Comparing Full Odds and No Odds
I agree with you. I should have been more clear when I was referring to X I was referring to X per hand/come out, not X as a total handle. On that basis (Pass/Don't), a bet which more than 2/3rds of most table makes, the odds make a large difference in the types of results experienced. In that way, if you want to have about $25 in play on each roll, a $5 table with 3/4/5 is the place for you (as opposed to a $25 table). I know this applies to me. When I am at a table/machine that has less than 3/4/5 odds and a min bet less than $5 I go max odds with multiple come bets. My utility regarding play time is complex. Generally, I do want a longer play time, however I also want a certain amount of variance in my results such that I can feel the high from gambling (hence why I would never play a doey-don't even if it would allow me to essentially play forever at a low loss rate and nearly zero variance).Quote: MathExtremistNobody 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.
I actually agree with you that ELPH is is an underrated measure of a games cost. However, ELPH misses any measure of variance. That is why other measures are also important. This post does a great job of giving three measures which together do a great job of comparing most any game on apples to apples terms which are approachable and effective. I highly recommend it for all, it summarizes most of my feelings on the topic a games desireabilit from players ecomonical standpoint. (Aside from wanting to add a bunch of stuff about utility theory, which they get into later)Quote: MathExtremistThat'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.
That was my point in my post addressing RS's points (the one you quoted). I was trying to point out that the odds make a major difference on how your bankroll fluctuates, and I believe taking free odds is in all but some rare cases are a good choice. (Hence, the whole reduced juice analogy)
I think they are accurate. I know the combined edge is less than the average of the individual bets. (The whole appears to be better than the sum of the parts.) However, in reality the resolved bet HEs on these bets can not be combined as you listed. Many times the bets don't resolve in the standard way; they resolve via the player taking them down. This is another point which leads me to agree with another thing you have bought up "the denomenator." The denom is important because the EV is divided by it to calculate the HE. Clearly all of the investment is at risk so by that simple measure the EV calculation is spot on. However, here again is where variance is important. Each of those bets individually has higher coefficient of variation than the "hybrid" bets where they are brought down if one wins. HE is accurate but it is not the whole story.Quote: MathExtremistYou 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?
What you are doing with the the bets which do not win but also do not lose when one of the bets does win is you are taking them down. Hence, you are avoiding the edge which occurs when those bets resolve. I of course agree you are bucking the same HE on a per roll basis. Imagine the following bet:
"$50, 'Buy the 4, with a retreat after 10'"
In this bet:
-If a 4 is rolled: win $48
-If a seven is rolled: lose $50
-If a 10 is rolled: push and remove the bet (retreat)
-If a 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, or 12 is rolled: do nothing and roll again
Clearly this set of actions has an EV of -$.5 upon resolution, so long as 10 is considered a resolution. Here we get to the rub, is it reasonable to consider 10 a valid resolution? Ahigh says yes, others say no. Personally, I think if someone actually plays this way, it is reasonable for them to think of it like this. I would not teach a new player this way because I think it adds layers of complexity which are unlikely to be useful initially.
No, however I would say that the bets can "be effectively" or "appear to be" better if you take them down often. The reason for this is that those edges are based on the bet always resolving as a win or a loss. When you add extra resolution conditions which refund your investment, you change the edge on a per resolution basis if you actually follow through with such behavior.Quote: MathExtremistWould you ever tell someone that $32 across is a "better" bet than the $6 place bet?
Quote: MathExtremistWould you ever tell someone that $32 across is a "better" bet than the $6 place bet?
This is exactly the problem Ahigh has with his math skills.Quote: endermike
No, however I would say that the bets can "be effectively" or "appear to be" better if you take them down often. The reason for this is that those edges are based on the bet always resolving as a win or a loss. When you add extra resolution conditions which refund your investment, you change the edge on a per resolution basis if you actually follow through with such behavior.
from day 0
He almost always compares apples to oranges.
always
But says they are the same (his opinion)
per roll edges against per bet resolved edges
edges from total at risk for one roll verses edges over 6 rolls
stuff like "this bet is way better if you bet like this and not like this"
not to mention the accuracy of his simulations
too short in length and / or errors in his code
My uncle gave up on his (Ahigh) math after his website craps program constantly showed with a bankroll win goal of $200
ending up with $205, $210 and $215 while making just $5 flat bets.
that was so funny too when I tried it out. Got a good laugh from it
He never did fix his code, just joked about it and
just removed it so no one could ever use it again
that is a great solution to most all problems
Sally
bring on the videos!
Quote: endermikeSo, of course I would like to distance myself from the heated rhetoric being used by Ahigh in this thread. However I do maintain there is something to his thesis (regarding combining bets).
(Regarding $32 across vs. $6 place 6)
I would say that the bets can "be effectively" or "appear to be" better if you take them down often. The reason for this is that those edges are based on the bet always resolving as a win or a loss. When you add extra resolution conditions which refund your investment, you change the edge on a per resolution basis if you actually follow through with such behavior.
I think there is a fundamental distinction between "appear to be better" and "be effectively better". It is certainly clear from this thread that the combination of several bets "appear to be better" than their individual components, at least to a few people. But they are not actually "effectively better" -- the expected loss for any combination of bets is exactly the same as the expected loss for the bets individually. That's especially easy to see if you examine the expected per-roll loss as opposed to the per-resolution loss, but you can arrive at the equivalence either way as long as you do the calculations correctly (see Steen's earlier posts).
The mistakes in the per-resolution approach creep in when you start adding in handle (denominator) from bets that didn't actually resolve. I make a place 6 bet, a 6 rolls, that's a resolution for the place 6 bet. I make a place 6 and place 8 bet, a 6 rolls, that's a resolution for the place 6 bet but not the place 8. Otherwise the screwy numbers I posted earlier would be accurate, but then what's stopping you from suggesting that money you have in action elsewhere should count too? I could make a $6 place 6 bet, lean over to the next dice table and make another $6 place 6 bet, win with a 6 on my first bet and then take down the second. I won $7 on $6 in action, not $12.
Your joking aside (which in this case did amuse me), I was hoping it does not take someone in green to point out to you when you are denigrating the quality of a thread. I have often found your posts amusing (or at least inoffensive enough and short enough to be only marginally -EV). However your post in this case simply was beyond my personal threshold.Quote: Buzzard" This is a disappointing post. It misses the greater discussion, adds no value, and is below the standards I have, even for low value posts. Buzzard, I understand much of what you do is shtick, but this thread has some merit and the question of if we should consider bets which are hybrids as reasonable strategies is, at least to me, an interesting one. "
Looks like beside having moderators, we now have secret editors.
Evidently this met your high editorial standard :
" It has become pure comedy to me that you and Sally both fail here. "
Your post added nothing to drive the discussion forward. You simply tried for humor or a swipe at Ahigh. If what I quoted was part of a larger post where you made our own opinions clear and supported them I would have never brought it up; but it wasn't. You went for a cheap joke and/or a thinly veiled swipe at Ahigh. I would hope that you have enough respect for the members of this board and the folks in this discussion to not drown out signal with noise.
