Quote:MathExtremistAll absolutely true, but I submit that virtually nobody thinks about total action when playing craps.

I'm sure nobody, except maybe people like us, would calculate that exactly, but players can feel how much they are betting. This gets to the question of why people gamble in the first place. For those who do it for the excitement or satisfy an addiction 3-4-5x odds will buy more of what they want. For those who just want to be in the game, I agree, just bet the minimum on the pass, or both ways, and 0x odd the odds.

Quote:Eric721No, no, no.

This mentality is easy to fall into because most people ignore the come-out roll, which is a ridiculously large part of craps and can't (or at very least shouldn't) be ignored.

Odds serve no purpose whatsoever except to increase your variance. That has exactly one effect: you reach your loss limit faster. Odds in no way affect the expectation; they have none. The line bets retain their original expected value, and the odds carry zero expectation, thus 1.41% (or 1.40%) plus zero is still 1.41%. (or 1.40%.) So when you play odds, all you are doing is shortening your lifespan at the table. Yet countless other gamblers love to tell me about how I'm failing to take advantage of the odds, without realizing that they are the ones being taken advantage of.

As I was getting at earlier, the most favorable position in the casino is the come-out roll on a pass or come bet. Betting odds minimizes this position. I'd much rather put my money on the line for the come-out than I would leaving it behind the line with an expected value of nothing.

If minimizing losses is the highest priority, you can't gamble in the first place. For all practical purposes, in order to minimize losses you absolutely must define your session bankroll, win limit, and loss limit, and then tailor a system within those criteria. Debating without those ideas at the forefront is irrelevant and often misleading, since real-world limitations change what is or is not the best strategy. As a general rule, though, there is no such thing as "minimizing losses." Whatever your loss limit is for a session, that's what you have to plan to lose.

Hi Eric721 (and welcome),

"Odds serve no purpose whatsoever except to increase your variance. That has exactly one effect: you reach your loss limit faster."

I agree that odds increases your variance, but I completely disagree that the ONLY effect is you reach your loss limit faster. It happens that way most of the time, BUT, full 10x odds have also allowed me to win $3k to $6k in a single session, whilst never going above a $25 PL bet. When the dice are hitting points for every shooter, full odds is the sweetest nectar in the casino.

Right, and to ahiromu's point, the reason I qualified "nobody" with "virtually" is to exclude well-informed gamblers like your readers. Once you've played for a while, you learn to identify the bet level where it's exciting but not terrifying. I don't really feel $5+3/4/5x, in the same way as I'd suppose Phil Ivey doesn't really feel $100+3/4/5x.Quote:WizardI'm sure nobody, except maybe people like us, would calculate that exactly, but players can feel how much they are betting.

Nothing wrong with betting on the true odds bet.....but please don't include those and come up with some "combined HE" BS.

Quote:RaleighCrapsHi Eric721 (and welcome),

"Odds serve no purpose whatsoever except to increase your variance. That has exactly one effect: you reach your loss limit faster."

I agree that odds increases your variance, but I completely disagree that the ONLY effect is you reach your loss limit faster. It happens that way most of the time, BUT, full 10x odds have also allowed me to win $3k to $6k in a single session, whilst never going above a $25 PL bet. When the dice are hitting points for every shooter, full odds is the sweetest nectar in the casino.

You can also get hot without playing odds, so the "hot shooter" argument doesn't favor either side in this debate.

Let me backtrack a little and say that I am not against playing odds in general, however, I am against playing anything greater than 2x (MAYBE 3x) odds. Does anyone here advocate going to a casino that allows a $1 minimum and 100x odds and actually playing a $1 pass line bet and $100 behind? I would certainly hope not, because that shooter can go 1-1 to the pass line yet you're down $100 immediately.

The generally accepted logic is that because they are true odds, they are great, but once you start raising the limits on odds, it suddenly becomes unwise. If odds are so great, that would not be the case. I could wholeheartedly recommend single or half odds, but once you begin increasing your high expectation bet by a factor of three when it has become a low expectation bet, you have dangerously (to your session limit) increased your variance. That's the exact reason I feel 10x odds are getting into crazy territory. I draw the line at anything more than double/triple odds. In fact, since the comeout is far and away the most favorable position in the casino, I say keep all your action there.

You don't get to bet on just the comeout, you have to make the whole bet. Looking at the comeout as a favorable position is an inaccurate way to think about how the bet works.

Quote:MathExtremist$1+100x odds is basically like getting contingent free buy bets on any number (contingent only on rolling it first). Nothing wrong with that; if there were free buy bets I'd be all over those. It'd be no different than placing across except the payouts would be better.

There's nothing wrong with it besides the fact that the variance is astronomical.

The point of gambling is not variance, it is action. The thrill of the ride. If all you wanted was variance, you could do any number of other things. Why go to a casino at all when you could just buy scratch-offs at the local gas station. Because it's fun to gamble at a casino. The main attraction of table games is to be there with other people. The main attraction of craps is that it is a social game, where you often get entire tables cheering, clapping, and whistling for a hot shooter. Gambling is not about variance; good gambling tries to minimize variance in the effort of extending bankroll and extending fun. If you want a high return, like odds has, then you are already setting yourself up for many more losses than wins. Why is that fun?

Quote:MathExtremistYou don't get to bet on just the comeout, you have to make the whole bet. Looking at the comeout as a favorable position is an inaccurate way to think about how the bet works.

You're a math guy, right?

Take a look at this:

How do you win at the Pass Line? Let me show you a little chart of the possibilities. Note: To keep everything in integer form, I multiply every one of the 36 possible rolls by 55. So instead of going through every possible roll once, it's every possible roll 55 times each.

Roll | Ways | Ways x55 | Ways to Pass | Ways to Don't |
---|---|---|---|---|

2 | 1 | 55 | 0 | 55 |

3 | 2 | 110 | 0 | 110 |

4 | 3 | 165 | 55 | 110 |

5 | 4 | 220 | 88 | 132 |

6 | 5 | 275 | 125 | 150 |

7 | 6 | 330 | 330 | 0 |

8 | 5 | 275 | 125 | 150 |

9 | 4 | 220 | 88 | 132 |

10 | 3 | 165 | 55 | 110 |

11 | 2 | 110 | 110 | 0 |

12 | 1 | 55 | 0 | n/a |

Total | 36 | 1980 | 976 | 949 |

The chart shows us that there are 536 ways to win odds. (55+88+125+125+88+55=536) It also shows us that there are 440 ways to win on the comeout. (330+110) This gives a total of 536+440=976 ways to win, which checks out.

When you ignore the comeout, you are ignoring 45%, almost half, of all possible winners. That's why I play without odds. I count on all winners.

Said another way, there are only 536 ways to win odds. That's a paltry 27.07% of possible rolls. (536/1980=.270707...) Not a very promising wager, eh?

I can't stress this enough. 45% of all Pass Line winners happen on the come-out roll. That's just nuts. Why in the world would you want to minimize 45% of your winners by taking odds?

Quote:Eric721There's nothing wrong with it besides the fact that the variance is astronomical.

