The hoax that is the 1.41% house advantage on pass line bets

stephen: "The past does not matter. The chances of rolling a 7 are always the same." Exactly correct but then why not just bet the Iron Cross after all there are ALWAYS 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose on every single roll of the dice. My gosh six to one odds of winning with each toss, after all the 7 cannot possibly show in less than six rolls. Yet somehow this is really a bad betting circumstance. But the 7 is no closer with the fifth roll than the first roll, right??

DJTB: Flying today is such a hassel with security, baggage fees, and a myriad of other inconviences, that "short" flights of a couple of hours can be more convenient and cheaper by driving and no terrorists with funky underwear. Fear is not the operative word here; its the math of flying and maybe running out of gas at an inappropriate time. I did chuckle.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

It has been stated here and elsewhere that because the PL/FO PAYS "true odds," the HA goes away.

Actually, it doesn't "go away". It was never there to begin with. That's why it's called 'FREE' odds, or 'TRUE' odds.

Quote: tuttigym

Payouts are meaningless when it comes to winning and losing. It would be similar if an athletic team that wins by 10 points vs a team that wins by 1 point. They have the same won/loss record.

Absolutely right. If all you're concerned with is whether the bet wins or looses, not HOW MUCH IT PAYS for a win, then you should watch the stats for the number of times DOs DON'Ts pay, and you sure will see that the don'ts are paid more often.

Quote: tuttigym

...however, I do realize that your win will be a greater return...

And that seems to be the key you're trying to ignore.

Quote: tuttigym

Does the 1.41% HA for PL wagers, after the point is established, stay the same or increase or just go away?

It stays the same.

Of course, some people will combine the PL with the FO to show a different, lowered 'edge'. That's just sloppy math to make the bettor feel better.

Quote: tuttigym

cclub79: You and many others continue to create confusion by the intertwining of amount of wagered winning $$ with the actuallity of just plain winning and losing.

It has been stated here and elsewhere that because the PL/FO PAYS "true odds," the HA goes away.
That is just pure BS. If you want to believe that to be so, there is no way and no simple arithmatic that will convince you that as long as the house has more ways to win than to lose or as long as the player has more ways to lose than to win on any given bet, you are ALWAYS on the short end of the stick. Payouts are meaningless when it comes to winning and losing. It would be similar if an athletic team that wins by 10 points vs a team that wins by 1 point. They have the same won/loss record. The standings show a winning % 1.000.

I never said the HA goes away, I said it diminished. You are correct that the pass line bet is "behind the eight ball" after the comeout, and that's why true odds make it better. you can take a bet that now has a less than 50% chance of winning (yet only pays you even money), and average it closer to the actual fair return (by adding a bet that pays with a 0 HA). By your logic, the Don't would be amazing. You win a lot more than you lose after the comeout.

Why are "payouts meaningless when it comes to winning and losing?" That could be the most absurd statement yet! So if you found a roulette wheel that pays 50 to 1 on a number straight up but even money on Red/Black, you'd say Red/Black is the better bet, because you are going to lose more times on the number? Yikes. PAYOUTS ARE OF THE UTMOST MEANING!

But I'm glad you finally, after 20 pages, saw the light and allowed this to slip out:

Quote:

If your PL/FO bet and my equal wagered Place bet on the same number wins, we both win, however, I do realize that your win will be a greater return; conversely a 7 out will still be a loss for both.

Horray! So PL/FO will have a greater return on wins, and a 7 out will cause both bets to lose. I'll take the greater returns, you can have fewer returns with just as many 7 outs.
and still waiting on the answer to:

Quote:

One question...does every Red in Roulette "mathematically" bring a Black closer?

Quote: tuttigym

why not just bet the Iron Cross after all there are ALWAYS 30 ways to win and only 6 ways to lose on every single roll of the dice.

If that's your thinking, why not bet the Iron Cross AND the Any Seven?

Besides, with the Iron Cross, if you hit a 5,6 or 8, your winnings are reduced by the field that loses.

Quote: tuttigym

...after all the 7 cannot possibly show in less than six rolls.

Sure it can. Haven't you seen shooters that only get two rolls?

Quote: RaleighCraps

Quote: goatcabin

I will go ahead and simulate this, but I can tell you in advance that the results will look more-or-less like this:

For 10,000 bets the expected loss is $2778, standard deviation $4085, which means that about 70% of the time you would comeout between winning $1308 and losing $6864, while about 5% of the time you would win at least $3923 or lose at least $9479. The probability of breaking even or better would be almost .25, or 1 in 4. That is actually quite good, relatively speaking, for such a large number of bets.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Alan,
Can you explain the math that gets you to the conclusion above? Since your numbers are precise I assume there must be standard math functions that provide this data, or perhaps you have a spreadsheet where you can plug in the known HAs for the bets and calculate the above numbers.

Gordy

This is a straight-forward calculation, because even though there are four different bets being made (pass, don't pass, pass odds and don't pass odds), they are all resolved at the same time and the amounts do not change. I have a computer program (I am a retired software engineer) that takes as input:

bet amount
result (payoff on win, loss on loss)
number of ways

for all the possible outcomes. Then it calculates the expected value and standard deviation for a single resolution. The user inputs a number of bets, so the program calculates the expected value for that number of bets (ev for one bet times number of bets) and the standard deviation (standard deviation for one bet times the square root of the number of bets). This is all basic stuff; you can find it in any book on probability and statistics. I have "The Mathematics of Games and Gambling", by Edward Packel.

Here is a simple calculation of ev and SD for just a flat passline bet:

bet result ways
10 +10 244 = 2440
10 -10 251 =-2510
-----
-70 / 495 = -.1414 this is the "expected value" of a $10 pass bet

Now, for the standard deviation, we examine the differences of each possible outcome from the expected value, which is the weighted mean of the possible outcomes.

10 - (-.1414) = 10.1414
-10 - (-.1414) = -9.8586

But we are interested in the MAGNITUDE of the differences, not their directions, so we square them to get both positive numbers.

10.1414^2 = 102.84799
-9.8586^2 = 97.19199

Now, these outcomes are not equally likely, so we have to "weight" them by the number of ways they occur.

102.84799 * 244 = 25094.909
97.19199 * 251 = 24395.189
---------
49490.098 / 495 = 99.97800 (This is the "variance")
However, we squared those numbers to get them positive, so now we take the square root of the variance to get the standard deviation.

sqrt(99.97800) = 9.999

So, the expected value of a $10 pass bet is -.1414 and the standard deviation is $9.999, or almost exactly the amount of the bet.

Now, if we want to know these figures for a set of passline bets, we multiply the ev by the number of bets and the SD by the square root of the number of bets.

60 $10 passline bets
ev = -.1414 * 60 = -$8.484
SD = 9.999 * sqrt(60) = 9.999 * 7.746 = $77.45

This means that if a very large number of people each plays 60 $10 passline bets, their average net outcome will be close to -$8.48, with about 68% of them falling between -$86 and +$69 (plus or minus one standard deviation) and about 5% of them either losing $163 or more or winning $146 or more, which is plus or minus two standard deviations.

The probability of breaking even or coming out ahead is dependent on the ration of the expected value (loss, in the case of gambling) to the standard deviation. In the above example, -8.48 / 77.45 = .1095, which means that a player has to experience positive variation (better than mean expectation) to the extent of a little over a tenth of one standard deviation. You can look up the probability of that in what is called a "table of Z values", or "Areas under the Standard Normal Curve". The lower this number is, the less luck it takes to overcome the expected loss. Keep in mind, however, that it is equally likely to experience negative variation of the same degree, IOW, to come out .1095 SD WORSE than the mean expectation.

That is the downside of taking and laying odds; they definitely increase your chances of coming out ahead, because they add variation without increasing the expected loss, so they always decrease the ratio of expected loss to standard deviation, but they also increase the cost of experiencing any given degree of negative variation. Many people consider that a "slam-dunk" argument against taking or laying odds. I disagree completely. The key, in my view, is to minimize the amount you bet on the flat bet and take or lay odds with money you DIDN'T bet on the flat. IOW, instead of betting $10 pass, bet $5 and take single odds. Of course, that assumes you can find a $5-minimum table. Make no mistake about it -- when the casino doubles the table minimum, they are charging you twice as much to play.

If you make one passline bet, you have a .4929 probability of coming out ahead. With each additional bet, your probability of coming out ahead decreases. For 60 bets, it's down to about .425.

As long as the bet amounts stay the same and the bets resolve at the same time, you can calculate the expected value and standard deviation. When you have bets resolving separately, or bets changing in amount, you have to use simulation, which is what I use WinCraps for, although I also have my own simulator.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

DJTB: Man you are all over the place with absolutely NO consistency.

The PL/FO HA was "never there to begin with" because of the "free odds" payout, but "the don'ts are paid more often," and because the "don'ts are paid more often" the HA "stays the same" after the point is established, but the HA was "never there to begin with." I am so glad that you have made it all so clear because I was never confused, however, stephen was confused and now you have straightened it all out for him. Also, the Wizard is now much more clear when he stated that once the point is established the HA over the player for conversion of points can be as high as 66 2/3% depending on the point. So I want you to make sure that he gets the e-mail that the HA was "never there to begin with."

Do you fly often?

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

Alan: The basic problem with wagering in the formats included, i. e., the PL/FO bets and any associated bets during a given point is that there is a general assumption that the player will do the same thing each and every time with the same wagers. It has continuously been stated that there is no system that works with any certainty. I agree with that statement.

Anecdotally, I watch all players around me at the table play, and it seems very accurate to say that they do play the same way with every player and every point with the possible exception of them throwing in some "junk" bets to get lucky or spice up a possible extra win.

They lack flexibility, creativity, discipline, and patience. The "Don't" players do the same thing. The PL/FO players do the same thing. They seem to do it on every point. Hold'em players rarely play every hand. They fold w/o even one bet if their pocket hand sucks. For some reason, craps players have to play every shooter/every point AND they have to win on every roll for fear they may lose out on a good roll or point. That attitude is disasterous.

I have never read any of Scoblete's books, and for me dice control or influence is something to be very skeptical of for a myriad of reasons. A California organization called Media Productions did some super slow motion analysis of the dice in motion and determined that if the dice were subject to the double "splash" of the legal toss (hitting the table bed then bouncing off the back wall with the sponge pyramids), all "influence" is lost.

Well, one reason for betting differently on different shooters is the belief that some shooters do have the ability to influence the dice. If you don't believe that, then what is the rational for NOT betting the same way on each shooter?

I agree that most players play the same way, whether that same way is flat betting or progressing or whatever, but if the dice are truly random there is no particular reason to do anything different, except, of course, one's bankroll.

Quote: tuttigym

The requested "experiment" is only for the purpose that over any given period of play, a table may have tendencies that in the short term (40-50 point conversion attempts) would allow for some winning outcomes. It would take into account streaks of 7 outs which happen with a great deal more frequency than streaks of point conversions. If a table is choppy and alternates conversions with 7 outs, the player will just plain lose.

Your PL + Place bets is way too risky and allows for quick losses of the total bank roll buy in when shooters have short rolls and points are not converted early in a session.

Don't call it "mine"! I generally do not make place bets, sticking to PL/FO. Risk is a matter of how much one bets, compared to one's bankroll. Your $64 across idea is much more risky than $10 pass with double odds, for example.

Quote: tuttigym

If one has a PL/FO with 4X odds + 3 Place bets, it is too much to overcome for a net win unless the point is converted. Every Place bet must be hit twice before a 7 out to give the player a net win. That is very difficult to create and sustain. The math menutia I see here is a way to excuse consistent losses under the pretext of a low HA or edge. It is true that I came to this discussion with a PL/FO bias, and your math has strengthened that bias. There are obviously more patrons of this discussion who will continue to follow the your path. They will enjoy some successes, but like Mosca, will lose much more often and in greater amounts than they win.
tuttigym

You still have never addressed my post showing the results of PL/FO, without any place bets, against your $64 across, or $44 inside plus buying 4/10, or $38 inside. I'm interested to see what you have to say about those. Please respond.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: tuttigym

DJTB: Man you are all over the place with absolutely NO consistency...

Sorry if I wasn't specific.

I was referring to the odds portion of the PL/FO bet. The ODDS have no HA. The HA on the PL bet remains unchanged regardless of taking odds or how much.

HOWEVER... A player will often combine the two to get a reduced overall HA.


Is that any clearer?

tuttigym, you are going to die someday. 100% certain. Today there may only be a .01% chance that you will die tomorrow, but with each passing day the probability that you will die tomorrow gets closer to 100%.

Same principal in craps. With every comeout roll your results over your craps playing career gets closer to the 1.414% loss.

cclub79: I did not associate the 0 HA as regards the PL/FO with you, however, the post above by DJTB does and there are many others who have so stated. So do not forget to hammer DJTB.
Instead of stating that the wagering payout has a 0 HA as it relates to the bet, why not call it revenue neutral? In your own convoluted way, you have already stated that the HA lies with the point to be converted - "The Don't would be amazing. You would win a lot more than you lose after the comeout." Glad to see you recognize the actual HA over the player when it comes to point conversions. By the way, what is "a lot"? Is it more than 1.41%?

I do not play roulette, but since you believe in simulations with millions of rolls or spins or whatever, those simulations would actually affirm the 50/50 outcome without regard to randomness. Isn't that what you believe with regards to the simulations that are forever posted affirming the 1.41% HA of the PL outcomes? So what is different?

As for the "payouts" question, you can bet one number w/FO and hope the math does not workout for the house, and I will Place bet three numbers, including the point, knowing that my possibilities for any wins will exceed your expectations with only one exception that being your win if the point is converted. In most instances, my bankroll will outlast yours.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

stephen: Very good post. Your point about poker is correct. Players do get that "headsup" preview which is not available in craps. The tables are often characterized as "hot," "cold," or "choppy." We recognize that those conditions can change with any given shooter(s). However, the "hot" shooter arives much less frequently than the continuous "cold" or "choppy" conditions that will take away, prematurely, ones bankroll. Table "trends" happen more often than not, and
of course cannot be predicted with any certainty. The point being that if such a trend does surface with a couple or three immediate 7 outs resulting in the loss of a third or more of ones buy in, why not wait a couple of shooters to see if the trend continues?

Why not? No reason at all, except you may miss out on a hot roll, which is just as likely to occur after "a couple or three immediate 7 outs" as it is any other time. Your belief in trends is just superstition.

Quote: tuttigym

The statement that the PL/FO "bet" actually dimishes losses and is the "best" bet with the lowest HA by definition is absolutely untrue. The cumulative 1.41% HA is based on the totality of the Come out plus point conversions. Once the point is established do you not recognize the plain and simple fact that the HA immediately jumps geometrically depending on the point to be converted? Every number thrown after a point establishment that is not the point, although neutral in effect, mathematically brings that 7 out closer than any winner will ever be.

