Good business practice
If I am a store owner, and sell a product, I have a choice on the asking
price. I have to weigh how much I will sell, vs how much each unit sold
will bring in.
For example, if I may choose to sell a shoe that costs me 1$ for 2$ and sell
1000, or choose to sell the same shoe for 3$ and only sell 200. Obviously,
selling the shoe at 2$ makes much more sense (if we ignore all other
factors).
So now apply this to the craps table. I don't think I have EVER seen anyone
place a bet on the Big Red (seven) because the odds are so far in favor of
the house.
By far the most common bet is pass line with odds, and place
bets probably followed by the field - obviously because these have the
lowest house edge respectively.
So if you were a casino, and you understand that any house edge will win you
millions of dollars over the years of running the table, why would you not
want to increase the action on every single bet out there - get more money
on the table? It seems absolutely retarded that ANY casino would ever pay
4:1 on Any Seven bet - because very few will rarely play that. Change the
odds so that they are just barely in your favor and slowly make more money.
Make boxcars/snake eyes pay 34:1. So much more people would place money on
this still loosing bet. Why not make the field Pay 3X on a 12? (still a
winning bet for the casino - but more people play it). You get the point.
It seems a no-brainer to me, but casino owners do things like hire the
Wizard and smart people to do just that - tell them how to maximize profits
- and so I'm sure there is reasoning behind the madness. I just don't
understand it.
Quote: slackyhackyMake boxcars/snake eyes pay 34:1. So much more people would place money on this still loosing bet. Why not make the field Pay 3X on a 12? (still a winning bet for the casino - but more people play it).
That's better odds than double-zero roulette, while probably allowing a higher wager.
The house generally wants a bigger edge on the high variance bets, to ease the sting when the player wins.
Besides that, changing the payout from 30:1 to 34:1 will slow down the payout process.
Quote: zoobrewYour premise is flawed because you assume that people will gamble more money at lower odds and that is not true. The people who care about the odds still won't play these bets, so all you are doing is lowering your payback on people who don't care or know the odds. The goal of any casino is to deplete your bank roll in the shortest amount of time, because in the service industry TIME IS MONEY. You have a bankroll of $1,000, the lowering of odds will not increase this amount of money, so if it now takes you 10 hours to lose this money instead of 5 hours, the casino just now spent an extra of 5 hours of expense for the same bankroll.
How do you know it is flawed? People mostly bet the pass line because it has the best odds. No one EVER bets big red because it sucks as a bet - despit it having the most action of any bet on the table. How do you, or anybody know that people who care about odds wouldn't make these very low house edge bets? That is a flawed statement. How come you can you presume how people will think or bet, but when I do, it is flawed?
You can only bet on a pass line once each turn. If the casino could get you to place money on big red each roll, that gains them.
Again, seeing that I gain more money per shoe sale and not seeing the bigger picture is poor business practice and certainly not uncommon in most businesses. I suspect most people would not think much about selling more shoes and only go for the biggest sale amount per sale as your response has demonstrated.
Quote: DieterThat's better odds than double-zero roulette, while probably allowing a higher wager.
The house generally wants a bigger edge on the high variance bets, to ease the sting when the player wins.
Besides that, changing the payout from 30:1 to 34:1 will slow down the payout process.
Lots more action in big red then double zero...more fun to bet.
I doubt the casinos care that much about variance when the win/loss ratio is close and HE is in their favor. If they do, that is short sited and my point.
Quote: rudeboyoiPaying something like 9:2 on a center bet looks out of place. I don't think the people that bet box cars really care if it pays 30:1 or 34:1.
Exactly. But why not increase the people that bet on boxcars 10-fold by enticing those that DO care about the odds?