The point of gambling is not variance, it is action. The thrill of the ride. If all you wanted was variance, you could do any number of other things. Why go to a casino at all when you could just buy scratch-offs at the local gas station. Because it's fun to gamble at a casino. The main attraction of table games is to be there with other people. The main attraction of craps is that it is a social game, where you often get entire tables cheering, clapping, and whistling for a hot shooter. Gambling is not about variance; good gambling tries to minimize variance in the effort of extending bankroll and extending fun. If you want a high return, like odds has, then you are already setting yourself up for many more losses than wins. Why is that fun?

If you only ever made one at a time, sure you'd lose more times than you won. But what if you make two or more? If you have a 4 and 10 working, now you're at 50-50. Any other two odds bets working means a greater than 50% chance (relative to 7) of hitting and therefore a lower variance than one at a time.

You should run a sim of 1, 2, and 3 odds bets and get a sense of how the variance changes. It goes down and that may be counterintuitive. If you don't want to run a sim, look at the Elliott paper, table 6, first two rows:

http://www.conjelco.com/downloads/elliott-paper.pdf

Because it's important to focus on the edge, not just the probability of winning. The cost of a pass bet is 1.4% of the bet. The cost of odds is zero.Quote:I can't stress this enough. 45% of all Pass Line winners happen on the come-out roll. That's just nuts. Why in the world would you want to minimize 45% of your winners by taking odds?

What would you rather bet on?

a) A coin flip where you bet $1 and if it's heads I pay you back $1.90 (5% house edge), or

b) A dice roll where you bet $1 and if it's a six I pay you back $6 (0 house edge)

Quote:MathExtremistBecause it's important to focus on the edge, not just the probability of winning. The cost of a pass bet is 1.4% of the bet. The cost of odds is zero.

What would you rather bet on?

a) A coin flip where you bet $1 and if it's heads I pay you back $1.90 (5% house edge), or

b) A dice roll where you bet $1 and if it's a six I pay you back $6 (0 house edge)

Then in purely mathematical argument, can you convince me that playing 100x odds is a smart bet?

Going off what I said earlier, assume a $303 bankroll at a $1 minimum table with 100x odds. According to the purely mathematical argument, since this reduces the house edge to virtually nil, it should be a smarter bet. But I would argue that it is not as smart as playing no odds at all, for many reasons.

This is exactly like people's absolutist arguments about odds always being the smartest bet and how not taking max odds is illogical. You're not grasping any possible aspect of betting other than EV (or, diminishing the house edge).

I'll answer your coinflip question with one of my own. Which would you take:

1) Heads, win $95; Tails, lose $105

2) Heads, win $10,000; Tails lose $10,000

Most of us in the real world would take bet 1) every time because we can't afford to lose ten grand. There's just too much variance there. If you came along and scolded us that our choice was illogical due to the EV, we'd rightly laugh in your face.

Quote:Eric721There's nothing wrong with it besides the fact that the variance is astronomical.

The point of gambling is not variance, it is action. The thrill of the ride. If all you wanted was variance, you could do any number of other things. Why go to a casino at all when you could just buy scratch-offs at the local gas station. Because it's fun to gamble at a casino. The main attraction of table games is to be there with other people. The main attraction of craps is that it is a social game, where you often get entire tables cheering, clapping, and whistling for a hot shooter. Gambling is not about variance; good gambling tries to minimize variance in the effort of extending bankroll and extending fun. If you want a high return, like odds has, then you are already setting yourself up for many more losses than wins. Why is that fun?

You're a math guy, right?

Take a look at this:

How do you win at the Pass Line? Let me show you a little chart of the possibilities. Note: To keep everything in integer form, I multiply every one of the 36 possible rolls by 55. So instead of going through every possible roll once, it's every possible roll 55 times each.

Roll Ways Ways x55 Ways to Pass Ways to Don't 2 1 55 0 55 3 2 110 0 110 4 3 165 55 110 5 4 220 88 132 6 5 275 125 150 7 6 330 330 0 8 5 275 125 150 9 4 220 88 132 10 3 165 55 110 11 2 110 110 0 12 1 55 0 n/a Total 36 1980 976 949

The chart shows us that there are 536 ways to win odds. (55+88+125+125+88+55=536) It also shows us that there are 440 ways to win on the comeout. (330+110) This gives a total of 536+440=976 ways to win, which checks out.

When you ignore the comeout, you are ignoring 45%, almost half, of all possible winners. That's why I play without odds. I count on all winners.

Said another way, there are only 536 ways to win odds. That's a paltry 27.07% of possible rolls. (536/1980=.270707...) Not a very promising wager, eh?

I can't stress this enough. 45% of all Pass Line winners happen on the come-out roll. That's just nuts. Why in the world would you want to minimize 45% of your winners by taking odds?

Yes, the point of gambling is action, but it depends on variance to be exciting! If there was no variance you would lose 1.4% of your pass line bet every time you bet. That's no fun. No one would gamble without variance. The fact that you will either win or lose your bet is what is exciting and is due to variance. 100x odds is exciting.

However, betting $1 PL with $0 odds is the exact same as betting $1 PL with $100 odds, from an EV standpoint. Placing the odds does not decrease the HE. All the odds wager does is increase the variance, which I agree -- many players like. But, from an EV standpoint, the only thing we are concerned with is the amount of money on the PL.

It's like this -- say I'm at a roulette table. I bet $5 on black every roll. I stand to lose something like 5% of my action. But all of a sudden my friend comes over and is like, "Hey, in between each of the spins, let's make a $1,000 bet with each other. If the coin I flip lands on heads, you win $1K from me. If it lands on tails, you pay me $1K." I still stand to lose 5% of my $5 action on roulette. I don't care [and no one should care] the the % I expect to lose on my $1,005 in action.

Quote:AvincowQuote:Eric721There's nothing wrong with it besides the fact that the variance is astronomical.

The point of gambling is not variance, it is action. The thrill of the ride. If all you wanted was variance, you could do any number of other things. Why go to a casino at all when you could just buy scratch-offs at the local gas station. Because it's fun to gamble at a casino. The main attraction of table games is to be there with other people. The main attraction of craps is that it is a social game, where you often get entire tables cheering, clapping, and whistling for a hot shooter. Gambling is not about variance; good gambling tries to minimize variance in the effort of extending bankroll and extending fun. If you want a high return, like odds has, then you are already setting yourself up for many more losses than wins. Why is that fun?

You're a math guy, right?

Take a look at this:

How do you win at the Pass Line? Let me show you a little chart of the possibilities. Note: To keep everything in integer form, I multiply every one of the 36 possible rolls by 55. So instead of going through every possible roll once, it's every possible roll 55 times each.

Roll Ways Ways x55 Ways to Pass Ways to Don't 2 1 55 0 55 3 2 110 0 110 4 3 165 55 110 5 4 220 88 132 6 5 275 125 150 7 6 330 330 0 8 5 275 125 150 9 4 220 88 132 10 3 165 55 110 11 2 110 110 0 12 1 55 0 n/a Total 36 1980 976 949

The chart shows us that there are 536 ways to win odds. (55+88+125+125+88+55=536) It also shows us that there are 440 ways to win on the comeout. (330+110) This gives a total of 536+440=976 ways to win, which checks out.

When you ignore the comeout, you are ignoring 45%, almost half, of all possible winners. That's why I play without odds. I count on all winners.

