gaining comps
I know in roulette you cant do the red black thing cause of zero. Perhaps ez baccarat with no commission? But if you are throwing money at craps one person on dont pass one person on pass is that a good way to receive comps
Quote: dwheatleyIt's a boring way to receive comps.
Im open to a non boring idea
Quote: richbailey86Say you went to AC and wanted to rack up comps to get a room in vegas can you and a partner bet against eachother on craps?
I know in roulette you cant do the red black thing cause of zero. Perhaps ez baccarat with no commission? But if you are throwing money at craps one person on dont pass one person on pass is that a good way to receive comps
You'll lose exactly the same amount of money as if you both bet the same side.
Quote: sodawaterYou'll lose exactly the same amount of money as if you both bet the same side.
Please explain...
Quote: FinsRulePlease explain...
the house edges on the do and the don't in craps are virtually identical. your expected loss is the same if you bet against each other or on the same side.
Quote: richbailey86Betting on 2 different sides wont break even?
A comeout roll of 12 loses for the "pass", but only pushes for the don't pass. And you could bet some money on the 12 as well, but you don't get fair odds on that either. So betting this way is great for the house, low variance, and the team is guaranteed to lose by betting pass/don't pass equally once the first 12 hits.
Quote: geoffBesides being boring to do you won't earn much in comps doing this. Most likely you'll lose more than the value of the comps you receive.
Actually, assuming the casino comps correctly, betting both sides guarantees you'll lose more than the value of the comps.
At least if you pick one side you'll get the comps and you'll have a chance to win. And you'll have the same expected loss.
Quote: richbailey86Betting on 2 different sides wont break even?
Of course not. The bets have a negative expectation. Expectation is additive. If the pass has an expected loss of $1, and the don't pass has an expected loss of $1, then betting both has an expected loss of $2. Because 1 + 1 = 2.
In the case of pass and don't pass, if you bet both sides, you lose 1 whole bet every time a 12 rolls on the come out. So you don't break even, since sometimes you lose, and you never win.
Quote: sodawaterthe house edges on the do and the don't in craps are virtually identical. your expected loss is the same if you bet against each other or on the same side.
Ok, so what you said was not true. Got it!
Quote: FinsRuleOk, so what you said was not true. Got it!
I don't think you do get it. What I said was true.
Quote: sodawaterI don't think you do get it. What I said was true.
You said that two people betting the pass would end up with EXACTLY the same amount of money at the end of the night as one person betting pass and the other betting don't pass.
And I'm the one who doesn't get it?
Quote: sodawaterthe house edges on the do and the don't in craps are virtually identical. your expected loss is the same if you bet against each other or on the same side.
Edit - So expected value is the same thing as exact amount?
Quote: FinsRuleYou said that two people betting the pass would end up with EXACTLY the same amount of money at the end of the night as one person betting pass and the other betting don't pass.
And I'm the one who doesn't get it?
Honestly, I'm sick of people editing their posts to make me look stupid.
Your own ignorance makes you look stupid. I did not edit my post at all. Not one single time.
I never said "at the end of the night." I was talking about expected loss, which is the only thing that makes sense to talk about before you actually have results.
Quote: sodawaterYour own ignorance makes you look stupid. I did not edit my post at all. Not one single time.
I never said "at the end of the night." I was talking about expected loss, which is the only thing that makes sense to talk about before you actually have results.
And then you insult me, when you don't mention EV in your first post, and I question it.
Quote: FinsRuleAnd then you insult me, when you don't mention EV in your first post, and I question it.
I am not insulting you at all. You accused me of editing a post to make you look stupid. That wasn't true. Your false accusation is what is drawing attention to you, not my non-existent editing of a post.
About EV, I said, and I quote: "You will lose exactly the same amount of money..." Note the "will." That means you can expect to lose the same amount of money. I assumed you all know I can't predict the future and know the actual results of all gambling sessions. Hence it only makes sense for me to discuss expectation when referring to future bets. That's why I used the word "will," because I am talking about expectation in the future.
