The Don't Don't Win?

Playing Craps, I’ve heard dealers tell more than one person who had asked for advice about the Don’t, not to play it. “You can’t win playing that” is the usual advice. This irritated me to hear that, but finally I decided that what they were observing and passing along was the challenge of winning enough times when, adding free odds, the player gets paid less than even. Due to this and the disadvantage of the resolved-on-Come-out betting, it is very easy to see that someone winning the free odds bets about half the time and initially feeling good about it, is actually losing money. If the player still wants to play, the dealers will then encourage betting nothing on the free odds and even ‘taking no action’* when a harder to win 6 or 8 is to be resolved. You ‘can’t win’ sure enough, doing that.

What I have been telling people instead is that the player needs to realize he needs to win 2 out of 3 of the free odds bets they make.

Is that simply too much winning to expect? 2 of 3 is the expected result for resolving 4 or 10, upon which the EV is zero, while for 5|9 and 6|8 the expected results are 60% and 54.5% wins, resp. And the latter numbers are the more commonly seen ones to be resolved. To win 2/3 overall is to be killing it … is that really necessary? The math of figuring that out is too much for me, so I ran some trials using the Wizard craps game. Breaking it up into sessions containing 27 free odds resolutions, if that session was somewhat short of the two-thirds goal, like 2-4 wins short, you might come out an overall winner or loser by a few hundred dollars [$25 DP with 6x max odds of $150]. If it was more short than that, losing sessions up to -$1500 quickly accumulated. If only one W short, or 2 of 3 achieved or better, the winning amount quickly advanced to the same figure to the positive side. Bottom line, though, I often ran bad and minus $4325 was the final GT for it all which contained 810 free odds bets . So I guess the dealers would say “told you” but even though it took me a lot of time to run this, for any conclusions like that, there weren’t enough trials. The real fact of the matter is that a $25 table min and max odds is something harrowing to experience, even if eventually you come out ahead.

But I will also conclude it’s pretty accurate to say that you need to win 2 of 3 of your free odds bets to really win a chunk, and if you only come close you will still break about even. Less than that is going to be bad for your bankroll.

* usually this means taking down the bet and moving it to the DC. It is not a contract bet.

Quote: odiousgambit

Playing Craps, I’ve heard dealers tell more than one person who had asked for advice about the Don’t, not to play it. “You can’t win playing that” is the usual advice. This irritated me to hear that, but finally I decided that what they were observing and passing along was the challenge of winning enough times when, adding free odds, the player gets paid less than even. Due to this and the disadvantage of the resolved-on-Come-out betting, it is very easy to see that someone winning the free odds bets about half the time and initially feeling good about it, is actually losing money. If the player still wants to play, the dealers will then encourage betting nothing on the free odds and even ‘taking no action’* when a harder to win 6 or 8 is to be resolved. You ‘can’t win’ sure enough, doing that.

What I have been telling people instead is that the player needs to realize he needs to win 2 out of 3 of the free odds bets they make.

Is that simply too much winning to expect? 2 of 3 is the expected result for resolving 4 or 10, upon which the EV is zero, while for 5|9 and 6|8 the expected results are 60% and 54.5% wins, resp. And the latter numbers are the more commonly seen ones to be resolved. To win 2/3 overall is to be killing it … is that really necessary? The math of figuring that out is too much for me, so I ran some trials using the Wizard craps game. Breaking it up into sessions containing 27 free odds resolutions, if that session was somewhat short of the two-thirds goal, like 2-4 wins short, you might come out an overall winner or loser by a few hundred dollars [$25 DP with 6x max odds of $150]. If it was more short than that, losing sessions up to -$1500 quickly accumulated. If only one W short, or 2 of 3 achieved or better, the winning amount quickly advanced to the same figure to the positive side. Bottom line, though, I often ran bad and minus $4325 was the final GT for it all which contained 810 free odds bets . So I guess the dealers would say “told you” but even though it took me a lot of time to run this, for any conclusions like that, there weren’t enough trials. The real fact of the matter is that a $25 table min and max odds is something harrowing to experience, even if eventually you come out ahead.

But I will also conclude it’s pretty accurate to say that you need to win 2 of 3 of your free odds bets to really win a chunk, and if you only come close you will still break about even. Less than that is going to be bad for your bankroll.