Finally, the Gambler's Fallacy underlying tuttigym's reasoning is out in the open. Nothing "mathematically bring that 7 out closer" at all, ever. It doesn't matter how many non-point, non-seven numbers have rolled; the probability of making the point never changes.

As to the HA "jumping", as you say, the 1.4% is an average, combining the comeout player advantage of 33.3% with the house point advantage of 18.8%, which applies two-third of the time. Perhaps you just cannot grasp the two-part nature of the line bets. It's quite a common mistake for players to compare place betting with line betting from the point in time that a point is established. Yeah, a pass bet has the same chance of winning on a point of six as a place bet on the six, but the place bet pays 7 to 6 while the pass bet pays even money. Duh! The pass bet, however, has had its shot at the comeout. The mirror image of this, of course, is the don't pass. Why not compare a DP bet on a point of six to the place bet? The DP bet pays only even money, but it has a .545 probability of winning, compared to .454 to the place six. Why would anyone ever place the six instead of playing DP? Duh! The DP bet has to get past the comeout, where it suffers a big disadvantage of 45.5%.

Quote: tuttigym

It seems that everyone, everywhere states as a "positive" rebuttal that the "simulations" of the millions of rolls, bets, and points are out and out proof of the 1.41% HA. I do not know about you, but I do not have the time or funds to experience millions of rolls and outcomes to find out if the "simulations" are actually correct. Some people have actually written (not here) that if one had $495; bet $1 on the PL for 495 PL outcomes; that they could "EXPECT" to experience the 1.41% HA and lose only $7.00. Does anyone here subscribe to that statement. How could one "EXPECT" or even experience such when there is a 96.5% odds based negative (coutesy of JB)?

Do you really not understand the use of the word "expect", tutti? You constantly misinterpret the use of the word and the meaning of the 1.4% HA.

Quote: tuttigym

Simply put, my approach is to set up betting patterns that will provide more ways to win than to lose for a specific number of rolls of the dice, and win or draw, bring down those bets and half them. Comparing this type of strategy with the PL/FO bets may not win me as much on a single bet compared to a PL/FO winner, but any hit prior to a 7 out will create smaller losses compared to simlar amounts wagered on the PL/FO, and winning anything and reducing the bets allows for a long term continuous winning status within the point contested. The player with the PL/FO bet may never experience any gain within that point. Any 7 out produces losses for both. Does it work all the time - HELL NO, but if I lose, I lose slower than the PL/FO player because we BOTH succomb to that 7 out at the same time.

tuttigym

You still have never responded to my post showing that your method, with commensurate risk, results in larger losses and a lower probability of winning a session. I believe it was 2/22 at about 4PM. Please read and respond.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: tuttigym

cclub79: You and many others continue to create confusion by the intertwining of amount of wagered winning $$ with the actuallity of just plain winning and losing.

It has been stated here and elsewhere that because the PL/FO PAYS "true odds," the HA goes away.
That is just pure BS. If you want to believe that to be so, there is no way and no simple arithmatic that will convince you that as long as the house has more ways to win than to lose or as long as the player has more ways to lose than to win on any given bet, you are ALWAYS on the short end of the stick. Payouts are meaningless when it comes to winning and losing. It would be similar if an athletic team that wins by 10 points vs a team that wins by 1 point. They have the same won/loss record. The standings show a winning % 1.000. If your PL/FO bet and my equal wagered Place bet on the same number wins, we both win, however, I do realize that your win will be a greater return; conversely a 7 out will still be a loss for both.

I have a proposal for you, tutti. Let's play a game like this:

We each bet $10. We will toss a coin three times.
If the number of heads is 0, 2 or 3, you win my $10.
If the number of heads is 1, I win your $10 plus $10 more.

You have five ways to win:
HHH
THH
HTH
HHT
TTT

I have only three ways to win:
HTT
THT
TTH

Would you care to play that with me for 100 sets of 3? If not, why not?

Also, what do you think of lay bets? What do you think of laying odds behind a don't pass or don't come bet? Do you understand that those bets are more likely to be won than lost? Do you think, then, that they have a player advantage? If so, why? If not, why not?

Quote: tuttigym

As far as the 7 getting closer than the point, I guess the "simulations" you all keep railing about must not be true after all. I mean the 7 is suppose to show once every six tosses right? Maybe Smart Craps is wrong after all even after millions of simulated rolls.

You have no conception at all about probability, tutti. Surely you have seen many, many streaks of no seven showing for quite a while, and others of several sevens in a row.

Quote: tuttigym

Does the 1.41% HA for PL wagers, after the point is established, stay the same or increase or just go away?
tuttigym

Actually, the 33.3% player advantage of the comeout, goes away when a point is established, being replaced by the HA of 18.78%, a weighted average across the various points. That sounds like an overall player advantage, but a pass bet is resolved, on average, on the comeout only 1/3 of the time, so the 18.78% HA applies 2/3 of the time, resulting in that overall 1.4% HA that you continue to misinterpret.

Cheers,
Alan Shank

DJTB: Come on, my response was targeted for stephen who apparently has never seen the 7 show after just 2 rolls based on his statements of the 1 in 6 for the 7 roll. Hammer him not me.
The ANY 7 bet should only be placed after there have been five non-7 rolls. Right? That is what the odds/expecations/probabilities say? I am sure there are simulations with millions of rolls that could show that to be true. Right? Wait what good would that be since it pays only four to 1? OMG a player would just lose everything. My advise -- bad bet.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

cclub79: I did not associate the 0 HA as regards the PL/FO with you, however, the post above by DJTB does and there are many others who have so stated. So do not forget to hammer DJTB.
Instead of stating that the wagering payout has a 0 HA as it relates to the bet, why not call it revenue neutral? In your own convoluted way, you have already stated that the HA lies with the point to be converted - "The Don't would be amazing. You would win a lot more than you lose after the comeout." Glad to see you recognize the actual HA over the player when it comes to point conversions. By the way, what is "a lot"? Is it more than 1.41%?

I do not play roulette, but since you believe in simulations with millions of rolls or spins or whatever, those simulations would actually affirm the 50/50 outcome without regard to randomness. Isn't that what you believe with regards to the simulations that are forever posted affirming the 1.41% HA of the PL outcomes? So what is different?

As for the "payouts" question, you can bet one number w/FO and hope the math does not workout for the house, and I will Place bet three numbers, including the point, knowing that my possibilities for any wins will exceed your expectations with only one exception that being your win if the point is converted. In most instances, my bankroll will outlast yours.

tuttigym

Still waiting for your response to my post of 2/22 4 PM, tutti. Still waiting... Still waiting...
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: tuttigym

The ANY 7 bet should only be placed after there have been five non-7 rolls. Right? That is what the odds/expecations/probabilities say?

Completely and totally wrong, tutti! You still cannot grasp the ramifications of the fact that the probabilities NEVER CHANGE. Since they never change, it doesn't matter how many sevens have rolled in a row, or how many non-sevens, or any pattern you can think of. The Any 7 bet always has the same probability of winning - .167, just as it always pays 4 to 1. Don't you think that, if the probability of the seven increased with each non-seven, that the casino would change the payout with each roll? They would have to, to protect themselves from the certainty that there will be a seven every six rolls, right?

