"Team" Craps

I want to try this the next time I am in Vegas. My friend came up with the idea and has done it before. Here's how it works: Find a casino that has high odds limits (Main Street, Rampart, Sams Town, Cannery, et. al.). Pool your bankroll into one big bank. Have one person make pass line/come bets with an even amount of odds in the back on every roll. Take turns shooting if desired. At the end of the session, break the bank and each person splits the wins/losses evenly. A couple things:
-The dealers/pit have to not have a problem with it. I don't anticipate it being a problem. If they do, we can always move to another casino.
-The risk taken by both parties must be equal. You can't have one person betting $25 on the odds and another betting $10. It would be too hard to do the divying up.
-If you press your odds, you have to press in even amounts. You also have to agree upon if and when you will press, for how much, and how many times.
-It works best with two people. If three people get together, you have to divide things by threes which makes it more complicated. I don't know if I would try it with four people, although it could be fun if you all got together on an empty table. Also, everybody would have to buy in to the concept and not get bored waiting for their turn to roll.

What do people think of this? Any improvements, suggestions, modifications?

The main problem with pooling, is when do you stop if you are winning? What if the perception is that you are in the middle of an epic streak when you hit your win limit?

as long as you each buyin for the same amount, you can divide everything at the end. if it doesnt come out to a multiple of how many people are in your party, just tip the extra $1s to the dealers. i sometimes do this with my friend and we call it halfcrap-ing.

Quote: teddys

-The risk taken by both parties must be equal. You can't have one person betting $25 on the odds and another betting $10. It would be too hard to do the divying up.
[..]
-It works best with two people. If three people get together, you have to divide things by threes which makes it more complicated.

It's not a problem at all if you simply pro-rate each player's contribution to the bankroll. You can handle any number of partners in such a situation.

For example, you, the Wizard and I get into such an agreement and we play at the Rampart. You put in $400, the Wizard $600 and I $300. We have $1300 all told. Your share is 30.77%, the Wizrd's is 46.15% and mine is 23.08%

Assuming we leave the table with, say $5,000, we divide according to the percentages above. We can divide in chips or in cash. Either way it should be fair.

Right. But you would still have to decide on the betting unit, whether to press, and what limit to stop at. Those are all important variables, and could cause tension in an unfamiliar "team." If in your example, for instance, the end result was a loss of $1,000, would we split the remaining bank along the same percentages? You would have almost busted out while the Wizard and me would still have a significant amount of cash left.
I think it really only works in practice when both people have similar bankrolls and similar appetites for risk. I don't know if I would try it your way, Nareed, but I see your theoretical point. I just don't see a way to balance different "risk" levels.

Quote: teddys

Right. But you would still have to decide on the betting unit, whether to press, and what limit to stop at. Those are all important variables, and could cause tension in an unfamiliar "team."

That would cause more fights than anything else. It would make a lot mroe sense, perhaps, to define such things before looking for a team.

Quote:

If in your example, for instance, the end result was a loss of $1,000, would we split the remaining bank along the same percentages? You would have almost busted out while the Wizard and me would still have a significant amount of cash left.

Sure, but then the Wizard's buy-in was significantly larger than mine. So long as the proportions are kept, I'd have no trouble with it. It wouldn't be any different, in principle, from my playing alone and almost being wiped out.

Quote:

I think it really only works in practice when both people have similar bankrolls and similar appetites for risk. I don't know if I would try it your way, Nareed, but I see your theoretical point. I just don't see a way to balance different "risk" levels.

Absolutely. All risk-taking works better that way.

What I propose is more akin to a mutual fund. Your return and risk is proportional to your investment. Except in this case the return or loss is proportional to your gamble.

Often, when discussing craps, I make the following observation / comment:

When you're losing, you want to kill yourself.
When you're winning, you want to kill yourself.



That said, I think it only applies when you're playing by yourself. If you've got a team member, you've also got a target for your death wishes.