* usually this means taking down the bet and moving it to the DC. It is not a contract bet.

elaboration you might want to skip

I am planning to visit a casino in November where it is quite likely I will be faced with frequent minimums of $25 at the Craps table. Since I haven’t played in a long time, I don’t want to just walk away from that, and any Craps player loves to stick it out for a big session. So I’m able to conclude here that winning 2 of 3 is not a crazy goal for a session, but it is difficult. The thing is, you will need to have a stop loss rule to keep from losing an upsetting amount. From the results I was able to determine that 4 free odds losses in a row was a big warning sign, or that such bets not winning 3 times in a row just as bad of a sign. Did it mean the table was going to continue to be bad? No, the dice don’t have a memory, but the thing is, your bankroll does! I concluded these signs mean it’s time to bow out.

link to original post

This is an awful lot of analysis for a 0EV bet.

Quote: SkinnyTony

This is an awful lot of analysis for a 0EV bet.
link to original post

I should have put the whole thing under the spoiler cover warning you might want to skip it. But I think you should have known to stop at the beginning words "playing craps"

This kind of betting has turned +EV for me in the past due to getting over-comped with cash equivalent value, plus other value. There's a limit to it, so hot shot APs should definitely skip any evaluation of it. Or any kind of gambling that is entertainment, their casino activity is all dreary drudgery to these unfortunates

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: SkinnyTony

This is an awful lot of analysis for a 0EV bet.
link to original post

I should have put the whole thing under the spoiler cover warning you might want to skip it. But I think you should have known to stop at the beginning words "playing craps"

This kind of betting has turned +EV for me in the past due to getting over-comped with cash equivalent value, plus other value. There's a limit to it, so hot shot APs should definitely skip any evaluation of it. Or any kind of gambling that is entertainment, their casino activity is all dreary drudgery to these unfortunates
link to original post

I love craps. It's the most fun game in the casino IMO.

0EV games are going to swing all over the place though. Analyzing streaks probably isn't useful. Changing betting patterns based on previous results definitely isn't.

Don't take gambling advice from dealers. Or other gamblers. Really, from anyone. But especially not dealers.

You get well comped from craps? Are you playing big?

Quote: odiousgambit

Playing Craps, I’ve heard dealers tell more than one person who had asked for advice about the Don’t, not to play it. “You can’t win playing that” is the usual advice. This irritated me to hear that, but finally I decided that what they were observing and passing along was the challenge of winning enough times when, adding free odds, the player gets paid less than even. Due to this and the disadvantage of the resolved-on-Come-out betting, it is very easy to see that someone winning the free odds bets about half the time and initially feeling good about it, is actually losing money. If the player still wants to play, the dealers will then encourage betting nothing on the free odds and even ‘taking no action’* when a harder to win 6 or 8 is to be resolved. You ‘can’t win’ sure enough, doing that.

link to original post

It sounds like the kind of sound advice that accompanies such gems as:

• Money management is the key to winning!
• Betting more when the table is hot is the key to winning!
• Setting the dice for come-out is the key to winning!
• I'm still dealing after 10 years, so I've seen a lot and know the key to winning!

I do think you're onto something. The light side pays greater than 1:1, so if you win a few in a row early on, you can walk away significantly ahead. (This is still improbable.)

Many players prefer that possibility of a bigger win, rather than a higher likelihood of being slightly ahead on the dark side.

For $25 table I'd be betting $30 on the DP with $90 odds and switch sides after losing 2 points or 1 point + 2 DP come-out rolls total per shooter. I can play 3X odds on the PL in case the shooter gets on a heater for 6 to 8 points, and try to make up for the DP losses with a win or two on the PL points. But it's back to the dark side for the next shooter If I'm shooting and I'm not absolutely sucking that day, I'd play the PL instead of the DP because I believe in myself but not others. It's amazing how an entire table of 10 other people can win the DP odds bet for you when the dice are cursed.

Quote: Dieter

Quote: odiousgambit

Playing Craps, I’ve heard dealers tell more than one person who had asked for advice about the Don’t, not to play it. “You can’t win playing that” is the usual advice. This irritated me to hear that, but finally I decided that what they were observing and passing along was the challenge of winning enough times when, adding free odds, the player gets paid less than even. Due to this and the disadvantage of the resolved-on-Come-out betting, it is very easy to see that someone winning the free odds bets about half the time and initially feeling good about it, is actually losing money. If the player still wants to play, the dealers will then encourage betting nothing on the free odds and even ‘taking no action’* when a harder to win 6 or 8 is to be resolved. You ‘can’t win’ sure enough, doing that.

link to original post

(¡snip snip!)

It sounds like the kind of sound advice that accompanies such gems as:

• Money management is the key to winning!
• Betting more when the table is hot is the key to winning!
• Setting the dice for come-out is the key to winning!
• I'm still dealing after 10 years, so I've seen a lot and know the key to winning!

