Taking or Laying the Odds - Which do you prefer?

Assume that you are getting true odds on a bet and that neither choice had a statistical advantage over the other. Would you prefer to take the odds or lay the odds?

For example, let's say that that you have the option to take 5:1 odds. For every $100 you bet, you could win $500. The true odds of you winning this event is 1 in 5.

Or you have the option to lay 1:5 odds. For every $500 you bet, you could win $100. The true odds of you winning this event is 5 to 1.

Do you personally enjoy winning more often then you lose? Or do you prefer losing more often, but getting a bigger payout when you do win?

I was going to equate to this craps, but people play the pass line or don't pass line for reasons other then just the odds bet. But we can equate this to sports betting if there was true odds and no house take to book your action. If you have no personal attachment to either team, would you rather bet on the better team who wins more often but you earn less when they win, or the weaker team who wins less often but you get more money when they do win.

One additional question for the game developers:

Do you think there is any market for a table game where a player can win more often, but would have to lay odds? For example, the player would have to put up a $100 bet, and they will win $10 approximately 95% of the time? We could change the numbers so that players bet $20 and win $10 approximately 1.90x more often then they would lose. Would people be interested in this type of game? Would casinos?

Quote: gambler

One additional question for the game developers:

Do you think there is any market for a table game where a player can win more often, but would have to lay odds? For example, the player would have to put up a $100 bet, and they will win $10 approximately 95% of the time? We could change the numbers so that players bet $20 and win $10 approximately 1.90x more often then they would lose. Would people be interested in this type of game? Would casinos?

If people want to wager $20 to win $10, they play roulette.

The game that I don't know of is your first proposition (paying 1 to 10). I imagine that most players would not enjoy such a low volatility, but maybe I'm wrong.

As a game designer, I operate on the basis that people want to win even money or better; there is something slightly unsatisfying about winning less than your full wager. When having a "lay" type bet, and winning less than full pay but winning more often, the high hit frequency makes the win slightly "unspecial." Crystal is right.

Most crap players play the "do" side, and those who make lay bets make larger lay bets. I've seen crap players even lay the 6 and 8 for $140 each, to win $120 minus the $5 vig, but right-side players generally start out much smaller.

Now, in a game design, ALSO having a lay option is very fine, but that should be in addition to a more standard even money or better bet offering.

Quote: gambler

Assume that you are getting true odds on a bet and that neither choice had a statistical advantage over the other. Would you prefer to take the odds or lay the odds?

I'd prefer to take the odds.

An old saying is "never take the small end of the odds". Of course you can't take that advice much in a casino, and advice will revolve around HE instead.

After thinking about it, in reality one may not be better than the other in a fair bet, since to take the fat end of a fair bet means you could get hit hard paying off some lucky streaks. The small end can be demoralizing due to streaks of bad luck just not producing any wins. I can tell you that is one reason I tend to like the experience of laying the free odds at a craps table as opposed to taking them on the "right" side [if that was the only consideration]. The experience seems to be that if wins are not sufficient laying odds, you still got some wins; you could get clobbered instead, but it seems to be more of a case of just accepting your bankroll is dwindling. Taking odds you can just lose, lose, lose. Be advised I suspect I may be different from most players, as when you are winning taking odds it is quite thrilling.

I was gonna say that if people wanted it, they could play the dard side of Craps.

Quote: CrystalMath

If people want to wager $20 to win $10, they play roulette.

Interesting response.

It never occured to me that the average person playing roulette expects the win to be less than double the total wagered. Then again, I don't play much roulette. I wonder if the average roulette player realizes this?

Dave and Crystal bring up a good point.
With so many Roulette players covering so many numbers, if they lose the big straight ups or splits, and win small on a street or an even money bet (red/black, etc.) - they're often functioning as a lay bettor in many cases - winning less than what they're risking in action, but more often.

Personally, I don't like to bet more to win less.

Interesting question gambler !


Your question reminds me of the bridge jumper bets Wiz was writing about last year. The bets where the outcome is so predictable, that you wager thousands to win one hundred. I remember thinking at the time that as much as I love the thrill of action, I don't think I could stomach that type of bet

Given your rule that both right and wrong bets were at true odds, I would probably go with the right bet, ie. bet 10 to win 50, rather than bet 50 to win 10. Even though they should be exactly the same, my brain tells me I am tempting fickle fate 5 times on the 50 to make 10 bet, whereas, I only need fate to smile on me 1 out of 5 times in the bet 10 to win 50 scenario.

Reworded, let's put $100 at risk:
Assuming the statistics hold up

With the lay bet, I have to put $50 at risk 12 times. 2 will be losers, and 10 will be winners. If lady luck frowns at me just 1 more time in those 10 winners, I lose $50.

With the right bet, I have to make 12 $10 bets. 2 will be winners and 10 will be losers. If lady luck frowns at me just 1 time , I lose $10. However, I have 10 chances for lady luck to smile at me, which makes me a $50 winner.

I KNOW the math does not back this up, but it is an emotional component that I don't quite know how to explain. It SEEMS like I have a better chance with the right side bet, as I have more chances for lady luck to smile at me, and when she doesn't, I only lose 1/5 as much money each bet.

I doubt that the Roulette players realize that they're laying bets.

I like taking odds, not laying. i would never play a Pai Gow pay table with the following (modified Fortune) bonus structure:

7 Card SF, no wilds: 8,000
Royal Flush+Ryoal match; 2,000
7 Card SF with joker: 1000
5 Aces: 400
Royal Flush: 150
Straight Flush: 50
Pair: .5
Nothing: .5
Everything else: lose (-1)

This bet has a house edge of 4.05% but i wouldn't play it because you are laying a $1 to win .50 (which appears 57.7% of the time), where as the straight flush and above only appear in 1 in every 727 hands.

Collectively, most bets on that proposed "pair or better" are greater than even money - but with a "lay" win on a common pair. The above bonus side bet for Pai Gow Poker we would never see, again, as most game designers and players seek strongly positive > 1 wins on a bonus bet.

And True - most Roulette Players never realize how often that are assembling "aggregate lay bets!"

Now that I think of it, spreading all those chips on a Roulette layout, with the theory that "Something has to hit" is more of a hedge bet than anything else.

Take the odds, lay the hot blond with the winning roll.


Something about risking more than I'm going to win just feels wrong, although I know it is mathematically correct.

Quote: kp

Take the odds, lay the hot blond with the winning roll.


Something about risking more than I'm going to win just feels wrong, although I know it is mathematically correct.

You can only lay the hot blond(e) if you meet her requirements she posted in her thread.

I agree that it feels wrong; it really feels like gambling. It feels like you're sticking your neck out farther than you should(more risk) to win less(less reward).