endermike
endermike
Joined: Dec 10, 2013
  • Threads: 7
  • Posts: 584
May 7th, 2014 at 3:08:32 PM permalink
Quote: Steen

"Action" is entirely consistent with the standard definition of "initial wager". In fact, when evalutating the HA of a single bet, action is exactly the same as the intial wager. However, it's important to remember that the initial wager is limited to the amount risked on the bet in question and not on other bets. This requirement is often overlooked when players attempt to evaluate the HA of multiple simultaneous bets.

With respect, I disagree. Action is different from initial wager. I agree action is the better measure, but HE is defined by the initial bet size as the denominator.

Quote: WoO, House Edge Page

House Edge

The house edge is defined as the ratio of the average loss to the initial bet. The house edge is not the ratio of money lost to total money wagered. In some games the beginning wager is not necessarily the ending wager. For example in blackjack, let it ride, and Caribbean stud poker, the player may increase their bet when the odds favor doing so. In these cases the additional money wagered is not figured into the denominator for the purpose of determining the house edge, thus increasing the measure of risk.


http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/

Quote: Steen

I like to use the term "action" because it because it more clearly defines the "initial wager" to be the amount risked on the resolved bet or bets, and not the amount on other unresolved bets.

Again, I agree action is the better measure, but it is different from initial wager. This confusion has made it clear I should be more careful to explicitly us "action" whenever possible. I think it is the right mindset for this kind of thought. (Particularly when EOR is combined with a time measure like ELPH or hands per hour and some sort of variance measure like percentiles after a fixed amount of time or resolutions)

Quote: Steen

Does it really make sense to you that simultaneous Buy 4 / Buy 10 bets could possibly have a lower HA than either bet alone? By limiting the "intial wager" you use in your calculations to the amount wagered on the resolved bet in question (the action) you can find the right answer.

Consider this: Mr. Whale likes to play $1000 Buy 4 and is accustomed to the $50 vig for a HA of 1.67%. He reads Ahigh's post and decides to give it a go by simultaneously betting Buy 10. However, since he prefers Buy 4, he elects to wager a pitance on Buy 10. He figures (vig on win only):

$1000 Buy 4
$2 Buy 10
--------------------
Total initial wager $1002

3/12 chance to win $1950
3/12 chance to win $3 (assume house takes min vig of $1)
6/12 chance to lose $1002
------------------------------------------------------
Average loss per decision $12.75

EV = -$12.75/$1002 = -1.272%

Wow! Mr. Whale is elated. By adding a trival $2 bet to Buy 10, he thinks he's lowered the HA from 1.67% to 1.272% even while paying a tremendously high vig% on Buy 10. Are you still buying it?

Of course, this is an excellent example. The reason this "pardox" exists in the HE calculation is because 1000/1002th of the bet is now likely to be taken down without resolution (1/4) and hence be no action. However, to me what the example demonstrates is the the flaw in how HE is calculated relative to how it is thought of. In my opinion, HE is not the gold standard many think it is. To me, EOR is superior.

Quote: Steen

Now, regarding the counting of pushes ... I personally don't count them in craps but I'm speaking in terms of single wagers and not multiple wagers that might cancel each other. Most authors I've seen address this issue talk about counting or not counting the Bar 12 on the Don'ts during the come-out roll. But if a 12 is a push and must be counted for the Don'ts then what about bets like say the Place 6?

The Place 6 (when working) pushes for any non-6 or 7. Do you ever see these same authors count these pushes for the Place 6?

You've convinced me. I think you are right in craps we should list non-contract bets (everything but pass and come) by their per roll EOR or HE (since those are the same on per roll basis) PLUS the average number of rolls to resolve. Optionally adding in the house edge upon resolution wouldn't be a poor choice, but the first two are what we really need. This way we have apples compared to apples and oranges to oranges.

Quote: Steen

In truth, I don't think it really matters as long as you're consistent and the reader understands what the numbers are representing. For a person who counts pushes, the same average outcome is spread out over all decisions including pushes rather than just those decisions which show a net gain or loss.

