Pulling Down Odds

I won't go into my betting method but suffice it to say it entails taking maximum odds on two numbers and the point. And I know that the dice have no memory. The next roll has nothing to do with the previous roll or rolls. That being said, the dice cannot go forever without hitting a seven. So, my question is, does it make any sense at all to begin pulling down the odds bets the longer the shooter goes without hitting a 7? Or will that just serve to limit the upside, making losses come sooner and/or deeper because the rare long roll is being truncated?

Whether you do or don't make odds bets, whether you leave them up or take them down, whether you leave them until some number of rolls has occurred or not, has absolutely no effect on your long-term results. The house edge on every odds bet, whenever you make it, is zero. Make one odds bet and your expected value is zero. Make 1,438,999 odds bets and your expected value is zero. Make odds bets only on Tuesdays and Fridays and their expected value is zero. Make them only when the shooter has green hair and their expected value is zero.

I note that you said "the dice cannot go forever without hitting a seven." That's true, but that statement implies some kind of cumulative probability that doesn't exist. In rolls of the dice, there really is no "forever" in that past outcomes have no bearing on future events. There is only one independent trial after another.

Ok. I guess I expected that was the case. So, I'll just keep playing for fun. I guess the fun comes with the stress of waiting for that disastrous 7 and the rare chance you can get the better of it. Thanks. So, it's true that the odds are the best bet in the casino. Zero EV. lol.

Making odds bets only increase variance. They'll actually cost you more per hour than if you never make odds bets. See Beyond Counting: Exhibit CAA.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

Making odds bets only increase variance. They'll actually cost you more per hour than if you never make odds bets. See Beyond Counting: Exhibit CAA.

The first statement is true but the second is not. The cost in the long run is the same whether you make odds bets or not: the total -EV of your Pass Line and other bets is all that matters.

Also, the first statement is somewhat misleading. If you put $X in action, then the more of that money is in odds bets, the better off you'll be. So if you wanted to bet $15 per shooter, you're better off betting $5 and taking double odds than flat-betting $15.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

The first statement is true but the second is not. The cost in the long run is the same whether you make odds bets or not: the total -EV of your Pass Line and other bets is all that matters.

Also, the first statement is somewhat misleading. If you put $X in action, then the more of that money is in odds bets, the better off you'll be. So if you wanted to bet $15 per shooter, you're better off betting $5 and taking double odds than flat-betting $15.

I'm not qualified to refute you at a math level. Chances are IBYA knows what he's talking about, though. You might check the Grosjean reference, which most here consider definitive, then argue further if necessary.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I'm not qualified to refute you at a math level. Chances are IBYA knows what he's talking about, though. You might check the Grosjean reference, which most here consider definitive, then argue further if necessary.

I'll look again next time I'm over there.

Grosjean also says in the book it's cheaper to play only one credit instead of five in -EV VP.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I'm not qualified to refute you at a math level. Chances are IBYA knows what he's talking about, though. You might check the Grosjean reference, which most here consider definitive, then argue further if necessary.

I've already read Grosjean, and while I have to note that not everything he says is 100% angels-singing-from-on-high accurate, I should point out that he never says that making odds bets worsens your results, as IBYA said. The cost per hour of a $5 pass line bet with 100x odds is exactly the same as the cost per hour of a flat $5 pass line bet. Your odds bets do not affect your expectation in the slightest.

I'm not going to go scare up a copy of Grosjean right now, but I'm certain that he would never make a misstatement like that. He better than anyone else knows that a neutral EV bet cannot affect your expected results, per hour or per anything else.

I could be mistaking this for VP. Again, when I can, I'll recheck. Either way, he claims that the player should be taking odds is a "myth."

I'd have to imagine there's more to it than what it seems IBYA wrote. There are certainly factors that would make betting odds in craps to be -EV, indirectly. For instance, if you tip a % of your win....or perhaps since placing odds increases variance -- and with a limited session bankroll could dramatically increase or decrease a "no odds bets player"'s session length -- it would also increase your -EV wagers on the pass line, for instance.....although I wouldn't think either of those are reasons Grosjean may say what IBYA said is in BC:CAA, which was a bit unclear to begin with.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I could be mistaking this for VP. Again, when I can, I'll recheck. Either way, he claims that the player should be taking odds is a "myth."

THIS is 100% true (it is a myth).

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I'll look again next time I'm over there.

Grosjean also says in the book it's cheaper to play only one credit instead of five in -EV VP.

Well, that's what I mean when I say he isn't always accurate. Take 9/6 JOB, a game that is -EV, at 99.54% return with perfect play. Let's say that one credit = $1. Now, by playing one credit, you get 250 to 1 on your royals rather than 800 to 1. This is a penalty of 550 credits/coins for every royal. Let's take the royal frequency at 1 in 40,000 for simplicity's sake (it's actually a little higher). By playing one coin, you lose an extra 550 bets for every 40,000 hands you play, over and above the inherent negative EV. That's an additional -1.37% (again, I'm rounding).

$5 a hand (full coin)= a loss of about 2.4 cents/hand (-0.46%)
$1 a hand (short coin)= a loss of about 1.8 cents/hand (-1.83%)

So ASSUMING YOU RUN THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY THROUGH IN EACH CASE, you will lose 9 cents for every five dollars you run through the machine playing one coin at a time, and 2.4 cents for every five dollars playing full coin. Not even close.

If you're talking the same number of HANDS, of course, the short-coin play is better, but that's a trivial conclusion. The real-world comparison that a lot of players actually have to make is whether to play max coin on a game with a poorer paytable vs. short coin with a better paytable and a higher denomination. So the real question would be something like: do I play full coin $1 8/5 JOB or short coin $5 JOB? In this case, the difference between the two games is 2.2%, which is more than the difference estimated above, so you play the $5 short coin game. But if the $1 game were 9/5, the difference would only be 1.1%, and you should play the full coin $1 game. Again, in this example, I'm assuming the real-world problem of what is the best way to give $X worth of action. This is a decision you often have to make when playing a certain amount to get some kind of prize, promo, or comp.

Yes, it's based on the same number of hands per hour.

At 1000 hph, a five coin ($1.25) bettor on full pay 9/6 has an expected loss of $5.70125. The one coin bettor ($0.25) getting 250 on the royal has an expected loss of $4.06625 during that same time frame.

Sometimes you just want to play as slowly as possible losing as little as possible.


Should be noted this (short coining for a lower hourly loss) is not always true -- take for instance, NSUD, where max coin betting is better than short coining, due to the incredibly low HE on max coins bet [or rather, the difference or delta between the HE's].


EDIT: I may have made an error.

Edit 2: I made an error, but what I wrote still holds true -- max-coin betting NSUD is better than short-coining NSU, by 0.1397 CENTS per hand ($1 vs $5).

Yeah. You'd have to compare specific spreads between full coin HE and short coin HE.

Quote: RS

Sometimes you just want to play as slowly as possible losing as little as possible.


Should be noted this (short coining for a lower hourly loss) is not always true -- take for instance, NSUD, where max coin betting is better than short coining, due to the incredibly low HE on max coins bet [or rather, the difference or delta between the HE's].

Well, the bottom line is that if the loss from the short coin royal is more than five times the inherent house edge, you should play full coin rather than short coin--and that applies for any game. The inherent -EV of NSUD is -0.27%, and the short royal is something like a 1.4% penalty. So it's better to suffer an 0.27% loss multiplied by five than a 1.4% loss.

NSUD 1000 hph quarter game:

Five coin: -$3.39625
One coin: -$3.7455

Something else to note -- some machines pay 500 credits on short royals, instead of 250 like others.

Quote: RS

Something else to note -- some machines pay 500 credits on short royals, instead of 250 like others.

I run my free play through the ones here. The FP machines don't accept free play.

Also, the first statement is somewhat misleading. If you put $X in action, then the more of that money is in odds bets, the better off you'll be. So if you wanted to bet $15 per shooter, you're better off betting $5 and taking double odds than flat-betting $15.


