to the extent that I think it is worth the expected cost of 11.11 cents per CO roll and the ACTUAL long-term cost that will be very close to 11.11 cents for each time I have made that bet.

That's all that I want. That's my entire goal. If people are going to gamble, I just want them to know the percentages, expected loss, approximate expected cost per hour spent playing, etc. etc. etc., so that they are making an informed decision.

I'm not going to sit here and advocate being a purist at a negative expectation game. It's a negative expectation game, so you lose in the long run either way. That's why I am not personally inclined to do only PL + ODDS (if any) in the rare event I play Craps...I'm not playing Craps because I plan to win or expect to win. I expect to lose. Of course, I could count on one hand the number of times I have played Craps in as many years.

Anyway, I don't care how you play. That is the point. I just want people to know the House Edge and expected loss of all bets. That's what I am here to help with. Your money is your money---which makes it none of my business. My business is that a question gets asked and, if I answer at all, I answer to the best of my ability. If I answer, it's because I am trying to help.

Quote: unJon

I think Mission was trying to say “there is not such thing as a session.” Your life is one long session. Whether between one bet and the next is (I) an instant, (II) a bathroom break, (III) three years, does not matter.

That is a better phrased version of what I meant, thank you.

Quote: tuttigym

SARCASM ALERT!!
Oh great, a mind reading mod. I need to start hiding my most inner thoughts.

tuttigym

No need for sarcasm as the man is doing a good job.

Quote: unJon

So I have the PL bet and the odds bet? If so that’s not 0 EV, it’s overall negative.

Absolutely. Thank you, I believe there are a number of members/posters who do not believe such. As I noted previously, one can not turn -EV into a 0 EV just as one can not turn a -EV into a + EV.

I am not sure whether you believe the odds bet itself is 0 EV, and if you do, how you can reconcile that in logic, but I will leave that up to you.

tuttigym

Quote: BoSox

No need for sarcasm as the man is doing a good job.

Yes he is.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Absolutely. Thank you, I believe there are a number of members/posters who do not believe such. As I noted previously, one can not turn -EV into a 0 EV just as one can not turn a -EV into a + EV.

I am not sure whether you believe the odds bet itself is 0 EV, and if you do, how you can reconcile that in logic, but I will leave that up to you.

tuttigym

It’s just a question of whether you look at the bets individually, or not. It’s truly subjective.

Obviously, you have to make a Line bet (generally) to make an Odds bet, so nobody disagrees that the overall proposition has a negative expected value.

That said, are you required to make an Odds bet if a point is established? No, you are not. For that reason, I look at it as two separate bets. One has a house edge; the other one does not. The overall proposition remains negative.

Quote: tuttigym

Absolutely. Thank you, I believe there are a number of members/posters who do not believe such. As I noted previously, one can not turn -EV into a 0 EV just as one can not turn a -EV into a + EV.

I am not sure whether you believe the odds bet itself is 0 EV, and if you do, how you can reconcile that in logic, but I will leave that up to you.

tuttigym

I do believe the odds bet itself is 0 EV. Here’s the scenario, my buddy plays the PL and only does 1x odds. So I play the rest of his odds to the table max. I have no exposure to his PL bet and simply have some of the free odds. My bet is 0 EV and a lot of fun.

Quote: Mission146

I have to question how much you have been reading the posts responding to yours for you to have made this post. If you have been thoroughly digesting responding posts, then there is no question in my mind that you are capable of understanding them. Particularly, this statement of yours:



Probability is a necessary component of Expected Value. You cannot arrive at Expected Value without an absolute, or assumed, probability. It's not possible. It would be like trying to remove all water from a human being...you wouldn't have a human being anymore.

For me, that is the most central aspect of what EV is, and I so stated. We are in agreement, and I will take it.

What you did not address in any way was "return on investment" or as in your definition previously posted "amount won." For you, those were the only two components that make up EV. I addressed both in my dialogue with you.

Quote: Mission146

"Logic," I must assume, is not a word that we have been using the same way. "Simple logic," to me, just means, "Weak logic." For many people, Expected Value analysis is not a simple affair. My advice to them is to listen to those who know more about Expected Value analysis than they do and for whom Expected Value analysis is a simple affair.

This statement and definitions present our greatest area of contention. I look for simplicity in the complicated. It allows me a clear-eyed view of dilemmas or obstacles. Some who "analyze" the "simple," create complexities that are unnecessary or worse yet unproven. "Logic" is the correct reasoning of something. I do not believe "weak logic" exists especially in science.

Quote: Mission146

The concept of EV as relates those who understand gambling math is as if all scientists in a particular field universally agreed as to a scientific matter. For you to be correct, all gambling mathematicians would have to be incorrect. Chew on that. It really is that simple.

I will challenge any "gambling mathematician" to absolutely prove in reality any of the formulas/equations presented here. For example: A previous post provided a post about roulette and a $5 bet. The poster provided an equation which showed a 26 cent loss. It can not happen, and the poster readily admitted such. That is your "gambling math." It does not actually occur. Period. With all due respect -- chew on that.

Quote: Mission146

The notion of, "Logic and fourth grade arithmetic overcomes the prevailing definitions," is no different than asking, "What happens when fourth grade science overcomes the prevailing definitions of professional scientists?" Spoiler Alert: It doesn't.

Fourth grade science was produced by professional scientists.

tuttigym

Quote: unJon

I do believe the odds bet itself is 0 EV. Here’s the scenario, my buddy plays the PL and only does 1x odds. So I play the rest of his odds to the table max. I have no exposure to his PL bet and simply have some of the free odds. My bet is 0 EV and a lot of fun.

So there are three bets. Your buddy has two and you have one. 7 out your buddy loses his two bets and the dealers just leave your bet on the table to become a winner at some future hand? I do not think so.

Hey Mission, is that the "subjective" scenario you were talking about? One other thing, I too am NOT a mathematician, but I did not know math was "subjective." I always thought it was absolute although revisable under heavy scrutiny or research.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

So there are three bets. Your buddy has two and you have one. 7 out your buddy loses his two bets and the dealers just leave your bet on the table to become a winner at some future hand? I do not think so.

Hey Mission, is that the "subjective" scenario you were talking about? One other thing, I too am NOT a mathematician, but I did not know math was "subjective." I always thought it was absolute although revisable under heavy scrutiny or research.

tuttigym

No. It’s an odds bet. If point made it wins 2:1 or 3:2 or 6:5. If seven out hits it loses. I am playing at 0 EV. Do you disagree?

Quote: tuttigym

For me, that is the most central aspect of what EV is, and I so stated. We are in agreement, and I will take it.

What you did not address in any way was "return on investment" or as in your definition previously posted "amount won." For you, those were the only two components that make up EV. I addressed both in my dialogue with you.

I either feel like I addressed it, or there is nothing meaningful for me to address. I felt like I addressed it by pointing out that, all of these bets, taken individually, have a negative expected value; as such, in combination, they will still have a negative expected value.

Quote:

This statement and definitions present our greatest area of contention. I look for simplicity in the complicated. It allows me a clear-eyed view of dilemmas or obstacles. Some who "analyze" the "simple," create complexities that are unnecessary or worse yet unproven. "Logic" is the correct reasoning of something. I do not believe "weak logic" exists especially in science.

You can look for simplicity in simplicity because I consider Craps math about as simple as gambling math gets, with exceptions to perhaps Roulette math. The proof is that casinos are still offering the game of Craps. That is your simple, practical, pragmatic proof of concept. If there was some way to beat the game of Craps, in the long-term, then someone would have cracked that code with something higher-level than fourth grade math. There is no way to beat it.

Every Craps Table in every casino in the world that operates is proof of concept. The culmination of those Craps Tables is the long run. You want the long run? Look at the annual reports on Craps for a jurisdiction such as Atlantic City. Add up the combined casino revenues on Craps year after year after year. That's what happens in the long run.

"The bottom line," as the colloquialism goes. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

The available bets on the Craps Table are simple. The ability to combine bets is simple. If there was a way of combining bets that yielded a positive expected outcome, then it could be mathematically demonstrated with relative simplicity. You cannot. The math stands as both fact and status quo. That makes you the prosecution. Prove your case.

