What's better, horn bet or C&E?

Just came back from my local casino $1500 to the good.

My usual betting pattern is to bet against the seven; that is, I cover every number with the appropriate place or buy bet, make a line bet with full free odds, and then also throw a small bet on every throw onto the furthest outside numbers. Today I put a $10 horn high ace-deuce bet on, in addition to my other numbers, but was wondering if the better bet is to put $7 onto the C and $3 onto the E? (Or some close combo.) If a the player hits 3 or 4 numbers without sevening out, I will start making come bets and backing those with the full odds generated from the place bets that come in.

Perhaps the better bet to the horn or the C&E combo is to bet the $10 in the field on every throw? More payoffs with the addition of the 4, 9 and 10, but less when the 2, 3, 11, or 12 come in.

Your thoughts will be welcome.

Might I suggest staying away from the C&E and Horn altogether? Over time, you will lose much more than you win making those bets. Sounds like you are getting plenty of action of the place/buy bets and line. If you can give up those center bets, you will do better in craps in the long run. I apologize if this is not what you wanted to hear.

If you must bet a prop bet the field is the best if it pays triple on the 12, but I would bet it sparingly, not on every roll. I think a dollar on the props every once in a while is fun, but if you bet $5-$10 regularly on those you will begin to hear a "giant sucking sound."

Horn bet: a way to make four bad bets simultaneously.
Once I read that definition, I never bothered to make any of them.

Of course it is a sucker bet, until it starts hitting. One fellow threw four 11s in a row yesterday. On the last roll one guy had $300 on the 11, pressing some of his winnings from the previous rolls. I was just collecting my $22 every throw with my $10 horn high ace-deuce.

My betting pattern is to bet against the red, if the dice manage to avoid the dreaded seven on a greater than expected basis I believe one can still make money even making horn bets. The point of my question is to deduce the best way to minimize the house edge in my bets on those four furthest outside numbers.

Quote: CrappedOut

Of course it is a sucker bet, until it starts hitting. One fellow threw four 11s in a row yesterday. On the last roll one guy had $300 on the 11, pressing some of his winnings from the previous rolls. I was just collecting my $22 every throw with my $10 horn high ace-deuce.

My betting pattern is to bet against the red, if the dice manage to avoid the dreaded seven on a greater than expected basis I believe one can still make money even making horn bets. The point of my question is to deduce the best way to minimize the house edge in my bets on those four furthest outside numbers.

Often times people here would rather dissuade you from betting your bet than answer, but I think the Field Bet is not a bad option for what you want to do. As long as the 12 pays triple, under 3% is better than a lot of bets in the casino. I don't know why the Field gets so disparaged. If you are really looking to protect those outside numbers, that's the best bet. It isn't even close.

Quote: CrappedOut

Of course it is a sucker bet, until it starts hitting. One fellow threw four 11s in a row yesterday. On the last roll one guy had $300 on the 11, pressing some of his winnings from the previous rolls. I was just collecting my $22 every throw with my $10 horn high ace-deuce.

It's a sucker bet when it starts hitting, as you don't get paid even close to the true odds... when it doesn't hit it just another losing bet :)

For the 2/3/11/12 to be worth while you have to be hititng them 15% more than normal (if I recall). Thats a lot as they are rare numbers anyways. The Field would do the trick (it's what I'll place if I'm wanting to follow a shooter hitting the outsides all the time). You've only got to avoid the center numbers 2-3% more often than normal.

Quote: cclub79

Often times people here would rather dissuade you from betting your bet than answer

I don't mind, I asked for discussion and welcome all sincere answers. Frankly the wisest advice of all is to avoid casino gambling completely, I know and recognize that. But since I am going to indulge in certain vices, such as betting on the furthest outside numbers, my goal is to do it the best way I can.

Quote: cclub79

I think the Field Bet is not a bad option for what you want to do. As long as the 12 pays triple, under 3% is better than a lot of bets in the casino. I don't know why the Field gets so disparaged. If you are really looking to protect those outside numbers, that's the best bet. It isn't even close.

I think I am coming around to this view. Even a short pay field at 2x on the 2 and 12 (which is what my local shop has) comes out to a 5% house edge, give or take, which is a lot better than the 11% or 16% edge on the Horn and C&E bets.