Said another way, there are only 536 ways to win odds. That's a paltry 27.07% of possible rolls. (536/1980=.270707...) Not a very promising wager, eh?

I can't stress this enough. 45% of all Pass Line winners happen on the come-out roll. That's just nuts. Why in the world would you want to minimize 45% of your winners by taking odds?

Yes, the point of gambling is action, but it depends on variance to be exciting! If there was no variance you would lose 1.4% of your pass line bet every time you bet. That's no fun. No one would gamble without variance. The fact that you will either win or lose your bet is what is exciting and is due to variance. 100x odds is exciting.

You're missing the forest for the trees. If I walk into a casino with $300, would I be better off playing blackjack at the $100 table or the $10 table? Obviously the latter, despite the former having more variance. For the same reason, you are better off not playing odds at craps.

On a somewhat related note, if you do not care about rapid fluctuations in your bankroll, which would you choose? $1 pass line with $100 odds, or $101 on the pass line with no odds? In either case you have plenty of action to keep things "exciting," but which one are you better off doing?

Quote:RSBetting $1 PL with $100 odds is better than something like $20 PL with $80 odds. We know this is true because of the sum of EV's: PL has 1.41% HE and odds has 0% HE.

However, betting $1 PL with $0 odds is the exact same as betting $1 PL with $100 odds, from an EV standpoint. Placing the odds does not decrease the HE. All the odds wager does is increase the variance, which I agree -- many players like. But, from an EV standpoint, the only thing we are concerned with is the amount of money on the PL.

It's like this -- say I'm at a roulette table. I bet $5 on black every roll. I stand to lose something like 5% of my action. But all of a sudden my friend comes over and is like, "Hey, in between each of the spins, let's make a $1,000 bet with each other. If the coin I flip lands on heads, you win $1K from me. If it lands on tails, you pay me $1K." I still stand to lose 5% of my $5 action on roulette. I don't care [and no one should care] the the % I expect to lose on my $1,005 in action.

That's the heart of the issue. Let's assume a $10 table that allows double odds. Most people tend to feel more like they are playing for $10 stakes than $30 stakes, thus giving them a false sense of security with regards to their bankroll. This puts their session limit in jeopardy, as you can be out $90 in a matter of minutes.

The odds bets aren't bad in and of themselves. But they do increase variance. Basic casino strategy, IMO, should be to enter with enough money to float three different sessions, each lasting at least an hour or two, taking breaks in between. I would recommend $1000 trip bankroll, with three $300 sessions. That gives you plenty of money to play at a $5 or $10 table for two hours, unless you are taking odds.

Here's the thing. Odds have true payouts. But no matter what you do, the casino will realize its advantage eventually. What usually happens when you play max odds is that you run into a buzz saw that eats away hundreds of dollars quite quickly. It doesn't take many bad shooters to do this, especially if you also play the come. Conversely, you also can get on a hot streak, sometimes doubling your money or more. However, both scenarios will typically actualize rather quickly, usually in less than an hour.

And that's the problem. Gamblers aren't there to buy stocks; they are there to day trade; the action is the point of it. So even if you double your money in a half hour, who can be satisfied with a mere half hour of action? So you stay for a little longer to have more fun, and then all of a sudden the huge variance has sapped away all your winnings plus your original buy-in in a ten minute span half an hour later. Then you scratch your head, repeat to yourself that you played the smartest bets, and just chalk it up to bad luck. But if you had come in with significantly more money to begin with, then the variance wouldn't have been able to eat through your entire session limit in such a short amount of time. You have to be able to withstand the variance.

There is a certain type who looks at the line bet they want to make and, realizing that free odds can't change the EV, just stops. No further argument will be even taken into consideration by that player. This person might be very intelligent.

There are even negative expectation players who don't want increased variance [a lot of ploppies are like this] . A very intelligent person might decide that. A ploppy just wants to lose their money slowly. The intelligent person who doesn't want variance just realizes that in the long run it likely won't matter and just stops.

Yet the difference in Craps to me just goes back to the $55 bettor at the $5 minimum table. I just don't see how it can be argued that it doesnt matter if the player plunks down that $55 on the line every time, or if he instead makes the $5 line bet and adds $50 in odds every time. Yet this thread is proving again that when presented with this argument the former player goes back to his argument about EV and the latter player goes back to his argument about unneeded variance. It's hard for me to picture either as liking to play Craps.

as to all you number crunchers, i give you credit. you are correct but your numbers factor over 3-5 million rolls, not the 3-4 hour session most gamblers might experience. I've seen 12 roll 4 times in a row and then not again for another hour. True odds are just that, the odds over 4 million rolls... some will come more often, some not so much but the average will work itself out. my best guess that working a 40 work week, 1 roll every 45 seconds or so i see maybe 850k rolls per year, give or take. I'm content to you work out that math. :)

the odds are an important factor in our game, more importantly to our brand. we, as dealers were shocked when we implemented 6:5 blackjack, we never thought it would come to our property. it's shameful, it's embarrassing and it most certainly isn't what a top tier casino should offer... no one consulted us though. it's a decision made by a bean counter who looks at numbers on a spread sheet and has never spent a day living in the trenches of what our business model is or should be.

i believe Steve Wynn has a full plate between Macau and Boston among others, i doubt very seriously that his latest concern lies in what odds his dice pit offers. i am sure that if he knew the damage that was being done to his name, that he'd stop it.

i wholly expect to come into work in the next day or two to find a head on a spike outside of our break room. i believe that an MBA who knows all about "business and spreadsheets" will fall on his sacrificial sword. because when all is said and done, Steve Wynn understands how a casino works and he isn't afraid of anyone's action.

or at least we can hope.

Quote:Relle

i believe Steve Wynn has a full plate between Macau and Boston among others, i doubt very seriously that his latest concern lies in what odds his dice pit offers. i am sure that if he knew the damage that was being done to his name, that he'd stop it.

Thanks for your post. I'm curious.....is it your impression at least that Mr. Wynn would not have been consulted and approved the change to 2X odds? as well as I guess the 6/5 BJ rules? Sure, Macau and Boston developments and financing are part of his day, but not too long ago there was a story about him going to play craps at the "Grand"s grand opening downtown as well as giving eulogy's at several high profile funerals.

It just seems to me, a nobody, that he would have the few moments in his day/night to consider a move to 2X odds. Perhaps there is a longer term plan where they will go to 100X in the near future...sort of Coke Classic after New Coke.

Quote:Relleas a craps dealer at the Wynn, i can say first and foremost that we're not happy with the change. we were given 1 hour notice that effective at 4 am, we were going to double odds... there was no memo, there was no meeting or discussion.

as to all you number crunchers, i give you credit. you are correct but your numbers factor over 3-5 million rolls, not the 3-4 hour session most gamblers might experience. I've seen 12 roll 4 times in a row and then not again for another hour. True odds are just that, the odds over 4 million rolls... some will come more often, some not so much but the average will work itself out. my best guess that working a 40 work week, 1 roll every 45 seconds or so i see maybe 850k rolls per year, give or take. I'm content to you work out that math. :)

the odds are an important factor in our game, more importantly to our brand. we, as dealers were shocked when we implemented 6:5 blackjack, we never thought it would come to our property. it's shameful, it's embarrassing and it most certainly isn't what a top tier casino should offer... no one consulted us though. it's a decision made by a bean counter who looks at numbers on a spread sheet and has never spent a day living in the trenches of what our business model is or should be.

i believe Steve Wynn has a full plate between Macau and Boston among others, i doubt very seriously that his latest concern lies in what odds his dice pit offers. i am sure that if he knew the damage that was being done to his name, that he'd stop it.

i wholly expect to come into work in the next day or two to find a head on a spike outside of our break room. i believe that an MBA who knows all about "business and spreadsheets" will fall on his sacrificial sword. because when all is said and done, Steve Wynn understands how a casino works and he isn't afraid of anyone's action.

or at least we can hope.

Welcome to the forum, Relle, and thanks very much for the post. I think you're absolutely right about Steve Wynn. I was talking about this in another post, and realized as I was writing it that most of the best gambling houses over the last 30 years had one thing in common; they were run by Steve Wynn at the time (Golden Nugget, Mirage, Bellagio, and Wynn) that they had the best paytables and actions, and he trusted the HE and volume, as well as the size of the action from big players looking for a good game, to make the money. I hope someone does call this 6:5 and 2xodds (along with any other sub-optimal paytables) to his attention exactly as you suggest and it changes back in a hurry.

Link to my other post here if you want to follow (and add to; I think it would be valuable) that discussion about what makes a good gaming experience.

Quote:Rellei wholly expect to come into work in the next day or two to find a head on a spike outside of our break room. i believe that an MBA who knows all about "business and spreadsheets" will fall on his sacrificial sword. because when all is said and done, Steve Wynn understands how a casino works and he isn't afraid of anyone's action.

Bean counters have a secret weapon though. Pretending that all other factors have stasis, that employee morale means nothing, that consumer loyalty means nothing, that eliminating services has no effects, etc., [edits] they just point to "the bottom line" and claim that is the head honcho's money there. They say "you see that guy over there drinking your coffee? That came off the bottom line. You are paying for that coffee". This has magical effects.

Quote:linkWorldCom...CEO [and multi-billion-dollar crook]...Ebbers famously decided to eliminate free coffee at WorldCom offices...and had security guards fill watercoolers with tap water.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/03/15/cx_da_0315ebbersguilty.html

Quote:Relleas a craps dealer at the Wynn, i can say first and foremost that we're not happy with the change. we were given 1 hour notice that effective at 4 am, we were going to double odds... there was no memo, there was no meeting or discussion.

Welcome Relle and as a person who has stayed at the Wynn every year since 2009 thank you for your service.

You and I can both hope that someone higher up will look at the situation and reverse course. I would love to see 9/6 Jacks or better at the 25 cent level again at the Wynn. 8-)

However in these types of situations it often seems that the management-types follow the crowd. 6:5 blackjack is spreading everywhere and it looks like the same pressure to increase overall house edge has hit the craps pit. When one location makes a change like this and the patrons don't vote with their dollars then it spreads to other casinos.

Do moves like this hurt in the long run? I certainly remember the video poker areas being a lot more busy when they offered lower minimums. However management-types are judged not in years, but in the daily wiggles of the stock price and the next quarterly results.

--helpmespock

I haven't yet seen any $20,000 odds bets on $2,000 flat over there, yet, but if I do I will report on it. I have seen 345x on $5,000 flat, there, though.

I have seen $5,000 continuous come and 345x odds over there (I don't know the player, but I watched him give $200,000-$250,000+ to the SLS in just 15 minutes .. and he didn't look like he had more ammo -- it appeared to my trained eye that he gave it all away).

I imagine folks will be taking shots on odds overages not paid as place bets as long as they are giving refunds without explanations on overages (as they are right now).

Quote:Rellei believe Steve Wynn has a full plate between Macau and Boston among others, i doubt very seriously that his latest concern lies in what odds his dice pit offers. i am sure that if he knew the damage that was being done to his name, that he'd stop it.

Historically, Steve Wynn has, by report, kept a close eye on all aspects of his casino operations.

Therefore I'd be amazed to learn that he did not know of and authorize the switch to 2X odds.

Then again he's getting older (73) and his health is not great, so he may have lost a few steps.

I just wonder: what was the impetus for him to authorize the change?

What was he thinking the reaction would be like?

He's been around casinos all his life, he knows the drill.

http://gaming.unlv.edu/reports.html

* Jerry's Nugget

* California Club

* Fremont Casino

* South Point

* Circus Circus

Double odds per internet errors here: (Last update: Jan 8, 2015 reported per this snapshot)

https://wizardofvegas.com/guides/craps-survey

That wrong info might have even factored into a decision at the Wynn. Who knows?

Quote:zoobrewOne word: INFLATION!!!! How many on this board would want to live on your salary from 10 years ago and still have to pay today's cost. It doesn't help that for Nevada the amount won from craps has gone down 25% since 2000. Any businessman as smart as Mr. Wynn knows that when revenue goes down and cost goes up, you need to change how things are done. How much you want to bet that there has been research done that shows that average bettors will move some of those no longer allowed odds bets to higher house edge prop. bets.

I will take that bet. The guy I met at the Wynn to play with was with was convinced the Pass line bet wasn't worth it any more and moved all his action to the Place Bets. Except when he rolled and he didn't place odds. I took his odds. Seemed like there was more Numbers action than normal but maybe Relle can comment on that from a dealers point of view.

Define "smart bet" and then you'll be able to tell whether it is or is not. You don't need me to convince you, you're capable of figuring it out on your own. Did you read the paper I linked to or did you just skip over it?Quote:Eric721Then in purely mathematical argument, can you convince me that playing 100x odds is a smart bet?

Your idea of "smart" appears to be "maximize the player return at all costs." That's not a very smart idea of "smart." In other words, your notion of "the purely mathematical argument" is absurdly narrow.Quote:Going off what I said earlier, assume a $303 bankroll at a $1 minimum table with 100x odds. According to the purely mathematical argument, since this reduces the house edge to virtually nil, it should be a smarter bet. But I would argue that it is not as smart as playing no odds at all, for many reasons.

Quote:I'll answer your coinflip question with one of my own. Which would you take:

1) Heads, win $95; Tails, lose $105

2) Heads, win $10,000; Tails lose $10,000

Neither. If I'm gambling, I'll find a better coin flip. Even black on roulette would be better. If I'm investing $10,000, it won't be in something with zero ROI. In short, your example is a terrible analogy and it is a poor comparison to my original question (based on equivalent wager sizes). Would you bet $1,000,000,000 on a 1/10000 chance to win $50,000,000,000,000? Of course not, even though you'd have a +400% edge. Even if you had a billion dollars, you'd never risk it at such long odds to win $50 trillion. You would do well to appreciate that money does not have a constant marginal utility. $50 trillion is exactly as useful as $1 billion to virtually everybody.

Quote:Most of us in the real world would take bet 1) every time because we can't afford to lose ten grand. There's just too much variance there. If you came along and scolded us that our choice was illogical due to the EV, we'd rightly laugh in your face.

Invoking the royal "we" and the "real world" is pretty ridiculous for someone who started with the example of a $1+100x odds table. That's like arguing about whether unicorn race jockeys should be elves or hobbits. In the "real world" there are no $1+100x odds tables.

In the same real world, someone who comes to one of the handful of 100x craps tables in the country with $10,000 and wants to play would be far better served -- and probably have a more exciting time -- by making $5 passline + 100x bets than they would $500 pass bets with no odds.

It's poor advice to increase the odds bet if that puts a player above their overall comfort level on a per-wager basis. If Jim happened to be at the $5 + 100x table at the Casino Royale, and he was betting $5 + $20 odds each roll (4x odds), it would be poor advice to suggest increasing those odds to $500 per roll if his bankroll couldn't support it. I would certainly never suggest that. But you appear to suggest that Jim should not play $5 + $20 odds and should bet $25 flat instead. That's also poor advice.

Quote:Rellethe odds are an important factor in our game, more importantly to our brand. we, as dealers were shocked when we implemented 6:5 blackjack, we never thought it would come to our property. it's shameful, it's embarrassing and it most certainly isn't what a top tier casino should offer... no one consulted us though. it's a decision made by a bean counter who looks at numbers on a spread sheet and has never spent a day living in the trenches of what our business model is or should be.

Except the 6:5 decision makes sense from a profit standpoint. There is a directly quantifiable increase in win going from 3:2 to 6:5. The same is not true with decreasing odds bets. That just lowers the variance. The only way an analyst could equate lower odds with increased win would be if they've modeled some amount of action moving from free odds to other bets (like bigger line bets).

I've met Charlie and I wouldn't think going from 3/4/5x to 2x would be something he'd do. But it's not like I have any info on the day-to-day ops data at the Wynn. I'd be very interested in vetting the assumptions behind a model that indicated moving to 2x was the right call.

With 3-4-5X odds, the payoff was always the same for a ten dollar bet, no matter what the point number was.

Damned strange move by a mogul.

Quote:odiousgambitThe intelligent person who doesn't want variance just realizes that in the long run it likely won't matter and just stops.

Yet the difference in Craps to me just goes back to the $55 bettor at the $5 minimum table. I just don't see how it can be argued that it doesnt matter if the player plunks down that $55 on the line every time, or if he instead makes the $5 line bet and adds $50 in odds every time. Yet this thread is proving again that when presented with this argument the former player goes back to his argument about EV and the latter player goes back to his argument about unneeded variance. It's hard for me to picture either as liking to play Craps.

You haven't understood the discussion.

This isn't meaningful in a practical way because you never reach the long term expectation in a session. There is no functional difference between the two proposed systems ($55 pass vs $5 pass with $50 odds every point with no other bets) in any given session. You are just as likely to win or lose with both systems, though they win their money differently. (With odds, you have to hit a bunch of <50% chance occurances. Without odds, you have to have more ~50% occurances happen than not.)

Quote:Eric721You haven't understood the discussion.

This isn't meaningful in a practical way because you never reach the long term expectation in a session. There is no functional difference between the two proposed systems ($55 pass vs $5 pass with $50 odds every point with no other bets) in any given session. You are just as likely to win or lose with both systems, though they win their money differently. (With odds, you have to hit a bunch of <50% chance occurances. Without odds, you have to have more ~50% occurances happen than not.)

you are just simply completely wrong. It's the same as saying the HE doesn't matter. Or the EV, for that matter.

Quote:MathExtremistDefine "smart bet" and then you'll be able to tell whether it is or is not. You don't need me to convince you, you're capable of figuring it out on your own. Did you read the paper I linked to or did you just skip over it?

Your idea of "smart" appears to be "maximize the player return at all costs." That's not a very smart idea of "smart." In other words, your notion of "the purely mathematical argument" is absurdly narrow.

Neither. If I'm gambling, I'll find a better coin flip. Even black on roulette would be better. If I'm investing $10,000, it won't be in something with zero ROI. In short, your example is a terrible analogy and it is a poor comparison to my original question (based on equivalent wager sizes). Would you bet $1,000,000,000 on a 1/10000 chance to win $50,000,000,000,000? Of course not, even though you'd have a +400% edge. Even if you had a billion dollars, you'd never risk it at such long odds to win $50 trillion. You would do well to appreciate that money does not have a constant marginal utility. $50 trillion is exactly as useful as $1 billion to virtually everybody.

Invoking the royal "we" and the "real world" is pretty ridiculous for someone who started with the example of a $1+100x odds table. That's like arguing about whether unicorn race jockeys should be elves or hobbits. In the "real world" there are no $1+100x odds tables.

In the same real world, someone who comes to one of the handful of 100x craps tables in the country with $10,000 and wants to play would be far better served -- and probably have a more exciting time -- by making $5 passline + 100x bets than they would $500 pass bets with no odds.

It's poor advice to increase the odds bet if that puts a player above their overall comfort level on a per-wager basis. If Jim happened to be at the $5 + 100x table at the Casino Royale, and he was betting $5 + $20 odds each roll (4x odds), it would be poor advice to suggest increasing those odds to $500 per roll if his bankroll couldn't support it. I would certainly never suggest that. But you appear to suggest that Jim should not play $5 + $20 odds and should bet $25 flat instead. That's also poor advice.

It's so cute when people are righteously indignant about a debate they don't understand.

To give you a hint, I've never argued the point you're so convinced I don't get. Do you know what variance is?

You clearly don't understand the choice between 95/105 and 10k/10k, or what the choice is meant to convey.

See, the Martingale is a mathematical "can't lose" system that simply doesn't work, and the reason isn't so much because of the table limits, but rather the extremely high variance. I bet nobody has ever played the Martingale and lost because they ran into the table limit. I believe Martingale players run out of money long before they hit the table maximums, and that running out of money is the real reason it simply doesn't work.

So if you have an unlimited supply of chips to wager, then odds are great. But because buy-ins are limited, odds are unwise. That is my position. I believe this to such an extent that I predict a large number of trials will bear out the true odds of the Pass Line when simulating the "Let it Ride" system, but the true odds will not be realized for the 100x odds style. Is that even mathematically possible?

Quote:odiousgambityou are just simply completely wrong. It's the same as saying the HE doesn't matter. Or the EV, for that matter.

It doesn't. Not in the "real world."

Did you not understand my Martingale example? Mathematically it is guaranteed to win you one unit every single series, no matter what. All you do is double up the previous bet after a loss. No matter how many bets you have to double up, once it wins, you net a grand total of 1 unit. Lather, rinse, repeat. The only limit is how long you feel like standing there.

The point of the Martingale is that mathematical EV is limited by real world conditions. Thank you for finally grasping that table conditions (in the form of table limits) trump EV. That's exactly the point I'm making. Specifically, table conditions in the form of your session bankroll mean if you bet odds, you'll be more likely to bust quicker because putting that much additional money on the table adds nothing (mathematically, from an EV perspective) but variance.

Quote:Eric721It [EV and HE] doesn't. Not in the "real world."

Enough said. You are going to have to live in your world, and I will live in mine.

Quote:MathExtremistYour idea of "smart" appears to be "maximize the player return at all costs." That's not a very smart idea of "smart." In other words, your notion of "the purely mathematical argument" is absurdly narrow.

Invoking the royal "we" and the "real world" is pretty ridiculous for someone who started with the example of a $1+100x odds table. That's like arguing about whether unicorn race jockeys should be elves or hobbits. In the "real world" there are no $1+100x odds tables.

In the same real world, someone who comes to one of the handful of 100x craps tables in the country with $10,000 and wants to play would be far better served -- and probably have a more exciting time -- by making $5 passline + 100x bets than they would $500 pass bets with no odds.

It's poor advice to increase the odds bet if that puts a player above their overall comfort level on a per-wager basis. If Jim happened to be at the $5 + 100x table at the Casino Royale, and he was betting $5 + $20 odds each roll (4x odds), it would be poor advice to suggest increasing those odds to $500 per roll if his bankroll couldn't support it. I would certainly never suggest that. But you appear to suggest that Jim should not play $5 + $20 odds and should bet $25 flat instead. That's also poor advice.

As I've already stated, playing "smart" also implements an exciting little microeconomic term you brought up, "utility." I feel like a broken record, but adding odds behind your line bet will inevitably shorten your lifespan at the table. How "fun" and "exciting" is that?

No, no taking odds is most assuredly not "poor advice." You are arguing very absolute positions that have some shaky ground beneath them. Interestingly, my argument for not taking odds is because they accelerate your time to bust, which you illogically list as a reason to take them.

Also, since you brought it up, please explain how that person would be "far better served" and "have a more exciting time" minimizing the pass line and maximizing the odds.

Here are the downsides to playing Pass Line with Odds and nothing else:

1) You need a lower-limit table, which are often hard to find and very crowded.

2) You do a whole lot of nothing as you wait for each point to resolve.

It takes ~3.4 rolls for each pass line decision. If you're on a busy table, those 3.4 rolls can take a while as everyone is plunking down place bets, taking odds on come bets, throwing hardway money, etc... It can start to feel like you're a spectator.

A couple psychological things start to come into play. Since you're playing odds, the come out feels trivial and incidental; you make your money by hitting points. Hitting points happens less than half the time, so most of the time you're standing around losing money. It's not a very fulfilling or engaging strategy.

super!Quote:Eric721I would advise against playing odds.

great 1st post and statement

(but some posts after this one has you changing that advise. Hail Hail the Easter Bunny!!)

we all have our opinions...

even 1+1=2 is an opinion, imo

heheQuote:Eric721They are true odds bets, meaning they have no impact on your bottom line

What they do is increase variance, which (as a general rule) does

nothing

but

shortens

your

session

at

the

tables.

haha

sheshe

another super opinion!

that makes 2 (1+1)

huh?Quote:Eric721All you odds players, have you ever stopped to wonder why the casino offers true odds bets?

Hint: It isn't because they're forced to.

i think no one cares about that, just my opinion

oh,

thank you for sharing so many of your opinions

seems you have many more coming in other posts

here, 4U

do you have a book(s) to sell or a video(s) to view?

if not,

you should

(i guess you are a shill, imo)

just an opinion

Sally

"Queen of Craps"

thank you for sharing!

Hi odiousgambitQuote:odiousgambityou are just simply completely wrong.

that Julybe (maybe) true,

but what is true is what you said is just your opinion

nothing more nothing less

(i did not use and or or)

it is priceless

or

they are priceless

opinions that is (are)

have fun with it

wink

wink

Mully

Quote:mustangsallysuper!

great 1st post and statement

(but some posts after this one has you changing that advise. Hail Hail the Easter Bunny!!)

we all have our opinions...

even 1+1=2 is an opinion, imo

hehe

haha

sheshe

another super opinion!

that makes 2 (1+1)

huh?

i think no one cares about that, just my opinion

oh,

thank you for sharing so many of your opinions

seems you have many more coming in other posts

here, 4U

do you have a book(s) to sell or a video(s) to view?

if not,

you should

(i guess you are a shill, imo)

just an opinion

Sally

"Queen of Craps"

thank you for sharing!

Maybe it's your quirky sense of humor that's falling short on me, or your apparent aversion to articulating a well thought-out reply, but your contention that it is only a matter of opinion about variance shortening your session at tables is perniciously false.

Something to sell? What? What the hell are you talking about? Nothing to sell except getting you odds players acquainted with reasoning as to why you're not getting the best of the casino. I have never once, in any of the posts I've left, said that there's something necessarily wrong with you because you might desire to take odds, or even that you might care to wonder why they offer odds in the first place. Where are you getting that from? I have only ever said that there's something wrong with you for also thinking that you are somehow outsmarting the casino by appearing to lower the HE or (heighten) the already-negative EV. Either you're extremely vapid, or you're extremely devious (ie: you think that you can attack and argument that I haven't made, hope I won't notice that that's what you've done, get me to feel insecure about myself more generally, and therefore "win" the debate - even if you happen to be actually wrong). ...in any case, whether it's sheer vapidity or deviousness, the fact that you just wrote that proves my original point.

So, now that you've attempted to intimidate me psychologically (and failed), care to actually discuss the substance of my accusation?

Quote:mustangsallybut what is true is what you said is just your opinion

nothing more nothing less

Maybe so, but I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

We could do it like some people do playing blackjack at home, taking turns being the House.

You bet $55 on a line bet on my turn being the House.

I bet $5 on the line with 10x free odds on your turn being the House.

We go till someone cries 'Uncle' [I think you have the biggest bankroll on your side too!]

Why? You haven't even defined "lifespan at the table." Do that, and then look again at my example. $5 pass + $20 odds vs. $25 pass + $0 odds. Can you calculate the mean and variance for each strategy? And as a follow-on, calculate (or simulate) the same bets with the continuous come strategy rather than just pass bets and recalculate the mean and variance. From what you've written so far, I think the answers will surprise you.Quote:Eric721I feel like a broken record, but adding odds behind your line bet will inevitably shorten your lifespan at the table.

Edit: I like your example better:

As odiousgambit pointed out, you are incorrect that the chances of winning and losing with both systems are equal. Run the numbers to see.Quote:There is no functional difference between the two proposed systems ($55 pass vs $5 pass with $50 odds every point with no other bets) in any given session. You are just as likely to win or lose with both systems

If you don't like it, you don't have to play that way. But your psychological arguments are not mathematics, they are personal opinion. I'm not going to debate personal wagering preferences with you or anyone else. What feels "trivial and incidental" to you may be felt by another to be the price of admission for the opportunity to win on a point of 4 with full odds. What do you personally find more exciting:Quote:Here are the downsides to playing Pass Line with Odds and nothing else:

a) Hitting a point of 4 with a $50 flat bet and no odds, or

b) Hitting a point of 4 with a $10 flat bet and $30 odds?

If you find (a) more exciting, I submit you are in the vast, vast minority.

Also, I know you're new here, but comments like these:

tend to be looked upon very unfavorably by the moderators.Quote:Eric721, to mustangsallyEither you're extremely vapid, or you're extremely devious

Quote:MathExtremistIf you don't like it, you don't have to play that way. What feels "trivial and incidental" to you may be felt by another to be the price of admission for the opportunity to win on a point of 4 with full odds.

I can accept that.

Quote:What do you personally find more exciting:

a) Hitting a point of 4 with a $50 flat bet and no odds, or

b) Hitting a point of 4 with a $10 flat bet and $30 odds?

If you find (a) more exciting, I submit you are in the vast, vast minority.

Obviously (b) pays better, so of course it would be the more exciting bet, assuming it hits (33% chance)

But what do you personally find more exciting?:

a) Hitting two come-out winners in a row with a $50 flat bet

b) Hitting two come-out winners in a row with a $10 flat bet

I would like to point out that your entire question is predicated on the unspoken assumption that the Pass Line is generally determined after it has been established. Remember that one of my main thrusts is that this is not the case; the come-out portion of the point is much more important than most people give it credit for. 45.1% of your winners come without odds ever being in the picture.

It is much easier to scale the proper wager amount against your bankroll when you do not take odds, because you only get to take odds two thirds of the time, making your wagers more variable and difficult to gauge.

Here's the thing. The come-out roll is often overlooked by players who dismiss it as the occasional bump in the road before they get to their real bets, which are odds. But the come-out is resolved immediately on a 2,3,7,11, and 12. There are 12 ways you can roll those numbers. Since there are only 36 possible rolls, you get 12 of 36 points resolved immediately. That reduces to 1 in 3. So fully one third of all Pass Line bets are resolved without odds ever being allowed. (The Don't has slight variation.) That's a huge percentage of points.

Now look at the line bets in respect to the come-out. The Pass Line wins you 8 out of 12 points, or 2 in 3. The Don't wins you 3 out of 11 points. So on the come-out, you want as much money as possible on the Pass Line and as little as possible on the Don't.

Now look at the established points, which happen the other 24 out of 36 trials. Using my technique of multiplying all rolls by 55 to keep the math in integers, you get 1320 possible points. Skip the remainder of this paragraph if you want to just trust me on the math. 4/10, 5/9, and 6/8 have a 3:4:5 relationship to each other. (Which explains the 3-4-5 odds, BTW.) So of the 1320 points, 330 are 4/10, 440 are 5/9, and 550 are 6/8. You win a third of the 4/10s, which is 110, two fifths of the 5/9s, which is 176, and five elevenths of the 6/8s, which is 250. That's 110+176+250=536 winners out of 1320 possibilities. 536 / 1320 = 40.6%.

For the Pass Line only, you have 66.7% chance to win on the come-out, and a 40.6% to win an established point. Odds players are maximizing the money at risk in a 40.6% proposition while minimizing the money at risk in the 66.7% proposition. To me, that's silly. The odds do pay better than 1:1, but you're not playing craps to earn a living. You're playing to have fun. You have fun by winning bets.

It is not smarter to increase your number of losses, especially considering that the payouts aren't even as good as the crappy Place Bet payouts. The whole reason that the double odds bet is "better" than a Place Bet -- despite a worse payout -- is because of the huge advantage of the come-out roll. Those who do not play odds at all are putting much more money in the player-friendly scenario of the come-out roll, which I contend is the smarter play.

I did not understand this until I compared the actual numbers, which are in this post but not next to each other, as it is a rather unusual comparison. Of the 976 ways to win the Pass Line, 440 are won on the come-out, while 536 are won on established points. When you divide the 440 come-out wins by the 976 possible wins, you come to the frankly counter-intuitive realization that 45.1% of all Pass Line winners are won on the come-out roll. Before you read this post, I bet most people assumed (as I did) that the come-out probably only contributed about 20%-30% of all Pass Line winners, if you even wondered about it at all.

So that's why most people believe odds are a great bet; they don't realize that for the most part, the Pass Line bet is really won on the come-out, and established points aren't much more than window dressing tacked onto the real bet. The casino knows this all too well. That's why they offer "free odds."

One final attempt: Free odds in craps serve the same purpose as a free odds wager in blackjack that allowed you to triple your bet if the dealer showed a face card. Would you always triple your bet when the dealer showed a face card, even if the extra money paid double (or whatever)?

Quote:AhighDouble odds tables (from knowledge in my head)

* Jerry's Nugget

* California Club

* Fremont Casino

* South Point

* Circus Circus

Double odds per internet errors here: (Last update: Jan 8, 2015 reported per this snapshot)

https://wizardofvegas.com/guides/craps-survey

That wrong info might have even factored into a decision at the Wynn. Who knows?

I dont get it. why are we all getting up in Mr. Wynns face when the Craps survey shows ALL these casinos have 2x odds since January???? Someone noticed this on a July visit to the Wynn and I have been assuming from the pages of posts that it was a independent issue. Holy Cow. Im not a happy camper.

Quote:MathExtremist$50 trillion is exactly as useful as $1 billion to virtually everybody.

But you appear to suggest that Jim should not play $5 + $20 odds and should bet $25 flat instead. That's also poor advice.

Hello from South East Asia....When I read your comment above(the first one) for some reason I thought about the recent escape by the Mexican Cartel drug lord. He was reported to have at least access to "$1 Billion" USD. Certainly it helped him escape and remain at large, drinking beer, eating tacos, and with all the fine women he wants? I'm quite sure $1 Billion was enough. We continue to wonder over here anyhow, how the bankers and lawyers escape all implications of involvement in said cartel. I mean what are they doing with all the money? We know what Steve Wynn is doing with his...buying artwork.

Regarding your second point, it made me recall the many games played outside the casino's where you rarely can bet odds at all, and the DP wins on 12. The kind men banking said games often won money. (six and eight were sometimes, but not always offered, at even money) So, point being, there is a lot of craps played without the ability to take odds.

Quote:HornHighYo11

I dont get it. why are we all getting up in Mr. Wynns face when the Craps survey shows ALL these casinos have 2x odds since January???? Someone noticed this on a July visit to the Wynn and I have been assuming from the pages of posts that it was a independent issue. Holy Cow. Im not a happy camper.

The poster indicated the table was wrong information, not up to date. He/She suggested perhaps the Wynn management simply looked at this one table and made their decision based upon it. He was being silly of course, some much needed humor in this very important discussion.

Quote:HornHighYo11Quote:AhighDouble odds tables (from knowledge in my head)

* Jerry's Nugget

* California Club

* Fremont Casino

* South Point

* Circus Circus

Double odds per internet errors here: (Last update: Jan 8, 2015 reported per this snapshot)

https://wizardofvegas.com/guides/craps-survey

That wrong info might have even factored into a decision at the Wynn. Who knows?

I dont get it. why are we all getting up in Mr. Wynns face when the Craps survey shows ALL these casinos have 2x odds since January???? Someone noticed this on a July visit to the Wynn and I have been assuming from the pages of posts that it was a independent issue. Holy Cow. Im not a happy camper.

Because all of those yellow-highlighted reports of double odds are wrong. Each of those should read 345x on this web page, but they are wrong.

In the real world they have all been 345x for at least the last five years with the exception of Riv which went to 345x to 1000x and back and I believe is now history.

Quote:Ahigh

In the real world they have all been 345x for at least the last five years with the exception of Riv which went to 345x to 1000x and back and I believe is now history.

Good morning. Did the Rivera get much action on the 1000X table(s)? What was the min. line bet to take advantage of this offer? Many thanks. Obviously they lost money on said offer as I think the building imploded?

BTW, there was a time in the past, call it about 15 years ago, when Binions offered 100X odds on a $1.usd line wager.

Sure, I was obviously talking about the casino game. If you're playing street craps the last thing you're going to be worried about is your bankroll variance.Quote:NokTangRegarding your second point, it made me recall the many games played outside the casino's where you rarely can bet odds at all, and the DP wins on 12. The kind men banking said games often won money. (six and eight were sometimes, but not always offered, at even money) So, point being, there is a lot of craps played without the ability to take odds.

Nathan Detroit: "But ... these dice don't have any spots on them! They're blank!"

Big Jule: "I had the spots taken off for luck. But I remember where the spots formerly were."

Quote:MathExtremistSure, I was obviously talking about the casino game. If you're playing street craps the last thing you're going to be worried about is your bankroll variance.

They were also more serious about at least one die hitting the back wall. If neither hit the wall, no roll. Period. Yes, you could almost always borrow money at these games and bankroll wasn't an issue until you had to write a check or settle up. I personally never defaulted but I'll be honest and truthful, I've seen a guy with two broken ankles and it wasn't a motorcycle accident. It will wake you up quickly.

Quote:Eric721I would like to point out that your entire question is predicated on the unspoken assumption that the Pass Line is generally determined after it has been established. Remember that one of my main thrusts is that this is not the case; the come-out portion of the point is much more important than most people give it credit for. 45.1% of your winners come without odds ever being in the picture.

The Pass Line *is* generally determined after a point has been established. 2/3 of the time, in fact.

And while it is true that 45.1% of the times you win occur on the come-out, it is not true that 45.1% of your *money* is made on the comeout once you start betting odds. That's the whole point. Betting Strip-standard 3/4/5x odds, only 10.5% of the money won comes from the comeout roll. 89.5% of the money you make is from making points.

Not really. That just comes from experience at the table. If you're worried about overbetting, bet the minimum and then raise your bets as you get a feel for the swings. Taking $10+2x odds means you're losing either $10 or $30 and winning either $10, $34, $40, or $50. If your bankroll is only $200 and you don't want to lose $30 at a time, you're overbetting.Quote:It is much easier to scale the proper wager amount against your bankroll when you do not take odds, because you only get to take odds two thirds of the time, making your wagers more variable and difficult to gauge.

I'm not sure why you think a true odds payout is worse than a short payout (Place bets) for the same winning and losing scenarios, but if your real complaint is that taking odds is a longshot with a low probability of winning (which it is), why not bet don't and lay the odds instead? You'll win far more than 50% of the established points there, you just need to survive the come-out roll. Why not do that?Quote:It is not smarter to increase your number of losses, especially considering that the payouts aren't even as good as the crappy Place Bet payouts. The whole reason that the double odds bet is "better" than a Place Bet -- despite a worse payout -- is because of the huge advantage of the come-out roll. Those who do not play odds at all are putting much more money in the player-friendly scenario of the come-out roll, which I contend is the smarter play.

Also, I get the sense that you're uncomfortable making more than one bet at a time. If you have the bankroll for it, you should try making a few come bets too. Once you start making come bets the variance shrinks quite dramatically. I think you may prefer the 3-point Molly, a.k.a. Ponzer (pass + 2 comes w/ odds) over a single larger pass bet with no odds. If your goal is to expose your money to a higher probability of winning something (albeit not the total wager), that's far more effective than the single bet win or lose. If you really want to decrease your variance, just make pass bets with continuous come bets, no odds. And if you *really* want to decrease your variance, play an unequal doey-don't and then use odds to hedge.

Quote:MathExtremistThe Pass Line *is* generally determined after a point has been established. 2/3 of the time, in fact.

And while it is true that 45.1% of the times you win occur on the come-out, it is not true that 45.1% of your *money* is made on the comeout once you start betting odds. That's the whole point. Betting Strip-standard 3/4/5x odds, only 10.5% of the money won comes from the comeout roll. 89.5% of the money you make is from making points.

This is completely dependent on how you're betting.

Quote:I'm not sure why you think a true odds payout is worse than a short payout (Place bets) for the same winning and losing scenarios[...]

At most strip properties (3-4-5x odds) the difference is negligible (actually, you get paid $1 more when placing the 4 or 10). But consider double odds:

6/8 ($10 on the line, $20 behind it.)

Pass: $30 bet pays $34

Place: $30 bet pays $35 <== $1 better

5/9 ($5 on the line, $10 behind it.)

Pass: $15 bet pays $20

Place: $15 bet pays $21 <== $1 better

4/10 ($5 on the line, $10 behind it.)

Pass: $15 bet pays $25

Place: $15 bet pays $27 <== $2 better

Here we see that place bets pay better than line bets. So why would one ever play line bets? Because the come-out role is what defines the line bets. IMO, playing odds behind the line is really just demoting your excellent line bet into a crappy place bet, and even worse, won't even pay as well as a true place bet.

In fairness, if your pass line bet gets established, it has already been demoted into a crappy bet, so in that sense it isn't the odds bet that screws you, it's the mere fact that you didn't get a decision on the come-out. And with 3-4-5x odds, you do generally get the same payout as place bets.

Quote:... but if your real complaint is that taking odds is a longshot with a low probability of winning (which it is), why not bet don't and lay the odds instead? You'll win far more than 50% of the established points there, you just need to survive the come-out roll. Why not do that?

Why not? Good question. Is it because the large chip layout to cover it increases your variance so blatantly that most gamblers instinctively realize that it will burn through their money too quickly? (That's a trick question; the darkside odds increase your variance by the exact same amount as the lightside. The appearance of increased variance is quite blatant on the darkside, however.) I say that is exactly the reason. The lightside odds have the exact same effect, only it is slightly less exaggerated. This small difference is enough to push people from the "best bet on the table" attitude when considering the Pass into "way too much variance to be a smart bet" attitude when considering the Don't. I find that interesting.

Quote:Also, I get the sense that you're uncomfortable making more than one bet at a time. If you have the bankroll for it, you should try making a few come bets too. Once you start making come bets the variance shrinks quite dramatically. I think you may prefer the 3-point Molly, a.k.a. Ponzer (pass + 2 comes w/ odds) over a single larger pass bet with no odds. If your goal is to expose your money to a higher probability of winning something (albeit not the total wager), that's far more effective than the single bet win or lose. If you really want to decrease your variance, just make pass bets with continuous come bets, no odds. And if you *really* want to decrease your variance, play an unequal doey-don't and then use odds to hedge.

I'm not uncomfortable making more than one bet at a time. I often DO make come bets (such as 3 additional $10 come bets rather than $30 odds).

Regarding the Doey-Don't, the dreariness really gets driven home when you play this way, IMO. Bet 1 unit on the pass and 1 unit on the Don't, then take double odds on the pass line. The only thing that hurts you is a Bar 12 on the come-out, which loses the Pass but doesn't pay the Don't. That's exactly 1 unit (half the 2-unit bet) down every 36 rolls, but mathematically it's not technically a 2.78% (1/36) house advantage. Instead it's -1 unit every 71 units bet, (1/71 = 1.408%) which is unsurprisingly the exact average of the Pass and Don't lines combined. It's not unusual to play for a while and never see a 12, though, but the times I played this strategy I was bored out of my skull. It's not a particularly bad strategy, but it is boring as all get-out.

All in all, I would never recommend a single pass line with max odds bet to anybody except a complete novice at the game. (The reason being that I can't explain the whole game to somebody, and I could never be taken to task for recommending what is widely considered to be the "smartest" bet.) Hehe. :)