Quote:

I will challenge any "gambling mathematician" to absolutely prove in reality any of the formulas/equations presented here. For example: A previous post provided a post about roulette and a $5 bet. The poster provided an equation which showed a 26 cent loss. It can not happen, and the poster readily admitted such. That is your "gambling math." It does not actually occur. Period. With all due respect -- chew on that.

Okay. The casinos make a ton of money on Craps, cumulatively, every single year. If there was a combination of bets that yielded a profitable expectation, then such combination would have been discovered by now. Proven.

Do you want me to prove that Roulette yields such a loss in the long-term? I'll be more than happy to do so for you. You must bankroll the roulette playing and the cost for my time is $50/hour, plus expenses, paid daily. We will play Roulette, on your dime, for ten hours per day, every day, until we have played 500,000 spins. I will make whatever combination of bets and in whatever amounts you desire. At the end of that 500,000 spins, I am quite confident that the sum of our bets, relative to amount lost, will be very close to the expected loss.

I will also require the first $2,500 in advance of travel. Are you ready? Set a date. I'll sit at a Roulette table for $50/hour.

Quote:

Fourth grade science was produced by professional scientists.

tuttigym

I certainly didn't expect that to be the other way around.

Quote: tuttigym

So there are three bets. Your buddy has two and you have one. 7 out your buddy loses his two bets and the dealers just leave your bet on the table to become a winner at some future hand? I do not think so.

Hey Mission, is that the "subjective" scenario you were talking about? One other thing, I too am NOT a mathematician, but I did not know math was "subjective." I always thought it was absolute although revisable under heavy scrutiny or research.

tuttigym

Yeah, if UnJon can sit behind someone and just make some, or all, of their Odds bets...the expected value is absolutely zero. That doesn't mean he isn't going to win or lose an individual bet; of course he's going to do one or the other.

Are we jumping too far along with all of this, "Expected Value," discussion? It seems like we might need to go back and first start with a definition for, "Gambling."

First, I'd like to commend Mission and unJon on their patience in this thread.

Quote: Mission146

I will make whatever combination of bets and in whatever amounts you desire. At the end of that 500,000 spins, I am quite confident that the sum of our bets, relative to amount lost, will be very close to the expected loss.

Careful. Can you think of a sequence of bets for which this would not be true?

Quote: djtehch34t

First, I'd like to commend Mission and unJon on their patience in this thread.

This is the ‘explaining EV to Wellbush thread.’ The last 10’s of thousands of words between Mission, UnJon, and tuttigym have proven that no matter how hard M and U try, tutti will not accept the simple and straightforward explanations they give. I find it amazing that M and U have that much patience. And why as well…!

Question for Mission…. Do you think there is a greater than 0.1% chance you will be successful in explaining this simple concept to tuttigym such that he accepts it?

Quote: djtehch34t

First, I'd like to commend Mission and unJon on their patience in this thread.

Careful. Can you think of a sequence of bets for which this would not be true?

The hell do I care if I’m getting paid $50/hour ten hours per day?

Just like if there WAS a profitable betting method on Craps, I’d be out doing that—not arguing about it on a message board.

But, you’re right. With a high enough table limit, you could throw out some huge bet at the end hoping for the best. I’m still extremely confident the player would end up on the losing side, but the reason for the deviation from the expected loss, if any, would be easily explained.

For simplicity, call it 500,001 bets. 500,000 at a $5 minimum is 2.5 million in action with an approximate expected loss of $131,500. If you could get a single number bet down on bet 500,001 for, say, $5,000 and it hits…sure, you’d finish ahead, but the reason why would be easily identifiable.

Maybe I should stipulate that some Min-Max range must be adhered to, but the total can be bet anyway he wants. But, again, if I’m making $50/hour to do almost nothing, and not the one actually risking money on the game, I really don’t care all that much about the result.

Even without the artificial min-max range, you could still standardize the results as if the same amount had been bet on every outcome.

The question is essentially: Can enough be made in bets that it comes out that way? Well, if you’re the casino, it’s already happened.

