I am a big winner host ing a “fair” craps game- ethics??

I live in AZ where (most) gambling is illegal save for tribal lands. However there is a provision in the law legalizing “social gambling”. I built a craps table and my friends come over and play and I am the “house”. I modify the payouts to reflect true mathematical odds so there is no house advantage.

With that being said, I am WAY ahead. I have been “stacked” a few times, but more often then not they give the money RIGHT back and end up losing. I will try to softly “talk them down” when they get crazy and reckless but if they are certain I will allow it.

My question is, is this ethical? My intention with building this table was to have some friends over to “get our rocks off” with no H/E, maybe somebody wins or loses a few bucks but nothing major.

As an aside, we’ve never had a confrontational dispute and even after getting their teeth kicked in, the players agree that the game is fair and I haven’t acted unethically.

I have a bad feeling that running this game is going to come back to bite me.

What is your pass line payout to make it fair?

Quote: unJon

What is your pass line payout to make it fair?
link to original post

Pass/come: you only lose 1/2 your bet on a come out 12

Don’t pass/come: you win 1/2 your bet on a come out 12

Field: 2 and 12 pay triple.

All place/lay bets and all proposition bets pay true odds

Quote: Dyvan13

Quote: unJon

What is your pass line payout to make it fair?
link to original post

Pass/come: you only lose 1/2 your bet on a come out 12

Don’t pass/come: you win 1/2 your bet on a come out 12

Field: 2 and 12 pay triple.

All place/lay bets and all proposition bets pay true odds
link to original post

That’s clever. Minuscule house edge on pass and player edge on don’t pass.

Quote: unJon

Quote: Dyvan13

Quote: unJon

What is your pass line payout to make it fair?
link to original post

Pass/come: you only lose 1/2 your bet on a come out 12

Don’t pass/come: you win 1/2 your bet on a come out 12

Field: 2 and 12 pay triple.

All place/lay bets and all proposition bets pay true odds
link to original post

That’s clever. Minuscule house edge on pass and player edge on don’t pass.
link to original post

Perhaps allow others to take turns being the house.

Quote: Dyvan13

I modify the payouts to reflect true mathematical odds so there is no house advantage.

With that being said, I am WAY ahead. I have been “stacked” a few times, but more often then not they give the money RIGHT back and end up losing. I will try to softly “talk them down” when they get crazy and reckless but if they are certain I will allow it.
link to original post

As I have said before, and explained in more detail but will not repeat here, even if the Baccarat Bank commission were reduced to say 2.5% or even less, still high rollers would be dumping massive bankrolls time after time.

Human nature eh? Most non-ap’s have horrible bet sizing and bankroll management. The non-ap’s that would have good bet sizing/management don’t find gambling appealing and don’t gamble.

Quote: Dyvan13

My question is, is this ethical?
link to original post

I would have no problem with that. The easiest money I ever made gambling was dealing blackjack to friends under 21. They had no idea what they doing. It was like taking candy from a baby and they handed it over with a smile on their faces.

Have a big box of dice there, all casino dice, let any shooter use whatever two he wants.

Don't inventory them or watch over them, and let people steal them and take them home, cut them open and see that they're fair.

Quote: Dyvan13

I live in AZ where (most) gambling is illegal save for tribal lands. However there is a provision in the law legalizing “social gambling”. I built a craps table and my friends come over and play and I am the “house”. I modify the payouts to reflect true mathematical odds so there is no house advantage.

With that being said, I am WAY ahead. I have been “stacked” a few times, but more often then not they give the money RIGHT back and end up losing. I will try to softly “talk them down” when they get crazy and reckless but if they are certain I will allow it.

My question is, is this ethical? My intention with building this table was to have some friends over to “get our rocks off” with no H/E, maybe somebody wins or loses a few bucks but nothing major.

As an aside, we’ve never had a confrontational dispute and even after getting their teeth kicked in, the players agree that the game is fair and I haven’t acted unethically.