For my limited brain, that begs the question. Why are you better off taking the odds? I've been told this is the way to play and always take the max 3`4`5 odds, but seems there's two different takes on it in this string. If it's all the same, and all 0 EV on the odds, then why better off taking odds? Is it because the odds pay better than 1:1?

Quote: tmorro

Also, the first statement is somewhat misleading. If you put $X in action, then the more of that money is in odds bets, the better off you'll be. So if you wanted to bet $15 per shooter, you're better off betting $5 and taking double odds than flat-betting $15.


For my limited brain, that begs the question. Why are you better off taking the odds? I've been told this is the way to play and always take the max 3`4`5 odds, but seems there's two different takes on it in this string. If it's all the same, and all 0 EV on the odds, then why better off taking odds? Is it because the odds pay better than 1:1?

Keyword is IF you want to bet X amount per shooter....best to put as little on the PL and the rest on the odds.

However, this is oftentimes misconstrued by the reader into thinking if they are putting some amount on the PL, they are better off to put out max odds.

It's also oftentimes twisted around and people (ie: dealers) recommend someone to put odds down because it "lowers the house edge", which really makes no sense.



Essentially it's saying: "It's better to bet less", which I think is a bit silly.

Quote: RS

Keyword is IF you want to bet X amount per shooter....best to put as little on the PL and the rest on the odds.

However, this is oftentimes misconstrued by the reader into thinking if they are putting some amount on the PL, they are better off to put out max odds.

It's also oftentimes twisted around and people (ie: dealers) recommend someone to put odds down because it "lowers the house edge", which really makes no sense.

Essentially it's saying: "It's better to bet less", which I think is a bit silly.

It's not silly at all, if we're talking about -EV bets. It should be stated, "It's better to bet less on the Pass Line."

I think the whole concept should be stated this way: "Put as much of your betting money as you can on bets that have the lowest house edge." So if you bet the Pass line and take double odds, you're betting 2/3 of your money with no house edge at all.

It's quite true that once you have decided to make a given Pass line bet, nothing you do can reduce the house edge on that bet. What you CAN do is reduce your next Pass line bet by two thirds ($5 instead of $15) and put those chips ($10) on the odds instead.

Quote: Ibeatyouraces

I'll look again next time I'm over there.

Grosjean also says in the book it's cheaper to play only one credit instead of five in -EV VP.

I checked, Josh is correct. But as I said, it only raises variance which most players might not want unless using a loss rebate as said in the book.

What does variance mean when you say, "it only raises variance"? Sorry for being so obtuse, but I see this term mentioned a lot & I have no idea what it means.

Variance is essentially how far away from expectation (or average) your results can be.

Say the point is "4", you have $100 on the pass line. Your expectation on that $100 is to LOSE $33. 6 ways to lose $100, 3 ways to win $100:

(-100*6 + 100*3)/9 = -$33

But you can only win or lose $100. So you can either lose $67 MORE than expected (since you expect to lose $33) or you can WIN $133 more than expected (since you expect to lose $33, or win -$33).


Let's say you throw on $500 in odds.

Your expectation is still -$33.

But you can either lose $600, which is $567 MORE than you expect to lose....or you can win $1,100, which is $1,133 more than you expect.

Quote: Sonny44

What does variance mean when you say, "it only raises variance"? Sorry for being so obtuse, but I see this term mentioned a lot & I have no idea what it means.

An easy way to say it is, the more variance, the bigger the swings.

If you are so afraid of that 'disastrous 7', then why not play the Don'ts with all the confident players?

The 7 will come. I'm not afraid of it. It's there. I was just wondering if, the longer a shooter goes without one, are we to increasingly expect one? And if so, is there a mathematical case for pulling odds? My guess is, in theory, no roll of the dice predicts or influences the next roll (hard to wrap the brain around that), so the answer to the first is "no". My guess is, as to the second question, there's no number of rolls without a seven at which you are necessarily more +EV by pulling odds than not. Or less -EV. That is to say, the odds of rolling a 7 remain the same for each roll, regardless of previous rolls.

But I wanted bigger brains than mine to help me get a handle on this.