Quote: SOOPOO

This is the ‘explaining EV to Wellbush thread.’ The last 10’s of thousands of words between Mission, UnJon, and tuttigym have proven that no matter how hard M and U try, tutti will not accept the simple and straightforward explanations they give. I find it amazing that M and U have that much patience. And why as well…!

Question for Mission…. Do you think there is a greater than 0.1% chance you will be successful in explaining this simple concept to tuttigym such that he accepts it?

Well, Tuttigym was apparently willing to pick up the ball after Wellbush’s temporary suspension. I’ll also talk to Tuttigym, whereas I have much less patience for Wellbush’s posts.

I don’t think there’s a 0.1%, or better, chance that Tuttigym will acknowledge accepting it. I think the probability that he understands what is being said, based on his posts, is more than 99%.

Quote: Mission146

I don’t think there’s a 0.1%, or better, chance that Tuttigym will acknowledge accepting it. I think the probability that he understands what is being said, based on his posts, is more than 99%.

I can not believe you are being paid real money for coming to this quick conclusion.

Quote: BoSox

I can not believe you are being paid real money for coming to this quick conclusion.

What money? I don’t make any money on my posts. Articles, yes.

Quote: Mission146

What money? I don’t make any money on my posts. Articles, yes.

Do you mean that you are making all of these posts in this thread willingly?

Quote: unJon

No. It’s an odds bet. If point made it wins 2:1 or 3:2 or 6:5. If seven out hits it loses. I am playing at 0 EV. Do you disagree?

I do. If you look at the post by Mission, he states that all individual bets have a -EV. All PB when hit pay off. The only differences are that PB can be hit more than once in the same hand and the odds bet pays as shown above. Another point previously stated is that the odds bet lives or dies at the fate of the PL bet which is -EV.

BTW the 5 & 9 actually pay less than true odds if you look at the don't payoff which is 67%. 4th grade arithmetic further explanation if you like, but I know you can figure it out.

tuttigym

Quote: BoSox

Do you mean that you are making all of these posts in this thread willingly?

No, I’m being held hostage by Colombian gangsters who are all armed with AK-47s. They don’t know I’m making this post. Please hurry. I can be found at 1574 Nor

Quote: tuttigym

I do. If you look at the post by Mission, he states that all individual bets have a -EV. All PB when hit pay off. The only differences are that PB can be hit more than once in the same hand and the odds bet pays as shown above. Another point previously stated is that the odds bet lives or dies at the fate of the PL bet which is -EV.

BTW the 5 & 9 actually pay less than true odds if you look at the don't payoff which is 67%. 4th grade arithmetic further explanation if you like, but I know you can figure it out.

tuttigym

That’s not the only difference between the odds bet and the PB. But you knew that. The odds are shorter on a PB.

I don’t understand your point about the 5&9 either. Odds on the do pay 3:2 and on the don’t pay 2:3. That’s true odds.

Quote: Mission146

No, I’m being held hostage by Colombian gangsters who are all armed with AK-47s. They don’t know I’m making this post. Please hurry. I can be found at 1574 Nor

BoSox logged out? I hope he’s not actually looking for me.

I’m not being held hostage! It was a joke!

(Or, are they making me say that?)

Quote: Mission146

BoSox logged out? I hope he’s not actually looking for me.

I’m not being held hostage! It was a joke!

(Or, are they making me say that?)

Mission146, I will say that the amount of patience that you are exhibiting throughout this thread is rarely found in today's world! Carry on.

Quote: Mission146

I’m not being held hostage! It was a joke!

I wasn't worried.
Chances of successful resolution are much higher if you're holding a copy of The Akron Beacon Journal in the ransom photo than if it's USA Today.

Quote: Dieter

I wasn't worried.
Chances of successful resolution are much higher if you're holding a copy of The Akron Beacon Journal in the ransom photo than if it's USA Today.

I think everyone in this thread should be required to show "Proof of Life."

Quote: tuttigym

I do. If you look at the post by Mission, he states that all individual bets have a -EV. All PB when hit pay off. The only differences are that PB can be hit more than once in the same hand and the odds bet pays as shown above. Another point previously stated is that the odds bet lives or dies at the fate of the PL bet which is -EV.

BTW the 5 & 9 actually pay less than true odds if you look at the don't payoff which is 67%. 4th grade arithmetic further explanation if you like, but I know you can figure it out.

tuttigym

A Place Bet can be hit multiple times in the same hand, but each individual bet made only wins or loses once. If you hit a Place Bet, get paid, and don't take your Place Bet down; that just means that you are making a Place Bet again not winning on the same Place Bet multiple times.

Quote: Mission146

BoSox logged out? I hope he’s not actually looking for me.

I’m not being held hostage! It was a joke!

(Or, are they making me say that?)

Damnit!! I was hoping this might be real. I was very interested in the rest of the story. I envisioned BBB making an appearance and saving your bacon from your captors.

Quote: unJon

That’s not the only difference between the odds bet and the PB. But you knew that. The odds are shorter on a PB.

Of course, but all PB when hit pay more than a PL bet even if the odds paid is short of true, and you knew that also. So is a PB better than the PL bet on a $ for $ basis?

Quote: unJon

I don’t understand your point about the 5&9 either. Odds on the do pay 3:2 and on the don’t pay 2:3. That’s true odds.

Don't odds on the 5 & 9 pay 67%. Example: $30 don't pays $20 or 2/3's of the actual bet. Don't odds on the 4, 6, 8, & 10 5 for 6 and 1 for 2. True odds for those numbers are exactly opposite, i.e., 6 for 5 and 2 for 1. Based on the the way the true odds are paid on those other numbers, the true odds for the 5 & 9 should also be exactly the opposite of the don't pay out or 67% of the bet or $30 + $20 (67%). Instead the casino pays only $45 which is 50%. Further, they make the player bet an even $ amount so they can say they are paying 3 for 2 but in reality it is 27% less. The casino says the $45 is 3 X the actual bet, when it is only 1.5 X the bet. Fourth grade arithmetic.

tuttigym

Quote: Mission146

A Place Bet can be hit multiple times in the same hand, but each individual bet made only wins or loses once. If you hit a Place Bet, get paid, and don't take your Place Bet down; that just means that you are making a Place Bet again not winning on the same Place Bet multiple times.

That is correct. The PB allows for options not available to the PL or the odds during the play of the hand in that one can use 'casino" money to increase the base wager upon a hit. While that option is available (increasing the existing bets on the PL + odds) the player is using his own additional funds. The player can bet large ($100 on the 5); win = $140; then reduce his bet to the table minimum of say $10; pocket those $$; and play out the hand without hardly any risk of loss. PL + odds is a win or lose situation with no such option. The player is boxed in with no real way out. Plus an overall 73% loss ratio offers even more dire consequences.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Of course, but all PB when hit pay more than a PL bet even if the odds paid is short of true, and you knew that also. So is a PB better than the PL bet on a $ for $ basis?

If the PB and PL are both made on the come out roll then the PL is better value. If you wait until a point is established then the PB has better value than a PL that missed a come out winner and loser. If instead of placing that PB when the point is established, you play odds, you get better value for those $.

Quote:

Don't odds on the 5 & 9 pay 67%. Example: $30 don't pays $20 or 2/3's of the actual bet. Don't odds on the 4, 6, 8, & 10 5 for 6 and 1 for 2. True odds for those numbers are exactly opposite, i.e., 6 for 5 and 2 for 1. Based on the the way the true odds are paid on those other numbers, the true odds for the 5 & 9 should also be exactly the opposite of the don't pay out or 67% of the bet or $30 + $20 (67%). Instead the casino pays only $45 which is 50%. Further, they make the player bet an even $ amount so they can say they are paying 3 for 2 but in reality it is 27% less. The casino says the $45 is 3 X the actual bet, when it is only 1.5 X the bet. Fourth grade arithmetic.

tuttigym

I must admit I’m not following. Say I’m at a 3/4/5 odds table. I play a $100 Don’t pass and the point becomes 5. I lay $600 and odds. If there’s a seven out, I win $400. Was I shorted from “true” on my odds bet?