I have a bad feeling that running this game is going to come back to bite me.
link to original post

Maybe you can get them to sign a paper stating that they are not allowed to tell the Authorities that you are running an underground gambling game if they want to play with you. 💡 If they turn on you, THEY will be in trouble WITH you, and I highly doubt that they want to take that risk after agreeing in writing to not turn you into the Authorities. 💡

Quote: Nathan

Maybe you can get them to sign a paper stating that they are not allowed to tell the Authorities that you are running an underground gambling game if they want to play with you. 💡 If they turn on you, THEY will be in trouble WITH you, and I highly doubt that they want to take that risk after agreeing in writing to not turn you into the Authorities. 💡
link to original post

Such agreements are unenforceable. If they turn up they may actually be used as further proof of the illegal gambling that was going on there, and the implication that the host was running it all and benefitting.

Unless the event is organized for charity with the pre-approval of the state's Bureau of Gambling Control or the equivalent, there is no legal way to run a casino in your home or business if the players are playing with the ability to win and lose real money.

I suppose you could have participants sign something saying that it is understood that any monies lost will be reimbursed and any monies won must be returned to the house (host), when in reality none of that is really going on and it really is a flat out casino - but still, those will probably end up being used as evidence of a crime rather than to exonerate the host.

Home poker games for real money are legal as long as the host is not taking a rake.

Quote: MDawg

As I have said before, and explained in more detail but will not repeat here, even if the Baccarat Bank commission were reduced to say 2.5% or even less, still high rollers would be dumping massive bankrolls time after time.

very interesting
please link the post where you do explain this
it goes against everything I understand about gambling - which is that in the long run the player's experience will always approach a loss reflecting the house edge
both you and the OP contradict that
your comment, which is most probably accurate, is both understandable and yet at the same time not understandable - to me, anyway

.

Use the winnings to pay for food and drinks for a party.

They'll feel good will that you're using the money for them, and you'll feel good that you're not being unethical about taking their money. The gambling was entertainment for all!

If the reason you are winning is because the players violate the Kelley Criterion, that is going to catch up to you because any person with income has an actual bankroll that would be hard to bust as they come back for more

Social gambling is allowed in Arizona. The law permits private gambling as long as there is no house edge, according to my understanding.
A Craps or roulette table with no house edge is perfectly legal for home play in Arizona.

Quote: unJon

Quote: Dyvan13

Quote: unJon

What is your pass line payout to make it fair?
link to original post

Pass/come: you only lose 1/2 your bet on a come out 12

Don’t pass/come: you win 1/2 your bet on a come out 12

Field: 2 and 12 pay triple.

All place/lay bets and all proposition bets pay true odds
link to original post

That’s clever. Minuscule house edge on pass and player edge on don’t pass.
link to original post

math for passline bet with your payout

6/36+2/36+3/36*3/9+4/36*4/10+5/36*5/11+5/36*5/11+4/36*4/10+3/36*3/9-1/36*0.5-1/36-2/36-3/36*6/9-4/36*6/10-5/36*6/11-3/36*6/9-4/36*6/10-5/36*6/11
=-0.0002525252525253

you are winning 1/3960th of every dollar bet!
what I get anyway. The adjustment is in the first amount with a minus sign

Quote: odiousgambit

If the reason you are winning is because the players violate the Kelley Criterion, that is going to catch up to you because any person with income has an actual bankroll that would be hard to bust as they come back for more
link to original post

The Kelly Bet on a fair game is $0.

Quote: unJon

Quote: odiousgambit

If the reason you are winning is because the players violate the Kelley Criterion, that is going to catch up to you because any person with income has an actual bankroll that would be hard to bust as they come back for more
link to original post

The Kelly Bet on a fair game is $0.
link to original post

OK

so they violate it when they bet anything, as the Kelley is for advantage play, I get it

there must be some math somewhere to state how likely you are to bust your bankroll by your bet size, and it seems that is what is going on

If I ever ran a home craps game that was fair because you got a new shooter on a 7-out, and each got a turn if they want it

1] I'd be worried about getting held up
2] I'd be tempted to act like I was being a nice guy by fading everbody's bet and declining to roll myself, wanting everybody else to have a chance, nice guy that I am

Quote: MDawg

As I have said before, and explained in more detail but will not repeat here, even if the Baccarat Bank commission were reduced to say 2.5% or even less, still high rollers would be dumping massive bankrolls time after time.
link to original post

I have been asked to chime in about this. This statement is simply not true. If the commission on the Banker were 2.5%, the player (as in the person making the Banker bet), would have a 0.000886 advantage.

