Comparing Full Odds and No Odds
Quote: AhighIt's a simple point. Most people who place the six or place the eight leave it up for an average of six rolls.
That's a fact that is easily verified.
...
The whole point, and I expect someone with a name like yours fails to understand, is that there is a pragmatic issue being ignored by folks who think more about the math than about the psychology of having more money in action on every roll rather than taking a risk, winning, and leaving with a high enough probability of coming out ahead.
If you examine your assumptions for how the typical player plays you'll realize that their place six bets lasts longer than an average of six rolls before losing. Do you know why? Do you know what the correct number is?
Setting aside your ham-fisted ridicule of my username -- which belies the "tremendous amount of respect" you acknowledged yesterday -- your point about pragmatism for beginners is ill-placed. A beginner is not well-served by senseless, confusing comparisons between "one $5 field bet" and "several $6 place bets." If you actually want to be helpful to beginners, start by making apples-to-apples comparisons of wagering patterns with respect to their edges and variances. Or just point them to WinCraps, which will do it for them and doesn't involve your strange notion of "pragmatism."
Quote: MathExtremistIf you examine your assumptions for how the typical player plays you'll realize that their place six bets lasts longer than an average of six rolls before losing. Do you know why? Do you know what the correct number is?
Off on comeout.
Quote: MathExtremistSetting aside your ham-fisted ridicule of my username
I am not ridiculing your username.
Quote: MathExtremist-- which belies the "tremendous amount of respect" you acknowledged yesterday --
I do respect you and I know of your posts from over the years. I am not ridiculing you. I am suggesting that you are focusing more on the math, including what I referred to as splitting hairs. Working the comeout, and $5 versus $6 bets included. I believe I mentioned both bets at $6 from the beginning if you check. You introduced that, not me.
Quote: MathExtremistyour point about pragmatism for beginners is ill-placed.
It might be in your opinion, but it's not in my opinion. Emphasis is on how long you choose to gamble (shorter being better) if you want to win.
Quote: MathExtremistA beginner is not well-served by senseless, confusing comparisons between "one $5 field bet" and "several $6 place bets."
My only point was that the edge by resolution is the same for a $6 six that's never taken down as it would be for a $6 field that is picked up the instant it hits. I don't recall mentioning a $5 field.
Quote: MathExtremistIf you actually want to be helpful to beginners, start by making apples-to-apples comparisons of wagering patterns with respect to their edges and variances. Or just point them to WinCraps, which will do it for them and doesn't involve your strange notion of "pragmatism."
In my experience, beginners don't even know what the terms "wagering patterns" or "variance" mean at all. They have a hard time understanding why they want $6 odds when the point is a five or a nine. If you use terms like "EV" or "variance" or "wagering pattern" they will likely just stop listening to you and listen to the dealer who is selling them on prop bets.
I guaran-damn-tee-ya that any beginner would know how to throw $100 into the field and walk no matter if it wins or not. Just pick up your wins and walk! The fact that this works about as well as playing max odds for an hour or two is a big part of the point I am trying to make in this thread. 44.4% chance of winning is not bad. And you might double or triple your money. Compare that to any system that takes a couple of hours (single bet compared to system) and tell me there's nothing pragmatic about the advice of comparing a single bet that's considered to be TERRIBLE to a betting system that's considered to be GREAT.
I'm just saying, as terrible as that bet is, the single instance of that bet is better than many methodologies that are the pride and joy of discussion forums like this that include tons of variance that generally just cancels itself out over the course of a few hours.
These artificial comparisons are just getting silly, and are just not useful if you're trying to be helpful to beginners (or anyone). You could make that $6 field bet every roll for an hour (100 rolls) and have the same expected loss as putting a black chip on Any Seven for one roll. You could also have all the hardways for $1 working for an hour and a half for the same cost. So what? It's all apples to oranges.
No way anyone can say a 5.6% house advantage is anywhere near "good."Quote: AhighI guaran-damn-tee-ya that any beginner would know how to throw $100 into the field and walk no matter if it wins or not. Just pick up your wins and walk! The fact that this works about as well as playing max odds for an hour or two is a big part of the point I am trying to make in this thread. 44.4% chance of winning is not bad.
Quote: MathExtremistWho makes a $6 field bet?
Someone who hopes to win $6, $12, or $18.
Quote: MathExtremistYou could make that $6 field bet every roll for an hour (100 rolls) and have the same expected loss as putting a black chip on Any Seven for one roll. You could also have all the hardways for $1 working for an hour and a half for the same cost.
I'll take your word for it, but yeah.
Quote: MathExtremistSo what? It's all apples to oranges.
In the domain of costs, it's all apples and apples to me.
If you really want to continue the conversation relating to criticism of comparing a field bet to a place bet on the eight, let's just take it offline sometime later. It's just growing old, frankly.
People already compare other bets that last differing amounts of rolls routinely and I haven't heard you raise objections to any of those things.
Like Sally, I think you object to talking about a bet that isn't marked on the felt or that isn't agreed upon by someone or something written down as being a bet.
Sally seems to think that you can't bet that the four or ten will occur before a seven and win $49 from $50 risks with vig on the win. She takes the position that this is not a 3-roll bet because it's two bets. I take the position that if I agree ahead of time I am taking them both down if either one of them hits, I am taking a bet that's not marked on the felt with a 1.00% house edge.
You both take similar positions that it's invalid to speak about bets that aren't marked on the felt. In your case, a bet that I will come out ahead when betting I have more 8's than sevens before hitting a seven. Or in her case that I can hit either one of the four or ten before a seven.
As a general rule, everyone who takes the position that I am wrong in this sense also generally cannot seem to come to terms with the fact that you can in fact take bets that aren't marked on the felt, and that, in fact, some of those bets have lower edges per resolved bet than many people realize are possible without taking free odds. And in other cases have higher edges per resolution because the endure more rolls without considering the increased cost from having more rolls before resolution.
I understand your position, and I understand Sally's position. I just maintain that I am not wrong with my position. You can in fact take bets that you actually create as a composite of multiple other bets and bring them all down on your own conditions that are considered bet resolution.
And as such, most people don't take the bet that resolves with a six or eight hitting and then the bet comes down.
Missing the point? Fine. Disagree with the point? Fine. Have a different opinion? Fine.
But I'm certain that I'm not wrong that you and many other people arbitrarily accept that a place bet on the six is "resolved" when a six rolls, even though most people would only resolve a self-service place bet this way.
Quote: AhighSally seems to think that you can't bet that the four or ten will occur before a seven and win $49 from $50 risks with vig on the win. She takes the position that this is not a 3-roll bet because it's two bets. I take the position that if I agree ahead of time I am taking them both down if either one of them hits, I am taking a bet that's not marked on the felt with a 1.00% house edge.
The expected loss of a buy 4 bet is 1.67% of your wager. The same is true for the buy 10 bet. Making the bets separately or together doesn't change that. Your 1% canard is misleading because it implies (wrongly) that making just one of those bets is a worse strategy than making both of them for half the amount. But if I play $50 on the buy 4 bet for an hour, my expected loss is the same as yours playing $25 each on the buy 4 and buy 10 at the same table.
Quote: MathExtremistThe expected loss of a buy 4 bet is 1.67% of your wager. The same is true for the buy 10 bet. Making the bets separately or together doesn't change that. Your 1% canard is misleading because it implies (wrongly) that making just one of those bets is a worse strategy than making both of them for half the amount. But if I play $50 on the buy 4 bet for an hour, my expected loss is the same as yours playing $25 each on the buy 4 and buy 10 at the same table.
$25 wins $49 at almost every casino I play at.
1/75
That's 1.33%
Once you get to even multiples of $20 or anything over $50, you are generally right. However, as you math folks will point out, the details do matter.
$225 carries an $11 vig.
11/(225*3) = 1.62% -- there are many MANY edges as you go through the possible bet amounts due to the rounding down on quarters.
I speak for Vegas only though. And house rules vary.
Vig up front casinos include: Stratosphere, Riviera, Joker's Wild, and there may be one or two more.
Funny you use the same argument about edge per roll not changing when I'm defining a resolution event to get to a lower edge per resolution. I thought you would understand, just not agree. But it seems like you neither understand nor agree. Call up Sally and you guys can lament together!
Quote: MathExtremistThe issue isn't what the specific bet rules are, it's that the rules are the same for both the buy 4 and buy 10. If you play with vig-on-win-only, great. The expected loss is still the same betting 2X on one of them vs. X each on both. But you want to add 1.33% to 1.33% and get 1%. That's not accurate. Your notion of "defining a resolution event" is just denominatorial prestidigitation. It doesn't affect the expected loss at all. I think you know this but sometimes I'm not sure.
The math is 0.33333% per roll multiplied by an average of three rolls to resolve with a four, a ten, or a seven .. whichever comes first.
Sorry you aren't getting it, but keep trying. It's funny you think I'm adding 1.33% to 1.33% though.
The craziest part isn't that you don't get this and Sally doesn't get this. I'm resigned to everyone claiming I'm wrong about this and just knowing that I'm right until something changes.
Bets can exist that are not on the felt. Do you disagree with that? If I were unable to take down a bet at any roll I chose, this would not be the case. Maybe your confused that I can have a buy bet for fewer rolls that 4 if I so choose?
Finger off the trigger, FACE. I said assume !
Here's an experiment to prove it. On paper, or using WinCraps, set up three players. Player A makes $25 buy bets on the 4 and 10. Player B makes $25 buy bets on the 4. Player C makes $25 buy bets on the 10. Over the course of an hour - or any timeframe - Player A's total wager and win (or loss) amount will be identical to the combination of Player B and Player C's total wager and win. That should be self-evident (they're making the same bets!) but you seem to think there's some magic in the combination that yields a lower edge for player A as opposed to player B or player C. It just isn't true.
I gotta place my faith in your logic on this one. Anyone that can use "denominatorial prestidigitation"
in a sentence that was placed at the right time has my vote. I have not seen these two words used
together in 40 years.
There is no question that no matter how you place bets together in combination they still each on
their own bare the same house advantage. Also, though there are bets that can be made that are not
on the layout, they also will bare what ever house advantage is advanced to them, not affecting any
other bet on the table, you also have working. .
It may be time to take a caesura in regards to odds and edges to understand the very simple fact
about craps play, no matter what bets you make or odds you take, you lose 100% of all bets you
dont hit. Does not matter if the best you make as the lowest house advantage, you can lose 100%
of it.
We spend so much time trying to see who the rooster is and very little time trying to find the best
way to gather the eggs.
I found after months of soul searching that every minute i spent bantering about statistics was a minute
i did not spend on the table understanding my toss and its results.
Quote: MathExtremistIncrease the denominator all you want, the numerator does not change. The expected loss on a $5 pass bet is still 7.07c regardless of whether you make an odds wager at the same time. The expected loss on a $25 buy 4 bet is still 33.33c regardless of whether you make a buy 10 bet.
This is false. If I place a $25 buy bet and take it down after the first roll, the average cost is $0.08333.
You fail to understand.
It has become pure comedy to me that you and Sally both fail here.
The Gambler's Ruin formula is a straightforward formula and easy to use.Quote: ThatDonGuyPardon 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.
Most books that show how to arrive at that formula also continue to show the formula for the duration of the game.
That formula is for success or ruin
Is this what you are asking?
seems easy to find. I even linked to it in Don Catlin's article
are you asking something else?
I use a recursion method in excel to get the distributions for both ruin and success
(William Feller also showed a simple method to do this in his probability book too, even SN Ethier shows this in his book)
to come up with the distribution (and from that the duration) for success and for ruin separately.
My sims prove to me my above table is correct.
Notice the symmetry in that table. I liked seeing that.
Sally
Please show where, in this thread, I addressed your Buy bet issue.Quote: AhighThis is false. If I place a $25 buy bet and take it down after the first roll, the average cost is $0.08333.
You fail to understand.
It has become pure comedy to me that you and Sally both fail here.
(the different house edges both having the same expected value... hehe)
You have not even replied to a simple request to prove your other false statements in this tread.
hehe
Oh, yes, your simulation... is it accurate (hehehe) to 4 decimal places yet? or did you just give up because you were close enough?
You could just code the Gambler's Ruin formula into Perl and have it do the calculations for you.
No one will complain. hehehehe
I use R instead of Perl because I love Skittles.
please save the planet
calculate and only simulate when necessary
Sally
"to fart around"Quote: AhighBy the way, what do you do for a living that gives you so much time to fart around
answering these questions on this forum
is that what you do here also?
I do have a BA in Biology.
That qualified me to input data into a computer for a Biology lab until the Obama grant money ran out.
Now, I give hand jobs. Pays good and great benefits.
Nothing like Monica Lewinsky stuff.
I never said you "fart around"Quote: Ahighand making false claims about people like me?
but that could also be TRUE
Sally
Quote: mustangsallyin this tread.
Your criticisms are no more meaningful than if I were to point out that you did not spell thread correctly.
Myopic.
Buy 4 and 10 $25 each -- 0.33% edge per roll -- 3 rolls -- 1.00% edge per resolution. Win $49 for $50 risk or $98 for $100 risk. Ring a bell?
It wasn't this thread you commented that my math was wrong. And it seems you have MathExtremist to agree with you.
Since it's not marked on the felt, it must not exist is the model for how I believe you two are responding to my claim.
yes I did. On the very first roll. heheQuote: AhighYour criticisms are no more meaningful than if I were to point out that you did not spell thread correctly.
then, bring that one upQuote: AhighBuy 4 and 10 $25 each -- 0.33% edge per roll -- 3 rolls -- 1.00% edge per resolution. Win $49 for $50 risk or $98 for $100 risk. Ring a bell?
It wasn't this thread you commented that my math was wrong.
what do you fear?
one apple
or two bananas?
Oh, this dance between you and ME.Quote: AhighAnd it seems you have MathExtremist to agree with you.
Since it's not marked on the felt, it must not exist is the model for how I believe you two are responding to my claim.
Better than watching DWTS.
I do normally watch each episode a week after it comes on the tv.
Sally
Quote: AhighThis is false. If I place a $25 buy bet and take it down after the first roll, the average cost is $0.08333.
So you buy in, place a $25 buy bet, then take it down and color up after the next roll even if your bet is unresolved? I'm certain you don't play this way. If you take down a bet and then put it back up again, it's as if you never took it down in the first place. Except the dealers will be annoyed.
Using the 8.33c figure, if you make $25 buy 4 bets for an hour (100 rolls), your expected loss is $8.33. If you make $50 buy 4 bets for an hour, your expected loss is $16.67. If you make $25 each buy 4 and buy 10 bets for an hour, your expected loss is $16.67. I said in my previous post that the expected hourly losses were identical, and here are the numbers to demonstrate. Do you disagree? If not, what are you arguing about?
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.
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 |
| 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.
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.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 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: RSDoesn'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?
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.Quote: RSYou 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.
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.
Quote: endermikeCraps 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?
Quote: AhighBoth 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.
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. "
Quote: AhighBets 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: AhighMaybe 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
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.
Quote: endermikeQuite 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.
Quote: endermikeI 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:
<snip tables>
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).
Allow me to tailor an excerpt from WinCraps' help file:
Craps bet are not synergistic. The erroneous conclusion of Ahigh's argument comes from not expressing the EV as a function of the action. When one of his Buy 4 or Buy 10 bets wins, the amount won is solely a function of the amount that was wagered on the winning bet and not on the other bet. For instance, if a 10 hits then the $49 win is a function of the $25 that was wagered on Buy 10 and not the $50 that was wagered on both. Yet the argument treats the full amount wagered on both bets as if it had a bearing on each winning outcome. This is wrong.
Intuitively, since both Buy bets have EV's of -1.33%, we know that a combined wager should also have an EV of 1.33%. To arrive at this (per decision) figure we simply need to divide our average loss by our average action.
The average loss is figured as follows:
6/12 chance to win $49 = $24.50
6/12 chance to lose $50 = -$25.00
----------------------------------------
Average loss per decision = -$0.50
The average action is figured as follows:
3/12 chance of rolling a 4 and producing $25 worth of action
3/12 chance of rolling a 10 and producing $25 worth of action
6/12 chance of rolling a 7 and producing $50 worth of action
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Average action per decision = $37.50
Hence, the EV per dollar of action = -$0.50/37.50 = -1.33%.
By the way, MathExtremeist is correct that the generic Buy 4 or 10 bet EV is -1.67%. This is figured on the correct vig of 5%. As we know, the casinos often round down fractional vigs, so rather than collect the correct $1.25 vig for a $25 Buy 4 bet, some casinos bend a little and only collect $1 vig thus reducing the house advantage (in this case) to -1.33%
Steen
Quote: SteenWhen one of his Buy 4 or Buy 10 bets wins, the amount won is solely a function of the amount that was wagered on the winning bet and not on the other bet.
This is impossible if you consider that I have only one bet. You fail to understand that you can have a bet that's not on the felt.
END.
Two hard fours rolled, and I told the stick man, "STICK MAN IF YOU CALL ANOTHER HARD FOUR, $100 DEALER HAND-IN -- THIS ROLL ONLY."
That's a bet too! And you better bet your ass I would hand in the $100 if the stick man called the hard four for the third time in a row. I would have offered $1,000 for the next one too.
If you want to say that's not a bet because it's not on the felt, I would wager even more money that you have NEVER received a bet from me like this (that you can call something specific on the next roll).
I have offered MUCH more. My thinking is that it's cheaper to do this than to let the casino take an edge off a wager for the dealers. And much like betting the four and the ten for $25 each, if I want a 50/50 chance to win $49 for $50 risked, I am going to do it with a 1.00% house edge ..
BECAUSE I KNOW THINGS THAT OTHER PEOPLE WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES VERY SMART DO NOT KNOW.
Like you can give a dealer a bet that's not marked on the felt by acting as the banker for the bet, and have a ZERO EDGE BET OF ANY F$&%^G KIND YOU WANT for the dealer.
I find it hilarious that people don't understand bets that aren't on the felt.
Quote: AhighThis is impossible if you consider that I have only one bet. You fail to understand that you can have a bet that's not on the felt.
Really? Wow! You know, I had the same thing once. I had $20 in my pocket when a hard 8 rolled. I asked the dealer to pay me but he refused! Go figure.
It doesn't matter if you call it one bet or ten bets, the fact remains that anytime you win, the casino figures your amount won solely as a function of the amount that was wagered on the winning bet and not on ANY other bets.
Steen
Quote: SteenReally? Wow! You know, I had the same thing once. I had $20 in my pocket when a hard 8 rolled. I asked the dealer to pay me but he refused! Go figure.
It doesn't matter if you call it one bet or ten bets, the fact remains that anytime you win, the casino figures your amount won solely as a function of the amount that was wagered on the winning bet and not on ANY other bets.
Steen
You fail to understand. I hear where your coming from. It's called "I don't understand" land.
Tell me, this new bet, what would be the edge per bet resolved?
How is it different from having to put one green chip on the four and the other on the ten?
It's possible you don't know how to do your own math at all for new bets that don't exist already.
I create games for a living. I actually think about bets that don't exist already.
Maybe that's what slowing you down?
Quote: AhighHere's another bet I give dealers. I did this on Sunday while at the Rio.
Two hard fours rolled, and I told the stick man, "STICK MAN IF YOU CALL ANOTHER HARD FOUR, $100 DEALER HAND-IN -- THIS ROLL ONLY."
That's a bet too!
I've no doubt that the dealers appreciate such generosity but to call it a bet is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a bet is.
Now if you had said, "If you call another Hard 4 then I'll give the dealers $100, and if not then dealers will give me $20." AND if the dealers would accept your offer THEN you would have a bet. Each party to the wager is risking something to win something.
Steen
Quote: SteenQuote: AhighHere's another bet I give dealers. I did this on Sunday while at the Rio.
Two hard fours rolled, and I told the stick man, "STICK MAN IF YOU CALL ANOTHER HARD FOUR, $100 DEALER HAND-IN -- THIS ROLL ONLY."
That's a bet too!
I've no doubt that the dealers appreciate such generosity but to call it a bet is a fundamental misunderstanding of what a bet is.
Now if you had said, "If you call another Hard 4 then I'll give the dealers $100, and if not then dealers will give me $20." AND if the dealers would accept your offer THEN you would have a bet. Each party to the wager is risking something to win something.
Steen
Does this mean that $5 on the pass and $5 on the don't pass is not a bet because I'm willing to give the casino $5 if I roll a 12, but I have no way to collect from them? I have never heard of this not being a bet. Only that I have no way to win the bet, only a way to lose.
I am completely unaware of how a bet ceases to become a bet when one party has no opportunity to win.
Where is your source for this information?
There is more than one definition of a bet. One definition is, "an act of risking a sum of money on the outcome of a future event." I think my bet qualifies. If you think otherwise, let's just consider that your opinion.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=definition+of+bet
Now, Ahigh is a firm believer in house edge per roll.Quote: SteenAllow me to tailor an excerpt from WinCraps' help file:
Craps bet are not synergistic. The erroneous conclusion of Ahigh's argument comes from not expressing the EV as a function of the action. When one of his Buy 4 or Buy 10 bets wins, the amount won is solely a function of the amount that was wagered on the winning bet and not on the other bet. For instance, if a 10 hits then the $49 win is a function of the $25 that was wagered on Buy 10 and not the $50 that was wagered on both. Yet the argument treats the full amount wagered on both bets as if it had a bearing on each winning outcome. This is wrong.
Intuitively, since both Buy bets have EV's of -1.33%, we know that a combined wager should also have an EV of 1.33%. To arrive at this (per decision) figure we simply need to divide our average loss by our average action.
The average loss is figured as follows:
6/12 chance to win $49 = $24.50
6/12 chance to lose $50 = -$25.00
----------------------------------------
Average loss per decision = -$0.50
The average action is figured as follows:
3/12 chance of rolling a 4 and producing $25 worth of action
3/12 chance of rolling a 10 and producing $25 worth of action
6/12 chance of rolling a 7 and producing $50 worth of action
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Average action per decision = $37.50
Hence, the EV per dollar of action = -$0.50/37.50 = -1.33%.
and not per bet resolved.
So, I see his per roll method having the exact same expected value as Steen and ME per bet resolved.
Ahigh still refuses to acknowledge this fact.
Ahigh does not see these (expected values) as being equal as he knows he can take his bet down after one roll.
hehe
Not always!
hehehe
It is because as Steen points out, Ahigh also wants to include all the money at risk in his house edge and ev calculations.
(that can easily get tricky (mistakes made) when comparing two very different bets - apples to oranges)
here is what I show per roll
then added the per bet resolved
| event | prob | net | prob*net | decimal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 rolls | 3/36 | 49 | 4 3/36 | 4.083333333 |
| 10 rolls | 3/36 | 49 | 4 3/36 | 4.083333333 |
| 7 rolls | 6/36 | -50 | -8 12/36 | -8.333333333 |
| all other rolls | 24/36 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| total | expected value per roll | - 6/36 | -0.166666667 | |
| rolls to resolve (36/12) | 3 | |||
| expected value per decision | -0.5 |
He wants the HE calculation to ONLY be -.5 / $50 = 0.01 * 100 = 1%
(I see that this can make for easy EV calcs over any N rolls.)
He does not want to see this:
-$0.50/37.50 = -1.33%
as he does not believe at all in house edge per bet resolved
Where did the OP start talking about Buy bets again?
Sally
Quote: mustangsallyWhere did the OP start talking about Buy bets again?
Sally
He didn't. We talking about this because so many people think that having people agree with them means that they are right.
YOU DID NOT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE I ANSWERED THE OP BEFORE YOU PROVIDED AN ANSWER.
Quote: AhighSteen, I'm going to humor you for a second. If I made a SPECIAL FELT. And I put a little square on it. And inside the square it said "FOUR OR TEN." You were able to put green chips in there and it paid $49 for $50. It requires denominations of $50, and the max bet is $100. It wins on a four or a ten, and it loses on a seven.
Tell me, this new bet, what would be the edge per bet resolved?
How is it different from having to put one green chip on the four and the other on the ten?
It's possible you don't know how to do your own math at all for new bets that don't exist already.
I create games for a living. I actually think about bets that don't exist already.
Maybe that's what slowing you down?
Ahigh, this is an old argument that I've been through before.
First off, I think you meant to say it pays $49 TO $50 (not FOR).
Second, if a casino were to create a special bet called "4 or 10" and it paid 49 to 50 on 4 or 10 and lost on 7 then it would have an EV of -1%.
However, unfortunately for you, they don't offer such a bet. In order to construct such a bet, you have to utilize bets that are defined in different terms and more importantly, you have to pretend that the lack of action on one bet has an affect on the other bet.
Steen
Quote: mustangsallyHe wants the HE calculation to ONLY be -.5 / $50 = 0.01 * 100 = 1%
(I see that this can make for easy EV calcs over any N rolls.)
You're wrong.
Quote: mustangsallyHe does not want to see this:
-$0.50/37.50 = -1.33%
as he does not believe at all in house edge per bet resolved
Where did the OP start talking about Buy bets again?
Sally
$1 / $100 = 1.00% Sally.
$50 risked. $49 won, $99 returned exactly one half the time.
$1 / $100 = 1.00% Sally.
It is absolutely incredible that you don't get this.
Quote: SteenHowever, unfortunately for you, they don't offer such a bet. In order to construct such a bet, you have to utilize bets that are defined in different terms and more importantly, you have to pretend that the lack of action on one bet has an affect on the other bet.
No I don't. If you argue I have two bets, I only have to resolve one bet, not two. So you're wrong.
You can argue about this all day long and you'll still be wrong just like Sally and just like Math Extremist.
It's humorous though.
Quote: SteenHowever, unfortunately for you, they don't offer such a bet. In order to construct such a bet, you have to utilize bets that are defined in different terms and more importantly, you have to pretend that the lack of action on one bet has an affect on the other bet.
If such a bet is not "offered," describe the difference between the bet that I describe and putting one chip on the four and one chip on the ten and taking both down any time I take one chip down.
Can you describe to me what, exactly, is the difference between the bet that you acknowledge is a 1.00% HE and putting one chip on the four and one chip on the ten?
Can you?
The location of chips? I will give you that.
The fact that you have to verbally ask for both chips to come down?
Okay!
Anything else?!?
I am always wrong because everything I post is just an opinionQuote: AhighYou're wrong.
just like every thing you post is just an opinion
House edge when considering all $50 at risk (both bets)=
-.5 / $50 = 0.01
* 100 = 1%
yes, my 1% is not equal to your 1% when considering $50 at risk.
as we only gave our opinions
what did you say again was the expected value of your bet per roll?
just your opinion on that
hehe
Sally
Quote: mustangsallyI am always wrong because everything I post is just an opinion
just like every thing you post is just an opinion
House edge when considering all $50 at risk (both bets)=
-.5 / $50 = 0.01
* 100 = 1%
yes, my 1% is not equal to your 1% when considering $50 at risk.
as we only gave our opinions
what did you say again was the expected value of your bet per roll?
just your opinion on that
hehe
Sally
Sally, I will create a video and I will post it on you tube.
I will mention your name and ME's name and Steel's name as being the intended recipients of this video and I will explain very clearly what you guys are failing to understand.
Maybe that will help.
I will use actual chips on an actual craps felt and I will go REALLY SLOWLY so it's super clear.
Quote: mustangsallyQuote: ThatDonGuyPardon me for asking, but how do you calculate the mean number of rolls?
seems easy to find. I even linked to it in Don Catlin's article
are you asking something else?
No - that's what I was asking. I didn't notice it at the end of Catlin's article. I wasn't expecting a method to count rolls to be headed "House Edge."
Quote: AhighDoes this mean that $5 on the pass and $5 on the don't pass is not a bet because I'm willing to give the casino $5 if I roll a 12, but I have no way to collect from them? I have never heard of this not being a bet. Only that I have no way to win the bet, only a way to lose.
I am completely unaware of how a bet ceases to become a bet when one party has no opportunity to win.
Where is your source for this information?
There is more than one definition of a bet. One definition is, "an act of risking a sum of money on the outcome of a future event." I think my bet qualifies. If you think otherwise, let's just consider that your opinion.
Your responses are becoming quite animated. Do you feel it helps your argument?
Gee, a $40 Lay 4 and simultaneous $20 Buy 4 bet would also never win - oh my!
Oh but wait, it's not "A" bet, it's TWO bets. Each bet in it's own right offers each party a chance to win. The fact that you can simultaneously make bets which oppose one another doesn't change this fact. Do you think for one moment that any gambling commission anywhere would approve a casino to offer bets wherein players have no opportunity to win?
Steen
Quote: AhighNo I don't. If you argue I have two bets, I only have to resolve one bet, not two. So you're wrong.
You can argue about this all day long and you'll still be wrong just like Sally and just like Math Extremist.
It's humorous though.
Yes, you only have to resolve one but you had to make TWO.
Steen
YES!Quote: AhighSally, I will create a video and I will post it on you tube.
I love YouTube
please show in the video the expected loss (the ev)
of your combined Buy bets
per roll and per bet resolved
Sally
this is the bottom line
