wrongwayboston
Joined: Jan 3, 2015
• Posts: 8
June 10th, 2016 at 5:50:33 AM permalink
Greetings,

If player Adam likes to make pass line & come bets only until a point of 4 or 10 is established and takes \$50 odds on that 4 or 10, but takes no odds on any other bet...

And player Zelda likes don't pass & don't come only until a point of 4 or 10 is established and lays \$100 odds on that 4 or 10, but lays no odds on any other bet...

Would you say that they are essentially playing the same game? If they played the same, somehow statistically perfect & symmetrical game, would they end up with the same amount of money?

I ask because I favor the Don'ts, but I haven't been able to get a good grasp on how odds volatility affects a Don't player's game due to laying the long end of the odds.

Since the odds are a zero sum affair anyway, is odds volatility the only relative difference in these two approaches? i.e. Player Zelda is putting more overall money down on the table, so the swings will be bigger... Or is volatility strictly in relation to the 5x odds (on \$10 table), whether it's on the Do or Don't?

You could say that a tiny swing in player Adam's favor would be more costly to Zelda, than vice versa, right?

Appreciate constructive input! Just trying to better understand the occasional stigma over Don't betting and how it relates to laying more to win less.

Boston
whodat
Joined: May 11, 2015
• Posts: 104
June 10th, 2016 at 6:29:29 AM permalink
In the long run, for a \$10 DP or \$10 PL, the loss is just about the same (\$.14 versus \$.141). In the long run, the loss from laying versus putting odds is the same \$0.
Essentially you are playing the same game, but by laying odds, you have increased your volatility. I am not a math guy who can provide you with the exact formula to calculate this. Roughly from the don't you have 2 winning decisions and one losing decision for \$330 at risk (\$110 x3). From the do, you have one winning decision and 2 losing decision for \$180 at risk. Seems to me there is more volatility on the don't side.
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
• Posts: 2463
June 10th, 2016 at 9:59:19 AM permalink
Quote: wrongwayboston

Would you say that they are essentially playing the same game?

I say they are NOT playing the same game even playing at the same table. the bets have differences.
Quote: wrongwayboston

If they played the same,
somehow statistically perfect & symmetrical game, would they end up with the same amount of money?

NO- NEVER NEVER the same amount of money.

what gets close is
the percentage or ratio of
net/total action

would be very close to each other
and NEVER the actual \$\$\$\$ won or lost
NEVER

no matter what the rest may say

like flipping a coin a billion times and getting about 50% heads but the actual number of Heads
the difference between actual flipped and theo
keeps increasing and does not get close to 0.

this is a popular belief under the heading of the Gambler's Fallacy
Quote: wrongwayboston

You could say that a tiny swing in player Adam's favor would be more costly to Zelda, than vice versa, right?

only over a few bets resolved.

the Lay odds dominate at win rates
the 4/10 wins 2 out of 3
200 out of 300 on average
no other single craps bet does better

so it is the lay odds winning rate over time that opens eyes for the don't player

as a matter of fact
I am a lifetime craps winner making many Lay 4 and Lay 10 bets
cuz they win so often, even just paying half of what I bet

I will keep it that way

remember
actual money lost or won at gambling is meaningless
it is the ratio of
net / total bet that matters

BTW, excellent question
Sally pretty
I Heart Vi Hart
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
• Posts: 9853
June 10th, 2016 at 1:06:39 PM permalink
Quote: wrongwayboston

Greetings,

If player Adam likes to make pass line & come bets only until a point of 4 or 10 is established and takes \$50 odds on that 4 or 10, but takes no odds on any other bet...

And player Zelda likes don't pass & don't come only until a point of 4 or 10 is established and lays \$100 odds on that 4 or 10, but lays no odds on any other bet...

Would you say that they are essentially playing the same game? If they played the same, somehow statistically perfect & symmetrical game, would they end up with the same amount of money?

I ask because I favor the Don'ts, but I haven't been able to get a good grasp on how odds volatility affects a Don't player's game due to laying the long end of the odds.

Since the odds are a zero sum affair anyway, is odds volatility the only relative difference in these two approaches? i.e. Player Zelda is putting more overall money down on the table, so the swings will be bigger... Or is volatility strictly in relation to the 5x odds (on \$10 table), whether it's on the Do or Don't?

You could say that a tiny swing in player Adam's favor would be more costly to Zelda, than vice versa, right?

Appreciate constructive input! Just trying to better understand the occasional stigma over Don't betting and how it relates to laying more to win less.

Boston

The only difference would be on the come out and a 12 rolling. In your scenario, once there is a point then your bets will push each other. On the come out if there is a 12, you will lose \$10 and your partner will push. If there were no 12's rolled on the come out then you would have exact opposite results.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
whodat
Joined: May 11, 2015
• Posts: 104
June 10th, 2016 at 2:26:33 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

I say they are NOT playing the same game even playing at the same table. the bets have differences.
NO- NEVER NEVER the same amount of money.

what gets close is
the percentage or ratio of
net/total action

would be very close to each other
and NEVER the actual \$\$\$\$ won or lost
NEVER

no matter what the rest may say

like flipping a coin a billion times and getting about 50% heads but the actual number of Heads
the difference between actual flipped and theo
keeps increasing and does not get close to 0.

this is a popular belief under the heading of the Gambler's Fallacy
only over a few bets resolved.

the Lay odds dominate at win rates
the 4/10 wins 2 out of 3
200 out of 300 on average
no other single craps bet does better

so it is the lay odds winning rate over time that opens eyes for the don't player

as a matter of fact
I am a lifetime craps winner making many Lay 4 and Lay 10 bets
cuz they win so often, even just paying half of what I bet

I will keep it that way

remember
actual money lost or won at gambling is meaningless
it is the ratio of
net / total bet that matters

BTW, excellent question
Sally pretty

Sally,
What's your lay strategy for the 4/10?
wrongwayboston
Joined: Jan 3, 2015
• Posts: 8
June 10th, 2016 at 2:34:09 PM permalink
That's what I thought. I know a lot of this is stating the obvious, but it's helpful & a fun mental exercise for me.

If you focus solely on the odds of taking \$50 or laying \$100 on the 4 or 10, the players would be affected equally by a statistically normal set of outcomes.

2/3 of the time, Adam would lose \$50 taking odds, and 1/3 of the time win \$100...
2/3 of the time, Zelda would win \$50 laying odds, and 1/3 of the time lose \$100...

However, I tend to agree with MustangSally that winning streaks on the lay side are more common and thus you could more reliably count on the volatility swinging you up and then quitting while you're ahead. If you win two decisons laying the 4 & 10 (or stay more than 2:1 on the winning side), you're golden.

If I could only make one single bet for the rest of my life, I'd lay the 4 or 10.

Boston
GWAE
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
• Posts: 9853
June 10th, 2016 at 2:41:16 PM permalink
I know streaks happen but sometimes it is just really bad luck.

Last week guy walks up to the table and throws 100 on no 4. Very next roll was hard 4. He throws 200 on no 4, next roll hard 4. He throws 200 again on no 4. It took 3 or 4 rolls but another 4 came up. He storms away from the table down 500 after about 7 rolls. Very next roll 7 out.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
odiousgambit

Joined: Nov 9, 2009
• Posts: 8171
June 10th, 2016 at 3:12:15 PM permalink
Quote: GWAE

I know streaks happen but sometimes it is just really bad luck

sometimes you hear "poker is cruel"

but, fact is, all gambling is cruel at times
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
rushdl
Joined: Jan 15, 2016
• Posts: 177
June 10th, 2016 at 4:23:30 PM permalink
Quote: wrongwayboston

Greetings,

If player Adam likes to make pass line & come bets only until a point of 4 or 10 is established and takes \$50 odds on that 4 or 10, but takes no odds on any other bet...

And player Zelda likes don't pass & don't come only until a point of 4 or 10 is established and lays \$100 odds on that 4 or 10, but lays no odds on any other bet...

Would you say that they are essentially playing the same game? If they played the same, somehow statistically perfect & symmetrical game, would they end up with the same amount of money?

I ask because I favor the Don'ts, but I haven't been able to get a good grasp on how odds volatility affects a Don't player's game due to laying the long end of the odds.

Since the odds are a zero sum affair anyway, is odds volatility the only relative difference in these two approaches? i.e. Player Zelda is putting more overall money down on the table, so the swings will be bigger... Or is volatility strictly in relation to the 5x odds (on \$10 table), whether it's on the Do or Don't?

You could say that a tiny swing in player Adam's favor would be more costly to Zelda, than vice versa, right?

Appreciate constructive input! Just trying to better understand the occasional stigma over Don't betting and how it relates to laying more to win less.

Boston

Good question. No they are not mirrors.
First there will always be more "wins" in Adams future, with Adams system. You cannot do any worse than NOT get one stinking point, so Zelda must manage her bets differently, sorry girl. But there will be shooters who get one or more points, helping Adam recoup. While both will lose, Zelda will get "smoked", on the DONTPASS under your scenario when there are an even number of outcomes of PASS and DONTPASS. In my opinion anyway, the passline loses less money here. But, the old -1.36 DP to -1.41 P should be you computational guide to the final outcome after a large amount of bets.
RS
Joined: Feb 11, 2014
• Posts: 8623
June 11th, 2016 at 2:59:41 PM permalink
Quote: rushdl

Good question. No they are not mirrors.
First there will always be more "wins" in Adams future, with Adams system. You cannot do any worse than NOT get one stinking point, so Zelda must manage her bets differently, sorry girl. But there will be shooters who get one or more points, helping Adam recoup. While both will lose, Zelda will get "smoked", on the DONTPASS under your scenario when there are an even number of outcomes of PASS and DONTPASS. In my opinion anyway, the passline loses less money here. But, the old -1.36 DP to -1.41 P should be you computational guide to the final outcome after a large amount of bets.

Wait what?

Both sides are essentially mirrors to each other. One wins the amount the other loses. Overall, a net push. This happens most of the time. The only difference is when 12 is rolled on a come out, the DP is a push and the pass is a loss, for a net of -\$100 (if both sides have \$100 on their line).