One of the biggest myths in gambling is the casinos makes more than the house edge in games of pure chance like baccarat because of bad money management or limited bankroll of players. This simply isn't true. If you took the aggregate of all bets made on games of chance, you would see the actual house edge extremely close and within expected margins of the actual house edge.

As I have said many times, betting systems not only don't overcome the house edge, they can't even dent it -- in either direction.

Quote: billryan

Social gambling is allowed in Arizona. The law permits private gambling as long as there is no house edge, according to my understanding.
A Craps or roulette table with no house edge is perfectly legal for home play in Arizona.
link to original post

To save me time since people have probably already looked into this.

Is one allowed to charge a cover fee or an hourly rate? Perhaps a generous tip to The Host?

What about a zero-house Edge game of blackjack but the players make bad mistakes? If you do make money what are you supposed to do with it? Are you allowed to offer games that give the players an advantage?

Can you offer any casino game without a house advantage?

Quote: AxelWolf

Quote: billryan

Social gambling is allowed in Arizona. The law permits private gambling as long as there is no house edge, according to my understanding.
A Craps or roulette table with no house edge is perfectly legal for home play in Arizona.
link to original post

To save me time since people have probably already looked into this.

Is one allowed to charge a cover fee or an hourly rate? Perhaps a generous tip to The Host?

I think any such ideas as this would be no-go as the gendarmes might be taking quite a bit of interest and be eager to shut you down if a lot of money is changing hands. More so than if they heard a high-stakes poker game was going on. I'd be squeaky clean.

Quote:

What about a zero-house Edge game of blackjack but the players make bad mistakes? If you do make money what are you supposed to do with it? Are you allowed to offer games that give the players an advantage?

Can you offer any casino game without a house advantage?

good questions
link to original post

Quote: billryan

Social gambling is allowed in Arizona. The law permits private gambling as long as there is no house edge, according to my understanding.
A Craps or roulette table with no house edge is perfectly legal for home play in Arizona.
link to original post

My initial read is that street craps qualifies as social gambling, but banked craps would not.

From a practical aspect, if it's all friends playing together, nobody is likely to call in enforcement. (That doesn't mean the game is legal.)

Poker (without a rake), cribbage, euchre, backgammon... would all seem to be social.

Quote: AxelWolf

Is one allowed to charge a cover fee or an hourly rate? Perhaps a generous tip to The Host?
link to original post

The movie Molly's Game deals with topic as a major plot point. It deals with big private poker games. The movie makes the point very clearly it's all legal as long as the pot isn't raked. I'm not a lawyer, but I think an hourly fee would be seen as being in the same spirit as a rake. In the movie, it was clearly understood that winners were expected tip the hosts and generously.

If you wanted to make it fair, then make it a tournament style play.
- Determine your buy in amounts and starting bankrolls. The buy in and bankroll should be equal amongst the players. For example, each player buys in for $100 and they receive $1000 in chips. All of the buy in money goes to a pot which the splits are determined later.
- Determine the time period from when play starts to when play ends.
- Determine if re-buys are allowed. How much? How many times? Will there be a time limit where re-buys are not allow (i.e. half of the determined time)?
- When the time limit hits and play stops, then determine the pot splits based on the players left and their bankrolls. 1st place, 2nd place, etc.

If you make it like a tournament, then you could be the house and the player. You could also use casino odds since the only $$ gambled is the buy in $$ and the chips in play are "play money".

Quote: LarMo

If you wanted to make it fair, then make it a tournament style play.
- Determine your buy in amounts and starting bankrolls. The buy in and bankroll should be equal amongst the players. For example, each player buys in for $100 and they receive $1000 in chips. All of the buy in money goes to a pot which the splits are determined later.
- Determine the time period from when play starts to when play ends.
- Determine if re-buys are allowed. How much? How many times? Will there be a time limit where re-buys are not allow (i.e. half of the determined time)?
- When the time limit hits and play stops, then determine the pot splits based on the players left and their bankrolls. 1st place, 2nd place, etc.

