was reading wiz's craps faq explain me this

I've noticed a small disturbing pattern at the craps table that I thought might be worth mentioning on your site. Players will bet the don't come bar, but if a 6 or 8 is rolled as the point they say "no action" and they keep their money on the don't come bar. The Luxor even had a boxman ENCOURAGE me to do it saying it's what "smart people who know the odds are better on the don't tend to do" or something to that effect. Not sure how you could incorporate this into your site but I've seen players doing it and casinos encouraging it and it's really stooopid. - S.R.

I agree that this is a very bad decision and poor advice from the dealers. Once a point of 6 or 8 has been rolled the player edge on a don't pass or don't come bet is (6/11)*1 + (5/11)*-1 = 1/11 = 9.09%. Taking "no action" is the same as trading it for a bet with a 1.36% house edge. So this decision costs the player 10.45%. To any dealers encouraging this I say shame on you. Jan. 9, 2005

what is taking a no action? this means no odds? sorry in new to the game.

Next time, ask the player if you can "buy" his bet. Do this a million times or so and retire.

Quote: sevenshooter

Next time, ask the player if you can "buy" his bet. Do this a million times or so and retire.

that would mean take over his bet...corect? then i assume i would lay full odds correct?

'no action' would mean essentially a push ... the bet just stays waiting for the next roll.

I'd be tempted to keep telling the smartass pit boss I want "no action" on my come bet when it becomes a point to make.

the odds have nothing to do with it. The odds never have anything to do with the House Edge.

Quote: jpprovance

what is taking a no action?

Unless I'm completely mistaken, DON'T bets can be removed at any time. Therefore, saying "no action" is like saying the bet is off. The only difference between saying it and actually removing the chips, is that you can turn it back on if the chips are still there.

Anybody want to confirm that?

Any don't bet can be removed after the point is established.

Therefore, "no action" is like removing the don't bet that has moved to a point of 6/8 (a big mistake), and replacing it with an equal size bet in the don't come.

I was watching two young women playing craps recently. They were newbies and were removing their 6/8 DC bets after the point was established. I told them they shouldn't do that because they have the advantage at that point. Their response was, "It seems like it's more likely for the six or eight to roll then a seven." This was quickly explained by pointing out that there are SIX ways to roll a seven and FIVE ways to roll a 6/8 -- hence the 6:5 true odds. Still not sure if they got it .. lol.

Quote: jpprovance

Quote: sevenshooter

Next time, ask the player if you can "buy" his bet. Do this a million times or so and retire.

that would mean take over his bet...corect? then i assume i would lay full odds correct?

Why lay odds and increase variance when you already have a 9.09% edge?
The laying of odds is just another way the casino tries to bust players with limited bankrolls. As a rule of thumb, just about anything the boxman advises you to do, do the opposite.

Here's my thought on the laying of odds. Yes, you have already gotten through the hard part betting the Don't and establishing the point. Now you say you shouldn't lay the odds. Rather than arguing variance and EV, let's make it simple. You have $20, you bet $5 on the Don't. The point is five. You have $15 left. You'd say don't lay the 15. But I assume you will bet another 5 on the Don't on the next come out, which means that money in front of you is still going to be subjected to the edge eventually. If you lay it, it's a straight up fair bet. That's why I lay it. If someone said to you "Bet $15 right now and I'll give you true odds...or wait a bit and I'll give you a 98.7% return," I'll take the true odds. If your only reason is you want your money to last longer by only betting a small amount, that's fine, then don't lay odds. But if it's anything else, I disagree. Just my two cents.

(If you are only speaking of when you can take over someone else's Don't bets, then I agree; but your statement about the boxman made me think you were talking about any laying of odds.)

Quote: cclub79

Here's my thought on the laying of odds. Yes, you have already gotten through the hard part betting the Don't and establishing the point. Now you say you shouldn't lay the odds. Rather than arguing variance and EV, let's make it simple. You have $20, you bet $5 on the Don't. The point is five. You have $15 left. You'd say don't lay the 15. But I assume you will bet another 5 on the Don't on the next come out, which means that money in front of you is still going to be subjected to the edge eventually. If you lay it, it's a straight up fair bet. That's why I lay it. If someone said to you "Bet $15 right now and I'll give you true odds...or wait a bit and I'll give you a 98.7% return," I'll take the true odds. If your only reason is you want your money to last longer by only betting a small amount, that's fine, then don't lay odds. But if it's anything else, I disagree. Just my two cents.

