MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
May 5th, 2014 at 4:57:36 PM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

It's a simple point. Most people who place the six or place the eight leave it up for an average of six rolls.

That's a fact that is easily verified.
...
The whole point, and I expect someone with a name like yours fails to understand, is that there is a pragmatic issue being ignored by folks who think more about the math than about the psychology of having more money in action on every roll rather than taking a risk, winning, and leaving with a high enough probability of coming out ahead.

If you examine your assumptions for how the typical player plays you'll realize that their place six bets lasts longer than an average of six rolls before losing. Do you know why? Do you know what the correct number is?

Setting aside your ham-fisted ridicule of my username -- which belies the "tremendous amount of respect" you acknowledged yesterday -- your point about pragmatism for beginners is ill-placed. A beginner is not well-served by senseless, confusing comparisons between "one \$5 field bet" and "several \$6 place bets." If you actually want to be helpful to beginners, start by making apples-to-apples comparisons of wagering patterns with respect to their edges and variances. Or just point them to WinCraps, which will do it for them and doesn't involve your strange notion of "pragmatism."
"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
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5167
May 5th, 2014 at 5:34:21 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

If you examine your assumptions for how the typical player plays you'll realize that their place six bets lasts longer than an average of six rolls before losing. Do you know why? Do you know what the correct number is?

Off on comeout.

Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: MathExtremist

-- which belies the "tremendous amount of respect" you acknowledged yesterday --

I do respect you and I know of your posts from over the years. I am not ridiculing you. I am suggesting that you are focusing more on the math, including what I referred to as splitting hairs. Working the comeout, and \$5 versus \$6 bets included. I believe I mentioned both bets at \$6 from the beginning if you check. You introduced that, not me.

Quote: MathExtremist

It might be in your opinion, but it's not in my opinion. Emphasis is on how long you choose to gamble (shorter being better) if you want to win.

Quote: MathExtremist

A beginner is not well-served by senseless, confusing comparisons between "one \$5 field bet" and "several \$6 place bets."

My only point was that the edge by resolution is the same for a \$6 six that's never taken down as it would be for a \$6 field that is picked up the instant it hits. I don't recall mentioning a \$5 field.

Quote: MathExtremist

If you actually want to be helpful to beginners, start by making apples-to-apples comparisons of wagering patterns with respect to their edges and variances. Or just point them to WinCraps, which will do it for them and doesn't involve your strange notion of "pragmatism."

In my experience, beginners don't even know what the terms "wagering patterns" or "variance" mean at all. They have a hard time understanding why they want \$6 odds when the point is a five or a nine. If you use terms like "EV" or "variance" or "wagering pattern" they will likely just stop listening to you and listen to the dealer who is selling them on prop bets.

I guaran-damn-tee-ya that any beginner would know how to throw \$100 into the field and walk no matter if it wins or not. Just pick up your wins and walk! The fact that this works about as well as playing max odds for an hour or two is a big part of the point I am trying to make in this thread. 44.4% chance of winning is not bad. And you might double or triple your money. Compare that to any system that takes a couple of hours (single bet compared to system) and tell me there's nothing pragmatic about the advice of comparing a single bet that's considered to be TERRIBLE to a betting system that's considered to be GREAT.

I'm just saying, as terrible as that bet is, the single instance of that bet is better than many methodologies that are the pride and joy of discussion forums like this that include tons of variance that generally just cancels itself out over the course of a few hours.
http://dumbass.website
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
May 5th, 2014 at 6:06:47 PM permalink
Who makes a \$6 field bet?

These artificial comparisons are just getting silly, and are just not useful if you're trying to be helpful to beginners (or anyone). You could make that \$6 field bet every roll for an hour (100 rolls) and have the same expected loss as putting a black chip on Any Seven for one roll. You could also have all the hardways for \$1 working for an hour and a half for the same cost. So what? It's all apples to oranges.
"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
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
• Posts: 3502
May 5th, 2014 at 7:12:53 PM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

I guaran-damn-tee-ya that any beginner would know how to throw \$100 into the field and walk no matter if it wins or not. Just pick up your wins and walk! The fact that this works about as well as playing max odds for an hour or two is a big part of the point I am trying to make in this thread. 44.4% chance of winning is not bad.

No way anyone can say a 5.6% house advantage is anywhere near "good."
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5167
May 5th, 2014 at 8:40:20 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Who makes a \$6 field bet?

Someone who hopes to win \$6, \$12, or \$18.

Quote: MathExtremist

You could make that \$6 field bet every roll for an hour (100 rolls) and have the same expected loss as putting a black chip on Any Seven for one roll. You could also have all the hardways for \$1 working for an hour and a half for the same cost.

I'll take your word for it, but yeah.

Quote: MathExtremist

So what? It's all apples to oranges.

In the domain of costs, it's all apples and apples to me.

If you really want to continue the conversation relating to criticism of comparing a field bet to a place bet on the eight, let's just take it offline sometime later. It's just growing old, frankly.

People already compare other bets that last differing amounts of rolls routinely and I haven't heard you raise objections to any of those things.

Like Sally, I think you object to talking about a bet that isn't marked on the felt or that isn't agreed upon by someone or something written down as being a bet.

Sally seems to think that you can't bet that the four or ten will occur before a seven and win \$49 from \$50 risks with vig on the win. She takes the position that this is not a 3-roll bet because it's two bets. I take the position that if I agree ahead of time I am taking them both down if either one of them hits, I am taking a bet that's not marked on the felt with a 1.00% house edge.

You both take similar positions that it's invalid to speak about bets that aren't marked on the felt. In your case, a bet that I will come out ahead when betting I have more 8's than sevens before hitting a seven. Or in her case that I can hit either one of the four or ten before a seven.

As a general rule, everyone who takes the position that I am wrong in this sense also generally cannot seem to come to terms with the fact that you can in fact take bets that aren't marked on the felt, and that, in fact, some of those bets have lower edges per resolved bet than many people realize are possible without taking free odds. And in other cases have higher edges per resolution because the endure more rolls without considering the increased cost from having more rolls before resolution.

I understand your position, and I understand Sally's position. I just maintain that I am not wrong with my position. You can in fact take bets that you actually create as a composite of multiple other bets and bring them all down on your own conditions that are considered bet resolution.

And as such, most people don't take the bet that resolves with a six or eight hitting and then the bet comes down.

Missing the point? Fine. Disagree with the point? Fine. Have a different opinion? Fine.

But I'm certain that I'm not wrong that you and many other people arbitrarily accept that a place bet on the six is "resolved" when a six rolls, even though most people would only resolve a self-service place bet this way.
http://dumbass.website
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
May 6th, 2014 at 7:37:07 AM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

Sally seems to think that you can't bet that the four or ten will occur before a seven and win \$49 from \$50 risks with vig on the win. She takes the position that this is not a 3-roll bet because it's two bets. I take the position that if I agree ahead of time I am taking them both down if either one of them hits, I am taking a bet that's not marked on the felt with a 1.00% house edge.

The expected loss of a buy 4 bet is 1.67% of your wager. The same is true for the buy 10 bet. Making the bets separately or together doesn't change that. Your 1% canard is misleading because it implies (wrongly) that making just one of those bets is a worse strategy than making both of them for half the amount. But if I play \$50 on the buy 4 bet for an hour, my expected loss is the same as yours playing \$25 each on the buy 4 and buy 10 at the same table.
"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
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5167
May 6th, 2014 at 7:53:02 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

The expected loss of a buy 4 bet is 1.67% of your wager. The same is true for the buy 10 bet. Making the bets separately or together doesn't change that. Your 1% canard is misleading because it implies (wrongly) that making just one of those bets is a worse strategy than making both of them for half the amount. But if I play \$50 on the buy 4 bet for an hour, my expected loss is the same as yours playing \$25 each on the buy 4 and buy 10 at the same table.

\$25 wins \$49 at almost every casino I play at.

1/75

That's 1.33%

Once you get to even multiples of \$20 or anything over \$50, you are generally right. However, as you math folks will point out, the details do matter.

\$225 carries an \$11 vig.

11/(225*3) = 1.62% -- there are many MANY edges as you go through the possible bet amounts due to the rounding down on quarters.

I speak for Vegas only though. And house rules vary.

Vig up front casinos include: Stratosphere, Riviera, Joker's Wild, and there may be one or two more.

Funny you use the same argument about edge per roll not changing when I'm defining a resolution event to get to a lower edge per resolution. I thought you would understand, just not agree. But it seems like you neither understand nor agree. Call up Sally and you guys can lament together!
http://dumbass.website
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
May 6th, 2014 at 8:07:03 AM permalink
The issue isn't what the specific bet rules are, it's that the rules are the same for both the buy 4 and buy 10. If you play with vig-on-win-only, great. The expected loss is still the same betting 2X on one of them vs. X each on both. But you want to add 1.33% to 1.33% and get 1%. That's not accurate. Your notion of "defining a resolution event" is just denominatorial prestidigitation. It doesn't affect the expected loss at all. I think you know this but sometimes I'm not sure.
"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
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5167
May 6th, 2014 at 9:07:54 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

The issue isn't what the specific bet rules are, it's that the rules are the same for both the buy 4 and buy 10. If you play with vig-on-win-only, great. The expected loss is still the same betting 2X on one of them vs. X each on both. But you want to add 1.33% to 1.33% and get 1%. That's not accurate. Your notion of "defining a resolution event" is just denominatorial prestidigitation. It doesn't affect the expected loss at all. I think you know this but sometimes I'm not sure.

The math is 0.33333% per roll multiplied by an average of three rolls to resolve with a four, a ten, or a seven .. whichever comes first.

Sorry you aren't getting it, but keep trying. It's funny you think I'm adding 1.33% to 1.33% though.

The craziest part isn't that you don't get this and Sally doesn't get this. I'm resigned to everyone claiming I'm wrong about this and just knowing that I'm right until something changes.

Bets can exist that are not on the felt. Do you disagree with that? If I were unable to take down a bet at any roll I chose, this would not be the case. Maybe your confused that I can have a buy bet for fewer rolls that 4 if I so choose?
http://dumbass.website
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012