Sure they hate the fact that they have a bunch of disciplined craps bettors at the table, but they are still making their HE. Bottom line is they don't care what side anyone bets.
I appreciate the math you and M.E. put out. I don't think the house cares too much either... as in the 6/6 scenario they are guaranteed a profit or at least no loss on the session. As a market person I love the fact that craps can be a game where you can go long and short so to speak and the house doesn't have to take all the heat on the action.
Two quick questions regarding LV craps tables.
1. Do a majority of LV tables on charge the comm on the buy and lay only on wins? Where I play in IL you pay when you put it up.
2. I understand in crapless craps there is no dont. Can you still buy and lay numbers?
Hold is also time-dependent as well.
Imagine this; you sit down at a Blackjack table that has a 1% house edge. You cash in $500 and the casino records this as the 'drop'. You now play 4 hours of Blackjack at 100 hands/hour with a $25 wager.
Your expected loss per hand is 25c and this equates to 100x25c per hour = $25 so, after 4 hours you are 'expected' to lose $100. If this happens then the casino records the 'win' as $100. To calculate the hold % you divide 'casino win'/drop = 100/500 = 20%.
So, despite being a 1% house edge game, the hold %, in this example, is 20%.
Switch, This way of calculation would be different from "House Hold = Win / Drop" Say for the $500 buy-in, I lost $300 in 4 hours on the table, So, Win/Drop = $300/$500 = 60%. Is the hold 20% or 60%? Which is right? Or there is no right or wrong, it just that every casino uses different definition...
If every player played perfectly and only played exactly $100 worth of bets and then left the casino, the house would hold whatever the house edge is on the game over the long haul. The fact that you play hundreds of dollars worth of wagers on your $100 buy in (your winnings get recycled as bets), is the reason the hold percentage is always much higher than the house edge on a game.
So if you are giving up a 2% house edge on every hundred wagered, you might go through $1,000 of wagers on your $100 buy in. This would be an expected hold of 20% (2% x $1,000 in wagers).
Bottom line... you can't win in the long run, even on a game that has a house edge of .5%. Play for the entertainment value.
The difference in the hold percentage in both of your cases is miniscule compared to the millions dropped, so that makes no difference either way.
Winners, I'm guessing, may always have been ahead and thus only needed their initial one buy-in.
On other tables where higher than even money can be paid out, I would hope that players walk following a good win (otherwise they're going to press until they do, or just gamble on). In that case a player might have had many buy-ins before getting lucky.
Of course what the casino want is (a) you buy-in and play until it's all gone (b) you don't mind losing the amount of your buy-in, feel you;ve had a good evening and are happy to come back again (c) occasionally you get lucky and actually win though not too often (d) you repeat same regularly, perhaps every week! If you can't play blackjack well, even better!
What they hate is the "don't" player who buys in and (a) is happy and walks away with a small win (b) occasionally loses their entire stack (c) plays perfect strategy and occupies a chair that could be better filled by a mug punter (d) feels quite bad after a loss and waits a month or so before coming back.