(If you are only speaking of when you can take over someone else's Don't bets, then I agree; but your statement about the boxman made me think you were talking about any laying of odds.)

Yes, I was referring to when you have taken over someone else's bet having avoided the DC Box wager altogether.

Having said that, laying odds provides the player with no real advantage -- it is a break-even maneuver in the long run. The casino is aware of the fact that most players have very limited bankrolls and thus encourage players to make these bets. The majority of short-stacked players are unable to even get into that long-term and go broke much faster laying odds when things aren't going as planned.

Quote: sevenshooter

Having said that, laying odds provides the player with no real advantage -- it is a break-even maneuver in the long run. The casino is aware of the fact that most players have very limited bankrolls and thus encourage players to make these bets. The majority of short-stacked players are unable to even get into that long-term and go broke much faster laying odds when things aren't going as planned.

Once again I have to disagree with sevenshooter. Laying odds provides the player with a huge advantage! Assuming you're willing to do more than just make minimum bets (and your bankroll will allow), making an odds bet is just about the smartest bet in the casino. There is absolutely no house edge on this bet, and yes, in the long run, it's a break even proposition. This compares to every other bet on the craps table that in the long run is a losing proposition!

Casinos are ONLY in it for the long run. There is no advantage to encouraging players to take odds in the hopes that a losing streak will quikcly bankrupt their patrons. In fact, I think it's the opposite. The house would rather you stick in the game and make bets with a house edge. This will make them more money in the long run.

Quote: jeremykay

Quote: sevenshooter

Having said that, laying odds provides the player with no real advantage -- it is a break-even maneuver in the long run. The casino is aware of the fact that most players have very limited bankrolls and thus encourage players to make these bets. The majority of short-stacked players are unable to even get into that long-term and go broke much faster laying odds when things aren't going as planned.

Once again I have to disagree with sevenshooter. Laying odds provides the player with a huge advantage! Assuming you're willing to do more than just make minimum bets (and your bankroll will allow), making an odds bet is just about the smartest bet in the casino. There is absolutely no house edge on this bet, and yes, in the long run, it's a break even proposition. This compares to every other bet on the craps table that in the long run is a losing proposition!

Casinos are ONLY in it for the long run. There is no advantage to encouraging players to take odds in the hopes that a losing streak will quikcly bankrupt their patrons. In fact, I think it's the opposite. The house would rather you stick in the game and make bets with a house edge. This will make them more money in the long run.

Wow -- I just don't know how to respond. I'll leave the explaining to the Wizard, himself:

Q: I do not understand why you should lay the odds on the don't pass or don't come bets. It seems that you have already dodged the 7 and ll bullet, so the bet is now in your favor. Why would you dilute a bet that is already heavily in your favor with a large (relative speaking)bet at true odds? It seems that you are working in the houses favor by reducing the house edge on the entire bet.

I understand that taking the odds on the pass side reduces the overall house edge, however I don't understand how laying the odds can reduce the house edge on the don't side. I'm very curious? By the way, I discussed this with several casino bosses and dealers yesterday and they all had opinions, but not reasons for these opinions. Thanks for your time. - Mike Hill

Wizard's Response: Let's say you have a $10 don't pass bet and the point is a 5. You have a 2/3 chance of winning the bet, so the expected value is (2/3)*$10 + (1/3)*-$10 =$ 10/3 = $3.33. Now consider adding a $40 odds bet on top of it. Now you have a 2/3 chance of winning $30 and a 1/3 chance of losing $50. With the don't pass alone the player edge is $3.33/$10 = 33.33%. With the don't pass and odds the player edge is $3.33/$50 = 6.67%. So, yes, the player edge as a percentage drops by making the odds bet. However that player edge is effective over more money. The way I think gamblers should view the house edge is as the price to pay for entertainment. If you want to pay as little as possible then taking or laying the odds is getting entertainment for free. May 5, 2003

I think you're missing the point...

Let's take the example of point is 5 and you have your $10 don't bet. The expected value of this proposition is $13.33. Add your other $40 as odds, and your expected value is now $53.33.

