## Poll

1 vote (11.11%) | |||

8 votes (88.88%) |

**9 members have voted**

about half down

Hi, if person A makes 1000 consecutive bets on the pass line without backing up his bet, and person B makes 1000 consecutive bets on the pass line and he takes 100X odds whenever possible,

doesn’t each person lose the same amount of money?

— Blake Haas from Thousand Oaks

The Wizard.

Yes. I can just imagine the follow up question to be why I recommend taking the odds if doing so doesn’t help to win more.

What I suggest is betting less on the pass so that your need for action is mostly met by a full odds bet. For example if you are comfortable betting about $90 per bet, and the casino allows 5x odds, then I would drop the pass line bet to $15 and bet $75 on the odds. That will lower the overall house edge from 1.414% to 0.326%.

Wow!

Sally says that "taking the odds DOES help to win more." Looks like I am "at odds" with the Wizard's statement.

(The Wizard does a great job on explaining how to make a better pass line bet with odds but leaves out the reason why other than lowering the house edge. Many just see that it is lower because you are betting more. That is true.)

First, the question by Blake

it is not a fair comprison.

This is the ever so classic mistake made in statistics of comparing apples to oranges.

(I should know. I broke the rules maybe a zillion times and at times still do)

Why?,it does not represent commensurate risk.

Steen, in WinCraps talks about it and I will make my comments about that later on and Alan Krigman also seems to be the only one "out there" that says it gives the player the best chance to win more. OK, Alan Shank, "goatcabin" has also tried to drive home this point.

But the WORLD is stuck on EV and EV only, IMO.

They do not want to consider variance (SD). Too hard or too much work, I guess.

I will show this with the math first that "by taking the odds does help to win more."

But what really is the eye opener is the simulation results.

Simulation results can really drive home a point way better than just straight math for most folks.

It blew my mind!

I'm OK now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Craps: Pass no odds or Pass 100x odds. same loss - revisited

1000 pass no odds $5 bets

$5000 total action.

1000 pass 100X odds $5 bets (average bet $338.33)

total action $338,330

By total resolved action (handle) these bets are not even close to being the same.

If the average bet by the NO odds player was to be $338.33 to have the same handle as player B. Hands down, player B losses less by EV.

-4.78

-0.07

per bet made.

Putting Bankroll aside for now, even tho' it is very important and the topic will make for a new thread,

The better story is:

ev/sd (this is an approxamation for the binomial distribution)

-70.71 same EV for both players.

Player A std dev = $158.10

ev/sd = -0.447235501

0.327352515 chance of being even or showing a profit. (about 100 out of 305 players)

(exactly 0.3388132 even or ahead; 0.3159887 being ahead after 1,000 wagers)

Player B std dev = $15,936.89

ev/sd = -0.004436691

0.498230022 chance of being even or showing a profit.

(about 1000 out of 2007 players)

What boat would one rather be in if bankroll was not a concern?

Silly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Steen at WinCraps Help section.

Free to everyone to download and have on their computer.

"Another frequent use of this concept is to demonstate the effect of taking or laying odds.

For instance, there are those who claim that odds bets do nothing to affect the outcome of the game.

They point out that if you bet $5 on the Pass Line you'll lose an average of 7.05 cents per decision (1.41% of your wager) whereas if you also take $10 odds you'll still lose an average of 7.05 cents per decision.

You're risking more money to lose the same amount, so why take odds?

Well, for one thing that's not a fair comparison.

Betting $5 flat on the Pass Line does not represent commensurate risk with betting $5 flat and taking $10 in odds.

By adding $10 odds to the same $5 flat bet you're increasing your action.

To figure the average action of $5 flat with $10 odds we have to consider resolutions on the come-out roll which produce only $5 action and resolutions after points have been established which produce $15 worth of action.

Hence, 12/36 of the time the flat bet portion alone resolves on the come-out producing action of $5 * 12/36 = $1.67 and 24/36 of the time both the flat and odds bets resolve after points have been established producing action of $15 * 24/36 = $10. Add them together and we find that $5 flat/$10 odds produces an average action of $11.67 per decision.

Now let's compare that to the $5 flat bet without odds.

