Eric721
Joined: Jul 15, 2015
• Posts: 23
July 17th, 2015 at 2:35:41 PM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

you 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.
beachbumbabs
Joined: May 21, 2013
• Posts: 11176
July 17th, 2015 at 2:40:40 PM permalink
Pass the popcorn, please. This should be fun.
"If the house lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game."
Ahigh
Joined: May 19, 2010
• Posts: 5076
July 17th, 2015 at 2:42:13 PM permalink
Well, whatever is going on over there, I'm more curious, now, about that \$100 game that I have never seen in the Wynn's HIGH LIMIT room.
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
• Posts: 7804
July 17th, 2015 at 2:48:27 PM permalink
Quote: Eric721

It [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.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
Eric721
Joined: Jul 15, 2015
• Posts: 23
July 17th, 2015 at 4:56:10 PM permalink
Quote: MathExtremist

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.

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.
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
• Posts: 2300
July 17th, 2015 at 4:59:24 PM permalink
Quote: Eric721

I would advise against playing odds.

super!
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
Quote: Eric721

They 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.

hehe
haha
sheshe

another super opinion!

that makes 2 (1+1)

Quote: Eric721

All 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.

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!
I Heart Vi Hart
mustangsally
Joined: Mar 29, 2011
• Posts: 2300
July 17th, 2015 at 5:12:49 PM permalink
Quote: odiousgambit

you are just simply completely wrong.

Hi odiousgambit
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
I Heart Vi Hart
Eric721
Joined: Jul 15, 2015
• Posts: 23
July 17th, 2015 at 5:25:38 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

super!
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?
odiousgambit
Joined: Nov 9, 2009
• Posts: 7804
July 17th, 2015 at 6:37:44 PM permalink
Quote: mustangsally

but 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!]
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
MathExtremist
Joined: Aug 31, 2010
• Posts: 6526
July 17th, 2015 at 7:34:50 PM permalink
Quote: Eric721

I feel like a broken record, but adding odds behind your line bet will inevitably shorten your lifespan at the table.

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.

Edit: I like your example better:
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

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:

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

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:
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:
Quote: Eric721, to mustangsally

Either you're extremely vapid, or you're extremely devious

tend to be looked upon very unfavorably by the moderators.
"In my own case, when it seemed to me after a long illness that death was close at hand, I found no little solace in playing constantly at dice." -- Girolamo Cardano, 1563