Tell me why Continuous Come isnt the best strategy

passline + continuous come

the Come bet acts like a hedge against the 7.
so when the 7 finally arrives, you get a little bit of your $ back.

example:
$10 min, 3/4/5x odds

if you have all the #s (4,5,6,8,9,10) then you have $300 on the table plus $10 on the Come.
if the 7 arrives, you lose the #s but get $10 for the Come.

$10/$300 = 3.33%

so Continuous Come is at least a 3.33% hedge against the 7, more if you have less $ on the table.

Where's my logic hole?


edit:
if you have the bankroll to do continuous come.

The "best" strategy depends a bit upon your objectives. If your sole objective is to minimize the house edge at a fair game of craps, then the ultimate strategy is "Don't play at all." I think second best is the Don't Pass/Come, with the Do being very nearly the same. As for making continuous Come bets (or Don't Come bets), the house edge percentage is exactly the same as if you just made the same size Pass/Don't wager on come out rolls and played for a much longer time to get the same number of wagers resolved. Or make larger Pass/Don't wagers just on come out rolls for the shorter time.

Many of us have objectives other than house edge. Some of us want to have a certain buy-in last a long time (on the clock). Continuous Come betting reduces the expected amount of clock time until you have lost your buy-in, compared to Pass betting w/o the Come bets. On the other hand, it increases the likelihood of making some specific large amount of money in a specific amount of time. Same with upping the size of your wagers. Adding all those additional wagers (or larger wagers) leads to a lot of volatility over a given number of rolls. Maybe that's good; maybe it's bad. It depends a bunch on what kind of experience you are looking for and what kind of experience you are willing to tolerate.

Quote: 100xOdds

passline + continuous come

the Come bet acts like a hedge against the 7.
so when the 7 finally arrives, you get a little bit of your $ back.

example:
$10 min, 3/4/5x odds

if you have all the #s (4,5,6,8,9,10) then you have $300 on the table plus $10 on the Come.
if the 7 arrives, you lose the #s but get $10 for the Come.

$10/$300 = 3.33%

so Continuous Come is at least a 3.33% hedge against the 7, more if you have less $ on the table.

Where's my logic hole?

Logic hole (I like that, btw!) is that you can cover all the numbers no winner then 7-out. True it is a hedge, but I've seen it happen where people cover more and more numbers then big red.

Logic Hole? 7-out. nuff said.

Logic hole? Shooter rolls the following sequence: 6, 8, 4, 10, 2, 3, 12, 2, 9, 5, 7

ouch

Marty woulda won $5. :P

It depends on what you are asking. Examining "continuous" as opposed to making one or two Come bets? Or as opposed to spreading some set of Place/Buy bets?

I am a limited Come bettor; so you can contrast the style against me too. For most of a session, I only want two numbers up to be resolved at one time.

There was a long-ago thread asking if Continuous Come was too hedgey, with the Wizard weighing in that it was not. However, clearly it is a way of betting more. So, basically I would answer that it is certainly OK, if that is how much action you want. It is a bad idea if a player somehow thinks he needs to bet this way to get the best results and actually is not comfortable with that much action. Bear in mind there was a newbie thread not so long ago where a concern was expressed that it should be a goal to get all the numbers covered, and how does a small bankroll get such done when it is essential? Of course it is not essential and that had to be explained.

Continuous come is better than Place/Buy betting, and a lot of Players make a choice between one and the other, seldom doing both. Although if such is limited to the 6 and 8, it's close. The HE is too high on the other numbers.

Stick an "IMO" on all the above. But it is not just my opinion to say that you are better off to confine that same amount of action in one small session where you resolve one number, and best off not playing Craps at all. So, Continuous Come betting can never be called 'best' with that in mind.

The advantage of repeated Come is you make money on a good roll - sometimes only betting the Pass just sits there while numbers and money are paid out to everyone else. The other advantage is if you get an immediate 7-out, you lose the Pass but win the Come, so only lose the Odds.

The disadvantage with just Come bets is you can have a few numbers (no repeats) before the 7-out - on the other hand once you've got a few numbers set-up, you have a fair chance of a payout.

Another method, which you can do in the UK with say £3 bets, it to make a Pass bet, then a Come and place the rest, using any winnings place bets to make the next Come bet and Odds on the number just rolled (with a small profit). Technically this is worse than just making Come bets: you lose more with an early-7, but need a shorter run to be ahead.

I think a good compromise is to stop once you've got three numbers, especially if betting against.

btw in the UK, if you're after maximum time, you're are marginally better just to place the 6 (or 8, or both) since the bet is not in action during the come out.

Quote: charliepatrick

The advantage of repeated Come is you make money on a good roll - sometimes only betting the Pass just sits there while numbers and money are paid out to everyone else. The other advantage is if you get an immediate 7-out, you lose the Pass but win the Come, so only lose the Odds...