It produces the same amount of action on every decision, so obviously the average action per decision is $5.

So to make a fair comarison we can either reduce the $5 flat/$10 odds bets to something that produces an average of $5 action per decision or we can increase the $5 flat bet to something that produces an average action of $11.67 per decision. The later seems to be the easiest, so to make bets with commensurate risk we can compare $5 flat w/$10 odds to $11.67 flat without odds.

Now we can clearly see the effect of the odds bet because the $11.67 flat bet loses an average of 16.46 cents per decision which is much higher than the 7.05 cents per decision of the $5 flat bet with $10 odds.

The correct conclusion is that taking odds reduces your average loss per dollar of action."

Not, The correct, but

A correct conclusion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now let the simulation results speak for themselves.

Parameters:

10 million unit bankroll bankroll. (when bankroll is not an issue, players do win more. The key is to have a proper bankroll so the issue of busting is minimal)

100,000 pass line wagers.

10,000 players for each method of play.

No odds

3,4,5,X odds

10X

20X

100X

For the NO odds pass line player it would take, on average, 1 in 258,522 players to show a profit.

None showed a bankroll increase after 100,000 wagers. No surprise there.

The data shows how many actually had a profit after 100,000 wagers. The more odds taken the more they won.

GAMBLSIM by Steve Fry (another cool craps program. I think Steve and Steen know each other)

NO Odds

Simulation of Craps Pass Line Wagers

Odds Multiplier . . . . = 0

Session Bankroll . . . =10000000.00

Win goal to quit session=***********

Max. Decisions to quit = 100000

No. Sessions simulated = 10000

Starting Random seed . = 3211234

------------------------------------

All bets are a single unit

------------------------------------

Simulation Results per Session

------------------------------------

Avg. No. games played . = 100000.00

Avg. No. games won . . = 49289.65

Avg. No. games lost . . = 50710.35

Avg. No. dice rolls . . = 337564.35

Avg. Total amount bet . = 100000.00

Bankroll was busted . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Win goal was met . . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Bankroll decreased . . = 100.000% of the time

Bankroll increased . . = 0.000% of the time

3x, 4x, 5x Odds

Simulation of Craps Pass Line Wagers

Odds Multiplier . . . . = 3x, 4x, 5x

Session Bankroll . . . =10000000.00

Win goal to quit session=***********

Max. Decisions to quit = 100000

No. Sessions simulated = 10000

Starting Random seed . = 3211234

------------------------------------

All bets are a single unit

------------------------------------

Simulation Results per Session

------------------------------------

Avg. No. games played . = 100000.00

Avg. No. games won . . = 49289.65

Avg. No. games lost . . = 50710.35

Avg. No. dice rolls . . = 337564.35

Avg. Total amount bet . = 100000.00

Avg. amount bet on Odds = 277760.93

Bankroll was busted . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Win goal was met . . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Bankroll decreased . . = 82.320% of the time

Bankroll increased . . = 17.660% of the time

10X Odds

Simulation of Craps Pass Line Wagers

Odds Multiplier . . . . = 10

Session Bankroll . . . =10000000.00

Win goal to quit session=***********

Max. Decisions to quit = 100000

No. Sessions simulated = 10000

Starting Random seed . = 3211234

------------------------------------

All bets are a single unit

------------------------------------

Simulation Results per Session

------------------------------------

Avg. No. games played . = 100000.00

Avg. No. games won . . = 49289.65

Avg. No. games lost . . = 50710.35

Avg. No. dice rolls . . = 337564.35

Avg. Total amount bet . = 100000.00

Avg. amount bet on Odds = 666627.11

Bankroll was busted . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Win goal was met . . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Bankroll decreased . . = 66.690% of the time

Bankroll increased . . = 33.310% of the time

20X Odds

Simulation of Craps Pass Line Wagers

Odds Multiplier . . . . = 20

Session Bankroll . . . =10000000.00

Win goal to quit session=***********

Max. Decisions to quit = 100000

No. Sessions simulated = 10000

Starting Random seed . = 3211234

------------------------------------

All bets are a single unit

------------------------------------

Simulation Results per Session

------------------------------------

Avg. No. games played . = 100000.00

Avg. No. games won . . = 49289.65

Avg. No. games lost . . = 50710.35

Avg. No. dice rolls . . = 337564.35

Avg. Total amount bet . = 100000.00

Avg. amount bet on Odds = 1333254.23

Bankroll was busted . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Win goal was met . . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Bankroll decreased . . = 58.800% of the time