Quote: FinsRuleEspecially when the guy was specifically saying he wanted a way to rack up comps without risking anything. Why not give him the math that says how much his system is expected to lose? (about one pass line bet an hour). Instead, you tell him to just double the pass line bet, which obviously isn't what he wanted.
No, I said he would be better off if he and his friend bet on the same side, rather than against each other.
Quote: FleaStiffSome places reduce comp rate when they see this Do/Don't betting pattern.
I think so, but mainly because they are looking for some excuse and probably don't even understand themselves it doesnt matter.
my thoughts:
1] don't play for comps ever. Let's call it the 11th commandment.
2] although Fleastiff's remark above is valid, the OP is figuring he can hide the fact that the 2 players know each other.
3] how about a little simple math? Let's say they bet big, $100 ea, and bet 35 times an hour, a not-unusual number of come-outs. 35 times $200 is $7 Grand up against an HE of about 1.4%. Expected loss will be about $98. Playing on opposite lines like that will not mean reducing the HE to zero but will eliminate most of the variance, assuring a $98 loss per hour for the players just like the casino would want. The only variance will be the frequency of 12 being rolled.
4] the pit will probably rate according to a formula. At https://wizardofodds.com/gambling/house-edge/ [see bottom] it says something typical would be 48 bets vs a 1.58% edge yielding 75.84 per player or $151.68 vs the $98 in #3. That sounds good except to get 30% back in the form of comps is a very generous casino. But even if you got it, that's $45. This is the general reason it is said you should not play for comps.
5] Possibly you could get a room in just an hour if the pit got excited about your $100 betting. Such things do seem to happen. I've got stories myself about getting over-comped. In this case, of course, they might have the last laugh too, as they could be on to something if in fact you do bet like that. In any case you'd be taking your chances.
6] You'd deserve a room if you bet for hours and hours like that.
7] For my own experience, when I get over-comped, there seems to be no rhyme or reason. Being a good tipper may do as much for you as anything. Just gamble, forget this hedging!
8] go back to #2 and think about it. The casino does not prohibit one stranger from playing darkside against another rightside player who is also a stranger. The casino benefits from the reduced variance. Why should they care who knows each other?
But I know its not the same as both betting on the pass line I was smart enough to figure out one betting dont pass and one betting pass would greatly reduce the losses. soda water saying wed lose the same as both betting the same just has to be false
Of course, just because your expected losses are the same, doesn't mean your actual results will be the same.
Betting both sides will not greatly reduce your expected loss. It will, however, reduce the big swings (variance) you can get playing craps. Unfortunately, it forces you into a game where it is impossible to have positive actual and forces negative actual on you (unless you're lucky enough to avoid 12's on come out rolls...then you'll have 0 actual).
Quote: richbailey86soda water saying wed lose the same as both betting the same just has to be false
In the long run* what he is saying is absolutely correct. In practice, if you both bet the same, you'd sometimes win big, sometimes lose big, and sometimes break about even.
Understand what it means when we say you are just eliminating most of the variance the way you propose to do.
PS: note that the way you have proposed to be betting means it is impossible to ever win.
*in the long run: recent threads about this problematic expression, however I use it since it sort of clicks with most people
Quote: richbailey86Thanks for all the replies. I know if 12 is rolled we both lose but I think if I rack up enough total rewards points and can use it for a room in vegas then potentially losing 98 an hours isnt terrible...it was just a thought
But I know its not the same as both betting on the pass line I was smart enough to figure out one betting dont pass and one betting pass would greatly reduce the losses. soda water saying wed lose the same as both betting the same just has to be false
Nope, it's true. All you are doing is reducing the variance. The expectation is the same.
Quote: VenthusAlso, the 12. (Or the 2, depending on the exact layout.)
There are tables where the don't pushes on aces?
There are a couple. It's pretty rare though and I've never seen one in AC or Vegas.Quote: ahiromuThere are tables where the don't pushes on aces?
It'd be more interesting to hawk bottled water on a foot bridge for $1 long enough to come up with the cash.
There are a few casinos, where betting offsetting bets on some games, will give you an advantage through free play, comps and offers if done right.
I doubt the OP will be doing it right or find the right situation.
