Is taking more odds worth it...in the long run?
November 5th, 2013 at 10:10:04 AM
permalink
The question I'm trying to answer is how do odds change the expected return versus zero odds. This question was based on the 1000 bet thread.
Given:
Probability of winning a pass line bet: 244/495
Probability of winning a pass line via 7 and 11: 8/36 or 110/495
Probability of winning a pass line bet via 4 thru 10: 134/495
Probability of losing a pass line bet: 251/495
First conclusion...with a $10 pass line bet we should be expect to be down $70
What happens when the bettor takes 1X odds for $10 on each bet?
134 bets win via the 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, or 10 .... I'm presuming the distribution of winning numbers will be the same as their probabilities of appearing. For example, there are 3 ways to roll a 4 and 24 ways to roll all the numbers 4 thru 10 so the 4 should win 3 times per 24 wins. The distribution over 134 wins is:
4/10 win 33 times
5/9 win 45 times
6/8 win 56 times
At $10 4/10 odds and flat bet 33 wins = $990
At $10 5/9 odds and flat bet 45 wins = $1125
At $10 6/8 odds and flat bet 56 wins = $1232
Total Point Number wins = 134 = $3347
Total 7/11 wins = 110 = $1100
Total wins = 244 = $4447
Total loss = 251 = $5020
Net loss = $573
Not much good in the long run for 1X odds
How about 2X odds?
4/10 = $1320 + $330
5/9 = $1350 + $330
6/8 = $1344 + $330
Total Point Numbers = $5004
Total 7/11 wins = $1100
Total 2X = $6104
Total loss = $7530
Total Net loss = $1426
2X is worse than 1X!!!
I am hoping my math is incorrect, otherwise all the talk about decreasing the house edge by taking more odds is bad advice.... in the long run.
Given:
Probability of winning a pass line bet: 244/495
Probability of winning a pass line via 7 and 11: 8/36 or 110/495
Probability of winning a pass line bet via 4 thru 10: 134/495
Probability of losing a pass line bet: 251/495
First conclusion...with a $10 pass line bet we should be expect to be down $70
What happens when the bettor takes 1X odds for $10 on each bet?
134 bets win via the 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, or 10 .... I'm presuming the distribution of winning numbers will be the same as their probabilities of appearing. For example, there are 3 ways to roll a 4 and 24 ways to roll all the numbers 4 thru 10 so the 4 should win 3 times per 24 wins. The distribution over 134 wins is:
4/10 win 33 times
5/9 win 45 times
6/8 win 56 times
At $10 4/10 odds and flat bet 33 wins = $990
At $10 5/9 odds and flat bet 45 wins = $1125
At $10 6/8 odds and flat bet 56 wins = $1232
Total Point Number wins = 134 = $3347
Total 7/11 wins = 110 = $1100
Total wins = 244 = $4447
Total loss = 251 = $5020
Net loss = $573
Not much good in the long run for 1X odds
How about 2X odds?
4/10 = $1320 + $330
5/9 = $1350 + $330
6/8 = $1344 + $330
Total Point Numbers = $5004
Total 7/11 wins = $1100
Total 2X = $6104
Total loss = $7530
Total Net loss = $1426
2X is worse than 1X!!!
I am hoping my math is incorrect, otherwise all the talk about decreasing the house edge by taking more odds is bad advice.... in the long run.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 5th, 2013 at 10:51:39 AM
permalink
Neither the probability nor the payoff on your line bet will be affected by your deciding to take/lay an odds bet.
The Odds bet, by definition, is offered by the casino at TRUE ODDS, therefore it is a fair risk. You can win or you can lose but neither you nor the casino have any edge at all.
You don't gotta do it.
Math types say have the bulk of your money at a "no edge" bet. It won't bring you better luck on your line bets but it will make things go faster, particularly your bank roll.
The Odds bet, by definition, is offered by the casino at TRUE ODDS, therefore it is a fair risk. You can win or you can lose but neither you nor the casino have any edge at all.
You don't gotta do it.
Math types say have the bulk of your money at a "no edge" bet. It won't bring you better luck on your line bets but it will make things go faster, particularly your bank roll.
November 5th, 2013 at 11:01:06 AM
permalink
Lol! Flea until I went through this exercise I didn't realize the extent of what you said. Thanks for the post, it helps a lot.Quote: FleaStiffMath types say have the bulk of your money at a "no edge" bet. It won't bring you better luck on your line bets but it will make things go faster, particularly your bank roll.
It drives home points that I haven't considered. A bettor like myself looks at the probability of a winning pass line bet being 49.3% and says, okay that's a flat bet. If I back up that bet with money that gets paid true odds I can beat the game. Nope! Not in the long run...in fact...you lose more. So the lesson for me is in the long run, the more you bet, the more you lose.
In the voice of Yosemite Sam.... "I hate the long run"...except if I want to sound smart because no matter what betting strategy a person offers I can look as if I'm considering their banter with my wisdom, then put my hand to my chin, slowly shake my head and say, "in the long run, you'll lose money."
I think I've found my signature....
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 5th, 2013 at 11:02:27 AM
permalink
Quote: nowakezoneIf I back up that bet with money that gets paid true odds I can beat the game. Nope! Not in the long run...in fact...you lose more. So the lesson for me is in the long run, the more you bet, the more you lose.
Actually, you won't lose more by taking the free odds bet (assuming you have the proper bankroll). There will be wide swings, but you will remain even in the long run since neither side has an edge.
Fighting BS one post at a time!
November 5th, 2013 at 11:07:24 AM
permalink
Then my math is wrong...Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: nowakezoneIf I back up that bet with money that gets paid true odds I can beat the game. Nope! Not in the long run...in fact...you lose more. So the lesson for me is in the long run, the more you bet, the more you lose.