Bankroll increased . . = 41.140% of the time

100X Odds

Simulation of Craps Pass Line Wagers

Odds Multiplier . . . . = 100

Session Bankroll . . . =10000000.00

Win goal to quit session=***********

Max. Decisions to quit = 100000

No. Sessions simulated = 10000

Starting Random seed . = 3211234

------------------------------------

All bets are a single unit

------------------------------------

Simulation Results per Session

------------------------------------

Avg. No. games played . = 100000.00

Avg. No. games won . . = 49289.65

Avg. No. games lost . . = 50710.35

Avg. No. dice rolls . . = 337564.35

Avg. Total amount bet . = 100000.00

Avg. amount bet on Odds = 6666271.13

Bankroll was busted . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Win goal was met . . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Bankroll decreased . . = 52.510% of the time

Bankroll increased . . = 47.490% of the time

I was really surprised by the sim results. Aren't you. Maybe I am just too young.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

added:

Bankroll and ev stats

No Odds

Std-dev ending bankroll = 316.53

Skew of ending bankroll = -0.81

Kurtosis end bankroll = 11594.79

Average expectation EVI = -1.421%

345X Odds

Std-dev ending bankroll = 1559.03

Skew of ending bankroll = -0.04

Kurtosis end bankroll = 87.79

Avg Odds change in b/r = -34.57

Average expectation EVR = -0.385%

10X Odds

Std-dev ending bankroll = 3430.73

Skew of ending bankroll = -0.03

Kurtosis end bankroll = 2.64

Avg Odds change in b/r = -75.42

Average expectation EVR = -0.195%

20X Odds

Std-dev ending bankroll = 6603.40

Skew of ending bankroll = -0.02

Kurtosis end bankroll = -1.48

Avg Odds change in b/r = -150.84

Average expectation EVR = -0.110%

100X Odds

Std-dev ending bankroll = 32003.70

Skew of ending bankroll = -0.02

Kurtosis end bankroll = -1.58

Avg Odds change in b/r = -754.21

Average expectation EVR = -0.032%

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion

The odds bet in Craps does help to win more.

Why?

ev/sd

ev stays the same as sd increases.

That is what players need in the end. Less luck to win.

This is nothing new. Alan, "goatcabin" has many posts about this.

I was going to link to a few, but lost my link list. He does have some nice posts in his Blog.

Another day.

Now on to the bankroll requirements in another thread to see what kind of bankroll is needed to sustain a low "bust rate" for different average bets and bankrolls.

There will not be any "blue sky" rules of thumbs.

Sally says this was a long a** post.

I got excited.

Now for Valentine's Day fun!

Yeah!

Quote:mustangsallyfrom:ask-the-wizard

about half down

Hi, if person A makes 1000 consecutive bets on the pass line without backing up his bet, and person B makes 1000 consecutive bets on the pass line and he takes 100X odds whenever possible,

doesn’t each person lose the same amount of money?

— Blake Haas from Thousand Oaks

The Wizard.

Yes. I can just imagine the follow up question to be why I recommend taking the odds if doing so doesn’t help to win more.

...

Sally says that "taking the odds DOES help to win more." Looks like I am "at odds" with the Wizard's statement.

[snip]

I was really surprised by the sim results. Aren't you. Maybe I am just too young.

In conclusion

The odds bet in Craps does help to win more.

This is a wonderful example of how English and math don't play well together.

"The odds bet in Craps does help to win more" has two interpretations. One is that "more" means "more often". Two is that "more" means "more money".

The first is true. The latter is not.

The sim results clearly showed that taking higher odds resulted in a greater frequency of winning sessions. That's not surprising -- it's all about variance. In the same way, betting $38 at a time on a single roulette number will show a higher chance of a winning session over N spins than betting $1 at a time on 38 different roulette numbers (which has 0% chance of winning, ever).