Quote: AxelWolfThe casinos don't like you betting both sides because they know people are doing this just to gain comps and perks. they see you as no real value because you have a plan and a goal. They are more interested in people who have a chance to lose, then chase with bigger bets, longer play or bad bets.
I think that you give the people who run casinos too much respect. The reason that the don't like it is because they don't understand how or why they make money. They are bad at math and think that the people betting opposite sides lose less money than if they flat-bet on the same side.
If the people who ran casinos were smarter, you would need to look for a new line of work. I cannot think of any other industry where the people running the business do not understand how they make money.
As far as I can tell, in recent history, there has been only one person who was good at math who worked for a casino, and the Venetian fired him.
No offense to you, but really the casinos seem just as foolish as the people playing both sides and I do believe you.Quote: AxelWolfThe casinos don't like you betting both sides because they know people are doing this just to gain comps and perks. they see you as no real value because you have a plan and a goal. They are more interested in people who have a chance to lose, then chase with bigger bets, longer play or bad bets.
There are a few casinos, where betting offsetting bets on some games, will give you an advantage through free play, comps and offers if done right.
I doubt the OP will be doing it right or find the right situation.
If their(the casino) system is so flawed, they wouldn't have to second guess it or shouldn't second guess it making it flawed. Are people supposed to segregate themselves with friends all betting the same way? Just imagine Joe Public saying he can't be friends if you bet x way because you're ruining his comps. He has to be friends with that stranger slob betting the same side as him. It's the Las Vegas show episode all over again. Casinos must just hate people walking in with tons of cash because they might act on impulse with it, which many of these people will end up doing. Lol they try thwarting it buying steak for only one at a time and they both stay winning by themselves.
I'm not sure what the reasons for the firing was. I can only hope or assume it was because he was against raping players with bad BJ and payouts.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceI think that you give the people who run casinos too much respect. The reason that the don't like it is because they don't understand how or why they make money. They are bad at math and think that the people betting opposite sides lose less money than if they flat-bet on the same side.
If the people who ran casinos were smarter, you would need to look for a new line of work. I cannot think of any other industry where the people running the business do not understand how they make money.
As far as I can tell, in recent history, there has been only one person who was good at math who worked for a casino, and the Venetian fired him.
I doubt casinos dislike this betting style because they think players are not losing money. As I said in some places this would be a positive betting system. Doing it right that is.
Once again, the OP is on the wrong track, if he thinks he can just go into any casino and start doing this and make up for it with comps.
Quote: AxelWolfI'm not sure what the reasons for the firing was I can only hope or assume it was because he was against raping players with bad BJ and payouts.
I doubt casinos dislike this betting style because they think players are not losing money. As I said in some places this would be a positive betting system.
It would be no more positive than betting all on pass, or all on don't pass.
If they are over-comping you, they are over-comping you -- that's a different issue. But the expectation on the game itself (before comps) is the same.
I still think that you are giving the people who make these decisions way too much credit. I remember a discussion (I think it was on a different forum, but was talked about here as well) between two pit bosses about whether someone who increases their bets when they win should get a higher average rating. One guy thought no, because he is "betting the house's money" so they don't really have a chance to win anything, so he should only be rated on the amount of "his money" that he bets, not the "house's money". That's how stupid these guys are.
Obviously you wont beat the roulette game itself or decrease the house edge. That's just silly.Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt would be no more positive than betting all on pass, or all on don't pass.
If they are over-comping you, they are over-comping you -- that's a different issue. But the expectation on the game itself (before comps) is the same.
I still think that you are giving the people who make these decisions way too much credit. I remember a discussion (I think it was on a different forum, but was talked about here as well) between two pit bosses about whether someone who increases their bets when they win should get a higher average rating. One guy thought no, because he is "betting the house's money" so they don't really have a chance to win anything, so he should only be rated on the amount of "his money" that he bets, not the "house's money". That's how stupid these guys are.
They same principle applies to roulette.
Quote: odiousgambitI 1] don't play for comps ever. Let's call it the 11th commandment.
There is a big difference between playing FOR comps and playing with an AWARENESS of comps.
let us say someone is at a craps table for 3hours and 45 minutes. Staying that extra fifteen minutes for its comp value may make sense.
