Slowing the game

Just the opposite. The game is to your advantage when it moves fast. Would you rather have 50 rolls per hour or 100?
I'm no mathmatician,I'm going basic common sense. More rolls per hour gives you a better edge oppose to less.

Quote: RaleighCraps

Con,
First off, the HE on the ATS bet is around 7%. Not great, but still better than any of the hardways and other center table action.

Now that is with no hedge ,so the full 176:1 payout.
You are correct that taking the hedge effectively changes your payout to around 88:1, but you also now increase your number of wins , since you only need 9 numbers to win, instead of 10. So you get a lower payout, but one that happens more frequently. How that affects the HE of the bet is an exercise for others.


I like the bet.
Nothing beats stepping up to a table for the start of 4 hours of play, putting $5,$5,$5 on the A,T,S, and have it hit right out of the gate! I've had this happen a couple of times.
+$175 for the S, +$175 for the T, and +$875 for the A = +$1225 off the first shooter (Not to mention whatever was made during the roll.
On the negative side, having someone throw 3 consecutive 7 winners on the Come Out roll really bites.... -$45

Well, what can I say?

Good luck to you!

I'm just answering his question, Concinnity. You seem to be making an assumption that I place the bet myself or actually think it's a good way to wager (I don't). But I think the answer is people do it to arbitrage. And yes, I am a person that will arbitrage when the situation calls for it. But it's usually on sports wagers or something that gives me an opportunity for a double win. I never place the "all or nothing" wager, or any that give a casino a house edge like that. But I assure you, if someone placed it for me, I'd arbitrage it in that situation regardless of how much the odds were reduced. I'd feel pretty darn silly trying to justify it with a math calculation when that seven rolls and I realized I could have pocketed some money. I think it's more about risk tolerance. It's not all that different from how people manage their 401Ks as they get older. Many take much less risk in their portfolios even though they realize they probably won't make the same return. Of course, that's to prevent being in a situation like many people found themselves in back in 2008 (I guess you could say that's the "seven out" on the "all or nothing" wager).

Quote: spr1000

Just the opposite. The game is to your advantage when it moves fast. Would you rather have 50 rolls per hour or 100?
I'm no mathmatician,I'm going basic common sense. More rolls per hour gives you a better edge oppose to less.

Almost 100% of players play craps at a disadvantage.

I've actually have played craps with a (huge) advantage before. But I don't want to bore anyone with the details....perhaps I'll tell the story when it isn't sensitive information, down the road.

Quote: spr1000

Just the opposite. The game is to your advantage when it moves fast. Would you rather have 50 rolls per hour or 100?
I'm no mathmatician,I'm going basic common sense. More rolls per hour gives you a better edge oppose to less.

Disagree, unless I have some sort of legal advantage, like match play tickets or free play cheques, I'm playing at a disadvantage. More rolls per hour means more expected loss per hour.

Well my two cents is that most of the time the last number will be 2,3,11 or 12 which of course you can't hedge. But in my case, playing $5/10/5 on the small/all/tall, the "all" bet pays about $2,000. Played it during four sessions in the last month, maybe 10 or so shooters per session, and hit it twice, with the last number being a 4 both times, which I layed for $600. When I made the lay bet I said loudly I hope I lose. I was the shooter on one occasion. My other experience was on a fire bet which I had $10 on. Shooter hit 4 numbers and then came out with a four so he was going for a fifth number which would have paid $2500. I told the dealer I wanted to make a lay bet, started fumbling with my chips and next thing I know the shooter had the dice, and quickly threw the wrong number. I was a little upset they di not give me time to make the lay bet.

Yep, thumbs up Duane. And if you ever get in a situation like that again with the firebet, I suggest you jump on the table like Chris Tucker in Rush Hour 2. Don't let them roll dem bones until you get your "lay"!

Quote: bodyforlife

I'm just answering his question, Concinnity. You seem to be making an assumption that I place the bet myself or actually think it's a good way to wager (I don't). But I think the answer is people do it to arbitrage. And yes, I am a person that will arbitrage when the situation calls for it. But it's usually on sports wagers or something that gives me an opportunity for a double win. I never place the "all or nothing" wager, or any that give a casino a house edge like that. But I assure you, if someone placed it for me, I'd arbitrage it in that situation regardless of how much the odds were reduced. I'd feel pretty darn silly trying to justify it with a math calculation when that seven rolls and I realized I could have pocketed some money. I think it's more about risk tolerance. It's not all that different from how people manage their 401Ks as they get older. Many take much less risk in their portfolios even though they realize they probably won't make the same return. Of course, that's to prevent being in a situation like many people found themselves in back in 2008 (I guess you could say that's the "seven out" on the "all or nothing" wager).

bodyforlife, I apologize for assuming that you placed that bet yourself. I shouldn't have. You wrote clearly. My mistake, and I hope you forgive me. I feel ashamed of myself, and if I had a piranha pond nearby I'd consider jumping in it to atone. But I probably wouldn't. But I would certainly think about it. If we ever meet I owe you a drink though.

In the scenario you describe above, you most definitely would engage in arbitrage (because you didn't pay for the bet). But I don't think that happens with most people, in which case, someone doing the strategy described would engage in hedging. I write this only because I see people misusing common terms on this forum (like using "variance" when they mean "volatility") and wouldn't want to see people using "arbitrage" when they mean "hedge." But anyway. (And I still haven't found out the term for that second phase of the game, after the come-out roll -- if I don't get an answer soon then I will definitely invent a really good term for it like "out of the closet roll" (what happens after coming out) -- someone remind me.)

Yeah, if someone made a free ATS bet for me I might consider doing that. I might not (I suppose it would depend on my mood). I omit much that would go through my mind; I don't want to bore you all more than I have with things like "The Monty Hall Problem" and so forth.

Re: your financial analogy about 2008 and so forth, I find it amusing (and I suppose you do too) that we have had a recent popularity in hedge funds on Wall Street since then. :) I don't touch those, myself. I have no problem with arbitrage though (although I don't personally have the time for it).

bodyforlife, because I like the way your mind works, I'll give you another arbitrage scenario/problem, because I feel curious as to what you'd do. Suppose you played the pass line (make it enough money to make it interesting for you in terms of deciding things) and suppose the shooter established a point (let's make the point a 6). Suppose you took double odds but could take as much as 5X. Ho hum. Now suppose, for whatever reason, another player decided to do something nice for you and gave a bunch of chips to the dealer and told him to bump your odds up to full odds (an additional 3X your line bet) and then that player (whom you never met before) suddenly went away because his wife, mistress, girlfriend, and boy toy all just got back from shopping together and pulled him away from the table to make him help them carry their packages back to his villa (I added that to the scenario to eliminate any social aspects for what follows -- you can't offend the guy by your actions).

Suddenly, some guy in a Stetson walks up to the table and throws down $50,000 to buy in with brand new $100 bills. So the play has slowed to a crawl and you have lots of time to think about things before the shooter gets the dice.

Would you take the extra odds off the table? Or maybe just half of them (or close to it; however the arithmetic worked out)? Or not touch them?

You see the similar circumstances here, of course. You might even have the same probability of winning as the original ATS scenario (depending on the number needed). You could, of course, hedge if you wanted to by laying the 6. Or you could just pick up the extra odds and have risk-free extra-money.

What would you do?

That's hard for me to answer because I would never be in that position. I simply would never put 2x odds on a pass line wager if the max was 5x. I have been at some of the strip casinos on a busy weekend (the most recent being Superbowl weekend). I was at the Palazzo and there was no space at the $25 tables (I prefer $10, but will step up to $25 if need be), so it was nothing but $50 (too rich for my blood). I went to the Wynn and it was the same thing. I decided I wanted to play so I simply put a $50 wager on the DP and didn't take odds. That's what I do in situations where the minimums are too high for me to take max odds (or I don't play). I don't get concerned about taking odds on a DP because "true odds" are actually worse than the position you're in after that come out roll. But on a PL wager, it's max odds or I don't play. I should also mention that my comment regarding if someone put a wager down for me on an "all or nothing" was only made because I wouldn't put the wager down myself. But that wager amount should really have no bearing on what either of us would do in that situation (after all, I'm sure neither one of us are too concerned with a buck). The difference is a person that claims they would just leave the wager, simply doesn't value a $200-$300 payout like I do in lieu of the bigger payout. That's really the issue here (not the mathematical calculation)

And may I say, you have a very, vivid imagination.

Quote: RS

Almost 100% of players play craps at a disadvantage.

I've actually have played craps with a (huge) advantage before. But I don't want to bore anyone with the details....perhaps I'll tell the story when it isn't sensitive information, down the road.

I'd love to be bored. Loaded dice?