Quote: tuttigym

I am sure there are simulations with millions of rolls that could show that to be true. Right? Wait what good would that be since it pays only four to 1? OMG a player would just lose everything. My advise -- bad bet.
tuttigym

Wait a minute! You said in another post that the payoff is irrelevant, that it's only the chance of winning that matters. In fact, here are your exact words:

"Payouts are meaningless when it comes to winning and losing. It would be similar if an athletic team that wins by 10 points vs a team that wins by 1 point. They have the same won/loss record."

Now you turn around and talk about the casino paying 4 to 1. Hey, isn't that meaningless?
Cheers,
Alan Shank

goat: Trends and superstition? Perhaps, I will not argue that, but based on what you have stated regarding you simple betting strategy of PL + 2X odds, which is very conservative and practical, "hot" shooters throwing lots of numbers but not converting points would not serve your purposes, while "hot" shooters converting multiple points can make you a real winner. The latter is less likely to happen. If your betting conservatism holds true, then it is my guess that the PL bet for you would be a table minimum generating small natural Come Out wins and therefore would not really make up for multiple PL/FO losses which you have acknowledged are most likely to occur because the HA after the point is established is raised.

Now it is you that is misinterpreting what I say. You post my quote which clearly states that the 1.41% HA is defined by BOTH the Come Out naturals AND point conversions. No, I get it.

Before going back to respond to other things you have said, I agree that your conservative PL + 2X FO bets are less volitile than the $64 bet. All things being equal, I would be leaving the table broke before you. The only caveat to that statement would be that "hot" shooter throwing lots of covered numbers before the 7 outs. Several different scenarios could be explored, but that would serve no purpose, and I know that you are aware of them all.

tuttigym

goat: Did you write the comeout player "advantage" of 33%? I thought the Comeout natural winners account for 22% with 11% losers due to natural craps. The other 67% of play is devoted to point conversions, right?

You and stephen seem to be able to determine "context" or mindreading of any individual and their use of the term "expect." Guess what, most non-scientific, non-statistically oriented folks (with apologies to O'Reilly) need to have explanations in simple terms. So while you want to demean me for associating an explanation poorly communicated, I can not believe that you would use the same terminology or example when teaching someone the game. Perhaps being an enabler of a poor choice of words is more important to you than creating a more user friendly explanation.

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

goat:Now it is you that is misinterpreting what I say. You post my quote which clearly states that the 1.41% HA is defined by BOTH the Come Out naturals AND point conversions. No, I get it.

Here are some of your exact words, tutti:

"Does the 1.41% HA for PL wagers, after the point is established, stay the same or increase or just go away?"

So, in this quote, you ignore the 33.3% player advantage on the comeout, and imply that you start with -1.4% and then go to the large house advantage after the point. You cannot have it both ways. It is +33.3% on comeout, -18.78% on points; weighting them averages out to -1.414%.

Quote: tuttigym

Before going back to respond to other things you have said, I agree that your conservative PL + 2X FO bets are less volitile than the $64 bet. All things being equal, I would be leaving the table broke before you. The only caveat to that statement would be that "hot" shooter throwing lots of covered numbers before the 7 outs. Several different scenarios could be explored, but that would serve no purpose, and I know that you are aware of them all.
tuttigym

In my simulation, it was PL plus 3,4,5X odds, not double, and still less volatile. Yes, you would be leaving the table broke more often than I. Many different scenarios are possible and have been explored, and they serve the purpose of showing that your $64 across is not only more volatile, but also has a much lower chance of coming out ahead and an expected loss more than 12 times as high.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: tuttigym

You and stephen seem to be able to determine "context" or mindreading of any individual and their use of the term "expect." Guess what, most non-scientific, non-statistically oriented folks (with apologies to O'Reilly) need to have explanations in simple terms. So while you want to demean me for associating an explanation poorly communicated, I can not believe that you would use the same terminology or example when teaching someone the game. Perhaps being an enabler of a poor choice of words is more important to you than creating a more user friendly explanation.

I sensed no demeaning; you are taking offense where there is clearly none. I do sense some frustration, and maybe exasperation, but mostly patience in the face of an obstinate, willful refusal to understand. The terms have been explained to you in complex terms; in simple terms; in yet simpler terms; in analogies; in hard examples; in accounts of computer simulations; and just about any way they can be.

Frankly, how you play your money, and what you believe, is absolutely unimportant to me; what IS important is that you have fun playing, and believe that you are getting a fair return on your entertainment dollar.

However, what IS REALLY important to me is that you are spreading bad information and trying to get other people to follow it. That is unconscionable, and to allow it to lie unchallenged is equally unconscionable.

IMO, there is nothing more to be said here, by anyone. I believe this thread has run its course and should be locked, simply so that the chore of rebutting falsehoods can be ended. Not to stifle discussion; there is no more discussion.

Quote: tuttigym

goat: Did you write the comeout player "advantage" of 33%? I thought the Comeout natural winners account for 22% with 11% losers due to natural craps. The other 67% of play is devoted to point conversions, right?

On average, 1/3 of passline bets are resolved on the comeout roll, because 12 of the 36 dice combinations result in either 2, 3, 12, 11 or 7. 1/3 is the same as 33.33....%. That means that 66.67% of passline bets result in a point being established.

So, one comeout roll, 8 combinations win and 4 lose, resulting in a net gain of 4 units out of 12 units bet, so the player advantage is 4 / 12 = .3333.., or 33.33%.

Once a point is established, the advantage shifts to the casino. In the "perfect 1980" there are 536 point wins and 784 seven-outs, a net loss of 248 units out of 1320 units bet, so the casino advantage IN THIS PHASE is 248 / 1320 = .18787878.... or 18.79% if we round up.

Quote: tuttigym

You and stephen seem to be able to determine "context" or mindreading of any individual and their use of the term "expect." Guess what, most non-scientific, non-statistically oriented folks (with apologies to O'Reilly) need to have explanations in simple terms. So while you want to demean me for associating an explanation poorly communicated, I can not believe that you would use the same terminology or example when teaching someone the game. Perhaps being an enabler of a poor choice of words is more important to you than creating a more user friendly explanation.
tuttigym

I think I have defined "expected value", "expected loss" and "mean expectation" more than once in this forum. It seems to me that you persist in trying to use the word as though I were saying, "I expect to win 244 out of 495 passline bets", which, of course, I don't. Exactly 244 wins is unlikely; however, it's more likely than exactly 243 wins, or exactly 245 wins, or exactly any other number of wins.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: tuttigym

cclub79: You and many others continue to create confusion by the intertwining of amount of wagered winning $$ with the actuallity of just plain winning and losing.

It has been stated here and elsewhere that because the PL/FO PAYS "true odds," the HA goes away.
That is just pure BS. If you want to believe that to be so, there is no way and no simple arithmatic that will convince you that as long as the house has more ways to win than to lose or as long as the player has more ways to lose than to win on any given bet, you are ALWAYS on the short end of the stick. Payouts are meaningless when it comes to winning and losing. It would be similar if an athletic team that wins by 10 points vs a team that wins by 1 point. They have the same won/loss record. The standings show a winning % 1.000.

How about buying the 4 and 10, as opposed to placing them? They are both resolved in the same way, so if two players were standing next to each other, one of them placing the 4 and the other buying it, they would have exactly the same W-L record after each resolution, right? Which one of them do you think would have more money?

How about the place 6 versus the Big 6? You are betting the Big 6 and I am betting the place 6, $6 each. They are both resolved simultaneously. Each of us will have exactly the same W-L record. Unless we have both lost every bet, which one of us will have more money?

I am waiting for you to accept my proposal for the coin-flip game, too.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

goat: I will review that post later on and comment.

You need to get a grip on the fact that I use sarcasm in my responses to those who I feel are demeaning or attacking me or just making ignorant statements. Perhaps you left your sense of humor at the tables along with some of your funds or perhaps my sarcasm is over your head or perhaps it is just not that apparent; take your choice.

You have provided me with some very good information, I have learned, and I appreciate it. Do you suppose that there are others who might have gained some insight into the fact that a 96.5% negative component of the 1.41% HA even happening could change their gambling habits. Nahh, probably not, it really is meaningless, and it only happens after several millions of rolls or bets or points. After all, in the short term, "anything can happen."

tuttigym

Quote: tuttigym

goat: Trends and superstition? Perhaps, I will not argue that, but based on what you have stated regarding you simple betting strategy of PL + 2X odds, which is very conservative and practical, "hot" shooters throwing lots of numbers but not converting points would not serve your purposes, while "hot" shooters converting multiple points can make you a real winner. The latter is less likely to happen. If your betting conservatism holds true, then it is my guess that the PL bet for you would be a table minimum generating small natural Come Out wins and therefore would not really make up for multiple PL/FO losses which you have acknowledged are most likely to occur because the HA after the point is established is raised.

The Expected Value for someone with a PL with 2x odds is: 4/36 + 6/36*(5*3/9-3*6/9) + 8/36*(4*4/10-3*6/10) + 10/36*(3.4*5/11-3*6/11) = -.01414. The HA on such a bet is 0.606% because the average bet is 2.3333 units.

The Expected Value for someone with a place bet of 6 or 8 is 5/11 * 7/6 - 6/11 = -.01515
The Expected Value for someone with a place bet of 5 or 9 is 4/10 * 7/5 - 6/10 = -.04
The Expected Value for someone with a place bet of 4 or 10 is 4/9 * 9/5 - 6/9 = -.06667

The expected value of $64 across is $10 * -.066667 * 2 + $10 * -.04 * 2 + $12 * -.01515 * 2 = -$2.4970

The expected value of a $10 with $50 odds is: -.1414.

I would contend with you that the $64 place bets across loses money 17.657 times as fast as the Pass line better with five times odds with a single number. Why?

First, because you don't bet on the come out roll when I have a built in advantage of 11.11%.
Second, because if my number does hit, I win (or lose) my money at a much faster rate.

When the point is 4 or 10 when the point hits, I win $110 while you win $18.
When the point is 5 or 9 when the point hits, I win $85 while you win $14.
When the point is 6 or 8 when the point hits, I win $70 while you win $14.

You see, for you to make the same money as me, you have to hit at least five different numbers, and all of those numbers have to not be my number.

Let's see how this all works out. Assume that I have the pass line with 5 times odds and you've got the $64 across.

Pass line: I win $10 on 4/36s of rolls while you win zero. $1.11 vs 0
The odds that the 1st non-craps roll after the point is the point is 13.8889% and I win an average of $11.38 while you win an average of $1.88
The odds that the 1st non-craps roll after the point is the seven is 20% and I lose $12 while you lose $12.80
The odds that the 1st non-craps roll after the point is some other number is 66.111% and I win 0 while you win $9.96.

So, when you add it all together, after the 1st roll after a come out, I lose on average $.62 while you lose on average $.96. Just because you have all of the numbers covered doesn't mean that you lose less. It means that when my number hits, I hit big, while you do not. And I get the initial $1.11 advantage to boot.

And this advantage continues for every single roll of the dice after the come out roll.

goat: I will do the coin flip if I get to chose the flipper, and he is allowed to catch the coin in the air otherwise I will pass.

I would do the 4/10 in Tunica, MS rather than LV because there is something special there where the air is cleaner or the altitude is more favorable for the 4/10 bet or global warming is not a factor.

I cannot afford $6 on the Big 6 or the Placed 6 but I could do a $5.00 bet.

tuttigym

Quote: boymimbo

Pass line: I win $10 on 4/36s of rolls while you win zero. $1.11 vs 0
The odds that the 1st non-craps roll after the point is the point is 13.8889% and I win an average of $11.38 while you win an average of $1.88
The odds that the 1st non-craps roll after the point is the seven is 20% and I lose $12 while you lose $12.80
The odds that the 1st non-craps roll after the point is some other number is 66.111% and I win 0 while you win $9.96.

I don't want this to appear to be any sort of defense of the "logic" used by the target of your post, but I think I must be having some difficulty with my arithmetic, and I would appreciate your help.

I assume that by "non-craps roll" you mean something other than 2, 3, 11, and 12, because I think that including the 11 here supports your 20% figure for the odds of a 7: 6/30=20%. However, I don't calculate the same figures for the other percentages. For the first "non-craps roll" being the point, I get (10/36*5/30)+(8/36*4/30)+(6/36*3/30)=9.259%.

Your calculations usually look right, so I assume I have missed something here. Can you help me see what I have missed?

Quote: Doc

Quote: boymimbo

Pass line: I win $10 on 4/36s of rolls while you win zero. $1.11 vs 0
The odds that the 1st non-craps roll after the point is the point is 13.8889% and I win an average of $11.38 while you win an average of $1.88
The odds that the 1st non-craps roll after the point is the seven is 20% and I lose $12 while you lose $12.80
The odds that the 1st non-craps roll after the point is some other number is 66.111% and I win 0 while you win $9.96.

I don't want this to appear to be any sort of defense of the "logic" used by the target of your post, but I think I must be having some difficulty with my arithmetic, and I would appreciate your help.

I assume that by "non-craps roll" you mean something other than 2, 3, 11, and 12, because I think that including the 11 here supports your 20% figure for the odds of a 7: 6/30=20%. However, I don't calculate the same figures for the other percentages. For the first "non-craps roll" being the point, I get (10/36*5/30)+(8/36*4/30)+(6/36*3/30)=9.259%.

Your calculations usually look right, so I assume I have missed something here. Can you help me see what I have missed?

Hmmm...

The odds of the first non-craps roll after the point being established being the point is:

(10/24*5/30)+(8/24*4/30)*(6/24*4/30) = 13.8889%. Use 24 as the denominator as the point has already been established.

Quote: goatcabin

.
.
.
. This is all basic stuff; you can find it in any book on probability and statistics. I have "The Mathematics of Games and Gambling", by Edward Packel.

Here is a simple calculation of ev and SD for just a flat passline bet:
.
.
.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Alan,
Thanks for taking the time to try and break this down for me. I can understand the HA calculations, but after reading and rereading your explanation, the standard deviation still hasn't clicked for me yet. I sort of follow it, but not enough to understand it. I need to do some reading on the subject so I can get a better grasp of the ideas. I think I have entered a 5K running race, when I actually was just learning to walk.
Thanks,
gordy

Okay, it has been shown that the bet with the lowest HA is the DP w odds, but since most of us prefer to play the 'right' side, the second best bet becomes the PL w odds.
Now, given that I am not inclined to just sit there and wait for that point to be decided, I would assume that my next best play is to make a Come bet and take the odds, which provides the same HA as the PL.
I now have 2 bets working, but again, I am now bored, so I place a 3rd come bet with odds. Most books I have read indicate that one PL bet and 2 come bets are about as high as you should go, after that you get diminishing returns. Is there math to support that limit of 2 come bets? Or, does the reason have more to do with the extreme volatility that is introduced with so many come bets in play, and the massive loss from the 7 out?

Quote: boymimbo

Hmmm...