The reason I ignored Ahigh's poor tone was that he was an active participant in the argument. His quote was part of a larger post where he tried to make a point clear and not simply taking a pot shot where it could be done. I agree his tone was not cordial but, I suggest he has some mitigation as he had received some significatnly hostile blowback in this thread and so the tone shifted as it inevitably does. I'm not going to parse who said what first. My issue was that you have no substantiated side in the argument. You simply choose to make a post which sowed disharmony for what I can only assume was your own amusement without any +EV opinions.
I must say this is a very strong argument. It very convicing as a unification of the two viewpoints. However, I would say that it may not be fully consistent with how HE's are calculated in general.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%.
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
craps pageQuote: The WoO Craps page, emphasis addedDefining the House Edge
Craps has a lot of different kinds of bets. Some always resolve in one roll and others may take many rolls. The standard definition of the house edge is the ratio of the expected player loss to the initial wager. Almost every legitimate gambling writer counts pushes in this calculation. However, in craps it often takes many rolls to resolve a bet, with the player being allowed to take down the bet at any time until it wins or loses.
The standard definition of the house edge is the ratio of the expected player loss to the initial wager. Maybe we could say that in this case since the bet is such a semi-degenerate (in the math sense) case where only half of the bet will ever get action in a win even though all the bet can lose we should redefine HE as the E(loss)/E(total action)=-.5/37.5=-1.33%. But as we all know, that is clearly the Element of Risk.
So I think we have reached the beginning of some agreement. In the Element of Risk sense the "hybrid buy" has the same EOR as the combination of its' component bets. However, in the House Edge sense the "hybrid buy" has a HE of 1% which is less than the average of its component parts. (Many would say this is because it is doing some psuedo-hocus-pocus with how it gets paid on its' initial bet). I would take the view we have come upon an excellent example of where using HE is probably the inferior measure compared to EOR.
heheQuote: ThatDonGuyNo - 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."
Don Catlin has a few articles like that
This paper was also in my notes
http://www2.math.uu.se/~sea/kurser/stokprocmn1/slumpvandring_eng.pdf
Theorem 5 on page 10
Sally
The 0 odds has always bothered me, now that Steen posts here, about being a *fair* comparison.Quote: mustangsallyFirst off,
Bankroll $1000 and $10 flat bets (bankroll units = 100. So it does not now matter what your $ unit is. bankroll of $100 and flat bet of $1 is equal to a Bankroll of $2500 and $25 flat bets and on and on)
final summary (100 units into 110 units)
$1000 into $1100
90.410687% from Bold Play
88.406245% with 345X odds
74.2149768% with 0 odds
$1000 into $2000 (100 units into 200 units)
49.2929% from Bold Play
46.885% with 345X odds
5.5804887% with 0 odds
Sally Oh
many like to make unfair comparisons to prove their points.
so for this we need to see the average unit bet the 345x odds player makes
I know that number = 34/9 or 3 7/9
so again the odds taker is betting way way more than the 0 odds player.
if we let the 0 odds player flat bet 4 units (rounded up)
the results are
final summary (100 units into 110 units)
$1000 into $1100
90.410687% from Bold Play
88.406245% with 345X odds (34/9 unit avg bet)
87.3714650% with 0 odds (4 unit avg bet)
74.2149768% with 0 odds (1 unit avg bet)
$1000 into $2000 (100 units into 200 units)
49.2929% from Bold Play
46.885% with 345X odds (34/9 unit avg bet)
33.0236003% with 0 odds (4 unit avg bet)
5.5804887% with 0 odds (1 unit avg bet)
Sally
Quote: endermikeI must say this is a very strong argument. It very convicing as a unification of the two viewpoints. However, I would say that it may not be fully consistent with how HE's are calculated in general.
craps pageQuote: The WoO Craps page, emphasis addedDefining the House Edge
Craps has a lot of different kinds of bets. Some always resolve in one roll and others may take many rolls. The standard definition of the house edge is the ratio of the expected player loss to the initial wager. Almost every legitimate gambling writer counts pushes in this calculation. However, in craps it often takes many rolls to resolve a bet, with the player being allowed to take down the bet at any time until it wins or loses.
The standard definition of the house edge is the ratio of the expected player loss to the initial wager. Maybe we could say that in this case since the bet is such a semi-degenerate (in the math sense) case where only half of the bet will ever get action in a win even though all the bet can lose we should redefine HE as the E(loss)/E(total action)=-.5/37.5=-1.33%. But as we all know, that is clearly the Element of Risk.
"Action" is entirely consistent with the standard definition of "initial wager". In fact, when evalutating the HA of a single bet, action is exactly the same as the intial wager. However, it's important to remember that the initial wager is limited to the amount risked on the bet in question and not on other bets. This requirement is often overlooked when players attempt to evaluate the HA of multiple simultaneous bets.
I like to use the term "action" because it because it more clearly defines the "initial wager" to be the amount risked on the resolved bet or bets, and not the amount on other unresolved bets.
Does it really make sense to you that simultaneous Buy 4 / Buy 10 bets could possibly have a lower HA than either bet alone? By limiting the "initial wager" you use in your calculations to the amount wagered on the resolved bet in question (the action) you can find the right answer.
Consider this: Mr. Whale likes to play $1000 Buy 4 and is accustomed to the $50 vig for a HA of 1.67%. He reads Ahigh's post and decides to give it a go by simultaneously betting Buy 10. However, since he prefers Buy 4, he elects to wager a pitance on Buy 10. He figures (vig on win only):
$1000 Buy 4
$2 Buy 10
--------------------
Total initial wager $1002
3/12 chance to win $1950
3/12 chance to win $3 (assume house takes min vig of $1)
6/12 chance to lose $1002
------------------------------------------------------
Average loss per decision $12.75
EV = -$12.75/$1002 = -1.272%
Wow! Mr. Whale is elated. By adding a trival $2 bet to Buy 10, he thinks he's lowered the HA from 1.67% to 1.272% even while paying a tremendously high vig% on Buy 10. Are you still buying it?
Now, regarding the counting of pushes ... I personally don't count them in craps but I'm speaking in terms of single wagers and not multiple wagers that might cancel each other. Most authors I've seen address this issue talk about counting or not counting the Bar 12 on the Don'ts during the come-out roll. But if a 12 is a push and must be counted for the Don'ts then what about bets like say the Place 6?
The Place 6 (when working) pushes for any non-6 or 7. Do you ever see these same authors count these pushes for the Place 6?
In truth, I don't think it really matters as long as you're consistent and the reader understands what the numbers are representing. For a person who counts pushes, the same average outcome is spread out over all decisions including pushes rather than just those decisions which show a net gain or loss.