Quote: Mission146

Well, Tuttigym was apparently willing to pick up the ball after Wellbush’s temporary suspension. I’ll also talk to Tuttigym, whereas I have much less patience for Wellbush’s posts.

I don’t think there’s a 0.1%, or better, chance that Tuttigym will acknowledge accepting it. I think the probability that he understands what is being said, based on his posts, is more than 99%.

Our discussion here has produced more agreement than the opposite. There are only two points, for me, in dispute. 1) The perceived 0 EV on the odds wager. and 2) The + EV of a betting pattern or cluster of bets which provides a player more ways to win than to lose on any given action. There is nothing that I have stated which disputes anything else regarding all forms of wagers or gaming.

It is of no consequence to me if we cannot agree on those two points. I have made my case, and we have tried to persuade one another with no apparent success. I am sure that you will not lose any sleep if I continue to hold my views. Life goes on.

tuttigym

Quote: unJon

I must admit I’m not following. Say I’m at a 3/4/5 odds table. I play a $100 Don’t pass and the point becomes 5. I lay $600 and odds. If there’s a seven out, I win $400. Was I shorted from “true” on my odds bet?

No. you were paid 67% of your wager which is true don't odds. However, if you would have wagered the $600 as an odds bet and the point was made, the casino would only pay you $300 instead of $400 or 67% of the $600 wager. The casino would say we did pay you 3 for 2, but $300 is only 50% of your original bet. They are dividing the $600 by $300 which is 2. Sleight of hand.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

No. you were paid 67% of your wager which is true don't odds. However, if you would have wagered the $600 as an odds bet and the point was made, the casino would only pay you $300 instead of $400 or 67% of the $600 wager. The casino would say we did pay you 3 for 2, but $300 is only 50% of your original bet. They are dividing the $600 by $300 which is 2. Sleight of hand.

tuttigym

Sorry I still do not understand. Under what scenario do I make a $600 odds bet on a 5/9 point and win $300? If it’s a don’t odds, I win $400. If it’s a do odds, I win $900.

Could you just run the scenario by me again?

Quote: tuttigym

That is correct. The PB allows for options not available to the PL or the odds during the play of the hand in that one can use 'casino" money to increase the base wager upon a hit. While that option is available (increasing the existing bets on the PL + odds) the player is using his own additional funds. The player can bet large ($100 on the 5); win = $140; then reduce his bet to the table minimum of say $10; pocket those $$; and play out the hand without hardly any risk of loss. PL + odds is a win or lose situation with no such option. The player is boxed in with no real way out. Plus an overall 73% loss ratio offers even more dire consequences.

tuttigym

No, no, no. That's simply not true. There are many things wrong with how you are interpreting this.

1.) A winning Place Bet followed by putting some winnings on top of your, 'Original,' Place Bet, often known as, 'Pressing,' is not using the casino's money for a few reasons:

A.) The winnings are YOUR chips. Those chips do NOT belong to the casino anymore. Those chips belong to you and you may put them in the rack.

B.) The Place Bet may be made, added to, turned off or, 'Taken down,' between any rolls in which it has not been resolved. That's why the Place Bet House Edge is also looked at on a, "Per Roll," basis, because it can be taken down anytime. Therefore, any roll that does nothing to resolve a Place Bet means that the Place Bet has gone back to being YOUR money that you are choosing to leave out there.

C.) Simply put, the casino would not allow you to make any Craps bet with money that belongs to the casino.

2.) The player can do the same thing on the Pass Line! If I bet $10 on the Pass Line, the Come Out roll is a seven, and then I take $5 of my $10 in winnings and put it on top of the two red chips that I (physically) originally had out there, it is literally no different than adding to a Place Bet. The nature of a bet being player-serviced, as opposed to dealer-serviced, does not change what is happening on that bet.

The main point is that any bet made is being made with chips (money) that belong to you already. If it belonged to the casino, then they would not let you bet it.

Quote: unJon

Sorry I still do not understand. Under what scenario do I make a $600 odds bet on a 5/9 point and win $300? If it’s a don’t odds, I win $400. If it’s a do odds, I win $900.

Could you just run the scenario by me again?

The $900 is correct but the original $600 is the even money return on that bet. The additional $300, as you know, is the odds "payout" generously awarded by the casino, however, it amounts to a 50% odds award rather than a 67% odds award that is paid on the don't side. The casino is saying we ARE paying you 3 for 2 because you are getting $900.

As I said before, the other numbers on their odds return is exactly opposite on the do as on the don't. Why is the 5 & 9 different? The do should pay 1.67%, but it pays 1.5%. The player should be able wager an amount divisible by 3 on the do side but he must wager an amount that is divisible by 2. The previous answer was worded poorly, Sorry.

Just sayin' ... I could be wrong but I believe in consistency.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

The $900 is correct but the original $600 is the even money return on that bet. The additional $300, as you know, is the odds "payout" generously awarded by the casino, however, it amounts to a 50% odds award rather than a 67% odds award that is paid on the don't side. The casino is saying we ARE paying you 3 for 2 because you are getting $900.

As I said before, the other numbers on their odds return is exactly opposite on the do as on the don't. Why is the 5 & 9 different? The do should pay 1.67%, but it pays 1.5%. The player should be able wager an amount divisible by 3 on the do side but he must wager an amount that is divisible by 2.

Just sayin' ... I could be wrong but I believe in consistency.

tuttigym

If I understand you, yes your math is wrong.

The chance of hitting a point 5 is 40% and getting a seven out 60%. That’s where the 3:2 comes from 60:40. If I bet $600 on making the point, the true odds payout is $900.

3:2 = 60:40 = 900:600

Duplicate.

Quote: Mission146

g some winnings on top of your, 'Original,' Place Bet, often known as, 'Pressing,' is not using the casino's money for a few reasons:

A.) The winnings are YOUR chips. Those chips do NOT belong to the casino anymore. Those chips belong to you and you may put them in the rack.

I hear someone say that I am playing on the "houses" money probably almost every day. I just shake my head and dismiss the player completely if they don't understand it is their money. I don't even bother to explain it anymore.

Quote: DRich

I hear someone say that I am playing on the "houses" money probably almost every day. I just shake my head and dismiss the player completely if they don't understand it is their money. I don't even bother to explain it anymore.

You’re a smarter person than I.

I don’t think I’d bother in person, as it’s not necessarily been made open for discussion. In person, on rare occasion, I’ll correct horrendous Video Poker holds if I see someone doing them.

Quote: tuttigym

Don't odds on the 5 & 9 pay 67%.  Example: $30 don't pays $20 or 2/3's of the actual bet.  Don't odds on the 4, 6, 8, & 10 5 for 6 and 1 for 2.  True odds for those numbers are exactly opposite, i.e., 6 for 5 and 2 for 1.  Based on the the way the true odds are paid on those other numbers, the true odds for the 5 & 9 should also be exactly the opposite of the don't pay out or 67% of the bet or $30 + $20 (67%).  Instead the casino pays only $45 which is 50%.  Further, they make the player bet an even $ amount so they can say they are paying 3 for 2 but in reality it is 27% less.  The casino says the $45 is 3 X the actual bet, when it is only 1.5 X the bet.  Fourth grade arithmetic.


tuttigym

I tried to decipher what you are saying but fortunately stopped myself in time. 


It's been interesting to observe what happens when players switch to the dark side. Naturally, frustration develops because in the long run you can't win that way either, of course. Then we get a glimpse into the way an average gambler's mind works, kind of fascinating. The guy knows the casino has an edge, the house wins in the end. But just knowing that isn't good enough, clearly. He has to break it down to something he can understand, and indeed just instinctively doesn't advance to the 5th grade level.  The explanation that the fault lies with making bets that pay less than even is an easy target, all of a sudden that's clear as day. So the odds bet is abandoned right away, and next great suspicion falls on keeping the 6 and 8 when you can "take no action" instead. 


At first, I thought dealers were just delighting in giving bad advice when they would comment that the odds bets, darkside, were automatically bad because they paid less than even. After witnessing the sincerity in which one dealer swore it was a fact, I realize now they likely really believe it as often as not. The problem couldn't be that the House has an overall edge on the Don't, could it?