Quote: thecesspit

It's a sucker bet when it starts hitting, as you don't get paid even close to the true odds... when it doesn't hit it just another losing bet :)

For the 2/3/11/12 to be worth while you have to be hititng them 15% more than normal (if I recall). Thats a lot as they are rare numbers anyways. The Field would do the trick (it's what I'll place if I'm wanting to follow a shooter hitting the outsides all the time). You've only got to avoid the center numbers 2-3% more often than normal.

Yep, anything in the middle of the table is a bad bet. I fully recognize that. In my betting pattern I might throw $10 there, while having $200 in place bets or even $500 in come and odds bets on a long roll. The closer the bet is to the inside, the more I will put on it. But strange things happen. A couple weeks ago in AC I had a long roll of my own that mainly consisted of me banging on the 4, 6, and 10 (something like hitting each of them 4 times). I had come bets out and when I finally sevened out after winning $1500 or so and throwing three points (a 6 and two 9s), I looked at the board and realized I had never thrown a 5 or an 8 in the entire roll, my original place bets had gone untouched. On the original point of this thread, in that session I was doing a C&E bet for $10 a throw.

Have to agree. Why not just pay the field rather than the horn or C/E? If your strategy is really to just "bet against the 7" than thats a lot better way to do it than the prop bets.

Quote: CrappedOut

Just came back from my local casino $1500 to the good.

The real tragedy: you actually came back from the local casino several hundred dollars to the BAD, and the worst part of it is, you probably didn't even notice it. To wit: you bet $5 on 11. It hit. They paid you $75. Yay! But the odds against you were 17-1, not 15-1. They underpaid you by $10, and that's how they make their money--by underpaying winners. Thus, the prop/outside numbers/field bettors are not only taking the worst of it, but they are REALLY getting hammered when they win (a $5 place bet on nine gets underpaid by $1; a $5 bet on 12 gets underpaid by $25!).

So if you hit a lot of your horn bets, hardways, etc. in the course of your winning session, you got hosed out of hundreds of dollars in the process. I know it's "fun" to hit an eleven or a hard six, but that fun comes at a huge price. Ultimately, if I make a $5 bet with a 10% house edge, I am handing the casino $5 and they immediately hand me back $4.50. That's all it amounts to, mathematically, and practically.

There is really very little point in offering advice, since you are consistently/chronically making just about the worst bets available on the table. You can get action with the best bets on the table for less than one-tenth of the price (house edge) that you are paying now. Playing your way is like driving across town to fill your car at a gas station that charges $40 a gallon.

Quote: mkl654321

There is really very little point in offering advice, since you are consistently/chronically making just about the worst bets available on the table. You can get action with the best bets on the table for less than one-tenth of the price (house edge) that you are paying now. Playing your way is like driving across town to fill your car at a gas station that charges $40 a gallon.

Have to disagree with you here. We have collectively worked through this issue on the thread, and am coming to the conclusion that given my proclivity for wanting to cover the most outside numbers, the best way to do so might well be to bet the field in lieu of the horn or C&E.

Simply saying "don't ever make those bets" isn't really advancing the ball, even if it is good advice offered sincerely. If we reflexively just follow the math then none of us will be in a casino for anything other than card counting or comp hustling. Every other wager in a casino is a losing one, the difference is only of degree.

CrappedOut,

You have to expect that the numbers we will give you are simple math numbers.

$10 Horn High Ace-Deuce: HA = $52 x 2/36 + 22 x 2/36 + 54 x 2/36 - 10 x 30 / 36 = -$1.2222 / roll
$7 C $3 E = $46 x 4/36 + 38 x 2/36 - 10 x 30/36 = -$1.1111 / roll
$10 field (12 pays triple) = 30 x 1/36 + 20 x 1/36 + 10 x 14/36 - 10 x 20/36 = -$0.2778 / roll
$10 field (12 pays double) = 20 x 2/36 + 10 x 14/36 - 10 x 20/36 = -$0.5556 / roll

Compare this to say, a $60 6 or 8 / roll = $70 x 5/36 - $60 x 6/36 = -$0.2778 / roll.

In essence, the best field bet is six times worse, expected value wise, as the best place bet.

$7 C $3 E is better than the horn high ace deuce by $0.1111 / roll.

Of course you will do better if the shooters roll the outside numbers, and in a short session, or even a series of short sessions, you will come out ahead. But the center bets are sucker bets for a reason. Good luck.

Quote: boymimbo

CrappedOut,

You have to expect that the numbers we will give you are simple math numbers.

$10 Horn High Ace-Deuce: HA = $52 x 2/36 + 22 x 2/36 + 54 x 2/36 - 10 x 30 / 36 = -$1.2222 / roll
$7 C $3 E = $46 x 4/36 + 38 x 2/36 - 10 x 30/36 = -$1.1111 / roll
$10 field (12 pays triple) = 30 x 1/36 + 20 x 1/36 + 10 x 14/36 - 10 x 20/36 = -$0.2778 / roll
$10 field (12 pays double) = 20 x 2/36 + 10 x 14/36 - 10 x 20/36 = -$0.5556 / roll

Compare this to say, a $60 6 or 8 / roll = $70 x 5/36 - $60 x 6/36 = -$0.2778 / roll.

In essence, the best field bet is six times worse, expected value wise, as the best place bet.

$7 C $3 E is better than the horn high ace deuce by $0.1111 / roll.

Of course you will do better if the shooters roll the outside numbers, and in a short session, or even a series of short sessions, you will come out ahead. But the center bets are sucker bets for a reason. Good luck.

What makes the centre bets even worse is that they don't even provide a good trade of odds to EV. If you want to make high odds bets in the casino, the roulette table will 'only' take 5.26% for the honour of a 1 in 38 shot paying 1 to 35. It's not good value even in the market of casino table games.

Quote: CrappedOut

Have to disagree with you here. We have collectively worked through this issue on the thread, and am coming to the conclusion that given my proclivity for wanting to cover the most outside numbers, the best way to do so might well be to bet the field in lieu of the horn or C&E.

Simply saying "don't ever make those bets" isn't really advancing the ball, even if it is good advice offered sincerely. If we reflexively just follow the math then none of us will be in a casino for anything other than card counting or comp hustling. Every other wager in a casino is a losing one, the difference is only of degree.

Sure. The field bet is an improvement over the center-of-the-table prop bets. Similarly, breaking your left leg skiing is definitely an improvement over breaking both legs.

I suppose what I and other posters have been inclined to do is to wean you away from that proclivity you have. The casino almost always charges you more vig, the higher the potential payout is for a given bet. That's why the house PC goes up the further "outside" you go. That's also why Keno and slot machines with big jackpots are so bad for the player (and why blackjack is good). For that matter, the fact that the Pass Line pays even money and is the best bet available (ignoring the odds bet for the moment) should tell you something.

What you dismiss as "reflexively following the math" is more than just some kind of mindless, knee-jerk reaction for most of the posters here. Since, as you put it, "every other wager in the casino is a losing one" (which is most emphatically NOT true, but let's pretend for the purposes of discussion that it is), it follows that if we are going to gamble at all, it would still make sense to limit our losses--if those losses are small enough, we might very well be getting entertainment/drinks/comps for free, essentially.

The difference "only" of degree is rather dramatic: even with the "strategy" of using the Field bet to "cover" those outside numbers, you are bleeding money at six times the rate that making place bets/pass line bets would. You are a patient who has come to the clinic, and smokes, drinks, is overweight, doesn't eat right, doesn't exercise, and spends all day screaming at people. We seem to have convinced you to stop smoking. We'd like to do better than that.

mkl: There are exceptions to the "outside" rule. Buying a 4 and 10 for $30 with $1 commission paid up front has a HA of

$59 x 3/9 - $31 x 6/9 = -$1/31 = 3.226 percent, which is as good as a field bet.

If you find a table where commission is paid after a win, the house edge goes to 1.67 percent even on a regular $20 buy. One of the best values on the craps table is a $30 buy 4/10 where the commission is paid after a win. The HA on that is 1.11 percent.

So a Buy bet on the outside where you can pay $1 commission on $30 or $35, or even better, a commission is paid after the win only, or even better, a combination of both.

Quote: boymimbo

mkl: There are exceptions to the "outside" rule. Buying a 4 and 10 for $30 with $1 commission paid up front has a HA of

$59 x 3/9 - $31 x 6/9 = -$1/31 = 3.226 percent, which is as good as a field bet.

If you find a table where commission is paid after a win, the house edge goes to 1.67 percent even on a regular $20 buy. One of the best values on the craps table is a $30 buy 4/10 where the commission is paid after a win. The HA on that is 1.11 percent.

So a Buy bet on the outside where you can pay $1 commission on $30 or $35, or even better, a commission is paid after the win only, or even better, a combination of both.

This is a very good observation - many Vegas houses (unlike my usual East Coast joints) require the vig only on a win. I suppose the question of whether they make you pay the $1 on a $30 or $35 bet or ratchet it up to $2 may be the crew's perception of your toking proclivities.

Quote: boymimbo

mkl: There are exceptions to the "outside" rule. Buying a 4 and 10 for $30 with $1 commission paid up front has a HA of

$59 x 3/9 - $31 x 6/9 = -$1/31 = 3.226 percent, which is as good as a field bet.

If you find a table where commission is paid after a win, the house edge goes to 1.67 percent even on a regular $20 buy. One of the best values on the craps table is a $30 buy 4/10 where the commission is paid after a win. The HA on that is 1.11 percent.

So a Buy bet on the outside where you can pay $1 commission on $30 or $35, or even better, a commission is paid after the win only, or even better, a combination of both.

Yes, I was aware of that. Most casinos don't let you do that, though, so I didn't bother to mention it. The Horseshoe in Vegas would let you buy the 4 or 10 and pay the juice only on a win, but it was the only casino downtown that let you do so. I don't know whether that's true any more, since I don't play any game other than live poker at the Shoe since it was taken over by crazy people.

They also let you buy the 5 or 9 and pay vig when they hit--$1 on a $20 bet, which meant that your payoff was $29 rather than $28. I tried to explain this one evening to a giant Texan who was apparently constructed of 1/3 fat, 1/3 beer, and 1/3 hot air, and was placing the 5 and 9 for $200 each. He was getting paid $280 when he hit, when he could have been getting $290. Heck, if he didn't WANT that $10, I would have gladly taken it...but he just belched in my general direction and said "Ah bet mah money the way ah want to, son." Fair enough.

Quote: mkl654321

What you dismiss as "reflexively following the math" is more than just some kind of mindless, knee-jerk reaction for most of the posters here. Since, as you put it, "every other wager in the casino is a losing one" (which is most emphatically NOT true, but let's pretend for the purposes of discussion that it is), it follows that if we are going to gamble at all, it would still make sense to limit our losses--if those losses are small enough, we might very well be getting entertainment/drinks/comps for free, essentially.

I don't dismiss it, I recognize it for what it is, a mathematical truth that works out over the long run. The problem is, which is what I learned from a card counter of some repute, is that we live in the short run. Those streaky, short run episodes are what makes a dice table fun.

I'm wondering what other bets besides card counting in a casino are not losing ones, in your view. Certainly you can get close to zero odds from line bets backed by full odds, if you're a very good poker player you can potentially make a living, but nothing beyond card counting (or comp hustling, which really isn't a bet) gives a bettor a true edge over the house.

Quote: CrappedOut

I don't dismiss it, I recognize it for what it is, a mathematical truth that works out over the long run. The problem is, which is what I learned from a card counter of some repute, is that we live in the short run. Those streaky, short run episodes are what makes a dice table fun.

I'm wondering what other bets besides card counting in a casino are not losing ones, in your view. Certainly you can get close to zero odds from line bets backed by full odds, if you're a very good poker player you can potentially make a living, but nothing beyond card counting (or comp hustling, which really isn't a bet) gives a bettor a true edge over the house.

First of all, the "short run" is an illusion. In reality, it's all one long session, with varying intervals between when we place our last previous bet and when we place our next one. Certainly you realize, that the effect of a series of foolish bets in the "short run" only applies if that IS INDEED A SHORT RUN, as in, you never are going to make such bets again. But if you are going to go to the casino over and over and make bad bets, then the only thing that matters is the sum total of your action. To give up a huge house percentage, and then wipe the mental slate clean because you're done for the day, or for this trip, only to repeat the same actions at some point in the future, is to, well, kid yourself. It's like taking a mild poison every day that has a 1% chance of killing you. In the "short run", your risk of death is minimal--BUT NOT IF YOU KEEP TAKING THE POISON EVERY DAY.

To answer your other question, the following casino games can indeed give you an advantage over the house:

Video poker
Sports betting
Live poker
Drawings
Tournaments
Promotions
Table games where you get comps that exceed your expected loss
Slot club benefits (which can change a losing game into a winner)
Coupons/matchplays/American Casino Guide/Las Vegas Advisor

Crappedout-

If you are near Albuquerque and can head to the casino we've previously referenced (Santa Ana Star), you shouldn't play anything but the Field Bet (and buy the 4 and 10), as there is no house edge. Then you can feel superior to the pass line bettors, who are tossing their money away! Think of it as they are breaking their pinky every roll, and you are uninjured~ All of your favorites with no house advantage!

By the way, if the money you are using and losing to gamble is equivalent to poisoning yourself or breaking bones, I'd suggest you play online for free until you can save up a bankroll. In addition, if your main purpose is to ENJOY YOURSELF and you like playing the bad numbers, it doesn't make sense for someone to determine that you are not ENJOYING yourself unless you go play video poker, because there's a better edge. For me, I'd rather sit at home than play Pai Gow Poker (for example). I just don't really enjoy it, no matter what the house edge is.

I could laugh at someone playing golf and say "you just spent $200, but you could have played at that crappy public course for 20! You aren't playing the right bets!"

Quote: mkl654321

Playing your way is like driving across town to fill your car at a gas station that charges $40 a gallon.

But when you're driving a Ferrari, the thrill is in the ride, regardless of the price of petrol.

Quote: mkl654321

To answer your other question, the following casino games can indeed give you an advantage over the house:

Video poker
Sports betting
Live poker
Drawings
Tournaments
Promotions
Table games where you get comps that exceed your expected loss
Slot club benefits (which can change a losing game into a winner)
Coupons/matchplays/American Casino Guide/Las Vegas Advisor

I agree with you on the comp hustling, promos and tournaments etc... But I'm not sure I agree with you in a realistic way with the first three on your list. Sports betting or video poker - I've never seen anybody consistently win 55% of their sports bets. Sure, guys get streaky (just like at the dice table), but in the end the house edge wears you down. As for VP - well, that's assuming perfect play, which realistically isn't possible. I would bet that a scientific experiment for VP players, even those presumably with perfect play skills - shows that they're still playing at a disadvantage.

And live poker - well, that one's a game with no house edge, so I don't consider it to be gambling against the house. I know for a fact plenty of guys make a living at that. But sheesh, what work!

Quote: Ayecarumba

But when you're driving a Ferrari, the thrill is in the ride, regardless of the price of petrol.

But paying $40/gal wouldn't make it any MORE thrilling, so why pay it?

Quote: CrappedOut

I agree with you on the comp hustling, promos and tournaments etc... But I'm not sure I agree with you in a realistic way with the first three on your list. Sports betting or video poker - I've never seen anybody consistently win 55% of their sports bets. Sure, guys get streaky (just like at the dice table), but in the end the house edge wears you down. As for VP - well, that's assuming perfect play, which realistically isn't possible. I would bet that a scientific experiment for VP players, even those presumably with perfect play skills - shows that they're still playing at a disadvantage.

And live poker - well, that one's a game with no house edge, so I don't consider it to be gambling against the house. I know for a fact plenty of guys make a living at that. But sheesh, what work!

You only have to win 53% of your bets to break even at football, which is what I assume you were referring to. If you bet baseball, you don't have to win even half of your bets. In any case, many, many people can and do exceed that 53% figure (which would also apply to basketball betting). It's not easy, certainly, but it's certainly very "possible".

You do NOT need to play VP "perfectly" to win--just with a sufficiently low error rate. Plus, slot club benefits often add substantially to an already winning game. A 1% player advantage can be obtained with perhaps 2-3 hours' study of a strategy chart, and the knowledge of where the best games are. I've been playing and winning for 15 years, and I know dozens of people who have been more successful than I.