Steen
With respect, I disagree. Action is different from initial wager. I agree action is the better measure, but HE is defined by the initial bet size as the denominator.Quote: Steen"Action" is entirely consistent with the standard definition of "initial wager". In fact, when evalutating the HA of a single bet, action is exactly the same as the intial wager. However, it's important to remember that the initial wager is limited to the amount risked on the bet in question and not on other bets. This requirement is often overlooked when players attempt to evaluate the HA of multiple simultaneous bets.
Quote: WoO, House Edge PageHouse Edge
The house edge is defined as the ratio of the average loss to the initial bet. The house edge is not the ratio of money lost to total money wagered. In some games the beginning wager is not necessarily the ending wager. For example in blackjack, let it ride, and Caribbean stud poker, the player may increase their bet when the odds favor doing so. In these cases the additional money wagered is not figured into the denominator for the purpose of determining the house edge, thus increasing the measure of risk.
https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/
Again, I agree action is the better measure, but it is different from initial wager. This confusion has made it clear I should be more careful to explicitly us "action" whenever possible. I think it is the right mindset for this kind of thought. (Particularly when EOR is combined with a time measure like ELPH or hands per hour and some sort of variance measure like percentiles after a fixed amount of time or resolutions)Quote: SteenI like to use the term "action" because it because it more clearly defines the "initial wager" to be the amount risked on the resolved bet or bets, and not the amount on other unresolved bets.
Of course, this is an excellent example. The reason this "pardox" exists in the HE calculation is because 1000/1002th of the bet is now likely to be taken down without resolution (1/4) and hence be no action. However, to me what the example demonstrates is the the flaw in how HE is calculated relative to how it is thought of. In my opinion, HE is not the gold standard many think it is. To me, EOR is superior.Quote: SteenDoes it really make sense to you that simultaneous Buy 4 / Buy 10 bets could possibly have a lower HA than either bet alone? By limiting the "intial wager" you use in your calculations to the amount wagered on the resolved bet in question (the action) you can find the right answer.
Consider this: Mr. Whale likes to play $1000 Buy 4 and is accustomed to the $50 vig for a HA of 1.67%. He reads Ahigh's post and decides to give it a go by simultaneously betting Buy 10. However, since he prefers Buy 4, he elects to wager a pitance on Buy 10. He figures (vig on win only):
$1000 Buy 4
$2 Buy 10
--------------------
Total initial wager $1002
3/12 chance to win $1950
3/12 chance to win $3 (assume house takes min vig of $1)
6/12 chance to lose $1002
------------------------------------------------------
Average loss per decision $12.75
EV = -$12.75/$1002 = -1.272%
Wow! Mr. Whale is elated. By adding a trival $2 bet to Buy 10, he thinks he's lowered the HA from 1.67% to 1.272% even while paying a tremendously high vig% on Buy 10. Are you still buying it?
You've convinced me. I think you are right in craps we should list non-contract bets (everything but pass and come) by their per roll EOR or HE (since those are the same on per roll basis) PLUS the average number of rolls to resolve. Optionally adding in the house edge upon resolution wouldn't be a poor choice, but the first two are what we really need. This way we have apples compared to apples and oranges to oranges.Quote: SteenNow, regarding the counting of pushes ... I personally don't count them in craps but I'm speaking in terms of single wagers and not multiple wagers that might cancel each other. Most authors I've seen address this issue talk about counting or not counting the Bar 12 on the Don'ts during the come-out roll. But if a 12 is a push and must be counted for the Don'ts then what about bets like say the Place 6?
The Place 6 (when working) pushes for any non-6 or 7. Do you ever see these same authors count these pushes for the Place 6?
Again, of course you are right. We agree on the math but not the terminology. On that I will deffer to others for a career in math has made it abundantly clear that disagreements over terminology are rarely worth litigating. (Occasionally they are but in this case I doubt it, since on the important things we agree).Quote: SteenIn truth, I don't think it really matters as long as you're consistent and the reader understands what the numbers are representing. For a person who counts pushes, the same average outcome is spread out over all decisions including pushes rather than just those decisions which show a net gain or loss.
Steen
Quote: SteenConsider this: Mr. Whale likes to play $1000 Buy 4 and is accustomed to the $50 vig for a HA of 1.67%. He reads Ahigh's post and decides to give it a go by simultaneously betting Buy 10. However, since he prefers Buy 4, he elects to wager a pitance on Buy 10. He figures (vig on win only):
It's interesting meeting with folks from this forum. We haven't met. Once I meet folks, it helps a lot to deal with things I read on here.
I have never met a whale quite like this.
I bet Mr Whale is.Quote: SteenConsider this: Mr. Whale likes to play $1000 Buy 4 and is accustomed to the $50 vig for a HA of 1.67%. He reads Ahigh's post and decides to give it a go by simultaneously betting Buy 10. However, since he prefers Buy 4, he elects to wager a pitance on Buy 10. He figures (vig on win only):
$1000 Buy 4
$2 Buy 10
--------------------
Total initial wager $1002
3/12 chance to win $1950
3/12 chance to win $3 (assume house takes min vig of $1)
6/12 chance to lose $1002
------------------------------------------------------
Average loss per decision $12.75
EV = -$12.75/$1002 = -1.272%
Wow! Mr. Whale is elated. By adding a trival $2 bet to Buy 10, he thinks he's lowered the HA from 1.67% to 1.272% even while paying a tremendously high vig% on Buy 10.
Are you still buying it?
I actually saw Mr. and Mrs. Whale in the Connecticut casinos a few months back and Mrs. Whale likes to buy the 10 for $5 when they play together.
The real craps player whales are back east BTW.
she told me that lowers the HE down to -1.269% with the same ev.
she also says sometimes when she is winning and feeling hot (?) she buys the 10 for $20 (her dealer said to do that)
for even a smaller house edge
I was impressed.
You should have seen her large wedding ring!
That was hot!
Sally
Suppose I bet $50 on no 4, and $50 on no 10 (simultaneously). Each bet has a $1 commission, paid on wins only. What's the house edge?
One way of looking at it is that each bet has a 1.33% edge, therefore the total edge is 1.33%.
Another way of looking at it is, I can't lose both bets at once. Despite having $100 on the table, I only really have $50 at risk. If a 7 is rolled, I win $48, and if a 4 or 10 is rolled, I lose $50. That implies a 2% house edge.
So, what's the house edge here? 1.33% or 2%?
Of course, the reason for the discrepancy is that we are calculating edge per decision, but betting on combinations of things changes the frequency of decisions. For this reason, I think it makes more sense to calculate edge per roll rather than edge per decision, otherwise that numbers that you come up with aren't really useful for comparing different bets.
The house edge does not change with numbers of bets or the time a bet is up.
It is per exposure.
Say the edge for a buy of the ten with vig up front is 4.76% simply because all the casino's
here in Wisconsin offer only that bet.
Assuming a completely random game you will lose $4.76 for every $100 dollars you bet. Period.
Now Ahigh and maybe others like to say well i will play 1 toss of the dice for a whole lot, i hit and i walk or i dont
hit and i take the bet down, so i made alot or i lost nothing.
That is pure foolishness in terms of its affect on house edge. What happens if a player buys
a 10 for $100 and the first toss is a 7, did you lose 4.76% or $4.76 or did you lose the entire
$100 plus the vig ?????. What happens if you place $200 in the field and the first roll is a 5, and you
had only planned on leaving it there 1 roll, did you lose 2.78% ( 2 & 12 paid 3x) or did you lose
100% of that bet. Your lose on a one and done bet has to be calculated in the over-all play of your
field bets which will result in a loss of $2.78 % for every $100.
I would not play a one and done game, it is not my game plan, but what it does do is have an affect similar to that
presented by FRank S and the 5 count.. it does limit the amount of money you have exposed to
the house advantage and the less you bet, the less you will lose in terms of dollars.
If Ahigh and others have a game plan and likes to play a completely random game like that and rely on luck only
and say hell i will buy a 10 for $200 with vig paid on the hit, and if i hit it i will put the $400 in my pocket
and get the hell out of the casino, and does that, hey my hats off to them, anytime you can take money
home i am all for that. I am for anything that gets you home with their money.
But that place does not change the HA.
Dicesetter
How about someone who bets no 4, no 10, on the come-out only? I've seen this before.
There is no question that if you place a bet and take it down before it is resolved you have not
affected a win or a lose, but you had exposure.
If you place a one and done bet and lose, it is a loss of 100%, but that cant be contrued that
if you place or lay a 10 you will always lose 100% of your bet.
Ha just works out to for every bet you make , you will lose a certain % over time.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesittersure,but its the same thing.
There is no question that if you place a bet and take it down before it is resolved you have not
affected a win or a lose, but you had exposure.
If you place a one and done bet and lose, it is a loss of 100%, but that cant be contrued that
if you place or lay a 10 you will always lose 100% of your bet.
Ha just works out to for every bet you make , you will lose a certain % over time.
dicesetter
The point is, if you have a bet that can be taken down at any time, then every roll is a resolution. Most rolls are just pushes.
0.33333% edge per roll is the lowest on the table that I know of (buy 4/10 5% vig on win at $25 or $50) bets that are not zero HE
0.40399% is next (don't pass/come)
0.41666% is next (buy the four or ten for $20 multiples with vig on the win)
0.41895% is next (pass/come)
0.46296% is next (place the six/eight for a multiple of $6)
Edge is not everything. Winning 100% of what you risk is convenient (compared to 49/25ths or 49/50ths).
that would cause many unfair comparisons - comparing apples to oranges that you are excellent atQuote: AhighIf everyone agreed to dissect the game only on average edge per roll ONLY everything would be much easier to agree upon.
like the place 5 - a multi-roll bet
against the Field bet that pays 3x on a 12.
per roll you say the place 5 or 9 is way better then a Field bet.
hehehe
you want the link to those posts?
show your video first and finish your simulations please!
when one uses an unfair comparison - sure anything is possible
100 rolls the field is resolved 100 times and the place 5 maybe 28
and to you that is totally fair.
total resolved action rules
are you not aware of a $50 lay 4 or 10 or both at the same time?Quote: Ahigh0.33333% edge per roll is the lowest on the table that I know of (buy 4/10 5% vig on win at $25 or $50) bets that are not zero HE
0.40399% is next (don't pass/come)
0.41666% is next (buy the four or ten for $20 multiples with vig on the win)
0.41895% is next (pass/come)
0.46296% is next (place the six/eight for a multiple of $6)
The vig paid on a win. I see this a lot in Las Vegas
same -1/300 house edge as your buy4 and 10
Lay 4 and Lay 10 for $50 each
| event | prob | net | prob*net |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 rolls | 6/36 | 48 | 8 |
| 4 rolls | 3/36 | -50 | -4 6/36 |
| 10 rolls | 3/36 | -50 | -4 6/36 |
| all other rolls | 24/36 | 0 | 0 |
| ev per roll | - 12/36 | ||
| edge per roll | -0.003333333 |
Only one Lay 4 (or 10)
| event | prob | net | prob*net |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 rolls | 6/36 | 24 | 4 |
| 4 rolls | 3/36 | -50 | -4 6/36 |
| 10 rolls | 3/36 | 0 | 0 |
| all other rolls | 24/36 | 0 | 0 |
| ev per roll | - 6/36 | ||
| edge per roll | -0.003333333 |
all bets at risk are included in the house edge calculation
not just the one's that resolve (is that fair?)
Sally
Lay with vig on the win can be found in Las Vegas, and I know where, but since you mentioned it, can you name a place?
Fiesta Henderson has vig on the win for all lay bets, but you're right there is at least one more chain that does vig on the win for the four or ten. Just wondering if you know which ones?
Most do vig up front on all but the 4 and 10 for some odd reason.
I have actually been doing more lay bets with vig up front the last few days and have been winning.
I probably do more lay bets with vig up front than anybody that I see play, actually.
The dealers can get very annoyed with these bets as they don't book them frequently. Some break-ins are left scratching their heads.
I have also had dealers pay lay bets on the five and nine that are multiple of $6 as if they were a six or eight (every 6 pays 5 instead of every 6 pays 4) as a result of lack of practice. I always correct them though.
MGM offers 4/10 only vig on win. Up front on others.
Fiesta Rancho is Vig on win on everything behind. But I have been trespassed from Fiesta Casinos for "counting dice?"
Edge per rolls are:
Vig up front laying to win $20
-0.609756% 4/10
-0.896057% 5/9
-1.222222% 6/8
Vig up front laying to win $24/$25
-0.490196% 4/10
-0.750751% 5/9
-0.985663% 6/8
The properties that do offer me vig on the win on 4/10 do not comp well at all. No reason to go.
The elusive 0.33% on the lay -- let me know details where you would do that. I'm just not doing MGM, but maybe you know a better spot for that. Everywhere wants up front vigs here on lay bets.
I use a spreadsheet to calculate these numbers. The same spreadsheet that let's me put in face weights from observed face counts. This is what I was doing when I got trespassed from Fiesta Properties. I haven't been back in quite a long time.
Quote: AhighFiesta Rancho is Vig on win on everything behind. But I have been trespassed from Fiesta Casinos for "counting dice?"
Were they both there?
Quote: AhighHighest edge per bet placed is a put bet on the four or ten at 33.33% per roll - I see idiots do this frequently...
You explicitly state that the game should be "dissected" only on average edge per roll. Isn't the house edge percentage of 33.33% for the put bet on the four or ten on a per bet resolved basis? Not per roll. This also assumes that the put bet has no odds.
I recognize that the issue and reasonableness of put bets is off track of this thread, but I wanted to respond to your comment. Upon many hundreds of hours of play, I have not once observed a put bet on a four or ten without accompanying odds, let alone "frequently."
