Why Was This The Wizard's Advice ????

It seems to me that the Wizard might have given a different answer to an old "Ask the Wizard" at his other site. I am being intentionally provocative to try to get his attention here (which is about as odious as I ever get in spite of my user name <g>)

Quote: an old "Ask the Wizard"

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

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%. Aug. 28, 2005

this can be found part way down from:

https://wizardofodds.com/ask-the-wizard/craps/

I am really wondering why it was not pointed out that the question supposes *way too small* of a number of trials. I realized this when I saw it a few years ago, and thought that probably 10,000 trials would be more like it. After being advised by someone at this site, and also using Wincraps, I now think that 10,000 trials is way, way too small as well especially when free odds are taken.

Honestly, I am shocked to now realize that [assuming I am not in error] that for many players, taking the free odds means that it is actually possible to go a lifetime and be up instead of down!

I'm not saying that one should expect this in any way, just that it is a shocking possibility. I recently ran trials for 10 players who would participate in 330,000 rolls each. I chose this number to get something close to 100,000 come-out rolls for each trial. That amount of craps play for me, assuming 100 rolls per hour, 3300 hours, 4 hour sessions, and 825 sessions honestly would represent more than I would ever anticipate playing in my life. Even if I have to acknowledge that I manage to get involved with probably twice as many come-out roll situations by playing "come" or "don't come", I still cannot imagine it.

I had the players playing "the don't" and making no other bets, but always laying the full odds on a 5x4x3x table for one trial, and taking no free odds on a second trial, using the same set of random numbers for each player's two trials, seeded the same. A new player got a different RNG seeded at random. Bank rolls started at zero, and the amount bet was one unspecified unit. [thus no dollar signs on the below]

Using Wincraps [er, new respect for anyone putting these tables together!] I got the following results. I believe these results can be verified by anyone else with Wincraps given the parameters, this could include the RNG set used and the seed used.

Note that some players came out ahead over, arguably, a lifetime of action at the craps table. I am re-examining player 8's trials, this seems to be a case of same results laying the odds as not laying them, indeed!

I don't know why the table shows up so far below.

Question for the Wizard: Is it not true that the variance with taking the odds becomes a larger factor for a player than, say, the pass line odds? Should your questioners know this, or is it just best to say that "taking/laying odds does not help you win more money?"

Player 1
-755 with laying odds
-1492 don't pass only
Player 2
-771 with laying odds
-1272 don't pass only
Player 3
+1248 with laying odds
-818 don't pass only
Player 4
-44 with laying odds
-1190 don't pass only
Player 5
-3904 with laying odds
-1809 don't pass only
Player 6
-3678 with laying odds
-1689 don't pass only
Player 7
-290 with laying odds
-1245 don't pass only
Player 8
-1001 with laying odds
-1001 don't pass only
Player 9
+533 with laying odds
-1015 don't pass only
Player 10
-3027 with laying odds
-1592 don't pass only

Quote: odiousgambit

I don't know why the table shows up so far below.

You have errors somewhere. Here it is without errors:

Player 1
-755 with laying odds
-1492 don't pass only
Player 2
-771 with laying odds
-1272 don't pass only
Player 3
+1248 with laying odds
-818 don't pass only
Player 4
-44 with laying odds
-1190 don't pass only
Player 5
-3904 with laying odds
-1809 don't pass only
Player 6
-3678 with laying odds
-1689 don't pass only
Player 7
-290 with laying odds
-1245 don't pass only
Player 8
-1001 with laying odds
-1001 don't pass only
Player 9
+533 with laying odds
-1015 don't pass only
Player 10
-3027 with laying odds
-1592 don't pass only

Quote: odiousgambit

Question for the Wizard: Is it not true that the variance with taking the odds becomes a larger factor for a player than, say, the pass line odds? Should your questioners know this, or is it just best to say that "taking/laying odds does not help you win more money?"

Yes, that is true. Odds bets have a greater variance than the pass line bet, because they pay more than you win.

It is funny you ask this, because not five minutes before I read this, somebody called with a question on this same topic. Maybe it was you, are your initials G.S.?

It seems you object to the qualifier in my original answer that if the line bet stays the same, adding to your odds bet doesn't help you win more. That is true, the expected return of both bets, regardless of the amount on the odds, is still -1.41% times the pass line bet. However, if making a bigger odds bet causes you to bet less on the pass line bet, which it should, then absolutely your expected loss goes down, and your chances of winning go up. That is why I recommend players to take the maximum odds they are comfortable with. If your goal is to lose as little as possible, then play the change machine.

Quote: Wizard

Yes, that is true. Odds bets have a greater variance than the pass line bet, because they pay more than you win.

It is funny you ask this, because not five minutes before I read this, somebody called with a question on this same topic. Maybe it was you, are your initials G.S.?

No, just a coincidence! You have a call-in show?

Quote: Wizard

It seems you object to the qualifier in my original answer that if the line bet stays the same, adding to your odds bet doesn't help you win more.

I wouldn't say I object to this fact.

Quote: Wizard

... However, if making a bigger odds bet causes you to bet less on the pass line bet, which it should, then absolutely your expected loss goes down, and your chances of winning go up. That is why I recommend players to take the maximum odds they are comfortable with.

OK, I guess I was forgetting that the questioner might want to know if it helps to add to the pass line bet with free odds, making a larger bet than he was comfortable with possibly.

Quote: Wizard

If your goal is to lose as little as possible, then play the change machine.

Perhaps your caller got into this, but that would not be my concern. My thoughts are that, in fact, the questioner could be left with the idea that the free odds are a waste of time. Indeed, I came away from this thinking the free odds were a waste of time in the long run, but now my thinking is that "the long run" I'm just not going to see.

Thanks for replying, this is helpful to me.

[edited minor errors]

I'm open to suggestions about how to phrase my advice. My position is that the craps player should make the max odds bet, and size his line bets accordingly. If this would cause the line bet to be below the minimum, then bet the minimum on the line, and whatever the player is comfortable with on the odds. However, if I were to end it there, some perfectionists would write to me, "Why do you recommend the odds bet, when it doesn't decrese your total expected loss?" That is why I have to add the qualifier.

btw, thanks, Miplet for doing a proper table... I should try to see what was wrong.

I re-tested player #8 and fixed the error showing he had identical results. See below.

Mr. Shackleford, I have to tell you that my google search for Wizard of Odds Radio, thinking I might find out about some call-in show, produced some odd results, see these links:

something about a 1974 w.o.o.


Perhaps I'm wrong, but this person may be a current imposter?

Player 1
-755 with laying odds
-1492 don't pass only
Player 2
-771 with laying odds
-1272 don't pass only
Player 3
+1248 with laying odds
-818 don't pass only
Player 4
-44 with laying odds
-1190 don't pass only
Player 5
-3904 with laying odds
-1809 don't pass only
Player 6
-3678 with laying odds
-1689 don't pass only
Player 7
-290 with laying odds
-1245 don't pass only
Player 8
-1001 with laying odds
-977 don't pass only
Player 9
+533 with laying odds
-1015 don't pass only
Player 10
-3027 with laying odds
-1592 don't pass only

"The Wizard of Odds" was indeed a trivia game show in 1974 hosted by Alex Trebek. I think that would make for a nice conversation point if I ever made it on Jeopardy, but I don't think I'd get past the entrance test.

No, sorry, no call in show. If any radio station out there wants to do one, let me know. They guy who called asking me craps questions was somebody I already know, who frequently calls when he doesn't understand something about gambling.