Actually, you won't lose more by taking the free odds bet (assuming you have the proper bankroll). You will remain even in the long run since neither side has an edge.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 5th, 2013 at 11:09:06 AM
permalink
Here's how I visualize it. If you have a pass line bet up and it does not win on the come out roll, you are at a disadvantage, so why throw good money(odds bet) after bad(pass line bet that will more likely lose than win). It makes more sense to me(although I admit I don't do it all the time) to put odds up when you're at the advantage to win. So, bet the don't and if you end up on a number then add your odds bet since you are more likely to win than lose, the kicker is, just opposite of the passline odds, you have to bet more to win less(some people don't like that).
November 5th, 2013 at 11:19:50 AM
permalink
Just think of it this way. If you didn't need a Pass Line bet and were allowed to place all the numbers and get paid at true odds, you would remain even in the long run.Quote: nowakezoneThen my math is wrong...
There is no bet on the craps table where the player has an advantage. The best bet is taking/laying odds, but not even that gives the player any type of edge. It just reduces the House Edge to 0%.Quote: AlanIt makes more sense to me(although I admit I don't do it all the time) to put odds up when you're at the advantage to win.
That's the problem with the Don't. There will be many times that you DON'T (no pun intended) end up on a number, which is why the House has an advantage on Don't players as well.Quote: AlanSo, bet the don't and if you end up on a number...
Fighting BS one post at a time!
November 5th, 2013 at 11:24:48 AM
permalink
Quote: Beethoven9th
There is no bet on the craps table where the player has an advantage. The best bet is taking/laying odds, but not even that gives the player any type of edge. It just reduces the House Edge to 0%.That's the problem with the Don't. There will be many times that you DON'T (no pun intended) end up on a number, which is why the House has an advantage on Don't players as well.Quote: AlanSo, bet the don't and if you end up on a number...
The thing with the don't is that you have dodged the bullet BEFORE putting up your odds(I agree that it's a big bullet to dodge-its the edge). On the pass you do it AFTER you had a better chance to win.
November 5th, 2013 at 11:46:22 AM
permalink
That's EXACTLY what I'm trying to do by making a simultaneous Pass/Don't Pass bet...get to place the Odds with less risk at the Pass line. Although a pass line bet has 8 ways to win immediately, it also has 4 ways to lose. The Do/Don't bet has only 1 way to lose.Quote: Beethoven9thJust think of it this way. If you didn't need a Pass Line bet and were allowed to place all the numbers and get paid at true odds, you would remain even in the long run.
I like this discussion because it's more about the perspectives drawn from the math than just the math.
Alan the Wizard concurs with you, and now that I understand what he meant when he said "much of the value of the pass line bet is in the first roll"...so do I. After the first roll, the pass line bet is no better than a put bet. In my view after the come out roll the put bet is superior because I get to choose if I want to bet on that number and maybe take odds.
The caveat to all of these ideas is that in the long run everyone but the casino loses. In that light when we discuss methods and which is better we have to think short term. What have you seen at the table. What stands out to me is I've seen two or three sevens in a row roll then some eights and sixes. What will help me take quick advantage of those series. Seriously, the flat Pass bet to get the 7/11 with no odds and placing the 6/8 with a progression plan or full parlay.
Btw, just by the way everyone talks about the Don't side as being superior, I was really surprised to find that the Total Probability to Win for the Don't side is 47.9%, while for the Do side it's 49.3%. Blew my mind and shows how important that come out roll is. AFTER the come out roll, the Don't Win Prob is 39.6% and the Do side is 27%.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 5th, 2013 at 12:07:15 PM
permalink
True, if a Don't player survives the come-out, then they are favored to win their bet, but the catch on the odds is that they must bet more to win less. Because of this, neither the Don't player nor the casino will make any money on the lay in the long run.Quote: AlanThe thing with the don't is that you have dodged the bullet BEFORE putting up your odds(I agree that it's a big bullet to dodge-its the edge). On the pass you do it AFTER you had a better chance to win.
I mentioned in another thread that this is not a terrible strategy at all if you're playing at, say, a $3 table. Even if the 12 is rolled on the come-out twice an hour, that's only $6 out of your pocket.Quote: nowakezoneThat's EXACTLY what I'm trying to do by making a simultaneous Pass/Don't Pass bet...get to place the Odds with less risk at the Pass line. Although a pass line bet has 8 ways to win immediately, it also has 4 ways to lose. The Do/Don't bet has only 1 way to lose.
The Don't is actually slightly better than the PL, but because it's such a narrow, insignificant margin, they are virtually the same.Quote: nowakezoneBtw, just by the way everyone talks about the Don't side as being superior, I was really surprised to find that the Total Probability to Win for the Don't side is 47.9%, while for the Do side it's 49.3%. Blew my mind and shows how important that come out roll is. AFTER the come out roll, the Don't Win Prob is 39.6% and the Do side is 27%.
Fighting BS one post at a time!
November 5th, 2013 at 12:17:38 PM
permalink
Beethoven I think what you're saying is what I was thinking BEFORE I realized that the Probability and Edge do not mean the same thing. The house EDGE is slightly better for the Don't than the DO and it's calculated differently than the PROBABILITY of Winning and is totally related to payout. Probability is a separate issue.Quote: Beethoven9th
The Don't is actually slightly better than the PL, but because it's such a narrow, insignificant margin, they are virtually the same.
Appendix
This link is from this site and explains it all. As I said, blew my mind.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 5th, 2013 at 1:27:37 PM
permalink
This "No Odds", "LIght Odds", "Heavy on the Odds" is easily determined.
Figure out if you are going to win the next four Line Bets... if so, go heavy on the odds.
If you are going to lose each of the next four line bets.. go with No Odds.
I told you it was easily determined!!
Its true about that short term long term stuff. Blind luck in the short term makes for long term happiness.
Figure out if you are going to win the next four Line Bets... if so, go heavy on the odds.
If you are going to lose each of the next four line bets.. go with No Odds.
I told you it was easily determined!!
Its true about that short term long term stuff. Blind luck in the short term makes for long term happiness.
November 5th, 2013 at 2:33:20 PM
permalink
Lol!!! Excellent post!Quote: FleaStiffThis "No Odds", "LIght Odds", "Heavy on the Odds" is easily determined.
Figure out if you are going to win the next four Line Bets... if so, go heavy on the odds.
If you are going to lose each of the next four line bets.. go with No Odds.
I told you it was easily determined!!
Its true about that short term long term stuff. Blind luck in the short term makes for long term happiness.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 5th, 2013 at 3:46:48 PM
permalink
Think of odds this way:
1. Odds have no house advantage
2. Odds have no player advantage
3. The house is more likely going to win the flat bet of the "right way players"
4. The house is more likely going to win your odds bet
1. Odds have no house advantage
2. Odds have no player advantage
3. The house is more likely going to win the flat bet of the "right way players"
4. The house is more likely going to win your odds bet
November 5th, 2013 at 4:27:57 PM
permalink
Quote: AlanMendelsonThink of odds this way:
4. The house is more likely going to win your odds bet
If it's attached to your 'right way bet'.
I'll argue that the house is less likely to win your odds bet if it's attached to a don't bettor's bet.
November 5th, 2013 at 4:39:37 PM
permalink
I'm sure that's what AlanM meant based on his #3.Quote: AlanIf it's attached to your 'right way bet'.
I'll argue that the house is less likely to win your odds bet if it's attached to a don't bettor's bet.
As long as you're talking about the long run probability of the outcomes then there's no argument needed. The numbers are already calculated. Now, if you're talking about the next 20 rolls, or the next 50 rolls...well then, that's a different story.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 5th, 2013 at 4:43:35 PM
permalink
The Odds bet add to your variance. If you take odds you are more likely to up than if you don't take odds. You are also more likely to be down a lot more than the if you don't take the odds.
Taking x5 odds can lead to 'winning' over a life time more likely than no odds. The EV is the same, so you are also more likely to end up a big loser too.
That's why the odds are both good and bad.
Taking x5 odds can lead to 'winning' over a life time more likely than no odds. The EV is the same, so you are also more likely to end up a big loser too.
That's why the odds are both good and bad.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
November 5th, 2013 at 4:54:38 PM
permalink
Quote: nowakezoneI'm sure that's what AlanM meant based on his #3.
As long as you're talking about the long run probability of the outcomes then there's no argument needed. The numbers are already calculated. Now, if you're talking about the next 20 rolls, or the next 50 rolls...well then, that's a different story.
Then that needed to be specified.
I don't think that anyone that's familiar with the game(or math) will argue that once the don't bettor gets on a number that their likeliness of winning is better than the right way player. I know, I know, the don't player must make it past the come out roll, which is the big bump in the road(edge). And I'm not saying that even if that don't bettor does get on a number that it is 100% going to win, just that the odds(not the odds bet, but could be too) are in their favor to win.
In an -EV game the player will lose in the long run, sure that's been beat to death, that's why we all try to 'jump in' in the short term(and try to win).
November 5th, 2013 at 7:11:14 PM
permalink
Which is exactly why it annoys me every time I see it written...except for my signature which makes me laugh. If I could I'd retire the phrase from websites like this one because it goes without saying.Quote: AlanIn an -EV game the player will lose in the long run, sure that's been beat to death, that's why we all try to 'jump in' in the short term(and try to win).
But the short run...oh the short run....
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 5th, 2013 at 8:43:38 PM
permalink
The So-Called Free Odds Bet was developed to encourage betting on the pass-line, in order to make an odds bet you first have to have a pass-line bet. Now everybody should know that the casinos are not going to give anybody a good bet, they are always going to be negative. Even with the free odds bet if you don't take 5 time odds or over its still a negative bet, just like any other bet on a craps table. Sure the casino doesn't have an advantage in theory, but if you look at what happens when you make a so-called free odds bet, you can see why the casinos want you to make that bet.
You just locked yourself into a pass-line bet and even though you can take your odds down 99.9% of all players never will that, with those so-called free odds. So if the casinos want you to make the free odds bet to encourage betting on the pass-line they must know that both bets are bad bets for you the player.
If they can get you make a bet on something that you wouldn't think of betting on in the first place they have used the free odds bet as a very efficient marketing tool. Most players will not place the 4's or 10's some won't even place the 5's and 9's, but if they have a pass-line bet they will take the free odds on any point the shooter established.
I often what to ask some of these players what just happened, you never bet the 5's or 9's and the same thing goes for the 4's and 10's but now you are betting one of them, why? What just changed that make those bets a good bet in your mind?
The casinos still have the same edge over you on any of those points, by taking the free odds that didn't change the odds of the shooter making those points. So nothing changes when you take those free odd, the only thing that changes is your bank roll, if the shooter doesn't make the point, for the worst.
The casinos are getting you to bet more money, and isn't that what they want you to do?
There is a very good reason why the so-called free odds bet is not marked on the table, because it's an easy sell to you the player by not having it there, you think that you just found hidden treasure that they don't want you to know about, after all it's not marked, so it must be a good bet for you, Wrong! You never even think about what the stickman is doing when they tell you that you didn't take those free odds bet,... sucker! If it was such a good bet for you the player, would the casino constantly remind you that you didn't place you're free odds bet?
...
You just locked yourself into a pass-line bet and even though you can take your odds down 99.9% of all players never will that, with those so-called free odds. So if the casinos want you to make the free odds bet to encourage betting on the pass-line they must know that both bets are bad bets for you the player.
If they can get you make a bet on something that you wouldn't think of betting on in the first place they have used the free odds bet as a very efficient marketing tool. Most players will not place the 4's or 10's some won't even place the 5's and 9's, but if they have a pass-line bet they will take the free odds on any point the shooter established.
I often what to ask some of these players what just happened, you never bet the 5's or 9's and the same thing goes for the 4's and 10's but now you are betting one of them, why? What just changed that make those bets a good bet in your mind?
The casinos still have the same edge over you on any of those points, by taking the free odds that didn't change the odds of the shooter making those points. So nothing changes when you take those free odd, the only thing that changes is your bank roll, if the shooter doesn't make the point, for the worst.
The casinos are getting you to bet more money, and isn't that what they want you to do?
There is a very good reason why the so-called free odds bet is not marked on the table, because it's an easy sell to you the player by not having it there, you think that you just found hidden treasure that they don't want you to know about, after all it's not marked, so it must be a good bet for you, Wrong! You never even think about what the stickman is doing when they tell you that you didn't take those free odds bet,... sucker! If it was such a good bet for you the player, would the casino constantly remind you that you didn't place you're free odds bet?
...
Note, all my post start with this is just my opinion...!
You do good brada ..!
superrick
Winning comes from knowledge and skill when your betting and not reading fiction
http://procraps4u2.myfanforum.org/index.php
...
November 6th, 2013 at 10:02:17 AM
permalink
'rick and 'pit...the concepts that you two are speaking about have provided me with greater insight about craps overall, and specifically the odds bet. Some older threads have emphasized these points, too, and the more I read and the more times guys like you express it in your own words, the more understanding I get. Not like, "what, I don't get it"...but more real understanding of what's going on. Rick your post in particular, I'm sure aided by so much that I've been reading lately, is one that has driven things home.
Both of you guys mention the 5X odds thing. I'm not a 5X odds player for sure unless it's a $3-$4 table...but it's an interesting thought anyway. I'll have to check that out.
Given what you say is true, about the odds not helping and really only hurting...it amazes me then that so many authors say the ONLY way to play is take full odds, whether Do or Don't. It's always about taking the odds, so much so that it seems only a dufus wouldn't take the odds. And the reason to do so...to cut the house edge. What's not said is the reason you want to reduce the edge is to get an overall payout closer to true odds. Guys I have advanced degrees, I'm well-educated, but I'd bet if you ask 100 people "will reducing the house edge give you a better chance of winning....", greater than 90% would say yes. Until last week when I first started reading more seriously, I thought so. I thought that's what edge meant. I thought that taking the odds reduced the house's probability of winning to less than 1%.
In one of Wizard's Q/A pages the question of the 1000 bets v 1000 bets with 100X odds is raised. Michael's response was very intriguing and pretty much made me start this quest for greater understanding. Here is a portion of his response:
Well shut the front door! What!!! What did he just say? Taking the odds doesn't help to win more? My need for action!? What!! But I thought...but the books say...but everyone says....
Okay then...
Both of you guys mention the 5X odds thing. I'm not a 5X odds player for sure unless it's a $3-$4 table...but it's an interesting thought anyway. I'll have to check that out.
Given what you say is true, about the odds not helping and really only hurting...it amazes me then that so many authors say the ONLY way to play is take full odds, whether Do or Don't. It's always about taking the odds, so much so that it seems only a dufus wouldn't take the odds. And the reason to do so...to cut the house edge. What's not said is the reason you want to reduce the edge is to get an overall payout closer to true odds. Guys I have advanced degrees, I'm well-educated, but I'd bet if you ask 100 people "will reducing the house edge give you a better chance of winning....", greater than 90% would say yes. Until last week when I first started reading more seriously, I thought so. I thought that's what edge meant. I thought that taking the odds reduced the house's probability of winning to less than 1%.
In one of Wizard's Q/A pages the question of the 1000 bets v 1000 bets with 100X odds is raised. Michael's response was very intriguing and pretty much made me start this quest for greater understanding. Here is a portion of his response:
Quote:...I can just imagine the follow up question to be why I recommend taking the odds if doing so doesn’t help to win more. What I suggest is betting less on the pass so that your need for action is mostly met by a full odds bet.
Well shut the front door! What!!! What did he just say? Taking the odds doesn't help to win more? My need for action!? What!! But I thought...but the books say...but everyone says....
Okay then...
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 6th, 2013 at 11:14:47 AM
permalink
Quote: nowakezoneI am hoping my math is incorrect, otherwise all the talk about decreasing the house edge by taking more odds is bad advice.... in the long run.
Your main mistake is that you're counting the odds as lost on all losses, when you'll get to keep them on craps, which will hit 55 times. That brings your net losses to $23 and $326, respectively. The fact that the former is too low should tell you something else is wrong: also, the distribution of winning numbers won't be that, since the harder ones are less likely to win - 4, for instance, will come up one time in twelve, and win a third of the times it hits, so for every 495 rolls, there will be 27.5 wins with a 4 or 10, and likewise, 44 will be 5 or 9, and 62.5 on six or eight. So we add it up for 1x odds: $825 + $1100 + $1375 = $3300. $3300 - $5020 + $550 = -$1170, tack on the $1100 for sevens and elevens, and we're exactly where we should be.
As for your calculation of 2x odds, the reason the losses stay so high even after correcting for craps is that you've got the bare line bet down as winning $330 each time, even though by your numbers it should be $450 and $560, respectively. Of course, that's not right, either - what it should actually be is $1100 + $275, $1320 + $440, and $1500 + $625, for a total of $5260. Now add in the sevens and elevens for $1100, and your total wins are $6360. Your losses, if you lost $30 every time, would be $7530, take off $1100 for the fact that you didn't lose your odds on the 55 craps, and you get $6430. $6430 - $6360 = $70.
EDIT: Fixed a mistake in the first paragraph (I had added the $1100 in my head without noting it, and switched the sign, yielding an absurd "3300 - 5020 + 550 = 70").
The trick to poker is learning not to beat yourself up for your mistakes too much, and certainly not too little, but just the right amount.
November 6th, 2013 at 12:08:09 PM
permalink
The simple answer is yes, take the most odds you can afford with a 20 shooter session bankroll. The odds bet has no house advantage so it is the best bet in the house, and yes we know it has to be made with the 1.4% pass line bet, but the odds bet is a separate bet. Even though overall 40% of odds bets are won, it pays more the even money.
If you simply bet $50 odds with $5 pass line and no other bets, with a $1000 session bankroll, you will do well on half way decent tables. Of course it will lose when no points are made for extended periods, but on half way decent tables it will produce a profit having played it for many sessions.
If you simply bet $50 odds with $5 pass line and no other bets, with a $1000 session bankroll, you will do well on half way decent tables. Of course it will lose when no points are made for extended periods, but on half way decent tables it will produce a profit having played it for many sessions.
November 6th, 2013 at 1:18:18 PM
permalink
Talk about Bingo! I clearly need to go back and rethink my work.
Later...yes, yes, and yes. I stopped a step too early on the probability step and failed to multiply the probability for a roll and a win by 495. That gives me 13.75 for the 4, which as you said is 27.5 for the 4 or 10. I'm certain I made the same omission down the line.
I see the 330 mistake, that's rather blatant.
I seem to redo the taking all odds away on craps bets, I don't remember even considering that some of the losses were craps bets...oh...lol...maybe that's why! Okay, got it.
Okay! I'm set. You're answer then coincides with the long run answer that 1000 flat bets and 1000 flats with 100X odds lose the same money. Bravo Bingo!!!
DWM....my errant math aside....I submit that your winning has nothing to do with max odds, rather it has more to do with your timing, ie., when you start and when you finish...because as the math shows... see my signature. :)
Later...yes, yes, and yes. I stopped a step too early on the probability step and failed to multiply the probability for a roll and a win by 495. That gives me 13.75 for the 4, which as you said is 27.5 for the 4 or 10. I'm certain I made the same omission down the line.
I see the 330 mistake, that's rather blatant.
I seem to redo the taking all odds away on craps bets, I don't remember even considering that some of the losses were craps bets...oh...lol...maybe that's why! Okay, got it.
Okay! I'm set. You're answer then coincides with the long run answer that 1000 flat bets and 1000 flats with 100X odds lose the same money. Bravo Bingo!!!
DWM....my errant math aside....I submit that your winning has nothing to do with max odds, rather it has more to do with your timing, ie., when you start and when you finish...because as the math shows... see my signature. :)
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 6th, 2013 at 2:01:23 PM
permalink
Quote: nowakezoneI submit that your winning has nothing to do with max odds, rather it has more to do with your timing, ie., when you start and when you finish...because as the math shows... see my signature. :)
But the net effect of odds is to effectively put off the long run while keeping your EV the same. You are more likely to be ahead after N bets on the passline with odds than without.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
November 6th, 2013 at 2:40:02 PM
permalink
With 10x odds, the house really has no meaningful advantage, the house edge is miniscule, but as we know there are many cold spells where few points are made for extended periods. One way I am attempting to help with the bad spells is after 4 consecutive shooters fail to make a point then stop betting, wait for a point to be made before starting again. My latest trip, there were about 10 consecutive shooters that failed to make a point, before returning to the norm.
November 6th, 2013 at 3:08:34 PM
permalink
Quote: dwmWith 10x odds, the house really has no meaningful advantage, the house edge is miniscule, but as we know there are many cold spells where few points are made for extended periods. One way I am attempting to help with the bad spells is after 4 consecutive shooters fail to make a point then stop betting, wait for a point to be made before starting again. My latest trip, there were about 10 consecutive shooters that failed to make a point, before returning to the norm.
The house edge is exactly the same: 7 cents on your $5 bet. As a percentage it shrinks when you add odds, but your dollar loss is unchanged.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice."
-- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
November 6th, 2013 at 4:13:09 PM
permalink
That's what I was thinking too, but that can only happen if the point numbers are showing and winning more than they should near term. "bingo's 495 roll post, and the one by Wizard about the 1000 bet guy being equal to the 1000 bet 100X odds guy are telling. As long as N isn't too large, meaning large enough to allow the probabilities to even out...then what you're saying is possible. Every time we've walked away from a table winners from playing the pass with odds we've been in an N period. That's how I see the odds can help. When the N period of no 7's is on you and you're pressing....payday. But when not...draino.Quote: MathExtremist...You are more likely to be ahead after N bets on the passline with odds than without.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 6th, 2013 at 4:25:42 PM
permalink
That also assumes enough bankroll to make every possible wager.Quote: MathExtremistBut the net effect of odds is to effectively put off the long run while keeping your EV the same. You are more likely to be ahead after N bets on the passline with odds than without.
If that holds true
My numbers of showing a net loss after 1000 wagers. not all doom and gloom
it is also possible after 1000 wagers to end up exactly even.
I used Excel for this
Gamblers Odds also does this (you have to program in the odds)
simulation data also agrees
pass/no odds: 66.1% (at most 499 wins)
Dpass/no odds: 66.3% (don't pass includes pushes)
pass/1x odds: 59.3%
pass/2x odds: 56.2%
pass/345x odds: 53.6%
Dpass/345x odds: 53.3%
pass/10x odds: 51.7%
Dpass/10x odds: 51.4%
Dpass/20x odds: 50.8%
pass/100x odds: 50.3%
when one takes or lays the odds bet
the probability of a NET LOSS decreases (over 1000 such bets made in my example)
the average net loss and average net win increases.
such is what comes from more variance and no change in the expected value.
They all (pass) have same expected loss at -$70.71 (rounded)
That -$70.71 is just the center of the distribution but they all have a different variance.
That makes for all having different distributions.
They also do not have the same chance to lose say exactly $70
because of the variance - way more possible outcomes from taking the odds bet.
pass/no odds: 2.52% (1 in 40)
pass/10x odds: 0.117% (1 in 855)
pass/100x odds: 0.025% (1 in 4000)
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
November 6th, 2013 at 4:53:04 PM
permalink
removed
silly
Sally
silly
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
November 6th, 2013 at 5:05:37 PM
permalink
For some reason, I like the don't come bet(not the don't pass) because I don't want to appear to be betting against the majority of the table, although most here know that it makes no difference and probably wouldn't care.
November 6th, 2013 at 5:22:29 PM
permalink
The house does not have 1 or 2 or 3 % advantage,but rather 40 or 50% ahead on every bet in craps. It has an infinite money supply, only few players can sustain up and downs, even with 0% edge house still going to win. Most players can loose once or twice, but than they loose faith or in other words get burned and they give up fight. House never gives up. They grind their win 24/7, only toughest players can take a fight like this.
November 6th, 2013 at 5:56:44 PM
permalink
Quote: Dicenor33The house does not have 1 or 2 or 3 % advantage,but rather 40 or 50% ahead on every bet in craps. It has an infinite money supply, only few players can sustain up and downs, even with 0% edge house still going to win.
Not true at all. The 'large' money supply by the house does not give it an advantage on a 0% bet. The houses money supply is actually smaller than all the bankrolls exposed to the house over the course of a year. But it has much less risk, due to it's advantage on the other bets. The 0% edge bets make $0 dollars over all.
They do however increase variance, and swings, and that makes it more likely for people to chase or increase their bets when on a streak. I've seen both happen. $10 with $50 behind comes in, player is now putting $25 on the line with $100 behind. Bam, the casino just got a little more juice. Player loses their $10 with $50 behind. Decides to put $10 on line, $10 on the hard ways and then place the 6 and 8 when the point of 9 is established.... 'just to get it back'.
But those free odds bets. They are free. 0% edge.
Quote:Most players can loose once or twice, but than they loose faith or in other words get burned and they give up fight. House never gives up. They grind their win 24/7, only toughest players can take a fight like this.
Doesn't matter how 'tough' you are. Your attitude or toughness means little. You can play or not. The casino still makes it cut per bet.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
November 7th, 2013 at 10:24:32 AM
permalink
That's an excellent link Sally. Lots of good information there.
The bottom line is going to depend on variance as has been said. Whether one is a do, don't, odds, place, field, or prop bettor the opportunity to profit depends on the variance in favor of the bettor's play while at the table. Every bet works sometimes, some bets more often than others as is expected. But for that guy who walks up and bets boxcars 3 times in a row, hits twice, and takes his wife out to the fancy buffet on his winnings... the ONLY way to play is bet the boxcars because they hit 2/3 of the time!
Thankfully 'Bingo pointed out my math mistakes and Sally came forward to emphasize the long term results with her work. Both have placed the long run into better perspective for me.
The bottom line is going to depend on variance as has been said. Whether one is a do, don't, odds, place, field, or prop bettor the opportunity to profit depends on the variance in favor of the bettor's play while at the table. Every bet works sometimes, some bets more often than others as is expected. But for that guy who walks up and bets boxcars 3 times in a row, hits twice, and takes his wife out to the fancy buffet on his winnings... the ONLY way to play is bet the boxcars because they hit 2/3 of the time!
Thankfully 'Bingo pointed out my math mistakes and Sally came forward to emphasize the long term results with her work. Both have placed the long run into better perspective for me.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 7th, 2013 at 11:23:00 AM
permalink
removed
silly
Sally
silly
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
November 7th, 2013 at 11:57:11 AM
permalink
The probabilities are finite...theoretically..excluding misshapen dice, weighted dice, warped tables, trained shooters etc etc. These probabilities represent the perfect world. In a perfect world, the 7 would show 6 times every 36 rolls. But it doesn't. The probability of a 4 being rolled and winning is (3/36)(3/9)...in a perfect world...a perfect world being one where math probabilities and reality are the same. But...that rarely happens. Close plenty of times. Exactly so...well not so much. Lol, you guys probably have a probability of how often the probabilities work out.
The fact is that unless any number of rolls performs EXACTLY as the probabilities say they should, the outcome will be different than the expected outcome. Yes the probabilities provide a basis to make a comparison of what the probabilities say versus what just happened, and overall one can expect that a guy won't roll 28 7's in a row....well..."probably" not.
Understanding that six 7's should show every 36 rolls but sometimes twelve will and sometimes only two will, and that applies to all the numbers...other than that... knowing more doesn't help the bettor at all....unless he's charting the table and has a method to take advantage when two Sd's have been reached. I'll trade against the edge of the second sd any day.
The fact is that unless any number of rolls performs EXACTLY as the probabilities say they should, the outcome will be different than the expected outcome. Yes the probabilities provide a basis to make a comparison of what the probabilities say versus what just happened, and overall one can expect that a guy won't roll 28 7's in a row....well..."probably" not.
Understanding that six 7's should show every 36 rolls but sometimes twelve will and sometimes only two will, and that applies to all the numbers...other than that... knowing more doesn't help the bettor at all....unless he's charting the table and has a method to take advantage when two Sd's have been reached. I'll trade against the edge of the second sd any day.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 7th, 2013 at 12:26:22 PM
permalink
removed
silly
Sally
silly
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
November 7th, 2013 at 2:15:24 PM
permalink
I agree with the "not so" because there are a number of combinations of wins and losses that will produce a net loss of $70 after 495 rolls.Quote: mustangsallyNot so. Sally
I recognize that each roll of the dice is an independent event. Each time the dice are rolled the 7 has a 6/36 chance of appearing. Every single time. Just because ten consecutive 7's have rolled doesn't change the fact that on the next roll the 7 has a 6/36 chance of appearing. I understand that.
The problem here is presuming that out of 495 rolls, a bettor will win 244 and lose 251. That's theory. You can work with theory all day long and it's great because it helps one realize why the 7 "seems" to show more frequently than the 12, and the great thing about it in the real world is it doesn't take very long for that to happen.Quote:For the pass line for example
the winning probability = 244/495
That considers every possible way the bet can win and we can use every possible roll outcome from two fair dice.
as does 251/495 considers every possible way the pass line can lose.
Absolutely nothing says that out of 495 rolls, a bettor will only win 244 and will lose 251....except pure stats. The closer the outcomes are to the probability the closer the ultimate outcome will be to predicted or expected. However, if the numbers roll such that the bettor has 295 wins and 200 losses then what does the theorist say? "oh well, that roll was an outlier, those don't happen very often," or, " that roll fell near the edge of the second SD, you won't see that very often." True, but it happened.
Quote:One may say,
ah the dice have to roll a certain way (we know it won't be perfect)
for me to double my $1000 bankroll by 150 bets made and resolved making exactly $40 pass line bets
with no odds.
What really are my chances?
My friend says he will pay me 25 to 1 if I can do.
Should I take the bet?
Do I have a chance in hell to be successful?
Do we need to really know every roll of the dice for this to happen?
Maybe he will pay 35 to 1, because I am Sally
This perfectly illustrates what I'm saying is the way it is. That 150 roll session happens. We can run the numbers and calculate the odds of it happening forever. All you need is 6 wins with your $40 parlayed and you're the winner. This is the difference between theory and reality. You calculate what are the chances of winning six bets, not to mention six bets in a row....and I played at a table last Saturday where the shooter rolled 7's and 11's and made four points before he SO'd.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 7th, 2013 at 2:59:45 PM
permalink
Where did that shooting happen?
November 7th, 2013 at 3:13:06 PM
permalink
It is possible to walk away from a craps session a winner, otherwise why play?
November 7th, 2013 at 3:30:00 PM
permalink
Quote: nowakezoneThe problem here is presuming that out of 495 rolls, a bettor will win 244 and lose 251. That's theory. You can work with theory all day long and it's great because it helps one realize why the 7 "seems" to show more frequently than the 12, and the great thing about it in the real world is it doesn't take very long for that to happen.
You are being a little fuzzy here.
There is no presumption. If you simulate a craps game until you lose 251 units, and you run the simulation millions of times and chart the number of rolls, the number that will show up the most often is 495 rolls.
It is possible that you never make a point before losing 251 units, it is just unlikely. There is no "presumption" or "seems" to be considered.
If Icount the number of times I must flip a coin until I get "heads" sometimes it will take me more than 10 times. But if I do it thousands of times, then the average number of flips will be almost two. There is no "presumption".
November 7th, 2013 at 4:37:18 PM
permalink
removed
silly
silly
I Heart Vi Hart
November 7th, 2013 at 4:53:45 PM
permalink
You make my point very nicely. You run millions of simulations. That my friend is called "the long run" and is unrealistic. Reality is flipping a coin and getting tails ten times and scratching your head saying, "The heads has got to show soon, there's a 50% probability that it will.Quote: pacomartin
If I count the number of times I must flip a coin until I get "heads" sometimes it will take me more than 10 times. But if I do it thousands of times, then the average number of flips will be almost two. There is no "presumption".
It's the stuff Martingale bettors count on, only to reach table maximums or bankroll limitations before Martin shows up. Ooops! Back to the simulator.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 7th, 2013 at 5:10:07 PM
permalink
Expected value and standard deviation rule to the theorist. You guys all preach the numbers. Even if EVERY 495 roll session worked out to be 244 wins, and 251 losses, the only way a player ends up losing $70 dollars is if he bets every bet and hangs around for 495 rolls.
I'm not saying that the numbers are wrong. Like the guy before you, run the simulation a bazillion times and the more you run it the closer you get to it 244 and 251 over 495. Who's arguing that? Not me!
What your numbers keep you from doing is going to the table and betting that when a hot roll comes you can make your bets take advantage of it.
It's why you don't have an answer for the double your money bet your friend made to you...I'd bet you ran your numbers, saw the odds against you and said no way! But if you actually went to the tables and played you'd see that people win 4-5-6 and more bets in a row all the time. The dice pass! Come out 7's and 11's are rolled in between points. It happens. I've been there. Have you?
But in the end, you won't. You won't because instead of using the numbers as a guide, you rely on them. You let them sway your decisions because you can point to your printout and say, "Look, the math is solid! Out of 495 rolls you will lose about 251 times and you will win about 244. Look! See? See my bar chart! It says so!"
And then over at the other table when the guy rolls a bunch of box numbers and hits two or three points and in between points the 6/36 7's show and he's not afraid to parlay his bets because his simulation says it can't be done...
That's the difference. Now, as for no hope...I hope that you put your simulator away and go make some bets because the deviations from your numbers happen all the time.
I'm not saying that the numbers are wrong. Like the guy before you, run the simulation a bazillion times and the more you run it the closer you get to it 244 and 251 over 495. Who's arguing that? Not me!
What your numbers keep you from doing is going to the table and betting that when a hot roll comes you can make your bets take advantage of it.
It's why you don't have an answer for the double your money bet your friend made to you...I'd bet you ran your numbers, saw the odds against you and said no way! But if you actually went to the tables and played you'd see that people win 4-5-6 and more bets in a row all the time. The dice pass! Come out 7's and 11's are rolled in between points. It happens. I've been there. Have you?