One should always know what their theo is and whether they are being well treated by a casino or not.
> although Fleastiff's remark above is valid, the OP is figuring he can hide the fact that the 2 players know each other.
The casino types are not fools. I know one couple who used the wife's maiden name on one players card and the husband did his playing on his own card. They had different mailing addresses. They did indeed get good comps by keeping their accounts unlinked but they fairly soon found out they were not fooling the casino for long.
Quote: FleaStiffI know one couple who used the wife's maiden name on one players card and the husband did his playing on his own card. They had different mailing addresses. They did indeed get good comps by keeping their accounts unlinked but they fairly soon found out they were not fooling the casino for long.
So what happened? Their comps were revoked? How did the casino make the connection? Give us some details.
I assume they just got down graded or asked to stop.Quote: darkozSo what happened? Their comps were revoked? How did the casino make the connection? Give us some details.
Im just learning. ......not pushing any issue.....Just curious
Quote: richbailey86Ez baccarat. A game of no commission and a push on ties would mean zero chance of losing if you and a partner bet against eachother? No?
Im just learning. ......not pushing any issue.....Just curious
No.
The casino has to make money, so all the bets have a house edge. If you make all the bets at the same time, these edges just get added together and that's how much you end up losing. There is no way around this.
In EZ bac there is some banker hand that pushes instead of wins. So if you bet on banker you push, and if you bet on player you lose. Just like the come-out 12 in craps.
Quote: ahiromuThere are tables where the don't pushes on aces?
I have seen this layout exactly once, at the Wildhorse casino outside of Pendleton, OR. The boxman there called it a "Reno layout," although I have never played craps in Reno, so I don't know if it is the universal layout there or not.
Quote: FleaStiffThere is a big difference between playing FOR comps and playing with an AWARENESS of comps.
let us say someone is at a craps table for 3hours and 45 minutes. Staying that extra fifteen minutes for its comp value may make sense.
One should always know what their theo is and whether they are being well treated by a casino or not.
> although Fleastiff's remark above is valid, the OP is figuring he can hide the fact that the 2 players know each other.
The casino types are not fools. I know one couple who used the wife's maiden name on one players card and the husband did his playing on his own card. They had different mailing addresses. They did indeed get good comps by keeping their accounts unlinked but they fairly soon found out they were not fooling the casino for long.
Talking to yourself now, FleaStiff? Might be time for a nap :p
Quote: richbailey86Ez baccarat. A game of no commission and a push on ties would mean zero chance of losing if you and a partner bet against eachother? No?
Im just learning. ......not pushing any issue.....Just curious
The casino often has players (who don't know each other) playing on either side of the bet. It might not be balanced, but on a spin of a roulette wheel, there's some on red and some on black. Still ends up being expected profit for the casino. They don't say "only red bets this spin, lads!".
Oh no, nothing as dramatic as that. No comps were revoked, nothing appeared to them to have been downgraded in the rate at which they were earning comps. Its just perhaps a combination of the casino's computers and the alertness of the casino personnel, but every time she accepted a room offer he showed up with her and when he accepted room offers she showed up with him. Casino personnel are trained to look for subtle interactions between players too so eventually a Floor Person let the cat out of the bag.Quote: darkozSo what happened? Their comps were revoked? How did the casino make the connection? Give us some details.
They still got good offers and I twice used their "left over days" to stay for free by checking them out when I left. We would meet for a few overlap days but she had to call my room by asking for her husband so it was sometimes confusing for her. The only real problem was the self checkout box was the same size shape and color of a US Postal box and they had to constantly remind me not to get confused or the hotel would think they've overstayed and would bill them extra.
When they had their adult children in other rooms simultaneously, it really got confusing, but I recall once getting three days in Biloxi all for free. So their comp offers did not really decline they were still able to put six people in the hotel in three rooms for several days by using the two different accounts simultaneously.
Floor person never cared about the fact that they were married but using separate accounts under different names. He is not paid to rat out anyone in that situation. He is paid to watch for player collusion with dealers. The two players were still plunking down chips and that is what the casino wants.
