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

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.

I say they are NOT playing the same game even playing at the same table. the bets have differences.Quote:wrongwaybostonWould you say that they are essentially playing the same game?

NO- NEVER NEVER the same amount of money.Quote:wrongwaybostonIf they played the same,

somehow statistically perfect & symmetrical game, would they end up with 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.Quote:wrongwaybostonYou could say that a tiny swing in player Adam's favor would be more costly to Zelda, than vice versa, right?

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

Quote:wrongwaybostonGreetings,

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.

Quote:mustangsallyI 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?

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

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.

Quote:GWAEI 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

Quote:wrongwaybostonGreetings,

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.

Quote:rushdlGood 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).