Let's say you don't lay odds, but instead bet this on the don't 4 more times at $10 each. You're expected value of these bets is $39.46. So the total expected value is $13.33+39.46 = $52.77. This is less than the expected value of laying full odds on your original bet!

Quote: jeremykay

I think you're missing the point...

Let's take the example of point is 5 and you have your $10 don't bet. The expected value of this proposition is $13.33. Add your other $40 as odds, and your expected value is now $53.33.

Let's say you don't lay odds, but instead bet this on the don't 4 more times at $10 each. You're expected value of these bets is $39.46. So the total expected value is $13.33+39.46 = $52.77. This is less than the expected value of laying full odds on your original bet!

Okay. First, you can't put a don't down when the point is established, so immediately, the expected value of the the $10 don't bet is -$.1364. The point is 5 only on 1 in 9 rolls.

Once the 5 and 9 is rolled, the Expected Value of the $10 is now $2. ($10 x 6/10 - 4/10). No matter what odds you put down, the expected value is still $2.

You can't put a don't $40 odds on the 5 and 9 as it is not divisible by 3. So if you put $40 odds on the 5 and 9 you will get paid $26.667 on the odds. The expected value is still $2.

$36.6667 x 6/10 - $50 x 4/10 = $2.

But yes, laying the odds is better than putting a don't down 4 more times because the EV of the don't four times is -$.5456 while the EV of putting down the $40 in odds is 0.

Quote: sevenshooter

Q: I do not understand why you should lay the odds on the don't pass or don't come bets. It seems that you have already dodged the 7 and ll bullet, so the bet is now in your favor. Why would you dilute a bet that is already heavily in your favor with a large (relative speaking)bet at true odds? It seems that you are working in the houses favor by reducing the house edge on the entire bet.

I understand that taking the odds on the pass side reduces the overall house edge, however I don't understand how laying the odds can reduce the house edge on the don't side. I'm very curious? By the way, I discussed this with several casino bosses and dealers yesterday and they all had opinions, but not reasons for these opinions. Thanks for your time. - Mike Hill

Wizard's Response: Let's say you have a $10 don't pass bet and the point is a 5. You have a 2/3 chance of winning the bet, so the expected value is (2/3)*$10 + (1/3)*-$10 =$ 10/3 = $3.33. Now consider adding a $40 odds bet on top of it. Now you have a 2/3 chance of winning $30 and a 1/3 chance of losing $50. With the don't pass alone the player edge is $3.33/$10 = 33.33%. With the don't pass and odds the player edge is $3.33/$50 = 6.67%. So, yes, the player edge as a percentage drops by making the odds bet. However that player edge is effective over more money. The way I think gamblers should view the house edge is as the price to pay for entertainment. If you want to pay as little as possible then taking or laying the odds is getting entertainment for free. May 5, 2003

Unfortunately, the wizard is wrong. If the point is a 5 (or 9), you only have a 60% chance of winning the bet, and the expected value is (6/10)x $10 + (4/10) x -10 = $2. (If the point is a 4 or 10, then you have a 2/3 chance of winning).

Taking the odds does not change the expected value. However, it does lower the house advantage. If you were going to take the other $42 odds (you shouldn't lay $40 on a 5 or 9, it only pays $26) and play them on other numbers on the same roll, then this is a waste. The best way to spend the $40 is on the don't pass odds (or the pass odds).

Laying the odds is a sucker bet promoted by casinos (which have virtually unlimited bankrolls) to wreak havoc on the average gambler's finite bankroll.

Quote: boymimbo

Quote: jeremykay

Let's take the example of point is 5 and you have your $10 don't bet. The expected value of this proposition is $13.33.

Okay. First, you can't put a don't down when the point is established, so immediately, the expected value of the the $10 don't bet is -$.1364. The point is 5 only on 1 in 9 rolls.

Yes, but this example assumes you had already made a don't pass bet and a point was established. It's from that point forward that people are confused.

Quote: boymimbo

Once the 5 and 9 is rolled, the Expected Value of the $10 is now $2. ($10 x 6/10 - 4/10). No matter what odds you put down, the expected value is still $2.

You can't put a don't $40 odds on the 5 and 9 as it is not divisible by 3. So if you put $40 odds on the 5 and 9 you will get paid $26.667 on the odds. The expected value is still $2.

My bad! I just used the wizard's numbers without second guessing them!

