Blew out my bankroll

Quote: MrV

Comps are great, but we all feed the casinos, not the other way around.

I generally go to that casino to bet smaller, but I like that when I do get a couple hundred out on the felt it gets me more attention than it would at the Wynn or somewhere that it would not garner any special attention. The staff at that casino are also among the most pleasant of any casino I frequent. I did take issue with their corporate policy, but everybody has always been really great to me there. They treat me very nice!

Quote: Ahigh

I generally go to that casino to bet smaller, but I like that when I do get a couple hundred out on the felt it gets me more attention than it would at the Wynn or somewhere that it would not garner any special attention. The staff at that casino are also among the most pleasant of any casino I frequent. I did take issue with their corporate policy, but everybody has always been really great to me there. They treat me very nice!

I shoot craps at a couple tribal casinos in Oregon, and it is unusual to see regular green chip action here, let alone black or even tan/orange, but it happens.

I don't understand why these casinos do not have baccarat: that would really bring in the Asians.

Quote: Ahigh

I generally go to that casino to bet smaller, but I like that when I do get a couple hundred out on the felt it gets me more attention than it would at the Wynn or somewhere that it would not garner any special attention. The staff at that casino are also among the most pleasant of any casino I frequent. I did take issue with their corporate policy, but everybody has always been really great to me there. They treat me very nice!

The Fiesta Hendo is quickly becoming one of my favorite locals, along with the Silverton. In addition to playing there with AHigh, I went back on a weeknight and shot dice for an hour or two, my usual method of $3 come bets every roll with 10x odds (sigh...will I ever learn?) Actually, I won, and was tipping the dealers. The day dice crew is one of the best ever. I can't think of better dealers I've played with anywhere. The swing crew was deadly, so I left and went and played at PaiGowDan's table, $5 PGP. He was crushing everybody, and actually seemed to feel bad about it! Now that is empathy. He will stipulate that I was rejected for an $8 buffet comp (was told to use my points), but I received a call from a host inviting me to a blackjack tournament next weekend later...

I got a $10 to $20 food comp ALMOST every time I go there. I have only been rejected a comp one time while I was alone, and every other time I took a friend I was rejected (coincidence I think, not because I brought somebody).

Those comps are discretionary. The last time I went, I colored up for $25 less than I started with, and I claimed to have counted wrong and told them I was just trying to get back to even and counted wrong. Then I spent a couple minutes there just thinking and asked "should I chase that last $25 or not?" After the dealer told me "I wouldn't" I said, "give me ten bucks to eat and I will probably be ready to go for it."

I had $515 on the rail and started with $540. That worked.

When the comps are discretionary, they only want to give you free stuff if they consider it a gamble for the casino that's likely to pay off.

I did come back, and I bet $3 on the line and I got a seven winner. I tipped the dealers a buck, and I took my extra $2 and said, "you know I'm worried I'm just going to keep rolling sevens. I'm calling it a night." If you do something similar to this, even if you pocket the chip you're missing and appear to be chasing with big money on the rail, you're going to get your free food.

The routine is often as important as anything else to get a food comp over there. Tipping the dealers and betting as much as you can muster on the non-free bets is the way to get comp'd. The guy who comp'd me was walking up when I had $110 even and I was getting paid on the four. I looked at him and said "everything down."

I was also very polite in telling them thanks for the comps when I left, and there was nobody else at the table to pick up on the fact that they will comp you if you ask. That may have helped too.

I think if there's a full table, they may say "no" because they don't want everyone else to ask too.

deleted

Quote: Ayecarumba

No odds?

Aye asks why I don't bet odds in my new strategy of just playing the pass line with the fire bet to see if DI or DC really works.

Well, odds certainly won't hurt, but betting odds will not help a dice influencer or a dice controller hit and make the points. What I want to do by this plan is win the fire bet and its 1,000 to 1 pay, with the minimal cost if the DI or DC really can't pull it off.

Betting more won't help the shooter make the points. It certainly will help put money in my pocket if he succeeds.