I am not suggesting that players always make the smartest bets, but in my experience, dealers will sometimes suggest the more advantageous way for an unwise bet such as the put bet you mentioned. For example, a dealer may say simply say "you are better off with buying the number." Then again, many dealers (especially in Las Vegas) don't really care about helping craps players.
With odds of only 3x-4x-5x, we all know that a player is better off buying the four or ten. With the vig on the win only, assuming higher odds are available, then you would need to take 6x odds on the put bet to achieve the same house edge as the buy bet.
Quote: endermikeWith respect, I disagree. Action is different from initial wager. I agree action is the better measure, but HE is defined by the initial bet size as the denominator.
Sure, I understand. The term "Action" can mean many things in gambling. Although I think I've described my use of it well enough and I think it's useful for calculating the correct HA of multiple simultaneous bets, there's no sense in arguing when we can just approach this from another angle.
I understand that you'd like to see the "Initial wager" in the denominator and keep it that way even when it's the sum of multiple wagers that do not always resolve at the same time. No problem. Then we just need to properly account for the resolutions in the numerator. We can't lump together and overlap them in the manner we've been doing.
Let's consider our Mr. Whale again. Sally says he has a wife who bets the Buy 10 for him. So let's compute their separate HA's:
Mr. Whale, $1000 Buy 4
3/9 chance to win $1950
6/9 chance to lose $1000
Average outcome -$16.67
HA = avg outcome/initial wager = -$16.67/$1000 = -1.667% (As expected)
Mrs. Whale, $2 Buy 10
3/9 chance to win $3 (house takes min $1 vig)
6/9 chance to lose $2
Average outcome -$0.33
HA = avg outcome/initial wager = -$0.33/$2 = -16.67% (quite high considering the 50% vig)
Given this information, what is the combined HA of the Whales in terms of their combined initial wager of $1002?
We already know that the previously calculated -$12.75/$1002 = -1.272% can't be correct, so let's try summing their individual results:
sum(avg outcomes) / sum(initial wagers) = (-$16.67 -$0.33) / ($1000 + $2) = -1.697%
Sounds reasonable doesn't it? An average that lies between -1.667% and -16.67% yet more heavily weighted toward -1.667% due to the much larger size of the Buy 4 bet. How does that compare with the HA calculated using action?
3/12 chance to win Buy 4 with $1000 in action
3/12 chance to win Buy 10 with $2 in action
6/12 chance to lose both bets with $1002 in action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average action = $751.50
HA = -$12.75/$751.50 = -1.697% Hey, it's the same! How about that.
I'll grant you that HA doesn't tell you everything there is to know about a bet, but it's still pretty darn useful.
Steen
Quote: JimboYou explicitly state that the game should be "dissected" only on average edge per roll. Isn't the house edge percentage of 33.33% for the put bet on the four or ten on a per bet resolved basis? Not per roll. This also assumes that the put bet has no odds.
I recognize that the issue and reasonableness of put bets is off track of this thread, but I wanted to respond to your comment. Upon many hundreds of hours of play, I have not once observed a put bet on a four or ten without accompanying odds, let alone "frequently."
I am not suggesting that players always make the smartest bets, but in my experience, dealers will sometimes suggest the more advantageous way for an unwise bet such as the put bet you mentioned. For example, a dealer may say simply say "you are better off with buying the number." Then again, many dealers (especially in Las Vegas) don't really care about helping craps players.
With odds of only 3x-4x-5x, we all know that a player is better off buying the four or ten. With the vig on the win only, assuming higher odds are available, then you would need to take 6x odds on the put bet to achieve the same house edge as the buy bet.
Placing a put bet on the 4/10 is a one-roll mistake that costs 33.33% on the first roll and has a zero average cost after that cost. You could say that the average cost per roll for that bet is lower if you wanted by defining it that way, but you'd fail to make the realization that this is a mistake and cost that occurs in a single roll if you did.
I see people putting the 4/10 pretty damn frequently without odds myself. Probably an average of two or three times per day.
I agree with all your other points. This is the worst mistake you can make on a per roll basis, and I watch it without correcting it frequently. It's like nails on a chalkboard. I've seen it happen at $100 with no odds at a Caesar's property and nobody said ANYTHING. Not even me!!!
Good dealers and classy casinos will push the bet back a few inches or throw a lammer out before the second roll. Even classy casinos have dealers that just don't care though.
$5 Pass or Don't loses 7c
$5 Pass (Don't)+ $25 ($30) Odds loses 7c.
Bankroll, Bankroll, Bankroll. Losing 20 bets costs as little as $100 or as much as $700.
Then again winning 20 bets can win as little as $100 or as much as a grand.
For the risk of losing $100 one might win $100.
For the risk of losing $700 one might win $700.
But at some point one has to question if Craps with House edge, is a better wager
than Blackjack in which the House edge can be overcome.
That is correct, every roll is like a contract with the casino on every bet you have, some you win, some you lose
and some are not resolved yet.
But the key factor is for every dollar you bet there will be a house advantage taken from it.... period.
Making money and over-coming the house advantage are not the same thing. The house advantage is determined
by not paying you the right odds when you hit a bet. Now i understand some folks say that is not correct, it is
determined by your potential to hit the number, but that is really the same thing.
to make money at the table you just have to either get real lucky and have or be at the table during a real good roll, hit
a bonus bet, or be able to throw the dice in some fashion as to hit the numbers you are on or repeat numbers more
often than the normal math of the game would dictate. Making money means that for what ever reason, you
have been at the table where the positive outcomes have overcome the house advantage and gave you a win. But
the house advantage still applied even if you won, but you won enough to pay them and yourself.
dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterAxiom
That is correct, every roll is like a contract with the casino on every bet you have, some you win, some you lose
and some are not resolved yet.
But the key factor is for every dollar you bet there will be a house advantage taken from it.... period.
Making money and over-coming the house advantage are not the same thing. The house advantage is determined
by not paying you the right odds when you hit a bet. Now i understand some folks say that is not correct, it is
determined by your potential to hit the number, but that is really the same thing.
to make money at the table you just have to either get real lucky and have or be at the table during a real good roll, hit
a bonus bet, or be able to throw the dice in some fashion as to hit the numbers you are on or repeat numbers more
often than the normal math of the game would dictate. Making money means that for what ever reason, you
have been at the table where the positive outcomes have overcome the house advantage and gave you a win. But
the house advantage still applied even if you won, but you won enough to pay them and yourself.
dicesetter
I have no idea what you are talking about.
No one said anything about making money or overcoming the house edge. All craps players lose lots of money; everyone knows that. The question is just about how to lose the least money.
I am simply talking about how best to calculate the house edge on particular bets to best compare them. I think that edge per roll makes the most sense, because it allows one to make easy comparisons between different bets.
That is why you play the game, to make money.