Quote: sevenshooter

Laying the odds is a sucker bet promoted by casinos (which have virtually unlimited bankrolls) to wreak havoc on the average gambler's finite bankroll.

Well now that you've more clearly explained things...

Again, the simple way to look at it is, (unless we're still talking about jumping into someone's play of turning their Don't off), there is no better place to put your money than the Odds bet. If you aren't going to put the extra money on your Don't Pass because it "dilutes" it, then you shouldn't put it on the Don't Pass on the next Come Out Roll, because it "dilutes" that same money more than the odds does! So the only way you shouldn't take the odds is if that Don't bet was your last bet ever. Any other place you are going to put that money has a worse chance of being successful.

Let me take a stab at this.....

When I got started, I had a tendency to bet $10 on the pass, plus $10 odds - unless I was shooting. Then it was $25 and $25. The guy next to me showed me the error of my ways, and had me change it to $10 and $40 on my next come-out. The light bulb went on for sure.

As a pass player, it makes a LOT of sense to keep the pass bet low, and max out the odds since the odds pay more than the even money pass bet.

Using that logic, it 'seems' to make sense that if you're betting the don'ts, reverse it: Maximize the even-money line bet, and minimize, or skip, those less-than-even-money free odds bets.

The problem with this, although it 'seems' to make sense, it ignores the times that the come-out is not a point. Out of 36 come-outs, don't pass will lose 8 times, while it will win only 3 times. Those 5 extra losses are a killer.

So once you get over the hurdle of establishing the point, THEN maximize the odds.

---

By the way, if I was ever in the situation where a don't player would sell me their action, I'd take it, AND put on full odds - this despite the fact that I'm not a don't player, and usually don't take full odds on my pass bets.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Let me take a stab at this.....

When I got started, I had a tendency to bet $10 on the pass, plus $10 odds - unless I was shooting. Then it was $25 and $25. The guy next to me showed me the error of my ways, and had me change it to $10 and $40 on my next come-out. The light bulb went on for sure.

As a pass player, it makes a LOT of sense to keep the pass bet low, and max out the odds since the odds pay more than the even money pass bet.

That's not the reason to minimize the flat bet; the reason is that the flat bet suffers a "tax" of 1.4% and the odds bet does not.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Using that logic, it 'seems' to make sense that if you're betting the don'ts, reverse it: Maximize the even-money line bet, and minimize, or skip, those less-than-even-money free odds bets.

However, that logic is incorrect. The same principle applies to the darkside bets: the line bet is subject to a house advantage, and the odds bet is not.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

The problem with this, although it 'seems' to make sense, it ignores the times that the come-out is not a point. Out of 36 come-outs, don't pass will lose 8 times, while it will win only 3 times. Those 5 extra losses are a killer.

So once you get over the hurdle of establishing the point, THEN maximize the odds.

Having to lay the long end of the odds is balanced by the fact that you are expected to win almost 60% of those bets. Compare:

60 $15 DP bets 60 $5 DP bets, lay double odds
avg. bet $15 $15.29
ev -$12.62 -$4.21
SD $116 $112

The expected loss is just 1/3 as much and the SDs are about the same. The fact that you're laying the long end exposes the player with a short bankroll to additional risk in the event of extremely bad luck, since if you do lose three bets in a row where the point is 4 or 10, that's $45 lost for the DP bettor and $75 for the double-odds bettor. But the probability of losing three 4s or 10s in a row is just .03 or so. Three consecutive comeout losses are much more likely, where the DP bettor loses $45 and the other player just $15.

As far as the odds bets being "sucker bets", well, that's nonsense. The casinos do not expect to win money on those bets; they offer them as incentive for players to play the line bets. Their volatility works both ways. In my view, the only "sucker bet" in craps is the Big 6/8, where they pay even money when you could get 7:6 with the same chance of winning by placing them. Well, maybe the "Any Seven", which has a 16.7% HA and not even that much variance. In general in Craps, the more variance the higher the HA, with the odds bets being a big exception.

Adding an odds bet to a line bet adds volatility, and volatility hurts when you're unlucky. However, MOVING money from a flat bet to the odds, i.e. making a smaller line bet and taking/laying odds leaves the volatility about the same while reducing the expected loss.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

I was trying to keep it simple with as little math as possible.