If you make it like a tournament, then you could be the house and the player. You could also use casino odds since the only $$ gambled is the buy in $$ and the chips in play are "play money".
link to original post

That would give some people and possibly the house an advantage. In the long term, the best player will get all the money.

Quote: Wizard

Quote: MDawg

As I have said before, and explained in more detail but will not repeat here, even if the Baccarat Bank commission were reduced to say 2.5% or even less, still high rollers would be dumping massive bankrolls time after time.
link to original post

I have been asked to chime in about this. This statement is simply not true. If the commission on the Banker were 2.5%, the player (as in the person making the Banker bet), would have a 0.000886 advantage.

One of the biggest myths in gambling is the casinos makes more than the house edge in games of pure chance like baccarat because of bad money management or limited bankroll of players. This simply isn't true. If you took the aggregate of all bets made on games of chance, you would see the actual house edge extremely close and within expected margins of the actual house edge.

As I have said many times, betting systems not only don't overcome the house edge, they can't even dent it -- in either direction.
link to original post

I explained in detail more than once why it is true.

For one thing, Wizard is assuming the player will always bet Bank in that 2.5% commission game. In all the years I have played Bacc I'd say that only a tiny fraction of high rollers I have viewed or played with bet only Bank.

As far as the summary of what I am saying, more details in my Adventures thread, the risk of ruin would get the player anyway, because what most high rollers do is keep chasing ever increasing sums of loss with the same max bet and a smaller and smaller bankroll, and this sort of chasing often extends across multiple trips. This all or nothing attitude wipes out player bankrolls daily. Imagine always trying to win a million dollars on a coin toss with only a say $10,000. bankroll, being unwilling to stop until you have either won a million or lost the $10,000. and you will understand something like what goes on all the time at high limit tables. So if you keep getting wiped out you aren't even in the game long enough to experience the house edge or lack of house edge.

The "limited bankroll" Wizard mentions is only half of the issue, the other is the lofty ever rising goal with an inadequate bankroll. So some player with a mere $100K line after two years ends up $2M in the hole, and is unwilling to stop until he has it all back, trip after trip. Sounds crazy but I have seen that in multiple players, they are chasing so hard and so much that they just get 100% wiped out trip after trip no winning at all. It's $2M or bust for them, with only $100K bankroll, and it always ends up bust after a certain point.

Imagine if every time you walked into the casino with $1000. your goal was to win $250K or lose it all trying, how often would you win $250K versus lose it all? And then add the $1000. you lose to each losing session so the goal becomes $251K, $252K, $253K, &etc. with the same mere $1000. bankroll. Such things happen all the time in high limit.

All the time I see players arrive at high limit with barely even a thousand dollars at a $300. or even $500. minimum table trying to win some vast sum, and I've actually never seen it work out for them. Even if they get a double or even triple they keep playing and lose it all.

Wizard's reasoning stems from a lack of experience with how most high rollers play they are not there to grind it out.

Quote: MDawg

Quote: Wizard

Quote: MDawg

As I have said before, and explained in more detail but will not repeat here, even if the Baccarat Bank commission were reduced to say 2.5% or even less, still high rollers would be dumping massive bankrolls time after time.
link to original post

I have been asked to chime in about this. This statement is simply not true. If the commission on the Banker were 2.5%, the player (as in the person making the Banker bet), would have a 0.000886 advantage.

One of the biggest myths in gambling is the casinos makes more than the house edge in games of pure chance like baccarat because of bad money management or limited bankroll of players. This simply isn't true. If you took the aggregate of all bets made on games of chance, you would see the actual house edge extremely close and within expected margins of the actual house edge.

As I have said many times, betting systems not only don't overcome the house edge, they can't even dent it -- in either direction.
link to original post

I explained in detail more than once why it is true.