However, the sim did not show (a) the chances of dipping below a certain fixed amount, say 50000 units, nor (b) the mean of all the sessions. Just as I would expect the chance of a bankroll increase to increase with odds, I would also expect (a) to increase. I would also expect (b) to remain level.

Visually, what you're doing is taking a tall, narrow bell curve and squashing it into a short, wide bell curve. Imagine the giant foot from Monty Python's Flying Circus stepping on it. The zero point doesn't change, and neither does the mean (N*EV, which is less than the zero point), so it makes sense that some part of that squashed bell curve is now above the zero point. The more you flatten it (that is, the greater the variance), then more of the curve is to the right of zero.

So I don't think you disagree with the Wizard at all. I think you were saying two different things and that English got in the way of clear communication.

It is true however that if you risk the same amount in "total action" as you term it, you have made your betting much smarter and can expect to lose less at the HE. This logically means shorter sessions in order to keep total action the same; very, very much so at 100x. If, however, you merely increase your total action by not shortening the session [yes, probably betting out of comfort zone] then you are just being an idiot.

So I will say I agree with both you and the Wizard. How diplomatic is that? [g] But I voted for the top phrase, as I think it should stay a common denouncement.

I find the 20X odds player very interesting. Very possible and realistic.Quote:mustangsally

Now let the simulation results speak for themselves.

Parameters:

10 million unit bankroll bankroll. (when bankroll is not an issue, players do win more. The key is to have a proper bankroll so the issue of busting is minimal)

100,000 pass line wagers.

20X Odds

Simulation of Craps Pass Line Wagers

Odds Multiplier . . . . = 20

Session Bankroll . . . =10000000.00

Win goal to quit session=***********

Max. Decisions to quit = 100000

No. Sessions simulated = 10000

Starting Random seed . = 3211234

------------------------------------

All bets are a single unit

------------------------------------

Simulation Results per Session

------------------------------------

Avg. No. games played . = 100000.00

Avg. No. games won . . = 49289.65

Avg. No. games lost . . = 50710.35

Avg. No. dice rolls . . = 337564.35

Avg. Total amount bet . = 100000.00

Avg. amount bet on Odds = 1333254.23

Bankroll was busted . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Win goal was met . . . = 0.000% of the time ( 0)

Bankroll decreased . . = 58.800% of the time

Bankroll increased . . = 41.140% of the time

20X Odds

Std-dev ending bankroll = 6603.40

Skew of ending bankroll = -0.02

Kurtosis end bankroll = -1.48

Avg Odds change in b/r = -150.84

Average expectation EVR = -0.110%

The sd (for $1 bets) reasonable for a $5 bettor with a big and proper bankroll.

And over 41% showing a bank increase AFTER 100,000 pass decisions? That is impressive.

I have to look at that again.

It is very common to see high rollers bet $100 on the line and back up with odds. 2, 3, 4 and 5X odds.

They could be a strong force if they placed the min on the line and the max odds. even 10X to 20X.

Quote:guido111And over 41% showing a bank increase AFTER 100,000 pass decisions? That is impressive.

I have to look at that again.

I have had similar results running Wincraps. You need to be at 10x odds or more to get these impressive runs. If you add in breaking even [and losing a very small amount] yes, I have been impressed. Some losers are awful to behold too, though.

Yep. I guess I never really looked at trials over 100k.Quote:boymimboIt's about the variance. When you put odds bets on, you are subjecting yourself to more variance, in both directions. Over 100,000 trials, the variance is such to allow a win.

Here is 100K pass line bets

$5 flat bet

ev:-7070.71

Prob = prob of being even/ahead

Odds | sd:100,000 | ev/sd | prob | 1 in |
---|---|---|---|---|

0 | $1,580.98 | -4.472355014 | 3.86814E-06 | 258522.0105 |

1 | $2,993.17 | -2.362276611 | 0.009081542 | 110.1134571 |

2 | $4,518.70 | -1.564764147 | 0.058819111 | 17.00127711 |

3 | $6,072.75 | -1.164333706 | 0.122144401 | 8.187031022 |

345X | $7,772.30 | -0.909732044 | 0.18148192 | 5.51019076 |

4 | $7,637.92 | -0.92573676 | 0.1772914 | 5.64043153 |

5 | $9,208.55 | -0.767841132 | 0.221290787 | 4.518940947 |

6 | $10,782.26 | -0.655772421 | 0.255985282 | 3.906474592 |

7 | $12,357.86 | -0.572162803 | 0.283605843 | 3.526020448 |

8 | $13,934.71 | -0.507416717 | 0.305931229 | 3.268708467 |

9 | $15,512.44 | -0.455808761 | 0.324263752 | 3.083909301 |

10 | $17,090.80 | -0.413714214 | 0.339541708 | 2.945146285 |

20 | $32,889.08 | -0.214986482 | 0.414888929 | 2.410283645 |

40 | $64,504.91 | -0.109615022 | 0.456357348 | 2.191265253 |

50 | $80,314.88 | -0.088037328 | 0.464923504 | 2.150891472 |

60 | $96,125.31 | -0.073557183 | 0.470681371 | 2.124579518 |

80 | $127,746.89 | -0.055349349 | 0.477930074 | 2.092356299 |

100 | $159,368.94 | -0.044366908 | 0.48230597 | 2.073372636 |

and 1 million pass line bets.

The higher odds make it all possible.

ev stays the same and the sd goes up.

Nice.

ev:-70707.07

Odds | sd:1,000,000 | ev/sd | prob | 1 in |
---|---|---|---|---|

0 | $4,999.50 | -14.14282835 | 1.03401E-45 | 9.67106E+44 |

1 | $9,465.25 | -7.470174555 | 4.00443E-14 | 2.49724E+13 |

2 | $14,289.40 | -4.948218705 | 3.74479E-07 | 2670378.518 |

3 | $19,203.72 | -3.681946468 | 0.00011573 | 8640.801192 |

345X | $24,578.16 | -2.87682532 | 0.002008489 | 497.8866038 |

4 | $24,153.24 | -2.927436676 | 0.001708843 | 585.1911814 |

5 | $29,120.01 | -2.428126858 | 0.007588517 | 131.7780569 |

6 | $34,096.49 | -2.073734476 | 0.019051989 | 52.48795878 |

7 | $39,078.98 | -1.809337649 | 0.035199282 | 28.40967064 |

8 | $44,065.44 | -1.604592548 | 0.054291751 | 18.41900429 |

9 | $49,054.65 | -1.441393863 | 0.074736722 | 13.38030326 |

10 | $54,045.86 | -1.308279217 | 0.095389311 | 10.4833549 |

20 | $104,004.40 | -0.679846949 | 0.248300688 | 4.027375072 |

40 | $203,982.43 | -0.346633136 | 0.364433474 | 2.743985034 |

50 | $253,977.94 | -0.278398475 | 0.390353245 | 2.561782214 |

60 | $303,974.92 | -0.232608238 | 0.408032815 | 2.450783279 |

80 | $403,971.13 | -0.175030011 | 0.430528026 | 2.322729158 |

100 | $503,968.84 | -0.140300481 | 0.444211292 | 2.251180954 |

I agree. Now it will be interesting to work with the RoR formula and get some bankroll numbers that would match this kind of play.Quote:odiousgambitI have had similar results running Wincraps. You need to be at 10x odds or more to get these impressive runs. If you add in breaking even [and losing a very small amount] yes, I have been impressed. Some losers are awful to behold too, though.

the ev or expected loss is the same. There is no disagreement there.Quote:jamminbehif $5 was bet on the pass line every time, you will lose the same amount (not percentage) of money on average whether you back the bet up or not. Backing the bet up has no house edge and no player edge,

It DOES effect the amount of money won.Quote:jamminbehso it won't affect the amount of money won or lost. That's all the wizard was saying and that's all I was asking about.

That is my disagreement.

And it is because the odds add variance without increasing the expected loss.

expected Loss and expected Win are 2 different things when Odds are involved.

It is NOT all about EV.

It is ev/standard deviation when one deals with any of the free odds bets.