The odds of the first non-craps roll after the point being established being the point is:

(10/24*5/30)+(8/24*4/30)*(6/24*4/30) = 13.8889%. Use 24 as the denominator as the point has already been established.

Thanks! Knew I had to be missing something. I, of course, was using the 36 to indicate to probability of each of the 6 points being established on a comeout roll, forgetting that I really needed a conditional probability; i.e., conditional that one of those 6 points had already been rolled and that I needn't consider the 2, 3, 7, 11, and 12 on the comeout. Am I thinking right about it now? It's hard to believe that years ago, back before I became senile, I once taught a statistics class. My, how the un-practiced skills do fade!

Quote: RaleighCraps

Quote: goatcabin

.
.
.
. This is all basic stuff; you can find it in any book on probability and statistics. I have "The Mathematics of Games and Gambling", by Edward Packel.

Here is a simple calculation of ev and SD for just a flat passline bet:
.
.
.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Alan,
Thanks for taking the time to try and break this down for me. I can understand the HA calculations, but after reading and rereading your explanation, the standard deviation still hasn't clicked for me yet. I sort of follow it, but not enough to understand it. I need to do some reading on the subject so I can get a better grasp of the ideas. I think I have entered a 5K running race, when I actually was just learning to walk.
Thanks,
gordy

Try this.

Suppose you have two sample of numbers:

6 6 6 6 7
AND
1 9 3 9 15

If you add both samples up, you get 37, right, so the mean value is 37 / 5 = 6.2.

But the distributions don't look the same, do they? The have different degrees of variation around that mean.

Variance and standard deviation are measures of "dispersion from the mean", or variability.
Variance is the mean value of the squared differences from the mean
Standard deviation is the square root of the variance

For the first sample, we have:

6 - 6.2 = -.2 squared is .04
7 - 6.2 = .8 squared is .64
But we have four values of six, so we have 4 * .04 = .16 + .64 = .8, divided by five values = .16
The variance is .16, and the standard deviation is sqrt .16 = .4

Now, for the second sample, we have:

9 - 6.2 = 2.8 squared is 7.84 (two of these) = 15.68
1 - 6.2 = -5.2 squared is 27.04
3 - 6.2 = -3.2 squared is 10.24
15 - 6.2 = 8.8 squared is 77.44
Add 'em up, you get 130.4 as the sum of the five squares, so the mean is 130.4 / 5 = 26.08.
That's the variance, so the standard deviation is sqrt(26.08) = 5.107.

So, they have exactly the same mean, but quite different standard deviations.
It works the same way for a bet: take all the outcomes and compare them to the mean outcome, square the differences, weight them by the ways they occur, get the mean of the squared differences and take the square root of that.

A passline bet has the same expected value as a passline bet with 100X odds, but the variabilities are hugely different. It's a very important aspect of craps or any other gambling, and it's rarely dealt with in books about craps.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: tuttigym

goat: I will review that post later on and comment.

To which post are you referring? Since you cannot learn to quote, at least give me a hint! >:-)

Quote: tuttigym

You need to get a grip on the fact that I use sarcasm in my responses to those who I feel are demeaning or attacking me or just making ignorant statements.

So, what part of your rant about the payoff being meaningless did you NOT mean? I quote it here:

"It has been stated here and elsewhere that because the PL/FO PAYS "true odds," the HA goes away.
That is just pure BS. If you want to believe that to be so, there is no way and no simple arithmatic that will convince you that as long as the house has more ways to win than to lose or as long as the player has more ways to lose than to win on any given bet, you are ALWAYS on the short end of the stick. Payouts are meaningless when it comes to winning and losing. It would be similar if an athletic team that wins by 10 points vs a team that wins by 1 point. They have the same won/loss record. The standings show a winning % 1.000."

What is your actual position on whether you have to take the payoff into account as well as the probability of winning a bet?

Quote: tuttigym

You have provided me with some very good information, I have learned, and I appreciate it. Do you suppose that there are others who might have gained some insight into the fact that a 96.5% negative component of the 1.41% HA even happening could change their gambling habits. Nahh, probably not, it really is meaningless, and it only happens after several millions of rolls or bets or points. After all, in the short term, "anything can happen."
tuttigym

I think that everybody else who has posted to this thread understands quite well that there is only a 3.5% chance of getting EXACTLY 244 wins in 495 PL decisions; I also think they understand that it is also the MOST LIKELY outcome when compared to any other SPECIFIC W-L record, more likely than 243-252, or 245-250, etc. etc. etc. I think they understand what it means and also what it doesn't mean.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Alan: The post on the betting of $64 and all that. It is what you wanted me to comment on, right?

Actually Alan, it is my considered opinion that many folks have been highly enlightened by the fact that the 244/251 happens only 3.5% of the time. In fact, I have been asking that question everywhere including a direct e-mail to the Wizard which was never answered. The 1.41% figure has been out there prior to real computer interaction. Patrick's book published in 1985 show the HA as 1.4%. There was no statement as to where it came from or what it really meant. Same with Cardoza, and I am sure earlier volumes must have referenced a similar HA. So perhaps you can produce where that answer was first published, who published it, and the context. Then you can also relate the vast number of craps players who were/are in the know. By the way, some who did respond to that question gave different answers, and those indivduals provided different formulas for their proofs. Is it actually possible that the 96.5% against is actually a wrong answer and that the odds could be longer?

The coin flippers and red/black proponents argument is really apples and oranges because there is NO change of circumstance in their possible outcome whereas in the PL bet the circumstance of winning or losing changes as soon as the point is established to create different odds for a conclusion of the bet. The 50/50 bet for the flippers/tossers is ALWAYS resolved at the end of the toss and there is NEVER a third/fourth/or fifth variable as in the PL bet. So if you are one of those flippers, your status has slipped and so has your math.

As far as winning and including payouts as part of the HA equation or any equation for that matter, walking away from the table with more money in my pocket always beats losing regardless of how the wins came about. While you and the math-nics here trumpet the odds, free or otherwise, leaving the table a loser makes little difference on how just like leaving the table a winner makes little difference on how. The score is based on HOW MUCH.

tuttigym

Goat: The ANY 7 response was sarcasm/satire. Man, you gotta get out some and smell the fresh air and clear you sinus cavities. Do you ever smile??

tuttigym

Tutti, you're incorrigible. Love ya', man :)

teddys: You know if you show this site ANY affirmation of what I have been saying or said, you will be blackballed, disinherited, ostricised, and spat upon. Best keep any form of compliments to yourself, but THANKS FOR THE KIND WORDS.

tuttigym

Quote: Doc

Quote: boymimbo

Hmmm...

The odds of the first non-craps roll after the point being established being the point is:

(10/24*5/30)+(8/24*4/30)*(6/24*4/30) = 13.8889%. Use 24 as the denominator as the point has already been established.

Thanks! Knew I had to be missing something. I, of course, was using the 36 to indicate to probability of each of the 6 points being established on a comeout roll, forgetting that I really needed a conditional probability; i.e., conditional that one of those 6 points had already been rolled and that I needn't consider the 2, 3, 7, 11, and 12 on the comeout. Am I thinking right about it now? It's hard to believe that years ago, back before I became senile, I once taught a statistics class. My, how the un-practiced skills do fade!

You're welcome. But my statistics knowledge is meaningless here apparently on this topic.

Perhaps this should be posted on a sports gambling thread, but it important for all to know about

"The hoax that is Willie Mays' .302 lifetime batting average."

Willie Mays may be lauded by baseball fans who watched him play, but those who don't remember him are at work exposing the hoax that is his .302 lifetime batting average. Through extensive research it has been discovered that while Mays had over 9,800 sets of 1,000 consecutive at-bats...less than 3% of those "baseball simulations" resulted in 302 hits!

How could he possibly have a .302 lifetime batting average if he didn't always get base hits at a rate of 302/1000?

I'm sure the national baseball media will be reporting this story soon...

Quote: tuttigym

As far as winning and including payouts as part of the HA equation or any equation for that matter, walking away from the table with more money in my pocket always beats losing regardless of how the wins came about. While you and the math-nics here trumpet the odds, free or otherwise, leaving the table a loser makes little difference on how just like leaving the table a winner makes little difference on how. The score is based on HOW MUCH.

tuttigym

Walking away from the table always a winning is always the goal. What I am saying is that the best long term probability of leaving the leaving the table a winner is the Don't Pass bet where, on average, you will lose $1.364/$100 Don't pass bet, followed by the Pass Line ($1.414/$100 pass bet), followed by placing the 6 and 8 ($1.515/$100 bet). On the short term side, bet however you want and hope for the best. Putting odds on the pass or don't pass has no house advantage as the casino pays you true odds on those numbers.

Goat: I looked at the 2/22/10 post of yours. I will say that I did use a poor choice of verbiage when I stated the example "happens most of the time." I probably should have said that the example given happens frequently but is used here as an illustration to show a perspective that I have experienced.

I did NOT endorse what you created, and your inference of such is plainly your mis-interpretation and mis-representaion of my comment.

Again, as far as your program and charting of the results, very pretty and very professional looking. I know you and all the others here who live and die for the Smart Craps, or is it Win Craps, programs feel all sorts of vindication with the 10K or 1 million or whatever figures you use as a sample, but for me it just shows garbage in/garbage out. The garbage in is the math, the dice pyramid, the 1.41% HA on PL outcomes which are 96.5% against (thanks to JB), and all the other "expected" outcomes. Thus comes the garbage out. If you ran that simulation a thousand times, I am quite sure the results although somewhat different, would be close to the same. If I am correct in that assumption, the garbage out results are meaningless.

What is really MISSING???? TRUE RANDOMNESS!!! I do not believe one can program a computer to be truly random, but I defer to you Goat on that one for you are the computer software engineer.

Let me put it another way. The Wizard has a craps game on his other site. It seems to me to be quite random and the artificial intellegence designed within that game is quite good. Why not run 10K outcomes on that format?

tuttigym

joenunz: The reason Mays did not bat .302 after the first set of his totality of AB's is that arthritis kicked in and the clones doing the simulations could not hit a curve ball.

Could you post a chart like Goat does so we can all see the proof of what you just explained?
Is the simulation program Win Hits or Smart Hits?

tuttigym

die, thread, die.

Quote: tuttigym

Actually Alan, it is my considered opinion that many folks have been highly enlightened by the fact that the 244/251 happens only 3.5% of the time. In fact, I have been asking that question everywhere including a direct e-mail to the Wizard which was never answered. The 1.41% figure has been out there prior to real computer interaction. Patrick's book published in 1985 show the HA as 1.4%. There was no statement as to where it came from or what it really meant.

That's probably because Patrick didn't know where it came from! >:-) Patrick practically brags about his innumerance. (Actually, there's no such word, but I'm using it to mean, "the quality of being innumerate".)

Quote: tuttigym

Same with Cardoza, and I am sure earlier volumes must have referenced a similar HA. So perhaps you can produce where that answer was first published, who published it, and the context. Then you can also relate the vast number of craps players who were/are in the know. By the way, some who did respond to that question gave different answers, and those indivduals provided different formulas for their proofs. Is it actually possible that the 96.5% against is actually a wrong answer and that the odds could be longer?

I certainly don't know who first came up with that figure. The first book I read about craps was back in about 1975, I think, and it gave 1.4% or possible 1.414% (you can carry that out as many places as you like. Does it say anything to you that everybody except you agrees with it? I'll tell you one way to derive it: divide (251 - 244) by 495, i.e. 7 / 495 and you'll get .0141414... as many places as your calculator or your own long division goes. That's the number by which the expected losses exceeds the expected wins, divided by the total number. There are other, more complicated, ways to derive it, using the probabilities of each possible outcome, but I don't believe anything will convince you.

Since you like place bets, I'll derive the HA on placing the 6 for you:

five ways to win 7 = 35
six ways to lose 6 = 36
---
-1 expected loss of one unit per 11 bets of six units
1 / 66 = .0151515....

Do you agree with this figure? What do you think the HA on placing the six is? How would you figure it?

Quote: tuttigym

The coin flippers and red/black proponents argument is really apples and oranges because there is NO change of circumstance in their possible outcome whereas in the PL bet the circumstance of winning or losing changes as soon as the point is established to create different odds for a conclusion of the bet. The 50/50 bet for the flippers/tossers is ALWAYS resolved at the end of the toss and there is NEVER a third/fourth/or fifth variable as in the PL bet. So if you are one of those flippers, your status has slipped and so has your math.

Yes, the PL bet is not the same as flipping a coin, a roulette spin or any one-roll craps bet; it's more complicated. However, it's still an event, you win or lose, whether it takes one roll or a hundred, so the basic laws of probability still apply. In fact, one of the flaws in many people's reasoning is that they overlook the two-part nature of the family of line bets, especially those who argue in favor of place bets over line bets.

Quote: tuttigym

As far as winning and including payouts as part of the HA equation or any equation for that matter, walking away from the table with more money in my pocket always beats losing regardless of how the wins came about. While you and the math-nics here trumpet the odds, free or otherwise, leaving the table a loser makes little difference on how just like leaving the table a winner makes little difference on how. The score is based on HOW MUCH.

tuttigym

You sound like a politician, tutti! You have said absolutely NOTHING about your views on whether the amount of the payout matters.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: Mosca

die, thread, die.

You aren't required to read this thread, you know! >:-) It's optional.
Cheers,
Alan Shank

Nobody discovered the 1.41% HA, it's determined by the laws of probability. All the sims you guys run are pointless because tuttigym (sevenshooter) doesn't believe in the 100's of years of mathematical principles developed.

I am going to take one more shot at this, a different approach having occurred to me.

Consider the 12, "boxcars", the result of both dice coming up with their "six faces" on top: since each die has six faces, the probability of the six showing is 1/6. One of the laws of probability says that the probability of two independent event both occurring is the product (that's multiplication) of their individual probabilities. So, the probability of both dice coming up six is 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36, which can be expressed in decimal notation as .02777777...., or, alternately, as 35-to-1 odds against this happening. Now, does tuttigym believe this says that there will be one, and only one, twelve for every 36 rolls? Is this the "false promise" of stating the probability of 12 is .0278? I would think not. Tuttigym has played enough craps to know that the 12 can pop up 2-3 times in a row or not show for quite a few rolls. Saying that the 12 has a probability of 1/36 is NOT A PREDICTION that it will show once, and only once, in 36 rolls. No more is the 1.4% HA of the line bets a prediction that, in any given session, the player will lose 1.4% of his total bet handle.

Now, tuttigym is fond of stating that the probability of ending up 244-251 after 495 passline bets is only .035 (actually .035847716), making it a "false promise" or even a "hoax". But that probability is actually higher than the probability of the 12 coming up on any roll of two dice. The odds against 244-251 occurring are only 27 to 1. Does tuttigym think that the 12 is a rare event?

What about the seven? The probability of the seven coming up is only .1667. So, is it a "false promise", too? The seven is far less likely to come up than all the other numbers combined, right? That's why tuttigym likes to bet $64 across, because he has 30 ways to win and only six to lose.

Well, the situation is the same with 244-251; it's less likely than all the other possible outcomes, taken as a group, but more likely than any other SINGLE outcome. We've all seen the "dice pyramid", with seven in the center, 6 and 8 next to it, etc. etc. The graph of all the outcomes of 495 passline bets looks very similar, but much more smooth, and 244-251 is in the middle, just like the seven.

Let's go back to the 12 and examine its possible outcomes:

bet result ways total
1 -1 35 -35
1 +30 1 +30
----
-5 / 36 = -.138888888....

Is this a PREDICTION that, for every 36 bets on the 12, the player will win one and lose the rest? Of course not. No more is the 1.4% HA a prediction that, if you play the passline 495 times, you will win 244 times and lose 251. It means that, if you play millions of sets of 495 bets and put all the numbers of wins into a spreadsheet and graph the results, the peak of the graph will be at 244. About 68% of the results will be between 222 wins and 266 wins, and about 95% will be between 200 wins and 288 wins.

Tuttigym, try to understand that the 12 and the passline are both binary events; you either roll a 12 or you don't, you either win your passline bet or you don't, you either come out 244-251 or you don't.

Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: tuttigym

Goat: The ANY 7 response was sarcasm/satire. Man, you gotta get out some and smell the fresh air and clear you sinus cavities. Do you ever smile??

tuttigym

Actually, tuttigym, I not only smile, but laugh, a lot! My father used to call me "easily amused". Since you are unable to learn to quote other posts, it is often guesswork trying to decide to what you're referring. Also, many of your apparently serious comments are as outrageous as your sarcasm.

Cheers,
Alan Shank

Quote: goat

: I certainly don't know who first came up with that figure. The first book I read about craps was back in about 1975, I think, and it gave 1.4% or possible 1.414% (you can carry that out as many places as you like.

Quote: goat

Does it say anything to you that everybody except you agrees with it?

tuttigym:

Again, did any of the references you have read or any other "expert" display the fact that the 1.41% HA have a 3.5% "expectation" of happening or did all those references INFER to all who would come to play that the HA was so "small" as to be not worrysome? Additionally, did any of the books or references you know of with the exception of blogs such as this one even describe the 244/251 ooutcomes?? I ask because beginners such as Raleighcraps and, I believe, thousands of others who play are clueless.

As far as "everybody" disagreeing with me, I could care less. Did you ever get a speeding ticket and just pay it like "everybody" else or did you go to court and fight it, you know, plead "not guilty" and fight it? Over the past 25 years, I have received 4 speeding tickets; went to court 4 times, pled NG 4 times, WON 3 times. Oh and by the way, I am NOT a lawyer.

Quote: goat

: What do you think the HA on placing the six is? How would you figure it? (/q)

tuttigym

Just like you showed five ways to win and six ways to lose or 16 2/3% or .167 HA just like when the house pays the FO bet (true odds) of paying the player $6 for the $5 bet.

Quote: goat

: Yes, the PL bet is not the same as flipping a coin, a roulette spin or any one-roll craps bet; it's more complicated. However, it's still an event, you win or lose, whether it takes one roll or a hundred, so the basic laws of probability still apply.(/q)

tuttigym

How can the basic laws of probability apply when winning the PL bet on the 4/10 point exceed a 50/50 outcome by two to one? That is like the Obamabots stating that "we are going to cover 30 million more people with healthcare, and it is going to cost less to do so."

Quote: tuttigym

As far as winning and including payouts as part of the HA equation or any equation for that matter, walking away from the table with more money in my pocket always beats losing regardless of how the wins came about. While you and the math-nics here trumpet the odds, free or otherwise, leaving the table a loser makes little difference on how just like leaving the table a winner makes little difference on how. The score is based on HOW MUCH.

[q Goat]: You have said absolutely NOTHING about your views on whether the amount of the payout matters.

tuttigym

The payouts are determined by the house and the rules of the game. Those are factors I cannot control or bitch about or care about or have recourse. If one does not like what the hose pays, do not play.

tuttigym

p.s. I will get better at this and I will try harder.

NO! The house advantage on 6 or 8 is 5/11 * 7/6 - 6/11 = 1.5151515151515%

There are 11 different outcomes of a six or eight (not six) and you have to add all of the outsomes together to get house advantage not take 5/6 - 6/6 = -1/6!

Quote: tuttigym

As far as "everybody" disagreeing with me, I could care less. Did you ever get a speeding ticket and just pay it like "everybody" else or did you go to court and fight it, you know, plead "not guilty" and fight it? Over the past 25 years, I have received 4 speeding tickets; went to court 4 times, pled NG 4 times, WON 3 times. Oh and by the way, I am NOT a lawyer.

I have no problem with you being wrong; my issue is that you insist you are right, and insist on broadcasting that you are right, yet offer no credible evidence. And winning a speeding ticket is not the same as not speeding, just like winning at the tables does not mean that the odds were your favor. It's as if your defense that you weren't speeding is because you had your dog in the car.

I've pled not guilty to every speeding ticket in the last 20 years. I've won 3 out of 5, and had the fine reduced and points waived in the other 2. Every time, I was speeding.

Edit: 3 of 6, 2 waived and 1 lost; I had an out of state ticket that wasn't worth the trouble to fight, I mailed in the fine and moved on.

Quote: boymimbo

NO! The house advantage on 6 or 8 is 5/11 * 7/6 - 6/11 = 1.5151515151515%

There are 11 different outcomes of a six or eight (not six) and you have to add all of the outsomes together to get house advantage not take 5/6 - 6/6 = -1/6!

Using that incredible fuzzy math, it should be 5/36, as in 36 total possible roll outcomes (that is what you wrote - "11 different outcomes" right?) with 5 win possiblities; 6 loss possibilities; and 25 neutral possibilities. Those neutral outcomes are just as much a part of the equation using your formula. The FO payoff, which everybody seems to believe takes away the HA because it "true odds" is 116 2/3% of the bet or $6.00 paid on a $5.00 wager. Conversely the Don't side pays $5.00 on the $6.00 wager which is 83 1/3%.

So why not calculate 5/36 * 7/6 - 6/36 = ???? That is the "true" formula using ALL possible outcomes.

Mosca: Good for you. You are definitely in the minority, but the last out of state ticket I got, I fought and won. You see the cop was wrong. His radar unit actually succombed to "batch error" and clocked the wrong vehicle. If the law is not followed, one has the obligation to make sure it is followed.

As for misinformation, take a look at your own record over the past several years which you courageously (no sarcasm or satire here) posted on a another thread 12-14-09 where you stated that in '06 you won $10K; '09 you won $1,600; and lost in '02, '03, '04, '05, '07, and '08 in amounts that far exceeded the winnings. Now based on how you have strongly agreed with those who vigorisly defend the PL/FO bets, I am inclined to believe that is your own basic betting strategy. That strategy has you losing over the long term of 8 years at a 75% clip. So how many sets of 495 PL outcomes did that include and how is that 1.41% HA working out for you?

Several posters have stated that the 1.41% HA is just an "average" that is calculated based on dice outcomes, right? Yet by definition by JB it appears only 3.5% of the time. Why would anyone rely or "expect" on such an "average" when it is beyond a long shot. Perhaps you or some of the others might want to share a similar type of "average" long shot that folks rely so heavily on as a general rule.

tuttigym