For one thing, Wizard is assuming the player will always bet Bank in that 2.5% commission game. In all the years I have played Bacc I'd say that only a tiny fraction of high rollers I have viewed or played with bet only Bank.

As far as the summary of what I am saying, more details in my Adventures thread, the risk of ruin would get the player anyway, because what most high rollers do is keep chasing ever increasing sums of loss with the same max bet and a smaller and smaller bankroll, and this sort of chasing often extends across multiple trips. This all or nothing attitude wipes out player bankrolls daily. Imagine always trying to win a million dollars on a coin toss with only a say $10,000. bankroll, being unwilling to stop until you have either won a million or lost the $10,000. and you will understand something like what goes on all the time at high limit tables. So if you keep getting wiped out you aren't even in the game long enough to experience the house edge or lack of house edge.

The "limited bankroll" Wizard mentions is only half of the issue, the other is the lofty ever rising goal with an inadequate bankroll. So some player with a mere $100K line after two years ends up $2M in the hole, and is unwilling to stop until he has it all back, trip after trip. Sounds crazy but I have seen that in multiple players, they are chasing so hard and so much that they just get 100% wiped out trip after trip no winning at all. It's $2M or bust for them, with only $100K bankroll, and it always ends up bust after a certain point.

Imagine if every time you walked into the casino with $1000. your goal was to win $250K or lose it all trying, how often would you win $250K versus lose it all? And then add the $1000. you lose to each losing session so the goal becomes $251K, $252K, $253K, &etc. with the same mere $1000. bankroll. Such things happen all the time in high limit.

All the time I see players arrive at high limit with barely even a thousand dollars at a $300. or even $500. minimum table trying to win some vast sum, and I've actually never seen it work out for them. Even if they get a double or even triple they keep playing and lose it all.

Wizard's reasoning stems from a lack of experience with how most high rollers play they are not there to grind it out.
link to original post

The risk of ruin might bankrupt an individual player, but it will not bankrupt the accumulation of all the players. If the players have an advantage the players will eventually win and it makes no difference what their bet sizing is or what their win goals are. Anything else is gamblers fallacy.

Of course as usual doesn’t seem like you read all of what was written.

Quote: MDawg

Of course as usual doesn’t seem like you read all of what was written.
link to original post

Yes that's your usual line when you have nothing legitimate.

Whatever the case, feel free to point out where I'm wrong.

Quote: MDawg

...
Wizard's reasoning stems from a lack of experience with how most high rollers play they are not there to grind it out.
link to original post

You are no doubt correct about what is 'usual' but in the scenario of 2.5% commission on banker, you are expecting players to pick bets with a house edge when a bet with basically no edge is available

And you are focusing on high roller behavior and saying these guys never change. Maybe so, but who was saying we were talking about high rollers?

Just, "for one thing...."

Quote: MDawg

For one thing, Wizard is assuming the player will always bet Bank in that 2.5% commission game. In all the years I have played Bacc I'd say that only a tiny fraction of high rollers I have viewed or played with bet only Bank.
link to original post

Quote: MDawg

Just, "for one thing...."

Quote: MDawg

For one thing, Wizard is assuming the player will always bet Bank in that 2.5% commission game. In all the years I have played Bacc I'd say that only a tiny fraction of high rollers I have viewed or played with bet only Bank.
link to original post

link to original post

Ploppies as well would seldom follow the Wizardly advice to bet banker only, I have to think

you posted about the same time I did, so you may have missed my post immediately upthread and I'd like to know what you will say to that

The first post I made here in this thread, the posts from my own thread referenced here and every subsequent one referred to high rollers.

Actually, Wizard and I in person have debated this issue "in general." He states that "eventually" the individual bettor will achieve that lofty goal and it will cancel out all the times he has been wiped out, and I don't dispute that given an infinite number of tries it will happen, but the fact is, it just doesn't happen in practice.

You try to win a million dollars with a coin toss and only $100. and see if you can achieve it in your lifetime. Be sure to add the $100. you lose each time to the ever rising goal, and don't ever stop before you bust. All or nothing every time.