Steen

Again, of course you are right. We agree on the math but not the terminology. On that I will deffer to others for a career in math has made it abundantly clear that disagreements over terminology are rarely worth litigating. (Occasionally they are but in this case I doubt it, since on the important things we agree).
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 5161
May 7th, 2014 at 6:21:47 PM permalink
Quote: Steen

Consider this: Mr. Whale likes to play $1000 Buy 4 and is accustomed to the $50 vig for a HA of 1.67%. He reads Ahigh's post and decides to give it a go by simultaneously betting Buy 10. However, since he prefers Buy 4, he elects to wager a pitance on Buy 10. He figures (vig on win only):



It's interesting meeting with folks from this forum. We haven't met. Once I meet folks, it helps a lot to deal with things I read on here.

I have never met a whale quite like this.
mustangsally
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
May 7th, 2014 at 6:55:54 PM permalink
Quote: Steen

Consider this: Mr. Whale likes to play $1000 Buy 4 and is accustomed to the $50 vig for a HA of 1.67%. He reads Ahigh's post and decides to give it a go by simultaneously betting Buy 10. However, since he prefers Buy 4, he elects to wager a pitance on Buy 10. He figures (vig on win only):

$1000 Buy 4
$2 Buy 10
--------------------
Total initial wager $1002

3/12 chance to win $1950
3/12 chance to win $3 (assume house takes min vig of $1)
6/12 chance to lose $1002
------------------------------------------------------
Average loss per decision $12.75

EV = -$12.75/$1002 = -1.272%

Wow! Mr. Whale is elated. By adding a trival $2 bet to Buy 10, he thinks he's lowered the HA from 1.67% to 1.272% even while paying a tremendously high vig% on Buy 10.
Are you still buying it?

I bet Mr Whale is.

I actually saw Mr. and Mrs. Whale in the Connecticut casinos a few months back and Mrs. Whale likes to buy the 10 for $5 when they play together.
The real craps player whales are back east BTW.
she told me that lowers the HE down to -1.269% with the same ev.

she also says sometimes when she is winning and feeling hot (?) she buys the 10 for $20 (her dealer said to do that)
for even a smaller house edge

I was impressed.
You should have seen her large wedding ring!
That was hot!
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
May 7th, 2014 at 7:12:50 PM permalink
Any time you are betting multiple bets at the same time, it's not completely clear how house edge should be calculated.

Suppose I bet $50 on no 4, and $50 on no 10 (simultaneously). Each bet has a $1 commission, paid on wins only. What's the house edge?

One way of looking at it is that each bet has a 1.33% edge, therefore the total edge is 1.33%.

Another way of looking at it is, I can't lose both bets at once. Despite having $100 on the table, I only really have $50 at risk. If a 7 is rolled, I win $48, and if a 4 or 10 is rolled, I lose $50. That implies a 2% house edge.

So, what's the house edge here? 1.33% or 2%?

Of course, the reason for the discrepancy is that we are calculating edge per decision, but betting on combinations of things changes the frequency of decisions. For this reason, I think it makes more sense to calculate edge per roll rather than edge per decision, otherwise that numbers that you come up with aren't really useful for comparing different bets.
dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
May 7th, 2014 at 8:14:39 PM permalink
Axiom




The house edge does not change with numbers of bets or the time a bet is up.

It is per exposure.

Say the edge for a buy of the ten with vig up front is 4.76% simply because all the casino's
here in Wisconsin offer only that bet.


Assuming a completely random game you will lose $4.76 for every $100 dollars you bet. Period.

Now Ahigh and maybe others like to say well i will play 1 toss of the dice for a whole lot, i hit and i walk or i dont
hit and i take the bet down, so i made alot or i lost nothing.

That is pure foolishness in terms of its affect on house edge. What happens if a player buys
a 10 for $100 and the first toss is a 7, did you lose 4.76% or $4.76 or did you lose the entire
$100 plus the vig ?????. What happens if you place $200 in the field and the first roll is a 5, and you
had only planned on leaving it there 1 roll, did you lose 2.78% ( 2 & 12 paid 3x) or did you lose
100% of that bet. Your lose on a one and done bet has to be calculated in the over-all play of your
field bets which will result in a loss of $2.78 % for every $100.

I would not play a one and done game, it is not my game plan, but what it does do is have an affect similar to that
presented by FRank S and the 5 count.. it does limit the amount of money you have exposed to
the house advantage and the less you bet, the less you will lose in terms of dollars.

