Thread Rating:

odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 314
  • Posts: 8827
April 13th, 2016 at 2:39:44 AM permalink
Quote: Steen

Quote: odiousgambit

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


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.
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
Greasyjohn
Greasyjohn
Joined: Dec 8, 2013
  • Threads: 134
  • Posts: 2176
April 13th, 2016 at 3:38:52 AM permalink
I don't play craps that much, but when I do it's usually $5 pass line with double odds. And if I'm really feeling frisky I'll keep the come bets coming "off and on." It's fun when all six points are covered, and I always have my odds working on the come out; I'll tell the dealer, "odds always working." I played like this about 14 years ago at Gold Strike. Made about $300 in a 30-minute session. It's nice when the shooter rolls the 10 or 4 (when his point is 9) and a nice $25 chip comes your way.

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).
Last edited by: Greasyjohn on Apr 13, 2016
Steen
Steen
Joined: Apr 7, 2014
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 126
April 13th, 2016 at 10:28:49 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

Quote: odiousgambit

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.

It doesn't foil the suggestion per se, but those are two very different bets.



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
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
April 13th, 2016 at 10:49:00 AM permalink
There'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. Expected loss per hour (which incorporates wagering rate) is a more complete measurement, but even that doesn't take into account player-specific financial goals like the chance to achieve 10x your bankroll. That's almost impossible with blackjack or craps but happens (relatively) frequently in slot games, despite the greater percentage edge. Someone buying into a slot game for $100 has a decent shot at walking with $1000 -- one or two solid jackpots gets you there. But someone buying into a craps game with $100 has almost no shot at walking with $1000; it happens, but very rarely. The bust-out rate for slots is much higher too, but that's all part of the distribution. Some players like different variances; that's why slot vendors make games with widely different volatility indices.

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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
SanchoPanza
SanchoPanza
Joined: May 10, 2010
  • Threads: 34
  • Posts: 3502
April 13th, 2016 at 10:58:56 AM permalink
Quote: Greasyjohn

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).

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.
Last edited by: SanchoPanza on Apr 13, 2016
mustangsally
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
  • Threads: 25
  • Posts: 2463
April 13th, 2016 at 11:49:50 AM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

player-specific financial goals
like

the chance to achieve 10x your bankroll.

That's almost impossible with blackjack or craps

this is an April Fool's comment, right?

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
Quote: MathExtremist

Someone buying into a slot game for $100 has a decent shot at walking with $1000

like my 1 in 12 craps example?
i think not that good of a chance
Quote: MathExtremist

But someone buying into a craps game with $100 has almost
no shot
at walking with $1000; it happens, but very rarely.

haha

that is April funny
makes May bright and Sunny

Sally
Last edited by: mustangsally on Apr 13, 2016
I Heart Vi Hart
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
April 13th, 2016 at 3:11:33 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

you must mean the way craps players play, place bets and press and pull and hardways bets and parlays and such

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.

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."
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
Steen
Steen
Joined: Apr 7, 2014
  • Threads: 0
  • Posts: 126
April 13th, 2016 at 3:14:23 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

There'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
MathExtremist
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
  • Threads: 88
  • Posts: 6526
April 13th, 2016 at 4:05:13 PM permalink
Quote: Steen

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.

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...

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.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563
odiousgambit
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
  • Threads: 314
  • Posts: 8827
April 13th, 2016 at 5:08:24 PM permalink
gotta love Steen [in case anyone was wondering how I felt]
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

  • Jump to: