AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
May 9th, 2014 at 3:51:44 PM permalink
Quote: dicesitter

That is why you play the game, to make money.

No, you play a -EV game to have fun. If you are playing a -EV game to make money, it's not going to end well for you.
MrV
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
• Posts: 7667
May 9th, 2014 at 4:05:24 PM permalink
Dicesitter, please explain how to make money playing an -EV game such as craps.

The house has the advantage on EVERY BET you make.

Absent luck, aka variance, the result is inevitable, a foregone conclusion.

Death, taxes, losing at -EV games: such is the way of the world.
"What, me worry?"
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
• Posts: 2463
May 9th, 2014 at 4:55:48 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

I am simply talking about how best to calculate the house edge on particular bets to best compare them. I think that edge per roll makes the most sense, because it allows one to make easy comparisons between different bets.

problem is comparing a bet that resolves on one roll (Field)
to a
bet that does not always resolve on one roll (Place5)

this has been gone over before.
you now get to compare an apple to an orange.
where an apple to apple comparison requires same resolved action for a fair comparison.

But if that is what one is after, comparing apples to oranges, fine

Ahigh thrives at these type of comparisons.
I would link to a few threads where he comes up with conclusions based from per roll edges that Place 5 is a way better bet than the 3X Field bet.
But he has so far refused to show results from an ongoing(?) simulation and a video he promised.
I think his wife nixed those for him.

just ev per roll per 1 unit makes unfair comparisons
when ev per roll and ev per bet resolved are different, tell that story.
what is the fear?
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
May 9th, 2014 at 5:12:53 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

problem is comparing a bet that resolves on one roll (Field)
to a
bet that does not always resolve on one roll (Place5)

Place 5 resolves every roll. The bet wins on a 5, loses on a 7, and pushes on every other roll. If you are playing blackjack, and you get a 20, and the dealer gets a 20, that counts as a resolution, right? It's factored into the house edge of the game. There is no reason to treat a roll of a 9 when you have a place 5 bet out any differently from a hand of blackjack when you have 20 and the dealer has 20.

The only bets that don't resolve every roll are the pass and don't pass, as well as come and don't come. But, to do a fair comparison (even on those bets) it makes sense to divide the edge by the average number of rolls to resolve. This gives you useful numbers like "loss per roll" which can be extrapolated to "loss per hour", which is all that anyone cares about anyway.

Here is a question for you: Which bet is worse, placing the 5 or betting on the field? The way that you are computing it (ignoring pushes) the 5 has a much higher edge (4% vs 2.8%) But that makes no sense. The guy who flat-bets the field every roll will get absolutely crushed compared to the guy who places the 5, collects his winnings when he wins, and puts the bet back up when it loses. The frequent pushes save the "place 5" bettor; it makes no sense to disregard those pushes.
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
• Posts: 2463
May 9th, 2014 at 5:17:30 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Here is a question for you: Which bet is worse, placing the 5 or betting on the field? The way that you are computing it (ignoring pushes) the 5 has a much higher edge (4% vs 2.8%) But that makes no sense. The guy who flat-bets the field every roll will get absolutely crushed compared to the guy who places the 5, collects his winnings when he wins, and puts the bet back up when it loses. The frequent pushes save the "place 5" bettor; it makes no sense to disregard those pushes.

Now compare ev for say 100 resolved bets at \$5 for each player.
only counting win and lose
why?
because sooner or later each player can have that many over a lifetime of play

now what kind of a story is told?

Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
May 9th, 2014 at 5:21:08 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

Now compare ev for say 100 resolved bets at \$5 for each player.
only counting win and lose
why?
because sooner of later each player can have that many over a lifetime of play

now what kind of a story is told?

Sally

Why would I only count wins and losses? We don't do that for blackjack, or pai gow, or baccarat, or any other game where a push is possible. Why should craps be treated differently?
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
• Posts: 2463
May 9th, 2014 at 5:31:34 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

Why would I only count wins and losses? We don't do that for blackjack, or pai gow, or baccarat, or any other game where a push is possible. Why should craps be treated differently?

because treating a push as a resolved bet and comparing it to a bet that has no pushes is not a fair comparison.
This seems so obvious to me.

and who exactly is (are) WE?

so when I compare two different bets based on win/lose action, are you saying that is a totally unfair comparison
because We don't do that for ...

I think Steen says it best in WinCraps
Earlier, when comparing bets, we discovered that there are times when it's not enough to express EV as a loss per roll. Because bet amounts can vary, we sometimes need to express EV as a loss per dollar wagered. Now we know that there are also times when it's not enough to express EV as a loss per dollar wagered because amounts wagered can resolve at different rates. However, there are two things we can do to remedy the situation:

1) We can compare bets with commensurate risk.

This means we can compare bet amounts that will produce on average the same amount of action per unit of measurement. For instance, if we're using rolls as the unit of measurement then we would compare bet amounts that produce the same average amount of action per roll. The story above nicely illustrates this concept. There we saw that \$1.39 bet on the Field represents commensurate risk with \$5 bet on Place 5 because they both produce an average of \$1.39 action per roll. Had the two players been measuring their outcomes per decision instead of per roll, then commensurate risk would be equal amounts on each bet. For instance, both a \$5 Field bet and a \$5 Place 5 bet produce an average of \$5 action per decision.

2) We can express EV as a function of the action. i.e. EV per dollar of action.

This is arguably the most useful expression of EV because it takes into account the probabilities of winning and losing, the amounts won or lost, and the amounts of money directly responsible for each outcome (the action.) Since the amount of action received per decision in a solitary bet is the same as the amount wagered, this value can also be called the EV per decision (which is how it appears in the Advantage tab) as long as you remember that it's the amount wagered in each decision that matters. This may sound the same as the EV per dollar wagered but it's not. The distinction is that action is the amount wagered when the bet resolves. In other words, it's the EV per dollar resolved.

there is way more to this in the Help section of WinCraps too
forgot this part:
"Bill likes to play the Field with a triple payoff on the 12, but his buddy Jeff tells him the Place 5 is better because on average it loses less money. Jeff explains that a \$5 Field bet loses 13.89 cents per roll whereas a \$5 Place 5 bet loses only 5.6 cents per roll. Bill disagrees, so they agree to a contest. "
Oh, oh
I hear Steen coming

Sally
I Heart Vi Hart
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
May 9th, 2014 at 5:33:51 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

because treating a push as a resolved bet and comparing it to a bet that has no pushes is not a fair comparison.
This seems so obvious to me.

So, you don't think that it makes sense to compare the house edge in baccarat with the house edge in roulette?
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
• Posts: 5761
May 9th, 2014 at 5:41:16 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

and who exactly is (are) WE?

Pretty much anyone who quotes house edge numbers for baccarat, pai gow, pai gow poker, blackjack under a specific set of rules, any video poker game, any slot machine, or any other game known to man where a push is a possible result.

We do this even in games where pushes are possible with some bets but not with others (eg, baccarat tie bet can't push, but the baccarat banker bet can. Yet, people list the house edges, side by side)

So, why should craps be treated differently than any other game ever analyzed? Pushes count in house edge calculations for everything else.. To not count them for craps makes absolutely no sense, and it only serves to confuse people (as if craps players aren't confused enough), since you're using a different definition of the term "house edge" than is used in any other situation.
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
• Posts: 2463
May 9th, 2014 at 5:51:15 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

So, you don't think that it makes sense to compare the house edge in baccarat with the house edge in roulette?

I don't think that it makes 100% sense to compare the house edge in baccarat with the house edge in roulette.

when the Field and Place 5 are being discussed,
not all will agree that the Place 5 is a way better bet than a 3X Field bet based from a per roll edge,
because we are now comparing apples to rocks.

both sides will have their opinions on how to compare them
Just like a Roulette 1 number bet and Baccarat Player bet

edge will and can never never be the final say
those that say it is are only sharing their opinion

and opinions are just fine by me to toss around

I like the idea of comparing different bets with commensurate risk
as Steen's example shows.
Sally
I Heart Vi Hart