We were talking about any combination of bets that can change the HA or if taking bets down after
one roll would change the HA.
Certainly it does not.
You dont have to calculate the house advantage on any bet it has been calculated long
before there was any discussion on this board.
Since no combination of bets can change the house advantage on any of the bets your making,
the only discussion we should be having is how to over come the advantage. not change it.
We all know buying a 10 is a better bet than playing a hard 6 or 8, but buying a 10 when your
throwing hard 6's and 8's will cost you money.
This nonsense about creating all these graphs and charts looks good, but it has nothing to do
with making money at the table.
Dicesetter
Quote: dicesitterThat is why you play the game, to make money.
No, you play a -EV game to have fun. If you are playing a -EV game to make money, it's not going to end well for you.
The house has the advantage on EVERY BET you make.
Absent luck, aka variance, the result is inevitable, a foregone conclusion.
Death, taxes, losing at -EV games: such is the way of the world.
problem is comparing a bet that resolves on one roll (Field)Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI am simply talking about how best to calculate the house edge on particular bets to best compare them. I think that edge per roll makes the most sense, because it allows one to make easy comparisons between different bets.
to a
bet that does not always resolve on one roll (Place5)
this has been gone over before.
you now get to compare an apple to an orange.
where an apple to apple comparison requires same resolved action for a fair comparison.
But if that is what one is after, comparing apples to oranges, fine
Ahigh thrives at these type of comparisons.
I would link to a few threads where he comes up with conclusions based from per roll edges that Place 5 is a way better bet than the 3X Field bet.
But he has so far refused to show results from an ongoing(?) simulation and a video he promised.
I think his wife nixed those for him.
just ev per roll per 1 unit makes unfair comparisons
when ev per roll and ev per bet resolved are different, tell that story.
what is the fear?
Sally
Quote: mustangsallyproblem is comparing a bet that resolves on one roll (Field)
to a
bet that does not always resolve on one roll (Place5)
Place 5 resolves every roll. The bet wins on a 5, loses on a 7, and pushes on every other roll. If you are playing blackjack, and you get a 20, and the dealer gets a 20, that counts as a resolution, right? It's factored into the house edge of the game. There is no reason to treat a roll of a 9 when you have a place 5 bet out any differently from a hand of blackjack when you have 20 and the dealer has 20.
The only bets that don't resolve every roll are the pass and don't pass, as well as come and don't come. But, to do a fair comparison (even on those bets) it makes sense to divide the edge by the average number of rolls to resolve. This gives you useful numbers like "loss per roll" which can be extrapolated to "loss per hour", which is all that anyone cares about anyway.
Here is a question for you: Which bet is worse, placing the 5 or betting on the field? The way that you are computing it (ignoring pushes) the 5 has a much higher edge (4% vs 2.8%) But that makes no sense. The guy who flat-bets the field every roll will get absolutely crushed compared to the guy who places the 5, collects his winnings when he wins, and puts the bet back up when it loses. The frequent pushes save the "place 5" bettor; it makes no sense to disregard those pushes.
Now compare ev for say 100 resolved bets at $5 for each player.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceHere is a question for you: Which bet is worse, placing the 5 or betting on the field? The way that you are computing it (ignoring pushes) the 5 has a much higher edge (4% vs 2.8%) But that makes no sense. The guy who flat-bets the field every roll will get absolutely crushed compared to the guy who places the 5, collects his winnings when he wins, and puts the bet back up when it loses. The frequent pushes save the "place 5" bettor; it makes no sense to disregard those pushes.
only counting win and lose
why?
because sooner or later each player can have that many over a lifetime of play
now what kind of a story is told?
Sally
Quote: mustangsallyNow compare ev for say 100 resolved bets at $5 for each player.
only counting win and lose
why?
because sooner of later each player can have that many over a lifetime of play
now what kind of a story is told?
Sally
Why would I only count wins and losses? We don't do that for blackjack, or pai gow, or baccarat, or any other game where a push is possible. Why should craps be treated differently?
because treating a push as a resolved bet and comparing it to a bet that has no pushes is not a fair comparison.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceWhy would I only count wins and losses? We don't do that for blackjack, or pai gow, or baccarat, or any other game where a push is possible. Why should craps be treated differently?
This seems so obvious to me.
and who exactly is (are) WE?
so when I compare two different bets based on win/lose action, are you saying that is a totally unfair comparison
because We don't do that for ...
I think Steen says it best in WinCraps
Earlier, when comparing bets, we discovered that there are times when it's not enough to express EV as a loss per roll. Because bet amounts can vary, we sometimes need to express EV as a loss per dollar wagered. Now we know that there are also times when it's not enough to express EV as a loss per dollar wagered because amounts wagered can resolve at different rates. However, there are two things we can do to remedy the situation:
1) We can compare bets with commensurate risk.
This means we can compare bet amounts that will produce on average the same amount of action per unit of measurement. For instance, if we're using rolls as the unit of measurement then we would compare bet amounts that produce the same average amount of action per roll. The story above nicely illustrates this concept. There we saw that $1.39 bet on the Field represents commensurate risk with $5 bet on Place 5 because they both produce an average of $1.39 action per roll. Had the two players been measuring their outcomes per decision instead of per roll, then commensurate risk would be equal amounts on each bet. For instance, both a $5 Field bet and a $5 Place 5 bet produce an average of $5 action per decision.
2) We can express EV as a function of the action. i.e. EV per dollar of action.
This is arguably the most useful expression of EV because it takes into account the probabilities of winning and losing, the amounts won or lost, and the amounts of money directly responsible for each outcome (the action.) Since the amount of action received per decision in a solitary bet is the same as the amount wagered, this value can also be called the EV per decision (which is how it appears in the Advantage tab) as long as you remember that it's the amount wagered in each decision that matters. This may sound the same as the EV per dollar wagered but it's not. The distinction is that action is the amount wagered when the bet resolves. In other words, it's the EV per dollar resolved.
there is way more to this in the Help section of WinCraps too
forgot this part:
"Bill likes to play the Field with a triple payoff on the 12, but his buddy Jeff tells him the Place 5 is better because on average it loses less money. Jeff explains that a $5 Field bet loses 13.89 cents per roll whereas a $5 Place 5 bet loses only 5.6 cents per roll. Bill disagrees, so they agree to a contest. "
Oh, oh
I hear Steen coming
Sally
Quote: mustangsallybecause treating a push as a resolved bet and comparing it to a bet that has no pushes is not a fair comparison.
This seems so obvious to me.
So, you don't think that it makes sense to compare the house edge in baccarat with the house edge in roulette?
Quote: mustangsallyand who exactly is (are) WE?
Pretty much anyone who quotes house edge numbers for baccarat, pai gow, pai gow poker, blackjack under a specific set of rules, any video poker game, any slot machine, or any other game known to man where a push is a possible result.
We do this even in games where pushes are possible with some bets but not with others (eg, baccarat tie bet can't push, but the baccarat banker bet can. Yet, people list the house edges, side by side)
So, why should craps be treated differently than any other game ever analyzed? Pushes count in house edge calculations for everything else.. To not count them for craps makes absolutely no sense, and it only serves to confuse people (as if craps players aren't confused enough), since you're using a different definition of the term "house edge" than is used in any other situation.
I don't think that it makes 100% sense to compare the house edge in baccarat with the house edge in roulette.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceSo, you don't think that it makes sense to compare the house edge in baccarat with the house edge in roulette?
when the Field and Place 5 are being discussed,
not all will agree that the Place 5 is a way better bet than a 3X Field bet based from a per roll edge,
because we are now comparing apples to rocks.
both sides will have their opinions on how to compare them
Just like a Roulette 1 number bet and Baccarat Player bet
edge will and can never never be the final say
those that say it is are only sharing their opinion
and opinions are just fine by me to toss around
I like the idea of comparing different bets with commensurate risk
as Steen's example shows.
Sally
Do Read Steen's example in WinCraps HelpQuote: AxiomOfChoiceSo, why should craps be treated differently than any other game ever analyzed? Pushes count in house edge calculations for everything else.. To not count them for craps makes absolutely no sense, and it only serves to confuse people (as if craps players aren't confused enough), since you're using a different definition of the term "house edge" than is used in any other situation.
it is free to have
he might get mad at me if I post all of it
he explains things way better than I do here
"Bill likes to play the Field with a triple payoff on the 12, but his buddy Jeff tells him the Place 5 is better because on average it loses less money. Jeff explains that a $5 Field bet loses 13.89 cents per roll whereas a $5 Place 5 bet loses only 5.6 cents per roll. Bill disagrees, so they agree to a contest. "
Sally
what is your fear?Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI am not downloading wincraps
Expected value (EV) represents the theoretical average outcome of a wager. It's calculated by summing all possible outcomes each weighted by their probability of occurring. When negated and expressed as a percentage of the amount wagered it becomes the house advantage and establishes a baseline from which to evaluate and compare bets. It's actually a very handy figure and allows us to answer an important question: Which bets give the best average return per dollar wagered? To learn how to calculate the expected value, see Calculating the House Advantage / Expected Value.
If all bets had the same probabilties of winning and losing, it would be a simple matter to compare their payoffs to decide which on average returned more to the bettor. By the same token, if they all had the same payoffs then it would be a simple matter to compare their probabilities. Unfortunately, they don't all resolve at the same time or pay at the same rate, so we use expected value to reconcile the differences. However, even this seemingly simple average can be misunderstood and misused. It's important to understand that expected value can be expressed in different ways and what those expressions mean.
Since the roll is the veritable heart beat of craps and wagers are tendered in some form of currency such as dollars, it would seem natural to express the EV as a dollar amount gained or lost per roll. Although there's nothing wrong with doing so, if we intend to compare different bets it can be misleading. For instance, a $5 Place 5 bet loses an average of 5.56 cents per roll whereas a $10 Place 5 bet loses an average of 11.1 cents per roll. Therefore the $5 bet is better, right? Well, if better means losing fewer dollars per roll then, yes, but does this, "bet less - lose less" lesson come as any revelation to you? What we really need to know is proportionally how effective each bet is at returning our money. In other words, how much does each bet lose per dollar wagered. If we divide each of these results by the amount wagered, we see that both the $5 and $10 Place 5 bets lose 1.11% per roll (that's $0.056/$5 and $0.111/$10 respectively). Ok, now it makes more sense - since both bets are on Place 5 they're naturally, equally effective. So now the EV is in a form that accounts for the difference in bet amounts, but what about the difference in probabilities? Certainly the probability of winning and losing each wager is accounted for when you compute the average loss, but what about the probability of even having a win or loss? Have we accounted for those times when some bets don't resolve? In other words, what about the action? An illustration is in order:
Bill likes to play the Field with a triple payoff on the 12, but his buddy Jeff tells him the Place 5 is better because on average it loses less money. Jeff explains that a $5 Field bet loses 13.89 cents per roll whereas a $5 Place 5 bet loses only 5.6 cents per roll. Bill disagrees, so they agree to a contest. Each has a $180 bankroll. They decide to wager $5 each for 36 rolls with Bill on the Field and Jeff on the Place 5. In order to compare the output of their wagers they agree that each time a bet wins, they'll pull the bet plus the winnings off the table and set it off to the side while drawing the next bet from their unused bankroll. If a bet loses they'll also replace it from their unused bankroll.
At the end of 36 rolls, Bill has made 36 wagers and exhausted his entire bankroll. He has $175 in side money and therefore netted a $5 loss for an average loss of 13.89 cents per roll - just what he expected. Jeff on the other hand has made only 10 bets and still has $130 of unused bankroll. He has $48 in side money and therefore netted just a $2 loss for an average loss of 5.6 cents per roll - also just what he expected.
"See?" says Jeff. "I lost less overall and less per roll so the Place 5 is better."
"Wait a minute," Bill replies. "I've gone through my entire bankroll. I've had $180 worth of action and I now know what effect the Field had on all my money, but you still have $130 that's not been played yet. You've had less action. How do you know what effect the Place 5 will have on the rest of your money? Let's see what kind of results you get after you've had an equal amount of action."
So they start the contest over and each man agrees to make $5 wagers until his entire $180 bankroll has played out. Furthermore, realizing that their outcomes can vary, they decide to repeat the contest a number times and compare average outcomes. Some time later they tally up. Bill finds that he finished each contest in 36 rolls and lost an average of $5 per contest. Jeff, finds that he finished each contest in an average of 129.6 rolls and lost an average of $7.20 per contest.
"Hey, I was right!" says Bill. "The Field bet loses less money for a given amount of bankroll which is to say it loses less per dollar of action."
"I don't understand." says Jeff. "I still lost less per roll than you."
"That's true," says Bill, "but it took so many more rolls for you to match my action that you ended up losing more money overall. You were so focused on the lower loss per roll that you didn't think about the lower action per roll."
"I think I see your point," says Jeff, "but I value playing time too, so the fact that the Place 5 took longer to play through my bankroll has got to be worth something."
"Come on now," laughs Bill, "adjusting my action to match your playing time is very simple. All I have to do is slow down my action to match your action and I'll last just as long. On average your Place 5 bet resolved only 10 times every 36 rolls (that's an average of four 5's and six 7's per 36 rolls), so I could just similarly bet the Field 10 times every 36 rolls and I'm there. My Field bet will still have the same average loss per dollar of action, so it doesn't matter how fast or slow I play it. As a matter of fact, if I wanted to bet every roll instead of picking 10 rolls out of 36, I could figure out what your average action is per roll and just bet that."
"What do you mean?" asks Jeff.
"Well," says Bill, "since your $5 Place 5 bet resolves an average of once every 3.6 rolls (that's equivalent to 10 resolutions in 36 rolls), your average action per roll is $5/3.6 = approx. $1.39, so if I bet $1.39 every roll on the Field I'll average the same amount of action as you and last just as long as you. Actually I'll probably last longer because I won't lose as much of my bankroll as you. With these equivalent amounts at risk, you can see now that my $1.39 Field bet loses an average of 3.86 cents per roll compared to your $5 Place 5 bet which loses an average of 5.56 cents per roll. Of course, they're probably not going to let me bet this odd amount unless I'm playing penny craps so I'll either have to figure out some pattern of alternating $1 and $2 bets or we'll have to up the stakes. For instance, if you bet $90 on the Place 5 and I bet $25 on the Field we'll average the same amount of action per roll."
"I see," says Jeff, "but it sure seems strange ... I look at the table and see that I have $5 at risk while you only have $1.39 at risk."
"That's why it's good to learn this stuff ahead of time." say Bill. "Things like this are not always obvious. Sure you have $5 at risk and you could win or lose on the next roll just the same as me, but I highly doubt you'll see nothing but 5's and 7's roll every time you play. The truth is you're probably going to see other numbers that don't resolve the Place 5 bet, so your $5 is not really as much at risk as you thought. It may be at risk of winning or losing when the dice roll, but it's also at risk of just sitting there unresolved. My Field bet on the other hand resolves every roll; It has no risk of just sitting there. It's these differences in action that we need to reconcile before we can fairly compare bets."
Earlier, when comparing bets, we discovered that there are times when it's not enough to express EV as a loss per roll. Because bet amounts can vary, we sometimes need to express EV as a loss per dollar wagered. Now we know that there are also times when it's not enough to express EV as a loss per dollar wagered because amounts wagered can resolve at different rates. However, there are two things we can do to remedy the situation:
1) We can compare bets with commensurate risk.
This means we can compare bet amounts that will produce on average the same amount of action per unit of measurement. For instance, if we're using rolls as the unit of measurement then we would compare bet amounts that produce the same average amount of action per roll. The story above nicely illustrates this concept. There we saw that $1.39 bet on the Field represents commensurate risk with $5 bet on Place 5 because they both produce an average of $1.39 action per roll. Had the two players been measuring their outcomes per decision instead of per roll, then commensurate risk would be equal amounts on each bet. For instance, both a $5 Field bet and a $5 Place 5 bet produce an average of $5 action per decision.
I play scared too BTW
Sally
Quote: mustangsallywhat is your fear?
1. I don't play craps.
2. I don't have a computer that runs windows.
Downloading wincraps seems kinda stupid, given those two things.
not necessary to read a help file or is it??Quote: AxiomOfChoice1. I don't play craps.
That must be your choice, not mineQuote: AxiomOfChoice2. I don't have a computer that runs windows.
I have a friend that does not have a Windows computer but he runs windows programs on it.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceDownloading wincraps seems kinda stupid, given those two things.
I do not call that being stupid.
just my opinion
Sally
Quote: mustangsallyThat must be your choice, not mine
Of course. Why would it be your choice? What a strange thing to say.
Quote:I have a friend that does not have a Windows computer but he runs windows programs on it.
I do not call that being stupid.
Ok then.
Exactly.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceOf course. Why would it be your choice? What a strange thing to say.
statement AAA: The Place 5 is a better bet than a 3X Field bet
What a strange thing to say
let those that believe The Place 5 is a better bet than a 3X Field bet
show their proof (opinion)
That way, those that follow (read this thread later) can also come to their own opinions.
This is only fair.
I can not do better at what Steen showed in his WinCraps help file.
I am willing to bet he could even do better than that example.
Some flowers and a song maybe?
I like that "commensurate risk"
Sally
added
no no
I did think of another unfair comparison
2 Craps Players
player a = The pass line odds bet only
This is in another thread so I may link to it once Ahigh gets his video and simulation completed.
player a (we will call him A)
$10 pass line and NO odds EVER. Says they do not change the EV.
So a lower house edge counting the odds bet is ridiculous and just completely useless and misleading.
Makes 4,950 bets in one day (At Sally's Casino playing Turbo Craps)
Total action = 49,500.00
and showed a loss of exactly $700 (This did not factor in the free Buffet that was given out)
player b (we will call her A-gaga)
$10 pass line and 100X odds ALWAYS.
Makes same 4,950 bets in one day (yep yep At Sally's Casino playing Turbo Craps)
Total action = 3,349,500
and showed a loss of exactly $700 (This also did not factor in the free Buffet that was given out)
player b only needed one more win to pull out a net win over all these bets risking way more than player a
3,349,500 VS. only 49,500.00
how many more wins did player a need to pull out a win.
Thought so
but most all say this is a fair comparison because the math says both have the same expected loss.
A-gaga laughs it off
just an opinion
and everyone has one.
I was in it only for the Buffet.
Sally says
I have said that, many times.
As i have indicated you only have a couple of opportunities to over-come
that advantage. Get lucky, get real lucky, or have some control over your
toss where luck comes to you more often that it does to others.
You can talk tell your blue in the face.... but that is it....
So you have A choice, do nothing and hope to get lucky, or do what you
can and hope to get lucky more often. No one really cares what choice
you make. Surely all the guys on here that tell you the game is unbeatable
dont care, the guys that do well dont care.... we can sit here all day and try to find a
way to lose....less. that has never been my way...
I am pretty happy with my craps play.
Dicesetter
exactly. they voice their opinionQuote: dicesitterNo one really cares what choice
you make. Surely all the guys on here that tell you the game is unbeatable
dont care,
I at times also do that. so many opinions here and there.
right. and they too voice their opinions all the time.Quote: dicesitterthe guys that do well dont care....
Hard keeping them quiet or not offering unsolicited advice and opinions.
and I also have an opinion that many craps players make all sorts of bets that you think are crazy and pull out tremendous wins and have great fun doing it.Quote: dicesitterwe can sit here all day and try to find a way to lose....less.
those that say they know how to play craps,
the Craps experts(?)
all laugh them off as fools who do not know how to play craps - but they are winners.
they too do not care at all what any one says, it is their money to gamble with and they do as they please.
how about that offering unsolicited advice and opinions
cool huh?
Sally
($1050 lifetime winner at Craps)
almost 666
Quote: mustangsallyDid not Paigowdan once call Stephen How over at discountgambling.net a "hack"
Why you hope not?Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI hope not. That is crazy. Stephen is no hack.
words are just words, right?
Makes one want to sing and dance.
I am certain it was just an opinion by Paigowdan
he appears to me to have many opinions
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/gambling/tables/7028-card-counting-the-panda-8-side-bet-in-ez-baccarat/#post101250
"...some hack at "discountgambling.net" came up with..."
page 2 has more opinions by a few others
and to me looks like Paigowdan has more opinions
He that is not with me is against me
bottom line