The irony in this just hit me. In the PSO scenario, the person loses the bet with the 1.414% HE (PL), wins the bet with the 1.414% HE (CB), so that equals a wash. But they lose the biggest bet on the table, the one that had 0.0% HE (the 'free' odds)

Of course the disadvantage is that on a hand of 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 7, you lose 29x your pass line bet (assuming full 3-4-5x odds). While the guy who is betting pass line with no odds loses 1.

It's not a bad way to bet, if you must play craps and your goal is to get lots of action spread out between different numbers at a relatively low house edge. But the house still has an edge, so anything you win with "good rolls" will be evened out (and then some) by the "bad rolls".

yes, you can load all the bases (4,5,6,8,9,10 max odds) then a 7 hits and lose a bunch. but you can also go on a tear too.

my point is that Continuous Come strategy has a bonus of a free hedge against the 7.

3 point betty: after 2 come bets, you no longer have the hedge. you trade bankroll preservation for the hedge.

hm.. I guess I should have added "if you have the bankroll to do continuous come."

ok, I've been thinking about this more.

maybe a Come bet isn't a 'Free' hedge against the 7 since I lose on 2,3, and 12?

I would like to add this morsel... At what point does a "continuous Come Bet w/Odds" cover the rest of the bets on the table (that is, a 7-out is profitable)? and how frequently does that happen? Would you stop if profitable?

IMHO "continuous" might not be the best idea invented. Of course degenerate gamblers need not apply ;o)

Quote: 100xOdds

Where's my logic hole?
edit:
if you have the bankroll to do continuous come.

First you have to understand what a come bet is, it' nothing more then a pass-line bet that you can make on every roll of the dice. Then you have to know that the dice can't do math, now everybody that wants to tell me that I'm wrong pile on!

I love the math of the game, but I realized a long time ago is only for the casinos benefit. You're never going to be there for 10,000 rolls of the dice and you are always playing in the short term. You also have to realize that the math of the game says that over 10,000 rolls the dice you are going to be a loser!

So with that said, in the short-term anything can and will happen. That is why you have winners and let's not forget the losers.

Then lets get on to using little bit of the math of the game, the math will tell you that most players never get over 4 rolls of the dice and if they do they never make it pass 8 rolls of the dice.

So let's look at what actually happens when using the continuous come bet. Lets start with the pass-line bet then start making come bets, we will be using red chips. And take two times odds. If you lucky you may get a point established by the second or third roll the dice. Lets just say that it happened to be a 10, gee,.. everybody knows that that is one of the worst points that anybody can establish. But after all you did bet the pass-line so suck it up, and start making your come bets.

The first come bet you make just happens to be a 3, you lose, next you get a 6, then how about a 8, now your cooking. The next roll is a 5, man you fixing to make some money! Next roll is a 4, it can't get any better then the way its going for you, next up, guess what you get an 9, hell you now have the two best box numbers you can have. Now the money is just going to start rolling in! Next roll is 2 you got it made, now your drooling, you can almost taste it the big win your going to have!

The very next roll is a seven-out, damn just when you were poised to make the big money!

Then you can always look at what happens if the shooter did get lucky and did make his pass-line bet, you would have been paid $25 for him hitting the 10, man now your in the money! Hell your going to take your wife to that designer store to buy her that pocketbook she always wanted.

The come out roll is now a seven, you just lost all of your come bets, but there is some saving grace, you won your pass-line bet. So now your even and you have to start you come bet scenario of betting all over again!

Sure you saved all of your odds but now you need another big roll to happen so you can get all you come bets back up there again! Did anybody ever tell you that the likelihood of that happening again is almost nil.

Now then lets hear it from all the math guys that are going to say that I'm wrong, while you're at it, will you please tell everybody how many days a week or month or lets go year you actually play craps, inquiring minds want know!

Here's a chart on 100,000 randomly generated rolls and comparing flat betting with no odds, 345x odds, and 10x odds.



The strategy can allow you to get lucky with a lifetime of play even at 345x odds. You have almost zero chance to win flat betting the pass and come bet on every roll without odds. This chart has the player with no odds not losing much even after about 10,000 rolls which is pretty damn freaking lucky! It all comes out in the wash after 100,000 rolls though.

Most people who play craps don't get to multiple hundreds of thousand of rolls with bets on the table with consistent betting techniques like this chart shows. So even the obvious downward trend in the long term is purely educational.

DOUBLE UP TO CATCH UP!

LOL.

Thanks, Aaron, these charts are very useful.

aligh,

THX!

but u might want to add a disclaimer that this is just a sample roll.
another sample might have the 10x player losing his shirt at the end of 100k rolls.

