Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Threads: 89
• Posts: 5195
May 6th, 2014 at 2:27:37 PM permalink
Both you and Sally should come and play with me sometime.

At least it seems something is sinking in.

Yesterday alone I had four rolls on a full table that were "seven winner seven!" PASS THE DICE! I WON! (IE: I rolled once and won and was done).

My largest single bet yesterday was \$250.

I am not like the others.

And I am ABSOLUTELY not above leaving after making a single roll.
aahigh.com
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Threads: 88
• Posts: 6526
May 6th, 2014 at 2:44:40 PM permalink
Living near many dice tables may be nice for you, but most people don't consider being at the table for a single roll to be "playing craps." Perhaps your proximity to many casinos colors your view, though I don't see why it should. Hopefully you now understand, at least, that making multiple bets in combination does nothing to alter the expected loss of any of the individual bets in that combination. They're strictly additive.
"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
endermike
Joined: Dec 10, 2013
• Threads: 7
• Posts: 584
May 6th, 2014 at 3:15:46 PM permalink
Let me make sure I have my fireproof suit on before I wade in...crap, this thing is tighter than I remember...ugh...must of gained weight sense I last did this...err...tight squeeze...ok...here we go.

I will preface my thoughts with an admission, I looked at the names on the posts and immediately assumed Ahigh was wrong. I started looking to make my own counterargument and found...he has a point. Specifically regarding the question of a 1% HE bet via the 4 and 10.

Quite simply, his "hybrid buy" has 1% HE upon resolution, .33% HE per roll, and average of 3 rolls per resolution (assuming always on and vig only on win). First, on a per roll basis:

Result Prob Value P*V
Win 6/36 .98 0.1633
Loss 6/36 -1 -0.1667
Push 24/36 0 0.000
Total 36/36 -0.0033
Next by his resolutions (losing both or wining one and then taking both down)

Result Prob Value P*V
Win 6/12 .98 0.49
Loss 6/12 -1 -0.50
Push 0/12 0 0.000
Total 12/12 -0.01

That his "hybrid buy" bet takes 3 rolls for which it is on to resolve is trivial (geometric RV with p=1/3).

I think this is best explained by not saying he is averaging 1.33 to 1.33 and getting 1.00. Instead he is averaging 1.33 with .67 and getting 1.00. This is better because he is averaging the HE of two buy bets (resolving) half the time (when he loses) and the HE of one buy bet (resolving) half the time (when he wins).

I do take some exception with the advice regarding taking odds, and the viability of advice such as this whole thread being thrust upon beginners. I will address that in another post.

Quote: Buzzard

" Bets can exist that are not on the felt." These are called mind bets. One might assume you have lost that bet.

Finger off the trigger, FACE. I said assume !

This is a disappointing post. It misses the greater discussion, adds no value, and is below the standards I have, even for low value posts. Buzzard, I understand much of what you do is shtick, but this thread has some merit and the question of if we should consider bets which are hybrids as reasonable strategies is, at least to me, an interesting one.
endermike
Joined: Dec 10, 2013
• Threads: 7
• Posts: 584
May 6th, 2014 at 3:37:07 PM permalink
Quote: RS

Doesn't matter if you have \$5 flat with \$0 backing it up, \$25 backing it up, or \$10,000 backing it up. Your expected loss is 1.41% of \$5.

Next time I make a sports bet, should I do the following to decrease my advantage: go to casino and make \$110 wager on the team of my choice. Take \$1000 and tell the sports book cashier guy, "see this \$1000? I'd like you to hold it, temporarily, during the game. Then give it back to me after it ends. This will act like an even money wager. No matter what, at the end of the game, I will get this \$1000! The reason I did this is to decrease the house edge on that \$110 sports Bet I made. Makes sense yeah?"

I have now bet \$1110. If I lose I end up with \$1000. If I win I end up with \$1210.

Would you guys make this \$1000 every time you bet sports? Does it decrease the edge?