I think Teddy and other followers of the Wizard of Vegas' suggestion that combined house edge being minimal is ideal and/or worth the extra cost in the short term losing because you will make that back in the long term with volatility eventually bringing that money back to you so you can get back on track with the less volatile non-odds approach.

Free bets on the passline and come bets lose MOST OF THE TIME on average.

A lot of people take max odds trying to get their costs down and they don't end up betting enough at the same bet levels to GET TO THE AVERAGE ZERO EFFECT on their ability to win or lose.

They get their bankroll decimated betting too much too soon and they get overexposed not realizing that when a come bet travels to a four or a ten, they have effectively lost 1/3 the value of that bet IN ADDITION to only winning the odds on that line/come bet 2/3rds of the time.

The absolute truth of that matter is this:

ODDS BETS DO NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE YOUR CHANCE OF WALKING AWAY A WINNER UNTIL YOU HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH EVENTS FOR THE VERY TINY DIFFERENCE IN EDGE TO PRESENT ITSELF.

The corollary to this point is that BY THE TIME YOU HAVE ENOUGH EVENTS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE EDGE TO MATTER YOU ARE ALMOST CERTAIN TO LOSE MONEY!

So the bottom line of betting odds is that it only helps you to lose less money on a very long timeline. In the short run, it amounts to something along the lines of free parking versus valet parking in terms of how much money you save.

IE: it's as likely to work AGAINST you as FOR you from a pragmatic non-mathematical standpoint. Just like free parking, technically it saves you money, and technically everyone should use free parking. But do you have a better time when you park for free? There's more to think about than every last dime of cost in gambling in the casino.

When I don't bet odds and I win WAY MORE MONEY than other people betting odds, I laugh and laugh and laugh (on the inside where it counts).

When I bet odds really big and I lose with too much exposure to the red, I often think "HOW DOES ANYBODY ENJOY THIS?"

Oh, LAST COME IS A WINNER. YAY! $5!!!! But I lost $220 other places. That's okay because in the long run, that $200 loss will break EVEN?

LOL.

Odds reduces the house edge, significantly, for the same total amount of money bet.

In other words, if you are at a $5 minimum table, and you are happy with $5 on a point, then you should bet $5 and ignore odds. But if you're at a $5 minimum table, and want about $25 on a point, then you do a lot better by making a $5 passline bets and taking odds. It just allows you to increase your action without increasing the house edge.

So, if someone bets the table minimum and doesn't take odds, I'd say that they are betting optimally. But, if they bet much more than the table minimum and don't take odds, I'd say that they could get the same amount of action, and lose a lot less money in the long run, by betting lesson the pass line and taking odds.

If you don't get any extra enjoyment / excitement / entertainment from betting more, than just bet the minimum and ignore odds. But if you do get extra entertainment out of betting more, and you're going to do so anyway, you may as well take advantage of the odds bets and reduce your long-term losses.

Quote: Ahigh

A lot of people take max odds trying to get their costs down and they don't end up betting enough at the same bet levels to GET TO THE AVERAGE ZERO EDGE.

This is nonsense. You're at that edge right at your first bet. Sure, you'll probably lose, but if you win - and the worst your chance will be is one in three - you'll win more. The same with the next bet, and the one after.

And you're not getting any closer to evening out as time goes on. You're not evening out, but getting further and further away from even, just that you're about as likely to go either way (unlike with most bets, where the more you bet, the further out on the bell curve you need to be to break even). Standard deviation increases with every bet, just not as quickly as the mean - but in this case, the mean is zero, so the standard deviation increases infinitely faster.

Quote: Ahigh

ODDS BETS DO NOT INCREASE OR DECREASE YOUR CHANCE OF WALKING AWAY A WINNER UNTIL YOU HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH EVENTS FOR THE VERY TINY DIFFERENCE IN EDGE TO PRESENT ITSELF.

Nope. It's a huge difference, and it presents itself with the very first bet. After one, you're exactly as likely to walk away a winner, but if you do, you'll walk away a bigger winner. From then on, the size of your wins makes up for their infrequency enough that you are more likely to walk away a winner for two bets, and since I can tell you it holds true for large numbers, I'm guessing it holds true for just about any number. After all, the least likely bet to pay off is only 2:1.

There is no way to increase variance upward without increasing it downward. It's just that simple.

the reduced "house edge" is something for the textbooks... the math of the game. the reality is that if the passes aren't made or if the numbers dont repeat, the odds bets are just extra exposure and extra losses.

the house is still more likely to win the odds money bet by right way players.

Look, I bet max odds, but I do it hoping that the shooter is going to be a winner. When the shooter doesn't win, I lose a lot more money. Unfortunately, over time, Ive lost more money betting the odds than Ive won betting the odds. It is certainly nice when you win, but you feel like a dumb ass when you lose.

Im not going to get rich betting odds. But I can get poor betting odds. LOL

Quote: AlanMendelson

the house is still more likely to win the odds money bet by right way players.

What does that have to do with anything?

So, if I hit a six point fire bet, does that make me a DI? I hit one in December 2010; it paid for my trip to Maui.

Quote: 24Bingo

This is nonsense. You're at that edge right at your first bet. Sure, you'll probably lose, but if you win - and the worst your chance will be is one in three - you'll win more. The same with the next bet, and the one after.

Nope, it's not nonsense. First of all, if you forget about edges in percentages, and just talk about the cost of gambling, YOU SAVE NOTHING IN THE LONG RUN MAKING FREE BETS.

That's absolutely NOT nonsense. Everybody likes to talk about "better." Well, in the long run, ODDS BETS DO NOT WIN YOU A SINGLE DIME! ZIP. NADA. NOTHING.

There's nothing nonsensical about a bet that you don't win by making repetitively in the long run being UNNECESSARY. It is the truth.

Quote: 24Bingo

And you're not getting any closer to evening out as time goes on. You're not evening out, but getting further and further away from even, just that you're about as likely to go either way (unlike with most bets, where the more you bet, the further out on the bell curve you need to be to break even). Standard deviation increases with every bet, just not as quickly as the mean - but in this case, the mean is zero, so the standard deviation increases infinitely faster.

The math says I will lose the exact same amount of money no matter HOW MUCH ODDS I BET. It's still losing. The only winner is the winner who stops while he is ahead. And if you're going to stop, that means you're probably going to do FEWER events. And if you do FEWER events, you want to take bets that YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO WIN ON, and the edge doesn't matter as much as YOUR CHANCE OF WINNING.

Quote: 24Bingo

Nope. It's a huge difference, and it presents itself with the very first bet. After one, you're exactly as likely to walk away a winner, but if you do, you'll walk away a bigger winner. From then on, the size of your wins makes up for their infrequency enough that you are more likely to walk away a winner for two bets, and since I can tell you it holds true for large numbers, I'm guessing it holds true for just about any number. After all, the least likely bet to pay off is only 2:1.

There is no way to increase variance upward without increasing it downward. It's just that simple.

You're wrong about this. The math only reflects long term trends. Once the first event has been decided, the math means absolutely nothing at all. The only thing that makes a difference on the first event is DID YOU WIN? If you're saying the math determines how much money you win when you win, I agree with that. But if you're talking about long term trends, I refer back to the fact that IN THE LONG RUN THE ODDS BETS WIN YOU ZERO .. NADA .. NOTHING .. BUPKIS.

For a single event, what matters much more than any edge is "HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO WIN?"

And you know what? That is just my opinion. What I'm trying to say is that for one or even just a few events, the edge matters about as much as tipping the dealers a buck or tipping the valet a couple bucks, or the cocktail waitress.

Do you guys also suggest not tipping anybody to make yourselves walk away with more money?

Look, I'm just saying compare apples to apples and you'll see that paying a little bit of money to GET THE BET THAT YOU ACTUALLY WANT instead of the bet that a statistician or mathematician would advise MAY ACTUALLY BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT YOU PAY if you are not gambling for 200 to 10,000 events, but instead gambling for 1 to 100 events.

Playing with people from this forum who lose betting the way that the Wizard advocates and then talk about how often they lose is my main motivation for bringing these points up.

Even if you're in a pool of other people who win doing the same thing, SO WHAT?

Maybe you would have more fun betting on things that you actually want to bet on instead of things that make more mathematical sense.

Quote: Ahigh

Nope, it's not nonsense. First of all, if you forget about edges in percentages, and just talk about the cost of gambling, YOU SAVE NOTHING IN THE LONG RUN MAKING FREE BETS.

It depends on whether you look at it in terms of total money staked, in terms of variance, or in terms of just the line bet. Any concept but the lattermost, you save.

Quote: Ahigh

That's absolutely NOT nonsense. Everybody likes to talk about "better." Well, in the long run, ODDS BETS DO NOT WIN YOU A SINGLE DIME! ZIP. NADA. NOTHING.

...on average. They can win you a huge amount, or lose you a huge amount, and unlike every other bet on the table, approach an equal probability of either.

Quote: Ahigh

There's nothing nonsensical about a bet that you don't win by making repetitively in the long run being UNNECESSARY. It is the truth.

Craps is unnecessary, then. Unless you're a successful DI, in which case odds are a much winner than pass.

Quote: Ahigh

The math says I will lose the exact same amount of money no matter HOW MUCH ODDS I BET. It's still losing.

Losing $0.000?

Quote: Ahigh

The only winner is the winner who stops while he is ahead. And if you're going to stop, that means you're probably going to do FEWER events. And if you do FEWER events, you want to take bets that YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO WIN ON, and the edge doesn't matter as much as YOUR CHANCE OF WINNING.

You're right that you should leave quickly, and that the edge doesn't matter as much as your chance of winning. And that's why you take odds bets.

Now, if you're really planning to take a single bet and leave, it's probably better to just put it all on the line. But if we're talking a relatively short session, even 5-10 bets, you really should take odds. Why? Because about 27.1% of rounds end with a point being hit, so in that session, you'll probably have hit at least one or two points. Now, don't get me wrong: due to the 39.6% of rounds that end in a seven-out, you'll probably have lost some on them as well, but you'll have lost proportionately less than you will have won. You're more likely to be behind than ahead, but by a very small margin.

Meanwhile, let's consider the line itself: as you know, 49.3% of the time you'll win, 50.7% of the time you'll lose, but your wins and losses will be the same amount. Even after ten rolls, your chance of being ahead on that bet alone has dropped well into the forties.

I know you've lost a lot on odds bets. So have a lot of people. You're as likely to be down as up on them, but you're more likely to be down on the line bet.

(Also, consider: if you can reduce the chance of a seven enough to get an edge on the line, you'll have a hefty edge on odds.)

Quote: Ahigh

You're wrong about this. The math only reflects long term trends. Once the first event has been decided, the math means absolutely nothing at all. The only thing that makes a difference on the first event is DID YOU WIN? If you're saying the math determines how much money you win when you win, I agree with that. But if you're talking about long term trends, I refer back to the fact that IN THE LONG RUN THE ODDS BETS WIN YOU ZERO .. NADA .. NOTHING .. BUPKIS.

The thing about long-term trends is that as long as they're divisible into similar incidents, what you sample from each forms the long-term trial that is your life. It's about winning more, and losing less. In the long run, odds bets monetarily win you nothing, but lose you nothing, and also have a higher volatility, which is the component of the utility that's keeping you there.

Quote: Ahigh

For a single event, what matters much more than any edge is "HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO WIN?"

For a single event, distinct in your lifetime, yes. Is your next shoot such an event? If so, do introduce me to Sarah Brown.

Or is it part of a short session? Consider two roulette players - one playing the outside at a double-zero table, one playing a column at a no-zero table. After just twenty spins, which do you think is more likely to be ahead?

Quote: Ahigh

And you know what? That is just my opinion. What I'm trying to say is that for one or even just a few events, the edge matters about as much as tipping the dealers a buck or tipping the valet a couple bucks, or the cocktail waitress.

Do you guys also suggest not tipping anybody to make yourselves walk away with more money?

Me, no. Most of the board's APuritans do. Even at the poker table, where tipping is expected even by committed professional gamblers, this is more easily forgiven at lower levels, where no one can get too steep an edge. If you hope to play with a positive edge, as you do, tips shouldn't be withheld entirely, but do need to be factored in. If you just hope to have a good run at a negative-expectation game, you should do everything in your power to ensure that - and that means not only decreasing the edge, but increasing the variance. That's what odds bets are for. A dollar, on a day you're betting five hundred, is an 0.20% increase in edge, but unlike refusing odds, no variance is sacrificed.

Quote: Ahigh

Look, I'm just saying compare apples to apples and you'll see that paying a little bit of money to GET THE BET THAT YOU ACTUALLY WANT instead of the bet that a statistician or mathematician would advise MAY ACTUALLY BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT YOU PAY if you are not gambling for 200 to 10,000 events, but instead gambling for 1 to 100 events.

And I would say that's the case no matter how many events you're gambling for. That's why I, unlike this board's Puritan contingent, don't give you grief for playing a -EV game in the first place. But the reasons you've given for "wanting" it are based in fallacy.

I wrote "the house is still more likely to win the odds money bet by right way players" which drew this response:

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

What does that have to do with anything?

The reason I wouldn't bet the odds in the scenario I gave is that I was betting for the fire bet, while limiting my exposure if the shooter could not make passes. Simply, I am trying to have the smallest possible outlay to garner the maximum return.

Example at a $10 table (available sometimes at Caesars Palace) with a max fire bet of $10:

Point is 6, $10 flat + $50 odds. $60 outlay
Fire bet $10 outlay
total risk for shooter #1 $70. Shooter #1 doesn't make it, $70 lost.

or

Point is 6, $10 flat + $10 fire for total risk of $20.

The issue or objective is to get the fire bet payoff, hopefully all six different passes.

If I really knew the shooter was going to deliver, I'd be betting $1,000 or more on the passline with max odds at Caesars.

Quote: Ahigh

Well, in the long run, ODDS BETS DO NOT WIN YOU A SINGLE DIME! ZIP. NADA. NOTHING. . . . The math says I will lose the exact same amount of money no matter HOW MUCH ODDS I BET. It's still losing.

I'm here for variance. Don't know about you.

Quote: Ahigh

The only winner is the winner who stops while he is ahead. And if you're going to stop, that means you're probably going to do FEWER events. And if you do FEWER events, you want to take bets that YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO WIN ON, and the edge doesn't matter as much as YOUR CHANCE OF WINNING.

The first statement is the only way to win. The second statement ignores variance.

Quote: SanchoPanza

I'm here for variance. Don't know about you.

I probably approach craps differently. I approach craps as a skill game -- a test of the ability to throw two dice to make a certain combination to win a bet. Look, I'm the first to say I don't think anybody really has the skill to influence or control dice to any meaningful degree, but that is still the way I approach the game.

I want it to be a test and a challenge of what the game is really all about, and I dont want to just take a spot at the table and let the casino's vacuum suck up my money at this negative expectation game.

So, I admire people who try to influence the dice. I would rather play with a setter and a shooter who tries to influence the outcome than someone who just chugs 'em and tries to get lucky.

If you want luck, play slots.

" If you want luck, play slots. " If you want to shout over the smallest win, play craps.

I must have hit a nerve, so sorry Buzzard. This is not about shouting over the smallest win. Sorry you took offense.

By the way, the only slot game I play now is video poker which does have some element of skill, though I think it is mostly luck. In the last six weeks I had five royals: three at the $2 denomination and two at the $5 denomination. Believe me, I yelled more about those royals than I ever yelled at a craps game.

So yes, if you want more justified yelling, play slots and video poker. Because even when I hit 5 numbers on the fire bet (twice in my life) it was done rather quietly.

Nothing personal, just sometimes I am a table game and some jerk at craps is screaming and hollering like he did something or won something. All things considered, I can shoot craps blindfolded and equal the average craps shooter. or left handed. Or over my shoulder. Boucey, bouncey, wow my number came up. WOW !!

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

No, we ALL don't.

So, who's the exception?

No less a gambling luminary than Steve Wynn has said he never met a gambler who was a long term winner against the casino.

Quote: AlanMendelson

I dont want to just take a spot at the table and let the casino's vacuum suck up my money at this negative expectation game.

Nor do I. The skill is learning as much as possible about the realities of the game, including what to look out for and what to avoid. Including the key move a bettor can make--leaving the table. After that, luck is still the predominant factor for any given roll. At least until DI can be replicated.

I saw the table at the Silverton today vacuum up more money than I have seen in a while. I'm pretty familiar with the action over there, and today I watched to slurp up about $20,000 from five different individuals, only taking about 30 minutes per person.

Normally seeing someone bring more than $1000 to the table is very unusual but I saw about five guys coming in with $3,000 to $8,000 each and not one of them lasted even an hour.

That table/casino has become quite a monster lately. It slurped up $50 of mine, but fortunately I had all my other money on lock-down and it didn't get any more. Last night I left the table with $1,000 and I deposited it all back to the bank, and it was locked away for the day. I used another $40 free food coupon at the Sundance since Twin Creeks was closed, and got a free beer just putting a couple bucks on the rail long enough for the cocktail waitress to help me out.

The guys who got taken, none of them made any noise, but I think all of them were in complete disbelief with looks of shock and horror in their faces. It was absolutely horrifying just to watch! I watch a lot of action, and I have never seen a table gobble up money like it was doing today at the Silverton. Never.

Maybe it's time to invest in casino stocks, but something is going on that is quite unusual from my vantage point.

Quote: Ahigh

The guys who got taken, none of them made any noise, but I think all of them were in complete disbelief with looks of shock and horror in their faces. It was absolutely horrifying just to watch! I watch a lot of action, and I have never seen a table gobble up money like it was doing today at the Silverton. Never.

But what was going on? Did they need a big bankroll to do their Martingales and found out no bankroll is big enough?

3O minutes means about 50 rolls. The $8k bankroll would be gone if the guy was flat betting about $200 per roll, betting on every roll, and losing on about every roll. Doubt that was the deal, so something tells me the way they were betting meant they really brought too small a roll.

Quote: MrV

So, who's the exception?

No less a gambling luminary than Steve Wynn has said he never met a gambler who was a long term winner against the casino.

I wonder if Mr. Wynn carefully chose the word gambler when he made that statement. There are many long term winners but most do not consider themselves gamblers.

Every single one of the big bankroll players was betting how the Wizard would advise on a 10x table. $50 to $200 on the line and max odds (10x table). It was one shooter after another hitting every box number once and then the red.

There was one not-as-big player who was doing multiples of $100 even ($20, $30, $30, $20) place bets on the 4, 6, 8, and 10. He bought in for $700.

Were there any don't players? Usually in my experience when a table starts looking like that people start to change their bets.

(Worth noting, of course, if they hadn't been betting "how the Wizard would advise," and been betting as much, they'd have lost as much or more.)

No when these guys showed up, most people were in shock to see the big stacks of black.

These tables don't normally see this type of action.

It was a repetitive sequence of counting big wads of cash, black chips going out, black chips getting stacked up by the dealers, wash rinse repeat.

Quote: MrV

So, who's the exception?

No less a gambling luminary than Steve Wynn has said he never met a gambler who was a long term winner against the casino.

I've never met a spy. Or someone in the witness protection program. Or an undercover police officer. Or...

If you're doing your 'job' right...

Quote: Ahigh

No when these guys showed up, most people were in shock to see the big stacks of black.

These tables don't normally see this type of action.

It was a repetitive sequence of counting big wads of cash, black chips going out, black chips getting stacked up by the dealers, wash rinse repeat.

I have to say, if you are betting multiple blacks on the line with max odds, and betting the come the same way, $20k is nothing. If you can't afford a loss of that size, bet less.

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

So, if someone bets the table minimum and doesn't take odds, I'd say that they are betting optimally.

I respectfully disagree with you on this. If you make a $5 pass bet, and you don't take odds when it travels to a point, you are effectively shooting yourself in the foot. You are taking all the negative E.V. without any opportunity for free upside. It pains me to see people taking no odds on their pass come/bet. At least take single odds; almost everyone can afford that.

Optimal betting is taking whatever max odds that casino allows. (Yes, that means 100x if they offer it).

Quote: teddys

I respectfully disagree with you on this. If you make a $5 pass bet, and you don't take odds when it travels to a point, you are effectively shooting yourself in the foot. You are taking all the negative E.V. without any opportunity for free upside. It pains me to see people taking no odds on their pass come/bet. At least take single odds; almost everyone can afford that.

Optimal betting is taking whatever max odds that casino allows. (Yes, that means 100x if they offer it).

Depends if opitmal is increasing your variance or not. Free odds are free, but they don't reduce the cost of the initial bet. Therefore betting x100 odds may increase the variance too much for a player to be 'optimal'. If you have a $500 bank roll, plopping down $5 pass and $495 behind I would argue is not 'optimal' if your goal is to play for a while at 7c a decision (cost of the the $5 bet).

Quote: teddys

At least take single odds; almost everyone can afford that.
Optimal betting is taking whatever max odds that casino allows. (Yes, that means 100x if they offer it).

I I agree with the first sentence...but not the second...
No amount of odds, after 1x, has the effect that 1x odds does...taking 1x odds cuts down the HA tremendously...while to get a similar effect, you'd need like 20x odds next...

There are only 2 reasons to take the odds:

*if you like to bet, say, $25 although the table offers 4x odds, and the minimum to bet is $5. Of course only bet $5 on the line and take the odds.

*If the total amount you risk during your session is about the same as you would risk if there were no free odds. I'd give you a pass if you only risk slightly more.

Quote: teddys

I respectfully disagree with you on this. If you make a $5 pass bet, and you don't take odds when it travels to a point, you are effectively shooting yourself in the foot. You are taking all the negative E.V. without any opportunity for free upside. It pains me to see people taking no odds on their pass come/bet. At least take single odds; almost everyone can afford that.

Optimal betting is taking whatever max odds that casino allows. (Yes, that means 100x if they offer it).

They are betting optimally for their betting level. It's not true that you should always bet more to get a lower house edge bet -- that would assume an infinite bankroll.

On the other hand, betting $10 at a $5 table and not taking odds is sub-optimal.

Just an update, I worked back up to just over $500 doing my regular thing (making $30 to $80 per trip), then I went on a come-bet-with-odds strategy to try to recreate what I saw Teddy do, and I lost my bankroll trying to wade through the bad luck of every shooter at Fiesta Henderson on Sunday.

I'll go back to making a couple bucks here and there and try to put together another $500 hopefully in time to play with some of you big balla's again soon.

The deal with come-odds betting is to have a large number of bets bankroll so can take advantage of the low HA, as big swings are common. I need 50 to 60 times my individual bet to have the best chance of winning. So if playing $5 base bet with $30 odds, need about $1800 per day session which seems absurd but necessary and most players are severely under-funded for their level of bets.

Also, expansion betting works well on half way decent tables, meaning 3 point mollie(pass-odds and 2 come-odds) to start the new shooter, wait for a hit, then expand out on hits. After the first hit, go to 3 come-odds bets, after another hit go to 4 come-odds bets, etc.

I appreciate the feedback and understand the bankroll requirements. The failure was just that the shooters at the Fiesta on Sunday sucked major ball sacks, though and had about as much luck as Charlie Brown trying to kick a football held by Patti. Not a technical failure on my part at all.

I probably know more than most people know about what the shapes of various betting strategies are from my work on my Monte Carlo simulator that outputs charts through gnuplot with all kinds of common betting strategies.

I experienced something that I would refer to as, "shooter, you suck major balls! no amount of math could save me!!!"