If Ahigh and others have a game plan and likes to play a completely random game like that and rely on luck only
and say hell i will buy a 10 for $200 with vig paid on the hit, and if i hit it i will put the $400 in my pocket
and get the hell out of the casino, and does that, hey my hats off to them, anytime you can take money
home i am all for that. I am for anything that gets you home with their money.

But that place does not change the HA.

Dicesetter
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
May 7th, 2014 at 8:21:21 PM permalink
But there are times when people take bets down before they are resolved.

How about someone who bets no 4, no 10, on the come-out only? I've seen this before.
dicesitter
dicesitter
Joined: Jan 17, 2013
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 1157
May 7th, 2014 at 11:12:38 PM permalink
sure,but its the same thing.

There is no question that if you place a bet and take it down before it is resolved you have not
affected a win or a lose, but you had exposure.

If you place a one and done bet and lose, it is a loss of 100%, but that cant be contrued that
if you place or lay a 10 you will always lose 100% of your bet.

Ha just works out to for every bet you make , you will lose a certain % over time.

dicesetter
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
May 7th, 2014 at 11:14:25 PM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

sure,but its the same thing.

There is no question that if you place a bet and take it down before it is resolved you have not
affected a win or a lose, but you had exposure.

If you place a one and done bet and lose, it is a loss of 100%, but that cant be contrued that
if you place or lay a 10 you will always lose 100% of your bet.

Ha just works out to for every bet you make , you will lose a certain % over time.

dicesetter



The point is, if you have a bet that can be taken down at any time, then every roll is a resolution. Most rolls are just pushes.
Ahigh
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 5161
May 8th, 2014 at 12:29:07 AM permalink
If everyone agreed to dissect the game only on average edge per roll ONLY everything would be much easier to agree upon.

0.33333% edge per roll is the lowest on the table that I know of (buy 4/10 5% vig on win at $25 or $50) bets that are not zero HE
0.40399% is next (don't pass/come)
0.41666% is next (buy the four or ten for $20 multiples with vig on the win)
0.41895% is next (pass/come)
0.46296% is next (place the six/eight for a multiple of $6)

Edge is not everything. Winning 100% of what you risk is convenient (compared to 49/25ths or 49/50ths).
mustangsally
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
May 8th, 2014 at 1:08:30 AM permalink
Quote: Ahigh

If everyone agreed to dissect the game only on average edge per roll ONLY everything would be much easier to agree upon.

that would cause many unfair comparisons - comparing apples to oranges that you are excellent at
like the place 5 - a multi-roll bet
against the Field bet that pays 3x on a 12.

per roll you say the place 5 or 9 is way better then a Field bet.
hehehe
you want the link to those posts?
show your video first and finish your simulations please!

when one uses an unfair comparison - sure anything is possible

100 rolls the field is resolved 100 times and the place 5 maybe 28
and to you that is totally fair.

total resolved action rules
Quote: Ahigh

0.33333% edge per roll is the lowest on the table that I know of (buy 4/10 5% vig on win at $25 or $50) bets that are not zero HE
0.40399% is next (don't pass/come)
0.41666% is next (buy the four or ten for $20 multiples with vig on the win)
0.41895% is next (pass/come)
0.46296% is next (place the six/eight for a multiple of $6)

are you not aware of a $50 lay 4 or 10 or both at the same time?
The vig paid on a win. I see this a lot in Las Vegas

same -1/300 house edge as your buy4 and 10

Lay 4 and Lay 10 for $50 each
eventprobnetprob*net
7 rolls 6/36488
4 rolls 3/36-50-4 6/36
10 rolls 3/36-50-4 6/36
all other rolls 24/3600
  ev per roll- 12/36
  edge per roll-0.003333333


Only one Lay 4 (or 10)
eventprobnetprob*net
7 rolls 6/36244
4 rolls 3/36-50-4 6/36
10 rolls 3/3600
all other rolls 24/3600
  ev per roll- 6/36
  edge per roll-0.003333333


all bets at risk are included in the house edge calculation
not just the one's that resolve (is that fair?)

Sally
I Heart Vi Hart

  • Jump to: