Craps - Come odds working on come out roll?
deletedQuote: mustangsallythis does not at all result in average bets (and total action) being equal.
the no odds has an average of $50
$10 with $40 looks like $50
looks like $50
buts only 2/3 of the time IS $50
the other 1/3 = $10
1/3*10 + 2/3* 50 = 10/3+100/3 = 110/3 = $36.67
I say $10 with $60 odds has the same average bet as a $50 flat
or even
$30 flat with $30 odds = $50 average bet (even)
yes/no
no/yes
Sally
of course
the expected loss from the average $50 bet is different
with different flat bets - as expected.
Quote: MathExtremistSure, but once you've bet the $50, taking odds doesn't change your expected loss at all
sure, and I for one do not say to anyone to think so
Quote:... The focus on house edge as a percentage is misplaced in craps when it comes to the odds bets because that house edge percentage is reduced not by decreasing the numerator (the expected loss), but by increasing the denominator (the total wager). It's a qualitatively different issue than, say, doubling down vs. hitting on 11 vs. dealer 6.
I don't see how this foils the suggestion to the $50 line bettor who never takes odds to instead make the $10 + $40 odds bets instead. Yes, he is likely to misunderstand and bet $50 + $200 in odds, see it all the time. But some people are too dumb to help.
And I don't know why Steen pounced on me instead of you LOL.
Quote: mustangsallythis does not at all result in average bets (and total action) being equal.
the no odds has an average of $50
$10 with $40 looks like $50
looks like $50
buts only 2/3 of the time IS $50
that's a fact but is splitting hairs as an argument.
PS: I say you are helping that player even more because of your point. Can you see why?
Quote: odiousgambitCan you see why?
Oh, failed to stick the landing. Should have gone with "do you see why?" for the Sklansky finish.
It doesn't foil the suggestion per se, but those are two very different bets. $50 on the line wins even money 49.3% of the time and loses the rest. $10 on the line with the intention of betting $40 odds has a totally different outcome distribution. Plot it out as an exercise -- how often do you win $10, lose $10, lose $50, win $90, etc. The fact that one has a lower expected loss is almost irrelevant. It's like comparing Pai Gow Poker to a 6-spot keno ticket.Quote: odiousgambitI don't see how this foils the suggestion to the $50 line bettor who never takes odds to instead make the $10 + $40 odds bets instead.
Quote: MathExtremistIt doesn't foil the suggestion per se, but those are two very different bets. $50 on the line wins even money 49.3% of the time and loses the rest. $10 on the line with the intention of betting $40 odds has a totally different outcome distribution. Plot it out as an exercise -- how often do you win $10, lose $10, lose $50, win $90, etc. The fact that one has a lower expected loss is almost irrelevant. It's like comparing Pai Gow Poker to a 6-spot keno ticket.Quote: odiousgambitI don't see how this foils the suggestion to the $50 line bettor who never takes odds to instead make the $10 + $40 odds bets instead.
well, I'll give you "very different bets" - in fact I will say that one of the dumbest things about the line bet is the mind-numbing low variance - the SD being around "one".
Let me strike out what I said upthread,
the only thing indisputable is that the guy who puts $50 on the pass line and never adds odds could lower his EV and HE both by putting $10 on the line and $40 on free odds when it comes to EV and HE in Craps, there is absolutely nothing that is indisputable
Yet baccarat is far and away the biggest money maker in the table game pit, especially on a per-table basis. Nothing else comes close, and the SD of the banker bet is even smaller than the craps passline. Go figure.Quote: odiousgambitwell, I'll give you "very different bets" - in fact I will say that one of the dumbest things about the line bet is the mind-numbing low variance - the SD being around "one".
Quote: RSSomeone else said it before me -- but it's true: Saying increasing (or working) your odds decreases the house edge is like saying adding water to a eggs & flour reduces the calories.
Adding water to eggs & flour most definitely DOES reduce the calories! You're just not looking at it properly. Yes, of course the total calories are not reduced if you force a person to consume the entire quantity but the calories per unit volume are decreased and so for a person consuming the same quantity as before, the calories will most definitely be reduced.
For example:
Let's say you can eat 1 cup of eggs & flour which a contain a total of X calories. If you add 1 cup of water to the mix, does that mean you're suddenly capable of consuming 2 cups? No. If you continue to consume 1 cup as before then the you'll now be consuming half the calories.
Quote:Want to eat 3 Big Macs and be healthy? Just drink a gallon of water! Water away those calories..
Do you think a person who ate 3 Big Macs could also consume a gallon of water? Have him drink the gallon first and then see how many Big Macs he can eat! Can't eat three? Well hey, that reduces his calories!!
Quote:As said by me: To say having odds on a come or line bet decreases the house edge is to say that the odds bet has a house edge. Or in other words, water by itself has no calories, but if you pour it into a coke - now water has calories.
Again this is looking at it wrong. Nobody is saying (or should be saying) that the water now has calories but rather the COMBINATION of food and water has fewer calories per volume unit than the food alone.
Each and every bet on the table has an expected value - some negative, some zero. Are you saying that you can't compute a combined expected loss if one of the included bets has an individual EV of zero? That's nonsense. You most definitely CAN compute a combined expected loss and it would rightfully be a weighted average of the included bets.
In the case of a line bet with odds, your combined average has a lower loss per dollar of action than the flat bet alone but a greater loss per dollar of action than the odds bet alone. So of course you're not lowering the house edge of the line bet itself. You're lowering the house edge per unit of action when compared to flat betting alone.
Therefore, just like the guy who can only consume X amount of food, a gambler who bets X number of dollars utilizing flats + odds will lose less than if he had bet X number of dollars on flat bets alone.
Steen
Quote: MathExtremistYet baccarat is far and away the biggest money maker in the table game pit, especially on a per-table basis. Nothing else comes close, and the SD of the banker bet is even smaller than the craps passline. Go figure.
If I remember correctly, it's also one of the most volatile for the casino....since people tend to bet together with large spreads....they bet $25 min for a long time then they all jump up to $1k...
Quote: odiousgambitLet me strike out what I said upthread,
the only thing indisputable is that the guy who puts $50 on the pass line and never adds odds could lower his EV and HE both by putting $10 on the line and $40 on free odds when it comes to EV and HE in Craps, there is absolutely nothing that is indisputable
Why did you backtrack on this? There's absolutely nothing wrong with what you wrote. A gambler betting $10/$40 will most definitely lose less on average that one betting $50 flat.
Now, it's also true what Sally wrote. You should compare something like $10/$60 or $30/$30 to $50 flat because they all produce the same average amount of action. When you compare $50 flat to $10/$40, part of the reduction in average loss is due to the shifting of action from the flat to the odds (which I believe was your point) but part is due to the lower average action. Nevertheless I think the gist of your argument was correct.
Now, about this pouncing. How did I pounce on you? I actually agreed with your basic formula but just showed that it needed to be adorned with units and made into a correct percentage so it could be seen that the difference in interpretation was due to a mix-up of EV expressed in dollars versus one expressed as a percentage.
Steen
Quote: SteenQuote: odiousgambitLet me strike out what I said upthread,
the only thing indisputable is that the guy who puts $50 on the pass line and never adds odds could lower his EV and HE both by putting $10 on the line and $40 on free odds when it comes to EV and HE in Craps, there is absolutely nothing that is indisputable
Why did you backtrack on this?
I still think what I wrote is true, but it was just proven that you can't say it is indisputable, since it got immediately disputed. The bunch that dislikes the odds bet disputes everything.
Quote:.... Now, about this pouncing. How did I pounce on you? I actually agreed with your basic formula
I didn't think that was clear. It seemed more like you just didn't like my comment.
Quote:but just showed that it needed to be adorned with units and made into a correct percentage so it could be seen that the difference in interpretation was due to a mix-up of EV expressed in dollars versus one expressed as a percentage
Steen
I can see that anything that can be expressed as a number can also be expressed as a percentage, and vice versa. Otherwise, you kind of lost me.
I think you and I are indeed in the other 'bunch' - those that appreciate the free odds bet. Yet I don't want to get into any more of a s**t-storm with the other posters than it already has become. Clearly their intention also is just to express in a non-flaming manner what they think, and when it comes to backing up their statements with math, I have to bow to superior abilities. They always take off on the EV not changing - so I have taken to commenting always when I see someone equating EV and HE, since IMO it makes a sloppy argument [they can't see that]. Some of them work for the Darkside from what I can tell. I only hope that there is no subsequent motivation to play down the free odds - Steve Wynn should have proved to the doubters once and for all that the House doesn't like the free odds, which is one of the strong arguments in favor of using them.
Sometimes I'll play the don't and lay double odds. I like to place the chips like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. But if I do play the don't I don't have more than three points working (too much money flying at you if a 7 comes and I want to make sure the payout is correct).
Quote: MathExtremistIt doesn't foil the suggestion per se, but those are two very different bets.Quote: odiousgambitI don't see how this foils the suggestion to the $50 line bettor who never takes odds to instead make the $10 + $40 odds bets instead.
Yes, of course they're different bets. Are you implying that they have to be the same in order to determine which on average returns more to a gambler?
Quote:$50 on the line wins even money 49.3% of the time and loses the rest. $10 on the line with the intention of betting $40 odds has a totally different outcome distribution. Plot it out as an exercise -- how often do you win $10, lose $10, lose $50, win $90, etc. The fact that one has a lower expected loss is almost irrelevant.
Irrelevant? Not to the gambler who wants the most bang for his buck.
Quote:It's like comparing Pai Gow Poker to a 6-spot keno ticket.
And what's wrong with that? The purpose of figuring the edge is not only to see how much the house is gouging you but also to be able to make fair comparisons between wagers. If I'm trying to decide whether to play Pai Gow or Keno then comparing the expected value of my wagers is not only valid but necessary.
Steen
Almost nobody plays wagering games solely because the percentage house edge is low. Anyone who's that laser-focused on expected loss percentage is likely not gambling in the first place because there are plenty of ways to get a positive expected gain percentage outside a casino. Put another way, the people who are the most focused on having the most favorable expected return are APs and they have positive ones anyway.
Yup, that can be quite a problem. But it's definitely bearable. As a matter of fact, I tell the dealers who like to stack up the payoff by denomination that's it's perfectly all right to "wedding cake" the cheques, adding that sorting them out is not really the most distasteful task to undertake.Quote: GreasyjohnSometimes I'll play the don't and lay double odds. I like to place the chips like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. But if I do play the don't I don't have more than three points working (too much money flying at you if a 7 comes and I want to make sure the payout is correct).
this is an April Fool's comment, right?Quote: MathExtremistplayer-specific financial goals
like
the chance to achieve 10x your bankroll.
That's almost impossible with blackjack or craps
Craps is way easy with just pass/2x odds or dpass and 2x lay odds
say with $10 flat bets (abouts 1 in 12 chance and 1.2k rolls on average)
with $5 flat bets (abouts 1 in 15 chance and 5.8k rolls on average)
($5 wit 345x odds does even better than 1 in 15, looks like close to 1 in 11, as expected and 1.8k avg rolls)
so not enough time to see this happen if one plays just simple line bets.
(it B way way easier in an evening play to turn $100 into $600)
you must mean the way craps players play, place bets and press and pull and hardways bets and parlays and such
like my 1 in 12 craps example?Quote: MathExtremistSomeone buying into a slot game for $100 has a decent shot at walking with $1000
i think not that good of a chance
hahaQuote: MathExtremistBut someone buying into a craps game with $100 has almost
no shot
at walking with $1000; it happens, but very rarely.
that is April funny
makes May bright and Sunny
Sally
Sure -- it's all about how you bet. And I probably should have been clearer, I meant the chances of doing 10x your bankroll (not your starting bet) in a reasonable gaming session, not in some theoretical, unbounded construct. It's all well and good to run random walks until ruin ignoring time, but during the course of a 2-hour session, someone who buys in to a slot machine with $100 and makes $1 or $2 bets has a much greater chance of both busting and hitting $1000 than a blackjack player who buys in for $100 and makes $5 bets. At a crowded table, you might get in 200 hands in 2 hours. Winning $1000 with $5 bets means winning just about all of them. The point is that just looking at the house edge is not always the best way to evaluate a wager.Quote: mustangsallyyou must mean the way craps players play, place bets and press and pull and hardways bets and parlays and such
Compare
(a) a 5.3% edge Buffalo slot game with a 40c bet at 400 bets/hour, and
(b) a 1% edge blackjack game (factoring in minor mistakes) with a $10 bet at 100 bets/hour.
5.3% * .4 * 400 = $8.43 loss/hour on the slot game
1% * 10 * 100 = $10 loss/hour at blackjack. The slot game is better in this comparison, if "better" means "has a lower expected loss per hour."
Quote: MathExtremistThere's nothing wrong with it per se, but if all you're doing is comparing the expected loss per wager made, that's only a small fraction of the overall picture.
I don't think he said that's ALL he's doing. And I'm certainly not advocating that it's the ONLY thing to consider. However, it's a non-subjective piece of information and for someone who cares about his gambling dollars, it's an important piece.
Quote:Expected loss per hour (which incorporates wagering rate) is a more complete measurement
Well, maybe more complete to you but maybe not to another gambler. But even so, wagering rate really has nothing to do with which bets provide better or worse returns because it's easily adjusted through scaling and/or timing.
For example:
PlayerX prefers $90 Place5 bet over $90 Field bet (with 3x12) because on average it loses less per roll (and hence less per hour) than the Field. However, if he would consider that Place5 loses less per roll because it resolves less often (10/36 versus 36/36) then he might realize that by betting the Field less often (an average of once every 3.6 rolls) he would experience the exact same wagering rate (amount of action per unit of time) while in fact losing less per roll! If he prefers to have something on the table at all times, then he could simply maintain a $25 Field bet. Again, he'd experience the same average amount of action per roll (per unit of time) while losing less per roll!
What if he prefers Place5 because it has a slightly higher standard deviation? Ok, that's fine, it's additional information that he might decide is more important to him. Another player might decide that something different is more important. Some of these decisions may be rational and some not, but none renders EV per dollar of action meaningless. Whether a player likes Place5 because of its loss per hour or because it matches his birthday, it can still always be said that it loses more per dollar of action than a Field bet (3x12).
Quote:But someone buying into a craps game with $100 has almost no shot at walking with $1000; it happens, but very rarely.
Better look at that one again or tell me what you mean by "very rarely".
Quote:Almost nobody plays wagering games solely because the percentage house edge is low.
Whoever said that they did? And besides, the same can be said about wagering rate or any other metric.
You may have chosen your car because it looks cool or has comfortable seats but if you use it for transportation and you care about your money then it's average cost to operate per mile still means something.
Quote:Anyone who's that laser-focused on expected loss percentage is likely not gambling in the first place because there are plenty of ways to get a positive expected gain percentage outside a casino.
You can't say that categorically. Gambling may be a losing proposition but many people still do it anyway and yet most (I would contend) still care about their money. At some point in time they begin to wonder just how big their chosen "losing proposition" is.
People often wonder how the casinos can reap such large profits from bets with such small edges (like 1.41% passline). Well, we know it's because the money they wager typically gets cycled through the machine many times over and so what was a small percentage of one bet becomes a large percentage of one's bankroll. Hence, being laser-focused on that percentage isn't such a bad thing.
Steen
The reason I say that is because money is typically not a finite resource, but time is -- lots of people exceed their gambling budget and refill at the ATM, but almost nobody says "I'm going to push my flight until tomorrow so I can keep gambling." And in the bigger picture you can always spend time to replace money that you've lost, but you can't ever replace time that you've lost...Quote: SteenWell, maybe more complete to you but maybe not to another gambler. But even so, wagering rate really has nothing to do with which bets provide better or worse returns because it's easily adjusted through scaling and/or timing.
The typical tourist gambler on a weekend trip is, in my opinion, better served by examining expected loss over the time they expect to gamble rather than expected loss as a percentage of total wager volume. A quarter 8/5 JoB video poker player at 400 hands/hour has a lower expected loss than a $10+3/4/5x pass/come bettor at craps at 100 rolls/hour, even though the house edge on the craps game is -- by percentage -- more than 7x smaller. So I don't think house edge as a percentage is nearly sufficient to look at when comparing games. A simple comparison of the house edge on two disparate games is not relevant to the actual experience of most gamblers.
The spread sheet was really cool to.Quote: odiousgambitgotta love Steen [in case anyone was wondering how I felt]
Quote: petroglyphThe spread sheet was really cool to.Quote: odiousgambitgotta love Steen [in case anyone was wondering how I felt]
I'm a Steen fan myself. Nice to see him come back thru here.
Quote: RSNo idea why Steen is arguing the side he's arguing...
Have I been inconsistent in my writings? Is there something I need to clarify?
Steen
Steen, you must have been assumed to be one of the 'good guys', so the stance is puzzling evidently
Quote: MathExtremistThe reason I say that is because money is typically not a finite resource, but time is -- lots of people exceed their gambling budget and refill at the ATM, but almost nobody says "I'm going to push my flight until tomorrow so I can keep gambling." And in the bigger picture you can always spend time to replace money that you've lost, but you can't ever replace time that you've lost...
Perhaps you have a more generous bank. Mine limits how much I can withdraw, so money is definitely a finite resource :-) However, I do agree that time lost can't be replaced and I've no objection to anyone measuring their average outcome in terms of time. But how does that diminish the significance of EV per dollar of action?
Quote:The typical tourist gambler on a weekend trip is, in my opinion, better served by examining expected loss over the time they expect to gamble rather than expected loss as a percentage of total wager volume. A quarter 8/5 JoB video poker player at 400 hands/hour has a lower expected loss than a $10+3/4/5x pass/come bettor at craps at 100 rolls/hour, even though the house edge on the craps game is -- by percentage -- more than 7x smaller. So I don't think house edge as a percentage is nearly sufficient to look at when comparing games. A simple comparison of the house edge on two disparate games is not relevant to the actual experience of most gamblers.
400 decisions/hr at $0.25/dec = $100 action/hr
versus
100 rolls/hr at an average of 3.376 rolls/decision = 29.62 decisions/hr
At an average of $37.78 action/dec = $1119 action/hr
Wow! Without even looking at the expected value that's over 11 times more action on the passline! How's that a fair comparison?
That's like saying one should prefer the Field over the Passline because $100 of action in the Field yields a lower expected loss than $1119 of action on the Passline!
Increase the video poker player's wagers to $2.80/dec and try comparing again. (Or decrease the craps wagers to $0.90 flat with 345x odds).
In my opinion, when it comes to figuring expected losses, one should first learn about the available wagers, then select those that yield the best expected value per dollar of action then scale and/or time to suit other desires such as action, playing time, etc.
Steen
Quote: Steen400 decisions/hr at $0.25/dec = $100 action/hr
I wasn't clear -- quarter VP is $1.25/hand, so that's $500 handle/hour. But the bigger point is that we should be comparing the actual distributions of gaming outcomes, not just the means of those distributions. Over any digestible timeframe like a weekend, the mean (house edge) of a game's outcome distribution is almost always dominated by the variance or skewness (or both) of that game's distribution.
If the question being asked is "which game has the lowest house edge as a percentage of total wager" then of course you can answer that question directly. But that's almost never the question being asked. Often the real question is more nuanced or high-level, like "what game should I play?"
You can't fairly answer the question "what game should I play" solely by referring to the percentage house edge. That's an incomplete answer.
And on the operator side, actual money is clearly more important than percentages. For example, the Fire Bet has a house edge of 20.76%. My Hard Pass bet, which I'm working on getting into casinos later this year, has a house edge of only 9.09%. So is the Fire Bet better for the house? As it turns out, not at all. The Fire Bet is booked once per shooter, while the Hard Pass bet is booked once per come-out, so you can make about 2.5x as many Hard Pass bets over the same number of rolls. That means the house stands to make 10% more per hour -- and 10% more per month -- from someone playing $1 Hard Pass bets compared to $1 Fire Bets.
I submit that the same reasoning should apply to players. Knowing that your expected loss in dollars is 10% greater playing one game than another is, to me, more important than knowing what the percentage edge was over total action. You buy dinner with dollars, not percentages.
Quote: MathExtremistKnowing that your expected loss in dollars is 10% greater playing one game than another is, to me, more important than knowing what the percentage edge was over total action. You buy dinner with dollars, not percentages.
I generally agree. I'd like some info on my total action and variance as well.
I think resolved bets per hour is an under-considered statistic. It's why I always find myself advocating that pai gow poker and blackjack are more similar in expectation than one might think.
From a dollar standpoint, assuming equivalent bet sizes, that's absolutely true. In fact, it's surprising how many games are reasonably close when viewed from that standpoint.Quote: MrGoldenSunI think resolved bets per hour is an under-considered statistic. It's why I always find myself advocating that pai gow poker and blackjack are more similar in expectation than one might think.
I put together a post a while ago about "Expected Loss Per Hour," and if you measure that using bets rather than dollars, you get a pretty good yardstick with which to compare many games. For example, flat-betting the passline and taking whatever odds you want has an expected loss per hour of about 1/2 bet, whatever size that bet is -- for a $10 table, it's $5/hour, for a $25 table, it's $12.50/hour, etc. That thread, by the way, turned into a calculator here:
http://vegasclick.com/gambling/expectedloss.html
Quote: MathExtremistI wasn't clear -- quarter VP is $1.25/hand, so that's $500 handle/hour.
Ok, so $10 flat w/345x odds yields over twice the action as $1.25/hand video poker. The original question remains unanswered: How is that a fair comparison?
Quote:But the bigger point is that we should be comparing the actual distributions of gaming outcomes, not just the means of those distributions. Over any digestible timeframe like a weekend, the mean (house edge) of a game's outcome distribution is almost always dominated by the variance or skewness (or both) of that game's distribution.
If you think that no one is laser-focused on the house edge, what makes you think they're laser-focused on the variance and skewness?
Again, I've no objection to gamblers considering additional information. As a matter of fact I write about it and encourage it in WinCraps' help file. It's the old story of "Expectation isn't everything".
But let's get back to your original statement to odiousgambit:
"... once you've bet the $50, taking odds doesn't change your expected loss at all"
He made no mention of variance, skew, loss per hour, etc. He simply stated that the guy who puts $50 on the pass line and never adds odds could lower his EV and HE both by putting $10 on the line and $40 on free odds. How does your discussion of loss per hour, variance, and skewness invalidate his statement?
The fact is, taking odds DOES lower the expected loss, but you have to be more specific. It lowers the expected loss on the player's total action, not on the original flat bet.
Once a player understands this he can do a couple things:
1) He can reapportion his wagers to make smaller flat bets with the intention of taking odds.
2) He can take money he has on other bets and divert it to odds, or he can take money he would otherwise use for subsequent flat bets (or worse) and use it to take odds.
If a player made a $50 Passline bet with the intention of making no more wagers and it became established on a point, then the statement "You can lower your expected loss by taking odds" is moot because it's too late - he can't reduce the flat bet and he doesn't want to make any further wagers. There's no argument here. In this case he might just learn to make smaller flat bets in the future.
However, if he does intend to make more wagers or has the ability to divert money from other wagers, then taking odds absolutely reduces his expected loss on his total action. The player who derides odds and uses his money instead to make other flat bets (or worse) is shooting himself in the foot.
Quote:If the question being asked is "which game has the lowest house edge as a percentage of total wager" then of course you can answer that question directly. But that's almost never the question being asked. Often the real question is more nuanced or high-level, like "what game should I play?"
You can't fairly answer the question "what game should I play" solely by referring to the percentage house edge. That's an incomplete answer.
Yes, of course, your point is a good one. But I still fail to see how that invalidates odiousgambit's statement.
Quote:And on the operator side, actual money is clearly more important than percentages. For example, the Fire Bet has a house edge of 20.76%. My Hard Pass bet, which I'm working on getting into casinos later this year, has a house edge of only 9.09%. So is the Fire Bet better for the house? As it turns out, not at all. The Fire Bet is booked once per shooter, while the Hard Pass bet is booked once per come-out, so you can make about 2.5x as many Hard Pass bets over the same number of rolls. That means the house stands to make 10% more per hour -- and 10% more per month -- from someone playing $1 Hard Pass bets compared to $1 Fire Bets.
I must assume that this hang-up about percentage is a carryover from some other conversation. I don't think I've ever claimed that EV MUST be expressed as a percentage. It makes it more easily transportable but it's not mandatory.
Now about the Fire bet. You can't dispute that it IS better for the house for a given amount of action. Your selling point here is that the Hard Pass would attract so much more action that the house would make more profits despite the fact that they're earning less per dollar of action. That's a perfectly fine selling point but it doesn't invalidate the expected profit per dollar of action. If anything, it's application to the player should be a warning, "Maintaining this wager will likely cause you to bet far more than an equally sized Fire bet."
By the way, I think it's great you've found interest in the Hard Pass. I look forward to seeing it because I can boast that I know the guy who created it! Good luck!
Quote:I submit that the same reasoning should apply to players. Knowing that your expected loss in dollars is 10% greater playing one game than another is, to me, more important than knowing what the percentage edge was over total action. You buy dinner with dollars, not percentages.
That's because you're failing to compare commensurate risk, like when you compare betting $1.25 per hand in video poker to $10 Passline with 345x odds. Knowing that the expected loss per dollar of action is greater in one game than another allows a player who cares about his money to make the best choice and then just adjust his action to suit his needs.
Quote: you previously wroteThe focus on house edge as a percentage is misplaced in craps when it comes to the odds bets because that house edge percentage is reduced not by decreasing the numerator (the expected loss), but by increasing the denominator (the total wager).
I suggest that it's not misplaced. Increasing the denominator by diverting money from wagers on which the house maintains an edge absolutely decreases the raw dollar amount the player can expect to lose on his stake. Furthermore, knowing this fact allows the player to decrease the numerator in advance with the intention of taking odds when able.
Steen
Right, but $10 flat with no odds is less action than $1.25/hand video poker. However, because odds has no expected loss, both craps sessions have exactly the same expected loss due to the pass only. The point is that it makes no sense to suggest that somehow playing VP is better than $10 pass with no odds but worse than playing $10 pass with 3/4/5x odds. I know you didn't make that suggestion, but strictly ranking by house edge percentage would indicate that.Quote: SteenOk, so $10 flat w/345x odds yields over twice the action as $1.25/hand video poker. The original question remains unanswered: How is that a fair comparison?
No, the loss is constant. It lowers the ratio of that loss to the total action, but it doesn't actually decrease the loss at all. The expected loss on a $10 line bet is 14c whether I take odds or not. The loss itself doesn't change.Quote:The fact is, taking odds DOES lower the expected loss, but you have to be more specific. It lowers the expected loss on the player's total action, not on the original flat bet.
All that's true, but I rarely see that happen where someone takes down another bet and uses it for odds (except a place bet covered by a come). And I've never heard anyone say (out loud) "I was going to bet this $5 on the come for the next roll, but instead I'm going to put it on odds." Most players don't even take full 3/4/5x odds.Quote:Once a player understands this he can do a couple things:
1) He can reapportion his wagers to make smaller flat bets with the intention of taking odds.
2) He can take money he has on other bets and divert it to odds, or he can take money he would otherwise use for subsequent flat bets (or worse) and use it to take odds.
For most, the question boils down to "should I put odds behind my line bet or not?" If they read that the house edge is smaller with odds and reason that they should put more money behind the line to realize that smaller house edge, that's misleading and incorrect. The line bet that they've already made is not affected by the odds bet.
Thanks for the well wishes, I appreciate it. You can be sure I'll let everyone know when and where (and if) it goes live. And I'd never suggest that the house wouldn't win more with a given amount of action, but a given amount of action is never what the casino measures. They go by monthly win numbers, and by that yardstick, if you have two players next to each other and one is making $1 Fire Bets every time he can, and the other is making $1 Hard Pass bets every time she can, the house wins 10% more from the Hard Pass player. That's why I do revenue projections based on timeframes. It doesn't help the house to know that $10,000 action on one bet wins more than $10,000 action on another if the first bet gets the $10k action in two months and the other takes a week. It's a business; cashflow is king.Quote:Now about the Fire bet. You can't dispute that it IS better for the house for a given amount of action. Your selling point here is that the Hard Pass would attract so much more action that the house would make more profits despite the fact that they're earning less per dollar of action. That's a perfectly fine selling point but it doesn't invalidate the expected profit per dollar of action. If anything, it's application to the player should be a warning, "Maintaining this wager will likely cause you to bet far more than an equally sized Fire bet."
By the way, I think it's great you've found interest in the Hard Pass. I look forward to seeing it because I can boast that I know the guy who created it! Good luck!
Similarly for players, it's really important to understand wagering rates in order to compare expected losses between two bets that resolve at different frequencies. What's "better", the 2x/3x Field or the Place 9 bet? On a per-bet basis, it's the Field. On a per-hour basis, it's the Place 9 bet by a landslide. If someone wants to play craps for an hour or two before dinner, and they read in a book "the house edge on the Field is 2.78% and the house edge on the Place 9 bet is 4%," and they think "2.78% < 4%" so they stand there for two hours on the Field instead of the Place 9, their expected loss for the hour or two before dinner is 250% as much as it would have been just camping out on the 9. If an intelligent player knows that and makes an informed bet, great. But someone who doesn't know the game or the math and is relying on the brochure from the gift shop, they're being misled if they try to use the listed percentages as an indication of the price of the game. I think if you tell a player that (a) the cost of keeping a Field bet working every roll is about 2.8 bets/hour and (b) the cost of keeping a Place 9 bet working every roll is about 1.1 bets/hour, then they're more informed for it. From there it's easy to see that making a Field bet every other roll costs 1.4 bets/hour, or betting on the 5 and 9 costs 2.2 bets/hour, etc.
By the way, that's also why I don't cringe as much as I used to when I see people playing prop bets. Big money on the prop area every roll is one thing, but if someone throws in a $1 hardway on an even point and that's all, that costs far less per hour than camping out on a $6 each 6 and 8. And there are a lot of players who like hitting a hardway more than a place bet, even if the win is about the same ($7 vs. $7 or $9). What really kills me is the every-roll field bettors. Except there's always a hot streak; I saw a guy at the Aria win about $500 with green chips on the field in about 5 minutes. So many craps rolls...
It'd be better to say something like: Whatever amount you're comfortable wagering, you should break it up so that you bet x amount on the line and y amount on odds, as you'll lose less than putting X+Y on the line.
Many times, as a craps dealer, you see someone betting the minimum $5 or $10 on the pass line, learning the game, or have some idea of the game but not a good understanding. Do you think telling this person "you should mad out the odds bet because that'll lower the house edge" actually makes sense? Of course not, because he's still losing that 1.41% of his $5 or $10 line bet.
Now if someone has $500 on the line and no odds, probably better to tell him, "Hey, if you still like to bet $500 on the pass....you'd be better off betting $100 or $150 on the pass line, then the rest of the money on the odds."
Saying playing the odds decreases the house edge would mean it'd be a GOOD BET to make, like doubling down 11v6 or splitting 8,8vs3 in BJ. But it's not a GOOD BET to play the odds, it's a FAIR BET. It doesn't matter if you play the odds or no odds, it's the same expected loss.
The really frustrating part is I would have a 5,6,9 working. They would throw a 7 and then a 9. That happened all but 1 time.
Quote: GWAESecond session in a row where my working come bets got murdered.
I know you weren't much into Craps not so long ago, so it'd be interesting to ask you a few questions if you don't mind. You have been influenced Wizardly but also I saw influences from other elements, so it makes a test case. I particularly remember you getting the idea that it might be important to get all the numbers covered, a lot of the players you observed were trying to do that, and you asked if you should be making more place bets.
What about the current discussion, which category do you place yourself in? I assume you are not the player who bets big on the line without odds or any other bets [is there such a player besides a newbie?] So are you ...
*the player who bets the minimum on the line and takes free odds, the combined bet being comfortable for you; if wanting more action making similar come bets with odds?
or
*the player who bets whatever on the line, but isn't comfortable with large bets and doesn't add odds or much in odds. If wanting more action, seeks out hardways, any craps, field bets, etc?
Quote: odiousgambitI know you weren't much into Craps not so long ago, so it'd be interesting to ask you a few questions if you don't mind. You have been influenced Wizardly but also I saw influences from other elements, so it makes a test case. I particularly remember you getting the idea that it might be important to get all the numbers covered, a lot of the players you observed were trying to do that, and you asked if you should be making more place bets.
What about the current discussion, which category do you place yourself in? I assume you are not the player who bets big on the line without odds or any other bets [is there such a player besides a newbie?] So are you ...
*the player who bets the minimum on the line and takes free odds, the combined bet being comfortable for you; if wanting more action making similar come bets with odds?
or
*the player who bets whatever on the line, but isn't comfortable with large bets and doesn't add odds or much in odds. If wanting more action, seeks out hardways, any craps, field bets, etc?
You are very right. When we had WoV east a few years back I had just started playing come bets and Teddy, you, and 1 other basically taught me the basics of come bets. After that point I was doing continuous come bets. As you remember I had some discussion on here about having too many come bets out and it seemed like it was impossible to actually win. I have now tweaked my play to be the same exact every single time. It is as follows.
I buy in for $200 at a $5 table. I play $1 on the fire every roll as well.
I play $5 pass and also have 2 come bets. I also keep my come bets working on the come out. I may remove this as I play with a small bank roll and probably should reduce my variance a little.
As far as odds I do the following. If my remaining chips in the rack is 0-100 I have 2x odds, 200-300 I have 3x odds, 300-500 I have 4x odds. Anything over $500 I take 5x odds.
I also set my session limit at 2 hours. I actually set an alarm on my phone and when it goes off I leave immediately after the current shooter.
I also rat hole chips after every shooter. I do it as follows. If I have 2 come bets on numbers and no new come bet then I rat hole $5, If I have 0-1 come bets with odds and $5 on the come during a 7 out then I rat hole whatever the current amount of odds I would have played on that come bet if it would have gone up on a number. Whenever my rack has less money than 1 pass with 2x odds and 1 come with 2x odds (so under $30) then my session is over. I will walk with that money plus the money I rat holed.
Only I can turn a complicated game into a more complicated one.
Quote: GWAEQuote: odiousgambitOnly I can turn a complicated game into a more complicated one.
OK, good, glad you are sticking with something sensible, at least in your reply it sounds like you stay away from the sucker bets.
Of course, we all have to remember it's negative expectation no matter how we bet. Going back to your original comment about 7-out first, then your number gets rolled ... such things are to be expected as the negative EV plays itself out and we all endure it.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: GWAEFor a little while I was playing $1 hard 6 and 8 then I would parlay the winning once and hope for the $90 win. Then someone on here, maybe Teddy, said that I should self bank my parlay. So I was putting $1 on the rack each time that I would bet the hard way, if the hard 8 came up then I would take $10 from my $1 chips and make a $10 hard way. Doing it this way I was only paying the HE on the $10 bet instead of HE on each $1 plus the HE on the parlay. There were some sessions where my normal play money would be out so I would cash out my hard way bank. However I stopped doing it because it wasn't very much fun.
Hard 6or8 HE is 9.091% (1/11) isn't that a pretty poor bet? If that's true what is the parlay HE? I think that takes the HE to 30.15% is that right?
Quote: rushdlHard 6or8 HE is 9.091% (1/11) isn't that a pretty poor bet? If that's true what is the parlay HE? I think that takes the HE to 30.15% is that right?
I'm going to assume a "pay and take it down" for math cuz I been up for like 14 hours now and my brain be gettin' fuzzy. But --
$1 to win $99, with the odds to win are 1/11^2 = 1/121. So you lose $120 for every $99 you win, for $121 in action. In other words, you lose $21 for every $121 in action. -$21/$121 ~= -0.173553719 = -17.35% EV (17.35% HE).
Right. Alternately, the return on a single wager is 1-0.090909... = 0.90909; parlaying that is 0.90909^2 = 0.82645; the edge based on that is 1-0.82645 = 0.17355. In other words, when combining the effects of multiple transactions on the same initial wager, it's easier to work with the payback percentage than the edge because you just multiply everything together.Quote: RSI'm going to assume a "pay and take it down" for math cuz I been up for like 14 hours now and my brain be gettin' fuzzy. But --
$1 to win $99, with the odds to win are 1/11^2 = 1/121. So you lose $120 for every $99 you win, for $121 in action. In other words, you lose $21 for every $121 in action. -$21/$121 ~= -0.173553719 = -17.35% EV (17.35% HE).
Ironically, the biggest win of my life came when I was pressing my line bet and didn't have odds at all. I took $25 and worked it up to over $4000 on a hot streak, 12 wins in a row. After about 7 or 8 wins, a few people who had gathered around told me I should take odds (I had either $800 or $1000 on the line at that time) and the dealers shushed them.Quote: RSNow if someone has $500 on the line and no odds, probably better to tell him, "Hey, if you still like to bet $500 on the pass....you'd be better off betting $100 or $150 on the pass line, then the rest of the money on the odds."
That's probably the best argument against working your come odds on the comeout -- it's exposes you to a meaningful loss even though the shooter's hand isn't over. A sequence like 7-3-12 on the comeout is a minor annoyance under the default behavior but for a working come bettor could mean a total bust-out.Quote: GWAESecond session in a row where my working come bets got murdered. I had 3 come bets with $20 odds lose on a 7 come out 8 times.
Also, I haven't quantified this, but even though the odds bet has no edge, working the odds bets during the comeout would seem to decrease the variance (that the odds bets are exposed to) due to the effects of the 7. All other things equal, decreasing variance is a bad thing; after all, an odds bet with no variance at all isn't really a bet in the first place.
"I'd like to make a zero-variance odds bet on that coin flip. Here's $5."
"Okay. <flips coin> And here's your $5 back."
Quote: MathExtremistThat's probably the best argument against working your come odds on the comeout -- it's exposes you to a meaningful loss even though the shooter's hand isn't over. A sequence like 7-3-12 on the comeout is a minor annoyance under the default behavior but for a working come bettor could mean a total bust-out.
Also, I haven't quantified this, but even though the odds bet has no edge, working the odds bets during the comeout would seem to decrease the variance (that the odds bets are exposed to) due to the effects of the 7. All other things equal, decreasing variance is a bad thing; after all, an odds bet with no variance at all isn't really a bet in the first place.
"I'd like to make a zero-variance odds bet on that coin flip. Here's $5."
"Okay. <flips coin> And here's your $5 back."
I am confused a little about variance (and always have been). If I have come bets that are working, is my variance less or more compared to keeping them off? I have more bets exposed to the 7 but I have more bets? More bets gets you closer to EV so variance would be less right? If I don't work them then I have less bets so variance is higher, right? I said a few posts ago that I may stop working them in order to reduce variance but I guess I said that wrong.
Maybe there is a middle ground? If I have 1 bet with odds I would work them but if I have 2 then I will keep them off. The box and I had a chuckle about the horrible luck I was having. Every come out he would laugh and double check that I wanted them on. I would say yes so the guy next to me would throw in $30 and hop the 7s. He made a killing.
Quote: RSI'm going to assume a "pay and take it down" for math cuz I been up for like 14 hours now and my brain be gettin' fuzzy. But --
$1 to win $99, with the odds to win are 1/11^2 = 1/121. So you lose $120 for every $99 you win, for $121 in action. In other words, you lose $21 for every $121 in action. -$21/$121 ~= -0.173553719 = -17.35% EV (17.35% HE).
Wow so by self parlaying it you are really saving a ton of money.
Maybe I should self pay all decisions. I can put 1k in one side of the rack and keep track on the right side. I would just transfer from left side of rack to the right side. Dealers would be like WTF are you doing.
What I really mean is that working the come bet odds on the comeout means the impact of the 7 is hedged -- the line bet wins but the comeout odds lose. It's more psychological than anything, but that's the same reason place bets are off on the comeout. There's no mathematical reason to leave place bets off on the comeout either, at least not any reason that's different from just turning them off and on at any other time. The reason they're off (as are the come odds) is because the players want to root for the 7 to roll on the comeout, and winning the line bet but losing elsewhere takes some of the fun out of it. Come bets always lose on a come out 7 but getting the odds back takes some of the sting out -- and lets you keep playing.Quote: GWAEI am confused a little about variance (and always have been). If I have come bets that are working, is my variance less or more compared to keeping them off? I have more bets exposed to the 7 but I have more bets?
Personally, I used to work my come odds bets but I usually don't now unless I'm shooting alone or playing the Four Barrel Shotgun.
If you're willing to bring yourself your own drinks, you could skip the casino altogether...Quote: GWAEWow so by self parlaying it you are really saving a ton of money.
Maybe I should self pay all decisions. I can put 1k in one side of the rack and keep track on the right side. I would just transfer from left side of rack to the right side. Dealers would be like WTF are you doing.
Quote: MathExtremistIf you're willing to bring yourself your own drinks, you could skip the casino altogether...
see thats where they get me. No way in hell am I walking to the fridge to get a beer. Besides then I would need another excuse to get away from the kids for a few hours.
You don't need to walk to the fridge. Have the fridge walk to you:Quote: GWAEsee thats where they get me. No way in hell am I walking to the fridge to get a beer. Besides then I would need another excuse to get away from the kids for a few hours.
Keep working those odds and after a while you won't care about the comeout sevens. It'll become just another seven.Quote: GWAESecond session in a row where my working come bets got murdered. I had 3 come bets with $20 odds lose on a 7 come out 8 times. I did win a few 4s and 10's though on come out. I was down a bunch from the working come bets but overall only lost $60 in 90 minutes because of 1 shooter repeating a 10 7 times in 1 roll. Would have had a huge win if I wasn't working my odds.
The really frustrating part is I would have a 5,6,9 working. They would throw a 7 and then a 9. That happened all but 1 time.
The best parlay on the table is the 4 and 10 parlay with a vig taken after the win (or even better, no vig -- try the Downtown Grand in Vegas).
Quote: MathExtremistNo, the loss is constant. It lowers the ratio of that loss to the total action, but it doesn't actually decrease the loss at all. The expected loss on a $10 line bet is 14c whether I take odds or not. The loss itself doesn't change.
You seem to be stuck on the EV of individual passline bets rather than the EV of a players total action. It's a player's bottom line that he cares about at the end of his session - not the EV of his individual bets.
The facts simply don't support your conclusions when it comes to the EV of a player's combined wagers.
You know very well that the math shows the EV of PL+odds to be much better than the EV of PL alone.
Part of the difficulty in cutting through the chaff of misunderstanding here is that players often try to compare flat bets alone to flats+odds without taking into account commensurate risk. For example, they might try to compare $10 flats to $10 flats + odds. Rather than believe the math which clearly shows the average percentage lost per dollar wagered to be lower with odds, they instead look at the actual dollars lost and (seeing that it's the same with or without odds) they come to the erroneous conclusion that adding the odds bets did absolutely nothing for them. But that's not a fair comparison.
Allow me to share some sim data to illustrate the point.
Using WinCraps and the Risk of Ruin bet file available on my web site, I ran 10,000 sessions with two players. Each player started each session with the same $500 bankroll and played until busting out, doubling his bankroll, or reaching $500 worth of action. In other words, each player made the SAME TOTAL DOLLAR AMOUNT of bets. The only difference was Player1 bet passline alone and Player2 bet passline + 345x odds.
Here's the histogram of Player1's ending bankroll
Player1 never doubled his bankroll but by the same token he never busted out. His average ending bankroll was $493.29. His best finish was $760 ($260 won).
Here's the histogram for Player2:
Player2 doubled his bankroll 26 times and busted out 4 times. His average ending bankroll was $498.55. His best finish was $1130 ($630 won) and he won a larger percentage of his sessions
Now here's where the difference can REALLY be seen. Here are the aggregate bet results for both players:
After slightly over $5 million in action, Player1 lost a total of $67,060 whereas Player2 lost only $14,502.
So ... if you don't believe what the percentage figures are telling you, here's an actual dollar comparison showing that the player taking odds wins hands down!
Quote:All that's true, but I rarely see that happen where someone takes down another bet and uses it for odds (except a place bet covered by a come). And I've never heard anyone say (out loud) "I was going to bet this $5 on the come for the next roll, but instead I'm going to put it on odds." Most players don't even take full 3/4/5x odds.
Whether you've seen it or heard of it is irrelevant. The point of discussing things like this here is to learn that they can be done and that they affect a player's bottom line.
Quote:For most, the question boils down to "should I put odds behind my line bet or not?" If they read that the house edge is smaller with odds and reason that they should put more money behind the line to realize that smaller house edge, that's misleading and incorrect. The line bet that they've already made is not affected by the odds bet.
It's absolutely not incorrect and not misleading. Whether a $10 player has read about the house edge or not, he knows he's risking a lot more when he pushes out that extra $50 for odds. What's misleading is when someone tries to get him to believe that the extra $50 doesn't count toward his expected outcome. And what's sad is when nobody tells him how he can bet the same total action and reduce the amount he's gouged by the casino.
Quote:It doesn't help the house to know that $10,000 action on one bet wins more than $10,000 action on another if the first bet gets the $10k action in two months and the other takes a week. It's a business; cashflow is king.
Your conclusion is a non-sequitur. A grocery store might earn a smaller margin on flour than it does on olives and yet earn more money overall from the flour. This has everything to do with the volume of flour that they're able to sell. Does that mean they don't care about the olives? Should they only sell flour? You typically find the flour located at the bottom of the shelves in brown or white bags and the olives up higher in see-through glass containers to tempt you. Businesses are interested in making money. They want to sell as much product as they can with the best margins they can. They want to MAXIMIZE profit. Craps players are interested product too - it's called action, and they want to get it for as little cost as possible - they want to MINIMIZE the casino's profit.
Quote:Similarly for players, it's really important to understand wagering rates in order to compare expected losses between two bets that resolve at different frequencies. What's "better", the 2x/3x Field or the Place 9 bet? On a per-bet basis, it's the Field. On a per-hour basis, it's the Place 9 bet by a landslide.
That's just not true unless you force the Field player to make more bets. You and I are at the table. You make a $5 Place9 bet and I make a $5 Field bet (3x12). We wait until both bets have resolved, then we make new bets until we get tired of playing. We'll both resolve the same number and dollar amount of bets. The only difference will be that you'll sometimes have a bet on the table when I don't. In the end, I'll have lost less as a percentage and less actual dollars!
Quote:If someone wants to play craps for an hour or two before dinner, and they read in a book "the house edge on the Field is 2.78% and the house edge on the Place 9 bet is 4%," and they think "2.78% < 4%" so they stand there for two hours on the Field instead of the Place 9, their expected loss for the hour or two before dinner is 250% as much as it would have been just camping out on the 9. If an intelligent player knows that and makes an informed bet, great. But someone who doesn't know the game or the math and is relying on the brochure from the gift shop, they're being misled if they try to use the listed percentages as an indication of the price of the game. I think if you tell a player that (a) the cost of keeping a Field bet working every roll is about 2.8 bets/hour and (b) the cost of keeping a Place 9 bet working every roll is about 1.1 bets/hour, then they're more informed for it. From there it's easy to see that making a Field bet every other roll costs 1.4 bets/hour, or betting on the 5 and 9 costs 2.2 bets/hour, etc.
Your quest to inform gamblers is noble. I see nothing wrong with pointing out that different bets resolve at different rates and that equal amounts wagered and maintained will experience different amounts of action. What you're saying also goes to the psychology of gambling. That's all well and good - I talk about these things in my help file as well. But it's not a mistake, it's not misleading, and it's not incorrect to tell craps players that they'll loss less money per dollar wagered if they take odds.
If a player who otherwise would bet just $10 flat decides instead to bet $10 flat + odds, he'll naturally be increasing the size of his average wager and therefore reach his win goals and/or loss limits quicker. If he then decides to lengthen his session he'll be putting more at risk and on average losing more. That increased loss has nothing to do with the odds being "bad" but rather a misunderstanding of what he really wanted. He wanted more play time - more action.
If a player's objective is to play for a given amount of time regardless of what happens, then naturally he needs to find some way of pacing himself. One way would be to make smaller or fewer bets per hour. If he can't do that and absolutely insists that he MUST have $5 on the line for each and every roll and he doesn't want to risk anymore at one time, then he'll just have to accept a larger average loss per dollar wagered. Nobody says he HAS to take odds. There are other reasons for playing besides expected loss per dollar wagered. But he shouldn't have to be ignorant of the fact that he made a trade-off.
Steen