Quote: zoobrewYour premise is flawed because you assume that people will gamble more money at lower odds and that is not true. The people who care about the odds still won't play these bets, so all you are doing is lowering your payback on people who don't care or know the odds. The goal of any casino is to deplete your bank roll in the shortest amount of time, because in the service industry TIME IS MONEY. You have a bankroll of $1,000, the lowering of odds will not increase this amount of money, so if it now takes you 10 hours to lose this money instead of 5 hours, the casino just now spent an extra of 5 hours of expense for the same bankroll.
this is not the way the player thinks.
i know i am gonna lose in the long term. i see that as the cost of entertainment.
so if i lose a $1000 in a week, i will bring another $1000 next week. if i lose a $1000 in a day, i will probably stop for a month, or at least go to another joint.
you never want to kill it in one shot. you always milk it slowly.
Quote: slackyhackyI doubt the casinos care that much about variance when the win/loss ratio is close and HE is in their favor. If they do, that is short sited and my point.
Casinos are advantage players.
They have lower bankroll requirements and a lower risk of ruin if they have more edge on the high variance bets.
Quote: AxelWolfMost People don't play pass and don't pass because of the the low house odds. They do it because that's how they known and understand the game is played Period. The house has good odds on the pass and don't pass to entice people to play the BAD bets. It allows them&^ to stay and play longer. Eventuality they get board or start using voodoo, hot/ cold streak, trend guessing. Without all the bad craps bets the house wouldn't want craps in the casino because its to slow. They need the bad bets to make up for the how slow craps is.
This doesn't even make sense.
Very simply - if NO ONE bets on ANY SEVEN, they make ZERO dollars on this. On the other hand, if they change the game slightly so that 100 people bet on it every day - assuming the HE is 0.5% on that bet - they will have made 0.5% of whatever money was bet (over time and not considering variance in a single day). That is exactly 0.5% MORE than they had otherwise. It doesn't seem that hard to comprehend. All this talk about trying to make the all the money on BAD bets to make up for the pass line bets just doesn't make that much sense - unless the casinos historically has over several hours and trials of research decided that 1:30 on boxcars was the magic number that brought in the most amount of money on that bet - sacrificing money made vs number of players that will bet. But let me ask you this - how was 1:30 decided? Why isn't it 1:29, or 1:31? Was it decided from hours and years of trial and error at different payouts determining the maximum point of return? I doubt it - but I could be wrong.
Again the shoe example is perfect. There is a point where price vs number of shoes sold reaches a maximum profit and the only way to find this is with research and trial and error. Have the casino's done this?
Lets use some math to demonstrate this.
Let us make it simple and say that the dice is rolled 36 times, and a perfect distribution happens. This PERFECTLY describes profits the casino can expect over many thousands of rolls because the distribution will match.
So. Let's say I bet 5$ with each bet. A 12 will hit once and pay $150. You will loose $175 (35x$5). 25$ for the casino.
Lets say 100 people make that play - the casino makes $2500
Now lets say they decide - "hey, lets get more people to give us money!" and they change the payout to 1:32.
Pay out is $160 - loss is $15 dollars. The casino now needs 167 people to play to make the same amount. Will 67 more people play with the increased payout? We can speculate, but my guess is NO ONE KNOWS - unless this has been tested. But it think it is an obvious YES.
If the casino pays out 1:34, they would need 500 people to play for it to be worth it to them. I think it would happen.
What if they drop it to 1:25? You say so many people make bad bets and that keeps them alive - why not make the bet even worse to make them richer? They only need 20 people to make that bet.
Quote: slackyhackyThis doesn't even make sense.
Very simply - if NO ONE bets on ANY SEVEN, they make ZERO dollars on this. On the other hand, if they change the game slightly so that 100 people bet on it every day - assuming the HE is 0.5% on that bet - they will have made 0.5% of whatever money was bet (over time and not considering variance in a single day). That is exactly 0.5% MORE than they had otherwise. It doesn't seem that hard to comprehend. All this talk about trying to make the all the money on BAD bets to make up for the pass line bets just doesn't make that much sense - unless the casinos historically has over several hours and trials of research decided that 1:30 on boxcars was the magic number that brought in the most amount of money on that bet - sacrificing money made vs number of players that will bet. But let me ask you this - how was 1:30 decided? Why isn't it 1:29, or 1:31? Was it decided from hours and years of trial and error at different payouts determining the maximum point of return? I doubt it - but I could be wrong.