With the same action, a pass line with odds wins more (sure it can also lose more)

than a pass without odds having the same average bet, or they can not be compared.

One can not compare a $5 pass with no odds ($5 avg bet) to a $5/100X ($338.33avg bet) pass wager.

It is a statistical crime if one attempts to.

Again, the difference is the variance, it makes it possible to have just a little luck to overcome the EV or expected loss.

1. youre lucky

2. somehow you can get the dice to roll and land your way

That is so true. And since Luck goes both ways...Quote:AlanMendelsonTaking odds will help you win more if:

1. youre lucky

Comparing "No" odds to "any" odds,

No Odds needs MORE good luck to show a profit the longer one plays.

while

Taking/Laying the Odds needs LESS good luck to show a profit the longer one plays.

(average bets being the same)

it is because the standard deviation is higher with odds.

Quote:mustangsallyexpected Loss and expected Win are 2 different things when Odds are involved.

...

One can not compare a $5 pass with no odds ($5 avg bet) to a $5/100X ($338.33avg bet) pass wager.

It is a statistical crime if one attempts to.

There are two interpretations here:

a) Expected win = -1 * expected loss. This can't be what you intend, since under this interpretation, the expected loss and the expected win are not different things.

b) Expected win = mean result conditioned upon result > 0.

If you intend (b), then you're comparing a conditional probability with an unconditional one. That's a "statistical crime" too. :)

OK. Looks to be the opposite to me.Quote:MathExtremist

This is a wonderful example of how English and math don't play well together.

"The odds bet in Craps does help to win more" has two interpretations. One is that "more" means "more often".

Two is that "more" means "more money".

The first is true. The latter is not.

You may have a better command of the English language than I. Hated English in school. Loved Alice Cooper!

Now, if "more often" means frequency (how often something happens) the Odds bet does nothing to increase the winning frequency. So, to me the first is not true.

One will never win more "times" by betting the Odds. That is a luck factor. (n*p*q)

"The odds bet in Craps does help to win more money"

This I agree with.

My vote is yes.

The sim results also shows this. (of course one can lose more money this way also)

a) $5/100X odds pass bet

vs.

b) $334 no odds pass bet

same action over 10,000 trials. (enough bankroll to survive)

I take a.

Quote:7crapsOK. Looks to be the opposite to me.

You may have a better command of the English language than I. Hated English in school. Loved Alice Cooper!

Now, if "more often" means frequency (how often something happens) the Odds bet does nothing to increase the winning frequency. So, to me the first is not true.

One will never win more "times" by betting the Odds. That is a luck factor. (n*p*q)

"The odds bet in Craps does help to win more money"

This I agree with.

My vote is yes.

The sim results also shows this. (of course one can lose more money this way also)

a) $5/100X odds pass bet

vs.

b) $334 no odds pass bet

same action over 10,000 trials. (enough bankroll to survive)

I take a.

The OP was using a simulation to show that a wager W with 0 odds has a lower probability of a winning session of N spins than the same wager W with 100x odds, or 3/4/5x odds, etc. Due to variance, the odds play has a higher probability of coming out ahead over the same N spins than the no-odds play. However, the EV is the same for both cases: N*W*EV. That's what I meant by "the odds player will win more often", but "the odds player will not win more money"

However, you're flipping the question around and saying that for a given total wager T, do you win more with 100% of T on the passline or with a small fraction of T on the line and the rest in odds. That's a separate inquiry which has different results (as you've shown).

Quote:MathExtremistThere are two interpretations here:

a) Expected win = -1 * expected loss. This can't be what you intend, since under this interpretation, the expected loss and the expected win are not different things.

b) Expected win = mean result conditioned upon result > 0.

If you intend (b), then you're comparing a conditional probability with an unconditional one. That's a "statistical crime" too. :)

Yes :)

Then, maybe the better phrase to use would be "breaking even or coming out ahead"

I think to most this is easy to understand and does not have more than one meaning.

even "goatcabin" Alan Shank likes to use this "breaking even or coming out ahead"

From:

The hoax that is the 1.41% house advantage on pass line bets

"The probability of breaking even or coming out ahead is dependent on the ration of the expected value (loss, in the case of gambling) to the standard deviation."

