What am I missing?

I'm assuming I'm missing something. But what's the difference between making a bigger initial bet as opposed to a smaller initial bet with odds?

Quote: lelandaggie

I'm assuming I'm missing something. But what's the difference between making a bigger initial bet as opposed to a smaller initial bet with odds?

I'll take a shot at this.....
How do you know you will have the option to take odds? 2/3/11/12/7 --- no chance to take odds.

But I think to answer your question in a way you want it answered....... only the initial bet is subject to the house edge. So if you are talking about a come out roll in craps, which has a house edge of 1.4% or so, the more money you bet on the initial bet, the more is subject to the house edge. If you bet less, saving some for the no house edge odds bet, then you will be better off, expected value wise.....

OK. I think I got you. So would you make the come out roll smaller then load up on the odds? Say you had 20 to bet would you go 5 then 15 on the odds?

Quote: lelandaggie

OK. I think I got you. So would you make the come out roll smaller then load up on the odds? Say you had 20 to bet would you go 5 then 15 on the odds?

Well..... yes..... but...... 1/9 of the time you lose on the come out roll, and thus you will have $15 only to try and start again.
2/9 of the time you will have $25 without setting a point, then do you repeat and bet 5 on the come out, then 20 on adds?
But once again, to answer the question the way I think you want it answered, yes, bet lowest allowed on the come out roll, then the rest on the no house edge odds bet.

Good to know. Thank you.

Dealers will often encourage players to make a line bet but have most of their money as a free odds bet.

Mathematicians will often encourage players to put all their money on ONE roll so as to have only one exposure to the dreaded house edge. Then walk away from the table.

The trouble is that no one really treks to Vegas, Baby or to a local casino for only one shot at lady luck. Heck, if you take just one shot you probably won't even get a free drink from some scantily clad Tray Lizard.

The first thing about sizing a bet is a consideration of table limits and avoiding gamblers ruin.

Most of the charts on avoiding gamblers ruin show line bets only with no odds bet, no tips to dealers, no drinks, no tips to waitress. And even then its a 90 percent avoidance of Gambler's Ruin.

What you want to do is get the best bang for your buck. That means avoid too small a bankroll because it risks your getting wiped out by sheer bad luck. Next consideration is to pile on the odds bet because that is the portion of your bet that is at a bargain "price" of zero house edge.

At all times, its HAVE FUN so make the bets that you PREFER. Drink if you wish but always tip.

Quote: FleaStiff

Mathematicians will often encourage players to put all their money on ONE roll so as to have only one exposure to the dreaded house edge. Then walk away from the table.

The trouble is that no one really treks to Vegas, Baby or to a local casino for only one shot at lady luck...

Making only one bet, or a few bets, with all your money [-EV] is looked upon as smarter [but rarely practiced]. The reason is that it gives variance a better chance to make you a winner. However, I think those advocating it seldom point out that variance is always a double-edged sword - and they should point it out. Bottom line, a single bet with entire bankroll gives you the best chance of coming away a winner and the best chance of losing all your money in a flash.

on the other hand, putting the same amount of action in a fewer number of bets - that's harder to find fault with. A guy playing 10x craps, and maxing his odds in a 45 minute session, might look nuts compared to the guy who never puts more than $10 in free odds but plays for hours on end, but for sure the former is playing smarter than the latter - btw, even if in a game where there are no free odds.

I'm learning a lot this is cool.