Again the shoe example is perfect. There is a point where price vs number of shoes sold reaches a maximum profit and the only way to find this is with research and trial and error. Have the casino's done this?
Lets use some math to demonstrate this.
Let us make it simple and say that the dice is rolled 36 times, and a perfect distribution happens. This PERFECTLY describes profits the casino can expect over many thousands of rolls because the distribution will match.
So. Let's say I bet 5$ with each bet. A 12 will hit once and pay $150. You will loose $175 (35x$5). 25$ for the casino.
Lets say 100 people make that play - the casino makes $2500
Now lets say they decide - "hey, lets get more people to give us money!" and they change the payout to 1:32.
Pay out is $160 - loss is $15 dollars. The casino now needs 167 people to play to make the same amount. Will 67 more people play with the increased payout? We can speculate, but my guess is NO ONE KNOWS - unless this has been tested. But it think it is an obvious YES.
If the casino pays out 1:34, they would need 500 people to play for it to be worth it to them. I think it would happen.
What if they drop it to 1:25? You say so many people make bad bets and that keeps them alive - why not make the bet even worse to make them richer? They only need 20 people to make that bet.
More people will bet it - they just will. It is silly to think otherwise. So now, 200 people b
I do think what Axel said makes sense. If you just bet PL with odds, stand there and watch other people hit hardways, horns, fields, and come bets during a long shoot, or conversely keep losing your PL bet to PSO's, you have to be incredibly disciplined not to start throwing some of your money on other bets. Straight PL is numbingly boring. The house is constantly shilling you to make any 7, any craps, other bad bets.
Most people simply don't pay any attention to how bad their bets are. The folks like you on here, with an understanding of the odds against you on different bets, are a small minority.
The big suckers won't notice the difference and will just lose less money overall on those bets.
The regular suckers won't say "HEY, look, that bet's slightly less crappy now! Let's go blow our money on it!" They'll continue playing mostly the pass line.
It's been happening though results, the house can estimate how much action is put through. They can estimate how much money is actually being made off of the bad bets. If it ain't broke don't fix it.Quote: slackyhackyunless the casinos historically has over several hours and trials of research decided that 1:30 on boxcars was the magic number that brought in the most amount of money on that bet
You can speculate all you want, it doesn't really matter its doubtful they will change it. They probably realize the only people it would attract wouldn't make up for whatever they would lose. IMO it's a wast of time to worry about craps since its very rare you can gain an advantage on craps unless they have a special promotion. We all know DI isn't viable and trends/predictable streaks/hot/cold or whatever BS people pretend to believe in ...is dumb.
Casinos need to sponsor a craps version of the movie 21 called The Hard Way and then hold DI classes.
I've seen people play the seven, by the way. And I suspect the casinos pay at the usual 4:1 rate because it would cause complications to pay off in a non-integer amount (but I don't really know).
Sure, the casinos, like any business, want more business. But what draws the players to particular bets? I have no idea, but having anecdotally watched average players at craps tables in Las Vegas, I can tell you that figuring the odds has nothing whatsoever to do with it. I don't think most people have even a basic understanding of the simple arithmetic involved. I know for a fact that most can't compute simple payoffs. I've seen physicians, accountants, and MBAs shooting craps with no basic comprehension of the odds; they didn't care.
If most people don't play the seven I'd guess that happens because of the usual reason I see with craps players: superstition. Anyway, anyone who understands odds would hop the seven instead of playing the number seven, right?
By the way, on my last trip to Las Vegas, at the lovely Wynn (I love that place) I broke a rule of mine and told a person how the game worked at the table (I have no excuse except: young and very pretty). At one point, with a point established, I rudely said the word "seven" while the dice rolled (I found her very distracting). I apologized, even though the roll made the point. Of course, no one remembers when that happens; only when someone says "seven" and the shooter sevens-out. Selection bias and confirmation bias combined with superstition and a basic ignorance of physics. Which basically sums up the average player's attitude towards the game.
I don't judge the players. Not at all. Most of them come to have a good time. And the smart ones have a good time even when they lose.
And if most people play the pass line they do it because most of the other players do it. Most people consider craps a very difficult and complicated game. If the casinos *really* wanted to increase their business they'd address that. Somehow. Craps definitely scares away newbies.
If you don't believe me then we can run a simple experiment. We can get a group together and hit a craps table at the strip sometime. Maybe get 10 of us and find an empty table. We all play the don't pass. And then we keep track of how many other players come up to the table and start playing don't pass too (and compare that to the null hypothesis of course). Want me to formulate the experiment using good hypothesis testing methods, with a nice null hypothesis and a nice confidence interval? I think I might enjoy running the experiment too. :) Then again, a good casino either has already done something similar, or should pay us to do the experiment for them. :)
1) People bet that way because that's how they've learned the game. Look at three card poker, ultimate texas holdem, and other carnival games -- they always play the side bets. Why? Because that's "where the money is" and "how the game is played".
2) The casino will take a higher edge if they can. Using your example with shoes ($1 cost, and sell for $2 or $3)....they can sell 1000 shoes for $2 each or sell 950 shoes for $3 each....and 800 shoes for $5 each. Look at the people playing 6:5 BJ, D11, NDAS, "blackjack" games.
Logically, you're correct -- that's how it should work. Unfortunately, many people don't care (or don't know) about the odds, and thus, casino increases the HE.
Riddle me this? How was 1:30 decided?
My favorite casino of all time is that newish one near or in the quad. I don't recall the name but it is an Irish pub with open space, you can see outside, the air is fresh, there are windows, etc. This flys in face of I suspect unproven dogma that casinos make more money if patrons can't see the exits and can't see outside, etc.
LOL ..Thanks for presenting evidence against your own arguments. Case closed.Quote: slackyhackyBy the way, there is dogma everywhere in every field with no evidence.
My favorite casino of all time is that newish one near or in the quad.This flys in face of I suspect unproven dogma that casinos make more money if patrons can't see the exits and can't see outside, etc. I don't recall the name
There may be some evidence that smart people will play more if they offer better odds, however it will never make up for loss profits from bad players betting odds.
If they were truly smart players... they wouldn't be playing craps often anyways. Craps is a complicated suckers game. Ask if smart gamblers like the Wizard suggest playing the game for anything more than short lived entertainment.
Quote: slackyhackyVery simply - if NO ONE bets on ANY SEVEN, they make ZERO dollars on this. On the other hand, if they change the game
If they change they game, they run the very real risk of scaring players away. Players may not be smart enough to know that they're getting a better game; they just know the payouts aren't what they're expecting - they aren't the same as they've been for the last 60+ years.
Craps is a well established game. It makes money for the house.
Don't kill the golden goose.
You just lost 5 credibility points.Quote: RSAlthough I agree with OP.
Quote: DieterIf they change they game, they run the very real risk of scaring players away. Players may not be smart enough to know that they're getting a better game; they just know the payouts aren't what they're expecting - they aren't the same as they've been for the last 60+ years.
Craps is a well established game. It makes money for the house.
Don't kill the golden goose.
I don't think SH is saying to actually change the game -- but just the payouts.
IMO, I think it'd be pretty good for advertisements, "We pay MORE on hardways and prop bets!!" and it could bring in more customers. But, some customers religiously bet the hardways, others religiously don't bet them, and very few bet them occasionally. I don't think people would start betting on the hardways just because they get a better payout (or a hard/easy hop either). Either you bet that, or you don't. Most don't take into account the odds.