Quote: Ahigh

... had about as much luck as Charlie Brown trying to kick a football held by Patti.

That might be OK. Just watch out when Lucy is the holder.

Quote: teddys

I respectfully disagree with you on this. If you make a $5 pass bet, and you don't take odds when it travels to a point, you are effectively shooting yourself in the foot. You are taking all the negative E.V. without any opportunity for free upside. It pains me to see people taking no odds on their pass come/bet. At least take single odds; almost everyone can afford that.

Optimal betting is taking whatever max odds that casino allows. (Yes, that means 100x if they offer it).

Sure, if you're made of money. When playing a -EV game, you need to ask yourself how much you're willing to stake, whether or not the EV increases by overbetting.

Risking no more than 10% of my bankroll at lunch, I increased my bankroll 75% in 20 minutes. I only bet on my own shot. Not much money since I don't have much to start with, but hopefully I can build enough to play with a couple people soon.

It's tough being in this position like I am, but it's mostly a game for me, so I am enjoying the challenge!

Quote: 24Bingo

Sure, if you're made of money. When playing a -EV game, you need to ask yourself how much you're willing to stake, whether or not the EV increases by overbetting.

Also true for +EV games...

Indeed, but there it's a different principle - how much you're willing to waste on a chance of a good turn, versus how much is conducive to bankroll growth.

I'm at about $100 cash. My only debt is my house (15-year loan) -- that is already half paid off. No other debt of any kind.

My cash flow is extremely positive. I am using extreme self-discipline to keep my finances straight.

I have a couple thousand bucks per month disposable income, so I should be able to build up a bankroll pretty quick.

But I don't plan on buying in for more than $300 until 2013.

I should have a $2000 bankroll by January just from not playing and getting ready to get back in it.

I took my lady to Venetian today and lost $40 at the tables. Had three numbers loaded with single odds on a $10 table and sevened out on the fourth roll. That was a big loss for me right now. I was hoping to zoom out of my loss-state.

I made $200 since Sunday besides that, but I lost $420 on Saturday after making it from $300 to $520 during Teddy's tear (I was mostly WATCHING).

I'm still on the road to recovery! It is TOUGH only winning on the small bets and grinding up.

Quote: Ahigh

I'm at about $100 cash. My only debt is my house (15-year loan) -- that is already half paid off. No other debt of any kind.

My cash flow is extremely positive. I am using extreme self-discipline to keep my finances straight.

I have a couple thousand bucks per month disposable income, so I should be able to build up a bankroll pretty quick.

But I don't plan on buying in for more than $300 until 2013.

I should have a $2000 bankroll by January just from not playing and getting ready to get back in it.

I took my lady to Venetian today and lost $40 at the tables. Had three numbers loaded with single odds on a $10 table and sevened out on the fourth roll. That was a big loss for me right now. I was hoping to zoom out of my loss-state.

I made $200 since Sunday besides that, but I lost $420 on Saturday after making it from $300 to $520 during Teddy's tear (I was mostly WATCHING).

I'm still on the road to recovery! It is TOUGH only winning on the small bets and grinding up.

How is this possible? If I am reading correctly, you had a pass line bet of $10 + odds of $10, and three come bets of $10 with $10 odds on each, so you have $80 in action when you sevened out. How is that only a $40 loss?

First of all three numbers loaded is two come bets. Secondly, it's two sentences. I went down another fifty bucks and back up a bit, and ended up being down $42. I was just summarizing.

Quote: Ahigh

First of all three numbers loaded is two come bets. Secondly, it's two sentences. I went down another fifty bucks and back up a bit, and ended up being down $42. I was just summarizing.

Ah, ok.

Gotcha.

Ahigh forgive me for asking, but I must. If you are such a good shooter, why are you losing?

No it's okay to ask. There are plenty of reasons, but it's possible that I am a really sucky shooter!

I am trying, but not making claims that my shot is only making me money.

Teddy lost on my shot last night too!

Especially at crapless last night I was hoping to hit some boxcars for him, but I destroyed him instead!

deleted