Comparing Full Odds and No Odds

Quote: Ahigh

So my sim reports 40.349% compared to 42.98%. That's close enough to indicate the sim is working

working?
how close?
why then did my first 10k sim error was way less than yours (you ran 100k each sim?)
I used WinCraps (none of my code used. Steen's RoR file.)
added:
my husband says he hurt himself laughing too much
see, I did this in WinCraps


I am the math hack here.
close enough
close enough

Is that what you say about all your coding? I sure hope not.

in math, we really want to know how close or in other words, as Frank S sang, Sinatra
how much of an error are you happy with, using your simulation?

Did not Paigowdan once call Stephen How over at discountgambling.net (corrected) a "hack"
I recall it.
maybe I can find that post
was it in fun?
maybe

have fun with your errors

I do with mine too as all posts are really just an opinion.
I like that
Sally

Quote: mustangsally

Did not Paigowdan once call Stephen Howe over at discountgambling.com a "hack"

I hope not. That is crazy. Stephen is no hack.

I am not humble, so I will claim that my statement above is a fact, as well as my opinion.

Sally,

Will you marry me? I'm so glad you came into this thread. When this thread started, I was scratching my head because it appeared that the comments were steering toward a bet with no odds being no different than one with odds. I would never wager a "pass" or "come" wager without maximum odds behind it...never! I would simply walk away from the table if I didn't have the bankroll to do it. That simply makes no sense to me to think I wasn't reducing the casino advantage by taking full odds and that my chance of winning wasn't any better.

Quote: bodyforlife

Sally,

Will you marry me? I'm so glad you came into this thread. When this thread started, I was scratching my head because it appeared that the comments were steering toward a bet with no odds being no different than one with odds. I would never wager a "pass" or "come" wager without maximum odds behind it...never! I would simply walk away from the table if I didn't have the bankroll to do it. That simply makes no sense to me to think I wasn't reducing the casino advantage by taking full odds and that my chance of winning wasn't any better.

Bold play without odds is often better than betting with odds.

You will most certainly lose odds or no odds if you take enough bets and play long enough.

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?

Here's something few new players understand: The way that most people bet the six or the eight, the COST is the same as making a single bet on the field, 2.78%.

If you make a single bet in the field, you win 44.4% of the time (2/9ths). Upon winning, it's a self service bet, so it's easy to pick up both the win and the bet and people often do.

When someone bets $6 on the six, they think "this is a good bet because it has a house edge of 1.52% ..

The six and eight place bets last an average of 36/11 rolls which is about 3.272727 rolls. That means it either wins or loses after that many rolls.

However, MOST people when they make that bet, it lasts for 6 rolls instead of 3.272727 rolls. Why? Because they won't take the bet down on a win.

That means the house edge of 1.52% / 3.2727272 rolls is about 0.46444% per roll.

Multiply the edge per roll by 6 rolls (the actual average number of rolls someone's going to leave that bet up) and you get a cost of 2.78%.

So the bet actually (for most people) lasts 6/3.272727 (about 1.8x) times longer rather than costing 45% less per resolution compared to the field bet.

And not only that, but when you leave the bet up here are the possible "wins."

6/11 = 54.54%-> $0 (chance of hitting seven before 8)
(5/11)*(6/11) = 24.8% -> +$1 (chance of hitting once before seven -- WOOHOO +$1)
(5/11)*(5/11)*(6/11) = 11.27% -> +$8
(5/11)*(5/11)*(5/11)*(6/11) = 5.12% -> + $15
(5/11)*(5/11)*(5/11)*(5/11)*(6/11) = 2.32% -> $22 (4 hits)

While Sally argues over math problems, most people who are seeking advice would rather know that the average cost per resolved bet is 2.78% every time they put money on the six without taking it down on resolution, not 1.52%. Not only that, but you only come out ahead as much as you risked (100-54.54-24.8)% = 20.66% of the time. The field comes out ahead as much as your risked 44.4% of the time! But everyone here tells you the field is a bad bet and the six and eight are good bets!

People who play the game based on things they learn from this website and folks who don't play the game often misleads them into misery.

But you won't find a mathematician's shoulder to cry on when you lose!

RS: You are quite correct. The house edge (in terms of dollars in cents) doesn't change one bit with odds if you keep the same pass line bet. So if I bet $100 on the pass line, my expectation is about -$1.41 . If I back that up with 2x odds, it is still $-1.41 cents. However, when I add the odds, my average bet is now about $233 ! I am risking more and could win or lose more then before. So perhaps we are not comparing the right things. Instead, perhaps suppose I compare betting $100 on the pass line with no odds to betting $43 on the pass line with 2x odds. If I do this, my average bet is about the same, $100 (~100.32) as it was when i was flat betting. However, now my expectation value is less, about $0.59. It is in this way that odds helps you. Move money off the pass line and onto the odds bet. Don't bet more then you are comfortable with in any case! This is why i love low minimum games, as I can bet more on the odds!

TLDR: RS is right, but it is better to reduce pass line bet and get same "action" by betting more on the odds instead.


PS: It would probably be even better to compare bets with the same standard deviation rather then same average bet, but this seemed more straightforward.

Sally, your posts are insulting. Please stop addressing me. You can't run my Perl code (or even find it apparently). Keep running WinCraps and other software if you want. I'm not paying attention.

If you found the error in my code that you are alluding to the existence of (or even my code for that matter) I might care what you're saying.

I agree with what you're saying, DrEntropy....but I find that rather intuitive....bet less lose less...except for maybe someone who is completely brand new to the game. But for (experienced) craps players who know the game -- to combine the PL & odds into one bet (and one house edge between the two), just seems ridiculous.

I give up. Yep, from now on just bet pass line with no odds regardless of what the Wizard says....

Combined House Edge on Pass/Come & Taking Full Odds
ODDS HOUSE EDGE PER
BET
MADE BET
RESOLVED ROLL
1X 0.00848 0.00848 0.00251
2X 0.00606 0.00606 0.00180
Full double 0.00572 0.00572 0.00169
3X 0.00471 0.00471 0.00140
3X-4X-5X 0.00374 0.00374 0.00111
5X 0.00326 0.00326 0.00097
10X 0.00184 0.00184 0.00055
20X 0.00099 0.00099 0.00029
100X 0.00021 0.00021 0.00006

Of course, once you get past that "come out" roll and a point has been established, you are at a disadvantage. But it's foolish to take the better bet at that point (odds wager), might as well stay on the bad bet (4568910). I think it's absurd logic to think you aren't better off with an odds wager (SMFH). Of course on a 100x odds wager, the house edge is going to be greatly reduced. You are essentially making that first wager practically meaningless to get to the true odds wager and hence the house edge in this chart is down to .00006. This isn't even a conversation worth having.

0.41% edge per roll is pretty low if you want to stick to the four line bets (pass, don't, come, DC).

It's not like you're playing double zero roulette, and there's a point of diminishing return on saving money if you're just looking to have a good time.

But if you max out your odds and get lucky, you can win ALMOST as much as you would stand to lose by getting unlucky .. which is a lot usually.

It's just a matter of taste.

If you don't like losing (much), though, and you want to have fun and have a few drinks and pass the time, play accordingly and bet low volatility.

Quote: Ahigh

Here's something few new players understand: The way that most people bet the six or the eight, the COST is the same as making a single bet on the field, 2.78%.

If you make a single bet in the field, you win 44.4% of the time (2/9ths). Upon winning, it's a self service bet, so it's easy to pick up both the win and the bet and people often do.

When someone bets $6 on the six, they think "this is a good bet because it has a house edge of 1.52% ..

The six and eight place bets last an average of 36/11 rolls which is about 3.272727 rolls. That means it either wins or loses after that many rolls.

However, MOST people when they make that bet, it lasts for 6 rolls instead of 3.272727 rolls. Why? Because they won't take the bet down on a win.

That means the house edge of 1.52% / 3.2727272 rolls is about 0.46444% per roll.

Multiply the edge per roll by 6 rolls (the actual average number of rolls someone's going to leave that bet up) and you get a cost of 2.78%.

So the bet actually (for most people) lasts 6/3.272727 (about 1.8x) times longer rather than costing 45% less per resolution compared to the field bet.

And not only that, but when you leave the bet up here are the possible "wins."

6/11 = 54.54%-> $0 (chance of hitting seven before 8)
(5/11)*(6/11) = 24.8% -> +$1 (chance of hitting once before seven -- WOOHOO +$1)
(5/11)*(5/11)*(6/11) = 11.27% -> +$8
(5/11)*(5/11)*(5/11)*(6/11) = 5.12% -> + $15
(5/11)*(5/11)*(5/11)*(5/11)*(6/11) = 2.32% -> $22 (4 hits)

While Sally argues over math problems, most people who are seeking advice would rather know that the average cost per resolved bet is 2.78% every time they put money on the six without taking it down on resolution, not 1.52%. Not only that, but you only come out ahead as much as you risked (100-54.54-24.8)% = 20.66% of the time. The field comes out ahead as much as your risked 44.4% of the time! But everyone here tells you the field is a bad bet and the six and eight are good bets!

People who play the game based on things they learn from this website and folks who don't play the game often misleads them into misery.

But you won't find a mathematician's shoulder to cry on when you lose!

With all due respect, this is why I like Sally's comments more than yours. Way too many assumptions on how people play instead of just straight math. How would you know that people leave up a bet for that long and not take it down, or have it converted to a "come" bet with odds?

Quote: bodyforlife

With all due respect, this is why I like Sally's comments more than yours. Way to many assumptions on how people play instead of just straight math. How would you know that people leave up a bet for that long and not take it down, or have it converted to a "come" bet with odds?

How would I know? Because I actually watch how people bet, that's how! I live in Las Vegas and I watch the tables more than you could probably imagine.

Here's the thing. You're right! I am not a math-centric guy. I graduated with honors from Texas A&M. I did have a combinatorial math class. But I am a game guy. Math guys solve math problems. Game guys know how games are played and how they work to take the money from people who play them.

If you like math solutions, that's fantastic. If you like Sally's solving math problems better than my analysis for why people lose even though they bet according to the math folks who won't even play a "negative expectation game" and flatly dismiss the entire experience as beneath them, more power to ya!

I have not once played craps with the Wizard himself, even. I've talked to him multiple times in proximity to a craps table, but the guy isn't interested in playing craps with me.

I expect Sally would be the same way, even though she says she plays, I think. I doubt she'd hold a candle to my playing stamina.

I actually play the game.

In fact, I would be surprised to meet ANYONE from this forum who plays this game more than me.

So it's fine if you want to voice your reason for liking her responses better.

But until you meet me and have a better idea what I'm talking about, your feedback on my responses or why you don't like them don't frankly mean that much to me.

I get responses all over the place from folks who don't get stuff about what they like and don't like about what I have to say.

Join the club.

For your desire to hear technical stuff like corrections and what-not, your "to" above should be "too." Maybe you like that comment?

To me all this technical back-and-forth between me and Sally just demonstrates that she is (strictly) focused on the math and not on the entertainment value of the game. I don't think she would be entertaining to "game" with at all.

Winning is fun and losing sucks. I win a lot. I don't defy any mathematical odds or anything, but I have more fun playing this game than just about anybody I run into (sober at least).

I've been making and programming games since I worked on this game:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard_(1983_video_game)

That's about 30 years now. I know about games.

I'm really not concerned about the personal stuff. But as far as I'm concerned, to try to mix math with assumptions like you do, doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. I know how I play and your assumptions aren't remotely close, and therefore your comment is useless to me. If others think it's valuable, more power to them. Have a good night.

Quote: bodyforlife

I'm really not concerned about the personal stuff. But as far as I'm concerned, to try to mix math with assumptions like you do, doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. I know how I play and your assumptions aren't remotely close, and therefore your comment is useless to me. If others think it's valuable, more power to them. Have a good night.

I'm not mixing math with assumptions. I'm telling you what people do because I watch them do it.

If you are considering only people who read this forum and take the Wizard's advice before playing, that's a small subset of people who play the game.

I'm talking about the game and the way that it is actually played in Las Vegas. Not the little local group of WOV forum members who bet double odds and talk about the one or two times they bet max odds.

Come and play with me and show me. Don't tell me.

The only assumption that I think is wrong is that ANYBODY would make a place bet and pick it up after it hits the first time. THAT is the big assumption in my book that leads to a 1.52% edge per resolved bet on the six and eight.

HUGE ASSUMPTION!

Let me say it succinctly in another way: in my experience, resolution to MOST bets on the table are when the seven rolls.

You should see me, "I WON! PASS THE DICE!"

People freak.

Quote: Ahigh

Let me say it succinctly in another way: in my experience, resolution to MOST bets on the table are when the seven rolls.

You should see me, "I WON! PASS THE DICE!"

People freak.

ROFL. I'd love to see that!

It's cool. I made a late night call last night to a friend that's going to Vegas today. I told her to forget all that stuff I told her about taking max odds on her pass line bet. From now on, always make a pass line bet with no odds and to make sure she bets the field (and also to make sure she only plays at the Caesar properties that only pay double on the 2 and 12). She asked why the change, and I told her I found out I was doing everything wrong on the forum at the Wizard of Vegas and that payouts don't matter. Yep, one guy says not to take the odds, another says a field bet is the same as the 6 and the 8, and a 3rd guy says you should have a cashier at the sportsbook hold an extra $1000 because he doesn't know the difference between an even money wager and a "true odds" wager (he thinks they're the same). But you should see these guys make numbers dance and the incredible reasoning they use.

Marry me Sally. I don't know what you look like, but your mind is as sexy as any woman I've met and you really turn me on when you talk numbers. :-)

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.

Quote: RS

When you analyze a game, ANY game, it's based on the initial bet.

Which is precisely what occurred in the discussion about place bets and the alleged higher house edge when the place bet on the 6 or 8 is left up. Leaving a bet in place does not actually change the house advantage, except in continuing and even increasing the sum of money in play and at risk. Of course betting $1,000 risks more money than betting $10.

Quote: bodyforlife

It's cool. I made a late night call last night to a friend that's going to Vegas today. I told her to forget all that stuff I told her about taking max odds on her pass line bet. From now on, always make a pass line bet with no odds and to make sure she bets the field (and also to make sure she only plays at the Caesar properties that only pay double on the 2 and 12). She asked why the change, and I told her I found out I was doing everything wrong on the forum at the Wizard of Vegas and that payouts don't matter. Yep, one guy says not to take the odds, another says a field bet is the same as the 6 and the 8, and a 3rd guy says you should have a cashier at the sportsbook hold an extra $1000 because he doesn't know the difference between an even money wager and a "true odds" wager (he thinks they're the same). But you should see these guys make numbers dance and the incredible reasoning they use.

Marry me Sally. I don't know what you look like, but your mind is as sexy as any woman I've met and you really turn me on when you talk numbers. :-)

Thanks for putting your sarcastic ignorance on display for us. I'm sure Sally's ready to divorce her husband fer ya, and move in with you now.

As good as only Ahigh can get. You gotta start writing, man. Compared to what published, you have a chance to become one of the best.

Hit and run has a positive EV. You save on doctor's bills by doing some exercise.

Quote: Ahigh

Here's something few new players understand: The way that most people bet the six or the eight, the COST is the same as making a single bet on the field, 2.78%.
...
However, MOST people when they make that bet, it lasts for 6 rolls instead of 3.272727 rolls. Why? Because they won't take the bet down on a win.

That means the house edge of 1.52% / 3.2727272 rolls is about 0.46444% per roll.

Multiply the edge per roll by 6 rolls (the actual average number of rolls someone's going to leave that bet up) and you get a cost of 2.78%.

You keep making these arguments but they're always misleading. At a minimum, your methodology is inconsistent: you would say that the house edge of the pass line 1.41%, but you suggest the "cost" of the place six bet is 2.78%. However, nobody makes a single passline bet either; the bet is re-wagered every come-out, win or lose.

Define the "Ahigh cost" as the edge per roll times the expected number of rolls a player makes a wager. "Expected" in this sense is not a mathematical construct but a supposition based on what Ahigh considers to be typical player behavior.

You compute the "Ahigh cost" of the place six bet, under the supposition that a player always leaves up a constant-size wager until it loses, at 2.78% of the initial wager. I note that this supposition is plainly false as many place bet players press their wagers. So your methodology is already suspect.

The per-roll edge of the pass bet is about 0.42%, and the average number of rolls until the first passline loss is about 6.66 (3.37576 rolls/decision * 1/(1-p), where p = probability of PL win). So by applying the same logic, the "Ahigh cost" of the passline bet is also 2.78%.

Moreover, players often re-bet the passline even after they lose for the entirety of a shooter's hand (e.g., after a craps roll). There are 8.52 rolls per shooter -- this number is greater than the 6.66 figure above because it does not count come-out losses. The "Ahigh cost" of always betting a constant amount on the passline for each shooter is therefore 8.52 * 0.42% = 3.57%.

Is the "Ahigh cost" a useful measurement? It results in an evaluation that the passline is a worse wager than the place 6 bet, so I say no.

Quote: bodyforlife

Marry me Sally. I don't know what you look like, but your mind is as sexy as any woman I've met and you really turn me on when you talk numbers. :-)

How come no one ever propositions me when I talk about math? I'm still waiting to hear back from JuicieJennie...

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

How come no one ever propositions me when I talk about math? I'm still waiting to hear back from JuicieJennie...

Just shout chippies chippies chippies 3 times and JuccieJennie will appeat ,

Quote: MathExtremist

You keep making these arguments but they're always misleading.

PASS THE DICE! I WON!!!

Mustangsally



You have run into the rath of Ahigh, as anyone on his site would tell you, you are welcome on
his site or even to speak with him as long as you agree with him.... But lord almighty, if you have
an opinion different than his.......

There is nothing this side of hell worse than Ahigh scorned.....


I used to think he was this great player, had his own show and site and i was impressed.

But after conversing with him on his site and on here and seeing him play. wel;l it was just alot
of attention wasted. There are some pretty damn good players in vegas that understand the game
but he is not one of them. He is a completely random player that talks way over his level
of ability, much like most of us i guess. The difference is i think most of us upset others by
accident, not on purpose and most of us want to be better players and help others to be for them
and not to make us look better.

when you make everyone you come into contact upset, and when the table crew cant wait until
some one leaves.....and the pit boss hates that you are playing... well that is not real good for the
game.


I for one am sorry i ever got involved with him. and in the scope of full disclosure, i am sure he would
say the same about me. It was not my intention to have a poor relationship with him, but no matter
how i approached it, it always came out the same.

But life goes on


dicesetter

Quote: dicesitter

Mustangsally

You have run into the rath of Ahigh, as anyone on his site would tell you, you are welcome on
his site or even to speak with him as long as you agree with him.... But lord almighty, if you have
an opinion different than his.......

There is nothing this side of hell worse than Ahigh scorned.....

I used to think he was this great player, had his own show and site and i was impressed.

But after conversing with him on his site and on here and seeing him play. wel;l it was just alot
of attention wasted. There are some pretty damn good players in vegas that understand the game
but he is not one of them. He is a completely random player that talks way over his level
of ability, much like most of us i guess. The difference is i think most of us upset others by
accident, not on purpose and most of us want to be better players and help others to be for them
and not to make us look better.

when you make everyone you come into contact upset, and when the table crew cant wait until
some one leaves.....and the pit boss hates that you are playing... well that is not real good for the
game.

I for one am sorry i ever got involved with him. and in the scope of full disclosure, i am sure he would
say the same about me. It was not my intention to have a poor relationship with him, but no matter
how i approached it, it always came out the same.

But life goes on

dicesetter

Yes, I met dicesetter in person. The dialog went along the lines of "hi you don't know who I am but I'm not a liar."

I was perplexed. The danger in correcting people when they are wrong is that they often take things very personally.

I think that you and Mustang do have more than one thing in common.

1) You both make mistakes
2) You take it personally when you get corrected about them

The Wizard has never taken personally any corrections I have made to his mistakes. He actually thanks people for such things.

ME, before I get started, you should know that I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, but let me just defend myself against what you state in your post:

Quote: Ahigh

Here's something few new players understand: The way that most people bet the six or the eight, the COST is the same as making a single bet on the field, 2.78%.

Quote: ME

You keep making these arguments but they're always misleading. At a minimum, your methodology is inconsistent: you would say that the house edge of the pass line 1.41%, but you suggest the "cost" of the place six bet is 2.78%. However, nobody makes a single passline bet either; the bet is re-wagered every come-out, win or lose.

There is nothing misleading about my statement as it is qualified by "the way that most people bet the six or the eight." Six rolls on one costs the same as one roll on another. It's as simple as that. I can't even count the number of "misleading" things where the house edge is measured and compared between two different things that each have a different amount of rolls. And there is plenty misleading things about the house edge in addition to that which have nothing to do with my statements and everything to do with how most people analyze this game before they put their hard-earned money into it trying to win.

Sure there are people who don't pick up a field bet after it hits. But you can bet the frequency of picking up a field winner is higher than the frequency of someone taking down a six or eight place bet winner.

Quote: ME

Define the "Ahigh cost" as the edge per roll times the expected number of rolls a player makes a wager. "Expected" in this sense is not a mathematical construct but a supposition based on what Ahigh considers to be typical player behavior.

No.

Quote: ME

You compute the "Ahigh cost" of the place six bet, under the supposition that a player always leaves up a constant-size wager until it loses, at 2.78% of the initial wager. I note that this supposition is plainly false as many place bet players press their wagers. So your methodology is already suspect.

There's no methodology of mine. It was a clear statement. You are turning a singular statement of something that few beginners understand into a methodology now? Maybe you have a case of wanting to generalize too many people's statements.

You want something to call the "ahigh cost?" How about the cost of not understanding edge per roll and only understanding edge per resolution when the resolution of a bet is variable number of rolls when too many beginners have no idea about how to convert edge per resolved event into edge per roll.

That's what I would call the "ahigh cost." Include that with those who incorrectly think that buying the four with vig on the win is 6.66% because the only thing they know is the Wizard's (previous) charts that don't get into the details of buy bets. Improvements are being made, and that's great (there are still mistakes I believe, though). But don't place the confusing label on me!!

Quote: ME

The per-roll edge of the pass bet is about 0.42%, and the average number of rolls until the first passline loss is about 6.66 (3.37576 rolls/decision * 1/(1-p), where p = probability of PL win). So by applying the same logic, the "Ahigh cost" of the passline bet is also 2.78%.

I'm not surprised. How many other folks knew this?

Quote: ME

Moreover, players often re-bet the passline even after they lose for the entirety of a shooter's hand (e.g., after a craps roll). There are 8.52 rolls per shooter -- this number is greater than the 6.66 figure above because it does not count come-out losses. The "Ahigh cost" of always betting a constant amount on the passline for each shooter is therefore 8.52 * 0.42% = 3.57%.

I'll tell you it's harder to win a bet with a 3.57% edge than to win a bet with a lower edge.

Quote: ME

Is the "Ahigh cost" a useful measurement? It results in an evaluation that the passline is a worse wager than the place 6 bet, so I say no.

The "Ahigh cost" is something you made up. The real question is whether the cost per resolved bet used by the Wizard and so many other folks is a good indicator for how to bet in the game of craps.

So many questions on this forum basically center around betting strategies, and then questions about "how likely am I to win with this strategy" and the answer is something like "you get a 40% chance to double your money" and people are all surprised.

That's why I think all edges should be listed in edge per roll primarily to prevent these confusing points in the first place.

That would be better than accusing me of being the confusing element in these discussions.

MANY would not butt heads so often if edges were ONLY discussed in the per-roll domain exclusively. But I doubt people are going to hold their breath for that to happen when you have self-appointed experts making bets with edges 11.11% per roll and even higher as part of some broader strategy futilely attempting to win by the method that they throw the dice.

Quote: Ahigh

There is nothing misleading about my statement as it is qualified by "the way that most people bet the six or the eight." Six rolls on one costs the same as one roll on another. It's as simple as that.

You're comparing the EV of a solitary field bet with the EV of multiple place bets over six rolls, and you think that's a simple and valid comparison? You haven't even taken wager amounts into account -- the field is typically a $5 bet, while the place bet is a $6 bet at the EV you're citing. (If you make a $5 place 6 bet you end up with breakage and an edge of 9.09%)

If you re-run your analysis using a $5 field and a $6 place-six bet, would you suggest that the field is a better bet than the place bet?

Expected cost of single $5 Field = 2.78% (from previous calculation) * $5 = $0.139
Expected cost of multiple $6 Place 6 bets, winning bets stay up = 2.78% (from previous calculation) * $6 = $0.167.

That's like saying a single $5 Fire Bet is cheaper than playing $100 on the passline for two hours. It's absolutely true, but it's a totally unfair comparison.

Quote:

I can't even count the number of "misleading" things where the house edge is measured and compared between two different things that each have a different amount of rolls.

Yet that's exactly what you're doing...

" ME, before I get started, you should know that I have a tremendous amount of respect for you, "

This is commonly known in polite circles as " Don't take this personal "

I always take it personal.

Quote: dicesitter

Mustangsally



You have run into the rath of Ahigh, as anyone on his site would tell you, you are welcome on
his site or even to speak with him as long as you agree with him.... But lord almighty, if you have
an opinion different than his.......

There is nothing this side of hell worse than Ahigh scorned.....


I used to think he was this great player, had his own show and site and i was impressed.

But after conversing with him on his site and on here and seeing him play. wel;l it was just alot
of attention wasted. There are some pretty damn good players in vegas that understand the game
but he is not one of them. He is a completely random player that talks way over his level
of ability, much like most of us i guess. The difference is i think most of us upset others by
accident, not on purpose and most of us want to be better players and help others to be for them
and not to make us look better.

when you make everyone you come into contact upset, and when the table crew cant wait until
some one leaves.....and the pit boss hates that you are playing... well that is not real good for the
game.


I for one am sorry i ever got involved with him. and in the scope of full disclosure, i am sure he would
say the same about me. It was not my intention to have a poor relationship with him, but no matter
how i approached it, it always came out the same.

But life goes on


dicesetter

Well said Dicesetter. If I were to give you some advice, don't expend any energy whatsoever on this. It's simply not worth your time. Besides, as with most bullies, they eventually meet their match and Sally exposed him for what he was. I'm sure we'll chat at some point in the future. I don't waste a lot of time on this forum because there are too many guys that get into the "my cock's bigger than yours" with their one upmanship. As you stated, it doesn't make for a friendly environment for novices just trying to get information.



The Antagonizer

Comment forums are made for divergent viewpoints and intelligent, spirited debate. The Antagonizer, though, takes things to another, more primitive level, resorting to personal attacks and insults in what may be a nostalgic flashback to carefree bygone days as a third-grade bully.

"Do I even have to explain how stupid of a name Stefan is for a man?" one such person wrote on a popular tech blog's story about Apple's touchscreens. He went on to close his remarks with this jab: "I bet you shave your armpits." That's about as clever as the repartee gets in Antagonizer Land; more often the insights run along the lines of "You bleep!" "Bleep you!" "Bleep bleep bleep bleep bleep!" Proof positive that, online, it isn't difficult for a person to be both loud and boring.

Quote: bodyforlife

Well said Dicesetter. If I were to give you some advice, don't expend any energy whatsoever on this. It's simply not worth your time. Besides, as with most bullies, they eventually meet their match and Sally exposed him for what he was. I'm sure we'll chat at some point in the future. I don't waste a lot of time on this forum because there are too many guys that get into the "my cock's bigger than yours" with their one upmanship. As you stated, it doesn't make for a friendly environment for novices just trying to get information.



The Antagonizer

Comment forums are made for divergent viewpoints and intelligent, spirited debate. The Antagonizer, though, takes things to another, more primitive level, resorting to personal attacks and insults in what may be a nostalgic flashback to carefree bygone days as a third-grade bully.

"Do I even have to explain how stupid of a name Stefan is for a man?" one such person wrote on a popular tech blog's story about Apple's touchscreens. He went on to close his remarks with this jab: "I bet you shave your armpits." That's about as clever as the repartee gets in Antagonizer Land; more often the insights run along the lines of "You bleep!" "Bleep you!" "Bleep bleep bleep bleep bleep!" Proof positive that, online, it isn't difficult for a person to be both loud and boring.

Nice job, there with that post. I haven't brushed up on the rules lately, but it sure seems like you're violating a few rules with this one.

Quote: MathExtremist

You're comparing the EV of a solitary field bet with the EV of multiple place bets over six rolls, and you think that's a simple and valid comparison? You haven't even taken wager amounts into account -- the field is typically a $5 bet, while the place bet is a $6 bet at the EV you're citing. (If you make a $5 place 6 bet you end up with breakage and an edge of 9.09%)

If you re-run your analysis using a $5 field and a $6 place-six bet, would you suggest that the field is a better bet than the place bet?

Expected cost of single $5 Field = 2.78% (from previous calculation) * $5 = $0.139
Expected cost of multiple $6 Place 6 bets, winning bets stay up = 2.78% (from previous calculation) * $6 = $0.167.

That's like saying a single $5 Fire Bet is cheaper than playing $100 on the passline for two hours. It's absolutely true, but it's a totally unfair comparison.


Yet that's exactly what you're doing...

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions about misleading folks. You and I both agree on the math. Sally and I had some similar disputes relating to similar issues, yet I refuse to acknowledge that my characterization of placing a bet and leaving it up for multiple rolls is any different from anyone elses, including "per bet resolved" as defined by the Wizard. Especially when I am very clear about the fact that most players don't take down place bets as it related to this specific point.

The only folks I could possibly be misleading would be misled to think that the place bet on the six is more expensive than it really is. So even if you were right, which I believe you are not, and I am in fact misleading folks, what is the harm of what you are accusing me of doing exactly? Causing someone to think?

No reason to disagree or have personal arguments about how to beat craps.

because its not possible with normal play including DI

Quote: dicesitter

You have run into the rath of Ahigh, as anyone on his site would tell you, you are welcome on
his site or even to speak with him as long as you agree with him.... But lord almighty, if you have
an opinion different than his.......

funny it still is.
actually very sad that he thinks all of his results is the truth.

I mean, he starts his first post in this thread with some sim data that was not even asked about.
Got half of his results quite accurate. 50% is better than 0%
and when presented by two others that his results could be very accurate using a simple formula,
no simulation required,
he says his work is close enough to show his simulation is working. hehe

stop it
hehe

He continues on and on and I really can not read much more of his first post without hurting myself from out-of-controlled laughing.
at least the laughing is much cheaper (+EV) than just smoking pot in Colorado.

I still
hehe

he says right away too for the OP
"In the real world, on average a $100 buy-in at a $10 table will last you about four hours without playing odds"
more what? conclusions (about) hehe... *real world*

I get, hehe, the average number of rolls to ruin a 10 unit bankroll = 2,300 (only a 5k sim)
median = 540
and this = about 4 hours of play. sure. OK. about
hehehe

So I found 100,000 craps players, real ones, to play until ruin and count the number of bets it took to be totally broke.
They had free food and drinks from Sally's Casino.
(for rolls multiply by 3.375 I did hehe)

median: 168.00 (567 rolls)
maximum value: 58,042 (195,891 rolls) ****WOW!
this player must have thought she (it was a she) IS the greatest craps player of all time.****
mean value: 731.13 (2,468) about
hehe


stop it
stop it

we all have our opinions
Sally

Quote: bodyforlife

It's simply not worth your time. Besides, as with most bullies,

bully? naw

Quote: bodyforlife

they eventually meet their match and Sally exposed him for what he was.

I did that?
Honestly, I really thought he exposed himself but I could be incorrect on that here.

Quote: bodyforlife

I'm sure we'll chat at some point in the future.
I don't waste a lot of time on this forum because there are too many guys that get into the "my cock's bigger than yours" with their one upmanship.

sounds fun

Sally

Quote: AxiomOfChoice

How come no one ever propositions me when I talk about math? I'm still waiting to hear back from JuicieJennie...

I can defiantly arrange that. However i want my pimpen fee up front. You dig?

Quote: AxelWolf

I can defiantly arrange that. However i want my pimpen fee up front. You dig?

LOL, how much money do I have to win for you???

Quote: mustangsally

funny it still is.
actually very sad that he thinks all of his results is the truth.

I mean, he starts his first post in this thread with some sim data that was not even asked about.
Got half of his results quite accurate. 50% is better than 0%
and when presented by two others that his results could be very accurate using a simple formula,
no simulation required,
he says his work is close enough to show his simulation is working. hehe

stop it
hehe

He continues on and on and I really can not read much more of his first post without hurting myself from out-of-controlled laughing.
at least the laughing is much cheaper (+EV) than just smoking pot in Colorado.

I still
hehe

he says right away too for the OP
"In the real world, on average a $100 buy-in at a $10 table will last you about four hours without playing odds"
more what? conclusions (about) hehe... *real world*

I get, hehe, the average number of rolls to ruin a 10 unit bankroll = 2,300 (only a 5k sim)
median = 540
and this = about 4 hours of play. sure. OK. about
hehehe

So I found 100,000 craps players, real ones, to play until ruin and count the number of bets it took to be totally broke.
They had free food and drinks from Sally's Casino.
(for rolls multiply by 3.375 I did hehe)

median: 168.00 (567 rolls)
maximum value: 58,042 (195,891 rolls) ****WOW!
this player must have thought she (it was a she) IS the greatest craps player of all time.****
mean value: 731.13 (2,468) about
hehe


stop it
stop it

we all have our opinions
Sally

If there is a bug in the sim find it. Sounds like an awful lot of defense mechanisms at work to defend that you couldn't program in Perl and want to prop up some excuses along the lines that math can solve the problem so you don't need to understand the simulator that I wrote.

Keep using other people's software and other known formulas and provide the answers you can obtain.

And when something is outside your domain of expertise, continue to attack based on your ignorance of things you don't know how to do.

Plenty of people believe that you have "put me in my place" even though you apparently have no knowledge how to write code at all.

You are an excellent source of entertainment for yourself at least.

Running the sim to see if you can double a $1000 doing $10 pass and no other bets takes a long time.

ahigh~/craps% ./roll
7 SUCCESSES and 93 FAILURES
Chance of success was 7%
Chance of failure was 93%
Average number of rolls for success was 28009
Average number of rolls for failure was 19005.7956989247
ahigh~/craps% vi roll
ahigh~/craps% ./roll
51 SUCCESSES and 949 FAILURES
Chance of success was 5.1%
Chance of failure was 94.9%
Average number of rolls for success was 20974.6666666667
Average number of rolls for failure was 22216.1264488936
ahigh~/craps% vi roll
ahigh~/craps% ./roll
530 SUCCESSES and 9470 FAILURES
Chance of success was 5.3%
Chance of failure was 94.7%
Average number of rolls for success was 21595.7811320755
Average number of rolls for failure was 21179.8907074974

I'm not sure this is the answer you were getting, but that's what the sim tells me. I figured I would run it with more sessions since you hadn't yet figured out how to do it yourself. If you get a different answer, maybe there's a bug in my sim. But I would expect that I was right in the beginning when I suggested I didn't get enough samples to have an answer precise enough for your requirements of being correct, yet the sim seems to be working from my perspective in spite of the fact you don't know how to run it yourself.

I'm sure I could get four or five decimal places of accuracy if anybody besides you cared about that. But it would take an hour or so with a simulation to get that accurate.

The fact that you took the opportunity to characterize my answer as incorrect rather than inaccurate due to a limited number of session simulations is very illuminating, however. Especially given that you had plenty of time to figure this out on your own if you were skilled in the ability to read other people's code and understand it.

Of course you didn't even know I provided a sim at first from what I understood. Just wanted to jump straight to "he doesn't know what he's talking about" and other discounting efforts aimed in my general direction.

Maybe we should move on to the other things that you were wrong about and still don't acknowledge, huh?

By the way, what do you do for a living that gives you so much time to fart around answering these questions on this forum and making false claims about people like me?

Quote: Ahigh

If there is a bug in the sim find it.

Question: you call Bet just before the main loop, and then call it again at the start of the main loop.

Won't that subtract 10 from the initial bankroll before actually counting it as a bet (so, in effect, you are working out whether or not you will reach 2000 or 0 first from a starting point of 990)?

Note that I tried simulating this on my own (just the flat bets), and got somewhere around 330 rolls per win and 339 rolls per loss.

Mustangsally




In the end you just have to play the game. If you go to the table and bet the 6 & 8
and hit 5 - 9's and a 7 you wont make any money no matter what the math of the
game tells you.

If you are a di and have a decent shot and use throw a 7 and then come back next
time and throw to the exact same place and use the same set and throw another
7 and you do that all night your going to lose, it does not make any difference
what the math of the game is or what bets are the best.

No matter what anyone tells you, there is a pattern to the table most nights and
there is a pattern in your rolls or within a longer roll, you have to see those
and use them to your advantage. You cant just throw the dice the same way and
have them bounce all over the table or back to you and think your a great player
because you threw to hard eights.

thats why i love this game, it is hard and yet it offers so much to be learned that
it is exciting, and each night is different.

We should enjoy talking about it as much as we do playing it.

dicesetter

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Won't that subtract 10 from the initial bankroll before actually counting it as a bet (so, in effect, you are working out whether or not you will reach 2000 or 0 first from a starting point of 990)?

Note that I tried simulating this on my own (just the flat bets), and got somewhere around 330 rolls per win and 339 rolls per loss.

Looks like you simulated a 10 unit bankroll (betting 1 unit) instead of the 100 unit bankroll Ahigh is playing with.
your average rolls looks close to mine I showed earlier

My sim for # of games (only 100k) for a 10 unit bankroll ($100 into $200 with $10 flat bets) for duration until ruin or success to double to 20 units
success:
median: 76.00
mean value: 99.49
ruin:
median: 76.00
mean value: 99.51
they look the same to me

here is a table for the average number of games and probabilities (pass line decisions, no odds) to hit a 20 unit bankroll target
calculated using excel and a simple matrix
nice results

unit bankroll	success to 20 units	ruin	mean # of games	mean ruin	mean success
1	0.037714822	0.962285178	17.37475109	12.87036809	132.3030661
2	0.076511628	0.923488372	33.21926964	25.09296169	131.3030661
3	0.116421456	0.883578544	47.48965552	36.66587051	129.6365772
4	0.157476238	0.842523762	60.14074919	47.58728136	127.3038659
5	0.199708821	0.800291179	71.12609555	57.85547914	124.3053051
6	0.243152995	0.756847005	80.39790677	67.46884779	120.6413738
7	0.287843518	0.712156482	87.90702404	76.42587123	116.3126572
8	0.333816147	0.666183853	93.60287829	84.72513415	111.3198457
9	0.381107662	0.618892338	97.43344966	92.36532284	105.6637352
10	0.429755901	0.570244099	99.34522596	99.34522596	99.34522596
11	0.479799786	0.520200214	99.28315977	105.6637352	92.36532284
12	0.531279356	0.468720644	97.19062447	111.3198457	84.72513415
13	0.5842358	0.4157642	93.0093689	116.3126572	76.42587123
14	0.638711485	0.361288515	86.67947075	120.6413738	67.46884779
15	0.694749998	0.305250002	78.13928864	124.3053051	57.85547914
16	0.752396173	0.247603827	67.32541278	127.3038659	47.58728136
17	0.811696131	0.188303869	54.17261425	129.6365772	36.66587051
18	0.872697318	0.127302682	38.61379282	131.3030661	25.09296169
19	0.935448539	0.064551461	20.57992323	132.3030661	12.87036809

Sally

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Question: you call Bet just before the main loop, and then call it again at the start of the main loop.

Won't that subtract 10 from the initial bankroll before actually counting it as a bet (so, in effect, you are working out whether or not you will reach 2000 or 0 first from a starting point of 990)?

Note that I tried simulating this on my own (just the flat bets), and got somewhere around 330 rolls per win and 339 rolls per loss.

No. The "if( $pass == 0 ....." part prevents the bug you are suspicious of possibly being present.

Quote: Ahigh

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions about misleading folks. You and I both agree on the math.

But not on its application. Your reasoning led to the conclusion that the "cost" of the field bet is the same as the "cost" of the place six bet. I subsequently pointed out that you didn't go far enough because under your reasoning, the "cost" of "the place six bet" is actually higher than the "cost" of "the field bet" when you take into account appropriate bet sizing.

Except it isn't. Your comparison between a single $5 field bet vs. a bunch of $6 place six bets is not a fair one. From what I've discerned, you have a habit of focusing on the percentage edge (overall, per roll, or per some series of rolls) rather than on the actual expectation. The dollar expectation of a $5 field bet is -13.9 cents, while the dollar expectation of a $6 place 6 bet is -9.1 cents. It is obviously true that if you make N place 6 bets, the total expectation is -9.1 * N cents. And if you wanted to, you could solve for -9.1N = -13.9M, factor in the number of rolls to resolve each wager, and determine how often on average you could make a $5 field bet and have the same dollar expectation as leaving up a $6 place 6 bet for every roll. (What's the answer?)

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Especially when you're dealing with percentages, you can make the numbers say anything. A few months ago, I proposed the ELPH as a fair statistic for comparing bets of different resolution times and percentage expectations, as opposed to the Element of Risk:
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/other-games/15219-is-the-element-of-risk-a-useful-concept/#post272469

Quote: MathExtremist

But not on its application. Your reasoning led to the conclusion that the "cost" of the field bet is the same as the "cost" of the place six bet. I subsequently pointed out that you didn't go far enough because under your reasoning, the "cost" of "the place six bet" is actually higher than the "cost" of "the field bet" when you take into account appropriate bet sizing.

You're over-generalizing and splitting hairs.

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.

For those six rolls, the house edge percentage for the money put on the felt is the same as a single bet in the field (yes for one not six rolls).

In addition, the chance that you win as much money as you started with is greater in the field (44.4%).

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.

Keep gambling, and you're going to lose is the pragmatic illustration that I am trying to make. Even a single field bet doesn't suck if you hit it once compared to ANY strategy you apply over and over and over.

And again, it's the beginners that don't understand. Your splitting hairs with me is doing nothing but diverting the discussion.

Quote: Ahigh

No. The "if( $pass == 0 ....." part prevents the bug you are suspicious of possibly being present.

My bad - you're right. It just seemed strange that you were calling &bet twice in succession. I was wondering how you would not get a glaring discrepancy in your results if this was happening the way I thought it was...

Quote: mustangsally

Looks like you simulated a 10 unit bankroll (betting 1 unit) instead of the 100 unit bankroll Ahigh is playing with.

When using a 100-unit bankroll with 3/4/5x odds, over 4 million runs, I get a mean of of 1444 rolls per success and 1457 rolls per failure. (Note that the simulation allowed the player to bet the full odds even if he doesn't have the bankroll to cover it - e.g. if his bankroll is down to 3 and the point is 8, the odds bet is assumed to be 5.)

Quote: MustangSally

here is a table for the average number of games and probabilities (pass line decisions, no odds) to hit a 20 unit bankroll target calculated using excel and a simple matrix

Pardon me for asking, but how do you calculate the mean number of rolls? I know how to calculate the probability of success/failure (in fact, with a basic probability of success, rather than multiple states (like you would have with 3/4/5x), you don't even need a matrix; there's a straightforward formula), but can't figure out how to count the mean number of comeouts without resorting to simulation.