But in the end, you won't. You won't because instead of using the numbers as a guide, you rely on them. You let them sway your decisions because you can point to your printout and say, "Look, the math is solid! Out of 495 rolls you will lose about 251 times and you will win about 244. Look! See? See my bar chart! It says so!"
And then over at the other table when the guy rolls a bunch of box numbers and hits two or three points and in between points the 6/36 7's show and he's not afraid to parlay his bets because his simulation says it can't be done...
That's the difference. Now, as for no hope...I hope that you put your simulator away and go make some bets because the deviations from your numbers happen all the time.
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 7th, 2013 at 6:36:25 PM
permalink
I used to be a full member at the CBOE, then the CME. Trade futures and options on the floor of the exchanges. Grueling business and not for the faint of heart.
The options guys loved their theoreticals, the Greeks as they're called...delta, gamma, theta, etc. Now you had two kinds of traders...the one's who knew the theoretecals up, down, and sideways, and the ones who traded with them. oh the first group knew where the SD's were, they had it down. Shout to them from inside the pit to where they huddle with their little hand-helds...what's the delta of so and so...! Thanks!! They never made much money though because when the underlying didn't behave the way they thought and the theoreticals weren't helping, they were lost. They never learned how to trade, never learned how to change strategies on the fly, never learned how to offset losers with winners to make a profit. All they did was quote their numbers and act as if their poop didn't stink.
The you had guys like me. We traded. We made money. We knew the greeks and knew how to use them. we knew how to trade the underlying and how to hedge when the underlying went crazy. We didn't live and die by simulations and print outs. We traded and adapted to the market. Heck their were some of us who loved to trade the extreme sd's. We didn't just quote them and understand them and say look and see! Our numbers rule. We used the numbers to set up the trades then adapted to the market, and the trades as needed.
Pretty pictures don't make money. Knowing the numbers doesn't make money. You have to trade to make money trading. You have to gamble to make money gambling. It's the difference between knowing that a million simulations produce 495 rolls before 244 wins, and being there when 30 of those rolls provide 4 points and multiple 7's and 11's and you're pressing the whole way. The former says, "that was lucky and totally not expected" and runs another million-roll simulation, the latter says, "damn I love it when that happens! Let's get out of here while we're way up!"
The options guys loved their theoreticals, the Greeks as they're called...delta, gamma, theta, etc. Now you had two kinds of traders...the one's who knew the theoretecals up, down, and sideways, and the ones who traded with them. oh the first group knew where the SD's were, they had it down. Shout to them from inside the pit to where they huddle with their little hand-helds...what's the delta of so and so...! Thanks!! They never made much money though because when the underlying didn't behave the way they thought and the theoreticals weren't helping, they were lost. They never learned how to trade, never learned how to change strategies on the fly, never learned how to offset losers with winners to make a profit. All they did was quote their numbers and act as if their poop didn't stink.
The you had guys like me. We traded. We made money. We knew the greeks and knew how to use them. we knew how to trade the underlying and how to hedge when the underlying went crazy. We didn't live and die by simulations and print outs. We traded and adapted to the market. Heck their were some of us who loved to trade the extreme sd's. We didn't just quote them and understand them and say look and see! Our numbers rule. We used the numbers to set up the trades then adapted to the market, and the trades as needed.
Pretty pictures don't make money. Knowing the numbers doesn't make money. You have to trade to make money trading. You have to gamble to make money gambling. It's the difference between knowing that a million simulations produce 495 rolls before 244 wins, and being there when 30 of those rolls provide 4 points and multiple 7's and 11's and you're pressing the whole way. The former says, "that was lucky and totally not expected" and runs another million-roll simulation, the latter says, "damn I love it when that happens! Let's get out of here while we're way up!"
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 7th, 2013 at 7:40:51 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
November 8th, 2013 at 12:10:52 PM
permalink
I am not a dont player but i have a friend that plays all the time
and is the most consistent winner i have seen
He keeps very good tract of what is happening on the table, now
he does not write all this stuff down, but he seems to remember it.
He keeps tract mostly of the 4 & 10.
He plays mostly the dont pass and dont come , but he does not take
any odds. His point his why would i give the house odds on my bet
so i get back part of my bet. On a 4 or 10 if i lose 1 time i need to
win twice to just break even.
His point is also once his dont pass or dont come bet clears and is
placed, he has an advantage on that flat bet, and still paid 100% of
that bet when he wins. If he happens to lose it he only has to win once
to get even.
He does not go goofy on nice wins, does not chase losses and over all
he does pretty well.
dicesetter
and is the most consistent winner i have seen
He keeps very good tract of what is happening on the table, now
he does not write all this stuff down, but he seems to remember it.
He keeps tract mostly of the 4 & 10.
He plays mostly the dont pass and dont come , but he does not take
any odds. His point his why would i give the house odds on my bet
so i get back part of my bet. On a 4 or 10 if i lose 1 time i need to
win twice to just break even.
His point is also once his dont pass or dont come bet clears and is
placed, he has an advantage on that flat bet, and still paid 100% of
that bet when he wins. If he happens to lose it he only has to win once
to get even.
He does not go goofy on nice wins, does not chase losses and over all
he does pretty well.
dicesetter
November 8th, 2013 at 12:35:18 PM
permalink
deleted
DUHHIIIIIIIII HEARD THAT!
November 8th, 2013 at 1:05:57 PM
permalink
Deleted
...in the long run, you'll lose money.
November 8th, 2013 at 8:58:54 PM
permalink
Quote: IbeatyouracesHe's a 2 to 1 favorite to win also, hence the 1 to 2 payoff. Exactly what a 0% house is.
That's beside the point. Losing a lay wager on the four/ten simply put, sucks. You assume when you lay such odds you will win. With the other numbers, 5,6,8,9...you don't notice the extra(when only laying single odds).