As for why/how 30:1 got chosen for hard-hops and 15:1 got chosen for easy hops -- I have no idea. Although, I speculate one reason because it's easy to calculate: "times 3 add a zero" or "blackjack add a zero" are words I heard over and over again in craps school. Or perhaps they estimated how often people would make such bets at what levels and found "the perfect balance"...or maybe they said something like "We want every [labeled] square inch of the felt to generate $XXX/hour, we know how frequently people will make each bet, now we gotta adjust the payouts to fit the $XXX/hour".
Quote: AxelWolfYou just lost 5 credibility points.
Am I at -5 now? Or -10?
Super double edit:
Many bets exist (well, not MANY) where the player can make it slightly different and get paid better. Back when corner 6 & 8 was on every table......or when people do a PUT bet on the pass line....or when they bet $10 ANY SEVEN instead of $10 THREE-WAY-SEVEN.
Actually saw a guy ask for a $1,000 ANY SEVEN. I asked if he wanted to make it a 3-way-seven, it'll pay more -- he said NO.
Reminds me of the people who bet money on the don't-pass during the come out roll, then change it to the pass after a point is established, but of course, they make it a PUT bet on the line, with no odds.
Quote: RSI don't think SH is saying to actually change the game -- but just the payouts.
The payouts are the game.
Quote: slackyhacky
My favorite casino of all time is that newish one near or in the quad. I don't recall the name but it is an Irish pub with open space, you can see outside, the air is fresh, there are windows, etc. This flys in face of I suspect unproven dogma that casinos make more money if patrons can't see the exits and can't see outside, etc.
O'Sheas. Lots of green felt in front of doors leading out to the Quad.
Jimmy Buffet's has one (maybe 2) at $5min right beside open patio doors looking out on the strip; but i didn't like the graphics on the felt. Possibly 2:1 on 2&12 Field Bets as well.
Actually that Field Bet payout is one of those "profit taking" instances where not many would notice if they knew the edge . No 3:1 on the 2 (or 12) I never noticed it until a read it somewhere from the Wiz, most likely in a casino/trip report. I used to play the Field now and then until a read the advice on it. Now only when boredom sets in.
Quote: AxelWolfLOL ..Thanks for presenting evidence against your own arguments. Case closed.Quote: slackyhackyBy the way, there is dogma everywhere in every field with no evidence.
My favorite casino of all time is that newish one near or in the quad.This flys in face of I suspect unproven dogma that casinos make more money if patrons can't see the exits and can't see outside, etc. I don't recall the name
Axelwolf - you are living proof that a large majority of adults are still concrete operational.
Ill take that as a personal insult. No matter what term you want to use, comparing a member to that of a child's learning abilities is inappropriate.Quote: slackyhackyQuote: AxelWolfLOL ..Thanks for presenting evidence against your own arguments. Case closed.Quote: slackyhackyBy the way, there is dogma everywhere in every field with no evidence.
My favorite casino of all time is that newish one near or in the quad.This flys in face of I suspect unproven dogma that casinos make more money if patrons can't see the exits and can't see outside, etc. I don't recall the name
Axelwolf - you are living proof that a large majority of adults are still concrete operational.
Quote: Concinnity
If you don't believe me then we can run a simple experiment. We can get a group together and hit a craps table at the strip sometime. Maybe get 10 of us and find an empty table. We all play the don't pass. And then we keep track of how many other players come up to the table and start playing don't pass too (and compare that to the null hypothesis of course). Want me to formulate the experiment using good hypothesis testing methods, with a nice null hypothesis and a nice confidence interval? I think I might enjoy running the experiment too. :) Then again, a good casino either has already done something similar, or should pay us to do the experiment for them. :)
I wish we could.
That is my point...I think it would make more money for the casino to get more people placing MORE money on the table.
Here is my argument
A casino should change the payouts so a BUTT LOAD or more money is placed on the table every bet on ALL available bets - thus, they will make a LOT MORE MONEY over time.