Quote: MDawg

You try to win a million dollars with a coin toss and only $100. and see if you can achieve it in your lifetime. Be sure to add the $100. you lose each time to the ever rising goal, and don't ever stop before you bust. All or nothing every time.
link to original post

I agree it would to try to reach the unreachable star ala Don Quixote

Is "impractical" an argument to use in a mathematical question?

I'd like to know the actual numbers. I know Wizard implied that the exact house edge is "always" what is taken, but he also said that Venetian had $100K posted limits at Baccarat which it never had. Not only did it never have $100K posted limits but its special (unposted) limits were $160K, and are now $250K.

I don't pretend to have viewed the entire sampling, but what I have seen is high rollers blow their entire bankrolls constantly, trying to chase unrealistic amounts, and then keep complaining about how much they have lost (lifetime) and keep blowing more and more trying to get it all back.

You also see these uber whales who don't even care about getting it back, just blow $20 - $30M every trip without fail. Pit bosses I have talked to about these huge players can't figure out why they keep coming back so quickly to dump again either.

if there is virtually no edge, then blowing all the money is risk of ruin due to debt size vs bankroll size

back to lyrics of Man of La Mancha

"And the world will be better for this
That one man, scorned and covered with scars..."

I've seen that guy in the casino!

Wong says if you only have a slight advantage, he likes parlays

he was talking about sports betting; needless to say, you need to be sure about that advantage

but if you got paid 97.5 % on the banker bet the advantage would be certain [mathematically]... being determined to be 0.000886

I tried to figure it out increased advantage with parlays, but I can't get it right probably due to there being a chance for banker, a chance for player, and a chance to tie. I can do the math for one bet but lose confidence about a parlay

so I wanted to see what would happen if you had a similar advantage with an unfair coin, heads winning 5641 times out of 11280, say*

3 leg parlay
disclaimer: what I get, there could be errors

0.5000886524822695^3=0.125066501151292787 which is the chances of winning three times in a row

1st leg bet 1 unit win 1 [this is the unfair coin, not the baccarat scenario]
second leg bet 2 win 2
third leg bet 4 win 4
so a 3 leg parlay win would net 8 units in winnings, when it wins

probability of winning times amnt - prob losing times amnt
0.125 * 8 - 0.875 * 1 = 0.125

so I get a 12.5% player edge
would this mean charging a 2.5% commission would attract sharps?
or is my math wrong? coin flip can't be compared to bacc?

PS: I would definitely parlay my passline bets at that Craps game described.

* 11280 comes from 1/0.000886=1128.6681715575620767
then 1128/2 which is unsatisfactory but
then 11280/2=5640 ... say you win 1 time more often than losing
5641/11280=0.5000886524822695
0.5000886524822695-1= -0.4999113475177305
0.5000886524822695-0.4999113475177305 =0.000177304964539 which is even less than 0.000886

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

Quote: odiousgambit

Wong says if you only have a slight advantage, he likes parlays

3 leg parlay on the unfair coin revisited
disclaimer: what I get, there could be errors

0.5000886524822695^3=0.125066501151292787 which is the chances of winning three times in a row

1st leg bet 1 unit win 1 [this is the unfair coin, not the baccarat scenario]
second leg bet 2 win 2
third leg bet 4 win 4
so a 3 leg parlay win would net 8 units in winnings, when it wins error
a 3 leg parlay win would net 7 units in winnings, when it wins, because one unit is the original bet


probability of winning times amnt - prob losing times amnt
0.125 * 7 - 0.875 * 1 = 0 !!
but
0.125066501151292787*7-0.874933498848707213=0.000532009210342296

so I a 12.5% player edge was kind of unbelievable , 0.05.3% more like it
charging a 2.5% commission on banker in Baccarat would not attract sharps

I would definitely parlay my passline bets at that Craps game described. [I'll stick to that statement]

Speaking of Baccarat , I haven't seen a Baccarat game in years. When I played Baccarat, I chose Playe most of the time. 💡

Quote: odiousgambit

…I tried to figure it out increased advantage with parlays, but…
link to original post

I’ve learned that sometimes it’s easier to calculate the odds of it not happening, then subtract from 1.