Quote: 100xOdds

aligh,

THX!

but u might want to add a disclaimer that this is just a sample roll.
another sample might have the 10x player losing his shirt at the end of 100k rolls.

when I've run these things in Wincraps, the rarest of all 10x or 20x players was the one who didn't have monumental losses at some point, even if he wound up ahead after 100k or whatever.

Quote: teddys

Thanks, Aaron, these charts are very useful.

Not really.

Build a spreadsheet and chart it yourself. Hell, I'll post a link to mine if you'd like. With every refresh of the data, the chart dances a new dance. Sometimes you bust out right away, sometimes you never do. Higher odds can increase the average slopes across the entire chart but there is no consistency with random numbers.

Quote: TerribleTom

Not really.

Build a spreadsheet and chart it yourself. Hell, I'll post a link to mine if you'd like. With every refresh of the data, the chart dances a new dance. Sometimes you bust out right away, sometimes you never do. Higher odds can increase the average slopes across the entire chart but there is no consistency with random numbers.

Multiple people have made claims that these charts are not useful.

I think such obviously false statements reveal more about the individual making the comment than the chart.

Another post had source code I wrote in perl to get my answers.

Not finding something useful yourself does not mean it's not useful to another person.

And I made it clear that the data was random. In the long run odds intersect no odds on most charts given enough samples, no matter the pattern of the dance.

They go up and down randomly but over enough samples they intersect the no odds line many many times.

If you missed this insight from visual inspection I apologize for not pointing it out.

But there are characteristics of betting strategies that can be observed from charts if you put effort into visualizing what you are looking at instead of flatly rejecting the utility of the visualization of different betting strategies on the same sequence of rolls.

I always try the continuous come strategy because in theory it is the best way to go, but in practice it never fails that I need recovery time. Wait...wrong site.

No offense intended.

What I mean by not useful is this: you will never see real life results that match the chart, and you can generate as many charts as you'd like in a very short time. Once you've looked at hundreds of charts you begin to realize that they'll all bust out eventually.

Graphing the results of a betting system vs. random numbers can be interesting but I'm not sure I'd call it useful.

Quote: TerribleTom

Graphing the results of a betting system vs. random numbers can be interesting but I'm not sure I'd call it useful.

You aren't the first nor will you be the last who fails to find the usefulness of these graphs.

I anticipated someone would make a comment like yours.

And it's these types of comments in general that discourage my participation in these forums.

Terribletom




It is very difficult to determine if it is useful.

Also the same can be said for other records such as those produced by smartcraps. All
these records and displays of them are a record of "what has happened" not what will
happen.

In addition most of the data we record is from our home table, and that may or may not
be of use, unless you play at a casino table that is exactly like your home table.

IN terms of the original question regarding the value of constant come betting, all you
have to do is reflect on what you or others think about a system where you bet across
multiple units after the first roll. I think this is a very risky way to play, and can result
in staggering loses. But the results are no different than a player that would place
constant comes bets until each number is covered without a prior repeat hit.

Both result in the very potential to lose your entire bet before any return.

The only variance i see in the two betting systems is that a come better will lose less
on the 15% of the rolls that at are 7 outs, and less than an across better on rolls
2-4.

In that sense the come better has some of the protections of a system like the
5 count. On the other hand the across better has a chance of hitting one or
more of his bets prior to roll 6 or 7 sense he has a bet on all of them. There are
times when a come bets are better on some shorter rolls when the shooter
repeats right away. Trouble is you cant see that ahead of time.

In the end your going to lose with either system if your going to just throw money
at the table. You have to be able to throw in some manner to change the random
nature of the game, and that does not mean throwing the dice so hard they bounce
all the way back to you and think your a controlled shooter.

You certainly can win money on random rollers also if you manage your money well enough
to be at the table long enough to see a good roll.

But unless you have a good deal of money, constant come bets just as across betting will
place to large a portion of your buy in on the table to often.


dicesetter

Quote: Ahigh

You aren't the first nor will you be the last who fails to find the usefulness of these graphs.

I anticipated someone would make a comment like yours.

And it's these types of comments in general that discourage my participation in these forums.

I can see the use in comparing two betting systems (no odds vs. odds, as you posted above).

I would caution anyone to start looking at charts of results based on random numbers and think that they represent potential actual results at a craps table. Some people will look at the posted chart and think that if they can manage to make it through the big trough in the middle that there's a pot of gold at the other end of the rainbow.

And please, don't let some random goofball like me run you off.

They are potential actual results. They do appear misleading at a glance, but if examined closely, you notice the lowest trough is lower than the highest peak is high. It also shows that on average, you are still better off taking the no odds bet. In your defense, it was not couched in this way, seemingly advocating riskier betting styles. But the graph conforms to the math and is accurate. It is useful to know that the lowest edge bet produces no volatility, making it impossible to come out ahead, whereas variance rules the others. There may be a sense of exaggerated importance of these graphs, but if so, it may be a result of you misreading them.

Quote: TerribleTom

Some people will look at the posted chart and think that if they can manage to make it through the big trough in the middle that there's a pot of gold at the other end of the rainbow.

There's certainly no guarantee of that pot of gold, and the person who really has the bankroll and guts to weather the "trough" is a whale. What whale gets interested gambling with 10x/20x odds? Even if he likes Craps, you don't hear much of that. From what I can tell, they want to be pampered with comps and fawning hosts. An HE around .002% won't get you those things.

Quote: Sonuvabish

They are potential actual results. They do appear misleading at a glance, but if examined closely, you notice the lowest trough is lower than the highest peak is high. It also shows that on average, you are still better off taking the no odds bet. In your defense, it was not couched in this way, seemingly advocating riskier betting styles. But the graph conforms to the math and is accurate. It is useful to know that the lowest edge bet produces no volatility, making it impossible to come out ahead, whereas variance rules the others. There may be a sense of exaggerated importance of these graphs, but if so, it may be a result of you misreading them.

So, in summary, it sounds like you are saying PL with no Odds has much smaller swings in win/loss versus a player wagering PL with 10X Odds. Yup, that sounds about right.

Now, I think it was Alan (goatcabin) who had pointed out before that if you take TOTAL money wagered (so the PL with no odds player will need to play 10x as many PL bets), then the PL with no odds player will end up losing more money.

Quote: RaleighCraps

So, in summary, it sounds like you are saying PL with no Odds has much smaller swings in win/loss versus a player wagering PL with 10X Odds. Yup, that sounds about right.

Now, I think it was Alan (goatcabin) who had pointed out before that if you take TOTAL money wagered (so the PL with no odds player will need to play 10x as many PL bets), then the PL with no odds player will end up losing more money.

Yes, you are right. For some reason I was thinking odds was place bets and hard ways. Not taking odds is tossing money out the window.

OP: Look. It just stands to reason that the more you have on the table any one time is the more you lose at 7 Out. This idea that you have a hedge with each Come bet doesn't apply when you have all box numbers covered with 1 Come bet pending. You lose whatever on the standing Come bets and win with the single Come pending bet, but what is that?

I'm beginning to realize that there are 2 factors in any game: (1) How the table is going; (2) What is the condition of my bankroll. You simply cannot slap up more box numbers, with, w/o odds, when the 7 can appear at any time. When you win, it's only on one number; when the 7 shows, you lose everything. If you have a deep bankroll, be my guest.

It gets back to, "Bet only what you can afford to lose." Putting more numbers up is no more a guarantee of wins than loading up on odds. Odds are valid only on a win; worthless on a loss. It all gets back to how the table is going and what is happening to your bankroll. I do not know what your buy-in is; I do not know the table minimum. I do not know if you're "hit and run," or seeking table time for comps or enjoyment.

You can look at all the charts in the world; they mean nothing when you're standing at the table. It all gets down to: "What was the number just thrown? Is it my number? Some other number?" Of course, if it's the 7, it doesn't matter how many numbers you've covered or whether or not you have odds.

Ahigh, could you explain your charts a little? It appears to me that the top chart plots the frequency of certain dice combinations. Is that right? If so, it seems way out of kilter. For example, the frequency of boxcars appears to be about 5500 yet right next to it, the frequency of "Yo" shows nearly the same (just slightly higher, about 5600). Since there are two ways to make a Yo and only one way to make boxcars, I would expect the boxcars bar to be about half the height of the Yo bar. The same is true of other combinations. For example, Hard 10 (1 combination) show the same frequency of "10" (2 combinations if you don't count hard 10).

Thanks,
Steen

Quote: Steen

Ahigh, could you explain your charts a little? It appears to me that the top chart plots the frequency of certain dice combinations. Is that right? If so, it seems way out of kilter. For example, the frequency of boxcars appears to be about 5500 yet right next to it, the frequency of "Yo" shows nearly the same (just slightly higher, about 5600). Since there are two ways to make a Yo and only one way to make boxcars, I would expect the boxcars bar to be about half the height of the Yo bar. The same is true of other combinations. For example, Hard 10 (1 combination) show the same frequency of "10" (2 combinations if you don't count hard 10).

Thanks,
Steen

Steen,
I think that chart was the distribution of the random rolls that generated the other charts as well. Not sure about this, just my assumption.

I simply double the number of pairs in the chart to see a chart that looks flat with even distribution of outcomes. You're right that the chart is incorrect. I made these for myself, and I wanted to visualize what was occurring more frequently. I typically use these charts for thrown outcomes not outcomes from a random number generator.

When I record thrown outcomes, I also sometimes record left and right die independently, and in that case I have 36 entries instead of 21.

IE: it was goal for the chart to look flat with perfectly even distributions.