Here is the argument people have said against that.
People won't put more money on the table even if you change the payouts. When asked how others know this for sure - apparently the answer is "slackyhacky you are dumb. I know this because I know this because people are dumb." Well, I'm not so sure that is true - that people wouldn't bet more if odds were improved - that is my point.
When I counter with - if people are so dumb and your theory is true, make the payouts even worse - why don't casinos do that? Then people answer....well no answer to that question other than simplicity of math. I'm not sure a casino would forgo simplicity of math vs huge profits.
Quote: AxelWolfIll take that as a personal insult. No matter what term you want to use, comparing a member to that of a child's learning abilities is inappropriate.Quote: slackyhackyQuote: AxelWolfLOL ..Thanks for presenting evidence against your own arguments. Case closed.Quote: slackyhackyBy the way, there is dogma everywhere in every field with no evidence.
My favorite casino of all time is that newish one near or in the quad.This flys in face of I suspect unproven dogma that casinos make more money if patrons can't see the exits and can't see outside, etc. I don't recall the name
Axelwolf - you are living proof that a large majority of adults are still concrete operational.
No - not a comparison to a child's learning abilities. That isn't what Piaget's theories were about. It is a concept of levels of reasoning. It was more an attack on lack of abstract thought and inductive reasoning.
But yes...perhaps a personal insult and probably inappropriate - although it is true that a large majority of adults are concrete operational thinkers - and to identify them is probably not an insult - just a statement, so in that sense, I'm not sure it is an insult - although it may be inaccurate.
Quote: slackyhackymake the payouts even worse - why don't casinos do that?
People expect the game to be run a certain way.
Certain numbers get certain payouts.
It's been pretty well established for a long time. It's been working for a long time.
So... why change it, for better or worse?
I think you're overlooking the value of familiarity. Changing the game stands to piss off the people who like the game. The people who like the game are the people who play it.
You seem to have figured out that less action exposed to the edge makes the house less money. If people think you're screwing with the game, they may well just not play.
A casual punter probably wants entertainment and feel they've got value for money or a good run. I remember going to bingo halls working out the payouts and those "little old ladies" seemed to have a good feel for which books (games) were the best.
At the end of the day, if you set games with basic lousy odds, people will gradually notice, word will spread and your game/business dies.
On the other hand some players are happy to pay high house-edge for long shots (Keno, Top 3...) provided they see someone winning occasionally.
You can't make that conclusion as to why a game is popular especially in different countries. Australia has very few Video poker machines, VP machines are usually the best game in the house, yet people prefer slots. Slots are the most popular game in the US yet they usually have the worst odds. There's plenty of VP machines with good odds but they oftentimes remain empty while the slot machines are jamming.Quote: charliepatrickIt's basic economics - if the price (in this case House Edge) is too high fewer people will buy (in this case make the bets). It seems a cartel in the US to offer bad Craps odds and double-zero Roulette and explains why Roulette in the UK is more popular. Some people will always give some games a go, but some novelty games fail because the edge is too high.
A casual punter probably wants entertainment and feel they've got value for money or a good run. I remember going to bingo halls working out the payouts and those "little old ladies" seemed to have a good feel for which books (games) were the best.
At the end of the day, if you set games with basic lousy odds, people will gradually notice, word will spread and your game/business dies.
On the other hand some players are happy to pay high house-edge for long shots (Keno, Top 3...) provided they see someone winning occasionally.
They could add single zero roulette here in Vegas and there no way in hell it would make up for the money 00 roulette makes.
Quote: charliepatrick
At the end of the day, if you set games with basic lousy odds, people will gradually notice, word will spread and your game/business dies.
DING DING DING!
Quote: slackyhackyQuote: AxelWolfLOL ..Thanks for presenting evidence against your own arguments. Case closed.Quote: slackyhackyBy the way, there is dogma everywhere in every field with no evidence.
My favorite casino of all time is that newish one near or in the quad.This flys in face of I suspect unproven dogma that casinos make more money if patrons can't see the exits and can't see outside, etc. I don't recall the name
Axelwolf - you are living proof that a large majority of adults are still concrete operational.
Personal Insult, Three Days.
Quote: slackyhackyIf people don't care at all about the odds, why not pay boxcars at 1:20? Big red 1:3? Hard ways 1:5?
Riddle me this? How was 1:30 decided?
I don't know. If I had to guess, based on the age of the game (ancient) I would guess that the casinos arrived at this empirically. In other words: those payoffs maximize their profits while minimizing their hassle. And the first casino that offers 1:31 on boxcars probably wouldn't attract that much business. People want a quick fix and, after all, they only get their random reinforcement from that, on average, 1/36 times. Not that I want to get too involved with behavioral psychology (I have to know a little bit about a lot of different fields due to my work).
Not to mention: competition. Look at, say, the Field bet, where some places pay double for 12, and some play triple. So clearly smart "shoppers" exist. :)
Plus, all sorts of other factors enter into things. Using your shoe store analogy, a shoe store might sell socks at a loss to attract customers into the store hoping they will buy expensive shoes. Some people who play the field at a particular casino because they see that 12 pays triple (as opposed to the competition) might also bet boxcars every now and then. We've all seen stuff like that. A lot. (I recall one really savvy dark side bettor I saw, who did things like laying the 4, etc., and who clearly understood the very very best bets -- except that every now and then he bet on "midnight" which just floored me).
By the way, what ever happened to the Big 6 and Big 8 that they used to have? Which, if I recall, paid 1:1 as opposed to the exact same bet (in terms of outcome) that paid more if you placed it? Those have disappeared. Why? I can conjecture, but does anyone know, precisely, why? I don't think it happened due to ethics. :)
Hard ways pay 7.5:1 and 9.5:1 but are minimum $10. These bets still get quite a bit of action.
...not from me though. Ick!
Quote: slackyhackyFirst some background to consider -
If I am a store owner, and sell a product, I have a choice on the asking
price. I have to weigh how much I will sell, vs how much each unit sold
will bring in.
For example, if I may choose to sell a shoe that costs me 1$ for 2$ and sell
1000, or choose to sell the same shoe for 3$ and only sell 200. Obviously,
selling the shoe at 2$ makes much more sense (if we ignore all other
factors).
So now apply this to the craps table. I don't think I have EVER seen anyone
place a bet on the Big Red (seven) because the odds are so far in favor of
the house.
By far the most common bet is pass line with odds, and place
bets probably followed by the field - obviously because these have the
lowest house edge respectively.
So if you were a casino, and you understand that any house edge will win you
millions of dollars over the years of running the table, why would you not
want to increase the action on every single bet out there - get more money
on the table? It seems absolutely retarded that ANY casino would ever pay
4:1 on Any Seven bet - because very few will rarely play that. Change the
odds so that they are just barely in your favor and slowly make more money.
Make boxcars/snake eyes pay 34:1. So much more people would place money on
this still loosing bet. Why not make the field Pay 3X on a 12? (still a
winning bet for the casino - but more people play it). You get the point.
It seems a no-brainer to me, but casino owners do things like hire the
Wizard and smart people to do just that - tell them how to maximize profits
- and so I'm sure there is reasoning behind the madness. I just don't
understand it.
I didn't read the other answers, but I believe casinos wouldn't change the odds on craps prop bets for two reasons: Keeping the layout essentially the same from casino to casino promotes continuity and consistency. Secondly, and more important, there is already pass or don't with odds that offers the patron the best odds, so there's no real need to give better odds on prop bets.
I don't thnk a Big 6 wheel with 50 stops instead of 54 is going to attract any additional action, and even if it did it wouldn't make up for what it already brings in by keeping it at 54 stops. This same argument holds true for craps.