He continues...

"That is the downside of taking and laying odds;

they definitely increase your chances of coming out ahead,

because they add variation without increasing the expected loss, so

they always decrease the ratio of expected loss to standard deviation, but they also

increase the cost of experiencing any given degree of negative variation.

Many people consider that a "slam-dunk" argument against taking or laying odds.

I disagree completely.

The key, in my view, is to minimize the amount you bet on the flat bet and

take or lay odds with money you DIDN'T bet on the flat. IOW, instead of betting $10

pass, bet $5 and take single odds."

And of course this is exactly what the Wizard says to do.

Now, it makes me wonder what the Wizard actually means by "if doing so doesn’t help to win more"Quote:mustangsally

The Wizard.

Yes. I can just imagine the follow up question to be why I recommend taking the odds if doing so doesn’t help to win more.

$30 on the 6 or 8 pays $35

$5 Pass with $25 odds ($30) pays $35.

this is a very common belief among craps players today.Quote:AlanMendelsonTaking odds will help you win more if:

1. youre lucky

2. somehow you can get the dice to roll and land your way

you win because of luck or the shooter made the dice land your way.

what was left out is when the table is HOT, bet to win big (the numbers) and when it is COLD, leave or just watch. never bet the don't pass/don't come

the dice roll results are not random so play for luck and bet for luck and skilled shooters.

makes life and gambling at craps so much simpler

I knew this was posted here.

Alan Mendelson is a known TV personality in southern california

and went by the moniker 'the Moneyman' from his news program reports.

Quote:7crapsthis is a very common belief among craps players today.

you win because of luck or the shooter made the dice land your way.

what was left out is when the table is HOT, bet to win big (the numbers) and when it is COLD, leave or just watch. never bet the don't pass/don't come

the dice roll results are not random so play for luck and bet for luck and skilled shooters.

makes life and gambling at craps so much simpler

I knew this was posted here.

Alan Mendelson is a known TV personality in southern california

and went by the moniker 'the Moneyman' from his news program reports.

He knows nothing about smart gambling. Just because he’s a has-been “reporter” at best, doesn’t mean his words on the subject hold any kind of weight.

Quote:RSHe knows nothing about smart gambling. Just because he’s a has-been “reporter” at best, doesn’t mean his words on the subject hold any kind of weight.

He has seen something you haven’t! 18 yo’s In a row!

Cheers,

Alan Shank

P S I'm still alive.

Quote:mustangsallythe ev or expected loss is the same.

I'll agree here too.

Quote:mustangsallyIt DOES effect the amount of money won.

It's "affect" you're searching for, Sally, but I disagree. For your statement to make sense in the context of expectations, you'd have to have an expected win, and each combination of passline plus odds is still a negative expectation. So to suggest that it "affects" the amount of money won implies that there is a positive expectation, and there is not. Without a positive expectation, there is no analysis on how much is won because winning is not part of the expectation.

Quote:mustangsallyThat is my disagreement.

Whether you take odds or not changes absolutely nothing in the long run except how emotional you might become while gambling.

Quote:mustangsallyAnd it is because the odds add variance without increasing the expected loss.

Variance alone doesn't help you accomplish any goal at all.

Quote:mustangsallyexpected Loss and expected Win are 2 different things when Odds are involved.

I disagree here. Odds are irrelevant in the long run for the math without any other assumptions. If you assume a fixed bankroll, the variance can affect risk of ruin. But that's more stuff that one might assume without stating.

Quote:mustangsallyIt is NOT all about EV.

No, it's about emotions and epistemology too.

Quote:mustangsallyIt is ev/standard deviation when one deals with any of the free odds bets.

With the same action, a pass line with odds wins more (sure it can also lose more)

than a pass without odds having the same average bet, or they can not be compared.

One can not compare a $5 pass with no odds ($5 avg bet) to a $5/100X ($338.33avg bet) pass wager.

It is a statistical crime if one attempts to.

Again, the difference is the variance, it makes it possible to have just a little luck to overcome the EV or expected loss.

I didn't read this stuff. Hope everyone is doing ok.