Strike Betting Truth

I am curious to hear thoughts on strike betting. Is there any truth from experience or proof mathematically that strike betting can lower the house advantage. By lower I mean lower than it would be by following the same strategy without strike betting. In other words if I divide my craps play time into many small sessions vs very large sessions (assuming same exact play time), is house advantage the exact same over an extended period of games?

Thanks,

Derek

Quote: CasinoCrasher

I am curious to hear thoughts on strike betting. Is there any truth from experience or proof mathematically that strike betting can lower the house advantage. By lower I mean lower than it would be by following the same strategy without strike betting. In other words if I divide my craps play time into many small sessions vs very large sessions (assuming same exact play time), is house advantage the exact same over an extended period of games?

Thanks,

Derek

If you're talking about exposing the same amount of money in both cases on the same bets and just dividing the amounts by stakes, the HE is the same. If you only go through your BR amount once, for example, stopping betting after exactly once thru without regard to results, your HE was the same, regardless of how long it took to do that.

Otherwise, the HE doesn't act on the entire BR if you're playing the large amounts once thru, but in the exact same time you bet the smaller amounts instead but don't get all the way through, because you expose less money to the HE. That says nothing about whether you'll win more in absolute dollars one way over the other (short term variance), but you will have risked less (and be rated as spending less). The HE didn't change as a percentage, but you were less affected by it in absolute dollars.

Hope that made sense. I think it answered the question you asked, but I'm not sure you asked the question you meant to ask.

Edit: Say you have 2 guys step up, each with $5000. They both bet identical passline bets with no odds, and only the size of the bets differ. Where guy 1 bets $500, guy 2 bets $10. Neither presses or re-bets with winnings. After 10 bet resolutions, guy 1 has exposed $5000, his whole bankroll, to the HE. guy 2 has exposed $100, both playing the exact same amount of time. If it went well for the right side, guy1 has probably got a lot more money now than guy2, but they both experienced the same HE effect. If it went badly for the right side, guy1 probably has a lot less money than guy2, but again the HE was the same.

So time is not really pertinent to HE, except that every time you bet, that money is exposed to the HE, which tends to erode it each time it's exposed (like if you keep playing winnings). Keep in mind that they don't make their money on your losing (over the long term); they make their money by not paying you true odds on your winnings.

Quote: CasinoCrasher

I am curious to hear thoughts on strike betting. Is there any truth from experience or proof mathematically that strike betting can lower the house advantage. By lower I mean lower than it would be by following the same strategy without strike betting. In other words if I divide my craps play time into many small sessions vs very large sessions (assuming same exact play time), is house advantage the exact same over an extended period of games?

Thanks,

Derek

It's All One Big Session...And Then You Die

tom "home runs are sometimes boring" p




""It's All One Big Session...And Then You Die"...tom p, 2004

Quote: CasinoCrasher

In other words if I divide my craps play time into many small sessions vs very large sessions (assuming same exact play time), is house advantage the exact same over an extended period of games?

Yes.

You are lowering the variance, though, by making smaller bets. This is a little bit of a non-intuitive thing, since most of us want to do this to some degree; it makes it harder to lose all your money at once.

Think of the opposite situation. When the advantage is on your side, many smaller bets is better than a few big bets, to reduce the variance. The Kelly Criterion will establish the ideal bet size for that person.

Of course it is the House that has the advantage in Craps. So, if you make many small bets, you probably are just allowing the House to do Kelly Betting.

Playing a set period or set periods of time has the inherent problem of pulling you away from the table regardless of where your bankroll stands. That is a major reason why invoking win goals and loss limits can be much more effective.

Quote: beachbumbabs

If you're talking about exposing the same amount of money in both cases on the same bets and just dividing the amounts by stakes, the HE is the same. If you only go through your BR amount once, for example, stopping betting after exactly once thru without regard to results, your HE was the same, regardless of how long it took to do that.

Okay, thanks. I guess the question I should have asked to get the answer I was looking for then should have been worded with BR. If I break my BR into many small denominations and expose it all to the HE at many separate times vs all at once the end result will be the same in the long run.

Quote: CasinoCrasher

Okay, thanks. I guess the question I should have asked to get the answer I was looking for then should have been worded with BR. If I break my BR into many small denominations and expose it all to the HE at many separate times vs all at once the end result will be the same in the long run.

That is exactly true if we're talking about playing through your BR exactly once , without using winnings.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Playing a set period or set periods of time has the inherent problem of pulling you away from the table regardless of where your bankroll stands. That is a major reason why invoking win goals and loss limits can be much more effective.

I definitely agree.

Quote: Wizard

Yes.

Okay, thanks, that's what I thought.