Any successful business knows this. When growing up I worked in a pharmacy (an old-style one) and they sold postcards to the tourists in that tourist town. I'll never forget a lesson that I learned at a very early age. The rack with the postcards had a sign on it. "Postcards. 5 cents each. 4 for a quarter."
Most bought 4 for a quarter (the exceptions bought fewer than 4). And we overwhelmingly got American tourists and hardly any foreigners. The cashiers had instructions to keep a straight face when that happened.
The same principle applies to, say, the 7 bet versus hopping the 7.
An aside: shouldn't we consider the field bet a proposition bet? Or does that only apply to the ones in the middle and not to all single-roll resolution bets? I ask because I have seen field bets that pay double on 12 and some that pay triple on 12. Wynn, for example, pays triple on 12.
Is there a penalty for excessive celebration?Quote: Mission146Quote: slackyhackyQuote: AxelWolfLOL ..Thanks for presenting evidence against your own arguments. Case closed.Quote: slackyhackyBy the way, there is dogma everywhere in every field with no evidence.
My favorite casino of all time is that newish one near or in the quad.This flys in face of I suspect unproven dogma that casinos make more money if patrons can't see the exits and can't see outside, etc. I don't recall the name
Axelwolf - you are living proof that a large majority of adults are still concrete operational.
Personal Insult, Three Days.
Quote: AxelWolfIs there a penalty for excessive celebration?Quote: Mission146Quote: slackyhackyQuote: AxelWolfLOL ..Thanks for presenting evidence against your own arguments. Case closed.Quote: slackyhackyBy the way, there is dogma everywhere in every field with no evidence.
My favorite casino of all time is that newish one near or in the quad.This flys in face of I suspect unproven dogma that casinos make more money if patrons can't see the exits and can't see outside, etc. I don't recall the name
Axelwolf - you are living proof that a large majority of adults are still concrete operational.
Personal Insult, Three Days.
I find his attempt to disguise the insult particularly amusing... "I'm not calling you dumb, I'm just saying you can't do intelligent things!" Hahaha
Quote: Mission146Quote: slackyhackyQuote: AxelWolfLOL ..Thanks for presenting evidence against your own arguments. Case closed.Quote: slackyhackyBy the way, there is dogma everywhere in every field with no evidence.
My favorite casino of all time is that newish one near or in the quad.This flys in face of I suspect unproven dogma that casinos make more money if patrons can't see the exits and can't see outside, etc. I don't recall the name
Axelwolf - you are living proof that a large majority of adults are still concrete operational.
Personal Insult, Three Days.
Is this a joke or did you truly suspend someone 3 days for this?
Quote: GreasyjohnWhat does concrete operational even mean?
It's a psychological PC term of describing a person incapable of rational or higher-reasoning thinking. Just above the reflexive physical responses of someone in a coma. At least that's my operational definition of it.
Quote: DieterPeople expect the game to be run a certain way.
Certain numbers get certain payouts.
It's been pretty well established for a long time. It's been working for a long time.
So... why change it, for better or worse?
I think you're overlooking the value of familiarity. Changing the game stands to piss off the people who like the game. The people who like the game are the people who play it.
You seem to have figured out that less action exposed to the edge makes the house less money. If people think you're screwing with the game, they may well just not play.
Go to MS and play craps. Bet $25 on the FIVE. Five rolls and you get $35. Been that way every place I have played. Not here. I got paid $37??? Second time it happened I asked. Turns out in MS you automatically get the Buy (vig on win) for 4,5,9,10!
Well HELLO daddy. Those extra dollars add up over the course of 6 hours.
Did it confuse me at first? Yep. After I found out was I pissed? Uh, no.
ON topic, casinos just want stakes as to never suffer a big hit and still make enough. It's really not how much people bet as much as how much people can lose. The psychological aspects can be something an area casinos like to avoid as far aS forcing a decision being made when reality breaks into the fantasy land. Basically not wanting luck to determine their win and not wanting to chase down big winners spending a lot to get them back.