I do think you're onto something. The light side pays greater than 1:1, so if you win a few in a row early on, you can walk away significantly ahead. (This is still improbable.)

Many players prefer that possibility of a bigger win, rather than a higher likelihood of being slightly ahead on the dark side.
link to original post

I do think many times the dealers are sincerely relating what they see for darkside betting, and don't realize what awful advice they give. Of course the last thing they are going to get is training to give good advice.

Quote: SkinnyTony

You get well comped from craps? Are you playing big?
link to original post

The pandemic largely ended my visits to the casinos, one reason being an extra reason to make the trip, which helped pay for it, went away.

I was simply getting overcomped, but there was a limit. Comps were set weekly, to keep you coming back, but I could do back to back by arriving evening, staying overnight, playing in the morning and leaving, and do one week after the other in that evening and a morning, and the stay got comped. This was more accurately playing free or at least cheaply, with comps on eating too. You wanted to tip or it all wasn't going to happen. My opinion was trying to bet more to get bigger comps was not going to work, that they were comfortable comping like that to someone tipping and would not comp more without having to justify it better.

thanks for sharing such a detailed breakdown! from what i understand the key takeaway is that winning 2 out of 3 free odds bets is really what swings the session into positive territory. anything less and you’re likely just breaking even or losing. sounds like the dealers’ advice isn’t just fear-mongering it’s based on how the math really plays out at the table. definitely gives me a new respect for the strategy behind the don’t bets!

Quote: ShadowVale44

thanks for sharing such a detailed breakdown! from what i understand the key takeaway is that winning 2 out of 3 free odds bets is really what swings the session into positive territory.

I had been saying that and was please to see it was right on the money.

Quote:

anything less and you’re likely just breaking even or losing. sounds like the dealers’ advice isn’t just fear-mongering it’s based on how the math really plays out at the table. definitely gives me a new respect for the strategy behind the don’t bets!
link to original post

The darkside is a funny place. The only thing keeping you from a winning formula is the come-out 12s that get rolled not paying you. The free odds can't overcome that in the long run because the expected value is zippo. In the short run, the free odds dominate everything, especially if max odds.

The last time I played Craps at a $25 table I predetermined to play only a few bets at max odds, darkside, so I could say my total action was less than what it used to be when I would play for 2-3 hours at a $5 table [yes, those thrilling days of yesteryear!]. If suffering 3 losses in a row in free odds bets, then immediate stop. I came out ahead $300 but there was no guarantee in that. The thing is, it's the only response you can give to the criticism that the free odds don't help you win more, and that is "the proportion of my bets in my total action that is up against a house edge is greatly reduced" and you have to prove that by less time at the table. I could go on LOL

Quote: odiousgambit

Playing Craps, I’ve heard dealers tell more than one person who had asked for advice about the Don’t, not to play it. “You can’t win playing that” is the usual advice.

link to original post

Losing DP bets with odds can be crushing.

Fellow where I was playing bought in for $1K. His strategy was to start with a $25 DP bet. After the point was established, he would lay double odds and place the 6 and 8 for $12 each. If either of those was the point, he would place the 5 for $10.

A seven-out would win the DP and odds, and more than offset the Place bet losses. Plus he might win some Place bets before the seven-out. Or so he figured.

Come out sevens and elevens, and points being made, cost him a lot more DP and odds bets than he anticipated. When the point was made a few times in a row, the dealer told him, "That don't pass bet is crushing you."

He continued the strategy anyway and busted three hours later.

losing 3 darkside free odds in a row *is* crushing, you need to be often doing the complete opposite and even then you get paid less than even. If you aren't doing 3 Ws in a row, and not the opposite, give it up. Hedging will just mean you are putting more and more money up against the HE with imperfect effect in cancelling of each other

I'm not going to show up on youtube showing how you can get rich betting the DP

The key takeaway for me as a primarily dark side player is that you sort of win even if you lose. If you lose, everyone at the table was hitting points and repeater numbers or crapload of 7/11 comeouts. I can be happy knowing the rest of the table made a fortune hopefully.

And the rest of the time, especially if youre willing to sit out a "hot" shooter, youre probably going to leave the table up some small-to-moderate %. Youre never going to walk out with a homerun like a light side bettor hitting multiple points or multiple repeater numbers that were pressed.

Dicedata youtube guy has done quite a few dark side tests and there's some wild findings on some of the strategies. Craps is still a -ev game but with positive variance and large enough bankroll a decent % of DS players could be a lifetime winner against casino.