This is a poor analogy. The Odds bet resolves in perfect covariance with the Pass/Don't bet. The correct analogy would be if the bookie allowed you to place 1000 to win 1000 after placing 110 to win 100. Clearly, that would be tremendously valuable and something that, if scaled down, every sensible sports bettor would take advantage of. (Reduced juice, or incremental reduced juice would be the proper terminology.)

Quote: RS

You don't need to poke fun at me because you don't understand my point. I never said (or at least, never meant) you should not take odds. I'm saying you should not say that taking odds decreases your edge and that you should not combine the two together (ie: the average HE between my PL & odds is X) when you are describing the game.

When you analyze a game, ANY game, it's based on the initial bet. When you say blackjack has a 0.5% HE, you are not saying that the house has a 0.5% edge on all of your bets placed (double downs & splits), but the HE is determined by your initial bet [don't go saying that I'm advising not to double down or split, because that's not what I' saying]. When you say three card poker has a ~3.37% HE, you're saying the house has an edge on the initial (ante) bet, or in other words, for every \$100 you wager on the ante, you expect to lose \$3.37....the 3.37% edge isn't a combined average edge of the ante & play bets. When you analyze Mississippi Stud, the ~4.9% HE is based on the initial (ante) bet. It is not a 4.9% HE on your net total action (ante + raise1, raise2, raise3).

Craps should not be analyzed by the HE over your net total action (line + odds). The house edge only effects your pass line bet. Although the odds bet does decrease the house edge over your net total action, it does not change the fact you're expecting to lose ~1.41% of your line bet. Saying that taking odds decreases the house edge though, is misleading.

Craps should be analyzed considering the odds a player plans on using (0x, 3x/4x/5x, 10x, or whatever they are getting AND using). If someone knows they want X action, and they can get X/5 action at a HE of 1% and the rest (4X/5) at a HE of 0% they would split their bet properly and get an effective HE of 0.2%. Any rational bettor would do this.

It is true that some people don't take advantage of all the odds they can and don't split their bets optimally (playing at a \$10 table (3/4/5 odds) with \$50 on the line and \$50 behind). However, with proper modeling (they are doing 1x odds) we can calculate all the important things to compare their gambling to someone playing baccarat or blackjack for \$100 a hand.
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Threads: 88
• Posts: 6526
May 6th, 2014 at 4:16:48 PM permalink
Quote: endermike

Craps should be analyzed considering the odds a player plans on using (0x, 3x/4x/5x, 10x, or whatever they are getting AND using). If someone knows they want X action, and they can get X/5 action at a HE of 1% and the rest (4X/5) at a HE of 0% they would split their bet properly and get an effective HE of 0.2%. Any rational bettor would do this.

Nobody plays for X action, except perhaps those with match-play coupons. Players will typically play for a loose amount of time or until some (perhaps not predefined) win or loss event. That's why looking at expected loss (rather than house edge) is preferable. If you flat-bet the passline for an hour, you'll average a half-bet loss. If you play passline + any amount of odds, you'll still average a half-bet loss. Saying one has a lower house edge than the other is only true because you're inflating the denominator. It's all well and good to say that you played \$5 craps with 100x odds and had a house edge of 0.021%, but that's because you divided 7.1c by a big number. Your expected loss was still 7.1c per \$5 bet.

You can use percentages in a very misleading way, as Ahigh has been amply demonstrating of late. Watch:
Place 6 EV: 1.52%
Place 8 EV: 1.52%
Make them "together":
With probability 10/16, win \$7
With probability 6/16, lose \$12
Expected loss is \$2/16 for each \$12 or 1.042%. Huh? That's a lower percentage than the individual bets.

But it gets better. Let's bet \$22 inside:
18/24, win \$7
6/24, lose \$22
Expected loss is \$6/24 for each \$22 or 1.136%. That's lower than the individual edges of any of the 4 place bets you just made.

Last one, \$32 across:
18/30, win \$7 (5,6,8,9)
6/30, win \$9 (4 or 10)
6/30, lose \$32
Expected loss is \$12/30 for each \$32 or 1.25%.

Do you think these are accurate or useful computations? Would you ever tell someone that \$32 across is a "better" bet than the \$6 place bet?
"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
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Threads: 340
• Posts: 7540
May 6th, 2014 at 4:28:58 PM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

Both you and Sally should come and play with me sometime...I am not like the others. And I am ABSOLUTELY not above leaving after making a single roll.

Then you've changed your method of play since I played next to you at Casino Royale last year.

I do not recall you playing other than how most right side players play, i.e. never coming down until a seven out.

Your play was fairly conservative, not at all remarkable in any way.

Really, there's nothing wrong with not being unusual.

"What, me worry?"
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
• Threads: 90
• Posts: 6814
May 6th, 2014 at 4:39:22 PM permalink
" This is a disappointing post. It misses the greater discussion, adds no value, and is below the standards I have, even for low value posts. Buzzard, I understand much of what you do is shtick, but this thread has some merit and the question of if we should consider bets which are hybrids as reasonable strategies is, at least to me, an interesting one. "

Looks like beside having moderators, we now have secret editors.

Evidently this met your high editorial standard :

" It has become pure comedy to me that you and Sally both fail here. "
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
Steen
Joined: Apr 7, 2014
• Threads: 0
• Posts: 126
May 6th, 2014 at 4:40:16 PM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

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.

Whether you can take a bet down or not is immaterial, a bet is an agreement or contract which two parties enter into. It's not something you can define on your own without consent of the other party.

The casino defines the bets which they offer to patrons. You accept their terms and enter into a contract by making a wager. Thereafter, you're certainly welcome to call your bet something else for your own purposes but it doesn't change the underlying contract one iota.

By the same token, you can combine bets and account for your action and outcome collectively, but it doesn't change the way that the casino pays or takes them individually.

Quote: Ahigh

Maybe your confused that I can have a buy bet for fewer rolls that 4 if I so choose?

A Buy bet is not defined by the number of rolls it remains in action. Again, for your own purposes you can define it as you wish, but it doesn't change the underlying contract. The casino will take it or pay it as agreed and not as you have defined it.

Steen
djatc
Joined: Jan 15, 2013
• Threads: 83
• Posts: 4477
May 6th, 2014 at 5:18:46 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

Now, I give hand jobs. Pays good and great benefits.
Nothing like Monica Lewinsky stuff.
Sally

It's hard to find a gal that will do Monica Lewinsky stuff.
"Man Babes" #AxelFabulous
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Threads: 89
• Posts: 5195
May 6th, 2014 at 5:28:35 PM permalink
Quote: endermike

Quite simply, his "hybrid buy" has 1% HE upon resolution, .33% HE per roll, and average of 3 rolls per resolution (assuming always on and vig only on win). First, on a per roll basis:

That his "hybrid buy" bet takes 3 rolls for which it is on to resolve is trivial (geometric RV with p=1/3).

I think this is best explained by not saying he is averaging 1.33 to 1.33 and getting 1.00. Instead he is averaging 1.33 with .67 and getting 1.00. This is better because he is averaging the HE of two buy bets (resolving) half the time (when he loses) and the HE of one buy bet (resolving) half the time (when he wins).

I do take some exception with the advice regarding taking odds, and the viability of advice such as this whole thread being thrust upon beginners. I will address that in another post.

I'm impressed.

As far as beginners, the best advice is don't play until you know what you're doing. Play craps on a computer program for a while until you realize what is likely to win and what is likely to lose.

So many beginners make stupid longshot bets (high edge) and get lucky and get trained to do stupid things (usually by dealers) such as C&E on comeout, and other hedges (like Alan's \$25 pass and \$5 horn-high-ace-deuce on the comeout).

Some folks will never understand why hedging with high HE bets is bad as far as I'm concerned, and I also consider him a beginner.

But chunking big amounts on the line, come, or DC? Why NOT? Not much more stupid than playing banker on Baccarat.
aahigh.com

• Jump to: